community-characteristics-en-lowres.pdf

Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community

A Guidance Note

Version 1 (for field testing)

August 2007

John Twigg for the DFID Disaster Risk Reduction

Interagency Coordination Group

Cover photo: Community meeting during a Participatory Vulnerability Capacity Assessment carried out in January2007 in Enaytepur village, Manikgonj district, Bangladesh (Photo courtesy of Christian Aid Bangladesh)

An electronic version of this guidance note can be downloaded from the Benfield UCLHazard Research Centre website. Go tohttp://www.benfieldhrc.org/disaster_studies/projects/communitydrrindicators/community_drr_indicators_index.htm

The guidance note has also been translated into Spanish by Diego Bunge. It is availablefrom the same web page.

Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community:A Guidance Note

Contents page no.

Foreword 2

Abbreviations and Acronyms 3

Acknowledgements 3

Section A: Introduction and Background 41. Introduction 4

1.1 Applications 41.2 How the guidance note is organised 4

2. Key concepts 42.1 Disaster risk reduction 62.2 Resilience and the disaster-resilient community 62.3 Community 6

Section B: Using the Tables 81. Components of resilience 82. Characteristics of a resilient community 9

2.1 Applications 102.2 Selecting characteristics; setting priorities 102.3 Characteristics and indicators 102.4 Composite characteristics 112.5 Quantitative versus qualitative characteristics 11

3. Characteristics of an enabling environment 114. Milestones 125. Other issues 146. Further reading 15

Section C: Tables 17Thematic Area 1: Governance 17Thematic Area 2: Risk assessment 21Thematic Area 3: Knowledge and education 24Thematic Area 4: Risk management and vulnerability reduction 27Thematic Area 5: Disaster preparedness and response 32

2Foreword

The development of the Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community has been commissioned by a group ofsix agencies ActionAid, Christian Aid, Plan UK, Practical Action and Tearfund, together with the British RedCross/International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. In recent years, these agencies havereceived funding from the UK Department for International Development (DFID) for disaster risk reduction (DRR)initiatives and to support the promotion of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), particularly at local level.However, when discussing how to monitor the success of the implementation of the HFA, it became apparent thatthere was nothing to measure its impact at the community level.

At a British Overseas NGOs for Development (BOND) DRR Group meeting on monitoring and evaluationfacilitated by John Twigg in November 2006, the DFID-funded group (known as the DFID DRR InteragencyCoordination Group) discussed the opportunity to define jointly what a disaster-resilient community actually lookedlike; and how indicators could be developed from there. Subsequently, John Twigg and a support team wereemployed on a consultancy basis to identify basic characteristics of community resilience that can complementnational and international-level work led by the UN ISDR and OCHA. This initiative has now reached a stage wherewe have a fairly comprehensive multi-hazard/multi-context set of characteristics. While we were initially dauntedby its volume, we recognised that these characteristics described utopia what we would like all communities tolook like if the HFA was effectively implemented. It is now our task, as a group of agencies, to pilot thosecharacteristics that are particularly relevant to our work, possibly to further refine and narrow the volume, or maybejust to critique the current content. Either way these characteristics are a work in progress.

To that end, we would like to invite you to join us in our task of piloting. Each agency is taking a differentapproach to how it is using the characteristics; some to define future project design, some to develop step-by-stepindicators and others taking a select few characteristics to measure work which has already been carried out. Pleasetake the guidelines and adapt the characteristics for use within your circumstances. All we would ask is that youkeep John Twigg ([email protected]) informed of progress or use of the characteristics within your organisation, asall feedback will be gratefully received.

As a group of agencies, we make no apologies about being passionate that community-based DRR isfundamental to reducing risk and the impact of disasters. We also have to express our concern that no bindingtargets or commitments have been set by governments for governments through the Hyogo process. As a result wewant to offer this contribution to the DRR community as a step towards measuring the success of the Hyogo Actions.We do hope you will join us in the next stage of field trial and application, and we look forward to sharing ourindividual agency results with others.

Oenone ChadburnTearfund and Chair of BOND DRR Group

August 2007

Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ADPC Asian Disaster Preparedness CenterCBDRM community-based disaster risk managementCBO community-based organisationCSO civil society organisationDP disaster preparednessDRM disaster risk managementDRR disaster risk reductionEW early warningEWS early warning systemHFA Hyogo Framework for ActionIFRC International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent SocietiesISDR UN International Strategy for Disaster ReductionM&E monitoring and evaluationNGO non-governmental organisationOCHA UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian AffairsPTSD post-traumatic stress disorderUN United NationsVCA vulnerability and capacity assessment/analysis

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the following members of the Interagency Coordination Group who provided guidance on theprocess, commented on drafts and forwarded comments from other staff and partners: John Abuya, YasminMcDonnell (ActionAid), Robert Roots (British Red Cross), Bina Desai, Sarah Moss, Jos 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 educationcharacteristics, which was carried out most ably by Marianne Liebmann and Sara Pavanello as part of their MScDevelopment Management course at the London School of Economics (see Further Reading).

Many other colleagues and experts kindly provided me with information and advice on resilience and indicatorsduring the course of this project. They include: Paola Albrito, Bob Alexander, David Alexander, Ali Asgary, MihirBhatt, Philip Buckle, Omar Cardona, Biswanath Dash, Ian Davis, Annelies Heijmans, Dan Henstra, Harry Jones, IlanKelman, Johan Minnie, Norah Niland, Warner Passanisi, Marla Petal, Ben Ramalingam, Claire Rubin, Azim Samjani,Walter Ubal Giordano, Natasha Udu-gama, Lorna Victoria, Ben Wisner and Malaika Wright.

Particular thanks are due to the Department for International Development (DFID), for supporting DRR work bythe Interagency Coordination Group, and to Olivia Coghlan and Rowshan Hannan of DFID for their support andadvice during this project.

John Twigg. Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre.August 2007.

[email protected]

3

Version 1 (for fieldtesting), August 2007

1. IntroductionThis guidance note is for government and civil societyorganisations working on disaster risk reduction (DRR)initiatives at community level, in partnership withvulnerable communities.

It shows what a disaster-resilient communitymight consist of, by setting out the many differentelements of resilience. It also provides some ideasabout how to progress towards resilience.

The version of the guidance note you are readingis a pilot version, based on a desk study anddiscussions with experts. This is now being tested inthe field and it will be revised in the light of thoseexperiences. Everyone is welcome to use the note,and feedback is similarly welcome.

1.1 ApplicationsThe guidance note is a resource, not a manual. It isdesigned to support processes of communitymobilisation and partnership for DRR.

Users can select relevant information and ideasfrom it to support their field work, according to theirneeds and priorities. This should be the result ofdiscussion between communities and theorganisations working with them.

The note can be used at different stages of projectcycle management, particularly in planning andassessment, and monitoring and evaluation. It can alsobe linked to other tools used in DRR projects andresearch (e.g. vulnerability and capacity analysis).

Much of the information here relates tocommunity capacities in DRR. The guidance note maytherefore be useful in assessing, planning or reviewingwork that focuses on capacity-building.

The findings of reviews and assessments carried outusing this note may also have some value in advocacywork at local and higher levels.

1.2 How the guidance note is organisedThe main section of the guidance note is a series oftables setting out the characteristics of a disaster-resilientcommunity. These are organised under thematicheadings that represent the main areas of DRRintervention. The themes are broadly based on aframework developed by the UN International Strategyfor Disaster Reduction (ISDR). This scheme has beenfollowed because it is generally accepted by UN andother international agencies, most national governmentsand many NGOs (see Box 1 and Fig. 1). However, it hasbeen modified in places in this guidance note.

4


The aim has been to provide a comprehensive listof characteristics of DRR, but users will probablyidentify additional characteristics when they test theguidance note in the field. It is hoped to include thesein future editions.

The tables also indicate the main characteristics ofthe enabling environment which is necessary forcommunity-level initiatives to succeed.

