An Evaluation of Participatory Damage Assessment Policy and Practice in Fiji

Kirstie Méheux, BSc (Hons), MSc

Department of Physical Geography Division of Environmental and Life Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney

November 2007

This thesis is presented in fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Contents

1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Community participation in disaster management...... 2 1.2 Complexity of community participation and a need for critical reflection ...... 3 1.3 Community participation in disaster management in Fiji...... 4 1.4 Key research questions...... 5 1.5 Research approach and selection of case study site...... 5 1.6 Thesis structure...... 6 2 Participation and Damage Assessment...... 9 2.1 Introduction...... 9 2.2 Community participation and disaster management...... 9 2.3 Interpreting community participation ...... 12 2.4 Analysing and characterising community participation ...... 16 2.5 Trends in participatory disaster management...... 21 2.5.1 What project stages do people participate in? ...... 21 2.5.2 Who participates in participatory disaster management? ...... 22 2.5.3 How is participation occurring? ...... 23 2.5.4 The influence of context and nature of task on participation (participation is ‘situated’ in its context)...... 24 2.6 Participation and the disaster cycle...... 25 2.7 Challenges to participatory disaster management...... 25 2.7.1 Dominance of command and control approaches to disaster management...... 26 2.7.2 Government fear of participation ...... 26 2.7.3 Time, cost and multiple demands placed on disaster management practitioners ...... 27 2.7.4 Community willingness/availability to participate ...... 27 2.7.5 Community capacity for decision making and consensus...... 27 2.8 The damage assessment process ...... 28 2.9 The role of affected communities in damage assessments...... 34 2.10 Analytical framework for investigating participation in damage assessments...... 36 2.11 Summary...... 37 3 Disaster management in Fiji ...... 39 3.1 Introduction...... 39 3.2 Socio-political context ...... 39 3.2.1 Ethnic diversity ...... 39 3.2.2 Political instability ...... 40 3.3 Natural hazards in Fiji ...... 42 3.3.1 Tropical Cyclone...... 42 3.3.2 Flooding...... 45 3.3.3 Earthquake ...... 45 i

3.3.4 Tsunami...... 45 3.3.5 Landslide ...... 46 3.3.6 Drought...... 47 3.4 Historical disaster management in Fiji ...... 47 3.4.1 Pre-cession and early government disaster management...... 47 3.4.2 Post-independence disaster management...... 48 3.5 Contemporary Disaster Management ...... 49 3.6 Community participation in disaster management...... 51 3.7 Summary...... 53 4 Research Approach ...... 55 4.1 Introduction...... 55 4.2 Ethnographic approach ...... 55 4.3 Iterative-inductive research ...... 56 4.4 Data collection methods...... 57 4.4.1 Site selection and village-based data collection...... 60 4.4.2 Totoya data collection (participant observation of a damage assessment) ...... 68 4.4.3 Kadavu data collection (participant observation of a village-based Initial Damage Assessment (IDA) training course) ...... 69 4.4.4 Suva and Labasa (Government officers, regional and national NGOs, UN bodies)..... 70 4.4.5 Suva (National Disaster Management Office (NDMO)) ...... 70 4.4.6 Research Assistants...... 71 4.5 Ethics...... 72 4.5.1 Anonymity of participants ...... 72 4.6 Researcher positionality...... 73 4.7 Data recording, analysis and presentation...... 74 4.8 Summary...... 74 5 Experiences of damage assessments ...... 77 5.1 Introduction...... 77 5.2 Tropical Cyclone Ami, Tuesday, 14 January, 2003 ...... 77 5.2.1 Government assessment...... 81 5.2.2 Local assessments ...... 86 5.2.3 Contact with government surveyors - Cicia...... 87 5.2.4 Contact with government assessors - Vunimoli and Korotari...... 90 5.2.5 Key issues in the experience of Tropical Cyclone Ami damage assessments ...... 93 5.3 Damage assessment in Totoya, 18 June 2005...... 93 5.3.1 Government assessment...... 96 5.4 Summary...... 99 6 Existing community participation in damage assessment ...... 101 6.1 Introduction...... 101 6.2 Legislation and practice ...... 101 6.3 Damage assessment legislation in Fiji...... 101

6.3.1 The role of community participation in damage assessment legislation ...... 102 6.3.2 Participants in the damage assessment process...... 103 6.3.3 Characterisation of legislated community participation in damage assessment...... 105 6.4 Community participation in practice ...... 107 6.4.1 Actual extent of community participation in damage assessments...... 109 6.4.2 Characterisation of actual community participation in damage assessment ...... 110 6.4.3 Type of participation ...... 112 6.5 Summary ...... 113 7 The proposed formalisation of community participation in damage assessment in Fiji...... 115 7.1 Introduction...... 115 7.2 The extent and type of community participation proposed in damage assessment ...... 115 7.2.1 Participants in the proposed damage assessment process...... 118 Characterisation of community participation in IDA proposed in NDRMA...... 120 Characterisation of community participation in Post-disaster reviews proposed in NDRMA ....122 7.2.2 Type of participation proposed ...... 125 7.3 The purpose of formalised community participation in damage assessments ...... 125 7.3.1 Utilitarian perspectives of participation in damage assessment...... 126 7.3.2 Transformative perspectives of participation in damage assessment ...... 130 7.3.3 Utilitarian and transformative participation ...... 132 7.4 Summary ...... 132 8 Challenges to participatory damage assessment...... 133 8.1 Introduction...... 133 8.2 Conceptual challenges...... 133 8.2.1 Potential for utilitarian outcomes ...... 133 8.2.2 Potential for transformative outcomes...... 135 8.2.3 Potential outcomes of the proposed participation ...... 136 8.3 Operational challenges to the achievement of community participation in damage assessment...... 136 8.4 Community capacity to participate ...... 137 8.4.1 Community willingness to participate ...... 137 8.4.2 Community availability to participate ...... 140 8.4.3 Community ability to participate ...... 140 8.5 Government capacity to facilitate community participation...... 142 8.5.1 Centralised disaster management structure...... 142 8.5.2 Weak legislation ...... 143 8.5.3 Mixed political and policy messages ...... 144 8.5.4 Government perception of communities...... 146 8.5.5 Limitations on disaster management training initiatives...... 149 8.6 Summary ...... 151 9 A strategy for participatory damage assessment...... 153 9.1 Introduction...... 153

iii

9.2 Strategy components (conceptual model and implementation recommendations) ...... 153 9.3 Conceptual model ...... 154 9.3.1 Initial Damage Assessment (IDA) ...... 154 9.3.2 Comprehensive Damage Assessment (CDA)...... 158 9.3.3 Post-disaster Review (PDR)...... 160 9.3.4 The importance of partnership, interaction and dialogue...... 162 9.4 Recommendations to support implementation of conceptual model ...... 164 9.4.1 Community education and training...... 164 9.4.2 Government education and training ...... 165 9.4.3 Networking with Non-Government Organisations (NGOs)...... 167 9.5 Summary...... 168 10 Conclusions...... 170 10.1 Introduction ...... 170 10.2 Key research findings ...... 171 10.2.1 How do disaster-affected communities participate in damage assessments in Fiji? .. 171 10.2.2 What are the key challenges to effective community participation in damage assessment (as recommended in Fiji’s proposed National Disaster Risk Management Arrangements)? ...... 171 10.2.3 How can the benefits of community participation in damage assessment be maximised?...... 172 10.3 Lessons for other Pacific Island countries ...... 173 10.4 Reflections on the research approach...... 174 10.4.1 Ethnographic based research approach ...... 174 10.4.2 Modified analytical framework ...... 174 10.5 Limitations of this study ...... 174 10.6 Further research ...... 175

Summary

Influenced by the field of development studies; disaster management practitioners are embracing the language of community participation. Participation has been adopted by the disaster management community at large as an important element of it’s initiatives. Yet there is a striking lack of critical literature on participation in disaster management. Analysis of community participation in rural development projects has highlighted the range of interpretations of community participation and the need for participatory approaches to be analysed and tailored to suit specific projects.

Using a broadly ethnographic approach, incorporating interviews, questionnaires, participant observation and document reviews; the experiences of rural communities and government personnel charged with conducting assessments of damage are analysed to develop a critical understanding of community participation in post-disaster damage assessment in Fiji. The Government of Fiji plans to formalise community participation in initial damage assessments as a means of encouraging community empowerment, self-reliance and ownership of disaster management. This research questions whether the proposed community participation has the potential to meet government objectives and identifies a number of conceptual and operational challenges to meaningful participation. At a conceptual level the research finds that whilst there is potential for the type of participation proposed (‘consultation’) to satisfy utilitarian imperative, increasing efficiency, it has limited potential to achieve the anticipated transformative outcomes of community empowerment and self-reliance. At an operational level challenges affect communities’ capacity to participate and also government’s capacity to facilitate participation. These challenges include community willingness, availability and ability to participate, and the centralised disaster management structures of government, combined with weak legislation, contradictory political and policy messages, a perception of communities as incapable and limitations on disaster management training. These challenges are used to inform the development of a strategy for participatory damage assessment in Fiji which aims to balance the need for rapid data provision with the need for effective and meaningful community participation. This research suggests that if the benefits of community participation in damage assessment are to be realised, participation must be negotiated and based upon dialogue and partnership between government and communities, rather than a simple devolution of responsibility to communities.

Candidate’s statement

This work has not been submitted for a higher degree to any other university or institution. Ethics approval for this research was obtained from the Macquarie University Ethics Review Committee (Reference: HE26NOV2004-D03764C).

______Kirstie Méheux

Acknowledgements

Key to this research has been the wonderful assistance provided by the Director and staff of the National Disaster Management Office in Fiji. During periods of data collection in Fiji, the NDMO was kind enough to accommodate me in their offices and in doing so offered me not only a desk to operate from but an opportunity to gain an insight into contemporary disaster management practice. The openness of staff and their willingness to allow me to participate in their work added a great deal to the richness of my experience and understanding of the environment within which they operate. In particular I wish to acknowledge the role the NDMO played in assisting me to navigate the traditional and bureaucratic protocols for securing the participation of communities in this study. Vinaka vakalevu and dhanyawad to Joeli Rokovada, Akapusi Tuifagalele, Akisi Korodrau, Elenoa Lomalagi, Emele Matawaqa, Savita Chand, Ateca Nawaqaliva, Jim Pedro, Akeneta Vasu and Rakesh Chand.

The contribution of members of Malomalo Koro, Nadroga; Cicia Island, Lau; and Vunimoli and Korotari settlements, Macuata to this research can not be understated. I am grateful to each not only for agreeing to participate in this research, but also for welcoming me into their homes and lives. The ability to participate in community life has offered me such valuable insights and I am deeply appreciative of the warm hospitality and generosity I received. In each community I was assisted by community members who volunteered their services to assist in introductions and where necessary translation and I should like to acknowledge their contribution. I would also like to thank the Provincial Adminstrator Nadroga, District Officer for Malomalo, Roko Tui Nadroga, Roko Tui Lau, Commissioner Eastern, Commissioner Northern, and Multi-Ethnic Affairs officers in Labasa for their assistance in organising residential stays in each field site.

Thanks are also due to members of the disaster management community in Fiji who generously gave their time to share their opinions and experiences with me during visits to Fiji in 2004, 2005 and 2007. I am particularly grateful to those who participated in February 2007 when my visit coincided with severe flooding in Fiji. The willingness of these individuals to accommodate my questions and participate in my research at a time when their workload was high is particularly appreciated.

Also in Fiji, I would like to express my gratitude to Dorothy Sachs and her family who offered me a warm and welcoming home in Fiji during 2005 and again in 2007. Thanks are also due to Dr. Jacqueline Ryle, who found me my home in Suva, and has been consistently available to offer advice and debrief the Fiji research experience.

Throughout the production of this thesis I have drawn much support and inspiration from my friends and colleagues who deserve special thanks. Kerrie Tomkins, Angela Maharaj, Jenny Spagnolo, Anna Gero, Sandra Schuster, Shayne MacGregor, Jessica Mercer, Emma Calgaro, Carolina Roman and Dave Anning have been wonderful companions on this journey and I am grateful for you all. I am also most appreciative of Meg Sherval’s proof reading and calming influence and Judy Davis’

vii outstandingly rapid production of the maps and figures included within his thesis. And special thanks and love to my family for their patience and support.

I gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided through an International Macquarie University Research Scholarship, which has been supplemented with an additional scholarship from the Department of Physical Geography at Macquarie University. Field work has been made possible through the financial support made available to Higher Degree students through the Department of Physical Geography.

This research has also been supported by a scholarship to attend and present research at ‘Asia- Pacific Week’ at the Australian National University in February 2006, and a further scholarship to attend an Ethnographic Writing Workshop at the Australian National University’s Kiola Campus in January 2007. The opportunity to present work at both events and gain feedback from other scholars working in the Pacific on a diverse range of research topics was gratefully appreciated.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the wonderful support provided by my supervisors, Dale Dominey-Howes and Kate Lloyd, throughout my candidature. Their unfailing encouragement and confidence has been a great and constant source of strength. I could not have asked for a better pair to guide me through and I doubt I will ever be able to say thank you enough – honestly.

viii

List of Figures

Figure 2.1.The distribution of participatory disaster management in the disaster cycle. The size of the box reflects the concentration of examples of participatory practice at each stage of the disaster cycle ...... 25 Figure 2.2 Stages in the damage assessment process (Adapted from: Stephenson, 1994; Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance, 2005a)...... 29 Figure 2.3 A comprehensive damage assessment process (Stephenson, 1994; Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance, 2005a)...... 31 Figure 3.1 Map of the Fiji Islands (showing administrative Divisional boundaries) ...... 44 Figure 3.2 Fiji’s exposure to Tropical Cyclone, Earthquake, Tsunami, and Landslide (Source: excerpt from Johnson, 1995) ...... 46 Figure 3.3 Permanent bodies of the disaster management structure under the 1995 National Disaster Management Plan (Source: Government of Fiji, 1995) ...... 50 Figure 3.4 National disaster management structure. Note: CCG (Central Control Group), DRM (Disaster Risk Management), FIDMA (Fiji Islands Disaster Management Authority), NEOC (National Emergency Operations Centre), CEO (Chief Executive Officer), NATDISCON (National Disaster Controller), NATDISCOORD (National Disaster Coordinator), Div DISMAC (Divisional Disaster Management Committee), DISMAC (Disaster Management Committee) (Source: National Disaster Management Office, 2006a) ...... 53 Figure 4.1 Map of Fiji highlighting the location of field sites...... 62 Figure 4.2. Map of Malomalo village, Nadroga Province ...... 63 Figure 4.3. Map of Cicia Island, Lau Province ...... 63 Figure 4.4. Map of Vunimoli and Korotari Settlements, Macuata Province ...... 64 Figure 4.5 Participating in day to day activities in participant communities allowed the researcher to develop relationships with participants in each community. (Source: Author’s photo, July 2005) ...... 66 Figure 4.6 Focus group discussion in Malomalo community hall. Participants were asked to construct a disaster history of the village (Source: Author’s photo, April 2005)...... 67 Figure 4.7 Focus group participants held in the home of one participant in Mabula village, Cicia. Participants discussed their experiences of the damage assessment following Tropical Cyclone Ami, January 2003 (Source: Author’s photo, July 2005)...... 68 Figure 4.8. Map of Totoya island, Lau Province ...... 69 Figure 4.9 Map of Kadavu...... 70 Figure 5.1 Track of Tropical Cyclone Ami, 9-15 January 2003 (Source: Fiji Meteorological Service)79 Figure 5.2 Labasa River after Cyclone Ami, note the height of the disturbed river bank indicated by the arrow (Source: Fiji Ministry of Information, January 2003) ...... 80 Figure 5.3 During Cyclone Ami floodwaters from the Labasa River reached the point at which this man now stands, several metres above the current water level. (Source: Author photo, September 2005) ...... 81

Figure 5.4. Members of the group who participated in the aerial survey aboard a Royal New Zealand Air Force Orion Aircraft (three of those shown in the photograph did not participate in the survey). The group travelled across Fiji’s Northern and Eastern Divisions (see Figure 5.4) to gauge the scale of the damage and identify the worst affected areas. (Source: Royal New Zealand Air Force / Fiji NDMO)...... 82 Figure 5.5. Sketch of the route taken by a Royal New Zealand Air Force aircraft (indicated by arrowed line) during an aerial survey of damage following Tropical Cyclone Ami, which caused damage in the Northern and Eastern Divisions of Fiji on January 14th 2003. (Source: S8, personal communication, February 6, 2007 (base map from http://www.fiji.gov.fj - scale not provided))...... 83 Figure 5.6 Aerial photograph of damage caused by Tropical Cyclone Ami in Natokalau Village, Cicia (Source: Royal New Zealand Air Force / Fiji NDMO) ...... 84 Figure 5.7 Aerial photograph of damage caused by Tropical Cyclone Ami in Lomati Village, Cicia (Source: Royal New Zealand Air Force / Fiji NDMO) ...... 84 Figure 5.8 Aerial photograph of damage caused by Tropical Cyclone Ami in Tarakua Village, Cicia (Source: Royal New Zealand Air Force / Fiji NDMO) ...... 85 Figure 5.9 Aerial photograph of damage caused by Tropical Cyclone Ami in Naceva Village, Cicia (Source: Royal New Zealand Air Force / Fiji NDMO) ...... 85 Figure 5.10 Aerial photograph of damage caused by Tropical Cyclone Ami in Mabula Village, Cicia (Source: Royal New Zealand Air Force / Fiji NDMO) ...... 86 Figure 5.11 Teacher’s quarters in Dravuwalu village, Totoya. Landslide debris had been cleared by community members following a request from the Head teacher. (Source: author’s photo, June 2005) ...... 94 Figure 5.12 Tovu Village, Totoya. Homes adjacent to the slope at the back of the village were inundated with mud following heavy rainfall. Residents had begun to clear the mud from homes when the assessment team arrived. (Source: author’s photograph, June 2005) ...... 94 Figure 5.13 Tovu village, Totoya. The corrugated iron and timbers shown in this image are the remains of a small house collapsed that had and been moved down the slope as a result of heavy rainfall. (Source: Author’s photograph, June 2005) ...... 95 Figure 5.14 Tovu village, Totoya. Landslide debris at the rear of one home, which had not been cleared when the assessment team arrived. (Source: Author’s photograph, June 2005)...... 95 Figure 6.1 The damage assessment process with the extent of community participation according to legislation, highlighted in yellow...... 105 Figure 6.2 Actual extent of community participation in damage assessment, highlighted in yellow110 Figure 7.1 Extent of community participation in damage assessment according to proposed NDRMA...... 120 Figure 7.2 A map of Fiji’s 14 provinces (names in red). Accessing some communities in the provinces of Ba, Namosi, Nadroga and Navosa after a disaster can be particularly difficult. Maritime Provinces such as Lau also present post-disaster accessibility difficulties...... 128

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Disaster paradigms and implications for participation ...... 11 Table 2.2 Eight rungs on a ladder of citizen participation ...... 13 Table 2.3. A typology of participation: how people participate in development programs and projects ...... 13 Table 2.4. The range of modes of participation ...... 14 Table 2.5. Dimensions of participation...... 16 Table 2.6 Summary of participatory disaster management using Cohen and Uphoff’s (1977) framework for analysing participation in projects...... 17 Table 2.7. Summary of damage assessment process...... 34 Table 2.8. Dimensions of participation used to identify and analyse existing participation in damage assessment...... 37 Table 3.1 Estimated level of vulnerability and risk to specific natural hazards in Fiji ...... 47 Table 4.1 Methods employed during data collection (2004-2007)...... 59 Table 4.2. Profiles of data collection sites...... 65 Table 4.3. Main methods of village-based data collection ...... 66 Table 4.4 Research participant location identifier ...... 73 Table 5.1 Schedule of activities, Totoya damage and needs assessment, June 2005 ...... 98 Table 6.1 Participants in each stage of the damage assessment process, according to legislation in Fiji (i.e. who is participating in what) ...... 104 Table 6.2 Characterisation of “how” affected communities participate in damage assessment according to legislation (i.e. in survey and data collection during post-disaster reviews)...... 106 Table 6.3 Summary of legislated community participation in damage assessment ...... 106 Table 6.4. Participants in each stage of the damage assessment process in practice (i.e. who is participating in what) (based on the experiences of affected communities following Cyclone Ami in January 2003) ...... 109 Table 6.5 Summary of the extent and type of participation practiced in damage assessments...... 113 Table 6.6 Summary of the types of participation advocated in legislation and found in practice .....114 Table 7.1 Participants in each stage of the damage assessment process, according to Fiji’s (proposed) NDRMA (i.e. who is participating in what)...... 119 Table 7.2 Descriptions of the Post-disaster review as provided in existing and proposed disaster management policy...... 123 Table 7.3 Summary of community participation in damage assessment proposed in the NDRMA . 125 Table 8.1 IDA training courses conducted in Fiji, 2003-2006 ...... 150 Table 9.1 emergency response gap identification chart (adapted from: IFRC, 2000) ...... 157 Table 9.2 Recommended participation types in the conceptual model for participatory damage assessment. The participation types are arranged as a hierarchy...... 163

List of Acronyms

DISMAC – Disaster Management Committee DivEOC – Divisional Emergency Operations Centre DO – District Officer EMSEC – Emergency Services Committee EOC – Emergency Operations Centre FRCS – Fiji Red Cross Society IDA – Initial Damage Assessment IDNDR – International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction NDMC – National Disaster Management Council NDMA – National Disaster Management Act NDMP – Natural Disaster Management Plan NDMO – National Disaster Management Office NDRMA – National Disaster Risk Management Arrangements OCHA – Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs PA – Provincial Administrator PMHRC – Prime Ministers Hurricane Relief Committee SOPAC – Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission (formerly South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission) TAF/OFDA – The Asia Foundation/Office for Foreign Disaster Assistance

xii

1 Introduction

At the moment the damage assessments are being done by the civil servants at the directive of the various District Officers. What they do is they select their own people to carry out damage assessment surveys, but in doing so … they should have a cross-section of people who are qualified to distinguish the various aspects of damage on the ground. Agricultural officers to carry out the food security status of the farm, maybe educational officers to look at the damages in the school, PWD1 engineers to look at the bridges and all the other stuff. They should be well qualified to carry out the damage assessment surveys. On the other hand, the big question is what role the community will play in that? Are you going to leave them as they are? They should be empowered also to provide you with the basic information (S202, personal communication, February 20, 2007).

The above quote is taken from a discussion with a District Officer in Fiji about the post-disaster damage assessment process and how it is currently practiced. The officer describes a process that is strongly controlled by government. The assessment is coordinated by District Officers and conducted by government officers who are considered by their superiors to be technical experts with the skills necessary to identify damage within their sector of expertise (for example: agriculture, education or public works). The officer identifies the major question relating to damage assessment in Fiji to be what role the community will play in the process. This is a question that is also being posed in the wider disaster management community, where it has been argued that addressing the question of how communities should participate in disaster management is one of the most important questions facing the international disaster management fraternity (Twigg, 1999:93).

In Fiji, the question of how communities participate in damage assessments has become particularly pertinent because in October 2006, as part of a review of national disaster management legislation, the Government of Fiji proposed that communities3 should be given the responsibility to undertake initial damage assessments following a disaster. The broad motivation for this is to increase the efficiency of the damage assessment system and to contribute to the development of community self-reliance4 5. This thesis investigates community participation in the damage assessment process

1 Public Works Department (PWD) 2 Participants in this study were offered anonymity as a condition of participation. Participants were each allocated an identification number (e.g. S20) and these identifiers are used throughout this thesis. The identification system is explained in 4.5.1. 3 The term ‘community’ has a variety of interpretations (see for example: Johnston et al, 2000) however, in this study communities are identified as villages or settlements with geographically defined boundaries. This is consistent with the interpretation of ‘community’ used in disaster management in Fiji. 4 A full discussion of the purpose of formalising community participation in damage assessment can be found in chapter 7. 5 ‘Self-reliance’ is a term commonly used by disaster practitioners and government personnel in Fiji It is considered to be the reliance of a community on it’s own capacities in terms of disaster management (principally in the period following a disaster). Self-reliance is taken to be the antithesis of dependence. Rather than depend wholly on government to meet its basic needs, 1 in Fiji in order to develop a critical understanding of the way communities currently participate. The recommended future participation of communities under proposed revisions to disaster management legislation and the challenges this participation is likely to encounter, are investigated. The outcomes of this investigation are used to develop a model for participatory damage assessment in Fiji, the aim of which is to maximise the benefits of community participation for both government and the participating communities themselves.

This introductory chapter establishes the broad justification for this research and identifies the main research questions which are addressed in the thesis. A summary of the research approach is provided and the structure of the thesis is outlined.

1.1 Community participation in disaster management6

The international disaster management fraternity has acknowledged and endorsed the importance of ‘participation’. Participation is included as the first minimum standard in the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards for Disaster Response developed by the Sphere Project (a group of humanitarian NGOs, the Red Cross and Red Crescent movements, national government and UN agencies), (The Sphere Project, 2004). International declarations on disaster reduction have also noted the importance of community involvement in disaster reduction initiatives (United Nations, 1994; UNISDR, 2005). Regional implementation strategies of such declarations, for example, the Pacific Island Nations’ Framework for Action 2005-2015 (SOPAC, 2005), have similarly recognised the importance of engaging communities in disaster management processes. In Pacific Island Nations, disaster management policy at a national level is also beginning to incorporate an acknowledgement of the need for the participation of communities. This trend is evident in Fiji where a recent review of disaster management policy recommended a greater emphasis on the participation of communities in disaster management activities (National Disaster Management Office, 2005).

Engaging communities in disaster management is anticipated to generate a number of benefits and have a number of advantages over conventional externally-driven programmes. The inclusion of communities enables problems to be correctly defined, as communities have an excellent understanding of their own situation and are able to express their own needs and priorities (Vrolijks, 1998; Twigg et al, 2001; Abarquez and Murshed, 2004). Participatory disaster management is also expected to increase the sustainability of projects as the inclusion of communities in project design and implementation contributes to a sense of project ownership (Twigg et al, 2001). It is further suggested that participatory disaster management can empower communities through the recognition of their knowledge and capacities and the experience of playing an active role in a project to improve their lives (Twigg et al, 2001; Venton and Hansford, 2006). It has also been

the self reliant community is prepared for a disaster through adequate mitigation and preparations, and will commonly be able to meet its own basic needs following a disaster. 6 Community participation is a highly contested concept (Pelling, 1998), but can be broadly defined as the “active involvement of people in making decisions about the implementation of processes, programmes and projects which affect the” (Slocum and Thomas-Slayter, 1995). A discussion of the contested nature of participation can be found in section 2.3. 2 argued that the use of local resources (both intellectual and material) can reduce the pressure on external agents and can make projects more sustainable, more effective, and less wasteful (Scott- Villiers, 2000; Twigg et al, 2001).

1.2 Complexity of community participation and a need for critical reflection

Despite the disaster management fraternity’s seemingly unanimous endorsement of the value of community participation in disaster management, there is a striking lack of critical analysis on the subject (Twigg et al, 2001). The disaster management community remains dependent upon the significant body of literature arising from the field of development studies (such as Slocum et al, 1995; Chambers, 1997). The development studies literature, however, has long acknowledged that participation should be considered in relation to the context in which it is being applied (Cohen and Uphoff, 1977). Context-specific factors such as: when, where, how, by whom, and to what end participation is being used, can each influence the way participation is employed in a given project (Cohen and Uphoff, 1977; Rocheleau and Slocum, 1995).

The context specific nature of participation supports the need for investigations of community participation in the disaster management context. The need for critical analysis is further supported by a number of issues which have been highlighted in the development studies and disaster management literatures and include:

differences in the context of a project contribute to the existence of a diverse range of ‘participations’, in which the degree of active community involvement in decision making varies (see for example Arnstein, 1969; Pretty, 1995);

participation is a highly contested concept (Pelling, 1998). The contested nature of participation demands that the use of participation in a given project be carefully examined;

critiques of participation have shown that community involvement is sometimes far from active and communities are not always included in the decision making process (Arnstein, 1969; Pretty, 1995)7;

the type of participation that is employed will influence the outcomes of a project. Project success has been influenced by higher levels of community involvement in decision making (Pretty, 1995);

without active involvement in decision making community participation is likely to “lead to superficial and fragmented achievements of no lasting impact on people’s lives” (Rahnema, 1992:128);

7 See section 2.3 for a discussion of the multiple interpretations of ‘participation’ 3

there is a significant gap between field reality and participatory rhetoric in the development field (Chambers, 1994b). In the disaster management field it has been noted that many ‘participatory’ projects pay little more than lip service to the ideals of participation (Twigg et al, 2001); and finally,

Warner et al (2002) have suggested that the type of participation employed in a project is influenced by the disaster paradigm in which the project is being conducted.

Given this diversity of issues and the importance of context-specific studies, it is clear that if the question of how communities should participate in disaster management is to be effectively addressed, it must involve an examination of participation that is situated within a disaster management context. Careful analysis of the ways communities are participating is important if the application of participation is to be consistent with the desired outcomes. Critical reflection is necessary to be clear about what type of participation is being used in a given project, and whether that is appropriate to the context and nature of the project.

1.3 Community participation in disaster management in Fiji

Within the disaster management community in Fiji there is increasing interest in community participation. The key co-ordinating disaster management body in Fiji is the National Disaster Management Office (NDMO); a government department based within the Ministry for Provincial Development. Between 2003 and 2006, the NDMO coordinated a review of Fiji’s disaster management policy. The proposed legislation arising from this review: Fiji National Disaster Risk Management Arrangements recommends an increased emphasis on the involvement of communities in disaster management in general. The new arrangements highlight a number of areas for which communities are to take responsibility, these are to: i. organise disaster awareness and preparedness activities within the village/settlement; ii. develop village/settlement plans in coordination with disaster management authorities; iii. assist District/Provincial/Divisional authorities with disaster management activities; iv. conduct Initial Damage Assessments for authorities in prescribed formats; and finally, v. participate in disaster management volunteer efforts organised by disaster management authorities. (National Disaster Management Office, 2005: 27)

Given the preceding discussion of the potential value of community participation in disaster management, coupled with an explicit recognition of the conceptual and practical challenges, this research examines community responsibility in initial damage assessments (and expands the scope to consider community participation in the whole damage assessment process). This area of community responsibility has been selected because the recommendation by the NDMO to formally allocate the responsibility for initial damage assessments to communities represents a departure from mainstream participatory disaster management in which activities conventionally focus on pre-

4 disaster activities such as vulnerability reduction and disaster mitigation8. This study provides an opportunity to gain insights into participation into the response phase of the disaster cycle, which is regarded as a particularly challenging phase in which to institute meaningful participation (Eade and Williams, 1995).

1.4 Key research questions

To develop a critical understanding of community participation in the damage assessment process in Fiji, this study investigates present and proposed future participation in damage assessments and poses three key research questions:

1. How do disaster-affected communities participate in damage assessments in Fiji? Contemporary participation is identified through an examination of existing legislation governing damage assessments. This is supplemented by an analysis of case study material describing the experiences of those involved in recent damage assessments (both affected communities and government damage assessors), gathered by the author in Fiji (in 2005 and 2007). This analysis results in a characterisation of past and present community participation in damage assessments.

2. What are the key challenges to effective community participation in damage assessment (as recommended in Fiji’s proposed National Disaster Risk Management Arrangements)? Data drawn from interviews with disaster management practitioners (those involved in disaster management in a professional capacity) is used to scrutinise and characterise proposals for formalised community participation in damage assessment. The challenges facing future community participation in damage assessment are identified and explored using qualitative material gathered through interviews, participant observation and focus groups with both disaster management practitioners and disaster-affected communities.

3. How can the benefits of community participation in damage assessment be maximised? Recognising that there is no universally optimum participation, recommendations are made regarding ways to address challenges and maximise the benefits of community participation in damage assessments. This results in a model for a participatory damage assessment process for Fiji.

1.5 Research approach and selection of case study site

Section 1.2 noted the context within which participation takes place has a strong influence on the way in which participation occurs (Cohen and Uphoff, 1977). In order to develop a situated understanding of participation, which incorporates not only the act of participation but the context within which it occurs, this study has employed a broadly ethnographic approach to the research. Characteristics such as: extended periods of fieldwork, residential stays in field site communities, the

8 See analysis of international examples of participatory disaster management in chapter 2 5 use of multiple data collection methods and a recognition of the importance of context, make ethnographic approaches particularly appropriate for context specific studies such as those pursued in this study (O'Reilly, 2005).

Data was collected during repeated visits to Fiji: a two week ‘scoping visit’ in 2004, eight months of intensive research in 2005 and a three week ‘validation visit’ in 2007. Fieldwork which can employ an eclectic range of data collection techniques is central to an ethnographic approach to research (Punch, 1998). In this study data has been collected using interviews (74), focus group discussions (11), participant observation (in communities, the National Disaster Management Office and during an initial damage assessment training course), and document reviews. An ethnographic approach was employed for a number of reasons which will be discussed more fully throughout Chapter four, but will be summarised here. Firstly, ethnographic approaches are well suited to situations in which the researcher is “dealing with something new, different or unknown” (Punch, 1998:162). To a large extent such an approach is inevitable in cross-cultural research. Whilst the researcher has conducted research in the Pacific region previously (Méheux, 2004; Méheux and Parker, 2006), this research has not been conducted in Fiji and so to a large extent Fiji itself represented something new, different and unknown. Secondly, the use of an ethnographic approach has allowed the research to evolve and for research questions to be developed in light of the local context – a process described as ‘iterative-inductive’ research (O'Reilly, 2005). Lastly, the use of a range of data collection techniques (mixed-methods) was important to respond to different situations and different preferences of research participants.

The research has been conducted in Fiji for a number of reasons. Fiji has recently undertaken a comprehensive review of its disaster management policy and so the resultant proposed legislation can be considered to reflect current thinking on disaster management best practice in Fiji. The proposed legislation reflects the direction of future disaster management in Fiji and conducting a study such as this provides the opportunity to influence or inform the implementation of the recommendations for community participation. Fiji also offers a number of benefits to the researcher. Fiji is a major administrative hub in the South West Pacific, hosting a number of international and regional organisations – offering access to disaster management practitioners at national, regional and international levels. English is one of Fiji’s official languages which facilitated communication between the author and research participants. The proximity of Fiji to Australia also presented logistical advantages, enabling the multiple site visits encouraged by the ethnographic approach.

1.6 Thesis structure

The following section provides an outline of the structure of this thesis and the content of each chapter.

Chapter 2 – Participation and damage assessments This chapter presents the theoretical background to this research and identifies the frameworks that will be used to ascertain the ways communities participate in damage assessments in Fiji. The

6 chapter draws on literature from both the disaster management and development studies fields. The chapter consists of two sections the first of which focuses on the concept of community participation and its application in the disaster management field. The second section considers the damage assessment process and modifies existing frameworks for the analysis of participatory projects in other contexts, to develop an appropriate basis for the analysis of participation in damage assessments.

Chapter 3 – Disaster Management in Fiji Chapter three provides an understanding of the disaster management context in Fiji. The natural hazards to which Fiji is exposed and the impact of past disaster events are summarised. The chapter presents a historical overview of disaster management practice and introduces contemporary disaster management structures and policies. This charts a process of increasingly centralised and institutionalised control over disaster management activities. The impact that this has had on the role of communities in disaster management and their dependency on government is discussed.

Chapter 4 – Research approach This chapter describes the ethnographic approach employed in this study and the ways the flexibility of ethnographic methods have allowed this research to respond to local research issues. The range of data collection methods and data collection sites used in the study are discussed, as is the role of research assistants. Data recording, the ethical aspects of this research and researcher positionality are also considered.

Chapter 5 – Experiences of damage assessment This chapter presents two studies of damage assessment experience following natural disasters in Fiji, through which community participation in damage assessment will be examined. The first study describes the damage assessment experiences of communities affected by Tropical Cyclone Ami in January 2003 in two areas of Fiji. The first area incorporates five indigenous Fijian villages on the island of Cicia in Lau Province, whilst the second includes two Indo-Fijian settlements: Vunimoli and Korotari in Macuata Province. The second study offers a description of an assessment of damage following landslides in Totoya Island, Lau Province, based on the participant observations of the researcher.

Chapter 6 – Existing community participation in damage assessment Chapter six explores how disaster affected communities currently participate in damage assessment according to current disaster management legislation and recent damage assessment practice following Tropical Cyclone Ami in 2003, and landslides in Totoya Island in 2005. In doing so, the first research question posed in section 1.4 is addressed. This chapter employs the modified analytical framework presented in Chapter 2 to develop a characterisation of existing community participation in damage assessments, identifying the actors participating in damage assessment, what stages of the process they participate in and how they are participating. The characterisation is based upon the experiences of damage assessments following Tropical Cyclone Ami and presented in Chapter

7 five. The characterisation identifies the type of participation employed and the stages in the damage assessment process at which it occurs.

Chapter 7 – The proposed formalisation of community participation in damage assessment in Fiji This chapter critically examines the proposal to formalise community participation in damage assessment through the identification of the type of participation that is proposed. The appropriateness of participation employed in a given project is judged by its potential to meet the objectives of the project. To make judgements regarding the appropriateness of the participation proposed in damage assessments, it is necessary to identify the purpose of participation in damage assessments. The theoretical frameworks used in the preceding chapter are again employed to characterise the participation proposed.

Chapter 8 – Challenges to participatory damage assessment Chapter 8 addresses the second research question of this study by discussing the challenges to effective community participation in damage assessment. The chapter develops a discussion of the compatibility of the proposed type of participation with the desired utilitarian and transformative outcomes. This considers the underpinning challenges to participation in damage assessment at a conceptual level. The operational challenges to implementing community participation are then discussed as issues of community capacity to participate and government capacity to facilitate participation.

Chapter 9 – A strategy for participatory damage assessment Chapter 9 draws on the analysis presented in preceding chapters to construct a strategy for participatory damage assessment in Fiji. The strategy comprises a conceptual model which identifies and justifies the optimum type of participation to be used during each assessment and details modifications to the format of damage assessments to enhance the potential for the development of community empowerment and self-reliance. The conceptual model aims to balance the need for rapid action to alleviate suffering of affected communities with the need to maximise the benefits of community participation for affected populations. The conceptual model is complemented by a series of recommendations designed to create a culture which is conducive to community participation.

Chapter 10 – Conclusions Chapter 10 reiterates the key findings and recommendations of the research. The chapter also presents reflections on the research approach adopted for this study and considers the limitations on the research. A number of areas for future research are also identified.

2 Participation and Damage Assessment

2.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the theoretical background to this study and focuses on two distinct bodies of literature. The first is related to the concept of participation and the second to the damage assessment process. Building on the assertion made in chapter 1 that participation has become widely accepted by disaster management practitioners as a core principle of their work9, this chapter provides an expanded understanding of the origins of participation in disaster management. The chapter draws on the development studies literature to establish the need for critical reflection on participatory practice in disaster management and introduces an analytical framework that is used to scrutinise global examples of existing participatory disaster management. A number of challenges facing participatory disaster management are also identified. The second section of this chapter focuses on the damage assessment process. This section takes a global view of damage assessment in order to describe the process of assessing damages after a disaster, the trends apparent within damage assessment practice, and the challenges facing those performing damage assessments10. This understanding of the damage assessment process is applied to modify the analytical framework introduced earlier in the chapter, in order to develop a structured means of analysing examples of participation in damage assessments. This modified framework is applied in chapters 6 and 7 to analyse present and future participation in damage assessment in Fiji.

2.2 Community participation and disaster management

The emergence of community participation principles in disaster management owes much to the connection between disaster management and development studies11. In developing countries, disaster management has long had strong links with development activities, often in the form of disaster and/or humanitarian relief. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, disaster management activities became increasingly influenced by a shift in the approach of rural development workers towards initiating the participation of the communities they were working with in the identification of development needs and potential solutions (Mitchell, 1997). Twigg (2005) suggests that the endorsement of community participation at the Yokohama Conference in 1994 was in part a result of the lobbying of a growing body of supporters who were able to direct participatory approaches into the policy mainstream.

9 See section 1.1 10 This chapter does not focus on the tools of damage assessment, nor the specific content of sector-based assessment as this study focuses on the issue of ‘who’ is participating in the process rather than how they are recording data. For further information on the tool of damage assessment see for example: (Campbell and Chung, 1986b; Planitz, 1999; United Nations

Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2000; Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance, 2005a). 11 For further discussion of ‘development studies’ see for example (Corbridge, 1995; Hodder, 2000; Sen, 2000; Potter et al,

2004). 9

The shift in rural development studies was in turn largely influenced by the works of Brazilian scholar, Paulo Freire (1970), a number of South Asian and Indian scholars and their western counterparts including Chambers (1983) and his colleagues at the Institute for Development Studies in the UK (Thomas-Slayter, 1995; Mitchell, 1997; Twigg et al, 2001). The approaches of Freire and Chambers share a common central tenet: that communities should be encouraged to participate in the analysis of their own situation (Mitchell, 1997); however, the two approaches hold quite different views of ‘the poor’. Whilst Freire views the poor or oppressed as ignorant and in need of education to free themselves from oppression, Chambers sees ‘the poor’ as experts of their own situations, holding the knowledge which ignorant outsiders must learn. The influence of both these key authors can be seen within examples of participatory disaster management discussed below.

In line with a belief that the oppressed hold an inaccurate view of the world, which conspires to keep them poor (Mitchell, 1997), Freire (1970) advocated the education of the oppressed about the causes of their oppression to enable them to liberate themselves. Freire (1970) believed that inaccurate views of the world can be corrected through dialogue, creating awareness (or conscientisation) of the true causes of oppression and enabling the oppressed to recognise that they are capable of changing their situation for themselves. Educating the oppressed and beginning the dialogue is the responsibility of the members of the oppressor class who join the oppressed in their struggle (Freire, 1970). The influence of this pedagogy is evident within one of the earliest examples of such an approach to incorporate community participation in disaster management: Maskrey’s (1989) Disaster Mitigation: A Community Based Disaster Approach.

The community-based approach described by Maskrey (1989) emerged as a critique of the conventional centralised, top-down approach to disaster mitigation in Peru. This approach, tended to focus on large scale technical solutions, in line with a belief that vulnerability was a character of the hazard12. Maskrey (1989) asserts that vulnerability in Peru is a result of a lengthy period of urbanisation and that the underlying causes of vulnerability must be tackled by mitigation measures directed at both social and physical vulnerabilities. Maskrey (Maskrey, 1989) initially suggested tackling social vulnerabilities from above through amendments to government policy and planning, for example guaranteeing just access to land, infrastructure, services and finance in urban planning. It soon became apparent, however, that government lacked the resources and the political will to implement the radical recommendations. An alternative approach was required and it was recognised that the demand for change would need to come from below in order to generate the necessary political will. Acknowledging that governments are more responsive to political pressure than reasoned argument, Maskrey (1989) advocates the education of communities to teach them about the causes of their vulnerabilities, to enable them to apply the necessary political pressure to encourage policies that support mitigation and vulnerability reduction. Maskrey (1989) views

12 The perception that the vulnerability of populations is a function solely of their exposure to hazards characterises the thinking within a technocratic paradigm of disaster studies. In the 1980s and 1990s there was a paradigm shift away from technocratic and behavioural approaches to disaster studies to an approach which asserts that the vulnerability of a population is a product of the social, rather than the physical environment. Within the vulnerability paradigm, vulnerability is defined as “the characteristics of a person or group and their situation that influence their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist, and recover from the impact of a natural hazard” (Wisner et al, 2004:11). A hazard is defined as “a potential threat to humans and their welfare” (Smith, 1996:6). 10 empowerment as essential for vulnerability reduction in much the same way as Freire (1970) views empowerment as essential to overcoming oppression. Maskrey’s (1992) work was highly influential in the disaster management field, coming at a time when the limitations of the dominant command and control approach had been recognised (Twigg, 2005).

Chambers’ (1983) recognition of the poor as knowledgeable promotes a reversal of the traditional (top-down) approach to development through the positioning of the poor as teachers and outsiders as students. The process of sharing and learning demonstrates respect for the knowledge and skills of the poor and enables outsiders to better understand situations, and thus provide better assistance. Chambers’ approach has led to the development of tools such as ‘Participatory Rural Appraisal’ (PRA) (Chambers, 1994a). Such tools are commonly applied in participatory disaster management practice. For example, ‘Community Based Disaster Risk Management’ (CBDRM) is a concept developed by the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center that explicitly makes use of PRA tools. CBDRM is underpinned by the belief that no one has a stronger interest in disaster risk reduction than communities themselves and communities hold the best understanding of their own situations (Abarquez and Murshed, 2004). PRA tools such as: the involvement of community members in the development of disaster histories, hazard and resource mapping, and priority ranking using local materials as visual aids are used in CBDRM to initiate “community participation, lively exchange of ideas, and negotiated decisions between the community and other stakeholders” (Abarquez and Murshed, 2004:31).

Whilst the shift towards participation in development studies has influenced the prominence of participation in disaster management, the increased profile of participation has also been shaped by internal shifts in disaster studies theory and disaster management practice. In particular underlying shifts in disaster paradigms have resulted in a trend towards an operational environment more conducive to participation. The role of communities has evolved in line with this as different paradigms support different types of participation. Warner et al (2002) provide a useful illustration of the evolution of disaster paradigms and the implications that these shifts have held for participation, see Table 2.1 for a summary.

Table 2.1 Disaster paradigms and implications for participation Disaster Period Implications for management Implications for participation Paradigm Technocratic Pre- Top-down control; embankments, None Paradigm 1960 physical protection from floods Behavioural 1960- Early warning systems, flood Education and training, utilitarian Paradigm 1970s zoning, change peoples behaviour perspective (through education) Vulnerability 1980- Overall development, countering Empowerment of the vulnerable, Paradigm 1990s root causes of vulnerability (through capacity building revolutionary change) Complexity Present Adaptive management of society Poly-centric stakeholder inclusion, Paradigm and environment, collaborative self- negotiation, social learning organisation (Source: Warner et al, 2002:12)

This brief history of the introduction and evolution of participation in disaster management highlights the diversity in the range of interpretations of the meaning and applications of participation. For example, community based disaster reduction (as suggested by Maskrey), places an emphasis on educating vulnerable communities to enable them to apply political pressure and call for changes in the conditions that contribute to their vulnerability (Maskrey, 1989). CBDRM instead identifies communities as knowledgeable and focuses its activities on enabling communities to express their own beliefs about their vulnerability and make decisions about actions to increase their resilience. The link between participation and disaster paradigms demonstrates the array of activities that can constitute participation, ranging from education of communities, to negotiation and social learning (Warner et al, 2002). Amidst such diversity, ‘participation’ has become “an ideologically contested concept producing a range of competing meanings and applications” (Pelling, 1998:472). Oakley (1991) suggests participation can be understood to be an umbrella term for an approach to development, under which lies a variety of approaches, encompassing varying degrees of community involvement. As a result it has been argued that the term ‘participation’ should not be used without clarification (Oakley, 1991; Pretty, 1995). This is particularly necessary within disaster management studies and practice where a wide variety of activities are labelled as ‘participation’ and almost all agencies involved in disaster risk reduction claim to be involved in community based initiatives (Twigg et al, 2001; Twigg, 2005).

2.3 Interpreting community participation

The interpretation of participation is dependent upon a number of factors including who defines and uses participation, and also when, where, how and to what end participation is used (Rocheleau and Slocum, 1995). Within disaster management, Christoplos et al (2001:192) suggest that whilst the use of participatory rhetoric has increased, the participation of communities in disaster mitigation and preparedness “still tends to consist more of teaching than of learning”. Chambers (1994b:1253) also notes that the gap between “fashionable rhetoric and field reality” remains wide. Twigg et al (2001:8) go further, noting that in practice, many participatory disaster management activities “have been less than participatory and pay no more than lip service to the ideal”. The vagaries associated with the term ‘participation’ and the potential for it to be reduced to rhetoric, highlights the need for precise definition of the type of participation that is employed in a project. Recognising that without clarification, the term ‘participation’ carries little meaning, the following section details characteristics that define and differentiate participations. In chapters 6 and 7, these characteristics will form the basis for an analysis of existing and proposed participation in damage assessment to address the first research question posed by this study (see section 1.4), relating to how disaster affected communities participate. Such definition is required to enable the selection of appropriate methods and techniques to achieve the desired participation (Oakley, 1991).

Arnstein’s seminal (1969) ‘ladder of citizen participation’ provides a useful introduction to the varying types of participation (see Table 2.2). On the bottom rungs of the ladder lie manipulation and therapy. These forms of non-participation are designed not to allow citizens to participate but rather to allow powerholders to educate or cure participants. Increasing levels of participation lead to

12 informing, consultation and placation, which Arnstein (1969) identifies as degrees of ‘tokenism’. Informing and consultation offer citizens the opportunity to hear and be heard but offer no guarantee that their opinions will be acted upon. Placation enables citizens to advise, but there is still no guarantee that powerholders will respond to their advice. Decision making power does not rest with citizens/communities. The highest levels of participation: partnership, delegated power and citizen control, enable degrees of citizen power. Through partnerships, citizens are able to negotiate and trade-off with powerholders whilst delegated power and citizen control provide decision making powers to those citizens traditionally perceived as ‘have-nots’ (Arnstein, 1969).

Table 2.2 Eight rungs on a ladder of citizen participation Level Type of participation Form of participation 8 Citizen control Degrees of citizen power 7 Delegated power 6 Partnership 5 Placation Degrees of tokenism 4 Consultation 3 Informing 2 Therapy Non-participation 1 Manipulation (Source: Arnstein, 1969)

Similar typologies to Arnstein’s have been developed with specific reference to rural development programmes. Pretty (1995) developed a typology relating the ways people participate in development projects with seven levels of participation ranging from manipulation to self-mobilisation (Table 2.3).

Table 2.3. A typology of participation: how people participate in development programs and projects Typology Characteristic of each type 1. Manipulative Participation is simply a pretence, with “people’s” representatives on participation official boards but who are unelected and have no power 2. Passive People participate by being told what has already been decided or has participation already happened 3. Participation by People participate by being consulted or by answering questions. No consultation share in decision making, professionals not obliged to accept people’s views 4. Participation for People participate by contributing resources, e.g., labour for food material incentives 5. Functional Participation seen by external agents as a means to achieve project goals, participation especially reduced costs. Tends to arise after major decisions have been made by agencies 6. Interactive People participate in joint analysis, development of action plans and participation formation or strengthening of local institutions. Participation seen as a right. Groups take control over local decisions 7. Self-mobilisation People participate by taking initiatives independently of external institutions to change systems (Source: Pretty, 1995)

Cornwall (1996) later adapted this typology to consider the relationship between participants and facilitators (Table 2.4).

Table 2.4. The range of modes of participation Mode of Relationship of research Involvement of local people participation and action to local people Cooption Token; representatives are chosen, but no real input On or power Compliance Tasks are assigned, with incentives; outsiders decide For agenda and direct the process Consultation Local opinions asked, outsiders analyse and decide For/with on a course of action Cooperation Local people work together with outsiders to determine priorities, responsibility remains with With outsiders for directing the process Co-learning Local people and outsiders share their knowledge, to create new understanding, and work together to form With/By action plans, with outsider facilitation Collective Local people set their own agenda and mobilise to action carry it out, in the absence of outside initiators and By facilitators (Source: Cornwall, 1996)

Common to each of the typologies presented in Tables 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4, is the acknowledgement that participation has many interpretations and that participation is differentiated according to the amount of power held by communities (Arnstein, 1969; Pretty, 1995; Cornwall, 1996). Different types of participation are likely to result in different outcomes, with increasing levels of participation (and community power) associated with increasing degrees of project success (Pretty, 1995).

