Disaster risk

A guide book
management
systems analysis

E N V I R O N M E N T A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S M A N A G E M E N T S E R I E S
[ E N V I R O N M E N T ] C L I M AT E C H A N G E B I O E N E R G Y M O N I T O R I N G A N D A S S E S S M E N T
13
ISSN 1684 8241
Rome, 2008
4UFQIBO
#BBT

'FEFSJDB
#BUUJTUB
+FOOJF
%FZ
EF
1SZDL
4FMWBSBKV
3BNBTBNZ
Disaster risk

A guide book

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

management
systems analysis

E N V I R O N M E N T A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E S M A N A G E M E N T S E R I E S
[ E N V I R O N M E N T ] C L I M AT E C H A N G E B I O E N E R G Y M O N I T O R I N G A N D A S S E S S M E N T
13
The conclusions given in this report are considered appropriate at the time of its preparation. They may be modified
in the light of further knowledge gained at subsequent stages of the project.

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information

product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part
of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the
legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities,
or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific
companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does
not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to
others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

ISBN 978-92-5-106056-8

All rights reserved. Reproduction and dissemination of material in this information

product for educational or other non-commercial purposes are authorized without
any prior written permission from the copyright holders provided the source is fully
acknowledged. Reproduction of material in this information product for resale or other
commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the copyright holders.

Applications for such permission should be addressed to:

Chief
Electronic Publishing Policy and Support Branch
Communication Division
FAO
Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy
or by e-mail to:
copyright@[Link]

© FAO 2008
FOREWORD
With mounting international concern at the rising frequency and severity of natural
hazards and disasters, in part due to factors related to climate change, there is increased
impetus in many countries to put in place policy, legal, technical, financial and institutional
measures that will reduce the destructive effects on the lives and livelihoods of individuals
and communities. These concerns were intensively debated during the World Conference
on Disaster Reduction, held in Kobe, Hyogo Prefecture, Japan, 18-22 January 2005. The
Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), adopted by the Conference, seeks the outcome of
“The substantial reduction of disaster losses, in lives and in the social, economic and
environmental assets of communities and countries”. In order to achieve the stated
outcome by 2015, the HFA emphasises a shift from reactive emergency relief (which
nonetheless remains important) to pro-active disaster risk reduction (DRR) in the pre-
disaster stages by strengthening prevention, mitigation and preparedness. A related
approach that is gaining widespread support is that of disaster risk management (DRM)
which combines, through a management perspective, the concept of prevention, mitigation
and preparedness with response.
The effective implementation of both DRR and DRM systems is contingent on sound
institutional capacities by key actors at different levels of government, the private sector
and civil society as well as effective coordination between these actors and levels. These
challenges were given emphatic recognition by the FA’s second strategic goal: “the
development and strengthening of institutions, mechanisms and capacities at all levels, in
particular at the community level, that can systematically contribute to building resilience
to hazards”.
More recently, in the context of increasing climate variability and climate change, there
is increasing recognition for the benefits from closely linking Disaster Risk Management
and Climate Change Adaptation efforts at different scales. The workshop on “Climate
Related Risks and Extreme Events” held in June 2007 in Cairo by the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in the context of the Nairobi
Work Programme (NWP) on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change
recognised this crucial link. It recommended, inter alia, to identify and promote
institutional mechanisms and processes for better coordinated actions related to climate
risk and impact management, including those related to extreme events (DRR).
FAO’s field experiences with DRM, supported by normative studies, revealed that
there are few practical tools available to guide the analysis of national, district and local
institutional systems for DRM and to conceptualize and provide demand-responsive
capacity-building thereafter. The lack of tools to understand institutional responses and
coordination mechanisms is of particular concern. This Guide attempts to fill this gap by
providing a set of tools that have been developed and tested in various FAO field projects
for DRM.

iii
]

The methods and tools proposed in this guide are generic, and can be adapted to
S

different types of natural hazards, sectoral issues, geographical areas, country-specific

I
S

conditions and institutional settings. However, in view of FAO’s mandate and experience,
L Y

some practical illustrations are given of the application of these tools to the agricultural
A
N

sector in developing countries. In order to strengthen FAO’s assistance to governments

A

and other concerned organizations in undertaking diagnostic assessments of DRM

S
M

institutional systems as a first step in a capacity-building process, we would welcome

E
T

feedback on this Guide from readers and users with a view to improving future versions.
S
Y
S
T
N
E
M
E

Peter Holmgren
G
A

Director, Environment, Climate Change and Bioenergy Division, FAO

N
A
M
K
S
I
R
R
E
T
S
A
S
I
D
[

iv
ABSTRACT
The Disaster Risk Management (DRM) Systems Analysis Guide provides a set of tools and
methods to assess existing structures and capacities of national, district and local
institutions with responsibilities for Disaster Risk Management (DRM) in order to
improve their effectiveness and the integration of DRM concerns into development
planning, with particular reference to disaster-prone areas, vulnerable sectors and
population groups. The strategic use of the Guide is expected to enhance understanding of
the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing existing DRM institutional
structures and their implications for on-going institutional change processes. It will also
highlight the complex institutional linkages among various actors and sectors at different
levels. Finally, it will help identify gaps within the existing DRM institutions and/or
systems including sectoral line agencies that are often responsible for implementing the
technical aspects of DRM (e.g. agriculture, water and health sectors).
The assessment and analysis process outlined in the Guide is thus a first step towards
strengthening existing DRM systems. The major areas of application are:
Strengthening institutional and technical capacities for DRM at national and/or
decentralized levels;
Integrating key aspects of DRM in emergency rehabilitation programmes;
Designing and promoting Community-Based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM);
Operationalizing the paradigm shift from reactive emergency relief to pro-active
DRM; and
Mainstreaming DRM into development and sectoral planning (e.g. agriculture).

The Guide primarily focuses on risks associated with natural hazards of hydro-
meteorological (floods, tropical storms, droughts etc.,) origin. Users interested in the
management of other types of hazard risk are encouraged to adapt the general concepts,
tools and methods to their own situations.

Disaster risk management systems analysis

by Stephan Baas, Selvaraju Ramasamy, JennEA Dey de Pryck, Federica Battista

90 pages, 12 figures, 9 tables

FAO Environment and Natural Resources Service Series, No. 13 - FAO, Rome, 2008

Keywords:
Disaster Risk Management (DRM) Systems Analysis; Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR); DRM planning;
DRM systems analysis at national, district and community levels; Mainstreaming DRM; DRM
institutions and linkages with agriculture sector; hazard, disaster, livelihoods and institutions; disaster
mitigation, preparedness, recovery and rehabilitation; Community Based Disaster Risk Management
(CBDRM).

This series replaces the following:

Environment and Energy Series
Remote Sensing Centre Series
Agrometeorology Working Paper

A list of documents published in the above series and other information can be found at the Web site:
[Link]/nr

v
]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
S
I
S
L Y

We are grateful to the many people who have contributed directly or indirectly to the
A

preparation of this Guide.

N

The first draft was prepared by the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center, Bangkok,
A

under a Letter of Agreement with FAO. The draft was subsequently reviewed and
S
M

discussed at a workshop held in FAO, Rome, in December 2006, after which ADPC
E
T

amended it incorporating the participants’ comments and guidance. Finally some sections
S
Y

of the second version were fine-tuned or rewritten by a small team comprising Stephan
S

Baas, Selvaraju Ramasamy, Jennie Dey de Pryck and Federica Battista taking into account
T
N

the participants’ comments and guidance.

E
M

The Guide draws heavily on the field experience of FAO in developing and strengthening
E

the institutional capacities of DRM systems in a number of Asian and Caribbean countries.
G
A

Illustrations of participatory rural appraisal exercises used during field assessments of

N
A

community-level DRM systems in several countries enrich the text with the experiences of
M

many rural people who are highly vulnerable to natural hazard risk.
K
S

In addition to Stephan Baas who conceived and technically supervised the preparation
I
R

of this Guide, we are grateful to Genevieve Braun, Marta Bruno, Eve Crowley, Olivier
R

Dubois, Florence Egal, Shantana Halder, Jan Johnson, Angee Lee, Simon Mack, Dalia
E
T

Mattioni, Hans Meliczek, Pamela Pozarny, Peter Reid, Florence Rolle, Laura
S
A

Sciannimonaco, Nicole Steyer, and Sylvi WabbesCanotti for providing constructive

S

comments on and inputs to the earlier drafts of the Guide.

I
D

The production of the Guide was made possible through financial contributions from
[

FAO’s Rural Institutions and Participation Service (SDAR) and the FAO Inter-
Departmental Working Group on Disaster Risk Management (Reha Paia).

vi
CONTENTS
iii Foreword
v Abstract
vi Acknowledgements
ix Acronyms

1 INTRODUCTION

5 MODULE 1: DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

15 MODULE 2: PLANNING AN INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER

RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

23 MODULE 3: ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL

35 MODULE 4: ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL

45 MODULE 5: ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL

59 MODULE 6: ANALYSING AND INTERPRETING THE DATA

72 REFERENCES

73 ANNEX I: Tools and methods for institutional assessments

75 ANNEX II: Disaster-related terms and concepts

vii
 D I S A S T E R R I S K M A N A G E M E N T S Y S T E M S A N A L Y S I S
[ ]
ACRONYMS
ADPC Asian Disaster Preparedness Center
AEZ Agro-Ecological Zone
CCA Common Country Assessment
CRED Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters
CBDRM Community-Based Disaster Risk Management
CBO Community-Based Organization
CIG Common Interest Groups
CSO Civil Society Organization
DCP District Contingency Plans
DFID UK Department For International Development
DRM Disaster Risk Management
DRMC Disaster Risk Management Cycle
DRMF Disaster Risk Management Framework
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction
EWS Early Warning Systems
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FEWSNET Famine Early Warning System (FEWS) Network
FPMIS Field Project Management Information System
GIEWS Global Information and Early Warning System
HFA Hyogo Framework for Action
IFRC International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
INGO International non-Governmental Organisations
MFIS Micro-Financing Organisations
MoU Memorandum of Understanding
NDMA National Disaster Management Agency
NDMB National Disaster Management Bureau
NDMC National Disaster Management Centre
NDMO National Disaster Management Office
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NHMS National Hydro-Meteorological Services
NMAs National Meteorological Agencies
NWP Nairobi Work Programme on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
SDAR Rural Institutions and Participation Services
SLAF Sustainable Livelihoods Analytical Framework
UAS User’s Association
UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change
UN/ISDR United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
VDC Village Development Committee
WCDR World Conference on Disaster Reduction
WFP World Food Programme

ix
INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND
The world has witnessed an alarming increase in the frequency and severity of disasters:
240 million people, on average, were affected by natural disasters world-wide each year
between 2000 and 2005. During each of these six years, these disasters claimed an average
of 80,000 lives and caused damage of an estimated US$ 80 billion.1 Disaster losses are rising
throughout the world due to a number of factors that include:
 more frequent extreme weather events associated with increasing climate variability
and change;
 agricultural production systems that increase risk (e.g. heavy reliance on irrigated
crops resulting in aquifer depletion and salinization, or unsustainable pasture/
livestock or bio-fuel production on land that was formerly and more appropriately
covered in forest);

 population growth combined with demographic change and movements leading, for
instance, to unplanned urbanization, growing demand for food, industrial goods and
services; and
 increasing pressure on (and over-exploitation of) natural resources.

Higher living standards and more extravagant life styles in the more prosperous nations
also result in very high economic losses when disasters strike. While better emergency
response systems will save lives and properties, many of these losses can be avoided – or
reduced – if appropriate policies and programmes are instituted to address the root causes
and set in place mitigation, preparedness and response mechanisms that are effectively
integrated into overall development planning.
These issues were called into public scrutiny and exhaustively debated during the
World Conference on Disaster Reduction (WCDR) in Kobe, Hyogo, Japan (January
2005). Governments, UN agencies and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) present in
Kobe insisted on the need to move from theory to concrete action in disaster risk
reduction. Strongly endorsing the Conference’s recommendations, the UN General
Assembly Resolution RES-59-212 (March 2005) on “International Cooperation on
Humanitarian Assistance in the Field of Natural Disasters, from Relief to Development”
called upon all States to implement the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), and

1. CRED. March 2007. The data source - EM-DAT, does not include victims of conflict, epidemics and insect infestations. For
more on disaster statistics and issues relating to disaster data: [Link]

1
]

requested the international community to continue assisting developing countries in their

S

efforts to adopt appropriate measures to mitigate the effects of natural disasters, and to
I
S

integrate disaster risk reduction (DRR) strategies into development planning. This
L Y

represents a paradigm shift from a heavy pre-occupation with reactive emergency

A
N

relief (which nonetheless remains important) to pro-active DRR before a hazard can turn
A

into a disaster.
S
M

The second of the three strategic goals of the HFA is “the development and
E
T

strengthening of institutions, mechanisms and capacities at all levels, in particular at the

S
Y

community level, that can systematically contribute to building resilience to hazards”.2 A

S

particular challenge in meeting this objective is to acquire a sound understanding of

T
N

existing institutional capacities, possible gaps and the comparative strengths of different
E

actors at different levels as a basis for mobilizing the participation of local organizations,
M
E

together with higher level institutions, in the design and implementation of locally
G
A

relevant DRR strategies.

N
A

In order to build institutions that are better prepared for, resilient to and able to cope
M

with hazards, it is useful to enrich the concept and practice of disaster risk reduction
K

(DRR) used in the HFA which focuses on pre-disaster stages (prevention, mitigation and
S
I

preparedness) by placing them within the broader concept and practice of disaster risk
R

management (DRM) which combines (through a management perspective) prevention,

R
E

mitigation and preparedness with response.3

T
S

Recent studies 4 and projects of FAO show that in spite of the considerable
A
S

documentation available on DRM, there are few practical tools to guide the analysis of
I
D

national, district and local institutions and systems for DRM, and to conceptualize and
[

provide demand-responsive capacity-building thereafter. The lack of tools to analyse the

institutional capacities of community-based organizations to participate effectively in the
design and implementation of local DRM strategies as well as in the continuous
management of hazard threats and/or disaster situations before, during and after their
occurrence is of particular concern. To address this gap, in 2003 FAO launched a
programme focusing on the role of local institutions in natural disaster risk management.
The programme combines and mutually reinforces normative and operational, field-based
activities to assist countries in their efforts to shift from reactive emergency relief
operations towards better planned, long-term disaster risk prevention and preparedness
strategies including, where appropriate, their integration into on-going agricultural
development work. The approach is premised on (i) a sound understanding of existing
institutional capacities, possible gaps and the comparative strengths of different actors

2. The other strategic goals are: (a) The more effective integration of disaster risk considerations into sustainable development
policies, planning and programming at all levels, with a special emphasis on disaster prevention, mitigation, preparedness and
vulnerability reduction; and (c) the systematic incorporation of risk reduction approaches into the design and implementation
of emergency preparedness, response and recovery programmes in the reconstruction of affected communities.
3. Definitions of DRR and DRM are given in Module 1.
4. FAO. 2004. The role of local institutions in reducing vulnerability to recurrent natural disasters and in sustainable livelihoods
development. Consolidated report on case studies and workshop findings and recommendations. Rural Institutions and
Participation Service (SDAR). Rome.

2
 INTRODUCTION

in DRM at different levels, and (ii) effective coordination between key stakeholders in
the design and implementation of demand-responsive projects and programmes that
address, in a sustainable way, the root causes of vulnerability of local stakeholders
to natural hazards. FAO’s key entry points build on the following closely
inter-connected questions:
(i) what institutional structures, mechanisms and processes are driving national DRM
programmes in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors?
(ii) what technical capacities, tools, methods and approaches are available within
existing institutional structures to operationalize DRM at national and local levels
(that is, assessing comparative strengths as to who could do what best)?
(iii) what existing good practices (of either indigenous and/or scientific origin) are
actually applied at local level to strengthen community resilience against climatic
and other natural hazards, and what are the potential technology gaps (including
access to technologies) at local level?

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE GUIDE

This Guide provides a set of tools to assess existing structures and capacities of national,
district and local institutions with responsibilities for DRM in order to improve the
effectiveness of DRM systems and the integration of DRM concerns into development
planning, with particular reference to disaster-prone areas and vulnerable sectors and
population groups. The strategic use of the Guide is expected to enhance understanding of
the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing existing DRM institutional
structures and their implications for on-going institutional change processes. It will also
highlight the complex institutional linkages among various actors and sectors at different
levels. Finally, it will help identify gaps within the existing DRM institutions and/or
systems including sectoral line agencies that are often responsible for implementing the
technical aspects of DRM (e.g. agriculture, water and health sectors).5
The assessment and analysis process outlined in the Guide is thus a first step towards
strengthening existing DRM systems. The major areas of application are:
 Strengthening institutional and technical capacities for DRM at national and/or
decentralized levels;
 Integrating key aspects of DRM in emergency rehabilitation programmes;
 Designing and promoting Community-Based Disaster Risk Management
(CBDRM);
 Operationalizing the paradigm shift from reactive emergency relief to pro-active
DRM; and
 Mainstreaming DRM into development and sectoral planning (e.g. agriculture).

The Guide focuses on risks associated with natural hazards of hydro-meteorological

(floods, tropical storms, droughts) and geological (earthquake, tsunami, volcanic activity)

5. In this context, DRM institutional systems are understood as the combination of institutional structures, practices and
processes (who does what and how?).

3
]

origin. Users interested in the management of other types of hazard risk are encouraged to
S

adapt the general concepts, tools and methods to their own situations.
I
S
L Y

TARGET/USER GROUP FOR THE GUIDE

A
N

The target/user group includes technical staff of: national and local government
A

departments/agencies, multi- and bi-lateral development agencies, NGOs/CSOs/CBOs,

S
M

and national and international DRM practitioners engaged in designing and/or evaluating
E
T

national and/or decentralized DRM systems in specific countries/regions. Investment

S

project formulation missions concerned to include institutional aspects in national risk

Y
S

profiling are also likely to find the Guide useful. While the Guide briefly covers definitions
T

and concepts of DRM, sustainable livelihoods and DRM institutional systems, users with
N
E

some prior knowledge of these concepts and practical experience in working with DRM
M
E

institutional systems in developing countries are likely to find the Guide more meaningful.
G
A
N
A

HOW TO USE THE GUIDE

M

The modular form of the Guide covers the sequential steps to undertake a comprehensive
K

institutional assessment of DRM systems across administrative levels and sectors. If,
S
I

however, the assessment has a predefined sector- or hazard-specific focus, DRM

R

practitioners as well as other interested development professionals including

R
E

NGO/CSO/CBO staff, disaster managers and policy makers, may prefer to select certain
T
S

modules only and/or adjust the tools and checklists to sector- or hazard-specific issues.
A
S
I
D
[

4
M O D U L E
1 DEFINITIONS
AND CONCEPTUAL
FRAMEWORK

The approaches and methods for DRM institutional assessments outlined in this Guidebuild
on and combine elements of two conceptual frameworks: (a) a revised Disaster Risk
Management framework, which conceptualizes Disaster Risk Management as a ?KJPEJQQI
closely linked to the development process, and (b) the Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) framework
which puts people, their livelihood assets and vulnerabilities, as well as the policy and
institutional context that impinges on these, at the centre of analysis.
The LQNLKOA of this module is to:
1. Provide basic definitions of terms used in this Guide;
2. Introduce the key elements of disaster risk management; and
3. Introduce the Disaster Risk Management (DRM) and sustainable
livelihoods (SL) framework and highlight the key linkages between
vulnerability, disasters, livelihoodsand institutions.

HAZARDS AND DISASTERS: SOME BASIC DEFINITIONS

Disasters of all kinds happen when hazards seriously affect communities and households
and destroy, temporarily or for many years, the livelihood security of their members. A
disaster results from the combination of hazard risk conditions, societal vulnerability, and
the limited capacities of households or communities to reduce the potential negative
impacts of the hazard. The recognition of vulnerability as a key element in the risk context
has also been accompanied by growing interest in understanding and enhancing the
positive capacities of people to cope with the impact of hazards. The existence or absence
of appropriate socio-economic and institutional systems to mitigate or respond rapidly to
hazards determine a society’s or a community’s susceptibility or resilience to the impacts
of hazards. In other words, the coping capacities ensured by these systems translate
directly into enhanced resilience.
This Guide adopts the ISDR terminologies and distinguishes disaster risk management
from disaster risk reduction in the following way:
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) refers to the conceptual framework of elements
considered with the possibilities to minimize vulnerabilities and disaster risks
throughout a society, to avoid (prevention) or to limit (mitigation and preparedness)
the adverse impacts of hazards, within the broad context of sustainable development.6

6. Sustainable development is defined as “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability
of future generations to meet their own needs” (Refer to the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Division for
Sustainable Development: available at [Link]/esa/sustdev).

5
]

 Disaster Risk Management (DRM) includes but goes beyond DRR by adding a
S

management perspective that combines prevention, mitigation and preparedness

I
S

with response.
L Y
A

The term Disaster Risk Management (DRM) is used in this Guide when referring to
N
A

legal, institutional and policy frameworks and administrative mechanisms and procedures
S

related to the management of both risk (ex ante) and disasters (ex post), therefore including
M

also the emergency management elements. The term Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) is
E
T

used to refer to those programmes and practices which are specifically targeted at avoiding
S
Y
S
T
N

BOX 1.1
E
M

BASIC DEFINITIONS
E

Hazard: A potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon or human activity

G
A

that may cause the loss of life or injury, property damage, social and economic
N

disruption or environmental degradation. Natural hazards can be classified

A
M

according to their geological (earthquake, tsunamis, volcanic activity), hydro-

K

meteorological (floods, tropical storms, drought) or biological (epidemic diseases)

S

origin. Hazards can be induced by human processes (climate change, fire, mining
I
R

of non-renewable resources, environmental degradation, and technological

R

hazards) Hazards can be single, sequential or combined in their origin and effects.
E
T
S

Disaster: A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society

A

causing widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses which

S
I

exceed the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own
D
[

resources. A disaster is a function of the risk process. It results from the

combination of hazards, conditions of vulnerability and insufficient capacity or
measures to reduce the potential negative consequences of risk.