It should be emphasised that the disaster-resilientcommunity is an ideal, for in reality no communitycan be free of risk. The tables present characteristics ofthis ideal state, not project output or outcomeindicators in the conventional sense. But by combiningvarious elements of resilience identified here, DRRproject workers can greatly increase communitiescapacities to withstand hazard events.

Another important point to make is that thecharacteristics set out in this document are generalones for all contexts, whereas every project, locationand community is unique. Those who use thisguidance note will probably focus on those elementsof resilience that are most appropriate to theconditions they are working in or to the kind of workthat they do.

2. Key ConceptsThree concepts are central to this guidance note:DRR, resilience and community. It is important tothink about what these mean before using the tablesof characteristics.

Box 1: The Hyogo Framework for Actionand the main components of DRRAt the World Conference on Disaster Reduction inKobe, Japan, in 2005, the international communitysigned up to a 10-year DRR strategy, the HyogoFramework for Action (HFA).

The HFA sets out three strategic goals andoutlines five priorities for action, which cover themain areas of DRR. It also suggests important areasfor intervention within each theme (see Fig. 1).

On the basis of the HFAs categories, two UNagencies have been developing DRR indicators,principally for the national level. ISDR is preparingguidance on indicators for priorities 1-4 and theOffice for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs(OCHA) is preparing guidance on indicators forpriority 5 (see Further Reading).

Section A: Introduction and Background

5Version 1 (for fieldtesting), August 2007

Fig. 1: Hyogo Framework for ActionDiagram courtesy of UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

Sum

mar

yof

the

Hyo

goFr

amew

ork

for

Actio

n20

052

015:

Build

ing

the

Resil

ienc

eof

Nat

ions

and

Com

mun

ities

toD

isast

ers

Expe

cted

outc

ome,

stra

tegi

cgo

als

and

prio

ritie

sfo

rac

tion

2005

201

5

ISDR

Contributing to the achievements of the internationally agreed development goals (including the MDGs)

DRR

=di

sast

erris

kre

duct

ion

ww

w.u

nisd

r.org

Expe

cted

Out

com

eTh

esu

bsta

ntia

lred

uctio

nof

disa

ster

loss

es,i

nliv

esan

din

the

soci

al,

econ

omic

and

envi

ronm

enta

lass

ets

ofco

mm

uniti

esan

dco

untri

es The

syst

emat

icin

corp

orat

ion

ofris

kre

duct

ion

appr

oach

esin

toth

eim

plem

enta

tion

ofem

erge

ncy

prep

ared

ness

,res

pons

ean

dre

cove

rypr

ogra

mm

es

The

deve

lopm

enta

ndst

reng

then

ing

ofin

stitu

tions

,mec

hani

sms

and

capa

citie

sto

build

resil

ienc

eto

haza

rds

Stra

tegi

cG

oals

The

inte

grat

ion

ofdi

sast

erris

kre

duct

ion

into

sust

aina

ble

deve

lopm

entp

olic

ies

and

plan

ning

Prio

ritie

sfo

rAc

tion

1.En

sure

that

disa

ster

risk

redu

ctio

n(D

RR)i

sa

natio

nala

nda

loca

lprio

rity

with

ast

rong

inst

itutio

nal

basis

for

impl

emen

tatio

nl

DRR

inst

itutio

nalm

echa

nism

s(n

atio

nalp

latfo

rms)

;de

signa

ted

resp

onsib

ilitie

sl

DRR

part

ofde

velo

pmen

tpo

licie

san

dpl

anni

ng,s

ecto

rw

isean

dm

ultis

ecto

r;l

Legi

slatio

nto

supp

ortD

RR;

lD

ecen

tralis

atio

nof

resp

onsib

ilitie

san

dre

sour

ces;

lAs

sess

men

tofh

uman

reso

urce

san

dca

paci

ties;

lFo

ster

polit

ical

com

mitm

ent;

lC

omm

unity

parti

cipa

tion.

2.Id

entif

y,as

sess

and

mon

itor

disa

ster

risks

and

enha

nce

early

war

ning

lRi

skas

sess

men

tsan

dm

aps,

mul

ti-ris

k:el

abor

atio

nan

ddi

ssem

inat

ion;

lIn

dica

tors

onD

RRan

dvu

lner

abili

ty;

lEa

rlyw

arni

ng:p

eopl

ece

nter

ed;

info

rmat

ion

syst

ems;

publ

icpo

licy;

lD

ata

and

statis

tical

loss

info

rmat

ion;

lSc

ient

ific

and

tech

nolo

gica

lde

velo

pmen

t;da

tash

arin

g,sp

ace-

base

dea

rthob

serv

atio

n,cl

imat

em

odel

ling

and

fore

cast

ing;

early

war

ning

;l

Regi

onal

and

emer

ging

risks

.

3.U

sekn

owle

dge,

inno

vatio

nan

ded

ucat

ion

tobu

ilda

cultu

reof

safe

tyan

dre

silie

nce

atal

llev

els

lIn

form

atio

nsh

arin

gan

dco

oper

atio

n;l

Net

wor

ksac

ross

disc

iplin

esan

dre

gion

s;di

alog

ue;

lU

seof

stan

dard

DRR

term

inol

ogy;

lIn

clus

ion

ofD

RRin

tosc

hool

curr

icul

a,fo

rmal

and

info

rmal

educ

atio

n;l

Trai

ning

and

lear

ning

onD

RR:

com

mun

ityle

vel,

loca

laut

horit

ies,

targ

eted

sect

ors;

equa

lacc

ess;

lRe

sear

chca

paci

ty:m

ulti-

risk;

soci

o-ec

onom

ic;

appl

icat

ion;

lPu

blic

awar

enes

san

dm

edia

.

4.Re

duce

the

unde

rlyin

gris

kfa

ctor

s

lSu

stai

nabl

eec

osys

tem

san

den

viro

nmen

tal

man

agem

ent;

lD

RRst

rate

gies

inte

grat

edw

ithcl

imat

ech

ange

adap

tatio

n;l

Food

secu

rity

for

resil

ienc

e;l

DRR

inte

grat

edin

tohe

alth

sect

oran

dsa

feho

spita

ls;l

Prot

ectio

nof

criti

calp

ublic

faci

litie

s;l

Reco

very

sche

mes

and

soci

alsa

fety

-net

s;l

Vuln

erab

ility

redu

ctio

nw

ithdi

vers

ified

inco

me

optio

ns;

lFi

nanc

ialr

isk-s

harin

gm

echa

nism

s;l

Publ

ic-p

rivat

epa

rtner

ship

s;l

Land

use

plan

ning

and

build

ing

code

s;l

Rura

ldev

elop

men

tpla

nsan

dD

RR.

5.St

reng

then

disa

ster

prep

ared

ness

for

effe

ctiv

ere

spon

seat

alll

evel

s

lD

isast

erm

anag

emen

tcap

aciti

es:

polic

y,te

chni

cala

ndin

stitu

tiona

lca

paci

ties;

lD

ialo

gue,

coor

dina

tion

and

info

rmat

ion

exch

ange

betw

een

disa

ster

man

ager

san

dde

velo

pmen

tse

ctor

s;l

Regi

onal

appr

oach

esto

disa

ster

resp

onse

,with

risk

redu

ctio

nfo

cus;

lRe

view

and

exer

cise

prep

ared

ness

and

cont

inge

ncy

plan

s;l

Emer

genc

yfu

nds;

lVo

lunt

arism

and

parti

cipa

tion.

Cro

ssC

uttin

gIs

sues

Mul

ti-ha

zard

appr

oach

Gen

der

pers

pect

ive

and

cultu

rald

iver

sity

Com

mun

ityan

dvo

lunt

eers

parti

cipa

tion

Cap

acity

build

ing

and

tech

nolo

gytra

nsfe

r

KeyActivities

1 The term disaster reduction is often used to mean much the same thing. Disaster risk management is also sometimes used in this way,although it is normally applied specifically to the practical implementation of DRR initiatives.

