第3部分灾害风险驱动因素和连锁影响

关键信息

要增强农业粮食体系的韧性，关键在于了解各种系统性灾害风险驱动因素，如气候变化、疫情、地方流行病和武装冲突及其对农业生产、价值链和粮食安全造成的连锁影响。
可通过归因分析来展示气候变化在多大程度上增加了产量异常问题的发生，从而减少了农业产量。尽管该项分析有着高度不确定性，但就四个国家作物（阿根廷的大豆、哈萨克斯坦和摩洛哥的小麦以及南非的玉米）的损失和损害估算显示，对产量的负面影响大多介于2%至10%之间。
2019冠状病毒病相关紧急情况等疫情可能对农业产生重大影响。从粮食不安全国家获得的数据显示，2019冠状病毒病疫情在投入品获取和市场准入方面给农民带来了严重问题，例如难以获得机械化设备、劳动力短缺等，某些情况下种植面积最多减少了50%。
2019-2020年非洲猪瘟的传播在全球范围内产生了广泛负面影响，造成了巨大的社会经济损失。2020年，中国的猪肉产量与2017年相比下降了26%，美国、巴西、墨西哥、加拿大和菲律宾等国也出现了对产量和价格的连锁反应。
最近在索马里、叙利亚和乌克兰进行的评估表明，武装冲突会对农业和粮食安全产生重大影响。尽管冲突背景下的灾后需求评估有助于估计损失和损害，但应进一步完善这一框架，以提供更好的信息，促进在武装冲突期间减少风险，同时在冲突背景下更系统地开展灾后需求评估。

引用格式要求：
粮农组织。2024。《2023年灾害对农业和粮食安全的影响：通过投资提高韧性以避免和减少损失》。罗马。. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc7900zh

本信息产品中使用的名称和介绍的材料，并不意味着联合国粮食及农业组织（粮农组织）对任何国家、领地、城市、地区或其当局的法律或发展状况，或对其国界或边界的划分表示任何意见。地图上的虚线表示可能尚未完全达成一致的大致边界线。提及具体的公司或厂商产品，无论是否含有专利，并不意味着这些公司或产品得到粮农组织的认可或推荐，优于未提及的其它类似公司或产品。

ISBN 978-92-5-138677-4
©粮农组织，2024年
copyright
保留部分权利。本作品根据知识共享署名4.0国际公共许可（CC BY 4.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.zh-hans)公开。

根据该许可条款，本作品可被复制、再次传播和改编，但必须恰当引用。使用本作品时不应暗示粮农组织认可任何具体的组织、产品或服务。不允许使用粮农组织标识。如翻译本作品，必须包含所要求的引用和下述免责声明：“本译文并非由联合国粮食及农业组织（粮农组织）生成。粮农组织不对本译文的内容或准确性负责。原英文版本应为权威版本。”

本许可产生或与之相关的争议和争端均应友好解决。如果无法就争端问题或仲裁之外的解决方式达成协议，相关各方应有权要求根据联合国国际贸易法委员会（贸法委）的仲裁规定进行仲裁。根据上述规定作出的仲裁裁决为任何争议的最终裁决，对各方具有约束力。

第三方材料和照片。 欲再利用本作品中属于第三方的材料（如表格、图形或图片）的用户，需自行判断再利用是否需要许可，并自行向版权持有者申请许可。对任何第三方所有的材料侵权而导致的索赔风险完全由用户承担。本作品中可能包含的照片不属于上文公共许可范围。所有照片的使用征询应递交至：photo-library@fao.org。

销售、权利和授权。 粮农组织信息产品可在粮农组织网站（https://www.fao.org/publications/zh）获得，也可通过 publicationssales@fao.org购买。商业性使用的申请应递交至：www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request。关于权利和授权的征询应递交至： copyright@fao.org。

荷兰王国。 平均有1.2万公顷的棉花、玉米和核桃等作物受到降雨和河水泛滥的影响。

¹ General Assembly of the United Nations. 2017. Report of the open-ended intergovernmental expert working group on indicators and terminology relating to disaster risk reduction. Seventy-first session Agenda item 19 (c) Sustainable development: disaster risk reduction. New York, United Nations. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/852089?ln=en
² EM-DAT. 2023. Disasters in numbers 2022. In: CRED. Brussels. https://cred.be/sites/default/files/2022_EMDAT_report.pdf
³ UNDRR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction) & ISC (International Science Council). 2020. Hazard Definition & Classification Review. Technical Report. Geneva, UNDRR and Paris, ISC. www.preventionweb.net/media/47681/download?startDownload=true
⁴ General Assembly of the United Nations. 2016. Report of the open-ended intergovernmental expert working group on indicators and terminology relating to disaster risk reduction. Seventy-first session Agenda item 19 (c) Sustainable development: disaster risk reduction. New York, United Nations. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/852089?ln=fr
⁵ IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2022. Climate Change 2022 Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Working Group II Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama, eds. pp. 3056. Cambridge, UK and New York, USA, Cambridge University Press. doi.org.10.1017/9781009325844
⁶ Conforti, P., Markova, G. & Tochkov, D. 2020. FAO’s Methodology for Damage and Loss Assessment in Agriculture. FAO Statistics Division Working Paper Series/19–17. Rome, FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/ca6990en/CA6990EN.pdf.
⁷ Holleman, C., Rembold, F., Crespo, O. & Conti, V. 2020. The impact of climate variability and extremes on agriculture and food security – An analysis of the evidence and case studies. Background paper for The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2018. FAO Agricultural Development Economics Technical Study No. 4. Rome, FAO. doi.org/10.4060/cb2415en
⁸ World Bank. 2022. Pakistan: Flood Damages and Economic Losses Over USD 30 billion and Reconstruction Needs Over USD 16 billion – New Assessment. In: The World Bank. Washington, DC. [Cited May 2023]. www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/10/28/pakistan-flood-damages-and-economic-losses-over-usd-30-billion-and-reconstruction-needs-over-usd-16-billion-new-assessme
⁹ NCEI (National Centers for Environmental Information). 2020. U.S. Billion-dollar Weather and Climate Disasters, 1980–present (NCEI Accession 0209268). In: NOAA. Washington, DC. [Cited 13 May 2023]. doi.org/10.25921/stkw-7w73
¹⁰ IOM (International Organization for Migration). 2021. Corredor seco Honduras 2021: Línea base vulnerabilidad y sequía. In: IOM. Grand-Saconnex, Switzerland. [Cited 5 May 2022]. https://dtm.iom.int/reports/l%C3%ADnea-base-vulnerabilidad-y-sequ%C3%ADa-corredor-seco-honduras-noviembre-2020
¹¹ WFP (World Food Programme). 2021. Charting a New Regional Course of Action: The Complex Motivations and Costs of Central American Migration. Rome. www.wfp.org/publications/complex-motivations-and-costs-central-american-migration
¹² UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). 2021. Cambio climático, otro factor que provoca desplazamiento en Honduras. In: UNHCR. Geneva. [Cited November 2021]. www.acnur.org/noticias/stories/cambio-climatico-otro-factor-que-provoca-desplazamiento-en-honduras
¹³ Netherer, S., Panassiti, B., Pennerstorfer, J. & Matthews, B. 2019. Acute Drought Is an Important Driver of Bark Beetle Infestation in Austrian Norway Spruce Stands. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 2: 39. doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2019.00039
¹⁴ Valadez, M. & de la Lama, G.M. 2023. Heat Stress in Cattle. Animal Behaviour and Welfare Cases. [Cited 31 March 2023]. doi.org/10.1079/abwcases.2023.0005
¹⁵ Thornton, P., Nelson, G., Mayberry, D. & Herrero, M. 2022. Impacts of heat stress on global cattle production during the 21st century: a modelling study. The Lancet Planetary Health, 6(3): e192–e201. doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00002-X
¹⁶ Peng, S., Huang, J., Sheehy, J.E., Laza, R.C., Visperas, R.M., Zhong, X., Centeno, G.S., Khush, G.S. & Cassman, K.G. 2004. Rice yields decline with higher night temperature from global warming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(27): 9971–9975. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0403720101
¹⁷ Schlenker, W. & Roberts, M.J. 2009. Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop yields under climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37): 15594–15598. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0906865106
¹⁸ Fernie, E., Tan, D.K.Y., Liu, S.Y., Ullah, N. & Khoddami, A. 2022. Post-Anthesis Heat Influences Grain Yield, Physical and Nutritional Quality in Wheat: A Review. Agriculture, 12(6): 886. doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12060886
¹⁹ Bishop, J., Bell, T., Huang, C. & Ward, M. 2021. Fire on the Farm: Assessing the impacts of the 2019–2020 bushfires on food and agricultures in Australia. World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF). https://assets.wwf.org.au/image/upload/v1/website-media/resources/WWF_Report-Fire_on_the_Farm_converted
²⁰ Banca d’Italia. 2022. Gli effetti del cambiamento climatico sull’economia italiana. Questioni di Economia e Finanza. No. 728. Rome. www.bancaditalia.it/pubblicazioni/qef/2022-0728/QEF_728_22.pdf
²¹ Brás, T.A., Seixas, J., Carvalhais, N. & Jägermeyr, J. 2021. Severity of drought and heatwave crop losses tripled over the last five decades in Europe. Environmental Research Letters, 16(6): 065012. doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abf004
²² IFRC (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies). 2022. Mozambique: Tropical Cyclones Idai and Kenneth – Emergency Appeal n° MDRMZ014, Final Report. In: ReliefWeb. [Cited July 2023]. https://reliefweb.int/report/mozambique/mozambique-tropical-cyclones-idai-and-kenneth-emergency-appeal-ndeg-mdrmz014-final-report
²³ EU Science Hub. 2023. The EU 2022 wildfire season was the second worst on record. In: European Commission. [Cited 10 March 2023]. https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news-and-updates/eu-2022-wildfire-season-was-second-worst-record-2023-05-02_en
²⁴ You, S., Liu, T., Zhang, M., Zhao, X., Dong, Y., Wu, B., Wang, Y., Li, J., Wei, X. & Shi, B. 2021. African swine fever outbreaks in China led to gross domestic product and economic losses. Nature Food, 2021(10): 802–808. doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00362-1
²⁵ WFP (World Food Programme). 2022. Pakistan Country Brief, October 2022. Rome. https://reliefweb.int/report/pakistan/wfp-pakistan-country-brief-october-2022
²⁶ FAO. 2023. Türkiye earthquakes: initial assessment indicates losses of more than 20 percent in food production. In: FAO. Rome. [Cited 10 March 2023]. www.fao.org/newsroom/detail/turkiye-earthquakes-initial-assessment-indicates-losses-of-more-than-20-percent-in-food-production/en
²⁷ Asian Development Bank. 2021. Asian Development Outlook 2021 Update: Transforming Agriculture in Asia. Manila. www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/726556/ado2021-update.pdf
²⁸ African Development Bank Group. 2016. Feed Africa: Strategy for Agricultural Transformation in Africa. 2016–2025. Abidjan. www.afdb.org/en/documents/document/feed-africa-strategy-for-agricultural-transformation-in-africa-2016-2025-89888
²⁹ FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO. 2023. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2023: Urbanization, agrifood systems transformations and healthy diets across the rural-urban continuum. Rome, FAO. doi.org/10.4060/cc3017en
