Characteristics of a Disaster-resilent Community · Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note The aim has been to provide a comprehensive list of characteristics

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

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.

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)

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

Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note

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

2

Version 1 (for fieldtesting), August 2007

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

Section A: Introduction and Background

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.


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.

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).

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.

4


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

ISDR

Uni

ted

Nat

ions

Inte

rnat

iona

l Str

ateg

y fo

r Disa

ster

Red

uctio

n

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

5Ex

pect

edO

utco

me

The

subs

tant

ialr

educ

tion

ofdi

sast

erlo

sses

,in

lives

and

inth

eso

cial

,ec

onom

ican

den

viro

nmen

tala

sset

sof

com

mun

ities

and

coun

tries

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

The

deve

lopm

enta

ndst

reng

then

ing

ofin

stitu

tions

,mec

hani

sms

and

capa

citie

sto

build

resil

ienc

eto

haza

rds

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

Prio

ritie

sfo

rAc

tion

Activities ey K

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

nD

RRin

stitu

tiona

lmec

hani

sms

(nat

iona

lpla

tform

s);

desig

nate

dre

spon

sibili

ties

DRR

part

ofde

velo

pmen

tpo

licie

san

dpl

anni

ng,s

ecto

rw

isean

dm

ultis

ecto

r;Le

gisla

tion

tosu

ppor

tDRR

;D

ecen

tralis

atio

nof

resp

onsib

ilitie

san

dre

sour

ces;

Asse

ssm

ento

fhum

anre

sour

ces

and

capa

citie

s;Fo

ster

polit

ical

com

mitm

ent;

Com

mun

itypa

rtici

patio

n.

2.Id

entif

y,as

sess

and

mon

itor

disa

ster

risks

and

enha

nce

early

war

ning

Risk

asse

ssm

ents

and

map

s,m

ulti-

risk:

elab

orat

ion

and

diss

emin

atio

n;In

dica

tors

onD

RRan

dvu

lner

abili

ty;

Early

war

ning

:peo

ple

cent

ered

;in

form

atio

nsy

stem

s;pu

blic

polic

y;D

ata

and

statis

tical

loss

info

rmat

ion;

Scie

ntifi

can

dte

chno

logi

cal

deve

lopm

ent;

data

shar

ing,

spac

e-ba

sed

earth

obse

rvat

ion,

clim

ate

mod

ellin

gan

dfo

reca

stin

g;ea

rlyw

arni

ng;

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

Info

rmat

ion

shar

ing

and

coop

erat

ion;

Net

wor

ksac

ross

disc

iplin

esan

dre

gion

s;di

alog

ue;

Use

ofst

anda

rdD

RRte

rmin

olog

y;In

clus

ion

ofD

RRin

tosc

hool

curr

icul

a,fo

rmal

and

info

rmal

educ

atio

n;Tr

aini

ngan

dle

arni

ngon

DRR

:co

mm

unity

leve

l,lo

cala

utho

ritie

s,ta

rget

edse

ctor

s;eq

uala

cces

s;Re

sear

chca

paci

ty:m

ulti-

risk;

soci

o-ec

onom

ic;

appl

icat

ion;

Publ

icaw

aren

ess

and

med

ia.

4.Re

duce

the

unde

rlyin

gris

kfa

ctor

s

Sust

aina

ble

ecos

yste

ms

and

envi

ronm

enta

lm

anag

emen

t;D

RRst

rate

gies

inte

grat

edw

ithcl

imat

ech

ange

adap

tatio

n;Fo

odse

curit

yfo

rre

silie

nce;

DRR

inte

grat

edin

tohe

alth

sect

oran

dsa

feho

spita

ls;Pr

otec

tion

ofcr

itica

lpub

licfa

cilit

ies;

Reco

very

sche

mes

and

soci

alsa

fety

-net

s;Vu

lner

abili

tyre

duct

ion

with

dive

rsifi

edin

com

eop

tions

;Fi

nanc

ialr

isk- s

harin

gm

echa

nism

s;Pu

blic

-priv

ate

partn

ersh

ips;

Land

use

plan

ning

and

build

ing

code

s;Ru

rald

evel

opm

entp

lans

and

DRR

.

5.St

reng

then

disa

ster

prep

ared

ness

for

effe

ctiv

ere

spon

seat

alll

evel

s

Disa

ster

man

agem

entc

apac

ities

:po

licy,

tech

nica

land

inst

itutio

nal

capa

citie

s;D

ialo

gue,

coor

dina

tion

and

info

rmat

ion

exch

ange

betw

een

disa

ster

man

ager

san

dde

velo

pmen

tse

ctor

s;Re

gion

alap

proa

ches

todi

sast

erre

spon

se,w

ithris

kre

duct

ion

focu

s;Re

view

and

exer

cise

prep

ared

ness

and

cont

inge

ncy

plan

s;Em

erge

ncy

fund

s;Vo

lunt

arism

and

parti

cipa

tion.

Cro

ssC

uttin

gIs

sues

Mul

ti-ha

zard

appr

oach

DRR

=di

sast

erris

kre

duct

ion

ww

w.u

nisd

r.orgContributing to the achievements of the internationally agreed development goals (including the MDGs)

Diagram courtesy of UN International Strategy for Disaster RFig. 1: Hyogo Framework for Action

eduction

5


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:

• capacity to absorb stress or destructive forcesthrough resistance or adaptation

• capacity to manage, or maintain certain basicfunctions and structures, during disastrous events

• capacity to recover or ‘bounce back’ after an event

‘Resilience’ is generally seen as a broader conceptthan ‘capacity’ because it goes beyond the specific

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

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.

6


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.

7


Section B: Using the Tables

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.

Table Thematic area

1 Governance2 Risk assessment3 Knowledge and education4 Risk management and vulnerability

reduction5 Disaster preparedness and response

Each thematic table is divided into three sections(columns):

Components of resilience

Characteristicsof a resilient community

Characteristicsof an enabling environment

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:

• which main areas of resilience or DRR it, and otheragencies, are currently addressing in a particularcommunity or district

• where the current emphasis is in their interventions• any major gaps in coverage or missing links

between DRR components

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.

8


Thematic area Components of resilience

1 Governance • Policy, planning, priorities and political commitment.• Legal and regulatory systems• Integration with development policies and planning• Integration with emergency response and recovery• Institutional mechanisms, capacities and structures; allocation of

responsibilities• Partnerships• Accountability and community participation

2 Risk assessment • Hazards/risk data and assessment• Vulnerability and impact data and assessment• Scientific and technical capacities and innovation

3 Knowledge and education

• Public awareness, knowledge and skills• Information management and sharing• Education and training• Cultures, attitudes, motivation• Learning and research

4 Risk management and vulnerability reduction

• Environmental and natural resource management• Health and well being• Sustainable livelihoods• Social protection• Financial instruments• Physical protection; structural and technical measures• Planning régimes

5 Disaster preparedness and response

• Organisational capacities and coordination• Early warning systems• Preparedness and contingency planning• Emergency resources and infrastructure• Emergency response and recovery• Participation, voluntarism, accountability

2. Characteristics of a ResilientCommunityFor each component of resilience, the tables provide aset of characteristics of a resilient community. Again,

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:

Thematic area 2: Risk assessment

Characteristics of a resilient community

Component of resilience 1: Hazards/risk data and assessment

• Community hazard/risk assessments carried out which provide comprehensivepicture of all major hazards and risks facing community (and potential risks).

• Hazard/risk assessment is participatory process including representatives of allsections of community and sources of expertise.

• Assessment findings shared, discussed, understood and agreed among allstakeholders, and feed into community disaster planning.

• Findings made available to all interested parties (within and outside community,locally and at higher levels) and feed into their disaster planning.

• Ongoing monitoring of hazards and risks and updating of assessments.• Skills and capacity to carry out community hazard and risk assessments maintained

through support and training.

9


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:

• Baseline studies of the level of resilience in acommunity.

• Vulnerability and capacity analysis.• Project planning, especially in identifying

indicators for logical and results-based planningframeworks.

• 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).


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).

11


Thematic Area 1: Governance

Characteristics of enabling environment

Component of resilience 1: DRR policy, planning, priorities and political commitment

• Political consensus on importance of DRR• DRR a policy priority at all levels of government.• National DRR policy, strategy and implementation plan, with clear vision, priorities,

targets and benchmarks.• Local government DRR policies, strategies and implementation plans in place.• Official (national and local) policy and strategy of support to CBDRM.• 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 of a ‘minimum level

of resiliency’

Plan International: indicators of community resilience

Practical Action: key characteristics of aresilient community

• A communityorganisation

• A DRR and disasterpreparedness plan

• A community earlywarning system

• Trained manpower:risk assessment, searchand rescue, medicalfirst aid, reliefdistribution, masonsfor safer houseconstruction,fire fighting

• Physical connectivity:roads, electricity,telephone, clinics

• Relational connectivitywith local authoritiesNGOs, etc.

• Knowledge of risksand risk reductionactions

• A community disasterreduction fund to

1. Governance:• Extent and nature of access/

presence/influence of childrenand other vulnerable groups (orgroups that represent their interests) –to/in/over functions of governanceat local, sub-national, national levels:o Policyo Legislativeo Planningo Budgetingo Monitoring

• Awareness of community membersof their rights

• Access of community members tolegal and other avenues to enforcerights/provide redress (e.g. throughlinkages to legal rights NGOs,pro-bono lawyers)

2. Risk assessment:• Existence and quality of community

risk assessments and maps that are‘owned’ by both community andgovernment

• A community organisation such as adevelopment/disaster managementgroup, representing majority ofpeople. Existing groups can begroomed for this role.

• A DRR and Disaster Preparednessplan (supported by local/centralgovernment)

• Early warning systems• Trained persons – risk assessment,

search and rescue, first aid, reliefdistribution, safer house construction,fire fighting; effective delivery system.

• Physical infrastructure – access toroads, electricity, phones, clinics, etc

• Linkages with local authorities,NGOs, humanitarian agencies, etc

• Knowledge and awareness of risksand risk reduction strategies

• Safer housing to withstand localhazards

• Safer/appropriate/more diversesources of livelihoods includingprotection of assets most at risk.

• Access to resources for mitigation,

12


ADPC: Indicators of a ‘minimum level

of resiliency’

Plan International: indicators of community resilience

Practical Action: key characteristics of aresilient community

implement risk reduction activities

• Safer houses towithstand localhazards

• Safer sources oflivelihoods

• Extent and quality of participation ofvulnerable groups in development ofcommunity risk assessments andmaps

• Extent to which vulnerability andrisk analysis is incorporated indevelopment planning

3. Knowledge and education:• Awareness levels in the community,

particularly children and vulnerablegroups, of EWS

• Awareness levels in the community,particularly of children and vulnerablegroups, of risks and risk reductionstrategies

4. Risk management and vulnerabilityreduction:

• Extent and nature of social capital• Health status• Sustainable livelihoods/natural

resource management• Extent of climate change adaptation• Food security• Extent of diversity of livelihood options• Extent to which DRR has been

integrated into development planning• Access to social protection

mechanisms e.g. social insurance

5. Disaster preparedness and response:• Existence and quality of early warning

systems• Existence, practice and revision of

preparedness and contingency plans• Extent and nature of participation of

vulnerable groups in development,practice and revision of preparednessand contingency plans

• Extent and quality of linkages withlocal authorities, NGOs, etc.

• Extent of diversity of physical andcommunications infrastructure andassets, e.g. roads, boats, mobilephones, etc.

• Access to resources for mitigation,response and recovery activities

response and recovery activities

Source: ADPC 2006, CriticalGuidelines: Community-based Disaster Risk Management(Bangkok: Asian Disaster Preparedness Center; www.adpc.net) p.25

Source: Plan International Source: Practical Action

13


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.

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.

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

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 DRRindicators

• UN ISDR Hyogo Framework for Action web page,http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/hfa.htm

• UN ISDR 2007, ‘Guide Note on Indicators forAssessing Progress on Disaster Risk Reduction’(Geneva: International Strategy for DisasterReduction). Unpublished draft (final version will bepublished).

• 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

• 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:

• 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)

• ADPC 2006, Critical Guidelines: Community-basedDisaster Risk Management (Bangkok: Asian DisasterPreparedness Center), www.adpc.net

• Barrena I 2007, ‘Indicators: A guide to find simpleindicators for risk reduction projects at local level’(Geneva: IFRC, unpublished draft report).

• 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

• 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

• 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/

• McEntire DA 2000, ‘Sustainability or invulnerabledevelopment? Proposals for the current shift inparadigms’. Australian Journal of EmergencyManagement 15(1): 58–61.

• 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 DRR

• ADPC 2006, Critical Guidelines: Community-basedDisaster Risk Management (Bangkok: Asian DisasterPreparedness Center), www.adpc.net

• 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-resilientcommunity

• Buckle P, Marsh G, Smale S 2000, ‘Newapproaches to assessing vulnerability andresilience.’ Australian Journal of EmergencyManagement 15(2) 8–14.

• Geis DE 2000, ‘By Design: the Disaster Resistantand Quality-of-Life Community’. Natural HazardsReview 1(3): 151–160.

• Godschalk DR 2003, ‘Urban Hazard Mitigation:Creating Resilient Cities’. Natural Hazards Review4(3) 136–143.