2 Geis DE 2000, By Design: the Disaster Resistant and Quality-of-Life Community. Natural Hazards Review 1(3): 152.

2.1 Disaster risk reductionDisaster risk reduction (DRR) is a broad and relativelynew concept. There are different definitions of theterm in the technical literature but it is generallyunderstood to mean the broad development andapplication of policies, strategies and practices tominimise vulnerabilities and disaster risks throughoutsociety.1

DRR is a systematic approach to identifying,assessing and reducing the risks of disaster. It aims toreduce socio-economic vulnerabilities to disaster aswell as dealing with the environmental and otherhazards that trigger them. It is the responsibility ofdevelopment and relief agencies alike and it should bean integral part of the way such organisations do theirwork, not an add-on or one-off action. DRR is verywide-ranging, therefore. There is potential for DRRinitiatives in just about every sector of developmentand humanitarian work.

No single group or organisation can address everyaspect of DRR. DRR thinking sees disasters as complexproblems demanding a collective response fromdifferent disciplinary and institutional groups in otherwords, partnerships. This is an importantconsideration when looking at the characteristics of adisaster-resilient community, because individualorganisations will have to decide where to focus theirown efforts and how to work with partners to ensurethat other important aspects of resilience are notforgotten. Note that the tables in this guidance noteare intended as a resource for a range of organisationsworking at local and community level, collectively orindividually: certain elements of resilience may bemore relevant to some organisations and contexts thanothers.

2.2 Resilience and the disaster-resilientcommunityMany attempts have been made to define resilience.The variety of academic definitions and concepts canbe confusing. For operational purposes it is moreuseful to work with broad definitions and commonlyunderstood characteristics. Using this approach,system or community resilience can be understood as:

l capacity to absorb stress or destructive forcesthrough resistance or adaptation

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

l capacity to recover or bounce back after an event

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

6


behaviour, strategies and measures for risk reductionand management that are normally understood ascapacities. However, it is difficult to separate theconcepts clearly. In everyday usage, capacity andcoping 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 asthe 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 ofcommunity 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 thecommunity one is working with. From a hazardsperspective, the spatial dimension is an essentialelement in identifying communities at risk, but this

7Version 1 (for fieldtesting), August 2007

must be linked to an understanding of the socio-economic differentiations, linkages and dynamicswithin the area at risk, not only to identify vulnerablegroups but also to understand the diverse factors thatcontribute to vulnerability. Community businesses,services and infrastructure must also be taken intoaccount.

Communities do not exist in isolation. The level ofa communitys resilience is also influenced bycapacities outside the community, in particular byemergency management services but also by othersocial and administrative services, public infrastructureand a web of socio-economic and political linkageswith the wider world. Virtually all communities aredependent on external service providers to a greateror lesser extent. The enabling environment sectionsin the tables try to capture some of these influences.

The guidance note contains a set of five tables settingout the characteristics of a disaster-resilientcommunity.

Each table covers a different thematic area relatingto resilience and DRR. The five thematic areas arebased on those in the Hyogo Framework for Actionand are intended to cover all aspects of resilience.

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

The following pages contain suggestions about howeach part of the tables might be used and discussionsof issues relating to their application.

One point to note here is that some aspects ofresilience may belong to more than one of the themesand components and may therefore be repeated indifferent tables.

1. Components of ResilienceThe thematic areas are very broad. Each area ofresilience is therefore subdivided into a set of its maincomponents. Because the scope of each thematic areavaries, the number and range of components differsfrom one thematic area to another. The table on page9 lists the components of resilience for each thematicarea.

As a first step, it may be useful to consider thesemain components of resilience. An organisation mightlook at these as part of a basic mapping or scopingexercise to identify:

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

l where the current emphasis is in their interventionsl any major gaps in coverage or missing links

between DRR components

Components Characteristics Characteristics of resilience of a resilient of an enabling

community environment

Table Thematic area

1 Governance2 Risk assessment3 Knowledge and education4 Risk management and vulnerability

reduction5 Disaster preparedness and response

8


The findings of this review could contribute todiscussions about the focus of future work.

It is extremely unlikely that a single organisation willbe working in all of the relevant areas. It is probably notadvisable that it should, since specific technicalexpertise is required in many cases. Where anorganisations own expertise lies in one particular field(e.g. disaster preparedness, livelihood support,education), it will usually want to build on its existingstrengths. But a mapping or scoping exercise will enableit to consider if it should be involved in other relevantaspects of DRR and resilience that might support itscurrent work or help to increase its impact.

For example, an organisation with expertise inhazard and risk assessment or vulnerability analysis(which comes under Thematic area 2: Riskassessment) might want to make sure that the results ofits work are being shared and applied effectively,which might cause it to think about becominginvolved in public information work (an aspect ofThematic area 3: Knowledge and education) and earlywarning systems (Thematic area 5: Disasterpreparedness and response).

As another example, an organisation focusing ontechnologies for DRR such as safe buildings and floodand landslide control measures (part of Thematic area4: Risk management and vulnerability reduction)would probably need to be involved in discussionsabout building codes, land-use regulations and otherlegislative provisions (Thematic area 1: Governance)that might affect its initiatives, as well as in providingtechnical training to community members (Thematicarea 3: Knowledge and education).

Thematic area 1 (Governance) is really a cross-cutting theme underlying the other thematic areas.Planning, regulation, integration, institutional systems,partnerships and accountability are relevant toeveryone, because they are issues likely to affect anyinitiative in DRR, development or relief. Users aretherefore advised to refer to these governance aspectswhatever the thematic areas they are focusing on.

A scoping or mapping exercise of this kind may beparticularly helpful in multi-stakeholder settings. It canindicate gaps in agencies collective coverage andhighlight potential for new or stronger collaboration onspecific issues. Partnerships between differentinstitutions and the collective application of differentkinds of technical expertise are important to thesuccess of DRR.

Section B: Using the Tables

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

9


Thematic area Components of resilience

1 Governance l Policy, planning, priorities and political commitment.l Legal and regulatory systemsl Integration with development policies and planningl Integration with emergency response and recoveryl Institutional mechanisms, capacities and structures; allocation of

responsibilitiesl Partnershipsl Accountability and community participation

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

3 Knowledge and l Public awareness, knowledge and skillseducation l Information management and sharing

l Education and trainingl Cultures, attitudes, motivationl Learning and research

4 Risk management and l Environmental and natural resource managementvulnerability reduction l Health and well being

l Sustainable livelihoodsl Social protectionl Financial instrumentsl Physical protection; structural and technical measuresl Planning rgimes

5 Disaster preparedness l Organisational capacities and coordinationand response l Early warning systems

l Preparedness and contingency planningl Emergency resources and infrastructurel Emergency response and recoveryl Participation, voluntarism, accountability

Thematic area 2: Characteristics of a resilient communityRisk assessment

Component of l Community hazard/risk assessments carried out which provide comprehensive resilience 1: picture of all major hazards and risks facing community (and potential risks). Hazards/risk data l Hazard/risk assessment is participatory process including representatives of all and assessment sections of community and sources of expertise.

l Assessment findings shared, discussed, understood and agreed among all stakeholders, and feed into community disaster planning.

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

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

through support and training.

the number of characteristics varies according to thenature of the component. Here is an example of onecomponent of resilience with its related characteristicsof a resilient community:

2.1 Applications The characteristics can be used at various stages of theproject cycle and for different purposes. The followingare likely to be the main applications:

l Baseline studies of the level of resilience in acommunity.

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

indicators for logical and results-based planningframeworks.

l Monitoring and evaluation (of individual projectsand for comparative analysis of projects)

2.2 Selecting characteristics; settingprioritiesIdentification and selection of relevant characteristicsis essential but not necessarily easy. The complete setof characteristics is intended to represent an ideal stateof resilience in other words, a community thatexhibits all of the characteristics under all of theheadings (themes and components) would haveattained the highest possible level of safety. Similarly,DRR requires a co-ordinated and comprehensiveapproach in which progress in one area needs to bematched by comparable progress in others.

