24 Capacity Building Interventions for Disaster Resilience

Dr. Rajnish Ranjan

  Objectives

• To get acquainted with the concept of Capacity, Capacity Development and Disaster Resilience
• To understand the interventions of capacity development to comprehend the rationale behind investing in CBD to recognize stakeholders for CBD
• To connect capacity development with disaster resilience and DRR and to understand the steps to design a capacity development intervention focusing on DRR

      Rationale:

Capacity Building and Development (CBD) is the key indicator of Disaster Risk Reduction efforts worldwide. A contextual approach of CBD would greatly enable better response, recovery and mitigation of disaster risks. This module aims to introduce focused and contextual capacity building interventions as key components of building disaster resilience.

Unit 1 – Capacity Building Interventions and Disaster Resilience

 “Diverse group of individuals, in shared geographical area having common interests linked by dynamic socio-economic interactions and engaging in collective action is termed as a community”. Community boundaries are difficult to draw as smaller communities could be nested within larger communities thus, the idea of the community is a multilayered notion and defined on a case-by-case basis(Sharifi, 2016). The ability of the community to manage their affairs including their development is termed as Capacity. During the time of stress (e.g. physical manifestation of any natural hazard), the ability of the community to utilize its inherent capacities to respond to the stress in order to minimize adverse impacts is termed as the Adaptive Capacity of the community.

Capacity Building or Development is the locally driven change process by means of which individuals or the communities obtain, strengthen, maintain and adapt their capacities to set and achieve their own development objectives over time with incremental learning. Though both the term Capacity Building and Capacity Development are used interchangeably a difference recognized in academics is that in Capacity Building, new initiatives are taken to create ‘Knowledge ,Skills and Attitude (KSA) and to create a new culture of prevention ,preparedness and mitigation esp in the field of Disaster Risk Management, while Capacity Development is the effort to strengthen the existing capacities among the stakeholders.

Necessity of CBD

The individual capacity development intervention is about the general well-being of an individual and the development of her/his abilities to keep her or himself sustainably in the state of wellbeing, whereas Capacity Development in Disaster Management is for the community, though it starts at the individual level. The ability of the community to better respond to, recover from and prevent further such disastrous event is the focus of capacity development for disaster management. In respect to disaster resilience, the aim of building capacity is to achieve certain determined outcomes and bring about changes that help communities to be resilient to risks from various hazards. Disaster Resilience implies learning from the event that caused severe disruptions, altering the adaptive capacities and utilizing transformative approaches leading to long-term incremental evolution of the community that reduces risks associated with disasters.

Capacity development in disaster management sector

In order to adapt communities to cope up changes, several international and national political agreements have been achieved. These includes- Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Paris Climate Agreement, Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015-2030). In addition, three world conferences on Disaster Risk Reduction- the Yokohama Summit, resulting in the Yokohama Strategy, the Kobe conference resulting in the Hyogo Framework for Action and the Sendai conference resulting in the Sendai Framework have identified Capacity Development as an important step towards the reduction of disaster losses globally (Hagelsteen & Burke, 2016).

Capacity Development must enable the most marginalized to represent and defend their interests more effectively not only in their immediate contexts but also globally.

Capacity Development for DRR encompasses institutional or organizational development to handle different aspects of DRR including stress/ changes. It must not restrict to training as providing training only contributes little to changing realities especially of the marginalized population. The development of an idea of human capital is synchronous to capacity development and exceeds training, awareness, to also include the means to achieve objectives/ results utilizing institutions and thereby enable people to act according to the training received or heightened awareness generated. Capacity Building is thus more of an approach.

Investment in capacity building for DRR vs. investment in development

One major challenge faced by agencies with regards to investment in Capacity building for DRR is the ‘half-life period’ of disaster memory. Immediately post disaster events, there is extensive media coverage but as time passes, media coverage reduces and the memory of the disaster fades away especially among the potential donors. Post immediate relief stage face immediate developmental issues like loss of access to water, electricity, housing take central stage and communities and responding agencies face challenges to raise funds for disaster management and capacity building funding. Half-life memory for major disasters is less than 2 generations even among the affected community. Less severe events are forgotten in less than 3 years. Thus, investing in disaster risk management, where hazards are infrequent and uncertain is a major struggle for responding agencies compared to the funding potential for investment in development related issues that are more urgent, visible and frequent.

