The Threat Of Natural Disasters To Cambodia Environmental Sciences Essay

The Threat Of Natural Disasters To Cambodia Environmental Sciences Essay A Discussion on Building Resilient Communities, A Case Study of Cambodia. All through the 20th century, cities of the world have grown in size and importance, with an estimate of about half of all people living in urban areas and their numbers are expected to rise to at least 60 per cent by 2030 (UNHSP, 2002). Ironically, while cities are of vital importance as economic engines, hubs for transportation and communications, cultural centers and homes to the majority of the earths people, they are particularly vulnerable to natural and environmental hazard impacts. During the 1990s, losses from natural disasters were more than four times greater than during the 1950s, with more than 500,000 fatalities and over $1 trillion in damages (Walter, 2003). The existence of multifaceted and cascading hazards in Cambodia has occurred in time past causing large destructions. These hazards that occur are most times unavoidable but their impact could be reduced if the necessary circumstances are put in place. Managing natural and environmental hazards is essential because they pose significant threat to the human populace, carrying the potential to disrupt economic and social activities, cause substantial damage to property and even kill people. The best form of addressing such situations is to make the necessary investigations and preparations for emergency response when (before and after) these hazards occur. Basically, building resilient cities are an act of preparation for the inevitable natural hazards. Cambodia is located in the tropical zone, Southeast Asia, about 10-13 degrees north of the equator. Its climate is dominated by the annual monsoon cycle with its alternating wet and dry seasons, making it warm to hot throughout the year. It covers an area of about 181,035 square kilometres and is divided into 24 provinces as seen in figure 1. It is bordered to the North by Thailand and Laos, to the East and South by Vietnam, and to the South and Southwest by the Gulf of Thailand. Most of Cambodias land is relatively flat with vast tracts of land given over to rice production. Annual rainy season commences in July, with flooding occurring between September and December. During the monsoon season, Cambodia experiences flash floods usually after heavy rainfall. The provinces of Battambang, Kampong Chnang, Kampong Speu, Kampong Thom, Kampot, Kandal, Pursat and Rattanakiri are regularly hit by flash flooding. The second type of flood, the much slower but prolonged flooding, is caused by the overflow of Tonle Sap River and Mekong tributaries, inundating the provinces of Kampong Cham, Kratie, Kandal, Prey Veng, Stung Treng, Svay Rieng and Takeo. In 2000, Cambodia saw the worst flooding in recent history, with a total estimated damage of USD150 million. It affected more than three million people in 22 of the 24 provinces of the country, displacing 85,000 families and killing 182 (ECHO, 2008). Drought in Cambodia is characterized by loss of water sources caused by the early end or delays in expected seasonal rainfall. The traditional drought/lean season is between the months of August and November. Although not as severe as floods in terms of impact, it severely affects farming productivity especially among rice growing communities who rely solely on rain or river-fed irrigation. Low agricultural yield due to extended drought has increased indebtedness of families and contributed to widespread food shortages. The worst drought incident in 2002 had affected two million people and incurred a total damage of USD 38 million, (ECHO, 2008). No one can stop natural disasters. However, we can reduce the impact of natural disasters on the physical and the socio-economic losses in society. It is notable that victims of disasters mainly come from the least wealthy and influential; those in unsafe houses and engaged in more dangerous activities, who have limited options and entitlements. In any case, university students killed in school annual graduation or new born babies in health care facilities are especially disturbing aspects of the aftermath of disasters. Surely, these places should put safety issues first. Due to environmental degradation and human activities, natural hazards have been persistent. The Mekong flood in 2000 gave Cambodia the most terrible incident in the last 70 years, causing both socio-economic and physical damages. According to the official report of the National Committee for Disaster Management (NCDM) (2006), the floods affected about 3.4 million people with 347 fatalities, 80 percent of which were children. Moreover, schools and other infrastructures such as hospitals, houses, and pagodas were seriously damaged, with a total estimated loss of US$161 million. Again, floods hit Cambodia in 2001 and 2002, damaging approximately US$36 million and US$12 million respectively. In 2001, the floods killed 62 people while in 2002 the floods killed 26 (40 percent of whom were children), and many schools were destroyed. Figure 1.Map of Cambodia with Provinces cambodia-map-provinces.jpg Because many Cambodians depend upon subsistence agriculture for their source of revenue, they are particularly vulnerable to suffering hunger, poverty, or even the loss of life, when such disasters hit. This vulnerability has increased in recent years because of a series of almost consecutive annual disasters that have not allowed people the opportunity to recover from previous