Institute for Economics and Peace Development of Goal and Purpose Indicators for UNDP BCPR Trend Report April 2013 Page 1 of 60
Contents Background... 4 Indicator Summary... 7 Results and Reporting Overview... 8 Country Profiles... 17 Afghanistan Tier 1... 17 Bahrain Tier 1... 18 Bangladesh Tier 3... 19 Bosnia-Herzegovina Tier 3... 20 Burundi Tier 2... 21 Central African Republic Tier 2... 22 Chad - Tier 2... 23 Colombia - Tier 2... 24 Cote d Ivoire - Tier 2... 25 Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) Tier 1... 26 Gambia - Tier 3... 27 Georgia - Tier 3... 28 Guatemala - Tier 2... 29 Guinea - Tier 2... 30 Guinea Bissau - Tier 2... 31 Haiti - Tier 1... 32 Honduras Tier 2... 33 Iraq - Tier 2... 34 Kenya - Tier 2... 35 Kyrgyzstan - Tier 2... 36 Lebanon - Tier 3... 37 Lesotho - Tier 3... 38 Liberia - Tier 1... 39 Libya - Tier 1... 40 Madagascar - Tier 2... 41 Malawi - Tier 3... 42 Myanmar - Tier 2... 43 Nepal - Tier 2... 44 Nigeria - Tier 1... 45 Pakistan - Tier 1... 46 Papua New Guinea - Tier 2... 47 Senegal - Tier 3... 48 Sierra Leone - Tier 2... 49 Sri Lanka - Tier 2... 50 Sudan - Tier 1... 51 Page 2 of 60
Syria - Tier 2... 52 Swaziland - Tier 3... 53 Tajikistan - Tier 2... 54 Thailand - Tier 3... 55 Tunisia - Tier 3... 56 Uganda - Tier 3... 57 Yemen - Tier 1... 58 Zimbabwe - Tier 2... 59 Page 3 of 60
Background This report summarizes the trend results to emerge from analysis of the Purpose level indicator framework developed by IEP in November 2012. The methodology and indicator overview is provided in the IEP Final Report sent to UNDP BCPR in November of 2012 and updated with 2013 data in April 2013. This document should be read alongside November report. This document provides brief overview of the overall results of the focus countries most affected by Conflict and those most affected by Disaster Risk followed by country specific overview of each country s scores as measured by the purpose framework. The primary purpose of this work has been to develop a new set of composite indicators which will allow annual monitoring of development changes in relation to conflict and disaster risk reduction, and of the capacity to improve resilience within BCPR s focus countries. This work informs basic understanding of whether focus countries are improving or regressing in terms of their exposure to conflict and disaster, and correspondingly whether national and local capacities are likely to be improving or regressing in their ability to prevent, mitigate and recover from violence conflict and natural disasters. The framework is in two parts or purposes ; Purpose 1 measuring conflict, and Purpose 2 disaster risk reduction. Purpose 1 aims to capture the capability of national and local institutions to prevent, respond to and recover from conflicts and armed violence; and is measured with four sub-composite indicators; these are: Purpose 1.1: A reduction in the number of countries involved in political conflicts. Purpose 1.2: A reduction in the number of incidents of armed violence and crime in fragile and crisisaffected countries. Purpose 1.3: An increase in the level of civic confidence in fragile and Figure: Framework Overview: crisis-affected countries. Purpose 1.4: An increase in a country s governance capacity and socioeconomic recovery capacity. Purpose 2 aims to capture the capability of national and local institutions and communities to protect their lives, livelihoods and development gains from disasters and to recover from them; it is also measured by four sub-composite indicators, which are: Purpose 2.1: An increase disaster risk reduction (DRR) Capacity measured through Hyogo Framework for Action. Purpose 2.2: A reduction in the number of deaths from disasters. Purpose 2.3: A reduction in the estimated damage cost of disasters as proportion of GDP. Purpose 2.4: An increase in a country s governance capacity and socioeconomic recovery capacity. * Purpose 1.4 and 2.4 are composed of the same indicators. Page 4 of 60
