Current cardiovascular risk management patterns with special focus on lipid lowering in daily practice in Switzerland

There may be a considerable gap between LDL cholesterol (LDL-C) and blood pressure (BP) goal values recommended by the guidelines and results achieved in daily practice.

Spatiotemporal dynamics: the need for an innovative approach in mountain hazard risk management

Starting with an overview on losses due to mountain hazards in the Russian Federation and the European Alps, the question is raised why a substantial number of events still are recorded—despite considerable efforts in hazard mitigation and risk reduction. The main reason for this paradox lies in a missing dynamic risk-based approach, and it is shown that these dynamics have different roots: firstly, neglecting climate change and systems dynamics, the development of hazard scenarios is based on the static approach of design events. Secondly, due to economic development and population dynamics, the elements at risk exposed are subject to spatial and temporal changes. These issues are discussed with respect to temporal and spatial demands. As a result, it is shown how risk is dynamic on a long-term and short-term scale, which has to be acknowledged in the risk concept if this concept is targeted at a sustainable development of mountain regions. A conceptual model is presented that can be used for dynamical risk assessment, and it is shown by different management strategies how this model may be converted into practice. Furthermore, the interconnectedness and interaction between hazard and risk are addressed in order to enhance prevention, the level of protection and the degree of preparedness.

Framing vulnerability, risk and societal responses: the MOVE framework

The paper deals with the development of a general as well as integrative and holistic framework to systematize and assess vulnerability, risk and adaptation. The framework is a thinking tool meant as a heuristic that outlines key factors and different dimensions that need to be addressed when assessing vulnerability in the context of natural hazards and climate change. The approach underlines that the key factors of such a common framework are related to the exposure of a society or system to a hazard or stressor, the susceptibility of the system or community exposed, and its resilience and adaptive capacity. Additionally, it underlines the necessity to consider key factors and multiple thematic dimensions when assessing vulnerability in the context of natural and socio-natural hazards. In this regard, it shows key linkages between the different concepts used within the disaster risk management (DRM) and climate change adaptation (CCA) research. Further, it helps to illustrate the strong relationships between different concepts used in DRM and CCA. The framework is also a tool for communicating complexity and stresses the need for societal change in order to reduce risk and to promote adaptation. With regard to this, the policy relevance of the framework and first results of its application are outlined. Overall, the framework presented enhances the discussion on how to frame and link vulnerability, disaster risk, risk management and adaptation concepts.

Tools for better SLM knowledge management and informed decision-making in addressing land degradation at different scales: the WOCAT–LADA–DESIRE methodology

Desertification research conventionally focuses on the problem – that is, degradation – while neglecting the appraisal of successful conservation practices. Based on the premise that Sustainable Land Management (SLM) experiences are not sufficiently or comprehensively documented, evaluated, and shared, the World Overview of Conservation Approaches and Technologies (WOCAT) initiative (www.wocat.net), in collaboration with FAO’s Land Degradation Assessment in Drylands (LADA) project (www.fao.org/nr/lada/) and the EU’s DESIRE project (http://www.desire-project.eu/), has developed standardised tools and methods for compiling and evaluating the biophysical and socio-economic knowledge available about SLM. The tools allow SLM specialists to share their knowledge and assess the impact of SLM at the local, national, and global levels. As a whole, the WOCAT–LADA–DESIRE methodology comprises tools for documenting, self-evaluating, and assessing the impact of SLM practices, as well as for knowledge sharing and decision support in the field, at the planning level, and in scaling up identified good practices. SLM depends on flexibility and responsiveness to changing complex ecological and socioeconomic causes of land degradation. The WOCAT tools are designed to reflect and capture this capacity of SLM. In order to take account of new challenges and meet emerging needs of WOCAT users, the tools are constantly further developed and adapted. Recent enhancements include tools for improved data analysis (impact and cost/benefit), cross-scale mapping, climate change adaptation and disaster risk management, and easier reporting on SLM best practices to UNCCD and other national and international partners. Moreover, WOCAT has begun to give land users a voice by backing conventional documentation with video clips straight from the field. To promote the scaling up of SLM, WOCAT works with key institutions and partners at the local and national level, for example advisory services and implementation projects. Keywords: Sustainable Land Management (SLM), knowledge management, decision-making, WOCAT–LADA–DESIRE methodology.

Law and science: risk assessment and risk management in the WTO agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures

Assessing and managing risks relating to the consumption of food stuffs for humans and to the environment has been one of the most complex legal issues in WTO law, ever since the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures was adopted at the end of the Uruguay Round and entered into force in 1995. The problem was expounded in a number of cases. Panels and the Appellate Body adopted different philosophies in interpreting the agreement and the basic concept of risk assessment as defined in Annex A para. 4 of the Agreement. Risk assessment entails fundamental question on law and science. Different interpretations reflect different underlying perceptions of science and its relationship to the law. The present thesis supported by the Swiss National Research Foundation undertakes an in-depth analysis of these underlying perceptions. The author expounds the essence and differences of positivism and relativism in philosophy and natural sciences. He clarifies the relationship of fundamental concepts such as risk, hazards and probability. This investigation is a remarkable effort on the part of lawyer keen to learn more about the fundamentals based upon which the law – often unconsciously – is operated by the legal profession and the trade community. Based upon these insights, he turns to a critical assessment of jurisprudence both of panels and the Appellate Body. Extensively referring and discussing the literature, he deconstructs findings and decisions in light of implied and assumed underlying philosophies and perceptions as to the relationship of law and science, in particular in the field of food standards. Finding that both positivism and relativism does not provide adequate answers, the author turns critical rationalism and applies the methodologies of falsification developed by Karl R. Popper. Critical rationalism allows combining discourse in science and law and helps preparing the ground for a new approach to risk assessment and risk management. Linking the problem to the doctrine of multilevel governance the author develops a theory allocating risk assessment to international for a while leaving the matter of risk management to national and democratically accountable government. While the author throughout the thesis questions the possibility of separating risk assessment and risk management, the thesis offers new avenues which may assist in structuring a complex and difficult problem

International Frameworks for Disaster Risk Reduction: Useful Guidance for Sustainable Mountain Development?

In recent decades, a number of global frameworks have been developed for disaster risk reduction (DRR). The Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015 and its successor document, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, adopted in Japan in March 2015, provide general guidance for reducing risks from natural hazards. This is particularly important for mountainous areas, but DRR for mountain areas and sustainable mountain development received little attention in the recent policy debate. The question remains whether the Hyogo and Sendai frameworks can provide guidance for sustainable mountain development. This article evaluates the 2 frameworks in light of the special challenges of DRR in mountain areas and argues that, while the frameworks offer valuable guidance, they need to be further adapted for local contexts—particularly for mountain areas, which require special attention because of changing risk patterns like the effects of climate change and high land-use pressure.