The WorldRiskIndex 2021

Abstract

In many areas of the world, extreme natural events such as earthquakes, storms, floods, and droughts, as well as the steady rise in sea levels, are part of the reality of life for millions of people. Many of these phenomena will increase in frequency and intensity in the long-term due to the influence of climate change. However, the extent to which disasters occur as a result of extreme natural events depends not only on these phenomena but also on societal conditions and capacities: Disaster risk is particularly high where extreme natural events encounter vulnerable societies. Based on this understanding, the WorldRiskIndex allows an assessment of global disaster risk for 181 countries, covering almost 99 percent of the world’s population. It shows that Oceania is the continent with the highest risk worldwide, followed by Africa and the Americas. Vanuatu, once again, leads the country comparison, followed by other island states. In terms of vulnerability, the African continent is in focus. Over two-thirds of the most vulnerable countries are located there.

Full text

WorldRiskReport 2021
Focus: Social Protection

Contents
Key Findings ...............................................................................................6
1. Social Protection in Crises and Disasters ..........................................................9
Peter Mucke, Ruben Prütz
2. Focus: Social Protection .............................................................................17
2.1 Crisis and Disaster Preparedness
through a Global Fund for Social Protection .................................................17
Markus Kaltenborn, Nicola Wiebe
2.2 Access to Social Protection Systems
through Participation and Inclusion ........................................................ 26
Sascha Balasko, Oliver Neuschäfer
2.3 “Building Back Better” through Social Protection ....................................... 33
Mariya Aleksandrova, Daniele Malerba, Christoph Strupat
3. The WorldRiskIndex 2021 ...........................................................................41
Katrin Radtke, Daniel Weller
4. Requirements and Recommendations ..........................................................51
Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft, IFHV
Appendix ..................................................................................................53
Bibliography ............................................................................................. 60
5
WorldRiskReport 2021 5
WorldRiskReport 2021

Over the past year, the Covid-19 pandemic has
shaped both public discourse and much of the
political decision-making. Despite large-scale
vaccination campaigns in parts of the world,
the Covid-19 pandemic continues to have grave
consequences. At the same time, earthquakes in
Sulawesi and East Java, ooding due to cyclone
Seroja in Timor-Leste, and extreme heat in parts
of the United States and Canada claimed many
lives and severely damaged buildings and infra-
structure. In Europe and China, extreme rainfall
caused rivers and lakes to burst their banks in
many regions, causing severe damage to people
and buildings. The fact that in most cases disas-
ters could be prevented or mitigated in the after-
math of these extreme events is mainly due to
societal capacities. This is also illustrated by the
WorldRiskIndex.
The concept
At the core of the WorldRiskIndex is the percep-
tion that disaster risks are not solely deter-
mined by the occurrence, intensity, or dura-
tion of extreme natural events. Social factors,
political conditions, and economic structures
play an equally important role in the genesis of
disasters. Accordingly, the index is based on the
assumption that every society can take direct
or indirect precautions – for example through
eective disaster preparedness and -manage-
ment – to reduce the impact of extreme events
and lower the risk of disasters. In this sense, the
WorldRiskIndex provides an assessment of the
risk of countries to be confronted with disasters
resulting from extreme natural events. It does
not, however, indicate probabilities for the emer-
gence of disasters, nor does it forecast the timing
of future disasters.
The foundation of the WorldRiskIndex was
established by scientists of the Institute for
Environment and Human Security at the Unit-
ed Nations University in Bonn and members
at Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft between 2009
and 2011 (Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft 2011;
Welle / Birkmann 2015). Since 2017, the index
has been continuously evaluated, revised, and
adapted by the Institute for International Law of
Katrin Radtke
Senior Researcher at the IFHV,
Ruhr University Bochum
Daniel Weller
Research Associate at the IFHV
3 The
WorldRiskIndex 2021
In many areas of the world, extreme natural events such as earthquakes,
storms, oods, and droughts, as well as the steady rise in sea levels, are part
of the reality of life for millions of people. Many of these phenomena will
increase in frequency and intensity in the long-term due to the inuence of
climate change. However, the extent to which disasters occur as a result of
extreme natural events depends not only on these phenomena but also on
societal conditions and capacities: Disaster risk is particularly high where
extreme natural events encounter vulnerable societies. Based on this under-
standing, the WorldRiskIndex allows an assessment of global disaster risk
for 181 countries, covering almost 99 percent of the world’s population. It
shows that Oceania is the continent with the highest risk worldwide, followed
by Africa and the Americas. Vanuatu, once again, leads the country compar-
ison, followed by other island states. In terms of vulnerability, the African
continent is in focus. Over two-thirds of the most vulnerable countries are
located there.
41
WorldRiskReport 2021

Peace and Armed Conict at the Ruhr University
Bochum and Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft based
on new insights in the eld of risk analysis and
the latest changes in the availability of data.
The terms and components of the WorldRisk-
Index are described below (Bündnis Entwick-
lung Hilft 2011):
+ Risk is understood as the interaction of
hazard and vulnerability, it results from the
interaction of exposure to extreme natural
events and the vulnerability of societies.
+ Hazard / Exposure means that people are
exposed to the eects of one or more natu-
ral hazards – earthquakes, cyclones, oods,
droughts, or sea-level rise.
+ Vulnerability comprises susceptibility, lack
of coping capacities, and lack of adapta-
tion capacities. It refers to social, physi-
cal, economic, and environmental factors
that make people or systems vulnerable to
the eects of natural hazards, the negative
impacts of climate change, or other process-
es of change. Vulnerability also considers
the capacities of people or systems to cope
with and adapt to adverse impacts of natural
hazards.
+ Susceptibility is understood as the disposi-
tion to suer damage in the event of extreme
natural events. Susceptibility relates to
structural characteristics and frameworks of
societies.
+ Coping includes various capabilities of soci-
eties to minimize negative impacts of natural
hazards and climate change through direct
actions and available resources. Coping
capacities include measures and capabilities
that are immediately available during an
incident to mitigate damage. For the calcu-
lation of the WorldRiskIndex, the opposite
value, the lack of coping capacities, is used.
+ Adaption is, in contrast to coping, under-
stood as a long-term process that also
includes structural changes (Lavell et al.
2012; Birkmann et al. 2010) and compris-
es measures and strategies that address
and try to deal with future negative impacts
of natural hazards and climate change.
Analogous to coping capacities, the lack
of adaptive capacities is included in the
WorldRiskIndex.
The WorldRiskIndex is based on a total of 27
indicators, whose distribution and weighting
are shown in Figure 8. To ensure transparency
and reproducibility of the results, all indicators
are obtained from scientically veried, publicly
available data sources (for example World Bank,
WHO, UNESCO). Following the model, values
in the range from 0 to 100 are obtained for each
component of the WorldRiskIndex. On this
basis, the countries are divided into ve almost
equally sized classes (quintile method) and the
results are presented graphically in the form of
maps. This makes the results easily accessible
and allows for a direct comparison of the 181
countries.
Opportunities and limitations of the WorldRiskIndex
Due to changing data availability, the method-
ology of the WorldRiskIndex has been continu-
ously adapted in recent years (Radtke / Weller
2019). In doing so, it was possible to integrate
ten additional countries into the analysis. Since
even small dierences in the indicator values or
the number of countries can lead to signicant
changes in the ranks compared to the results
from previous years when using the quintile
method, a direct comparison of this year’s results
with previous results of the WorldRiskIndex is
possible only to a limited extent.
To provide users of the WorldRiskIndex with
the highest possible degree of comparability
despite the updates to the methodology, time
series for the years 2011 to 2021 were created
based on the current methodology this year to
supplement the current WorldRiskIndex. Meth-
odological notes and data sets are available at
www.WorldRiskReport.org.
The WorldRiskIndex is intended to raise aware-
ness of disaster risks among the public and polit-
ical decision-makers and to provide practitioners
WorldRiskReport 2021
42

