Inputs for Post 2015 Framework for DRR
(HFA2) from the Asia Pacific Region
Key Area 1 Report: Building Community
Resilience
List of Contributors
Countries [9]: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and
Vietnam
Partners [10]:
Action Aid [Pakistan], Asian Coalition for School Safety, ACF France, DiDRRN, International
Federation of Red Cross Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), Nippon Foundation and Japanese
Disability Forum, Save the Children/ Rise Together [Japan], UNICEF / EAPRO, Save the
Children, Queensland University of Technology [Australia],
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Key Message and Recommended Actions for HFA2
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Background and the main questions explored
1.2 Sources of information, limitations, linkages with the AMCDRR discussions, and structure and content of the
report
1.3 The development of community resilience as an approach to tackle risks
1.4 Unpacking resilience and community resilience
1.5 Key characteristics, elements, and capacities of resilient communities
1.6 The role of schools in building community resilience
Chapter 2: Applying the Community Resilience Approach
2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
2.5.
Observed challenges in applying the community resilience concept to disaster risk reduction
Community-based disaster risk reduction within the context of community resilience
Community resilience within the context of HFA1
Identification of Main Issues and Themes
Examples of Resilient Communities in Asia
Chapter 3: Conclusions and Recommendations for HFA2
3.1.
3.2.
3.3.
3.4.
3.5.
3.6.
Recommendations for building community resilience in HFA2
Specific recommended actions
Other key points
Key stakeholder and mechanism for engagement and partnership building
Enhancing the role of HFA2
Key message
References
Annex A:
Annex B:
Annex C:
Annex D:
Community-based Disaster Risk Reduction, Community Resilience and HFA1
Case Studies and Examples of Good Practice in Support of Recommendations for HFA2 on
Building Community Resilience
Examples of Other Initiatives Highlighting Additional Issues
1. Case Studies and Examples of Good Practice in the Education Sector
2. HFA1 Priorities in the Education Sector
3. Grading Achievement Form for HFA Quality Indicators for Education
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 2
Executive Summary
Despite a downward trend in mortality for hydro-meteorological hazards where early warning is possible, the Asia
Pacific region continues to be the most disaster prone region in the world, and countries continue to have to respond
to disasters on an unprecedented scale. This is exemplified by the catastrophic complex cascading disasters such as
the Great Japan Earthquake and subsequent tsunami and the Southeast Asia floods in 2011, which contributed
greatly to staggering loss of $294 billion from disasters that affected the region’s states1 (UNESCAP/UNISDR, 2012).
More recently, Typhoon Haiyan, that struck the Central Philippines in November 2013, left at least 6,200 fatalities and
damaged more than a million homes across the country (IFRC, 2014b).
In the past four decades alone, the average number of people in the Asia Pacific region exposed to annual flooding
has increased from 29.5 to 63.8 million, whilst populations in cyclone prone areas have grown from 71.8 to 120.7
million (UNESCAP/UNISDR, 2012).
This increase in number of people exposed, and the continued disaster-related loss and damage, can be attributed to
the increase in hazard exposure, as new private and public investments have been concentrated along coastlines
prone to cyclones and tsunamis, in flood prone river basins, and in cities prone to earthquakes. Poorly planned and
managed urban areas, environmental degradation, poverty and inequality, and weak governance mechanisms also
contribute to drive this increase in loss and damage.
These high-severity, mid to low frequency major hazards reverberates throughout the global supply chain, and
present a systemic risk to the global economy for business, governments and society at large.
Less visible are the frequent and recurring low-severity, high frequency localized disasters that occur year on year.
These are now recognized as having a cumulative impact greater than large-scale events (UNISR, 2011b), with
studies showing increased fatalities between 1970 and 2009 in countries such as Laos and Indonesia
(UNESCAP/UNISDR, 2012). These mostly affect disadvantaged private citizens and communities in the region who
are forced to live in high-risk areas, and thus pay the highest prices. Seventy percent of the flood damage in Pakistan
was borne by exposed and vulnerable poor households and small farmers2 in 2010, whilst Typhoon Ketsana resulted
in smaller farmers in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic bearing 50% of the $58 million losses, and 90% of the
flood damage in the Philippines to be borne by low-income urban households and on small and informal enterprises
that provide the vast majority of employment in the capital city (Ibid.).
This increase in exposure and risk demonstrates that development and the extensive disaster risk reduction efforts
undertaken to date has been mostly unsustainable and ineffective, and it is unlikely that key sustainable objectives,
such as the end of extreme poverty, will be achieved, and development-induced risks will be halted and reversed,
without vast transformations in the way that risks and uncertainty are managed.
Looking ahead, potential increases in frequency of high magnitude weather-related hazards have been projected due
to the accelerated accumulation of greenhouse gas in our atmosphere generated by our current economic processes.
Projected increases in uncertainty brought about by climate change, is expected magnify the effects of underlying
risks described above, rendering traditional coping mechanisms, that have been used to tackle these historically
observed natural hazards, to be inadequate. The associated increased mortality, impacts on social welfare, economic
growth, food security, and environmental health will threaten the viability and sustainability of nations, enterprises and
communities.
This calls for the critical review of existing policy, processes, practices and patterns that shield social and economic
development from what is conceptualized as external events and shocks. In order to tackle existing and emerging
1
These losses accounted for 80% of the $366 billon global losses from disasters in 2013.
2 These include those of moved onto traditional flood plains of the Indus river to improve their crop production.
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 3
challenges, and seize potential opportunities, international and local efforts to ensure that that risk management is
truly integral to sustainable development policy and practices, must be increased.
This requires a systematic application of an integrated, dynamic, multi-hazard, multi-scalar and cross-sectoral
process that are best embodied in the resilience approach that is framed beyond the narrow confines reducing
disaster risks.
The limitation of disaster risk reduction is that it is framed around isolated efforts by its practitioners to manage and
address underlying drivers of risk, without due appreciation of the complexities of inter-connections within systems,
including positive and negative feedback loops, and within communities with which they work. For example,
legislation on land zoning needs to be accompanied by mechanisms that ensure that they are implemented. This
requires multiple ministries and organisations to jointly build knowledge, monitor and ensure that lessons learned in
the past, and address through actions are maintained.
Disaster laws also facilitate the strengthening of resilience and community engagement, and governments are
encouraged to establish and/or update relevant disaster management legislation.
One constant observation in any aftermath is that local
communities are always the first responders - pls see Table 1
(IFRC, 2004), and that communities that exhibit strong
knowledge on risk reduction through preparedness, social
cohesion and connectivity with external agencies are most likely
to not only return to their prior state of development, through the
ability to maintain structure and function, but to progress
collectively in achieving sustainable development goals (IFRC,
2012a). These are a few of the key characteristics exhibited by
resilient communities.
Table 1: Great Hanshin EQ (Kobe, Japan) 1991
Rescued by Fire department
7,900
Rescued by neighbors
27,100
Self-evacuated
129,000
In an age of change and uncertainty, fostering resilient communities is a fundamental aspect of enhancing national
resilience (McAslan, 2010b).
It is within this context that the Asia Pacific region seeks to recommend that the post-2015 Framework for Disaster
Risk Reduction (HFA2) includes provisions to ensure institutionalization of community resilience building, in the global
effort to achieving sustainable development goals.
Key Message
In this age of change and uncertainty, building community resilience is essential to ensuring an improved and risksensitive future.
Using a resilience approach to address disaster risks at the (national and) community level will assist the re-framing
of HFA2 under an overarching sustainable development objective.
Thus, community resilience approaches should be institutionalized and integrated multi-sectorally in all local
level risk reduction programmes.
Recommendation for Building Community Resilience in HFA2
Given that communities are at the fore-front of any disasters, the recommendations for HFA2 to create enabling
environments to foster community resilience are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Strengthen integration of community resilience approaches in key national policies/strategies cross-sectorally,
Improve community knowledge and build capacity to learn and re-organize in the face of uncertainty,
Strengthen local governance mechanisms and promote complementarities,
Strengthen the social cohesion and connectedness of communities,
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 4
5. Strengthen and explore partnerships, and
6. Adopt a long-term perspective.
Specific actions to achieve these recommendations are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Consolidate, build on and scale up good community practices ensuring holistic approach to community needs,
Support the establishment of informed community resilience groups/networks and public dialogue processes,
Establish partnerships to build flexible, learning-oriented institutions, and ensure complementarities,
Adopt the use of social audits,
Undertake/harmonize comprehensive cross-sectoral assessments, planning and implementation, and
Strengthen disaster polices and laws.
These actions are required to strengthen the adaptive and transformative capacities of communities, to ensure longterm sustainability of community-based programmes, engagement by and of the community, and of the government
and other stakeholders in building community resilience.
Ensuring institutionalization of resilience approach can be demonstrated through an example of the global IFRC
Community Safety and Resilience Framework, adopted in 2008 with the following principal goal: “To establish a
foundation on which all Red Cross Red Crescent programmes, projects and interventions in DRR and all actions
which contribute to the building of safe and resilient communities can be created, developed and sustained”.
The use of this framework in programming for safety, resilience and DRR assumes support to Red Cross National
Societies through the following three strategic objectives:
1 the integration of DRR into policies, planning and longer-term programming
2 targeted disaster prevention, mitigation and preparedness activities and advocacy
3 the focused integration of DRR considerations into humanitarian response and disaster recovery
All the actions taken in the implementation of DRR projects and programmes are directly linked to the five priorities of
the HFA. Most recently, this framework has been undergoing review in order to make it more inclusive ensuring
integration of other key sectors aside disaster management, such as health, to reflect more holistically the realities on
the ground and contribute more integrated community needs to build their resilience.
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Background and the Main Questions Explored
Since the development, adoption and implementation of Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA1), disaster risk reduction
actors in the Asia Pacific region have placed a strong focus on reducing vulnerability. Learning derived from this
implementation and outcomes from Phase I of the Post-2015 Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (HFA2)
consultations indicate the need to shift this focus to that of resilience, as this allows for the leveraging of mutually
reinforcing agendas for poverty alleviation and climate change adaptation, and dealing with rising inequalities in the
region. Thus, risk reduction and strengthening resilience are critical elements in promoting sustainable development
and should be part of the international development agenda beyond 2015 (post Millennium Development Goals).
In this light, “Building Community Resilience – turning vulnerability into resilience” is one of seven key areas that were
identified for more in-depth exploration in the region3. This Report explores what action are required to build
The decision to explore this Key Area further is based on Phase 1 of the HFA2 consultation, the Asia Pacific Disaster Report 2012, the HFA1
Monitor: Asia Pacific 2011-13, the HFA1 Mid-Term Review 2013, the Global Assessments Report in 2011 and 2013, the Global Platform 2013
Chairs Summary, and the proposed sub-themes for the 6th Asian Ministerial Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (6AMCDRR).
3
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 5
community resilience, recognizing that the term “community” encompasses diverse groups of men and women,
children and young people, older people and persons with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups.
The main questions to be explored within this report are the characteristics of resilient communities, and what actions
are required to build this. This is framed by the current understanding of the term, and through an analysis of the
emerging practice of building community resilience, dwelling briefly on the challenges that have been encountered,
and the remaining gaps that need to be addressed. Based on this, recommendations and specific actions for HFA2
are outlined drawing on practical experience, along with some suggestions on specific stakeholders who should
implement these actions, mechanisms that could be put in place to measure progress in building community
resilience, and examples of indicators that could be used to monitor the proposed specific actions.
