1

Capacity  Building  Framework  for  Disaster  Risk  Reduction    

 

 Professor  Dilanthi  Amaratunga,    Centre  for  Disaster  Resilience,    University  of  Salford,  UK  e-­‐mail:  r.d.g.amaratunga@salford.ac.uk  web:  www.dilanthiamaratunga.net          Introduction    Disasters  are  not  the  necessary  result  of  hazards  but  occur  only  when  these  hazards  intersect  with  the  environment,  particularly  poorly  located  and  poorly  constructed  development.  Since  the  ability  of  the  built  environment  to  withstand  the  impacts  of  hazards  plays  a  direct  role  in  determining  the  casualties  and  monetary  costs  of  disasters1,  it  is  important  to  reduce  the  vulnerabilities  within  the  built  environment  and  enhance  its  capacity  for  disaster  mitigation  and  reconstruction  to  achieve  resilience  to  disasters.    It  is  indicated  that  the  hazards  cannot  be  managed  and  it  is  the  characteristics  of  the  built  environment  that  can  be  managed2  .  Therefore,  it  is  essential  to  improve  the  capacities  of  the  built  environment  in  order  to  make  it  is  less  vulnerable  to  the  impacts  of  disasters.  In  particular,  capacity  enhancement  within  different  sectors  in  the  society  such  as  governments,  non-­‐state  and  private  institutions  and  communities,  in  relation  to  the  built  environment  enables  to  identify  constraints  and  to  plan  and  manage  construction  activities  of  the  built  environment  effectively,  efficiently  and  sustainably.      This  paper  introduces  a  framework  that  was  developed  to  enhance  capacities  for  disaster  mitigation  and  reconstruction.  The  framework  identifies  several    stakeholders  against  four  stages  of  capacity  enhancement.  The  framework  introduced  through  the  paper  provides  an  insight  to  the  capacity  enhancement  process  in  disaster  mitigation  and  reconstruction  from  a  stakeholder  perspective.  The  framework  identifies  four  stages  of  capacity  enhancement;  namely,  analysis,  development,  utilisation  and  retention  whilst  establishing  national  and  local  governments,  international  community,  other  communities,  civic  society,  private  and  corporate  sector  and  academic  and  professional    associations.    The  analysis  stage  of  the  framework  provides  the  basis  to  identify  required  areas  for  capacity  enhancement  through  analysing  existing  capacities  and  identifying  gaps.  There  are  many  capacities  that  could  be  found  such  as    institutions,  strategies,  frameworks,  policies,  laws  &  regulations,  projects  and  programmes  which  have  an  orientation  towards  disaster  reduction  as  the  relevant  capacities.          

1  Mileti,  D.  S.  (1999)  Disasters  by  design.  The  Changing  Risk  Landscape:  Implications  for  Insurance  Risk  Management,  In:  Britton,  N.R.,  Proceedings  of  a  Conference  sponsored  by  Aon  Group  Australia  Limited.  2  Duque,  P.  P.    (2005)  Disaster  Management  and  critical  issues  on  disaster  risk  reduction  in  the  Philippines.  International  Workshop  on  Emergency  Response  and  Rescue,  31October  -­‐1  November  2005.    

2

What  is  capacity  building?     In  1990s,  concept  of  capacity  building  became  an  essential  component  in  development  theory  and  practice.  Organisations  with  different  perspectives,  varying  from  the  World  Bank  to  governments  and  international  donor  agencies  to  local  civil  societies  have  appropriated  the  concept.  Specifically  in  developing  countries  it  has  been  identified  as  a  key  concept  in  achieving  sustainability.  Following  are  some  of  the  key  definitions  of  capacity  building:      

• Eade  (1997)  stated  that  capacity  building  is  a  vague  concept  both  in  its  conceptualisation  and  in  implementation.    

• LaFord  et  al  (2002)  stated  it  as  an  indefinable  concept  which  can  be  defined  as  either  process  or  outcome,  dynamic  and  multidimensional.    

• Goodman  et  al  (1998)  described  capacity  as  ability  to  carry  out  the  stated  objectives  • Capacity  building  was  defined  as  process  or  activity  that  improves  the  ability  (LaFond  et  al,  2002).  

