The EMI’s Cross-Cutting Capacity Development (3cd) Program:
The EMI’s Cross-Cutting Capacity Development (3cd) Program:
Process of Implementation
J. Fernandez, S. Mattingly, and F. Bendimerad
1. Introduction and Background
The Cross-Cutting Capacity Development Program (3cd Program) came into being as a
response from the Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative, EMI, to the growing need of
large urban environments, particularly in the developing world, to count with a model to
engage and support local governments in a process to implement a disaster risk
reduction agenda (DRR). The purpose is engaging local authorities, practitioners,
researchers, and the community in general in planning activities for DRR ahead or in a
pre-event situation to look into a strategy for response and recovery, preparedness, amd
mitigation for DRR.
In this model disaster risk management, DRM, is introduced as another city planning
process in order to “mainstream” DRR within local functions and services, with the
concept that DRM is not a separate issue, but rather a part of day-to-day business.
Focusing on local implementation and linking with the contribution of all active agents of
society with the engagement of central governments and support of international
community provides the basis for mainstreaming DRR within local institutions.
To facilitate this process, the 3cd Program offers a sound methodology and approach, a
number of tools for DRM, and demonstrated experience through realistic applications1:
• Methodology: Engage into a consensus plan of actions that strategically and
progressively mainstream DRR within local and national institutions through the
Disaster Risk Management Master Plan (DRMMP)
• DRM Tools: Megacity-specific tools are needed to raise skills of professionals and
decision makers and to provide management and monitoring mechanisms for DRR.
MEGA-Learn provides a menu that includes: internet accessible Megacities
Knowledge Base, Map Viewers, Risk Sensitive Urban Planning training modules,
and other distance learning courses in partnership with the World Bank Institute. In
addition, a Megacities indicator System to monitor and guide policy implementation
for disaster risk management.
Realistic application of the methodology and tools has been done in Istanbunbul, and
For details see www.earthquakesandmegacities.org and www.pdc.org-emi
most recently in Metro Manila, Kathmandu and Mumbai, which allows the program
implementation team improve the process and application through direct feedback from
This paper summarizes the process of implementation of the DRMMP in the cities that
typically takes between four to five years depending, among others, availability of
previous studies on risk identification and assessment, accessibility to human and
financial resources, and political leadership. This process encourages an active local
participation by counting with a local support structure, building a coalition of
stakeholders, holding enlarged consultation processes, and enhancing local capacity for
2. Implementation Process
Step 1 Assessment: Understanding the context
Risk assessment and
analysis is the first step that
cities need to face in order to
magnitude of the natural
hazards that can be expected
in the city, the vulnerability of
the exposed elements to that
hazard, then undertake a
damage assessment, and
finally estimate possible
human and physical losses.
Most of the cities in the world
have completed this phase or
have developed a good understanding of current situation, if so, the implementers can
build in this knowledge and continue the process to identify how DRM is currently done.
Collecting, systematizing and analyzing current knowledge and practice regarding
Disaster Risk Management at the city-level is how the 3cd Program approaches this
learning process. What has worked, what needs to be revisited and how to improve the
current situation are the cornerstones in this process. Understanding these factors will
allow drawing the baseline or the foundations for the implementation of the 3cd program
in each city.
Assessment of current sound practices on disaster risk management emerges as an
interesting component of this phase. What cities consider being their highlights, why
these particular sets of actions worked and how will they be maintained in the future
provide insight into how DRM functions in the city. Can they be fully adopted or adapted
by other communities at risk? What are the key attributes to think about regarding these
practices and their potential for replication; what are their social cost-benefit parameters,
and in fact, what are the determinants for success?
Which is the hazardscape of the city? Are there any vulnerability and risk assessment
studies available? Have these been communicated to city stakeholders? Which are the
technical groups which work in the city and which are their capabilities? Are there any
risk transfer mechanisms in place?
Some of the most relevant areas for DRM that the implementers need to pay attention to
are summarized below:
• Who are the main players? Institutions, organizations and actors, their roles and
responsibilities, their motivations.
