Disaster Risk Management and Vulnerability

Reduction: Protecting the Poor

By Dr. Suvit Yodmani

Paper Presented at The Asia and Pacific Forum on
Poverty
Organized by the Asian Development Bank

Dr. Suvit Yodmani is the Executive Director of the Asian Disaster Preparedness
Center, Bangkok, Thailand. The paper was delivered at the “Social Protect Workshop
6: Protecting Communities – Social Funds and Disaster Management”
CONTENTS

Acronym iii

List of Tables, List of Figures, List of Boxes iv

Acknowledgement v
Summary vi
Introduction 1

Paradigm Shifts – From Relief and Response to Disaster Risk Management 2

Poverty and Vulnerability 4

Integrating Poverty Reduction Programs with Disaster Management Sector: some 5

approaches

ADB’s Role in Disaster Management and Mitigation 15

Conclusion 16
References 17
Appendix A- Community Based Disaster Management Process 19
Appendix B:-Community Based Risk Assessment 27

ii
 Acronym

ADPC Asian Disaster Preparedness Center

AUDMP Asian Urban Disaster Mitigation Program
BUDMP Bangladesh Urban Disaster Mitigation Project
CARE Co-operative Assistance for Relief everywhere
CBDM Community-based Approaches to Disaster Management
CBFMP Community Based Flood Mitigation Project
DFID Department for International Development
DMI Disaster Mitigation Institute
ICRC International Committee of the Red Cross
IFRC International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent
Society
JRC Journalists Resource Center
KVERMP Kathmandu Valley Earthquake Risk Management Project
NGO Non Governmental Organization
SAARC South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation
TRDP Thurdeep Rural Development Program
UN United Nations

iii
 List of Tables

Table 1 Tools of Community Risk Assessment 10

List of Figures

Figure 1 Evolution of Human Poverty and Risk Management 3

Paradigms

Figure 2 The Vulnerability Context 6

List of Boxes

Box 1 ADPC Efforts in Improving Livelihood Options of the 7

Vulnerable

Box2 Bangladesh Urban Disaster Mitigation Project 12

Box 3 Community Based Flood Mitigation Project in 12

Cambodia

Box 4 Kathmandu Valley Earthquake Risk Management 13

Project

iv
Acknowledgement

This paper is a consolidated effort of many persons and I would like to acknowledge
each and everyone’s effort.

I would like to thank my colleagues Mr. David Hollister, Aloysius J. Rego, Rajesh
Sharma, Zenaida Dellica, Merrick Chatfield and Kamal Kishore of Asian Disaster
Preparedness Center for their valuable inputs to the substance and structure of this
paper.

My special appreciation to Ms. Pallavi Mandke of Canadian Universities Consortium

Urban Environment Management Project at Asian Institute of Technology, for
substantive contribution to and the final compilation of the paper.

v
Summary
___________________________________________________________________________________
Summary
A paradigm shift in the development sector – from income poverty to human poverty
– has been paralleled in the disaster management sector by a shift from seeing
disasters as extreme events created by natural forces, to viewing them as
manifestations of unresolved development problems. This has led to increased
emphasis on integration of poverty reduction programs with other sectoral issues such
as environmental management, gender and public health. However, examples of
systematic long-term integration of such programs with the disaster management
sector are few. Over the past few decades, there was an exponential increase in human
and material losses from disaster events, though there was no clear evidence that the
frequency of extreme hazard events had increased. This indicated that the rise in
disasters and their consequences was related to a rise in people’s vulnerability,
induced by human-determined paths of development. An evolution in approaches –
from relief and response to vulnerability analysis to risk management – has started
influencing how disaster management programs are now being planned and financed.
As it is becoming clear that the nature of people’s vulnerability is complex and varied,
linkages between poverty and vulnerability are being explored. Three approaches to
doing this include a livelihood framework from the bilateral development aid context,
community-based disaster management from that sector, and risk transfer and finance
from multilateral development finance institutions. The Asian Development Bank
(ADB) has been in the forefront of recognizing the adverse impact of disasters on
development and has played a pioneering role in promoting the incorporation of
disaster reduction in development planning. ADB can set an example by making
disaster risk assessment an integral part of the proposal approval process and by
adopting appropriate mitigation measures in project implementation. Poverty
reduction and disaster reduction programs can mutually support each other by
developing innovative, multi-dimensional, inter-sectoral approaches

vi
 Disaster Risk Management And Vulnerability Reduction: Protecting The Poor

I. Introduction

Poverty reduction has been one of the main objectives of development programs in
many developing countries of the world for the last several decades. Over the years,
the very definition of poverty has evolved from just looking at people's income to
taking a more holistic view of their well being. Improved access to public health
facilities, improved life expectancy and gender equity have become some of the
essential indicators of the success of poverty reduction programs. This has led to
increased emphasis on better integration of poverty reduction programs with other
sectoral issues such as environmental management, gender development and public
health. However, examples of systematic long-term integration of poverty reduction
programs with disaster management sector have been very few. Kreimer and Arnold
(2001) point out that “development efforts are focused on helping the poor in dealing
with many of the risks they face in daily life – such as in employment, health care,
transport, education, water and sanitation. But disaster risk traditionally has not been
a priority on the development agenda. When carefully laid development plans were
tragically interrupted by disasters the international community relied on
organizations such as the United Nations and the IFRC to step in with relief services.
When the emergency work was over, reconstruction efforts began to get the country
‘back on the development track’.” Clearly, most poverty reduction programs have
left a lot to be desired in terms of integration with disaster management

II. Paradigm Shifts – From Relief and Response to Disaster Risk

Management

Almost in parallel with the paradigm shift in poverty reduction programs -- from
income poverty to human poverty -- the disaster management sector has also seen a
paradigm shift. Disasters are no longer seen as extreme events created entirely by
natural forces but as manifestations of unresolved problems of development. The
disaster management practices have evolved from largely a top-down relief and
response approach to a more inter-sectoral risk management approach. In the current
paradigm of risk management approaches, there is more room than ever before for
addressing the issues of risk reduction for the poor.

Till a few decades ago, disasters were viewed as one-off events and responded by
governments and relief agencies without taking into account the social and economic
implications and causes of these events. With significant advancement in our
understanding of the natural processes that underlie the hazardous events, a more
technocratic paradigm came into existence which believed that the “only way to deal
with disasters was by public policy application of geophysical and engineering
knowledge”. These approaches looked at disasters as exceptional events, not related
to the ongoing social and developmental processes. Gradually this attitude changed
to an emphasis on preparedness measures, such as stockpiling of relief goods,
preparedness plans and a growing role for relief agencies such as the Red Cross.
This “contingency planning” approach certainly improved the efficiency of relief
agencies but left a lot to be desired in terms of appropriateness and effectiveness of
relief.

