Annex A: Community-Based
Resilience and HFA1
Disaster
Risk
Reduction,
Community
Community-based disaster risk reduction can be described as a proactive approach to information, motivate and
involve people in all aspects of DRR in their own communities.
It is a process of active engagement, participation and involvement of at-risk community in:
i) the identification, analysis, treatment, and monitoring and evaluation of disaster risks1, and
ii) all phases of DRR (i.e. mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery2)
It focuses on the most vulnerable, entails their involvement, complimented by supported from the least vulnerable3.
The approach involves enhance the capacity of communities to i) cope with disaster risk; ii) reduce their vulnerability to
future disaster risks, and iii) enhance their capacities to manage and reduce risks through provision of training.
Its underlying premise is that communities should be empowered to manage and reduce disaster risk by having access
to the necessary information, resources and authourity to implement actions for disaster risk reduction.
This requires the development and strengthening of institutions, mechanisms and capacities that can systematically
contribute to building resilience to hazards at the community level.
The expected outcome is that it will lead to a substantial reduction of disaster losses, in lives and in the social,
economic and environmental assets of communities.
It seeks to strengthen the ability of communities to protect themselves, families, their life and production from negative
effects of hazards by increasing their awareness of disaster risk, assisting them to assess the situation, identify risk
reduction measures, make decisions on what measures to undertake, and to implement them.
It also seeks to ensure that DRM and development activities are owned by the community and achieve better, more
practical, effective and sustainable results, leading to more stable, safer and sustainable community life.
It aims to integrate DRR into local development processes, ensure that information collected is relevant and meets
communities needs, and improve external actors understanding of the community.
The core principles and values of CBDRR are that it:
1. recognizes the central role of people and community as beneficiaries and the main actors,
2. respects local knowledge and understanding,
3. recognises that there are different perceptions of risk, vulnerability and capacities, and
4. applies multi-sectoral and multi-disciplinary approaches
Community-based organisations and volunteers are recognised as vital stakeholders in supporting the implementation
of DRR at the community level.
It is acknowledged that CBDRR is an evolving and dynamic framework. This allows it to take into account global
emerging issues.
The notion that CBDRR empowers communities to address the root causes of vulnerabilities by transforming social,
economic and political structures that generate inequality and under development (Shaw and Kenji, 2004; ADPC
2006), is not widely reflected in the literature and practice of CBDRR. However, it underscores an important element of
ADPC, (2003). Community-Based Disaster Risk Management-11 Course Materials. Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre,
Bangkok. Thailand.
2 CECI, (2011). Framework on Community Based Disaster Risk Management in Vietnam. Joint Advocacy Networking Initiative in
Vietnam (JANI). Centre for International Studies and Cooperation.
3 Abarquez and Murshed, (2004). Community-based Disaster Risk Management: Field Practitioner’s Handbook, Asian Disaster
Preparedness Centre, Bangkok. Thailand
1
1
vulnerability related to inequality and under development. And the idea of transforming social, economic and political
structures resonates with the elements of resilience that focuses on building transformative capacity.
Key Community DRR Activities listed in HFA1
Community participation (1h)
Promote community participation in disaster risk reduction through the:
i) adoption of specific policies (Development of policies to support CBDRM)
ii) promotion of networking (Building community networks)
iii) strategic management of volunteer resources (Building social cohesion)
iv) attribution of roles and responsibilities (Self-organisation), and
v) delegation and provision of the necessary authority and resources
National and local risk assessments (2a &b)
a) Develop, update periodically and widely disseminate risk maps and related information to decision-makers, the
general public and communities at risk in an appropriate format.
b) Develop systems of indicators of disaster risk and vulnerability at national and sub-national scales which will enable
decision-makers to assess the impact of disasters on social, economic, and environmental conditions, and disseminate
the results to decision-makers, the public and population at risk.
Regional and emerging risks (2o)
Research, analyse and report on long-term changes and emerging issues that might increase vulnerabilities and risks
or the capacity of authorities and communities to respond to disasters.
Education and training (3l)
Promote community-based training initiatives, considering the role of volunteers, as appropriate, to enhance local
capacities to mitigate and cope with disasters.
Priority Action 5f: Strengthen preparedness for effective response at all levels4
Develop specific mechanisms to engage the active participation and ownership of relevant stakeholders, including
communities, in DRR, in particular building on the spirit of volunteerism.
Key Community Resilience Activities listed in HFA1
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.
Other Cross-Cutting References
Other cross-cutting references is made in HFA1 highlighting the importance of DRR at the community and local level.
These include:
Overall Objective: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters
HFA-1 Preamble:
The World Conference on Disaster Reduction underscored the need for, and identified ways of building resilience of
nationals and communities to disasters.
Priority Action 5 recognises that at times of disaster, impacts and losses can be substantially reduced if authorities, individuals
and communities in hazard-prone areas are well prepared and ready to act and are equipped with the knowledge and capacities
for effective disaster management.
4
2
HFA-4 Challenges posed by disasters:
In order to meet the challenged ahead, accelerated efforts must be made to build the necessary capacities at the
community and national levels to manage and reduce risks.
HFA-8 The Yokohama Strategy: Lessons learned and gaps identified:
Disaster risk reduction to be underpinned by a more pro-active approach to informing, motivating and involving people
in all aspects of DRR in their own communities
Expected Outcome
The substantial reduction of disaster losses, in lives and in the social, economic and environmental assets of
communities and countries
Strategic Goal – 12b (Adopted by the Conference)
The development and strengthening of institutions, mechanisms and capacities at all levels, in particular at the
community level, that can systematically contribute to building resilience to hazards
Priorities for Actions 2005-2015 - General Considerations
13f. Communities should be empowered to manage and reduce disaster risk by having access to the necessary
information, resources and authourity to implement actions for disaster risk reduction
13j. There is also a need for proactive measures in a way that will build community resilience and reduce vulnerability
to future disaster risks
HFA-21 Implementation and Follow-up - General Considerations:
Civil society, including volunteers and community-based organisations … are vital stakeholders in supporting the
implementation of DRR at all levels.
Cross-cutting issue: Community and volunteers participation
3
Annex B: Case Studies and Examples of Good Practice in Support of
Recommendations for HFA2 on Building Community Resilience
CS-1: Effective Response to Cyclone Phailin in India
Theme
Developing a long-term and sustainable national strategy for enabling community resilience
Abstract
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.
Context
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.
Addressing the Disaster management plans have been prepared from village to district; village volunteers
Problem: Actions trained in first-aid, search and rescue, evacuation and relief and shelter management; disaster
and stakeholders 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-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.
4
Addressing the High levels of poverty and other priorities resulting in reduced interest in mitigation activities;
Problem:
Main short memory span regarding large disasters; poor understanding of DM including that of local
challenges
elected representatives; etc. posed challenges to long-term resilience building. In order to
address some of these, large scale social mobilisation and mass public 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.
Addressing the Floods following Phailin overwhelmed capacities to respond as well as undertake recovery
Problem: Lesson initiatives. The occurrence of two disasters in succession has emphasised the need to
Learnt
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.
Results
Relevance
HFA1
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.
to 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
Potential
replication
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).
for 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
5
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
6
CS-2: Rebuilding Dreams from Debris caused by Cold Lava, Gempol, Indonesia
Theme
Instruments to build local resilience. Specifically i) Post-disaster reconstruction policy, ii) Right to
access to information; and iii) Accountability in disaster aid
Abstract
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)
ensuring that the village financial report (revenue and expense) was transparent and accessible by all
members at any time.
Context
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 demanded
clear explanations of the consequences of 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 Villagers took the initiative to seek out information on vulnerability of their village and the ensuing
problem was residential policies with BBWSO, BPPTKG, DPRD Magelang, Bupati, and UNDP. Unsatisfied with
addressed? 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. This involved Gempol
villagers, including the village head, religious leaders, and women and youth representatives. They
played the main role of seeking correct information, coordinating with various parties, and making
decisions 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 government policies.
They are discrimated against by village administration. The CSOs who assisted these villagers were
perceived as provocateurs 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
7
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
Results
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 and coordinate with various parties based on knowledge 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 the community recognize
their achievement and learn from experience, plan, and make recommendation for future efforts.
Relevance
to HFA 1
Have
the
results
contributed
to
HFA1
progress in
the country?
If so, how?
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
was referenced in building community resilience, but changes were not significant due to weak
monitoring and evaluation of quality to secure sustainability of programs
Potential for Replication may be carried out through joint learning of community resilience practices through
replication
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.
Contact
1. Head of Gempol village, Mr. Sudiyanto (mobile 087834222589)
2. Staf YEU, Ranie Ayu Hapsari (mobile 081360372289)
Contribution from the YAKKUM Emergency Unit (YEU)
8
CS-3: Building Participation and Accountability in Post-disaster Rehabilitation and Reconstruction
Processes following the Merapi Eruption, Indonesia
Theme
Post-Disaster Accountability Mechanism
Abstract
Social Audit is the participatory 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
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.
How
the The problem was addressed through:
problem was a. A forum of beneficiaries was formed to share information on housing development, as part of
addressed?
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: 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, performed social
audit, gathered data and information, and participated 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. Local Government (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 BPBD to formulate and
decide on follow up of audit 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.
9
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.
Results
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 grew 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.
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; iii)
Accountability, and iv) 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, iv)
Volunteerism, and Accountability.
Community-based monitoring and social audits should be specifically mentioned in the HFA. The
10
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.
11
Potential
replication
Contact
for 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
12
CS-4: Community-Based Flood Mitigation Mechanism in Ambalantota, Sri Lanka
Theme
Abstract
The community-based flood response mechanism at Ambalantota serves a good example of building
community resilience in Sri Lanka. This programme was a multi-disciplinary project that was able to
get multi-stakeholder support for its implementation. This included NGOs, national and local
government, and local communities, including Practical Action Sri Lanka, the Disaster Management
Centre, the Ambalantota Divisional Secretariat, the Ambalantota Local Authority, Irrigation
Department, and others.
