2. International Safe Community Certifying Centre -a NGO

3. Chair Leif Svanström General manager Guldbrand Skjönberg May 2014 International Safe Community Certifying Centre

4. The International Safe Community Movement Safer than Ever Leif Svanström* Chair International Safe Community Certifying Centre And Department of Public Health Sciences Karolinska Institutet Stockholm Sweden

5. The Democracy Index is an index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit, that measures the state of democracy in 167 countries, of which 166 are sovereign states and 165 are United Nations member states.

6. The index is based on 60 indicators grouped in five different categories measuring pluralism, civil liberties, and political culture. In addition to a numeric score and a ranking, the index categorizes countries as one of four regime types full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes and authoritarian regimes.

7. Type of regimeScoresNumber of countries% of countries % of world population Full democracies 8.0 to 10 24 14.4 12.5 Flawed democracies 6.0 to 7.9 52 31.1 35.5 Hybrid regimes 4.0 to 5.9 39 23.414.4 Authoritarian regimes 0 to 3.9 52 31.1 37.6

8. The index is based on 60 indicators grouped in five different categories measuring pluralism, civil liberties, and political culture. In addition to a numeric score and a ranking, the index categorizes countries as one of four regime types full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes and authoritarian regimes. Homic Suic Intent Fire-arm Traffic 0.611.9 12.51.78 2.9 1 11.9 12.9 1.47 3 0.3 11.3 11.6 1.57 3.8 0.9 13.2 14.1 1.45 7.4 0.9 11.3 12.2 1.28 3.0 0.7 11.1 11.8 2.91 3.4 1.6 11.5 13.1 2.22 6 2.2 16.8 19 3.64 4.7 1 9.7 10.7 0.86 5.6 1.1 8.5 9.6 0.46 3.9

9. Rank Country Score Category Homic Suic Intent Fire-arm Traffic 49 Indonesia 6.95 Flawed democracy 17.7 50 Croatia 6.93 Flawed democracy 1.4 19.7 21.1 3.54 7.9 51 Hungary 6.90 Flawed democracy 1.3 21.7 23 0.87 7.7 52Argentina 6.84 Flawed democracy 5.8 7.7 13.5 5.8 12.4 53Suriname 6.77 Flawed democracy 4.6 14.4 19 - 19.6 53 Philippines 6.77 Flawed democracy 8.8 2.1 10.9 3.24 9.1 55 Bulgaria 6.73 Flawed democracy 2 12.3 14.3 2.35 10.4 56 Serbia 6.71 Flawed democracy - - 19.5 3.9 9.5 57 Romania 6.68 Flawed democracy 2 12 14 0.19 11.1 57 Mexico 6.68 Flawed democracy 22.7 4 26.7 11.17 14.7

10. Rank Country Score Category Homic Suic Int Fire-arm Traffic 85 Bangladesh 5.78 Hybrid regime - - - - 11.6 86 Tanzania 5.77 Hybrid regime - - - - - 87 Sri Lanka 5.69 Hybrid regime 3.6 21.6 25.2 - 13.7 88 Albania 5.67 Hybrid regime 4.0 4.0 8.0 - 12.7 89 Malawi 5.66 Hybrid regime - - - - 19.5 90 Benin 5.65 Hybrid regime - - - - 23.9 91 Fiji 5.61 Hybrid regime - - - - 6.3 92 Ukraine 5.42 Hybrid regime 5.2 21,2 26.4 0.20 13.5 93 Thailand 5.39 Hybrid regime 4.8 7.8 12.6 - 38.1 94 Nicaragua 5.32 Hybrid regime 13.6 5.8 19.4 7.29 33.7 95 Kyrgyzstan 5.24 Hybrid regime 9.1 8.8 17.9 1.01 19.2