1
 Paradigm Shifts – From Relief and Response to Disaster Risk Management

Over the four decades from the sixties, till the nineties there was an exponential
increase in human and material losses from disaster events, though there was no clear
evidence that the frequency of extreme hazard events had increased. This indicated
that the rise in disasters and their consequences was related to the rise in the
vulnerability of people all over the world that was induced by the human determined
path of development. Noteworthy also was the recognition that this increase in
vulnerability was not uniform. There were large variations across regions, nations,
provinces, cities, communities, socio-economic classes, castes and even genders.
Fredrick Cuny (1983, 14) in his much acclaimed book Disasters and Development
cites a classic example. An earthquake of magnitude 6.4 occurred in San Fernando,
California in 1971. In a city of over seven million people, only fifty-eight deaths
were reported. Two years later, a similar earthquake, registering a magnitude of 6.2
on the Richter scale, in Managua, Nicaragua reduced the center of the city to rubble
and killed over six thousand people. Similar patterns can be seen in other recent
disasters. From this realization that people’s vulnerability is a key factor determining
the impact of disasters on them, emphasis shifted to using “vulnerability analysis” as
a tool in disaster management. In recent years, a more comprehensive approach that
of disaster risk management has emerged. This approach has three distinct but inter-
related components: hazard assessment, vulnerability analysis and enhancement of
management capacity and is more closely integrated with the ongoing development
processes. Disasters are no longer viewed as extreme events created entirely by
natural forces but as unresolved problems of development. It is now recognized that
risks (physical, social and economic) unmanaged (or mismanaged) for a long time
lead to occurrence of disasters.

This evolution of approaches from relief and response to risk management has begun
to influence the way disaster management programs are now being planned and
financed. There are initiatives aimed at reducing social and economic vulnerability
and investing in long-term mitigation activities. Unfortunately such initiatives aimed
at prevention and mitigation are few, poorly funded and insignificant in comparison
with money spent by donors and development banks on humanitarian assistance and
relief, as well as on post disaster reconstruction.

Another weakness of such initiatives that they are often taken up in the formal sector
of the economy, and bypass the poor and the most vulnerable sections of society. As
Maskrey (1999, 86) points out, “in the year or so between the occurrence of a disaster
and approved national reconstruction plans, many vulnerable communities revert to
coping with risk, often in the same or worse conditions than before the disaster
actually struck.” Therefore, in the current paradigm of risk management approaches,
there is more room than ever before for addressing the issues of risk reduction for the
poor. This is also in consonance with the paradigm shift in the mainstream
development practice, which is now characterized by emphasis on good governance,
accountability and greater focus on bottom-up approaches.

2
 Paradigm Shifts – From Relief and Response to Disaster Risk Management

Evolution of the Poverty Paradigm Evolution of the Disaster

Paradigm
Reducing poverty was seen more as Disasters were treated as one-off events
supplementing growth with social spending.
Poverty reduction was based on monetary responded to by governments and relief agencies
measures alone. It was perceived as a function
of the social welfare ministry to increase income

Improved preparedness (stockpiling of relief goods,

better relief management etc.) among governments
It was a relation between the external donors and relief agencies to “deliver relief”. This
and beneficiaries. Funds were provided to “contingency planning” approach certainly improved
individual projects not channeling them through
the efficiency of relief agencies but left a lot to be
the government
desired in terms of appropriateness and effectiveness
of relief.

It was then urged that if income is not the sum

total of well being then lack of income cannot be A more technocratic paradigm came into existence
the sum total of poverty. Development which believed that the only way to deal with disasters
practitioners agreed that poverty was not about was by public policy application of geophysical and
income but was multi dimensional engineering knowledge

From the realization that people’s vulnerability is a key

Poverty reduction was then linked to national factor determining the impact of disasters on them,
development programs focusing on making “vulnerability” emerged as the key theme and more
growth favourable for poor by targeting and more emphasis was laid on using “vulnerability
inequalities and emphasize empowering the analysis” as a tool in disaster management
poor

In recent years, a more comprehensive approach

Poverty is now measured in terms of human called risk management has emerged. This approach
poverty indicators such as lack of access to has three distinct but inter-related components: hazard
resources necessary sustain basic human assessment; vulnerability analysis; and enhancement
capabilities of management capacity.

Figure 1
Evolution of Human Poverty and Risk Management Paradigms

As illustrated in Figure 1 development of commonalties can be clearly observed in

the new approaches of disaster and poverty reduction: 1) The approaches developed
to be more people centric, 2) development of a multi sectoral approach in planning
and decision making, 3) increasing importance to improve access to resources,
4)contribute to the overall development process. Inspite of these common elements
the poverty and disaster reduction efforts have developed as parallel processes rather
than as integral processes. This has perhaps been led by a lack of thorough
understanding of their linkage and foresight of its benefits.

Within this context this paper attempts to:

1. Explore linkages between poverty and vulnerability;
2. Suggest strategies to integrate poverty reduction programs and disaster
reduction; and
3. Provide examples of success stories in this area.

3
 Poverty and Vulnerability

III. Poverty and Vulnerability

While it is clear that the poor are often the most affected in a disaster, it is too
simplistic to assume that there is a direct and absolute correlation between poverty
and vulnerability. Cannon (1994) points out that "it may be true that most of the
suffering in disasters is experienced by poor people, it may not be the case that all
poor suffer. Nor is it only the poor who suffer, the impact of hazards may well be a
factor in creating newly impoverished people." Poverty, as an indicator of lack of
access to resources and income opportunities, is only one of the several dimensions
of vulnerability. While discussing the linkage between poverty and vulnerability
Blaikie et al. (1994) point out that "vulnerability is a combination of characteristics
of a person or group, expressed in relation to hazard exposure [author's emphasis]
which derives from the social and economic condition of the individual, family, or
community concerned. High levels of vulnerability imply a grave outcome in hazard
events, but are a complex descriptive measure of people's lack or need. Vulnerability
is a relative and specific term, always implying a vulnerability to a particular
hazard."

In addition to the economic dimension, there are also other aspects of social
positioning such as class, ethnicity, community structure, community decision
making processes and political issues that determine poor people’s vulnerability. A
poor community may be economically vulnerable but at the same time may have
social, cultural and political capacities to cope with disasters. Risk reduction
strategies for the poor should work towards reducing economic vulnerability and at
the same time capitalize on (and perhaps nurture) the inherent social and cultural
capacities of the poor communities. It is imperative that while improving the
economic resilience of such communities, the physical, social and political risks are
also recognized and managed.

