economic loss accounting in japan, tomoyuki okada mlit

Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism

Economic Loss Accounting in Japan

October 28, 2016

Tomoyuki OKADA

Director, River Planning Division,

Water and Disaster Management Bureau

1. Continuous improvement of disaster management system

2. Statistics and databases on disaster damages

3. Utilization of flood damage statistics

4. Criteria of cost-benefit analysis

• Direct and indirect damages

• Non-monetary evaluation

5. Conclusion

1

Outline

Responsibility of the National Government, Prefectures, and Municipalities (Articles 3-5): To Protect the land, and lives, health, and assets of citizens (of the districts) from disaster. Responsibility of the Residents (Article 7): To contribute to disaster mitigation and preparedness by protecting themselves, joining voluntary activities against disasters, and so on.

Objectives (Article 1):To protect the national land, and the lives, health , and assets of the citizens from disaster, and clarify the parties responsible for the same. (…) contributing to the development and promotion of comprehensive and systematic disaster countermeasure administration to maintain social order and ensure public welfare.

• Fundamental Act for Government’s disaster management

• Triggered by Isewan-Typhoon in 1959 (5,098 casualties)

• Enacted in 1961

2

Disaster Countermeasures Basic Act

Progress on Japanese Disaster Management

3

Progress on Japanese Disaster Management

4

Statistics regularly prepared by the national government

1. Statistics on water-related disaster damages Water and Disaster Management Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,

Transport and Tourism

2. Statistics on disaster damages to public infrastructure Water and Disaster Management Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,

Transport and Tourism

3. Annual report on disaster damages Fire and Disaster Management Agency, Ministry of Internal Affairs and

Communications

4. Survey on agricultural damages, farm product statistics Statistics Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

5. Statistics on disaster damages to farmland and agricultural

facilities Rural Development Bureau, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

Statistics on Disaster Damages

5

Actual damage caused by water-related hazards such as floods, landslides, storm surges, tsunamis, etc. (since 1961)

Damage to General Properties Buildings, household commodities, machineries

for businesses, agricultural products

Damage to Assets for Public

Services Transportation, electric power, gas, water supply

Damage to public Infrastructures Costs for recovery works, etc

Statistics on Water-related Disaster Damages

6

Query and view the survey data

Aggregate, organize, and

screen the survey data

•A general statistics survey based on the article 19 of the Statistics Act (approved by

Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications)

•Carried out by MLIT’s Water and Disaster Management Bureau in collaboration with

prefectures and municipalities.

National Government

(MLIT) Prefectures

Occurrence of

water-related

disaster

General assets Public infrastructures Public Services

Municipalities Municipalities

Prefectures

Prefectures

Public Services

Offices

Submit -Aggregate the survey data

-Calculate the damage

-Compile and publish Flood

Damage Statistics

-Upload the data to the

DB server of Flood

Damage Statistics

Develop the guideline of flood

damage statistics survey

(coverage and procedure of the

survey, survey format, fill-in

guideline, etc.) Submit within 45 days of disaster

occurrence

Access to Flood Damage

Statistics DB National Government

(Regional Offices, etc.)

Submit

Submit

7

Data Collection Process

Nishi-Biwajima, Aichi in Shinkawa river 8

2000 Tokai Storm (September 11-13, 2000)

Total economic loss

771,492 million JPY

87%

1%

11% 1%

General assets

Agriculture

Public infrastructures

Public Services

Obu City and Kariya City, Aichi (September 12, 2000)

Estimation of Total Economic Loss

Inundation in Nishibiwajima Town

Effect of Preventive Measures

Simulated

Damage for

same heavy

rain after the

completion of

Preventive

Measures

Cost of

Preventive

Measures

after disaster

Actual

Damage

670

Billion

yen

71.6 billion yen

Effectiveness

of preventive

project:

550 billion

yen

120 Billion

yen

Effectiveness

7.7 (=550/71.6)