• IFRC 2004, World Disasters Report 2004: Focus oncommunity resilience (Geneva: IFRC), chapter 1.

• McEntire DA 2005, ‘Why vulnerability matters.Exploring the merit of an inclusive disasterreduction concept’. Disaster Prevention andManagement 14(2) 206–222.

• Manyena SB 2006, ‘The concept of resiliencerevisited’. Disasters 30(4): 433–450.

15


Communities and DRR

• Buckle P 1998/9, ‘Re-defining community andvulnerability in the context of emergencymanagement’. Australian Journal of EmergencyManagement 13(4) 21–26.

• Enders J 2001, ‘Measuring community awarenessand preparedness for emergencies’. AustralianJournal of Emergency Management 16(3): 52–58.

• IFRC 2004, World Disasters Report 2004: Focus oncommunity resilience (Geneva: IFRC), pp. 27–31.

• Marsh G, Buckle P 2001, ‘Community: theconcept of community in the risk and emergencymanagement context’. Australian Journal ofEmergency Management 16(1): 5–7.

16


Section C: Tables

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

17

Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance NoteCo

mpo

nent

s of

Res

ilien

ceCh

arac

teris

tics

of a

Dis

aste

r-re

silie

nt C

omm

unity

Char

acte

ristic

s of

an

Enab

ling

Envi

ronm

ent

1D

RR p

olicy

,pl

anni

ng,

prio

ritie

s, an

d po

litica

l co

mm

itmen

t.

1.1

Shar

ed v

ision

of a

pre

pare

d an

d re

silie

nt c

omm

unity

.1.

2 Co

nsen

sus

view

of r

isks

face

d, r

isk m

anag

emen

t ap

proa

ch,

spec

ific

actio

ns to

be

take

n an

d ta

rget

s to

be

met

.11.

3 Vi

sion

and

DRR

pla

ns in

form

ed b

y un

ders

tand

ing

of

unde

rlyin

g ca

uses

of v

ulne

rabi

lity

and

othe

r fa

ctor

s ou

tsid

eco

mm

unity

s c

ontro

l.1.

4 Co

mm

unity

take

s lo

ng-t

erm

per

spec

tive,

foc

usin

g on

ou

tcom

es a

nd i

mpa

ct o

f D

RR.

1.5

Com

mitt

ed, e

ffect

ive

and

acco

unta

ble

com

mun

ity le

ader

ship

of

DRR

pla

nnin

g an

d im

plem

enta

tion.

1.6

Com

mun

ity D

RR (a

nd D

P) p

lans

, dev

elop

ed t

hrou

gh p

artic

ipat

ory

proc

esse

s, pu

t int

o op

erat

ion,

and

upd

ated

per

iodi

cally

.

>Po

litica

l con

sens

us o

n im

porta

nce

of D

RR.

>D

RR a

pol

icy

prio

rity

at a

ll le

vels

of g

over

nmen

t.»-

Nat

iona

l D

RR p

olicy

, stra

tegy

and

im

plem

enta

tion

plan

, with

cle

ar v

ision

, pr

iorit

ies,

targ

ets

and

benc

hmar

ks.

>Lo

cal g

over

nmen

t D

RR p

olic

ies,

stra

tegi

es a

nd i

mpl

emen

tatio

npl

ans

in p

lace

.>

Offi

cial

(na

tiona

l and

loc

al)

polic

y an

d st

rate

gy o

f sup

port

to c

omm

unity

-bas

ed d

isast

er r

isk m

anag

emen

t (C

BDRM

).>

Loca

l-lev

el o

fficia

l un

ders

tand

ing

of, a

nd s

uppo

rt fo

r,co

mm

unity

visi

on.

CN

Lega

l and

re

gula

tory

sy

stem

s

2.1

Com

mun

ity u

nder

stan

ds r

elev

ant

legi

slatio

n, r

egul

atio

ns a

nd

proc

edur

es, a

nd t

heir

impo

rtan

ce.

2.2

Com

mun

ity a

war

e of

its

right

s an

d th

e le

gal o

blig

atio

ns o

f go

vern

men

t an

d ot

her

stak

ehol

ders

to p

rovi

de p

rote

ctio

n.

>Re

leva

nt a

nd e

nabl

ing

legi

slatio

n, r

egul

atio

ns, c

odes

, etc

.,ad

dres

sing

and

supp

ortin

g D

RR, a

t na

tiona

l and

loc

al l

evel

s.>

Juris

dict

ions

and

res

pons

ibili

ties

for

DRR

at a

ll le

vels

defin

ed i

n le

gisla

tion,

reg

ulat

ions

, by-

law

s, et

c.>

Mec

hani

sms

for

com

plia

nce

and

enfo

rcem

ent o

f law

s,re

gula

tions

, cod

es, e

tc.,

and

pena

lties

for

non-

com

plia

nce

defin

ed in

law

s an

d re

gula

tions

.>

Lega

l and

reg

ulat

ory

syst

em u

nder

pinn

ed b

y gu

aran

tees

of re

leva

nt r

ight

s: to

saf

ety,

to e

quita

ble

assis

tanc

e, to

be

liste

ned

to a

nd c

onsu

lted.

>La

nd-u

se r

egul

atio

ns, b

uild

ing

code

s an

d ot

her

law

s an

dre

gula

tions

rel

atin

g to

DRR

enf

orce

d lo

cally

.

CO

Inte

grat

ion

with

de

velo

pmen

t po

licie

s an

d pl

anni

ng

3.1

Com

mun

ity D

RR s

een

by a

ll lo

cal s

take

hold

ers

as in

tegr

al

part

of p

lans

and

act

ions

to a

chie

ve w

ider

com

mun

ity g

oals

(e.g

. pov

erty

alle

viat

ion,

qua

lity

of li

fe).

>G

over

nmen

t (a

ll le

vels)

tak

es h

olist

ic a

nd i

nteg

rate

d ap

proa

chto

DRR

, lo

cate

d w

ithin

wid

er d

evel

opm

ent c

onte

xt a

nd li

nked

to d

evel

opm

ent

plan

ning

acr

oss

diffe

rent

sec

tors

.>

DRR

inco

rpor

ated

int

o or

link

ed to

oth

er n

atio

nal

deve

lopm

ent

plan

s an

d do

nor-

supp

orte

d co

untr

ypr

ogra

mm

es.2

> Ro

utin

e in

tegr

atio

n of

DRR

into

dev

elop

men

t pl

anni

ng a

ndse

ctor

al p

olic

ies

(pov

erty

era

dica

tion,

soc

ial

prot

ectio

n,su

stai

nabl

e de

velo

pmen

t, cl

imat

e ch

ange

ada

ptat

ion,

dese

rtific

atio

n, n

atur

al r

esou

rce

man

agem

ent,

heal

th,

18

e duc

atio

n, e

tc ).

Thematic Area 1: GovernanceCo

mpo

nent

s of

Res

ilien

ceCh

arac

teris

tics

of a

Dis

aste

r-re

silie

nt C

omm

unity

Ch

arac

teris

tics

of a

n En

ablin

g En

viro

nmen

t

>Fo

rmal

dev

elop

m e

nt p

lann

ing

and

im p

lem

ent

atio

n pr

oces

ses

requ

ired

to in

corp

orat

e D

RR e

lem

ents

(e.g

. haz

ard,

vuln

erab

ility

and

risk

ana

lysis

, miti

gatio

n pl

ans)

.>

Mul

ti-se

ctor

al i

nstit

utio

nal

plat

form

s fo

r pr

omot

ing

DRR

.>

Loca

l pla

nnin

g po

licie

s, re

gula

tions

and

dec

ision

-mak

ing

syst

ems

take

disa

ster

risk

into

acc

ount

.

4.

Inte

grat

ion

with

em

erge

ncy

resp

onse

and

re

cove

ry

4.1

Com

mun

ity a

nd o

ther

loca

l-lev

el a

ctor

s in

sus

tain

able

de

velo

pmen

t an

d D

RR e

ngag

e in

join

t pl

anni

ng w

ith

com

mun

ity a

nd l

ocal

-leve

l em

erge

ncy

team

s an

d st

ruct

ures

.

>N

atio

nal

polic

y fra

mew

ork

requ

ires

DRR

to b

e in

corp

orat

edin

to d

esig

n an

d im

plem

enta

tion

of d

isast

er r

espo

nse

and

reco

very

.>

Polic

y, pl

anni

ng a

nd o

pera

tiona

l lin

kage

s be

twee

n em

erge

ncy

man

agem

ent,

DRR

and

dev

elop

men

t st

ruct

ures

.>

Risk

red

uctio

n in

corp

orat

ed i

nto

offic

ial

(and

inte

rnat

iona

llysu

ppor

ted

and

impl

emen

ted)

pos

t-di

sast

er r

econ

stru

ctio

npl

ans

and

actio

ns.

5.In

stitu

tiona

lm

echa

nism

s,ca

paci

ties

and

stru

ctur

es;

allo

catio

n of

resp

onsib

ilitie

s

5.1

Repr

esen

tativ

e co

mm

unity

org

anisa

tions

ded

icat

ed to

DRR

/DRM

. 5.

2 Lo

cal

NG

Os,

CBO

s an

d co

mm

uniti

es o

f int

eres

t eng

aged

with

ot

her

issue

s ca

pabl

e of

sup

porti

ng D

RR a

nd r

espo

nse.

3 5.

3 Re

spon

sibili

ties,

reso

urce

s, et

c., d

efin

ed i

n co

mm

unity

di

sast

er p

lans

. 5.

4 Sh

ared

und

erst

andi

ng a

mon

g all

loc

al s

take

hold

ers

rega

rdin

g D

RR r

espo

nsib

ilitie

s, au

thor

ity a

nd d

ecisi

on m

akin

g.

5.5

Com

mun

ity-m

anag

ed f

unds

and

oth

er m

ater

ial

reso

urce

s fo

r D

RR a

nd d

isast

er r

ecov

ery.

5.6

Acce

ss to

gov

ernm

ent

and

othe

r fu

ndin

g an

d re

sour

ces

for

DRR

and

rec

over

y.

>Su

ppor

tive

polit

ical

, adm

inist

rativ

e an

d fin

anci

al e

nviro

nmen

tfo

r CB

DRM

and

com

mun

ity-b

ased

dev

elop

men

t,>

Inst

itutio

nal

man

date

s an

d re

spon

sibili

ties

for

DRR

cle

arly

defin

ed.

Inte

r-in

stitu

tiona

l or

co-

ordi

natin

g m

echa

nism

s ex

ist,

with

cle

arly

des

igna

ted

resp

onsib

ilitie

s,>

Foca

l po

int

at n

atio

nal

leve

l with

aut

horit

y an

d re

sour

ces

toco

-ord

inat

e all

rel

ated

bod

ies

invo

lved

in d

isast

erm

anag

emen

t an

d D

RR.

>H

uman

, tec

hnic

al, m

ater

ial a

nd f

inan

cial

res

ourc

es fo

r D

RRad

equa

te to

mee

t def

ined

inst

itutio

nal

role

s an

dre

spon

sibili

ties

(incl

udin

g bu

dget

ary

allo

catio

n sp

ecifi

cally

toD

RR a

t na

tiona

l and

loca

l le

vels)

.>

Dev

olut

ion

of r

espo

nsib

ility

(and

res

ourc

es) f

or D

RR p

lann

ing

and

impl

emen

tatio

n to

loca

l gov

ernm

ent

leve

ls an

dco

mm

uniti

es, a

s fa

r as

pos

sible

, bac

ked

up b

y pr

ovisi

on o

fsp

ecia

list

expe

rtise

and

res

ourc

es to

sup

port

loca

lde

cisio

n-m

akin

g, p

lann

ing

and

man

agem

ent

of d

isast

ers.

>Co

mm

itted

and

effe

ctiv

e co

mm

unity

out

reac

h se

rvic

es (

DRR

and

rela

ted

serv

ices

, e.g

. hea

lthca

re).

19


mpo

nent

s of

Res

ilien

ceCh

arac

teris

tics

of a

Dis

aste

r-re

silie

nt C

omm

unity

Ch

arac

teris

tics

of a

n En

ablin

g En

viro

nmen

t

6.Pa

rtner

ship

s6.

1 Lo

cal s

take

hold

ers

com

mitt

ed t

o ge

nuin

e pa

rtner

ship

s (w

ith o

pen

and

shar

ed p

rinci

ples

of c

olla

bora

tion,

hig

h le

vels

of tr

ust).

6.2

Clea

r, ag

reed

and

sta

ble

DRR

par

tner

ship

s be

twee

n lo

cal

stak

ehol

der

grou

ps a

nd o

rgan

isatio

ns (

com

mun

ities

and

CBO

s w

ith l

ocal

aut

horit

ies,

NG

Os,

busin

esse

s, et

c.).

6.3

Proc

esse

s ar

e co

mm

unity

-led

(sup

porte

d by

ext

erna

l age

ncie

s).

6.4

Loca

l cap

acity

and

ent

husia

sm t

o pr

omot

e D

RR a

nd s

cale

up a

ctiv

ities

(thr

ough

com

mun

ity-e

xter

nal

acto

r pa

rtner

ship

s).

