Presentation made at the expert meeting organised jointly by the European Commission, the OECD and the project PLACARD, in Paris 26th -28th October 2016. For more information see www.oecd.org/gov/risk/joint-expert-meeting-on-disaster-loss-data.htm

1. IMPROVING THE EVIDENCE BASE ON
THE COSTS OF DISASTERS
PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF AN OECD SURVEY
OECD-EC-Placard Joint Expert Meeting on Disaster Loss
Data
Catherine Gamper, Public Governance and Territorial
Development Directorate, OECD
27 October 2016

2. 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
AnnualeconomiclossesinUSDbillion
• Past decade: USD 1.5 trillion in economic damages from man-
made disasters (industrial accidents, terrorist attacks) and natural
disasters (primarily storms and floods)
• Increase in economic damages believed to outpace national DRR
investments…
• … though this claim cannot be supported by data as there is hardly
any available, especially on an internationally comparative level
• The development of standardised and comparable accounting
frameworks for DRM expenditure and disaster losses can:
– Support the evaluation of economic benefits of DRR investments
– Faciliate cross-ountry comparisons
– Systematic indicators on global DRR objectives can be built
Why we need to better account for costs
of disasters
Source: EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium, www.emdat.be
(accessed 14 November 2013).
Economic losses due to disasters in OECD
and BRIC countries, 1980-2012 (USD Billion)

3. Australia
Bangladesh
Bolivia
Chile
Costa Rica
Egypt
Estonia
Ethiopia
Fiji Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Haiti
Honduras
India
Indonesia
Iran
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
KenyaMadagascar
Malawi
Mexico
Mozambique
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Slovenia
Thailand
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
Venezuela
Yemen
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
2.7 3.2 3.7 4.2 4.7
AverageDeathTollperDisaster
1980-2013(log)
Real GDP per Capita, Year 2010 (log)
Significant decrease in fatality rates from disasters with increasing income
1980-2013
OECD Non-OECD
• Resilience against disasters in OECD countries is high , but higher
income countries still experience large economic losses
• Policy makers need a good understanding of past losses to face this
challenge and understand better whether their DRR investments
are effective
Recording disaster losses
Source: Source: EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database, www.emdat.be - Université catholique de Louvain - Brussels - Belgium". Data for OECD and
BRIC countries (1980-2012). Figures are shown true to the year of the event. OECD Stat National Accounts GDP per capita in US$, constant prices, reference year 2005
Source: EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database, www.emdat.be - Université catholique de Louvain - Brussels - Belgium; OECD (2013),
“Gross domestic product (GDP) MetaData : GDP per capita, US$, constant prices, reference year 2005”, National Accounts OECD Statistics Database,
accessed on 14 November 2013, http://stats.oecd.org/

4. – Desk-based review of national and international loss data bases:
– International loss data:
• Information on social and economic losses recorded in most major international databases
(EM-DAT, DesInventar, ..), although sources vary (government reports, media, IO”s)
• Although definitions of economic losses, given it is not clear to what extent the records
follow them because no primary data sources are used
• Recorded loss amounts, are similar for some events and less so for others
OECD work on the measurement of the
costs of disasters: initial findings (2014/15)
4
Economic losses (in USD billion) recorded in:
International databases Other national or hazard-specific databases
Name of
database/Event
EM-DAT sigma NatCatService National Oceanic
and Atmospheric
Administration
(NOAA)
Dartmouth
Flood
Observatory
US Sheldus
Chile
Earthquake,
2010
30 33.28 (out of
which insured:
8.88)
30(out of which
Insured: 8)
30 Does not
apply
Does not apply
Hurricane
Sandy, 2012
50 73.78 (out of
which
insured:36.89)
65 (out of which
insured:30 )
Property damage:
24.91
No estimate No estimate
Hurricane
Katrina, 2005
125 173.44 (out of
which
insured:80.37)
125 (out of which
Insured: 62.2)
Property
damage:42.53;
crop damage: 1.93
60 Property
damage:74.27;
crop
damage:2.12
→ It is difficult to
conclude that
differences are
due to different
economic loss
estimation
methods
COMPARISON OF ECONOMIC LOSSES
ACROSS INTERNATIONAL AND
SELECTED NATIONAL DATABASES

5. • National loss data (sample countries : Japan, Australia, Canada, Italy, Slovenia,
USA)
– Loss data not consistently available across OECD members
– Variables included relatively similar (casualties, insurance costs,
property losses, damages to crops or livestock)
– Economic loss estimations only recorded by half
– Recordings are more consistent in national compared to
international databases (systematic questionnaires used etc.)
– Differences in governance:
• E.g. Slovenia organised centrally
• E.g. Italy different institutions for different hazard s– no single multi-hazard loss
database
– Some countries have exhaustive loss recordings for specific hazards,
e.g. Japan for floods
• Process similar to Slovenia
• Distinguishes public and private losses
5
OECD work on the measurement of the
costs of disasters: initial findings (2014/15)

6. • Review of national and international approaches and datasets regarding
disaster losses and damages found:
– Significant progress in accounting for a number of social loss indicators (e.g.
fatalities from disaster), but ambiguity remains for other social loss indicators
(such as affected population)
– Efforts to calculate economic losses remain inconsistent and incomparable
across countries (only 30-40% of disasters in OECD countries reported with
economic loss figures)
• A review on the expenditure side of the costs of disasters found that
countries need:
– A common language to collect data on public and private expenditures for
disaster management
– A central repository (such as the national accounts) that clearly distinguishes
and accounts for risk management expenditures
6
OECD work on the measurement of the
costs of disasters: initial findings (2014/15)

7. • OECD survey on disaster losses:
– Loss data collection
– Complementary online survey
• Desk-based review of countries’ approaches to ex-
ante economic loss assessment methods
OECD work on the measurement of the
costs of disasters: ongoing work
7

