slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Presentation by Working Group 3 to the Sixth Meeting of the Inter-Agency Task Force PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Presentation by Working Group 3 to the Sixth Meeting of the Inter-Agency Task Force

play fullscreen
1 / 16
Download Presentation

Presentation by Working Group 3 to the Sixth Meeting of the Inter-Agency Task Force - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

kiayada-shepard
136 Views
Download Presentation

Presentation by Working Group 3 to the Sixth Meeting of the Inter-Agency Task Force

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Improving the Quality, Coverage and Accuracy of Disaster Data: A Comparative Analysis of Global and National Datasets Presentation by Working Group 3 to the Sixth Meeting of the Inter-Agency Task Force Geneva 24 – 25 October, 2002

  2. Working Group 3 Plan 2002 - 2003 Sub-Working Groups: • Improving Disaster Impact Data and Analysis • Tools and Best Practices for Risk and Vulnerability Analysis at the Local and Urban Levels • Indicators, Models and Data-sets for Risk and Vulnerability Indexing

  3. Improving Disaster Impact Data and Analysis Chair: Maxx Dilley, IRI Columbia University • Activity 1: Comparative analysis of Global and National Datasets (IRI Columbia University, CRED, LA RED, UNDP) • Activity 2: Linking climate and disaster databases – jointly with WG1(IRI Columbia University, CRED, Munich Reinsurance, LA RED, ADPC, European Commission DG Joint Research Centre, UNDP)

  4. Disaster Data • Accurate and reliable disaster data is essential for achieving all the goals and objectives of the ISDR: • Risk and vulnerability analysis • Early warning systems • Response preparedness • Adaptation to climate change

  5. Key Challenges • Global datasets are missing substantial numbers of disasters at the national level due to deficiencies in international reporting • National datasets capture a greater proportion of the total losses but most countries do not maintain consistent and comparable records • Variations in methods and standards make comparison difficult • Economic losses are inadequately captured and recorded

  6. Complementary Initiatives • ProVention consortium has compared 3 global data sets (NatCat, SIGMA, EM DAT) across four countries • ISDR IATF Working group 3 has compared one global data set (EM DAT) and national data sets (DesInventar) across 4 further countries

  7. Working Group 3 Study • Compared 149 records in the CRED EM DAT dataset with 19,004 records in the DesInventar database for the period 1970 – 2000 (*) • Covered Chile, Colombia, Jamaica and Panama. Very different countries in a single region • Used No. of deaths and No. of affected people as surrogate loss indicators • Study commissioned to OSSO, Universidad de Valle, Colombia – winner of 1996 Sasakawa Prize • (Panama for the period 1996 – 2001)

  8. Methodology • National disaster records classified into 3 categories: • Those that correlated with international reports in EM DAT • Those that fulfilled EM DAT criteria (more than 10 deaths or 100 affected people) but were not captured by international reporting • Small scale events with less than 10 deaths or 100 affected people

  9. Events with more than 10 deaths and/or 100 affected Events with more than 10 deaths and/or 100 affected Events with more than 10 deaths and/or 100 affected Events with more than 10 deaths and/or 100 affected Events with less than 10 deaths and/or 100 affected Deaths as % in Country Database Captured by international reporting Events with more than 10 deaths and/or 100 affected Events with more than 10 deaths and/or 100 affected Events with less than 10 deaths and/or 100 affected Captured by international reporting Not captured by international reporting Not captured by international reporting Not captured by international reporting 7% Captured by international reporting Not captured by international reporting Not captured by international reporting 7% 10% 10% 83% 22% 22% 11% 11% 67% Chile 7% 10% 83% 1% 1% 15% 15% 84% Jamaica 22% 11% 67% 85% 85% 6% 6% 9% Panama 1% 15% 84% Colombia 85% 6% 9% The Comparison Number of deaths:

  10. Events with more than 10 deaths and/or 100 affected Events with more than 10 deaths and/or 100 affected Events with more than 10 deaths and/or 100 affected Events with more than 10 deaths and/or 100 affected Events with less than 10 deaths and/or 100 affected People Affected as % in Country Database Captured by international reporting Events with more than 10 deaths and/or 100 affected Events with more than 10 deaths and/or 100 affected Events with less than 10 deaths and/or 100 affected Captured by international reporting Not captured by international reporting Not captured by international reporting Not captured by international reporting 13% Captured by international reporting Not captured by international reporting Not captured by international reporting 13% 71% 71% 16% 87% 87% 11% 11% 2% 3% 13% 71% 16% Chile 3% 81% 81% 16% 8% Jamaica 87% 11% 2% 8% 85% 85% 7% Panama 3% 81% 16% Colombia 8% 85% 7% The Comparison Number of affected:

  11. Conclusions • In the countries studied international reporting is not capturing a significant proportion of either deaths or affected people (*) • In 3 of the 4 countries small scale events accounted for significant proportions of disaster death but not people affected (*) • For every disaster captured by international reporting there are approximately 16 medium scale events that fulfill EM DAT criteria that are not being captured. In the 4 countries a total of 87 EM DAT events could be correlated but a total of 2,467 other events could have been captured. (* except when a unique catastrophic event has occurred in the reporting period)

  12. Conclusions The results cannot be extrapolated globally but indicate that there is a serious problem of reporting disaster occurrence and loss that: • Would seem to be underestimating real losses in many countries • Could lead to skewed and incorrect conclusions and projections in disaster reduction and adaptation to climate change applications.

  13. Recommendations • In order to underpin the achievement of the goals and the objectives of the ISDR, Working Group 3 proposes a range of inter-institutional activities to promote and facilitate the building of a multi-tiered global system of disaster reporting and data sets.

  14. Recommendations • The consolidation of a system for creating a unique global disaster identifier – GLIDE-, which can link national and global datasets, and particularly its incorporation in national datasets. • Development of common reporting standards and protocols for both national and international datasets

  15. Recommendations • Development of national datasets in areas where these do not currently exist. • Development and promotion of methods and standards for capturing economic loss • Capacity building and training in all the above areas

  16. Next Steps • Working Group 3 will host the next meeting of the CRED Technical Advisory Group in early 2003 and will agree on an action plan to put into practice the activities mentioned above.