World Risk Report

8/3/2019 World Risk Report

1/74Together for people in need.

WorldRiskReport

Focus: Governance and civil society

UNU-EHSInstitute for Environment

and Human Security

In cooperation with: 2011


2/74


3/74


4/74

WorldRiskReport 2011


5/74

WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 3

1. The WorldRiskReport . 5Peter Mucke

2. WorldRiskIndex: Concept and results . 13Jrn Birkmann, Torsten Welle, Dunja Krause, Jan Wolfertz, Dora-Catalina Suarez, Neysa Jacqueline Setiadi

2.1 Objective . 14

2.2 Four components . 15

2.3 Data and methods . 17

2.4 Opportunities and limitations of the WorldRiskIndex . 24

2.5 Risk assessment at the global level . 25

2.6 Local risk assessment . 36

2.7 Results and challenges . 39

3. Focal topic: Governance and civil society . 43

3.1 State failure as a risk factor How natural events turn into disasters . 44 Katrin Radtke

3.2 Local risk management . 48 Ralph Dickerhof

3.3 Demanding state responsibility . 53 Peter Mucke

4. Conclusions and perspectives . 59

Bndnis Entwicklung Hilft

Annex. 63


6/74

WorldRiskReport 20114 [


7/74


People are inevitably captivated by disasters. Television, on-line media, social networks and newspapers report immediately from affected areas. In just the rst three months of 2011,the earthquake in New Zealand, the ood in Australia, and inparticular, the earthquake and tsunami in Japan provided shockingimages. Extreme natural events such as the tsunami on Boxing Day 2004 as well as the earthquake in Haiti and the ood in Pakistan both in 2010 have had catastrophic effects on the affected regions.The frequency and intensity of such extreme events have increasedalarmingly in recent years. But did the disaster risk also increase?

1. The WorldRiskReport


8/74


Whether an earthquake or a tsunami,a hurricane or a ood, the risk that anatural event will develop into a disasterdepends only partially on the strength of theevent itself. A substantial cause lies in the

living conditions of people in the affectedregions and the opportunities to quickly respond and help. Those who are preparedand who know what to do during an extremenatural event have higher survival chances.The countries that anticipate natural haz-ards prepare for the consequences of climatechange and provide the necessary nancialresources are better equipped for the future.

The Bndnis Entwicklung Hilft (AllianceDevelopment Works) publishes the

WorldRiskReport to examine these issuesat the global level and to draw conclusionsfor future actions in assistance, policy andreporting. The core of the WorldRiskReportis the WorldRiskIndex, which was developedon behalf of the Bndnis Entwicklung Hilft

by the United Nations University Institute forEnvironment and Human Security in Bonn,Germany. The WorldRiskIndex indicates theprobability that a country or region will be

affected by a disaster. The index is the resultof close cooperation between scientists andpractitioners. Experts in the analysis of natu-ral hazards and vulnerability research as wellas practitioners of development cooperation

and humanitarian aid have discussed anddeveloped the concept of the index. Globally available data are used to represent the disas-ter risk for the countries concerned.

In the framework of the WorldRiskIndex,disaster risk is analysed as a complex inter-play of natural hazards and social, politicaland environmental factors. Unlike cur-rent approaches that focus strongly on theanalysis of the various natural hazards, the

WorldRiskIndex, in addition to exposure

analysis, focuses on the vulnerability of thepopulation, i.e. its susceptibility, its ca-pacities to cope with and to adapt to futurenatural events as well as the consequencesof climate change. Disaster risk is seen as afunction of exposure and vulnerability. Thenational states are the frame of reference forthe analysis.


9/74


The index consists of indicators in four com-ponents: exposure to natural hazards suchas earthquakes, storms, oods, droughts andsea level rise; susceptibility as a function of public infrastructure, housing conditions, nu-

trition and the general economic framework;coping capacities as a function of gover-nance, disaster preparedness and early warn-ing, medical services, social and economicsecurity; and adaptive capacities to futurenatural events and climate change.

There is a ne line between the components;some adaptive measures, for example,directly lead to a decrease in individualssusceptibility or to an increase of copingcapacities. In the approach of the World-

RiskIndex, new aspects are included, for which no global database currently exists:national disaster preparedness policy, socialnetworks, urban and spatial structure andnational adaptation strategies. Again, thisis the result of close cooperation betweenscientists and practitioners: high relevancecategories for major disasters are included inthe index, even if the relevant scienti c dataare not yet globally available. This provides

the opportunity to directly implement cur-rent developments and integrate new know-ledge in the WorldRiskReport: indeed, assoon as con rmed data are globally available,they can be integrated into the index: the

structure consisting of four components withseveral sub-categories that make up the gen-eral index as mathematically linked modulesmakes this possible. Also, variables that havenot yet been identi ed for assessing disasterrisk can be integrated when needed and usedto develop the WorldRiskIndex.

This report thus contributes to both identify-ing the aspects that urgently require researchin order to better understand and evaluat-ing the interaction between natural hazards

and the affected society. Combined with themodular structure of the WorldRiskIndex,this process allows for the continuous im-provement of the present risk analysis in thecoming years.

The WorldRiskIndex is complemented by a local risk index with a small-scale analy-sis that provides important information forpractitioners. More data are often available

WorldRiskIndex: Searching for protectionThe WorldRiskIndex seeks answers to the following questions:

+ How likely is an extreme natural event and will it affect people?

+ How vulnerable are people to natural hazards?

+ To what extent are societies able to cope with severe and immediate disasters?

+ Does society take precautionary measures against anticipated future natural hazards?


10/74


at the regional or local level, and can be of interest for risk assessment. For instance, themembers of the Bndnis Entwicklung Hilft also carry out risk analyses in their project

work. Data resulting from these analyses

ideally with the help of scientists can beincorporated into the modules of the World-RiskIndex, as shown in the WorldRiskReport2011 with the example of several administra-tive units in Indonesia. The result is an indexof high practical value.

Each global report has limitations in its valid-ity. This also applies to the WorldRiskIndex:data on mutual neighbourhood assistance,traditional structures and self-help capaci-ties are not available in a global comparison,

unlike, for example, the number of hospital beds or per capita income. As a consequence,social factors are included to a lesser extentin the WorldRiskIndex than easily measur-able technical or economic factors. This must

be kept in mind when drawing conclusionsfor risk assessment; however, it also providesthe opportunity to request a better analysis of these factors from policy and science.

Figure 1: Total number of reported natural disasters, 19702010(Data: CRED EM-DAT 2011)

1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Concretely facing naturalhazardsIn the Indian Federal State of Tamil Nadu, fishersuse mobile phones with Internet connection beforeleaving for fishing. The latest weather report isretrieved and thus contributes to early warning andideally to a well-adapted behaviour. Other mea-sures for facing hazards include those supported bythe members of the Alliance in their project work:traditional building methods such as constructionon stilts in areas with recurring floods, earthquake-resistant houses constructed of timber or clay, andearth walls protecting fields in flood risk areas.


11/74


The focal topic of the WorldRiskReport 2011is governance and civil society. Three sub-chapters concentrate on the complex inter-action of state responsibility and potentialin uences of civil society, viewed from the

standpoint of practitioners. In addition todiscussing the risk of weak governance withrespect to disasters, they also examine theunintended side effects of external interven-tions (e.g. the risk of further underminingalready weak governments) and the possi-

bilities of civil society to call for governmentaction, as well as to support and supplementit. The basic chapters examining these is-sues are supplemented by country-speci ccase studies that explain the operations andprinciples of the members of the Bndnis

Entwicklung Hilft at the interface betweendisaster risk reduction and the promotion of good governance.

The aim of the WorldRiskReport 2011 is toshift away from the usually short-term view of disasters and concentrate on a develop-mental approach, focusing on aspects such asprevention, protection of particularly vulner-able groups and risk management.

Linking the social and economic dimen-sions of risk with the classical risk analysis of natural events will allow a new approach torisk assessment and enable forward-lookingconclusions for both decision-makers and

practitioners. Precautionary measures tominimize risks should be mentioned here as well as climate change adaptation.

