 |
| |
| Marko Kokic/International
Federation |
| |
Chapter 8 - summary
Disaster data: key trends and statistics
Over the past decade, the number of 'natural'
and technological disasters has risen. From 1994 to 1998, reported
disasters averaged 428 per year - from 1999 to 2003, this figure
shot up by two-thirds to an average 707 disasters each year. The
biggest rise was in countries of low human development, which suffered
an increase of 142 per cent. Transport accidents registered the
biggest rise, climbing 75 per cent during the second half of the
decade. However, our tables only account for accidents where at
least 10 people were killed or 100 affected by a single incident.
Both hydro-meteorological and geophysical
disasters have become more common, becoming respectively 68 per
cent and 62 per cent more frequent over the decade. This reflects
longer-term trends. However, weather-related disasters still outnumber
geophysical disasters by nine to one over the past decade. Among
natural disasters, floods are the most reported events in Africa,
Asia and Europe, while windstorms are most frequent in the Americas
and Oceania.
Last year's death toll of nearly 77,000
was triple the total for 2002 - with countries of medium and high
development hit hardest. Disasters cost around 31,000 lives in Europe
last year - mainly due to the August heat wave. This figure was
eight times higher than the average annual death toll from disasters
in Europe for the previous nine years. The earthquake which devastated
the Iranian city of Bam claimed at least 26,000 lives. Deaths in
countries of low human development (LHD) last year fell to their
lowest level for nine years. However, over the decade, more than
half of those killed by natural disasters lived in LHD countries.
Drought and famine have proved the deadliest
disaster of the decade worldwide, accounting for at least 275,000
deaths since 1994 - nearly half the total for all natural disasters.
Over the past 10 years, drought and famine claimed over 1,000 lives
per reported disaster, earthquakes killed an average of 370 people
per disaster, while extreme temperatures claimed over 300 lives
per disaster.
Despite the increased number of disasters,
average annual death tolls have dropped from over 75,000 per year
(1994 to 1998) to 59,000 per year (1999 to 2003). However, over
the same period, the numbers affected continued to climb. For the
first five years of the decade, an average of 213 million people
were affected. The second half of the decade saw this figure rise
by over 40 per cent to an average of 303 million per year.
The reason less people are dying from hydro-meteorological
disasters, in particular, may be partly explained by better satellite
forecasting and early warning systems. Equally, systematic disaster
preparedness at community level has helped reduce death tolls. The
fact that more people are being affected by disasters reflects a
combination of factors: rising numbers of reported disasters; rapid
population increase in poorer parts of the world; and rapid, unplanned
development (particularly in urban areas).
Impacts vary enormously according to the
level of human development achieved in the country where disaster
strikes. Over the past decade, disasters in countries of high human
development (HHD) killed an average of 44 people per event, while
disasters in countries of low human development (LHD) killed an
average of 300 people each.
However, disasters in HHD countries inflicted
an average of US$ 318 million worth of damage per event - over 11
times higher than the US$ 28 million recorded per disaster in LHD
countries. However, the statistics fail to capture the far more
devastating impact which disasters have on GDP in poorer countries.
Turning to aid flows, official development
assistance (ODA) from members of the Development Assistance Committee
(DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
grew significantly to US$ 58.3 billion in 2002 - a gross increase
of 11.3 per cent compared to 2001. Canada, France, Greece, Ireland
and Italy increased their contributions by more than 30 per cent.
The biggest individual increases came from France (up US$ 1.28 billion)
and the United States (up US$ 1.86 billion).
Among the five biggest donors, aid from
the US has grown significantly since 1997. Meanwhile, contributions
from the UK over the past decade have steadily increased to match
levels given by France and Germany, whose aid has declined since
the mid-1990s. Japan was the world's largest donor of ODA until
2000, after when levels fell below US donations.
Expressed as a percentage of donor countries'
gross national income (GNI), only five countries (Denmark, Norway,
Sweden, The Netherlands and Luxembourg) exceeded the UN's 0.7 per
cent target. Compared to 2001, the proportion of aid as a percentage
of their GNI increased for Australia, Belgium, Canada, Finland,
France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and the
US.
Meanwhile emergency/distress relief (not
including relief provided by multilateral institutions and NGOs)
grew from US$ 3.3 billion in 2001 to US$ 3.9 billion in 2002 - an
increase of 18 per cent. As in previous years, the US were the biggest
donor of emergency/distress relief, accounting for 36 per cent of
all donations. However, DAC rules allow donors to define spending
on refugees hosted in donor countries as part of their emergency/distress
relief (this amounted to 25 per cent of the total in 2001).
Calculating the full amount spent on humanitarian
relief is notoriously difficult, as different donors account for
their relief contributions in different ways. The total of US$ 3.9
billion for emergency relief quoted above does not present the full
picture. Independent reports suggest that global humanitarian assistance
totals at least $10 billion a year. During 2001, this broke down
as follows:
- OECD DAC donors' humanitarian aid (not
including expenditure on refugees hosted in donor countries):
US$ 4.2 billion;
- OECD DAC donors' spending on post-conflict
peace activities: US$ 4 billion;
- Humanitarian assistance from non-DAC
donors (especially Saudi Arabia and South Korea): US$ 500 million;
- Voluntary contributions from the public
via NGOs: US$ 700 million-US$ 1.5 billion; and
- Multilateral humanitarian aid (via NGOs,
UN, International Organizations) not captured by DAC statistics:
US$ 400 million.
This analysis was contributed by Jonathan
Walter, editor of the World Disasters Report, and by CRED team members
Philippe Hoyois, senior research fellow; Regina Below, EM-DAT disaster
database manager; and Debarati Guha-Sapir, director.
| EM-DAT:
a specialized disaster database
Tables on disasters and their human
impacts over the last decade were drawn from EMDAT and documented
by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters
(CRED). Established in 1973 as a non-profit institution, CRED
is based at the School of Public Health of the Catholic University
of Louvain in Belgium. Although CRED's main focus is on public
health, the centre also studies the socio-economic and long-term
effects of large-scale disasters.
Since 1988, CRED has maintained EMDAT,
a worldwide database on disasters. It contains essential core
data on the occurrence and effects of over 14,000 disasters
in the world from 1900 to the present. The database is compiled
from various sources, including UN agencies, NGOs, insurance
companies, research institutes and press agencies. The entries
are constantly reviewed for redundancies, inconsistencies
and the completion of missing data.
CRED consolidates and updates data
on a daily and three-monthly basis. Revisions are entered
annually at the end of the calendar year. Priority is given
to data from UN agencies, followed by OFDA, governments and
the International Federation. This priority is not a reflection
of the quality or value of the data but the recognition that
most reporting sources do not cover all disasters or have
political limitations that may affect the figures.
The database's main objective is to
assist humanitarian action at both national and international
levels. It aims to rationalise decision-making for disaster
preparedness, as well as providing an objective basis for
vulnerability assessment and priority setting.
|
|
 |
 |
|