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

Working Group 3 Plan Sub-Working Groups: 1. Improving Disaster Impact Data and Analysis 2. Tools and Best Practices for Risk and Vulnerability Analysis at the Local and Urban Levels 3. Indicators, Models and Data-sets for Risk and Vulnerability Indexing

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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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)

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.

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.

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 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 Recommendations

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.