[9]
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka,
Vietnam
[8]
Action Aid [Pakistan], ACF France, DiDRRN, IFRC, Nippon Foundation and
Japanese Disability Forum, and Rise Together [Japan], UNICEF, Queensland
University of Technology [Australia]
The Importance of Building Community Resilience for HFA2 in the Context of Asia Pacific
Background and the Main Questions Explored
Sources of information
Key Message and Recommended Actions for HFA2
1.1
The development of Community Resilience as an approach to tackle risks
1.2
The evolution of Community Resilience as a key issue in the Asia Pacific region to be addressed by HFA2
1.3
Defining and identifying the key characteristics of Resilient Communities
2.1.
Main themes in relation to the questions analyzed and Summary of achievements
2.2.
Remaining gaps and challenges to be addressed in relation to CBDRR
3.1.
Main conclusions
3.2.
Main recommended HFA2 actions to build Community Resilience
3.3.
Additional actions to build Community Resilience and institutionalise CBDRR
3.4.
Key stakeholder and mechanism for engagement and partnership building
3.5.
Enhancing the Role of HFA2
1

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.
The 2005 earthquake in Pakistan resulted in 73,000 fatalities, left over 2.8 million people without shelter, and the overall cost for recovery and reconstruction was estimated at $5.2 billion (Munch Re, 2005).
In 2006, the Yogyakarta earthquake killed 5,749 persons, injured a further 38,000, left almost
600,000 homes damaged or destroyed, and nearly 1.2 million homeless (IFRC, 2014b).
In 2007, 37% of disasters recorded by the EM-DAT database occurred in Asia accounting for 90% of all the reported victims and 46% of economic damage (CRED, 2008) due to monsoon-related events in Bangladesh, China and India. Likewise, 2008 saw the historical Wenchun earthquake in
China, and Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar (UNISDR, 2009), resulting in estimated fatality of 133 thousand people, 2.4 million victims, and economic losses estimated at over $4 billon (Gupta,
2010).
In 2009, tropic storms Ketsana and Pepang swept over the Philippines in September and
October, killing 539 people, affected 4.5 million, and caused an estimated economic loss of $529 million when the wide-scale in flooding crippled the capital Manila. Pakistan saw the worst floods in the nation’s history affecting 20 million people and inundating close to 20% of the country in 2010 (ISDR, 2011).
In 2011, earthquakes hit New Zealand, and floods wreaked both Queensland, Australia, and Sri
Lanka, displacing millions across the latter (Ibid.). In the same year, the Great Japan Earthquake, tsunami and subsequent nuclear disaster, and the Southeast Asia floods that severely affected
Thailand, contributed greatly to staggering loss of $294 billion from disasters that affected the region’s states 1 (UNESCAP/UNISDR, 2012).
Floods devastated the China, Indonesia and the Philippines, and Samoa was hit by a tsunami in
2012 and early 2013 (Ibid.). This was followed by a series of weather systems in the Philippines from August 20103, including the Typhoon Haiyan that struck the Central Philippines in
November, leaving at least 6,2000 fatalities and damaging more than a million homes across the country (IFRC, 2014b). This is in addition to the earthquake that struck Visayas in October the same year.
The average number of people 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 in the past four decades alone (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.
1
These losses accounted for 80% of the $366 billon global losses from disasters in 2013.
2

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.
In addition, low-severity but high frequency localized disasters that occur year on year, affect private citizens and communities in the region who pay the highest prices. Seventy percent of the flood damage in Pakistan was borne by exposed and vulnerable poor households and small farmers 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.).
Sadly, development and the extensive disaster risk reduction efforts undertaken to date have been shown to be unsustainable and effective, 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 wholly 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 abandoning 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 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 is best embodied in a resilience approach that 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 of underlying drivers of risk, without due appreciation of the complexities of inter-connections within systems, including positive and negative feedback loops, and that within communities in which they work.
One constant observed in any aftermath resulting from failure in disaster infrastructure and technology, is that local communities are the first responders (IFRC, 2004), and that communities that exhibit strong 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.
It is within this context that the Asia Pacific region seeks to recommend that the post-2015
Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (HFA2) include provisions to build community resilience, in the global effort to achieving sustainable development goals.
3

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.
In this light, “Building Community Resilience – turning vulnerability into resilience” is one of seven key areas that was identified for more in-depth exploration in the region 2 . This Report explores what action are required to build 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 the current understanding of the term, and through an analysis of the emerging practice of building community resilience, the challenges that have been encountered, and the remaining gaps that need to be addressed. Based on this, recommended actions for HFA2 are outlined drawing on practical experience, along with some suggestions on specific stakeholders who should implement these actions, and examples of indicators that could be used to monitor community resilience.
The main sources of information for this Key Area Report on Building Community Resilience in the Asia Pacific Region (Report) derives mainly from work that has been undertaken by the
International Federation and National Societies of the Red Cross and Red Crescent system. This has been supplemented by a basic literature review, and the country and stakeholder group inputs that have been received through Phase II of the HFA2 consultation process.
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 include a more extensive literature review, and reflect in more detail key achievements from HFA1, the success factors, barriers, and remaining challenges. An analysis of the gaps and challenges will be undertaken with a futuristic perspective. Conclusions and recommendations in the Paper will focus on implementation of DRR by 2015. This Paper will inform part of the discussions during the 6 th
Asian Ministerial Conference for DRR (6AMCDRR), and resulting Declaration will draw upon both the Paper and these discussions.
Chapter 1 of the report examines the development of Community Resilience as a global concept
(namely the shift from disaster response), the evolution of the concept as a key issue to the Asia
Pacific Region to be addressed by HFA2, and the definitions of the key terminologies applicable to Community Resilience.
2 The decision to explore this Key Area further is based on the previous work and consultation described in further in Section 1.2.
4

Chapter 2 summarises the main themes in relation to the questions analysied, summarises the main achievements; and outlines the main gaps and challenges remaining to be addressed.
Some examples of progress from region are provided to illustrate the achievements that have been made.
Chapter 3 which provides a summary of the main conclusion, specifies the main recommended actions, list additional actions to build Community Resilience, suggests key stakeholders and mechanisms and partnership building, and outlines how the role of HFA2 can be enhance.
Given that communities are at the fore-front of any disasters, the recommended actions for HFA
2 to build community resilience, should focus on:

Building community resilience to small and medium scaled disasters

Supporting the development of instruments to ensure that adequate budgets are available to local governments to build community resilience, and

Ensuring that capacities of local government are built so that community resilience initiatives are sustainable in the long-term

Undertaking broader risk reduction programmes to secure current and future livelihoods

Increasing engagement and coordination with the private sector, working with them to expand their business continuity planning to include at risk communities near their operations, and throughout their global supply chain
These actions are required to ensure that community resilience is integrated into local development planning and will lead to long-term sustainability of community-based programmes, and engagement by and of the community, and of the government in building community resilience.
The last 25 years of the discipline of disaster risk reduction has seen the evolution of initiatives being undertaken that 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.
It was soon realized that there were limits to the total prevention of disasters. However, 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.
At the same time, the 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 gave rise to the development of community-based disaster risk management activities that recognizes that risks are not only related to exposure of hazards and vulnerability, but also to capacity to anticipate and prepare for disasters.
5

