STEP 4. INTRODUCING THE TRAINING 4.1 Formal start of the activity Depending on the local context, there may be a formal protocol of activities to start off with. These activities may be very important as a first step to earn the trust of the participants.These might include:
- Registration of the participants
- Opening prayer
- National or local anthem
- Opening or welcome remarks
- Introduction of the participants
Do not hesitate to use games for the introduction of the participants. For example, the facilitator and participants may introduce themselves through passing a ball from each other. Whoever gets the ball introduces himself/herself. This simple game provides a friendly atmosphere eliminating the barrier between participants and facilitator. 4.2 Rationales and Objectives The training formally starts with the presentation of rationales and objectives. The facilitator should explain to the participants why the training is being initiated in the community and what would be their participation. The facilitator should emphasize to the participants the benefits of the activity to the community without promising of solving all the problems. In other words, the facilitator should clearly explain that the success of the activity greatly depends on the cooperation of the participants. In explaining the rationales and objectives, the following guide questions are worth considering:
- What is the project? Whose project is it?
- Why is it important for the community?
- What are the tools/methods that will be used in the community?
- Who are the key actors? What is their role before, during and after the training?
- What are the expected benefits for the community? Who will benefit from the project?
For the outside facilitator, language barrier, achieving people’s trust, and understanding the humor of the local people are some of the difficulties that might hinder communication with the participants. If the outside facilitator is not so confident to overcome all these difficulties, one of the best ways is to ask someone from the community to play the role as facilitator. The following are some of the advantages of having local facilitator:
- People are more comfortable to talk
- There is no language barrier
- The local facilitator has already an idea of the community issues and thus he/she can anticipate the answers and ask more relevant questions
- The activity becomes self-sustainable in a sense that it is the local people themselves who facilitate and participate with less intervention from the outside
- The outside facilitator can focus on participant observation and understand the power play between the participants of which they are not aware of
Another smart way to proceed for introducing the training to the participants is to invite people from other villages who have been involved in building and using a 3D map in the past. Those may share their experience in words which often speak to the participants (figure 18). It further facilitates a horizontal transfer of experience instead of relying on the sole outsiders’ knowledge of the facilitator.
4.3 Expectations Check and Training Needs Assessment This step is aimed at identifying everyone’s expectations and see whether there are gaps with the facilitator’s expectations. In this activity, the facilitator should be clear enough of what is doable or not. It might disappoint the participants at the start but it prevents them from false expectations. Perhaps the simplest way to conduct an expectation check is to ask the participants directly of what they expect from the activity. If the participants are quite timid to speak, a pen and a paper may be distributed so that participants can just write and give their expectations anonymously. The pieces of paper containing the expectations may be posted on the board and the facilitator can just directly indicate to the participants whether those expectations are achievable or not. In some cases, DRR may not be identified or listed as the priority or urgent problems in the community. Poverty, unsustainable livelihood, food security, and health problems are more likely to be the priority problems. However, this does not mean that we should not continue the P3DM activity that is intended primarily for DRR. This only means that the development of DRR plans and strategies during the training should be widened to include those community issues as part of the DRR efforts. One particular way to conduct an expectation check is training needs assessment through a scoring/ranking activity. This method allows the facilitator to understand what are the most important or urgent problems in the community that affect people the most. The following simple steps can be done to accomplish this training needs assessment:
- Ask the participants of the three most important issues or problems in the community
- Ask them to write them on a piece of paper (if you think some could not write, group them with other participants – if this might offend them, the participants can just give their answers orally)
- Display the answers on the ground and group similar answers
- Give a certain number of pebbles, stones, beans or whatever materials is locally available to the participants
- Instruct the participants to distribute pebbles/stones/beans over the issues/problems they have indicated earlier. The more pebbles/stones/beans, the more important the problem is to the community
- Rank the issues/problems according to the number of pebbles/stones/beans
- Summarize the results using Table 6 below
4.4 What is disaster risk reduction? It is important to provide the participants with a rationale for building a 3D map in planning for DRR. It should draw upon a discussion on the causes of disasters and the potential measures to prevent their occurrence or at least mitigate their impact. One common option for engaging in such a discussion with the participants is to resort to the mnemonic: Disaster Risk = Hazard x Vulnerability / Capacity It should be made clear that the purpose of this formula is not to come up with any quantitative computations but rather to understand the interactions between natural events and the community. In that context, simple definitions of the crucial concepts which appear in the formula include: DISASTER:a situation involving a natural hazard which has consequences in terms of damage, livelihoods/ economic disruption, and/or casualties that are too great for the affected area and people to deal with properly on their own (Wisner et al., 2011). hAzARD:a natural phenomenon which is of potential danger for people and properties in a given area at a given period of time. VuLNERABILITy: susceptibility to suffer from damage in the event of a hazardous phenomenon or the “condition of a society which makes it possible for a hazard to become a disaster” (Cannon, 1994). CAPACITy: the set of knowledge, skills and resources people resort to in dealing with hazards and disasters. RISK: a compound function of a natural hazard and threatened people, characterized by their varying degree of vulnerability and capacities, who occupy the space and time of exposure (adapted from Wisner et al., 2004). Obviously, these terms may not exist in many local languages and it is pointless for the facilitator to impose Western concepts to local participants. The aim here should be for the participants to realize that people are unequally fragile in facing natural events but that all possess resources to cope with such phenomena. It is equally important for the participants to appreciate that the root causes of their vulnerability are often, not always, exogenous and anchored in structural constraints (e.g. unequal distribution of wealth and resources within the society, unfair gender relationship, poor governance). On the other hand, their capacities to face natural hazards are largely, not exclusively, endogenous as these reflect local knowledge, social network, traditional medicine, etc. Figure 19 provides a diagram which summarizes these issues.