6.5

Com

mun

ity a

nd l

ocal

gro

ups/

orga

nisa

tions

hav

e ca

paci

ty to

re

crui

t, tr

ain,

sup

port

and

mot

ivat

e co

mm

unity

vol

unte

ers

for

DRR

, and

wor

k to

geth

er to

do

so.

>D

RR id

entif

ied

as r

espo

nsib

ility

of a

ll se

ctor

s of

soc

iety

(pub

lic, p

rivat

e, c

ivil)

, with

app

ropr

iate

inte

r-se

ctor

al a

nd c

oor

dina

ting

mec

hani

sms.

>Lo

ng-t

erm

civ

il so

ciety

, N

GO

, pr

ivat

e se

ctor

and

com

mun

itypa

rtic

ipat

ion

and

inte

r-se

ctor

al p

artn

ersh

ips

for

DRR

and

em

erge

ncy

resp

onse

.>

Link

ages

with

reg

iona

l and

glo

bal

inst

itutio

ns a

nd t

heir

DRR

initi

ativ

es.

7.Ac

coun

tabi

lity

and

com

mun

itypa

rtici

patio

n

7.1

Dev

olve

d D

RR s

truct

ures

faci

litat

e co

mm

unity

par

ticip

atio

n,

7.2

Acce

ss to

info

rmat

ion

on l

ocal

gov

ernm

ent

plan

s, st

ruct

ures

, etc

. 7.

3 Tr

ust w

ithin

com

mun

ity a

nd b

etw

een

com

mun

ity a

nd e

xter

nal

agen

cies.

7.4

Capa

city

to c

halle

nge

and

lobb

y ex

tern

al a

genc

ies

on D

RR

plan

s, pr

iorit

ies,

actio

ns th

at m

ay h

ave

an i

mpa

ct o

n ris

k.7.

5 Pa

rticip

ator

y M

&E

syst

ems t

o as

sess

res

ilien

ce a

nd p

rogr

ess

in D

RR.

7.6

Incl

usio

n/re

pres

enta

tion

of v

ulne

rabl

e gr

oups

in c

omm

unity

de

cisio

n m

akin

g an

d m

anag

emen

t of D

RR.

7.7

High

lev

el o

f vol

unte

erism

in D

RR a

ctiv

ities

.

>

Basic

righ

ts o

f peo

ple

form

ally

rec

ogni

sed

by n

atio

nal

and

loca

l gov

ernm

ent

(and

civ

il so

ciet

y or

gani

satio

ns: C

SOs)

: to

safe

ty, t

o eq

uita

ble

vuln

erab

ility

red

uctio

n an

d re

lief

assis

tanc

e, t

o be

list

ened

to a

nd c

onsu

lted

(impl

ies

resp

onsib

ility

to g

uara

ntee

thes

e rig

hts

whe

re a

ppro

pria

te).

>

Effe

ctiv

e qu

ality

con

trol o

r au

dit

mec

hani

sms

for

offic

ial

stru

ctur

es, s

yste

ms,

etc.

, in

pla

ce a

nd a

pplie

d.>

Dem

ocra

tic s

yste

m o

f gov

erna

nce

hold

ing

deci

sion

mak

ers

toac

coun

t.>

Gov

ernm

ent c

onsu

lts c

ivil

socie

ty,

NG

Os,

priv

ate

sect

or a

ndco

mm

uniti

es.

>Po

pula

r pa

rtici

patio

n in

pol

icy

deve

lopm

ent a

ndim

plem

enta

tion.

>Ci

tizen

dem

ands

for

actio

n to

red

uce

disa

ster

risk

.>

Exist

ence

of '

wat

chdo

g' g

roup

s to

pre

ss fo

r ch

ange

.

1 In

cludi

ng a

gree

men

t on

level

of ac

cept

able

risk.

2 Po

verty

Red

uctio

n St

rate

gies,

natio

nal M

illenn

ium

Dev

elop

men

t Goa

l rep

orts,

Nat

iona

l Ada

ptat

ion

Plans

of A

ctio

n, U

NDP

ass

istan

ce fr

amew

orks

, etc

.3

i.e. e

mer

gent

, exte

ndin

g or

exp

andi

ng o

rgan

isatio

ns. E

xpan

ding

org

anisa

tions

are

exp

ecte

d to

take

on

addi

tiona

l fun

ction

s at t

imes

of c

risis,

whi

ch th

ey d

o by

incr

easin

g th

eir c

apac

ity o

r alte

ring

their

or

gan is

atio

nal s

tructu

res (

e.g. a

loca

l Red

Cro

ss b

ranc

h ca

lling

on tr

ained

vol

unte

ers t

o su

ppor

t its

small

cor

e of

pro

fess

iona

l sta

ff). E

xtend

ing

orga

nisa

tions

are

not

expe

cted

to re

spon

d to

disa

sters

but

durin

g dis

aste

rs m

ay p

erfo

rm n

on-re

gular

task

s (e.g

. a co

nstru

ction

com

pany

clea

ring

debr

is to

ass

ist re

scue

ope

ratio

ns).

Emer

gent

org

anisa

tions

do

not e

xist b

efor

e a

disas

ter e

vent

but

form

in re

spon

se

to it

(e.g

. spo

ntan

eous

sear

ch a

nd re

scue

gro

ups).

See

Web

b GR

199

9, In

divi

dual

and

Org

aniza

tiona

l Res

pons

e to

Nat

ural

Disa

sters

and

oth

er C

risis

Even

ts: t

he c

ontin

uing

val

ue o

f the

DRC

typo

logy

(U

nive

rsity

of D

elaw

are,

Disa

ster R

esea

rch

Cent

er, P

relim

inar

y Pa

per #

277)

, www

.ude

l.edu

/DRC

/pre

limin

ary/

pp27

7.pdf

20

http://www.udel.edu/DRC/preliminary/pp277.pdf

Thematic Area 2: Risk Assessment

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

21


mpo

nent

s of

Res

ilien

ceCh

arac

teris

tics

of a

Dis

aste

r-re

silie

nt C

omm

unity

Ch

arac

teris

tics

of a

n En

ablin

g En

viro

nmen

t

1.H

azar

ds/r

iskda

ta a

ndas

sess

men

t

1.1

Com

mun

ity h

azar

d/ris

k as

sess

men

ts c

arrie

d ou

t whi

ch p

rovi

deco

mpr

ehen

sive

pict

ure

of a

ll m

ajor

haz

ards

and

risk

s fa

cing

co

mm

unity

(and

pot

entia

l ris

ks).

1.2

Haz

ard/

risk

asse

ssm

ent i

s pa

rtic

ipat

ory

proc

ess

incl

udin

g re

pres

enta

tives

of a

ll se

ctio

ns o

f com

mun

ity a

nd s

ourc

es

of e

xper

tise.

1.3

Asse

ssm

ent f

indi

ngs

shar

ed, d

iscus

sed,

und

erst

ood

and

agre

ed

amon

g all

sta

keho

lder

s, an

d fe

ed in

to c

omm

unity

disa

ster

pla

nnin

g.1.

4 Fi

ndin

gs m

ade

avai

labl

e to

all

inte

rest

ed p

artie

s (w

ithin

and

ou

tsid

e co

mm

unity

, loc

ally

and

at

high

er le

vels)

and

fee

d in

to

thei

r di

sast

er p

lann

ing.

1.5

Ong

oing

mon

itorin

g of

haz

ards

and

risk

s an

d up

datin

g of

as

sess

men

ts.

1.6

Skill

s an

d ca

paci

ty to

car

ry o

ut c

omm

unity

haz

ard

and

risk

asse

ssm

ents

mai

ntai

ned

thro

ugh

supp

ort a

nd t

rain

ing.

>H

azar

d/ris

k as

sess

men

ts m

anda

ted

in p

ublic

pol

icy,

legi

slatio

n, e

tc.,

with

sta

ndar

ds fo

r pr

epar

atio

n, p

ublic

atio

n,re

visio

n.>

Syst

emat

ic a

nd r

epea

ted

asse

ssm

ents

of h

azar

ds a

nd d

isast

erris

ks u

nder

take

n in

hig

her-

leve

l dev

elop

men

t pr

ogra

mm

ing.

Hig

h-ris

k ar

eas

iden

tifie

d.>

Goo

d-qu

ality

dat

a on

haz

ards

and

risk

s (s

cien

tific

dat

abas

es,

offic

i al

repo

rts, e

tc.)

mad

e av

aila

ble

to s

uppo

rt lo

cal-l

evel

asse

ssm

ents

.>

Exist

ing

know

ledg

e co

llect

ed, s

ynth

esise

d an

d sh

ared

syst

emat

ical

ly (t

hrou

gh d

isast

er m

anag

emen

t in

form

atio

nsy

stem

s).>

Parti

cipa

tion

of a

ll re

leva

nt a

genc

ies/

stak

ehol

ders

inas

sess

men

ts.

>G

over

nmen

t (lo

cal a

nd/o

r na

tiona

l) an

d N

GO

s co

mm

itted

topr

ovid

ing

tech

nica

l and

oth

er s

uppo

rt to

loca

l and

com

mun

ity h

azar

d/ris

k as

sess

men

ts.

2.Vu

lner

abili

tyan

d im

pact

dat

aan

d as

sess

men

t

2.1

Com

mun

ity v

ulne

rabi

lity

and

capa

city

ass

essm

ents

(VCA

s)

carr

ied

out

whi

ch p

rovi

de c

ompr

ehen

sive

pict

ure

of

vuln

erab

ilitie

s an

d ca

paci

ties.

2.2

VCA

is p

artic

ipat

ory

proc

ess

incl

udin

g re

pres

enta

tives

of a

ll vu

lner

able

gro

ups.

2.3

Asse

ssm

ent f

indi

ngs

shar

ed, d

iscus

sed,

und

erst

ood

and

agre

ed a

mon

g all

sta

keho

lder

s an

d fe

ed i

nto

com

mun

ity

disa

ster

pla

nnin

g.2.

4 VC

As u

sed

to c

reat

e ba

selin

es a

t sta

rt of

com

mun

ity D

RR

proj

ects

.2.

5 Fi

ndin

gs m

ade

avai

labl

e to

all

inte

rest

ed p

artie

s (w

ithin

and

ou

tsid

e co

mm

unity

) an

d fe

ed i

nto

thei

r di

sast

er a

nd

deve

lopm

ent

plan

ning

.

>VC

A m

anda

ted

in p

ublic

pol

icy, l

egisl

atio

n, e

tc.,

with

stan

dard

s fo

r pr

epar

atio

n, p

ublic

atio

n, r

evisi

on.

>Vu

lner

abili

ty a

nd c

apac

ity in

dica

tors

dev

elop

ed a

ndsy

stem

atic

ally

map

ped

and

reco

rded

(co

verin

g all

rel

evan

tso

cial

, eco

nom

ic, p

hysic

al a

nd e

nviro

nmen

tal,

polit

ical

,cu

ltura

l fac

tors

).>

Disa

ster

impa

ct d

ata

and

stat

istica

l lo

ss in

form

atio

n av

aila

ble

and

used

in V

CA.

>Sy

stem

atic

use

of V

CA in

hig

her-

leve

l dev

elop

men

tpr

ogra

mm

ing.

Vul

nera

ble

grou

ps a

nd c

ause

s of

vul

nera

bilit

yid

entif

ied.

>Ex

is tin

g kn

owle

dge

colle

cted

, syn

thes

ised

and

shar

edsy

stem

atic

ally

(thr

ough

disa

ster

man

agem

ent

info

rmat

ion

22

syst

ems).

Thematic Area 2: Risk AssessmentCo

mpo

nent

s of

Res

ilien

ceCh

arac

teris

tics

of a

Dis

aste

r-re

silie

nt C

omm

unity

Ch

arac

teris

tics

of a

n En

ablin

g En

viro

nmen

t

2.6

Ong

oing

mon

itorin

g of

vul

nera

bilit

y an

d up

datin

g of

ass

essm

ents

.2.

7 Sk

ills

and

capa

city

to c

arry

out

com

mun

ity V

CA m

aint

aine

d th

roug

h su

ppor

t and

tra

inin

g.>-

Pa

rtici

patio

n of

all

rele

vant

age

ncie

s/st

akeh

olde

rs in

as

sess

men

ts.

>G

over

nmen

t (lo

cal a

nd/o

r na

tiona

l) an

d N

GO

s co

mm

itted

to

prov

idin

g te

chni

cal a

nd o

ther

sup

port

to lo

cal a

ndco

mm

unity

VCA

.

3.

Scie

ntifi

c an

d te

chni

cal

capa

citie

s an

d in

nova

tion

3.1

Com

mun

ity m

embe

rs a

nd o

rgan

isatio

ns tr

aine

d in

haz

ards

, risk

an

d VC

A te

chni

ques

and

sup

porte

d to

car

ry o

ut a

sses

smen

ts,

3.2

Use

of in

dige

nous

kno

wle

dge

and

loca

l pe

rcep

tions

of r

isk a

sw

ell a

s ot

her

scie

ntifi

c kn

owle

dge,

dat

a an

d as

sess

men

t m

etho

ds.

>-

Inst

itutio

nal a

nd t

echn

ical

cap

acity

for

data

col

lect

ion

and

anal

ysis.

>O

ngoi

ng s

cien

tific

and

tec

hnol

ogic

al d

evel

opm

ent;

data

shar

ing,

spa

ce-b

ased

ear

th o

bser

vatio

n, c

limat

e m

odel

ling

and

fore

cast

ing;

ear

ly w

arni

ng.