However, as the ideal state of resilience will alwaysremain beyond our grasp, organisations will need toselect those characteristics that are most relevant tothe communities they are working with, and the typeof DRR work they are involved in; and they will seekaims that are realistic in the context of a particularproject. This also depends on the capacities ofindividual organisations and their scale of operation.

Not all elements of resilience are necessarily ofequal importance, although there are no universallyagreed priorities for resilience or DRR. Theimportance of each characteristic to a given projectdepends on the specific location, time andcircumstances (including different hazard types). Theselection process should take this into account andreach clear decisions about priorities, recognising thatthis may involve some compromises. This processshould be open. The characteristics will be most useful(and most used) when they are selected by, or at leastwith, those who need to use them. This meanscomprehensive participatory processes of discussionand validation at local level, which may also identifyadditional characteristics of resilience.

One way of narrowing the scope of characteristicsis to consider only actions that are intended

specifically to reduce disaster risk. This is the basis ofthe concept of invulnerable development, which isdevelopment directed towards reducing vulnerabilityto disaster, comprising decisions and activities that areintentionally designed and implemented to reducerisk and susceptibility, and also raise resistance andresilience to disaster.3

Users of this guidance note should be aware thatthere is a degree of ambiguity regarding exactly who agiven characteristic may apply to and hence, whoshould take appropriate action. For instance, acharacteristic such as shared vision of a prepared andresilient community begs the question: who issupposed to share in this vision? All of thecharacteristics are intended to be applicable tocommunities and their members (remembering thatcommunities are not homogeneous) but some couldalso apply to groups and organisations working amongthe community, such as local NGOs and perhaps evenlocal government agencies or extension workers. Forthe most part, these external agencies and theircapacities have been placed within the enablingenvironment part of the framework (see below).However, since the boundaries between communitiesand the enabling environment cannot always bedrawn exactly, and external agencies have animportant role to play in community welfare anddevelopment, this matter may sometimes requirediscussion and decision in the field.

2.3 Characteristics and indicatorsThe characteristics set out in the tables are not projectindicators in the conventional sense. It is important torecognise this. They characterise an ideal state ofresilience in quite general terms, whereas individualprojects will need their own specific and moredetailed indicators of achievement.4

The distinction between characteristics andindicators is not rigid, however. Some characteristicsare equivalent to the outcome indicators used inproject evaluation because they represent an end stateresulting from DRR interventions. Others are closer tooutput 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. ADPCs guidelines on community-baseddisaster risk management contain helpful information on developing DRR indicators at community level (see Further Reading).

11


2.4 Composite characteristicsSome characteristics are composites of individualcharacteristics for example:

[hazard/risk] assessment findings shared,discussed, understood and agreed among allstakeholders, and feed into community disasterplanning.

This contains two main elements: (1) sharing,discussion, understanding and agreement aboutassessment findings among all stakeholders; (2)assessment findings feed into community disasterplanning. The first main element can also be split intofour more particular elements: sharing, discussion,understanding and agreement. One reason foraggregating characteristics in this way is to make thisdocument more manageable: without it, the tableswould be extremely long. But this has only been donewhere the different characteristics are strongly linkedto one another. In practice, and depending on whatpurpose they are using the tables for, organisationsmay wish to disaggregate some of the characteristics.

2.5 Quantitative versus qualitativecharacteristicsThe characteristics set out in these tables arequalitative. Communities and their partners thereforeneed to make their own judgements about whether ornot certain aspects of resilience have been achieved.Some of these will be more straightforward thanothers. For instance, it is easy to tell if a communitydisaster preparedness or contingency plan exists (evenif its quality is another matter). But it is much harder todecide if there is an equitable distribution of wealthand livelihood assets in a community, or the adequacyof access to common property resources that cansupport coping strategies during crises.

The guidance note cannot tell projects andcommunities how they should reach thesejudgements. They are matters for collective agreementbetween the stakeholders. The conclusions will bedifferent in each case, according to context andexpectations, and there will be a fair amount ofsubjective judgement. But in every case the processfor reaching decisions must be transparent andparticipatory.

Some guidelines and experts have suggested theneed for quantitative indicators of certain aspects ofDRR (e.g. the number of volunteers trained in first aid,

the percentage of households in a community withproperty insurance). It is impossible to fix standardquantitative measures that can be applied to everycontext but quantitative indicators can be used at anindividual project level, if required. In such cases, theycould form part of the data on which the broaderjudgements about attainment of characteristics ofresilience are based. It is for individual project teamsto decide what kinds of quantitative indicator areappropriate and what levels of attainment to set.

3. Characteristics of an EnablingEnvironmentIn this guidance note, the focus is on communities andlocal organisations (although individual and householdresilience is incorporated in the tables to some extent).However, the framework acknowledges theimportance of wider institutional, policy and socio-economic factors in supporting community-levelresilience.

The tables identify the main elements of thisenabling environment5 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 IFRCs ongoing work on local-level DRR indicators uses a C-I-T categorisation toconsider this (where C = issues the community can change; I = issues the community can influence to find solutions; T = issues where thecommunity recognises that transformation will take a long time and is out of their hands): Barrena I 2007, Indicators: A guide to find simpleindicators for risk reduction projects at local level. (Geneva: IFRC, unpublished draft report).

12


Thematic Area 1: Characteristics of enabling environmentGovernance

Component of l Political consensus on importance of DRRresilience 1: l DRR a policy priority at all levels of government.DRR policy, l National DRR policy, strategy and implementation plan, with clear vision, priorities, planning, priorities targets and benchmarks.and political l Local government DRR policies, strategies and implementation plans in place.commitment l Official (national and local) policy and strategy of support to CBDRM.

l Local-level official understanding of and support for community vision.

environment for local-level initiatives. Users of theguidance note will therefore have to base their planson realistic assessments of the type and level ofexternal support they can expect.

4. MilestonesThe indicator set characteristics of a disaster-resilientcommunity represents a goal: the highest level ofresilience that is realistically attainable. Additionalmilestones are needed to measure improvements andprogress towards the goal. However, there are

Box 2: Key indicators of community resilienceSome organisations and researchers are beginning to think about the most important indicators of resilience witha view to setting priorities for DRR interventions. No consensus has been reached on this but recent suggestionsinclude the following:

ADPC: Indicators Plan International: indicators of Practical Action: key of a minimum level community resilience characteristics of a

of resiliency resilient community

l A community 1. Governance: l A community organisation such as a organisation l Extent and nature of access/ development/disaster management

l A DRR and disaster presence/influence of children group, representing majority of preparedness plan and other vulnerable groups (or people. Existing groups can be

l A community early groups that represent their interests) groomed for this role.warning system to/in/over functions of governance l A DRR and Disaster Preparedness

l Trained manpower: at local, sub-national, national levels: plan (supported by local/central risk assessment, search m Policy government) and rescue, medical m Legislative l Early warning systemsfirst aid, relief m Planning l Trained persons risk assessment, distribution, masons m Budgeting search and rescue, first aid, relief for safer house m Monitoring distribution, safer house construction,construction, l Awareness of community members fire fighting; effective delivery system.fire fighting of their rights l Physical infrastructure access to

l Physical connectivity: l Access of community members to roads, electricity, phones, clinics, etcroads, electricity, legal and other avenues to enforce l Linkages with local authorities, telephone, clinics rights/provide redress (e.g. through NGOs, humanitarian agencies, etc

l Relational connectivity linkages to legal rights NGOs, l Knowledge and awareness of risks with local authorities pro-bono lawyers) and risk reduction strategiesNGOs, etc. l Safer housing to withstand local

l Knowledge of risks 2. Risk assessment: hazardsand risk reduction l Existence and quality of community l Safer/appropriate/more diverse actions risk assessments and maps that are sources of livelihoods including

l A community disaster owned by both community and protection of assets most at risk.reduction fund to government l Access to resources for mitigation,