There is another aspect of vulnerability of the poor people, which is frequently

ignored, that it is often local in nature. Disaster statistics collected and aggregated at
provincial and national levels, do not capture the miseries of the poor and the most
vulnerable. The impact assessments capture only the formal and well-defined sectors
of the economy. As Maskrey (1999) points out, "the creeping impact of small scale
disasters on the lives and livelihoods of vulnerable communities, whose economy is
largely in the informal or subsistence sectors is rarely documented given that often
the most vulnerable communities are those with the least assets to lose."

It is becoming clear that the nature of vulnerability of the poor is complex and varied.
Hence there are no straightforward solution for risk reduction for the poor. It will
require multi-dimensional approaches and innovative institutional arrangements to
achieve the goal of risk reduction for the poor.

4
 Integrating Poverty Reduction Programs with Disaster Management Sector

IV. Integrating Poverty Reduction Programs with Disaster

Management Sector: Some Approaches

As mentioned earlier in this paper, there have been relatively few examples of
systematic integration of poverty reduction and disaster reduction programs. This
section of the paper presents three approaches that have evolved over the last several
years in development and disaster management sectors. First, is the livelihood
framework evolved in bilateral development aid context; the second is community-
based disaster management evolved in disaster management sector; and the third risk
transfer and finance, comes from multilateral development finance institutions.

IV. a Recognizing the Vulnerability Context of the Poor Within the

Development Framework

Over the last few years a more holistic framework has emerged to assess the
sustainability of livelihood strategies adopted by poor people. The work of
Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Advisory Committee of DFID in this area is a good
example here. The Committee has designed a livelihood framework, which
recognizes 5 distinct elements, interactions which determine the extent of
sustainability of livelihood strategies of a particular community. These 5 elements
are:
• vulnerability context of poor people;
• their livelihood assets (human, social, physical, natural and financial capital);
• transforming structures (government, private sector) and processes (laws,
institutions);
• livelihood strategies
• livelihood outcomes

5
 Integrating Poverty Reduction Programs with Disaster Management Sector

Key
H- Human Capital S- Social Capital
N- Natural Capital P- Physical Capital
F- Financial Capital

LIVELIHOOD ASSETS
TRANSFORMING LIVELIHOOD
VULNERABILITY STRUCTURES & In OUTCOMES
CONTEXT H PROCESSES Order

To § More income
S N Structures LIVELIHOOD § Increased well
§ Shocks Influence § Levels of Laws Achie being
STRATEGIES
§ Trends & access Govt. Policy ve § Reduced
§ vulnerability
§ Seasonality Sector
Private Culture
Institutions § Improved
Processes food security
§ More sustainable
F use of NR base
P
6

Source: DFID (1999)

Figure 2
The Vulnerability Context

6
 Integrating Poverty Reduction Programs with Disaster Management Sector

As seen in Figure 2 the vulnerability context frames the external environment

including trends (population trends, resource trends), shocks (natural hazards, disease
outbreak), and seasonality (market prices, employment opportunities). This approach
captures the dynamic, complex nature of people’s vulnerability. While trends capture
the temporal continuum of vulnerability in positive or negative directions, shocks
capture largely external, unexpected events such as natural disasters. More
importantly this framework does not look at the vulnerability context in isolation, but
links it with transforming structures and processes. Practical application of such a
framework means that it not only describes the different aspects of people’s
vulnerability but also points to social, political and economic structures and processes,
transformations which would help reduce vulnerability and thus help insure
sustainable livelihood for the poor.

Managing Livelihood to Reduce Economic and Physical Vulnerability

Frequently disasters adversely affect the livelihoods of poor people by damaging their
means of earning (destruction of the factory, loss of land due to erosion in flooding,
destruction of the shop) and/or tools (loss of draught animals, plowing tools, etc).
Mainstream disaster management responses frequently do not focus on rehabilitation
of peoples' means of livelihood. Families, who lose their means of livelihood during a
disaster, find their recovery from adverse effects become more unlikely and their
vulnerability to future disasters more increased. It is also assumed that if people will
have better sources of livelihoods and higher incomes, they will spend more on
disaster risk management in order to save their property, because due to higher
incomes they have savings to spend for this purpose. But if they do not have any
savings then spending on disaster management, becomes the least priority in
comparison to the chronic issues of survival. Diversity in the sources of livelihoods is
very important for increasing people's capacity to cope and recover. For example, a
family that has two different sources of income including a tract of land and a shop.
If this family loses the crop and one draught animal due to a severe flooding event, it
still has the shop. This family will be in a better position to sustain after damage to
crops and to recover by buying another animal by mobilizing the savings from the
shop in comparison to a family which has only one tract of land and loses the standing
crop and one animal, and does not have any other source of income. Thus, investment
on strengthening and diversifying the sources of livelihoods of the people of disaster
prone areas can be an effective strategy for disaster risk reduction in the long run.
ADPC has been involved in such initiatives in various countries of the South Asian
region in collaboration with its partners.

7
 Integrating Poverty Reduction Programs with Disaster Management Sector

ADPC Efforts in Improving Livelihood Options of the Vulnerable

The ADPC is involved in a joint initiative on "Livelihood Options for Disaster Risk
Reduction in South Asia" which is being implemented in India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri
Lanka by partners of Duryog Nivaran, a South Asian regional network on disaster
management.

The program proclaims that the relationship between livelihoods and disasters needs to be
explored, in order to reduce people's vulnerabilities and strengthen their capacities to cope
with disasters. Many times livelihoods of the poor are adversely affected by disasters. This
affects people's ability to recover. It also makes them more vulnerable to any future
disasters. Thus, there is a need to study how livelihoods of people are affected, what
opportunities are available to strengthen people's livelihoods, and what actions could be
taken at local and policy levels.

In this regard, the Disaster Mitigation Institute (DMI), Ahmedabad, Jouranlists Resource
Center (JRC) and Thardeep Rural Development Program (TRDP), Pakistan and
Intermediate Technology Development Group Nepal and Sri Lanka are conducting research
in selected disaster prone regions in four countries. Along with looking into livelihood
damage patterns, the studies are also identifying pilot projects for strengthening the
livelihoods of selected households in the research areas. Completion of research and pilot
projects will be followed by national level workshops, where findings will be shared with
policy makers, NGOs, media, donors and other disaster management related agencies. Later
a South Asian regional workshop is to be conducted to share national learning and promote
regional cooperation in this regard. Key national policy-making agencies, regional agencies
like SAARC secretariat, regional media, NGOs, donors, UN agencies and IFRC/ ICRC
missions will be invited to this regional event.