>Ex

tern

al a

genc

ies

valu

e an

d us

e in

dige

nous

kno

wle

dge.

23


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

24

Thematic Area 3: Knowledge and EducationCo

mpo

nent

s of

Res

ilien

ceCh

arac

teris

tics

of a

Dis

aste

r-re

silie

nt C

omm

unity

Ch

arac

teris

tics

of a

n En

ablin

g En

viro

nmen

t

1.Pu

blic

aw

aren

ess,

know

ledg

e an

dsk

ills

1.1

Shar

ed v

ision

of a

pre

pare

d an

d re

silie

nt c

omm

unity

. 1.

2 W

hole

com

mun

ity h

as b

een

expo

sed

to/t

aken

par

t in

ong

oing

aw

aren

ess

cam

paig

ns, w

hich

are

gea

red

to c

omm

unity

nee

ds

and

capa

citie

s (e

.g. l

itera

cy le

vels)

. 1.

3 Co

mm

unity

kno

wle

dge

of h

azar

ds, v

ulne

rabi

lity,

risk

s an

d ris

k re

duct

ion

actio

ns s

uffic

ient

for

effe

ctiv

e ac

tion

by c

omm

unity

(a

lone

and

in c

olla

bora

tion

with

oth

er s

take

hold

ers)

. 1.

4 Po

sses

sion

(by

indi

vidu

als

and

acro

ss c

omm

unity

) of

app

ropr

iate

te

chni

cal a

nd o

rgan

isatio

nal

know

ledg

e an

d sk

ills

for

DRR

and

re

spon

se a

ctio

ns a

t lo

cal

leve

l (in

clud

ing

indi

geno

us te

chni

cal

know

ledg

e, c

opin

g st

rate

gies

, liv

elih

ood

stra

tegi

es).

1.5

Ope

n de

bate

with

in c

omm

unity

res

ultin

g in

agr

eem

ents

abo

ut

prob

lem

s, so

lutio

ns, p

riorit

ies,

etc.

>G

ener

al p

ublic

aw

are

of a

nd i

nfor

med

abo

ut d

isast

er r

isks

and

how

to m

anag

e th

em.

>Ap

prop

riate

, hig

h-vi

sibili

ty a

war

enes

s-ra

ising

pro

gram

mes

desig

ned

and

impl

emen

ted

at n

atio

nal,

regi

onal

, loc

al l

evel

sby

offi

cial a

genc

ies.

>M

edia

invo

lvem

ent

in c

omm

unic

atin

g ris

k an

d ra

ising

awar

enes

s of

disa

ster

s an

d co

unte

r-di

sast

er m

easu

res.

-Pu

blic

com

mun

icat

ion

prog

ram

mes

invo

lve

dial

ogue

with

stak

ehol

ders

abo

ut d

isast

er r

isks

and

rela

ted

issue

s (n

ot o

ne-

way

info

rmat

ion

diss

emin

atio

n).

>Ex

tern

al a

genc

ies

unde

rsta

nd c

omm

uniti

es' v

ulne

rabi

litie

s,ca

paci

ties,

risks

, risk

per

cept

ion

and

ratio

nalit

y of

risk

man

agem

ent

deci

sions

; and

rec

ogni

se v

iabi

lity

of lo

cal

know

ledg

e an

d co

ping

stra

tegi

es.

>Le

vels

of e

duca

tion

prov

ision

, acc

ess,

liter

acy,

etc.

, fac

ilita

teef

fect

ive

info

rmat

ion

diss

emin

atio

n an

d aw

aren

ess

raisi

ng.

2.In

form

atio

nm

anag

emen

tan

d sh

arin

g(m

ore

form

al)

2.1

Info

rmat

ion

on r

isk, v

ulne

rabi

lity,

disa

ster

man

agem

ent

prac

tices

,et

c., s

hare

d am

ong

thos

e at

risk

. 2.

2 Co

mm

unity

disa

ster

pla

ns p

ublic

ly a

vaila

ble

and

wid

ely

unde

rsto

od.

2.3

All s

ectio

ns o

f com

mun

ity k

now

abo

ut fa

cilit

ies/

serv

ices

/ski

lIs

avai

labl

e pr

e-, d

urin

g an

d po

st-e

mer

genc

y, an

d ho

w to

ac

cess

thes

e.

2.4

Cont

ent

and

met

hods

of c

omm

unic

atin

g in

form

atio

n de

velo

ped

with

com

mun

ities

(i.e

. 'co

mm

unic

atio

n' n

ot 'i

nfor

mat

ion

diss

emin

atio

n').

2.5

Max

imum

dep

loym

ent

of in

dige

nous

, tra

ditio

nal,

info

rmal

co

mm

unic

atio

ns c

hann

els.

2.6

Impa

ct o

f inf

orm

atio

n m

ater

ials

and

com

mun

icat

ion

stra

tegi

es

eval

uate

d. 1

>G

ove r

nmen

t (n

atio

nal

and

loca

l) is

com

mitt

ed t

o in

form

atio

nsh

arin

g (tr

ansp

aren

cy)

and

dial

ogue

with

com

mun

ities

rel

atin

gto

info

rmat

ion

abou

t ris

k an

d D

RM.

>-

Legi

slatio

n sp

ecifi

es r

ight

of p

eopl

e to

be

info

rmed

and

obta

in in

form

atio

n ab

out

risks

faci

ng th

em.

*-

Com

mon

und

erst

andi

ng a

mon

g ex

tern

al a

genc

ies

of p

rinci

ples

, co

ncep

ts, t

erm

inol

ogy,

alte

rnat

ive

appr

oach

es in

DRR

.»-

Publ

ic a

nd p

rivat

e in

form

atio

n-ga

ther

ing

and

-sha

ring

syst

ems

on h

azar

ds, r

isk, d

isast

er m

anag

emen

t re

sour

ces

(inch

re

sour

ce c

entr

es, d

atab

ases

, web

sites

, dire

ctor

ies

and

inve

ntor

ies,

good

pra

ctic

e gu

idan

ce) e

xist

and

are

acc

essib

le,

>-

Activ

e pr

ofes

siona

l ne

twor

ks fo

r di

sast

er r

isk m

anag

emen

t(s

harin

g sc

ient

ific,

tech

nica

l an

d ap

plie

d in

form

atio

n,

tradi

tiona

l/loc

al k

now

ledg

e).

3.

Educ

atio

n an

d tr

aini

ng

3.1

Loca

l sch

ools

prov

ide

educ

atio

n in

DRR

for

child

ren

thro

ugh

curr

icul

um a

nd w

here

app

ropr

iate

ext

ra-c

urric

ular

act

iviti

es.2

3.2

DRR

/DRM

and

oth

er tr

aini

ng a

ddre

sses

prio

ritie

s id

entif

ied

by

com

mun

ity a

nd b

ased

on

com

mun

ity a

sses

smen

t of r

isks,

vuln

erab

ilitie

s an

d as

socia

ted

prob

lem

s. 3.

3 Co

mm

unity

mem

bers

and

org

anisa

tions

trai

ned

in r

elev

ant s

kills

>-

Incl

usio

n of

disa

ster

red

uctio

n in

rel

evan

t pr

imar

y, se

cond

ary

and

tert

iary

edu

catio

n co

urse

s (c

urric

ulum

dev

elop

men

t,pr

ovisi

on o

f edu

catio

nal

mat

eria

l, te

ache

r tra

inin

g) n

atio

nally

, »-

Spec

ialis

ed v

ocat

iona

l tra

inin

g co

urse

s an

d fa

cilit

ies

for

DRR

/DRM

ava

ilabl

e, a

t diff

eren

t le

vels

and

for

diffe

rent

grou

ps, l

inke

d th

roug

h ov

eral

l tra

inin

g st

rate

gy. C

ertif

icat

ion

25


mpo

nen t

s of

Res

ilien

ceCh

arac

teris

tics

of a

Dis

aste

r-re

silie

nt C

omm

unity

Char

acte

ristic

s of

an

Enab

ling

Envi

ronm

ent

for

DRR

and

DP

(e.g

. haz

ard-

risk-

vuln

erab

ility

ass

essm

ent,

com

mun

i ty D

RM p

lann

ing,

sea

rch

and

resc

ue, f

irst a

id,

man

agem

ent o

f em

erge

ncy

shel

ters

, nee

ds a

sses

smen

t, re

lief

dist

ribut

ion,

fire

-figh

ting)

.3.

4H

ouse

hold

ers

and

build

ers

trai

ned

in s

afe

cons

truct

ion

and

retro

fittin

g te

chni

ques

, and

oth

er p

ract

ical

ste

ps to

pro

tect

ho

uses

and

pro

perty

.3.

5(ru

ral)

Com

mun

ity m

embe

rs s

kille

d or

trai

ned

in a

ppro

pria

te

agric

ultu

ral,

land

use

, wat

er m

anag

emen

t an

d en

viro

nmen

tal

man

agem

ent

prac

tices

.3.6

Com

mun

ity e

xper

ienc

e of

cop

ing

in p

revi

ous

even

ts/c

rises

, or

know

ledg

e of

how

this

was

don

e, u

sed

in e

duca

tion

and

trai

ning

.

of tr

aini

ng.

>- Ap

pro p

riate

edu

catio

n an

d tra

inin

g pr

ogra

mm

es fo

r pl

anne

rs

and

field

pra

ctiti

oner

s in

DRR

/DRM

and

dev

elop

men

t sec

tors

de

signe

d an

d im

plem

ente

d at

nat

iona

l, re

gion

al, l

ocal

lev

els.

>Tr

aini

ng re

sour

ces

(tech

nica

l, fin

anci

al,

mat

eria

l, hu

man

)m

ade

avai

labl

e by

gov

ernm

ent,

emer

genc

y se

rvic

es,

NG

Os,

etc.

, to

supp

ort

loca

l-lev

el D

RR.

4.

Cultu

res,

attit

udes

, m

otiv

atio

n

4.1

Shar

ed c

omm

unity

val

ues,

aspi

ratio

ns a

nd g

oals

(and

pos

itive

se

nse

of th

e fu

ture

, com

mitm

ent t

o co

mm

unity

as

a w

hole

, ag

reem

ent o

f com

mun

ity g

oals)

.4.2

Cultu

ral a

ttitu

des

and

valu

es (e

.g. e

xpec

tatio

ns o

f hel

p/

self-

suffi

cien

cy, r

elig

ious

/ideo

logi

cal v

iew

s) e

nabl

e co

mm

uniti

es to

ada

pt to

and

rec

over

from

sho

cks

and

stre

sses

. 4.3

Info

rmed

, rea

listic

atti

tude

s to

war

ds r

isk a

nd r

isk m

anag

emen

t. 4.4

Just

ifiab

le c

onfid

ence

abo

ut s

afet

y an

d ca

paci

ties

of s

elf-

relia

nce.

4.5

Poss

essio

n of

(or a

cces

s to

) the

info

rmat

ion,

res

ourc

es a

ndsu

ppor

t de

sired

/nee

ded

to e

nsur

e sa

fety

.4.6

Feel

ings

of p

erso

nal

resp

onsib

ility

for

prep

arin

g fo

r di

sast

ers

and

redu

cing

disa

ster

risk

.4.

7Sa

fer

beha

viou

r as

res

ult o

f aw

aren

ess

raisi

ng.

>•

Polit

ical

, soc

ial a

nd c

ultu

ral

envi

ronm

ent t

hat e

ncou

rage

sfre

edom

of t

houg

ht a

nd e

xpre

ssio

n, a

nd s

timul

ates

inqu

iryan

d de

bate

.»-

Offi

cial

and

pub

lic a

ccep

tanc

e of

pre

caut

iona

ry p

rinci

ple:

need

to a

ct o

n in

com

plet

e in

form

atio

n or

und

erst

andi

ng to

re

duce

pot

entia

l disa

ster

risk

s.

5.Le

arni

ngan

d re

sear

ch5.1

Doc

umen

tatio

n, u

se a

nd a

dapt

atio

n of

indi

geno

us te

chni

cal

know

ledg

e an

d co

ping

stra

tegi

es.

5.2

Parti

cipa

tory

M&

E sy

stem

s to

ass

ess

resil

ienc

e an

d pr

ogre

ss

in D

RR.

>N

atio

nal a

nd s

ub-n

atio

nal

rese

arch

cap

acity

in h

azar

ds, r

iskan

d di

sast

er s

tudi

es (

in s

peci

alist

inst

itutio

ns o

r with

in o

ther

inst

itutio

ns),

with

ade

quat

e fu

ndin

g fo

r on

goin

g re

sear

ch.

»-

Enco

urag

emen

t of

inte

r-di

scip

linar

y an

d po

licy-

orie

nted

rese

arch

.>-

N

atio

nal,

regi

onal

and

int

erna

tiona

l coo

pera

tion

in r

esea

rch,

scie

nce

and

tech

nolo

gy d

evel

opm

ent.

>- Co

mpr

ehen

sive

agen

da fo

r sc

ient

ific,

tech

nica

l, po

licy,

plan

ning

and

par

ticip

ator

y re

sear

ch in

DRR

.