Figure 2: Estimated damage caused by natural disasters, 19702010(Data: CRED EM-DAT 2011)

250

200

150

100

50

0 D a m a g e

i n m

i l l i o n s U S d o

l l a r s

1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

Kobe Earthquake (1995)

Wenchuan Earthquake (2008)

Hurricane Katrina (2005)


12/74


Japan The incalculable risk of nuclear energyThe severe earthquake in Japan in the spring of 2011 and the subsequent nuclear meltdownprove that even the countries that perform well in the WorldRiskIndex in the categories of sus-ceptibility, coping capacities and adaptive capacities, cannot cope with all disasters i.e. whenuncontrollable risks are known, assessed incorrectly or even tolerated. In this case, even themost stable framework conditions are not adequate for the management of the disaster. Onceradioactivity is released into the environment, it is not only dangerous across borders but it isalso impossible to control, even in a highly industrialized country. In this case, risk reductionwould entail rejecting the nuclear option for energy production and the consistent implementa-tion of sustainable energy production. If the complex disasters in Japan (earthquake, tsunamiand nuclear meltdown) had struck a less developed country, the material damage would havebeen far higher and far more people would have been affected by the earthquake and meter-high tsunami waves. In view of the nuclear meltdown that may possibly affect millions ofpeople, this fact must be put into perspective, however.

The aim of the Bndnis Entwicklung Hilft isto jointly consider relief aid and developmentcooperation, and to link them more closely inpractice. Risk assessment, prevention, copingand adaptation strategies are the components

of this concept. The index and the indicatorscan help to be selectively active in anticipa-tion of extreme natural events and to priori-tize preventive measures. In early 2005 thenon-governmental organizations (NGOs)Brot fr die Welt, Medico International,Misereor, Terre des Hommes and Welthun-gerhilfe founded the alliance whose missionis to actively provide on-site emergency andlong-term help in emergencies and disas-ters. After the tsunami in Southeast Asia, thecyclone Nargis in Myanmar, the earthquake

in Haiti and the ood in Pakistan in 2010,and many other cases, the members of the

Bndnis Entwicklung Hilft joined forces.The Bndnis Entwicklung Hilft is active inpublic relations in Germany, informing onthe causes of disasters as well as on ways of disaster prevention.

The printed version of the WorldRisk Reportis published for easy readability. Maps,graphs and images supplement the text. Theunderlying detailed scienti c explanation,further information and tables are available

for further reading and can be downloaded at www.WorldRiskReport.org.


13/74


The results of the index show that there is a veryhigh desater risk (see table at the right), par-ticularly for Asian and Latin American countries including the Philippines, Bangladesh, Timor-Leste, Cambodia, Guatemala, Costa Rica and ElSalvador. It is also striking that three island na-tions, Vanuatu, Tonga and the Solomon Islands,are among the 15 countries with the highestdisaster risk, Vanuatu being the country withthe highest risk. Breaking down the collecteddata, it appears that this fact is mainly due to

the extremely high exposure of these countries.Indeed, in terms of social factors (vulnerability),these countries compare significantly betterthan many others. In this respect, the copingand adaptive capacities of these countries arenot yet sufficient to substantially reduce thedisaster risk. However, the examples of Japan,Chile and the Netherlands, all belonging to the15 countries with the highest exposure, showthat good disaster preparedness in view of thedevelopment of coping and adaptive capacitiescan significantly reduce the disaster risk. These

three countries are ranked 35 th, 25th and 69 th,respectively, in the WorldRiskIndex. With respectto vulnerability, which consists of the categoriesof susceptibility, coping capacities and adaptivecapacities, Afghanistan has the worst perfor-mance, which is followed by eight African coun-tries including for example Niger, Chad, SierraLeone, Eritrea and then Haiti, which ranks onposition 10.

WorldRiskIndexRank Country Risk (%)

1 Vanuatu 32.002 Tonga 29.083 Philippines 24.324 Solomon Islands 23.515 Guatemala 20.886 Bangladesh 17.457 Timor-Leste 17.458 Costa Rica 16.749 Cambodia 16.58

10 El Salvador 16.49

11 Nicaragua 15.7412 Papua New Guinea 15.4513 Madagascar 14.4614 Brunei Darussalam 14.0815 Afghanistan 14.06

150 Germany 2.96

159 Canada 2.57160 Switzerland 2.55161 Barbados 2.44162 Egypt 2.38163 Grenada 2.29

164 Norway 2.28165 Estonia 2.25166 Finland 2.06167 Sweden 2.00168 Kiribati 1.88169 Bahrain 1.66170 Iceland 1.56171 S audi Arabia 1.26172 Malta 0.72173 Qatar 0.02

The results at a glance


14/74



15/74


2. WorldRiskIndex:Concept and results

What is societys risk of becoming the victim of naturalhazards and climate change? The WorldRiskIndex providesan illuminating response. The United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security in Bonncalculated a risk score for 173 countries throughout the world. Accordingly, with a value of 32.00 per cent, thedisaster risk is highest for the Paci c island state of Vanuatu.This index value is calculated by combining the exposure tonatural hazards with the vulnerability of a society, which inturn combines its susceptibility and its coping and adaptivecapacities.

Jrn Birkmann, Torsten Welle, Dunja Krause, Jan Wolfertz, Dora-Catalina Suarez,Neysa Jacqueline Setiadi


16/74


WorldRiskIndex

Exposure

Exposure to naturalhazards

Natural hazard sphere Vulnerability Societal sphere

Susceptibility

Likelihood of sufferingharm

Adaptation

Capacities for long-termstrategies for societalchange

Coping

Capacities to reduce negativeconsequences

Components of the WorldRiskIndex at the global and local level

The concept of the WorldRiskIndex is based on the core understanding of risk within the natural hazards and disaster risk reduction community. In this context, risk isde ned as the interaction between a natu-ral hazard event (earthquake, ood, storm,drought, sea level rise) and the vulnerability

of the exposed element or society (UN/ISDR 2004; Wisner et al. 2004; Birkmann 2006;IDEA 2005). Vulnerability includes socialconditions and processes in terms of suscep-tibility as well as coping and adaptive capaci-ties. The adaptive capacity is included in theindex as a separate component, in addition tocoping capacity. The adaptive capacity refersto long-term strategies for change within asociety, while coping capacities deal withresources for a direct response to the impactof a given hazard event.

The concept of the WorldRiskIndex stressesthat risk is essentially determined by thestructure, processes and framework condi-tions within a society that can be affected by natural hazards, as well as the exposure tonatural hazards and climate change. In con-trast to the assumption that a well-orderedsociety faces natural hazards and climatechange, the concept of the WorldRiskIndex

particularly underlines the importance of social, economic and environmental factorsas well as governance aspects in determin-ing whether a natural hazard will result ina disaster. The WorldRiskIndex is recordedand measured on the basis of four compo-nents (Figure 3):

While the calculation of exposure to a naturalhazard yields the number of people exposedto a possible natural hazard, the other threecomponents (susceptibility, coping capacities

and adaptive capacities) focus on character-istics of vulnerability of societies and socialactors. As part of a global system of indica-tors, however, only selected aspects can behighlighted. They must be supplemented by additional local and context-speci c studies.

Figure 3: Scheme of the concept of the WorldRiskIndex

2.1 Objective

+ Exposure to a natural hazard or a climaticstimulus

+ Susceptibility+ Coping capacities

+ Adaptive capacities.


17/74


The abstract concepts of risk, exposure and vulnerability are speci ed in the study on the basis of exposure to natural hazardsor potential phenomena of climate change,susceptibility, coping capacities and adaptive

capacities. It should be clearly pointed outthat the WorldRiskIndex does not attempt tocover all facets of risk, exposure and vulner-ability; rather, it aims at providing an over-

view of important key components of risk atglobal level. The distinction between copingand adaptive capacities is a new item thatshould show that countries and different so-cial groups may have short-term capacities toavert damage caused by a natural event (cop-

ing capacity), but nevertheless it must also beconsidered which capacities are available forlong-term and permanent change that wouldenable adaptation to environmental andsocietal change. Accordingly, great emphasis

is put on the intrinsic, logical combinationof the individual indicators in the context of the four components exposure, susceptibility,coping capacities and adaptive capacities.

ExposureExposure in its core meaning in naturalhazard research refers to entities exposedand prone to be affected by a hazard event.These entities include persons, resources,

2.2 Four components

Overall, the approach of the WorldRisk-Index was developed on the basis of dif-ferent views in the scienti c discourse to

vulnerability and risk. Other indices that try to map risk and vulnerability at the globallevel are often strongly focused on issues of exposure, casualties caused by disasters andeconomic losses (For a detailed descriptionof the study, see www.WorldRiskReport.org.)The scienti c basis of the WorldRiskIndexrelies on framework concepts, which seek anintegrative and holistic coverage of vulner-ability within a process model and is basedin particular on the work of Bogardi andBirkmann (2004), Cardona (1999, 2001) andBirkmann (2006). In addition, discussionson the distinction between coping and adap-tive capacities were recently initiated (see,inter alia, Davies 2009; Birkmann 2011).