Subsequently, the notion of merely managing disaster risks 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 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 recognised that this was only one aspect of addressing underlying vulnerability, and that the latter was also related to livelihoods and the broader state of 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 build community resilience.
Today, as communities become increasingly globalized and connected, they are exposed to larger number of stressors, complex and wicked problems, that need to be tackled more effectively using a systems-based, integrated approach. Within this context, the appeal of using concepts 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.
Initially, discussions amongst DRR practitioners 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.
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-organisation, 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, slow-onset global environment changes; and organisations such as IFRC who are using the concept as a means to bridge its traditional humanitarian mission, with a shift in orientation towards development programming, and by Mercy Corp to link its DRR and development programmes (Mercy Corp,
2013).
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
6

2013, the Global Platform 2013 Chairs Summary, and the proposed sub-themes for the 6 th Asian
Ministerial Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction (6AMCDRR), all touch upon the importance of
“Building Community Resilience”.
These consultations highlighted the need to unpack resilience, build capacity on community resilience, the need for social protection, the role of women, and to work with vulnerable groups. A summary of the consultations on each of these themes is provided below.
Unpacking resilience
Resilience is a concept that derived from the study of ecological systems, where ‘ecological resilience’ is defined as “the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks" (Walker et al, 2004).
Building on the meaning of resilience as the ability to “resile from” or “spring back from” a shock, the ISDR 2007 definition of resilience, is as follows:
“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.”
A quick analysis of project descriptions in the DRR Portal 3 on community-based disaster risk management or community-based risk reduction and community resilience or resilient communities, shows an increasing growth of projects (commencing between 2000 and 2012) related to resilience especially from 2008 onwards (Table 1). This is further illustrated in Figure
1, which displays projects from 2005.
Table 1. Number of CBDRM/CBDRR and Community Resilience related projects from 2000-2012.
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
CBDRR/CBDRM Resilience/Resilient
1
3
1
1
9
7
1
10
6
14
3
3
7
10
5
15
10
5
0
CBD…
Figure 1. Number of CBDRM/CBDRR and
Community Resilience related projects from 2005-2012
This shift in focus of projects focusing on reducing vulnerability to increasing resilience is taken further in the HFA2 Phase 1 Asia Pacific consultations which revealed a need to address resilience in a broader sense beyond the 2007 ISDR definition that focuses mainly on “disaster
3 http://www.drrprojects.net/drrp/default/indeshox
7

resilience”, to take into account the resilience or sustainability of DRR and development investments.
A key message of the 2012 Asia Pacific Disaster Report advocates the use of community-led efforts to instill a culture of safety, whilst the proposed sub-theme of the 6AMCDRR is to unpack local or sub-national resilience.
Building capacity on community resilience
There has also been a persistent call to build community resilience through improved local level community and government capacity, with an increasing emphasis on improving human, technical, financial capacity for local implementation, building local skills to deal with local issues, and raising public awareness and education in DRM. Social learning and peer-to-peer learning have been highlighted as valuable tools for this purpose.
The role of women in building community resilience
In 2011, it was noted that there was very poor progress in the incorporation of gender into
DRM. Since then, and there have been a number of calls to improve the engagement of women representatives in DRR, as well as calls for them to be given greater DRM responsibility and social leadership. They have also been recognised as being the driving force for resilient societies.
Working with vulnerable groups to build community resilience
The need for HFA2 issues to be inclusive is highlighted through the calls to work with vulnerable groups to build community resilience. This involves considering the diversity of capacities within communities that related to changing age demographics (children, youth and elderly) and other factors such as poor, marginalized and people with disabilities.
The need for social protection
Lastly, expanding social service, safety nets and protection reforms, and addressing social equity gaps in relief, recovery and reconstruction has been proposed as another venue through which community resilience cab be built.
One of the challenges we have 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 complicates 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 one of the dimensions of resilience at expenses of the other two (Bene, 2012). Namely that of adaptability to changes, at the expenses of stability in order to facilitate adsorption, and transformation where capacity to adjust to changes are inadequate (Bene, 2012). As an example, the stability that is needed to accumulate social and physical assets are disregarded.
The use of the term “disaster resilience” represents the attempt by a within DRR and the humanitarian communities to appropriate the resilience approach within their context.
8

However, this does not facilitate the integrate of disaster risk into longer term development programming covering other risks (e.g. to livelihoods and other issues such as health). The IFRC seeks to overcome this challenge by using the term “risk programming” to relate to their relevant community-based initiatives.
The third and final challenge is in the appropriation of the term at the community level, giving rise to the specific term “community resilience”. Most of the current contextualisation of resilience 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 communities by distinguish the characteristics of the community resilience, as a distinct from individual and household resilience.
In spite of challenges of defining community resilience, attempts to identify key characteristic of resilient community has resulted in much greater success. A resilient community (as identified by IFRC in 2012)

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

Has economic opportunities: 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.
An analysis of inputs and case studies provided by nine countries and eight stakeholder groups 4 working to build community resilience in the Asia Pacific region reveal achievements have been made with regards to the integration of community-based disaster risk reduction (CBDRR) initiatives. However, remaining gaps and challenges are plentiful, and only one country (and none of the stakeholder groups) has fully grasped the fundamentals of community resilience.
Much work remains in the effort to build an understanding and the application of community resilience in the Asia Pacific region.
In reviewing actions on building community resilience in Asia and the Pacific, the interest and institutionalization of CBDRR initiatives has gained momentum over the last three assessment cycles of HFA1, particularly in relation to the development of policies supporting communitybased approaches. An outcome of this progress in relation to HFA1 Priority Action Area 1, as observed by the International Federation and the National Societies of the Red Cross and Red
4 Representing INGOs, National NGOs, a university and a UN agency.
9