The case of Tokai Storm on September 11-13, 2000

9

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

1

10

100

1,000

10,000

19

46

19

51

19

56

19

61

19

66

19

71

19

76

19

81

19

86

19

91

19

96

20

01

20

06

Flood Management Cost (Nominal)

GDP (Nominal)

Number of Fatalities

Number of fatalities (people)

Flood manegement cost (Nominal) (hundred of million yen)

GDP(nominal) <billion yen>

<600,000>

<500,000>

<400,000>

<300,000>

<200,000>

<100,000>

<0>

*Number of fatalities exclude those who dead by tsunami *GDP : 1980-2009(2000 price), 1946-1979(1990 price)

←

Typ

ho

on

Kat

hle

en

←

Typ

ho

on

Ion

←Ty

ph

oo

n K

itty

←

Typ

ho

on

Jan

e

←Ty

ph

oo

n R

uth

←W

est-

Jap

an F

loo

d

←

Typ

ho

on

To

yam

aru

←Is

ahay

a Fl

oo

d

←Ty

ph

oo

n K

arin

oga

wa

←Ty

ph

oo

n Is

e-B

ay

←Se

con

d T

yph

oo

n M

uro

to

←To

kai F

loo

d

←

Typ

ho

on

No

.24

, No

.26

←W

est-

Jap

an W

ater

Dis

aste

r

←

Typ

ho

on

No

.6, N

o.7

, No

.9

←Ty

ph

oo

n N

o.1

7

←

Nag

asak

i Wat

er D

isas

ter

←W

este

rn-S

anin

Wat

er D

isas

ter

←Ty

ph

oo

n N

o.6

, Lan

dsl

ide

in N

agan

o

←

Wes

t-Ja

pan

Wat

er D

isas

ter

←

Typ

ho

on

No

.17

, No

.18

, No

.19

Pyr

ocl

asti

c fl

ow

of

Un

zen

-Fu

gen

-Dak

e ←

Au

gust

Flo

od

in K

yusy

u

←

Deb

ris

Flo

w in

Kag

osh

ima

Har

ihar

a ←

Fuku

shim

a To

chig

i Flo

od

, Ko

chi F

loo

d

←D

ebri

s Fl

ow

in H

iro

shim

a

Ku

mam

oto

Flo

od

Number of Fatalities by Floods , GDP and Budget for Flood Management (2000 price)

10

Effect of Flood Management Investment

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

19

62

19

67

19

72

19

77

19

82

19

87

19

92

19

97

20

02

20

07

Damage to

General Assets

(10 billion yen)

Density of Damage

Cost

(thousand yen / ha)

Total Inundated Area (10,000ha)

Area of Inundated (Residential & Other Property) (10,000ha)

Density of Flood Damage to General Assets

Damage to General Assets (2000 Price)

20 10 0

Inundated area (10,000 ha)

Flood Damage Density (Economic Loss per Area)

Water-related Disasters Statistics in Japan 11

GDP and Budget for Flood Management (2000 price)

12

It is specified in Disaster Countermeasure Basic Act of Japan that

the government shall submit White Paper on Disaster

Management to the National Diet every year. It was first published

in 1963 and has been annually issued since then.

＜Disaster Countermeasures Basic Act of Japan＞

Article 9, section 2: In compliance with related

government ordinances, every fiscal year the

government must submit to the National Diet the report

on Disaster Management Plan as well as the overview

of countermeasures implemented for Disaster

Management.

White Paper on Disaster Management

Project Evaluation Criteria

[Evaluation Criteria] （River/Dam project）

(1) Necessity of the project

1. Changes in socio-economic situation

1)Impact of potential disasters

2)Historical disasters

3)Risk of disaster occurrence

4)Conditions of regional development

5)Regional cooperation schemes

2. Investment effectiveness

1) Cost-Benefit Analysis

2) Flood Damage Indices

3. Condition of project progress

1)Project adoption year, 2)Land acquisition and construction start year, 3)Condition of project progress

(2)Expected progress of the project 1) Future project schedule, etc

(3)Possibility of cost reduction and alternative options 1) Consideration of possibility of alternative options

2) Plans for cost reduction

6) Urgency of the project

7) Importance within the water system

(river project only)

8) Disaster information dissemination system

9) Consistency with relevant project

10) Possibility of alternative options

Re-

evaluation

New project

evaluation

←economic evaluation by Benefit Cost ratio (B/C)

←quantitative evaluation of flood impact difficult to

translate into monetary values.

