WorldRiskReport-2011 Online EN PDF
WorldRiskReport-2011 Online EN PDF
WorldRiskReport-2011 Online EN PDF
WorldRiskReport
In cooperation with:
2011
UNU-EHS
Institute for Environment
and Human Security
2.1 Objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.1 State failure as a risk factor – How natural events turn into disasters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Katrin Radtke
Annex. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 3
4 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
1. The WorldRiskReport
WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 5
W hether an earthquake or a tsunami,
a hurricane or a flood, the risk that a
natural event will develop into a disaster
affected by a disaster. The index is the result
of close cooperation between scientists and
practitioners. Experts in the analysis of natu-
depends only partially on the strength of the ral hazards and vulnerability research as well
event itself. A substantial cause lies in the as practitioners of development cooperation
living conditions of people in the affected and humanitarian aid have discussed and
regions and the opportunities to quickly developed the concept of the index. Globally
respond and help. Those who are prepared available data are used to represent the disas-
and who know what to do during an extreme ter risk for the countries concerned.
natural event have higher survival chances.
The countries that anticipate natural haz- In the framework of the WorldRiskIndex,
ards prepare for the consequences of climate disaster risk is analysed as a complex inter-
change and provide the necessary financial play of natural hazards and social, political
resources are better equipped for the future. and environmental factors. Unlike cur-
rent approaches that focus strongly on the
The Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft (Alliance analysis of the various natural hazards, the
Development Works) publishes the WorldRiskIndex, in addition to exposure
WorldRiskReport to examine these issues analysis, focuses on the vulnerability of the
at the global level and to draw conclusions population, i.e. its susceptibility, its ca-
for future actions in assistance, policy and pacities to cope with and to adapt to future
reporting. The core of the WorldRiskReport natural events as well as the consequences
is the WorldRiskIndex, which was developed of climate change. Disaster risk is seen as a
on behalf of the Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft function of exposure and vulnerability. The
by the United Nations University Institute for national states are the frame of reference for
Environment and Human Security in Bonn, the analysis.
Germany. The WorldRiskIndex indicates the
probability that a country or region will be
6 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
WorldRiskIndex: Searching for protection
The WorldRiskIndex seeks answers to the following questions:
+ To what extent are societies able to cope with severe and immediate disasters?
+ Does society take precautionary measures against anticipated future natural hazards?
The index consists of indicators in four com- the opportunity to directly implement cur-
ponents: exposure to natural hazards such rent developments and integrate new know-
as earthquakes, storms, floods, droughts and ledge in the WorldRiskReport: indeed, as
sea level rise; susceptibility as a function of soon as confirmed data are globally available,
public infrastructure, housing conditions, nu- they can be integrated into the index: the
trition and the general economic framework; structure consisting of four components with
coping capacities as a function of gover- several sub-categories that make up the gen-
nance, disaster preparedness and early warn- eral index as mathematically linked modules
ing, medical services, social and economic makes this possible. Also, variables that have
security; and adaptive capacities to future not yet been identified for assessing disaster
natural events and climate change. risk can be integrated when needed and used
to develop the WorldRiskIndex.
There is a fine line between the components;
some adaptive measures, for example, This report thus contributes to both identify-
directly lead to a decrease in individuals’ ing the aspects that urgently require research
susceptibility or to an increase of coping in order to better understand and evaluat-
capacities. In the approach of the World- ing the interaction between natural hazards
RiskIndex, new aspects are included, for and the affected society. Combined with the
which no global database currently exists: modular structure of the WorldRiskIndex,
national disaster preparedness policy, social this process allows for the continuous im-
networks, urban and spatial structure and provement of the present risk analysis in the
national adaptation strategies. Again, this coming years.
is the result of close cooperation between
scientists and practitioners: high relevance The WorldRiskIndex is complemented by
categories for major disasters are included in a local risk index with a small-scale analy-
the index, even if the relevant scientific data sis that provides important information for
are not yet globally available. This provides practitioners. More data are often available
WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 7
Figure 1: Total number of reported natural disasters, 1970–2010
(Data: CRED EM-DAT 2011)
600
500
400
300
200
100
Reports
0
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
8 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
Figure 2: Estimated damage caused by natural disasters, 1970–2010
(Data: CRED EM-DAT 2011)
200
150
50
0
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
The focal topic of the WorldRiskReport 2011 Linking the social and economic dimen-
is governance and civil society. Three sub- sions of risk with the classical risk analysis of
chapters concentrate on the complex inter- natural events will allow a new approach to
action of state responsibility and potential risk assessment and enable forward-looking
influences of civil society, viewed from the conclusions for both decision-makers and
standpoint of practitioners. In addition to practitioners. Precautionary measures to
discussing the risk of weak governance with minimize risks should be mentioned here as
respect to disasters, they also examine the well as climate change adaptation.
unintended side effects of external interven-
tions (e.g. the risk of further undermining
already weak governments) and the possi-
bilities of civil society to call for government
action, as well as to support and supplement
it. The basic chapters examining these is-
sues are supplemented by country-specific
case studies that explain the operations and
principles of the members of the Bündnis
Entwicklung Hilft at the interface between
disaster risk reduction and the promotion of
good governance.
WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 9
Japan – The incalculable risk of nuclear energy
The severe earthquake in Japan in the spring of 2011 and the subsequent nuclear meltdown
prove 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. when
uncontrollable risks are known, assessed incorrectly or even tolerated. In this case, even the
most stable framework conditions are not adequate for the management of the disaster. Once
radioactivity is released into the environment, it is not only dangerous across borders but it is
also impossible to control, even in a highly industrialized country. In this case, risk reduction
would entail rejecting the nuclear option for energy production and the consistent implementa-
tion of sustainable energy production. If the complex disasters in Japan (earthquake, tsunami
and nuclear meltdown) had struck a less developed country, the material damage would have
been 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 of
people, this fact must be put into perspective, however.
The aim of the Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft is The printed version of the WorldRiskReport
to jointly consider relief aid and development is published for easy readability. Maps,
cooperation, and to link them more closely in graphs and images supplement the text. The
practice. Risk assessment, prevention, coping underlying detailed scientific explanation,
and adaptation strategies are the components further information and tables are available
of this concept. The index and the indicators for further reading and can be downloaded at
can help to be selectively active in anticipa- www.WorldRiskReport.org.
tion of extreme natural events and to priori-
tize preventive measures. In early 2005 the
non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
Brot für die Welt, Medico International,
Misereor, Terre des Hommes and Welthun-
gerhilfe founded the alliance whose mission
is to actively provide on-site emergency and
long-term help in emergencies and disas-
ters. After the tsunami in Southeast Asia, the
cyclone Nargis in Myanmar, the earthquake
in Haiti and the flood in Pakistan in 2010,
and many other cases, the members of the
Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft joined forces.
The Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft is active in
public relations in Germany, informing on
the causes of disasters as well as on ways of
disaster prevention.
10 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
The results at a glance
WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 11
12 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
2. WorldRiskIndex:
Concept and results
Jörn Birkmann, Torsten Welle, Dunja Krause, Jan Wolfertz, Dora-Catalina Suarez,
Neysa Jacqueline Setiadi
WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 13
WorldRiskIndex
Components of the WorldRiskIndex at the global and local level
2.1 Objective
14 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
Overall, the approach of the WorldRisk- adapt to adverse impacts of natural hazards.
Index was developed on the basis of dif- Vulnerability and hence the susceptibility,
ferent views in the scientific discourse to coping capacities and adaptive capacities of
vulnerability and risk. Other indices that try people and systems, however, are not static
to map risk and vulnerability at the global but are subject to strong dynamics. At times,
level are often strongly focused on issues of susceptibility, coping capacities and adaptive
exposure, casualties caused by disasters and capacities can be distinguished between the
economic losses (For a detailed description phases – before, during and after – a disas-
of the study, see www.WorldRiskReport.org.) ter (Wisner 2002, Birkmann and Fernando
The scientific basis of the WorldRiskIndex 2008). As part of the WorldRiskIndex, these
relies on framework concepts, which seek an dynamics can only be covered in a limited
integrative and holistic coverage of vulner- way; in particular, a continuous updating of
ability within a process model and is based the index would make it possible to systemati-
in particular on the work of Bogardi and cally document some of these dynamics.
Birkmann (2004), Cardona (1999, 2001) and
Birkmann (2006). In addition, discussions
on the distinction between coping and adap-
tive capacities were recently initiated (see,
inter alia, Davies 2009; Birkmann 2011).
WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 15
infrastructure, production, goods, services Susceptibility
or ecosystems and coupled social-ecological Susceptibility refers to selected structural
systems. characteristics of a society and the frame-
work conditions in which the social actors
Exposure can thus be differentiated into a face potential natural hazards and climate
temporal and spatial component. If a society phenomena. In this regard, the nutritional
or a country has no exposure to natural haz- and the economic situation as well as the
ards, then the development of strategies for condition of infrastructures are particularly
dealing with them can be neglected. Within important. These characteristics render it
the WorldRiskIndex, exposure is related to possible to make provisional assumptions on
the potential average number of individuals the relative susceptibility of societies com-
who are exposed each year to earthquakes, pared to other societies.
storms, droughts and floods (see Peduzzi et
al. 2009). Added to this number are people Generally, susceptibility is understood as the
who would be affected by the sea level rising likelihood of suffering harm and damages in
by one meter. It should be taken into consid- case of the occurrence of a natural hazard.
eration in the calculation that a potential rise Conceptually, susceptibility has been sepa-
of the sea level by one meter is expected to rated into sub-categories that reflect the liv-
occur only by 2100 and in a gradual process. ing situation and conditions of people within
The base of the index is, however, the popu- a country:
lation in 2005 and not the projected popula-
tion in the future. Despite these methodolog- + Public infrastructure
ical difficulties, it is important to carefully + Housing conditions
consider these slow environmental changes + Nutrition
in the context of climate change in future risk + Poverty and dependencies
studies. + Economic capacity and income distribution.