Notes for understanding the data in this document -There are 15 indicators for Purpose 1 and Purpose 2 indicators. -A score of 1 is the best possible score, whilst a score of 5 is the worst. -In the graphs shown in the country summaries, 2013 is shown at the measurement year, where the data relates to 2012. -The rankings show worst scoring nations first. Comparisons are always to other focus countries, so care must be taken when taking the language which shows countries as above average. They are only above average in comparison to the average of the focus countries (naturally below the global average). -The data in this report is based on the latest possible qualitative and administrative data possible. The majority of data is from the 2012 calendar year. -Care must be taken when interpreting trends on the composite conflict and disaster risk score (P1 and P2). The purpose of analyzing country trends on conflict and disaster is gain a macro picture of the trajectory a country is moving in relation to the focus country average. To understand more detailed nature of changes one should look the full country dataset to understand specifically where progress or regress is being made. -The following countries are not included in the country trend analysis due to lack of data Fiji, Occupied Palestinian Note on Data Territories, Availability Somalia, and South Coverage: Sudan, Maldives and Timor Leste. As of 25 February 2013 this framework has the latest possible coverage of data. INDICATOR CODE INDICATOR SOURCE Location Data reference year Update date P1.1: REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF P1.1.1 P1.1.2 P1.1.3 Level of organised conflict (internal) Political Stability Political Violence Global Peace Index / EIU Global Peace Index / EIU Political Terror Scale - Gibney, M., Cornett, L., & Wood, R., Political Terror Scale 1976-2011. http://www.visionofhumanity. org/gpi-data/ http://www.visionofhumanity. org/gpi-data/ http://www.politicalterrorscal e.org/ptsdata.php 2012 03-15-13 2012 03-15-13 2011 03-30-13 P1.2: REDUCTION OF INCIDENTS OF ARMED IN FRAGILE COUNTRIES P1.2.1 P1.2.2 P1.2.3 Number of homicides per 100,000 people Level of violent crime Number of Deaths from Organised Internal Conflict Global Peace Index / UNODC & UN-CTS Global Peace Index / EIU International Institute for Strategic Studies Armed Conflict Database (IISS ACD). http://www.unodc.org/unodc/ en/data-andanalysis/homicide.html http://www.visionofhumanity. org/gpi-data/ http://www.iiss.org/publicatio ns/armed-conflict-database/; http://www.visionofhumanity. org/gpi-data/ 2012 GPI Qualitative assessments will be complete in April 2012 03-15-13 2012 4/01/2013 P1.3: CIVIC CONFIDENCE IS MEASURED IN PRIORITY COUNTRIES (FRAGILE COUNTRIES) P1.3.1 Perceptions of Criminality Global Peace Index / EIU http://www.visionofhumanity. org/gpi-data/ 2012 03-15-13 Page 5 of 60
P1.3.2 P1.3.3 Likelihood of violent demonstrations Control of Corruption Global Peace Index / EIU World Bank, World Governance Indicators http://www.visionofhumanity. org/gpi-data/ http://info.worldbank.org/gov ernance/wgi/index.asp 2012 03-15-13 2011 09-15-13 P2.1: INCREASE IN DRR CAPACITY MEASURED THROUGH HYOGO FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION SELF-REPORTING P2.1 HFA Monitor UNDISR HFA Progress Reports prepared and submitted by member states and intergovernmental organisations on a bi-annual basis. http://www.unisdr.org/we/coo rdinate/hfa 2012 Updated every two years. The data covers the 2011-2013 reporting year. P2.2: DECREASE IN NUMBER OF DEATHS FROM DISASTERS P2.2 International Disaster Database EM- DAT Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters http://www.emdat.be/databas e 2012 2012 data is available but would not recommend collecting until there is broader harmonizati on of other years. P2.3: DECREASE IN THE PROPORTION OF GDP LOST DUE TO DISASTERS P2.3 International Disaster Database EM- DAT Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters http://www.emdat.be/databas e GDP (Current year, $US) IMF 2012 P1.4/2.4: COMPOSITE FORMAL AND INFORMAL INSTITUTIONS INDEX (DEVELOPMENT) 2012 2012 data is available but would not recommend collecting until there is broader harmonizati on of other years. Should be updated only when EM-DAT data is updated for the 2012 year. P1.4.1/2.4.1 Government Effectiveness World Bank, World Governance Indicators P1.4.2/2.4.2 Rule of Law World Bank, World Governance Indicators P1.4.3/2.4.3 HDI UNDP P1.4.4/2.4.4 CIRI Empowerment Rights Index CIRI, The Cingranelli-Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Dataset http://info.worldbank.org/gov ernance/wgi/mc_countries.asp http://info.worldbank.org/gov ernance/wgi/mc_countries.asp http://hdr.undp.org/en/statisti cs/hdi/ http://www.humanrightsdata. org/index.asp 2011 09-15-13 2011 09-15-13 2012 2011 2013 HDR will be released 14 March 2013 Was due for December 2011, but has not been updated by CIRI yet. Page 6 of 60
