Disaster damage and loss data for policy : pre- and post-event damage assessment and collection of data for evidence-based policies.
Date: 2018-03-09
Institutions: Joint Research Centre
Subjects: civil defence, damage, data collection, environmental risk prevention, fund (EU), industrial infrastructure, man-made disaster, natural disaster, research report, transport infrastructure, victim

Disaster damage and loss data 
for policy 

Pre- and post-event 
damage assessment 
and collection of data 
for evidence-based 
policies 

Montserrat Marín Ferrer 

Afonso Do Ó 

Karmen Poljanšek 

Ainara Casajus Vallés 

2018 

1 

EUR 29080 EN 

This publication is a Science for Policy report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s 
science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European 
policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European 
Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is 
responsible for the use that might be made of this publication. 

Contact information 
Name: Montserrat Marin Ferrer 
Address: Joint Research Centre, Via Enrico Fermi 2749, TP 266, 21027 Ispra VA, ITALY 
Email: Montserrat.MARIN-FERRER@ec.europa.eu 
Tel. +39 0332785810 

JRC Science Hub 
https://ec.europa.eu/jrc 

JRC110366 

EUR 29080EN 

Print 

ISBN 978-92-79-77803-2 

ISSN 1831-9424 

doi:10.2760/840421 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018 

© European Union, 2018 

Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. The reuse policy of European Commission documents 
is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). 

For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the EU copyright, permission must be 
sought directly from the copyright holders. 

How to cite this report: Marin Ferrer, M.; Do Ó, A.; Poljansek, K.; Casajus Valles, A., Disaster Damages and 
Loss Data for Policy, Publication Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2018, ISBN 978-92-79-77803-2, 
doi:10.2760/840421, JRC110366 

All images © European Union 2018 

Disaster damage and loss data for policy — Pre- and post-event damage assessment and collection 
of data for evidence-based policies. 

Abstract 
This report follows the work carried out over the last few years by the European Commission Joint Research 
Centre (JRC) and, since 2015, by its Disaster Risk Management Knowledge Centre (DRMKC), in collaboration 
with DG European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO). In particular, it follows the three 
previously published reports dedicated to the relevance of continuous, accurate and well established collection 
of disaster damage and loss data, and takes account of the most recent policy developments in the field. In this 
fourth report the emphasis has been put on strengthening the link across a number of policies, both at the 
European Union level and at the global level, aiming to improve the resilience of societies. These policies share 
a common need for reliable disaster loss data, in order to secure a more coherent, coordinated and hence 
effective implementation. 

Printed in Luxembourg 

2 

Contents 

1.  Introduction ...................................................................................................... 5 

2.  Scope and objectives ......................................................................................... 6 

3.  Policy review ..................................................................................................... 7 

3.1. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction .......................................... 8 

3.1.1.  Targets A to D ..................................................................................... 8 

3.1.2.  Targets E to G ................................................................................... 11 

3.2. Sustainable development goals/Agenda 2030 ................................................ 13 

3.3. UNFCCC-COP22 (Paris Agreement) .............................................................. 13 

3.4. EU policies and directives............................................................................ 14 

3.4.1.  Union Civil Protection Mechanism national risk assessments .................... 14 

3.4.2.  EU Solidarity Fund requests ................................................................ 15 

3.4.3.  The flood directive ............................................................................. 16 

3.4.4.  The Seveso III directive ...................................................................... 17 

3.4.5.  The European programme for critical infrastructure protection ................. 18 

3.4.6.  The Inspire directive .......................................................................... 18 

3.4.7.  Other EU policy tools .......................................................................... 19 

4.  Next steps and final remarks ............................................................................. 21 

References ......................................................................................................... 22 

Annexes ............................................................................................................. 24 

Annex 1. SFDRR global indicators ...................................................................... 24 

Annex 2. Relationship between SDG and SFDRR global indicators .......................... 29 

i 

 
 
 
Acknowledgements 

The authors wish to thank the Disaster Damage and Loss Data Working Group members 
for their input and contributions. 

Authors 

Montserrat Marín Ferrer 

Afonso Do Ó 

Karmen Poljanšek 

Ainara Casajus Vallés 

2 

 
 
 
Executive summary 

This  report  follows  the  work  carried  out  over  the  last  few  years  by  the  European 
Commission  Joint  Research  Centre  (JRC)  and,  since  2015,  by  its  Disaster  Risk 
Management  Knowledge  Centre  (DRMKC),  in  collaboration  with  DG  European  Civil 
Protection  and  Humanitarian  Aid  Operations  (ECHO).  In  particular,  it  follows  the  three 
previously published reports dedicated to the relevance of continuous, accurate and well 
established  collection  of  disaster  damage  and  loss  data,  and  takes  account  of  the  most 
recent policy developments in the field. In this fourth report the emphasis has been put 
on strengthening the link across a number  of  policies, both at the  European Union level 
and at the global level, aiming to improve the resilience of societies. These policies share 
a  common  need  for  reliable  disaster  loss  data,  in  order  to  secure  a  more  coherent, 
coordinated and hence effective implementation. 

Policy context 

EU  Member  States  and  associated  countries  are  required,  within  the  framework  of 
Decision  No 1313/2013/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  a  Union 
Civil  Protection  Mechanism  (UCPM) (1),  to  prepare  regular  national  risk  assessments 
(NRAs) and accordingly to assess their risk management capabilities, while preparing the 
resulting  risk  management  plans.  The  preparation  of  evidence-based  NRAs  requires  a 
sound collection of disaster damage and loss data for a wide range of events of different 
natures. Similarly, other EU and  global policies  require different indicators to assess the 
risk of forthcoming events, to monitor the efficiency and the results obtained so far with 
the measures undertaken and to consolidate a  holistic, solid, evidence-based framework 
for resilience. 

This  common  need  calls  for  a  more  structured,  harmonised,  effective  and  coordinated 
collection of disaster damage and loss data, together with the corresponding aggregated 
reporting procedures. 

At the global level, the need for data and the consequent need for science to analyse it, 
in  an  attempt  to  anticipate  future  evolutions,  has  evolved  significantly  over  the  last 
several  years,  namely  through  the  establishment  of  the  Sendai  Framework  for  Disaster 
Risk  Reduction  (SFDRR) (2),  the  approval  of  the  Agenda  2030  sustainable  development 
goals (SDGs) (3) and the entry into force of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change (4). 

This  report  is  a  first  attempt  to  map  the  requirements  in  terms  of  data  necessary  to 
provide  rigorous  evidence  for  some  of  the  most  relevant  global  policy  frameworks, 
together with some of the main EU policies aiming to enhance resilience. The final scope 
is to collect data only once, but serving multiple policies. This process would by itself lead 
to improved coherence  in implementing the different policies linked to the same original 
data. 

Key conclusions 

The analysis of the EU and global policies most relevant to (and dependent on) loss data 
shows wide variation in terms of indicators, metadata and methodologies proposed, each 
one having a different level of detail. Following the recommendations in the previous JRC 
reports — standardised procedures for both loss data collection and reporting — the idea 
of having a single and unified disaster loss database could greatly respond to EU Member 
States’ requirements on a wide array of policies, at both the EU and the global level. 

More importantly, using already-existing statistical information on exposed people, assets 
and activities, and through a thorough and accurate process of recording disaster losses, 

(1)  http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1401179579415&uri=CELEX:32013D1313 
(2)  http://www.unisdr.org/we/coordinate/sendai-framework 
(3)  https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/?menu=1300 
(4)  http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php 

3 

 
                                           
Member States have the possibility to build up their own national disaster loss databases, 
tailored to their specific needs and requirements. While allowing for much more efficient 
disaster  risk  management  (DRM),  these  databases  will  also  deliver  any  requirements 
arising from EU policies and international agreements. 

Main findings 

The minimum common requirements for loss data set out in previous JRC reports ensure 
compliance  with  the  reviewed  global  policies  and  agreements.  At  the  EU  level,  more 
specific  and  tailored  requirements  are  needed  to  respond  to  the  wide  array  of  policies 
using  and  depending  on  loss  data  in  order  to  determine  disaster  loss  accounting  and 
compensation, assist disaster forensics and feed risk modelling. 

Although the timings for loss data collection and reporting  are necessarily different, one 
mechanism  feeds  the  other,  and  both  should  be  consistent  in  terms  of  methodologies, 
metadata  and  procedures,  and  also  in  terms  of  the  roles  and  mandates  of  relevant 
stakeholders and institutions, for specific scales and scopes of action. On these grounds, 
it may well justify the development and implementation of cross-policy guidance for the 
harmonised collection of disaster and damage loss data analysis, as a key tool to support 
EU  efforts  to  improve  DRM  and  increase  resilience  across  the  territory  of  the  European 
Union. 

Related and future JRC work 

Indirect  impacts,  which  often  exceed  direct  ones,  need  to  be  approached  as 
quantitatively  as  possible,  either  by  using  indirect  indicators,  by  taking  cascade  effects 
into consideration, by conducting quantifying surveys or by other methods, as long as a 
certain degree of error and uncertainty is taken in consideration and explicitly reported. 

New approaches are needed that include other sectoral needs for loss data, such as the 
insurance schemes conducted by both private companies and public arrangements, which 
need  data  to  assess  damage  and  calculate  liabilities,  or  the  standard  Eurocodes  for 
rebuilding  (structural  design),  which  require  data  for  assessing  the  vulnerability  of  built 
assets. 

Finally, scientists ought to be consulted in order to confirm what specific data are needed 
to feed each economic or risk model, either as input data or for the validation of outputs. 
Collection  methods,  the  embedded  level  of  uncertainty  and  the  geographic  level  of 
disaggregation are all aspects to be taken in consideration. 

This bridging effort, linking scientific and policy requirements  with actors, is at the heart 
of  the  DRMKC’s  mission,  and  will  be  the  focus  of  future  research  and  developments  in 
this  field.  This  would  greatly  contribute  to  another  major  step  envisaged  in  the  near 
future,  which  will  be  to  connect  different  national  sectoral  databases  to  allow  common 
national collecting and reporting mechanisms, serving Member States at first, but also EU 
and global policy requirements. 

