1

This case study is the second of a two-part series about CBFMP. The first part(see ADPC Safer Cities 2) explored themethodology for establishing andsustaining an organizational frameworkin which community groups identifiedneeds and cost-effective mitigationstrategies that would be implementedand maintained by the communitiesthemselves. This process, which wascarried out by selecting project sites,training community volunteers,establishing local disaster managementcommittees, and risk mapping in villages,had led to participatory identification ofmitigation strategies. From this,community members prioritized, plannedand implemented mitigation solutions tominimize the impact of flood. This partlooks into lessons drawn from planningand implementing the mitigationsolutions.

Introduction

Cambodia is particularly susceptible toannual river flood during the monsoonseason along two major watersheds, theTonle Sap Lake and the Mekong River.Localized flood caused by monsoonthunderstorms also poses a seriousthreat. The Community-Based FloodMitigation and Preparedness Project(CBFMP) of the Asian Urban DisasterMitigation Program (AUDMP) under theAsian Disaster Preparedness Center(ADPC) responded to this predicamentby building the capacities ofcommunities to plan and implementmitigation solutions (or micro-projects)that reduce their vulnerability. CBFMPcounted on a network of Red CrossVolunteers (RCVs) and village-levelDisaster Management Committees(DMCs) to lead communities in protectingthemselves from the impact of flood intheir localities.

Abstract

The inside story

Three hundred forty-seven persons were reported dead and more than3.5 million people affected, many of whom had to evacuate from theirflooded homes for more than a month. The 2000 flood in Cambodia inflicteddamage amounting to USD145 million. The 2001 flood followed a similarpattern with even higher water levels in some communities (IFRC, 2001).To reduce flood vulnerability, a community-based approach to disastermanagement is empowering villages to implement flood mitigation andpreparation strategies they themselves have formulated.

This case study resulted from theexperiences of 23 Cambodianvillages involved in the Community-Based Flood Mitigation andPreparedness Project (CBFMP). Itfocuses on lessons learned in theareas of: (1) resource mobilizationand proposal development;(2) implementation of mitigationsolutions; and (3) preparednessplanning.

Examples of conflict resolution,consensus building, resourcemobilization, leadership andcommunity participation areexplored. The impact of the 2000and 2001 floods on the communitiesand their mitigation solutions (ormicro-projects); the communities’future plans; and the implications forgovernmental, non-governmentaland community initiatives for disasterpreparedness and mitigation arealso discussed.

�� Resource mobilization andproposal development, page 2

�� Implementation ofmitigation solutions, page 4

�� Replications of flood mitigationsolutions, page 6

� Preparedness planning, page 6

Mitigating flood risk in Cambodian communitiesEmpowering communities to manage disaster risk

Cambodia

C a s e s t u d i e s o n m i t i g a t i n g d i s a s t e r s i n A s i a a n d t h e P a c i f i c

Asian Urban Disaster Mitigation Program

Community-baseddisaster management

3cSa f e r

i t i e s

March 2002

����

The Community-Based FloodMitigation and PreparednessProject (CBFMP) covers 23villages from three districts inthree provinces (shown in peach) - Kang Meas District inKampong Cham, Kien SvayDistrict in Kandal, and Peam RoDistrict in Prey Veng.

THAILAND

2

A network of Red Cross Volunteers(RCVs), with the support of the

Cambodian Red Cross (CRC), InternationalFederation of Red Cross and Red CrescentSocieties (IFRC) and Private AgenciesCooperating Together (PACT), worked with communities to organize and mobilizepeople and resources in order to developand implement mitigation strategies. RCVsidentified and relied on local authoritiessuch as the chiefs of the communes andvillages, village groups, wat (or temple)committee members, monks, and villageelders taking advisory or organizing rolesto mobilize community resources andcomplete their projects. This had theadvantage of adding credibility to theactivities.