1 i.e

. on

com

mun

ity an

d in

divid

ual a

ttitu

des t

owar

ds d

isaste

r risk

and

risk

man

agem

ent s

trate

gies

2 As

sum

es h

igh le

vels

of sc

hool

atte

ndan

ce; a

nd if

not

, out

reac

h ac

tiviti

es.

26

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

27


mpo

nent

s of

Res

ilien

ceCh

arac

teris

tics

of a

Dis

aste

r-re

silie

nt C

omm

unity

Ch

arac

teris

tics

of a

n En

ablin

g En

viro

nmen

t

1.En

viro

nmen

tal

and

natu

ral

reso

urce

man

agem

ent

(incl

udin

g na

tura

lca

pita

l, cl

imat

ech

ange

ada

ptat

ion)

1.1

Com

mun

ity u

nder

stan

ding

of c

hara

cter

istic

s an

d fu

nctio

ning

of

loca

l na

tura

l env

ironm

ent

and

ecos

yste

ms

(e.g

. dra

inag

e,

wat

ersh

eds,

slope

and

soi

l cha

ract

erist

ics)

and

the

pot

entia

l ris

ks

asso

ciate

d w

ith t

hese

nat

ural

fea

ture

s an

d hu

man

inte

rven

tions

th

at a

ffect

them

(e.

g. c

limat

e ch

ange

), 1.

2 Ad

optio

n of

sus

tain

able

env

ironm

enta

l m

anag

emen

t pr

actic

es

that

red

uce

haza

rd r

isk.1

1.3

Pres

erva

tion

of b

iodi

vers

ity (e

.g. t

hrou

gh c

omm

unity

-man

aged

se

ed b

anks

, with

equ

itabl

e di

strib

utio

n sy

stem

).1.

4 Pr

eser

vatio

n an

d ap

plic

atio

n of

indi

geno

us k

now

ledg

e an

d ap

prop

riate

tech

nolo

gies

rel

evan

t to

envi

ronm

enta

l m

anag

emen

t.1.

5 Ac

cess

to c

omm

unity

-man

aged

com

mon

pro

perty

res

ourc

es th

at

can

supp

ort

copi

ng a

nd l

ivel

ihoo

d st

rate

gies

in n

orm

al t

imes

and

du

ring

crise

s.

>Po

licy,

legi

slativ

e an

d in

stitu

tiona

l st

ruct

ure

that

sup

ports

sust

aina

ble

ecos

yste

ms

and

envi

ronm

enta

l m

anag

emen

t, an

dm

axim

ises

envi

ronm

enta

l re

sour

ce m

anag

emen

t pr

actic

esth

at a

ssist

DRR

.>

Effe

ctiv

e of

ficia

l ac

tion

to p

reve

nt u

nsus

tain

able

land

use

s an

dre

sour

ce m

anag

emen

t ap

proa

ches

that

incr

ease

disa

ster

risk

.>

Polic

y an

d op

erat

iona

l in

terfa

ce b

etw

een

envi

ronm

enta

lm

anag

emen

t an

d ris

k re

duct

ion

polic

ies

and

plan

ning

.>

DRR

pol

icie

s an

d st

rate

gies

inte

grat

ed w

ith a

dapt

atio

n to

ex

istin

g cl

imat

e va

riabi

lity

and

futu

re c

limat

e ch

ange

.>

Loca

l gov

ernm

ent

expe

rts a

nd e

xten

sion

wor

kers

ava

ilabl

e to

wor

k w

ith c

omm

uniti

es o

n lo

ng-t

erm

env

ironm

enta

lm

anag

emen

t an

d re

new

al.

2.H

ealth

and

wel

lbe

ing

(incl

udin

ghu

man

cap

ital)

2.1

Phys

ical a

bilit

y to

labo

ur a

nd g

ood

heal

th m

aint

aine

d in

nor

mal

tim

es th

roug

h ad

equa

te fo

od a

nd n

utrit

ion,

hyg

iene

and

he

alth

car

e.2.

2 Hi

gh l

evel

s of

per

sona

l se

curit

y an

d fre

edom

fro

m p

hysic

al a

nd

psyc

holo

gica

l thr

eats

.2.

3 Fo

od s

uppl

ies

and

nutri

tiona

l st

atus

sec

ure

(e.g

. thr

ough

res

erve

st

ocks

of g

rain

and

oth

er s

tapl

e fo

ods

man

aged

by

com

mun

ities

, w

ith e

quita

ble

dist

ribut

ion

syst

em d

urin

g fo

od c

rises

).2.

4 Ac

cess

to s

uffic

ient

qua

ntity

and

qua

lity

of w

ater

for

dom

estic

ne

eds

durin

g cr

ises.

2.5

Awar

enes

s of

mea

ns o

f sta

ying

hea

lthy

(e.g

. hyg

iene

, san

itatio

n,

nutri

tion,

wat

er tr

eatm

ent)

and

of li

fe-p

rote

ctin

g/sa

ving

mea

sure

s, an

d po

sses

sion

of a

ppro

pria

te s

kills

.2.

6 Co

mm

unity

stru

ctur

es a

nd c

ultu

re s

uppo

rt se

lf co

nfid

ence

and

ca

n as

sist

man

agem

ent

of p

sych

olog

ical

cons

eque

nces

of d

isast

ers

(trau

ma,

PTS

D).

2.7

Com

mun

ity h

ealth

car

e fa

cilit

ies

and

heal

th w

orke

rs, e

quip

ped

and

train

ed t

o re

spon

d to

phy

sical

and

men

tal

heal

th

cons

eque

nces

of d

isast

ers

and

less

er h

azar

d ev

ents

, and

su

ppor

ted

by a

cces

s to

em

erge

ncy

heal

th s

ervi

ces,

med

icin

es, e

tc.

>Pu

blic

hea

lth s

truct

ures

inte

grat

ed i

nto

disa

ster

pla

nnin

g an

dpr

epar

ed f

or e

mer

genc

ies.

>Co

mm

unity

stru

ctur

es in

tegr

ated

int

o pu

blic

hea

lth s

yste

ms.

>H

ealth

edu

catio

n pr

ogra

mm

es in

clud

e kn

owle

dge

and

skill

sre

leva

nt to

cris

es (e

.g. s

anita

tion,

hyg

iene

, wat

er tr

eatm

ent).

>Po

licy,

legi

slativ

e an

d in

stitu

tiona

l co

mm

itmen

t to

ensu

ring

food

sec

urity

thro

ugh

mar

ket a

nd n

on-m

arke

t in

terv

entio

ns,

with

app

ropr

iate

stru

ctur

es a

nd s

yste

ms.

>En

gage

men

t of

gov

ernm

ent,

priv

ate

sect

or a

nd c

ivil

soci

ety

orga

nisa

tions

in p

lans

for

miti

gatio

n an

d m

anag

emen

t of

food

an

d he

alth

cris

es.

>Em

erge

ncy

plan

ning

sys

tem

s pr

ovid

e bu

ffer s

tock

s of

food

, m

edic

ines

, etc

.

28

Thematic Area 4: Risk Management and Vulnerability ReductionCo

mpo

nent

s of

Res

ilien

ceCh

arac

teris

tics

of a

Dis

aste

r-re

silie

nt C

omm

unity

Char

acte

ristic

s of

an

Enab

ling

Envi

ronm

ent

3.Su

stai

nabl

eliv

elih

oods

3.1

High

lev

el o

f loc

al e

cono

mic

act

ivity

and

em

ploy

men

t (in

clud

ing

amon

g vu

lner

able

gro

ups)

; sta

bilit

y in

eco

nom

ic a

ctiv

ity a

nd

empl

oym

ent

leve

ls.3.

2 Eq

uita

ble

dist

ribut

ion

of w

ealth

and

liv

elih

ood

asse

ts in

co

mm

unity

.3.

3 Li

velih

ood

dive

rsifi

catio

n (h

ouse

hold

and

com

mun

ity le

vel),

in

clud

ing

on-fa

rm a

nd o

ff-fa

rm a

ctiv

ities

in r

ural

are

as.

3.4

Few

er p

eopl

e en

gage

d in

uns

afe

livel

ihoo

d ac

tiviti

es (e

.g. s

mal

l- sc

ale

min

ing)

or

haza

rd-v

ulne

rabl

e ac

tiviti

es (e

.g. r

ainf

ed

agric

ultu

re in

dro

ught

-pro

ne lo

catio

ns).

3.5

Adop

tion

of h

azar

d-re

sista

nt a

gricu

ltura

l pr

actic

es (e

.g. s

oil a

nd

wat

er c

onse

rvat

ion

met

hods

, cro

ppin

g pa

ttern

s ge

ared

to lo

w o

r va

riabl

e ra

infa

ll, h

azar

d-to

lera

nt c

rops

) for

food

sec

urity

.3.

6 Sm

all e

nter

prise

s ha

ve b

usin

ess

prot

ectio

n an

d co

ntin

uity

/ re

cove

ry p

lans

.3.

7 Lo

cal t

rade

and

tra

nspo

rt lin

ks w

ith m

arke

ts fo

r pr

oduc

ts, l

abou

r an

d se

rvic

es p

rote

cted

aga

inst

haz

ards

and

oth

er e

xter

nal s

hock

s.

Equi

tabl

e ec

onom

ic d

evel

opm

ent:

stro

ng e

cono

my

in w

hich

be

nefit

s ar

e sh

ared

thr

ough

out s

ocie

ty.

>D

iver

sific

atio

n of

nat

iona

l and

sub

-nat

iona

l eco

nom

ies

to

redu

ce r

isk.

>Po

verty

red

uctio

n st

rate

gies

targ

et v

ulne

rabl

e gr

oups

.>

DRR

see

n as

inte

gral

par

t of e

cono

mic

dev

elop

men

t, re

flect

ed in

pol

icy

and

impl

emen

tatio

n.>

Adeq

uate

and

fai

r wag

es, g

uara

ntee

d by

law.

>Le

gisla

tive

syst

em s

uppo

rts s

ecur

e la

nd t

enur

e, e

quita

ble

tena

ncy

agre

emen

ts a

nd a

cces

s to

com

mon

pro

perty

re

sour

ces.

>Fi

nanc

ial a

nd o

ther

ince

ntiv

es p

rovi

ded

to r

educ

e de

pend

ence

on

unsa

fe o

r ha

zard

-vul

nera

ble

livel

ihoo

d ac

tiviti

es.

>Ch

ambe

rs o

f com

mer

ce a

nd s

imila

r bu

sines

s as

soci

atio

nssu

ppor

t re

silie

nce

effo

rts o

f sm

all e

nter

prise

s.

4.

Soci

al p

rote

ctio

n (in

clud

ing

socia

l cap

ital)

4.1

Mut

ual a

ssist

ance

sys

tem

s, so

cial

netw

orks

and

sup

port

mec

hani

sms

that

sup

port

risk

redu

ctio

n di

rect

ly th

roug

h ta

rget

ed

DRR

act

iviti

es,

indi

rect

ly th

roug

h ot

her

soci

o-ec

onom

ic

deve

lopm

ent

activ

ities

that

red

uce

vuln

erab

ility

, or

by b

eing

ca

pabl

e of

ext

endi

ng th

eir

activ

ities

to m

anag

e em

erge

ncie

s w

hen

thes

e oc

cur.2

4.2

Mut

ual a

ssist

ance

sys

tem

s th

at c

o-op

erat

e w

ith c

omm

unity

and

ot

her f

orm

al s

truct

ures

ded

icat

ed to

disa

ster

man

agem

ent.

4.3

Com

mun

ity a

cces

s to

bas

ic s

ocia

l ser

vice

s (in

clud

ing

regi

stra

tion

for

socia

l pr

otec

tion

and

safe

ty n

et s

ervi

ces)

.4.

4 Es

tabl

ished

soc

ial

info

rmat

ion

and

com

mun

icat

ion

chan

nels;

vu

lner

able

peo

ple

not

isola

ted.

4.5

Colle

ctiv

e kn

owle

dge

and

expe

rienc

e of

man

agem

ent

of

prev

ious

eve

nts

(haz

ards

, cris

es).

>Fo

rmal

soc

ial

prot

ectio

n sc

hem

es a

nd s

ocia

l saf

ety

nets

acce

ssib

le to

vul

nera

ble

grou

ps a

t no

rmal

tim

es a

nd in

resp

onse

to c

risis.

>Co

here

nt p

olicy

, ins

titut

iona

l and

ope

ratio

nal a

ppro

ach

toso

cial

prot

ectio

n an

d sa

fety

net

s, en

surin

g lin

kage

s w

ith o

ther

disa

ster

risk

man

agem

ent s

truct

ures

and

app

roac

hes.

>Ex

tern

al a

genc

ies

prep

ared

to in

vest

tim

e an

d re

sour

ces

in

build

ing

up c

ompr

ehen

sive

partn

ersh

ips

with

loc

al g

roup

s an

d or

gani

satio

ns fo

r so

cial

prot

ectio

n/se

curit

y an

d D

RR.

5.Fi

nanc

ial

inst

rum

ents

(incl

udin

gfin

anci

al c

apita

l)

5.1

Hou

seho

ld a

nd c

omm

unity

ass

et b

ases

(inc

ome,

sav

ings

, co

nver

tible

pro

perty

) su

ffici

ently

larg

e an

d di

vers

e to

sup

port

crisi

s co

ping

stra

tegi

es.