Vulnerability and vulnerability assessmentgenerally relate to the identi cation of factors(such as social, physical, economic and envi-ronmental factors) that, on the one hand, ren-der people or systems susceptible to impactsresulting from natural hazards and climatechange, and on the other hand, describe theircapabilities and capacities to cope with and

adapt to adverse impacts of natural hazards. Vulnerability and hence the susceptibility,coping capacities and adaptive capacities of people and systems, however, are not static

but are subject to strong dynamics. At times,susceptibility, coping capacities and adaptivecapacities can be distinguished between thephases before, during and after a disas-ter (Wisner 2002, Birkmann and Fernando2008). As part of the WorldRiskIndex, thesedynamics can only be covered in a limited

way; in particular, a continuous updating of the index would make it possible to systemati-cally document some of these dynamics.


18/74


infrastructure, production, goods, servicesor ecosystems and coupled social-ecologicalsystems.

Exposure can thus be differentiated into atemporal and spatial component. If a society or a country has no exposure to natural haz-ards, then the development of strategies fordealing with them can be neglected. Withinthe WorldRiskIndex, exposure is related tothe potential average number of individuals

who are exposed each year to earthquakes,storms, droughts and oods (see Peduzzi etal. 2009). Added to this number are people

who would be affected by the sea level rising by one meter. It should be taken into consid-eration in the calculation that a potential riseof the sea level by one meter is expected tooccur only by 2100 and in a gradual process.The base of the index is, however, the popu-lation in 2005 and not the projected popula-tion in the future. Despite these methodolog-ical dif culties, it is important to carefully consider these slow environmental changesin the context of climate change in future risk studies.

The WorldRiskIndex is designed with a focuson the natural hazards that occurred from

1970 to 2005, which were responsible formost of the human casualties and materialdamage (CRED EM-DAT 2011), in addition tothe consideration of the potential threat of acontinuing rise of the sea level. The following

ve natural hazards were therefore selected:

+ Earthquakes + Storms + Floods + Droughts + Sea level rise.

SusceptibilitySusceptibility refers to selected structuralcharacteristics of a society and the frame-

work conditions in which the social actorsface potential natural hazards and climatephenomena. In this regard, the nutritionaland the economic situation as well as thecondition of infrastructures are particularly important. These characteristics render itpossible to make provisional assumptions onthe relative susceptibility of societies com-pared to other societies.

Generally, susceptibility is understood as thelikelihood of suffering harm and damages incase of the occurrence of a natural hazard.Conceptually, susceptibility has been sepa-rated into sub-categories that re ect the liv-ing situation and conditions of people withina country:

+ Public infrastructure + Housing conditions + Nutrition + Poverty and dependencies + Economic capacity and income distribution.

CopingCoping and coping capacities include the

capacities of societies and exposed elements(such as systems and institutions) to mini-mize the negative impact of natural hazardsand climate change through direct action andresources. Coping is therefore based on thedirect effects of natural hazards and climatechange. According to the concept of the

WorldRiskIndex, coping includes availableabilities and capacities that may be highly relevant for minimizing damages in the oc-currence of a hazardous event. The following

ve sub-categories were chosen to character-

ize the component:

+ Government and authorities+ Disaster preparedness and early warning

+ Medical services+ Social networks

+ Material coverage.

Based on the de nitions of susceptibility andcoping, it can be seen that both components


19/74


are closely interlinked, and that a clear sepa-ration in practice is thus often impossible.Nevertheless, it is important to emphasizeand communicate that societies are proneto natural hazards, yet are capable to handlethem.

Adaptation Adaptation includes capacities, measuresand strategies that enable communities tochange in order to address expected negativeconsequences of natural hazards and climatechange. It implies that a society has already changed before the occurrence of negativeeffects in such a way that coping is no longernecessary to the extent that it had been in thepast. In contrast to coping capacities, adap-tive capacities and measures are strongly aimed at the transformation of current struc-tures (education, status of the environment,etc.). Adaptation focuses primarily on capaci-ties that can trigger the appropriate changes.

The following ve sub-categories were identi-ed within this concept. In a wider sense,

they may be responsible in the long term tomake societies more resistant and adaptableto the impact of climate change and naturalhazards:

+ Education and research + Gender equity + Environmental status/ecosystem protection + Adaptation strategies + Investments.

This chapter provides an overview of theselected indicators, the available global datasets and the calculation of the WorldRisk-Index and its components. The implementa-tion of the concept for the WorldRiskIndex is

based on freely available global data, whichmust meet certain standards and quality criteria. For the global and the local levelunder consideration, it was decided to basethe analysis on the following quality criteria:the exposure indicators make it possible to

compare the different natural hazards; theindicators of susceptibility, coping capacitiesand adaptive capacities should be general inorder to be equally relevant to all kinds of natural hazards. These indicators reproducethe intended theoretical facts (indicandum);the indicators are statistically and analyti-cally accurate, reproducible, comparable,understandable and as simple as possible tointerpret (see Meyer 2004). In addition, most

of the data used should be collected regularly to facilitate future updates of the indicatorsand, in particular, in order to represent de-

velopment processes. As part of the development of the World-RiskIndex, different methodologies wereused (statistical and spatial analysis usinggeographic information systems), whichcould be followed up in the technical annexto this study. For example, a factor analysis

was conducted to validate the structure of

the overall index (Figure 8). For the spa-tial analysis and the mapping, the values of the calculated indices were separated into

ve classes using the quantile classi cationmethod, which is integrated in the ArcGIS9.3 software.Thereby each class contains an equal numberof features. The ve classes of all calculatedindices differ in their value ranges, but canalso be translated into the qualitative classi -

2.3 Data and methods


20/74


cation of very high high medium low very low (see the maps on the fold-out pagesof the cover).

As a whole, the authors believe that the individual components of exposure and vulner-ability are more relevant for communicationand decision-making than the aggregate totalindex, since an aggregation always entails aloss of differentiation.

Indicators

The WorldRiskIndex is calculated using ap-propriate indicators in the four componentsof exposure, susceptibility, coping capacitiesand adaptive capacities. Figure 4 shows theindicators and their respective division inthe relevant components and sub-categories.The four sub-categories housing situa-tion, social networks, disaster preparedness/early warning and adaptation strategies aremarked in grey because, although they are

1. Exposure

Populationexposed to:

A Earthquakes

B Storms

C Floods

D Droughts

E Sea level rise

an important component of the index from atheoretical and practical point of view, they have not yet been integrated into the overallcalculation of the WorldRiskIndex due to lack of relevant data. All four sub-categories aredescribed in a separate box. The selection of the indicators relates, among other things, toaspects of the eight Millennium DevelopmentGoals and the Hyogo Framework for Action of the United Nations.

The raw data of all selected indicators were ex-

tracted from various global databases and dueto the subsequent mathematical aggregationinto indices transformed in dimensionless rank levels between 0 and 1. Figures 5, 6 and 7 show the modular structure of the indices for the sus-ceptibility, coping capacities and adaptive ca-pacities, respectively. They will be aggregated ineach case into an index according to the above-mentioned weighting factors and converted intopercentage values for better comprehension.

Figure 4: Indicators of the four components of theWorldRiskIndex


21/74


Exposure to natural hazardsThe selection of hazards is based primarily on two factors: the authors chose the naturalhazards that occurred most frequently from1970 to 2005 and that claimed the most ca-sualties (CRED EM-DAT 2011). The inclusionof other types of hazards, such as volcaniceruptions, mass movements (such as land-slides) and forest res, was seriously consid-ered, but discarded due to the lack of suitabledata and the relatively lower impact.Therefore, the WorldRiskIndex includes

oods, storms, earthquakes and droughts, which, according to the United NationsInternational Strategy for Disaster Reduction(UN/ISDR, 2004) contribute to 74 per centof all natural hazards. Moreover, in accor-dance with the International Disaster Da-tabase (CRED EM-DAT), these four naturalhazards were responsible for 88 per cent of all deaths reported from 1970 to 2005. Inaddition, the future issue of global sea level

2. Susceptibility

Public infrastructure

A Share of the population withoutaccess to improved sanitation

B Share of the population without

access to an improved watersource

Housing conditions

Share of the population living inslums; proportion of semi-solidand fragile dwellings

Nutrition

C Share of populationundernourished

Poverty anddependencies

D Dependency ratio (share of under15- and over 65-year-olds inrelation to the working population)

E Extreme poverty populationliving with USD 1.25 per day orless (purchasing power parity)

Economic capacity andincome distribution

F Gross domestic product per capita(purchasing power parity)

G Gini index

3. Coping capacities

Government and authorities

A Corruption Perceptions IndexB Good governance(Failed States Index)

Disaster preparedness and earlywarning

National disaster riskmanagement policy according toreport to the United Nations

Medical services

C Number of physicians per 10,000inhabitants

D Number of hospital beds per10,000 inhabitants

Social networks

Neighbors, family andself-help

Material coverage

E Insurances(life insurances excluded)

4. Adaptive capacities

Education and research

A Adult literacy rateB Combined gross school

enrolment

Gender equity

C Gender parity in educationD Share of female representativ

in the National Parliament

Environmental status /Ecosystem protection

E Water resourcesF Biodiversity and habitat

protectionG Forest managementH Agricultural management

Adaptation strategies

Projects and strategies to adaptnatural hazards and climate cha

Investment

I Public health expenditure J Life expectancy at birthK Private health expenditure

rise was taken into particular consideration inorder to include the threat to coastal areas andits residents in the context of climate change.Currently, about 13 per cent of the worldspopulation lives in coastal areas that are lessthan ten meters above sea level (UN-Habitat2011).