Risk: The probability of harmful consequences, or expected losses (deaths, injuries,

property, livelihoods, economic activity disrupted or environment damaged)
resulting from interactions between natural or human-induced hazards and
vulnerable conditions.

Vulnerability: The conditions determined by physical, social, economic and

environmental factors or processes, which increase the susceptibility of a
community to the impact of hazards.

Resilience: The capacity of a system, community or society potentially exposed to

hazards to adapt, by resisting or changing in order to reach and maintain an
acceptable level of functioning and structure. This is determined by the degree to
which the social system is capable of organizing itself to increase its capacity for
learning from past disasters for better future protection and to improve risk
reduction measures.
Definitions from ISDR Terminology version 2007 ([Link]/terminology)

6
 DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

(prevention) or limiting (mitigation and preparedness) the adverse impacts of hazards,

within the broad context of sustainable development.

THE DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

The purpose of Disaster Risk Management is to reduce the underlying factors of risk and
to prepare for and initiate an immediate response should disaster hit. The Disaster Risk
Management Framework (DRMF), illustrated in Figure 1.1, considers conceptually,
DRM as a continuum, and thus as an ongoing process of interrelated actions, which are
initiated before, during or after disaster situations. The framework is aiming, in
particularly, at countries and regions, which face recurrent exposure to natural hazards.
DRM actions are aimed at strengthening the capacities and resilience of households
and communities to protect their lives and livelihoods, through measures to avoid
(prevention) or limit (mitigation) adverse effects of hazards and to provide timely and
reliable hazard forecasts. During emergency response, communities and relief agencies
focus on saving lives and property. In post-disaster situations, the focus is on recovery and
rehabilitation, including, however, the concept of “building back better”. This implies to
initiate DRR activities also during recovery and rehabilitation. The paradigm shift to
conceptualize DRM as continuum (and no more in phases) reflects the reality, that the
transition between pre- during and post disaster situations is fluid, in particularly in
countries, which are regularly exposed to hazards. The elements of the framework7-
further elaborated in Box 1.2 - include both structural (physical and technical) and
non-structural (diagnostic, policy and institutional) measures.8
FIGURE 1.1
Revised Disaster Risk Management Framework (DRMF)

7. Disaster Risk Management Cycle Diagram modified from TorqAid; [Link]

8. Structural measures refer to any physical construction to reduce or avoid possible impacts of hazards, which include
engineering measures and construction of hazard-resistant and protective structures and infrastructure. Non-structural
measures refer to policies, awareness, knowledge development, public commitment, and methods and operating practices,
including participatory mechanisms and the provision of information, which can reduce risk and related impacts. ISDR
Terminology, version 2007 ([Link]/terminology).

7
]
S

BOX 1.2
I
S

ELEMENTS OF DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT (DRM) FRAMEWORK

L Y

%JTBTUFS
SJTL
SFEVDUJPO
DPOUJOVVN

A
N

Ongoing development activities – Ongoing DRM aspects in development programmes

A

Risk assessment – Diagnostic process to identify the risks that a community faces
S

Prevention – Activities to avoid the adverse impact of hazards

M
E

Mitigation – Structural/non-structural measures undertaken to limit the adverse impact

T

Preparedness – Activities and measures taken in advance to ensure effective response

S
Y

Early warning – Provision of timely and effective information to avoid or reduce risk
S
T

*NNFEJBUF
EJTBTUFS
SFTQPOTF
N

Evacuation – temporary mass departure of people and property from threatened locations
E
M

Saving people and livelihoods – Protection of people and livelihoods during emergency
E
G

Immediate assistance – Provision of assistance during or immediately after disaster

A

Assessing damage and loss – Information about impact on assets and loss to production
N
A
M

1PTUEJTBTUFS
UP
DPOUJOVVN
Ongoing assistance – Continued assistance until a certain level of recovery
K
S

Recovery – Actions taken after a disaster with a view to restoring infrastructure and services
I
R

Reconstruction – Actions taken after a disaster to ensure resettlement/relocation

R

Economic & social recovery – Measures taken to normalise the economy and societal living
E

Ongoing development activities – Continued actions of development programmes

T
S

Risk assessment – Diagnostic process to identify new risks that communities may again face
A
S
I
D

The value of this framework is its ability to promote a holistic approach to DRM and
[

demonstrate the relationships between hazard risks/disasters and development. For

instance, the activities on mitigation and prevention comprise the development portion,
while relief and recovery comprise the humanitarian assistance portion, with
preparedness linking both types of efforts.
Furthermore, the framework provides the basis to address public commitment and
institutional systems, including organizational capacities, policy, legislation and
community action, as well as environmental management, land-use, urban planning,
protection of critical facilities, application of science and technology, partnership and
networking, and financial instruments. The framework also provides the space to
positively value and constructively include communities’ and households’ traditional
coping strategies, recognizing the importance of their ownership of the DRM process,
thus diminishing the (passive) dependency typically generated by relief offered
by outsiders.
The key elements of the DRM framework are reflected in the Hyogo Framework for
Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters
(HFA) which elaborates the five priorities for action adopted by the World Conference
on Disaster Reduction to achieve its strategic goals by 2015.9

9. For the details, see Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to
Disaster (available at [Link]/eng/hfa/[Link]).

8
 DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The HFA priorities for action are to:

1. Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority with a strong
institutional basis for implementation,
2. Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning,
3. Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience at
all levels,
4. Reduce the underlying risk factors and
5. Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels.

The HFA priorities for action are used in this Guide as the framework for organizing
the major findings of the DRM system analysis, identifying gaps and strengths and
developing the recommendations (see module 6). The expected outcome, strategic goals
and priorities for action of the HFA are presented in Figure 1.2.10

WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO ANALYZE DRM SYSTEMS?

The sound analysis of DRM systems will make a crucial contribution to assessing, and
strengthening the institutional capacities needed for achieving the HFA strategic goals and
the five priorities for action which are all closely linked to the broader context of
sustainable development. The strengths or weaknesses of existing DRM systems can
favour or threaten development progress. The close link between DRM and development
and the integral role of DRM within development are illustrated by the following
examples:
 Natural disasters set back development gains: the destruction of infrastructure and
erosion of livelihoods are direct outcomes of disasters. Disasters cause significant
pressures on national and household budgets diverting investments aiming to reduce
poverty and hunger and provide access to basic services.
 Unsustainable development increases disaster risk: unplanned urbanization,
environmental degradation and inappropriate land use are key factors contributing
to the increase in natural hazards and loss of lives and assets when hazards turn into
disasters. For example, the destruction of forests can increase the risk of devastating
mud slides during heavy rains and storms.
 Disaster losses may be considerably reduced by integrating DRM practices in
development programmes: development policies and programmes can make a vital
difference to reducing vulnerability and risk by: a) strengthening institutions and
mechanisms for DRM; b) assisting vulnerable groups to build assets, diversify
income-generating activities and strengthen community-based self-help institutions;
and c) adopting DRM practices and principles in sectoral development and post-
disaster rehabilitation plans.
 Special long-term interventions may be needed to increase the coping capacities of the
poorest and most vulnerable: while an entire community may be vulnerable to a
particular hazard (e.g. drought, flood, hurricane), the poorer population groups are
likely to be at greater risk of the hazard turning into a disaster. Their meager assets,
heavy dependence on their labour for survival, limited opportunity for

10. Taken from UN/ISDR. 2007. Words into Action: a guide for implementing the Hyogo Framework. Geneva.

9
 D I S A S T E R R I S K M A N A G E M E N T S Y S T E M S A N A L Y S I S
[ ]

10
FIGURE 1.2
Summary of the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the resilience of nations and communities to disasters (HFA)

(Source: UNISDR - [Link]

 DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

migration/evacuation and little or no access to insurance and credit contribute to

their vulnerability. Development policies and programmes that assist poor men,
women and youth to build livelihood assets, diversify income-generating activities,
improve human capacities (health, nutritional status, education, technical skills), and
strengthen community-based self-help organizations, can make a major contribution
to reducing vulnerability and risk, and improving the coping capacity of the poorest.
 Improved technologies can help prevent or mitigate damage caused by natural
hazards: various methods of water control, for example, can reduce the danger of
flood damage, or help humans, animals and plants survive drought. Improved crops
varieties that are drought- or flood-tolerant and/or disease- and pest-resistant can
make the difference between crop failure and an acceptable harvest. Improved or
zero tillage methods and soil conservation techniques can increase production in
unfavourable agro-ecological areas, halting environmental degradation and ensuring
greater sustainability. Development programmes need to get these DRM
technologies into the hands of farmers in vulnerable communities.
 Disasters may become opportunities for building back better development practices:
relief associated with enhancing development in the post-disaster, recovery and
rehabilitation periods, has a strong multiplier effect. It represents the difference
between giving a person a fish, and teaching her/him how to fish. This means that
s/he will be more independent and self-sufficient in the future, and thus, in terms of
the cyclical nature of the DRM framework, will be better able to strengthen her/his
resilience to future hazards.

DISASTER RISK, VULNERABILITY AND LIVELIHOODS

Disaster risk is usually described as a function of the hazard and the vulnerability context,
including the resilience of the societal system under threat. Communities and households
may be exposed to different forms of vulnerability 11 that include:
 Weather-related shocks and natural calamities: drought, earthquakes, hurricanes,
tidal waves, floods, heavy snow, early frost, extreme heat or cold waves
 Pest and disease epidemics: insect attacks, predators and diseases affecting crops,
animals and people
 Economic shocks: drastic changes in the national or local economy and its insertion
in the world economy, affecting prices, markets, employment and purchasing power
 Civil strife: war, armed conflict, failed states, displacement, destruction of lives and
property
 Seasonal stresses: hungry season food insecurity
 Environmental stresses: land degradation, soil erosion, bush fires, pollution
 Idiosyncratic shocks: illness or death in family, job loss or theft of personal property
 Structural vulnerability: lack of voice or power to make claims.

11 This list of different forms of vulnerability and the definitions given in Box 1.3 are taken from FAO. 2005. Rapid guide for
missions: Analysing local institutions and livelihoods, by A. Carloni., Rural Institutions and Participation Service. Rome, page
3, box 3. While this DRM Guide focuses on vulnerability to natural hazards, in line with FAO’s mandate, the assessment
processes described could be adapted to the other types of vulnerability mentioned in the bullet points. However, it should
be stressed that this DRM Guide is not designed to assess institutional structures underlying economic shocks, civil strife and
seasonal stresses.

11
]

Vulnerability to the various types of natural hazards is not homogeneous across

S

geographical areas or within communities.12 Some communities and some households

I
S

within given communities will be more vulnerable than others.

L Y
A

The Sustainable Livelihoods (SL) framework (Fig.1.3) provides an insightful analytical

N
A

approach to help identify which types of households are likely to be particularly

S

vulnerable. This is accomplished through the analysis of the inter-relationships between

M
E

shocks, vulnerabilities and households’ bundles of assets and coping strategies, within the
T

context of on-going policy, institutional and development processes. The SL framework

S
Y

puts households and their livelihoods at the centre of analysis, assuming that they are
S

continuously influenced by potential threats of shocks and/or disasters.

T
N

In the SL framework, vulnerabilities, of all kinds, and institutions form core parts of the
E
M

overall context within which development processes. The different bundles of assets of
E

different households, social groups and communities and the institutional contexts
G
A

ultimately determine the capacities of these households, social groups and communities to
N
A

cope with disasters before, during and after their occurrence.

M
K

BOX 1.3
S
I

DEFINITIONS
R

A household is a group of people who eat from a common pot, and share a common stake
R

in perpetuating and improving their socio-economic status from one generation to the next.
E
T

A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources)
S
A

and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope
S

with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain its capabilities and assets both now
I
D

and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base.
[

The SL framework adapted to DRM, represents a cause-effect model for

understanding the situations that poor households face, depending on the relationships
between household assets, the vulnerability context and institutional processes which
shape their lives. For instance, while some hazards may affect all members of a community

BOX 1.4
LIVELIHOODS AND RESILIENCE
A livelihood perspective suggests that households with a larger bundle of assets will be
more resilient to a hazard than a relatively asset-less household. It is not just the amount
of any one asset that counts – for example, in the event of a livestock disease epidemic, a
rich pastoralist household could also lose its entire herd just as a poor household.
The important point is that the “capitals” are to some extent fungible. Thus, the rich
pastoralist household would be more resilient to disaster if it could draw on financial
reserves to buy food and restock, or enable educated/skilled household members to migrate
temporarily for employment in another area. The poor pastoralist household may have no
assets other than its dead animals, and the disaster could result in a huge and
un-surmountable tragedy.

12. In line with FAO’s mandate, the assessment processes described could be adapted to the other types of vulnerability
mentioned in the bullet points. However, it should be stressed that this DRM Guide is not designed to assess institutional
structures underlying economic shocks, civil strife and seasonal stresses.

12
 DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

FIGURE 1.3
Sustainable Livelihoods framework adapted to DRM

Reduction exposure to disaster risk

Asset accumulation, enhanced coping strategies & livelihoods

Strengthened Positive
risk coping DRM &
Impacts Enabling
& livelihood livelihoods
Natural institutions,
Strategies outcome
laws and
Natural
Human
policies
Hazards Social
& shocks
Influence Disabling
insitutions, Weakened Negative
Physical Financial laws and risk coping & DRM and
HH-assets
policies livelihood livelihoods
strategies outcomes
Resilience

Asset depletion, undermined coping strategies and livelihoods

Increased exposure to disaster risk

Hazard Vulnerability Coping strategies

to a similar degree (e.g. a hurricane or heavy snow), richer households with greater assets
may have the means to adopt more effective coping strategies that can prevent a hazard
turning into a disaster. Furthermore, the framework’s focus on the institutional context
describes how effective community and higher level institutions can cushion the effects of
a disaster on poor households, mobilizing community or outside action for the benefit of
the most vulnerable.
While the linkages between the DRM and the SL frameworks are complex, they
highlight a number of key factors that determine the degree of vulnerability of different
socio-economic groups to disaster situations, as evidenced by the following examples:
 Natural resources provide key livelihood assets and security, especially in rural areas
 Disasters reduce household livelihood assets to different degrees depending on the asset
and type of disaster and lead to livelihood insecurity (and may result in death or injury)
 Policies and institutions influence household livelihood assets positively or negatively
 Policies and institutions can increase or decrease vulnerability to disaster
 Enabling institutions and diversified household assets widen livelihood options
 Asset ownership decreases vulnerability and increases ability to withstand disaster
impacts
 Livelihood outcomes depend on policies, institutions, processes and livelihood strategies
 Livelihood outcomes influence the ability to preserve and accumulate household assets
Policies and institutions are thus key factors that influence access by different
population groups to assets and DRM technology, livelihood options and coping
strategies as well as key services to reduce the loss of lives and property in the aftermath
of a disaster.

13
]
S

BOX 1.5
I
S

DEFINITION OF INSTITUTIONS
L Y

The use of the term “institutions” in this Guide refers to rules and social norms as well as to
A

the organizations that facilitate the coordination of human action.

N
A

The two components of “institutions” are the “rules of the game” (norms, values,
traditions and legislation which determine how people are supposed to act/behave), and
S
M

the “actors” (organizations) and their capacities that operate according to these rules. Both
E
T

dimensions need to be addressed in an institutional analysis. Institutions include formal

S

institutions and membership organizations:

Y
S

 Formal organizations - government institutes, organizations, bureaus, extension agencies

T

 Formal membership organizations - cooperatives and registered groups

N
E

 Informal organizations - exchange labour groups or rotating savings groups

M

 Political institutions - parliament, law and order or political parties

E
G

 Economic institutions - markets, private companies, banks, land rights or the tax system
A

 Social-cultural institutions - kinship, marriage, inheritance, religion or draught

N
A

oxen sharing
M
K
S

THE CRUCIAL ROLE OF INSTITUTIONS

I
R

Institutions play a key role in operationalizing the different phases of the DRM
R

framework and mediating the link between development, DRM and humanitarian actions.
E
T

Without institutions, there would be no action and DRM would remain a concept
S
A

on paper.
S

For example, during the mitigation/prevention phase, a variety of institutional actors

I
D

including the public sector technical ministries and agencies (e.g. agriculture, forestry,
[

fisheries, health, education, local government), international organizations, professional

bodies, NGOs and other civil society organizations, operate important programmes to
build up livelihood assets, improve household production and incomes, and enhance
resilience and coping strategies. In the relief stage, for instance, these various organizations
focus on “save and rescue” operations, and meeting basic needs such as shelter, food and
water. In the rehabilitation stage, their aim is to prevent further erosion of productive
assets or coping strategies and to help households re-establish their livelihoods.
Specialized DRM focal point ministries/agencies are expected to play a vital role in
coordinating these many activities and ensuring their relevance to medium- and long-term
development objectives and activities. In this context, sound analyses and understanding
of the role of formal and informal organizations in DRM, their institutional and technical
capacities (including strengths and weaknesses), best operational and technical practices,
and comparative strengths in coordinating and promoting vertical and horizontal linkages
are required. A particular challenge for governments and development agencies is to build
up strong local capacities, and mobilize public and private sector and civil society
organizations at different levels to participate actively, according to their comparative
advantages, in the design and implementation of locally relevant DRM strategies.

14
M O D U L E
2 PLANNING AN
INSTITUTIONAL
ASSESSMENT OF
DISASTER RISK
MANAGEMENT
SYSTEMS

This module gives an overview of the interrelated steps of planning, conducting and
analysing the results of an institutional assessment of DRM systems. Complementary
diagnostic studies at national, provincial/district, and local levels to obtain the basic
primary data for the assessment are also discussed. The module suggests who should do
what and where during the assessment process. The proposed sequence should be followed
in a flexible way and adapted to location- or study-specific circumstances, as needed.

HOW TO PLAN AND ORGANIZE THE INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT?

It is recommended that the institutional assessment be planned in three phases:
1. Getting started: the preparatory phase
(a) initial preparations and literature review
(b) inception meeting and field work planning meetings
2. Field work
(c) diagnostic study at the national level
(d) diagnostic study at the district level
(e) diagnostic study at the local level
(f) linkages and coordination among and between institutions
(g) sector-specific diagnosis
3. Data analysis, report writing and wrap-up meeting(s)
(h) data analysis and report writing
(i) wrap-up meetings with in-country stakeholders
(j) consolidating the final report

1. GETTING STARTED: THE PREPARATORY PHASE

(a) Initial preparations and literature review: Before starting the assessment it is essential
that the study team is familiar with the key concepts and terminology related to disaster
risk management, institutional development, and sustainable livelihoods (module 1). Other
steps to be taken before data collection in the field include:
 Desktop research on national hazard profiling
 Review of existing national (or relevant regional) risk and vulnerability maps

15
]

 Collection and review of background information on existing national DRM

S

institutional structures, mandates, policies, laws and disaster codes, DRM-related

I
S

projects, relevant agricultural sector strategies and programmes13

L Y

 Collection and review of studies on the socio-economic, cultural and traditional/

A
N

community-based institutional system(s) prevalent in the vulnerable areas, including

A

information on local disaster risk coping strategies 14

S
M

 Collection of information on national, regional and local focal point organizations

E
T

 Collection and review of relevant corporate and regional/country strategy documents

S
Y

and the main DRM-related programmes and projects of concerned international and
S

national development organizations and NGOs operating in the country

T
N

These activities may require three to five working days depending on the existing
E
M

knowledge of the assessment team and its working experience in DRM and institutional
E
G

analysis. The most suitable entry points to start the desk review are:
A
N

 The UNISDR website: [Link]/eng/country-inform/[Link],

A

which provides basic data on country profiles, maps on disaster and hazard profiles,
M

country reports on DRM (not always up to date) and official contact points
K
S

 The International Disaster Database managed by CRED ([Link])

I
R

 The websites of national DRM focal points and ministries

R
E
T

(b) Inception meeting and field work planning meetings: The first step is to organize an
S
A

inception meeting with the key government officials who are responsible for the overall
S
I

coordination of the country’s DRM systems as well as those officials with sectoral
D

responsibilities for DRM. In countries where coordination between the national authority
[

for DRM and sectoral ministries/line departments is still weak the presence of
representatives of the latter institutions at the inception meeting might help strengthen this
coordination. Otherwise there may be a need for separate meetings, particularly if the
assessment has a sector-specific focus. The purpose of the inception meeting is to:
 Obtain government support and commitment at the senior decision-making level
 Convey the government’s overall policy orientation/guidance for the assessment
 Agree on key issues to be addressed during the assessment process
 Agree on the disaster prone-areas to be covered by the assessment

The key participants in the inception meeting should include:

 The DRM focal points and/or officials with decision-making power related to DRM
policies, strategies and programmes (e.g. from the National Disaster Management
Office, Council and/or Bureau)
 Representatives of key INGOs and national NGOs/civil society organizations active
in DRM and, if appropriate, any relevant private sector organizations 15

13 An organigram of the national DRM institutional set-up is very useful for this purpose and may be requested from the
responsible national authority or recent setup may be downloaded from their respective websites.
14 These are often available from national and international NGOs with a strong field presence in areas chronically exposed to
natural hazards
15 The IFRC (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies), for example, is a valuable source of
information and an experienced player in emergency preparedness and response in many countries.