Crescent (RCRC) System, is increased collaboration between different DRR actions, particularly between national and community authorities, civil society organisations and the National
Societies of the RCRC, all working together to achieve the same goals. The have also reported improved cooperation between the National Societies of the RCRC and the government and national institutions, resulting in a rise in support for the governments to the National Societies on disaster risk reduction (DRR) issues. This has also translated into the development and updating of national DRR plans and policies targeting vulnerable communities, and the strengthening of national legal frameworks in order to integrate DRR.
Progress on the implementation of these plans and policies, have resulted in the strengthening of institutional frameworks through greater vertical integration amongst international, national and communities actors, and manifests at the ground level in the form of local DRR committees, and an increase in the number of CBDRR projects and programs being implemented in the region.
Approaches to the design and implementation of these projects and programs have benefited from the development of a standard community resilience framework to guide systematic building of community resilience within the RCRC system.
2.1.1.
Developing long-term and sustainable national strategies to enable community resilience
Progress on developing long-term and sustainable national strategies to enable community resilience can be found in Vietnam and India.
In Vietnam, the Government is collaborating with key civil society actors to scale-up a national community-based disaster risk reduction programme covering 70% of communes in the country.
The approach specifically aims to link the Government’s considerable ‘top-down’ response capacity with ‘bottom-up’ community based disaster risk reduction. The approach leverages technical support from key partners like the Vietnam Red Cross, Women’s Union, Oxfam and
UNDP, for the development of commune level risk reduction plans, and is being partial financed from the national budget allocations through a special decree.
The process of learning lessons from pilots across the region, the establishment of strong partnerships with civil society, and working through Government resulted in the approval of a major long-term government programme on a national scale. To date, the CBDRM Plan 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%.
Moving one step further, India has focused their partnership with multiple stakeholders to integrate community-based disaster preparedness and mitigation plans into the development plans prepared by local government, and to strengthen local capacities and institutions. For example, a rural housing scheme in Odisha (Indira Awas Yojana) was used for constructing cyclone-resistant houses, and training modules on disaster management were developed and conducted through facilities at sub-national institutes. In addition, the integrated disaster preparedness and mitigation plans consisted of a mixture of non-structural measures such as
Disaster Management planning exercises and large scale social mobilisation and mass awareness campaigns; along with and several structural measures (e.g. construction of multi-purpose cyclone shelters). The former contributed to a high sense of community ownership of the cyclone shelters, and their effective management by community members. Together, this resulted in minimising the number of lives lost during Cyclone Phailin in October 2013, where
10

the largest evacuation event in the state saw 20,000 evacuees housed in cyclone shelters, schools, colleges and other safe places .
2.1.2.
Instruments for reducing vulnerability and building local resilience
Examples of the role of law as a foundation for building community resilience can be found in
Vietnam and New Zealand.
In 2009, a study on legal preparedness was conducted by Viet Nam Red Cross Society and IFRC.
This was followed by a high-level workshop convened by VNRCS, IFRC and key partners to discuss the findings of the study with governments and other stakeholders. From 2010-2011,
Vietnam’s Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development began drafting a ‘Law on Natural
Disaster Prevention and Control’. During a consultation workshop held by the Vietnam National
Assembly in August 2012 to seek input on the draft law, VNRCS advocated the importance of addressing aspects on international assistance and DRR in the law.
VNRCS continued to provide advice to the government, with technical assistance from IFRC. As a result of VNRCS’s collaborative efforts with the Vietnam government, 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.
The notable good practice features of the New Zealand DRM system described above are that the Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2012 makes DRR a high priority in the CDEM system, and also requires monitoring and evaluation of progress. The Act involves an “allhazards, all-risks, comprehensive, integrated, multiagency and community-focused approach”, and seeks to integrate DRR within the overall system of development planning and governance at national and local levels. It also allocates national and local institutional responsibilities clearly, seeking to move risk management to the local level as far as practicable 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.
2.1.3.
Enhancing the role of the role of children, youth, women, people with disability and
other vulnerable groups in resilience building
India has been successful in catering to the needs of persons with disability. Following the 1999
Super Cyclone that affected Odisha, several cyclone shelters constructed in the state by governments, UN agencies, NGOs and others were designed with special provision for access to the differently abled.
2.1.4.
Building Urban Community Resilience
Given the rapid rate of urbanization in the region, Nepal has identified (through the Nepal Risk
Reduction Consortium), the urgent need to understand how the government and other actors can address the growing vulnerability in urban areas through community-based DRR adequately.
A process to characterize and develop indicators of disaster resilience urban communities has
11

begun though a partnership consisting of government, UN, and international and local NGO representatives. The joint coordination of meetings and a symposium to share information on this topic has lead to increased awareness on the issue.
2.1.5.
Other Progress on HFA1 Priority for Action Areas
Progress on HFA1 Priority for Action Area 2 and 5 has contributed to the strengthening of community preparedness in an integrated manner, through the development of contingency plans and early warning systems that incorporate links to community mechanisms and capacity.
This is exemplified particularly by the reduction in lives lost in Bangladesh and India.
The awareness amongst authorities and the wider public on local disaster risks and coping mechanisms has also improved, through the organization of information and public education campaigns by governments and the civil society, and the development and use of tools for participatory assessments e.g. the RCRC Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment tool. This has contributed to achievements to HFA1 Priority for Action Area 3.
The effective response to Cyclone Phailin in India contributes to HFA Priority Area 3. However, as this initiative commenced before 2005, a direct enabling role of HFA 1 cannot be established, although it could have played an indirect role through post-2005 activities that range from institutional and legislative measures to community-level preparedness and mitigation measures, and included social protection programmes.
Both the enhanced capacity of communities to monitor rehabilitation and reconstruction processes in Indonesia, and the government programme to scale-up community based disaster risk management in Vietnam contribute to HFA Priority Actions 1 and 5.
Enabling Role of HFA1
In Indonesia, HFA1 played a role in enabling the initiative through encouraging participatory DRR monitoring to support community resilience.
Despite the progress that has been reported, challenges still remain. These pertain to the scale of the remaining work required, and issues related to governance; the identification, assessment and monitoring of disaster risks; and the remaining lack of knowledge on disaster risks.
Most of the national policies and plans developed are still dominated by top-down and centralized decision-making processes, where inputs from, and the needs and capacity of the most vulnerable, are not taken into account. There is a lack of communication of national DRR policies and plans to people at the community level, and access to information remains limited.
The implementation of CBDRR projects has also been poor on the ground as these do not place communities first, nor do they seek to develop community ownership for the initiatives undertaken.
The effectiveness and sustainability of these initiatives are also questionable, given that these have mainly been pilot projects of short-duration, and funded by external sources. Thus, they do not provide the continuity required for the development of long-term resilience within communities, due to the lack of predictable and committed funding. This underscores the need to undertake long-term engagement and investment with regards to building community resilience.
Limited financial, material and human resources hinder the collection and analysis of data on disaster risk, and the capacity to prepare for and respond to disaster events. This is also
12