The WorldRiskIndex takes into account twodifferent types of natural hazards: sudden-onset hazards such as storms, oods andearthquakes, and gradually or slowly occurring

processes, such as drought and sea level rise.The data on exposure to earthquakes, storms,

oods and droughts are taken from the GlobalRisk Data Platform PREVIEW of the UnitedNations Environment Programme (UNEP).The data records on physical exposure fromthis database include the number of personsper spatial unit of space (one square kilome-ter) who are exposed to the selected naturalhazards on average per year and per country.

A detailed description ofeach indicator with itssource is available at:www.WorldRiskReport.org


22/74


Excursus 1: Housing conditionsThe housing condition is not included in thecalculation of the index, but it must be consideredan important component of susceptibility andtherefore be mentioned within this component.There are data and methods available to study thehousing situation, for example, by means of earth

observation through remote sensing. This allows toestimate the building substance of individual housesand to analyse typical settlement patterns, such as inslum neighbourhoods (Taubenbck and Dech 2010).Since these studies are very time-consuming andcost-intensive, they have been carried out for only afew cities to date. As a result, there are no adequatedata available to include these aspects at the globallevel.

The calculation of the potential exposure of people to global sea level rise by one meteris based on the records of the University of Kansas, Center for Remote Sensing of IceSheets (CReSIS). These were compared witha global population data set of ColumbiaUniversity, Center for International EarthScience Information Network, using a geo-graphic information system (GIS) and iden-tifying the potentially exposed populationper country. Subsequently, all individuals

who were exposed to the ve natural hazards

(earthquakes, storms, oods, droughts andsea level rise) were added. Since the calcula-tion of the number of exposed individuals(physical exposure) is highly complex fordroughts and does not have the same ac-curacy (see Peduzzi et al. 2009) that can

be achieved, for instance, for earthquakes,storms and oods, this indicator is only half-

weighted. Similarly, the calculation of theexposed people to sea level rise by one meter

Figure 5: Structure of the component susceptibility

is only half-weighted, since this is a gradualprocess and an annual average calculation of the exposure as with other natural haz-ards is not possible. Finally, all exposedpeople for each natural hazard are added anddivided by the population of their country.Thus, the exposed population as a percentagefor each country was calculated (see Map A on the right fold-out page of the cover).

SusceptibilityThe susceptibility index is calculated in

several steps. Figure 5 provides an overview of the indicators used to describe the suscep-tibility of societies and social groups at thenational level with a global focus. In detail,the ve sub-categories with their respec-tive weighting factors can be observed. Thehousing situation has not been included inthe calculation due to the lack of global datasets. The various indicators and their weight-ing factors are listed under each of the ve

Susceptibility



B Share of the population withoutaccess to an improved watersource

Housing conditions

Share of the population living inslums; proportion of semi-solidand fragile dwellings

Nutrition

C Share of populationundernourished


D Dependency ratio (share of under15- and over 65-year-olds inrelation to the working population)

E Extreme poverty (populationliving with USD 1.25 per day orless (purchasing power parity)

Economic capacity andincome distribution

F Gross domestic product per capita(purchasing power parity)

G Gini index

Insuf cient globaldata available


23/74


Excursus 2: Disaster preparedness and early warningThis indicator gives a rst impression of the current political processand the implementation of disaster risk management activitieswithin the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), which is designedfor the 20052015 period. For the 20092011 period, there were81 countries by the end of March that had submitted their progressreports on measures taken to safeguard against natural hazards and

disasters. Within the WorldRiskReport, these reports were analysedwith the help of a separate evaluation scheme in which a maximumof ten points could be achieved. Due to the relatively small numberof countries, however, these values will not be included at this timein the calculation of the WorldRiskIndex. Disaster preparedness andearly warning is nevertheless mentioned as a sub-category of copingcapacity because of its great relevance for the component. The resultof the evaluation are shown in Chapter 2.5 in a separate map (Figure

Excursus 3: Social networksSocial networks can be a central resource for people exposed tonatural hazards. They include mutual neighbourhood assistance, self-help groups, ties of kinship and networks which are effective in the

case of an extreme event and contribute to mitigating the adverseeffects should it occur. Social networks are extremely important inemergency situations playing a particular role in fragile or weakstates, and contribute to assist the affected population (see Chapter3.1). However, there are currently no reliable, meaningful globaldata available on social networks. They must be excluded from thecalculation overall, but nevertheless must be listed under the copingcomponent due to their high relevance.

sub-categories. The input data for the suscep-tibility indicators (A to G) have been converted into non-dimensional ranks with values between 0 and 1, as described above. It should be noted that the two indicators access toclean water and access to improved sanita-tion are positive in nature (see technicalannex at www.WorldRiskReport.org). Accord-ingly, in order to determine the susceptibil-ity of the population, the portion of peoplelacking access to clean water and improvedsanitation has been calculated. The index for

susceptibility is presented in Map B1 (on theleft fold-out page of the cover).

Coping capacitiesFor calculating the lack of coping capacitiesindex, indicators that contribute to reducingthe negative impacts of natural hazards andclimate change when they occur were selected.First, this index refers to the capacities thatare important resources in the event of a

Figure 6: Structure of the component coping

disaster, such as medical services and mate-rial coverage. Second, it concerns framework conditions that make it dif cult to cope withthe direct effects of earthquakes, oods,storms, etc., both at the national level and atthe level of individual population groups, suchas corruption, poor governance, and lack of orinadequate social networks. Figure 6 providesa detailed overview of the indicators (A toE), their weighting and the classi cation intothe ve sub-categories. It should be noted,once again, that the sub-categories disas-

ter preparedness and early warning, andsocial networks could not be included dueto their insuf cient global database. For thecalculation of the WorldRiskIndex, the copingcapacities are not considered, but rather, thelack thereof, which is calculated as follows: 1minus the coping capacity. The index for thelack of coping capacities can be seen as a car-tographical representation on the left fold-outpage of the cover (Map B2).



Coping capacities


A Corruption Perceptions IndexB Good governance(Failed States Index) Disaster preparedness and earlywarning

National disaster riskmanagement policy according toreport to the United Nations

Medical services

C Number of physicians per 10,000inhabitants

D Number of hospital beds per10,000 inhabitants

Social networks

Neighbors, family and

self-helpMaterial coverage

E Insurances(life insurances excluded)


24/74


Excursus 4: Adaptation strategiesThis indicator describes, according to the approachof the WorldRiskIndex, the nancial scope ofprevious adaptation projects under the NationalAdaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) underthe United Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change (UNFCCC), which are available for

45 of the least developed countries (as per May2011). The calculation is presented as the totalvolume of all adaptation projects per capita in aseparate map (Figure 10).

Adaptive capacitiesThe index used for calculating adaptivecapacities includes indicators that describethe capacities for long-term adaptationand transformation of societies and socio-ecological systems. The indicators (A to K),shown in Figure 7, were considered withtheir appropriate weightings. Once again,it was not possible to consider or evaluateall sub-categories for determining adap-tive capacities due to dif culty in obtainingavailable data (Excursus 4). Therefore, the

sub-category of adaptation strategies was nottaken into account in calculating the adaptivecapacities. Just as with the coping capacities,the lack of adaptive capacities was used in theoverall calculation of the WorldRiskIndex.The presentation of the index for the adaptivecapacities is shown in Map B3 printed on theleft fold-out page of the cover.