16 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
are closely interlinked, and that a clear sepa- The following five sub-categories were identi-
ration in practice is thus often impossible. fied within this concept. In a wider sense,
Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize they may be responsible in the long term to
and communicate that societies are prone make societies more resistant and adaptable
to natural hazards, yet are capable to handle to the impact of climate change and natural
them. hazards:
This chapter provides an overview of the of the data used should be collected regularly
selected indicators, the available global data to facilitate future updates of the indicators
sets and the calculation of the WorldRisk- and, in particular, in order to represent de-
Index and its components. The implementa- velopment processes.
tion of the concept for the WorldRiskIndex is As part of the development of the World-
based on freely available global data, which RiskIndex, different methodologies were
must meet certain standards and quality used (statistical and spatial analysis using
criteria. For the global and the local level geographic information systems), which
under consideration, it was decided to base could be followed up in the technical annex
the analysis on the following quality criteria: to this study. For example, a factor analysis
the exposure indicators make it possible to was conducted to validate the structure of
compare the different natural hazards; the the overall index (Figure 8). For the spa-
indicators of susceptibility, coping capacities tial analysis and the mapping, the values of
and adaptive capacities should be general in the calculated indices were separated into
order to be equally relevant to all kinds of five classes using the quantile classification
natural hazards. These indicators reproduce method, which is integrated in the ArcGIS
the intended theoretical facts (indicandum); 9.3 software.
the indicators are statistically and analyti- Thereby each class contains an equal number
cally accurate, reproducible, comparable, of features. The five classes of all calculated
understandable and as simple as possible to indices differ in their value ranges, but can
interpret (see Meyer 2004). In addition, most also be translated into the qualitative classifi-
WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 17
1. Exposure
Population
exposed to:
A Earthquakes
B Storms
C Floods
D Droughts
cation of “very high – high – medium – low – an important component of the index from a
very low” (see the maps on the fold-out pages theoretical and practical point of view, they
of the cover). have not yet been integrated into the overall
calculation of the WorldRiskIndex due to lack
As a whole, the authors believe that the indi- of relevant data. All four sub-categories are
vidual components of exposure and vulner- described in a separate box. The selection of
ability are more relevant for communication the indicators relates, among other things, to
and decision-making than the aggregate total aspects of the eight Millennium Development
index, since an aggregation always entails a Goals and the Hyogo Framework for Action of
loss of differentiation. the United Nations.
18 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
A detailed description of 2. Susceptibility 3. Coping capacities 4. Adaptive capacities
each indicator with its
source is available at:
www.WorldRiskReport.org Public infrastructure Government and authorities Education and research
F G
ross domestic product per capita
(purchasing power parity)
G G
ini index
WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 19
Susceptibility Excursus 1: Housing conditions
The housing condition is not included in the
calculation of the index, but it must be considered
Public infrastructure an important component of susceptibility and
A S hare of the population without therefore be mentioned within this component.
access to improved sanitation There are data and methods available to study the
B Share of the population without housing situation, for example, by means of earth
access to an improved water observation through remote sensing. This allows to
source estimate the building substance of individual houses
Insufficient global and to analyse typical settlement patterns, such as in
data available Housing conditions slum neighbourhoods (Taubenböck and Dech 2010).
Since these studies are very time-consuming and
S hare of the population living in
cost-intensive, they have been carried out for only a
slums; proportion of semi-solid
few cities to date. As a result, there are no adequate
and fragile dwellings
data available to include these aspects at the global
Nutrition level.
C S hare of population
undernourished
Poverty and
dependencies
F G
ross domestic product per capita
(purchasing power parity) Figure 5: Structure of the component susceptibility
G Gini index
The calculation of the potential exposure of is only half-weighted, since this is a gradual
people to global sea level rise by one meter process and an annual average calculation of
is based on the records of the University of the exposure – as with other natural haz-
Kansas, Center for Remote Sensing of Ice ards – is not possible. Finally, all exposed
Sheets (CReSIS). These were compared with people for each natural hazard are added and
a global population data set of Columbia divided by the population of their country.
University, Center for International Earth Thus, the exposed population as a percentage
Science Information Network, using a geo- for each country was calculated (see Map A
graphic information system (GIS) and iden- on the right fold-out page of the cover).
tifying the potentially exposed population
per country. Subsequently, all individuals Susceptibility
who were exposed to the five natural hazards The susceptibility index is calculated in
(earthquakes, storms, floods, droughts and several steps. Figure 5 provides an overview
sea level rise) were added. Since the calcula- of the indicators used to describe the suscep-
tion of the number of exposed individuals tibility of societies and social groups at the
(physical exposure) is highly complex for national level with a global focus. In detail,
droughts and does not have the same ac- the five sub-categories with their respec-
curacy (see Peduzzi et al. 2009) that can tive weighting factors can be observed. The
be achieved, for instance, for earthquakes, housing situation has not been included in
storms and floods, this indicator is only half- the calculation due to the lack of global data
weighted. Similarly, the calculation of the sets. The various indicators and their weight-
exposed people to sea level rise by one meter ing factors are listed under each of the five
20 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
Coping capacities Excursus 2: Disaster preparedness and early warning
This indicator gives a first impression of the current political processes
and the implementation of disaster risk management activities
Government and authorities within the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), which is designed
A C orruption Perceptions Index for the 2005–2015 period. For the 2009–2011 period, there were
B Good governance (Failed States Index) 81 countries by the end of March that had submitted their progress
reports on measures taken to safeguard against natural hazards and
Insufficient global Disaster preparedness and early disasters. Within the WorldRiskReport, these reports were analysed
data available warning with the help of a separate evaluation scheme in which a maximum
of ten points could be achieved. Due to the relatively small number
ational disaster risk
N of countries, however, these values will not be included at this time
management policy according to in the calculation of the WorldRiskIndex. Disaster preparedness and
report to the United Nations early warning is nevertheless mentioned as a sub-category of coping
capacity because of its great relevance for the component. The results
Medical services
of the evaluation are shown in Chapter 2.5 in a separate map (Figure 9).
C N umber of physicians per 10,000
inhabitants
D Number of hospital beds per
10,000 inhabitants Excursus 3: Social networks
Insufficient global Social networks can be a central resource for people exposed to
data available Social networks
natural hazards. They include mutual neighbourhood assistance, self-
eighbors, family and
N help groups, ties of kinship and networks which are effective in the
self-help case of an extreme event and contribute to mitigating the adverse
effects should it occur. Social networks are extremely important in
Material coverage emergency situations playing a particular role in fragile or weak
E Insurances (life insurances excluded) states, and contribute to assist the affected population (see Chapter
3.1). However, there are currently no reliable, meaningful global
data available on social networks. They must be excluded from the
calculation overall, but nevertheless must be listed under the coping
Figure 6: Structure of the component coping
component due to their high relevance.
sub-categories. The input data for the suscep- disaster, such as medical services and mate-
tibility indicators (A to G) have been con- rial coverage. Second, it concerns framework
verted into non-dimensional ranks with values conditions that make it difficult to cope with
between 0 and 1, as described above. It should the direct effects of earthquakes, floods,
be noted that the two indicators —“access to storms, etc., both at the national level and at
clean water” and “access to improved sanita- the level of individual population groups, such
tion” — are positive in nature (see technical as corruption, poor governance, and lack of or
annex at www.WorldRiskReport.org). Accord- inadequate social networks. Figure 6 provides
ingly, in order to determine the susceptibil- a detailed overview of the indicators (A to
ity of the population, the portion of people E), their weighting and the classification into
lacking access to clean water and improved the five sub-categories. It should be noted,
sanitation has been calculated. The index for once again, that the sub-categories “disas-
susceptibility is presented in Map B1 (on the ter preparedness and early warning”, and
left fold-out page of the cover). “social networks” could not be included due
to their insufficient global database. For the
Coping capacities calculation of the WorldRiskIndex, the coping
For calculating the lack of coping capacities capacities are not considered, but rather, the
index, indicators that contribute to reducing lack thereof, which is calculated as follows: 1
the negative impacts of natural hazards and minus the coping capacity. The index for the
climate change when they occur were selected. lack of coping capacities can be seen as a car-
First, this index refers to the capacities that tographical representation on the left fold-out
are important resources in the event of a page of the cover (Map B2).
WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 21
Adaptive capacities
A A
dult literacy rate
B Combined gross school
enrolment
Gender equity
Environmental status /
Ecosystem protection
Excursus 4: Adaptation strategies
E W ater resources This indicator describes, according to the approach
F Biodiversity and habitat of the WorldRiskIndex, the financial scope of
protection previous adaptation projects under the National
G Forest management Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) under
H Agricultural management the United Nations Framework Convention on
Insufficient global Adaptation strategies Climate Change (UNFCCC), which are available for
data available 45 of the least developed countries (as per May
Projects and strategies to adapt to 2011). The calculation is presented as the total
natural hazards and climate change volume of all adaptation projects per capita in a
separate map (Figure 10).
Investment
Adaptive capacities
The index used for calculating adaptive
capacities includes indicators that describe
the capacities for long-term adaptation
and transformation of societies and socio-
ecological systems. The indicators (A to K),
shown in Figure 7, were considered with
their appropriate weightings. Once again,
it was not possible to consider or evaluate
all sub-categories for determining adap-
tive capacities due to difficulty in obtaining
available data (Excursus 4). Therefore, the
sub-category of adaptation strategies was not
taken into account in calculating the adaptive
capacities. Just as with the coping capacities,
the lack of adaptive capacities was used in the
overall calculation of the WorldRiskIndex.
The presentation of the index for the adaptive
capacities is shown in Map B3 printed on the
left fold-out page of the cover.