The notion that more powerful participation leads to greater success is based upon an assumption that the goal of participation in a given project is for individuals or communities to be empowered to act independently to affect change. Whilst community empowerment may be a desirable goal, participation is often employed in a more utilitarian fashion to increase the efficacy of a project. The distinction between participation being employed in this utilitarian manner and participation as a desired outcome reflects a distinction between traditional and people-centred approaches to participation (Thomas-Slayter, 1995).

Traditional approaches to engaging communities in (development) projects13 view participation as a means to achieve a predefined goal set by an agency external to the community. The approach is underpinned by the notion that if people are involved, they are more likely to agree with and support an initiative (Pretty, 1995). Community members and their physical, economic and social resources are harnessed to reduce the need for external resources and thus increase the efficiency of programme delivery (Oakley, 1991; Pretty, 1995). The approach is characterised as strongly top- down, with projects initiated, funded and controlled by professional planners external to the community (Thomas-Slayter, 1995; Twigg et al, 2001). Participation is commonly restricted to project implementation and occasionally planning (Twigg et al, 2001). The results of the project are of more importance than the act of participation. Indeed, once the task has been completed and the goal achieved, the participation ceases (Oakley, 1991). Critiques of this approach (Arnstein, 1969;

13 Traditional approaches to participation are identified as (a) people’s organisations and cooperatives, (b) community development or amination rurale, and (c) guided participation in large-scale projects (Thomas-Slayter, 1995). 14

Thomas-Slayter, 1995) suggest it is susceptible to becoming manipulative or coercive and whilst the objectives of an outside agency may be met, participating communities are kept in a passive position.

People-centred or transformative participation broadens the scope of participation focusing on issues of power and control to encourage the involvement of communities in project planning and implementation, the reaping of benefits and evaluation of projects (Cohen and Uphoff, 1977; Thomas-Slayter, 1995). Importantly, people-centred participation places a greater emphasis on the community than the development agency (Thomas-Slayter, 1995). It aims to empower communities (Twigg et al, 2001) and is based on the principle that “ordinary people are capable of critical reflection and analysis and that their knowledge is relevant and necessary” (Thomas-Slayter, 1995:11). There is also a strong argument in support of people-centred participation by those advocating a ‘rights-based’ approach to disaster management, who suggest such participation is an “inalienable human right” (Warner et al, 2002:14). The goal of people-centred participation is to develop and strengthen people’s capabilities to participate in initiatives through collective action, empowerment and institution building (Oakley, 1991; Pretty, 1995). Accordingly whilst traditional approaches consider participation in a utilitarian manner to be a means of achieving a predefined goal, people-centred approaches consider participation itself to be the predefined goal.

Although traditional and people-centred participation have quite different goals and are associated with different forms of participation, they should not be seen as a dichotomy but rather as extremes of a continuum (Pelling, 1998). It is likely that most participatory projects will, to differing degrees, use participation as both a means (utilitarian participation) and an end (transformative participation). Andharia (2002) suggests that participation should not be reduced to merely a means, but neither should it be used simply as an end in itself. Participants should be involved in decisions of what constitutes the optimum level of participation in a given project (Andharia, 2002).

The preceding discussion has identified that ‘participation’ is a term applied to a variety of situations that can differ considerably and thus ‘participation’ cannot be singularly defined. The various types of participation identified in typologies by Arnstein (1969), Pretty (1995) and Cornwall (1996), each use different methods and each result in different outcomes. The appropriateness of a given approach is dependent upon its potential to achieve the desired outcomes established by those who initiate participation in a project. The appropriateness of community participation in damage assessments in Fiji is investigated in this study through a detailed examination of how communities participate (research question 1, section 1.4). This examination involves an analysis of the existing and proposed community participation to identify the type of participation being employed (in line with the typologies presented above) and an investigation of why that participatory approach was chosen (i.e. is participation utilitarian or transformative?).

2.4 Analysing and characterising community participation

Cohen and Uphoff (1977) provide a useful analytical framework originally developed to examine participation in rural development projects. This framework can be usefully applied to analyse participation in disaster management related projects. The framework considers three dimensions of participation (elaborated upon in Table 2.5):

1. What are people participating in (decision-making, implementation, benefits, evaluation), 2. Who is participating (local people, local leaders, government, foreign personnel) and, 3. How are people participating (considering: initiative, inducements, structure, channels, duration, scope and empowerment) (Cohen and Uphoff, 1977).

Table 2.5. Dimensions of participation What are people Who is How are people participating? participating in? participating? Decision making Local residents Initiative – where does the initiative for participation come from (above or below)? Implementation Local leaders Inducements – What inducements are there for Benefits Government participation (is participation voluntary or coerced)? personnel (local Evaluation or central) Structure – Is participation individual or collective, formal or informal? Foreign personnel (NGO, UN, donor Channels – is participation direct (in person) or indirect (via governments etc) representative)?

Duration – Is participation a one-off, intermittent or continuous activity?

Scope – What range of activities are included?

Empowerment – How much power do participants have? (Source: adapted from Cohen and Uphoff, 1977)

The following section employs Cohen and Uphoff’s (1977) analytical framework to examine the form of participation used in examples of participatory disaster management practice (see Table 2.6). This provides an overview of community participation as it is practiced in the disaster management field. Examples illustrate who participates, what they participate in and how participation is employed in disaster management. Analysis of examples is used to identify trends that characterise community participation in the disaster management field. The findings of the analysis will be used to situate the example of Fiji in relation to the practice elsewhere in the world.

able 2.6 Summary of participatory disaster management using Cohen and Uphoff’s (1977) framework for analysing participation in projects Community-Based Community Vulnerability Community-Based Citizenry-Based and Integrated Community- Participatory Vulnerability Participatory planning in Case study of citizen Disaster Mitigation Analysis (Vrolijks, 1998) Disaster Risk Development-Oriented Based Management Analysis, ActionAid village reconstruction initiated participation in (Maskrey, 1989) Management (Asian Disaster Response Program (Chiwaka and Yates, (Shah, 1996) flood mitigation planning Example Disaster Preparedness (CBDO-DR) Citizen’s (Chen et al, 2006) undated) (Cottrell, 2005) Centre) Disaster Response (Abarquez and Murshed, Network, The Philippines Paper reports findings of 2004) (Heijmans and Victoria, pilot study 2001) Peru Pacific Islands South East Asia (Cambodia, Philippines Taiwan Various India Australia Lao PDR, Viet Nam,

disaster management disaster management Location Thailand, Indonesia and the Examples of participatory of participatory Examples Philippines) Community-Based Community involved in Community involved in Community involved in Participants identify Participants identify Villagers present their Community participants Organisations make analysis of hazard and analysis of hazard, identification, analysis, hazards, vulnerabilities and hazards, vulnerabilities and needs and preferences and make decisions about their decisions – but analysis and vulnerability, problem vulnerability and capacity, prioritisation of hazard, strategies for solutions. strategies to reduce have power to approve or own actions, but decision- presentations of options identification, analysis and ranking of risks, decisions of vulnerability and capacity. Participants decide what vulnerability reject government designs making about flood Decision-making done by NGO (decisions in prioritising. Community acceptable risk, actions to Participation in decision actions they want to take defences remained with some cases subject to decides on potential be taken and action making government. Government government finance) necessary action and actor. planning also controlled how and when it engaged with the community. Local resources and labour Community implements the Through Community Through grass roots Implementation of mitigation Unclear. The process aims No community involvement No. Government has used to build flood defences actions it has assigned to Disaster Risk Management organisations, using local is coordinated through for policy change and the in implementation. Village responsibility for itself. Other actions may be Organisation - community and government resources community based hazard community can inform but construction undertaken by implementation Implementation assigned to government or managed mitigation organisation not implement this government What? other agencies. Community established during the and government both participatory process contribute resources. Improved local flood Community benefits from A reduction in future risk Reduced vulnerability Reduced vulnerability and Reduced vulnerability for Newly constructed village in Improved flood defences Benefits defences reduced vulnerability from disaster through pro-people better prepared to respond community a safer location than original development to hazard events No Community meeting three Community participates in Not explicitly mentioned No No No No months after analysis to setting scope and means of Evaluation check progress towards evaluation. Participates in agreed targets actual evaluation. Representatives of Community members All community members “vulnerable communities Interested individuals Local residents participate Local residents – main Local residents are the main Community Based should be involved in risk and groups are the main volunteer to participate in the community PVA, participants actors in the process Organisations (CBO) reduction in some way actors in disaster nominated representative management” p36 participate in district PVA The role of the community Local residents evolves throughout the project so that community members increasingly take on a facilitating role

No No Through the Community Leaders and Community leaders part of No No No Disaster Risk Management representatives take on a ‘project partnership” Local leaders Organisation facilitating role as process progresses Who? Local government have Central government Yes Local government part of Both local and national Government town planners Limited and controlled by Government limited participation National Disaster ‘project partnership’ government participate in as facilitators government personnel (local or Management Office their own PVAs. They do central) personnel not participate directly with the community NGO personnel play Major institutions the NGO, UN, private sector NGO staff Experts in hazard mitigation, NGO - facilitators NGO, Architect as Professionals consulted for facilitating role and provide community is involved in Role = to support Representatives of less local emergency facilitators expert advice and opinions Foreign personnel technical advice may also participate community vulnerable sectors e.g. management agencies, (NGO, UN, donor professionals, students, public institutions and govt etc) merchants, entrepreneurs academia part of ‘project partnership’

Shared initiative – Initiated from above by the From above or below. Above from NGO. Above from government Initiated from above by Initiated from above by Initiated from below Initiative – where agreement between NGO, National Disaster Outside agencies can Communities are selected NGO Government does the initiative CBO and local government, Management Office initiate the process as part on the basis of their risk of for participation for NGO to provide technical of their own agenda or recurrent diasters. How? How? come from (above assistance to CBO communities may contact or below)? them for support

Table 3.6 (continued) Summary of participatory disaster management using Cohen and Uphoff’s (1977) framework for analysing participation in projects Community-Based Community Vulnerability Community-Based Citizenry-Based and Integrated Community- Participatory Vulnerability Participatory planning in Case study of citizen Disaster Mitigation Analysis (Vrolijks, 1998) Disaster Risk Development-Oriented Based Management Analysis, ActionAid village reconstruction initiated participation in (Maskrey, 1989) Management (Asian Disaster Response Program (Chiwaka and Yates, (Shah, 1996) flood mitigation planning Example Disaster Preparedness (CBDO-DR) Citizen’s (Chen et al, 2006) undated) (Cottrell, 2005) Centre) Disaster Response (Abarquez and Murshed, Network, The Philippines Paper reports findings of 2004) (Heijmans and Victoria, pilot study 2001) Peru Pacific Islands South East Asia (Cambodia, Philippines Taiwan Various India Australia Lao PDR, Viet Nam,

disaster management disaster management Location Thailand, Indonesia and the Examples of participatory of participatory Examples Philippines) Inducements – Voluntary participation Voluntary participation. The Voluntary participation Voluntary participation Voluntary Unclear Voluntary – the failure of Voluntary What NDMO select and invite (although unclear) previous non-participatory inducements are community to participate. approach necessitated there for (Cultural conditions may participatory planning participation (is determine how the invitation participation is received e.g. community voluntary or may culturally be unable to coerced)? refuse) Collective – operates Collective - Participation is Individual and collective. Collective – all participate in Collective – all participate in Collective – all participate in Collective Collective – through Structure – Is through CBOs which are collective as a community Community Disaster Risk one task one task one task residents action group participation formal organisations Management Organisations individual or (CBDRMO) are the focal collective, formal point, but all community or informal? members should be involved in implementation Participation is via Community decides if all Implementation coordinated Direct in person leaders and Indirect – via Unclear at community level, Direct Direct – participation in community-based members participate directly through CDRMO. representatives take on a representatives. Interested nominated community action group Channels – is organisations. Direct in or through representatives Participation is often indirect facilitating role as process residents volunteer, they representatives participate participation direct implementation, indirect in and the difficulty of progresses may or may not be official in district level PVA. At (in person) or decision making widespread direct representatives of the National level PVA, NGO indirect (via involvement in decision- community. represents community views representative)? making is acknowledged. Direct participation is expected in implementation. Continuous Continuous – this is the start Continuous throughout risk Continuous Intermittent participation Continuous One-off intermittent – membership Duration – Is of a programme of reduction with project partnership. of action group fluctuated participation a improvements in the Continuous participation in over time one-off, community. The actual CVA community based hazard intermittent or element is a one-off activity mitigation organisation. continuous lasting 5 days with a follow- activity? up at three months. Popular education on: Analysis of hazard and Analysis of hazard, Identification of hazard, Identification of hazard risk, Hazard and vulnerability Villagers explain how space Awareness raising in

How? (continued) human rights and basic vulnerability situation. vulnerability and capacity, vulnerabilities and assessment of vulnerability, identification and analysis, was used in their old village community, survey flood needs, community Identification and analysis of ranking risks, decisions of capacities. Identification of problem analysis and analysis of causes of and how they would like the damage, lobbying organisation, safe location potential solutions. Priority acceptable risk, decisions appropriate mitigation and development of strategies to vulnerability, analysis of new village to look. government for housing and settlements, setting for action. on actions, planning actions, rehabilitation actions. solve problems, coping mechanisms, Scope – What government organisations Participation in community managed Disaster preparedness development of community prioritisation and plan range of activities involved in disaster implementation. implementation, evaluation training, planning, advocacy based hazard mitigation vulnerability reduction are included? assistance. Community training. These activities organisation to implement actions

participate in implementing lead to participation at strategy. Emergency flood defences. CBOs mitigation, emergency and response training and participate in negotiations rehabilitation phases of the disaster scenario exercise. for government resources disaster cycle. and action. A shift from passive Initiating organisation and Empowerment is central to Participants take on Participants make decisions Empowerment is an aim of Community members have The decision-making power acceptance to active community provide CBDRM and community increasing levels of and strategies but cannot the process. Participants the power to approve or remained with government. negotiation with central resources for action plan. have power and responsibility for the compel government to act. have power in the analysis reject village designs Government decide\s when government. Government should be responsibility for change. process over time. Lack of sustained of problems and solutions. produced by government and how it engaged with the Empowerment – receptive to community External changes are Participation is explicitly part government interest Participants have power town planners community request but it is unclear if achieved through of an empowerment jeopardises the over their own action but How much power community can compel negotiation. process. Knowledge and implementation of actions can not compel government do participants government to act. skills transfer increases to change policy. Decision-making power is participant power. have? held by the community. Participants lack control Power to implement is over decisions unclear, although they should implement some things themselves.

2.5 Trends in participatory disaster management

2.5.1 What project stages do people participate in?

The examples presented in Table 2.6 show that within participatory disaster management projects, community members are always involved to some extent in decision making and are commonly involved in analysis of problems. In most cases, community members are involved in the identification and analysis of hazards, vulnerability and potential solutions, whilst some examples also require communities to analyse their own capacities. There is a common motivation for including community members in the identification and analysis of hazards, vulnerabilities and solutions, and that is an acknowledgement, in line with Chambers (1983), that communities are the experts in their own situation and that their knowledge should be respected and included.

Within community-based disaster mitigation (Maskrey, 1989), the community is not directly involved in the identification of hazards and vulnerabilities, but rather is advised of these by the facilitating Non Government Organisation (NGO) who present their analysis of problems and solutions (reflecting a more Freire-based pedagogy). The community participates in decision-making based on the analysis of the NGO. In contrast, Shah’s (1996) example of participatory planning in reconstruction is quite different, in that it focuses on reconstruction following a disaster rather than mitigation and vulnerability reduction. In this case the participants are still heavily involved in the analysis of their situation and have control over the plan that is selected.

The implementation of actions in participatory disaster management is often coordinated through community organisations using local and/or government resources. For example, in ‘Community Vulnerability Analysis’ (CVA) (Vrolijks, 1998), the importance of resource availability is clearly stressed. It is recommended that at the start of the programme government make clear what resources it is able to commit, and that the community also agree to commit resources and labour to enable the implementation of planned actions (Vrolijks, 1998).

In three of the examples analysed above, community members do not participate in implementation. In the cases provided by Shah (1996) and Cottrell (2005), the government assumes responsibility for implementation of reconstruction and the modification of flood defences respectively. In ‘Participatory Vulnerability Analysis’ (PVA) (Chiwaka and Yates, undated) the goal is policy change and this is quite different to other examples. The community can inform policy change, but does not itself implement the change.

In all cases, the community is the beneficiary of the project. Benefits focus on the reduction of vulnerability in communities through improved mitigation and/or better preparedness. In the case of PVA the structural causes of vulnerability are addressed through advocating policy change.

A lack of evaluation is not uncommon in projects (Cohen and Uphoff, 1977). A study of assessments in the humanitarian sector suggests that after initial assessments have been conducted, continuing or repeat assessments are de-prioritised and may not happen at all (Darcy and Hofmann, 2003). In

21 the examples analysed, evaluation is mentioned in only one case. In CBDRM, participatory monitoring and evaluation is the final step in the programme. Monitoring focuses on ensuring that work is progressing in line with targets, whilst evaluation assesses whether the project has been successful or not and identifies further work or improvements (Abarquez and Murshed, 2004). The community participates in setting the scope and means of measuring progress and is represented in the evaluation team. CVA refers to the need to conduct progress meetings three months after the initial analysis is conducted. The purpose of the meeting is to bring the community and other participating stakeholders together to review progress towards agreed targets, sharing views about progress and further work to be done (Vrolijks, 1998).

2.5.2 Who participates in participatory disaster management?

Community members participate in all of the examples analysed in Table 2.6. This is unsurprising as each case was selected because it is an illustration of participatory disaster management. Local leaders tend to participate as community members, rather than in their role as leaders. The exception to this is cases in which participation is channelled mainly through community organisations, as is the case in CBDRM. In Community Based Development Oriented Disaster Reduction (CBDO-DR) local leaders take on increasing amounts of responsibility for facilitation as the programme proceeds (Heijmans and Victoria, 2001), allowing them to develop skills needed to continue the participatory process in the absence of facilitating NGO staff. In all examples, reference is made to the need to ensure participants are representative of the local population in terms of gender and age.

Local and/or central governments are often involved at some stage of the participatory process. Government is commonly viewed as an essential partner in the process and their participation is important as they often retain decision-making power on certain matters. Whilst many programmes promote the activities that the community can complete itself, Maskrey (1989) observes that participatory disaster management is not intended to exclude government, but rather, to involve government in the support of community-developed mitigation programmes. PVA (Chiwaka and Yates, undated), presents an interesting example in that the government participates in the process, but does not participate with the community directly. The approach is based on three separate analyses of the community’s vulnerability; one conducted between the community and the NGO, one conducted between local government, the NGO and community representatives, and another conducted between National government and the NGO. The purpose of the analysis is to highlight the community’s views on vulnerability and influence policy decisions in government (Chiwaka and Yates, undated). Mediated interaction between communities and government such as that in PVA, may have the benefit of navigating the (potentially negative) power dynamics between the two groups; however, it does require the presence of a third party (the NGO) and so could be seen to be creating community dependency on NGOs to act as intermediaries.

The involvement of ‘foreign’ personnel is universal in participatory disaster management. Foreign personnel are usually NGO staff and commonly take on a facilitating role in the process.

Professionals are also often included to offer expertise that the community is perceived to lack. In CVA, these professionals often provide information that the community is unaware of, such as technical explanations of hazards (Vrolijks, 1998). The role of foreign personnel, and to a lesser extent government staff, is to facilitate and support the community. Several examples (e.g. CVA, CBDO-DR) emphasise that the analysis may be facilitated by external personnel, but should be the work of the community, and care should be taken to avoid outsiders playing a dominant role to the detriment of community participation (Vrolijks, 1998; Heijmans and Victoria, 2001).

2.5.3 How is participation occurring?

Participation in disaster management activities is commonly, but not exclusively, initiated from above by government or NGOs. CBDRM, for example, acknowledges that it can be initiated by an external agency as part of a wider agenda, or the community itself can request to participate in the process (Abarquez and Murshed, 2004). Community-based disaster mitigation differs in that it is a shared initiative, based on an agreement between the facilitating NGO, local community based organisations and local government. In one example, the agreement arose after a series of flooding disasters affected the area (Maskrey, 1989). In only one case, [where citizens initiated participation in flood mitigation planning (Cottrell, 2005)], was participation initiated from below, although in this example, the government retained the control over when and how it chose to participate with the community. In all cases, the participation of community members in the project is voluntary and without material incentive.

Participation is commonly collective with all participants working together on a task. The size of a community can preclude the direct participation of all community members. CBDRM for example, acknowledges that it can be difficult to include all members in decision making and planning stages; however, it suggests that every individual has a role to play in the implementation of risk reduction (Abarquez and Murshed, 2004). Such duality of participation channels is common, with a smaller number of representatives participating in analysis and decision-making, but more widespread direct participation in the implementation of plans. A particularly flexible approach to the channel of participation is demonstrated by CVA, which suggests that all community members should be called to the initial meeting and they should decide if the project proceeds with direct participation of all members or through nominated representatives (Vrolijks, 1998).

Participation in most disaster management projects is expected to be continuous, but may involve only a limited period of interaction with facilitating agencies. The examples analysed in Table 2.6 demonstrate that it is common for the process to begin with an intense period of interaction during which time analysis and planning is conducted. Once this is complete communities are left to continue participating in disaster management independently of the initiating agency. In Community Vulnerability Analysis (CVA) this analysis and planning takes place over 5 days (Vrolijks, 1998). In some examples such as ICBDM, interaction between the community and facilitators is intermittent. ICBDM is based on regular fortnightly 2 hour sessions over a period of five months followed by 12 hours of emergency training and scenario testing (Chen et al, 2006). The example of participatory

23 planning in village reconstruction (Shah, 1996) is the only example of participation as a one-off activity, with participation ending once the planning was complete.

The scope of activities undertaken as part of participatory disaster management is commonly focussed on analyses of hazard and vulnerability situations within communities. The majority of examples also involve setting priorities and planning actions to reduce vulnerability and mitigate hazards. Other actions include emergency response training (ICBDM), disaster preparedness training and advocacy training (CBDO-DR), awareness raising and lobbying (citizen initiated participation in flood mitigation planning) and evaluation (CBDRM). Community based disaster mitigation takes a slightly different approach and focuses on popular education, working on the principle that community members should be educated to advise them of the causes of their vulnerability and enable them to campaign for political change and participate in political negotiations (Maskrey, 1989). The general focus of activities is on mitigation. Participation in emergency phases is limited (to only CBDO-DR and ICBDM). Training is provided through CBDO-DR to allow community members to assess damage after a disaster to identify needs, vulnerabilities and capacities (Heijmans and Victoria, 2001). Emergency training (first aid, search and rescue, walkie talkie operation) is incorporated by ICBDM to enable communities to respond to the emergency themselves, should government emergency services be delayed or overwhelmed (Chen et al, 2006).

Empowerment is a commonly stated aim of participatory projects. The programmes aim to give communities some responsibility for disaster management activities. In all cases (except Shah, 1996), power for major decisions remains with the government, but the community can be empowered to negotiate for change.

2.5.4 The influence of context and nature of task on participation (participation is ‘situated’ in its context)

The above discussion demonstrates that there are many commonalities between examples of participatory disaster management; there are also a number of differences. These differences do not make one example better than another; rather they highlight the influence that the context and nature of the task has on the way participation is practiced (Cohen and Uphoff, 1977). Whilst there is value in understanding the general trends within the broad disaster management context, recognition of the context-specific nature of participation supports the need for situated analyses of participation, considering not only the nature of participation in a project, but also the nature of the project itself and the environment or context within which it takes place. In the case of participation in damage assessments in Fiji, both the nature of damage assessments and the disaster management context will have a bearing on the way participation is practiced, and as such, must be included in the analysis of participation. These two influences are discussed in section 2.8 and Chapter 3, respectively. The following section considers the nature of the disaster management tasks in which participation is employed.

2.6 Participation and the disaster cycle

In disaster management the nature of a task can be considered in terms of its ‘location’ within the disaster management cycle, i.e. whether a task is aimed towards preparedness, response, rehabilitation, or mitigation. The nature of tasks in the examples analysed above tend to concentrate on mitigation and vulnerability reduction activities. The distribution of participatory disaster management in the disaster cycle is illustrated in Figure 2.1 and shows a trend towards initiating (and perhaps concentrating) community participation in the mitigation phase of the disaster cycle. There are a limited number of examples of participation in the response phase, suggesting that the paternalistic top-down mentality still persists in response, and to a lesser extent, rehabilitation.

2.7 Challenges to participatory disaster management

The preceding analysis of participation in disaster management has drawn upon a number of different examples of participatory practice, yet the prevalence of participation should not be

25 overstated. Top-down approaches to disaster management remain dominant and there are concerns that “many organisations have called their work ‘participatory’ but have not changed the substance of their approach” (Twigg et al, 2001:5). Although there is an acknowledgement that community participation is difficult to achieve (Twigg, 1999; Warner et al, 2002), there has been limited in-depth consideration within disaster studies as to why participation has failed to gain a stronger foothold in disaster management practice. It is, however, clear that if participatory disaster management is to be effective and achieve the anticipated benefits outlined in section 1.1, challenges must be identified and addressed. The following section illustrates a number of key issues which may act to challenge participatory disaster management.

2.7.1 Dominance of command and control approaches to disaster management

Part of the reason for disaster practitioners’ interest in participatory approaches is the failure of traditional top-down or command and control approaches to effectively reduce and respond to disaster risk in communities. However, such top-down approaches remain dominant and inhibit the adoption of participatory approaches (Twigg et al, 2001). In an analysis of Mexico’s National Civil Protection System (CPNS) it was shown that despite the fact that the system was designed to facilitate community participation, the reality was that government retained a centralised, technocratic and bureaucratic attitude to disaster management (Arellano-Gault and Vera-Cortés, 2005). There is a disparity between policy and practice. This is attributed to two main beliefs: (1) that disasters are products of unpredictable events (i.e. that the hazard is the disaster agent) and, (2) that people affected by disasters panic and engage in criminal behaviour (Arellano-Gault and Vera- Cortés, 2005). Such beliefs ignore the influences of social vulnerability and the wealth of research demonstrating disaster victims do not adopt behaviours that require social control (Nilson, 1985). In contrast to the belief that hazard is the key disaster agent, participatory approaches are underpinned by contrasting beliefs that social vulnerability is a key agent in disaster and that communities are knowledgeable and capable of acting rationally in an emergency. Such opposing beliefs suggest that the implementation of participatory approaches does not require only a change of practice; it also requires fundamental changes to existing belief systems.

2.7.2 Government fear of participation

Government commitment to the participatory process is a prerequisite for effective community participation (Andharia, 2002; Chen et al, 2006). However, Government’s fear of participation provides a further potential barrier to its widespread adoption. Genuine participation involves the devolution of some power to communities, without which, participation is reduced to mere consultation. But the removal of power from traditional project leaders (i.e. government officers) to the community can also be threatening, thus those unaccustomed to sharing power may regard participation as a threat to their control (Oakley, 1991; Andharia, 2002). There are also concerns that wide participation (involving a large proportion of community members) will increase the time taken to make planning decisions (Pretty, 1995). This may then be used to justify the limited use of participation. It has also been suggested that secrecy within institutions inhibits the integration of

26 participation into public decision making (Fordham, 1999). Again, this is linked to a reluctance to cede power and control to those who are traditionally perceived as incapable of making decisions. Paternalism persists in this mentality.

2.7.3 Time, cost and multiple demands placed on disaster management practitioners

Participatory approaches can be very time consuming and can increase project costs (Oakley, 1991; Andharia, 2002). Whilst some projects can take a short period of time, for example participatory planning in Maharashtra, India, which took just three days to complete (Shah, 1996), a longer engagement is more common. Post-earthquake reconstruction planning in Peru, for example, took six months to reach a consensus on what action to take (Schilderman, 1993). Twigg (1999) suggests that even if disaster practitioners wish to employ participatory approaches, the multiple demands on their time and the pressure of working in emergency situations, can make it impossible to implement community participation. It has also been observed that there is a lack of training in participatory approaches. Fordham (1992) states that Environment Agency engineers responsible for flood mitigation in the UK, reported increases in community consultations in their work, but at no point in their careers had they received formal training on how to practice community participation. The lack of trained professionals is also highlighted as a barrier to the large scale implementation of community based disaster management in Taiwan (Chen et al, 2006). It is also quite likely that many disaster management organisations lack the institutional capacity to undertake participatory approaches. Limitations of human and financial resources, training and operational procedures may challenge the use of participatory approaches.

2.7.4 Community willingness/availability to participate

Barriers are not only presented by government, in fact, low community interest in disaster management has been reported as a barrier to the adoption of participatory disaster management (Chen et al, 2006). Low community interest in participation can be explained in two broad categories. Firstly, communities who have no interest in, or have no capacity for disaster management activities; and, secondly, those who do not have time to participate. It has been observed that residents who have been recently affected by disaster are more likely to participate, whilst unaffected residents are less interested (Chen et al, 2006). There are also some community members who perceive disaster management to be a technical matter, and perceive they lack the required technical skills to participate (Godschalk et al, 2003). There are also individuals who lack the financial resources and time to participate. Residents who are badly affected by disasters prefer to spend their time earning money rather than participating in disaster management programmes (Chen et al, 2006). This phenomenon is also observed in development programmes, where the greatest challenge facing the poor is survival and there is little spare time available to participate in other activities (Oakley, 1991).

2.7.5 Community capacity for decision making and consensus

Many participatory approaches are based on participants reaching consensus and making decisions for themselves. The presence of these capabilities in a community varies. In the Pacific Islands for

27 example, consensus building is a key part of contemporary Pacific culture and thus a highly appropriate vehicle for reaching decisions (Vrolijks, 1998). In other situations this capacity may not be present. Communities are not homogenous; sub-groups can exist within communities bound together for example by ethnicity or religion (Mitchell, 1997). With such diversity, some conflict is inevitable (Andharia, 2002), and this may make consensus difficult to achieve.

The issues presented above represent significant, fundamental challenges to the establishment and maintenance of participatory disaster management activities. The influence of each issue is likely to vary between disaster management tasks. For example, the dominance of command and control approaches to disaster management may be weaker in mitigation than disaster response situations. The recognition of forces such as these, which may act to constrain community participation in disaster management activities, and the subsequent development of strategies to address them, is essential if the benefits of participatory disaster management are to be realised. In line with this, the second research question of this study aims to identify and examine the challenges facing community participation in damage assessments in Fiji.

2.8 The damage assessment process

The remainder of this chapter focuses on developing an understanding of the damage assessment process. It was noted in section 2.5.4, that participation is situated within its context and is affected by both the environment in which participation takes place and the task to which it is applied. In relation to the task to which participation is applied, it is essential to have a thorough comprehension of the purpose and practice of damage assessments. The following section explains the general purpose of damage assessments and introduces the concept of a cyclical process which consists of several types of damage assessments, each consisting of a number of sequential stages.

Damage assessments are a key component of disaster response involving the collection of accurate information about damage and the needs of affected populations. Assessments guide effective and appropriate decision making with regards to response (relief and rehabilitation) including: whether a response is required, what the appropriate nature and scale of response should be, the prioritisation and allocation of resources, and to justify funding applications (Campbell and Chung, 1986b; Stephenson, 1994; Darcy and Hofmann, 2003). Formal damage assessments are conducted by the government of the affected country, local and international NGOs, multi-lateral institutions such as the UN, and donor governments.

The importance of initial damage assessments (in the emergency phase, immediately after a disaster) has been recognised by the humanitarian response community and is the second minimum standard after participation in the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards for Disaster Response, developed by a broad cross-section of NGOs under the guidance of the coordinating ‘Sphere Project’ (The Sphere Project, 2004). The standard states,

Assessments provide an understanding of the disaster situation and a clear analysis of threats to life, dignity, health and livelihoods to determine in consultation with relevant authorities, whether an external response is required and, if so, the nature of the response (The Sphere Project, 2004:29).

The inclusion of initial assessment as a common standard means it is accepted as a universal practice that should be applied in all humanitarian response situations (The Sphere Project, 2004).

In line with the recognised importance of damage assessment within disaster management practice, there exists a multitude of guidelines and handbooks offering technical advice on how damage assessments should be conducted (see for example Campbell and Chung, 1986a,b; Planitz, 1999; United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2000; Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance, 2005a). Such guidelines generally concur that the damage assessment process ideally involves a number of activities: preparedness planning, survey and data collection, interpretation, analysis and forecasting, reporting, and monitoring. Organisations involved in damage assessments may also include the design and/or modification of disaster response as part of the assessment process (Stephenson, 1994), whilst others regard decision-making and programme planning to be external to the assessment process (Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance, 2005a). Disaster situations are continually evolving, not least as a result of the provision of relief. As such, continual reassessment within a cyclical assessment process (as illustrated in Figure 2.2) is widely recommended (Stephenson, 1994; Planitz, 1999).

Figure 2.2 Stages in the damage assessment process (Adapted from: Stephenson, 1994; Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance, 2005a)

The cyclical process illustrated in Figure 2.2 suggests a repetitive process and does not reflect the ways in which the purpose of damage assessments alters with each revolution of the cycle in line with the information needs of decision-makers. Figure 2.3 presents a more detailed depiction of the

29 process and illustrates the three main types of damage assessment. The process begins with an initial survey leading to the design of disaster response (relief) activities. This is followed by a detailed survey leading to the design of disaster rehabilitation programmes. The process is completed with a monitoring and evaluation survey leading to the design or modification of response activities and preparation for future disasters. A more detailed illustration reveals the subtle differences in the form and results of each cycle or phase of damage assessment. The spiral design also demonstrates the way in which damage assessments build upon previous assessments in the cycle to develop an increasingly detailed understanding of damage after a disaster. This expanded representation of the comprehensive damage assessment process will be used to structure the analysis of community participation in damage assessment presented in Chapters 6 and 7.

Figure 2.3 A comprehensive damage assessment process (Stephenson, 1994; Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance, 2005a)

The commencement of the damage assessment process is often preceded by a ‘rapid situation overview’. This is a notification which alerts authorities and other agencies to the occurrence of a disaster and is typically issued within 12 hours of a disaster event. It is based on early communications with the affected area, and where possible, preliminary field and/or aerial reconnaissance surveys (Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance, 2005a).

Once a ‘rapid situation overview’ has established the occurrence of a disaster14, the damage assessment process begins with an initial damage assessment, which identifies the current situation and needs of the affected population. The situation element of the assessment involves the visual identification of the magnitude and spatial extent of the disaster, the impact on local populations, the physical environment and infrastructure. The needs assessment component identifies the ability of affected populations to cope with the disaster and the need for resources and/or services to save and sustain lives (Planitz, 1999; United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2000; Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance, 2005a).

The purpose of the initial damage assessment is to gather information quickly, within a few days of the disaster, to determine if authorities need to respond and what that response should be. Initial assessments are commonly conducted by agency local personnel such as government officers and NGO workers. Several organisations suggest that assessors should have experience in emergency response and training in post-disaster survey (Campbell and Chung, 1986b; Eade and Williams, 1995; IFRC, 2005). It is preferable to conduct assessments at the site of the disaster, however, organisations acknowledge that access to affected areas may be inhibited as a result of the disaster and it may not be possible to visit all affected areas (IFRC, 2005). A range of data collection methods are employed including visual inspection and interviews with key informants such as local health workers and senior community members.

During the initial assessment process, quick decisions must be made to sustain and save the lives of affected populations. The time between the collection of data and the implementation of emergency relief actions is very short. Given the risks to affected populations, analysis and decision-making in this initial process should proceed using the best information available in a short time (Eade and Williams, 1995). Whilst accuracy should not be compromised, it may be necessary to base decisions on incomplete information in the interest of a timely response (Campbell and Chung, 1986a). Actions implemented as a result of initial assessments may include: the provision of emergency shelter, dispatch of emergency medical and/or search and rescue teams and the supply of emergency food rations. As with the collection of data during initial damage assessments, analysis of the data and subsequent decision-making is typically controlled by the emergency headquarters of government and/or relief organisations. Information is collated from all affected areas and response decisions are made at a national scale.

14 In Fiji, a disaster is defined as: “The occurrence of a sudden or major misfortune which disrupts the basic fabric and normal functioning of a society (community). An event or series of events which gives rise to casualties and/or damage or loss of property, infrastructure, essential services or means of livelihood on a scale which is beyond the normal capacity of the affected communities to cope with unaided” (Government of Fiji, 1995:x)

Following initial damage assessments and the deployment of emergency relief, the second revolution of the assessment cycle begins and detailed damage assessments are conducted. These are generally sector-based surveys, for example, health, agriculture, water and sanitation, housing, communications and transport, and are ideally conducted by sectoral specialists. Sectors requiring detailed assessments are often identified during the initial assessment. The purpose of these assessments is to collect detailed information about the damage sustained in each sector and to identify medium- to long-term recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction requirements (Campbell and Chung, 1986a; Planitz, 1999; Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance, 2005b). Detailed assessments can begin as early as 36 hours after a disaster, but may take up to one month to complete. Assessment generally involves visits to a number of affected sites (if not all) and involves a range of data collection methods appropriate to each sector. For example, a building survey may require a site inspection whilst a public health survey may rely upon epidemiological assessments of reported illnesses.

The damage assessment process is most commonly conceptualised as consisting of two distinct assessments: the initial assessment and detailed assessment. Acknowledgement is often given to the need for continual monitoring to detect changes in the situation or needs of affected populations (Stephenson, 1994) and some guidelines also note the need to evaluate the effectiveness and appropriateness of response initiatives (Planitz, 1999; Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance, 2005a). Monitoring and evaluation are rarely considered to be separate assessment processes in themselves. An exception to this is the recent Guidelines for Emergency Assessment issued by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) which presents the damage assessment process as consisting of three separate assessments: initial, detailed and continual (IFRC, 2005). The inclusion of ‘continual assessment’ as a separate type of assessment assigns it equal status to initial and detailed assessments, yet the IFRC definition of continual assessment as “a process whereby information is continually updated” (IFRC, 2005:12) excludes the evaluation of the quality of disaster response. For the purposes of this thesis, the concept of assessments is expanded and the common initial and detailed assessments are supplemented by a ‘monitoring and evaluation assessment’ which encompasses continual monitoring of the situation and the needs of affected populations and also an evaluation of the quality of the response. Monitoring and evaluation is an integral part of the damage assessment process and conceptualising it as a discrete assessment type offers it equal status to initial and detailed assessments and recognises the value that can be gained through reflexive learning. Table 2.7 provides a summary of each assessment type within the damage assessment process.

Table 2.7. Summary of damage assessment process Monitoring and Assessment Rapid Situation Initial Damage Detailed Sector Evaluation type Overview Assessment Assessment Assessment Approximate 8-12 hours 24-48 hours 36 hours – 1 6 months (or longer month depending on the scale time from of disaster and disaster completion of response) impact Notification that a Identification of Identification of Monitoring to identify disaster has immediate relief extent of damage emerging needs of occurred, needs and and affected populations. Purpose including the sectors requiring rehabilitation Evaluations to assess location and detailed needs in specific the quality of disaster preliminary assessments sectors preparedness and damage reports response Data Aerial survey, Visual Ground Technical Group debriefs, telecommunicati assessment inspections by workshops, public collection ons with affected experts, sector meetings methods locations interviews

(Source: Stephenson, 1994; Planitz, 1999; United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2000; IFRC, 2005; Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance, 2005a)

The above outlined process is an ideal and in reality may be constrained by the conditions of working within a disaster situation and/or general poor practice (Chapter 7 identifies some of the challenges facing damage assessment practice in Fiji). A review of needs assessment and decision-making in the humanitarian sector, showed that formal assessments such as those described above, were often marginal to the decision-making process, with decisions often being based on anecdotal evidence (Darcy and Hofmann, 2003).

2.9 The role of affected communities in damage assessments

This study is concerned with the participation of affected communities in the damage assessment process in Fiji. The following section examines existing damage assessment practice and identifies the central issues associated with participation in damage assessment.

It is widely recognised by agencies involved in post-disaster damage assessment, that participation of affected communities in the assessment process is important (Eade and Williams, 1995; United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2000; The Sphere Project, 2004; IFRC, 2005). Participation is seen as an important tool for the accurate identification of the needs, vulnerabilities and capacities of affected populations (Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance, 2005a). Failure to incorporate the opinion of affected populations can result in waste when inappropriate or unnecessary response is provided (Chung, 1999). Guidelines and handbooks that support and direct damage assessments, position participation as the provision of information from

34 affected communities to external assessors. Participation is variously described as “direct engagement” (Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance, 2005a:II-7), “consultation” (Eade and Williams, 1995; IFRC, 2005:35) and, listening to people (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2000).

In addition to these practical arguments for the initiation of community participation in the response phase of a disaster, there is also a moral/ethical argument. Bakewell (2000) suggests that participation in the evaluation of humanitarian response programmes is an ethical imperative, recognising the rights and capacity of affected people. Such an imperative is not restricted to evaluation of disaster response but also applies to the design and implementation of response. Exclusion from decision-making processes which impact upon affected people is described as “an affront to people’s dignity” (Eade, 1997:187-188). It undermines people’s decision-making capacity, reinforcing passive and dependent behaviour. Broadening the understanding of relief and response, beyond purely material, allows participation to be seen as a form of relief/response (Eade, 1997). Initiating and supporting community participation is a form of response. Participation in disaster management can offer long term protection just as effectively as traditional physical/material relief, such as strengthening shelters. A case study of an Oxfam response to drought in Zambia (1992-93) demonstrated the lasting positive impact of community participation in disaster response (Eade and Williams, 1995). The Oxfam programme combined food aid distribution with community mobilisation to inform them of the root causes of their vulnerability to drought. An evaluation of the programme concluded that it had a “significant impact on people’s confidence, and on the attitude of local government officials towards them” (Eade and Williams, 1995:877).

Yet despite the presence of both practical and moral arguments in support of community participation in damage assessments and disaster response, affected communities are not always involved in these processes. In a study of a number of humanitarian responses it was found that participation of affected populations in the assessment process was “inconsistent and sometimes absent altogether” (Darcy and Hofmann, 2003:9). It has also been suggested that direct input from populations intended to be beneficiaries of relief and disaster response is frequently absent (Daley et al, 2001). This is in part a consequence of the practicalities of operating in an emergency situation. Chaotic situations in which there are imminent risks to the safety of affected people require swift action to provide essential services such as shelter and water (Eade and Williams, 1995). It has been suggested that “in some emergency situations there may … be logistical and political limits to participation” (Roche, 1999:267). In addition, the magnitude or spatial extent of the disaster may result in responders being spread thinly. The limited time and resources typical in an emergency situation can constrain the level of participation achieved at this stage of a disaster, yet Eade (1997) asserts that whilst a rapid response is always important, it should not be at the expense of other considerations, such as participation.

Recognising the constraints of an emergency situation and the desirability of community participation in disaster response, it has been recommended that a minimum level of participation should be achieved (Eade and Williams, 1995; Darcy and Hofmann, 2003). Establishing the principle of

35 participation in the emergency phase provides a foundation for subsequent participation, once essential emergency needs have been met (Eade and Williams, 1995). This is important as a consultation process is essential not only for an adequate analysis of risk and needs, but also in the design and implementation of appropriate responses (Darcy and Hofmann, 2003). Furthermore, failure to initiate a participatory approach in the initial stage of a response allows top-down approaches to dominate and these can be difficult to overcome once established (Eade and Williams, 1995).

The post-disaster phase presents a window of opportunity to initiate disaster management. Affected populations are motivated to engage in disaster management activities if they have been recently affected by disaster (Vrolijks, 1998). Almost immediately after a disaster, affected communities begin to think of recovery and the future. At this time affected populations are keen to adopt practices that can reduce future losses as a result of similar disasters (Chung, 1999) and they are most likely to take an active role in disaster management. Establishing participatory processes in the early stages of disaster response can capitalise on heightened public interest and establish a precedent of participatory disaster management, which can be expanded in subsequent phases of the disaster cycle (rehabilitation and mitigation and preparedness).

It is clear that there are several (practical/moral) arguments in support of participatory damage assessments, yet section 2.4 revealed that most critical literature on participatory disaster management relates to proactive vulnerability and disaster reduction programmes and not response activities. There is clearly a gap in the critical investigation of participatory damage assessments, which this study seeks to address through the application of a modified version of Cohen and Uphoff’s (1977) framework for analysing participation in projects. The following section details how the framework is customised to suit the damage assessment process.

2.10 Analytical framework for investigating participation in damage assessments

Introduced in section 2.4 to examine a number of examples of participatory disaster management activities and identify trends in participatory disaster management practice15, Cohen and Uphoff’s (1977) analytical framework considers three dimensions of participation: ‘What’ people are participating in, ‘who’ is participating, and ‘how’ they are participating.

The ‘what’ dimension of the framework is well suited to generic projects and comparisons between projects such as that undertaken in section 2.4. In the analysis of existing community participation in damage assessments, it is necessary to customise the framework, expanding the ‘what’ dimension to accommodate the five discrete and sequential stages in a damage assessment process. These are: preparedness planning; survey and data collection; analysis, interpretation and forecasting; reporting; and the design or modification of a response (Stephenson, 1994; Office of U.S. Foreign

15 See section 2.4 for a discussion of the analytical framework

Disaster Assistance, 2005a). Table 2.8 provides a summary of the characteristics that are considered in the following analysis of participation in damage assessments in Fiji (see Chapters 6 and 7).

Table 2.8. Dimensions of participation used to identify and analyse existing participation in damage assessment What? Who? How? Preparedness Local residents Initiative – where does the initiative for participation come planning from (above or below)? Local leaders Survey and data Inducements – What inducements are there for collection Government participation (is participation voluntary or coerced)? personnel (local or Analysis, central) Structure – Is participation individual or collective, formal interpretation or informal? and forecasting Foreign personnel (NGO, UN, donor Channels – is participation direct (in person) or indirect Reporting governments etc) (via representative)?

Design or Duration – Is participation a one-off, intermittent or modification of continuous activity? response Scope – What range of activities are included?

Empowerment – How much power do participants have? (Source: after Cohen and Uphoff, 1977)

Section 2.8 established that damage assessment is a cyclical process consisting of three assessment types (initial, detailed, and monitoring and evaluation). The subsequent analysis of participation in damage assessment in Fiji (Chapter 6 and 7) considers each of these assessments in turn. Analysis begins with an identification of who is participating at each stage of each assessment. Attention is then focused on how affected communities participate in each assessment. This structured analysis is the basis for an identification of the type of participation currently practiced and the type proposed under new disaster management legislation.

2.11 Summary

This chapter has introduced the theoretical basis of this study, presenting information on the concept and practice of community participation in disaster management. The chapter has established the multiple interpretations of participation and need for clarity regarding the type of participation employed in a project and the outcomes it is expected to generate. It has also highlighted the context-specific nature of participation and the need for situated studies of participation in projects. Section 2.5 highlighted the limited volume of attention given to participation in the response phase of the disaster cycle. This study seeks to address this gap through an investigation of community participation in damage assessments in Fiji. To that end this chapter has established the important role that damage assessment plays in disaster response and elaborated on the content of the damage assessment process. The desirability of community participation in disaster response has also been noted. An analytical framework has been modified to suit the analysis of community

37 participation in damage assessment and this will be used in Chapters 6 and 7. In recognition of the context specific nature of community participation, the following chapter presents background information on the historical, socio-political and disaster management context in Fiji.

3 Disaster management in Fiji

3.1 Introduction

Community participation is strongly influenced by a range of factors including the socio-political and cultural context in which it is applied and thus studies of participation must be situated within an understanding of the surrounding context. In this study, the context can be considered to encompass the damage assessment process in which participation is employed (see section 2.8) and also the wider socio-political and disaster management context in Fiji. This chapter presents key aspects of Fiji’s socio-political background which, in later chapters, will be shown to influence community participation in damage assessments. The range of natural hazards to which Fiji is exposed is elaborated upon, summarising some of the impacts of these past events in Fiji. The policies and practices of disaster management in Fiji are introduced drawing on both historical and contemporary practice. The extent and character of community participation in disaster management is then discussed and the notion of dependence is introduced.

3.2 Socio-political context

The importance of context in studies of participation was identified in section 2.5.4. It was argued that both the nature of the task and the context of the environment in which the task is performed influence the practice of participation (Cohen and Uphoff, 1977). In addition to the nature of damage assessment (discussed in sections 2.8 and 2.9), it is important to consider those aspects of Fiji’s social and political background which have a potential bearing on the practice of community participation. This section focuses on the issues of Fiji’s ethnic diversity and political instability as two aspects of Fiji’s social and political situation which will be drawn upon in later chapters to assist in the understanding of challenges to community participation. The particular influence of political instability on disaster management policy in Fiji is noted in section 3.5.

3.2.1 Ethnic diversity

Fiji’s current population is 854,443, 55 percent of whom are indigenous Fijians, 37 percent are Indo- Fijian and 8 percent are of other ethnic backgrounds (Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics, 2007). The significant Indo-Fijian population is largely a result of a colonial programme of indenture which operated from 1879 – 191716. During this time 60,000 Indian citizens were brought to Fiji by the British colonial administration to meet the high demand for labour of the increasingly successful sugar industry17. Under this system Indians were offered free passage to Fiji in exchange for ten

16 Fiji was ceded to Great Britain in 1874 and was a British Colony until independence in 1970. 17 Indigenous Fijian populations were restricted from working in commercial employment under the Native Administration which required Fijians to “remain in their own traditional surroundings under the leadership of their chiefs, protected from the

39 years work on Fijian plantations, at the end of which workers could return to India or remain in Fiji (Scarr, 1984). Of the 60,000 Indians who came to Fiji, only 40 percent chose to return to India (Brookfield, 1987). Many of the labourers who remained in Fiji, once their contractual obligations to government had been met, leased parcels of land to establish subsistence agriculture, others started small businesses. Some also leased land from the Colonial Sugar Refinery (CSR) or indigenous Fijians to farm sugar cane for sale to CSR. By 1925, almost half of the Indian population were cultivating their own holdings, with the remainder working as labourers or in the commercial sector (Robertson, 1931). The Indian population grew rapidly and by 1946, exceeded the indigenous Fijian population. Censuses over the next 50 years show the Indo-Fijian population remained slightly larger than the indigenous Fijian population (Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics, 2005).

After their indenture, Indian community leaders fought for, and won, political representation for Indians. In 1915 an Indian was appointed by the colonial administration to the governing legislature and by the late 1920s there were three Indian representatives. At independence in 1970, Indians won parity of numerical representation in the legislature (Lal, 1988). During the early years of independence Fiji’s two main ethnic groups, Indigenous Fijians and Indo-Fijians, cooperated successfully and the mood was described as conciliatory and harmonious (Lal, 1988). Despite this, ethnic tensions remained between the two populations, fuelled by ignorance, prejudice and colonial policies which effectively segregated the two populations (Lal, 2004). These ethnic tensions have since been associated with political instability through their manipulation as a tool to gain political power.

