The face or voice of a foreign correspondent reporting on a natural disaster from a far-flung destination whilst scenes of destruction and human suffering play in the background is an all-too familiar image for many of us on tuning in to the latest news. The 2004 tsunami, 2005 Pakistan earthquake, and this year’s Sichuan earthquake in China and cyclone Nargis that devastated Burma are only the latest humanitarian emergencies that have prompted powerful news reports, and emergency response appeals  

But this depressingly familiar image also captures what Mark Harvey of Internews describes as “a double information jeopardy”. At the very moment at which international media are reporting an unfolding crisis to their audiences at home, the people who have most critical need of reliable information – the affected population – are caught in an “information vacuum”.

James Darcy of ODI introduces the panel

James Darcy of ODI introduces the panel

Harvey was speaking yesterday at a packed meeting hosted at the Overseas Development Institute (ODI) in London, and launching the latest BBC World Service Trust policy briefing “Left in the dark: the unmet need for information in humanitarian responses” (pdf) co-authored by Imogen Wall and Lisa Robinson. The panel discussion and question session focussed on the need for a “paradigm shift” from a stress on “our” information needs towards the information needs of crisis-affected populations. As chair James Darcy of ODI put it, “people are agents, and they need information in order to make informed choices.”

All of which sounds incredibly like common sense yet as Imogen Wall noted, a collective failure of humanitarian agencies to address the information needs of affected populations is a common feature of recent evaluations of international crisis response.

The phrase Wall and Robinson were at pains to emphasise “communications with affected populations” is intended to stress the two-way (or multi-dimensional) nature of communications, and reflects the fact that communications should not be limited to just “media” (traditional or emerging). A need to think creatively and “bottom up” about communications – at all levels and through consultation with local people – was identified as key to developing a clear strategy around the issue.

Two case studies – from Pakistan and Burma – highlighted the difficulties in actually delivering this sort of targeted response in countries where specific political, religious, and social sensitivities (and often a closed or state-controlled media) make reporting and broadcasting extremely tough.

Mark Harvey reported on his organisation’s work in Pakistan following the 2005 earthquake, in which an existing training project based in Peshawar was adapted to respond to the unfolding emergency. Although they succeeded in reaching 3 million people through securing 8 emergency radio licences and eventually distributing 10,000 radio sets, they experienced big problems with procurement, funding, and local government.

Imogen Wall, co-author of the policy briefing was on the panel

Imogen Wall, co-author of the policy briefing "Left in the dark"

Ko Ko Aung a producer with BBC Burmese, and co-presenter of the BBCWST’s Burma Lifeline programme “Healthy Today, Stronger Tomorrow” set up in the wake of cyclone Nargis acknowledged the problems associated with operating in closed states such as Burma, but insisted that this was vital information that saves lives. The entirely humanitarian focus of the programme meant that the team were able to reach the 2.5 million people in the devastated Delta region who needed it, he added.

A population’s “need to feel heard as much as to gain information” was an important lesson learned from Pakistan said Harvey, along with a need for proper funding, infrastructure, research and preparation to enable rapid response. Lisa Robinson suggested adding a question on the state of communications infrastructure to the established rapid needs assessment (on hospitals, food and water security etc) as a simple and cost-effective way to mainstream communications strategy. Research and media/communications evaluations conducted in specific vulnerable nations and regions– such as Bangladesh – would again allow for rapid response in the event of an emergency.

Which is not to say any of this is new: the 2005 ICRC world disasters report focussed on information in disasters as its key theme, and many at the meeting had examples of working to get the issue recognised. Barriers to progress included difficulties in building trust between local and international aid agencies, local media and local populations, a lack of common understanding of the importance of communications within the humanitarian industry itself, and of effective coordination on the ground.

Yet there was a feeling of real enthusiasm for developing a common strategy from those gathered. Suggested next steps included the formation of an equivalent Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) for information implementers, and the setting up of a fund to allow for rapid response specifically on communications. It was even suggested that with a rapidly evolving media and communications landscape and a new generation of tech-savvy socially networked individuals, the case for instant access to information could be very compelling in attracting support.

For more on information in disaster response, see our Burma lifeline and Darfur lifeline projects, visit the Internews website, and keep checking Reuters AlertNet for their new emergency news agency initiative.

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)