Session 4 Concept note Community and civil society perspectives

ProVention Consortium Forum 2007

Making Disaster Risk Reduction Work

Dar es Salaam, February 13-15 2007

Workshop 4 Concept Note

“Community and civil society perspectives, local knowledge and coping strategies”

SESSION 1

(February 14, 09:00 – 10.30 hrs)

Background

In a bid to influence policy dialogue and enrich the African risk reduction agenda by bringing local perspectives into the debate, the ProVention Consortium Secretariat organised three forums in Dakar (2-3 November 2006), Johannesburg (21-22 November 2006) and Nairobi (6-7 December 2006). The forums were hosted in partnership with ENDA Réseau Urbain Participatif, the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and ActionAid Africa. They attracted 90 representatives of community-based organisations (CBOs), international NGOs and bilateral partners, local government, research and training institutions, the Red Cross/Red Crescent movement and UN agencies, who have been implementing community-based risk reduction initiatives in Africa.

Participants shared case studies and experiences from the following 20 countries: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe. Their case studies focused on the following risks related to natural hazards: drought, locust infestation, fires, flooding, volcanic eruptions, gas intoxication, cyclones and coastal erosion. Others highlighted issues such as climate change, conflict, food insecurity, HIV/AIDS and other epidemics and income shocks as key threats currently facing communities in Africa. Special attention was given to the vulnerability of households in informal settlements due to lack of basic services such as sanitation and waste management. The forums also addressed communication issues and discussed selected Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) tools and methodologies.

Objectives

This session seeks to present and discuss key findings and main recommendations of the three regional workshops. To this end, selected participants of the three regional meetings will inform the audience on the risk reduction context in their respective sub-region and provide perspectives on how best to reduce risks at the community level. The audience is invited to share its perceptions and experiences to advance the discussions and provide further advice on how and what to integrate into the African risk reduction agenda for effective risk reduction at the local level.

Expectations

This session is expected to help participants gain a basic understanding of the challenges and opportunities for effective risk reduction at community level. The session will also provide prospective entry points and pitfalls that will help the practitioners in their work in Africa and other continents. In addition, the additional findings and issues recorded during the session shall help to guide the future activities of the ProVention Consortium in Africa.

Key points for discussion

The following statements are derived from the debate and recommendations of the three regional fora. They are by no means exhaustive, but rather highlight some key issues that were presented during discussions in Dakar, Johannesburg and Nairobi and are intended to trigger debate. The remarks do not necessarily represent the opinion neither of the concept note author nor of the presenter.

FINDING 1 on KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT: The current way of disseminating risk reduction information through untargeted distribution of documents that have limited relevance or are poorly adapted to the local context is ineffective. In addition, training sessions on DRR in Africa are often run by people with a good conceptual knowledge of the subject but with limited hands-on experience in vulnerability reduction work with local communities. Moreover, as one forum participant noted, it is mostly the same national NGOs, CBOs, local administration and international actors that attend training sessions and conferences, though some of them are no longer directly involved in the day-to-day support to local communities for DRR. Without sufficient presence “on the ground”, it is obviously difficult to reach the right people to train.

There is a need to invest in better knowledge management to capture and share both local experiences, international research and findings and effective and replicable methods, approaches and appropriate technologies and practices for DRR, that can be developed and ‘owned’ by affected or at-risk communities.

In parallel, it is important to include communities in research projects and to validate indigenous knowledge systems. Some participants felt that such knowledge, when integrated with modern knowledge, offers a powerful contribution for dealing with disasters. Others felt the need to approach this carefully due to the possibility of myths and superstitions being taken as scientific fact.

Local communities should also be further linked up with global and regional DRR information networks and their experiences shared through them. Complementary networks of local and national disaster management authorities and of NGOs and community animators on DRR were proposed and could also take the form of an e-forum.

Another challenge discussed was that of terminology. While there is a need to keep internationally accepted terms for DRR, it is also important to ensure the use of simple, adapted language to convey concepts used at international level so that communities who form the bulk of the uninformed can enhance their understanding and awareness of the terms. This should provide the ground for a bottom-up and top-down cross-fertilization approach. Additional confusion is created by different terms used by the climate change/climate adaptation and the DRR community. Communication thus needs to be improved between these communities, practitioners and external partners.

There is a further disconnect between researchers and field workers at the community level. This leads to the question on how we can best ensure that research findings and technological progress is known, made available in a user-friendly way and effectively used and validated at the local level. The setting up of “Boundary organizations”[1] needs to be promoted as a successful approach in this regard. This will further linkages and cooperation between academic institutions and NGOs by identifying activities of common interest to be undertaken jointly such as documentation of good practices, project evaluations and peer-reviews. It will also help NGOs to facilitate dissemination of research findings within communities among others.

Universities and research institutions thus need to take a more active role in disaster risk reduction and should seek partnerships with civil society organisations. University students could be invited to carry out DRR action research and gain practical field experience while NGO staff could be offered short-term DRR courses in academic institutions. In addition, universities and research centres could provide a forum for collaborative exchange between the climate change/climate adaptation, development and DRR community. In terms of support for research, participants also suggested a stronger involvement of the private sector.

QUESTION: What is needed to make the current approach to DRR knowledge management in Africa more relevant and applicable for practitioners and other actors at the local level?