³⁰ Kunbhar, Z. 2022. Floods after drought devastate Sindh’s Agriculture. In: The Third Pole. [Cited 26 August 2022]. www.thethirdpole.net/en/food/floods-after-drought-devastate-sindh-agriculture/
³¹ Government of Pakistan. 2022. Pakistan Meteorological Department: Drought Alert-1 (16 May 2022). In: Reliefweb. [Cited May 2023]. https://reliefweb.int/report/pakistan/pakistan-meteorological-department-drought-alert-i-16-may-2022
³² Mushtaq, F., Ali, M., Ghosh, A., Jalal, R., Asghar, A., Dadhich, G., Chiozza, F. et al. 2022. A rapid geospatial flood impact assessment in Pakistan. Rome, FAO. https://www.fao.org/geospatial/resources/detail/en/c/1629466/
³³ Government of Pakistan. 2022. Pakistan Floods 2022: Post-Disaster Needs Assessment. In: Reliefweb. [Cited May 2023]. https://reliefweb.int/report/pakistan/pakistan-floods-2022-post-disaster-needs-assessment
³⁴ Kugelman, M. 2022. Foreign Policy, Pakistan’s Flood Crisis Could Become a Food Crisis. Foreign Policy. 8 September 2022. https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/09/08/pakistan-floods-food-security-crisis/
³⁵ IRC (International Rescue Committee). 2023. Six months on since the Pakistan floods, 8.6 million people are facing hunger: IRC calls for world leaders to address the imbalance of climate change. In: IRC. [Cited May 2023]. www.rescue.org/press-release/six-months-pakistan-floods-86-million-people-are-facing-hunger-irc-calls-world
³⁶ IPC (Integrated Food Security Phase Classification). 2022. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan: IPC Acute Food Insecurity Analysis July – December 2022. In: Reliefweb. [Cited May 2023]. https://reliefweb.int/report/pakistan/khyber-pakhtunkhwa-pakistan-ipc-acute-food-insecurity-analysis-july-december-2022-published-december-30-2022
³⁷ IDMC (Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre). 2023. 2023 Global Report on Internal Displacement. Geneva, IDMC. www.internal-displacement.org/global-report/grid2023/
³⁸ IFRC (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies). 2022. Central America: Hurricanes Eta & Iota – Final Report (MDR43007). IFRC. https://reliefweb.int/report/guatemala/central-america-hurricanes-eta-iota-final-report-mdr43007
³⁹ Ruiz Soto, A.G., Bottone, R., Waters, J., Williams, S., Louie, A. & Wang, Y. 2021. Charting a New Regional Course of Action: The Complex Motivations and Costs of Central American Migration. Migration Policy Institute. www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/mpi-wfp-mit_migration-motivations-costs_final.pdf
⁴⁰ Rubi, M. & Gaynor, T. 2021. In Honduras, climate change is one more factor sparking displacement. In: UNHCR. Geneva. [Cited March 2023]. https://www.unhcr.org/news/stories/honduras-climate-change-one-more-factor-sparking-displacement
⁴¹ ILO. 2023. Employment by sex and age (thousands) – Annual. In: ILOSTAT. Geneva. [Cited March 2023]. www.ilo.org/shinyapps/bulkexplorer53/?lang=en&segment=indicator&id=EMP_TEMP_SEX_AGE_NB_A
⁴² Botreau, H. & Cohen, M.J. 2019. Gender inequalities and food insecurity: Ten years after the food price crisis, why are women farmers still food-insecure? Oxfam. http://hdl.handle.net/10546/620841
⁴³ FAO. 2021. The impact of disasters and crises on agriculture and food security: 2021. Rome. doi.org/10.4060/cb3673en
⁴⁴ Government of Pakistan. 2023. Introduction. In: Pakistan Bureau of Statistics. [Cited March 2023]. www.pbs.gov.pk/content/agriculture-statistics#:~:text=It%20contributes%20about%2024%20percent,source%20of%20foreign%20exchange%20earnings
⁴⁵ ILO. 2023. Employment by sex and age (thousands) – Annual. In: ILOSTAT. Geneva. [Cited March 2023]. www.ilo.org/shinyapps/bulkexplorer53/?lang=en&segment=indicator&id=EMP_TEMP_SEX_AGE_NB_A
⁴⁶ Chowdhury, J.R., Parida, Y. & Agarwal, P. 2022. How flood affects rural employment in India: A gender analysis. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 73: 102881. doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.102881
⁴⁷ UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2023. Multidimensional Vulnerability Index. In: UNDP. New York. [Cited July 2023]. https://data.undp.org/sids/app/vulnerability/mvi-index/spider
⁴⁸ Maino, R. & Emrullahu, D. 2022. Climate Change in sub-Saharan Africa Fragile States: Evidence from Panel Estimations. IMF Working Papers, 2022(054): 1. doi.org/10.5089/9798400204869.001
⁴⁹ Molua, E.L. 2009. An empirical assessment of the impact of climate change on smallholder agriculture in Cameroon. Global and Planetary Change, 67(3–4): 205–208. doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2009.02.006
⁵⁰ Mazhin, SA., Farrokhi, M., Noroozi, M., Roudini, J., Hosseini, S.A., Motlagh, M.E., Kolivand, P. & Khankeh, H. Worldwide disaster loss and damage databases: A systematic review. J Educ Health Promot. 2021 Sep 30;10:329. doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_1525_20. PMID: 34761015; PMCID: PMC8552254 https://doi.org/10.4103%2Fjehp.jehp_1525_20
⁵¹ UNDRR. 2016. Report of the open-ended intergovernmental expert working group on indicators and terminology relating to disaster risk reduction. UNDRR. www.preventionweb.net/publication/report-open-ended-intergovernmental-expert-working-group-indicators-and-terminology
⁵² Abbade, E.B. 2015. Environmental impacts of food supply and obesogenic severity worldwide. British Food Journal, 117(12): 2863–2879. doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2014-0404
⁵³ WMO (World Meteorological Organization). 2023. Economic costs of weather-related disasters soars but early warnings save lives. In: WMO. Geneva. March 2023. https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/economic-costs-of-weather-related-disasters-soars-early-warnings-save-lives
⁵⁴ Jones, R.L., Guha-Sapir, D. & Tubeuf, S. 2022. Human and economic impacts of natural disasters: can we trust the global data? Scientific Data, 9(1): 572. doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01667-x
⁵⁵ CRED (Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters) & UNDRR. 2018. Economic Losses, Poverty & Disasters 1998-2017. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/economic-losses-poverty-disasters-1998-2017
⁵⁶ UNDRR. 2022. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction – Our World at Risk: Transforming Governance for a Resilient Future. Geneva. www.undrr.org/GAR2022
⁵⁷ FAO. 2018. The impact of disasters and crises on agriculture and food security 2017. Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/I8656EN/i8656en.pdf
⁵⁸ World Bank & FAO. 2018. Rebuilding Resilient and Sustainable Agriculture in Somalia (Overview). Somalia Country Economic Memorandum Volume 1. Rome, FAO. https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en?details=I8842EN%2f
⁵⁹ IPPC Secretariat. 2021. Scientific review of the impact of climate change on plant pests – A global challenge to prevent and mitigate plant pest risks in agriculture, forestry and ecosystems. FAO on behalf of the IPPC Secretariat. doi.org/10.4060/cb4769en
⁶⁰ Goergen, G., Kumar, P.L., Sankung, S.B., Togola, A. & Tamò, M. 2016. First Report of Outbreaks of the Fall Armyworm Spodoptera frugiperda (J E Smith) (Lepidoptera, Noctuidae), a New Alien Invasive Pest in West and Central Africa. PLOS ONE, 11(10): e0165632. doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165632
⁶¹ Kenis, M., Benelli, G., Biondi, A., Calatayud, P.-A., Day, R., Desneux, N., Harrison, R.D. et al. 2022. Invasiveness, biology, ecology, and management of the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda. Entomologia Generalis, 102198. doi.org/10.1127/entomologia/2022/1659
⁶² Montezano, D.G., Specht, A., Sosa-Gómez, D.R., Roque-Specht, V.F., Sousa-Silva, J.C., Paula-Moraes, S.V., Peterson, J.A. & Hunt, T.E. 2018. Host Plants of Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in the Americas. African Entomology, 26(2): 286–300. https://doi.org/10.4001/003.026.0286
⁶³ Day, R., Abrahams, P., Bateman, M., Beale, T., Clottey, V., Cock, M., Colmenarez, Y. et al. 2017. Fall Armyworm: Impacts and Implications for Africa. Outlooks on Pest Management, 28(5): 196–201. doi.org/10.1564/v28_oct_02
⁶⁴ Abrahams, P., Bateman, M., Beale, T., Clottey, V., Cock, M., Colemenarez, Y., Corniani, N. et al. 2017. Fall armyworm: impacts and implications for Africa. Evidence Note. 2. CABI. www.invasive-species.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/FAW-Evidence-Note-October-2018.pdf
⁶⁵ Chimweta, M., Nyakudya, I.W., Jimu, L. & Bray Mashingaidze, A. 2020. Fall armyworm [Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith)] damage in maize: management options for flood-recession cropping smallholder farmers. International Journal of Pest Management, 66(2): 142–154. doi.org/10.1080/09670874.2019.1577514
⁶⁶ Baudron, F., Zaman-Allah, M.A., Chaipa, I., Chari, N. & Chinwada, P. 2019. Understanding the factors influencing fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda J.E. Smith) damage in African smallholder maize fields and quantifying its impact on yield. A case study in Eastern Zimbabwe. Crop Protection, 120: 141–150. doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2019.01.028
⁶⁷ Overton, K., Maino, J.L., Day, R., Umina, P.A., Bett, B., Carnovale, D., Ekesi, S., Meagher, R. & Reynolds, O.L. 2021. Global crop impacts, yield losses and action thresholds for fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda): A review. Crop Protection, 145: 105641. doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2021.105641
⁶⁸ Davis, F.M., Ng, S.S. & Williams, W.P. 1992. Visual rating scales for screening whorl-stage corn for resistance to fall armyworm. Technical bulletin – Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station (USA), 186:9.
