(Un)reliability of INGD data: cases of cyclones Dikeledi and Jude  

Delso Khosa"

 Governance is based on reliable data. Transparency and accountability are essential elements in the decision-making process in institutions. Public policymaking is the result of the collection of reliable data, with minimal chances of bias. Negligence or violation of data collection techniques can contribute to the formulation of disastrous public policies, which means that the principle of truthful information cannot be neglected or biased by false information. Officials responsible for collecting, encoding and processing data must respect good governance principles such as transparency and accountability.

 The principles of good governance in Mozambican public institutions have faced major challenges in producing reports that reflect the reality experienced on the ground. On the other hand, there is a high tendency to produce unobservable information to impact the media picture. With the low rate of journalistic investigation, this tendency finds fertile ground to spread biased information. Therefore, bringing an example of a Mozambican public institution in the area of ​​climate change becomes crucial, not only because of its heritage experience in managing risks and natural disasters, but also because of the need to rethink better models for collecting reliable data, aiming to prevent climate risks that affect both society and the business class.

 The National Institute for Disaster Risk Reduction and Management (INGD) has a history of accumulating scientific expertise and techniques through knowledge transfer with international organizations since the early years of the Marxist State. INGD must exercise caution to minimize the perpetuation of biased information in the media and society. At the beginning of this year, the country was affected by two cyclones in the central and northern regions. As a result, INGD needs to redouble the planning, implementation and evaluation of actions for adaptation, mitigation and resilience to climate effects, as well as monitoring the situation through humanitarian actions in a manner that is inclusive of affected communities. In addition, INGD also has the responsibility to share reliable data on the situation with the general public.

Cyclones Dikeledi (D) and Jude (J) caused considerable damage in almost the same geographical areas in the country. To facilitate comparative analysis of the data, information provided by INGD on recent cyclone events is used.

Source: INGD

 The table shows the data officially published by INGD and shared with the national and international press. The two phenomena occurred in the same year, in almost the same provinces and coastal districts in the provinces of Cabo Delgado and Nampula. Given this scenario, the following questions arise. Was the State able to restore the infrastructures affected before the first Cyclone Childo? What type of material was used in the affected infrastructures? What are the specific data for each district?

 Therefore, Cyclone Jude was more devastating than Cyclone Dikeledi, as the data shows. When you look at the numbers for Cyclone Dikeledi, in particular the people, homes and families affected, you can see that there is a disproportionate relationship. This is because the number of people affected by 249,787 out of 19,748 families corresponds to approximately 13 citizens per home, while 249,787 people affected by 49,407 families corresponds to approximately 5 citizens per family.

Another problem with the data is the relationship between the number of families and the number of students, which suggests that each family has, on average, one child. However, the results from the National Institute of Statistics — INE (2024) on the Overall Fertility Rate among women aged 15 to 49, by province, between 2022–2023, show that the provinces of Cabo Delgado and Nampula occupy, respectively, the second and third places.

 The occurrence of two cyclones in a short period of time reveals that the INGD data tend to be misleading, since: i) the official published data do not specify the geographical location of the district, administrative post and location, knowing that, at each district level, there are administrators responsible for the administration of the State fabric and the Local Risk and Disaster Management Committees; ii) there is a significant tendency for data to be duplicated. For example, where cyclones Childo and Dikeledi occurred, they were in the same districts, as in the case under analysis, where certain districts were devastated by both Cyclone Dikeledi and Cyclone Jude.

 But why is the data unreliable? First, it may be due to deliberate negligence, with the aim of expanding the chain of donations by disseminating less concise information. Second, it may be related to the very genesis of the INGD, which is a case in point. Third, it is a structural problem fueled by non-transparent government management, lack of accountability and the absence of auditing.

Therefore, it can be stated that INGD urgently needs to reinforce and monitor its employees in the data collection and systematization process. The situation shows that INGD's data collection technique is far from reflecting the reality and consequences of cyclones. On the one hand, the data challenge the INE (2024) reports, in demographic terms; on the other, the symptomatic frequency of INGD's data contributes to superficial decision-making, meaning "filling water in a leaky drum" that will never be full. Given the high costs in the data collection process, the media industry needs to carry out a thorough analysis to avoid the officialization of biased data.

2025/12/3