Community Based Response and Recovery: Specific Issues

Abstract

The chapter deals with the two projects set in the post disaster scenario of Kosi floods in year 2008, in State of Bihar, India. The chapter depicts the experience of the authors, who have faced the challenges during its implementation, specifically while linking recovery to larger rehabilitation and mainstreaming DRR process in the developmental plans of the state. The chapter realizes the fact that the while the key identified areas such as shelters and health were important, it was more important that these sectors were also assessed in light of the prevalent socio economic conditions, eco systems and governance. The chapter also lays emphasis on the need to strengthen the resilience of the communities through knowledge enhancement and training and capacity building.

Appendix: Literature Review

14.1.1 Community Based Disaster Management

Communities are at the frontline of disasters. Over the last two decades it has become apparent that top-down approaches to disaster risk management alone fail to address the specific local needs of vulnerable communities, often ignoring the local capacities and resources. At times this approach further increases the vulnerability of the community. In response to the limitations of this top-down methodology, the community-based disaster management emerged as an alternative approach, during the decades of 1980s and 1990s.

ADPC (http://www.adpc.net/v2007/Programs/CBDRM/Default.asp)

In developing countries such as those in South Asia, where disasters are recurrent and heavy on impact, such strategies help communities prepare better to respond to disaster situations. This bottom-up approach has received wide acceptance because considered communities are the best judges of their own vulnerability and can make the best decisions regarding their well being. Through CBDM, the people’s capacity to respond to emergencies is increased by providing them with more access and control over resources and basic social services. The CBDM approach provides opportunities for the local community to evaluate their own situation based on their own experiences initially. Under this approach, the local community not only becomes part of creating plans and decisions, but also becomes a major player in its implementation. Although the community is given greater roles in the decision-making and implementation processes, CBDM does not ignore the importance of scientific and objective risk assessment and planning (Pandey and Okazaki 2005).

Role of various stakeholders in CBDM: Community Based Disaster Management is a process, which leads to a locally appropriate and locally “owned” strategy for disaster risk reduction. The most significant aspect of CBDM is participation of all stakeholders in the activities undertaken. This is achieved through awareness generation at multiple levels that lead to stakeholder ownership of the initiatives. Community involvement ensures that the activities address local needs and take into consideration local resources and capacities.

The aim of CBDM approach is to reduce vulnerabilities and strengthen people’s capacity to cope with hazards (Yodmani 2001). Because a community is involved in the whole process, their felt needs and real needs as well as inherent resources are considered. Therefore there is a greater likelihood that problems will be addressed with appropriate interventions. The aim of CBDM is to create resilient people living within resilient communities within resilient environments within resilient countries.

“Characteristics of Disaster-resilient Community”—a guiding note by Oenone (2007), addresses capacity across several levels and thematic areas. Governance, risk assessment, knowledge, education, risk management, vulnerability, reduction, disaster preparedness and response all have components of capacity.

“The capacity to cope up with unanticipated dangers after they have become manifest, learning to bounce back” (Aaron 1991:77). Local knowledge, skills, determination, livelihoods, cooperation, access to resources and representation are all vital factors enabling people to bounce back from disaster” (IFRC 2005:1).

The opportunity to change, adjust and adapt following a disaster is to find creative ways to increase the resilience of everyone and everything. “The capacity to adapt existing resources and skills to new systems and operating conditions” (Comfort 1999:21).

Effectiveness of CBDM strategies: An overview of CBDM strategies implemented around the world clearly suggests that while communities at risk are put at the centre, the solutions are often imposed from outside. Moreover, as pointed out during a national meet in India, of community representatives on disaster risk reduction (NADRR 2007), communities become vulnerable due to:

• An overemphasis on technology masks social, political, and economic issues that underline vulnerabilities

• Many development policies and programs create or increase vulnerability

• Reconstruction and development policies sometimes increase vulnerability which leaves disaster struck communities worse off

• Community knowledge and solutions are getting lost due to non-recognition

Post Disaster Response: The Synthesis Report of the Tsunami Evaluation Coalition cites “the international humanitarian response system needs to work much harder to understand local contexts and work with and through local structures. It is not just a question of supplying quantities of aid to far off places, it is also about making sure aid is appropriate and improves the capacities of local structures to do it their way. International support should aim to empower affected people to articulate their needs, demand accountability from international agencies, and to make their own choices. International agencies must respect the role and responsibility of affected states as the primary duty bearers and authorities in responding to natural disasters.” (TEC 2006).

