ifrc framework for community resilience · ifrc framework for community resilience 6 in common...
TRANSCRIPT
1
IFRC Frameworkfor Community Resilience
www.ifrc.orgSaving lives, changing minds.
2
© International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Geneva, 2014
Any part of this publication may be cited, copied, translated into other languages or adapted to meet local needs without prior permission from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, provided that the source is clearly stated.
Requests for commercial reproduction should be directed to the IFRC Secretariat at [email protected]
All photos used in this study are copyright of the IFRC unless otherwise indicated.
Cover photo: Victor Lacken / IFRC A family from the Pipeline community near Monrovia, Liberia, drying fish for sale in the market. Access to economic opportunities strengthens community resilience.
P.O. Box 303CH-1211 Geneva 19SwitzerlandTelephone: +41 22 730 4222Telefax: +41 22 733 0395E-mail: [email protected] site: www.ifrc.org
RMNCH Today1282600 09/2014 E 50
The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) is the world’s largest volunteer-based humanitarian network. Together with our 189 member National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies worldwide, we reach 97 million people annually through long-term services and development programmes as well as 85 million people through disaster response and early recovery programmes. We act before, during and after disasters and health emergencies to meet the needs and improve the lives of vulnerable people. We do so with impartiality as to nationality, race, gender, religious beliefs, class and political opinions.
Guided by Strategy 2020 – our collective plan of action to tackle the major humanitarian and development challenges of this decade – we are committed to ‘saving lives and changing minds’.
Our strength lies in our volunteer network, our community-based expertise and our independence and neutrality. We work to improve humanitarian standards, as partners in development and in response to disasters. We persuade decision-makers to act at all times in the interests of vulnerable people.
The result: we enable healthy and safe communities, reduce vulnerabilities, strengthen resilience and foster a culture of peace around the world.
Follow us:
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
IFRC Framework for Community Resilience 3
For the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) the concept of community resilience represents a unique opportunity as this approach in many ways captures the totality of what the IFRC is working to achieve. Although their efforts may not have been characterized as ‘strengthening community resilience,’ this is in fact what many National Societies have been doing over the course of many decades by sup-porting their local communities.
The IFRC’s understanding of community resilience has grown to recognize the ever evolving and dynamic nature of commu-nities and the underlying vulnerabilities that challenge them. Responding to this reality, the IFRC’s approach has focused on combining humanitarian concern for imminent threats with longer-term, sus-tainable approaches and institutional strengthening traditionally associated with development. With an increased ability to adapt and cope with disasters, crises, shocks and stresses communities can protect and build on development gains that they have already made and address the effects of underlying vulner-abilities that challenge them. As being resilient includes being flexible in the face of changing risks, and climate change is increasingly influencing risk patterns everywhere, climate change considerations are an integral element of the Framework for Community Resilience (FCR).
The original Framework for Community Safety and Resilience published in 2008 confirmed that the concepts identified were not new and did not demand new areas of work for the IFRC. Rather the Framework for Community Safety and Resilience suggested that community safety and resilience approaches provided National Societies with an opportunity to build on, enhance and adapt activities they had already been carrying out. This updated FCR reinforces that message. The FCR builds on a foundation of decades of experience, combined with recent learn-ing and research on resilience, while rec-ognizing and proposing responses to some of the major challenges faced by commu-nity approaches in strengthening resil-ience – thus providing the opportunity for a more systematic approach.
The FCR has gone through an extensive consultation process, both within the IFRC and externally. Examples of the consulta-tion undertaken include: dedicated two-day workshops conducted with represen-tatives of 64 National Societies in the four zones; 77 National Societies participated in community resilience workshops at the 2013 IFRC General Assembly; workshops at various internal fora (e.g., with the di-saster preparedness and risk reduction group of Partner National Societies and the Stockholm health group); and feed-back received from a number of external organizations and private sector partners. Suggestions and recommendations from all of these groups have informed the FCR.
Background
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
IFRC Framework for Community Resilience 4
Building on policies adopted and com-mitments made at previous statutory meetings, the 2013 IFRC General Assem-bly issued a declaration concerning the post-2015 Development Agenda, commit-ting the IFRC to helping shape the future development agenda with three commit-ments: a. enabling every community in high risk
areas to have capacity to prepare for and respond to disasters
b. ensuring a volunteer in every commu-nity we work with who is responsible for facilitating access to basic health services
c. continuing efforts to strengthen National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies – to be trusted partners and auxiliaries to their governments in humanitarian and development work.
The declaration specifically noted that ‘strengthening resilience should be a cen-tral component of the new development framework.’
The 2013 General Assembly also approved:1. A revised set of principles and rules for
humanitarian assistance to improve coordination so that together we can maximize the mobilization and impact of Federation-wide resources and ex-pertise.
2. A National Society development frame-work to guide organizational develop-ment and capacity building together with a youth engagement strategy on the role of youth in building strong Na-tional Societies.
Our global commitments
Children in Meulaboh, Indonesia, learn how to clean their teeth. Basic hygiene is an important life skill that strengthens community resilience by improving community health. International Federation
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
IFRC Framework for Community Resilience 5
This framework has the principle objec-tive to:
‘Establish a foundation on which all IFRC programmes, projects, interventions and actions, across the contexts, which contribute to the strengthening of resilient communities can be created, developed and sustained.’
The FCR has the goal of guiding and sup-porting the work of National Societies through the following three strategic ob-jectives:1. Supporting National Societies’ efforts to
assist communities as they adopt risk-informed, holistic approaches to address their underlying vulnerabilities.
2. Supporting National Societies’ efforts that encourage communities to adopt de-mand-driven, people-centred approaches to community resilience strengthening.
3. Supporting National Societies to be con-nected to communities – being avail-able to everyone, everywhere to prevent and reduce human suffering.
Objectives
resilienceintervention
partnership
communication
programmes
public information
projects
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
IFRC Framework for Community Resilience 6
In common usage resilience typically re-lates to the ability of systems (and people) to effectively respond and adapt to chang-ing circumstances and to develop skills, capacities, behaviours and actions to deal with adversity – ‘resilience’ can be de-scribed as a process of adaptation before, during and after an adverse event.
The definition recognizes that resilience can be observed and strengthened at multiple levels:
1. Individual level: a resilient individual is healthy; has the knowledge, skills, competencies and mind-set to adapt to new situations and improve her/his life, and those of her/his family, friends and community. A resilient person is em-powered.
2. Household level: a resilient household has members who are themselves resil-ient.
3. Community level: a resilient communi-ty strengthens the resilience of its con-stituent individuals and households.
4. Local government: can either strength-en or weaken resilience at the individ-ual, household and community levels as it is responsible for infrastructure development, maintenance, social ser-vices and applying the rule of law.
5. National government: resilience at this level deals with policy, social protection systems, infrastructure, laws and gov-ernance issues and can profoundly im-pact community resilience.
6. Organizations such as National Societ-ies including their branches and volun-teers: make contributions that are inte-gral to resilience at all levels.
