Characteristics of a Disaster-resilent Community · framework developed by the UN International...
Transcript of Characteristics of a Disaster-resilent Community · framework developed by the UN International...
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.
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.
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note
The aim has been to provide a comprehensive listof characteristics of DRR, but users will probablyidentify additional characteristics when they test theguidance note in the field. It is hoped to include thesein future editions.
The tables also indicate the main characteristics ofthe ‘enabling environment’ which is necessary forcommunity-level initiatives to succeed.
It should be emphasised that the ‘disaster-resilientcommunity’ is an ideal, for in reality no communitycan be free of risk. The tables present characteristics ofthis ideal state, not project output or outcomeindicators in the conventional sense. But by combiningvarious elements of resilience identified here, DRRproject workers can greatly increase communities’capacities to withstand hazard events.
Another important point to make is that thecharacteristics set out in this document are generalones for all contexts, whereas every project, locationand community is unique. Those who use thisguidance note will probably focus on those elementsof resilience that are most appropriate to theconditions they are working in or to the kind of workthat they do.
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
Version 1 (for fieldtesting), August 2007
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
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note
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
Version 1 (for fieldtesting), August 2007
must be linked to an understanding of the socio-economic differentiations, linkages and dynamicswithin the area at risk, not only to identify vulnerablegroups but also to understand the diverse factors thatcontribute to vulnerability. Community businesses,services and infrastructure must also be taken intoaccount.
Communities do not exist in isolation. The level ofa community’s resilience is also influenced bycapacities outside the community, in particular byemergency management services but also by othersocial and administrative services, public infrastructureand a web of socio-economic and political linkageswith the wider world. Virtually all communities aredependent on external service providers to a greateror lesser extent. The ‘enabling environment’ sectionsin the tables try to capture some of these influences.
7
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note
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
Version 1 (for fieldtesting), August 2007
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
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note
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).
Version 1 (for fieldtesting), August 2007
2.4 Composite characteristicsSome characteristics are composites of individualcharacteristics – for example:
[hazard/risk] assessment findings shared,discussed, understood and agreed among allstakeholders, and feed into community disasterplanning.
This contains two main elements: (1) sharing,discussion, understanding and agreement aboutassessment findings among all stakeholders; (2)assessment findings feed into community disasterplanning. The first main element can also be split intofour more particular elements: sharing, discussion,understanding and agreement. One reason foraggregating characteristics in this way is to make thisdocument more manageable: without it, the tableswould be extremely long. But this has only been donewhere the different characteristics are strongly linkedto one another. In practice, and depending on whatpurpose they are using the tables for, organisationsmay wish to disaggregate some of the characteristics.
2.5 Quantitative versus qualitativecharacteristicsThe characteristics set out in these tables arequalitative. Communities and their partners thereforeneed to make their own judgements about whether ornot certain aspects of resilience have been achieved.Some of these will be more straightforward thanothers. For instance, it is easy to tell if a communitydisaster preparedness or contingency plan exists (evenif its quality is another matter). But it is much harder todecide if there is an equitable distribution of wealthand livelihood assets in a community, or the adequacyof access to common property resources that cansupport coping strategies during crises.
The guidance note cannot tell projects andcommunities how they should reach thesejudgements. They are matters for collective agreementbetween the stakeholders. The conclusions will bedifferent in each case, according to context andexpectations, and there will be a fair amount ofsubjective judgement. But in every case the processfor reaching decisions must be transparent andparticipatory.
Some guidelines and experts have suggested theneed for quantitative indicators of certain aspects ofDRR (e.g. the number of volunteers trained in first aid,
the percentage of households in a community withproperty insurance). It is impossible to fix standardquantitative measures that can be applied to everycontext but quantitative indicators can be used at anindividual project level, if required. In such cases, theycould form part of the data on which the broaderjudgements about attainment of characteristics ofresilience are based. It is for individual project teamsto decide what kinds of quantitative indicator areappropriate and what levels of attainment to set.
3. Characteristics of an EnablingEnvironmentIn this guidance note, the focus is on communities andlocal organisations (although individual and householdresilience is incorporated in the tables to some extent).However, the framework acknowledges theimportance of wider institutional, policy and socio-economic factors in supporting community-levelresilience.
The tables identify the main elements of this‘enabling environment’5 in relation to eachcomponent of resilience. They are less detailed thanthe characteristics of community resilience. Most aretaken from the national-level DRR indicatorframeworks being developed by UN ISDR and UNOCHA (see Further Reading).
The following table (on page 12) illustrates how thisworks for one component of resilience. Note that itincludes local and national level characteristics.Elsewhere in the tables, international dimensions ofthe enabling environment are also sometimesincluded.
People who work on community resilience need tobe conscious of the enabling environment and theeffect it may have on their work, but they cannot beexpected to analyse it in detail. An individual projectwill probably undertake a quick, subjective assessmentof the enabling environment. However, anorganisation working on a number of communityprojects in a particular country – e.g. a national orinternational NGO – may wish to carry out a morethorough assessment to inform its work or to supportadvocacy.
Many features of the ideal enabling environmentwill be missing in many cases. In some situations thelack of key components of support may be so greatthat it creates what may be called a ‘disabling’
5 The term ‘enabling environment’ is borrowed from the All India Disaster Mitigation Institute. See ‘The Need for a More Nuanced View ofLocal Capacity and the Support Approaches of Outsiders’. southasiadisasters.net 2006 #18 (August), p.4.http://www.southasiadisasters.net/publication.htm The IFRC’s ongoing work on local-level DRR indicators uses a C-I-T categorisation toconsider this (where C = issues the community can change; I = issues the community can influence to find solutions; T = issues where thecommunity recognises that transformation will take a long time and is out of their hands): Barrena I 2007, ‘Indicators: A guide to find simpleindicators for risk reduction projects at local level’. (Geneva: IFRC, unpublished draft report).
11
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note
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
Version 1 (for fieldtesting), August 2007
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
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note
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.
Version 1 (for fieldtesting), August 2007
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
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note
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
Version 1 (for fieldtesting), August 2007
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
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
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
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
21
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
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
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note
Thematic Area 3: Knowledge and Education
Components of resilience:
1. Public awareness, knowledge and skills
2. Information management and sharing
3. Education and training
4. Cultures, attitudes, motivation
5. Learning and research
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
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance NoteCo
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
Components of resilience:
1. Environmental and natural resource management
2. Health and well being
3. Sustainable livelihoods
4. Social protection
5. Financial instruments
6. Physical protection; structural and technical measures
7. Planning régimes
27
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
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
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
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
Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note
Thematic Area 5: Disaster Preparedness andResponse
Components of resilience
1. Organisational capacities and co-ordination
2. Early warning systems
3. Preparedness and contingency planning
4. Emergency resources and infrastructure
5. Emergency response and recovery
6. Participation, voluntarism, accountability
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
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
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
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
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