8. Objectives:
 Test initial research against the actual reality of OECD countries’ efforts to
collect national and international disaster loss information
 Gain a better understanding of the underlying methods of data collection as
well as the national procedures in place for collecting disaster loss
information
 Understand the data’s use in informing DRM decisions
Survey design:
– First part: data collection instrument, based on a pre-filled Excel data sheet,
which countries had to verify, complement or replace by a different database
all together
– Second part: standard online questionnaire that sought to gather more
information on the methodology to calculate economic losses, the procedure
to collect information, and the use of the results for policy making (multi-
hazard approach)
OECD Survey of Disaster Loss and
Damage Data
8

9. SURVEY RESULTS
9

10. • 17 countries responded to the online survey:
– Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Israel, Japan,
Mexico, Norway, Poland, Slovak Republic, Sweden, and Turkey (OECD countries)
– Colombia, and Costa Rica (enhanced partnership countries)
• 12 countries provided socio-economic loss data:
– 5 countries validated or complemented the pre-filled Excel spreadsheets:
• Estonia, Finland, Norway¹, Sweden and Mexico²
– 7 countries provided the Secretariat with an alternative official dataset
• Australia³, Canada, Colombia⁴, France , Japan⁵, Mexico⁶ and Turkey
• Complementary review of ex ante loss estimation methods:
– 7 countries covered: Denmark, France, Germany, India, Japan, the Netherlands
and the USA
Current status
10
¹ (provided us also with the sources)
² (validated data previous to the official dataset)
³ (lacks official total economic losses)
⁴(1998-2015)
⁵ (only water related disaster damages for 2012 in pdf)
⁶ (2000-2015)

11. • Criteria for recording social losses vary across countries:
– Finland, Sweden, Turkey, Colombia and Mexico recorded deaths and missing separately
– Canada's database includes deaths but not missing people
– Colombia, Mexico and Turkey also report the number of affected people with a specific
variable
11
Social loss data collection methods

12. Economic loss data collection methods
12
DEDICATED NATIONAL BODY FOR DISASTER LOSS DATA COLLECTION
No
29%
Yes
71%
Note : Question asks " Is there a process by which your country has a ministry, agency or other
government body that periodically collects data on economic losses (direct or indirect) from
disasters?"

13. • Economic loss data seems to be collected by many countries, but
information is not always centralised in one national database
– Nationwide databases : Japan, Mexico, Colombia, Turkey (municipal & regional level) and
Canada (regional level)
– Finland: each ministry is responsible for collecting the economic losses depending on the
hazard type
Economic loss data collection methods
13

14. • Multi hazards databases are not always available and few countries
collect economic losses on man-made disasters:
– Canada, Mexico, Finland, Turkey cover natural & man-made disasters;
Canada’s multi-hazard database also includes terrorist threats
• The time period for recording economic losses with a consistent methodology ranges
between over a century for Canada to 16 years for Mexico
Economic loss data collection methods
14

15. • Countries methodologies for collecting economic losses vary substantially:
– Difference between direct and indirect economic losses is not well established:
– Turkey, France and Japan stated that losses are separately estimated
– Costa Rica, Colombia, Austria and Poland stated that economic losses are only
estimated for direct losses
Economic loss collection methods
15

16. 16
Economic loss data components
Country Total costs Insured
losses
Emergency
costs
Direct tangible losses Losses due to
business
interruption
Australia x
Canada May include also
indirect losses
Colombia x Buildings damaged/destroyed (houses,
schools, hospitals, community centres);
Roads damaged, Damaged agricultural
area in ha; Cars lost.
Finland May include also
indirect losses
Houses and hospitals
France x Houses and hospitals
Japan Only direct
losses
x x x x
Mexico May include also
indirect losses
Buildings (houses, schools, hospitals)
collapsed/damaged; Damaged
Agricultural Area; Km of roads damaged.
Sweden May include also
indirect losses
x x
Turkey Only direct
losses
Buildings collapsed/damaged; Damaged
Agricultural Area; Cattle Loss
Estonia Not clear from the data provided
Norway May include also
indirect losses
x x

17. • A similar picture emerges regarding the distinction between privately and public ly
accrued economic losses:
– The distinction between public and private losses is often made for the purpose of
compensating economic losses (as it is done e.g. in France and Finland)
– Good practice: Mexico provides a consistent methodology that distinguishes publicly
and privately accrued losses
17
Economic loss collection methods

18. • Criteria for triggering economic loss estimation differ substantially
• Many countries have specific criteria and thresholds for economic loss data collection
– Canada uses a specific threshold (10 or more people killed, 100 or more people affected,
national emergency, historical significance)
– France uses an intensity scale established through a legal basis
Economic loss data collection methods
18

19. • There is room for improving the collection of data on disaster risk management
expenditures:
– Austria, Colombia, France, Japan and Turkey provided approximate yearly
DRM expenditures in national currencies
– Good example: Colombia records both disaster response spending and
disaster risk reduction investment by fiscal year
Disaster risk management expenditures
19

20. • Direct economic loss estimation methods:
• Impact models where used to assign probability of exposure to assets and crops
• Market values of assets and crops together with replacement costs (for assets) were used to
estimate total economic losses
• Indirect economic loss estimation methods:
• Input-output models were used to estimate the economy-wide effects of an initial change in
economic activity
• General equilibrium models used to estimate (unemployment, GDP losses etc.)
Highlights the value of conducting ex-ante economic loss assessments to inform
DRR investments & to prioritise DRM efforts at large
Review on ex-ante socioeconomic loss data
estimation methods
20

21. – Continue country data collection
– Evaluate potential for conducting cross-country
comparisons
Going forward
21

22. Catherine.gamper@oecd.org