Integrated Risk Management

Reducing disaster risks by strengthening

community resilience
INTRODUCTION

Increasing disaster risks

Driven by compounding factors like climate change, rapid Policies, investments and practices should take account of
population growth, urbanization, ecosystem degradation (unintended) contributions to risks, and their role in enabling
and uncontrolled economic development of already risk reduction should be acknowledged. Thus interventions
vulnerable areas, disaster risks are increasing in many should range from long-term, development-oriented
countries. They differentially affect especially poor and anticipation and transformation of how society deals with risk
marginalized communities, and can stretch response to short-term, more relief-oriented anticipation and response
capacities to the limit. To prevent hazards from turning into a to shocks and stresses.
disaster, to mitigate avoidable impacts and recover quickly
when it happens, communities need to be resilient: strong Local realities should be recognized in global frameworks
and well-organised, with the ability to pro-actively manage and agreements, and consequently that related decisions
disaster risks. Thus disasters will have less impact and need to be made locally appropriate. This also implies that
development will be sustained. organisations should integrate and streamline their often
silo-ed approaches, and through partnerships with other
An integrated approach to manage disaster risks stakeholders, complement their knowledge and expertise.
Furthermore community-based work should be reinforced
To address disaster risks effectively, risk reduction with a focus on the institutional environment, ensuring that
interventions should address integrate time scales and policies and legislation, as well as the investments and
geographical scales. Climate variability and change practices that follow, are risk-informed and enable risk
necessitate the assessment of risks in the short term (weather reduction measures. Finally any intervention should build on
forecasts) as well as in the medium (seasonal forecast) and local resources and knowledge, complemented with
long term (climate change), which impact on the type, scientific knowledge where relevant, putting people and
frequency, intensity and predictability of risks. The wider their insights and experiences centre stage.
landscape should also be taken into account, since the place
where risks arise is in most cases spatially remote from the
place where they become manifest. Moreover the function of
ecosystems as buffer for hazards such as droughts or floods Key aspects of Integrated Risk Management
and as a source for livelihoods should be recognized. The
integration of climate and ecosystems into disaster risk • Putting people at risk centre-stage, building o
reduction is referred to as Integrated Risk Management local and traditional resources and knowledge
• Linking humanitarian and development domains by
With the integration of these three approaches, several other focusing on livelihoods;
key aspects of IRM can be identified (see box). To make • Addressing risk at a landscape scale
communities strong and robust, a resilience approach • Managing and restoring ecosystems
should consider and address the multiple, simultaneous and • Working on different time scales to ensure
often re-enforcing drivers of risks that affect livelihoods. adaptive planning;
This may also include a focus on (inter alia) health, water, • Linking local realities with global processes;
sanitation and hygiene, education, and gender equality. • Integrating disciplines and approaches to
Recognizing that development and ‘business as usual’ can encompass different risks;
increase risk (the risk for) disasters, and disasters can affect • Partnering with communities, CSOs, government,
development, both domains should thus be interrelated. knowledge institutes, private sector. media

1. INTEGRATED RISK MANAGEMENT

The situation
Disasters can have a devastating effect on people’s lives and and better organized, which enables them to prevent a
livelihoods. They can wipe away development efforts that hazard turning into a disaster, or to mitigate negative effects
took many years to achieve, and that will require and recover quickly when they happen.
considerable efforts to attain again. The severity of the effect
is a function of people’s exposure to and vulnerability to The approach
hazards, which are in turn spurred by trends like
environmental degradation, climate change, population In a context where livelihoods of people, families and
pressure, urbanization, and growing poverty and inequality. communities are increasingly under pressure, civil society
Obviously, negative effects are less, when people and the organisations should bundle their support to make
communities in which they live and function, are stronger communities less dependent on external assistance to deal
with disaster risks, in other words strengthen their resilience.
 Resilience
“Resilience is the ability of a system, community or society exposed to hazards to resist, absorb,
accommodate and recover from the effects of a hazard in a timely and efficient manner, including through the
preservation and restoration of its essential basic structures and functions.” (UNISDR)

This implies that a system, community or society that faces risk for a disaster is able to take measures that will
prevent a hazard to turn into a disaster, and/or that will pro-actively limit the impact of the disaster when it
happens, and/ or that will ensure that relief efforts will be efficient so that recovery (preferably to a better
situation than before the disaster) will be fast. Protecting and strengthening livelihoods is central.