Indicator Summary Indicator Code P1.1.1 P1.1: REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF Indicator Level of organised conflict (internal) Source Global Peace Index / EIU Qualitative Score P1.1.2 Political Stability Global Peace Index / EIU P1.1.3 Indicator Code P1.2.1 Political Violence Political Terror Scale - Gibney, M., Cornett, L., & Wood, R., Political Terror Scale 1976-2011. P1.2: REDUCTION OF INCIDENTS OF ARMED IN FRAGILE COUNTRIES Indicator Number of homicides per 100,000 people Source Global Peace Index / UNODC & UN-CTS P1.2.2 Level of violent crime Global Peace Index / EIU P1.2.3 Indicator Code Number of Deaths from Organised Internal Conflict International Institute for Strategic Studies Armed Conflict Database (IISS ACD). P1.3: CIVIC CONFIDENCE IS MEASURED IN PRIORITY COUNTRIES (FRAGILE COUNTRIES) Proposed Indicator Source P1.3.1 Perceptions of Criminality EIU / Global Peace Index P1.3.2 Likelihood of violent demonstrations P1.3.3 Control of Corruption World Bank EIU / Global Peace Index P2.1: INCREASE IN DRR CAPACITY MEASURED THROUGH HYOGO FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION SELF- REPORTING Indicator Code Indicator P2.1 HFA Monitor Indicator Code P2.2 Indicator Source UNDISR HFA Progress Reports prepared and submitted by member states and inter-governmental organisations on a bi-annual basis. P2.2: DECREASE IN NUMBER OF DEATHS FROM DISASTERS International Disaster Database EM-DAT Source Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters Indicator Code P2.3 P2.3: DECREASE IN THE PROPORTION OF GDP LOST DUE TO DISASTERS Indicator International Disaster Database EM-DAT Source Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters GDP (Current year, $US) IMF Indicator Code P1.4/2.4: COMPOSITE FORMAL AND INFORMAL INSTITUTIONS INDEX (DEVELOPMENT) Indicator Source P1.4.1/2.4.1 Government Effectiveness World Bank, World Governance Indicators P1.4.2/2.4.2 Rule of Law World Bank, World Governance Indicators P1.4.3/2.4.3 HDI UNDP P1.4.4/2.4.4 CIRI Empowerment Rights Index CIRI, The Cingranelli-Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Dataset Page 7 of 60
Results and Reporting Overview Table 1: UNDP Focus Country ranked by Purpose 1: Conflict (2012) Purpose 1 aims to capture the capability of national and local institutions to prevent, respond to and recover from conflicts and armed violence; and is measured with four sub-composite indicators CONFLICT Country UNDP Focus Tier 2013 Score 2013 Rank 2012 Rank Afghanistan Tier 1 4.46 44 42 Democratic Republic of Congo Tier 1 4.20 43 40 Syria Tier 2 3.92 42 30 Central African Republic Tier 2 3.92 41 35 Iraq Tier 2 3.90 40 41 Nigeria Tier 1 3.85 39 38 Sudan Tier 1 3.78 38 39 Zimbabwe Tier 2 3.73 37 36 Cote d Ivoire Tier 2 3.72 36 37 Chad Tier 2 3.60 35 34 Pakistan Tier 1 3.59 34 31 Yemen Tier 1 3.55 33 32 Guinea Bissau Tier 2 3.50 32 29 Libya Tier 1 3.48 31 33 Guinea Tier 2 3.44 30 25 Burundi Tier 2 3.38 29 27 Myanmar Tier 2 3.36 28 28 Kyrgyzstan Tier 2 3.24 27 19 Kenya Tier 2 3.23 26 22 Guatemala Tier 2 3.10 25 24 Papua New Guinea Tier 2 3.10 24 20 Honduras Tier 2 3.10 23 23 Uganda Tier 3 3.09 22 21 Haiti Tier 1 3.04 21 26 Bangladesh Tier 3 2.99 20 18 Tajikistan Tier 2 2.93 19 16 Colombia Tier 2 2.82 18 17 Swaziland Tier 3 2.81 17 14 Malawi Tier 2 2.80 16 #N/A Lebanon Tier 3 2.80 15 9 Sierra Leone Tier 2 2.79 14 15 Nepal Tier 2 2.78 13 12 Madagascar Tier 3 2.75 12 11 Timor Leste Tier 2 2.73 11 #N/A Gambia Tier 3 2.69 10 8 Liberia Tier 1 2.68 9 13 Page 8 of 60
Thailand Tier 3 2.62 8 10 Senegal Tier 3 2.55 7 7 Tunisia Tier 3 2.54 6 6 Lesotho Tier 3 2.44 5 5 Sri Lanka Tier 2 2.41 4 4 Bahrain Tier 3 2.40 3 2 Bosnia Herzegovina Tier 3 2.20 2 1 Georgia Tier 3 2.19 1 3 *Countries with no score are Fiji, Kosovo, Maldives, Occupied Palestinian Territory, Somalia, South Sudan. For Malawi and Somalia, the majority of data can be filled enabling one to make a simple average of the available data. On this basis Malawi scores a 2.32 which would place it in the top 5 countries least affected by conflict. Conversely Somalia would have a score worst in the list, at 4.83 for conflict. Table 2: UNDP Focus Country ranked by Purpose 2: Disaster Risk Reduction (2012) Purpose 2 aims to capture the capability of national and local institutions and communities to protect