Figure 7: Structure of thecomponent adaptation

Adaptive capacities


A Adult literacy rateB Combined gross school

enrolment

Gender equity

C Gender parity in educationD Share of female representatives

in the National Parliament

Environmental status /Ecosystem protection

E Water resourcesF Biodiversity and habitat

protectionG Forest managementH Agricultural management

Adaptation strategies

Projects and strategies to adapt tonatural hazards and climate change

Investment

I Public health expenditure J Life expectancy at birthK Private health expenditure

Insuf cient global

data available


25/74


33 %

Exposure

Exposure to naturalhazards

Susceptibility

Likelihood of sufferingharm

Lack of adaptivecapacitiesLack of capacities forlong-term strategies forsocietal change

Vulnerability

33 %33 %

WorldRiskIndex

Figure 8: Structure of the Global index

Calculation of the WorldRiskIndex As described above, each of the four com-ponents exposure, susceptibility, cop-ing capacities and adaptive capacities iscalculated individually. For an overview of

vulnerability, susceptibility, lack of copingcapacities and lack of adaptive capacitiesare at rst aggregated into a vulnerability index. This vulnerability index is the soci-etal risk component that can turn a naturalevent into a disaster. In the next step, the

vulnerability is multiplied by the exposure

to determine the risk. Figure 8 schemati-cally shows the calculation formula, includ-ing equal weighting of the components of susceptibility, lack of coping capacities andlack of adaptive capacities, which leads to theoverall result of the WorldRiskIndex. As partof the calculation of the WorldRiskIndex, theresults have consistently been calculated withnon-dimensional ranks with values between0 and 1. To facilitate comprehension and for

cartographic implementation, the vulnerabil-ity index and the WorldRiskIndex have beenconverted into percentages and are shown inMaps B and C (printed on the right fold-outpage of the cover as well as in the centerfoldof this report).

The technical annex with a detailed list of allindicators and a detailed description of themethodology of the WorldRiskIndex can bedownloaded at www.WorldRiskReport.org.

Lack of coping capacities

Lack of capacitiesto reduce negativeconsequences during adesaster


26/74


Creating indices and working with indica-tors usually have both advantages anddisadvantages, which also apply to the

WorldRiskIndex. Indicators and compos-ite indices never give a perfect account of atheoretical concept in this case, the conceptof the WorldRiskIndex. The development of indices is ultimately a systematic and creativeprocess, in which representative variablesmust be identi ed, calculated and evaluatedto solve certain problems (Meyer 2004).

The advantage of an index is to reduce acomplex situation to one total value, whichallows grasping the current situation at oneglance. Indices thus represent a valuable toolfor communication and public relations, andcan serve as a rst basis for decision-making.The validity of indices, however, also hassome serious limitations. The analysis of the

WorldRiskIndex, both for the hazards andthe social and economic components, canonly give an overview. The following threelimitations in the development of the World-RiskIndex were of particular importance andshall be considered when assessing the valid-ity of the index.

Level of abstractionThe consolidation into a single value meansthat the scope of the analysis is no longer

visible. Therefore, for scientists and develop-

ment cooperation practitioners, the individ-ual index values of the four components andthe local risk index, shown here in the Indo-nesian case study, are of great importance.

Data availabilityThe global WorldRiskIndex is dependenton data availability and quality, and couldonly be calculated for 173 out of 192 coun-tries, since the current socio-economic data

and data used to calculate the exposure arepartially unavailable for some countries, in-compatible or invalid. For this reason, many small island States, which are highly exposedto phenomena such as sea level rise couldnot be adequately considered. The reference

year of the data used is also a limiting factor,since they were not available for all indica-tors of the same year. Recent developmentsare not considered in the data, for instance,the current political unrest in North Africaand in some Arab countries. The calculationof exposure is based on different databases,

which refer to model calculations that may lead to some uncertainties. For calculatingexposure to sea level rise, only the populationat risk of a global sea rise level by one meter(within 100 years) was identi ed on the basisof population gures from 2005. Further-more, not all data that should usefully be

included in an index are globally available. Various aspects are mentioned in Chapter2.3, which could thus not be integrated in thecalculation.

ResolutionMany indices use data available at the na-tional level. When considering governmentalaction, the nation is therefore relevant andis an important reference for the data of the

WorldRiskIndex. But many national stateshave very different geographical areas. In

a larger country such as Brazil, the UnitedStates of America, India or China, there is agreater likelihood that different regions havea different disaster risk. To solve this prob-lem, the WorldRiskIndex was supplementedand amended by a local or regional level, sothat the index could be adapted to the respec-tive local context.

2.4 Opportunities and limitations of the WorldRiskIndex


27/74


2.5 Risk assessment at the global level

The representation of the individual com-ponents of the WorldRiskIndex is aimedat illustrating speci c aspects of exposureand vulnerability, and at visualizing them onthe basis of globally available data. In thisregard, the differences between the exposureof a country or society to natural hazardsand climate change, on the one hand, andsusceptibility, coping capacities and adaptivecapacities, on the other hand, had to be clari-

ed. The systematic classi cation and pre-sentation of the items of the WorldRiskIndexthus emphasizes the importance of socialframework conditions and the capacitiy to actof individuals and nations in terms of decid-ing on whether a natural hazard or climatechange is liable to lead to a crisis or disaster.

A comparison between two disasters, the2011 Tohoku earthquake in Japan and the

2010 earthquake in Haiti shows the impor-tance of prevention and the difference indisaster management between two countries.In Japan, the disaster in March 2011 followedan earthquake and a tsunami, which then wasfollowed by the technical failure at a nuclearpower plant. These events partially exceededthe capacity for action of a highly industrial-ized country, highly exposed to the effects of natural hazards. However, while recent esti-mations assume approximately 28,000 fatali-ties due to the earthquake and subsequent

tsunami in Japan with a magnitude of 9.0,the earthquake in Haiti in 2010 of magnitude7.0 (which is 100 times weaker) caused morethan 220,000 deaths (CRED EM DAT-2011).The comparison of the two disasters rstshows the importance of disaster risk reduc-tion, which saved many lives in Japan, andsecond, that a dangerous situation such asthat of the Tohoku Earthquake would barely

be manageable for a more vulnerable and less

well-prepared developing country.

The individual components of the World-RiskIndex are presented below. Starting withthe exposure or respective proportion of theexposed population (see Map A on the coverpages), the description continues with thesusceptibility (see Map B1 on the cover pag-es), the lack of coping capacities (see Map B2on the cover pages) and the lack of adaptivecapacities (see Map B3 on the cover pages).

As an interim step, the three components B1,B2 and B3 of the vulnerability index (see MapB on the cover pages) are described. Finally,the WorldRiskIndex, i.e. the global index,is calculated on the basis of all four compo-nents (see Map C on the cover pages).


28/74


ExposureThe world map of exposure (Map A onthe rear fold-out page of the cover and thegraphic on page 30/31) comparatively showsthe potential annual exposure of individualcountries to natural hazards such as earth-quakes, storms, oods and droughts, as wellas the exposure of populations to sea levelrise by one meter for each country. Somehotspot regions can clearly be seen, such as

Southeast Asia and Central America, whichsuffer from a very high exposure. However,some individual countries such as Chile,Japan and the Netherlands are extremely exposed when measured by the proportion of population living in exposed areas.

It should be noted that the Solomon Islandsand Brunei Darussalam are included in the15 most exposed countries due to their strongexposure to sea level rise and to droughts.The authors wish to re-emphasize the uncer-

tainties in the calculation of exposure.

SusceptibilityThe cartographic representation of suscepti-

bility (see Map B1 on the front fold-out pageof the cover) shows relatively high values forthe Sahel and the tropical area in Africa. It isalso clear that South and Southeast Asia areglobal hotspots of susceptibility with theexception of Thailand and Malaysia, whichshow relatively low susceptibility values(22.44 and 20.12 per cent, respectively). The

globally signi cant north-south divide is lesspronounced in the Americas, where they aremostly in the moderate susceptibility range,

with the exception Haiti, which is highly susceptible.

The 15 most exposed countries

Country Exposure (%)1. Vanuatu 56.332. Tonga 56.043. Philippines 45.09

4. Costa Rica 42.395. Japan 39.576. Guatemala 38.427. Solomon Islands 36.408. Brunei Darussalam 36.289. El Salvador 32.1810. Chile 31.2511. Mauritius 29.5912. Netherlands 29.2413. Jamaica 28.1114. Nicaragua 27.6415. Bangladesh 27.52

The 15 most susceptible countries

Country Susceptibility (%)1. Niger 69.382. Mozambique 68.193. Liberia 67.59

4. Madagascar 67.515. Eritrea 67.176. Tanzania 65.437. Sierra Leone 64.798. Chad 64.289. Haiti 64.0310. Burundi 63.8811. Central African Rep. 63.3412. Ethiopia 63.1113. Zambia 61.6314. Afghanistan 61.0915. Guinea-Bissau 59.51


29/74


Lack of coping capacitiesJust as for susceptibility, the lack of copingcapacities map (Map B2 on the front fold-outpage of the cover) shows a clear north-southdivide. It is striking that Italy, Bosnia andHerzegovina as well as Albania, have a worse

value than the other Western and NorthernEuropean countries. Whereas in Bosnia andHerzegovina and Albania, the still signi cantin uence of the recent war and ongoing con-

icts between different population groups arerelevant for the values of the Failed States In-dex (indicator B) and the Corruption Percep-tions Index (indicator A), Italys poor perfor-mance in the latter index (3.9 of maximum10points) is the main reason for its relatively low coping capacities. In addition, Botswanaand South Africa perform well (being the sole

African countries with better values), which,among other reasons, is due to their morestable political situation and well-developedhealth care system.

