ICBRR: An Approach to Building Disaster Resilient Communities

ICBRR: An Approach to Building Disaster Resilient Communities Shesh Kanta Kafle IDRC, Davos May 31, 2010

Presentation Outline
Key Features of ICBRR
Key Achievements of ICBRR Program
Contributions to Building Disaster Resilient Communities
Measuring Disaster Resilient Communities
(Using process and outcome indicators)

Map of Indonesia Nias Island Aceh Province

Key Features of ICBRR
Addresses all hazards, vulnerabilities and risks;
Considers all aspects of the disaster management cycle (Preparedness, prevention/mitigation, response and recovery);
Includes cooperation and collaboration with other sectors/stakeholders;

ICBRR Approach
Enhances organizational capacity building
Adopts participatory process
Focuses on empowering vulnerable community and individuals
Is gender sensitive
Gives emphasis on linking community risk reduction plans to Local Government Planning

Baseline survey; Knowledge, Attitude and Practice (KAP) Survey Rapport building, Form/Activate Community Based Action Team (CBAT), CBAT training. Mobilization of Disaster Response Team (SATGANA), CBATs and Community Risk Assessment (HVCA) Participatory planning Community awareness on disaster risk and impacts Advocacy and Socialization of Risk Assessment results and Plans Risk reduction/ mitigation Participatory monitoring and evaluation Formation of working group, Conduct Pre-VCA, Area Selection ICBDRR Flow Diagram

Key Achievements
Formed/trained CBATs
Risk Assessment and risk reduction plans
Involvement of women and elderly
Involvement of local government
Linking CBEWS to national EWS
Community Preparedness- implementation of risk reduction plans

Key achievements of ICBRR Program 95 43 Implementation of RR plans by CBATs 100 43 EWS focal points at CBATs appointed and trained 100 432 Number of PMI staff, volunteers and potential facilitators received training 100 43 Program support villages linked with PMI EWS 100 43 Villages submitted proposals for the community risk reduction plan implementation 100 1060 CBATs members including vulnerable groups and women involved in the plan formulation process 100 43 HVCA completed in participatory process including representatives of all vulnerable groups 100 6000 Persons in the community (both village and schools) with knowledge of hazards, vulnerability and risk. 100 860 CBATs as PMI volunteers/facilitators trained 100 43 CBATs are able to recruit, train, support and motivate community volunteers for DRR and work together to do so. Achieved (%) Planned (Number) Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

IFRC Geneva IFRC AP Zone IFRC Regional Office PMI NHQ PMI Chapter PMI Branch International community UN agencies ICRC PNSs INGOs
Source of
Information
BNPB
BMKG
CVS
Other governmental
departments
EWS message
Dissemination
Disaster response team
CBAT
Community
Institutions
IFRC Jakarta ICRC Jakarta PNSs NGOs CBAT and community Disaster National Global EWS information and communication system at PMI

BMKG PMI NHQ PMI branch Hazard information CBATs/ communities Telephone Radio SMS Email Newspaper TV Telephone Radio/TV SMS Email Information and communication system

Measuring Disaster Resilient Communities

A disaster resilient community can be defined as a community which has the capacity (Twigg 2005):
To absorb stress and destructive forces through resistance or adaptation;
To manage or maintain certain basic functions and structures during disastrous events; and
To recover or ‘bounce back’ with specific behaviour, strategies and measures for risk reduction.
Disaster Resilient Community

Disaster Resilient Communities
Ability to bounce back
Ability to recover rapidly
Ability to resist hazards to become disasters

Resilient community

Elements of resilient communities Safe ‘Critical Facilities’ Cash Reserves Disaster Preparedness Local Institutions/CBAT Ethical Standards Contingency Plans Memory of Past Events Trained Staff Coping Abilities Trained volunteers Local Leadership External Support Diversified Local Economy Responsible Governments Hazard, vulnerability and Capacity assessments Awareness and basic and health infrastructures

i=10, j=5 i =10, j=5 Overall Resilience Score = ∑ P (Wi*Rj) + ∑ O (Wi*Rj) i=1, j= i=1, j=1 Measuring Disaster Resilient Communities