By making community resilience central, a holistic with governments, private sector and other
approach can be taken: with the active support of civil stakeholders to find fundamental solutions to
society organisations, communities are enabled: risks, aimed at taking away the sources of risk.
This will lead to new or existing livelihoods that
To anticipate the risks they face by building on existing are no longer exposed to hazards.
capacities communities know to which hazards they are
exposed and what the related risks are, and they take The holistic approach stretches to include actions
actions to prepare themselves well e.g. with proper that are in the humanitarian as well as in the
planning, maintaining stocks, organising early warning development domain. Moreover, with a leading role
systems; for communities, it makes interventions more cost
effective, reduces the need for future external
To respond when disaster strikes while maintaining support, and brings more sustainable results. By
basic structures and functions the triggering of a making communities better able to withstand shocks
response leads to a series of planned and practiced and stresses it also reduces the need to migrate to
actions aimed at saving lives and livelihoods in a way other areas in search of better opportunities, which in
that still enables the system, especially the less affected turn may contribute to social tensions and conflict.
parts, to continue to function as normal; Efforts to strengthen community resilience are
therefore not only relevant in an exclusive disaster
To adapt to changing risks and to a changing location context, but can also contribute to conflict prevention
situation and its livelihood options communities and mitigation.
strengthen their livelihoods so that they are better able
to withstand shocks and stresses, e.g. by introducing To achieve this, the Integrated Risk Management
drought-resistant seeds, or by strengthening physical approach puts Disaster Risk Reduction in a context
where risks for communities because of natural
structures;
hazards are assessed (and addressed) by also taking
into account the effects of climate (change) (see
To transform themselves to address underlying factors
Annex 1), the wider landscape and the role of
and root causes of risk communities engage actively
ecosystems (idem):

Integrated Risk Management elements, levels and inputs

natural hazards adapt transform households, communities

community
resilience
climate (variability,change) civil society, knowledge inst.
(capitals)

