characteristics of a disaster-resilient community a …...characteristics of a disaster-resilient...
Post on 24-Apr-2020
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community
A Guidance Note
Version 1 (for field testing)
August 2007
John Twigg for the DFID Disaster Risk Reduction
Interagency Coordination Group
Cover photo: Community meeting during a Participatory Vulnerability Capacity Assessment carried out in January2007 in Enaytepur village, Manikgonj district, Bangladesh (Photo courtesy of Christian Aid – Bangladesh)
An electronic version of this guidance note can be downloaded from the Benfield UCLHazard Research Centre website. Go tohttp://www.benfieldhrc.org/disaster_studies/projects/communitydrrindicators/community_drr_indicators_index.htm
The guidance note has also been translated into Spanish by Diego Bunge. It is availablefrom the same web page.
Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community:A Guidance Note
Contents page no.
Foreword 2
Abbreviations and Acronyms 3
Acknowledgements 3
Section A: Introduction and Background 41. Introduction 4
1.1 Applications 41.2 How the guidance note is organised 4
2. Key concepts 42.1 Disaster risk reduction 62.2 Resilience and the disaster-resilient community 62.3 Community 6
Section B: Using the Tables 81. Components of resilience 82. Characteristics of a resilient community 9
2.1 Applications 102.2 Selecting characteristics; setting priorities 102.3 Characteristics and indicators 102.4 Composite characteristics 112.5 Quantitative versus qualitative characteristics 11
3. Characteristics of an enabling environment 114. Milestones 125. Other issues 146. Further reading 15
Section C: Tables 17Thematic Area 1: Governance 17Thematic Area 2: Risk assessment 21Thematic Area 3: Knowledge and education 24Thematic Area 4: Risk management and vulnerability reduction 27Thematic Area 5: Disaster preparedness and response 32
2
Foreword
The development of the ‘Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community’ has been commissioned by a group ofsix agencies – ActionAid, Christian Aid, Plan UK, Practical Action and Tearfund, together with the British RedCross/International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. In recent years, these agencies havereceived funding from the UK Department for International Development (DFID) for disaster risk reduction (DRR)initiatives and to support the promotion of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), particularly at local level.However, when discussing how to monitor the success of the implementation of the HFA, it became apparent thatthere was nothing to measure its impact at the community level.
At a British Overseas NGOs for Development (BOND) DRR Group meeting on monitoring and evaluationfacilitated by John Twigg in November 2006, the DFID-funded group (known as the DFID DRR InteragencyCoordination Group) discussed the opportunity to define jointly what a disaster-resilient community actually lookedlike; and how indicators could be developed from there. Subsequently, John Twigg and a support team wereemployed on a consultancy basis to identify basic characteristics of community resilience that can complementnational and international-level work led by the UN ISDR and OCHA. This initiative has now reached a stage wherewe have a fairly comprehensive multi-hazard/multi-context set of characteristics. While we were initially dauntedby its volume, we recognised that these characteristics described ‘utopia’ – what we would like all communities tolook like if the HFA was effectively implemented. It is now our task, as a group of agencies, to pilot thosecharacteristics that are particularly relevant to our work, possibly to further refine and narrow the volume, or maybejust to critique the current content. Either way these characteristics are a work in progress.
To that end, we would like to invite you to join us in our task of piloting. Each agency is taking a differentapproach to how it is using the characteristics; some to define future project design, some to develop step-by-stepindicators and others taking a select few characteristics to measure work which has already been carried out. Pleasetake the guidelines and adapt the characteristics for use within your circumstances. All we would ask is that youkeep John Twigg (j.twigg@ucl.ac.uk) informed of progress or use of the characteristics within your organisation, asall feedback will be gratefully received.
As a group of agencies, we make no apologies about being passionate that community-based DRR isfundamental to reducing risk and the impact of disasters. We also have to express our concern that no bindingtargets or commitments have been set by governments for governments through the Hyogo process. As a result wewant to offer this contribution to the DRR community as a step towards measuring the success of the Hyogo Actions.We do hope you will join us in the next stage of field trial and application, and we look forward to sharing ourindividual agency results with others.
Oenone ChadburnTearfund and Chair of BOND DRR Group
August 2007
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ADPC Asian Disaster Preparedness CenterCBDRM community-based disaster risk managementCBO community-based organisationCSO civil society organisationDP disaster preparednessDRM disaster risk managementDRR disaster risk reductionEW early warningEWS early warning systemHFA Hyogo Framework for ActionIFRC International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent SocietiesISDR UN International Strategy for Disaster ReductionM&E monitoring and evaluationNGO non-governmental organisationOCHA UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian AffairsPTSD post-traumatic stress disorderUN United NationsVCA vulnerability and capacity assessment/analysis
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to the following members of the Interagency Coordination Group who provided guidance on theprocess, commented on drafts and forwarded comments from other staff and partners: John Abuya, YasminMcDonnell (ActionAid), Robert Roots (British Red Cross), Bina Desai, Sarah Moss, José Luis Penya (Christian Aid),Nick Hall, Douglas Orr (Plan International), Pieter van den Ende (Practical Action), Oenone Chadburn, BobHansford, Angela Mugore, Marcus Oxley (Tearfund).
Professor Jo Beall (London School of Economics) acted as adviser to the project, providing a broader, moredevelopmental perspective to the work. Emily Wilkinson (University College London) helped with the research forTable 1 and provided comments, based on her PhD research on local governance and DRR.
I was very fortunate in being able to commission a survey of expert opinion on the ‘knowledge and education’characteristics, which was carried out most ably by Marianne Liebmann and Sara Pavanello as part of their MScDevelopment Management course at the London School of Economics (see Further Reading).
Many other colleagues and experts kindly provided me with information and advice on resilience and indicatorsduring the course of this project. They include: Paola Albrito, Bob Alexander, David Alexander, Ali Asgary, MihirBhatt, Philip Buckle, Omar Cardona, Biswanath Dash, Ian Davis, Annelies Heijmans, Dan Henstra, Harry Jones, IlanKelman, Johan Minnie, Norah Niland, Warner Passanisi, Marla Petal, Ben Ramalingam, Claire Rubin, Azim Samjani,Walter Ubal Giordano, Natasha Udu-gama, Lorna Victoria, Ben Wisner and Malaika Wright.
Particular thanks are due to the Department for International Development (DFID), for supporting DRR work bythe Interagency Coordination Group, and to Olivia Coghlan and Rowshan Hannan of DFID for their support andadvice during this project.
John Twigg. Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre.August 2007.
j.twigg@ucl.ac.uk
3
Version 1 (for fieldtesting), August 2007
1. IntroductionThis guidance note is for government and civil societyorganisations working on disaster risk reduction (DRR)initiatives at community level, in partnership withvulnerable communities.
It shows what a ‘disaster-resilient community’might consist of, by setting out the many differentelements of resilience. It also provides some ideasabout how to progress towards resilience.
The version of the guidance note you are readingis a pilot version, based on a desk study anddiscussions with experts. This is now being tested inthe field and it will be revised in the light of thoseexperiences. Everyone is welcome to use the note,and feedback is similarly welcome.
1.1 ApplicationsThe guidance note is a resource, not a manual. It isdesigned to support processes of communitymobilisation and partnership for DRR.
Users can select relevant information and ideasfrom it to support their field work, according to theirneeds and priorities. This should be the result ofdiscussion between communities and theorganisations working with them.
The note can be used at different stages of projectcycle management, particularly in planning andassessment, and monitoring and evaluation. It can alsobe linked to other tools used in DRR projects andresearch (e.g. vulnerability and capacity analysis).
Much of the information here relates tocommunity capacities in DRR. The guidance note maytherefore be useful in assessing, planning or reviewingwork that focuses on capacity-building.
The findings of reviews and assessments carried outusing this note may also have some value in advocacywork at local and higher levels.
1.2 How the guidance note is organisedThe main section of the guidance note is a series oftables setting out the characteristics of a disaster-resilientcommunity. These are organised under thematicheadings that represent the main areas of DRRintervention. The themes are broadly based on aframework developed by the UN International Strategyfor Disaster Reduction (ISDR). This scheme has beenfollowed because it is generally accepted by UN andother international agencies, most national governmentsand many NGOs (see Box 1 and Fig. 1). However, it hasbeen modified in places in this guidance note.
4
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note
The aim has been to provide a comprehensive listof characteristics of DRR, but users will probablyidentify additional characteristics when they test theguidance note in the field. It is hoped to include thesein future editions.
The tables also indicate the main characteristics ofthe ‘enabling environment’ which is necessary forcommunity-level initiatives to succeed.
It should be emphasised that the ‘disaster-resilientcommunity’ is an ideal, for in reality no communitycan be free of risk. The tables present characteristics ofthis ideal state, not project output or outcomeindicators in the conventional sense. But by combiningvarious elements of resilience identified here, DRRproject workers can greatly increase communities’capacities to withstand hazard events.
Another important point to make is that thecharacteristics set out in this document are generalones for all contexts, whereas every project, locationand community is unique. Those who use thisguidance note will probably focus on those elementsof resilience that are most appropriate to theconditions they are working in or to the kind of workthat they do.
2. Key ConceptsThree concepts are central to this guidance note:DRR, resilience and community. It is important tothink about what these mean before using the tablesof characteristics.
Box 1: The Hyogo Framework for Actionand the main components of DRRAt the World Conference on Disaster Reduction inKobe, Japan, in 2005, the international communitysigned up to a 10-year DRR strategy, the HyogoFramework for Action (HFA).
The HFA sets out three strategic goals andoutlines five priorities for action, which cover themain areas of DRR. It also suggests important areasfor intervention within each theme (see Fig. 1).
On the basis of the HFA’s categories, two UNagencies have been developing DRR indicators,principally for the national level. ISDR is preparingguidance on indicators for priorities 1-4 and theOffice for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs(OCHA) is preparing guidance on indicators forpriority 5 (see Further Reading).
Section A: Introduction and Background
5
Version 1 (for fieldtesting), August 2007
Fig. 1: Hyogo Framework for ActionDiagram courtesy of UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
Sum
mar
yof
the
Hyo
goFr
amew
ork
for
Actio
n20
05–2
015:
Build
ing
the
Resil
ienc
eof
Nat
ions
and
Com
mun
ities
toD
isast
ers
Expe
cted
outc
ome,
stra
tegi
cgo
als
and
prio
ritie
sfo
rac
tion
2005
–201
5
ISDR
Contributing to the achievements of the internationally agreed development goals (including the MDGs)
DRR
=di
sast
erris
kre
duct
ion
ww
w.u
nisd
r.org
Expe
cted
Out
com
eTh
esu
bsta
ntia
lred
uctio
nof
disa
ster
loss
es,i
nliv
esan
din
the
soci
al,
econ
omic
and
envi
ronm
enta
lass
ets
ofco
mm
uniti
esan
dco
untri
es The
syst
emat
icin
corp
orat
ion
ofris
kre
duct
ion
appr
oach
esin
toth
eim
plem
enta
tion
ofem
erge
ncy
prep
ared
ness
,res
pons
ean
dre
cove
rypr
ogra
mm
es
The
deve
lopm
enta
ndst
reng
then
ing
ofin
stitu
tions
,mec
hani
sms
and
capa
citie
sto
build
resil
ienc
eto
haza
rds
Stra
tegi
cG
oals
The
inte
grat
ion
ofdi
sast
erris
kre
duct
ion
into
sust
aina
ble
deve
lopm
entp
olic
ies
and
plan
ning
Prio
ritie
sfo
rAc
tion
1.En
sure
that
disa
ster
risk
redu
ctio
n(D
RR)i
sa
natio
nala
nda
loca
lprio
rity
with
ast
rong
inst
itutio
nal
basis
for
impl
emen
tatio
nl
DRR
inst
itutio
nalm
echa
nism
s(n
atio
nalp
latfo
rms)
;de
signa
ted
resp
onsib
ilitie
sl
DRR
part
ofde
velo
pmen
tpo
licie
san
dpl
anni
ng,s
ecto
rw
isean
dm
ultis
ecto
r;l
Legi
slatio
nto
supp
ortD
RR;
lD
ecen
tralis
atio
nof
resp
onsib
ilitie
san
dre
sour
ces;
lAs
sess
men
tofh
uman
reso
urce
san
dca
paci
ties;
lFo
ster
polit
ical
com
mitm
ent;
lC
omm
unity
parti
cipa
tion.
2.Id
entif
y,as
sess
and
mon
itor
disa
ster
risks
and
enha
nce
early
war
ning
lRi
skas
sess
men
tsan
dm
aps,
mul
ti-ris
k:el
abor
atio
nan
ddi
ssem
inat
ion;
lIn
dica
tors
onD
RRan
dvu
lner
abili
ty;
lEa
rlyw
arni
ng:p
eopl
ece
nter
ed;
info
rmat
ion
syst
ems;
publ
icpo
licy;
lD
ata
and
statis
tical
loss
info
rmat
ion;
lSc
ient
ific
and
tech
nolo
gica
lde
velo
pmen
t;da
tash
arin
g,sp
ace-
base
dea
rthob
serv
atio
n,cl
imat
em
odel
ling
and
fore
cast
ing;
early
war
ning
;l
Regi
onal
and
emer
ging
risks
.
3.U
sekn
owle
dge,
inno
vatio
nan
ded
ucat
ion
tobu
ilda
cultu
reof
safe
tyan
dre
silie
nce
atal
llev
els
lIn
form
atio
nsh
arin
gan
dco
oper
atio
n;l
Net
wor
ksac
ross
disc
iplin
esan
dre
gion
s;di
alog
ue;
lU
seof
stan
dard
DRR
term
inol
ogy;
lIn
clus
ion
ofD
RRin
tosc
hool
curr
icul
a,fo
rmal
and
info
rmal
educ
atio
n;l
Trai
ning
and
lear
ning
onD
RR:
com
mun
ityle
vel,
loca
laut
horit
ies,
targ
eted
sect
ors;
equa
lacc
ess;
lRe
sear
chca
paci
ty:m
ulti-
risk;
soci
o-ec
onom
ic;
appl
icat
ion;
lPu
blic
awar
enes
san
dm
edia
.
4.Re
duce
the
unde
rlyin
gris
kfa
ctor
s
lSu
stai
nabl
eec
osys
tem
san
den
viro
nmen
tal
man
agem
ent;
lD
RRst
rate
gies
inte
grat
edw
ithcl
imat
ech
ange
adap
tatio
n;l
Food
secu
rity
for
resil
ienc
e;l
DRR
inte
grat
edin
tohe
alth
sect
oran
dsa
feho
spita
ls;l
Prot
ectio
nof
criti
calp
ublic
faci
litie
s;l
Reco
very
sche
mes
and
soci
alsa
fety
-net
s;l
Vuln
erab
ility
redu
ctio
nw
ithdi
vers
ified
inco
me
optio
ns;
lFi
nanc
ialr
isk-s
harin
gm
echa
nism
s;l
Publ
ic-p
rivat
epa
rtner
ship
s;l
Land
use
plan
ning
and
build
ing
code
s;l
Rura
ldev
elop
men
tpla
nsan
dD
RR.
5.St
reng
then
disa
ster
prep
ared
ness
for
effe
ctiv
ere
spon
seat
alll
evel
s
lD
isast
erm
anag
emen
tcap
aciti
es:
polic
y,te
chni
cala
ndin
stitu
tiona
lca
paci
ties;
lD
ialo
gue,
coor
dina
tion
and
info
rmat
ion
exch
ange
betw
een
disa
ster
man
ager
san
dde
velo
pmen
tse
ctor
s;l
Regi
onal
appr
oach
esto
disa
ster
resp
onse
,with
risk
redu
ctio
nfo
cus;
lRe
view
and
exer
cise
prep
ared
ness
and
cont
inge
ncy
plan
s;l
Emer
genc
yfu
nds;
lVo
lunt
arism
and
parti
cipa
tion.
Cro
ssC
uttin
gIs
sues
Mul
ti-ha
zard
appr
oach
Gen
der
pers
pect
ive
and
cultu
rald
iver
sity
Com
mun
ityan
dvo
lunt
eers
parti
cipa
tion
Cap
acity
build
ing
and
tech
nolo
gytra
nsfe
r
KeyActivities
1 The term ‘disaster reduction’ is often used to mean much the same thing. ‘Disaster risk management’ is also sometimes used in this way,although it is normally applied specifically to the practical implementation of DRR initiatives.
2 Geis DE 2000, ‘By Design: the Disaster Resistant and Quality-of-Life Community’. Natural Hazards Review 1(3): 152.
2.1 Disaster risk reductionDisaster risk reduction (DRR) is a broad and relativelynew concept. There are different definitions of theterm in the technical literature but it is generallyunderstood to mean the broad development andapplication of policies, strategies and practices tominimise vulnerabilities and disaster risks throughoutsociety.1
DRR is a systematic approach to identifying,assessing and reducing the risks of disaster. It aims toreduce socio-economic vulnerabilities to disaster aswell as dealing with the environmental and otherhazards that trigger them. It is the responsibility ofdevelopment and relief agencies alike and it should bean integral part of the way such organisations do theirwork, not an add-on or one-off action. DRR is verywide-ranging, therefore. There is potential for DRRinitiatives in just about every sector of developmentand humanitarian work.