IV. b Community-Based Disaster Management

Recognizing the need for vulnerability reduction for effective disaster management
failures of a top down management approach becomes evident. This approach was
unsuccessful in addressing the needs of vulnerable communities. Also better
understanding of disasters and losses brings to light the fact that an increase in
occurrence of disasters and disaster related loss is due to the exponential increase in
occurrence of small and medium scale disasters. As a result many feel it is important
to adopt a new strategy, which directly involves vulnerable people themselves in
planning and implementation of mitigation measures. This bottom up approach has
received wide acceptance because considered communities are the best judges of their
own vulnerability and can make the best decisions regarding their well being.

What is the community based disaster management (CBDM) approach? The aim of
CBDM is to reduce vulnerabilities and strengthen people’s capacity to cope with
hazards. A thorough assessment of a community’s exposure to hazards and an
analysis of their specific vulnerabilities and capacities is the basis for activities,
projects and programs that can reduce disaster risks. Because a community is

8
 Integrating Poverty Reduction Programs with Disaster Management Sector

involved in the whole process, their felt and real needs as well as inherent resources
are considered. Therefore there is a greater likelihood that problems will be addressed
with appropriate interventions.

People’s participation is not only focused in processes but on content. The

community should be able to directly gain resulting from improved disaster risk
management. This in turn will contribute, to a progression towards safer conditions,
security of livelihood and sustainable development. This underlines the point that the
community is not only the primary actor but also the beneficiary of the risk reduction
and development process.

Some authors differentiate between community participation and involvement.

Community participation is generally taken to mean that a given community takes
responsibility at all stages of a program including planning and implementation.
Community “involvement” refers to a ‘less than’ ideal situation where the community
is asked to participate in a program that has already been designed by someone else.

Main Characteristics of Community Based Disaster Management

Implementation of Community Based Disaster Management points to the following

essential features:

§ The community has a central role in long term and short term disaster
management. The focus of attention in disaster management must be the local
community.

§ Disaster risk or vulnerability reduction is the foundation of CBDM. Refer to

Appendix A for a detailed account on community based risk reduction process.
The primary content of disaster management activities revolves around reducing
vulnerable conditions and the root causes of vulnerability. The primary strategy
of vulnerability reduction is by increasing a community’s capacities, their
resources and coping strategies.

§ Linkage to the development process. Disasters are viewed as unmanaged

development risks and unresolved problems of the development process. CBDM
should lead to a general improvement of the quality of life of the vast majority of
the poor people and of the natural environment. CBDM contributes to people’s
empowerment – to possess physical safety; to have more access and control of
resources; to participate in decision making which affects their lives; to enjoy the
benefits of a healthy environment.

§ Community as a key resource in disaster risk reduction. The community is the

key actor as well as the primary beneficiary of disaster risk reduction. Within the
community, priority attention is given to the conditions of the most vulnerable as
well as to their mobilization in the disaster risk reduction. The community
participates in the whole process of disaster risk management from situational
analysis to planning to implementation.

§ Application of multi sectoral and multi disciplinary approaches. CBDM brings

together the multitude of community stakeholders for disaster risk reduction to

9
 Integrating Poverty Reduction Programs with Disaster Management Sector

expand its resource base. The local community level links up with the
intermediate and national and even up to the international level to address the
complexity of vulnerability issues. A wide range of approaches to disaster risk
reduction is employed.

§ CBDM as an involving and dynamic framework. Lessons learned from practice

continue to build into the theory of CBDM. The sharing of experiences,
methodologies and tools by communities and CBDM practitioners continues to
enrich practice.

Before implementing CBDM it is important to know who in the community should be

involved. The most vulnerable are the primary actors in a community. The focus
should be at the household level. As all individuals, houses, organizations and
services stand a chance of being affected they should all be involved for effective
CBDM. But before working on disaster risk reduction differing perceptions, interests,
and methodologies have to be recognized and a broad consensus on targets, strategies
and methodologies have to be reached.

To enrich the community’s involvement in risk reduction it is important to first assess

the risk with the help of the community, Appendix B illustrates the process of
community based risk assessment. There are specific tools and methods that can
make the process of community risk assessment most effective. Table 2 summarizes
these tools:

Table 1
Tools of Community Risk Assessment

Tool Description
Review of secondary data Collection of relevant information from published or
unpublished sources

Direct observation Systematic observation of people and relationships,

objects, events, processes and recording these observations
to get a better picture of the community

Semi-structured Informal discussions with the community members using a

interviews flexible guide of questions – interviews, group discussions
or bunch of people sitting around the table (BOPSAT)

Drama, Role Play and Acting out a particular situation

Simulations
Diagramming and Drawing maps, diagrams, etc. to illustrate, analyze, make
Visualization tools relations or draw trends. Historical profile, mapping,
modeling, transect, seasonal calendar, institutional and
social network analysis, livelihood/ class analysis, problem
tree, gendered resource mapping are some examples of
diagrammatic tools

10
 Integrating Poverty Reduction Programs with Disaster Management Sector

Strategies of Community Based Risk Reduction

§ Self Insurance options:

- Reinforcing people’s existing livelihoods to increase or maintain current level
of production and income – draft animal dispersal, irrigation (expansion,
improvement in water management), soil fertility improvement, seed and life
stock dispersal. This strategy seems to be effective for internal refugees
returning to their abandoned lands, for former farm workers who cultivate and
expand their occupied lands, and in cases where irrigation systems can be
rehabilitated after earthquakes, floods and typhoons. The effect is that the
period of food shortage is shortened by several months.

- Reinforcing people’s coping strategies to reduce risks – This means

diversifying crops, promoting and production of disaster resistant and other
indigenous crops. In this case if one crop fails the other will survive.

- Strengthening social and organizational support structures, improved post

harvest facilities and storage methods. This will result in increased reserves of
food at household/community level, therefore number of food shortage months
is decreased.

§ Conducting seasonally based action: Several disasters are seasonal in nature.

Effective methods to combat these disasters is to develop seasonal cycles of
preparedness such as planting of disaster resistant crops, storage and post harvest
facilities, seed banks, mobile resources, etc.