Community Based Disaster Recovery is the most viable and spontaneous reaction of a disaster affected community to help itself get back to normal life. It has been best demonstrated by instances of community action itself that in most cases communities are very capable of taking care of their recovery needs too. With a little bit of facilitation support from outside, disaster affected communities can not only manage their recovery needs, but do so in a manner that is very sensitive to local needs and capacities. In this way, community based disaster recovery turns out to be very appropriate and efficient.

Disaster recovery is a subject that is making a fast transition from a welfare and philanthropy based activity to a community based one. This positive development is based on a clear realization that communities are best placed to understand their needs and to fulfill them in the most efficient way with just a little support from outside. Indigenous knowledge is often more practical than external technological aid. Local systems are more sustainable than imported ones. Cultural values are more important than innovative designs. This has been established by a number of past experiences, and also by the fact that many a times externally aided interventions is so alien to the local context that they are not even used by the beneficiaries.

It can be seen from the studies and documentation of almost all disaster recovery programmes that the three primary areas of recovery after disaster are health, habitat and livelihoods. Survival of the affected population is of supreme importance. Once their life is secured, the issue of getting back to a livable house that protects from the vagaries of nature, and accompanying infrastructure takes importance. Thereafter, it becomes important to restore livelihoods, so that a sustainable means of supporting families can be established, to make them self reliant. Much of this can be achieved through people’s actions. In fact, this must be attained through people’s actions to the extent possible. For, if these actions are carried out through external aid instead of local action, then they only go on to increase dependence and in turn vulnerability. In a post disaster situation, focus on recovery of health, habitat and livelihoods, at least to the levels that existed before the disaster. Try to do it through people’s actions.

Recovery of Health: A community based approach in health recovery does not mean that the community replaces the health services; it means that the community takes care of the health recovery needs to the extent possible with appropriate knowledge and timely small scale actions. For specialized inputs the expert teams will be required, but again, a prepared community will be able to provide local support to the external teams and thereby assist in carrying out their functions more efficiently.

Shelter Recovery: Immediate to Permanent: While minimum standards of shelter reconstruction have been laid out in the Sphere Standards, such efforts are still grossly inadequate in delivering housing that people want to live in. Community based shelter recovery can be a participatory process with community leading it and being supported with limited technical assistance from facilitating agencies.

Village designs are driven by environmental sustenance. City designs, by their basic purpose and definition, are driven by economic considerations. They disregard the environment and the human being for the sake of the economy. Natural disasters should not get compounded due to an imposition of the economic scheme of planning at the cost of the environmental and social ones. An ideal rehabilitation plan has to balance the two considerations—of sustainable development and economic growth.

A suggested process is to adhere to the organic layout of the disaster affected settlement to the extent possible. This will cause least disruption in the functionality of the settlement, and maintain a higher sense of belonging for the inhabitants. Since they are already dislocated and traumatised, a friendly and old home-like resettlement will have the mildest impact on them. Within this framework, addition and improvement of facilities wherever required can and must be done.

Building Community Capacity: Overcoming Shocks and Stresses: At the heart of a successful CBDRM practice lies local coping capacity. This, also seen as resilience, may be defined as the capacity of a system, community or society potentially exposed to hazards to adapt, by resisting or changing in order to reach and maintain an acceptable level of functioning and structure (ISDR 2004).

It is important to define here the scope of community’s own coping capacity. While most communities are able to absorb stresses at a smaller scale or in recurrent forms, they may not be in a position to absorb larger shocks. If they are not allowed to deal with small scale or recurrent stresses, their vulnerability to large shocks decreases. The role of external agency then becomes critical in enhancing community’s own capacities. Based on this initial presumption, the author has examined selected projects from his field work (as an external agency working with communities at risk) as a means to derive a model approach to CBDM. These are covered in the next chapter.