LaFond  et  al,  (2002)  further  argued  that  capacity  building  can  be  seen  in  two  extremes.    In  one  extreme  resides  the  increase  of  knowledge  and  development  of  skills  of  individuals  through  training  programs  whereas  the  other,  in  a  broader  context  integrates  wide  range  of  systems  such  as  policy  making,  management  and  finance.    

• UNDP  (1997)  defines  capacity  building  as  a  process  by  which  individual,  organizations,  institutions  and  societies  develop  abilities  to  perform  functions,  solve  problems  and  set  and  achieve  objectives.  Further,  various  scholars  argued  that  it  is  not  solemnly  based  on  ability  but  also  on  one’s  managerial,  physical,  human,  financial  and  social  assets.    

• Franks  (1999)  defines  capacity  building  as  the  ability  of  the  individual  or  group  to  actually  perform  the  responsibilities  depending  on  the  resources  available  to  perform.    

• UNDP  (2005)  redefined  capacity  building  in  much  broader  terms  as  the  creation  of  an  enabling  environment  with  appropriate  policy  and  legal  frameworks,  institutional  development,  including  community  participation,  human  resources  development  and  strengthening  of  managerial  systems.  It  further  recognizes  capacity  building  as  a  long-­‐term,  continuing  process,  in  which  all  stakeholders  need  to  be  participated  (Ministries,  local  authorities,  non-­‐governmental  organizations,  professional  associations,  academics  and  others).    

• However,  Morgan  (1998)  argued  capacity  building  as  a  risky,  murky,  messy  business,  with  unpredictable  and  unquantifiable  outcomes,  uncertain  methodologies,  contested  objectives,  many  unintended  consequences,  little  credit  to  its  champions  and  long  time  lags.    

 Importance  of  capacity  building  Capacity  building  initiatives  in  research  context  is  significantly  underpinned  by  theories  relating  to  organizational  change,  knowledge  transfer,  social  action,  systems  theory,  behavioral  science,  public  administration  and  community  psychology  (Hentry  et  al  2004),  specifically  related  to  human  health,  ecological  systems  and  socio-­‐economics  sectors  in  developing  countries  in  recent  past.  This  is  mainly  due  to  lack  of  financial,  institutional  and  technological  capacities  and  access  to  knowledge  to  deal  with  risks  and  benefits  (Ayele  and  Wield,  2005).  Boyd  and  Juhola,  (2009)  indicate  that  capacity  building  provides  an  opportunity  to  understand  strengths,  weaknesses,  threats  and  opportunities  towards  a  resilient  future  through  identification  of  broader  issues  around  sustainable  development  of  a  particular  program,  project  or  process,  including  their  unique  cultural,  social,  and  ecological  characteristics.    Though  capacity  building  has  become  popular  in  recent  decades,  it  was  in  existence  since  1950s.  In  1974  it  was  termed  as  a  “capacitation”,  an  effort  to  measure  and  promote  relief  and  development  programmes  by  donors  (Wolfe,  1996).  In  1980’s  it  was  termed  as  “capabilities  approach”  which  provides  opportunities  to  improve  people’s  quality  of  life  through  access  to  wide  range  of  capabilities.  In  early,  1990’s,  capacity  building  has  been  termed  to  focus  on  issues  related  to  management  and  administration  at  governess  levels.  McGuire  et  al  (1994)  stated  that  with  the  shift  of  economic  growth  from  national  governments  to  local  governments,  where  demands  were  placed  by  communities  for  new  jobs,  higher  personal  incomes  and  new  infrastructure,  development  capacity  at  local  levels  is  a  prime  determinant  of  economic  and  government  performance.  Blunt,  (2003)  claimed  that  it  enhanced  accountability  and  transparency  of  

3

various  systems  which  eventually  enhance  the  confidence  of  public  towards  governance.  More  literature  revealed  capacity  building  in  broader  terms  of  service  delivery  on  organizations  and  health  systems  in  developing  countries.  In  addition,  capacity  building  has  become  dominant  in  disaster  management,  policy  and  practice  in  recent  decades  with  increasing  impacts  of  climate  change  (UNISDR,  2005).  Specifically,  building  of  local  capacities  in  human  skills,  technology,  data,  models  and  methods  to  face  future  disasters  in  developing  countries.  Accordingly,  literature  established  that  early  efforts  of  capacity  building  mainly  focused  on  achieving  basic  institutional  activities  and  improving  ability  of  organizations  to  handle  effectively  donor  funded  projects.  However,  recent  examples  bear  evidence  of  broadening  scope  of  capacity  building,  such  as  development  of  policies  in  various  contexts.    Capacity  building  strategies  and  evaluation  measures     Enhancing  required  capacities  for  disaster  risk  reduction  is  a  long  and  slow  process  that  requires  a  significant  commitment  from  various  stakeholders  involved  and  some  resources.  However,  there  is  a  dearth  of  literature  on  this  process  and  it  has  not  been  clearly  identified  and  described  especially  from  a  stakeholder  perspective.  Thus,  the  following  framework  has  been  developed  to  describe  this  complex  process  in  terms  of  various  stakeholders  involved  in  the  process  against  four  stages  of  capacity  enhancement.       Stages  of  Capacity  Enhancement  

