Relocating a flood-displaced camp after Cyclone Freddy
After Cyclone Freddy, 1,200 displaced people are living in a camp on a river floodplain. The camp floor is 1.5 m above the dry-season river level, but the 2015 flood reached 2.1 m above that level. The forecast gives 250 mm of rain in 48 hours in the upper catchment. The camp has one borehole, latrines 40 m from it, and tents spaced about 2 m apart. Sixty per cent of residents are women and children. A single bridge is the only road exit. A proposed site 3 km away is on a 4° slope, 50 m above the valley, with no water point and a land dispute with the owner. The district disaster committee must decide whether to move people now, improve the camp in place, or split the camp. It has 36 hours and four trucks.
1. Assess the flood risk of the current camp using the evidence. Explain why the 48-hour forecast matters.
Read the worked answer
The camp is on a floodplain, so it is exposed by location. The camp floor is only 1.5 m above dry-season level, while the 2015 flood reached 2.1 m above that level; a similar flood would cover the camp by about 0.6 m. A forecast of 250 mm in 48 hours in the upper catchment is significant because the camp's risk depends on the river, not only on local rain. Saturated soils and steep upper catchments can produce a rapid rise, and the single bridge may be cut off before people can leave. Latrines 40 m from the borehole are a contamination risk if the camp floods. Tents 2 m apart and 60% women and children mean evacuation will be slow and crowding-related health risks are high. The 36-hour window is short; the decision should not wait for certainty, because the cost of being wrong by staying is much higher than the cost of moving.
2. Evaluate the proposed relocation site against the current camp.
Read the worked answer
The proposed site is safer from river flooding: 50 m above the valley and on a 4° slope, so it is above the flood level and drains reasonably. But it has no water point, which is a serious problem for 1,200 people, and a land dispute that could delay or block use. The slope is moderate, but 4° is workable if sanitation is designed to avoid runoff into water sources. The current camp has water and a borehole but is flood-prone and sanitation is poorly sited. The relocation site reduces flood risk but creates water and tenure risk; the current site has service advantages but an unacceptable hazard. A split may be better than either extreme: move the most vulnerable first to the higher site, tanker water, and negotiate temporary use, while improving drainage and raising latrines at the camp. The site is not risk-free, but its main risks are manageable if water and land are secured.
3. Recommend a 36-hour action plan, with priorities and triggers.
Read the worked answer
First 12 hours: activate the committee, warn residents, and move people with the highest vulnerability - children, pregnant women, older people and the sick - to the higher site or a second camp. Use the four trucks for people first, not belongings. Pre-position water tanks and latrine materials at the higher site; without water, the move will fail. Second, close the bridge to unnecessary traffic and keep an exit route clear. Third, raise or seal latrines at the current camp and protect the borehole. Set triggers: if river level rises by 0.5 m or the forecast is upgraded, move everyone. Do not wait for the 48-hour forecast to verify. In the remaining hours, negotiate temporary land permission, mark drainage lines and separate latrines from water. Record who has moved. The plan should be phased, because a full move in 36 hours with four trucks is difficult; splitting reduces the number of people at risk while keeping services for those who remain.