4 

 
 
1.  Introduction 

The  DRMKC  has  been  working  intensively  on  disaster  and  damage  loss  data  since  its 
launch in 2015, building upon the work conducted previously at the JRC, namely through 
the three previously published Science and Policy Reports: 

—  Recording  disaster  losses  —  Recommendations  for  a  European  approach  (De  Groeve 
et  al.,  2013)  provided  technical  requirements  for  standardising  loss  data  recording 
and  databases  within  the  EU,  defining  a  conceptual  framework  for  the  utility  of  loss 
data that considered loss accounting, disaster forensics and risk modelling  to be key 
applications; 

—  Current  status  and  best  practices  for  disaster  loss  data  recording  in  EU  Member 
States (De Groeve et al., 2014) reviewed, compared and presented the current state 
of  play  in  the  Member  States,  identifying  the  common  basis  in  methodology  and 
technical specifications of collecting and recording losses; 

—  Guidance  for  recording  and  sharing  disaster  damage  and  loss  data  (JRC,  2015) 
proposed  an  assessment  methodology  that  could  be  adapted  to  the  needs  of  each 
Member State, based on a minimum set of loss indicators that should be part of any 
operational  disaster  loss  database  and  on  simplified  aggregated  figures  following  a 
common  data  exchange  format,  thus  allowing  Member  States  to  share  and 
communicate loss data in a structured and shared way. 

Based  on  the  findings  and  recommendations  of  these  reports,  Member  States  could 
respond, using a single structured data-collection and processing system, to the various 
risk-related EU directives and policies, to the global disaster risk reduction (DRR) targets 
(particularly as defined by the SFDRR — UN, 2015a) and to the EU’s commitments to the 
post-2015 SDGs (UN, 2015b). 

Nevertheless,  the  current  practice  in  disaster  loss  data  recording  across  the  EU  shows 
that there are hardly any comparable disaster damage and loss databases (JRC, 2015). 
Differences exist in the methods of data recording  and in the governance approaches to 
managing disaster damage and loss data. The lack of standards for damage and loss data 
collection and recording represents a key challenge for damage and loss data sharing and 
comparison, especially for cross-border cooperation within the EU. Furthermore, there is 
a  clear  need  for  improved  articulation  between  the  EU  level,  that  of  policy  integration, 
cooperation  and  subsidiarity;  the  national  level,  with  its  governmental  and  non-
governmental  stakeholders;  and  the local level,  where  citizens  and local  authorities  and 
stakeholders  suffer  and  respond  to  losses  while  playing  a  critical  role  in  data  collection, 
recording and reporting. 

This  fourth  JRC  Science  for  Policy  Report  on  loss  data  will  focus  particularly  on  the 
different  requirements  of  disaster-related  international  policies  and  agreements  and  on 
how  the  JRC’s  proposed  minimum  requirements  can  deliver  results  to  all  from  a  single 
database structure. This reporting mechanism, together with a systematic mechanism for 
collecting  and  recording 
legal  background  and  mandated 
institutions —  right  after  disasters  occur,  would  contribute  greatly  to  improving  disaster 
resilience across the territory of the EU. 

loss  data —  with  a 

5 

 
2.  Scope and objectives 

The JRC Science and Policy Report "Guidance for recording and sharing disaster damage 
and loss data (JRC, 2015) synthesised the minimum set of loss indicators that should be 
part  of  any  operational  disaster  loss  database.  This  work  was  conducted  with  the  main 
goal  of  allowing  EU  Member  States  and  all  stakeholders  involved  in  DRM  to  share  and 
communicate loss data in a structured and common data-exchange format. 

This  kind  of  common  framework  could  bring  significant  value  and  advantages  to 
systematic reporting by Member States relating to risk-related EU directives and policies, 
while delivering on indicators  for global  DRR targets, particularly under the SFDRR  (UN, 
2015a)  and  under  EU  and  Member  States’  commitment  to  the  post-2015  SDGs  (UN, 
2015b). 

Under  the  SFDRR,  which  coordinates  global  efforts  to  compile  loss  data,  the  United 
Nations  Office  for  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  (UNISDR)  recently  published  (in  December 
2017) a document for consultation called Technical guidance for monitoring and reporting 
on  progress  in  achieving  the  global  targets  of  the  Sendai  Framework  for  Disaster  Risk 
Reduction  (UNISDR,  2017).  This  document  was  delivered  to  support  the  Report  of  the 
open-ended  intergovernmental  expert  working  group  on  indicators  and  terminology 
related  to  disaster  risk  reduction,  adopted  by  the  United  Nations  General  Assembly  in 
February  2017  (UN,  2017).  It  provides  technical  suggestions  and  considerations  related 
to  applicable  definitions  and  terminology,  possible  computation  methodologies,  data 
standards and critical issues. 

Taking into account this new and globally relevant information, in the present  report the 
DRMKC delivers an overview of the most significant policies for the European and global 
framework  for  DRM,  with  a  particular  focus  on  the  indicators  proposed  in  previous  JRC 
Science and Policy reports (De Groeve et al., 2013, 2014; JRC, 2015) and on the SFDRR 
technical guidance  (UNISDR, 2017). Based  on this review of the different EU and global 
policies  most  relevant  to  DRR,  the  opportunity  for  a  single  collection  and  reporting 
structure is analysed and explored in order to: 

—  respond systematically and consistently to the requirements of multiple EU and global 

policies; 

—  guarantee the interoperability and comparison of databases and data sets; 

—  facilitate the exchange and sharing of data between Member States. 

6 

 
3.  Policy review 

The  establishment  of  national  loss  databases,  when  existent,  is  often  a  response  to 
specific  disasters  or  to  the  disaster  management  needs  of  each  country.  Besides  their 
scope, such databases also vary in terms of institutional endorsement and legal context, 
and do not always fit in with relevant DRR policies and frameworks, either within Member 
States or at the EU level. 

Based  on  EU  enquiries  (De  Groeve  et  al.,  2014),  only  six  Member  States  have  binding 
legislation  on  the  establishment  of  national  databases  or  the  collection  of  damage  and 
loss  data  from  disasters  (Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Spain,  Austria,  Romania,  Slovenia  and 
Sweden).  However,  this  does  not  guarantee  the  development  of  a  loss  database  or  the 
resources  needed  for  its  operation  and  maintenance.  Similarly,  it  does  not  cover  the 
establishment of standards or guidelines for loss data recording. 

In  fact,  legislation  is  not  a  compulsory  requirement  in  order  for  a  Member  State  to 
establish  a  loss  database.  There  is  simply  a  need  for  sustained  engagement  at  country 
level  in  order  to  institutionalise  the  collection  and  recording  of  loss  data  following  a 
common  and  agreed  methodology.  Additionally,  mechanisms  for  public  investment 
should be put in place to ensure the maintenance of loss databases. 

The overview of the current practices in recording disaster loss data in EU Member States 
provided in De Groeve et al. (2014) shows that the methodologies implemented in each 
are  rather  fragmented  and  sectoral.  Making  the  available  databases  compatible  with 
requirements  for  sharing  data,  both  between  Member  States  and  with  international 
organisations,  would  require  adjustments  to  both  the  recording  process  and  the 
processing of data. Loss-recording practices also would need to be strengthened to make 
the  data  useful  at  the  national  level  beyond  narrowly  defined  objectives,  such  as  for 
prevention policy and risk assessment. 

The  lack  of  a  common  framework  for  disaster  loss  data  recording  within  the  EU  is  not 
new.  In  the  last  decade  several  research  projects,  dedicated  studies  and  EU  initiatives 
have  attempted  to  portray  the  loss  data  recording  profiles  of  EU  Member  States  (De 
Groeve  et  al.  2014).  Furthermore,  many  initiatives  have  proposed  and  built  their  own 
database  structure,  according  to  the  hazard-specific  or  particular  purpose  to  be  served, 
at both the national and EU levels. 

Despite  these  multiple  efforts,  methodologies  for  disaster  loss  data  collection  and 
recording  in  the  EU  are  heterogeneous,  available  loss  databases  vary  in  their  level  of 
completeness and detail, and IT systems vary in their purpose, complexity and openness. 
The combination of these factors precludes the reliable and representative aggregation of 
loss data at the EU level. 

The  European  Commission’s  DRMKC  has  been  working  actively  in  support  of  the  UCPM, 
which is paving the way for more resilient communities by including key  actions related 
to disaster prevention, such as developing NRAs and refining risk management planning. 
The  JRC  has  developed  a  broad  set  of  project  tools  and  initiatives  to  ensure  minimum 
standards  for  a  systematic,  robust  and  harmonised  data  collection  process,  allowing  for 
comparison  and  improved  knowledge  sharing  between  Member  States,  more  effective 
cooperation (particularly for cross-border disasters) and better policy building. 

There  are  global  policy  frameworks  and  international  agreements  related  to  DRR,  which 
set the context for recording and sharing loss data. The SFDRR is the most relevant and 
detailed,  and  therefore  its  technical  proposals  for  delivering  the  indicator  results  are 
hereafter analysed and reviewed in detail. 

Subsequently, a set of EU and global policies that are considered most relevant, following 
the generic review described in Section 1.3 of De Groeve et al. (2014), is reviewed in the 
light of the proposed databases, indicators, metadata and recording methodologies. 

7 

 
3.1. The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 

The  Open-ended  Intergovernmental  Expert  Working  Group  (OIEWG)  developed  and 
proposed a set of 38 indicators in relation to the  four priorities and seven global targets 
agreed  to  measure  global  progress  in  the  implementation  of  the  Sendai  Framework  for 
Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 (UNISDR, 2017). These priorities and targets  should 
guide  the  actions  and  reporting  of  UN  member  states,  due  in  2019  and  biannually 
thereafter. 