Context
There are nine administrative sub-divisions in Ambalantota that are frequently affected by floods
during the North East monsoon season. This is mainly due to a natural sand barrier that lies across
the mouth of the Walawa River at Wadurruppuwa. Heavy rains limits access to the river and the ability
to open the river mouth to allow flood-waters to drain. The later impacts on the distribution of relief
items to the flood victims. Responses to resolve this issue was hampered by administration and
financial constraints.
Community organizations were established covering the nine sub-divisions and responsibilities were
assigned to the sub committees. Technical know-how was transferred to the communities with the
support of the stakeholder agencies. Through this, the flood response committee was strengthened by
providing the initial capital to fund the provision of flood response equipment and developing critical
infrastructure at the affected areas.
How
the Flood risk assessments were been completed for the area and verified by the communities. Root
problem was causes, related remedial measures and challenges for the implementation were identified and
addressed? discussed with them, raising the awareness of the community on the issue and their responsibilities
for the self-resilience. Resilience committees were formed with the members representing all
vulnerable sub-divisions. Technical, physical and financial facilitation was ensured by linking the
committee with the administrative and institutional mechanism available at the divisional secretariat.
Communities at risk, local administration, line departments, and local authorities are the main
stakeholders of this project. Challenges experienced during the project included:





Engagement of wider stakeholders







Integrated approach supports effective community intervention
Participation of all the vulnerable GN divisions
Setting up an institutional mechanism that could be monitored by government officers
Empowerment of the community groups and recognition at district level
Political attention and will
Following lessons were learned during the project:
Building technical capacity of community increases their coping capacities
Long-term partnerships can build adaptive capacities
Scaling up is possible through partnerships and working with local and district officials
Learning from past experiences is essential for achieve sustainable future activities
Empowerment and agencies are vital for community resilience
Flexibility is needed to work with uncertainty
The previous the disaster mitigation project identified and implement by national or districts levels paid
less attention to the involvement of the community. However this was ensured during the project
13
formulation through to implementation.
Results
Now, prior to the monsoon, the flood response committee meets and receives technical know-how
from an official focal point, and the river mouth is opened using the fund established for the purpose.
The committee proactively discusses and expands their activities incorporating livelihood
development. The initial fund has grown due to individual contributions to it. This is used to provide
small loans to the members and for immediate disaster response activities.
Key element of this success story is the community participation from project formulation to its
implementation stage. In addition to that increasing community awareness and the changing mindset
to bear responsibilities also contributes hugely for the long-term sustainability of the project.
Measuring
success
As the project was implementation was sound, inundation has been less frequent. When flooding
does occur, the community has a self-support mechanism to meet their basic needs until they are
able to receive external support. Due to the success of the project, annual fund allocation for relief
distribution has decreased, and the contribution from the community for the national income through
agriculture has increased considerably.
HFA1
Result contributed to HFA1 progress in the country as it focused on community level/local level DRM
and it helped to establish local level community/stakeholder driven DRM mechanisms. It also
promoted a decentralize DRM mechanism and strengthened local institutional capacities.
Under HFA1 progress review, at least one best practice under the five priority areas should be
captured from each country and shared amongst the countries.
HFA2 should focus on understanding the failure modes or the weakest areas associated with the
reported practices and should support the overcoming of these issues.
Potential for These initiatives can be replicated for the other vulnerable communities too using the same approach.
replication
Contact
Anoja Seneviratne
Assistant Director (Mitigation)
Disaster Management Centre
Vidya Mawatha
Colombo 07
Email: seneviratne.anoja@gmail.com
Mr. Vajira Hetteige
Project Manager (DRM)
Practical Action
No 05 Lionel edirisingha MW
Colombo 05
Email: vajira.hettige@practicalaction.org.lk
14
CS-5: Development of the community disaster monitoring and victims assistance networks in Thailand
Abstract
Flood, landslide and coastal erosion are known for decades as the major threatening
hazards to the Kingdom’s livelihood and prosperity. Three different communities are selected
to represent good practice for each type of disasters that have endured and finally overcome
their vulnerabilities. They are the 1) Flood-prone Ban Khlong Rangsit in Bang Poon Subdistrict of Pathumthani province in Central Thailand; 2) Flash flood and landslide prone Ban
Thab Nam Tao of Nakhonsrithammarat province in Southern Thailand; and 3) Ban Khok
Kham of Samutsakhon province in eastern coast of Thailand a pioneering initiative for land
protection that experiences coastal erosion.
These three communities have shared many critical characteristics that denote resilience.
They are all self-organized and able to maintain their networking and social activities for
years even in the peaceful time. Their unity and cooperation are driven by the positive
attitude that they and their families have to survive disasters and help each other before the
reach of outside and government assistance. Indigenous knowledge together with regular
risk and disaster communication among themselves are the key tools they use to respond to
their emerging threats. Those community actions are initiated and continued by the
leadership of 4-5 people who act like a “salesman” selling their ideas of building
communities’ capacity and networking. Once their local network is settled, they expand their
network and social activities by not limiting only to disaster related ones, but also scaling up
to address other livelihood development issues such as the conservation of mangrove forest,
the changing of monoculture farming, and promoting physical and mental health of the
elderly in their community to be able to help themselves.
Some distinguished characteristics of each community are also found in the intervention they
take to manage the risks. Ban Khok Kham is obvious that their risk, coastal erosion, is no
longer their own threat but a threat to the Gulf of Thailand, the major source of sea-food and
bio-diversity of the nation. It becomes the national agenda. They took this opportunity to
persuade and work with the government. They have received a million baht grant to develop
and expand their bamboo wall project, which has proven to restore sea habitats. Ban Thab
Nam Tao has a strong kinship bond. They utilize their strength to mobilize cooperation and
support within and outside their community, using effectively social media such as Facebook
to speak for them so that they can deal with all incoming assistances without doing harm to
their local tradition and rules. They also use their community Page in Facebook to mobilize
resources and extend assistance to another landslide-affected community in the north region
of Thailand.
Ban Klong Rangsit is outstanding with their ability to survive the big flooding in 2011 for a
month before the government help them. Even in the urban area where individualism is
present, they can gain trust and cooperation from the commuters to help each other during
flood due to the strong leadership of a respected elder. Now their relationship grows
stronger. They established community centre with their own funding where new disaster
survival techniques and other livelihood development activities are introduced and
implemented.
15
Context
The first community, Ban Khok Kham in
Samutsakhon province is located at the coast
of
the Gulf of Thailand. Over a decade, they lost
their land more than 1 kilometer. They are not
suffering only from the erosion, but also the
economic development scheme of the
government. Salt farms have resulted in
deterioration of bio diversity. Many costly
structural interventions were initiated but did
not
yield promising results.
The second community, Ban Thab Nam Tao in Nakhonsrithammarat province is located in the
south of Thailand. Most communities are located in mountainous terrain, prone to flash flood and
landslide. The most devastating disaster affecting this
community occurred in 2012. Due to monsoon, there
was unexpected heavy rainfall for many days in a row.
Floods and landslide swept away buildings and
houses that were located both along rivers or roads,
causing damages. Ground transportation and
communication were also entirely damaged. This
community was literally being cut off from the outside
world for 10 days.
The last community, Ban Klong Rangsit in Pathumthani
province, is in central Thailand and known as Bangkok
vicinity. It is the location of factories and crowded rented
apartments where people from all around the country
reside temporarily for earn a living. Migrants both legal
and
illegal also dwell there.
How the problem
was addressed?
What was done to
address
the
problem?
Who was involved
and what role did
they play?
What were the main
challenges and how
were they overcome?
What are the lessons
learnt?
What could have
been done differently
and why?
For the slow moving incident like coastal erosion and inundation in urban area, the
community led by village headman and core group undertook some experiments to
understand their risks and how to solve it. They use indigenous knowledge together with
scientific method and information to understand their risk and capacity as well as sources to
find assistance.
For the fast moving incident like flash flood and landslide, it is obvious that the occurrence of
the landslide forced this community to move its population to the nearby monasteries, which
were converted into a temporary safe place. At the same time, the community has to assist
those being trapped in the disaster area. This was a challenge for the particular community
since it had never encountered such a calamity before. A self-organized community group
was created since the event, and it continues their social activities that cover not only their
homeland but also other similar landslide prone areas.
The stakeholders in the development of the disaster monitoring and victim assistance
network at community level, included: core leaders of the community, both formal leaders
(village headman, health experts) and informal leaders (villagers with experiences by working
with NGOs, villagers with voluntarism spirit). These core leaders have been praised and
accepted by people in community for their commitment in providing services for the public.
Prior to disaster situation, they lead their lives independently. When disaster occurred,
certain groups of core leaders had assisted one another in finding practical solution for selfreliance schemes. They had convened several consultation meetings with villagers in the
area, in order to create local ownership and understanding. They had defined structure and
16
pattern for working collectively as a network. Appropriate channels for communication within
the network and outside network were established. The system they have created is based
on the basis of mutual trust and confidence, and transparency.
Positive attitude to survive the disaster and the feeling that the community has to help each
other are the causal relations to building community resilience. Once they are aware of the
benefits of self-help, they will do their utmost to protect their livelihood by understanding their
risks and their vulnerability, as well as the way to build up their capacity and network to
survive, adapt and develop after the disaster.
Government support especially local government is still crucial to the life of the network.
Close coordination and regular communication with government entities concerned should
be promoted more.
Results
What was the result
of
this
approach/interventio
n?
What were the key
elements
of
success?
Increased confidence on the preparation process to combat disasters, and in addressing,
managing, and reducing risks during disaster situation.
(1) The awareness of self-reliance rather than dependency in order to survive the disasters.
(2) The establishment and functioning of the community network for disaster monitoring and
victims assistance.
(3) The leadership of community leaders both formal and informal who become the core
group to mobilize resources and maintain community activities.
(4) Clearly identified communication means that can keep community members and partners
informed of the risks and situation.
