Strengthening capacities for disaster risk management II: Lessons for effective support
Introduction
Strengthening of national and local capacities for disaster risk management is a foundational theme within the movement toward disaster risk reduction, articulated strongly within the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030, and emphasised in a range of policy and practice reports on the subject (among them [19], [15], [40], [11], [3]). The logic is thus. Reduction of risk requires action by those (people and societies) facing hazards to reduce the threat that these hazards represent. In many, though significantly not all, cases this requires a shift in practice toward more proactive planning and management of risk. This change, in turn, means that in many cases actors at all levels need to strengthen their capability to act in this way. Capacity development, whether endogenous or externally supported, therefore becomes central to the drive for improved disaster risk management (DRM) and the transition to disaster risk reduction (DRR).
However, despite its centrality to the discourse, the volume of research on capacity development in DRM is presently small. In particular there are few empirical cross-country studies examining specific approaches or interventions in low- and middle income countries. Allen [2], Tadele and Manyena [34], Collymore [10], Gamboa-Maldonado et al. [16] and Hagelsteen and Becker [17] and are some of the few English-language peer-reviewed contributions in the post-Hyogo era that focus specifically on the topic.
The research reported in this paper responds to this gap by drawing lessons and insights from empirical research on capacity development for DRM projects in lower and middle income countries. In the linked paper1 [32] we define capacity development for DRM as ‘the process by which people, organisations and societies strengthen and sustain their abilities to take effective decisions and actions to reduce disaster risk’. That review points to how the approach and content of capacity support can better strengthen DRM, ideas that were combined, tested and explored through the research process. In this paper we present findings relating to these themes, offering examples of effective or at least partially effective practice, and set out in the conclusion a proposed framework of principles for strengthening capacity for effective DRM.
Section snippets
Methodology
The research on which this paper draws was based primarily on a set of case studies in six countries, supported by an international survey of DRM professionals. The case studies were conducted between March 2014 and May 2015 in Ethiopia, Pakistan, Myanmar, Philippines, Haiti and Mozambique, using a standardised methodological framework for data collection and analysis. In each country the team studied 2–3 capacity development initiatives for disaster risk management in-depth, providing an
Getting the process right
Broader discussions of capacity development emphasize the critical importance of process: approaching support in such a way that the chances for achieving and sustaining strengthened capacity are maximised. Though these are generic aspects of effective capacity strengthening it is useful to draw some brief findings from our studies of how this played out on the ground specifically in DRM support.
The capacity development literature calls for the active participation of those targeted for
Strengthening functional capacity
Capacity development interventions at all scales can relate to different elements of capacity [6], including material resources (access to equipment and technology), human resources (skills, knowledge, awareness), structures (organizations and policies), processes (decision-making, coordination, delivery) and enabling mechanisms (political support, advocacy, staff incentives).
In practice, provision of training and equipment often dominates capacity development for DRM interventions [17]. The
Linking the levels
The published literature on DRM capacity development emphasises that, given the complex, multi-sectoral, multi-actor and multi-scale nature of DRM, different levels of government have to be engaged in DRM capacity development activities for them to be most effective, and that interventions should actively build mechanisms for coordination across scales [10], [11], [34], [5]. Various resources advise creating multi-stakeholder coalitions between government and NGOs, along with community based,
Targeting vulnerability
Disasters take effect in the first instance primarily through impacts at the grassroots level, on lives, livelihoods and communities. But the impacts of disasters are not shared equally. Recognition of how social difference and diversity translates into differential vulnerabilities and capacities has been a formative theme within the movement toward DRR (see e.g. [41], [8]), but this appears generally to be an under-researched topic specifically within DRM capacity development. For example,
Building resilience through capacity support
The grounds for a more holistic approach to managing disaster risk, and thereby to DRM capacity, have long been expressed within the critical literature in this field [4], [41]. This includes moving beyond a focus in DRM on preparedness and emergency management to building capacity in disaster prevention, mitigation and long-term recovery, and taking climate dynamics into account – further supporting the shift to DRR.