16
 PLANNING AN INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Representatives of the following organizations/agencies should be invited as

appropriate:
 Ministry of Local Government, particularly units representing disaster-prone districts
 Ministries/technical departments of vulnerable sectors (e.g. agriculture, livestock,
fisheries, forestry, infrastructure/public works, water resources, health, education)
 Ministries of Planning and Finance (if appropriate)
 National research institutions (if appropriate)
 INGOs, NGOs/CSOs and Private sector organizations (if appropriate)
 UN/bilateral development and relief organizations (if appropriate)

The inception meeting should, inter alia, explicitly:

 Discuss the key features of the national hazard context and identify the major
strengths and weaknesses of the overall DRM policies and institutional structure that
may require in-depth analysis during the assessment
 Agree on the level of counterpart support and the names of counterpart officials from
the coordinating and sectoral ministries including their participation, if possible, in the
field work, and allocate financial resources/logistical support (e.g. transport) as needed
Identify other key national/international governmental, inter-governmental or
NGO/CSO organizations involved in DRM at various levels
 Select the pilot disaster-prone provinces/districts/villages for the field studies
 Discuss other policy or resource-related topics, depending on the specific situation

Given the number of topics to cover, it would be helpful if the inception meeting could be
scheduled for half a day. Since it will not be possible to cover all these topics in sufficient
depth in one session, it will be necessary to schedule follow-up meetings with some of the
participants to flesh out the details, and to undertake the detailed planning for the field
work. As the inception meeting proceeds, it would be advisable for the chair/facilitator to
set up one or more smaller technical group meetings on specific topics, so as to be able to
move forward on the main agenda. It may be useful to invite representatives of
international development and relief organizations to these meetings.

Field work planning meetings: Following the broad lines of agreement reached at the
inception meeting, it will be essential for the assessment team to hold a series of planning
meetings with the local counterparts and interpreters for the field work in order to:
 identify and select other field staff/assistants if necessary
 undertake the detailed planning of the field work programme and itinerary
 make logistical arrangement for the field visits
 agree on the participatory tools and methods to be used
 agree on and fine-tune the key questions and related indicators for the institutional
assessment at the national, district and local levels

It would also be useful to start planning how to undertake the data analysis and envisaging
what logistical/technical support might be needed.

17
]

2. FIELD WORK
S

(c) Diagnostic study at the national level: It is recommended that the first diagnostic
I
S

study be undertaken at the national level, as this will provide an understanding of the
L Y

overall DRM framework, policy objectives, technologies, institutional structures and

A
N

existing DRM coordination mechanisms before moving to decentralized levels, where the
A

institutional structures and coordinating mechanisms may be less developed or effective.

S
M

A series of group-based brainstorming sessions and interviews on the key issues should be
E
T

planned and conducted at the national level with representatives of the most relevant
S
Y

organizations identified at the inception meeting. If the inception meeting concluded that
S

particular sectors were especially vulnerable, the ministries and departments responsible
T
N

for these sectors are likely to be the key entry points for the assessment. The detailed
E
M

description about who should be contacted and what should be looked for is described in
E
G

module 3.
A
N
A

(d) Diagnostic study at the district level: Key informant interviews/brainstorming

M

sessions/informal meetings should be conducted at provincial/state/district level to

K
S

explore key issues identified in the inception meeting and other issues that might only
I
R

emerge at this level. The purpose is to assess the formal and informal institutional systems
R

available at intermediary levels, their roles, strengths, weaknesses and comparative

E
T

advantages for implementing DRM programmes. The process should contribute

S
A

constructively to the selection of villages/communities to be visited during the local-level

S
I
D

diagnostic study. The detailed description about who should be contacted and what
[

should be looked for is presented in module 4.

(e) Diagnostic study at the local level: The fifth step during the assessment process
involves community-level field work in the selected villages identified through the
national- and intermediary-level consultations. This community-level study involves
two steps:
(i) community profiling
(ii) community-level institutional assessments.

The community profiling is an essential step before undertaking the local-level

institutional assessment as it provides a basic understanding of the study context, key
socio-economic parameters including production and livelihood systems, and the overall
vulnerability characteristics of the villages/communities and the specific hazards faced.
Field visits may be conducted in 3 to 5 villages depending on time availability. It is
important to decide in advance on the participatory methods and tools with which to start
the study and employ other participatory and rapid rural appraisal methods and tools
depending on the need and the information requirements. It is advisable not to ask the
volunteers participating in the study to devote more than half a day to these exercises and
discussions, and to plan group and individual sessions accordingly throughout the day.

18
 PLANNING AN INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

The more detailed description about who should be contacted and what should be looked
for is presented in module 5.

(f) Linkages and coordination among and between institutional levels: The issues of
coordination, communication and collaborative linkages between institutional levels
constitute a crucial topic to be addressed in the overall assessment. Key questions to
identify strengths and weaknesses of vertical and horizontal linkages and proposals for
improvement should be incorporated into the studies at each level.
A specific session to discuss these issues across levels and with a variety of key
stakeholders is essential. The best moment to call such a joint stakeholder meeting to
discuss vertical and horizontal coordination, communication flow and integration of
DRM issues between levels, is once the raw data from the individual levels have been
screened and some hypotheses drawn to serve as a basis for discussion. While the primary
roles and functions that DRM organizations have or should have at the national, district
and community levels will be covered in more depth in modules 3-5, an example of key
roles and functions of each level are given in Table 2.1 in order to provide the basis for
comparing the complementary contributions of each level.

(g) Sector-specific diagnosis: Many DRM functions overlap/coincide with the mandates of
sectoral ministries or agencies. For instance, Ministries of Agriculture and/or Water
Resources often address DRM-related challenges such as sustainable water and soils
management, and sustainable natural resource management. It is therefore crucial that the
assessment also takes account of these sectoral ministries’ DRM-related mandates and
programmes and the specific sectoral issues. These aspects need to be carefully analyzed to
understand how coordination mechanisms with the formal DRM system are set up and
function is equally important. By way of illustration, this Guide provides some insights into
the issues in the agricultural sector with a view to highlighting the disaster risks inherent in
agriculture, and the roles and contributions which agriculture should make to a fully
functioning DRM system. It is important to stress that a sector-specific diagnosis should be
integrated with the analyses of the national DRM system and institutional structures.

3. DATA ANALYSIS, REPORT WRITING AND WRAP-UP MEETING(S)

(h) Data analysis and report writing: A draft report dealing with the overall findings and
recommendations should be prepared for presentation during a wrap-up meeting with
representatives of the national government organizations, NGOs and donor
organizations. One possible approach to analysing, integrating and structuring the
findings from the field studies is described in Module 6. At least three to four days will
be needed for the analysis and report-writing.

(i) Wrap-up meetings: A single or separate wrap-up meetings should be organized with
the intermediary- and national-level organizations to share the team’s indicative findings

19
 D I S A S T E R R I S K M A N A G E M E N T S Y S T E M S A N A L Y S I S
[ ]

20
TA B L E 2 . 1
Primary roles and functions of various organizations16 at different levels by DRM elements (illustrative example)

Pre-disaster Disaster/emergency Post-disaster

Level Actors Prevention Mitigation Preparedness Response Recovery Development
International International Raise awareness on Ensure quality in donor Treat DRM as an Mobilize financial aid Fund Food For Work Mainstream DRM
agencies DRM funded infrastructure inclusive activity as grants and long- and rehabilitation activities in
projects term loans programmes development planning
National National Establish early-warning Promulgate Prepare national Declare a disaster Set up emergency and Prepare Codes of
government systems, infrastructure, construction code and disaster relief plan and state of recovery fund Conduct in relief and
legal and policy safety regulations emergency development
framework for DRM
Province/ Provincial Set local administration Promote multi-sectoral, Provide agro- Coordinate and Implement Food For Protect infrastructure;
district/ government rules;Provide incentives integrated approaches ecological data for mediate actions Work or other promote risk-reducing
municipality for promotion of risk- in DRM national disaster relief between national and rehabilitation technologies
reducing technology plan local levels programmes
Technical line Develop risk reducing- Test risk-reducing Prepare sectoral risk Assist in needs Promote sector Develop risk-reducing
agencies & technologies technologies and management and assessment and specific recovery technologies
research sector- specific forecast response plans distribution of sector processes
institutions systems specific inputs
Intermediary-level Provide training to local Undertake watershed/ Provide skills training Mediate between Set up rehab. projects Promote local
NGOs NGOs river basin planning to local NGOs national & local level to restore lost assets institutional development
Local government Develop local disaster Undertake watershed/ Prepare evacuation Provide shelter to Set up rehabilitation Prepare local risk maps
prevention plan river basin planning and contingency plans displaced households projects for public and disseminate
goods information
Community Local leaders/ Plan/implement Solicit external technical Carry out awareness- Act as advisory focal Promote improved Facilitate links and
representatives awareness-raising assistance on DRM raising campaigns points technologies coordination between
campaigns organizations
Local emergency Undertake hazard risk Undertake household Prepare evacuation Deploy search and Deploy food aid Advise how to reduce
committees diagnosis vulnerability assessments plans rescue teams committees/teams local vulnerability
Local-level NGOs Provide training to local Undertake household Conduct awareness Deploy trainers on Provide psychological Define local priorities to
CBOs vulnerability assessments raising campaigns hygiene & health counselling & support reduce vulnerability
Micro-financial Undertake hazard risk Promote mitigation Spread risk across Undertake client Arrange loan Integrate DRM in
Intermediaries diagnosis practices portfolio damage assessments rescheduling and other development activities
special activities
Community- Undertake hazard risk Maintain public Construct infra- Tap customary Mobilize communities Provide moral support
based diagnosis infrastructure structure to protect solidarity networks for joint action and advice
organizations property
16 The roles and functions described in this table are only indicative.
 PLANNING AN INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

and to discuss the implications of the findings and recommendations with national
stakeholders. A separate wrap-up meeting may also be held with national-level project
partners and donor agency representatives. The decision as to whether to hold joint or
separate meetings with different stakeholder and interest groups will need to be taken in
the light of local circumstances and sensitivities.

(j) Consolidating the final report: Final meetings before completing the assessment
report may be required with the national DRM focal points to clarify facts and
interpretations of the team’s findings and the feasibility of the proposed recommendations.
In conclusion, the various steps outlined above are summarized in Box 2.1 in order to
highlight the logical sequence of these steps and the coherence of the approach.

21
]

BOX 2.1 FLOW CHART FOR A DIAGNOSTIC STUDY OF

S
I

DRM INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEMS

S
L Y
A

Step 1: Initial preparations and literature review

N

 Collect and analyse information about the national hazard context and existing DRM systems
A

 Identify key DRM project design/implementation questions and national, district and local focal points
 Collect and review country strategy documents, mandates, policies, DRM project reports etc.
S
M
E
T

at various DRM phases, awareness-raising strategies

of early warning messages, technical exchange and collaboration, coordination and implementation
Assess communication mechanisms and channels, DRM planning at and between institutions, flow
Cross-cutting Step 1: Assessing horizontal and vertical linkages and coordination

specific aspects of DRM

sector-specific DRM systems, identify institutions that are best placed to act on and coordinate
ministries and departments) at various levels; Assess existing operational and technical practices in
Assess linkages of DRM systems with sectors (eg. agriculture/livestock/fishery/water resources/health
Cross-cutting Step 2: Sector-specific linkages and coordination
Step 2: Inception meeting and field work planning meetings
S

 Discuss the key features of the national hazard context

Y

 Agree on focal points at the national, district and local levels

S

 Assess relevance of on-going DRM programmes

 Select disaster-prone, vulnerable districts and villages for the field
T

work
N

 Identify key international, national organizations or NGOs/CSOs

E

involved in DRM at various levels

M

 Plan for village visits and sequence of activities

E

 Agree on counterpart and logistical support for the assessment

G
A
N
A

Step 3: National-level institutional profile

M

 Hold separate brain storming meetings with DRM focal points

 Interview representatives of relevant ministries and departments
K

 Discuss with representatives of international and national NGOs

S
I

 Interview representatives of national research and training institutes

R
R
E

Step 4: Provincial/regional/district institutional profile

T

 Hold meetings/brain storming sessions with administrative officials

S
A

 Interview selected district government/county/municipality officials

S

 Discuss with district NGOs / Civil society organizations

I

 Interview cooperative society and agri-business consortium officials

D

 Interview private sector staff (e.g. input suppliers, traders,

[

transporters)

Step 5: Community profile and local institutions

 Hold key informant interviews with local institutional representatives
 Hold group meetings with community representatives, religious
leaders, farmers’/producers’ groups and associations
 Conduct PRAs and focus group meetings in selected villages
 Undertake community profiling and local institutional assessments
 Assess opportunities to and constraints to proactive DRM

Step 6: Data analysis and draft reporting

 Integrate and structure the findings
 Assess disaster risk perception in different institutions and communities
 Assess the relevance of on-going DRM initiatives for local communities
 Evaluate existing DRM systems, structures, roles, and policies and their implications for different
institutional levels
 Undertake gap analysis (institutional and technical ) to identify areas that need further attention
 Assess the opportunities, limitations and constraints to establishing linkages within the agricultural sector
 Assess the comparative operational and technical strengths in the different phases of DRM
 Prepare a draft report dealing with the overall findings and preliminary recommendations

Step 7: Wrap-up meeting with in-country stakeholders and report finalization

 Discuss findings, recommendations and implications
 Identify and agree on future directions and the way forward
 Review the requirements for implementing the follow up
 Finalize the report and its recommendations

22
M O D U L E
3 ASSESSMENT OF
DISASTER RISK
MANAGEMENT
S Y S T E M S AT T H E
N AT I O N A L L E V E L
WHAT IS THE ROLE OF NATIONAL DRM INSTITUTIONS?
National DRM systems and institutions are the driving forces to plan, implement, monitor and
evaluate DRM processes and products within a country and to ensure coordination among all
stakeholders involved in any phase of DRM. In addition, they play a pivotal role in integrating
DRM efforts into development policies and programmes in order to reduce the vulnerability
of rural livelihoods to natural hazards. The national DRM institutions develop policy
frameworks, disaster management plans and codes of conduct in relief and development; they
guide and assist in developing early warning systems, and in declaring states/phases of
emergency during disasters; and they lead the communication with the general public and
sectoral agencies at different levels.
The existence (as a basic requirement) and coordinating role of DRM institutions are
essential, though not sufficient, to ensure that DRM systems are functional and operational.
Equally important are the formal links with sectoral line agencies which have complementary
sectoral responsibilities for DRM, and thus need to integrate DRM aspects into their regular
development work. Although there is a growing emphasis on disaster risk reduction in most
developing countries, the mandate of the national DRM institutions usually focuses on
coordination of and advocacy for prevention and mitigation strategies. The ultimate
implementation of prevention and mitigation actions and the direct responsibility for the
emergency response, however, remain the task of the sectoral line agencies. Therefore,
depending on the topical entry point of the assessment, relevant sectoral agencies should be
included in the analysis. Agriculture is used to illustrate sector-specific issues, questions,
demands and challenges in the context of DRM.

WHY DO INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENTS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL?

The purpose of a national-level institutional assessment is to provide insights, guidance and
check-lists to assist DRM practitioners to:
 better understand the strengths and weaknesses of existing DRM policies, legal
frameworks, codes of conduct, institutional structures and the coordination mechanisms
among them, including national DRM focal point ministries, other concerned sectoral
ministries, research organizations and/or NGOs and CSOs;
 assess the availability, appropriateness and effectiveness of key DRM instruments, the
degree to which these are actually used/promoted by the institutions at the national level,
and how DRM programmes and services are communicated and promoted at
decentralized levels;

23
]

 undertake more in-depth assessments of technical capacities in countries that are

S

undergoing processes of organizational restructuring to better support a shift from

I
S

reactive emergency relief operations towards long-term disaster risk prevention,

L Y

mitigation and preparedness strategies;

A
N

 contribute to the development of an effective and coherent national DRM policy in order
A

to guide the development of complementary district and local DRM strategies and plans;
S

and
M
E

 identify the tangible institutional attributes (policies, organizational mandates and

T
S

structures, and the supporting instruments such as finance, logistical support,

Y

technologies) and intangible attributes (attitudes, perceptions and underlying motivating

S

factors) that determine the success of DRM programmes.

T
N
E
M

HOW TO INITIATE THE ASSESSMENT?

E

The success of any institutional assessment depends on the “right” institutional entry point.
G
A

Thus, it is important at the outset to identify the national focal point which will host the
N

assessment process and the most relevant partner organizations. In most cases, the entry point
A
M

is likely to be the National Disaster Management Office (NDMO), if there is one, or the lead
K

institution with the mandate for DRM.17 The agency18 responsible for developing, interpreting
S

and disseminating early warning information must also be involved from the outset of the
I
R

assessment. In a subsequent step, selected sectoral ministries such as Ministries of Agriculture,

R

Water, Environment or Health as well as selected multi-sectoral ministries/agencies

E
T

such as Ministries for Rural or Local Development, Finance and Planning should
S
A

be involved.
S
I
D
[

B O X 3 . 1 H O W T O S E L E C T S U I TA B L E I N S T I T U T I O N A L
ENTRY POINTS
 What are the scope, purpose and specific objectives of the assessment?
 Does the assessment have a pre-determined hazard focus (e.g. hurricane preparedness
or drought mitigation)?
 Has the assessment a sectoral focus? If the focus is still to be determined, which
sector(s) are of key relevance with regard to the objectives of the assessment?
 Does the assessment have a pre-determined focus on certain phases of the DRM
framework? e.g. preparedness, mitigation, relief, reconstruction, rehabilitation,
mainstreaming etc.?
 Which institutions have the mandates and/or responsibility for implementing the DRM
system, including overall coordination and sectoral responsibilities?
 Which ministries/institutions and technical agencies are designated as national focal
points for aspects of DRM-related activities?

17. The title of the focal point institution responsible for coordinating all DRM issues at national level varies from country to
country. Some commonly used titles include: the National Disaster Management Office (NDMO), the National Disaster
Management Authority (NDMA), the National Disaster Management Centre (NDMC), the National Disaster Management
Bureau (NDMB) or the National Emergency Management Agency (NDMA). These offices/authorities are often hosted by
the Ministry of Interior (or Home Affairs) although in some countries other ministries perform this lead role such as the
Ministry of Civil Defence, the Ministry of Disaster Management or the Ministry of Relief and Rehabilitation. In other cases,
the focal point unit reports directly to the Head of Government.
18. In most countries National Meteorological Agencies (NMA) and National Hydro-Meteorological Services (NHMS) are the
focal points for all types of early warning systems and the dissemination of early warning information and alerts.

24
 ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL

Other Ministries such as Labour and Social Welfare, the Interior, Public Works, Relief and
Rehabilitation, or Defence often provide focal point functions for DRM and should thus also
be consulted on selected aspects of DRM, as appropriate. The institutional entry point will also
depend on the specific purpose of the analysis and its relevance to or focus on a particular
sector. For instance, if there are key pre-determined elements relating to emergency health
issues, the Ministry of Health would be the ideal entry point.
Building on the outcome of the inception meeting (see Module 2), it will be necessary to
deepen the technical discussions with national-level DRM institutions. Three basic
methodologies are recommended for the initial assessment at national level:
 Semi-structured interviews with selected key informants/key resource persons
 Multi-stakeholder brainstorming sessions
 In-depth topical group discussions.

B O X 3 . 2 S T E P S F O R C O N D U C T I N G D ATA C O L L E C T I O N AT
T H E N AT I O N A L L E V E L

The following steps for conducting the data collection at the national level are indicative,
and should be amended or sequenced differently according to specific situations.
1. Organize a joint brainstorming session with representatives of key national stakeholder
organizations, including government, research and training institutions, producer
organizations/cooperatives, and NGOs/CSOs to gain the “big picture” and assess the
critical issues, strengths and weaknesses, as well as areas of potentially conflicting
information or taboos. The card method is a useful tool in brainstorming sessions to
collect initial perceptions. Participants are asked to fill out cards (one idea per card)
which are then arranged in categories or groups of ideas on a board or table. A
variant on this method would be to display Table 3.1 with the first column of the
matrix filled out with the key questions, leaving the second and third columns blank.
The group would then fill in these two blank columns during a facilitated
brainstorming process which would attempt to address the issues in a structured way.
This exercise could, in this way, stimulate in-depth discussion and country-specific fine-
tuning of the matrix.
2. Analyse the outcome of the brainstorming session. Identify further information
needs/gaps and useful informants/stakeholders for individual follow-up meetings. The
number of interviews will depend on the time available for the assessment.
3. Conduct semi-structured interviews with selected DRM government officials and other
relevant stakeholders in order to gain a deeper understanding of some of the topics
raised in the brainstorming session.
4. Initiate as a final step and cross-checking mechanism a technical group discussion (2-3
hours) with selected invitees, to try and resolve conflicts over perceived facts and
widely divergent viewpoints and fill the remaining information gaps. Such a meeting
requires careful preparation; the key issues to be discussed should be presented in the
form of working hypotheses.
5. Throughout the process, cross-check or clarify facts, hypotheses and recommendations
found in key publications such as strategy documents, leaflets, pamphlets, annual
reports, financial statements or, if available, reports documenting experiences of and
lessons learned from previous disasters.

25
]

Usually group work produces more filtered, “socially controlled” and thus more neutral
S

and broadly accepted findings and recommendations. Individual interviews tend to provide
I
S

more in-depth insights and critical reflections, with the risk, however, of only reflecting one
L Y

viewpoint. Therefore triangulation in the use of the three methods is strongly recommended.
A
N

Before initiating any meetings, it is essential to prepare a detailed check-list of specific

A

questions applicable to the particular ministries/departments and line agencies. Given the great
S

variety of contexts and country-specific circumstances, this Guide does not prescribe a single
M
E

method or interview schedule but recommends the use/adaptation of the analytical categories,
T
S

generic questions and indicators presented in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 to identify situation-specific
Y
S

issues for discussion and design appropriate interview guidelines and questions. Thus, these
T

tables should not be used as ready-prepared questionnaires.