hampered by a lack of awareness and interest in the use of traditional and scientific knowledge to inform local DRR actions, and a lack of education on disaster risks for vulnerable people.
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.
Given the number of poor and vulnerable who are exposed and sensitive to geological hazards, and increase in frequency and intensity of hydro-meteorological hazards, the current financial and human resources are inadequate to tackle the scale of immediate and future disaster risks.
This is compounded by the increasing growth of urban areas in Asia. Where funding is available, this is often sporadic, donor driven, and constrained within silos (except in the case of Nepal and
Bangladesh).
There are currently insufficient persons to handle CBDRR initiatives in the Asia-Pacific region, and the limited funds that are available for DRR is spent on responding to the aftermath of a disaster. This highlights the need to understand the limits to working in isolation from other development practitioners, to establish effective working partnerships, and to undertake comprehensive cross-sector assessments, planning and implementation.
Where projects genuinely seek to adopt a Community Resilience approach, these have only achieved preliminary results, and their full benefits have yet to materialize. This is due to resilience building a continuing process to link relief, recovery, development and resilience, and requires the constant review of the concept, and characteristic of a resilience community as dynamic forces interplay within the different actors at different levels.
In the current consultation phase for HFA2, it is encouraging to see that nine countries and eight organization working in the Asia Pacific region have identified building community resilience is a key priority in the development of a post-2015 framework. However, it is clear that there is still a long way to go in making the linkages between disaster risk reduction, development and building overall community resilience as only one country (and none of the stakeholder groups) has fully grasped the fundamentals of community resilience.
Given that communities are at the fore-front of any disasters, the recommended actions for
HFA2 to build community resilience, should focus on:
3.2.1
Building community resilience to small and medium scaled disasters
In order to do this, guidelines and particular steps are needed to: i) Develop a community resilience framework to identify the characteristics of a resilient community and guide the development of sustainable programmes, projects, services and other activities that strengthen the safety and resilience of people and communities. This will also help actors to develop a coherent understanding of, and approach to community resilience as a means to protect hard won development gains in the context of increasing risk. An example of this is the Framework for Strengthening Community Resilience developed by the IFRC.
13

Stakeholders: National governments and sub-national governments, Relevant ministries/ departments, the Rec Cross/Red Crescent System, Academic and Research Institutions,
NGOs and CSOs ii) Develop a monitoring tool to assess community resilience (Community Resilience Index) with clearly defined parameters along with indicators and benchmarks for each would help assess disaster resilience of communities in vulnerable areas and also help policy makers identify vulnerable areas, enable comparison and intervene pro-actively to enhance resilience. The Index would provide a simple method of assessing if a community will reach and maintain an acceptable level of functioning after a disaster and provide guidance to programming resilience to governments and to CSOs. The Framework for Strengthening
Community Resilience includes examples of indicators that can be used to measure the resilience of communities. This can be found in Annex A.
Stakeholders: National and sub-national governments, the Red Cross/Red Crescent System,
NGOs, Academic and Research Institutes, and CSOs.
3.2.2
Supporting the development of instruments to ensure that adequate budgets are available to local governments to build community resilience.
This will entail the: i) Development of legal instruments to ensure that individual projects are based on risk assessments and are linked with developmental programmes and plans (e.g.
Land use), and ii) Secure political commitments and develop specific and relevant legislation to allocate budget to finance CBDRR plans (e.g. through integrating them into subnational development plans)
Stakeholders: 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
3.2.3
Ensuring that capacities of local government are built so that community resilience initiatives are sustainable in the long-term. This 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. This should include building capacity of city authorities on urban disaster risk management.
Stakeholders: Training Institutes, Academic and Research Institutions, and Professional associations.
3.2.4
Undertaking broader risk reduction programmes to secure current and future livelihoods by all actors at the community level. This involves the application of the resilience approach as outlined the development of a framework (see Recommendation
3.2.1).
3.2.5
Increasing engagement and coordination with the private sector, working with them to expand their business continuity planning to include at risk communities near their operations, and throughout their global supply chain. This may result in the leveraging of additional funds.
An example of a proposed accountability maxtrix to undertake these recommended HFA2 actions can be found in Annex B.
14

Additional actions to build Community Resilience and facilitate long-term CBDRR in a sustainable manner that have been substantiated through the provision of case studies and examples of good practice include:
3.3.1.
Develop National Policy and guidelines to mainstream DRR and CCA in social protection programmes to build resilience.
Stakeholders: National and sub-national governments – relevant ministries/departments
3.3.2.
Invest in sustainable solutions/technologies to foster resilience especially among the vulnerable populations - Bringing together traditional knowledge and technological advancements for economical and locally appropriate solutions – including information management systems to facilitate decision-making based on risk assessment, and for the design and implementation of mitigation measures.
Stakeholders: National and sub-national governments, Academic and Research
Institutions, and professional associations, Private Sector, CSOs.
3.3.3.
Develop a National Framework to guide recovery from disasters including the small scale recurring disasters.
Stakeholders: National and sub-national governments.
3.3.4.
Facilitate the creation of community-owned social protection schemes, customized insurance coverage for vulnerable poor and marginalized groups, and improve
reinsurance mechanisms to protect the livelihood of communities in high-risk areas.
Stakeholders: Government, line ministries and related local government offices, financial and insurance companies, NGOs, relevant UN Agencies.
In Indonesia, where cash for work programmes have undermined local solidarity mechanisms, communities have managed to create their own social protection systems in the form of savings for disaster, food storage, and credit union through womens’ organization, neighborhood administrative bodies, and other local unions.
3.3.5.
Strengthen the capacity of communities to participate meaningfully at district, provincial, and national level DRR policy development forums; in the development of community DRR policies, plans and initiatives (e.g. contingency planning); and in monitoring and evaluating the implementation of HFA2 (e.g. through the use of social audits, and local traditional festivals and social events)
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.
3.3.6.
Create opportunities for partnership with local institutions in the development of local
DRR action plans
3.3.7.
Develop and enforce strict policies prohibiting exploitation of environment and enforcement of environmental responsibility
3.3.8.
Establish and strengthen local level mechanisms to monitor and resolve disputes
arising from the implementation of disaster recovery and risk reduction initiatives.
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 CSO and the media to monitor processes to follow-up
15

on reports lodged. This mechanism could also be used to assess community resilience, organizational capacity, achievements, challenges and lessons learned. Results should be made widely available, and be used as strategic input for further programme development.
3.3.9.
Establish systematic approaches to ensure that the development, implementation and monitoring of CBDRR initiatives are multi-sectoral in nature and inclusive of all stakeholders
3.3.10.
Establish mechanisms to facilitate the meaningful participation of women, children, elderlies and persons with disability in DRR initiatives, to ensure that their special needs are met. This includes the provision of training and opportunities for learning, apart from public service announcements on basic disaster preparedness.
3.3.11.
Develop good national and local DRR policy frameworks and action planning based on analysis of existing best CBDRR practices
3.3.12.
Share community plans resulting from VCA processes during annual sub-national development planning processes
3.3.13.
Enhance access to information and data. 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 generation and analysis of risk data by communities. Access to data and information should form part of a broader strategy on communicating disaster risks to the general public.
It was noted that although much progress has been made under the items listed in Chapter 2, these need to be strengthened further to function as effective vehicles for undertaking community level disaster risk reduction. While most of the instruments incorporate community participation to varying extents, mandatory guidelines need to be developed for community engagement and inclusion to ensure access and right to information and for incorporation of needs and capacities of vulnerability groups based on systematic assessment.
In the recognition that building resilience at the community level encompasses the idea of decentralised 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 capacities 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 in implementation of HFA2 and to capture contributions towards building community resilience;
16

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 Organisations.
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.
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 tools to address underlying vulnerability.
Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (2008). Annual Disaster Statistical Review.
The numbers and trends 2007. Brussels, Belgium.
Frankenberger, T., Mueller M., Spangler T., and Alexander S. (2013). Community Resilience:
Conceptual Framework and Measurement Feed the Future Learning Agenda. Rockville, MD:
Westat.
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, (2008). A framework for community safety and resilience – In the face of disaster risk
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
17

