IUCRISKMAN

3. ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT.

10 hours total-6 lectures, 4 practices
CONTENT:

3.1. Presentation of the context

3.1.1. Environmental Risks

3.1.2. Characteristics of environmental risk
3.1.3. Which Environmental Risks Are Important?
3.1.4. Why we need environmental risk management

3.2. Risk assessment applied to environmental issues

3.2.1. Case analysis – oil pollution event in the Black Sea

3.2.2. The management of environmental risks

3.2.2.1. Environmental risk identification

3.2.2.2. Environmental risk analysis (estimation)

3.2.2.3. Environmental risk evaluation

3.2.2.4. Environmental risk assessment, another way of dealing the process

3.3. The link between Environmental Risk Assessment and Disaster Risk Management

3.3.1. Environmental Hazards and risk Assessment

3.3.2. Environmental degradation – Pollution data on Black Sea

3.3.3. Environmental degradation - Climate change

3.3.4. Environmental degradation - Human Health

3.4. Disaster Risk Management - general issues

3.5.1. Natural hazards can be directly affected by social processes.

3.5.2. Healthy ecosystems often provide natural defenses

3.5.3. Degraded ecosystems reduce community resilience

3.5.4. Some environmental impacts require immediate attention

3.5.5. Environmental degradation is a hazard itself

3.6. Bow Tie Risk Analysis Diagrams, another way of assessing environmental risk

3.7. Risk treatment. Methods to treat environmental risks

References

Joint Operational Programme “BLACK SEA BASIN 2007-2013”

Contract: 2.2.1.73194.264 MIS-ETC 1459 “Creation of Interuniversity centre for risk management
and assessment for prevention of ecological and technological risks in the Black Sea”
IUCRISKMAN

3.1. Presentation of the context

3.1.1. Environmental Risks

As we already know, risk would not be risk without involving a vulnerability. For instance, let’s
take pollution. Throughout time, a lot of volcanoes eliminated into the atmosphere a lot of
poisonous gases. Also, at the beginning of life on earth, the atmosphere on Earth was very
different from what we breathe now. And no one at that time said anything about polluting
atmosphere or about environment or about environmental risk. So risks appeared with man and
probably will disappear with mankind, whereas the hazards will always be there. In conclusion
all risks will affect human beings, in a direct or indirect way. So all the risks presented in this
course arise in, or are transmitted through, the air, water, soil or biological food chains, to man.
The causes and characteristics of risks are, however, very diverse. Some are created by man
through the introduction of a new technology, product or chemical, while others, such as natural
hazards, result from natural reasonably well anticipated, such as flooding in a valley or pollution
from an industrial factory. Others are wholly unsuspected effects at the time the technology or
activity was developed, such as the possible effects on the earth's ozone layer of fluorocarbon
sprays or nitrogen fertilizers, [1].
While being diverse in themselves, environmental risks, as defined here, share a second common
feature in addition to being transmitted through environmental media. They cause harm to people
who have not voluntarily or specifically chosen to suffer their consequences, and thus they
require regulation on the part of some authority above that of an individual citizen - that is, they
require managing. These consequences can fall on other groups in the future as well as today, as
for example in the mismanagement of natural resources.
The boundaries between environmental and other risks can never be hard and fast ones and there
are always marginal cases, [1,2].
Having said the above issues, we can see that risk is a complex issue. When we say
environmental risk, we do not just talk about a hazard, we talk about a hazard that addresses
vulnerability, in one way or another. This vulnerability is most of the time subliminally
understood, but one needs to know that it is there and it is the most important part of the risk.

3.1.2. Characteristics of environmental risks

Environmental risks have a set of characteristics. These include:
1. The risks involve a complex series of cause and effect relationships. They are connected
from source to impact by pathways involving environmental, technological and social
variables which need to be modelled and understood in concert. There are thus common
elements in the systematic approaches required for the study of risk.
2. The risks are connected to each other. Usually several or many risks occur
simultaneously within the same country, region, or city and this requires an ability to
compare them and make trade-offs or balancing decisions about how much of one risk to
accept in relation to another.

Joint Operational Programme “BLACK SEA BASIN 2007-2013”

Contract: 2.2.1.73194.264 MIS-ETC 1459 “Creation of Interuniversity centre for risk management
and assessment for prevention of ecological and technological risks in the Black Sea”
IUCRISKMAN
3. The risks are connected to social benefits so that a reduction in one risk usually means a
decline in the social benefits to be derived from accepting the risk. The social benefits of
different risks are related to each other or may be very similar.
4. The risks are widespread over the globe and concern many countries, both developed and
developing. They occur in both industrial and agricultural sectors of the economy. There
are advantages to nations therefore in comparing approaches to risks in the context of
environmental management.
5. The risks are not always easy to identify and sometimes identification occurs long after
serious adverse consequences have been felt. There is merit in comparing the ways in
which different risks arise and are recognized.
6. The risks can never be measured precisely. Because of their probabilistic nature it is
always a question of estimation. The methods for risk estimation have underlying
similarities that can be described and improved.
7. The risks are evaluated differently in social terms. Thus a risk considered serious in one
place may be considered unimportant in another. It is important to understand why
similar processes of risk evaluation can give rise to such dissimilar conclusions, [2].

3.1.3. Which Environmental Risks Are Important?

Many of the environmental risks that have received public attention follow on the heels of
urbanization and industrialization; they are the risks related to economic development. Not
surprisingly most of the times these risks have been most associated with those regions that are
already highly industrialized.
While it is quite possible that risks such as air pollution and toxic metals in food chains, are more
severe in developed countries, they are rapidly increasing in the urban-industrial regions of
developing countries.
Other risks are more widespread in the poorest countries - those stemming from malnutrition,
inadequate housing and sanitation and the like, but they are not absent in the richer nations.
Some risks - e.g. unsafe water supply - are serious in both developed and developing countries
but for somewhat different reasons: contamination with small amounts of carcinogenic industrial
effluents in the one case, and bacteriological contamination in the other.
There are insufficient data on the incidence and impacts of different risks to quantify their
relative magnitudes and severity in the world. Even if there were such data they would not give a
reliable indication of priorities on a global scale, because it is in the nature of risks and benefits
that their relative values are very differently appraised from country to country. One surrogate
measure for risk magnitude is expectation of life. Since expectation of life is known to be much
lower in some countries than others, it may be inferred that the chief risks in those countries
should be accorded some international priority.
One indication of where the important risks are thought to lie is to be gained from a list of
international monitoring activities. The list in table 3.1 below is therefore giving an idea of
priority risk areas from the viewpoint of what it is considered to be important to monitor on an
international level. This may be compared with the list of 'priority pollutants' shown in Table 3.2.
Here again a group of scientists at the international level has attempted to list substances and
environmental stress indicators considered to be of priority concern, [1, 2].

