characteristics of a disaster-resilient community a …...characteristics of a disaster-resilient...

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 ([email protected]) 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.

[email protected]

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


17


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


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


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.

pdf

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



1. Hazards/risk data and assessment

2. Vulnerability and impact data and assessment

3. Scientific and technical capacities and innovation

22


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


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


Thematic Area 3: Knowledge and Education


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

characteristics of a disaster-resilient community a …...characteristics of a disaster-resilient...

Documents