with orientation for the prevention of humani-
tarian crises. To enable faster orientation, easier
communication, and visualization of the results,
it is necessary to reduce complex situations to
single numerical values. However – as with any
index – this strong abstraction bears the risk
that valuable information is lost and can only be
represented partially or not at all.
In addition, the methodology of the World-
RiskIndex reaches its limits when it is confronted
with larger quantities of missing values, since the
completeness and quality of the indicators are of
central importance for any index (Freudenberg
2003; Meyer 2004). Current data are not avail-
able for all 193 UN member states. Thus, Andor-
ra, Liechtenstein, the Marshall Islands, Monaco,
Nauru, North Korea, Palau, San Marino, Soma-
lia, South Sudan, St. Kitts and Nevis, and Tuvalu
were not included in the index due to too many
missing values in the vulnerability indicators.
Similarly, for individual territories that are not
full members of the United Nations General
Assembly or whose sovereignty is disputed inter-
nationally, many data points are missing. There-
fore, states such as the Sahrawi Arab Democratic
Republic and the Vatican were not included in
the WorldRiskIndex. Thus, missing values in
vulnerability indicators signicantly limit the
possibility of including additional countries in
the analyses of the WorldRiskReport.
Further diculties arise from the fact that meta-
data of indicators do not specify for every country
whether and if so which regions or territories (for
example overseas territories) have been covered.
To reduce the impact of this type of inaccura-
cy, external territories were not assigned to the
respective sovereign whenever possible. In cases
where this was not possible, population-weight-
ed averages were calculated (for example Serbia
and Kosovo) (Radtke / Weller 2019). It should
be noted, however, that this approach was taken
solely for methodological reasons and does not
reect political positions or the acceptance of
legal and political claims.
Results of the WorldRiskIndex 2021
The WorldRiskIndex 2021 again shows the great
heterogeneity of global disaster risks. It also
highlights the strong relationship of disaster
risk, geographic location, and social aspects such
as poverty, inequality, and their consequences
(see supplement and Figure 9). With Vanuatu,
the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Dominica, Anti-
gua and Barbuda, Brunei Darussalam, the Phil-
ippines, Papua New Guinea, Cape Verde, and
Fiji, ten island states are among the 15 countries
with the highest risk. Further island states follow
closely behind, with Timor-Leste, Kiribati, the
Comoros, and Haiti ranking 16th, 19th, 20th, and
21st respectively. In addition to cyclones, earth-
quakes, and droughts, the risk prole of many
island states is also increasingly determined by
sea-level rise.
Overall, it becomes clear that there is a strong
link between high exposure and high risk. Thus,
12 of the countries with a very high exposure are
also in the group of very high risk. In addition,
insights into the interaction of exposure to natu-
ral hazards and societal capacities can be gained
on the basis of individual risk proles. As the
examples of the Netherlands, Japan, Mauritius,
as well as Trinidad and Tobago show, low or very
low vulnerability can signicantly reduce this
risk.
A look at the ranking of continental medians
shows that Oceania carries the highest risk,
followed by Africa, the Americas, Asia, and
Europe.
Oceania: With 15.6 Oceania has the highest
median of all continents in the WorldRiskIndex.
The risk is, however, unevenly distributed: A
total of ve countries on the continent – Vanuatu
(rank 1), Solomon Islands (rank 2), Tonga (rank
3), Papua New Guinea (rank 9), and Fiji (rank
14) – are among the 15 countries with the high-
est disaster risk worldwide. Australia and New
Zealand show only a low risk. The heterogeneity
of oceanic countries is also reected in exposure,
with Vanuatu also topping the list with a score of
82.55 (rank 1), while Samoa is only low exposed
(11.46; rank 122). Vulnerability also varies,
with half of the countries – Papua New Guin-
ea, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Kiribati, and
43
WorldRiskReport 2021

Calculation of the WorldRiskIndex
Exposure
Earthquakes
1.0 × Cyclones
Floods
+
0.5 × Droughts
Sea-level rise
÷
Population of the country
Population exposed to
Susceptibility
Public infrastructure
0.29 ×
Share of the population
without access to basic
sanitation services
× 0.5
Share of the population
without access to basic
drinking water services
× 0.5
Housing conditions*
Share of the population living in
slums; proportion of semi-solid
and fragile dwellings
0.13 ×
Nutrition
Share of the population that is
undernourished
Poverty and
dependencies
0.29 ×
Dependency ratio (share
of under 15- and over
65-year-olds in relation
to working population)
× 0.5
Extreme poverty
population living with
USD 1.90 per day or less
(purchasing power parity)
× 0.5
Economic capacity and
income distribution
0.29 ×
Gross domestic
product per capita
(purchasing power parity) × 0.5
Gini index × 0.5
Exposure
Exposure × Vulnerability = WorldRiskIndex
Figure 8: Calculation of the WorldRiskIndex
WorldRiskReport 2021
44

Coping
Government and authorities
0.45 ×
Corruption
Perceptions Index × 0.5
Fragile States Index × 0.5
Disaster preparedness and
early warning*
National disaster risk management
policy according to report to the
United Nations
Medical services
0.45 ×
Number of physicians
per 1,000 inhabitants × 0.5
Number of hospital
beds per 1,000
inhabitants
× 0.5
Social networks*
Neighbors, family, and self-help
0.1 ×
Material coverage
Insurance
(life insurances excluded)
Adaptation
Education and research
0.25 ×
Adult literacy rate × 0.5
Combined gross
school enrollment × 0.5
0.25 ×Gender equality
Gender Inequality Index
Environmental status /
Ecosystem protection
0.25 ×
Water resources
Biodiversity and
habitat protection
× 0.25
× 0.25
Forest management
Agricultural
management
× 0.25
× 0.25
Adaptation strategies*
Projects and strategies to
adapt to natural hazards and
climate change
Investment
0.25 ×
Public health
expenditure
Life expectancy at birth
× 0.33
× 0.33
Private health
expenditure × 0.33
Exposure × Vulnerability = WorldRiskIndex
Vulnerability = ⅓ ×
(
Susceptibility +
(
1– Coping
)
+
(
1– Adaptation
))
* Not incorporated because of insufficient
availability of indicators.
45
WorldRiskReport 2021