• What are the laws and regulations related to DRM which are in place? Do they
facilitate the process or create bottlenecks? Have building codes been developed and
enacted, and are there adequate enforcement mechanisms in place?
• Who is in charge of DRM in the city? What is the relationship between the city
organization for DRM and other levels of government, including the national level?
What is the local organizational structure, and what human and economic resources
are dedicated to it.
• Consider issues related to governance, e.g. how many LGUs or districts comprise the
city? What is the nature and effectiveness of intercity linkages? How are the urban
planning, land use and development processes taking place? Is risk reduction a
criterion used in land use and planning determinations? Do development plans
incorporate prevention and mitigation concepts?
• How do city stakeholders identify their sound practices? Have they been synthesized
or systematized? Who are the key informants?
• What is the involvement of the private sector and the community in local DRM
To undertake this process and answer all these questions, the 3cd Program suggests
the following main activities:
• Literature search and initial survey of DRM. Prior to initiating any activity, the
implementation team should conduct preliminary research to find out basic information
related to DRM in the city. Internet data mining, proceedings of workshops and
conferences, and direct contact with local groups through an initial survey form
prepared by the 3cd Program are good options for a preliminary DRM city profile and
identification of Sound Practices.
• One on one interviews. Carry out a series of interviews with relevant city officials,
community leaders and academicians to understand the current DRM situation in the
city and the impediments which are faced, and discuss mechanisms for improving
DRM. The 3cd Program acknowledges the fact that the information which it requests is
considerable, therefore no single individual will have the capacity to complete the
whole form. The research team should identify key informants and pursue individual
visits to progressively complete the information. The assistance of the local
counterpart is particularly significant in this data collection process.
• Stakeholder Workshops. They constitute an important activity because they serve as
the main mechanism for: 1) conducting initial discussions with city authorities and
other key players to communicate 3cd Program agenda and receive required
feedback, 2) raising awareness; educating policy makers and other key players
regarding disaster risk management, 3) identifying main organizations and key points
of contacts to accomplish fieldwork, 4) understanding the current disaster
management practice, and 5) identifying and documenting examples of sound
The stakeholder workshops should be designed as a joint undertaking by the city
partners and the 3cd Program Implementation Team (PIT). The engagement and
cooperation of local partners, including local policy makers, researchers, NGOs and
other groups, is critical to the success of this task, as it is recognized that these tasks
require inputs and insights from multiple perspectives and disciplines. It is strongly
recommended to carefully document every workshop to keep record of the attendees,
major findings, agreed next steps and commitments from different parties.
• Establish program advocacy. Gain high-level commitment and advocacy for
development and implementation of a consensus action plan between the local
authorities and the 3cd Program that will lead to development of a Disaster Risk
Management Master Plan for the city.
• Promote the use of Risk Communication Tools. In particular, encourage the use of
the internet based Megacity Disaster Risk Management Knowledge Base and the map
viewers to make information available to different interested groups in the city. As part
of this initial phase, the PIT should begin discussions on availability and accessibility of
data and understanding local technical capabilities and GIS capacity.
The 3cd Program offers the following tools, available in attachment 2 of this Manual of
Implementation, for implementers to facilitate the process and to standardize data
collection for future analysis, evaluation and comparative analysis among participating
• Two part questionnaire. The first part focuses on the DRM City Profile and the
second one on the Sound Practices. The questionnaires are a first step in information
gathering. They are expected to provide useful insights; nevertheless, broader
perspectives and further details are required, which will only be achieved through
direct contact with those who designed and/or were part of the experience being
• .Documentation templates. These ensure a uniform approach to writing up material
pertaining to City Profiles (CPs) and Sound Practices (SPs) and are provided by the
• Stakeholder Workshop Evaluation Questionnaire. The program has also designed
a survey to evaluate participants’ satisfaction, concerns and recommendations for
Step 2 Empowerment: Preliminary DRMMP Framework and Implementation
Based on the findings from
step 1, it is advisable that
the implementation team
starts looking into possible
actions that can be
prioritized and organized
as part of the DRMMP and
its implementation process.
