I have had the
fortune of being able to study an incredible example of community-based
disaster risk reduction (DRR), on the slopes of a very dangerous volcano in
Ecuador. Volcán Tungurahua, or ‘Throat of Fire’ in English, is a serious threat
to the lives and livelihoods of over 30,000 who live close by, and many more further
away. Fifteen years ago a network of volunteers was established following a
volcanic crisis. They are called the vigías
in Spanish or ‘watchmen/lookout’ in English and they fulfill many roles,
including citizen-scientists, an early warning network, risk communicators, DRR
advocates, DRR managers, and risk assessors. Over the years the network has helped
to save lives and build a resilient community, adapting to changing activity at
the volcano, and has made necessary adjustments in response to changes in
national risk management strategies.
We wanted to
know how or why has this network lasted? What has sustained it? How has it led to risk reduction? We were able to see that the network is successful because it:
·
Was
started by communities, civil defense and scientists collaboratively
·
Has
motivated volunteers
·
Actually
reduces risk
·
Is
sustained by strong trust-based relationships between volunteers, communities
and scientists responsible for monitoring the volcano
·
Has
facilitated community DRR activities, such as vulnerability and hazard
assessment, and planning.
·
Has
fostered resilient communities
Several years
ago, when starting to research participatory DRR, I was struck by the scarcity
of successful examples in the academic literature. This gaping hole stood out against
the backdrop of international DRR strategies calling for increased
participation, advocating changes from ‘top-down’ to ‘bottom-up’, and extolling
the virtues of community-based assessment, monitoring and management of
disaster risk.
I began to ask
myself why are there limited examples? Is it because, although great in theory,
community-based/participatory approaches simply don’t work in the real world? Is
it because no one is taking an interest or because no one is writing about
them?
I started to
think that actually it might have been because of the ways in which we evaluate
their effectiveness, and therefore describe them, are not quite fit for purpose.
If you dive into the academic literature on participation in DRR or
international development (DRR’s bigger sibling), many scholars suggest that
community-based approaches should be evaluated on how they:
·
empower
the powerless
·
change
policy
·
prompt
sustainable solutions that meet the communities’ needs.
These
principles are ideals, and we should all strive for them. But should we use
them to evaluate initiatives? Should we expect all participatory initiatives be
empowering for everyone in a community? Will they all rebalance power from
scientists or risk managers or the authorities? Should they all change policy?
Can they all be sustainable? Do they need to do all of these things to reduce
disaster risk? It does make me wonder, are we in danger of not recognising
success because we set the bar too high?
I wonder if we
are too critical of community-based initiatives? Researchers question the
extent that they empower or change policy - suggesting that outsiders often
drive them in an extractive way - rather than asking if they reduce risk.
Scientists question the value of information or knowledge produced by things
like citizen science and community-based monitoring or participatory disaster
risk assessment. Authorities question the effectiveness or potential loss of
objectivity of community-based disaster risk management.
Are we missing
the point? In the real world, no participatory initiative is going to be
perfect, but in a pragmatic sense shouldn’t we be asking:
·
Are
they reducing risk?
o
How
is that happening?
o
How
can it be improved?
o
Are
they developing adaptive capacity?
Looking at some
of the published rationales for participation, a DRR focus on how it leads to better outcomes or enhances learning, is perhaps how we might better notice success.
If we reframe
the problem in this way, perhaps we change our language from phrases like ‘top
down/bottom up’ to describing participation as involvement in the process. Primarily considering risk reduction allows
us to still understand empowerment and policy change, but might make it easier
for us to recognise success.
I think that
many more initiatives, like the vigías
network, need to be described, so that we can learn from their successes and
their failures.
Being critical
is good in some cases, but DRR is difficult, and we need to find and describe
any examples of where it is being done so that we can get better at it. This is
particularly important for participatory DRR – so let’s not set the bar too
high and miss out on recognising success.