22 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
WorldRiskIndex
Vulnerability
33 % 33 % 33 %
Lack of adaptive
Exposure Susceptibility Lack of coping capacities
capacities
Exposure to natural Likelihood of suffering Lack of capacities Lack of capacities for
hazards harm to reduce negative long-term strategies for
consequences during a societal change
desaster
WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 23
2.4 Opportunities and limitations of the WorldRiskIndex
24 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
2.5 Risk assessment at the global level
WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 25
The 15 most exposed countries The 15 most susceptible countries
Exposure Susceptibility
The world map of exposure (Map A on The cartographic representation of suscepti-
the rear fold-out page of the cover and the bility (see Map B1 on the front fold-out page
graphic on page 30/31) comparatively shows of the cover) shows relatively high values for
the potential annual exposure of individual the Sahel and the tropical area in Africa. It is
countries to natural hazards such as earth- also clear that South and Southeast Asia are
quakes, storms, floods and droughts, as well global hotspots of susceptibility – with the
as the exposure of populations to sea level exception of Thailand and Malaysia, which
rise by one meter for each country. Some show relatively low susceptibility values
hotspot regions can clearly be seen, such as (22.44 and 20.12 per cent, respectively). The
Southeast Asia and Central America, which globally significant north-south divide is less
suffer from a very high exposure. However, pronounced in the Americas, where they are
some individual countries such as Chile, mostly in the moderate susceptibility range,
Japan and the Netherlands are extremely with the exception Haiti, which is highly
exposed when measured by the proportion of susceptible.
population living in exposed areas.
26 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
The 15 countries with the lowest coping The 15 countries with the lowest adaptive
capacities capacities
Country Lack of coping capacities (%) Country Lack of adaptive capacities (%)
1. Chad 94.36 1. Afghanistan 73.55
2. Afghanistan 93.94 2. Comoros 68.75
3. Guinea 92.13 3. Niger 68.65
4. Central African Rep. 91.20 4. Mali 67.85
5. Sudan 90.90 5. Chad 66.78
6. Burundi 90.68 6. Sierra Leone 66.62
7. Guinea-Bissau 89.76 7. Djibouti 66.22
8. Niger 89.54 8. Yemen 65.70
9. Haiti 89.46 9. Mauritania 64.99
10. Timor-Leste 89.16 10. Pakistan 64.58
11. Iraq 89.09 11. Papua New Guinea 64.36
12. Sierra Leone 89.09 12. Eritrea 63.79
13. Zimbabwe 89.03 13. Solomon Islands 63.74
14. Eritrea 87.68 14. Guinea-Bissau 63.26
15. Kenya 87.60 15. Liberia 63.02
WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 27
The 15 most vulnerable countries The 15 countries with the highest risk
28 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action
World map showing the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action 2009–2011
very weak
weak
medium
good
very good
No data available
Fig. 10
Project funding for adaptation measures
World map of NAPA project funding in 2010 per capita and per country
Haiti
Kiribati
Population
exposed to:
A Earthquakes
B Storms
C Floods
D Droughts
36 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
2. Susceptibility 3. Coping capacities 4. Adaptive capacities
A S hare of the population without A S ustainable security (share of A Gross school enrolment
access to improved sanitation villages where at least one riot B Educational achievement
B Share of the population without has occurred)
Gender Equity
access to an improved water B Unemployment rate
source C S hare of female village
Disaster preparedness and early heads or mayors
Housing conditions warning
Environmental status /
C Building material Medical services ecosystem protection
Nutrition
Social networks: D Ecological footprint
Poverty and C Number of cooperatives and Adaption strategies
dependencies social organizations per 10,000 E D
iversification of the labour
inhabitants market at the district level
D S hare of the population below
D P resence of active NGOs per
the local poverty line Investment
village
E Assistance for the poor
F Dependency ratio (share of Material coverage
under 15- and over 65-year-
olds in relation to the working E D
iversification of household
population) income
G Share of female-headed house- F Landownership
holds G Income per capita
Although the structure of the local risk index adaptive capacities that could describe the
corresponds to the structure of the global potential of switching to alternative economic
index and could be supplemented by ad- sectors at the district level.
ditional indicators, some indicators had to
be adapted to the data or discarded. One of Below is a description of the results of the
the advantages of a local risk index, which is local risk index for three Indonesian districts
clearly shown in Figure 9, is the possibility of (kabupatens), namely Padang, the capital of
taking into account some important aspects the province of West Sumatra; the predomi-
that would also be relevant at the national nantly agricultural district of Cilacap in the
level, for which no globally comparable data Province of Central Java; and Gianyar on the
are available. Thus, it was possible to include island of Bali. The Table below provides the
the following indicators in the local index: results of the individual components for the
the building material used the number of three districts.
cooperatives, social associations and active
NGOs, and local conflicts. The diversification Exposure
of the labor market and employment struc- It can clearly be seen in the Table as well as
ture could also be used as an indicator for the from the exposure map (Figure 15) that both
WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 37
Padang and Cilacap have a high proportion of tion of household income is less favorable.
exposed population (37 per cent and 39.6 per Although the values for unemployment and
cent, respectively),while Gianyar is exposed social networks are better in Padang than
at a lower, but still significant level (26.6 per in Cilacap, the district as a whole ranks less
cent). favorably.
Comparison of the local risk index components for the Districts of Padang, Cilacap and Gianyar
38 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
Risk index
The aggregated index for the local level Using the example of Gianyar, it is shown
(Figure 17) shows the highest risk towards that low vulnerability can mitigate the expo-
earthquakes, storms, floods, droughts and sure, resulting in a lower risk.
sea level rise for the Mentawai island group,
where a highly vulnerable population is heav-
ily exposed. Padang compares favorably to
similarly exposed Cilacap, achieving better
results in the components of vulnerability,
but remains risky due to the high exposure.
The WorldRiskIndex shows significant differ- For the systematic and continuous develop-
ences between exposure to natural hazards ment of the WorldRiskIndex, one should keep
and climate change, and vulnerability. Visu- in mind the following challenges:
alizing and communicating such differences
using selected quantitative indicators at the + Constant updating of the indicators data-
global and local levels are important tools to base in order to allow the index to be rel-
illustrate that not only do natural hazards and evant as a monitoring tool;
environmental change lead to the emergence
of a disaster, but also to a very high degree + developing methods to better evaluate the
social vulnerability. response capacities of society, since they
represent an important variable in risk
At a glance, it is possible to identify countries reduction and facilitate a multi-hazard
that have a high risk to natural hazards and approach;
climate change. When dealing with particular
events, it is even more important, however, + further improving methods and data at a
to be attentive to the considerable regional global level in order to be able to better
structural differences between susceptibility, evaluate uncertainties, such as improved
coping capacities and adaptive capacities that climate models to provide accurate calcula-
exist regardless of the degree of exposure. tions for the sea level rise and droughts;
Although the global index can visualize only
some aspects of the complex reality, the maps + conducting more research into the dynamic
and the selected indicators provide impor- processes of vulnerability in order to better
tant information on which factors require detect possible changes of the various as-
special attention at the global level. In addi- pects of susceptibility, the coping capacities
tion, the identification of regional hotspots and the adaptive capacities.
with respect to future threats such as sea level
rise may be an important basis for discussion
of strengthening disaster risk reduction in
humanitarian aid and development policy, but
must be complemented by local, regional and
national reports and lessons learned.
WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 39
42 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
3. Focal topic:
Governance and civil society
WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 43
3.1 State failure as a risk factor – How natural events
turn into disasters
44 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
Haiti – a reason for concern
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 responsible
for the provision of welfare benefits in the sectors of
health and education, it does not have a successful
track record. Most social services have been and still are
delivered by NGOs. In general, the quality of government
services is very poor. The inefficiency of the govern-
ment and its predecessors is also reflected by the lack of
Haiti is a “fragile state”. In the Failed States index of the building regulations and standards in the country as well
Fund for Peace, Haiti is ranked 11th, only slightly behind as the fact that national disaster management systems
Somalia, Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the have been introduced only very gradually and emergency
Congo and Sudan (The Fund for Peace 2011). Although services have received no assistance (Oxfam 2010). In
the President, the Prime Minister and many government addition to the severe poverty of the country, Haiti being
members are credited for their great interest and involve- the poorest country in the Western hemisphere, the seri-
ment, the Government is barely able to act effectively. ous shortcomings of the Government contributed signifi-
The political system is fractioned and decision-making cantly to the impact of the earthquake of 12 January 2010,
processes are extremely difficult (Collier 2009). which was one of the biggest disasters in the world in
recent years.
When neighbors save lives titioners who deal with the issue agree that,
How hard a natural hazard strikes a society particularly in the first days after a disaster
does not exclusively depend on the strength such as an earthquake, a flood or a cyclone, it
of the state. For instance, there are relatively is above all the informal aid provided in the
strong, autocratic states that theoretically local context and solidarity among people
have the capacity of functioning disaster that are critical. In fact, most first aid is pro-
preparedness, but not the will to protect their vided by family and neighborhood networks.
citizens accordingly. Examples include the In addition, almost all societies have coping
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and and adaptation strategies at their disposal.
