Public participation in post-disaster rehabilitation and feedback

Several administrative procedures should be designed beforehand by local authorities in order to avoid delays in the post-disaster allocation of aid (financial and in kind, national and international).

In this view, the disaster committee should support post-disaster socio-economic development schemes compatible with local traditions and values, and based on skills and resources available at local level. In other words, disaster-related aid provided to communities should not increase the dependence of populations and settlements.

Public participation is here expected to assist authorities in assessing available skills and resources at community level for post-disaster socio-cultural (memory and traditional values and customs) and socio-economic development (employment, economic activities, etc.). Resource allocation for post disaster rehabilitation should therefore focus on:

1) the development and backup of productive and commercial activities based on the use of local resources,

2) the professional training on above mentioned activities and on job creation related to local reality,

3) the realisation of services and infrastructures essential to the community, and 4) the improvement of transportation and communication systems for the disaster- stricken area.

The rehabilitation process will indeed be made more efficient if all components of the civil society are to take part to the drafting, design and implementation of both rehabilitation plans, and socio-economic (re)development schemes. Disasters have therefore been presented elsewhere as “an opportunity to improve social and technical systems”, and the participation of the public should thus be enhanced in order to:

1) assess for the efficiency of disaster management procedures,

2) reduce vulnerability sources that have been identified during the disaster, and 3) increase disaster-related awareness and capacity-building for the future.

This is the purpose of community participation in feedback procedures.

b) Involving communities in post-disaster feedback procedures

On behalf of the French Ministry for Land-use planning and the Environment, Suzanne et al.

(1999) conducted a strategic assessment mission on the issue of the “organisation of experience feedback in the field of natural hazards”.

The authors identify the advantages of (post-disaster) experience feedback:

1) to compare efficiently disasters according to their gravity, 2) to improve knowledge and mapping of hazards and vulnerability, 3) to update mitigation-related land-use policies, if any,

4) to integrate mitigation goals in rehabilitation and reconstruction phases, 5) to foster maintenance of hazard control means,

6) to improve disaster forecasting and warning dissemination,

7) to improve the involvement of stakeholders in disaster management, 8) to inform the general public, including children, on hazard-related issues.

Suzanne et al. (1999) also insist that experience feedback should be designed in such a way that it fosters and keeps alive the “memory of past disasters” at local level. Local authorities would largely benefit from post-flood multidisciplinary commissions studying the conditions of occurrence of water-related disasters.

Such commissions may indeed involve citizens and local NGOs in order to take stock of the socio-economic impact of the flood (in terms of perception, vulnerability and damage).

These committees would then issue local socio-technical reports (that may be later analysed at national level) presenting lessons learned. Centralisation of such reports would make it possible for authorities to implement and benefit from efficient feedback of past floods (Kert,

1999).

There are always lessons to be learned from the experience of communities confronting, or having confronted, disasters and emergencies, The question is, how can local authorities identify, collect and capitalise on this experience ? Hereunder are listed some questions, that municipality officials and services, as well as disaster committee members, may wish to ask to community members, in order to benefit from the public’s expertise regarding water-related disasters (see box 33). Feedback from the public, and in particular from community groups located in areas much affected by the disaster, may be collected during public hearings, anonymous “ideas’ box”, individual interviews, systematic questionnaires, etc. Participation of the public in feedback procedures may also provide individuals with a feeling that they are less “victims” of the disaster, and that their involvement may increase the capacity-building and well-being levels of the community as a whole.

These questions might be asked both before the disaster (during the information and mitigation phase, so that authorities can assess for the dissemination rate and efficiency of disaster-related information) and after it (so that authorities can assess the social added-value of disaster management procedures, and identify what solutions may improve the community’s preparedness to hazards, or reduce its vulnerability). The public should be involved in these feedback schemes, and the feedback’s findings and results should be made available to the community. Some authorities may think that there is a political risk in doing so; it is true, feedback procedures may identify and focus on disaster-related responsibilities and thus be a cause of political distrust in the next elections at community (or even regional and national) level. Yet, public participation in feedback procedures is likely to increase long- term trust towards authorities.

Bor - r3.

i

3: Questions iritended to assess for post-disaster community’s feedback Lessons learned on mitigation strategies: a feedback from the public - How efficient was the content, media and quality of mitigation-related information ? - How efficient was the dissemination of mitigation-related information ?

-Where all community groups reached by the information campaigns ? - Was the information material sufficiently target-oriented ?

- Were information sources appropriate ?

Suzanne et al. (1999) provide formal recommendation for the practical implementation of experience feedback procedures : at strategic decision level, and in practice. At strategic decision level, experience feedback should aim at achieving the following goals: a) enable authorities to set up a nation-wide database on disasters, hazards, and vulnerability ; b) provide multidisciplinary analysis of past disasters, including efficiency assessment of disaster management and related mitigation measures ; c) ensure dissemination of feedback results, in particular towards information providers, so that the commitment of these is recognised by authorities. In practice, experience feedback may follow three practical steps:

1) In days after the disaster, all available information should be collected at local level (interviews with stakeholders, authorities, community leaders, etc.). This phase should be completed within one month.

2) A second step (lasting 3 to 6 months) should cover the following goals:

a) collect more specific information and data on the disaster (e.g. flood return period, analysis of the pre-disaster context as regards mitigation measures actually implemented, if any,

b) assess for the efficiency of forecasting systems before and during the disaster (including warning dissemination),

c) describe the stages of the disaster (timing, relations between stakeholders),

d) list first decisions made after the disaster (e.g. updating of mitigation measures) ; special attention should also be paid to the shift, if any, in the vulnerability of disaster- stricken community members and groups.

3) Within about two years, authorities should:

a) take stock of lessons learned from the disaster,

b) ensure that updating of mitigation measures is effective, and

c) keep (standardised) disaster data stored in readily accessible information systems.

Suzanne et al. (1999) propose to collect feedback information according to a specific administrative form (along with direct, face-to-face or group, interviews), so that there can be implemented further statistical processing, for instance at river basin or at national levels.