Micronesia – having high to very high vulnera-
bility, Samoa, Tonga, and Fiji having medium
vulnerability, and New Zealand and Australia
having very low vulnerability. When looking at
the individual components of vulnerability, it is
striking that Papua New Guinea is among the top
ten countries worldwide with the greatest de-
cits in terms of adaptive capacities.
Africa: With a median of 8.93 for 52 countries,
the African continent carries the second highest
disaster risk of the continents, with Cape Verde
(WRI 17.72), Djibouti (WRI 15.48), Comoros
(WRI 14.91), Niger (WRI 13.9), and Guinea-Bis-
sau (WRI 13.39) recording the highest risks. All
these countries exhibit a combination of very
high or high exposure and vulnerability – apart
from Cape Verde, which has medium vulnerabil-
ity. The hotspot of vulnerability is in the Sahel
and tropical regions of Africa: a total of 12 of the
world’s 15 most vulnerable countries are locat-
ed in Africa. The Central African Republic is the
most vulnerable country in the world, followed
by Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Niger, and Eritrea. Looking at the individual
components of vulnerability, it is striking that
the category of highest susceptibility includes
almost exclusively African countries, with the
exception of Papua New Guinea, Haiti, Afghan-
istan, and the Solomon Islands. The situation
is only marginally better with regard to a lack
of adaptive capacities, as the lowest capacities
worldwide are to be found in Chad, Mali, Niger,
and the Central African Republic, together with
Yemen in West Asia. In a global comparison, this
category is, with few exceptions, also dominated
by Africa – a result that can be conrmed when
considering the lack of coping capacities.
Americas: With a median of 7.88 for 34 coun-
tries, the Americas have a slightly lower risk
than Africa. A total of 13 countries in Central and
South America, such as Dominica (WRI 27.42),
Antigua and Barbuda (WRI 27.28), Guyana
(WRI 21.83), Guatemala (WRI 20.23), and
Costa Rica (WRI 17.06), are in the highest risk
category. However, there are also countries in
the Americas with a very low risk. These include
Canada (rank 156), Barbados (rank 176), Grena-
da (rank 177), and the island nation of St. Vincent
and the Grenadines (rank 179), which has the
third lowest risk in the world with a score of 0.7.
Similar heterogeneity is seen in terms of expo-
sure, as Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Costa
Rica, Guyana, and Guatemala are highly exposed,
while the previously mentioned countries have a
low or very low exposure. The distribution is also
heterogeneous in terms of vulnerability: Haiti is
the only country in this continent that has a very
high vulnerability (67.91; rank 15), while the vast
majority of countries in the continent has a high
(8 countries), medium (14 countries), or low (9
countries) vulnerability. The category of least
vulnerable countries includes only the United
States of America and Canada.
Asia: In the global comparison of disaster risk,
Asia ranks fourth. With a median of 5.80 for 45
countries it stays well below the global median
of 6.60. Asia also ranks fourth with regard to the
individual components of the model, with the
exception of coping capacities, and is below the
global median in each case. A total of ve coun-
tries fall into the highest risk category – Brunei
Darussalam (WRI 22.77), the Philippines (WRI
21.39), Bangladesh (WRI 16.23), Cambodia
(WRI 15.8), and Timor-Leste (WRI 15.75). Sever-
al Asian countries, such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia,
the Maldives, Singapore, Oman, Israel, Bahrain
and Bhutan, perform very well in the World-
RiskIndex, particularly Qatar, which has the
lowest risk in the world. A clear risk hotspot is in
Southeast Asia, where high exposure meets high
vulnerability. This uneven distribution is relat-
ed to signicant dierences in exposure: Brunei
Darussalam, the Philippines, Japan, Timor-Les-
te, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Indo-
nesia rank in the highest exposure group, while
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Maldives, Oman, and
Bhutan are amongst the lowest exposures. In
terms of vulnerability, only Yemen and Afghan-
istan have very high vulnerability, most other
Asian countries have low to high vulnerability.
The fact that these two countries are among the
most vulnerable in the world is mainly due to
their very high deciencies in coping and adap-
tive capacities. Yemen ranks rst in terms of lack
of coping capacities and second in terms of lack
of adaptive capacities.
Europe: With a median of 3.27 for 40 countries,
Europe has, by far, the lowest risk of all conti-
nents and also ranks most favourably in all
other components of the global risk analysis.
WorldRiskReport 2021
46

Nevertheless, the continent’s countries dier:
Albania, the Netherlands, Greece, Montenegro,
and North Macedonia are at the top of the conti-
nent’s ranking with a medium to high risk, while
Malta, Iceland, Finland, Estonia, and Switzer-
land are at the lower end of the risk spectrum.
Exposure of European countries is rather low:
Only three out of 40 countries are in the group
countries with very high exposure: the Nether-
lands, Greece, and Albania. In contrast, 14 coun-
tries are in the lowest exposure group. Vulner-
ability is also relatively low, with 28 countries
in the lowest category. The countries with the
highest vulnerability in Europe are Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Albania, Moldova, Northern Mace-
donia, and Ukraine.
In addition to the analysis of disaster risks of
continents, important insights into the charac-
teristics of risks arise from the consideration of
economic capacity based on the World Bank clas-
sication of the per capita gross national income
of countries. For the relationship of disaster risk
to exposure, a linear relationship is generally
shown (see Figure 10). This results from the fact
that risks can only exist where exposures exist.
When economic capacities by income groups are
additionally considered in the analysis, a slight
dierentiation of the linear pattern emerges: In
case of similar exposures, higher risks are mostly
associated with lower income groups – irrespec-
tive of geographic regions. However, a country’s
exposure is shaped by geographic character-
istics, which is why the inuence of economic
capacities is only partially captured by the values
of the WorldRiskIndex here. This is reected in
the fact that the exposure medians of the income
groups increase by 15 to 20 percent compared
to the next lower class, while the increase in the
WorldRiskIndex medians turns out considerably
stronger at 50 to 80 percent – only the lowest
income group deviates from this pattern due to
its high share of African countries with medium
to low exposure.
The inuence of economic capacities on disas-
ter risks becomes clearer once the focus turns to
vulnerability. Despite the wide dispersion of risks
across income groups, it is evident that vulnera-
bility is inversely related to the level of econom-
ic capacity. While this nding was somewhat
expected, since vulnerability includes economic
aspects, the importance of economic capacities
in disaster prevention and response is clearly
Country grouping categories WRI ~
x Exposure ~
x
Vulnerability
~
x
Susceptibility
~
x
Lack of
coping~
x
Lack of
adaption ~
x
Continent
(based
on United
Nations)
Oceania 15.60 28.52 49.52 29.73 79.82 44.92
Africa 8.93 13.51 64.05 49.73 85.39 55.28
Americas 7.88 16.52 44.84 23.74 74.36 36.26
Asia 5.80 12.15 44.47 23.05 75.65 35.91
Europe 3.27 11.15 30.63 16.13 56.26 21.17
Economic
capacity per
capita
(based on
World Bank)
High
income 3.18 11.46 30.55 15.72 54.64 21.52
Upper middle
income 5.84 14.02 44.87 22.67 74.36 36.02
Lower middle
income 8.94 15.99 56.60 33.57 81.50 48.98
Low
income 8.93 13.31 68.00 56.27 88.53 60.11
World 6.60 13.13 46.37 23.72 75.08 38.42
Figure 8: Vergleich der Mediane der Ländergruppen (basierend auf WorldRiskIndex 2021)
Figure 9: Comparison of the medians of the country groups (based on WorldRiskIndex 2021)
47
WorldRiskReport 2021

0
10
20
30
50
Exposure
WorldRiskIndex
0 40 60 80 10020
Continents
Income
Africa
Americas
Asia
Europe
Oceania
high
low
lower-middle
upper-middle
Vanuatu
WRI 47.73
Exposure 82.55
Vulnerability
WorldRiskIndex
0 40 60 8020
0
10
20
30
50
100
Vanuatu
WRI 47.73
Vulnerability 57.82
Figure 10: Disaster risk, exposure, and vulnerability by continent and income group (data source: World-
RiskIndex 2021; World Bank 2021b)
Disaster Risk by Continent and Income Group
WorldRiskReport 2021
48

revealed by this dierentiation. Specically, the
medians of vulnerability and each subcompo-
nent increase between 20 to 60 percent moving
down the income classication. In other words,
higher vulnerability at comparable risks is found
in lower income countries. However, countries
with low economic capacity are not only more
acutely vulnerable, but also constantly threat-
ened by destructive cycles, because extreme
events often lead to a reduction in already low
capacities in these countries. This, in turn, can
trigger social instability and an increase in
susceptibility.
Conclusion
This year, the WorldRiskIndex again shows that
disaster risks are very heterogeneously distribut-
ed, while at the same time being highly concen-
trated. Global hotspots are located in Oceania,
Southeast Asia, Central America, and West and
Central Africa. Once again, island states are at
the top of the global risk ranking, as many of
these countries are not only highly exposed to
earthquakes, cyclones, oods, and droughts, but
are also increasingly threatened by rising sea
levels due to climate change – a critical situation
that will worsen signicantly if the international
community fails to take concrete action. Coun-
tries such as Mauritius and Trinidad and Toba-
go, which have been able to address their high
exposure with distinctive capacities, thereby
signicantly reducing their risk, demonstrate
that the strengthening of social capacities is
central to reducing disaster risk. These exam-
ples highlight that the fatal nexus of vulner-
ability and disaster risk can be disrupted by
targeted measures at the local, regional, and
global levels if social capacities are strengthened
through long-term development collaboration
and global cooperation. Against the background
that the risk proles of countries are becoming
more complex due to climate change and many
regions are facing new hazards, this is not only
a challenge for the international community for
the present, but a matter of great importance for
the future.
49
WorldRiskReport 2021