⁶⁹ Murray, D.A.H., Clarke, M.B. & Ronning, D.A. 2013. The Current and Potential Costs of Invertebrate Pests in Grain Crops. Grains Research and Development Corporation. https://grdc.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0026/159281/grdcreportcurrentpotentialcostsinvertebratepests-feb2013pdf.pdf-QR-code-editpdf.pdf
⁷⁰ Zacarias, D.A. 2020. Global bioclimatic suitability for the fall armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), and potential co-occurrence with major host crops under climate change scenarios. Climatic Change, 161(4): 555–566. doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02722-5
⁷¹ Ramasamy, M., Das, B. & Ramesh, R. 2022. Predicting climate change impacts on potential worldwide distribution of fall armyworm based on CMIP6 projections. Journal of Pest Science, 95(2): 841–854. doi.org/10.1007/s10340-021-01411-1
⁷² Tambo, J.A., Kansiime, M.K., Rwomushana, I., Mugambi, I., Nunda, W., Mloza Banda, C., Nyamutukwa, S., Makale, F. & Day, R. 2021. Impact of fall armyworm invasion on household income and food security in Zimbabwe. Food and Energy Security, 10(2): 299–312. doi.org/10.1002/fes3.281
⁷³ Deshmukh, S., Pavithra, H.B., Kalleshwaraswamy, C.M., Shivanna, B.K., Maruthi, M.S. & Mota-Sanchez, D. 2020. Field Efficacy of Insecticides for Management of Invasive Fall Armyworm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J.E. Smith) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) on Maize in India. Florida Entomologist, 103(2): 221–227. doi.org/10.1653/024.103.0211
⁷⁴ Grande, F., Ueda, Y., Masangwi, S., Moltedo, A., Brivio, R., Selek, A., Vannuccini, S., Tayyib, S. & Holmes, B. 2023. Global Nutrient Conversion Table for FAO Supply Utilization Accounts. Rome, FAO.
⁷⁵ Institute of Medicine. 1997. Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride. Washington, DC., The National Academies Press. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/5776/dietary-reference-intakes-for-calcium-phosphorus-magnesium-vitamin-d-and-fluoride
⁷⁶ Institute of Medicine. 1998. Dietary Reference Intakes for Thiamin, Riboflavin, Niacin, Vitamin B6, Folate, Vitamin B12, Pantothenic Acid, Biotin, and Choline. Washington, DC., The National Academies Press. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/6015/dietary-reference-intakes-for-thiamin-riboflavin-niacin-vitamin-b6-folate-vitamin-b12-pantothenic-acid-biotin-and-choline
⁷⁷ Institute of Medicine. 2000. Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin C, Vitamin E, Selenium, and Carotenoids. Washington, DC., The National Academies Press. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/9810/dietary-reference-intakes-for-vitamin-c-vitamin-e-selenium-and-carotenoids
⁷⁸ Institute of Medicine. 2001. Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin A, Vitamin K, Arsenic, Boron, Chromium, Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, Silicon, Vanadium, and Zinc. Washington, DC., The National Academies Press. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/10026/dietary-reference-intakes-for-vitamin-a-vitamin-k-arsenic-boron-chromium-copper-iodine-iron-manganese-molybdenum-nickel-silicon-vanadium-and-zinc
⁷⁹ FAO. 2020. Global Forest Resources Assessment: 2020 Key Findings. Rome. www.fao.org/3/CA8753EN/CA8753EN.pdf
⁸⁰ Bond, W.J., Woodward, F.I. & Midgley, G.F. 2005. The global distribution of ecosystems in a world without fire. New Phytologist, 165(2): 525–538. doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01252.x
⁸¹ Bowman, D.M.J.S., Balch, J.K., Artaxo, P., Bond, W.J., Carlson, J.M., Cochrane, M.A., D’Antonio, C.M. et al. 2009. Fire in the Earth System. Science, 324(5926): 481–484. doi.org/10.1126/science.1163886
⁸² FAO. 2018. The State of the World’s Forests 2018: Forest pathways to sustainable development. Rome. www.fao.org/publications/card/fr/c/I9535EN
⁸³ FAO & UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2020. The State of the World’s Forests 2020: Forests, biodiversity and people. Rome, FAO and Nairobi, UNEP. doi.org/10.4060/ca8642en
⁸⁴ Doerr, S.H. & Santín, C. 2016. Global trends in wildfire and its impacts: perceptions versus realities in a changing world. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1696): 20150345. doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0345
⁸⁵ Giglio, L., Randerson, J.T., Van Der Werf, G.R., Kasibhatla, P.S., Collatz, G.J., Morton, D.C. & DeFries, R.S. 2010. Assessing variability and long-term trends in burned area by merging multiple satellite fire products. Biogeosciences, 7(3): 1171–1186. doi.org/10.5194/bg-7-1171-2010
⁸⁶ van Lierop, P., Lindquist, E., Sathyapala, S. & Franceschini, G. 2015. Global forest area disturbance from fire, insect pests, diseases and severe weather events. Forest Ecology and Management, 352: 78–88. doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2015.06.010
⁸⁷ GWIS (Global Wildfire Information System). 2022. Country Profile. In: GWIS. [Cited January 2023]. https://gwis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/apps/country.profile
⁸⁸ Chuvieco, E., Roteta, E., Sali, M., Stroppiana, D., Boettcher, M., Kirches, G., Storm, T. et al. 2022. Building a small fire database for Sub-Saharan Africa from Sentinel-2 high-resolution images. Science of The Total Environment, 845: 157139. doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157139
⁸⁹ UNEP & GRID-Arendal. 2022. Spreading like Wildfire: The Rising Threat of Extraordinary Landscape Fires. www.unep.org/resources/report/spreading-wildfire-rising-threat-extraordinary-landscape-fires
⁹⁰ IPCC. 2019. Special Report: Climate Change and Land. Special Report. Geneva. www.ipcc.ch/srccl/
⁹¹ Flannigan, M.D., Krawchuk, M.A., De Groot, W.J., Wotton, B.M. & Gowman, L.M. 2009. Implications of changing climate for global wildland fire. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 18(5): 483. doi.org/10.1071/WF08187
⁹² Boschetti, L., Sparks, A., Roy, D.P., Giglio, L. & San-Miguel-Ayanz, J. 2020. GWIS national and sub-national fire activity data from the NASA MODIS Collection 6 Burned Area Product in support of policy making, carbon inventories and natural resource management, developed under NASA Applied Sciences grant #80NSSC18K0400. Using the NASA Polar Orbiting Fire Product Record to Enhance and Expand the Global Wildfire Information System (GWIS). https://gwis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/apps/country.profile/downloads
⁹³ European Commission, Joint Research Centre. 2022. Pan-European wildfire risk assessment. EU Publications. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2760/9429
⁹⁴ Bowman, D.M.J.S., Williamson, G.J., Abatzoglou, J.T., Kolden, C.A., Cochrane, M.A. & Smith, A.M.S. 2017. Human exposure and sensitivity to globally extreme wildfire events. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 1(3): 1–6. doi.org/10.1038/s41559-016-0058
⁹⁵ FAO. 2019. FAO Strategy on Forest Fire Management. Rome. www.fao.org/forestry/49772-0e64392e1b16124967bab33b6cbd84417.pdf
⁹⁶ Haubrock, P.J., Turbelin, A.J., Cuthbert, R.N., Novoa, A., Taylor, N.G., Angulo, E., Ballesteros-Mejia, L. et al. 2021. Economic costs of invasive alien species across Europe. NeoBiota, 67: 153–190. doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.67.58196
⁹⁷ USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) Forest Service. 2009. Major Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the United States: 2009 Update. USDA Forest Service FS-952. www.fs.usda.gov/foresthealth/publications/ConditionsReport_2009.pdf
⁹⁸ Pimentel, D., Lach, L., Zuniga, R. & Morrison, D. 2000. Environmental and Economic Costs of Nonindigenous Species in the United States. BioScience, 50(1): 53. [0053:EAECON]2.3.CO;2. https://entnemdept.ufl.edu/Hodges/als4161/Secure/PDF%20Files/Articles/Environmental_and_Economic.pdf
⁹⁹ Fei, S., Morin, R.S., Oswalt, C.M. & Liebhold, A.M. 2019. Biomass losses resulting from insect and disease invasions in US forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(35): 17371–17376. doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1820601116
¹⁰⁰ Turner, J.A., Buongiorno, J., Zhu, S., Prestemon, J.P., Li, R. & Bulman, L.S. 2007. Modelling the impact of the exotic forest pest Nectria on the New Zealand forest sector and its major trading partners. New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science, 37(3): 383–411. www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/ja_turner009.pdf
¹⁰¹ Williams, F., Eschen, R., Harris, A., Djeddour, D., Pratt, C., Shaw, R.S., Varia, S. et al. 2010. The economic cost of invasive non-native species on Great Britain. Wallingford, CABI. www.cabi.org/VetMedResource/ebook/20123122024
¹⁰² Commonwealth of Australia. 2018. Australia’s State of the Forests Report 2018. Canberra, Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, ABARES. https://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/forestsaustralia/sofr/sofr-2018
¹⁰³ Wills, A.J. & Farr, J.D. 2017. Gumleaf skeletoniser Uraba lugens (Lepidoptera: Nolidae) larval outbreaks occur in high rainfall Western Australian jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata) forest after drought: Uraba lugens dryness index. Austral Entomology, 56(4): 424–432. doi.org/10.1111/aen.12255
¹⁰⁴ Cameron, N.L., Carnegie, A.J., Wardlaw, T., Lawson, S. & Venn, T. 2018. Economic appraisal of Sirex Wood Wasp (Sirex noctilio) control in Australian pine plantations. Australian Forestry, 81(1): 37–45. doi.org/10.1080/00049158.2018.1430436
¹⁰⁵ Nahrung, H.F. & Carnegie, A.J. 2020. Non-native Forest Insects and Pathogens in Australia: Establishment, Spread, and Impact. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 3: 37. doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2020.00037
¹⁰⁶ Mota, M.M. & Vieira, P., eds. 2008. Pine Wilt Disease: A Worldwide Threat to Forest Ecosystems. Dordrecht, Springer Netherlands. doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8455-3
¹⁰⁷ Forest Agency. 2020. Annual Report on Forest and Forestry in Japan. Tokyo, Japan. www.maff.go.jp/e/data/publish/attach/pdf/index-208.pdf
¹⁰⁸ Natural Resources Canada. 2020. The State of Canada’s Forests. Annual Report 2020. Ottawa, Canada Forest Service. https://cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/publications?id=40219
¹⁰⁹ Gomez, D.F., Sathyapala, S. & Hulcr, J. 2020. Towards Sustainable Forest Management in Central America: Review of Southern Pine Beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis Zimmermann) Outbreaks, Their Causes, and Solutions. Forests, 11(2): 173. doi.org/10.3390/f11020173
¹¹⁰ Billings, R. 2015. Second evaluation of a major pine beetle outbreak in Honduras and recommendations for direct control. Unpublished Report. USDA Forest Service/International Programs and US Agency for International Development.