No single group or organisation can address everyaspect of DRR. DRR thinking sees disasters as complexproblems demanding a collective response fromdifferent disciplinary and institutional groups – in otherwords, partnerships. This is an importantconsideration when looking at the characteristics of adisaster-resilient community, because individualorganisations will have to decide where to focus theirown efforts and how to work with partners to ensurethat other important aspects of resilience are notforgotten. Note that the tables in this guidance noteare intended as a resource for a range of organisationsworking at local and community level, collectively orindividually: certain elements of resilience may bemore relevant to some organisations and contexts thanothers.
2.2 Resilience and the disaster-resilientcommunityMany attempts have been made to define ‘resilience’.The variety of academic definitions and concepts canbe confusing. For operational purposes it is moreuseful to work with broad definitions and commonlyunderstood characteristics. Using this approach,system or community resilience can be understood as:
l capacity to absorb stress or destructive forcesthrough resistance or adaptation
l capacity to manage, or maintain certain basicfunctions and structures, during disastrous events
l capacity to recover or ‘bounce back’ after an event
‘Resilience’ is generally seen as a broader conceptthan ‘capacity’ because it goes beyond the specific
6
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note
behaviour, strategies and measures for risk reductionand management that are normally understood ascapacities. However, it is difficult to separate theconcepts clearly. In everyday usage, ‘capacity’ and‘coping capacity’ often mean the same as ‘resilience’.
A focus on resilience means putting greateremphasis on what communities can do for themselvesand how to strengthen their capacities, rather thanconcentrating on their vulnerability to disaster or theirneeds in an emergency.
The terms ‘resilience’ and ‘vulnerability’ areopposite sides of the same coin, but both are relativeterms. One has to ask what individuals, communitiesand systems are vulnerable or resilient to, and to whatextent.
Like vulnerability, resilience is complex and multi-faceted. Different features or layers of resilience areneeded to deal with different kinds and severity ofstress.
The ‘disaster-resilient community’ is an ideal. Nocommunity can ever be completely safe from naturaland man-made hazards. It may be helpful to think ofa disaster-resilient or disaster-resistant community as‘the safest possible community that we have theknowledge to design and build in a natural hazardcontext’,2 minimising its vulnerability by maximisingthe application of DRR measures. DRR is therefore thecollection of actions, or process, undertaken towardsachieving resilience.
2.3 CommunityIn conventional emergency management,communities are viewed in spatial terms: groups ofpeople living in the same area or close to the samerisks. This overlooks other significant dimensions of‘community’ which are to do with common interests,values, activities and structures.
Communities are complex and they are often notunited. There will be differences in wealth, socialstatus and labour activity between people living in thesame area, and there may be more serious divisionswithin the community. Individuals can be members ofdifferent communities at the same time, linked to eachby different factors such as location, occupation,economic status, gender, religion or recreationalinterests. Communities are dynamic: people may jointogether for common goals and separate again oncethese have been achieved.
These factors make it difficult to identify clearly the‘community’ one is working with. From a hazardsperspective, the spatial dimension is an essentialelement in identifying communities at risk, but this
7
Version 1 (for fieldtesting), August 2007
must be linked to an understanding of the socio-economic differentiations, linkages and dynamicswithin the area at risk, not only to identify vulnerablegroups but also to understand the diverse factors thatcontribute to vulnerability. Community businesses,services and infrastructure must also be taken intoaccount.
Communities do not exist in isolation. The level ofa community’s resilience is also influenced bycapacities outside the community, in particular byemergency management services but also by othersocial and administrative services, public infrastructureand a web of socio-economic and political linkageswith the wider world. Virtually all communities aredependent on external service providers to a greateror lesser extent. The ‘enabling environment’ sectionsin the tables try to capture some of these influences.
The guidance note contains a set of five tables settingout the ‘characteristics of a disaster-resilientcommunity’.
Each table covers a different thematic area relatingto resilience and DRR. The five thematic areas arebased on those in the Hyogo Framework for Actionand are intended to cover all aspects of resilience.
Each thematic table is divided into three sections(columns):
The following pages contain suggestions about howeach part of the tables might be used and discussionsof issues relating to their application.
One point to note here is that some aspects ofresilience may belong to more than one of the themesand components and may therefore be repeated indifferent tables.
1. Components of ResilienceThe thematic areas are very broad. Each area ofresilience is therefore subdivided into a set of its maincomponents. Because the scope of each thematic areavaries, the number and range of components differsfrom one thematic area to another. The table on page9 lists the components of resilience for each thematicarea.
As a first step, it may be useful to consider thesemain components of resilience. An organisation mightlook at these as part of a basic ‘mapping’ or ‘scoping’exercise to identify:
l which main areas of resilience or DRR it, and otheragencies, are currently addressing in a particularcommunity or district
l where the current emphasis is in their interventionsl any major gaps in coverage or missing links
between DRR components
Components Characteristics Characteristics of resilience of a resilient of an enabling
community environment
Table Thematic area
1 Governance2 Risk assessment3 Knowledge and education4 Risk management and vulnerability
reduction5 Disaster preparedness and response
8
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note
The findings of this review could contribute todiscussions about the focus of future work.
It is extremely unlikely that a single organisation willbe working in all of the relevant areas. It is probably notadvisable that it should, since specific technicalexpertise is required in many cases. Where anorganisation’s own expertise lies in one particular field(e.g. disaster preparedness, livelihood support,education), it will usually want to build on its existingstrengths. But a mapping or scoping exercise will enableit to consider if it should be involved in other relevantaspects of DRR and resilience that might support itscurrent work or help to increase its impact.
For example, an organisation with expertise inhazard and risk assessment or vulnerability analysis(which comes under Thematic area 2: Riskassessment) might want to make sure that the results ofits work are being shared and applied effectively,which might cause it to think about becominginvolved in public information work (an aspect ofThematic area 3: Knowledge and education) and earlywarning systems (Thematic area 5: Disasterpreparedness and response).
As another example, an organisation focusing ontechnologies for DRR such as safe buildings and floodand landslide control measures (part of Thematic area4: Risk management and vulnerability reduction)would probably need to be involved in discussionsabout building codes, land-use regulations and otherlegislative provisions (Thematic area 1: Governance)that might affect its initiatives, as well as in providingtechnical training to community members (Thematicarea 3: Knowledge and education).
Thematic area 1 (Governance) is really a cross-cutting theme underlying the other thematic areas.Planning, regulation, integration, institutional systems,partnerships and accountability are relevant toeveryone, because they are issues likely to affect anyinitiative in DRR, development or relief. Users aretherefore advised to refer to these governance aspectswhatever the thematic areas they are focusing on.
A scoping or mapping exercise of this kind may beparticularly helpful in multi-stakeholder settings. It canindicate gaps in agencies’ collective coverage andhighlight potential for new or stronger collaboration onspecific issues. Partnerships between differentinstitutions and the collective application of differentkinds of technical expertise are important to thesuccess of DRR.
Section B: Using the Tables
2. Characteristics of a ResilientCommunityFor each component of resilience, the tables provide aset of characteristics of a resilient community. Again,
9
Version 1 (for fieldtesting), August 2007
Thematic area Components of resilience
1 Governance l Policy, planning, priorities and political commitment.l Legal and regulatory systemsl Integration with development policies and planningl Integration with emergency response and recoveryl Institutional mechanisms, capacities and structures; allocation of
responsibilitiesl Partnershipsl Accountability and community participation
2 Risk assessment l Hazards/risk data and assessmentl Vulnerability and impact data and assessmentl Scientific and technical capacities and innovation
3 Knowledge and l Public awareness, knowledge and skillseducation l Information management and sharing
l Education and trainingl Cultures, attitudes, motivationl Learning and research
4 Risk management and l Environmental and natural resource managementvulnerability reduction l Health and well being
l Sustainable livelihoodsl Social protectionl Financial instrumentsl Physical protection; structural and technical measuresl Planning régimes
5 Disaster preparedness l Organisational capacities and coordinationand response l Early warning systems
l Preparedness and contingency planningl Emergency resources and infrastructurel Emergency response and recoveryl Participation, voluntarism, accountability
Thematic area 2: Characteristics of a resilient communityRisk assessment
Component of l Community hazard/risk assessments carried out which provide comprehensive resilience 1: picture of all major hazards and risks facing community (and potential risks). Hazards/risk data l Hazard/risk assessment is participatory process including representatives of all and assessment sections of community and sources of expertise.
l Assessment findings shared, discussed, understood and agreed among all stakeholders, and feed into community disaster planning.
l Findings made available to all interested parties (within and outside community, locally and at higher levels) and feed into their disaster planning.
l Ongoing monitoring of hazards and risks and updating of assessments. l Skills and capacity to carry out community hazard and risk assessments maintained
through support and training.
the number of characteristics varies according to thenature of the component. Here is an example of onecomponent of resilience with its related characteristicsof a resilient community:
2.1 Applications The characteristics can be used at various stages of theproject cycle and for different purposes. The followingare likely to be the main applications:
l Baseline studies of the level of resilience in acommunity.
l Vulnerability and capacity analysis.l Project planning, especially in identifying
indicators for logical and results-based planningframeworks.
l Monitoring and evaluation (of individual projectsand for comparative analysis of projects)
2.2 Selecting characteristics; settingprioritiesIdentification and selection of relevant characteristicsis essential but not necessarily easy. The complete setof characteristics is intended to represent an ideal stateof resilience – in other words, a community thatexhibits all of the characteristics under all of theheadings (themes and components) would haveattained the highest possible level of safety. Similarly,DRR requires a co-ordinated and comprehensiveapproach in which progress in one area needs to bematched by comparable progress in others.
However, as the ideal state of resilience will alwaysremain beyond our grasp, organisations will need toselect those characteristics that are most relevant tothe communities they are working with, and the typeof DRR work they are involved in; and they will seekaims that are realistic in the context of a particularproject. This also depends on the capacities ofindividual organisations and their scale of operation.
Not all elements of resilience are necessarily ofequal importance, although there are no universallyagreed priorities for resilience or DRR. Theimportance of each characteristic to a given projectdepends on the specific location, time andcircumstances (including different hazard types). Theselection process should take this into account andreach clear decisions about priorities, recognising thatthis may involve some compromises. This processshould be open. The characteristics will be most useful(and most used) when they are selected by, or at leastwith, those who need to use them. This meanscomprehensive participatory processes of discussionand validation at local level, which may also identifyadditional characteristics of resilience.
One way of narrowing the scope of characteristicsis to consider only actions that are intended
specifically to reduce disaster risk. This is the basis ofthe concept of ‘invulnerable development’, which isdevelopment directed towards reducing vulnerabilityto disaster, comprising ‘decisions and activities that areintentionally designed and implemented to reducerisk and susceptibility, and also raise resistance andresilience to disaster’.3
Users of this guidance note should be aware thatthere is a degree of ambiguity regarding exactly who agiven characteristic may apply to – and hence, whoshould take appropriate action. For instance, acharacteristic such as ‘shared vision of a prepared andresilient community’ begs the question: who issupposed to share in this vision? All of thecharacteristics are intended to be applicable tocommunities and their members (remembering thatcommunities are not homogeneous) but some couldalso apply to groups and organisations working amongthe community, such as local NGOs and perhaps evenlocal government agencies or extension workers. Forthe most part, these external agencies and theircapacities have been placed within the ‘enablingenvironment’ part of the framework (see below).However, since the boundaries between communitiesand the enabling environment cannot always bedrawn exactly, and external agencies have animportant role to play in community welfare anddevelopment, this matter may sometimes requirediscussion and decision in the field.
2.3 Characteristics and indicatorsThe characteristics set out in the tables are not projectindicators in the conventional sense. It is important torecognise this. They characterise an ideal state ofresilience in quite general terms, whereas individualprojects will need their own specific and moredetailed indicators of achievement.4
The distinction between characteristics andindicators is not rigid, however. Some characteristicsare equivalent to the ‘outcome’ indicators used inproject evaluation because they represent an end stateresulting from DRR interventions. Others are closer to‘output’ indicators because they represent DRRactivities that must be carried out or measures thatmust be put in place if resilience outcomes are to beachieved. If an organisation or project is using thetables for monitoring and evaluation (M&E), it maychoose to regroup some of the characteristics in thisway. (See also the discussion below on milestones.)
10
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note
3 McEntire DA 2000, ‘Sustainability or invulnerable development? Proposals for the current shift in paradigms’. Australian Journal ofEmergency Management 15(1): 58-61.
4 The ISDR and OCHA guidance on indicators explain indicators and indicator selection in detail. ADPC’s guidelines on community-baseddisaster risk management contain helpful information on developing DRR indicators at community level (see Further Reading).
11
Version 1 (for fieldtesting), August 2007
2.4 Composite characteristicsSome characteristics are composites of individualcharacteristics – for example:
[hazard/risk] assessment findings shared,discussed, understood and agreed among allstakeholders, and feed into community disasterplanning.
This contains two main elements: (1) sharing,discussion, understanding and agreement aboutassessment findings among all stakeholders; (2)assessment findings feed into community disasterplanning. The first main element can also be split intofour more particular elements: sharing, discussion,understanding and agreement. One reason foraggregating characteristics in this way is to make thisdocument more manageable: without it, the tableswould be extremely long. But this has only been donewhere the different characteristics are strongly linkedto one another. In practice, and depending on whatpurpose they are using the tables for, organisationsmay wish to disaggregate some of the characteristics.
2.5 Quantitative versus qualitativecharacteristicsThe characteristics set out in these tables arequalitative. Communities and their partners thereforeneed to make their own judgements about whether ornot certain aspects of resilience have been achieved.Some of these will be more straightforward thanothers. For instance, it is easy to tell if a communitydisaster preparedness or contingency plan exists (evenif its quality is another matter). But it is much harder todecide if there is an equitable distribution of wealthand livelihood assets in a community, or the adequacyof access to common property resources that cansupport coping strategies during crises.
The guidance note cannot tell projects andcommunities how they should reach thesejudgements. They are matters for collective agreementbetween the stakeholders. The conclusions will bedifferent in each case, according to context andexpectations, and there will be a fair amount ofsubjective judgement. But in every case the processfor reaching decisions must be transparent andparticipatory.
Some guidelines and experts have suggested theneed for quantitative indicators of certain aspects ofDRR (e.g. the number of volunteers trained in first aid,
the percentage of households in a community withproperty insurance). It is impossible to fix standardquantitative measures that can be applied to everycontext but quantitative indicators can be used at anindividual project level, if required. In such cases, theycould form part of the data on which the broaderjudgements about attainment of characteristics ofresilience are based. It is for individual project teamsto decide what kinds of quantitative indicator areappropriate and what levels of attainment to set.
3. Characteristics of an EnablingEnvironmentIn this guidance note, the focus is on communities andlocal organisations (although individual and householdresilience is incorporated in the tables to some extent).However, the framework acknowledges theimportance of wider institutional, policy and socio-economic factors in supporting community-levelresilience.
The tables identify the main elements of this‘enabling environment’5 in relation to eachcomponent of resilience. They are less detailed thanthe characteristics of community resilience. Most aretaken from the national-level DRR indicatorframeworks being developed by UN ISDR and UNOCHA (see Further Reading).
The following table (on page 12) illustrates how thisworks for one component of resilience. Note that itincludes local and national level characteristics.Elsewhere in the tables, international dimensions ofthe enabling environment are also sometimesincluded.
People who work on community resilience need tobe conscious of the enabling environment and theeffect it may have on their work, but they cannot beexpected to analyse it in detail. An individual projectwill probably undertake a quick, subjective assessmentof the enabling environment. However, anorganisation working on a number of communityprojects in a particular country – e.g. a national orinternational NGO – may wish to carry out a morethorough assessment to inform its work or to supportadvocacy.
Many features of the ideal enabling environmentwill be missing in many cases. In some situations thelack of key components of support may be so greatthat it creates what may be called a ‘disabling’
5 The term ‘enabling environment’ is borrowed from the All India Disaster Mitigation Institute. See ‘The Need for a More Nuanced View ofLocal Capacity and the Support Approaches of Outsiders’. southasiadisasters.net 2006 #18 (August), p.4.http://www.southasiadisasters.net/publication.htm The IFRC’s ongoing work on local-level DRR indicators uses a C-I-T categorisation toconsider this (where C = issues the community can change; I = issues the community can influence to find solutions; T = issues where thecommunity recognises that transformation will take a long time and is out of their hands): Barrena I 2007, ‘Indicators: A guide to find simpleindicators for risk reduction projects at local level’. (Geneva: IFRC, unpublished draft report).
