International Federationof Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

Regional Disaster Management Unit Country Analysis June 2007

The Regional Disaster Management Unit of the International Federation’s Southeast Asia Delegation (RDMU) has undertaken a process to analyse the disaster management capacity and vulnerability of the eleven countries within Southeast Asia (SEA).

The analysis builds on the traditional practice of considering a countries hazard risk and the capacity of the Red Cross / Red Crescent National Society, to incorporate the wider capacity of government and civil society and overall development influences. In total 13 indicators have been used which cover hazard risk; vulnerability; response capacity and disaster risk reduction capacity.

The analysis and process involved has been based on a similar process undertaken by the UN OCHA’s Asia Pacific regional office.

The analysis will assist the RDMU in developing its Annual Appeal activities for 2008 and 2009 as well as engaging with other IASC members in determining where joint activities could be undertaken to strengthen the capacity and reduce the risk of disaster within the region.

Methodology

Each of the 11 countries covered by the RDMU has received a rating based on scores assigned across 13 indicators. The individual indicators have been assigned a multiplier value (1 – 3) based on their importance with regard to each other. The formula used to calculate the overall rating of is:

Rating = Σ (Indicator 1-13 × Multiplier1-3)

Indicators

HAZARD RISK

1. Potential for natural disasters (3) – indicates the number of sudden-onset natural disasters (Earthquake; Flood; Volcano; Wave / Surge; Wild Fires; Wind Storm) that have occurred in the country between 1990 and 2007. The data was obtained from the Emergency Disasters Database (EM-DATA) maintained by the Centre of Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). A value of 3 was assigned to a country with a high potential risk/exposure.

2. Potential for man-made disasters (1) – indicates the number of manmade disasters (chemical, transport) that have occurred in the country between 1990 and 2007. The data has been obtained from the Emergency Disasters Database (EM-DATA)

Updated January 2008.

maintained by the Centre for Research on Epidemiology of Disasters. A value of 3 was assigned to a country with the highest potential risk/exposure.

VULNERABILITY

3. Emergency appeal operations (2) – indicates the influence of large emergency response and recovery operations requiring international assistance. A value of 3 was assigned to countries with a large number of response or recovery operations underway, where a value of 0 was assigned to those countries where there was no operations underway.

4. Natural disaster (3) – indicates the per capita number of people affected (killed, injured or rendered homeless) by natural disaster between 1990 and 2007 based on the Emergency Disasters Database (EM-DATA) maintained by the CRED. A value of 3 was assigned to a country with high vulnerability.

5. Man-made disaster (1) – indicates the total number of people affected (killed, injured, rendered homeless) by man-made disaster between 1990 and 2007 based on the Emergency Disasters Database (EM-DATA) maintained by the CRED. A value of 3 was assigned to a country with high vulnerability.

6. Human development index (2) - the HDI (2006) has been used to represent the socio-economic indicators that are collectively used to represent a country’s vulnerability. The 11 countries are sorted by their HDI ranking and assigned in to three groups. A value of 3 was assigned to a country with a low HDI level.

RESPONSE CAPACITY

7. National government (3) – the capacity of central government and local authorities to respond to major disaster. A value of 3 was assigned to a country with low capacity.

8. Civil society (2) - The presence of civil society organisations with the disaster response capacity that support the government in meeting the needs of the affected populations. A value of 3 was assigned to a country with limited civil society disaster response capacity.

9. Federation Secretariat (2) - The capacity of the Federation with regard to each country was assessed based the presence and size; focus and longevity or sustainability of Delegation. The 11 countries are sorted by their ranking and assigned in to three groups. A value of 1 was assigned to a country with a strong Federation presence focused holistically on disaster management.

10.National society (3) - The capacity of the National Society to respond to disaster has been assessed based on sections of the Federations Well Prepared National Society Checklist (WPNS). The 11 countries are sorted by their ranking and assigned in to three groups. A value of 3 was assigned to a country with low capacity.

Updated January 2008.

DISASTER RISK REDUCTION CAPACITY

11.National government (3) - The capacity of the government and local authorities to mainstream disaster risk reduction activities into their development planning, legal systems and overall disaster management approach. A value of 3 has been assigned to countries with a low capacity.

12.Civil society (2) - The presence of civil society organisations with capacity in the area of disaster risk reduction, which supports the policy and programs of their government in reducing a countries risk to disaster. A value of 3 was assigned to a country with limited civil society organisational presence.

13.National society (3) - The capacity of the National Society’s risk reduction (mitigation, early warning, preparedness, recovery, livelihoods) programming has based on sections of the Federations Well Prepared National Society Checklist (WPNS). The 11 countries are sorted by their ranking and assigned in to three groups. A value of 3 was assigned to a country with low capacity.

Country Scores and Ranking

Updated January 2008.