¹¹¹ Billings, R. 2019. Technical assistance visit to the Dominican Republic to evaluate and make recommendations for direct control of an outbreak of the pine bark beetle Ips calligraphus. Unpublished Report. College Station, Texas, USDA Forest Service/International Programs, Texas Forest Service.
¹¹² Jiménez G., A.A., Cordón Cabrera, P.R. & Agramonte, J.E. 2022. Fluctuación poblacional de Ips calligraphus en pinares de la vertiente norte de la cordillera Central, República Dominicana. Novitates Caribaea, (20): 137–154. doi.org/10.33800/nc.vi20.314
¹¹³ Hernández Paz, M. 1975. El gorgojo de la corteza, plaga principal de los pinares. Corporación Hondureña de Desarrollo Forestal.
¹¹⁴ Billings, R. 1982. Evaluation and recommendations for control of the 1982 outbreak of Dendroctonus in the pine forests of Honduras. Unpublished Report. Lufkin, Texas, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Office of International Cooperation and Development/United States Agency for International Development (USAID).
¹¹⁵ Macias Sámano, J.E., Billings, R.F. & Espino Mendoza, V. 2017. Guía para implementar el método de cortar y dejar y la franja de contención como medios de control del gorgojo descortezador del pino, Dendroctonus frontalis, en Centroamérica y México. Washington, D.C. and Tegucigalpa, Honduras, Instituto Nacional de Conservación y Desarrollo Forestal, Areas Protegidas y Vida Silvestre (Tegucigalpa, Honduras) and USDA Forest Service, International Programs.
¹¹⁶ Billings, R., Clarke, S.R., Espino Mendoza, V., Cordon Cabrera, P., Melendez Figueroa, B., Ramon Campos, J. & Baeza, G. 2004. Bark beetle outbreaks and fire: A devastating combination for central America’s pine forests. Unasylva, 55: 10–15. https://www.fao.org/3/y5507e/y5507e05.htm
¹¹⁷ Paveglio, T.B., Brenkert-Smith, H., Hall, T. & Smith, A.M.S. 2015. Understanding social impact from wildfires: advancing means for assessment. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 24(2): 212. doi.org/10.1071/WF14091
¹¹⁸ Walz, Y., Janzen, S., Narvaez, L., Ortiz-Vargas, A., Woelki, J., Doswald, N. & Sebesvari, Z. 2021. Disaster-related losses of ecosystems and their services. Why and how do losses matter for disaster risk reduction? International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 63: 102425. doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102425
¹¹⁹ FAO. 2022. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022: Towards Blue Transformation. Rome. doi.org/10.4060/cc0461en
¹²⁰ Barange, M., Bahri, T., Beveridge, M.C.M., Cochrane, K.L., Funge-Smith, S. & Poulain, F. 2018. Impacts of climate change on fisheries and aquaculture. Synthesis of current knowledge, adaptation and mitigation options. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper. T627. Rome, FAO. www.fao.org/3/i9705en/i9705en.pdf
¹²¹ Hampton, I., Githaiga-Mwicigi, J., Lamberth, S., Pitcher, G.C., Pretorius, M., Van Der Lingen, C. & Yemane, D. 2017. Report of the DAFF Workshop on Adaptation to Climate Change in the South African Marine Fisheries and Marine Aquaculture Sectors, 11–12 October 2016. Sea Point, Cape Town, DAFF Research Aquarium. https://www.fao.org/3/cc2822en/cc2822en.pdf
¹²² Ortega-Cisneros, K., Cochrane, K.L., Rivers, N. & Sauer, W.H.H. 2021. Assessing South Africa’s Potential to Address Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation in the Fisheries Sector. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8. www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2021.652955
¹²³ Karlson, B., Andersen, P., Arneborg, L., Cembella, A., Eikrem, W., John, U., West, J.J. et al. 2021. Harmful algal blooms and their effects in coastal seas of Northern Europe. Harmful Algae, 102: 101989. doi.org/10.1016/j.hal.2021.101989
¹²⁴ DFFE (Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment). 2019. National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy, Republic of South Africa. DFFE. www.dffe.gov.za/sites/default/files/docs/nationalclimatechange_adaptationstrategy_ue10november2019.pdf
¹²⁵ van Diemen, E. 2022. Situation Red Alert issued to recover live rock lobster after mass red tide walkout. In: Daily Maverick. [Cited July 2023]. www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2022-03-04-situation-red-alert-issued-to-recover-live-rock-lobster-after-mass-red-tide-walkout/
¹²⁶ Cockcroft, A.C. 2001. Jasus lalandii “walkouts” or mass strandings in South Africa during the 1990s: an overview. Marine and Freshwater Research, 52(8): 1085. doi.org/10.1071/MF01100
¹²⁷ Cockcroft, A.C. & Payne, A.I.L. 1999. A cautious fisheries management policy in South Africa: the fisheries for rock lobster. Marine Policy, 23(6): 587–600. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-597X(98)00045-1
¹²⁸ Eggers, J., Cochrane, K. & Sauer, W. 2022. Estimating the economic income and social contributions derived from the South African west coast rock lobster fishery. African Journal of Marine Science, 44(3): 255–269. doi.org/10.2989/1814232X.2022.2104926
¹²⁹ Philippines Office of Civil Defense and Humanitarian Country Team. 2019. Typhoon Kammuri (Tisoy) Joint Rapid Assessment of Impact and Needs. www.humanitarianresponse.info/sites/www.humanitarianresponse.info/files/documents/files/191211_typhoon_kammuri_tisoy_rapid_assessment_report_rev.pdf
¹³⁰ Philippines Office of Civil Defense and Humanitarian Country Team. 2020. Super Typhoon Goni (Rolly) Humanitarian Needs and Priorities. https://reliefweb.int/attachments/50a2637e-bfcb-3452-ab40-4a7c0a99cd32/PHL-TyphoonGoni-HumanitarianNeedsPriorities-201109.pdf
¹³¹ FAO. 2022. Philippines: Damages and needs assessment of families affected by Super Typhoon Rai (“Odette”) in selected provinces of Region VIII and Region XIII. Rome. doi.org/10.4060/cc0207en
¹³² Philippines Office of Civil Defense and Humanitarian Country Team. 2022. Consolidated Needs Assessment Report Revision: Super Typhoon Rai (Odette). https://reliefweb.int/attachments/810f3297-b89d-3088-b589-6ecb34cc58c8/2022%20Consolidated%20Needs%20Assessment%20Report%20Revision%20-%20Super%20Typhoon%20Rai%20-%20Philippines%20%281%29.pdf
¹³³ Tonga Statistics Department. 2023. National Accounts. In: Tonga Statistics Department. [Cited June 2023]. https://tongastats.gov.to/statistics/economics/national-accounts/
¹³⁴ World Bank. 2023. Agriculture, forestry, and fishing, value added (constant 2015 US$) – Tonga. In: World Bank. Washington, DC. [Cited June 2023]. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.AGR.TOTL.KD?locations=TO
¹³⁵ Tonga Statistics Department. 2023. Agriculture Census. In: Tonga Statistics Department. [Cited June 2023]. https://tongastats.gov.to/census/agriculture-census/
¹³⁶ Tonga Statistics Department. 2023. Household Income and Expenditure Survey. In: Tonga Statistics Department. [Cited June 2023]. https://tongastats.gov.to/survey/hies-survey/
¹³⁷ IPCC. 2019. Climate Change and Land: An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley, eds. Geneva. www.ipcc.ch/srccl/
¹³⁸ IPCC. 2022. Cross Working Group Attribution. Hope, P., W. Cramer, M. van Aalst, G. Flato, K. Frieler, N. Gillett, C. Huggel, J. Minx, F. Otto, C. Parmesan, J. Rogelj, M. Rojas, S.I. Seneviratne, A. Slangen, D. Stone, L. Terray, R. Vautard, and X. Zhang. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change- H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama, eds. p 149–152. Cambridge, UK and New York. Cambridge University Press. https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg2/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FullReport.pdf
¹³⁹ IPCC. 2021. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. pp. 423–553. Cambridge, UK and New York, Cambridge University Press. https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg1/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FullReport.pdf
¹⁴⁰ FAO. 2023. Crops and livestock products. In: FAOSTAT. Rome. [Cited June 2023]. www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL
¹⁴¹ Gillett, N.P., Shiogama, H., Funke, B., Hegerl, G., Knutti, R., Matthes, K., Santer, B.D. et al. 2016. The Detection and Attribution Model Intercomparison Project (DAMIP v1.0) contribution to CMIP6, Geoscientific Model Development, 9, 3685–3697. doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3685-2016
¹⁴² Heath, M. 2022. Argentina soy belt drought awakens ghost of 2018 production “disaster”. In: Reuters. 10 February 2022. [Cited 16 May 2023]. www.reuters.com/business/environment/argentina-farm-belt-drought-awakens-ghost-2018-soybean-disaster-2022-02-10/
¹⁴³ Bureau of National Statistics Kazakhstan. 2022. Statistics of agriculture, forestry, hunting and fisheries. https://stat.gov.kz
¹⁴⁴ North Africa Post. 2019. Morocco’s Central bank expects fewer wheat yield in 2019. In: North Africa Post. Rabat. [Cited 17 March 2023]. https://northafricapost.com/29126-moroccos-central-bank-expects-fewer-wheat-yield-in-2019.html
¹⁴⁵ FAO. 2023. Crops and Livestock Products. In: FAOSTAT. Rome. [Cited June 2023]. www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL
¹⁴⁶ CRED. Emergency Events Database (EM-Dat), the international Disaster Database. In: CRED. [Cited 17 March 2023]. https://www.emdat.be/
¹⁴⁷ Cisse, G. & McLeman, R. 2022. Health, Wellbeing, and the Changing Structure of Communities. In: H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama, eds. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK and New York, Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_Chapter07.pdf