13


ADPC: Indicators Plan International: indicators of Practical Action: key of a minimum level community resilience characteristics of a

of resiliency resilient community

implement risk l Extent and quality of participation of response and recovery activities reduction activities vulnerable groups in development of

l Safer houses to community risk assessments and withstand local mapshazards l Extent to which vulnerability and

l Safer sources of risk analysis is incorporated in livelihoods development planning

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

particularly children and vulnerable groups, of EWS

l Awareness levels in the community, particularly of children and vulnerable groups, of risks and risk reduction strategies

4. Risk management and vulnerabilityreduction:

l Extent and nature of social capitall Health statusl Sustainable livelihoods/natural

resource managementl Extent of climate change adaptationl Food securityl Extent of diversity of livelihood optionsl Extent to which DRR has been

integrated into development planningl Access to social protection

mechanisms e.g. social insurance

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

systemsl Existence, practice and revision of

preparedness and contingency plansl Extent and nature of participation of

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

l Extent and quality of linkages with local authorities, NGOs, etc.

l Extent of diversity of physical and communications infrastructure and assets, e.g. roads, boats, mobile phones, etc.

l Access to resources for mitigation, response and recovery activities

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

challenges in using these tables of characteristics toassess levels of progress from an existing state ofresilience towards an ideal state of safety. Somecharacteristics may be used as output or processindicators (see above) but they cannot be applied asstandard measures to the specific requirements ofindividual projects. Project partners will have to agreehow to measure their own progress in each case. Indoing so they will focus on those characteristics ofresilience that they have chosen to work on, workingout a process for moving from the current state towardsthe end state in each case, and agreeing indicators fordifferent stages of progress along the way.

A more generic milestones model may be usefulfor getting a better idea of the big picture of progresstowards resilience in a particular district orcommunity. Like the mapping of thematic areas andcomponents of resilience, this would probably bemost useful as a multi-stakeholder exercise looking atthe work of all groups and organisations involved inDRR. For this, a five-level scale is suggested, with eachlevel marking a distinct stage in the development ofDRR. This is a simple scale and should be easy to use.It is designed to be applied across all areas ofresilience. It could be used to review progress towardsresilience across all thematic areas, or in individualthematic areas. It may also be applicable to selectedcomponents of resilience, but not necessarily to allcomponents.

It is assumed that groups and organisations using thistool for self-assessment will already have advancedbeyond Level 1.

Level 5 approximates to the disaster-resilientcommunity ideal. The culture of safety notionreferred to here, which has been advanced by the UNsystem and others, goes beyond carrying out DRRactivities because it implies deep-rooted behaviouralchange.6

Assessment of progress using this model wouldinvolve looking at the range of DRR or resilience issuesbeing addressed, the number, type and range ofresilience characteristics being achieved or workedtowards, and importantly the level of coherenceand co-ordination of efforts.

Assessments could be rapid or more intensive.They would have to be participatory, since agreementon the different levels would be based on largelysubjective judgements.7

The milestones could be used as baselines at thestart of a project to assess the level of achievement atthat moment in time. Repeat assessments wouldindicate the extent of progress in DRR. However, itmust be emphasised that many of these changes willonly come about in the long term, especially wherecommunities and supporting agencies have limitedcapacity and resources, and where there arecompeting priorities.

Application of this or similar methods would helpto keep the overall picture in sight and wouldencourage greater coherence of activities andlinkages between different groups and organisationsinvolved.

5. Other IssuesThe development of this guidance note is just oneamong several current and recent initiatives toimprove the monitoring and evaluation of DRR, whichhas led to the production of several sets of indicators.Although the Hyogo Framework for Action is a guidingframework for some, the different initiatives doinevitably reflect a range of views. This diversity can beseen as a problem and there have been calls forharmonisation of indicators and evaluationframeworks. However desirable this may be, twofactors should be borne in mind. First, every DRRinitiative is context-specific, so generic or harmonisedassessment schemes will always have to be customisedto fit the context to which they are applied. Second,this is a relatively new area of work. Further piloting of

Level 1. Little awareness of the issue(s) ormotivation to address them. Actionslimited to crisis response.

Level 2. Awareness of the issue(s) and willingnessto address them. Capacity to act(knowledge and skills, human, materialand other resources) remains limited.Interventions tend to be one-off,piecemeal and short-term.

Level 3. Development and implementation ofsolutions. Capacity to act is improvedand substantial. Interventions are morenumerous and long-term.

Level 4. Coherence and integration. Interventionsare extensive, covering all main aspectsof the problem, and they are linkedwithin a coherent long-term strategy.

Level 5. A culture of safety exists among allstakeholders, where DRR is embeddedin all relevant policy, planning, practice,attitudes and behaviour.

14


6 Behavioural change is difficult to measure, but there are methods for doing this, such as outcome mapping see www.outcomemapping.ca

7 Similar attainment scales are used elsewhere in DRR assessment: for example, ISDRs DRR Indicators and Tearfunds method for assessingmainstreaming of DRR in development organisations (see Further Reading). Work has been done in some areas on more sophisticatedapproaches with specific benchmarks for progress towards each individual indicator (notably cyclone early warning systems). Such tools arevaluable for research and national-level evaluation but are too complex for use at local or community level.

methods and debate about their results are neededbefore general conclusions can be drawn with anyconfidence.

6. Further ReadingThis list contains selected important sources that arewidely available (most are online). A fullerbibliography of relevant documents on indicators,resilience and community DRR is available athttp://www.benfieldhrc.org/disaster_studies/projects/communitydrrindicators/community_drr_indicators_index.htm

The Hyogo Framework of Action and DRRindicatorsl UN ISDR Hyogo Framework for Action web page,

http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/hfa.htm l UN ISDR 2007, Guide Note on Indicators for

Assessing Progress on Disaster Risk Reduction(Geneva: International Strategy for DisasterReduction). Unpublished draft (final version will bepublished).

l UN ISDR 2005, HF Dialogue: assessing progresstowards disaster risk reduction within the HyogoFramework (online discussion, moderated by PhilipBuckle and Graham Marsh), http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/hfa.htm

l UN OCHA 2007, Disaster Preparedness forEffective Response: Implementing Priority Five ofthe Hyogo Framework for Action (Geneva: Officefor the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs).Unpublished draft (final version will be published).

See also:

l Liebmann M, Pavanello S 2007, A critical reviewof the Knowledge and Education Indicators ofCommunity-Level Disaster Risk Reduction.Unpublished report for the Benfield UCL HazardResearch Centre,http://www.benfieldhrc.org/disaster_studies/projects/communitydrrindicators/community_drr_indicators_index.htm

DRR indicators (general)l ADPC 2006, Critical Guidelines: Community-based

Disaster Risk Management (Bangkok: Asian DisasterPreparedness Center), www.adpc.net

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

l Benson C, Twigg J 2007 (with T Rossetto), Tools forMainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction: Guidance

Notes for Development Organisations (Geneva:ProVention Consortium), ww.proventionconsortium.org/mainstreaming_tools

l Benson C, Twigg J 2004, Measuring Mitigation:Methodologies for assessing natural hazard risksand the net benefits of mitigation: a scoping study(Geneva: ProVention Consortium),www.proventionconsortium.org/mainstreaming_tools

l LaTrobe S, Davis I 2005, Mainstreaming disasterrisk reduction: a tool for development organisations(Teddington: Tearfund), http://tilz.tearfund.org/Research/Climate+change+and+disasters+policy/

l McEntire DA 2000, Sustainability or invulnerabledevelopment? Proposals for the current shift inparadigms. Australian Journal of EmergencyManagement 15(1): 5861.

l ProVention Consortium 2006, Risk ReductionIndicators. TRIAMS Working Paper (Geneva:ProVention Consortium),www.proventionconsortium.org/themes/default/pdfs/TRIAMS_full_paper.pdf

Local-level and community-based DRRl ADPC 2006, Critical Guidelines: Community-based

Disaster Risk Management (Bangkok: Asian DisasterPreparedness Center), www.adpc.net

l Twigg J 2004, Disaster risk reduction: Mitigationand preparedness in development and emergencyprogramming (London: Overseas DevelopmentInstitute, Humanitarian Practice Network, GoodPractice Review No. 9). www.odihpn.org

Resilience and the disaster-resilientcommunityl Buckle P, Marsh G, Smale S 2000, New

approaches to assessing vulnerability andresilience. Australian Journal of EmergencyManagement 15(2) 814.

l Geis DE 2000, By Design: the Disaster Resistantand Quality-of-Life Community. Natural HazardsReview 1(3): 151160.

l Godschalk DR 2003, Urban Hazard Mitigation:Creating Resilient Cities. Natural Hazards Review4(3) 136143.