5.2

Cost

s an

d ris

ks o

f disa

ster

s sh

ared

thr

ough

col

lect

ive

owne

rshi

p

>G

over

nmen

t and

priv

ate

sect

or s

uppo

rted

finan

cial

miti

gatio

nm

easu

res3

targ

eted

at v

ulne

rabl

e an

d at

-risk

com

mun

ities

.>

Econ

omic

ince

ntiv

es fo

r D

RR a

ctio

ns (

redu

ced

insu

ranc

e pr

emiu

ms

for

hous

ehol

ders

, tax

hol

iday

s fo

r bu

sines

ses,

etc.

).

29


mpo

nent

s of

Res

ilien

ceCh

arac

teris

tics

of a

Dis

aste

r-re

silie

nt C

omm

unity

Ch

arac

teris

tics

of a

n En

ablin

g En

viro

nmen

t

of g

roup

/com

mun

ity a

sset

s. >

Mic

ro-f

inan

ce, c

ash

aid,

cre

dit

(soft

loan

s), l

oan

guar

ante

es,

etc.

, ava

ilabl

e af

ter

disa

ster

s to

res

tart

livel

ihoo

ds.

5.3

Exist

ence

of c

omm

unity

/gro

up s

avin

gs a

nd c

redi

t sch

emes

, an

d/or

acc

ess

to m

icro

-fin

ance

ser

vice

s.5.

4 Co

mm

unity

acc

ess

to a

fford

able

insu

ranc

e (c

over

ing

lives

, ho

mes

and

oth

er p

rope

rty) t

hrou

gh i

nsur

ance

mar

ket

or

mic

ro-f

inan

ce in

stitu

tions

.5.

5 Co

mm

unity

disa

ster

fund

to

impl

emen

t D

RR,

resp

onse

an

d re

cove

ry a

ctiv

ities

.5.

6 Ac

cess

to m

oney

tran

sfer

s an

d re

mitt

ance

s fro

m h

ouse

hold

an

d co

mm

unity

mem

bers

wor

king

in o

ther

reg

ions

or

coun

tries

.

6.Ph

ysica

lpr

otec

tion;

stru

ctur

al a

ndte

chni

cal

mea

sure

s(in

clud

ing

phys

ical

cap

ital)

6.1

Com

mun

ity d

ecisi

ons

and

plan

ning

reg

ardi

ng b

uilt

envi

ronm

ent

take

pot

entia

l na

tura

l ha

zard

risk

s in

to a

ccou

nt (i

nclu

ding

po

tent

ial f

or in

crea

sing

risks

thro

ugh

inte

rfere

nce

with

eco

logi

cal,

hydr

olog

ical

, geo

logi

cal

syst

ems)

and

vuln

erab

ilitie

s of

diff

eren

t gr

oups

.

»Co

mpl

ianc

e w

ith i

nter

natio

nal

stan

dard

s of

bui

ldin

g, d

esig

n,pl

anni

ng, e

tc.

Build

ing

code

s an

d la

nd u

se p

lann

ing

regu

latio

ns ta

ke h

azar

d an

d di

sast

er r

isk in

to a

ccou

nt.

*- Co

mpl

ianc

e of

all

publ

ic b

uild

ings

and

inf

rast

ruct

ure

with

co

des

and

stan

dard

s.6.

2 Se

curit

y of

land

ow

ners

hip/

tena

ncy

right

s. Lo

w/m

inim

al l

evel

of

hom

eles

snes

s an

d la

ndle

ssne

ss.

>Re

quire

men

t for

all

publ

ic a

nd p

rivat

e in

frast

ruct

ure

syst

em

owne

rs to

car

ry o

ut h

azar

d an

d vu

lner

abili

ty a

sses

smen

ts.

6.3

Safe

loca

tions

: com

mun

ity m

embe

rs a

nd f

acili

ties

(hom

es,

wor

kpla

ces,

publ

ic a

nd s

ocia

l fac

ilitie

s) n

ot e

xpos

ed to

haz

ards

in

hig

h-ris

k ar

eas

with

in l

ocal

ity a

nd/o

r re

loca

ted

away

from

un

safe

site

s.

»Pr

otec

tion

of c

ritic

al p

ublic

faci

litie

s an

d in

frast

ruct

ure

thro

ugh

retro

fittin

g an

d re

build

ing,

esp

ecia

lly in

are

as o

f hig

hris

k.>

Secu

rity

of a

cces

s to

pub

lic h

ealth

and

oth

er e

mer

genc

yfa

cilit

ies

(loca

l and

mor

e di

stan

t) in

tegr

ated

int

o co

unte

rdi

sast

er p

lann

ing.

6.4

Stru

ctur

al m

itiga

tion

mea

sure

s (e

mba

nkm

ents

, flo

od d

iver

sion

chan

nels,

wat

er h

arve

stin

g ta

nks,

etc.)

in p

lace

to p

rote

ct a

gain

st

maj

or h

azar

d th

reat

s, bu

ilt u

sing

loca

l la

bour

, ski

lls, m

ater

ials

and

appr

opria

te t

echn

olog

ies

as fa

r as

pos

sible

. »

Lega

l and

reg

ulat

ory

syst

ems

prot

ect

land

ow

ners

hip

and

tena

ncy

right

s, an

d rig

hts

of p

ublic

acc

ess.

6.5

Know

ledg

e an

d ta

ke-u

p of

bui

ldin

g co

des/

regu

latio

ns

thro

ugho

ut c

omm

unity

. >

Regu

lar

mai

nten

ance

of h

azar

d co

ntro

l stru

ctur

es>

'Har

dwar

e' a

ppro

ach

to d

isast

er m

itiga

tion

is ac

com

pani

edby

'sof

twar

e' d

imen

sion

of e

duca

tion,

ski

lls tr

aini

ng, e

tc.

6.6

Adop

tion

of h

azar

d-re

silie

nt c

onst

ruct

ion

and

mai

nten

ance

pr

actic

es fo

r ho

mes

and

com

mun

ity fa

cilit

ies

usin

g lo

cal

labo

ur,

skill

s, m

ater

ials

and

appr

opria

te t

echn

olog

ies

as fa

r as

pos

sible

. >

Lega

l, re

gula

tory

sys

tem

s an

d ec

onom

ic p

olic

ies

reco

gnise

an

d re

spon

d to

risk

s ar

ising

from

pat

tern

s of

pop

ulat

ion

dens

ity a

nd m

ovem

ent.

6.7

Com

mun

ity c

apac

ities

and

ski

lls to

bui

ld, r

etro

fit a

nd m

aint

ain

stru

ctur

es (t

echn

ical

and

org

anisa

tiona

l).6.

8 Ad

optio

n of

phy

sical

mea

sure

s to

pro

tect

item

s of

dom

estic

pr

oper

ty (e

.g. r

aise

d in

tern

al p

latfo

rms

and

stor

age

as fl

ood

miti

gatio

n m

easu

re, p

orta

ble

stov

es)

and

prod

uctiv

e as

sets

(e

.g. l

ives

tock

she

lters

)

30

Thematic Area 4: Risk Management and Vulnerability ReductionCo

mpo

nent

s of

Res

ilien

ceCh

arac

teris

tics

of a

Dis

aste

r-re

silie

nt C

omm

unity

Ch

arac

teris

tics

of a

n En

ablin

g En

viro

nmen

t

6.9

Adop

tion

of s

hort-

term

pro

tect

ive

mea

sure

s ag

ains

t im

pend

ing

even

ts (e

.g. e

mer

genc

y pr

otec

tion

of d

oors

and

win

dow

s fro

m

cycl

one

win

ds).

6.10

Inf

rast

ruct

ure

and

publ

ic fa

cilit

ies

to s

uppo

rt em

erge

ncy

man

agem

ent

need

s (e

.g. s

helte

rs, s

ecur

e ev

acua

tion

and

emer

genc

y su

pply

rou

tes)

.6.

11

Resil

ient

and

acc

essib

le c

ritic

al f

acili

ties

(e.g

. hea

lth c

entre

s, ho

spita

ls, p

olic

e an

d fir

e st

atio

ns -

in t

erm

s of

stru

ctur

al

resil

ienc

e, b

ack-

up s

yste

ms,

etc.)

.6.

12 R

esili

ent t

rans

port/

serv

ice

infra

stru

ctur

e an

d co

nnec

tions

(ro

ads,

path

s, br

idge

s, w

ater

sup

plie

s, sa

nita

tion,

pow

er li

nes,

com

mun

icat

ions

, etc

.).6.

13 L

ocal

ly o

wne

d or

ava

ilabl

e tra

nspo

rt su

ffici

ent f

or e

mer

genc

y ne

eds

(e.g

. eva

cuat

ion,

sup

plie

s), a

t le

ast i

n th

e ev

ent

of s

easo

nal

haza

rds;

trans

port

repa

ir ca

paci

ty w

ithin

com

mun

ity.

7.Pl

anni

ng r

egim

es7.1

Co

mm

unity

dec

ision

mak

ing

rega

rdin

g la

nd u

se a

nd

man

agem

ent,

taki

ng h

azar

d ris

ks a

nd v

ulne

rabi

litie

s in

to

acco

unt.

(Incl

udes

mic

ro-z

onat

ion

appl

ied

to p

erm

it/re

stric

t la

nd u

ses)

.

»- Co

mpl

ianc

e w

ith i

nter

natio

nal

plan

ning

sta

ndar

ds.

»- La

nd u

se p

lann

ing

regu

latio

ns ta

ke h

azar

d an

d di

sast

er r

iskin

to a

ccou

nt.

>Ef

fect

ive

insp

ectio

n an

d en

forc

emen

t re

gim

es.

7.2

Loca

l (c

omm

unity

) di

sast

er p

lans

feed

int

o lo

cal g

over

nmen

t de

velo

pmen

t an

d la

nd u

se p

lann

ing.

>-

Land

use

app

licat

ions

, urb

an a

nd r

egio

nal d

evel

opm

ent

plan

s an

d sc

hem

es b

ased

on

haza

rd a

nd r

isk a

sses

smen

t and

inco

rpor

ate

appr

opria

te D

RR.

1 e.

g.

soil

and

wat

er c

onse

rvat

ion,

sus

tain

able

for

estr

y, w

etla

nd m

anag

emen

t to

red

uce

flo

od r

isk,

con

serv

atio

n of

man

grov

es a

s bu

ffer

aga

inst

sto

rm s

urge

s, m

ain

ten

ance

of

wat

er s

upp

ly a

nd d

rain

age

syst

ems.

2 Th

ese

com

pri

se i

nfor

mal

sys

tem

s (i

ndiv

idua

l, ho

useh

old

, fa

mily

, cl

an,

cast

e, e

tc.)

and

mor

e st

ruct

ured

gro

ups

(CB

Os:

e.g

. em

erg

ency

pre

par

edne

ss c

omm

itte

es,

supp

ort

grou

ps/b

uddy

sys

tem

s to

ass

ist

part

icul

arly

vul

ner

able

peo

ple

, w

ater

man

agem

ent

com

mit

tees

, bu

rial

soc

ieti

es,

wo

men

's a

ssoc

iati

ons,

fai

th g

roup

s).

3 e.

g.

insu

ranc

e/ r

eins

uran

ce,

risk

sp

read

ing

inst

rum

ents

for

pub

lic i

nfra

stru

ctur

e an

d pr

ivat

e as

sets

suc

h as

cal

amit

y fu

nds

and

cata

stro

phe

bond

s, m

icro

-cre

dit

and

fin

ance

, re

volv

ing

com

mun

ity

fund

s,

soci

al f

unds

31


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

32

Thematic Area 5: Disaster Preparedness and ResponseCo

mpo

nent

s of

Res

ilien

ceCh

arac

teris

tics

of a

Dis

aste

r-re

silie

nt C

omm

unity

Char

acte

ristic

s of

an

Enab

ling

Envi

ronm

ent

1.O

rgan

isatio

nal

capa

citie

s an

dco

ordi

natio

n

1.1

Loca

l and

com

mun

ity D

P/re

spon

se c

apac

ities

ass

esse

d by

co

mm

uniti

es (t

hem

selv

es o

r in

par

tner

ship

with

ext

erna

l ag

enci

es).

1.2

Loca

l org

anisa

tiona

l stru

ctur

es fo

r D

P/em

erge

ncy

resp

onse

(e

.g. d

isast

er p

repa

redn

ess/

evac

uatio

n co

mm

ittee

s).1

1.3

Loca

l D

P/re

spon

se o

rgan

isatio

ns a

re c

omm

unity

man

aged

an

d re

pres

enta

tive.

1.4

Role

s an

d re

spon

sibili

ties

of lo

cal

DP/

resp

onse

org

anisa

tions

an

d th

eir

mem

bers

cle

arly

def

ined

, agr

eed

and

unde

rsto

od.

1.5

Emer

genc

y fa

cilit

ies

(com

mun

icat

ions

equ

ipm

ent,

shel

ters

, co

ntro

l cen

tres,

etc.)

ava

ilabl

e an

d m

anag

ed b

y co

mm

unity

or

its

orga

nisa

tions

on

beha

lf of

all

com

mun

ity m

embe

rs.

