\documentclass[english,german]{scrartcl}
\usepackage[latin1]{inputenc}
\usepackage{geometry}
\geometry{verbose,a4paper,tmargin=1.75cm,bmargin=2cm,lmargin=2cm,rmargin=2cm,headheight=0.8cm,headsep=0.5cm,footskip=0.5cm}
\usepackage{babel}
\usepackage{url}
\urlstyle{same}
\newcommand\email{\begingroup \urlstyle{same}\Url}\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{units}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{wasysym} % enable use of \permil instead of \textperthousand
\usepackage{marvosym}
\usepackage{arabtex}
\usepackage{hyphenat}
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{mdwlist}
\renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\relax}
\usepackage{index}
\newindex{key}{kdx}{knd}{Keywords}
\newindex{author}{idx}{ind}{Authors}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\pagestyle{fancy}
\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}
\fancyfoot{}
\usepackage{ifpdf}
\ifpdf
%\usepackage[activate]{pdfcprot}
%\usepackage[owner=Tapioka, print=true, copy=true, edit=false, annotate=false,set]{pdfcrypt}
%encryption: not supported any more (since pdftex 1.10)
\usepackage[pdftex]{thumbpdf}
\usepackage[pdftex]{hyperref}
\hypersetup{pdftitle={Comparative Analysis of Selected Water Risk Management Schemes in Nepal, Tanzania and Germany  },pdfauthor={Srijna Jha},pdfsubject={Tropentag 2016: Abstract},pdfkeywords={Flood insurance, indicators, knowledge sharing, risk management, water security},pdfpagemode=None,colorlinks=true}
\else
\usepackage{ae}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\fi
\begin{document}
\ifpdf
\parbox[b]{2.5cm}{\resizebox*{2.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics{dtt2016.jpg}}}
\else
\parbox[b]{2.5cm}{\resizebox*{2.5cm}{!}{\includegraphics{dtt2016.eps}}}
\fi
\hfill
\parbox[b]{13.4cm}{\centering \large{\textbf{Tropentag, September 18-21, 2016, Vienna, Austria}}\\[1ex] \Large{``Solidarity in a competing world ---\\fair use of resources''\\[2ex]}}
\hspace{0.1cm}
\begin{center}
\Large{\textbf{Comparative Analysis of Selected Water Risk Management Schemes in Nepal, Tanzania and Germany  \footnote{\textbf{Contact Address:} Srijna Jha, Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Institute of Socio-economics, C/o Bassauer Müggelstr. 3, 10247~Berlin, Germany, \mbox{e-mail}: \email{srijna.jha@zalf.de}}\\[0.8ex]}}
\normalsize{\textsc{Srijna Jha}}
\end{center}
\begin{itemize*}
\item[]{\small{\textit{Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Institute of Socio-economics, Germany}}}
\end{itemize*}
\index[author]{Jha, Srijna}
\begin{center}
\vspace{1.1cm}
\textbf{Abstract}
\begin{abstract}
\normalsize{
Developing, testing and implementing indicators to identify and assess vulnerability and coping capacity to uncertainty is an important pre"=requisite for effective human risk management. Particularly in view of the on going global warming and the increasing frequency of extreme weather events technical solutions alone, such as dams and dykes, will not be adequate to ensure human security in the long term. Therefore it is important to promote a paradigm shift from primary focus on technical solutions towards the identification and assessment of the various vulnerabilities of societies, their economy and environment. One indicator for this is flood insurance. While effective the flood insurance scenario suffers the consequences of adverse selection and it may me argued that the absence of flood a safety net has an increasing compounding effect on socio"=economic vulnerability with each flood. The application of this mechanism varies widely across countries, with a range of different types and schemes in operation. While most of the analytical focus has so far been on those markets that have a long tradition of insurance, there is still a clear gap in our understanding of how this mechanism works, why it may succeed or fail. The proposed paper (1\textsuperscript{st} of 3 papers) will look at three different schemes, in Nepal, Tanzania and Germany for a comparative analysis of the mechanisms of flood insurance. To isolate significant reasons for the uncertain sporadic behaviour of Flood Insurance schemes by conducting a comparative analysis amongst the three case studies utilising literature review, internet, and qualitative interviews from the field.  It proposes that one of the significant reasons why flood insurance is still a debatable mechanism and works sporadically is that often the knowledge base available to decision makers varies region to region along with quality.



 }

\vspace{0.5cm}
\end{abstract}
\end{center}
\noindent \textbf{Keywords:} Flood insurance, indicators, knowledge sharing, risk management, water security
\index[key]{Flood insurance}
\index[key]{Indicators}
\index[key]{Knowledge sharing}
\index[key]{Risk!management}
\index[key]{Water!security}
\end{document}