N
E

The assessment team needs to bear in mind that key informants may have very limited
M

time. The team should therefore invite such busy informants only to those events and/or
E
G

focus on those questions most relevant to them. This is particularly important the higher
A
N

the informants are positioned within the national DRM system. A careful interim analysis
A
M

of the national-level findings is also crucial since these “set the scene” for the subsequent
analysis of the DRM organizational structures, institutional mechanisms and processes at
K
S

the decentralized levels.

I
R
R

SPECIFIC ISSUES TO ADDRESS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL

E

Table 3.1 provides a set of key issues regarding different aspects of organizational structures
T
S

and a checklist of institutional mechanisms to help guide the assessment of the national DRM
A
S

structures and their functioning. These broad issues can be complemented by sector-specific
I
D

issues, depending on the focus of the assessment. Examples from the agricultural sector are
[

given in Box 3.3.

KEEPING TRACK OF THE INFORMATION AS

THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDS
Table 3.2 complements Table 3.1 by adding a more specific set of DRM-related technical topics
and issues. However, its main purpose is to serve as an aide-mémoire for monitoring outcomes
and findings from the brainstorming sessions, group discussions and interviews, and identifying
gaps for future exploration and analysis. The Table should be filled in at the end of the national
assessment. Similar tables should also be filled out after completing the district- and community-
level assessments (see modules 4 and 5). All three tables will serve as valuable inputs to the
overall analysis and formulation of recommendations (see module 6).

26
 ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL

TA B L E 3 . 1
Key generic issues on national institutional capacity for DRM
Key issues Related organizational Indicators and/or relevant
structures “where to look” institutional mechanisms or processes
What are the  Specialized DRM Ministry  Formal DRM legal framework, related acts or
existing DRM  Intergovernmental Committee on government decrees, disaster codes, safety
policies and legal Disaster Management standards, standing orders for DRM/DRR
frameworks?  National Disaster Management and/or emergency response
Advisory Board/Forum  DRM national policy frameworks, vision or
 National Disaster Management strategy documents
Office  Sectoral DRM mandates specified; sectoral
 National Platform for Disaster Risk DRM policy papers/strategies in place
Management  A national DRM implementation strategy (such
 National Disaster Management as DRM cycle management) and/or plan of
Council/Committee action exists
 Sectoral government agencies  Plan of action for emergency response and/or
plan of action for DRM are available/regularly
updated
 Formal guidelines with criteria and triggers to
declare emergency situations exist
 Formal guidelines exist to promote community
drills and simulation exercises

What organizational  National Disaster Management  DRR/DRM operations and training centres
structures are Committees and Operations in place
currently in place to Centres  Multidisciplinary strategic management task
implement DRM  National Disaster Management force for disaster management (also DRR) in
throughout the Office place at all /some levels
country?  National Early Warning (EW) Agency  Multidisciplinary task force for disaster
 Meteorological/ response mandated and in place
Hydrometeorological Service  DRM frameworks mainstreamed in the line
 Sectoral line agencies involved in ministry’s activities, task forces in place
DRM  National EW and emergency communication
 DRM training centres systems in place
 Research institutions  Rescue teams in place
 National civil protection  Roles and responsibilities of INGOs, NGOs and
 INGOs, NGOs and CSOs CSOs in DRM and emergency response defined

What are the  National Disaster Management  Size of budget and number of people formally
operational Office employed in DRM at the different levels
capacities of the  Sectoral line ministries  Frequency and timing (within DRM cycle) of
formal DRM system  Comprehensive Disaster meetings of the key National Disaster
(during different Management Programme (if any) Management bodies
phases of the DRM  National Meteorological and  National training programmes and training
process)? Hydrometeorological agencies centres for DRM (operational budgets and
 Disaster Management Coordination staffing levels) exist
Centres  Training materials available in local language(s)
 National level specialized DRM  EWS in place (and operational at which levels?)
groups or task force  Response operation centres properly equipped
 Government, INGO, NGO training for emergency
centres  Centres and/or task forces (TFs) have clearly
 UN agencies and national platforms written mandates and responsibilities
 INGOs, NGOs and CSOs  DRM task forces exist in sectoral line agencies
 TF managers at all levels know content of
DRM policies, standing orders and
responsibilities
 A formal communication centre exists and
provides information & exchange
 EW messages reach local DRM
teams/populations
 DRM info/materials available and disseminated
 Organization of test/mock exercises
 Trained people available for emergency needs
assessment

27
]

Key issues Related organizational Indicators and/or relevant

S

structures “where to look” institutional mechanisms or processes

I
S

What are the  Sectoral line ministries/agencies  Mandates and responsibilities for all types of
L Y

coordination  Interdisciplinary disaster key stakeholders /organizations for DRM

A

mechanisms within management advisory forum/groups defined

N

the national DRM at various levels  Integrated, cross-sectoral DRM plans at various
A

system?  Coordination committees/groups levels exist

 INGOs, NGOs and CSOs  Sectoral DRM action plans make reference to
S

What are the roles  ISDR national platform other sectors

M

and responsibilities  Institutionalized linkages/MoUs between

E

of sectoral line
T

government agencies, research and training

S

agencies, NGOs and institutions, and NGOs exist

Y

the private sector  Existence of DRM core groups/task forces in

S

for DRM? line agencies

T

 Regular meetings of DRM coordination

N

committees
E

 Work plan for DRM committee in place

M

 Job descriptions include DRM-related tasks

E
G

What are the  National DRM organization or  Country participates in/leads regional DRM
A
N

mechanisms for decision-making body programmes

A

regional and  National platform  Study tours and exchanges with other
M

international co-  UN System Coordinator countries

operation on DRM  ISDR platform  On-going international programmes on DRM
K

and/or emergency  IFRC  Investment projects with risk reduction

S

response? components
I
R

 Established linkages with the UN ISDR system

 Flash appeals submitted to donor countries
R

 Regional agreements for DRM standardization,

E
T

planning and implementation (“fire”

S

management)
A

 National emergency coordination committee/

S

unit/centre coordinates national/ international

I
D

emergency assistance
[

What resources are  National budget allocation  DRM institutions receive finance for regular
allocated for DRM? mechanism operation and maintenance
 Administrative and finance section  DRM institutions implement donor-funded
responsible for DRM projects
 DRM thematic projects and budgets  Budgets are committed to key activities under
 Sector-specific projects and budgets the DRM national action plan
 Humanitarian assistance projects of  Development programmes with DRM
donor agencies, INGOs, NGOs components exist
 Size of budget and number of people formally
employed in DRM at the different levels

Is there a link  Integrated DRM/emergency  Institutional arrangements have been

between DRM and coordination groups transformed from emergency response to also
development  Sectoral development line agencies include DRM
planning?  NGOs  Development programmes with a DRM
 Country or trust fund component/element exist
programmes/projects

28
 ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL

B O X 3 . 3 E X A M P L E S O F A G R I C U LT U R A L S E C T O R - S P E C I F I C
I S S U E S AT T H E N AT I O N A L L E V E L
Crop agriculture
 History of disaster impacts, estimates of crop damage and loss
 DRM activities carried out by the Ministry and/or Department of Agriculture or
relevant agencies, with adequate financial resources
 Government policy on food security, crop production and diversification, crop
protection, horticultural development, and DRM in the agricultural sector.
 Formal institutions/NGOs/civil society at the national level involved in specific
activities in promoting DRM in the agricultural sector
 Public sector DRM institutions/NGOs involved in interpreting EWS messages and
communicating these to the farmers
 Details of DRM planning, contingency crop planning, relief and rehabilitation plans,
the main actors, gaps, constraints and integration of mitigation/preparedness
components into DRM planning in the agricultural sector
 Contingency crop plans – drought, flood, saline-tolerant crop varieties, famine
reserve crops
 Rain water harvesting systems – watershed management, farm ponds, canal
re-excavation
 Crop diversification, alternate enterprises, mixed, integrated farming systems etc.
 Soil reclamation, drainage systems, erosion control structures etc.
 Weather/climate forecast, responsive alternate management strategies
 Communication of short-, medium- and long-lead forecasts to farmers
 Innovative post-harvest operations, seed banks
 Integrated pest and disease management practices
 Tank rehabilitation, flood proofing, embankments etc.
 Integration of livelihood development strategies into DRM planning for agriculture
 Challenges or constraints in implementing DRM programmes and projects in the
agricultural sector
 Technical capacity of specialized core groups, DRM focal points in the Ministry and/or
Department of Agriculture and/or extension unit (training attended, experience etc.)
Livestock
 Disasters affecting livestock and estimates of damage and loss
 DRM activities carried out by livestock institutions
 Government policy for the animal husbandry sector and its relevance to DRM
 Formal institutions/NGOs at the national level involved in DRM
 Status of integration of disaster mitigation/preparedness concerns into DRM
planning in the livestock sector
 Contingency plan – fodder provision, fodder banks, livestock shelter, vaccination
centres, community poultry hatching centres
 Challenges or constraints in implementing DRM programmes and projects in the
livestock sector
 Strengths and weaknesses in institutional and technical capacity and the need for
effective DRM programme implementation

INTERIM STUDY “PRODUCTS” AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL

Interim “products” to be obtained from the national-level study as inputs for the overall
assessment include:
 National hazard profile
 Multi-hazard vulnerability map
 Summary chart of the different organizations involved in DRM at the national level,
indicating briefly their different mandates, roles and responsibilities
 Strengths and weaknesses diagram (SWOT chart) of the national-level DRM system
 Filled-in monitoring sheet

29
 D I S A S T E R R I S K M A N A G E M E N T S Y S T E M S A N A L Y S I S
[ ]

30
TA B L E 3 . 2
Monitoring sheet of key processes in DRM systems at the national level

Key processes and Indicators19 Status20 Name of institutions Measures & capacities for
instruments involved with implementation21
(related to the DRM Availability Lead Support Staff Techn. financial Remarks
framework) responsibility role skills resources
1. Disaster risk  Guidelines for undertaking a disaster risk assessment available
assessment  Disaster risk assessment methods and approaches
agreed/standardized
 Assessment of past experiences/lessons learned in applying risk
assessment tools available
 Responsibilities and roles of the organizations responsible for risk
assessment defined and operational
 National-level hazard-specific and multi-hazard risk and
vulnerability maps drawn up
 Measures in place to check accuracy of disaster risk assessments

 Procedures for consolidation, classification and analysis of disaster

risk information established, with criteria for levels of alert
 National disaster risk profiles across sectors
consolidated/disseminated

2. Disaster risk  Comprehensive national (i.e. country-wide) DRM plan addressing

specific and multiple vulnerabilities and risks
management
 Major national/sub-national disaster risks and risk areas defined
planning and
monitoring  Representatives of the most at-risk groups consulted in the
planning process
 Vulnerability maps exist addressing single and multiple
vulnerabilities
 Indicators defined for monitoring the implementation of the DRM
plan and assessing the effectiveness of the different components
 Existence of DRR and/or DRM projects and programmes

 Mechanisms and responsibilities for planning,, monitoring and

updating early warning and disaster risk information defined
 Risk prevention and mitigation aspects (building back better)
included in recovery and rehabilitation projects/plans

3. Disaster mitigation  Assessments of past experiences of disaster mitigation actions

disseminated
and prevention
 Mandates and responsibilities of sectoral agencies for prevention
specified in existing development and/or DRM plans
19 Indicators help to identify the institutions with specialized institutional and technical capacity in each element of the DRM framework and to identify future opportunities for intervention
20 Proposed assessment categories: NE - Non existent; ENO: existent but non operational; O: operational
21 Proposed assessment categories: G: Good; S: Satisfactory; I: Inadequate
 Key processes and Indicators19 Status20 Name of institutions Measures & capacities for
instruments involved with implementation21
(related to the DRM Availability Lead Support Staff Techn. financial Remarks
framework) responsibility role skills resources
 Funding mechanisms and resources available for prevention /
mitigation
 Prevention and mitigation technologies and standards exist at
national level and applied/reinforced through sectoral line agencies
 Knowledge within lead agencies about available prevention and
mitigation technologies or where to access them

4. Mainstreaming  DRM elements incorporated into on-going development

DRM into programmes and sectoral action plans
development  Prioritization of DRM activities within development programmes,
planning and allocation of adequate funding and human resources
 DRM incorporated into sectoral development plans (e.g.
agriculture, including dissemination of technologies to reduce
impact of natural hazards such as water control, soil management,
environmentally sustainable cultivation practices)
 Mechanisms for scaling up good practices and lessons learned
 Mechanisms for risk assessments, incorporation of early warning
5. Awareness- raising
information/alerts and communication of the risk to districts
and dissemination
of risk information  Mechanisms to communicate the above risk information to
relevant ministries/departments
 Mechanisms to disseminate risk information rapidly to the public
through mass media, local alert systems, with support from
specialized agencies and information networks

6. National early  Country’s national early warning focal point/institutions

warning systems established, with adequate budgets and human resources
 Mechanism to link with international Early Warning Systems exist
 Mechanism to link with sectoral ministries, departments and
emergency centres,
 Mechanism to ensure rapid dissemination of early warning
information throughout the country at district and local levels exist

7. Preparedness  Sector-specific impact warning systems, indicators and alert

criteria, and risk/disaster management plans prepared
 Mechanisms to translate early warning information into local
languages exist
ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL

31
 D I S A S T E R R I S K M A N A G E M E N T S Y S T E M S A N A L Y S I S
[ ]

32
Key processes and Indicators19 Status20 Name of institutions Measures & capacities for
instruments involved with implementation21
(related to the DRM Availability Lead Support Staff Techn. financial Remarks
framework) responsibility role skills resources
 Directory available of the names, contact addresses and phone
numbers, roles and responsibilities of all key national players
 Resources and relief assistance/technical support that can be
quickly mobilized (national, international, regional, NGO agencies)
identified and listed with contact points and contact details
 Rescue organizations established and equipped with infrastructure
and equipment to save lives and property
 Shelters, high grounds and facilities to protect lives and livelihood
assets available (in collaboration with district/local level officials)
 Functionality of warehouses and emergency food storage facilities
checked
 Basic stocks of relief materials (drinking water, foods tents and
blankets) permanently available in hazard-prone districts (centrally
monitored & equipped)
 Logistical arrangements planned – transport, fuel, water etc
 Emergency health teams defined and ready
 Relief provision standards exist for most vulnerable people
(children, elderly, disabled, women, the very poor)
 Criteria for different levels of alert and for evacuation established
 Procedures/criteria to identify evacuation routes (in collaboration
with district/local- level officials) established
 Practice evacuation exercises carried out and procedures agreed
 Emergency communication systems at different levels to ensure
rapid evacuation (pre- and post-disaster) and/or relief, as needed,
in place
 Hazard monitoring system installed/implemented to ensure rapid
response (evacuation, relief, as needed)
8. Providing immediate  Reliable alarm system in place to alert concerned officials to initiate
response and/or emergency response and further evacuation as needed
relief assistance  Relevant service providers and recovery operations mandated and
linked through EW/information network
 Coordination committee/senior official of the national coordinating
authority and relevant sectoral ministries nominated to form
emergency committee when needed
 High level of government assisted in past emergency situations to
solve problems, ensure adequate funding and logistical support
 Key processes and Indicators19 Status20 Name of institutions Measures & capacities for
instruments involved with implementation21
(related to the DRM Availability Lead Support Staff Techn. financial Remarks
framework) responsibility role skills resources
 Declaration of emergency status exists as basis for calling for
international/regional relief and technical assistance (UN,
governments, INGOs)
 Monitoring of relief/assistance operations to ensure the aid reaches
those in need and prevent diversion of aid to others
9. Assessing damage  Instruments, standards and processes for impact/damage/loss
and loss assessment, and needs for food, shelter, water, medicines,
hospitalization etc. established
 Sectoral and cross-sectoral teams designated and trained
 Standardized reporting formats and analysis methods in place

10. Reconstruction  Mechanisms exist and responsibilities defined for the design of
integrated response and recovery measures/plans
of settlements,
 Coordination mechanisms for national/international response and
infrastructure, recovery efforts established/operational
and services  Arrangements for repair/reconstruction of infrastructure (e.g. roads,
bridges wells, schools and other key buildings) and services (e.g. health,
education, agricultural extension and provision of inputs) in place
 Guidelines exist for “building back better”
 Criteria for selection of people to be resettled/analysis of their skills
and opportunities for gainful employment established
 Assessments and information on transient livelihood options for
those displaced temporarily or on a long-term basis available
 National emergency and reconstruction fund exists
 Standards/criteria to decide length of emergency assistance exist
 Mechanism to prepare plans for rehabilitation and economic
recovery exist

11. Rehabilitation,  National funding mechanisms promoting rehabilitation exist

economic and  Evidence of provision of key production inputs needed for livelihood
recovery e.g. fishing boats and equipment, farming implements,
social recovery
seeds and fertilizers
 Role of micro-financing institutions in rehabilitation defined
 Plans to re-build area-specific livelihoods in rehabilitation
programmes exist
 Guidelines for local institutions and informal groups to help affected
communities exist
 DRM elements incorporated into livelihood restoration/development
programmes to build resilience to future hazards
ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL

33
M O D U L E
4 ASSESSMENT OF
DISASTER RISK
MANAGEMENT
S Y S T E M S AT T H E
DISTRICT LEVEL

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF DISTRICT-LEVEL DRM INSTITUTIONS?

District-level 22 institutions play a major role in coordinating and mediating actions between
the national and local levels. In addition to their responsibilities for local administration, these
institutions generally implement disaster mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery and
livelihood development programmes and projects, some of which may be planned and
supervised by national institutions. In particular, district-level DRM institutions are often
responsible for preparing risk maps and vulnerability profiles, developing and implementing
contingency plans, supplying essential inputs, proposing and supporting livelihood
diversification, disseminating early warning messages, preparing immediate needs assessments
and providing relief.

WHY DO INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENTS AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL?

The purpose of an institutional assessment at the district level is to:
 identify the strengths and weaknesses of the intermediary-level institutions within the
country’s DRM system, with particular attention to the effective design and
implementation of locally relevant DRM practices;
 identify specific gaps in institutional structures, roles and capacities in order to design
measures to strengthen the existing DRM system at the provincial/district/municipality
level, improve linkages with vulnerable sectors (e.g. agriculture, water resources and
health), and reinforce vertical and horizontal coordination among different actors;
 analyse the different (and sometimes conflicting) interests and perceptions regarding
DRM of all players, including government officials, politicians, elected council
representatives, traditional leaders, private sector entrepreneurs, NGOs and civil society
organizations; and
 identify the tangible institutional attributes (policies, organizational mandates and
structures), supporting instruments (such as finance, logistical support and technologies)
and intangible attributes (attitudes, perceptions and underlying motivating factors) that
determine the success of DRM programmes at district level.

22 The term “district” is used to refer to the operationally most important (from a local perspective) intermediary institutional
layer between the national and local levels. Most often this is the “district” level. However, depending on the specific country
context, it may also be the “province”, “state”, or “municipality”. In countries with separate state or provincial governments,
methods discussed in module 3 for the national-level assessment may also be applicable.

35
]

HOW TO INITIATE THE ASSESSMENT?

S

The assessment process at the district level should start by deciding on whom to contact. The
I
S

indicative contacts for collecting relevant information are:

L Y

 Representatives of the district focal point agency for DRM and members of the district
A
N

and sub-district DRM committees;

A

 District-level sectoral department heads and/or their representatives (e.g. agriculture,

S

water resources, health, education and public works departments);

M
E

 Representatives of district-level extension, research and training institutions;

T
S

 Professional staff in relevant district-level development projects;

Y

 Representatives of NGOs and CSOs;

S

 District-level representatives of producer organizations, cooperatives and financial

T
N

institutions; and
E
M

 Private sector produce traders, input suppliers, media and transporters.

E
G
A

The following steps may be useful in assessing provincial-, district- or municipal-level DRM
N

institutions (Box 4.1). Since there is usually a wide range of stakeholders involved in DRM at
A
M
K
S

B O X 4 . 1 S T E P S F O R C O N D U C T I N G D ATA C O L L E C T I O N AT
I
R

THE DISTRICT LEVEL

R

Announce your mission in time including a request for a stakeholder meeting early on.
E
T

Upon arrival make an initial courtesy visit to the head of the local DRM focal point agency
S

to provide a short briefing and invite the agency’s assistance.

A
S

 Hold a group meeting with key stakeholders to (i) obtain their support and commitment;
I
D

(ii) identify the key elements of the district-level DRM strategy; and (iii) agree on the
[

main issues to be addressed at the district level.

 Building on the outcome of this meeting, prepare check lists of questions and tools
applicable to the different district-level institutions, using as resource materials the
questions/issues given in Tables 4.1 and 4.2. Sector-specific questions should also be
prepared as appropriate (see, for example, the questions related to the agricultural
sector given in Box 4.2). Conduct a series of interviews/group meetings with selected
stakeholders using these questions and tools.
 If major issues of concern or controversy emerge during this process, the assessment team
will need to call and moderate a technical meeting with the interested and concerned
parties in order to seek clarifications of facts and the rationales of the various
standpoints.
 Before holding a final stakeholder wrap-up meeting (i) prepare a summary chart of the
different organizations involved in DRM at the district level, indicating briefly their
different mandates, roles and responsibilities and the nature of the coordinating
mechanism; and (ii) a visual presentation that summarizes the study’s findings regarding
the strengths and weaknesses of the existing institutional systems, including
coordinating mechanisms, available resources, staffing levels and expertise, and
opportunities for improvement.

Present your draft findings for review and comments at a wrap-up meeting with key
stakeholders to gain verification or correction of your interim findings and conclusions.