3.2.2 Political instability

Although in the early years of independence political cooperation was successful, over time the atmosphere in Fiji changed. Ethnic issues surfaced as nationalist Fijians raised fears of being overtaken by vulagis or outsiders. Racist rhetoric entered parliament and though denounced by Fiji’s leaders, such rhetoric had entered the public consciousness (Lal, 1988). Following a general election in 1987 in which the Alliance Party (who had been in power since independence) lost to the Labour coalition (Doornbos and Akram-Lodhi, 2000), the rhetoric was adopted by the Taukei movement of indigenous Fijians who called for indigenous dominance in government. Amid alleged fears that indigenous Fijians would take matters into their own hands, Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka, led a military coup, ousting the government in May 1987, one month after it was established (Rabuka, 2000). A second coup was staged in September 1987 amid concerns agreements reached to form a bi- partisan government would not be adhered to (Rabuka, 2000). Whilst ethnic divisions were certainly a factor in the coup, it was as Lal (1988:7) describes “caused by a complex combination of incipient class conflicts, provincial tensions among indigenous Fijians and deep-seated racial antagonisms long imbedded in the very structure of Fiji’s society and politics”.

harmful effects of external contact” (Lal, 2004:5). This Native Administration was designed to protect Fijian culture and assist colonial authorities in controlling the indigenous population.

The 1987 coup led to significant changes in Fiji’s political structures and public service. A new constitution was introduced in 1990, and was accused of institutionalising racism and discrimination (Kumar and Prasad, 2004). Educated Indo-Fijians in the public service were forced into early retirement or demoted to make way for indigenous Fijians who, under a positive discrimination scheme, were entitled to 50% of all public service jobs (regardless of experience or qualification) (Kahn et al, 2005). Merit was replaced by patronage. Migration of skilled professionals was a further consequence of the coup. An Australian Labour Party report (cited in Lal, 1988) provides the following statistics: 100 of the 270 doctors and 70 of the 140 lawyers practicing at the time left Fiji, 200 qualified teachers resigned from secondary schools, whilst 500 resigned or retired from primary schools.

Indo-Fijians and others marginalised by the constitution participated in 1992 elections (held under the 1990 constitution) in order to be in a position to affect change and make the constitution more acceptable to their electorate. An independent commission reviewed the 1990 constitution in 1995 and recommended a number of changes to establish “a more inclusive, non-racial system of representation while protecting the legitimate interests and concerns of different communities” (Lal 2000:21). Almost all of the commission’s recommendations were endorsed and incorporated in the new 1997 constitution (Lal 2000).

General elections took place under the 1997 constitution in May 1999. Predictions before the elections suggested power would be retained by the existing government. However, the electorate voted overwhelmingly against the existing government and elected a new ‘People’s Coalition’ of the Fiji Labour Party, the Party of National Unity and the Fijian Association Party. For the first time in Fiji’s history an Indo-Fijian, Mahendra Chaudhry, was appointed Prime Minister of Fiji (Lal 2000). The indigenous-Fijian Taukei movement was deeply unhappy with the appointment of an Indo-Fijian Prime Minister and began a campaign to destabilize the People’s Coalition (Tarte, 2001). Attempts at destabilization culminated in May 2000, with Fiji’s third coup since independence. Whilst the coup was blamed upon Indo-Fijians, it in fact had more to do with struggles for political power between the indigenous Fijian Chiefs in Fiji’s Eastern and Western Divisions18 (Kahn et al, 2005).

In 2001 fresh general elections were held and resulted in no party having a majority, leading to discussion between the parties to establish a coalition government. The nationalist indigenous Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewanivanua (SDL) party, led by the head of the former interim government, won over sufficient independents and smaller parties to form a government. The 1997 constitution provides that any party with over 10 percent of seats qualifies for inclusion in the power-sharing cabinet (Lal, 2003). In 2006 the SDL won a majority (51 percent) but in line with the 1997 constitution, offered cabinet portfolios to the Fiji Labour Party who won 44 percent of the vote. The Fiji Labour Party accepted cabinet positions and Fiji was governed under a multi-party cabinet.

18 The Alliance Part which held power in Fiji from independence to the 1987 coup was largely dominated by Chiefs from Fiji’s Eastern Division. The Taukei movement was strongly supported by Chiefs from the Western Division, who felt under- represented in government.

Following disputes between the Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase and the head of the Fiji Military Forces, Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama, Fiji’s fourth coup in 20 years took place on December 5, 2006. Fiji is currently governed by an interim administration and fresh elections are not anticipated before 2009 (Government of Fiji, 2007). The effect of this political instability has been the establishment of a ‘coup culture’ in Fiji. In an interview with the Fiji Times (April 1, 2006), one of the leading newspapers in Fiji, Dr. Brij Lal, a prominent Indo-Fijian academic, highlighted the issue of ‘coup-children’. Children who have grown up in a racially-divided society and are accustomed to the preferential treatment of indigenous Fijians (Fiji Times, April 1, 2006). For example, those individuals who have benefited from positive discrimination in the award of promotions in the civil service, scholarships and training opportunities (Lal, 2000). He asserts that a culture of entitlement has developed in Fiji and this is having a detrimental effect on education, the work ethic of indigenous Fijians, and by extension the development, stability and prosperity of Fiji (Fiji Times, April 1, 2006). The influence of the culture of entitlement on disaster management practice is noted in section 8.5.3. Furthermore the coups have drawn international condemnation, and resulted in economic decline, a drop in foreign investment, falling standards of living and reduced ratings on human development indices.

The influence of these aspects of Fiji’s socio-political context upon disaster management in general will be illustrated in the section 3.4. Political instability has contributed to an expansion of the remit of the National Disaster Management Office to cater for humanitarian needs arising from political and civil unrest. The most recent coup has affected the implementation of new disaster management legislation. The following section introduces the natural hazards to which Fiji is exposed and which remain at the core of disaster management operations in Fiji.

3.3 Natural hazards in Fiji

Disaster management activities in Fiji focus on mitigation, planning, preparedness and response to, predominantly, natural hazard events. As is common in small island developing states, Fiji is exposed to a wide range of natural hazards including tropical cyclone, floods, earthquake, tsunami, landslides and drought (Fairbairn, 1997). The following section presents a summary of the frequency and impacts that each of these hazards has had in Fiji.

3.3.1 Tropical Cyclone

Fiji’s location in the South Pacific Ocean between 15-22° South and 175-178° West (see Figure 3.1), exposes the country to tropical cyclones, which are the most frequent hazard process to occur in Fiji and result in the most damage (Campbell, 1984; Fairbairn, 1997). On average, Fiji experiences 10 to 15 tropical cyclones per decade, of which 2 to 4 result in severe damage (Fiji Meteorological Office, undated). The cost of tropical cyclones and associated rainfall, flooding, storm surges, salt spray and high winds in Fiji is often high. The most expensive event in recent years was Tropical Cyclone Kina (1993) with total damage estimated at US$100 million (equivalent to 7% of Fiji’s GDP) (Fairbairn, 1997). Following Kina, Tropical Cyclone Ami (2003) resulted in damages of US$30 million and

Tropical Cyclone Gavin (1998) caused US$15 million worth of damage (OCHA, 2003). Tropical cyclones in Fiji affect an average of 28,837 people per event (CRED/EM-DAT, 2004). The most recent tropical cyclone (Ami, 2003) affected 30,000 people and killed 17 (CRED/EM-DAT, 2004). Cyclone Oscar (1983) affected 200,000 people, over a quarter of Fiji’s population.

Figure 3.1 Map of the Fiji Islands (showing administrative Divisional boundaries)

3.3.2 Flooding

Flooding is also a significant hazard in Fiji, usually associated with cyclone or tropical depression rainfall. Fiji is subject to both coastal flooding and river flooding (Rokovada and Vrolijks, 1993). Flash flooding, in which flood waters rise and dissipate rapidly following a few hours of heavy rainfall, occur with relative frequency (SOPAC, 2006). In April 2004, the Central and Western Divisions (Figure 3.1) experienced widespread flooding as a result of heavy rainfall associated with two tropical depressions (National Disaster Management Office, 2004). There were ten confirmed deaths and a further ten people missing, presumed dead and a preliminary estimate of damage placed the cost at over F$20 million (≈AU$14.75 million, US$12.7 million) (National Disaster Management Office, 2004).

3.3.3 Earthquake

Fiji is also exposed to earthquakes. In November 1998, a swarm of around 200 earthquakes, most of a magnitude less than ML4 affected Kadavu, with a major shock registering ML5.3, and having a Modified Mercalli intensity of VI-VII (Cronin et al, 2004). These earthquakes resulted in widespread small landslides (>100) which blocked roads and threatened buildings, concrete buildings were also cracked and residents in a number of villages self-evacuated (Cronin et al, 2004). In 1953 an earthquake of Modified Mercalli intensity IV to VII occurred, with its epicentre between Suva and Kadavu (at 18.25ºS, 178.25ºE) (Cronin et al, 2004). Damage to bridges, wharves, water supply installations and buildings was concentred in Suva, but extended from Navua to Nausori. Three people died as a result of the earthquake (one in a landslide, one by falling masonry and another died from injuries from unspecified causes). This event also generated a tsunami which resulted in the deaths of five people (see section 3.3.4) (Houtz, 1962). The majority of Fiji lies within an area that has a 10 percent chance of experiencing an earthquake of Modified-Mercalli intensity VIII –IX in a 50 year period (Johnson et al, 1994) (see Figure 3.2).

3.3.4 Tsunami

Fiji has, during its history, also been affected by tsunami. Johnson et al (1994) suggest that the likelihood of tsunami differs between locations in Fiji. Based upon the magnitudes of known tsunami Johnson et al (1994) assert that there is moderate tsunami potential in the Central-Southeast islands of the Fiji Group (where tsunami have been recorded with wave run-up heights of 2-4m). Coastlines in the Northwest of the group are identified as having a low tsunami potential as tsunami have either not been reported or those reported in the area have run-up heights of less than 2m (Johnson et al, 1994). The 1953 earthquake resulted in tsunami affecting the Suva coast and Kadavu Island. Along the Suva coast, eyewitnesses reported the first and largest wave to be 3-15m in height at the barrier reef. At shore the observed wave height was 1.0-2.0m, arriving 4-5 minutes after the earthquake (Rahiman et al, 2007). Larger waves affected Nakasaleka Village on Kadavu, an area unprotected by barrier reefs. Tsunami waves arrived at Nakasaleka 12 minutes after the earthquake and reached observed heights of 4.5m (Houtz, 1962; Rahiman et al, 2007). The tsunami occurred at low tide and

45 it is predicted that damage would have been significantly greater if the tsunami had occurred during high tide (3 ft (0.91m) higher) (Houtz, 1962). In Suva there were three deaths as a result of the tsunami, and in Nakasaleka, Kadavu two elders drowned after refusing to evacuate with rest of the village (Houtz, 1962)

3.3.5 Landslide

Landslides in Fiji are commonly associated with periods of heavy rainfall, especially tropical cyclone rainfall. Following Cyclone Wally in 1980, one stretch of road in Southeast Viti Levu was blocked by 45 separate large landslides (Government of Fiji, 1995). Landslides are also associated with earthquake activity (for example on Kadavu in 1998). Areas particularly susceptible to landslide are illustrated in Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2 Fiji’s exposure to Tropical Cyclone, Earthquake, Tsunami, and Landslide (Source: excerpt from Johnson, 1995)

3.3.6 Drought

Droughts which occurred in Fiji in 1983, 1987 and 1992 have been linked to the El Nino Southern Oscillation and associated reductions in rainfall. During the 1983 and 1992 droughts, it was necessary for the Government to ship emergency water and food rations to affected areas. Particularly vulnerable are small islands with limited water supplies. In some cases water must be delivered to these locations via barge (Government of Fiji, 1995).

It is clear that Fiji is exposed to a significant range of natural hazards and that these have resulted in disasters which have major effects on the country’s population. The estimated level of vulnerability and risk to each of the above natural hazards is summarised in Table 3.1. Estimations are based upon vulnerability assessments made before and during the International Decade for Disaster Reduction (1990-99), the effects of disasters occurring during that decade, and estimates provided by the National Diaster Management Office in Fiji (Chung et al, 2000). For each hazard type the vulnerability of Fiji is considered to be medium to high (May, 1994). The risk (a combination of vulnerability and hazard exposure) of each hazard (except volcanic eruption) is high (Chung et al, 2000). Disaster management activities in Fiji play an important role in attempting to reduce both the risk posed by natural hazards and the vulnerability of populations in Fiji and also to respond to the occurrence of disasters. The following sections detail the activities that are undertaken in Fiji as part of the practice of disaster management.

Table 3.1 Estimated level of vulnerability and risk to specific natural hazards in Fiji Tropical Storm Coastal River Volcanic Drought Earthquake Landslide Tsunami Cyclone Surge Flood Flood Eruption Vulnerability H (not H H M M H H - (May, 1994) included) Risk (Chung H H H H H H H H L et al, 2000) Ranking L = low M = medium H = High (Source: May, 1994; Chung et al, 2000)

3.4 Historical disaster management in Fiji

Contemporary disaster management policy and practice in Fiji has been strongly influenced by the policies introduced during Fiji’s period as a British Colony (1874-1970). Political instability since independence, culminating in four coups since 1987 (as outlined in section 3.2) has also influenced disaster management in Fiji. The following section provides further details on the history of disaster management in Fiji and the ways in which it has been shaped by the political environment.

3.4.1 Pre-cession and early government disaster management

Prior to Fiji’s cession to Great Britain in 1874, communities employed traditional coping strategies such as food preservation and inter-island trade to meet their needs following a disaster (Campbell, 1984). There is little detailed information available regarding how communities traditionally assessed damage following a disaster. The identification of damage and needs following a disaster would most likely have been undertaken through the Chiefly system as the dominant political structure, further

47 more Chief’s have responsibilities to ensure the welfare of their subjects. Decisions regarding relief would have been by village, tikina (district) or Provincial Chiefs and it would be these Chiefs who arranged for external assistance if necessary, through ceremonial exchanges or solevu between communities. Campbell (1984) provides the example of an exchange arranged by the Chiefs of Kabara (Tui Kabara) and Moala (Tui Moala) Islands in Lau, in which thousands of yams from Moala were exchanged for wooden bowls and trays from Kabara. It is noted that this exchange was most probably necessary to meet food shortages on Kabara (Campbell, 1984). Whilst these traditional techniques continued into the colonial period, their practice has since become increasingly rare, substituted by humanitarian relief aid from government and international donors. Simultaneously dependence upon the state has increased (Chung et al, 2000).

The formalisation of disaster management practice in Fiji has its roots in the provision of relief following disasters. In 1886, for the first time, food rations and seeds of fast maturing crops were supplied by the government to islands in the Lau Group following a tropical cyclone (Campbell, 1984). In subsequent years the provision of relief in the form of food rations, crop seeds and shelter became increasingly common. Following a devastating tropical cyclone and accompanying flooding in 1929, Government established a ‘Central Relief Committee’ (Campbell, 1984), which was the first committee created to direct the disaster relief operations across Fiji. The committee was reinstated in response to the 1931 cyclone and flooding, which caused extensive damage and loss of life. The committee system remained in place in Fiji throughout the remainder of the colonial era and relief became an almost automatic government response to disaster (Campbell, 1984). At the time of independence in 1970, government response to disaster had become institutionalised and expected by the population (Campbell, 1984).

To a large degree, this growth in government intervention was a response to a perceived reduction in the ability of communities to cope with the impact of disaster. However, the increased provision of relief may have been as important a factor in this process as any other. … by the time the colonial era came to a close in Fiji, the expectation of central assistance had become institutionalised as a “coping strategy” throughout the country (Campbell, 1984:67).

3.4.2 Post-independence disaster management

Following independence, the Fijian Government took on responsibility for disaster relief. Two years after independence, Fiji experienced the devastating Tropical Cyclone Bebe, which resulted in considerable damage across the country. In the days following the cyclone the Prime Minister’s Hurricane Relief Committee (PMHRC) was established to coordinate relief and rehabilitation activities (Campbell, 1984). The PMHRC had responsibility for ensuring the Emergency Services Committee (EMSEC) had adequate resources to implement a response immediately after a disaster. Following the initial response (in which EMSEC ensured the immediate needs of the population had been met), PMHRC assumed a stronger role in the long term rehabilitation (Campbell, 1984). The PMHRC became the lead agency in post-disaster policy for the next decade and in 1982, the

48 committee’s responsibilities were transferred to the Department for Relief, Rehabilitation and Rural Housing (Campbell, 1984). The Government of Fiji retained a dominant role in post-disaster relief and rehabilitation, and in 1989, expanded its role to incorporate all elements of disaster management (prevention, mitigation, preparedness, emergency operations, relief and rehabilitation) (Government of Fiji, 1995).

3.5 Contemporary Disaster Management

In 1995, with the development of the National Disaster Management Plan, the PMHRC and EMSEC became the National Disaster Management Office (NDMO) (Akapusi Tuifagalele, personal communication, July 25, 2007). This office now has responsibility for all aspects of disaster management in Fiji incorporating disaster planning, preparation and response. The Office is a department within the Ministry of Fijian Affairs, Lands and Provincial Development and operates through the Ministry’s administrative structure of Divisions, Provinces and Districts (see Figure 3.3). Fiji’s four Divisions are each headed by a Divisional Commissioner with responsibility for coordinating all government services (Naiker, undated). Provinces19, of which there are 14 nationally, are each governed by a provincial council and an executive head (Roko Tui). Districts are the lowest level of formal government and each consist of a number of communities. The work of the NDMO is guided by the National Disaster Management Council and its sub-committees (mitigation and prevention, preparedness, and emergency).

19 The inclusion of the Provincial layer of government in the administrative structure of the Ministry of Provincial Development occurred in 2006 and so is not reflected in existing formal disaster management structures. The National Disaster Risk Management Arrangements (NDRMA) arising from the 2003-2006 review incorporate the Provincial layer of government. 49

Figure 3.3 Permanent bodies of the disaster management structure under the 1995 National Disaster Management Plan (Source: Government of Fiji, 1995)

The international decade for natural disaster reduction (IDNDR) (1990-1999) provided the impetus for developing a legislative framework for disaster management activities within Fiji (Akapusi Tuifagalele, personal communication, July 25, 2007). In 1995 the National Disaster Management Plan was developed, replacing the 1979 EMSEC Precautionary Manual for Emergencies (Government of Fiji, 1995). Whilst the EMSEC Manual was largely restricted to emergency response and relief, the 1995 plan was expanded to include mitigation and rehabilitation activities (Government of Fiji, 1995). The plan describes the roles and responsibilities of agencies engaged in the disaster management process. It also details the procedures and activities to be performed during the emergency operations, relief and rehabilitation, and mitigation, public awareness and training stages.

In 1998, the National Disaster Management Plan (Government of Fiji, 1995) was complemented with the adoption of the Natural Disaster Management Act 1998 (Government of Fiji, 1998). The Act

50 follows the plan and provides the formal legislative framework for disaster management in Fiji. The Act details the administrative structure of disaster management, roles and responsibilities of government agencies, and procedures to be followed during emergency operations, relief and rehabilitation, mitigation, public awareness and training.

In 2003-2006, the National Disaster Management Office (NDMO) undertook a review of the 1995 Plan and the Natural Disaster Management Act. The review was prompted by a number of national and international factors. Nationally, the response to Tropical Cyclone Ami in 2003 highlighted a number of aspects of the existing system that could be improved to increase efficacy and efficiency (Rokovada, 2004). The role of the NDMO has also been expanded to incorporate humanitarian response to political crises (Rokovada, 2004). Following the 2000 coup, the NDMO was responsible for the provision of shelter and food to internally displaced people and it was necessary for this new role to be included in legislation. International events such as terrorism and the SARS virus also influenced the need for a policy review.

The policy framework recommended by the review was endorsed by Cabinet in February 2006 (Government of Fiji, 2006). The significant number of recommendations necessitated the drafting of a new plan and legislation, Fiji National Disaster Risk Management Arrangements: Building the resilience of Fiji's communities to natural and human-caused hazards (NDRMA) (National Disaster Management Office, 2006a). The NDRMA were completed in October 2006 and were due to be enacted by Cabinet in early 2007 (Joeli Rokovada, personal communication, 13 September 2006). Unfortunately, developments in the political situation of Fiji delayed the enactment of the NDRMA. The December 2006 coup led to the dissolution of Parliament and establishment of an interim administration. As the interim administration may not enact Acts of Parliament, the NDRMA has been made into Promulgation by the current administration (Joeli Rokovada, personal communication, 10 April 2007), meaning it has been put into law by formal public announcement.

3.6 Community participation in disaster management

The 1995 National Disaster Management Plan and 1998 Natural Disaster Management Act contain little reference to the role of communities in disaster management. Disaster management practitioners in Fiji recognise this as a significant shortcoming in the existing structure and attribute the perpetuation of “dependency, complacency and even … apathy” (Rokovada, 2004:7) amongst communities in respect to disaster management to their absence in the formal structure.

The exclusion of communities from the formal disaster management hierarchy reflects the growing institutionalisation and professionalisation of disaster management activities. Since the time of cession (1874), the state has increasingly taken on responsibility for disaster response (Campbell, 1984) through the establishment of committees (PMHRC, EMSEC) and coordinating offices (NDMO), and the distribution of increasing volumes of relief and rehabilitation assistance following disasters. Disaster management has been accepted as a government responsibility and in doing so there is a perception that communities have been relieved of personal responsibility. The generous

51 levels of humanitarian assistance offered by national (and foreign) governments following disasters has led to “increasing dependency, lack of self-determination of communities, the erosion of already existing coping systems and their replacement by a ‘culture of relief’” (Chung, 1999:200). During a workshop in Fiji held to discuss the role of communities in disaster management, community representatives agreed “that because of the current ‘spoon-feeding’ practices after national disasters, there has developed amongst communities a dependency mindset which progressively worsened over time, giving rise to an attitude of SELF PITY” (Rokovada, 2004:3 [emphasis in original]) (see section 3.4.1 for a discussion of the colonial origins of this dependence).

The benefit of engaging communities in disaster management activities is recognised by the Fiji Government and the NDRMA places an increased emphasis on the role of communities in disaster risk reduction and disaster management (National Disaster Management Office, 2006a). To enable the formal participation of communities, the NDRMA extends the structure of national disaster management to incorporate village and settlement councils (see Figure 3.4). The responsibilities of these councils were introduced in section 1.3 and include the organisation of disaster awareness and preparedness activities with the community, the development of disaster plans in coordination with disaster management authorities, general assistance of District, Provincial and Divisional authorities in disaster management, participation in disaster management volunteer efforts and the conduct of initial damage assessments following a disaster (National Disaster Management Office, 2006a). Government anticipates that the formal recognition of the role of communities in disaster management practice and the allocation of responsibilities to communities, will address the issue of dependence.

Figure 3.4 National disaster management structure. Note: CCG (Central Control Group), DRM (Disaster Risk Management), FIDMA (Fiji Islands Disaster Management Authority), NEOC (National Emergency Operations Centre), CEO (Chief Executive Officer), NATDISCON (National Disaster Controller), NATDISCOORD (National Disaster Coordinator), Div DISMAC (Divisional Disaster Management Committee), DISMAC (Disaster Management Committee) (Source: National Disaster Management Office, 2006a)

3.7 Summary

Acknowledging the importance of situating studies of participation within their context, this chapter has presented background information on key aspects of Fiji’s socio-political and disaster management contexts. The ethnic diversity and political instability in Fiji have been elaborated upon to provide a foundation for subsequent analysis of challenges to community participation in damage assessment. In discussing historical and contemporary disaster management policies and practice, the development of a culture of dependency has been highlighted. Government anticipates that this culture of dependence will be weakened through the formalisation of community participation in damage assessments. This study seeks to investigate the validity of this assumption. The following chapter details the approach to research employed in this study to explore the validity of this assumption.

Blank Page

4 Research Approach

4.1 Introduction

To investigate the context specific nature of community participation in damage assessments in Fiji, it is important to develop a research approach that enhances contextual understanding. This chapter establishes and justifies the research approach that has been adopted for this study. The approach draws on aspects of ethnographic approaches, employing an ‘iterative-inductive’ approach to research. Within this chapter the merits of an ‘iterative-inductive’ approach are discussed. Data collection techniques are introduced, accompanied by a discussion of the process of field site selection. Research assistants played a significant facilitating role in data collection and their influence is elaborated upon. The positionality of the researcher and its influence upon this study is also considered as are the ethical aspects of the research. Data recording, analysis, and presentation procedures are explained.

4.2 Ethnographic approach

The preceding chapter established that participation is influenced by both the nature of the task in which it is applied as well as the wider context in which the task is performed (Cohen and Uphoff, 1977). This ‘situated’ nature of participation demands an approach to research that enables an understanding of the local context to be developed. In order to develop a situated understanding of participation in damage assessments, the research design adopted in this study borrows heavily from ethnographic approaches. Such an approach is suited to this study for a number of reasons. First, as noted above, inquiry into a phenomenon that is strongly influenced by its surroundings requires a research approach which can investigate both the phenomenon and its surroundings. Ethnographic approaches are particularly well suited to this, possessing characteristics such as an extended period of fieldwork and the application of multiple methods to collect data from a diverse array of sources, which encourage an understanding of the context in which experiences and phenomena are situated (O'Reilly, 2005). Second, this research is cross-cultural in that the research began with relative unfamiliarity of Fiji. Ethnographic approaches are particularly useful in such situations where researchers are investigating cultures, organisations and institutions with which they are initially unfamiliar (Punch, 1998). Third, ethnographic approaches incorporate a range of data collection methods, and investigations commonly use multiple methods (Punch, 1998; O'Reilly, 2005). This research draws data from a number of diverse situations including residential stays in villages, participation in a damage assessment after flooding and landslides, prolonged attachment to the National Disaster Management Office and observation of a village-based initial damage assessment training course. Multiple methods allow appropriate techniques to be selected to interrogate the same questions in different settings and this will be explored in detail in section 4.3.

The benefits of ethnographic research have been recognised within disaster research. It has been suggested ethnography is particularly valuable in understanding how disaster management actors “attach meaning to disasters and disaster response and how [actors] influence each other” (Hilhorst, 2004:64). It has also been suggested that ethnographic research approaches (which often have an emphasis on qualitative research) can be empowering for research participants. Phillips (2002:203) notes that “qualitative research can empower and give voice to respondents (particularly disaster managers and victims)”. The empowering nature of ethnography has also been attributed to its iterative and inductive nature (see section 4.3) which allows participants to always direct the research to some extent (O'Reilly, 2005). The following description of ethnographic research provides a clear summary of the key aspects of an ethnographic approach to research; many of these elements are drawn upon in the research approach employed in this study. Ethnographic research has been described as:

iterative-inductive research (that evolves in design through the study),drawing on a family of methods, involving direct and sustained contact with human agents within the context of their daily lives (and cultures); watching what happens, listening to what is said, asking questions, and producing a richly written account that respects the irreducibility of human experience, that acknowledges the role of theory, as well as the researcher’s own role, and that views humans as part object/part subject (O'Reilly, 2005:3).

Excerpts from this revealing quote are used in several of the following sections to emphasise the influence of an ethnographic approach and illustrate how this frames the research design employed in this study.

4.3 Iterative-inductive research

Atkinson and Hammersley (1994:248) describe ethnographic research approaches as placing “a strong emphasis on exploring the nature of particular social phenomena, rather than setting out to test hypotheses about them”. The approach taken within this study is strongly inductive and reflects O’Reilly’s (2005:3) notion that ethnographic research is “iterative-inductive research (that evolves in design through the study)”. This iterative-inductive characteristic has enabled this study to develop in light of data collected in the field. It is through data collection that research questions have been refined (as described below) and a deeper understanding of participation in damage assessment in Fiji has been developed. It is not possible to chart each point at which research questions were subtly redefined as it is very much an evolving process, however, the key shift is described below to illustrate the influence of an iterative-inductive approach.

This study began with a plan to work with a number of community members, disaster professionals and government personnel in Fiji to identify the range of disaster impacts experienced in communities and develop locally appropriate mechanisms for acknowledging those impacts. The study was guided by empirical research (see for example, McKenzie et al, 2005) suggesting the

56 neglect of indirect and intangible impacts to individual households and communities within damage assessments, results in an underestimation of the cost of natural hazard impacts. In addition, the National Disaster Management Office in Fiji expressed an interest in community participation in damage assessments as a vehicle for community empowerment (Joeli Rokovada, personal communication, July 2004) (for further details on the structure of the original research see Méheux and Lloyd, 2005, Appendix A).

During the first period of village based data collection in April 2005, it became apparent that community members were having difficulty answering questions related to the ways in which damage or impacts should be measured. Following further discussions with community members, it became clear that they were unfamiliar with the notion of being able to have a say in what and how damage assessment data were recorded. Communities ‘participated’ in damage assessments by responding to data requests from government. The original research question (to identify disaster impacts in communities and appropriate mechanisms to account for those impacts) became undermined by the complex issues surrounding participation in damage assessments which influence the type of participation that is practiced. This discovery led to the first major redefinition of the research question towards investigating how communities participate in damage assessments. A rigid approach would have constrained research. New questions and avenues of investigation could not have been explored and valuable insight would have been lost. Entering the field with an open attitude to the iterative and inductive approach associated with ethnographic research, enabled the redefinition of research questions when it became apparent that the original questions were not the most pertinent. The iterative-inductive approach allowed continual reflection upon data to lead to subtle redefinitions of research questions and pursuits of new and interesting lines of enquiry.

In contrast to positivist deductive approaches to research which rely on establishing and testing a hypothesis; ethnographic research is strongly located within a naturalistic paradigm and develops theory through inductive means (O'Reilly, 2005). Researchers are familiar with existing theory and empirical research but approach the data with an open mind, allowing theory to emerge from the data (O'Reilly, 2005). Research is iterative because there is a continuing movement and reflection between research, data collection and analysis; research questions are repeatedly redefined in light of findings (O'Reilly, 2005). Ethnography has been described as “an unfolding and evolving sort of study” (Punch, 1998:161) in which specific questions are not predefined but develop as research progresses. Philips (2002:203) observes that “although such new possibilities might seem serendipitous, the theoretical sensitivity required to produce innovative notions really results from immersion in the field, deep in the context of people’s lives”.

4.4 Data collection methods

A range of data collection methods have been employed in this study. Central to these has been an extended period of fieldwork in 2005 (February - October) complemented by two shorter field visits in July 2004 and February 2007. This is typical of ethnographic research which draws on an eclectic range of methods in which fieldwork is central (Punch, 1998). The ability to draw on a range of

57 methods has enabled the research to adapt to the variety of situations encountered during the periods of data collection.

Conditions differ between field sites and an ethnographic approach allowed the adoption of appropriate methods drawn from a variety of epistemological backgrounds, dependent on the situation (Punch, 1998). In some villages in this study for example, focus groups were an effective data collection tool as they could draw on naturally occurring community gatherings, whilst in other villages, such gatherings were less frequent and one-on-one interviews were used more commonly to address the same questions. During the damage assessment in Totoya (see section 5.3), it was inappropriate to conduct formal interviews with assessors due to time constraints and instead, data collection relied more heavily on participant observation.

In addition to the ability to adapt to suit personalities of respondents and characteristics of situations, the use of a variety of methods allows researchers to interrogate the partiality of knowledge (Rocheleau, 1995; Nightingale, 2003). Partial knowledge arises from the concept of situated knowledges, which suggests there is no one truth to be uncovered and recognises the subjectivity of knowledge is linked to the context in which it is created (Nightingale, 2003). The application of different methods is believed to offer a fuller insight into issues by investigating the knowledge of multiple sources in multiple ways. In disaster studies, Phillips (2002) concurs and argues that triangulation of sources and methods can provide a more comprehensive and rich understanding of data and context, and also allows the validation of information.

The range of methods used in this study includes: formal in-depth interviews, informal interviews/conversations, focus groups, questionnaire surveys, document reviews, and participant observation. Data collection draws on different sources including community members, disaster professionals, government representatives and document archives. Table 4.1 offers a summary of the main data collection methods used at different field sites in Fiji.

Table 4.1 Methods employed during data collection (2004-2007)

Data collection methods Location Participants Date Semi- Participant Household Document structured Focus group observation questionnaire research interview Government Officers, NGO representatives, Regional July Suva 9 9

2004 organisations, International organisations Central Government, Regional Feb - Oct Suva 9 9 9 organisations, researcher Community residents, Local April Malomalo 9 9 9 9 government, researcher Researcher June Totoya 9 Community residents, June - July Cicia 9 9 9

2005 researcher Community residents, Aug – Sept Vunimoli-Korotari 9 9 9 researcher Local government, Divisional September Labasa 9 government Community residents, IDA October Kadavu 9 9 course trainers, researcher Central, Divisional and local government, National and Feb Suva 9 9 regional NGOs, Regional and 2007 international organisations, researcher

A major element of the research comprised residential stays in the communities which participated in the research and also ‘residence’ at the National Disaster Management Office (NDMO), where a work station was made available during office hours. This allowed close contact with research participants, an enhanced ability to understand the local context, and ultimately to absorb much more through close observation and informal discussions and experiences, than would be possible through discrete ‘moments of research interaction’. This kind of prolonged engagement with research participants is typical of ethnographic approaches to research which involve “direct and sustained contact with human agents within the context of their daily lives (and cultures); watching what happens, listening to what is said, asking questions” (O'Reilly, 2005:3).

Participant observation is the main technique which defines an ethnographic approach and has been used in this study in a number of ways. It is defined as “a process of learning through exposure to or involvement in the day-to-day routine activities of participants in the research setting” (Schensul et al, 1999:91). Within this study such involvement facilitated a richer understanding of the context of damage assessments and participation in Fiji, through familiarity with the day-to-day lives of research participants within the respective research settings. In addition to being a data collection method in itself, participant observation played a significant role in facilitating access to participants and data. The extent to which participation was employed as a data collection or data access technique varied between sites as did the use of other data collection methods. The following sections consider each data collection site in this study and provide descriptions of the way data collection methods were utilised. This is preceded by a discussion of the process used to select participating communities.

4.4.1 Site selection and village-based data collection

Field sites were selected with the assistance of the National Disaster Management Office (NDMO) in Fiji. Discussions were held with NDMO officers to identify communities that may be willing to participate in the research. The NDMO also provided background information on potential sites to inform rational decisions regarding which communities to approach. It was decided that a pilot study would be undertaken in a village on the main island of Viti Levu. Although the village did not have recent disaster experience, it did, however, have a history of devastating cyclone impacts (Tropical Cyclone Bebe in 1972 and Tropical Cyclone Oscar in 1983). Following the pilot study, two further field sites were selected. Both sites are in rural locations and were affected by Tropical Cyclone Ami in January 2003. The selection of an indigenous Fijian community and an Indo-Fijian community was designed to collect views from the two dominant ethnic groups in Fiji. It is not the intention of this study to compare the two field sites or to assert that the opinions of each village is representative of all indigenous Fijian villages and Indo-Fijian settlements, but rather to collect a diversity of opinions. The two locations were amongst the areas most severely affected by Cyclone Ami (National Disaster Management Office, 2003).

Communities were approached through official channels by the NDMO on behalf of the researcher, following appropriate bureaucratic and traditional protocols. The NDMO contacted the Provincial

Administrator, Roko Tui20, Commissioner and/or Multi-ethnic Affairs officers in each potential field site to advise them of the research project and the desire to invite a village to participate. The relevant officers in turn approached each community and asked if they would be willing to participate and host the researcher for a period of four weeks.

It is important to note the affect this method of approaching the village may have had on the research outcomes. As the study focuses on participatory modes of damage assessment, it was important that the study take a similarly inclusive approach. The free participation of communities was important. It is possible that approaching communities through the government influenced their decision to participate (and potentially their responses). In addition, the researcher was presented to the village by government officers and this may have created a misconception that of the researcher as a representative of government. However it was felt that this was a culturally appropriate approach to take within Fiji. Upon arrival in each community it was quickly established that the researcher was not working for the NDMO and that community members were under no obligation to participate. The University ethics requirements provided an opportunity to reiterate that participation was voluntary and responses would only be shared with the NDMO if participants provided their approval. Participants were also advised that information they provided would be de-identified before being released to any third parties.

Village based data was collected from three rural locations in Fiji, incorporating eight villages (see Figure 4.1 for field site locations and Table 4.2 for village profiles). The first (pilot) field site Malomalo is an indigenous Fijian village in Nadroga Province, South East Viti Levu (see Figure 4.2). The second field site was the island of Cicia in the Lau Province in the East of the Fiji Islands group (see Figure 4.3). On Cicia, data was collected from each of the five indigenous Fijian villages on the island (Tarakua, Mabula, Naceva, Namatakula and Lomati). The third village field site was Vunimoli- Korotari - two adjacent settlements in Macuata Province, Vanua Levu (see Figure 4.4). Vunimoli and Korotari are Indo-Fijian settlements. A residential stay of one month’s duration was undertaken at each field site during which time data was collected through interviews, focus groups, and questionnaires. Participation by the researcher in village life was used as a way of developing an understanding of the day-to-day lives of research participants (the context within which damage assessments are conducted) and also as a method of gaining access to respondents. Table 4.3 provides a summary of the number of interviews and focus groups conducted at each village field site.

20 Roko Tui is the executive head of a Province. 61

Figure 4.1 Map of Fiji highlighting the location of field sites

Figure 4.2. Map of Malomalo village, Nadroga Province

Figure 4.3. Map of Cicia Island, Lau Province

Figure 4.4. Map of Vunimoli and Korotari Settlements, Macuata Province

Table 4.2. Profiles of data collection sites Field Site Malomalo Cicia Vunimoli-Korotari Ethnicity Indigenous Fijian Indigenous Fijian Indo-Fijian Community One village Five villages on the island Two settlements21 composition Fijian Administration. The village has Turaga ni Fijian Administration. Each village on the island Multi-Ethnic Administration. Vunimoli and Korotari koro. The village is the head of the Tikina. The has a Turaga ni Koro and the five villages are two settlements administered by Advisory village is located within Nadroga Province in the comprise a tikina or yasana22 within the Lau Councillors who are appointed by government Western Division. Provincial Administration is province in the Eastern Division. Administration of and are members of the District Council, in Administration conducted from Sigatoka, and Divisional the Eastern Division is conducted from Suva Macuata Province, Northern Division. Administration from Lautoka Administration is conducted through a District Officer, Macuata Provincial Administrator and Northern Commissioner, all based in Labasa Coastal village Small Island In-land location on Vanua Levu 45 minute drive from Sigatoka (via highway and Cicia is located in the centre of the Lau group Location and unsealed road) (17.45°S, 179.18°W). Cicia lies approximately access 260km east of the national capital, Suva, 100km north-west of the Provincial capital, Lakeba and 20km from its nearest neighbours (Nayau). Population 168 1016 (approximately) Vunimoli: 1120, Korotari: 958 (approximately) Sugar cane, land leases, limited employment in Copra (and remittances?) Sugar cane and vegetables Income tourism sector Radio, television, one community telephone Radio, no television, three villages with no Radio, television, telephone available to all Communication telephone (radio telephone in one village, residences, although not everyone has mainline telephones in one village) telephones Transport and Unsealed road from main highway 27km unsealed road around island, one jetty, one Unsealed main road and several feeder roads roads health centre traverse the area By unsealed road from the Queens Highway Weekly flights to/from Suva, fortnightly passenger By road from Labasa (Northern Division capital). Access which runs from Lautoka to Suva. and cargo boat The road is sealed for a short distance outside Labasa, then unsealed to Vunimoli 20 households have electricity from private Each village has a communal generator. A small Mains electricity. A small minority of households generators. 15 households do not have access to number of households have a private generator do not have access to electricity Electricity electricity. A community generator provides electricity to the Community Hall and Church.

21 The term ‘village’ is commonly applied to traditional indigenous Fijian settlements (often the Fijian word Koro is used). The term ‘settlement’ is used to refer to non-indigenous Fijian settlements (and also squatter settlements in urban areas). Housing in villages tend to be concentrated in a small area and is dictated by family relationships and hereditary. Housing in settlements tends to be distributed across a large area and are based on a different system of tenure. 22 A tikina or yasana is the administrative equivalent of a district and consists of a small number of villages and/or settlements.

Table 4.3. Main methods of village-based data collection Data collection Date of data Semi-structured Focus group site collection Interview Malomalo April 2005 3 4 Cicia July 2005 17 5 Vunimoli-Korotari August 2005 23 2 Total 43 11

As a method of gaining access to respondents, residential stays in field sites can contribute to community acceptance and trust of the researcher, and may disarm suspicion, resistance and hostility toward the researcher (Leslie and Storey, 2003). Residential stays demonstrated to each community, my interest in their experiences and this was recognised by residents who commented that it was good for me “to learn Fijian ways” and to “see how we live” (M24, personal communication, May 2005). The relationships developed by this interest and sustained participation in daily life over a four week period provided access to data and understanding that would not have been possible by limiting my engagement to the conduct of rapid interviews and questionnaires. A criticism of less participative roles, where the researcher maintains a level of detachment from the community, is the potential for superficial understandings as time spent with research participants is so brief (Gold, 1958). Residential stays offered the opportunity to participate in a number of activities that were not directly related to my research, yet allowed me to build relationships with participants and gain a wider appreciation of their lifestyles, in essence the context of my data. For example participating with communities members in a common activity such as decorating a mat (see Figure 4.5), or preparing meals led to reduced community apprehension of the researcher and a mutual respect.

Figure 4.5 Participating in day to day activities in participant communities allowed the researcher to develop relationships with participants in each community. (Source: Author’s photo, July 2005)

During residential stays data collection utilised participant observation to develop an understanding of the culture within communities and to familiarise the researcher with community members and vice versa. Semi-structured interviews (both arranged through research assistants and opportunistic) and focus groups were held to discuss community experiences of post-disaster damage assessments and to explore their opinions on participation in damage assessments. Interviews were generally conducted in participant’s homes or gardens. Focus groups were held in community halls or participant’s homes (see Figure 4.6 and 4.7).

Figure 4.6 Focus group discussion in Malomalo community hall. Participants were asked to construct a disaster history of the village (Source: Author’s photo, April 2005).

Figure 4.7 Focus group participants held in the home of one participant in Mabula village, Cicia. Participants discussed their experiences of the damage assessment following Tropical Cyclone Ami, January 2003 (Source: Author’s photo, July 2005).

4.4.2 Totoya data collection (participant observation of a damage assessment)

Heavy rainfall and subsequent landslides on Totoya, an island in the Lau Province (see Figure 4.7) presented an opportunity for this study to participate in and observe a post-disaster damage assessment. I participated as an assessment team member and was asked by the National Disaster Management Office (NDMO) to submit a damage assessment report to the NDMO upon my return. Other members of the team were aware that I was conducting research into damage assessments. Data collection here was predominantly through participant observation as there was little time to conduct formal interviews. Impromptu, informal conversations with a number of damage assessors (all government officers) during the damage assessment survey and the personal experience of participating in the survey provided a first-hand insight into the practice of damage assessments in Fiji from the view of assessors.

Figure 4.8. Map of Totoya island, Lau Province

4.4.3 Kadavu data collection (participant observation of a village-based Initial Damage Assessment (IDA) training course)

A further field site was Vunisei, a rural indigenous Fijian village in Kadavu Province (see Figure 4.9). In October 2005, Vunisei was the site for the pilot of a village-based IDA training course. Residents from surrounding villages attended the two day training course which was conducted largely in the Fijian language. The researcher was able to assist in the organisation of the training course, attend the training as an observer, and participate in the organiser’s debrief upon completion of the course. Data collection here employed participant observation as well as interviews with course participants (2) and informal discussions with trainers (4). This field site offered the opportunity to understand the challenges in IDA training at a village level.

Figure 4.9 Map of Kadavu

4.4.4 Suva and Labasa (Government officers, regional and national NGOs, UN bodies)

Fiji’s capital, Suva represented another major data collection site. A number of interviews (5) were also conducted in Labasa with government officers from the Northern Division. Data was collected in arranged, semi-structured interviews with government officers from Ministries such as: Health, Education and Provincial Development, Divisional Commissioners, District Officers, representatives from national and regional NGOs, and UN bodies. Interviews with these individuals centred around their experiences of damage assessments and their opinions of community participation in damage assessments. In total, 31 interviews were conducted with government personnel in Suva and Labasa (6 in 2004, 10 in 2005 and 15 in 2007).

4.4.5 Suva (National Disaster Management Office (NDMO))

In addition to interviews with government officers, participant observation in the offices of the NDMO played a key role in the research both as a data collection technique and also as a means of gaining access to research sites and participants. During periods of field research in Fiji (2005 and 2007), the researcher was ‘attached’ to the NDMO which meant she was allocated a desk within the office and allowed to come and work there when in Suva. This opportunity allowed me to observe the day- to-day operations of the NDMO, which enabled the development of an understanding of the responsibilities, constraints and relationships within (and towards) the NDMO. Such insight into the agency proposing community participation in damage assessment provided an invaluable understanding of their motivations.

Attachment to and participation within the NDMO also allowed relationships to be built with NDMO officers, that in turn facilitated my access to research participants. The NDMO played a valuable role in initiating contact with potential field site communities and organising residential stays (see section 4.4.1), and facilitating access to government officers in other ministries. Furthermore, affiliation with a local organisation played an important role in ensuring the relevance of the study to disaster management practitioners in Fiji. It was possible to ensure that research that was being conducted was in line with the aims and objectives of national disaster reduction strategies, and would be of practical use to disaster practitioners. An attachment to the NDMO also lent validity to the study and certainly enriched the research. Attachment to the NDMO also allowed advantage to be taken of opportunities such as participation in the Totoya damage assessment and Kadavu IDA training course. Without a close association with the NDMO, the researcher would have been unaware of these events and unable to request permission to be included.

4.4.6 Research Assistants

Within each village community, research assistants played an important role in data collection. In all three village field sites, the researcher was accompanied by a member of the local community who volunteered (or was volunteered by village elders) to assist in the research. Research assistants played an important role as a translator, guide and chaperone. During the Totoya damage assessment survey (see section 5.3), the researcher was accompanied by a chaperone from the NDMO whose role was to ensure the safety of the researcher. The selection of research assistants by host communities rather than the researcher, may not have been ideal, however, as it carries the risk of biasing the research. Research assistants in this context played the role of gatekeepers and as such, controlled access to research participants (Schensul et al, 1999). In that capacity, research assistants have the ability to direct the researcher towards or away from certain participants in line with their own agenda (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983). Working with local research assistants raised issues regarding their relationship with participants. As all research assistants were members of their respective community, there is the potential for them to influence the data that is collected. In Malomalo, my research assistant was in some way related to almost all participants. In Cicia, the research assistant had both personal (family and friend) and professional relationships with many participants in his capacity as the island’s agricultural officer. In Vunimoli, most participants were connected to the research assistant as a result of his role as Advisory Councillor.

Whilst research assistants were not requested in any of the field sites, their help was invaluable. Their local knowledge and familiarity with community members was an advantage to the research. Ellen (1984) points out that field researchers are rarely an invited guest. Whilst residence in each village was approved by the Chief, host family and/or local government officers, on behalf of the whole community; most community members were unaware of the researcher’s purpose in the village until they were introduced face to face. As a stranger in the village it was important to have a research assistant who was able to introduce me to villagers and to establish the researcher’s legitimacy.

Research assistants were instrumental in the identification of potential research participants. Personal recommendations and introductions often yield better responses than random approaches (Ellen, 1984) and using their local knowledge, research assistants were able to make introductions between the researcher and potential participants. This method of identifying and ‘recruiting’ participants proved highly successful, with invitations being quickly accepted. Acting with and through a local research assistant added validity to the research, reduced any perceived threat to participants and increased potential participants’ trust of the researcher.

4.5 Ethics

The ethical aspects of this research were considered prior to data collection commencing and approval of the research was given by the Macquarie University Ethics Review Committee for Human Research. Prior to their participation in this study, all participants were required to sign an information and consent form which provided information about the subject of the research, and the participants rights in relation to the data collection exercise, and sought their permission to record the interview (see Appendix B). This form was translated into standard Fijian (see Appendix C) and Hindi (see Appendix D) and participants were offered both an English and Fijian or Hindi form. All participants were literate, although in some cases, it was necessary for the form to be read to participants who required, but did not have, reading glasses. Information and consent forms were designed to be sufficiently broad to accommodate the development of the research focus in the field, which was enabled by the preparation of a diverse range of data collection techniques. The Macquarie University Ethics Review Committee was advised of, and approved alterations in the research focus and agreed that the ethical aspects of the research remained unaffected. A modified information and consent form was developed and approval was given by the Macquarie University Ethics Review Committee to support data collection in 2007 (see Appendix E).

4.5.1 Anonymity of participants

In the following chapters, research participants are not identified by name. Participants are identified by an identification number, allocated sequentially prefixed by a location identifier as indicated in Table 4.4. In some cases it has been appropriate to identify the role of a given participant, for example if they are a Turaga ni Koro or Advisory Councillor (village headmen) or a District Officer (local government officer). This has been done where the role is significant to the damage assessment process. The term ‘disaster management practitioner’ has been used to describe those participants from government or other agencies involved in disaster management. Appendix F provides a generalised description of the role or position of each participant.

Table 4.4 Research participant location identifier Prefix Data collection site C Cicia Island K Kadavu Island M Malomalo village S Suva V Vunimoli, Korotari and Labasa

4.6 Researcher positionality

Positionality and a researcher’s role are particularly important as research participants will “react based on who they think you are” (O'Reilly, 2005:145). During the period of fieldwork, the researcher assumed a number of different roles: having been a friend, a daughter (particularly in the households of my hosts in each village), a tourist, a student, a researcher, a colleague, an advisor, a volunteer, an aunt, a guest. These are roles which participants have placed the researcher in. Just as the researcher sought to understand participants in terms of their experiences of cyclone and damage assessment, participants sought to understand the researcher by defining who and what she was.

The influence of these multiple identities was apparent in one community location where it was necessary to dispel the myth that the researcher was a tourist, and in doing so, challenge the prevailing local perception of young female Europeans. The location in question was familiar with (predominantly young) European backpackers as it was included in a tour around Fiji popular with backpackers. The perception of young Europeans as tourists was well established and was evident in the way the researcher was treated. A great emphasis was placed on ensuring the researcher had a ‘good time’ in the village. Accommodation was provided in the village’s newly completed guest room in the community hall and horseback rides and time for swimming were offered. It took time to convince participants that the researcher was interested in seeing how they lived and being able to participate in normal daily activities rather than being regularly entertained. When the researcher’s identity as a student became more well known, attitudes towards her changed and community members became keen to help her in her studies.

Similarly the questions that were asked can also affect how a researcher is viewed (O'Reilly, 2005). The researcher had been brought to one community by government officers who had assisted in the formal arrangement of her stay. Research assistants highlighted the fact that the researcher’s association with government, combined with questions which focussed on residents’ experience of a cyclone and the subsequent damage assessment, created a perception amongst residents (prior to meeting the researcher) that the researcher worked for the government and was in a position to address the complaints by providing further relief assistance. In later interviews it was necessary to clarify that the researcher was not from government and participation in the research would not result in any material gain for them, but may contribute to an improved understanding of the difficulties they experienced and enable government to provide improved responses in the future. From an ethical perspective, it was important that this clarification was made to avoid raising the expectations of research participants. From the perspective of data quality, it was important to avoid potential bias and exaggeration.