The information considered for project evaluation includes not only cost-benefit

analysis but also necessity of the project, project schedule and expected progress,

and possibility of cost reduction or alternative options.

13

10. Increase in land prices as a result of improvement in flood protection

Direct damage

Indirect damage

Intensification benefit

3. Business interruption ・ Business interruption damage (household , businesses, public and public interest services )

・ Emergency response costs (household, businesses, public and public interest service)

4. Impairment of social welfare facilities (hospitals, social welfare facilities, disaster management facilities)

5. Economic impact (disruption of traffic , lifeline, cascading economic impact of damages)

6. Other damage (underground space, cultural facilities, waste generated by flood)

7. Psychological damage

8. Risk premium (insecurities due to possibility of damage)

9. Damages that cause permanent changes to the local economic system (Because the region as a whole is

severely damaged by a large-scale flood the economic system cannot recover to its pre-disaster state.)

( : Damages not considered in Cost-Benefit Analysis (difficult to monetize) but are quantitatively assessed

( : Considered in Cost-Benefit Analysis)

1. Damage to asset ・General property damage (houses, residential properties depreciable assets and inventory assets of

businesses, depreciable assets of fishing and farming properties, etc.)

・ Agricultural product damage

・ Infrastructure damage

2. Human damage (human loss, people isolated etc.)

( : Damages not considered in Cost-Benefit Analysis (difficult to monetize) but are quantitatively assessed

( : Considered in Cost-Benefit Analysis)

14

Consideration of damages with difficulty in quantitative monetary

estimation in the Cost-Benefit Analysis

Cost-Benefit Analysis

Categories Methods of evaluation

Manual Manual for Economic Evaluation of Flood Control Investment (April 2005, MLIT)

General conditions

Evaluation period The project implementation period plus 50 years after completion of the project.

Lifetimes of assets levee 50 years, dam 80 years

Evaluated damages

Direct damage property damage, agricultural damage, infrastructure damage

Indirect damage business interruption loss, emergency response cost at household levels

Calculating method of total benefit

Damage reduction, difference between the damages calculated for with and without project cases, is multiplied by the annual exceedance probability, and are summed up to calculate the expected average annual damage, which becomes the annual benefit. Annual benefit is accumulated over the evaluation period and the residual value of the asset constructed by the project is added to determine the total benefit.

Calculating method of total cost Project construction cost (including construction cost, land acquisition cost and compensation cost) and maintenance/operation cost

Social discount rate 4%（based on the real rate of interest of national bond）

Quantitative evaluation criteria Benefit Cost Ratio (B/C)

15

Methodology of Cost-Benefit Analysis

Inundation simulation is conducted for multiple flood sizes Inundation areas under pre- and post-project status are assessed

A) Inundation Simulation

River Improvement Plan

Compute expected damage for each flood size based on simulation results

[Amount of damage reduction for a given flood size] ＝[Expected damage under without-project state] －[Expected damage under with-project state]

[Reduction in expected annual damage]

＝Σ([Amount of damage reduction for a given flood size]

x [probability of occurrence])

B) Computing reduction in annual average flood damages

Total benefit＝Sum of [reduction in expected annual damage] of each year

Evaluation period: improvement period + 50 years Base year for discounting: the year the evaluation is conducted Discount rate: 4% Add residual value of the constructed asset at the end of the evaluation period

C) Computing total benefit

E) Computing B/C

[cost]＝[annual project cost] + [maintenance and management cost]

[total cost]＝ sum of [annual project cost] of each year

Evaluation period： improvement period + 50 years Base year for discounting: evaluation year Discount rate:4%

D) Computing total cost

Flowchart of Cost-Benefit Analysis

Source: “Manual for Economic Evaluation of Flood Control Investments” (MLIT, 2005.6)

16

17

Benefit Categories for Flood Project Analysis

Items Methods of evaluation

Manual “Manual for Flood Damage Indices Analysis” (2013.6, MLIT)

General conditions

Flood magnitudes

In principle damage reduction is not converted into expected annual damage reduction, but instead the magnitude of damage reduction is assessed under a specific size of flood, such as a design flood (single or multiple floods).