Analysis   Development/creation     Utilisation   Retention  

Stakeh

olde

rs  

National  and  local  governments  

       

International  community          

Community            

Civic  society            

Private  and  corporate  sector  

       

  Academia  and  professional  associations  

       

Figure:  Capacity  development  framework  

Method  of  framework  development     The  idea  of  developing  a  framework  for  capacity  enhancement  with  a  stakeholder  perspective  was  brought  into  reality  mainly  through  a  series  of  interviews.  Notably,  over  twenty  five  interviews  with  experts  including    in  disaster  risk    mitigation  and  resilience  were  conducted  to  capture  expert  opinion  on  capacity  enhancement  in  the  relevant  context.  Interviews  were  selected  as  the  best  technique  to  map  the  capacity  enhancement  process  with  a  stakeholder  perspective  since  it  is  extremely  effective  in  identifying  people’s  experiences,  opinions  and  expectations.  In  addition,  a  detailed  literature  review  was  conducted  in  order  to  identify  the  components  and  steps  of  capacity  enhancements  in  the  focused  context.  In  this  context,  the  literature  review  ensured  that  the  knowledge  on  capacity  enhancement  was  up  to  date  and  the  aspects  which  have  been  previously  explored  were  not  going  to  be  reinvented.  Further,  data  collected  through  these  techniques  were  supplemented  by  several  workshops  and  focus  groups  which  were  conducted  with  practitioners  and  academics.    Subsequently,  the  draft  framework  of  capacity  enhancement  was  invented.  The  framework  was  established  after  the  draft  was  validated  through  another  set  of  expert  interviews.          

4

Stages  of  capacity  enhancement     The  vertical  axis  of  the  framework  illustrates  four  stages  of  capacity  enhancement.  These  four  stages  are  briefly  explained  below3  :    Analysis  It  is  increasingly  recognised  that  the  term  capacity  building  is  misleading,  as  building  has  the  undertone  of  starting  something  from  the  beginning,  whereas  in  practice,  improving  capacity  must  take  account  of  the  current  context.  One  common  and  problematic  theme  of  capacity  development  is  the  individual  nature  of  capacity  development  interventions.  Capacity  development  is  highly  influenced  by  local  context  and  thus  is  unique  in  each  of  its  applications.  The  first  stage  of  capacity  development  focuses  on  the  analysis  of  existing  capacity,  and  identification  and  prioritisation  of  capacity  gaps.    Development/creation    The  second  stage  focuses  on  the  need  to  create  capacity  in  order  to  address  the  identified  gaps.  Creating  capacity  requires  enormous  efforts  and  time  in  understanding  the  local  context  and  finding  appropriate  means  to  build  capacity.  Effective  human  and  institutional  capacity  rests  on  a  strong  foundation  that  facilitates  the  creation  of  new  capacities  through  learning  opportunities  as  well  as  by  putting  in  place  processes  that  enhance  the  adaptability  required  for  dealing  with  a  dynamic  environment.  Such  a  foundation  is  created  through  formal  training,  informally  through  on-­‐the-­‐job  training,  as  well  as  through  accumulation  of  norms,  routines  and  processes,  which  promote  capacity  creation  on  a  continuous  basis.    Utilisation  The  third  stage  considers  howdeveloped  capacities  are  mobilised  and  deployed  under  realistic  conditions.  A  failure  to  make  effective  use  of  existing  capacities  can  undermine  mitigation  and  reconstruction  activities.  Efficient  and  effective  use  of  existing  capacities  is  an  important  aspect  of  capacity  building  as  it  recognises  the  need  to  make  use  of  the  affected  community’s  own  assets,  thereby  reducing  its  sense  of  helplessness.  Making  the  best  use  of  existing  capacities  will  involve  mobilisation  of  all  the  creative  and  innovative  capacities  that  can  be  found  in  existing  human  and  institutional  capacities    Retention  The  final  stage  addresses  the  need  to  retain  and  sustain  capacity  over  time.  Capacity  development  must  be  designed  in  such  a  way  that  it  is  sustainable  beyond  any  initial  external  intervention.  Sustaining  capacity  is  more  likely  to  occur  in  the  context  of  stable  political,  institutional  and  economic  conditions  that  provide  an  atmosphere  of  support  for  the  capacity  building  efforts  in  society.  Sources  of  funding  are  an  important  element  of  sustainability  and  capacity  retention.  In  the  long-­‐run,  the  key  to  sustaining  capacity  will  be  the  availability  of  local  sources  of  funding.  Sustainable  capacity  building  will  need  to  address  the  capacity  to  mobilise  domestic  resources.    