4.7 Data recording, analysis and presentation

Data were recorded in a variety of ways. Where possible, interviews were tape recorded and later transcribed verbatim. Permission was sought prior to interviews being recorded and in all cases participants agreed for the interview to be recorded. Data recorded using a tape recorder proved particularly useful in producing the “richly written account” that is typical of ethnographic research approaches (O'Reilly, 2005). Verbatim transcriptions allowed lengthy quotes to be accurately analysed and reproduced within the text. Participants were offered the opportunity to receive a copy of the interview transcript. Those who requested transcripts to review, often returned them with additional comments, which proved very useful. Recording and transcribing interviews verbatim was particularly valuable in early interviews where material could be re-evaluated later in the project as research questions changed; note taking alone may have led to information not considered relevant at the time of the interview going unrecorded. Whilst note-taking alone does create less detailed records of interviews (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983), it was necessary in some situations, particularly during informal and opportunistic interviews with participants. In these instances, notes were formally written up and expanded once the interview was completed.

The analysis of damage assessment experiences and legislation (presented in Chapters 5, 6 and 7) is structured using the modified analytical framework introduced in section 2.10. Data analysis was managed through the qualitative data analysis tool, NVivo. The programme was used to store and code interview and focus group transcripts, and research notes. Coding was employed to identify common themes in participants’ descriptions of damage assessments to build an accurate picture of communities collective experiences (see Chapter 5). Coding was also used to identify common and dominant themes in discussions regarding both the purpose of community participation in damage assessment (see Chapter 7), and the challenges facing participation in damage assessment (see Chapter 8).

4.8 Summary

This chapter has presented the research approach which has been used in this study. The importance of an iterative-inductive approach to research and the ways in which this has influenced the research have been established. This chapter has also elaborated on several key aspects of this research including: the diverse range of data collection methods employed in this study; identifying the techniques have been applied in each data collection situation; the process for selecting field sites; a brief summary of each data collection situation; the role of research assistants in the process of data collection; the ethical considerations of this research; the influence of the researcher’s positionality; and, the means for data recording, analysis and presentation.

The approach described above offers a procedure for investigating the practice of community participation in damage assessments that is strongly grounded within the nature of damage assessments in the context of Fiji. The following chapter presents the experiences of both communities and government officers in recent damage assessments. Chapter 5 is designed to produce ”a richly written account that respects the irreducibility of human experience” (O'Reilly, 74

2005:3) in line with traditions of ethnographic approaches. Data is presented as a narrative illustrating the collective damage assessment experience of each community.

Blank Page

5 Experiences of damage assessments

5.1 Introduction

This chapter presents narrative accounts of damage assessments following two disasters in rural locations in Fiji. The accounts are based upon the experiences of community members and government officers involved in damage assessments following the 2003 Tropical Cyclone Ami and an incident of flooding and landslides in 2005. It was noted in section 2.2 that participatory disaster management practice does not always accurately reflect participatory rhetoric. As such, it is necessary to examine not only the statements expressed in legislation regarding the advocated level of participation in damage assessment, but also the reality of damage assessments in practice. Through the experiences of community members in two rural locations (Cicia Island in Lau (Figure 4.3) and Vunimoli and Korotari settlements in Macuata (Figure 4.4)), the practice of damage assessments is described. This is complemented with a description of a damage assessment from the perspective of an individual engaged in a government assessment team deployed to survey the damage on Totoya Island in Lau (Figure 4.7) following flooding and landslides. The accounts provide the foundation for subsequent analyses of the way communities currently participate in damage assessments, (see Chapter 6) and the challenges facing community participation in this process (see Chapter 8), and thus informs responses to the first and second research questions of this study established in section 1.4.

As noted in the preceding chapter (research approach) the information presented here is based upon data collected through interviews, participant observation and document reviews conducted during three periods of field research in Fiji. The accounts in section 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 are presented as narratives, blending the experiences of a number of community members to create a representation of each community’s experience. As noted in section 4.?, it was not always appropriate or possible to tape record each interview with community members and thus direct quotes from research participants are not used extensively in this chapter, although where possible and appropriate, direct quotes are used to support the narratives. The information presented in section 5.3 is based upon the experiences of the researcher in the role of a government damage assessor. Data is drawn form a research diary maintained by the researcher to record the experience.

5.2 Tropical Cyclone Ami, Tuesday, 14 January, 2003

On January 14th 2003, Tropical Cyclone Ami passed over Fiji. The category 2-3 tropical cyclone caused significant damage in the Northern and Eastern Divisions of Fiji (National Disaster Management Office, 2003; Terry et al, 2004). Figure 5.1 shows Tropical Cyclone Ami’s track towards and across Fiji. The first hurricane warning was issued by the Regional Specialised Meteorological Centre (RSMC) in Nadi at 1.51am on Tuesday January 14, 2003 and was downgraded at 6.11pm to

Gale and Storm warnings which were removed at 9.06pm on Tuesday, January 14, 2003 (RSMC Nadi, 2003c,b,a). At its peak intensity, Tropical Cyclone Ami reached hurricane force wind speeds averaging 200km/hr with momentary gusts of 230km/hr (NIWA, 2003). Rainfall was high with much of Eastern Vanua Levu receiving in excess of 400mm of rain as Cyclone Ami passed (Terry et al, 2004). In five of the eight major rivers in Vanua Levu flooding following Cyclone Ami was the largest on record (Terry et al, 2004). Figure 5.2 illustrates the height of the flooding at a section of the Labasa River. The cyclone resulted in 14 confirmed fatalities with a further four people missing (National Disaster Management Office, 2003). The economic cost of the damage resulting from Tropical Cyclone Ami was estimated at FJ$104.4 million (AU$77.2 million, US$65.1 million). In total, 2662 homes were destroyed, 5985 homes were partially damaged, 138 schools were destroyed or damaged and 115,487 people were in need of food rations from the government for the month following Tropical Cyclone Ami (National Disaster Management Office, 2003). Damage resulted from high winds, storm surges, heavy rainfall, flooding and landslides across the Northern and Eastern Divisions. Damage to the main radio transmitting station located at Delaikoro servicing the Northern Division resulted in a loss of communications, with the Northern Division and the majority of the Eastern Division unable to make outside contact including to the National Emergency Operations Centre (NEOC) in Suva23 (National Disaster Management Office, 2003).

23 Telecommunications were lost at 2am on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 as a result of damage to Telecom Fiji’s Delaikoro station (Fiji Times, 2003). Limited communication from Labasa was possible using a portable radio telephone. Telecommunications began to be restored 9.20pm Wednesday, 15 January 2003, but all services were not restored until 4 February 2003 (National Disaster Management Office, 2003). 78

Figure 5.1 Track of Tropical Cyclone Ami, 9-15 January 2003 (Source: Fiji Meteorological Service)

Figure 5.2 Labasa River after Cyclone Ami, note the height of the disturbed river bank indicated by the arrow (Source: Fiji Ministry of Information, January 2003)

On Cicia Island, hurricane strength winds, storm surges and flooding resulted in damage in each of the five villages on the island (Tarakua, Mabula, Naceva, Natokalau and Lomati) (see Figure 4.3)24. Damaged assets included: housing, roads, the island’s jetty, communications, and plantations. Residents of Cicia revealed that recovery from the effects of Cyclone Ami took up to two years.

Vunimoli and Korotari (see figure 4.4) were not initially identified by government as particularly severely affected areas due to a loss of communication between these areas and the Divisional Centre in Labasa (following damage to the Delaikoro transmission station). As communication began to be restored on the evening of Wednesday 15 January, it became clear that these and neighbouring settlements along the Labasa River had suffered extensive and devastating flooding in the early hours of the morning of Tuesday 14th January. Gauging stations at Korotari showed the flooding from Cyclone Ami to be largest on record, reaching 4m above the floodplain (Terry et al, 2004). Nine people in Korotari drowned whilst attempting to move to higher ground. Downstream at Vunimoli, there is no gauging station to record flood heights although flooding here was also significant (see Figure 5.3). The floods were particularly destructive as they carried timber, uncut tree trunks and large boulders from a logging station upstream. In Vunimoli and Korotari, significant damage was sustained by sugar cane farms (a key employer in the area) and both commercial and subsistence vegetable farms.

24 Due to the lack of meteorological and hydrological instrumentation on Cicia, quantitative data is not available for the volume of rainfall or the extent of flooding. 80

Figure 5.3 During Cyclone Ami floodwaters from the Labasa River reached the point at which this man now stands, several metres above the current water level. (Source: Author photo, September 2005)

5.2.1 Government assessment

The Central government’s nationwide assessment of damage commenced on Wednesday, 15 January, 2003 – the day after Cyclone Ami passed over Fiji (National Disaster Management Office, 2003). An aerial survey was conducted using an Orion aircraft of the Royal New Zealand Air Force, whose services were donated by the Government of New Zealand (National Disaster Management Office, 2003). Those present on the aerial survey included the Prime Minister of Fiji, Laisena Qarase, Ministers for Fijian Affairs and Regional Development, representatives from both the New Zealand International Aid and Development Agency (NZAID) and the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), and a representative of the Fiji Navy (S8, personal communication, February 6, 2007) (see Figure 5.4). The aerial survey flew along the North coast of Vanua Levu and thus not directly over Vunimoli and Korotari settlements which are approximately 15km from Labasa town and the coast (see Figure 5.5 and 4.4). The aerial survey team was able to see that the area around Labasa Town had experienced flooding. However, the limited communications between the Northern Division and the National Emergency Operations Centre in Suva meant that the aerial survey group were unaware of the severity of the flooding and as a result, the aircraft did not spend much time surveying the flooded areas (S8, personal communication, February 6, 2007). One survey team member observed that a shortcoming of the aerial survey was that those in the aircraft were not technical officers and they “did not know what [they] were looking for” (S8, personal communication, February 6, 2007). Damage caused by strong winds was significantly easier for passengers on the flight to identify and so this is what they concentrated upon (S8, personal communication, February 6, 2007). After flying over the North coast of Vanua Levu, the aircraft turned south and flew across 81 the Lau group, including Cicia. Based on their observations, the aerial survey group identified Cicia to be one of the areas worst affected by Cyclone Ami (National Disaster Management Office, 2003).

Figure 5.5. Sketch of the route taken by a Royal New Zealand Air Force aircraft (indicated by arrowed line) during an aerial survey of damage following Tropical Cyclone Ami, which caused damage in the Northern and Eastern Divisions of Fiji on January 14th 2003. (Source: S8, personal communication, February 6, 2007 (base map from http://www.fiji.gov.fj - scale not provided)).

During the flight the aircraft crew took a number of digital photographs of damaged locations and these were presented to the aerial survey group when they returned to Suva. The photographs became a strong reference point for decisions regarding the distribution of immediate relief and were particularly useful for the technical officers who were not present on the flight (S8, personal communication, February 6, 2007). Eighteen images of Cicia Island were taken by the aircraft crew; Figures 5.6-5.10 provide an impression of the level of detail visible to members of the assessment team during the aerial survey. No images were taken of Vunimoli or Korotari settlements (or indeed any flooded areas in Vanua Levu).

Figure 5.6 Aerial photograph of damage caused by Tropical Cyclone Ami in Natokalau Village, Cicia (Source: Royal New Zealand Air Force / Fiji NDMO)

Figure 5.7 Aerial photograph of damage caused by Tropical Cyclone Ami in Lomati Village, Cicia (Source: Royal New Zealand Air Force / Fiji NDMO)

Figure 5.8 Aerial photograph of damage caused by Tropical Cyclone Ami in Tarakua Village, Cicia (Source: Royal New Zealand Air Force / Fiji NDMO)

Figure 5.9 Aerial photograph of damage caused by Tropical Cyclone Ami in Naceva Village, Cicia (Source: Royal New Zealand Air Force / Fiji NDMO)

Figure 5.10 Aerial photograph of damage caused by Tropical Cyclone Ami in Mabula Village, Cicia (Source: Royal New Zealand Air Force / Fiji NDMO)

Following the completion of the aerial survey, the NEOC in Suva began to dispatch government teams to conduct ground assessments in affected areas. A number of naval and government vessels with a total of eight assessment teams were deployed in the following days to conduct assessments across the Eastern Division (National Disaster Management Office, 2003). The aerial survey identified Cicia Island and Vanuavatu Island in Lau as the worst affected areas and on Thursday, 16 January a Fiji Naval Vessel (Kula) was dispatched to conduct a more comprehensive survey and to meet anticipated medical and relief needs of the populations (National Disaster Management Office, 2003). In the Northern Division damage assessments were conducted by officers based in Labasa (the Division’s administrative centre) (V134, personal communication, September 5, 2005; V135, personal communication, September 6, 2005). Damage assessment surveys in the Northern Division were delayed as government officers resident in Labasa were themselves affected by flooding and it was several days before they began to conduct assessments (V134, personal communication, September 5, 2005). Difficulties in accessing affected areas as a result of debris-blocked and waterlogged roads, also contributed to the delay in conducting assessments in the Northern Division (V125, personal communication, September 6, 2005).

5.2.2 Local assessments

Whilst the government conducted an aerial survey on the day following Cyclone Ami, residents of affected areas also began assessing the damage in their villages. In Cicia, the island’s resident

86 agricultural officer walked around the island and spoke to the Turaga ni Koro25 in each village (C50, personal communication, June 28, 2005). The agricultural officer undertook rapid surveys of the damage to crops in each village and advised the Turaga ni Koros to survey the village and prepare a list of damaged properties (an Initial Damage Assessment) in preparation for the expected arrival of damage assessment surveyors from Suva (C4, personal communication, July 4, 2007). Residents’ expectation that a survey team would come was based upon the experience of damaging tropical cyclones which had affected the island in the past (in particular, Tropical Cyclone Meli in 1979) which had been followed by damage assessments by government. The Turaga ni Koro in each village acted on these instructions and made notes on pieces of paper. One resident noted that the “first assessment was from the Turaga ni Koro, … just to check around on what had been damaged” (C11, personal communication, June 7, 2005). In Vunimoli settlement, the Advisory Councillor26 similarly began to conduct an initial damage survey on the morning of the 14th as flood water began to subside (V79, personal communication, September 2, 2005, V51, personal communication, August 31, 2005). He continued surveying into the following day. The Advisory Councillor travelled on foot across the settlement and spoke to individual households about their immediate needs and recorded the damage to properties. Vunimoli’s Advisory Councillor also travelled to the adjacent settlement of Korotari and spoke with householders there (V79, personal communication, September 2, 2005; Korotari group discussion, personal communication, August 31, 2005; V14, personal communication, August 21, 2005). Whilst Korotari is a separate settlement and as such has its own Advisory Councillor, the individual in this role did not reside in Korotari and was not present to conduct an assessment of damage (Korotari group discussion, personal communication, August 31, 2005). The Turaga ni Koro and Agricultural Officer in Cicia and also the Advisory Councillor in Vunimoli had not received damage assessment training, and did not have any forms to guide their assessments or record data. They acted independently and as they saw appropriate for their role as community leaders (C50, personal communication, June 28, 2005; V79, personal communication, September 2, 2005). In both communities a desire for damage assessment training was expressed (C48, personal communication, July 18, 2005; V79, personal communication, September 2, 2005).

5.2.3 Contact with government surveyors - Cicia

The Fiji Naval Vessel Kula departed Suva for Cicia on Thursday, January 16, 2003 (National Disaster Management Office, 2003). Unable to travel between villages using the island’s road which had been damaged by Cyclone Ami, the assessment team used a small boat to travel around the island (C13, personal communication, July 11, 2005). Due to the limited capacity of the boat, resident government officers such as the district nurse and school teachers were unable to accompany the team from Suva (C13, personal communication, July 11, 2005). All five villages on the island were visited by the assessment team and emergency food relief was delivered. In each village the team was guided by the Turaga ni Koro and a visual survey of the damage was conducted (Natokalau group discussion, personal communication, July 14, 2005; C48, personal

25 A Turaga ni Koro is the headman of an indigenous Fijian village, who is elected by village members and acts as the contact point between the village and local government. 26 An Advisory Councillor is the headman of a multi-ethnic settlement (i.e. non-indigenous Fijian settlement). The Advisory Councillor is appointed by government and acts as the contact point between the settlement and local government. 87 communication, July 18, 2005). The assessment teams spent approximately three hours in each village (C2, personal communication, June 30, 2005; C3, personal; communication, July 1, 2005, Natokalau group discussion, personal communication, July 14, 2005). Assessors spoke to some homeowners who were present in the village at the time of the assessment about the damage to their property. A number of homeowners were away in their plantations27 when the assessment team visited the village and were frustrated that they were not able to speak with assessors directly (C5, personal communication, July 4, 2005). Had they been aware that the assessors were coming to the village that day, they would have stayed and explained the damage to their property directly to the assessors. In cases where the homeowner was not present in the village, families relied upon the Turaga ni Koro to represent their needs to the government assessment team (C5, personal communication, July 4, 2005). Village residents feel it is important for assessors to take the time to speak to each individual homeowner (Natokalau group discussion, personal communication, July 14, 2005). The assessment team spent one day on the island and then continued on Fiji Navy Vessel Kula to Vanuabalavu Island to conduct a damage assessment before returning to Suva (National Disaster Management Office, 2003). Older residents on Cicia compared their experience of the Cyclone Ami survey with the survey following Cyclone Meli in 1979. Residents felt that communications between the assessors and the residents was greater in the 1979 survey, with assessors reportedly spending a day in each village and making time to speak to all homeowners (Natokalau group discussion, personal communication, July 14, 2005).

A number of weeks after the first ground survey in Cicia, government officers from the Rural Housing Department returned to the island to conduct a second survey of the damage to housing (C4, personal communication, June 28, 2005; C6, personal communication, July 4, 2005; C13, personal communication, July 11, 2005). Data from the first survey were believed to be too high and were therefore not accepted by the central government (C13, personal communication, July 11, 2005). Residents in Cicia were frustrated by the number of times government assessors returned to the island to reassess the damage to housing. Cicia residents recall three separate housing surveys being conducted and that the rural housing figures were revised down on the second survey and revised back up following the third survey (C2, personal communication, June 30, 2005; C3, personal communication, July 1, 2005). In some cases, residents suggested that the original inflated figures were a result of damage being exaggerated to assessors with damage to some properties being attributed to Cyclone Ami whilst in reality the damage was pre-existing (Mabula group discussion, personal communication, July 12, 2005). In other cases, destroyed kitchens and bathrooms (which are typically separate buildings to the main sleeping house) were claimed to be destroyed houses in attempts to qualify for assistance from government, as government policy dictated only sleeping houses were to be replaced (C13, personal communication, July 11, 2005; Mabula group discussion, personal communication, July 12, 2005). The lack of familiarity of assessors with the local area and the quality of houses made it difficult to distinguish those that were damaged in Cyclone Ami from those that had been damaged prior to the cyclone. The consistency of figures between surveys was complicated as residents made temporary repairs to their homes which

27 In Fiji, the term ‘plantation’ is used to refer to both subsistence and commercial agricultural lands 88 in some instances made them appear no longer eligible for assistance by the time the second or third survey was conducted.

In general, Cicia residents were satisfied with the actions of their Turaga ni Koro, although in one village, residents held serious concerns over the behaviour of their Turaga ni Koro, who they believe maliciously misled assessors regarding the severity of damage to a particular house (Lomati group discussion, personal communication, July 13, 2005). The village believed that the Turaga ni Koro advised the assessors that the house was only partly damaged, when it was actually destroyed and uninhabitable. Villagers attribute the Turaga ni Koro’s behaviour to a pre-existing personal dispute with the homeowner. The injustice was recognised by the village and a number of village meetings were held to discuss the issue and to try (unsuccessfully) to reach a solution (C29, personal communication, July 14, 2005).

Government employees resident in Cicia, such as school teachers and agricultural officers felt that their involvement in damage assessment surveys could have prevented some of the inaccuracies (C16, personal communication, July 12, 2005; C50, personal communication, June 28, 2005). One officer stated “You know if they want to know the true reality of what really happens … they should trust government officers” (C16, personal communication, July 12, 2005). These officers suggested that they could be mobilised immediately after a disaster and capture the reality of the situation in the village. Their familiarity with village residents and housing positions and conditions could allow them to better assess the true extent of the damage sustained. As one officer observed:

we know, really, myself I can know which building was damaged before the hurricane and we know what’s really damaged during the hurricane … because we were here before the hurricane. We know the environment (C16, personal communication, July 12, 2005).

Government employees on the island were frustrated and resentful that they were not drawn on to conduct damage assessments after Cyclone Ami (C16, personal communication, July 12, 2005).

Residents on Cicia spoke of the need for integration between assessors from government and local residents in the conduct of damage assessments (Mabula group discussion, personal communication, July 12, 2005). Government inclusion was identified as important because villages saw themselves as reliant on government assistance after a disaster and it was therefore important that government officers came and saw the damage for themselves (Natokalau group discussion, personal communication, July 14, 2005). Some villagers who were frustrated by the multitude of surveys to which they were subject before assistance arrived, suggested that assessors should be able to make decisions themselves, rather than having to return to Suva where the decisions would be made by individuals who had not seen the damage in person (Lomati group discussion, personal communication, July 13, 2005); (see section 8.4.1 for further discussion of these points).

5.2.4 Contact with government assessors - Vunimoli and Korotari

In Vunimoli and Korotari, the first government assessment team (of three to four officers from Divisional headquarters in Labasa) arrived to commence the first official damage assessment approximately one week after Cyclone Ami (V79, personal communication, September 2, 2005). A number of factors contributed to the delay in the commencement of damage assessments, including: accessibility difficulties (floodwaters in some areas took time to recede and roads which are largely unsealed became impassable after the flooding), the unavailability of government officers (who were themselves affected by Cyclone Ami) to conduct assessments, and the lack of vehicles to transport assessment teams around the Division (V14, personal communication, August 21, 2005; V135, personal communication, September 6, 2005). The assessment team that travelled to Vunimoli and Korotari was led by an agricultural officer and included representatives from social welfare and forestry. The team was accompanied by the Advisory Councillor for Vunimoli (V79, personal communication, September 2, 2005). The team’s objective was to identify the immediate needs of the population, particularly their food and shelter needs. Within the team the agricultural officer focussed on damage to the agricultural sector and food security, whilst the other officers focussed on housing and damage to community buildings (V135, personal communication, September 6, 2005). Residents of Vunimoli and Korotari felt the assessment was comprehensive in the subjects it covered, but they also noted that there was limited communication between government assessors and the settlement’s residents (Vunimoli group discussion, personal communication, September 2, 2005). The assessment was visual leading to an estimated overall assessment of damage and needs. A participant noted that two weeks after the cyclone one village had still not been visited by government surveyors (V14, personal communication, August 21, 2005). Delays in the dispatch of assessors received criticism from the media who were concerned about delays in the provision of relief to affected families (V14, personal communication, August 21, 2005).

Whilst the first damage assessment concentrated on establishing the immediate needs of the population particularly in terms of food and shelter, the second round of damage assessments focussed on the verification and correction of data collected during the first survey (in particular, in relation to housing needs) (Korotari group discussion, personal communication, August 31, 2005; V124, personal communication, September 5, 2005; V135, personal communication, September 6, 2005). The second assessment provided the basis for the government rehabilitation planning. A common complaint amongst residents in Vunimoli and Korotari was that by the time the (detailed) second survey was undertaken, many homeowners had made temporary repairs to their homes, and as such were not considered to have experienced damage (Vunimoli group discussion, personal communication, September 2, 2005). Some residents also claimed that the survey omitted a number of houses (V79, personal communication, September 2, 2005; Vunimoli group discussion, personal communication, September 2, 2005). Government officials agreed that there were problems in consultation, in particular with some Turaga ni Koro and Advisory Councillors. One government officer noted:

the civil servants; though we had briefed them here that they should consult with the Turaga ni Koros and Advisory Councillors, some of them just went in there and

never consulted. They did it on their own (V135, personal communication, September 6, 2005).

In Vunimoli for example, the Advisory Councillor was not able to accompany the housing survey as he was involved in the distribution of rations and he claimed his absence led to inaccuracies in the housing survey (V79, personal communication, September 2, 2005).

In one case an affected household was not consulted or assessed in person. The resident whose home was inundated by flood waters, described how he expected government assessors to come and talk with him, but they did not come as his neighbours informed the assessors that he was not affected, the resident stated;

I was expecting the government … the government workers, the DO and agriculture department. I was expecting them to come here. But … they did not come here. … [The government assessor] came only half way and he was, he was [told] to go back. Some of the people just tell that we are not affected (V13, personal communication, August 20, 2005).

The resident attributed this to the relationship between community members, stating “Indian style is like that … if somebody is getting good education so they think that: don’t help them, let them go down” (V13, personal communication, August 20, 2005).

The lack of consultation was acknowledged to have contributed to errors in the assessment. Confusion over roles and responsibilities was attributed to the limited experience and training of government assessors. A senior government officer involved in the survey following Cyclone Ami explained that errors in the survey were due to a

lack of consultation, because as I said, the shortage of experience and the knowledge in the government team plus local communities was a problem. Everything was totally new, it was a new experience (V135, personal communication, September 6, 2005).

Prior to Cyclone Ami, the Northern Division had experienced few disasters and few government officers had experience of conducting damage assessments.

Discussions with residents in Korotari highlighted the issue of language barriers. In one instance a participant became distressed when describing how indigenous Fijian government employees came to assess the damage to her home and language barriers prevented them from clearly understanding one another. The participant felt that if a Hindustani speaker had been sent she could communicate with him in Hindustani and be understood more clearly (V54, personal communication, August 31, 2005).

When asked to reflect on ‘best practice’ for damage assessment, participants in this study indicated that Advisory Councillors were the best people to conduct assessments of damage after a disaster. In a group discussion, Korotari residents noted that Advisory Councillors knew the people of the settlement and the area well and were able to include everyone in their survey by travelling house to house (Korotari group discussion, personal communication, August 31, 2005). An Advisory Councillor felt he was in the best position to survey because Advisory Councillors “are staying in the communities, they are staying in the rural areas” (V79, personal communication, September 2, 2005) and could therefore see what was happening in the settlement. The Advisory Councillor estimated that it would take someone in his position a week to fully survey the settlement because of poor accessibility and the large number of households to be surveyed (V79, personal communication, September 2, 2005). In Vunimoli for example, there are almost 250 households (Ministry of Multi- Ethnic Affairs, 2005). The participant felt that the assessment results should be passed to the government, the District Officer for example, and this person should conduct random checks to ensure the accuracy of the assessment (V79, personal communication, September 2, 2005).

Participants did raise some concerns about relying on Advisory Councillors to conduct surveys. After Cyclone Ami it was the Advisory Councillor for Vunimoli who conducted the first survey in Korotari. The Advisory Councillor for Korotari does not reside in Korotari and at the time of Cyclone Ami was in Labasa. Korotari’s Advisory Councillor could not reach the settlement for a week due to the poor condition of the road (Korotari group discussion, personal communication, August 31, 2005). In a group discussion, the Korotari residents were critical of their Advisory Councillor. Participants did not feel he represented them because he was employed in a Bank and resided in Labasa Town28. They were unhappy that he was not easily accessible, “If we need help, nobody here” (Korotari group discussion, personal communication, August 31, 2005), stating that they had to travel to Labasa Town and make an appointment to see him. Advisory Councillors are appointed by Government, but participants felt they had a better knowledge of who would do a good job and therefore, should be more involved in the appointment of their Advisory Councillors (Korotari group discussion, personal communication, August 31, 2005).

In the absence of Advisory Councillors, participants suggested assessments be conducted by religious group leaders or members of the Advisory Councillor’s committee (Korotari group discussion, personal communication, August 31, 2005). Participants did acknowledge though that not all members would be willing to participate in surveys. Another group in Vunimoli suggested that advisory council committee members may be busy repairing their own compounds29 and not be able to perform the assessment (Vunimoli group discussion, personal communication, September 2, 2005). Participants felt that agricultural officers should conduct the surveys as they were satisfied with the role of these officers following Cyclone Ami (Vunimoli group discussion, personal communication, September 2, 2005).

28 The role of Advisory Councillor is taken on in addition to an individual’s paid employment. The Advisory Councillor for Vunimoli held full time (seasonal) employment as a sugar cane cutter in Vunimoli, which allowed him to reside in Vunimoli settlement. The Korotari Advisory Councillor was employed outside of Korotari settlement. 29 ‘Compound’ is a term used in Fijian English to identify ‘homesteads’ (a house and surrounding area – including outhouses, sheds, kitchens which are usually outside, kitchen gardens close to the house etc). The extent of the property on which your house is located. 92

5.2.5 Key issues in the experience of Tropical Cyclone Ami damage assessments

The above descriptions of damage assessment following Tropical Cyclone Ami in 2003 provide a rich representation of the experience from the perspective of community members. The descriptions reveal a number of commonalities between the experiences of communities in Cicia, Vunimoli and Korotari. In each community local assessments were conducted by community headmen immediately after Cyclone Ami had passed. In each community the arrival of government assessors was delayed as a result of: rough seas, blocked roads, insufficient vehicles for transport, and the limited number of government assessors. Errors in preliminary government data collection resulted in multiple surveys being conducted in each community. In each community a limited amount of communication was reported between government assessors and homeowners. Community members expressed a willingness to participate in damage assessments and noted a desire to receive training to be able to conduct accurate and appropriate assessments. The above descriptions provide the basis for subsequent analysis of the level of community participation in damage assessment practice presented in Chapter 6. The following section presents a description of the damage assessment process from the perspective of a government assessment team member.

5.3 Damage assessment in Totoya, 18 June 2005

A heavy rainfall event triggered flooding and landslides in several parts of Totoya island on Thursday June 9th 2005 but one of the oldest residents of Tovu village described this event as one of the heaviest and most damaging in his lifetime (Research Diary, June 2005). There is no rainfall gauge on Totoya and the nearest rainfall gauge is located on Matuku Island (approximately 100km southeast of Totoya), which did not report damaging flooding or landslides. Data from the rainfall gauge on Matuku Island suggests that over the ten days between May 29 and June 7, 2005, rainfall in the area totalled 131mm, exceeding the June monthly average for Matuku which is 108mm (Fiji Meteorological Service, undated, Simon McGree, personal communication, August 6, 2007).

Prior to the arrival of assessors, villagers undertook a number of rehabilitation and recovery actions themselves. In Dravuwalu for example, residents responded to the headmaster’s request to remove debris and soil that had been deposited at the rear of the teacher’s quarters within the school compound (Figure 5.11). In Tovu, villagers had also cleared mud which had entered their homes (Figure 5.12); however, debris which had fallen against houses had largely not been cleared (Figures 5.13 and 5.14).

Figure 5.11 Teacher’s quarters in Dravuwalu village, Totoya. Landslide debris had been cleared by community members following a request from the Head teacher. (Source: author’s photo, June 2005)

Figure 5.12 Tovu Village, Totoya. Homes adjacent to the slope at the back of the village were inundated with mud following heavy rainfall. Residents had begun to clear the mud from homes when the assessment team arrived. (Source: author’s photograph, June 2005)

Figure 5.13 Tovu village, Totoya. The corrugated iron and timbers shown in this image are the remains of a small house collapsed that had and been moved down the slope as a result of heavy rainfall. (Source: Author’s photograph, June 2005)

Figure 5.14 Tovu village, Totoya. Landslide debris at the rear of one home, which had not been cleared when the assessment team arrived. (Source: Author’s photograph, June 2005)

5.3.1 Government assessment

On Friday 10th June 2005, the island contacted the Roko Tui Lau30 by telephone, who in turn contacted the Eastern Division’s Commissioner, based in Suva, to report the flooding and subsequent landslides in three of the four villages on Totoya (Tovu, Ketei and Dravuwalu). The Commissioner Eastern contacted the NDMO to advise of the situation in Totoya and request for a damage assessment survey to be conducted.

Preparations were made over the next week and on Friday 17th June 2005, when a government vessel was available, a team of government officers left Suva to conduct a damage assessment survey in Totoya. The team, led by a Lau Provincial Administration representative included two additional officers from the Lau Provincial Office, two representatives each from the Rural Housing Department, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Agriculture, and one representative from the Department of Energy and the Mineral Resources Department (the latter provided a Tsunami awareness presentation in Tovu). A Rural Water Supply Officer joined the team on Totoya. In the original composition of the team, there was not a representative of the NDMO. Following the researcher’s request to accompany and observe the team, I was asked to play an active role on behalf of the NDMO, with the NDMO officer who accompanied me (as my chaperone). Had I not accompanied the team, there would have been no NDMO presence. This is not uncommon in damage assessment surveys where sector expertise is given greater priority and the disaster management office adopts a centralised coordinating role. The cost of the damage assessment survey was estimated to be FJ$20,000 – FJ$30,000 (≈AU$14,800 – AU$22,200) (S16, personal communication, February 15, 2007).

The damage assessment team departed Suva at 8pm on June 17th, on government vessel MV Natokalau. Introductions between assessors from different departments and Ministries were made at an initial team meeting at 8.30pm. At this brief introduction the team leader described the situation on Totoya and why a damage assessment was necessary. There was no clear statement of the type of survey that was to be conducted (i.e. initial or detailed) or a thorough explanation of how the data collected during the survey would be used and by whom (Research Diary, June 2005).

The team arrived at Tovu Jetty, Totoya at 8am on Saturday June 18th. In line with Fijian protocols, the survey team first went to the Chief in Tovu to present a sevusevu31. At 9am the survey team split into two smaller groups, each guided around Tovu village by local residents. The survey team moved on to the neighbouring village of Ketei at 11.30am. Assessors split into small groups according to their sector and were guided by local residents to evidence of damage in their respective sector. For example, Ministry of Education representatives were taken to see the damage at the school and Ministry of Health officers were shown the damage at the health centre and Nurse’s residence.

30 The Roko Tui is the executive head of a Province. 31 Sevusevu is a ceremony in which a gift of Yagona (kava) is presented to the village chief or host by guests who wish to be received in the village. 96

Assessors made personal notes on the damage they saw. There were no standard forms for assessors to complete - each officer independently decided what data to record. Members of the assessment team had not received any training on how to conduct and report assessments or general disaster management principles (Research Diary, June 2005).

The survey team was guided in each village by a senior local resident. Residents explained what had happened and showed assessors the damaged buildings and infrastructure. Owners of damaged houses were not spoken to in all cases and it was not clear why this was the case (Research Diary, June 2005). Homeowners, may have been away in their plantations at the time of the survey, or may have been attending the tsunami awareness presentation being given by the officer from Mineral resources, or preparing lunch for the assessors32. It is important to note that assessors did not place an emphasis on speaking directly with homeowners and instead relied on their guides who were village residents (Research Diary, June 2005).

While the damage assessment survey was being conducted, an officer who had accompanied the survey team from the Mineral Resources Department gave a tsunami awareness presentation to residents in Tovu. The opportunity to provide awareness activities such as this in remote locations like Totoya is rare and whilst the presentation was a valuable educational activity, it may also have acted as a barrier to community participation in the assessments. Residents may have attended the presentation and missed the opportunity to discuss the impact of the landslides on their property and livelihood.

At 1pm the survey team returned to Tovu to participate in a brief yaqona drinking ceremony before returning to the MV Natokalau at 1.45pm and travelling to Dravuwalu where assessors disembarked at 2.30pm. Dravuwalu does not have a jetty and so it was necessary for the survey team to use a small boat to travel from the ship to the village (this was also the case in Udu). The survey team split in two with one group focussing on damage to the school compound and another focussing on agricultural damage. At 4pm the survey team departed Dravuwalu and travelled to Udu village where a small group surveyed the agricultural damage. Residents of Udu reported that damage was limited, and thus the survey team spent time talking with Udu residents about general development issues in the village. At 6.30pm the survey team returned to the MV Natokalau. Due to local tidal motion, the MV Natokalau did not depart Totoya until 3am on Sunday 19th June (Research Diary, June 2005).

The MV Natokalau returned to Suva via the island of Gau, where the ship had been scheduled to collect a number of students and transport them back to Suva. Prior to arrival in Suva, the survey team held a short debrief to discuss the damage and priorities for rehabilitation on Totoya. A deadline for the submission of reports to the team leader was negotiated between assessors as there is no standard time line for the conduct of damage assessments. The initial deadline was agreed to be Tuesday 22nd June (Research Diary, June 2005). As there is no standard reporting

32 The preparation of food for visitors is an important part of Fijian culture. The reputation of a village can be affected if a generous meal is not provided to visitors. Therefore it does not represent a disregard for the assessment, but rather highlights competing priorities facing villages that are subject to damage assessments. 97 format for damage assessment reports, assessors each compiled their own individual reports in different formats. The deadline for submission of reports was later extended to Friday 24th June 2005 as some assessors had difficulty in completing their reports in time for the original deadline (Research Diary, June 2005). Table 5.1 provides a summary of activities related to the damage assessment.

Table 5.1 Schedule of activities, Totoya damage and needs assessment, June 2005 Date Time Activity Heavy rainfall in Totoya Island triggers flood and landslides in Thursday, June 9, 2005 n/a several parts of the island.

Residents of Totoya Island contact the Roko Tui Lau to report n/a flooding and landslides on the island. Roko Tui Lau contacts Commissioner Eastern to report the Friday, June 10, 2005 08.50 situation in Totoya. Commissioner Eastern contact the NDMO and requests a n/a damage assessment team be dispatched to Totoya Island.

Survey team departs on MV Natokalau from Government Wharf 20.00 Friday, June 17, 2005 in Suva 20.30 Survey team introductions and information

MV Natokalau arrives at Tovu Jetty, Totoya 08.00

Survey team presents Sevusevu to Tovu Chief (Tabua also 08.15 presented as a mark of respect for the late Chief who recently passed away) 09.15 Survey begins in Tovu Saturday, June 18, 2005 11.30 Survey team moves to Ketei 13.00 Yaqona at Tovu community hall 13.45 Team returns to MV Natokalau to travel to Dravuwalu 14.30 Survey team arrives at Dravuwalu 16.00 Team returns to MV Natokalau to travel to Udu 16.45 Team arrives at Udu 18.30 Team returns to MV Natokalau

03.00 MV Natokalau departs Totoya for Gau and the Suva 11.00 MV Natokalau arrives at Gau (to pick up a group of passengers) Sunday, June 19, 2005 12.00 MV Natokalau departs Gau 18.00 MV Natokalau arrives at Suva

Assessment reports submitted to the NDMO Director for Friday, June 24, 2005 n/a consideration.

A compilation of reports from each Ministry and Department represented on the survey team was submitted to the NDMO the following week. In line with the procedures detailed in the Natural Disaster Management Act 1998 and National Disaster Management Plan 1995, the NDMO prepared a submission to cabinet to seek finance (approximately FJ$600,000 (≈AU$443,200)) for the recommended rehabilitation in Totoya from the National Disaster Relief and Rehabilitation Fund (S16, personal communication, February 16, 2007). The recommendations were submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the Ministry for Provincial Development (of which the NDMO is a department). The request for funding was subsequently denied by the CEO of Provincial Affairs and responsible Ministries and Departments were required to cover the cost of the rehabilitation from

98 their regular operating budgets. The reasons for the refusal to provide special funding for rehabilitation on Totoya is unclear, although one senior government officer suggested it may be connected to the localised nature and low profile of the landslides and in particular, the fact that a declaration of disaster was not made (S16, personal communication, February 15, 2007).

5.4 Summary

The studies presented above provide detailed descriptions of contemporary damage assessment practice in Fiji, for both a major national disaster (Tropical Cyclone Ami) and a localised disaster (Totoya landslides). Both studies illustrate that damage assessments are not only conducted by government officers, but that community leaders also play an important role in conducing the first assessments and later guiding government officers in their data collection. A further similarity is the delay in the commencement of government surveys. In the cases of Vunimoli, Korotari and Totoya,surveys were delayed by the limited availability of road and sea transport respectively.

The narrative descriptions of damage assessment experiences can be used to identify and examine the community participation currently occurring in the damage assessment process. The following chapter draws on these narratives to develop a characterisation of the way communities are currently participating in damage assessments and draws comparisons between this and the type of participation advocated in current legislation. Understanding both current legislation and practice and the relationship between the two is an essential foundation for understanding how each may change in light of the proposed formalisation of community participation. The narratives also inform discussion in Chapter 8 of the challenges facing community participation in the damage assessment process.

Blank Page

100

6 Existing community participation in damage assessment

6.1 Introduction

In section 2.2 it was established that community participation is a contested concept, with the term ‘participation’ applied to describe a diverse range of activities with varying degrees of active community involvement. The potential for the term ‘participation’ to be reduced to rhetoric means that without clarification, ‘participation’ carries little meaning. This chapter examines community participation in damage assessment, through relevant legislation and the studies of damage assessment practice presented in chapter 5, to define how communities are currently participating in damage assessments in Fiji, addressing the first research question established in section 1.4.

The identification and characterisation of participation is structured using the adapted analytical framework (Cohen and Uphoff, 1977) introduced in section 2.10. Legislation and practice are interrogated to establish ‘who’ is participating at ‘what’ stages of the damage assessment process in order to identify the stages at which disaster affected communities participate. Community participation is then analysed using characteristics of the ‘how’ dimension of participation. Drawing on the established typologies of participation presented in section 2.3, the way disaster affected communities participate in damage assessment in Fiji is defined. The application of standard typologies allows relative definitions to be made and comparisons drawn between participation in legislation and practice.

6.2 Legislation and practice

The recognised gap between participatory rhetoric and participatory practice (Christoplos et al, 2001; Twigg et al, 2001), supports the appropriateness of separate analyses of damage assessment legislation and practice. It can not be assumed that practice will accurately reflect legislation and for the gap between the two to be identified (if indeed there is a gap), each must be analysed separately. In this study an examination of existing legislation in isolation is also useful to enable comparisons to be made between the advocated participation in existing legislation and that recommended in proposed legislation33.

6.3 Damage assessment legislation in Fiji

Damage assessment in Fiji is a government responsibility and as such is directed by legislation. The Natural Disaster Management Act 1998 and a companion National Disaster Management Plan

33 See section 7.2.1 for a comparison of participation advocated by existing and proposed legislation. 101

(1995) are the two documents currently guiding disaster management activities34. They allocate the legal responsibilities of government and other actors in disaster management activities, including damage assessment. Analysis of damage assessment legislation can provide information on the scope of community participation currently advocated by government. It is important to understand the depiction of participation within the legislation as this forms the legal basis of damage assessment practice. Disaster management legislation in Fiji provides for three assessment phases:

1. Emergency phase assessments, which may be further divided into: a) Initial damage and relief needs assessment report (within 48 hours) b) Relief needs assessment report (within one week) c) Damage assessment and outstanding relief needs report (upon completion of emergency phase, usually within two weeks of disaster) 2. Rehabilitation phase assessment 3. Post-disaster review

This correlates with the internationally standard process of three assessments introduced in section 2.8, which includes an initial assessment conducted for relief purposes, a detailed assessment conducted for rehabilitation purposes, and a monitoring assessment conducted to monitor and evaluate the disaster response. The following sections detail the legislation pertaining to each assessment type and using the adapted structure of the analytical framework outlined in section 2.10, sections 6.3.2 and 6.3.3 identify the type of community participation advocated by legislation.

6.3.1 The role of community participation in damage assessment legislation

Reference within the legislation to the role of affected communities in damage assessments is limited. According to the legislation, damage assessment is strongly a government-owned process. Legislation allocates roles and responsibilities associated with damage assessments and as the following summary of the damage assessment process described in legislation demonstrates, these responsibilities all lie with government. The summary enables the identification of the stages of the damage assessment process in which community participation is advocated by government.

Within the Initial Damage Assessment all levels of government (national, division and district) are given responsibilities at each stage of the assessment (see the first cycle (red) in Figure 6.1). In the preparedness planning stage, each level of government is required to identify potential information needs and sources and develop databases of basic information (e.g. village profiles, major infrastructure sites). National and Divisional government must also develop standard operating procedures for their emergency operations centres (Government of Fiji, 1995). During the survey and data collection stage, all levels of government are required to collect data. Legislation makes provision for data collection by aerial and/or ground surveys as appropriate (Government of Fiji,

34 The Natural Disaster Management Act 1998 and National Disaster Management Plan 1995, were the subject of the disaster management policy review introduced in Chapter 1. Both documents will be superceded by the National Disaster Risk Management Arrangements. 102

1998). In addition to civil servants, the legislation allows for the Police Force and Fiji Red Cross Society to be involved in the survey and data collection. Neither the Natural Disaster Management Act 1998 (NDMA) nor National Disaster Management Plan (NDMP) make reference to activities within the analysis, interpretation and forecasting stage of the initial damage assessment. Initial damage assessment reports detailing the damage and needs of affected populations are compiled by each level of government and submitted to their respective superiors at 48 hours, one week and two weeks after the disaster event (Government of Fiji, 1998). Activities within the design and modification of response stage again involve each level of government, however, the National level through the National Disaster Management Committee, retains decision making power regarding a strategy for on-going relief assistance (Government of Fiji, 1998).

Disaster management legislation in Fiji does not refer to specific preparedness planning activities for detailed (rehabilitation) assessments (see the second cycle (amber) of Figure 6.1) although it does allocate responsibilities for these assessments to the NDMO at the national level. Survey and data collection, and analysis, interpretation and forecasting are to be coordinated by the NDMO and involve consultation with Divisional Commissioners, District Officers and Disaster Service Liaison Officers (from each relevant Ministry of Government department at the national level); (Government of Fiji, 1995,1998). The NDMO have responsibility for the production of a detailed assessment report which should be presented within three months of the disaster event (Government of Fiji, 1998). The design and modification of rehabilitation activities is undertaken at the national level by the NDMO and is approved by the National Disaster Management Committee (Government of Fiji, 1995,1998).

Legislation in Fiji includes a provision for a monitoring and evaluation assessment, referred to as a ‘post-disaster review’ (the third cycle (green) of Figure 6.1). The focus of the review is on evaluating the preparedness and response to the disaster. The preparedness planning for the assessment is the responsibility of the NDMO. Survey and data collection is also the responsibility of the NDMO and requires consultation with all relevant stakeholders: Disaster Service Liaison Officers (DSLO), Divisional Commissioners, District Officers, NGOs and the affected population (Government of Fiji, 1998). This is the only stage of the damage assessment process in which the affected population is mentioned. Analysis, interpretation and forecasting are the responsibility of the NDMO, who also compile the post-disaster review report and submit this to the National Disaster Management Council (NDMC) for further action (Government of Fiji, 1995,1998). The design or modification stage of this assessment is the responsibility of national government, with the NDMO making recommendations to improve disaster preparedness and response and the NDMC making decisions regarding the implementation of recommendations (Government of Fiji, 1995).

6.3.2 Participants in the damage assessment process

Table 6.1 summarises the actors in each stage of the initial, detailed and monitoring/evaluation damage assessments. It is clear from the summary of damage assessment legislation provided above that the affected population plays a limited role in the assessment process. The only point at which the participation of affected populations is advocated is during the survey and data collection

103 stage of the post-disaster review, as illustrated in Figure 6.1. In all other stages of the post disaster review, and at all stages of the initial and detailed assessments, responsibility rests with government officers and their interaction with the community, though is not commented upon. The legislation depicts damage assessment as a strongly top-down activity dominated by government, in which affected communities are the subjects of assessments and do not play an active role in the process.

Table 6.1 Participants in each stage of the damage assessment process, according to legislation in Fiji (i.e. who is participating in what) Assessment Type Rehabilitation Post-disaster Review Stage of Initial Damage assessment (monitoring and assessment Assessment (Detailed Sector evaluation) Assessment) Preparedness National, Divisional and Coordinated by the NDMO planning District government NDMO National, Divisional and National, Divisional and NDMO collects data District government, Fiji District government through consultations Survey and Red Cross Society with National, Divisional data and District government, collection NGOs and the affected population Not mentioned in Coordinated by the NDMO Analysis, legislation NDMO, involving interpretation consultation with and National, Divisional and forecasting District government National, Divisional and NDMO NDMO Report District government National, Divisional and Recommendation made National Disaster District government by the NDMO, decisions Management Committee Design/modify made my National (National government) response Disaster Management Committee (National government)

104

Figure 6.1 The damage assessment process with the extent of community participation according to legislation, highlighted in yellow.

6.3.3 Characterisation of legislated community participation in damage assessment

Where community participation is discussed in legislation there is limited detail provided of how those affected are to participate in post-disaster reviews. A lack of detail regarding operational activities may be expected in the Act which focuses on roles and responsibilities rather than how these are actioned. More detail may be expected in the Plan as the document which guides operations; however, the only detail provided is that affected communities should be ‘consulted’ during the review process35. Table 6.2 uses the characteristics of how actors can participate in a process as suggested by Cohen and Uphoff (1977) to describe how legislation advocates communities participate in post-disaster reviews. The lack of detail within the legislation constrains the following characterisation of how communities participate.

35 Reference is made in the National Disaster Management Plan (NDMP) to Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the National Emergency Operations Centre (NEOC), however, this SOP does not exist. A draft SOP has been developed in connection with the National Disaster Management Review and this does not contain details of the damage assessment process (National Disaster Management Office, 2006b). 105

Table 6.2 Characterisation of “how” affected communities participate in damage assessment according to legislation (i.e. in survey and data collection during post-disaster reviews). Characteristic How communities participate Initiative The initiative for participation in the post-disaster review comes from above. (Bottom-up, shared, top-down) Inducements No inducements for community participation are mentioned in the legislation. (volunteered, rewarded, enforced) Structure (as an No details of the structure of community participation are included in the individual, as a legislation. group) Channels (Direct, There is no information regarding who in the affected population is to be through consulted, nor is mention made of the different power relationships and agendas spokesperson or of assessor and affected populations. representative) Duration (One-off, Community participation is depicted as a one-off activity, conducted after a intermittent, disaster response to gain community opinion on the quality of the disaster continuous) operation; including pre-disaster preparedness, emergency operations, and relief and rehabilitation. Scope (number Community participation is in the form of consultation with affected communities. and range of The legislation provides no details on the way in which this consultation is to be activities) undertaken. Empowerment Empowerment is not mentioned as an outcome of community participation in the (Effective power post disaster review. accompanying participation) It should be noted, however, that community self-reliance is mentioned on several occasions as a goal of the general approach to disaster management activities.

Data presented in Table 6.2 enables the type of participation noted in the legislation to be defined as a classic example of participation by consultation. In this type of participation, the community is asked its opinion but the government officers conducting the review are under no obligation to accept community opinion - a type of participation described as ‘tokenism’ (Arnstein, 1969; Pretty, 1995; Cornwall, 1996)36. The following section examines community participation in damage assessment practice, revealing how accurately legislation is reflected by practice and how the type of participation practiced differs from that advocated in legislation. Table 6.3 summarises the extent and type of participation advocated in damage assessment legislation.

