Current status and Best Practices for Disaster Loss Data recording in EU Member States by Dr. Tom de Groeve
•
1 recomendación•877 vistas
Presentation by Dr. Tom de Groeve at the OECD Workshop on Improving the Evidence Base on the Costs of Disasters (21 November 2014). Find more information at http://www.oecd.org/governance/risk/workshoponimprovingtheevidencebaseonthecostsofdisasters.htm.
Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
Similar a Current status and Best Practices for Disaster Loss Data recording in EU Member States by Dr. Tom de Groeve
Similar a Current status and Best Practices for Disaster Loss Data recording in EU Member States by Dr. Tom de Groeve (20)
Más de OECD Governance
Más de OECD Governance (20)
Último
Último (20)
Current status and Best Practices for Disaster Loss Data recording in EU Member States by Dr. Tom de Groeve
- 1. www.jrc.ec.europa.eu Serving society Stimulating innovation Supporting legislation Current status and Best Practices for Disaster Loss Data recording in EU Member States
- 2. 213 January 2015 Contributors Country 1 Austria 2 Belgium 3 Bulgaria 4 Croatia 5 France 6 Germany 7 Greece 8 Italy 9 Netherlands 10 Portugal 11 Romania 12 Slovenia 13 Spain 14 Sweden 15 United Kingdom
- 3. WHY DO WE NEED LOSS DATA ? 313 January 2015 27-28 July 2013 Hailstorm Germany Source: SIGMA 1/2014 Natural catastrophes and man-made disasters 2013
- 4. 413 January 2015 APPLICATION AREAS Compensation Accounting Forensics Risk modeling LOSS DATA Avoiding sovereign insolvency Balance prevention budget and loss compensation Fair and efficient solidarity mechanism and/or insurance market Evaluate prevention measures Improve prevention policy Accurate risk assessment based on locally relevant loss exceedance curves
- 5. 513 January 2015 International level European Level National level Post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction National process involving a number of stakeholders: decision makers, scientists, practioners… Strong legal basis: EUSF, Green paper on Insurance, Floods & INSPIRE Directives... LOSS DATA SERVING SEVERAL PURPOSES
- 6. 613 January 2015 AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL
- 7. 713 January 2015 AT THE EUROPEAN LEVEL STRONG LEGAL BASIS • Solidarity clause of the European Treaty • European Union Solidarity Fund • Council conclusions: Further Developing Risk Assessment for Disaster Management • Revised Union civil protection legislation • Floods and INSPIRE Directives • Green Paper on Insurance of Natural and Man-made Disasters • EU Strategy on adaptation to climate change • ….
- 8. 813 January 2015 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR LOSS DATA SHARING
- 9. 913 January 2015 ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
- 10. Conceptual loss data model 10 13 January 2015 Event ID Hazard event identification Affected elements Loss indicators Version Metadata Directly affected population Direct damages/ losses Aggregated loss data Killed Missing Evacuated Direct economic loss Sector Owner Location Population Occupancy Event classification Year Location
- 11. Comparative analysis 1113 January 2015 Purpose of loss databases
- 12. Application areas 1213 January 2015 Comparative analysis
- 13. 1313 January 2015 Methodology of recording Comparative analysis
- 14. 1413 January 2015 Main findings • 12 out of 15 participating Member States have established and maintained a loss database, • Large differences in the processes of loss data collection and recording, • Lack of standards (e.g. for human and economic losses) that prevent aggregation at EU or global levels, • Differences in IT systems, • Differences in terminologies for peril classification, • Drivers for loss data recording mainly linked to: i) (semi) public national compensation schemes, ii) existing national and EU legislations and iii) for improving prevention and response mechanisms.
- 15. Gaps and aspirations 13 January 2015 Need for national and European legal frameworks: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden have binding legislation. Public Private Partnership (PPP) or Public Public partnership (PuP) Mission Risques Naturels in France is a PPP (and to a certain extent a PuP) and an example of a good practice, reinforcing the insurance strategic role in disaster loss recording and data sharing.