ecosystem degradation government, private sector

anticipate respond

other risk factors

disaster risks integrated response stakeholders

 Integrating climate (change) and ecosystems into DRR

disaster risk Level of integration, depending

reduction on capacities and context

climate ecosystem
change management
adaptation and
restoration

By integrating climate variability and change IRM looks not integration will depend on specific context, and will have
only at current (weather-related) risks, but also at future risks, different levels, depending on the capacities and context.
which may be different in frequency, intensity and even
nature; To enable this integration, staff should have a minimum
understanding of the concepts and approaches towards
By integrating the role of ecosystems IRM looks at the wider climate variability and climate change adaptation, ecosystem
landscape as a system in which risks originate and become management and restoration and landscape approaches.
manifest; if well-managed ecosystems can buffer hazards The RCRC Climate Centre and Wetlands International
and bring livelihood benefits to communities. contribute to this.
The integration of climate and climate change adaptation, Other risk factors pertain to e.g. economic shocks, accidents,
and of ecosystem management and restoration, is a or violence which, in turn, may be partially spurred by
manifestation of the fact that disaster risk reduction, by worsening climatic and environmental conditions. While
nature, has an overlap with these two fields: it addresses disaster risk reduction, and the integration of climate
disasters that are climate-related (i.e. disasters to which (change) and ecosystems into it, is central, these factors
extreme weather contributes), that play-out in landscapes, should also be considered and addressed when and where
and that affect ecosystems on which people rely. possible.
The integrated approach enables communities to better Parallel tracks in IRM
manage the risks they face: anticipation and response to
risks, and the adaptation or even transformation of their The key focus of IRM is on communities that are most
livelihoods makes them stronger and more resilient: they are exposed to risks. First of all disaster risk assessments are
better able to live through periods of shocks and stresses, carried out with and by communities (to which civil society
and to recover more quickly from them, possibly with organisations like PfR add macro-level trends), disaster risk
livelihoods that are more robust than before. The activities committees are established and risk reduction measures are
focus on the ‘capitals’ that individuals, families and implemented.
communities have and apply (natural, economic, social,
human and physical). They seek involvement not only from Simultaneously people’s livelihoods are assessed and
households and communities themselves, but also from adapted or even transformed if needed – focusing on
CSOs, knowledge institutes, government and the private economic opportunities, as well as on issues like strong
sector. social structures, improved health, safe water, adequate
sanitation and hygiene.
Integrated Risk Management demands a wide skills set. A
basic understanding of the role of ecosystems and climate These measures are tailored to the specific needs of each
(change) will move interventions beyond ‘normal’ DRR. It will community. As communities are often experiencing a range
acknowledge and accommodate the characteristics of of issues that affect their lives, the assessments will likely
ecosystems and climate, thus expanding and deepening the reveal other elements that may need to be addressed,
DRR interventions. Obviously the fields of climate change simultaneously with the risk reduction and livelihood
adaptation (CCA) and ecosystem management and interventions.
restoration (EMR) are wide ranging in itself, stretching well
beyond DRR-related issues. In addition to the community interventions the IRM approach
brings in a range of civil society organisations, ensuring they
Integration is therefore only relevant to the extent that CCA too embrace the approach, and harnesses their capacities,
and EMR elements contribute to DRR. IRM is situated in the also to address other risk factors and thus enhance the IRM
overlapping areas, and through targeted efforts approach. Also knowledge institutes are engaged to provide
communities, CSOs and other stakeholders strive to seek insight in underlying processes that render people
maximum synergy, and thus to expand these areas as much
as possible. The importance and thus the relevance for
vulnerable, and support production and use of science places where it originates and where it manifests
based evidence for IRM interventions. itself become clear places which can be
geographically remote.
Finally the application of Humanitarian Diplomacy
complements the work with communities and other Ecosystems – Moreover the role of ecosystems for
organisations and institutes. It enables constructive community safety and resilience needs to be
dialogues with governments and public and private recognized: degraded ecosystems can increase
companies and financial institutions to ensure a conducive disaster risk, while healthy and well-managed
legal and financial environment for IRM, and investments that ecosystems can function as a buffer for hazards
minimise or prevent inherent risks. and contribute to people’s livelihoods.

While preferably all of the above tracks are implemented Timescales – Encompass different time scales in
simultaneously, the exclusive focus on individual ones can risk management, enabling its adaptation to
provide substantial results as well. The pursuing of dialogues changing risk situations in both short and
to improve legislation or to ensure that major investments long-term, and ensuring that early warning
take risk properly into account will be beneficial to information can be translated into appropriate
(eventually) strengthen the resilience of communities, even action.
though the focus is on other actors.
Global and local – Make global and regional policy
Similarly an initiative aimed to strengthen the knowledge frameworks and agreements risk-informed by local
base of a civil society network by ensuring the uptake of IRM realities, so that they effectively enable IRM
experiences will enable the participating organisations to initiatives. The accompanying systems and
make their interventions better risk-informed, which will also structures should in turn ensure that indeed local
contribute to communities’ resilience. communities benefit.

Obviously many more factors can strengthen communities’ Integration – Apply a holistic approach. Since
resilience, like health, education or conflict transformation. hazards and risks are not only manifold but also
These can complement the IRM approach in a holistic often mutually reinforcing, single-sector orienta-
programme to address vulnerabilities. tions should be avoided

The IRM approach is pioneered by Partners for Resilience Partnerships – Approaches will become most
(see box). On a basis of eight key principles it moves from effective if involved stakeholders (communities,
disaster risk reduction to an integrated approach. They government agencies, private sector, knowledge
combine issues that are specific to risk management with institutes, and civil society) collaborate to
issues that pertain to sensible programming to achieve complement each other’s expertise and resources
sustainable results. in order to traverse different sectors.