Further, there is also doubt regarding the extent to which capacity building intervention visualize effectiveness in reducing disaster risk. Post 2001 Bhuj Earthquake in Gujarat, records is available of over $1.7 billion expenditure on the targeted capacity building interventions, but after many decades, the question is still unanswered whether the area is safer to earthquake hazards probably until the another earthquake occurs (Tiwari, 2015).

Stakeholders in Capacity Building Interventions

The key stakeholders in the entire process of capacity building include the governmental, non-governmental, international, national and community organizations. The following figure (Figure-1) shows the key outcomes of capacity building measures at various stages in a nation. For effective disaster management –

The national level stakeholders must focus on designing policies, guidelines and initiation of research activities to find out scope of interventions.

The state level stakeholders must aid in effective implementation of the capacity development process and usually help funding for the activities and local context research activities.

The district level or the Urban Local Body (ULB) stakeholders know better what are the developmental gaps pertaining to disaster risk reduction and thereby must be in a position to identify the exact requirements.

The village level or local institutional level stakeholders must be in a position to utilize the funding and mobilize the interventions into sustainable capacity development interventions for disaster risk assessment.

The individual level attention is focused where the capacity addition or building must bear fruits of heightened awareness to risks, risk mitigation mechanisms and emergency preparedness.

The NDMA (National Disaster Management Authority), SDMA (State Disaster Management Authority) and the DDMA (District Disaster Management Authority) must play important roles in the design and operation of the entire interventions.

NDMA has the function of laying down guidelines for different ministries and department for integrating measures for prevention and mitigation of disasters and its effects as well as for mainstreaming DRR in development plans. Further, recommendation for funds provision for mitigation and taking measures for capacity building are the functions of NDMA as per the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

SDMA functions as the authority of laying guidelines for departments of the government of the state and also take review of measures for capacity building by the departments and issue guidelines as necessary.

DDMA plays key role in the capacity development. It functions reviewing the state of capabilities for responding to disasters and provides direction to relevant departments or authorities at the district level for upgradation. It also has functions to organize and coordinate training programs for officials, employees and voluntary rescue workers in district, as well as facilitating community trainings and awareness programmes for the prevention of disaster with support of the local authorities, governmental and non-governmental organizations along with the setting up, review, maintenance and upgradation of mechanisms for Early warning systems and dissemination of proper information to public. As per the Disaster Management Act, 2005,

DDMA’s are empowered and are mainly responsible for capacity building activitiesin our nation.

Figure 1 Structured Approach for Capacity Development

Source: adapted from (Spahn)

Capacity for Disaster Reduction Initiative promotes the concept of capacities in three levels:

     Figure 2 Levels of Capacity –CADRI

Individual level pertains to the knowledge, skills and attitude of individuals that allows them to perform certain tasks aimed towards disaster risk reduction. These capacities are acquired through education (formal), training by various agencies, learning/ experience (informal) by virtue of associated work or by interaction with those who have undergone formal training/ education and by coaching/ mentoring.

The Institutional Level pertains to the policies, systems or arrangements in place that allow institutions to perform certain tasks towards disaster risk reduction.

The Enabling Environment refers to the existing broader environment that either hampers or facilitates individual and institutional mandate towards disaster risk reduction. It relates to broad policies, legislations, political processes and power relations that govern the functioning of the society towards disaster risk reduction efforts.

Interventions are usually designed to target the interaction between individuals, individuals and institutions, between institutions, individuals and their environment or interactions of institutions with surrounding environment.

Capacities are also divided into two types:

(a) Technical– involves capacities associated with particular needs/ sectors. For example these might include Urban Search and Rescue or responding to Chemical-Biological-Radioactive-Nuclear hazards

(b)  Functional – are cross-cutting and are not associated with a particular sector. These are enablers like leadership, skill and attitude for coordination and empathy towards the affected communities.

Figure 3 Rationale behind Capacity building intervention

Adapted from (Becker & Abrahamsson, 2012)

A thorough understanding of the current state is a prerequisite for effective capacity development intervention. Thus a proper post disaster needs assessment is a prerequisite for designing capacity building interventions.

Unit 2 – Designing Capacity Building Intervention for DRR

Capacity for managing and preventing disasters depends on how disasters are defined or understood (Tiwari, 2015). Disaster Management cuts across many sectors and requires additional or redundant capacities to coordinate, respond and sustain capacity post disaster event. Disaster management activities require the coordination between public works, land use, early warning, environmental management, water resource management, geology, emergency response etc. The shift from reactive to proactive approach to disaster management could bring about changes in the targeted approach towards capacity development.

