Can communities respond to disasters?
When disasters happen, the aid machinery flies in to rescue, deliver and drop aid. Big international agencies use their ‘pre-positioned’ supplies and truck, ship or fly them from their ‘hubs’ into the disaster zone. They use their expertise and cash to mobilise the response, hand in hand with the media crews that follow the story.
In the first few days of an earthquake, typhoon or flood we hear from the UN and other ‘big players’ about how quickly they had made it to the disaster zone, meanwhile newspaper and television appeals urge people to put their hand in their pockets to donate.
But what do we hear about the efforts by local organisations who live and work with those affected by a disaster? Very little. Do we hear from those affected and the ways in which they are responding to their crisis? Probably not.
After the earthquake in Haiti, women in a poor neighbourhood in Port-au-Prince prepared meals for residents who lost it all. With some support from a local partner organisation, they received cash to buy the meat, vegetables and rice to feed their neighbours.
But not so long ago, the Grenfell Tower tragedy in London saw people distributing sandwiches and water for the survivors and the emergency services. People inside and outside the community organised clothes and cash donations and a centre used to store them asked the public not to bring anymore. So overwhelming was the response.
What is the evidence telling us
People don’t sit around waiting for organisations to respond. Communities come together and try to do all they can to alleviate their own suffering.
A recent research study - part of a consortium project led by Christian Aid and Kings College London and funded by DFID - asked over 300 survivors of crises what we could do better in the design and delivery of humanitarian interventions in order to leave disaster-affected communities more resilient to future shocks.
When asked about resilience, the answer from crises survivors was stark. Resilience to them means having the skills and capacity to look after yourself whilst knowing how and where to ask for support when needed.
This is one of the rare studies that directly asks crises survivors and community members to tell us what works best in humanitarian response.
The study comes one year after the World Humanitarian Summit and feeds directly into the Charter for Change, an initiative led by both national and international NGOs, to implement changes to the humanitarian system to enable more locally-led response.
Six principles to improve emergency response
Evidence from this research has identified six core principles for strengthening community resilience in an immediate humanitarian response and better linking humanitarian response to longer term development.
The principles identified include:
- Allow and enable the community to co-run the response
Survivors have expressed that they would like to be involved from the offset and empowered to run the intervention themselves, with the support of the non-governmental organisations.
2. Coordinate interventions and work with the government
A number of respondents called for just one organisation to work in the community, avoiding the confusion, anxiety and duplication that multiple actors can create. All interventions should be designed to coordinate and work with all levels of the government.
3. Support community cohesion and establish effective two-way communication
Social cohesion and community togetherness is an essential attribute required for resilience. Poor communication is a common issue that has a negative impact on community cohesion. Effective, two-way communication between the community and humanitarian organisations is an essential aspect of a humanitarian response.
4. Address underlying causes of vulnerability: protect and prepare
Tackle root causes of vulnerability from the offset. A lack of independence or empowerment and societal inequalities produce vulnerability and limit resilience building.
5. Include psycho-social support
Support well being and mental health as they are essential components of individual, household and community resilience. The emotional, spiritual and mental impact of crises significantly limit the ability for communities to bounce back after a crisis.
6. Ensure income generation, livelihoods and savings are included from the start of any intervention
Survivors stressed the importance of capacity building on livelihoods and savings. Communities cannot bounce back unless they can independently earn enough to save a surplus of money and resources as a safety net in the event of a future crisis.
What next?
In May 2017, the study was launched at the UNISDR’s Global Platform (watch the video below), and currently researchers are working with Local to Global Protection and the Church of Sweden to develop and pilot the study’s recommendations to humanitarian responses with our partners in Kenya, Myanmar and the Philippines over the next few months.
We are confident that putting these recommendations in practice will transform the current response to humanitarian emergencies and pave the way for more resilient communities.
