Disaster Preparation 101

I read a really interesting article today so I thought I’d talk about it! It’s about how NGOs and the United Nations are using “fun” to teach children about disaster prevention. Check it out here:

http://www.irinnews.org/Report/97558/Games-cartoons-boost-youth-disaster-preparation

I guess I’d never thought about how children are more affected by disasters than adults, but it makes intuitive sense. I do wish the article explained why youth are more affected though. I also wish it had got into detail about the reasons why the Asia-Pacific regions is very disaster prone… which is something I have a bit of background in thanks to a course I took about natural disasters. The Asia-Pacific region is a perfect storm (no pun intended!) for disasters of every variety, but floods especially. The entire region is very close to sea level and is very flat, making it very easy for hurricanes and typhoons to flood huge areas. There’s also the issue of major cities developing close to the coast and with no consideration of floods… but that’s a whole other rant I could go on.

What I like about this article is it highlights how important disaster preparation is, but also how easy it is to do. Simple games, cartoons and art can help youth prepare for disasters… that’s pretty amazing! Here's an example of a cartoon for disaster prevention in Thailand

I think these disaster preparedness strategies work so well because they approach learning in a fun and participative way. Kids aren’t board, sitting in a room listening to someone tell them what to do in a flood. Games are engaging, fun and get the message of disaster preparedness across in a realistic way. The strategies let youth socialize, discuss the issues with their friends and family, and empowers them. These children don’t want to feel like disaster victims, they want to help their communities in disaster situations. These approaches to disaster preparation give them the opportunity to do just that.

Another important point that this article makes is that disaster education shouldn’t be exclusively in schools, because the children who aren’t in school need to be reached too. These children often live in overcrowded slums which are susceptible to all kinds of disasters, so getting to them is even more critical. What other fun teaching strategies can you think of, and what are your thoughts on these strategies in general?

Gentrification... Is Johannesburg doing it right?

Growing up in a suburb of Toronto, I’ve seen the problems of suburbanization and of “the big city”. The city has poverty, crime, and infrastructure issues. One urban development issue I’m really interested in is gentrification. Basically, gentrification is when a poorer area of a city is revitalized and becomes richer. The biggest problem with gentrification is it makes the area unaffordable for the low-income/poor residents who lived there. Think of Queen Street West, or Regent Park.

It’s scary to think that almost half of Toronto lacks adequate social services such as transit. Half the city are renters, most of them living in old high-rise apartment buildings. The area of the city with raising incomes are being invested in and rehabilitated. Living costs are increasing and driving people out of the downtown core. Should a city shut out the poor like that? Is it right that Toronto, or any city for that matter, is so divided? I think gentrification is a huge problem, on many levels. Integration of poor and rich is constantly cited as a way to deal with economic, social and political problems. Of course there’s also the core issue of misspending public money. You would think that tax money would go to improving public services and helping those in need… not towards investing in the rich part of town. Gentrification is a problem of the wrong voices being heard in decision making in my opinion. Maybe if those in power heard the stories of the poor affected by gentrification, then they would think twice before investing in the newest up and coming neighbourhood. Another solution to gentrification might be creating policy which forbids it… which would require serious advocacy. You could also keep the rent of current residents at the same rate so they aren’t bought out. You could provide the poor in these revitalized neighbourhoods with services, employment, and options for relocation. But these solutions are band-aid, they don’t deal with the core issue of inequality.

Gentrification isn’t just a problem a North American problem of course. Johannesburg in South Africa is experiencing it too…  by trying to revitalize its downtown Central Business District. The area was known for high crime rates and being a “whites-only” area during apartheid, which deterred businesses and people. Buildings remained empty, and people were leaving for the suburbs. The city wanted to fix that, and bring people back to the area by revamping it. Not to mention the added pressure of being hosts of the World Cup. Historical buildings have been turned into condos, which will hopefully bring in new residents.

The underlying causes and problems of gentrification in Johannesburg are fundamentally different than Torontos. Johannesburg’s gentrification is meant to bring people back to an area that they were once afraid of. In Toronto though, gentrification is driven by profiting developers and attracting the wealthy to a previously poor area. Whereas gentrification in Johannesburg is trying to bring people in, it’s pushing people out in Toronto. Does this mean Johannesburg is getting gentrification right, and Toronto isn’t? Could we learn from their urban planning? What experience do you have with gentrification, and what do think could be done about it?