12
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note
Thematic Area 1: Characteristics of enabling environmentGovernance
Component of l Political consensus on importance of DRRresilience 1: l DRR a policy priority at all levels of government.DRR policy, l National DRR policy, strategy and implementation plan, with clear vision, priorities, planning, priorities targets and benchmarks.and political l Local government DRR policies, strategies and implementation plans in place.commitment l Official (national and local) policy and strategy of support to CBDRM.
l Local-level official understanding of and support for community vision.
environment for local-level initiatives. Users of theguidance note will therefore have to base their planson realistic assessments of the type and level ofexternal support they can expect.
4. MilestonesThe indicator set ‘characteristics of a disaster-resilientcommunity’ represents a goal: the highest level ofresilience that is realistically attainable. Additionalmilestones are needed to measure improvements andprogress towards the goal. However, there are
Box 2: Key indicators of community resilienceSome organisations and researchers are beginning to think about the most important indicators of resilience witha view to setting priorities for DRR interventions. No consensus has been reached on this but recent suggestionsinclude the following:
ADPC: Indicators Plan International: indicators of Practical Action: key of a ‘minimum level community resilience characteristics of a
of resiliency’ resilient community
l A community 1. Governance: l A community organisation such as a organisation l Extent and nature of access/ development/disaster management
l A DRR and disaster presence/influence of children group, representing majority of preparedness plan and other vulnerable groups (or people. Existing groups can be
l A community early groups that represent their interests) – groomed for this role.warning system to/in/over functions of governance l A DRR and Disaster Preparedness
l Trained manpower: at local, sub-national, national levels: plan (supported by local/central risk assessment, search m Policy government) and rescue, medical m Legislative l Early warning systemsfirst aid, relief m Planning l Trained persons – risk assessment, distribution, masons m Budgeting search and rescue, first aid, relief for safer house m Monitoring distribution, safer house construction,construction, l Awareness of community members fire fighting; effective delivery system.fire fighting of their rights l Physical infrastructure – access to
l Physical connectivity: l Access of community members to roads, electricity, phones, clinics, etcroads, electricity, legal and other avenues to enforce l Linkages with local authorities, telephone, clinics rights/provide redress (e.g. through NGOs, humanitarian agencies, etc
l Relational connectivity linkages to legal rights NGOs, l Knowledge and awareness of risks with local authorities pro-bono lawyers) and risk reduction strategiesNGOs, etc. l Safer housing to withstand local
l Knowledge of risks 2. Risk assessment: hazardsand risk reduction l Existence and quality of community l Safer/appropriate/more diverse actions risk assessments and maps that are sources of livelihoods including
l A community disaster ‘owned’ by both community and protection of assets most at risk.reduction fund to government l Access to resources for mitigation,
13
Version 1 (for fieldtesting), August 2007
ADPC: Indicators Plan International: indicators of Practical Action: key of a ‘minimum level community resilience characteristics of a
of resiliency’ resilient community
implement risk l Extent and quality of participation of response and recovery activities reduction activities vulnerable groups in development of
l Safer houses to community risk assessments and withstand local mapshazards l Extent to which vulnerability and
l Safer sources of risk analysis is incorporated in livelihoods development planning
3. Knowledge and education:l Awareness levels in the community,
particularly children and vulnerable groups, of EWS
l Awareness levels in the community, particularly of children and vulnerable groups, of risks and risk reduction strategies
4. Risk management and vulnerabilityreduction:
l Extent and nature of social capitall Health statusl Sustainable livelihoods/natural
resource managementl Extent of climate change adaptationl Food securityl Extent of diversity of livelihood optionsl Extent to which DRR has been
integrated into development planningl Access to social protection
mechanisms e.g. social insurance
5. Disaster preparedness and response:l Existence and quality of early warning
systemsl Existence, practice and revision of
preparedness and contingency plansl Extent and nature of participation of
vulnerable groups in development, practice and revision of preparedness and contingency plans
l Extent and quality of linkages with local authorities, NGOs, etc.
l Extent of diversity of physical and communications infrastructure and assets, e.g. roads, boats, mobile phones, etc.
l Access to resources for mitigation, response and recovery activities
Source: ADPC 2006, Critical Source: Plan International Source: Practical ActionGuidelines: Community-based Disaster Risk Management(Bangkok: Asian Disaster Preparedness Center; www.adpc.net) p.25
challenges in using these tables of characteristics toassess levels of progress from an existing state ofresilience towards an ideal state of safety. Somecharacteristics may be used as output or processindicators (see above) but they cannot be applied asstandard measures to the specific requirements ofindividual projects. Project partners will have to agreehow to measure their own progress in each case. Indoing so they will focus on those characteristics ofresilience that they have chosen to work on, workingout a process for moving from the current state towardsthe end state in each case, and agreeing indicators fordifferent stages of progress along the way.
A more generic ‘milestones’ model may be usefulfor getting a better idea of the ‘big picture’ of progresstowards resilience in a particular district orcommunity. Like the mapping of thematic areas andcomponents of resilience, this would probably bemost useful as a multi-stakeholder exercise looking atthe work of all groups and organisations involved inDRR. For this, a five-level scale is suggested, with eachlevel marking a distinct stage in the development ofDRR. This is a simple scale and should be easy to use.It is designed to be applied across all areas ofresilience. It could be used to review progress towardsresilience across all thematic areas, or in individualthematic areas. It may also be applicable to selectedcomponents of resilience, but not necessarily to allcomponents.
It is assumed that groups and organisations using thistool for self-assessment will already have advancedbeyond Level 1.
Level 5 approximates to the ‘disaster-resilientcommunity’ ideal. The ‘culture of safety’ notionreferred to here, which has been advanced by the UNsystem and others, goes beyond carrying out DRRactivities because it implies deep-rooted behaviouralchange.6
Assessment of progress using this model wouldinvolve looking at the range of DRR or resilience issuesbeing addressed, the number, type and range ofresilience characteristics being achieved or workedtowards, and – importantly – the level of coherenceand co-ordination of efforts.
Assessments could be rapid or more intensive.They would have to be participatory, since agreementon the different levels would be based on largelysubjective judgements.7
The milestones could be used as baselines at thestart of a project to assess the level of achievement atthat moment in time. Repeat assessments wouldindicate the extent of progress in DRR. However, itmust be emphasised that many of these changes willonly come about in the long term, especially wherecommunities and supporting agencies have limitedcapacity and resources, and where there arecompeting priorities.
Application of this or similar methods would helpto keep the overall picture in sight and wouldencourage greater coherence of activities andlinkages between different groups and organisationsinvolved.
5. Other IssuesThe development of this guidance note is just oneamong several current and recent initiatives toimprove the monitoring and evaluation of DRR, whichhas led to the production of several sets of indicators.Although the Hyogo Framework for Action is a guidingframework for some, the different initiatives doinevitably reflect a range of views. This diversity can beseen as a problem and there have been calls forharmonisation of indicators and evaluationframeworks. However desirable this may be, twofactors should be borne in mind. First, every DRRinitiative is context-specific, so generic or harmonisedassessment schemes will always have to be customisedto fit the context to which they are applied. Second,this is a relatively new area of work. Further piloting of
Level 1. Little awareness of the issue(s) ormotivation to address them. Actionslimited to crisis response.
Level 2. Awareness of the issue(s) and willingnessto address them. Capacity to act(knowledge and skills, human, materialand other resources) remains limited.Interventions tend to be one-off,piecemeal and short-term.
Level 3. Development and implementation ofsolutions. Capacity to act is improvedand substantial. Interventions are morenumerous and long-term.
Level 4. Coherence and integration. Interventionsare extensive, covering all main aspectsof the problem, and they are linkedwithin a coherent long-term strategy.
Level 5. A ‘culture of safety’ exists among allstakeholders, where DRR is embeddedin all relevant policy, planning, practice,attitudes and behaviour.
14
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note
6 Behavioural change is difficult to measure, but there are methods for doing this, such as outcome mapping – see www.outcomemapping.ca
7 Similar attainment scales are used elsewhere in DRR assessment: for example, ISDR’s DRR Indicators and Tearfund’s method for assessingmainstreaming of DRR in development organisations (see Further Reading). Work has been done in some areas on more sophisticatedapproaches with specific benchmarks for progress towards each individual indicator (notably cyclone early warning systems). Such tools arevaluable for research and national-level evaluation but are too complex for use at local or community level.
methods and debate about their results are neededbefore general conclusions can be drawn with anyconfidence.
6. Further ReadingThis list contains selected important sources that arewidely available (most are online). A fullerbibliography of relevant documents on indicators,resilience and community DRR is available athttp://www.benfieldhrc.org/disaster_studies/projects/communitydrrindicators/community_drr_indicators_index.htm
The Hyogo Framework of Action and DRRindicatorsl UN ISDR Hyogo Framework for Action web page,
http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/hfa.htm l UN ISDR 2007, ‘Guide Note on Indicators for
Assessing Progress on Disaster Risk Reduction’(Geneva: International Strategy for DisasterReduction). Unpublished draft (final version will bepublished).
l UN ISDR 2005, HF Dialogue: assessing progresstowards disaster risk reduction within the HyogoFramework (online discussion, moderated by PhilipBuckle and Graham Marsh), http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/hfa.htm
l UN OCHA 2007, ‘Disaster Preparedness forEffective Response: Implementing Priority Five ofthe Hyogo Framework for Action’ (Geneva: Officefor the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs).Unpublished draft (final version will be published).
See also:
l Liebmann M, Pavanello S 2007, ‘A critical reviewof the Knowledge and Education Indicators ofCommunity-Level Disaster Risk Reduction’.Unpublished report for the Benfield UCL HazardResearch Centre,http://www.benfieldhrc.org/disaster_studies/projects/communitydrrindicators/community_drr_indicators_index.htm
DRR indicators (general)l ADPC 2006, Critical Guidelines: Community-based
Disaster Risk Management (Bangkok: Asian DisasterPreparedness Center), www.adpc.net
l Barrena I 2007, ‘Indicators: A guide to find simpleindicators for risk reduction projects at local level’(Geneva: IFRC, unpublished draft report).
l Benson C, Twigg J 2007 (with T Rossetto), Tools forMainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction: Guidance
Notes for Development Organisations (Geneva:ProVention Consortium), ww.proventionconsortium.org/mainstreaming_tools
l Benson C, Twigg J 2004, ‘Measuring Mitigation’:Methodologies for assessing natural hazard risksand the net benefits of mitigation: a scoping study(Geneva: ProVention Consortium),www.proventionconsortium.org/mainstreaming_tools
l LaTrobe S, Davis I 2005, Mainstreaming disasterrisk reduction: a tool for development organisations(Teddington: Tearfund), http://tilz.tearfund.org/Research/Climate+change+and+disasters+policy/
l McEntire DA 2000, ‘Sustainability or invulnerabledevelopment? Proposals for the current shift inparadigms’. Australian Journal of EmergencyManagement 15(1): 58–61.
l ProVention Consortium 2006, Risk ReductionIndicators. TRIAMS Working Paper (Geneva:ProVention Consortium),www.proventionconsortium.org/themes/default/pdfs/TRIAMS_full_paper.pdf
Local-level and community-based DRRl ADPC 2006, Critical Guidelines: Community-based
Disaster Risk Management (Bangkok: Asian DisasterPreparedness Center), www.adpc.net
l Twigg J 2004, Disaster risk reduction: Mitigationand preparedness in development and emergencyprogramming (London: Overseas DevelopmentInstitute, Humanitarian Practice Network, GoodPractice Review No. 9). www.odihpn.org
Resilience and the disaster-resilientcommunityl Buckle P, Marsh G, Smale S 2000, ‘New
approaches to assessing vulnerability andresilience.’ Australian Journal of EmergencyManagement 15(2) 8–14.
l Geis DE 2000, ‘By Design: the Disaster Resistantand Quality-of-Life Community’. Natural HazardsReview 1(3): 151–160.
l Godschalk DR 2003, ‘Urban Hazard Mitigation:Creating Resilient Cities’. Natural Hazards Review4(3) 136–143.
l IFRC 2004, World Disasters Report 2004: Focus oncommunity resilience (Geneva: IFRC), chapter 1.
l McEntire DA 2005, ‘Why vulnerability matters.Exploring the merit of an inclusive disasterreduction concept’. Disaster Prevention andManagement 14(2) 206–222.
l Manyena SB 2006, ‘The concept of resiliencerevisited’. Disasters 30(4): 433–450.
15
Version 1 (for fieldtesting), August 2007
Communities and DRRl Buckle P 1998/9, ‘Re-defining community and
vulnerability in the context of emergencymanagement’. Australian Journal of EmergencyManagement 13(4) 21–26.
l Enders J 2001, ‘Measuring community awarenessand preparedness for emergencies’. AustralianJournal of Emergency Management 16(3): 52–58.
l IFRC 2004, World Disasters Report 2004: Focus oncommunity resilience (Geneva: IFRC), pp. 27–31.
l Marsh G, Buckle P 2001, ‘Community: theconcept of community in the risk and emergencymanagement context’. Australian Journal ofEmergency Management 16(1): 5–7.
16
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note
17
Version 1 (for fieldtesting), August 2007
Thematic Area 1: Governance
Components of resilience:
1. DRR policy, planning, priorities, and political commitment
2. Legal and regulatory systems
3. Integration with development policies and planning
4. Integration with emergency response and recovery
5. Institutional mechanisms, capacities and structures; allocation ofresponsibilities
6. Partnerships
7. Accountability and community participation
Section C: Tables
18
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note
Com
pone
nts
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofa
Dis
aste
r-re
silie
ntC
omm
unity
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofan
Enab
ling
Envi
ronm
ent
ofRe
silie
nce
1.D
RRpo
licy,
1.1
Shar
edvi
sion
ofa
prep
ared
and
resil
ient
com
mun
ity.
ãPo
litic
alco
nsen
sus
onim
porta
nce
ofD
RR.
plan
ning
,1.
2C
onse
nsus
view
ofris
ksfa
ced,
risk
man
agem
enta
ppro
ach,
ãD
RRa
polic
ypr
iorit
yat
alll
evel
sof
gove
rnm
ent.
prio
ritie
s,sp
ecifi
cac
tions
tobe
take
nan
dta
rget
sto
bem
et.1
ãN
atio
nalD
RRpo
licy,
stra
tegy
and
impl
emen
tatio
nan
dpo
litic
al1.
3Vi
sion
and
DRR
plan
sin
form
edby
unde
rsta
ndin
gof
plan
,with
clea
rvi
sion,
prio
ritie
s,ta
rget
san
dbe
nchm
arks
.co
mm
itmen
t.un
derly
ing
caus
esof
vuln
erab
ility
and
othe
rfa
ctor
sou
tsid
eã
Loca
lgov
ernm
entD
RRpo
licie
s,st
rate
gies
and
impl
emen
tatio
nco
mm
unity
’sco
ntro
l.pl
ans
inpl
ace.
1.4
Com
mun
ityta
kes
long
-ter
mpe
rspe
ctiv
e,fo
cusin
gon
ãO
ffici
al(n
atio
nala
ndlo
cal)
polic
yan
dst
rate
gyof
supp
ort
outc
omes
and
impa
ctof
DRR
.to
com
mun
ity-b
ased
disa
ster
risk
man
agem
ent(
CBD
RM).
1.5
Com
mitt
ed,e
ffect
ive
and
acco
unta
ble
com
mun
ityle
ader
ship
ãLo
cal-l
evel
offic
ialu
nder
stan
ding
of,a
ndsu
ppor
tfor
,of
DRR
plan
ning
and
impl
emen
tatio
n.co
mm
unity
visio
n.1.
6C
omm
unity
DRR
(and
DP)
plan
s,de
velo
ped
thro
ugh
parti
cipa
tory
proc
esse
s,pu
tint
oop
erat
ion,
and
upda
ted
perio
dica
lly.
2.Le
gala
nd2.
1C
omm
unity
unde
rsta
nds
rele
vant
legi
slatio
n,re
gula
tions
and
ãRe
leva
ntan
den
ablin
gle
gisla
tion,
regu
latio
ns,c
odes
,etc
.,re
gula
tory
proc
edur
es,a
ndth
eir
impo
rtanc
e.ad
dres
sing
and
supp
ortin
gD
RR,a
tnat
iona
land
loca
llev
els.
syst
ems
2.2
Com
mun
ityaw
are
ofits
right
san
dth
ele
galo
blig
atio
nsof
ãJu
risdi
ctio
nsan
dre
spon
sibili
ties
for
DRR
atal
llev
els
gove
rnm
enta
ndot
her
stak
ehol
ders
topr
ovid
epr
otec
tion.
defin
edin
legi
slatio
n,re
gula
tions
,by-
law
s,et
c.ã
Mec
hani
sms
forc
ompl
ianc
ean
den
forc
emen
tofl
aws,
regu
latio
ns,c
odes
,etc
.,an
dpe
nalti
esfo
rnon
-com
plia
nce
defin
edin
law
san
dre
gula
tions
.ã
Lega
land
regu
lato
rysy
stem
unde
rpin
ned
bygu
aran
tees
ofre
leva
ntrig
hts:
tosa
fety
,to
equi
tabl
eas
sista
nce,
tobe
liste
ned
toan
dco
nsul
ted.