Table 6.3 Summary of legislated community participation in damage assessment Participation Legislated community participation Community participation is restricted to the survey and data collection stage of the Extent post disaster review (monitoring assessment) Type Participation by consultation (a form of tokenism)

36 See section 2.3 for further details on participation by consultation and tokenism 106

6.4 Community participation in practice

The legislation described in section 2.3 and the characterisation of the type of community participation contained in the legislation, does not represent the reality of community participation in damage assessment. Field research presented in Chapter 5 has demonstrated that in reality, affected communities participate in some stages of initial and detailed damage assessments (see Figure 6.2). This section summarises the reality of damage assessment practice based on the experiences presented in Chapter 5. Where appropriate, additional information taken from interviews with government officers, relating to the stages of the process which communities did not experience, is incorporated. The summary is then used to identify which actors participate in what stages of the damage assessment process. Community participation is then analysed to identify how such participation occurs in damage assessments in Fiji. The subsequent sections are based on fieldwork conducted in three field sites (Cicia Island, Vunimoli and Korotari settlement, and Totoya Island (IDA only)) and information collected through participant observations whilst attached to the NDMO in 2005 and 2007.

The experiences of residents in Cicia, Vunimoli and Korotari demonstrate that at a community level there is little preparedness planning in advance of IDAs. Neither Turaga ni Koro in Cicia, nor the Advisory Councillor in Vunimoli received any training or assessment forms in advance of Cyclone Ami. Government officers also noted that they were ill-prepared for the assessment. Although legislation stipulates that government should prepare databases of basic information, senior government officials in Labasa acknowledged that they did not have a database with records of the details of villages under their jurisdiction (V134, personal communication, September 5, 2005; V135, personal communication, September 6, 2005). The lack of a database presented a major problem during damage assessments following Cyclone Ami. One senior government officer observed that a database “was the tool that was lacking from the government team and it made our work very, very weak … because there was no reference” (V135, personal communication, September 6, 2005). Damage assessment training had not been conducted at the government level and this was identified as a weakness in the response to Cyclone Ami (V135, personal communication, September 6, 2005). Similarly the government assessment team dispatched to Totoya, had not received prior damage assessment training and did not have standardised forms for data collection (Research Diary, June 2005).

During the survey and data collection stage of the IDA following Cyclone Ami, national government officers and foreign government representatives participated in an aerial survey to gain an overview of affected areas prior to ground surveys being undertaken. The Turaga ni Koro or Advisory Councillor in affected communities, conducted informal ground surveys to identify damage in their area and subsequently reported their findings to national, divisional and district government officers by guiding them around the community as they conducted formal ground assessments. In Vunimoli, the Fiji Red Cross Society was also involved in assessing damage (V14, personal communication, August 21, 2005). Analysis, interpretation and forecasting were completed by national, divisional and district governments prior to their submission of reports to their senior level of government. Based on the reports, all levels of government made decisions regarding their response which included the 107 provision of food rations to affected households. Following damage assessments for both Cyclone Ami and the Totoya landslides, communities were not involved in decisions regarding the response provided by government, yet they did make decisions regarding their own response to, where possible, secure their housing and food security. Table 6.3 summarises the actors at each stage of the IDA.

Preparedness planning in advance of the Cyclone Ami detailed assessment was not undertaken, although it could be argued that initial damage assessments are a form of preparedness for detailed assessments. Surveying and data collection was conducted by officers from national, divisional and district government. Officers acted as representatives of their respective Ministries (for example, Health, Education, Agriculture, and Rural Housing). During this stage, members of affected communities acted as guides for government officers; however, this was not always the case and in some instances government officers conducted surveys without local guidance, for example in Vunimoli, a housing survey was conducted without the Advisory Councillor’s presence (V79, personal communication, September 2, 2006) (see section 5.2.4). Analysis, interpretation and forecasting were conducted initially at a district and then divisional government level before reports were submitted for compilation at the national level. The National Disaster Management Council prepared a submission to Cabinet detailing the recommended rehabilitation plan. Decisions regarding the implementation of the recommendations were made by the Cabinet based upon the recommendations of the National Disaster Management Council (Akapusi Tuifagalele, personal communication, August 6, 2007). Table 6.3 summarises the actors at each stage of the detailed assessment.

Prior to the Monitoring and Evaluation Assessment (Post-disaster Review) being conducted, no particular preparedness planning was undertaken. Survey and data collection were undertaken in the form a national debrief for government officers involved in the assessment and response (National Disaster Management Office, 2003). Affected communities were not consulted as part of the review (S16, personal communication, February 15, 2007). Analysis, interpretation and forecasting were conducted by the NDMO who submitted the associated report to the National Disaster Management Council three months after Cyclone Ami, in April 2003 (National Disaster Management Office, 2003). Decisions regarding the implementation of the reviews’ recommendations were made by the National Disaster Management Council and then implemented by the NDMO (Akapusi Tuifagalele, personal communication, August 6, 2007). Table 6.4 summarises the actors in the post disaster review.

108

Table 6.4. Participants in each stage of the damage assessment process in practice (i.e. who is participating in what) (based on the experiences of affected communities following Cyclone Ami in January 2003) Assessment Type Rehabilitation Post-disaster Review Stage of Initial Damage assessment (monitoring and assessment Assessment (Detailed Sector evaluation) Assessment) Preparedness Not undertaken Not undertaken Not undertaken planning National, Divisional and National, Divisional and National, Divisional and Survey and District Government, District Government, District Government data Foreign government affected communities collection representatives, NGOs, affected communities Analysis, National, Divisional and National, Divisional and National Government interpretation District Government District Government and forecasting National, Divisional and Divisional and National National Government Report District Government Government Design/modify National, Divisional and National Government National Government response District Government

6.4.1 Actual extent of community participation in damage assessments

Analysis of the reality of damage assessment practice demonstrates that affected communities participate in the IDA (see first cycle (red) in Figure 6.3) and Detailed Assessment (see second spiral (amber) in Figure 6.2) phases of the assessment process but participation is restricted to the survey and data collection stage (see Table 6.3 and Figure 6.2). Despite the statement in the National Disaster Management Plan (Government of Fiji, 1995), that affected populations should be included in the Post-Disaster Review, communities involved in this research did not report being consulted during this phase and Government officers confirmed that Post-Disaster Reviews tend to be conducted at a Ministry level and focused on the actions of government (personal communication, S21, February 23, 2007).

109

Figure 6.2 Actual extent of community participation in damage assessment, highlighted in yellow

6.4.2 Characterisation of actual community participation in damage assessment

This section uses the ‘how’ component of the analytical framework adapted in section 2.10 to characterise the ways communities are participating in the survey and data collection stages of IDA and detailed assessments. Significantly more detail regarding how communities participate in practice is available than was provided in legislation.

Initiative The initiative for community participation in the survey and data collection stage is broadly shared between communities and government. Advisory Councillors and Turaga ni Koro in affected communities begin to survey, often on their own initiative and without prompting from government officers. From their previous experience of disasters, Turaga ni Koro and Advisory Councillors are aware that government officers will arrive within a few days of a disaster to conduct formal assessments of the damage and they are aware that it is their responsibility to provide data on the extent of damage to their District Officer. This was evident in both Cicia and Vunimoli/Korotari (see Chapter 5). The initiative for the formal data collection comes from National, Divisional or District government, as officers come to the community to collect data.

Inducements Inducements to participate in damage assessments take several forms and can not be identified as a single type. Participation can be interpreted as enforced because in their role as government contact points, Advisory Councillors and Turaga ni Koro are required to collect and supply data to their District Officer (although this is not legislated). Yet there is an element of reward in participation 110 because the supplied data is the basis of relief and rehabilitation allocation. Communities that do not participate in the assessment process (i.e. do not supply data), may be less likely to receive assistance as government will be unaware of their needs.

Structure (as an individual, as a group) The structure of participation concerns whether people participate as individuals or as members of a group. In initial and detailed damage assessments, members of affected communities participate as members of a group. The community is the smallest level of organisation with which government interacts.

Channels (Direct (in person), Indirect (through spokesperson or representative) Community participation in damage assessments occurs through the Turaga ni Koro or Advisory Councillor who are representatives of their community. Turaga ni Koro and Advisory Councillors guide government assessors to damaged property, infrastructure and agriculture, and mediate communication between the government assessors and affected individuals. In some instances, government assessors interact directly with affected individuals, yet this is not standard practice. Channelling community participation through one community representative has the benefit of speeding up the damage assessment process. Participation can therefore be described as indirect.

When participation is indirect, it is important to consider how representative of the community the spokesperson is. The appointment procedures for Turaga ni Koro and Advisory Councillor differs and this may have a bearing on their representativeness. Whilst Turaga ni Koro are elected by community members to be their spokesperson; potential Advisory Councillors must apply to the Ministry of Multi-Ethnic Affairs and are appointed to their role by government. In Vunimoli, community members expressed satisfaction with their Advisory Councillor (Vunimoli group discussion, personal communication, September 2, 2005), yet residents of Korotari noted that their Advisory Councillor was not representative of the community; he did not live in the community and was not in touch with the local residents. In their opinion, he lacked the grassroots familiarity that Advisory Councillors require (Korotari group discussion, personal communication, August 31, 2005) (see section 5.2.4).

Duration (One-off, intermittent, continuous) During IDA and Detailed Assessments, community participation occurs as a one-off activity during the survey and data collection stage. The fact that participation occurs in two of the three types of assessment makes it possible to define participation in the damage assessment process as intermittent.

Scope (number and range of activities) Whilst the duration of participation in the damage assessment process has been identified as intermittent, it is important to consider the scope of participation in terms of the number and range of activities to determine if participation is evolving or is static. In IDA and Detailed Assessments, communities are engaged in the same activity of assisting government in surveying and data

111 collection. Community participation in Detailed Assessments does not build on, or expand upon participation in IDA, rather the participation is simply repeated. As such, the range of scope is limited.

Empowerment (Effective power accompanying participation) Empowerment is one of the most important characteristics of how participation is practiced, with the degree of effective power held by participants influencing the outcome of participation (Cohen and Uphoff, 1977). When analysing empowerment, it is valuable to consider the relative importance of what communities have power over (Cohen and Uphoff, 1977). In damage assessment practice community empowerment extends only to the survey and data collection stage of IDA and Detailed Assessments. Communities hold some power here as it is they who control what government assessors see during the ground assessments. In the case of indigenous Fijian villages, communities also hold customary power to decide whether to grant government assessors access to the village. The absence of community participation at other stages of IDA and Detailed Assessments and the complete lack of community participation in monitoring and evaluation assessments, does not allow communities to hold power at any other stages. Power is instead held by government who have control over the analysis of data, the production of reports and decision making regarding the allocation of relief and rehabilitation. This lack of effective power in fact makes participation in damage assessment utilitarian in practice. Communities participate to facilitate government data collection.

The absence of community participation in the analysis, reporting and design/modification of response stages may in fact be viewed as perpetuating the culture of dependence, by disempowering affected communities. Communities are not challenged to consider how they may act to implement their own relief and rehabilitation measures, independent of government. Excluding communities from decision making reinforces dependence as they are positioned as recipients of relief and rehabilitation – rather than active participants in the process. This is likely to have a negative effect on self-reliance and their long-term commitment to preventative/mitigative disaster management activities (i.e. the ‘ownership’ of disaster management). It is more likely to undermine, rather than enhance, self-reliance.

6.4.3 Type of participation

The above analysis of how affected communities participate in damage assessment provides the basis for the type of participation to be defined. As a product of the other characteristics discussed above, the degree of community empowerment in the process is perhaps the key determining factor in the definition of the type of participation practiced. The empowerment of communities in the damage assessment process has been shown to be limited. Community participation is restricted in range to the survey and data collection stage and does not differ in scope between IDA and detailed assessments. The absence of community participation in decision making stages of damage assessments further constrains the level of community empowerment and limits the type of participation practiced to consultation. As with the type of participation advocated by legislation, communities assist government by answering questions about damage and providing data.

112

Communities are consulted at the survey and data collection stage, but they have no role in how the data is analysed or decision making regarding response.

While community participation in practice can be defined as ‘consultation’, the additional detail provided by the studies of damage assessment experience in Cicia, Vunimoli, Korotari and Totoya, reveal elements of ‘functional’ participation’. Functional participation involves the engagement of communities as a means to achieve an externally defined task (Pretty, 1995). In this case, communities are engaged to collect data on the damages in their village. The participation of communities reduces the burden on District Officers to conduct surveys in person in each village under his/her jurisdiction. Community participation is used to enhance the efficiency of data collection and subsequently increase the speed of response.

Analysis of actual damage assessment practices reveals an element of self-mobilisation (the highest level of participation) (Pretty, 1995) by affected communities, which is not recognised in the legislation. Community damage assessments are conducted to provide data to the District Officer but they are also conducted to allow communities themselves to identify damage and prioritise or organise action to undertake repairs. Demonstrating some of the self-reliance typical in communities prior to the commencement of relief programmes by the colonial administration, in the days following a disaster, affected communities survey damage, transmit data to the District Officer (in person or via telephone where available) and then start to tidy the village, make repairs, and salvage crops. They are far from the (inaccurate) stereotype of the passive victim waiting idly for external assistance. Recognition of this act of high-level community participation reveals an assessment and response process that is independent of government and operates a very different mode of participation. Table 6.5 provides a summary of the types of participation observed in practice.

Table 6.5 Summary of the extent and type of participation practiced in damage assessments Assessment Formal Government Assessment Informal Community Assessment Limited to survey and data collection in Initial assessment phase, strongest in Extent of IDA and detailed assessments survey and data collection, decision participation making. Type of Participation by consultation, with self-mobilisation participation elements of functional participation

6.5 Summary

Drawing on the typologies of participation introduced in section 2.3, the above analyses have enabled the identification of how communities participate in damage assessment. Thus, the first research question of this study has been addressed. Analysis of damage assessment legislation has demonstrated that the type of community participation advocated in the process is ‘participation by consultation’ and is restricted to the survey and data collection stage of the post-disaster review. Examination of community participation in damage assessment practice through the case studies presented in Chapter 5, has illustrated that in reality, communities participate in formal assessments by ‘consultation’ for a ‘functional’ outcome. Communities participate in the IDA and detailed assessment, but not the post disaster review. ‘Participation by consultation’ and ‘functional 113 participation’ can both be described as forms of tokenism (Arnstein, 1969), and whilst they are genuine forms of participation, they fall short of giving any control to communities (see Table 6.6).

The examination of damage assessment practice has also revealed evidence of community self- mobilisation in informal local damage assessments. This form of participation can be seen to provide communities with maximum control and as such is the highest form of participation (see table 6.6). Communities participate in their own process independently of external actors and control all aspects of the process (Pretty, 1995). It is important to acknowledge community participation in this informal assessment process in addition to the government assessment process. Existing informal assessment processes which demonstrate a high level of community participation (and by extension - self-reliance) may provide useful insights into how formalised community participation can be successfully designed and implemented.

Table 6.6 Summary of the types of participation advocated in legislation and found in practice Legislated and practiced Form of participation Type of assessment (after participation in damage (Arnstein, 1969) Arnstein, 1969; Pretty, 1995) assessment Practiced in informal community Degrees of citizen Self-mobilisation / Citizen control assessment power Interactive / Partnership Practiced in formal government IDA Functional and detailed assessments For material incentives Participation advocated by Degrees of tokenism legislation Consultation Practiced in formal government IDA and detailed assessments Passive / Informing Non-participation Manipulation (Arnstein, 1969)

The following chapter presents an analysis of the type of participation proposed by government in the National Disaster Risk Management Arrangements and section 7.2.2 compares the proposed participation to the types of participation identified in this chapter. Chapter 7 also examines the outcomes which are anticipated to be generated by the formalisation of community participation in damage assessment. Chapter 8 considers the potential for the type of participation proposed to achieve the anticipated outcomes, drawing on the outcomes of the participation types identified in this chapter.

114

7 The proposed formalisation of community participation in damage assessment in Fiji

7.1 Introduction

This chapter concentrates on an analysis of the Government of Fiji’s proposal to formalise the participation of disaster affected communities in the process of damage assessment. The chapter begins by analysing the proposed Fiji National Disaster Risk Management Arrangements (NDRMA) (the basis of future disaster management legislation in Fiji) in order to identify the type of participation that is proposed in damage assessments. Analysis of the proposed participation is completed using the same modified analytical framework as was used in Chapter 6 to analyse existing participation. The analysis is based upon the written details included in the NDRMA and also data from interviews with disaster management practitioners. The type of participation used must be identified to enable a comparison with existing legislation and practice and to establish the basis for a discussion of the potential for the proposed participation to meet the objectives set by government.

The chapter continues with an identification of the objective of community participation in damage assessment. Understanding the purpose of participation (i.e. the theoretical basis from which the proposal is made) provides a benchmark against which to compare the appropriateness of the proposed participatory activity in terms of its potential to achieve the desired outcomes. Analysis of the purpose and anticipated outcomes of the proposed participation will be based upon data from interviews with disaster management practitioners in Fiji, many of whom played an active role in the development of the proposal.

The identification of the type of community participation in damage assessment proposed by the NDRMA and the anticipated outcomes of this participation form the basis of subsequent discussions in Chapter 8 to address the second research question of this study regarding the challenges facing community participation in damage assessment.

7.2 The extent and type of community participation proposed in damage assessment

Fiji’s National Disaster Risk Management Arrangements (NDRMA) are the outcome of a review of disaster management policy conducted between 2003 and 2006 as outlined in section 3.3. The NDRMA represent the basis for future disaster management legislation and planning in Fiji, and at the time of writing, are awaiting Cabinet approval prior to being passed into law. As the future legislative basis for disaster management, the NDRMA is an important document and is the theoretical basis upon which any community participation in damage assessment will be established. Whilst it has been noted in both Chapters 2 and 6 that statements about participation are not always accurately reflected in practice (see for example Chambers, 1994b; Christoplos et al, 2001; Twigg et

115 al, 2001), statements about intent nonetheless form the basis of participation and are worthy of investigation. This is particularly the case in relation to damage assessment in Fiji, where the statements surrounding participation are at the proposal stage. A detailed critical reflection at this stage could help identify possible constraints and challenges to achieving participation and develop ways to address them.

The NDRMA proposal for participation in damage assessment is interrogated here using the modified analytical framework outlined in section 2.10 and employed in Chapter 6 to analyse existing participation in damage assessment. The analysis is based upon government’s statements as expressed in the NDRMA document itself (National Disaster Management Office, 2006a) and data from interviews with disaster management practitioners in Fiji.

The NDRMA contains a limited amount of information on the details of the damage assessment process. Damage assessment is defined in the NDRMA as:

The preparation of specific, quantified estimates of physical damage resulting from a disaster, recommendations concerning the repair, reconstruction or replacement of structures, equipment, restoration of economic (including agricultural) activities, the restoration of the environment and the health of the general pubic. This also includes estimates of broader consequences in relation to, for example, the economy and the psychological impact the disaster may have had on the general population (National Disaster Management Office, 2006a:6).

The NDRMA provides further definitions for both ‘damage’ and ‘assessment’, independent of one another. Damage is defined as: “unwanted change or losses resulting from a natural or human- caused event” (National Disaster Management Office, 2006a:6). Assessment is defined as:

The process of determining the impact of a disaster or events on a society, the needs for immediate emergency measures to save and sustain the lives of survivors, and the possibilities for expediting recovery and development (National Disaster Management Office, 2006a:6)

Two types of damage assessment are presented: (1) the Initial Damage Assessment (IDA) which is conducted “to provide the Emergency Committee and the NDRMC [National Disaster Risk Management Council37] with an initial understanding of relief requirements and the damage to infrastructure, property, communications etc” (National Disaster Management Office, 2006a:45); and (2) a Comprehensive Damage Assessment (CDA)

37 The NDRMC is the overarching policy advisory body to Government on all disaster risk reduction and management issues. Members of the Council include Permanent Secretaries of Government Ministries and the heads of key agencies such as the National Fire Authority, Fiji Electricity Authority, Telecom Fiji, Republic of Fiji Military Forces, Police, Fiji Meteorological Services, Fiji Red Cross Society and Fiji Council of Social Services. 116

to provide the NDRMC and Cabinet with the total cost of damage across all sectors of the economy. This survey and assessment type provides information to prompt adequate rehabilitation programmes (National Disaster Management Office, 2006a:45).

The NDRMA also recommends a ‘Post Disaster Review’ be conducted within six months of a disaster to evaluate the preparations for and response to the disaster event.

Reference to preparedness planning for the IDA (and CDA) is limited in the NDRMA, referring only to training and the development of standardised data collection forms. IDA training is noted to be the responsibility of the Training and Preparedness Committee at the national level and is to be offered to officials from relevant agencies38 and communities39. Standardised forms for use in IDA and CDA are to be developed by the Fiji Islands Disaster Management Authority (FIDMA, the new name for the NDMO) in conjunction with relevant Agencies and other groups (National Disaster Management Office, 2006a). Survey and data collection during the IDA is to be conducted by village and settlement councils in consultation with Provincial Administrators and/or District Officers. A senior disaster management practitioner explained:

Communities will be involved basically in reporting the type of damages, just in general, because they will be looking at the damages themselves, damages to the crops, damage to the infrastructure in the community. Things like: if the road is not working; telecommunications are down; how are the generators?, … damage to houses. We would expect them to give us the damage picture, what it is like on the ground, … how many people are injured, those who are injured, how many homes have been completely destroyed, homes that are partly damaged. These are the types of things that we would expect the community to provide so at the very least you have an idea of the severity of the situation in those affected areas (S21, personal communication, 23 February, 2007).

Data is subsequently provided to government officers at District, Provincial, Divisional and National levels. Reporting procedures from affected communities to Provincial and District officers are not elaborated upon in the NDRMA. Written reports are to be completed by each level of government and forwarded to senior government levels. The allocation of immediate relief assistance is the responsibility of Provincial Administrators and District Officers, but must be approved by the Central Control Group at the national level (National Disaster Management Office, 2006a).

Preparedness planning for the CDA extends only to the development of standardised data collection forms by the FIDMA and no reference is made to CDA training. Survey and data collection is to be

38 The NDRMA defines Agencies as: “Any body, body corporate or unincorporated body constituted under an act for a public purpose, and any member or officer of such body and any person in the service of Government of Fiji upon whom any function, power, duty or responsibility is conferred by or under any act” (National Disaster Management Office, 2006a) 39 A pilot village based IDA training course was conducted in Vunisei, Kadavu in October 2005. This will be considered in more depth in section 8.5.5. 117 coordinated by the FIDMA and undertaken by officers from agencies whose areas of responsibility have been affected by the disaster, for example, Ministries of Agriculture, Education, and Health with the assistance of Divisional, Provincial and District government officers. Analysis, interpretation and forecasting are to be undertaken by the FIDMA upon receipt of information from assessors. FIDMA also hold responsibility for the compilation of a national report and rehabilitation plan. Recommendations contained within the plan must be approved by the National Disaster Risk Management Council (NDRMC) (National Disaster Management Office, 2006a).

Post-disaster reviews are not presented in the NDRMA as part of the assessment process. They are instead considered to be the final stage of the rehabilitation programme. Responsibility for the post- disaster review is held at all stages by the FIDMA. The NDRMA does not provide details of specific activities to be undertaken in preparation for the review. Data collection is to be undertaken by FIDMA through consultation with all relevant agencies, Divisional, Provincial and District government, NGOs and the affected populations. Analysis, interpretation and forecasting are to be completed by FIDMA, who then submit a report to the NDRMC. The NDRMC have responsibility for making decisions regarding the implementation of the review’s recommendations (National Disaster Management Office, 2006a).

7.2.1 Participants in the proposed damage assessment process

The above description of the damage assessment process according to the proposed NDRMA (National Disaster Management Office, 2006a) differs only slightly from existing legislation (Government of Fiji, 1995,1998). There are two significant differences between the proposed NDRMA and existing legislation; the first is the provision for training of communities in how to conduct IDA. The NDRMA stipulates that as one of their functions, the Training and Preparedness Committee should

develop and implement a disaster risk reduction and disaster management training programme for Agency officials and the community. Examples of requisite training programmes are: EOC [Emergency Operations Centre] Management, Initial Damage Assessment and Introduction to Disaster Management (National Disaster Management Office, 2006a:21).

The second significant difference between the existing and proposed damage assessment legislation is the NDRMA’s formal allocation of responsibility for IDA survey and data collection to affected communities. The NDRMA states: “Village and Settlement Councils will be required to undertake Initial Damage Assessments for any incident and will work in close consultation with the relevant Provincial Administrator/District Officer” (National Disaster Management Office, 2006a:27).

As with existing legislation, the NDRMA makes no provision for community participation in CDA. Disaster practitioners confirmed there are currently no plans to formalise the participation of affected communities in detailed assessments, stating: “at this stage, so far as community participation is

118 concerned, we are basically looking at initial damage assessment. The detailed assessment is done by the government team” (S21, personal communication, February 23, 2007). Participants justified the lack of formal community participation at this stage by the need for technical expertise in assessing rehabilitation needs. One practitioner stated: “when you come to complex engineering and things like that maybe you need some people who are experts and then government … comes in” (S16, personal communication, February 15, 2007). The role of communities is retained in the post- disaster review. A further addition in the NDRMA is the inclusion of the recently established role of Provincial Administrator, within the hierarchy of government. Table 7.1 identifies the range of participants in each stage of the damage assessment process and reveals that whilst affected communities participate in both the IDA and the post-disaster review; their role remains limited to the survey and data collection stages of each assessment and the preparedness planning stage of the IDA. This is represented graphically in Figure 7.1. The differences between the proposed participation discussed here and participation found in existing legislation and practice examined in Chapter 6 are clear when Figure 7.2 is compared to Figures 6.1 and 6.2.

Table 7.1 Participants in each stage of the damage assessment process, according to Fiji’s (proposed) NDRMA (i.e. who is participating in what) Assessment Type Comprehensive Post-disaster Review Stage of Initial Damage damage assessment (monitoring and assessment Assessment (Detailed Sector evaluation) Assessment) National government National government FIDMA Preparedness (FIDMA) (FIDMA) planning Training to be offered to communities Aerial survey – National National, Divisional, Data collected by FIDMA (Lands Department) Provincial and District through consultation with government National , Divisional, Survey and Ground survey - Village Provincial, District data and Settlement government, NGO, and collection Councils, Provincial the affected population Administrators, District Officers, Fiji Police Force, Fiji Red Cross Society Analysis, National, Divisional, National, Divisional, FIDMA interpretation Provincial and District Provincial and District and government forecasting Division, Provincial, FIDMA FIDMA Report District National, Divisional, National Disaster Risk National Disaster Risk Design/modify Provincial and District Management Council Management Council response government

119

Figure 7.1 Extent of community participation in damage assessment according to proposed NDRMA.

Characterisation of community participation in IDA proposed in NDRMA

It was noted in section 7.2.1 that the significant difference between the damage assessment process proposed in the NDRMA and existing legislation is the formal inclusion of affected communities in IDA preparedness planning, and survey and data collection. This formalisation of participation in damage assessment will be characterised below using the modified analytical framework introduced in section 2.10 to identify the type of participation that has been proposed.

Initiative The original initiative for incorporating community participation within the damage assessment process came from government. It is, however, valuable to note that the review process leading to the development of the NDRMA involved consultation with a variety of stakeholder groups. The first consultations were held with representatives from Ministries, government departments and disaster management practitioners from international, regional and national organisations (Elenoa Lomalagi, personal communication, 24 March, 2006). Later consultations took place with community based institutions and organisations through the statutory representatives40 of rural communities affected by disasters in recent years (Rokovada, 2004). The purpose of the consultations with community representatives was to identify how the NDRMA could “make provisions for more positive participation by local communities in planned preparations for, and responses to, national disasters” (Rokovada, 2004:3). Representatives of disaster affected communities were in full support of the

40 Roko Tui, Provincial Council Chairs and District Advisory Council Chairs 120 need for greater participation (Rokovada, 2004) and so it is possible to see the initiative for participation as shared between government and communities.

Incentive As a formalised process under legislation, the proposed community participation in damage assessments will be a form of ‘enforced’ participation. Affected communities will be legally obligated to conduct surveys and data collection for IDA and to complete the necessary training.

Affected communities may perceive the relief assistance that arises from the IDA to be a reward for their participation. The NDRMA does not mention the consequences for communities who fail to receive IDA training or do not conduct data collection after a disaster. Whilst it is possible that non- participating communities could be excluded from the damage assessment process altogether (and thus disqualify for relief assistance), it is more likely that government officers would be sent to conduct damage assessment surveys instead. Therefore, the reward of relief assistance should not be considered the incentive for participation.

Structure and channels The NDRMA proposes that Village and Settlement councils undertake IDA data collection. Communities therefore participate as a group, represented by members of their council.

As it is proposed that village and settlement councils undertake the IDA data collection, participation in data collection is direct. The data will then be passed on to Provincial Administrators or District Officers and this will be done through a village representative (Turaga ni Koro or Advisory Councillor).

Duration The proposed community participation in the IDA can be described as intermittent. Community members will be required to participate in IDA training prior to a disaster and following a disaster they will be required to conduct surveys of the damage in their community.

Scope Across the damage assessment process, the participation of communities is proposed in a limited number of activities (see Table 7.1 and Figure 7.1 for an illustration). Within the IDA, community participation is restricted to training in how to collect data and the subsequent data collection itself. The format of the training has not yet been developed although a pilot village-based IDA training was conducted in Kadavu in 2005. As the damage assessment process is a structured activity and for ease of analysis, there is a need for standardised methods of damage classification and data recording. In line with this, the current format of IDA training is prescriptive and communities are trained to complete standardised forms and comply with the standard system for classifying damage. The data collection after a disaster allows community members to put their training into action and classify the damage in their village completing the standardised data collection forms as instructed in the training.

121

Empowerment The effective power accompanying the proposed participation in damage assessment in Fiji remains limited. Having responsibility for data provision only, leaves communities beholden to higher authorities who make decisions. Although some degree of empowerment and sense of responsibility may be felt as communities are trained and take an active part in the damage assessment, the absence of decision making power undermines the lasting sense of empowerment. It can be seen that the empowerment is lost when the data is handed over to government.

This section has shown the proposed participation of communities in IDA to be a shared initiative with both government and community agreeing that participation was necessary. The participation of communities is enforced through legislation and communities participate as a group through their representative Turaga ni Koro or Advisory Councillor. Participation in the IDA is intermittent occurring during the preparedness planning stage and the survey and data collection stage. The scope of participation is limited to training and data collection within these two phases. Overall, the empowerment of communities is limited, largely as a function of the restricted scope of participation, in particular the absence of community participation in decision making. The following section considers the characteristics of community participation in the post-disaster review. The characterisation of community participation in these two assessments is used in section 7.2.4 to define the type of participation in damage assessment proposed in the NDRMA.

Characterisation of community participation in Post-disaster reviews proposed in NDRMA

In the NDRMA, the statement describing the post-disaster review process has been broadened to include a post-emergency review for events which have not warranted a declaration of disaster41 (usually localised events of limited magnitude). The description of the review process following disasters is unchanged from existing legislation and is largely a verbatim replication of the statement in the 1995 National Disaster Management Plan. A comparison of the statements from each document is provided in Table 7.2. Reference to community participation is restricted to a statement that during the post-disaster review “FIDMA will consult with all relevant Agencies as well as the affected population” (National Disaster Management Office, 2006a:64). The lack of additional or altered detail in the NDRMA regarding how communities are to participate in the post-disaster review suggests that the proposed participation will not differ from existing participation, which was characterised in Chapter 6 as ‘participation by consultation’.

41 ‘Emergency’ and ‘disaster’ both refer to events that require immediate and coordinated responses. In an ‘emergency’ the response is within local agencies’ ability to cope, whilst in ‘disaster’ events the required response is beyond agencies ability to cope (National Disaster Management Office, 2006a). An emergency is defined as: “A situation generated by the real or imminent occurrence if an event that requires an immediate and coordinated response and is within the resources of a community’s local Agencies to respond” (National Disaster Management Office, 2006a:7) A disaster is defined as: “ An actual or probable event which causes disruption to the functioning of a community causing widespread human, material, economic, or environmental loss and which exceeds the affected community and its Agencies’ ability to cope using its own resources” (National Disaster Management Office, 2006a:6) 122

Table 7.2 Descriptions of the Post-disaster review as provided in existing and proposed disaster management policy National Disaster Risk Management 1995 National Disaster Management Plan Arrangements Within 6 months after each natural disaster Within 6 months after each major disaster the NDMO will carry out a post-disaster review. The FIDMA will carry out a post disaster review. The review includes pre-disaster preparedness of review includes pre-disaster preparedness of the public and private sector, the disaster, the public and private sector, the disaster, the emergency operation, relief and rehabilitation. emergency operation, relief and rehabilitation. The review will formulate specific The review will formulate specific recommendations for revision of disaster plan recommendations for revision of disaster plans and other actions to improve the performance in and other actions to improve the performance in future natural disasters. The report and future natural disasters. The report and recommendations will be submitted to the recommendations will be submitted to NDRMC. NDMC. NDMC will consider the The NDRMC will consider the recommendations recommendations and direct further actions. and direct further action.

For the purpose of the report, NDMO has free With regard to emergencies, the Lead Agency access to all information it deems necessary to will be responsible for conducting a Post review the disaster and its response, including Emergency Review within 1 month following the financial information. In preparation of the report, emergency. The review will look at all aspects of NDMO will consult all relevant parties, including response to the emergency and formulate the affected population, NGOs, District Officers, specific recommendations for the improvement Divisional Commissioners and DSLOs. of overall emergency and/or disaster response. (Government of Fiji, 1995:V-12) The report and recommendations will also be submitted to the NDRMC for consideration and decision.

For the purposes of the report the FIDMA has free access to all information it deems necessary to review the disasters or emergencies and its response, including financial information. In preparation of the report, FIDMA will consult all relevant Agencies as well as the affected population, NGOs, Divisional Commissioners, Provincial Administrators/District Officers and DSLOs. (National Disaster Management Office, 2006a:64)

However, one senior disaster management practitioner admitted that in practice, post-disaster reviews were not commonly undertaken following a disaster. The practitioner noted that,

[evaluation] has been neglected by the NDMO. I don’t remember any of the events that I have gone through at the NDMO since 1996; I don’t remember any of those events being evaluated (S16, personal communication, February 15, 2007).

This officer attributed the neglect of post-disaster reviews to a lack of capacity within the NDMO and its Ministry, and a culture in which the failure to conduct evaluations with communities is acceptable, explaining:

One [reason is that] we lack that capacity in the Ministry; we lack that capacity at the NDMO. The other [reason] is that culture of not going down, just sitting there and

123

people sort of feeling its OK not to do [evaluations]. Once a report is made, that report goes through the system, goes up to Cabinet and right up to Parliament and after, that, [government assessment stops] (S16, personal communication, February 15, 2007).

The failure to conduct evaluations is particularly an issue in relation to the frequency of disasters that affect Fiji. It is not uncommon for a second disaster to occur, before the response to the first has been completed. In these instances, post-disaster reviews are a lower priority than assessing and addressing the impact of the most recent disaster. The human resources of the NDMO are stretched during these times. Furthermore, the prevalence of a culture which believes it is acceptable not to conduct evaluations and not to consult with affected communities (S16, personal communication, 15 February, 2007), inhibits the practice of post-disaster evaluations.

When post-disaster reviews are undertaken, they tend to involve government personnel only. A senior officer explained, “we normally do a post-disaster review, but that is regarded as the responsibility of the Ministry looking at the response system, how well did we respond” (S21, personal communication, February 23, 2007). This in fact bears more resemblance to a post- operation debrief than the post-disaster review. Post-operations debriefs are stipulated in both existing and proposed disaster policy as part of the emergency or disaster response, the NDRMA states:

Within 2 weeks following the end of emergency/disaster operations, Lead Agencies should conduct a debrief with all relevant support Agencies to review the conduct of operations. The debrief should cover all aspects of the emergency/disaster operations and include communications arrangements, manning of operations centres, tasking arrangements etc (National Disaster Management Office, 2006a:45).

The similarity between the above description of a post-operations debrief, and the description of post-disaster review practice provided by the senior disaster management practitioner (S21,personal communications, February 23, 2007) calls into question whether post-disaster reviews are in fact undertaken following disasters in Fiji.

An additional challenge to post-disaster reviews is that they are not identified as part of the damage assessment process. In both existing legislation and the proposed NDRMA, there are considered to be two types of damage assessment: IDA and CDA. Post-disaster reviews are disconnected from this process and within the NDRMA; the need for a post-disaster review is introduced briefly as an activity within the rehabilitation process. This disconnection has implications for community participation. Despite the stated need in the NDRMA for the post-disaster review to involve consultation with affected populations, discussions with a senior disaster management practitioner involved in the development of the NDRMA, revealed that “at this stage so far as community participation is concerned, we are basically looking at initial damage assessment” (JR, personal

124 communication, February 23, 2007). Thus, the post-disaster review and the opportunity for community participation is neglected.

7.2.2 Type of participation proposed

The above characterisation of the community participation in damage assessment proposed in the NDRMA allows the participation to be categorised according to the typologies of participation introduced in Chapter 2 (Arnstein, 1969; Pretty, 1995) (see Table 7.3). The characterisation of community participation leads to the identification of the proposed participation as ‘participation by consultation’. Despite a number of subtle differences between each example of participation (legislated, practice, proposed), participation remains fundamentally unchanged. Whilst the scope of proposed participation has been expanded to include participation in IDA training and IDA survey and data collection, the form of participation does not differ significantly from existing practice. Members of affected communities will be expected to conduct a survey of the damage sustained in their community and then forward this information to government. Community members are not actively included in decision making regarding the provision of disaster response. The exclusion of communities from decision making is a powerful determinant of the type of participation that is being proposed. As the power held by communities does not differ between existing practice and the proposed participation, the type of participation remains unchanged. The proposed NDRMA essentially brings policy in line with practice, formally recognising the existing contribution of communities, rather than recommending an increase in the volume of community participation in the damage assessment process.

Table 7.3 Summary of community participation in damage assessment proposed in the NDRMA Participation Proposed participation in damage assessment IDA training Extent IDA survey and data collection Post-disaster Review survey and data collection Type Participation by consultation and passive participation

In order to assess the appropriateness of the type of participation proposed, it is necessary to elaborate more on the nature of what community participation is expected to deliver. The following section describes the purpose of participation as identified by disaster management practitioners. This establishes the benchmark against which the appropriateness of the proposed participation may be judged.

7.3 The purpose of formalised community participation in damage assessments

In Fiji the initiative to formalise the participation of affected communities in damage assessment is driven by central government. This is in line with many of the examples of participatory disaster management examined in Chapter 2, which are initiated by actors external to the community.

125

Chapter 2 established that there are two distinct theories regarding the purpose of participation; the first being utilitarian approaches to participation in which participation is harnessed as a means to increase project efficiency; the second is people-centred or transformative approaches to participation, which emphasise a change in communities’ ability to participate (through collective action, empowerment and institution building) (Oakley, 1991; Rahnema, 1992; Pretty, 1995; Thomas-Slayter, 1995; Cleaver, 2001). Each theory is associated with different types of participatory activities, with people-centred approaches tending to allocate more power to communities than utilitarian approaches. Understanding the goal/purpose of participation (i.e. the theoretical basis from which the proposal is made) provides a benchmark against which to evaluate the appropriateness of the proposed participatory activity in terms of its potential to achieve the desired outcomes.

The purpose of participation is often theorised as a dichotomy between these two approaches (utilitarian and people-centred participation) (Cleaver, 2001). In reality, participatory activities are likely to incorporate elements of both utilitarian and people-centred participation. The two are not mutually exclusive, but are rather two extremes of a continuum (Pelling, 1998). Discussions with disaster management practitioners in Fiji (February-October 2005 and February 2007), support this latter view with the purpose of participation being identified as both utilitarian, as a means to increase the speed at which data about damage in communities is delivered to decision makers in government (by addressing shortcomings in the current process), and as a transformative (people- centred) activity to promote and establish self-reliance (ownership, empowerment) amongst (rural) communities in respect to disasters. The following sections consider each of the purposes for participation in damage assessments and discuss the background which has prompted the formalisation of participation.

7.3.1 Utilitarian perspectives of participation in damage assessment

The dominant view of participation in damage assessment amongst disaster management practitioners was a utilitarian one, with practitioners identifying increased speed of data provision as the primary purpose of community participation in damage assessment (S21, personal communication, February 23, 2007). Disaster management practitioners felt that formalising the participation of the community in initial damage assessments could reduce the time taken for data on the damage in communities to reach government decision makers. One officer stated “[community participation] is going to provide government with the situation on the ground in the affected areas in a quick period, fast” (S21, personal communication, February 23, 2007). This would in turn improve the timeliness of the response to a disaster because “if community reports here [to the NEOC] immediately after a disaster, we can speed up the process … for the relief assistance to be arranged” (S21, personal communication, February 23, 2007). Community participation is anticipated to achieve this by addressing the challenges to damage assessment identified following recent disasters in Fiji, in particular, the inaccessibility of affected communities and the limited number of government officers available to conduct assessments. These challenges are described below to provide a clear picture of what participation is hoped to overcome. The potential for these challenges to be overcome by the proposed participation is discussed in section 8.3.

126

The inaccessibility of many communities following a disaster was highlighted by both disaster management practitioners and community members as a challenge to effecting timely damage assessments. The experiences of damage assessments following Cyclone Ami (described in Chapter 5), illustrate the significant delays that can arise as a result of communities’ inaccessibility. In this case, accessibility difficulties contributed to the delay in the commencement of data collection surveys by around one to two weeks (V135, personal communication, September 2005).

The current damage assessment practice is for government officers to travel to affected areas and collect data on the damage sustained within individual communities. However, many rural communities are located at a significant distance from local or national administrative centres. Some communities in Nadroga, Navosa, Namosi and Ba provinces are not accessible by road and some maritime communities in the Lau Group are accessible only by sea (S16, personal communication, February 15, 2007) (see Figure 7.2). Even travel to communities located relatively short distances from administrative centres can be complicated following a disaster as roads and waterways can become blocked by landslides or debris. One disaster management practitioner provided the following summary of access issues concerning mainland communities following a disaster in Fiji:

There are debris, broken trees on the road, damaged electricity or power line, so we have to be very careful to when we are out for assessment. We have to see that all the power-lines are off at that time. And maybe some bridges are broken and maybe floodwaters have washed away the bridge or broken some of these wooden bridges. Those are some of the damages on the ground that makes it very difficult to get closer to the affected villages (S19, personal communication, February 20, 2007).

Another disaster management practitioner highlighted the different issues associated with accessing island communities:

the authorities can go around and do the assessment, but you know take a step off this island, how do you get out there? By boat? The seas are too rough. By plane? The … landing strip is closed off. Helicopter? We don’t have enough to go around and would they cover the distances and the cost issue. Vehicles? No, it is an outer island. And then how do you get around the island once you get out there? Are the roads washed away? (S15, personal communication, February 14, 2007)

127

Figure 7.2 A map of Fiji’s 14 provinces (names in red). Accessing some communities in the provinces of Ba, Namosi, Nadroga and Navosa after a disaster can be particularly difficult. Maritime Provinces such as Lau also present post-disaster accessibility difficulties.

The case studies presented in Chapter 5 reveal that accessing affected areas and the safety of assessors once in the field presents a significant problem to government. This range of difficulties slows the process of government officers from administrative centres assessing damages in affected communities. Disaster management practitioners and community members anticipate that community participation can solve this problem by eliminating the need for government officers to visit affected areas. Community members can conduct assessments and rapidly transmit the results to the appropriate administrative centre. Community participation becomes the means by which timely data is collected for submission to government.

A further constraint on the timeliness of damage assessments which community participation is anticipated to address is the availability of government personnel to be engaged in the damage assessment. In some cases government personnel are themselves the victims of natural disaster events. For example, in 2003 (Cyclone Ami) and 2007 (flooding), government officers in Labasa (the administrative centre of the Northern Division) were personally affected by flooding. In 2003, this contributed to the delay in the commencement of the damage assessment as:

Even the public officers were victims, we cannot mobilise them. So we need to put their house in order first, evacuate their families and then get them back see that their houses are in order before we dispatch them to the assessment exercise out in the villages. (V135, personal communication, September 2005)

Following severe flooding in Labasa in 2007, government officers were willing to join the damage assessment but again, had to spend time repairing their own homes before they were able begin undertaking damage assessments across the Division. A senior government officer explained:

Most of them they were also victims, … and that is the problem in Labasa. This happened also in 2003, I was then in the Eastern Division at that time. When we started to give out relief and rations in the Eastern Division, [in the Northern Division] they haven’t started surveying because the very people who were supposed to do the survey were the ones who were also the victims of the flood, and hurricane. So it also happened a few days ago. Calling civil servants to come and attend to, it is quite difficult because they are also victims. They have to do the cleaning up in their households, home and clean up properties and all that. To make matters worse, electricity was off and also the water supply was cut, so husbands they have to worry about their families. Calling them to come was difficult (V134, personal communication, February 13, 2007).

As a consequence, the damage assessment did not commence until three days after the flooding,

[flooding occurred on Sunday] we had to wait. On … Monday the flood is still there, receding but slowly. Tuesday, people start cleaning their homes. Wednesday, the survey teams start. Wednesday, Thursday and Friday [assessing]. Saturday we’re

129

starting to gather the reports. Sunday we’ve completed all the surveys (V134, personal communication, February 13, 2007).

Damage assessment experiences in Fiji clearly highlight the impact that challenges such as the inaccessibility of many communities and the limited availability of government officers has upon the speed at which data on damage within communities is submitted to government. The examples illustrated above have shown delays of up to several days as a result of government officers being unable to leave their own homes and delays of several weeks as a result of delays in accessing affected communities. Government anticipates that formalising community participation in damage assessments will provide a means to overcome these challenges and associated delays. Community members are in-situ and do not have to contend with difficulties in accessing their community, thus can conduct assessments quickly. The rapidity of the assessment and the fact that community members will not have to travel far from their homes and families, removes the delay caused by having to wait for government officers to attend to the damage to their own homes and the welfare of their families before they can commence assessments of affected communities; (although the question of transmitting the survey data to government still remains).

This rationale for community participation positions government as an external agency defining the goal of participation as timely data provision, and the participation of affected communities, as the means to achieve that goal. The affected community is engaged to meet the goal and provide the necessary information to government in a timely fashion. Community participation will therefore be utilitarian - used as a means to meet government’s need for timely data and subsequently increase the speed of response to communities. Utilitarian, community participation ceases once the goal has been met (Oakley, 1991).

7.3.2 Transformative perspectives of participation in damage assessment

In addition to community participation being used as a means to provide timely data to government, discussions with disaster management practitioners revealed an anticipation that community participation in damage assessments will contribute to increased levels of community empowerment, self-reliance, responsibility and ownership in the disaster management process (S14, personal communication, February 14, 2007; S21, personal communication, February 23, 2007). These terms are indicative of high-order participation, such as “self-mobilisation” (Pretty, 1995:1252) (see Table 2.3) where communities act on their own initiative without stimulation by external agencies. The process of participating (working and achieving things together) acts to reinforce local organisation, build confidence, skills, capacity to co-operate, consciousness and critical appraisal, leading to both individual and collective empowerment (Twigg et al, 2001). The aspiration of fostering empowered communities was summarised by one disaster management practitioner who stated: “at the end of the process, the community will not only be able to participate, they should be able to be independent” (S16, personal communication, February 15, 2007). This is clearly representative of community participation being used as a transformative activity. This is motivated largely by

130 government’s desire to encourage communities away from the growing culture of post-disaster dependency in Fiji, which was highlighted in Chapter 3 (Campbell, 1984; Chung, 1999).

There is a strong recognition amongst disaster management practitioners involved in this study that a culture of post-disaster dependency has developed in Fiji (S14, personal communication, February 14, 2007; S19, personal communication, February 20, 2007; S20, personal communication February 20, 2007). Disaster affected communities “see themselves as the beneficiaries of government assistance and not as part of the government system to address disaster” (S21, personal communication, February 23, 2007). Furthermore, the existing disaster management structure “perpetuates complacency, dependency, and a hand-out mentality [because] they [the community] can’t see themselves in the whole process” (S21, personal communication, February 23, 2007). Disaster management practitioners suggest that the culture of communities seeing themselves as ‘recipients’ is linked to their absence in the official disaster structure (Rokovada, 2004). This absence has an effect of excusing communities from taking responsibility for disaster management activities and has contributed to the development of what Chung (1999) identified as a ‘culture of relief’. Disaster management practitioners suggested that opening up the official structure to include community participation and providing communities with responsibilities can overcome this culture of dependency (S14, personal communication, February, 14, 2007; S21, personal communication, February 23, 2007).

The review has found out that the [formal] structure, as I said before it perpetuates complacency, dependency syndrome, hand-out mentality. [Communities] can’t see themselves in the whole process. So now that they are part of the whole system we really expect more active participation of the communities. The process is then to eliminate that dependency syndrome, that hand-out culture, which is very much part of our community (S21, personal communication, February 23, 2007)

It is anticipated that community participation in the damage assessment process should increase community awareness of the principles of disaster management and their sense of responsibility for (and ownership of) disaster management within communities (S14, personal communication, February 14, 2007; S18, personal communication, February 20, 2007; S21, personal communication, February 23, 2007). A senior government officer provided the following explanation of the anticipated benefits of community participation.

We have to make sure that this ownership business is taken on board by the people. Sometimes there is a level of complacency and it was beginning to come out in some places where disasters happen, people don’t want to take ownership of things that affect them personally. If there is a house [destroyed] they want Government to come and build their own house and they just watch. That kind of mentality. By doing this thing we can get them to own it, to ensure that it is done, it is implemented and then they take charge of it without us, without Government input all the time. That’s one advantage of having these kind of thing where the

131

people are involved in the whole thing, right from the word go (S18, personal communication, February 20, 2007).

The above quote refers to people being “involved in the whole process, right from the word go”. This reference to participation in “the whole process” was made by many disaster management practitioners/interviewees, yet when questioned further, interviewees confirmed (in line with proposed legislation) that the participation of disaster affected communities will extend only to data collection during the IDA and communities will not be involved in decision making (S21, personal communication, February 23, 2007). The implications of this contradiction will be dealt with fully in Chapter 8 when the potential for the proposed type of community participation to achieve these goals will be considered and discussed.

7.3.3 Utilitarian and transformative participation

Community participation is being formalised in the damage assessment process as both a utilitarian means to achieve a predefined goal and as a transformative, people-centred activity to empower communities. In a utilitarian application, community participation is anticipated to result in more timely data collection and associated response delivery, overcoming challenges posed by the inaccessibility of affected areas and the limited availability of government assessors. As a transformative (people-centred) activity, community participation is anticipated to combat the culture of dependency by encouraging self-mobilisation of communities in a disaster management context. The use of community participation in both a utilitarian and transformative fashion is not uncommon (Andharia, 2002), yet it raises issues of how both goals can be met. Are the same methods appropriate for the achievement of both goals or are they contradictory?

7.4 Summary

The analysis of community participation as proposed in the NDRMA, has defined the proposed participation as ‘participation by consultation’ restricted to the preparedness planning of the IDA and the survey and data collection stages of both the IDA and the Post-disaster Review. The purposes of participation have been identified as both utilitarian (increased efficiency) and transformative (increased self-reliance). The significance of the type of community participation proposed (‘participation by consultation’) and its compatibility to both the utilitarian and transformative objectives detailed above will be explored in Chapter 8. The following chapter also considers the challenges that face the establishment and practice of community participation in damage assessments in Fiji. The influence that these challenges have in defining the type of participation that is possible and appropriate will be considered.

