Knowledge to Practice: Paradigm shift for creating resilient society

Appetite for cross sector learning – WASH and DRR

 “Nepalese have great resilience”; my fellow international colleagues passed this comment while responding to the 2015 earthquake. We had already putting up smile from the first week of the devastating earthquake. Earlier, I had also witnessed amazing resilience in Somalis during my work in Somalia from 2010-2013, in face of protracted and multiple crisis with prolonged drought, violence and insecurity. Now I witnessed the Rohingya refugees a year of resilience for those displaced last August (2017) – coping with the adverse situation. There are many such unfortunate examples where people are living amidst extreme humanitarian crisis. Unfortunately, the crisis is still menacingly over looming and the vulnerabilities are ever increasing. 

I started with these examples that demonstrates the extremity where people are remarkably resilient. In most cases their resilience is grounded with the determination of solidarity and generosity of community living with the hope for their future generations. In some way or other - the behavior - their capacities to console each other coupled with the determination have made them strong to face the extremities.  

However, in this note, I have discussed about the behavior and practices – essentials for reducing risks, protecting lives, livelihoods and assets from the impact of hazards. The disaster management “sector” can learn from the good practices from other sectors and specifically the Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH). The adoption of good behaviors and practices could lead to the journey towards creating a resilient society.  

What is resilience?  It is the ability to anticipate, resist, absorb and recover in a timely and efficient manner from the effects of shocks and to adapt to stresses and avoid deepening into vulnerabilities. The examples given above might look as contrary to this definition. Therefore, resilience is a relative term but about – never ever giving up – the ability to withstand threats and the ability to adapt if needed to new options in the face of crisis – where behavioral change is the corner stone.

The foremost important factor on reducing the risk is starting with “understanding of the risks”. This also as the crucial entry point for the “behavioral change” – which not done properly - becomes strong barrier for anticipated results. The persistent challenge in the sector is how effective we could be on understanding the risk as understanding leads to realization and then to adopting/adapting practices.

There are substantial resources being invested to develop appropriate tools around this – but the question is how effective they are on bringing changes, which differs in the contexts such as from rural to urban or varies by gender, age and livelihood groups. We are discussing about risk culture whilst still figuring out the best way of understanding and realizing the risk. The scope just does not limit the individuals or communities but all including the government, schools, hospitals, hotels, tourism industries and business houses – in fact the entire society. The scale and approach might be different but apply for all. 

Having worked in the Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) sector and being familiar with the challenges on changing behaviors, about which the sector is continuously learning and improving – I tend to relate the issues and see the opportunities for cross learning. WASH sector has demonstrated many successful examples across the globe. Among which, many countries including Nepal successfully experienced the changes through Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) piloted in the year 2000, which is now a globally established approach for improving sanitation and hygiene behavior. The term "triggering" is central to the CLTS process. It refers to ways of initiating community interest in ending open defecation. Huge successes were achieved through this approach. It is time to ponder whether the DRR sector would adapt similar successful learning from the other sectors?  

If we are unable to demonstrate risk, we cannot encourage the behavioral changes – “what kills” WASH is among a strong component within the disaster risk management. I relate “CLTS’s triggering” as an approach for realizing the risks which goes through risk analysis process. While for DRR sector too - risk analysis for understanding risk is the fundamental starting point. So, what is Risk Analysis?  It is the systematic gathering and analysis of information relating to the hazards that affect communities, vulnerabilities to the impacts of these hazards, and the capacities available to communities to reduce the impact of these hazards.

There is so much potential that DRR could learn from WASH. The appetite for change would have been larger on adopting risk reduction practices immediately after experiencing devastating damages such as 2015 earthquake in Nepal. However, the readiness could gradually fade away when life comes back to the normal schedule. Landslides and flooding are the recurrent disasters in the plains in Nepal – with the  bitter experience of responding in the same communities sometime every year, if not alternative years. This might be a simple example relating to behaviors that we might have already accepted as “business as usual”. It applies not just for the communities, but for the government, us the “civil society” and other relevant stakeholders too.

 When individuals and communities adapt practice of disaster preparedness and risk reduction in their own decision-making, then their resilience is strengthened, and they have the means to adjust to changing circumstances and continue to reduce vulnerability. Populations at risk need to understand what risks they face and what can be done about these risks. Social and behavior change are complex requiring more than just information – if we are aiming for triggering action.

The key disaster risk reduction behavior at the household level include – insurance of property and assets for risk transfer, compliance to the building codes, identification of risks at the household level and the management plan, fire preparedness and practices, earthquake safety and preparedness, escape routes, assemble areas and open spaces, go bag, do and don’ts during the time of disaster etc. The implementation of behavior promotion should be designed and adapted according to the context. The urban is very different from rural – so same approach may not work.    

Appropriate communication products developed with the target groups based on the barrier analysis can support the process for reducing the disaster risks. The target group does not include people alone but also the government and the private sector too. While, it is government’s prime responsibility for steering the disaster risk management process, but it is also in the hands of many of us – primarily the individuals, households, communities and the civil society, private sector to strengthen safety and keep alive. Private sector is also the vital partner in reducing disaster risk losses. Therefore, understanding risk is equally important for their resilient business so that the economic activities continue in the country.

 Often the starting conversation of behavior changes in the DRR sector is, “realizing risk is a challenge -  change is difficult and so on”.  Therefore, I always want to bring back into these discussions- how many years many development agencies took for emergency preparedness and response plan and or contingency plans!! – at least a decade? We have learnt that effective communication products that are designed and executed properly are critical. These are essentials for understanding the different types of risk they face, discuss what can be done and act to manage those risks. Giving information is not enough – how we present or package the information is equally important – targeting appealing messages to each group of audience.