Joint Operational Programme “BLACK SEA BASIN 2007-2013”

Contract: 2.2.1.73194.264 MIS-ETC 1459 “Creation of Interuniversity centre for risk management
and assessment for prevention of ecological and technological risks in the Black Sea”
IUCRISKMAN

Table.3.1. List of International Monitoring Activities connected to environmental risks, [1]:

GENERAL MONITORING AREAS INTERNATIONAL MONITORING ACTIVITIES

Soil degradation - global

Tropical forest cover
Rangelands
ECOLOGICAL MONITORING
River and sediment discharge
World Glacier Inventory
Isotope concentration in precipitation
Wildlife sampling and monitoring
BIOSPHERE Impact of pesticide residues
Living marine resources
Air quality monitoring - global
Transmission of air pollutants in Europe
Water quality - global
Eutrophication in inland waters
POLLUTANTS Food and animal feed contaminants
Pollutants in body fluids and tissues
Human milk composition
Pollutants in human hair
Ionizing radiation
Climatic variability
World Weather Watch
Solar radiation
CLIMATE Atmospheric Ozone
Climate change
Glacier mass balance and fluctuation
Atmospheric pollutants
Pollutants in regional seas - Mediterranean
- North Sea
- Baltic
- NE and NW Atlantic
OCEANS
Open ocean waters
Marine oil pollution
River discharge to sea
Background levels of selected pollutants
Tropical cyclones
NATURAL DISASTERS Tsunami information
Flood forecasting

Table 3.2 Priority Pollutants

Substances and 1. Airborne sulphur dioxide and sulphates

environmental stress 2. Suspended particulate matter
indicators that are 3. Carbon monoxide
potentially important 4. Carbon dioxide and other trace gases that affect the
with respect to their radiative properties of the atmosphere
direct and indirect 5. Airborne oxides of nitrogen
effects on man and the 6. Ozone, photochemical oxidants and reactive
biosphere, [1]: hydrocarbons

Joint Operational Programme “BLACK SEA BASIN 2007-2013”

Contract: 2.2.1.73194.264 MIS-ETC 1459 “Creation of Interuniversity centre for risk management
and assessment for prevention of ecological and technological risks in the Black Sea”
IUCRISKMAN
7. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
8. Toxic metals, especially mercury, lead and cadmium
9. Halogenated organic compounds, especially DDT
and its metabolites, PCB, PCT, dieldrin and short-
chain halogenated aliphatic compounds
10. Asbestos
11. Petroleum hydrocarbons
12. Toxins of biological origin (from algae, fungi, and
bacteria)
13. Nitrates, nitrites and nitrosamines
14. Ammonia
15. Selected indicators of water quality: biological
oxygen demand (BOD), dissolved oxygen (DO),
pH, coliform bacteria
16. Selected radio nuclides
17. Airborne allergens
18. Eutrophicators (e.g., nitrates and phosphates)
19. Soluble salts of the alkali metals and the alkaline
earth metals
20. Other substances that have caused significant local
environmental problems in the past such as arsenic,
boron, elemental phosphorus, selenium, and
fluoride
21. Noise
22. Waste heat

Another approach to find out the environmental problems we are facing is to ask national
governments what they consider to be problems of environmental risk that affect them. A survey
has been carried out by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural
Resources (IUCN) in collaboration with UNEP (United Nations Environmental Program). Sixty-
three developing countries were asked in which risk categories they considered problems to exist
in their own country. The information produced therefore relates to the number of national
governments recognizing these problems and not to their overall magnitude either in extent or
socio-economic impact. The twenty most frequently reported causes of environmental risk are
listed below in Figure 3.1. Loss of soil through erosion or depletion of fertility is reported in
almost all countries, with deforestation ranking second. The most common risks therefore, in the
eyes of national governments are primarily those of resource depletion (such as loss of fauna,
fish stock depletion, soil erosion, overgrazing, deforestation and the like), habitat (inadequate
waste and sewage disposal, domestic water supply), and pollution risks (air pollution, water
pollution by oil and industrial and toxic waste disposal).
These are all risks that can be exacerbated by the development processes of agricultural
expansion, industrial development, and expanding populations in cities and on the land.

Joint Operational Programme “BLACK SEA BASIN 2007-2013”

Contract: 2.2.1.73194.264 MIS-ETC 1459 “Creation of Interuniversity centre for risk management
and assessment for prevention of ecological and technological risks in the Black Sea”
IUCRISKMAN

Figure 3.1 Major Environmental Risks in 63 Developing Countries, [1]

In figure 3.1 above, the environmental risks directly connected to the IUCRISKMAN project –
prevention of ecological and technological risks in Black Sea were highlighted in red colour.

3.1.4. Why we need environmental risk management

The environment is a broad concept that describes our biophysical surroundings. It includes air,
water, land, and living organisms such as plants and wildlife. Another definition would be: is the
sum of all external conditions affecting the life, development and survival of an organism, [15].
The focus of scientific research on problems of the environment has highlighted many gaps and
inadequacies in present knowledge. The pressure of events requires, however, that important
decisions about environment and development be made now rather than at some indefinite time
in the future. To do so involves making decisions under conditions of risk and uncertainty. The
concept of risk has therefore become central to the environmental management process. How can
a course of development be chosen which is 'safe enough'? A safe enough, or less risky, course of
development would be one which would avoid the dangers of collapse through unsupportable or
unsustainable development. In other words, it would be development compatible with the
environment - or ecodevelopment. It would also minimize or reduce to acceptable levels
undesirable side effects, for those subject to risk, but also for those who create risks and those
responsible for managing them.
The choice of a 'best path' for development involves not only questions about the total amount of
risk that is acceptable in anyone area, but also the distribution of risks among the population.
Thus risk management is central to the ecodevelopment process in two ways. First, it is

Joint Operational Programme “BLACK SEA BASIN 2007-2013”