This is particularly relevant
since most of major cities
in the world count on a
good understanding of the
hazards they face and how
they can impact often
vulnerable communities and its infrastructure . Most have produced risk maps and some
count on plans for risk reduction, which
Fernandez J., Bendimerad F., Mattingly S., Buika J., (2005), “Comparative analysis of disaster risk management
practices in seven megacities” presented to the 2nd Asia Conference on Earthquake Engineering, ACEE 2006, March
Introducing specific activities that can be initiated in the short run will contribute to raise
the interest of involved parties, while a more traditional and long term planning effort is
started to look at the essential components of a sound DRM system, which by and large
requires to strengthening the legal framework and institutional capabilities is most of the
cities as identified in Fernandez et al (2005).
The implementation team should be able to come up with an outline containing a set of
actions items identified from previous studies and its own understanding of current and
sound practices that city stakeholders may consider to initiate the discussions.
A second workshop is envisioned as the avenue to hold detailed discussions with the
local partners, either the municipality or the local organization in charge of DRM
activities, to expand the consultation process with city stakeholders and shareholders on
the proposal for action introduced by the implementation team. It is also sought as the
opportunity to initiate a planning exercise for the actual development and
implementation of the DRMMP.
The workshop along with other specific meetings and discussions should be designed
as part of a consensus building process that engages policy makers, practitioners, and
the scientific and organized community in identifying strengths, constraints and
opportunities to undertake the implementation of a comprehensive risk reduction plan,
anchored in the social, political and economic realities of the city.
As a result of this initial consultation, the implementers will be able to identify major
areas of interest through a prioritization procedure, identifying other activities that may
be required or of interest of the city, spotting human and economic resources,
designating leading actors and leading organizations, suggesting a strategy for
implementation and drawing a time line for all these activities.
The purpose of this step is achieving local ownership of the process which main
outcomes are expected to:
Ensure institutional commitment & political feasibility
Engage stakeholders; clarify their role and responsibility; and build their
Mobilize stakeholders through Focus Groups
Promote collaborative work
Use risk communication tools to engage stakeholders and build ownership
Transmit DRMMP concept and its initial agenda
Step 3 Execute: DRMMP Implementation
From the experience gained
in the field, completing the
activities scheduled for steps
1 and 2, will typically take
between 8 months to a year
time, depending on the level
commitment of the authorities
and city stakeholders and
availability of resources to
undertake this endeavor.
This third step looks into
agreements reached among
different actors in the city on
the most relevant areas that need to be boosted to initiate a dynamic and participatory
process to design or update a DRMMP for the city. Seminars, workshops and meetings
with a wide range of stakeholders are needed to consolidate a local support system that
will assure ownership transfer from the implementation team to the local partners.
Means for sustainability should be guarantied by institutionalizing the efforts through
MoC or MoU amongst relevant institutions and organizations at all levels.
Any risk communication tool developed under the auspices of the program should also
be ready to be fully deployed and transferred to the end users. The 3cd program is
typically promoting the development of internet based map viewers (MV), that are
helpful to visualize disaster prone areas, map faulting systems, produce risk map
scenarios and facilitate zoning options and land use and planning applications.
The expected outcome of this segment is to produce an agreed upon strategy and
content of the city DRMMP, identify resources, timelines and mechanisms to initiate the
implementation phase. Several interactions with a range of stakeholders, shareholders
and local authorities may be necessary prior to fully initiate the implementation phase.