Evaluated damages

Direct damage Human damage (inundated population, expected loss of life, maximum number of persons isolated, etc.)

Indirect damage Damage caused by impaired social functions (medical/welfare facilities, disaster management facilities) Cascading impact (traffic disruption, lifeline, economic damage) Others (underground space, cultural facilities, debris waste generated by flood)

Computation of overall non-monetized impact

For each of the damage categories damages are evaluated quantitatively whenever possible, e.g., affected population, etc

Evaluation of Damages with difficulty in quantitative monetary

estimation in the Cost-Benefit Analysis in Japan

18

Quantitative Damage Estimation

Non-monetary Evaluation

items Consideration contents Items Consideration contents

1: Human damage

1-1 population in inundation area

5: Lifeline

5-1 population affected by disruption of electric power supply

1-2 number of vulnerable people in inundation area requiring assistance under disaster conditions

5-2 population affected by disruption of gas supply

1-3 expected loss of life 5-3 population affected by disruption of water supply

1-4 maximum number of people isolated 5-4 population affected by disruption of sewerage system

1-5 number of people isolated for more than 3 days 5-5 population affected by communication service (fixed)

1-6 total number of people subject to evacuation per 10 years

5-6 population affected by communication service (cellular phone)

2: Medical/soci

al welfare facility

2-4 number of impaired social welfare facilities 6: Economic impact within and

outside the

region

6-1 economic losses using economic models such as input-output inter-industrial relations, etc

2-5 number of users of impaired social welfare facilities

6-2 impact on supply chain caused by damage to high market share companies

3: Base facility for disaster

management

3-1 number of impaired major disaster management facilities (police station, firehouse, public office etc.)

6-3 number of listed companies suffered by flood

3-2 population of jurisdictional area with impaired major disaster management facilities

6-4 number of employees suffered by flood

7: Under-ground space

7-1 routes and stations, etc. of subway suffered by flood

4: Losses caused by disruption of traffic

4-1 disruption of major road 7-2 number of users affected by flooding of subway services

4-2 amount of traffic affected by disruption of road 7-3 flooded underground shopping complex/facility

4-3 increase in travel time due to disruption of road 7-4 number of users affected by inundation of underground shopping complex/facility 4-4 disruption of main railway

8: Cultural facility

8-1 flooded cultural facilities, etc. 4-5 number of users affected by disruption of railway

9: Waste

9-1 amount of flood disaster waste generated 9-2 management cost of flood disaster waste

Reference: “Manual for Flood Damage Indices Analysis” (2013.6, MLIT)

Categories of damages considered for non-monetary evaluation (quantitative impacts are analyzed)

19

Indire

ct d

am

age

Categories Indices Damage per unit

(depends on inundation depth ranks) Remarks

Business interruption Number of employees

20,734～102,880 (yen/person)

Emergency response cost at

households

Clean-up works Number of

houses 10,749 (yen/day)

Cost increase due to alternative

activities

Number of houses

82.5～343.3 (thousand yen/household)

Emergency response costs of businesses

Number of offices

470～6,619 (thousand yen/office)

Dire

ct d

am

age

genera

l asset d

am

age

Categories Indices Unit price of asset Damage rate

(depend on depth) Remarks

Residential Houses Total floor

area 135.8～226.3

(thousand yen/m2) 0.032～0.888

Damage rate depends on land gradient and sedimentation

Residential properties (content) Number of households

14,683 (thousand yen/house)