Measuring success
Success of measure mostly through the use of peer review and their own observation
through formal and informal meetings. A systematic approach has yet to be developed.
Relevance to HFA1
How can similar
initiatives be better
captured
in
DRR/HFA progress
review?
Did HFA1 play a
role in enabling this
initiative?
The results have contributed to HFA1 progress in the country as resilient communities and
networks have proved to be one key contributing factor to help Thailand quickly recovered
from the tsunami in 2004 and great flood in 2011. Loss of lives and property are observed,
but community network are strengthened and safety awareness is enhanced.
DRR/HFA progress review is usually conducted by the government using a top-down
approach. Local initiatives are always missing. The national platform for DRR should develop
an outreach mechanism by working with universities/academia to develop a standard tool to
do the annual self review with all concerned stakeholders.
HFA1 did not play a significant role in enabling this initiative as the communities learned and
developed the initiatives by themselves. They do not recognize HFA1. This reflects two
missing links, the insufficient capacity and full awareness of the national platform for DRR in
promoting and implementing the HFA, and the lack of practical guidelines of the HFA. Thus,
in HFA2, focus should be put to strengthening capacity of the national platform and
development of a more practical framework for DRR.
Potential
replication
for This initiative has the potential for replication. Using ‘BA-WORN’ model (the cooperating
efforts of the three key social institutions that have an influence on people’s lives;
House/Families-Temples/Monasteries-Schools) as a steering mechanism and following the
four steps of creating and strengthening networks.
1. Building shared vision/understanding of what the community wants to achieve for
resilience building
2. Self-organizing their own community group
3. Identifying effective inter-communication means for the community
4. Identifying activities that can maintain community’s communication
17
Contact
1. Ban Khok Kham, Samutsakhon province: Mr. Worapol Duanglormchan, +668 1 443 6425
2. Ban Thab Nam Tao, Nakhonsrithammarat province: Mr. Wirapol Khongthong +668 7903
6210
3. Ban Khlong Ragsit, Pathumthani province: Mr. Somsak Leklai +668 4013 3226
4. Study team leader: Assist. Prof. Dr. Dusadee Ayuwat of Khon Kaen University
5. Study Team Coordinator: Ms. Duangnapa Uttamangkapong, Department of Disaster
Prevention and Mitigation (DDPM)
18
CS-6: Government-led scaling-up of community based disaster risk management in Vietnam
to cover 70% of all communes
Theme
Long term and sustainable national strategy for enabling community resilience
Abstract
The Government of Vietnam is currently implementing a community based disaster risk management
programme that aims to cover more than 70% of all 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 preparedness processes at commune level. 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 financed by allocations
from the national budget.
Context
Three key challenges to building resilience in Vietnam have been:
1. Vietnam has developed a strong system of post-disaster relief based on a centralized ‘top-down’
structure. To build resilience this needed to be adjusted to enable more focus on disaster
prevention and preparedness, and on creating ownership within communities.
2. Government systems were not well acquainted with community based DRM approaches.
3. Government systems were not used to funding community based DRM plans, and funding
allocations, if they existed were ad-hoc.
How
the The Government of Vietnam was able to a lead a process in which key civil society actors were
problem was invited to help provide inputs to a comprehensive official Government program. This enabled the
addressed? Government to allocate funds by special decree to back up community level action. The program
acknowledged these civil society actors as partners providing technical inputs and training support
etc.
Program development was underpinned by a shared understanding of the key components of what
constitutes good CBDRM, by lessons learned from previous projects, and by the existence of a
number of high quality existing training materials and other resources.
The program is still ongoing. Selecting the 6,000 most vulnerable communes has proved more
challenging that initially anticipating, underlying the importance of having quality baseline data. Both
government and civil society actors have had to learn more about each other’s systems and how they
can provide complementary community based disaster risk services.
Results
The process of learning lessons from pilots, partnering with civil society, and working through
Government resulted in the approval of a major long-term government programme on a national
scale.
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%.
Measuring
success
As the program is still on-going success has not yet been measured. However the program is
underpinned by a Monitoring and Evaluation Framework that should track progress in both activities,
and through mid-term and final evaluations.
Contribution This program particularly contributes to HFA Priority Action 1: Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a
of results to national and a local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation and Priority Action 5:
HFA 1
Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels.
Development of the approach benefitted from experience sharing of good practice across the region,
and strong partnership across a range of HFA partners.
Potential for This work is an example of how the results of successful local level pilot CBDRMP projects be
19
replication
replicated and firmly grounded in Government longer-term implementation plans.
Contact
Dr. Nguyen Huu Phuc
Director
Disaster Management Center
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development
nguyen.huu.phuc@ccfsc.gov.vn
20
CS-7: Building Resilient Communities through Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction (CBDRR)
in Pakistan
Context and The coastal region of District Badin (Sindh) is highly vulnerable to floods due to heavy rainfalls and
problem
breaches in the drains. This results in magnifying the magnitude of the flood as the water cannot be
drained. It also results in stagnant water that contributes to the outbreak of water-borne diseases
especially when disaster strikes.
Despite the district being flood-affected and flood-prone, local communities and government, no plans
were in place to reduce risk for damages caused by floods and the havoc wreaked by the ineffective
drainage.
The community attributed disaster to divine action believing that ‘God sends forth disasters as
punishment for bad deeds committed by the population affected’ The communities, due to limited
capacity and knowledge, had never carried out hazard mapping to identify potential vulnerabilities and
risks, to over the come the impact of floods which resulted in loss of life and severe losses in
livelihood, livestock, agricultural produce and assets year after year.
How
the ActionAid Pakistan (AAPk) in partnership with local organization Badin Rural Development society
problem was (BRDS) started an intervention aimed at disaster risk reduction in five villages. The intervention was
addressed? supported through the UK appeal fund.
The intervention adopted the following approach:
a. Awareness raising and community orientation: The intervention was introduced to the
community to raise awareness around disaster and what disaster risk reduction was. This
intervention specially focused on women recognizing that; as a vulnerable group women and
children are most affected by disaster and women are often the first responders in emergency
situations. Awareness raising activities were specifically targeted at women too; along with men.
b. Mobilization: Importance of disaster risk reduction and the benefits planning and mitigating risks
can bring was explained to the communities. The whole ‘a stitch in time saves nine’ metaphor was
elaborately explained to the community and women groups to create ownership of the
intervention.
c. Organization: Women and other community members were organized into groups. It was
explained to them how they could work together and support each other in identifying community
resources and contribute to risk reduction. Women groups were also formed so that womens’
needs could be voiced and to ensure that the risk reduction measures undertaken were gender
sensitive.
d. Hazard mapping: The groups formed (with support of BRDS and AAPk) worked together for
contingency planning of each settlement. The plans identified local resources, potential threats
and hazards, vulnerabilities and capacities.
e. Plan development: Plans were developed through a participatory approach. This plan identified
areas of intervention; behavioral change within the community that was needed, and linkages
were development with government institutions.
f. Lobbying and Advocacy: The local communities drafted a letter highlighting the key risks
needing mitigation and sent it to DDMA, PDMA, NDMA, President and Prime Minister’s office.
g. Under the project a set of contingency stock of relief equipment has been delivered to community,
which includes wheel-barrows, spade, picks shovels and rescue ropes. The community has been
sensitized for reducing risk and vulnerabilities in case of disaster. Now women and men are both
working together to raising the level of platforms in front of their homes. These raised platforms
will help communities to save livestock and other assets during the floods.
The key areas in which women were specifically addressed were:
21
 Household level planning to address risk reduction – as households are a woman’s fortress and
they are the key force which can take and maintain measures at home-level.
 Women were given first aid training so that the community can receive first aid immediately if
need arises. Women learnt to take part in rescue operations, controlling bleeding, CPR for infants,
children and adults)
 Protection management committees were also formed at village level (these have five women
members) as part of implementing the risk reduction plan to ensure that women and girls can be
‘protected’ in case disaster strikes and harassment, abductions and any other type of assault can
be kept at bay by creating vigilance mechanism at community level.
 Women were represented in camp management committee (five women in each committee) so
that camp management can be gender sensitive and women’s needs are addressed.
Relevance
to HFA1
This case study falls under priority area 1 and 2. Priority area 1 and its key activities (ii-e) firstly we
assess the existing human resource capacities for DRR at community level and develop capacity
building plans and programmes for them. As far as the community participation (iii –h), we promote
community participation at all level specially focus on women participation in DRR through different
activities.
HFA priority area 2, we formed groups (male and female) and work together for contingency planning.
We developed and widely disseminated risk maps and related information to decision makers at all
level.
Challenges
 The DRR project design was not child focused interventions/or school based interventions, though




children are also vulnerable during disasters and there is dire need for addressing ‘protection’
concerns in regard to children too. It is challenging to stick to donor’s mandates and scope in time
of emergency relief and work on disasters.
District Disaster Management Authority has capacity issues in terms of human resource,
equipment and even linkages for influencing other public institutions to ensure adaptation of
infrastructure (e.g. schools, roads, homes etc.) to be flood resilient.
The hazards maps identified major risk mitigation measures to be taken for the community’s
resilience to be built against disaster – such mitigation and investment is the State’s responsibility
but the State neither owns nor addresses the issue. The DDMA lacks resources to take on such
measures.
Time required for proposal writing and making proposals ‘look good’ on paper wastes
considerable time where needs of community could be addressed. Proposal formats should be
very simple when in comes to relief and even initial rehabilitation efforts.
Due to bureaucratic structure and capacity issues at local government level – community owned
DRR is difficult to link/add to the State’s contingency plans.
Results
Village level disaster management committees formed in five village, each committee has ten
members (five women and men). This committee is responsible for implementation of community
based risk reduction actions and lead to advocacy initiatives. These committees comprise of women
members too which is a stepping stone for women empowerment in the area
There are more than 30 households with raised platforms and women are more actively involved in
finishing work of these platforms – which shows community ownership (in men as they are letting
women engage into these activities and in women as they are actively participating understanding that
it is their need). There are two women committees (protection committee and camp management)
which were formed in each settlement, each committee is composed of five women, and these
women are trained in first aid skills and sensitized on protection needs of women and children.
