Application of Risk Assessment in Disaster Response Planning (Craig Williams)

modelinghumanitarianrisk:
the2012 GlobalFocusModel
Whydevelopaglobalfocusmodel?
EvolutionoftheGFM
2011
2006
Congo, DR
Sudan
Afghanistan
Chad
Somalia
Myanmar
Ethiopia
Infrastru
ucture
33 33 33
VULNERABILITY
CAPACITY
9.9
7 .2
7.7
7.7
7.6
9.9
8.0
7.9
7.8
77
7.7
8 .0
0
76
7.6
96
9.6
78
7.8
7.8
8.5
8 .0
9.6
8.1
6.6
5.8
6 .8
5.8
7.2
8.5
7 .2
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.7
7.5
7.4
HC ROSEA
4.4
8.9
6 .7
9.9
9.3
8.0
7.8
9 .1
7.2
7.7
7.5
7 .5
HC ROWCA
HC ROMENACA
3.6
9.9
6 .8
9.1
8.1
8.4
7.8
8 .5
7.7
8.1
7.2
7 .7
5.9
9.4
7 .6
9.9
9.1
3.4
7.9
7 .9
7.5
6.8
7.4
HC ROWCA
36
3.6
85
8.5
6 .0
0
97
9.7
93
9.3
66
6.6
83
8.3
8 .7
7
82
8.2
83
8.3
HC ROSEA
HC ROAP
2.3
9.7
6 .0
9.6
8.6
6.0
9.0
8 .3
7.7
9.0
7.5
8 .2
8.4
8.6
2.7
5.0
6 .9
HC ROSEA
4.4
8.3
6 .4
9.2
8.8
6.2
8.5
8 .3
Indices
Focus
F
HC / OCHA OFFICE / REGIO HAZARD
Econom
mic
Humanitarian
H
n
50 50
Liveliho
ood
35 35 25
Poverty
y
Environ
nment
Risk
R
COUNTRY
(33 = 33.333)
Depend
dency
% w eight of indicator w ithin category
Human
2012 Global Focus Model
Natural
Category
Instituti onal
Methodology
Category
total
9.9
8.8
8.8
Risk Focus
Natural
Earthquake
Tropical storm
Tropicalstorm
Stormsurge
Flood
VULNERABILITY
CAPACITY
9.9
7 .2
7.7
7.7
76
7.6
99
9.9
8.0
7.9
78
7.8
7.7
8 .0
7.6
9.6
7.8
7.8
8.5
8 .0
9.6
66
58
6 8
7.4
73
7.7
75
HC ROSEA
4.4
8.9
6 .7
9.9
9.3
8.0
7.8
9 .1
7.2
7.7
7.5
7 .5
HC ROWCA
HC ROMENACA
3.6
9.9
6 .8
9.1
8.1
8.4
7.8
8 .5
7.7
8.1
7.2
7 .7
59
5.9
94
9.4
7 .6
99
9.9
91
9.1
34
3.4
79
7.9
7 .9
75
7.5
68
6.8
74
7.4
HC ROWCA
3.6
8.5
6 .0
9.7
9.3
6.6
8.3
8 .7
8.2
8.3
HC ROSEA
HC ROAP
2.3
9.7
6 .0
9.6
8.6
6.0
9.0
8 .3
7.7
90
75
8 2
84
86
27
50
6 9
81
Wildfire
Volcano
Landslide
Localstorm
D
Drought
h
Pandemic
Human
Conflictintensity
Societal violence
Societalviolence
Regimestability
Fo
ocus
33 33 33
Hum
manitarian
ure
Infrastructu
Economic
Institutiona
al
Livelihood
35 35 25
Poverty
50 50
Congo, DR
Sudan
Afghanistan
Chad
Somalia
Myanmar
Environme
ent
Ris
sk
COUNTRY
(33 = 33
33.333
333 )
cy
Dependenc
Human
Natural
HazardIndicators
9.9
88
Poverty
GDP
Night lights
Nightlights
Infantmortality
VULNERABILITY
CAPACITY
9.9
7 .2
7.7
7.7
76
7.6
99
9.9
8.0
7.9
78
7.8
7.7
8 .0
7.6
9.6
7.8
7.8
8.5
8 .0
9.6
66
58
6 8
7.4
73
7.7
75
HC ROSEA
4.4
8.9
6 .7
9.9
9.3
8.0
7.8
9 .1
7.2
7.7
7.5
7 .5
HC ROWCA
HC ROMENACA
3.6
9.9
6 .8
9.1
8.1
8.4
7.8
8 .5
7.7
8.1
7.2
7 .7
59
5.9
94
9.4
7 .6
99
9.9
91
9.1
34
3.4
79
7.9
7 .9
75
7.5
68
6.8
74
7.4
HC ROWCA
3.6
8.5
6 .0
9.7
9.3
6.6
8.3
8 .7
8.2
8.3
HC ROSEA
HC ROAP
2.3
9.7
6 .0
9.6
8.6
6.0
9.0
8 .3
7.7
90
75
8 2
84
86
27
50
6 9
81
Livelihood
Lifeexpectancy
HH e pendit re
HHexpenditure
Schoolenrolment
Ruralpopulation
Undernourishment
Dependency
IDPs
Ref gees
Refugees
Elderly
Youth
Fo
ocus
33 33 33
Hum
manitarian
ure
Infrastructu
Economic
Institutiona
al
Livelihood
35 35 25
Poverty
50 50
Congo, DR
Sudan
Afghanistan
Chad
Somalia
Myanmar
Environme
ent
Ris
sk
COUNTRY
(33 = 33
33.333
333 )
cy
Dependenc
Human
Natural
VulnerabilityIndicators
9.9
88
Environment
Waterstress
Water access
Wateraccess
Sanitation
Congo, DR
Sudan
Afghanistan
Chad
Somalia
Myanmar
ure
Infrastructu
Economic
33 33 33
VULNERABILITY
CAPACITY
9.9
7 .2
7.7
7.7
76
7.6
99
9.9
8.0
7.9
78
7.8
7.7
8 .0
7.6
9.6
7.8
7.8
8.5
8 .0
9.6
66
58
6 8
7.4
73
7.7
75
HC ROSEA
4.4
8.9
6 .7
9.9
9.3
8.0
7.8
9 .1
7.2
7.7
7.5
7 .5
HC ROWCA
HC ROMENACA
3.6
9.9
6 .8
9.1
8.1
8.4
7.8
8 .5
7.7
8.1
7.2
7 .7
59
5.9
94
9.4
7 .6
99
9.9
91
9.1
34
3.4
79
7.9
7 .9
75
7.5
68
6.8
74
7.4
HC ROWCA
3.6
8.5
6 .0
9.7
9.3
6.6
8.3
8 .7
8.2
8.3
HC ROSEA
HC ROAP
2.3
9.7
6 .0
9.6
8.6
6.0
9.0
8 .3
7.7
90
75
8 2
84
86
27
50
6 9
81
Institutional
Civilsociety
Govt effectiveness
