Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community A ... - PreventionWeb

An electronic version of this guidance note can be downloaded from the Benfield UCLHazard Research Centre website. Go tohttp://www.benfieldhrc.org/disaster_studies/projects/communitydrrindicators/community_drr_indicators_index.htmThe guidance note has also been translated into Spanish by Diego Bunge. It is availablefrom the same web page.Cover photo: Community meeting during a Participatory Vulnerability Capacity Assessment carried out in January2007 in Enaytepur village, Manikgonj district, Bangladesh (Photo courtesy of Christian Aid – Bangladesh)

Version 1 (for fieldtesting), August 2007Abbreviations and AcronymsADPCCBDRMCBOCSODPDRMDRREWEWSHFAIFRCISDRM&ENGOOCHAPTSDUNVCAAsian Disaster Preparedness Centercommunity-based disaster risk managementcommunity-based organisationcivil society organisationdisaster preparednessdisaster risk managementdisaster risk reductionearly warningearly warning systemHyogo Framework for ActionInternational Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent SocietiesUN International Strategy for Disaster Reductionmonitoring and evaluationnon-governmental organisationUN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairspost-traumatic stress disorderUnited Nationsvulnerability and capacity assessment/analysisAcknowledgementsI am grateful to the following members of the Interagency Coordination Group who provided guidance on theprocess, commented on drafts and forwarded comments from other staff and partners: John Abuya, YasminMcDonnell (ActionAid), Robert Roots (British Red Cross), Bina Desai, Sarah Moss, José Luis Penya (Christian Aid),Nick Hall, Douglas Orr (Plan International), Pieter van den Ende (Practical Action), Oenone Chadburn, BobHansford, Angela Mugore, Marcus Oxley (Tearfund).Professor Jo Beall (London School of Economics) acted as adviser to the project, providing a broader, moredevelopmental perspective to the work. Emily Wilkinson (University College London) helped with the research forTable 1 and provided comments, based on her PhD research on local governance and DRR.I was very fortunate in being able to commission a survey of expert opinion on the ‘knowledge and education’characteristics, which was carried out most ably by Marianne Liebmann and Sara Pavanello as part of their MScDevelopment Management course at the London School of Economics (see Further Reading).Many other colleagues and experts kindly provided me with information and advice on resilience and indicatorsduring the course of this project. They include: Paola Albrito, Bob Alexander, David Alexander, Ali Asgary, MihirBhatt, Philip Buckle, Omar Cardona, Biswanath Dash, Ian Davis, Annelies Heijmans, Dan Henstra, Harry Jones, IlanKelman, Johan Minnie, Norah Niland, Warner Passanisi, Marla Petal, Ben Ramalingam, Claire Rubin, Azim Samjani,Walter Ubal Giordano, Natasha Udu-gama, Lorna Victoria, Ben Wisner and Malaika Wright.Particular thanks are due to the Department for International Development (DFID), for supporting DRR work bythe Interagency Coordination Group, and to Olivia Coghlan and Rowshan Hannan of DFID for their support andadvice during this project.John Twigg. Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre.August 2007.j.twigg@ucl.ac.uk3

Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance NoteSection A: Introduction and Background1. IntroductionThis guidance note is for government and civil societyorganisations working on disaster risk reduction (DRR)initiatives at community level, in partnership withvulnerable communities.It shows what a ‘disaster-resilient community’might consist of, by setting out the many differentelements of resilience. It also provides some ideasabout how to progress towards resilience.The version of the guidance note you are readingis a pilot version, based on a desk study anddiscussions with experts. This is now being tested inthe field and it will be revised in the light of thoseexperiences. Everyone is welcome to use the note,and feedback is similarly welcome.1.1 ApplicationsThe guidance note is a resource, not a manual. It isdesigned to support processes of communitymobilisation and partnership for DRR.Users can select relevant information and ideasfrom it to support their field work, according to theirneeds and priorities. This should be the result ofdiscussion between communities and theorganisations working with them.The note can be used at different stages of projectcycle management, particularly in planning andassessment, and monitoring and evaluation. It can alsobe linked to other tools used in DRR projects andresearch (e.g. vulnerability and capacity analysis).Much of the information here relates tocommunity capacities in DRR. The guidance note maytherefore be useful in assessing, planning or reviewingwork that focuses on capacity-building.The findings of reviews and assessments carried outusing this note may also have some value in advocacywork at local and higher levels.1.2 How the guidance note is organisedThe main section of the guidance note is a series oftables setting out the characteristics of a disaster-resilientcommunity. These are organised under thematicheadings that represent the main areas of DRRintervention. The themes are broadly based on aframework developed by the UN International Strategyfor Disaster Reduction (ISDR). This scheme has beenfollowed because it is generally accepted by UN andother international agencies, most national governmentsand many NGOs (see Box 1 and Fig. 1). However, it hasbeen modified in places in this guidance note.The aim has been to provide a comprehensive listof characteristics of DRR, but users will probablyidentify additional characteristics when they test theguidance note in the field. It is hoped to include thesein future editions.The tables also indicate the main characteristics ofthe ‘enabling environment’ which is necessary forcommunity-level initiatives to succeed.It should be emphasised that the ‘disaster-resilientcommunity’ is an ideal, for in reality no communitycan be free of risk. The tables present characteristics ofthis ideal state, not project output or outcomeindicators in the conventional sense. But by combiningvarious elements of resilience identified here, DRRproject workers can greatly increase communities’capacities to withstand hazard events.Another important point to make is that thecharacteristics set out in this document are generalones for all contexts, whereas every project, locationand community is unique. Those who use thisguidance note will probably focus on those elementsof resilience that are most appropriate to theconditions they are working in or to the kind of workthat they do.Box 1: The Hyogo Framework for Actionand the main components of DRRAt the World Conference on Disaster Reduction inKobe, Japan, in 2005, the international communitysigned up to a 10-year DRR strategy, the HyogoFramework for Action (HFA).The HFA sets out three strategic goals andoutlines five priorities for action, which cover themain areas of DRR. It also suggests important areasfor intervention within each theme (see Fig. 1).On the basis of the HFA’s categories, two UNagencies have been developing DRR indicators,principally for the national level. ISDR is preparingguidance on indicators for priorities 1-4 and theOffice for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs(OCHA) is preparing guidance on indicators forpriority 5 (see Further Reading).2. Key ConceptsThree concepts are central to this guidance note:DRR, resilience and community. It is important tothink about what these mean before using the tablesof characteristics.4

Key ActivitiesVersion 1 (for fieldtesting), August 2007I S D RSummary of the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015:Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to DisastersExpected outcome, strategic goals and priorities for action 2005–2015Contributing to the achievements of the internationally agreed development goals (including the MDGs)The integration of disaster risk reductioninto sustainable development policiesand planning1. Ensure that disaster riskreduction (DRR) is anational and a local prioritywith a strong institutionalbasis for implementation● DRR institutional mechanisms(national platforms);designated responsibilities● DRR part of developmentpolicies and planning, sectorwise and multisector;● Legislation to support DRR;● Decentralisation ofresponsibilities and resources;● Assessment of humanresources and capacities;● Foster political commitment;● Community participation.2. Identify, assess and monitordisaster risks and enhanceearly warning● Risk assessments and maps, multirisk:elaboration anddissemination;● Indicators on DRR andvulnerability;● Early warning: people centered;information systems; public policy;● Data and statistical loss information;● Scientific and technologicaldevelopment; data sharing,space-based earth observation,climate modelling andforecasting; early warning;● Regional and emerging risks.Expected OutcomeThe substantial reduction of disaster losses, in lives and in the social,economic and environmental assets of communities and countriesStrategic GoalsThe development and strengthening ofinstitutions, mechanisms and capacities tobuild resilience to hazardsPriorities for Action3. Use knowledge, innovationand education to build aculture of safety and resilienceat all levels● Information sharing and cooperation;● Networks across disciplines andregions; dialogue;● Use of standard DRR terminology;● Inclusion of DRR into schoolcurricula, formal and informaleducation;● Training and learning on DRR:community level, local authorities,targeted sectors; equal access;● Research capacity: multi-risk; socioeconomic;application;● Public awareness and media.Cross Cutting Issues4. Reduce the underlying risk factors● Sustainable ecosystems and environmentalmanagement;● DRR strategies integrated with climate changeadaptation;● Food security for resilience;● DRR integrated into health sector and safe hospitals;● Protection of critical public facilities;● Recovery schemes and social safety-nets;● Vulnerability reduction with diversified incomeoptions;● Financial risk-sharing mechanisms;● Public-private partnerships;● Land use planning and building codes;● Rural development plans and DRR.The systematic incorporation of risk reductionapproaches into the implementation of emergencypreparedness, response and recovery programmes5. Strengthen disasterpreparedness for effectiveresponse at all levels● Disaster management capacities:policy, technical and institutionalcapacities;● Dialogue, coordination andinformation exchange betweendisaster managers and developmentsectors;● Regional approaches to disasterresponse, with risk reduction focus;● Review and exercise preparednessand contingency plans;● Emergency funds;● Voluntarism and participation.Multi-hazard approach Gender perspective and cultural diversity Community and volunteers participation Capacity building and technology transferDRR = disaster risk reduction www.unisdr.orgFig. 1: Hyogo Framework for ActionDiagram courtesy of UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction5

Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note2.1 Disaster risk reductionDisaster risk reduction (DRR) is a broad and relativelynew concept. There are different definitions of theterm in the technical literature but it is generallyunderstood to mean the broad development andapplication of policies, strategies and practices tominimise vulnerabilities and disaster risks throughoutsociety. 1DRR is a systematic approach to identifying,assessing and reducing the risks of disaster. It aims toreduce socio-economic vulnerabilities to disaster aswell as dealing with the environmental and otherhazards that trigger them. It is the responsibility ofdevelopment and relief agencies alike and it should bean integral part of the way such organisations do theirwork, not an add-on or one-off action. DRR is verywide-ranging, therefore. There is potential for DRRinitiatives in just about every sector of developmentand humanitarian work.No single group or organisation can address everyaspect of DRR. DRR thinking sees disasters as complexproblems demanding a collective response fromdifferent disciplinary and institutional groups – in otherwords, partnerships. This is an importantconsideration when looking at the characteristics of adisaster-resilient community, because individualorganisations will have to decide where to focus theirown efforts and how to work with partners to ensurethat other important aspects of resilience are notforgotten. Note that the tables in this guidance noteare intended as a resource for a range of organisationsworking at local and community level, collectively orindividually: certain elements of resilience may bemore relevant to some organisations and contexts thanothers.2.2 Resilience and the disaster-resilientcommunityMany attempts have been made to define ‘resilience’.The variety of academic definitions and concepts canbe confusing. For operational purposes it is moreuseful to work with broad definitions and commonlyunderstood characteristics. Using this approach,system or community resilience can be understood as:● capacity to absorb stress or destructive forcesthrough resistance or adaptation● capacity to manage, or maintain certain basicfunctions and structures, during disastrous events● capacity to recover or ‘bounce back’ after an event‘Resilience’ is generally seen as a broader conceptthan ‘capacity’ because it goes beyond the specificbehaviour, strategies and measures for risk reductionand management that are normally understood ascapacities. However, it is difficult to separate theconcepts clearly. In everyday usage, ‘capacity’ and‘coping capacity’ often mean the same as ‘resilience’.A focus on resilience means putting greateremphasis on what communities can do for themselvesand how to strengthen their capacities, rather thanconcentrating on their vulnerability to disaster or theirneeds in an emergency.The terms ‘resilience’ and ‘vulnerability’ areopposite sides of the same coin, but both are relativeterms. One has to ask what individuals, communitiesand systems are vulnerable or resilient to, and to whatextent.Like vulnerability, resilience is complex and multifaceted.Different features or layers of resilience areneeded to deal with different kinds and severity ofstress.The ‘disaster-resilient community’ is an ideal. Nocommunity can ever be completely safe from naturaland man-made hazards. It may be helpful to think ofa disaster-resilient or disaster-resistant community as‘the safest possible community that we have theknowledge to design and build in a natural hazardcontext’, 2 minimising its vulnerability by maximisingthe application of DRR measures. DRR is therefore thecollection of actions, or process, undertaken towardsachieving resilience.2.3 CommunityIn conventional emergency management,communities are viewed in spatial terms: groups ofpeople living in the same area or close to the samerisks. This overlooks other significant dimensions of‘community’ which are to do with common interests,values, activities and structures.Communities are complex and they are often notunited. There will be differences in wealth, socialstatus and labour activity between people living in thesame area, and there may be more serious divisionswithin the community. Individuals can be members ofdifferent communities at the same time, linked to eachby different factors such as location, occupation,economic status, gender, religion or recreationalinterests. Communities are dynamic: people may jointogether for common goals and separate again oncethese have been achieved.These factors make it difficult to identify clearly the‘community’ one is working with. From a hazardsperspective, the spatial dimension is an essentialelement in identifying communities at risk, but this1 The term ‘disaster reduction’ is often used to mean much the same thing. ‘Disaster risk management’ is also sometimes used in this way,although it is normally applied specifically to the practical implementation of DRR initiatives.2 Geis DE 2000, ‘By Design: the Disaster Resistant and Quality-of-Life Community’. Natural Hazards Review 1(3): 152.6

Version 1 (for fieldtesting), August 2007must be linked to an understanding of the socioeconomicdifferentiations, linkages and dynamicswithin the area at risk, not only to identify vulnerablegroups but also to understand the diverse factors thatcontribute to vulnerability. Community businesses,services and infrastructure must also be taken intoaccount.Communities do not exist in isolation. The level ofa community’s resilience is also influenced bycapacities outside the community, in particular byemergency management services but also by othersocial and administrative services, public infrastructureand a web of socio-economic and political linkageswith the wider world. Virtually all communities aredependent on external service providers to a greateror lesser extent. The ‘enabling environment’ sectionsin the tables try to capture some of these influences.7

Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance NoteSection B: Using the TablesThe guidance note contains a set of five tables settingout the ‘characteristics of a disaster-resilientcommunity’.Each table covers a different thematic area relatingto resilience and DRR. The five thematic areas arebased on those in the Hyogo Framework for Actionand are intended to cover all aspects of resilience.Each thematic table is divided into three sections(columns):The following pages contain suggestions about howeach part of the tables might be used and discussionsof issues relating to their application.One point to note here is that some aspects ofresilience may belong to more than one of the themesand components and may therefore be repeated indifferent tables.1. Components of ResilienceThe thematic areas are very broad. Each area ofresilience is therefore subdivided into a set of its maincomponents. Because the scope of each thematic areavaries, the number and range of components differsfrom one thematic area to another. The table on page9 lists the components of resilience for each thematicarea.As a first step, it may be useful to consider thesemain components of resilience. An organisation mightlook at these as part of a basic ‘mapping’ or ‘scoping’exercise to identify:●●●TableThematic area1 Governance2 Risk assessment3 Knowledge and education4 Risk management and vulnerabilityreduction5 Disaster preparedness and responseComponents Characteristics Characteristicsof resilience of a resilient of an enablingcommunity environmentwhich main areas of resilience or DRR it, and otheragencies, are currently addressing in a particularcommunity or districtwhere the current emphasis is in their interventionsany major gaps in coverage or missing linksbetween DRR componentsThe findings of this review could contribute todiscussions about the focus of future work.It is extremely unlikely that a single organisation willbe working in all of the relevant areas. It is probably notadvisable that it should, since specific technicalexpertise is required in many cases. Where anorganisation’s own expertise lies in one particular field(e.g. disaster preparedness, livelihood support,education), it will usually want to build on its existingstrengths. But a mapping or scoping exercise will enableit to consider if it should be involved in other relevantaspects of DRR and resilience that might support itscurrent work or help to increase its impact.For example, an organisation with expertise inhazard and risk assessment or vulnerability analysis(which comes under Thematic area 2: Riskassessment) might want to make sure that the results ofits work are being shared and applied effectively,which might cause it to think about becominginvolved in public information work (an aspect ofThematic area 3: Knowledge and education) and earlywarning systems (Thematic area 5: Disasterpreparedness and response).As another example, an organisation focusing ontechnologies for DRR such as safe buildings and floodand landslide control measures (part of Thematic area4: Risk management and vulnerability reduction)would probably need to be involved in discussionsabout building codes, land-use regulations and otherlegislative provisions (Thematic area 1: Governance)that might affect its initiatives, as well as in providingtechnical training to community members (Thematicarea 3: Knowledge and education).Thematic area 1 (Governance) is really a crosscuttingtheme underlying the other thematic areas.Planning, regulation, integration, institutional systems,partnerships and accountability are relevant toeveryone, because they are issues likely to affect anyinitiative in DRR, development or relief. Users aretherefore advised to refer to these governance aspectswhatever the thematic areas they are focusing on.A scoping or mapping exercise of this kind may beparticularly helpful in multi-stakeholder settings. It canindicate gaps in agencies’ collective coverage andhighlight potential for new or stronger collaboration onspecific issues. Partnerships between differentinstitutions and the collective application of differentkinds of technical expertise are important to thesuccess of DRR.8

Version 1 (for fieldtesting), August 2007Thematic areaComponents of resilience1 Governance ● Policy, planning, priorities and political commitment.● Legal and regulatory systems● Integration with development policies and planning● Integration with emergency response and recovery● Institutional mechanisms, capacities and structures; allocation ofresponsibilities● Partnerships● Accountability and community participation2 Risk assessment ● Hazards/risk data and assessment● Vulnerability and impact data and assessment● Scientific and technical capacities and innovation3 Knowledge and ● Public awareness, knowledge and skillseducation ● Information management and sharing● Education and training● Cultures, attitudes, motivation● Learning and research4 Risk management and ● Environmental and natural resource managementvulnerability reduction ● Health and well being● Sustainable livelihoods● Social protection● Financial instruments● Physical protection; structural and technical measures● Planning régimes5 Disaster preparedness ● Organisational capacities and coordinationand response ● Early warning systems● Preparedness and contingency planning● Emergency resources and infrastructure● Emergency response and recovery● Participation, voluntarism, accountability2. Characteristics of a ResilientCommunityFor each component of resilience, the tables provide aset of characteristics of a resilient community. Again,the number of characteristics varies according to thenature of the component. Here is an example of onecomponent of resilience with its related characteristicsof a resilient community:Thematic area 2:Risk assessmentCharacteristics of a resilient communityComponent of ● Community hazard/risk assessments carried out which provide comprehensiveresilience 1:picture of all major hazards and risks facing community (and potential risks).Hazards/risk data ● Hazard/risk assessment is participatory process including representatives of alland assessment sections of community and sources of expertise.● Assessment findings shared, discussed, understood and agreed among allstakeholders, and feed into community disaster planning.● Findings made available to all interested parties (within and outside community,locally and at higher levels) and feed into their disaster planning.● Ongoing monitoring of hazards and risks and updating of assessments.● Skills and capacity to carry out community hazard and risk assessments maintainedthrough support and training.9

Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note2.1 ApplicationsThe characteristics can be used at various stages of theproject cycle and for different purposes. The followingare likely to be the main applications:● Baseline studies of the level of resilience in acommunity.● Vulnerability and capacity analysis.● Project planning, especially in identifyingindicators for logical and results-based planningframeworks.● Monitoring and evaluation (of individual projectsand for comparative analysis of projects)2.2 Selecting characteristics; settingprioritiesIdentification and selection of relevant characteristicsis essential but not necessarily easy. The complete setof characteristics is intended to represent an ideal stateof resilience – in other words, a community thatexhibits all of the characteristics under all of theheadings (themes and components) would haveattained the highest possible level of safety. Similarly,DRR requires a co-ordinated and comprehensiveapproach in which progress in one area needs to bematched by comparable progress in others.However, as the ideal state of resilience will alwaysremain beyond our grasp, organisations will need toselect those characteristics that are most relevant tothe communities they are working with, and the typeof DRR work they are involved in; and they will seekaims that are realistic in the context of a particularproject. This also depends on the capacities ofindividual organisations and their scale of operation.Not all elements of resilience are necessarily ofequal importance, although there are no universallyagreed priorities for resilience or DRR. Theimportance of each characteristic to a given projectdepends on the specific location, time andcircumstances (including different hazard types). Theselection process should take this into account andreach clear decisions about priorities, recognising thatthis may involve some compromises. This processshould be open. The characteristics will be most useful(and most used) when they are selected by, or at leastwith, those who need to use them. This meanscomprehensive participatory processes of discussionand validation at local level, which may also identifyadditional characteristics of resilience.One way of narrowing the scope of characteristicsis to consider only actions that are intendedspecifically to reduce disaster risk. This is the basis ofthe concept of ‘invulnerable development’, which isdevelopment directed towards reducing vulnerabilityto disaster, comprising ‘decisions and activities that areintentionally designed and implemented to reducerisk and susceptibility, and also raise resistance andresilience to disaster’. 3Users of this guidance note should be aware thatthere is a degree of ambiguity regarding exactly who agiven characteristic may apply to – and hence, whoshould take appropriate action. For instance, acharacteristic such as ‘shared vision of a prepared andresilient community’ begs the question: who issupposed to share in this vision? All of thecharacteristics are intended to be applicable tocommunities and their members (remembering thatcommunities are not homogeneous) but some couldalso apply to groups and organisations working amongthe community, such as local NGOs and perhaps evenlocal government agencies or extension workers. Forthe most part, these external agencies and theircapacities have been placed within the ‘enablingenvironment’ part of the framework (see below).However, since the boundaries between communitiesand the enabling environment cannot always bedrawn exactly, and external agencies have animportant role to play in community welfare anddevelopment, this matter may sometimes requirediscussion and decision in the field.2.3 Characteristics and indicatorsThe characteristics set out in the tables are not projectindicators in the conventional sense. It is important torecognise this. They characterise an ideal state ofresilience in quite general terms, whereas individualprojects will need their own specific and moredetailed indicators of achievement. 4The distinction between characteristics andindicators is not rigid, however. Some characteristicsare equivalent to the ‘outcome’ indicators used inproject evaluation because they represent an end stateresulting from DRR interventions. Others are closer to‘output’ indicators because they represent DRRactivities that must be carried out or measures thatmust be put in place if resilience outcomes are to beachieved. If an organisation or project is using thetables for monitoring and evaluation (M&E), it maychoose to regroup some of the characteristics in thisway. (See also the discussion below on milestones.)3 McEntire DA 2000, ‘Sustainability or invulnerable development? Proposals for the current shift in paradigms’. Australian Journal ofEmergency Management 15(1): 58-61.4 The ISDR and OCHA guidance on indicators explain indicators and indicator selection in detail. ADPC’s guidelines on community-baseddisaster risk management contain helpful information on developing DRR indicators at community level (see Further Reading).10

Version 1 (for fieldtesting), August 20072.4 Composite characteristicsSome characteristics are composites of individualcharacteristics – for example:[hazard/risk] assessment findings shared,discussed, understood and agreed among allstakeholders, and feed into community disasterplanning.This contains two main elements: (1) sharing,discussion, understanding and agreement aboutassessment findings among all stakeholders; (2)assessment findings feed into community disasterplanning. The first main element can also be split intofour more particular elements: sharing, discussion,understanding and agreement. One reason foraggregating characteristics in this way is to make thisdocument more manageable: without it, the tableswould be extremely long. But this has only been donewhere the different characteristics are strongly linkedto one another. In practice, and depending on whatpurpose they are using the tables for, organisationsmay wish to disaggregate some of the characteristics.2.5 Quantitative versus qualitativecharacteristicsThe characteristics set out in these tables arequalitative. Communities and their partners thereforeneed to make their own judgements about whether ornot certain aspects of resilience have been achieved.Some of these will be more straightforward thanothers. For instance, it is easy to tell if a communitydisaster preparedness or contingency plan exists (evenif its quality is another matter). But it is much harder todecide if there is an equitable distribution of wealthand livelihood assets in a community, or the adequacyof access to common property resources that cansupport coping strategies during crises.The guidance note cannot tell projects andcommunities how they should reach thesejudgements. They are matters for collective agreementbetween the stakeholders. The conclusions will bedifferent in each case, according to context andexpectations, and there will be a fair amount ofsubjective judgement. But in every case the processfor reaching decisions must be transparent andparticipatory.Some guidelines and experts have suggested theneed for quantitative indicators of certain aspects ofDRR (e.g. the number of volunteers trained in first aid,the percentage of households in a community withproperty insurance). It is impossible to fix standardquantitative measures that can be applied to everycontext but quantitative indicators can be used at anindividual project level, if required. In such cases, theycould form part of the data on which the broaderjudgements about attainment of characteristics ofresilience are based. It is for individual project teamsto decide what kinds of quantitative indicator areappropriate and what levels of attainment to set.3. Characteristics of an EnablingEnvironmentIn this guidance note, the focus is on communities andlocal organisations (although individual and householdresilience is incorporated in the tables to some extent).However, the framework acknowledges theimportance of wider institutional, policy and socioeconomicfactors in supporting community-levelresilience.The tables identify the main elements of this‘enabling environment’ 5 in relation to eachcomponent of resilience. They are less detailed thanthe characteristics of community resilience. Most aretaken from the national-level DRR indicatorframeworks being developed by UN ISDR and UNOCHA (see Further Reading).The following table (on page 12) illustrates how thisworks for one component of resilience. Note that itincludes local and national level characteristics.Elsewhere in the tables, international dimensions ofthe enabling environment are also sometimesincluded.People who work on community resilience need tobe conscious of the enabling environment and theeffect it may have on their work, but they cannot beexpected to analyse it in detail. An individual projectwill probably undertake a quick, subjective assessmentof the enabling environment. However, anorganisation working on a number of communityprojects in a particular country – e.g. a national orinternational NGO – may wish to carry out a morethorough assessment to inform its work or to supportadvocacy.Many features of the ideal enabling environmentwill be missing in many cases. In some situations thelack of key components of support may be so greatthat it creates what may be called a ‘disabling’5 The term ‘enabling environment’ is borrowed from the All India Disaster Mitigation Institute. See ‘The Need for a More Nuanced View ofLocal Capacity and the Support Approaches of Outsiders’. southasiadisasters.net 2006 #18 (August), p.4.http://www.southasiadisasters.net/publication.htm The IFRC’s ongoing work on local-level DRR indicators uses a C-I-T categorisation toconsider this (where C = issues the community can change; I = issues the community can influence to find solutions; T = issues where thecommunity recognises that transformation will take a long time and is out of their hands): Barrena I 2007, ‘Indicators: A guide to find simpleindicators for risk reduction projects at local level’. (Geneva: IFRC, unpublished draft report).11

Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance NoteThematic Area 1:GovernanceCharacteristics of enabling environmentComponent of ● Political consensus on importance of DRRresilience 1: ● DRR a policy priority at all levels of government.DRR policy, ● National DRR policy, strategy and implementation plan, with clear vision, priorities,planning, priorities targets and benchmarks.and political ● Local government DRR policies, strategies and implementation plans in place.commitment ● Official (national and local) policy and strategy of support to CBDRM.● Local-level official understanding of and support for community vision.environment for local-level initiatives. Users of theguidance note will therefore have to base their planson realistic assessments of the type and level ofexternal support they can expect.4. MilestonesThe indicator set ‘characteristics of a disaster-resilientcommunity’ represents a goal: the highest level ofresilience that is realistically attainable. Additionalmilestones are needed to measure improvements andprogress towards the goal. However, there areBox 2: Key indicators of community resilienceSome organisations and researchers are beginning to think about the most important indicators of resilience witha view to setting priorities for DRR interventions. No consensus has been reached on this but recent suggestionsinclude the following:ADPC: Indicators Plan International: indicators of Practical Action: keyof a ‘minimum level community resilience characteristics of aof resiliency’resilient community● A community 1. Governance: ● A community organisation such as aorganisation ● Extent and nature of access/ development/disaster management● A DRR and disaster presence/influence of children group, representing majority ofpreparedness plan and other vulnerable groups (or people. Existing groups can be● A community early groups that represent their interests) – groomed for this role.warning system to/in/over functions of governance ● A DRR and Disaster Preparedness● Trained manpower: at local, sub-national, national levels: plan (supported by local/centralrisk assessment, search ❍ Policy government)and rescue, medical ❍ Legislative ● Early warning systemsfirst aid, relief ❍ Planning ● Trained persons – risk assessment,distribution, masons ❍ Budgeting search and rescue, first aid, relieffor safer house ❍ Monitoring distribution, safer house construction,construction, ● Awareness of community members fire fighting; effective delivery system.fire fighting of their rights ● Physical infrastructure – access to● Physical connectivity: ● Access of community members to roads, electricity, phones, clinics, etcroads, electricity, legal and other avenues to enforce ● Linkages with local authorities,telephone, clinics rights/provide redress (e.g. through NGOs, humanitarian agencies, etc● Relational connectivity linkages to legal rights NGOs, ● Knowledge and awareness of riskswith local authorities pro-bono lawyers) and risk reduction strategiesNGOs, etc. ● Safer housing to withstand local● Knowledge of risks 2. Risk assessment: hazardsand risk reduction ● Existence and quality of community ● Safer/appropriate/more diverseactions risk assessments and maps that are sources of livelihoods including● A community disaster ‘owned’ by both community and protection of assets most at risk.reduction fund to government ● Access to resources for mitigation,12

