Acknowledgements

The Impact of Disasters on Agriculture and Food Security 2023 is the outcome of extensive collaboration across several technical divisions and offices within FAO, primarily including the Economic and Social Development Stream, the Office of Emergencies and Resilience (OER), the Office of Climate Change, Biodiversity and Environment (OCB), and the Natural Resources and Sustainable Production stream.

The report was jointly produced by the Statistics Division of FAO (ESS) and OER, with the overall guidance of Laurent Thomas and Maximo Torero Cullen, and under the direction of José Rosero Moncayo and Rein Paulsen. The development of the report was coordinated by a team consisting of Zehra Zaidi, the editor of the publication, and Wirya Khim, Piero Conforti, Stephan Baas, Laurel Hanson and Veronica Boero. Managerial support was provided by Piero Conforti, Shukri Ahmed, Fleur Wouterse and Dunja Dujanovic.

Central to the development of the report were the technical papers and background materials prepared and revised by several FAO experts. Valuable comments and final approval of the report were provided by the executive heads and senior staff of various FAO divisions.

Part 1 of the report was written by Zehra Zaidi and Piero Conforti, with input from Wirya Khim and Laurel Hanson.

Part 2 of the report was coordinated by Zehra Zaidi. Section 2.1 was written by Zehra Zaidi. Sylvain Ponserre and Vicente Anzellini of the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center developed BOX 2 on displacement, and Giulia Caivano and Priti Rajagopalan produced BOX 3 on gender in section 2.1. Zehra Zaidi wrote section 2.2 with support from Piero Conforti. Rahul Sengupta and Xuan Che of the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) provided data and input for the analysis of the C2 Sendai Indicator. Section 2.3 was written by Piero Conforti, Zehra Zaidi, Veronica Boero, Priti Rajagopalan and Esther Laske. Key inputs were provided by Priti Rajagopalan, Esther Laske and Veronica Boero on the estimation of disaster losses, while support and comments were provided by Antonio Scognamillo, Nidhi Chaudhary and Xinman Liu. Subsection 2.3.2 on nutrition was produced by Esther Laske, in collaboration with Nancy Aburto, Bridget Holmes and Victoria Padula de Quadro. Section 2.4 was coordinated by Zehra Zaidi, with key inputs from Esther Laske. Background papers and technical inputs for section 2.3 and section 2.4 were provided by Joachim Otte and Dominik Wisser from the Animal Production and Health Division (NSA), Charles Midega (independent consultant), Buyung Hadi and Shawn McGuire on behalf of the Plant Protection and Production Division (NSP), Lara Steil, Shiroma Sathyapala, Peter Moore, William John de Groot, Erik Lindquist and Amy Duchelle as contributing authors for the Forestry Division (NFO), and Stefania Savore, Iris Monnereau, Silke Pietzsch (FAORAP), James McCafferty (independent consultant) and Latu ‘Aisea (Ministry of Fisheries, Tonga) on behalf of the Fisheries and Aquaculture Division (NFI).

Part 3 of the report was coordinated by Wirya Khim, Laurel Hanson and Stephan Baas. For section 3.1, Wirya Khim, Stephan Baas, Laurel Hanson and Julia Wolf provided overall coordination and guidance with input from Piero Conforti and Zehra Zaidi. The policy developments section was written by Makie Yoshida and Silvia Santato. The attribution and impact study was written by Sabine Undorf (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impacts Research), Bernhard Schauberger (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research/Weihenstephan-Triesdorf University of Applied Science), Lennart Jansen (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research/University of Kassel), Paula Romanovska (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research) and Christoph Gornott (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research/University of Kassel) with input from Hideki Kanamaru, Wirya Khim, Laurel Hanson and Stephan Baas. Section 3.2.1 was written by Amandine Poncin, Neil Marsland and Josselin Gauny, with inputs from Wirya Khim and Laurel Hanson. Section 3.2.2 was written by Damian Tago Pacheco, Bouda Vosough Ahmadi, Andriy Rozstalnyy, Madhur Dhingra and Keith Sumption, with input from Wirya Khim, Laurel Hanson and Stephan Baas. Section 3.3 was written by Laurel Hanson, Julius Jackson and Neil Marsland with input from Daniele Barelli and Josselin Gauny.

