Lessons learned
Starting a new programming area, such as disaster
preparedness and risk reduction (new to the National
Society and to the government), requires that time
and effort be put into advocacy and into building an
approach best suited to the context. Therefore, such
programmes should be planned with a long-term
outlook and not just as brief, one-year interventions.
The integrated approach to assessment and village
preparedness and risk reduction planning, which also
considers health risks and risks to livestock, ensured
that vulnerabilities were addressed more broadly
(including from a health and livelihood perspective)
and multiple hazards were taken into account. Using
International Federation tools for integrated
programming, such as VCA, as an entry point
facilitates a holistic approach to risks and capacities.
Participatory methods ensured that community
members found the identification of vulnerable
groups and the focus of mitigation measures fair.
At times, communities concentrate on undertaking
structural mitigation activities and pay less attention
to continuous preparedness and risk reduction
measures. It is important to encourage them to
introduce continuous preparedness (especially for
seasonal hazards) at the same time as implementing
one-off risk reduction measures. Efficient cooperation
with local authorities can assist in this.
While community volunteers may build their skills
and knowledge through the development of
awareness and understanding of the environment in
which they live, they may still lack authority and
leadership to mobilize the community. This problem
can be remedied by linking the volunteers with the
local authorities in order to provide them with the
authority required. In addition, on-the-job coaching
of volunteers has proven to be an effective way to
build their skills and leadership qualities.