may be helpful:Article Community-Led Adaptation in Bangladesh

Ranjan, your question assumes well-intentioned governments - a rare phenomenon in much of the world. For one community response to disaster in the absence of such a government see: https://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/earthquake.html In either case, the only hope for the people in a community hit by disaster is to be truly self-mobilizing. In the better case, the government can support such autonomous activity; in the worse case, the community will be better equipped to ward-off government interference.

Thanks Harry Cleaver for your comment. How can the community build their resilience? How to deal with climate change challenges in family, community, nationally, and internationally? Who should take these responsibilities ( nationally, and internationally)?

Big questions, Ranjan. I suspect precise answers can only be discovered through experimentation and will vary from community to community, nation to nation, depending on socio-economic and power structures. Resilience requires flexibility and adaptation as well as resources, both human and non-human. Pure theory suggests those traits function best when they are diverse. Think of the advantages of multi-cropping, or even single cropping with multiple, variously resistant varieties - as opposed to monocultures where a single disease can wipe out an entire homogeneous crop. The same principle applies everywhere. As financial experts argue, you protect yourself best against unanticipated disaster by having a "diversified portfolio" of assets.

Who should take on these responsibilities? Assuming an inevitable "division of labor", or of responsibility (for all sorts of things) more generally, some will take on more responsibility than others. Because the structure of the family varies across cultures, how responsibility is allocated within will also vary, according to the distribution of power/influence by gender, age, etc. As you move from family to community, from community to nation, from nation to the world, the issue becomes more and more political in the classical sense of the term, because it involves finding ways of dealing with differences in ways supportive of common goals, e.g., of resiliency (at all levels). Bio-regionalists argue that decision-making should lie with those involved, e.g., watersheds should be tended to by those inhabiting them, but monitored by those downstream who may be affected and consulted. All "commons" require responsibility to be shared by any and all concerned. But how to do so - avoiding the so-called "tragedy of the commons" - will vary according to circumstances. This is true up to the global level, e.g., responsibility for climate change, oceans, arctic regions, etc. The capitalist tendency to privatize commons, to enclose and "own" them is designed to monopolize control, limit responsibility/liability and subject the very notion of responsibility to the criterion of profits rather than to the collective interest in sustainability. Thus strip clearing forests, overgrazing grasslands, open-strip mining, oil & gas pollution from mining, all needing to be regulated by governments, which only do so under pressure from wider publics against the narrow interests of the capitalists concerned.

All of which plays out within larger, conflicting sets of concerns/preoccupations, desires/needs which guarantees the unavoidable political character of the problem and search for solutions. And, once again, "political character" means no singular solution to the problem you raise.

Many thanks Harry Cleaver for your thoughtful comment. Well explained. As a community-based researcher for the last 15 years, I can not agree more with your comment. Similarly, I also think, we as a researcher have our responsibilities to build our solidarity with community needs, practice, and sustainabilities. Change is not an event, it is a lifelong process. We as a researcher need to full fill our responsibilities towards our participant. We should not play an objective or neutral role. We need to be active and political for participants' needs as objective or neutral forms of research only benefit the colonial process. thanks again

Ranjan, Yes! Although I have been an academia-based researcher, I've had several students who have done field work in communities and organized their work for the benefit of those communities. That has involved engaging the community in the redesign of the research itself to make sure it meets local needs and designing the final result, e.g., a PhD dissertation to be of more use to the community than to its foes. I learned the dangers of NOT doing so in consultation with some researchers in India who discovered, to their dismay that publishing some results of their research in the Economic and Political Weekly (Mumbai) resulted in government intervention to disrupt the promising projects of self-organization they had written about. In two cases, of women workers in a big Mexican city barrio fighting for water services and of others in US-Mexican border industries, my students were able to work both sides - honestly with the workers, convertly with the government and management to craft research and findings to help those workers progress in their efforts. In the latter case (of the border), it took a confrontational battle over the issue of "objectivity" vs being-clear-about-whose-side-they-were-on to gain acceptance of the dissertation. Eventually both these projects not only benefited the communities but rewrites of the dissertations were published. I could give other examples. Just as I believe our duty as teachers is to help our students learn WHAT THEY FEEL THEY NEED TO LEARN, so too do I believe that as researchers in communities our duty is first and foremost to those in the communities, to helping them meet THEIR needs. I highly recommend the work of Gustavo Esteva, a one-time sociologist who became both a community researcher and activist advisor to mobilized communities. He introduced me to the activists in Tepito, Mexico City, whose efforts I wrote about in that article I cited on "The Uses of an Earthquake." See, for example, https://smile.amazon.com/Grassroots-Post-modernism-Remaking-Critique-Influence/dp/1783601825/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=Gustavo+Esteva&qid=1615759921&s=books&sr=1-3 and https://smile.amazon.com/Future-Development-Radical-Manifesto/dp/1447301080/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Gustavo+Esteva&qid=1615760025&s=books&sr=1-1