Summary Report on “Disabled and other Vulnerable People in
Natural Disasters "e-mail discussion
From May 22 to June 9, 2006 the World Bank organized an e-mail based electronic
discussion on the issue of “Disabled and other Vulnerable People in Natural Disasters”.
The discussion was hosted by DevForum - The World Bank Platform for E-Discussions
and Communities - and it was open to all interested parties. This activity was part of a
larger knowledge sharing initiative started by the Global Partnership for Disability &
Development after the Tsunami in collaboration with World Bank Institute's Multimedia
Center; Center for International Rehabilitation, and Leonard Cheshire Centre of Conflict
Recovery, University College London
The objective of this e-discussion was to solicit information on disabled people (and
people with specific needs) and natural disasters to contribute to guidance on inclusion of
disabled people in the disaster-related activities. Almost 700 participants enriched the
online dialogue, with valuable contributions from many different parts of the world,
including Sri Lanka, United States, Costa Rica, Japan, and Australia. The discussion was
fed by the active participation of experts on disability issues, as well as emergency
planners, responders and relief organizations.
The e-discussion began on May 22 and ended on June 9, 2006. Each week of the three
week e-discussion were dedicated to one of the following topics:
Week 1: “Disaster Preparedness & Mitigation”
Week 2: “Emergency Response / Relief”
Week 3: “Short/Medium Term Social-Economic Recovery & Reconstruction (with
mitigation)”.
In order to facilitate the exchange, the posting was moderated and the discussion
organized under subtopics conveniently announced. Moderators approved approximately
790 messages, which were summarized at the end of each week. The first discussion was
moderated by Anne Hayes and Maria Reina, from the Center for International
Rehabilitation, the second week was moderated by Moira Jones and Ashok Hans and the
final week was moderated by Maria Kett. In addition, moderators and participants posted
122 relevant documents and other resources that cover a variety of issues from practical
examples, to research papers and policies related to disaster and disability management.
To great extent the topics raised from different parts of the world reveal common
concerns: lack of general awareness among all the different stakeholders, including
people with disabilities; existence of physical, communicational, and cultural barriers,
and the need to mainstream disability issues into preparedness, response and
reconstruction policies. In addition, participants raised a number of problems that are of
specific concern to particular countries or regions, such as the use the cell phones and
other technologies as early warning systems in more developed regions, and the
interaction of gender, poverty, and disability as factors that determine the impact of
disaster on vulnerable populations. Moreover, differing views on the necessity of
registration of vulnerable populations for a successful preparedness, and strategies for
reconstruction, highlighted that the priorities in disaster planning, relief and recovery for
vulnerable populations vary significantly across regions and countries.
Overall, the majority of the messages highlighted the necessity of coordination among the
different agencies dealing with disaster issues and the urgent need of involvement of
organizations of people with disabilities and other populations included within this topic
to ensure equal access to disaster response and relief.
The following is a summary of the contributions, topics and points raised during the
discussion.
Disaster Preparedness & Mitigation
- Emergency Planning: most contributions highlighted the necessity of the inclusion of
people with disabilities and other vulnerable group in the different stages of planning.
Particularly in rural areas, where Community Based Rehabilitation (CBR) committees
and other organizations in place, disaster preparedness should be conceptualized and
implemented with the involvement of all community members including those with
disabilities and other vulnerable groups. Evaluation and monitoring of the inclusion of
vulnerable groups in preparedness should be also part of planning. People with
disabilities and other vulnerable populations should develop their own emergency
plans as well as establish support groups at community level
- Training: there was a general consensus on a ‘two-pronged’ approach: training
vulnerable populations is as important as training emergency planners and responders
from governmental and other agencies. Providing training in accessible format for
people with disabilities and other populations is fundamental. Training of trainers was
indicated as a good model for small towns and rural areas
- Registration: while some participants were inclined to establish registration as a way
to quickly reach these groups and provide them with the needed assistance, other
participants raised issues related to the right of privacy of people with disabilities and
the potential uselessness of such measure in practice. Other alternatives to registration
include local training, integrated public information, and local disaster exercises.
Many contributors rightly pointed out that it is an individual’s decision over
identifying themselves as disabled.
- Shelter: The majority of the participants pointed out that shelters s should eliminate all
the barriers that could prevent people with disabilities and other groups from the
provision of services. Several barriers were identified and the model of universal
design was brought as a concept that addresses the needs of all people including
people with disability, children, older people, etc instead of segregated facilities. A
number of resources were posted which provide examples of these.
- Evacuation Preparedness: most participants said that emergency-preparedness drills
should include real participation of people with disabilities. Simulations or role play
exercises where able-bodied persons take the role of disabled people should be
avoided
- Good examples included a tool kit with information on specialized transportation,
evacuation devices and evacuation strategies and a publication on emergency sign
language and information on technical aids, general introduction to fire and
emergency preparedness and a data base for emergency purposes developed by the
Disaster Office in conjunction with the Council of/for Disabled and that it is shared
with the teams on the ground. This type of experience can be done as well in resourcepoor environments.