Conclusion
The community based initiatives are quite effective and owned by the community, because these are
22
proposed and implemented by the communities themselves. There is thus strong ownership among
the community, which makes them easy to maintain and replicate within the village or in other
villages.
 Village level disaster management committees have linkages development with DDMA and
government authorities
 Contingency plans prepared and advocacy undertaken with government agencies
 Training of emergency response teams ERTs to management rescue and first aid at community
level
 Demonstrating better and safer housing models and training of local artisans to construct resilient
and safer structures
 Development of village safety plans and ongoing advocacy with local government for
incorporation of community DRR needs in State agenda.
 Linkage development with DDMA, PDMA and NDMA as per disaster related institutional
framework of NDMA
Contact
Yusra Qadir
Programme Funding Coordinator
Action Aid Pakistan
Email: yusra.qadir@actionaid.org
Khadim Hussain
Email: khadimbrds@yahoo.com
Mobile: 92-331-2689045
23
CS-8: Institutionalizing Community Resilience Approaches in the Asia-Pacific Region
Theme
Developing long-term mechanisms to strengthen community resilience
Abstract
This good practice highlights how the Red Cross and Red Crescent has integrated Community
Resilience approaches from the global to local level operations in the Asia-Pacific region, in order to
apply a more holistic approach in addressing both development problems and needs, as well as risks
and opportunities faced by communities.
Context
Having established itself as a key humanitarian actor across 187 nations, the Red Cross and Red
Crescent recognised that due to its permanent presence within these both at the national and local
level, not only during disasters, but also beforehand and long afterwards, that they were well placed to
contribute to global and local sustainable development efforts.
Thus, the 1980s saw a shift in programming to include development-focused implementation in Asia
and other regions with national and sub-national chapters providing a large and long-running range of
needed local and national services in relation to disasters, health, and social protection. This included
initiatives on disease prevention and health promotion, water and sanitation, blood donor recruitment,
food and nutrition, disaster preparedness, response, and recovery, social assistance, as well as
protection for poor, vulnerable, and marginalised groups through promoting social inclusion, and a
culture of non-violence and peace. These served the sole and common purpose to prevent and reduce
the underlying causes of vulnerability.
To meet these ambitious and diverse services, operations focused on addressing the needs through
sector-based approaches. In addition, its humanitarian work was not viewed as being closely linked with
development-related implementation. Working in this manner lead to isolated project driven outcomes
that did not effectively contribute to the overall goal of building safe and resilient communities.
This siloed approach to community resilience continued despite the attempts to move the agenda
towards an integrated approach. In 1999, a new disaster preparedness policy recognized links between
emergency, response, recovery and development. Risk reduction was recognized as an essential
condition for sustainable development in 2002, and DRR was acknowledged as a key in achieving the
goals of Strategy 2010. At the programme level, integration of main IFRC technical areas (disaster
management and preparedness, organizational development and health) was discussed but not
implemented.
How
the The Red Cross Red Crescent’s approach to community resilience began in 2004 when it placed the
problem was focus if its’ Annual World Disaster Report on community resilience. In 2007, it established the Global
addressed?
Alliance for DRR comprised of disaster management, and disaster preparedness and risk reduction
personnel. The Global Alliance developed a Framework for Community Safety and Resilience with a
focus on disaster risk reduction in 2008. The goal of the document was 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, could be created, developed and
sustained in a systematic manner. It also identified the key characteristics of resilient communities. This
was shared throughout the network, and a mechanism was established to receive and ensure that
feedback was incorporated in its development.
In the adoption of the Framework within targeted countries, new insights into the key characteristics of
resilient communities were captured, along with how this could be strengthened, and how resilience can
be measured. One example of new learning was derived from a review of Red Cross Red Crescent
activities in China, Myanmar and Nepal in 2012 that revealed the important role of social capital in
reinforcing community resilience. Challenges were also encountered in the Framework having a sole
focus on addressing disaster risks.
These new learnings are being applied in the revision of the Framework for Community Resilience in
2013, where key characteristics are being broadened to include wider risks faced by communities,
24
including health, livelihoods, environment and social protection, along with a clearer definitions of
resilience and communities. The Framework identifies main actions to strengthen community resilience
and the provision of key guiding questions to ensure that these main actions are integrated into
community programmes. It also urges all sectors to contribute to building community resilience.
Integration is viewed as a stepping-stone to build community resilience.
Results
The results of the global effort were reflected as introduction of resilience units in IFRC regional offices
in 2011. They united main technical sectors under a resilience head encouraging integrated
programming and joint funding. Several national societies throughout the zone started implementing
integrated community based programming. Resilience is seen as the goal, consisting on integrated,
holistic programmes, which can have very specialized sectoral components.
At regional level, key elements of the Framework were contextualized into one specifically for DRR in
South-East Asia by the Regional Disaster Committee in 2010 to provide more guidance to National
chapters in the region. This Framework outlined expected outcomes for each of the key elements, along
with proposed activities, indicators and countries that had expressed interested in each outcome. In
2013 national societies’ heads of disaster management, organizational development and health formed
a joint Community Safety and Resilience Forum to identify common areas of intervention through crosssectoral planning resulting in development of a regional Road Map.
At national level, thematic seminars for integration were conducted in several Red Cross Societies in
Southeast Asia, bringing together management and staff from all sectors to jointly discuss how to work
together on integrated, cross-sectoral programming addressing community needs in a holistic manner.
At community level, multi-sectoral assessment field schools were conducted in South, South-East,
and East Asia for 148 participants from nine rural and urban communities from 20 countries between
2010-2012. The sessions developed greater recognition on linkages between technical areas in risk
reduction. Participatory community assessment was found to be an open way to identify wide range of
issues in the communities across a number of sectors to support resilience building.
In country-level the Red Cross Red Crescent national societies have adopted the Framework in
varying forms of integrated programming, examples of which are presented below.
Viet Nam is one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world and the impact of climate change is
likely to increase in the coming years, especially with 70 per cent of its population estimated to be
exposed to risks from natural hazards. Health risks in Viet Nam are compounded by the impacts of
climate change, According to data available in 2011 from the National Hospital of Tropical Diseases
(NHTD), the incidence of vector-borne and water-borne diseases has increased five-fold, particularly in
the southern and central regions of Viet Nam. Specifically, the data shows a five-fold increase in cases
of dengue fever from 2000 to 2010, as well as an increase in cholera outbreaks in recent years.
While the impact of climate change on health is not specifically researched, operational research
conducted by the IFRC and the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre on dengue in Viet Nam has
revealed that the pattern of the disease is changing. Cases of dengue are now reported in areas where
it has never been present, while other areas are now experiencing exposure all year rather than only
during the rainy season.
In support of building community resilience and specifically ensuring a healthy lifestyle, the Viet Nam
Red Cross has advanced its community based health programing to respond to the needs of climate
change-sensitive diseases including dengue and malaria. The national society has undertaken
extensive public awareness campaigns including the large scale distributed of leaflets to households
and to school students, public notices on the symptoms of dengue and explained how individuals can
prevent mosquitos from breeding around their houses.
The Sri Lanka Red Cross is undertaking an Integrated Programme for Community Resilience (IPCR)
initiative that aims to comprehensively address the gaps and challenges encountered by communities.
25
The programme covers several aspects of resilience - disaster risks, health, livelihood, climate change
adaptation - in a holistic way in 65 communities, with a target to expand this to 100 communities in
2015. The tools from community-based disaster risk management (CBDRM) and community-based
health and first aid in action (CBHFA) are used to address problems identified by the communities in
including access to safe water, sanitation, livelihoods and primary health care services, reinforcement of
river embankments and drainage systems, strengthening community preparedness and response
capacities via the prepositioning of contingency stocks and first aid training.
In early 2014 the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Red Cross conducted a joint Vulnerability
and Capacity assessment (VCA) in 15 villages with a joint team of disaster risk reduction, health and
water and sanitation specialists to come up with harmonized plan of implementation. The national
society has decided to go for integrated approach in their community based programming to increase
resilience.
In Indonesia, the Indonesian Red Cross identified health and disaster risks in 30 villages in CentralJava through secondary data analysis and discussions with local authorities and the national society
branch in 2012. Eight topics were identified as priorities. A baseline assessment was then carried out in
30 villages using mobile-phone based survey on these topics to assess the knowledge and practice
level. The Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (VCA) fine-tuned the capacity of the community to
implement integrated programming targeting e.g. hypertension, diarrheal diseases, floods and
landslides.
In Myanmar, the Myanmar Red Cross’s Urban Disaster Risk Reduction (UDRR) project started in in
Yangon with a multi-sector assessment in 2013. It identified the main risks in the urban areas to be high
prevalence of fire outbreaks, poor hygiene and sanitation conditions, increased rates of TB/HIV, malaria
and dengue and poor infrastructure and the project will address priority areas across the sectors.
It is well understood that strengthening resilience does not happen overnight and requires long-term
engagement and investment. A significant paradigm shift from standalone sector programing to multisector (integrated) programing happened within the Pakistan Red Crescent Society (PRCS) as an
approach towards community resilience, during last couple of years.
After a series of consultations with National and Provincial technical colleagues from PRCS, IFRC and
in country movement partners and building comparisons of different community based programs like
Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction (CBDRR), Community Based Health and First Aid
(CBHFA), and Participatory Hygiene and Sanitation Transformation (PHAST), an integrated community
based programing approach was adopted.
A common language/terms/acronyms was agreed for common understanding and ownership in multi
sectors. A Steering Committee was established with technical colleagues from all the sectors for
collective action, greater inclusion and stronger linkages among them instead of handling it through a
single department/program.
This resulted in the development of a multi sectorial Integrated Community Based Risk Reduction
(ICBRR) pilot Program (2013-2016) to achieve resilience at community level as a broader development
agenda.