their lives, livelihoods and development gains from disasters and to recover from them DISASTER RISK REDUCTION Country UNDP Focus Tier 2013 Score 2013 Rank Democratic Republic of Congo Tier 1 3.17 45 Afghanistan Tier 1 2.87 44 Zimbabwe Tier 2 2.83 43 Guinea Tier 2 2.79 42 Libya Tier 1 2.74 41 Myanmar Tier 2 2.74 40 Papua New Guinea Tier 2 2.72 39 Haiti Tier 1 2.67 38 Chad Tier 2 2.67 37 Central African Republic Tier 2 2.67 36 Sudan Tier 1 2.66 35 Timor Leste Tier 2 2.62 34 Iraq Tier 2 2.60 33 Uganda Tier 3 2.56 32 Guinea Bissau Tier 2 2.54 31 Liberia Tier 1 2.51 30 Syria Tier 2 2.48 29 Kyrgyzstan Tier 2 2.47 28 Yemen Tier 1 2.46 27 Gambia Tier 3 2.44 26 Cote d Ivoire Tier 2 2.38 25 Bosnia Herzegovina Tier 3 2.32 24 Pakistan Tier 1 2.31 23 Tunisia Tier 3 2.30 22 Page 9 of 60
Honduras Tier 2 2.22 21 Madagascar Tier 3 2.20 20 Bahrain Tier 3 2.19 19 Burundi Tier 2 2.19 18 Lesotho Tier 3 2.17 17 Bangladesh Tier 3 2.13 16 Nigeria Tier 1 2.10 15 Nepal Tier 2 2.09 14 Maldives Tier 3 2.01 13 Fiji Tier 3 1.94 12 Swaziland Tier 3 1.92 11 Sierra Leone Tier 2 1.89 10 Lebanon Tier 3 1.86 9 Guatemala Tier 2 1.84 8 Malawi Tier 2 1.81 7 Senegal Tier 3 1.79 6 Sri Lanka Tier 2 1.75 5 Kenya Tier 2 1.74 4 Georgia Tier 3 1.73 3 Thailand Tier 3 1.63 2 Colombia Tier 2 1.59 1 *Kosovo, Occupied Palestinian Territory, Somalia, South Sudan and Tajikistan are not included on account of insufficient data. Table 3: Bottom five countries on Conflict in 2013 Bottom 5 in Conflict in 2013 Rank Country Tier Score 1 Afghanistan Tier 1 4.46 2 Democratic Republic of Congo Tier 1 4.20 3 Syria Tier 2 3.92 4 Central African Republic Tier 2 3.92 5 Iraq Tier 2 3.90 Table 4: Bottom five countries on Disaster and Disaster Risk in 2013 Bottom 5 in Disaster Risk in 2013 Rank Country Tier Score 1 Democratic Republic of Congo Tier 1 3.17 2 Afghanistan Tier 1 2.87 3 Zimbabwe Tier 2 2.83 4 Guinea Tier 2 2.79 5 Libya Tier 1 2.74 Page 10 of 60
Table 5: 2012 Results of Composite Formal and Informal Institutions Development Indicator Country 2012 Score for Composite Development Indicator 2012 Rank Democratic Republic of Congo 4.21 46 Zimbabwe 4.16 45 Afghanistan 4.03 44 Myanmar 3.95 43 Yemen 3.71 42 Chad 3.67 41 Central African Republic 3.66 40 Sudan 3.64 39 Nigeria 3.51 38 Guinea 3.48 37 Timor Leste 3.47 36 Cote d Ivoire 3.45 35 Iraq 3.38 34 Burundi 3.35 33 Haiti 3.26 32 Uganda 3.23 31 Libya 3.22 30 Pakistan 3.21 29 Guinea Bissau 3.20 28 Sierra Leone 3.20 27 Tajikistan 3.07 26 Liberia 3.03 25 Nepal 3.00 24 Kenya 2.98 23 Syria 2.92 22 Kyrgyzstan 2.89 21 Bangladesh 2.84 20 Swaziland 2.81 19 Fiji 2.75 18 Gambia 2.74 17 Senegal 2.69 16 Papua New Guinea 2.68 15 Malawi 2.62 14 Madagascar 2.61 13 Maldives 2.47 12 Honduras 2.41 11 Lesotho 2.35 10 Guatemala 2.34 9 Sri Lanka 2.32 8 Page 11 of 60
Bosnia Herzegovina 2.27 7 Tunisia 2.22 6 Lebanon 2.21 5 Thailand 2.11 4 Bahrain 1.76 3 Colombia 1.76 2 Georgia 1.68 1 *Note: Data insufficient for Kosovo, Occupied Palestinian Territory, Somalia, South Sudan Table 4 shows the 2013 score for countries (Relative Poor to Better) based on P1.4/P2.4 which serves as a proxy for institutional capacity. On this measure, Democratic Republic of the Congo has the poorest score for the composite score, showing relatively scores for the Government Effectiveness, Rule of Law, Human Development Index, and Human Rights as measured by CIRI. Page 12 of 60
DRR (2012) Figure 1: Correlation between Purpose 1 (Conflict) and Purpose 2 (Disaster Risk Reduction, DRR) r=0.63 3.30 3.10 Democratic Republic of Congo 2.90 2.70 2.50 2.30 2.10 Bosnia Herzegovina Bahrain Lesotho Gambia Tunisia Liberia Nepal Madagascar Guinea Papua New Guinea Myanmar Haiti Chad Zimbabwe Libya Uganda Central African Republic Guinea Bissau Tajikistan Kyrgystan Syria Cote d Ivoire Honduras Burundi Bangladesh Pakistan Yemen Nigeria Sudan Iraq 1.90 Georgia Swaziland Senegal Sierra Leone Lebanon Guatemala Kenya 1.70 Sri Lanka Thailand Colombia 1.50 1.50 2.50 3.50 Conflict (2012) Figure 1 shows the correlation between purpose 1 and purpose 2, showing that broadly speaking, countries that suffer from a high negative impact from disaster and have high disaster risk also suffer from conflict and poor capacity to deal with both disaster and conflict. The country with the worst score on both accounts is the Democratic Republic of Congo which would likely be accompanied by Somalia if there was sufficient data to cover all of Somalia s indicators. These two countries are followed by Zimbabwe, Libya, Sudan and Iraq. Conversely, the countries that suffer from the lowest amount of conflict and disaster relatively speaking on average are Georgia, Sri Lanka, and Bahrain. Countries below the line evidently suffer from less disaster and disaster risk versus the amount of conflict they suffer. This shows while some countries have relatively more severe conflict risk versus disaster risk, the two factors are correlated in quantitative terms. Page 13 of 60