0.21～0.991 Damage rate changes by occurrence of sedimentation

Offices depreciable assets

Number of employees

1,115～49,950 (thousand yen/person)

0.099～0.995 Asset values for industrial categories. Damage rate changes with sedimentation

inventory assets 57～63,414

(thousand yen/person) 0.056～0.982

Asset values for industrial categories. Damage rate changes with sedimentation

Damage to fishing and

farming properties

depreciable assets Number of properties

1,900 (thousand yen/house)

0.0～0.725 Damage rate changes by occurrence of sedimentation

inventory assets 536 (thousand

yen/house) 0.0～0.845

Damage rate changes by occurrence of sedimentation

Agricultural product damage (rice paddy/field)

Amount of yield

11～2,145 (thousand yen/ton)

0.11～1.00 Set for each crop. Damage rate depends on depth and days of inundation

Infrastructure 1.694 multiplied by general asset (total value)

[expected damage] = [direct damage]＋[indirect damage]

[direct damage] = Σ([asset values in grid cell] x [damage rate])

[indirect damage] = Σ([number of asset units in grid cell]×[damage per unit])

References:

“Manual for Economic Evaluation of Flood Control

Investments” (MLIT, 2005.6)

“Property Assessment Unit Values and Deflators”

(2013.2 )

Direct and Indirect Damages

20

Damage rates are mainly derived from the interviews and surveys conducted in disaster areas.

Damage rates for residential houses

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0 1 2 3 4 5

Dam

age

rate

[-]

Inundation depth [m]

A-Group

B-Group

C-Group

Floor height

Reference: “Manual for Economic Evaluation of Flood Control Investments” (MLIT, 2005.6)

*Damage rate computed from ”Flood damage survey” 1993-1996 (Damage situations in flood affected areas were surveyed by conducting questionnaires and interviews)

(Damage rates in case of sedimentation are the conventionally used rates and are not based on the above surveys)

* The values reflect complete or partial destruction of the house

Inundation

depth

Gradient

Below

floor level

Above floor level Sedimentation

(Above floor level)

less than

50cm

50 – 99

cm

100 - 199

cm

200- 299

cm

over

300cm

less than

50cm

less than

50cm

A-Group

（I<1/1000） 0.032 0.092 0.119 0.266 0.580 0.834

0.43 0.785 B-Group

（1/1000≦I＜1/500） 0.044 0.126 0.176 0.343 0.647 0.870

C-Group

（I<1/500） 0.050 0.144 0.205 0.382 0.681 0.888

Damage Rates

21

Unit value of properties are revised every year based on the fluctuation in prices.

Property value of businesses Values of agricultural products （1000 yen/ton）

Unit price Unit price

Rice 200 Podded peas 1051

Wheat 53 Green beans 754

Soybeans 103 White raddich 65

Azuki beans 350 Carrots 108

Peanuts 460 Burdocks 194

Sweat potatoes 188 Taros 248

White potatoes 109 Apples 223

Cucumbers 237 Oranges 190

Eggplants 295 Chinese citrons 136

Tomatoes 278 Pears 282

Pumpkins 158 Persimmons 215

Watermelons 156 Grapes 774

Strawberries 815 Peaches 349

Green peppers 335 Tea leaves 654

Melons 619 Sugar beet 11

Chinese cabbages 53 Konjac 227

Cabbages 56 Tobacco leaves 2,145

Lettuces 131 Rushes 908

Spinach 372 Chrysanthemum 53

Long green onions 246 roses 63

Onions 97 Carnations 38

Cocoons

Fruites

Industrialcrops

Petals

Leaf andstem

vegetables

Name Name

Fruitesand

Vegitables

Potatoes

Beans

Vegetablelegumes

Rootvegetables

Reference: “Property Assessment Unit Values and Deflators” (2013.2 )

（thousand yen/person）

Depreciable assets Inventory assets

Amount of addedvalue

(Suspension ofbusiness)