Lack of adaptive capacitiesThe lack of adaptive capacities map (MapB3 on the front fold-out page of the cover)does not show a clear north-south divide asin the previous maps. Here, South Americaachieves far better results, especially in thesub-categories of education and research as

well as equal participation, in which there isa comparatively high potential for adapta-tion. Afghanistan ranks the lowest, followed

by the Comoros and ve African countries.

The 15 countries with the lowest copingcapacities

Country Lack of coping capacities (%)1. Chad 94.362. Afghanistan 93.943. Guinea 92.13

4. Central African Rep. 91.205. Sudan 90.906. Burundi 90.687. Guinea-Bissau 89.768. Niger 89.549. Haiti 89.4610. Timor-Leste 89.1611. Iraq 89.0912. Sierra Leone 89.0913. Zimbabwe 89.0314. Eritrea 87.6815. Kenya 87.60

The 15 countries with the lowest adaptivecapacities

Country Lack of adaptive capacities (%)1. Afghanistan 73.552. Comoros 68.753. Niger 68.65

4. Mali 67.855. Chad 66.786. Sierra Leone 66.627. Djibouti 66.228. Yemen 65.709. Mauritania 64.9910. Pakistan 64.5811. Papua New Guinea 64.3612. Eritrea 63.7913. Solomon Islands 63.7414. Guinea-Bissau 63.2615. Liberia 63.02


30/74


VulnerabilityThe vulnerability map (Map B on the rearfold-out page of the cover and the graphic onpages 34/35) shows the result of the combi-nation of susceptibility, lack of coping capaci-ties and lack of adaptive capacities. The mapshows that Africa and South and Southeast

Asia can be considered hotspots of vulner-ability in a global comparison. South Americais slightly better off, with the exception of

Bolivia and Paraguay. It is also clear that Ma-laysia, Thailand and Vietnam are less vulner-able in a regional comparison. This can also

be seen from the individual observations of the respective indices of susceptibility, lack of coping capacities and lack of adaptive capaci-ties. Afghanistan and many African countrieshave relatively critical social conditions andprocesses, which lead to high vulnerability

values (see Table).

WorldRiskIndex

The map for the WorldRiskIndex (Map C onthe rear fold-out page of the cover and thegraphic on pages 32/33) shows the results of the calculations using the formula shown inFigure 8. Here the strong in uence of ex-posure on the risk of individual countries isobvious, since it is the basic requirement of the underlying calculation hypothesis (mul-tiplicative conjunction). For example, Chileand Japan have very high exposure to natu-

ral hazards and hence a relatively high risk,although the vulnerability of both countries

when compared globally is very low. Thismainly results from the model calculations of the input data (Physical Exposure), whichare the basis for the component exposure.

Here, probabilities of occurrence as wellas the frequency and intensity of naturalhazards are taken into account so that single

events can, only to a limited extent, be ex-plained by the risk index. For example, only closer inspection of the components revealsthat Chile, despite the relatively low levelof damage caused by the strong earthquakeof 2010, must be represented with a very high risk level, because a large proportion of the population is exposed very regularly tonatural hazards, particularly earthquakes anddroughts.

In addition, the world maps illustrate a

societys or a countrys vulnerability impactas a key factor in the risk to natural hazardsand climate change, as is shown, for example,

when comparing Haiti and New Zealand.

The 15 countries with the highest risk

Country WorldRiskIndex (%)1. Vanuatu 32.002. Tonga 29.083. Philippines 24.32

4. Solomon Islands 23.515. Guatemala 20.886. Bangladesh 17.457. Timor-Leste 17.458. Costa Rica 16.749. Cambodia 16.5810. El Salvador 16.4911. Nicaragua 15.7412. Papua New Guinea 15.4513. Madagascar 14.4614. Brunei Darussalam 14.0815. Afghanistan 14.06

The 15 most vulnerable countries

Country Vulnerability (%)1. Afghanistan 76.192. Niger 75.863. Chad 75.14

4. Sierra Leone 73.505. Eritrea 72.886. Central African Rep. 72.427. Liberia 72.338. Mozambique 71.959. Burundi 71.8210. Haiti 71.7711. Guinea 71.1312. Ethiopia 71.0513. Guinea-Bissau 70.8414. Madagascar 69.9115. Togo 69.45


31/74


Fig

Fig

Excursus 5: Disaster PreparednessThe world map for the disaster preparednessshows the various progress levels that countrieshave reached for the implementation of the HyogoFramework for Action in the 20092011 period.All country reports were systematically evaluatedby Bndnis Entwicklung Hilft based on ten keyquestions instead of using the self-assessmentof the countries. This closer examination enableda more nuanced assessment and it can be seen,for example, that the United States and Australiahave signi cantly lower levels than Germany orTurkey. When this evaluation is compared with theself-assessment of countries (UNISDR 2011), it canbe noted that many countries perform less wellin this latter, more nuanced approach, but that,in particular, the countries of Central and South

America have comparatively better values. Theanalysis and the ten key questions are available atwww.WorldRiskReport.org.

Excursus 6: National Adaptation StrategiesHere, the study considers whether governments have developed thenecessary adaptation strategies and which nancial resources areearmaked and made available by the international community; to date,the data are insuf cient for a full analysis. For this component, it ispossible, for example, to recur to the National Action Programmes forAdaptation (NAPAs) under the United Nations Framework Conventionon Climate Change (UNFCCC), which are drawn up and implementedby Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and funded by the industrializednations. The world map shows the per capita investments for theimplementation of all selected priority projects, which are recorded in alist of all projects in the NAPA priority data bank of the UNFCCC (2010).It becomes clear that the data for the NAPA aid volumes in many casesare available for countries that, according to the WorldRiskIndex, havevery low adaptive capacities and are very exposed, such as Small IslandStates. Here, however, only the most urgent adaptation projects areidenti ed, and in some cases, a purely sectoral perspective is given.Moreover, LDCs and other developing countries develop comprehensiveadaptation strategies that could be used in future to calculate theWorldRiskIndex.

Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for ActionWorld map showing the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action 20092011

Project funding for adaptation measuresWorld map of NAPA project funding in 2010 per capita and per country

Classi cation into equal intervals, based onevaluation of ten key questions

NAPA project expenditure per capita (USD)Classi cation according to the quantile method

very weak

weak

medium

good

very good

No data available

very low 0.1143 0.7175

low 0.7176 2.6316

medium 2.6317 8.9750

high 8.9751 36.5142

very high 36.5143 830.36

no data available

Haiti

Solomon Islands

Kiribati


32/74


33/74


34/74


35/74


36/74


37/74


38/74


Following the methodology of the globalindex, an index was developed for the locallevel and tested for Indonesia in order to sep-arately illustrate and examine the local andregional differences in terms of exposure,susceptibility, coping capacities and adaptivecapacities. To this end, the WorldRiskIndex

could be supplemented by a few indicatorsfor vulnerability, which were not available atthe global level.

The higher resolution of the local risk indexmade it possible to represent the exposure and

vulnerability on a smaller scale. Thus high-risk areas could be represented on a scale relevantfor practitioners. In-depth analysis of the localrisk index depends in most cases on the avail-

Figure 11: Indicators of the local risk index (Indonesia)

2.6 Local risk assessment

ability and resolution of socio-economic data.For Indonesia, the case study was conductedat the level of the kabupaten (a political sub-division of Indonesia, roughly comparable witha district in Germany), for which the variousstatistics are available that are collected by theNational Of ces of Statistics.

To calculate the exposure, the same dataset was used as for the global index andrelated to the administrative boundaries of the kabupatens to determine the respectiveproportion of the exposed population. Figure11 lists the indicators which were used for thecalculation of the local risk index.

1. Exposure

Populationexposed to:

A Earthquakes

B Storms

C Floods

D Droughts

E Sea level rise


39/74


Although the structure of the local risk indexcorresponds to the structure of the globalindex and could be supplemented by ad-ditional indicators, some indicators had to

be adapted to the data or discarded. One of the advantages of a local risk index, which isclearly shown in Figure 9, is the possibility of

taking into account some important aspectsthat would also be relevant at the nationallevel, for which no globally comparable dataare available. Thus, it was possible to includethe following indicators in the local index:the building material used the number of cooperatives, social associations and activeNGOs, and local con icts. The diversi cationof the labor market and employment struc-ture could also be used as an indicator for the

adaptive capacities that could describe thepotential of switching to alternative economicsectors at the district level.