36
 ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL

the district level, a series of well prepared semi-structured interviews with either groups or
representatives of different stakeholder agencies is an effective way of capturing in depth and
possibly diverse opinions and insights. An important aim of the analysis is to compare the
perspectives of the different stakeholders. The organizational steps proposed in Box 4.1 are
only indicative and may need to be adapted to different situations.

SPECIFIC ISSUES TO ADDRESS AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL

(a) Understanding the district hazard and vulnerability profile. This would include a clear
understanding of the types of hazards and disasters undermining development and livelihood
security, and the frequency and seasonality of occurrence. District risk and vulnerability maps
as well as Agro-Ecological Zone (AEZ) maps or seasonal hazard calendars, if available, are ideal
tools for this purpose. It is also crucial to understand the predominant socio-economic
patterns, natural resource endowments, livelihood activities and the location and risk profiles
of the most vulnerable groups (or sectors), and to link this information to the hazard exposure
maps. The criteria used for defining hazard risks and vulnerability at district level will need to
take into account the socio-economic and institutional factors increasing vulnerability to
hazards. Information about the impacts of past disasters, responses taken and lessons learned is
equally important.

(b) Analysing the institutional set-up, its effectiveness and the horizontal/vertical
coordination mechanisms for DRM. The team members need to understand precisely who
the key actors are for DRM at the district level. They also need to know which technologies,
tools and methods, rules and regulations (decrees, standards, laws and standing orders) and
human resources are available for risk and vulnerability analysis, risk prevention and impact
mitigation, early warning, contingency planning, risk management planning and emergency
response. It is imperative to understand if and how the responsibilities for all these tasks are
shared and coordinated both horizontally and vertically. An assessment of the district-level
financial mechanisms and budget levels for DRM is also crucial.

(c) Assessing the mechanisms for reaching vulnerable communities and households and
the linkages to the community and the national levels. As the district serves as an
intermediary between the national and community levels, it is important to assess the
effectiveness and appropriateness of its roles and responsibilities in this regard. Key issues to
check include, for instance, the existence of specific modalities, guidelines, norms and policies
at the district level to translate national DRM policies into district-specific plans or strategies.
The quality of plans and strategies developed at the district level could be a good indicator of
district-level technical capacities. The district-level knowledge of the vulnerability
characteristics of the different socio-economic categories of the population in the district, and
existing plans or mechanisms to assist them, are also valid indicators of a responsible district-
level role in DRM. The existence of district policies to promote Community-based Disaster
Risk Management (CBDRM) could also serve as an indicator of the effectiveness of the district
in fulfilling its intermediary role. Finally, it is crucial to understand which functions the district-
level agencies and organizations actually fulfil and what resources and equipment are available

37
 for them in emergency situations either to act as intermediaries between the national- and
]

local-level DRM mechanisms or even to play the coordinating role.

S
I
S
L Y

KEEPING TRACK OF THE INFORMATION AS

A
N

THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDS

A

Table 4.2, which serves as an aide-mémoire for monitoring outcomes and findings from the
S
M

brainstorming sessions, group discussions and interviews, and identifying gaps for future
E
T

exploration and analysis, should be filled in at the end of the district-level assessment. Together
S
Y

with the similar tables filled out after completing the national- and community-level
S

assessments (see modules 3 and 5), the Table will provide valuable inputs to the overall analysis
T
N

and formulation of recommendations (see module 6).

E
M
E
G
A
N
A
M
K
S
I
R
R
E
T
S
A
S
I
D
[

38
 TA B L E 4 . 1
Selected key questions for district officials, NGOs, CSOs/CBOs, local leaders and the private sector

District officials NGOs and civil society organizations Local leaders Private sector representatives
(CSO) (elected and traditional)

 What DRM activities are carried out by which type of  What DRM activities are carried out by  What types of local  Does the private sector participate
district level institutions (e.g. prevention, mitigation, NGOs and CSOs? e.g. prevention, leadership exist at district in the District DRM Committee?
preparedness, response, recovery and reconstruction)? mitigation, preparedness, response, level and what are their  What is the role of private sector
 Are there sectoral or cross-sectoral DRM and/or recovery and reconstruction, CBDRM? roles in DRM? organizations in DRM? examples:
contingency plans available?  What is the role of NGOs/CSOs in DRM  What are the DRM prevention/mitigation (e.g, diversify
 What challenges does your organization face in decision-making/planning bodies? Do priorities at district level? livelihoods through markets, input
implementing DRM programmes? What obstacles they participate in district DRM  Which urban/rural supply and services,
undermine effective functions? committees or have active roles in population groups are telephones/communications);
 What are the DRM priorities at the district level? implementing government-led DRM the most vulnerable? preparedness ( gathering
 Which institutions (if any) provide DRM training at plans? Why? information for EW systems,
district level? How relevant and effective is the training,  What are the DRM priorities at the district  Do local leaders have stocking food and production inputs
and how could it be improved? level from NGO and CSO perspectives? any comparative etc); response, and the
 What aspects of institutional strengthening do you see  Which rural/urban groups are the most advantages in recovery/rehabilitation phases
as most important for DRM at the district level? vulnerable; how can they be best implementing DRM (stocking/quick procurement and
 How does the district mobilize resources for DRM? reached? programmes compared delivery of food, seeds, agricultural
e.g. national or district sources, local taxes, donors/relief  Are there any DRM coordination with Government and fishing equipment, veterinary
agencies, others? What sort of problems (if any) are mechanisms operating among the NGOs organizations, NGOs and products); reconstruction (roads,
encountered in obtaining adequate funding, and how and CSOs involved in DRM? How CSOs? bridges, shelter, market facilities,
could these be solved/reduced? effective are these mechanisms as well as  What is your opinion transport systems, stores, schools,
 What technical, financial and logistical support does the their relations with the public sector DRM about the performance health centres etc)?
district receive from the national level? How effective is organizations, and how could they be of government and NGO  Does the government provide
vertical and horizontal coordination? improved? and CSO organizations contracts to the private sector for
 What are the sources of early warning (EW) messages  What is your opinion about the in implementing DRM reconstruction? What are the pros
at the district level? Are they generated at the national performance of Govt systems in programmes? and cons?
or district level? How can the EW system be improved? implementing DRM?  How do locally elected  Are there problems in acquiring the
Who is responsible for interpreting and communicating  What are the sources of NGO and CSO bodies coordinate/ materials for reconstruction? How
EW messages, or giving the alert in case of an funding for DRM activities? How interact with DRM can they be solved?
emergency? adequate are these? How could they be activities undertaken by  Does the private sector provide
 How can the most vulnerable be reached? Are increased? government agencies, financial instruments for risk
participatory approaches applied by your organization  In which respects and how could the NGOs and CSOs? management or lend money/goods
in poverty alleviation and/or DRM? services of NGOs and CSOs for DRM be and at what interest rates?
further strengthened?
ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL

39
]
S

B O X . 4 . 2 L I S T O F I S S U E S I N T H E A G R I C U LT U R A L
I
S

S E C T O R AT T H E D I S T R I C T L E V E L
L Y

Vulnerability context
A

 Agro-ecological/geographical areas at risk, history of impacts, damage and loss

N

estimates;
A

 Livelihood groups at risk (farmers, livestock herders, fisherfolk, rural poor, indigenous
S

peoples, women, children, elderly, disabled)

M

 Sub-sectors most at risk (e.g. crop agriculture, fishing, pastoralism)

E
T

 Risk maps pertaining to agriculture and allied sector

S
Y
S

DRM plans, activities and technical capacity in agriculture

 DRM activities carried out in agriculture and allied sectors
T

 Formal agricultural extension, livestock and fishery departments’ involvement in

N
E

DRM activities
M

 Preparation of early warning messages, forecast bulletins and impact outlooks for
E

farmers, livestock herders and fisherfolk

G
A

 Existence of contingency plans in agriculture and allied sector agencies

N

 Examples of integration of DRM activities in district agriculture and allied sector plans
A

 Livelihood development strategies in agriculture and allied sectors

M

 Role of vulnerable groups in preparing agricultural sector DRM plan

K

 Challenges and constraints faced by agricultural sector agencies in implementing

S

DRM programmes
I
R

 Types of institutional strengthening within agricultural sector agencies considered

most important for effective overall DRM programme implementation
R
E

 Involvement in DRM of agri-business consortiums, seed producers’ associations,

T

growers’ associations, water users’ associations, irrigators’ groups

S
A

 Existence of formal infrastructural facilities related to DRM in agriculture

S

coordinated/supported from the district level such as

I
D

 Crop agriculture: warehouse, seed storage, community threshing floor, community

[

nursery, village water storage structures, percolation ponds, check dams,

community wells, etc.
 Livestock: Fodder storage facilities, livestock shelters, community cattle herding,
community poultry hatching centres, community grazing land and cattle/poultry
feed storage facilities

Monitoring & Evaluation system

 Existence of and gaps in monitoring of impacts of disasters on different population
groups, and on the rural economy
 Regular assessment of disaster damage and loss in agriculture and allied sectors and
robustness of the methods
 Monitoring indicators for evaluating the DRM projects at the district level
 Existing channels of information exchange about the disasters, coordination and
communication to the farmers, herders, and fisherfolk

INTERIM STUDY “PRODUCTS” AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL

Interim “products” to be obtained from the district-level study as inputs for the overall
assessment include:
 District hazard profile and multi-hazard vulnerability map at district level
 Summary chart (Venn diagram) of the different organizations involved in DRM at the
district level, indicating briefly their different mandates, roles, responsibilities and degree
of interaction
 Strengths and weaknesses diagram (SWOT chart) of the district-level DRM systems
 Filled-in monitoring sheet

40
 TA B L E 4 . 2
Monitoring sheet of key processes in DRM systems at the district levell

Key processes and Indicators23 Status24 Name of institutions Measures & capacities for
instruments involved with implementation25
(related to the DRM Availability Lead Support Staff Techn. financial Remarks
framework) responsibility role skills resources
1. Disaster risk  Guidelines for district/ community risk assessment available
assessment  Risk assessment methods and approaches agreed/standardized
 Assessment of experiences in applying risk assessment tools at
district level and lessons learned available
 Responsibilities and roles of the public, private sector and
NGO/CSO organizations for risk assessment defined and
operational
 District hazard and vulnerability maps prepared and regularly
updated
 Typologies of the most vulnerable people, including
vulnerability/risk characteristics prepared
 District risk profile across sectors prepared and regularly updated
 Criteria for levels of alert established for different types of disaster
risk
 Measures in place to check accuracy of disaster risk assessments

2. Disaster risk  Comprehensive DRM plan established addressing key district

management vulnerabilities and risks
planning and  Participatory planning with NGOs/CSOs, local leaders and
monitoring population groups implemented
 Involvement of at-risk groups in planning process
 DRM projects and programmes implemented at district level
 Vulnerability maps exist addressing single and multiple
vulnerabilities at district level
 Mechanisms and responsibilities for monitoring and updating
disaster risk information defined at district level
 Indicators defined for monitoring the implementation of the DRM
plan and assessing the effectiveness of the different components

23 Indicators help to identify the institutions with specialized institutional and technical capacity in each element of the DRM framework and to identify future opportunities for intervention
24 Proposed assessment categories: NE - Non existent; ENO: existent but non operational; O: operational
25 Proposed assessment categories: G: Good; S: Satisfactory; I: inadequate
ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL

41
 D I S A S T E R R I S K M A N A G E M E N T S Y S T E M S A N A L Y S I S
[ ]

42
Key processes and Indicators23 Status24 Name of institutions Measures & capacities for
instruments involved with implementation25
(related to the DRM Availability Lead Support Staff Techn. financial Remarks
framework) responsibility role skills resources
3. Disaster mitigation  Past experiences of disaster mitigation at the district level and
and prevention lessons learned analysed/disseminated
 Community participation in mitigation takes place
 Prevention and mitigation technologies and standards received
from the national level and applied/reinforced through sectoral
line agencies
 Mandates and responsibilities of sectoral agencies for prevention
specified in existing development and/or DRM plans
 Funding mechanisms and resources available for
prevention/mitigation
 District DRM committees exist and their roles are clearly defined

4. Mainstreaming  DRM incorporated in district development plan

DRM into  Linkages with other sectors (e.g. agriculture) defined in the plan
development  Plans to institutionalize new DRM techniques exist/operational
planning  Mechanisms for scaling up good DRM practices and lessons
learned in place
 Institutional mechanisms for coordination and collaboration exist
at the district level
 District-level resource mobilization mechanisms exist
 District-level budget for DRM and development-related activities
allocated
 Collaborative DRM and development –related activities with
government, NGOs/CSOs, private sector, local leaders in place
 Specialized funding for local leaders for DRM and development–related
activities and accountability mechanisms in place

5. Awareness- raising  Mechanism for awareness-raising at district level operational

and dissemination  Mechanisms in place to communicate the risk information to
of risk information concerned departments/organizations (including NGOs/CSOs)
 Dissemination of risk information in local languages to the public
by specialized media, networks etc.
 Key processes and Indicators23 Status24 Name of institutions Measures & capacities for
instruments involved with implementation25
(related to the DRM Availability Lead Support Staff Techn. financial Remarks
framework) responsibility role skills resources

6. National early  National early warning messages received at the district level
warning systems  Early warning dissemination mechanism exists at the district level
 Systems to ensure outreach of EWS to the most vulnerable people
in place
 Dissemination strategy and mechanisms of early warning defined

 Indigenous knowledge incorporated in EW systems

 Mechanisms to prepare sector-specific impact outlooks and risk

management plans exist, and plans prepared
 Mechanisms to translate sector-specific outlook and risk
management plans into locally understandable languages exist
 Monitoring networks at district level set up (e.g. rain gauges, river
water levels)

7. Preparedness  Regular mock and evacuation exercises conducted at the district

level
 Directory of the names, contact details, roles and responsibilities
of key district-level DRM officials/players available
 District Contingency Plans (DCP) available
 Representatives of NGOs/CSOs participate in
preparing/implementing the DCP
 Sector-specific preparedness plans exist
 Emergency communication systems at the district level
 Rescue teams available at the district level
 Evacuation routes identified and local level people informed
 Role of NGOs/CSOs and local leaders in evacuation defined
 Rescue institutions exist and equipped with
infrastructure/equipment/transport
 Shelters and high grounds available to save lives and livelihoods
 Warehouses for emergency food and other supplies available in
the district
 Clean water supplies available in the district
ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL

43
 D I S A S T E R R I S K M A N A G E M E N T S Y S T E M S A N A L Y S I S
[ ]

44
Key processes and Indicators23 Status24 Name of institutions Measures & capacities for
instruments involved with implementation25
(related to the DRM Availability Lead Support Staff Techn. financial Remarks
framework) responsibility role skills resources

8. Providing immediate  Response and support agencies’ contact details documented at

the district level
response and/or
relief assistance  Relevant service providers and recovery operations exist
 Emergency health teams established
 Relief provision standards exist for disaster-affected people
 Information on transient livelihood options available
 Directions given to local institutions and informal groups to help
affected communities
 Micro-financing institutions exist at the district level
 Plans to improve livelihood assets exist

9. Assessing damage  Damage and loss assessment teams available at the district level
and loss  Sectoral and cross-sectoral team members designated and trained
for loss estimation, using national instruments, standards and
processes
 Standardized reporting formats and analysis methods available

10 Reconstruction  Mechanisms to implement reconstruction programmes at the

district level (trained staff, equipment, materials, funds, transport)
of settlements,
exist
infrastructure
 Reconstruction and resettlement plan exists at the district level
and services
 Integrated response and recovery measures available
 Coordination mechanisms for response and recovery exist at the
district level (with links to the national level as needed)
 Rehabilitation plan available at the district level
11 Rehabilitation,
economic and  Plans for immediate economic recovery after the disasters
prepared
social recovery
 Long-term development programmes exist
 DRM elements incorporated into on-going development
programmes
 DRM elements incorporated into sector-specific development
programmes
M O D U L E
5 ASSESSMENT OF
DISASTER RISK
MANAGEMENT
S Y S T E M S AT T H E
COMMUNITY LEVEL

WHAT IS THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY-LEVEL DRM INSTITUTIONS?

Community organizations and institutions 26 provide essential goods and services to poor
and vulnerable groups, particularly in the absence of well-functioning markets, local
governments and safety nets. When they function effectively they can be strong catalysts for
livelihood development, enhancing prevention and mitigation, providing rapid assistance
during emergencies, and stimulating and supporting livelihood recovery after a disaster.
The community institutions can also make a crucial contribution to the design and
implementation of comprehensive local DRM plans within the framework of national DRM
programmes, through such activities as: undertaking or participating in local hazard risk
diagnoses and vulnerability assessments, awareness-raising of risks and practical and affordable
preventative/mitigation measures, maintaining public infrastructure, preparing evacuation
plans, setting up rescue and volunteering committees, providing shelter, food, water, and other
vital assistance during emergencies, and helping to restore livelihoods after a disaster.

WHY DO INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENTS AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL?

DRM interventions can only be effective in reaching those communities which are seriously
vulnerable to natural hazards and disasters if they are founded on broad-based community
participation in their design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and if they build on,
complement and strengthen the community’s own coping strategies. Such participation is
essential to ensure the local community’s ownership of the DRM process and the adaptation
of DRM principles and programmes to local realities and needs. The purpose of the assessment
is therefore to:
 obtain a snapshot of the ‘real live’ risk situation at the community level, and to acquire
an understanding of what is actually done for DRM locally as compared to what could
be done;

26 This Guide uses the terms “community” or “local” as roughly interchangeable with the terms “village” or “commune”. The
crucial qualifying criteria from an institutional perspective is that the term used refers to an institutional level at which there
is usually no permanent presence of formal line agencies. Often, the only formal government position, if any, is that of the
mayor. The word “village” is normally used for a settlement of 500 households or less. In areas where scattered settlements
prevail, “communities” can exist even in the absence of “villages”. However, in some countries, villages may have over 10,000
inhabitants. In this case, the “community” may coincide with a neighbourhood within the larger village.

45
]

 understand and reflect in the overall assessment the local perceptions of risk and risk
S

coping as well as the institutional requirements for increasing resilience that the
I
S

community considers important;

L Y

 identify the different types of institutions and organizations present at the community
A

level, assess their roles in and their core competencies and capacities for CBDRM, and
N
A

identify possible gaps in addressing DRM; and

S

 assess if structures and processes foreseen in the national DRM planning context actually
M
E

exist at local level, or if they have been modified by communities in order to reflect their
T

local requirements.
S
Y
S

WHAT ARE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS?

T
N

Community institutions are the rules that govern intangible institutions like kinship, marriage,
E
M

inheritance and sharing of oxen at community level as well as organizations that operate at
E
G

community level and are controlled by their members. The expression “community-based
A
N

organization” (CBO) is a generic term applied to all organizations controlled by a community. As

A

can be seen in Box 5.1, there are various types of community-based organizations.27
M
K
S
I

BOX 5.1
R

C O M M U N I T Y- B A S E D O R G A N I Z A T I O N S ( C B O s )
R
E

Village development committees (VDCs) are organizations of collective governance of a

T
S

village with responsibility for development. Collective governance of a community implies a

A

set of accepted endogenous rules, i.e. the institutions of the community, and an
S
I

organization responsible for the application of the rules and for organizing collective action
D

relevant to all the members of the community.

[

Common interest groups (CIGs) are organizations of some members of the community who
come together to achieve a common purpose.

Users associations (UAs) are CIGs established to operate and maintain a facility constructed
with public and/or private funds, with resources mobilized from the members of the
association.

Micro-finance institutions (MFIs) are community-level CIGs specialized in savings, lending

and other financial services.

Disaster management professionals tend to pay more attention to relatively formal, visible
organizations, such as those described in Box 5.1, as they are relatively easy to identify and
usually have fairly clearly stated objectives. But institutions often overlap – informal,
unstructured social or socio-cultural institutions, such as caste, kinship, gender, age grades or
informal norms or traditions, may also influence the rules of formal, structured organizations.

27 Definitions taken from FAO. 2005. Rapid guide for missions: Analysing local institutions and livelihoods, by A. Carloni. Rural
Institutions and Participation Service. Rome, page 22.

46
 ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL

HOW TO INITIATE THE ASSESSMENT?

The diagnostic studies should be conducted in a limited number (2-3) of selected
communities/villages. The assessment process at community level should start by identifying
the most relevant community organizations, representatives of vulnerable groups and other
key informants in the selected villages. The indicative community-level organizations and
contacts for collecting relevant information on and for DRM are:
 Village leaders (traditional/modern, hereditary/elected/appointed) with administrative,
ceremonial, political and/or religious functions
 Leaders of different hamlets or sectors within larger villages
 Representatives of vulnerable groups, orphans, pastoralists, migrants and indigenous
ethnic minorities, with due attention to gender issues
 Local shopkeepers, traders, input sellers, produce buyers, transporters, etc.
 Local-level disaster management committees and volunteers
 Leaders of community-based organizations (CBOs) such as village elders, village
development committees, farmers’ groups, women’s groups, youth groups, producer
groups, agri-business consortiums and marketing associations
 Representatives of village cooperatives and micro-finance institutions
 Key informants on relevant sectors (local school teachers, medical/health workers,
traditional birth attendants, contact farmers, etc.)
 Local government officials working at the community level
 Elected community representatives in municipal councils
 Representatives of research organizations, local NGOs and CSOs active in the
community
 Representatives of development or DRM projects active in the community

The diagnostic studies at community/village level are different in nature from the studies at
higher levels as they should be based on Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)
methodologies, and be interactive and flexible in their use of methods. The sequential steps
proposed in Box 5.2 may be useful in planning the diagnostic studies.