Myanmar. For instance, when Cyclone Nargis In fact, many disasters are not single events;
swept through the Bay of Bengal in 2008 and they occur every year and repeatedly reveal
devastated five regions of Myanmar, includ- to the affected societies the need of develop-
ing the former capital of Yangon, it quickly ing coping and adaption strategies, such as a
became clear that that the military regime change in building design or the creation of
ruling the country was barely able to provide evacuation plans.
on its own the urgently needed emergency
aid for the affected population. In addition, Supporting, not replacing the State
the Junta declared the 15,000 km2 of Ir- The relief aid and development work faces
rawaddy Delta a “restricted area” to interna- immense challenges, given the coincidence of
tional aid workers and journalists, making it weak governance and extreme natural events.
greatly difficult to supply aid to the victims. With which actors and institutions is col-
laboration possible in the event of a disas-
However, in addition to national disaster ter? How can these actors be strengthened?
management systems, there are other ef- Which tasks can be assumed by the govern-
fective social mechanisms that can help to ment and which by civil society or private
reduce the disaster risk. Scientists and prac- actors? It is certain that both government
WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 45
and local civil society play a crucial role in to them. This can be successful if the govern-
disaster preparedness and that each must be ments are supported in setting up effective
strengthened accordingly. anti-corruption programmes. In addition,
long-term plans to create local govern-
Given the often severe corruption, the low ment capacities must be developed, train-
capacities of the state and a virtually non-ex- ing programmes set up, and the support of
istent local civil society, it seems often easier government officials by international experts
for international public donors to entrust the guaranteed. According to the subsidiarity
funds earmarked for disaster preparedness principle, which states that the higher and
and reconstruction after a disaster to inter- more remote level of government should only
national NGOs that implement their projects. regulate what the lower level or the nearest
However, this creates the danger of removing level to the citizens cannot, it is important
responsibility from the state and weakening that local government structures in particu-
it even more in the long term. lar be strengthened. They must be allowed
access to the institutions in charge of recon-
In Haiti, the risk of undermining state struction and disaster preparedness.
authority by the international community
is currently real. Joel Boutroué, Adviser to Civil society as a lever to strengthen the
the Haitian Prime Minister, pointed out at state
the Conference of the International Council Only when bilateral development cooperation
of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA) in Geneva, is impossible because of gross human rights
Switzerland, in March 2011 that hardly any violations or extremely weak governance
real cooperation between the Haitian Gov- resources can be provided solely through
ernment and the international community NGOs. This approach, however, should
is evident; instead, there is a climate of remain temporary. An important function
mistrust. Rather than closely accompanying of NGOs is, in this case, also the strengthen-
the Government’s work and taking com- ing of state structures in disaster prepared-
mon action, the promised government aid is ness. The member organizations of Bündnis
handled through international NGOs or not Entwicklung Hilft achieve this by involving
even disbursed. This creates a vicious circle: government officials in the planning pro-
the Government does not have the necessary cesses and, with the help of their partner
financial resources to implement actions and organizations, supporting the local popula-
therefore cannot demonstrate success, which tion to actively demand state action in the
in turn would be the prerequisite for gaining field of disaster preparedness and beyond.
assertiveness and obtaining additional funds. Examples include the consideration of local
Therefore, there is currently a real risk that government officials in local risk assessments
the Haitian Government will be replaced by or in planning and training processes, or the
international NGOs in the implementation influence of national political processes and
and planning processes. legislative procedures in disaster risk reduc-
tion.
Disaster risk reduction and disaster manage-
ment in fragile states is undoubtedly a chal- In parallel to building state capacity, civil so-
lenging task. However, it cannot be solved ciety’s coping and adaptive capacities should
by undermining local state actors. As long as be encouraged at the local level. If the gov-
the concerned governments have a minimum ernment fails in disaster preparedness, then
level of development targets, they must be the catastrophic consequences of natural
supported in close partnership in bilateral disasters can at least be mitigated at a lower
and multilateral development cooperation level. The organizations that collaborate
when they implement and execute develop- within Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft promote
ment measures. More responsibility and the already set up social, self-help strategies,
more money must gradually be transferred for instance, by using traditional knowledge
46 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
Chile – a high performer
Shortly after the devastating earthquake in of the government. In 2009, Chile ranked 21st
Haiti, another and even stronger earthquake in the “Corruption Perception Index”, ahead of
hit Chile. This earthquake, with a magnitude Belgium, the United States and France. Since
of 8.8 points on the moment magnitude scale the 1960s, the government institutions have
was the fifth strongest earthquake worldwide continuously established and enforced bet-
in over a hundred years. More than three mil- ter building regulations. The stable building
lion people live within 200 km of the epicen- structure, at least of newer buildings, might
tre of the earthquake. Even in Santiago de be an important reason for the low number of
Chile, the capital located some 325 kilometres deaths.
away, in many places in Argentina and even
in São Paulo at a distance of a few thousand In addition, innovative technologies were
kilometres, the earthquake was still strongly established in disaster risk management
felt. Despite its magnitude, the earthquake and regular training sessions held in educa-
claimed only 562 victims (CRED EM-DAT 2011). tional institutions. The fact that the tsunami
The mortality rate was thus about 400 times caused by the earthquake claimed many lives
lower than that of Haiti. A crucial difference was due to serious errors committed by the
was due to the good governance of Chile. Marine Unit in early warning and the com-
Chile ranks 155th in the Failed States index of plete collapse of telephone and internet lines
the Fund for Peace and is thus positioned on after the temporary failure of power supply
the diametrically opposed side of the spec- (Kaufmann and Tessada 2010).
trum from Haiti (The Fund for Peace 2011).
WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 47
3.2 Local risk management
48 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
the necessary well-trained staff and equip- tatives, bodies, residents and relevant au-
ment such as dredgers and boats to fulfill thorities in a sustainable and self-responsible
this task are lacking. This deficiency can also manner. Extreme forms of coping with the
lead to corruption or delegating the problem situation, such as migration to Kolkata, thus
to higher levels. India’s biggest challenge in become unnecessary.
the field of civil protection and prevention is
the sheer size of the subcontinent, combined Risk assessments and prevention plans are
with its climatic situation. Nearly 60 per cent developed with the help of committees, which
of the land mass is likely to be hit by earth- are composed of volunteer representatives of
quakes; some 12 per cent (40 million ha) are the villages, its various groups and govern-
prone to flooding. Of the total national ter- ment representatives at the level of the block
ritory, 8 per cent are threatened by storms, or the district. Through meetings and activi-
particularly the coasts. ties, the community is included in the analy-
sis. Experiences, needs and concerns of the
Community analysis people directly involved are thus identified.
In this situation, Community Based Disaster
The risk analysis in the CBDRM process is a
holistic approach that examines both hazards
Ten keys to success of Community Based Disaster and the vulnerability of the target group. In
Risk Management (CBDRM) addition to physical data, the actors collect
social structure-related, but also motivation-
related data. The basic data set includes the
1. Cooperation with local partners.
number of households in a community and
2. Fostering local ownership. details on house location, size, building ma-
3. Using traditional, local knowledge. terials used and the type of roof. The aggre-
4. Ensuring participatory learning and action. gated data provide an overview of the number
of types of houses and their location in the
5. Jointly evaluating risk data. village – and how exposed they are in each
6. Writing down problems and solutions in an action case. The assessment of physical assets can
plan. be extensive and detailed. It includes, among
7. Cross-linking local structures. other things, data on communications, power
8. Bottom-up linking of local communities in their supply and mobility. For example, in order to
region. decide on whether an early warning system
9. Providing and storing information. by telephone is useful, it must be known how
many households have permanent access to
10. Institutionalising own initiative. electricity and telephone. In the area of social
structure, data on education, health, social or-
ganization, etc. are collected. In particular, in
Risk Management (CBDRM), as conducted health care, there is much potential for active
by the NGO Welthungerhilfe in many regions disaster preparedness in the informal sector.
of India, can be an appropriate tool. Welt- Are there traditional midwives in the village?
hungerhilfe carries out numerous CBDRM Are there Accredited Social Health Activists
projects in cooperation with its Indian part- (ASHAs) or traditional healers? Even the
ner organizations, including in the Sundar- collection of data on how many people are
bans. The target group: communities that are organized in self-helf groups (in particular
heavily and often exposed to natural hazards, women’s self-help groups) is important for es-
are insufficiently protected, and, due to their timating coping capacities. In the analysis of
socio-economic situations, can barely cope motivation-related vulnerability of the village,
with the consequences of extreme natural qualitative interviews are helpful: How strong
events or prepare for future events. The goal: is the willingness for change? Do commu-
equipping the municipalities, their represen- nity members feel helplessly exposed to the
WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 49
threatening forces of nature? Is there trust in who informs whom about what and how. The
the local government officials? action plan is a framework for action that has
a long-term impact beyond the Welthunger-
Maps and plans hilfe project.
In analyzing the situation, the population is
actively involved working together, creating The completed action plan is publicly pre-
different maps. For example, the Transect sented to the local self-government, the
Map shows the areas of the community that Panchayat Rai. This local self-government
are located very low and are therefore par- body approves the plan, which then becomes
ticularly vulnerable, and the Social Resource official. This helps the members of the Com-
Map (Figure 18), provides a clear overview mittee and the community to act with more
of all facilities such as wells, roads, ponds, confidence when dealing with regional of-
dams, rivers, as well as the location and type ficials and to gradually implement the plan.
of fields and houses. This latter type of map Problems can now be better formulated,
can also include the results of the Well-Being documented and discussed – even in the
Analysis, which divides households into regular coordination meetings at the block
categories. Due to a simple color code, the and district levels.
map will show at a glance if there is a poor
neighborhood in the village or if there is a Sustainability and self-responsibility
connection between the well-being category The risk analysis and the action plan help
and the exposure to hazards in the village. the communities, even without the support
The Institutional Linkage Map provides an of the central government, to bear in mind
overview of the institutions and their net- future natural hazards. To create sustainable
working, and of the responsible entity in awareness of the importance of prevention
the event of a disaster. This set of maps and and adapting measures, materials such as
plans – large, graphically clear and written posters, flyers, brochures, manuals as well
in the local language – is then presented as training sessions are used. The theme of
in a plenary session and discussed. Here it disaster risk reduction can also be integrated
becomes clear whether any data and infor- into the village school curriculum; the com-
mation are missing. Equally important is the munity protection hall can be expanded into
question whether everyone agrees with this an information and training center. These
view of things. centers can serve the community in many
ways: access to government sources (me-
Similar to the creation of the maps, problem teorological data), the media, library and
identification and risk assessment are carried courses, and provision of information, for
out with the community in a participatory instance, on current market prices.
manner. The final result of this process is the
action plan, the central framework for action. CBDRM projects not only build self-help
The action plan is also the crisis response capacity of the rural population, but they also
plan in case of acute hazards and the com- have a political objective. Some communi-
munity development plan for the ongoing ties, especially in remote and inaccessible
development of the community in disaster islands, cannot easily intervene pro-actively
preparedness. When does the CBDRM Com- with the regional and national authorities.
mittee meet? When do the helpers receive Therefore, disaster management forums at
their training? Who in the village does what the district level are part of the projects man-
in the worst case scenario? The plan also aged by Welthungerhilfe: with at least two
determines future responsibilities in the vari- representatives of each village committee, the
ous fields of action for the local disaster pre- project works at a higher level (municipality,
paredness. A communications plan defines district, federal state) on harmonizing and
50 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
Figure 18: Simple
village map, crea-
ted by the CBDRM
process
networking actors in disaster risk reduction. control disaster management in the worst of
The goals include improved coordination cases. As a result, the next storm or the next
with government institutions, joint studies flood do not become disasters, but remain as
and joint planning. In addition, the projects they should be, natural events. And perhaps
developed at the grassroots level can also addressing the dangers of nature will also
contribute to “pressure from below” and give help the villagers to be better prepared for
a voice and concrete arguments to the af- their next encounter with the Royal Bengal
fected communities and their representatives Tiger.
when they deal with government officials.