floods or droughts. The Royal Government of Cambodia and other stakeholders, including NGOs and the donor communities, have been increasing cooperation to allow for joint responses to the needs of the affected population when disasters strike. The overall goal is to ascertain and address the root causes of vulnerability to disasters. There is thus a need to identify and prioritize areas that are prone to natural disasters, and areas in which the population suffers most when disasters strike. Flood affected areas, rice dependency, and food security are considered when determining areas that should be prioritised for flood related interventions. The extent to which each an area is affected by flood waters, depends on rice production, and incapability to manufacture enough food to feed itself during flood years are taken together to classify areas into different levels of precedence. Two major types of flood were identified in Cambodia: Flash floods which result from heavy downpours upstream on the Mekong River which affect the provinces along the Mekong River and in the southern areas of the country. Central area floods are large floods that result from a combination of runoff from the Mekong and heavy rains around the Tonle Sap Lake. The waters affect the areas around the lake, but also flow heavily down the Tonle Sap River and the lower portion of the Mekong to flood the southern provinces. The first priority area is rigorously affected by any type of flood, the second a rea is only affected by the big central area floods, and the third area is only affected by flash flooding of the Mekong. These three priority areas are shown in figure 2. Figure 2: Flood Prone Communes image7_02.png The method applied to define areas vulnerable to drought is similar to that discussed ealier. The concern evaluate include: drought affected areas, rice dependency, and food security. Areas were defined as highly rice dependent if more than 80 percent of households are fully engaged in rice production. Food insecurity was measured as above for the drought year of 1998. Definitions for three levels of priority were again developed. First priority areas are defined as those with low precipitation and NDVI, high rice dependence, and food insecurity in 1998. These are areas where droughts are likely, and where they will have the most terrible consequences. Second priority areas have the same criteria as the first priority communes, but were not food insecure during the 1998 drought year. Third priority communes have low precipitation and NDVI, and are thus drought prone, but are neither highly rice dependent nor food insecure. The three levels of priority communes are presented in figure 3. Figure 3 Drought Prone Communes image7_03.png Vulnerability well-meant is the exposure and sensitivity to livelihood shocks and risks. Risks are the combination of the probability or frequency of occurrence of a defined hazard and the magnitude of the consequences. Natural hazards often cannot be prevented, and if they materialize, can generate a shock that affects households and communities in both predictable and unpredictable ways. Vulnerability is only to some extent determined by the type of hazard, while it is mainly determined by social systems and power (Wisner et al. 2006). The degree of vulnerability depends on the nature of the risk and a householdà ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚ ¢s resilience, or ability to recover after shocks. Vulnerability can be lessened by reducing exposure to risks of shocks that affect many people (e.g., frequent droughts) or shocks that affect individuals or households (e.g., the death of the household head) and increasing the householdà ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚ ¢s ability to manage sho cks. However, chronically food-insecure households often are not resilient to shocks and are continuously vulnerable. The government in Cambodia has initiated poverty reduction policies that attempts to reduce poverty, increase food security and thus reduce vulnerability of poor households. The concept of vulnerability links the relationship that people have with their environment to social forces and institutions and the cultural values that sustain or contest them. Vulnerability refers to the totality of relationships in a given social situation producing the formation of a condition that, in combination with environmental forces, produces a disaster. Disaster, risks and outcomes are socially produced at the intersection of a complex and dynamic range of hazard and vulnerability patterns, associated with underlying social, economic, territorial and political processes operating in specific locales. The concept of vulnerability links general political economic conditions to very particular environmental forces to understand how basic conditions such as poverty or racism produce susceptibilities to very specific environmental hazards. Vulnerability, thus, integrates not only political economic, but environmental forces, defined in terms of both biophysical and socially constructed risk. The working definition provided by Blaikie et al. is currently among the most utilized: By vulnerability we mean the characteristics of a person or group in terms of their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from the impact of a natural hazard. It involves a combination of factors that determine the degree to which someones life and livelihood is put at risk by a discrete and identifiable event in nature or in society(1994:9). The DIPECHO project was implemented