47
]

BOX 5.2 R E C O M M E N D E D S T E P S F O R D ATA C O L L E C T I O N

S
I

AT T H E C O M M U N I T Y L E V E L
S
L Y

1. Select 2–3 villages and inform the village leaders/key informants well before the
scheduled visits to invite their participation/collaboration, and agree on how the time
A
N

of the visit (1 day per village) would be spent. It may be advisable for a team member
A

to make a brief preparatory visit (depending on distances) or this could be done by a

S

member of the national or district focal point units either directly or through local
M

contacts.
E
T

2. Prepare before arrival in the villages a list of local institutions relevant to DRM,
S

drawing on information obtained in the district-level meetings (the list could then be
Y
S

confirmed or amended during the community-level work). Decide on the tools and
methods for the community profiling and local institutional assessment.
T
N

3. Initiate the field visit by making a brief plan with the village leaders and
E

representatives of key community organizations. Then conduct a village walk before

M
E

holding small focus group discussions using a range of PRA tools with 2-3 different
G

groups of community members to understand the community development

A

situation, its hazard exposure, DRM- related actions and institutional profile. One
N
A

stakeholder group could be exclusively composed of women in order to capture an

M

unbiased gender perspective on the issues. The following tools are suggested to
catalyse the discussions in these focus groups:
K
S

 hazard risk and vulnerability map of the village, including areas under hazard
I
R

threat. Use the map to discuss which assets are under threat by which hazard,
where evacuation routes or safety platforms are located, which groups are the
R
E

most vulnerable and what mechanisms exist, if any, to help them in disaster
T

situations;
S
A

 seasonal calendar to discuss and link key livelihood activities (cropping/

S

livestock/other key income-generating activities) with hazard risk occurrence/

I
D

exposure and existing coping strategies;

[

 Venn diagram to assess and understand the roles of key community organizations
and their relative importance for the village, assess their actual vis à vis their
potential role in DRM, discuss and compare the importance and capacities of local
organizations for livelihood development and DRM;
 a simple SWOT analysis chart (pre-prepared on flip chart paper with leading
questions) to assess the functionality of the local DRM system. What works well?
What coping strategies exist? Where are the perceived gaps? What could be
strengthened? What opportunities exist? What threatens the functioning of the
local DRM system?
 other optional PRA tools to obtain additional information/details may include
group discussions, ranking exercises to assess priorities, and seasonal calendars.
4. Conduct a synthesis session (village meeting) with all stakeholder groups to present
and discuss the team’s findings, and to build consensus on priorities and key
recommendations.

The steps proposed in Box 5.2 are indicative, and may need to be adapted to different types of
communities and situations. To the extent possible, the analysis should aim to compare the
perspectives of different stakeholder groups.28 A list of indicative key thematic areas and

28 Although communities comprise different socio-economic groups – sometimes with conflicting interests – there is unlikely
to be time during this exercise to undertake a carefully managed participatory local institutional assessment involving all
concerned stakeholders. The assessment at community level should, nevertheless, try to obtain the views of a variety of
stakeholder groups, particularly the most vulnerable who are often excluded in traditional, top-down DRM institutional
assessments. This can be achieved by dividing the assessment team members among several small working groups.

48
 ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL

related questions which can be addressed while applying specific PRA tools is given below:

QUESTIONS AND TOOLS FOR ADDRESSING SPECIFIC ISSUES AT THE

COMMUNITY LEVEL

(A) Vulnerability context 29: Key issues and questions to help assess the vulnerability context
include:
i) Assessing the overall vulnerability context
 What is the size of the population? How is it distributed? How many households are
there in the village, by ethnic group if relevant?
 How often do hazards/disasters hit the community? Is the incidence growing?
 What are the main causes of vulnerability?
 What are the local perceptions of the risk of natural hazards/disasters differentiated, if
appropriate, by socio-economic category or geographical location?

FIGURE 5.1
Village mapping with key informants and community representatives

A village walk and village/community mapping: (for a description of the

methodology see Annex I) are simple, but most appropriate tools for assessing the
vulnerability context. These tools also help “break the ice”, gain the community’s
confidence and obtain an overall picture of the village situation and its hazard profile.
During the exercises a range of topics can be discussed and mapped. These discussions
should also be used to fine-tune specific questions concerning the local institutions
that should be addressed in more depth later through a Venn diagram and/or
SWOT exercise.

29 The assessment of the vulnerability context is not meant to be a fully-fledged vulnerability assessment, for which many other
tools exist. In this context it is only necessary to understand the main patterns of vulnerability as a basis for the DRM
institutional analysis.

49
]

ii) Hazard exposure of the most vulnerable groups

S

 Which are the main vulnerable households/peoples in the community and where are
I
S

they located?
L Y

 Where do the different ethnic groups live? If possible, where are female-headed
A
N

households 30 located?
A

 To which natural hazards are they particularly vulnerable and why?

S
M

iii) Hazard exposure of livelihood assets

E
T

 What are the main natural resources and productive assets (e.g. land, water, pasture, trees,
S
Y

tree nurseries, fish ponds, animal shelters, machinery, irrigation systems, wells,
S

inputs/fodder/food storage facilities etc.) and where are they located within the
T

community’s geographical area?

N
E

 Are they available to the community only or are they also used by others (government,
M
E

multi-national corporations, and local private sector companies)? Which groups in the
G

community have access to them, which groups do not and why?

A
N

 To what degree are the resources and/or productive assets exposed to hazard impacts
A
M

(differentiated by hazard)?
K
S

FIGURE 5.2
I
R

Hazard vulnerability map of pilot DRM village, Ludbur, Grenada (2007)

R
E
T
S
A
S
I
D
[

30 In areas devastated by HIV/ADS, for example, it may also be advisable to differentiate households headed by children or
elderly relatives.

50
 ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL

iv) Disaster preparedness, rescue and emergency response infrastructure and facilities
 What community infrastructure and equipment (e.g. schools, stores, wells, boats, fire
fighting equipment, power station, hospital or health clinics) are available to save lives and
livelihoods during a disaster and/or to provide temporary shelter and emergency
supplies? Where are they located (see, for example, Figure 5.2)?
 What formal and informal community facilities are available for DRM?
 Crop agriculture: warehouses, seed storage, community threshing floor, community
nursery, village water storage structures, percolation ponds, check dams, community
wells etc.
 Livestock: Fodder storage facilities, livestock shelters, community cattle herding,
community poultry hatching centres, community grazing land and cattle/poultry feed
storage facilities
 Fisheries: Fish storage facilities, local markets, fingerling production units, fishing nets,
protection nets
 How are above facilities maintained?

FIGURE 5.3
Example of a seasonal cropping calendar combined with a hazard threat calendar
(Shandong, China)

Seasonal calendars (see Figure 5.3) are valuable PRA tools to assess seasonal vulnerability
patterns and the hazard implications. They can be used in community meetings to help
identify the key hazard risks facing the community and to stimulate and focus discussions
on existing and potential local coping strategies, for example, in the context of seasonal
planning of concrete agricultural and livelihood-related activities.

Key Cropping calendar Juye, Shandong, [Link]

Crops Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Cotton

Wheat
Corn
Soybean
Rice

Hazard Seasonal calendar of natural hazards Juye, Shandong, [Link]

risks Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Flood

Drought
Hot wind
Hailstorm
Strong
wind

51
]

v) Seasonal vulnerability hazard risk planning

S

 When do hazards occur?

I
S

 Do hazards coincide with peak working seasons ?

L Y

 Do hazards threaten peak production periods or the harvest?

A
N

vi) Local coping mechanisms and adaptation strategies

A

 What coping strategies exist for each hazard type?

S
M

 Which organizations/institutions, if any, support existing coping strategies or promote

E

new strategies? Who has access to/uses these supporting services?

T
S

 Are viable local-level technology options and good practices for DRM available at the
Y
S

community level? If so, what are they?

T
N

(B) Institutional set-up and capacities for DRM

E

Key issues and questions to help understand the institutional set-up at community level, locally
M
E

defined tasks and responsibilities, if any, and local capacities include:

G
A
N

i) Existence of local DRM institutions and/or access to DRM services

A

 What formal and informal institutions and associations exist in the community? Which
M

of these control or influence ownership of or access to local resources and what are the
K
S

implications for the livelihood security and livelihood recovery following a disaster for
I
R

different socio-economic groups? Do any of these institutions deliberately or

R

unintentionally exclude, bypass or discriminate against poor risk-exposed households?

E
T

 Are there any village-level DRM committees and what are their roles?
S
A

 Which other formal and informal community institutions and organizations address
S
I

DRM issues and emergency preparedness and response? What are their specific
D

functions, contributions, and managerial and technical capacities and competencies?

[

 What health facilities, if any, exist within the community? Are there any special facilities
to cope with emergencies and epidemics?
 Is there a local early warning system and who is responsible for it? Do people know
where to go for safety if a disaster warning is issued?
 Are there financial resources available at the community level for DRM? What formal or
informal funding organizations (including money lenders and savings groups) operate within
the community that already provide or could potentially provide funding for DRM?
 Who coordinates and who implements local rescue and rehabilitation efforts?
 What assistance is available, if any, for developing risk coping mechanisms or
technologies? Who provides this assistance?
 What are the local perceptions about the appropriateness and effectiveness of support
received, if any, from various higher-level governmental organizations/agencies related to
development in general and to DRM in particular (e.g. financial assistance, technical advice,
service delivery, infrastructural investments and maintenance, and early warning systems)?

ii) Performance of local DRM institutions and/or services

The specific thematic issues which could be addressed through a SWOT analysis in order to
complement the content analysis of the other tools could include:
 Are local DRM institutional structures and their key elements in place with the
responsibilities of key players determined?

52
 ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL

 Do local DRM institutions have the skills, power and legitimacy to implement DRM
activities effectively?
 If not, are new institutions needed or could existing institutions perform the DRM
activities with additional capacities, knowledge and/or resources?
 Are there any local DRM plans?
 Are DRM services (such as rescue, transport, power and water supply, emergency
food, medical and veterinary supplies, markets, agricultural extension, health, education
available)?

FIGURE 5.4
Example of a Venn diagram illustrating a family’s interactions with the pastoral
community institutions in Jianshe Township, North Western China

A Venn diagram is an easy, practical tool which is most effective in addressing institutional
and organizational issues, including structure, capacities, coordination and linkages.

iii) Options for improved community-level DRM institutions

 How satisfied are local people with the existing DRM-related service providers?
 Are there alternative service providers available which the villagers think could offer
more effective DRM services?
 Which local institutions would be the best entry point(s) for DRM interventions? Which
of these do poor households trust most?
 What kind of support (capacity-building, equipment, finance, awareness-raising) would
key local institutions require in order to implement a DRM programme?
 Does the community participate in any on-going development projects that could
facilitate the community’s implementation of a DRM programme?

53
]

KEEPING TRACK OF THE INFORMATION AS

S

THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDS

I
S

Table 5.2, which provides a checklist for monitoring outcomes and findings from the various
L Y

PRA sessions and interviews with key informants, should be filled in at the end of the
A

community-level assessment. The Table will complement those filled out after completing the
N
A

national- and district-level assessments (see modules 3 and 4) to provide valuable inputs to the
S

overall analysis and formulation of recommendations (see module 6).

M
E
T

FIGURE 5.5
S
Y

Conducting a risk-related SWOT analysis with a herders’ group in Mongolia

S
T

A SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) is a useful tool to

N
E

discuss and assess four main categories of issues: What goes well? Where are the perceived
M

gaps, and what should be strengthened? What opportunities exist and which threats
E
G

influence the functionality of the local DRM system? The outcomes from a SWOT
A
N

analysis can be seen from Table 5.1, which presents a summary of a strengths and
A

weaknesses assessment carried out with herders in rural Mongolia.

M

The SWOT methodology helped the assessment team and the herders themselves to
K
S

identify and summarize the herders’ perceptions and opinions about the roles and
I
R

responsibilities of local actors in DRM as well as their perceptions and views about higher-
R

level actors and actions.

E
T
S
A
S
I
D
[

INTERIM STUDY “PRODUCTS” AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL

Interim “products” to be obtained from the community-level study as inputs for the overall
assessment include:
 Community hazard profile
 Multi-hazard vulnerability map at the community level
 Summary chart (Venn diagram) of the different organizations involved in DRM at the
community level, indicating briefly their different mandates, roles and responsibilities
 Strengths and weaknesses diagram (SWOT chart) of the community-level DRM system(s)
 Filled-in monitoring sheet

54
 ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL

TA B L E 5 . 1
Summary table of a strengths and weaknesses assessment with herders in rural Mongolia

What is done (or not done) in

Main actors normal year preparing for zud responding to zud recovering from zud

Herders  normal (medium  identify additional needs to  give food  receive restocking
level) winter enhance preparedness; supplements to package;
preparation;  agree with neighbours a joint exhausted animals;  wealthier and
 ordinary (if livestock evacuation plan;  move large and experienced
needed)  seek assistance from other unproductive herders may look
cooperation with sources; livestock to distant for loans;
other actors;  enhance household preparation; otor;  engage in cropping
 timely marketing  increase marketing of live  escape from the zud as additional
of produce animals and carcass meat; area; source of livihood
 share irrigated fields for hay and improved feed
growing (in Tarialan, Uvs) making;

 move large and unproductive  share transportation  no reasonable

Herders groups  labour pooling for animals to distant otor; for distant ideas specified
(Khot ail) joint herding;  undertake joint stocking of movement;
 some incidental salt/minerals and shelter repair;  share herding tasks
joint marketing;  undertake joint buying of small (leave small
amounts of local hay; livestock with other
herders and take
large stock to
remote areas);

Local  private business  buy some fodder for sale to  no definite plans  no definite and
cooperative groups produce members; and specific targets viable strategies
hay for sale;  sell goods to members on credit identified exist
 local shops retail for reimbursement after they sell
commodities; their cashmere;

Bag (equivalent  provide regular  make regular reports on the risk  ensure timely  organize restocking
to community and lawful of disaster to the sum information flow on scheme, if
level) administration; administration; disasters and needs applicable;
 encourage herders and local  ensure fair
organizations to improve their distribution of
preparation; external assistance
and relief

Sum  provide regular  announce relevant weather  mobilize local  initiate bag-level
(district) and lawful forecasts to bags and herders resources for restocking
administration;  talk to bags and neigbouring grazing to avoid
 implements sums on escape plans to otors; mass emergency
policies relevant to  inform and request the aimag escape;
local conditions; for potential assistance;  receive external
inputs for
distribution;

Aimag  provide regular  develop a disaster mitigation  mobilize reserves  restock;

(province) and lawful plan for the aimag and sums; locally available or  adopt life
administration;  inform the central government provided as aid; improvement
 implements of the risk of disasters;  improve service measures, like jobs,
policies relevant to  contact international and delivery to areas in cropping and
local conditions; national NGOs and initiative need; others;
 provide general groups for assistance and aid;  external support
directives; (NGOs and others)
for local measures;

National  formulate policies  prepare site-specific plans to  mobilize national  initiate poverty
Government and laws; mitigate likely disasters; financial and reducing measures
 provide  request international donor physical reserves; with national and
administration; support in anticipation of  re-fill the reserves; international
 provide general potential disasters;  distribute reserves support;
directives;  make arrangements with (pasture, fodder etc)  Implement
national and international to assist disaster- nationwide relief
donors for assistance and aid; stricken projects and
communities; programmes;

NGOs  implement legally-  check on the ground conditions;  provide assistance  Implement small
permitted DRM  identify areas and communities to eligible target short-term pilot
activities. at risk; groups. exercises for target
 prepare to deliver assistance if groups;
needed.
Legend: zud= extreme cold otor=summer mobility for animal fattening

55
 D I S A S T E R R I S K M A N A G E M E N T S Y S T E M S A N A L Y S I S
[ ]

56
TA B L E 5 . 2
Monitoring sheet of key processes in DRM systems at the community level

Key processes and Indicators31 Status32 Name of institutions Measures & capacities for
instruments involved with implementation33
(related to the DRM Availability Lead Support Staff Techn. financial Remarks
framework) responsibility role skills resources
1. Disaster risk  Local communities have been involved in risk assessment
assessment exercises
 Community hazard and vulnerability maps prepared and regularly
updated
 Livelihood profiles of vulnerable groups identified
 Livelihood assets at risk identified

2. Disaster risk  Community DRM committee and volunteers exist

management  Community DRM plan addressing major hazards exists
planning and  At-risk groups involved in the planning process
monitoring
 Hazards monitoring technology available and procedures defined

3. Disaster mitigation  Disaster risk reduction practices are carried out at village level
and prevention (e.g. water harvesting)
 Community/village is included in district hazard-/sector-specific
mitigation plans
 Advisory services on disaster mitigation are available at
community/village level
 Community-based DRM methods are practised and understood
properly by CBOs/CSOs and the community members

4. Awareness raising  Awareness-raising campaigns undertaken at village level

and dissemination  Local media programmes targeted to DRM awareness-raising
of risk prepared/disseminated
information  Community is aware of alert signals for different types of
disasters
 Mechanisms exist to communicate hazard risk to community level

31 Indicators help to identify the institutions with specialized institutional and technical capacity in each element of the DRM framework and to identify future opportunities for intervention
32 Proposed assessment categories: NE - Non existent; ENO: existent but non operational; O: operational
33 Proposed assessment categories: G: Good; S: Satisfactory; I: inadequate
 Key processes and Indicators31 Status32 Name of institutions Measures & capacities for
instruments involved with implementation33
(related to the DRM Availability Lead Support Staff Techn. financial Remarks
framework) responsibility role skills resources
 Community-based awareness approaches implemented (field
days, orientation meetings, folk songs, dramas, demonstration
rallies, exchange visits etc.)

5. Community level  Early warning messages are received at the community level
early warning  Mechanisms exist to communicate hazard risk to the community
systems  Systems to ensure outreach of EWS to the most vulnerable
people in place (including, if relevant, translation of messages
into local languages)
 Indigenous knowledge incorporated in EW systems (e.g. local
calendars, local measures, almanac etc.)

6. Preparedness  Community preparedness plan exists

 Roles and responsibilities allocated and directory of the names
and inventories of equipment for use during emergency available
 Shelters and high grounds available to save lives and livelihoods
 Warehouses for emergency food and other supplies available in
the area
 Volunteers trained to provide support in case of emergency
 Evacuation routes identified and local people informed
 Regular mock evacuation exercises conducted at community level

7. Providing immediate  Social capital networks to support neighbours and relatives exist
response and/or  Search and rescue teams available at the community level
relief assistance  Mechanisms/procedures for community-level emergency food
distribution exist
 Mechanisms/procedures for organizing emergency shelter in place
 Emergency relief has been targeted to the most vulnerable
households
 Community mechanism to coordinate the response in place
ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL

57
 D I S A S T E R R I S K M A N A G E M E N T S Y S T E M S A N A L Y S I S
[ ]

58
Key processes and Indicators31 Status32 Name of institutions Measures & capacities for
instruments involved with implementation33
(related to the DRM Availability Lead Support Staff Techn. financial Remarks
framework) responsibility role skills resources
8. Assessing damage  Damage and loss assessment teams consulted with community
and loss representatives
 Damage and loss assessments include vulnerability and livelihood
profiles

9. Reconstruction  Community rehabilitation plans exist (formulated with community

of settlements, consultation)
infrastructure  Reconstruction, resettlement and sector rehabilitation take into
and services consideration “building back better” principles
 Rehabilitation plans take into consideration local livelihood
strategies
 Community has benefited from national compensation schemes

10. Rehabilitation,  Community has benefited from international assistance for

economic and rehabilitation
social recovery  Mechanism to prepare plans for rehabilitation and economic
recovery exist
 Funding mechanisms supporting rehabilitation exist
 Evidence of provision of key production inputs needed for
livelihood recovery (e.g. fishing boats and equipment, farming
implements, seeds and fertilizers)
 Micro-financing institutions contribute to rehabilitation
 Plans to re-build area-specific livelihoods exist
 Guidelines for local institutions and informal groups to help
affected communities exist
 DRM elements incorporated into livelihood
restoration/development programmes to build resilience to
future hazards
M O D U L E
6 A N A LY S I N G A N D
INTERPRETING
T H E D ATA

The purpose of this module is to outline a number of possible steps and tools to analyse and
synthesize the information collected during the assessment to make it available in a form that
facilitates decision-making about institutional reform and/or capacity-building. The focus is on
the analysis of institutional and organizational structures and capacities for disaster risk
management (DRM) at various levels of governance, including the vertical/horizontal and
formal/informal linkages.
The proposed approach builds on FAO’s experience in applying the sustainable livelihoods
framework to the analysis of local institutions 34 and in developing capacity-building projects
for DRM in agricultural institutions. Reference is also made to the Hyogo Framework for
Action and other recent work undertaken by a number of international organizations in
developing indicators to monitor progress in mainstreaming DRM into development planning.
The working definition of “institutions” used in this Guide includes both the “rules of the
game” (laws, policies, processes, formal and informal norms, and rules and procedures) and
organizations, the “players of the game”.
The suggested steps for final data consolidation and analysis include:
 Mapping the DRM institutional arrangements;
 Analysing the coordination mechanisms and vertical-horizontal linkages;
 Assessing the DRM system’s strengths and weaknesses and progress in relation to
the implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA); and
 Presenting the main findings and recommendations.

The proposed flow of analysis illustrated in Figure 6.1 starts from the local-level vulnerability
context applying a bottom-up perspective.

STEP 1: MAPPING THE NATIONAL DRM ORGANIZATIONAL

ARRANGEMENTS
Previous modules have highlighted the importance of institutions for DRM across government levels
and identified key aspects to be considered for analysis The objective of the proposed analytical
mapping exercise is to obtain a complete picture about the key organizations, their responsibilities
and the regulatory frameworks which shape the DRM system and its functionality 35. Key formal

34 FAO. 2003. Local institutions and livelihoods: Guidelines for Analysis by N. Messer and P. Townsley. Rome; FAO. 2005.
Rapid Guide for Missions; analyzing local institutions and livelihoods, by A. Carloni. Rome.
35 Some institutions might be relevant in all cases but others will vary according to the sectoral and hazard focus of the study.
For example, water users’ associations and water resources departments are highly relevant for drought management while
fishermen’s associations and policies for coastal management are relevant for DRM programmes related to the management
of tropical storms.