Although  all  of  these  indicators  are  quantitative,  the  differences  are  quite  significant, 
ranging from the number of people affected (eight indicators from targets A and B), the 
estimated  economic  losses  (six  from  target C)  and  the  number  of  affected  facilities  and 
services  (eight  from  target D)  to  the  number  of  initiatives,  countries,  reports  or 
processes  relating  to  targets E,  F  and  G  (16,  although  G-3  and  G-6  refer  to  population 
coverage, as a percentage). 

Annex 1 shows the list of indicators approved by the UN General Assembly on 2 February 
2017  (UN,  2017),  which  are  subject  to  an  open  consultation  process  until  the  end  of 
2017. 

The  indicators  will  measure  progress  in  achieving  the  global  targets  of  the  SFDRR,  and 
some  will  monitor  global  trends  in  risk  and loss  reduction.  These  metrics,  together  with 
indicators that can be  employed by  countries to measure nationally  determined targets, 
should allow an appraisal of the impact actions of stakeholders to achieve the outcomes, 
goals  and  targets  of  the  SFDRR.  Nevertheless,  by  allowing  countries  to  determine  their 
own targets nationally, comparison will be restricted and should take the different goals 
carefully into consideration. 

The UNISDR report (December 2017) Technical guidance for monitoring and reporting on 
progress  in  achieving  the  global  targets  of  the  Sendai  Framework  for  Disaster  Risk 
Reduction  proposes  specific  minimum  data  requirements  and  metadata  for  each 
indicator,  e.g.  for  targets  A  (number  of  deaths  and  missing  persons)  and  B  (number  of 
affected  people),  disaggregation  of  the  affected  population  by  hazard,  geography,  sex, 
age,  disability  and  income  is  recommended.  Furthermore,  data  collection,  sources  and 
metadata  are  considered  in  detail,  along  with  the  identification  of  limitations  and 
challenges (e.g. double counting, proxy indicators, etc.). 

3.1.1. Targets A to D 

Starting  with  global  target A,  on  Sendai  indicators  A-2  (dead  people) and  A-3  (missing 
people; A-1 is a composite indicator), UNISDR (2017) recommends disaggregation of the 
people  recorded  dead/missing  by  hazard,  geography,  sex,  age,  disability  and  income, 
thus  following  the  minimum  requirements  proposed  by  the  JRC  (2015)  and  specifying 
some  of  the  features  defined  there.  Other  features  were  overlooked  for  the  sake  of 
feasibility,  such  as  marital  status,  education  and  employment,  but  most  high  risk 
categories  (children  under  5,  disabled,  aged)  are  covered  by  Sendai’s  proposed 
disaggregation. 

Collecting  data  on  the  sex,  age,  disability  and  income  of  affected  people  is  not 
straightforward, and is likely to depend on a robust and direct post-disaster field survey. 
Some key challenges relate to the attribution of impact to a single event or the extent of 
direct  cause,  and  the  cut-off  date  for  attributing  losses  to  an  event  (quite  different 
challenges are posed by sudden- and slow-onset events). 

The proposed indicators under target B are more complex, and combine people affected 
in  terms  of  their  health  (B-2),  their  dwellings  (B-3  and  B-4)  and  their  livelihoods  (B-5), 
with different data requirements and considerations for each. 

Indicator B-2 follows the same approach  as indicators A-2 and A-3, while indicators B-3 
and  B-4  consider  hazard  and  geography  as  minimum  disaggregation  requirements,  but 
propose an additional field (number of destroyed/damaged dwellings/houses) as a means 

8 

 
to indirectly calculate the number of affected people (if an average number of people per 
household  is  available),  whenever  in  situ  measurements  are  not  possible.  This  proxy 
indicator  is  not  very  useful  for  EU  Member  States  due  to  existing  safety  and  security 
regulations.  The  EU  is  likely  to  have  more  people  affected  in  terms  of  their  health 
conditions and/or their  livelihoods (depending of course  on the type  of disaster) than in 
terms of their dwellings, among other reasons because of compulsory insurance schemes 
in place across the territory of the EU. 

Indicator  B-5  is  even  more  complex,  and  therefore  UNISDR  suggests  that  if  in  situ 
measurements  are  not  possible  it  may  calculate  the  indicator  based  on  several  target C 
indicators, namely: 

—  number of hectares of crops damaged or destroyed by disaster (C-2a), 

—  number of livestock lost in disaster (C-2b), 

—  number of productive assets/facilities damaged or destroyed by disaster (C-3a) 

The proposed data will be used to calculate the number of workers affected, which poses 
serious  challenges  and  great  uncertainty  (as  the  proxies  are  not  efficient  based  on 
average numbers, and require data per facility/company/property). 

In the EU it is unlikely that such a proxy would be useful, given the existing records and 
remote  detection  technologies  readily  available  to  deliver  reliable  data  on  affected 
enterprises,  be  they  agricultural,  industrial,  commercial  or  other  services  facilities, 
whenever jobs are lost or sources of income are affected. 

Overall,  target B  indicators  must  be  handled  carefully  to  avoid  double  counting  and 
ensure  that  affected  people  are  classified  into  mutually  exclusive  fields  that  can  be 
aggregated to a total number of people in need (De Groeve et al 2014, p. 71). 

Moving  on  to  target C,  all  indicators  relate  to  direct  economic  losses,  aggregated  in 
different  key  sectors:  agriculture  (C-2),  other  productive  assets  (C-3),  housing  (C-4), 
critical  infrastructure  (C-5)  and  cultural  heritage  (C-6).  The  proposed  computation 
methodologies (and minimum input data requirements) vary, and imply quite  a detailed 
level of data collection and availability. 

Indicator C-2 (direct agricultural loss) includes crops, livestock, forestry, aquaculture and 
fisheries,  and  is  subdivided  into  production  and  asset  losses.  The  former  relates  to 
changes  in  economic  flows,  both  inputs  (e.g.  stored  merchandise)  and  outputs  (e.g. 
decline  in  sales),  and  the  latter  to  the  cost  of  replacement  and/or  recovery  of  affected 
facilities,  equipment  and  related  infrastructure.  This  requires  quite  a  detailed  and 
complex  economic  valuation  of  losses  (including  partial  damages),  which  is  not  always 
available,  and  even  when  it  is  possible  is  often  based  on  average  values  (damage 
percentage, value per productive unit, etc.) that tend to substantially reduce accuracy. 

For  the  territory  of  the  EU,  large  asset  losses  are  easily  estimated  by  remote-sensing 
techniques  (e.g.  satellite  imagery),  but  finer  items  will  require  field  survey  (equipment, 
animals, etc.). For production losses, long-run statistics may be needed to infer indirect 
losses  related  to  business  disruption,  reduction  of  monetary  flows  and/or  loss  of  future 
use. 

Because  of  the  complexity  of  direct  economic  valuation,  a  set  of  proxy  subindicators  is 
proposed:  number  of  hectares,  number  of  head  of  livestock,  etc.  Nevertheless,  as  in 
indicator  B-5  (affected  livelihoods),  this  will  greatly  increase  uncertainty.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  recommended  data  disaggregation  should  not  pose  serious  obstacles  to 
reporting countries: basically, by hazard, geography, totally destroyed/partially damaged 
and  type  of  classified  sector  affected  (which  crop,  which  livestock,  which  asset,  etc.). 
Besides  ensuring  a  basic  metadata  structure,  this  disaggregation  is  also  crucial  for 
avoiding duplicated records in other indicators. 

The UNISDR-proposed indicators under  target C aim at direct  economic losses only, but 
even its metadata accommodate some indirect losses (such as sales decline). As some of 

9 

 
the  major  economic  impacts  are  indirect  but  closely  connected  to  the  direct  ones,  it  is 
recommended that EU Member States conduct a collection of indirect loss data, based on 
long-run statistical analysis of economic flows. 

Indicators C-3, C-4 and C-5 all include a similar disaggregation level and minimum data 
requirements,  but  propose  proxy  quantification  of  damages  by  defining  classes  of 
facilities  and/or  assets  (by  size,  by  economic  value  of  construction  area,  by  the 
equipment–infrastructure  percentage  ratio),  allowing 
loss 
estimates.  Furthermore,  in  order  to  facilitate  country  reporting,  UNISDR  proposes  an 
optional  choice  of  methodology  (from  four  proposed  approaches)  so  that  each  country 
can determine direct economic losses to assets. These optional approaches range from a 
minimum  ‘affected  asset  reporting’,  based  only  on  the  number  and  type  of  impacted 
assets and on an estimated affected ratio, to a full ‘individual asset reporting’, based on a 
case-by-case estimate of reconstruction/repair costs. 

indirect  economic 

for 

This optional recording of asset losses, together with the indirect and complex  estimates 
of production losses, contributes greatly to a high degree of uncertainty and variability in 
data  accuracy,  and  reduces  data  comparability  and  aggregation  feasibility.  Two  error 
interval  procedures  are  proposed  in  order  to  represent  at  least  part  of  the  variability  in 
the  outcome  measurements:  a  min/max  interval  (to  be  used  in  parallel  with  average 
values); and a confidence interval per level of geophysical stressor, based on clusters of 
probability.  Given  the  high  level  of  uncertainty  associated  with  overall  economic  loss 
estimates,  these  error  procedures  are  strongly  recommended  for  EU  Member  States. 
Furthermore, full individual asset reporting is to be sought whenever possible, using both 
field  survey  and  remote-sensing  techniques,  and  avoiding  the  use  of  proxies  and  class-
based quantification to a minimum. 

Indicator  C-6  (on  cultural  heritage)  is  quite  specific,  and  therefore  the  minimum 
requirement  data  is  also  very  specific,  quantifying  what  is  possible  (number  of  affected 
buildings/monuments,  number  of  affected  movable  assets  such  as  artworks,  cost  of 
rehabilitation/reconstruction  of  such  assets,  cost  of  acquisition)  and  assuming  that  the 
greatest losses may be subjective and unmeasurable. 