7. Regional and global levels: the im-pacts of conflicts, violence and insecu-rity; hunger; mass migration; economic recession and prosperity; pandemics; pollution and climate change; positive and negative effects of globalization and new technology all offer examples of the inter-connectedness of the levels and how actions at one level can negatively or positively impact the other levels.
Resilience is relevant in all countries be-cause all countries have communities that are vulnerable. For the IFRC, resilience relates to all the activities that National Societies carry out, regardless of whether they are domestic or international; it is about improving the sustainability and quality of the programmes and services that National Societies deliver in response to the demands of their communities and the scale at which these programmes and services are undertaken.
Understanding ‘resilience’
The IFRC defines resilience as, “the ability of individuals, communities, organizations
or countries exposed to disasters, crises and underlying vulnerabilities to anticipate, prepare for, reduce the impact of, cope with and recover from the effects of shocks and stresses without
compromising their long-term prospects.”
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
IFRC Framework for Community Resilience 7
Resilience at multiple levels
Individual level Household level Community level
Local government National government Organisations
Regional level Global level
8International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
IFRC Framework for Community Resilience
Kadiatu is 11 years old and was the 3rd Ebola patient to arrive at the IFRC treatment centre at Kenema, Sierra Leone. Thanks to the care she received there she has regained her strength and has returned home to her mother, 8 brothers and sisters and her community. Katherine Mueller / IFRC
8
exposed to
ex
posed to political
sharing
the same resourc
es
exposed to the sam
e
risks, diseases...
sharing
the same culture
living or not in
the same area
What is a community?
and economic issues
natural disasters
9International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
IFRC Framework for Community Resilience
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
IFRC Framework for Community Resilience 10
The Red Cross and Red Crescent recogniz-es the richness of the term ‘community’ and appreciates that communities exist in many shapes and forms. For example the term ‘community’:• often refers to a group of people that live
in a defined geographical area• is often a group of people who share a
common culture, values and norms and who are arranged according to a social structure that has evolved over time
• might refer to a group at the local, na-tional or international level
• may describe a group of people that come together because of specific or broad interests.
Individuals may belong to more than one community, in fact the more communities that an individual belongs to the more re-silient s/he is likely to be.
The IFRC understands that resilience strengthening programmes and activities impact at all levels and in all types of communities. The FCR uses the following definition for community:
Communities are complex and dynamic and so are the vulnerabilities that chal-lenge them. There are many factors that influence community resilience (e.g., phys-ical, human, financial, natural and social aspects of life). These factors are also in-terconnected, which requires that they be considered and understood holistically, through a multi-disciplinary approach which takes account of how factors influ-ence one another.
The IFRC has focused on learning more about the characteristics of a resilient community as a means of better under-standing this complexity. By listening to communities’ own experiences of resil-ience, through studies of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami operation, a sample of activities in Latin America and the Ca-ribbean; together with further proposed studies and analysis, the IFRC will develop a much better understanding of what re-silience means to communities. This ap-proach will also indicate if the lessons, experiences and successes of individual communities can be replicated elsewhere.
There may be other characteristics that should be considered, particularly in a re-gional or national context, but those de-tailed above are offered as a general set of characteristics, applicable in many com-munities globally.
This appreciation of the complexity and dynamic nature of communities and their vulnerabilities reinforces for the IFRC that the members of the community are most likely to know how things around them work and how their lives can be improved.
Understanding communities
“A community is a group of people who may or may not live within the same area, village
or neighbourhood, share a similar culture, habits and resources. Communities are groups
of people also exposed to the same threats and risks such as disease, political and economic issues and natural disasters.”
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
IFRC Framework for Community Resilience 11
A resilient community...
? !
JOB
... is knowledgeable, healthy and can meet its basic needs
... is socially cohesive ... has economic opportunities
... has well-maintened and accessible infrastructures and services
... can manage its natural assets
... is connected
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
IFRC Framework for Community Resilience 12
1. Assisting communities as they adopt risk-informed, holistic approaches to address their underlying vulnerabilities.
The IFRC believes that strengthening com-munity resilience is a process owned by communities – resilience is not something that a National Society can ‘do’ or ‘bring’ to individuals or communities. The nature and extent of a National Society’s engage-ment in each community is situational – it reflects a number of specific contextual factors such as: 1) the underlying vulner-abilities and capacities of the community; 2) the community’s connection and in-teraction with the external environment; and 3) the specific added-value that the National Society offers to this process.
For the IFRC, strengthening community resilience is an integrating process that is multi-sectoral and involves multiple actors – it cannot be achieved by govern-ments, organizations or individuals acting alone or in isolation. The IFRC’s commu-nity resilience strengthening approach also recognizes that the dynamic nature of each community requires a flexible ap-proach that supports the development of resilience over time. Although each con-text is unique and requires a customized approach, there are a number of consis-tent management components involving IFRC programmes, volunteers and Nation-al Societies.
The IFRC recognizes that programmes de-veloped from risk-informed decisions that adopt a holistic approach are more likely to contribute to reducing the underlying vul-nerabilities of communities and ultimately lead to more resilient communities.
Examples of actions National Societies take in support of community-led, risk-informed decision-making include:
a. Supporting assessments that capture the needs, risks, vulnerabilities and capacities of all members of the com-munity, as well as the dynamic and complex context in which a community exists.
b. Supporting communities to develop solutions that are: i) holistic and ap-propriate to their context (e.g., consid-ering innovative and emerging technol-ogies whilst bearing in mind traditional knowledge, customs and practices); ii) technically sound; iii) effective and ef-ficient (e.g., looking for low-tech, low-cost solutions); and iv) sensitive to is-sues such as gender equality, cultural diversity, climate change and violence prevention.
c. Supporting communities to self-mobi-lize and address their vulnerabilities and hazards from their own resources.
d. Supporting communities to access ex-ternal support networks, such as the public authorities, civil society and the international Red Cross Red Crescent network.
e. Actively engaging communities in the monitoring and evaluation of pro-grammes and services.
f. Being accountable to communities, pub-lic authorities and other partners (e.g., by proactively providing regular reports, feedback and information relating to programmes, services and activities).
Key elements of the FCR
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
IFRC Framework for Community Resilience 13
2. Community resilience is about a demand driven, people-centred approach.
Resilient communities are more likely to be empowered, whilst vulnerable commu-nities are more likely to be dis-empowered.
The IFRC’s approach to resilience strength-ening recognizes that enabling individu-als and communities to access what they need to improve their own lives is essen-tial. Examples of how National Societies add value to this process include: provid-ing appropriate technical capacity and re-sources; linking community and National Society actions with that of the public authorities, other civil society actors and partners; and by advocating for the most vulnerable within communities.
The IFRC strives to ensure that individu-als and communities are put first. The IFRC’s approach to community resilience strengthening ensures communities are placed at, and remain at the centre of de-cisions and actions that impact their fu-ture and that programmes respond to ob-jectives defined by the community.