Contract: 2.2.1.73194.264 MIS-ETC 1459 “Creation of Interuniversity centre for risk management
and assessment for prevention of ecological and technological risks in the Black Sea”
IUCRISKMAN
necessary to ensure that the risks taken will not undermine or negate the aims of development.
Second, both the benefits and the risks should be distributed in a socially acceptable way.
Societies differ widely in the spectrum of risks that they encounter and in their view of the
priorities to be favored in dealing with them. In some countries there is major concern over
cancer, birth defects and mutations and their possible causes in man-made and man-modified
environments. Elsewhere the societal priorities are more centered on those risks associated with
the lack of basic needs - water that is safe to drink, housing and nutrition that permit the healthy
growth of individuals, families, and the community, and the development of natural resources
that does not result in the irreversible destruction of soil, forests and wildlife. The dichotomy that
is sometimes implied when the population risks of high and low income societies are set in
contrast, can often be misleading. It is increasingly becoming apparent that the assessment of all
environmental risks is as serious and important a responsibility in developing countries as in the
more heavily industrialized and higher income nations. Indeed, countries now undergoing rapid
industrial development or large scale expansion of commercial agriculture are confronted by an
especially difficult situation. They combine in a demanding fashion some of the traditional risks
of natural hazards and resource depletion with the new pollution and technological hazards
associated with industrial development and modern agriculture. Paradoxically, the more
successful the economic development process, the more likely there is to be generation of new
risks at the same time that unprecedented pressures are arising in the more 'traditional' risk areas
of soil erosion, deforestation, desertification and natural hazards.
Furthermore, as rapidly developing nations are drawn more strongly into the pattern of
international trade and commodity flow they find that standards and regulations established
elsewhere for the protection of the environment and human health can have a deep and lasting
effect on their development. Sometimes these regulations are appropriate to their needs, but often
they are not.
Environmental risk management therefore raises questions for all nations, both in their own
internal or domestic affairs and in relation to others in the family of nations. This report is not
therefore addressed exclusively to one group of nations or another. It attempts to elucidate the
problems of environmental risk assessment especially in its international dimensions, and to
show how it relates and fits into decision-making in economic development. There is a great deal
of scientific information about some environmental risks. This originates largely from countries
rich in scientific and technical manpower and from research institutes established to look closely
into environmental risks. In addition, international organizations draw upon this wealth of
scientific information to set or suggest international standards and guidelines. It is not wise,
however, for a national government to assume that because a risk has been identified, assessed,
and a standard established in one or more countries, that this evaluation will automatically apply
to their own country. The consequences of risk vary from place to place, both as measured in
scientific ways and as perceived by local populations. However, when scientific manpower,
management skills, and institutional capability are in short supply, it may be a misallocation of
resources to invest a large effort into research on the toxicity of industrial effluents or the
ecological effects of pesticides, if this has been done elsewhere. Independent risk evaluation does
not necessarily require replication of all the scientific work required for risk estimation.
The management of risks does require resources - money, skilled manpower, and time - and is
itself associated with the risks of cost, delay and inaction. Risk management is not, however, an
entirely new or unfamiliar exercise. Governments already weigh the risks of the exhaustion or

Joint Operational Programme “BLACK SEA BASIN 2007-2013”

Contract: 2.2.1.73194.264 MIS-ETC 1459 “Creation of Interuniversity centre for risk management
and assessment for prevention of ecological and technological risks in the Black Sea”
IUCRISKMAN
depletion of a fishery while building new fishing boats, and farmers have long appraised the risk
of a drought or a pest infestation while planting a crop.
Environmental risk management is only part of a much larger governmental set of national needs
and priorities. Social and economic development often leads to the introduction of new processes
and products, and to the development of hazard prone areas without any consultation with risk
assessors or environmental scientists. The environmental risk manager, whether at a high
Ministerial level or as an individual technician, has to compete with other demands in a nation's
resources and attention. Often he will be faced with risks whose origins lie deep in social
customs and history, and thus cannot be improved without more far-reaching changes than can
be encompassed by environmental management alone. It is not the purpose of this report to
suggest that no risks be taken. However, they should be understood as fully as possible. This
means that the factors that are taken into account in any decision need to be expressed clearly
and where appropriate in terms of the risks involved. Consequences need to be explained and
understood both by the authorities and by those at risk, before they are (knowingly) accepted.
Only in this direction lies the way to more effective risk management and to a safer and more
prosperous future, [2].

3.2. Risk assessment applied to environmental issues

3.2.1. Case analysis – oil pollution event in the Black Sea [3]
Vulnerability is a relatively new concept and deals not only with the vulnerability of human
communities on the coast, but also with the vulnerability of the environment, of the states and all
other stakeholders, [3].
Capacity means capacity to prevent more than capacity to cope with an oil pollution. Capacity is
intimately linked with vulnerability; When one talks about capacity, one talks about authority (or
lack of authority) to impose legislation, about the very existence of this legislation, and also
about the common thinking throughout all the entities involved. Capacity is not only connected
to standards and legislation. It might as well be connected to financial power to use different
technologies and methods that create a powerful and resilient environment but also financial
power to stop an oil spill from spreading (here technologies range from oil spill computer
simulation to the use of specially designed dusts and floating devices to neutralize and collect the
oil).
The idea of Stakeholders also need to be presented here. According to definition, Stakeholder is
an entity that can be affected by the results of that in which they are said to be stakeholders, i.e.,
that in which they have a stake [4] An oil pollution of a sea / ocean affects the environment,
communities, businesses, in different amounts. So, stakeholders in this case can be different
institutions of the different states, environmental control and preservation organizations, affected
communities, affected environment, the polluting entity itself. [5]
These concepts explaining risk (probability, vulnerability, capacity) and stakeholders need to be
analyzed and interlinked altogether (see figure 2.2).

Joint Operational Programme “BLACK SEA BASIN 2007-2013”

Contract: 2.2.1.73194.264 MIS-ETC 1459 “Creation of Interuniversity centre for risk management
and assessment for prevention of ecological and technological risks in the Black Sea”
IUCRISKMAN

Figure 3.2. Interlinking between risk connected concepts and Stakeholders

For example, probability depends and can be affected by the stakeholders. Also, a stakeholder is
very interlinked with all three concepts explaining risk. For instance, the environment as a
stakeholder, can be a factor affecting probability (harsh weather with high waves can lead to
marine accidents); it also can influence the idea of vulnerability (a clean strong and resilient
environment is stronger and can recover quicklier than a weak environment); Capacity is also
influenced by the marine environment in many ways.
Another important issue to discuss here is time because when it comes to oil pollution, to have a
true and sustainable oil pollution risk prevention, most of your actions need to be targeted not
after the moment of oil pollution, but before. Here we start talking about disaster management
cycle [6]. The idea of disaster management cycle applies to any oil pollution in the Black Sea,
because any oil pollution, no matter how small it is, it is a (small) disaster for that specific
environment where it occurred.

