One Voice Te Reo
Kotahi
Sector Forum: Keeping the Community in Mind
7.30pm, 15 October 2014
Christchurch
Polytechnic CPIT Whare Wanaka
Mihi & Karakia The meeting
opened with a welcome from Rex and a karakia given by Emma.
Introduction: Katherine
gave the background to OVTRK and the sector in Canterbury before outlining the
evening’s programme.
Speaker:
Barnaby Bennett. Barnaby is an architect who is studying
temporary architecture in Christchurch.
He is one of the editors of “Once in a Lifetime: City-buildibng after
Disaster in Christchurch”, a book consisting of a series of written and visual
essays about the issues in rebuilding Christchurch. It does not lobby for any particular solution,
but instead is intended to stimulate deep discussion.
Barnaby identified four major themes that
had emerged for him:
1.
Tension
between bottom-up and bottom-down approaches to the recovery.
2.
Means
and ends, and where to target our resources:
the challenge between attending to immediate problems that are affecting
people and having longer stable plans for the city.
3.
Anger
and frustration (which has spread from the primary cause – the earthquakes – to
secondary causes) c.f. the sense of excitement, adventure and achievement in
the city. It is important to
acknowledge, respect and respond to both.
4.
The
recognition that to care for humans we must attend to environmental health, and
strong institutions and democratic structures that support people to grow.
Barnaby’s essay explores how to deal with issues that
are beyond the ability of a population and a government to keep up with the
detailed information that is needed to understand them. A way to understand collective action is that
it starts because there is an issue to be faced. NGOs in Christchurch give a response to
issues that government has been unable (and sometimes unwilling) to
handle. For this reason their presence
and work represent valuable information about the state of the city.
“Publics emerge when there are real issues” – they
are not something to be managed away.
There are two reasons for this:
·
It
creates difficulties in maintaining and recovering psychosocial health. People need to feel involved in the decisions
that affect them. Being consulted or
otherwise engaged assists with people’s wellbeing.
·
Without
engaging the public there is no way to understand the nuances and complexities
of the issue. People merely presented
with the finished product can only accept or reject it, not help modify it to
address these complexities.
"There is nothing more rigorous than a group of
non-specialists who want to know why they endure unbearable misfortune",
quoted Barnaby.
Speaker:
Denise Kidd. As Manager, Community Resilience for CERA,
Denise introduced the psychosocial strategy, Community In Mind.
She noted that the strategy by itself could be seen
as lightweight, but it was intended to be read together with an action plan
that is being developed. In response to
the themes that Barnaby had identified, she said that there was a need for both
bottom-up and top-down approaches. Some
people really needed additional support that could only be supplied by a
top-down approach, but unless communities took control of their own recovery
then recovery will not take place.
Her team recognised that psychosocial recovery is not
in just one bucket. Stresses come from
other aspects of the recovery and the decisions that are being made there. Her team tries to get this taken into account
in other work streams, and has had mixed success. She noted that the existence of the Community
Wellbeing stream was recognition by CERA that the rebuild was about more than
physical infrastructure.
Small group discussion: The meeting
broke into small groups to discuss what is happening now in their communities
and what else might contribute to keeping the community in mind. Themes from the discussions:
Definition of ‘community’
Participants were eager to point out that there are multiple definitions
of ‘community’ and that individuals can belong to multiple communities
concurrently. Whereas it is felt that
CERA and other organisation primarily see community as geographically-bound,
participants made clear that communities can incorporate other elements such as
identity and interest. Making sure that
CERA and others understand the subtleties of the term is critical. Firstly, belonging in these communities
shifts in parallel with changing identities. Secondly, people have moved around so much following
the earthquakes that geographic communities have often been broken up. Belonging to communities becomes even more
imperative following disaster, and these communities are hugely important to
people’s post-disaster coping capabilities. It was also noted that people belong to
communities not just for practical reasons but for socialisation - which in
fact constitutes the fundamental reason for communities.
It was also noted that agencies like MSD are unable to reach many
‘communities’ - they only have contacts with perhaps 10% of all NGOs.
What support is needed?
·
Participants
noted that humour and fun were critical to keeping people going.
·
Support
for NGOs - primarily in the form of resources - was seen as critical to help
people move forward.
·
Support
is needed for older people who have limited access to and understanding of
computers, and are isolated in their homes, particularly given the changing bus
routes etc. This increasing lack of
accessibility for older people was equated to an decrease in respect for them.