Step 4 Sustain
Setting local Focus Groups is the mechanism put in place by the 3cd Program to assure
capacity building, knowledge transfer and long term sustainability. This mechanism will
ensure that stakeholders are periodically brought together, that DRM knowledge is
improved and applied, will further deepen ownership and assure future development and
Metropolitan Manila was
the first city to initiate
implementation of its
DRMMP through the
collaboration of the
(MMDA), the Philippine
Institute of Volcanology
(PHIVOLCS), the cities of
Quezon, Makati and
Marikina and EMI’s 3cd
Program along with its
partners and sponsors, the
Pacific Disaster Center (PDC), the Earthquake Disaster Mitigation Center (Reduction
(ISDR). To approach megacity complexities, the 3cd Program has defined a pilot city
approach. Three cities out of seventeen comprising Metro Manila have joined the
program in an effort that permits understanding the inter-city linkages, common issues
and sound practices. EdM), Kobe University, the Hazard Management Unit of the
World Bank, and most recently, UNDP, the ProVention Consortium and the
International Strategy for Disaster
Five Focus Groups were established to undertake each one of the five major
implementation work outputs or action agendas for the DRMMP: 1) Information &
communication technologies, ICT, 2) Land use and planning, LUP, 3) Training needs
assessment, TNA, 4) Civil society and NGOs, and 5) Legal and institutional
To illustrate some of the actions that these TGs are undertaking in Metro Manila, a list of
their major accomplishments follows:
a) Formal organization and composition of 5 FGs to undertake specific activities on the
initial areas of development for the DRMMP. Definition of their main role, concrete
action plan including their vision for their short, intermediate and long run;
identification of resources and leading teams.
b) Initial training on the best options to incorporate risk reduction activities through
regular planning exercises at the regional level, addressed to MMDA officials and
another one on tools for risk reduction from the land use and planning perspectives,
addressed to the directors and heads of the planning offices of the 17 Local
Governament Units (LGUs) comprising Metro Manila.
c) Providing an “ideal type” legislation illustrating how current sound disaster risk
management practices can be written into legislation and introducing a statement to
embed disaster risk management into the Mid-Term Philippine Development Plan.
d) Conducting an evaluation of current DRM training options in Metro Manila and
assessment of specific needs to be implemented in the future.
e) Discussing options to fully incorporate the private sector and the organized
community in the efforts for risk reduction and mitigation at the urban level.
f) Design and implementation on a internet-based map viewer for Metropolitan Manila,
based on available information from previous studies and the deployment of a
Megacity Disaster Risk Management Knowledge Base to share sound practices and
Step 5 Monitor and Evaluate
This phase requires periodic review, oversight and advise from the 3cd Program
Implementation Team (PIT) to introduce corrective actions whenever required, including
planning of quaternary field trips. Also, feedback from stakeholders on every workshop
and event organized in the cities is carefully looked for and incorporated.
Comprehensive evaluation that includes city partners, Focus Groups members,
research partners and donors to understand the progress and set new long term
objectives is also desired.
As an example of this interactive process the Metro Manila experience can be
mentioned again. Table 1 shows and initial 10 action items suggested by the 3cd
Program to the city stakeholders for their consideration, this was based on findings from
step 1 and preliminary consultation. Through workshops, seminars and further
consultation, five implementation work outputs (IWO), deemed the most urgent and
practical were agreed upon.
Table 1. Initial 10-Point DRMMP action items proposed to MM
The five Implementation Work Outputs for Metro Manila are:
1) Use of information and communication technologies for risk communication and
2) Incorporate risk reduction criteria in urban land use and planning,
3)Training assessment and capacity enhancement for DRM,
4) Mobilizing resources among NGOs and professional organizations for the DRM
5) Improving legal and institutional arrangements for DRM delivery.
3. Implementation 101: step by step checklist
Following is a checklist that summarizes step by step the methodology
described above. It is intended to serve as a useful tool for undertaking
the development and implementation of a DRMMP in a megacity context.
