Saltar al contenido principal

Community-based disaster risk management planning in the Gaza strip

Países
territorio Palestino ocupado
Fuentes
Diakonie
Fecha de publicación

Executive summary

This report presents the results of a comparative disaster risk assessment and CBDRM planning exercise conducted by Diakonie Katastrophenhilfe (DKH) and the Palestine Agricultural Development Association (PARC) in the Gaza Strip. The assessment is one component of the implementation of the community-based disaster risk management approach for the first time in the Gaza Strip. The CBDRM approach comprises six stages including community selection, rapport building, disaster risk assessment, CBDRM planning, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation. Accordingly, this report discusses the outcomes of the first four stages. The next steps will be implemented in cooperation with DKH, PARC, and other organizations interested in supporting the assessed communities to become more resilient against present and future disaster risks.

Regarding community selection, staff from DKH and PARC conducted sixty-one key informant interviews (KIIs) and 16 FGDs including participants from governmental and non-governmental organizations active in the Gaza Strip. Targeted communities were those in which the members share geographical boundaries, culture, perspectives, and interests, have strong social ties and work jointly for common purposes. Among these communities, a priority was given to those that are prone to hazards and suffer high levels of socioeconomic vulnerability. This selection process resulted in an initial list of thirty-nine communities. To shorten the list of targeted communities to seventeen, the hazard maps originally developed by PARC and Diakonie Katastrophenhilfe in 2014 for eight hazards had an additional three hazards added, based on the findings from the KIIs and FGDs. The hazards assessed for the communities were water rainfall scarcity, groundwater scarcity, groundwater salinity, groundwater nitrate pollution, flood, flash flood, war destruction, environmental facilities, coastal erosion, extreme weather conditions, and herbicide spraying by Israeli aircrafts. The full thirty-nine communities were assessed in terms of their community characteristics, access, security to project staff, hazards, and general vulnerability, ultimately resulting in the selection of the 17 communities.

The seventeen targeted communities were then visited by the CBDRM team to build rapport. The CBDRM team engaged with the CBOs and community leaders active in these communities. Subsequently, the CBDRM team conducted three workshops in each community to assess comparative disaster risks, identify priority hazards and risk scenarios, and establish CBDRM plans. In each community, the CBDRM team also established Community Protection Committees (CPCs) that helped to verify and finalize the plans. These committees were trained on CBDRM and advocacy and will further be engaged in the Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan of PARC.

The selected communities were:

  • Al Suraij, Al Zanna, Al Fukhari, Al Mawasi of Khan Younis and Khuza’a (Khan Younis Governorate)

  • Al Amal, Al Salateen, Fado’us and Um el Nasr (North Gaza Governorate)

  • Al Sawarha, Hekr Al Jame, and’ Al Berka, (Deir Al-Balah Governorate)

  • Wadi Gaza, Al Malalha, and Abu Hurayara (Gaza Governorate)

  • The Sweden Village and Shukat Al Sufi (Rafah Governorate)

The comparative disaster risk assessment showed that the assessed communities had risk scores ranging from 22% to 42%. The most at-risk communities were found to be Al Zanna, Al Suraij, Shokat as Sufi, the Sweden Village, and Khuza’a, whose scores ranged from 34 to 42%. These communities are all located in the southern governorates of Gaza, which face more water scarcity and water quality deterioration. Four of these communities are also border communities and face a high risk of war destruction and loss of crops because of herbicide spraying by Israeli aircraft. The Sweden village suffers uniquely from the coastal erosion hazard, being situated close to the shoreline to the south of Rafah. The populations of these communities are also highly dependent on natural resources, as they are primarily farmers and fishers.

The seventeen targeted communities prioritized fifty-three hazards for their CBDRM plans – three each, except two communities that prioritized four. Of the fifty-three hazards, forty-five were related to the hazards used by PARC and DKH hazard mapping for the purpose of the comparative disaster risk assessment, showing the high relevance of these hazards. Additionally, most of the other hazards prioritized by the communities were related to the hazards used by PARC and DKH, such as tap water pollution (4 communities), groundwater organic pollution (1 community), and industrial facilities (1 community). The hazard that fit the least with those selected for the disaster risk assessment was the fishing occupational hazard, selected by two communities in which most members are fishers.

The CBDRM plans for these communities are also summarized in this report. Some of the measures were preventive, mostly related to manmade hazards such as environmental and industrial facilities, including campaigning to relocate these facilities. Other measures were mitigative, such as establishing structures to mitigate the impacts of floods and flash floods. For hazards such as war destruction, provision of well-equipped shelters, and preparing emergency preparedness and response plans were a common theme.

This comparative disaster risk assessment and CBDRM planning report does not cover all population groups in the Gaza Strip, instead of focusing mainly on the communities that are more connected, socially related, and actively supporting each other. This leaves some population groups, mainly refugee camps and urban centers, unassessed. Other approaches, or an adapted CBDRM approach, are needed for these communities. In addition, the data used in this report were collected primarily by the communities themselves, which is empowering to the communities but also requires some caution regarding the accuracy of the data. Further details on the CBDRM plans of the assessed communities can be found with their respective Community Protection Committees or PARC.