Govt.effectiveness
Militarycapacity
Economic
GDPpercapita
GDP total
GDPtotal
Fo
ocus
Institutiona
al
Hum
manitarian
50 50
Livelihood
35 35 25
Poverty
Environme
ent
Ris
sk
COUNTRY
(33 = 33
33.333
333 )
cy
Dependenc
Human
Natural
CapacityIndicators
9.9
88
Infrastructure
Adultliteracy
Ho sehold electrification
Householdelectrification
Internetusage
Phonesubscriptions
Populationremoteness
Roadandraildensity
Congo, DR
Sudan
Afghanistan
Chad
Somalia
Myanmar
ure
Infrastructu
Economic
33 33 33
VULNERABILITY
CAPACITY
9.9
7 .2
7.7
7.7
76
7.6
99
9.9
8.0
7.9
78
7.8
7.7
8 .0
7.6
9.6
7.8
7.8
8.5
8 .0
9.6
66
58
6 8
7.4
73
7.7
75
HC ROSEA
4.4
8.9
6 .7
9.9
9.3
8.0
7.8
9 .1
7.2
7.7
7.5
7 .5
HC ROWCA
HC ROMENACA
3.6
9.9
6 .8
9.1
8.1
8.4
7.8
8 .5
7.7
8.1
7.2
7 .7
59
5.9
94
9.4
7 .6
99
9.9
91
9.1
34
3.4
79
7.9
7 .9
75
7.5
68
6.8
74
7.4
HC ROWCA
3.6
8.5
6 .0
9.7
9.3
6.6
8.3
8 .7
8.2
8.3
HC ROSEA
HC ROAP
2.3
9.7
6 .0
9.6
8.6
6.0
9.0
8 .3
7.7
90
75
8 2
84
86
27
50
6 9
81
Humanitarian
PresenceofaHumanitarianCoordinator(HC)
Activation of cluster approach since 2009
Activationofclusterapproachsince2009
Useofinternationalfinancingtools
Presenceofglobalclusterleadagencies
Fo
ocus
Institutiona
al
Hum
manitarian
50 50
Livelihood
35 35 25
Poverty
Environme
ent
Ris
sk
COUNTRY
(33 = 33
33.333
333 )
cy
Dependenc
Human
Natural
HumanitarianIndicators
9.9
88
CalculatingRisk
Hazard
Naturall
Human
Vulnerability
Poverty
Livelihood
Dependency
d
Environment
50%
50%
35%
35%
2 %
25%
5%
Capacity
Institutional 33%
Economic
33%
Infrastructure 33%
Risk
Hazard
Vulnerability
Capacity
33.3%
33 3 %
33.3%
33.3%
CalculatingFocus
Hazard
Natural
Human
Vulnerability
Poverty
Livelihood
Dependency
Environment
Capacity
Institutional
Economic
Infrastructure
Humanitarian
Humanitarian
50%
50%
35%
35%
25%
5%
33%
33%
33%
100%
Focus
H
Hazard
d
Vulnerability
Capacity
Humanitarian
30%
30%
30%
10%
Risk
Humanitarian
Focus
Infrastructure
Econo
omic
Enviro
onment
Institu
utional
ndency
Depen
Livelihood
9.9
9.3
8.0
7.8
9 .1
7.2
7.7
7.5 7 .5
7.7
9.9
8.0
HC ROWCA
HC ROMENACA
3.6
9.9
6 .8
9.1
8.1
8.4
7.8 8 .5
7.7
8.1
7.2 7 .7
9.9
5.9
9.4
7 .6
9.9
9.1
3.4
7.9 7 .9
7.5
6.8
7.4 7 .2
7.7
7.6
9.9
7.9
7.8
HC ROWCA
3.6
8.5
6 .0
9.7
9.3
6.6
8.3 8 .7
8.2
8.3
7.7 8 .0
7.6
9.6
7.8
HC ROSEA
HC ROAP
2.3
9.7
6 .0
9.6
8.6
6.0
9.0 8 .3
7.7
7.8
8.5 8 .0
9.6
9.0
7.5
8 .2
8.4
8.6
2.7
5.0 6 .9
8.1
6.6
5.8 6 .8
HC ROSEA
ROMENACA
4.4
8.3
6 .4
9.2
8.8
6.2
8.5 8 .3
5.8
7.2
8.5 7 .2
7.3
9.4
8 .3
8.1
7.9
6.9
5.8 7 .6
5.8
6.5
5.9
HC ROWCA
HC ROMENACA
25
2.5
79
7.9
5 .2
2
92
9.2
91
9.1
57
5.7
7 1 8 .2
7.1
2
78
7.8
74
7.4
7 8 7 .6
7.8
6
1.8
8.6
5 .2
7.7
8.3
6.4
8.6 7 .6
7.6
7.6
8.2 7 .8
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.3
70
7.0
6.9
9.9
7.7
7.5
7.4
7.4
72
7.2
7.2
HC ROWCA
3.2
8.6
5 .9
9.0
7.3
7.2
6.5 7 .8
6.6
6.8
5.5 6 .3
6.7
9.9
7.0
HC ROSEA
4.0
6.1 5 .0
8.4
8.4
6.2
7.9 7 .8
7.6
6.8
6.7 7 .0
6.6
9.9
7.0
HC ~ ROAP
69
6.9
57
5.7
6 .3
3
72
7.2
72
7.2
52
5.2
6 0 6 .7
6.0
7
63
6.3
64
6.4
6 7 6 .5
6.7
5
65
6.5
99
9.9
68
6.8
HC ROSEA
2.1
8.1
5 .1
8.3
8.3
6.3
6.5 7 .7
7.1
6.9
5.5 6 .5
6.4
9.9
6.8
HC ROLAC
6.9
6.0
6 .5
8.4
8.3
1.7
8.0 6 .7
6.4
7.3
5.2 6 .3
6.5
9.3
6.7
HC ~ ROMENACA
3.7
7.6
5 .6
5.1
6.3
8.1
5.7 6 .3
8.3
7.2
4.9 6 .8
6.2
9.9
6.6
HC ~ ROSEA
2.7
6.9
4 .8
9.6
7.6
6.1
6.7 7 .9
4.9
6.9
6.7 6 .2
6.3
9.6
6.6
HC ~ ROWCA
3.0
6.3
4 .6
9.5
7.7
4.6
7.2 7 .5
6.4
7.4
6.1 6 .6
6.3
9.6
6.6
2.9
6.7
4 .8
9.7
8.6
5.5
6.6
8 .1
7.1
8.0
5.6 6 .9
6.6
5.6
6.5
3.1
5.3
4 .2
9.4
8.4
2.1
9.2 7 .2
5.7
8.0
7.2 7 .0
6.1
9.3
6.4
Huma
an
Poverrty
6 .7
Natura
al
8.9
(33 = 33.333)
50 50
Congo, DR
Sudan
Afghanistan
Chad
Somalia
Myanmar
Ethiopia
Pakistan
C t l Af
Central
African
i
R
Republic
bli
Yemen
Cte d'Ivoire
Kenya
N
Nepal
l
Zimbabwe
Haiti
Iraq
Uganda
Guinea
Burundi
Niger
4.4