Stakeholders  of  capacity  enhancement   Capacities  in  the  world  exist  in  different  forms  such  as  knowledge,  skills,  technology  and  resources.    However,  the  capacities  necessary  for  effective  disaster  risk  reduction      mitigation  in  general  could  be  represented  through  comprising  a  society  with  organisations  particularly  deal  with  disaster  issues,  well-­‐developed  disaster  plans  and  preparedness,  coping  mechanisms,  adaptive  strategies,  memory  of  past  disasters,  good  governance,  ethical  standards,  local  leadership,  physical  capital,  resilient  buildings  and  infrastructure  that  cope  with  and  resist  extreme  hazard  forces,  etc.  (Benson  et  al.,  2007).  Accordingly,  the  institutions,  strategies,  frameworks,  policies,  laws  &  regulations,  projects  and  programmes,  etc.  which  have  been  developed  can  be  considered  as  the  relevant  capacities.         3  Ginige    &  Amadatunga,  D.  (2011)  Capacity  Development  for  Post-­‐Disaster  Reconstruction  of  the  Built  Environment  In  Amaratunga,  D.  &  R.  Haigh,  eds.  Post-­‐Disaster  Reconstruction  of  the  Built  Environment:  Building  for  resilience.  Wiley-­‐Blackwell:  Chichester.    