1.6

Suffi

cien

t nu

mbe

r of

trai

ned

orga

nisa

tiona

l pe

rson

nel

and

com

mun

ity m

embe

rs to

car

ry o

ut r

elev

ant t

asks

(e.g

. com

mun

icat

ion,

sea

rch

and

resc

ue, f

irst a

id, r

elie

f di

strib

utio

n).

1.7

Regu

lar t

rain

ing

(refre

sher

cou

rses

and

new

ski

lls)

prov

ided

by/

for

loca

l or

gani

satio

ns; r

egul

ar p

ract

ice

drill

s, sc

enar

io e

xerc

ises,

etc

1.8

Def

ined

and

agr

eed

co-o

rdin

atio

n an

d de

cisio

n-m

akin

g m

echa

nism

s be

twee

n co

mm

unity

org

anisa

tions

and

ext

erna

l te

chni

cal e

xper

ts, l

ocal

aut

horit

ies,

NG

Os,

etc

.1.

9 D

efin

ed a

nd a

gree

d co

-ord

inat

ion

and

deci

sion-

mak

ing

mec

hani

sms

with

nei

ghbo

urin

g co

mm

uniti

es/lo

calit

ies

and

thei

r or

gani

satio

ns.

>N

atio

nal a

nd l

ocal

pol

icy

and

inst

itutio

nal f

ram

ewor

ksre

cogn

ise a

nd v

alue

loca

l and

com

mun

ity D

P as

inte

gral

par

t of

the

natio

nal

prep

ared

ness

and

res

pons

e sy

stem

.>

Def

ined

and

agr

eed

stru

ctur

es, r

oles

and

man

date

s fo

rgo

vern

men

t an

d no

n-go

vern

men

t ac

tors

in D

P an

d re

spon

se,

at a

ll le

vels,

and

bas

ed o

n co

-ord

inat

ion

not c

omm

and-

and-

co

ntro

l app

roac

h.>

Emer

genc

y pl

anni

ng a

nd r

espo

nse

resp

onsib

ilitie

s an

d ca

paci

ties

dele

gate

d to

loca

l le

vels

as fa

r as

pos

sible

.>

Ong

oing

dia

logu

e, c

oord

inat

ion

and

info

rmat

ion

exch

ange

(v

ertic

al a

nd h

orizo

ntal

) be

twee

n di

sast

er m

anag

ers

and

deve

lopm

ent

sect

ors

at a

ll le

vels.

>N

atio

nal a

nd l

ocal

disa

ster

man

agem

ent

capa

citie

s (te

chni

cal,

inst

itutio

nal,

finan

cial

) ad

equa

te f

or s

uppo

rting

com

mun

ity-

leve

l DP

/res

pons

e ac

tivity

.>

Adeq

uate

bud

gets

for

DP

activ

ities

incl

uded

and

inst

itutio

nalis

ed a

s pa

rt of

DP

plan

ning

at a

ll le

vels.

>Fu

nds

to s

treng

then

the

cap

acity

and

act

iviti

es o

f civ

il so

ciet

yst

akeh

olde

rs a

ctiv

e in

DP

2 Ea

rly w

arni

ng

syst

ems2

2.1

Com

mun

ity-b

ased

and

peo

ple-

cent

red

EWS

at lo

cal

leve

l.2.

2 EW

S ca

pabl

e of

rea

chin

g w

hole

com

mun

ity (v

ia r

adio

, TV,

te

leph

one

and

othe

r co

mm

unic

atio

ns te

chno

logi

es, a

nd v

ia

com

mun

ity E

W m

echa

nism

s su

ch a

s vo

lunt

eer

netw

orks

).2.

3 EW

mes

sage

s pr

esen

ted

appr

opria

tely

so

that

they

are

un

ders

tood

by

all s

ecto

rs o

f com

mun

ity.

2.4

EWS

prov

ides

loca

l det

ail o

f eve

nts

and

take

s lo

cal

cond

ition

s in

to a

ccou

nt.

2.5

EWS

base

d on

com

mun

ity k

now

ledg

e of

rele

vant

haz

ards

an

d ris

ks, w

arni

ng s

igna

ls an

d th

eir

mea

ning

s, an

d ac

tions

to

be

take

n w

hen

war

ning

s ar

e iss

ued.

>Ef

ficie

nt n

atio

nal

and

regi

onal

EW

S in

pla

ce, i

nvol

ving

all

leve

ls of

gov

ernm

ent

and

civi

l so

ciety

, bas

ed o

n so

und

scie

ntifi

c in

form

atio

n, r

isk k

now

ledg

e, c

omm

unic

atin

g an

dw

arni

ng d

issem

inat

ion

and

com

mun

ity r

espo

nse

capa

city.

>Ve

rtica

l and

hor

izont

al c

omm

unic

atio

n an

d co

-ord

inat

ion

betw

een

all E

W s

take

hold

ers,

with

rol

es a

nd r

espo

nsib

ilitie

s cl

early

def

ined

and

agr

eed.

>Lo

cal g

over

nmen

t in

clud

ed in

all

plan

ning

and

tra

inin

g an

dre

cogn

ised

as k

ey s

take

hold

er in

EW

S.>

Com

mun

ities

and

oth

er c

ivil

soci

ety

stak

ehol

ders

act

ive

parti

cipa

nts

in a

ll as

pect

s of

the

deve

lopm

ent,

oper

atio

n,

33


mpo

nent

s of

Res

ilien

ceCh

arac

teris

tics

of a

Dis

aste

r-re

silie

nt C

omm

unity

Ch

arac

teris

tics

of a

n En

ablin

g En

viro

nmen

t

2.6

Com

mun

ity D

P/re

spon

se o

rgan

isatio

ns c

apab

le o

f act

ing

on

EW m

essa

ges

and

mob

ilisin

g co

mm

uniti

es fo

r ac

tion.

2.

7 Co

mm

unity

trus

t in

EW

S an

d or

gani

satio

ns p

rovi

ding

EW

. 2.

8 Te

chni

cal

reso

urce

s (m

onito

ring

and

com

mun

icat

ions

eq

uipm

ent)

in p

lace

, with

sys

tem

s an

d tr

aine

d pe

rson

nel f

orm

aint

enan

ce a

nd o

pera

tion.

trai

ning

and

tes

ting

of E

WS.

>- M

ass

med

ia p

art o

f EW

S, n

ot a

ctin

g in

depe

nden

tly.

EWS

linke

d to

DP

and

resp

onse

age

ncie

s.>-

EWS

back

ed u

p by

wid

er p

ublic

aw

aren

ess

cam

paig

ns,

Prep

ared

ness

an

d co

ntin

genc

y pl

anni

ng

3.1

A c

omm

unity

DP

or c

ontin

genc

y pl

an e

xists

for

all m

ajor

risk

s.3

3.2

DP/

cont

inge

ncy

plan

s de

velo

ped

thro

ugh

parti

cipa

tory

met

hods

, an

d un

ders

tood

and

sup

porte

d by

all

mem

bers

of c

omm

unity

. 3.

3 Pl

ans

co-o

rdin

ated

with

offi

cial e

mer

genc

y pl

ans

and

com

patib

le

with

tho

se o

f oth

er a

genc

ies.

3.4

Role

s an

d re

spon

sibili

ties

of d

iffer

ent

loca

l and

ext

erna

l ac

tors

de

fined

, und

erst

ood

and

agre

ed -

and

app

ropr

iate

. 3.

5 Pl

anni

ng p

roce

ss b

uild

s co

nsen

sus

and

stre

ngth

ens

rela

tions

hips

an

d co

-ord

inat

ion

mec

hani

sms

betw

een

vario

us s

take

hold

ers.

3.6

Link

ages

(for

mal

/info

rmal

) to

tech

nica

l ex

perts

, loc

al a

utho

ritie

s, N

GO

s, et

c., t

o as

sist w

ith c

omm

unity

pla

nnin

g an

d tr

aini

ng.

3.7

Plan

s te

sted

reg

ular

ly th

roug

h e.

g. c

omm

unity

dril

ls or

sim

ulat

ion

exer

cise

s. 3.

8 Pl

ans

revi

ewed

and

upd

ated

reg

ular

ly b

y all

rel

evan

t st

akeh

olde

rs.

3.9

Hou

seho

lds

and

fam

ilies

dev

elop

the

ir ow

n D

P pl

ans

with

in

cont

ext

of c

omm

unity

pla

n.

3.10

Loc

al b

usin

esse

s de

velo

p th

eir

own

cont

inui

ty a

nd r

ecov

ery

plan

s w

ithin

con

text

of c

omm

unity

pla

n.

3.11

Con

tinge

ncy

plan

ning

info

rmed

by

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

bro

ader

lo

cal

plan

ning

pro

visio

ns a

nd f

acili

ties.

>Po

litic

ally

sup

porte

d/ap

prov

ed a

nd c

lear

ly a

rticu

late

d na

tiona

ldi

sast

er p

repa

redn

ess

plan

in p

lace

and

diss

emin

ated

to

allle

vels;

par

t of i

nteg

rate

d di

sast

er m

anag

emen

t pl

ans

with

all

rele

vant

pol

icie

s, pr

oced

ures

, rol

es, r

espo

nsib

ilitie

s an

dfu

ndin

g es

tabl

ished

.>

Role

s an

d re

spon

sibili

ties

of e

ach

stat

e an

d no

n-st

ate

acto

rar

e cl

early

def

ined

for

eac

h di

sast

er s

cena

rio a

nd h

ave

been

diss

emin

ated

acc

ordi

ngly

.>

Civi

l soc

iety

org

anisa

tions

par

ticip

ate

in t

he d

evel

opm

ent a

nddi

ssem

inat

ion

of n

atio

nal a

nd l

ocal

-leve

l pr

epar

edne

ss p

lans

;ro

les

and

resp

onsib

ilitie

s of

civ

il so

ciet

y ac

tors

cle

arly

def

ined

.Co

mm

unity

pla

nnin

g se

en a

s ke

y el

emen

t in

ove

rall

plan

san

d in

corp

orat

ed i

nto

them

.>

Reso

urce

s av

aila

ble

to s

uppo

rt ne

cess

ary

actio

ns id

entif

ied

byco

mm

unity

-leve

l pl

ans.

>Al

l con

tinge

ncy

plan

s ar

e ba

sed

on a

sol

id a

sses

smen

t of

haza

rds

and

risks

and

the

iden

tific

atio

n of

hig

h ris

k ar

eas

thro

ugho

ut th

e co

untry

. D

evel

oped

and

tes

ted

cont

inge

ncy

plan

s ar

e in

pla

ce f

or a

ll m

ajor

disa

ster

sce

nario

s in

all

high

risk

area

s.>

Trai

ning

, sim

ulat

ion

and

revi

ew e

xerc

ises

carr

ied

out w

ith t

hepa

rtici

patio

n of

all

rele

vant

gov

ernm

ent a

nd n

on-g

over

nmen

tag

encie

s.>

Cros

s-cu

tting

issu

es s

uch

as g

ende

r, co

mm

unity

par

ticip

atio

nan

d en

viro

nmen

tal c

onsid

erat

ions

are

incl

uded

in a

llco

ntin

genc

y pl

ans.

>Lo

cal e

mer

genc

y se

rvic

es a

nd c

ritic

al f

acili

ties

deve

lop

thei

row

n co

ntin

genc

y pl

ans,

co-o

rdin

ated

with

com

mun

ity p

lans

.

34

Thematic Area 5: Disaster Preparedness and ResponseCo

mpo

nent

s of

Res

ilien

ceCh

arac

teris

tics

of a

Dis

aste

r-re

silie

nt C

omm

unity

Ch

arac

teris

tics

of a

n En

ablin

g En

viro

nmen

t

4.

Emer

genc

y re

sour

ces

and

infra

stru

ctur

e

4.1

Com

mun

ity o

rgan

isatio

ns c

apab

le o

f man

agin

g cr

ises

and

disa

ster

s, al

one

and/

or in

par

tner

ship

with

oth

er o

rgan

isatio

ns.

4.2

Safe

eva

cuat

ion

rout

es id

entif

ied

and

mai

ntai

ned,

kno

wn

to

com

mun

ity m

embe

rs.

4.3

Emer

genc

y sh

elte

rs (p

urpo

se b

uilt

or m

odifi

ed):

acce

ssib

le to

co

mm

unity

(dist

ance

, sec

ure

evac

uatio

n ro

utes

, no

rest

rictio

ns

on e

ntry

) an

d w

ith a

dequ

ate

faci

litie

s fo

r all

affe

cted

pop

ulat

ion.

4.

4 Em

erge

ncy

shel

ters

for

lives

tock

. 4.

5 Se

cure

com

mun

icat

ions

infra

stru

ctur

e an

d ac

cess

rou

tes

for

emer

genc

y se

rvic

es a

nd r

elie

f wor

kers

. 4.

6 Tw

o-w

ay c

omm

unic

atio

ns s

yste

ms

desig

ned

to fu

nctio

n du

ring

crise

s. 4.

7 Em

erge

ncy

supp

lies

(buf

fer

stoc

ks)

in p

lace

, man

aged

by

com

mun

ity a

lone

or

in p

artn

ersh

ip w

ith o

ther

loca

l org

anisa

tions

(in

cl. g

rain

/see

d ba

nks)

.4.

