EM-DAT The International Disaster Database

1. EM-DATThe International DisasterDatabase CRED – University of Louvain, Belgium Regina BELOW Expert Meeting on Hazard and Disaster Data, May 19-20, 2010 - Copenhagen

2. AIM OF THE DATABASE AND GENERAL INFORMATION

3. EM-DAT: International Disaster Database, created in 1988 and maintained by CRED Compile information on occurrence and impacts of over 18,000 natural and technological disasters from 1900 until present Objective: Provide evidence-base to humanitarian and development actors at national and international levels Database maintained by Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters – CRED (Research Institute Health and Society (IRSS) - University of Louvain, Brussels, Belgium) Project funded by OFDA/USAID, USA

4. PARTNERSHIP NETWORK • UN AGENCIES • WHO • OCHA • UN-ISDR • UNDP GOVERNMENT/MULTILATERAL AGENCIES • US Government • National governments • NOAA • World Bank • European Union • ESA NON-GOVERNMENTAL INSTITUTIONS IFRC ADRC National organizations PRIVATE COMPANIES MünichRe SwissRe

5. CONTENT OF THE DATABASE

6. Disasters in EM-DAT are defined as: “a situation or event which overwhelms local capacity, necessitating a request to the national or international level for external assistance, or is recognised as such by a multilateral agency or by at least two sources, such as national, regional or international assistance groups and the media”

7. EM-DAT CRITERIA • 10 or more people reported killed • and/or • 100 or more people reported affected • and/or • Call for international assistance/declaration of a state of emergency

8. Information on Human • and Economic Impact of: • Natural disasters (62%) • Geological (Earthquake, volcano, dry mass movement) • Hydrological (Flood, wet mass movement) • Climatological (Extreme temperature, drought, wildfire) • Meteorological (Storm) • Biological (Epidemic, insect infestation, animal stampede) • Technological disasters (38%) • Transport accidents • Industrial accidents • Miscellaneous accidents

9. MEASURING HUMAN AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS • Number of killed: • “persons confirmed as dead and persons missing and presumed dead” • Number of injured: • “people suffering from physical injuries, trauma or an illness requiring medical treatment as a direct result of a disaster” • Homeless: • “people needing immediate assistance for shelter” • Affected: • “persons requiring immediate assistance during a period of emergency, including displaced or evacuated people” • Total number of affected: Injured + Homeless + Affected • Economic damages: value of the immediate damage at the time of the event (direct damage in US$)

10. STANDARD TEMPLATE

11. STANDARD TEMPLATE

12. METHODOLOGY Level 1 DISASTER EVENT Level 2 COUNTRY 1 COUNTRY 2 Level 3 SOURCE 1 SOURCE 2 SOURCE 3 SOURCE 1 SOURCE 2 SOURCE 3 VALIDATION PUBLIC

13. VALIDATION SHEET

14. VALIDATION • Data entered and updated daily • Monthly validation process before making • data available for the public (3 months interval) • Internal error cross checking • Yearly data quality control

15. COLLECTION OF DATA AND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS

16. UNITED NATIONS • OCHA, IRIN, WHO MAIN DATA SOURCES (Priority List) • GOVERNMENTAL SOURCES • Official Country Figures • US GOVERNMENT • OFDA, NOAA, DFO, USGS IFRC AND NGO’s • REINSURANCE COMPANIES • SwissRe, MünichRe • INSURANCE MAGAZINE • Lloyd Casualty Week RESEARCH CENTRES • PRESS/MEDIA • AFP, Reuters

17. SPECIFIC DATA SOURCES • EARTHQUAKE • USGS • FLOODS • DFO • EPIDEMIC • WHO • ECONOMIC LOSSES • ECLAC, Reinsurance Comp. • INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS • UN/APELL

18. CONSISTENCY/UPDATE OF DATA

19. METHODOLOGY • Data must be comparable over time and space • Standard methodology for entering data • Clear stated methodology, based on 20 years experience and posted on the website • Figures confirmed by at least 2 sources • Use of priority sources

20. STRENGHTS OF EM-DAT • Unique free accessible database • Acts as a reference point for global analysis of disaster occurrence and impact • Unique basis for policy papers on disaster reduction and risks • International recognition and credibility • Capacity to provide methods and guidelines (20 years experience) • Transparent conventions regarding data sources and internal protocol • Standard data templates • Global and coherent data

21. LIMITATIONS OF EM-DAT • Global database • Limited potential for analysis in terms of disaster occurrence and impact on smaller, intra-country spatial scales • -Public aspect of EM-DAT may lead to inappropriate use of data

22. EMDAT : CREDibility • Long experience in data collection & management • Normative rules, clear definition • Clearly-stated methodology • Validation methods and tools • Transparency • Automatization (data entry and outputs) • Comparability of its data across time and space • UNIQUE PUBLIC GLOBAL REFERENCE DATABASE

23. ACCESS TO DATA

24. CRED OUTPUTS • 30 Years Natural Disasters (1973-2003) • Statistical Annex of the WDR (IFRC) • Press Release (ISDR) • Annual Statistical Review • CRED Crunch

25. EXTERNAL OUTPUTS World Bank Natural Disasters Hotspots ISDR Living with Risk UNDP Reducing Disaster Risk

26. EM-DAT ONLINE www.emdat.be • Different search options: • (1) Country profiles* • (2) Natural & technological disaster profiles* • (3) Disaster list* • (4) Advanced search* • (5) Maps • (6) Trend figures • * Dynamic

27. EM-DAT USERS • Ministries and specialized agencies (white & policy papers, budget justifications, planning, priorities) • Red Cross and NGOs • Consultant firms (environmental, land use) • Insurance firms • High school teachers, Undergraduate University projects • Research (environment, geography, urbanization, tourism)

28. WEB-SITE USAGE (2008/2009)

29. DATA IN EUROPE

30. DATA GAPS FOR EUROPE • Systematic reporting of disaster impact is weak (depend on centralization) • Realistic and appropriate methods to measure human impact in European context should be developed • Common data standards for reporting need to be established across European Union countries (and intra – country)

31. CONCLUSIONS • Building on existing efforts better then starting from scratch • The « Kiss principle » : Keep it Short and Simple • Problems of disaster data collection in the Europe will be the same as problems of data collection in the world

32. THANK YOU … • CONTACT • CRED • 30, Clos Chapelle-aux-Champs • 1200 Brussels – Belgium • Tel: +32-2-764-3327/Fax-3441 • E-Mail: contact@cred.be • Website: www.cred.be

33. QUESTIONS

34. "Common protocol" for georeferencing global disasterdatabases (interoperability) • More precise information on disaster locations (additional data sources and/or linking to other (global) datasets • Production of Spatial analysis & disaster footprints

35. CONTEXT AND NEEDS • Lack of accessible information remain major barrier for better disaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness and reduction • Need of comprehensive understanding of complete human, economic and social impact of disasters • Decision-makers need to be informed on where to invest and how to design sustainable project

36. ISSUES HIGHLIGHTED • Disaster definitions: Differences & lack of standardized terminology (low comparability) • Disaster typology: Disaster (sub)type classification, primary/secondary event • Geo-referencing: Data resolution • Temporal aspects: Difficulties in reporting start and end dates • Methodology: Lack of publicly available methodology => transparency & comparability, ambiguity of variables (definitions, sources, criteria) • Sourcing: Lack/Overabundance of data sources