1.2 Main Sources of Information, Limitations, Linkages with the AMCDRR Discussions, and Structure
and Content of the Report
The main sources of information for this Key Area Report on Building Community Resilience in the Asia Pacific
Region (Report) derives mainly from a basic literature review, and case studies submitted by several governments
and stakeholder groups from Asia received through Phase II of the HFA2 consultation process (See Annex B).
This Report compliments a separate Technical Session Background Document (Paper) that is being jointly prepared
by IFRC and the Asian Disaster Risk Reduction Network (ADRRN) on the sub-theme “Enhancing Resilience at Local
Levels”. This Paper will reflect in more detail key achievements from HFA1, the success factors, barriers, and
remaining challenges. Conclusions and recommendations in the Paper will focus on implementation of DRR in Asia
until the 7th AMCDRR. This Paper will inform part of the discussions during the 6th Asian Ministerial Conference for
DRR (6AMCDRR), and the resulting Declaration will draw upon both the Paper and the discussions in this Report.
The remainder of this chapter examines the development of community resilience as an approach to tackle risks
(Section 1.3); unpacks resilience and community resilience (Section 1.4), lists the currently identified characteristics
and elements of resilience communities (Section 1.5), and outlines the role of schools in building community
resilience (Section1.6).
Chapter 2 provides an analysis of applying the community resilience approach to reduce disaster risks, by outlining
the linkages between community resilience and community-based disaster risk reduction, noting the references to
CBDRR and community resilience in HFA1, the identification of main issues and themes, and examples of resilient
communities resilience in the Asia Pacific region.
Chapter 3 provides a summary of the main conclusions, outlines the recommendations for HFA2 on building
community resilience, specifies actions of achieve these recommendations, and indicators for achieving these specific
actions. Some suggestions on relevant key stakeholders and mechanisms and partnership building are provided, as
well as some recommendations on how the role of HFA2 can be enhanced.
1.3 The Development of Community Resilience as an Approach to Tackle Risks
The last 25 years has seen a gradual paradigm shift from disaster response, to disaster prevention, to disaster
management and to disaster risk reduction. Initial initiatives focused on responding to emergencies and disasters
through relief and recovery management, to activities in the 1980’s that that focused on the notion that prevention is
more effective than the treatment of symptoms (IFRC, 2008b).
It was soon realized that there were limits to the total prevention of disasters, and that the loss of lives and damages
from disasters could be lessened through the systematic development of structural measures to mitigate the impacts
of disasters, and through non-structural measures such as the application of administrative directives, organizations,
and operational skills and capacities to implement strategies and policies. This new thinking was referred to as
disaster risk management.
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 6
At the same time, the majority of humanitarian relief agencies also began to appreciate that under the circumstances
of an extreme event resulting in failure of infrastructure and technology, it was important to build the capacity of
communities to survive these events and act as effective first responders. This, and the appreciation of community
coping mechanisms before, during and in the aftermath of disasters, gave rise to the development of communitybased disaster risk management activities that recognizes that risks are related to exposure of hazards and
vulnerability, as well as the community and individual’s capacity to anticipate and prepare for disasters.
Subsequently, the notion of merely managing disaster risks, primarily in low to middle income countries, was seen as
being insufficient, and renewed global efforts called for the reduction of disaster risks, through both the management
and addressing of underlying drivers of risk. This required comprehensive and systematic approaches to analyze how
exposure, sensitivity and vulnerability to hazards could be lessened, and represented a first step towards the
convergence with development and environment-focused programming. This broadening of the approach also
provided an additional dimension to tackling slow on-set disasters such as drought, which can be exacerbated by
poor land and water management practices.
Whilst reducing disaster risks remained a focus of the DRR community, it also recognized that this was only one
aspect of addressing underlying vulnerability and poverty, and that the latter was also related to livelihoods and the
broader state of and access to natural resources.
Central to this notion is that reducing disaster risks cannot be
achieved through DRR actors alone, and that it needs to be
integrated into broader development planning and into other
sectors. This requires working with development and
environment practitioners across different disciplines to work
collectively in a coordinated manner to reduce vulnerability to
hazards (Thomalla, 2006).
Table 2: Importance of Community Based DRR
Cyclone
SIDR
Bangladesh 2007
Catg. 5
Cyclone NARGIS
2008 Myanmar
Catg. 4
3,500 + casualties
(3 millions
evacuated)
120,000 + casualties
700,000 homes
destroyed
Today, as communities become increasingly globalized and connected, they are exposed to larger number of
stressors, complex and wicked problems that require more effectively systems-based and integrated approaches.
Within this in mind, the appeal of using the concept of resilience has increased.
When applied to communities that have been affected by disasters, it represents not only returning to prior state of
development, through the ability to maintain structure and function, but moving forward, in the face of increasing and
uncertain risk.
When the concept of resilience was initially applied to disaster risk reduction in 2004, it was defined by ISDR (ISDR,
2005) as:
“The capacity of a system, community or society potentially exposed to hazards to adapt, by resisting or
changing in order to reach and maintain an acceptable level of functioning and structure. This is determined by the
degree to which the social system is capable of organizing itself to increase this capacity for learning from past
disasters for better future protection and to improve risk reduction measures.”
This was then modified to the following in 2009 (ISDR, 2009):
“The ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb, accommodate to and
recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the preservation and
restoration of its essential basic structures and functions.”
The 2009 definition was accompanied by a notation describing two key characteristics of community resilience,
namely the degree to which the community has necessary resources, and is able to organize itself both prior
to and during times of need (ibid).
Both definitions thus capture the notion of resisting, absorbing, accommodating, adapting, changing, recovering,
reaching, maintaining, preservation, restoration, the capacity to learn and organize, the possession of resources,
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 7
better future protection, and the need to improve.
Initially, discussions amongst DRR practitioners related to building resilient communities focused on making the case
for DRR, and highlighting that investing in DRR protects development gains, and would thus lead to more resilient
nations and countries. However, much of this was framed mainly on building disaster resilience, and not the overall
resilience of communities (Case Study 8: IFRC).
More recently, studies (Frankenberger et al., 2013) have tried to explore to concept of community resilience further by
distinguishing it from the building of individual and household resilience. This framework focuses more on a
community’s social capital as the foundation for collective action, collaboration and self-organization, and seeks to
build and support the capacity of communities specifically in this regard.
The notion of building resilience also lends itself to a more positive stated outcome and goal, through the determining
of characteristics of resilience. As an overarching concept, it can also be adopted readily and applied by actors in
other sectors e.g. Climate change adaptation actors who recognize the limits of adaptation, and value the
preservation of cultural and national identity of vulnerable communities that may be displaced by longer-term, slowonset global environment changes; and organizations such as RCRC who are using the concept as a means to
bridge its traditional humanitarian mission, with a shift in orientation towards development programming, and by other
development organizations such as Mercy Corp, Practical Action, Plan and World Vision to link its DRR and
development programmes (Mercy Corp, 2013; Practical Action, Pasteur, 2011; Save the Children, 2013a; World
Vision, 2009).
Consortiums of organizations, such as the Asian Coalition for School Safety, are working together thus linking school
and community-based resilience (enriched by child-participatory approaches and experiential learning for children and
communities).
1.4 Unpacking Resilience and Community Resilience
The term resilience is based on the Latin verb resilire (to rebound or recoil) and was first used in the 19th century to
describe a property of timber, and to explain why some types of wood were able to accommodate sudden and server
loads without breaking (McAslan, 2010a; IFRC, 2012b).
Resilience can be seen as ability of an individual, community, organisation or a country. A comprehensive approach
to resilience requires understanding the interconnectedness of these different levels and their link with regional and
global levels.5 The Red Cross Red Crescent analysis often starts at the community level and focuses on community
resilience. A comprehensive analysis requires understanding individuals and households and their resilience within
the community. In addition, we need to understand the external environment and its impact on the resilience of
individuals and their communities. Interventions to strengthen resilience can be taken on different levels and reinforce
each other. An example is parallel advocacy for equal public health policies on a national level, access to improved
waste management on a community level and delivering vaccinations on an individual level.
The word ability is key in understanding resilience. Ability is capacity or capability based on different human,
psychological, social, financial, physical, natural or political assets. The resilience approach acknowledges that there
is always capacity in people or communities. The objective of resilience strengthening is to increase this capacity to
withstand the effects of adversity.
Thus, in the simplest terms, it relates to the ability to respond and adapt effectively to changing circumstances
(IFRC, 2012c).
Despite the lack of a common and agreed definition of resilience, a review of the literature reveals that resilient
communities share most of the following attributes (Torrens Resilience Institute):
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 8
 the ability to be ready and prepared to face threats and events which are abnormal in terms of their scale, form or
timing;
 the ability to absorb and recover from shocks;
 the capacity to learn, plan for, and communicate about possible disruptions;
 the ability to self-organize and to be self-reliant in times of crisis; and
 strong social connectedness that serves as a “core engine” for response.
Thus, a community is resilient when members of the population are connected to, and work together with each other
and external actors, so that they:
 are able to function and sustain critical systems, even under stress;
 are able to adapt to changes in the physical, social or economic environment;
 are self-reliant if external resources are limited or cut off; and
 can learn from experience to improve their circumstances over time.
The key aspects of the community resilience approach that emerges from the above is that focuses on building the
capacity of communities to undertake collective action (Frankenberger et al., 2013) to achieve solutions that benefit
all members of the community, and not just one segment to the exclusion of others (SLHI, 2011). It is a process that
enables communities to combine key, positive dimensions of resilience and the use of community assets for collective
action.
This approach can be applied to undertake other means of collective action that result in outcomes that support the
security and well-being of all community members, such adequate nutrition, and food, economic and environmental
security (Frankenberger et al, 2013).
1.5 Key Characteristics, Elements and Capacities of Resilient Communities.
In spite of challenges of reaching a common consensus on
the definition of community resilience, attempts to identify
Figure 1. Six Characteristics of Resilient Communities (IFRC,
2012c)
key characteristic of resilient community has resulted in
much greater success. Through a ground level
observation of communities during the response and
recovery operations of the RCRC of tsunami affected
communities across Asia resulted in the identification of
the following key characteristics of a resilient community
(IFRC, 2012c).
A safe and resilient community:
 Is knowledgeable and healthy, able to assess,
manage and monitor its risk, and can learn new skills
and build on past experience
 Is organized and has the capacity to identify problems,
establish priorities and act
 Engaged in the development of local policy for
reducing risks
 Is connected and has relationships with external
actors who provide wider supportive environment, and
supply good and services when needed
 Has infrastructure and services: Systems to mitigate climate change, and ability to maintain, repair and renovate
the system
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 9


Has an economic opportunity: Diverse range of employment opportunities, income and financial services.
Flexible, resourceful, capacity to accept uncertainty, and respond proactively to change
Values and manages its natural resources, and has the ability to protect, enhance and maintain them.
Other adjectives used to describe resilient communities include: collaborative, equitable, inclusive, innovative,
motivated, and prepared. They also have aspirations, memory, and resilient governance systems are described as
transparent, open, accountable, representative and responsive.
In order to gain a better understanding of what “strengthening resilience” means, Bene et al, (2012) organized a
review of characteristics of a resilient system4 into three types of capacities.
1. Absorptive capacity: The ability to minimize exposure to shocks and stresses through preventative measures
and appropriate coping strategies to avoid permanent, negative impacts.