¹⁴⁸ FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO. 2023. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2023. Urbanization, agrifood systems transformation and healthy diets across the rural–urban continuum https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cc3017en
¹⁴⁹ FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO. 2020. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020. Transforming food systems for affordable healthy diets. Rome, FAO. www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca9692en
¹⁵⁰ FAO. 2021. Niger | Moyens d’existence agricoles et sécurité alimentaire dans le cadre de la covid-19. Rome. doi.org/10.4060/cb4622fr
¹⁵¹ Ranjan Jena, P., Kalli, R. & Chandra Tanti, P. 2022. Impact of Covid-19 on Agricultural System and Food Prices: The Case of India. In: U. Bacha, ed. Rural Health. IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98905
¹⁵² FAO. 2021. Agricultural livelihoods and food security in the context of COVID-19: Results from household surveys in 11 countries with high pre-existing levels of food insecurity – Cross-country monitoring report. May 2021. Rome. doi.org/10.4060/cb4747en
¹⁵³ FAO 2020. Second Rapid Assessment of Food and Nutrition Security in the Context of COVID-19 in Bangladesh: May – July 2020. Dhaka. doi.org/10.4060/cb1018en
¹⁵⁴ FAO. 2020. National agrifood systems and COVID-19 in Liberia. Effects, policy responses and long term implications. Rome. doi.org/10.4060/cb2114en
¹⁵⁵ FAO. 2021. Liberia | Agricultural livelihoods and food security in the context of COVID-19: Monitoring Report – January 2021. Rome. doi.org/10.4060/cb3618en
¹⁵⁶ FAO & WFP. 2020. Covid-19 impacts on agri-food value chains: Libya. Cairo, FAO and WFP. doi.org/10.4060/cb3089en
¹⁵⁷ FAO & WFP. 2021. Myanmar | Agricultural livelihoods and food security in the context of COVID-19: Monitoring report – May 2021. Rome, FAO and WFP. doi.org/10.4060/cb5218en
¹⁵⁸ FAO & WFP. 2022. Myanmar | Shocks, agricultural livelihoods and food security. Monitoring report, June 2022. Rome, FAO and WFP. doi.org/10.4060/cc0562en
¹⁵⁹ FAO. 2021. Sierra Leone | Agricultural livelihoods and food security in the context of COVID-19: Monitoring report – May 2021. Rome. doi.org/10.4060/cb4396en
¹⁶⁰ FAO, IFAD & WFP. 2020. South Sudan, COVID-19 Impacts Assessment Results on Agriculture and Food Security in South Sudan. Rome, FAO. https://www.fao.org/3/cb0208en/CB0208EN.pdf
¹⁶¹ FAO. 2021. The Sudan | Food supply, agricultural livelihoods and food security in the context of COVID-19: Monitoring Report – January 2021. Rome. doi.org/10.4060/cb2262en
¹⁶² FAO. 2021. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela | Agricultural livelihoods and food security in the context of COVID-19: Monitoring Report – January 2021. Rome. doi.org/10.4060/cb3178en
¹⁶³ FAO. 2021. Yemen – Shocks, agricultural livelihoods and food security. Monitoring report, December 2021. Rome. doi.org/10.4060/cb7844en
¹⁶⁴ FAO. 2021. Impact of COVID-19 on the delivery of veterinary services and animal disease reporting: May–June 2020/June–August 2020. Rome. doi.org/10.4060/cb5649en
¹⁶⁵ Mthembu, B.E., Mkhize, X. & Arthur, G.D. 2022. Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic on Agricultural Food Production among Smallholder Farmers in Northern Drakensberg Areas of Bergville, South Africa. Agronomy, 12(2): 531. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12020531
¹⁶⁶ Ahmed, J.U., Akter, S. & Majumder, K.A. 2021. Impact of COVID‐19 on agricultural production and distribution in South Asia. World Food Policy, 7(2): 168–182. doi.org/10.1002/wfp2.12032
¹⁶⁷ Rahman, M.T., Akter, S., Rana, M.R., Sabuz, A.A. & Jubayer, M.F. 2022. How COVID-19 pandemic is affecting achieved food security in Bangladesh: A perspective with required policy interventions. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 7: 100258. doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2021.100258
¹⁶⁸ GNAFC (Global Network Against Food Crises). 2020. Food Crises and Covid-19: Emerging Evidence and Implications. An analysis of acute food insecurity and agri-food systems during COVID-19 pandemic. Technical Note. Rome, Technical Support Unit (TSU) of the Global Network Against Food Crises. https://reliefweb.int/report/world/food-crises-and-covid-19-emerging-evidence-and-implications-technical-note
¹⁶⁹ Varshney, D., Roy, D. & Meenakshi, J.V. 2020. Impact of COVID-19 on agricultural markets: assessing the roles of commodity characteristics, disease caseload and market reforms. Indian Economic Review, 55(S1): 83–103. doi.org/10.1007/s41775-020-00095-1
¹⁷⁰ OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2020. Covid-19 and the food and agriculture sector: Issues and policy responses. Paris. www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/covid-19-and-the-food-and-agriculture-sector-issues-and-policy-responses-a23f764b/
¹⁷¹ FAO. 2022. Pakistan. DIEM – Data in Emergencies Monitoring brief, round 3 Results and recommendations June 2022. Rome. https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en?details=CC0783EN
¹⁷² FAO. 2022, Lebanon, DIEM – Data in Emergencies Monitoring brief, round 2 Results and recommendations June 2022. Rome. https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cc0932en
¹⁷³ FAO. 2020. Food Security in Iraq – Impact of COVID-19, Rome. https://www.wfp.org/publications/food-security-iraq-impact-covid-19
¹⁷⁴ FAO. 2021. Agricultural livelihoods and food security in the context of COVID-19. Rome. doi.org/10.4060/cb4747en
¹⁷⁵ FAO. 2021. Somalia | Agricultural livelihoods and food security in the context of COVID-19. Rome. doi.org/10.4060/cb2947en
¹⁷⁶ Sánchez-Cordón, P.J., Montoya, M., Reis, A.L. & Dixon, L.K. 2018. African swine fever: A re-emerging viral disease threatening the global pig industry. The Veterinary Journal, 233: 41–48. doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2017.12.025
¹⁷⁷ WOAH. 2022. African Swine Fever (ASF) — Situation Report 8, 2022. Paris. www.oie.int/app/uploads/2022/03/asf-report8.pdf
¹⁷⁸ Normile, D. 2019. African swine fever marches across much of Asia. Science, 364(6441): 617–618. doi.org/10.1126/science.364.6441.617
¹⁷⁹ FAO. 2020. Report on African Swine Fever (ASF) in Asia and the Pacific. Thirty-fifth Session of the FAO Regional Conference for Asia and the Pacific (APRC 35). Rome. https://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/NB742EN/
¹⁸⁰ Frezal, C., Gay, S.H. & Nenert, C. 2021. The Impact of the African Swine Fever outbreak in China on global agricultural markets. OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 156. Paris, OECD. doi.org/10.1787/96d0410d-en
¹⁸¹ Zhao, J., Bai, Z. & Ma, L. 2019. China needs long-term solutions for African Swine Fever. Science Bulletin, 64(20): 1469–1471. doi.org/10.1016/j.scib.2019.08.015
¹⁸² Song, H., Li, J. & Jin, Z. 2023. Nonlinear dynamic modeling and analysis of African swine fever with culling in China. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 117: 106915. doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2022.106915
¹⁸³ Zhang, P., Nie, T., Ma, J. & Chen, H. 2022. Identification of suitable areas for African swine fever occurrence in China using geographic information system-based multi-criteria analysis. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 209: 105794. doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2022.105794
¹⁸⁴ USDA. 2022. Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade. Washington, DC., USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/73666448x?locale=en
¹⁸⁵ Guberti, V., Khomenko, S., Masiulis, M. & Kerba S. 2022. African swine fever in wild boar – Ecology and biosecurity. Second edition. FAO Animal Production and Health Manual No. 28. Rome, FAO, WOAH and European Commission. https://www.fao.org/3/cc0785en/cc0785en.pdf
¹⁸⁶ Rozstalnyy, A., Roche, X., TagoPacheco, D., Kamata, A., BeltranAlcrudo, D., Khomenko, S., Lockhart, C. et al. 2022. Qualitative risk assessment for African swine fever virus introduction: Caribbean, South, Central and North Americas. FAO Animal Production and Health Papers No 18. Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb8748en
¹⁸⁷ FAO. 2021. FAO Statistical Yearbook – World Food and Agriculture. Rome. doi.org/10.4060/cb4477en
¹⁸⁸ Jean-Pierre, R.P., Hagerman, A.D. & Rich, K.M. 2022. An analysis of African Swine Fever consequences on rural economies and smallholder swine producers in Haiti. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 9. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2022.960344/full
¹⁸⁹ Casal, J., Tago, D., Pineda, P., Tabakovski, B., Santos, I., Benigno, C., Huynh, T., Ciaravino, G. & Beltran‐Alcrudo, D. 2022. Evaluation of the economic impact of classical and African swine fever epidemics using OutCosT, a new spreadsheet‐based tool. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, 69(5): e2474–e2484. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14590
¹⁹⁰ Mason-D’Croz, D., Bogard, J.R., Herrero, M., Robinson, S., Sulser, T.B., Wiebe, K., Willenbockel, D. & Godfray, H.C.J. 2020. Modelling the global economic consequences of a major African swine fever outbreak in China. Nature food, 1(4): 221–228. doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0057-2