Volunteers help villages find solutions

The RCVs, with the cooperation of thevillage chief and the DMC members, tookthe opportunity presented by community

gatherings at special events or traditionalceremonies to gather consensus on themitigation solutions and request for villagers’contributions (in kind and in cash) forplanned activities. Addressing the villagersat community events also facilitatedgathering of new ideas and inputs fromcommunity members. Communityawareness and involvement in deciding onthe mitigation solutions for implementationis crucial because it is difficult to mobilizepeople and solicit contributions if theyperceive that the proposed solution willnot remedy the problems they regularlyexperience from flood.

The mitigation solutions developedgenerally focused on water controlstructures necessary for livelihood(repairing dams and dikes, cleaning outirrigation ditches, culverts and water gates)or access (raising road levels or constructingsmall bridges). According to the CBFMPevaluation report (August 2001), there

Resource mobilization and proposal developmentCommunities gear up for project implementation

Issues to consider when implementing mitigation solutions questions to ask �

Does everyone agree with the mitigation solution?

was a high average percentage ofagreement (80 per cent) on the mitigationsolutions identified for implementation.

DMCs and RCVs helpbuild the workforce and funds

DMC members and RCVs led theorganization of a workforce forimplementation of the mitigation solutions.The support of CRC proved crucial: In thecase of Kang Meas District in KampongCham, the active involvement of theProvincial Red Cross Development Officerand the District Red Cross Officer ensuredthat contributions promised by thecommunities were given. Followingannouncements for contributions at villagemeetings, follow-ups (often more thanonce) were made door-to-door, requestingfor donations of materials and cash (ifpossible) and for one family representativeto contribute labor to implement thepreferred mitigation solution.

Where will we get funding? How do we mobilize resources?

How do we mobilize people? How do we maintain the mitigationsolution?

Mitigation minimizes the impact of flood,but what about preparing for it?

�����

3

Safer Cities

Safer Cities 3, AUDMP

Designated laborers from families workedon a rotating basis in groups of 15 to 20people until the project was completed.People generally contributed their owntools or provided soil for elevating roads.Cash donations were solicited accordingto people’s means. Often, the DMC didnot ask for any set amount of money.Donations ranged from Riel 800 (USD0.21)to Riel 1,000 (USD0.26) for a cartload ofdirt to as much as Riel 10,000 (USD2.60).The average was between Riel 1,000(USD0.26) to Riel 2,000 (USD0.52) perfamily. In some instances, several familiespooled their cash donations in order to pay for a truckload of dirt.

Resource mobilization was not a smoothprocess. Material and financial resourceswere scarce as most villagers were poor. Alarge portion of financial support had tocome from outside the community. Mostof the communities had not previouslyreceived any form of financial aid for anycommunity-based initiative so fundraisingwas a new experience for them.

Communities develop proposals

PACT assisted the communities indeveloping proposals for donor funding oftheir projects. PACT was able to generatefunds through international donor agenciesand NGOs including AusAid, the AmericanRed Cross, Oxfam, Church World Serviceand INNER Change (House of Hope).

Concern over proposal rejectionsometimes resulted in underestimation ofproject costs. In other instances, projectswere quite grandiose because RCVsthought donors did not want to considersmall projects and would respond, “in thatcase, you can do it by yourself”. In thelatter situation, some villagers may bereluctant to contribute money becausethey perceive donors as having sufficientfunds to cover the mitigation solutions.

Funds obtained by PACT were disbursedto the village DMCs in two installments –first, after training on basic financial

management was imparted to DMCmembers comprising of the CommitteeChair, Treasurer, Secretary and Member(s),some of whom are also RCVs. The secondinstallment was disbursed after review ofreceipts and work were completed. Allexpenditures for the mitigation solutionswere subject to approval of the Chair.Likewise, financial statements andsupporting documents (such as receipts,vouchers, and others) had the Chair’ssignature of approval. Project progressreports were submitted to CRC, IFRC andPACT on a monthly basis.