Part 4 of the report was coordinated by Wirya Khim, Stephan Baas and Laurel Hanson. Section 4.1 was written by Wirya Khim, Tamara Van’t Wout and Laurel Hanson with input from Stephan Baas and Niccolò Lombardi. Section 4.2 was written by Nicholas Bodanac and Niccolò Lombardi with input from Wirya Khim and Laurel Hanson. Section 4.3 was written by Sergio Innocente, Wirya Khim and Laurel Hanson with input from Keith Cressman, Cyril Ferrand, Shoki Al Dobai, Stephan Baas and Shukri Ahmed.

Part 5 was jointly prepared by Zehra Zaidi and Piero Conforti, with input from Esther Laske, Wirya Khim, Laurel Hanson and Stephan Baas.

Numerous external experts provided comprehensive reviews and valuable technical comments for the report. The entire report was peer reviewed by Julio Serje (former UNDRR staff member).

For Part 2 of the report, Sepehr Marzi, of the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (JRC), and Jeremy Pal of the Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change (CMCC) undertook a technical review of the methodology. Specific reviews for section 2.4 were provided by Yacob Aklilu (Farm-D) for the livestock section, by Kris Wykhuis (FAO), Roger Day (Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International [CABI]), Anna Szyniszewska (CABI), Bryony Taylor (CABI) and Fazil Dusunceli for the section on fall armyworm, Ane Alencar (the Amazon Environmental Research Institute [IPAM]), Brett Hurley (University of Pretoria), Gary Man, Simon Lawson, Robert Rabaglia (USDA Forest Service), Jesus San-Miguel-Ayanz (JRC) for the section on forestry and Denis Lacroix (Institut Français de Recherche pour l’Exploitation de la Mer [Ifremer]) for the section on fisheries.

Section 3.1 was reviewed by Carlos Dionisio Perez Blanco (University of Salamanca), Elisa Calliari (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis), Andrea Toretti (JRC), Rupert Stuart-Smith (Oxford University), James Douris (World Meteorological Organization [WMO]), Veronica Grasso (WMO), Sihan Li (University of Sheffield) and Toshichika Iizumi (National Agriculture and Food Research Organization [NARO] – Japan). Section 3.2.1 on the COVID-19 pandemic was reviewed by Mark Alexander Constas (Cornell University) and John M. Ulimwengu (International Food Policy Research Institute [IFPRI]), while section 3.2.2 on African swine fever was reviewed by Manon Schuppers (SAFOSO AG) and Karl Rich (Oklahoma State University). Section 3.3 on the impact of armed conflicts on agriculture was reviewed by Dominique Blariaux (Post Crisis Assessment and Recovery Planning: Support Office of the European Union), Iryna Vysotska (The Quality Food Trade Program) and Igor Kravchenko (The Quality Food Trade Program).

Production support was provided by Olivier Lavagne d’Ortigue and Chiara Gnetti. The FAO Publications and Library Branch of the Office of Communications provided editorial support, design, and layout, as well as production coordination for editions in all six official languages. The FAO Meeting Branch and Language Services Branch of Governing Bodies Servicing Division (CSG) carried out the translations.

Required citation:
FAO. 2023. The Impact of Disasters on Agriculture and Food Security 2023 – Avoiding and reducing losses through investment in resilience. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc7900en

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dashed lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

ISBN 978-92-5-138194-6
©FAO 2023
copyright
Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/legalcode).

Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the FAO logo is not permitted. If the work is adapted, then it must be licensed under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If a translation of this work is created, it must include the following disclaimer along with the required citation: “This translation was not created by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original English edition shall be the authoritative edition.”

Disputes arising under the licence that cannot be settled amicably will be resolved by mediation and arbitration as described in Article 8 of the licence except as otherwise provided herein. The applicable mediation rules will be the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules and any arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).

Third-party materials. Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or images, are responsible for determining whether permission is needed for that reuse and for obtaining permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user.

Sales, rights and licensing. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased through publications-sales@fao.org. Requests for commercial use should be submitted via: www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request. Queries regarding rights and licensing should be submitted to: copyright@fao.org.

THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS. An average of 12 000 hectares of crops like cotton, corn and walnut were affected by rain and river overflows.