Indeed, the Sundarbans are located far from
the mainland and compete for attention as
well as for specific resources and services
with many other areas of India.
WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 51
Action Plan
Mitigation work
To strengthen disaster protection, information is collected based on answers to the following:
Is it necessary to repair dike sections? Do wells need salt-water sealing? Is resettlement of
some families within the village needed? Are there high-lying escape routes? Is there a suitable
refuge? Can the coastal erosion protection be improved by mangrove reforestation?
Disaster preparedness
To improve local disaster preparedness, task forces are formed. Each group has a particular
competence and is trained accordingly: early warning, rescue and salvage, first aid, water supply.
Under the leadership of the CBDRM Committee, the groups regularly practise their duties. Local
clubs and women’s groups organize emergency kits for each family that will ensure survival in
the first days following a disaster: if necessary, residents have access to water-tight packaged
food, toiletries, kitchen utensils as well as their most important documents.
Adaptation work
What can help the community to better cope in the future with extreme natural events and the
consequences of climate change? Much progress can be achieved through advice and training,
such as in the fields of flood-resistant or salt-water-resistant seeds, crop rotation and animal
husbandry. Other options are to provide physical improvements to community infrastructure:
existing or newly dug drinking water wells, for example, can be built and sealed so that no salt-
water will penetrate.
52 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
3.3 Demanding state responsibility
WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 53
incentives. If the introduced improvements
in the context of disaster risk reduction also
lead to long-term cost savings due to the fact
that natural events cause less severe damages
to enable the population in the project area and fewer efforts are needed to cope with
to undertake further initiatives to reduce these events, then they also stimulate eco-
the vulnerability of communities in case nomic and administrative incentives.
of disasters. This includes also civil society
demands for the right to protection against In addition to creating a legal basis, the
extreme natural hazards. Lobbying for and necessary financial resources for disaster risk
influencing policies at the local level play an reduction must be made available, and thus a
important role in this context. The request request for state action is needed in the long
for protection rights assumes that people term. Indeed, it has to be monitored that
are informed and know their rights. Ensuring the agreed or promised measures are being
this is also part of the project: for example implemented and the financial resources
provding information to schools and local provided, and, if necessary, the respective
councils and mobilizing target groups. It is governments must be requested to hold their
essential in this context to provide compre- promise time and again.
hensive information to students on their
rights. A right to protection
When the boundaries of political will and
The measures taken in previous years have incentives are reached, the basic legal prin-
already led to a mobilization of the popu- ciples – national or international – become
lation; their houses were reinforced wind very important. If the right to protection were
barriers and flood-protected seed stores enshrined in legislation, measures to face the
were erected. Climate has become a main increasing threat from extreme natural events
topic in many local councils. There were as well as disaster preparedness would have
demonstrations and campaigns in which to be implemented more seriously than up to
people demanded a right to protection and now. If necessary, they could be demanded by
prevention. Through the NCCB network, the the endangered or affected population on the
partners of Brot für die Welt create political basis of an enforceable right.
pressure at the national level. For example,
they demand the full implementation of the The essential basis for such an approach is
National Action Programme on Adaptation the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(NAPA) and the subsequent agreements. A – adopted by the General Assembly of the
core element of the demands is the involve- United Nations on 10 December 1948, in
ment of civil society in the planning and particular, Articles 3 and 25. Article 3:
implementation of adaptation measures. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and
security of person; Article 25: Everyone has
the right to a standard of living adequate
for the health and well-being of himself and
of his family, including food, clothing, hous-
ing and medical care and necessary social
services, and the right to security in the
event of unemployment, sickness, disability,
widowhood, old age or other lack of liveli-
54 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
hood in circumstances beyond his control.
Motherhood and childhood are entitled to Case study: Zimbabwe
special care and assistance. All children,
whether born in or out of wedlock, shall
enjoy the same social protection (United
Nations 1948). The right to health
Governments have the responsibility to Each year, cholera breaks out in Zimbabwe.
protect and to guarantee the human rights Only a few people have access to clean wa-
of their citizens. If a state is unable to offer ter, and there are threats of severe flooding
sufficient protection to its citizens, then in at the beginning of the rainy season. Rivers
special cases this responsibility can be trans- and lakes are polluted by garbage and raw
ferred to the international community. To sewage – ideal conditions for cholera. The
date, there is no such international respon- severe cholera epidemic in 2008, when
sibility for disasters or the effects of climate nearly 100,000 people fell ill, surprisingly
change such as sea level rise. However, this broke out in the dry season; 3,500 people
must be a fundamental approach for the died from severe diarrhoea, although chol-
prevention and management of disasters. In- era is treatable when good health care is
deed, an internationally recognized respon- available. But after the collapse of the health
sibility commits all state institutions, both at system in the 1990s due to political mis-
the national level and within the framework management, the situation has continuously
of international or supranational structures, worsened and diseases such as typhoid and
in order to protect their citizens. cholera, which could be prevented by simple
measures such as providing clean water
If an international agreement to legally and hygiene measures, are spreading even
protect people before and during disasters is further. The Community Working Group on
concluded and ratified, it must be transposed Health (CWGH) combats the dramatic situ-
into national laws and regulations. These ation in the country. Its name refers to the
regulations include, among other measures, central role of civil society in this process:
those that inform citizens about legislation due to its basic structure, the organization
and the ways of claiming their rights. is well-established at the local level and
promotes a strong grassroots mobilization
Guidelines and standards in the field of at the national level. Twenty-five regional
disaster relief such as the Code of Conduct health committees provide the public with
of the International Red Cross/Red Cres- the tools and knowledge to actively partici-
cent, and the principles of the Humanitarian pate in improving their situation. During the
Charter of the SPHERE project can be used cholera epidemic of 2008, the committees
as starting point to place the right to protec- were helped by their health centres in rural
tion into the foreground or to declare it as areas to inform people about preventive
the basis for action. This also applies to many measures and to preventively distribute hy-
standards that have been established at lo- gienic supplies to combat the further spread
cal, regional or national levels. In the future, of the disease.
they might serve as a framework to enshrine
a human rights approach in the disaster pre-
paredness and response.
Part of this is that people are entitled to sup-
WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 55
port, that they should know the standards of
assistance and that they have institutionally
enshrined possibilities to claim their needs
and support (Kent 2011).
56 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
Case study: the Philippines
Disaster prevention and advocacy work are which are as close as possible to all potentially
mutually reinforcing affected citizens. The law came into force in the
Philippines in 1991; it provides for many direct
The Philippines, with its exposed position in the consulting mechanisms and gives citizens,
Pacific Ocean and its 7,000 islands, is heavily community groups, NGOs, business representa-
affected by extreme natural events. Storms and tives inter alia the opportunity to submit propos-
heavy rains hit degraded ecosystems: destroyed als. Although the law has been in force for 20
coral reefs and mangrove forests, depleted years, its possibilities are still underused. In the
soils and deforested areas. Thus, there are few field of disaster risk reduction (DRR) in particular,
natural bulwarks against the threat of disasters. it is essential to take into account all sectors and
People also feel the effects of climate change. experiences. This has been done successfully in
The high variability in precipitation increases. recent years: since 1997, civil society organiza-
Storms become increasingly intense and lead tions, including COPE, have joined Disaster Risk
salty sea water onto the fields and into the Reduction Network Philippines (DRRNetPhils)
groundwater, which damages the soil and food and continue to work hard towards a compre-
crops. Partner organizations of MISEREOR support hensive national DRR strategy.
small-scale farmers in securing their land rights,
cultivating their fields in an appropriate and Since 2010, the Philippines has successfully
sustainable manner, and protect the coasts and adopted the Disaster Risk Reduction and Man-
forests which significantly reduces the vulner- agement Act. The adoption was preceded by a
ability of people in rural areas. But even the fruitful dialogue between the participating or-
urban poor are severely affected by natural haz- ganizations, the Government and its ministries,
ards – particularly floods. Those who live close and policy-makers as well as the Congress and
to streams and rivers without land rights are the Senate. DRRNetPhils commented and im-
particularly vulnerable. COPE, the local partner of proved every new draft from a practical perspec-
Misereor, successfully defends the rights of the tive, and simultaneously tried to gain supporters
urban poor to stay and live in their area, which at all levels for the legislative initiative. Achieve-
is an important prerequisite in order for them ments in field work helped greatly in gaining
to be considered in disaster preparedness and support for the law. A practical example is the
environmental protection. comprehensive strategy agreed on between
civil society, NGOs and government agencies in
However, extensive disaster preparedness plans, the city of Dagupan in northern Luzon. When in
which could effectively have positive results in 2009, Hurricane Parma caused the worst floods
extreme natural events, are lacking at the local, in history, the efforts proved worthwhile: all
regional and national levels. For this reason, for 150,000 inhabitants survived as a result of good
COPE and other NGOs, lobbying is as important prevention plans. In other cities, however, there
as concrete practice in the communities. Com- were many casualties. The actors involved in
munity groups and organizations are trying to the improvement could also share their experi-
create a new culture of accountability. Good ences at the government level and thus provide
framework conditions are provided by the Local further impetus for the Disaster Risk Reduction
Government Code, creating a subsidiary planning and Management Act.
and decision-making structure for public affairs,
WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 57
58 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
4. Conclusions and perspectives
WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 59
R eality is too complex to be accurately rep-
resented by a global index. However, the
maps and selected indicators of the World-
natural hazards will not increase beyond
the unavoidable level. Global warming
must be limited to below 2°C. The volun-
RiskIndex allow conclusions to be made tary commitments made by governments
about the significance of the studied factors are currently aiming at a temperature
on a global scale. For effective practices in rise by 3.5 to 4°C. In order to limit global
humanitarian assistance and development warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels,
cooperation, the WorldRiskIndex provides by the middle of the century, the economies
information and arguments; threats can be of developed countries must reduce emis-
detected early, individual needs determined sions to a minimum. Worldwide reduction
more accurately, political claims made and in emissions of greenhouse gases by 85 per
measures taken in the affected countries and cent in 2050 over the 2000 levels must be
in donor countries when based on compre- guaranteed.
hensive analysis.