Examples of actions National Societies take include:
a. Engaging with communities through local branches and volunteers and rec-ognizing the potential of volunteers as agents of change within their communi-ties.
b. Working with and through the formal system (e.g., laws, regulations, codes and standards, etc.) and informal sys-tems (e.g., traditional customs and practice and indigenous knowledge). Supporting the development of disas-ter risk reduction laws and standards
is an example of working in the formal system, whilst integrating climate and weather information with indigenous knowledge is an example of supporting smallholding farmers in rural settings, achieved through an informal system.
c. Advocating with communities for i) their engagement in decision-making processes; ii) inclusive approaches that take account of the needs of the most vulnerable; iii) context specific issues; and iv) the Red Cross and Red Crescent Fundamental Principles and humani-tarian values.
A Haitian Red Cross disaster risk management promoter uses a 3D model to explain to children how our actions can trigger disasters, in this case how deforestation can lead to landslides and floods. Gennike Mayers / IFRC
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
IFRC Framework for Community Resilience 14
3. Being connected to communities by being available to everyone, everywhere to prevent and reduce human suffering.
The objective of being ‘available to every-one, everywhere, to prevent and reduce human suffering’ is not about doing every-thing for everyone. Rather the focus is on ‘connection’ between the community and its National Society.
This connection that National Societies have with their communities is central to efforts in delivering the IFRC’s mission to:1. Save lives, protect livelihoods and
strengthen recovery from disasters and crises.
2. Enable healthy and safe living.3. Promote social inclusion and a culture
of non-violence and peace.
Examples of ways in which National Soci-eties establish and maintain this connec-tion include:
1. Ensuring risks that communities face and underlying vulnerabilities existing within communities are understood and considered.
2. Supporting the community through ser-vices, programmes or interventions that are relevant to the context, are sustain-able and that target the most vulner-able.
3. Partnering with the public authorities, civil society and the private sector in support of holistic, integrated, commu-nity-led solutions.
New and innovative solutions (e.g., mobile solutions, connectivity, online tools and access to the internet) are emerging and becoming increasingly available in com-munities around the globe. The oppor-tunities that these provide must be har-vested if the IFRC is to be truly ‘available to everyone, everywhere, to prevent and reduce human suffering.’
Examples of actions National Societies take to connect with their communities include:
a. Ensuring an inclusive approach at all levels that welcomes, respects and val-ues contributions from all members of the society, these include: i) branches mobilizing local volunteers including affected people, youth, women and girls, marginalized groups; and ii) including local volunteers on governance bodies.
b. Partnering with the community, civil society and public authorities – par-ticularly valuing the unique role of the National Society being an auxiliary to government.
c. Using communication methods to con-nect with communities that are appro-priate and accessible for community members (e.g., online, sms, radio, news-letters, posters, branch and volunteer meetings, etc).
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
IFRC Framework for Community Resilience 15
3
The Annex illustrates how IFRC activi-ties contribute to achieving strengthened community resilience and suggests in-dicators to measure these activities. The table does not provide an exhaustive list nor is it intended to be prescriptive, rather it provides global guidance that can be ap-plied and adapted to local realities.
Using the FCR
How to apply the FCR?
1. Explore the three key elements of the FCR
2. Review the information provided in Annex
3. Consider the specifi c context in which programmes/services are being developed
4. Refl ect this analysis in their programme design tools, e.g. Logframe
5. Discuss with your peers:
WHY?WHATWORKS?
IN WHICHCONTEXT?
FORWHOM?
UNDER WHAT CONDITION?
1 21 2 3
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
IFRC Framework for Community Resilience 16
The IFRC values and prioritizes perfor-mance measurement and evaluation as it informs systematic learning, which in turn supports the exchange of information, the sharing of experience and knowledge and ultimately results in better programming.
The measurement of community resil-ience is relatively new and is still devel-oping – in contrast to more traditional, sector-based approaches, the same body of experience in its measurement, or con-sensus for how to measure it does not cur-rently exist. While the IFRC has policies, guidelines, frameworks and tools together with significant capacity and experience in measurement and evaluation of tradi-
tional approaches, it is important to ac-knowledge the limitations of the current methodologies in measuring community resilience strengthening.
A critical distinction in measuring com-munity resilience relates to assessing 1) a community’s level of resilience versus 2) the IFRC’s impact on community resil-ience being measured versus 3) the IFRC’s contribution to the community’s resil-ience.
Measurement of the IFRC’s Framework for Community Resilience
Table 1: Three key measures for community resilience
1. Measuring community resilience
A composite measure of the various characteris-tics that comprise community resilience.
2. Measuring IFRC’s impact on community resilience
Measurement of the attribution of IFRC’s work to community resilience. How much of the measured impact on community resilience is the result of the IFRC’s contributions versus other factors?
3. Measuring IFRC’s contribution to community resilience
Measurement of the incorporation and achieve-ment of specific activities supporting community resilience strengthening. Whether we accomplish the objectives we identify as supporting commu-nity resilience.
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
IFRC Framework for Community Resilience 17
Recognizing these challenges and the limitations we are currently working with, the IFRC focuses on measuring our con-tributions to community resilience (i.e., point 3 in Table 1). The IFRC’s measure-ment system, approach and tools will be updated as, and when, further informa-tion and guidance on how to measure and capture both community resilience (point 1 in Table 1) and the IFRC’s impact on community resilience (point 2 in Table 1) becomes available.
In measuring our contribution to commu-nity resilience, the IFRC adopts a ‘mixed methods’ approach as this ensures com-munities are engaged in the development of indicator according to their specific context, which can then be assessed and compared across time and place.
Effectively a menu of indicators, based on and organized from the characteris-tics of community resilience, can assist communities to select and prioritize key indicators according to their specific local contexts and long-term goals. This com-plements the tried and true sectoral, tech-nical indicators that have been developed over time and that remain valid as indi-cators of technical performance account-ability to our traditional donors.
Provision can also be made for additional, unexpected indicators to be added if iden-tified by, and appropriate for, the commu-nity. Such an approach provides structure while remaining flexible and adaptable to local contexts. Both quantitative and qualitative measures can be utilized in this approach.
This approach reinforces that community resilience strengthening activities require a context specific approach but also rec-ognizes that there are a number of consis-tent elements that can help us measure the IFRC’s contribution.
A good example of this approach is the IFRC’s East Africa Framework for Commu-nity Resilience. The framework was devel-oped in 2013 and 2014 through targeted literature review, consultations with re-gional and Partner National Societies and external partners, and operationalizes the concepts and principles described in the FCR in the specific context of IFRC’s work in East Africa.
As our experience in community resilience strengthening deepens, so too will our understanding of measuring community resilience grow. More guidance and tools will become available over time to sup-port programme managers and measure-ment and evaluation specialists in their efforts to measure IFRC’s contributions to strengthening community resilience.
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
IFRC Framework for Community Resilience 18
National Societies already have many of the tools required in implementing com-munity resilience strengthening. Some tools may require adaptation to better reflect the approach described in the FCR and the need for replacement or addi-tional tools and guidance may emerge as our experience evolves and develops over time.
Many National Societies have developed their own context-specific guidance on community resilience (e.g., by adapting the 2008 Framework for Community Safe-ty and Resilience to their operations). Na-tional Societies are encouraged to consider the FCR and to explore how the guidance it provides can be customized to support their efforts within their communities.