    Figure 4 Steps of Capacity Building Intervention Design

Adapted from (Becker & Abrahamsson, 2012)

The essential steps in capacity development include:

(a) Focus on Current situation:

1. Analysis of Contextual Interventions– The rationale for interventions include SWOT analysis segregated into internal (controllable) and external (uncontrollable) positive and negative factors in order to understand what are the factors that could affect the intervention and its desired outcome.

For example starting a literacy class for females in an area that has great difference in literacy between men and women without first understanding why more women are illiterate compared to men may be counter-productive(Eade, 2010). First understanding the community and the contexts would greatly aid capacity building interventions.

2. Stakeholders Analysis– including the categorization of stakeholders into

a) Beneficiaries– whose interests are served by the intervention

b) Decision-makers– who makes key decisions regarding the intervention

c) Implementers– who operationalize the project activities, and realizes the purpose/ goal

d) Financers– who make arrangements for funding the intervention

The categorization must also involve the identification of experts and the basis of determining expertise and relevant knowledge as well as identification of advocacy agents who might not participate directly but would help in providing direction and targeting. Stakeholder categorization would help us to segregate between the providers and the recipients of capacity building and identify individual stakeholder contribution and their strengths and further opportunities.

3. Situational Analysis– includes the analysis of the necessity for intervention and is an important step to the definition of the outcome that the intervention seeks to bring about.The steps in situational analysis include:

a) Analysis of Risk

Ø This requires common understanding of terminologies, concepts among various stakeholders and the value(s) that the intervention brings about to various stakeholders.

Ø Prioritization and understanding the hazards- from the routine hazards to the rare hazards must be analyzed and incorporated in the capacity building intervention.

Ø Understanding the vulnerability of the community and the contributing factors increasing vulnerabilities to hazards

Ø Coordination between various stakeholders in understanding the exposure, and the at risk population

Ø Understanding the involvement, roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders- functional, administrative, and nominal.

Ø Integration of several risk analyses by various stakeholders to arrive at a consensus for disaster risk of the community

b) Analysis of the capacity to manage risk

Ø With an understanding of the disaster risk the community faces, analyzing the current capacity of the system to manage the risk. Capacities include the combination of the strengths, resources available with a community that can be utilized for reducing impacts of the disaster risk. Capacity includes the following nine functions:

o Risk Assessment o Forecasting

o  Monitoring

o  Impact Assessment

o Prevention and Mitigation o Preparedness

o  Response

o   Recovery o Evaluation

o  Legal and Institutional Frameworks

o    System of Organizations

o Coordination/ Organization

    o Human and material resources

     Figure 5 – Guiding questions for Capacity Analysis of systems for Disaster Risk Management

Source: (Becker & Abrahamsson, 2012)

An understanding of the situation would aid in designing capacity building intervention that is likely to be sustainable, acceptable and adding value to disaster risk reduction efforts for the community.

(b) Focus on Desired situation

1.  Objectives Analysis

Ø   Statement of desired level of risk or reduction of current level of risk

Ø  Statement of desired level of performance of exiting capacities or increase in the current level of capacities in order to manage the risks at the desired level

Ø   Outlining the difference between the current situation and the preferred situation

Ø Statement of overall goal, purposes and expected results at three stages forming an objective tree .For example reduction of seismic risk could include purposes like better building codes, risk conscious construction practice, utilization of quality building materials. Each purpose could have expected outcomes like coordinated reconnaissance, transfer of knowledge from experts to the masons in both formal and informal practices, training to masons in construction practices suitable to each seismic zone, improvement in monitoring and evaluation of construction practices and stringent occupation certification by local administration etc.

2. Plan of Activities– listing activities required to bring out expected results with clear connections (inter-dependencies) between various activities based on the situational analysis performed and ordering the activities to keep track of the overall objectives.

3. Resource Planning– for each listed activities including funding, location, expertise, equipment etc. The resource planning must also include co-funding by stakeholders and laying controls over the resources for stakeholders and timely allocation.