COUNTRY
35 35 25
HC ROSEA
ROSEA
HC ROWCA
33 33 33
VULNERABILITY
CAPACITY
6 .1
8.8
8.8
7.7
89
8.9
GlobalResultsbyCategory
Hazard
8 .5
8 .3
8 .2
7 .6
7 .4
7 .3
7 .2
2
6 .8
6 .8
6 .7
6 .7
6 .5
6 .4
6 .4
6 .4
6 .3
6 .2
6 .1
6 .1
6 .1
Philippines
Pakistan
Myanmar
y
Afghanistan
India
Mexico
Bangladesh
Colombia
Sudan
China
C
Congo,
DR
Haiti
Honduras
Iran
Ethiopia
Nepal
Indonesia
Turkey
Nigeria
Dominican Republic
Vulnerability
9 .1
8 .7
8 .5
8 .4
8 .3
8 .3
8 .2
2
8 .1
7 .9
7 .9
7 .8
7 .8
7 .8
7 .8
7 .7
7 .7
7 .6
7 .6
7 .6
7 .5
Congo, DR
Chad
Sudan
Rwanda
Somalia
Ethiopia
Central African Republic
Burundi
Afghanistan
Uganda
K
Kenya
Tanzania
Cte d'Ivoire
Sierra Leone
Liberia
Zimbabwe
Yemen
Pakistan
Angola
Mozambique
Capacity
8 .0
8 .0
7 .8
7 .7
7 .6
7 .5
7 .2
2
7 .2
7 .2
7 .2
7 .2
7 .0
7 .0
7 .0
7 .0
7 .0
7 .0
6 .9
6 .8
6 .8
Chad
Somalia
Yemen
Sudan
Central African Republic
Congo, DR
Afghanistan
Eritrea
Papua New Guinea
Angola
Ethiopia
Liberia
Lao PDR
Kenya
Solomon Islands
Congo, Republic of
Niger
Burundi
Comoros
Myanmar
ComparingNaturalvHumanhazards
Natural hazard only
Naturalhazardonly
Human hazard only

