Grenada Resilience Profile

In recent years, extreme hurricanes have devastated communities and infrastructure in the region, leaving thousands of people without shelter, livelihoods, and services. Caribbean countries incurred an estimated $27 billion in losses and damages from natural hazards between 2000 and 2017, and averaged as much as 5.7 percent loss of GDP annually due to such disasters. The economic impact is staggering, making resilience an imperative for the region. Grenada, a tri-island state consisting of the islands of Grenada, Carriacou, and Petit Martinique, is particularly vulnerable to natural hazards. The country's topography ranges from mountainous rainforest to dry lowlands to coastal mangroves, and it is characterized by a humid tropical climate. The historical mean annual temperature is 26.5°C, and precipitation is 1509.1mm. Projections indicate that mean annual temperature will rise by 1.4°C by 2050 and annual precipitation will decrease by 50.2mm by 2040 to 2059. Grenada has a population of 105,539 people, with a high Human Development Index value of 0.744. However, more than 37 percent of the population falls below the poverty line, and unemployment rates are high. The country is highly reliant on tourism, which has been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The islands experience hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, landslides, and flash flooding, and the country lacks a comprehensive disaster management law and most communities lack early warning systems for tsunamis. The National Disaster Management Agency (NaDMA) is the lead agency with responsibility for coordinating disaster management and response duties. NaDMA leads the development of the revised National Disaster Management Plan for Grenada, which updates the previous 1985 and 2005 plans. The plan details the national disaster committees' responsibilities and functions for response against hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruption, floods, and landslides. Additionally, a National Hazard Mitigation Policy was developed in 2003, which sets the policy context for hazard risk reduction. Grenada suffered significant impacts from Hurricanes Ivan and Emily in 2004 and 2005, highlighting some of the country's vulnerabilities. Hurricane Ivan caused 39 deaths and $900 million in damages, twice Grenada's GDP at that time. The hurricane decimated the country's agricultural sector and the tourism sector, leading to increased poverty levels, increased fuel prices, diminished commercial trade and production, and increased food prices. Economic downturns in key source markets after Hurricanes Ivan and Emily led to rising public sector debt and expanding fiscal deficit, which exacerbated impacts from the global economic crisis in 2011-2012. The country is also at risk from a range of climate impacts, including sea level rise, storm surge, coastal erosion, sargassum seaweed, drought, extreme temperatures, and flash flooding from heavy rainfall. In addition to hurricanes, sea level rise poses risks to the tourism sector, the country's major economic sector. Changes in precipitation and temperature conditions increase risks to the agriculture sector, another key sector that supports livelihoods in Grenada. These changes in hazards triggered emerging crop diseases and protocols to deal with them, including public awareness and research. Grenada is also at risk from seismic events associated with the undersea volcano Kick 'Em Jenny, which has erupted 14 times since 1939. Eruption can cause high magnitude earthquakes and major tsunamis. The location and nature of the volcano also highlights the vulnerability of the island's shipping industry to indirect hazards; in the past, the volcano has damaged ships near Grenada. Institutional capacity is a key aspect of resilience in Grenada. Strengths include multiple policies that speak to disaster management, although many are not codified and implemented. Weaknesses include the absence of a comprehensive disaster management law to govern domestic disaster risk management and guide foreign disaster relief. There are also gaps in guidelines to govern the relationships between stakeholders and national committees, and as a result, a gap in coordination and implementation. Additionally, there is a lack of procedures for risk management of less frequent disasters such as landslides.