Appendix

Max. value = 100, classification according to the quintile method
WorldRiskIndex 2021 Overview
Classification WorldRiskIndex Exposure Vulnerability Susceptibility
Lack of coping
capacities
Lack of adaptive
capacities
very low 0.30 – 3.25 0.85 – 9.57 22.68 – 34.21 9.03 – 16.68 38.35 – 58.92 14.22 – 24.78
low 3.26 – 5.54 9.58 – 12.04 34.22 – 42.02 16.69 – 21.56 58.93 – 71.19 24.79 – 34.10
medium 5.55 – 7.66 12.05 – 14.83 42.03 – 48.32 21.57 – 28.16 71.20 – 77.87 34.11 – 40.66
high 7.67 – 10.71 14.84 – 19.75 48.33 – 61.04 28.17 – 44.85 77.88 – 85.50 40.67 – 52.59
very high 10.72 – 47.73 19.76 – 82.55 61.05 – 75.83 44.86 – 70.52 85.51 – 93.17 52.60 – 70.13
Rank Country WorldRiskIndex Exposure Vulnerability Susceptibility
Lack of coping
capacities
Lack of adaptive
capacities
1. Vanuatu 47.73 82.55 57.82 39.66 81.21 52.59
2. Solomon Islands 31.16 51.13 60.95 46.07 81.14 55.63
3. Tonga 30.51 63.63 47.95 28.42 79.81 35.62
4. Dominica 27.42 61.74 44.41 23.42 71.13 38.67
5. Antigua and Barbuda 27.28 67.73 40.28 23.80 64.41 32.62
6. Brunei Darussalam 22.77 58.17 39.14 15.33 68.13 33.96
7. Guyana 21.83 43.93 49.69 25.96 77.23 45.88
8. Philippines 21.39 42.68 50.11 28.63 82.14 39.56
9. Papua New Guinea 20.90 30.62 68.27 55.28 86.16 63.37
10. Guatemala 20.23 36.79 54.98 32.55 85.66 46.72
11. Cape Verde 17.72 37.23 47.59 28.86 72.71 41.21
12. Costa Rica 17.06 44.27 38.54 19.96 65.33 30.34
13. Bangladesh 16.23 28.11 57.74 32.57 85.57 55.07
14. Fiji 16.06 34.51 46.55 22.06 76.63 40.95
15. Cambodia 15.80 26.89 58.76 38.89 86.61 50.79
16. Timor-Leste 15.75 28.27 55.73 41.83 75.72 49.64
17. Djibouti 15.48 25.78 60.03 36.19 84.33 59.58
18. El Salvador 15.32 31.62 48.46 24.31 78.66 42.41
19. Kiribati 15.14 26.41 57.34 39.67 82.82 49.52
20. Comoros 14.91 23.62 63.13 45.93 85.39 58.06
21. Haiti 14.54 21.41 67.91 49.93 90.36 63.44
22. Nicaragua 14.12 26.02 54.25 32.27 83.29 47.19
23. Niger 13.90 19.27 72.15 61.72 87.91 66.83
24. Guinea-Bissau 13.39 18.88 70.92 60.17 89.20 63.39
25. Cameroon 13.07 20.35 64.21 47.38 88.58 56.66
26. Nigeria 12.66 19.64 64.46 49.70 88.58 55.10
27. Uruguay 12.53 35.97 34.83 19.22 54.25 31.01
28. Gambia 12.40 19.75 62.78 43.58 83.02 61.73
29. Jamaica 12.02 25.92 46.37 24.92 74.52 39.67
30. Chad 11.94 15.76 75.75 64.96 92.16 70.13
31. Benin 11.71 17.92 65.33 54.09 81.42 60.49
32. Dominican Republic 11.49 24.72 46.48 23.35 78.34 37.76
33. Chile 11.32 32.51 34.83 17.79 59.44 27.25
34. Honduras 11.23 20.66 54.35 31.62 85.74 45.68
35. Burkina Faso 11.19 16.59 67.48 57.08 84.39 60.98
36. Togo 10.99 16.60 66.23 55.77 86.14 56.79
37. Mali 10.71 15.61 68.64 49.75 88.60 67.58
38. Indonesia 10.67 21.30 50.10 26.06 78.71 45.54
WorldRiskReport 2021
54

Rank Country WorldRiskIndex Exposure Vulnerability Susceptibility
Lack of coping
capacities
Lack of adaptive
capacities
39. Madagascar 10.44 14.97 69.71 65.83 86.32 56.97
40. Burundi 10.42 14.88 70.02 62.29 90.43 57.34
41. Kenya 10.33 16.63 62.13 50.80 85.50 50.10
42. Angola 10.28 15.61 65.86 52.89 86.89 57.80
43. Viet Nam 10.27 22.04 46.60 23.73 76.73 39.34
44. Cote d’Ivoire 9.98 15.57 64.10 47.26 85.61 59.43
45. Senegal 9.79 16.50 59.31 44.64 77.87 55.42
46. Japan 9.66 38.51 25.09 17.92 39.42 17.94
47. Sierra Leone 9.40 13.65 68.87 55.15 85.39 66.07
48. Ghana 9.32 16.38 56.88 41.60 78.75 50.29
49. Zimbabwe 9.30 14.51 64.11 55.02 88.44 48.88
50. Mozambique 9.11 13.26 68.73 62.60 88.45 55.13
51. Mauritius 9.04 23.85 37.92 17.39 58.21 38.17
52. Malawi 8.94 13.97 64.00 56.49 83.21 52.30
52. United Rep. of Tanzania 8.94 13.35 66.98 59.46 84.68 56.79
54. Liberia 8.92 13.48 66.17 55.63 87.16 55.73
55. Ecuador 8.82 18.75 47.05 24.96 76.45 39.74
56. Dem. Rep. of the Congo 8.78 11.86 74.04 67.76 92.80 61.55
57. Trinidad and Tobago 8.67 22.58 38.41 18.99 61.24 34.99
58. Guinea 8.65 12.70 68.08 51.87 89.08 63.29
59. Uganda 8.64 12.88 67.07 61.54 88.05 51.63
60. Sudan 8.47 13.13 64.49 44.93 92.30 56.25
61. Albania 8.23 19.77 41.63 20.10 74.77 30.03
62. Mauritania 8.20 13.15 62.37 38.15 86.97 61.98
63. Afghanistan 8.18 12.27 66.63 48.57 91.40 59.93
64. Belize 8.03 16.73 47.97 28.20 74.46 41.26
65. Bolivarian Rep. of Venezuela 7.99 16.02 49.86 25.75 86.35 37.47
66. Netherlands 7.98 31.75 25.13 14.66 44.34 16.40
67. Ethiopia 7.93 11.75 67.52 56.76 87.35 58.45
68. Uzbekistan 7.91 16.28 48.56 30.25 75.65 39.79
69. Eswatini 7.85 13.54 57.98 42.35 82.62 48.98
70. Panama 7.76 17.74 43.74 23.03 73.03 35.15
71. Malaysia 7.73 19.09 40.49 17.05 71.19 33.22
72. Zambia 7.72 12.12 63.67 61.69 81.31 48.00
73. Algeria 7.66 16.61 46.14 22.24 76.81 39.36
74. Central African Republic 7.64 10.08 75.83 70.52 90.56 66.41
75. Rwanda 7.55 15.99 47.19 23.05 76.35 42.17
75. Sri Lanka 7.55 12.37 61.04 52.14 79.44 51.55
77. Suriname 7.38 15.24 48.41 28.82 74.70 41.70
78. Equatorial Guinea 7.29 12.73 57.28 40.64 86.57 44.64
79. Kyrgyzstan 7.25 16.49 43.96 24.59 75.22 32.07
79. Myanmar 7.25 12.92 56.11 29.42 86.27 52.64
81. Fed. States of Micronesia 7.11 14.03 50.71 31.04 72.21 48.89
82. Greece 6.93 22.23 31.18 17.42 58.93 17.20
83. Eritrea 6.87 9.66 71.09 63.28 89.71 60.29
84. Republic of Congo 6.84 10.56 64.76 54.39 88.63 51.26
85. Pakistan 6.80 11.95 56.88 33.57 84.71 52.37
86. Montenegro 6.75 17.80 37.92 18.57 68.20 26.99
86. Peru 6.75 14.92 45.26 26.29 76.22 33.27
88. Colombia 6.72 14.83 45.32 22.80 77.04 36.13
55
WorldRiskReport 2021