To understand the diverse underlying causes of vulnerability and disasters, existing programs
assessment and planning tools were harmonised/contextualised into a holistic assessment for planning
and implementation across various sectors or departments.
IRP was one of the learning experiences towards integrated programing. In spite of all the challenges,
constraints and evaluation findings, it not only built capacity on integrated programing approaches but
also provided the foundation stone to further develop a longer term resilience building programme.
The main learning from the integrated programming process in Nepal Red Cross Society has been to
ensure joint assessment and plan of action from the initial phase throughout programme
implementation. The national society supports integration as an approach for program harmonization,
26
not structural change because the technical competencies still need to be strongly represented.
Implementation does not need to happen hand-in-hand, for example hardware like water installations,
latrine construction or building a community shelter need different skill sets than interacting with the
community for behavior change.
Measuring
success
Preliminary success can be derived from the feedback received from the multi-sectoral field schools
that were held in Myanmar. When the participants reflected on their learning, they referred to elements
of integration such as having their awareness raised in all technical areas, learning and identifying
problems holistically, organizing activities within the community to address these problems and
connecting with external actors to access resources that they lacked.
The integrated community based resilience programmes implemented currently are still in their early
years and no end-line surveys have been conducted to see the impact of the programming.
A more structured approach to measuring the impact of the Framework for Community Resilience is
currently being developed, and should soon be publically available.
Relevance to The results contribute to HFA1 progress in countries where the Framework has been tested through
HFA1
introducing a systematic approach through which countries can prevent and reduce underlying causes
of vulnerability. This ensures that DRR interventions are more relevant and effective as they are
integrated within wider development-focused programming at the community level.
It also contributes to global development goals at the community level through two other interconnected areas, by enhancing civil society capacity to build resilience communities, and developing
mindsets that promote societal and personal transformation.
As a global instrument to reduce disaster risks, the HFA1 played a role in enabling this initiative by
focusing on the building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters as its overarching goal.
The focus on disaster risk reduction also contributed to some extent on strengthening the
connectedness between preparedness relief, recovery and longer-term development.
Potential for This initiative has a huge potential for replication. However, it requires a genuine and concerted effort of
replication
DRR practitioners and proponents within countries and institutions to use disaster risk reduction as a
means to strengthen the resilience of communities in which they work.
The lessons learnt and key elements of success are reflected in the following guidelines for replication:
1. Establish a multi-sectoral consultative mechanism to come to a coherent understanding of and
approach to community resilience, and to guide its implementation within pilot locations
2. Recognise that the concept of resilience continues to evolve dynamically and that new learning and
approaches on how to improve and scale up it up need to be documented
3. Ensure that the community resilience is defined broadly enough so that it can be applied across a
multitude of sectoral and temporal contexts
4. Develop guidelines to measure the outcomes of community resilience, along with indicators to
measure it, and
5. Test and expand the understanding and approach for use in other sectors.
Contact
Nelson Castano H.
Head of Disaster Management Unit
Asia Pacific Zone Office
Indira Kulenovic
Coordinator/Head of Community Safety and
Resilience Unit
Southeast Asia regional delegation
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
27
CS-9: Survey conducted in Minamisoma City, Fukushima Prefecture on persons with disabilities, after the
Great East Japan Earthquake
Theme
Enhancing the role of people with disability in resilience building
Abstract
Minamisoma City government disclosed the personal information of persons with disabilities,
and requested Japan Disability forum (JDF), a CSO, to conduct a door-to-door survey for
the urgent support and new emergency evacuation plans.
Context
After the Great Earthquake and Nuclear Power Plant Incidents, actual situation of persons
with disabilities were almost unknown, even by the City government. CSOs including JDF
could not reach these people because of the personal information protection law and
regulation.
How the problem was Minamisoma City government disclosed the personal information and requested JDF to
addressed?
conduct a door-to survey of persons with disabilities.
- What was done to JDF conducted the survey. They visited all the persons' homes and talked with them and/or
address the problem? their family members, found challenges met, provided urgent support, and made proposals
- Who was involved to the government on new evacuation plans.
and what role did they The City government was also damaged from the disaster. CSOs were willing to help, but
could not make it due to legal constraints. Partnership between the government and the
play?
CSO was proved effective.
- What were the main
challenges and how A certain period of time was needed until the agreement was made between the City and
were they overcome? JDF, while there were urgent needs for help. It can be said that the agreements or
coordination should have been made among the government and CSOs in advance in
- What are the lessons ordinary times.
learnt?
- What
could have
been done differently
and why?
Results
The result of this intervention was that urgent support was provided to persons with
disabilities. Proposals from JDF were made to the government. At the same time, a
partnership was established for long lasting efforts for the revival of the City.
Decision of the leaders to establish the partnership and the efforts of people involved in it
were the key elements of success.
Measuring success
The survey itself was successful. The impact or effect of the partnership should be
measured in the long process of the revival of the city in the future.
Relevance to HFA1
Based upon HFA1, Japanese government has encouraged the involvement of CSOs in
DRR activities. Thus, in this context, HFA1 played an effective role in enabling this initiative.
In HFA2, the participation or commitment of the organizations of vulnerable groups should
be emphasized. The participation should not only be voluntary, but also be included in the
fundamental principles of community building, based upon the Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities.
Potential for replication
This initiative can be replicated, as partnership can be built not only in emergency situations,
but also in ordinary times in the process of the community building efforts.
Contact
Secretariat of Japan Disability Forum (JDF)
1-22-1, Toyama, Shinjuku, Tokyo, 162-0052, Japan
Email: jdf_info@dinf.ne.jp
28
Phone: +81-3-5292-7628; Fax: +81-3-5292-7630
CS-10: Pilot Project on Tsunami Evacuation Capacity Development of Persons with Psycho-Social Disabilities
in Urakawa, Hokkaido, Japan.
Themes
Instruments used to reduce vulnerability and build local resilience; Enhancing the role of people with
disability in resilience building; and Responsibilities for building resilience at the local level
Abstract
Members of the Bethel’s House, a self-help group of people with severe psycho-social disabilities living
in the Urakawa Town trained themselves for tsunami evacuation. On 11th March 2011 they showcased
evacuation that triggered evacuation of other community members and contributed to zero human
casualties when a 2.7m high tsunami hit Urakawa.
Context
People in Urakawa, well-known earthquake prone area, including Bethel’s House members were not
prepared for tsunami before the pilot project started in 2003.
How the
problem
was
addressed?
Scientific assessment of tsunami risk was conducted and identified the fact that the largest potential
tsunami may be reached higher than ten m above sea level and the earliest a tsunami would reached
Urakawa was four minutes after the earthquake.
A scientific research team on use case analysis of accessible ICT to prepare for inclusive disaster risk
reduction established a collaborative pilot project for tsunami evacuation training in Urakawa in
collaboration with the Bethel’s House, autonomous group of Urakawa residents, the Town Authority and
other key stakeholders in Urakawa.
Development of easy to understand accessible training manual that shared scientific information on
tsunami risks and knowledge for survival.
DAISY multimedia format has advantage to develop accessible, easy to understand, powerful and
adaptable tsunami evacuation manual that stimulates everybody including persons with severe psychosocial disabilities.
If there is no pilot project in Urakawa, some of the people could have been killed by the tsunami because
they did not know the risk and the evacuation route
Results
Firstly the manual was well received by persons with severe psycho-social disability, secondly the
Bethel’s House conducted semiannual evacuation drill based on the manual regularly since 2005, and
thirdly members living in group homes showcased evacuation on 11th March 2011 which resulted in zero
human casualties in Urakawa.
Sharing scientific knowledge on tsunami risk and solution by immediate evacuation through multimedia
accessible and easy to understand presentation in combination with development of skills for evacuation
through regular evacuation training paying special attention to each individual’s needs were the key
elements of the success.
Measuring
success
It was a success as the Bethel’s members were first evacuee followed by other community members
thus no human casualties when 2.7 m tsunami hit Urakawa that resulted in US$ 3,000,000 properties
loss on 11th March 2011.
The Town Authority recognizes contributions of the first evacuee group immediately following their
evacuation request.
Relevance
to HFA 1
The success in Urakawa is actually based on HFA1 with disability rights based approach, i.e. the
implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in Japanese
context:
o HFA1 stipulates support for vulnerable people and capacity building in the community. The pilot
project in Urakawa applied R&D methods to address individual’s accessibility needs of persons with
severe psycho-social disabilities to understand scientific facts on risks and its solutions with Japanese
government research funding.
29
o Accessibility of knowledge and information on risks, solutions, early warnings, evacuation drills,
evacuation routes, and all DRR aspects need to be evaluated to actual implementation of HFA and
DRR progress. Without accessibility HFA does not work for most vulnerable people.
HFA1 played a very important role in enabling this initiative. The pilot project added serious Research
and Development work on accessibility to identify needs that were not met and work out solutions.
Recommendations to HFA2 is to add cross cutting issue of accessibility in all stages and aspects of DRR
to make it inclusive because current vulnerability of people in the community in many case based on lack
of access to knowledge, information and facilities. HFA2 must clearly refer to the Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) not only its Article 11 but also other articles concerning
accessibility. Thus CRPD and HFA2 will become the best companion for the mainstreaming of “living
with disasters and disabilities” in the context of UN Sustainable Development Goals 2015-2030 to be set
out in 2015.
Potential
for
replication
The Pilot Project deployed globally replicable technologies and resources without any license fees such
as DAISY (http://www.daisy.org/), scenario based education/training methods developed for persons
with severe autism, Video Self-Modeling (VSM), &c.
The research team of the Pilot Project identified the role of accessible motion pictures to further develop
accessible documentations for inclusive DRR and contributed to the W3C SMIL3.0 recommendation that
guarantees accessibility of EPUB3, emerging global standards for electronic publishing.
The Pilot Project research team intentionally developed open, non-proprietary, inter-operable and free of
charge accessibility standards such as DAISY, EPUB3 and W3C recommendations to scale up globally.
