Participatory processes for improved emergency and relief management

Managing disasters is no easy task for elected or appointed authorities (e.g. municipality services), and relief forces, such as civil protection forces, fire brigades, or even the army. Be it technologically or naturally born, of natural origin or man-made, a disaster first appears as a crisis, or a “qualitative step”, that disturbs, or modifies, the daily cycle of society.

According to Lagadec, this first “technical” crisis becomes a “political” crisis in a second step, and then turns into a “social” crisis, which eventually leads to a destabilisation of the society. Lagadec (in Lalo, 1998) states that “the key to prevention is the political control (by the authorities) of the event”, because “a disaster directly questions the State’s responsibility concerning its main task, that is, to guarantee its citizens’ safety” (Lalo, 1998).

Military organisation of crisis management reinforces the efficiency and rationality of emergency interventions. Yet in doing so, public authorities neglect communicating with the population (Lalo, 1998), and secret and silence [from the authorities] may raise people’s suspicion (Lagadec) and erode the public’s trust and confidence in the capability of authorities to manage efficiently a disaster.

Much of the information presented in the following pages will be found in an extended form in several handbooks and practical guides dedicated to the management of disasters and emergencies (e.g.: “Disaster management handbook”, published by the ADB, 1991; “Local medical staff and communities confronting disasters”, published by WHO and IFRC, 1989).

Many handbooks for disaster management do indeed insist on the fact that disaster stricken communities must be considered as subjects, rather than as “objects” of relief-related actions.

Local communities, if not discouraged or placed in a passive position, react all the more promptly and efficiently, so as they are backed up (and not invaded and replaced) by external aid (Gunn, S. W. et al., 1989).

There are several reasons advocating for an increased participation of the public in both disaster planning and emergency management: 1) preparing the community before the disaster may reduce damage, 2) a larger number of lives may be saved by a trained community before the arrival of external relief forces, and 3) survival and health problems are better managed if the community is active and organised.

A well-prepared community may also contribute to enhance the quality of external relief aid by providing information on disaster damage, by contributing to proper assessment of needs, and by ensuring appropriate distribution of aid (and reduce the consequences of

parallel, illegal, marketing of relief aid). Public participation in crisis management activities may as well strengthen co-operation of community groups with local health and medical staff, as well as with other local actors (local authorities, rescue teams, communication and transport companies, shelter and catering services). Getting community members ready to take part to the management of flood situations should help authorities reduce the occurrence of chronic difficulties characterising many developing countries, as well as many municipalities in these countries (e.g.: lack of co-ordination and communication between services, difficult relationships between authorities and the public, unsound territorial distribution of health facilities and public services, etc.).

The following pages of this section focus on public participation in specific aspects of disaster management : (1) warning dissemination, (2) disaster management, and (3) real-size emergency drills.

a) Public participation in warning dissemination Efficiency ofjlood warning systems

According to Carter (1991), the effectiveness of warning systems is one of the most critical components in any nation’s capability to deal with disasters.

Among the key requirements in warning systems are the capability to initiate in-country warning, and the capability to disseminate warning at local community level. Warning has sometimes been described as the critical “hinge factor” in disaster management. In other words, it provides the vital link between preparedness measures and response action. From a preparedness point of view, the following aspects are of key importance (Carter, 1991). (1) The warning system must be known and understood by the general public, (2) the system must include back-up measures, in case its primary components fail or are damaged, (3) the warning system and/or its components must be tested and practised periodically.

Bourrelier et al. (2000) review the efficiency of warning in several floods that took place in France in 1992 and 1999, and point out the following elements as causing warning systems to dysfunction or to be poorly efficient:

1) Difficulty, for recipients of the warning message, to understand the technical content of the message,

2) Absence of flood-proof communication networks (e.g. for telephone-based warning),

3) Difficulty, for small communities with insufficient technical means, to communicate warnings to remote settlements, or to isolated community subgroups,

4) Other factors affecting warning efficiency: a) low interest granted by the public at risk to flood warnings, b) public’s empirical knowledge of flood hazard, thus reducing the credibility of the warning message, c) time-consuming processing of warning information within administration services.

The issue of competing information sources in disaster situation, should also be considered by local decision-makers in charge of flood mitigation and control. The credibility of the warning message may indeed be challenged according to certain differences within communities exposed to water-related hazards : community/familial information sources vs.

State or official sources, inhabitants with experience of past floods vs. newly settled inhabitants, “foreign” experts vs. river-based community groups, etc.

Public response to warnings : a psycho-social individual and group process

Empirical evidence shows differing patterns of behavioural response to warnings, among community groups.

Knowing existing hazards indeed does not necessarily lead people to take appropriate behaviour when the disaster strikes (Bourrelier et al., 2000): the warning message therefore should produce among warning recipients effective representations of risk, so that individual mobilisation and behavioural response can be effectively triggered. In other words, there exists a particular warning process for each given social system.

Mileti and Fitzpatrick (1994) show and interesting frame for analysing human behavioural response pattern to warnings (see document in annex).

Added-value ofpublic participation in the design offlood -warning procedures

Participatory processes involving communities in flood-prone areas are expected to provide decision-makers with a means to:

1) Identify technical (e.g. communication network) and non-structural (e.g. community- based) resources that are available for warning dissemination (including to remote settlements),

2) Choose from warning options in terms of form, content, redundancy rate, appropriate dissemination means, etc.) and link differing warning procedures with targeted community subgroups, if need be,

3) Implement participatory post-flood feedback assessment of warning dissemination, in order to assess for warning’s credibility, redundancy rate, accuracy, etc.