Villagers unable to keep promises

Timing and sensitivity to the seasonalcalendar is important in the community. As project proposals went intoimplementation, some villagers foundthemselves unable to del iver theirpromised contributions of labor andmaterials because of bad timing. If peoplewere busy with their harvest, this tookpriority over the community project. Thiswas most evident in Boeng Psauth Villageof Prey Veng where the DMC revealedthat although 75 per cent of thecommunity members agreed toparticipate in the implementation of theproject during an organized communitymeeting, only 10 per cent of the villagers

could contribute their labor and only onethird of the funds required for the projectwas raised.

An example of a community proposalfrom Prek Andong Village of KampongCham:

In the proposal, the communitiesidentified the community contributionin labor, materials and/or cash andprovided a budget for additional fundingrequired.

Communities work together toconstruct a bridge in Bang Kha EkVillage, Prey Veng. Technical assistanceis provided from outside.

Ang Kounh and Don Teav Villages,Kampot, collaborate to raise roadsusing soils from the adjacent paddyfields.

������ ����� ��� �� ������� ��� ���� ������� �� ��������� ��� �������� ����������� ������ ����������� ���� ����������� ���� ����� ����� ������� ����� ������ ������

��������� ������� � �� ������� �������� ��������� ���������� ��� �� ����������������������� �������� �������������� ��� ���������� ������������ ������������ ���� �������

�������� �������� ���� ��������� � ��� �������������� �������� ��� ��������� �� �������� ���������������� ���������� ��� ���� �������� �������� ���� ���������� � ��� ������ ��

������� ������� ������ ������ ������� ���� ��������� ���� ������ ������������������ � �� ���� ���������� ��� ������� ���� ��� �����!����� ���� ������������ �����������

������� ����� ������������� ���� ���������� ��� ������ �������

� �� ������ �������� ��� ������� "������� � ����� ������ �� �� ������������ ����������������#���������������������!����� $�#�!%�� ���� �� ��&����� ��� '������

#���������������� $&'#�%���� ��(� �������� ���� )�����������#���������� $( �)#%��� ��������������������� ���������� ������� ���� ��$�%� ���������� ����������

������ �� ������ ����#�!����( �)#�� � �� ����������� ��� ��� ������� ��� ��������� ���� ��������� ��� �������������� '�������� �������� ������� ������ �� ����� ������ �� �

������� ������������ ���������� ��� ��� ���� ����������������������� ���� � �� ������� ������������ ��&'#���( �)#�� ������ �� ��������!������������������

*��� +,-���..�..�...-,�

4

Mitigation solutions identified wereoften those that reduce the

communities’ vulnerability to flood as wellas improve their livelihood, often in termsof enhanced safety, ease of access andeconomic benefits. For example, theconstruction of an emergency evacuationroute enhanced the safety of villagers andtheir livestock. Raising of roads andconstruction of bridges provided areliable transportation route andincreased accessibility, allowingstudents to travel to schooland traders to transport theiragricultural produce to localmarkets. New, enlarged orrebuilt culverts increased thecommunity’s control over thewater flow, enabling them toincrease their rice crop yield,and for some communities,even harvest a second ricecrop.

The ownership of these projects isfundamental because it affects people’smotivation to use and sustain theseprojects in the long term. Two examplesare presented here to provide a moredetailed perspective of the implementationof the community flood mitigation projects.The first example of Prek Ta Keo Village ofKandal demonstrates the problem of notactively involving community members inthe implementation of the project. Here,based on a funding agreement betweenthe NGO and Prek Ta Keo Village, asubcontractor was hired to implement theproject. The second example of BoengPsauth Village of Prey Veng provides a caseof a community learning from problemsexperienced in implementing a bridge-building project. The problems faced largelyimplied a lack of community participationin the decision-making process.

‘Outsiders’ managePrek Ta Keo road project

Prek Ta Keo Village is situated less thantwo kilometers from the Mekong River inthe Kien Svay District of Kandal Province

and comprises 667 families. The threeRCVs (two men, one woman) joined withnine other villagers to form a DMC of 12members. Besides the three RCVs, therewere four members of the local watcommittee and two other village leadersamong the committee members.

Consensus was reached in thecommunity to raise 425 meters of

road as its flood mitigationpriority. This would serve asthe main access road for thevillage, and thus, is a criticalroute to transport produceand to aid evacuation in anemergency situation.