Rank Country WorldRiskIndex Exposure Vulnerability Susceptibility
Lack of coping
capacities
Lack of adaptive
capacities
89. Lesotho 6.66 11.10 59.98 43.97 81.50 54.47
90. India 6.65 12.52 53.09 32.15 78.70 48.42
91. Gabon 6.60 12.75 51.79 32.58 75.08 47.71
92. Thailand 6.52 14.79 44.06 17.62 78.65 35.91
93. South Africa 6.46 13.47 47.93 30.90 73.35 39.54
94. Mexico 6.03 14.20 42.44 20.86 74.25 32.20
95. China 5.87 14.29 41.08 21.64 71.42 30.17
96. Namibia 5.86 11.30 51.89 42.89 74.11 38.66
97. Tunisia 5.85 13.08 44.74 20.90 75.50 37.83
97. Turkmenistan 5.85 12.25 47.72 27.99 76.76 38.42
99. Tajikistan 5.84 12.15 48.06 32.57 76.27 35.35
100. Morocco 5.82 14.48 40.21 18.81 70.58 31.25
100. North Macedonia 5.82 12.12 48.00 25.02 79.35 39.63
102. Azerbaijan 5.81 14.21 40.90 18.46 72.00 32.24
103. Iraq 5.80 10.63 54.54 27.32 90.76 45.54
103. Syrian Arab Republic 5.80 10.40 55.77 26.86 87.89 52.57
105. Cuba 5.75 16.30 35.26 19.70 53.28 32.79
106. Yemen 5.72 8.27 69.12 44.85 93.17 69.34
107. Romania 5.71 15.39 37.11 19.47 63.14 28.71
108. Georgia 5.69 15.14 37.56 22.15 59.22 31.32
109. Samoa 5.54 11.46 48.32 25.56 79.83 39.56
110. Lebanon 5.49 11.61 47.31 20.26 81.00 40.66
111. Serbia 5.42 13.84 39.14 21.89 68.39 27.15
112. Armenia 5.40 14.23 37.92 19.62 65.37 28.76
113. Turkey 5.11 12.57 40.65 18.09 72.44 31.42
114. Hungary 5.07 15.24 33.25 16.07 58.89 24.78
115. Islamic Republic of Iran 5.03 10.90 46.15 21.67 82.62 34.17
116. Brazil 4.97 11.35 43.80 22.68 76.22 32.51
117. New Zealand 4.96 17.59 28.20 16.06 47.45 21.08
118. Seychelles 4.89 11.94 40.97 18.23 64.82 39.86
119. Italy 4.74 15.02 31.58 16.90 60.29 17.55
120. Plurinational State of Bolivia 4.71 9.49 49.67 31.83 79.79 37.38
121. Bosnia and Herzegovina 4.68 10.89 43.01 18.77 74.61 35.65
122. Nepal 4.66 8.51 54.76 32.90 83.28 48.10
123. Australia 4.54 18.07 25.12 15.66 43.67 16.02
124. Saint Lucia 4.52 9.83 45.96 23.68 74.26 39.95
125. Ireland 4.49 16.68 26.90 15.40 47.66 17.65
126. Lao People’s Dem. Rep. 4.46 8.01 55.64 32.86 82.91 51.14
127. Kuwait 4.32 11.90 36.28 14.12 70.09 24.64
128. Bahamas 4.27 11.63 36.74 17.68 58.92 33.63
129. Bulgaria 4.16 12.04 34.55 17.36 63.67 22.63
129. Croatia 4.16 11.93 34.90 21.11 58.78 24.80
131. Jordan 4.11 9.24 44.47 22.59 68.26 42.56
132. Republic of Moldova 4.00 9.63 41.51 21.56 68.87 34.10
133. United States of America 3.98 13.03 30.58 15.92 54.15 21.68
134. Botswana 3.94 8.23 47.86 32.44 71.83 39.30
135. Spain 3.62 11.77 30.73 15.86 58.22 18.11
136. Paraguay 3.56 7.43 47.98 24.11 79.92 39.90
137. Russian Federation 3.53 9.50 37.21 18.64 65.83 27.15
138. Argentina 3.52 11.60 30.38 16.60 51.49 23.04
WorldRiskReport 2021
56

Rank Country WorldRiskIndex Exposure Vulnerability Susceptibility
Lack of coping
capacities
Lack of adaptive
capacities
138. Portugal 3.52 9.60 36.63 20.35 60.27 29.27
140. United Kingdom 3.51 12.58 27.92 16.18 48.71 18.87
141. Kazakhstan 3.48 9.34 37.29 17.64 65.09 29.15
142. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 3.47 7.37 47.12 22.65 83.76 34.94
143. Slovenia 3.42 11.40 30.04 14.87 56.15 19.09
144. Slovakia 3.33 10.10 32.97 14.84 59.15 24.93
145. Bhutan 3.25 6.90 47.12 23.72 72.44 45.21
146. Cyprus 3.21 8.97 35.78 15.24 67.63 24.46
147. United Arab Emirates 3.14 10.48 29.97 9.82 54.52 25.57
148. Republic of Korea 3.13 11.40 27.45 13.36 48.48 20.50
149. Poland 3.07 9.45 32.46 15.56 59.65 22.17
150. Austria 3.06 13.08 23.41 13.87 41.00 15.35
150. Czech Republic 3.06 10.76 28.46 15.09 49.48 20.80
152. Latvia 3.01 8.80 34.21 18.90 60.06 23.67
153. Mongolia 2.98 6.91 43.09 29.02 64.44 35.81
154. Bahrain 2.93 7.33 39.94 15.31 76.81 27.71
155. Norway 2.87 10.84 26.48 13.80 42.79 22.86
156. Israel 2.81 10.36 27.10 15.07 47.49 18.73
156. Canada 2.81 8.45 33.30 18.51 58.57 22.83
158. Denmark 2.79 11.92 23.43 14.90 40.09 15.30
159. Ukraine 2.72 6.92 39.36 18.83 68.43 30.81
160. Belgium 2.71 11.41 23.79 14.66 42.49 14.22
161. Germany 2.66 11.51 23.12 15.02 38.35 16.00
162. Belarus 2.64 8.00 32.96 16.68 56.36 25.84
163. São Tomé and Príncipe 2.57 4.54 56.60 45.67 77.23 46.90
164. Oman 2.54 6.04 42.02 23.68 66.65 35.73
165. Luxembourg 2.53 9.57 26.41 11.86 47.15 20.23
166. France 2.51 9.63 26.06 16.68 45.10 16.41
167. Singapore 2.50 8.88 28.10 10.34 54.01 19.94
168. Sweden 2.25 8.80 25.62 15.63 45.43 15.81
169. Lithuania 2.18 7.35 29.72 18.17 50.01 20.99
170. Switzerland 2.04 9.01 22.68 13.97 38.92 15.14
171. Finland 2.00 8.26 24.24 15.78 41.20 15.75
172. Estonia 1.99 6.51 30.52 16.60 53.61 21.35
173. Egypt 1.82 3.76 48.33 22.22 83.15 39.62
174. Iceland 1.71 7.14 23.95 13.99 43.20 14.67
175. Maldives 1.69 4.18 40.39 15.59 65.82 39.76
176. Barbados 1.37 3.61 37.96 20.66 60.11 33.12
177. Grenada 1.06 2.40 43.98 26.36 69.21 36.38
178. Saudi Arabia 0.94 2.58 36.46 13.83 68.21 27.34
179. St. Vincent a. th. Grenadines 0.70 1.62 43.00 28.16 69.86 30.97
180. Malta 0.69 2.31 29.96 15.04 54.76 20.09
181. Qatar 0.30 0.85 34.80 9.03 65.03 30.34
57
WorldRiskReport 2021