+ Emerging and developing countries will not
The reduction of social vulnerability (e.g. by be able to follow the development path of
reducing poverty), the promotion of better developed countries, which was based on
coping capacities (e.g. through good gover- the use of fossil fuels. Therefore, developed
nance and strengthening of social networks) countries must provide financial and tech-
and the strengthening of adaptive capacities nical support to the developing and emerg-
(e.g. through education) are realistic options ing countries to induce a climate-friendly
for actions in reducing risk and thus can help development.
to prevent future disasters and crises.
Susceptibility
Also, the analysis of regional hotspots (illus- + Poverty in particular determines whether
trated by the example of Indonesia) provides people suffer losses from natural hazards.
an important basis for prevention-oriented Both, individual poverty and the poverty
humanitarian aid and development coop- of countries, is crucial. To reduce disaster
eration. Small-scale analysis, in particular, risks, poverty reduction must therefore be
supplemented by local and regional reports at the heart of all strategies at all levels.
and lessons learned, can lead to concrete
recommendations for action. When required, + In particular, structural reforms are neces-
precautionary measures, protection of vul- sary to address the causes and not just the
nerable groups and risk management can be manifestation of poverty such as demo-
directly implemented by aid agencies without cratic and land reforms as well as decen-
needing to wait for the necessary changes in tralization processes are required. At the
the policy framework. international level, the solution to the debt
crisis and the establishment of a fair world
From the analysis and results of the World trading system that is ecologically and
RiskReport it is possible to draw key recom- socially sustainable needs to be advanced
mendations and requests relative to the more vigorously.
analyzed components and topics:
Coping capacities
Exposure + The international obligations in the Hyogo
+ In order to meet its responsibilities, the in- Framework for Action are the foundation
ternational community must guarantee that of disaster risk management, to which the
60 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
signatory states have committed them- responsibility of national governments in
selves. Now, they have to implement these the field of disaster risk reduction, particu-
commitments and report reliably on the larly in high-risk countries, must therefore
national implementation. be strengthened. In particular, in the con-
text of weak governance, it is essential to
+ Disaster risk reduction needs to be en- support national governments, even before
shrined as a cross-cutting issue in develop- the occurrence of a disaster, in order to
ment programmes and projects of develop- develop capacities and their responsibilities
ment cooperation. Also, in the strategic for protection.
planning of development cooperation and
foreign policy, a coherent approach to the + The current practice of the international
integration of disaster risk reduction must community, i.e. to be supportive only
be included. when the disaster has already occurred,
is not helpful, especially in terms of local
Adaptive measures ownership. In order to achieve sustainable
+ The financial resources for disaster pre- results, long-term, pro-active engagement
paredness should be increased substan- and compulsory perspectives are required.
tially, given the rising number of disasters Disaster risk reduction begins long before a
and the consequent damages, in addition to natural hazard occurs.
regular development cooperation. More-
over, the financial instruments for disas- + Often, in the event of a disaster, measures
ter risk reduction must be adapted to the are implemented exclusively by external
needs, among others through appropriate actors, due to misunderstood efficiency
project timelines and funding periods. For criteria. National governments and civil
a sustainable and programmatic work in society are undermined or replaced. The
collaboration with the local civil societies result is a further loss of legitimacy of the
and the state officials, significantly longer government, and a lack of perspective, and
planning periods are necessary. of coping and adaptive capacities. To avoid
this mechanism, the subsidiarity principle
+ Better coordination and enforcement are requires that, in particular, local govern-
required in the various policy areas, such mental structures must be encouraged,
as education and the environment. This including local civil society.
includes improving coordination between
development cooperation, humanitarian + To ensure that national governments of
assistance and environmental policy (for countries at risk take responsibility for the
example, the consideration of disaster risk protection of the population, disaster risk
reduction as part of climate adaptation reduction should be legally enshrined by an
strategies) and between countries in their international agreement. This agreement
adaptive measures. could provide for specific legal claims by
the national legislation of those countries
Governance and civil society that sign and ratify the agreement. Thus,
+ Governmental and non-governmental civil society would have at its disposal an
development cooperation must always important advocacy tool with which it could
work towards sustainability, thus towards call on governments to account for their
making itself redundant. This applies also responsibility to protect.
to the field of disaster risk reduction. The
WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 61
On the basis of the above analysis, the mem- If the WorldRiskReport contributes to
ber organizations of Bündnis Entwicklung abandoning the usually short-sighted view of
Hilft can expand their approach to promoting disasters and adopting a developmental ap-
comprehensive development in the social, proach, a major goal has been reached.
economic and cultural dimensions. Com-
bating the causes of poverty, hardship and
conflict, and strengthening local partners and
their resources contribute to reducing the
vulnerability of people and hence their disas-
ter risk. The same applies to the challenges
caused by climate change. Development, if
understood and managed in this way, is the
best form of disaster risk reduction and ulti-
mately leads to reducing individuals’ suscep-
tibility to extreme natural events and climate
change and, by strengthening local coping ca-
pacities, leads to mitigating the consequences
for all affected people.
62 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
WorldRiskIndex, countries in alphabetical order
Country WRI (%) (Rank) Country WRI (%) (Rank) Country WRI (%) (Rank) Country WRI (%) (Rank)
Afghanistan 14.06 (15.) Estonia 2.25 (165.) Moldova 4.78 (116.) Timor-Leste 17.45 (7.)
Albania 9.98 (39.) Ethiopia 8.27 (60.) Mongolia 3.43 (142.) Togo 10.40 (37.)
Algeria 8.06 (61.) Fiji 13.57 (19.) Morocco 7.17 (78.) Tonga 29.08 (2.)
Angola 8.02 (62.) Finland 2.06 (166.) Mozambique 9.98 (40.) Trinidad and 6.70 (90.)
Argentina 3.77 (130.) France 2.76 (155.) Myanmar 8.54 (57.) Tobago
Armenia 6.90 (84.) Gabon 6.30 (96.) Namibia 6.63 (92.) Tunisia 5.72 (106.)
Australia 4.28 (119.) Gambia 13.90 (17.) Nepal 6.15 (99.) Turkey 5.38 (111.)
Austria 3.41 (144.) Georgia 6.97 (81.) Netherlands 7.71 (69.) Turkmenistan 6.95 (82.)
Azerbaijan 6.80 (88.) Germany 2.96 (150.) New Zealand 4.28 (120.) Uganda 7.57 (72.)
Bahamas 4.52 (118.) Ghana 9.35 (46.) Nicaragua 15.74 (11.) Ukraine 3.02 (148.)
Bahrain 1.66 (169.) Greece 7.09 (79.) Niger 14.03 (16.) United Arab 4.09 (126.)
Bangladesh 17.45 (6.) Grenada 2.29 (163.) Nigeria 9.03 (50.) Emirates
Barbados 2.44 (161.) Guatemala 20.88 (5.) Norway 2.28 (164.) United 3.61 (138.)
Kingdom
Belarus 2.98 (149.) Guinea 9.49 (43.) Oman 2.80 (154.)
Uruguay 3.94 (129.)
Belgium 3.51 (140.) Guinea-Bissau 13.12 (20.) Pakistan 7.84 (66.)
United States 3.72 (133.)
Belize 5.93 (102.) Guyana 9.02 (52.) Panama 7.70 (70.)
of America
Benin 10.90 (36.) Haiti 11.45 (32.) Papua New 15.45 (12.)
Uzbekistan 9.37 (45.)
Bhutan 13.65 (18.) Honduras 12.10 (23.) Guinea
Vanuatu 32.00 (1.)
Bolivia 5.16 (112.) Hungary 5.49 (109.) Paraguay 4.12 (125.)
Venezuela 6.11 (100.)
Bosnia and 6.25 (97.) Iceland 1.56 (170.) Peru 7.24 (75.)
Vietnam 11.21 (34.)
Herzegovina India 7.68 (71.) Philippines 24.32 (3.)
Yemen 6.83 (87.)
Botswana 5.56 (108.) Indonesia 11.69 (28.) Poland 3.42 (143.)
Zambia 8.41 (59.)
Brazil 4.26 (121.) Iran 5.11 (114.) Portugal 3.62 (137.)
Zimbabwe 9.63 (42.)
Brunei 14.08 (14.) Iraq 5.77 (105.) Qatar 0.02 (173.)
Darussalam Ireland 4.15 (122.) Romania 6.43 (94.)
Bulgaria 4.08 (127.) Israel 2.60 (158.) Rwanda 8.68 (55.)