2012 Conflict Score Figure 2: Conflict Scores Compared to 2012 UNDP Priority Tier The UNDP priority tier is broadly accurate in reflecting the intensity of conflict and the capacity to recover from conflict for the 50 focus countries. 4.5 Afghanistan 4 Democratic Republic of Congo Sudan Iraq Nigeria Libya 3.5 Yemen Pakistan Zimbabwe Cote d Ivoire Syria Central African Republic Chad Myanmar Haiti 3 Liberia 2.5 Honduras Guinea Burundi Guinea Bissau Guatemala Kyrgystan Kenya Papua New Guinea Tajikistan Nepal Sierra Leone Colombia Madagascar Sri Lanka Bangladesh Uganda Thailand Lebanon Swaziland Tunisia Senegal Gambia Lesotho Georgia Bahrain Bosnia Herzegovina 2 1 2 3 Tier The downward sloping line shows the priority of each focus country is broadly accurate on average in terms of reflecting the relative level of conflict within each country and the level of disaster and disaster risk. If the priority tiers were not accurate one may have expected to see a flat line or reverse slope. In terms of conflict there are some outliers, such as Iraq, Liberia, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. On disaster Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Columbia and Uganda can be considering as outlying countries which one may expect to be in a higher or lower tier if the priority system was reflecting all third party assistance, which it is not. Evidently these priority tiers only reflect UNDP BCPR priority and so one would not necessarily expect a perfect association. Page 14 of 60
DRR (2012) Figure 3a: Disaster and Disaster Risk Scores Compared to 2012 UNDP Priority Tier UNDP Priority Tier is also broadly accurate on disaster risk and disaster for the 50 focus countries 3.50 3.30 Somalia Democratic Republic of Congo 3.10 Afghanistan 2.90 Libya Haiti 2.70Sudan Liberia 2.50 Yemen Zimbabwe Guinea Myanmar Papua New Guinea Central African Chad Timor Leste Republic Iraq Guinea Bissau Tajikistan Cote Syria d Ivoire Kyrgystan Uganda Gambia Pakistan 2.30 Nigeria 2.10 1.90 Honduras Burundi Nepal Madagascar Sierra Leone Guatemala Sri Lanka Kenya Bosnia Herzegovina Tunisia Lesotho Bahrain Bangladesh Malawi Fiji Maldives Swaziland Lebanon Senegal Georgia 1.70 Colombia Thailand 1.50 1 2 3 UNDP Priority Tier Page 15 of 60
Figure 3b. Composite Formal and Informal institutions index compared to priority tier. UNDP Priority Tier is also broadly accurate on institutional capacity for the 50 focus countries, although there are some outliers in tier 2 and 3. Page 16 of 60
Country Profiles Afghanistan Tier 1 Conflict Rank: 44/44 (worst) Disaster Rank: 44/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 44/46 Afghanistan is below the average on almost all key indicators compared to other focus countries Afghanistan Conflict Trend, getting slightly worse (ignore 2009 year where data was inadequate) Afghanistan Disaster Risk Trend (showing improvement) Page 17 of 60
Bahrain Tier 1 Conflict Rank: 2/44 Disaster Rank: 19/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 3/46 Bahrain is above the average on almost all key indicators compared to other focus countries Bahrain Conflict Trend (deteriorating) Bahrain Disaster Risk Trend (very slightly deteriorating) Page 18 of 60
Bangladesh Tier 3 Conflict Rank: 20/44 Disaster Rank: 16/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 20/46 Bangladesh, while slightly above average compared to the focus country average scores poorly on P2.2 Bangladesh Conflict Trend (slightly above average for focus countries) Bangladesh Disaster Risk Trend Page 19 of 60
Bosnia-Herzegovina Tier 3 Conflict Rank: 2/44 Disaster Rank: 24/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 7/46 Bosnia-Herzegovina scores above the average on conflict but average on disaster risk reduction. Bosnia-Herzegovina Conflict trend has not changed since 2009 Bosnia-Herzegovina has closely tracked the focus country average on Disaster Risk Reduction Page 20 of 60
