Rajkumar Gade is a civil engineer working in the field of Disaster management for more than 15 Years.

Armie Almero is the executive director of PCDR (Panay Center for disaster response), and has been working in the area of disaster preparedness and relief for more than 20 years in the Philippines

From their field experiences, authors emphasize the need for Capacity building of frontline institutions and communities towards building resilience and inculcating a culture of Disaster risk reduction preparedness.

By the start of the twenty-first century, several disaster-prone nations, including those in South and south-east Asia, had successfully built their disaster management profiles and created stronger policies centered on enhancing the internal resilience of local institutions and people. A large portion of the credit also goes to the UNDRR and succeeding Frameworks, which made it possible for nations to unite and settle on rules to follow to increase national resilience. The work on disaster risk reduction policies has generally improved. However, the policies at ground-level implementation, particularly with frontline institutions and people, is still relatively weak, and the benefits still need to reach the impacted areas. Without an agreed-upon financial plan, policymaking fails miserably because local institutions cannot finance their disaster risk reduction (DRR) initiatives when development funds are low.

One of the core important functions of DRR policies in any country is to build the capacity of frontline institutions and communities, which requires resources such as finances, training space, training content, and a human resources structure to implement the training.

This article will elaborately discuss the challenges and opportunities in capacity building at the ground level with communities and Institutions taking examples from Different countries.

Challenges at grassroots level capacity development:Funding for training

For communities and people to receive training in disaster management at the village level interventions, there need to be more dedicated funds available. Despite being in disaster-prone areas, local institutions still need to receive special funding for training. There is no framework for information sharing or the opportunity to instruct others, and only a small number of government employees from certain departments are chosen for training. Once there is an emergency, the development funds are directed to relief operations. Governance is still more development-oriented than disaster-focused. DRR is still far ahead of the priority agenda in local governance.

The funding landscape for DRR on capacity building is very few from external donors. Very few donors are interested in funding for DRR activities; individual donors and institutions can raise funding during a large-scale catastrophe, where funds are generated for emergency response and rehabilitation.

With limited funding, local partners are trying to cover a maximum number of village communes. In many places like the Philippines, local Barangays are ready to partner with DRR networks and through them, they want to coordinate more training for the village communities.

Course Curriculum

In many of South and Southeast Asia, more readily available course content for training for frontline villagers and institutions must be available. With so many natural disasters, a big country like India needs different language-based content on DRR and resilience. Even the policies still need to be translated into local languages.

The DRR networks in the Philippines offer a standard three-volume course relevant to everyone in the nation. The only problem is that it needs to be translated into the local tongues of the many islands, but this can be done.

In the Philippines, there is a standard three-volume course content available with DRR networks, which is standardly applicable throughout the country; the only challenge is that it has to be translated into local languages in different islands, and it’s possible to manage it.

Simulation drills in communities, identifying risk and Hazards is a key function of communities and accordingly, the DRR plan would be made. These activities take time and resources, which are only easily available for some frontline villages.

During the training, the biggest challenge one face is to translate the terminology used in DRR content to the local language and make the participant understand.

Many International NGOs have tried to develop school-based DRR programming course content available in many countries and has been successfully implemented in schools. The DRR programming is mostly done in government schools, so often, private schools are left out in India, Monastic schools in Nepal and Bhutan, Madrasas in India, etc. 

It has been observed, after the program completion by NGOs, the community, Institutions, and schools also don’t continue the program, due to a lack of motivation, no guidance, or feeling like an extra burden from regular work and no ownership from the Government to replicate the models keep DRR subject on the backbench, until there is a new disaster in the area.

Targeting for Training

In many trainings on disaster management at the ground level, the challenge is to select the right people for training. We often find that older people are sent to attend trainings as the youth is busy, the young are working and most women need to be represented better. Training beneficiaries should be of different age groups so t a combination of youth with experiences will lead the activities in the communities. Different skill sets are employed for making groups, such as first aid, search, and rescue, communications teams need different able people to lead.

In one of the examples from the Philippines, a local NGO that trained at the community level created only a women’s disaster preparedness committee (DPC) with a mix of age groups at a Barangay, which was very well received. They are a reckoning force to advocate for disaster preparedness at the village level, similarly, at schools, they formed a DPC with youth. If regular training and awareness sessions, coupled with simulation drills happen at the village level, the momentum of preparedness is well institutionalized. In the Philippines, 5 percent of the development fund is reserved for DRR and emergencies, used for various purposes.

Similar examples from Bangladesh, come in as a success story, where Urban and rural volunteers are trained in various skills by the fire rescue department, and the model has worked well in saving lives and reducing the impact of the loss of life due to cyclones.