5

Alongside  human  causalities,  disasters  are  usually  associated  with  enormous  damage  and  destruction  to  the  built  environment.  This  impact  restricts  the  development  of  the  economy,  annihilating  the  physical  and  personal  lives  of  victims,  while  increasing  the  likelihood  of  epidemics.  It  frequently  takes  a  prolonged  period  to  reinstate  the  personal,  economic,  and  social  lives  of  the  affected  due  to  lack  of  financial  and  intellectual  resources4.  It  also  opens  the  way  for  large  scale  construction  projects:  a  temporary,  one  time  only  and  short-­‐term  undertaking  that  is  creating  the  built  environment.      Stakeholders  of  an  organisation  are  usually  identified  as  the  groups  who  have  a  direct  relevance  to  the  organisation’s  core  economic  interests.  A  broader  view  of  stakeholders  also  considers  those  who  may  be  affected,  positively  or  negatively,  by  the  organisation5.  With  this  broader  view,  individuals,  groups,  neighbourhoods,  organisations,  institutions,  societies  and  even  the  natural  environment  can  be  considered  as  actual  or  potential  stakeholders.  However,  when  a  process  is  taken  into  account,  stakeholders  can  generally  be  defined  as  the  individuals  or  organisations  that  gain  or  lose  from  the  success  or  failure  of  the  particular  process.  Thus,  in  the  process  of  capacity  development  for  post-­‐disaster  reconstruction,  they  are  the  entities  which  gain  or  lose  from  the  success  or  failure  of  the  process.    According  to  Newcombe  (2003)6  stakeholders  of  a  construction  project  are  groups  or  individuals  who  have  a  stake  in,  or  expectation  of,  the  project’s  performance  and  include  clients,  project  managers,  designers,  subcontractors,  suppliers,  funding  bodies,  users  and  the  community.  Similarly,  stakeholders  of  post-­‐disaster  reconstruction  are  the  groups  or  individuals  who  can  affect  or  are  affected  by  the  achievement  of  a  reconstruction  project’s  objectives.  Incidentally,  capacities  necessary  for  reconstruction  emerge  from  different  parties  in  the  society,  such  as  government  and  local  governments,  international  agencies,  academia  and  professional  bodies,  private  organisations  and  non-­‐government  organisations,  and  the  local  community.  All  these  parties  might  be  considered  as  stakeholders  to  the  post-­‐disaster  reconstruction  process.  In  this  context,  the  capacity  of  all  these  stakeholders  must  be  considered  if  the  goals  of  reconstruction  are  to  be  achieved  efficiently,  effectively  and  sustainably.    Freeman  and  Reed’s  (1983)7  definition  of  stakeholders  as,  ‘any  identifiable  group  or  individual  who  can  affect  the  achievement  of  an  organisation’s  objectives,  or  who  is  affected  by  the  achievement  of  an  organisation’s  objectives’,  is  widely  cited  across  the  literature.  Nickols  (2005)  adds  that  a  stakeholder  is  a  person  or  group  with  an  interest  in  seeing  an  endeavour  succeed  and  without  whose  support  the  endeavour  would  fail.  This  implies  that  stakeholders  are  individuals,  groups  of  people,  organisations  and  institutions  who  can  influence  the  strategic  decisions  of  an  organisation.  Stakeholders  can  be  at  any  level  or  position  in  society,  from  the  international  to  the  national,  regional,  household  or  intrahousehold  level8.      The  priorities  of  each  stakeholder  group  will  vary,  depending  on  the  country,  role  and  the  resource  availability.  Engaging  with  each  stakeholder  group  will  be  vital  if  the  objectives  of  the  reconstruction  project  or  programme  are  to  be  achieved  efficiently  and  effectively.  It  is  therefore  important  to  identify  a  suitable  classification  for  the  stakeholders  that  emerge.        Incidentally,  understanding  existing  institutional  level  and  individual  level  capacities  is  very  important  for  understanding  the  potential  impact  of  future  disasters  and  deciding  how  to  intervene  and  enhancing  the  capacities.  All  these  parties  might  be  considered  as  stakeholders  .  In  this  context,  the  capacity  of  all  these   4 Pardasani,  M.  (2006)  Tsunami  reconstruction  and  redevelopment  in  the  Maldives:  a  case  study  of  community  participation  and  social  action.  Disaster  Prevention  and  Management,  15,  79–91.  5 Mithell,  R.,  Agle,  B.R.  and  Wood,  D.J.  (1997)  Toward  a  theory  of  stakeholder  identification  and  salience:  defining  the  principle  of  who  and  what  really  counts.  The  Academy  of  Management  Review,  22,  853–886.  6 Newcombe  R.  (2003)  From  client  to  project  stakeholders:  a  stakeholder  mapping  approach.  Construction  Management  and  Economics.  21,  841–848.  7 Freeman,  E.R.  and  Reed,  D.L.  (1983)  Stockholders  and  stakeholders:  a  new  perspective  on  corporate  governance.  California  Management  Review  (pre-­‐1986),  25,  88–106.  8  Siriwardena,  N.      &  Haigh,  R.    (2011)  Stakeholder  Consultation  in  the  Reconstruction  Process.  In  Amaratunga,  D.  &  R.  Haigh,  eds.  Post-­‐Disaster  Reconstruction  of  the  Built  Environment:  Building  for  resilience.  Wiley-­‐Blackwell:  Chichester,  7.    