The total cost of the projectwas USD2,672, of which

USD116 was contributed bythe community. Oxfam Great

Britain funded the remainingcost and appointed Church World

Service (CWS) to implement and monitorthe project. This funding arrangementmeant that PACT Cambodia’s normaloperating procedure for administeringproject funds was not followed.

CWS hired a subcontractor to do the workwith the local villagers who provided their

labor in elevating the road. CWS managedthe funds and as a result, the village DMChad little control over the implementationprocess – when the work was to takeplace, how it was done and what materialswere used.

Consequently, conflicts arose owing todiffering needs and expectations of thedonor, subcontractor and community. Thesubcontractor used soil from nearby ricefields for the road elevation and apparentlycaused a great amount of damage tothem, raising fury among landowners. Largetrucks were used to transport materials,blocking the route for long periods causingtraffic congestion for communities invillages along this route. Because of theseproblems, the subcontractor completedonly 400 meters of the 425 metersproposed road.

Since most villagers regarded this projectas top priority, resources were mobilizedto complete the road elevation and afterthe floods of 2000 and 2001, communitymembers contributed to the repair of thisroad. In the end, this experience with theNGOs and subcontractor reduced thecommunity’s level of trust in outsiders.Above all, the DMC members did notreceive the practical organizational and

Implementation of mitigation solutionsVillages approach implementation differently

While therole of NGOs,

private sectorand government isimportant, theprimary requirementfor grassrootsdevelopment islocal leadershipand local

responsibility.

Mobilizing resources effectively

�Work with existing community groups.

�Make activities credible.

�Gain the support of local authorities and respectedindividuals within and beyond the community.

�Use community festivals and other events to promoteactivities.

�Do not let money drive proposals.

�Focus on linking mitigation solutions with the needs andpriorities of the majority of community members.

�Ensure transparency in fund management.

�Consider timing of project implementation.

lessonslearned

Raised road of Prek Ta Keo Village Soil from paddy fieldsused to raise the road

�����

5

bridge with a new one and as a result, the DMC itself decided to build a cementbridge in another location instead of theiroriginally proposed wooden bridge.

The combination of inexperience inproposal preparation and a rush to submitthe project proposal without thoroughconsultation with other communitymembers resulted in the DMC’s unrealisticcost estimates that were 30 per cent lessthan the actual. Total costs for the bridgecame to USD1,655 (not including the valueof villager’s labor that was contributed),of which only four per cent could becovered by the villager’s donations. AusAidcontributed 73 per cent of the projectcost leaving a 23 per cent shortage thatwas eventually covered by CRC.

The DMC members asked villagers tocontribute according to their abilities both

financially and with respect to laborand materials. However, when

work on the bridge was finallystarted other problems wereexperienced. Firstly, the costof transporting materials wasnot taken into account inthe proposal. Secondly, theproject started at theheight of the harvestseason. As explained above,the busy schedule of thevillagers during harvest made

it difficult to mobilize peopleand secure a commitment

causing delays in thecompletion of the project.

Furthermore, the lack of technical skillsamong the villagers led to the addedexpense of hiring a knowledgeable andskilled person.

However, once the project was completed,the DMC members felt confident enoughto build a bridge on their own having

financial management skills that could havebeen achieved through the project.

This case shows that failure to involvepeople in the decision-making process canlead to negative impacts on people’slivelihood. In community-based disastermanagement, the community is not onlythe main actor but should also be thebeneficiary in the risk reduction anddevelopment process. While the role ofNGOs, private sector and government isimportant, the primary requirement forgrassroots development is local leadershipand local responsibility.

Boeng Psauth Villagelearns from bridge building

The people of Boeng Psauth Village inPeam Ro District, Prey Veng, proposed tobuild a new bridge as their flood mitigationproject. This village of 267 families islocated on the east bank of theMekong River and its experiencewith seasonal flood had causedthe previous wooden bridgeto regularly fall into disrepairand become dangerous totraverse. The DMC iscomprised of sevenvillagers, including twoRCVs, the village chief, twowat committee membersand the chief of theWomen’s Association.