Burundi Tier 2 Conflict Rank: 29/44 Disaster Rank: 18/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 33/46 Burundi closely tracks the focus country average, but is slightly below average on conflict Burundi Conflict Trend (slightly below average) Burundi Disaster Risk Reduction Trend Page 21 of 60
Central African Republic Tier 2 Conflict Rank: 41/44 Disaster Rank: 36/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 40/46 Central African Republic is below average on both conflict and disaster risk reduction Central African Republic Conflict Trend (ignore 2009 where there was insufficient data) Central African Republic Disaster Risk Reduction Trend Page 22 of 60
Chad - Tier 2 Conflict Rank: 35/44 Disaster Rank: 37/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 41/46 Chad scores below average on both conflict and disaster risk reduction Chad Conflict Trend (ignore 2009 where there was insufficient data) Chad Disaster Risk Reduction Trend (Below average) Page 23 of 60
Colombia - Tier 2 Conflict Rank: 18/44 Disaster Rank: 1/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 2/46 Colombia is above average in all categories except P1.2, number of violent conflict incidents Colombia Conflict Trend (ignore 2009 where there was insufficient data) Colombia Disaster Risk Trend Significant improvements from 2011 to 2013 (data measures 2010-2012) Page 24 of 60
Cote d Ivoire - Tier 2 Conflict Rank: 36/44 Disaster Rank: 25/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 35/46 Cote d Ivoire lagging on conflict, close to average on disaster risk reduction Cote d Ivoire Conflict Trend (below Average) Cote d Ivoire Disaster Risk Reduction trend (very slightly below average) Page 25 of 60
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) Tier 1 Conflict Rank: 43/44 Disaster Rank: 45/45 (worst) Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 46/46 (worst) DRC is well below the average on both Conflict and DRR DRC Conflict trend (ignore 2009 year where there was insufficient data) DRC Disaster Risk Reduction Trend Page 26 of 60
Gambia - Tier 3 Conflict Rank: 10/44 Disaster Rank: 26/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 17/46 Gambia is above average in all areas except P2.1, HFA Progress Score. Gambia Conflict trend (ignore 2009 where there was insufficient data) Gambia Disaster Risk Trend Page 27 of 60
Georgia - Tier 3 Conflict Rank: 1/44 Disaster Rank: 3/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 1/46 Georgia is above average on all indicators Georgia Conflict trend Georgia has made improvements on conflict over the last three years Georgia Disaster Risk Trend above average, but slightly declining Page 28 of 60
Guatemala - Tier 2 Conflict Rank: 25/44 Disaster Rank: 8/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 9/46 Guatemala is average on conflict and above average on disaster risk reduction Guatemala is average on conflict and has very slightly decreased along with the average (ignore 2009) Guatemala has made clear improvements on disaster risk reduction Page 29 of 60
Guinea - Tier 2 Conflict Rank: 30/44 Disaster Rank: 42/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 37/46 Guinea is average on conflict and below average on disaster risk reduction Guinea conflict trend (ignore 2009 and 2010 which did not have enough data to complete the trend) Guinea disaster risk trend below average and slightly declining Page 30 of 60
Guinea Bissau - Tier 2 Conflict Rank: 32/44 Disaster Rank: 31/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 28/46 Guinea Bissau is slightly below average on both conflict and disaster Guinea Bissau conflict trend is not available due to data limitations Guinea Bissau is slightly below average on disaster risk reduction compared to the focus country average Page 31 of 60
Haiti - Tier 1 Conflict Rank: 21/44 Disaster Rank: 38/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 32/46 Haiti is slightly below average on both conflict and disaster risk Haiti s conflict trend has slightly improved The 2010 Haiti earthquake was the major shock to the trend Page 32 of 60
Honduras Tier 2 Conflict Rank: 21/44 Disaster Rank: 38/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 32/46 Honduras is notably below focus country average on P2.2, number of deaths from disasters Honduras conflict trend unchanged (ignore 2009 trend) Honduras disaster risk trend notable movement between 2010 and 2011. Page 33 of 60