Still,  in  the  context  of  the  EU  (as  in  many  other  parts  of  the  world),  cultural  heritage 
assets  are  of  significant  economic  importance  in  relation  to  tourism  and  dependent 
services, and in some local contexts are crucial for the livelihoods of a significant part of 
the  population  and  for  the  sustainability  of  the  community  as  a  whole.  This  requires 
Member States to implement indirect economic loss procedures to collect relevant data, 
mainly in statistical form. 

On  target D  (critical  infrastructure  and  basic  services),  eight  specific  indicators  were 
approved,  in  two  groups  of  four  (one  for  destroyed/damaged  facilities,  another  for 
disrupted services): a compound indicator (D-1/D-5), health facilities/services (D-2/D-6), 
educational facilities/services (D-3/D-7) and other critical infrastructure (D-4/D-8). 

For  the  facilities  group  of  indicators  (D-1  to  D-4),  a  set  of  minimum  data  requirements 
and  disaggregation  is  proposed  that  is  similar  to  that  for  indicator  C-5.  In  fact,  there  is 
quite  a  lot  of  overlap  between  the  two  that  is  not  adequately  addressed  in  the  UNISDR 
(2017) report. A recommendation is provided (p. 83) for the Secretariat (of the  SFDRR) 
to ‘define an additional set of codes that may correspond to types of assets that are not 
productive …  such  as  roads,  bridges,  railroads,  ports,  airports,  power  generation 
facilities,  water  facilities,  etc.’  Although  this  attempt  to  separate  productive  and  non-
productive assets aims to clarify the classification of assets under targets C or D, this has 
proved quite difficult to actually determine, as most of these facilities have an indirectly 
productive component with a great deal of influence. 

Furthermore, the ‘other critical infrastructure’ in indicators D-4 and D-8 is rather vague, 
and  does  not  translate  into  the  framework  the  importance  of  such  critical infrastructure 
to societies (particularly for developed countries), and to disaster response itself (namely 
transportation networks, telecommunications, energy grids, water supplies, etc.). 

10 

 
Nevertheless, the proposed methodology is useful to assess both direct physical damage 
and  indirect  losses  to  critical  infrastructure.  Following  a  similar  approach  for  the  direct 
collection  of  indirect  losses  as  proposed  above  for  target C,  further  detailed  in  terms  of 
critical  infrastructure  classification  and  addressing  the  external  economic  implications  of 
their disruption, should prove sufficient to cover the most significant impacts of damage 
to these crucial facilities 

The  reference  under  indicators  D-6  to  D-8  that  disrupted  services  refer  to  a  partial  or 
total  interruption,  a  degradation  of  the  quality  level  and/or  a  reduction  in  service 
coverage  also  proves  relevant.  Furthermore,  an  exhaustive  list  is  provided  in  order  to 
classify  the  ‘other  services’  under  indicator  D-8,  and  it  is  highly  recommended  that  EU 
Member  States  follow  this  list  in  order  to  allow  for  proper  impact  assessment,  data 
comparison and aggregation. 

3.1.2. Targets E to G 

Concerning  global  targets  E,  F  and  G,  these  follow  the  structure  of  the  indicators 
proposed under the previous Hyogo Framework for Disaster Reduction (2005-2015), and 
are  particularly  related  to  the  self-assessment  of  countries  regarding  their  progress  on 
governance and risk management. Although these targets lack an objective quantitative 
dimension, several strategies, policies and actions taken at different levels of governance 
contribute  directly  to  these  indicators  and  to  the  assessment  of  progress  and 
performance.  Furthermore,  the  technical  considerations  and  suggestions  (as  well  as  the 
limitations  and  specific  issues  highlighted)  are  quite  relevant  and  should  be  taken  into 
consideration for a minimum DRR approach and use of loss data. 

Specifically  on  target E,  the  OIEWG  proposes  two  indicators,  one  at  the  national  level 
and  the  other  at  the  local  level.  E-1  refers  to  the  number  of  countries  adopting  and 
implementing  national  DRR  strategies  in  line  with  the  SFDRR.  A  set  of  10  core 
requirements and four benchmark levels (from little to full achievement) is proposed for 
countries  to  self-assess  their  performance.  While  the  methodology  is  clear  and  simple, 
the  self-assessment  forcibly  biases  the  results.  At  the  EU  level,  shared  independent 
assessment  should  be  put  in  place  that  allows  for  joint  reporting  and  more  reliable 
comparison, and accounts for accomplishing other risk-related policies accomplishment. 

Indicator E-2 covers the proportion of local governments that adopt and implement DRR 
strategies in line with the national strategies covered in E-1. Although the methodology is 
not detailed and requires further deliberation, this is a critical element for countries that 
wish to pursue an effective DRR strategy based on an accurate loss data process. It is at 
the  local  level  that  national  strategies  become  operative,  defining  the  responsibilities  of 
actors  at  different  stages  of  the  disaster  management  cycle.  Furthermore,  it  is  at  the 
local level that the appropriate collection of sectoral and asset-specific data may allow for 
adequate  modelling  and  processing,  delivering  key  results  for  both  loss  data  reporting 
and for DRR policy building. 

Target F covers international cooperation with developing countries and includes a set of 
eight indicators:  one  composite  indicator  (F-1);  six  specific indicators  on  the  number  of 
different  types  of  actions,  programmes  and  initiatives  classified  as  official  development 
assistance and other official flows (F-2 to F-7); and a final indicator (F-8) on the number 
of  developing  countries  supported  by  such  initiatives  to  strengthen  their  DRR-related 
statistical capacity. 

The  minimum  disaggregation  suggested  is  the  identification  of  the  donor  and  of  the 
recipient, while other desirable requirements include the type of finance and  the type of 
support. Monetary values are not included, upon recognition of the difficulties to capture 
integrated DRR budgets and flows across multiple and inter-sectoral aid tools. 

As one  of the world’s largest donors, the EU has privileged access to  dedicated budgets 
for  DRR  assistance  and  to  DRR  budgetary  components  in  cross-sectoral  or  lateral 
programmes and initiatives. With the support of other global organisations collecting data 
on  developing  countries  assistance  (Organisation  for  Economic  Cooperation  and 

11 

 
Development, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, etc.), a monetary estimate may 
be  provided  by  EU  Member  States  and  reported  within  the  framework  of  Sendai 
reporting. 

Finally, on target G, six indicators are proposed to tackle the availability of and access to 
multi-hazard early warning systems and disaster  risk information and assessments.  G-1 
is a compound indicator of the following four (G-2 to G-5), which cover the following key 
elements: 

—  number  of  countries  with  multi-hazard  early  warning  systems  (G-2,  focused  on 

monitoring and forecasting); 

—  proportion of people covered by early warning information through local governments 
or through national dissemination mechanisms (G-3, focused on communication); 

—  proportion  of  local  governments  that  have  a  plan  to  act  on  early  warnings  (G-4, 

focused on preparedness); 

—  number of countries with relevant disaster risk information and assessments available 

at the national and local levels (G-5, focused on knowledge and assessment). 

A sixth specific indicator is proposed (G-6) on the percentage of the population exposed 
to  disasters  who  are  protected  through  pre-emptive  evacuation  following  an  early 
warning. 

The OIEWG proposal recognises the subjective nature of the proposed indicators (as for 
targets  E  and  F),  and  therefore  aims  to  balance  precision  and  practicality  through  a 
method of weighted hazard types and levels of achievement (as for indicator E-1). 

These  methodologies  were  derived  from  UN-related  work  and  participative  forums,  and 
focus  particularly  on  assessing  the  progress  and  achievements  of  reporting  countries  in 
relation  to  the  global  targets.  As  the  proposed  metadata  are  even  more  prone  to 
subjectivity, it does not facilitate comparison between different countries. Consistency of 
information  and  double  counting  are  quite  relevant  issues  in  this  set  of  indicators,  and 
should be appropriately acknowledged. For instance, there is clear scope for overlapping 
with target E indicators. 

At the EU level, existing (and most common) single-hazard early warning systems should 
be  added  and  checked  on  a  cumulative  basis,  in  parallel  to  any  pertinent  multi-hazard 
approaches, as the former are needed to lay the grounds for the latter. 

The  overall  policy  coverage  enabled  by  the  UCPM  has  significant  synergies  with  these 
proposed  Sendai  indicators,  and  could  contribute  to  defining  more  accurate  metadata, 
closely linked to the different parts of the DRM cycle. 

Generally, the OIEWG report stresses the need to support UN member states in ensuring 
reliable  and  comparable  data  sets,  for  example  through:  (i)  minimum  standards  and 
metadata  for  disaster-related  data,  statistics  and  analysis;  (ii)  methodologies  for  the 
measurement  of  indicators  and  the  processing  of  statistical  data;  (iii)  technical  support 
for member  states to conduct a review of data readiness with respect to the indicators; 
(iv)  technical-guidance  material  for  the  testing  and  rolling  out  of  the  indicators  and  the 
web-based monitoring system (Section 20 of the global indicators endorsement report — 
UN, 2017). 

Furthermore,  it  underlines  the  need  for  countries  to  fix  metadata  and  data  collection 
methods and procedures throughout the entire time span of the SFDRR reporting (2015-
2030) so as not to affect the detection of trends and patterns in achieving the targets. 

This  approach  is  pertinent  to  allowing  for  an  overview  of  trends  and  achievements 
throughout  the  world,  but  it  is  important  to  remember  that  comparability  remains  very 
limited  as  long  as  there  are  different  metadata,  methods  and  processes  for  data 
collection  and  processing.  Furthermore,  countries  should  also  remember  that  while  this 
global methodology allows for national reporting at the global level, the identification of 

12 

 
national  priorities,  needs  and  actions  for  reducing  disaster  risks  requires  regional  and 
local data to be collected. 

A final note on the EU action plan on the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 
(European  Commission,  2016b),  which  includes  a  strong  focus  on  climate-change 
adaptation,  linking  it  to  DRR  and  fostering  strengthened  coherence  between  climate-
change adaptation strategies and risk management plans at the national level in the EU. 