Figure 3.3. Risk and stakeholders are enclosed in risk management cycle. Adaptation from [6]

Joint Operational Programme “BLACK SEA BASIN 2007-2013”

Contract: 2.2.1.73194.264 MIS-ETC 1459 “Creation of Interuniversity centre for risk management
and assessment for prevention of ecological and technological risks in the Black Sea”
IUCRISKMAN

As can be seen in figure 3.3, the risk management cycle has four steps: response, recovery,
prevention and preparedness. The circle in figure 3.3 is better seen as a spiral. After oil pollution
of the sea event occurs, stakeholders take action (response, recovery, prevention and
preparedness), in order not just to recovery, but in order to be more prepared for a possible next
event. Of course, the idea is to get the risk level ALARP (as low as reasonably possible). If the
action is clearly organized and is concentrated on preventing (before) rather than intervention
(after), we can talk about sustainable development. This way, all stakeholders take part in the
effort and also take the benefits out of it. Sustainable development is effective when after a
disaster; stakeholders cope rapidly and move on (on the spiral of risk management cycle).

On 12 november 2007, rough weather - winds of 100 km/h and almost 5 meters high waves in
Black Sea and Kerch channel - smashed apart the Russian oil tanker "Volganeft 139" and spilled
into the sea nearly half of the cargo of the freight ship laden with 4,800 tons of oil.

Figure 3.4. Map with the position of the oil pollution site. Kerch channel between Sea of Azov and Black Sea
[8]
Other ships were affected, an important quantity of sulphur also reached into the sea. Five people
died, other 19 missing, 30.000 birds died (figure 3.5) because of the oil that poisoned and slicked
to their feathers.

Figure 3.5. A poisoned and oil covered bird lies dying in front of local volunteers removing oil pollution [9]
The whole ecosystem received an important hit. According to some sources, USD 898 M is the
approximated value of financial losses. Apparently, the oil slicks moved towards the Sea of Azov
in the next days. [8,9]

Joint Operational Programme “BLACK SEA BASIN 2007-2013”

Contract: 2.2.1.73194.264 MIS-ETC 1459 “Creation of Interuniversity centre for risk management
and assessment for prevention of ecological and technological risks in the Black Sea”
IUCRISKMAN
Russian environmentalist Vladimir Sivyak told the BBC that the sinking of the Volganeft-139
alone was a "very serious environmental disaster." He added that the heavy oil which has already
sunk into the seabed will take years to clean up. [10, 11]
The image below (figure 3.6) presents the oil spills detected by satellites through the years 2000-
2004 in the Black Sea, [12, 13].

Figure 3.6. Map with oil spills in the Black Sea in 2000, 2001, 2004 [13,14]
As it can be seen from the above case and from the image in figure 3.6, the problem exists and
it’s very important to be dealt with in a very serious manner.
The risk management cycle approach presented in figure 2.3 is one very good method to start
with. There are a lot of regional efforts in this direction, which is a good thing, but it lacks
organization, because of political, financial, and all sort of interests between the Black Sea
coastal states [14].
If we ask to ourselves the proper questions and take into account the interlinking between risk
connected concepts and the status and possibilities of the stakeholders, having also in mind the
“before” and “after” paradigms brought by the risk management cycle, a lot of important
responses can arise.
Apparently, the ship (Volganeft 139) was not designed to sail on the sea. The weather forecast is
not a novelty nowadays, so the event could have been better foreseen and prevented (bringing
the ship in port, at safety, emptying its cargo). Old ships should be very well checked before
receiving approval for marine operations.
There are a lot of information that we can get out of any oil pollution event, in the Black Sea area
or in the whole world. The important thing is to make steps to a sustainable development of the
region, towards solving the problem of oil pollution, in a sustainable way.
The risk of oil pollution in the Black Sea is a serious matter, having in mind the present situation:
oil is already brought into the sea by the rivers, the black sea environment is already weakened,
because of the international crisis, there are financial problems, also there are important
differences and different cultures between the coastal states.
Nevertheless, the stakeholders need to act in an organized manner. Authors, without claiming to
discover a new method, propose to crate and follow an integrated plan containing: risk connected
concepts analysis (probability, vulnerability and capacity) and stakeholders analysis and
implication, both interlinked inside the risk management cycle actions.

Joint Operational Programme “BLACK SEA BASIN 2007-2013”

Contract: 2.2.1.73194.264 MIS-ETC 1459 “Creation of Interuniversity centre for risk management
and assessment for prevention of ecological and technological risks in the Black Sea”
IUCRISKMAN
3.2.2. The management of environmental risks
Environmental risk management involves the search for a 'best route' between social benefit and
environmental risk. It is a balancing or trading-off process in which various combinations of
risks are compared and evaluated against particular social or economic gains.
Risk assessment has three interrelated components: risk identification, risk estimation (analysis)
and risk evaluation.

Figure 3.7. The matrix of risk management, to be applied to environmental risks

3.2.2.1. Environmental risk identification

Risk identification simply means recognizing that a hazard exists and trying to define its
characteristics. Often risks exist and are even measured for some time before their adverse
consequences are recognized. In other cases, risk identification is a deliberate procedure to
review, and it is hoped anticipate, possible hazards.

3.2.2.2. Environmental risk analysis (estimation)

This is the scientific determination of the characteristics of risks, usually in as quantitative a way
as possible. These include the magnitude, spatial scale, duration and intensity of adverse
consequences and their associated probabilities as well as a description of the cause and effect
links. Both risk estimation and identification can involve modelling, monitoring, screening and
diagnosis. The main purpose of these two management functions is to understand the
environmental system and its complex pathways and processes through which risks occur, [1]

3.2.2.3. Environmental risk evaluation

Joint Operational Programme “BLACK SEA BASIN 2007-2013”

Contract: 2.2.1.73194.264 MIS-ETC 1459 “Creation of Interuniversity centre for risk management
and assessment for prevention of ecological and technological risks in the Black Sea”
IUCRISKMAN
The third component of risk assessment is risk evaluation in which judgements are made about
the significance and acceptability of risk probabilities and consequences. This stage is central to
policy determination. Evaluation techniques seek to compare risks against one another, and
against benefits, as well as providing ways in which the social acceptability of risks can be
judged. Indeed, any judgement about social acceptability combines both political and managerial
decisions since it inevitably involves a calculation of who is likely to benefit and who to suffer,
and what compensation, if any, should be paid.
After a risk has been identified, estimated or evaluated (or any combination of the three) there
comes a point where some kind of intervention (or deliberate decision not to intervene or to
delay action) takes place. The nature of the intervention varies greatly depending not only on
what the risks are (and are perceived to be) but upon the particular policymaking 'style' and the
constitutional and administrative framework. But before that point of implementation has been
reached, a great deal of risk assessment has already taken place, and has profoundly affected the
course of events that will follow, [1]

3.2.2.4. Environmental risk assessment, another way of dealing the process

According to other sources, [15], Environmental Risk Assessment (or evaluation) is a scientific
process that identifies and evaluates threats to the environment, in particular to living organisms,
their habitats and ecosystems.