Local ownership – Promote community self Any IRM intervention should be based on sound and
management, boost empowerment and create local sensible programming principles. An important
ownership. This will put communities in the driving seat of aspect is that translation of the underlying
their own development. Local and traditional knowledge approaches always requires context-specific
and resources should be the basis, and should to be approaches and learning-by-doing. Approaches thus
complemented with external resources, including need to adapt to local realities. This applies especially
scientific knowledge, to make interventions more also to civil society organisations propagating the IRM
effective and sustainable. approach: the adaptability will strengthen their
institutional resilience.
Livelihoods – Focus on protecting and strengthening
livelihoods, both from a humanitarian and a development Monitoring and evaluation contributes to learning and
perspective. The robustness of structures and knowledge to the extent that it can become
arrangements through which a individuals, families and normatively used locally to inform learning-by-doing
communities function determines their ability to approaches on an on-going basis.
withstand or recover from shocks and stresses. Risk
management should therefore focus on livelihoods Furthermore (cost) effectiveness and efficiency
through a combination of community interventions and require solid baselines, as well as agreement on
targeted dialogues with stakeholders to make policies, indicators to measure progress towards jointly agreed
investment decisions and practices risk targets. Also interventions should be culturally sensi-
informed. tive, specifically in relation to gender, and should
avoid replicating or strengthening inequalities.
Landscapes – Recognize the broader geographical scales
(landscapes) on which the drivers of risk express
themselves. By regarding risk in a wider landscape, the
 Partners for Resillience

Alliance and programme | Since 2011 the Partners for Resilience

(PfR) have been implementing a Disaster Risk Reduction programme
through Integrated Risk Management. The alliance combines the
expertise from the fields of DRR, climate (change) and ecosystems. The
Netherlands Red Cross, Cordaid and CARE Nederland are traditionally
active in humanitarian assistance and development, while the Red
Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre adds the knowledge and expertise
in the field of climate (change), and Wetlands International
complements it with experience in the field of ecosystem management
and restoration

Implementation is done via their local partners in the countries where

PfR is active. The complementing expertise and networks, and the
organisational and coordinating structures that have been established,
have proven to be successful, and can serve as an example of similar
activities in relation to strengthening community resilience.

The Partners for Resilience alliance’s programme (2011-2015) has been

supported largely by the Netherlands government. It allowed the
alliance to implement the programme along three intervention
strategies (working with communities, civil society organisations and
knowledge institutes, and governments and private sector) and further
develop the [Link] funding for 2016-2020 facilitates
(exclusively) ‘IRM dialogues’, i.e. engagement with other civil society
organisations, governments and private sector to improve policies,
investments and practices. Through Humanitarian Diplomacy PfR
focuses its attention on issues that impact on risks for communities,
supports them to reduce these risks, and proposes ways to achieve
this. This relates to policies, investments and practices. Thus direct
community interventions, while establishing an evidence base for the
IRM dialogues, cannot be funded out of the above government
funding. PfR will therefore look for other resources to continue this
string of work as part of its IRM approach.

The focus on IRM dialogues through Humanitarian Diplomacy includes

the strengthening of capacities of PfR’s implementing organisations
and alliance members to effectively pursue the dialogues. While
primarily aiming to strengthen specific HD capabilities, support also
covers the strengthening of organisational capacities in related fields.

Countries and partners | Under the above funding of the Ministry

of Foreign Affairs the alliance (the five organisations and their local
partners) is active in Ethiopia, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Kenya,
Mali, Philippines, South Sudan, Uganda. There, Country Teams,
consisting of representatives from the alliance members and
implementing partners, guide the programme implementation. For the
new five-year programme they are intensively supported in the
strengthening of their capacities to conduct dialogues, and at the same
time apply these capacities in targeted dialogues. The dialogues are
informed by, and contribute to, global processes on DRR, ecosystems
and climate, in which PfR engages simultaneously.

