Presentation on Community based Early Warning System &CBDRM

1. Presentation on Community based
Early Warning System &CBDRM

2. What is CMDRM?
 Community-Managed Disaster Risk
Management (CMDRM): is a process
of disaster risk management in which
communities are actively engaged in the
identification, analysis response,
monitoring and evaluation of disaster
risks in order to reduce their
vulnerabilities and enhance their
capacities.

3. How is CBDRM Implemented?
I. Interactive Participation: People participated in
joint analysis, development of action plans and
formation or strengthening of local groups or
institutions.
II. Needs assessment used visual tools (pictorials to
demonstrate various PRA techniques and
community analysed own situation).
III. Community Action plans owned & drew on own
resources such as labour. External support seen
as complimenting own effort and gap filing.
IV. Formation /strengthening of community groups is the
most important product of the process.

4. Procedures followed during
CAP facilitation
• Before facilitating CAP the target
communities were informed about
the objective of CMDRM where
adequate time is given to
awareness creation .
• Simple method of one hazard
approach used to let the
community internalize and perfect
the entire CMDRM facilitation
process.

5.  Community members participated to enhance
ownership
 Having effective participants makes it easier
for the generated action plan to be validated
subsequently by the rest of the community
members.
 What was done to avoid risk of
Predetermining role of influential leaders?
 Time taken to clearly identify them
Thorough individual survivability
analysis employed

6.  Maximum efforts made to ensure that
activities of the DRR plan are specific,
responsibilities clearly spelt, TARGETS
clearly indicated: .
 Periodic updating process conducted at
6-12 months interval as CAP is not a
one–off process.

7.  Contingency planning involves
anticipating a specific hazard based on
specific events (Scenario-based) or
known risks at local, national, regional
or even global levels (e.g., earthquakes,
floods or disease outbreaks)
 Following the facilitation work to
develop Contingency plans regular
revision was employed.

8.  Built in EWS which was regularly done
by key informants .
 Communities mobilized their resources
as part of coping strategy before
jumping in to request for
intervention/external.

9. Community Organization
 CMDRM leads the process of
establishing community organizations,
women cooperatives for alternative
livelihoods and income generation
institutions as part of the village DRR
measures.
 Empowerment of the Community
organization includes support in
resource allocation and capacity
building

10. Community Organization
 Community organization was at
the center of the strategy.
 The project had institutional
support plans to local
organizations in the community

11. Learning Process and Participatory M
& E
 The CMDRM had the mandate to
coordinate all development and CMDRM
interventions in the area (as their
mandate should not be limited only to a
specific DRR projects).

12. Exit Strategy
 CMDRM is an Entry and Exit strategy as
it evolves around Community
Organization
 CMDRM Measure is building capacity of
community to improve Community
Readiness.
 EXIT IS THROUGH Community
Organization AND NOT
COMPLETION OF POND,
RANGELAND RECLAMATION

13. Community Readiness
 Strengthening the traditional water and
rangeland management committees.
 Strengthening the CMDRM committee.
 Ensuring the management and
resolution of resource based conflicts
through availing support to peace
committees and by facilitating regular
dialogue meetings.
 Formation and strengthening of
community managed EWS.

14. Community Readiness
Improve coordination/efficiency among
existing grassroots community
organizations.
Create awareness among the communities
on Drought management systems.
Enhance livestock market information and
health services

15. evaluation findings
 The evaluation showed that 34 of
Community Action Plan (CAPs) in all the
targeted communities in the project
sites were effectively and efficiently
implemented.
 On availability of pasture, 58% of
respondents reported an improvement
on pasture availability compared to
18.8% during the 2008 baseline survey
period

16. evaluation findings
 52.75% of the target population
acknowledged improved management of
water, veterinary services and
education leading to improved
livelihoods.
 64.6% of the target population received
EWI with the community using the early
warning information to enhance
livestock marketing and plan for
mobility