THE DEFICIENCIES OF RISK AND DISASTER CLASSIFICATION IN BRAZIL AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS

This article aims to compare the Brazilian Codification of Disasters, Threats and Risks (Codar), published in the 1990s, with the Brazilian Codification of Disasters (Cobrade), established in 2012, in force in Brazil. Through a mixed methodological approach of the convergent-parallel type, qualitative and quantitative techniques were integrated, capable of promoting a comprehensive understanding of the transition between disaster codifications in Brazil. There was triangulation of sources, cross-validation of data and multiscale analysis, through three interdependent stages: documentary analysis, comparative analysis between classification systems and data triangulation for validation. The research made it possible to show that Codar had 157 typologies of natural, technological and mixed disasters, while Cobrade contains a total of 65 typologies, divided between natural and technological disasters, presenting a reduction of 92 disaster classifications. This quantitative disparity presents a certain qualitative compensation, but important gaps remain. Through a survey conducted by consulting the Civil Defense records system, newspapers and scientific articles, it was found that types of disasters continue to occur in the country, but are not recorded due to this lack of categorization in Cobrade, which presents definition errors in the conceptualization of certain disastrous events. The study concluded that the adoption of Cobrade did not allow Brazil to be compatible with international databases, since there is a discrepancy between the number of disasters recorded in the country and those reported abroad. Furthermore, the suppression of typologies impacts the possibility of records and, consequently, the expected results of their formalization, such as the declaration of a state of emergency and a state of public calamity. Finally, it is suggested that the Hazard Information Profiles (HIP), even broader than Codar (302 typologies), be adopted as an alternative for organizing the database, in line with the intentions of the United Nations Office for Disaster Reduction, which has influenced EM-DAT to review its current codification.