3.2. Sustainable development goals/Agenda 2030 

The  Inter-Agency  and  Expert  Group  on  Sustainable  Development  Goal  Indicators 
proposed  the  use  of  the  SFDRR  indicators  recommended  by  the  OIEWG  to  measure 
specific  global  targets  of  SDGs  1  (End  poverty  in  all  its  forms  everywhere),  11  (Make 
cities  and  human  settlements  inclusive,  safe,  resilient  and  sustainable)  and  13  (Take 
urgent  action  to  combat  climate  change  and  its  impacts),  within  the  global  indicator 
framework  for  the  goals  and  targets  of  the  2030  Agenda  for  Sustainable  Development. 
This  will  provide  for  simultaneous  and  coherent  monitoring  and  reporting  on  both  the 
SFDRR and the SDGs. 

Annex 2 shows the relationship between SDG and SFDRR indicators. A quick look at the 
table shows that the SDGs broadly make use of the compound Sendai indicators on dead, 
missing  and  affected  people  (A-1  and  B-1),  direct  economic  losses  (C-1),  damage  to 
critical infrastructure and disrupted services (D-1 and D-5) and the governance indicators 
at the national (E-1) and local (E-2) levels. 

As for Sendai, the basic structure for disaster damage and loss data collection proposed 
by the European Commission (JRC, 2015) could fit and deliver the indicators required for 
Member States to monitor and target the SDGs. 

There are a number of relevant EU actions related to the implementation of these SDGs, 
both  externally  through  fostering  the  sustainable  economic,  social  and  environmental 
development  of  developing  countries,  and  internally  by  supporting  and  complementing 
the  Member  States’  policies.  These  should  be  taken  into  account  whenever  Member 
States  and  the  EU  assess  the  effectiveness  and  performance  of  their  risk  management 
policies and capabilities, as its contribution to DRR in the EU has proven quite significant. 
An  analysis  of  the  main  contributing  EU  policies  and  tools  is  presented  in  Section 3.4 
below. 

3.3. UNFCCC-COP22 (Paris Agreement) 

Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) must 
submit  annual  national  reports  on  the  implementation  of  the  convention  to  the 
Conference of the Parties. The required contents of national reports and the timetable for 
their  submission  are  different  for  Annex I  and  non-Annex I  parties,  in  accordance  with 
the  principle  of  ‘common  but  differentiated  responsibilities’  enshrined  in  the  convention. 
Annex I  parties  (which  includes  EU  Member  States)  are  required  to  report  vulnerability 
assessments,  but  not  reporting  specifically  to  related  disaster  events  and  not  requiring 
loss data recording. 

The  EU  strategy  on  adaptation  to  climate  change  (European  Commission,  2013a) 
provides  a  framework  and  mechanisms  to  improve  the  preparedness  of  the  EU  for 
current and future  climate-change impacts, thus contributing to a more climate-resilient 
society.  It  is  structured  around  three  strategic  objectives:  promoting  action  by  Member 
‘climate-proofing’  EU  action  by 
States;  better-informed  decision-making;  and 
mainstreaming  adaptation  measures  into  EU  policies  and  programmes  and  promoting 
adaptation in key vulnerable sectors. 

It  comprises  a  set  of  documents  and  guidelines,  one  of  which,  the  Green  Paper  on  the 
insurance  of  natural  and  man-made  disasters  (2013),  is  particularly  relevant  for  DRR. 
This  document  addresses  some  critical  issues  related  to  impact  and  loss  data  collection 
and  suggests  some  relevant  approaches,  namely  the  use  of  spatial-  and  time-dynamic 

13 

 
scenarios; the development of multi-hazard risk scenarios; the application of probabilistic 
methods to generate coherent probabilistic risk scenarios; and the use of an agent-based 
approach  that  explicitly  quantifies  the  risk  exposure  of  the  various  parties  to  a  risk-
sharing  transaction  (e.g.  insurers,  reinsurers,  bond  holders,  governments,  householders 
and businesses). 

Although it does not benefit directly from a shared loss database structure, the UNFCCC 
would greatly benefit from a shared, common database and indicator structure, allowing 
the assessment of the time and space distribution of extreme-event-related losses and a 
closer correlation with the impacts of climate change. 

Furthermore,  the  relevance  of  the  EU’s  policies  and  instruments  related  to  climate-
change adaptation (as described above under the EU’s contribution to achieving SDG 13) 
needs  to  be  highlighted,  as  it  contributes  significantly  to  climate-change  mitigation  and 
adaptation, and thus to DRR. 

3.4. EU policies and directives 

Enforced  EU  policies  related  to  natural,  technological  and  man-made  disasters  are  in 
most  cases  sectoral  and  have  a  specific  focus.  References  and  requirements  related  to 
loss  data  collection  and  reporting  are  often  at  a  general  level  in  relation  to  policy 
monitoring  or  assessment  aspects.  Still,  it  is  critical  to  ensure  the  transparency, 
credibility and validity of results; to measure the achievement of targets; to account for 
losses and understand their causes; and to justify recovery efforts. 

A  brief  (non-exhaustive)  overview  of  the  most  relevant  EU  policies  currently  in  place  is 
presented  hereafter.  It  shows  how  this  diversified  set  of  policies  (and  others)  would 
greatly benefit from a systematic approach and methodology on loss data collection and 
reporting,  along  with  procedures  being  harmonised  and  the  compatibility  of  data  sets 
ensured. Furthermore, it highlights the need for increased and more efficient networking 
among all stakeholders involved. 

3.4.1. Union Civil Protection Mechanism national risk assessments 

At  the  EU  level,  the  UCPM  is  the  key  legal  instrument  covering  DRR,  and  thus  orients 
decisions  at  both  EU  and  national  levels.  Under  this  framework,  Member  States  are 
obliged to report on both their NRAs and mapping (European Commission, 2010a) and on 
their  risk  management  capability  assessments  (European  Commission,  2015b).  The 
former  is  due  in  December  2018  and  the  latter  in  August  2018,  and  each  is  then  due 
every 3 years thereafter. 

The  risk  assessment  and  mapping  guidelines  for  disaster  management  indicate  the 
following  three  categories  of  impacts  for  which  loss  data  should  be  collected  (European 
Commission, 2010a, p.17). 

—  Human  impacts  (number  of  affected  people):  the  number  of  deaths;  the  number  of 

severely injured or ill people; the number of permanently displaced people. 

—  Economic  and  environmental  impacts:  the  cost  of  cure  or  healthcare;  the  cost  of 
immediate or longer-term emergency measures; the cost  of  restoration of buildings, 
public transport systems and infrastructure, property, cultural heritage, etc.; the cost 
of  environmental  restoration  and  other  environmental  costs  (or  environmental 
damage); the cost  of disruption of economic activity; the cost of insurance payouts; 
indirect costs to the economy; indirect social costs; other direct and indirect costs as 
may be relevant. 

—  Political/social impacts: these are usually rated on a semi-quantitative scale and may 
include categories such as public outrage and anxiety; encroachment of the territory; 
infringement of the international position; violation of the democratic system; socio- 
psychological  impacts;  impact  on  public  order  and  safety;  political  implications; 
psychological  implications;  damage  to  cultural  assets;  other  factors  considered 

14 

 
important  that  cannot  be  measured  in  single  units,  such  as  certain  forms  of 
environmental damage. 

Furthermore,  these  guidelines  highlight  critical  issues  of  data  quality,  comparability, 
recording and reporting methods.  They propose several quantification methods (such as 
risk matrices) for qualitative and/or indirect impact data that rely largely on estimates or 
may be biased by perception. 

Risk  management  capability  assessments  are  intended  to  assist  Member  States  in  the 
self-assessment  of  their  risk  management  capability,  based  on  a  survey-type  structure 
with 51 relevant questions. One of these (question 15) explicitly  asks Member States to 
‘describe what sources of information and data are used and whether databases exist to 
carry out risk assessments’ (p. 10). 

Although  they  have  been  envisaged,  so  far  no  specific  indicators  or  metrics  have  been 
approved by the European Commission, although significant efforts are being made to do 
so.  Overall,  the  UCPM  policy  framework  ensures  that  a  common  set  of  principles  is 
shared and agreed upon, namely the multi-hazard approach (including natural and man-
made  disasters);  the  subsidiary  principle  that  ensures  resources  and  capabilities  are 
shared  among  Member  States;  the  participatory  approach  and  the  involvement  of  non-
governmental actors; and the full coverage of the DRM cycle. 

The  DRMKC  has  been  working  to  assist  Member  States  in  delivering  exchangeable  and 
reliable  loss  databases  and  recording  procedures.  These  databases  are  the  main  input 
into  complex  multi-variable  models  that  enable  evidence-based  risk  assessment,  and 
from  there  are  the  grounds  for  risk  management  policies  and  actions.  Simultaneously, 
data collection that feeds the models provides the local and multi-sector input needed for 
the consistent implementation of DRR actions and activities. 

Minimum  baseline  requirements  are  being  proposed  and  discussed  within  the  EU  Loss 
Data Expert Group in order to allow Member States to build reliable loss databases while 
ensuring the fulfilment of their EU and international commitments. The common baseline 
loss  data  requirements  proposed  by  the  JRC  (2015),  and  partially  endorsed  by  UNISDR 
(2017) guidelines, could well provide the main framework for NRAs and for a comparable 
and shared EU loss database framework. 

3.4.2. EU Solidarity Fund requests 

The  EU  Solidarity  Fund  provides  emergency  financial  support  to  countries  or  regions 
affected by exceptional circumstances, such as major disasters, with different thresholds 
for regional, national and cross-border events. 

To  apply  for  the  Solidarity  Fund  (EU,  2014)  Member  States  have  to  deliver  quantified 
economic  loss  data  on  ‘Physical  damage’  and  ‘Intervention  costs’  (row  17  of  the 
application form table): 

  network infrastructure (water/waste water, transport, bridges, energy, telecom, 

etc.), 

  public assets (airports, ports, hospitals, schools, etc.), 

  businesses (commercial and industrial activities), 

  agriculture, 

 

 

forestry, 

residential (private homes and assets), 

  cultural heritage, 

  cleaning up, 

  cost of emergency operations/rescue services, 

  provisional accommodation, 

15 

 
  others (to be specified). 

