This paper is based on research recently undertaken at
WEDC to develop guidelines for the planning and management
of emergency sanitation programmes

Bob Reed (7183250)

Peter Harvey (1995346)

English

Loughborough University Institutional Repository

HARVEY and REED9728th WEDC Conference Kolkata (Calcutta), India, 2002Emergency infrastructure planningP. A. Harvey and R. A. Reed, WEDCSUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENTAL SANITATION AND WATER SERVICESHumanitarian interventions following disasters requirerapid but systematic planning. Priorities are often not asthey at first appear and ill-founded assumptions are rou-tinely made, especially by less-experienced staff. Capacitybuilding among the affected population and longer-termsustainability are commonly neglected by implementingorganisations in the rush to action. Members of the affectedcommunity are rarely given the opportunity to identify thecauses of problems that affect them or to help plan appro-priate solutions. Emergency water supply and sanitationprogrammes, in particular, are often implemented by per-sonnel with limited experience of post-disaster situations,limited training and few resources to guide them.Emergency infrastructure planning should be conductedby following an assessment and design process specific topost-disaster situations. It is essential that infrastructuredevelopments meet the emergency needs without detrimen-tal effect on longer-term objectives. Programmes should bedesigned to facilitate rapid procurement of funds andresources, immediate implementation of emergency meas-ures and capacity building for long-term sustainability.Planning infrastructure in post-disaster situations posesspecific challenges which differ considerably from thosefaced in ‘normal’ or stable conditions. There may be limitedinstitutional capacity, expertise and resources to assist inthe assessment and design process. Risk factors are oftenhigh whereby the consequences of mistakes or delays maybe disastrous. Furthermore, community members may bedisorientated, especially when first arriving in a new envi-ronment, or there may be a large proportion of unaccom-panied women or children. Community and local govern-ment structures may also be severely disjointed.In emergency situations there is normally limited time forplanning, and situations may change rapidly. There is oftenuncertainty about the future and hence appropriate designlives can only be estimated. As it is difficult to predict thelife-span of refugee camps and other ‘temporary’ settle-ments, in such situations it is best to plan on a cost-effectivelong-term basis.This paper is based on research recently undertaken atWEDC to develop guidelines for the planning and manage-ment of emergency sanitation programmes.The planning processThe first step in the planning process is to determinewhether intervention is appropriate. Assuming externalassistance is required, the political and security context willhave a major influence on where agencies are able work ordecide to intervene. Insecure conflict-affected areas may betoo dangerous to work in, or access may be extremelyhazardous or even impossible.Where the above considerations are not major con-straints, the over-riding factor to be considered for anemergency programme is public health. The purpose of anyprogramme should be to sustain or improve the overallhealth status and well-being of the affected population.Many diseases that occur after disasters are linked toinadequate water supply or poor sanitation and hygienepractices. Frequently, the most common cause of death inyoung refugee children is diarrhoea (Davis and Lambert,2001). The importance of clean water, sanitation andhygiene in such situations is therefore far-reaching.Where available, appropriate morbidity and mortalitydata can be used to determine whether intervention isappropriate and if so the degree of urgency required. Crudemortality rate is the most commonly used indicator andapproximate threshold levels for different levels of severityare indicated in Table 1.Where mortality rates are unacceptable, poor health iswidespread or where the potential for disease transmissionis high, intervention is necessary and the action planningprocess should commence immediately.The action planning process (Figure 1) is divided into fivestages. The time-frames for these activities vary but typicaltimes for an affected population of 10,000 are indicatedbelow each stage.Rapid assessment and priority settingAssessment is an important aspect of the planning processand one of the keys to a successful water supply andsanitation programme (Adams, 1999). In emergency situ-ations, initial assessments must be rapid to ensure thatTable 1. Threshold levels for mortality (adapted fromHakewill and Morden, 1991)SITUATION CRUDE MORTALITY RATE /10,000/DAY INTERVENTION LEVEL Stable and  under control <1 Short-term minimum objective Serious situation 1-2 Immediate minimum objective Emergency/Out of control  2-5 Unacceptable Major catastrophe  >5 Very unacceptable HARVEY and REED98emergency measures can be implemented quickly, but theyshould still be comprehensive to ensure that the right needsare met and to prevent inappropriate actions. The assess-ment process may be divided into three stages.Data collectionThe speedy collection of relevant data is a necessary basisfor assessment. It is most easily assisted by a series ofchecklists that remind users of what is relevant. Eachchecklist should be sub-divided to ensure that the user givesequal attention to all aspects of the service or facility. Thisis done by dividing the list into ‘quality’, ‘quantity’ and‘usage’.  