Iraq - Tier 2 Conflict Rank: 40/44 Disaster Rank: 33/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 34/46 Iraq is significantly below average on conflict but average on two of the three disaster risk domains Iraq has seen improvements in the conflict trend (ignore 2009 where there was insufficient data) Iraq is below the focus country average on disaster risk reduction Page 34 of 60
Kenya - Tier 2 Conflict Rank: 26/44 Disaster Rank: 4/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 23/46 Kenya is average for conflict and above average for disaster risk reduction Kenya conflict trend has remained steady from 2008 to 2011 Kenya has made improvements in disaster risk reduction Page 35 of 60
Kyrgyzstan - Tier 2 Conflict Rank: 27/44 Disaster Rank: 28/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 21/46 Kyrgyzstan is average on conflict and disaster risk. It scores poorly on P2.1, HFA progress score. No meaningful conflict trend is available for Kyrgyzstan for the period. Kyrgyzstan is now slightly below average on the disaster risk reduction trend. Page 36 of 60
Lebanon - Tier 3 Conflict Rank: 15/44 Disaster Rank: 9/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 5/46 Lebanon is above average on conflict and disaster but average on P1.1 and P1.3 Lebanon has moved to be above average in the conflict trend in the past four years. Lebanon disaster risk trend has remained above average. Page 37 of 60
Lesotho - Tier 3 Conflict Rank: 5/44 Disaster Rank: 17/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 10/46 Lesotho is above average on conflict and average on disaster risk No meaningful conflict trend for the period. Disaster risk trend for Lesotho, slightly down. Page 38 of 60
Liberia - Tier 1 Conflict Rank: 9/44 Disaster Rank: 30/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 25/46 Liberia is above average on conflict and below average on disaster risk reduction Liberia has improved on the conflict trend (ignore 2009 where there was insufficient data) Liberia has slightly declined on the disaster risk trend Page 39 of 60
Libya - Tier 1 Conflict Rank: 31/44 Disaster Rank: 41/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 30/46 Libya is below average on both conflict and disaster risk Libya has seen a significant deterioration in the conflict trend Libya has remained consistently below average on the disaster risk trend Page 40 of 60
Madagascar - Tier 2 Conflict Rank: 12/44 Disaster Rank: 20/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 13/46 Conflict data is currently not fully filled out for Madagascar, disaster risk is above average. Madagascar has declined on the conflict trend, with a slight uptick in the previous year Madagascar has also declined on the disaster risk trend Page 41 of 60
Malawi - Tier 3 Conflict Rank: 16/44 Disaster Rank: 7/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 14/46 Malawi is below average on all of the conflict and disaster measures except for P1.2 Malawi has declined on the conflict trend Malawi has improved on the disaster risk trend Page 42 of 60
Myanmar - Tier 2 Conflict Rank: 28/44 Disaster Rank: 40/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 43/46 Myanmar below average on both conflict and disaster risk Conflict trend in Myanmar is below average over the period. Page 43 of 60
Nepal - Tier 2 Conflict Rank: 13/44 Disaster Rank: 14/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 24/46 Nepal Above average on both conflict and disaster risk Nepal has remained fairly steady on its conflict trend Nepal has made notable improvements on the disaster risk reduction trend Page 44 of 60
Nigeria - Tier 1 Conflict Rank: 39/44 Disaster Rank: 15/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 38/46 Nigeria is below average on conflict but above average on disaster risk reduction Nigeria improved then declined on the conflict trend, it is now well below the focus country average Nigeria has made improvements on the disaster risk trend Page 45 of 60
Pakistan - Tier 1 Conflict Rank: 34/44 Disaster Rank: 23/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 29/46 Pakistan is below average on conflict and average on disaster risk reduction Conflict trend has not changed significantly over the period Disaster risk increased significantly in 2010 and has since improved Page 46 of 60
