DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT

SYSTEMS ANALYSIS

A guide book
 Guide for DRM Systems Analysis

INSTITUTIONS FOR DISASTER

RISK MANAGEMENT

DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT

SYSTEMS ANALYSIS

Prepared By:

Stephan Baas
Selvaraju Ramasamy
Jenny Dey DePryck
Federica Battista

ENVIRONMENT, CLIMATE CHANGE AND BIOENERGY DIVISION

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANISATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
ROME, JANUARY 2008

ii
 Guide for DRM Systems Analysis

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 HFA’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.
The methods and tools proposed in this guide are generic, and can be adapted to different types of
natural hazards, sectoral issues, geographical areas, country-specific conditions and institutional
settings. However, in view of FAO’s mandate and experience, some practical illustrations are given
of the application of these tools to the agricultural sector in developing countries. In order to
strengthen FAO’s assistance to governments and other concerned organizations in undertaking
diagnostic assessments of DRM institutional systems as a first step in a capacity-building process, we
would welcome feedback on this Guide from readers and users with a view to improving future
versions.

Peter Holmgren
Director, Environment, Climate Change and Bioenergy Division, FAO

iii
 Guide for DRM Systems Analysis

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are grateful to the many people who have contributed directly or indirectly to the preparation
of this Guide.

The first draft was prepared by the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center, Bangkok, under a Letter
of Agreement with FAO. The draft was subsequently reviewed and discussed at a workshop held
in FAO, Rome, in December 2006, after which ADPC amended it incorporating the participants’
comments and guidance. Finally some sections of the second version were fine-tuned or
rewritten by a small team comprising Stephan Baas, Selvaraju Ramasamy, Jennie Dey de Pryck
and Federica Battista taking into account the participants’ comments and guidance.

The Guide draws heavily on the field experience of FAO in developing and strengthening the
institutional capacities of DRM systems in a number of Asian and Caribbean countries. Illustrations
of participatory rural appraisal exercises used during field assessments of community-level DRM
systems in several countries enrich the text with the experiences of many rural people who are highly
vulnerable to natural hazard risk.

In addition to Stephan Baas who conceived and technically supervised the preparation of this Guide,
we are grateful to Genevieve Braun, Marta Bruno, Eve Crowley, Olivier Dubois, Florence Egal,
Shantana Halder, Jan Johnson, Angee Lee, Simon Mack, Dalia Mattioni, Hans Meliczek, Pamela
Pozarny, Peter Reid, Florence Rolle, Laura Sciannimonaco, Nicole Steyer, and Sylvi WabbesCanotti
for providing constructive comments on and inputs to the earlier drafts of the Guide.

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)

iv
 Guide for DRM Systems Analysis

CONTENTS

FOREWORD ............................................................................................................................. iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...........................................................................................................iv
CONTENTS ...............................................................................................................................v
ACRONYMS ..............................................................................................................................vi

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1

MODULE 1: DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK .................................4

MODULE 2: PLANNING AN INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER

RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ................................................................13

MODULE 3 ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL.........................................................................20

MODULE 4: ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL ...........................................................................30

MODULE 5 ASSESSMENT OF DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

AT THE COMMUNITY LEVEL ....................................................................39

MODULE 6 ANALYSING AND INTERPRETING THE DATA......................................52

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................63

ANNEX I TOOLS AND METHODS FOR INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENTS........64

A) Tools and methods for community profiling .................................................64
B) Tools and methods for analysing vertical and horizontal linkages ................65
ANNEX II DISASTER-RELATED TERMS AND DEFINITIONS ................................66

v
 Guide for DRM Systems Analysis

ACRONYMS

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
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

vi
 Guide for DRM Systems Analysis

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 requested the international
community to continue assisting developing countries in their efforts to adopt appropriate measures
to mitigate the effects of natural disasters, and to integrate disaster risk reduction (DRR) strategies
into development planning. This represents a paradigm shift from a heavy preoccupation with
reactive emergency relief (which nonetheless remains important) to pro-active DRR before a hazard
can turn into a disaster.

The second of the three strategic goals of the HFA is “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”. 2 A particular challenge in meeting this
objective is to acquire a sound understanding of existing institutional capacities, possible gaps and
the comparative strengths of different actors at different levels as a basis for mobilizing the

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: www.em-dat.net
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.

1
 Guide for DRM Systems Analysis

participation of local organizations, together with higher level institutions, in the design and
implementation of locally relevant DRR strategies.

In order to build institutions that are better prepared for, resilient to and able to cope with hazards, it
is useful to enrich the concept and practice of disaster risk reduction (DRR) used in the HFA which
focuses on pre-disaster stages (prevention, mitigation and preparedness) by placing them within the
broader concept and practice of disaster risk management (DRM) which combines (through a
management perspective) prevention, mitigation and preparedness with response. 3

Recent studies 4 and projects of FAO show that in spite of the considerable documentation available
on DRM, there are few practical tools to guide the analysis of 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 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

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
 Guide for DRM Systems Analysis

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) 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.

Target/user group for the Guide

The target/user group includes technical staff of: national and local government departments/agencies,
multi- and bi-lateral development agencies, NGOs/CSOs/CBOs, and national and international DRM
practitioners engaged in designing and/or evaluating national and/or decentralized DRM systems in
specific countries/regions. Investment project formulation missions concerned to include institutional
aspects in national risk profiling are also likely to find the Guide useful. While the Guide briefly
covers definitions and concepts of DRM, sustainable livelihoods and DRM institutional systems,
users with some prior knowledge of these concepts and practical experience in working with DRM
institutional systems in developing countries are likely to find the Guide more meaningful.

How to use the Guide

The modular form of the Guide covers the sequential steps to undertake a comprehensive
institutional assessment of DRM systems across administrative levels and sectors. If, however, the
assessment has a predefined sector- or hazard-specific focus, DRM practitioners as well as other
interested development professionals including NGO/CSO/CBO staff, disaster managers and policy
makers, may prefer to select certain modules only and/or adjust the tools and checklists to sector- or
hazard-specific issues.

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