Burkina Faso 11.58 (29.) Italy 4.74 (117.) Russian Fed. 3.56 (139.)
Burundi 11.56 (30.) Côte d’Ivoire 9.03 (51.) Samoa 7.88 (63.)
Cambodia 16.58 (9.) Jamaica 12.89 (21.) São Tomé and 3.73 (131.)
Cameroon 10.27 (38.) Japan 11.13 (35.) Princ.
Canada 2.57 (159.) Jordan 5.13 (113.) Saudi Arabia 1.26 (171.)
Cape Verde 9.47 (44.) Senegal 11.76 (27.) Countries not listed in the
Kazakhstan 4.04 (128.)
Central African 7.18 (77.) Kenya 7.82 (67.) Serbia 5.44 (110.) WorldRiskIndex
Rep. Seychelles 2.68 (157.) Andorra
Kiribati 1.88 (168.)
Chad 12.25 (22.) Sierra Leone 11.25 (33.) Antigua and Barbuda
Kuwait 3.71 (135.)
Chile 11.97 (25.) Singapore 2.85 (153.) Democratic People’s
Kyrgyzstan 8.48 (58.)
China 6.36 (95.) Slovak 3.38 (145.) Republic of Korea
Lao PDR 5.80
Colombia 6.86 (86.) Republic Democratic Republic of the
Latvia 3.09 (147.) Congo
Comoros 6.93 (83.) Slovenia 3.72 (132.)
Lebanon 5.01 (115.) Dominica
Congo, 7.71 (68.) Solomon 23.51 (4.)
Lesotho 7.86 (64.) Federated States of
Republic of Islands
Liberia 9.20 (49.) Micronesia
Costa Rica 16.74 (8.) South Africa 5.71 (107.)
Libya 3.67 (136.) Liechtenstein
Croatia 3.71 (134.) Republic of 4.14 (124.)
Lithuania 2.89 (151.) Maldives
Cuba 5.99 (101.) Korea
Luxembourg 2.70 (156.) Marshall Islands
Cyprus 3.46 (141.) Spain 3.29 (146.)
FYR 5.86 (103.) Monaco
Czech Rep. 4.15 (123.) Sri Lanka 7.84 (65.)
Macedonia Montenegro
Denmark 2.86 (152.) Sudan 9.25 (48.)
Madagascar 14.46 (13.) Nauru
Djibouti 7.05 (80.) Suriname 9.25 (47.)
Malawi 8.99 (53.) Palau
Dom. Republic 12.00 (24.) Swaziland 7.37 (74.)
Malaysia 6.69 (91.) San Marino
Ecuador 8.69 (54.) Sweden 2.00 (167.)
Mali 11.51 (31.) Somalia
Egypt 2.38 (162.) Switzerland 2.55 (160.)
Malta 0.72 (172.) St. Kitts and Nevis
El Salvador 16.49 (10.) Syria 6.19 (98.) St. Lucia
Mauritania 9.70 (41.)
Equatorial 6.72 (89.) Tajikistan 7.47 (73.) St. Vincent and the
Mauritius 11.91 (26.)
Guinea Tanzania 8.64 (56.) Grenadines
Mexico 6.53 (93.)
Eritrea 7.22 (76.) Thailand 6.86 (85.) Tuvalu
WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 63
WorldRiskIndex overview
64 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
Lack of coping Lack of adaptive
Rank Country WorldRiskIndex Exposure Vulnerability Susceptibility capacities capacities
61. Algeria 8.06 % 16.51 % 48.80 % 22.89 % 76.36 % 47.14 %
62. Angola 8.02 % 12.88 % 62.28 % 53.64 % 82.84 % 50.35 %
63. Samoa 7.88 % 14.95 % 52.69 % 30.49 % 79.85 % 47.73 %
64. Lesotho 7.86 % 12.46 % 63.12 % 52.04 % 83.46 % 53.86 %
65. Sri Lanka 7.84 % 15.05 % 52.14 % 29.49 % 81.02 % 45.91 %
66. Pakistan 7.84 % 12.27 % 63.84 % 40.33 % 86.61 % 64.58 %
67. Kenya 7.82 % 11.90 % 65.75 % 54.51 % 87.60 % 55.14 %
68. Congo, Republic of 7.71 % 12.19 % 63.28 % 50.98 % 87.39 % 51.45 %
69. Netherlands 7.71 % 29.24 % 26.37 % 13.99 % 38.71 % 26.42 %
70. Panama 7.70 % 17.27 % 44.56 % 30.57 % 67.17 % 35.94 %
71. India 7.68 % 12.68 % 60.55 % 45.30 % 80.11 % 56.24 %
72. Uganda 7.57 % 11.68 % 64.87 % 54.80 % 86.94 % 52.86 %
73. Tajikistan 7.47 % 13.56 % 55.11 % 37.44 % 75.62 % 52.28 %
74. Swaziland 7.37 % 11.98 % 61.56 % 48.56 % 83.10 % 53.02 %
75. Peru 7.24 % 15.08 % 47.99 % 31.75 % 74.86 % 37.36 %
76. Eritrea 7.22 % 9.90 % 72.88 % 67.17 % 87.68 % 63.79 %
77. Central African Republic 7.18 % 9.91 % 72.42 % 63.34 % 91.20 % 62.72 %
78. Morocco 7.17 % 13.41 % 53.49 % 29.72 % 77.12 % 53.64 %
79. Greece 7.09 % 20.89 % 33.94 % 16.22 % 53.29 % 32.32 %
80. Djibouti 7.05 % 11.14 % 63.29 % 40.08 % 83.56 % 66.22 %
81. Georgia 6.97 % 15.11 % 46.15 % 25.37 % 66.97 % 46.12 %
82. Turkmenistan 6.95 % 13.77 % 50.44 % 21.64 % 79.27 % 50.43 %
83. Comoros 6.93 % 10.10 % 68.60 % 51.13 % 85.92 % 68.75 %
84. Armenia 6.90 % 14.67 % 47.01 % 26.27 % 70.11 % 44.64 %
85. Thailand 6.86 % 14.84 % 46.25 % 22.44 % 76.23 % 40.10 %
86. Colombia 6.86 % 14.00 % 49.03 % 30.81 % 75.75 % 40.52 %
87. Yemen 6.83 % 10.23 % 66.76 % 47.30 % 87.27 % 65.70 %
88. Azerbaijan 6.80 % 13.90 % 48.94 % 32.64 % 68.01 % 46.16 %
89. Equatorial Guinea 6.72 % 11.71 % 57.36 % 34.82 % 87.01 % 50.25 %
90. Trinidad and Tobago 6.70 % 15.97 % 41.98 % 20.10 % 68.60 % 37.22 %
91. Malaysia 6.69 % 15.59 % 42.88 % 20.12 % 69.45 % 39.06 %
92. Namibia 6.63 % 11.76 % 56.41 % 48.32 % 75.21 % 45.69 %
93. Mexico 6.53 % 14.75 % 44.27 % 24.52 % 70.13 % 38.17 %
94. Romania 6.43 % 15.68 % 41.02 % 23.38 % 61.33 % 38.35 %
95. China 6.36 % 12.89 % 49.30 % 31.44 % 73.62 % 42.85 %
96. Gabon 6.30 % 11.82 % 53.34 % 34.11 % 83.20 % 42.70 %
97. Bosnia and Herzegovina 6.25 % 13.89 % 45.00 % 19.66 % 73.14 % 42.19 %
98. Syria 6.19 % 11.35 % 54.50 % 28.82 % 82.98 % 51.71 %
99. Nepal 6.15 % 9.97 % 61.69 % 50.72 % 81.84 % 52.52 %
100. Venezuela 6.11 % 13.42 % 45.57 % 23.82 % 74.43 % 38.46 %
101. Cuba 5.99 % 15.17 % 39.49 % 17.98 % 69.73 % 30.76 %
102. Belize 5.93 % 12.59 % 47.14 % 28.61 % 69.04 % 43.78 %
103. Macedonia 5.86 % 14.28 % 41.03 % 19.28 % 64.74 % 39.05 %
104. Lao PDR 5.80 % 9.70 % 59.78 % 47.38 % 84.77 % 47.20 %
105. Iraq 5.77 % 9.18 % 62.87 % 39.33 % 89.09 % 60.20 %
106. Tunisia 5.72 % 12.43 % 46.04 % 22.86 % 68.97 % 46.30 %
107. South Africa 5.71 % 12.42 % 46.02 % 31.04 % 67.72 % 39.31 %
108. Botswana 5.56 % 11.52 % 48.26 % 30.25 % 68.14 % 46.40 %
109. Hungary 5.49 % 15.37 % 35.73 % 16.52 % 54.58 % 36.08 %
110. Serbia 5.44 % 13.10 % 41.55 % 19.87 % 66.05 % 38.74 %
111. Turkey 5.38 % 11.81 % 45.57 % 21.41 % 68.14 % 47.15 %
112. Bolivia 5.16 % 9.34 % 55.23 % 43.45 % 80.64 % 41.61 %
113. Jordan 5.13 % 11.50 % 44.61 % 24.18 % 67.33 % 42.33 %
114. Iran 5.11 % 10.40 % 49.07 % 21.48 % 80.01 % 45.73 %
115. Lebanon 5.01 % 11.12 % 45.03 % 21.05 % 70.28 % 43.75 %
116. Moldova 4.78 % 10.24 % 46.74 % 25.61 % 71.32 % 43.29 %
117. Italy 4.74 % 14.14 % 33.54 % 16.07 % 55.83 % 28.70 %
118. Bahamas 4.52 % 11.08 % 40.81 % 15.89 % 65.39 % 41.15 %
119. Australia 4.28 % 14.72 % 29.09 % 14.52 % 46.50 % 26.26 %
120. New Zealand 4.28 % 15.73 % 27.19 % 16.15 % 40.54 % 24.89 %
WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 65
Lack of coping Lack of adaptive
Rank Country WorldRiskIndex Exposure Vulnerability Susceptibility capacities capacities
121. Brazil 4.26 % 9.70 % 43.87 % 26.08 % 67.81 % 37.73 %
122. Ireland 4.15 % 14.09 % 29.46 % 14.67 % 40.81 % 32.90 %
123. Czech Republic 4.15 % 11.00 % 37.75 % 14.37 % 66.67 % 32.22 %
124. Republic of Korea 4.14 % 12.34 % 33.55 % 14.67 % 50.82 % 35.17 %
125. Paraguay 4.12 % 7.68 % 53.63 % 34.37 % 81.99 % 44.51 %
126. United Arab Emirates 4.09 % 10.48 % 38.99 % 10.85 % 58.78 % 47.35 %
127. Bulgaria 4.08 % 11.08 % 36.78 % 17.30 % 57.92 % 35.12 %