Papua New Guinea - Tier 2 Conflict Rank: 24/44 Disaster Rank: 39/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 15/46 Papua New Guinea is average for conflict but below average for disaster risk Conflict trend has closely tracked the focus country average and not changed significantly The disaster risk trend has deteriorated in Papua New Guinea Page 47 of 60
Senegal - Tier 3 Conflict Rank: 7/44 Disaster Rank: 6/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 16/46 Senegal is above average on all indicators in the framework. Senegal has slightly declined on the conflict trend Senegal has also slightly declined on the disaster risk trend Page 48 of 60
Sierra Leone - Tier 2 Conflict Rank: 14/44 Disaster Rank: 10/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 37/46 Sierra Leone is above average on both conflict and disaster risk Sierra Leone conflict trend, very slight decrease (ignore 2009) Sierra Leone has improved on disaster risk trend Page 49 of 60
Sri Lanka - Tier 2 Conflict Rank: 4/44 Disaster Rank: 5/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 8/46 Sri Lanka is above average on both conflict and disaster risk Sri Lanka has recorded significant improvements on the conflict trend Sri Lanka has also improved on the disaster risk reduction trend Page 50 of 60
Sudan - Tier 1 Conflict Rank: 38/44 Disaster Rank: 35/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 39/46 Sudan is below average on both conflict and disaster Sudan is well below average on conflict and the trend has not significantly improved (ignore 2009) Sudan has made improvements in disaster risk Page 51 of 60
Syria - Tier 2 Conflict Rank: 42/44 Disaster Rank: 29/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 22/46 Syria is above average on conflict and disaster NOTE the conflict measures were taken prior to the full escalation of the civil war (March 2011 to March 2012) This shows the conflict trend declining for Syria up to March 2012 before the full escalation to civil war. The disaster risk trend has only slightly declined Page 52 of 60
Swaziland - Tier 3 Conflict Rank: 17/44 Disaster Rank: 11/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 19/46 Swaziland is below average on both conflict and disaster risk Swaziland has a stable conflict trend (ignore 2009) Swaziland has slightly declined on the disaster risk trend Page 53 of 60
Tajikistan - Tier 2 Conflict Rank: 19/44 Disaster Rank: - Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 26/46 Tajikistan is above average on conflict but below average on disaster risk reduction No meaningful conflict trend is available for Tajikistan for the period. Tajikistan has recovered after the decline in the disaster risk trend Page 54 of 60
Thailand - Tier 3 Conflict Rank: 8/44 Disaster Rank: 2/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 4/46 Thailand is above the average on conflict and disaster risk reduction Thailand has moved slightly above the average for conflict Thailand has returned to the 2009 level for disaster risk reduction Page 55 of 60
Tunisia - Tier 3 Conflict Rank: 6/44 Disaster Rank: 22/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 6/46 Tunisia is above average on conflict but scores poorly on P2.1 HFA progress score. Tunisia has declined on the conflict trend Tunisia has closely tracked the disaster risk trend Page 56 of 60
Uganda - Tier 3 Conflict Rank: 22/44 Disaster Rank: 32/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 31/46 Uganda is close to average of focus countries on conflict and disaster Uganda has tracked slightly down on the conflict trend Uganda has improved on the disaster risk trend Page 57 of 60
Yemen - Tier 1 Conflict Rank: 33/44 Disaster Rank: 27/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 42/46 Yemen is below average on conflict Yemen is below the average on conflict Yemen has improved on the disaster risk trend Page 58 of 60
Zimbabwe - Tier 2 Conflict Rank: 37/44 Disaster Rank: 43/45 Composite Institutional Capacity Rank: 45/46 Zimbabwe is below average on both conflict and disaster; the institutional capacity score is also very low. Zimbabwe has made improvements on conflict since 2010 Zimbabwe has made a slight improvement in the last two years of measurement on disaster risk. Page 59 of 60
For further methodology and references, please refer to the GOAL AND PURPOSE INDICATORS Final report dated November 2012 End of document Page 60 of 60