Among  the  intervention  costs,  countries  are  also  asked  to  quantify  the  economic  losses 
for (row 24): 

 

restoration  to  working  order  of  infrastructure  and  plant  (in  the  fields  of  energy, 
water/waste water, telecoms, transport, health, and education), 

  securing of preventive infrastructure, 

 

 measures of protection of cultural heritage, 

  cleaning up of disaster-stricken area/natural zones, 

 

 immediate  restoration  of  affected  natural  zones  to  avoid  immediate  effects  from 
soil erosion. 

Based on the common baseline loss data requirements of JRC (2015) and UNISDR (2017) 
guidelines, countries could easily report on any major disaster requiring the assistance of 
the  Solidarity  Fund,  simply  adding  economic  data  related  to  emergency  response  and 
recovery costs. 

Such integrated databases, based  on validated and harmonised  risk assessment models 
and  methods,  could  quickly  provide  early  post-disaster  estimates  and  speed  up  the 
response  process  when  funds  are  needed  and  time  is  a  crucial  issue.  Hence,  the 
European  Commission  would  ensure  a  facilitated  procedure,  based  on  fund-request 
methods validated and approved in ‘normal’ times. 

3.4.3. The flood directive 

The  flood  directive  was  approved  in  2007  (European  Commission,  2007a)  and  requires 
Member  States  to  undertake  a  preliminary  flood  risk  assessment.  The  first  national 
reports  were  due  in  2012,  and  reports  are  to  be  provided  every  6 years  thereafter  (the 
next reports are due by December 2018). 

In  order  to  undertake 
flood-risk  assessment  Member  States  need  to  gather 
georeferenced  information  on  people,  assets  and  activities  at  risk —  specifically  the 
directive  refers  to  impacts  on  human  health,  the  environment,  cultural  heritage  and 
economic activity. According to the guidelines for reporting, published in 2013 (European 
Commission, 2013b), Member States have to summarise the methods (including criteria) 
used to determine, for each flood scenario: 

 

 

 

the indicative number of inhabitants affected (Article 6(5)(a)), 

the type of economic activity affected (Article 6(5)(b)), 

the 
location  of 
(Article 6(5)(c)), 

integrated  pollution  prevention  and  control 

installations 

 

the impact on water framework directive protected areas (Article 6(5)(c)). 

These  impact  categories  (described  as  ‘types  of  consequences’)  are  further  detailed  as 
follows. 

(i) Human health 

Human  health:  Adverse  consequences  to  human  health,  either  as  immediate  or 
consequential  impacts,  such  as  might  arise  from  pollution  or  interruption  of  services 
related to water supply and treatment, and would include fatalities. 

Community:  Adverse  consequences  to  the  community,  such  as  detrimental  impacts  on 
local  governance  and  public  administration,  emergency  response,  education,  health  and 
social work facilities (such as hospitals). 

(ii) Environment 

16 

 
Waterbody status: Adverse permanent or long-term consequences ecological or chemical 
status  of  surface  waterbodies  or  chemical  status  of  ground  waterbodies  affected,  as  of 
concern  under  the  water  framework  directive.  Such  consequences  may  arise  from 
pollution from various sources (point and diffuse) or due to hydromorphological impacts 
of flooding. 

Protected  areas:  Adverse  permanent  or  long-term  consequences  to  protected  areas  or 
waterbodies,  such  as  those  designated  under  the  birds  and  habitats  directives,  bathing 
waters or drinking water abstraction points. 

Pollution  sources:  Sources  of  potential  pollution  in  the  event  of  a  flood,  such  as 
integrated  pollution  prevention  and  control  and  Seveso  installations,  or  point  or  diffuse 
sources. 

(iii) Cultural heritage 

Cultural  assets:  Adverse  permanent  or  long-term  consequences  to  cultural  heritage, 
which  could  include  archaeological  sites/monuments,  architectural  sites,  museums, 
spiritual sites and buildings. 

Landscape:  Adverse  permanent  or  long-term  consequences  on  cultural  landscapes,  that 
is  cultural  properties  which  represent  the  combined  works  of  nature  and  man,  such  as 
relics of traditional landscapes, anchor locations or zones. 

(iv) Economic activity 

Property: Adverse consequences to property, which could include homes. 

Infrastructure:  Adverse  consequences  to  infrastructural  assets  such  as  utilities,  power 
generation, transport, storage and communication. 

Rural  land  use:  Adverse  consequences  to  uses  of  the  land,  such  as  agricultural  activity 
(livestock, arable and horticulture), forestry, mineral extraction and fishing. 

Economic  activity:  Adverse  consequences  to  sectors  of  economic  activity,  such  as 
manufacturing,  construction,  retail,  services  and  other  sources  of  employment  (types  of 
economic activities may be further specified and listed in accordance with NACE codes). 

As  in  previous  policy  cases  described  above,  the  availability  of  a  common  baseline  loss 
database,  as  proposed  in  this  document  by  the  JRC  (2015)  and  UNISDR  (2017) 
guidelines, could greatly benefit and facilitate the reporting obligations of Member States 
and increase their efficiency in flood risk management. 

3.4.4. The Seveso III directive 

Single  chemical  accident  releases 
in  chemical 
installations,  petrochemical  and  oil  refineries  continue  to  happen  fairly  frequently  in 
Europe and demonstrate the need for better and more efficient control of major industrial 
hazards. 

involving  dangerous  substances 

The  Seveso  directive  (EU,  2012)  aims  at  preventing  such  major  accidents  involving 
dangerous  substances.  However,  as  accidents  may  nevertheless  occur,  it  also  aims  at 
limiting  the  consequences  of  such  accidents  not  only  for  human  health  but  also  for  the 
environment. It covers establishments where dangerous substances may be present (e.g. 
during processing or storage) in quantities exceeding a certain threshold. 

In  support  of  the  Seveso  III  directive,  the  Major  Accident  Hazards  Bureau  of  the 
European  Commission’s  Joint  Research  Centre  has  developed  two  major  database 
reporting systems, which are mandatory for EU Member States. 

—  eSPIRS  (Seveso  Plants  Information  Retrieval  System),  encompassing  information  on 
establishments  that  are  considered  to  present  major  hazards  due  to  the  potential 
accident risk associated with the presence of dangerous substances, as defined by the 
Seveso  III  directive.  The  minimum  information  collected,  in  accordance  with 

17 

 
Article 21(3)  of  this  directive,  includes  the  name  or  trade  name  of  the  operator,  the 
full address of the establishment and the activity of the establishment. 

—  eMARS  (Major  Accident  Reporting  System),  containing  reports  of  chemical  accidents 
and  near  misses  provided  by  EU  Member  States  (and  adherent  European  Economic 
Area,  Organisation  for  Economic  Co-operation  and  Development  and  United  Nations 
Economic  Commission 
for  Europe  countries  under  the  Convention  on  the 
Transboundary  Effects  of  Industrial  Accidents),  whenever  a  Seveso  establishment  is 
involved  and  the  event  meets  the  criteria  of  a  ‘major  accident’,  as  defined  by 
Annex VI to the Seveso III directive. The minimum information collected includes the 
date of the accident, the Seveso site classification, the industry type and any special 
circumstances  (i.e.  involvement  of  contractors  or  domino  effects,  Natech  -  natural-
hazard triggered technological accidents – events, or transboundary impacts). 

Furthermore,  operators,  competent  authorities  and  Member  States  shall  report  on  the 
circumstances  of  the  accident,  including  the  dangerous  substances  involved,  along  with 
the immediate effects on human health and the environment, the causes  of and lessons 
learned from such accidents and the preventive measures taken to prevent a recurrence 
(Articles 16, 17, 18 and 21). 

As  such,  it  is  critical  to  harmonise  metadata  and  methodologies  for  loss  data  collection 
and  reporting  in  order  to  incorporate  impacts  related  to  dangerous  substances  in  the 
overall framework for risk management. 

3.4.5. The European programme for critical infrastructure protection 

The  EU  directive  on  critical  infrastructure  (European  Commission,  2008)  was  mainly 
oriented to identify and designate European critical infrastructure (ECI) assets, mainly to 
protect these from terrorist attacks. In 2013 (European Commission, 2013c) this concept 
was  broadened  to  protect  ECI  from  other  man-made  and  natural  hazards.  Although  the 
envisaged  connections  with  DRR  activities  at  the  EU  level,  in  particular  with  the  UCPM, 
are not evident (there are only a couple of minor references related to training and post-
disaster  recovery  expertise),  the  directive  classifies  the  major  ECI  into  two  major 
categories (energy and transport, disaggregated into more detailed subcategories), which 
ought to be taken in consideration for further activities on this field. 

Nevertheless,  mainly  due  to  cascading  effects  following  disasters  and  to  its  strategic 
relevance  (both  in  terms  of  impact  potential  and  of  response  capability),  critical 
infrastructure  is  at  the  centre  of  Member  States’  concerns  on  post-disaster  situations, 
and needs to be carefully integrated into loss data collecting and reporting efforts. 

3.4.6. The Inspire directive 

Inspire is an EU initiative to establish an infrastructure for  spatial information in Europe 
geared  towards  making  spatial  or  geographical  information  more  accessible  and 
interoperable  for  a  wide  range  of  purposes  supporting  sustainable  development.  The 
Inspire directive (European Commission, 2007b) lays down the general framework for a 
spatial  data  infrastructure  for  the  purposes  of  EU  environmental  policies  and  policies  or 
activities  that  may  affect  the  environment.  It  is  based  on  the  infrastructure  for  spatial 
information established and operated by the Member States, addressing 34 spatial data 
themes needed for environmental applications. 

To ensure that the spatial data infrastructure of Member States is compatible and usable 
in a community and transboundary context, the Inspire directive requires that additional 
legislation  or  common  implementing  rules  be  adopted  for  a  number  of  specific  areas 
(metadata, interoperability of spatial data sets and services, network services, data and 
service sharing, and monitoring and reporting). 