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-wedo/Emergency-response/Past-emergency-appeals/Indonesia-earthquake-2006
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.
UNESCAP/UNISDR, (2012). The Asia-Pacific Disaster Report 2012: Reducing vulnerability and exposure to disasters.
UNISDR, (2009). Regional Synthesis Report on Implementation of the HFA in Asia and the Pacific
2007-2008/09.
UNISDR, (2011). HFA Progress in Asia-Pacific: Regional Synthesis Report 2009-2011.
UNISDR, (2013). The Hyogo Framework for Action in Asia and the Pacific 2011-2013.
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., Kinzig, A. (2004). "Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems" . Ecology and Society 9 (2): 5.
18

Objective
Improve the knowledge of communities.
Expected Outcomes
Community people are able to assess and manage the risks facing them
Everyone has opportunities to learn new skills, build on past experiences, and share and apply this knowledge in practice.
Examples of Resilience Strengthening

Holistic assessment of needs, risks, vulnerabilities and capacities of communities through participatory VCA, baseline survey, etc

Contingency plans

Simulation exercises

Public awareness and public education in risk reduction

Training in risk reduction, first aid, PASSA

Early warning systems

Emergency relief stocks

Knowledge and experience sharing

Training opportunities
 Community involvement in programmes/projects

Monitoring and evaluation
Examples of Indicators

VCA and sector specific assessments conducted as necessary.

Community contingency plans in place

Simulation exercises conducted

No of people reached through PAPE

No of people trained in DRR, CBHFA, PASSA, etc

Community early systems in place

Emergency relief stocks in place

Number of opportunities for sharing knowledge and experience

No of training workshops and people trained

No of people involved in programme/project implementation

M&E results inform the improvement of community programmes/projects
19

Strengthen the social cohesion of communities
Communities have the capacity to draw on formal and informal community networks of support to identify problems, needs and opportunities, establish priorities and act for the good and inclusion of all in the communities.
Develop wellmaintained and accessible infrastructure and services in communities.
Communities have wellmaintained and accessible infrastructure and services.
Communities have strong housing, transport, power, water and sanitation systems.
Communities have the ability or support to use, maintain, repair and renovate them.



Promotion of social inclusion

Branch and volunteers’ engagement in



Community organization
Community involvement in assessment and planning of community programmes/projects community activities.
Advocacy for the needs of vulnerable people
Partnership with local public authorities and other stakeholders to improve the safety of their environment.

Promotions and dissemination of the RCRC
Fundamental Principles and humanitarian values

Promotion of behavioural change through key messages and public education

Engagement of youth as agents of Behaviour
Change (YABC).
Promotion of violence prevention

Advocate for education and health facilities to be built in safe areas.

Advocate for good disaster laws and regulatory systems.

Promote safe shelter and settlements.

Advocate for large scale urban water and sanitation infrastructure.

Public awareness and public education programmes.

Provide training and peer-to-peer education to enhance skills and knowledge

Influence urban and community planning for more public space, parks, public transportation

Promote road safety

Number of sustainable organisations at the local level to serve their needs

No of people involved in assessment and planning of community programmes/projects

No of marginalized people included in formal and informal networks

Partnership with various stakeholders

No of people reached through the dissemination of
Fundamental Principles and humanitarian values

No of people who have changed their behaviours as a result of RCRC promotion

No of youth engaged in YABC

Number of branches and volunteers engaged in formal and informal networks.

RCRC role in integrated public authority plans.

Incidence of violence in the community

Number of people aware of RCRC violence prevention programmes
 Number of public infrastructure plans and investments that are disaster risk informed.

Building codes and standards that consider disaster risk reduction.

Buildings compliant with building codes/standards.
 Number of water and sanitation schemes.
 Number of public awareness and public education programmes.

Number of trainings, number of participants.

Number of urban and community plans incorporating public space, parks, public transportation standards
 Incidence of road accidents.
 Number of people killed or injured in road accidents
20

Provide economic opportunities to community people.
Manage natural assets.
Communities provide diverse range of employment and income opportunities
Communities are flexible and resourceful.
Communities have the capacity to accept uncertainty and respond (proactively) to change.
Communities manage their natural assets.
Communities recognise the value of their natural assets.
Communities have the ability to protect, enhance and maintain their natural assets.
Strengthen the connectedness of communities.
Communities 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
Communities can request external actors to supply tangible and intangible forms of support to the community

Livelihood programming.

Vocational and skills training

Peer-to-peer education to enhance skills and knowledge
 Encourage community people to share traditional livelihoods, food and nutrition strategies
 Support environmentally responsible food production.

Pursue environmentally responsible construction practices.

Environmental conservation initiatives
(e.g. tree planting, environment-friendly sanitation, reduction of carbon footprints, energy saving, etc.)

Promote environmentally responsible urban planning

Advocacy programmes, public awareness and public education programmes.

RCRC role in holistic community plans at all levels (community, local government and national).
 NS networking with IFRC and sister NSs
 NS initiated domestic and International
Emergency Appeals

Partnership with different stakeholders
 No of people supported through livelihoods programmes

No of people who have benefitted from vocational and skills training

Unemployment rate, standard of living of community, etc.

Number of peer-to-peer programmes conducted and number of participants.

Level of knowledge of and understanding of traditional methods and approaches.

Number of environmentally responsible food projects.

Reduction in environment degradation as a result of inappropriate agricultural practices.

Use of sustainable building products.

Number of environmental conservation projects.

Level of understanding of environmental issues and consequences of mismanagement.
 Number of urban plans that incorporate environmental measures

Measurement of carbon footprints

No of people reached through PAPE



Community plans with clearly defined RC role
Number of partners, standing agreements for support/cooperation, etc.
Support (resources, technical support, etc.) attracted.
21

Action
Develop a community resilience framework
Accountable actors

National governments and subnational governments

Relevant ministries/ departments

Academic and Research Institutions

NGOs
Develop a monitoring tool to assess community resilience

NDMOs

National governments and subnational governments

Relevant ministries/ departments

Academic and Research Institutions
Strengthen local level capacities through the provision of training
Develop a national policy and guidelines to mainstream DRR and CCA

Training Institutes

Academic and Research Institutions

Professional Associations

National and sub-national governments

Relevant ministries/ departments
Accountable to Progress indicators
Communities

National Community Resilience
Framework
Communities
National and sub-national
Governments


National Resilience Index
National guideline for data collection and analysis

Sub-national Resilience Index

Sub-national guidelines for data collection and analysis

Training Modules

Database of Trainees and
Resource persons

Training Needs Assessments

Training Institutes with trained human resources and budgetary allocation
Communities 
National Policy