ãLa
nd-u
sere
gula
tions
,bui
ldin
gco
des
and
othe
rla
ws
and
regu
latio
nsre
latin
gto
DRR
enfo
rced
loca
lly.
3.In
tegr
atio
nw
ith3.
1C
omm
unity
DRR
seen
byal
lloc
alst
akeh
olde
rsas
inte
gral
ãG
over
nmen
t(al
llev
els)
take
sho
listic
and
inte
grat
edap
proa
chde
velo
pmen
tpa
rtof
plan
san
dac
tions
toac
hiev
ew
ider
com
mun
itygo
als
toD
RR,l
ocat
edw
ithin
wid
erde
velo
pmen
tcon
text
and
linke
dpo
licie
s(e
.g.p
over
tyal
levi
atio
n,qu
ality
oflif
e).
tode
velo
pmen
tpla
nnin
gac
ross
diffe
rent
sect
ors.
and
plan
ning
ãD
RRin
corp
orat
edin
toor
linke
dto
othe
rna
tiona
lde
velo
pmen
tpla
nsan
ddo
nor-
supp
orte
dco
untry
prog
ram
mes
.2
ãRo
utin
ein
tegr
atio
nof
DRR
into
deve
lopm
entp
lann
ing
and
sect
oral
polic
ies
(pov
erty
erad
icat
ion,
soci
alpr
otec
tion,
sust
aina
ble
deve
lopm
ent,
clim
ate
chan
gead
apta
tion,
dese
rtific
atio
n,na
tura
lres
ourc
em
anag
emen
t,he
alth
,
19
Thematic Area 1: Governance
educ
atio
n,et
c.).
ãFo
rmal
deve
lopm
entp
lann
ing
and
impl
emen
tatio
npr
oces
ses
requ
ired
toin
corp
orat
eD
RRel
emen
ts(e
.g.h
azar
d,vu
lner
abili
tyan
dris
kan
alys
is,m
itiga
tion
plan
s).
ãM
ulti-
sect
oral
inst
itutio
nalp
latfo
rms
for
prom
otin
gD
RR.
ãLo
calp
lann
ing
polic
ies,
regu
latio
nsan
dde
cisio
n-m
akin
gsy
stem
sta
kedi
sast
erris
kin
toac
coun
t.
4.In
tegr
atio
nw
ith4.
1C
omm
unity
and
othe
rlo
cal-l
evel
acto
rsin
sust
aina
ble
ãN
atio
nalp
olic
yfra
mew
ork
requ
ires
DRR
tobe
inco
rpor
ated
emer
genc
yde
velo
pmen
tand
DRR
enga
gein
join
tpla
nnin
gw
ithin
tode
sign
and
impl
emen
tatio
nof
disa
ster
resp
onse
and
resp
onse
and
com
mun
ityan
dlo
cal-l
evel
emer
genc
yte
ams
and
stru
ctur
es.
reco
very
.re
cove
ryã
Polic
y,pl
anni
ngan
dop
erat
iona
llin
kage
sbe
twee
nem
erge
ncy
man
agem
ent,
DRR
and
deve
lopm
ents
truct
ures
.ã
Risk
redu
ctio
nin
corp
orat
edin
toof
ficia
l(an
din
tern
atio
nally
supp
orte
dan
dim
plem
ente
d)po
st-d
isast
erre
cons
truct
ion
plan
san
dac
tions
.
5.In
stitu
tiona
l5.
1Re
pres
enta
tive
com
mun
ityor
gani
satio
nsde
dica
ted
toD
RR/D
RM.
ãSu
ppor
tive
polit
ical
,adm
inist
rativ
ean
dfin
anci
alen
viro
nmen
tm
echa
nism
s,5.
2Lo
calN
GO
s,C
BOs
and
com
mun
ities
ofin
tere
sten
gage
dw
ithfo
rC
BDRM
and
com
mun
ity-b
ased
deve
lopm
ent.
capa
citie
san
dot
her
issue
sca
pabl
eof
supp
ortin
gD
RRan
dre
spon
se.3
ãIn
stitu
tiona
lman
date
san
dre
spon
sibili
ties
for
DRR
clea
rlyst
ruct
ures
;5.
3Re
spon
sibili
ties,
reso
urce
s,et
c.,d
efin
edin
com
mun
ityde
fined
.Int
er-in
stitu
tiona
lor
co-o
rdin
atin
gm
echa
nism
sex
ist,
allo
catio
nof
disa
ster
plan
s.w
ithcl
early
desig
nate
dre
spon
sibili
ties.
resp
onsib
ilitie
s5.
4Sh
ared
unde
rsta
ndin
gam
ong
alll
ocal
stak
ehol
ders
rega
rdin
gã
Foca
lpoi
ntat
natio
nall
evel
with
auth
ority
and
reso
urce
sto
DRR
resp
onsib
ilitie
s,au
thor
ityan
dde
cisio
nm
akin
g.co
-ord
inat
eal
lrel
ated
bodi
esin
volv
edin
disa
ster
5.5
Com
mun
ity-m
anag
edfu
nds
and
othe
rm
ater
ialr
esou
rces
for
man
agem
enta
ndD
RR.
DRR
and
disa
ster
reco
very
.ã
Hum
an,t
echn
ical
,mat
eria
land
finan
cial
reso
urce
sfo
rD
RR5.
6A
cces
sto
gove
rnm
enta
ndot
her
fund
ing
and
reso
urce
sfo
rad
equa
teto
mee
tdef
ined
inst
itutio
nalr
oles
and
DRR
and
reco
very
.re
spon
sibili
ties
(incl
udin
gbu
dget
ary
allo
catio
nsp
ecifi
cally
toD
RRat
natio
nala
ndlo
call
evel
s).
ãD
evol
utio
nof
resp
onsib
ility
(and
reso
urce
s)fo
rD
RRpl
anni
ngan
dim
plem
enta
tion
tolo
calg
over
nmen
tlev
els
and
com
mun
ities
,as
far
aspo
ssib
le,b
acke
dup
bypr
ovisi
onof
spec
ialis
texp
ertis
ean
dre
sour
ces
tosu
ppor
tloc
alde
cisio
n-m
akin
g,pl
anni
ngan
dm
anag
emen
tofd
isast
ers.
ãC
omm
itted
and
effe
ctiv
eco
mm
unity
outre
ach
serv
ices
(DRR
and
rela
ted
serv
ices
,e.g
.hea
lthca
re).
Com
pone
nts
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofa
Dis
aste
r-re
silie
ntC
omm
unity
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofan
Enab
ling
Envi
ronm
ent
ofRe
silie
nce
20
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note
6.Pa
rtner
ship
s6.
1Lo
cals
take
hold
ers
com
mitt
edto
genu
ine
partn
ersh
ips
(with
open
ãD
RRid
entif
ied
asre
spon
sibili
tyof
alls
ecto
rsof
soci
ety
and
shar
edpr
inci
ples
ofco
llabo
ratio
n,hi
ghle
vels
oftru
st).
(pub
lic,p
rivat
e,ci
vil),
with
appr
opria
tein
ter-
sect
oral
and
co-
6.2
Cle
ar,a
gree
dan
dst
able
DRR
partn
ersh
ips
betw
een
loca
lor
dina
ting
mec
hani
sms.
stak
ehol
der
grou
psan
dor
gani
satio
ns(c
omm
uniti
esan
dC
BOs
ãLo
ng-t
erm
civi
lsoc
iety
,NG
O,p
rivat
ese
ctor
and
com
mun
ityw
ithlo
cala
utho
ritie
s,N
GO
s,bu
sines
ses,
etc.
).pa
rtici
patio
nan
din
ter-
sect
oral
partn
ersh
ips
for
DRR
and
6.3
Proc
esse
sar
eco
mm
unity
-led
(sup
porte
dby
exte
rnal
agen
cies
).em
erge
ncy
resp
onse
.6.
4Lo
calc
apac
ityan
den
thus
iasm
topr
omot
eD
RRan
dsc
ale
ãLi
nkag
esw
ithre
gion
alan
dgl
obal
inst
itutio
nsan
dth
eir
DRR
upac
tiviti
es(th
roug
hco
mm
unity
-ext
erna
lact
orpa
rtner
ship
s).
initi
ativ
es.
6.5
Com
mun
ityan
dlo
calg
roup
s/or
gani
satio
nsha
veca
paci
tyto
recr
uit,
train
,sup
port
and
mot
ivat
eco
mm
unity
volu
ntee
rsfo
rD
RR,a
ndw
ork
toge
ther
todo
so.
7.A
ccou
ntab
ility
7.1
Dev
olve
dD
RRst
ruct
ures
faci
litat
eco
mm
unity
parti
cipa
tion.
ãBa
sicrig
hts
ofpe
ople
form
ally
reco
gnise
dby
natio
nala
ndan
dco
mm
unity
7.2
Acc
ess
toin
form
atio
non
loca
lgov
ernm
entp
lans
,stru
ctur
es,e
tc.
loca
lgov
ernm
ent(
and
civi
lsoc
iety
orga
nisa
tions
:C
SOs)
:to
parti
cipa
tion
7.3
Trus
twith
inco
mm
unity
and
betw
een
com
mun
ityan
dex
tern
alsa
fety
,to
equi
tabl
evu
lner
abili
tyre
duct
ion
and
relie
fag
enci
es.
assis
tanc
e,to
belis
tene
dto
and
cons
ulte
d(im
plie
s7.
4C
apac
ityto
chal
leng
ean
dlo
bby
exte
rnal
agen
cies
onD
RRre
spon
sibili
tyto
guar
ante
eth
ese
right
sw
here
appr
opria
te).
plan
s,pr
iorit
ies,
actio
nsth
atm
ayha
vean
impa
cton
risk.
ãEf
fect
ive
qual
ityco
ntro
lor
audi
tmec
hani
sms
for
offic
ial
7.5
Parti
cipa
tory
M&
Esy
stem
sto
asse
ssre
silie
nce
and
prog
ress
inD
RR.
stru
ctur
es,s
yste
ms,
etc.
,in
plac
ean
dap
plie
d.7.
6In
clus
ion/
repr
esen
tatio
nof
vuln
erab
legr
oups
inco
mm
unity
ãD
emoc
ratic
syst
emof
gove
rnan
ceho
ldin
gde
cisio
nm
aker
sto
deci
sion
mak
ing
and
man
agem
ento
fDRR
.ac
coun
t.7.
7H
igh
leve
lofv
olun
teer
ismin
DRR
activ
ities
.ã
Gov
ernm
entc
onsu
ltsci
vils
ocie
ty,N
GO
s,pr
ivat
ese
ctor
and
com
mun
ities
.ã
Popu
lar
parti
cipa
tion
inpo
licy
deve
lopm
enta
ndim
plem
enta
tion.
ãC
itize
nde
man
dsfo
rac
tion
tore
duce
disa
ster
risk.
ãEx
isten
ceof
‘wat
chdo
g’gr
oups
topr
ess
for
chan
ge.
1In
clud
ing
agre
emen
ton
leve
lofa
ccep
tabl
eris
k.
2Po
verty
Redu
ctio
nSt
rate
gies
,nat
iona
lMill
enni
umD
evel
opm
entG
oalr
epor
ts,N
atio
nalA
dapt
atio
nPl
ans
ofA
ctio
n,U
ND
Pas
sista
nce
fram
ewor
ks,e
tc.
3i.e
.em
erge
nt,e
xten
ding
orex
pand
ing
orga
nisa
tions
.Exp
andi
ngor
gani
satio
nsar
eex
pect
edto
take
onad
ditio
nalf
unct
ions
attim
esof
crisi
s,w
hich
they
doby
incr
easin
gth
eir
capa
city
oral
terin
gth
eir
orga
nisa
tiona
lstru
ctur
es(e
.g.a
loca
lRed
Cro
ssbr
anch
calli
ngon
train
edvo
lunt
eers
tosu
ppor
tits
smal
lcor
eof
prof
essio
nals
taff)
.Ext
endi
ngor
gani
satio
nsar
eno
texp
ecte
dto
resp
ond
todi
sast
ers
but
durin
gdi
sast
ers
may
perfo
rmno
n-re
gula
rta
sks
(e.g
.aco
nstru
ctio
nco
mpa
nycl
earin
gde
bris
toas
sistr
escu
eop
erat
ions
).Em
erge
ntor
gani
satio
nsdo
note
xist
befo
rea
disa
ster
even
tbut
form
inre
spon
seto
it(e
.g.s
pont
aneo
usse
arch
and
resc
uegr
oups
).Se
eW
ebb
GR
1999
,Ind
ivid
uala
ndO
rgan
izat
iona
lRes
pons
eto
Nat
ural
Disa
ster
san
dot
her
Cris
isEv
ents
:the
cont
inui
ngva
lue
ofth
eD
RCty
polo
gy(U
nive
rsity
ofD
elaw
are,
Disa
ster
Rese
arch
Cen
ter,
Prel
imin
ary
Pape
r#
277)
,ww
w.u
del.e
du/D
RC/p
relim
inar
y/pp
277.
Com
pone
nts
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofa
Dis
aste
r-re
silie
ntC
omm
unity
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofan
Enab
ling
Envi
ronm
ent
ofRe
silie
nce
21
Thematic Area 2: Risk Assessment
Thematic Area 2: Risk Assessment
Components of resilience:
1. Hazards/risk data and assessment
2. Vulnerability and impact data and assessment
3. Scientific and technical capacities and innovation
22
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note
Com
pone
nts
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofa
Dis
aste
r-re
silie
ntC
omm
unity
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofan
Enab
ling
Envi
ronm
ent
ofRe
silie
nce
1.H
azar
ds/ri
sk1.
1C
omm
unity
haza
rd/ri
skas
sess
men
tsca
rrie
dou
twhi
chpr
ovid
eã
Haz
ard/
risk
asse
ssm
ents
man
date
din
publ
icpo
licy,
data
and
com
preh
ensiv
epi
ctur
eof
allm
ajor
haza
rds
and
risks
faci
ngle
gisla
tion,
etc.
,with
stan
dard
sfo
rpr
epar
atio
n,pu
blic
atio
n,as
sess
men
tco
mm
unity
(and
pote
ntia
lrisk
s).
revi
sion.
1.2
Haz
ard/
risk
asse
ssm
enti
spa
rtici
pato
rypr
oces
sin
clud
ing
ãSy
stem
atic
and
repe
ated
asse
ssm
ents
ofha
zard
san
ddi
sast
erre
pres
enta
tives
ofal
lsec
tions
ofco
mm
unity
and
sour
ces
risks
unde
rtake
nin
high
er-le
veld
evel
opm
entp
rogr
amm
ing.
ofex
perti
se.
Hig
h-ris
kar
eas
iden
tifie
d.1.
3A
sses
smen
tfin
ding
ssh
ared
,disc
usse
d,un
ders
tood
and
agre
edã
Goo
d-qu
ality
data
onha
zard
san
dris
ks(s
cien
tific
data
base
s,am
ong
alls
take
hold
ers,
and
feed
into
com
mun
itydi
sast
erpl
anni
ng.
offic
ialr
epor
ts,e
tc.)
mad
eav
aila
ble
tosu
ppor
tloc
al-le
vel
1.4
Find
ings
mad
eav
aila
ble
toal
lint
eres
ted
parti
es(w
ithin
and
asse
ssm
ents
.ou
tsid
eco
mm
unity
,loc
ally
and
athi
gher
leve
ls)an
dfe
edin
toã
Exist
ing
know
ledg
eco
llect
ed,s
ynth
esise
dan
dsh
ared
thei
rdi
sast
erpl
anni
ng.
syst
emat
ical
ly(th
roug
hdi
sast
erm
anag
emen
tinf
orm
atio
n1.
5O
ngoi
ngm
onito
ring
ofha
zard
san
dris
ksan
dup
datin
gof
syst
ems)
.as
sess
men
ts.
ãPa
rtici
patio
nof
allr
elev
anta
genc
ies/
stak
ehol
ders
in1.
6Sk
ills
and
capa
city
toca
rry
outc
omm
unity
haza
rdan
dris
kas
sess
men
ts.
asse
ssm
ents
mai
ntai
ned
thro
ugh
supp
orta
ndtra
inin
g.ã
Gov
ernm
ent(
loca
land
/or
natio
nal)
and
NG
Os
com
mitt
edto
prov
idin
gte
chni
cala
ndot
her
supp
ortt
olo
cala
ndco
mm
unity
haza
rd/ri
skas
sess
men
ts.
