1.5. Community-Based Networks

We did also discuss about the community-based networks. That is where the CAM and CBDRM. So this is where the community asset management and the community base disaster risk management. So, how different social capitals and its network play an important role in reducing the disaster risk.

This chunk introduces community-based networks, which consist of two main concepts: Community Asset Management (CAM) and Community-Based Disaster Risk Management (CBDRM). CAM focuses on managing and optimizing community resources to improve resilience, while CBDRM emphasizes empowering communities to prepare for and respond to disasters. The central idea is that social networks, resources, and community engagement are vital for effectively reducing disaster risks.

Imagine a neighborhood that comes together to create a community garden (CAM). They organize themselves, pooling resources like seeds and tools. This not only provides food but strengthens their connection. When a storm approaches (CBDRM), this tightly-knit group can quickly work together to secure their belongings and plan for safety, showcasing the strength of community networks.

In the case of Nepal, we also discussed about how legally that is certain things which have not been acknowledged so far. How the bills remained as a bill and how it has not been turned into an act.

This chunk highlights the legal challenges faced in Nepal regarding disaster management laws. It explains that certain proposed laws (bills) have not progressed to become actual laws (acts), leaving gaps in legal frameworks that could help with disaster risk management. Without formal legal recognition, community efforts may lack the necessary support and guidance to be effective.

Think about a proposed safety law for buildings after an earthquake that hasn’t been passed yet. Builders continue constructing without following recommended safety measures. In the same way, if disaster management laws are only bills and not acts, communities may be hindered in their ability to prepare and respond effectively to disasters.

That is where the local disaster risk management planning guidelines you know, how it is not properly able to connect the disasters and development. So, there should be an ideally some kind of planning process which has to go within it.

This chunk emphasizes the need for better planning processes that link disaster risk management with development projects. The idea is that when communities develop infrastructure or services, they must also consider potential disaster risks associated with those developments. An effective planning process would ensure that both aspects are integrated to make communities more resilient against disasters.

Consider building a new school in a flood-prone area. If the planning team does not account for flood risks, the school could face significant damage in a disaster. Integrating disaster risk management into development planning—such as elevating the building or including flood defenses—improves safety and sustainability.

We did also discuss about various examples on heritage at risk. Like Pitalkhora caves, the rock shelters how they have been assessed with the GEO technological perspective.

This chunk mentions specific examples of cultural heritage sites, such as the Pitalkhora caves, which illustrate the importance of assessing these sites from a technological standpoint, particularly geological technologies (GEO). The goal is to understand how these structures can be affected by disasters and what measures can be taken to protect them. Assessments enable communities to identify vulnerabilities and take appropriate action.

Think of ancient ruins as treasures that need safeguarding. Just like employing security systems in a museum to protect artifacts from theft, communities can use GEO technology to monitor and protect vulnerable heritage sites from geological threats like landslides or erosion.

--