• About us
  • GSDRC Publications
  • Research Helpdesk
  • E-Learning
  • E-Bulletin

GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Governance
    • Democracy & elections
    • Public sector management
    • Security & justice
    • Service delivery
    • State-society relations
    • Supporting economic development
  • Social Development
    • Gender
    • Inequalities & exclusion
    • Poverty & wellbeing
    • Social protection
  • Humanitarian Issues
    • Humanitarian financing
    • Humanitarian response
    • Recovery & reconstruction
    • Refugees/IDPs
    • Risk & resilience
  • Conflict
    • Conflict analysis
    • Conflict prevention
    • Conflict response
    • Conflict sensitivity
    • Impacts of conflict
    • Peacebuilding
  • Development Pressures
    • Climate change
    • Food security
    • Fragility
    • Migration & diaspora
    • Population growth
    • Urbanisation
  • Approaches
    • Complexity & systems thinking
    • Institutions & social norms
    • PEA / Thinking & working politically
    • Results-based approaches
    • Rights-based approaches
    • Theories of change
  • Aid Instruments
    • Budget support & SWAps
    • Capacity building
    • Civil society partnerships
    • Multilateral aid
    • Private sector partnerships
    • Technical assistance
  • M&E
    • M&E approaches
    • Indicators
    • Learning
Home»GSDRC Publications»Regional and national capacity to cope with humanitarian risk

Regional and national capacity to cope with humanitarian risk

Helpdesk Report
  • Sumedh Rao
March 2013

Question

Identify ways to define the regional and national capacity to cope with humanitarian risk. This is humanitarian risk relating to both natural hazards (e.g. adverse conditions, emergencies or disasters) and human-induced hazards (e.g. conflict). How is capacity being measured? Include a list of components, indicators, sources, limitations and criticality.

Summary

Key findings: There are few frameworks for assessing the capacity to cope with humanitarian risks at national scales, and those that exist vary greatly from one country to another; no clear common set of indicators is readily discernible. In general, however, the importance of governance, institutions, planning capacity and information management capacity have been frequently identified as key elements, especially in regional (international) frameworks.

International frameworks for assessing risk management capacity often highlight governance and institutional issues. The most prominent overall framework is the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA), which encompasses a number of processes including the Toolkit for National Platforms for Disaster Risk Reduction for Africa which includes indicators that check for the establishment of various institutional, legal and policy frameworks and the incorporation of disaster management concepts into them, and for information management and reporting capabilities. Other international frameworks presented in this report are the Inter-American Development Bank’s Risk Management Index (RMI) and the Food and Agricultural Organization’s (FAO) Food Resilience framework.

National frameworks differ markedly one from another; there does not appear to be a common focus, methodology or set of indicators across the tools and development plans. Climate change is also discussed as national frameworks for assessing capacity to cope with humanitarian risks arising from climate change particularly highlight the importance of governance, civil and political rights, institutions and education.

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • DFID

Related Content

Coping mechanisms in South Sudan in relation to different types of shock
Helpdesk Report
2020
Social protection
Topic Guide
2019
Cost-Effectiveness in Humanitarian Aid and Development: Resilience Programming
Helpdesk Report
2018
Refugees in Uganda: (in)stability, conflict, and resilience
Conflict Analysis
2018
birminghamids hcri

gro.crdsg@seiriuqne Feedback Disclaimer

Outputs supported by FCDO are © Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021
Connect with us: facebooktwitter

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2021; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2021; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2021

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".OkRead more