IFRC tools and guidelines that support community resilience
Just as the 2008 Framework for Commu-nity Safety and Resilience has evolved into the FCR, this current framework will evolve dynamically as we collectively learn to improve our programmes and scale-up our contributions to community resilience. The sharing of experiences and lessons learned will help to maintain the FCR’s currency and relevance. Addition-ally, regular review of the FCR will ensure that it continues to provide guidance and support to National Societies.
Additional resources and guidance for re-silience strengthening exist and are avail-able and complement the many resources and tools identified in this document. It is likely that more will be developed over time and some existing tools will be re-placed as our knowledge and experience grows.
Practitioners are encouraged to capture, record and share their experiences of community resilience strengthening with-in the IFRC’s network as a tangible contri-bution to improving the lives of the most vulnerable.
Conclusion
Obje
cti
veE
xpecte
d O
utc
om
es
Exa
mple
s of
NS
Contr
ibuti
on
Exa
mple
s of
Indic
ato
rs
Imp
rove
the
kn
ow
led
ge
and
hea
lth
of
com
mun
itie
s.
Com
mun
ity p
eopl
e ar
e ab
le
to a
sses
s an
d m
anag
e th
e ris
ks fa
cing
them
.
Eve
ryon
e ha
s op
port
uniti
es
to le
arn
new
ski
lls, b
uild
on
past
exp
erie
nces
, and
sha
re
and
appl
y th
is k
now
ledg
e in
pra
ctic
e.
Eve
ryon
e ha
s ac
cess
to
a su
stai
nabl
e w
ater
and
sa
nita
tion
syst
em.
Eve
ryon
e ha
s ac
cess
to a
se
cure
and
nut
ritio
us fo
od
supp
ly.
• H
olis
tic a
sses
smen
t of n
eeds
, ris
ks, v
ulne
rabi
litie
s
and
capa
citie
s of
com
mun
ities
thro
ugh
pa
rtic
ipat
ory
VC
A, b
asel
ine
surv
ey, e
tc.
• C
ontin
genc
y pl
ans.
•
Sim
ulat
ion
exer
cise
s.•
Pub
lic a
war
enes
s an
d pu
blic
edu
catio
n in
ris
k
redu
ctio
n, d
isas
ter
law
s, e
vacu
atio
n pl
ans,
clim
ate
chan
ge, e
tc.
• Tr
aini
ng in
ris
k re
duct
ion,
firs
t aid
, saf
e sh
elte
r
aw
aren
ess
• E
arly
war
ning
sys
tem
s.
• A
ppro
pria
te d
eplo
ymen
t of e
mer
genc
y st
ocks
.
• K
now
ledg
e an
d ex
perie
nce
shar
ing.
• Tr
aini
ng o
ppor
tuni
ties.
•
Com
mun
ity in
volv
emen
t in
prog
ram
mes
/pro
ject
s.
• M
onito
ring
and
eval
uatio
n
• S
afe
wat
er s
yste
ms.
• H
ygie
ne p
rom
otio
n.
• S
anita
tion
syst
ems.
• E
xten
sion
sup
port
ser
vice
s•
Food
sec
urity
fiel
d sc
hool
s fo
r ex
chan
ge
of
exp
erie
nces
• Fo
od p
repa
ratio
n an
d pr
eser
vatio
n•
Pos
t-ha
rves
t foo
d lo
sses
and
was
te re
duct
ion
• #
of V
CA
and
sec
tor
spec
ific
asse
ssm
ents
con
duct
ed
• #
of c
omm
unity
con
tinge
ncy
plan
s in
pla
ce.
• #
of s
imul
atio
n ex
erci
ses
cond
ucte
d.•
# pe
ople
reac
hed
thro
ugh
PAP
E.
• #
peop
le tr
aine
d in
DR
R, C
BH
FA, P
AS
SA
, etc
.•
# of
com
mun
ity w
ith e
arly
war
ning
sys
tem
s in
pla
ce.
• #
of e
mer
genc
y st
ocks
in p
lace
.
• #
oppo
rtun
ities
for
shar
ing
know
ledg
e an
d ex
perie
nce.
• #
trai
ning
wor
ksho
ps a
nd p
eopl
e tr
aine
d.•
# pe
ople
invo
lved
in p
rogr
amm
e/pr
ojec
t im
plem
enta
tion.
• M
&E
resu
lts u
sed
to in
form
the
impr
ovem
ent
of
com
mun
ity p
rogr
amm
es/p
roje
cts.
• %
of p
opul
atio
n w
ith a
cces
s to
saf
e w
ater
sup
ply.
• #
& %
of p
eopl
e w
ho k
now
how
to p
repa
re
sa
fe d
rinki
ng w
ater
.•
# &
% o
f peo
ple
reac
hed
thro
ugh
hygi
ene
prom
otio
n.•
sani
tatio
n sy
stem
s.•
# w
ater
-bor
ne d
isea
se o
utbr
eaks
.
• #
of fa
rmer
s an
d fis
hers
pro
vide
d w
ith e
xten
sion
ser
vice
s•
# of
farm
ers
and
fishe
rs a
tten
ded
field
sch
ools
• #
of p
eopl
e tr
aine
d in
food
pre
para
tion
and
pres
erva
tion
• #o
f peo
ple
reac
hed
thro
ugh
educ
atio
n an
d aw
aren
ess
on
food
loss
and
was
te re
duct
ion
RC
RC
Contr
ibuti
ons
to S
trength
enin
g C
om
munit
y R
esi
lience
119
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
IFRC Framework for Community Resilience - Annex One
1.
This
tabl
e of
fers
exa
mpl
es o
f IFR
C co
ntrib
utio
ns a
nd is
not
exh
aust
ive. A
ctua
l pro
gram
ming
sho
uld b
e led
by
the
iden
tified
nee
ds, i
.e. d
eman
d dr
iven
from
the
com
mun
ity le
vel.
Obje
cti
veE
xpecte
d O
utc
om
es
Exa
mple
s of
NS
Contr
ibuti
on
Exa
mple
s of
Indic
ato
rs
Eve
ryon
e ha
s ac
cess
to
heal
th s
yste
m re
sour
ces.
•
Pro
gram
mes
link
with
the
form
al h
ealth
sys
tem
thro
ugh
refe
rral
sys
tem
, am
bula
nce
serv
ices
,
safe
blo
od s
uppl
y, e
tc.
• P
rom
otio
n of
hea
lthy
lifes
tyle
s.•
Scr
een
for
chro
nic
dise
ases
.•
Imm
uniz
atio
n ca
mpa
igns
.•
Psy
chol
ogic
al/P
sych
osoc
ial s
uppo
rt.
• %
of p
eopl
e w
ith a
cces
s to
hea
lth s
ervi
ces.
• #
of p
eopl
e w
ith a
cces
s to
hea
lth in
sura
nce.
• M
orta
lity
rate
s, b
y ca
use.
• %
in re
duct
ion
of li
fest
yle
rela
ted
dise
ases
/illn
esse
s
(NC
Ds)
.•
% o
f at r
isk
popu
latio
n sc
reen
ed fo
r ch
roni
c di
seas
es.