59
]

and informal organizations to consider are those that:

S

 have lead responsibility for major DRM functions (see the monitoring sheets given in
I
S

modules 3-5);
L Y

 have a mandate to improve livelihood assets, particularly of the poor, thus reducing
A
N

exposure to hazard risk;

A

 are likely to promote policy reform and/or innovations in DRM practices; and
S
M

 represent the interests of major stakeholders and/or have the capacities to deliver key
E

services to these stakeholders.

T
S
Y
S

FIGURE 6.1
T

A general pattern to present a DRM system36

N
E
M
E
G
A

VULNERABILITY CONTEXT
N
A
M

Local
Coping strategies
K
S
I
R

Local DRM Coordination Mechanism

R
E
T
S
A

Extension services, CBOs, Search & Rescue teams, Water users’

S

associations, Producers’ organizations, Cooperatives, Forest/Fire brigades,

I
D

Financial Institutions etc.,

[

District DRM Coordination Mechanism

District District-level line

Administration Departments
District-level DRM
Focal point

National DRM Coordination Mechanism

National-level DRM Sectoral Ministries &

Specialized supporting
Focal point/agency Specialized Agencies
organizations & bureaus
with DRM mandate

Overall Regulatory Framework

(DRM, Agriculture, Fishery, Forestry and Natural Resource Management Laws and Policies)

36 The figure presents an illustrative example. The actual organizations and linkages will be country- and context-specific.

60
 ANALYSING AND INTERPRETING THE DATA

To obtain the full picture of institutions involved in DRM, it is useful to combine and
arrange the data collected at the three levels on the existing institutional structure into a single
comprehensive organigram. This is best done in a flexible way using a card method. A
suggested sequence of steps to prepare the consolidated chart is to:
 first, draw cards (one organization per card) and organize the cards showing the different:
 local organizations which provide/should provide DRM services to support local
coping strategies and practices;
 district-level organizations which provide/should provide support for DRM at
intermediary and local levels; and
 national-level organizations which influence the positive/negative functioning of local-
level organizations in the context of DRM.
 second, add cards next to the organizations in the organigram chart indicating (with the
help of different coloured cards) the main regulatory institutional frameworks (laws and
policy frameworks) that inform, influence or regulate the roles, responsibilities and
interactions of the mapped organizations
 third, separately list the mandates/perceived roles and responsibilities of the various key
organizations for DRM at the three levels. This can be visualized through specific
diagrams. An illustrative example prepared for the Bangladesh national level is given in
Figure 6.2. The functions/mandates in the diagram are arranged according to the key
responsibility areas presented in the DRM framework (Figure 1.1). These diagrams/visual
aids can be prepared easily by using:
 the information summarized in the monitoring sheets (given at the end of modules 3-
5) that should be filled in after the assessments at the three organizational levels;
 additional information collected on cards in a brainstorming session by the assessment
team. This method can be particularly useful to identify the informal or default roles
undertaken by organizations and to check if the actual functions meet the
requirements specified in the country’s formal DRM regulatory framework/action
plan (if there is one). It is also a fruitful method to use at the community level where
roles and responsibilities are often complex, unwritten and not readily apparent
to visitors.

STEP 2: ANALYSIS OF VERTICAL & HORIZONTAL LINKAGES

AND COORDINATION MECHANISMS
Institutional inter-linkages are crucially important in the context of DRM. Disasters affect
societies across sectors and socio-economic groups, although some groups may be more
vulnerable. Thus, both immediate response operations and longer-term DRM strategies require
effective cross-sectoral planning and implementation mechanisms. Furthermore, experience
has shown that effective risk management requires a combination of bottom–up and top-down
approaches. Local actors play a key role yet they often act without a mandate from the central
level or are expected to perform critical functions without appropriate resources. Horizontal
and vertical linkages between and within institutions are therefore vital to integrate and
coordinate actions of different sectors and stakeholders and to ensure coherence across

61
]

FIGURE 6.2
S

Formal DRM Systems in Bangladesh (illustrative example from ADPC)

I
S
L Y

POLICY FORMULATION AND VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS MITIGATION & PREVENTION

A

COORDINATION  Disaster Management  Bangladesh Water Development

N

 National Disaster Management Bureau (DMB) Board (BWDB)

A

Council  Department of Relief and  Disaster Management

S

 Inter-Ministerial Disaster Rehabilitation (DRR) Committee (DMCs) at various

M

Management Coordination  International and National levels

E

Committee (IMDMCC) NGOs  Disaster Management Bureau

T

 National Disaster Management  Space Application and (DMB)

S

Advisory Committee (NDMAC) Remote Sensing  Ministry of Agriculture

Y

Organisation (SPARSO)  Ministry of Environment and

S

Forestry
T

HAZARD ANALYSIS  NGOs & CBOs

N

 Disaster Management Bureau

E

(DMB)
M

 Comprehensive Disaster PREPAREDNESS

E

Management Programme (CDMP)  Ministry of Food and Disaster

G

 Barind Multipurpose Development management and Relief (NDMR)

A

Authority (BMDA)  Disaster Management Bureau

N

 INGOs, NGOs, research (DMB)

A

institutions  District, Thana, Union level

M

Disaster Management
K

Committees
S

 Cyclone Preparedness
I

Programme
R

ry Ha
ve Disaste  Local political and religious
co r za
Re on
& history rd
R

ati ion leaders

Development Opportunities

Sc An
ilit ct ei
Written
ial

ab nstru
ory
E

en al  Bangladesh Radio and TV

ure

Commerc

gic

h ys
Mem

Rereco tifi
ral

orolo
struct

is
T

logic

ca
ltu

 Mass Communication
r te

ricu

na
Mete

ic
Infra
S

Wa

Geo

lys
log
Ag

Department
ing

al is
dro

r
A

us

ltu
cs

Hy
Ho

n
tio u
ric
isti

l
ibu
Ag nta
S

str e
Log

ort Di
onm
I

nsp vir gic

Tra En iolo
D

o usin
g
Epid
em
Reco
rd RESPONSE
rical
eh
War
Histo  Directorate of Relief and
nt
[

reme
Vunerability

Procu
rience
ity Expe Rehabilitation (DRR)
Analysis

Resource Analysis Commun

Technical Evaluation  District, Thana and Union level
Requirement Analysis
Engineering Disaster Management Committees
ent

Needs
Damag Land U
se Reg
 Ministry of Defence
Assessm

e and ulation
es

 Ministry of Health and Family

loss
Buil
ding
ons

Searc
Cro Stan
She
h&
Resc pC
ycle
dard
s
Welfare
Resp

lter ue
Adju
Pre igati
Mi

 Ministry of Agriculture
/Pr
ote stm
Or ent
t

ctio
ven on

Ev
ga
 Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock
n
Communication

ac
niz
Pr
Co

ua
ati
oc
mm

tio
Reso

tio &

on
ed
Pub

 Ansar and Village Defence

ns
Sto

ur
un

Logistic

es
ckp

n
urce
ica

lic

Aw
Com
Track
tio

Res

Directorate
ilin
are
ns

Inve
mun

g
pon

Co
in

nes
Planning
s Planning
g&W

mm
 Union Parishad Members
ntory
Interpretati
se

ic

s
atio

Technology

un
arnin

ng ity
 Bangladesh Red Crescent Society
ns

ni n Plan Pr
ar io nin
g

ep
 Police
g
on

w dict ar
& re ed
 NGOs & CBOs
P ne
ss

TRAINING & AWARENESS

 Disaster Management Bureau

RECOVERY (DMB)
 Department of Relief and
 Bangladesh Roads and Highways Directorate
 Ministry of Housing and Public Works
Rehabilitation (DRR)
 Bangladesh University for
 Ministry of Social Welfare
 Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development
Engineering and Technology
and Cooperatives (BUET)
 Department of Environment
 Local Government Engineering Department (LGED)
 Bangladesh Rural Development Board (BRDB)
(DoE)
 Sectoral specialized training
 Rural Electrification Board
 Ministry of Environment and Forests
centres (agriculture, livestock
 NGOs, CBOs, Private Sector
etc.)
 UN agencies, INGOs, NGOs

62
 ANALYSING AND INTERPRETING THE DATA

governance levels. The analysis of inter-institutional horizontal and vertical linkages forms
a particularly important component of the assessment of the following key elements of
DRM systems:
 mechanisms to ensure effective formal and informal interaction within and between the
concerned ministries and departments at all levels and the involvement of stakeholder
groups in decision-making processes that address DRM concerns;
 the degree of consistency in the policy, planning and implementation processes within
and across different levels of government, NGOs, CSOs/CBOs, private sector and
community-based institutions;
 communication of data and information especially through forecasting, early warning,
contingency plans for disaster preparedness, damage and loss assessment, and recovery
and rehabilitation;
 coordination of operational activities before, during and after disasters among the
different levels of the concerned institutions; and
 incorporation of DRM concerns into sector-specific development planning and/or the
development of hazard risk mitigation plans.

BOX 6.1
D E F I N I T I O N S O F H O R I Z O N TA L A N D V E R T I C A L L I N K A G E S

Horizontal linkages: refer to the interaction and coordination between the concerned government
departments and ministries at each level and the mechanisms for involving stakeholders and interest
groups in decision-making processes to address DRM concerns.

Vertical linkages: refer to top-down and bottom-up planning, implementation and monitoring
processes and mechanisms in order to ensure appropriate channelling of resources, information
and instructions.

The analysis of linkages can be carried out easily by using the organigram prepared in the
previous analytical step. The exercise will now focus on drawing lines between cards to
highlight existing (or missing),
 cross-sectoral and multi-stakeholder coordination mechanisms
 reporting lines, lines of command and bottom-up planning and feedback processes
 collaborative arrangements
or to add qualitative information on specific links or actors; one could also highlight specific
areas of strengths and/or weaknesses though coloured circles.

63
]

FIGURE 6.3
S

An illustrative transcription of a card exercise

I
S
L Y

Vertical/horizontal linkages between DRM institutions at provincial, district and

A

commune level (Gio My commune, Geo Linh district of Quang Tri province, Vietnam).
N

Institutions highlighted in red are DRM agencies responsible for issuing official warnings,
A

coordination and monitoring, mobilising equipments and mitigation measures;

S
M

institutions highlighted in green are supporting service agencies; pink are institutions with
E
T

field presence; dark frames around actors indicate that they are strong players with high
S

operational capacities. Solid lines between actors represent strong collaborative/

Y
S

communication linkages; dotted lines with arrows represent weak linkages; broken lines
T

without arrows represent very weak linkages.

N
E
M
E
G
A
N
A
M
K
S
I
R
R
E
T
S
A
S
I
D
[

The final “Venn diagram’’ will provide an overview of key organizations and their linkages
across sectors and administrative/government levels. An illustrative example of
horizontal/vertical linkages between the institutions at provincial, district and community
level is given in Figure 6.3. However, for the purpose of the analysis a more in-depth
assessment of specific aspects will probably be needed.
Additional process maps (a combination of flow charts and organigrams) on specific
DRM system components which may be of particular interest to the study team, can
facilitate the tracking of critical actors, resources and decision-making processes in order
to identify possible blockages and opportunities for systems’ improvement. An example

64
 ANALYSING AND INTERPRETING THE DATA

looking more closely at institutional links and processes related to early warning is
provided in Figure 6.4.

FIGURE 6.4
Mapping elements of an early warning system at the national level

(Block arrows represent the ideal components of an early warning system; block lines
indicate the existing system; dotted lines and boxes represent non-existent and/or weak
components).

Observation / monitoring

Data analysis

Prediction
Location specific risk
and vulnerability
assessment
Potential impact
assessment local context and
elements at risk

Warning formulation

Dissemination Preparation of response

of warning options
messages
through media
Communication of impact
outlooks and response options

Community level
Vulnerable preparedness, emergency
community response plans,
awareness and
Mitigation

STEP 3: ANALYZING THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF

THE EXISTING DRM SYSTEM
The third main step of the proposed analytical process is to identify and analyse the
strengths and weaknesses of the assessed DRM system.

65
]

Using the maps and diagrams prepared in the previous steps and the monitoring sheets
S

of each layer of the DRM system diagnosis (or those elements relevant for the assessment),
I
S

the next challenge is to draw conclusions on key strengths and weaknesses (gaps) of the
L Y

system starting from its sub-components. This also includes thinking about the
A
N

opportunities and threats which may affect the further development of the DRM system.
A

Capacity issues will be of core importance since any institutional assessment is closely
S
M

associated with capacity development. An overview of the DRM system’s (or of specific
E
T

elements of the system’s) strengths and weaknesses will automatically flag capacity
S

development needs, opportunities for change and structural constraints, all of which will
Y
S

ultimately inform the assessment team’s final conclusions and recommendations.

T

As a first analytical exercise, the team is encouraged to list individually on cards – based
N
E

on memory, the 3-5 most relevant subjectively-perceived strengths and weaknesses of the
M
E

overall DRM system, combining their views and impressions of the national, district and
G
A

community levels.
N
A

Table 6.1 can then be used as a framework for documenting more systematically
M

strengths and weaknesses across thematic areas and system sub-components. This DRM
K

Guide has proposed a range of specific indicators in Tables 3.2, 4.2 and 5.2 to assess/
S
I
R
R

TA B L E 6 . 1
E

The DRM system’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats across

T
S

government levels
A
S
I

Thematic Areas37 SWOT National Level District Level Community Level

D
[

Disaster risk S
assessment
W
O
T
DRM planning S
and monitoring W
O
T
Disaster S
mitigation and W
prevention
O
T
Mainstreaming S
DRM into W
development
planning O
T
Other thematic S
areas as presented W
in Tables 3.2, 4.2,
5.2. O
T

37 Adapted from UN/ISDR. 2007. Words into Action: a guide for implementing the Hyogo Framework. New York.

66
 ANALYSING AND INTERPRETING THE DATA

monitor the existence and functionality of a range of key aspects of a DRM system. These
indicators should be used as a tool for identifying the strengths and weaknesses (gaps) in
this analytical exercise.
The findings of the strengths and weaknesses analysis should be integrated/overlaid
visually with the institutional mapping diagram. Points/areas of strength could be marked,
for instance, by a green circle or flag, whereas points/areas of weakness would be marked
in red. This will provide a visual tool to show on what strengths the DRM system can build
upon and also to flag where the system may need support or further development in
the future.
It is suggested that the team also documents systematically any findings that provide
opportunities/entry points to further improve the existing DRM system or that appear to be
potential threats to the effective functioning or development of a comprehensive DRM system:
 identified opportunities: provide an indication of the available resources to capitalize
on (people, knowledge, technology) and provide a good basis for the team to
formulate its recommendations, and
 identified threats: usually outline existing risks to the functioning of the system; the
team can implicitly take account of the threats to inform its strategic decisions in
terms of how the recommendations are finally shaped and presented.

Thus, both the opportunities and threats will provide the basis for the team’s
formulation of specific recommendations as part of its overall reporting.

STEP 4: VALIDATING THE STATUS QUO OF THE EXISTING DRM

INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM
It is suggested that drawing on the documented strengths and weaknesses the assessment
team undertake a qualitative valuation exercise that describes the degree to which the DRM
system (sub)components are in place and functional. This can be carried out separately for
each institutional layer, and subsequently for the overall system. The following set of
qualitative statements can facilitate a qualitative validation of the institutional status quo
needed to promote risk reduction and management (the proposed levels have been adapted
and consolidated from several sources).38
Level 1. Little awareness of the DRM issues or motivation to address them: Actions
limited to crisis response. Institutional and organizational structures to address DRM
are not or are only partly in place.
Level 2. Awareness of the importance of DRM issues and willingness to address them: Basic
institutional structures are put in place, however fragmented and their capacity to act
(knowledge and skills, human, material and other resources) remains limited.
Interventions tend to be one-off, piecemeal and short-term.

38 ISDR. 2007. Words into Action: a guide for implementing the Hyogo Framework; Tearfund. 2005. Mainstreaming disaster risk
reduction: a tool for development organisations; DFID. 2007. DRR Inter-Agency Coordination Group, Characteristics of a
Disaster-Resilient Community: A Guidance Note.

67
]

Level [Link] is addressed and is being proactively developed: Basic institutional and
S

organizational DRM structures and regulations are in place at all levels. Capacities to
I
S

act exist. Cross-sectoral coordination mechanisms are limited in scope but not very
L Y

effective. Practical implementation measures to establish a coherent DRM system

A
N

covering national, district and local levels also remain limited in functional terms.
A

Level 4. Coherent and integrated DRM system: Structures and capacities for DRM are in
S
M

place at all levels including basic cross-sectoral coordination and collaboration.

E
T

Interventions are extensive, covering all major aspects of a DRM system, and they are
S
Y

linked to the country’s long-term development strategy. Interventions are frequent and
S

provide long-term perspectives.

T
N

Level 5. A ‘culture of safety’ exists among all stakeholders: DRM is embedded in all
E
M

relevant policy, planning, practice, attitudes and behaviour.

E
G
A
N

In countries where there is still little awareness of DRM issues (Level 1) it might be
A

difficult to engage directly with government counterparts. In this case, NGOs and research
M

institutions may need to develop partnerships for advocacy and awareness-raising

K
S

purposes. Levels 2 and 3 indicate a relatively supportive institutional environment

I
R

associated with relevant capacities and technical skills. Levels 4 and 5 imply that these
R

components of the DRM system are self-sustaining. Champions and key stakeholders
E
T

active in DRM systems or components of systems operating at these levels could make a
S
A

valuable contribution to efforts to enhance collaboration and partnerships with the “weak
S
I

parts” of the system.

D
[

STEP 5: ASSESSING THE RESULTS OF THE DRM SYSTEM ANALYSIS

IN THE CONTEXT OF MONITORING PROGRESS IN THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HYOGO FRAMEWORK FOR ACTION
The Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and
Communities to Disasters (HFA) adopted by the 2005 Conference on Disaster Reduction
sets as the objective for the international community “the substantial reduction of disaster
losses, in lives and in the social, economic and environmental assets of communities and
countries”. It also sets out the five “priorities for action” adopted by the Conference to
achieve this objective by 2015 and provides a detailed set of key activities under each
priority for action to be implemented, as appropriate, according to countries’
circumstances and capacities.39 These priorities for action are to:
1. Ensure that disaster risk reduction is a national and a local priority with a strong
institutional basis for implementation.
2. Identify, assess and monitor disaster risks and enhance early warning.
3. Use knowledge, innovation and education to build a culture of safety and resilience
at all levels.

39 For more see: [Link]

68
 ANALYSING AND INTERPRETING THE DATA

4. Reduce the underlying risk factors.

5. Strengthen disaster preparedness for effective response at all levels.

Table 6.2, which has been adapted from ISDR work, is designed to facilitate the
monitoring of progress in implementing at national, district and community levels the risk
reduction measures contained in the Hyogo priorities for action. The columns of the table
represent the status of progress in implementing risk reduction measures within
governance levels; the rows reflect progress across governance levels. The ISDR indicators
represent targets of what is perceived by ISDR as globally relevant attributes of a disaster
resilient society.
The ISDR indicators are proposed as a reference tool. However, since they are generic
and qualitative by nature, the assessment team may wish to adjust them to reflect country-
specific contexts and the scope of the assessment. For example, in countries with high
levels of progress and relatively good capacities for data collection and monitoring,
qualitative indicators could be combined with the use of quantitative indicators.
In any case, the assessment team must be aware of the fact that levels of progress in
achieving the targets will also vary within a country according to the sector, the hazard and
the geographical area. Early warning systems might, for example, be in place for floods and
tropical storms but not for drought. They might cover coastal but not inland areas or be
targeted to urban rather than rural areas. Furthermore, the level of progress between
different geographical areas within a country may be substantially different, particularly in
countries where DRM functions have been decentralized.

STEP 6: PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The analytical steps described above should provide the basis for an analytical discussion
in the final report of the consolidated findings of the assessments undertaken at the three
institutional levels and for formulating the main conclusions and recommendations. These
should also be presented in the final report. As indicated in the introductory chapter, the
scope of this Guide covers institutional assessments related to:
 Mainstreaming DRM into development and sectoral planning (e.g. agriculture)
 Strengthening institutional and technical capacities for DRM at national and/or
decentralized levels (multi-hazard or hazard-specific)
 Integrating key aspects of DRM in emergency rehabilitation programmes
 Designing and promoting Community-based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM)
and/or livelihood diversification strategies
 Operationalizing the paradigm shift from reactive emergency relief to pro-active
DRM

Which ever of the above purposes a specific assessment has, the team will have to
prepare a technical report which includes recommendations. It is self evident that it is
impossible to elaborate within a guide of this nature ways of analysing and presenting all
types of findings, since they will be highly situation- and context-specific. Possible

69
]

TA B L E 6 . 2
S

Country progress in implementing risk reduction measures 40

I
S
L Y

Thematic National District Community

Areas ISDR indicators41 level level level
A
N

Institutional A legal framework for DRM exists with explicit responsibilities

A

framework42 defined for all levels of government.

S

Multi-sectoral platforms for DRM are operational across levels.

M

A national policy framework for DRM exists that requires plans

E

and activities at all administrative levels.

T
S

Adequate resources are available to implement DRM plans at

Y

all administrative levels.

S

Risk assessment Risk assessments based on hazard data and vulnerability

T

and early information are available and include risk assessments for
N

warning43 key sectors.