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

l McEntire DA 2005, Why vulnerability matters.Exploring the merit of an inclusive disasterreduction concept. Disaster Prevention andManagement 14(2) 206222.

l Manyena SB 2006, The concept of resiliencerevisited. Disasters 30(4): 433450.

15


Communities and DRRl Buckle P 1998/9, Re-defining community and

vulnerability in the context of emergencymanagement. Australian Journal of EmergencyManagement 13(4) 2126.

l Enders J 2001, Measuring community awarenessand preparedness for emergencies. AustralianJournal of Emergency Management 16(3): 5258.

l IFRC 2004, World Disasters Report 2004: Focus oncommunity resilience (Geneva: IFRC), pp. 2731.

l Marsh G, Buckle P 2001, Community: theconcept of community in the risk and emergencymanagement context. Australian Journal ofEmergency Management 16(1): 57.

16


17


Thematic Area 1: Governance

Components of resilience:

1. DRR policy, planning, priorities, and political commitment

2. Legal and regulatory systems

3. Integration with development policies and planning

4. Integration with emergency response and recovery

5. Institutional mechanisms, capacities and structures; allocation ofresponsibilities

6. Partnerships

7. Accountability and community participation

Section C: Tables

18


Com

pone

nts

Cha

ract

eris

tics

ofa

Dis

aste

r-re

silie

ntC

omm

unity

Cha

ract

eris

tics

ofan

Enab

ling

Envi

ronm

ent

ofRe

silie

nce

1.D

RRpo

licy,

1.1

Shar

edvi

sion

ofa

prep

ared

and

resil

ient

com

mun

ity.

Po

litic

alco

nsen

sus

onim

porta

nce

ofD

RR.

plan

ning

,1.

2C

onse

nsus

view

ofris

ksfa

ced,

risk

man

agem

enta

ppro

ach,

D

RRa

polic

ypr

iorit

yat

alll

evel

sof

gove

rnm

ent.

prio

ritie

s,sp

ecifi

cac

tions

tobe

take

nan

dta

rget

sto

bem

et.1

N

atio

nalD

RRpo

licy,

stra

tegy

and

impl

emen

tatio

nan

dpo

litic

al1.

3Vi

sion

and

DRR

plan

sin

form

edby

unde

rsta

ndin

gof

plan

,with

clea

rvi

sion,

prio

ritie

s,ta

rget

san

dbe

nchm

arks

.co

mm

itmen

t.un

derly

ing

caus

esof

vuln

erab

ility

and

othe

rfa

ctor

sou

tsid

e

Loca

lgov

ernm

entD

RRpo

licie

s,st

rate

gies

and

impl

emen

tatio

nco

mm

unity

sco

ntro

l.pl

ans

inpl

ace.

1.4

Com

mun

ityta

kes

long

-ter

mpe

rspe

ctiv

e,fo

cusin

gon

O

ffici

al(n

atio

nala

ndlo

cal)

polic

yan

dst

rate

gyof

supp

ort

outc

omes

and

impa

ctof

DRR

.to

com

mun

ity-b

ased

disa

ster

risk

man

agem

ent(

CBD

RM).

1.5

Com

mitt

ed,e

ffect

ive

and

acco

unta

ble

com

mun

ityle

ader

ship

Lo

cal-l

evel

offic

ialu

nder

stan

ding

of,a

ndsu

ppor

tfor

,of

DRR

plan

ning

and

impl

emen

tatio

n.co

mm

unity

visio

n.1.

6C

omm

unity

DRR

(and

DP)

plan

s,de

velo

ped

thro

ugh

parti

cipa

tory

proc

esse

s,pu

tint

oop

erat

ion,

and

upda

ted

perio

dica

lly.

2.Le

gala

nd2.

1C

omm

unity

unde

rsta

nds

rele

vant

legi

slatio

n,re

gula

tions

and

Re

leva

ntan

den

ablin

gle

gisla

tion,

regu

latio

ns,c

odes

,etc

.,re

gula

tory

proc

edur

es,a

ndth

eir

impo

rtanc

e.ad

dres

sing

and

supp

ortin

gD

RR,a

tnat

iona

land

loca

llev

els.

syst

ems

2.2

Com

mun

ityaw

are

ofits

right

san

dth

ele

galo

blig

atio

nsof

Ju

risdi

ctio

nsan

dre

spon

sibili

ties

for

DRR

atal

llev

els

gove

rnm

enta

ndot

her

stak

ehol

ders

topr

ovid

epr

otec

tion.

defin

edin

legi

slatio

n,re

gula

tions

,by-

law

s,et

c.

Mec

hani

sms

forc

ompl

ianc

ean

den

forc

emen

tofl

aws,

regu

latio

ns,c

odes

,etc

.,an

dpe

nalti

esfo

rnon

-com

plia

nce

defin

edin

law

san

dre

gula

tions

.

Lega

land

regu

lato

rysy

stem

unde

rpin

ned

bygu

aran

tees

ofre

leva

ntrig

hts:

tosa

fety

,to

equi

tabl

eas

sista

nce,

tobe

liste

ned

toan

dco

nsul

ted.

La

nd-u

sere

gula

tions

,bui

ldin

gco

des

and

othe

rla

ws

and

regu

latio

nsre

latin

gto

DRR

enfo

rced

loca

lly.

3.In

tegr

atio

nw

ith3.

1C

omm

unity

DRR

seen

byal

lloc

alst

akeh

olde

rsas

inte

gral

G

over

nmen

t(al

llev

els)

take

sho

listic

and

inte

grat

edap

proa

chde

velo

pmen

tpa

rtof

plan

san

dac

tions

toac

hiev

ew

ider

com

mun

itygo

als

toD

RR,l

ocat

edw

ithin

wid

erde

velo

pmen

tcon

text

and

linke

dpo

licie

s(e

.g.p

over

tyal

levi

atio

n,qu

ality

oflif

e).

tode

velo

pmen

tpla

nnin

gac

ross

diffe

rent

sect

ors.

and

plan

ning

D

RRin

corp

orat

edin

toor

linke

dto

othe

rna

tiona

lde

velo

pmen

tpla

nsan

ddo

nor-

supp

orte

dco

untry

prog

ram

mes

.2

Ro

utin

ein

tegr

atio

nof

DRR

into

deve

lopm

entp

lann

ing

and

sect

oral

polic

ies

(pov

erty

erad

icat

ion,

soci

alpr

otec

tion,

sust

aina

ble

deve

lopm

ent,

clim

ate

chan

gead

apta

tion,

dese

rtific

atio

n,na

tura

lres

ourc

em

anag

emen

t,he

alth

,

19

Thematic Area 1: Governance

educ

atio

n,et

c.).

Fo

rmal

deve

lopm

entp

lann

ing

and

impl

emen

tatio

npr

oces

ses

requ

ired

toin

corp

orat

eD

RRel

emen

ts(e

.g.h

azar

d,vu

lner

abili

tyan

dris

kan

alys

is,m

itiga

tion

plan

s).

M

ulti-

sect

oral

inst

itutio

nalp

latfo

rms

for

prom

otin

gD

RR.

Lo

calp

lann

ing

polic

ies,

regu

latio

nsan

dde

cisio

n-m

akin

gsy

stem

sta

kedi

sast

erris

kin

toac

coun

t.

4.In

tegr

atio

nw

ith4.