Version 1 (for fieldtesting), August 2007ADPC: Indicators Plan International: indicators of Practical Action: keyof a ‘minimum level community resilience characteristics of aof resiliency’resilient communityimplement risk ● Extent and quality of participation of response and recovery activitiesreduction activities vulnerable groups in development of● Safer houses to community risk assessments andwithstand localmapshazards ● Extent to which vulnerability and● Safer sources of risk analysis is incorporated inlivelihoodsdevelopment planning3. Knowledge and education:● Awareness levels in the community,particularly children and vulnerablegroups, of EWS● Awareness levels in the community,particularly of children and vulnerablegroups, of risks and risk reductionstrategies4. Risk management and vulnerabilityreduction:● Extent and nature of social capital● Health status● Sustainable livelihoods/naturalresource management● Extent of climate change adaptation● Food security● Extent of diversity of livelihood options● Extent to which DRR has beenintegrated into development planning● Access to social protectionmechanisms e.g. social insurance5. Disaster preparedness and response:● Existence and quality of early warningsystems● Existence, practice and revision ofpreparedness and contingency plans● Extent and nature of participation ofvulnerable groups in development,practice and revision of preparednessand contingency plans● Extent and quality of linkages withlocal authorities, NGOs, etc.● Extent of diversity of physical andcommunications infrastructure andassets, e.g. roads, boats, mobilephones, etc.● Access to resources for mitigation,response and recovery activitiesSource: ADPC 2006, Critical Source: Plan International Source: Practical ActionGuidelines: Community-basedDisaster Risk Management(Bangkok: Asian DisasterPreparedness Center;www.adpc.net) p.2513

Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Notechallenges in using these tables of characteristics toassess levels of progress from an existing state ofresilience towards an ideal state of safety. Somecharacteristics may be used as output or processindicators (see above) but they cannot be applied asstandard measures to the specific requirements ofindividual projects. Project partners will have to agreehow to measure their own progress in each case. Indoing so they will focus on those characteristics ofresilience that they have chosen to work on, workingout a process for moving from the current state towardsthe end state in each case, and agreeing indicators fordifferent stages of progress along the way.A more generic ‘milestones’ model may be usefulfor getting a better idea of the ‘big picture’ of progresstowards resilience in a particular district orcommunity. Like the mapping of thematic areas andcomponents of resilience, this would probably bemost useful as a multi-stakeholder exercise looking atthe work of all groups and organisations involved inDRR. For this, a five-level scale is suggested, with eachlevel marking a distinct stage in the development ofDRR. This is a simple scale and should be easy to use.It is designed to be applied across all areas ofresilience. It could be used to review progress towardsresilience across all thematic areas, or in individualthematic areas. It may also be applicable to selectedcomponents of resilience, but not necessarily to allcomponents.Level 1. Little awareness of the issue(s) ormotivation to address them. Actionslimited to crisis response.Level 2. Awareness of the issue(s) and willingnessto address them. Capacity to act(knowledge and skills, human, materialand other resources) remains limited.Interventions tend to be one-off,piecemeal and short-term.Level 3. Development and implementation ofsolutions. Capacity to act is improvedand substantial. Interventions are morenumerous and long-term.Level 4. Coherence and integration. Interventionsare extensive, covering all main aspectsof the problem, and they are linkedwithin a coherent long-term strategy.Level 5. A ‘culture of safety’ exists among allstakeholders, where DRR is embeddedin all relevant policy, planning, practice,attitudes and behaviour.It is assumed that groups and organisations using thistool for self-assessment will already have advancedbeyond Level 1.Level 5 approximates to the ‘disaster-resilientcommunity’ ideal. The ‘culture of safety’ notionreferred to here, which has been advanced by the UNsystem and others, goes beyond carrying out DRRactivities because it implies deep-rooted behaviouralchange. 6Assessment of progress using this model wouldinvolve looking at the range of DRR or resilience issuesbeing addressed, the number, type and range ofresilience characteristics being achieved or workedtowards, and – importantly – the level of coherenceand co-ordination of efforts.Assessments could be rapid or more intensive.They would have to be participatory, since agreementon the different levels would be based on largelysubjective judgements. 7The milestones could be used as baselines at thestart of a project to assess the level of achievement atthat moment in time. Repeat assessments wouldindicate the extent of progress in DRR. However, itmust be emphasised that many of these changes willonly come about in the long term, especially wherecommunities and supporting agencies have limitedcapacity and resources, and where there arecompeting priorities.Application of this or similar methods would helpto keep the overall picture in sight and wouldencourage greater coherence of activities andlinkages between different groups and organisationsinvolved.5. Other IssuesThe development of this guidance note is just oneamong several current and recent initiatives toimprove the monitoring and evaluation of DRR, whichhas led to the production of several sets of indicators.Although the Hyogo Framework for Action is a guidingframework for some, the different initiatives doinevitably reflect a range of views. This diversity can beseen as a problem and there have been calls forharmonisation of indicators and evaluationframeworks. However desirable this may be, twofactors should be borne in mind. First, every DRRinitiative is context-specific, so generic or harmonisedassessment schemes will always have to be customisedto fit the context to which they are applied. Second,this is a relatively new area of work. Further piloting of6 Behavioural change is difficult to measure, but there are methods for doing this, such as outcome mapping – see www.outcomemapping.ca7 Similar attainment scales are used elsewhere in DRR assessment: for example, ISDR’s DRR Indicators and Tearfund’s method for assessingmainstreaming of DRR in development organisations (see Further Reading). Work has been done in some areas on more sophisticatedapproaches with specific benchmarks for progress towards each individual indicator (notably cyclone early warning systems). Such tools arevaluable for research and national-level evaluation but are too complex for use at local or community level.14

Version 1 (for fieldtesting), August 2007methods and debate about their results are neededbefore general conclusions can be drawn with anyconfidence.6. Further ReadingThis list contains selected important sources that arewidely available (most are online). A fullerbibliography of relevant documents on indicators,resilience and community DRR is available athttp://www.benfieldhrc.org/disaster_studies/projects/communitydrrindicators/community_drr_indicators_index.htmThe Hyogo Framework of Action and DRRindicators●●●●UN ISDR Hyogo Framework for Action web page,http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/hfa.htmUN ISDR 2007, ‘Guide Note on Indicators forAssessing Progress on Disaster Risk Reduction’(Geneva: International Strategy for DisasterReduction). Unpublished draft (final version will bepublished).UN ISDR 2005, HF Dialogue: assessing progresstowards disaster risk reduction within the HyogoFramework (online discussion, moderated by PhilipBuckle and Graham Marsh), http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/hfa.htmUN OCHA 2007, ‘Disaster Preparedness forEffective Response: Implementing Priority Five ofthe Hyogo Framework for Action’ (Geneva: Officefor the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs).Unpublished draft (final version will be published).See also:●Liebmann M, Pavanello S 2007, ‘A critical reviewof the Knowledge and Education Indicators ofCommunity-Level Disaster Risk Reduction’.Unpublished report for the Benfield UCL HazardResearch Centre,http://www.benfieldhrc.org/disaster_studies/projects/communitydrrindicators/community_drr_indicators_index.htmDRR indicators (general)●●●ADPC 2006, Critical Guidelines: Community-basedDisaster Risk Management (Bangkok: Asian DisasterPreparedness Center), www.adpc.netBarrena I 2007, ‘Indicators: A guide to find simpleindicators for risk reduction projects at local level’(Geneva: IFRC, unpublished draft report).Benson C, Twigg J 2007 (with T Rossetto), Tools forMainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction: Guidance●●●●Notes for Development Organisations (Geneva:ProVention Consortium),ww.proventionconsortium.org/mainstreaming_toolsBenson C, Twigg J 2004, ‘Measuring Mitigation’:Methodologies for assessing natural hazard risksand the net benefits of mitigation: a scoping study(Geneva: ProVention Consortium),www.proventionconsortium.org/mainstreaming_toolsLaTrobe S, Davis I 2005, Mainstreaming disasterrisk reduction: a tool for development organisations(Teddington: Tearfund), http://tilz.tearfund.org/Research/Climate+change+and+disasters+policy/McEntire DA 2000, ‘Sustainability or invulnerabledevelopment? Proposals for the current shift inparadigms’. Australian Journal of EmergencyManagement 15(1): 58–61.ProVention Consortium 2006, Risk ReductionIndicators. TRIAMS Working Paper (Geneva:ProVention Consortium),www.proventionconsortium.org/themes/default/pdfs/TRIAMS_full_paper.pdfLocal-level and community-based DRR●●ADPC 2006, Critical Guidelines: Community-basedDisaster Risk Management (Bangkok: Asian DisasterPreparedness Center), www.adpc.netTwigg J 2004, Disaster risk reduction: Mitigationand preparedness in development and emergencyprogramming (London: Overseas DevelopmentInstitute, Humanitarian Practice Network, GoodPractice Review No. 9). www.odihpn.orgResilience and the disaster-resilientcommunity●●●●●●Buckle P, Marsh G, Smale S 2000, ‘Newapproaches to assessing vulnerability andresilience.’ Australian Journal of EmergencyManagement 15(2) 8–14.Geis DE 2000, ‘By Design: the Disaster Resistantand Quality-of-Life Community’. Natural HazardsReview 1(3): 151–160.Godschalk DR 2003, ‘Urban Hazard Mitigation:Creating Resilient Cities’. Natural Hazards Review4(3) 136–143.IFRC 2004, World Disasters Report 2004: Focus oncommunity resilience (Geneva: IFRC), chapter 1.McEntire DA 2005, ‘Why vulnerability matters.Exploring the merit of an inclusive disasterreduction concept’. Disaster Prevention andManagement 14(2) 206–222.Manyena SB 2006, ‘The concept of resiliencerevisited’. Disasters 30(4): 433–450.15

Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance NoteCommunities and DRR●●●●Buckle P 1998/9, ‘Re-defining community andvulnerability in the context of emergencymanagement’. Australian Journal of EmergencyManagement 13(4) 21–26.Enders J 2001, ‘Measuring community awarenessand preparedness for emergencies’. AustralianJournal of Emergency Management 16(3): 52–58.IFRC 2004, World Disasters Report 2004: Focus oncommunity resilience (Geneva: IFRC), pp. 27–31.Marsh G, Buckle P 2001, ‘Community: theconcept of community in the risk and emergencymanagement context’. Australian Journal ofEmergency Management 16(1): 5–7.16

Version 1 (for fieldtesting), August 2007Section C: TablesThematic Area 1: GovernanceComponents of resilience:1. DRR policy, planning, priorities, and political commitment2. Legal and regulatory systems3. Integration with development policies and planning4. Integration with emergency response and recovery5. Institutional mechanisms, capacities and structures; allocation ofresponsibilities6. Partnerships7. Accountability and community participation17

Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance NoteComponents Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community Characteristics of an Enabling Environmentof Resilience1. DRR policy, 1.1 Shared vision of a prepared and resilient community. ➣ Political consensus on importance of DRR.planning, 1.2 Consensus view of risks faced, risk management approach, ➣ DRR a policy priority at all levels of government.priorities, specific actions to be taken and targets to be met. 1 ➣ National DRR policy, strategy and implementationand political 1.3 Vision and DRR plans informed by understanding of plan, with clear vision, priorities, targets and benchmarks.commitment. underlying causes of vulnerability and other factors outside ➣ Local government DRR policies, strategies and implementationcommunity’s control. plans in place.1.4 Community takes long-term perspective, focusing on ➣ Official (national and local) policy and strategy of supportoutcomes and impact of DRR. to community-based disaster risk management (CBDRM).1.5 Committed, effective and accountable community leadership ➣ Local-level official understanding of, and support for,of DRR planning and implementation. community vision.1.6 Community DRR (and DP) plans, developed through participatoryprocesses, put into operation, and updated periodically.2. Legal and 2.1 Community understands relevant legislation, regulations and ➣ Relevant and enabling legislation, regulations, codes, etc.,regulatory procedures, and their importance. addressing and supporting DRR, at national and local levels.systems 2.2 Community aware of its rights and the legal obligations of ➣ Jurisdictions and responsibilities for DRR at all levelsgovernment and other stakeholders to provide protection. defined in legislation, regulations, by-laws, etc.➣ Mechanisms for compliance and enforcement of laws,regulations, codes, etc., and penalties for non-compliancedefined in laws and regulations.➣ Legal and regulatory system underpinned by guaranteesof relevant rights: to safety, to equitable assistance, to belistened to and consulted.➣ Land-use regulations, building codes and other laws andregulations relating to DRR enforced locally.3. Integration with 3.1 Community DRR seen by all local stakeholders as integral ➣ Government (all levels) takes holistic and integrated approachdevelopment part of plans and actions to achieve wider community goals to DRR, located within wider development context and linkedpolicies (e.g. poverty alleviation, quality of life). to development planning across different sectors.and planning ➣ DRR incorporated into or linked to other nationaldevelopment plans and donor-supported countryprogrammes. 2➣ Routine integration of DRR into development planning andsectoral policies (poverty eradication, social protection,sustainable development, climate change adaptation,desertification, natural resource management, health,18

Thematic Area 1: GovernanceComponents Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community Characteristics of an Enabling Environmentof Resilienceeducation, etc.).➣ Formal development planning and implementation processesrequired to incorporate DRR elements (e.g. hazard,vulnerability and risk analysis, mitigation plans).➣ Multi-sectoral institutional platforms for promoting DRR.➣ Local planning policies, regulations and decision-makingsystems take disaster risk into account.4. Integration with 4.1 Community and other local-level actors in sustainable ➣ National policy framework requires DRR to be incorporatedemergency development and DRR engage in joint planning with into design and implementation of disaster response andresponse and community and local-level emergency teams and structures. recovery.recovery ➣ Policy, planning and operational linkages between emergencymanagement, DRR and development structures.➣ Risk reduction incorporated into official (and internationallysupported and implemented) post-disaster reconstructionplans and actions.5. Institutional 5.1 Representative community organisations dedicated to DRR/DRM. ➣ Supportive political, administrative and financial environmentmechanisms, 5.2 Local NGOs, CBOs and communities of interest engaged with for CBDRM and community-based development.capacities and other issues capable of supporting DRR and response. 3 ➣ Institutional mandates and responsibilities for DRR clearlystructures; 5.3 Responsibilities, resources, etc., defined in community defined. Inter-institutional or co-ordinating mechanisms exist,allocation of disaster plans. with clearly designated responsibilities.responsibilities 5.4 Shared understanding among all local stakeholders regarding ➣ Focal point at national level with authority and resources toDRR responsibilities, authority and decision making. co-ordinate all related bodies involved in disaster5.5 Community-managed funds and other material resources for management and DRR.DRR and disaster recovery. ➣ Human, technical, material and financial resources for DRR5.6 Access to government and other funding and resources for adequate to meet defined institutional roles andDRR and recovery. responsibilities (including budgetary allocation specifically toDRR at national and local levels).➣ Devolution of responsibility (and resources) for DRR planningand implementation to local government levels andcommunities, as far as possible, backed up by provision ofspecialist expertise and resources to support localdecision-making, planning and management of disasters.➣ Committed and effective community outreach services (DRRand related services, e.g. healthcare).19

Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance NoteComponents Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community Characteristics of an Enabling Environmentof Resilience6. Partnerships 6.1 Local stakeholders committed to genuine partnerships (with open ➣ DRR identified as responsibility of all sectors of societyand shared principles of collaboration, high levels of trust). (public, private, civil), with appropriate inter-sectoral and co-6.2 Clear, agreed and stable DRR partnerships between local ordinating mechanisms.stakeholder groups and organisations (communities and CBOs ➣ Long-term civil society, NGO, private sector and communitywith local authorities, NGOs, businesses, etc.). participation and inter-sectoral partnerships for DRR and6.3 Processes are community-led (supported by external agencies). emergency response.6.4 Local capacity and enthusiasm to promote DRR and scale ➣ Linkages with regional and global institutions and their DRRup activities (through community-external actor partnerships). initiatives.6.5 Community and local groups/organisations have capacity torecruit, train, support and motivate community volunteers forDRR, and work together to do so.7. Accountability 7.1 Devolved DRR structures facilitate community participation. ➣ Basic rights of people formally recognised by national andand community 7.2 Access to information on local government plans, structures, etc. local government (and civil society organisations: CSOs): toparticipation 7.3 Trust within community and between community and external safety, to equitable vulnerability reduction and reliefagencies. assistance, to be listened to and consulted (implies7.4 Capacity to challenge and lobby external agencies on DRR responsibility to guarantee these rights where appropriate).plans, priorities, actions that may have an impact on risk. ➣ Effective quality control or audit mechanisms for official7.5 Participatory M&E systems to assess resilience and progress in DRR. structures, systems, etc., in place and applied.7.6 Inclusion/representation of vulnerable groups in community ➣ Democratic system of governance holding decision makers todecision making and management of DRR. account.7.7 High level of volunteerism in DRR activities. ➣ Government consults civil society, NGOs, private sector andcommunities.➣ Popular participation in policy development andimplementation.➣ Citizen demands for action to reduce disaster risk.➣ Existence of ‘watchdog’ groups to press for change.1 Including agreement on level of acceptable risk.2 Poverty Reduction Strategies, national Millennium Development Goal reports, National Adaptation Plans of Action, UNDP assistance frameworks, etc.3 i.e. emergent, extending or expanding organisations. Expanding organisations are expected to take on additional functions at times of crisis, which they do by increasing their capacity or altering theirorganisational structures (e.g. a local Red Cross branch calling on trained volunteers to support its small core of professional staff). Extending organisations are not expected to respond to disasters butduring disasters may perform non-regular tasks (e.g. a construction company clearing debris to assist rescue operations). Emergent organisations do not exist before a disaster event but form in responseto it (e.g. spontaneous search and rescue groups). See Webb GR 1999, Individual and Organizational Response to Natural Disasters and other Crisis Events: the continuing value of the DRC typology(University of Delaware, Disaster Research Center, Preliminary Paper #277), www.udel.edu/DRC/preliminary/pp277.pdf20

Thematic Area 2: Risk AssessmentThematic Area 2: Risk AssessmentComponents of resilience:1. Hazards/risk data and assessment2. Vulnerability and impact data and assessment3. Scientific and technical capacities and innovation21

Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance NoteComponents Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community Characteristics of an Enabling Environmentof Resilience1. Hazards/risk 1.1 Community hazard/risk assessments carried out which provide ➣ Hazard/risk assessments mandated in public policy,data and comprehensive picture of all major hazards and risks facing legislation, etc., with standards for preparation, publication,assessment community (and potential risks). revision.1.2 Hazard/risk assessment is participatory process including ➣ Systematic and repeated assessments of hazards and disasterrepresentatives of all sections of community and sources risks undertaken in higher-level development programming.of expertise. High-risk areas identified.1.3 Assessment findings shared, discussed, understood and agreed ➣ Good-quality data on hazards and risks (scientific databases,among all stakeholders, and feed into community disaster planning. official reports, etc.) made available to support local-level1.4 Findings made available to all interested parties (within and assessments.outside community, locally and at higher levels) and feed into ➣ Existing knowledge collected, synthesised and sharedtheir disaster planning. systematically (through disaster management information1.5 Ongoing monitoring of hazards and risks and updating of systems).assessments. ➣ Participation of all relevant agencies/stakeholders in1.6 Skills and capacity to carry out community hazard and risk assessments.assessments maintained through support and training. ➣ Government (local and/or national) and NGOs committed toproviding technical and other support to local andcommunity hazard/risk assessments.2. Vulnerability 2.1 Community vulnerability and capacity assessments (VCAs) ➣ VCA mandated in public policy, legislation, etc., withand impact data carried out which provide comprehensive picture of standards for preparation, publication, revision.and assessment vulnerabilities and capacities. ➣ Vulnerability and capacity indicators developed and2.2 VCA is participatory process including representatives of all systematically mapped and recorded (covering all relevantvulnerable groups. social, economic, physical and environmental, political,2.3 Assessment findings shared, discussed, understood and cultural factors).agreed among all stakeholders and feed into community ➣ Disaster impact data and statistical loss information availabledisaster planning. and used in VCA.2.4 VCAs used to create baselines at start of community DRR ➣ Systematic use of VCA in higher-level developmentprojects. programming. Vulnerable groups and causes of vulnerability2.5 Findings made available to all interested parties (within and identified.outside community) and feed into their disaster and ➣ Existing knowledge collected, synthesised and shareddevelopment planning. systematically (through disaster management information22

Thematic Area 2: Risk AssessmentComponents Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community Characteristics of an Enabling Environmentof Resilience2.6 Ongoing monitoring of vulnerability and updating of assessments. systems).2.7 Skills and capacity to carry out community VCA maintained ➣ Participation of all relevant agencies/stakeholders inthrough support and training. assessments.➣ Government (local and/or national) and NGOs committed toproviding technical and other support to local andcommunity VCA.3. Scientific and 3.1 Community members and organisations trained in hazards, risk ➣ Institutional and technical capacity for data collection andtechnical capacities and VCA techniques and supported to carry out assessments. analysis.and innovation 3.2 Use of indigenous knowledge and local perceptions of risk as ➣ Ongoing scientific and technological development; datawell as other scientific knowledge, data and assessment methods. sharing, space-based earth observation, climate modellingand forecasting; early warning.➣ External agencies value and use indigenous knowledge.23

Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance NoteThematic Area 3: Knowledge and EducationComponents of resilience:1. Public awareness, knowledge and skills2. Information management and sharing3. Education and training4. Cultures, attitudes, motivation5. Learning and research24

Thematic Area 3: Knowledge and EducationComponents Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community Characteristics of an Enabling Environmentof Resilience1. Public awareness, 1.1 Shared vision of a prepared and resilient community. ➣ General public aware of and informed about disaster risksknowledge and 1.2 Whole community has been exposed to/taken part in ongoing and how to manage them.skills awareness campaigns, which are geared to community needs ➣ Appropriate, high-visibility awareness-raising programmesand capacities (e.g. literacy levels). designed and implemented at national, regional, local levels1.3 Community knowledge of hazards, vulnerability, risks and risk by official agencies.reduction actions sufficient for effective action by community ➣ Media involvement in communicating risk and raising(alone and in collaboration with other stakeholders). awareness of disasters and counter-disaster measures.1.4 Possession (by individuals and across community) of appropriate ➣ Public communication programmes involve dialogue withtechnical and organisational knowledge and skills for DRR and stakeholders about disaster risks and related issues (not oneresponseactions at local level (including indigenous technical way information dissemination).knowledge, coping strategies, livelihood strategies). ➣ External agencies understand communities’ vulnerabilities,1.5 Open debate within community resulting in agreements about capacities, risks, risk perception and rationality of riskproblems, solutions, priorities, etc. management decisions; and recognise viability of localknowledge and coping strategies.➣ Levels of education provision, access, literacy, etc., facilitateeffective information dissemination and awareness raising.2. Information 2.1 Information on risk, vulnerability, disaster management practices, ➣ Government (national and local) is committed to informationmanagement etc., shared among those at risk. sharing (transparency) and dialogue with communities relatingand sharing 2.2 Community disaster plans publicly available and widely to information about risk and DRM.(more formal) understood. ➣ Legislation specifies right of people to be informed and2.3 All sections of community know about facilities/services/skills obtain information about risks facing them.available pre-, during and post-emergency, and how to ➣ Common understanding among external agencies of principles,access these. concepts, terminology, alternative approaches in DRR.2.4 Content and methods of communicating information developed ➣ Public and private information-gathering and -sharing systemswith communities (i.e. ‘communication’ not ‘information on hazards, risk, disaster management resources (incl.dissemination’). resource centres, databases, websites, directories and2.5 Maximum deployment of indigenous, traditional, informal inventories, good practice guidance) exist and are accessible.communications channels. ➣ Active professional networks for disaster risk management2.6 Impact of information materials and communication strategies (sharing scientific, technical and applied information,evaluated. 1 traditional/local knowledge).3. Education 3.1 Local schools provide education in DRR for children through ➣ Inclusion of disaster reduction in relevant primary, secondaryand training curriculum and where appropriate extra-curricular activities. 2 and tertiary education courses (curriculum development,3.2 DRR/DRM and other training addresses priorities identified by provision of educational material, teacher training) nationally.community and based on community assessment of risks, ➣ Specialised vocational training courses and facilities forvulnerabilities and associated problems. DRR/DRM available, at different levels and for different3.3 Community members and organisations trained in relevant skills groups, linked through overall training strategy. Certification25

Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance NoteComponents Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community Characteristics of an Enabling Environmentof Resiliencefor DRR and DP (e.g. hazard-risk-vulnerability assessment, of training.community DRM planning, search and rescue, first aid, ➣ Appropriate education and training programmes for plannersmanagement of emergency shelters, needs assessment, relief and field practitioners in DRR/DRM and development sectorsdistribution, fire-fighting). designed and implemented at national, regional, local levels.3.4 Householders and builders trained in safe construction and ➣ Training resources (technical, financial, material, human)retrofitting techniques, and other practical steps to protect made available by government, emergency services, NGOs,houses and property. etc., to support local-level DRR.3.5 (rural) Community members skilled or trained in appropriateagricultural, land use, water management and environmentalmanagement practices.3.6 Community experience of coping in previous events/crises, orknowledge of how this was done, used in education and training.4. Cultures, 4.1 Shared community values, aspirations and goals (and positive ➣ Political, social and cultural environment that encouragesattitudes, sense of the future, commitment to community as a whole, freedom of thought and expression, and stimulates inquirymotivation agreement of community goals). and debate.4.2 Cultural attitudes and values (e.g. expectations of help/ ➣ Official and public acceptance of precautionary principle:self-sufficiency, religious/ideological views) enable need to act on incomplete information or understanding tocommunities to adapt to and recover from shocks and stresses. reduce potential disaster risks.4.3 Informed, realistic attitudes towards risk and risk management.4.4 Justifiable confidence about safety and capacities of self-reliance.4.5 Possession of (or access to) the information, resources andsupport desired/needed to ensure safety.4.6 Feelings of personal responsibility for preparing for disastersand reducing disaster risk.4.7 Safer behaviour as result of awareness raising.5. Learning 5.1 Documentation, use and adaptation of indigenous technical ➣ National and sub-national research capacity in hazards, riskand research knowledge and coping strategies. and disaster studies (in specialist institutions or within other5.2 Participatory M&E systems to assess resilience and progress institutions), with adequate funding for ongoing research.in DRR. ➣ Encouragement of inter-disciplinary and policy-orientedresearch.➣ National, regional and international cooperation in research,science and technology development.➣ Comprehensive agenda for scientific, technical, policy,planning and participatory research in DRR.1 i.e. on community and individual attitudes towards disaster risk and risk management strategies2 Assumes high levels of school attendance; and if not, outreach activities.26

Thematic Area 4: Risk Management and Vulnerability ReductionThematic Area 4: Risk Management andVulnerability ReductionComponents of resilience:1. Environmental and natural resource management2. Health and well being3. Sustainable livelihoods4. Social protection5. Financial instruments6. Physical protection; structural and technical measures7. Planning régimes27

Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance NoteComponents Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community Characteristics of an Enabling Environmentof Resilience1. Environmental 1.1 Community understanding of characteristics and functioning ➣ Policy, legislative and institutional structure that supportsand natural of local natural environment and ecosystems (e.g. drainage, sustainable ecosystems and environmental management, andresource watersheds, slope and soil characteristics) and the potential risks maximises environmental resource management practicesmanagement associated with these natural features and human interventions that assist DRR.(including natural that affect them (e.g. climate change). ➣ Effective official action to prevent unsustainable land uses andcapital, climate 1.2 Adoption of sustainable environmental management practices resource management approaches that increase disaster risk.change adaptation) that reduce hazard risk. 1 ➣ Policy and operational interface between environmental1.3 Preservation of biodiversity (e.g. through community-managed management and risk reduction policies and planning.seed banks, with equitable distribution system). ➣ DRR policies and strategies integrated with adaptation to1.4 Preservation and application of indigenous knowledge and existing climate variability and future climate change.appropriate technologies relevant to environmental management. ➣ Local government experts and extension workers available to1.5 Access to community-managed common property resources that work with communities on long-term environmentalcan support coping and livelihood strategies in normal times and management and renewal.during crises.2. Health and well 2.1 Physical ability to labour and good health maintained in normal ➣ Public health structures integrated into disaster planning andbeing (including times through adequate food and nutrition, hygiene and prepared for emergencies.human capital) health care. ➣ Community structures integrated into public health systems.2.2 High levels of personal security and freedom from physical and ➣ Health education programmes include knowledge and skillspsychological threats. relevant to crises (e.g. sanitation, hygiene, water treatment).2.3 Food supplies and nutritional status secure (e.g. through reserve ➣ Policy, legislative and institutional commitment to ensuringstocks of grain and other staple foods managed by communities, food security through market and non-market interventions,with equitable distribution system during food crises). with appropriate structures and systems.2.4 Access to sufficient quantity and quality of water for domestic ➣ Engagement of government, private sector and civil societyneeds during crises. organisations in plans for mitigation and management of food2.5 Awareness of means of staying healthy (e.g. hygiene, sanitation, and health crises.nutrition, water treatment) and of life-protecting/saving measures, ➣ Emergency planning systems provide buffer stocks of food,and possession of appropriate skills. medicines, etc.2.6 Community structures and culture support self confidence andcan assist management of psychological consequences of disasters(trauma, PTSD).2.7 Community health care facilities and health workers, equippedand trained to respond to physical and mental healthconsequences of disasters and lesser hazard events, andsupported by access to emergency health services, medicines, etc.28