Hence  the  significance  of  Inspire  for  loss  data  recording.  Even  if  aggregate  disaster 
damage and loss data are strictly speaking not spatial data sets, the database is spatial, 
and  it  is  recommended  that  the  natural  risk  zone  specifications  defined  by  Inspire  be 

18 

 
adhered  to  and  that  its  metadata  requirements  be  complied  with  in  order  to  ensure 
compatible and spatially representable databases. 

3.4.7. Other EU policy tools 

Other  by  the  EU  institutions  and  the  Member  States  contribute  significantly  to  the 
prevention  and  reduction  of  disaster  risks.  Besides  the  key  policies  analysed  in  the 
sections  above,  the  following  also  deserve  to  be  mentioned,  not  least  for  their 
contribution,  more  or  less  directly  (as  well  as  transversally),  to  the  achievement  of  the 
abovementioned  SDGs  and  of  the  SFDRR  global  targets,  within  the  European  Union 
(European Commission, 2016a). 

—  The  EU  cohesion  policy  and  the  Cohesion  Fund  (EU,  2013a),  its  main  investment 
policy,  the  core  mission  of  which  is  to  achieve  economic,  social  and  territorial 
cohesion  by  reducing  disparities  between  the  levels  of  development  of  the  various 
regions. For the 2014-2020 period it is providing about EUR 350 billion of investment 
in smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. 

—  The  Cohesion  Fund  thematic  objective  dedicated  to  promoting  social  inclusion  and 
combatting poverty and discrimination. It contributes to poverty reduction through its 
investments  in  housing,  employment  creation,  the  regeneration  of  deprived  urban 
and rural areas, the modernisation of public services and many other areas. 

—  Addressing  rural  poverty,  the  common  agricultural  policy  (European  Commission, 
2010b) aims inter alia at ensuring a decent standard of living for farmers and viable 
rural communities. Agriculture is a key vector for poverty reduction, in rural areas in 
particular. 

—  Similarly,  the  common  fisheries  policy  (European  Commission,  2013c)  aims  at 

achieving a fair standard of living for fishermen and fishing communities. 

—  The European disability strategy 2010-2020 (European Commission, 2010c) aims 
at  supporting  the  implementation  in  the  EU  of  the  UN  Convention  on  the  Rights  of 
Persons with Disabilities. One key issue is to reduce the current existing poverty-risk 
gap between those with disabilities and the rest of the population. 

—  The  European  Solidarity  Corps  (European  Commission,  2017)  enables  young 
people  across  the  EU  to  volunteer  their  help  where  it  is  needed  most,  for  example 
related  to  activities  addressing  social  challenges,  such  as  social  exclusion  and 
poverty. 

—  In  the  2014-2020  funding  period  more  than  EUR 100 billion  from  the  European 
Regional Development Fund (EU, 2013d) will be invested in cities to create better 
opportunities  for  sustainable  urban  mobility,  energy  efficiency,  urban  renewal, 
research  and  innovation  capacity  and  economic  and  social  regeneration  of  deprived 
communities. Linked to this, the  EU’s urban agenda  was adopted in 2016 and seeks 
to  ensure  that  urban  areas  will  benefit  from  an  innovative  collaborative  approach  to 
developing  and  implementing  policies  with  a  local  focus  but  a  significant  European 
dimension. 

—  One  of  the  horizontal  priority  objectives  of  the  seventh  environment  action 
programme  (EU,  2013e),  the  agreed  framework  for  EU  environment  policy  until 
2020,  is  to  make  the  EU’s  cities  more  sustainable.  Many  of  the  EU’s  policies  and 
legislative instruments are vital for sustainable urban development, such as the clean 
air  package,  air  quality  and  noise  legislation,  the  circular  economy  package, 
legislation  on  the  environmental  assessment  of  projects  and  plans,  the  EU’s 
biodiversity and green infrastructure strategies, drinking water and urban wastewater 
treatment legislation and the framework on the energy performance of buildings. 

—  Innovation in urban areas is fostered through EU research and innovation actions, for 
example  Horizon  2020  (EU,  2013f)  support  for  the  transition  to  sustainable  cities 
through nature-based solutions and cultural heritage-led regeneration. 

19 

 
—  The  EU  policy  on  smart  cities,  and  more  specifically  the  European  Innovation 
Partnership  on  Smart  Cities  and  Communities  (European  Commission,  2012), 
brings  together  cities,  industry  and  citizens  to  improve  urban  life  through  more 
sustainable integrated solutions. 

—  The  Europe  2020  strategy  (European  Commission,  2010d),  and  more  specifically 
the headline targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20 % compared to 1990 (or 
even  30 %  if  the  conditions  are  right),  to  ensure  20 %  energy  is  provided  by 
renewable sources and to ensure a 20 % increase in energy efficiency. 

—  The energy union (European Commission, 2015a), which supports the shift towards 
a resource-efficient, low-carbon economy to achieve sustainable growth. A legislative 
framework is being put in place to support these policies. Most importantly, within its 
energy union the EU has set up a 2030 climate and energy policy framework that sets 
three  key  targets  for  the  year  2030:  a  cut  of  at  least  40 %  in  greenhouse  gas 
emissions (compared to 1990 levels), a share of at least 27 % for renewable energy 
and an improvement of at least 27 % in energy efficiency. 

—  The  emissions  trading  system  (ETS;  European  Commission,  2003),  the  EU’s  key 
tool for cutting greenhouse gas emissions from large-scale facilities in the power and 
industry  sectors,  and  in  the  aviation  sector.  The  Commission  has  already  made  a 
proposal  for  a  revision  of  the  ETS  for  the  period  after  2020  to  ensure  the  EU  meets 
the  2030  greenhouse  gas  emission-reduction  targets.  National  emission-reduction 
targets  cover  those  sectors  that  are  not  in  the  ETS  (such  as  building,  agriculture, 
waste  and  transport,  excluding  aviation).  The  emission-reduction  targets  are  set  for 
the  period  up  to  2020,  and  the  Commission  recently  adopted  a  proposal  for  targets 
up to 2030, including how to integrate the land-use sector into the EU 2030  climate 
and  energy  framework.  These  proposals  will  ensure  the  EU  is  on  track  to  reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions domestically by at least 40 % by 2030. 

—  The  full  implementation  of  the  circular  economy  package  (European  Commission, 
2015c) will direct resources and  efforts in the direction of technologies and business 
models that will be more resource and energy efficient, thus contributing significantly 
to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. 

In  a  particular  reference  to  climate-change  mitigation,  it  is  important  to  stress  that 
binding  energy  efficiency  and  renewable  energy  measures  are  in  place,  supported  by 
numerous  sectoral  policies  that  contribute  to  reducing  emissions.  These  include 
regulations  improving  the  efficiency  of  appliances  and  other  tools,  standards  improving 
the  CO2  efficiency  of  cars  and  policies  improving  the  energy  performance  of  buildings, 
among other things. In order to  respond to  challenges and investment needs  related to 
climate  change,  the  EU  aims  to  spend  at  least  20 %  of  its  budget  in  the  2014-2020 
period  on  climate-change-related  actions.  To  achieve  this  increase  climate  actions  have 
been  integrated  into  all  major  EU  spending  programmes,  in  particular  cohesion  policy, 
energy, transport, research and innovation, agriculture and rural development. 

20 

 
4.  Next steps and final remarks 

As referred to early in Section 2, the response requirements of Member States in relation 
to the different EU policies allow countries to respond to other international agreements 
as  well.  The  minimum  requirements  to  allow  effective  sharing  between  different 
stakeholders (including the European Commission and Member States) were synthesised 
in the document Guidance for recording and sharing disaster damage and loss data (JRC, 
2015; Tables 7 to 9). 

The UNISDR-based OIEWG proposes a set of indicators, metadata and methodologies for 
the SFDRR that closely follow the EU report recommendations, with some simplifications 
(and,  in  some  cases,  in-depth  developments)  related  to  the  global  scale  of  the 
agreement,  and  the  greater  variability  on  loss  data  quality  recording  and  processing 
among UN member states. This confirms that, for EU Member States, a single and unified 
disaster loss database may respond to a wide set of policy and agreement requirements, 
at both the EU and the global level. 

More importantly, using already existing statistical information on exposed people, assets 
and  activities,  and  through  a  shared,  thorough  and  accurate  process  of  recording  and 
reporting  disaster  losses,  Member  States  have  the  possibility  of  building  up  their  own 
national  disaster  loss  database,  tailored  to  their  specific  needs  and  requirements,  but 
transferable  and  comparable  with  other  Member  States  by  relying  on  a  common  set  of 
basic  indicators,  metadata  and  methodologies.  While  allowing  for  much  more  efficient 
DRM,  these  databases  will  also  easily  deliver  any  requirements  from  EU  policies  and 
international agreements. 

Similarly,  indirect  impacts,  which  often  exceed  direct  ones,  need  to  be  approached  as 
quantitatively  as  possible,  either  by  using  indirect  indicators,  by  taking  cascade  effects 
into consideration, by conducting quantifying surveys or by other methods, as long as a 
certain degree of error and uncertainty are taken in consideration and explicitly reported. 

New approaches are needed that include other sectoral needs for loss data, such as the 
insurance  schemes  conducted  by  both  private  companies  and  public  schemes,  which 
need  data  to  assess  damages  and  calculate  liabilities,  or  the  standard  Eurocodes  for 
rebuilding  (structural  design)  which  require  data  for  assessing  the  vulnerability  of  built 
assets. 

Finally,  modellers  ought  to  be  consulted  in  order  to  confirm  what  specific  data  are 
required  to  feed  each  model,  either  as  input  data  or  for  the  validation  of  outputs. 
Collection  methods,  the  embedded  level  of  uncertainty  and  the  geographic  level  of 
disaggregation are all aspects to be taken into consideration. This bridging effort, linking 
scientific and policy requirements and actors, is at the heart of the DRMKC’s mission, and 
will  be  the  focus  of  future  research  and  developments  in  this  field.  This  would  greatly 
contribute to another major step envisaged for the near future, which will be to connect 
national  databases  to  allow  common  collecting  and  reporting  mechanisms  (serving 
Member  States  at  first,  but  also  EU  and  global  policy  requirements),  and  building  up  a 
common EU repository, within the framework of global policies and initiatives. 