Step 1 Assessment: Setting the Context
a) Produce a draft version of the DRM City Profile. Use part one of the survey
questionnaire provided on attachment 2 to gather initial feedback from different
informants. At least one government official and an academic representative should
provide initial insights. This information can be complemented with literature survey
and internet search, looking for specific topics of the DRM components.
b) Identify those projects, programs or activities that those city officials, practitioners,
researchers or the community consider their Sound Practices. Produce an initial
draft version of these SPs using part two of the survey provided in attachment 2. Use
literature review and internet search to gain additional information on the specific
c) Select a local organization with sufficient expertise in any relevant area of disaster
risk management and appoint a local Investigator from within this organization,
preferably the head of this organization.
d) Identify the key organization in charge of DRM in the city, conduct initial contacts to
inform about the purpose of the Program and have the head of this organization
appoint his/her delegate for future contacts.
e) To approach the complexities of the megacity, the 3cd Program suggest a pilot
city/LGUs approach. It is convenient to identify them from the beginning and have a
Point of Contact designated by the maximum authority, for example the mayor.
f) Sign MOUs or MOCs as needed to formalize the partnership among all involved
g) Conduct a kick-off workshop with all identified partners to gain understanding,
support and commitment for the next activities. An initial and very preliminary
assessment of gaps and needs should be done, as the research team gets an initial
sense of areas of concern and priorities acknowledged by the participants in these
introductory activities. See section 5 for details on the launching workshop.
h) Identify the Local Advisory Group and get them involved with the LI in the initial
process of review, update and supervision of the City Profiles and Sound Practices.
Step 2 Empowerment: Preliminary Framework of a DRMMP
a) Find out the knowledge gained through previous initiatives in the city and the level of
implementation of their recommendations.
b) Secure risk information related to major hazards.
c) Conduct a gap analysis based on the findings from part 1. Current DRM practice,
organization, and delivery should be put side by side with expected sound DRM
practice as seen by the city stakeholders.
d) Produce a preliminary set of action items that would progressively move the city and
its stakeholders along the principles of the DRMMP, gain local ownership and buy-in
from a broader group of stakeholders. This initial document should identify main
actors, leading teams and organizations, resources and broad time lines for
e) Conduct a second stakeholder workshop, the main objective of which is to introduce
the proposed DRMMP proposal, perform a feasibility analysis, set priorities among
the action items proposed or identify new ones, suggest realistic resources allocation
and timeframes, and designate the leading teams and organization. See section 5 for
details of the second workshop.
f) Produce a revised and realistic DRMMP framework and its implementation strategy,
based on the stakeholders’ perceptions on priorities, political viability, human and
economic resources and a time frame for implementation.
g) Encourage the use of risk communication tools among different actors. The 3cd
Program promotes the design, development and use of GIS based map viewers and
a Megacity Disaster Risk Management Knowledge Base, MDRM-KB
h) Continue with the documentation and identification of sound practices and motivate
local actors to document their own experiences, based on the appropriate templates.
Step 3 Execute: DRMMP Implementation Strategy
a) Based on the insights gained through parts 1 and 2 in this process, decide on best
areas of development, through specific activities that can consolidate the basis to
develop a comprehensive DRMMP for the city and its implementation.
b) Consolidate a local structure to provide support and carry out specific work related to
the areas of development, for example organize local working groups or tasks
groups to undertake the job. Through consultation and agreements, provide each
task group with a clear cut of job descriptions, timelines, resources and appoint a
coordinator or leader per area of development.
c) Set meetings, workshops, seminars and other useful approaches to gain solid and
widely spread support in the city, from multidisciplinary and inter-institutional groups.
Keep them abreast and informed of specific activities of each one.
d) Systematically and periodically remind the Task Groups of the big picture related to
the implementation of a DRM in the city and how specific activities fit into the “big
e) Identify resources for the implementation phase
f) Define general timelines
g) Design and deploy specific training activities that will need to take place to enhance
the capabilities of different participating groups, so they can face the challenges of
the implementation process.
h) Be aware that this phase will require several interactions.
