Risk Wise

[

] 121

ter preparedness. Discussions about moving out of the area also

prompted people to think that if they were going to stay in this earth-

quake prone area, they would have to reconsider where and how they

built and, most importantly, learn skills and acquire knowledge about

what to do before, during and after a disaster.

School students, teachers and health workers have all been trained

in how to react when tremors are felt. Other risks such as fires, slides

and floods have also been discussed and the basics of first aid and

search/rescue techniques taught to teachers and older students.

School and health unit evacuation plans have been drawn up, and

regular simulation exercises are carried out to ensure a degree of

preparedness. At the village level, 33 search and rescue kits, contain-

ing basics such as spades, rope, buckets, torches and batteries, have

been housed at safe sites. A further 17 will be placed after the local

emergency response teams have been trained. These kits are managed

by a committee of the VOs and are for use by the Local Emergency

Response Teams (LERTS) that have been formed to cover all the

villages in the valley. The LERTS will have nearly 2,000 trained

members, 40 per cent of whom will be women.

What has been learned?

One clear lesson is that much of the reconstruction effort may have

stalled or had limited effect if communities had not been encour-

aged to be in the forefront of decision-making and taking

responsibility for many of the activities. Secondly, community prior-

ities were defined by social, economic and psychological factors that

did not necessarily match the donor funding timelines or priorities.

Thirdly, reconstruction after a major disaster cannot be limited to

one sector or aspect of life – it needs to address them all. From the

wider perspective of what risk means to people, how they can be

supported to prepare for risk and how development agencies might

promote this more effectively, some further points may be of consid-

eration:

Reconstruction efforts need time to plan and implement

– Often, people need time to overcome or deal with the

trauma they have suffered before they can effectively

start rebuilding their lives. In contexts like this, one year

or less donor funding for infrastructure projects is unre-

alistic.

Areas need to be assessed for risk

– If reconstruction is

to avoid building public and other infrastructure in inap-

propriate (risky) areas, then time, effort and funds are

required to carry out the appropriate studies to define

areas and types of risk. Such understanding is currently

limited in donor countries.

Mainstream risk analysis and mitigation

– Donor

support for reconstruction is currently provided through

humanitarian assistance or rehabilitation funding lines.

If people, governments and development agencies are

to be encouraged in carrying out a reasonable amount of

risk analysis before embarking upon development

programmes, then risk analysis and mitigation must be

mainstreamed into general development thinking and

budgets.

Information needs to be understood

– Risk analysis

needs to merge hard science with community knowl-

edge and create simple, understandable information that

communities can internalize and act upon.

Retrofitting is essential

– In many seismically active

zones of the world, longer-term retrofitting programmes

need to be initiated to make homes and public buildings

seismic resistant. This requires sharing risk information

with communities and also making available microin-

surance and loans for home retrofitting. The costs of

rebuilding after destruction are likely to far outweigh the

costs of retrofitting.

Local level village hazard map plan to evacuate a school in time of need

Maize seed was distributed to all households in April 2006

Image: AKDN Kashmir Programme