8 Co

mm

unity

-man

aged

em

erge

ncy/

cont

inge

ncy

fund

s.4

>Lo

cal e

mer

genc

y se

rvic

es (

faci

litie

s, st

ruct

ures

, sta

ff, e

tc.)

capa

ble

of m

anag

ing

crise

s an

d di

sast

ers,

alon

e an

d/or

inpa

rtner

ship

with

oth

er o

rgan

isatio

ns.

>H

ighe

r-le

vel

emer

genc

y se

rvic

es w

ith s

truct

ure,

cap

acity

,fa

cilit

ies

and

proc

edur

es th

at e

nabl

e th

em t

o su

ppor

t lo

cal-

leve

l ac

tions

effe

ctiv

ely.

>Em

erge

ncy

cont

inge

ncy

fund

s an

d st

ocks

that

can

be

mad

eav

aila

ble

quic

kly

to th

ose

in n

eed,

with

est

ablis

hed

proc

edur

es fo

r re

leas

ing

them

.>

Pre-

arra

nged

agr

eem

ents

sig

ned

with

don

or a

genc

ies

for

acce

ss to

fund

ing

or lo

ans

at th

e in

tern

atio

nal o

r re

gion

alle

vel

as p

art o

f em

erge

ncy

and

reco

very

pla

ns.

5.Em

erge

ncy

resp

onse

and

reco

very

5.1

Com

mun

ity c

apac

ity to

pro

vide

effe

ctiv

e an

d tim

ely

emer

genc

y re

spon

se s

ervi

ces:

e.g.

sea

rch

and

resc

ue, f

irst a

id/m

edic

al

assis

tanc

e, n

eeds

and

dam

age

asse

ssm

ent,

relie

f dist

ribut

ion,

em

erge

ncy

shel

ter,

psyc

hoso

cial

sup

port,

roa

d cl

eara

nce.

5.

2 Co

mm

unity

and

oth

er lo

cal a

genc

ies

take

lead

rol

e in

co

-ord

inat

ing

resp

onse

and

rec

over

y.

5.3

Resp

onse

and

rec

over

y ac

tions

rea

ch a

ll af

fect

ed m

embe

rs o

f co

mm

unity

and

prio

ritise

d ac

cord

ing

to n

eeds

. 5.

4 Co

mm

unity

psy

chos

ocia

l sup

port

and

coun

selli

ng m

echa

nism

s. 5.

5 Co

mm

unity

kno

wle

dge

of h

ow to

obt

ain

aid

and

othe

r su

ppor

t fo

r re

lief a

nd r

ecov

ery.

5.6

Com

mun

ity tr

ust

in e

ffect

iven

ess,

equi

ty a

nd i

mpa

rtia

lity

of

relie

f and

rec

over

y ag

enci

es a

nd a

ctio

ns.

5.7

Com

mun

ity/lo

cally

led

reco

very

pla

nnin

g an

d im

plem

enta

tion

of p

lans

link

ing

soci

al, p

hysic

al, e

cono

mic

and

env

ironm

enta

l as

pect

s an

d ba

sed

on m

axim

um u

tilisa

tion

of lo

cal c

apac

ities

an

d re

sour

ces.5

5.

8 Ag

reed

rol

es, r

espo

nsib

ilitie

s an

d co

-ord

inat

ion

of r

ecov

ery

activ

ities

(in

volv

ing

loca

l and

ext

erna

l st

akeh

olde

rs).

5.9

Inco

rpor

atio

n of

DRR

into

com

mun

ity a

nd l

ocal

rec

over

y pl

ans.

>Ci

vil

prot

ectio

n an

d de

fenc

e or

gani

satio

ns,

NG

Os

and

volu

ntee

r ne

twor

ks c

apab

le o

f res

pond

ing

to e

vent

s in

effe

ctiv

e an

d tim

ely

man

ner,

in a

ccor

danc

e w

ith a

gree

d pl

ans

of c

o-or

dina

tion

with

loc

al a

nd c

omm

unity

org

anisa

tions

.>

Capa

city

to r

esto

re c

ritic

al s

yste

ms

and

infra

stru

ctur

e (e

.g.

trans

port,

pow

er a

nd c

omm

unic

atio

ns, p

ublic

hea

lth f

acili

ties)

and

agre

ed p

roce

dure

s fo

r ac

tion.

>Su

ppor

t pr

ogra

mm

es fo

r liv

elih

ood-

focu

sed

reco

very

(e.g

.ca

sh f

or w

ork,

rep

lace

men

t of

pro

duct

ive

asse

ts, e

mer

genc

ylo

ans

or s

tart-

up c

apita

l).Re

sour

ces

(hum

an, i

nstit

utio

nal,

mat

eria

l, fin

anci

al)

avai

labl

efo

r lo

ng-t

erm

rec

onst

ruct

ion

and

reco

very

.>

Gov

ernm

ent

relie

f and

rec

over

y re

sour

ces

inve

ntor

ied;

info

rmat

ion

on r

esou

rces

and

how

to o

btai

n th

em m

ade

avai

labl

e to

at-

risk

and

disa

ster

-affe

cted

com

mun

ities

. >

Offi

cial

age

ncie

s w

illin

g an

d ab

le to

gua

rant

ee p

ublic

saf

ety

afte

r di

sast

ers

and

to p

rote

ct h

ighl

y vu

lner

able

gro

ups.

>O

ffici

al c

ontin

uity

and

rec

over

y pl

ans

in p

lace

or

capa

ble

ofbe

ing

deve

lope

d, s

uppo

rted

by a

ppro

pria

te s

yste

ms

and

capa

citie

s.

35


mpo

nent

s of

Res

ilien

ceCh

arac

teris

tics

of a

Dis

aste

r-re

silie

nt C

omm

unity

Ch

arac

teris

tics

of a

n En

ablin

g En

viro

nmen

t >

Nat

iona

l pol

icy

fram

ewor

k re

quire

s DRR

inco

rpor

atio

n in

tode

sign

and

impl

emen

tatio

n of

resp

onse

and

reco

very

.

>D

DR

mai

nstre

amed

into

rele

vant

org

anisa

tions

reco

very

pla

nnin

gan

d pr

actic

e.

6.Pa

rtici

patio

n,vo

lunt

arism

,ac

coun

tabi

lity

6.1

Loca

l le

ader

ship

of d

evel

opm

ent

and

deliv

ery

of c

ontin

genc

y, re

spon

se, r

ecov

ery

plan

s. 6.

2 W

hole

-com

mun

ity p

artic

ipat

ion

in d

evel

opm

ent

and

deliv

ery

of c

ontin

genc

y, r

espo

nse,

rec

over

y pl

ans;

com

mun

ity'o

wne

rshi

p' o

f pla

ns a

nd im

plem

enta

tion

stru

ctur

es.

6.3

Just

ifiab

le c

omm

unity

con

fiden

ce in

EW

and

em

erge

ncy

syst

ems

and

its o

wn

abili

ty to

tak

e ef

fect

ive

actio

n in

a d

isast

er.

6.4

High

lev

el o

f com

mun

ity v

olun

teer

ism in

all

aspe

cts

of

prep

ared

ness

, res

pons

e an

d re

cove

ry; r

epre

sent

ativ

e of

all

sect

ions

of c

omm

unity

. 6.

5 O

rgan

ised

volu

ntee

r gr

oups

inte

grat

ed i

nto

com

mun

ity,

loca

l an

d su

pra-

loca

l pl

anni

ng s

truct

ures

. 6.

6 Fo

rmal

com

mun

ity D

P/re

spon

se s

truct

ures

cap

able

of a

dapt

ing

to a

rriva

l of s

pont

aneo

us/e

mer

gent

gro

ups

of v

olun

teer

s (fr

om

with

in a

nd o

utsid

e co

mm

unity

) an

d in

tegr

atin

g th

ese

into

re

spon

se a

nd r

ecov

ery.

6.7

Self-

help

and

sup

port

grou

ps fo

r m

ost v

ulne

rabl

e (e

.g. e

lder

ly, d

isabl

ed).

6.8

Mec

hani

sms

for

disa

ster

-affe

cted

peo

ple

to e

xpre

ss th

eir

view

s, fo

r le

arni

ng a

nd s

harin

g le

sson

s fro

m e

vent

s.

>Re

cogn

ition

by

exte

rnal

and

loc

al e

mer

genc

y re

spon

ders

of

peop

le's

right

to a

ppro

pria

te a

ssist

ance

afte

r di

sast

ers,

topa

rtici

patio

n in

disa

ster

rec

over

y pl

anni

ng a

nd to

pro

tect

ion

from

vio

lenc

e (d

efin

ed in

legi

slatio

n).

>In

tern

atio

nally

acc

epte

d pr

inci

ples

of r

ight

s an

dac

coun

tabi

lity

in d

isast

er r

espo

nse

and

reco

very

6 agr

eed

and

adop

ted

by n

atio

nal a

utho

ritie

s, lo

cal g

over

nmen

t, civ

ilso

ciet

y or

gani

satio

ns a

nd o

ther

sta

keho

lder

s.>

Lega

l ins

trum

ents

man

datin

g sp

ecifi

c ac

tions

by

publ

icor

gani

satio

ns in

em

erge

ncy

resp

onse

and

disa

ster

rec

over

y.>

Parti

cipa

tory

mec

hani

sms

ensu

ring

all s

take

hold

ers

invo

lved

in t

he d

evel

opm

ent

of a

ll co

mpo

nent

s of

disa

ster

man

agem

ent

plan

ning

and

ope

ratio

ns a

t le

vels.

>Lo

cal g

over

nmen

t an

d ot

her

agen

cies

hav

e pl

anne

d fo

r co

or

dina

tion

of 'e

mer

gent

gro

ups'

of v

olun

teer

s.>

Appl

icat

ion

of s

ocia

l aud

its, r

epor

t ca

rds

and

othe

rm

echa

nism

s en

ablin

g th

ose

affe

cted

by

disa

ster

s to

eva

luat

eem

erge

ncy

resp

onse

.>

Inde

pend

ent a

sses

smen

ts o

f DP

capa

citie

s an

d m

echa

nism

sca

rrie

d ou

t and

act

ed u

pon.

>Ef

fect

ive

and

tran

spar

ent

mec

hani

sms

for

mon

itorin

g an

dev

alua

ting

DP

and

resp

onse

.

1 Th

ese

may

be

grou

ps s

et u

p sp

ecif

ical

ly f

or t

his

pur

pos

e, o

r ex

isti

ng g

roup

s es

tabl

ishe

d fo

r ot

her

pur

pose

s bu

t ca

pab

le o

f ta

king

on

a D

P/re

spon

se r

ole.

2 Se

e al

so T

able

2:

Ris

k A

sses

smen

t

3 Th

e te

rms

DP

or

cont

ing

ency

pla

n ar

e us

ed b

road

ly h

ere

to c

over

all

kind

s o

f pl

an f

or p

repa

ring

and

res

pond

ing

to d

isas

ters

and

em

erg

enci

es.

It is

assu

med

tha

t th

e pl

an,

like

all

good

DP/

cont

inge

ncy

plan

s, h

as c

lear

ly s

tate

d ob

ject

ive(

s),

sets

out

a s

yste

mat

ic s

equ

ence

of

acti

viti

es i

n a

logi

cal

and

clea

r m

anne

r, a

ssig

ns s

pec

ific

tas

ks a

nd r

espo

nsib

iliti

es,

is pr

acti

cal

and

base

d on

rea

listi

c pa

ram

eter

s (i

.e.

app

ropr

iate

foc

us,

leve

l of

det

ail,

form

at f

or l

ocal

use

rs'

need

s an

d ca

paci

ties

), i

s pr

oces

s-dr

iven

(i.e

. d

oes

not

ove

rem

pha

size

the

im

port

ance

of

a w

ritt

en p

lan)

and

lea

ds t

o ac

tion

s.

For

mor

e de

taile

d gu

idan

ce o

n pr

epar

edne

ss a

nd c

onti

ngen

cy p

lann

ing,

see

UN

OC

HA

20

07,

'Dis

ast

er P

rep

are

dn

ess

for

Effe

ctiv

e R

esp

on

se:

Imp

lem

enti

ng

Pri

ori

ty F

ive

of

the

Hyo

go

Fra

mew

ork

fo

r A

ctio

n'

(Gen

eva:

Off

ice

for

the

Coo

rdin

atio

n of

Hum

anit

aria

n A

ffai

rs);

Cho

ular

ton

R 20

07,

Co

nti

ng

ency

pla

nn

ing

an

d h

um

an

itar

ian

act

ion

: a

revi

ew o

f pra

ctic

e (L

ond

on:

Hum

anit

aria

n P

ract

ice

Net

wor

k, N

etw

ork

Pape

r 59

).

4 Th

ese

coul

d b

e pa

rt o

f or

sep

arat

e fr

om o

ther

sav

ings

and

cre

dit

or

mic

ro-f

inan

ce i

niti

ativ

es.

5 In

clud

ing

rese

ttle

men

t pl

ans.

6 e.

g.

HA

P P

rinc

iple

s of

Acc

ount

abili

ty,

Sphe

re,

Red

Cro

ss C

od

e of

Co

nd

uct

, fo

rthc

omin

g B

ON

D D

RR

Gro

up

dis

aste

r re

cove

ry s

tand

ards

.

36

Documents

Characteristics of a Disaster-resilent Community · Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note The aim has been to provide a comprehensive list of characteristics