Community emergency response

Summary

Following the pastoral crisis of 2014 in the village of Tchintaborak, which is part of the municipality of Aderbissanat and which experienced high levels of animal mortality, the local population had had enough.

Process

As quintessential pastoral village, they had received explanations from the departmental livestock office about the risk of contamination and spreading of diseases. Having understood the danger, they voted to adopt this initiative. The local municipal authorities and the livestock services welcomed this preventive and curative action, even before the State and its partners became involved.

The whole community was engaged, except for children because of the risks arising from the activity (it is a waterhole and there are animal corpses).

These activities are adapted to the context, because the waterhole is the centre of two activities: livestock-grazing and market gardening. This activity quickly generated the creation of a community-based early warning and emergency response system (SCAP/RU).

Impact

The city council, in partnership with OXFAM, established 3 SCAP/RU committees in the area to effectively monitor and respond to crisis and disaster situations.

Since the installation of these SCAP/RUs, the population is informed in real time about the vulnerability and has benefited from appropriate and concerted interventions.

Other

These SCAP/RUs forward reports to the city council at the end of each month.

The leaders are the community-based early warning and emergency response committees (SCAP/RU). We gave training and refresher courses to the SCAP/RU.

Since climate change is a reality, all the funding must be directed towards CBDRM because the risks and disasters are inevitable.

We began first of all by analysing the barriers to change of behaviour, and thanks to our efforts the community was grateful for what we brought.

Summary

Process

Tell us about the extent to which the CBDRM intervention was ‘owned’ by the community. Were local skills and knowledge used? What was the role of the local government? How were the CBDRM activities coordinated? By whom?

To what extent were the most marginalised and at-risk groups included in the CBDRM process? Focus on women, children and youth, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. Are there any other marginalised groups in your society who were included in the CBDRM activities?

Were the CBDRM activities adjusted in any way to account for changing priorities and/or contexts in the community? If so, how? Think about mechanisms to monitor changes and learn from the activities, and who this monitoring and learning is coordinated by.

Impact

Please reflect on how well the initiative has been able to continue beyond the end of the programme. To what extent were local resources used for the CBDRM activities? How long since programme completion have the CBDRM practices continued?

Please describe how lives have changed since the CBDRM project. Think about different people’s levels of resilience and vulnerability.

Other

Discuss the availability of long-term funding for CBDRM in different budgets. To what extent do incentives and disincentives exist for CBDRM? Please provide any details, including reference to the continuity and diversification of funding.

Please provide us with any other information you think will highlight the institutionalisation of your particular CBDRM project. Feel free to add relevant pictures, photos, graphs or anything else that may highlight the institutionalisation of your project.