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://reliefweb.int/report/world/2022-disasters-numbers
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/CC7900EN
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/CC7900EN
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/wp‐content/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 An administrative division, corresponding to a region or province.
^b A measure of heat accumulation used to predict crop development rate.
^c See The International Disaster Database (EM-DAT) https://public.emdat.be/
^d “Other” hazard category includes biological, extraterrestrial, and complex hazards. Also, some of the increases in numbers of disasters reflect improvements in data reporting, but much of the rise can be attributed to a greater number of disasters caused by weather and climate related hazards (e.g. flood, drought and extreme temperatures). In contrast, the number of geophysical events such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and mass movements have stayed relatively stable over time. While the overall number of events has levelled off in recent decades, they are projected to increase as atmospheric greenhouse gases continue to accumulate.
^e Previous publications issued in 2015, 2017 and 2021.
^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 See United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/71/276.
^l EM-DAT also includes data on other disasters, which are not considered here. See Technical annex 2 for details.
^m A caveat, developments in reporting mechanisms affect these figures. More events are now reported in EM-DAT, compared to the early 1990s, resulting in a slight reporting bias in the total numbers.
ⁿ It is worth noting that, in this case, the indicator is a ratio of two sets of physical quantities (expressed in tonnes) multiplied by the same price. This means that the ratio captures exclusively a quantity effect. The only function of the price is to aggregate quantities that would otherwise not be comparable.
^o In this case, ratios of losses to counterfactual production are built directly on tonnes, under the hypothesis that quantities produced are homogeneous enough to be aggregated.
^p EAR is the amount needed to meet the requirement of 50 percent of healthy people (per day).
^q Requirements are as follows – Calcium: men and women 800 mg; iron: men 6 mg, women 8.1 mg; zinc: men 9.4 mg, women 6.8 mg; magnesium: men 350 mg, women 265 mg; phosphorus: men and women 580 mg; vitamin A, retinol activity equivalents: men 625 mcg, women 500 mcg; thiamine: men 1.0 mg, women 0.9 mg; riboflavin: men 1.1 mg, women 0.9 mg; vitamin C: men 75 mg, women 60 mg).
^r More granular data, for instance, would make it possible to assess whether losing a given percent of the EAR of a nutrient is a minor loss if that nutrient is in abundant supply in that specific context, or to see if there could be a substantive public health issue if that nutrient is scarce in the local diet.
^s “Attribution is defined as the process of evaluating the relative contributions of multiple causal factors to a change or event with an assessment of confidence.” See, IPCC. 2021. Annex VII: Glossary. In: Matthews, J.B.R., V. Möller, R. van Diemen, J.S. Fuglestvedt, V. Masson-Delmotte, C. Méndez, S. Semenov, A. Reisinger, eds. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 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, and B. Zhou, eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2215–2256. www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_AnnexVII.pdf
^t The countries selected for inclusion in the study are priority countries in the Global Humanitarian Response Plan for COVID-19 (OCHA, 2020) or the Global Report on Food Crises (WFP, 2020, 2021). These countries are: Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Haiti, Iraq, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Mali, Mozambique, Myanmar, the Niger, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Togo and Zimbabwe.
^u These countries are: Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Mali, the Niger, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Yemen and Zimbabwe.
^v The countries selected for inclusion in the study are priority countries in the Global Humanitarian Response Plan for COVID-19 (OCHA, 2020) or the Global Report on Food Crises (WFP, 2020, 2021). While past studies were limited in temporal frame and scope, this analysis of cross-country surveys repeated over three years demonstrates the lagged effects of restriction policies on agricultural production.
^w Afghanistan, the Central African Republic, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Mali, the Niger, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Yemen and Zimbabwe.
^x The confidence interval for all the log-odds ratio coefficients cited in this chapter is 95 percent.
^y See the results from household surveys in 11 countries with high pre-existing levels of food insecurity in FAO. 2021. Agricultural Livelihoods and Food Security in the Context of COVID-19, Cross-country monitoring report. Rome. https://www.fao.org/3/cb4747en/cb4747en.pdf
^z Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe and Oceania.
^aa The interprovincial pig price spread is measured as the price of live pigs in the province with the highest price minus the same price in the province with the lowest price. All provinces were included, except for Qinghai due to data limitations.