The research suggests that capacity development initiatives still tend to
Conclusion
The focus in this research was, essentially, on investigating process, outputs and the prospects for successful outcomes, drawing lessons and insights across a range of initiatives about mechanisms through which capacity development can be made effective. Though this research design was not able to evaluate outcomes as such, in terms of whether initiatives ultimately contributed to a sustained raised capacity, sufficient signs of emerging outcomes existed to underline the value that effective
Funding
The research was conducted with funding from the United Kingdom's Department for International Development (DFID), the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development (DFATD) and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). The funders provided advice and approval of study design, but did not take part in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, in the writing of the report, or in the decision to submit the article for publication.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express sincere thanks to: all the individuals who took time to patiently answer our questions in interviews and focus groups, who completed the online survey and who participated in our national workshops; Josephine Shields Recass and Julienne Corboz from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) for their support throughout the research; members of a Research Advisory Group for their feedback and guidance on all the research outputs;
References (41)
- et al.
Challenging disparities in capacity development for disaster risk reduction
Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct.
(2013) - et al.
Towards people-centred approaches for effective disaster risk management: balancing rhetoric with reality
Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct.
(2015) - A.S. Ahmad S. Hasaan K. Hasaan External Final Review Mission Report, One-UN DRM Joint Program Pakistan 2009-2012,...
Community-based disaster preparedness and climate adaptation: local capacity-building in the Philippines
Disasters
(2006)Humanitarian Capacity-Building and Collaboration: Lessons From the Emergency Capacity Building Project
(2014)The importance of integrating multiple administrative levels in capacity assessment for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation
Disaster Prev. Manag.
(2012)Developing capacity in fragile states
Public Adm. Dev.
(2010)- CADRI, ‘Basics of Capacity Development for Disaster Risk Reduction’, Capacity for Disaster Reduction Initiative,...
- T. Cannon, F. Krüger, G. Bankoff, L. Schipper, Putting culture at the centre of risk reduction, In IFRC World Disasters...
Disaster management in the Caribbean: perspectives on institutional capacity reform and development
Environ. Hazards Hum. Policy Dimens.
Community-based adaptation: enhancing community adaptive capacity in Druadrua Island, Fiji
Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.: Clim. Change
Flood Preparedness in Vietnam: A Systematic Gender-Aware Approach
Supporting Disaster Risk Reduction in Developing Countries – A Study for the European Union, DEV Reports and Policy Paper Series
Building capacity for community disaster preparedness: a call for collaboration between public environmental health and emergency preparedness and response programs
J. Environ. Health.
Post-Earthquake Response and Reconstruction. Gender-Sensitive Advocacy in Indonesia
Building Capacity in Disaster Risk: Lessons Learned in the DPRK
Cited by (16)
Networking in action: Taking collaborative capacity development seriously for disaster risk management
2024, Progress in Disaster Science“International humanitarian organizations’ perspectives on localization efforts”
2022, International Journal of Disaster Risk ReductionCitation Excerpt :Capacity development in disaster-prone countries has long been regarded as key in international development and disaster risk reduction (DRR) efforts (e.g., Ref. [1]: [2–4]). Supported in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sendai Framework for DRR 2015–2030, most DRR studies argue for a bottom-up approach with capacity development processes owned by national and local actors and supported by international actors (see, e.g., Refs. [1–3,5]). Capacity development is also increasingly emphasized by international humanitarian organizations (IHOs) under the label localization, which aims at empowering national and local actors in humanitarian aid.
Moving with risk: Forced displacement and vulnerability to hazards in Colombia
2021, World DevelopmentInternational principles of disaster risk reduction informing NGOs strategies for community based DRR mainstreaming: The Bangladesh context
2020, International Journal of Disaster Risk ReductionUsing Learning and Action Alliances to build capacity for local flood risk management
2020, Environmental Science and PolicyCitation Excerpt :These functional aspects act to support long-lasting behavioural and societal change. Building on CADRI (2011); Brinkerhoff (2010) and Few et al. (2016), we can start to appreciate the multi-dimensional nature of capacity building as including, but not limited to, the elements described in Table 1. The technical elements of capacity building refer mostly to material and human resources, while the functional aspects include structures, processes and enabling mechanisms (Few et al., 2016).
Developing capacity for disaster risk reduction: Lessons learned from a case of Sri Lanka
2020, Progress in Disaster ScienceCitation Excerpt :Hagelsteen and Becker emphasized the importance of understanding basic information, including the hazard profile and the social, economic, and political contexts [9]. The other important issue closely associated with capacity development is ownership [7,9,17,26]. The term ownership refers to the sense through which people consider the process of capacity development their own and demonstrate willingness to be involved in this process.