§ Encouraging long-term investments: these are fall back resources in the

community, examples: forest reserves, planting of trees around the house,
establishment of village pharmacy, training of village health workers, education or
functional literacy are all long term investments. They reduce people’s long term
vulnerability. It involves land use and management planning within the
community.

§ Strengthening social and organizational support structures to establish a

community spirit of cooperation, through organizational development and
management, counter disaster planning, disaster response committee formation,
leadership training, functional literacy, day care services, etc. These support
mechanisms help in terms of better decision making and managing community
wide activities for evacuation and emergency response.

§ Making health and sanitation services available at the community level, through
capacity building of the community workers make first aid, mother and child care,
supplementary feeding for malnourished children, promotion of low cost nutrition
food, education and awareness generation for better hygiene and sanitation
conditions. They will reduce risks of disease and epidemic.

§ Conducting advocacy and campaigns to press government, from local to national

continually regarding policies and issues that affect the local food security and
nutrition situation and/or that form a barrier to solve the problems. It would stop
external threats and block harmful policies and actions.

11
 Integrating Poverty Reduction Programs with Disaster Management Sector

Bangladesh Urban Disaster Mitigation Project

Under the Asian Urban Disaster Mitigation Program (AUDMP) of ADPC, CARE
Bangladesh is implementing the Bangladesh Urban Disaster Mitigation Project
(BUDMP). The project will begin with the establishment of community-based flood
mitigation and disaster preparedness system in the two demonstration project sites – the
municipalities of Gaibandha and Tongi. Through this process, the project aims to
improve the capacity and skills of the communities to manage the risks and apply
mitigation skills in the urban areas. It is expected that the best practices and lessons
learned from the two demonstration project sites will be replicated in other municipal
areas of Bangladesh.

Source: AUDMP Briefing Notes (2000) and ADPC Web Site.

Community Based Flood Mitigation Project in Cambodia

The Community-Based Flood Mitigation and Preparedness Project (CBFMP) was

initiated in 1998 as an effort to reduce the vulnerability of rural villagers to natural
disasters. The CBFMP project's objective was to establish sustainable, replicable non-
governmental mechanisms for disaster mitigation and preparedness.

The CBFMP program required that several agencies collaborate to oversee and
implement the program, including a number of donor agencies that participated on a
financial basis in order to ensure the completion of individual projects in the selected
communities of the three provinces (Kandal, Prey Veng, and Kompong Cham).

Each community relied on traditional community processes in order to complete their

respective projects. These processes involved village leaders, Wat committee members,
monks, and village elders taking advisory and/or organizing roles in order to mobilize
community resources. However, the main constraint that faced each community in their
effort to complete their respective flood mitigation projects was with respect to the
community's scarcity of material and financial resources.

Thus, for each of the flood mitigation projects in each community, a large proportion of
the financial support had to come from outside the community. The cost-sharing funds
were obtained from a variety of NGOs/donor agencies operating in Cambodia. None of
the communities had previously received any form of financial aid for a project of this
nature and this served as new experience for the CBFMP participants.

Source: AUDMP Briefing Notes (2000) and ADPC Web Site.

12
 Integrating Poverty Reduction Programs with Disaster Management Sector

Kathmandu Valley Earthquake Risk Management Project

The Kathmandu Valley Risk Management Project, being implemented as a part of

ADPC’s Asian Urban Disaster Mitigation Program by Nepal Society for Earthquake
Technology and Geo Hazards has also focused on enhancing the safety of rural and urban
communities by retrofitting and reconstructing vulnerable school buildings. The project
involves active participation of community members in vulnerability assessment and in
local masons, traders and the local development committees in construction. Involvement
in this project promotes the message of the need for seismic strengthening of all
vulnerable buildings and develops the skills of masons and technical personnel in how to
build safer buildings.

Source: AUDMP Briefing Notes (2000) and ADPC Web Site.

IV. c Risk Transfer and Finance

This section draws from the sources of World Bank, 2000 and ADPC’s training
material.

Risk Pool and Risk Management Strategies of Poor Households

Risk pools are small or large size groups that households can draw on for assistance in
managing the impact of risks. Households may access the risks pools through a
variety of formal and informal arrangements, which are determined by the nature of
the risks and transaction costs associated with drawing on the pool (Kreimer, at. el,
2000).

Credit Markets
They are informal sources of lending and borrowing on the basis of a household’s
needs. Credit markets help in smoothening production and consumption shocks.
These credits are repaid based on a random schedule of production. Free flow of
information in this informal system helps in the process of scheduling repayments,
fixing interest rates and play a direct role in insuring against the risk. This system is
effective at protecting households from risks but not at the village level.

Support-led Interventions for Vulnerability Reduction and Mitigation

Appropriate public policy interventions are very important for reducing
socioeconomic vulnerabilities. Increased access to resources, increased employment
opportunities, increasing macroeconomic stability and other conscious policies made
to improve quality of life are necessary. Improved and innovative financial
instruments that provide households access to financial resources and thus help in
reducing, sharing and transferring of risks is important.

Financial Resources for Mitigation and Investment

§ Mitigation/vulnerability reduction fund: Emergency funds usually given to
households after a disaster should be used to reduce risks. It can be used to
subsidize insurance in an area or encourage reinsurance. Governments can

13
 Integrating Poverty Reduction Programs with Disaster Management Sector

withdraw this facility once the situation has improved and the insurance
companies can manage the risk exposure.

§ Self-Insurance: Households can take a conscious decision to share some risk of

loss. By agreeing to share losses individuals and companies become conscious of
the need to implement mitigation measures.

§ Micro-credits: Micro finance and rural banks are important sources of credit for
the poor. However such an institution may be overwhelmed with credit demands
at the time of a disaster.

Natural Disaster Insurance

As the government benefit programs for the affected are based more on equity than
individual needs or ability to pay. On the other hand making disaster insurance
through private providers spread the risk over a larger group, provide better-cost
efficiency, discriminate between the needs of the different insured people, encourage
loss reduction measures as a condition of insurance and also monitors the activities of
the insured.