in partnership with three local NGOs for the period of 15 months (from 15/02/2007 to 14/05/2008) in three operating provinces. The project activities centre of attention primarily is on the poorest and most excluded community members, identified as being particularly vulnerable to disaster, including women and children, poor farmers, fishery communities, landless people, ex-Khmer rouge soldiers, displaced people, wage labourers, people living with or at risk from HIV and AIDS, Vietnamese minority groups, and people with disability. The total number of direct beneficiaries identified through the project was recorded as 15153, (ActionAid International, 2006). The project aim is to build the capacity of community members and local authorities in 48 target villages in the project areas in the three provinces to better understand and prepare for recurring flood and drought by implementing the following strategies: Organise and build competence of the local community Create and strengthen institutional systems at the village and commune level Working in alliance with other actors and government on disaster risk reduction programmes Advocating on Disaster Risk Management (DRM) issues and influencing the concerned officials and institutions Capacity building of the existing institutions, communes and the various organs of the National committee on disaster management at commune, district, province level Conducting a detailed vulnerability analysis, developing village level disaster plans and formulating commune disaster risk management plans The following were the outcomes on the completion of the project: The capacity of Commune Committees for Disasters Management and Village Development Committees was enhanced to analyse their vulnerability and actively prepare their communities for the risks of flood and drought. Increased availability of Disaster Preparedness knowledge and skills across community members in target villages. Reduced vulnerability to disaster through small-scale disaster preparedness and mitigation initiatives carried out at the village community level. Formal structures and network of partnerships for community-based disaster risk management in Cambodia (CBDRM) comprise of an approach that builds upon existing capacities and coping systems of communities to jointly plan and apply appropriate and durable reduction and disaster preparedness plans. The strategy involves the participation of local actors, particularly vulnerable communities, who actively work to identify causes of vulnerability and actions to mitigate the impact of vulnerability from these natural disasters. Furthermore, the strategy aids communities towards long term capacity to adapt. With recurring drought and flooding and threats from other natural disasters in Cambodia, CBDRM is seen as a pacesetter in reducing massive loss of life, property and livelihood. The Cambodian government considers CBDRM as an essential part of its rural development program to alleviate poverty (ActionAid International, 2006). The major purpose of sustainable development is to generate and preserve flourishing ecological, social and economic systems. There exists an intimate link between these systems as humans can transform the ecological system and they also depend on it for food, wealth and security. Human actions can severely affect the ability of the ecosystem to perform its natural functions with adverse consequences for vulnerability, human life and security. Several case studies have helped shed more light on the connection between resilience, sustainability of social ecological systems and diversity (Berkes and Folke, 1998). Resilience basically refers to the degree of shock that concerned system can endure and stay within a given state. It can also be the degree to which the system concerned can organize itself or build capacity for learning and adaptation. It has been argued that two components of any given system affect its resilience, one being its adaptive capacity which is directly related to its heterogeneity and broadly equivalent t the diversity of its institutions and assets available in social systems. The second is its robustness and this refers to the properties of a given system that allow it accommodate disturbance without additional adaptation. Resilience and robustness refer to the capacity of the system to accommodate disturbance without losing functionality. Disaster management style or procedure can destroy or build resilience depending on how the community concerned organises itself in response to management actions. Building societal resilience requires understanding of ecosystems that incorporates knowledge of local users (Olsson and Folke, 2001). Structured Scenarios and active adaptive management have been recognized as fundamental to building resilience. Circumstances are used to envisage option future scenarios. Applying this action, resilience building strategies can be acknowledged and applied within the framework of sustainable development. The probability of sustainable development is improved by management for resilience in a dynamic world full of astonishments. Sustainable development is a pattern of resource use aimed at meeting human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present but also for future generations. It brings together the concern for carrying capacity of natural systems and social challenges faced by humanity. It is now clear that sustainable development that regard the impact of manà ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚ ¢s activities on the