Thematic Area 4: Risk Management and Vulnerability ReductionComponents Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community Characteristics of an Enabling Environmentof Resilience3. Sustainable 3.1 High level of local economic activity and employment (including ➣ Equitable economic development: strong economy in whichlivelihoods among vulnerable groups); stability in economic activity and benefits are shared throughout society.employment levels. ➣ Diversification of national and sub-national economies to3.2 Equitable distribution of wealth and livelihood assets in reduce risk.community. ➣ Poverty reduction strategies target vulnerable groups.3.3 Livelihood diversification (household and community level), ➣ DRR seen as integral part of economic development,including on-farm and off-farm activities in rural areas. reflected in policy and implementation.3.4 Fewer people engaged in unsafe livelihood activities (e.g. small- ➣ Adequate and fair wages, guaranteed by law.scale mining) or hazard-vulnerable activities (e.g. rainfed ➣ Legislative system supports secure land tenure, equitableagriculture in drought-prone locations). tenancy agreements and access to common property3.5 Adoption of hazard-resistant agricultural practices (e.g. soil and resources.water conservation methods, cropping patterns geared to low or ➣ Financial and other incentives provided to reducevariable rainfall, hazard-tolerant crops) for food security. dependence on unsafe or hazard-vulnerable livelihood3.6 Small enterprises have business protection and continuity/ activities.recovery plans. ➣ Chambers of commerce and similar business associations3.7 Local trade and transport links with markets for products, labour support resilience efforts of small enterprises.and services protected against hazards and other external shocks.4. Social protection 4.1 Mutual assistance systems, social networks and support ➣ Formal social protection schemes and social safety nets(including mechanisms that support risk reduction directly through targeted accessible to vulnerable groups at normal times and insocial capital) DRR activities, indirectly through other socio-economic response to crisis.development activities that reduce vulnerability, or by being ➣ Coherent policy, institutional and operational approach tocapable of extending their activities to manage emergencies social protection and safety nets, ensuring linkages with otherwhen these occur. 2 disaster risk management structures and approaches.4.2 Mutual assistance systems that co-operate with community and ➣ External agencies prepared to invest time and resources inother formal structures dedicated to disaster management. building up comprehensive partnerships with local groups4.3 Community access to basic social services (including registration and organisations for social protection/security and DRR.for social protection and safety net services).4.4 Established social information and communication channels;vulnerable people not isolated.4.5 Collective knowledge and experience of management ofprevious events (hazards, crises).5. Financial 5.1 Household and community asset bases (income, savings, ➣ Government and private sector supported financial mitigationinstruments convertible property) sufficiently large and diverse to support measures 3 targeted at vulnerable and at-risk communities.(including crisis coping strategies. ➣ Economic incentives for DRR actions (reduced insurancefinancial capital) 5.2 Costs and risks of disasters shared through collective ownership premiums for householders, tax holidays for businesses, etc.).29

Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance NoteComponents Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community Characteristics of an Enabling Environmentof Resilienceof group/community assets. ➣ Micro-finance, cash aid, credit (soft loans), loan guarantees,5.3 Existence of community/group savings and credit schemes, etc., available after disasters to restart livelihoods.and/or access to micro-finance services.5.4 Community access to affordable insurance (covering lives,homes and other property) through insurance market ormicro-finance institutions.5.5 Community disaster fund to implement DRR, responseand recovery activities.5.6 Access to money transfers and remittances from householdand community members working in other regions or countries.6. Physical 6.1 Community decisions and planning regarding built environment ➣ Compliance with international standards of building, design,protection; take potential natural hazard risks into account (including planning, etc. Building codes and land use planningstructural and potential for increasing risks through interference with ecological, regulations take hazard and disaster risk into account.technical hydrological, geological systems) and vulnerabilities of different ➣ Compliance of all public buildings and infrastructure withmeasures groups. codes and standards.(including 6.2 Security of land ownership/tenancy rights. Low/minimal level of ➣ Requirement for all public and private infrastructure systemphysical capital) homelessness and landlessness. owners to carry out hazard and vulnerability assessments.6.3 Safe locations: community members and facilities (homes, ➣ Protection of critical public facilities and infrastructureworkplaces, public and social facilities) not exposed to hazards through retrofitting and rebuilding, especially in areas of highin high-risk areas within locality and/or relocated away from risk.unsafe sites. ➣ Security of access to public health and other emergency6.4 Structural mitigation measures (embankments, flood diversion facilities (local and more distant) integrated into counterchannels,water harvesting tanks, etc.) in place to protect against disaster planning.major hazard threats, built using local labour, skills, materials and ➣ Legal and regulatory systems protect land ownership andappropriate technologies as far as possible. tenancy rights, and rights of public access.6.5 Knowledge and take-up of building codes/regulations ➣ Regular maintenance of hazard control structuresthroughout community. ➣ ‘Hardware’ approach to disaster mitigation is accompanied6.6 Adoption of hazard-resilient construction and maintenance by ‘software’ dimension of education, skills training, etc.practices for homes and community facilities using local labour, ➣ Legal, regulatory systems and economic policies recogniseskills, materials and appropriate technologies as far as possible. and respond to risks arising from patterns of population6.7 Community capacities and skills to build, retrofit and maintain density and movement.structures (technical and organisational).6.8 Adoption of physical measures to protect items of domesticproperty (e.g. raised internal platforms and storage as floodmitigation measure, portable stoves) and productive assets(e.g. livestock shelters)30

Thematic Area 4: Risk Management and Vulnerability ReductionComponents Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community Characteristics of an Enabling Environmentof Resilience6.9 Adoption of short-term protective measures against impendingevents (e.g. emergency protection of doors and windows fromcyclone winds).6.10 Infrastructure and public facilities to support emergencymanagement needs (e.g. shelters, secure evacuation andemergency supply routes).6.11 Resilient and accessible critical facilities (e.g. health centres,hospitals, police and fire stations – in terms of structuralresilience, back-up systems, etc.).6.12 Resilient transport/service infrastructure and connections(roads, paths, bridges, water supplies, sanitation, power lines,communications, etc.).6.13 Locally owned or available transport sufficient for emergencyneeds (e.g. evacuation, supplies), at least in the event of seasonalhazards; transport repair capacity within community.7. Planning régimes 7.1 Community decision making regarding land use and ➣ Compliance with international planning standards.management, taking hazard risks and vulnerabilities into ➣ Land use planning regulations take hazard and disaster riskaccount. (Includes micro-zonation applied to permit/restrict into account.land uses). ➣ Effective inspection and enforcement régimes.7.2 Local (community) disaster plans feed into local government ➣ Land use applications, urban and regional development plansdevelopment and land use planning. and schemes based on hazard and risk assessment andincorporate appropriate DRR.1 e.g. soil and water conservation, sustainable forestry, wetland management to reduce flood risk, conservation of mangroves as buffer against storm surges, maintenance of water supply and drainagesystems.2 These comprise informal systems (individual, household, family, clan, caste, etc.) and more structured groups (CBOs: e.g. emergency preparedness committees, support groups/buddy systems to assistparticularly vulnerable people, water management committees, burial societies, women’s associations, faith groups).3 e.g. insurance/ reinsurance, risk spreading instruments for public infrastructure and private assets such as calamity funds and catastrophe bonds, micro-credit and finance, revolving community funds,social funds31

Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance NoteThematic Area 5: Disaster Preparedness andResponseComponents of resilience1. Organisational capacities and co-ordination2. Early warning systems3. Preparedness and contingency planning4. Emergency resources and infrastructure5. Emergency response and recovery6. Participation, voluntarism, accountability32

Thematic Area 5: Disaster Preparedness and ResponseComponents Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community Characteristics of an Enabling Environmentof Resilience1. Organisational 1.1 Local and community DP/response capacities assessed by ➣ National and local policy and institutional frameworkscapacities and communities (themselves or in partnership with external recognise and value local and community DP as integral partcoordination agencies). of the national preparedness and response system.1.2 Local organisational structures for DP/emergency response ➣ Defined and agreed structures, roles and mandates for(e.g. disaster preparedness/evacuation committees). 1 government and non-government actors in DP and response,1.3 Local DP/response organisations are community managed at all levels, and based on co-ordination not command-andandrepresentative. control approach.1.4 Roles and responsibilities of local DP/response organisations ➣ Emergency planning and response responsibilities andand their members clearly defined, agreed and understood. capacities delegated to local levels as far as possible.1.5 Emergency facilities (communications equipment, shelters, ➣ Ongoing dialogue, coordination and information exchangecontrol centres, etc.) available and managed by community (vertical and horizontal) between disaster managers andor its organisations on behalf of all community members. development sectors at all levels.1.6 Sufficient number of trained organisational personnel and ➣ National and local disaster management capacities (technical,community members to carry out relevant tasks institutional, financial) adequate for supporting community-(e.g. communication, search and rescue, first aid, relief level DP/response activity.distribution). ➣ Adequate budgets for DP activities included and1.7 Regular training (refresher courses and new skills) provided by/for institutionalised as part of DP planning at all levels.local organisations; regular practice drills, scenario exercises, etc ➣ Funds to strengthen the capacity and activities of civil society1.8 Defined and agreed co-ordination and decision-making stakeholders active in DP.mechanisms between community organisations and externaltechnical experts, local authorities, NGOs, etc.1.9 Defined and agreed co-ordination and decision-makingmechanisms with neighbouring communities/localities andtheir organisations.2 Early warning 2.1 Community-based and people-centred EWS at local level. ➣ Efficient national and regional EWS in place, involving allsystems 2 2.2 EWS capable of reaching whole community (via radio, TV, levels of government and civil society, based on soundtelephone and other communications technologies, and via scientific information, risk knowledge, communicating andcommunity EW mechanisms such as volunteer networks). warning dissemination and community response capacity.2.3 EW messages presented appropriately so that they are ➣ Vertical and horizontal communication and co-ordinationunderstood by all sectors of community. between all EW stakeholders, with roles and responsibilities2.4 EWS provides local detail of events and takes local clearly defined and agreed.conditions into account. ➣ Local government included in all planning and training and2.5 EWS based on community knowledge of relevant hazards recognised as key stakeholder in EWS.and risks, warning signals and their meanings, and actions ➣ Communities and other civil society stakeholders activeto be taken when warnings are issued. participants in all aspects of the development, operation,33

Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance NoteComponents Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community Characteristics of an Enabling Environmentof Resilience2.6 Community DP/response organisations capable of acting on training and testing of EWS.EW messages and mobilising communities for action. ➣ Mass media part of EWS, not acting independently.2.7 Community trust in EWS and organisations providing EW. ➣ EWS linked to DP and response agencies.2.8 Technical resources (monitoring and communications ➣ EWS backed up by wider public awareness campaigns.equipment) in place, with systems and trained personnel formaintenance and operation.3. Preparedness 3.1 A community DP or contingency plan exists for all major risks. 3 ➣ Politically supported/approved and clearly articulated nationaland contingency 3.2 DP/contingency plans developed through participatory methods, disaster preparedness plan in place and disseminated to allplanning and understood and supported by all members of community. levels; part of integrated disaster management plans with all3.3 Plans co-ordinated with official emergency plans and compatible relevant policies, procedures, roles, responsibilities andwith those of other agencies. funding established.3.4 Roles and responsibilities of different local and external actors ➣ Roles and responsibilities of each state and non-state actordefined, understood and agreed – and appropriate. are clearly defined for each disaster scenario and have been3.5 Planning process builds consensus and strengthens relationships disseminated accordingly.and co-ordination mechanisms between various stakeholders. ➣ Civil society organisations participate in the development and3.6 Linkages (formal/informal) to technical experts, local authorities, dissemination of national and local-level preparedness plans;NGOs, etc., to assist with community planning and training. roles and responsibilities of civil society actors clearly defined.3.7 Plans tested regularly through e.g. community drills or ➣ Community planning seen as key element in overall planssimulation exercises. and incorporated into them.3.8 Plans reviewed and updated regularly by all relevant ➣ Resources available to support necessary actions identified bystakeholders. community-level plans.3.9 Households and families develop their own DP plans within ➣ All contingency plans are based on a solid assessment ofcontext of community plan. hazards and risks and the identification of high risk areas3.10 Local businesses develop their own continuity and recovery throughout the country. Developed and tested contingencyplans within context of community plan. plans are in place for all major disaster scenarios in all high3.11 Contingency planning informed by understanding of broader risk areas.local planning provisions and facilities. ➣ Training, simulation and review exercises carried out with theparticipation of all relevant government and non-governmentagencies.➣ Cross-cutting issues such as gender, community participationand environmental considerations are included in allcontingency plans.➣ Local emergency services and critical facilities develop theirown contingency plans, co-ordinated with community plans.34

Thematic Area 5: Disaster Preparedness and ResponseComponents Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community Characteristics of an Enabling Environmentof Resilience4. Emergency 4.1 Community organisations capable of managing crises and ➣ Local emergency services (facilities, structures, staff, etc.)resources and disasters, alone and/or in partnership with other organisations. capable of managing crises and disasters, alone and/or ininfrastructure 4.2 Safe evacuation routes identified and maintained, known to partnership with other organisations.community members. ➣ Higher-level emergency services with structure, capacity,4.3 Emergency shelters (purpose built or modified): accessible to facilities and procedures that enable them to support localcommunity(distance, secure evacuation routes, no restrictions level actions effectively.on entry) and with adequate facilities for all affected population. ➣ Emergency contingency funds and stocks that can be made4.4 Emergency shelters for livestock. available quickly to those in need, with established4.5 Secure communications infrastructure and access routes for procedures for releasing them.emergency services and relief workers. ➣ Pre-arranged agreements signed with donor agencies for4.6 Two-way communications systems designed to function access to funding or loans at the international or regionalduring crises. level as part of emergency and recovery plans.4.7 Emergency supplies (buffer stocks) in place, managed bycommunity alone or in partnership with other local organisations(incl. grain/seed banks).4.8 Community-managed emergency/contingency funds. 45. Emergency 5.1 Community capacity to provide effective and timely emergency ➣ Civil protection and defence organisations, NGOs andresponse and response services: e.g. search and rescue, first aid/medical volunteer networks capable of responding to events inrecovery assistance, needs and damage assessment, relief distribution, effective and timely manner, in accordance with agreed plansemergency shelter, psychosocial support, road clearance. of co-ordination with local and community organisations.5.2 Community and other local agencies take lead role in ➣ Capacity to restore critical systems and infrastructure (e.g.co-ordinating response and recovery. transport, power and communications, public health facilities)5.3 Response and recovery actions reach all affected members of and agreed procedures for action.community and prioritised according to needs. ➣ Support programmes for livelihood-focused recovery (e.g.5.4 Community psychosocial support and counselling mechanisms. cash for work, replacement of productive assets, emergency5.5 Community knowledge of how to obtain aid and other support loans or start-up capital).for relief and recovery. ➣ Resources (human, institutional, material, financial) available5.6 Community trust in effectiveness, equity and impartiality of for long-term reconstruction and recovery.relief and recovery agencies and actions. ➣ Government relief and recovery resources inventoried;5.7 Community/locally led recovery planning and implementation information on resources and how to obtain them madeof plans linking social, physical, economic and environmental available to at-risk and disaster-affected communities.aspects and based on maximum utilisation of local capacities ➣ Official agencies willing and able to guarantee public safetyand resources. 5 after disasters and to protect highly vulnerable groups.5.8 Agreed roles, responsibilities and co-ordination of recovery ➣ Official continuity and recovery plans in place or capable ofactivities (involving local and external stakeholders). being developed, supported by appropriate systems and5.9 Incorporation of DRR into community and local recovery plans. capacities.35

Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance NoteComponents Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community Characteristics of an Enabling Environmentof Resilience➣ National policy framework requires DRR incorporation intodesign and implementation of response and recovery.➣ DRR ‘mainstreamed’ into relevant organisations’ recoveryplanning and practice.6. Participation, 6.1 Local leadership of development and delivery of contingency, ➣ Recognition by external and local emergency responders ofvoluntarism, response, recovery plans. people’s right to appropriate assistance after disasters, toaccountability 6.2 Whole-community participation in development and delivery participation in disaster recovery planning and to protectionof contingency, response, recovery plans; community from violence (defined in legislation).‘ownership’ of plans and implementation structures. ➣ Internationally accepted principles of rights and6.3 Justifiable community confidence in EW and emergency systems accountability in disaster response and recovery 6 agreed andand its own ability to take effective action in a disaster. adopted by national authorities, local government, civil6.4 High level of community volunteerism in all aspects of society organisations and other stakeholders.preparedness, response and recovery; representative of all ➣ Legal instruments mandating specific actions by publicsections of community. organisations in emergency response and disaster recovery.6.5 Organised volunteer groups integrated into community, ➣ Participatory mechanisms ensuring all stakeholders involvedlocal and supra-local planning structures. in the development of all components of disaster6.6 Formal community DP/response structures capable of adapting management planning and operations at levels.to arrival of spontaneous/emergent groups of volunteers (from ➣ Local government and other agencies have planned for cowithinand outside community) and integrating these into ordination of ‘emergent groups’ of volunteers.response and recovery. ➣ Application of social audits, report cards and other6.7 Self-help and support groups for most vulnerable mechanisms enabling those affected by disasters to evaluate(e.g. elderly, disabled). emergency response.6.8 Mechanisms for disaster-affected people to express their ➣ Independent assessments of DP capacities and mechanismsviews, for learning and sharing lessons from events. carried out and acted upon.➣ Effective and transparent mechanisms for monitoring andevaluating DP and response.1 These may be groups set up specifically for this purpose, or existing groups established for other purposes but capable of taking on a DP/response role.2 See also Table 2: Risk Assessment3 The terms DP or contingency plan are used broadly here to cover all kinds of plan for preparing and responding to disasters and emergencies. It is assumed that the plan, like all good DP/contingencyplans, has clearly stated objective(s), sets out a systematic sequence of activities in a logical and clear manner, assigns specific tasks and responsibilities, is practical and based on realistic parameters (i.e.appropriate focus, level of detail, format for local users’ needs and capacities), is process-driven (i.e. does not overemphasize the importance of a written plan) and leads to actions. For more detailedguidance on preparedness and contingency planning, see UN OCHA 2007, ‘Disaster Preparedness for Effective Response: Implementing Priority Five of the Hyogo Framework for Action’ (Geneva: Officefor the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs); Choularton R 2007, Contingency planning and humanitarian action: a review of practice (London: Humanitarian Practice Network, Network Paper 59).4 These could be part of or separate from other savings and credit or micro-finance initiatives.5 Including resettlement plans.6 e.g. HAP Principles of Accountability, Sphere, Red Cross Code of Conduct, forthcoming BOND DRR Group disaster recovery standards.36