Emergency Response / Relief
- Engaging stakeholders: Engaging stakeholders such as Disabled People’s
Organizations (DPOs), agencies, relief agencies, local communities and others is an
important factor that determines the success of the emergency response/relief
endeavor. In that regard, some challenges faced are: a lack of understanding of
disability as a social and human rights issue, and a lack of understanding of the
policies of national and international organizations and agencies working in the field
of Disaster Risk Management, and how they evaluate their response to the needs of
people with disabilities. Regarding futures actions, participants mentioned inclusion in
international instruments and policies at all levels, and in all agencies involved with
emergency relief, and completion of an inventory of organizations involved in
Disaster Response Management at the national and international level
- Understanding and responding to diversity within the population of people with
disabilities - women, children, older adults, and other vulnerable populations: Some
participants underlined that it is important to look at the needs of each group
separately. Research has demonstrated that women are particularly vulnerable to the
effects of disasters, and children and older adults are particularly susceptible to
psychological effects and problems, such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
- Communication & Mobility / Technology; use of technology: the majority agreed that
governments, civil society and activists need to work together to establish standards in
disaster preparedness, response, management and rehabilitation plans through
dialogue and legislative measures, appropriate technology in communication,
mobility, and related needs for people with disabilities. The development of early
warning systems could be fundamental to save lives when disasters occur, but more
technical development in some regions is needed in order to achieve equal access to
such measures.
- Funding & where money goes, who decides - monitoring expenditure of financial
commitments made during disasters: participants convened that donors need to
acknowledge the importance of a disability-inclusive response. To achieve this,
advocacy initiatives should be undertaken to highlight the pressing need to address the
increasing level of risk and vulnerability, and the vicious cycle of poverty caused by
recurrent disasters in risk-prone zones. Monitoring of a disability inclusive response
will be required. Agreement needs to be reached about appropriate disability specific
protocols that will ensure comprehensive support is afforded to people with
disabilities. Several participants claimed that should be more accountability in the use
of resources dedicated to disasters. Constant review and reporting should be required
- Good examples included a workshop on Gender & Diversity organized by Disaster
and Emergency Response (DER) group, and village planning exercises, such as those
undertaken in India.
Developing Standards that are inclusive of all populations for relief and restoration
- Development of potential opportunities that may present in the aftermath of
disasters: potential opportunities such as the developmental and strengthening of
DPOs, campaigns for accessibility and inclusion were found to be a particular
challenge. Small-scale NGOs and DPOs cannot easily access to donor funding unless they work in partnership with larger organizations already known to the
donors – but there is a danger that this can perpetuate the notion that disabled people
are unable to speak for themselves. A number of suggestions arose as to ways on
which DPOs could be strengthened, for example the creation of national councils of
disabled people and/or steering committees, who could demand to be partners in the
planning and decision- making cycles
- Operationalization of already-existing policies by mainstream donor agencies,
international NGOs and others: many participants reiterated the need to mainstream
disability within all policies and frameworks. There is very little in the way of
guidelines for inclusive medium to longer term recovery and rehabilitation projects –
especially when the timeline between emergencies and longer term rehabilitation
continues to be blurred. Many governments, donors, and organizations working in
disaster relief and reconstruction may already have mandates/policies to include
disabled people as a ‘vulnerable group’ or ‘priority area’. The continuing challenge
is to get these working in practice in the often difficult early phases after a disaster
has struck. Funding simply does not reach people with disabilities in any stage of
disaster management from preparedness to reconstruction
- Cross cutting issues: gender, poverty, environment, psychosocial issues were
particularly identified. For example, the majority of disaster-prone and disasteraffected countries are poor, and the poor are disproportionably affected by disasters.
Tackling the question of poverty requires global solutions, and is linked to other
global issues such as environmental protection and gender inequalities.
- Linking relief, rehabilitation and development: The ways in which long term relief,
rehabilitation and development can be better linked is a fundamental issue on postdisaster recovery and reconstruction.
- Diversity and alliances: alliances across vulnerable communities and organizations
are fundamental to get their voices heard. Sensitivity for diversity within the
populations of disaster-affected countries is essential for them to be successful.
There is not, nor should there be, a ‘one size fits all’ approach
- Good examples included “Access for All” campaign in Sri Lanka, an ongoing work
to develop technical knowledge and model examples within the both disability
community and agents involved in reconstruction, and a World Bank-funded project
in post-earthquake Pakistan to both enhance direct service provision to persons with
disabilities, as well as mainstream disability concerns into the development activities
of agencies working on recovery and reconstruction.