Does slum relocation ever work?

Slum relocation v.s. amelioration comes up a lot in development. Is it better to move slum residents to a dense apartment building in the middle of nowhere, or spend the extra money to improve existing slum infrastructure and services? The answer may seem obvious… just make the slums better. Why would you take people out of their homes, their communities, and put them in a tiny one-room apartment unit far away from the city? The conditions of relocation communities are worse than the slums those people came from… you hear about it all the time. I can remember watching a documentary called  “Ordinary Lives”, with shots of the terrible, crammed, inaccessible apartments that were put up in Mumbai. The documentary was full of interviews and testimonies from experts and slum residents about the consequences of relocating. 

I don’t deny the downsides of relocating. But I do think it has some merit, and if done well, could improve the lives of rural-urban migrants.

Governments and development organizations who build these apartment buildings need to completely change the way they think about these projects if they were to ever make a positive impact. The slum dwellers they are building for need to be involved in the design and execution of relocation projects from the very start. Too often, development practitioners assume they know what’s best for the poor. That’s been a theme of my education as a development practitioner from day one.  The wise know that they know nothing.

The use of local building materials and labour is incredibly important. It just makes sense. Local materials and labour is good for the environment and economy… end of story. The buildings you move the poor into must we well serviced and designed for their lifestyle, which you would know how to do by talking to them. Where slums are relocated matters a lot too. Slum relocation projects are often frowned upon because they are far away from the city, which matters because the poor often make a living either by working in the city (if they can find any work), or selling whatever they can on its streets.

Slums “work” because residents can start businesses out of their homes. They create a community of people who trust and depend on each other. If you take away the slum, lose those businesses and that community. Is there any way to prevent that from happening? I don’t have the answer, but I can think of some solutions. Have the bottom level(s) of the apartment building be businesses run by apartment residents. Allow people to run a business from their units, and allow them to advertise outside of the building to attract customers. Create a service-sharing program amongst residents. Let families chose where in the building they want to live, so they can be close to old friends/neighbours/family.

In the end, slum relocation is about making the lives of the poor better than it used to be. The evidence now seems to show that this isn't happening now a days. But I think if poor were to have their voices heard, then relocation projects could make the lives of the poor significantly better.

Do you think slum relocation could ever be positive for the poor? If it could, then what would make it work? 

The 4 Squares and a Roof Foundation

I seem to be writing about organizations I’ve researched for a class.. but I suppose that’s a good thing because there’s a good reason I researched those organizations in the first place. I learned about the 4 Squares and a Roof Foundation because I interviewed their founder (Adam English) as an assignment for my social entrepreneurship course. Adam is a family friend of mine who I’d lost touch with for about 10 years, until I e-mailed him asking to interview him. My dad had mentioned to me that Adam started a charity, and once I finally looked it up I discovered how similar our views on development are.

4 Squares and a Roof is committed to end poverty and help relieve victims of natural disaster. They donate their money to regions that are in need to medical, educational and residential infrastructure. The foundation raises money (though donations and running various events) to help fund 2 schools in Mali though their partner Build A School in Africa, and to fund temporary disaster relief shelters for natural disaster victims.

Adam himself admits his charity isn’t going to change the world or end poverty. They’re quite a small charity, and only started fundraising in 2011. What makes them special though, is Adam’s passion. Adam recognizes the great disparity of wealth in the world and is committed to doing something about it. His motive is simple: if I can make even a small difference by getting some money from those who have so much to those who are in need, then I’ve accomplished something. He genuinely cares about the issue of poverty and wants to do something about it, just like me. I also really love the organization’s focus on infrastructure… as you might be able to guess from my post about Architecture for Humanity. As Adam pointed out to me in our interview, funding for infrastructure is especially hard to find in developing countries. His charity focuses on filling that funding gap. I also really admire the foundation’s focus on natural disasters. Especially with climate change, natural disasters are hitting harder in developing countries because they are more frequent and cause more damage in those parts of the world, so any organization focusing on natural disasters gets my approval.

The 4 Squares and a Roof Foundation has some pretty big long term goals, including getting federal charity status and growing their funds by 400% in 2013. They are hosting a charity poker tournament this year, which they expect to be a huge success.

Here’s a link to their website. They really are an awesome charity.

http://4squaresandaroof.org/who-we-are/

So what do you think of the 4 Squares and a Roof Foundation? How do you think they can leverage more donations and grow?