Below is a description of the results of thelocal risk index for three Indonesian districts(kabupatens), namely Padang, the capital of

the province of West Sumatra; the predomi-nantly agricultural district of Cilacap in theProvince of Central Java; and Gianyar on theisland of Bali. The Table below provides theresults of the individual components for thethree districts. ExposureIt can clearly be seen in the Table as well asfrom the exposure map (Figure 15) that both

4. Adaptive capacities


A Gross school enrolmentB Educational achievement

Gender Equity

C Share of female villageheads or mayors

Environmental status /ecosystem protection

D Ecological footprint

Adaption strategies

E Diversi cation of the labourmarket at the district level

Investment

2. Susceptibility



B Share of the population without

access to an improved watersource

Housing conditions

C Building material

Nutrition


D Share of the population belowthe local poverty line

E Assistance for the poorF Dependency ratio (share of

under 15- and over 65-year-olds in relation to the workingpopulation)

G Share of female-headed house-holds

Economic capacity and incomedistribution

H Gross regional productI Income distribution

3. Coping capacities


A Sustainable security (share ofvillages where at least one riothas occurred)

B Unemployment rate Disaster preparedness and earlywarning

Medical services

Social networks:

C Number of cooperatives andsocial organizations per 10,000inhabitants

D Presence of active NGOs pervillage

Material coverage

E Diversi cation of householdincomeF LandownershipG Income per capita


40/74


Padang and Cilacap have a high proportion of exposed population (37 per cent and 39.6 percent, respectively),while Gianyar is exposedat a lower, but still signi cant level (26.6 percent).

SusceptibilityThe susceptibility map (Figure 12) revealsthat Gianyar and Padang show signi cantly

better results than Cilacap. This is due, onthe one hand, to the in uence of tourism,

which in Gianyar has led to the creation of,inter alia , a comparatively good infrastruc-tures, a good construction quality and a rela-tively low level of poverty; on the other hand,a marked urban-rural divide between Padangand Cilacap is obvious, since Cilacap has a

worse performance than Padang in termsof water supply and sanitation as well as ondependencies. This can be explained by thehigher regional importance of a provincialcapital, which attracts young people search-ing for training or work, thus adding to the

working-age population.

Lack of coping capacitiesThe lack of coping capacities map (Figure 13)shows that Gianyar has a better capacity tocope with events than both Padang and Ci-

lacap since it enjoys the highest income leveland the lowest unemployment rate amongthe three areas. In addition, a higher share of the population in Gianyar owns real estate.Padang and Cilacap do not differ greatly fromeach other but, due to class boundaries, they are represented in different colors in the car-tographic representation. In Padang, the in-come is considerably higher than in Cilacap,however, the share of the population owningreal estate is much lower because of the highproportion of students and migrant workers

in its population. In addition, the diversi ca-

tion of household income is less favorable. Although the values for unemployment andsocial networks are better in Padang thanin Cilacap, the district as a whole ranks lessfavorably.

Lack of adaptive capacitiesThe evaluation of the adaptive capacities(Figure 14) shows that Padang and Gianyarare much better off than Cilacap. Padangachieves better results than Gianyar andCilacap for all indicators with the exceptionof the diversi cation of the labor market.Padang performs especially well in the areasof education and research and equal partici-pation. Gianyar also achieves good values inmost cases, ranking only about nine percent-age points behind Padang (57.9 per centcompared with 48.8 per cent), while Cilacapagain reaches a signi cantly worse value(64.7 per cent), because the diversi cation of its labor market is the only area, in which thisdistrict achieves results that are comparable

with those of the district of Padang.

Vulnerability indexThe combination of the three components susceptibility, coping capacities and adaptivecapacities shows the relative vulnerability

(Figure 16) of the surveyed districts. WhileGianyar has the lowest vulnerability at 33.6per cent, and Padang also has a fairly low

value at 39.5 per cent, Cilacap is de nitely behind at 48.6 per cent. Here, it becomes clearthat despite its poor performance in the areaof coping capacities, Padang manages to reacha lower vulnerability level as a result of its

better susceptibility and adaptive capacities values.

Comparison of the local risk index components for the Districts of Padang, Cilacap and Gianyar

Components ( %) Padang (Sumatra) Cilacap (Java) Gianyar (Bali)Exposure (min: 2.4 / max: 59.9) 39.7 37.0 26Susceptibility (min: 11.1 / max: 47.9) 16.7 31.0 11Lack of coping capacities (min: 31.8 / max: 68.2) 52.9 50.1 Lack of adaptive capacities (min: 48.8 / max: 70.7) 48.8 64.7 Vulnerability (min: 33.6 / max: 62.3) 39.5 48.6 33Risk (min: 1.3 / max: 37.3) 15.6 18.0 9


41/74


Risk indexThe aggregated index for the local level(Figure 17) shows the highest risk towardsearthquakes, storms, oods, droughts andsea level rise for the Mentawai island group,

where a highly vulnerable population is heav-ily exposed. Padang compares favorably tosimilarly exposed Cilacap, achieving betterresults in the components of vulnerability,

but remains risky due to the high exposure.

Using the example of Gianyar, it is shownthat low vulnerability can mitigate the expo-sure, resulting in a lower risk.

2.7 Results and challenges

The WorldRiskIndex shows signi cant differ-ences between exposure to natural hazardsand climate change, and vulnerability. Visu-alizing and communicating such differencesusing selected quantitative indicators at theglobal and local levels are important tools toillustrate that not only do natural hazards andenvironmental change lead to the emergenceof a disaster, but also to a very high degreesocial vulnerability.

At a glance, it is possible to identify countriesthat have a high risk to natural hazards andclimate change. When dealing with particularevents, it is even more important, however,to be attentive to the considerable regionalstructural differences between susceptibility,coping capacities and adaptive capacities thatexist regardless of the degree of exposure.

Although the global index can visualize only some aspects of the complex reality, the mapsand the selected indicators provide impor-tant information on which factors require

special attention at the global level. In addi-tion, the identi cation of regional hotspots

with respect to future threats such as sea levelrise may be an important basis for discussionof strengthening disaster risk reduction inhumanitarian aid and development policy, butmust be complemented by local, regional andnational reports and lessons learned.

For the systematic and continuous develop-ment of the WorldRiskIndex, one should keepin mind the following challenges:

+ Constant updating of the indicators database in order to allow the index to be rel-evant as a monitoring tool;

+ developing methods to better evaluate theresponse capacities of society, since they represent an important variable in risk

reduction and facilitate a multi-hazardapproach;

+ further improving methods and data at aglobal level in order to be able to betterevaluate uncertainties, such as improvedclimate models to provide accurate calcula-tions for the sea level rise and droughts;

+ conducting more research into the dynamicprocesses of vulnerability in order to betterdetect possible changes of the various as-

pects of susceptibility, the coping capacitiesand the adaptive capacities.


42/74


43/74


44/74



45/74


3. Focal topic:Governance and civil society

What risks are caused by fragile states, regarding naturalhazards? What in uence on disaster prevention do actors of thecivil society have? How can they demand responsible and effectivegovernance? The focal topic of WorldRiskReport 2011 deals withthe complex relationship of Governance and civil society in the

eld of disaster prevention and disaster management. In additionto two keynote articles, it features case studies of projects of Bndnis Entwicklung Hilft member organizations, which show how civil society initiatives for disaster risk reduction and goodgovernance work hand in hand.


46/74


Whether natural events turn into disas-ters depends critically on the coping

and adaptive capacities of governments. In2010, when an earthquake with a magnitudeof 7.0 on the moment magnitude scale struck Haiti, the consequences were devastating.More than 220,000 people were killed inthe disaster (CRED EM-DAT 2011), as many people injured and 1.5 million became home-less. In some villages, about 90 per cent of

buildings were destroyed. Although it wasthe worst earthquake in Haiti in 200 yearsand the epicenter was only about 25 km fromPort au Prince, the capital of the country,it soon became clear that the impact of theearthquake was so severe and destructive notonly because of its natural force, but also thealmost complete failure of the Haitian State,as could be observed later through a compar-ison with a much stronger earthquake thatoccurred in Chile.

Weak governance big risk Weak governance is one of the most impor-

tant risk factors with regard to the impact of natural hazards, which is shown, inter alia,in the number of deaths: states with stronginstitutions have fewer deaths after extremenatural events than those with weak or inex-istent institutions (Kahn 2005).