11. Rank Country Score Category Homic Suic Int Fire-arm Traffic 157 Laos 2.21 Authoritarian regime - - - - 20.4 158 Iran 1.98 Authoritarian regime 3 6.4 9.4 - 24.1 159 Guinea-Bissau 1.93 Authoritarian regime - - - - 31.2 160 Turkmenistan 1.83 Authoritarian regime 12.8 8.6 21.4 - 18.6 161 Saudi Arabia 1.82 Authoritarian regime - - - - 24.8 162 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1.75 Authoritarian regime - - - - 17.1 163 Syria 1.74 Authoritarian regime 2.3 0.1 2.4 - 22.9 164 Equatorial Guinea 1.66 Authoritarian regime - - - - 11.4 165 Chad 1.50 Authoritarian regime - - - - 29.7 166 Central African Republic 1.49 Authoritarian regime - - - - 14.6 167 North Korea 1.08 Authoritarian regime - - - - 10.7

12. RANK COUNTRY INDEX CATEGORY 2 Sweden 9.73 Full democracy Homic Suic Intent Fire-arm Traffic 1 11.9 12.9 1.47 3 19 USA 8.11 Full democracy 4.8 12.0 16.8 10.64 11.6 20 Japan 8.08 Full democracy 0.4 21.7 22.1 0.06 4.8 21 S Korea 8.06 Full democracy 0.9 31.7 32.6 0.06 11.4 27 India 7.92 Flawed democ. 3.4 10.5 13.9 0.48 19.5 30 S Africa 7.82 Flawed democ. 31.1 15.4 46.5 21.51 31.9 32 Chile 7.80 Flawed democ. 3.2 11.2 14.4 3.73 11.5 44 Brazil 7.38 Flawed democ. 21 4.8 25.8 19.3 22.5 127 Cuba 3.52 Authorit.regime 5 12.3 17.3 - 7.8 132 Russia 3.39 -"- 10.2 21.4 31.6 - 18.6 144 China 3.00 -"- 1 22.23 23.23 - 20.5

13. According to the estimate of the World Health Organization’s Global Burden of Disease Study, unintentional injuries resulted in more than 3.9 million deaths in 2004. Among the 15 - 29 years old of age group, road traffic injuries, drownings, burns, poisonings, falls and other unintentional injuries accounted for top five of the 15 leading causes of death

14. DO SOMETHING !!!!!!!! TOP DOWN THE WHO MUST ALERT THE MEMBER STATES! BOTTOM UP THE SAFE COMMUNITY MOVEMENT !

15. The co-operation between WHO and the Safe Community Movement started in 1986 and began its formal existence at the First World Conference on Accident and Injury Prevention held in Stockholm, Sweden in September 1989.

16. In the Manifesto for Safe Communities, the resolution of the conference 1989 stated that the International Safe Community movement should work with “WHO Health for all” as a vision.

17. The ground pillars in the Stockholm manifesto are: All human beings have an equal right to health and safety Accident and injury prevention requires coordinated action by many groups

18. Health sector have a crucial role in collecting information on injured people, injury patterns, causes of injuries and hazard situations Local programs must include all citizens and focus on the most vulnerable

19. Evaluation both of the process and outcome of a safety promotion program is important An international development work for safe communities is necessary!

20. In an International Safe Community, the community itself plays the leading role. The term Safe Community implies that the community work for increased safety in a structured approach, not that the community is already perfectly safe.

21. Creative methods of education, physical planning and environmental change joined with appropriate regulations and enforcement are an important beginning for the safety of a community.

22. An International Safe Community use the traditional means of control such such as economic, regulations and governing by objectives and visions. No single approach is sufficient for changing existing behaviour patterns. Heightening of public awareness is also very important.

23. While the movement was growing started a quality management programme leading to a peer review system where the leading communities (now about 360) were labelled International Safe Communities.

24. Communities Australia Austria Bosnia and Herzegovina Canada Chile China China (Province of Taiwan) China, Hong-Kong Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland Germany Iran (Islamic Republic of) Ireland Israel Japan Mexico New Zealand Norway Peru Poland Republic of Korea Serbia South Africa Sweden Thailand Turkey United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland United States of America Vietnam

25. AFTER FOUR DECADES OF DEVELOPMENT; AND 25-50% DECREASE OF INJURIES AND A COMPLETE NEW ORGANISATION (THE NGO OF ISCCC) SAFE COMMUNITIES MOVEMENT – SAFER THAN EVER !!!!