132

8 Challenges to participatory damage assessment

8.1 Introduction

This chapter addresses the second research question of this study (see section 1.4) by identifying the challenges to achieving effective community participation in damage assessments in Fiji. First considered are the challenges facing community participation at a conceptual level, i.e. the compatibility of the proposed type of participation (participation by consultation during the IDA) with the utilitarian and transformative purposes of participation identified in Chapter 7. The chapter then considers the practical challenges to achieving participation and presents these as issues of community capacity to participate and government capacity to facilitate participation.

8.2 Conceptual challenges

Chapter 7 identified the purpose of participation in damage assessment to be both utilitarian and transformative. In a utilitarian application, participation is employed as a means to address several of the shortcomings in the existing practice of damage assessments. Disaster management practitioners anticipate this will increase the speed of data delivery to the central government regarding damage in communities, thus increasing the speed at which disaster response can be implemented. Participation is also intended to have a transformative outcome; raising participants’ capacity and interest in engaging in disaster management activities, and reducing the dependency of communities on central government. Whilst not mutually exclusive, these outcomes are quite different and may require different forms of participation to achieve them. In Chapter 2 it was noted that transformative participation is commonly associated with forms of participation that involve the allocation of greater power to communities (Cohen and Uphoff, 1977; Thomas-Slayter, 1995). Utilitarian outcomes are defined by external agencies and typically involve forms of participation that are more functional in nature. The following two sections consider utilitarian and transformative purposes for participation, in turn, to identify the potential for the type of participation proposed, ‘participation by consultation’ - to achieve the desired outcome associated with each purpose.

8.2.1 Potential for utilitarian outcomes

The first established purpose of the formalisation of community participation in damage assessment is a utilitarian one. It was identified in section 7.3.1 that the Government of Fiji anticipates that the inclusion of affected communities in the initial damage assessment following a disaster will lead to increased efficiency in the damage assessment system. As ‘participation by consultation’, the allocation of responsibility for data collection and submission to communities may increase efficiency by reducing the burden on all levels of government and limiting the extent of participation.

133

In giving communities responsibility for data collection and submission, the government removes the need for its officers to travel to affected areas and return with data on the damage. The time taken to travel to and from affected areas was highlighted in section 7.1.2 as a constraint on the speed and efficiency of the damage assessment process, with survey results in some cases taking up to several weeks to be delivered to Divisional government. In the best case scenario, where telecommunications between government and affected communities are available and have not been disrupted, communities can swiftly collect and submit their data to government over the telephone. In some cases, telecommunication is not possible and data must be submitted in person. In these instances the travel required is halved. Communities are in-situ and can conduct assessments immediately and then deliver data to District or Divisional government in person, without officers needing to travel to the affected community. As a result, in this situation, the time taken for data to reach Central government should be reduced.

Eliminating the need for government officers to travel to affected communities to conduct surveys, also acts to reduce the significant cost of conducting a damage assessment. Following Tropical Cyclone Ami, the operation cost of the response totalled FJ$572,981.49 (≈AU $421,500) and a significant proportion of that was related to the cost of transportation between widely dispersed communities in the Northern Division (National Disaster Management Office, 2003). The cost to Central government of transporting officers to and from affected communities can be reduced by transferring responsibility for assessments to individual communities, with communities then bearing the cost of submitting their data. In addition, government officers are typically remunerated for their role as assessors, especially when they are required to work outside their normal working hours (S15, personal communication, February 14, 2007; Research Diary, June, 2005; Research Diary, February 2007). Removing the necessity for government officers to conduct IDA data collection, can thus further reduce the operational costs of disaster response.

The selection of participation by consultation has benefits for efficiency over other forms of participation as a result of the time required for participation. Alternate types of participation that are associated with joint analysis and decision making such as interactive participation (Pretty, 1995), are likely to involve longer periods of engagement between government officers and affected communities. For example, the case of participatory planning in reconstruction (Shah, 1996) introduced in Chapter 2, required three days to complete with one village. The adoption of such an approach in an emergency response situation such as the IDA would be inappropriate, given the often immediate need for life saving or sustaining assistance. This is especially true in instances, common to Fiji, where a significant number of communities have been affected and a limited number of facilitators are available to mediate participation.

Increasing the speed of data submission to government decision makers, limiting the time required for ‘participation’ and reducing the cost of assessments each contribute to an increased efficiency in the IDA process. Consequently, it is possible to suggest that participation by consultation does have the potential to increase the efficiency of the IDA. However, this potential is not guaranteed to be realised as it may be influenced by the operational challenges discussed below in section 8.3.

134

The proposed participation does not extend to the CDA and thus there will be no impact upon the efficiency of this assessment. In terms of the post-disaster review, the proposed level of participation is unchanged and so there is unlikely to be any change in the potential efficiency of the assessment. Yet it is worthwhile noting the potential impetus that may be provided by the introduction of new legislation. This has the potential to lead to a renewed adherence to the advocated community participation in post-disaster reviews. Adherence to legislation and the inclusion of communities in post-disaster reviews could have significant flow on benefits for the disaster management system, and community participation within it.

8.2.2 Potential for transformative outcomes

The desired transformative outcomes of participation in damage assessment are articulated by disaster managers as: ‘empowerment’, ‘self-reliance’, ‘independence’ and ‘ownership’ (S14, personal communication, February 14, 2007; S16, personal communication, February 15, 2007; S18, personal communication, February 20, 2007; S21, personal communication, February 23, 2007). The achievement of transformative outcomes is connected to the degree of power allocated to communities. Successful projects are often associated with higher levels of community power (Pretty, 1995). Consultation is described as a form of tokenism in which participants are heard by professionals (government officers) who are under no obligation to act on the opinion of participants (affected populations), (Arnstein, 1969; Pretty, 1995). Communities affected by disasters in Fiji have little power in making decisions regarding the assistance that is provided by each level of government. Forms of participation such as this, which lack free and full interaction between affected communities and government (or NGO), are likely to result in achievements that are superficial, fragmented and unlikely to have lasting positive effects on the lives of participants (Rahnema, 1992; Pretty, 1995). Whilst communities may benefit materially from their participation, for example through the receipt of replacement housing or food relief, there is no guarantee that participation will result in changes in self-reliance behaviours. Furthermore, it is likely that eligible affected communities would receive such material assistance without personally participating in the damage assessment.

The above assertion that there is limited potential for the proposed participation to deliver transformative outcomes is further supported when the relationship between existing and proposed participation is considered. Based upon an analysis of existing and proposed participation, section 7.2.2 established that the proposed participation differs only slightly from existing participation in damage assessment practice. In both cases, participation is by consultation and the proposed participation is effectively a formalisation of current practice. Despite the existing level of participation in damage assessments, many disaster practitioners involved in this study stated that the culture of dependency is strong in communities throughout Fiji (S14, personal communications, February 14, 2007; S16, personal communications, February 15, 2007; S18, personal communications, February 20, 2007; S19, personal communications, February 20, 2007; S21, personal communications, February 23, 2007). Thus it can be concluded that the existing participation of communities in damage assessment has not led to a significant reduction in dependency upon government. It is therefore, unlikely that employing the same type of participation in damage assessment will lead to a

135 different outcome and hence the potential for the proposed participation to generate transformative outcomes is limited.

It could be argued that the act of formally recognising (in legislation) the role of communities may influence community attitudes to damage assessment and disaster management more generally, as it reflects a degree of intent and forcefulness from government that was previously lacking. Yet as discussed above, the extent of change in attitude may be constrained by the fact that in practice communities lack the power to make decisions.

8.2.3 Potential outcomes of the proposed participation

The proposed participation by consultation in the IDA has some potential to achieve the utilitarian goal of increased efficiency. Consultation is an appropriate style of participation during the immediate period after a disaster when time and resources are limited, and the needs of affected populations can be critical. However, the very element of consultation that makes it appropriate for increased efficiency (i.e. the limited direct engagement between government and community) is the same element that makes it inappropriate for the achievement of the transformative outcomes of empowerment and self-reliance. A more sensitive and comprehensive approach is needed if both outcomes are to be achieved. In order to develop an approach that is both conceptually and operationally appropriate, it is necessary to supplement the conceptual issues raised above with a discussion of the operational challenges which influence the type of participation that is practiced. The following section (8.3) discusses the operational challenges to participation in damage assessment. Chapter 9 will discuss the full implications of these challenges.

8.3 Operational challenges to the achievement of community participation in damage assessment

The assertion that community participation will be used in a given project does not guarantee that it will occur (Oakley, 1991). There are a host of practical challenges that must be addressed in order for community participation to be successfully established in the damage assessment process. The following section draws upon discussions with members of communities, whose experiences were presented in Chapter 5, and disaster management practitioners to identify and examine the challenges that confront, and have the potential to constrain, community participation across the damage assessment process in Fiji. Identifying these challenges illuminates the complexity of the participation and the issues that must be negotiated to enable community participation to be successful within damage assessments.

Arguably, one of the most powerful constraints is the culture of dependency which exists in Fiji (see Chapter 3). The dominant attitude of dependence influences the willingness and ability of communities to participate. Importantly, it also generates and supports institutional structures and attitudes that perpetuate dependence and undermine community self-reliance. Ultimately, this affects government’s capacity to facilitate community participation. The following sections consider the

136 operational challenges to community participation in damage assessments in Fiji, revealing the pervasive influence of dependency.

The challenges are presented as issues of community capacity to participate and government capacity to facilitate participation. This distinction is made for the purposes of clarity in presentation, but it is important to acknowledge that all challenges are strongly interlinked and should not be considered as being derived from, or affecting only one actor or the other. For example, the willingness of communities to participate is presented as an issue affecting a community’s capacity to participate. Yet it is strongly influenced by central government policies which have progressively reduced the need for communities to participate in damage assessments.

8.4 Community capacity to participate

The capacity of communities to participate in damage assessments can be considered in terms of community willingness, availability, and ability to participate. The following sections demonstrate that whilst communities express a willingness to participate, the interpretation of participation differs from that asserted by central government. Furthermore, even if communities may be willing, their participation is subject to their availability which can be constrained by pressures to secure immediate shelter and food security. Community availability to participate is thus susceptible to the same stresses as government officers’ availability to participate (see section 7.3.1). Whilst there is a general confidence shared between disaster management practitioners and community members that communities possess the generic skills necessary to conduct damage assessments (i.e. literacy, numeracy, familiarity with completion of forms), both communities and disaster practitioners agree there is a need for specialised training in IDA data collection to enhance community capacity to participate.

8.4.1 Community willingness to participate

Chapter 7 identified that the proposed participation was an enforced, rather than voluntary form of participation as the proposed legislation stipulates that communities will be required to participate in IDA. Nevertheless, the willingness of communities to participate can still pose a challenge to successful participation, particularly if communities feel they are being forced to participate against their will, or if they hold concerns about the acceptance of their data by government decision makers.

Amongst disaster management practitioners in Fiji there is a consensus that communities are willing and indeed want to participate in damage assessments after disasters (S9, personal communications, February 6, 2007; S15, personal communications, February 14, 2007; S16, personal communications, February 15, 2007; S17, personal communications, February 16, 2007; S19, personal communications, February 20, 2007). One disaster practitioner for example stated that communities are keen and interested and that “the communities want to be engaged, they want to be involved” (S15, personal communication, February 14, 2007), whilst another stated, communities “will be very much willing to take part in assessment” (S17, personal communication, February 16,

137

2007). No practitioners interviewed expressed a belief that communities would be unwilling to participate.

Similarly, members of communities that have previously been affected by disasters expressed a willingness to participate in the damage assessment process. The damage assessment experiences presented in Chapter 5 provide evidence of this willingness in action as Turaga ni Koro and Advisory Councillors participated in damage assessments. Disaster management practitioners confirmed that the willingness of communities to participate in damage assessments is not unusual, for example, one practitioner observed that when he travelled to disaster affected communities to conduct surveys, local residents had already collected the necessary data42, stating:

In some of the areas … when we sit down to present our sevusevu43 before we actually carry out the survey, the village nurses and all those people are already there with the information - the number of houses that have been damaged, number of kitchens. Most of them, they know what is expected of them when it comes to damage assessments (S20, personal communication, February 20, 2007).

Turaga ni Koro and Advisory Councillors interviewed in this study believed it was their responsibility to participate in damage assessments by assisting government officials in the survey process. One Advisory Councillor even expressed frustration at incidences when he had not been included in the assessment, stating: “If government do not use Advisory Councillors, then what is the use?” (V80, personal communication, September 2, 2005).

The willingness of a community to participate can be affected by the prevalence of dependence. It was established in Chapter 3 that Fiji is affected by a growing dependency and a ‘culture of relief’ (Chung, 1999). One disaster management practitioner described the way the public attitude towards disasters had changed in Fiji. Rather than taking the time to prepare for disasters through actions such as storing additional food in case of emergencies, communities depend upon government.

little effort is being directed or focussed in ensuring that if a hurricane strikes there is ample food on the ground in every village to refrain government from coming in to assist. … The tendency now [is that] once a hurricane starts today and finishes tomorrow, the next day the general public will come and ask what sort of assistance government is giving [them] (S20, personal communication, February 20, 2007).

It is this climate of dependence that the central government anticipates participation in damage assessment will address (see Chapter 7). However, this research will demonstrate that an ingrained sense of dependency may be the most powerful obstacle to achieving participation in damage assessments in Fiji (see Chapter 9). This is supported by Oakley (1991) who suggests communities

42 In these instances, government officers subsequently validate the data collected by the community to ensure that consistent standards, definitions and scales of damage are used between communities and assessments. 43 Sevusevu is a traditional ceremony conducted upon arrival in indigenous Fijian villages to formally request permission to enter the village. 138 accustomed to depending on others (e.g. government) are unfamiliar with making their own decisions and running their own projects. As a result, they can lack the necessary skills and can be “incapable of responding to the demands of participation” (Oakley, 1991:13). In such cases, the initial introduction of participation may represent a significant challenge and require a shift in the attitude of people towards disaster.

An important point to note here is that whilst communities stated they were willing to participate, there is a strong sense that their interpretation of ‘participation’ involves a partnership between communities and government. Rather than communities collecting data independently of government, community participants in this study commonly suggested that the optimum assessment team would involve both community and government members (Mabula, Natokalau, Lomati group discussions, personal communications, July 2005; Korotari group discussion, personal communication, August 31, 2005). For example, in one group discussion, community members stated that it would be “better for [government and communities] to work together” (Natokalau group discussion, personal communication, July 14, 2005). Participants in another group observed,

I think we should work close. The Turaga ni Koro and the government officials with the representative, the Mata ni Tikina44, [the] district representative in the Provincial Council …, we can work with them … as a team (Mabula group discussion, personal communication, July 12, 2005).

Communities placed importance on collaboration between government officers and communities for a number of reasons. Several communities felt it was necessary to include government officers in data collection to ensure data was accepted by decision makers. In one community, participants explained that they were dependent upon government damage assessors to write and submit reports on the damage to decision makers (Natokalau group discussion, personal communication, July 14, 2005). The participants were concerned that their independent assessment of damage would not be accepted by government decision makers, and that it would be necessary for government officers to conduct or assist in the data collection to lend it validity. Participants felt it necessary for government officers to be their voice, as they believed government decision makers would not listen to the community (Natokalau group discussion, personal communication, July, 14 2005). Participants in another community agreed on the need for decision makers to participate in data collection, stating “[the community] can do the … assessment, but the government, they’re the one who allocate [disaster response]” (Lomati group discussion, personal communication, July 13, 2005). Communities recognised their dependence upon government for disaster response and held concerns that their needs would not be met if government did not conduct IDA and see the extent of damage in person. Thus, whilst communities are willing to participate, they hold concerns about conducting data collection independently of government.

44 The Mata ni Tikina is the representative of an indigenous Fijian Tikina, which is equivalent to a District. 139

8.4.2 Community availability to participate

A further challenge to the successful establishment of community participation in damage assessment is the availability of community members to participate. Community members noted that whilst they may be willing to participate, they may not be available to participate. Just as government officers will be delayed from conducting assessments if they themselves are victims of the disaster (see section 7.2.1), community members may be delayed from conducting assessments if they have been directly affected. Members of a focus group in Korotari noted that the willingness of individuals to participate would be affected by “how much time they have” and that “not all will be willing” as they may have to spend time repairing damage to their own property or plantations (Korotari group discussion, personal communication, August 31, 2005). Other communities noted the importance of salvaging crops before they spoiled in the first few days after a disaster (Research Diary, June 2005). Residents may need to devote their time to this activity to ensure food security in the coming weeks. Similarly, residents described the damage to or destruction of their homes and the need to quickly construct temporary shelters (Research Diary, 2005). Addressing immediate needs such as these, may take priority over conducting a damage assessment and supplying government with appropriate data (Oakley, 1991; Chen et al, 2006).

Communities must evaluate whether they feel it is more beneficial to participate in a damage assessment or to begin work on temporary repairs to their property and the salvaging of crops from plantations. If they elect to spend time on the latter, notification to government of the extent of damage may be delayed and the timeliness of the response affected. Furthermore, government may interpret silence as evidence of impacts so significant that a community is unable to respond and in need of urgent assistance. Hence assistance may be inappropriately dispatched to communities who do not require it. Equally, there is a danger that government could interpret silence as a signal that communities are unaffected and thus require no assistance (when in fact they may require significant assistance).

8.4.3 Community ability to participate

The ability of community members to participate in damage assessments represents a further challenge to participation. A number of disaster management practitioners expressed a high degree of confidence that community members possessed the necessary basic skills to conduct damage assessments, such as good literacy and numeracy, familiarity with completing forms, and leadership and organisational skills. One disaster management practitioner explained,

Right now we have a lot of educated people, young people in the villages who have come to the main cities and towns, somehow they have ventured back [to the village]. You can hardly see anybody in the village who doesn’t know how to read or write. So that’s the conciliation for us. We can tap on these people. They have some kind of education capability with them. Tap on them and hopefully giving them the various yard sticks they can do it (S18, personal communication, February 20, 2007).

140

Another senior disaster management practitioner noted that in addition to educated young people, there were also a number of retired individuals, who could be drawn upon to participate.

We have realised that there are so many people in the community who are capable of doing assessments. We have ex-civil servants … those from the private sector. Within the community themselves, there are people who have left school and they are there in the community. They have a high-level of literacy (S21, personal communication, February 23, 2007).

Disaster management practitioners also recognised that in addition to high levels of literacy community members have familiarity with completing basic forms which is valuable for recording data on damages sustained after a disaster.

In some villages there are College or Fiji School Leaving Certificate holders, people who have gone through secondary education up to the highest level. They have gone back to the village to look after their Mum and Dad or for the various reasons. These are the very people who have got the basic education which when you give them a form they can fill a form at ease without any reference to any particular person or book (S20, personal communication, February 20, 2007).

Despite this confidence in the basic skills of community members, both disaster management practitioners and community members felt there was a need for training in damage assessments. For example, one disaster management practitioner stated, “I think the community wants to do damage assessment. I think the community can do damage assessment if only the people have been trained” (S16, personal communication, February 15, 2007), whilst another observed, “[Communities are capable] if they are trained” (S19, personal communication, February 20, 2007). Community members expressed a desire to be provided with training and data collection forms to guide their assessments and ensure that government received appropriate information (C48, personal communication, July 18, 2005; V80, personal communication, August 29, 2005).

The call for training is echoed in the National Disaster Risk Management Arrangements (NDRMA) which refers to IDA being conducted by “trained individuals” (National Disaster Management Office, 2006a:43). Whilst a pilot village-level IDA training course was conducted in Kadavu in 2005, no further village-level training on damage assessments has taken place. Unfortunately, there is currently no plan or strategy suggesting how such training could be delivered to all communities in Fiji (S15, personal communication, February 14, 2007; S9, personal communication, February 16, 2007). Training is important not only to ensure damage assessments are conducted appropriately, but also as a process of conscienitisation (Freire, 1970), to make community members aware that they are capable and do have the necessary skills to conduct the initial damage assessment. This is particularly important as it has been shown that some community members consider disaster management to require technical expertise (Godschalk et al, 2003) which can deter non-specialists

141 from participating. The issue of damage assessment training will be considered further with respect to government’s capacity to facilitate community participation (see section 8.5.5).

8.5 Government capacity to facilitate community participation

Post-disaster damage assessment in Fiji is a strongly government-owned and led process and government is the key agent pursuing the formalisation of community participation in the process. Yet it has been suggested that government represents an “inevitable obstacle” to community participation as a result of government structures and bureaucracies that are hostile to the devolution of decisions to the local level, and government’s role as an instrument for maintaining the status quo and resisting change (Oakley, 1991:21). It is therefore imperative to consider the capacity of government to accommodate, encourage and facilitate community participation in the damage assessment process. This section focuses on a number of issues and the ways they affect government’s capacity to facilitate participation. These include: the centralised administrative structure of disaster management; the failure of government to adhere to legislation; inconsistent messages from political leaders and bureaucrats; government’s perception of communities; and shortcomings in disaster training.

8.5.1 Centralised disaster management structure

The existing structure of damage assessment in Fiji is centralised and ‘top-down’ - diametrically opposed to the bottom-up philosophy of participation. The characterisation in Chapter 7 of the proposed damage assessment procedure has shown a process that is highly centralised involving the collection and submission of data to a centralised decision-making body - the National Disaster Risk Management Council (see section 7.2). As the following quote from a senior government officer illustrates, information about damage is collected at a Provincial level then sent to the Divisional level where it is compiled and forwarded to decision makers in Central government.

Teams go out to the five Provinces we have in the Central Division. We coordinate the various sectors that go out … and do the damage assessment on the ground and then it comes to me for verification and analysis and then compilation of the Divisional damage assessment reports. … That is then forwarded to our headquarters, the National Disaster Coordinator in DISMAC, and it eventually goes up to Cabinet for the endorsement of the recommendations that I made45 (S18, personal communication, February 20, 2007).

Once decisions regarding the finance of relief and rehabilitation initiatives have been made, they are implemented and controlled in a top-down fashion. A disaster management practitioner provided the

45 Cabinet does not always endorse the recommendations of Commissioners and the National Disaster Management Office. In 2005 Cabinet refused to provide funding from the Central Rehabilitation Fund for rehabilitation works on Totoya Island following landslides and flooding. This decision was linked to the fact that the disaster was localised, affecting only one island, which influenced decision makers’ perception of the severity of the impacts. The refusal to fund the rehabilitation from central funds was not related to concerns over the validity of the data. 142 following description of damage assessments in Fiji as a hierarchical process, in which actors are continually looking ‘up’ to their superior officer.

The situation so far has been top-down. Even at the Divisional or Provincial level it is still top-down. The Commissioner is in charge. The District Officer is in charge and then there are levels. Everyone is attuned to the person in charge (S16, personal communication, February 15, 2007).

Disaster management practitioners explained that such a centralised approach to damage assessment was necessary to ensure disaster response was delivered efficiently. For example, following disasters in which a large number of communities have been affected, it is necessary for central decision makers to prioritise those communities most severely affected and direct disaster response accordingly (S15, personal communication, February 14, 2007; S21, personal communication, February 23, 2007). Centralised decisions are required to ensure the country’s limited resources are directed towards those communities most in need. Furthermore, disaster management is the responsibility of government and thus government is accountable for any shortcomings in the response. Accordingly it is likely government will be reluctant to hand over too much control as it is they who will be criticised if the response is inadequate. Such a fear of losing control and power is a common concern of governments regarding participation (Oakley, 1991; Andharia, 2002).

The pressure to deliver an efficient response and the belief that this is best achieved through centralised decision-making and top-down implementation sustains an anti-participatory disaster management structure and constrains government’s capacity to facilitate community participation in the damage assessment process. Whilst a centralised approach does not preclude communities participating in the damage assessment process, it has been noted that centralised decision-making can “greatly reduce the potential for authentic participation” (Oakley, 1991:11). Although communities may participate through the provision of data on damage, their absence in decision- making is a powerful constraint on the transformative potential of participation. A centralised decision-making structure therefore, undermines the potential for meaningful participation and maintains a positioning of communities as dependent, requiring government to provide them with assistance.

8.5.2 Weak legislation

In section 2.2 it was noted that community participation in disaster management is often reduced to rhetoric rather than reality, with many disaster management initiatives paying little more than lip service to participatory ideals and failing to change the substance of their approach (Christoplos et al, 2001; Twigg et al, 2001). This is the case to a certain degree in Fiji. The lack of community participation in the post-disaster review, despite the stipulation in legislation that communities should be consulted (see 6.4, 7.2.3), raises concern over the potential for the revised participation proposed in the National Disaster Risk Management Arrangements to become reality. The fact that post-

143 disaster reviews are restricted to government personnel only (see section 7.2.3), demonstrates an introspective approach to the process of evaluation and is likely a function of the culture of centralised control, which restricts community participation in damage assessments.

Further concerns regarding the adherence to damage assessment legislation arise from the failure of those government officers already trained in IDA to make use of the prescribed IDA data collection forms during assessments. In August 2003, government officers in Labasa received IDA training but during flood events in the area in February 2007, the trained officers did not use the prescribed IDA forms, instead designing their own forms (S9, personal communication, February 6, 2007). Whilst an argument can be made in favour of customised data collection forms, the failure to use the prescribed forms highlights a disregard or neglect of the practice recommended by the NDMO. It suggests a disconnection between NDMO policies and operations or between policy makers and operational officers. A disaster management officer involved in IDA training spoke of government officers involved in the assessment following the 2007 flooding stating, “They do have the forms but … we have to get it into their minds that they need to use the forms” (S9, personal communication, February 6, 2007). The training officer expressed frustration at the limited interest in (operationalising) disaster management, saying,

You know sometimes I think why am I doing this? Because people are not using it. Why should I try and do the thing when the people they don’t use it? (S9, personal communication, February 16, 2007).

The failure to adhere to existing legislation suggests the achievement of community participation in damage assessments will require an implementation strategy to educate disaster management practitioners about the provisions for community participation in the new legislation and to encourage them to involve communities in damage assessments.

8.5.3 Mixed political and policy messages

Another significant issue undermining government’s capacity to facilitate community participation is the inconsistent message that is sent from central government to communities. There is often a marked difference between the message coming from political leaders in Fiji and civil servants who develop and implement central government policies. The generous post-disaster assistance programmes coordinated by central government perpetuate the mentality and culture of dependence and contradict policy directions aimed at encouraging communities to become more self-reliant and less dependent.

Generous government assistance programmes can reduce the incentive for communities to adequately prepare themselves for disasters and also to take action to recover from the impact of a disaster. Disaster response is often influenced by political imperatives, such that government assistance is now seen to perpetuate dependency amongst the public. One senior government officer observed,

144

Often, I am sorry to say this, political government [has] pushed too much for government assistance and that has created this attitude of handouts. As if this is a government responsibility to look after them, of course yes, but disaster is everybody’s business, nobody invited it. Not the government, we just have to try to live up to [a] resilient level and be able to cope with disaster’s negative impact (S19, personal communication, February 20, 2007).

The influence of politics on disaster assistance was highlighted by one disaster management practitioner, who described a situation where the assistance programme was influenced by an imminent election.

[We] were dealing with the cyclone in early ‘90s …. Two cyclones back to back: Joni and Kina. The government policy for rehabilitation at that time was if your house was destroyed partially or totally you got $600 cash or the materials. If the cost of the materials exceeded $600, you would only get the $600 cash. The cyclone happened in ’92 and there was an election in ’94 so the rehabilitation programme was well into commencement, you know really didn’t start until towards the middle of ’93. The government was gearing up for an election time, they raised it to $1200, so they doubled it, and they made it cash. [It was] the first time in disaster relief history where the people who are actually doing the 24/7 roster are the people in accounts - writing cheques (S14, personal communication, February 14, 2007).

The issues noted above demonstrate the ways in which political motivations can subvert disaster assistance programmes and policies oriented towards community self-reliance. For instance in the example of disaster response following Tropical Cyclones Joni and Kina, the decision by political leaders to double the amount of compensation offered to homeowners increased the expectations of communities and supported the development of a handout mentality. Indeed it could be argued that communities in Fiji have moved on from a culture of dependency, towards a ‘culture of entitlement’. This is particularly the case within the indigenous Fijian community as a result of the pro-indigenous Fijian policies associated with the Alliance Party Government, and later, the 1987 coup. One disaster management practitioner observed the impact that these policies have had on the dependence of the indigenous Fijian population stating,

Over time particularly from I think the Alliance Party Government starting in the seventies through to the present day because of this affirmative action programme the Fijian community in particular has become very dependent on the government’s assistance (S14, personal communication, 14 February, 2007).

The notion that was picked up particularly after the coup in ’87 that this is a government that is here to serve you, so they take that literally. So [people think]: ‘I’m not going to do anything because this government is pro-Fijian its their

145

responsibility to come and fix my house’. That’s the issue that … people in the bureaucracy face now (S14, personal communication, February 14, 2007).

Such a sense of entitlement was observed in Lomati which participated in this study, where residents believed that government was legally obliged to provide replacement housing if a home was destroyed by a natural disaster (Lomati group discussion, personal communication, July 13, 2005). This is not the case. The misconception had developed following previous disasters affecting the community where political leaders had made a decision to provide a significant number of replacement houses. Today two-thirds of the housing in Lomati has been provided freely by central government as part of relief programmes following Tropical Cyclones. This has contributed to the establishment of a belief amongst community members that free replacement housing was the ‘norm’ following a disaster.

The contrasting focus of politicians and disaster management practitioners was exemplified by the attitudes toward the recent review of disaster management policy. An individual involved in the review described how gaining political support for the review relied strongly on marketing the improvements that would be made to the disaster response rather than the preventative benefits of improvements to mitigation and preparedness.

We’ve spoken about mitigation to Government Ministers but that is not where their interests lie, because realistically governments are [judged] in terms of their response – how well or how badly they do. So we knew that, … in terms of the review we had to demonstrate that the review was going to improve the response mechanism. … If we had addressed it from a disaster risk reduction point of view with a focus on mitigation … I don’t think we would have made headway with government. Certainly we would not have received funding support or encouragement to undertake the review (S14, personal communication, February 14, 2007).

Within Fiji there exists an environment in which political leaders are focussed upon highly visible disaster response which is exploited for political gain. The strong desire of political leaders to be seen to be assisting disaster affected communities, undermines the self-reliance of communities and supports the perpetuation of community dependence upon government. Furthermore, it is inconsistent with the message given by disaster management practitioners that communities should participate and accept more responsibility for their own disaster preparedness and recovery. The inconsistency of messages from political leaders and bureaucrats undermines the capacity to facilitate community participation at all levels of government.

8.5.4 Government perception of communities

Section 8.4.1 noted that there is a general belief amongst disaster management practitioners in Fiji that there are individuals within communities who are capable of participating in damage

146 assessments. The following section demonstrates that despite this belief, government officers often expressed concerns over the ability of community members to provide accurate damage assessment data. Concerns are founded on two key perceptions: first, that community members have a low level of education and are thus less capable of administrative tasks, and second, that community members are less trustworthy and are likely to inflate the level of reported damage in order to receive additional assistance from government. Such concerns are particularly important as a government’s commitment to participation is essential if it is to be effective (see section 2.6.2), (Andharia, 2002; Chen et al, 2006).

Although senior disaster management practitioners believed communities were capable of participating in damage assessments (see section 8.4.3), they acknowledged that this opinion may not be shared by all government officers. It was suggested some operational government officers may perceive community members to lack the skills necessary to conduct damage assessments. Such concerns have previously been noted in a development context, with administrative officers doubting the capability of rural communities to take responsibility for administrative matters (Oakley, 1991). A senior disaster management practitioner suggested underlying prejudices against community members would influence the willingness of government officers to devolve responsibility for data collection to communities. It was suggested that some government officers may hold a perception of community members as less educated than themselves and hence less capable of conducting accurate damage assessments. This practitioner described the perception as a barrier between government and communities, stating:

That demarcation is still there, that wall is still there … when you look at people in the village you see people who are not well educated. … You see people who are working [in formal employment] as educated. So for them to give something to the lesser educated one, we would always have that feeling of mistrust that it may not be done properly, it may be done inferiorly (S16, personal communication, 15 February, 2007).

Such a perception of community members as less educated and less capable reflects a negative attitude towards rural populations. One officer continued to explain the impact of communities being unaware of the disaster management system and the resource constraints.

Every village, if they add an extra one house each, so 72 villages, that is 72 extra houses for government to take. They don’t see the whole picture. They don’t see it as a drain on our financial resources, no, they just see it as a gift from other villages (S20, personal communication, 20 February, 2007).

Another government officer connected this exaggeration to government’s tendency to conduct its own assessment of damage.

147

The problem that we have in Fiji is that there is a lot of exaggeration in terms of damages. A village that may have about 50 houses, [if] 5 houses [are] taken down, [the community] says 8 or 9 or 10. These little lies are very costly to government. Because of that government tends to do their own assessments. They go down and actually do the assessment in the field … rather than rely on locals (S16, personal communication, February 15, 2007).

In terms of the trustworthiness of data, one senior government officer suggested government officers offered more reliable and accountable data collection than community members, as civil servants are obliged to be honest. He stated,

as a civil servant we are duty bound to, we have every obligation to reflect the truth in the report that we provide. We are bound by certain rules and regulations that … if you don’t give exactly the right picture of the damage then you are bound to be disciplined. That is the catch for the civil servants to give the most accurate information that they can, but for the community it is not (S20, personal communication, 20 February, 2007).

Government officers questioned the objectivity of community members conducting damage assessments, recognising the potential for communities to inflate the degree of damage in a bid to gain additional assistance. One officer suggested that community participation in damage assessments raised “the danger [of communities] … faking the number of damages on the ground” and that this was a function of previous disaster response programmes, commenting that “because we assisted in previous disaster[s] they thought that this could be a way of receiving more” (S19, personal communication, February 20, 2007). Indeed, despite the above assertion that government officers were obliged to be accurate in their assessment, one government officer noted the exaggeration of data on damage to be a shortcoming in their own assessments. In the opinion of a senior government officer, such inaccuracies would be compounded by the introduction of community participation in damage assessments.

Sometimes, whilst I should not be saying it, there is some element of collusion between our own people and the people that are affected. It has come to the fore now because Fiji is a small place. Everybody knows each other. It’s something that I have come to notice and it is a very sore point as far as I’m concerned. Sometimes there is an element of collusion, with this element of collusion there is a tendency of biased reporting. … [the problem of exaggeration] will be compounded [with the introduction of community participation]. I can say that with a certain degree of confidence. (S18, personal communication, 20 February, 2007).

In addition to intentional exaggerations in damage assessments, disaster management practitioners often commented on the unintentional errors that arise because assessors are not well trained.

148

Noting the importance of IDA training for assessment accuracy, one senior government officer observed;

even our own officers are not adequately trained. What assurance do we have that the people on the ground that have been affected will give us the real, the exact assessment of the damages? (S18, personal communication, 20 February, 2007).

The specific concern raised by disaster management practitioners with regards to community capacity to assess, was that the introduction of community participation in damage assessment would have serious negative implications for the accuracy of the data. Whilst such a perception exists, it is difficult to imagine government officers embracing the notion of handing control for damage assessment data collection over to communities.

8.5.5 Limitations on disaster management training initiatives

The need for communities to be trained to participate in damage assessments is recognised by both disaster management practitioners (S16, personal communication, February 15, 2007; S19, personal communication, February 20, 2007) and community members (C48, personal communication, July 18, 2005; V80, personal communication, August 29, 2005), (see section 8.4.3). Data collection in the course of this study and outlined below demonstrates that government’s capacity for IDA training is limited. This is a further constraint on the capacity of government to facilitate community participation in damage assessment.

IDA training is currently offered by the NDMO as one of a suite of five disaster management training courses designed and supported by the Pacific Island Disaster Assistance Programme of The Asia Foundation/Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance46. Training courses are offered to National, Divisional, Provincial and District level government officers, and are also made available to invited individuals from NGOs and other organisations associated with disaster management. IDA training was first conducted in Fiji in August 2003. Subsequently, four training courses have been held and a total of 159 government officers and village members have received IDA training (Tuifagalele, personal communication, February 28, 2006) (see Table 8.2).

46 The five disaster management training courses offered by the NDMO are: Introduction to Disaster Management, Emergency Operations Centre, Initial Damage Assessment, Exercise Management, and Training for Instructors. 149

Table 8.1 IDA training courses conducted in Fiji, 2003-2006 Number of Date Location Participants participants Commissioner’s Office Northern August 2003 14 Government officers Division, Labasa Centre for Appropriate Technology September 2003 22 Government officers Development (CATD), Nadave November 2003 Taveuni 37 District officers

October 2005 Vunisei, Kadavu 41 Village members Government January 2006 Vunisea, Kadavu 45 Officers/Medical officers

Of these courses, only one has involved community members. The course held in Vunisei village in Kadavu was the first to be conducted with community members rather than government officers. The course materials (participant workbook and overhead projector slides) were translated into standard Fijian and the course was delivered in standard Fijian, although the course content and format were not altered. Participants in the course included Turaga ni Koro, community committee members, community elders, and village health workers47 from Vunisei and five surrounding villages. The course was successful in that participant’s were appreciative of the opportunity to learn how to conduct IDAs and responded positively during the evaluation session at the end of the course (K1, personal communication, October 18, 2005; Research Diary, October 2005). Following the training course, officers involved in the training met to evaluate the experience and concurred that it was a positive exercise and that with some modification could be appropriately conducted in other communities (Research Diary, October 2005). Despite this, no further village based IDA training courses have been conducted and no progress has been made in customising the training course to suit community level training (Research Diary, February 2007).

The lack of momentum for developing community level IDA training is indicative of shortcomings in the wider disaster management training context in Fiji. The NDMO’s arrangement of this training was described by one central government training officer as “rather ad hoc” (S9, personal communication, February 16, 2007). Disaster management practitioners outside the NDMO agreed and expressed concerns over the lack of direction and strategic planning involved in disaster management training in Fiji (S15, personal communication, February 14, 2007; S16, personal communication, February 15, 2007). Weaknesses in disaster management training have been attributed to the lack of exclusive government funding for disaster training, with allocated funds being shared between education and awareness initiatives in addition to training (S9, personal communication, February 16, 2007). Human resource issues also constrain IDA training. A shortage of trainers capable of conducting the courses was highlighted by one disaster management practitioner who stated, “[there is a] problem of resources with government in terms of the number of trainers and the funds that are available to do training” (S16, personal communication, February 15, 2007). Furthermore the officer responsible for coordinating training also holds responsibility for all

47 Village health workers are individuals (usually women) from each village who receive basic medical and first aid training and are authorised to dispense basic medications such as paracetamol. 150 disaster education and awareness activities in Fiji. As one disaster management practitioner noted, the “training officer … has so many other things to attend to” (S16, personal communication, February 15, 2007). In addition to these duties, the training officer is required to participate in the National Emergency Operations Centre (NEOC) when a disaster occurs or warnings are issued. Whilst the NEOC is operational, all other regular operations including disaster training are suspended. The frequency of natural hazard incidences in Fiji means the operation of the NEOC can result in considerable setbacks to training and other programmes. For example, in the first few months of 2007, the National Operations Centre was almost continually open, with staff working on an eight hour rotation shift system in response to three tropical depressions, five incidences of flash flooding and one tropical cyclone (P. Doubi, ABC Radio Pacific Beat 11.04.07; Research Diary, February 2007). During this period, little time was available to spend on regular disaster management activities. Given the recognition of the need for communities to be trained to participate in IDA, the evident weaknesses in the NDMO training programme constrain government’s ability to facilitate participation.

As the key agency advocating community participation in damage assessments, the capacity of the government to facilitate participation is pivotal. The above discussion has highlighted a number of significant operational issues which act to constrain government’s ability to successfully facilitate participation. Centralised decision-making structures undermine the potential for meaningful community participation, by negating a community role in decision-making. The weakness of legislation has been highlighted through the failure of government to include communities in the current practice of post-disaster reviews, despite its stipulation in legislation. The primacy of government interventions and the political motivations to be seen to be responding to the demands of the public, undermine participatory aspirations. The messages of political leaders following disasters, has been shown to support community dependence on government and undermine the self-reliance and participation message advocated by bureaucrats. Government’s concerns over communities’ ability to provide accurate data, support a reluctance to devolve control to communities. Weaknesses in disaster management training initiatives further constrain the ability of communities to participate by denying communities access to information on how to participate.

8.6 Summary

In addressing the second research question of this study, regarding the key challenges to community participation in damage assessment, it has been shown that challenges exist at both a conceptual and operational level. At a conceptual level, section 8.2.3 noted that whilst the type of community participation proposed by the NDRMA (participation by consultation) has potential to achieve the desired utilitarian outcomes, the potential for transformative outcomes is limited. The key constraint upon transformative outcomes is the linked direct engagement between affected communities and government officers, particularly in decision-making. In light of this finding, it was suggested that a more sensitive and nuanced approach is required to enable the achievement of transformative outcomes without compromising the potential for utilitarian outcomes.

151

At an operational level, challenges have been identified that influence communities’ capacity to participate and government’s capacity to facilitate participation. Within many of these challenges the influence of an underlying culture of dependence is evident. With respect to community capacity to participate, the willingness of communities to participate has been shown to be affected by the dependence culture. Community willingness to participate is influenced by the widespread public attitude to disasters, which views post-disaster assistance as an entitlement and has contributed to the erosion of traditional coping strategies. The influence of a culture of dependence is perhaps more strongly evident in respect of the challenges to government’s facilitation of participation. Here the real and perceived dependence of communities upon government assistance following a disaster has contributed to the development of a strongly centralised disaster management structure, weak adherence to legislation that advocates community participation, and contradictory messages from politicians and bureaucrats regarding community responsibility. Although several senior disaster management practitioners suggested that communities were capable of participating in damage assessments, they also acknowledged that this opinion may not be shared through the ranks of government officers. As a result, the perception of communities as dependent, and incapable of participating effectively and acting independently, may inhibit the implementation of community participation in damage assessments.

In the following chapter, the implications of both conceptual and operational challenges will be considered. The chapter considers what the identification of challenges at a conceptual level indicates about the understanding of participation amongst disaster management policy makers in Fiji. The ways the operational challenges are influenced by dependence will also be explored in more depth. The modifications required at both conceptual and operational level to develop, will be considered to support the development of a strategy for a participatory damage assessment process.

152

9 A strategy for participatory damage assessment

9.1 Introduction

The identification and discussion of challenges to community participation in damage assessment in Fiji outlined in Chapter 8, have revealed that at a conceptual level the potential for the proposed type of participation to achieve the desired transformative outcomes of community self-reliance (as identified in section 7.3.2) is constrained as a result of the limited direct engagement between community members and government, particularly in decision making (see section 8.2.3). In Chapter 8 it was suggested that in order for the potential for the achievement of transformative outcomes to be increased, a sensitive and nuanced approach to community participation in damage assessment is required. Such an approach is necessary to ensure that in the pursuit of transformative outcomes, the potential for the utilitarian outcomes of increased efficiency and speed of assessment is not compromised. Based upon the understanding of the nature and context of damage assessments in Fiji developed through the preceding chapters, this chapter presents a strategy for participatory damage assessments that is designed to maximise the utilitarian and transformative benefits of participation in damage assessment for both affected communities and government. The strategy comprises: (1) a ‘conceptual model’ that identifies and justifies the types of participation to be used during each assessment and details modifications to the current format of assessments, to support the potential for transformative outcomes (see section 9.3), and (2) a number of recommendations to support the implementation of the conceptual model (see section 9.4). Elements of this strategy were explored and validated through discussions with disaster management practitioners in February 2007.

9.2 Strategy components (conceptual model and implementation recommendations)

The ‘conceptual model’ component of the strategy for participatory damage assessment in Fiji presented in this chapter recommends the types of participation and the way they may be used during each of the three damage assessments (Initial Damage Assessment (IDA), Comprehensive Damage Assessment (CDA) and Post-disaster review). The recommendations are guided by the need to strike a balance between the demand for utilitarian and transformative community participation and the need for damage assessments to lead to rapid and appropriate actions to alleviate the suffering of affected communities. This reflects one of the key notions of this research: that participation is situated within its context and its appropriateness must be considered in light of that context (Cohen and Uphoff, 1977:15; Rocheleau and Slocum, 1995). As such, recommendations for the way participation should be conducted must be grounded in the understanding of the damage assessment process developed through Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8. The model proposes and justifies the optimum type of participation for each damage assessment, based upon consideration of the damage assessment context, in particular the relative priorities and

153 operational constraints of each assessment. Where appropriate the model incorporates adjustments to the damage assessment procedures to enable issues raised as operational challenges to be tackled.

In addition to a conceptual model of the optimal structure of community participation in damage assessment, the strategy makes a number of recommendations to support the implementation or realisation of the conceptual model. The operational challenges identified in Chapter 8 highlight a culture in Fiji which is not conducive to community participation in damage assessment. Measures are required to amend this culture if the conceptual model is to be successfully implemented. For example, government and community training is necessary to develop a critical understanding of participation and realistic expectations of outcomes.

9.3 Conceptual model

Following an examination of the purpose of formalising community participation in damage assessment (see section 7.3), this study has shown there are two main purposes, both utilitarian and transformative. As a utilitarian activity, participation is used as a means to increase the efficiency of damage assessment through the involvement of communities in data collection, which they will have previously been trained to conduct. The participation of communities is anticipated to increase the speed of delivery of damage data to government decision makers. As a transformative activity, participation is anticipated to promote and establish self-reliance in disaster management amongst rural communities. These different purposes for community participation demand, and are associated with, different types of participation. It has been shown in section 8.2.3 that the proposal for community participation by consultation has potential to achieve utilitarian outcomes as a result of the limited extent of community participation in decision making yet this characteristic of participation by consultation simultaneously restricts the potential for transformative outcomes to arise.

The achievement of transformative outcomes requires full participation between government and community, particularly in decision making. Forms of participation that are likely to generate lasting transformative outcomes in communities involve greater levels of community power (Pretty, 1995). Eade and Williams (1995:14) note that “empowerment is demonstrated by the quality of people’s participation in the decisions and processes affecting their lives”. The typologies presented in section 2.2 highlight ‘partnership’, ‘interactive participation’, ‘delegated power’, ‘citizen control’, and ‘self- mobilisation’ as types of participation that incorporate degrees of community power (Arnstein, 1969; Pretty, 1995). The following sections demonstrate ways in which these types of participation can be integrated into the damage assessment process.

9.3.1 Initial Damage Assessment (IDA)

Section 7.2.4 has identified that the proposed legislation recommends communities participate in IDA by receiving training on how to conduct surveys and data collection (passive participation) and following a disaster, it is proposed communities participate by completing survey and data collection

154

(participation by consultation). It has been established that this type of participation has the potential to increase the speed and efficiency of damage data provision to government, increasing the efficiency of IDA and thus achieving the desired utilitarian outcome (see section 8.2.1). In contrast the prospect of these types of participation achieving transformative outcomes such as community empowerment and self-reliance are limited as a result of the limited direct engagement between government and communities, particularly in decision-making. Other types of participation that are better suited to the achievement of transformative outcomes, i.e. participation in which a greater degree of power is allocated to communities, would jeopardise the efficiency of the IDA by increasing the time required for participation. The increased demand for government officers to participate with communities would also impact negatively on the efficiency of the IDA. When the IDA is conducted the priority is to identify communities with a pressing need for immediate life saving and sustaining assistance. It may be most appropriate to forego the use of higher order participation during this assessment, when the need to address immediate needs rapidly and efficiently outweighs the need for transformative participation. This sacrifice need not extend to the whole damage assessment process as the expansion of the scope of participation to include participation in CDA and PDR may increase the potential for transformative outcomes to arise from these later assessments (see sections 9.3.2 and 9.3.3).

The difficulty of implementing meaningful community participation in IDA is recognised by advocates of community participation and it is noted that during emergency situations there may be logistical limits to participation (Roche, 1999) and extensive participation may be unfeasible (Eade, 1997). Yet as Eade (1997:177) notes, “establishing the principle of consultative planning makes it possible to build on imperfect beginnings”. In the case of damage assessments in Fiji, consultations during the survey and data collection stage provide such an ‘imperfect beginning’ and offer a foundation for the expansion of transformative community participation in later assessments. Thus the opportunity for transformative outcomes is not lost.

An important issue to address here is the fact that communities perceive participation differently from government. Communities participating in this study expressed an opinion that participation should be a partnership between communities and government. It was noted in section 8.4.1 that community members believed it was necessary to include government officers in the data collection process as it is they who make decisions regarding disaster response and that independent communities surveys would not be accepted by government. A number of government officers confirmed that they did hold concerns regarding the accuracy of community generated IDA damage data (see section 8.5.4).

Issues surrounding trust and willingness to respond to community input in the assessment process clearly must be addressed through training. It may be possible to resolve both government and community concerns through an improved understanding of the role and objectives of IDA. Training must reiterate that the purpose of an IDA is to get an overview of the worst affected areas and identify immediate needs to save and/or sustain life. In the IDA slight exaggerations such as those reported in section 8.5.4 can be tolerated as detailed surveys will be conducted before any

155 rehabilitation strategies are designed and inaccuracies can be corrected here (see section 9.4 for more details on training to support the conceptual model).

Although the type of participation in IDA is focussed towards a utilitarian outcome, an examination of the format of IDA data collection forms reveals modifications that can be made to support a shift from a culture of dependence to a culture of capacity. At present the IDA data collection forms are directed towards identifying and expressing needs. Little opportunity is provided to allow communities to identify, acknowledge and express their capacities. The identification of capacity is particularly important to generate recognition (within government and communities) that communities have capacity. Furthermore, the acknowledgement of community capacity is a more affirmative action and strengthens the foundation for later participation to build self-reliance. Emphasising capacities rather than needs is an important aspect of reducing ‘dependence’ (Turton, 1993). Disregarding existing community capacities in the provision of relief can result in existing capacities being undermined and weakened by generous disaster assistance (Anderson, 1994).

The current format of the initial damage assessment practice focuses on identifying damage and needs within affected communities. Existing training for data collection in the IDA is guided by a field reference guide that contains a number of tables in which to record data on damage to homes, structures and utilities. The focus of these tables is firmly on the identification of community needs. Modification of these tables (or addition of another table) to allow communities to identify which damage they can attend to themselves would be very valuable. The integration of tools such as ‘gap analysis’ may be particularly useful here. The gap analysis chart presented in Table 9.1 is adapted from a IFRC chart used to identify which stakeholder is taking responsibility for which task, ensuring all tasks are allocated. In participatory damage assessments it may be used to identify the needs which communities have the capacity to address themselves, and those needs for which they require external assistance. Recording capacities in such a way allows a record to be constructed of the ways in which communities are self-reliant. Importantly such an acknowledgement of community capacity and community contribution to disaster response renders a previously silent contribution, audible.

156

Table 9.1 emergency response gap identification chart (adapted from: IFRC, 2000) Need addressed by Emergency Other Other response Non- United Affected Local National Red Cross Ministry of National International needs or Government Nations Population Government Government Society Health Agencies Organisation capacity Organisations Agencies s Medical Public

Health Food Shelter Water Sanitation Clothing Other needs or capacities (specify below)

9.3.2 Comprehensive Damage Assessment (CDA)

In Chapter 6 it was shown that in practice, communities play a similar role in Comprehensive Damage Assessment (CDA) as in the preceding IDA. Community members act as guides to government assessors during the survey and data collection stage, but are not involved in any subsequent stages of CDA. At present the NDRMA proposal for the formalisation of community participation in damage assessment does not extend to the CDA. As noted in section 7.2.1 disaster management practitioners stated this type of assessment required technical expertise and thus should be conducted by government officers. Yet several characteristics of the CDA make community participation in this assessment both valuable and viable.