Group Based Insurance Programs

A group based insurance program can enlarge a risk pool and provide insurance at
affordable price. As stated by Kreimer ,et. al, 2000 “Large number of policy holders
(a) reduce the potential of adverse selection – in which claims are higher than
expected because only high risk households purchase the insurance and (b) increase
the likelihood that the variance of actual claims will be closer to the expected mean
used in calculating premiums.” Besides this the other advantages of group insurance
are it is faster to get membership by insuring groups than individuals and it also
reduces cost of administration, it provides appropriate mitigation incentives to the
community – people come together and initiate improvements in their physical
surroundings in order to qualify for the insurance

14
 ADB’s Role in Disaster Management and Mitigation

V. ADB’S Role in Disaster Management and Mitigation

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has been in the forefront in recognizing the
adverse impact of disasters on development and it has played a pioneering role in
promoting the incorporation of disaster reduction in development planning. Loans
extended by the Bank in the area of disaster mitigation and post-disaster
rehabilitation was over US$2bn (at real 1997 prices) during the ten year period of
1988-1998. Additionally, the Bank has made more than thirty disaster-related
technical assistance (TA) loans/grants. ADPC has been proud to be associated with
two RETAs and one national grant. One RETA studied disaster management
practices in selected DMCs, organized a seminar and published two highly acclaimed
handbooks, Disaster Mitigation in Asia and the Pacific, ADB 1991, and Disaster
Management: A Disaster Manager’s Handbook, ADB 1991 and Disaster Mitigation:
The Role of the Asian Development Bank, ADB 1991. A second RETA supported
the institutional strengthening of ADPC.

Seminal ADB papers on its role in disaster mitigation and its experience of post-
disaster rehabilitation have focused on important future directions for the Bank in the
field of disaster management as given below:

Being a major source of post-disaster rehabilitation funding, there is a clear need for
the Bank’s continued involvement in this field and to improve the performance of its
loans for this purpose. Longer-term post disaster reconstruction programs should go
beyond the status quo ante, be aimed at vulnerability reduction. Such programs
should have broad sectoral/structural objectives and be well integrated into the long-
term development programs of DMCs, thus benefiting from detailed planning studies
and effective institutional support. In all operations funded by it the Bank should set
an example by incorporating disaster risk assessment as an integral part of the
approval process and adopting appropriate mitigation measures in project
implementation.

The third TA supported by ADB is being currently implemented by ADPC to assess

strengthening disaster Management and Mitigation in two of the largest Indian states
of Uttar Pradesh and Uttaranchal. This ADB project, initiated under a post-disaster
assistance following the Chamoli earthquake in 1999, is focused on advising the two
state governments in developing new institutional arrangements, developing state and
district level disaster management and mitigation plans and state wide Disaster
Management Information System. The project is a pioneering new initiative by the
ADB in proactively promoting disaster reduction measures in anticipation of future
disasters and represents an innovative and exemplary new direction in development
assistance funding. This thrust should be further continued in funding of innovative
projects of this kind in other countries, provinces and more importantly at the
community level. This will enable the Bank to effectively implement its poverty
reduction agenda and continue its leadership role in disaster reduction activities.

15
 Conclusion

VI. Conclusion

Over the past two decades both poverty reduction programs as well as disaster
reduction programs have gone through a paradigm shift. Both have moved towards
being establishing stronger linkages with sectoral issues. However, there has been
relatively few examples of effective, systematic and long-term integration between
disaster reduction and poverty reduction programs. There are tangible opportunities
for integration between the two. This will require more research on understanding
the nature of linkages between poverty and vulnerability in different social, political,
economic and hazard-specific contexts. This understanding will lead to development
of specific frameworks and methodologies for integration of poverty and disaster
reduction programs. At present, livelihood frameworks that recognize people’s
vulnerability context, community-based disaster management approaches and risk
transfer and finance mechanisms are some of the approaches that can be used for this
integration. In the coming years, poverty reduction and disaster reduction programs
will have to develop innovative, multi-dimensional, inter-sectoral approaches to
mutually support each other.

16
 References

References

ADPC Web site, www.adpc.ait.ac.th, February 2001.

ADPC, 2000. Community Based Disaster Management, Trainer’s Guide (M2-05)

ADPC, 2000. Community Based Disaster Management, Trainer’s Guide (M3-01)

AUDMP Briefing Notes, Compiled for the 5th Working Group Meeting of the Asian
Urban Disaster Mitigation Program, Cambodia, 23-25 February 2000,
Organized by Asian Disaster Preparedness Center, Bangkok, Thailand.

Blakie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. and Wisner, B. (1994) At Risk: Natural Hazards,
People’s Vulnerability and Disasters, Routledge, London, UK.

Cannon Terry (1994), Vulnerability Analysis and Natural Disasters, in A. Varley

(ed.), Disasters, Development and Environment, Wiley, West Sussex, UK.

DFID web site http://www.dfid.gov.uk/, April, 1999

Kreimer Alcira, Margaret Arnold, 2001. The poor suffer the mos’, Our Planet, vol.
11, No.3, UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya.

Kreimer Alcira, Margaret Arnold (ed), 2000. ‘Managing Disaster Risk in Emerging
Economies’, Disaster Risk Management Series No. 2, World Bank,
Washington D.C., USA.

Maskrey, Andrew (1999), Reducing Global Disasters, in J. Ingleton (ed.), Natural

Disaster Management, Tudor Rose, Leicester, UK.

17
 Appendix A

Appendix A

COMMUNITY-BASED DISASTER MANAGEMENT

PROCESS

COMMUNITY-BASED RISK REDUCTION PROCESS

I. Disaster Risk Reduction Process

The foundation of community-based disaster management is disaster risk reduction.

While the community undertakes the broad range of disaster management activities,
including emergency response as necessary, the emphasis is on reducing disaster
risks.

The disaster risk reduction process has six sequential stages, which can be
operationalized before a disaster occurs or after one has happened to reduce future
risks. Each stage grows out of the preceding stage and leads to further action.
Together, the sequence can build up a planning and implementation system, which
can become a powerful disaster risk reduction tool. The system or the process is
presented in the diagram below. The stages in the risk reduction process are as
follows:

1. Initiating the disaster risk reduction process

2. Community Profiling
3. Community Risk Assessment
4. Community Risk Reduction Planning
5. Implementation and Monitoring
6. Evaluation and Feedback

19
 Appendix A

Community Based Risk Reduction Planning Process

Stage 1: Involvement
• Request for assessment from within or from vulnerable
communities
• Identification of threats and vulnerability to them by intermediaries
External • A hazard event or disaster that highlights the need for assistance
Involvement • Knowledge of disaster management, resources and community by
intermediary organizations
• Knowledge of local situations, processes and systems

Stage 2: Community Profiling

To reach an understanding of a community, its developmental position
and the content upon which disasters will impact. To include
identification of:
• Social groups
• Cultural arrangements
• Economic activities
• Spatial characteristics

Stage 3: Community Risk Assessment

The aim of this diagnostic process is to balance known risks against
available resources.
• Hazards mapping
• Vulnerability assessment = The size of the problem and
• Resource assessment opportunities to deal with
Community
Involvement