Country WRI Rank
Afghanistan 8.18 63.
Albania 8.23 61.
Algeria 7.66 73.
Angola 10.28 42.
Antigua and Barbuda 27.28 5.
Argentina 3.52 138.
Armenia 5.40 112.
Australia 4.54 123.
Austria 3.06 150.
Azerbaijan 5.81 102.
Bahamas 4.27 128.
Bahrain 2.93 154.
Bangladesh 16.23 13.
Barbados 1.37 176.
Belarus 2.64 162.
Belgium 2.71 160.
Belize 8.03 64.
Benin 11.71 31.
Bhutan 3.25 145.
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 7.9 9 65.
Bosnia and Herzegovina 4.68 121.
Botswana 3.94 134.
Brazil 4.97 116.
Brunei Darussalam 22.77 6.
Bulgaria 4.16 129.
Burkina Faso 11.19 35.
Burundi 10.42 40.
Cambodia 15.80 15.
Cameroon 13.07 25.
Canada 2.81 156.
Cape Verde 17.72 11.
Central African Republic 7.64 74.
Chad 11.94 30.
Chile 11.32 33.
China 5.87 95.
Colombia 6.72 88.
Comoros 14.91 20.
Costa Rica 17.06 12.
Cote d’Ivoire 9.98 44.
Croatia 4.16 129.
Cuba 5.75 105.
Cyprus 3.21 146.
Czech Republic 3.06 150.
Democratic Republic of the Congo 8.78 56.
Denmark 2.79 158.
Djibouti 15.48 17.
Dominica 27.42 4.
Dominican Republic 11.49 32.
Ecuador 8.82 55.
Country WRI Rank
Egypt 1.82 173.
El Salvador 15.32 18.
Equatorial Guinea 7. 29 78.
Eritrea 6.87 83.
Estonia 1.99 172.
Eswatini 7.8 5 69.
Ethiopia 7.9 3 67.
Federated States of Micronesia 7.1 1 81.
Fiji 16.06 14.
Finland 2.00 171.
France 2.51 166.
Gabon 6.60 91.
Gambia 12.40 28.
Georgia 5.69 108.
Germany 2.66 161.
Ghana 9.32 48.
Greece 6.93 82.
Grenada 1.06 177.
Guatemala 20.23 10.
Guinea 8.65 58.
Guinea-Bissau 13.39 24.
Guyana 21.83 7.
Haiti 14.54 21.
Honduras 11.23 34.
Hungary 5.07 114.
Iceland 1.71 174.
India 6.65 90.
Indonesia 10.67 38.
Iraq 5.80 103.
Ireland 4.49 125.
Islamic Republic of Iran 5.03 115.
Israel 2.81 156.
Italy 4.74 119.
Jamaica 12.02 29.
Japan 9.6 6 46.
Jordan 4.11 131.
Kazakhstan 3.48 141.
Kenya 10.33 41.
Kiribati 15.14 19.
Kuwait 4.32 127.
Kyrgyzstan 7. 25 79.
Lao People’s Democratic Republic 4.46 126.
Latvia 3.01 152.
Lebanon 5.49 110.
Lesotho 6.66 89.
Liberia 8.92 54.
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya 3.47 142.
Lithuania 2.18 169.
Luxembourg 2.53 165.
WorldRiskIndex 2021, Countries in Alphabetical Order
WorldRiskReport 2021
58

Country WRI Rank
Madagascar 10.44 39.
Malawi 8.94 52.
Malaysia 7.73 71.
Maldives 1.69 175.
Mali 10.71 37.
Malta 0.69 180.
Mauritania 8.20 62.
Mauritius 9.0 4 51.
Mexico 6.03 94.
Mongolia 2.98 153.
Montenegro 6.75 86.
Morocco 5.82 100.
Mozambique 9.11 50.
Myanmar 7. 25 79.
Namibia 5.86 96.
Nepal 4.66 122.
Netherlands 7.9 8 66.
New Zealand 4.96 117.
Nicaragua 14.12 22.
Niger 13.90 23.
Nigeria 12.66 26.
North Macedonia 5.82 100.
Norway 2.87 155.
Oman 2.54 164.
Pakistan 6.80 85.
Panama 7.7 6 70.
Papua New Guinea 20.90 9.
Paraguay 3.56 136.
Peru 6.75 86.
Philippines 21.39 8.
Plurinational State of Bolivia 4.71 120.
Poland 3.07 149.
Portugal 3.52 138.
Qatar 0.30 181.
Republic of Congo 6.84 84.
Republic of Korea 3.13 148.
Republic of Moldova 4.00 132.
Romania 5.71 107.
Russian Federation 3.53 137.
Rwanda 7. 55 75.
Saint Lucia 4.52 124.
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 0.70 179.
Samoa 5.54 109.
São Tomé and Príncipe 2.57 163.
Saudi Arabia 0.94 178.
Senegal 9.7 9 45.
Serbia 5.42 111.
Seychelles 4.89 118.
Sierra Leone 9. 40 47.
Country WRI Rank
Singapore 2.50 167.
Slovakia 3.33 144.
Slovenia 3.42 143.
Solomon Islands 31.16 2.
South Africa 6.46 93.
Spain 3.62 135.
Sri Lanka 7. 5 5 75.
Sudan 8.47 60.
Suriname 7. 3 8 77.
Sweden 2.25 168.
Switzerland 2.04 170.
Syrian Arab Republic 5.80 103.
Tajikistan 5.84 99.
Thailand 6.52 92.
Timor-Leste 15.75 16.
Togo 10.99 36.
Tonga 30.51 3.
Trinidad and Tobago 8.67 57.
Tunisia 5.85 97.
Turkey 5.11 113.
Turkmenistan 5.85 97.
Uganda 8.64 59.
Ukraine 2.72 159.
United Arab Emirates 3.14 147.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland 3.51 140.
United Republic of Tanzania 8.94 52.
United States of America 3.98 133.
Uruguay 12.53 27.
Uzbekistan 7.9 1 68.
Vanuatu 47.73 1.
Viet Nam 10.27 43.
Yemen 5.72 106.
Zambia 7.72 72.
Zimbabwe 9.30 49.
Countries not included in the WorldRiskIndex due to
incomplete data:
Andorra, Liechtenstein, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Nauru, North
Korea, Palau, San Marino, Somalia, South Sudan, Saint Kitts and
Nevis, Tuvalu.
Only countries that are member states of the General Assembly
of the United Nations are considered here.
59
WorldRiskReport 2021

