Risk communication for “One Health”

Thomas Abraham

The University of Hong Kong

Presented at FAO Risk Communication for One Health Seminar14 April 2011, Rome Italy

Man Man

AnimalsAnimalsThe

environment

New Disease

New Disease

Outline

• Based on experience of H5N1 communication, a two pronged approach using community level risk communication and participatory development communication

• Some principles of participatory communication

Building on the experience of H5N1 communication

1. Differing perceptions of risk between communities living with the disease and outside experts.

2. H5N1 was a livelihood issue, as much as a human and animal health issue. Communication messages tended to treat it as a health issue.

Differing Perceptions of Risk

We’re protecting global health security

No big deal, chicken die all

the time

I don’t think they’ve ever seen a live chicken before

Crazy guys, but love the

suits

Differences in perceptions of risk between experts and the public is a feature of modern society

Differences in perception of risks

• Technical experts judge the risk to be very low

• Those against nuclear energy ( and increasingly the public) judge the risk to be high

All risks have benefits

• Modern industrial society needs power

• Other sources of power such as fossil fuels also have risks associated with them

Risk Communication

• Acting as a bridge between expert assessments and public assessments of risk

• Outcome is a shared understanding of risk, and a consensus on what needs to be done

• Risk communication is not about putting out messages and persuading the public to accept them but a process of reaching consensus

• Different from emergency communication, where people need to know quickly what to do

Why consensus and common understanding?

• Risks are uncertain: they may or may not happen

• Every “risky” action, or behaviour, has a benefit attached to it. Changing behaviourand practices have costs attached to them

• People on the ground need to balance the costs and benefits, not experts

• Local communities have their own knowledge which needs to be used to solve problems

Community level risk communication is an essential strategy to bridge the gap between public and expert perceptions and should be a foundation for communication on animal-human health

A livelihood issueIf you kill my

ducks, what am I going to feed my

family?

• More poultry have probably died in culling operations during H5N1 than from the disease itself

• For farmers and rural communities, the risk to livelihood of preventive measures, can be greater than the health risks from the disease itself

• We need to start looking at livestock and animal disease as a livelihood issue, rather than a purely health issue

This is a development issue

• Aim of strategy is to help people protect and improve their livelihoods through keeping livestock and themselves healthy

Because this is a development issue, we need to use the tools of participatorydevelopment communication to empowercommunities to solve this problem

Two models of development communication

• Top down model: originally based on Rogers’ diffusion of innovations approach

• Uses tools like social marketing, education-entertainment, media messages to promote certain goals and objectives

• Participatory model: a more radical model, in which communities decide their priorities, and design programmes to meet these needs

• Role of communicators and outside experts is to assist communities in this process

Why is participation better than a top down approach

• Top down programmes are driven by funding from outside.

• They often have little meaning for the community

• When the funding ends, so does the programme

• Participatory programmes are things the community actually wants and is asking for

• With help, communities can raise and find funding to do the things they need to do

• Benefits are long lasting, organic

"Communication for development is about people, who are the drivers of their own development; It contributes to sustainable change for the benefit of the poorest; It is a two way process [and] is about people coming together to identify problems, create solutions and empower the poorest; It respects indigenous knowledge and culture and that local context is key; It is critical to the success of the Millennium Development Goals."Declaration of 9th UN Communication for Development Round Table, 2004.

Let’s get real…

• In the real world, pure, participatory development communication is hard to come be

• Goals do not come from the community: set by donors, governments, and international community.

• But communities still need to play a role by discussing, understanding, and deciding on how best to implement

Principles of participatory risk communication

• Communication should be a dialogue on risk rather than a monologic delivery of messages.

• Communities have their own knowledge and experience, and communication should be a process by which this local knowledge is assimilated with information from outside in order to define problems and arrive at solutions.

• The aim of the communication exercise should be to help communities find ways to protect and improve their livelihood

• Guidelines and measures to reduce risk produced by outside experts should be flexible and indicative rather than prescriptive; allowing communities to decide priorities and design programmes

• Communicators have a role not only as messengers, but as act as change agents, helping communities to organize and get access to resources.

Some next steps

• Substantial community level development communication capacity has been built up over several decades

• New efforts needs to build on existing capacity

• Determining the key technical issues on which community level dialogue can begin

• Training programmes for communicators to act as change agents and not messengers