Stage 4: Detailing Formulation of Counter Disaster

Plan
• Preparedness measures
• Risk reduction measures
• (roles, responsibilities, schedules, inputs)

Stage 5: Implementation and Monitoring

Stage 6: Evaluation and Feedback

20
 Phases and Roles in a Community Based Disaster Management Project

Phasing In Mobilization Setting Agenda Integration and Phase-Over

Expansion
O Identification of threats and Entry and Immersion Facilitating Group Strengthening Consulting
U vulnerabilities Training Facilitating linkages
T Rapport Building Providing Material
S Clarifying roles and objective Services
I Learning Linking with resources
D Visiting Community Group capability Initiating project
E Community study building I
R Planning Strategy Preparedness Facilitating N
S Validating issues measures S
Resource Inventory Controlling I
Organizing Hazard Mapping Risk reduction D
measures Pressuring E
Vulnerability Roles, responsibilities, R
Problem ID Assessment schedules, inputs Negotiating S
Request Assistance Socio-Economic - Influencing other
Family Coping Political Cultural Resource Assessment Implementing project communities
Community on going efforts Situation
Reflecting
Biophysical Situation Adjusting
Expanding
Sustaining
Community Situational Community Profiling Community Risk Counter Disaster Plan Evaluation /
Analysis Assessment and Action Feedback
STAGE 1 STAGE 2 STAGE 3 STAGE 4 STAGE 5

∇
Reference: Zen Delica, 1999, ADPC Course on Community-Based Approaches to Disaster Management, ADPC, AIT, Bangkok, Thailand and Regional Office for
Asia, IIRR. 1998. Basic Community Development Training: A Participants Training Material. International Institute of Rural Reconstruction, Y.C. James Yen, Silang,
Cavite, Philippines.
 Community-Based Disaster Mitigation: From A Management Perspective

Community-Based Support System

Disaster Mitigation

Management Characteristics Linking Services Characteristics

Planning • Conduct their own • Community organizing • Develop
situational analysis • Training and education participatory tools
(PLA and other tools) • Public awareness • Act as animator/
• Chart their goals, • Networking and coordination facilitator
objectives/ vision • Advocacy • Orientation is based
• Develop their own plans from the people

Implementation • Design and implement • Collaboration and partnership • Program and

projects • Conflict resolution and technology
• Organizational/ group negotiations development
growth and • Resource allocation
Development and distribution
(human, financial,
technology and
material)
Monitoring and Evaluation • Develop community • Meeting expectations • Impact indicators
indicators and tools to • Area for improvement and tools to
measure • Action reflection praxis measure
 Appendix A

1. Initiating the Disaster Reduction Process

How does a community get started with the disaster risk reduction framework? In
some cases, several community members or an organization in the community
approaches an intermediary organization for assistance after experiencing a disaster
or in preparing for an impending disaster threat.

Presently, NGOs, disaster management agencies, the government and other

intermediary organizations such as national or regional level people's organizations
play a key role in initiating the process of community-based disaster management.
They either respond to requests coming from vulnerable communities or identify
vulnerable communities where disaster risk reduction programs should be prioritized.
Criteria for the prioritization of vulnerable communities may include the following:
most disaster prone area; most vulnerable to a particular hazard; least served by the
government and/or NGOs; additional considerations such as possibility of replication
or spread effects of the program to neighboring communities, presence of existing
development projects or community partners.

In many instances, a probable hazard event or disaster threat can be turned into an
opportunity to start a community-based disaster management program. When the
knowledge, skills and experiences in disaster risk reduction, which are in
communities are systematized and disseminated, there will be more community-to-
community sharing on how to get started and implement community-based disaster
management.

2. Community Profiling

Community profiling involves building up a picture of the nature, needs and

resources of a community with the active participation of the community. It is an
important preliminary step in any planning process, especially when outsiders
(intermediary organizations) are involved. It usually involves building rapport/ trust
with the community through interaction and gathering basic information or the
surfacing of the general community profile.

It leads to an understanding of the community's development position and the context

upon which disasters will impact. Basic elements of a community profile will include
the following:

• social groups
• cultural arrangements
• economic activities
• spatial characteristics
• vulnerable households and groups

3. Community Risk Assessment

23
 Appendix A

Community risk assessment is a diagnostic process to balance known disaster risks

against available resources. Through the risk assessment process, the community
comes to a common understanding of its disaster risks. The size of the problem as
well as the resources and opportunities involved are identified and analyzed.

Community risk assessment has four components as follows:

• hazard assessment
• vulnerability assessment
• capacity assessment
• people's perception of the risks

4. Formulation of Disaster Risk Reduction Plan

Preparedness and mitigation measures to reduce disaster risks are identified. These
risk reduction measures are not necessarily big projects. The important point is to
start off the risk reduction process through community mobilization based on existing
capacities and resources within the community's immediate reach.

Overall objectives, strategies are translated to operational plans and activities. The
people, timetable, resources within and outside the community needed to turn the
intent of the plan into reality are identified. Community targets in undertaking
preparedness and mitigation measures in terms of particular capacities increased and
vulnerabilities decreased.

At the planning stage, agreements with intermediary organizations are formalized

regarding their supports in the risk reduction plan implementation and their
expectations/requirements of resources, which they commit to mobilize. Outsiders
are usually expected to assist the community in the following areas:

• community capability building through training and education activities and

materials
• resource mobilization to supplement the community's efforts to generate
resources to realize the risk reduction plan
• facilitate linkages with concerned government agencies and NGOs to access
information, resources, etc.

5. Implementation and Monitoring

The formation and/or strengthening of a community disaster management machinery

is usually helpful in the implementation of the risk reduction plan. A wide range of
organizational arrangements vital in implementation of the plan include the
following: -- a committee of an existing community organization, a disaster
volunteers team, a community organization, a project management committee, a
network of community organizations for disaster management, etc.

24
 Appendix A

Besides monitoring the progress of the plan implementation, this core group
motivates the community through translation of plan objectives and targets into
disaster reduction activities. This group also amends targets and plans, when
necessary, to keep on course with set objectives to reduce vulnerabilities and increase
capacities in the immediate and long-term.

6. Evaluation and Feedback

Evaluation is concerned with the effects of the risk reduction measures in terms of
reducing the vulnerability situation of the community. If vulnerability has not been
significantly reduced, the reasons for this are analyzed. The significance of building
on existing capacities and those, which have been actually increased, are also
analyzed.