¹⁹¹ Nguyen-Thi, T., Pham-Thi-Ngoc, L., Nguyen-Ngoc, Q., Dang-Xuan, S., Lee, H.S., Nguyen-Viet, H., Padungtod, P. et al. 2021. An Assessment of the Economic Impacts of the 2019 African Swine Fever Outbreaks in Vietnam. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8. www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2021.686038
¹⁹² Savioli, G., Ahmadi, B.V., Muñoz, V., Rosso, F. & Schuppers, M. 2022. A methodology to assess indirect economic impacts of animal disease outbreaks: A case of hypothetical African swine fever outbreak in Switzerland. Transboundary and Emerging Diseases, 69(5): e1768–e1786. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.14512
¹⁹³ PRIO (Peace Research Institute Oslo). 2020. Trends in Armed Conflict, 1946–2019. Oslo. https://www.prio.org/publications/12756
¹⁹⁴ Murray, V., Abrahams, J., Abdallah, C., Ahmed, K., Angeles, L., Benouar, D., Brenes Torres, A., Chang Hun, C., Cox, S., Douris, J., Fagan, L., Fra Paleo, U., Han, Q., Handmer, J., Hodson, S., Khim, W., Mayner, L., Moody, N., Moraes, L. L. O.; Nagy, M., Norris, J., Peduzzi, P., Perwaiz, A., Peters, K., Radisch, J., Reichstein, M., Schneider, J., Smith, A., Souch, C., Stevance A-S., Triyanti, A., Weir, M., & Wright, N. 2021. Hazard Information Profiles: Supplement to UNDRR-ISC Hazard Definition & Classification Review: Technical Report. Geneva, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction; Paris, International Science Council. https://www.preventionweb.net/publication/hazard-information-profiles-hips
¹⁹⁵ UNDRR (United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction). 2023. GAR Special Report: Measuring Resilience for the Sustainable Development Goals. Geneva. https://www.undrr.org/gar/gar2023-special-report
¹⁹⁶ UNDRR. 2019. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2019. Geneva. https://www.undrr.org/publication/global-assessment-report-disaster-risk-reduction-2019
¹⁹⁷ UNDRR. 2023. The Report of the Midterm Review of the Implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. Geneva. https://www.undrr.org/publication/report-midterm-review-implementation-sendai-framework-disaster-risk-reduction-2015-2030
¹⁹⁸ General Assembly of the United Nations. 2023. Main findings and recommendations of the midterm review of the implementation of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. Seventy-seventh session, 690. https://www.undrr.org/publication/report-main-findings-and-recommendations-midterm-review-implementation-sendai-framework
¹⁹⁹ Peters, K. 2022. Evidence of positive progress on Disaster Risk Reduction in the Humanitarian-Development-Peace nexus: Thematic report to inform the Mid-Term Review of the Sendai Framework. https://sendaiframework-mtr.undrr.org/publication/thematic-study-evidence-positive-progress-disaster-risk-reduction-humanitarian
²⁰⁰ Peters, L. 2021. Beyond disaster vulnerabilities: An empirical investigation of the causal pathways linking conflict to disaster risks. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 55:102092. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212420921000583?casa_token=YZnxgGpfocMAAAAA:pNqonePbjM2CZoKMKKvu9ufQEXHV2R9NTbptQV1_q1utaDOd04qGHO_X4k8Y3K221NB3aCbYSfQ
²⁰¹ Zaman, S., Sammonds, P., Ahmed, B. & Rahman, T. 2020. Disaster risk reduction in conflict contexts: Lessons learned from the lived experiences of Rohingya refugees in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 50: 101694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101694
²⁰² Nemeth, S., & Lai, B.. 2022. When do natural disasters lead to negotiations in a civil war? Journal of Peace Research 59 (1): 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433211061952
²⁰³ Gaillard, J.-C., Clavé, E., & Kelman, I. 2008. Wave of peace? Tsunami disaster policy in Aceh, Indonesia. Geoforum 39 (1): 511–526. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016718507001662
²⁰⁴ Caso, N., Hilhorst, D., Mena, R., & Papyrakis, E. 2023. Does disaster contribute to armed conflict? A quantitative analysis of disaster–conflict co-occurrence between 1990 and 2017. International Journal of Development Issues. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJDI-01-2023-0015/full/html
²⁰⁵ Mach, K. J., Kraan, C.M., Adger, W. N., Buhaug, H., Burke, M., Fearon, J. D., et al. 2019. Climate as a risk factor for armed conflict. Nature 571 (7764): 193–197. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1300-6
²⁰⁶ von Uexkull, N., Croicu, M., Fjelde, H., & Buhaug, H. 2016. Civil conflict sensitivity to growing-season drought. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (44): 12391–12396. https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1607542113
²⁰⁷ Arai, T. 2012. Rebuilding Pakistan in the aftermath of the floods: Disaster relief as conflict prevention. Journal of Peacebuilding & Development, 7 (1): 51–65. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48603409
²⁰⁸ Ide, T. 2023. Catastrophes, Confrontations, and Constraints: How Disasters Shape the Dynamics of Armed Conflicts. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/14970.001.0001
²⁰⁹ Mercy Corps & ACAPS. 2020. Yemen: Food supply chain. Thematic report. https://reliefweb.int/report/yemen/yemen-food-supply-chain-thematic-report-16-december-2020
²¹⁰ European Union, World Bank, United Nations. 2019. Guidance for PDNA in Conflict Situations. https://www.undp.org/publications/pdna-guidance-integrating-conflict-sensitivity
²¹¹ European Union, World Bank, United Nations (2019). “GUIDANCE FOR PDNA IN CONFLICT SITUATIONS.” Available at: https://www.undp.org/publications/pdna-guidance-integrating-conflict-sensitivity
²¹² UNDRR (2023). GAR Special Report: Measuring Resilience for the Sustainable Development Goals. Geneva. Available at: https://www.undrr.org/gar/gar2023-special-report
²¹³ State Statistics Service of Ukraine. 2020. The official portal. In: Government of Ukraine. [Cited June 2023]. www.ukrstat.gov.ua/
²¹⁴ USDA. 2022. Ukraine Agricultural Production and Trade. Washington, DC., USDA Foreign Agricultural Service. www.fas.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/Ukraine-Ag-Production-Trade.pdf
²¹⁵ Kyiv School of Economics. 2021. Assessing the role of small farmers and households in agriculture and the rural economy and measures to support their sustainable development. Kyiv. https://kse.ua/wpcontent/uploads/2021/02/KSE‐Smallholders.pdf
²¹⁶ FAO. 2022. Ukraine: Impact assessment results (September to October 2022). Data in Emergencies Hub. In: FAO. Rome. [Cited 12 July 2023]. https://data-in-emergencies.fao.org/apps/c5e28e7c958b4748bb806e1fe28ccf7b/explore
²¹⁷ Conflict Observatory. 2022. Ukraine’s Crop Storage Infrastructure Post-Invasion Impact Assessment. In: Conflict Observatory. [Cited June 2023]. https://hub.conflictobservatory.org/portal/apps/sites/#/home/pages/grain-1
²¹⁸ UNEP. 2022. The Environmental Impact of the Conflict in Ukraine: A Preliminary Review. Nairobi. https://www.unep.org/resources/report/environmental-impact-conflict-ukraine-preliminary-review
²¹⁹ Turton, S., Sineat, Y. & Nitta, Y. 2019. African swine fever wipes out Asia’s backyard pig farmers. In: Nikkei Asia. [Cited 17 May 2023]. https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Agriculture/African-swine-fever-wipes-out-Asia-s-backyard-pig-farmers
²²⁰ Coughlan de Perez, E., van Aalst, M., Deva, C., van den Hurk, B., Jongman, B., Klose, T., Linnerooth-Bayer, J. & Suarez, P. 2014. Managing the risk of extreme events in a changing climate – trends and opportunities in the disaster-related funding landscape. Input paper prepared for the Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2015. The Hague, Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre. https://www.climatecentre.org/wp-content/uploads/Managing-the-risk-of-extreme-events-in-a-changing-climate.pdf
²²¹ Pappenberger, F., Cloke, H.L., Parker, D.J., Wetterhall, F., Richardson, D.S. & Thielen, J. 2015. The monetary benefit of early flood warnings in Europe. Environmental Science & Policy, 51: 278–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.04.016
²²² Costella, C., Jaime, C., Arrighi, J., Coughlan de Perez, E., Suarez, P. & van Aalst, M. 2017. Scalable and sustainable: How to build anticipatory capacity into social protection systems. IDS Bulletin. Vol. 48 No. 4. https://bulletin.ids.ac.uk/index.php/idsbo/article/view/2885
²²³ Baig, S.P., Rizvi, A., Josella, M. & Palanca-Tan, R. 2015. Cost and Benefits of Ecosystem Based Adaptation: The Case of the Philippines. Gland, Switzerland, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-009.pdf
²²⁴ FAO & UNHCR. 2018. Cost–benefit analysis of forestry interventions for supplying woodfuel in a refugee situation in the United Republic of Tanzania. Rome, FAO. https://www.fao.org/3/ca0164en/CA0164EN.pdf
²²⁵ Seekao, C. & Pharino, C. 2018. Cost–benefit analysis of shrimp farming’s flood risk reduction strategies in Thailand. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 11: S805–S816. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfr3.12259
²²⁶ Asha, N., Kikulwe, E., Nowakunda, K., Ajambo, S. & Naziri, D. 2015. Technical report: Structure of the Cooking Banana Value Chain in Uganda and Opportunities for Value Addition and Postharvest Losses Reduction. CGIAR. www.rtb.cgiar.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/RPS/2/3.pdf
