Community-based Early Warning System: The SC UK Experience By Aden Tekle, Early Warning Technical Manager, Ethiopia The early warning system in Ethiopia was created in the aftermath of the 1973 famine. However, the experiences over the past years show that the great majority of the existing EWS failed to fulfill the purpose of detecting timely hazard related stress on livelihoods, providing timely and effective information to people exposed and of eliciting early response. The national disaster management systems in the country have centrally organized, and ignore the potential of indigenous resources and capacities. The early warning information is one-way in its flow; the information is generated mainly to service government, donor and UN food aid institutions, not for those affected by a threat. Local level has little power to act until the information has passed through national structures. The EWS ignore local participation and ownership, and capacities and resources. The warning signal frequently came too late and the response was often inappropriate and usually too late, thus, this compromised efficiency and effectiveness. The importance of community-based approaches has been recognized recent in promoting a culture of safety through reducing local vulnerabilities and building capacities. During the same period, there was a growing recognition that people in high-risk areas have often developed their coping mechanisms and strategies to reduce the impact of disaster. For e.g., pastoralists have well developed traditional early warning indicators. However, no existing systems formally incorporate traditional early warning indicators. This is an obvious gap, especially in pastoral areas. It is important to appreciate this local capacities and resources and to build on them in order to improve people s capacity to withstand the impact of disasters. People often receive risk related information from a small number of trusted sources. Religious leaders, customary institutions, community leaders and elders, etc are effective and trusted disseminators of EW information. It is important that these disseminators be involved in EW information and DRR strategies. With this background, SC UK has been working to incorporate CbEW indicators into formal systems. SCUK has been implementing community-based early warning system (CbEWS) to incorporate traditional early warning indicators into the formal systems. The implementation of CbEWS was designed within the CAMELIS, PILLAR I and II, and PLI projects. The overall objective was to serve as a role model in demonstrating community participation in EW information collection, analysis, decision-making and responding locally without waiting formal appeals. 1
Lessons Learned, Challenges, Practical Considerations and Issues Ahead Lessons learned Based on the current good/best practices, the following benefits of the community-based approaches to disaster risk reduction have been noted: 1. Like formal systems, changes in indicators against normal are monitored in the standard areas, such as environment, livestock, crop, human welfare and conflict. Unlike formal systems, it does not use a scientific or quantitative approach to derive the information It uses more qualitative, traditional skills and knowledge, and community memory to monitor and interpret the information. 2. Communities, particularly the pastoralists, have their own traditional early warning indicators and a system of issuing warning to the community members. 3. CbEWS offers enough information to trigger further technical assessment when necessary. 4. CbEWS can supplement formal systems by providing rich information that offers an insight into livelihoods as well as disaster. 5. Community-based EW/DRR organizations are frequently the ones actually with communities during the pre-disaster, disaster itself and post- disaster. This makes their participation in disaster preparedness and response especially important to those they serve. 6. CbEW groups communicate the information up to appropriate authorities and back to the community through the community system 7. The system of issuing warning to the community members about impending hazards is established under the community-based organization and on the basis of knowledge of traditional early warning indicators about impending hazards in collaboration with the local government. 8. Community-based traditional early warning and response system is not linked to formal disaster management structure. 9. Community participation builds confidence, pride that they are able to make a difference and capabilities to pursue disaster mitigation, preparedness and response and bigger development responsibilities at the local level. This leads to empowerment. 2
10. Contingency plan correctly defined since people could express their real needs and priorities to the CbEW/DRR committees. 11. Existence of community DRR action plan allowed rapid and effective response to emergencies. 12. The CbEW/DRR approach corrects the defects of the top-down approach which failed to address local needs, ignore the potential of indigenous resources and capacities. 13. Community-based EW/DRR organizations serve as advocates for the communities and they are the safe liaison between their communities and government, NGOs and other agencies. 14. Resources distributed in partnership with or through local community-based disaster management organizations are much more likely to reach the most vulnerable people with needs. Community-based EW/DRR organizations are familiar with the unique needs, concerns and culture of their communities, both as a group and as individuals. 15. The principal resource is people themselves, their local knowledge and expertise Challenges 1. There is lack of understanding and wrong perception about CbEWS. Many considered it as a tool to generate relief food and important only during droughts 2. Practically, there was lack of understanding among stakeholders, even with the project staff on the implementation mechanisms of CbEWS. 3. There is a general perception within Save the Children staff and the early warning staff at Somali and Afar regions that, CbEW activity of PILLAR project and EWS within PLI 1&2 as two different systems. PILLAR staffs were more dedicated working on other activities than CbEWS activities and procedures 4. Lack/absence of community DRR/response plan 5. Lack of formal institutional and legal framework for community approaches The formal EWS exclude community from early warning data collection, analysis, decision-making and responses. Weak linkages between CbEWS and district EWS still exist. The information generated by CbEWS not used for decision-making at district, zonal and regional level. Information from CbEWS often refused acceptance by most government agencies on the basis that they have no legal status. The information was not immediately believed by decision makers. The institutionalization of CbEWS is hampered by the lack of clarity of responsibilities among stakeholders. 3
There is no mechanism to hold district EW experts accountable in case they fail to incorporate information from CbEW perspective. Therefore, works when local government collaborates 6. When the project phased out, the formal systems do not incorporate CbEWS into its system. 7. There are regional and local variations because not everyone has the same knowledge of the community-based system. 8. Not very effective in extreme events due to limited resource 9. Low capacity of local government to support CbEWS Practical considerations and issues ahead 1. Tapping of traditional organizational structures, formal and informal community institution. 2. Government commitment to recognize and link CbEW/DRR institutions and the formal disaster risk management structures at community level. 3. In order to ensure that the early warning is effective in saving lives and property, it is important that standby response mechanisms for community action are available. In the absence of these standby response mechanisms at the community level, the early warning might not be a productive process. 4. Capability building activities with the CbEW/DRR institutions, community disaster management committees, volunteers, community leaders and representatives 5. Investing resources in the community initiatives for pre-disaster, during disaster and post-disaster interventions 6. Developing technical skills of local communities to plan and implement pre-disaster, during disaster and post-disaster interventions, including standby response mechanisms 7. Presence of dedicated, trained and competent personnel at community level to support CbEW/DRR systems 8. Various forms and channels of public awareness, sensitizing and education using local dialects, values and culture. 9. Multi-stakeholder partnerships with clearly defined but complementary roles of the communities, community-based institutions, community leaders, local government units, higher level government, NGOs, donors and other groups. 4
Conclusion CbEW system is anchored in the DRR framework. a) The CbEWS integrate the four elements of EWS: (i) Knowledge of the risks faced; (ii) Monitoring and warning service; (iii) Dissemination of meaningful warnings to those at risk; and (iv) Public awareness, preparedness, and serve as advocates for the communities at locally, regionally and nationally. b) CbEWS/DRR committees are the necessary interface or the channel for government agencies or NGOs to assist/support the community at-large. The draft National policy on DRM has extensive crosscutting reference to the importance of community participation. The National policy on DRM support the development and strengthening of institutions, mechanisms and capacities at the community level to systematically contribute to building resilience to hazards. Thus, CbEWS contributes to the Nation policy on DRM. Currently, there exist CbEWS in PILLAR II project areas that can serve as a base for future improvements. 5