• M
orbi
dity
rat
es, b
y ca
use.
• P
reva
lenc
e of
beh
avio
ural
ris
k fa
ctor
s.•
Imm
uniz
atio
n ra
tes.
• #
peop
le w
ho re
ceiv
e ps
ycho
logi
cal/p
sych
osoc
ial
su
ppor
t.
Str
eng
then
th
e so
cial
co
hesi
on
of
com
mun
itie
s.
Com
mun
ities
pro
vide
pr
otec
tion
and
secu
rity
for
all o
f the
ir m
embe
rs a
nd
have
the
capa
city
to d
raw
on
form
al a
nd in
form
al
com
mun
ity n
etw
orks
of
supp
ort t
o id
entif
y pr
oble
ms,
ne
eds
and
oppo
rtun
ities
, es
tabl
ish
prio
ritie
s an
d ac
t fo
r th
e go
od a
nd in
clus
ion
of a
ll in
the
com
mun
ities
.
• P
rom
otio
ns a
nd d
isse
min
atio
n of
the
RC
RC
Fund
amen
tal P
rinci
ples
and
hum
anita
rian
valu
es.
• P
rom
otio
n of
vio
lenc
e pr
even
tion.
• C
omm
unity
org
aniz
atio
n.•
Com
mun
ity in
volv
emen
t in
asse
ssm
ent
an
d pl
anni
ng o
f pro
gram
mes
/pro
ject
s.•
Pro
mot
ion
of s
ocia
l inc
lusi
on a
ctiv
ities
and
proj
ects
.•
Bra
nch
and
volu
ntee
r en
gage
men
t in
com
mun
ity
ac
tiviti
es.
• P
artn
ersh
ip w
ith lo
cal p
ublic
aut
horit
ies
an
d ot
her
stak
ehol
ders
to im
prov
e th
e co
mm
unity
safe
ty, s
ocia
l coh
esio
n, in
clus
iven
ess,
etc
.•
Adv
ocac
y fo
r th
e ne
eds
of v
ulne
rabl
e pe
ople
and
stig
mat
ised
gro
ups.
• A
dvoc
acy
for
effe
ctiv
e le
ader
ship
and
goo
d
go
vern
ance
• P
rom
otio
n of
beh
avio
ural
cha
nge
thro
ugh
key
m
essa
ges
and
publ
ic e
duca
tion.
• E
ngag
emen
t of y
outh
as
agen
ts o
f Beh
avio
ur
C
hang
e (Y
AB
C).
• #
RC
RC
bra
nche
s.•
# pe
ople
reac
hed
thro
ugh
the
diss
emin
atio
n
of F
unda
men
tal P
rinci
ples
and
hum
anita
rian
valu
es.
• #
peop
le a
war
e of
RC
RC
vio
lenc
e pr
even
tion
prog
ram
mes
. •
% re
duct
ion
in d
omes
tic/g
ende
r ba
sed
viol
ence
cas
es•
Inci
denc
e of
vio
lenc
e in
the
com
mun
ity.
• Fo
rmal
RC
RC
role
in p
ublic
aut
horit
y pl
ans.
• #
peop
le in
volv
ed in
ass
essm
ent a
nd p
lann
ing
of
com
mun
ity p
rogr
amm
es/p
roje
cts.
• #
vuln
erab
le (e
.g. m
argi
naliz
ed) p
eopl
e in
clud
ed
in
form
al a
nd in
form
al n
etw
orks
.•
# of
RC
RC
pro
gram
mes
con
duct
ed in
the
com
mun
ity.
• #
of a
ctiv
e vo
lunt
eers
. •
# br
anch
es a
nd v
olun
teer
s en
gage
d in
form
al
an
d in
form
al n
etw
orks
.•
# of
par
tner
ship
s.
• #
peop
le re
ache
d th
roug
h H
uman
itaria
n D
iplo
mac
y.•
# pe
ople
reac
hed
thro
ugh
publ
ic a
war
enes
s ra
isin
g
ab
out g
ood
gove
rnan
ce p
ract
ice,
acc
ount
abilit
y
and
tran
spar
ency
.•
# pe
ople
who
hav
e ch
ange
d th
eir
beha
viou
rs
as
a re
sult
of R
CR
C p
rom
otio
n•
# yo
uth
enga
ged
in Y
AB
C
20International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
IFRC Framework for Community Resilience - Annex One
Obje
cti
veE
xpecte
d O
utc
om
es
Exa
mple
s of
NS
Contr
ibuti
on
Exa
mple
s of
Indic
ato
rs
Eve
ryon
e ha
s ac
cess
to
heal
th s
yste
m re
sour
ces.
•
Pro
gram
mes
link
with
the
form
al h
ealth
sys
tem
thro
ugh
refe
rral
sys
tem
, am
bula
nce
serv
ices
,
safe
blo
od s
uppl
y, e
tc.
• P
rom
otio
n of
hea
lthy
lifes
tyle
s.•
Scr
een
for
chro
nic
dise
ases
.•
Imm
uniz
atio
n ca
mpa
igns
.•
Psy
chol
ogic
al/P
sych
osoc
ial s
uppo
rt.
• %
of p
eopl
e w
ith a
cces
s to
hea
lth s
ervi
ces.
• #
of p
eopl
e w
ith a
cces
s to
hea
lth in
sura
nce.
• M
orta
lity
rate
s, b
y ca
use.
• %
in re
duct
ion
of li
fest
yle
rela
ted
dise
ases
/illn
esse
s
(NC
Ds)
.•
% o
f at r
isk
popu
latio
n sc
reen
ed fo
r ch
roni
c di
seas
es.
• M
orbi
dity
rat
es, b
y ca
use.
• P
reva
lenc
e of
beh
avio
ural
ris
k fa
ctor
s.•
Imm
uniz
atio
n ra
tes.
• #
peop
le w
ho re
ceiv
e ps
ycho
logi
cal/p
sych
osoc
ial
su
ppor
t.
Str
eng
then
th
e so
cial
co
hesi
on
of
com
mun
itie
s.
Com
mun
ities
pro
vide
pr
otec
tion
and
secu
rity
for
all o
f the
ir m
embe
rs a
nd
have
the
capa
city
to d
raw
on
form
al a
nd in
form
al
com
mun
ity n
etw
orks
of
supp
ort t
o id
entif
y pr
oble
ms,
ne
eds
and
oppo
rtun
ities
, es
tabl
ish
prio
ritie
s an
d ac
t fo
r th
e go
od a
nd in
clus
ion
of a
ll in
the
com
mun
ities
.
• P
rom
otio
ns a
nd d
isse
min
atio
n of
the
RC
RC
Fund
amen
tal P
rinci
ples
and
hum
anita
rian
valu
es.
• P
rom
otio
n of
vio
lenc
e pr
even
tion.
• C
omm
unity
org
aniz
atio
n.•
Com
mun
ity in
volv
emen
t in
asse
ssm
ent
an
d pl
anni
ng o
f pro
gram
mes
/pro
ject
s.•
Pro
mot
ion
of s
ocia
l inc
lusi
on a
ctiv
ities
and
proj
ects
.•
Bra
nch
and
volu
ntee
r en
gage
men
t in
com
mun
ity
ac
tiviti
es.