FINDING 2 on GOVERNANCE, POLICY COHERENCE, ACCOUNTABILITY and ADVOCACY:

Governance

The absence of (or deficiencies in) the disaster risk reduction system set up by central and local governments is a major obstacle for effective risk reduction in Africa. While international declarations are easily signed and sometimes disaster laws promulgated, the effective implementation of action plans remains challenging. At the sub-national level, local governments do not always provide an enabling environment for risk reduction. Key elements in this regard are lack of capacity, political commitment and the lack of and/or irregularity in funding and provision of resources. It was therefore suggested to include budget lines and to establish a fund for disaster related interventions in public and NGO expenditure plans. Local and international stakeholders should urge and facilitate the understanding for creating commitment and ownership of DRR action by national authorities. A cornerstone on this is the integration of disaster management in Governments’ action plans and Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSs). Also, there is a need to clarify the authorities’ roles and responsibilities in a context of decentralized disaster risk management to avoid confusion between different governmental layers.

Policy coherence

Participants also noted that the international community’s approach lacks coherence, as support for development often neglects DRR and sometimes even increases risks to natural and other hazards. The international community and its national counterparts remain largely mired in a humanitarian emergency response approach despite the rhetoric and presence of a limited number of small units, set up at their headquarters to further DRR. Most staff have responsibility for prevention/preparedness and emergency response, with the response side gaining most attention. In parallel to the national level, effective partnerships need to be established to also create or strengthen sub-regional institutions for disaster management and prevention. This would greatly help to maximize participation from all stakeholders to promote and implement a broad culture of prevention, preparedness and mitigation.

Accountability

Considering that Government’s primary responsibility is to protect the well-being and safety of their citizens, their commitment to risk reduction is an obligation. They are accountable to their citizens, who can claim a right to safety and protection. Beyond the Government administrations' own limitation and capacity constraints (in terms of knowledge), a lack of commitment can thus not be an acceptable condition.

Besides national authority’s accountability, there are also questions concerning the international support system set in place. It has to be noted that the international system is scattered and does not facilitate an understanding and easy support for local community based initiatives. The humanitarian emergency response and the DRR community hardly ever cooperate, which is expected. This leads to an accountability problem, where successful approaches to DRR remain limited in their extent as these interventions are rarely “mainstreamed into development action” and/or linked up with humanitarian response.

An example to overcome the separation between the humanitarian and development community, related to Early Warning Systems (EWS), could be the use of a livelihood monitoring system and livelihood indicators for development interventions and not only for humanitarian work. There is at the same time also a need to enlarge the indicator basis.

Advocacy

To increase support for DRR, more effective advocacy through joint campaigns of NGOs, academics, private sector and government could be envisaged. The International DRR Day could gain additional attention through a concerted approach by all stakeholders. Media campaigns could be enhanced and policy makers involved in the design and implementation of the programs. Social icons (marabous, stars and opinion leaders including political leaders) could be involved in sensitising stakeholders on DRR. A network of journalists could increase messages on DRR in the media.

QUESTION. What measures are required to improve governance, policy coherence, accountability and advocacy for disaster risk reduction in Africa?

FINDING 3 on PROMOTING DISASTER RISK REDUCTION IN A CONTEXT OF MULTIPLE “SOCIO-NATURAL” RISKS

The international community, national and local governments are struggling to find appropriate DRR entry points in a complex context of multi-dimensional risks. In Africa, issues such as livelihood and food insecurity, conflict, forced migration, political and economic instability, HIV/AIDS and other health crises are in many cases inextricably linked to disaster vulnerability. Furthermore, vulnerability to drought and food insecurity remains a priority concern for millions of people on the continent while the focus of the DRR community has traditionally remained on sudden onset hazards. Moreover, as climate change and variability indicate the likelihood of more extreme weather events, the subject of drought as a “creeping disaster” poses an ever-growing challenge both for Africa and the international disaster reduction system.

Should the international DRR community therefore open up to also embrace these complex risks and creeping hazards more effectively or should these be dealt with separately? What role can international partners play in this respect and are they living up to what local communities expect from them in terms of vulnerability reduction?

Participants at the forums stated that it is up to the communities themselves in the first place to define the risks they are facing and want to see addressed. External actors should thus be more responsive to local needs and demands for community development in general. In some cases, according to the forum participants, DRR activities address issues not considered a priority by communities. Considering the multidimensional and multisectoral nature of hazards and risks in Africa, the question was raised whether it would not be preferable to go beyond the traditional definition of risk and broaden up the DRR approach to also include community development challenges and chronic vulnerabilities. Participants argued that one approach could be to put more emphasis on ensuring links between disaster risk reduction work and sustainable livelihood activities.

QUESTION: How can disaster risk reduction actors at the different levels deal most effectively with the complex, multi-dimensional and chronic nature of disaster risk in Africa?

FINDING 4 on WORKING WITH COMMUNITIES: It remains a challenge for international partners, local governments and national NGOs to effectively work on DRR with communities. Forum participants pointed out that it is important to consider the “community” in its diverse composition, to respect cultural traditions and beliefs and to disaggregate risk data and define specific support systems adapted to individuals and groups. A proper stakeholder analysis is therefore crucial. Furthermore, genuine participation of communities in all stages of the project cycle – from project design to implementation and monitoring and evaluation – should not be taken as a given. Risk reduction at the local level should be community driven and based on community demand, allowing for maximum participation. Also, the use of locally adapted participatory tools and methodologies needs to be expanded. The use of these tools will contribute to increased understanding and respect for community capacities and resources, which are often overlooked when external agencies do a risk assessment and plan for risk reduction work. Also the coping strategies and traditional knowledge of communities need to be acknowledged by giving them value and merit in risk reduction strategies.

QUESTION: How can current risk reduction work at the local level in Africa be optimized to more effectively enhance local resilience and reduce vulnerabilities of the most at-risk communities and households?


Recommended reading