128. Kazakhstan 4.04 % 9.71 % 41.55 % 20.35 % 60.96 % 43.35 %
129. Uruguay 3.94 % 10.84 % 36.35 % 21.19 % 50.74 % 37.13 %
130. Argentina 3.77 % 9.71 % 38.80 % 23.22 % 60.34 % 32.85 %
131. São Tomé and Príncipe 3.73 % 6.28 % 59.45 % 45.58 % 80.26 % 52.52 %
132. Slovenia 3.72 % 11.75 % 31.65 % 14.18 % 49.12 % 31.65 %
133. United States of America 3.72 % 12.00 % 30.98 % 16.80 % 48.65 % 27.49 %
134. Croatia 3.71 % 11.17 % 33.22 % 16.63 % 50.69 % 32.35 %
135. Kuwait 3.71 % 8.96 % 41.35 % 12.68 % 65.33 % 46.04 %
136. Libya 3.67 % 7.53 % 48.74 % 24.12 % 73.53 % 48.57 %
137. Portugal 3.62 % 11.02 % 32.85 % 17.34 % 49.78 % 31.43 %
138. United Kingdom 3.61 % 11.61 % 31.11 % 15.51 % 47.55 % 30.25 %
139. Russian Federation 3.56 % 9.07 % 39.27 % 19.88 % 59.48 % 38.45 %
140. Belgium 3.51 % 11.82 % 29.66 % 15.03 % 42.05 % 31.92 %
141. Cyprus 3.46 % 10.62 % 32.63 % 15.10 % 50.09 % 32.69 %
142. Mongolia 3.43 % 6.99 % 49.13 % 35.15 % 67.53 % 44.70 %
143. Poland 3.42 % 9.60 % 35.62 % 17.27 % 56.89 % 32.72 %
144. Austria 3.41 % 13.40 % 25.48 % 13.85 % 37.52 % 25.06 %
145. Slovak Republic 3.38 % 10.18 % 33.22 % 14.43 % 54.80 % 30.43 %
146. Spain 3.29 % 10.65 % 30.87 % 15.06 % 49.65 % 27.91 %
147. Latvia 3.09 % 8.66 % 35.63 % 21.39 % 55.32 % 30.17 %
148. Ukraine 3.02 % 7.20 % 41.91 % 21.49 % 62.05 % 42.20 %
149. Belarus 2.98 % 8.03 % 37.15 % 17.19 % 58.07 % 36.19 %
150. Germany 2.96 % 11.14 % 26.55 % 14.78 % 39.20 % 25.67 %
151. Lithuania 2.89 % 8.39 % 34.43 % 19.58 % 49.53 % 34.19 %
152. Denmark 2.86 % 10.53 % 27.16 % 14.56 % 39.82 % 27.11 %
153. Singapore 2.85 % 9.21 % 30.97 % 14.60 % 47.37 % 30.94 %
154. Oman 2.80 % 6.41 % 43.60 % 21.08 % 60.82 % 48.91 %
155. France 2.76 % 9.64 % 28.60 % 15.45 % 42.23 % 28.11 %
156. Luxembourg 2.70 % 10.09 % 26.78 % 11.92 % 39.99 % 28.43 %
157. Seychelles 2.68 % 6.09 % 43.97 % 21.16 % 71.65 % 39.10 %
158. Israel 2.60 % 7.13 % 36.44 % 18.40 % 56.20 % 34.73 %
159. Canada 2.57 % 9.08 % 28.32 % 14.04 % 44.58 % 26.35 %
160. Switzerland 2.55 % 9.96 % 25.57 % 14.27 % 36.89 % 25.56 %
161. Barbados 2.44 % 6.87 % 35.54 % 15.76 % 50.34 % 40.52 %
162. Egypt 2.38 % 4.79 % 49.62 % 23.20 % 76.62 % 49.04 %
163. Grenada 2.29 % 4.90 % 46.71 % 26.14 % 68.70 % 45.29 %
164. Norway 2.28 % 8.75 % 26.09 % 13.98 % 38.52 % 25.77 %
165. Estonia 2.25 % 6.80 % 33.15 % 17.90 % 51.09 % 30.47 %
166. Finland 2.06 % 8.14 % 25.27 % 14.67 % 36.55 % 24.59 %
167. Sweden 2.00 % 8.14 % 24.57 % 14.34 % 35.46 % 23.91 %
168. Kiribati 1.88 % 3.31 % 56.87 % 41.52 % 83.54 % 45.56 %
169. Bahrain 1.66 % 4.03 % 41.27 % 15.74 % 61.07 % 47.01 %
170. Iceland 1.56 % 6.22 % 25.01 % 14.06 % 37.04 % 23.94 %
171. Saudi Arabia 1.26 % 2.91 % 43.30 % 18.26 % 67.84 % 43.80 %
172. Malta 0.72 % 2.15 % 33.34 % 15.21 % 50.13 % 34.67 %
173. Qatar 0.02 % 0.05 % 33.18 % 9.40 % 52.12 % 38.03 %
66 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
Bibliography
WorldRiskReport 2011 ] 67
t a u B e n B ö C k , h & S d e C h ( e d S .)(2010): Fernerkundung im urbanen Raum. Erdbeobachtung auf dem Weg zur
Planungspraxis. (WBG) Darmstadt.
the Fund For p e a C e ( e d .) (2010): Failed States index 2010. Available at: http://www.fundforpeace.org/
global/?q=fsi-grid2010.
un (u n i t e d n a t i o n S ) (1948): Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Adopted and proclaimed by General Assem-
bly Resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948. Available at: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/.
unFCCC (u n i t e d n a t i o n S F r a m e w o r k C o n v e n t i o n on C l i m a t e C h a n g e )(2010): National Adaptation Pro-
grammes of Action. Index of NAPA Projects by Country. Available at: http://unfccc.int/files/cooperation_support/
least_developed_countries_portal/napa_project_database/application/pdf/napa_index_by_country.pdf.
un-h a B i t a t (u n i t e d n a t i o n S h u m a n S e t t l e m e n t S p r o g r a m m e )(2011): Cities and Climate Change: Policy Direc-
tions. Global Report on Human Settlements 2011. Abridged Edition. (Earthscan) London, Washington.
uniSdr (i n t e r n a t i o n a l S t r a t e g y For d i S a S t e r r e d u C t i o n )(2004): Living with risk: A global review of disaster
reduction initiatives (Vol. 1). United Nations, New York.
uniSdr (i n t e r n a t i o n a l S t r a t e g y For d i S a S t e r r e d u C t i o n )(2011): Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk
Reduction. United Nations, Geneva.
w i S n e r , B (2002): “Who? What? Where? When? In an Emergency: Notes on Possible Indicators of Vulnerability
and Resilience: By Phase of the Disaster Management Cycle and Social Actor”. In: Plate, E (ed.): Environment and
Human Security. Contributions to a workshop in Bonn, Germany. 23-25 October 2002, pp. 12/7-12/14.
w i S n e r , B; B l a i k i e , p; C a n n o n , t & i d a v i e S (2004): At Risk: Natural Hazards, People´s Vulnerability and
Disasters. (Routledge) London, New York.
w i S n e r , B; k e n t , g; C a r m a l t , J; C o o k , B; g a i l l a r d , JC; l a v e l l , a; o x l e y , m; g i B S o n . t; k e l m a n , i; van
68 [ WorldRiskReport 2011
Publisher:
Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft (Alliance Development Works)
In cooperation with:
United Nations University, Institute for Environment and Human
Security, Bonn (UNU-EHS)
Project leaders:
Peter Mucke, Editor-in-charge
Dr. Katrin Radtke, Welthungerhilfe
Scientific advisor:
PD Dr. Jörn Birkmann, UNU-EHS
Authors:
PD Dr. Jörn Birkmann, Dunja Krause, Neysa Jacqueline Setiadi, Dora-
Catalina Suarez, Dr. Torsten Welle, Jan Wolfertz, all with UNU-EHS
Ralph Dickerhof, freelance journalist,
Peter Mucke and Dr. Katrin Radtke
In collaboration with:
Bernd Eichner and Anne Jung, Medico International
Ulrike Felsenstein, Brot für die Welt
Nishara Fernando, UNU-EHS
Michael Kühn, Welthungerhilfe
Thomas Loster, MunichRe Foundation
Wolf-Christian Ramm, Terre des Hommes
Peter Rottach, Advisor of Diakonie Katastrophenhilfe
Dr. Beate Scherrer, Jigsaw
Miriam Wintersohle, Intern, Welthungerhilfe
Anika Schroeder, Misereor
Prof. Dr. Rainer Tetzlaff, Jacobs University Bremen
Angelika Wirtz, NatCatService Munich Re
Karl-Otto Zentel, German Committee for Disaster Reduction
Editor:
Lars Jeschonnek, MediaCompany
Translation:
Imprimerie Centrale, Luxembourg
Copy-Editing:
Barbara Hall
ISBN 978-3-9814495-1-8
Online:
The detailed scientific description as well as any further
information and tables can be consulted and downloaded from:
www.WorldRiskReport.org. Printed on FSC certified paper.