Contact
Hiroshi Kawamura
Chief Researcher
Pilot Project in Urakawa
c/o Assistive Technology Development Organization
1-1-61-101, Chofushi, Tokyo 1820003, Japan
E-mail: hkawa@atdo.jp
Phone/Fax: +81 (0)3 5384-7207
30
Annex C: Examples of Other Initiatives Highlighting Additional Issues in Building Community
Resilience
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
As CBDRR is a priority under Flagship 4, nine 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.
How
the In realization of this gap, Flagship 4 partners (Government, UN/INGOs, and NGOs) have begun a
problem was process to understanding the issues faced in the urban context and how collectively, they can address
addressed? these challenges. This includes activities such as:
- Urban coordination meetings
- An urban symposium, and
- Revisiting the nine 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 The initial coordination attempts (bringing together a diverse set of actors) can be replicated in other
replication
settings. However, follow-up on this work needs to be further monitored to identify replication
opportunities.
31
Engaging low socio-economic and culturally
in disaster preparedness: Logan City, Australia
and
linguistically
diverse
at-risk
populations
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
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.
How
the Through a collaboration between the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) and Logan City
problem was Council (LCC), a three step process has been design to address the problem:
addressed? Step 1: A review of state-of-the-art research literature to identify international best practice and
strategies for engaging with low socio-economic 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)
32
Annex D-1: Case Studies and Examples of Good Practice in the Education Sector
The Role of the Education Cluster in Risk Reduction, Preparedness and Planning in the Education Sector in
Bangladesh
Key Area
Integration, Local Action, Strengthening Risk Governance
Abstract
The Bangladesh disaster management system is being tuned to support a shift towards risk reduction
and early recovery. Recent reforms across the Humanitarian sector have seen the emergence of a
nationally tailored organizational architecture which has paved the way for the Education Cluster to
adopt a full cycle approach linking disaster risk reduction, emergency preparedness and response,
proposing a framework for Disaster Risk Reduction in the Education Sector, modelled on the
Comprehensive School Safety Framework, that will enable and strengthen school-based disaster
management. This will in turn strengthen community resilience.
Context
Bangladesh is one of the most disaster prone and climate vulnerable countries in the world, known for
its innovations in disaster risk reduction at the national, local, and community levels. Globally, the
concept of disaster management has seen a shift from response to risk reduction and preparedness,
aided by international mechanisms such as the Hyogo Framework of Action (HFA). Hazards in
Bangladesh continue to increase in both intensity and frequency with impacts on the poor and most
vulnerable becoming more visible. The buy-in from the national to the community levels has been both
necessary and impressive, with the Department of Disaster Management under the Ministry of Disaster
Management and Relief implementing a country-wide programme entitled, the ‘Comprehensive Disaster
Management Program’ (CDMP) since 2004.
Grassroots and NGO communities have also been active and in 2007 after the Super Cyclone, an
Education Cluster was formed. However due to the fact that the country was already heavily invested in
a number of other DRR activities, the cluster became dormant. As a result, DRR and Education in
Emergencies (EiE) were not mainstreamed across the education sector.
In 2011, under the joint leadership of the Disaster Management Secretary and UNRC, the Local
Consultative Group for Disaster Emergency Response (LCG-DER) reviewed its system in Bangladesh.
As a result, in 2012, the Humanitarian Coordination Task Team (HCTT), jointly led by the Government
and the UN Resident coordinator’s Offices, was formed as a sub-group of the LCG-DER to address
coordination gaps. Going beyond the global norm, the role of the clusters have been expanded to
include a full cycle approach to strengthen linkages between disaster risk reduction, emergency
preparedness, response and a smooth transition to a sustainable, resilient recovery. This new nationally
tailored architecture demonstrates a complete paradigm shift towards comprehensive disaster
coordination and illustrates that the development of this cluster and its ensuing successes are linked to
the new architecture within which it sits.
As a result of this paradigm shift the Cluster has recently proposed to government the adoption of a
DRR in Education model to education authorities for adoption at the national level. This would enable
and link school-based disaster management supported by a strong network of civil society
organizations and volunteers active at the local level, and able to help link school safety with local
resilience building efforts.
How
the As the global community shifts from a response to risk reduction and preparedness paradigm, so too
problem was has the education cluster in Bangladesh. The cluster is now focusing on the integration of disaster risk
addressed? reduction practices and activities across the education sector, has grown to include the largest NGO
networks active in the education sector in Bangladesh: BRAC, CAMPE, Rupantar, Uttaran as well as
the National Children's Task Force, international NGOs.
The Education cluster has been endorsed by the Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief and
operates at the highest echelons of decision making for government, donor and civil society forums
33
addressing disasters. Once this endorsement was received, the cluster was able to directly engage with
the Ministry of Primary and Mass Education (MoPME) and the Ministry of Education (MoE), increasing
their involvement and leadership role across cluster activities.
The cluster has focused on articulating a framework and set of policy objectives to prioritise educational
continuity, and build capacities to support these goals. Broad participation has contributed to the
development of a new comprehensive DRR and EiE framework, the first of its kind in Bangladesh. It
brings together the NGO community, IGOs and 3 Ministries (i.e. Ministry of Primary and Mass
Education, Ministry of Education and Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief). The re-vitalised
'education cluster' has played an important role in shaping this framework. It has also acted as a
catalyst for ensuring that messaging is consistent and coherent. Ultimately, the relevant Ministries will
have one set of unifying messages developed with the support of a wide cross-section of the DRR
community.
Results
The linkage between development and humanitarian action has had a clear impact on developing the
education sector resilience paving the way for resilience-building at the school and community level.
Improved use of systems and tools and a full disaster cycle approach to resilience means that national
and local civil society actors are comfortable being double-hatted, seeing to safeguarding development
objectives during normal times, building in resilience and response-preparedness at the local level, and
switching to supporting disaster response when the need arises.
Measuring
success
Success is currently measured by the fact that government is taking an increasing role in leadership,
that the education cluster attracts the involvement of major national NGOs and that a wide range of
consortium partners with volunteers at the local community level throughout the country, are
collaborating in a common approach to school safety. Impacts on the resilience of the education sector
have yet to be measured, but baseline data is beginning to be assembled, and can now be monitored
from the grassroots level.
Relevance
to HFA1
The new political architecture has made it possible for Bangladesh to meet the strategic goals of the
Hyogo Framework of Action in the education sector. The “integration of disaster risk reduction into
sustainable development policies and plans; the development and strengthening of institutions,
mechanisms and capacities to build resilience to hazards; and the systematic incorporation of risk
reduction approaches into implementation of emergency preparedness, response and recovery
programmes,” are all areas that can be met under the new operating system within which Bangladesh
works. The coordinating bodies are better able to meet these challenges and ensure that disaster risk
reduction is integrated across a number of sectors, including the education sector.
Potential for Replication across other countries is possible but will require a tailor made approach that takes into
replication
account the distinctive actors that work across the humanitarian and development sectors. Bangladesh
is in a unique position to share its experiences and lessons learned across other countries to promote a
more coordinated and streamlined approach to humanitarian response.
Contact
Jacob Kamran, Save the Children, Email: kamran.jacob@savethechildren.org
Ciara Rivera Vazquez, UNICEF, Email: ccvrivera@unicef.org
Latif Khan, CDMP, Email: latif.khan@cdmp.org.bd
Syed Ashraf, Dept. of Disaster Management, Email: islamasyed@hotmail.com
34
Investing in Safer Schools: Listening to and learning from children in Laos
Key Area
Integration, Local Action
Abstract
In Lao PDR, the impacts of hazards on schools and student safety have historically been poorly
documented. To address these weaknesses a child-centered curriculum was developed that required
students and teachers to actively engage with the disaster risk reduction materials through local risk
mapping, vulnerability assessments and school-based disaster management plan development. This is
beginning to demonstrate outcomes in leadership, and set the stage for improved local risk reduction
and response-preparedness. Three approaches are being tested for national implementation:
Integration into formal curriculum in grades 3-6 through "The World Around Us", integration of
participatory school-based management into "Local Content" curriculum, and informal education at
secondary level through clubs for youth. Each of these is designed to support practical local resiliencebuilding.
Context
Lao PDR is one of the most vulnerable countries in Southeast Asia in in terms of their current capacity
to prepare and respond to disasters. Lao PDR has faced a number of natural and man-made hazards,
including, floods, droughts, storms, landslides, disease, outbreaks and epidemics, unexpected
ordinance and earthquakes. In the past ten years, the frequency of storms and flooding has been far
greater and has resulted in loss of life and extensive economic loss.
The vulnerability of the education sector is evident from the Ketsana and Haima typhoons that caused
damage to school facilities, furniture, learning materials and equipment. As a result, hundreds of
children were unable to attend school as access was made impossible or their schools were turned into
temporary shelters.
Despite these compounding negative factors, the impacts of hazards on schools and on student safety
have been poorly documented5. Most information is anecdotal, routine collection of disaster data is rare
and collaboration across relevant stakeholders was poor.
How
the In order to address these gaps, both policy/government level planning and resourcing in conjunction
problem was with child-centered school disaster management and disaster risk reduction education have been
addressed? piloted and is being further developed.
1) School Facilities and Infrastructure
The Ministry of Education and Sports (MOES) with assistance from ADPC, UNDP, and ECHO
developed national ‘School Construction Guidelines’ designed to inform school construction in rural and
urban areas. They determine roles from the community level to ministerial level, including national
ministries, local authorities, communities and donors. The guidelines prioritise ‘sustainable construction
practices that are cost-efficient, practical and environmentally appropriate’6.While the guidelines are not
mandated building codes, they align with the national Ministry of Transport and Public Works school
construction building codes and safety standards7.