natural environment and attempts to reduce damage to the natural environment is the key to poverty reduction, environmental security and management and mitigation of weather and water related hazards. It basically targets resource poor and landless communities especially in the coastal regions because of population density, rapidly declining natural resources, work and income security and a high level of vulnerability to these hazards. With the understanding that environmental degradation can be tackled by knowledge and technological empowerment of the resource poor, illiterate rural man and women, the major aim of these programmes is to blend technological frontier with local knowledge in order to provide an integrated orientation to technological development and dissemination. As local communities confront the impacts of glacial melting, rainfall fluctuation, flooding and drought, they will need support to strengthen their capacity to withstand these changes and increase their resilience to the effects of a changing climate on international waters. Rivers, lakes and coastal ecosystems are increasingly being impacted by deforestation, land degradation, poor water management, and aquatic species loss as well as changes in fisheries habitats, water scarcity and floods or droughts precipitated or exacerbated by climate change, making communities more socially, economically and physically vulnerable. Local communities have shown, through ecosystem restoration, integrated water resources and coastal management and development that these activities can help communities associated with international waters increase their resilience to climatic variability and future effects of climate change. While in some cases it may be too early to gauge the adaptation success of local projects since it may entail preparing for future climate events and impacts, this publication provides some examples of how communities have successfully conserved their resources, restored their ecosystems, reduced their vulnerability and improved their livelihoods and increased their resilience to environmental threats and climate change in international waters. Resilient communities are far less vulnerable to hazards and disasters than less resilient places. For this assumption to be validated and useful, knowledge of how resilience is determined, measured, enhanced, maintained, and reduced is vital (Klein et al., 2003). It is not obvious what leads to resilience within coupled humanà ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚ ¬environment systems or what variables should be utilized to measure it. Because of the multidimensional nature of resilience and its different component parts, a broad model of resilience has yet to be empirically tested at the community level (Cumming et al., 2005). CONCLUSION The existence of a growing incidence in the occurrence of natural hazards can be accredited to a multifaceted world where increase in population is present. Vulnerability are ever-increasing in communities due to human activities. However, climate change and sea level rise may be accountable for augmented occurrence of some of these hazards. Globalization also spreads the cost of natural hazards going beyond the borders of the country directly affected. Technological and science based progress in our pursuit to understand natural hazards, applications and technological responses have clearly been insufficient. Response to disaster happen mostly after the event and so much is required to be put in place to sustain research and draw up programmes for risk assessment, recommend countermeasures, build and strengthen resilience in communities at risk. Researchers and disaster managers need to work hard to ensure vigorous knowledge takes a essential role in policy development. In this, loc al communities will be more resilient to natural and environmental hazards

Government Gave Too Much Power

The issues involving the Virginia plan gave too much power to the national government have been a popular topic amongst scholars for many years. The Virginia plan was a proposal by Virginia delegates for a bicameral legislative branch. The plan was drafted by James Madison while he waited for a quorum to assemble at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. There are many factors which influenced the development of the Virginia plan that gave too much power to the national government.The Virginia plan gave too much power to the national government by all the plans James Madison formed to create a new form of government plan which are the Executive Branch, Judicial Branch, and Legislative Branch. I plan to examine each of these factors in detail and asses their importance. One major factor that influenced the development plan to give too much power to the national government is the Executive Branch that James Madison formed. The executive Branch would include the president and his cabine t.A quote that proves the Executive Branch that James Madison formed gave too much power to the national government is in the â€Å"A more perfect union† reading is â€Å"he studied different types of government to create a plan for a new form of federal government†¦ According to Madison’s plan, the Executive Branch would include the president and his cabinet. † This quote shows me that the branches James Madison formed were very powerful since it would include the present. Since including the present in the branch of course the Virginia plan gave too much power to the national government with the president involved.Another factor that