While the PfR programme so far is concentrating on the above

mentioned countries, the partners are ambitious to upscale the IRM
approach to other countries as well. This may be with the full alliance,
or with a smaller number of alliance partners, given the specific
situation. For such new programmes it will ensure that the three
ingredients DRR, Climate (change) and Ecosystem Management and
Restoration are sufficiently covered, i.e. include the Climate Centre and
Wetlands International in the initiatives.
2. STEPS AND TOOLS TO DESIGN EFFECTIVE IRM PROGRAMMES
As indicated in the previous chapter, IRM programmes are Crescent Climate Centre’s ‘Minimum Standards for
structured along three strategic directions: Climate- smart Disaster Risk Reduction’. A growing
body of IRM-related tools and training materials will
Working with communities, be shared on the PfR website (see also box below).
Strengthening civil society and collaborating with
knowledge institutes, Activity plans for Integrated Risk Management will be
And engaging in dialogue with governments and developed and implemented, which adhere to the
investors. outcomes of the risk assessments. While IRM focuses
on disaster risk reduction including livelihoods
These three lines are interconnected: through dialogues with strengthening, the communities may have expressed
governments and investors (third strategic direction) civil other additional concerns that fall outside of this
society organisations work to improve policies, legislation, focus. The holistic nature of resilience may make it
practise and funding / invest-ments that will benefit their relevant to address these concerns also, as part of the
community work (first strategic direction). Furthermore the to-be-developed IRM programme. For this, other
strengthening of (other) CSOs and collaboration with organisations, either from within the partners’
knowledge institutes (second strategic direction) will networks or external organisations, may be invited to
improve CSOs’ support to communities (first strategic contribute to the IRM programme development and
direction), but also their ability to advocate for IRM with implementation.
governments and investors (third strategic direction). The
overview below builds on PfR’s experience, and presents Community organisation is a key ingredient to make
tools and approaches that the organisations have applied, IRM programmes successful. It not only contributes to
based on common understanding of situations and in efforts ownership and sustainability but also to the
to seek maximum complementarity and synergy. effectiveness of the programme. Supported by PfR’s
local implementing partners, Community Risk
Working with communities Reduction Committees organise the work within
communities, based on the activity plan, and seek
To design, implement and monitor IRM programmes at financial and other support from (local) governments
community level, the steps outlined below are taken. and other stakeholders. These committees are the
counterparts and at times members or volunteers of
Risk assessments are carried out (like a regular VCA / the CSO partners both for implementation and
Vulnerability & Capacity Assessment, a PDRA / Participatory monitoring.
Disaster Risk Analysis), adding elements of climate (change)
and ecosystems. The (Netherlands) Red Cross, Cordaid and Participatory monitoring, evaluation and learning
CARE have extensive knowledge and expertise and tools on systems enable the ability to document and learn
disaster risk analysis at community level. The Red Cross Red from IRM activities, which will in turn further enhance
Crescent Climate Centre and Wetlands International communities’ resilience. Therefore it is important to
contribute knowledge, expertise and tools to assess (climate) build M&E systems that communities can use
risks over long(er) timescales, and to assess ecosystem buffer themselves. With the acquired evidence they can
functions and hazard risk assessment in a wider landscape. enter into dialogue with (local) government and
Over the years PfR has gained wide experience in comple- investors. Also through mutual and joint learning (e.g.
menting appropriate tools, like for example Wetlands exchange visits, review workshop) communities can
International’s ‘Integrating Climate and Ecosystems into improve their resilience.
Community Risk Assessments’, and the Red Cross/Red

Tools for effective Integrated Risk Management interventions

Tools to increase understanding of IRM, and to support effective IRM interventions (not exhaustive) are:

Criteria for ecosystem-smart disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation
Ecosystem-based CCA Training manual (Wetlands International)
IRM Manual and Technical Brief on IRM in the Project Cycle (CARE)
Framework for Community Safety and Resilience; Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment (VCA); Integrating Climate
Change and Urban Risk into VCA (IFRC)
Training manual on Facilitating Community-managed Disaster Risk Reduction (CMDRR) (Cordaid)
Guide for facilitation of multi-stakeholder processes at district and urban level for disaster risk analysis and IRM action
planning (Cordaid)
MOOC on Disasters and Ecosystems (Wetlands International)
Upscaling of the work is an important concern of the PfR (e.g. on water availability leading to floods, drought). To
alliance members and their partners in this programme. make IRM interventions successful, PfR partners engage in
Given the magnitude of vulnerabilities and disaster risks, dialogue with governments and public and private finance
good IRM examples must be documented and used to institutions at local, provincial/state, national and global
persuade governments and (other) investors to uptake the levels.
IRM approach in their policies and investments decisions
and facilitate the expansion of IRM interventions. Determining key subjects and stakeholders to influence:
to reduce risks for communities, the PfR partners seek to
Strengthening civil society, collaborating with enhance policies, investments and practices, ensuring
knowledge institutes that reduction or prevention of risks is incorporated in
any decision. Thus it is essential to identify who the key
To make interventions successful, the IRM approach needs to stakeholders are that make these decisions, what
be taken up widely – by the PfR alliance members and their arguments need to be brought to the table, and which
partner organisations as well as by other civil society steps need to be taken to achieve the desired change.
organisations, governments and investors. By organising and
strengthening the capacity of civil society organisations, Organising dialogues by agreeing on a plan (aims,
(elements of) IRM can be introduced in other community strategy, milestones, budget) for the dialogue
programmes, and can be addressed in dialogues with trajectories, and by the shape and form of actual
stakeholders like governments. Furthermore through dialogues, e.g. through round tables, becoming part of
linking-up with other organisations specific expertise will a government delegation, inviting policy makers and
become available to the IRM programme. Steps to take into investors to a seminar or workshop, developing and
account when aiming to strengthen civil society are: disseminating policy briefs etc. Primarily this should lead
to improved policies, investments and practices.
Mapping relevant civil society organisations that are Additionally it may also identify resources that enable
(potential) players in the field of IRM (in the case of PfR: PfR or other civil society organisations to carry out
disaster risk reduction, climate and climate change targeted IRM interventions.
adaptation, and ecosystem management and restoration).
The mapping will also relate to the access these CSOs have Monitoring progress (M&E and Learning). Milestones
to key stakeholders, notably to governments and investors, that have been achieved and the specific activities that
and to most at risk communities. have contributed to that need to be documented and
regularly discussed between the PfR organisations, in
Consolidating and strengthening the capacity of the selected order to identify any required adjustments that may
CSOs to work on IRM. Here different capacities can be taken need to be agreed and implemented. Progress will also
into account, e.g. capacities to plan, implement and be discussed in relation to the effect it may have for
monitor IRM projects at community level, the capacity to on-going activities (see under ‘working with
manage projects (incl. financial reporting), the capacity to communities’).
build IRM knowledge (evidence), and the capacity to
facilitate and execute IRM dialogues with key stakeholders Levels of dialogues are to be linked, to yield maximum
(e.g. government, investors, INGOs). Under PfR several tools effect from IRM dialogues at higher levels (international,
are developed that serve to increase understanding of IRM, regional, national, subnational), and also to feed these
and to plan for effective risk reduction interventions (see dialogues. To enable this, regular exchange needs to be
box). organised with teams (of alliance members and their
partner organisations, plus other organisations) that
Establishing CSO networks and platforms to bundle local operate at the different levels.
CSOs and strengthen their ‘voice’ through engaging in
policy dialogues, discuss relevant developments and The outcome
opportunities for dissemination and further uptake of IRM.
To facilitate this, CSO platforms can be established. The outcome of Integrated Risk Management efforts is a
mitigation of hazards, reduced vulnerability of communities
Engaging with knowledge institutes on basis of identified for and exposure to these hazards, and improved capacities
needs for specific information, facts and figures and to deal with disaster impacts. Underlying causes of risks are
expertise, as laid down in the activity plans (see under recognized and addressed, basic services are rendered
‘working with communities’) adequate, accessible and uninterrupted, and communities
are enabled to take appropriate measures. The ability of
Engaging with governments and investors communities to anticipate, respond, adapt and transform in
the face of increasing disaster (risks) reflects their resilience
As the body that sets laws, determines policies and including the strength of their livelihoods: disaster resilient
regulations, provides finance and implements (development) communities have more robust livelihoods to overcome the
programmes, governments are a key stakeholder in shocks and stresses they face, and have safe living
Integrated Risk Management. Furthermore investors environments, so that people (families) are better able to
(governments, private sector, multilateral donors) can shape their own development and set their own priorities
enhance or decrease communities’ resilience through the re: work and income, health and education.
risk-impact the development projects they finance can have
3. EXAMPLES OF SUCCESSFUL IRM
Throughout their first five years as a partnership, PfR has helped set-up and strengthen some 550 community risk
committees, and reached some 640,000 beneficiaries who are now covered by risk plans. Around 75,000 are trained
in ecosystem-based livelihood approaches, and 123,000 have adapted, diversified or strengthened their livelihoods.