• P
artn
ersh
ip w
ith lo
cal p
ublic
aut
horit
ies
an
d ot
her
stak
ehol
ders
to im
prov
e th
e co
mm
unity
safe
ty, s
ocia
l coh
esio
n, in
clus
iven
ess,
etc
.•
Adv
ocac
y fo
r th
e ne
eds
of v
ulne
rabl
e pe
ople
and
stig
mat
ised
gro
ups.
• A
dvoc
acy
for
effe
ctiv
e le
ader
ship
and
goo
d
go
vern
ance
• P
rom
otio
n of
beh
avio
ural
cha
nge
thro
ugh
key
m
essa
ges
and
publ
ic e
duca
tion.
• E
ngag
emen
t of y
outh
as
agen
ts o
f Beh
avio
ur
C
hang
e (Y
AB
C).
• #
RC
RC
bra
nche
s.•
# pe
ople
reac
hed
thro
ugh
the
diss
emin
atio
n
of F
unda
men
tal P
rinci
ples
and
hum
anita
rian
valu
es.
• #
peop
le a
war
e of
RC
RC
vio
lenc
e pr
even
tion
prog
ram
mes
. •
% re
duct
ion
in d
omes
tic/g
ende
r ba
sed
viol
ence
cas
es•
Inci
denc
e of
vio
lenc
e in
the
com
mun
ity.
• Fo
rmal
RC
RC
role
in p
ublic
aut
horit
y pl
ans.
• #
peop
le in
volv
ed in
ass
essm
ent a
nd p
lann
ing
of
com
mun
ity p
rogr
amm
es/p
roje
cts.
• #
vuln
erab
le (e
.g. m
argi
naliz
ed) p
eopl
e in
clud
ed
in
form
al a
nd in
form
al n
etw
orks
.•
# of
RC
RC
pro
gram
mes
con
duct
ed in
the
com
mun
ity.
• #
of a
ctiv
e vo
lunt
eers
. •
# br
anch
es a
nd v
olun
teer
s en
gage
d in
form
al
an
d in
form
al n
etw
orks
.•
# of
par
tner
ship
s.
• #
peop
le re
ache
d th
roug
h H
uman
itaria
n D
iplo
mac
y.•
# pe
ople
reac
hed
thro
ugh
publ
ic a
war
enes
s ra
isin
g
ab
out g
ood
gove
rnan
ce p
ract
ice,
acc
ount
abilit
y
and
tran
spar
ency
.•
# pe
ople
who
hav
e ch
ange
d th
eir
beha
viou
rs
as
a re
sult
of R
CR
C p
rom
otio
n•
# yo
uth
enga
ged
in Y
AB
C
21International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
IFRC Framework for Community Resilience - Annex One
Dev
elo
p w
ell-
mai
ntai
ned
an
d
acce
ssib
le
infr
astr
uctu
re
and
se
rvic
es in
co
mm
unit
ies.
Com
mun
ities
have
wel
l-pl
anne
d, w
ell-m
aint
aine
d
and
acce
ssib
le in
frast
ruct
ure
and
serv
ices
.
Com
mun
ities
hav
e th
e ab
ility
or s
uppo
rt to
use
, mai
ntai
n,
repa
ir an
d re
nova
te th
e pu
blic
in
frast
ruct
ure
and
syst
ems.
Com
mun
ities
hav
e ap
prop
riate
–
- sa
fe, s
ecur
e an
d
a
fford
able
she
lter,
-
wat
er a
nd s
anita
tion
sy
stem
s
-
tran
spor
t and
ene
rgy
syst
ems.
• A
dvoc
ate
for
educ
atio
n an
d he
alth
faci
litie
s
to b
e bu
ilt in
saf
e ar
eas.
• A
dvoc
ate
for
and
prom
ote
the
deve
lopm
ent
an
d fu
ll im
plem
enta
tion
of g
ood
disa
ster
law
s,
re
gula
tory
sys
tem
s, b
uild
ing
code
s an
d st
anda
rds,
and
wel
l pla
nned
bui
lt en
viro
nmen
ts.
• P
ublic
aw
aren
ess
and
publ
ic e
duca
tion
prog
ram
mes
.•
Pro
vide
trai
ning
and
pee
r-to
-pee
r ed
ucat
ion
to
enh
ance
ski
lls a
nd k
now
ledg
e.•
Influ
ence
urb
an a
nd c
omm
unity
pla
nnin
g fo
r m
ore
pu
blic
spa
ce, p
arks
, pub
lic tr
ansp
orta
tion.
•
Pro
mot
e ro
ad s
afet
y.
• S
afe
and
affo
rdab
le p
hysi
cal s
truc
ture
s•
She
lter
safe
ty a
war
enes
s•
Sec
urity
of t
enur
e (re
ntin
g, le
asin
g, o
wne
rshi
p, e
tc.)
• A
dvoc
ate
and
prom
ote
the
deve
lopm
ent o
f saf
e
se
ttle
men
ts a
nd w
ell p
lann
ed b
uilt
envi
ronm
ents
.
• A
dvoc
ate
for
larg
e sc
ale
urba
n w
ater
and
sani
tatio
n in
frast
ruct
ure.
• A
dvoc
ate
for
com
mun
ity a
cces
s to
relia
ble
an
d af
ford
able
tran
spor
t and
ene
rgy
syst
ems
• #
Pub
lic in
frast
ruct
ure
plan
s an
d in
vest
men
ts a
re
di
sast
er r
isk
info
rmed
.•
Com
mun
ity e
ngag
emen
t in
infra
stru
ctur
e pl
anni
ng.
• B
uild
ing
code
s an
d la
nd u
se s
tand
ards
that
con
side
r
di
sast
er r
isk
redu
ctio
n an
d en
viro
nmen
tal c
once
rns.
• #
of p
ublic
aw
aren
ess
and
publ
ic e
duca
tion
prog
ram
mes
.•
# of
trai
ning
s, n
umbe
r of
par
ticip
ants
.•
# of
urb
an a
nd c
omm
unity
pla
ns in
corp
orat
ing
publ
ic
sp
ace,
par
ks, a
nd p
ublic
tran
spor
tatio
n st
anda
rds.
•
Inci
denc
e of
road
acc
iden
ts.
• #
of p
eopl
e ki
lled
or in
jure
d in
road
acc
iden
ts
• %
of p
eopl
e w
ith a
cces
s to
saf
e sh
elte
r•
Bui
ldin
gs c
ompl
y w
ith b
uild
ing
code
s, r
ules
and
land
use
stan
dard
s.•
# &
% o
f peo
ple
who
kno
w th
e sa
fety
ele
men
ts
of
thei
r ho
me
• A
fford
abilit
y of
she
lter
• #
& %
of p
eopl
e re
ache
d th
roug
h sa
fe s
helte
r
aw
aren
ess
trai
ning
or
activ
ities
• #
& %
or
peop
le w
ith s
ecur
e te
nure
and
lega
l
prot
ectio
n of
thei
r as
sets
.