influenced the development plan to give a lot of power to the national government is the Judicial Branch that James Madison created. The Judicial Branch was a branch that included the federal court systems. A quote that convinces me that the Judicial Branch created by James Madison was another factor that gave national govern ment a lot of power is in the reading â€Å"A more perfect union† when written â€Å"the judicial branch would include the federal court systems. This quote convinces me that the Judicial Branch created by James Madison was compelling because the branch included the federal court systems.With the Judicial Branch the Virginia plan gave a lot of power to the national government because the federal court systems have power when it is the system of adjudication authorized by the US Constitution and established by Congress. The last factor that influenced the development plan to give a majority of power to the national government is the Legislative Branch that James Madison established. The Legislative Branch would be made up of two congressional houses and representations would be raised on each state population.A quote that declares that the Legislative Branch established by James Madison gave too much power to national governments is in the reading â€Å"A more perfect unionà ¢â‚¬  when said â€Å"The Legislative Branch would be made up of two congressional houses and representation would be based on each state’s population. This quote shows evidence that the Legislative Branch established by James Madison was very supreme. Since they had people from the congressional houses on there side obviously the Virginia plan gave a majority of there power to the national government because of the Legislative Branch established by James Madison.You can conclude that the Virginia plan gave to much power to the national governments. The Virginia Plan that was drafted by James Madison at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 gave power to the national government by three branches of government established by James Madison. The Executive Branch, Judicial Branch, and Legislative Branch are the three branches created by James Madison that I believe gave too much power to the national government.

Dominant Position of a Company

According to the European competition case law, a dominant position is defined as â€Å"the power of a firm to behave to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, customers and consumers†. It is obvious that a firm or several firms which hold a dominant position can determine price, the amount of production, supply and this is because these firms can act independently of their competitors and customers.As a result, dominant position can lead to the market power and in this situation a firm or several firms have an ability to individually make a big influence on the price and total quantity produced which could result to the market failure. But does this definition make an economic sense and how it should be interpreted in monopoly and oligopoly? Firstly, we need to understand exactly the actual meaning of a dominant position.It is a situation when a firm has an ability to behave independently of its competitors, customers and ultimately the final consumer. A well known example of monopolistic dominance is Microsoft’s market in PC operating systems. In monopoly some members in a market can gain market power allowing them to stop other important gains from trades and this can make the allocation of recourses inefficient due to imperfect competition. As going back to my example, Microsoft illegally used its market power by bundling its web browser with its operating system.In economics, market power is the ability of a firm to independently determine the market price and the production of a good or a service, of course, in perfectly competitive markets – market power vanishes. From this example we actually see that Microsoft has an ability to make a big influence on the price or other outcomes in the market by using its dominant position because that kind of a firm can raise price, outcomes without worrying of losing its customers.On the other hand, not only one firm can hold a dominant position, but also a dominant position can be held among several firms and this is called oligopolistic dominance. For example: in 2008 Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Nextel and T-Mobile together controlled approximately 89 % of the United States cellular phone market. In this situation sometimes firms can decide to make some secret agreements in order, for example, to raise prices of cellular phones leading to the profit maximization, knowing that they still are not going to lose their costumers.Of course, there is opinion that oligopoly is better than monopoly, because oligopolistic dominance (several firms who have a dominant position) could help to stabilize unstable markets, for example dominant firms could set some kind of prices which could help other producers to survive in the certain market and this is called a price leadership, however the welfare of economics in oligopoly is not easy to analyze and to determine if it is going to have a positive reaction.Furthermore, now we know that the definition of dominant position ma kes an economic sense, because when a firm has a power to behave independently and can make a big influence on the welfare of the economics (prices, total quantity produced, efficiency in allocating the resources), market power and later market failure could occur. We also know that a market failure is a situation when