2. Adaptive capacity: Making proactive and informed choices about alternative livelihood strategies based on an
understanding of changing circumstances.
3. Transformative capacity: The governance mechanisms, policies/regulations, infrastructure, community networks,
and formal and informal social protection mechanisms that constitute the enabling environment for systemic
change.
These capacities are interconnected, mutually reinforcing, and exist at multiple levels (Bene, 2012; Frankenberger et
al, 2013).5
Examples of Community Disaster Resilience Capacities (Adapted from Bene et al 2012; Frankenberger et al, 2013)
include:
Phase
and Absorptive/Coping Capacity
Scale
of
Disasters
Adaptive Capacity
Transformative Capacity (Bouncing
Forward)
Pre-disaster,
 Functioning community-based
small scale that
early warning system
affects
only
 Functioning
communityhouseholds
information
dissemination
within
one
mechanism (risk assessment)
community
Post-disaster,
 Unaffected communities share  Communities
medium scale
resources with disasterexposed
to
where
affected
ones
(e.g.
proven
good
communities
remittances)
practices from
require support
other
 Unaffected communities share
from
communities who
knowledge, expertise, and
unaffected
face similar risks
networks based on their own
communities
(e.g.
typhoon,
experiences of similar shock
earthquake, etc)
(See Key Area 1 Report:
develop
their
Thailand Case Study)
own
new
 Inter-community
practices to suite
4
Bahadur et al, 2010.
5
More information on how social capital and the three capacities of resilience combine to achieve community resilience is
found in Frankenburger et al, 2013, Section 4b and summarized in Table 3.
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 10
communication/sharing
technologies, innovations
of
their context and
situation
Post-disaster,
 CSOs established as a
medium
to
response to disasters which
large
scale
provide community members
where
with voice and leverage in
communities
decision-making in externally
require support
supported rebuilding efforts
from external
(See Key Area 1 Report Case
actors
Study 2: Indonesia)
 Feedback mechanisms exist
between communities and
external
actors
who
collaborate and provide risk
management support to the
communities
Strong vertical linkages with external
actors exist resulting in:
 Access to funds for disaster
infrastructure
 Functioning risk governance and
accountability measures
 Functioning mechanisms for
equitable distribution of disaster
relief/benefits
 Function mechanisms to ensure
disaster policies, plans and
interventions are developed based
on inclusive representation from
different
community
sectors
(socio-cultural
groups;
women/men;
elderly/youth;
persons with disabilities)
1.5 The Role of Schools in Building Community Resilience
One of the key characteristics of a resilient community identified by the RCRC and ISDR (2009) is the possession and
access to resources. One of the many types of tangible and intangible assets that are necessary for community
resilience is physical capital in terms of infrastructure and services. An example of a tangible and intangible asset that
is located within communities is the school. Children themselves are among the most vulnerable groups in times of
disasters, at times paying the highest price due to lack of awareness about the risks, due to their vulnerabilities and
preparedness capacities to respond. They are often recovering from traumatic events that inevitably affect normal
functioning of communities and their long term development.
Education can help individuals and children, households, communities and systems become resilient against shocks
and stresses by building capacities and skills that will enable them to manage and resolve different risks, thus
advancing their rights. An educated child is also likely to have more of the material income, strategic relationships,
knowledge and confidence critical to their present and future resilience.
Schools are universal and often public institutions associated with learning, innovation, creativity, growth and change.
They are centres where future leaders of the community are nurtured, and they often function as a community hubs
for various activities and services outside of education. As such their potential role in building community resilience
goes beyond children, to the families and communities they serve. Schools can be equalizers, safe havens, and hubs
to foster social cohesion, provide services, build knowledge within a community, and connectedness with other
external parties. Schools could also play a role in supporting local governance by assisting with monitoring community
resilience-building initiatives. As schools play a central role in communities, it is important to ensure that they are safe
and secure, the safety of children and their teachers, and comprehensive school-based disaster risk reduction
programmes are supported.
Research has shown that the speed of disaster recovery depends heavily on the recovery of the education sector.
Community disaster resilience and children's rights are best achieved by consistently linking school and local disaster
management.
The Children in a Changing Climate Coalition and the Asian Coalition for School Safety members have worked
closely with Ministries of Education throughout Asia and the Pacific, and with the Southeast Asian Ministers of
Education Association Organisation (SEAMO), developing a framework focusing on two rights-based goals: the right
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 11
to safety and survival, and the right to education and participation. Enabling factors identified include close
partnership with government ministries for legislation and policies, identified DRR champions, work at sub-national
levels, accountability and reporting mechanisms and adequate funding and budget allocations (Bild and Ibrahim
2013).
One specific recommendation related to the role of schools in building community resilience is as follows:
Develop enabling frameworks that embed disaster risk reduction and management responsibilities within each sector,
from top to bottom, so that local level governance is fully capacitated to participate in community-based resiliencebuilding. For example, in the education sector, this means both guidance and accountability for safe school site
selection, safe school design and construction, safe school maintenance, comprehensive school-based disaster
management, engagement in risk reduction, best practices in response-preparedness, and local planning for
educational continuity, and also supporting DRR and resilience education e.g. through relevant curriculum, learning
activities and materials, and teacher training.
Examples of good practice on, HFA2 priorities of DRR in, indicators for, levels and a form for the monitoring of
progress in the education sector can be found in Annex D.6
Chapter 2: Applying the Community Resilience
Approach
2.1 Observed Challenges in Applying the Community Resilience Concept to Disaster Risk Reduction
One of the challenges that DRR practitioners face with the use and application of the term Community Resilience,
stems from the multiple definitions of the term “resilience”. The origins of the word from another discipline, and its
application in an inter-disciplinary manner further complicate the efforts to define it.
These challenges are compounded by attempts to the contextualization of the word in relation to disaster risk
reduction. This is noted in the presentation of HFA1 as Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters
(our own emphasis in italics), leading to the proliferation of the term “disaster resilience” which only takes into account
risks from natural hazards. As such, most of the DRR interventions have focused only on building absorptive capacity
(See Section 1.5).
The use of the term “disaster resilience” represents the attempt by the DRR and humanitarian communities to
appropriate the resilience approach within their context. However, this does not facilitate the integration of disaster
risk into longer-term development programming as it does not cover other chronic risks that communities face (e.g. to
livelihoods and other issues such as health), as well as the uncertainty of changing risks (e.g. climate change). The
RCRC is seeking to overcome this challenge by using the term “risk programming” to relate to their relevant
community-based initiatives (See Case Study 8: RCRC)
The third and final challenge is in the appropriation of the term at the community level, giving rise to the specific term
“community disaster resilience”. Most of the current contextualization of community resilience by the DRR community
seeks to retain the main definition of the term, but narrows it down in a most basic manner simply by specifying it in
reference to communities. However, a growing movement of work seeks to better understand the term in relation to
The observations and recommendations on the education sector draws from key regional documents sources, including: The Comprehensive
School Safety framework submitted for consideration at the 5th AMCDRR (Comprehensive School Safety, 2013) and endorsed by the ADRRN
and the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Association (SEAMEO, 2012); Country reports submitted to Southeast Asian Ministers of
Education Organization Project 10 (Reaching the Unreached) Regional Conference on Education in Emergencies and Disaster Risk Reduction,
December, 2013 (SEAMEO, 2014). Save the Children and UNICEF's regional scoping of efforts, supporting education in emergencies at the
national level (in their roles as co-chairs of the Global Education Cluster) as well as DRR in education work (Save the Children, 2013); and as
case studies of good practices from Lao and Malaysia as well.
6
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 12
communities by distinguishing the characteristics of the community resilience, as distinct from individual and
household resilience (Frankenberger et al, 2013).
2.2 Community-based Disaster Risk Reduction within the Context of Community Resilience
To date, the focus of community-based disaster risk reduction initiatives have been on building the absorptive
capacity of communities yet in many ways addressing various sectors through separate community initiatives – while
one has to recall that at community level all risks and vulnerabilities are dully integrated. A DRR initiative is one of the
collective actions that result in outcomes that support the security and well-being of all community members in
particular in relation to disaster management. Learning from past, it has been demonstrated time and time again that
disasters also impact on conflict and social protection within the community, and the natural resources and public
goods upon which communities depend on to be resilient. Yet, despite all challenges, every community has already
some level of resilience. Therefore, DRR initiatives cannot be undertaken in isolation, have to be used as an entry
point to build more holistic and long-term support to community needs in order to strengthen their resilience.
In this age of changing risk and uncertainty, in the efforts of DRR practitioners to contribute to the global effort of
achieving sustainable development goals, they must also seek to increase the adaptive and transformative capacities
of communities.
Thus, it is important to apply community resilience approaches to addressing disaster risks issues.
Practical application has already been undertaken by the IFRC through its global Framework on Community Safety
and Resilience (2008, also see Case Study 8: IFRC) and core cross-cutting components identified as being essential
when addressing community safety and resilience. Being conscious that there are aspects of Red Cross/Red
Crescent work that they do well and that are consistent with their overall principles and values, goals and objectives –
through the implementation of the framework - the IFRC continues to investing in encouraging Red Cross Red
Crescent National Societies to commit themselves to community safety and resilience, to demonstrate their
commitment through the implementation of identified core components, related to specific national context and hazard
profile and integrate into all activities aimed at building community safety and resilience. The core components are:
1 Risk assessment and identification and the establishment of community-based early warning and
prediction. Activities that may grow from a multisectoral vulnerability and capacity assessment (VCA) assisting
communities to identify their own risks, building early warning for the short-term and predictive capacity in the medium
to long-term particularly in the context of climate change.
2 Community-based disaster preparedness. Support activities aimed at building the capacities of communities in
enabling them to organize and address specific disaster risks – ensuring cross-sectoral integration in support to
community needs.
3 Advocacy, education and awareness-raising. Activities across the spectrum that aim to build a greater
consciousness of the risk factors faced by communities and the ways in which these can be addressed within a range
of different programmes. Advocacy, education and awareness-raising should aim not only communities alone but in
parallel, local and national governments, other organizations at different levels, the private/corporate sector.
4 A strong auxiliary relationship with local and national governments. One of the unique positions of the Red
Cross Red Crescent is its auxiliary relationship with governments. This relationship is important in the context of
ensuring increasingly that government at all levels is focused on strengthening community safety and resilience in the
face of disaster risk and that this is reflected within national laws, policies, strategies and programmes. In particular,
National Societies are encouraging their governments to develop and implement laws, policies and plans that
promote DRR at the community level.
5 Partnerships with international, governmental, non-governmental and community based organizations. It is
important to recognize that building of community safety and resilience in the face of disaster risk cannot be achieved
by one stakeholder alone. Each can make contribution but the systematic and ongoing building of safety and
resilience can only be built upon strong working partnerships between all stakeholders – from the communities
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 13
themselves, to local and national governments, governmental and nongovernmental organizations and the private
sector.
The focus on these core components as a central part of Red Cross/Red Crescent work in DRR recognizes the
importance of considerable network of community Red Cross Red Crescent volunteers who have a key role in
the delivery DRR as a contribution to building community safety and resilience.
2.3 Community Resilience within the Context of HFA1
Despite the overall HFA1 objective of “Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disaster”, a review of
references made in HFA1 on community resilience finds only two key activities identified, in comparison to community
DRR activities (Annex A).
Public awareness (3p)
Promote the engagement of the media in order to stimulate a culture of disaster resilience and strong community
involvement in sustained public education campaigns and public consultations at all levels of society.