1C

omm

unity

and

othe

rlo

cal-l

evel

acto

rsin

sust

aina

ble

N

atio

nalp

olic

yfra

mew

ork

requ

ires

DRR

tobe

inco

rpor

ated

emer

genc

yde

velo

pmen

tand

DRR

enga

gein

join

tpla

nnin

gw

ithin

tode

sign

and

impl

emen

tatio

nof

disa

ster

resp

onse

and

resp

onse

and

com

mun

ityan

dlo

cal-l

evel

emer

genc

yte

ams

and

stru

ctur

es.

reco

very

.re

cove

ry

Polic

y,pl

anni

ngan

dop

erat

iona

llin

kage

sbe

twee

nem

erge

ncy

man

agem

ent,

DRR

and

deve

lopm

ents

truct

ures

.

Risk

redu

ctio

nin

corp

orat

edin

toof

ficia

l(an

din

tern

atio

nally

supp

orte

dan

dim

plem

ente

d)po

st-d

isast

erre

cons

truct

ion

plan

san

dac

tions

.

5.In

stitu

tiona

l5.

1Re

pres

enta

tive

com

mun

ityor

gani

satio

nsde

dica

ted

toD

RR/D

RM.

Su

ppor

tive

polit

ical

,adm

inist

rativ

ean

dfin

anci

alen

viro

nmen

tm

echa

nism

s,5.

2Lo

calN

GO

s,C

BOs

and

com

mun

ities

ofin

tere

sten

gage

dw

ithfo

rC

BDRM

and

com

mun

ity-b

ased

deve

lopm

ent.

capa

citie

san

dot

her

issue

sca

pabl

eof

supp

ortin

gD

RRan

dre

spon

se.3

In

stitu

tiona

lman

date

san

dre

spon

sibili

ties

for

DRR

clea

rlyst

ruct

ures

;5.

3Re

spon

sibili

ties,

reso

urce

s,et

c.,d

efin

edin

com

mun

ityde

fined

.Int

er-in

stitu

tiona

lor

co-o

rdin

atin

gm

echa

nism

sex

ist,

allo

catio

nof

disa

ster

plan

s.w

ithcl

early

desig

nate

dre

spon

sibili

ties.

resp

onsib

ilitie

s5.

4Sh

ared

unde

rsta

ndin

gam

ong

alll

ocal

stak

ehol

ders

rega

rdin

g

Foca

lpoi

ntat

natio

nall

evel

with

auth

ority

and

reso

urce

sto

DRR

resp

onsib

ilitie

s,au

thor

ityan

dde

cisio

nm

akin

g.co

-ord

inat

eal

lrel

ated

bodi

esin

volv

edin

disa

ster

5.5

Com

mun

ity-m

anag

edfu

nds

and

othe

rm

ater

ialr

esou

rces

for

man

agem

enta

ndD

RR.

DRR

and

disa

ster

reco

very

.

Hum

an,t

echn

ical

,mat

eria

land

finan

cial

reso

urce

sfo

rD

RR5.

6A

cces

sto

gove

rnm

enta

ndot

her

fund

ing

and

reso

urce

sfo

rad

equa

teto

mee

tdef

ined

inst

itutio

nalr

oles

and

DRR

and

reco

very

.re

spon

sibili

ties

(incl

udin

gbu

dget

ary

allo

catio

nsp

ecifi

cally

toD

RRat

natio

nala

ndlo

call

evel

s).

D

evol

utio

nof

resp

onsib

ility

(and

reso

urce

s)fo

rD

RRpl

anni

ngan

dim

plem

enta

tion

tolo

calg

over

nmen

tlev

els

and

com

mun

ities

,as

far

aspo

ssib

le,b

acke

dup

bypr

ovisi

onof

spec

ialis

texp

ertis

ean

dre

sour

ces

tosu

ppor

tloc

alde

cisio

n-m

akin

g,pl

anni

ngan

dm

anag

emen

tofd

isast

ers.

C

omm

itted

and

effe

ctiv

eco

mm

unity

outre

ach

serv

ices

(DRR

and

rela

ted

serv

ices

,e.g

.hea

lthca

re).

Com

pone

nts

Cha

ract

eris

tics

ofa

Dis

aste

r-re

silie

ntC

omm

unity

Cha

ract

eris

tics

ofan

Enab

ling

Envi

ronm

ent

ofRe

silie

nce

20


6.Pa

rtner

ship

s6.

1Lo

cals

take

hold

ers

com

mitt

edto

genu

ine

partn

ersh

ips

(with

open

D

RRid

entif

ied

asre

spon

sibili

tyof

alls

ecto

rsof

soci

ety

and

shar

edpr

inci

ples

ofco

llabo

ratio

n,hi

ghle

vels

oftru

st).

(pub

lic,p

rivat

e,ci

vil),

with

appr

opria

tein

ter-

sect

oral

and

co-

6.2

Cle

ar,a

gree

dan

dst

able

DRR

partn

ersh

ips

betw

een

loca

lor

dina

ting

mec

hani

sms.

stak

ehol

der

grou

psan

dor

gani

satio

ns(c

omm

uniti

esan

dC

BOs

Lo

ng-t

erm

civi

lsoc

iety

,NG

O,p

rivat

ese

ctor

and

com

mun

ityw

ithlo

cala

utho

ritie

s,N

GO

s,bu

sines

ses,

etc.

).pa

rtici

patio

nan

din

ter-

sect

oral

partn

ersh

ips

for

DRR

and

6.3

Proc

esse

sar

eco

mm

unity

-led

(sup

porte

dby

exte

rnal

agen

cies

).em

erge

ncy

resp

onse

.6.

4Lo

calc

apac

ityan

den

thus

iasm

topr

omot

eD

RRan

dsc

ale

Li

nkag

esw

ithre

gion

alan

dgl

obal

inst

itutio

nsan

dth

eir

DRR

upac

tiviti

es(th

roug

hco

mm

unity

-ext

erna

lact

orpa

rtner

ship

s).

initi

ativ

es.

6.5

Com

mun

ityan

dlo

calg

roup

s/or

gani

satio

nsha

veca

paci

tyto

recr

uit,

train

,sup

port

and

mot

ivat

eco

mm

unity

volu

ntee

rsfo

rD

RR,a

ndw

ork

toge

ther

todo

so.

7.A

ccou

ntab

ility

7.1

Dev

olve

dD

RRst

ruct

ures

faci

litat

eco

mm

unity

parti

cipa

tion.

Ba

sicrig

hts

ofpe

ople

form

ally

reco

gnise

dby

natio

nala

ndan

dco

mm

unity

7.2

Acc

ess

toin

form

atio

non

loca

lgov

ernm

entp

lans

,stru

ctur

es,e

tc.

loca

lgov

ernm

ent(

and

civi

lsoc

iety

orga

nisa

tions

:C

SOs)

:to

parti

cipa

tion

7.3

Trus

twith

inco

mm

unity

and

betw

een

com

mun

ityan

dex

tern

alsa

fety

,to

equi

tabl

evu

lner

abili

tyre

duct

ion

and

relie

fag

enci

es.

assis

tanc

e,to

belis

tene

dto

and

cons

ulte

d(im

plie

s7.

4C

apac

ityto

chal

leng

ean

dlo

bby

exte

rnal

agen

cies

onD

RRre

spon

sibili

tyto

guar

ante

eth

ese

right

sw

here

appr

opria

te).

plan

s,pr

iorit

ies,

actio

nsth

atm

ayha

vean

impa

cton

risk.

Ef

fect

ive

qual

ityco

ntro

lor

audi

tmec

hani

sms

for

offic

ial

7.5

Parti

cipa

tory

M&

Esy

stem

sto

asse

ssre

silie

nce

and

prog

ress

inD

RR.

stru

ctur

es,s

yste

ms,

etc.

,in

plac

ean

dap

plie

d.7.

6In

clus

ion/

repr

esen

tatio

nof

vuln

erab

legr

oups

inco

mm

unity

D

emoc

ratic

syst

emof

gove

rnan

ceho

ldin

gde

cisio

nm

aker

sto

deci

sion

mak

ing

and

man

agem

ento

fDRR

.ac

coun

t.7.