the allocation of recourses is inefficient due to imperfect competition when not all sellers and buyers can be satisfied.In order to prevent market failure, each government imposes some policies such as subsidies, taxes, minimum wage, some price controls, however sometimes happens that these policies also create inefficiency in allocating the recourses and it is called government failure. Going back to the original topic, dominant position is not an exception.According to the European competition case law, dominant positions are not forbidden but in order for firms not to abuse that position they have a special responsibility: dominant firms must not allow their strat egic decisions to make a negative influence on competition in the market, in other words, dominant firms cannot intentionally prevent or eliminate competition. Moreover, in order to determine the definition of dominant position in monopoly, at first we need to understand the basic aspects of it.Monopoly is a situation when a certain agent is the only one who supplies a particular good, of course, it is obvious that this market has a lack of economic competition. In monopoly a company has a much bigger profit than it could expect in competitive market, because that only firm regulates all the prices and services for that certain good. As a result, it can raise the price and maximize its profit without worrying of losing its customers. So, the dominant position in monopoly is a market with a single agent which has a power to operate independently and has an ability to make a big influence on the prices and production.Finally, to do the same in oligopoly we also need to understand the basic aspects of it. Oligopoly is the market share of several firms which together make a big influence to the price or other outcomes of a certain market, however the difference between monopoly and oligopoly is that in oligopoly firms do not operate independently, because then they could lose some of their customers to their competitors. That is why several dominant firms always try to cooperate together and sometimes they even make some secret agreements in order to maximize their profits.So, the dominant position in oligopoly is the market share of several dominant firms who have an ability to make big influence on the prices and production. To sum up, we actually see that a dominant position can be defined variously in different areas but still all definitions will have the same meaning: a dominant position creates a market power which evidence to the inefficiency of allocating the resources in economic markets and sometimes leading to the market failure, but in some cases domi nant position is the key of stabilizing unstable markets.

Finding the Percent of Change Between Numbers

There are two methods of finding the  percent of change between two numbers. The first is  to find the ratio of the amount of change to the original amount. If the new number is greater than the old number, then that ratio is the percent of increase, which will be a positive. If the new number is less than the old number, then that ratio is the percent of decrease, which will be a negative. So, the first thing to determine when finding the percent of change is whether youre looking at an increase or a decrease. Method 1: A  Problem With an Increase Say one person had $200 in a savings account last month and now has $225. Thats an increase. The problem is to find the percent of increase in  money. First,  subtract to find the amount of change: 225 - 25 200. The  increase is 25. Next, divide the amount of change by the original amount: 25 à · 200 0.125 Now, to change the decimal to a percent, multiply the number by 100: 0.125 X 100 12.5 The answer is 12.5%. So thats the percent of change, an increase of 12.5% in the savings account. Method 1: A Problem With  a Decrease Say one person weighed 150 pounds last year and now weighs 125 pounds. Thats a decrease. The problem is to find the percent of decrease in weight (the weight loss).   First, subtract to find the amount of change: 150 - 125 25. The decrease is 25. Next, divide the amount of change by the original amount: 25 à · 150 0.167 Now, to change the decimal to a percent, multiply the number by 100: 0.167 x 100 16.7 The answer is 16.7%. So thats the percent of change, a decrease of 16.7% in body weight. Method 2: A  Problem  With an Increase The  second method of finding  the  percent  of change between two numbers involves finding the ratio between the new number and the original number. Use the same example for this  method of finding the percent of increase: One person had $200 in a savings account last month and now has $225. The problem is to find the percent of increase in money. First, divide the new amount by the original amount: 225 / 200 1.125 Next, to change the decimal to a percent,  multiply the result  by 100: 1.125 X 100 112.5% Now, subtract 100 percent from the result: 112.5% - 100%   12.5% Thats the same result as in Method 1: an increase of 12.5% in the savings account. Method  2: A  Problem  With  a Decrease Use the same example for the second  method of finding the percent of decrease: One person weighed 150 pounds last year and now weighs 125 pounds. The problem is  to find the percent of decrease in weight. First,  divide the new amount by the original amount: 125 / 150 0.833 Next, to change the decimal to a percent, multiply the result by 100: 0.833 X 100 83.3% Now,  subtract 100% from the result: 83.3% - 100% -16.7% Thats the same result as in Method 1: a  decrease of 16.7% in body weight.