E
M

Systems are in place to monitor, maintain and disseminate

E

data on key hazards and vulnerabilities.

G

Early warning systems are in place for all major hazards.

A
N

Early warnings reach and serve people at the community level.

A

Education44 and Public awareness strategies for DRM exist and are
M

awareness implemented with vulnerable communities.

K

raising School curricula include DRM elements and instructors are

S

trained in DRM.
I
R

Reducing risks Environmental protection, natural resource management (land

in key sectors 45 and water) and climate change policies include DRM elements.
R
E

Sectoral development plans (agriculture, water resources,

T

health, environment, forestry, tourism, industry etc.) include

S

DRM elements.
A
S

Land-use zoning and plans, building codes and safety

I

standards exist and include disaster risk-related elements

D

which are rigorously enforced.

[

Technology options for DRM are available and applied.

A long-term national programme is in place to protect critical
infrastructure from common natural hazards.
A procedure is in place to assess the disaster risk implications
of major infrastructure and development project proposals.
Disaster An independent assessment of disaster preparedness
preparedness capacities and mechanisms has been undertaken and the
and response46 responsibility for the implementation of its recommendations
has been assigned and resourced.
Disaster preparedness plans and contingency plans are in place
at all administrative levels, and regular training drills and
rehearsals are held to test and develop disaster response
programmes.
All organizations, personnel and volunteers responsible for
maintaining preparedness are equipped and trained for
effective disaster preparedness and response.
Financial reserves and contingency mechanisms are in place to
support effective response and recovery.
Procedures are in place to document experience during hazard
events and disasters and to undertake post-event reviews.

40 Proposed assessment categories: G: Good; S: Satisfactory; I: Inadequate; P/NE: Poor/Non Existent

41 Adapted from UN/ISDR. 2007. Words into Action: a guide for implementing the Hyogo Framework.
42 Refers to the Monitoring sheets, section 2.
43 Refers to the Monitoring sheets, sections 1 and 6.
44 Refers to the Monitoring sheets, section 5.
45 Refers to the Monitoring sheets, sections 3 and 4.
46 Refers to the Monitoring sheets, sections 7 to 11.

70
 ANALYSING AND INTERPRETING THE DATA

recommendation areas are also numerous and may include among others: proposals for
sector and policy reform, project formulation, and the design of training and capacity-
building programmes. Nonetheless, the generic analytical steps proposed in this Guide will
significantly facilitate the drafting of the technical report and formulation of key
recommendations. More specifically, the SWOT analysis proposed in Table 6.1 can serve
as a useful tool to identify:
 weaknesses which can be translated into capacity development needs and should be
reflected in the recommendations as core issues to be addressed in the follow-up
(what needs to be done)
 strengths which inform the recommendations by providing examples of effective
coordination, planning and implementation mechanisms and lessons learned (how to
do it)
 opportunities which should be reflected in the recommendations together with an
indication of the available resources to capitalize on (people, knowledge, technology)
 threats which can be either included explicitly in the final report by outlining the
risks and implications associated with the recommendations or they can implicitly
inform the team’s strategic decisions regarding the choice and presentation of
its recommendations.

Some issues to take into consideration while preparing the draft recommendations are to:
 consider the drivers as well as the constraints to change
 look for stakeholders and partners for implementation
 consider the inputs and resources needed
 identify champions who can lead the follow-up process

While writing the report the team should keep firmly in mind the fact that institutional
studies and capacity assessments are sensitive processes, often causing scepticism among
those assessed. Furthermore, capacity development needs to be an internally-driven
process to succeed. Unless key governmental institutions fully recognize the need for
embarking on such a process of change, recommendations will not be translated into
action. The team should therefore discuss their draft recommendations with key
government counterparts and stakeholders before finalizing them, either within a multi-
stakeholder workshop or by circulating a draft report for subsequent discussion in
bilateral meetings.

71
]

REFERENCES
S
I
S
L Y

Baas, S., Erdenebatar, B. & Swift J. 2001. Pastoral Risk Management for Disaster Prevention and
A
N

Preparedness in Central Asia - with special reference to the case of Mongolia; In Proceedings of
A

the International FAO Asia-Pacific Conference on Early Warning, Prevention, Preparedness and
S

Management of Disasters in Food and Agriculture, held in Thailand, May 2001. APDC/01/6.
M
E
T

CRED. 2007. The data source - EM-DAT, available at [Link].

S
Y

DFID. 2007. DRR Inter-Agency Coordination Group, Characteristics of a Disaster-Resilient

S

Community: A Guidance Note. London.

T
N

FAO. 2003. Local institutions and livelihoods: Guidelines for Analysis by N. Messer and P. Townsley.
E
M

Rome.
E
G

FAO. 2004. The role of local institutions in reducing vulnerability to recurrent natural disasters and
A

in sustainable livelihoods development. Consolidated report on case studies and workshop

N
A

findings and recommendations. Rural Institutions and Participation Service (SDAR). Rome.
M

FAO. 2005. Rapid guide for missions: Analysing local institutions and livelihoods, by A. Carloni.
K
S

Rural Institutions and Participation Service (SDAR). Rome.

I
R

Liu Y. & Baas S. 2001. Strengthening pastoral institutions in North-West China pastoral area to access
R

improved extension services for risk management and poverty alleviation. (available at
E
T

[Link]/sd/2001/IN0601_en.htm).
S
A

Swift, J. & Baas, S. 2003. Managing Pastoral Risk in Mongolia - A Plan of Action.
S
I

ProjectTCP/FAO/[Link]. (available at [Link]/docrep/009/ ah828e/

D
[

[Link]).

Tearfund. 2005. Mainstreaming disaster risk reduction: a tool for development organisations by S. La
Trobe and I. Davis. Teddington, Middlesex.

UN/ISDR. 2004. Living with Risk: A global review of disaster reduction initiatives. 2004 Version,
Volume 1. Geneva.

UN/ISDR. 2004. Living with Risk: A global review of disaster reduction initiatives. 2004 Version,
Volume II Annexes. Geneva.

UN/ISDR. 2005. Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and
Communities to Disaster (available at [Link]/eng/hfa/[Link]).

UN/ISDR. 2007. Words into Action: a guide for implementing the Hyogo Framework. Geneva.

72
 ANNEX
1 TOOLS AND
METHODS FOR
INSTITUTIONAL
ASSESSMENTS

A) TOOLS AND METHODS FOR COMMUNITY PROFILING

✔ Community history (time line): frequency of shocks and coping mechanisms
✔ Vulnerability context: proportion of households which are affected by disasters and
reasons
✔ Disaster risk assessment: participatory process of determining the nature, scope and
magnitude of negative effects of hazards on a community and its households within a
particular time period
 Timeline: narrates the disaster history and significant events that happened in the
community
 Hazard and resource map: allows the community to identify graphically the
vulnerable members of the community especially the young, the elderly and the
disabled who are put at special risk by hazards
 Seasonal calendar: seasonal changes and related hazards, diseases, community events
and other hazards related to specific months of a year
 Ranking: analysing problems to know the priorities of a community or the most
significant problems faced by the community
 Transect: walking in the geographical area belonging to a community to get a picture
of the vulnerability of the community and the resources that are available or may be
available for disaster risk management
 Historical transect: graphic presentation of the history of disasters and development
in the community (done by recall)
 Matrix ranking: ranking tools used to prioritise hazards or disaster risks, needs or
options
 Household composition: human capital, labour force, migration, education,
dependency status of various socio-economic groups

✔ Wealth ranking: typical characteristics of wealth and well-being groups in the community
 Household assets by wealth group (access to land, water and natural resources;
livestock ownership; physical and financial capital)
 Typical livelihood strategies and sources of assets for each wealth group
 Rough estimate of the proportion of households in each wealth category
 Which categories of households are increasing their wealth; staying the same; falling
into poverty (reasons)

73
 ✔ Focus group meetings: with community people, non-leaders, separate groups of women
]
S

and men
I
S

 Local resource map: main land types, livelihood activities on each land type, physical
L Y

infrastructure (roads, public transportation, irrigated areas, water points, schools,

A
N

health posts, nearest market, electricity, banks, agricultural extension etc.)

A

 Seasonal activity calendar: crops, livestock, forest, off-farm work, marketing,

S

processing of food and natural products, handicrafts (e.g. leather, textile or metal
M
E

work), domestic work, by gender, caste and age

T
S

 Vulnerability context: shocks, stresses, proportion of households who are food and
Y

income insecure in an average year, bad year, good year (reasons)

S

 Problem analysis: Perceived livelihood problems, causes of problems, coping

T
N

mechanisms and livelihood opportunities of women and men

E
M

 Feedback on project activities and preferred service providers

E
G
A

B) TOOLS AND METHODS FOR ANALYSING VERTICAL AND

N
A

HORIZONTAL LINKAGES
M

✔ Brainstorming sessions
K
S

 One day informal brainstorming sessions among the members of the assessment team.
I
R

✔ Venn diagram
R

 Venn diagram and/or ‘mental map’ of local institutions, their relative importance and
E
T

linkages with higher-level institutions.

S
A

✔ Colour card exercise

S
I

 Relationships and linkages between institutions can be mapped by writing key factors
D
[

on cards, sticking the cards onto a wall in a pattern, and drawing lines between cards
to show lines of influence.
 Coloured cards can be used to represent different sectors and their DRM-related
activities.
✔ Group exercise
 The participants and stakeholders in the assessment may be divided into few groups
and each group given a specific area with the request to present the key linkages within
and between the institutions.
✔ Institutional environment mapping
 This is a form of stakeholder analysis which illustrates the relationships between actors
at micro-level, and the relationships between actors in a particular sector.
✔ Sectoral institutional assessment 46
 In a sectoral institutional assessment, data are gathered and examined in a tiered
analysis, at the political-structural level, the administrative-systems level, and the
technical-sectoral level, paying particular attention to the institutional dynamics and
linkages among sectoral agencies.

46 “Sectoral Institutional Assessment” has been developed and documented by the World Bank as a diagnostic and consensus-
building approach to design and plan institutional reforms/development or capacity-building measures as required by sector-
specific programmes.

74
 ANNEX
2 DEFINITIONS OF
TERMS AND
CONCEPTS

The understanding of vulnerability and disaster as social processes and as the object of social
intervention and control can be enriched by an appreciation of commonly accepted concepts
and expressions associated with disaster risk reduction. The Table below provides an abstract
of definitions issued by the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR).47
These are a consolidation of definitions proposed by a number of international organizations
and expert consultations convened by UN/ISDR to review concepts and definitions in order
to reach agreement on a common terminology for disaster reduction issues.
Agreement on the dynamics of disaster risks is key to ensuring that disaster risks are
addressed in national sustainable development frameworks and strategies such as those
developed in the Common Country Assessment (CCA) and UN Development Assistance
Framework (UNDAF) processes. This also applies specifically to the development of
“frameworks for disaster risk reduction” that are being promoted and supported by UN/ISDR
and UNDP.48 Thus the use of this common terminology during CCA/UNDAF working
group discussions will greatly facilitate shared agreement on ways of strengthening the various
roles and initiatives being promoted for disaster risk reduction at the country level.

DISASTER-RELATED TERMS AND DEFINITIONS49

A combination of all the strengths and resources available within a community, society or
Capacity

organization that can reduce the level of risk, or the effects of a disaster.
Capacity may include physical, institutional, social or economic means as well as skilled
personal or collective attributes such as leadership and management. Capacity may also
be described as capability.

Efforts aimed to develop human skills or societal infrastructures within a community or

Capacity
building

organization needed to reduce the level of risk.

In extended understanding, capacity building also includes development of
institutional, financial, political and other resources, such as technology at different levels
and sectors of the society.

47 The UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR): As the successor to the 1990-1999 International Decade
for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR), the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (the Strategy) was adopted by
the United Nations General Assembly to provide a global framework for action to reduce human, social, economic and
environmental losses from natural hazards and related technological and environmental disasters. The Strategy aims at
building disaster resilient communities by promoting increased awareness of the importance of disaster reduction as an
integral component of sustainable development. To implement the Strategy and ensure synergy among different stakeholders
in linking disaster reduction with humanitarian and development activities, the inter-agency secretariat of the UN/ISDR (the
Secretariat) was established in 2000 with the mandate to coordinate disaster reduction strategies and policies within the UN
system and beyond, promote the subject widely and advocate with national platforms.
48 See: UN/ISDR. 2004. Living with Risk: A global review of disaster reduction initiatives. 2004 Version, Volume 1. Geneva.
The “Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction” describes the general context and primary activities of disaster risk reduction
programmes, including the elements necessary for preparing a comprehensive disaster risk reduction (or disaster risk
management) strategy.
49 Definitions are extracted from the longer list available in: UN/ISDR. 2004. Living with Risk: A global review of disaster
reduction initiatives. 2004 Version, Volume II Annexes. Geneva.

75
]

The means by which people or organisations use available resources and abilities to face
S

capacity
I

Coping
adverse consequences that could lead to a disaster.
S

In general, this involves managing resources, both in normal times as well as during
L Y

crises or adverse conditions. The strengthening of coping capacities usually builds

A

resilience to withstand the effects of natural and human-induced hazards.

N
A

A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society causing widespread

S

human, material, economic or environmental losses which exceed the ability of the
Disaster
M

affected community or society to cope using its own resources.

E

A disaster is a function of the risk process. It results from the combination of hazards,
T
S

conditions of vulnerability and insufficient capacity or measures to reduce the potential

Y

negative consequences of risk.

S

The systematic process of using administrative decisions, organization, operational skills

T

management
Disaster risk
N

and capacities to implement policies, strategies and coping capacities of the society and
E

communities to lessen the impacts of natural hazards and related environmental and
M

technological disasters. This comprises all forms of activities, including structural and non-
E
G

structural measures to avoid (prevention) or to limit (mitigation and preparedness) adverse

A

effects of hazards.
N
A

The conceptual framework of elements considered with the possibilities to minimize

M

vulnerabilities and disaster risks throughout a society, to avoid (prevention) or to limit

K

(mitigation and preparedness) the adverse impacts of hazards, within the broad context
S

of sustainable development. The disaster risk reduction framework is composed of the

Disaster risk reduction
I

(disaster reduction)

following fields of actions:

R

 Risk awareness and assessment including hazard analysis and vulnerability/capacity

R

analysis;
E
T

 Knowledge development including education, training, research and information;

S

 Public commitment and institutional frameworks, including organizational, policy,

A

legislation and community action;

S
I

 Application of measures including environmental management, land-use and urban

D

planning, protection of critical facilities, application of science and technology,

[

partnership and networking, and financial instruments;

 Early warning systems including forecasting, dissemination of warnings, preparedness
measures and reaction capacities.

The organization and management of resources and responsibilities for dealing with all
management
Emergency

aspects of emergencies, in particular preparedness, response and rehabilitation.

Emergency management involves plans, structures and arrangements established to
engage the normal endeavours of government, voluntary and private agencies in a
comprehensive and coordinated way to respond to the whole spectrum of emergency
needs. This is also known as disaster management.

The provision of timely and effective information, through identified institutions, that
Early warning

allows individuals exposed to a hazard to take action to avoid or reduce their risk and
prepare for effective response.
Early warning systems include a chain of concerns, namely: understanding and
mapping the hazard; monitoring and forecasting impending events; processing and
disseminating understandable warnings to political authorities and the population, and
undertaking appropriate and timely actions in response to the warnings.

A potentially damaging physical event, phenomenon or human activity that may cause
the loss of life or injury, property damage, social and economic disruption or
environmental degradation.
Hazard

Hazards can include latent conditions that may represent future threats and can have
different origins: natural (geological, hydro-meteorological and biological) or induced by
human processes (environmental degradation and technological hazards). Hazards can be
single, sequential or combined in their origin and effects. Each hazard is characterised by
its location, intensity, frequency and probability.

76
 Mitigation
Structural and non-structural measures undertaken to limit the adverse impact of natural
hazards, environmental degradation and technological hazards.
Preparedness

Activities and measures taken in advance to ensure effective response to the impact of
hazards, including the issuance of timely and effective early warnings and the temporary
evacuation of people and property from threatened locations.

Activities to provide outright avoidance of the adverse impact of hazards and means to
Prevention

minimize related environmental, technological and biological disasters.

Depending on social and technical feasibility and cost/benefit considerations, investing
in preventive measures is justified in areas frequently affected by disasters. In the context
of public awareness and education related to disaster risk reduction, changing attitudes
and behaviour contribute to promoting a "culture of prevention".
response

The provision of assistance or intervention during or immediately after a disaster to meet

Relief/

the life preservation and basic subsistence needs of those people affected. It can be of an
immediate, short-term, or protracted duration.

The capacity of a system, community or society potentially exposed to hazards to adapt,

Resilience/
resilient

by resisting or changing in order to reach and maintain an acceptable level of functioning

and structure. This is determined by the degree to which the social system is capable of
organizing itself to increase its capacity for learning from past disasters for better future
protection and to improve risk reduction measures.

The probability of harmful consequences, or expected losses (deaths, injuries, property,

livelihoods, economic activity disrupted or environment damaged) resulting from
interactions between natural or human-induced hazards and vulnerable conditions.
Conventionally risk is expressed by the notation
Risk

Risk = Hazards x Vulnerability. Some disciplines also include the concept of exposure to
refer particularly to the physical aspects of vulnerability.
Beyond expressing a possibility of physical harm, it is crucial to recognise that risks are
inherent or can be created or exist within social systems. It is important to consider the
social contexts in which risks occur and that people therefore do not necessarily share the
same perceptions of risk and their underlying causes.

A methodology to determine the nature and extent of risk by analysing potential hazards
and evaluating existing conditions of vulnerability that could pose a potential threat or
assessment/

harm to people, property, livelihoods and the environment on which they depend.
analysis
Risk

The process of conducting a risk assessment is based on a review of both the technical
features of hazards such as their location, intensity, frequency and probability; and also
the analysis of the physical, social, economic and environmental dimensions of
vulnerability and exposure, while taking particular account of the coping capabilities
pertinent to the risk scenarios.
Vulnerability

The conditions determined by physical, social, economic and environmental factors or

processes, which increase the susceptibility of a community to the impact of hazards.
For positive factors, which increase the ability of people to cope with hazards, see
definition of capacity.

77
 A
F N
E
O O
IR
V N
E
M T
N
A
]
S
I

1. Africover: Specifications for geometry and cartography, summary report of the workshop on
S
L Y

Africover, 76 pages, 2000 (E)

A

2. Terrestrial Carbon Observation: The Ottawa assessment of requirements, status and next
N

steps, by [Link], A.S. Denning and J. GOsz, 108 pages, 2002 (E)
A

3. Terrestrial Carbon Observation: The Rio de Janeiro recommendations for terrestrial and
S
M

atmospheric measurements, by .Cihlar, A.S. Denning, 108 pages 2002 (E)

E

4. Organic agriculture: Environment and food security, by Nadia El-Hage Scialabba and Caroline
T
S

Hattam, 258 pages, 2002 (E and S)

Y

5. Terrestrial Carbon Observation: The Frascati report on in situ carbon data and information, by
S

[Link], [Link] and [Link], 136 pages, 2002 (E)

T
N

6. The Clean Development Mechanism: Implications for energy and sustainable agriculture and
E

rural development projects, 2003 (E)*: Out of print/not available

M
E

7. The application of a spatial regression model to the analysis and mapping of poverty, by
G

Alessandra Petrucci, Nicola Salvati, Chiara Seghieri, 64 pages, 2003 (E)

A
N

8. Land Cover Classification System (LCCS) + CD-ROM, version 2, Geo-spatial Data and
A

Information, by Antonio di Gregorio and Louisa [Link], 208 pages, 2005 (E)
M

9. Coastal GTOS. Strategic design and phase 1 implementation plan, Global Environmental
K
S

Change, by Christian, R.R “et al”, 2005 (E)

I

10. Frost Protection: fundamentals, practice and economics- Volume I and II + CD, Assessment and
R

Monitoring, by Richard L Snyder, [Link] de Melo-Abreu, Scott Matulich, 72 pages, 2005 (E)
R
E

11. Mapping biophysical factors that influence agricultural production and rural vulnerability, Geo-
T
S

spatial Data and Information, by Harri Van Velthuizen “et al”, ~90 pages 2006 (E) in printing
A

12. Rapid Agriculture Disaster Assessment Routine (RADAR) 2008 (E) in printing
S
I

13. Disaster risk management systems analysis: A guide book, 2008 (E) in printing
D

14. Community based adaptation in action, 2008 (E) in printing

[

Availability: July 2008

Ar Arabic F French Multil Multilingual

C Chinese P Portuguese * Out of print
E English S Spanish ** In preparation

The FAO Technical Papers

are available through the authorized
FAO Sales Agents or directly from:

Sales and Marketing Group - FAO

Viale delle Terme di Caracalla
00153 Rome - Italy

78
The Disaster Risk Management opportunities and threats facing

(DRM) Systems Analysis Guide existing DRM institutional structures

provides a set of tools and methods to and their implications for on-going

assess existing structures and capacities of institutional change processes. It will

national, district and local institutions with also highlight the complex institutional linkages

responsibilities for Disaster Risk Management (DRM) among various actors and sectors at different
in order to improve their effectiveness and the levels. Finally, it will help identify gaps within
integration of DRM concerns into development the existing DRM institutions and/or systems
planning, with particular reference to disaster-prone including sectoral line agencies that are often
areas, vulnerable sectors and population groups. The responsible for implementing the technical
strategic use of the Guide is expected to enhance aspects of DRM (e.g. agriculture, water and
understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, health sectors).

Environment, Climate Change and Bioenergy Division (NRC) publications

[Link]/nr

NRC contact: Environment@[Link]

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)

[Link]

ISBN 978-92-5-106056-8 ISSN 1684-8241

9 789251 060568

TC/M/I0304E/1/09.08/1200