173 (275) (63%) 5 55 Overall score 6 (15) 2 3 Monitoring of program activities being done by PMI Branch and Chapters. 10.Participatory monitoring and evaluation 12 (30) 2 6 CBATs are actively involved in the implementation of risk reduction plans. 9. Mitigation activities 24 (40) 3 8 Community awareness raising materials prepared and distributed to communities; training on gender, early warning system, community based first aid (CBFA) organised; 8. Awareness raising/training 12 (20) 3 4 Risk reduction plans and HVCA results socialized among local government authorities; 7. Advocacy/ Socialisation 27 (45) 3 9 Community risk reduction plans prepared by CBATs mobilizing communities; 6. Risk reduction planning 40 (50) 4 10 Detailed risk assessment of all villages done mobilising CBATs 5. Risk assessment (HVCA) 15 (25) 3 5 SATGANA, VDMC and CBATs training organised and community mobilisation done. 4. Community mobilisation (SATGANA, VC, CBATs, communities) 28 (35) 4 7 Socialization was done for local leaders, PMI staff, board members; Formation of village committees (VDMC) and CBATs were done as per the standard process 3. Rapport building, social capital building, Form village committees and CBATs 3 (5) 3 1 PMI volunteers were involved 2. Baseline survey/KAP 6 (10) 3 2 Detailed pre-HVCA was done but was used for proposal writing and not for area selection. 1. Area selection, Pre-HVCA, comprehensive assessment Total score (Wi*Rj) Value (1-5)(Rj) Weight (Rank) (Wi) Status Process indicators (steps)

Output indicators 30 (50) 3 5*2=10 3. Level of participation of vulnerable groups in the risk assessment 15 (25) 3 5*1=5 2. Knowledge of risk and risk reduction system among CBATs, community and local governments 60 (75) 4 5*3=15 1. Conduct of baseline survey, risk assessment (HVCA), establishment of disaster database. Risk Assessment (5) 3 (5) 3 1*1=1 6. Popular participation (linkage with PMI, private sector, NGOs, civil society and other agencies. 20 (25) 4 1*5=5 5. Capacity of CBATs and CDMC in disaster response and risk mitigation 16 (20) 4 1*4=4 4. Ownership of risk community reduction plans by local government planning 6 (10) 3 1*2=2 3. Linkage with the local government agencies, Private sectors and other NGOs/stakeholders 6 (15) 2 1*3=3 2. Access or influence of vulnerable groups to policy making and programming 30 (30) 5 1*6=6 1. A community organisation Governance (1) Score (Wi*Rj) Value (Rj) Weight (Wi) Standards/Indicators Thematic areas as per HFA

Output indicators (cont’d) 48 (120) 2 4*6=24 7. Social protection (health, livelihoods etc) provisions 12 (20) 3 4*1=4 6. Environment and natural resources management 24 (40) 3 4*2=8 5. Diversified local economy (livelihoods) 24 (60) 2 4*3=12 4. Quality of houses, physical location 84 (140) 3 4*7=28 3. Monitoring and evaluation system in place 80 (100) 4 4*5=20 2. Implementation of RR plans 80 (80) 5 4*4=16 1. A DRR and disaster preparedness plan Risk management and vulnerability reduction (4) 8 (10) 4 2*1=2 5. Documentation of traditional, existing DRR practices and early warning systems in the community 16 (40) 2 2*4=8 4. DRR activities in schools 16 (20) 4 2*2=4 3. Formulation of SOP for early warning system and emergency communications 12 (30) 2 2*3=6 2. Awareness raising materials and activities 40 (50) 4 2*5=10 1. Trained volunteers and community members Knowledge and Education (2)

Output indicators (cont’d) 717 (1165) (62% of the maximum attainable score) 5 233 Total score 24 (30) 4 3*2=6 4. PMI (SATGANA) and CBAT capacity 36 (40) 4 3*3=9 3. Volunteerism/Participation 9 (15) 3 3*1=3 2. Contingency plans 48 (60) 4 3*4=12 1. An effective community early warning system Disaster preparedness and response (3)

The overall score 62% should not be loosely used and generalised. The score is contextual, and values mentioned in the tables are program and site specific. However, this can be used for comparing the status of any programs and measuring the outcomes in line with building disaster resilient communities.
Conclusions (1)

Process standards are important for the community understanding, ownership and sustainability of the Program; where as outcome standards are important for the real achievements in terms of community empowerment and capacity building. Conclusion (2)

The ICBRR program was aimed at increasing community resilience through enhancing disaster preparedness and response capacities of PMI. A close link between CBATs, local government and PMI Branch with the support from Chapter is necessary for sustaining the outcomes of the program.
Conclusions (3)

DISCUSSION

THANK YOU

https://www.conftool.com	37
http://www.slideshare.net	1
http://conftool.grforum.net	1

ICBRR: An Approach to Building Disaster Resilient Communities

by Global Risk Forum GRFDavos

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

3 Embeds 39

Statistics