Social and economic development practices (4d)
Promote food security as an important factor of ensuring community resilience to hazards, to hazards, particularly in
areas prone to drought, flood, cyclones and other hazards that can weaken agriculture-based livelihoods.
This demonstrates a clear need for the inclusion of more specific activities that focus on building community
resilience.
2.4 Identification of Main Issues and Themes
Approaches for building community resilience have only been tested in the Asia region over the last decade or so. So
far, community-based DRR has contributed to building the absorptive capacities of communities such that they are
ready and prepared, and have the ability to recover from recurrent natural hazards. Work undertaken by climate
change adaptation and development practitioners has to some extent contributed to building the adaptive capacities
of communities to respond to slow-onset disasters and to reduce their social, economic and political vulnerability.
However, the road to resilience is long, and there is still much to be done in building the transformative capacities of
communities such that they are able to continue to experiment, learn, apply new knowledge and re-organize for
collective action to ensure a resilient future for all their members.
The identification of main issues and themes in building community resilience in the Asia Pacific region is best
captured through the lessons learnt identified in the case studies submitted. Table 1 below lists the lessons learnt
from Sri Lanka (Case Study 4: Sri Lanka) and links them to some of the recommendations and specific actions
identified in Chapter 3.
Table 1. Lessons Learned from the Establishment of a Community Flood Response Mechanism, Ambalantota, Sri
Lanka
Lessons Learnt
Recommendations and Specific Actions
Learning from past experiences is essential for achieving Build community knowledge and capacity to learn and
sustainable future activities.
re-organize in the face of uncertainty (3.1.1)
Flexibility is needed to address uncertainty
The establishment of a Community Flood Response Strengthen and explore partnerships (3.1.5)
mechanism requires multi-disciplinary and multistakeholder support through the form of partnerships.
Scaling up is possible through establishing long-term
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 14
partnerships and working with local and district officials
Integrated approaches at the community level are effective
Undertake comprehensive cross-sector assessments,
planning and implementation (3.2.5)
2.5 Examples of Resilient Communities in Asia
Despite the gaps and challenges described, it is possible to identify characteristics and elements of community
resilience within the all the Case Studies submitted. Two particularly good examples are from Indonesia (Case Study
2: Indonesia) and Thailand (Case Study 5: Thailand). These are summarized below.
2.5.1
Rebuilding Dreams from Debris caused by Cold Lava, Gempol, Indonesia
Gempol Village in Indonesia was impacted by cold lava during the eruption of Mount Merapi in 2010. Challenges
arose during the governments’ effort to relocated affected victims. These included unclear relocation policy and
information on rights, and the uneven distribution of information, which led to conflict within the affected communities.
There were also problems related to the non-transparent implementation of relocation policy, and dishonest
administration in selection of housing beneficiaries. The latter was aggravated by lack of monitoring and evaluation on
policy implementation and gap between system and practice within the government.
In spite of these challenges, the community posses a large number of elements of resilience, which they used to
overcome the problems they encountered.
Elements of Resilience
Demonstrated Examples of Resilience
Resourcefulness/Self-reliance
Raised community funds to rebuild 40 houses and set-up evacuation routes
through revenue from sand mining
Learning
Enrolled in social audit training programmes to enable them to participate in
monitoring and evaluation of implementation of government policies and
programs
Knowledge
organization
Self-organization
Connectedness
and
Self- i) Sought information on exposure of their village and residential polices
ii)
Established
a
village
preparedness
team
iii) Devised their own recovery plan
and i) Collaborated with the private sector to fund the development of additional
evacuation
routes
ii) Filed complaint on improper housing beneficiary selection to authorities
Inclusive access to transparent CSOs played the role of assisting the community to obtain transparent and
information and Connectedness accountable information and training them in monitoring of implementation of
policies and programs in their community.
The community also ensured that village financial report was transparent and
accessible by all members at any time
Inclusiveness
Villagers, including the village head, religious leaders, and women and youth
representatives all played a role in seeking correct information, coordinating with
various parties, and making decisions of their future.
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 15
2.5.2
Examples of Resilient Communities in Thailand
Flood-prone Ban Khlong Rangsit in Central Thailand, flash-flood and landslide in Ban Thab Nam Tao of
Nakhonsrithammarat province in Southern Thailand; and 3) Ban Khok Kham of Samutsakhon province in eastern
coast of Thailand which experiences coastal erosion are examples of resilient communities.
All of the three communities demonstrate respect for and the application of local knowledge. They combine this with
regular risk and disaster communication among themselves as the key tools they use to respond to their emerging
threats. In addition, they have learnt to access and apply new knowledge to address other livelihood development
issues that they face, such as the conservation of mangrove forest, the changing of monoculture farming, and
promoting physical and mental health of the elderly to be able to help themselves.
They possess strong social capital such as cooperation, motivation, optimism, a positive attitude to survival, and the
sense of unity within the community to help each other, self-reliance and social bonds. This is enhanced by the
presence of strong local leadership, and a drive to develop a self-support mechanism to meet their basic needs until
they are able to receive external support during disaster events.
Despite being an urban community, Ban Khlong Rangsit was able to overcome individualism by gain trust and
cooperation from other members of the community to help each other during flood due to the strong leadership of a
respected elder. In the aftermath of the floods, community relationships have strengthened enabling them the raise
funds to establish a community centre where new disaster survival techniques and other livelihood development
activities are introduced and implemented. This demonstrates the strong social cohesion that the community has
developed.
All of three communities are self-organized and able to maintain their network and social s interactions with external
parties during the years when they are not impacted by disasters. This demonstrated the element of connectedness.
Social cohesion and connectedness is demonstrated in the Ban Thab Nam Tao community which has a strong
kinship bond which it utilize to mobilize cooperation and support within and outside their community to house flood
and landslide victims in monasteries, and to rescue their fellow community members. They have now expanded their
services to assist communities in other landslide prone areas.
The connectedness of the Ban Khok Kham community in Thailand enabled it to successfully persuaded the local
authorities to work with them in addressing coastal erosion issues. In doing so, they managed to raise a million baht
grant to develop and expand their bamboo wall project, which has proven to restore sea habitats.
The elements of innovation and connectedness in demonstrated in the Ban Thab Nam Tao community who has used
social media effectively (e.g. Facebook) to develop their own messages related to all incoming emergency assistance
to ensure that these were aligned with their needs and local traditions and rules. They also used this method to
mobilize resources and extend assistance to a landslide-affected community in the north region of Thailand.
In summary, the resilience of these three communities is characterized by their knowledge of risks and opportunities,
their respect for local knowledge, ability to learn and self organize, social capital and cohesion, connectedness,
motivation, strong leadership ability, optimism, strong survival instincts, resourcefulness and innovation.
Chapter 3: Conclusions and Recommendations
The resilience approach integrates many of the insights and approaches of development work with a humanitarian
approach. Inclusive, sustained, accountable and participatory approaches, for example, are as relevant to
humanitarian work as they are for development.
Multiple risks and their impacts on vulnerable people must be considered together with assessments of capacities
and efforts to strengthen these. Working in resilience mode comes with an understanding that the level of vulnerability
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 16
to disasters and shocks is often determined less by the scale of a disaster or a shock and more by the underlying
vulnerability, caused by a set of inter-related risks. Resilience programming involves sustained engagement that is
explicitly participatory, inclusive and accountable.
The following principles further describe resilience strengthening.
Having outlined the DRR and Resilience approach in Section 2.2, it is clear that the HFA1 references on community
DRR7 action to:
i) strengthen community level institutions, mechanisms and capacity,
ii) promote access to information and resources, and
iii) empower communities to take collective action to reduce risks
are still valid within the context of building community resilience.
Undertaking the key HFA1 recommended activities for community level DRR (See Annex A), will continue to be
important to build the absorptive capacity of communities. However, additional activities are needed to strengthen the
adaptive and transformative capacity of communities.
In this light, the recommendations for HFA2 on building community resilience are to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Strengthen integration of community resilience approaches in key national policies/strategies cross-sectorally,
Improve community knowledge and build capacity to learn and re-organize in the face of uncertainty,
Strengthen local governance mechanisms and promote complementarities,
Strengthen the social cohesion and connectedness of communities,
Strengthen and explore partnerships, and
Adopt a long-term perspective.
Specific actions to achieve these recommendations are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Consolidate, build on and scale up good community practices ensuring holistic approach to community needs,
Support the establishment of informed community resilience groups/networks and public dialogue processes,
Establish partnerships to build flexible, learning-oriented institutions, and ensure complementarities,
Adopt the use of social audits,
Undertake/harmonize comprehensive cross-sectoral assessments, planning and implementation, and
Strengthen disaster polices and laws.
The rationale for each of these recommendations and specific actions are elaborated below and substantiated
through specific examples of good practice that were received (Annex B). This will assist communities to adopt riskinformed, holistic approaches to address their underlying vulnerabilities, and provide an environment supportive of
community empowerment.
A critical take-away when reviewing the recommendations, is that in most cases more than one specific action can be
used to achieve it. This underlies a core feature of the resilience (and systems) approach. Likewise, some actions
provide solutions to a range of different issues and challenges, and undertaking one recommendation also leads to
achieving expected outcomes of other recommendations (See 3.1.1 and 3.1.2).
3.1 Recommendations for Building Community Resilience in HFA2
3.1.1
7
Strengthen integration of community resilience approaches in key national policies/strategies crosssectorally
Strategic Goal 12b, and Priorities for Actions 2005-2015 – General Considerations 13f and 13j (See Annex A for details)
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 17
A resilient community is knowledgeable and has the ability to access, manage and monitor problems, needs and
opportunities. It is also organized and has the capacity to identify problems, establish priorities and act for the
inclusion of all in the communities. Learning new skills, building on past experiences, collectively sharing and applying
this knowledge through a range of related activities increases capacity to respond to a range of scenarios.
The fundamental element of resilience is the need for continual learning in the context of ongoing changes and
uncertain and riskier futures. Resilience building efforts are part of a continual process of assessment, reflection, and
the application of knowledge and experience that allow systems to function, re-organize and develop. This means that
they need to be designed in a manner that those involved in the process work together to maintain or make changes
according to circumstances. In implementing risk reduction programmes, this requires handing over expertise,
bringing together different knowledge and disciplines, and embracing participatory and empowering processes
(Friend et al, 2013).
Actions that can help to build the capacity of communities to learn and re-organize themselves in the face of
uncertainty include supporting community generation of own knowledge, and enhancing access to information. This
includes developing and sharing a directory of information and data providers, the presentation of information and
data in way that is understandable and can be used; and facilitating the analysis of risk data generated by
communities. This would also include adopting both formal and informal learning approaches, and facilitating the
sharing and access of traditional and indigenous knowledge. This and access to data, information should form part of
a broader strategy on communicating disaster risks to the general public.
Expected outcomes of this recommendation are that community members are empowered to assess and manage the
risks and opportunities that they face, and that each of them has the opportunity to learn new skills, build on past
experiences, and collectively share and apply this knowledge in practice. They would also play a role in
coordinating/harmonizing with local authorities and other government actors, and enhance their ability to form both
internal and external partnerships and networks.
In addition, supporting community generation of own knowledge, and enhancing access to information, leads to the
strengthening of local governance and planning mechanisms by increasing transparency and accountability (See
3.1.2).