- 16. Standardization/Classification 1613 January 2015 Agreed Terminologies/Definitions Family Main event Peril Earthquake Ash Fall Mass Movement Fire following EQ Volcanic Activity Ground Movement Landslide following EQ Lahar Lava Flow Liquefaction Pyroclastic Flow Tsunami Flood Avalanche: Snow, Debris Landslide Coastal Flood Wave Action Coastal Erosion Debris/Mud Flow/Rockfall Expansive Soil Flash Flood Ice Jam Flood Riverine Flood Rogue Wave Seiche Sinkhole Convective Storm Cold Wave Extratropical Storm Derecho Extreme Temperature Frost/Freeze Fog Hail Tropical Cyclone Heat Wave Lightning Rain Sandstorm/Dust storm Snow/Ice Storm Surge Tornado Wind Winter Storm/Blizzard Drought Forest Fire Glacial Lake Outburst Land fire: Brush, Bush, Pasture Wildfire Subsidence Animal Incident Bacterial Disease Disease Fungal Disease Insect Infestation Parasitic Disease Prion Disease Viral Disease Impact Airburst Space Weather Collision Energetic Particles Geomagnetic Storm Radio Disturbance Shockwave Climatological Biological Extraterrestrial Geophysical Hydrological Meteorological IRDR peril classification: unified terminology - for events classification - for operating loss databases MAIN EVENT: A minimum requirement for shared loss data Gaps and aspirations
- 17. 1713 January 2015 Data Collection/Recording Methodologies • Systematic approach for recording loss data, • Assessment forms tailored to the type of damage and customized by sector, • Staff training, • Strict division of duties, • Clear documentation, • Use of new technologies for damage assessments : Remote Sensing data mobile mapping crowd-sourcing, etc. (Ajmar et al., 2010) Gaps and aspirations
- 18. 1813 January 2015 Framework For Human Impact Loss Indicators Need for clear and unambiguous definitions for human losses Main fields Definitions Killed Missing Injured/disease/in need of medical assistance EARLY WARNING RESPONSE CAPACITY RECOVERY Pre-event Sheltered by emergency services Permanently homeless Post-event Sheltered by private arrangements Temporarily homeless Relocated Not homeless Without shelter Isolated Increasingpriorityofneeds DIRECTLYAFFECTED primarylevelbyECLAC INDIRECTLY AFFECTED Evacuated People that are removed from a place of danger to a safer place. Breaking down that field is related to the management of different disaster phases. People that suffer physical damage of infrastructure which threatens their basic livelihood conditions (limited access to water, food, electricity, ….) but they have not been evacuated PEOPLEINNEED Tertiary level - outside affected area (by ECLAC) Fatalities Victims Secondary level - within affected area (by ECLAC) Breaking down the fields (general options: by gender, by age, by vulnerable groups, ...) People that are in need of immediate medical assistance as a direct result of the disaster People that suffer of a disaster's indirect effects (e.g., loss of flow, deficiencies in public service) People that suffer physical damage of their property but are not in need Total mortality 1. level 2. level 3. level Similar to direct and indirect losses (ECLAC) • Rule of priority of needs • Temporal component Specific requirements of different disaster stages … of disaggregation Disaggregation/ summation Gaps and aspirations
- 19. 19 Framework For Damage/Economic Loss Indicators Direct tangible losses in national currency Tangible Intangible Direct loss/damage Physical damage to property converted to monetary value People directly affected Cultural heritage Natural environment Indirect loss Loss of flow People indirectly affected Loss of future usage (agriculture, forestry, tourism, ...) Total loss Economic loss Affected people Economic loss/number-size of assets Common denominator Monetary value Number of persons - ECLAC Direct losses Gaps and aspirations
- 20. Uncertainty Handling 0 1 2 3 4 5 Measurement Disagreement Human errorCrediblity 1 Crediblity 2 Average Pedigree score = 3.6 For each step of the process: 1- Data collection methodology 2- Data recording methodology DETAILS IN PRESENTATION: Xavier Romão, Esmeralda Paupério Gaps and aspirations
- 21. 2113 January 2015 Guidelines Loss data sharing among Member States and with the EU • Publicly accessible and interoperable national loss databases are encouraged to allow for easy data exchange and information sharing between different systems (e.g. the Shared Environmental Information System (SEIS), EU open data portal) • For better understanding the trans-boundary effects of disasters • For a better comparison of progress towards increased resilience across countries • For a common EU framework that allows monitoring of progress in the Post-2015 Framework for DRR
- 22. 2213 January 2015 Data model Loss accounting Data-sharing HFA-2 DesInventar Hazard event identification Geographical location National unit (NUTS1) Subnational units (NUTS2) To be defined by the MS Subnational units (NUTS3) Lat/Lon (points, footprints) Temporal information Year Duration (in days) Month (beginning/ending) Event type specific attributes Severity key data Reference to external database Hazard event ID Hazard event classification (Main event) Affected elements Geographical location Subnational units Data model Loss accounting Data-sharing HFA-2 DesInventar Loss Indicators Directly affected population Killed Missing Evacuated Isolated Victims Direct damage/loss Physical damage Direct economic loss (Total % of GDP) Sector (Total) Owner (private, business, public, etc.) (Total) Who bears the loss (Total) Quality assurance Sources Data collection methodology Data recording methodology Guidelines Minimum Requirements
- 23. Guidelines 2313 January 2015 Totals per ownership Insurer Individual Business NGO Government Totals over all sectors sectors Social sector • Residential • Education/research • Culture/recreation • Health sector • Public administration Infrastructure • Energy • Drinking water and sanitation • Transport • Communication Economic sector • Agriculture/forestry • Trade/industry • Tourism Other • Clean-up costs • Emergency relief costs Possible divisions of sectors Minimum requirements For Loss data sharing
- 24. 2413 January 2015 RECOMMENDATIONS Data collection at Local level • Engage municipalities and civil protection Building a process at National level • Considering the best practices in Member States and the presented guidelines Design of an advanced IT system • Including a data model linked to other government databases • Expand with GIS platforms
- 25. 2513 January 2015 RECOMMENDATIONS Supporting legislation and active involvement of local governments • Political commitment • Dedicated budget for loss databases Encouraging PuP and PPP • Ensure participation and ownership of all stakeholders Information sharing • Data-sharing of summary or aggregated statistics • Open and interoperable databases