International Safe Community Certifying Centre

-a NGO

Chair

Leif Svanström

General manager

Guldbrand Skjönberg

May 2014

International Safe Community Certifying Centre

The International Safe Community Movement

Safer than EverLeif Svanström*

Chair International Safe Community Certifying CentreAnd

Department of Public Health SciencesKarolinska Institutet

StockholmSweden

The Democracy Index is an index compiled by the

Economist Intelligence Unit, that measures the state of

democracy in 167 countries, of which 166 are sovereign states and 165 are United Nations member states.

The index is based on 60 indicators grouped in five different categories measuring pluralism, civil liberties, and political culture. In addition to a

numeric score and a ranking, the index categorizes countries as one of four regime types full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes

and authoritarian regimes.

Type of regime Scores Number of countries % of countries % of

world population

Full democracies 8.0 to 10 24 14.4 12.5 Flawed democracies 6.0 to 7.9 52 31.1 35.5 Hybrid regimes 4.0 to 5.9 39 23.4 14.4 Authoritarian regimes 0 to 3.9 52 31.1 37.6

The index is based on 60 indicators grouped in five different categories measuring pluralism, civil liberties, and political culture. In addition to a

numeric score and a ranking, the index categorizes countries as one of four regime types full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes

and authoritarian regimes.

Homic Suic Intent Fire-arm Traffic0.6 11.9 12.5 1.78 2.91 11.9 12.9 1.47 30.3 11.3 11.6 1.57 3.80.9 13.2 14.1 1.45 7.40.9 11.3 12.2 1.28 3.0

0.7 11.1 11.8 2.91 3.41.6 11.5 13.1 2.22 62.2 16.8 19 3.64 4.71 9.7 10.7 0.86 5.61.1 8.5 9.6 0.46 3.9

Rank Country Score Category Homic Suic Intent Fire-arm Traffic 49 Indonesia 6.95 Flawed democracy 17.750 Croatia 6.93 Flawed democracy 1.4 19.7 21.1 3.54 7.951 Hungary 6.90 Flawed democracy 1.3 21.7 23 0.87 7.752Argentina 6.84 Flawed democracy 5.8 7.7 13.5 5.8 12.453Suriname 6.77 Flawed democracy 4.6 14.4 19 - 19.653 Philippines 6.77 Flawed democracy 8.8 2.1 10.9 3.24 9.155 Bulgaria 6.73 Flawed democracy 2 12.3 14.3 2.35 10.456 Serbia 6.71 Flawed democracy - - 19.5 3.9 9.557 Romania 6.68 Flawed democracy 2 12 14 0.19 11.157 Mexico 6.68 Flawed democracy 22.7 4 26.7 11.17 14.7

Rank Country Score Category Homic Suic Int Fire-arm Traffic85 Bangladesh 5.78 Hybrid regime - - - - 11.686 Tanzania 5.77 Hybrid regime - - - - -87 Sri Lanka 5.69 Hybrid regime 3.6 21.6 25.2 - 13.788 Albania 5.67 Hybrid regime 4.0 4.0 8.0 - 12.789 Malawi 5.66 Hybrid regime - - - - 19.590 Benin 5.65 Hybrid regime - - - - 23.991 Fiji 5.61 Hybrid regime - - - - 6.392 Ukraine 5.42 Hybrid regime 5.2 21,2 26.4 0.20 13.593 Thailand 5.39 Hybrid regime 4.8 7.8 12.6 - 38.194 Nicaragua 5.32 Hybrid regime 13.6 5.8 19.4 7.29 33.795 Kyrgyzstan 5.24 Hybrid regime 9.1 8.8 17.9 1.01 19.2

Rank Country Score Category Homic Suic Int Fire-arm Traffic

157 Laos 2.21 Authoritarian regime - - - - 20.4

158 Iran 1.98 Authoritarian regime 3 6.4 9.4 - 24.1

159 Guinea-Bissau 1.93 Authoritarian regime - - - - 31.2

160 Turkmenistan 1.83 Authoritarian regime 12.8 8.6 21.4 - 18.6

161 Saudi Arabia 1.82 Authoritarian regime - - - - 24.8

162 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1.75 Authoritarian regime - - - - 17.1