Figure 3.8. Environmental risk assessment

The causes of environmental threats are diverse. Some are largely natural – for example,
earthquakes or volcanic eruptions, whilst others may be the result of human activity such as

Joint Operational Programme “BLACK SEA BASIN 2007-2013”

Contract: 2.2.1.73194.264 MIS-ETC 1459 “Creation of Interuniversity centre for risk management
and assessment for prevention of ecological and technological risks in the Black Sea”
IUCRISKMAN
industrialisation and urbanisation – think for instance about air pollution, toxic chemicals in food
and water, poor housing and sanitation.
The purpose of environmental risk assessments is to assess the seriousness and the likelihood of
harm to the environment which might arise following a specific activity, such as the application
of pesticides. These environmental risk assessments follow several stages; beginning with
problem formulation.

Figure 3.9. Environmental risk assessment process, another view

Problem formulation is the first critical step because it defines the scope of the environmental
risk assessment by specifying what needs to be protected from harm and by identifying potential
harmful effects. Problem formulation is then followed by a hazard and exposure characterisation.
In the hazard characterization, potential hazards and the seriousness of potential harm are
examined, whilst the exposure characterization considers the likelihood and the level of exposure
to the hazard and does how likely it is that harm will occur. The final step involves the
characterization of risk. Here, the seriousness and likelihood of harm are combined to estimate
the level of risk. In some cases, the environmental risk assessment also includes risk mitigation
measures. Such measures aim to reduce an identified risk to an acceptable level or a level of no
concern. The environmental risk assessments help risk managers and policy makers at European
and national level to ensure that products that are put on the market do not cause unacceptable
harm to the environment, [16]

3.3. The link between Environmental Risk Assessment and Disaster Risk
Management

3.3.1. Environmental Hazards and risk Assessment

Risk assessment is a process to determine the nature and extent of risk by analyzing potential
hazards and evaluating existing conditions of vulnerability that could pose a potential threat or
harm to people, property, livelihoods and the environment on which they depend.
Environmental risk assessment aggregates a set of tools for defining the probability and
magnitude of adverse effects to human health and natural resources posed by environmental
agents, [15]

Joint Operational Programme “BLACK SEA BASIN 2007-2013”

Contract: 2.2.1.73194.264 MIS-ETC 1459 “Creation of Interuniversity centre for risk management
and assessment for prevention of ecological and technological risks in the Black Sea”
IUCRISKMAN
As we all know, water related events, floods and droughts, are a major concern since the dawn of
the human civilization. They continue to hit every generation of human beings, bringing
suffering, death and and still growing material losses;
Human activity continues to alter the biosphere, changes in environment in specific places and at
ecosystem levels.
Environmental degradation compounds the actual impact of disasters, limits an area’s ability to
absorb the impact, and lowers the overall general natural resilience to hazard impact and disaster
recovery, [15].

Figure 3.10. The path from environmental degradation to disaster risk, through vulnerability and hazards

3.3.2. Environmental degradation – Pollution data on Black Sea [17]

Oil discharge through the Danube can be traced well into the north-western shelf, and at some
53,000 tons/annum, represents about half of the estimated total annual load of oil to the Black
Sea. There is little or no data on operational discharges from ships and, unless properly
regulated, the increase in shipping through the Black Sea could result in significant oil pollution.
[17, 18].
There is a rapid increase in the use of the Black Sea as a maritime transport route, particularly for
the shipment of oil en-route from the Caspian oil fields.[18]
The Black Sea plays an important role for hydrocarbon transits in the region. Nearly a third of
the Russian oil exports, about half of the Kazakh exports, and all of the exports from Azerbaijan

Joint Operational Programme “BLACK SEA BASIN 2007-2013”

Contract: 2.2.1.73194.264 MIS-ETC 1459 “Creation of Interuniversity centre for risk management
and assessment for prevention of ecological and technological risks in the Black Sea”
IUCRISKMAN
cross the Black Sea and the congested Bosporus Strait [19]. Through Bosporus pass annually
55.000 ships. 30% of them (around 10.000 ships) are oil tankers carrying around 155 million
tons of crude oil. This leads to a high risk of oil pollution [20]. There are standards that keep
things under control, such as MARPOL, but history (not necesssary in Black Sea) proved that
even in closed supervised situations, oil pollution can occur.
There are some political and economical setbacks in the region, but the Black Sea continues to
draw interest from international oil companies, including heavy hitters, in terms of offshore
drilling. Until recently, the deeper waters remained mostly unexamined by seismic surveys.[19]
Economic evolution of the countries onshore Black Sea and the need of energy led most of the
countries in the region to improve their plans in terms of prospecting and start drilling for oil and
gas. [21]
Evolution of deep water drilling and opening of new oil fields will lead to an increase of marine
traffic and subsequently to an increase of oil pollution risk.

3.3.3. Environmental degradation - Climate change

IPCC third Assessment Report (2001) estimates the full warming range over 1990 to 2100 to be
1.4ºC (2.5ºF) to 5.8 ºC (10.5Cº) with the mid range estimate being 3ºC (5.4ºF).
Warming-up of the atmosphere is part of changes in climate and if it persists it will influence
water availability, flood hazards, agricultural productivity and natural areas. Natural and human
systems are exposed to these changes and it undermine sustainability, [15].