From there, the facilitator should foster a short discussion around the potential actions for reducing the risk of disaster in the community, which is to be expanded at Step 12. It should be underlined that preventing hazards is often costly and never provides total safety. Mitigating vulnerabilities is similarly difficult because often beyond the reach of the community. On the other hand, it is frequently easier to enhance capacities because they are locally available. Figure 20 may help in debating these issues should the concepts make sense in the local context.
It should be emphasized that the P3DM training and the 3D map are intended to enhance local capacities and facilitate their mobilization in time of disaster, as well as to identify potential local hazard prevention measures and ways forward in mitigating vulnerabilities.
4.5 Presenting P3Dm
P3DM should be introduced as one of the tools that can be used to reduce people’s vulnerability and enhance their capacities. The following questions can be used as guides to explain the tool and method briefly (refer to the introductory part of the manual for some explanations and answers on the following questions): What is P3DM? How does it help in enhancing local capacities and addressing vulnerabilities? Why is it useful for facilitating the integration of knowledge and actions in DRR? How does it foster dialogue between stakeholders? Afterwards, the steps and materials needed to build the 3D map should be presented. Give participants a brief orientation on the step-by-step process that should be accomplished in order to build the 3D map. The materials listed in Table 4 can be presented to the participants. It should be emphasized that materials to be used are preferably local materials. This is to facilitate the updating process or even replication of the 3D map in other communities that require the same materials. Some pictures of the major activities (preparation of the relief map, depiction of information using pushpin, yarn and paint, preparation of the legend, etc.) may also be shown to the participants in order for them to have a general picture of the upcoming activities (refer to section 5 for detailed information on the step-by-step procedure on building the 3D map). 4.6 Introducing the base map A base map is difficult to decipher and interpret especially for people who have never encountered such a tool before. It is thus necessary to discuss the different elements it contains such as the contour lines, few elements of legends, scale, etc. First, gather the participants around the map and let them observe it and share their interpretation. This is important in order to have an initial assessment of the know-how of the people when it comes to map. Afterward, the facilitator may discuss and clarify the nature and purpose of the base map and its main components. The most noticeable feature of the base map is the contour line. So it is often the case that participants ask first about them. Try to avoid using very technical definition of the contour line. Explain to them that contour lines are lines that have the same elevation and the numbers indicated along them represent its elevation. The contour lines will serve as the guide to define each layer of whatever material is used to build the 3D map. If there are few elements of legend on the map, such as rivers and roads, introduce them. It should help participants in orienting the map, which is a crucial issue. In Western contexts, the north is an obvious reference so the map may be oriented in that way. In most cases however, Western sense of orientation does not make sense as people rely on stars, wind patterns or actual landforms. In that case, the map simply has to be oriented according to the actual location of the training venue. For example, let people orient the map so that the hill or river they see outside is in the same direction on the base map. Eventually the facilitator may discuss the scale of the map. A small piece of carton or polystyrene can be used as scale guide to explain scales and how are they used in the map. For instance, for a scale of 1:1000 (1 cm is equal to 1000 cm or 10 m on the ground) that is indicated on the base map, a 10 cm long piece of carton can be made to represent 100 m on the ground. This way, participants would easily understand that if their house is only 10 m away from their neighbor in reality, it should be represented on the map only as 1 cm. The best way to proceed is often to discuss with a community leader beforehand and eventually let her/him introduce the base map with her/his own words (Figures 21 and 22). Explanation from outside facilitator might be hard to understand for the local people due to usage of technical words that are sometimes difficult to avoid or perhaps simply because of language barriers.
Before the actual activity, a small workshop can be conducted with key individuals such as local public officials to orient them about the method. A small group is easier to facilitate and technical questions could be answered and explained. During the actual activity, the participants of that small workshop can be asked to introduce to the participants the base map and later facilitate other activities.