Disseminating messages to vulnerable communities

1. Disseminating messages to vulnerable communities Mozambique Red Cross Society Geneva, 23rd , 24th May, 2006, Eunice Mucache

2. 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

3. Context:Alert & EWS • Meteorological forecasts • Hydrological alerts • EWS for tropical cyclones • Famine EWS • Tsunami Warning system for the Indian Ocean (to be developed)

4. ContextThe Role of various institutions L. G v t R C C B O s Collection, analysis and production of information I N A M O T H E R S Dissemination entities A R A Disaster commitees COMMUNITIES Local leaders

5. Context: MRCS role & added value • 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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.

12. Thank you for your attention !