Sectoral Guidelines
Targets Monitoring Mechanism
1

Expert Committee

Stakeholder consultation

Review of Framework
4
2
2
2
1
1
4
4
1
4

Stakeholder consultation

Review and Field testing of Indices and
Guidelines

Peer Review of
Training Modules

Review of Database

Orders issued for hiring of human resources and budgetary allocation

Expert Committee

Stakeholder consultation

Review of Guidelines
22

Invest in sustainable solutions/technologies to foster resilience

National and sub-national governments

Academic and Research Institutions

Professional Associations

Private Sector

CSOs
Develop a Framework to guide recovery processes

National and sub-national governments

Relevant ministries/departments
Communities 
Early Warning Systems (EWS) that integrate traditional knowledge and modern technology

Integrated water management approach
Communities 
National Recovery Framework
1 pilot project each

Review of Systems/
Approaches

Consultations

Field visits
1 
Expert Committee

Stakeholder consultation

Review of Framework
23

Theme
Abstract
Context
Addressing the
Problem: Actions and stakeholders
Effective Response to Cyclone Phailin in India
Developing a long-term and sustainable national strategy for enabling community resilience
Capacities of the nation in disaster preparedness were tested when cyclone
Phailin hit the east coast on the evening of October 12, 2013 with wind speeds of nearly 220 km/hour. The response to Cyclone Phailin in India underscores how enhanced community preparedness can result in significant reduction in loss of lives. Preparedness training, Disaster Management planning exercises, awareness-raising, and several structural and non-structural measures
(including construction of multi-purpose cyclone shelters) by multiple stakeholders including State and National Governments, UN agencies, NGOs, etc. spanning over a decade have contributed to this. However, the extensive damage caused to livelihoods, shelter and other assets as well as challenges to long-term recovery of those affected highlight the need for a systematic approach to building resilience of communities against disasters and climate change.
India is one of six major cyclone-prone countries in the world. Cyclonic storms and storm surge have been responsible for some of the severe fatalities along the coasts, the worst of which was caused during the Odisha Super-cyclone
(1999). Lack of community preparedness to disasters resulted in extensive loss of lives and damage to assets. Vulnerability reduction and disaster management saw significant intensification since the Super Cyclone in Orissa and the focus shifted on integration of community-based disaster preparedness and mitigation plans into the development plans prepared by local government, and strengthening of local capacities and institutions.
Cyclone Phailin hit the east coast of Odisha on the evening of October 12, 2013 with wind speeds of nearly 220 km/hr. The Odisha State Disaster Management
Authority (OSDMA) team and the Ministry of Home Affairs (Disaster
Management Division) managed the largest-ever evacuation exercise in the state and planned large-scale relief preparations. The evacuees were put up in nearly 20,000 cyclone shelters, schools, colleges and other safe places. This was responsible for minimal deaths as compared to the 1999 Super Cyclone where more than 10,000 people died. Economic losses indeed have been high—in rural agriculture, fisheries, sericulture, etc. An estimated 5,000 sq km of mostly paddy crops have been destroyed by the cyclone causing an estimated loss of some $320m. The recovery challenge of loss of livelihoods of the poor in coastal areas is huge.
Disaster management plans have been prepared from village to district; village volunteers trained in first-aid, search and rescue, evacuation and relief and shelter management; disaster management teams constituted at the district and sub-district levels and mock drills conducted at all levels. The State
Government (with funding support from other State/National Governments,
IFIs such as the World Bank), NGOs (both local and international), multi-
24

Addressing the
Problem: Main challenges
Addressing the
Problem: Lesson
Learnt
Results laterals including UNDP have invested in: development of physical infrastructure for effective response, Emergency Operation Centres, technology transfer – low cost housing technology, mason’s training, community-based livelihood diversification initiatives, mass awareness creation, social mobilisation, strengthening response mechanisms (search and rescue operations, first aid, water & sanitation, shelter management), establishment of contingency funds and pre-positioning of food grains at Gram
Panchayat level, creation Odisha Disaster Rapid Action Force (ODRAF), deployment of staff to expedite effective relief and rehabilitation, use of the rural housing scheme of Indira Awas Yojana for constructing cyclone-resistant houses, etc.
High levels of poverty and other priorities resulting in reduced interest in mitigation activities; short memory span regarding large disasters; poor understanding of DM including that of local elected representatives; etc. posed challenges to long-term resilience building. In order to address some of these, large scale social mobilisation and mass awareness campaigns, appreciation/acknowledgement of community actors; development of trainings modules on DM for elected representatives as well as conduct of trainings through State Institute of Rural Development (SIRD) were undertaken.
Floods following Phailin overwhelmed capacities to respond as well as undertake recovery initiatives. The occurrence of two disasters in succession has emphasised the need to strengthen ODRAF, increase the number of cyclone shelters, and strengthening of community volunteer groups. Towards the last point, the new state Youth Policy mandates engagement of established youth groups in DM. Extensive damages to housing emphasised the need for greater efforts to construct cyclone resistant houses through an owner-driven approach, improvement of building techniques as well as effective dissemination of information of safe construction practices.
The most important result of the concerted efforts of stakeholders in enhancing disaster preparedness was the significant reduction in loss of lives as a result of accurate warnings as well as effective and timely evacuation.
Timely warnings also resulted in saving of crops in certain areas that were ready for harvesting. One of the key elements of successful response was the cyclone shelters that have been constructed in the state (by the governments,
UN agencies, NGOs, etc.) since the 1999 Super Cyclone for more than a decade. Several of these were designed with special provision for access to the differentially abled. The effective management of cyclone shelters by community members as revealed by Cyclone Phailin is a testimony to the sense of community ownership and their level of awareness as well as preparedness. This could be attributed to another key element of DM efforts i.e., training and awareness building initiatives. In order to measure the success of earlier interventions and to identify gaps, detailed assessments are being carried by various stakeholders including the Government of Odisha,
UNDP, and other agencies/NGOs.
25

Relevance to HFA1 While the results of various actions have contributed to HFA1 progress in the country, especially Priority Area 3, HFA1 did not play a direct role in enabling this initiative as many of the activities were initiated before 2005. However, these along with post-2005 DM activities (from institutional and legislative measures to community-level preparedness and mitigation measures, social protection programmes) enabled the government to effectively plan and coordinate the one of the largest evacuation exercises that in India in recent history, saving several thousands of lives.
Inclusion of
Community
Resilience Building in HFA2
The extensive damage caused to livelihoods, shelter and other assets as well as challenges to long-term recovery of those affected by the Cyclone highlight the need for a systematic approach to building resilience of communities against disasters and climate change. This would include among others, development of a monitoring tool to assess community resilience, continued efforts to strengthen local level capacities, effective mainstreaming of DRR and
CCA in developmental activities (national Policy and guidelines), investment in sustainable solutions/technologies to foster resilience, and a holistic approach to recovery (national framework to guide recovery).
Potential for replication
The Cyclone response experience emphasises the need for sustained, complementary and coordinated efforts by multiple stakeholder groups in sync with local risk context, governance systems, DM Plans, and other developmental initiatives; with active leadership from State and local level governance institutions; and participation of communities. The various elements that are required for this as demonstrated in Odisha can be adapted to other States within the country. With greater emphasis on mainstreaming
DRR and CCA in developmental work, availability of funds for strengthening of disaster response, and other new developments in DM institutional setup and social protection schemes, the gaps revealed by Phailin Response can be addressed.
Contact Mr. Sanjay Agarwal
Director (DM-III)
DM Division
Ministry of Home Affairs
New Delhi, India
Email: dirdm3@mha.gov.in
26