Two examples are likely to illustrate the potential added-value of public participation in the design of warning dissemination strategies. First, a project on warning systems for tropical cyclones, conducted in Mauritius. This project is part of the United Kingdom National IDNDR Committee’s “flagship” project on forecasts and warnings. It analysed the effectiveness of the systems for disseminating cyclone warnings on Mauritius, for there is a growing need for more accurate, timely and effectively disseminated warnings. Hazard warning systems are presented here as social and organisational processes employing technological and other means to reduce risks and losses. The project drew upon information and views from key local stakeholders, using as experimental method the Criteria- Development Matrix, and 27 criteria were used to evaluate a cyclone warning dissemination system, largely in qualitative terms. Conclusions showed that the existing system was performing well, though in remote islands, groups with limited resources and tourists needed more attention, and recommended an improvement in hazardous zones mapping.

Another project, conducted by the same, focused on the strengths and weaknesses of the warning dissemination process, and analysed the warning dissemination process for four types of hazard in six countries. This project looked at the performance of three groups in the chain of dissemination: (1) originators of warning messages, (2) intermediaries and (3) recipients. The projects highlights the important point that a warning system can only be as strong as its weakest link. Therefore, there is an urgent need for more attention to be paid to the design of the links throughout the warning dissemination system.

b) Public participation in disaster manapement

According to WHO-IFRC (1989), experience shows that, even without a specific preparation to disasters, the public and the local medical staff react much better [to disasters], provided that the community has developed beforehand activities and initiatives based upon:

- meeting, dialogue, exchange, expression of needs, information and communication;

- public debate and community action in order to understand disaster causes, to identify problems, and to design solutions in common;

- the development of community feeling through the valorisation of culture, resources, social values and customs, as well as of local products;

- fight against exclusion of disabled people, including the ones with mental disorders;

- the development of inner community solidarity and help;

- public meetings with local authorities to discuss and solve general community problems.

A local “disaster committee” should therefore be set up at community, district or city level, so that local authorities, relief forces and representatives of the public (e.g.: volunteers, NGOs) have the practical possibility to meet on a regular basis (e.g.: once a month) to carry out disaster mitigation initiatives, as well as emergency plans and drills. This committee may be first responsible for informing the population on existing hazards in order to avoid fear and panic when a disaster strikes; the committee should also be able to provide the public with:

safety instructions, real-time data on the evolution of the hazard and damage, as well as information on available shelters, food, and water.

The committee may also assist owners of public places, as well as authorities in charge of private companies, in designing - and testing - emergency and contingency plans.

Moreover, the committee should be given the mission to set up teams of volunteers among the public (for rescue or relief), and to train them for intervention on emergencies (preparation of relief material and facilities, lessons on elementary safety rules for rescue). Training schemes for volunteers may be planned at river basin level, so that teams from several communities and cities can get used to working together.

The World Health Organisation and the International Federation of red Cross and Red Crescent have established a framework likely to enable local authorities and relief forces to implement self-assessment of disaster situations at community level. A copy of this framework is displayed (in French) as annex document. For an overview of possible disaster committee duties, see box 3 1.

Box 31: Possible duties for the local disaster committee

Assisting local authorities in disaster management

1) Rescue: where are the victims ? How may they be reached and rescued ? 2) Water supply: where is it first needed ? How to transport and distribute it ? 3) Shelters: where are they ? Do they meet the actual population’s needs ?

4) External aid: what are the mechanisms co-ordinating its distribution to the public ? 5) Communication: impact assessment for roads, telephone network, radio, etc.

6) Transports: what are the available means ? What are the transportation priorities ?

Identifying local resource persons and civil officers for...

- public health and medical care, - communication and information, - transportation means and roads,

- water, food and shelter supply and co-ordination, - public works, facilities and buildings,

- industrial facilities and private companies, - wastewater management and mains networks,

- public order and social unrest (including looting in evacuated areas)

The committee should also operate as a link between the local and the national level (and in some cases with the international level) in order to provide governmental, federal or State authorities in charge of disaster management with accurate and updated (as real-time as possible) information on the situation. Several other issues may enter the responsibilities of the disaster committee: establishing a network of disaster-stricken families at district level (in order to identify their needs and distribute aid), implement a pre-disaster plan for the identification and preparation of possible places for shelter and solid waste disposal, design of scenarios for the evacuation and management of displaced populations, and involvement of community’s representatives in the distribution of aid in order to avoid speculation, privileges and parallel marketing of relief aid.

Yoshimoto and Suetsugi (1988) propose a series of low-cost “countermeasures in flood time” for use at local level by disaster-stricken communities, including rapid collection of flood damage information, real-time investigation of refuge activity, and publication of flood maps in case of levee break (see box 32). Such measures may be prepared for by citizens at local level, provided that local authorities tra.in some of them to manage local teams of volunteers, in order to increase efficiency of disaster management.

Box 3

c) Disaster and emergency real-size drills

Eventually, drills on flood emergencies should be designed and implemented by the administration, by local authorities and by emergency services in a joint undertaking.

This would provide opportunities to develop and communicate a “culture of mitigation” to the public, since such public drills would be a real-size test for all mitigation measures (effectiveness of flood warnings, plans, tools, systems) at both local and national levels. In this respect, the level of existing “individual culture of risk” is essential, and should be integrated in education curricula (Kert, 1999).

.

The civil society as a whole should indeed develop a culture of risk, and there should be built up a participatory strategy, involving all relevant stakeholders. Since zero-risk cannot be a reality, research and action should rather be oriented towards the concept of “acceptable risk”, as well as there should be clearly identified what are the specific socio-economic consequences of natural hazards in each local, community, context.

2.1.3 Public participation in post-disaster rehabilitation and feedback