• #
of w
ater
and
san
itatio
n sc
hem
es.
• A
cces
sibi
lity
and
affo
rdab
ility
of tr
ansp
ort
an
d en
ergy
sys
tem
s.
Pro
vid
e ec
ono
mic
o
pp
ort
unit
ies
to c
om
mun
ity
peo
ple
.
Com
mun
ities
pro
vide
a
dive
rse
rang
e of
em
ploy
men
t an
d in
com
e op
port
uniti
es.
Com
mun
ities
are
flex
ible
and
re
sour
cefu
l.
• Li
velih
ood
prog
ram
min
g.
• Vo
catio
nal a
nd s
kills
trai
ning
.•
Inco
me
gene
ratio
n ac
tiviti
es (p
etty
trad
ing,
lives
tock
pro
duct
ion
and
mar
ketin
g, s
mal
l sca
le
vo
catio
nal a
ctiv
ities
etc
.)
• P
eer-
to-p
eer
educ
atio
n to
enh
ance
ski
lls
an
d kn
owle
dge.
• #
of p
eopl
e su
ppor
ted
thro
ugh
livel
ihoo
ds p
rogr
amm
es.
• #
of p
eopl
e w
ho h
ave
bene
fitte
d fro
m v
ocat
iona
l
and
skills
trai
ning
and
act
ive
in b
usin
ess.
• U
nem
ploy
men
t rat
e, s
tand
ard
of liv
ing
of c
omm
unity
, etc
.
• #
peer
-to-
peer
pro
gram
mes
con
duct
ed
• #
part
icip
ants
in p
eer
to p
eer
prog
ram
mes
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
IFRC Framework for Community Resilience - Annex One O
bje
cti
veE
xpecte
d O
utc
om
es
Exa
mple
s of
NS
Contr
ibuti
on
Exa
mple
s of
Indic
ato
rs
Com
mun
ities
have
the
capa
city
to
acc
ept u
ncer
tain
ty a
nd
resp
ond
(pro
activ
ely)
to c
hang
e.
• E
ncou
rage
com
mun
ity to
inco
rpor
ate
new
know
ledg
e an
d te
chno
logy
, sha
re tr
aditi
onal
livel
ihoo
ds, f
ood
and
nutr
ition
str
ateg
ies.
• A
war
enes
s of
and
und
erst
andi
ng o
f new
kno
wle
dge
and
tech
nolo
gy a
nd tr
aditi
onal
met
hods
and
appr
oach
es.
Man
age
natu
ral a
sset
s.C
omm
uniti
es re
cogn
ise
the
valu
e of
thei
r na
tura
l ass
ets.
Com
mun
ities
man
age
thei
r na
tura
l ass
ets.
Com
mun
ities
hav
e th
e ab
ility
to p
rote
ct, e
nhan
ce a
nd
mai
ntai
n th
eir
natu
ral a
sset
s.
• E
duca
te c
omm
uniti
es a
bout
nat
ural
ass
et u
se
is
sues
rela
ted
to d
isas
ter
risk
• P
rom
ote
envi
ronm
enta
lly re
spon
sibl
e ur
ban
plan
ning
and
land
use
• S
uppo
rt e
nviro
nmen
tally
resp
onsi
ble
livel
ihoo
ds
ac
tiviti
es, f
ood
prod
uctio
n, e
tc.
• P
ursu
e en
viro
nmen
tally
resp
onsi
ble
cons
truc
tion
prac
tices
.•
Env
ironm
enta
l con
serv
atio
n in
itiat
ives
, e.g
. tre
e
pl
antin
g, e
nviro
nmen
t-fri
endl
y sa
nita
tion,
redu
ctio
n
of c
arbo
n fo
otpr
ints
, ene
rgy
savi
ng, e
tc.
• P
ublic
aw
aren
ess,
pub
lic e
duca
tion
and
advo
cacy
prog
ram
mes
.•
Pro
mot
ion
of e
ffect
ive
envi
ronm
enta
l reg
ulat
ion
rela
ted
to r
isk
(e.g
., re
gula
tion
of lo
ggin
g,
w
etla
nds
pres
erva
tion,
sol
id a
nd to
xic
was
te
di
spos
al, i
nteg
ratio
n of
DR
R in
Env
ironm
enta
l
Impa
ct A
sses
smen
ts (E
IAs)
).
• Le
vel o
f und
erst
andi
ng o
f env
ironm
enta
l iss
ues
and
cons
eque
nces
of m
ism
anag
emen
t.•
# of
urb
an p
lans
that
inco
rpor
ate
envi
ronm
enta
l
mea
sure
s.
• #
of e
nviro
nmen
tally
resp
onsi
ble
livel
ihoo
ds, f
ood
secu
rity,
etc
. pro
ject
s.•
Red
uctio
n in
env
ironm
ent d
egra
datio
n as
a re
sult
of in
appr
opria
te la
nd u
se, s
helte
r co
nstr
uctio
n, e
tc.
• U
se o
f sus
tain
able
bui
ldin
g pr
oduc
ts a
nd m
ater
ials
.•
# en
viro
nmen
tal c
onse
rvat
ion
proj
ects
.
• #
peop
le re
ache
d th
roug
h PA
PE
.•
carb
on fo
otpr
int.
• #
of n
ew e
nviro
nmen
tal r
ules
/pla
ns s
uppo
rtin
g D
RR
• #
of E
IAS
inte
grat
ing
DR
R
Str
engt
hen
the
conn
ecte
d-ne
ss o
f co
mm
unit
ies.
Com
mun
ities
hav
e th
e ca
paci
ty
and
capa
bilit
ies
to s
usta
in a
nd
build
on
good
rela
tions
hips
w
ith a
rang
e of
ext
erna
l act
ors
who
can
pro
vide
a w
ider
su
ppor
tive
envi
ronm
ent.
Com
mun
ities
hav
e ac
cess
to
a ne
twor
k of
ext
erna
l act
ors
willi
ng/a
ble
to s
uppl
y ta
ngib
le
and
inta
ngib
le fo
rms
of
supp
ort t
o th
e co
mm
unity
.
• R
CR
C ro
le in
hol
istic
com
mun
ity p
lans
at a
ll le
vels
(com
mun
ity, l
ocal
gov
ernm
ent a
nd n
atio
nal).
• A
bilit
y of
NS
to m
obiliz
e ph
ysic
al a
nd fi
nanc
ial
re
sour
ces
• N
S n
etw
orki
ng w
ith IF
RC
and
sis
ter
NS
s.•
Par
tner
ship
s w
ith d
iffer
ent s
take
hold
ers.
• A
dvoc
acy
for
adeq
uate
pub
lic fu
ndin
g fo
r
co
mm
unity
resi
lienc
e st
reng
then
ing
prog
ram
mes
.
• C
omm
unity
pla
ns w
ith c
lear
ly d
efine
d R
C ro
le.
• #
and
valu
e of
reso
urce
s m
obiliz
ed.
• #
part
ners
, sta
ndin
g ag
reem
ents
for
supp
ort/
coop
erat
ion,
etc
.•
Sup
port
(res
ourc
es, t
echn
ical
sup
port
, etc
.) at
trac
ted.