4. Resources and Tools
Following is an annotated list of some of the available resources and tools to assist in
the implementation of a disaster risk reduction process using a methodology which is
currently being tested and refined based on real situations in megacities through the
EMI’s Cross Cutting Capacity Development (3cd) Program, accessible at
Megacity Disaster Risk A e-learning tool to facilitate exchange on DRM sound
Management Knowledge Base practice and understand current DRM organization in
megacities around the world
Disaster Risk Management Master A conceptual framework for developing and implementing a
Plan (DRMMP), Concept Paper DRMMP at the city level, includes concrete applications in
Metro Manila and Kathmandu
Survey of Disaster Risk A questionnaire helpful to identifying how your city currently
Management Practice deals with disaster management
Survey on Sound Practices for A questionnaire to explore DRM initiatives that city
Disaster Management stakeholders believe are worth sharing with others
City profile write-up template Provides a for to write the DRM city profile
DRM City Profile template An outline to synthesize information related to DRM
organization and delivery in the city
Sound Practices write-up template A model to ensure a uniform approach to writing up material
pertaining to Sound Practices
3cd Monitoring and Assessment, A standardized form to report progress and issues related to
Monthly report format the implementation of the program
1. Fernandez J., Mattingly S., Bendimerad F., ” Manual of Implementation of the Cross-Cutting
Capacity Development (3cd) Program” ver 1.05, December 2005
2. EMI, “The Cross-Cutting Capacity Development Program: Program Definition and
Implementation Plan”, ver. 3-2, February 2004, www.earthquakesandmegacities.org.
3. EMI, Defining an Approach for Responsible Disaster Risk Management in Megacities,
January 2005, www.earthquakesandmegacities.org
4. Mattingly S., Bendimerad F., Britton N., Fernandez J., “Implementing Sound Practices for
Disaster Risk Management in Complex Urban Environments (Megacities): Metropolitan
Manila, Mumbai and Beyond”, August 2004
5. Fernandez A., Britton N., Fernandez J., Pooyan Z., “Comparative Study of Institutional
Arrangements in Urban Disaster Reduction Management”, Proceedings of the First Beijing
Haidian Forum for Earthquake Preparedness and Disaster Mitigation, 1-3 November 2004,
6. Fernandez J., Mattingly S., Bendimerad F., El Programa de Capacitación Práctica para
Megaciudades en Asia, Proceedings of the Symposium on Latest Advances on Earthquake
Engineering and Management of Disaster Reduction, 30-31 May 2005, Lima, Peru
7. Fernandez J., Mattingly S., The Earthquakes and Megacities Initiative (EMI)’s contribution to
the ISDR World Conference on Disaster Reduction, March 2005, unpublished
8. ISDR A Draft Framework to Guide and Monitor Disaster Risk Reduction,
9. Mattingly S., Input on Key Attributes for Sound Practices in Disaster Risk Management, May
10. Mattingly S., Policy, Capacity and Sustainable Practices for Disaster Management, Regional
Development Dialogue, Vol. 24, no. 1, Spring 2003
11. Britton Neil, Developing A Framework For Identifying Disaster Risk Management Sound
Practices In Megacities, www.edm.bosai.go.jp.
- Related pdf books
- 3cd Sound Practice Series Metropolitan Manila, Philippines
- The Cross-Cutting Capacity Development -33ccdd -- Program
- Tehran, Iran
- Indicators in Metro Manila - Pacific Disaster Center
- Sound Practice No3
- OpeY 2k1 version Philippines
- COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN
- EARTHQUAKES AND MEGACITIES INITIATIVE - Pacific Disaster Center
- Getting the Foundations Right - Pacific Disaster Center
- LA INFORMACIÓN DE RIESGOS PARA LA TOMA DE DECISIONES Lecciones
- Implementing Sound Practices for Disaster Risk Management in ...
- Dhaka, Bangladesh
- Disaster Risk Management Master Plan DRMMP Pilot Application in
- The EMI’s Cross-Cutting Capacity Development (3cd) Program:
- Capacity Building for Disaster Risk Management in a Megacity
- MUMBAI, INDIA
- EMIs contribution to the WCDR