"We need cumulative, coherent and transparent common resources. Without these, disaster risk reduction will remain largely analytic and resilience will remain largely the strength of those affected. United we stand, divided we fall." - Tom Corsellis, Executive Director, Shelter Centre, Geneva, Switzerland
Ten years after the
Indian Ocean Tsunami, the gaps left by those who were lost have not closed. We
owe them, the survivors and those at risk from future catastrophes, the ability
to learn the lessons from that day. Currently, for example, the technical guidance
that resulted from the Tsunami is predominantly written in English, intended
for an international audience; yet we have largely lost the significant body of
knowledge and tools in national languages, from standard contracts to
beneficiary lists. The humanitarian community in particular has little
operational institutional memory beyond each response. National civil society, co-opted during emergencies, generally returns to developmental activities
without consolidating what humanitarian lessons it has learnt into enhanced
capacity.
We need to make better
use of information and knowledge which could be available to us. The internet
is not available to everyone in the region impacted by the Tsunami. In 2005
only around 9% of Asia Pacific were internet users, however today the ITU
estimates that the figure is now over 45%.
My contention is that
our learning has been incremental and significant progress will be possible
only if two structural changes are achieved.
First, we must bridge
adequately humanitarian and development mechanisms, locally, nationally,
regionally and globally. International contributions to the response over the
past ten years should not have been offered and managed in two uncoordinated
phases. The institutions that constitute this separation are making a new
attempt to build this bridge at policy level through the ‘Disaster Recovery
Framework’ (DRF). Nationally, recognition is needed both that many disasters
are regional and that international assistance, when it is sought, should occur
within a single pre-agreed mechanism, tailored to national and regional
capacities and needs. The intended outputs will be appropriate and predictable
mechanisms or frameworks, able to generate plans of action and iterate them
rapidly throughout implementation, in response to changing circumstances.
Secondly, to improve
outcomes, coherence similar to the DRF will be required in implementation
capacity. The communities of practice identified in the Solutions Exchange
offer an excellent starting point, however we remain far too fragmented to
identify, agree, collate, disseminate, learn and implement lessons effectively.
Where is the information map of available capacity? Where is our collective
memory, locally, nationally, regionally and globally? How does capacity meet to
identify and agree good practice? Are the drills and training available
sufficient and inclusive?
Lessons
1. Information mapping: Where is the information map of available capacity? We need a cumulative common
information management platform that captures details of affected populations,
our primary capacity, along with infrastructure and agencies. Thewww.sahanafoundation.org, which
started in Sri Lanka in response to the Tsunami, enables “organizations and
communities to better prepare for and respond to disasters”. A similar approach
needs to be developed upon a global mapset, such as http://www.openstreetmap.org/,and
adopted internationally, to support regional as well as national response.
Disasters frequently strike in the same place more than once and it is
unacceptable that we lose the detailed data gained from previous events and
subsequent achievements. Each stakeholder will need to be able to access and
contribute in any language, from governments to communities themselves.
2. Collective memory: Where is our collective memory, locally, nationally, regionally and globally?
Knowledge is currently held in hundreds of thousands of online libraries and
databases, such as the excellent http://www.preventionweb.net/english/,
but managed by institutions with varying IT investments. One hope is that these
existing resources will agree and adopt open knowledge standards, effectively
creating a single resource. In the interim, they need to be linked and
supported by a common library, similar to the www.humanitarianlibrary.org that we developed, where users may
upload content real-time in any language and arrange it into collections, or
‘channels’, as on YouTube. The content links back to the publisher, further
mapping capacity, and can be linked to information mapping (1.) and a network
of networks (3.).
3. Network of networks: How does capacity meet to identify and agree good practice? To capture
information and knowledge real-time, during a response as well as between them,
we also need a more place where humanitarian and developmental stakeholders at
every level can meet and interact as communities of practice, like a version of
‘TED Talks’. Initiatives such as the Solutions Exchange must be linked and
expanded through a multi-lingual common interface – a network of networks – and
supported by online videoconferencing and events management tools. Inclusion
and the simple awareness of ongoing discussions are barriers to the cohesion of
capacity, as resilience, and are technically straightforward to support. There
is no longer any excuse for meetings in Chennai or Geneva to be open only to
those able to be physically present. Conclusions on good practice should be
linked to a common knowledge base (2.) and capacity building (4.).
4. Capacity building: Are the drills and training available sufficient and inclusive? Many see
capacity building initiatives currently as piecemeal and inconsistent, yet in
every town there is training capacity, whether through government, NGOs or the
Red Cross Movement. There is the opportunity to agree common open source
training in local languages, carrying local messages globally and vice versa,
offering a space for all stakeholders to share and understand common experiences.
We have attempted this with our ‘CORE’ training, implemented in inter-agency
events throughout South East Asia with HFHI and now IOM as key partners.
Face-to-face training can be made more sustainable through franchising to
trainers in towns, removing the main training costs of transport and
accommodation, which can be further disseminated both live and recorded through
Massive Open Online Courses, or MOOCs. Every adaption of training materials in
every language used should be uploaded, as part of the conditions of use, and
supported with the MOOCs through an online resource, supported by local data
(1.), knowledge (2.) and state-of-the-art good practice (3.).
I played a only brief
role in the tsunami response, departing with two days’ notice to coordinate the
initial shelter response in Sri Lanka, seconded to UNHCR by DFID. There we
rapidly agreed a strategy with Government, introducing the ‘transitional
shelter’ approach to transit housing. We knew that reconstruction would take
some years and people needed a way to live productively and in dignity over
that period. It was important that the response was also equitable, supporting those returning to the conflict affected areas in the North.
Subsequently, around 90% of those displaced were accommodated within seven
months along a 1,000 kilometre coastline. The original strategy that we agreed
for immediate response was fundamentally twofold, where transitional shelter
was to support those displaced and whose land rights could not easily be substantiated. Hence the transitional approach supported relocation and the reuse of
materials. For damaged houses requiring repair, self-build was originally
intended as the primary mechanism, supporting self-recovery through phased
material drops and technical advice.
Over the past ten years,
the transitional shelter approach has accommodated many millions in many
countries, but has also been misused and misunderstood, sometimes on
theoretical grounds. There were inappropriate, unnecessary and unoccupied
shelters in Sri Lanka also. To help prevent this in the future, the DRF has the
potential to offer a sufficiently agile strategic planning process in order to
link relief and development efforts. Building upon preparedness planning, a
first version may still be agreed with governments within days, but regular
iterations will be informed constantly by increasing data and changing
contexts. To learn and implement these lessons, however, we need cumulative,
coherent and transparent common resources (1. – 4.). Without these, disaster
risk reduction will remain largely analytic and resilience will remain largely
the strength of those affected. United we stand, divided we fall.