4. Indicators– for measuring success of activities at all levels of objectives- including quantity/ quality of individual activity with respect to specific time periods and comparisons of post activity performance to pre-activity performance. The indicators must clearly identify what is to be measured, the specific target group, the intended change (quantitative/ qualitative) and the timeframe for the activities and the location of the activities.

5. Internal Risk Analysis and management– with an understanding of the various factors that could have a negative impact on the activities, the likelihood of such adverse factors occurring, and the likely consequences of materialization of the adverse factors.

6. Analysis of assumptions– mainly the external factors that are uncontrollable to the activities and outcomes, and the viability of the intervention keeping in mind such uncontrollable events.

(c) Intervention (project)

1) Activities towards achieving outcomes and objectives- To conduct the activities as per plan utilizing allocated resources

2) Monitoring and Evaluation of activities on the basis of identified constraints, indicators and milestones in order to bring about changes if required to the activity or work plan.

Elements of effective capacity building measures

To ensure investment towards capacity building measures addressing disaster risk, the following elements must be considered in the analysis of current situation of the community and also in the desired state of heightened disaster resilience (Hagelsteen & Burke, 2016).

1. Terminology: A clear understanding of concepts, definitions and terms related to DRR is required for effective design of capacity development interventions. All stakeholders involved in the intervention and the respondents must be aware and clear of the terms.

2. Local Context: Factors that shape and influence capacities and changes occur in the local context. These factors include the political, cultural, social, economic norms, institutional set-ups and practices in the community. These factors vary extensively from one community to the other and thereby vanilla solutions (or one size fits all approach) for Capacity Building does not exist. The tangible (legislations, institutional mandates and economic indicators) and intangible (Values, beliefs, customs, motives, power relations) prevalent in the community where capacity building intervention is undertaken must be understood. The current scenario must be analyzed and the missing points/ enablers to reach a state of disaster resilience must be identified in order to have effective design interventions. The DRR capacity development interventions must also be relevant, sustainable with coherence and congruence to the development initiatives in the area.

3. Partnerships: Capacity-building interventions would require partnerships with various stakeholders. The motives for partnering would decide the purpose and types of partnership. Capabilities of different partners require careful analysis to decide the scope for collaboration. Exit strategies must be formulated with specific focus on trust, transparency, shared values, risk and mutual benefits.

4. Ownership: Apart from the intervening agencies, commitment and active participation of local leaders and actors in the process at all stages is vital. This participation adds to the accountability and sustainability of capacity outcomes. Ownership ensures that the intervention is appropriate and demand driven.

5. Capacity Assessment– To answer the following questions: Whose capacity? For what? And how? Capacity assessment refers to the use of tools, methodologies, approaches for the assessment of capacity of the community and for defining change strategies including DRR components (Hard and Soft) as well as the entry points of interventions and an analysis of stakeholders and their participation extent to achieve overall goal. It must also be flexible and adaptable to changing conditions and emerging challenges.

6. Roles and Responsibilities: Role clarity, agreement amongst stakeholders to the tasks and objectives as well as their participation, decision-making, and accountability is an important component of the effective capacity building exercise.

7. Activities and methods– Each stage of capacity building requires careful thought, selection of activities, sequencing and design of steps with a clear strategy to reach from current situation to a scientifically studied better capacity state including the provisions for adaptability, flexibilities, matching of resources availability, time table and purpose/ objectives of the activities undertaken.

8. Monitoring, evaluation and learning– The DRR Targets and effectiveness of capacity building interventions- soft and hard, need to be defined and measured. Key milestones need to be identified along with the deliverables for each participant including their roles, responsibilities, contribution to overall objectives and clarity in processes, coordination, accountability and future learning. The monitoring capacity of the stakeholders for capacity building interventions must also be considered.

Role of Donors in Capacity Development

With increasing disaster losses, it is not only the nations that are focusing on capacity development but also international donor and aid agencies. The role of such donors in capacity development interventions must focus on the following principles (Tiwari, 2015):

1. Focusing on the long-term disaster risk mitigation efforts- especially for longer term financing support

2. Investing in global risk indices, risk assessment, communication and monitoring- at a global scale to promote unified risk assessment and indices.