At a village meeting thatdecided on the flood mitigationproject, the DMC received agreementfrom 75 per cent of those in attendanceto renovate an existing wooden bridgeover 20 meters in length. However, afterthe bridge proposal was submitted,floodwaters in 1999 washed away theremaining wooden frame of the bridge. Alocal ferry company agreed to replace the

understood most of the technical aspects.In terms of project planning andimplementation, they recognized theirweaknesses and suggested that they beprovided with more training in theseaspects and in flood mitigation conceptsin general.

The case shows that the participatoryprocess mostly included high-ranking villageleaders, the educated and the relativelyaffluent within the DMC. The focus todevelop proposals on their own meantthat various factors were omitted includingthe transportation costs, the timing of theproject implementation and the capacityof the community members.

“I think wehave acquired

enough skills tobuild another bridge

on our own. Weunderstand about 80per cent of thetechnical aspects ofbridge construction,”claims Mr. LongLak, a 36-year-old

v i l l a g e r

Wooden Bridge in Boeng Psauth Village

Cement Bridge in Boeng Psauth Village

Problems encountered in implementing flood mitigation solutionsand ways to alleviate the problems

lessonslearned

Safer Cities 3, AUDMP

Limited resources – human, financial and material

Introduce fundraising activities and seek donorsupport.

Conflicting needs of funding agencies and communities

For the benefit of the communities, involve themin decision-making and handover project as soonas possible.

Misinformed decisions resulting in unsatisfactoryproject output

Ensure broad-based participation of people in thecommunity for advice and assistance.

Poor timing of project implementation leading tolack of commitment

Ensure sensitivity to work patterns, religious ritesand festivals in communities.

�

�

�

�

6

started people thinking about minimizingthe impact of flood in the targetedcommunities.

This raised awareness on the importanceof flood preparedness, supported by CRC’splan to provide further trainingon disaster preparedness and actionplanning to RCVs and DMC members is astep towards increased preparednessplanning in Cambodian communities. InKang Meas District of Kampong Cham, anactive District Red Cross Officer, Mr. Kong,plans to link community preparedness plans

Flood preparednessenhances mitigation

RCVs were not only trained in facilitatingmitigation projects but also in floodpreparedness. However, one of theweaknesses of the CBFMP is the lack ofemphasis on preparedness planning.Nonetheless, in the context ofexperiencing major floods in twoconsecutive years (2000 and 2001) andthe community’s prediction of more severefloods in the future, the CBFMP processof implementing mitigation solutions

with those of the commune and districtlevels.

Community responsesreflect preparedness

Although no physical preparedness plansexisted in the communities, this did notmean that there was no preparednessplanning involved during CBFMP.Preparedness activities were evident inmany CBFMP-targeted communities. Forexample, RCVs not only used communityevents to mobilize resources for

Preparedness planningCommunities prepare for flood in various ways

stakeholders within the communities butalso look beyond the commune, district,provincial and even national levels forresources and political support. In PrekAndong Village of Kampong Cham, thesuccess of the road elevation projectled to many other projects. TheProvincial Deputy Governor wasimpressed with the community’scontributions and has plans to furtherimprove this road.

Donor funding for the commune andvillage level has been increasing since2000. The German-funded Tertiary RoadImprovement Program is improving theroads of many villages. The EuropeanUnion has a well construction programof which Prek Andong Vi l lage is abeneficiary of three wells. Moreover,communities themselves have increasingopportunit ies to seek fundingthemselves. AusAid has funds allocatedfor community-based initiatives and theWorld Bank maintains a Social Fund – aloan program for communities.

mobilizing human and financial resourcesto raise their part of the road.

A similar example can be seen after BangSang Lech Village, Kampong Cham raisedtheir road and constructed a berm toprotect the road during the monsoonseason. The elderly people in both theBang Sang Lech and Khdey watcommittees encouraged vil lagers ofKhdey to organize themselves toconstruct a berm in their part of thevillage along the same road.