The CDA forms the basis of rehabilitation decisions that have long term implications for the disaster resilience of affected communities. Hence the input of communities into analysis and decision making during the CDA is particularly valuable. Andharia (2002:238) notes,

community participation in emergency relief, in needs assessment, in policy negotiations and planning, in execution and evaluation/impact assessment of disaster management must receive considerable prominence to ensure that interventions for relief and rehabilitation translate into long-term development of the affected people (Andharia, 2002:238).

The NDRMA advocates an approach to rehabilitation that incorporates the reduction of future vulnerabilities wherever possible, stating rehabilitation efforts should “contribute to a reduction of the vulnerability of communities, and public and private assets, in order to reduce the impact of future disasters” (National Disaster Management Office, 2006a:60). Community participation in decisions relating to rehabilitation programming is therefore particularly valuable as it has been recognised that “preventive measures are most effective when they involve participation at all levels, from the local community through to the national government” (UNISDR, 1994). Community participation in CDA decision making also has important implications for community empowerment as it has been noted that people are disempowered when they are denied the right to participate in decisions that affect them (Eade and Williams, 1995).

The viability of community participation in CDA is enhanced as there is more time available for communities to participate than during the preceding IDA. The NDRMA stipulates the CDA should be conducted immediately after the disaster operation is complete, when pressing needs for relief have been met (National Disaster Management Office, 2006a). Thus at the time of the CDA, affected communities are no longer facing life threatening situations and are likely to have more time available to participate. Similarly, although government officers may have to visit a significant number of communities, they will be in a position to spend more time in each community than is possible during the IDA. CDA reports may be submitted as late as three months after a disaster has occurred, unlike IDA data which must be supplied rapidly to government decision makers at Divisional and National levels, within 24-48 hours of a disaster.

158

Within the CDA there are several stages in which community participation can be formalised and enhanced. In the preparedness planning stage communities may engage in passive participation through training regarding how they are able to participate in the assessment. This training may be conducted in conjunction with IDA training in advance of a disaster. Participation is likely to be passive in this stage as a degree of standardisation in the CDA is important to ensure nationally equitable allocation and prioritisation of rehabilitation resources. Data should be collected in a standard comparable form and analysis and decision-making should be based upon the same criteria nationally.

Preparedness planning for CDA also involves the identification (through the IDA) of communities and sectors that have been affected and require detailed assessment for rehabilitation. When assessors arrive in communities in advance of the survey, community members should be involved in discussions regarding what the assessors will survey. Community members may be asked to confirm the validity of government’s expectations of which sectors need assessing. Communities can at this stage decline the assessment of unnecessary sectors and/or request surveys of additional sectors which they feel require assessment. This supplements the passive participation in CDA training with preliminary participation by consultation in preparedness planning and the early stages of survey and data collection. Recognising that comprehensive assessments do require a certain level of expertise it will be appropriate for community members to retain their role as guides during the CDA survey and data collection, again resulting in participation ‘by consultation’.

Analysis, interpretation and forecasting in the CDA offer a further opportunity for community participation. Resources for rehabilitation are allocated from the national level and analysis supporting these decisions is similarly based on a nationwide review of all data rather than at the level of individual communities. However, it is possible to accommodate a degree of community participation in the analysis, interpretation and forecasting stage. Participation at this stage may by ‘by consultation’ or ‘placation’48 and involve communities identifying their own capacities for rehabilitation (continuing the capacity focus established in the IDA). In addition to the rehabilitation needs of affected communities, their rehabilitation capacities should also be considered and formally acknowledged. Communities should be allowed to identify the areas in which they can contribute to the rehabilitation programme in their own community.

Ignoring local capacities in favour of external assistance programmes was noted above to have negative implications for community capacity (Anderson, 1994). In Cicia following Tropical Cyclone Ami, community members noted that they had plenty of wood with which to rebuild homes on the island (Research Diary, July 2005). Many stated that they would have been willing to use their own timber to reconstruct homes, but were not offered the opportunity to do this as the rebuilding programme was centrally controlled, and packs containing the materials necessary to build a home were transported from Suva. Whilst the decision to dispatch building materials from Suva is likely to

48 ‘Participation by placation’ allows communities to advise government, but there is no guarantee that their opinions will be acted upon (Arnstein, 1969) (see section 2.2 for a discussion of the types of participation). 159 have been a more efficient and economical undertaking in the short-term, it does not support an increase in community self-reliance in the long-term, and may in fact undermine community capacity.

In terms of the design and modification of disaster rehabilitation, decision-making will still be necessary at a national level, considering the needs of all affected communities, to develop the national rehabilitation policy for each given disaster. This centralised decision making structure was acknowledged in section 8.5.1 to constrain the opportunity for communities to participate in decision making, yet given the necessity to ensure nationally equitable distribution of rehabilitation resources, a centralised decision making structure remains inevitable in reality. Direct community participation in decision-making therefore, will be limited to any influence communities are able to exert during the survey and data collection, and local analysis, interpretation and forecasting stages of the CDA.

These recommendations support the realisation of transformative outcomes through: community participation in training and the selection of sectors to be assessed; an increased focus on community capacity in the CDA; and the ability to participate in local analysis, interpretation and forecasting. However communities will remain largely absent from decision making, as they lack power over resource allocation. Their involvement in analysis and formal acknowledgement of capacities may influence decisions and does give communities a greater role in the preparation of information on which decisions are based. This degree of community participation further strengthens the foundation established during the IDA, and can be built upon in the following post- disaster review.

It is valuable to note that in localised disasters the potential for active community participation in reporting and/or decision-making may be greater than is the case following national scale disasters. Government officers capable of making resource allocation decisions willbe available to spend time interacting directly with communities. The limited number of affected communities will make localised decision making more viable as less comparison between communities is required.

9.3.3 Post-disaster Review (PDR)

It is within the post-disaster review (PDR) that the greatest potential for meaningful transformative participation lies. Building on the types of participation introduced in earlier assessments, participation in the post-disaster review can be developed into an interaction or partnership between affected communities and government, in which communities have a high degree of power. Characteristics of the post-disaster review both demand and facilitate these types of community participation.

At the post-disaster review stage the main objective is evaluation, however an element of monitoring should also be included to identify any emerging needs and/or capacities of communities. Community members are best placed to identify these developments, so it is important that their opinion on changes in the community be solicited and considered. The evaluation element of the post-disaster review is a particularly important opportunity for participation. Here communities and

160 government have an opportunity to reflect upon their recent experience of disaster preparations and response and identify ways these can be improved in the future. The perspective of both government and communities is valuable in such an evaluation, as is the opportunity to discuss ways preparedness and response can be improved to support community self-reliance in disasters.

Post-disaster reviews are conducted within six months of a disaster and seek to evaluate the disaster preparedness and response of government, agencies and communities. When post-disaster reviews are conducted immediate post-disaster needs will have been met and rehabilitation programmes will have commenced or in some cases been completed. Life in affected communities can be expected to have largely returned to normal. As a result there will be sufficient time available for communities to engage in interactive participation and hence to have meaningful input into the review process.

Within the post-disaster review the boundary between assessment stages is likely to be less rigid than in the IDA and CDA. Indeed the assessment may take the form of a workshop or focus group discussion, perhaps at a district or community level. A senior disaster management practitioner agreed that workshops may be a suitable format through which to engage community members in the post-disaster review. He stated:

maybe we can do it in a local setting. That might be more meaningful to us … if we were to do it in the form of a [workshop], I think they should get a lot out of it. I think when they are assessing … evaluation … in a workshop setting it will be a bit better because [we can] seriously sit down and then look at the way that we [prepared and responded and] … how we can improve. … it is not only during disaster – it is the whole, the main preparedness and planning processes. Most of the work we do on disaster hinges on how well you prepare, whether there is a disaster or not. So there is a lot of emphasis on the preparedness and planning processes. (S21, personal communication, February 23, 2007)

Preparedness planning for post-disaster reviews may also involve government issuing invitations to affected communities to participate, but may also include introductions between government officers and community members involved in the review and exercises to familiarise the two members of each group with one another. Prior to survey and data collection participants in the review (affected communities, government officers, NGO representatives) may be asked to work together to define the boundaries of the review and identify areas which they wish to investigate or discuss.

Once the areas for discussion have been established survey and data collection may involve joint analysis of shortcomings and positive aspects of the preparedness and response of each participating group. Following the identification of positive and negatives aspects of preparedness and response participants can interact in partnership to analyse their collective experiences and identify recommendations to enhance or resolve each issue to reduce the impact of future disasters and/or improve the quality of the response. Building on the capacity theme introduced in earlier

161 assessments, participants may be asked to consider the ways they can shift the source of preparedness and response away from government toward self-reliant communities. Community members can be challenged to think of how they can develop greater self-reliance and government can similarly be challenged to consider how they can support and facilitate community self-reliance.

The post-disaster review offers an excellent opportunity for interactive learning between government and communities as all aspects of the disaster are reflected upon with a focus on supporting the development of community self-reliance. Interactive participation offers an opportunity for joint analysis and the development of action plans to address issues raised in the analysis. Importantly interaction involves the establishment of a partnership between government and communities, than can be maintained and extended through a process of Community Based Disaster Risk Management in communities that express an interest in taking further steps to increase their capacity to be self- reliant. In volunteering or requesting to participate in a CBDRM programme communities are expressing elements of self-mobilisation, the strongest form of transformative participation. Voluntary participation is more likely to be successful than participation that is enforced (Cohen and Uphoff, 1977).

9.3.4 The importance of partnership, interaction and dialogue

The importance placed on ‘partnerships’ by communities was introduced in section 8.4.1 and revisited in section 9.3.1 above. In the IDA and CDA components of the above model, it has not been possible to integrate true partnerships between affected communities and government, however, it has been recommended in section 9.3.3 that the foundations established in IDA and CDA can be built upon in the post-disaster review where there is considerable potential for partnerships. Partnerships or interactive participation are ‘high-order’ forms of community participation and involve joint analysis and team work between communities and government. It is such types of participation that maximise the potential for the achievement of transformative outcomes such as empowerment and self-reliance. The key characteristic of partnerships and interactive participation is the establishment of a dialogue between partners, ideally equal partners or partners who have, at least, negotiated their shares of power and responsibility. Although dialogue is a “messy business” it is a valuable way to ensure the opinions of disaster-affected communities are heard and that these communities can play an active role in decision making. Exclusion from these processes disempowers communities and is “likely to intensify their passivity and dependency” (Eade, 1997:188). The importance of partnerships was recognised by one disaster management practitioner who stated that without partnerships “we’ll be going in circles” during damage assessments (V135, personal communication, September 6, 2005).

162

Table 9.2 Recommended participation types in the conceptual model for participatory damage assessment. The participation types are arranged as a hierarchy

Assessment Type and time of assessment (after disaster) Post- Assessment

IDA CDA PDR Participation type CBDRM? (24-48 hours) (within three months) (within six months) Self-mobilisation / citizen control Preparedness planning Interactive / Analysis, interpretation and forecasting Partnership Reporting Decision-making Functional

Placation Analysis, interpretation and forecasting Preparedness planning Survey and data collection Consultation Survey and data collection Analysis, interpretation and forecasting Passive Preparedness planning Preparedness planning Manipulation

9.4 Recommendations to support implementation of conceptual model

The second component of this strategy for participatory damage assessment comprises a number of recommendations designed to create an environment and culture conducive to participation. This is particularly important to consider given the fact that despite the stipulation in existing legislation for community participation in the post-disaster review, it does not in reality occur (see sections 6.4 and 7.2.3). Without addressing the issues which have been shown to constrain existing participation in damage assessment practice (see sections 8.4 and 8.5), plans to increase participation, such as those presented in the conceptual model above, will not come to fruition. This study argues that the generation of an environment and culture conducive to participation requires a broad and significant education and training programme, targeted at both communities and government officers, to tackle a number of the operational challenges identified in sections 8.4 and 8.5. Implementation of such a substantial education and training programme may require assistance from Non-Government Organisations.

9.4.1 Community education and training

At a community level the need for training on how to participate in IDA and CDA has been established in sections 9.3.1 and 9.3.2 respectively. Education should also be provided to apprise communities of the ways they will be invited to participate in post-disaster reviews. At this practical level, training is required to ensure communities are aware and capable of their roles in assessments, and to provide communities with the knowledge and skills to participate effectively. Experiences from a pilot village-level IDA training course in Kadavu in 2005 demonstrated that there is a need to adapt the existing training course to suit local level training situations (see section 8.5.5). The evaluation of this course suggested measures such as reducing the volume of background disaster management information delivered as much time was taken defining disaster management terms and structures. Whilst this information is important to develop disaster management literacy and place damage assessments within the wider disaster context, trainers suggested much of the material could be abridged (Research Diary, October 2005). Further measures included designing the course to be conducted by one trainer to reduce the travel costs associated with the delivery of training, and the production of laminated posters in place of overhead projections which were difficult to read in bright community halls (Research Diary, October 2005). A significant recommendation made by trainers was for the development of course materials in the Hindi language to allow training to be conducted in Indo-Fijian communities (Research Diary, October 2005). This is particularly important as there is a bias towards conducting disaster management training in indigenous Fijian communities, rather than Indo-Fijian communities.

In addition to the practical skills and knowledge that damage assessment training can provide to communities, it will also enhance community awareness of, and confidence in, their ability to participate. This can be achieved through educating communities that they are capable of participating, explaining the benefits to them of their participation and the positive contribution that they are making to improve the damage assessment process. This echoes Freire’s (1970) concept of

164 conscientisation, introduced in section 2.2, involving awareness raising to correct inaccurate views of community capacity to create change.

9.4.2 Government education and training

An important consideration for the implementation of a participatory damage assessment strategy is the education of government officers regarding the complexity of both the damage assessment process and its objectives, and the concept of community participation. In addition to this there is a need to attend to the perception held by some government officers of communities as incapable of participating effectively in damage assessments.

Training is required for government officers to educate them on the purposes of damage assessments. During the damage assessment survey in Totoya in June 2005 (see section 5.3) there was no clear definition of the type of survey that was to be conducted and the survey’s objectives were never formally clarified (Research Diary, October 2005). Confusion over the precise objectives of each survey, in particular the IDA, can be seen to contribute to both government and community concerns regarding participation in damage assessments. It was suggested above (see section 9.3.1) that an improved understanding of the purpose of IDA may resolve both government and community concerns over participation. In particular the misconception amongst government officers that IDA results must be accurate, should be resolved. Whilst inaccuracies should not be encouraged, accuracy is not critical during the IDA, as one disaster management practitioner explained “there will be margins of error even within [government’s] own system” (S15, personal communication, February 14, 2007) and so slight exaggerations in community assessments can be tolerated and accounted for.

Training of government officers is also required to develop the recognition that the damage assessment process consists of three discrete but sequential assessments. Within the NDRMA the post-disaster review is disconnected from the damage assessment process which is seen to consist only of the IDA and CDA. Recognising the full damage assessment process will raise the profile of the post-disaster review and in turn the conduct of reviews will be incorporated into the regular damage assessment practice. The importance of the post-disaster review as a point at which meaningful community participation can occur, demands that these reviews are afforded an equal status to the IDA and CDA.

Training is also required to expand the understanding of the concept of community participation. Proposed legislation and the comments of disaster management practitioners regarding the anticipated outcomes of participation show there is a belief that ‘consultation’ will lead to community empowerment and self-reliance. Based on this misinterpretation, there is a clear need to develop government officers’ critical understanding of community participation. This training would include familiarisation with the range of types of community participation and recognition of the importance of context in any consideration of participation. Recognition of the complexity of community participation and the different outcomes that arise from each type of participatory activity will

165 contribute to more realistic expectations of community participation and its abilities to achieve transformative outcomes.

Adherence to participatory principles in damage assessment may be further supported by an expansion of the concept of disaster response beyond purely material inputs to include community participation. Eade (1997:168) suggests that if humanitarian assistance “is seen only in terms of material inputs … it may weaken and undermine local capacities: economies, organisational forms and self-confidence”. Hence the recognition of community participation as a form of disaster response can support the achievement of the desired transformative outcomes.

The achievement of community participation in damage assessment relies heavily upon the establishment of a relationship of trust between communities and government. Community based disaster management literature emphasises the importance of communities feeling able to trust the facilitators of community participation initiatives. For example, the CBDRM handbook developed by the Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre states:

A relationship of trust and rapport is the key to facilitation of appropriate participation. If community members have trust in the outsiders who are working with them, then open sharing about issues, problems, concerns and solutions can take place (Abarquez and Murshed, 2004:26).

Government trust in communities is influenced by a perception that communities lack the capacity to participate effectively in the damage assessment process. Such a perception draws on images of communities as dependent and incapable. One government officer noted this perception of communities and highlighted the importance of trust for the achievement of community participation, stating

there is this separation or segregation between the two - government and the people. Saying that the people are not capable and the people are to be led all the time … There has to be a recognition of community participation. There has to be trust. There has to be honesty on both sides. Government must trust the community to do the work and the community must be honest when they do the damage assessment (S16, personal communication, February 15, 2007).

Training should be designed to counter the perception of communities as dependent and incapable. The incorporation of a focus upon community capacity as described in the above conceptual model, will promote a perception of communities as capable. However, a wider shift is necessary within the general approach to disaster management in Fiji, requiring an underlying move away from vulnerability towards capacity.

166

9.4.3 Networking with Non-Government Organisations (NGOs)

For training of this scale to be successful there is a common belief amongst disaster management practitioners that NGOs must be involved in the conduct and dissemination of community education and training. One disaster management practitioner asserted:

The best [thing] for NDMO is to actually source [training] out and maybe go into partnerships with NGOs like Red Cross …. In the future rather than just to have officials go down with a top-down approach, why don’t you use the NGOs and use them, they do the job, they use their own people there … [If] the NDMO is serious about that then they could have their arms and legs all over spread out. And all [the NDMO] needs to do is to coordinate and they can ensure that people are doing the work. Maybe a little bit of seed funding just to start, but its something that they’ll have to work out (S16, personal communication, February 2007).

There was, however, also recognition that building such networks between government and NGOs requires a shift from traditional government operations in which government is accustomed to taking sole responsibility. A disaster management practitioner described the change in attitude to working with NGOs and the ways this could be harnessed for the benefit of disaster management training. The officer stated:

I’ve been in the government for 30 years, …when I came into the service, we don’t know about NGOs. It was not there when I joined the service, everything government, government, government, government. Government does this, government does that. When you’ve got people and they come in AusAID, or whatever they just talk to government. There was not many NGOs, Non- Government Organisations, but the trend now is that there are many of them. … The number is increasing and most of the donor agencies see Fiji as a developing country; they would rather go to the NGOs than giving the money to Government. That’s why I know that I can partner with these people and still taking what objectives that we, the Government would want to do. Find partnerships with these people and have our objectives done, with their funding and through our, sharing our financial assistance. In that way we will be able to achieve things as I have said only we don’t have money for training but we have got people who can do training compared to the NGOs. They don’t have people, but the Fiji Red Cross they come to me for my assistance with expertise for training so that is our input while they would do the financial thing. We have got nothing to with the finance transaction but we give our expertise and that is one way. Well for myself I am working on that to achieve what I am planning to do for the NDMO for this year (S9, personal communication, February 16, 2007).

The officer continued to suggest sharing the load between government and NGOs was a more effective way of implementing training strategies. The officer stated:

167

I would say that it’s a much healthier way of working, I think. Rather than grabbing everything into a government hold and you can’t cope. Because it affects people in government they can be stressed out because they don’t have, like our DOs who don’t have much time to go and do other work. They need some more help with that and government and the NGO really work closely for the benefit if the people (S9, personal communication, February 16, 2007).

There is recognition amongst disaster management practitioners involved in training that NGOs are well positioned to conduct community based initiatives as they are identified as being closer to communities than government. One officer suggested that communities and government officers had difficulty relating to one another, but

its easy for [communities] to work with the NGO official maybe because you know what government is like they all come in suits but the NGO they are not like that. You know how the British taught us civil servants dress like that, dress smart and tall. Sometimes its hard [for communities] to talk to those kind of people … But through the NGOs [communities] are more comfortable, say or do anything (S9 personal communication, February 16, 2007).

Greater interaction between government, NGOs and communities can allow NGOs to act as intermediaries and facilitators to bring the gap between communities and government. The involvement of NGOs in the post-disaster review assessment will be particularly valuable, establishing relationships that can be pursued through subsequent CBDRM initiatives.

9.5 Summary

This chapter has offered a strategy for participatory damage assessment in Fiji which balances the need for both utilitarian and transformative participation. The strategy is based upon a conceptual model which advocates a gradual increase in the type and extent of community participation between assessments. A foundation for participation in damage assessment is established in the IDA through passive participation in IDA training and participation by consultation in survey and data collection. During the CDA, these levels of participation are maintained and supplemented by participation by placation in the analysis, interpretation and forecasting stage. During the post- disaster review community participation evolves to represent a partnership and interaction between government and affected communities. Throughout this process the degree of community power increases and coupled with this there is an increase in the potential for transformative outcomes of empowerment and self-reliance.

The conceptual model component of the strategy has been complemented by a series of recommendations to support the development of a culture that is conducive to community participation. This requires the implementation of a significant training and education programme to

168 enhance the skills of communities to participate and the willingness and capacity of government to facilitate participation. The need for cooperation between government and NGOs in the implementation of the training and education programme has been highlighted. A recommendation has also been made to consider the ways in which the dominant vulnerability paradigm in disaster management in Fiji influences the capacity of communities to participate and government to facilitate participation. The final chapter provides a summary of the findings of this research, presents reflections on the approach used to reach these findings and suggests areas for further research.

169

10 Conclusions

As [people] achieve a more meaningful form of participation in some of the decisions affecting them, so their capacity to take control over areas of their lives also expands (Eade and Williams, 1995:17).

10.1 Introduction

This thesis began with a quote which raised a key question regarding the role of communities in the damage assessment process. The question asked: what role will the community play? This question is representative of a wider concern within the disaster management fraternity regarding how communities should participate in disaster management activities. Through the example of the damage assessment process in Fiji, this thesis has examined the ways in which three rural communities currently participate in a disaster management activity and how the benefits of this participation may be maximised. Examination of community participation in damage assessment in Fiji is a particularly pertinent area of investigation as a recent review of national disaster management policy in Fiji has recommended the formalisation of community participation in this process.

The concept of community participation is of particular interest to the disaster management community as it is anticipated to offer a wide range of potential benefits including the accurate definition of problems affecting communities, increased sustainability of projects, project ownership, community empowerment and reduced pressure on external agencies (Vrolijks, 1998; Scott-Villiers, 2000; Twigg et al, 2001; Abarquez and Murshed, 2004; Venton and Hansford, 2006). Despite this range of benefits, and the intense popularity of community participation amongst disaster management organisations, there is a striking lack of critical literature on the subject. This absence of a critical discourse surrounding community participation in the context of disaster management is a particular cause for concern as studies of participation in other fields, in particular development studies, have demonstrated the importance of context in the examination of community participation (Cohen and Uphoff, 1977).

In this chapter the key findings and recommendations of this research are reiterated. The contribution made by this thesis to the knowledge of the application of community participation in damage assessments is summarised. The chapter also presents reflections on the appropriateness of the research approach taken by this study and notes some limitations. A number of potential areas for future research are also identified.

170

10.2 Key research findings

Guided by three main research questions, this thesis has addressed the gap in literature on participatory disaster management through the development of a critical understanding of community participation in the damage assessment process in Fiji. The following sections summarise the central findings of this research and in doing so address the key research questions.

10.2.1 How do disaster-affected communities participate in damage assessments in Fiji?

This study has examined the existing and proposed ways in which communities participate in damage assessments in Fiji. Examination of existing disaster management legislation has revealed that the participation of communities in damage assessments receives little attention. Based on the limited reference to community participation, it has been possible to define the type of participation advocated in the legislation as ‘participation by consultation’. This participation is restricted to the post-disaster review, which is an evaluation assessment conducted within six months of a disaster occurring. Analysis of damage assessment experiences following Cyclone Ami in 2003 and an incidence of localised flooding and landslides in 2005, have been used to identify the types of participation that are employed in contemporary damage assessment practice. The case studies revealed two separate assessments are practiced in reality, and each employ significantly different forms of participation. The first assessment is an informal community assessment, in which communities demonstrate self-mobilisation to conduct a preliminary assessment of damage and make decisions regarding the immediate recovery measures that will need to be taken. Formal assessments commonly occur shortly after informal community assessments and involve community members participating predominately ‘by consultation’ in both initial and detailed damage assessments. As the participation is employed as a means to meet government’s needs for data, the participation can be considered to also reflect elements of functional participation.

An investigation has also been made of the ways in which proposed disaster management legislation, the Fiji National Disaster Risk Management Arrangements, envisage communities participating in damage assessments in the future. This participation has been found to largely reflect existing practice, with communities expected to participate by consultation in the survey and data collection stage of the IDA. In addition the NDRMA makes provision for communities to engage in IDA training through passive participation. In line with existing legislation the NDRMA stipulates communities also participate by consultation in the survey and data collection stage of the post- disaster review. Recognising the discrepancies between existing legislation and practice, the second key research question of this thesis identifies the challenges to community participation in the context of damage assessments in Fiji.

10.2.2 What are the key challenges to effective community participation in damage assessment (as recommended in Fiji’s proposed National Disaster Risk Management Arrangements)?

Effective participation can be defined as participation which has the potential to successfully meet its objectives. This study has identified the objectives or anticipated outcomes of community

171 participation in damage assessment to be both increased efficiency (a utilitarian outcome), and community empowerment and self-reliance (a transformative outcome). Challenges to the achievement of these outcomes have been considered as conceptual and operational challenges.

At a conceptual level this study has identified that there is some potential to achieve the utilitarian outcome of increased efficiency although the benefits of this are restricted to the IDA. Participation by consultation involves limited direct engagement between affected communities and government and this characteristic makes it particularly appropriate for the survey and data collection stage of the IDA where time and resources are limited and the needs of affected populations can be critical. Yet this characteristic has the effect of limiting the potential for transformative outcomes of community empowerment and self-reliance. Without the full interaction between government and communities, participation is unlikely to result in lasting transformative outcomes.

At an operational level a number of challenges have been found to exist which constrain both the capacity of communities to participate in damage assessments and the capacity of government to facilitate the participation of communities. Communities’ capacity to participate is challenged by issues of community willingness, availability and ability to participate. Government’s capacity to facilitate community participation is hampered by a centralised disaster management structure which draws control away from communities to central decision making bodies. Government’s capacity to facilitate participation is further challenged by weak legislation and mixed political and policy messages from government. Weaknesses in legislation are highlighted by the neglect of stipulations in existing legislation that require communities to be consulted during the post-disaster review. The self-reliance messages established in policy are undermined by contradictory messages from political leaders, which contribute to the dependence of communities upon government and build a sense of entitlement rather than self-reliance. An additional challenge is a perception amongst some government officers, of communities as less capable and less trustworthy than government officers and that community participation will compromise the integrity of damage assessments. Government’s limited capacity to conduct damage assessment training further inhibits its’ capacity to facilitate participation.

The multitude of challenges which face the proposed community participation in damage assessment raises questions about the likelihood of community participation in damage assessment becoming a reality. Consequently, the potential for increased efficiency in the damage assessment system is jeopardised, as is the likelihood of community participation in the damage assessment process leading to community empowerment and self-reliance. In light of this danger the following research question was posed to identify ways that challenges could be overcome or navigated to maximise the likelihood and benefits of community participation in damage assessments.

10.2.3 How can the benefits of community participation in damage assessment be maximised?

To address the shortcoming in the proposed formalisation of community participation in damage assessment, this study has proposed a strategy for participatory damage assessment. The strategy

172 includes a conceptual model that draws on a critical understanding of community participation theory and the contemporary contexts of community participation and damage assessment in Fiji to identify the types of participation. This provides a balanced maximisation of the transformative and utilitarian benefits arising from the IDA, CDA and post-disaster review. The conceptual model has been influenced by the identified operational challenges to participation and modifications have been made to the damage assessment system to enhance the ability of damage assessment to achieve transformative outcomes. The conceptual model is complemented by recommendations including a significant training and education programme to support the implementation of the model through the development of a culture conducive to community participation.

The value of this research lies in the development of a situated and context-specific understanding of community participation in damage assessment. The research has shown that there are significant misunderstandings by disaster management practitioners and policy makers about the potential of certain types of participation to achieve lasting changes in community members’ ability to participate in disaster management. The significant danger in such misunderstandings is the investment of resources into projects which are perceived to be ‘participatory’ but are unlikely to result in the desired outcomes of community empowerment and self-reliance. Whilst this study is situated within the context of Fiji, findings such as these may be applicable beyond Fiji.

The research has demonstrated that despite the erroneous expectations of the potential for consultation (i.e. the type of participation proposed in the NDRMA) to lead to empowerment, it is possible to make alterations to the damage assessment process to support transformative outcomes. A further significant contribution of the study has been a detailed exploration of the operational challenges to participation in damage assessment. Community participation is inevitably constrained by the characteristics of damage assessment situations, in particular the conflict between time consuming meaningful participation and the need to provide rapid assistance to alleviate suffering. However, the dominant theme in the operational challenges lies not in the characteristics of damage assessment, but in the pervasive culture of dependence present in Fiji. This study has elaborated upon the ways in which dependence generates and supports structures and attitudes that perpetuate dependence and undermine community self-reliance.

10.3 Lessons for other Pacific Island countries

The findings of this study based upon the experience in Fiji have demonstrated that there is the potential for damage assessments to become a vehicle for the introduction or reinforcement of community participation in disaster management. There are several lessons from this study that may be of benefit to other Pacific Island countries wishing to initiate community participation in damage assessments. Significantly there is a need to clarify the concept of community participation and the outcomes it can achieve. Realistic expectations are important if community participation is to be successful. Furthermore the Fiji experience shows that there are a host of practical challenges to the achievement of successful community participation, originating from both communities and government. It is important that countries wishing to invest in participatory damage assessments,

173 indeed any form of participatory disaster management activity, must first identify and address these challenges. Without doing so meaningful community participation will be unlikely and lasting changes in community capacity will be restricted.

10.4 Reflections on the research approach

10.4.1 Ethnographic based research approach

This thesis has used investigated community participation in damage assessment using a research design that was influenced by ethnographic approaches. Ethnographic approaches are well suited to studies that require an understanding of both a phenomenon and its context. One of the most valuable aspects of the research approach adopted for this study has been the iterative-inductive nature in which key research questions have been defined. The approach has allowed research questions to be refined as new data and insights became available. This characteristic of the research design has afforded a degree of flexibility and an ability to respond to local conditions and the interests of research participants, without ceding control of the research direction to participants. By retaining control of the direction of the research, the researcher was able to ensure that the study had both practical benefits for participants but also wider academic significance and relevance for practitioners. A further beneficial aspect of the research approach was the availability of a diverse range of data collection methods from which appropriate techniques could be selected for specific situations.

10.4.2 Modified analytical framework

The modified analytical framework employed in Chapters 6 and 7 to define the types of participation employed in damage assessments provides an excellent level of detail regarding the way participation is practiced. Whilst the degree of empowerment is arguably the most powerful determinant of the type of participation being used, the other aspects of the framework such as the scope of activities, duration and initiative contribute to the understanding of how participation is occurring and also influence the degree of empowerment. Adapting the project stages to suit the damage assessment process has also been beneficial allowing a structured and systematic evaluation of participation in damage assessments.

10.5 Limitations of this study

The scope of this study has been necessarily bounded to enable a detailed examination of community participation in damage assessment policy and practice. The scope of the research is limited to a certain degree by the positionality of the researcher which influences the access to material and the way material is interpreted.

Whilst this study has incorporated case studies from communities representing the two main ethnic groups in Fiji, the study has not focussed on comparisons between the two communities. Similarly differences within communities have not been explored. As the smallest level of organisation dealt 174 with by government, it has been logical and practical to conduct this research at the community level. Yet, it should be noted that considerable heterogeneity exists within communities and this has the potential to affect the ways participation is conducted and with whom.

Practical issues may also have placed limitations on this research, for example, the researcher’s inability to speak Hindi may have impacted upon the way she was received and perceived in field sites. Knowledge of basic Fijian phrases proved particularly beneficial in indigenous Fijian communities and the inability to communicate in Hindi may have hindered data collection in Indo- Fijian communities.

The scope of this study has been restricted to the damage assessment process, which is just one component of the disaster management process. It could be argued that by focussing on a reactive activity such as damage assessment the study reinforces and promotes a reactive approach to disaster management in which disasters may be seen as discrete anomalous events. Such an approach is in contradiction to contemporary disaster management literature which considers disasters to be constituent parts of normal daily life (Hewitt, 1983; Blaikie et al, 1994; Varley, 1994). This research and the strategy developed herein are however intended to complement and be integrated into a comprehensive approach to disaster management which begins with a proactive approach to discuss ways to mitigate disasters before they happen. This strategy may provide an alternate vehicle for the introduction (or reinforcement) of participation in damage assessment but it should not be considered to be the preferred vehicle. The ways in which participatory damage assessment can be integrated into a comprehensive community managed disaster management system deserves further investigation as outlined in section 10.6.

This study has concentrated on issues surrounding how damage assessments are conducted rather that what types of damage are assessed. Damage assessments typically focus on identifying damage in key sectors such as: medical assistance and public health; water and sanitation; food and agriculture; shelter and housing; lifelines (communication, power and transport); and infrastructure (Campbell and Chung, 1986a; Planitz, 1999; Asian Disaster Preparedness Center, 2000; Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance, 2005a). Within these sectors the assessment concentrates on the identification of direct and tangible damage – generally those damages to which an economic value can be attached. It is quite common for assessments to overlook the indirect (secondary) impacts of a disaster and the intangible impacts such as emotional trauma or environmental damage. In the Pacific Island countries it has been noted that “the indirect effects of natural disasters are generally not assessed … [and] evaluations of intangible effects such as environmental, social or psychological impacts of natural disasters are also uncommon” (McKenzie et al, 2005:13).

10.6 Further research

The strategy for participatory damage assessment presented in Chapter 9 recommends the implementation of a significant training strategy to modify anti-participatory attitudes amongst government officers and communities and develop an environment conducive to community

175 participation. Training is also recommended to ensure that communities and government officers are familiarised with participatory damage assessment practice and are able to participate effectively. To ensure that such a training package comes to fruition and is successfully implemented, further research may be beneficial to investigate the challenges posed to training, exploring in more depth some of the issues raised in section 8.5.5.

There is scope for the participatory damage assessment strategy to be tested with communities in Fiji through a longitudinal study to investigate developments in the degree of empowerment felt by communities and to detect changes in their self-reliance and/or dependence behaviours. Unfortunately such research would require participating communities to be affected by a disaster. In line with a limitation noted above, an investigation of the difference in community participation both between and within communities could offer interesting insights into the way different groups are or are not represented in participatory processes.

The participatory damage assessment strategy could be further tested in other countries in the Pacific Region to identify the appropriateness and commonalities or differences in the participatory practices in other countries. Transferability of the strategy proposed here should be possible as constraints and capacities may be shared by other countries with similar disaster management histories and shared patterns of development. The principles of a participatory damage assessment strategy are equally applicable within the wider Asia-Pacific region and it is likely that many of the capacities and constraints, identified in this study, will be shared between countries across the region. There are however significant social, political and institutional differences between the Pacific Islands and the Asia-Pacific Region. In the Philippines for example, whilst disaster management is a state responsibility the field is dominated by NGOs and Community-based organisations. It would be necessary to conduct further research in these environments to validate the transferability of the findings and strategy developed in this study.

It is important to recognise that damage assessments are part of a larger process of disaster management. The ways in which the proposed strategy for participatory damage assessment can be integrated into a comprehensive participatory approach to disaster would benefit from further investigation. In particular the challenges currently inhibiting the realisation of participatory disaster management should be investigated. The challenges identified in this study may provide a useful starting point for such analyses.

As noted in section 10.5 the intangible and indirect impacts of disasters are commonly unaccounted for in damage assessments. The participation of communities in damage assessments may provide an opportunity to develop ways of noting these impacts. Conducting longitudinal research in partnership with communities may allow secondary impacts of disasters to be identified and accounted for. It may also be possible to develop locally appropriate ways of noting and accounting for intangible impacts such as emotional trauma.

176

This research has shown the ways in which dependence undermines meaningful community participation. It has been illustrated that dependence is a product of colonial policies towards disaster management, policies that have continued and been expanded by post-colonial governments in Fiji (see section 3.4) and reflect technocratic and behavioural paradigms of disaster studies. Disaster management can be seen to currently be operating within a vulnerability paradigm of disaster. management in Fiji. The influence of a vulnerability paradigm on community participation has not been explored in his thesis but would make an interesting avenue for further research. Critics of vulnerability suggest it to be a victimising paradigm, with people viewed as victims of the political economy (Warner et al, 2002). Campbell (1999) asserts that “vulnerability suggests weakness, inability, lack of positive attributes and passivity”. Such notions are inherently anti-participatory and it raises the question of how successful attempts at establishing meaningful community participation can be within such a paradigm. This is an area that is certainly worthy of further research as it has been shown in section 2.5 that vulnerability reduction is commonly the main focus of participatory (or community-based) disaster reduction programmes.

177

Blank Page

178

References

Abarquez, I. and Murshed, Z. (2004) Community-Based Disaster Risk Management: Field Practitioners Handbook. Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre, Thailand.

Anderson, M. B. (1994) The concept of vulnerability: beyond the focus on vulnerable groups. International Review of the Red Cross, Number 301.

Andharia, J. (2002) Institutionalising community participation: The challenge in disaster management practice. Indian Journal of Social Work, 63(2), 236-242.

Arellano-Gault, D. and Vera-Cortés, G. (2005) Institutional design and organisation of the Civil Protection National System in Mexico: The case for a decentralised and participative policy network. Public Administration and Development, 25(3), 185-192.

Arnstein, S. R. (1969) A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216.

Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (2000) Post Disaster Damage Assessment and Needs Analysis. Asian Disaster Preparedness Center, Thailand.

Atkinson, P. and Hammersley, M. (1994) Ethnography and Participant Observation. In, Denzin, N. S. and Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), 248-261.

Bakewell, O. (2000) Uncovering Local Perspectives on Humanitarian Assistance and Its Outcomes. Disasters, 24(2), 103-116.

Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. and Wisner, B. (1994) At Risk: natural hazards, people's vulnerability and disasters. Routledge, London.

Brookfield, H. (1987) Export or Perish: Commercial Agriculture in Fiji. In, Taylor, M. (Ed.) Fiji: Future Imperfect., Allen and Unwin Australia Pty Limited, Sydney, 46-57.

Campbell, J. (1999) Pacific Island vulnerabilities towards the end of the twentieth century. In, Ingleton, J. (Ed.) Natural Disaster Management: A presentation to commemorate the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) 1990-2000, Tudor Rose, Leicester, 320.

Campbell, J. R. (1984) Dealing with Disaster: Hurricane Response in Fiji. Pacific Islands Development Program, East-West Centre, Honolulu.

Campbell, J. R. and Chung, J. (1986a) Post-Disaster Assessment: A. Management. East-West Center, Honolulu.

Campbell, J. R. and Chung, J. (1986b) Post-Disaster Assessment: B. Field Survey. East-West Centre, Honolulu.

Chambers, R. (1983) Rural Development Putting the Last First. Longman Scientific and Technical, Harlow.

Chambers, R. (1994a) The Origins and Practice of Participatory Rural Appraisal. World Development, 22(7), 953-960.

Chambers, R. (1994b) Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA): Analysis of Experience. World Development, 22(9), 1253-1268.

Chambers, R. (1997) Whose Reality Counts? Putting the first last. Intermediate Technology Publications, London.

179

Chen, L.-C., Liu, Y.-C. and Chan, K.-C. (2006) Integrated Community-Based Disaster Management Program in Taiwan: A Case Study of Shang-An Village. Natural Hazards, 37(1 - 2), 209 - 223.

Chiwaka, E. and Yates, R. (undated) Participatory Vulnerability Analysis - A step-by-step guide for field staff. ActionAid International, London.

Christoplos, I., Mitchell, J. and Liljelund, A. (2001) Re-framing Risk: The Changing Context of Disaster Mitigation and Preparedness. Disasters, 25(3), 185-198.

Chung, J. (1999) Public interest, education and community involvement. In, Ingleton, J. (Ed.) Natural Disaster Management: A presentation to commemorate the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) 1990-2000, Tudor Rose, Leicester, 320.

Chung, J., Kaloumaira, A., Planitz, A. and Rynn, J. (2000) Natural Disaster Reduction in Pacific Island Countries. South Pacific Disaster Reduction Programme, Suva, Fiji.

Cleaver, F. (2001) Institutions, Agency and the Limitations of Participatory Approaches to Development. In, Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. (Eds.) Participation: The New Tyranny?, Zed Books, London, 36-55.

Cohen, J. M. and Uphoff, N. T. (1977) Rural Development Participation: Concepts and Measures for Project Design, Implementation and Evaluation. Rural Development Committee, Center for International Studies, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

Corbridge, S. (Ed.) (1995) Development studies: a reader, Edward Arnold, London.

Cornwall, A. (1996) Towards participatory practice: participatory rural appraisal (PRA) and the participatory process. In, De Koning, K. and Martin, M. (Eds.) Participatory Research in Health: Issues and Experiences, Zen Books Ltd, London, 94-107.

Cottrell, A. (2005) Sometimes it's a big ask, but sometimes it's a big outcome: community participation in flood mitigation. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 20(3), 27-32.

CRED/EM-DAT (2004) Country Profile for Natural Disasters: Fiji. [Online] EM-DAT: The OFDA/CRED International Disaster Database, Université Catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium. Available from: http://www.em-dat.net [Accessed 30.04.04].

Cronin, S. J., Ferland, M. A. and Terry, J. P. (2004) Nabukelevu volcano (Mt. Washington), Kadavu - a source of hitherto unknown volcanic hazard in Fiji. Journal of Vulcanology and Geothermal Research, 131(3-4), 371-396.

Daley, W. R., Karpati, A. and Sheik, M. (2001) Needs Assessment of the Displaced Population Following the August 1999 Earthquake in Turkey. Disasters, 25(1), 67-75.

Darcy, J. and Hofmann, C.-A. (2003) According to need? Needs assessment and decision-making in the humanitarian sector. Humanitarian Policy Group Report, Humanitarian Policy Group Report 15, Overseas Development Institute, London.

Doornbos, M. and Akram-Lodhi, A. H. (2000) Introduction: Confronting the future, confronting the past. In, Akram-Lodhi, A. H. (Ed.) Confronting Fiji Futures, Asia Pacific Press, Canberra, 3-20.

Eade, D. (1997) Capacity Building: An Approach to People-Centred Development. Oxfam GB, Oxford.

Eade, D. and Williams, S. (1995) The Oxfam Handbook of Development and Relief. Oxfam, Oxford.

Ellen, R. F. (1984) Ethnographic Research: A guide to general conduct. Academic Press, London.

Fairbairn, T. I. J. (1997) The Economic Impact of Natural Disasters in the South Pacific with special reference to Fiji, Western Samoa, Niue and Papua New Guinea. RAS/92/360, South Pacific Disaster Reduction Programme, place of publication unknown.

180

Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics (2005) Census of Population 1881-1996. [Online] Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics, Government of Fiji, Suva. Available from: http://www.statsfiji.gov.fj/Key%20Stats/Population/2.1%20census%20of%20population.pdf [Accessed 05.04.06].

Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics (2007) Population and Demography. Fiji Islands Bureau of Statistics, Government of Fiji, Suva. Available from: http://www.statsfiji.gov.fj/Social/popn_summary.htm [Accessed 01.08.2007].

Fiji Meteorological Office (undated) The Climate of Fiji. [Online] Fiji Meteorological Office, Suva. Available from: http://www.met.gov.fj/climate_fiji.html [Accessed 11.05.04].

Fiji Meteorological Service (undated) Monthly Averages for Selected Sites in the Fiji Islands. [Online] Fiji Meteorological Service, Government of Fiji, Nadi. Available from: http://www.met.gov.fj/documents/Normals1185831382.pdf [Accessed 06.08.07].

Fiji Times (2003) Cyclone blackout, Fiji Times, Suva Wednesday, January 15, 2003 pp1.

Fiji Times (April 1, 2006) Dr Lal blames coup children, Fiji Times, Suva Saturday, April 1, 2006

Fordham, M. (1992) Choice and constraint in flood hazard mitigation: the environmental attitudes of floodplain residents and engineers. Unpublished PhD thesis. Middlesex University, London.

Fordham, M. (1999) Participatory planning for flood mitigation. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 13(4), 27-34.

Freire, P. (1970) Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum, New York.

Godschalk, D. R., Brody, S. and Burby, R. (2003) Public Participation in Natural Hazard Mitigation Policy Formation: Challenges for Comprehensive Planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 45(5), 733-754.

Gold, R. L. (1958) Roles in sociological field observations. Social Forces, 36(3), 217-223.

Government of Fiji (1995) Fiji National Disaster Management Plan. Government of Fiji, Suva, Fiji.

Government of Fiji (1998) Natural Disaster Management Act 1998. Government of Fiji, Suva, Fiji.

Government of Fiji (2006) 28/2/06 - Cabinet endorsed National Disaster Review Policy Framework. [Online Cabinet Release] Government of Fiji, Suva. Available from: http://www.fiji.gov/publish/page_6304.shtml [Accessed 01.03.06].

Government of Fiji (2007) Cabinet Accepts Technical Assessment Report. Cabinet Press Release, Government of Fiji, Suva.

Hammersley, M. and Atkinson, P. (1983) Ethnography: Principles in Practice. Tavistock Publications Ltd, London.

Heijmans, A. and Victoria, L. P. (2001) Citizenry-Based and Development-Oriented Disaster Response: Experiences and Practices in Disaster Management of the Citizens' Disaster Response Network in the Philippines. Centre for Disaster Preparedness, Manilla.

Hewitt, K. (1983) Interpretations of Calamity. Allen and Unwin, London.

Hilhorst, D. (2004) Complexity and Diversity: Unlocking Social Domains of Disaster Response. In, Bankoff, G., Frerks, G. and Hilhorst, D. (Eds.) Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People, Earthscan, London, 236.

Hodder, R. (2000) Development Geography. Routledge, London and New York.

Houtz, R. E. (1962) The 1953 Suva Earthquake and Tsunami. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 52(1), 1-12.

181

IFRC (2000) Disaster Emergency Needs Assessment. In, IFRC (Ed.) Disaster Preparedness Training Manual, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.

IFRC (2005) Guidelines for emergency assessment. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Geneva.

Johnson, R. W. (1995) Natural Hazards Potential Map of the Cirucim Pacific Region. In, Johnson, R. (Ed.) Natural Hazards: Their potential in the Southwest Pacific, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Johnson, R. W., Blong, R. J. and Ryan, C. J. (Eds.) (1994) Natural hazards: their potential in the Pacific Southwest, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.

Johnston, R. J., Gregory, D., Pratt, G. and Watts, M. (Eds.) (2000) The Dictionary of Human Geography, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford.

Kahn, R., Goddard, R. and Toogood, J. (2005) Ebbs and Flows: Patterns of Fiji Indian Migration. ABERU Discussion Paper 13

Kumar, S. and Prasad, B. (2004) Politics of race and poverty in Fiji. International Journal of Social Economics, 31(5/6), 469-486.

Lal, B. V. (1988) Power and Prejudice: the making of the Fiji crisis. New Zealand Institute of International Affairs, Wellington, N.Z.

Lal, B. V. (2000) Madness in May: George Speight and the unmaking of modern Fiji. In, Lal, B. V. (Ed.) Fiji before the storm: elections and the politics of development, Asia Pacific Press, Canberra, 175-194.

Lal , B. V. (2000) A time to change: the Fiji general elections of 1999. In, Lal, B. V. (Ed.) Fiji before the storm: elections and the politics of development, Asia Pacific Press, Canberra, 21-47.

Lal, B. V. (2003) Fiji's Constitutional Conundrum. The Round Table, 372(-), 671-685.

Lal, B. V. (2004) Girmit, History, Memory. In, Lal, B. V. (Ed.) Bittersweet: the Indo-Fijian experience, Pandanus, Canberra, 407.

Leslie, H. and Storey, D. (2003) Practical Issues. In, Scheyvens, R. and Storey, D. (Eds.) Development Fieldwork: a practical guide, Sage Publications Ltd, London, 77-95.

Maskrey, A. (1989) Disaster Mitigation: A Community Based Approach. Oxfam, Oxford.

Maskrey, A. (1992) Introducing Disaster Mitigation in a Political Vacuum: The Experiences of the Reconstruction Plan Following the Alto Mayo Earthquake, Peru, 1990. In, Aysan, Y. and Davis, I. (Eds.) Disasters and the small dwelling: perspectives for the UN IDNDR, James and James, Science Publishers, Ltd, London, pp 162-174.

May, P. (Ed.) (1994) Natural disaster reduction in Pacific Island countries : report to the World Conference on Natural Disaster Reduction, Yokohama, Japan, 23 to 27 May 1994 prepared by South Pacific Regional Environment Programme, South Pacific Programme Office, United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Management Australia., Emergency Management Australia on behalf of the Australian IDNDR Committee, Canberra.

McKenzie, E., Prasad, B. and Kaloumaira, A. (2005) Economic Impact of Natural Disasters on Development in the Pacific Volume 1: Research Report. AusAID, Suva.

Méheux, K. (2004) Accuracy of natural hazard risk perception and its implications for the sustainability of tourism in a Small Island Developing State. MSc by Research. Coventry University, Coventry.

Méheux, K. and Lloyd, K. (2005) Developing Methods to Measure the Impacts of Tropical Cyclones in Communities in Fiji. In, Morrison, R. J., Quin, S. and Bryant, E. A. Planning for Natural Hazards -

182

How can we mitigate the impacts? held 2-5 February 2005, University of Wollongong, GeoQuEST Research Centre, University of Wollongong.

Méheux, K. and Parker, E. (2006) Tourist sector perceptions of natural hazards in Vanuatu and the implications for a small island developing state. Tourism Management, 21(1), 69-85.

Ministry of Multi-Ethnic Affairs (2005) Community Profile: Vunimoli. Ministry of Multi-Ethnic Affairs, Labasa.

Mitchell, J. (1997) The Listening Legacy: Challenges for Participatory Approaches. In, Scobie, J. Mitigating the Millennium, Proceedings of a seminar on community participation and impact assessment in disaster preparedness and mitigation programmes held 1997, Rugby, UK, Intermediate Technology.

Naiker, U. (undated) Country paper: Fiji. [Online] UNESCAP, Bangkok. Available from: http://www.unescap.org/huset/lgstudy/country/fiji/fiji.html [Accessed 07.04.04].

National Disaster Management Office (2003) Report on Tropical Cyclone Ami. Ministry of Regional Development, Suva, Fiji.