2.Vu
lner
abili
ty2.
1C
omm
unity
vuln
erab
ility
and
capa
city
asse
ssm
ents
(VC
As)
ãV
CA
man
date
din
publ
icpo
licy,
legi
slatio
n,et
c.,w
ithan
dim
pact
data
carr
ied
outw
hich
prov
ide
com
preh
ensiv
epi
ctur
eof
stan
dard
sfo
rpr
epar
atio
n,pu
blic
atio
n,re
visio
n.an
das
sess
men
tvu
lner
abili
ties
and
capa
citie
s.ã
Vuln
erab
ility
and
capa
city
indi
cato
rsde
velo
ped
and
2.2
VC
Ais
parti
cipa
tory
proc
ess
incl
udin
gre
pres
enta
tives
ofal
lsy
stem
atic
ally
map
ped
and
reco
rded
(cov
erin
gal
lrel
evan
tvu
lner
able
grou
ps.
soci
al,e
cono
mic
,phy
sical
and
envi
ronm
enta
l,po
litic
al,
2.3
Ass
essm
entf
indi
ngs
shar
ed,d
iscus
sed,
unde
rsto
odan
dcu
ltura
lfac
tors
).ag
reed
amon
gal
lsta
keho
lder
san
dfe
edin
toco
mm
unity
ãD
isast
erim
pact
data
and
stat
istic
allo
ssin
form
atio
nav
aila
ble
disa
ster
plan
ning
.an
dus
edin
VC
A.
2.4
VC
As
used
tocr
eate
base
lines
atst
arto
fcom
mun
ityD
RRã
Syst
emat
icus
eof
VCA
inhi
gher
-leve
ldev
elop
men
tpr
ojec
ts.
prog
ram
min
g.Vu
lner
able
grou
psan
dca
uses
ofvu
lner
abili
ty2.
5Fi
ndin
gsm
ade
avai
labl
eto
alli
nter
este
dpa
rties
(with
inan
did
entif
ied.
outs
ide
com
mun
ity)a
ndfe
edin
toth
eir
disa
ster
and
ãEx
istin
gkn
owle
dge
colle
cted
,syn
thes
ised
and
shar
edde
velo
pmen
tpla
nnin
g.sy
stem
atic
ally
(thro
ugh
disa
ster
man
agem
enti
nfor
mat
ion
23
Thematic Area 2: Risk Assessment
2.6
Ong
oing
mon
itorin
gof
vuln
erab
ility
and
upda
ting
ofas
sess
men
ts.
syst
ems)
.2.
7Sk
ills
and
capa
city
toca
rry
outc
omm
unity
VC
Am
aint
aine
dã
Parti
cipa
tion
ofal
lrel
evan
tage
ncie
s/st
akeh
olde
rsin
thro
ugh
supp
orta
ndtra
inin
g.as
sess
men
ts.
ãG
over
nmen
t(lo
cala
nd/o
rna
tiona
l)an
dN
GO
sco
mm
itted
topr
ovid
ing
tech
nica
land
othe
rsu
ppor
tto
loca
land
com
mun
ityV
CA
.
3.Sc
ient
ific
and
3.1
Com
mun
itym
embe
rsan
dor
gani
satio
nstra
ined
inha
zard
s,ris
kã
Inst
itutio
nala
ndte
chni
calc
apac
ityfo
rda
taco
llect
ion
and
tech
nica
lcap
aciti
esan
dV
CA
tech
niqu
esan
dsu
ppor
ted
toca
rry
outa
sses
smen
ts.
anal
ysis.
and
inno
vatio
n3.
2U
seof
indi
geno
uskn
owle
dge
and
loca
lper
cept
ions
ofris
kas
ãO
ngoi
ngsc
ient
ific
and
tech
nolo
gica
ldev
elop
men
t;da
taw
ella
sot
her
scie
ntifi
ckn
owle
dge,
data
and
asse
ssm
entm
etho
ds.
shar
ing,
spac
e-ba
sed
earth
obse
rvat
ion,
clim
ate
mod
ellin
gan
dfo
reca
stin
g;ea
rlyw
arni
ng.
ãEx
tern
alag
enci
esva
lue
and
use
indi
geno
uskn
owle
dge.
Com
pone
nts
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofa
Dis
aste
r-re
silie
ntC
omm
unity
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofan
Enab
ling
Envi
ronm
ent
ofRe
silie
nce
24
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note
Thematic Area 3: Knowledge and Education
Components of resilience:
1. Public awareness, knowledge and skills
2. Information management and sharing
3. Education and training
4. Cultures, attitudes, motivation
5. Learning and research
25
Thematic Area 3: Knowledge and Education
Com
pone
nts
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofa
Dis
aste
r-re
silie
ntC
omm
unity
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofan
Enab
ling
Envi
ronm
ent
ofRe
silie
nce
1.Pu
blic
awar
enes
s,1.
1Sh
ared
visio
nof
apr
epar
edan
dre
silie
ntco
mm
unity
.ã
Gen
eral
publ
icaw
are
ofan
din
form
edab
outd
isast
erris
kskn
owle
dge
and
1.2
Who
leco
mm
unity
has
been
expo
sed
to/ta
ken
part
inon
goin
gan
dho
wto
man
age
them
.sk
ills
awar
enes
sca
mpa
igns
,whi
char
ege
ared
toco
mm
unity
need
sã
App
ropr
iate
,hig
h-vi
sibili
tyaw
aren
ess-
raisi
ngpr
ogra
mm
esan
dca
paci
ties
(e.g
.lite
racy
leve
ls).
desig
ned
and
impl
emen
ted
atna
tiona
l,re
gion
al,l
ocal
leve
ls1.
3C
omm
unity
know
ledg
eof
haza
rds,
vuln
erab
ility
,risk
san
dris
kby
offic
iala
genc
ies.
redu
ctio
nac
tions
suffi
cien
tfor
effe
ctiv
eac
tion
byco
mm
unity
ãM
edia
invo
lvem
enti
nco
mm
unic
atin
gris
kan
dra
ising
(alo
nean
din
colla
bora
tion
with
othe
rst
akeh
olde
rs).
awar
enes
sof
disa
ster
san
dco
unte
r-di
sast
erm
easu
res.
1.4
Poss
essio
n(b
yin
divi
dual
san
dac
ross
com
mun
ity)o
fapp
ropr
iate
ãPu
blic
com
mun
icat
ion
prog
ram
mes
invo
lve
dial
ogue
with
tech
nica
land
orga
nisa
tiona
lkno
wle
dge
and
skill
sfo
rD
RRan
dst
akeh
olde
rsab
outd
isast
erris
ksan
dre
late
diss
ues
(not
one-
resp
onse
actio
nsat
loca
llev
el(in
clud
ing
indi
geno
uste
chni
cal
way
info
rmat
ion
diss
emin
atio
n).
know
ledg
e,co
ping
stra
tegi
es,l
ivel
ihoo
dst
rate
gies
).ã
Exte
rnal
agen
cies
unde
rsta
ndco
mm
uniti
es’v
ulne
rabi
litie
s,1.
5O
pen
deba
tew
ithin
com
mun
ityre
sulti
ngin
agre
emen
tsab
out
capa
citie
s,ris
ks,r
iskpe
rcep
tion
and
ratio
nalit
yof
risk
prob
lem
s,so
lutio
ns,p
riorit
ies,
etc.
man
agem
entd
ecisi
ons;
and
reco
gnise
viab
ility
oflo
cal
know
ledg
ean
dco
ping
stra
tegi
es.
ãLe
vels
ofed
ucat
ion
prov
ision
,acc
ess,
liter
acy,
etc.
,fac
ilita
teef
fect
ive
info
rmat
ion
diss
emin
atio
nan
daw
aren
ess
raisi
ng.
2.In
form
atio
n2.
1In
form
atio
non
risk,
vuln
erab
ility
,disa
ster
man
agem
entp
ract
ices
,ã
Gov
ernm
ent(
natio
nala
ndlo
cal)
isco
mm
itted
toin
form
atio
nm
anag
emen
tet
c.,s
hare
dam
ong
thos
eat
risk.
shar
ing
(tran
spar
ency
)and
dial
ogue
with
com
mun
ities
rela
ting
and
shar
ing
2.2
Com
mun
itydi
sast
erpl
ans
publ
icly
avai
labl
ean
dw
idel
yto
info
rmat
ion
abou
trisk
and
DRM
.(m
ore
form
al)
unde
rsto
od.
ãLe
gisla
tion
spec
ifies
right
ofpe
ople
tobe
info
rmed
and
2.3
Alls
ectio
nsof
com
mun
itykn
owab
outf
acili
ties/
serv
ices
/ski
llsob
tain
info
rmat
ion
abou
trisk
sfa
cing
them
.av
aila
ble
pre-
,dur
ing
and
post
-em
erge
ncy,
and
how
toã
Com
mon
unde
rsta
ndin
gam
ong
exte
rnal
agen
cies
ofpr
inci
ples
,ac
cess
thes
e.co
ncep
ts,t
erm
inol
ogy,
alte
rnat
ive
appr
oach
esin
DRR
.2.
4C
onte
ntan
dm
etho
dsof
com
mun
icat
ing
info
rmat
ion
deve
lope
dã
Publ
ican
dpr
ivat
ein
form
atio
n-ga
ther
ing
and
-sha
ring
syst
ems
with
com
mun
ities
(i.e.
‘com
mun
icat
ion’
not‘
info
rmat
ion
onha
zard
s,ris
k,di
sast
erm
anag
emen
tres
ourc
es(in
cl.
diss
emin
atio
n’).
reso
urce
cent
res,
data
base
s,w
ebsit
es,d
irect
orie
san
d2.
5M
axim
umde
ploy
men
tofi
ndig
enou
s,tra
ditio
nal,
info
rmal
inve
ntor
ies,
good
prac
tice
guid
ance
)exi
stan
dar
eac
cess
ible
.co
mm
unic
atio
nsch
anne
ls.ã
Act
ive
prof
essio
naln
etw
orks
for
disa
ster
risk
man
agem
ent
2.6
Impa
ctof
info
rmat
ion
mat
eria
lsan
dco
mm
unic
atio
nst
rate
gies
(sha
ring
scie
ntifi
c,te
chni
cala
ndap
plie
din
form
atio
n,ev
alua
ted.
1tra
ditio
nal/l
ocal
know
ledg
e).
3.Ed
ucat
ion
3.1
Loca
lsch
ools
prov
ide
educ
atio
nin
DRR
for
child
ren
thro
ugh
ãIn
clus
ion
ofdi
sast
erre
duct
ion
inre
leva
ntpr
imar
y,se
cond
ary
and
train
ing
curr
icul
uman
dw
here
appr
opria
teex
tra-c
urric
ular
activ
ities
.2an
dte
rtiar
yed
ucat
ion
cour
ses
(cur
ricul
umde
velo
pmen
t,3.
2D
RR/D
RMan
dot
her
train
ing
addr
esse
spr
iorit
ies
iden
tifie
dby
prov
ision
ofed
ucat
iona
lmat
eria
l,te
ache
rtra
inin
g)na
tiona
lly.
com
mun
ityan
dba
sed
onco
mm
unity
asse
ssm
ento
frisk
s,ã
Spec
ialis
edvo
catio
nalt
rain
ing
cour
ses
and
faci
litie
sfo
rvu
lner
abili
ties
and
asso
ciat
edpr
oble
ms.
DRR
/DRM
avai
labl
e,at
diffe
rent
leve
lsan
dfo
rdi
ffere
nt3.
3C
omm
unity
mem
bers
and
orga
nisa
tions
train
edin
rele
vant
skill
sgr
oups
,lin
ked
thro
ugh
over
allt
rain
ing
stra
tegy
.Cer
tific
atio
n
26
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note
for
DRR
and
DP
(e.g
.haz
ard-
risk-
vuln
erab
ility
asse
ssm
ent,
oftra
inin
g.co
mm
unity
DRM
plan
ning
,sea
rch
and
resc
ue,f
irsta
id,
ãA
ppro
pria
teed
ucat
ion
and
train
ing
prog
ram
mes
for
plan
ners
man
agem
ento
fem
erge
ncy
shel
ters
,nee
dsas
sess
men
t,re
lief
and
field
prac
titio
ners
inD
RR/D
RMan
dde
velo
pmen
tsec
tors
dist
ribut
ion,
fire-
fight
ing)
.de
signe
dan
dim
plem
ente
dat
natio
nal,
regi
onal
,loc
alle
vels.
3.4
Hou
seho
lder
san
dbu
ilder
stra
ined
insa
feco
nstru
ctio
nan
dã
Trai
ning
reso
urce
s(te
chni
cal,
finan
cial
,mat
eria
l,hu
man
)re
trofit
ting
tech
niqu
es,a
ndot
her
prac
tical
step
sto
prot
ect
mad
eav
aila
ble
bygo
vern
men
t,em
erge
ncy
serv
ices
,NG
Os,
hous
esan
dpr
oper
ty.
etc.
,to
supp
ortl
ocal
-leve
lDRR
.3.
5(ru
ral)
Com
mun
itym
embe
rssk
illed
ortra
ined
inap
prop
riate
agric
ultu
ral,
land
use,
wat
erm
anag
emen
tand
envi
ronm
enta
lm
anag
emen
tpra
ctic
es.
3.6
Com
mun
ityex
perie
nce
ofco
ping
inpr
evio
usev
ents
/cris
es,o
rkn
owle
dge
ofho
wth
isw
asdo
ne,u
sed
ined
ucat
ion
and
train
ing.
4.C
ultu
res,
4.1
Shar
edco
mm
unity
valu
es,a
spira
tions
and
goal
s(a
ndpo
sitiv
eã
Polit
ical
,soc
iala
ndcu
ltura
lenv
ironm
entt
hate
ncou
rage
sat
titud
es,
sens
eof
the
futu
re,c
omm
itmen
tto
com
mun
ityas
aw
hole
,fre
edom
ofth
ough
tand
expr
essio
n,an
dst
imul
ates
inqu
irym
otiv
atio
nag
reem
ento
fcom
mun
itygo
als)
.an
dde
bate
.4.
2C
ultu
rala
ttitu
des
and
valu
es(e
.g.e
xpec
tatio
nsof
help
/ã
Offi
cial
and
publ
icac
cept
ance
ofpr
ecau
tiona
rypr
inci
ple:
self-
suffi
cien
cy,r
elig
ious
/ideo
logi
calv
iew
s)en
able
need
toac
ton
inco
mpl
ete
info
rmat
ion
orun
ders
tand
ing
toco
mm
uniti
esto
adap
tto
and
reco
ver
from
shoc
ksan
dst
ress
es.
redu
cepo
tent
iald
isast
erris
ks.
4.3
Info
rmed
,rea
listic
attit
udes
tow
ards
risk
and
risk
man
agem
ent.
4.4
Just
ifiab
leco
nfid
ence
abou
tsaf
ety
and
capa
citie
sof
self-
relia
nce.
4.5
Poss
essio
nof
(or
acce
ssto
)the
info
rmat
ion,
reso
urce
san
dsu
ppor
tdes
ired/
need
edto
ensu
resa
fety
.4.
6Fe
elin
gsof
pers
onal
resp
onsib
ility
for
prep
arin
gfo
rdi
sast
ers
and
redu
cing
disa
ster
risk.
4.7
Safe
rbe
havi
our
asre
sult
ofaw
aren
ess
raisi
ng.
5.Le
arni
ng5.
1D
ocum
enta
tion,
use
and
adap
tatio
nof
indi
geno
uste
chni
cal
ãN
atio
nala
ndsu
b-na
tiona
lres
earc
hca
paci
tyin
haza
rds,
risk
and
rese
arch
know
ledg
ean
dco
ping
stra
tegi
es.
and
disa
ster
stud
ies
(insp
ecia
listi
nstit
utio
nsor
with
inot
her
5.2
Parti
cipa
tory
M&
Esy
stem
sto
asse
ssre
silie
nce
and
prog
ress
inst
itutio
ns),
with
adeq
uate
fund
ing
for
ongo
ing
rese
arch
.in
DRR
.ã
Enco
urag
emen
tofi
nter
-disc
iplin
ary
and
polic
y-or
ient
edre
sear
ch.
ãN
atio
nal,
regi
onal
and
inte
rnat
iona
lcoo
pera
tion
inre
sear
ch,
scie
nce
and
tech
nolo
gyde
velo
pmen
t.ã
Com
preh
ensiv
eag
enda
for
scie
ntifi
c,te
chni
cal,
polic
y,pl
anni
ngan
dpa
rtici
pato
ryre
sear
chin
DRR
.
1i.e
.on
com
mun
ityan
din
divi
dual
attit
udes
tow
ards
disa
ster
risk
and
risk
man
agem
ents
trate
gies
2As
sum
eshi
ghle
vels
ofsc
hool
atte
ndan
ce;
and
ifno
t,ou
treac
hac
tiviti
es.