²²⁷ FAO. 2017. Benefits of Farm-Level Disaster Risk Reduction Practices in Agriculture – Preliminary Findings. Rome. www.fao.org/3/a-i7319e.pdf
²²⁸ FAO. 2019. Disaster risk reduction at farm level: Multiple benefits, no regrets. Results from cost–benefit analyses conducted in a multi-country study, 2016-2018. Rome. www.fao.org/3/ca4429en/CA4429EN.pdf
²²⁹ FAO. 2021. Anticipatory action: Changing the way we manage disasters. Rome. www.fao.org/3/cb7145en/cb7145en.pdf
²³⁰ FAO. 2018. Mongolia: Impact of early warning action. Protecting herder livelihoods ahead of dzud winter. Rome. www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/CA2181EN/
²³¹ FAO. 2019. Colombia: Impact of early warning action. Boosting food security and social cohesion on the frontline of the migration crisis. Rome. www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/CA6818EN/
²³² FAO. 2018. Early warning early action in Sudan. Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/i9383en/I9383EN.pdf
²³³ FAO. 2018. Horn of Africa: Impact of early warning early action. Protecting pastoralist livelihoods ahead of drought. Rome. www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/CA0227EN
²³⁴ FAO. 2019. Madagascar: Impact of Early Warning Early Action. Protecting farming livelihoods from drought and food insecurity. Rome. www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/CA3933EN/
²³⁵ FAO. 2019. The Sudan: Impact of Early Warning Early Action. Protecting agropastoralist livelihoods ahead of drought. Rome. www.fao.org/3/ca4653en/ca4653en.pdf
²³⁶ Kumar, A. 2022. Connecting anticipatory action and disaster risk reduction: perspectives from UNDRR. In: UNDRR. Geneva. [Cited June 2023]. www.preventionweb.net/news/connecting-anticipatory-action-and-disaster-risk-reduction-perspectives-undrr
²³⁷ UNDRR. 2023. Disaster Risk Management. In: UNDRR. Geneva. [Cited June 2023]. www.undrr.org/terminology/disaster-risk-management
²³⁸ Anticipation Hub. 2021. A step forward for anticipatory action at COP26. In: Anticipation Hub. [Cited June 2023]. www.anticipation-hub.org/news/a-step-forward-for-anticipatory-action-at-cop26
²³⁹ IFRC, FAO, WFP, OCHA & Start Network. 2021. Enabling Anticipatory Action at Scale Policy Brief for Donor Governments. www.anticipation-hub.org/Documents/Policy_Papers/AATF_Policy_Brief_for_Donor_Governments_May_2021.pdf
²⁴⁰ International Movement. 2022. Power of Humanity. Council of Delegates of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Geneva. https://rcrcconference.org/app/uploads/2022/05/09_CoD22-Anticipatory-action-Background-document-FINAL-EN.pdf
²⁴¹ Levine, S., Wilkinson, E., Weingärtner, L. & Mall, P. 2021. Anticipatory action for livelihood protection. A collective endeavour. Working Paper 580. Overseas Development Institute. https://cdn.odi.org/media/documents/202006_odi_anticipatory_action_for_livelihood_protection_wp_final.pdf
²⁴² Scott, Z. 2022. Finance for Early Action: Tracking commitments, trends, challenges and opportunities. REAP (Risk-informed Early Action Partnership). www.insdevforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/20220613_Finance-for-Early-Action_FINAL-1-1.pdf
²⁴³ Khim, W. 2020. Disaster risk reduction in times of COVID-19: What have we learned? Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb0748en
²⁴⁴ Lawson, R.G. & Jurs, P.C. 1990. New index for clustering tendency and its application to chemical problems. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences, 30(1): 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1021/ci00065a010
²⁴⁵ FAO. 2023. Crops and livestock products. In: FAOSTAT. Rome. [Cited June 2023]. www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL
²⁴⁶ Lange, S., Mengel, M., Treu, S. & Büchner, M. 2022. ISIMIP3a atmospheric climate input data (v1.0). In: ISIMIP. [Cited July 2023]. doi.org/10.48364/ISIMIP.982724
²⁴⁷ Frieler, K., Volkholz, J., Lange, S., Schewe, J., Mengel, M., del Rocío Rivas López, M. et al. 2023. Scenario set-up and forcing data for impact modelevaluation and impact attribution within the third round of the Inter-Sectoral Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP3a). Preprint. EGUsphere. doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-281
²⁴⁸ Laudien, R., Schauberger, B., Makowski, D. & Gornott, C. 2020. Robustly forecasting maize yields in Tanzania based on climatic predictors. Scientific Reports, 10(19650). doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-76315-8
²⁴⁹ Chemura, A. Nangombe, S., Gleixner, S., Chinyoka, S. & Gornott, C. 2022. Changes in Climate Extremes and Their Effect on Maize (Zea mays L.) Suitability Over Southern Africa. Frontiers in Climate, 4: 890210. doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2022.890210
²⁵⁰ Sultan, B., Defrance, D. & Iizumi, T. 2019, Evidence of crop production losses in West Africa due to historical global warming in two crop models. Scientific Reports, 6.9.2019: 12834. doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-49167-0
²⁵¹ Laudien, R., Schauberger, B., Makowski, D. & Gornott, C. 2020. Robustly forecasting maize yields in Tanzania based on climatic predictors. Scientific Reports, 10(19650). doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-76315-8
²⁵² Gillett, N.P., Shiogama, H., Funke, B., Hegerl, G., Knutti, R., Matthes, K., Santer, B.D. et al. 2016. The Detection and Attribution Model Intercomparison Project (DAMIP v1.0) contribution to CMIP6, Geoscientific Model Development, 9, 3685–3697. doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3685-2016
²⁵³ Tatebe, H., Ogura, T., Nitta, T., Komuro, Y., Ogochi, K., Takemura, T., Sudo, K. et al. 2019. Description and basic evaluation of simulated mean state, internal variability, and climate sensitivity in MIROC6. Geoscientific Model Development, 12(7): 2727–2765. doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2727-2019
²⁵⁴ Lange, S. 2019. Trend-preserving bias adjustment and statistical downscaling with ISIMIP3BASD (v1.0). Geoscientific Model Development, 12, 3055–3070. doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-3055-2019
²⁵⁵ Tatebe, H., Ogura, T., Nitta, T., Komuro, Y., Ogochi, K., Takemura, T., Sudo, K. et al. 2019. Description and basic evaluation of simulated mean state, internal variability, and climate sensitivity in MIROC6. Geoscientific Model Development, 12(7): 2727–2765. doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2727-2019
²⁵⁶ IPCC. 2021. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. pp. 423–553. Cambridge, UK and New York, Cambridge University Press. https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg1/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FullReport.pdf
²⁵⁷ Guo, H. Bao, A., Chen, T., Zheng, G., Wang, Y., Jiang, L. & De Maeyer, P. 2021. Assessment of CMIP6 in simulating precipitation over arid Central Asia. Atmospheric Research, 252, 105451. doi.org/10.1016/J.ATMOSRES.2021.105451
²⁵⁸ Mesgari, E., Hosseini, S.A., Hemmesey, M.S., Houshyar, M. & Partoo, L.G. 2022. Assessment of CMIP6 models’ performances and projection of precipitation based on SSP scenarios over the MENAP region. Journal of Water and Climate Change, 13(10): 3607. doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2022.195
²⁵⁹ Iizumi, T., Shiogama, H., Imada, Y., Hanasaki, N., Takikawa, H. & Nishimori, M. 2018. Crop production losses associated with anthropogenic climate change for 1981–2010 compared with preindustrial levels. International Journal of Climatology, 38(14): 5405–5417. doi.org/10.1002/joc.5818
²⁶⁰ Ishii, M. & Mori, N. 2020. d4PDF: large-ensemble and high-resolution climate simulations for global warming risk assessment. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science, 7: 58. doi.org/10.1186/s40645-020-00367-7
²⁶¹ Iizumi, T., Shiogama, H., Imada, Y., Hanasaki, N., Takikawa, H. & Nishimori, M. 2018. Crop production losses associated with anthropogenic climate change for 1981–2010 compared with preindustrial levels. International Journal of Climatology, 38(14): 5405–5417. doi.org/10.1002/joc.5818
²⁶² Sultan, B., Defrance, D. & Iizumi, T. 2019, Evidence of crop production losses in West Africa due to historical global warming in two crop models. Scientific Reports, 6.9.2019: 12834. doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-49167-0
²⁶³ Flynn, C.M. & Mauritsen, T. 2020. On the climate sensitivity and historical warming evolution in recent coupled model ensembles. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 20, 7829–7842. doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-7829-2020
²⁶⁴ Forster, P. et al. 2021. The Earth’s Energy Budget, Climate Feedbacks, and Climate Sensitivity. In: V. Masson-Delmotte, et al., eds. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
²⁶⁵ Meshesha, D.T., Moahmmed, M. & Yosuf, D. 2019. Estimating carrying capacity and stocking rates of rangelands in Harshin District, Eastern Somali Region, Ethiopia. Ecology and Evolution, 9(23): 13309–13319. doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5786
²⁶⁶ The Nansen Initiative. 2015. The Nansen Initiatve. Global Consultation. Conference Report : Geneva, 12-23 October 2015. https://www.eda.admin.ch/dam/eda/en/documents/aussenpolitik/menschenrechte-menschliche-sicherheit/2017-und-aelter/Nansen-GCR2015-screen.pdf.