In states considered weak according to theFailed States index of the Fund for Peace,the government cannot or can only partially provide its citizens with basic governmentfunctions, such as security and welfare

bene ts, or rule of law. Many of these statesprimarily act as skimming devices: mostavailable funds are used for their own per-sonnel and do not ow into public interest-oriented development processes. Often, thereis an oversized police and military apparatus,

which cannot ensure appropriate security due to poor education and low pay of theirpersonnel, especially in the lower echelons,as well as widespread corruption. Most weak states have only a small taxable income base

since no taxes can be collected from the usu-ally large segments of poor people, and thecitizens with higher income are not properly recorded or are rarely asked to pay becauseof corruption. The resulting poor conditionof infrastructure leads to further weaken-ing of the enforcement capacity of the state.In addition, there is often a lack of quali edpersonnel or the administration is character-ized by clientelistic structures that lead toinef cient administrative procedures and,not infrequently, to individuals taking advan-tage of the state and its structures for privateinterests.

The effects of weak governance, particularly on the capacities of societies to cope withand adapt to natural hazards are enormous.The state is rarely able or ready to establish afunctioning system of disaster preparednessand to implement it. Due to the lack of moni-toring capacities of the government and highlevels of corruption, building regulations if they exist can be bypassed. The develop-

ment of disaster preparedness plans is oftenprevented by the low quali cation or sheernon-existence of state personnel. Further,insuf cient government revenue hindersthe regular conduct of awareness campaignsand the installation of early warning systemsand information portals. Also, public healthcare in poor states is often provided insuf-

ciently. Only rarely is it possible to developpublic services so as to be prepared forcoping with disasters. Lack of investment ineducation and research, and the resulting low

level of education limit the possibilities of the population to develop strategies to cope

with disasters and thus reduce the adaptivecapacities of society (see box on Haiti). Yet,examples from states that have succeeded inrecent years in signi cantly strengtheningtheir institutions prove much more success-ful in coping with and adapting to disasters(see box on Chile).

3.1 State failure as a risk factor How natural eventsturn into disasters


47/74


When neighbors save livesHow hard a natural hazard strikes a society does not exclusively depend on the strengthof the state. For instance, there are relatively

strong, autocratic states that theoretically have the capacity of functioning disasterpreparedness, but not the will to protect theircitizens accordingly. Examples include theDemocratic Peoples Republic of Korea andMyanmar. For instance, when Cyclone Nargisswept through the Bay of Bengal in 2008 anddevastated ve regions of Myanmar, includ-ing the former capital of Yangon, it quickly

became clear that that the military regimeruling the country was barely able to provideon its own the urgently needed emergency

aid for the affected population. In addition,the Junta declared the 15,000 km 2 of Ir-rawaddy Delta a restricted area to interna-tional aid workers and journalists, making itgreatly dif cult to supply aid to the victims.

However, in addition to national disastermanagement systems, there are other ef-fective social mechanisms that can help toreduce the disaster risk. Scientists and prac-

titioners who deal with the issue agree that,particularly in the rst days after a disastersuch as an earthquake, a ood or a cyclone, itis above all the informal aid provided in the

local context and solidarity among peoplethat are critical. In fact, most rst aid is provided by family and neighborhood networks.In addition, almost all societies have copingand adaptation strategies at their disposal.In fact, many disasters are not single events;they occur every year and repeatedly revealto the affected societies the need of develop-ing coping and adaption strategies, such as achange in building design or the creation of evacuation plans.

Supporting, not replacing the StateThe relief aid and development work facesimmense challenges, given the coincidence of

weak governance and extreme natural events. With which actors and institutions is col-laboration possible in the event of a disas-ter? How can these actors be strengthened?

Which tasks can be assumed by the govern-ment and which by civil society or privateactors? It is certain that both government

Haiti a reason for concern

Haiti is a fragile state. In the Failed States index of theFund for Peace, Haiti is ranked 11th, only slightly behindSomalia, Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of theCongo and Sudan (The Fund for Peace 2011). Althoughthe President, the Prime Minister and many governmentmembers are credited for their great interest and involve-ment, the Government is barely able to act effectively.The political system is fractioned and decision-makingprocesses are extremely difficult (Collier 2009).

Furthermore, political corruption is a widespread phe-nomenon among the elite. Although the Haitian govern-ment has recognized for a long time that it is responsiblefor the provision of welfare benefits in the sectors ofhealth and education, it does not have a successfultrack record. Most social services have been and still aredelivered by NGOs. In general, the quality of governmentservices is very poor. The inefficiency of the govern-ment and its predecessors is also reflected by the lack ofbuilding regulations and standards in the country as wellas the fact that national disaster management systemshave been introduced only very gradually and emergencyservices have received no assistance (Oxfam 2010). Inaddition to the severe poverty of the country, Haiti beingthe poorest country in the Western hemisphere, the seri-ous shortcomings of the Government contributed signifi-cantly to the impact of the earthquake of 12 January 2010,which was one of the biggest disasters in the world inrecent years.


48/74


and local civil society play a crucial role indisaster preparedness and that each must bestrengthened accordingly.

Given the often severe corruption, the low capacities of the state and a virtually non-ex-istent local civil society, it seems often easierfor international public donors to entrust thefunds earmarked for disaster preparednessand reconstruction after a disaster to inter-national NGOs that implement their projects.However, this creates the danger of removingresponsibility from the state and weakeningit even more in the long term.

In Haiti, the risk of undermining stateauthority by the international community is currently real. Joel Boutrou, Adviser tothe Haitian Prime Minister, pointed out atthe Conference of the International Councilof Voluntary Agencies (ICVA) in Geneva,Switzerland, in March 2011 that hardly any real cooperation between the Haitian Gov-ernment and the international community is evident; instead, there is a climate of mistrust. Rather than closely accompanyingthe Governments work and taking com-mon action, the promised government aid ishandled through international NGOs or not

even disbursed. This creates a vicious circle:the Government does not have the necessary nancial resources to implement actions and

therefore cannot demonstrate success, whichin turn would be the prerequisite for gainingassertiveness and obtaining additional funds.Therefore, there is currently a real risk thatthe Haitian Government will be replaced by international NGOs in the implementationand planning processes.

Disaster risk reduction and disaster manage-

ment in fragile states is undoubtedly a chal-lenging task. However, it cannot be solved

by undermining local state actors. As long asthe concerned governments have a minimumlevel of development targets, they must besupported in close partnership in bilateraland multilateral development cooperation

when they implement and execute develop-ment measures. More responsibility andmore money must gradually be transferred

to them. This can be successful if the govern-ments are supported in setting up effectiveanti-corruption programmes. In addition,long-term plans to create local govern-ment capacities must be developed, train-ing programmes set up, and the support of government of cials by international expertsguaranteed. According to the subsidiarity principle, which states that the higher andmore remote level of government should only regulate what the lower level or the nearestlevel to the citizens cannot, it is importantthat local government structures in particu-lar be strengthened. They must be allowedaccess to the institutions in charge of recon-struction and disaster preparedness.

Civil society as a lever to strengthen thestateOnly when bilateral development cooperationis impossible because of gross human rights

violations or extremely weak governanceresources can be provided solely throughNGOs. This approach, however, shouldremain temporary. An important functionof NGOs is, in this case, also the strengthen-ing of state structures in disaster prepared-ness. The member organizations of Bndnis

Entwicklung Hilft achieve this by involving

government of cials in the planning pro-cesses and, with the help of their partnerorganizations, supporting the local popula-tion to actively demand state action in the

eld of disaster preparedness and beyond.Examples include the consideration of localgovernment of cials in local risk assessmentsor in planning and training processes, or thein uence of national political processes andlegislative procedures in disaster risk reduc-tion.

In parallel to building state capacity, civil so-cietys coping and adaptive capacities should

be encouraged at the local level. If the gov-ernment fails in disaster preparedness, thenthe catastrophic consequences of naturaldisasters can at least be mitigated at a lowerlevel. The organizations that collaborate

within Bndnis Entwicklung Hilft promotethe already set up social, self-help strategies,for instance, by using traditional knowledge


49/74


of construction design or pre-existing early warning systems and further developingthem with local partner organizations.

These organizations also support communi-ties that, for example, due to migration orabject poverty, have no disaster prepared-ness mechanisms by ensuring a commonrisk analysis, transferring knowledge andproviding training, and supporting necessary

preventive measures, such as dike reinforce-ments or salt-water sealing for water wells.(More examples are provided in Sections 3.2and 3.3.)

The work of Bndnis Entwicklung Hilft is based on the assumption that, in the face of extreme natural events, only disaster risk management that is rmly rooted in localstructures has a lasting effect.

Shortly after the devastating earthquake inHaiti, another and even stronger earthquakehit Chile. This earthquake, with a magnitudeof 8.8 points on the moment magnitude scalewas the fifth strongest

Date post:	07-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	angela-pia-l-alonzo-corong
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

World Risk Report

Documents