Theme
Abstract
Context
Rebuilding Dreams from Debris caused by Cold Lava, Gempol, Indonesia
Instruments to build local resilience. Specifically i) Post-disaster reconstruction policy, ii) Right to access to information; and iii)
Accountability in disaster aid
When Gempol village was impacted by cold lava when Mount Merapi erupted in 2010, its residents resisted the government’s attempt to relocate them, and rebuilt their village using on their own resources.
This resulted in i) the rebuilding of 40 houses using their own resources; ii) setting up of evacuation routes using community funds; iii) the establishment of a village preparedness team; iv) collaboration with the private sector (PT. Galang Faria) to fund the development of additional evacuation routes; v) Setting up village regulation (revenue from sand mining used to finance village development); vi) Village financial report
(revenue and expense) and transparent and accessible by all members at any time.
Gempol villagers refused to relocate as the policy was to be implemented without transparency and clear information regarding their rights. It was also unclear if their village would be declared habitable again. As relocation would impact on their economic assets, health and education, they demand clear explanation of consequences relocating or to return to their village.
They chose to return to their village.
Dishonest administration related to the selection of recipient of permanent houses was discovered. This included those who did not suffer damages to their houses. It led to a division between those accepted and those refused relocation. The latter returned to their houses in Gempol, leaving the permanent houses provided by the government uninhabited.
How the problem was addressed?
Villagers took the initiative to seek out information on vulnerability of their village and the ensuing residential policies with BBWSO, BPPTKG, DPRD
Magelang, Bupati, and UNDP. Unsatisfied with information the gathered, they file complaint regarding their finding of improper selection of house recipient to Regional Ombudsman, BNPB, KPK, Ministry of Housing, Ministry of Social Affairs, and President.
They devise up their own plan of rebuilding their village with respect to their disaster risks.
Villagers were enrolled in social audit training programmes to enable them to participate in monitoring and evaluation of implementation of government policies and programs.
It involved Gempol villagers, including the village head, religious leaders, and women and youth representatives. They play the main role of seeking correct information, coordinating with various parties, and making decision of their future.
CSOs played the role of assisting the community to obtain transparent and accountable information and training them in monitoring of implementation of policies and programs in their community.
The villagers who refused to relocate were seen as people who disregarded
27

Results government policies. They are discrimated against by village administration.
The CSOs who assisted these villagers were percieved as provocators of disobedience by regional government and village administration.
Lesson learned
• Policies undertaken without transparency and community participation are bound to fail
• Uneven distribution of information leads to conflict within communities.
This is aggravated by lack of monitoring and evaluation on policy implementation and gap between system and practice within the government.
• Quality of service delivery depends on community awareness of their rights and understanding of government function as duty bearer.
• Good local risk governance exists only when local actors are allowed to participate, local capacity and skills are optimally employed and strengthened, information is made available and accountability is put in place.
Recommendation
1.
Allow community participation in planning and decision making regarding relocation and/or rebuilding
2.
Make available access to information/studies on disaster impact on residence, rights, and consequences of choosing relocation and/or rebuilding
3.
Assisting community in planning the rebuilding the village in DRR perspective
4.
Strengthen capacity of community in monitoring and evaluation
The results of this approach/intervention led to the community:
1.
Relying on their own resources to rebuild their village in short period of time and process, and
2.
Taking initiative to gather information, coordinate with various parties as they know of their rights and obligations.
Key elements of success included:
1.
Critical consciousness of community of their rights and obligations
2.
Community participation in planning, decision making, and monitoring and evaluation of policies and programs
3.
Reliance on local capacity and resources and respect for social capital
Measuring success Success was measured by means of participatory action research, to allow community recognize their achievement and learn from experience, plan, and make recommendation for future efforts.
28

Relevance to HFA 1
Have the results contributed to
HFA1 progress in the country? If so, how?
Potential for replication
Contact
This initiative has contributed to HFA1 progress in Indonesia. The work undertaken by the CSOs have strengthen local institutions and enhanced local capacity to develop resilience and incorporate DRR into their daily life.
The HFA1 played a small role in enabling this initiative. Yes, it played a role but not significant. HFA1 becomes reference in building community resilience, but changes are not significant due to weak monitoring and evaluation of quality and secured sustainability of programs
Replication may be carried out through joint learning of community resilience practices through seminars, workshops, documenting, monitoring and evaluation with community –government –private sector, research, and policy review. In Gempol, the village administration and YEU facilitated study visits from other NGOs to share reference on strategies.
1.
Head of Gempol village, Mr. Sudiyanto (mobile 087834222589)
2.
Staf YEU, Ranie Ayu Hapsari (mobile 081360372289)
Contribution from the YAKKUM Emergency Unit (YEU)
29

Building Participation and Accountability in Post-disaster Rehabilitation and Reconstruction
Processes following the Merapi Eruption, Indonesia
Theme
Abstract
Post-Disaster Accountability Mechanism
Social Audit (or participatory monitoring) is monitoring of structural and non-structural development processes by communities designated as program beneficiaries. During the rehabilitation and reconstruction process of the Merapi eruption, community carried out direct monitoring of the processes to ensure effectiveness and to minimize dishonest practices.
Context
How the problem was addressed?
During the post-disaster Rehabilitation and Reconstruction Processes following the Merapi Eruption in Indonesia a number of challenges were faced. This included a) A delay in the building of permanent houses was delayed, while emergency period was coming; b) The lack of public consultation with designated recipients, as data was conflicting and unreliable; c) The lack of understanding of the majority of recipients on the mechanism of the program; d) The advantage taken by land intermediaries due to the former; e) Agreements on procurement of building materials was made between Rekompak and suppliers, thus beneficiaries did not have the opportunity to ensure the quality of building materials.
The problem was addressed through: a.
A forum of beneficiaries was formed to share information on housing development, as part of rehabilitation and reconstruction process. b.
20 designated beneficiaries and representative of village administration were trained in social audit. c.
Survey of 400 respondents (victims) regarding rehabilitation and reconstruction of housing was undertaken. d.
Dialogue with village administration, Rekompak, BPBD and the Word
Bank regarding survey analysis and clarification of data and information with related parties. e.
Dialogue with Magelang local council to obtain their response on results of social audit, and follow up on settling the issues.
Roles played by different actors included:
1.
Village administration apparatus: Provided data and information, participated in social audit training, social audit, and dialogue with authorities.
2.
Community: Participated in community forum, enrolled in social audit training, perform social audit, gather data and information, and participate in dialogue with all the other stakeholders.
3.
Rekompak: Provided data and information and verified and clarified findings regarding its performance to improve its role and function.
4.
World Bank: Provided funding
5.
BPBD: Provided data and information and responded to questions and accounted for findings regarding rehabilitation and reconstruction, especially housing projects.
6.
Local council (DPRD): Facilitated dialogue between community and local government (BPBD) to formulate and decide on follow up of audit
30