·
Particularly
small NGOs are struggling to keep up with bureaucratic demands - as much as 90%
of their staff’s time and energy may go into such processes rather than
providing services for their clients. It
was noted that grants such as those provided by the Red Cross worked well
because groups could access them easily, without too much bureaucracy. Agencies which can grant resources need to
have more trust so community organisations are not unreasonably burdened by
application processes and accountability.
·
More
support is needed for people living on the margins, who get noticed by NGOs but
not by larger service providers. This
support is especially important in terms of housing, where the most vulnerable
are at risk.
·
There
needs to be action taken to ensure housing is healthy; too many people are
still living in damp, draughty houses.
·
One
tangible way in which participants felt the community could be kept in mind was
through the construction of a central meeting space where people could meet up
and talk and share. This facility should
work within the local context and communities, open for public use, and ideally
with someone to manage it. Beyond the
physical space, other initiatives to bring communities together (such as a
local newspaper) were also seen as important.
·
Four
years on from the earthquakes, people are exhausted and stressed. They need some support to keep going.
What needs to happen to keep the community
in mind?
Participants noted that they would like
·
to
see evidence that the learnings of the Christchurch experience were being taken
on board
·
clear
information presented by CERA and other bodies around the rebuild
·
support
for migrant workers, whether this support come from employers or the government
·
recognition
of the work of unseen elements of the community (including third sector and
migrant workers)
·
opportunities
for people to talk about what they envisage for Christchurch
·
influence
over private property owners in order to try and minimise the amount of
tilt-slab concrete in the rebuild architecture
·
a
change in focus from Anchor Projects to the small things which matter to people
·
to
see “Rebuilding communities” feature as an Anchor Project (which would involve
getting people involved in decisions, making people feel strong, and catering
for new populations)
·
get a
bigger voice for local youth + more things to keep youth in Christchurch
·
building
for climate change and sustainability
·
something
done to address the unaffordability of housing
·
acknowledge
the centrality of the environment and its wellbeing to our own wellbeing
·
attention
“higher up” to measures that could alleviate some of the pressures NGOs see in
their communities, for example – interventions around housing,
accessibility/availability of R18 shops (legal highs), alcohol, and gambling
outlets
·
recognition
and appreciation of locally-driven recovery initiatives like informal networks
- so far, such cases do not have much traction in official documentation
·
financial
support not just for psychosocial recovery programmes but also community
building programmes
·
the
east/west divide that has emerged post-quake will need to be bridged if a
united city is to emerge in the future
·
recognition
about the important role Early Childcare Centres play in supporting communities
(additional funding was only given for 6 weeks post-quake compared with schools
which were given a year’s financial help)
·
careful
consideration of timing of school closures, given their effects on the
community.
Concluding remarks: Barnaby brought
the meeting back together with some reflections.
He referred to the book “A Paradise Built in
Hell” by Rebecca Solnit, which discussed the official and community responses
to disasters. The official response
assumes chaos and social breakdown, and acts accordingly, but in reality
communities in times of disaster quickly self-organise and work together to
bring order and mutual support. Barnaby
suggested that the Central City Plan is another manifestation of the official
response to an unfounded fear of what might happen if they didn’t take
control. The need for tight
accountability in spending funds might spring from the same fear.
Barnaby was concerned that documents like Community
in Mind and the CERA wellbeing surveys buried the issues that give rise to NGOs
amongst lots of largely meaningless statements and value drives. These documents can almost be seen to
constitute the ring-fencing of difficult issues, as if an angry and damaged
community is only missing things like community connection and conversations
with neighbours.
The real tension that emerges with the Community in
Mind document is that what we are effectively facing is one arm of the state
either failing to deal with complex issues (housing affordability) or actively disenfranchising
people (meaningful and iterative engagement with the rebuild) and then reaching
out with another arm to speculate about what the mental health impacts of these
things are. But with little apparent
desire or ability to bridge between these two. The tragedy of this is that the
NGO community are probably the most sensitive and active groups who can
articulate the issues and the easiest solutions to them. He did not see much evidence of the realisation
of this in the Community in Mind document.
Given this inadequacy, it is unfortunately up to the
NGO’s and other community groups to continue to not only respond to the
immediate needs but also to clearly articulate what they are to the government
and to do this in public. This is how
more publics will form in response to the issues.
In conclusion he urged us to be vocal about our
sector’s needs so that government can hear.
It is really difficult for any government in such extreme times.
Karakia whakamutunga: Rex closed
the meeting with a karakia.