A national Urban Planning Law is currently being revised to incorporate disaster risk reduction (DRR). A
strategy note and guidelines on mainstreaming DRR into urban planning process will be developed to
ensure all urban development initiatives (including schools) are safe from potential disasters and do not
induce new vulnerabilities. The guidelines form a DRR supplement to the existing Urban Planning
Manual8. A strategy note and guideline on DRR mainstreaming into development process9 has also
5
Impacts of disasters on the education sector in Lao PDR. NDMO, MOES, ECHO, UNDP, ADPC. RCC. (2008)
MOES, ADPC, UNDP, and ECHO (2009). School Construction Guidelines Pg 19
7 Anecdotal from Department of Finance, MOES
8 http://www.ospp.net/Enlish/ospp%20in%20English.htm?LawonUrbanPlanning.html
9 SCI, ADPC, MPI (June 2012). Guidelines for Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction into Public Investment Programming
in Sayaboury Province.
35
6
been developed and Lao PDR is adopting an increasingly integrated approach to DRR that focuses on
the intersection of poverty reduction, gender and livelihood enhancement activities. Resourcing of DRR
projects through provincial investment plans are being implemented with community support.
2) Schools and Disaster Risk Management (DRM) planning
The MOES actively participates in DRR and Disaster Risk Management (DRM) and has created a
DRR/DRM Committee within the Ministry. The Cabinet of the Ministry coordinates the committee and
focal points, and works with the National Disaster Management Committee, chaired by the Deputy
Prime Minister. International and community groups interact with this government level DRR
architecture.
International organisations provide training to teachers, students and child club members in DRM, with
the aim of teaching methods to engage peers, parents and communities mapping hazard risks. Through
this process, children conduct interviews at the village level to map hazards and household analysis;
and produce a community disaster risk map in partnership with local disaster management committees
and highlight safe places for evacuation. A new systematic approach to collect local information about
vulnerability and capacity, and post-disaster damage information is intended to support this.
3) Formal and Informal Curriculum development
The NDMO and MOES tested a model for DRR in formal and informal education sectors from 20082010. The project supported four Primary and four Lower Secondary schools and community-based
youth development centers to deliver DRR education to equip children with the knowledge and skills
needed to contribute to building disaster resilient communities. The curriculum is now widely used
across the country and in 2013, Save the Children led a technical review of the curriculum module to be
presented to government ministries.
DRR education for children involved their active participation and identified them as key agents of
change in disaster risk reduction. Children were able to engage in peer-to-peer activities and actively
participate, interact and experience, allowing them to thrive in this new learning environment.
Results
The program sought to increase the knowledge of children and teachers around hazard and risk
mitigation, however, whilst accomplishing these initial goals, it was also found that children noted an
increase in leadership and analytical skills. Whilst correlation between program implementation and
enhanced skills is evident, the exact nature of this relationship is unclear and warrants further
investigation.
The anecdotal evidence however is clear. The teacher training that was part of the DRR project allowed
teachers to gain experience in child-centered education which they believe had an impact on the way in
which they approached teaching in other subjects. Teachers observed that by applying child-centered
principles across all of their classes, students achieved higher results and participated more actively
and confidently in study.
The lessons learnt from the child-centered curriculum are now being incorporated into the expanding
program portfolio in Lao PDR by a number of INGOs, agencies and the United Nations is working in
close collaboration with the MOES and NDMO.
The pilot study has uncovered a number of positive learning outcomes that will need to be further
developed in order to concretely understand the linkages between the implementation of a childcentered curriculum and the initial positive achievements that were highlighted. As such, the program
has provided a firm foundation from which to advocate the importance of such a program and the need
for replication.
Key lessons learned:
1.
Increased climactic events and ongoing vulnerability to disasters has an impact on
36
2.
3.
4.
5.
education and schools
DRR education should adopt the child-centred and child-led framework/pedagogy
as this has widespread effects
Understanding where children can lead and the appropriate level of learning is
critical for tailoring “developmental/age-appropriate” classroom learning
There is a need to develop a practical assessment guidelines to DRR in the
education sector
More work is needed with local authorities to improve DRR data collection, in
collaboration with communities
Measuring
success
The impact of the program has been evaluated through the theory of most significant change and
through anecdotal evidence, such as interviews. The program can also be measured in terms of policy
and national framework transformation. There is a need to develop practical assessment guideline
utilizing the competency based learning guidance from MOES.
Relevance
to HFA1
DRR and Education programs support the overall achievement of the Hyogo Framework for Action with
a particular focus on three of the five priorities
Priority 1: DRR education requires decentralization of responsibilities at all levels. This process has
been initiated, with governmental and local community level implementation strategies in Lao DPR.
Community-based and child-centered approaches ensure delegation of authority and resources to the
local level, for example, DRR Modules for grades 3-5 of primary school and grade 6 of lower secondary
school; and DRR IEC materials received provincial approval for implementation by the Sayaboury
Provincial Education and Sport Department in 2010.
Priority 3: DRR and Education contributes to the achievement of this goal through mainstreaming
gender sensitive disaster risk reduction and adaptation into the education sector.
Priority 4: DRR and Education make a particular contribution to the protection of critical public facilities
and advocate for appropriate land use planning and the implementation of the school construction
guidelines.
At the Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction in May 2011, the Children’s Charter for Disaster Risk
Reduction10 was launched. It contains five priorities developed by children and for children for disaster
risk reduction. Existing programs in Lao PDR directly addressed four of these priority.11
Potential for While content must always be tailored to local needs, and national systems the child-centered approach
replication
to DRR teaching and learning should be referred to as a model for replication. Child-centeredness in
education is a way to include children’s knowledge and interests in decisions about the curriculum. This
has been found to have widespread impacts not only for disaster risk reduction planning, but for
educational outcomes. Finally, only through such an approach can children’s needs, vulnerabilities and
strengths by heeded in the design and implementation of any intervention.
Contact
Daravone Kittiphanh
Ministry of Education and Sports
Email: k.daravone12@gmail.com
Danielle Wade
Save the Children
Email: Danielle.wade@savethechildren.org
The Charter is based on interviews and meetings with more than 600 children in 21 countries (including Cambodia, Laos,
Vietnam and the Philippines) and aims to raise awareness of the need to put children at the heart of efforts to prepare for
disasters before they strike.
11They included: schools must be safe and education must not be interrupted (Priority one); Children have the right to
participate and access the information they need (Priority three); Community infrastructure must be safe, and relief and
reconstruction must help reduce future risk (Priority four); and Disaster Risk Reduction must reach the most vulnerable
(Priority five).
37
10
Malaysia: The Importance of National Action
Key Area
Integration, Local Action
Abstract
National level actions and commitment are imperative to ensure implementation of relevant policies and
frameworks. The enabling DRR policy environment in Malaysia has facilitated development of policies
and strategies to face risks of pandemics and other health emergencies. The Emergency Preparedness
Program and the Smart Support Team initiative to help children maintain the normative 190 school days
per year.
Context
The 2013 fourth session of the global platform for disaster risk reduction underscored the importance
that Malaysia places on utilising DRR as a valuable instrument for national planning and
implementation. The acceptance of the Hyogo Framework for Action in 2007 has led many countries to
develop and strengthen their own respective national platforms for building multi-stakeholder
consensus, which has in turn led many countries to start addressing how the education sector should
be weaved into this new framing.
With this backdrop in mind, Malaysia has recently developed and implemented it's multi-stakeholder
National Platform on Disaster Management, expected to act as a forum for knowledge sharing, best
practice, and lesson learning, to comprehensively address the risks of disasters.
Malaysia is often affected by floods, landslides and extreme haze that regularly impact the ability of
schools to remain open. The 1996 Education Act outlines that there must be at least 190 days of school
in the year, and therefore any school that has not achieved 190 days of school shall have replacement
days. However, this is not always possible and it is this gap in instruction that the Ministry of Education
has sought to address. As a result of this gap and in response to the 2004 tsunami, the Emergency
Preparedness Program and the Smart Support Team initiative were developed to help children get back
to school and recover from their traumatic experiences.
How
the The Ministry of Education in cooperation with UNICEF and Mercy Malaysia implemented a pilot
problem was program to train 200 school councillors on how best to address and support children that have
addressed? experienced a trauma, including, helping children in reducing stress levels; helping children get back on
track at school; and conducting activities with children.
Since the launch of the Smart Support Team, over 1700 volunteers have been trained, registered and
assigned to work in 160 districts across Malaysia. At present, every District Education Officer is
responsible for a team consisting of at least 10 qualified SST volunteers. In addition, all schools have
formed disaster preparedness committees to assist the SST in times of emergency, in particular if the
school is used a relief centre.
The Emergency Preparedness manual has been distributed to 5.4 million children in all primary and
secondary schools across Malaysia to raise awareness on safety management before, during and after
a disaster. Schools are prepared with a Disaster Management Plan and have an active emergency
committee in place.
The challenge for the Ministry of Education will be to ensure that all schools and all teachers and
students continue to understand the importance of this training and its on-going and future relevance.
Results
The Ministry of Education Malaysia has formalized policies and programmes on School Emergency
Preparedness and Response. The Emergency Preparedness programme has produced guidance
manuals in Bahasa Melayu (local language) for teachers to use in classrooms and for school children to
read with their peers.
The Emergency Preparedness Programme (EPP) was the first initiative in the education sector to help
launch an emergency preparedness plan for all schools nationwide. The creation of the SST is an
innovative aspect of the EPP that strengthens the volunteer capacity among school counsellors to meet
educational and psychosocial needs of children in the event of disasters. People must better
38
understand how to prepare and respond to a disaster, as well as how to deal with the aftermath,
especially mental-health needs among children.
Measuring
success
The Ministry of Education is currently evaluating the adequacy of these measures.
Relevance
to HFA1
The government of Malaysia has actively sought to ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national level
as well as a sectoral priority. It also understands the importance of building capacity and filling in
knowledge gaps so that personnel on the ground is able to better respond to the needs of children and
the communities if and when a disaster strikes. It is creating an environment that is more robust and
resilient to disaster risks.
In their recent participation of the UNISDR conference, the Secretary from the National Security
Council, underlined the importance of using holistic and innovative approaches to addressing both
disaster risks and climate change and that a future HFA2 should not reinvent the wheel but rather build
on the existing mechanisms and frameworks that have been established since 2007 and that it would
be ill advised to build an altogether new operating system from which to address and implement
disaster risk reduction. As such, the existing priorities should be further developed and a continued
need to strengthen existing policies should be prioritised.