^ab ASF’s impact was assessed through literature reviews and by calculating direct losses and costs of response using the FAO OutCosT tool. OutCosT was piloted to determine retrospectively the cost of ASF outbreaks in Viet Nam’s Lao Cai province (2020) and in the Philippines (2019), including production losses due to the disease, impacts on trade, as well as control and eradication costs, including treatment, surveillance and awareness activities. Generating cost estimates per farm and per pig affected can predict the impact of the disease if it spreads.
^ac In extrapolating, we are assuming that the control policies are practically the same in both periods, the period used to calibrate the tool and the period used to generate the cost estimates.
^ad 208 594 pigs lost due to African swine fever / 545 729 pigs slaughtered lost = 38%.
^ae 38% x 1 804 246 pigs slaughtered lost = 689 637 pigs lost due to African swine fever estimated for 2020.
^af Such as the effect related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
^ag It is important to qualify the word “conflict”. FAO uses the following definition of conflict, recognizing that it does not necessarily need to be armed or violent (for example in FAO. 2022. Operationalizing pathways to sustaining peace in the context of Agenda 2030 – A how-to guide. Rome. Available at https://doi.org/10.4060/cc1021en: “An inevitable aspect of human interaction, conflict is present when two or more individuals or groups pursue mutually incompatible goals. Conflicts can be waged violently, as in a war, or non-violently, as in an election or an adversarial legal process. When channelled constructively into processes of resolution, conflict can be beneficial.”) From Snodderly (Ed.) (2018). Glossary of Terms for Conflict Management and Peacebuilding. Second edition. United States Institute of Peace. Washington D.C. Available at https://www.usip.org/publications/usip-peace-terms-glossary
^ah https://www.prio.org/news/2736
^ai The implementation of Sendai Framework Target E. Note that not all strategies use “armed conflict” and refer solely to “conflict”. The original language used in a strategy is also used here.
^aj Evidence drawn from 21 countries: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Burundi, Colombia, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, the Russian Federation, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Thailand, Türkiye and Uganda.
^ak Somalia Drought Impact and Needs Assessment (2017).
^al The Government of Ukraine estimated that around 62 000 square miles (160 579 km²) of national territory may be contaminated with landmines and unexploded munitions, including 10 percent of the country’s farmland.
^am FAO. 2019. Disaster risk reduction at farm level: Multiple benefits, no regrets. Rome. www.fao.org/3/ca4429en/CA4429EN.pdf. This study reports evidence on the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Cambodia, Colombia, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Pakistan, the Philippines and Uganda.
^an Although it was not possible to isolate the effects of each element of each intervention in the DRR good practice on banana yields and returns, the synergies among the various interventions likely played a central role in enhancing the resilience of banana farming systems to rainfall deficits and dry spells.
^ao 1) Rice cultivation with line sowing and alternative wet and dry method; 2) wheat cultivation with farmyard manure and compost; 3) vegetable cultivation with ridge sowing, farmyard manure, multicropping and integrated pest management; 4) wheat cultivation with levelling and integrated pest management; 5) cotton cultivation with laser levelling, ridge sowing, integrated pest management and compost application; 6) wheat cultivation with zero-till (drill) sowing and integrated pest management; and 7) cotton cultivation with ridge sowing and integrated pest management.
^ap These include heavy rainfall, drought, high temperature, pests and weed infestations.
^aq Poultry, seed, drum and equipment distributions, cash for work activities, rehabilitation of small-scale irrigation systems, training on productive vegetable techniques as well as the development of women-led cooperative of farmers.
^ar Women farmers cooperatives received a mix of ducks and goats, training was held and a cash for work programme focused on cleaning local water canals that had fallen into disrepair.
^as According to the 2021 IGAD Regional Focus of the Global Report on Food Crisis, 12.6 million people faced high levels of acute food insecurity (Integrated Food Security Phase Classification [IPC] Phase 3 or worse)⁴² in Ethiopia (8.6 million), Kenya (1.9 million) and Somalia (2.1 million) during 2020. Given the underlying disaster risk profile of the Horn of Africa, risk-informed action to address hazards of all kinds is imperative to safeguard livelihoods and food security.
^at Sudden onset, large-scale disasters and crises that require a corporate response.
^au This is the stage at which flightless juvenile individuals aggregate into coherent, aligned swarms, which are referred to as hopper bands.
^av See Prevention Web. 2023. Post-Disaster Needs Assessments (PDNA). In: Prevention Web. [Cited June 2023]. https://recovery.preventionweb.net/build-back-better/post-disaster-needs-assessments/country-pdnas
^aw See Relief Web. 2023. Reports only. In: Relief Web. [Cited June 2023]. https://reliefweb.int/updates?view=reports
^ax See GFDRR (Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery). 2023. Post Disaster Needs Assessment. In: GFDRR. [Cited June 2023]. www.gfdrr.org/en/post-disaster-needs-assessments
^ay See World Bank. 2023. The World Bank Open Knowledge Repository. In: World Bank. [Cited June 2023]. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/home