6

stakeholders  must  be  considered  if  the  goals  are  to  be  achieved  efficiently,  effectively  and  sustainably.    Accordingly,  the  subsequent  section  discusses  the  relevant  existing  capacities  under  aforementioned  stakeholder  categories9  :    National  and  local  government  Government  performs  a  critical  role  in  development  since  it  has  a  unique  capacity  as  a  mediator  between  private  and  public  interests  and  as  an  actor  with  local,  national  and  international  connections10.  National  and  local  governments  of  a  country  hold  the  main  responsibility  for  the  coordination  of  different  stakeholders  at  different  levels.  Coordination  among  different  stakeholders  and  different  levels  of  authorities  such  as  local,  provincial,  national  and  international  should  be  ensured  in  order  to  achieve  success  in  disaster  management  of  a  country.  Government’s  capability  as  a  mediator  and  coordinator  can  facilitate  a  country  by  transferring  technical  know-­‐how  and  good  practice  that  are  useful  for  integrating  disaster  risk  reduction  from  other  countries.  Similarly,  it  can  bring  finances  and  other  resources  to  a  country  through  its  international  relations.  Further,  national  and  local  governments  of  a  country  have  the  authority  to  develop  and  enforce  rules,  laws  and  regulations.  In  relation  to  disaster  risk  reduction,  governments  have  administrative  and  legislative  power  to  enforce  regulations  and  policies  on  construction  operations.  Thus,  regulating  the  process  of  construction  to  ensure  that  necessary  disaster  mitigation  and  prevention  measures  are  integrated  into  the  practice  to  reduce  disaster  risk  through  enforcement  of  policy  and  legislation  becomes  a  duty  of  national  and  local  government.  According  to  Bosher  et  al.  (2007)11,  building  codes,  proper  engineering  design  and  construction  practices,  and  land-­‐use  plans  and  regulations  are  critical  for  disaster  mitigation.  Thus  this  group  of  stakeholders  is  defined  as  public  and  semi-­‐public  entities  that  have  the  authority  to  make  and  enforce  rules,  laws  and  regulations  in  this  categorization.      International  community  Non-­‐profit  making  organisations  which  possess  membership  of  more  than  one  country  and  set  up  as  intergovernmental  organisations  or  international  non-­‐governmental  organisations  are  considered  as  the  international  community  under  this  categorisation.  International  organisations  can  be  seen  in  two  main  types,  namely,  intergovernmental  organisations  and  international  non-­‐governmental12.  The  first  type  is  set  up  by  intergovernmental  agreements  such  as  United  Nations  whilst  the  second,  which  are  voluntary  and  open  to  any  one  who  wishes  to  join,  is  formed  by  private  individuals  and  groups.    International  community  also  performs  a  significant  role  in  formulation  of  policies,  guidelines  and  regulations  for  disaster  risk  reduction.  International  entities  such  as  the  UNISDR  and  the  UNDP  are  some  leading  performers  in  relevant  policy  making.  The  policy  guidelines  such  as  Hyogo  Framework  for  action  and  United  Nations  Millennium  Development  Goals  (MDGs)  are  globally  agreed  international  agendas  for  integrating  disaster  risk  reduction  for  development  activities  around  the  world.  Thus,  international  community  attempts  to  bring  different  nations  together  to  achieve  disaster  risk  reduction  under  common  agendas.  In  addition,  international  community  provides  necessary  assistance  for  disaster  risk  reduction  for  nations  in  need.  Incidentally,  capacities  and  experiences  of  international  community  in  the  field  of  disaster  management  are  vitalmainly  because,  in  many  developing  countries,  the  lack  of  knowledge,  resources  and  expertise  can  be  overcome  by  adequate  global  cooperation  in  tackling  natural  disasters13  (El-­‐Masri  and  Tipple,  2002).  Thus,  in  the  context  of  disaster  risk  reduction,  international  community  is  able  to  provide  necessary  skills  and  knowledge,  technology  and  financial  aid.       9  Ginige    &  Amadatunga,  D.  (2011)  Capacity  Development  for  Post-­‐Disaster  Reconstruction  of  the  Built  Environment  In  Amaratunga,  D.  &  R.  Haigh,  eds.  Post-­‐Disaster  Reconstruction  of  the  Built  Environment:  Building  for  resilience.  Wiley-­‐Blackwell:  Chichester.  10  UNDP  (2004)  Reducing  disaster  risk:  A  challenge  for  development.  Geneva:  UNDP.  11  Bosher,  L.,  Dainty,  A.,  Carrillo,  P.  and  Glass  J.  (2007a)  Built-­‐in  resilience  to  disasters:  a  pre-­‐emptive  approach.  Engineering,  Construction  and  Architectural  Management,  14  (5),  434-­‐446.  12  Iriye,  A.  (2002)  Global  community:  the  role  of  international  organisations  in  the  making  of  the  contemporary  world,  California:  University  of  California  Press  13  El-­‐Masri,  S.  and  Tipple,  G.  (2002)  Natural  disaster,  mitigation  and  sustainability:  The  case  of  developing  countries.  International  Planning  Studies,  7(2),  157-­‐175.    