3.3.4. Environmental degradation - Human Health

Human health is intimately connected to the surrounding environment. It is usually difficult to
identify the cause-and – effect relationship between, say, noise, pollution and heart disease.
The IPCC special report on regional impact of climate change acknowledges that climate have
impact on vector-bone disease.
Most African countries are affected by environmental related diseases such as malaria, cholera,
meningitis, rift valley fever

3.4. Disaster Risk Management - general issues

Having said the above issues, and as a conclusion of the previous chapter, below can be seen
depicted in a figure, the link between the Environmental Risk Assessment and Disaster Risk
Management

Joint Operational Programme “BLACK SEA BASIN 2007-2013”

Contract: 2.2.1.73194.264 MIS-ETC 1459 “Creation of Interuniversity centre for risk management
and assessment for prevention of ecological and technological risks in the Black Sea”
IUCRISKMAN

Figure 3.11. The link between Environmental Risk Assessment and Disaster Risk Management

As from international literature on the issues, we can say that Disaster is:
1. A great or sudden misfortune
2. A complete failure
3. A person or an enterprise ending in a failure
4. An event that produces subversion or a sudden and violent change in order of things.

Also, a natural hazard is the necessary condition for the occurrence of a disaster and natural
hazards are triggering disaster events.

Natural disaster risk can be determined by three main factors: Hazards, elements at risk, and
vulnerability.

The elements which are threatened by a disaster in a given area are: population, communities, the
built environment, the natural environment, economic activities and services.

Disaster reduction and environmental management should become main priorities for any
country or manager.
Disaster reduction and environment have a lot in common.
Any disaster reduction practitioner should use the environmentalist experience
Disaster risk management approaches reflects a planned and structured actions to deal with
natural hazards risk before an event strikes, [15].
Disaster risk reduction: The conceptual framework of elements considered with the possibilities
to minimize vulnerabilities and disaster risks throughout a society, to avoid (prevention) or to
limit (mitigation and preparedness) the adverse impacts of hazards, within the broad context of
sustainable development, [23]

3.5. Disaster risk, development and the environment [24]

Disasters are not random and do not occur by accident. They are the convergence of hazards and
vulnerable conditions. Disasters not only reveal underlying social, economic, political and
environmental problems, but unfortunately contribute to worsening them. Such events pose

Joint Operational Programme “BLACK SEA BASIN 2007-2013”

Contract: 2.2.1.73194.264 MIS-ETC 1459 “Creation of Interuniversity centre for risk management
and assessment for prevention of ecological and technological risks in the Black Sea”
IUCRISKMAN
serious challenges to development, as they erode hard-earned gains in terms of political, social
and educational progress, as well as infrastructure and technological development.
The Millennium Declaration recognizes the risk to development stemming from disasters and
calls on the global community to “intensify our collective efforts to reduce the number and
effects of natural hazards and man-made disasters”
Several studies have recently highlighted the fact that investments in development are in
jeopardy unless precautionary action is taken toward reducing disaster risk
Yet few development organizations adopt a precautionary approach in the design and
management of projects and fewer still recognize the role of environmental management in
reducing disaster risk, [24]
That environment, development and disasters are connected is rarely disputed, but the multi-
dimensional role of environment has caused considerable confusion. While it is often recognized
that ecosystems are affected by disasters, it is forgotten that protecting ecosystem services can
both save lives and protect livelihoods. The following framework maps five pathways that
connect environment to disaster risk – and ultimately link environmental management to disaster
risk reduction, [24].

3.5.1. Natural hazards can be directly affected by social processes.

Natural hazards are physical processes that can be directly affected by social processes.
Events such as floods, droughts and earthquakes are designated as ‘hazardous’ because they
threaten human communities or the elements that we value. Hazards are expressions of the
earth’s physical processes. However, the myth that we have little influence over the occurrence
of tropical cyclones or rainfall shortages has been exposed: human activities have an impact on
the timing, magnitude and frequency of these physical processes. Human endeavors have
triggered global warming and thereby affected the frequency and intensity of extreme climate
events. On a local scale, deforestation and desertification have demonstrable effects on local
rainfall patterns and are complicit with the occurrence of drought.

Figure 3.12. The process of creation of new and recurring vulnerabilities, pre and post disaster

Joint Operational Programme “BLACK SEA BASIN 2007-2013”

Contract: 2.2.1.73194.264 MIS-ETC 1459 “Creation of Interuniversity centre for risk management
and assessment for prevention of ecological and technological risks in the Black Sea”
IUCRISKMAN

3.5.2. Healthy ecosystems often provide natural defenses

The UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment recognizes floods and fires make necessary and
valuable contributions to the environment and to human communities. It also draws attention to
the significant services that ecosystems provide to human communities in regulating hazards.
Ecological conditions not only modify the frequency and magnitude of hazard events, but also
affect natural barriers that can moderate the impacts of a disaster and protect communities.
Wetland ecosystems function as natural sponges that trap and slowly release surface water, rain,
snowmelt, groundwater and floodwaters. Deforestation is often blamed for worsening the effects
of flooding while mangroves, dunes and reefs create physical barriers between communities and
coastal hazards.

3.5.3. Degraded ecosystems reduce community resilience

The shift in focus from hazards to underlying vulnerabilities has provided disaster managers with
a richer understanding of the factors that erode the coping capacities of communities and social
systems. Environment plays a role in many of these factors.
There is a strong causal relationship between poverty, a degraded environment and higher
disaster risk.
People who live in marginal or environmentally degraded areas often struggle on a daily basis to
survive and are unable to cope with any additional stress factors. Limited livelihood alternatives,
competition over scarce resources, weak governance structures and lack of access to healthcare
and other services can compromise a community’s ability to respond to and recover from a
hazard event.
Environmental management and community based resource management can promote more
resilient communities through supporting sustainable livelihoods, conflict prevention and
strengthening cooperation for good governance.

3.5.4. Some environmental impacts require immediate attention

While the environment is generally able to recover from disaster events, environmental impacts
can result in serious risk to life and livelihoods if not addressed:
(1) Environmental emergencies, defined as the uncontrolled, unplanned or accidental release of a
substance into the environment; the risk of these types of emergencies arising from natural
hazards will continue to increase as urban and industrial areas are developed without awareness
of hazard risk: and
(2) Unplanned recovery processes that fail to take the state of ecosystems and ecosystem services
into account: recovery is a period of immediate development, and without proper consideration
of the environment, pre-existing vulnerabilities may be re-created or exacerbated. Even worse,
the new situation may pose new risks.

Joint Operational Programme “BLACK SEA BASIN 2007-2013”

Contract: 2.2.1.73194.264 MIS-ETC 1459 “Creation of Interuniversity centre for risk management
and assessment for prevention of ecological and technological risks in the Black Sea”
IUCRISKMAN

3.5.5. Environmental degradation is a hazard itself

Any discussion of environment and disaster would be incomplete without recognizing that
environmental degradation is in itself a hazard – a man-made hazard. The loss of biodiversity or
desertification, for instance, will continue to severely affect local communities and wider
economic systems. The risk and vulnerability perspective elaborated by the disaster reduction
community also provides a valuable framework for analyzing patterns of vulnerability to
environmental change and identifying opportunities for reducing that vulnerability.

