In order to improve disaster risk understanding and disaster risk management performance in Latin America and the Caribbean a transparent, representative and robust system of indicators was developed by the Institute of Environmental Studies of the National University of Colombia, Manizales. This system of indicators have been designed to communicate risk in the decision makers’ own language and to allow cluster and comparison between countries. This paper describes the current methodologies for each index and illustrates some results in each case.Four composite indicators have been designed to represent the main elements of vulnerability and show each country’s progress in managing risk. They are:

Disaster Deficit Index
Local Disaster Index
Prevalent Vulnerability Index
Risk Management Index

These indicators reflect the organisational, development capacity and institutional actions taken to reduce vulnerability and losses to prepare for crisis and to recover efficiently from disasters. This system of indicators has three specific objectives:

improvement in the use and presentation of information on risk. This assists policymakers in identifying investment priorities to reduce risk (such as prevention and mitigation measures), and directs the post disaster recovery process
to provide a way to measure key elements of vulnerability for countries facing natural phenomena. It also provides a way to identify national risk management capacities and comparative data for evaluating the effects of policies and investments on risk management
application of this methodology should promote the exchange of technical information for public policy formulation and risk management programs throughout the region.

The mainfindings noted include:

this study indicates that the countries of the region face significant risks that have yet to be fully recognised or taken into account by individuals, decision makers and society as a whole. These indicators are a first step in correctly measuring risk so that it can be given the priority that it deserves in the development process
the Risk Management Index is novel and far more wide-reaching in its scope. The authors discuss that in some ways this is the most sensitive and interesting indicator of all. It is the one that can show the fastest rate of change given improvements in political will or deterioration of governance
the construction of an effective common knowledge base for the system of decision makers responsible for disaster risk reduction is fundamental to achieving change in practice
the system of indicators has been opened up to scrutiny and discussion by international advisors, academics, risk professionals and a limited number of national technical and professional staff, but too few policy makers as such. The authors recommend a series of national dialogues where the derived indicator results and implications are presented to national level policy and decision makers. This would allow a testing of relevance and offer conclusions as regards future work on the program.