Com
pone
nts
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofa
Dis
aste
r-re
silie
ntC
omm
unity
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofan
Enab
ling
Envi
ronm
ent
ofRe
silie
nce
27
Thematic Area 4: Risk Management and Vulnerability Reduction
Thematic Area 4: Risk Management andVulnerability Reduction
Components of resilience:
1. Environmental and natural resource management
2. Health and well being
3. Sustainable livelihoods
4. Social protection
5. Financial instruments
6. Physical protection; structural and technical measures
7. Planning régimes
28
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note
Com
pone
nts
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofa
Dis
aste
r-re
silie
ntC
omm
unity
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofan
Enab
ling
Envi
ronm
ent
ofRe
silie
nce
1.En
viro
nmen
tal
1.1
Com
mun
ityun
ders
tand
ing
ofch
arac
teris
tics
and
func
tioni
ngã
Polic
y,le
gisla
tive
and
inst
itutio
nals
truct
ure
that
supp
orts
and
natu
ral
oflo
caln
atur
alen
viro
nmen
tand
ecos
yste
ms
(e.g
.dra
inag
e,su
stai
nabl
eec
osys
tem
san
den
viro
nmen
talm
anag
emen
t,an
dre
sour
cew
ater
shed
s,slo
pean
dso
ilch
arac
teris
tics)
and
the
pote
ntia
lrisk
sm
axim
ises
envi
ronm
enta
lres
ourc
em
anag
emen
tpra
ctic
esm
anag
emen
tas
soci
ated
with
thes
ena
tura
lfea
ture
san
dhu
man
inte
rven
tions
that
assis
tDRR
.(in
clud
ing
natu
ral
that
affe
ctth
em(e
.g.c
limat
ech
ange
).ã
Effe
ctiv
eof
ficia
lact
ion
topr
even
tuns
usta
inab
lela
ndus
esan
dca
pita
l,cl
imat
e1.
2A
dopt
ion
ofsu
stai
nabl
een
viro
nmen
talm
anag
emen
tpra
ctic
esre
sour
cem
anag
emen
tapp
roac
hes
that
incr
ease
disa
ster
risk.
chan
gead
apta
tion)
that
redu
ceha
zard
risk.
1ã
Polic
yan
dop
erat
iona
lint
erfa
cebe
twee
nen
viro
nmen
tal
1.3
Pres
erva
tion
ofbi
odiv
ersit
y(e
.g.t
hrou
ghco
mm
unity
-man
aged
man
agem
enta
ndris
kre
duct
ion
polic
ies
and
plan
ning
.se
edba
nks,
with
equi
tabl
edi
strib
utio
nsy
stem
).ã
DRR
polic
ies
and
stra
tegi
esin
tegr
ated
with
adap
tatio
nto
1.4
Pres
erva
tion
and
appl
icat
ion
ofin
dige
nous
know
ledg
ean
dex
istin
gcl
imat
eva
riabi
lity
and
futu
recl
imat
ech
ange
.ap
prop
riate
tech
nolo
gies
rele
vant
toen
viro
nmen
talm
anag
emen
t.ã
Loca
lgov
ernm
ente
xper
tsan
dex
tens
ion
wor
kers
avai
labl
eto
1.5
Acc
ess
toco
mm
unity
-man
aged
com
mon
prop
erty
reso
urce
sth
atw
ork
with
com
mun
ities
onlo
ng-t
erm
envi
ronm
enta
lca
nsu
ppor
tcop
ing
and
livel
ihoo
dst
rate
gies
inno
rmal
times
and
man
agem
enta
ndre
new
al.
durin
gcr
ises.
2.H
ealth
and
wel
l2.
1Ph
ysic
alab
ility
tola
bour
and
good
heal
thm
aint
aine
din
norm
alã
Publ
iche
alth
stru
ctur
esin
tegr
ated
into
disa
ster
plan
ning
and
bein
g(in
clud
ing
times
thro
ugh
adeq
uate
food
and
nutri
tion,
hygi
ene
and
prep
ared
for
emer
genc
ies.
hum
anca
pita
l)he
alth
care
.ã
Com
mun
ityst
ruct
ures
inte
grat
edin
topu
blic
heal
thsy
stem
s.2.
2H
igh
leve
lsof
pers
onal
secu
rity
and
freed
omfro
mph
ysic
alan
dã
Hea
lthed
ucat
ion
prog
ram
mes
incl
ude
know
ledg
ean
dsk
ills
psyc
holo
gica
lthr
eats
.re
leva
ntto
crise
s(e
.g.s
anita
tion,
hygi
ene,
wat
ertre
atm
ent).
2.3
Food
supp
lies
and
nutri
tiona
lsta
tus
secu
re(e
.g.t
hrou
ghre
serv
eã
Polic
y,le
gisla
tive
and
inst
itutio
nalc
omm
itmen
tto
ensu
ring
stoc
ksof
grai
nan
dot
her
stap
lefo
ods
man
aged
byco
mm
uniti
es,
food
secu
rity
thro
ugh
mar
keta
ndno
n-m
arke
tint
erve
ntio
ns,
with
equi
tabl
edi
strib
utio
nsy
stem
durin
gfo
odcr
ises)
.w
ithap
prop
riate
stru
ctur
esan
dsy
stem
s.2.
4A
cces
sto
suffi
cien
tqua
ntity
and
qual
ityof
wat
erfo
rdo
mes
ticã
Enga
gem
ento
fgov
ernm
ent,
priv
ate
sect
oran
dci
vils
ocie
tyne
eds
durin
gcr
ises.
orga
nisa
tions
inpl
ans
for
miti
gatio
nan
dm
anag
emen
toff
ood
2.5
Awar
enes
sof
mea
nsof
stay
ing
heal
thy
(e.g
.hyg
iene
,san
itatio
n,an
dhe
alth
crise
s.nu
tritio
n,w
ater
treat
men
t)an
dof
life-
prot
ectin
g/sa
ving
mea
sure
s,ã
Emer
genc
ypl
anni
ngsy
stem
spr
ovid
ebu
ffer
stoc
ksof
food
,an
dpo
sses
sion
ofap
prop
riate
skill
s.m
edic
ines
,etc
.2.
6C
omm
unity
stru
ctur
esan
dcu
lture
supp
orts
elfc
onfid
ence
and
can
assis
tman
agem
ento
fpsy
chol
ogic
alco
nseq
uenc
esof
disa
ster
s(tr
aum
a,PT
SD).
2.7
Com
mun
ityhe
alth
care
faci
litie
san
dhe
alth
wor
kers
,equ
ippe
dan
dtra
ined
tore
spon
dto
phys
ical
and
men
talh
ealth
cons
eque
nces
ofdi
sast
ers
and
less
erha
zard
even
ts,a
ndsu
ppor
ted
byac
cess
toem
erge
ncy
heal
thse
rvic
es,m
edic
ines
,etc
.
29
Thematic Area 4: Risk Management and Vulnerability Reduction
3.Su
stai
nabl
e3.
1H
igh
leve
lofl
ocal
econ
omic
activ
ityan
dem
ploy
men
t(in
clud
ing
ãEq
uita
ble
econ
omic
deve
lopm
ent:
stro
ngec
onom
yin
whi
chliv
elih
oods
amon
gvu
lner
able
grou
ps);
stab
ility
inec
onom
icac
tivity
and
bene
fits
are
shar
edth
roug
hout
soci
ety.
empl
oym
entl
evel
s.ã
Div
ersif
icat
ion
ofna
tiona
land
sub-
natio
nale
cono
mie
sto
3.2
Equi
tabl
edi
strib
utio
nof
wea
lthan
dliv
elih
ood
asse
tsin
redu
ceris
k.co
mm
unity
.ã
Pove
rtyre
duct
ion
stra
tegi
esta
rget
vuln
erab
legr
oups
.3.
3Li
velih
ood
dive
rsifi
catio
n(h
ouse
hold
and
com
mun
ityle
vel),
ãD
RRse
enas
inte
gral
part
ofec
onom
icde
velo
pmen
t,in
clud
ing
on-fa
rman
dof
f-far
mac
tiviti
esin
rura
lare
as.
refle
cted
inpo
licy
and
impl
emen
tatio
n.3.
4Fe
wer
peop
leen
gage
din
unsa
feliv
elih
ood
activ
ities
(e.g
.sm
all-
ãA
dequ
ate
and
fair
wag
es,g
uara
ntee
dby
law
.sc
ale
min
ing)
orha
zard
-vul
nera
ble
activ
ities
(e.g
.rai
nfed
ãLe
gisla
tive
syst
emsu
ppor
tsse
cure
land
tenu
re,e
quita
ble
agric
ultu
rein
drou
ght-
pron
elo
catio
ns).
tena
ncy
agre
emen
tsan
dac
cess
toco
mm
onpr
oper
ty3.
5A
dopt
ion
ofha
zard
-res
istan
tagr
icul
tura
lpra
ctic
es(e
.g.s
oila
ndre
sour
ces.
wat
erco
nser
vatio
nm
etho
ds,c
ropp
ing
patte
rns
gear
edto
low
orã
Fina
ncia
land
othe
rin
cent
ives
prov
ided
tore
duce
varia
ble
rain
fall,
haza
rd-t
oler
antc
rops
)for
food
secu
rity.
depe
nden
ceon
unsa
feor
haza
rd-v
ulne
rabl
eliv
elih
ood
3.6
Smal
lent
erpr
ises
have
busin
ess
prot
ectio
nan
dco
ntin
uity
/ac
tiviti
es.
reco
very
plan
s.ã
Cha
mbe
rsof
com
mer
cean
dsim
ilar
busin
ess
asso
ciat
ions
3.7
Loca
ltra
dean
dtra
nspo
rtlin
ksw
ithm
arke
tsfo
rpr
oduc
ts,l
abou
rsu
ppor
tres
ilien
ceef
forts
ofsm
alle
nter
prise
s.an
dse
rvic
espr
otec
ted
agai
nsth
azar
dsan
dot
her
exte
rnal
shoc
ks.
4.So
cial
prot
ectio
n4.
1M
utua
lass
istan
cesy
stem
s,so
cial
netw
orks
and
supp
ort
ãFo
rmal
soci
alpr
otec
tion
sche
mes
and
soci
alsa
fety
nets
(incl
udin
gm
echa
nism
sth
atsu
ppor
trisk
redu
ctio
ndi
rect
lyth
roug
hta
rget
edac
cess
ible
tovu
lner
able
grou
psat
norm
altim
esan
din
soci
alca
pita
l)D
RRac
tiviti
es,i
ndire
ctly
thro
ugh
othe
rso
cio-
econ
omic
resp
onse
tocr
isis.
deve
lopm
enta
ctiv
ities
that
redu
cevu
lner
abili
ty,o
rby
bein
gã
Coh
eren
tpol
icy,
inst
itutio
nala
ndop
erat
iona
lapp
roac
hto
capa
ble
ofex
tend
ing
thei
rac
tiviti
esto
man
age
emer
genc
ies
soci
alpr
otec
tion
and
safe
tyne
ts,e
nsur
ing
linka
ges
with
othe
rw
hen
thes
eoc
cur.2
disa
ster
risk
man
agem
ents
truct
ures
and
appr
oach
es.
4.2
Mut
uala
ssist
ance
syst
ems
that
co-o
pera
tew
ithco
mm
unity
and
ãEx
tern
alag
enci
espr
epar
edto
inve
sttim
ean
dre
sour
ces
inot
her
form
alst
ruct
ures
dedi
cate
dto
disa
ster
man
agem
ent.
build
ing
upco
mpr
ehen
sive
partn
ersh
ips
with
loca
lgro
ups
4.3
Com
mun
ityac
cess
toba
sicso
cial
serv
ices
(incl
udin
gre
gist
ratio
nan
dor
gani
satio
nsfo
rso
cial
prot
ectio
n/se
curit
yan
dD
RR.
for
soci
alpr
otec
tion
and
safe
tyne
tser
vice
s).
4.4
Esta
blish
edso
cial
info
rmat
ion
and
com
mun
icat
ion
chan
nels;
vuln
erab
lepe
ople
noti
sola
ted.
4.5
Col
lect
ive
know
ledg
ean
dex
perie
nce
ofm
anag
emen
tof
prev
ious
even
ts(h
azar
ds,c
rises
).
5.Fi
nanc
ial
5.1
Hou
seho
ldan
dco
mm
unity
asse
tbas
es(in
com
e,sa
ving
s,ã
Gov
ernm
enta
ndpr
ivat
ese
ctor
supp
orte
dfin
anci
alm
itiga
tion
inst
rum
ents
conv
ertib
lepr
oper
ty)s
uffic
ient
lyla
rge
and
dive
rse
tosu
ppor
tm
easu
res3
targ
eted
atvu
lner
able
and
at-r
iskco
mm
uniti
es.
(incl
udin
gcr
isis
copi
ngst
rate
gies
.ã
Econ
omic
ince
ntiv
esfo
rD
RRac
tions
(redu
ced
insu
ranc
efin
anci
alca
pita
l)5.
2C
osts
and
risks
ofdi
sast
ers
shar
edth
roug
hco
llect
ive
owne
rshi
ppr
emiu
ms
for
hous
ehol
ders
,tax
holid
ays
for
busin
esse
s,et
c.).
Com
pone
nts
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofa
Dis
aste
r-re
silie
ntC
omm
unity
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofan
Enab
ling
Envi
ronm
ent
ofRe
silie
nce
30
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note
ofgr
oup/
com
mun
ityas
sets
.ã
Mic
ro-fi
nanc
e,ca
shai
d,cr
edit
(sof
tloa
ns),
loan
guar
ante
es,
5.3
Exist
ence
ofco
mm
unity
/gro
upsa
ving
san
dcr
edit
sche
mes
,et
c.,a
vaila
ble
afte
rdi
sast
ers
tore
star
tliv
elih
oods
.an
d/or
acce
ssto
mic
ro-fi
nanc
ese
rvic
es.
5.4
Com
mun
ityac
cess
toaf
ford
able
insu
ranc
e(c
over
ing
lives
,ho
mes
and
othe
rpr
oper
ty)t
hrou
ghin
sura
nce
mar
keto
rm
icro
-fina
nce
inst
itutio
ns.
5.5
Com
mun
itydi
sast
erfu
ndto
impl
emen
tDRR
,res
pons
ean
dre
cove
ryac
tiviti
es.
5.6
Acc
ess
tom
oney
trans
fers
and
rem
ittan
ces
from
hous
ehol
dan
dco
mm
unity
mem
bers
wor
king
inot
her
regi
ons
orco
untri
es.
6.Ph
ysic
al6.
1C
omm
unity
deci
sions
and
plan
ning
rega
rdin
gbu
ilten
viro
nmen
tã
Com
plia
nce
with
inte
rnat
iona
lsta
ndar
dsof
build
ing,
desig
n,pr
otec
tion;
take
pote
ntia
lnat
ural
haza
rdris
ksin
toac
coun
t(in
clud
ing
plan
ning
,etc
.Bui
ldin
gco
des
and
land
use
plan
ning
stru
ctur
alan
dpo
tent
ialf
orin
crea
sing
risks
thro
ugh
inte
rfere
nce
with
ecol
ogic
al,
regu
latio
nsta
keha
zard
and
disa
ster
risk
into
acco
unt.
tech
nica
lhy
drol
ogic
al,g
eolo
gica
lsys
tem
s)an
dvu
lner
abili
ties
ofdi
ffere
ntã
Com
plia
nce
ofal
lpub
licbu
ildin
gsan
din
frast
ruct
ure
with
mea
sure
sgr
oups
.co
des
and
stan
dard
s.(in
clud
ing
6.2
Secu
rity
ofla
ndow
ners
hip/
tena
ncy
right
s.Lo
w/m
inim
alle
velo
fã
Requ
irem
entf
oral
lpub
lican
dpr
ivat
ein
frast
ruct
ure
syst
emph
ysic
alca
pita
l)ho
mel
essn
ess
and
land
less
ness
.ow
ners
toca
rry
outh
azar
dan
dvu
lner
abili
tyas
sess
men
ts.
6.3
Safe
loca
tions
:co
mm
unity
mem
bers
and
faci
litie
s(h
omes
,ã
Prot
ectio
nof
criti
calp
ublic
faci
litie
san
din
frast
ruct
ure
wor
kpla
ces,
publ
ican
dso
cial
faci
litie
s)no
texp
osed
toha
zard
sth
roug
hre
trofit
ting
and
rebu
ildin
g,es
peci
ally
inar
eas
ofhi
ghin
high
-risk
area
sw
ithin
loca
lity
and/
orre
loca
ted
away
from
risk.
unsa
fesit
es.
ãSe
curit
yof
acce
ssto
publ
iche
alth
and
othe
rem
erge
ncy
6.4
Stru
ctur
alm
itiga
tion
mea
sure
s(e
mba
nkm
ents
,flo
oddi
vers
ion
faci
litie
s(lo
cala
ndm
ore
dist
ant)
inte
grat
edin
toco
unte
r-ch
anne
ls,w
ater
harv
estin
gta
nks,
etc.