Specific actions to achieve this recommendation include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Supporting the establishment of informed community resilience groups/networks and public dialogue processes,
Adopting the use of social audits,
Undertaking/harmonizing comprehensive cross-sectoral assessments, planning and implementation, and
Strengthening disaster policies and laws
Improved the knowledge of the community through these actions is demonstrated by the case studies from Sri Lanka
(See 3.2.1, and Case Study 4: Sri Lanka) and from Thailand (See 3.2.4, and Case Study 5: Thailand).
An example of increase in access to information is demonstrated by the case studies from Indonesia (See 3.2.3, and
Case Study 3: Indonesia), Thailand (See 3.2.4, and Case Study 5: Thailand), Japan (See 3.3.4, and Case Studies 9
and 10). The Indonesia and Thailand case studies also provide examples where communities generated their own
knowledge.
Example from Philippines Red Cross
To address risks specific to the Philippines and to reduce the impact of disasters on vulnerable people, the
Philippine Red Cross (PRC), the IFRC and other partners have over the past 15 years jointly designed and
implemented innovative models for CBDRM using integrated, multi-sectoral and multi-hazard community disaster
preparedness approaches. PRC’s initial foray into CBDRM programmes in 1994 was intended to help the
organization move from a largely response-oriented approach to disaster management toward more proactive focus
on enhancing the preparedness capacity of vulnerable communities and mitigating the impacts of recurrent
disasters. The initial programme sought to lessen the damage to health, homes or livelihoods caused by natural
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 18
hazard events by addressing the numerous “small” risks faced in local communities.
Throughout its evolution, the programme has included activities to create and train local disaster preparedness and
response teams, called Barangay Disaster Action Teams (BDATs) to train and equip Barangay Health Workers or
Barangay Health and Welfare Assistants, to conduct hazard assessments, using hazard Vulnerability and Capacity
Assessment methodology, to prepare local hazard maps, to prepare Barangay Disaster Action Plans, and to
engage youth and school teachers through disaster preparedness and first-aid training. The BDATs were also
provided with basic equipment such as rubber boots, rain jackets, flashlights, and megaphones. In some
Barangays, geophysical mapping activities were implemented through partnerships with private sector companies
(IFRC, 2012c).
3.1.2
Strengthen local governance mechanisms and promote complementarities
Improving governance is necessary as it creates conditions for the development of policies and plans that strengthen
community resilience. Governance challenges include how problems and solutions are framed, what knowledge
counts, and who makes decisions. It goes beyond the production of policy documents and plans, and focuses on
ensuring access to information, enhanced inclusion and community engagement, and processes to monitor, redress
and remedy disputes that arise. Strengthened local governance mechanisms support knowledge generation (See
3.1.1), and help to create venues where different viewpoints can be shared (See 3.2.1) (Friend et al, 2013). It can
also result in decentralize, flexible funding in support of local action.
Specific activities that can improve local governance to support the building of resilient communities include:
1. Consolidating, replicating, build on and scaling up existing good community practices ensuring holistic
approach to community needs,
2. Supporting the establishment of informed community resilience groups/networks and public dialogue
processes,
3. Adopting the use of social audits,
4. Undertaking/harmonizing comprehensive cross-sectoral assessments, planning and implementation, and
5. Strengthening disaster policies and laws
This is exemplified by the case studies from India through the use of comprehensive cross-sectoral assessment (See
3.2.5, and Case Study 1: India), and in Indonesia through the use of social audits (See 3.2.3, and Case Study 3:
Indonesia).
3.1.3
Strengthen the social cohesion and connectedness of communities
A resilient community is inclusive, has strong bonds, is connected and has relationships with external actors who
provide a wider supportive environment, and supply goods and services when needed.
Thus, it is important to enhancing the capacity of communities to draw on formal and informal community networks of
support, and to strengthen their ability to sustain and build on good relationships with a range of these actors and
networks. This will enable communities to access tangible and intangible forms of support.
The expected outcomes of the strengthened role of social cohesion and connectedness in building resilient
communities are they:
i) have the capacity to draw on formal and information community networks of support to identify problems, needs
and opportunities, establish priorities, and act for the good and inclusion of all in the community,
ii) have the capacity and capabilities to sustain and build on good relationships with a range of external actors who
can provide a wider supportive environment, and
iii) can request external actors to supply tangible and intangible forms of support to the community.
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 19
In Odessa, India, the effective management of cyclone shelters by community members prior to the onset of Cyclone
Phailin, demonstrates not only strong social cohesion, but is also testimony to sense of ownership and increased level
of awareness that have resulted from the community-level disaster preparedness activities implemented since 2000
(See Case Study 1: Odisha, India
In Indonesia, social cohesion was strengthened through the use of social auditing in the aftermath of the 2010 Mount
Merapi eruption (See 3.2.3, and Case Study 3: Indonesia).
Strong social cohesion is demonstrated in Thailand where schools and religious organizations provide a mechanism
through which the social capital of communities can be built (See 3.2.4, and Case Study 5: Thailand).
In Sri Lanka, the establishment of a Community Flood Response Committee helped to facilitate interaction with the
Divisional Secretariat, allowing the community to access technical know-how, and physical and financial resources.
The connections established also allows for the scaling up of the community resilience approach (See 3.2.1, and
Case Study 4: Sri Lanka).
Specific actions to strengthen the social cohesion and connectedness of communities include:
1. Supporting the establishment of informed community resilience groups/networks and public dialogue
processes, and
2. Adopting the use of social audits.
3.1.4
Strengthen and explore partnerships
It is important to create and broker relevant partnerships, or advocating for support, especially in areas that are not in
the core mandate of disaster risk reduction practitioners. DRR practitioners must play a role in facilitating support from
a range of stakeholders, developing new institutional strategies, and establishing cross-sectoral coalitions to respond
to multi-dimensional risk.
Specific actions to strengthen and explore partnerships include:
1. Supporting the establishment of informed community resilience groups/networks and public dialogue
processes,
2. Undertaking/harmonizing comprehensive cross-sectoral assessments, planning and implementation, and
3. Strengthening disaster policies and laws.
The important role in developing partnerships is exemplified in all of the case studies submitted, but is particularly
relevant in building flexible, learning-oriented institutions, elaborated under section 3.2.2 where examples from India
and Vietnam are detailed.
In Minamisoma City, Japan, partnerships between the City Government and the Japan Disability Forum (JDF)
facilitated access to information about persons with disabilities and enabled JDF to undertake door-to-door surveys to
assess specific needs. This has resulted in the development of inclusive evacuation plans for persons with
disabilities. This increase connectedness between a sub-national entity and a CSO in a post-disaster context, will
allow better coordination during response to disaster events (Case Study 9: Japan).
Within the RCRC system, the formation of partnerships between the different technical divisions has led to the
success of the Integrated Community Resilience Programme. In China, the large-scale flagship programme, called
“Boai Jia Yuan” or Integrated Community Resilience Programme, is being implemented by the Red Cross Society of
China since 2011 in 28 provinces out of 31, and in 472 communities with more than 700 thousand people directly or
indirectly benefitting. The combined budget of the programme is 319 million Chinese Yuan (approx. 52.2 million
USD).
The overall objective of Community Resilience Programme is to strengthen the resilience of community to future
disasters, shocks and crises. The emphasis of Boai Jia Yuan programme appears to be on ‘strengthening communityKey Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 20
driven development to boost the province’s construction of new rural areas’ while simultaneously strengthening
disaster preparedness and mitigation capacities.
The Community Resilience Programme emphasizes the integrated nature of multiple sectors in a community, and
aims to facilitate formulation of a multi-sectoral holistic “Village Development Plan”, which is based on capacities of
the communities more rather than on attempt to address vulnerabilities with aim to increase the resilience of the
community to future disasters, shocks and crises.
More examples of the use of partnerships within Integrated Community Resilience Programme, and a description of
the RCRC experience in institutionalizing community resilience approaches in the Asia Pacific region is described in
more detail in Case Study 8: IFRC.
3.1.4.1 Work in partnership to develop well-maintained and assessable infrastructure and services for
communities
Working in partnership with local government and service providers is important as it allows communities to have
access to well-maintained infrastructure and services (e.g. strong and suitable housing, transport, power, water and
sanitation systems). These ensure that strong systems are in place to help mitigate adverse impacts from climate
change. Communities should be provided with the ability to use, maintain, repair and renovate these systems. Assets
and access to wider resources beyond the immediate control of the community determines their resilience, as the lack
of these impacts on the basic needs of communities, and can cause additional and chronic stress.
Example from Vietnam Red Cross
Mangroves have a role to play to enhance local livelihoods and help mitigate climate change. Since 194, the
“Community-based Mangrove Reforestation and Disaster Preparedness Programme” has been implemented by the
Vietnam Red Cross. Realizing damaging results of accelerated destruction by mangrove over previous decades,
the Thai Binh chapter proposed in 1993 to reverse the trend and reforest the intertidal eco-systems. The Danish
Red Cross picked up the idea and supported a reforestation programme in Thai Binh from1994 onwards. After initial
setbacks, the programme received encouraging results, and by 197, the programme expanded to include another
seven coastal provinces. The Japanese Red Cross Society then funded activities in six provinces through the IFRC.
From the early 2000s, the focus was broadened to include disaster preparedness training, and also afforestation
with bamboo and casuarina trees in communes along rivers.
The programme has had significant impact both towards a reduction of disaster risk and enhancement of
community livelihoods. Comparing the cost of damage caused by similar typhoons before and after the intervention,
it finds that damage to dykes have been reduced by 80,000 to 295,000 USD in the studied communes. These
savings represent less than the cost for mangrove planting. However, much more substantial savings due to
avoided risk are found for communities at large – with savings of up to 15 million USD in communes. The protective
impact value in a few case studies alone already exceeds the costs of the entire programme (IFRC, 2012c).
3.1.4.2 Work in partnership to provide economic opportunities to community members
Working in partnership with development practitioners and the private sector will ensure that communities have a
diverse range of economic opportunities, income and financial services. Resilient communities are flexible,
resourceful and have the capacity to accept uncertainty and respond proactively to change. The former translates into
the ability to be entrepreneurial and to take alternative employment.
Providing Economic Opportunities for Women and Persons with Disabilities in Post-Earthquake Sichuan
An essential part of the Sichuan earthquake recovery programme’s in China, funded by the IFRC and implemented
in cooperation with the Red Cross Society of China, is the on-going livelihoods recovery project which provided skill
and vocational trainings and small loans to, among others, thousands of persons with disabilities and women.
3.1.4.3 Work in partnership to facilitate the management of natural community assets
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 21
Working in partnership with environment practitioners will ensure that communities’ value and can manage their
natural assets, through the ability to protect, maintain and enhance them.
Examples from Lao Red Cross and Cambodian Red Cross
Lao and Cambodia are the most heavily bombed countries in the world. The prevalence of unexploded ordinances
and landmines prevents the use of land for agriculture and animal husbandry, and creates a major obstacle to food
security in affected areas. Both countries are also severely affected by natural and man-made hazards witnessed in
recent times, exacerbating local communities’ vulnerabilities. Both the Lao Red Cross and Cambodian Red Cross
work with their respective authorities, other Red Cross/Red Crescent Societies and other partners to bring about the
necessary assistance and prevention work. In Laos for instance, they provide health services for HIV and TB caring,
community-based health focusing on nutrition training and mother and child health, targeting vulnerable individuals
particularly women, working to ensure people live longer and healthier lives. In Cambodia, they offer micro finance
projects enabling most vulnerable people to start their own businesses, such as grocery shops, farming, animal
raising, soya bean production, barber shops, bike repair, TV repair, mushroom planting, food vending, hair dressing,
and dress tailoring. The financial support also includes people living or practicing high-risk activities, such as
collecting wood and scrap metal in mine contaminated areas, poorest families and people with disabilities.