ALEKSANDROVA, M. (2021): The untapped potential of
global climate funds for investing in social protection.
Bonn: German Development Institute.
ALEKSANDROVA, M. / COSTELLA, C. (2021): Reaching the
poorest and most vulnerable: Addressing loss and
damage through social protection. In: Current Opinion
in Environmental Sustainability, 50, 121-128.
ALMENFI, M. / BRETON, M. / DALE, P. / GENTILINI, U.
/ PICK, A. / RICHARDSON, D. (2020): Where is the
money coming from? Ten stylized facts on financing
social protection responses to Covid-19: In: The World
Bank / UNICEF / OECD (eds.), Social Protection and
Jobs, Policy and Technical Note No. 23 Nov 2020.
Washington DC: World Bank Group.
ANDRIJEVIC, M. / SCHLEUSSNER, C. / GIDDEN, M. /
MCCOLLUM, D. / ROGELJ, J. (2020): COVID-19 recovery
funds dwarf clean energy investment needs. In:
Science, 370(6514), 298-300.
ASPIRE [The Atlas of Social Protection] (2021): Indicators
of resilience and equity. World Bank. https://www.
worldbank.org/en/data/datatopics/aspire (accessed
16.07.2021).
BASTAGLI, F. / HAGEN-ZANKER, J. / HARMAN, L. /
BARCA, V. / STURGE, G. / SCHMIDT, T. / PELLERANO, L.
(2016): Cash transfers: What does the evidence say?
A rigorous review of programme impact and of the
role of design and implementation features. London:
Overseas Development Institute.
BECK, M. W. / NARAYAN, S. / TRESPALACIOS, D. /
PFLIEGNER, K. / LOSADA, I. J., / MENÉNDEZ P. / ESPEJO,
A. / TORRES, S. / DÍAZ-SIMAL, P. / FERNANDEZ, F. /
ABAD, S. / MUCKE, P. / KIRCH, L. (2018): The global
value of mangroves for risk reduction. Summary
Report. Berlin: The Nature Conservancy.
BIRKMANN, J. / BUCKLE, P. / JAEGER, J. / PELLING, M.
/ SETIADI, N. / GARSCHAGEN, M. / FERNANDO, N.
/ KROPP, J. (2010): Extreme events and disasters:
a window of opportunity for change? Analysis of
changes, formal and informal responses after mega-
disasters. In: Natural Hazards, 55(3), 637-655.
BISCHLER, J. / ASHEBER, T. / HOBSON, M. (2021): Towards
shock-responsive social protection: lessons from the
COVID-19 response in Ethiopia. In: Shock-responsive
social protection responses during COVID-19. Oxford:
Oxford Policy Management.
BMAS [Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales]
(2021): Sozialschutz-Pakete. https://www.bmas.
de/DE/Corona/sozialschutz-paket.html (accessed
20.07.2021).
BOWEN, T. / DEL NINNO, C. / ANDREWS, C. / COLL-BLACK,
S. / GENTILINI, U. / JOHNSON, K. / KAWASOE, Y. /
KRYEZIU, A. / MAHER, B. / WILLIAMS, A. (2020):
Adaptive social protection. Building resilience to
shocks. Washington DC: World Bank Group.
BÜNDNIS ENTWICKLUNG HILFT (2011): WorldRiskReport
2011. Berlin: Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft.
BÜNDNIS ENTWICKLUNG HILFT / IFHV (2020):
WorldRiskReport 2020. Berlin: Bündnis Entwicklung
Hilft.
CARTER, B. / ROELEN, K. / ENFIELD, S. / AVIS, W. (2019):
Social protection topic guide. Revised Edition. K4D
Emerging Issues Report. Brighton: Institute of
Development Studies.
CHERRIER, C. / ROWE, G. / HOBSON, M. /
SMITH, G. (2019): Social protection across the
humanitarian-development nexus. A game changer
in supporting people through crises. In: Tools
and Methods Series Reference Document No. 26.
European Commission.
CICHON, M. (2015): A global fund for social protection
floors: Eight good reasons why it can easily be
done. http://www.unrisd.org/UNRISD/website/
newsview.nsf/%28httpNews%29/534394C-
84B10238AC1257E76004D04F9?OpenDocument
(accessed 14.07.2021).
DE SCHUTTER, O. / SEPÚLVEDA, M. (2012): Underwriting
the poor. A global fund for social protection. Briefing
Note 07. Geneva: United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights.
DEVEREUX, S. / SABATES-WHEELER, R. (2004):
Transformative social protection. Working Paper
Series, 232. Brighton: Institute for Development
Studies.
FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations] (2019): Managing climate risks through
social protection. Reducing rural poverty and building
resilient agricultural livelihoods. Rome: FAO.
FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations] / CLIMATE CENTRE [Red Cross Red Crescent
Climate Centre] (2019): Managing climate risks
through social protection – Reducing rural poverty
and building resilient agricultural livelihoods. Rome:
FAO.
FES [Friedrich Ebert Stiftung] (2020): Social Protection
Floor Index. https://www.fes.de/themenpor-
tal-die-welt-gerecht-gestalten/internationale-ge-
meinschaft-und-zivilgesellschaft/social-protec-
tion-floor-index (accessed 14.07.2021).
FREUDENBERG, M. (2003): Composite indicators of
country performance: A critical assessment. In: OECD
Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers,
2003 / 16. Paris: OECD.
GCSPF [Global Coalition for Social Protection Floors]
(2015): A global fund for social protection. A proposal
for the Conference on Financing for Development
Addis Ababa. Geneva: Global Coalition for Social
Protection Floors.
GCSPF [Global Coalition for Social Protection Floors]
(2020): Civil society call for a global fund for social
protection to respond to the Covid-19 crisis and
to build a better future. http://www.socialprotec-
tionfloorscoalition.org/civil-society-call/ (accessed
14.07.2021).
GELLI, A. (2015): School feeding and girls’ enrolment:
The effects of alternative implementation modalities
in low-income settings in Sub-Saharan Africa. In:
Frontiers in Public Health, 3(76).
GENTILINI, U. / ALMENFI, M. / BLOMQUIST, J. / DALE, P. /
DE LA FLOR GIUFFRA, L. / DESAI, V. / FONTENEZ, M. /
GALICIA RABADAN, G. / LOPEZ, V. / MARIN ESPINOSA,
A. / NATARAJAN, H. / NEWHOUSE, D. / PALACIOS, R.
/ QUIROZ, A. / RODRIGUEZ ALAS, C. / SABHARWAL,
G. / WEBER, M. (2021): Social protection and jobs
responses to COVID-19: A real-time review of country
measures. Washington DC: World Bank Group.
GREENHILL, R / CARTER, P. / MANUEL, M. (2015):
Financing the future. How international public finance
should fund a global social compact to eradicate
poverty. London: Overseas Development Institute.
HLPE [High Level Panel of Experts] (2012): Social protec-
tion for food security. A report by the High Level
Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition of the
Committee on World Food Security. Rome: Committee
on World Food Security.
ILO [International Labour Organization] (2002):
Global social trust. Geneva: International Labour
Organization.
ILO [International Labour Organization] (2004): Social
protection matters 3. Geneva: International Labour
Organization.
ILO [International Labour Organization] (2020): Social
protection monitor: Social protection responses
to the Covid-19 crisis around the world. Geneva:
International Labour Organization.
ILO [International Labour Organization] (2021): ILO world
social protection dashboards. https://www.social-pro-
tection.org/gimi/WSPDB.action?id=19 (accessed
20.06.2021).
ITUC [International Trade Union Confederation] (2021):
Investments in social protection and their impacts on
economic growth. Brussels: ITUC.
KABA, M. / BAESEL, K. / POCH, B. / BUN, S., CERCEAU,
S. / BURY, L. / SCHWARZ, B. / KEO, O. / TUNG, R.
/ CHEANG, K. / RASANTHAN, K. (2018): IDPoor: a
poverty identification programme that enables
collaboration across sectors for maternal and child
health in Cambodia. In: BMJ, 363(4698).
KALTENBORN, M. (2020): The human rights framework
for establishing social protection floors and extending
health coverage. In: Kaltenborn, M. / Krajewski, M. /
Kuhn, H. (eds.), Sustainable Development Goals and
Human Rights. Interdisciplinary Studies in Human
Rights, 5. Berlin / Heidelberg: Springer, 29-15.
KANNAN, K. P. (2007): Social security in a globalizing
world. International Social Security Review, 60(2-3),
19-37.
KARLSSON, M. / NILSSON, T. / PICHLER, S. (2014): The
impact of the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic on economic
performance in Sweden: An investigation into the
consequences of an extraordinary mortality shock.
Journal of Health Economics, 36, 1-19.
KAUR, N. / AGRAWAL, A. / STEINBACH, D. / PANJIYAR,
A. / SAIGAL, S. / MANUEL, C. / BARNWAL, A. /
SHAKYA, C. / NORTON, A. / KUMAR, N. / SOANES,
M. / VENKATARAMANI, V. (2019): Building resilience
to climate change through social protection:
Lessons from MGNREGS, India. IIED Working Paper.
London: International Institute for Environment and
Development.
KLINGEBIEL, S. / MAHN, T.C. / NEGRE, M. (2016): The
fragmentation of aid: Concepts, measurements
and implications for development cooperation.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
KUPER, H. / NYAPERA, V. / EVANS, J. / MUNYENDO, D. /
ZUURMOND, M. / FRISON, S. (2015): Malnutrition and
childhood disability in Turkana, Kenya: results from a
case-control study. In: PLoS ONE 10(12).
LAVELL, A. / OPPENHEIMER, M. / DIOP, C. / HESS, J. /
LEMPERT, R. / LI, J. / MUIR-WOOD, R. / MYEONG, S.
(2012): Climate change: New dimensions in disaster
risk, exposure, vulnerability, and resilience. In:
IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]
(eds.), Managing the risks of extreme events and
disasters to advance climate change adaptation.
A special report on working groups I and II of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Bibliography
WorldRiskReport 2021
60