As  a  final  word,  we  should  underline  that  although  the  timings  for  loss  data  collection 
(post-disaster)  and  reporting  are  necessarily  different,  one  mechanism  feeds  the  other, 
and both should be consistent in terms of methodologies, metadata and procedures, and 
also  in  terms  of  the  roles  and  mandates  of  relevant  stakeholders  and  institutions,  for 
specific scales and scopes of action. On these grounds, shared efforts should be made to 
put  in  place  a  cross-policy  EU  process  for  collecting  and  reporting  disaster  and  damage 
loss  data,  in  order  to  support  the  EU’s  efforts  to  improve  DRM  and  increase  resilience 
across the territory of the European Union. 

21 

 
References 

De  Groeve,  T.,  Poljansek,  K.  and  Ehrlich,  D.  (2013),  Recording  disaster  losses 
recommendations  for  a  European  approach,  Publications  Office  of  the  European  Union, 
Luxembourg. 

De Groeve, T., Poljansek, K., Ehrlich, D. and Corbane, C. (2014), Current status and best 
practices  for  disaster  loss  data  recording  in  EU  Member  States,  Joint  Research  Centre 
Institute for the Protection and the Security of the Citizen, Ispra, Italy. 

EU (2012), Directive 2012/18/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 
2012  on  the  control  of  major-accident  hazards  involving  dangerous  substances, 
amending  and  subsequently  repealing  Council Directive  96/82/EC,  OJ  L 197,  24.7.2012, 
pp. 1-37. 

EU (2013a), Regulation No 1300/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 17 December 2013 on the Cohesion Fund, OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, pp. 281-288. 

EU (2013b), Decision No 1313/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
17 December  2013  on  a  Union  Civil  Protection  Mechanism,  OJ  L 347,  20.12.2013, 
pp. 924-947. 

EU (2013c), Regulation  No 1380/2013  of the  European Parliament and of the  Council of 
11 December 2013 on the common fisheries policy, OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, pp. 22-61. 

EU (2013d), Regulation No 1301/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
17 December  2013  on  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  and  on  specific 
provisions  concerning  the  investment  for  growth  and  jobs  goal,  OJ  L 347,  20.12.2013, 
pp. 289-302. 

EU  (2013e),  Decision  No 1386/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of 
20 November  2013  on  a  general  Union  environment  action  programme  to  2020  ‘Living 
well, within the limits of our planet’, OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, pp. 171-200. 

EU  (2013f),  Regulation  No 1291/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of 
11 December 2013 establishing Horizon 2020 — the framework programme for research 
and innovation (2014-2020), OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, pp. 104-173. 

EU  (2014),  Regulation  No 661/2014  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of 
15 May 2014 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 establishing the European 
Union Solidarity Fund, OJ L 189, 27.6.2014, pp. 143-154. 

European  Commission  (2003),  Directive  2003/87/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of 
the  Council  of  13 October  2003  establishing  a  scheme  for  greenhouse  gas  emission 
allowance trading within the Community, OJ L 275, 25.10.2003, pp. 32-46. 

European Commission (2007a), Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of 
the  Council  of  23  October  2007  on  the  assessment  and  management  of  flood  risks,  OJ 
L 288, 6.11.2007, pp. 27-34. 

European  Commission  (2007b),  Directive  2007/2/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of 
the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in the 
European Community (Inspire), OJ L 108, 25.04.2007. 

European  Commission  (2008),  Council  Directive  2008/114/EC  of  8 December  2008  on 
the identification and designation of European critical infrastructures and the assessment 
of the need to improve their protection, OJ L 345, 23.12.2008, pp. 75-82. 

European Commission (2010a), Commission staff working paper — Risk assessment and 
mapping guidelines for disaster management, SEC(2010) 1626. 

European  Commission  (2010b),  Commission  communication —  The  CAP  towards  2020: 
future, 
meeting  the 
COM(2010) 672. 

food,  natural  resources  and  territorial  challenges  of  the 

22 

 
European  Commission  (2010c),  Commission  communication —  European  disability 
strategy 2010-2020: a renewed commitment to a barrier-free Europe, COM(2010) 636. 

European  Commission  (2010d),  Commission  communication —  Europe  2020 —  A 
strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’, COM(2010) 2020. 

European  Commission  (2012),  Commission  communication —  Smart  cities  and 
communities — European innovation partnership, COM(2012) 4701. 

European  Commission  (2013a),  Commission  communication —  An  EU  strategy  on 
adaptation to climate change, COM(2013) 216. 

European  Commission  (2013b),  Guidance  for  reporting  under  the  floods  directive 
(2007/60/EC) — Guidance document No 29. 

European Commission (2013c), Commission staff  working document  on a new approach 
to  the  European  programme  for  critical  infrastructure  protection  —  Making  European 
critical infrastructure more secure, SWD(2013) 318. 

European  Commission  (2015a),  Commission  communication —  Energy  union  package — 
A framework strategy for a resilient energy union with a forward-looking climate change 
policy, COM(2015) 80. 

European  Commission  (2015b),  Commission  notice —  Risk  management  capability 
assessment guidelines, 2015/C 261/03. 

European Commission (2015c), Commission communication — Closing the loop — An EU 
action plan for the circular economy, COM(2015) 614. 

European  Commission  (2016a),  Commission  communication —  Next  steps  for  a 
sustainable European future — European action for sustainability, COM(2016) 739. 

European  Commission  (2016b),  Commission  staff  working  document —  Action  plan  on 
the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 — A disaster risk-informed 
approach for all EU policies, SWD(2016) 205. 

European Commission (2017), Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and 
of  the  Council  laying  down  the  legal  framework  of  the  European  Solidarity  Corps, 
COM(2017) 262. 

JRC  (2015),  Guidance  for  recording  and  sharing  disaster  damage  and  loss  data — 
Towards  the  development  of  operational  indicators  to  translate  the  Sendai  Framework 
into action, JRC science for policy reports, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, Italy. 

UN  (2015a),  Sendai  Framework  for  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  2015-2030,  UNISDR, 
Geneva, Switzerland. 

UN  (2015b),  Transforming  our  world:  the  2030  Agenda  for  Sustainable  Development 
(A/RES/70/1, 25 September 2015), United Nations, New York, United States. 

UN  (2017),  United  Nations  General  Assembly  endorsement  of  the  recommendations  of 
the Open-ended Intergovernmental Expert Working Group on indicators and terminology 
relating  to  disaster  risk  reduction  (A/71/644,  2 February  2017),  United  Nations,  New 
York, United States. 

UNISDR (2016),  The science and technology roadmap to support the  implementation  of 
the  Sendai  Framework  for  Disaster  Risk  Reduction  2015-2030,  United  Nations  Office  for 
Disaster Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland. 

UNISDR  (2017),  Technical  guidance  for  monitoring  and  reporting  on  progress  in 
achieving  the  global  targets  of  the  Sendai  Framework  for  Disaster  Risk  Reduction — 
Collection of technical guidance notes on data and methodology, United Nations Office for 
Disaster Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland. 

23 

 
 
Annexes 

Annex 1. SFDRR global indicators 

24 

 
 
25 

 
 
 
26 

 
 
27 

 
 
28 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2. Relationship between SDG and SFDRR global indicators 

SDG indicators  

Goal 1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere 

SFDRR 
indicators 

1.5.1 

1.5.2 

1.5.3 

1.5.4 

Number  of  deaths,  missing  persons  and  directly  affected 
persons attributed to disasters per 100 000 population 

A1 and B1 

Direct economic loss attributed to disasters in relation to 
global gross domestic product 

Number  of  countries  that  adopt  and  implement  national 
disaster  risk  reduction  strategies  in  line  with  the  Sendai 
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 

Proportion  of 
that  adopt  and 
implement  local  disaster  risk  reduction  strategies  in  line 
with national disaster risk reduction strategies 

local  governments 

C1 

E1 

E2 

Goal  11.  Make  cities  and  human  settlements  inclusive,  safe,  resilient  and 
sustainable 

11.5.1 

11.5.2  

11.b.1  

11.b.2  

Number  of  deaths,  missing  persons  and  directly  affected 
persons attributed to disasters per 100 000 population 

A1 and B1 

Direct  economic  loss  in  relation  to  global  gross  domestic 
product,  damage  to  critical infrastructure  and  number  of 
disruptions to basic services, attributed to disasters 

C1, D1, D5 

Number  of  countries  that  adopt  and  implement  national 
disaster  risk  reduction  strategies  in  line  with  the  Sendai 
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 

Proportion  of 
that  adopt  and 
implement  local  disaster  risk  reduction  strategies  in  line 
with national disaster risk reduction strategies 

local  governments 

E1 

E2 

Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts 

13.1.1 

13.1.2 

13.1.3 

Number  of  deaths,  missing  persons  and  directly  affected 
persons attributed to disasters per 100 000 population 

A1 and B1 

Number  of  countries  that  adopt  and  implement  national 
disaster  risk  reduction  strategies  in  line  with  the  Sendai 
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030 

that  adopt  and 
Proportion  of 
implement  local  disaster  risk  reduction  strategies  in  line 
with national disaster risk reduction strategies 

local  governments 

E1 

E2 

29 

 
GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU 

In person 

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the 
address of the centre nearest you at: http://europea.eu/contact 

On the phone or by email 

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this 
service: 

— by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls), 

— at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or 

— by electronic mail via: http://europa.eu/contact 

FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU 

Online 

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa 
website at: http://europa.eu 

EU publications 
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: 
http://bookshop.europa.eu. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe 
Direct or your local information centre (see http://europa.eu/contact). 

 
 
 
 
 
K
J
-
N
A
-
2
9
0
8
0
-
E
N
-
N

doi:10.2760/840421 

ISBN 978-92-79-77803-2