Relevant information should be collected throughmapping, observation and interview. Each checklist can becompleted rapidly on location and data recorded in anotebook.Sector analysisThe collected data for each sector is analysed throughcomparison with recommended minimum objectives forquality, quantity and usage of facilities or practices. Therecommended objectives used are based on the SphereProject Minimum Standards in Water Supply and Sanita-tion (Sphere Project, 1999).These objectives are divided into immediate, short-termand long-term to represent appropriate targets for differentstages of an emergency programme. The immediate stagerepresents the first month of a programme, the short-termstage covers the first six months and the long-term stagerepresents any further duration.Comparison between collected data and minimum objec-tives can be done by inspection, however in complexemergencies a more rigorous approach is recommended.Numerical comparison is one approach that can be takenin which the collected data is compared with the minimumobjective and a score allocated depending on how closelythey align (Harvey et al., 2002).Prioritisation of interventionOnce the collected data has been analysed through com-parison with recommended minimum objectives the resultscan be used to determine priority intervention sectors,priority geographical areas and to determine the degree ofurgency required for intervention.Outline programme designThe purpose of the outline programme design is to rapidlyproduce a plan of action for raising the infrastructure to astandard compatible with the Sphere guidelines and thelikely life-span of the settlement. It should also act as aninitial proposal to facilitate the speedy procurement ofnecessary finances. At this stage the design is producedprimarily by agency field staff. Consultation with theaffected community is kept to a minimum in order toprevent unnecessarily raising expectations prior to pro-gramme approval and the release of appropriate funds.The first step in the outline programme design is to reviewthe data collected during the assessment and highlight themain problems, constraints and points of interest. It is thennecessary to determine appropriate solutions for eachproblem area and whether a separate or single strategy isappropriate. Selected solutions should be compared withcurrent practice to determine whether the problem istechnical, managerial, social or financial, and appropriatemethods for overcoming such problems should be decidedupon.An outline design should include a simplified logicalframework, personnel, resource and logistical require-ments, a generalised activity plan and time-frame, and anoutline budget. Provision for contingencies should nor-mally be made within this. Such a design can be used as anoutline programme proposal to inform the organisationalheadquarters or donor of the overall aim and focus of theprogramme and the estimated costs. Initial approval in theimmediate emergency stage of a programme is normallygranted rapidly and appropriate resources and personnelare mobilised by the agency with great speed.As soon as the outline programme design has beenproduced immediate action can commence.Immediate actionImmediate action is designed to meet existing and immi-nent urgent needs. It should involve relatively simple emer-gency interventions that can be implemented rapidly. Theemphasis should be on preventing the spread of diseasethrough the provision of basic infrastructure (services andamenities) and the promotion of good practice.The rapid assessment and priority-setting stage is likelyto identify the need for the immediate provision of basicfacilities or activities. Assuming that the agency has thecapacity to do this, it will allow them to act whilst they orother agencies design an appropriate longer-term pro-gramme.Figure 1. Action planning processImplementation(months - years)Detailed programme design(2-3 days)Immediate action(days - weeks)Outline programme design(1-2 days)Rapid assessment and priority setting(1-2 days)HARVEY and REED99Although it is essential that immediate actions have themaximum beneficial impact and that they can be imple-mented rapidly, it is also important that they do not conflictwith or complicate long-term needs and plans. It is also anunfortunate fact that funds are more readily availableimmediately after a disaster than at a later date. A wrongdecision or inappropriate solution at the beginning fre-quently causes insoluble problems in future months andyears.The basic principles of immediate action can be summa-rised as follows:? Select emergency measures that most closely reflectthose proposed in the outline design.? If that is not possible select the most appropriate actionsthat conflict least with the proposed longer-term ac-tions.Once the immediate actions have been selected they needto be implemented immediately and rapidly. The level oftechnology is usually basic to allow rapid implementation,and the emphasis is on temporary emergency measuresrather than long-term solutions.Detailed programme designThe detailed programme design is an extension and elabo-ration of the outline design. The primary difference is thatit is produced through consultation with key stakeholderssuch as representatives of different groups within theaffected community, local authorities and institutions andother humanitarian actors in the area. The first step in thedetailed design process is to identify key stakeholders andtheir interests and importance in relation to the pro-gramme.Community participation at all stages of the designprocess should ensure that infrastructure developmentsand programme activities are socio-culturally