Other organizations such as ActionAgainst Hunger, CARE Cambodia andOxfam GB have also adopted the CBFMPapproach together with CRC in reducingcommunit ies’ vulnerabi l i ty to f looddisasters.

Outside help arrives

From the experience of CBFMP, it waslearned that community-based initiativesshould not only focus on involving

Replications of flood mitigation solutionsThe CBFMP approach extends to other communities

Communities and agenciesfollow the road to success

Despite the complications above, therewere also a number of success stories.Examples of replication of mitigationsolut ions in the communit ies wereapparent one year after the completionof CBFMP. After their f i rst bridgeconstruction under CBFMP, villagers inPeam Mean Chhey Commune, PreyVeng, built two more bridges usingcharity and community-generated funds.

Replications of the CBFMP approach canalso been seen beyond the targetedcommunities. Koh Ta Ngor II in KampongCham had raised 300 meters of roadunder CBFMP. At the end of the project,the neighboring Angkor Ban Village,whose road continues from the one KohTa Ngor II raised, became interested inthis ini t iat ive. With advice andencouragement from Koh Ta Ngor IIDMC, Angkor Ban Vil lage had alsofol lowed the CBFMP approach in

Replication of a community’s successis a powerful factor in continuing localinitiatives.

To do so, it is important to:

Replicatingsuccess

Students help in the construction of aberm.

Raised road and berm (on the right)protect the road during the monsoonseason.

lessonslearned

�����

�����

�Involve and convince people.

�Work together with localauthority.

�Use appropriate technology.

�Show immediate results.

7

implementation of mitigation solutions butalso provided advice to people on specificdisaster preparedness actions they neededto consider. In one example, discussion insuch a meeting led to community and RCVsassistance in the dismantling and relocationof ten houses along the Mekong River inKoh Ta Ngor I Village in Kampong Cham.

Another example is the mobilization ofcommunities to fill sandbags and place themalong roads or riverbanks in preparation forthe 2001 flood. This was a major activitybeyond the CBFMP-targeted communitiesin Kampong Cham and Kandal provinces.Villagers were willing to participate in thepreparedness activity largely because ofthe success of other projects such as roadelevation.

Announcements through loudspeakersacross the villages and door-to-door visitswere also made to inform villagers ofpossible dangerous situations. While mostvillagers resorted to the usual copingmechanisms upon which they relied uponyear after year, the CBFMP initiative hadled them to recognize the capacityof community members, especiallythe RCVs and DMC members, andthe positive impact of workingtogether in implementingmitigation solutions.

As a result, hints of communitycollaboration can be seen inthe evacuation andrehabilitation phases of the2000 and 2001 floods. Forexample, in Prek Andong, mostpeople helped themselves duringtimes of flood. Only families withrelatives and friends in other communitiesinland were able to move temporarily.However, the 2001 flood was met with amore concerted effort in this community,led by the DMC and RCVs to evacuatefamilies in 15 small houses to a nearbycommunity of Andong Ong. With the help

of the Village Chief of Andong Ong, thesefamilies moved to stay with those who hadstronger houses for more than a month.Should a flood of similar magnitude affectthe same village, the DMC and RCVs wouldbe prepared to carry out a similarevacuation process.

Similarly in Prek Kmeng Village of KandalProvince, a school was identified as theevacuation center during the 2001 flood

with the RCVs and DMC memberscoordinating the evacuation

process. In subsequent years,when necessary, this system willbe followed by the villagers.

Flood warning systemneeds ssimprovement

Early warning and people’sparticipation in disseminating

early warning messages is ofparticular importance in the overall

preparedness plan of communities.However, in the 2000 flood, the official

announcements on flood situation weretoo general with no mention of specificflood-affected areas.

To date, early warning remains an individualactivity. Communities often listen to floodwarning on radio and television broadcasts.

Individuals also measure the floodwaterlevel by placing a marked bamboo stick inthe river. Comparison of the level offloodwater level between villagers is apopular topic in any conversation.