22
Obje
cti
veE
xpecte
d O
utc
om
es
Exa
mple
s of
NS
Contr
ibuti
on
Exa
mple
s of
Indic
ato
rs
Com
mun
ities
have
the
capa
city
to
acc
ept u
ncer
tain
ty a
nd
resp
ond
(pro
activ
ely)
to c
hang
e.
• E
ncou
rage
com
mun
ity to
inco
rpor
ate
new
know
ledg
e an
d te
chno
logy
, sha
re tr
aditi
onal
livel
ihoo
ds, f
ood
and
nutr
ition
str
ateg
ies.
• A
war
enes
s of
and
und
erst
andi
ng o
f new
kno
wle
dge
and
tech
nolo
gy a
nd tr
aditi
onal
met
hods
and
appr
oach
es.
Man
age
natu
ral a
sset
s.C
omm
uniti
es re
cogn
ise
the
valu
e of
thei
r na
tura
l ass
ets.
Com
mun
ities
man
age
thei
r na
tura
l ass
ets.
Com
mun
ities
hav
e th
e ab
ility
to p
rote
ct, e
nhan
ce a
nd
mai
ntai
n th
eir
natu
ral a
sset
s.
• E
duca
te c
omm
uniti
es a
bout
nat
ural
ass
et u
se
is
sues
rela
ted
to d
isas
ter
risk
• P
rom
ote
envi
ronm
enta
lly re
spon
sibl
e ur
ban
plan
ning
and
land
use
• S
uppo
rt e
nviro
nmen
tally
resp
onsi
ble
livel
ihoo
ds
ac
tiviti
es, f
ood
prod
uctio
n, e
tc.
• P
ursu
e en
viro
nmen
tally
resp
onsi
ble
cons
truc
tion
prac
tices
.•
Env
ironm
enta
l con
serv
atio
n in
itiat
ives
, e.g
. tre
e
pl
antin
g, e
nviro
nmen
t-fri
endl
y sa
nita
tion,
redu
ctio
n
of c
arbo
n fo
otpr
ints
, ene
rgy
savi
ng, e
tc.
• P
ublic
aw
aren
ess,
pub
lic e
duca
tion
and
advo
cacy
prog
ram
mes
.•
Pro
mot
ion
of e
ffect
ive
envi
ronm
enta
l reg
ulat
ion
rela
ted
to r
isk
(e.g
., re
gula
tion
of lo
ggin
g,
w
etla
nds
pres
erva
tion,
sol
id a
nd to
xic
was
te
di
spos
al, i
nteg
ratio
n of
DR
R in
Env
ironm
enta
l
Impa
ct A
sses
smen
ts (E
IAs)
).
• Le
vel o
f und
erst
andi
ng o
f env
ironm
enta
l iss
ues
and
cons
eque
nces
of m
ism
anag
emen
t.•
# of
urb
an p
lans
that
inco
rpor
ate
envi
ronm
enta
l
mea
sure
s.
• #
of e
nviro
nmen
tally
resp
onsi
ble
livel
ihoo
ds, f
ood
secu
rity,
etc
. pro
ject
s.•
Red
uctio
n in
env
ironm
ent d
egra
datio
n as
a re
sult
of in
appr
opria
te la
nd u
se, s
helte
r co
nstr
uctio
n, e
tc.
• U
se o
f sus
tain
able
bui
ldin
g pr
oduc
ts a
nd m
ater
ials
.•
# en
viro
nmen
tal c
onse
rvat
ion
proj
ects
.
• #
peop
le re
ache
d th
roug
h PA
PE
.•
carb
on fo
otpr
int.
• #
of n
ew e
nviro
nmen
tal r
ules
/pla
ns s
uppo
rtin
g D
RR
• #
of E
IAS
inte
grat
ing
DR
R
Str
engt
hen
the
conn
ecte
d-ne
ss o
f co
mm
unit
ies.
Com
mun
ities
hav
e th
e ca
paci
ty
and
capa
bilit
ies
to s
usta
in a
nd
build
on
good
rela
tions
hips
w
ith a
rang
e of
ext
erna
l act
ors
who
can
pro
vide
a w
ider
su
ppor
tive
envi
ronm
ent.
Com
mun
ities
hav
e ac
cess
to
a ne
twor
k of
ext
erna
l act
ors
willi
ng/a
ble
to s
uppl
y ta
ngib
le
and
inta
ngib
le fo
rms
of
supp
ort t
o th
e co
mm
unity
.
• R
CR
C ro
le in
hol
istic
com
mun
ity p
lans
at a
ll le
vels
(com
mun
ity, l
ocal
gov
ernm
ent a
nd n
atio
nal).
• A
bilit
y of
NS
to m
obiliz
e ph
ysic
al a
nd fi
nanc
ial
re
sour
ces
• N
S n
etw
orki
ng w
ith IF
RC
and
sis
ter
NS
s.•
Par
tner
ship
s w
ith d
iffer
ent s
take
hold
ers.
• A
dvoc
acy
for
adeq
uate
pub
lic fu
ndin
g fo
r
co
mm
unity
resi
lienc
e st
reng
then
ing
prog
ram
mes
.
• C
omm
unity
pla
ns w
ith c
lear
ly d
efine
d R
C ro
le.
• #
and
valu
e of
reso
urce
s m
obiliz
ed.
• #
part
ners
, sta
ndin
g ag
reem
ents
for
supp
ort/
coop
erat
ion,
etc
.•
Sup
port
(res
ourc
es, t
echn
ical
sup
port
, etc
.) at
trac
ted.
The Fundamental Principles of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
Humanity The International Red Cross and Red Cres-cent Movement, born of a desire to bring assistance without discrimination to the wounded on the battle-field, endeavours, in its international and national capacity, to prevent and alleviate human suffering wherever it may be found. Its purpose is to protect life and health and to ensure respect for the human being. It promotes mutual understanding, friendship, cooperation and lasting peace amongst all peoples.
Impartiality It makes no discrimination as to nation-ality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions. It endeavours to relieve the suffering of individuals, being guided solely by their needs, and to give prior-ity to the most urgent cases of distress.
Neutrality In order to enjoy the confidence of all, the Movement may not take sides in hostilities or engage at any time in controversies of a political, racial, reli-gious or ideological nature.
Independence The Movement is independent. The National Societies, while auxiliaries in the humani-tarian services of their governments and subject to the laws of their respective countries, must always maintain their autonomy so that they may be able at all times to act in accordance with the principles of the Movement.
Voluntary service It is a voluntary relief movement not prompted in any manner by desire for gain.
Unity There can be only one Red Cross or Red Cres-cent Society in any one country. It must be open to all. It must carry on its humanitarian work through-out its territory.
Universality The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, in which all societies have equal status and share equal responsibilities and duties in helping each other, is worldwide.
Further information is available from:
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent SocietiesP.O. Box 3721211 Geneva 19 SwitzerlandEmail: [email protected]: www.ifrc.org
www.ifrc.orgSaving lives, changing minds.