7H

igh

leve

lofv

olun

teer

ismin

DRR

activ

ities

.

Gov

ernm

entc

onsu

ltsci

vils

ocie

ty,N

GO

s,pr

ivat

ese

ctor

and

com

mun

ities

.

Popu

lar

parti

cipa

tion

inpo

licy

deve

lopm

enta

ndim

plem

enta

tion.

C

itize

nde

man

dsfo

rac

tion

tore

duce

disa

ster

risk.

Ex

isten

ceof

wat

chdo

ggr

oups

topr

ess

for

chan

ge.

1In

clud

ing

agre

emen

ton

leve

lofa

ccep

tabl

eris

k.

2Po

verty

Redu

ctio

nSt

rate

gies

,nat

iona

lMill

enni

umD

evel

opm

entG

oalr

epor

ts,N

atio

nalA

dapt

atio

nPl

ans

ofA

ctio

n,U

ND

Pas

sista

nce

fram

ewor

ks,e

tc.

3i.e

.em

erge

nt,e

xten

ding

orex

pand

ing

orga

nisa

tions

.Exp

andi

ngor

gani

satio

nsar

eex

pect

edto

take

onad

ditio

nalf

unct

ions

attim

esof

crisi

s,w

hich

they

doby

incr

easin

gth

eir

capa

city

oral

terin

gth

eir

orga

nisa

tiona

lstru

ctur

es(e

.g.a

loca

lRed

Cro

ssbr

anch

calli

ngon

train

edvo

lunt

eers

tosu

ppor

tits

smal

lcor

eof

prof

essio

nals

taff)

.Ext

endi

ngor

gani

satio

nsar

eno

texp

ecte

dto

resp

ond

todi

sast

ers

but

durin

gdi

sast

ers

may

perfo

rmno

n-re

gula

rta

sks

(e.g

.aco

nstru

ctio

nco

mpa

nycl

earin

gde

bris

toas

sistr

escu

eop

erat

ions

).Em

erge

ntor

gani

satio

nsdo

note

xist

befo

rea

disa

ster

even

tbut

form

inre

spon

seto

it(e

.g.s

pont

aneo

usse

arch

and

resc

uegr

oups

).Se

eW

ebb

GR

1999

,Ind

ivid

uala

ndO

rgan

izat

iona

lRes

pons

eto

Nat

ural

Disa

ster

san

dot

her

Cris

isEv

ents

:the

cont

inui

ngva

lue

ofth

eD

RCty

polo

gy(U

nive

rsity

ofD

elaw

are,

Disa

ster

Rese

arch

Cen

ter,

Prel

imin

ary

Pape

r#

277)

,ww

w.u

del.e

du/D

RC/p

relim

inar

y/pp

277.

pdf

Com

pone

nts

Cha

ract

eris

tics

ofa

Dis

aste

r-re

silie

ntC

omm

unity

Cha

ract

eris

tics

ofan

Enab

ling

Envi

ronm

ent

ofRe

silie

nce

21

Thematic Area 2: Risk Assessment

Thematic Area 2: Risk Assessment

Components of resilience:

1. Hazards/risk data and assessment

2. Vulnerability and impact data and assessment

3. Scientific and technical capacities and innovation

22


Com

pone

nts

Cha

ract

eris

tics

ofa

Dis

aste

r-re

silie

ntC

omm

unity

Cha

ract

eris

tics

ofan

Enab

ling

Envi

ronm

ent

ofRe

silie

nce

1.H

azar

ds/ri

sk1.

1C

omm

unity

haza

rd/ri

skas

sess

men

tsca

rrie

dou

twhi

chpr

ovid

e

Haz

ard/

risk

asse

ssm

ents

man

date

din

publ

icpo

licy,

data

and

com

preh

ensiv

epi

ctur

eof

allm

ajor

haza

rds

and

risks

faci

ngle

gisla

tion,

etc.

,with

stan

dard

sfo

rpr

epar

atio

n,pu

blic

atio

n,as

sess

men

tco

mm

unity

(and

pote

ntia

lrisk

s).

revi

sion.

1.2

Haz

ard/

risk

asse

ssm

enti

spa

rtici

pato

rypr

oces

sin

clud

ing

Sy

stem

atic

and

repe

ated

asse

ssm

ents

ofha

zard

san

ddi

sast

erre

pres

enta

tives

ofal

lsec

tions

ofco

mm

unity

and

sour

ces

risks

unde

rtake

nin

high

er-le

veld

evel

opm

entp

rogr

amm

ing.

ofex

perti

se.

Hig

h-ris

kar

eas

iden

tifie

d.1.

3A

sses

smen

tfin

ding

ssh

ared

,disc

usse

d,un

ders

tood

and

agre

ed

Goo

d-qu

ality

data

onha

zard

san

dris

ks(s

cien

tific

data

base

s,am

ong

alls

take

hold

ers,

and

feed

into

com

mun

itydi

sast

erpl

anni

ng.

offic

ialr

epor

ts,e

tc.)

mad

eav

aila

ble

tosu

ppor

tloc

al-le

vel

1.4

Find

ings

mad

eav

aila

ble

toal

lint

eres

ted

parti

es(w

ithin

and

asse

ssm

ents

.ou

tsid

eco

mm

unity

,loc

ally

and

athi

gher

leve

ls)an

dfe

edin

to

Exist

ing

know

ledg

eco

llect

ed,s

ynth

esise

dan

dsh

ared

thei

rdi

sast

erpl

anni

ng.

syst

emat

ical

ly(th

roug

hdi

sast

erm

anag

emen

tinf

orm

atio

n1.

5O

ngoi

ngm

onito

ring

ofha

zard

san

dris

ksan

dup

datin

gof

syst

ems)

.as

sess

men

ts.

Pa

rtici

patio

nof

allr

elev

anta

genc

ies/

stak

ehol

ders

in1.

6Sk

ills

and

capa

city

toca

rry

outc

omm

unity

haza

rdan

dris

kas

sess

men

ts.

asse

ssm

ents

mai

ntai

ned

thro

ugh

supp

orta

ndtra

inin

g.

Gov

ernm

ent(

loca

land

/or

natio

nal)

and

NG

Os

com

mitt

edto

prov

idin

gte

chni

cala

ndot

her

supp

ortt

olo

cala

ndco

mm

unity

haza

rd/ri

skas

sess

men

ts.

2.Vu

lner

abili

ty2.

1C

omm

unity

vuln

erab

ility

and

capa

city

asse

ssm

ents

(VC

As)

V

CA

man

date

din

publ

icpo

licy,

legi

slatio

n,et

c.,w

ithan

dim

pact

data

carr

ied

outw

hich

prov

ide

com

preh

ensiv

epi

ctur

eof

stan

dard

sfo

rpr

epar

atio

n,pu

blic

atio

n,re

visio

n.an

das

sess

men

tvu

lner

abili

ties

and

capa

citie

s.

Vuln

erab

ility

and

capa

city

indi

cato

rsde

velo

ped

and

2.2

VC

Ais

parti

cipa

tory

proc

ess

incl

udin

gre

pres

enta

tives

ofal

lsy

stem

atic

ally

map

ped

and

reco

rded

(cov

erin

gal

lrel

evan

tvu

lner

able

grou

ps.

soci

al,e

cono

mic

,phy

sical

and

envi

ronm

enta

l,po

litic

al,

2.3

Ass

essm

entf

indi

ngs

shar

ed,d

iscus

sed,

unde

rsto

odan

dcu

ltura

lfac

tors

).ag

reed

amon

gal

lsta

keho

lder

san

dfe

edin

toco

mm

unity

D

isast

erim

pact

data

and

stat

istic

allo

ssin

form

atio

nav

aila

ble

disa

ster

plan

ning

community-characteristics-en-lowres.pdf

Documents

community level

composite characteristics

qualitative characteristics

community meeting

thematic area

disaster preparedness

risk assessment

international development