Potential for The emergency preparedness manual can be easily translated into English or to other languages
replication
relevant to South East Asian region. The emergency preparedness plan for teachers and schoolchildren
can be adapted and used in other East Asian Pacific countries and serve as a model for education
ministries to take the lead in responding to emergencies as well as taking progressive steps increase
capacity and awareness towards disaster reduction in schools.
Contact
Fakhiyyah Muhardini
Ministry of Education
Email: fakhriyyah.muhardini@moe.gov.my
39
Speaking Out From Tohoku (SOFT), Japan
Theme
The role of children, youth, women, people with disability and other vulnerable groups in
building resilience
Abstract
The “Speaking Out” was a child participation programme initiated by the Save the
Children Japan (SCJ) with the objective of incorporating children’s opinions in making
decisions on issues related to them. When the SCJ conducted relief activities after the
Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, we considered that it was very important for
children to participate in the reconstruction process, since they are also members of their
communities and will play a major role to lead future of the communities. SCJ launched
the Speaking Out From Tohoku (SOFT) in the affected region in May, 2011. In this
project, children form Children’s Community Building Clubs conduct various activities to
rebuild better and more resilient communities. . The children consult not only with each
other, but also with government officials, other community members and experts on
implementing various activities in the recovery process.
As a result of these activities, they compiled their opinions on disaster risk reduction and
presented their proposal starting from their local governments, national government,
AMCDRR and finally at the 4th Global Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction in Geneva, in
2013. This can contribute to create child-friendly and resilient communities not only in
Japan but also in other parts of the world.
Context
It is generally thought that children are those who are to be protected by adults. Children’s
voices are rarely heard of in policy-making. Especially in the Tohoku region, children have
few opportunities to participate in community building. However, as stipulated in UNCRC
Clause No.12, children have rights to be heard and this must be ensured during the time
of disaster response and recovery processes.
Save the Children Japan (SCJ) conducted a survey targeting 11,000 children in May and
June in 2011 and found that about 90% of the children wanted to do something in
rebuilding their communities. In response to these voices, SCJ started working with
children in three communities in the affected region and they formed Children’s
Community Building Clubs.
How the problem was
addressed?
What was done to address
the problem?
Who was involved and
what role did they play?
What were the main
challenges?
How were they overcome?
What are the lessons
learnt?
What could have been
done differently and why?
Empowering children by providing opportunities where children can speak out and
participate in recovery process and supporting children to present their thoughts and
ideas to decision makers and other members of their communities by themselves
Children: conducting various activities to creating better and resilient society
SCJ: supporting children’s activities
Local governments: cooperating with children’s activities
Parents and community people: participating in activities conducted by children
Private sector: providing funding and technical support
International organizations: providing children with opportunities to express their views on
DRR
Children are busy with their study and extra curricula activities. The time they can spend
on the activities of the Children’s Community Building Club is limited and not many
children are the members of the Clubs at present.
The slow progress of the entire community recovery process also sometimes affects
negatively the momentum of the Clubs.
SCJ and members of Children’s Community Building Clubs are trying to increase the
40
number of the members by strengthening public relations activities and organize events
and research in which non-member children can take part and speak out their thoughts
and ideas.
For meaningful child participation to be realized, providing children with time and places
for participation is not sufficient. There must be continuous supports to motivate and
encourage adult members of societies to listen to and embrace children’s voices,
incorporate their ideas and opinions into actual policies and activities, and create such
systems that child participation is institutionalized.
SCJ formed the Children’s Community Building clubs on community basis (=outside any
particular school and groups, organizations) so that children from different schools and
backgrounds and ages but living in the same communities come together and interact
each other. This approach made it possible to form really dynamic and active groups, but
the number of the members tends to remain relatively small. On the other hand, other
child-focused organizations such as UNICEF or World Vision formed children’s groups on
school or existed group basis (e.g. form a child group consisting of students from a same
school). This made it possible to reach more number of children efficiently though the
group dynamics tend to be more formal.
Results
What was the result of this
approach/intervention?
What were the key
elements of success?
The SOFT project has proved that children are an active agent in building community,
which has been recognized by parents, community people and local/national
governments and international organizations.
Children make decisions and they themselves conduct activities, while adults facilitate,
motivate and support them.
Measuring success
We conducted a progress review in 2012 and a mid-term evaluation in December, 2013.
The results are positive.
The progress review was conducted internally, and the mid-term evaluation was
conducted by experts hired from outside as well as the Monitoring and Evaluation Section
of SCJ. On the basis of the Logical Framework, activities and outcomes were assessed
using indicators, such as numbers of events conducted and children and adults
participated in activities and events. Recommendations on the future activities were
made.
Relevance to HFA1
Yes, the results contributed to HFA1 progress in the country. In the reconstruction
process from the Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami, i.e. building community
resilience, this project has contributed to strengthening capacities at the community level
with a focus on children.
Children are referred by DRR/HFA in the context of education at schools but not as active
agents of change in their communities. It is important to incorporate a perspective that
children are important members of communities and their voices need to be heard and
reflected.
It is recommended that specific needs and rights of children and children’s opinions and
roles are included in HFA2 with regards to disaster preparedness, disaster management,
emergency relief and rebuilding community.
Potential for replication
There is potential for replication.
Children’s groups exist in many countries. It is possible for these groups to address
developmental issues with a perspective of disaster risk reduction. This would lead to
building resilient communities.
Further, some virtual platform should be created to enable the children’s groups interact
each other across countries. As a result of exchange of experiences and opinions,
41
children will be able to present their common opinions and recommendations to
international policy makers in such occasions as UN World Conference on DRR in 2015.
Contact
Ms. Tomoko Tsuda
Deputy Director of Great East Japan Earthquake Recovery Program (also directly in
charge of SOFT Project)
Save the Children Japan
42
Annex D-2: HFA1 Priorities in the Education Sector12
Strategic Goals for the Education Sector
1. Integrate disaster risk reduction into sustainable development policies and practices in the education sector.
2. Develop and strengthen institutions, mechanisms and capacities to build resilience to hazards in the education sector at national, sub-national and local levels.
3. Systematically incorporate risk reduction approaches into the implementation of emergency preparedness, response and recovery programmes in the education sector.
Priorities for Action
Indicators for the Education Sector
1. Ensure that disaster risk
reduction is a priority with a
strong institutional basis with
education
authorities
nationwide
1. Policy and legal framework for disaster risk reduction exists with decentralized responsibilities and capacities in the education sector at all levels.
2. Dedicated and adequate resources are available to implement disaster risk reduction plans and activities at all administrative levels.
3. Community participation and decentralization are ensured through the delegation of authority and resources to education authorities at the local level.
4. A national multi-stakeholder platform for disaster risk reduction is functioning in the education sector
2. Identify, assess and monitor
disaster risks to schools and
enhance early warning for all
learning environments.
1. National and local risk assessments based on hazard data and vulnerability information are available to education authorities and schools.
2. Systems are in place to monitor, archive and disseminate changing data on school structural, infrastructural and environmental vulnerabilities.
3. Early warning systems for major and local hazards reach schools, and schools have the opportunity to participate in early warning systems.
12
Comprehensive School Safety Framework, March 2013
43
3. Use knowledge, innovation
and education to build a culture
of safety and resilience through
curricular and co-curricular
activities in schools.
1. Educational materials on disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation are shared internationally, and available for localization and
contextualization.
2. School curricula is holistically-infused to include disaster risk reduction and recovery concepts and practices.
3. Research methods and tools for multi-risk assessments and cost-benefit analysis are developed and strengthened for the education sector.
4. Countrywide public awareness strategy to stimulate a culture of disaster resilience, with outreach to urban and rural communities, includes child-centered
and child-led elements.
4. Reduce the underlying risk
factors.
1. Disaster risk reduction is an integral objective of site selection, design, construction, and maintenance of schools.
2. School disaster management policies and plans are implemented to reduce the vulnerability of children in and out of school.
3. Educational continuity plans are in place to reduce disruption of the school year, and protect individual attainment of educational goals.
4. Planning and management of schools facilities incorporates disaster risk reduction elements including enforcement of building codes.
5. Disaster risk reduction measures are integrated into post-disaster recovery and rehabilitation processes in the education sector.
6. Procedures are in place to assure that every new school is a safe school.
5. Strengthen disaster
preparedness for effective
response in learning
environments.
1. Strong policy, technical and institutional capacities and mechanisms for disaster risk management, with a disaster risk reduction perspective are in place in
the education sector.
2. Disaster and emergency plans are in place at all administrative levels in the education sector and regular training drills and rehearsals are held to test and
develop disaster response capacity at all levels.
3. Insurance and contingency mechanisms are in place to support effective response and recovery when required.
4. Procedures are in place to exchange relevant information about impacts on schools, during hazard events and disasters, and to undertake post-event
reviews.
44
Annex D-3: Grading Achievement Form for HFA Quality Indicators for Education
Country:
Rated by:
Date:
List or describe key stakeholder
Expand/enlarge this form as necessary
group
from
Education
and
Disaster
Management
Authorities
that
provided
this
rating.
HFA Priority in Levels
of
Achievement
Description
Education Sector (Insert level 1-5 as described below)
National
Sub-National
Local
Priority 1
Priority 2
Priority 3
Priority 4
Priority 5
Levels of Achievement for Grading Qualitative Factors (from HFA Indicator rating system)
Level
Generic Description of Achievement
5
Comprehensive achievement has been attained, with the commitment and capacities to sustain efforts at all levels
4
Substantial achievement has been attained, but with some recognised deficiencies in commitment, financial resources or operational capacities.
3
There is some commitment and capacities to achieving DRR but progress is not substantial.
2
Achievements have been made but are relatively small or incomplete, and while improvements are planned, the commitment and capacities are limited.
1
Achievements are minor and there are few signs of planning or forward action to improve the situation
45
46