National Disaster Management Office (2004) Interim Report. Flood (TD10F) 2004. Government of Fiji, Suva, Fiji.

National Disaster Management Office (2005) Natural Disaster Management Act and National Disaster Management Plan: A New Beginning. National Disaster Management Office, Government of Fiji, Suva.

National Disaster Management Office (2006a) Fiji National Disaster Risk Management Arrangements: Building the resilience of Fiji's communities to natural and human-caused hazards. National Disaster Management Office, Government of Fiji, Suva.

National Disaster Management Office (2006b) National Emergency Operations Centre Standard Operating Procedures: Draft 4. National Disaster Management Office, Government of Fiji, Suva.

Nightingale, A. (2003) A Feminist in the Forest: Situated Knowledges and Mixing Methods in Natural Resource Management. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographers, 2(1), 77-90.

Nilson, L. B. (1985) The disaster victim community: part of the solution, not the problem. Policy Studies Review, 4(4), 689-697.

NIWA (2003) The Island Climate Update. 29, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research New Zealand, Auckland.

O'Reilly, K. (2005) Ethnographic methods. Routledge, Oxon.

Oakley, P. (1991) Projects with People: The practice of participation in rural development. International Labour Office, Geneva.

OCHA (2003) Fiji - Cyclone Ami OCHA Situation Report No. 5. [Online] Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Geneva. Available from: http://wwww.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/6686f45896f15dbc852567ae00530132/7549db6a8467184ac125 6cd7005bc5a3?OpenDocument [Accessed 11.05.04].

Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (2005a) Field Operations Guide for Disaster Assessment and Response. Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance, USAID.

Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (2005b) Initial Damage Assessment Instructor Guide.

Pelling, M. (1998) Participation, social capital and vulnerability to urban flooding in Guyana. Journal of International Development, 10(4), 469-486.

183

Phillips, B. (2002) Qualitative methods and disaster research. In, Stallings, R. A. (Ed.) Methods of Disaster Research, Xlibris Corporation, Philadelphia, 194-211.

Planitz, A. (1999) A Guide to Successful Damage and Needs Assessment. South Pacific Disaster Reduction Programme, place of publication unknown.

Potter, R., Binns, T., Elliott, J. and Smith, D. (Eds.) (2004) Geographies of Development, Pearson Education, Harlow.

Pretty, J. N. (1995) Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development, 23(8), 1247-1263.

Punch, K. F. (1998) Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Sage Publications Ltd., London.

Rabuka, S. L. (2000) The Fiji islands in transition: personal reflections. In, Lal, B. V. (Ed.) Fiji before the storm: elections and politics of development, Asia Pacific Press, Canberra, 7-20.

Rahiman, T. I. H., Pettinga, J. R. and Watts, P. (2007) The source mechanism and numerical modelling of the 1953 Suva tsunami, Fiji. Marine Geology, 237(1-2), 55-70.

Rahnema, M. (1992) Participation. In, Sachs, W. (Ed.) The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power, Zed Books Ltd., London and New Jersey, 116-131.

Robertson, C. J. (1931) Fiji Sugar Industry. Economic Geography, 7(4), 400-411.

Roche, C. (1999) Impact Assessment for Development Agencies: Learning to Value Change. Oxfam GB, Oxford.

Rocheleau, D. (1995) Maps, Numbers, Text and Context: Mixing Methods in Feminist Political Ecology. Professional Geographer, 47(4), 458-466.

Rocheleau, D. and Slocum, R. (1995) Participation in context: key questions. In, Slocum, R., Wichhart, L., Rocheleau, D. and Thomas-Slayter, B. (Eds.) Power. Process and Participation: Tools for Change, Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd, London, 17-30.

Rokovada, J. (2004) Third Stakeholders Workshop, 16-17 August 2004, Review of the Natural Disaster Management Act 1998 and National Disaster Management Plan 1995. National Disaster Management Office, Suva.

Rokovada, J. and Vrolijks, L. (1993) Case Study Fiji: Disaster and Development Linkages. Workshop Paper No. 8. U.N. Disaster Management Training Programme, South Pacific Workshop, Apia, Western Samoa.

RSMC Nadi (2003a) Special Weather Bulletin Number Seventeen for Fiji. Regional Specialised Meteorological Centre, Nadi.

RSMC Nadi (2003b) Special Weather Bulletin Number Sixteen for Fiji. Regional Specialised Meteorological Centre, Nadi.

RSMC Nadi (2003c) Special Weather Bulletin Number Ten for Fiji. Regional Specialised Meteorological Centre, Nadi.

Scarr, D. (1984) Fiji: A short history. Allen and Unwin Australia Pty Limited, Sydney.

Schensul, S. L., Schensul, J. J. and LeCompte, M. D. (1999) Essential Ethnographic Methods: Observations, Interviews and Questionnaires. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek.

Schilderman, T. (1993) Disaster and Development. A Case Study from Peru. Journal of International Development, 5(4), 415-423.

184

Scott-Villiers, A. (2000) Workshop in Participatory Approaches in Emergencies. Institute for Development Studies, Brighton.

Sen, A. (2000) Development as Freedom. Knopf, New York.

Shah, M. K. (1996) Participatory planning with disaster victims: Experience from earthquake hit areas of Maharashtra, India. Refugee Participation Network, 21(April), 15-17.

Slocum, R. and Thomas-Slayter, B. (1995) Participation, empowerment and sustainable development. In, Slocum, R., Wichhart, L., Rocheleau, D. and Thomas-Slayter, B. (Eds.) Power, Process and Participation: Tools for Change, ITDG Publishing, London, 3-8.

Slocum, R., Wichhart, L., Rocheleau, D. and Thomas-Slayter, B. (Eds.) (1995) Power, Process and Participation: Tools for Change, Intermediate Technology Publication Ltd, London.

Smith, K. (1996) Environmental Hazards: Assessing Risk and Reducing Disaster. Routledge, London.

SOPAC (2005) A Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters. SOPAC Miscellaneous Report 613, SOPAC, Suva.

SOPAC (2006) River Floods. Natural Hazards in the Pacific Fact Sheet, 6, SOPAC, Suva.

Stephenson, R. S. (1994) Disaster Assessment. Disaster Management Training Programme, United Nations Development Programme and Department of Humanitarian Affairs, New York.

Tarte, S. (2001) Melanesia in Review: Issues and Events, 2000. The Contemporary Pacific, 13(2), 529-541.

Terry, J. P., McGree, S. and Raj, R. (2004) The Exceptional Flooding on Vanua Levu Island, Fiji, during Tropical Cyclone Ami in January 2003. Journal of Natural Disaster Science, 26(1), 27-36.

The Sphere Project (2004) Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response. The Sphere Project, Geneva.

Thomas-Slayter, B. (1995) A brief history of participatory methodologies. In, Slocum, R., Wichhart, L., Rocheleau, D. and Thomas-Slayter, B. (Eds.) Power, Process and Participation: Tools for change, Intermediate Technology Publications Ltd, London, 9-16.

Turton, D. (1993) Refugees Returning Home.Report of the Symposium for the Horn of Africa on the Social and Economic Aspects of Mass Voluntary Return Movements of Refugees, Addis Ababa, 15- 17 September, 1992. United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva.

Twigg, J. (1999) The age of accountability?: future community involvement in disaster reduction. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 1999/2000(4), 51-58.

Twigg, J. (2005) Community participation - time for a reality check?Know Risk, UN ISDR/Tudor Rose, Geneva/Leicester, 64-65.

Twigg, J., Bhatt, M., Eyre, A., Jones, R., Luna, E., Murwira, K., Sato, J. and Wisner, B. (2001) Guidance notes on participation and accountability. Miscellaneous Papers, -, Benfield Greig Hazard Research Centre, University College London, London.

UNISDR (1994) Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World. [Online] United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Geneva. Available from: http://www.unisdr.org/eng/about_isdr/bd-yokohama-strat-eng.htm [Accessed 30.06.06].

UNISDR (2005) Report of the World Conference on Disaster Reduction: Kobe, Hyogo, Japan, 18-22 January 2005. A/CONF.206/6, United Nations,

185

United Nations (1994) Yokohama Strategy and Plan of Action for a Safer World. [Online] United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, Geneva. Available from: http://www.unisdr.org/unisdr/resyokohama.htm 30.06.06 url changed to http://www.unisdr.org/eng/about_isdr/bd-yokohama-strat-eng.htm [Accessed 01.08.03].

United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (2000) United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination UNDAC Field Handbook. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, Geneva.

Varley, A. (Ed.) (1994) Disasters, Development and Environment, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester.

Venton, P. and Hansford, B. (2006) Reducing risk of disaster in our communities. Tearfund, Teddington.

Vrolijks, L. (1998) Guideline for Community Vulnerability Analysis: An Approach for Pacific Island Countries. South Pacific Disaster Reduction Programme, Suva.

Warner, J., Waalewijn, P. and Hilhorst, D. (2002) Public Participation in Disaster-Prone Watersheds. Time for Multi-Stakeholder Platforms? Wageningen University.

Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T. and Davis, I. (2004) At Risk: Natural hazards, people's vulnerability and disasters. Routledge, London.

186

Appendix A

PLANNING FOR NATURAL HAZARDS - HOW CAN WE MITIGATE THE IMPACTS?

Edited by

R. John Morrison, Sandra Quin and Edward A. Bryant

GeoQuEST Research Centre and School of Earth & Environmental Sciences, . University of Wollongong, NSW 2522

Proceedings of a Symposium, University of Wollongong, 2-5 February 2005

Organised and Sponsored by

GeoQuEST Research Centre, University of Wollongong NSW Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources NRMA Insurance Sydney Gas Company

Published by the GeoQuEST Research Centre University of Wollongong 2005

187

Printed and Published in Australia at the University of Wollongong 2005

This book is copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research criticism, or review as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission. Inquiries should be made to the publisher.

Cover photograph credits -" State Emergency Services, NSW - Bulli Pass Storm Impact, August 1998. R. J. Whelan, Faculty of Science, University of Wollongong - Bushfire. Masatomo Umitsu, Dept. of Geography, Nagoya University - Kobe Earthquake, 1995.

Planning for Natural Hazards - How Can We Mitigate the Impacts?

Bibliography ISBN 1 74128 1156

R. John Morrison, Sandra Quin and Edward A. Bryant (Editors)

Proceedings ofa Symposium, University of Wollongong, 2-5 Febmary 2005.

Printed by University of Wollongong, Printery Services

Published and distributed by: GeoQuEst Research Centre School of Earth & Environmental Sciences University of Wollongong NSW 2522

Telephone +61242213721 Facsimile +61 242214250

Web Address www.uow.edu.au/science/eesc/ geoquestlindex.h tml

188

111

PLANNING FOR NATURAL HAZARDS - HOW CAN WE MITIGATE THE IMPACTS?

Editorial

Events such as floods, bushfires, droughts and cyclones frequently hit the news headlines as they often cause significant loss of life and large-scale economic impacts. Planning to mitigate the impact of such incidents has become even more critical given the prediction of increased climatic extremes associated with present global warming. The GeoQuEST Research Centre of the University of Wollongong and the New South Wales Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR), therefore, jointly organised a very successful symposium on Planning for Natural Hazards in early 2005. This meeting brought together over 100 researchers, hazard experts and professionals, and resource managers who have worked/are working on the prediction, assessment, management and response to natural hazards, to review the results of research, planning and other management activities. The aim was to develop a review of all the current activities and to determine research and planning priorities for the future, and improve links between researchers and planners. The information presented enabled those participating to gain an appreciation of what has been achieved, and also to identify areas requiring further research. Future research priorities were identified, including: what are the real costs of developing sites known to be subject to natural hazards; what is the effectiveness of current models used in hazard management/response decision- making; how do humans deal with hazards in terms of their individual assessment of risk; the importance of local knowledge in hazard response management; the impact of differences between states in responses and attitudes towards hazard mitigation.

This book contains many of the papers presented at the symposium, enabling a wider audience to access recent and ongoing work in this field and to appreciate the complex range of issues that are involved in decision-making in this critical component of environmental management in Australia. All the published papers have been subject to independent peer review prior to finalisation and acceptance for inclusion in this book. A list of the referees used is given below.

The symposium was sponsored by NRMA Insurance, Sydney Gas Company and the NSW Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, as well as the GeoQuEST Research Centre. The support of these agencies is gratefully acknowledged.

Referees Associate Professor E. Bryant Professor J. Nott Mr. B. Dreury Dr. M. Ooi Dr. P. Ellis Dr. 1. Reinfelds Professor L. Head Mr. P. Watson Dr. D. Kennedy Professor R.I. Whelan Associate Professor 1. Kreis Dr. A.R.M. Young Mr. E. McLean Professor J. Morrison

189

IV Contents

Preface 1 Edi torial ...... 111

Table of Contents ...... ….…...... ……………IV

Planning for Natural Hazards - How Can We Mitigate the Impacts? E.A. Bryant, L. Head and R.J. Morrison ...... 1

Australian Bushfire: Quantifying and Pricing the Risk to Residential Properties K. John McAneney ...... 13

A Computerised Model for Bushfire Attack Assessment Zhenxiang Tan, Stuart Midgley and Grahame Douglas ...... 23

Integrating Site Assessment and Performance Planning Outcomes for Bushfire Prone Areas ,. Grahame B. Douglas and Zhenxiang Tan ...... 35

Counting Bushfire-Prone Addresses in the Greater Sydney Region Keping Chen ...... 4 '7

Urban Feasibility Assessment for Land Use Planning Greg Chapman and Jonathan Gray ...... 57

Managing-Landslide Hazards on the Illawarra Escarpment P.N.Flentje & RN ChowdhUlY ...... 65

An Infrastructure Hazard Map Derived from Soil Landscape Mapping with Digital Landform Analysis 1.A. Wild, GK Summerell, S Grant, M Miller and 1. young ...... 79

Vector Borne D'isease in Urban Subtropical Coastal Zones: Planning Perspectives for an Emerging Natural Hazard Anna Lyth, Paul 1. Beggs and Neil 1. Holbrook ...... 89

Emergency Management of Coastal Erosion in NSW D.J. Hanslow and M Howard ...... 103

Mapping Flood Hazards in Real Time Bruce M Druery, David D. McConnell and Cameron 1. Drueryand Lou Kamenos ...... 129

Macrochannels and their Significance for Flood-Risk Minimisation, West Dapto, New South Wales EL Roper, I. Reinfelds and ac. Nanson ...... 139

Tropical Cyclone Disturbance of Coral Communities of the Great Barrier Reef, 1969-2003 M L. Puotinen ...... 153

Mobile Polar Highs over Australia: Origins and Effect on Rainfall C. Hargraves and E. A. Blyant ...... 167

Developing Methods to Measure the Impacts of Tropical Cyclones in Communities in Fiji Kirstie Meheux and Kate Lloyd ...... 177

190

177 Developing Methods to Measure the Impacts of Tropical Cyclones in Communities in Fiji

2 Kirstie Meheux 1 and Kate L1oyd

J Department of Physical Geography, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, AUSTRALIA 2 Department of Human Geography, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, AUSTRALIA

Abstract Little published detail exists regarding the range of natural hazards impacts experienced at the community level in Fiji, how these impacts interact and the cost (economic, environmental and social) they have. Impact assessments provide useful information to decision makers in all sectors, and enable them to make informed decisions regarding land-use planning, infrastructure planning and preparation for medical response. The availability of such information at a community level allows for detailed planning and can also encourage community ownership of hazard mitigation. Unfortunately, a lack of available methods to conduct such assessments hinders natural hazard planning.

This paper outlines the methods to be employed in a PhD study currently underway to investigate the impacts of one natural hazard (tropical cyclones) in communities in Fiji. Methods include: interviews with members of affected communities to identify impacts; a questionnaire survey to determine the prioritisation of these impacts; and, interviews with government officials and other organisations involved in disaster management or response to collect existing data on impacts. The methods described here and the resulting data will contribute to the wider study to enhance understanding of natural hazard impacts in the communities affected. This understanding will then be used to develop processes to identify and measure impacts which can be employed before a disaster to highlight vulnerabilities (and focus mitigation), and after a disaster to direct response.

Introduction Natural disasters play an important role in small island developing states (SIDS). These nations are exposed to a wide range of natural hazards, and a number of characteristics heighten their vulnerability (Chung et aI, 2000), resulting in the frequent occurrence of natural disasters. The important role that these disasters play in the socioeconomic development of SIDS has been acknowledged (UN, 1994) and, in recent decades, there has been a marked increase in the development of strategies to reduce the impacts of natural hazards, particularly as a result of the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR).

RJ Morrison, S. Quin and E.A. Bryant (Editors) (2005). Planning for Natural Hazards - How Can We Mitigate the Impacts? GeoQuEST Research Centre, University of Wollongong.

191

]78 During and since the IDNDR, a wide range of natural disaster reduction initiatives have been undertaken in the Pacific Islands (see Chung et al, 2000 for a summary of initiatives). In Fiji the National Disaster Management Office (NDMO) is now keen to encourage bottom-up approaches to disaster management, through the enhancement of the community's role in their own disaster management (Joeli Rokovada, Director, Fiji National Disaster management Office, pers. comm. July 2004). Such action is in line with a government review currently underway to extend power in decision making to communities and away from central government. A proposed way of involving communities in disaster management is through the development of community based disaster impact assessments; allowing communities to self-assess the impacts of a disaster. These assessments may be used in the aftermath of a disaster to direct recovery and may also be used in advance of a disaster as a tool to highlight vulnerabilities and mitigation needs. The Fijian NDMO is interested in incorporating such community based assessments into current assessment procedures to complement existing positivist approaches to impact data collection (J. Rokovada, pers. comm., 2004).

The Fijian NDMO anticipates that fostering a sense of community self-reliance will reduce dependence on central government for recovery assistance. This factor is particularly relevant in the event of large scale natural disasters. Response and recovery from recent cyclone events has necessitated the redirection of significant amounts of government finance. In response to cyclone Kina in 1987, Fiji's Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries was forced to redirect 20.4% of its budget toward rehabilitation (Benson, 1997). Additional benefits of community participation include the potential creation of innovative and locally appropriate approaches to mitigation and reinvigoration of traditional' coping strategies' which have been neglected in the process of development. Furthermore, the development of community based disaster impact assessments provides an opportunity to expand assessments to facilitate a holistic understanding of what and how impacts are experienced at a community level, particularly the context specific nature of impacts (i.e., their uniqueness) and the complexity of their development and interaction.

This paper first provides an explanation of the benefits offered by community based disaster impact assessment, involving a critique of the dominant positivist approach to assessment. The paper then presents a proposed method to collect data necessary to expand the understanding of tropical cyclone impacts in communities in Fiji and use this to design a disaster impact assessment for use in communities across Fiji. The method draws on participatory research, mixed-methods and disaster research literature.

Fiji is exposed to a variety of natural hazards including drought, earthquake, floods, tsunami and tropical cyclone (Fairbairn, 1997). Of these hazards, tropical cyclones are the most frequent and result in the most damage (Campbell, 1984; Fairbairn, 1997). On average Fiji experiences 10 to 15 tropical cyclones per decade, of which 2 to 4 result in severe damage (Fiji Meteorological Office, undated). The cost of tropical cyclones in Fiji is often high. The most expensive event in recent years was Tropical Cyclone Kina (1993) with total damage estimated at US$l00 million (equivalent to 7% of Fiji's GDP) (Fairbairn, 1997). Tropical Cyclone Ami (2003) caused damages of US$30 million and Tropical Cyclone Gavin (1998) resulted in US$15 million of damage (OCHA, 2003). Tropical cyclones in Fiji affect an average of 28,837 people per event (CRED/EM-DA T, 2004). The most recent tropical cyclone (Ami, 2003) affected 30,000 people and killed 17; whilst Cyclone Oscar in 1983, affected 200,000 people, over a quarter of Fiji's population at the time. (CRED/EM-DAT, 2004).

192

179 All islands in the Fiji group can experience tropical cyclones; in fact a single tropical cyclone can have impacts across the entire country (Fairbairn, 1997). However, the islands most commonly in the path of cyclones are in the Western, Northern and Eastern divisions of Fiji.

Benefits of Community Based Disaster Impact Assessment Community based disaster impact assessments (DIAs) (and community level studies) offer the opportunity for impact data to be collected at a small, location specific scale and also facilitates in depth investigation. The unique nature of tropical cyclone events creates difficulties in making generalisations regarding impacts (McLean, 1977). Small, location specific studies and assessments allow detailed identification of impacts that are evident within a given community. This approach acknowledges the heterogeneity of communities and the context specific nature of impacts as products of their unique physical, social, cultural, political and economic environment. As a result local data can be generated to inform and improve decision making. Furthermore, impacts are the outcome of complex interactions between several subsystems in the geophysical and climatological environment, and societal sub-systems, such as, science systems and local knowledge systems (Hilhorst, 2004). This complexity can be overwhelming in large scale studies, but it may be possible to comprehend complexity at a small scale. A key advantage of community based disaster impact assessment and studies is the potential to incorporate the context specific nature and complexity of natural hazard impacts, through the use of small-scale, location specific, in- depth assessments or studies.

The ability of current DIA to incorporate these issues is limited. This is, in part, due to the primarily applied role of emergency DIA for immediate response. DIA are used to guide effective and appropriate decision making with regards to response (Campbell and Chung, 1986; Stephenson, 1994) and to justify funding applications (Darcy and Hofmann, 2003). They have much in common with a positivist approach to data collection and analysis, for example, an emphasis on quantification, objectivity and distanced observation and analysis.

It is common for DIA to consist primarily (if not wholly) of measurements of the severity and prevalence of disaster impacts, for example, the number of fatalities and casualties or the volume of crops damaged. This mirrors the strong emphasis on quantitative methods and analysis that is typical of the positivist approach (Maguire, 1987; Guba and Lincoln, 1994). As noted above, these measurements are used to guide response operations and are commonly used in the justification of requests for funding (Darcy and Hofmann, 2003). Rocheleau (1995) notes that quantification of her research findings on gender and forestry was necessary to attract the attention of policy makers. It is, perhaps, easier to compare funding requests and make decisions when the need is described in quantitative terms. Such a heavy emphasis on quantification can be criticised, however, for overlooking aspects of human life which are not easily quantified (Maguire, 1987), such as psychological trauma or interpersonal relationships. Attempts to quantify these impacts, for example, against scales of severity (see for example, Suar et al, 2002 for quantitative assessment of psychological status following supercyclone), risk the reduction of social phenomena to "nearly meaningless, 'statisticalized' component parts" (Maguire, 1987:22) in order to satisfy quantitative criteria. Community based DIAs offer the opportunity to take an alternative approach which places value on both quantitative and qualitative information. The combination of these two information types can offer a more holistic and richer representation of disaster.

193

180 DIAs are primarily conducted by members of national disaster management offices, their local government representatives, or 'experts' from NGOs. This is in keeping with the positivist tradition which requires a technically trained and distanced observer to conduct an objective, quantitative (and therefore good quality) inquiry (Guba and Lincoln, 1994). There are two key drawbacks of this. Firstly, there is the outside/insider (etic/emic) consideration, relating to the differences between outsider and insider perspectives of a given situation (Guba and Lincoln, 1994; Kumar, 2002). The subject and findings of current DIAs are set according to the outsider perspective; however, the insider perspective may differ considerably from this. Such differences can result in impacts important to communities being neglected in DIA driven by outsiders. Discrepancies are then compounded in the second issue - the decision making power of the outsider. The findings of DIA are fed to central or local government or NGOs who then decide if and how to respond. These decisions are again subject to the agenda and perspective of the outsider. Freire (1970, in Maguire, 1987)(1970, in Maguire, 1987) suggests that this approach contributes to the alienation of people from their own decision making capabilities. It was noted earlier that Fiji is trying to instil ownership and responsibility for disaster management into communities. The act of making communities external to decisions simply contributes to a feeling of helplessness and can undermine community confidence in their ability to make decisions. This can be countered through community participation in assessment and decision making. Cornwall (1996) suggests that participation can validate people as knowledgeable and capable of changing their own situation, furthermore it provides the ability for active engagement in which communities are "no longer cast as silent, passive recipients".

In addition to the above critique of current DIAs is the important fact that communities are highly knowledgeable about their own situation. In reference to vulnerability assessments in Pacific island countries, Vrolijks (1998: 1) suggests "the community knows its own situation best" and, with some help, it can identify suitable strategies to improve its situation. The recognition of local knowledge is central to the justification of community based DIAs and is evident in the following method to develop such DIAs.

An Approach to Investigate Impacts in Communities The method introduced here relates to a stage of data collection within a study on tropical cyclone impacts in communities in Fiji. The method is designed to provide a more holistic understanding of community impacts and investigate the opportunity to develop community based DIAs. This will involve an investigation of the impacts at a community level and appropriate methods to assess them. Following a constructivist approach (Guba and Lincoln, 1994), the method proposes to use a range of collaborative techniques to investigate community impacts and community based DIAs.

Vrolijks (1998) notes that without full community participation, the success of disaster reduction strategies is compromised. Participation is similarly valued in development programmes as a critical component of success (Pretty, 1995). This popularity has seen the term 'participation' applied to a wide variety of approaches, encompassing a numerous degrees of participation. As a result it has been argued that 'participation' should not be used without clarification (Pretty, 1995). In her discussion of participatory work in a health context, Cornwall (1996) notes the diversity of situations within which participatory methods can be used, identifying six approaches or 'modes' of participation (see Table 1). The use of each approach is dependent on the agenda of researchers. The modes are an escalating scale of participation ranging from token input in cooption to total participant control in collective action.

194

181 Table 1: Typology of Participation.

This research will incorporate three modes of participation; consultation, cooperation and co- learning (highlighted in Table 1). These three modes have been selected as they are well suited to support community participation and ownership of "disaster management. Cooption, compliance and collective action are deemed inappropriate approaches for a number of reasons. Cooption involves token community input; this has the potential to undermine meaningful participation as it could be seen to demonstrate a lack of respect and value for community knowledge and perspectives. Pretty (1995: 1252) goes as far as to describe this form of participation as "manipulative participation". Compliance similarly undermines genuine participation as local knowledge is not considered. In this approach, the community has no input in the design or decision making, rather they 'participate' through implementing external decisions. Collective action lies at the opposite end of the participation spectrum, with local people in strong control of the project. This mode of participation is conducted in the absence of researchers and as such will not be part of the formal research design. It should be noted that this research process may trigger collective-action, but there are currently no plans to study this.

The combined use of consultation, cooperation and co-learning offers an approach in which the community and researcher can interact to differing degrees to fulfil the aims of the research. However, the research agenda is set by the external researcher and local people will be invited to participate. Central to the research approach is reflection. This will be a continuous activity throughout the research, reflecting upon and responding to, the needs, ideas and input of the community, incorporating these into the research process. Such an approach in disaster research can empower and give voice to participants (Phillips, 2002). A reflective and adaptive style will develop and adjust to suit each community and situation; therefore the methods can not be prescriptive, although the following approach will act as a guide.

195

]82

Figure 1: A collaborative and reflective research approach.

The adaptive nature of this approach is well suited to a mixed-methods approach. This involves the use of a combination of methods drawn from a variety of epistemological backgrounds. Such a technique has recently been used in feminist approaches to methodology to interrogate the partiality of knowledge (Rocheleau, 1995; Nightingale, 2003). Partial knowledge arises from the concept of situated knowledges, which suggests there is no one truth to be uncovered and recognises the subjectivity of knowledge is linked to the context in which it is created (Nightingale, 2003). The application of mixed-methods is believed to offer a fuller insight into issues by investigating the knowledge of multiple sources in multiple ways. In disaster studies, Phillips (2002) concurs and argues that triangulation of sources and methods can provide a more comprehensive understanding and allows validation of information. This approach will apply multiple methods including; interviews, group discussions, questionnaires and document reviews from different sources including community members, disaster professionals, NGOs, government representatives and document archives, combining both quantitative and qualitative data collection. Data will be collected:.over a period of approximately six months, depending on local conditions and the ways in which the approach adapts.

Data Collection in Communities A preliminary stage of consultation has been completed and involved scoping the wider study and soliciting the opinions of Fiji's National Disaster Management Office and a number of local organisations involved in disaster management. This consultation has guided the wider study and helped to define some of its aims and objectives. Organisations consulted included, SOP AC (South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission), UN OCHA, AusAID, NZAID, Fiji Red Cross, Fiji Meteorological Service, FSPI (Foundation for the Peoples of the South Pacific), and Save the Children Fiji. Whilst the individuals consulted here may be considered as 'outsiders' to individual communities, they are 'insiders' of disaster management in Fiji and are well placed to offer an overview of current issues and national needs.

Community based research in Fiji will involve three communities with whom negotiations will take place to gain their agreement to participate. The willingness of each community to participate is key to this approach; if communities are forced to participate empowerment the process hopes to instil in the community is undermined.

Potential communities will be selected with the assistance of the Fijian NDMO. Communities will be approached through official channels, following appropriate bureaucratic and traditional protocols. Working with the government may influence the responses and willingness of communities to participate, however it is felt that a culturally appropriate approach to take. Steps will be taken to ensure the participant communities are aware that the research is not being undertaken by or for the government.

196

]83

Data will be collected during residential stays of one month in each community. It is hoped that this will go some way toward overcoming the issues related to external researchers in island communities. Such issues include participants trying to provide answers that they hope will please the researcher, rather than honestly answering questions. Leslie and Storey (2004) suggest that residential stays can foster acceptance and trust and also lead to better understanding of the context of data that is collected. It is hoped that residential stays will help the researcher gain a better understanding of the community and similarly for the community to better understand the researcher and the research.

As with all research issues, related to the rank, age, gender and education of both participants and the researcher may arise. Awareness of these issues will go some way toward reducing their effect. Tactics such as conducting informal research in social settings, spending time gaining the trust of the community, and acting in a culturally sensitive manner will be applied to overcome difficulties should they arise.

Once the terms of participation have been agreed, a meeting will be held to introduce the research and researcher to community members. This will be followed by the first element of , data collection in each community and will involve scoping interviews and group discussions. The stage employs both consultation and cooperation to identify what impacts the community has experienced and believes it could experience in the future. Consultation will ask participants to consider a collection of impacts previously identified by the researcher and decide if they could or have happened in their community. Cooperation will involve a discussion of what other impacts have been experienced in the community. Data collection will continue until theoretical saturation is reached, that is, when discussions no longer reveal new information or theoretical developments (Punch, 1998).

Further consultation will take place in the form of focussed in-depth interviews to elicit more details regarding the impacts. The researcher will set the agenda of these interviews to investigate both the connections between impacts, and the personal experience of the impacts. The analysis of this material aims to interrogate the interaction and complexity of hazard impacts in communities. Discussions of personal experience will allow rich descriptions of the issues to evolve, facilitating an understanding of the circumstances and reality of disaster impacts (Phillips, 2002).

The next exercise will involve cooperation between the community and the researcher to prioritise the impacts. Based on the information derived from initial interviews and discussions, a questionnaire survey will be established to identify the priority impacts of the conununity. Prioritisation may involve community members quantitatively ranking impacts according to importance.

The findings of this exercise will be explored further through cooperation between researcher and participants in a series of group discussions. These sessions will allow explanation of why the priorities are as they are. This will aim to establish a rich qualitative understanding of why each impact is important to individuals and the community as a whole. It may also reveal explanations for any significant differences between identifiable groups. For example, if priorities vary according to gender, age or occupation.

The findings of these investigative exercises will inform the final, co-learning aspects of this process. Workshops and/or interviews will be established to address how we can

197

184 assess the impacts. The word 'we' is used here as the process of co-learning involves an exchange of ideas between researcher and participants. In a seminar format the researcher will propose some ways to measure and assess impacts (based on a review of current methods). Participants will be asked to contribute through the development or adaptation of these approaches and/or the design of new, locally appropriate techniques. The outcome of this process will be a community-specific impact assessment method based on local priorities and locally appropriate identification and measurement methods.

To conclude this data collection in the community, a community meeting will be held at which the researcher will present the findings of the community stage of the research. The community will be asked to critique the findings and to confirm that the information presented is a true reflection of their opinions. The community will be treated as a single entity for this exercise. A fuller analysis may reveal internal differences, although a strong coherence exists in Pacific island communities and consensus-building at the community level is a common approach for development programmes in the region (Vrolijks, 1998). The meeting will also provide an opportunity to debrief the process; with both researcher and participants identifying what they have learnt. This may be supplemented with informal debriefing in a social setting, such as a farewell gathering.

It was noted earlier that as a consequence of participation in this research project, community members may engage in collective action to enact local disaster impact assessments or undertake mitigation measures to address the impacts identified. This will take place independent of the researcher and is a positive outcome of the approach.

Data Collection Outside Communities To gain a holistic understanding of impacts it is necessary to incorporate the input of agencies outside the community who are involved in disaster management and recovery (for example, disaster professionals, NGOs, Government Ministries and Local (Provincial) Government). These agencies can offer valuable insight into both disaster impacts and assessments in Fiji. Their insight will be from quite a different perspective to that of the communities and so may reveal additional (or perhaps contradictory) information regarding community impacts.

Representatives of 'outside' agencies will be selected using purposive sampling. Potential participants will be those who currently playa role in disaster management in Fiji. These individuals will be contacted by email and/or telephone to invite them to participate. Personnel from 'outside' agencies will be interviewed about the impacts of cyclones at a community level in Fiji. Questions will be asked regarding what the impacts are and how they are connected. The questions will be similar to those posed in the early stage of community research and will be based on impacts previously identified by the researcher and 'new' impacts from community interviewees. These interviews will be followed by the distribution of a questionnaire regarding the prioritisation of impacts. Questionnaires will be compiled from those developed in the community research stage and will conducted face-to face with participants at the time of their interview. This exercise will demonstrate the prioritisation of impacts by outside agencies and this can be compared to the communities' prioritisations. Differences in priorities may have implications for service delivery and response.

198

185

Data Analysis The above process will be conducted in three communities in Fiji, resulting in three collections of disaster impact assessment methods specific to each community. The process will reveal a great deal about the impacts of tropical cyclones at a community level in Fiji and identify or generate locally appropriate assessment methods. The research also has a wider application and can be used to further develop the community based DIA. Analysis will be made of the similarities and differences between communities and the impacts and assessment methods they identify, supplemented by analysis of 'outside' perspectives. Common characteristics, appearing in each community can contribute to a 'core DIA' which can be adapted and added to by other communities in Fiji. The impacts and assessment methods that are unique to each community can be retained in a 'tool box' from which other communities can draw if appropriate and relevant to their situation (see Figure 2).

Figure 2:

Developing Community-Specific Disaster Impacts Assessments.

There is a temptation to merge the information from each community and then apply this single community-based DIA nationally, disregarding the differences between communities. However, this challenges the participatory and location-specific process of developing community based DIA. Whilst a nationally generic community-based DIA may enhance ownership as a result of the responsibility for assessment being placed on the community, a far greater sense of ownership and importantly, empowerment is likely to arise from the community being involved in the development of their own assessment techniques. It should be noted that there may be a problem with the interface between different assessment methods and the reporting mechanisms of authorities. However, this potential should not prevent the investigation of community assessment methods and practice, recognising the heterogeneity of communities and the value of locally defined, appropriate and participatory disaster impact assessment.

Proposed Outcomes This paper has introduced a method to develop community based disaster impact assessments using a collaborative and reflexive mixed-method approach. The research approach will result in a number of outputs:

199

186 1. enhanced awareness of cyclone impacts for members of the participant communities as a result of their participation in the research, 2. development of community specific DIA in each participating community, improving local decision making capacity and offering local data to national disaster management coordinators both before (to guide mitigation) and after a disaster (to guide recovery), 3. greater understanding, for practitioners and academics, of impacts at a community level in Fiji, particularly the complexity of interactions between impacts, and the generation of qualitative data incorporating acceptance of subjective experiences to add a new dimension to disaster impact assessments, 4. greater understanding of local and 'official' prioritisation of impacts, 5. contribution to the literature on participatory methods and approaches to disaster, especially at the community level and, 6. The potential to extend project to develop community specific DIA in other communities in Fiji.

Conclusion A collaborative and reflective mixed methods approach has the potential to generate detailed insights into the impacts of tropical cyclones in communities in Fiji. The approach incorporates a range of techniques to access data from a range of sources to generate a comprehensive picture of impacts. This information can be used to develop locally appropriate community based disaster impact assessments across Fiji, increasing the role of the community in disaster management to reduce future negative impacts.

References Benson, C. 1997. The Economic Impact of Natural Disasters in the Fiji Islands, Overseas Development Institute, London. Campbell, 1. R. 1984. Dealing with Disaster: Hurricane Response in Fiji. Pacific Islands Development Program, East-West Centre, Honolulu. Campbell, 1. R. and Chung, 1. 1986. Post-Disaster Assessment: B. Field Survey. EastWest Centre, Honolulu. Chung, J., Kaloumaira, A., Planitz, A. and Rynn, 1. 2000. Natural Disaster Reduction in Pacific Island Countries. South Pacific Disaster Reduction Programme, Suva, Fiji. Cornwall, A. 1996. Towards participatory practice: participatory rural appraisal (PRA) and the participatory process, In, De Koning, K. and Martin, M. (Editors), Participatory Research in Health: Issues and Experiences, Zen Books Ltd, London CRED/EM-DAT. 2004. Country Profile for Natural Disasters: Fiji [Online] EM-DAT: The OFDAICRED International Disaster Database, Universite Catholique de Louvain Brussels, Belgium Available from: http://www.em-dat.net [Accessed 30.04.04]. Darcy, J. and Hofmann, c.-A. 2003. According to need? Needs assessment and decision- making in the humanitarian sector. Overseas Development Institute, London. Fairbairn, T. 1. J. 1997. The Economic Impact of Natural Disasters in the South Pacific with special reference to Fiji, Western Samoa, Niue and Papua New Guinea, RAS/92/360 South Pacific Disaster Reduction Programme, Suva, Fiji. Fiji Meteorological Office (undated) The Climate of Fiji [Online] Fiji Meteorological Office Suva Available from: http://www.met.gov.fj/climate_fiji.html [Accessed 11.05.04].

200

187

Guba, E. G. and Lincoln, Y. S. 1994. Competing paradigms in qualitative research, In: Denzin, N. S. and Lincoln, Y. S. (Editors), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, pp.105-117. Hilhorst, D. 2004. Complexity and diversity: Unlocking social domains of disaster response, In: Bankoff, G., Frerks, G. and Hilhorst, D. (Editors), Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development and People, Earthscan, London, pp.236. Kumar, S. 2002. Methods for Community Participation: A Complete Guide for Practitioners. ITDG Publishing, London. Leslie, H. and Storey, D. 2004. Practical issues. In: Scheyvens, R. and Storey, D. (Editors), Development Fieldwork: A Practical Guide, Sage Publications, London. Maguire, P. 1987. Doing Participatory Research: a Feminist Approach. The Center for International Education, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts. McLean, R. F. 1977. The hurricane in the Eastern Islands of Fiji: An historical analysis, 1875-1975. In: Brookfield, H. (Editor), The Hurricane Hazard: Natural Disaster and Small Populations, Development Studies Centre, Australian National University for UNESCO, Canberra, pp.9-63. Nightingale, A. 2003. A feminist in the forest: Situated knowledges and mixing methods in natural resource management. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographers, 2:77-90. OCHA. 2003. Fiji - Cyclone Ami OCHA Situation Report No.5 [Online] Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Geneva Available from: http://wwww.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/6686f45896fl5dbc852567ae00530132/7 5 49db6a8467184ac 12 5 6cd 7005bc5 a3 ?OpenDocument [Accessed 11.05.04]. Phillips, B. 2002. Qualitative methods and disaster research, In, Stallings, R. A. (Editor), Methods of Disaster Research, Xlibris Corporation, Philadelphia, pp.194-211. Pretty, J. N. 1995. Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development, 23: 1247-1263. Punch, K. F. 1998. Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches. Sage Publications Ltd., London. Rocheleau, D. 1995. Maps, numbers, text and context: Mixing methods in feminist political ecology. Professional Geographer, 47:458-466. Stephenson, R. S. 1994. Disaster Assessment, Disaster Management Training Programme, United Nations Development Programme and Department of Humanitarian Affairs, New York. Suar, D., Mandai, M. K. and Khuntia, R. 2002. Supercyclone in Orissa: An assessment of psychological status of survivors. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15:313-319. UN. 1994. Report of the Global Conference on the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States. United Nations, Barbados. Available from: http://www.un.org/documents/galconfl67/aconfl67-9.htm [Accessed 22.07.03]. Vrolijks, L. 1998. Guideline for Community Vulnerability Analysis: An Approach for Pacific Island Countries. South Pacific Disaster Reduction Programme, Suva, Fiji.

201

Blank Page

202

Appendix B

Information and Consent Form

Name of Project: Measuring the impacts of tropical cyclones in communities in Fiji

You are invited to participate in a study of the impact of tropical cyclones. The purpose of the study is to identify the impacts of tropical cyclones that are experienced in communities in Fiji and possible methods to measure these impacts.

The study is being conducted by Kirstie Méheux of the Department of Physical Geography at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia. (Telephone Fiji Mobile: 9297 446 Australia: +61 2 9850 9670). Research is being conducted to meet the requirements for the degree of a PhD in Physical Geography under the supervision of Dr Dale Dominey-Howes, Department of Physical Geography, telephone: +61 2 9850 9679.

Your participation in this research is voluntary. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to take part in one or more of the following activities:

□ Interview: discuss your experiences of tropical cyclone events in an interview with the researchers. Interviews will last 30 minutes to one hour.

□ Questionnaire: complete a questionnaire which will take approximately ten minutes. Questions relate to your experiences of tropical cyclones.

□ Group discussion: discuss cyclone impacts in your village and ways to assess or measure the impacts. Discussions will take two to three hours.

You may be asked questions that you feel to be personal or private. Your responses will be treated confidentially, but you do not have to answer if you do not wish to. You may mention traditional or cultural knowledge or practices, if you do not wish this to be included in the research please inform the researcher. If you give permission your responses will be recorded using audiotape to allow researchers to accurately recall your comments. You may find the discussion of some topics distressing or upsetting. You may discontinue your participation at any time.

Any information or personal details gathered in the course of the study are confidential. No individual will be identified in any publication of the results. Anonymous data may be shared with the National Disaster Management Office in Suva, researchers at the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission and the University of the South Pacific. If you do not wish data provided by yourself to be released to the organisations, please tick here: ______

203

If you decide to participate, you are free to withdraw from further participation in the research at any time without having to give a reason and without consequence.

It is intended that the findings of this research will be published in a series of peer-reviewed articles. These are publicly available and can be supplied by the researcher. A copy of the completed thesis will also be sent to the national library.

I, ______have read (or, where appropriate, have had read to me) and understand the information above and any questions I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction. I agree to participate in this research, knowing that I can withdraw from further participation in the research at any time without consequence. I have been given a copy of this form to keep.

Participant’s Name: (block letters)

Participant’s Signature: Date: ______

Investigator’s Name: (block letters)

Investigator’s Signature: Date: ______

The ethical aspects of this study have been approved by the Macquarie University Ethics Review Committee (Human Research). If you have any complaints or reservations about any ethical aspect of your participation in this research, you may contact the Ethics Review Committee through its Secretary (telephone +61 2 9850 7854; email [email protected]). Alternatively you may contact Akapusi Tuifagalele (telephone 331 8089) of the NDMO in Fiji, who can forward your comments to Macquarie University. Any complaint you make will be treated in confidence and investigated, and you will be informed of the outcome.

If you wish to review a transcript of this interview, please tick here ______. (INVESTIGATOR'S [OR PARTICIPANT'S] COPY)

204

Appendix C

NA VAKACACA KEI NA REVUREVU NI CAGILABA KINA LEWE NI VANUA E VITI

NAI VAKAMACALA TAUMADA:

I E mai vakayacora tiko e dua na vakadidike vakavuli ena noda vanua ko Kirstie Meheux ka gole mai ena tabana ni Physical Geography ena Macquarie University, Sydney Australia. E sa mai cakacaka vakaveivuke toka ena Tabana ni Veiqaravi ni Leqa Tubukoso - [National Disaster Management Office]

Na vakadidike vakavuli oqo ena vukei koya me rawata kina na i vola koroi cecere vakavuli na PhD ena [Geography] Na i Iiuliu vakacakacaka nei Kirstie Meheux 0 Dr Dale Dominey Howes - ena naba ni talevoni Australia - 61 - 2 - 98809679. Ko Kirstie Meheux ena nona tiko voli oqo e Viti ena rawa ni tauri ena Mobile Phone No: 9297446 se mai Australia ena gauna e lesu tale kina ena 61-2-98509670.

NA VAKA I TAVI KINA VAKADIDIKE

Na noda vakaitavi yadudua na lewe ni vanua e dui vakatau sara ga vei keda ka sega ni vakasaurarataki. Na nomu vakatavi ena vakadidike oqo ena rawa ni na tara eso na vakanananu lesu me baleta eso na ka ka yaco, sara ga kina na bula yadudua ni matavuvale, vakakina kivei ira eso a mai vakaleqai beka kina na wekada, kei na sona veika bibi e dau tarai keda ena vuleqa tubukoso vaka oqo.

Na veitukutuku ko ni na wasea mai kece oqo ena maroroi, Ia ena vakatau ga kevaka eda via wasea se sega.

Ena so na gauna eso nai tukutuku eda solia edau vukiea na kena vakatorocaketaki na veitabana era gadreva. E vica na veitabana ena rawa ni ratou vakayagataka na nomuni tukutuku (information) e wili kini na National Disaster Management Office, Suva na South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission [SOPAC] kei na University of the South Pacific.

E via vakamatatataki ni na rawa ni volai eso na i vola dusidusl se i talanoa (peer- reviewed articles) ena tukutuku e na vakasokumuni ena vakadidike oqo. Esa gadrevi ka kerei koto yani kina na nomuni veitokoni.

Survey Project: February - October,2005

205

NAI WASEWASE NI VAKADIDIKE KEI NA VEIVAKADONUI

E tolu toka nai wasewase ni vakadidike oqo ka mo digitaka ena nomu na toqa e dua na 1loma ni bai [ ] vakarautaki toka era ena kena cava o via vakaitavi kina.

Interview 1. Veitalanoa se veivosaki' yadudua kei Kirstie Meheux ena veitalanoa yadudua oqo ena vakatarogi kina vei iko na veika ko a sotava ena gauna ni cagilaba, ka gadrevi mo ni wasea vakamatata na ka ko ni a sotava. Oqo ena taura e 30 na miniti.

2. Questionaire Na kerna vakaleweni na sau ni veitaro rauta e 3-4 na drauni veva. Na taro ena vakabibi toka ga kina na veika ko sotava ena gauna ni cagilaba.

3 Group Discussion Na veitalanoa vakawasewase oqo ena veitalanoataki kina na revurevu ni cagilaba ena koro kei na sala ni kena laurai na revurevu (impact) ni cagilaba Na veitalanoa vakaiwasewase oqo ena taura e 2-3 na aua (2-3hrs)

Survey Project: February - October,2005

206

NA NOQU VEIVAKADONUI MEU VAKAITAVI KINA VAKADIDIKE NI REVUREVU NI CAGlLABA E NOQU KORO.

CONSENT FORM TO BE PART OF THE STUDY ON TROPICAL CYCLONE IN FIJI

Koi au ko ______au sa wilika ka sa

matata vei au na I naki ni vakadidike oqo. Kau gadreva meu vakaitavi kina me vaka au sa toqa toka ena loma ni bai vakarautaki e cake.

Au kila talega ni tu vei au na galala meu wilika se raica lesu na I sau ni taro se veitalanoa au a vakaitavi kina.

Participants Name Yacaqu: ______1 Signature: ______2

Investigator's Name Yaca I koya ka qarava na vakadidike: ______3 Signature: ______4

Nai tuvatuva ni veivagalalataki kei na veivakadonui ena veitarotarogi /study oqo e kovuti toka ena I tuvatuva ni vakadidike ka sa vakadonui vakamatabose ena Macquarie University ethics Review Committee. Ke tiko e dua na nomuni vakatataro ena rawa ni ko ni veitaratara vei koya na kena vunivola - televoni - 61-2-98507854 - email (ethics(ij)mq.edu.au) se veitaratara vei Akapusi Tuifagalele talevoni 3313400 - NDMO Fiji.

Survey Project: February - October,2005

207

Appendix D

Begins on following page

208

209

210

211

Appendix E

Information and Consent Form

Name of Project: Community Participation in Damage Assessment in Fiji

You are invited to participate in a study of community participation in damage assessment in Fiji. The purpose of the study is to develop a critical understanding of community participation in damage assessments and to make recommendations to maximise the benefits of community participation in damage assessments.

The study is being conducted by Kirstie Méheux of the Department of Physical Geography at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia. (Telephone Fiji Mobile: 9297 446 Australia: +61 2 9850 9670 Email: [email protected]). Research is being conducted to meet the requirements for the degree of a PhD in Physical Geography under the supervision of Dr Dale Dominey-Howes, Department of Physical Geography, telephone: +61 2 9850 9679.

Your participation in this research is voluntary. If you decide to participate, you will be asked to take part in one or more of the following activities:

□ Interview: discuss your experiences of damage assessments in an interview with the researchers. Interviews may last 30 minutes to one hour. □ Group discussion: discuss your experiences of community participation and damage assessment. Discussions may take two to three hours.

Please tick each activity you are willing to participate in.

Any information or personal details gathered in the course of the study are confidential. No individual will be identified in any publication of the results. Anonymous data may be shared with the National Disaster Management Office in Suva. If you do not wish data provided by yourself to be released to the organisation, please tick here: ______

If you decide to participate, you are free to withdraw from further participation in the research at any time without having to give a reason and without consequence.

212

Information and Consent Form

Participant’s Name: (block letters)

Participant’s Signature: Date: ______

Investigator’s Name: (block letters)

Investigator’s Signature: Date: ______

The ethical aspects of this study have been approved by the Macquarie University Ethics Review Committee (Human Research). If you have any complaints or reservations about any ethical aspect of your participation in this research, you may contact the Ethics Review Committee through its Secretary (telephone +61 2 9850 7854; email [email protected]). Any complaint you make will be treated in confidence and investigated, and you will be informed of the outcome.

If you wish to review a transcript of this interview, please tick here ______.

(INVESTIGATOR'S [OR PARTICIPANT'S] COPY)

213

Appendix F

Generalised roles of research participants classified as ‘government officer’ or ‘disaster management practitioner’

ID Organisation/role Date of interview V134 Senior Government Officer September 2005 V135 Senior Government Officer September 2005 S1 Government Officer October 2005 S2 Government Officer October 2005 S3 Government Officer October 2005 S4 Senior Government Officer October 2005 S5 Government Officer October 2005 S6 International disaster management organisation February 2007 S7 International disaster management organisation February 2007 S8 Government Officer February 2007 S9 Government Officer February 2007 S10 Senior Government February 2007 S11 International disaster management organisation February 2007 S12 = V134 February 2007 S13 Regional NGO Secretariat February 2007 S14 Regional disaster management organisation February 2007 S15 Regional disaster management organisation February 2007 S16 Senior government officer February 2007 S17 National NGO February 2007 S18 Senior Government officer February 2007 S19 Senior Government officer February 2007 S20 Government officer February 2007 S21 Senior Government officer February 2007 S22 Regional disaster management NGO secretariat March 2007

214