)in
plac
eto
prot
ecta
gain
stdi
sast
erpl
anni
ng.
maj
orha
zard
thre
ats,
built
usin
glo
call
abou
r,sk
ills,
mat
eria
lsan
dã
Lega
land
regu
lato
rysy
stem
spr
otec
tlan
dow
ners
hip
and
appr
opria
tete
chno
logi
esas
far
aspo
ssib
le.
tena
ncy
right
s,an
drig
hts
ofpu
blic
acce
ss.
6.5
Know
ledg
ean
dta
ke-u
pof
build
ing
code
s/re
gula
tions
ãRe
gula
rm
aint
enan
ceof
haza
rdco
ntro
lstru
ctur
esth
roug
hout
com
mun
ity.
ã‘H
ardw
are’
appr
oach
todi
sast
erm
itiga
tion
isac
com
pani
ed6.
6A
dopt
ion
ofha
zard
-res
ilien
tcon
stru
ctio
nan
dm
aint
enan
ceby
‘sof
twar
e’di
men
sion
ofed
ucat
ion,
skill
stra
inin
g,et
c.pr
actic
esfo
rho
mes
and
com
mun
ityfa
cilit
ies
usin
glo
call
abou
r,ã
Lega
l,re
gula
tory
syst
ems
and
econ
omic
polic
ies
reco
gnise
skill
s,m
ater
ials
and
appr
opria
tete
chno
logi
esas
far
aspo
ssib
le.
and
resp
ond
toris
ksar
ising
from
patte
rns
ofpo
pula
tion
6.7
Com
mun
ityca
paci
ties
and
skill
sto
build
,ret
rofit
and
mai
ntai
nde
nsity
and
mov
emen
t.st
ruct
ures
(tech
nica
land
orga
nisa
tiona
l).6.
8A
dopt
ion
ofph
ysic
alm
easu
res
topr
otec
tite
ms
ofdo
mes
ticpr
oper
ty(e
.g.r
aise
din
tern
alpl
atfo
rms
and
stor
age
asflo
odm
itiga
tion
mea
sure
,por
tabl
est
oves
)and
prod
uctiv
eas
sets
(e.g
.liv
esto
cksh
elte
rs)
Com
pone
nts
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofa
Dis
aste
r-re
silie
ntC
omm
unity
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofan
Enab
ling
Envi
ronm
ent
ofRe
silie
nce
31
Thematic Area 4: Risk Management and Vulnerability Reduction
6.9
Ado
ptio
nof
shor
t-te
rmpr
otec
tive
mea
sure
sag
ains
tim
pend
ing
even
ts(e
.g.e
mer
genc
ypr
otec
tion
ofdo
ors
and
win
dow
sfro
mcy
clon
ew
inds
).6.
10In
frast
ruct
ure
and
publ
icfa
cilit
ies
tosu
ppor
tem
erge
ncy
man
agem
entn
eeds
(e.g
.she
lters
,sec
ure
evac
uatio
nan
dem
erge
ncy
supp
lyro
utes
).6.
11Re
silie
ntan
dac
cess
ible
criti
calf
acili
ties
(e.g
.hea
lthce
ntre
s,ho
spita
ls,po
lice
and
fire
stat
ions
–in
term
sof
stru
ctur
alre
silie
nce,
back
-up
syst
ems,
etc.
).6.
12Re
silie
nttra
nspo
rt/se
rvic
ein
frast
ruct
ure
and
conn
ectio
ns(ro
ads,
path
s,br
idge
s,w
ater
supp
lies,
sani
tatio
n,po
wer
lines
,co
mm
unic
atio
ns,e
tc.).
6.13
Loca
llyow
ned
orav
aila
ble
trans
port
suffi
cien
tfor
emer
genc
yne
eds
(e.g
.eva
cuat
ion,
supp
lies)
,atl
east
inth
eev
ento
fsea
sona
lha
zard
s;tra
nspo
rtre
pair
capa
city
with
inco
mm
unity
.
7.Pl
anni
ngré
gim
es7.
1C
omm
unity
deci
sion
mak
ing
rega
rdin
gla
ndus
ean
dã
Com
plia
nce
with
inte
rnat
iona
lpla
nnin
gst
anda
rds.
man
agem
ent,
taki
ngha
zard
risks
and
vuln
erab
ilitie
sin
toã
Land
use
plan
ning
regu
latio
nsta
keha
zard
and
disa
ster
risk
acco
unt.
(Incl
udes
mic
ro-z
onat
ion
appl
ied
tope
rmit/
rest
rict
into
acco
unt.
land
uses
).ã
Effe
ctiv
ein
spec
tion
and
enfo
rcem
entr
égim
es.
7.2
Loca
l(co
mm
unity
)disa
ster
plan
sfe
edin
tolo
calg
over
nmen
tã
Land
use
appl
icat
ions
,urb
anan
dre
gion
alde
velo
pmen
tpla
nsde
velo
pmen
tand
land
use
plan
ning
.an
dsc
hem
esba
sed
onha
zard
and
risk
asse
ssm
enta
ndin
corp
orat
eap
prop
riate
DRR
.
1e.
g.so
ilan
dw
ater
cons
erva
tion,
sust
aina
ble
fore
stry
,wet
land
man
agem
entt
ore
duce
flood
risk,
cons
erva
tion
ofm
angr
oves
asbu
ffer
agai
nsts
torm
surg
es,m
aint
enan
ceof
wat
ersu
pply
and
drai
nage
syst
ems.
2Th
ese
com
prise
info
rmal
syst
ems
(indi
vidu
al,h
ouse
hold
,fam
ily,c
lan,
cast
e,et
c.)a
ndm
ore
stru
ctur
edgr
oups
(CBO
s:e.
g.em
erge
ncy
prep
ared
ness
com
mitt
ees,
supp
ortg
roup
s/bu
ddy
syst
ems
toas
sist
parti
cula
rlyvu
lner
able
peop
le,w
ater
man
agem
entc
omm
ittee
s,bu
rials
ocie
ties,
wom
en’s
asso
ciat
ions
,fai
thgr
oups
).
3e.
g.in
sura
nce/
rein
sura
nce,
risk
spre
adin
gin
stru
men
tsfo
rpu
blic
infra
stru
ctur
ean
dpr
ivat
eas
sets
such
asca
lam
ityfu
nds
and
cata
stro
phe
bond
s,m
icro
-cre
dita
ndfin
ance
,rev
olvi
ngco
mm
unity
fund
s,so
cial
fund
s
Com
pone
nts
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofa
Dis
aste
r-re
silie
ntC
omm
unity
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofan
Enab
ling
Envi
ronm
ent
ofRe
silie
nce
32
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note
Thematic Area 5: Disaster Preparedness andResponse
Components of resilience
1. Organisational capacities and co-ordination
2. Early warning systems
3. Preparedness and contingency planning
4. Emergency resources and infrastructure
5. Emergency response and recovery
6. Participation, voluntarism, accountability
33
Thematic Area 5: Disaster Preparedness and Response
Com
pone
nts
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofa
Dis
aste
r-re
silie
ntC
omm
unity
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofan
Enab
ling
Envi
ronm
ent
ofRe
silie
nce
1.O
rgan
isatio
nal
1.1
Loca
land
com
mun
ityD
P/re
spon
seca
paci
ties
asse
ssed
byã
Nat
iona
land
loca
lpol
icy
and
inst
itutio
nalf
ram
ewor
ksca
paci
ties
and
com
mun
ities
(them
selv
esor
inpa
rtner
ship
with
exte
rnal
reco
gnise
and
valu
elo
cala
ndco
mm
unity
DP
asin
tegr
alpa
rtco
ordi
natio
nag
enci
es).
ofth
ena
tiona
lpre
pare
dnes
san
dre
spon
sesy
stem
.1.
2Lo
calo
rgan
isatio
nals
truct
ures
for
DP/
emer
genc
yre
spon
seã
Def
ined
and
agre
edst
ruct
ures
,rol
esan
dm
anda
tes
for
(e.g
.disa
ster
prep
ared
ness
/eva
cuat
ion
com
mitt
ees)
.1go
vern
men
tand
non-
gove
rnm
enta
ctor
sin
DP
and
resp
onse
,1.
3Lo
calD
P/re
spon
seor
gani
satio
nsar
eco
mm
unity
man
aged
atal
llev
els,
and
base
don
co-o
rdin
atio
nno
tcom
man
d-an
d-an
dre
pres
enta
tive.
cont
rola
ppro
ach.
1.4
Role
san
dre
spon
sibili
ties
oflo
calD
P/re
spon
seor
gani
satio
nsã
Emer
genc
ypl
anni
ngan
dre
spon
sere
spon
sibili
ties
and
and
thei
rm
embe
rscl
early
defin
ed,a
gree
dan
dun
ders
tood
.ca
paci
ties
dele
gate
dto
loca
llev
els
asfa
ras
poss
ible
.1.
5Em
erge
ncy
faci
litie
s(c
omm
unic
atio
nseq
uipm
ent,
shel
ters
,ã
Ong
oing
dial
ogue
,coo
rdin
atio
nan
din
form
atio
nex
chan
geco
ntro
lcen
tres,
etc.
)ava
ilabl
ean
dm
anag
edby
com
mun
ity(v
ertic
alan
dho
rizon
tal)
betw
een
disa
ster
man
ager
san
dor
itsor
gani
satio
nson
beha
lfof
allc
omm
unity
mem
bers
.de
velo
pmen
tsec
tors
atal
llev
els.
1.6
Suffi
cien
tnum
ber
oftra
ined
orga
nisa
tiona
lper
sonn
elan
dã
Nat
iona
land
loca
ldisa
ster
man
agem
entc
apac
ities
(tech
nica
l,co
mm
unity
mem
bers
toca
rry
outr
elev
antt
asks
inst
itutio
nal,
finan
cial
)ade
quat
efo
rsu
ppor
ting
com
mun
ity-
(e.g
.com
mun
icat
ion,
sear
chan
dre
scue
,firs
taid
,rel
ief
leve
lDP/
resp
onse
activ
ity.
dist
ribut
ion)
.ã
Ade
quat
ebu
dget
sfo
rD
Pac
tiviti
esin
clud
edan
d1.
7Re
gula
rtra
inin
g(re
fresh
erco
urse
san
dne
wsk
ills)
prov
ided
by/fo
rin
stitu
tiona
lised
aspa
rtof
DP
plan
ning
atal
llev
els.
loca
lorg
anisa
tions
;re
gula
rpr
actic
edr
ills,
scen
ario
exer
cise
s,et
cã
Fund
sto
stre
ngth
enth
eca
paci
tyan
dac
tiviti
esof
civi
lsoc
iety
1.8
Def
ined
and
agre
edco
-ord
inat
ion
and
deci
sion-
mak
ing
stak
ehol
ders
activ
ein
DP.
mec
hani
sms
betw
een
com
mun
ityor
gani
satio
nsan
dex
tern
alte
chni
cale
xper
ts,l
ocal
auth
oriti
es,N
GO
s,et
c.1.
9D
efin
edan
dag
reed
co-o
rdin
atio
nan
dde
cisio
n-m
akin
gm
echa
nism
sw
ithne
ighb
ourin
gco
mm
uniti
es/lo
calit
ies
and
thei
ror
gani
satio
ns.
2Ea
rlyw
arni
ng2.
1C
omm
unity
-bas
edan
dpe
ople
-cen
tred
EWS
atlo
call
evel
.ã
Effic
ient
natio
nala
ndre
gion
alEW
Sin
plac
e,in
volv
ing
all
syst
ems2
2.2
EWS
capa
ble
ofre
achi
ngw
hole
com
mun
ity(v
iara
dio,
TV,
leve
lsof
gove
rnm
enta
ndci
vils
ocie
ty,b
ased
onso
und
tele
phon
ean
dot
her
com
mun
icat
ions
tech
nolo
gies
,and
via
scie
ntifi
cin
form
atio
n,ris
kkn
owle
dge,
com
mun
icat
ing
and
com
mun
ityEW
mec
hani
sms
such
asvo
lunt
eer
netw
orks
).w
arni
ngdi
ssem
inat
ion
and
com
mun
ityre
spon
seca
paci
ty.
2.3
EWm
essa
ges
pres
ente
dap
prop
riate
lyso
that
they
are
ãVe
rtica
land
horiz
onta
lcom
mun
icat
ion
and
co-o
rdin
atio
nun
ders
tood
byal
lsec
tors
ofco
mm
unity
.be
twee
nal
lEW
stak
ehol
ders
,with
role
san
dre
spon
sibili
ties
2.4
EWS
prov
ides
loca
ldet
ailo
feve
nts
and
take
slo
cal
clea
rlyde
fined
and
agre
ed.
cond
ition
sin
toac
coun
t.ã
Loca
lgov
ernm
enti
nclu
ded
inal
lpla
nnin
gan
dtra
inin
gan
d2.
5EW
Sba
sed
onco
mm
unity
know
ledg
eof
rele
vant
haza
rds
reco
gnise
das
key
stak
ehol
der
inEW
S.an
dris
ks,w
arni
ngsig
nals
and
thei
rm
eani
ngs,
and
actio
nsã
Com
mun
ities
and
othe
rci
vils
ocie
tyst
akeh
olde
rsac
tive
tobe
take
nw
hen
war
ning
sar
eiss
ued.
parti
cipa
nts
inal
lasp
ects
ofth
ede
velo
pmen
t,op
erat
ion,
34
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note
2.6
Com
mun
ityD
P/re
spon
seor
gani
satio
nsca
pabl
eof
actin
gon
train
ing
and
test
ing
ofEW
S.EW
mes
sage
san
dm
obili
sing
com
mun
ities
for
actio
n.ã
Mas
sm
edia
part
ofEW
S,no
tact
ing
inde
pend
ently
.2.
7C
omm
unity
trust
inEW
San
dor
gani
satio
nspr
ovid
ing
EW.
ãEW
Slin
ked
toD
Pan
dre
spon
seag
enci
es.
2.8
Tech
nica
lres
ourc
es(m
onito
ring
and
com
mun
icat
ions
ãEW
Sba
cked
upby
wid
erpu
blic
awar
enes
sca
mpa
igns
.eq
uipm
ent)
inpl
ace,
with
syst
ems
and
train
edpe
rson
nelf
orm
aint
enan
cean
dop
erat
ion.
3.Pr
epar
edne
ss3.
1A
com
mun
ityD
Por
cont
inge
ncy
plan
exist
sfo
ral
lmaj
orris
ks.3
ãPo
litic
ally
supp
orte
d/ap
prov
edan
dcl
early
artic
ulat
edna
tiona
lan
dco
ntin
genc
y3.
2D
P/co
ntin
genc
ypl
ans
deve
lope
dth
roug
hpa
rtici
pato
rym
etho
ds,
disa
ster
prep
ared
ness
plan
inpl
ace
and
diss
emin
ated
toal
lpl
anni
ngan
dun
ders
tood
and
supp
orte
dby
allm
embe
rsof
com
mun
ity.
leve
ls;pa
rtof
inte
grat
eddi
sast
erm
anag
emen
tpla
nsw
ithal
l3.
3Pl
ans
co-o
rdin
ated
with
offic
iale
mer
genc
ypl
ans
and
com
patib
lere
leva
ntpo
licie
s,pr
oced
ures
,rol
es,r
espo
nsib
ilitie
san
dw
ithth
ose
ofot
her
agen
cies
.fu
ndin
ges
tabl
ished
.3.
4Ro
les
and
resp
onsib
ilitie
sof
diffe
rent
loca
land
exte
rnal
acto
rsã
Role
san
dre
spon
sibili
ties
ofea
chst
ate
and
non-
stat
eac
tor
defin
ed,u
nder
stoo
dan
dag
reed
–an
dap
prop
riate
.ar
ecl
early
defin
edfo
rea
chdi
sast
ersc
enar
ioan
dha
vebe
en3.
5Pl
anni
ngpr
oces
sbu
ilds
cons
ensu
san
dst
reng
then
sre
latio
nshi
psdi
ssem
inat
edac
cord
ingl
y.an
dco
-ord
inat
ion
mec
hani
sms
betw
een
vario
usst
akeh
olde
rs.
ãC
ivil
soci
ety
orga
nisa
tions
parti
cipa
tein
the
deve
lopm
enta
nd3.
6Li
nkag
es(fo
rmal
/info
rmal
)to
tech
nica
lexp
erts
,loc
alau
thor
ities
,di
ssem
inat
ion
ofna
tiona
land
loca
l-lev
elpr
epar
edne
sspl
ans;
NG
Os,
etc.
,to
assis
twith
com
mun
itypl
anni
ngan
dtra
inin
g.ro
les
and
resp
onsib
ilitie
sof
civi
lsoc
iety
acto
rscl
early
defin
ed.
