A 2026 report on first response efficiency found that emergency callers are most likely to be found quickly in Belgium. A new study by crisis management software provider Intersec analyzed AML activation, mobile ownership, legal mandates, and network infrastructure across 51 countries to see where emergency services can pinpoint a caller’s position most reliably.
- Belgium is the best country in the world for locating emergency callers, with full AML coverage, 87% mobile phone ownership, and a legal requirement for caller location.
- The densest cell tower network is in Germany at over 9,000 towers per 1,000 square kilometers.
- All countries in the top ten are in Europe, leading the world in emergency caller location technology and infrastructure.
The study looked at four factors to determine how reliably a country can locate an emergency caller. AML deployment and coverage are the most direct way to transmit location data from a mobile phone during a call, while mobile‑phone ownership ensures that most people can be reached in the first place. Legal requirements for caller location mean that networks are obligated to provide that data, and cell tower density affects how precisely a phone can be triangulated. Countries with higher scores have better systems in place to find a caller quickly and accurately.
- Belgium
- AML activated: Yes
- Estimated Smartphone adoption: 74.1%
- Caller-Location Index: 100/100
In Belgium, it is easiest to locate an emergency caller. Most smartphones there automatically share their location with emergency teams, so responders know exactly where to go. Nearly nine out of ten people own a mobile, and the country has over 13,600 cell towers for every 1,000 square kilometres, which makes it easy to pinpoint a caller’s spot. Carriers also have to hand over location data, so the whole system works from start to finish.
- Switzerland
Switzerland comes second with a score of 89. Its automatic location system is always active, and 84% of the population uses a smartphone. The network includes 8,630 towers per 1,000 square kilometres, and providers are required to share caller positions. With strong tech take‑up and a dense tower network, Switzerland is one of the most reliable countries for locating people in trouble.
- Denmark
Denmark lands in third with 88 points. Its location‑sharing system runs smoothly, and smartphone use matches Switzerland at 84%. The country has 7,700 towers per 1,000 square kilometres, one of the highest densities in the world, and operators must pass along caller locations. That means emergency crews are rarely left guessing. The mix of active systems, widespread phone use, and solid infrastructure keeps Denmark towards the top.
- United Kingdom
The United Kingdom sits in fourth place, with a similar score of 88. The UK has a country-wide locating system in place, and 81% of people own a smartphone, which makes finding emergency callers easier. With 7,600 towers per 1,000 square kilometres and a rule that forces networks to reveal caller positions, the UK’s first response teams do not have to waste time locating the people in need.
- Germany
Germany rounds out the top five with 87 points. Its positioning system is up and running across the whole country, and 76% of the population has a smartphone. The network is dense, with 9,000 towers per 1,000 square kilometres, and carriers are legally required to give up caller locations. That heavy coverage makes up for the slightly lower number of phone users, keeping Germany firmly in the top five.
A public safety expert from Intersec commented on the topic:
“The technology to locate a caller already exists. It is built into every smartphone. The question is whether the system on the other end of the call can actually use it. In some countries, the phone sends location data and the dispatcher sees it immediately. In others, that data never arrives. The gap is not about what phones can do. It is about whether the emergency services have connected the dots. A caller in Belgium is found within seconds. A caller in Kenya might wait minutes or longer. That difference is infrastructure and regulation, not technology.”