3.6. Bow Tie Risk Analysis Diagrams, another way of assessing environmental
risk
Bow Tie analysis is a qualitative risk assessment methodology that provides a way to effectively
communicate complex risk scenarios in an easy to understand graphical format and shows the
relationships between the causes of unwanted events and their potential escalation to losses and
damage. Bow Ties can show the controls which prevent the Top Event from occurring in the first
place specific to each Threat and also the recovery measures which are in place to limit the
potential effects once the Top Event has been realized, specific to each credible Outcome.

Figure 3.13: Typical bow tie display [24]

The key benefits of adopting the Bow Tie (figure 3.13) approach to risk analysis are that it:
- Provides a powerful technique to comprehensively identify all of the risk events and
promotes an understanding of their relationships with each other;
- Uses an easy to understand diagrammatical format to communicate the cause and effect
relationships underlying more complex risk scenarios to a wide range of stakeholders;

Joint Operational Programme “BLACK SEA BASIN 2007-2013”

Contract: 2.2.1.73194.264 MIS-ETC 1459 “Creation of Interuniversity centre for risk management
and assessment for prevention of ecological and technological risks in the Black Sea”
IUCRISKMAN
- Helps to clearly demonstrate the level of control that exists over risks and therefore
provides a way to identify weaknesses, gaps and opportunities for further risk reduction;
- Enables verification of and linking to the relevant sections of the management system
that supports controls (incl. Safety Critical Elements and Safety Critical Activities);
- Increases workforce awareness of the risks associated with their facility and how these
are being managed; and
- Uses the knowledge and expertise of the workforce who best understand the true
operational state of controls and the Threats that exist.
The example of BowTie analysis diagram below focuses on environmental losses and damage
resulting from possible oil spill scenarios for exploration drilling.

Figure 3.14. Bow tie analysis diagram for oil spill into the sea

Figure 3.15. The left part of the Bow tie analysis diagram for oil spill into the sea: threats and threat control
measures

Joint Operational Programme “BLACK SEA BASIN 2007-2013”

Contract: 2.2.1.73194.264 MIS-ETC 1459 “Creation of Interuniversity centre for risk management
and assessment for prevention of ecological and technological risks in the Black Sea”
IUCRISKMAN

Figure 3.16. The right part of the Bow tie analysis diagram for oil spill into the sea: recovery measures and
consequences

Figure 3.17. Example of an integrated tool for Risk Management processes [26]
To reach the Bow Tie in figure 3.14, one can use a table –tool like the one provided in figure
3.17.

Joint Operational Programme “BLACK SEA BASIN 2007-2013”

Contract: 2.2.1.73194.264 MIS-ETC 1459 “Creation of Interuniversity centre for risk management
and assessment for prevention of ecological and technological risks in the Black Sea”
IUCRISKMAN
3.7. Risk treatment. Methods to treat environmental risks
As seen in course number one, Risk management, there are several ways of risk treatment (figure
3.18), when we talk about general issues. When it comes to environmental risk control, same
riskcontrol/ risk treatment ways may be applied, only adapted to environment.

Figure 3.18. Example of an integrated tool for Risk Management processes [26]
For instance, if one considers the risk of pollution into the waters of Black Sea, by a discharge of
coastal city sewage, in the following the four methods of negative risk controls will be discussed:
Avoid, Mitigate, Transfer, Accept.

Avoid: Redirect and treat the sewage waters, until they are clean (In risk avoidance, we
completely eliminate the possibility of the risk. An example might be to use a old and proven
process, instead of new and risky process. Risk can also be avoided by improved
communication, providing information, or acquiring an expert. If you can not avoid a risk
completely, you attempt to mitigate it.)
Mitigate: Let the sewage go into the sea, but with controls in place to make sure the levels of
pollutants is not above limits. (The purpose of risk mitigation is to reduce the size of the risk
exposure. This is done by either reducing the probability of the risk, or by reducing the impact)
Transfer: Make a private discharge and treatment station, give them funds and possibility to
turn different substances in agriculture clean fertilizers. (The risk transfer strategy aims to pass
ownership for a particular risk to a third party. It is also important to remember that risk transfer
almost always involves payment of a risk premium. A Cost and benefit analysis might be done,
to ensure that the cost of transferring risk is justified.)
Accept: The levels of pollution substances is not normally high, there is a small possibility to
have a dangerous increase once every 50 years. For the time being, because of the costs, the risk
may be accepted and application of a way to control it may be postponed. (Acceptance of a risk
means that the probability, and or the severity, of the risk is low enough, that we will do nothing
about the risk, unless it occurs. There are two kinds of acceptance, active and passive.
Acceptance is passive, when nothing at all is done to deal with the risk. Acceptance is active,
when we decide to make a contingency plan, for what to do, when the risk occurs.)

Joint Operational Programme “BLACK SEA BASIN 2007-2013”