Ｄ Mining 12,839 3,784 103

Ｅ Construction 1,472 3,649 20

Ｆ Manufacturing 5,107 4,527 28

Ｇ Electric/Gas/Heat supply/Water supply 109,953 5,455 54

Ｈ Information and communication 5,641 1,426 37

Ｉ Transport 5,178 1,254 22

Ｊ Wholesale/Retail 1,815 2,162 27

Ｋ Finance/Insurance 4,622 290 21

Ｌ Real estate 24,251 9,296 49

Ｍ Food/Hotel 1,943 154 22

Ｎ Medical/Welfare 1,712 57 14

Ｏ Education/Learning support 864 271 23

Ｐ Multiservice 4,622 290 22

Ｑ Service 4,622 290 22

Ｒ Public service 4,622 290 22

(Note）For industrial classification, refer to Japan Standard Industrial Classification（revised in March 2002）

Industrial classification

Unit Values for Damage Calculation

22

23

1. Data collection is supported by government regulations and systems.

2. Disaster data regarding large-scale natural disasters and accidents is reported to the national government.

3. Damage statistics is used for policy and project evaluation. Compiled long-term data shows national trend.

4. Estimated costs of infrastructure recovery is needed for declaring the state of disaster emergency, which leads to 10 to 20% subsidy increase.

5. Direct damage loss is supplemented by non-monetary quantitative data.

6. Ex-post flood damage loss survey and ex-ante economic analysis use the same calculation method.

Conclusion

Thank you.

Result of the Feasibility Exercise on indicators A-D

Setsuko Saya

Director, Cabinet Office, Japan

10 October 2016 Geneva

Open-ended intergovernmental expert working group on indicators and terminology relating to disaster risk reduction

Informal consultations of the Chair

Australia, Cambodia, Colombia, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Fiji, Guatemala, Indonesia, Jamaica, Japan, Mexico, Mongolia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Switzerland and the United States of America

25

1. Seventeen Member State assessed 35 indicators whether each indicator was feasible or not, and sent the result to the facilitator (Japan).

2. The facilitator counted the number of Member States which assessed each indicator as “feasible”, “not sure” and “not feasible”.

3. According to the result of 2., each indicator was categolised into: ① Strongly supported (more than 9 MSs :“feasible”) ⇒ 14 Global indicators

② Support is mixed (“feasible” = “not feasible”) ⇒ 6 Country specific indicators

③ Support is weak (more than 6 MSs: “not feasible”) ⇒14 Country specific indicators

Procedures

26

“Feasible indicators” are: • Data is collected by the public sector

regularly. • Data covers a wide range of hazardous

events. • Methodologies to collect /calculate

data are clear.

“Not feasible indicators” are: • Data only covers extreme events. • Definition is not clear/too much in

detail. • Some required items are not covered. • The private sector collects data.

Target A

Cod

e Indicators in the Concept Note

Number of countries Evaluation

Feasible Not

sure

Not

feasible

Strong/Mixed

/Weak

Recommended

global indicators

A-1 [Number of [deaths / deceased] and [missing [persons] /

presumed dead] due to hazardous events per 100,000.] 16 0 1

Strong

Country specific

indicator

A-2 Number of [deaths / deceased] due to hazardous events. 17 0 0 Strong Global indicator 1

A-3 Number of [missing [persons] / presumed dead] due to

hazardous events. 13 2 2

Strong Global indicator 2

Not recommended in the revised non-paper

A-1

alt.

[Number of deaths, missing, injured, displaced or

[evacuated] due to hazardous events per 100,000.] 7 0 6

Mixed

Country specific

indicator

27

Target B

Cod

e Indicators in the Concept Note Feasible

Not

sure

Not

feasible

Strong/Mixed

/Weak

Recommended

global indicators

B-1 [Number of affected people [by hazardous event / due to

hazardous events] per 100,000.] 11 0 5


B-2 [Number of injured or ill people due to hazardous events.] 12 2 3 Strong Global indicator 4

B-3

[Number of people who left their [places of residence /

home][and places where they are] due to hazardous

events. ]

9 2 6

Mixed Country specific

indicator

B-4

[Number of people whose [houses / dwellings or homes]

were [damaged / partially destroyed] due to hazardous

events.]