7

Community    Community  is  identified  as  the  individuals  and  groups  sharing  a  natural  and  built  environment  that  is  vulnerable  to  hazards.  In  other  words,  community  is  the  general  public;  the  users  and  occupants  of  the  built  environment  and  the  beneficiaries  of  disaster  risk  reduction.  Thus,  special  community  needs  and  concerns  require  to  be  necessarily  integrated  into  disaster  risk  reduction  initiatives.    According  to  Lawther  (2009)14,  involvement  of  the  beneficiaries  and  the  wider  community  in  the  reconstruction  can  lead  to  more  sustainable  outcomes  of  projects.  As  UNISDR  states,  disaster  risk  reduction  strategies  need  to  build  on  people’s  local  knowledge  and  cultural  practices,  and  apply  tools  and  approaches  that  people  can  easily  understand  and  integrate  into  their  lives.  In  particular,  members  of  local  communities  represent  the  greatest  potential  source  of  local  knowledge  of  hazardous  conditions,  and  are  the  repositories  of  traditional  coping  mechanisms  suited  to  their  individual  environment  UNISDR.  Thus,  experience  and  participation  of  local  community  are  extremely  important  in  disaster  risk  reduction.  Their  leadership  and  involvement  in  the  relevant  initiatives,  and  their  knowledge  and  experiences  related  to  the  disaster  vulnerabilities  of  the  area,  safe  locations  for  construction  and  local  resources  that  can  be  used  for  construction  are  significant  in  this  context.    Civic  society    This  group  includes  the  non-­‐governmental  organisations  (NGOs)  that  participate  in  disaster  risk  reduction  activities,  including  not-­‐for-­‐profit  and  voluntary  groups  that  are  organised  on  a  local,  national  or  international  level.  These  are  the  voluntary  and  social  organisations  that  are  non-­‐state  owned  who  appear  for  the  purposes  of  disaster  risk  reduction.  The  UNISDR  Secretariat  believes  that  building  the  resilience  of  nations  and  communities  to  disasters  cannot  be  done  without  the  active  participation  of  NGOs.  In  this  context,  UNISDR  is  determined  to  build  a  Global  Network  of  NGOs  for  Community  Resilience  to  Disasters,  with  the  aim  of  addressing  disaster  risk  reduction  issues  at  subnational  and  community  levels.  UNISDR  highlights  following  activities  as  the  most  important  of  NGOs’  role  in  disaster  risk  reduction.  

• NGOs  can  operate  at  grassroots  level  with  communities  and  local  organisations  as  partners,  and  take  a  participatory  approach  to  development  planning.  This  allows  them  to  respond  better  to  local  people’s  priorities  and  build  on  local  capacities.  

• NGOs  enjoy  higher  operational  flexibility  as  they  are  relatively  free  from  bureaucratic  structures  and  systems,  and  better  able  to  respond  and  adapt  quickly  and  easily.  

• NGOs  often  work  with  and  on  behalf  of  most  needy  groups:  the  poorest  and  the  most  vulnerable.  Thus,  the  assistance  extended  by  the  civic  society  towards  risk  reduction  can  be  through  policy  development  and  advocacy,  education  and  awareness  raising,  technical  assistance  and  human  resources  for  risk  and  vulnerability  assessments  and  enhancing  community  participation  into  local  construction  activities.  

 Private  and  corporate  sector  This  category  consists  of  privately  owned  profit-­‐orientated  business  and  industrial  groups.  In  most  societies,  the  private  sector  has  been  the  driving  force  behind  socio-­‐economic  development.  According  to  UNISDR,  the  private  sector  adversely  suffers  from  the  consequences  of  disasters  and  therefore  it  has  a  role  to  play  in  reducing  disaster  risk.  In  general,  the  private  sector  has  a  role  to  play  in  moving  towards  sustainable  development  that  incorporates  an  awareness  of  disaster  risk15.  In  this  context,  the  UN  Global  Compact,  launched  in  2000  to  bring  businesses  together  with  UN  agencies,  labour,  civil  society  and  governments  requests  businesses  to  integrate  disaster  prevention  into  their  decision-­‐making.  Incidentally,  there  are  various  private  and  corporate  sector  institutions  which  have  a  direct  interest  in  disaster  risk  reduction.    

14   Lawther,   M.L.   (2009)   Community   involvement   in   post   disaster   reconstruction-­‐   Case   study   of   the   British   red   cross  Maldives  recovery  programme,  International  Journal  of  Strategic  Property  Management,  June  2009  15  UNDP  (2004)  Reducing  disaster  risk:  A  challenge  for  development.  Geneva:  UNDP.  