Results findings regarding rehabilitation and reconstruction, including facilitating fund allocation.
The biggest challenge came from community and government personnel who had vested interest in the housing project, as this had the potential to lead to social conflict.
Another a big challenge was access to information and official documents.
Government personnel often refuse to share official documents and information.
The lessons learnt include:
1.
Implementation of rehabilitation and reconstruction needs to involve impacted community from planning to monitoring and evaluation, to ensure efficiency, effectiveness and transparency.
2.
Rehabilitation and reconstruction policies need to take into consideration specific context and condition, including local potentials.
3.
Intensive communication between impacted community and policy makers in both executive and legislative bodies is needed.
Community results gained through this initiative included knowledge of social audit, skills in performing it, and enhanced knowledge of the audit. It also empowered local organisations, encouraged improvement in public services, and helped to ensure efficiency and effectiveness. It also fostered better conduct in people involved in the implementation of the rehabilitation and reconstruction process.
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. Community participation and government accountability grow stronger with the implementation of social audit.
Key elements of success included:
1.
Strong motivation in persons designated as beneficiary of the permanent housing program.
2.
Strong solidarity within community enabled members who performed the social audit to serve the interest of all members, and not merely their own interest.
3.
Strong collaboration between community and village administration in performing the social audit.
The social audits drew political commitment from the legislative body to support the speeding up of rehabilitation and reconstruction processes. It also strengthened public participation and accountability.
31

Measuring success Success of rehabilitation and reconstruction processes can be measured through the use of social audits to:
1.
Compare between rehabilitation and reconstruction plans and actual implementation
2.
Assess the understanding of roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders
3.
Undertake qualitative and quantitative measures of success,
4.
Map both positive and negative impacts, and
5.
Verify conclusions drawn and recommendations made
Relevance to HFA 1 The results contribute to HFA1 progress in Indonesia as the capacity of communities to monitor rehabilitation and reconstruction has been visibly enhanced.
More specifically, they contribute to HFA Priority 1 on Governance especially in relation to i) Policy, planning, priorities and political commitment, ii)
Integration into emergency response and recovery; and Accountability and community participation.
It also contributed to HFA Priority 5 on Preparedness and Emergency response, especially on i) Institutional capacity and coordination; ii)
Emergency response and recovery; and iii) Participation, volunteerism, accountability.
Community-based monitoring and social audits should be specifically mentioned in the HFA. The latter is necessary not only in emergency response and rehabilitation/reconstruction, but also in disaster risk reduction initiatives.
HFA1 played a role in enabling this initiative through encouraging participatory DRR to support community resilience.
Potential for replication
Contact
Social audit is replicable in all activities in all sectors, with the adaptation of methods and tools to fit within each specific context. For replication to be a success, the government, as the duty bearer, needs to develop a clear understanding of the benefit of this approach.
1.
Sunarja (IDEA) 0817269645
2.
Imam Setiyadi (IDEA) 08175457933
3.
Endang (Sirahan village) 081328200612
Contribution from IDEA –Yogyakarta DRR Forum
32

Community Based Urban DRR under Flagship 4 of the Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium
Abstract The issue of community based urban DRR has received attention under
Flagship 4 of the Nepal Risk Reduction Consortium (NRRC), and is becoming a priority for its partners. An urban DRR symposium has been planned to bring partners together to better understand implementation of urban DRR.
Context
How the problem was addressed?
As CBDRR has been a priority under Flagship 4, 9 minimum characteristics of a disaster resilient community have been identified. However, these characteristics (and subsequent indicators) are based on the rural context. Nepal is the fastest urbanising country in South Asia, but it is being undertaken haphazardly. There is a knowledge gap on how government and organizations can adequately address urban vulnerability through community based DRR.
In realization of this gap, Flagship 4 partners (Government, UN/INGOs, and NGOs) have begun a process to understanding the issues faced in the urban context and how collectively, they can address these challenges.
This includes activities such as:
Urban coordination meetings
An urban symposium, and
Revisiting the 9 minimum characteristics of a disaster resilient community and developing indicators for the urban context
Results The results of these activities have been greater awareness and coordination among partners in regards to urban DRR; however, much more is needed.
Measuring success As the focus thus far has been on coordination and information sharing, no measures of success are currently available.
Relevance to HFA1 The result of greater coordination and information sharing has contributed to overall HFA 1 priorities for building resilience at the local levels.
Potential for replication
The initial coordination attempts (bringing together a diverse set of actors) can be replicated in other settings. However, follow-up on this work needs to be further monitored to identify replication opportunities.
33

Engaging low socio-economic and culturally and linguistically diverse at-risk populations in disaster preparedness: Logan City, Australia
Abstract Logan City Council in Queensland State, Australia have had limited success in engaging at-risk populations in disaster preparedness. A two-prong collaborative strategy was proposed that involves partnering with community leaders, and community grassroots groups to tap into existing community social capital and networks to strengthen disaster preparedness.
Context
How the problem was addressed?
Logan City has a high proportion of residents considered as at-risk. It is regarded as one of Australia’s most culturally diverse cities with 29% of residents being culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) or indigenous background including a large proportion of re-settled refugees. It is also ranked as an area of high economic disadvantage. Developing improved community capabilities for disaster preparedness through close engagement with the targeted communities is a key feature of Logan
City’s disaster management planning. However, this has proven to be a challenge due to the limited response from these communities for closer engagement with the City authorities.
Through a collaboration between the Queensland University of
Technology (QUT) and Logan City Council (LCC), a three step process has been design to address the problem:
Step 1: A review of state-of-the-art research literature to identify international best practice and strategies for engaging with low socioeconomic and culturally and linguistically diverse populations with the primary objective of developing a series of recommendations.
Step 2: Conduct of focus group discussions and face-to-face surveys to understand people’s perceptions, concerns and issues in relation to disaster preparedness and for validation of the recommendations developed above.
Step 3: Refinement of the original recommendations and undertaking a series of pilot programs.
QUT has the responsibility for undertaking the above phases of activities with LCC providing logistical support. After finalisation of the recommendations, LCC in partnership with QUT will undertake their implementation across the Logan City region.
Results The review of state-of-the-art research literature has been completed.
Other results are expected towards the end of 2014
Relevance to HFA1 HFA1 did not have a specific focus on at-risk communities and in particular low socio- economic population and culturally and linguistically diverse population.
Contact Dr Melissa Teo (melissa.teo@qut.edu.au)
Dr Paul Barnes (d.barnes@qut.edu.au)
Prof. Ashantha Goonetilleke (a.goonetilleke@qut.edu.au)
34