When we talk about emergencies, we often think about what happens when a flood, fire, severe storm, extreme temperatures or another event puts people’s lives and property at risk. However, experience shows that the impact of such events is largely determined long before they occur – by how we identify risks, plan, invest and prepare. This is why one of the key principles of a modern civil protection and disaster management system is to move from an approach focused primarily on response towards one based on prevention and disaster risk reduction. The goal is not to eliminate all risks, as this is often impossible, but to reduce their likelihood and potential impact as much as possible.

This approach is also reflected in Serbia’s legal framework. The Law on Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency Management establishes a system in which risk assessment, preventive measures, preparedness and coordination among all relevant actors play an important role. Local governments have a particularly important role because risks are identified most directly at the local level, preventive measures are planned there, and the response is organised when an emergency occurs.

The first step towards a more resilient local community is to have a clear understanding of the risks it faces. Not all cities and municipalities face the same challenges. While floods or landslides may be the main concern in some areas, others may be particularly exposed to wildfires, extreme heat, heavy snowfall or other hazards. Risk assessments should therefore be more than documents prepared simply to meet a legal requirement. They should provide a basis for deciding where investment is needed, which measures should be prioritised and where capacity needs to be strengthened.

At the same time, risk information should be taken into account when making decisions about spatial development, infrastructure and public services. Building on the risk assessment, a local disaster risk reduction plan should set out specific preventive, organisational, technical, financial, educational and other measures. Their value, however, lies not simply in being included in a plan, but in actually being implemented. This is why each priority measure should have a clearly identified responsible institution, implementation deadline, estimated cost and potential source of funding. In this way, the plan becomes a practical tool for managing risks rather than just another planning document.

One of the key conditions for implementing preventive measures is timely funding. The law requires local governments to plan and provide budget resources for disaster risk reduction and emergency management. In practice, this means making sure that preventive measures are identified early enough to be included in the local budget planning process.

For example, if a particular area has been identified as being at high risk of flooding, the local government can allocate funding for maintaining critical infrastructure, improving waterways, upgrading early warning systems and strengthening response capacity. If fire is one of the main risks, priorities may include preventive management of vulnerable areas, equipment and training for the relevant services, and better communication with citizens. In this way, prevention becomes part of regular local government management rather than something that only begins after damage has already occurred.

This approach also enables local governments to better monitor the implementation of planned measures and identify areas where additional investment is needed. It contributes to more responsible use of public funds as well. Investing in prevention is often significantly less costly than dealing with the consequences of disasters, particularly when damage to infrastructure, disruptions to public services, business losses and impacts on people’s lives and health are taken into account.

Disaster risk reduction should not be seen as a separate area handled only by emergency management services. The resilience of a local community is also shaped by spatial and urban planning, infrastructure development and maintenance, and the way public services are organised. For example, flood risk needs to be considered when planning land use, building and maintaining transport and utility infrastructure, and managing water resources.

Similarly, when dealing with extreme heat, local governments need to think about green spaces, trees, public areas and facilities that can provide protection for residents, particularly the most vulnerable groups. Special attention should also be given to critical facilities and infrastructure that are essential to the functioning of the community. Hospitals, schools, water supply systems, energy and transport infrastructure all need to be part of resilience planning, because disruptions to these systems can affect the entire local community.

This means that resilience is built into the everyday decisions we make about how a city or municipality develops. Well-planned spaces, well-maintained infrastructure and reliable public services do more than improve quality of life – they also strengthen a community’s ability to withstand an emergency and recover more quickly afterwards.

A disaster risk reduction system cannot be effective if responsibility is seen as belonging only to the relevant authorities and emergency services. The resilience of a local community is built through cooperation between the public sector, businesses, civil society and citizens. Local governments have a key role in planning and coordination, but businesses also need to assess the risks facing their facilities, employees and operations. Business continuity plans, staff training and cooperation with the relevant authorities can significantly reduce the impact of emergencies.

Citizens are also an important part of the system. An informed citizen who knows how to respond during a flood, fire, severe storm or heatwave represents an additional capacity for the community. This is why education, public information and exercises should not be activities carried out only after an emergency has been declared. They should be an integral part of preparedness. It is particularly important that information about risks and protective measures is accessible to everyone, including the most vulnerable groups. In this way, every individual can become part of the wider protection system and contribute to the safety of the community as a whole.

Climate change further highlights the need for a preventive approach. More frequent and intense heatwaves, droughts, heavy rainfall and other extreme weather events require local governments to take a long-term view of how they plan space, develop infrastructure and organise public services.

Risk management therefore cannot be separated from other local policies. Decisions made today about where we build, what infrastructure we develop, how we design public spaces and how we organise utilities and other public services will directly affect the resilience of the community in the future.

This approach is particularly important when planning new investments. Rather than adding resilience to buildings and systems after they have already been constructed, risks should be taken into account from the earliest planning stages. This not only protects existing resources, but also reduces the risk that future development will increase the local community’s exposure to hazards.

Such an approach brings benefits even when a disaster does not occur. Well-maintained infrastructure, capable services, informed citizens and better-planned spaces are investments not only in everyday quality of life, but also in the community’s ability to respond to future challenges. Investing in prevention today means fewer consequences, lower costs and greater safety tomorrow.