 |
| Photo by Erik Hathaway on Unsplash |
When a disaster happens — a flood in Bayelsa, a crisis in a city, or a serious problem inside an organization — our attention naturally goes to what we can see.
How many houses were destroyed?
How much money was lost?
How much damage is left behind?
We focus on surviving the immediate crisis. But another crisis begins alongside it — one that is harder to photograph.
It is the uncertainty.
People don't know what is happening. They don't know which information to believe, where to get help, whether it is safe to return home, or whether the assistance being promised will actually reach them.
A damaged building can be measured and repaired with materials and money. But communities also need something less visible to recover: clear, trustworthy communication.
During a disaster, food, water, medicine, and shelter obviously come first. But people also need information to know where those things are, how to access them, and what decisions they should make to stay safe.
The International Committee of the Red Cross makes this point directly: in emergencies, people need information about things such as whether it is safe to return home, where they can find food and water, and which health facilities are functioning. Information can save lives.
Think about what happens when that information is missing.
A voice note appears on WhatsApp saying the dam has broken again. Someone says relief materials are being given only to certain families. The radio gives no update.
Nobody knows which information is official. At that point, people don't just lack information. They have to make important decisions while not knowing what to believe.
That creates real risks.
Misinformation, and may even disinformation, can move faster than official information. The Red Cross warns that misinformation and rumours can spread quickly after disasters and make it harder for people to access help.
Trust can disappear. If authorities or organizations communicate late, inconsistently, or without explaining what they know and don't know, people begin to question everything they hear afterward. Some people can be left out entirely. A message posted online in English may not reach a rural family with limited internet access. A long written announcement may not help someone with a disability. A national announcement may miss the people who depend on local leaders, community groups, radio, churches, schools, or other trusted networks. Thus, poor communication may hurt worse than the crisis.
The World Bank specifically recommends adapting communication channels to different audiences, removing barriers to access, and using trusted community networks.
So the question is, “Did the people who needed that information actually receive, understand, and trust it?”
For years, crisis communication has often looked like instructions being sent from the top: Go here, Don't do that, Wait for help, Follow this instruction.
Those instructions can be necessary. But they are only one half of communication. The other half is listening. The World Bank's guidance on disaster recovery emphasizes two-way communication and community feedback. Communities need opportunities to tell authorities what they are experiencing, what they need, and whether recovery efforts are actually working.
Imagine asking affected residents:
What information are you missing right now?
Which language should we use?
Where do you normally get news you trust?
Which families are struggling to access assistance?
What is the biggest problem you are facing today?
Those questions can reveal things an official report may never show.
A community may know which road is actually passable. A woman in the market may know which families have not received assistance. A local leader may know that an announcement being shared online has not reached several surrounding villages.
People living through a crisis are not simply recipients of information. They are also sources of information. And when communication becomes two-way, communities have a greater opportunity to influence the response instead of simply waiting for decisions to be made for them.
This is the space where Shades of Us becomes important.
Our approach to storytelling is about whose experiences become visible, whose voices are included, and how stories can influence the way society understands issues such as climate justice, health, and youth rights. This matters during and after a crisis because the story of a disaster is often told through numbers:
How many people were affected?
How much property was destroyed?
How much money was spent?
Those numbers matter. But they don't tell us everything. They don't tell us what it feels like to lose a home. They don't tell us why a family couldn't reach an aid centre. They don't tell us why people stopped trusting an institution. And they don't always show who was left out of the response.
Give people who are usually unheard a place in the story. Instead of allowing only officials, organizations and leaders to define what happened, storytelling can bring forward the experiences of young people, women and local communities. That changes the question from: “What happened to this community?” to: “What does this community say happened to them?”
Replace rumours with information people can understand and relate to.
When people are surrounded by confusing information, a dry document sitting on a website may not be enough. People need information they can understand, verify and share. That means telling real stories, using accessible language, and where appropriate, communicating through the languages and channels communities actually use.
The goal is to make reliable information easier for people to recognize and act on.
Give communities the tools to speak for themselves.
There is also a difference between speaking for a community and helping a community speak for itself. The second approach gives people room to ask questions, challenge decisions, demand accountability, and explain what they actually need. That is especially important when resources are limited and decisions about who receives assistance can affect people's lives.
Whether the issue is a flood, climate justice, health, youth rights, or another crisis, the principle remains the same: people cannot respond effectively to a problem they don't understand, and organizations cannot respond effectively to people they don't listen to.
A road can connect one place to another. A bridge can help people cross a river. Good communication can connect people to information, services, decision-makers, and each other.
That is why communication should not be treated as something that happens after the “real” relief work. It is part of the relief work. It tells people what is happening, where to go, what to trust, and how to make their voices heard.
Disasters will happen. Crises will happen. Organizations will make mistakes. But we can decide what happens next. We can rebuild with more than concrete and money. We can rebuild with accurate information, active listening, accountability, and stories that make room for the people most affected. Because rebuilding is not only about restoring what was destroyed. It is about making sure the people left behind are heard while we build what comes next.
No comments:
Post a Comment