PfR partners have worked with (and often co- created) 82 network organisations where they have propagated the IRM
approach. At the end of the five-year programme around 550 organisations work on the implementation of IRM –
through community interventions and/ or through targeted dialogues on IRM withstakeholders. Almost 100 of them
have established cooperation with knowledge and resource institutes. The fact that PfR regards government
institutions as partners is reflected in the involvement of 350 of these in PfR activities.

Key findings of ‘Learning from and about PfR’

An assessment of the first five-year programme of Partners for Resilience assessed the relevance of the integrated
approach, provided evidence about its contribution to enhancing local communities’ resilience, and gained insight to
institutional dynamics and interventions. The outcomes revealed that:

The resilience approach is relevant for its integrated nature and the focus on communities, yet risks to background
the structural causes of vulnerability and the rights-base of populations to be protected by their government. Most
successful were activities that combine DRR, EMR, CCA with tangible livelihood projects.
The PfR approach is highly relevant to communities and stakeholders, yet the framing of the approach is complex
(many principles, building blocks, dimensions), also because of the (artificial) separation of domains and time
frames.
It is a strong suit of PfR to build on existing community structures with the caveat that this risks reproducing existing
inequalities.
The PfR approach is complex in its incorporation of many stakeholders in programming. As a result, there was a
long inception phase, and five years appears to be a short time frame for such a complex programme.
Coordination has appeared to be a key factor in the success of PfR.
The emphasis PfR put on learning throughout the program was strongly valued on all levels and by all partners,
however more could have been reached.
Local government often lacks power to enable community resilience
National government turns out to be a powerful actor in the enabling environment of communities and trickling-up
of the PfR approach from local to national government has not been realized.
An external assessment of the programme, carried out by Amhara Region, South Gondar zone, Ebinat woreda where
researchers from Groningen and Wageningen University, recurrent drought and ecosystem degradation are a
looked at the relevance, evidence and dynamics of the common phenomenon.
applied approach. It revealed a number of achievements
and successes, and also identify challenges for successful The aim of the programme was to contribute to sustainable
Implementation (see box). The outcomes, in line with the economic development and poverty reduction through
learning ambition (chapter 2), feed new IRM/ Resilience strengthening the capacities of targeted community to
programmes of the partners and are used in disseminating implement DRR/CCA/EMR measures. The major activities
the integrated approach. implemented were:

[The next section should include examples, adjusted in size, Capacity building: DRR committee formation and
contents, language to the specific target group. Examples strengthening, provision of trainings on DRR/CCA/EMR,
can come from the PfR booklet and/or possibly country WATSAN, experience sharing and formation of
specific examples] environmental school club were conducted and resulted
in change of attitude and practice on DRR measures.
CARE Ethiopia PfR project
Ecosystem management and restoration: The main
CARE Ethiopia in partnership with Support for Sustainable causes of natural resource degradation in the area are
Development Organization (SSD), registered local NGO, over cultivation /deforestation and agricultural land
implemented the project in Afar Regional State Dewe expansion/, over grazing and improper management
Woreda from 2011 to 2015. resulted in loss of product and productivity of crop,
livestock and water sources on which the livelihood of
The project built the capacities of the community to the community depend. Rehabilitating the degraded
withstand shocks and secure livelihoods in a sustainable ecosystem was one of the prioritized activities as
manner. ecosystem is source of livelihood and livelihood depends
on the condition of the ecosystem. In the three project
Three major strategies adopted includes: sites 476 ha of denuded area was fully rehabilitated
through construction of standardized physical soil and
Sustainable economic development and poverty moisture harvesting structures, enriching with tree
reduction, planting and closing from encroaching to allow natural
Strengthening of civil society and community regeneration. Rehabilitated sites are becoming source of
empowerment, fodder for livestock and honey for bee-keeper youths
Policy dialogue and advocacy for stronger DRR/CCA supporting and diversifying livelihood expected from the
policies and increased resources at all levels. health ecosystem.

