1. Risk communication for “One
Health”
Thomas Abraham
The University of Hong Kong
Presented at FAO Risk Communication for One Health Seminar
14 April 2011, Rome Italy
3. 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
4. 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.
9. 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
10. All risks have benefits
• Modern industrial society needs power
• Other sources of power such as fossil fuels
also have risks associated with them
11. 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
12. 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 behaviour
and 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
13. 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
14. A livelihood issue
If you kill my
ducks, what am I
going to feed my
family?
15. • 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
16. This is a development issue
• Aim of strategy is to help people protect
and improve their livelihoods through
keeping livestock and themselves healthy
17. Because this is a development issue, we need
to use the tools of participatory
development communication to empower
communities to solve this problem
18. 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
19. • 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
20. 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
21. • 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
22. "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.
23. 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
24. 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
25. • 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.
26. 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