²⁶⁷ FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO. 2022. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2022. Repurposing food and agricultural policies to make healthy diets more affordable. Rome, FAO. doi.org/10.4060/cc0639en
²⁶⁸ FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP & WHO. 2020. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020. Transforming food systems for affordable healthy diets. Rome, FAO. www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/ca9692en
²⁶⁹ IOM (International Organization of Migration). 2017. World Migration Report 2018. IOM World Migration Report. United Nations. https://doi.org/10.18356/f45862f3-en
^a 行政区划，相当于州或省。
^b 用来预测作物生长速度的热量累积计量单位。
^c 参见国际灾害数据库（EM-DAT）https://public.emdat.be/
^d “其他”危害类别包括生物危害、地外危害和复杂型危害。此外，灾害数量增加的一部分原因是数据报告工作有所改进，但主要原因是天气和气候相关危害（如洪水、干旱、极端温度）引起灾害数量增加。相反，地震、火山喷发和块体运动等地球物理事件的数量则在一段时间内相对保持稳定。虽然近几十年事件的总体数量已趋向平稳，但随着大气中温室气体继续积聚，预计数量仍会上升。
^e 先前的出版物于2015年、2017年和2021年发布。
^f https://www.emdat.be/
^g https://www.desinventar.net/
^h https://www.gfdrr.org/en/disaster-risk-analytics
ⁱ https://www.ifrc.org/document/world-disasters-report-2022
^j https://www.swissre.com/institute/research/sigma-research/data-explorer.html; https://www.munichre.com/en/solutions/for-industry-clients/natcatservice.html
^k 参见联合国大会第A/RES/71/276号决议。
^l EM-DAT数据库中还包括非本报告讨论范围的其他灾害相关数据。详情参见技术附件2。
^m 注意，报告机制的发展变化会影响这些数字。与20世纪90年代初相比，EM-DAT数据库目前报告的事件更多，导致总数会略有偏差。
ⁿ 值得注意的是，此处所用指标是两组实物数量（以吨表示）乘以相同价格后的比率。这意味着该比率仅反映数量。价格的唯一作用是计算总量，否则就无法比较。
^o 这种情况下，损失与虚拟产量的比率直接以吨为基准，假设产量具有足够的均一性，可以累加。
^p 估计平均需求量指能满足50%健康人群（每日）需求所需的量。
^q 具体需求量如下：钙：男女均为800毫克；铁：男6毫克，女8.1毫克；锌：男9.4毫克，女6.8毫克；镁：男350毫克，女265毫克；磷：男女均为580毫克；维生素A，视黄醇活性当量：男625微克，女500微克；维生素B1：男1.0 毫克，女0.9毫克；维生素B2：男1.1毫克，女0.9毫克；维生素C：男75毫克，女60毫克。
^r 例如，如果具备更精细的数据，就有可能评估当特定背景下某种营养素供应充足时，出现一定比例的损失是否属于轻微损失，或者当这种营养素在当地饮食结构中较为稀缺，是否会构成严重的公共卫生问题。
^s “归因指采用置信度评估方法来评价多个因果因素对某种变化或事件所起的相对作用的过程”。见政府间气候变化专门委员会。2021。附件 VII: 术语表。摘自：Matthews，J.B.R.、V. Möller、R. van Diemen、 J.S. Fuglestvedt、V. Masson-Delmotte、 C. Méndez、S. Semenov、A. Reisinger编。《2021年气候变化：物理学依据》。政府间气候变化专门委员会第一工作组为第六次评估报告提供的材料。Masson-Delmotte，V.、P. Zhai、A. Pirani、S.L. Connors、C. Péan、S. Berger、N. Caud、 Y. Chen、L. Goldfarb、M.I. Gomis、M. Huang、K. Leitzell、E. Lonnoy、 J.B.R. Matthews、T.K. Maycock、T. Waterfield、O. Yelekçi、R. Yu和B. Zhou编。剑桥大学出版社，英国剑桥，美国纽约，第2215–2256页。www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_AnnexVII.pdf
^t 本次研究所选择的对象是《2019冠状病毒病全球人道主义应对计划》（人道主义事务协调办公室，2020）或《全球粮食危机报告》（世界粮食计划署，2020、2021）中的重点国家，包括：阿富汗、中非共和国、乍得、哥伦比亚、海地、伊拉克、黎巴嫩、利比里亚、利比亚、马里、莫桑比克、缅甸、尼日尔、巴基斯坦、菲律宾、塞拉利昂、索马里、多哥、津巴布韦。
^u 这些国家包括：阿富汗、中非共和国、哥伦比亚、刚果民主共和国、利比里亚、马里、尼日尔、塞拉利昂、索马里、也门、津巴布韦。
^v 本次研究所选择的对象是《2019冠状病毒病全球人道主义应对计划》（人道主义事务协调办公室，2020）或《全球粮食危机报告》（世界粮食计划署，2020、2021）中的重点国家。以往的研究在时间和范围上都存在局限，而本次分析的是三年时间内重复进行的跨国调查结果，能展示防控措施对农业生产的滞后影响。
^w 阿富汗、中非共和国、哥伦比亚、刚果民主共和国、利比里亚、马里、尼日尔、塞拉利昂、索马里、也门、津巴布韦。
^x 本章引述的所有对数几率系数的置信区间均为95%。
^y 参见对原本粮食不安全水平较高的11个国家的家庭调查结果。粮农组织。2021。《2019冠状病毒病背景下的农业生计和粮食安全》，跨国监测报告。罗马。https://www.fao.org/3/cb4747en/cb4747en.pdf
^z 非洲、美洲、亚洲、欧洲和大洋洲。
^aa 跨省生猪价差指价格最高省份的生猪价格减去价格最低省份的生猪价格。所有省份已包括在内，仅青海省因数据限制除外。
^ab 非洲猪瘟的影响是通过查阅文献和使用粮农组织OutCosT工具计算直接损失和应对成本来评估的。OutCosT工具已完成了试点，以回顾性地确定越南老街省（2020年）和菲律宾（2019年）暴发非洲猪瘟造成的成本，包括疾病造成的减产、对贸易的影响以及防治成本，包括治疗、监测和宣传活动。估计受影响的每家农场和每头猪的成本有助于预测疾病传播的影响¹⁸³
^ac 推断时，我们假设两个时期实施了完全相同的防控政策，即用于校准工具的时期和用于生成成本估计数的时期。
^ad 因非洲猪瘟而死亡的生猪208594头/屠宰生猪545729头 = 38%。
^ae 38%x1804246头屠宰生猪 = 2020年估计因非洲猪瘟损失的689637头生猪。
^af 例如2019冠状病毒病疫情相关因素。
^ag 对“冲突”一词进行定性十分重要。粮农组织认识到，冲突不一定是武装冲突或暴力冲突，因此采用以下定义（例如在以下出版物中采用的定义：粮农组织。2022。《〈2030年议程〉背景下维持和平操作方法–实用指南》。罗马。参见：https://doi.org/10.4060/cc1021en）：“冲突是人类互动的一个不可避免的方面，当两个或两个以上个人或团体追求互不相容的目标时，就会出现冲突。冲突可以是暴力的，就像战争中的那样，也可以是非暴力的，就像选举或对抗性法律程序中的那样。如能建设性地引导冲突进入解决进程，冲突可能是有益的。”）。引自：Snodderly （编）。（2018年）。《冲突管理和和平建设术语集》。第二版。美国和平研究所。华盛顿特区。参见https://www.usip.org/publications/usip-peace-terms-glossary
^ah https://www.prio.org/news/2736
^ai 落实《仙台框架》目标E。注意，并非所有战略都使用“武装冲突”字眼且仅指“冲突”。此处也使用战略原文中使用的提法。
^aj 实证来自21个国家：阿富汗、阿尔及利亚、孟加拉国、布隆迪、哥伦比亚、埃及、印度、印度尼西亚、伊朗、缅甸、尼泊尔、巴基斯坦、秘鲁、菲律宾、俄罗斯、索马里、斯里兰卡、塔吉克斯坦、泰国、土耳其、乌干达。
^ak 《索马里干旱影响和需求评估》（2017年）。
^al 乌克兰政府估计，约6.2万平方英里领土（160579平方公里）可能已被地雷和未爆弹药所污染，包括该国10%的农田。
^am 粮农组织。2019。《农场层面减少灾害风险：多重惠益，不留遗憾》。罗马。www.fao.org/3/ca4429en/CA4429EN.pdf。该研究报告收集了来自玻利维亚、柬埔寨、哥伦比亚、圭亚那、海地、牙买加、老挝、巴基斯坦、菲律宾和乌干达的实证。
^an 虽然不可能单独分析减灾良好做法中每项干预措施的每个要素对香蕉产量和回报的影响，但各种干预措施之间的协同效应可能发挥了关键作用，提高了香蕉种植系统对降雨不足和干旱的抗御能力。
^ao （1）水稻种植采用行播和干湿交替法；（2）小麦种植采用农家肥和堆肥；（3）蔬菜种植采用垄作、农家肥、多茬种植和病虫害综合防治；（4）小麦种植采用平整土地和病虫害综合防治；（5）棉花种植采用激光平整、垄作、病虫害综合防治和堆肥；（6）小麦种植采用免耕（条播）栽培和病虫害综合防治；（7）棉花种植采用垄作和病虫害综合防治。
^ap 包括暴雨、干旱、高温、有害生物和杂草。
^aq 分发家禽、种子、储水桶和设备，以工代赈，修复小型灌溉系统，培训蔬菜生产技术，发展女性领导的农民合作社。
^ar 向妇女农民合作社分发鸭子和山羊，举办培训，开展以工代赈项目清理年久失修的水渠。
^as 《全球粮食危机报告》2021年将伊加特区域作为重点，指出2020年期间，埃塞俄比亚（860万人）、肯尼亚（190万人）和索马里（210万人）共有1260万人面临重度粮食不安全（粮食安全阶段综合分类第3阶段或以上）⁴²。鉴于非洲之角面临深层次灾害风险，必须采取基于风险的行动来应对各种危害，以保障生计和粮食安全。
^at 需要集体应对的大规模突发性灾害和危机。
^au 在该阶段，不会飞的幼虫聚集成连贯整齐的虫群，被称为虫带。
^av 见防灾网，2023。灾后需求评估，防灾网， 2023年6月引用。https://recovery.preventionweb.net/build-back-better/post-disaster-needs-assessments/country-pdnas
^aw 见救济网，2023。仅有报告，救济网，2023年6月引用。https://reliefweb.int/updates?view=reports
^ax 见全球减灾和灾后恢复基金，2023。灾后需求评估，全球减灾和灾后恢复基金， 2023年6月引用。 www.gfdrr.org/en/post-disaster-needs-assessments
^ay 见世界银行，2023。世界银行开放知识库，世界银行，2023年6月引用。https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/home

第3部分 灾害风险驱动因素和连锁影响

关键信息

第3部分灾害风险驱动因素和连锁影响