3.7
Plan
ste
sted
regu
larly
thro
ugh
e.g.
com
mun
itydr
ills
orã
Com
mun
itypl
anni
ngse
enas
key
elem
enti
nov
eral
lpla
nssim
ulat
ion
exer
cise
s.an
din
corp
orat
edin
toth
em.
3.8
Plan
sre
view
edan
dup
date
dre
gula
rlyby
allr
elev
ant
ãRe
sour
ces
avai
labl
eto
supp
ortn
eces
sary
actio
nsid
entif
ied
byst
akeh
olde
rs.
com
mun
ity-le
velp
lans
.3.
9H
ouse
hold
san
dfa
mili
esde
velo
pth
eir
own
DP
plan
sw
ithin
ãAl
lcon
tinge
ncy
plan
sar
eba
sed
ona
solid
asse
ssm
ento
fco
ntex
tofc
omm
unity
plan
.ha
zard
san
dris
ksan
dth
eid
entif
icat
ion
ofhi
ghris
kar
eas
3.10
Loca
lbus
ines
ses
deve
lop
thei
row
nco
ntin
uity
and
reco
very
thro
ugho
utth
eco
untry
.Dev
elop
edan
dte
sted
cont
inge
ncy
plan
sw
ithin
cont
exto
fcom
mun
itypl
an.
plan
sar
ein
plac
efo
ral
lmaj
ordi
sast
ersc
enar
ios
inal
lhig
h3.
11C
ontin
genc
ypl
anni
ngin
form
edby
unde
rsta
ndin
gof
broa
der
risk
area
s.lo
calp
lann
ing
prov
ision
san
dfa
cilit
ies.
ãTr
aini
ng,s
imul
atio
nan
dre
view
exer
cise
sca
rrie
dou
twith
the
parti
cipa
tion
ofal
lrel
evan
tgov
ernm
enta
ndno
n-go
vern
men
tag
enci
es.
ãC
ross
-cut
ting
issue
ssu
chas
gend
er,c
omm
unity
parti
cipa
tion
and
envi
ronm
enta
lcon
sider
atio
nsar
ein
clud
edin
all
cont
inge
ncy
plan
s.ã
Loca
lem
erge
ncy
serv
ices
and
criti
calf
acili
ties
deve
lop
thei
row
nco
ntin
genc
ypl
ans,
co-o
rdin
ated
with
com
mun
itypl
ans.
Com
pone
nts
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofa
Dis
aste
r-re
silie
ntC
omm
unity
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofan
Enab
ling
Envi
ronm
ent
ofRe
silie
nce
35
Thematic Area 5: Disaster Preparedness and Response
4.Em
erge
ncy
4.1
Com
mun
ityor
gani
satio
nsca
pabl
eof
man
agin
gcr
ises
and
ãLo
cale
mer
genc
yse
rvic
es(fa
cilit
ies,
stru
ctur
es,s
taff,
etc.
)re
sour
ces
and
disa
ster
s,al
one
and/
orin
partn
ersh
ipw
ithot
her
orga
nisa
tions
.ca
pabl
eof
man
agin
gcr
ises
and
disa
ster
s,al
one
and/
orin
infra
stru
ctur
e4.
2Sa
feev
acua
tion
rout
esid
entif
ied
and
mai
ntai
ned,
know
nto
partn
ersh
ipw
ithot
her
orga
nisa
tions
.co
mm
unity
mem
bers
.ã
Hig
her-
leve
lem
erge
ncy
serv
ices
with
stru
ctur
e,ca
paci
ty,
4.3
Emer
genc
ysh
elte
rs(p
urpo
sebu
iltor
mod
ified
):ac
cess
ible
tofa
cilit
ies
and
proc
edur
esth
aten
able
them
tosu
ppor
tloc
al-
com
mun
ity(d
istan
ce,s
ecur
eev
acua
tion
rout
es,n
ore
stric
tions
leve
lact
ions
effe
ctiv
ely.
onen
try)a
ndw
ithad
equa
tefa
cilit
ies
for
alla
ffect
edpo
pula
tion.
ãEm
erge
ncy
cont
inge
ncy
fund
san
dst
ocks
that
can
bem
ade
4.4
Emer
genc
ysh
elte
rsfo
rliv
esto
ck.
avai
labl
equ
ickl
yto
thos
ein
need
,with
esta
blish
ed4.
5Se
cure
com
mun
icat
ions
infra
stru
ctur
ean
dac
cess
rout
esfo
rpr
oced
ures
for
rele
asin
gth
em.
emer
genc
yse
rvic
esan
dre
liefw
orke
rs.
ãPr
e-ar
rang
edag
reem
ents
signe
dw
ithdo
nor
agen
cies
for
4.6
Two-
way
com
mun
icat
ions
syst
ems
desig
ned
tofu
nctio
nac
cess
tofu
ndin
gor
loan
sat
the
inte
rnat
iona
lor
regi
onal
durin
gcr
ises.
leve
las
part
ofem
erge
ncy
and
reco
very
plan
s.4.
7Em
erge
ncy
supp
lies
(buf
fer
stoc
ks)i
npl
ace,
man
aged
byco
mm
unity
alon
eor
inpa
rtner
ship
with
othe
rlo
calo
rgan
isatio
ns(in
cl.g
rain
/see
dba
nks)
.4.
8C
omm
unity
-man
aged
emer
genc
y/co
ntin
genc
yfu
nds.
4
5.Em
erge
ncy
5.1
Com
mun
ityca
paci
tyto
prov
ide
effe
ctiv
ean
dtim
ely
emer
genc
yã
Civ
ilpr
otec
tion
and
defe
nce
orga
nisa
tions
,NG
Os
and
resp
onse
and
resp
onse
serv
ices
:e.
g.se
arch
and
resc
ue,f
irsta
id/m
edic
alvo
lunt
eer
netw
orks
capa
ble
ofre
spon
ding
toev
ents
inre
cove
ryas
sista
nce,
need
san
dda
mag
eas
sess
men
t,re
liefd
istrib
utio
n,ef
fect
ive
and
timel
ym
anne
r,in
acco
rdan
cew
ithag
reed
plan
sem
erge
ncy
shel
ter,
psyc
hoso
cial
supp
ort,
road
clea
ranc
e.of
co-o
rdin
atio
nw
ithlo
cala
ndco
mm
unity
orga
nisa
tions
.5.
2C
omm
unity
and
othe
rlo
cala
genc
ies
take
lead
role
inã
Cap
acity
tore
stor
ecr
itica
lsys
tem
san
din
frast
ruct
ure
(e.g
.co
-ord
inat
ing
resp
onse
and
reco
very
.tra
nspo
rt,po
wer
and
com
mun
icat
ions
,pub
liche
alth
faci
litie
s)5.
3Re
spon
sean
dre
cove
ryac
tions
reac
hal
laffe
cted
mem
bers
ofan
dag
reed
proc
edur
esfo
rac
tion.
com
mun
ityan
dpr
iorit
ised
acco
rdin
gto
need
s.ã
Supp
ortp
rogr
amm
esfo
rliv
elih
ood-
focu
sed
reco
very
(e.g
.5.
4C
omm
unity
psyc
hoso
cial
supp
orta
ndco
unse
lling
mec
hani
sms.
cash
for
wor
k,re
plac
emen
tofp
rodu
ctiv
eas
sets
,em
erge
ncy
5.5
Com
mun
itykn
owle
dge
ofho
wto
obta
inai
dan
dot
her
supp
ort
loan
sor
star
t-up
capi
tal).
for
relie
fand
reco
very
.ã
Reso
urce
s(h
uman
,ins
titut
iona
l,m
ater
ial,
finan
cial
)ava
ilabl
e5.
6C
omm
unity
trust
inef
fect
iven
ess,
equi
tyan
dim
parti
ality
offo
rlo
ng-t
erm
reco
nstru
ctio
nan
dre
cove
ry.
relie
fand
reco
very
agen
cies
and
actio
ns.
ãG
over
nmen
trel
iefa
ndre
cove
ryre
sour
ces
inve
ntor
ied;
5.7
Com
mun
ity/lo
cally
led
reco
very
plan
ning
and
impl
emen
tatio
nin
form
atio
non
reso
urce
san
dho
wto
obta
inth
emm
ade
ofpl
ans
linki
ngso
cial
,phy
sical
,eco
nom
ican
den
viro
nmen
tal
avai
labl
eto
at-r
iskan
ddi
sast
er-a
ffect
edco
mm
uniti
es.
aspe
cts
and
base
don
max
imum
utili
satio
nof
loca
lcap
aciti
esã
Offi
cial
agen
cies
will
ing
and
able
togu
aran
tee
publ
icsa
fety
and
reso
urce
s.5
afte
rdi
sast
ers
and
topr
otec
thig
hly
vuln
erab
legr
oups
.5.
8Ag
reed
role
s,re
spon
sibili
ties
and
co-o
rdin
atio
nof
reco
very
ãO
ffici
alco
ntin
uity
and
reco
very
plan
sin
plac
eor
capa
ble
ofac
tiviti
es(in
volv
ing
loca
land
exte
rnal
stak
ehol
ders
).be
ing
deve
lope
d,su
ppor
ted
byap
prop
riate
syst
ems
and
5.9
Inco
rpor
atio
nof
DRR
into
com
mun
ityan
dlo
calr
ecov
ery
plan
s.ca
paci
ties.
Com
pone
nts
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofa
Dis
aste
r-re
silie
ntC
omm
unity
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofan
Enab
ling
Envi
ronm
ent
ofRe
silie
nce
36
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note
ãN
atio
nalp
olic
yfra
mew
ork
requ
ires
DRR
inco
rpor
atio
nin
tode
sign
and
impl
emen
tatio
nof
resp
onse
and
reco
very
.ã
DRR
‘mai
nstre
amed
’int
ore
leva
ntor
gani
satio
ns’r
ecov
ery
plan
ning
and
prac
tice.
6.Pa
rtici
patio
n,6.
1Lo
call
eade
rshi
pof
deve
lopm
enta
ndde
liver
yof
cont
inge
ncy,
ãRe
cogn
ition
byex
tern
alan
dlo
cale
mer
genc
yre
spon
ders
ofvo
lunt
arism
,re
spon
se,r
ecov
ery
plan
s.pe
ople
’srig
htto
appr
opria
teas
sista
nce
afte
rdi
sast
ers,
toac
coun
tabi
lity
6.2
Who
le-c
omm
unity
parti
cipa
tion
inde
velo
pmen
tand
deliv
ery
parti
cipa
tion
indi
sast
erre
cove
rypl
anni
ngan
dto
prot
ectio
nof
cont
inge
ncy,
resp
onse
,rec
over
ypl
ans;
com
mun
ityfro
mvi
olen
ce(d
efin
edin
legi
slatio
n).
‘ow
ners
hip’
ofpl
ans
and
impl
emen
tatio
nst
ruct
ures
.ã
Inte
rnat
iona
llyac
cept
edpr
inci
ples
ofrig
hts
and
6.3
Just
ifiab
leco
mm
unity
conf
iden
cein
EWan
dem
erge
ncy
syst
ems
acco
unta
bilit
yin
disa
ster
resp
onse
and
reco
very
6ag
reed
and
and
itsow
nab
ility
tota
keef
fect
ive
actio
nin
adi
sast
er.
adop
ted
byna
tiona
laut
horit
ies,
loca
lgov
ernm
ent,
civi
l6.
4H
igh
leve
lofc
omm
unity
volu
ntee
rism
inal
lasp
ects
ofso
ciet
yor
gani
satio
nsan
dot
her
stak
ehol
ders
.pr
epar
edne
ss,r
espo
nse
and
reco
very
;re
pres
enta
tive
ofal
lã
Lega
lins
trum
ents
man
datin
gsp
ecifi
cac
tions
bypu
blic
sect
ions
ofco
mm
unity
.or
gani
satio
nsin
emer
genc
yre
spon
sean
ddi
sast
erre
cove
ry.
6.5
Org
anise
dvo
lunt
eer
grou
psin
tegr
ated
into
com
mun
ity,
ãPa
rtici
pato
rym
echa
nism
sen
surin
gal
lsta
keho
lder
sin
volv
edlo
cala
ndsu
pra-
loca
lpla
nnin
gst
ruct
ures
.in
the
deve
lopm
ento
fall
com
pone
nts
ofdi
sast
er6.
6Fo
rmal
com
mun
ityD
P/re
spon
sest
ruct
ures
capa
ble
ofad
aptin
gm
anag
emen
tpla
nnin
gan
dop
erat
ions
atle
vels.
toar
rival
ofsp
onta
neou
s/em
erge
ntgr
oups
ofvo
lunt
eers
(from
ãLo
calg
over
nmen
tand
othe
rag
enci
esha
vepl
anne
dfo
rco
-w
ithin
and
outs
ide
com
mun
ity)a
ndin
tegr
atin
gth
ese
into
ordi
natio
nof
‘em
erge
ntgr
oups
’ofv
olun
teer
s.re
spon
sean
dre
cove
ry.
ãA
pplic
atio
nof
soci
alau
dits
,rep
ortc
ards
and
othe
r6.
7Se
lf-he
lpan
dsu
ppor
tgro
ups
for
mos
tvul
nera
ble
mec
hani
sms
enab
ling
thos
eaf
fect
edby
disa
ster
sto
eval
uate
(e.g
.eld
erly,
disa
bled
).em
erge
ncy
resp
onse
.6.
8M
echa
nism
sfo
rdi
sast
er-a
ffect
edpe
ople
toex
pres
sth
eir
ãIn
depe
nden
tass
essm
ents
ofD
Pca
paci
ties
and
mec
hani
sms
view
s,fo
rle
arni
ngan
dsh
arin
gle
sson
sfro
mev
ents
.ca
rrie
dou
tand
acte
dup
on.
ãEf
fect
ive
and
trans
pare
ntm
echa
nism
sfo
rm
onito
ring
and
eval
uatin
gD
Pan
dre
spon
se.
1Th
ese
may
begr
oups
setu
psp
ecifi
cally
for
this
purp
ose,
orex
istin
ggr
oups
esta
blish
edfo
rot
her
purp
oses
butc
apab
leof
taki
ngon
aD
P/re
spon
sero
le.
2Se
eal
soTa
ble
2:Ri
skAs
sess
men
t3
The
term
sD
Por
cont
inge
ncy
plan
are
used
broa
dly
here
toco
ver
allk
inds
ofpl
anfo
rpr
epar
ing
and
resp
ondi
ngto
disa
ster
san
dem
erge
ncie
s.It
isas
sum
edth
atth
epl
an,l
ike
allg
ood
DP/
cont
inge
ncy
plan
s,ha
scl
early
stat
edob
ject
ive(
s),s
ets
outa
syst
emat
icse
quen
ceof
activ
ities
ina
logi
cala
ndcl
ear
man
ner,
assig
nssp
ecifi
cta
sks
and
resp
onsib
ilitie
s,is
prac
tical
and
base
don
real
istic
para
met
ers
(i.e.
appr
opria
tefo
cus,
leve
lofd
etai
l,fo
rmat
for
loca
luse
rs’n
eeds
and
capa
citie
s),i
spr
oces
s-dr
iven
(i.e.
does
noto
vere
mph
asiz
eth
eim
porta
nce
ofa
writ
ten
plan
)and
lead
sto
actio
ns.
For
mor
ede
taile
dgu
idan
ceon
prep
ared
ness
and
cont
inge
ncy
plan
ning
,see
UN
OC
HA
2007
,‘D
isast
erPr
epar
edne
ssfo
rEf
fect
ive
Resp
onse
:Im
plem
entin
gPr
iorit
yFi
veof
the
Hyo
goFr
amew
ork
for
Actio
n’(G
enev
a:O
ffice
for
the
Coo
rdin
atio
nof
Hum
anita
rian
Affa
irs);
Cho
ular
ton
R20
07, C
ontin
genc
ypl
anni
ngan
dhu
man
itaria
nac
tion:
are
view
ofpr
actic
e(L
ondo
n:H
uman
itaria
nPr
actic
eN
etw
ork,
Net
wor
kPa
per
59).
4Th
ese
coul
dbe
part
ofor
sepa
rate
from
othe
rsa
ving
san
dcr
edit
orm
icro
-fina
nce
initi
ativ
es.
5In
clud
ing
rese
ttlem
entp
lans
.6
e.g.
HA
PPr
inci
ples
ofA
ccou
ntab
ility
,Sph
ere,
Red
Cro
ssC
ode
ofC
ondu
ct,f
orth
com
ing
BON
DD
RRG
roup
disa
ster
reco
very
stan
dard
s.
Com
pone
nts
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofa
Dis
aste
r-re
silie
ntC
omm
unity
Cha
ract
eris
tics
ofan
Enab
ling
Envi
ronm
ent
ofRe
silie
nce
top related