3. Provide technical leadership and incentivizing positive behavioral changes

4. Financingprojects that enhance local capacities for further capacity development so that the focus on aid itself is to make aid redundant

5.Capacity Building focusing on the Disaster Response- Recovery- Mitigation linkages

External partners play important role of providing legitimacy to local efforts. International Agencies that promote capacity building interventions must recognize the social, political, and ethical responsibilities of the interventions. The agenda of donor agencies and their downward and horizontal accountability is to be scrutinized and laid clear. The donors must not only gather from their partnering agencies in the geographic location, ‘stories and pictures’ but must also look into their values, perception, concerns and aspirations (Eade, 2010). Feedback and communication systems must be in place to have a sense of mutual accountability- not only as a donor recipient system but also as an agency that is providing sustainable, appropriate, and locally accepted capacity development interventions.The interventions must not be mimicry of previous best practices but a contextual and appropriate DRR focused capacity development intervention. Capacity development is beyond transfer of knowledge or technical skills and is more an effort towards finding contextual ‘best fit’ given particular set of constraints.

A new form of emerging international aid is “cash on delivery” (Birdsall, Mahgoub, & Savedoff, 2010) where demonstrated successful performances by the recipient nations, with respect to specified targets are provided financial support. This form of aid for capacity development would be a disruptive innovation to mimicry and would enable contextual interventions focused on achieving Specific, Measurable, Attainable, and Realistic and Timely results.

Summary

The ability of the community to manage their affairs including their development successfully is termed as capacity. Capacity Building or development is the locally driven change process by means of which individuals or the communities obtain, strengthen, maintain and adapt their capacities to set and achieve their own development objectives over time with incremental learning. Disaster Resilience implies learning from the event that caused severe disruptions, altering the adaptive capacities and utilizing transformative approaches leading to long-term incremental evolution of the community that reduces risks associated with disasters.

The development of an idea of human capital is synchronous to capacity development and exceeds training, awareness, to also include the means to achieve objectives/ results utilizing institutions and thereby enable people to act according to the training received or heightened awareness generated. Key stakeholders in the process of capacity building include the governmental, non-governmental, international, national and community organizations.The NDMA (National Disaster Management Authority), SDMA (State Disaster Management Authority) and the DDMA (District Disaster Management Authority) must play important roles in the design and operationalization of the interventions. A thorough understanding of the current state is a prerequisite for effective capacity development intervention. Thus a proper post disaster needs assessment is a prerequisite for design of capacity building interventions. Capacity for Disaster Reduction Initiative promotes the concept in three levels viz. individual level, institutional level and enabling environment. Capacities are also divided into two types- Technical and Functional.

Disaster Management cuts across many sectors and requires additional or redundant capacities to coordinate, respond and sustain capacity post disaster event. External partners play an important role of providing legitimacy to local efforts. International Agencies that promote capacity building interventions must recognize the social, political, and ethical responsibilities of the interventions. The interventions must not be mimicry of previous best practices but a contextual and appropriate DRR focused capacity development intervention.

References

• Becker, P., & Abrahamsson, M. (2012). Designing Capacity Development for Disaster Risk Management: A Logical Framework Approach. Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB). Birdsall, N., Mahgoub, A., & Savedoff, W. D. (2010). Cash on Delivery: A New Approach to Foreign Aid. Center for Global Development.
• CADRi. Basics of Capacity Development for Disaster Risk Reduction. Cordaid. (2016). Facing Disasters, Building Resilience.
• Disaster Resilience Group. (2015). A Networked Approach to Strengthening Emergency Response Capacity. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
• Eade, D. (2010). Capacity building: who builds whose capacity? In A. Cornwall, & D. Eade, Deconstructing Development Discourse- Buzzwords and Fuzzwords. Practical Action Publishing.
• Hagelsteen, M., & Burke, J. (2016). Practical aspects of capacity development in the context of disaster risk reduction . International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction , 16, 43-52. Sharifi, A. (2016). A critical review of selected tools for assessing community resilience . Ecological Indicators , 69, 629-647.
• Spahn, H. Tsunami Preparedness in Local Communities- A Structured Approach for Capacity Development. Jakarta: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH.
• Tiwari, A. (2015). The Capacity Crisis in Disaster Risk Management- Why disaster management capacity remains low in developing countries and what can be done. Springer International Publishing.
• Tsunozaki, E., Nakagawa, Y., & Shikada, M. (n.d.). Capacity Building for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) at Community Level – A Myanmar’s Case
• UNDP. (2016). “Building Capacity for Post-Disaster Recovery” – Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Niger (2014-2016). Annual Report (March 2015- March 2016).