2.4 Attendance in Training

Beneficiaries selected for training at the community level, do not show up consistently for training as they have many other days to day activities. Hence, prioritizing the training for them becomes a challenge. Erratic attendance makes it difficult for organizations When a village leader or a head is present in the training makes a huge difference, or if the training imparted by the local government officers makes a huge difference in the success of conducting training

Training has become very costly, as the local NGOs need to pay the daily allowance, food, snacks, water, and transport costs for every participant. The attendance of participants also depends upon how good the training is and what benefits one gets from attending it. Life skills training or practical-based, interactive methods keep people engaged at the rural level.

In Cambodia, training is better coordinated between the local NGO and beneficiaries, as the selection and organization are done together, good training facilities are available at the local level for facilitation and people are highly accountable.

Local Governance

In many countries, local governance doesn’t have resource persons dedicated to disaster management or specialists at the local level in disaster-prone areas. A simple nomination is done to any particular staff in local offices, who has no knowledge or academic background in disaster management. DM has never been handled as a specialized subject and Local governance is more emergency or relief-oriented yet, DRR has not been a priority.

A weak local governance can do much more damage than the disaster itself if they are not prepared well. Many of the frontline villages exposed to frequent floods in Nepal and India border, are not at all prepared from Himalayan rivers, there are still life losses and huge assets loss due to weak governance. No local preparations, no capacity building programs in villages, no material or equipment support, shabby shelters, no rescue equipment’s and boats delay response for first crucial 72 hours.

Nepal and Philippines, have developed good early warning systems for floods, through mobile ‘SMS’ technology, they provide alert mechanism for their communities. But India is lagging behind, due to large communication channels and ineffective mobile communication technology on the borders. On the other hand, India has successful model of state and national level reserve forces (NDRF) available for disaster relief. Similarly, Indian Meteorological department has developed very good cyclone warning systems with the help of satellite technology and predictive models, which are helping local frontline communities by getting prior warning and well-coordinated administrative systems.

Misunderstanding of DRR and simple Risk concepts

DRR concepts are so large and adaptive, it can imbibe anything into it for risk reduction. One has to make the concepts very clear, what is risk, hazard and DRR. In many instances it has been observed that in the name of DRR, simple risks are considered, such as an example of toilet construction in few houses in a village as DRR programming, another example of installing solar-powered water heaters in kindergartens toilets as DRR programming, rather handwashing with soap should have been forefront risk reduction awareness in schools.

Lack of handrails on the first floor of school premises can lead to falls of children from the first floor is a big risk for children in school, which can be managed locally by bamboo rail construction or the education department to construct proper railing, but showing it as a risk under DRR programming and allocating funds for risk reduction or approaching NGOs to fund railing construction will undermine the DRR programming.

One of the case study of a local governance from Philippines is presented below in the box

Mitigation works include levee construction on rivers to save villages and communities, shelters for people, raising the stilt height of houses, building models for house construction in disaster-prone areas, and river bed cleaning from silt and debris. School site selection near rivers or offices near rivers or housing or shelter near seashores should be prioritized for resolution under DRR programming.

Climate change is also used widely for every reason, without linkages to phenomena and causes. The linkage between DRR and Climate change adaptation needs to be made very clear; earthquakes linked to climate change, crop failures, and droughts in a span of years cannot be linked to climate within a period and research. 

These concepts should be made very clear in training. Otherwise, there is a chance of mutualization of funds in the name of DRR programming.

Opportunities Mainstreaming DRR into sectors

Capacity building of professionals is required at all sectoral levels at local level institutions on mainstreaming DRR. Health, Education, Social welfare, and Engineering departments need to proactively incorporate DRR as a mainstreaming element, which needs professional-level training.

For example, disaster-resilient infrastructure is the need of the hour in disaster-prone areas and elements of risk reduction features should be incorporated. Critical infrastructure such as schools and hospitals can work closely with engineering departments to make the infrastructure safe.

Securing agricultural lands from inundation with flood waters needs proper planning from the engineering and agriculture departments.

Social welfare departments work closely with the most vulnerable groups such as elderly people, and disadvantaged people with physical challenges need special emphasis and focus, which needs professional inputs through DRR mainstreaming activities.

The inputs should reach frontline communities and departments, which need to be stronger in the subject area of DRR and research organizations, NGOs should be working closely to improve governance through continuous handholding support.

Replication of capacity building programs

The successful models of capacity-building programs demonstrated by NGOs at the local level need further help from the government to support these initiatives through local resources. Only a few donors are interested in continuing work, where there is no cooperation with the government coming in for replication. Despite scalable capacity measures, NGOs cannot expand it because of bleak external funding, and momentum is held back in intervention areas.

NGOs should take the opportunity to build a cadre of trainers, who can be from local communities and can take ownership in the future and work with local institutions to continue the refresher courses and demonstrate replicability in nearby villages.

Local institutions and departments are more inclined towards showing tangible things like constructing infrastructure, but hardly are they motivated to fund training programs, as the result needs to be visible.