Men Neary Sopheak, Deputy Secretary General of the Cambodian Red Cross says: ‘In Cambodia, many people
continue to die, lose limbs and their eyesight in anti-personnel mines. Our duty if to keep our guard against
complacency and keep the momentum up on our prevention and mine education work. If not, we will certainly have
more accidents, deaths and injuries, and people will just forget the problem until another accident happens (IFRC,
2012c).
3.1.5
Adopt a long-term perspective
As demonstrated by the Indian, Japan, and RCRC Case Studies (Case Studies 1, 8 and 10), strengthening resilience
does not happen overnight and requires long-term engagement and investment. This it is iterative process that
requires a long-term perspective that should allow for ongoing assessment of vulnerability and implementation of
interventions that build on each other (Friend, 2013). This should be undertaken through engaging local volunteers
and well-established civil society actors at the local level (e.g. Red Cross Red Crescent Societies).
Adopting a long-term perspective is vital to the building of learning-oriented institutions, as well as ensuring that funds
allocated to community resilience building efforts have the necessary continuity and predictability that is required to
make them sustainable and effective.
Undertaking comprehensive cross-sector assessments, planning and implementation, is particularly useful in helping
actors to adopt a long-term perspective.
3.2 Specific Recommended Actions
The following specific actions are ways in which the recommendations provided above can be achieved.
3.2.1
Support establishment of informed community resilience groups/networks and public dialogue
processes
Determining responses to and making decisions on risks and opportunities are matters of value and choice, requiring
different knowledge and viewpoints to be brought together (Friend, 2013). Actions taken to building community
resilience need to be self-sustaining. Public dialogue spaces, such as forums, facilitate inclusive, meaningful, multisectoral and participatory discussions. They provide a means through which actions and decisions made are socially
just, and are venues that allow for creativity and innovation. Developing these processes requires a shift from
traditional approaches to passing information, and dissemination to more collaborative and cooperative forms of
engagement with communities as partners (ibid).
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 22
These processes also enhance the knowledge of communities and foster respect for local knowledge. They provide a
venue through which communities can access information in an open and transparent manner, and through which
information providers can be made accountable for the information shared.
This builds awareness and understanding of disaster risks, their vulnerability and capacities, and proactive responses
needed to respond to emerging risks and opportunities, and will contribute to the development of a culture of
prevention amongst vulnerable communities.
When undertaken in an inclusive manner, it ensures that communities are able to tap on the resources of all their
members, including women, children, youth, elderly and persons with disability, and ensure that their special needs
are considered in the development of disaster policy and laws, and other resilience building efforts.
They could also serve the purpose of engaging communities on local development and climate change issues that
they face, including the sharing of community plans resulting from VCA processes during annual sub-national
development planning events.
Establishing informed public dialogue processes helps to achieve the recommendations to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Improve community knowledge and build capacity to learn and re-organize in the face of uncertainty,
Strengthen local governance mechanisms and promote complementarities,
Strengthen the social cohesion and connectedness of communities, and
Strengthen and explore partnerships.
Thus, it is important to ensure that platforms developed for implementing HFA2, and monitoring its outcomes are
structured as informed public dialogue processes, to allow greater engagement of community groups in the
development of local policy for reducing risk reduction, and building community resilience.
In Ambalantota, Sri Lanka, flood response mechanism was formed amongst nine affected communities. A learning
dialogue process was established as part of this mechanism to allow root causes, related remedial measures and
challenges for DRR implementation to be identified and discussed with and amongst the community members, raising
the awareness of the community on issues and their responsibilities for the self-resilience. The knowledge gained has
allowed the community to self-organize and proactively discuss and expand their activities incorporate livelihood
development, and initiated the development of a fund, sourced through individual contributions. This is used to
provide small loans to the members and for immediate disaster response activities. The community now has a selfsupport mechanism to meet their basic needs until they are able to receive external support during flood events. Their
annual fund allocation for relief distribution has decreased as a result of this, and the contribution from the community
for the national income through agriculture has increased (Case Study 4: Sri Lanka).
A more detailed example of the establishment of an informed public dialogue process coupled with the use of social
audit in Indonesia is described in section 3.2.3 (Case Study 3: Indonesia).
Community resilience groups and networks have been formed in Sri Lanka and Thailand. In the former, this has
taken on the form of a Community Flood Response Mechanism (See 3.2.1, and Case Study 4: Sri Lanka), and
through Disaster Monitoring and Victim Assistance Networks in the latter (Case Study 5: Thailand).
The critical components of these community groups are:
1. Awareness within the community of the benefits of self-reliance, rather than dependency on external parties in
order to survive disaster events,
2. The presence of strong formal and informal community leaders both who become the core members of the
group to mobilize resources and maintain community activities, and
3. Clearly identified means of communication between community members and with external partners for risk
information and situational analysis.
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 23
In Thailand, a disaster monitoring and victim assistance network was formed in three communities, comprising formal
and informal community leaders in the aftermath of a disaster. These were community members who self-organized
to find practical solutions for self-reliance schemes.
In the locations affected by slow onset disasters (coastal erosion and urban flooding), the community headman and
community leaders undertook experiments to better understand their risks and how to address these. They used a
combination of traditional knowledge and expert information to understand their risks and capacity, as well as
possible funding sources.
They established community forums based on mutual trust and transparency to create understanding and local
ownership of these solutions. Formalized structures and patterns within these forums enable collective action, and
diverse channels for communication was used to establish connections within and external to the network.
The establishment of functioning Disaster Monitoring and Victim Assistance Networks have empowered the
communities to use their inherent elements of resilience, and they are now confident and motivated to protect their
livelihoods by understanding their risks and vulnerability, as well as how to build their capacity and networks to
prepare, survive, respond, adapt, manage disaster risks, and address other development issues that they face.
Support from local government remains important for these networks, including the need for closer coordination and
more regular communication.
Establishing community resilience groups and networks help to achieve the recommendations to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Improve community knowledge and build capacity to learn and re-organize in the face of uncertainty
Strengthen local governance mechanisms and promote complementarities
Strengthen the social cohesion and connectedness of communities, and
Strengthen and exploring partnerships.
In India, the occurrence of Cyclone Phailin, followed by the associated floods has led to the realization of the need to
strengthen community volunteer groups (See Case Study 1: India).
3.2.2
Establish partnerships to build flexible, learning-oriented institutions, and ensure complementarities
New kinds of knowledge and technical skills are needed to deal with uncertainty and risks at the rapid rate and scale
that this will occur (e.g. the increasing rate of urbanization and the increasing and concentrated associated risks).
This needs to shift from providing technical training to individuals, to building institutional capacity, as institutions also
need to be sufficiently flexible to readjust and adapt to changing circumstances. This is one of the greatest challenges
of achieving resilience, as this goes again the way most institutions and organizations operate. Much more needs to
be learned from organizational change and governance theory to encourage accountability, transparency, processes
of multi-stakeholder dialogue and self-assessment (Friend, 2013).
More flexible and learning-oriented institutions will ensure that community resilience initiatives are sustainable in the
long-term.
Building flexible and learning-oriented institutions should include the development of adequate skilled human
resources, support for the establishment of formal and informal institutions where none exists, and the provisions of
resources from multi-stakeholder networks at the local level.
Partnerships to are one means through which this challenge can be realized, and also acts to strengthen local
governance mechanisms. This is particularly exemplified by the case studies from India and Vietnam described
below.
In Odisha, India following the 1999 super cyclone, partnerships with multiple stakeholders were formed to strengthen
local capacities and institutions. Training modules on disaster management were developed and conducted through
facilities at sub-national institutes. The effective response to Cyclone Phailin in 2013, emphasizes the need for
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 24
sustained, complementary and coordinated efforts by multiple stakeholder groups in sync with local risk context,
governance systems, as well as the need for new disaster management institutional setups (See Case Study 1:
India).
In Vietnam, the government worked in partnership with key CSOs to provide inputs to a comprehensive official
government programme on scaling up CBDRM programmes covering 70% of communes in the country. The
willingness of the governments to work in collaboration with CSOs to learn more about each other’s systems, and
how they can provide complementary community based disaster risk services demonstrates the development of
flexibility and openness, and a shift away from top-down approaches. The approach leveraged technical support from
key partners like the Vietnam Red Cross, Women’s Union, Oxfam and UNDP, linking local level CBDRR plans which
were developed through participatory VCAs with the Socio-Economic Development plan. The process of learning
lessons from pilots, and partnership described has resulted in the approval of a major long-term government
programme on CBDRM a national scale (See Case Study 6: Vietnam).
Relevant Stakeholders: Training institutes, academic and research Institutions, professional associations and local
government.
3.2.3
Adopt the use of social audits
Social audits can be used to establish and strengthen local level governance mechanisms to monitor and resolve
disputes arising from the implementation of disaster recovery and risk reduction initiatives, as this encourages
transparency and accountability. This will require providing training specifically on handling disputes arising and
related to disaster risks; making communities aware of that these mechanisms exist and how to access these
services; and training CSOs and the media to monitor processes to follow-up on reports lodged. The latter helps to
strengthen the connectedness between the community and other external actors, including sub-national authorities.
This mechanism could also be used to build and assess community resilience, in terms of improving knowledge,
reflecting on challenges and lessons learned, achieving results, and ability self-organize to adapt to changing
circumstance.
When the process is inclusive, this can strengthen the social cohesion within communities. Results of the audits that
are made widely available can be used as strategic input for further programme development.
The use of social audits helps to achieve the recommendations to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Improve community knowledge and build capacity to learn and re-organize in the face of uncertainty,
Strengthen local governance mechanisms and promote complementarities,
Strengthen the social cohesion and connectedness of communities, and
Strengthen and explore partnerships.
This is exemplified by a case study from Indonesia that demonstrates the benefits of the use of social audit. In the
aftermath of the eruption of Mount Merapi in 2010, there was a delay in the building of permanent houses due to:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Lack of public consultation with designated recipients,
Conflicting and unreliable data,
Lack of access to information and official documents,
Lack of understanding of the recipients on the program mechanism and advantage taken by land intermediaries
due to the former, and
5. Agreements on procurement of building materials being made between Rekompak and suppliers, limiting the
opportunities of beneficiaries to ensure the quality of building materials.
Social auditing was introduced to help the communities overcome these challenges. 20 designated beneficiaries and
representative of village administration were trained in social audit, who then undertook a survey of 400 respondents
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 25
(victims) regarding rehabilitation and reconstruction of housing. This enabled the community to generate their own
knowledge.
An informed public dialogue process was established in the form of a forum for beneficiaries, which allowed them to
share information on housing development, as part of rehabilitation and reconstruction process. This strengthen the
social cohesion of the community, and also increased the linkages with external actors by opening up a dialog
processes with village administration, Rekompak, BPBD and the Word Bank regarding survey analysis and enabling
clarification of data and information with related parties. Linkages were also strengthened through dialogues with the
Magelang local council to obtain their response on results of social audit, and follow up on settling of the issues
housing related issues.
At the Government level, the social audit led to improved performance of government personnel, as it served as a
basis for personnel performance assessment. It promoted the role of government offices in monitoring program
implementation, proving helpful to government inspectorate units and BPKP. It also provided information for the
government on program effectiveness and impact, especially to intended beneficiaries.