163 Syria 1.74 Authoritarian regime 2.3 0.1 2.4 - 22.9

164 Equatorial Guinea 1.66 Authoritarian regime - - - - 11.4

165 Chad 1.50 Authoritarian regime - - - - 29.7

166 Central African Republic 1.49 Authoritarian regime - - - - 14.6

167 North Korea 1.08 Authoritarian regime - - - - 10.7

RANK COUNTRY INDEX CATEGORY

2 Sweden 9.73 Full democracy Homic Suic Intent Fire-arm Traffic 1 11.9 12.9 1.47 319 USA 8.11 Full democracy 4.8 12.0 16.8 10.64 11.6 20 Japan 8.08 Full democracy 0.4 21.7 22.1 0.06 4.821 S Korea 8.06 Full democracy 0.9 31.7 32.6 0.06 11.4

27 India 7.92 Flawed democ. 3.4 10.5 13.9 0.48 19.530 S Africa 7.82 Flawed democ. 31.1 15.4 46.5 21.51 31.932 Chile 7.80 Flawed democ. 3.2 11.2 14.4 3.73 11.544 Brazil 7.38 Flawed democ. 21 4.8 25.8 19.3 22.5

127 Cuba 3.52 Authorit.regime 5 12.3 17.3 - 7.8132 Russia 3.39 -"- 10.2 21.4 31.6 - 18.6144 China 3.00 -"- 1 22.23 23.23 - 20.5

According to the estimateof the World Health Organization’s Global

Burden of Disease Study, unintentional injuries resulted in

more than 3.9 million deaths in 2004. Among the 15 - 29 years old of age group,

road traffic injuries, drownings,burns, poisonings, falls and other

unintentional injuries accounted for top five of the 15 leading causes of death

DO SOMETHING!!!!!!!!

TOP DOWNTHE WHO MUST ALERT THE MEMBER

STATES!

BOTTOM UPTHE SAFE COMMUNITY MOVEMENT!

The co-operation between WHO and the Safe Community Movement

started in 1986 and began its formal existence at the First World

Conference on Accident and Injury Prevention held in Stockholm, Sweden

in September 1989.

In the Manifesto for Safe Communities,

the resolution of the conference 1989 stated that the International Safe

Community movement should work with “WHO Health for all” as a vision.

The ground pillars in the Stockholm manifesto are:

•All human beings have an equal right to health and safety

•Accident and injury prevention requires coordinated action by many

groups

•Health sector have a crucial role in collecting information on injured people, injury patterns, causes of

injuries and hazard situations

•Local programs must include all citizens and focus on the most

vulnerable

•Evaluation both of the process and outcome of a safety promotion

program is important

•An international development work for safe communities is necessary!

In an International Safe Community, the community itself plays the

leading role.

The term Safe Community implies that the community work for

increased safety in a structured approach, not that the community is

already perfectly safe.

Creative methods of education, physical planning and

environmental change joined with appropriate regulations and

enforcement are an important beginning for the safety of a

community.

An International Safe Community use the traditional means of control such such as economic, regulations

and governing by objectives and visions.

No single approach is sufficient for changing existing behaviour

patterns. Heightening of public awareness is also very important.

While the movement was growing started a quality management

programme leading to a peer review system where the leading

communities (now about 360) were labelled International Safe

Communities.

Communities

Australia

Austria

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Canada

Chile

China

China (Province of Taiwan)

China, Hong-Kong

Croatia

Czech Republic

Denmark

Estonia

Finland

Germany

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

Ireland

Israel

Japan

Mexico

New Zealand

Norway

Peru

Poland

Republic of Korea

Serbia

South Africa

Sweden

Thailand

Turkey

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

United States of America

Vietnam

AFTER FOUR DECADES OF DEVELOPMENT;

AND 25-50% DECREASE OF INJURIES

AND A COMPLETE NEW ORGANISATION (THE NGO OF

ISCCC)

SAFE COMMUNITIES MOVEMENT – SAFER THAN EVER

!!!!