Cambridge / New York: Cambridge University Press,
25-64.
LIND, J. / ROELEN, K. / SABATES-WHEELER, R. (2020):
Social protection and building back better: Positioning
Paper. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.
https://www.ids.ac.uk/publications/social-protection-
and-building-back-better/ (accessed 16.06.2021).
LUSTIG, N. / PABON, V. M. / NEIDHÖFER, G. / TOMASSI,
M. (2020): Short and long-run distributional impacts
of COVID-19 in Latin America. CEQ Working Paper 96.
Tulane: Commitment to Equity Institute.
MEYER, W. (2004): Indikatorenentwicklung. Eine
praxisorientierte Einführung. 2. Auflage. CEval-
Arbeitspapiere 10. Saarbrücken: Zentrum für
Evaluation.
O’BRIEN, C. / SCOTT, Z. / SMITH, G. / BARCA, V. /
KARDAN, A. / HOLMES, R. / WATSON, C. / CONGRAVE,
J. (2018): Shock-responsive social protection systems
research. Synthesis report. Oxford: Oxford Policy
Management.
OHCHR [United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights] (2021): OHCHR and the right to
social security. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/
RightSocialSecurity/Pages/SocialSecurity.aspx
(accessed 20.07.2021).
PETERMAN, A. / KUMAR, N. / PEREIRA, A. / O. GILLIGA,
D. (2019): Toward gender equality: A critical assess-
ment of evidence on social safety nets in Africa. In:
Quisumbing, A. R. / Meinzen-Dick, R. S. / Njuki, J.
(eds.): Annual trends and outlook report: Gender
equality in rural Africa: From commitments to
outcomes. Washington DC: International Food Policy
Research Institute, 140-148.
PLANT, M. (2021): How to make an SDR reallocation
work for countries in need. Washington DC: Center for
Global Development. https://www.cgdev.org/blog/
how-make-sdr-reallocation-work-countries-need
(accessed 16.07.2021).
RADTKE, K. / WELLER, D. (2019): The WorldRiskIndex
2019. In: Bündnis Entwicklung Hilft / IFHV (eds.),
WorldRiskReport 2019. Berlin: Bündnis Entwicklung
Hilft, 43-51.
RINALDI, G. (2021): “Alle helfen mit”. Hagen nach dem
Hochwasser. https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/
gesellschaft/hagen-nach-dem-hochwasser-alle-
helfen-mit-a-282806bd-629f-4451-8561-f8e453c67b25
(accessed 20.07.2021).
SABATES-WHEELER, R. / DEVEREUX, S. (2011):
Transforming livelihoods for resilient futures: How to
facilitate graduation in social protection. FAC Working
Paper 23. Brighton: Future Agricultures Consortium.
SHIGUTE, Z. / STRUPAT, C. / BURCHI, F. / ALEMU, G. /
BEDI, A. S. (2020): Linking social protection schemes:
The joint effects of a public works and a health
insurance programme in Ethiopia. In: The Journal of
Development Studies, 56(2), 431-448.
ULRICHS, M. / SLATER, R. (2016): How can social
protection build resilience? Insights from Ethiopia,
Kenya and Uganda. London: Building Resilience and
Adaptation to Climate Extremes and Disasters /
Overseas Development Institute.
UNDG [United Nations Development Group] (2003):
The human rights based approach to development
cooperation. Towards a common understanding
among UN agencies. https://unsdg.un.org/resources/
human-rights-based-approach-development-coop-
eration-towards-common-understanding-among-un
(accessed 20.06.2021).
UNDP (2016): Leaving no one behind. A social protection
primer for practitioners. New York: United Nations
Development Programme.
UNDRR [United Nations Office for Disaster Risk
Reduction] (2019): GAR Global assessment report on
disaster risk reduction. https://gar.undrr.org/sites/
default/files/reports/2019-05/full_gar_report.pdf
(accessed 11.06.2021).
UNDRR [United Nations Office for Disaster Risk
Reduction] (2021): UNDRR Strategic framework 2022-
2025. https://www.undrr.org/publication/undrr-strate-
gic-framework-2022-2025 (accessed 11.06.2021).
UNGA [United Nations General Assembly] (1948):
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. New York:
United Nations.
UNISDR [United Nations Office for Disaster Risk
Reduction] (2015): Sendai framework for disaster risk
reduction 2015-2030. Geneva: UNISDR.
VON BENDA-BECKMANN, K. (2015): Social security,
personhood, and the state. Asian Journal of Law and
Society, 2(2), 323-338.
WELLE, T. / BIRKMANN, J. (2015): The World Risk Index
– An approach to assess risk and vulnerability on a
global scale. In: Journal of Extreme Events, 2(1), 1-34.
WORLD BANK / GFDRR [Global Facility for Disaster
Reduction and Recovery] (2020): Social protection &
labor – Disaster risk management toolkit. Washington
DC: World Bank Group.
WORLD BANK (2021a): Global economic prospects,
January 2021. Washington DC: World Bank Group.
WORLD BANK (2021b): World bank open data.
https://data.worldbank.org (accessed 20.06.2021).
61
WorldRiskReport 2021

Photo credits
Cover photo: Repayment of microfinance loans in northern
Togo. © Godong / Universal Images Group via Getty
Images
Page 8: Disposing of bioinfectious waste outside San Juan
de Dios Hospital in Guatemala City, Guatemala.
© Simone Dalmasso / Brot für die Welt
Page 16: Tuberculosis patient with her doctor in Kaleyo,
Myanmar. © Thomas Lohnes / Brot für die Welt
Page 22: Blood glucose monitoring of a diabetic in
Jashpur, India. © RAHA
Page 24: Members of a self-help group meet in Sindh,
Pakistan. © RDF
Page 38: Members of a self-help group start their own
business selling dumplings in Cucuta, Colombia.
© Sabine Ludwig / DAHW German Leprosy and
Tuberculosis Relief Association
Page 40: Flood-damaged cars on a main road in
Schleiden, Germany. © Hermann Bredehorst / Diakonie
Katastrophenhilfe
Page 50: A grandfather cares for his orphaned grandson in
Harare, Zimbabwe. © Helge Bendl / Brot für die Welt
WorldRiskReport 2021
62