The social audit process also impacted on the governance at the local level, through improved relations between
community and government. Feedback mechanism helped government to be receptive to input, suggestions and
even criticism from the community. It also drew political commitment from the legislative body to support the speeding
up of rehabilitation and reconstruction processes. Community participation and government accountability grew
stronger with the implementation of social audit.
A lessons learnt from this process is that the implementation of rehabilitation and reconstruction needs to involve
impacted community from planning to monitoring and evaluation, to ensure efficiency, effectiveness and transparency
(CBDRR Principle). In addition, extensive communication between impacted community and policy makers in both
executive and legislative bodies is needed, to build the connectedness of the community (Case Study 3: Indonesia).
3.2.4
Undertake comprehensive cross-sector assessments, planning and implementation
Understanding the diverse underlying causes of vulnerability and disaster and crisis risks requires holistic
assessments, planning and implementation across various sectors. Local assessment processes such as
Vulnerability and Capacity Assessments (VCA) uses various participatory tools to engage communities and gauge
their exposure to, and capacity to resist natural hazards and other risks and opportunities. It is an integral part of
ensuring that communities are prepared to face small to medium sized shocks, and contributes to building resilience
at the rural and urban grassroots level.
These processes are not a new tool to disaster risk reduction actors. However, gaps in the mainstreaming of CBDRR
across different sectors and actors have also yet to be addressed, and CBDRR initiatives are a low priority, where
local level community resilience interventions are needed.
This requires the current tools to be adapted to include the assessment of elements of resilience that relate to building
adaptive and transformative capacity. These revised and improved comprehensive prcoesses can be used to
undertake broader risk reduction programmes to address wider community development issues, and secure or
diversify current and future livelihoods by all actors at the community level. This is exemplified in the case study from
the RCRC (See Case Study-8: IFRC).
As mentioned under 3.1.5, building community resilience requires a long-term perspective, and is an iterative
processes that and moves away from linear or cyclical approaches to assessment. This process should allow for ongoing assessment of vulnerability and implementation of interventions that build on each other. This it allows
community stakeholders to assess the efficacy of resilience building efforts, as well as to address circumstances and
events as they arise (Friend, 2013).
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 26
When undertaken in an inclusive manner, it ensures that special needs of women, children, youth, elderly and
persons with disability are considered in the development of disaster policy and laws, and other resilience building
efforts (See Case Study 7: Pakistan).
Undertaking comprehensive cross-sector assessments, planning and implementation contribute to achieve the
recommendations on:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Improving community knowledge and building capacity to learn and re-organize in the face of uncertainty,
Strengthening local governance mechanisms and promoting complementarities,
Strengthening the social cohesion and connectedness of communities,
Strengthening and exploring partnerships, and
Adopting a long-term perspective
This is exemplified by the Case Study 1: India, where stakeholders in Odisha including the Government of Odisha,
UNDP, and other agencies/NGOs, have partnered to undertake detailed post Cyclone Phailin assessments, in order
to measure the success of earlier interventions, and to identify gaps. This partnership has also helped to strengthen
local governance mechanisms through increased collaboration, transparency and accountability.
Results from undertaking comprehensive cross-sector assessment in Nepal
After conducting a VCA-type process, the Nepal Red Cross Society worked with villagers to create community-based
programmes to deal with local hazards such as flooding. The participatory nature of this process and the difference
that people were able to make through their own actions helped them to realize that disasters were something they
could influence, and as a result, they have become less fatalistic about risk (IFRC, 2012c).
3.2.5
Strengthen disaster policies and laws
Legislation can play a strong enabling role in building community resilience. This can be achieved partly through the
content of overarching disaster risk management laws or sectoral-based laws, and partly through the law-making and
implementation process. Local governments in many countries find their resources and capacities overstretched,
while communities with an interest in their own risk reduction may not have access to the official knowledge, systems
and resources they need to enhance DRR and build local resilience. Legal frameworks that establish and encourage
local partnership may provide the necessary bridge for better results in reducing risk at the community level.
Legal frameworks should mandate involvement by vulnerable people and their communities, Red Cross Red
Crescent, civil society and private sector in risk reduction. Strengthened laws and policies will promote DRR
integration across different sectors, build partnerships, support allocation of adequate funding for work with vulnerable
people and their communities, risk mapping, access to disaster information, development planning, enforced building
codes and land use planning, and accountability for results.
Strengthening disaster policy and laws helps to achieve the recommendations to:
1. Improve community knowledge and build capacity to learn and re-organize in the face of uncertainty,
2. Strengthen local governance mechanisms and promote complementarities,
3. Strengthen the social cohesion and connectedness of communities, and
4. Strengthen and explore partnerships
Examples of the role of law as a foundation for building community resilience can be found in the context of Vietnam,
New Zealand, the Philippines and India.
From 2010-2013, Vietnam’s Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, with support from UNDP, began drafting
a ‘Law on Natural Disaster Prevention and Control’. A number of consultation workshops were held by the Vietnam
National Assembly to seek input and feedback from a range of stakeholders from national to local level. Vietnam Red
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 27
Cross Society was one stakeholder that emphasized the importance of addressing aspects on both international
assistance and DRR in the law during these consultations.
The new law was officially adopted in June 2013, and incorporates a risk reduction approach into the national legal
and policy framework. The law contains mandates for “proactive prevention”, and uses a comprehensive “four on the
spots” approach, which focuses on local government and household level, and establishes People’s Committees to
implement prevention and response initiatives. This includes the establishment of a strong early warning system for
floods and storms, with the committee system ensuring that it is implemented at national, provincial, district and
commune levels. For citizens and organizations, the law clearly outlines their rights and obligations related to disaster
preparedness and response.
A government-led scaling up of a CBDRM programme has also led to a special decree that allocates funds from the
national budget for the implementation of commune-level risk reduction plans. To date, the programme has secured a
budget of some 988 billion VND (50 million USD) to implement the plan from now to 2020; of which state budget will
cover 55%, people’s contribution will cover 5%, and ODA from foreign governments and international organizations
will cover 40%. This is also an example of progress on developing long-term and sustainable national strategies to
enable community resilience (See Case Study 6: Vietnam).
In the case of New Zealand, the country’s legal framework provides a good example of how laws can promote an
integrated, holistic approach to building community resilience. The Civil Defense and Emergency Management Act
2012 makes DRR a high priority in the CDEM system, and also requires monitoring and evaluation of progress in
implementation. The Act involves an “all-hazards, all-risks, comprehensive, integrated, multiagency and communityfocused approach”, and seeks to integrate DRR within the overall system of development planning and governance at
national and local levels. It also clearly provides for national and local institutional responsibilities, seeking to move
risk management to the local level as far as possible within a strong framework of national coordination.
The principle of integration is built into the New Zealand CDEM Act in that (a) it cross-references a range of sectoral
laws relating to specific hazards, whose implementing agencies become part of the CDEM system depending on the
nature of the hazard, and (b) it is only part of the legislative framework for risk reduction as, along with the Local
Government Act, the CDEM Act is described by the government and local stakeholders as part of a group of four laws
that are central in promoting risk reduction. The other two laws are the Building Act 2004 and the Resource
Management Act 1991.
In the Philippines, enabling legislation establishing a National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Office in the
Department of Education has opened the door to identification of a network of DRR focal points in the education
sector from regional to district to school levels. Capacity-building of these focal points has strengthened resilience in
terms of educational continuity through regularly recurring floods, as well as the capacity to report on education sector
damage following the catastrophic impact of Typhoon Haiyan in 2013.
In Odisha, India, state legislation now mandates the engagement of youth groups in disaster management initiatives.
This was enacted to strengthen community volunteer groups (See Case Study 1: India). Is this also an example of
progress on developing long-term and sustainable local level strategies to enhance resilience at the local level.
Specific actions to strengthen disaster laws include:
i)
Development of laws and regulation to ensure that individual projects are based on risk and capacity
assessments and are linked with developmental programmes and plans and compliant with building codes (e.g.
Land use),
ii)
Secure political commitments and develop specific and relevant legislation to allocate budget to finance CBDRR
plans (e.g. through legal provisions allocating resources for DRR activities, particularly at the local level where
responsibilities for implementation of key laws are generally assigned by law, and by integrating them into subnational development plans), and
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 28
iii) Development of laws and regulations which clearly designate responsibilities for DRR across a range of different
ministries, departments and local agencies, and which mandate the participation of civil society and community
actors.
The relevant stakeholders who should be involved in strengthening disaster policies and laws include: NDMO,
National DRR Platform, President, Vice President, Governors and District Head/Mayor, National Development
Planning Boards, Line ministries, and the IFRC and the Red Cross/Red Crescent National Societies, DPOs.
Within the context of HFA2, states should articulate clear duties in their domestic legislation for all relevant officials to
take the steps necessary to effectively reduce disaster risks, and to integrate DRR into key sectoral laws (including
codes on agriculture, water, education, land use and construction, and health, occupational health and safety). The
rights of individuals to be informed about risk, to participate in decision-making about DRR, and to hold the
government accountable for its duties related to DRR, should be expressly guaranteed.
3.2.6
Proposed Progress Indicators
The following progress indicators related to the specific actions recommended in this section (3.2). They are largely
designed to be locally measurable and attempt to incorporate rights-based-goals.
Specific Actions
Progress Indicators*
1. Establish informed public
dialogue processes




2. Establish partnerships to
build flexible, learningoriented institutions, and
ensure complementarities
 Number of flexible, learning-oriented institutions have been established
 Number of partnerships that have been formed
 Examples of application of knowledge
3. Adopt the use of social
audits




Communities report on their contributions to dialogue sessions
Enhanced access to information
Community generation of own knowledge
Level of knowledge of and understanding of traditional methods and approaches
Number of community groups that have the capacity to undertake social audits
Number of social audits undertaken
Improved local governance mechanisms
M&E results inform the improvement of community programmes/projects
4. Support the establishment Suggested composite index including: Memberships rates of organisations and civic
of community resilience participation, measures of trust, measures of income distribution and ethnic
groups and networks
heterogeneity




Number of sustainable organizations at the local level to serve their needs
No of marginalized people included in formal and informal networks
Incidence of violence in the community
Number of partners, standing agreements for support/cooperation, etc.
 Support (resources, technical support, etc.) attracted
 Number of peer-to-peer programmes conducted and number of participants
5.
Undertake
comprehensive cross-sector
assessments, planning and
implementation
 Number of comprehensive cross-sector assessments and planning undertaken
6. Strengthen
polices and laws
 Degree of DRR integration in national disaster risk management acts and key
disaster
and implemented
 No of people involved in assessment and planning of community
programmes/projects
sectoral laws (e.g. building codes, land use regulation, water codes, agriculture
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 29




codes, health laws, environmental laws, climate change laws) at all levels
Legal provisions concerning budgeting for DRR activities and the participation
and engagement of communities, civil society and private sector
Degree to which legislation and policy mandate attention to core cross-cutting
issues, such as gender differences and the needs of people with disabilities and
other particularly vulnerable social groups
Legal means available to hold relevant officials and private sector actors
accountable for their responsibilities under law
Existing laws being implemented
*These indicators are not mutually exclusive.
3.3 Other Key Points
3.3.1 Accept communities must come first
Resilience is not something outsiders can do or bring to communities. The starting point for any humanitarian or
development support must recognize and appreciate the efforts of communities to strengthen their own resilience.
