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

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

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

Context The Role of various institutions Collection, analysis and production of information Dissemination entities COMMUNITIES INAMINAM ARAARA RCRC CBOsCBOs L. G v t OTHERSOTHERS Disaster commitees Local leaders

 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 Context: MRCS role & added value

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

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

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.

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

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

Multi-hazzard approach: Challenges  Improve existing systems & clarify how each should work effectively  Improve management & coodination issues  Strenghten the capacity of c ommunities, 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.

Thank you for your attention !