Enhance Practice and Effectiveness of Disaster Risk Management Program

Enhance Practice and Effectiveness of Disaster Risk Management Program

The goal of the research is to design a series of practical, simple and relevant templates that can be accepted as international tools to measure three key areas concerning standards, impact indicators and vulnerability criteria for disaster risk management program. The focus of these guidelines is on the community level as all DRR activities ultimately focused to the community. Some principles of performance indicators and standards are defined here are- 

  1. Since the ultimate testing of the performance and standard of risk reduction measures only occurs when disasters occur it is essential to devise pre-disaster ways to assess standards of effectiveness in securing the protection of lives and property.
  1. The people who implement projects and programmes need to be fully convinced that performance indicators are necessary, and that they can significantly improve the efficiency and quality of risk reduction measures
  1. In measuring effectiveness it is vital to secure a fine balance between trust and control. Excessive controls in the form of performance targets and a lack of involvement of key stakeholders in the formulation of indicators and standards will significantly erode trust.
  1. To be effective, performance indicators need to satisfy a range of demands.  Effective indicators are transparent, robust, representative, replicable, nationally comparable, sustainable, measurable, achievable, relevant, time framed and easily understood.
  1. For each performance indicator, a baseline is necessary. This is crucial in measuring progress toward an intermediate result or satisfying an objective. Depending on the type of performance indicator being measured, the baseline data can be a point-in-time observation or a cumulative or an average value over a period of time. (adapted principle from USAID, 2004)
  1. All performance indicators and standards need to be considered, and if necessary revised and adapted to suit the local cultural context. 
  1. There is a strong bias in performance indicators towards tangible, measurable and quantifiable elements (such as building a safe dwelling) thus neglecting the measurement of intangible and less visible aspects (such as strengthening risk perception).  Therefore alternative ways are needed to maintain standards for non-quantifiable measures.
  1. Performance indicators should specify the minimum requirements to make risk reduction effective. The aim of any indicator is not to indicate best practice, but to ensure that the competency of personnel, effectiveness of procedures, quality of measures etc. do not fall below standards of general acceptability. 
  1. Each standard should define the conditions to which it applies. Standards are not expected to universally apply to all situations.  Therefore it is important to specify where the standard is valid and where it does not apply.
  1. Performance Indicators and Standards relate to risk assessment, planning, implementation and monitoring and evaluation. All these processes relate to  dynamic patterns of continually changing hazards, vulnerabilities and capacities. Therefore indicators and standards will need to me regularly updated in this dynamic context.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s