Disability and Tsunami: Lessons for Early Relief Efforts

1. International Disability Rights MonitorDisability and Early Tsunami Relief Efforts in India, Indonesia and Thailand Anne Hayes, International Coordinator for the International Disability RightsMonitor (IDRM 1

2. International Disability Right Monitor (IDRM) • The IDRM project is an effort to thoroughly and accurately report on the situation facing people with disabilities around the world. • The goals of the IDRM project are to promote the full inclusion and participation of persons with disabilities in society and to advance the use of international humanitarian law to ensure that the rights of persons with disabilities are respected and enforced.

3. International Disability Right Monitor (IDRM) • The impetus of the IDRM grew from the negotiation process of the Convention for the Rights of People with Disabilities and the need to provide local disability advocates with the tools to independently monitor the situation of disability rights within their countries

4. IDRM • In general, we have access to very little information about the extent of the challenges faced by persons with disabilities • The IDRM project addresses this gap by documenting the problems, progress and barriers experienced by people with disabilities in a coordinated, systematic and sustained way

5. IDRM • The IDRM research network that is responsible for these reports consists of local and regional researchers drawn primarily from the disability community. These advocates are then trained in research methodology. • The researchers also form regional advocacy networks.

6. IDRM Publications • 2003- International Disability Rights Compendium • 2004- Regional Report of the Americas • 2005- Regional Report of Asia • 2005- Disability and Early Relief Efforts in India, Indonesia and Thailand

7. Future Publications • 2006- Regional Report of Europe • 2006/2007- Regional Report of Middle East and Northern Africa • 2007- Regional Report of Africa

8. Disability and the Tsunami • Joint report with the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Disability • The purpose of this special report is to provide information on the status of people with disabilities in countries devastated by the December 2004 tsunami that struck Southeast Asia. • This report highlights the need of local, national, and international agencies to include people with disabilities in relief and reconstruction plans.

9. Country Researchers • INDIA, RITU KUMAR • INDONESIA, CUCU SAIDAH • THAILAND, PRAYAT PUNONG-ONG

10. Why the Tsunami was a good test case? • A large-scale humanitarian efforts including the major relief organizations • The relief was well-funded • Sphere standards were revised in 2004 to include disability.

11. Country Backgrounds • All countries had some sort of disability law prior to the disaster • Limited and unreliable statistics on the number of people with disabilities in each country prior to the disaster. Therefore, it is difficult to assess the number of elderly with disabilities were affected by the tsunami • None of the countries had an emergency plan that incorporated people with disabilities

12. Results • Difficult to know the new number of people with disabilities or the fatality rate of people with disabilities due to poor statistical systems in place pre and post tsunami • People with disabilities suffered inproportionately in terms of survival and relief • People with disabilities outside the formal systems of identification were largely excluded from relief efforts

13. Results • There was a lack of awareness among relief agencies concerning disability resulting in exclusion • Communications (using multiple channels to communicate) was reasonably successful • Mental health services in general were insufficient and retained a negative stigmatization • Although some agencies have manuals or guidelines on how to incorporate people with disabilities into relief efforts, relief workers in affected areas were either not aware of them or simply did not use them.

14. Results • The majority of the short and long-term shelters, including latrines, were not accessible to people with disabilities • Health care and food and water distributions often provided at the shelters, which were not accessible • Although there was unprecedented amounts of funds that were raised to assist in the tsunami relief, these funds tended to primarily remain with larger NGOs and were not made available to smaller local, NGOs or DPOs

15. Country Specific Information • For specific information on each of the countries, please visit www.cirnetwork.org or contact Anne Hayes at ahayes@cirnetwork.org

16. India • 2.14% of population has a disability but disabilities leaders feel this is very low. Reason why include definitions, methodology and poor understanding of disability and lack of training of enumerators • Its difficult to know the exact numbers of people with disabilities who have died as a result of the tsunami; however, there is one case of a man who worked with 700 polio survivors prior to the tsunami. Post tsunami he could not contact a single individual after the disaster and presumes they are all dead • Prior to the tsunami, there were only 4,000 psychiatrists in all of India prior to the tsunami: none of the 5 regional hospitals in the affected areas had a physiatrists on staff prior to the disaster greatly impacting mental health services and follow-up

17. Indonesia • UNESCAP estimated that 20% of people in the affected areas will have a physical or a psychosocial disability as a result of tsunami; however, due to the lack of a central data collection center, it impossible to know the exact numbers • Disability was never mentioned in any of the NGO coordination meetings • IMO committed to 11,000 shelters, but the design of these shelters are not accessible (latrines also not accessible) • The WHO has a policy to conduct outreach and provide services to vulnerable populations. When asked if they implemented this policy, the field representative did not know about the policy and stated that disability was too small of a population, guessing it was only 1-2% of population, and therefore not a priority. The WHO estimates that 10% of any population will have a disability.

18. Thailand • Thailand has a registration service that allowed to identify registered people with disabilities and provide them with services such as replacement for prosthetic devices and low interest loans to rebuild their businesses • Those individuals not registered often went without services since most of the shelters within Thailand were not accessible. • As of June 2005, most reconstruction efforts are not being made accessible. Disabled Person International is working to change that and wrote letters to government requesting that new buildings are made accessible but did not receive a response

19. Recommendations • Create concrete, disability and elderly related standards for relief workers as well as governments • Capacity building for local level disability organizations and other representative vulnerable groups • Awareness raising campaigns on the importance of inclusion of vulnerable groups in relief efforts at both the local and international levels.

20. Recommendations (cont) • Increase training of international agencies and relief workers to include inclusion of vulnerable groups in existing programs • Improve coordination and collaboration between international agencies and disability organizations.

21. Conclusions • Its imperative to make sure that people with disabilities are no longer marginalized or ignored in both the relief and reconstruction • The issue of rights lies at the root of humanitarian efforts following disasters and emergencies • The right to life and personal security is a significant concern for first emergency responders

22. Conclusion (cont) • Reconstruction aims to restore the right to shelter, education and work. • There is a lack of concrete, disability-related standards for relief workers. Although disability is included in the most recent version of the Sphere standards, it is in a very generalized way that may increase barriers to implementation. • The continued exclusion of people with disabilities from the exercise of fundamental human rights – both in the wake of disasters and more generally – is a vital issue that needs to be addressed.