It is concerned with the difference the results of the risk reduction measures have
made to the community situation and its overall quality of life. Lessons are drawn
and best practices are shared with other groups and communities to promote the
CBDM framework and strategy.

Source:
ADPC, 2000. Community Disaster Based Management, Trainer’s Guide (M2-05).

25
 Appendix B

Appendix B

COMMUNITY-BASED RISK ASSESSMENT

I. Disaster Risk

Risk is the probability of something happening in the future, which has a negative
consequence. It is a prediction of suffering harm or loss or of meeting danger.

Although disaster risk is sometimes taken as synonymous with hazard, it has an

additional implication of likelihood of a particular hazard to occur and cause damage
or loss to a vulnerable community or group. Disaster Risk (or recipe for disaster) has
been presented by Ward, 1999 as follows:

Hazard x Vulnerability
Disaster Risk = -----------------------------------
Manageability

Manageability here stands for the degree to which a community can intervene and
manage a hazard in order to reduce its potential impact. This implies that based on
people's perception of their disaster risk, they are able to make decisions to adapt to,
modify or ignore the risk.

Manageability is synonymous to Capacity so we can substitute to have the following

disaster risk formula:

Hazard x Vulnerability
Disaster Risk = ----------------------------------
Capacity

II. Disaster Risk Assessment

Assessment is a process (usually undertaken in phases) of collecting, interpreting and

analyzing information from various sources.

Risk Assessment (also risk analysis or evaluation) has traditionally been done by
economists, scientists and experts in insurance companies, government agencies on
agriculture, environmental management, health, public works and highways, etc. who
are concerned with estimating probable damages and proposing mitigation measures
based on cost-benefit analysis.

The outputs of CBDM disaster risk assessment are quantitative estimates of probable
loss of life, damage to property and the environment. Based on the criteria
developed by the community, the risk measurement is then summarized as severe,
moderate and minor or high, medium and low.

27
 Appendix B

Kates (1978) describes risk assessment as an appraisal of the kinds and degrees of
threat posed by a hazard. It includes hazard identification, the measurement of its
threat and understanding the social meaning of such measurements. The key
questions answered in risk assessment are the following: "What hazardous events
may occur?" "What is the probability of each event?" "What is the loss created by
each event?" “How important is the estimated risk?"

Risk assessment is an integral component of the process by which individuals,

communities and societies cope with hazards. The figures below show the
conventional risk assessment process.

28
 Appendix B

III. Community-Based Disaster Risk Assessment

Community Risk Assessment is a participatory process of determining the nature,

scope and magnitude of negative effects of hazards to the community and its
households within an anticipated time period. It determines the probable or likely
negative effect (damage and loss) on 'elements at risk' (people - lives and health;
household and community structures, facilities and services – (houses, schools,
hospitals, etc.); livelihood and economic activities (jobs, equipment, crops, livestock,
etc.); lifelines – (access roads and bridges). Why particular households and groups
are vulnerable to specific hazards and why others are not are also analyzed. The
coping mechanisms and the resources (capacities) present in the community are also
essential considerations in community risk assessment

Participation of community members is an essential component of community based

risk assessment which determines the methodologies and tools used. Community
risk assessment combines both scientific and empirical data concerning known
hazards and other possible threats to the community. Although indigenous
knowledge is vital, scientific data is especially important in a situation when the
hazard has not yet been experienced by the community.

IV. Components of Risk Assessment

Community based risk assessment has four main inter-related steps. These are:

• hazard assessment: determines the likelihood of experiencing any natural or

human-made hazard or threat in the community. Assessment includes the
nature and behavior of each of the hazards the community is exposed to.

• vulnerability assessment: identifies what elements are at risk and why they
are at risk (unsafe conditions resulting from dynamic pressures which are
consequences of root or underlying causes)

• capacities assessment: identifies the people’s coping strategies; resources

available for preparedness, mitigation and emergency response; who has
access to and control over these resources.

• people's perception of risk: identifies the perception of risks of the

heterogeneous groups and sectors, which make up the community;
measurement of the community's disaster risks based on people's perception.

The results of the community risk assessment is then summarized in tabular form
using the Hazard Capacity Vulnerability Analysis. A sample of the summarized
result of the community risk assessment process is shown below.

29
 Appendix B

30
 Appendix B

V.Purpose of Community Risk Assessment:

Community Risk Assessment provides a systematic process for identifying,

estimating, and ranking community risks.

Community Risk Assessment contributes to the community’s awareness about

potential risks. This is usually the contribution of outsiders who bring with them
scientific and technical information on hazards which the community has not
experienced before.

Community Risk Assessment is an essential precursor to a bottom up decision

making process for development policies, strategies, plans, programs and projects in
disaster risk reduction. More specifically they help:

• To prioritize community’s risks which need to be reduced. The community

has to address all its disaster risks but its actions and resources can be
prioritized based on the frequency, extent of damage and other considerations
which the community members decide on.

• To ensure that the risk reduction is going to be adequate and appropriate. Risk
reduction planning should incorporate a balance between preparedness and
long term mitigation measures.

• To ensure that risk reduction will be cost effective and sustainable. In many
situations, the viable track to reduce vulnerabilities is through increasing the
community's capacities. Existing material, social and attitudinal capacities
should be built and areas and strategies for capacity building should be
identified. The impact of various preparedness and mitigation measures on
risks in the immediate and in the long-term can also be compared.

• To identify external resources which have to be tapped and risk reduction

strategies to address vulnerabilities, which the community on its own cannot
address.

• To have a yardstick to assess if the community is succeeding in reducing risk.

Community risk assessment provides indicators to measure changes in
people’s vulnerability over time.

Community Risk Assessment provides the community and support agencies with
disaster specific baseline data that can be integrated in a situational analysis for
development planning purposes.

Community Risk Assessment provides support agencies with information that can be
used for ‘intelligent and informed estimates’ in order to draft emergency appeals
(even when the community is inaccessible during the emergency period).
Furthermore, it provides the community and support agencies with baseline data
which is useful in doing the ‘damage, needs, capacities assessment’ of the
community for emergency response purposes.

31
 Appendix B

Note

Community members and outsiders may have different perception of the

community's disaster risks. The community risk assessment process provides a venue
to come to a common understanding of local risk scenarios.

For Further Reading

Disaster Risk Assessment by Brian Ward

Turning Disasters into Development: Designing Strategies for Informed Decision

Making in Community Development in Latin America by Andrew Maskrey

Source:
ADPC, 2000. Community Based Disaster Management, Trainer’s Guide (M3-01)

32