 

8

In  particular,  the  majority  of  the  developers,  consultants,  contractors  and  subcontractors,  banks  and  finance  institutions  that  design,  construct,  maintain  and  finance  the  environment  can  be  categorised  under  this  stakeholder  group.  They  are  the  entities  who  are  responsible  for  implementation  of  policies,  regulations  or  guidelines  including  building  codes  and  construction  standards  for  disaster  risk  reduction  in  actual  practice  to  minimise  disaster  vulnerabilities.    Academia  and  professional  associations  This  group  of  stakeholders  are  universities,  research  organisations,  and  professional  associations  engaged  in  research,  and  training  and  development  of  individuals  and  organisations  involved  in  disaster  risk  reduction.  Academia  and  various  professional  associations  are  the  prominent  stakeholders  in  disaster  risk  for  related  education,  training  and  research  and  development  for    professionals  and  other  workers,  invention  of  methods  and  techniques  for  reconstruction  and  development  of  technical  standards  and  guidelines  for  reconstruction  

Discussion  The  framework  introduced  provides  an  insight  to  the  capacity  enhancement  process  in  disaster  mitigation  and  reconstruction  from  a  stakeholder  perspective.  The  framework  identifies  four  stages  of  capacity  enhancement;  namely,  analysis,  development,  utilisation  and  retention  whilst  establishing  national  and  local  governments,  international  community,  non  state  actors,  the  private  sector  and  local  community  as  the  stakeholders  of  the  process.    The  analysis  stage  of  the  framework  provides  the  basis  to  identify  required  areas  for  capacity  enhancement  through  analysing  existing  capacities  and  identifying  gaps.  There  are  many  capacities  that  could  be  found  in  the  context  of  disaster  reduction  and  reconstruction.  The  paper  found  the  institutions,  strategies,  frameworks,  policies,  laws  &  regulations,  projects  and  programmes  which  have  an  orientation  towards  disaster  reduction  and  reconstruction  as  the  relevant  capacities.  However,  regulations  like  building  codes,  construction  standards  and  land  use  policies,  and  the  skills  and  knowledge  of  the  stakeholders  including  professionals  and  local  communities  on  disaster  mitigation  and  reconstruction  are  the  key  capacities  in  the  given  context.      Although  it  has  been  noted  that  there  are  many  capacities  which  exist  in  relation  to  post-­‐disaster  reconstruction,  there  are  number  of  capacity  gaps  that  need  to  be  addressed  in  order  to  make  reconstruction  more  effective.  Lack  of  appropriate  policies,  deficiencies  in  policy  implementation,  deficiencies  in  state  of  the  art  technology  for  rapid  and  sustainable  reconstruction,  deficiencies  in  trained  and  skilled  human  resources  for  post-­‐disaster  reconstruction,  and  lack  of  disaster  reconstruction  related  knowledge,  experience  and  coordination  among  stakeholders  can  be  highlighted  as  bkey  capacity  gaps  in  relation  to  post-­‐disaster  reconstruction.  Thus,  bridging  these  gaps  is  extremely  important  in  achieving  successful  post-­‐disaster  reconstruction.  Development  of  necessary  capacities  in  a  sustainable  approach  is  essential  to  overcome  the  capacity  gaps.  Therefore,  a  framework  has  been  introduced  for  capacity  development  for  post-­‐disaster  reconstruction  with  a  stakeholder  perspective  in  this  chapter.  Capacity  development  for  post-­‐disaster  reconstruction  is  referred  to  as  the  ability  of  relevant  stakeholders  to  identify  constraints  and  to  plan  and  manage  reconstruction  effectively,  efficiently  and  sustainably.    The  framework  identifies  four  stages  of  capacity  development;  namely,  analysis,  creation,  utilisation  and  retention.  These  stages  are  identified  against  the  aforementioned  stakeholder  groups  that  are  involved  in  post-­‐disaster  reconstruction.  The  capacity  development  framework  brings  several  advantages  by  integrating  a  stakeholder  perspective  to  capacity  development  and  by  fragmenting  the  process  of  capacity  development  for  post-­‐disaster  reconstruction  into  smaller  elements  whilst  emphasising  the  relationships  among  those  elements