Disseminating messages to vulnerable communities

Mozambique Red Cross Society

Geneva, 23rd , 24th May, 2006, Eunice Mucache

Sumary of contents:

A. CONTEXT

- Alert systems in Mozambique

- The role of various institutions

- RC role & added value

B. GAPS & NEEDS

2. Do messages reach people at risk ?

3. Is the information understood ?

C. MULTI HAZZARD APPROACH: some challenges to consider

Context: Alert & EWS

Meteorological forecasts

Hydrological alerts

EWS for tropical cyclones

Famine EWS

Tsunami Warning system for

the Indian Ocean (to be

developed)

Context The Role of various institutions

Collection, analysisand production of

information

Dissemination entities

COMMUNITIES

INAM

ARA

RC

CBOs

L.Gvt

OTHERS

Disaster commitees

Local leaders

The largest and furthest reaching CBO in country (110 districts out of 148)

5,500 volunteers, who belong to & are trusted by their own communities which they serve

Auxiliary to the Government Wide international network:

member of the IFRC, composed of 183 RC & 97 million volunteers worldwide

Context: MRCS role & added value

Gaps & needs:Do messages reach people at risk ?

Not as effectivelly as required! Lack of an EW management structure with clearly

defined roles for each party Lack of a clear hierarchy of decision making

powers Lack of a common framework to collect, analyze,

compile and disseminate EW, avoiding contradictory information from different sources

EWS: weak coordination at national & level, causing lack of shared communication networks

Do messages reach people at risk ? – cont.

Implications for the RC work No specific instructions or standard guidelines

for organizations which deliver EW messages to the community.

EWS do not cover all disaster prone areas but are implemented only where there is a project (GTZ, RC) resulting in low country coverage

Forcastes are not always correct, creating mistrust and lack of compliance of the targeted communities

Do messages reach people at risk ?

Implications for the RC work – cont. Radio & TV are the main means to pass on

information to the general public, but they do not reach the most vulnerable communities in remote disaster prone areas

Dissemination of EWS should accommodate better the needs of those most vulnerable in a community, namelly the elderly, disabled, pregnant women, women & child headed households, the ill, the very poor & those whose houses are isolated by the disasters.

Is the information understood?

Not always ! Language is very technical and messages

need to be explained in local languages Media (community radios) with a few

exceptions is not well trained to pass on messages in a correct way

Simulation exercises are not regularly carried out to test and help to consolidate the knowledge

Other reasons why do EWS fail

Cultural aspects “Similar disasters happened before. I

cannot leave the land of my ancentors even if I have to die”.

People trust other signs transmited by their traditional ways of observing the whether

People react if they see their neighbours behave accordingly. They tend to want to confirm first that a disaster will indeed occur.

Role for social scientists

Multi-hazzard approach: Challenges Improve existing systems & clarify how each

should work effectively Improve management & coodination issues Strenghten the capacity of communities,

Government,national agencies, (each in its area of expertise)

Own commitment & external support Poverty reduction & development plans:

Lets not forget that after all the UN 2004 report ranks Mozambique 171/175 countries on the humanitarian development index.

Thank you for your attention !