In disaster-prone areas, the local governance model has to be disaster friendly rather than a regular developmental model, focusing more on saving lives and assets. Public-private partnership models and individual/Organisational help should be taken in this area of work where funding is limited.

Rise of social media and its benefits

The opportunity to utilize social media, such as WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook, and YouTube, has been a very powerful tool during emergencies like floods, cyclones, and Covid in many countries and has saved many lives. Youngsters have been at the forefront of utilizing the newest technologies for knowledge and awareness.

Many entrepreneurs have come around in recent times, who are teaching online and creating educational content for mass education through innovative online methodologies. Developing education apps have become very easy to cater to focused interest groups. Podcasting and blogging have been a trend.

The latest communication methods like Zoom calling, Microsoft Teams, and Google meets are places for launching training and meetings, which have been steadily used in DRR capacity-building programs; some good examples have been seen in the Philippines, where NGOs are conducting training over the zoom with remote distances, which are physically difficult to manage and taking resource persons to location is challenging. Adding Artificial technologies and machine learning with enhanced products like ChatGPT can be useful in content creation.

With the help of the latest technologies, the challenge of access has been resolved through remote management online and content creation has been easy. The NGOs and government should promote low-cost education materials and training online available for people and institutions. 

Conclusion

The global frameworks introduced by UNISDR and later UNDRR have made countries realize their risks and challenges and have made swift changes to Disaster management policies and frameworks. The last two decades have seen a tremendous evolution in DRR in South and Southeast Asia. Due to a lack of knowledge and funding, frontline institutions and communities have needed help putting the principles into practice.

Donors fund programs for building capacity through NGOs, have a smaller budget, and can only cover a limited number of communities. The impetus is lost due to the inability of the government and NGOs to replicate effective models with communities. The governments should make additional investments in the capacity development of frontline personnel.

However, thanks to recent and rapid technological advancements, faster internet speeds, and the accessibility of different platforms, it is now possible to reach inaccessible communities from any remote location. Online resources can be used to carry out educational initiatives including spreading awareness and promoting knowledge.

NGOs and the government should investigate these cutting-edge technologies for DRR capacity-building programs, and communities in disaster-prone areas should maintain a risk-reduction culture. 

Disaster-prone areas should have a concentrated approach to disaster-friendly development and be given specific funding for DRR and CCA initiatives.

Meet Pioneers of DRR in India

Dinesh Kumar Mishra was born in 1948 in Uttar Pradesh in India. He graduated from IIT Kharagpur with a B.Tech (Civil engineering) and M.Tech (Structural engineering) degree. However, he is against the engineering solutions put in place to control rivers and tackle the issue of floods. Through his ethnographic research and other phenomenal works, he has established that it has created more problems than solutions. Therefore, Mr. Mishra continues to advocate for the local community’s control over rivers, which can manage and cope with flooding as humans have lived with floods since their existence. He has been working tirelessly to remind us of the paradigm shift that came into our water management practices when we discarded age-old wisdom and adopted measures that were out of sync for our rivers.

He has dedicated his life to telling us about the destruction wrought by infrastructure centric-flood control measures on rivers, especially rivers of the Ganga basin in North Bihar. He has studied floods, water-logging, and irrigation and has slowly nurtured a diverse army that can see a lot more in floods than only destruction. He has helped us see the impact of flood control infrastructure like embankments. He believes India’s flood control policy revolves mainly around embankments resulting in severe environmental problems. The maintenance of such structures is in the hands of “indifferent technocracy,” which does not acknowledge that investment in the flood control sector is doing more harm than good. He finds it intriguing that the reciprocal inaccessibility of the flooded areas during the peak season and prolonged water-logging during peacetime has not attracted the imagination of most of the responsible people. He is trying to learn from the people, their perception of the problem and take it up with those in power while keeping in touch with the people about the probable official intervention.  He has raised the issue of floods, water-logging, and the links with infrastructure at state, national, and international levels.

He has written several books, reports, and research papers that have inspired many individuals and organizations to record local knowledge about floods and generate information that creates community awareness. He also holds a doctorate from the University of South Gujarat and has been an Ashoka Fellow. He has received several awards for his laying the foundation for an extensive knowledge base on river floods.  He has institutionalized traditional ways of living with floods.

He has highlighted the futility of embankments as flood control measures in rivers like Kosi and its tributaries. Through his persistent efforts of over three decades, he has helped change how river floods are understood and managed. Using an approach that respects the natural cycle of floods, founded on local knowledge, he has robustly challenged the mainstream flood control approach. For him, the long-term sustenance of rivers and their natural processes is the key, supported by meticulous research into the historical and cultural aspects of rivers.

Presently, he lives in Jharkhand and is working on the publication and release of his new book which will come in eight volumes.