Contract: 2.2.1.73194.264 MIS-ETC 1459 “Creation of Interuniversity centre for risk management
and assessment for prevention of ecological and technological risks in the Black Sea”
IUCRISKMAN
References:
[1] Anne V. Whyte, Ian Burton – Environmental risk assessment - SCOPE 15. Institute for Environmental Studies,
University of Toronto, Canada, 1990. ISBN 0 471 27701 0
[2] Environmental risk assessment: an approach for assessing and reporting environmental conditions- Habitat
branch, technical bulletin 1, Ministry of Environment, lands and parks, July 2000, ISBN 0-7726-4327-X.
[3] Popa Constantin, Panaitescu Fanel –Viorel, Voicu Ionuț - Short introduction concerning the Black Sea oil
pollution risk - Maritime University, Constanta, Romania – Article presented at the first IUCRISKMAN seminar
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder
[5] Woodward, David G. (2002) Is the natural environment a stakeholder? Of course it is (no matter what the
Utilitarians might say)! In, Critical Perspectives on Accounting Conference, New York, USA, 25 - 27 Apr 2002.
New York, USA, Baruch College: City University of New York
[6] Christo Coetzee, Dewald van Niekerk -Tracking the evolution of the disaster management cycle: A general
system theory approach – article on http://www.jamba.org.za
[7] http://www.oiledwildlife.eu
[8]http://www.theepochtimes.com/news
[9] http://en.for-ua.com
[10] http://www.spiegel.de
[11] European Parliament resolution of 13 December 2007 on the shipping disasters in the Kerch Strait in the Black
Sea and the subsequent oil pollution
[12] State of Environment Report 2001 - 2006/7 - Temel Oguz, Institute of Marine Sciences, Middle East Technical
University, Erdemli, Turkey
[13] www.blacksea-commission.org/_publSOE2009.asp
[14] A 2020 Vision for the Black Sea Region - a Report by the Commission on the Black Sea, May, 2010
[15] Avelino I. Mondlane, Dr. Mohmoud Hassanien - Environmental risk assessment: An approach toward
environmental hazard and disaster risk management 30th September 02nd October 2003 Environment 2003
Conference Cairo EGYPT
[16] European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), youtube channel (http://www.youtube.com)
[17] Popa Constantin, Panaitescu Fanel –Viorel, Voicu Ionuț - Analysis of the Black Sea oil pollution, considering
offshore drilling activities - Maritime University, Constanta, Romania – Article presented at the first IUCRISKMAN
seminar
[18] Danube pollution reduction programme - Causes and effects of eutrophication in the Black Sea - Summary
report - prepared by Joint Ad-hoc Technical Working Group ICPDR – ICPBS, JUNE 1999
[19] http://www.offshore-mag.com
[20] http://ro.wikipedia.org
[21] A 2020 Vision for the Black Sea Region - a Report by the Commission on the Black Sea, May, 2010
[22] UNISDR Terminology on Disaster Risk Reduction (2008)
[23] Environment and Vulnerability, Emerging perspectives – Report Prepared on behalf of the UN ISDR
Environment and Disaster Working Group
[24] James Phipps - The application of THESIS Bow-Ties in marine safety management – Tanker Operator,
September 2006, pag 35-36
[25] Steve Saunders - North Falkland Basin Oil Spill Contingency Plan - Argos Resources Limited, October 2011
[26] ISO 31000 – Risk Management Standard Ottawa February 27, 2008 - John Shortreed, Director, Institute for
Risk Research University of Waterloo, Powerpoint presentation.

Joint Operational Programme “BLACK SEA BASIN 2007-2013”

Contract: 2.2.1.73194.264 MIS-ETC 1459 “Creation of Interuniversity centre for risk management
and assessment for prevention of ecological and technological risks in the Black Sea”
IUCRISKMAN
Table of contents:
3. ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT
3.1. Presentation of the context 1
2.1.1. Environmental Risks 1
2.1.2. Characteristics of environmental risks: 1
2.1.3. Which Environmental Risks Are Important? 2
2.1.4. Why we need environmental risk management 5
3.2. Risk assessment applied to environmental issues 7
3.2.1. Case analysis – oil pollution event in the Black Sea [3] 7
3.2.2. The management of environmental risks 11
3.2.2.1. Environmental risk identification 11
3.2.2.2. Environmental risk analysis 11
3.2.2.3. Environmental risk evaluation 11
3.2.2.4. Environmental risk assessment, another way of dealing the process 12
3.3. The link between Environmental Risk Assessment and Disaster Risk Management 13
3.3.1. Environmental Hazards and risk Assessment 13
3.3.2. Environmental degradation – Pollution data on Black Sea [17] 14
3.3.3. Environmental degradation - Climate change 15
3.3.4. Environmental degradation - Human Health 15
3.4. Disaster Risk Management - general issues 15
3.5. Disaster risk, development and the environment [24] 16
3.5.1. Natural hazards can be directly affected by social processes. 17
3.5.2. Healthy ecosystems often provide natural defenses 18
3.5.3. Degraded ecosystems reduce community resilience 18
3.5.4. Some environmental impacts require immediate attention 18
3.5.5. Environmental degradation is a hazard itself 18
3.4. Bow Tie Risk Analysis Diagrams, another way of assessing environmental risk 19
3.5. Risk treatment. Methods to treat environmental risks

Joint Operational Programme “BLACK SEA BASIN 2007-2013”

Contract: 2.2.1.73194.264 MIS-ETC 1459 “Creation of Interuniversity centre for risk management
and assessment for prevention of ecological and technological risks in the Black Sea”
IUCRISKMAN
Cuprins:
3. MANAGEMENTUL RISCULUI DE MEDIU
3.1. Prezentarea contextului 1
3.1.1. Riscurile de mediu 1
3.1.2. Caracteristicile riscurilor de mediu: 1
3.1.3. Care dintre Riscurile de mediu sunt importante? 2
3.1.4. De ce avem nevoie de managementul riscurilor de mediu? 5
3.2. Analiza de risc asociată problemelor de mediu 7
3.2.1. Studiu de caz – eveniment de poluare a mediului in Marea Neagra 7
3.2.2. Managemetul riscurilor de mediu 11
3.2.2.1. Identificarea riscului de mediu 11
3.2.2.2. Analiza riscurilor de mediu 11
3.2.2.3. Evaluarea riscurilor de mediu 11
3.2.2.4. O altă metodă de desfășurare a analizei riscurilor de mediu 12
3.3. Legătura dintre Analiza Riscurilor de Mediu și managementul Riscului de Dezastre 13
3.3.1. Pericolele/ hazardele asupra mediului și Analiza de risc 13
3.3.2. Degradarea mediului – Informații cu privire la poluarea Mării Negre 14
3.3.3. Degradarea mediului – Schimbările climatice 15
3.3.4. Degradarea mediului – Sănatatea umană 15
3.4. Managementul Riscului de dezastre – considerații generale 15
3.5. Riscul de dezastre, dezvoltarea și mediul 16
3.5.1. Pericolele/ Hazardele natural pot fi direct afectate de procesele sociale 17
3.5.2. Ecosistemele sănătoase deseori se apără singure prin mijloace naturale 18
3.5.3. Ecosistemele degradate reduc reziliența 18
3.5.4. Unele efecte asupra mediului necesită atenție imediată 18
3.5.5. Degradarea mediului este in sine un hazard (pericol) 18
3.4. Diagramele Bow Tie (Papion), un alt mod de analiză a riscurilor asupra mediului 19
3.5. Tratamentul riscului. Metode de a trata riscul de mediu.

Joint Operational Programme “BLACK SEA BASIN 2007-2013”

Contract: 2.2.1.73194.264 MIS-ETC 1459 “Creation of Interuniversity centre for risk management
and assessment for prevention of ecological and technological risks in the Black Sea”