3.3.2
Working in partnership with communities
Much of the work undertaken by development and humanitarian partners to date on community-based DRR is framed
around promoting community participation, with communities as beneficiaries and as well as the main actors.
Although it is important to understand on how communities should benefit and it what ways, this needs to go further
by framing communities as partners, versus a passive role as participants in the resilience building efforts. This will
ensure genuine ownership in identifying issues, actions, processes, implementation, and monitoring and assessing
plans, policies and actions to build community resilience (Friend, 2013).
In Odisha, India, appreciation and acknowledgement of community actors was used as a means to address issues
that arose in the aftermath of Cyclone Phailin in India (See Case Study – 1: India). This can also be achieved by
proactively engaging the IFRC and other civil society actors in integrated local authourity plans.
3.3.3 Respect local ownership
Local ownership, assets and capacity must be fully respected and relations with local governments and other local
actors strengthened. Dependency on outside support or substitution should be avoided as much as possible.
This includes building responses based on the community’s own development priorities, aspirations, knowledge and
resources as a starting point. This will ensure ownership and sustainability of resilience building measures, and
contribute to the scaling up of strategies.
In the aftermath of Cyclone Phailin in India, extensive damage to housing emphasized the need for greater efforts to
construct cyclone resistant houses through an owner-driven approach (See Case Study – 1: India).
3.3.4 Ensure that all processes and actions taken are inclusive
Building community resilience requires the use of all available assets within a community. This it is important that all
process and actions need to be inclusive, to make use of contributions that can be provided by women, children,
youth, elderly and persons with disability.
An example of inclusion, partnerships and innovative access to information is that that of Urakawa, Japan. A self-help
group of persons with server psycho-social disabilities trained themselves for tsunami evacuation through the
implementation of a pilot project that was initiated in 2003. This was undertaken in collaboration with an autonomous
group of residents in Urakawa, the local authority and other key town stakeholders. An easy to understand accessible
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 30
training manual covering scientific information on tsunami risk, and knowledge for survival was developed, and
distributed through a multi-media format. This was developed and made accessible through an open, non-proprietary,
inter-operable and free of charge accessibility standard. The result of this inclusive approach to disaster
preparedness resulted in zero human casualties during the Great Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami in 2011 (Case
Study 10: Japan).
3.3.5 Know the limits
It is important to acknowledging that strengthening and sustaining resilience is not possible in all context at all times
(e.g. due to access or resource issues). Even in these contexts, it must be ensured that the intervention contributes to
resilience, even at a small scale.
3.3.6
Undertake systematic assessment of characteristics of resilience
This is important as there is a need to understand what enables people to cope with, recover from and adapt to risks
they face.
3.3.7 Build Urban Community Resilience
Given the rapid rate of urbanization in the region, there is an urgent need to understand how the government and
other actors can address the growing vulnerability in urban areas adequately. A process to characterize and develop
indicators for urban community disaster resilience has begun though a partnership consisting of government, UN, and
international and local NGO representatives in Nepal. These build on indicators for rural community disaster
resilience that have already been developed through an ongoing process, and is being applied in other countries in
Asia. The joint coordination of meetings and a symposium to share information on this topic has lead to increased
awareness on the issue (See Nepal Case Study, Annex C).
3.4 Key Stakeholders and Mechanisms for Engagement and Partnership Building
In the recognition that building resilience at the community level encompasses the idea of decentralized democratic
governance, risk assessment, risk management and vulnerability reduction, knowledge and education, and adequate
health care- a very wide range of stakeholders would need to be engaged. Prominent among these would be local
governments, local groups, science and technology institutions that need to make information available at the local
levels, NGOs, planning and revenue departments and block level offices, responsible for implementation of
development programmes and social protection schemes. The work of these institutions must identify resilience
characteristics and must build on them in situated contexts.
Mechanisms that could be established to engage and build partnership between stakeholders include:
1. Networks of local youth volunteers to systematically engage them in the design, and monitoring and evaluation of
CBDRR activities at the local level;
2. National and sub-national platforms to strengthen multi-stakeholder engagement in the implementation of HFA2
and to capture contributions towards building community resilience; and
3. Inter-agency Groups at the lower levels of the governance structure to facilitate coordination, information/data
sharing, streamlining and monitoring of the work done by Civil Society Organizations.
The development of these strong and effective networks with government and non-government organization will
strengthen the role and responsibility of community and local actors on DRR.
At the local level, the ‘BA-WORN’ model has been piloted in Thailand. It incorporates efforts of the three key social
institutions that have an influence on people’s lives, namely, House/Families, Temples/Monasteries and Schools.
These are used as a steering mechanism to facilitate four key steps to creating and strengthening community disaster
monitoring and victim assistance networks.
1. Building shared vision/understanding of what the community wants to achieve for resilience building,
2. Self-organizing their own community group,
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 31
3. Identifying effective inter-communication means for the community, and
4. Identifying activities that can maintain community’s communication.
3.5 Enhancing the Role of HFA2
Given the mixed role that HFA1 played in supporting the achievements described in Section 2.1, it is recommended
that HFA2 provide increased guidance and particular steps on the following:
 Addressing community-level involvement,
 Ensuring better implementation, and
 Promoting the added value of legal frameworks to address underlying vulnerability.
In addition, HFA2 should also be used as means to ensure that real community issues are used to better influence
local level and national decision-making, to allow for improved planning and better achieving global sustainable
development goals.
3.6 Key Messages
In this age of change and uncertainty, building community resilience is essential to ensuring an improved and risksensitive future.
Using a resilience approach to address disaster risks at the (national and) community level will assist the re-framing
of HFA2 under an overarching sustainable development objective.
Thus, community resilience approaches should be institutionalized and integrated multi-sectorally in all local
level risk reduction programmes.
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 32
References
Bild, E and Ibrahim, M. (2013). Towards the resilient future children want: a review of progress in achieving the Children’s Charter for Disaster
Risk Reduction. Available at http://www.unisdr.org/files/33253_33253towardstheresilientfuture2013l.pdf
Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (2008). Annual Disaster Statistical Review. The numbers and trends 2007. Brussels,
Belgium.
Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters. (2013). EM-DAT Brussels, Belgium. http://www.cred.be/emdat.
Comprehensive School Safety, 2013.
http://www.preventionweb.net/files/globalplatform/5194f951dabc99997_STC00792_DRR_CSS_Framework_singles_web.pdf
Deeming, H. (2013). Clarifying Resilience. Natural Hazards Oberserver, Volume 37, No. 4. Natural Hazards Centre, University of Colorado,
Boulder, Colorado. http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/o/archives/2013/mar13_observerweb.pdf
Frankenberger, T., Mueller M., Spangler T., and Alexander S. (2013). Community Resilience: Conceptual Framework and Measurement Feed
the Future Learning Agenda. Rockville, MD: Westat.
Friend, R., Hencererot, J., Reed, S., Jarvie, J. and Thinphanga, P. (2013). How is resilience building different from all other programs?
Experience from promoting urban climate change resilience. Institute for Social and Environmental Transitions. Boulder, Colorado.
Gupta, S. (2010). ASEAN Disaster Risk Management Initiative: Synthesis Report on Ten ASEAN Countries Disaster Risks Assessment.
IFRC, (2004). World Disasters Report – Focus on community resilience
IFRC, (2005). The Hyogo Framework for Action and the International Federation (Disaster Management)
IFRC, (2007). Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment Toolbox (VCA)
IFRC, (2008a). A framework for community safety and resilience – In the face of disaster risk
IFRC, (2008b). The Red Cross Red Crescent and the Hyogo Framework for Action: Focus on the Asia-Pacific region.
IFRC, (2010). Reducing the risks: A framework for DRR in South-East Asia
IFRC, (2012a). Of networks, norms, and trust. The role of social capital in reinforcing community resilience.
IFRC, (2012b). The long road to resilience: Impact and cost-benefit analysis of community-based disaster risk reduction in Bangladesh.
Geneva, International Federation.
IFRC, (2012c). The road to resilience: Bridging relief and development for a more sustainable future. Geneva, International Federation.
IFRC, (2012d). Understanding community resilience and program factors that strengthen them: A comprehensive study of Red Cross Red
Crescent Societies tsunami operation
IFRC, (2013a). DRR Field Sessions: A tool for CSR in the Asia Pacific region
IFRC, (2013b). Framework for Community Resilience (Internal draft document)
IFRC, (2013c). The impact of disaster risk reduction field sessions in Myanmar.
IFRC, (2013d). Options for including community resilience in the post-2015 development goals
IFRC, (2014a). Emergency appeal operation update. Philippines: Typhoons and floods in 2013.
https://www.ifrc.org/docs/Appeals/13/MDRPH01204.pdf
IFRC, (2014b). Indonesian earthquake 2006. http://www.redcross.org.uk/What-we-do/Emergency-response/Past-emergencyappeals/Indonesia-earthquake-2006
McAslan, A. (2010a). The concept of Resilience: Understanding its origins, meaning and utility. Adelaide, Australia: Torrens Resilience Institute.
McAslan, A (2010b). Community Resilience: Understanding the Concept and its Application. Adelaide, Australia: Torrens Resilience Institute.
Mercy Corps (2013). Resilience, Development and Disaster Risk Reduction
Munich Re, (2005). Topics Geo Annual Review: National catastrophes 2005, Munich Re.
Pasteur, K. (2011). From Vulnerability to Resilience: A framework for analysis and action to build community resilience. Practical Action
Publishing.
Save the Children, (2013a). Reducing Risks, Enhancing Resilience.
http://www.preventionweb.net/files/globalplatform/5194f8f53c51bReducing_Risk_Enhancing_Resilience_WEB_Low_Res_FINAL.pdf
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 33
Save the Children, (2013b). Experience in Disaster Risk Reduction in the Education Sector (2013).
Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (2012). Global Framework for Comprehensive School Safety, HOM-35/WP for Asian
Coalition for School Safety
Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (2014). Proceedings of the Project 10 Regional Conference on Education in Emergencies
and Disaster Risk Reduction (forthcoming).
St. Luke’s Health Initiatives, (2011). Goals and Philosophy. http://slhi.org/community_grants/goals_philosophy
Thomalla, (2006). Reducing hazard vulnerability: towards a common approach between disaster risk reduction and climate change. Disasters,
30 (1): 39-48. Overseas Development Institute.
Torrens Resilience Institute. Measuring Community Disaster Resilience.
http://www.torrensresilience.org/images/pdfs/measuring%20community%20disaster%20resilience.pdf
UNESCAP/UNISDR, (2012). The Asia-Pacific Disaster Report 2012: Reducing vulnerability and exposure to disasters.
UNISDR, (2005). Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters.
UNISDR, (2009). Regional Synthesis Report on Implementation of the HFA in Asia and the Pacific 2007-2008/09.
UNISDR, (2011a). HFA Progress in Asia-Pacific: Regional Synthesis Report 2009-2011.
UNISDR (2011b). Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reducation, Geneva, Switzerland.
UNISDR, (2013). The Hyogo Framework for Action in Asia and the Pacific 2011-2013.
World Vision, (2009). Disaster Risk Reduction and Community Resilience: Key concepts and practices.
http://www.worldvision.org/resources.nsf/main/pressresilience/$FILE/DRR%20and%20Resilience%20for%20dummies%20fact%20sheet%20V4.pdf
Key Area 1: Building Community Resilience
Prepared by: IFRC
Page 34