The Role of NGO’s and CBO’s in preparing communities to better manage natural hazards

1. The Role of NGO’s and CBO’s in preparing communities to better manage natural hazards Serra Müderrisoğlu, Ph.D. Kıvanç İnelmen, Ph.D. Arzu İşeri Say, Ph.D. Güler Fişek, Ph.D. Hayat Kabasakal, Ph.D. Boğaziçi University, CENDIM

2. INCIDENTS: • “For the first few days the search and rescue activities were carried out by people in the neighboorhood. Help from outside came many days later.” • Need for neighborhood Search and rescueteam • “Due to lack of a sign system for already searched buildings, more that one team searched some of the buildings.” • Need Search and rescue committee

3. “Lack of adequate knowledge regarding first-aid created significant problems” • Need First-Aid committee • “The help and materials sent to affected areas were not adequately coordinated.” • Need Out of area aid coordination committee

4. Commonly observed thinking patterns that hinders proactive preparation: • “Thinking about future earthquakes makes me too uncomfortable. We prepared earthquake bags but we got scared and put it away!” • “I am safe, my building is safe, I don’t need to worry about it” • “It is up to God what will happen to me, I can’t do anything about it”

5. Disaster Management Levels: • Centralized governmental authority that oversees and coordinates the activities related to mitigation and preparedness • At the local level – decentralization and delegation of authority to Municipalities, NGO’s, CBO’s and neighborhood muhtars local community organizations

6. Risk Assessment & CBOs an integral part of disaster management strategies • Development of scenarios or disasters contingency plans • Assessing community capabilities to cope with impact (Faulkner, 2001) • Community-based programs use of local knowledge, capabilities, flexibility, sensitivity to local conditions (Benson, Twigg & Myers, 2001; Bolin & Stanford, 1998)

7. Aims for organizing a healthy neighborhood disaster council 1. increasing awareness regarding retrofitting options 2. encouraging completion of household preparedness steps 3. organizing neighborhood wide preparedness activities and building self-sufficiency of the neighborhood for the aftermath of the disaster

8. Necessary steps for damage risk reduction and response activities: 1. Activities geared towards the completion of preparedness tasks for individual households 2. Creation of committees that will become responsible for intervention after the disaster: a. Communications Committee b. Damage Assessment Committee c. First-Aid Committee d. Light Search and Rescue Committee e. Security Committee f. Shelter and Food Committee g. Resource Committee h. Out of Area Aid Coordination Committee i. General Coordination Commitee

9. 3. Preparing the Neighborhood Disaster Plan: • Neighborhood Disaster Plan informs who will carry which responsibilities during and after the disaster and how the concurrent activities will be coordinated in a specific neighborhood. This plan includes all of the activities that need to be started (Search and rescue, first-aid, shelter, communication etc.) after the disaster.

10. Steps in creating the organization • Identifying the core group • Setting the borders of the neighborhood • Investigation of the available resources within the neighborhood • Preparing a work plan for the necessary activities, deliniating job descriptions and timetables • Invitations for the general meeting at the neighborhood • First General Meeting • Following Meetings

11. Case Study • Gayrettepe as a community • 16,000 residents, mixture of high and medium income families • Located at a transportation hub with a lot of business enterprises • Day and night population is different • GMAY as a disaster management CBO • Established in 1991 by three women to develop solutions to problems • One of the founding motherswas later elected as themuhtar of the neighborhood • After the 1999 Marmara Earthquakes, the focus shifted to earthquake response and preparedness GMAY (Gayrettepe Neighborhood Disaster Management Project)

12. Risk Perceptions for the City (n=105) Expected Frequency Percent Low-scale damage 9 8.7% Medium-scale damage 37 35.6% Large-scale damage 58 55.2%

13. Risk Perceptions for Own Building Frequency Percent No damage 32 31.1% Low-scale damage 45 43.7% Medium-scale 17 16.5% Large-scale damage 9 8.8%

14. Reasons for not Joining Disaster Preparedness Organizations • Not having capabilities & Avoidance • Unfamiliarity & Having other occupations • Lack of time & Uncertainity (Not knowing the goals)

15. Findings of the Field Study • the willingness level of a local community toparticipate preparedness activities • Little interest from the neighborhood population, despite their intense effort to get people involved • No interest on the part of business establishments • Cultural underpinnings for low engagement: • high power distance • low future orientation • high in-group collectivism • low trust toward non-significant others

16. Demographics of GMAY Board

17. Activities undertaken by GMAY: • Building networks with governmental and nongovernmental bodies (local governorship, municipality and it’s enterprises (electric, gas, fire brigade), AKUT (major search and rescue organization), MAY (disaster preparedness NGO), hospital, engineering company, university (Boğaziçi Univ – KOERI) • Trainings they received include: light search and rescue from AKUT, retrofitting from TEPE-SARP engineering company, first aid from Vatan Hospital, disaster preparedness trainer’s training from KOERI –IAHEP • Formed committees: Communication and media relations, Light search and response, Neighborhood public relations, First aid, Shelter and Food Supply, Damage assessment • Community wide activities organized around the neighborhood center (muhtarlık)

18. Remedies • To boost a sense of positive self evaluation  trainings • Preparedness organizations should be made more accessible; acquire social legitimacy  PR activities & institutional measures • General tendency of relying on close ties and acquaintances to get involved in organized activity  developing “in-groups” • To overcome the typical denial that disasters “don’t happen here”  keeping a focus on events that happened

19. Suggestions • Existence of an atypical group is an asset for the initiation stage, yet to secure larger community participation, people who are more representative should be integrated  “showballing” • Need for more recognition, support, encouragement, and inclusion from a wider network for CBOs  public legitimacy • Tendency of the public to respond to authority  hierarchical organization pattern could be utilized