Message-ID: <9504112148.AA01336@gn.apc.org> Date: Tue, 11 Apr 1995 22:48:34 BST From: Patrik Schumann <mailto:ecoasys@GN.APC.ORG> Subject: Re: Disaster preparedness and response in Africa To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L
At 05:58 95-4-11 -0400, Shaun Walsh wrote: >...focusing on the training of people to prepare themselves to
>better respond to an emergency. I am always surprised that no matter
>what the emergency is and which NGO's are responding I see the same
>basic mistakes being made over and over again. It is as if NGO's do
>not institutionalise their emergency response capacity and every new
>emergency is like the first day of school...
>
>Sharing of information, operational collaboration, joint assessments
>and (the most complex and sensitive issue) joint fundraising are some
>of the areas NGO's, local and international, need to work closer
>together BEFORE an emergency happens.
>
>Why am I posting this on the development list? I believe investment
>in collaborative disaster preparedness and response is the first step
>towards development. Every relief worker should see an emergency
>response as a development opportunity IF they are trained accordingly.
>
>I would like to know if there are any listings, discussion groups, or
>the need for one, that I can join that encompasses some of the above
>thoughts?
Shaun, I do not have a straight answer to your question. However, your comments are resonant with our own experience. We would like to join you in the search for a forum in which these issues can be directly addressed.
Last year we undertook a survey/study for Intermediate Technology Development Group of the involvement of NGOs in disaster-resistant housing reconstruction, including other aspects of mitigation and preparedness. While we used the Internet to make numerous contacts, we did not find any substantive information or discussion here. However, numerous (160+) direct inquiries consistently brought us up against either the inaccessibility or non-existence of sufficient information from which to construct detailed case studies. Furthermore, a distinct reticence if not hostility became apparent when certain prominent organisations and experts were approached. Last, but not least, we found serious problems in what passes for a track record of project activity in this area. One indication of the controversial nature of our findings is that they were not, as had been proposed, circulated as a call for better documentation, evaluation, exchange, coordination, collaboration, etc.
Before that, I conducted a field consultancy in Khartoum, Sudan, where a 1988 inundation destroyed 200 000 dwellings. Despite millions in reconstruction assistance, and the involvement of several agencies and NGOs in related shelter development and appropriate building technology initiatives, it is probable that all but a few dozen structures were rebuilt without any external advice let alone substantial improvements. Working with academic institutions and foreign NGOs, I was still unable to obtain adequate data for a comparative evaluation of both construction processes and intervention methodologies. In fact, despite a documented deterioration of indigenous building, it seemed the onus was inappropriately being placed at the level of household development rather than municipal planning.
There is a complexity of political, economic, institutional, operational, and financial issues underlying such situations. Unfortunately, I am not clear about what or who is in any position to give training orientated at development after disaster. Perhaps you can shed some more light on this for us.
Regards,
Patrik Schumann Principal ecOasys (by design) building ecosystems
421 Cornell Avenue, SE 43 Holland Street Albuquerque, NM 87106 London W8 4LX USA ENGLAND
+1 (505) 254 3990 +44 [0171] 937 8255 mailto:ecoasys@igc.apc.org ecoasys@gn.apc.org