During the 5 years implementation period, the project Food security /livelihood support and diversification: To
supported 30,400 direct and indirect beneficiaries/vulnerable adapt the impact of climate change, supporting and
community members in the 4 kebeles of Dewe woreda to diversifying livelihood of more vulnerable community
strengthen their resilience to deal with increased disaster members were conducted through climate smart
risk, effects of climate change and environmental degradation. practices as of goat and sheep breeding, poultry,
In the process, CARE Ethiopia and its partner Organization, bee-keeping, fuel saving stove production and
SSD, cooperated with local authorities, communities and demonstrating modern agricultural practices.
other stakeholders. These target population was reached
through community mappings, risk plans, livelihood Water and sanitation: To solve the problem of water
interventions, and community wider awareness events. access for both production and domestic use,
development of two small scale irrigation accessing more
The project achievements include: Community risk than 500 beneficiaries and 7/seven/ hand dug wells
reduction and contingency plans, based on inclusive addressing safe water to 1580 people were
participatory Hazard, Vulnerability and Capacity implemented.
assessments; Livelihood protection and diversification,
based on sustainable ecosystem management; Enhanced From the program 10847 vulnerable community members
capacity of the CBOs to effectively facilitate DRR/CCA/EMR were directly benefited from different DRR activities in
interventions; Enhanced capacity of CBOs to advocate for different scale. As a community based project, the
DRR/CCA/EMR.; PfR experiences, lessons learnt and best involvement of community and local government bodies
practices are made available and contribute to policy have been insured from the start and sense of ownership
development and support for implementation. has been improved from time to time that indicates the
sustainability of the DRR activities. The progress was closely
ERCS PfR1 Project in Amhara Region and regularly monitored by the community, project
facilitators, higher officials through site visit, reporting and
Between 2009 and 20015, the Ethiopian Red Cross Society auditing and was also evaluated externally.
in partnership with the Netherlands Red Cross implemented
Disaster Reduction Programme in disaster prone areas of
ANNEX
Climate and ecosystems explained

Climate is the average state of weather – the combination of wind, temperature and precipitation in an area. Weather is
what happens on a given day in a given location (e.g. “It is not raining today”), while climate is what usually happens in
that location based on long-term averages (e.g. it usually rains in May).

Climate variability are the extremes that occur within a climate, like heat waves, dry spells, typhoons / cyclones /
hurricanes, heavy rainfall, in a short time-frame of e.g. a month, a season or a year. Although the occurrence of the
extremes is normal, their time, place and level of extremity cannot be exactly predicted. Seasonal forecasts however
give an increasingly accurate assessment of the likelihood that they will occur.

Many factors have an impact on climate, like the land and the sea surface, and the atmosphere. Due to
i.e. human factors the climate is changing: the average temperature increases, and precipitation patterns alter
depending on the locality (some places experience more rainfall, others less). As a consequence, extreme events
related to higher temperatures and precipitation will become more frequent and/or more intense (e.g. heat waves,
drought or floods, storms), while others will become less likely (e.g. cold spells) – but can still occur.

In relation on ways to address climate change the IRM approach focuses on adaptation: interventions that are aimed to
deal with the effects of climate change on vulnerable people. While addressing the causes of climate change (e.g.
through less production of greenhouse gasses) is generally a sensible option, mitigation it is not the focus of IRM.

An ecosystem is the environment and all living things in it (humans, animals, vegetation) that interact with each other;
healthy ecosystems provide many services to people and nature such as purification of water and regulation of water
tables and groundwater recharge. A healthy ecosystem supports people’s livelihoods (agriculture, fishery, provision of
drinking water) and acts as a buffer in case of extreme events like heavy rainfall (absorbing rainwater) or typhoons /
cyclones / hurricanes (coastal vegetation breaking their force). These services come under pressure and are eroded by
external developments such as drainage of lakes, canalization and blocking of rivers and building of hard infrastructure
in coasts and deltas. Human actions (pollution or unsustainable constructions), as well as effects of climate change,
erode all these functions. As a consequence degraded ecosystems in fact increase risks.

All photos courtesy of Wetlands International