acceptable,and will lead to improved overall sustainability. It will alsoencourage the community to take an active role in decisionmaking and counter the frequently experienced move topassive resignation and a dependency on outside assist-ance. Community leaders should be involved in the consul-tation process but it is also important that vulnerablegroups, such as disabled people and female-headed house-holds, are represented.Additional data needs to be gathered through interviews,questionnaires, community mapping  and meetings withmembers of the affected community. Collecting key infor-mation about community attitudes, behaviour and culturalpractices will prevent the selection of inappropriate ac-tions.Agency staff can work with community members toselect detailed actions and develop activity plans and time-frames. By working together it should be possible todetermine responsibilities, materials, equipment, facilitiesand services required for implementation. A budget shouldthen be produced and the consequences of this, includingrespective costs, discussed with the relevant stakeholders.The detailed programme design serves two purposes: toact as a detailed programme proposal for approval forlonger-term implementation and the allocation of appro-priate funds, and to facilitate the smooth implementationof the programme.ImplementationImplementation management comprises three dimensions:monitoring, contingency planning and supervision. Eachof these dimensions should consider various key implemen-tation components, such as staff, resources, costs, time,logistics and information exchange.Emergency infrastructure programmes face specific prob-lems and challenges during implementation. By definition,emergencies are unpredictable and often situations changerapidly. Uncertainties regarding population, accessibility,security and supplies are common. An essential componentof implementation is to monitor the situation on a day-by-day basis and combine this with an appropriate informa-tion flow system to pre-empt internal or external circum-stances which may affect the programme.In emergency situations it is especially important thatmanagers are ready to respond to rapid changes in thecurrent situation. Appropriate contingency plans should beput in place to respond to possible scenarios such as asudden large influx of refugees or an outbreak of cholera.Effective programme management and monitoring willminimise the problems associated with such potentiallyvolatile situations.ConclusionsIt is essential that a systematic approach be taken whenplanning any infrastructure development programme in apost-disaster context. Common mistakes and short-fallingsare often caused by insufficient attention to detailed assess-ment and programme design. The main conclusions of thispaper are:? Comprehensive planning of appropriate infrastructurein emergency situations is essential to ensure pro-gramme effectiveness.? Assessment and priority setting should be based onqualitative, quantitative and behavioural data.? A balance between speed and comprehensive planningshould be sought at all times.? Immediate emergency measures should be planned inharmony with longer-term needs and sustainability.? The involvement of affected communities in detailedprogramme design is a key ingredient of programmesuccess.? Operational difficulties can be overcome and futurecapacity enhanced through the use of systematic moni-toring and appropriate contingency plans.HARVEY and REED100? Staff preparation and training is a key component ofany successful emergency programme.AcknowledgementsThe ‘Assessment and Programme Design for EmergencySanitation’ project (R6873) has been funded by the Depart-ment for International Development (DFID) of the BritishGovernment.The following organisations have collaborated in thisresearch: Development through Resource Organisationand Planning (DROP), India; International Committee ofthe Red Cross (ICRC), Geneva; International Federation ofRed Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), Geneva;Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), Belgium and Holland;Oxfam, UK and Ireland; and United Nations High Com-missioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Geneva. This projectwould not have been possible without their support andencouragement. Sohrab Baghri of Plan International un-dertook much of the initial research in the early stages ofthis project.Opinions noted within this paper do not necessarilyrepresent those of DFID or the collaborators, but are solelythose of the authors.P. A. HARVEY, Assistant Programme Manager, WEDC,Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire,U.K.R. A. REED, Senior Programme Manager, WEDC,Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire,U.K.ReferencesAdams, J. (1999) Managing Water Supply and Sanitationin Emergencies. Oxfam: Oxford. Davis, J. and Lambert, R. (2001) Engineering in Emergen-cies: A practical guide for relief workers. RedR/IT Pub-lications: London.Hakewill, P.A. and Morden, A. (1991) Monitoring andEvaluation of Relief Programmes Tropical DoctorHarvey, P.A., Baghri, S., and Reed, R.A. (2002) EmergencySanitation: Assessment and programme design. WEDC,Loughborough University: UK.Sphere Project (1999) Humanitarian Charter and Mini-mum Standards in Disaster Response. Standing commit-tee for Humanitarian Response (SCHR): Geneva.

Emergency infrastructure planning

https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/Emergency_infrastructure_planning/9588071/files/17227130.pdf

Emergency infrastructure planning

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Loughborough University Institutional Repository