Humanhazardonly
7.7 Myanmar
8.8 Sudan
7.3 Afghanistan
8.8 Somalia
7 3 Congo,
7.3
Congo DR
8 6 Congo,
8.6
Congo DR
7.1 Pakistan
8.5 Chad
7.1 Chad
8.3 Afghanistan
7.0 Nepal
8.2 Yemen
6 9 Sudan
6.9
8 0 Central African Republic

8.0
6.9 Haiti
8.0 Ethiopia
6.8 Ethiopia
7.8 Cte d'Ivoire
6.8 Philippines
7.7 Pakistan
6 7 Kenya
6.7
K
7 7 Zimbabwe
7.7
Zi b b
6.6 Bangladesh
7.3 Kenya
6.5 Somalia
7.2 Uganda
6.4 Central African Republic
7.2 Myanmar
6.2 India
7.2 Iraq
6.2 Cte d'Ivoire
7.1 Guinea
6.2 Indonesia
7.0 Burundi
6 2 Yemen
6.2
6 9 Eritrea
6.9
6.1 Niger
6.8 Niger
6.1 Guatemala
6.7 Nigeria
ApplyingtheGFMinOCHA
33%ofthecountriescoveredby
OCHA i A i
OCHAinAsiaandthePacificare
d h P ifi
focuscountries
Theyaccountfor96%ofour
emergencydeployments
Requirements
2006 2011: 30pers/daysperyear
2006
30 pers/days per year
2012onwards: 15pers/daysperyear
Annualcost: $30,000
$ ,
Observations
Clearobjectives
j
Multimodels
National v subnational
Nationalvsub
national
Existingvs customindices
Honest modeling
Honestmodeling
Measuringcapacity
Availability

Application of Risk Assessment in Disaster Response Planning (Craig Williams)

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Application of Risk Assessment in Disaster Response Planning (Craig Williams)

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

modelinghumanitarianrisk:

HC / OCHA OFFICE / REGIO HAZARD

% w eight of indicator w ithin category

2012 Global Focus Model

HC / OCHA OFFICE / REGIO HAZARD

% w eight of indicator w ithin category

2012 Global Focus Model

HC / OCHA OFFICE / REGIO HAZARD

% w eight of indicator w ithin category

2012 Global Focus Model

HC / OCHA OFFICE / REGIO HAZARD

% w eight of indicator w ithin category

2012 Global Focus Model

HC / OCHA OFFICE / REGIO HAZARD

% w eight of indicator w ithin category

2012 Global Focus Model

HC / OCHA OFFICE / REGIO HAZARD

% w eight of indicator w ithin category

2012 Global Focus Model

Human hazard only

8 0 Central African Republic

7.8 Cte d'Ivoire

6.4 Central African Republic

6.2 Cte d'Ivoire

Você também pode gostar