Nonetheless, it is important to buildpeople’s capacities to take theresponsibility in monitoring hazards andissuing warning to save lives. The RoyalGovernment of Cambodia, in partnershipwith the Mekong River Commission, isworking to make timely and relevant floodinformation accessible. This public accessto information on local patterns of risk isempowering and facilitates communityparticipation in decision-making, thusstrengthening opportunities for responsiblegovernance.

Mitigation solutionsimprove trust and quality of life

In each target communi ty, thesuccessful complet ion of the f loodmi t iga t ion so lu t ions and the i rimmediate benefits led to increasedtrust among communi ty members,poss ib i l i t ies o f o ther communi typro jec ts and increased organ izedactivities in flood preparedness andresponse.

In many cases, CBFMP not on lyminimized the impact of flood but alsoimproved the quality of l i fe of poorpeople . The communi ty -basedapproach shou ld cont r ibute topeople’s empowerment – to possessphysical safety; to have more accessto and cont ro l over resources; toparticipate in decision-making whichaf fec t the i r l i ves ; and toenjoy the benef i ts of an improvedenvironment.

Community-based approach increases development capacity

The primary purpose of a community-basedapproach should revolve around addressingvulnerable conditions and the main strategyis to increase the community’s capacity, theirresources and coping strategies. CBFMP hadshown that community’s increasedmanagerial and technical capacities oftenled to further development initiatives withinand beyond their own community.

Conclusions

Safer Cities 3, AUDMP

Monks, villagers, RCVs, district RedCross officer of Kang Meas District,Kampong Cham, fill sandbags inpreparation for the 2001 flood.

Embankments are raised withsandbags to protect the communitiesof Kang Meas District, Kampong Cham,against flood.

Village school used as evacuationcenter in Prek Pmeng Village, Kandal

�����

Mr. SomPiseth of Koh

Ta Ngor II,Kampong Cham,said “My familystarts preparingfor flood whenI see floodin China ontelevision.”

8 Safer Cities 3, AUDMP

���

Acknowledgement

This case study would not have beenpossible without the contributions ofMr. Steven Sharp and Mr. TouchThearat at PACT, Dr. Uy Sam Ath atCRC and colleagues at ADPC inparticular, Col. Brian Ward, Mr. KamalKishore, Mr. Josh Moga, Dr. ApichaiThirathon, Mr. Zubair Morshed andMr. Rajesh Sharma.

Author: Christine Apikul, ADPCEditor & designer: Lichelle Carlos

On community-baseddisaster management

ADPC Community- Based Disaster ManagementCourse Curriculum (including Trainer’s Guide,Coordinator’s Guide, Participant’s Workbookand Reading Materials).

ADPC Information Resources on Community-Based Disaster Management (CD-ROM),September 2001.

IFRC, 2001, World Disaster Report: Focus onRecovery, International Federation of RedCross and Red Crescent Societies

Other relevantSafer Cities case studies

ADPC Safer Cities 1: Community-Based Initiatiesin Kathmandu Valley

ADPC Safer Cities 2: Coping with Flood inCambodian Communities

ADPC Safer Cities 5: Community-Based Initiativesin Sri Lanka

Further references

On CBFMP

CBFMP Training Modules, August 2001.CBFMP Completion Report for Phase 1 and 2

(AUDMP Project Report No. 2), August2000.

CBFMP Completion Report for Phase 3.CBFMP Evaluation Report: Lessons Learned from

Community-Based Flood Mitigation andPreparedness Project in Cambodia (AUDMPWorking Paper No. 3), August 2001.

On community-based disaster management initiatives in Cambodia

The Cambodia Community-Based Flood Mitigation and Preparedness Project (CBFMP) was launched in September 1998 under the Asian Urban DisasterMitigation Program (AUDMP) of the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC). CBFMP aims to reduce the vulnerability of highly flood-prone communitiesin Kampong Cham, Kandal and Prey Veng Provinces, which border the Mekong River and the northwestern area around Tonle Sap. The project bringstogether a variety of humanitarian organizations to address the susceptibility of the general population and its critical facilities, infrastructure, livelihoodsand shelter. Together, they focus on training volunteers and facilitating implementation of mitigation solutions for flood risk reduction in communities.