15 1 0


B-5 [Number of people whose [houses / dwellings or homes]

were [totally] destroyed due to hazardous events.] 15 0 0


B-6

[Number of people who [received / required] [food relief

aid / aid including food [and non-food] and medical aid]

[among other things] due to hazardous events.]

6 1 6

Mixed Country specific

indicator

B-7 [Number of people whose livelihoods were disrupted,

destroyed or lost due to hazardous events.] 4 1 11

Weak

Country specific

indicator

28

Target C Cod

e Indicators in the Concept Note Feasible Not sure

Not

feasible

Strong/Mixed

/Weak

Recommended

global indicators

C-1* [Direct economic loss due to hazardous events [in relation to global

gross domestic product.]] 6 0 10

Weak Country specific indicator

C-2* Direct agricultural loss due to hazardous events. 13 3 0 Strong Global indicator 7

C-3* Direct economic loss due to industrial facilities damaged or destroyed

by hazardous events. 6 3 7


C-4* Direct economic loss due to commercial facilities [and services]

damaged or destroyed by hazardous events 6 4 5

Mixed Country specific indicator

C-5* [Direct economic loss due to houses damaged by hazardous events] 13 1 2 Strong Global indicator 8

C-6* [Direct economic loss due to houses destroyed by hazardous events] 12 2 3


C-7* [Direct economic loss due to damage to [critical infrastructure / public

infrastructure] caused by hazardous events.] 13 1 3


C-8* [Direct economic loss due to cultural heritage damaged or destroyed

by hazardous events.] 5 2 8


C-9* [Direct economic loss due to environment degraded by hazardous

events.] 3 2 10


C-

10* [Financial transfer and access to insurance.] 1 2 10



C-

11* [Direct economic loss due to disruptions to basic services.] 1 2 10


C-

12*

[Direct economic loss due to services sectors (such as transportation,

tourism, finance) caused by hazardous events.] 3 3 11


29

Target D Code Indicators in the Concept Note Feasible

Not

sure Not feasible

Strong/Mixed/W

eak

Recommended global

indicator

D-1* Damage to critical infrastructure due to hazardous events. 6 1 8


D-2* [Number / percentage] of health facilities [including mental health

services] destroyed or damaged by hazardous events. 9 4 3


D-3* [Number / percentage] of educational facilities destroyed or damaged



D-4* [Number / percentage] of [major] transportation [units and]

infrastructures destroyed or damaged by hazardous events. 9 2 3


D-5* [Number / Length / Percentage] of [time / days / person days] basic

services have been disrupted due to hazardous events. 8 1 6


D-7* [Number / percentage] of security service structures destroyed or

damaged by hazardous events. 2 0 12



D-1 bis* [Number of electricity plants and transmission towers destroyed or damaged

by hazardous events.] 5 3 6


D-8* [Number / percentage] of tourist infrastructure facilities destroyed or

damaged by hazardous events. 4 0 11


D-10* Number of communication infrastructure destroyed or damaged by

hazardous events. 5 0 10


D-13* Number of agricultural facilities destroyed or damaged by hazardous events. 8 0 8 Weak Country specific indicator

D-14* Number of water and sanitation infrastructures destroyed or damaged



D-15* Number of days financial services have been disrupted due to hazardous

events. 3 1 10


30

Questions for discussion

• Proposed “global indicators” are not always “feasible” for all the Member States.

⇒ How to facilitate the data collection.

• Definition of each indicator could make difference on the feasibility assessment.

⇒ Clear and common definition is needed, while leaving flexibility for each MS to determine the proxies or components of indicators.

• How can compounded indicators become useful?

• Data collection for “relevant but not feasible today” indicators needs to be explored in the long term.

31

economic loss accounting in japan, tomoyuki okada mlit

Government & Nonprofit