CBFMP

International Federation of Red Crossand Red Crescent Societies17 Vithei de la Croix RougeCambodgiennePhnom Penh,CambodiaTel: (855-23) 210-162, 362-690Fax: (855-23) 210-163URL: http://www.ifrc.orgContact: Ms. Valerie Dourdin

Disaster PreparednessDelegateE-mail: ifrckh09@ifrc.org

Funding:

Office of Foreign DisasterAssistance (OFDA),U.S. Agency forInternationalDevelopment (USAID)

Asian Disaster Preparedness CenterP.O. Box 4, Klong LuangPathumthani 12120THAILANDContact: Information Scientist

E-mail: ambika@ait.ac.th

Tel: (66-2) 524-5354Fax: (66-2) 524-5350E-mail: adpc@ait.ac.thURL: http://www.adpc.ait.ac.th

The Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC) is a regional resource center dedicated to safer communities and sustainable development throughdisaster reduction in Asia and the Pacific. Established in 1986 in Bangkok, Thailand, ADPC is recognized as an important focal point for promoting disasterawareness and developing capabilities to foster institutionalized disaster management and mitigation policies.

For more information, please get in touch with us at:

ADPC

Project Partners

The Asian Urban Disaster Mitigation Program (AUDMP) is the first of six regional programs implemented by ADPC. The AUDMP started in 1995with core funding from USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) until 2003. The program was developed with the recognition ofincreased disaster vulnerability of urban populations, infrastructure, critical facilities and shelter in Asian cities. In an environment where goodgovernance and decentralization are high in most countries' political agenda, AUDMP aims to demonstrate the importance of and strategicapproaches to urban disaster mitigation as part of the urban development planning process in targeted cities of Asia.

AUDMP supports this demonstration by building the capacity of local authorities, national governments, non-government organizations, businesses andothers responsible for establishing public and private sector mechanisms for urban disaster mitigation as part of city management. AUDMP also facilitatesknowledge sharing and dialogue between the key stakeholders to promote replication of the AUDMP approaches to other cities and countries worldwide.Currently, the AUDMP approaches have been introduced and sustained by national partner institutions in targeted cities of Bangladesh, Cambodia,India, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Nepal, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam.

AUDMP

Implementation:

Cambodian Red Cross17 Vithei de la Croix RougeCambodgiennePhnom Penh, CambodiaTel: (855-23) 210-773Fax: (855-23)Contact: Dr. Uy Sam Ath

Director, DisasterManagement DepartmentE-mail: crc@camnet.com.kh

Private Agencies Cooperating TogetherNo.11 Street 302, P.O Box 149Phnom Penh, CambodiaTel: (855-23) 217-855-6Fax: (855-23) 217-820URL: http://www.pactworld.orgContact: Mr. Kurt MacLeod

Country RepresentativeE-mail: kurtmacleod@pactcam.org

CARE CambodiaHouse 52 St. 352Quarter Boeung Keng Kang 1Dist. Chamcar MornPhnom Penh, CambodiaTel. (855-23) 215-269Fax: (855-23) 426-233Contact: Ms. Kate AngusE-mail: care.cam@bigpond.com.kh

Oxfam Great BritainP.O Box 883, No. 54, Road 352Boeung Keng Kang 1, ChamkamonPhnom Penh, CambodiaTel: (855-23) 720-036Fax: (855-23) 720-929URL: http://www.oxfam.org.ukContact: Mr. Touch ThearatE-mail: tthearat@oxfam.org.kh

Action Against Hunger (AAH)15 Street 7 (Okhna Suor Srong)Sangkat Chak Tomok Khan, Doun PenhPhnom Penh, CambodiaTel: (855-23) 426-934; 363-701Fax: (855-23) 361-291URL: http://www.aah-usa.orgContact: Mr. Dominic CarrollE-mail: acfcambodge@bigpond.com.kh

����