In this context, with the aim of enhancing the abilities of civil society organizations to prevent, prepare for, and respond to disasters, we are carrying out the Project to Support the Capacity of CSOs in Disaster Risk Management with the support of the European Union.
As our project approaches its second year, taking Turkey’s experience in disaster response as a starting point, we discussed with Project Coordinator Cengiz Çiftçi the critical role of local civil society organizations in disaster risk management, the solidarity practices developed following the February 6 Earthquakes, and the work we have conducted in Antakya.
First, can we start with Turkey’s disaster response mechanisms?
Turkey is among the countries most affected by man-made and natural disasters. For this reason, it has developed organizational processes synchronously with the organization of the international humanitarian movement and has played an active role in the organization of the Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. On June 11, 1868, the “Hilali Ahmer” (today known as the Turkish Red Crescent Society, formerly known as “The Society for Aiding Injured and Sick Soldiers”) was established as a civil organization under the leadership of Marko Apostolidis, Dr. Abdullah Bey (Karl Edward Hammerschmidt), Aziz Bey from Crimea, Serdar-ı Ekrem Ömer Pasha (Michel Lattas), in parallel with its European counterparts.
In its 150-year history, Turkish civil society and the state apparatus have played an active role in international humanitarian aid processes when it comes to disaster and emergency management in the modern sense, organizing with a modernist approach and supporting communities affected by disasters. Disasters have been turning points in Turkey’s civil society history; the August 17, 1999 Marmara Earthquakes and the February 6 Maraş Pazarcık and Elbistan earthquakes still remain powerful in our memory as disasters in which Turkey’s civil society movements and organizations played an active role, offering substantial support to society in different areas.
Along with this, throughout this 150-year history, approaches to disasters and emergencies have been mostly reactive, focusing on the period after disasters occur and after communities are affected. While preventive and protective measures are often discussed after disasters, although necessary legal regulations have been developed, continuity has not been achieved. This lack of continuity in public, civil society, and collective memory has resulted in a rapidly forgotten approach that tends to ignore risks, and the importance and implementation of preventive and protective work weakened after ten years or so following disasters.
Although disaster and emergency policies have tried to adapt to changing international circumstances and climate processes, comprehensive structural transformation measures have been slow and partial. Despite civil society experiencing international standards, especially after the Syria crisis, and despite contributing to the development of Turkey-specific content, approaches, and models, there has been a lack of a holistic disaster risk management process.
The processes needed to build disaster-resilient communities have remained insufficient due to both structural reasons and necessary legal and financial constraints. Due to the lack of preventive work in building resilient societies and disaster risk management, public and civil society focus has shifted to supporting disaster-affected communities only after the damage has occurred. This has led to a mentality of accepting the realization of risk and loss of life and property with each major disaster.
Preparedness for Disasters: A Matter of Security and the Right to Life
Why is preparedness in disaster management emphasized not just as "response," but also as a matter of "prevention, planning, and collaboration"?
Preventive work can be developed through pillars such as implementing legal regulations, strengthening implementation processes, allocating the necessary financial infrastructure and public resources, establishing institutional transformation, building necessary research and development infrastructure, and finally, ensuring citizen participation. However, impunity, insufficient public resources, the lack or inapplicability of checks and balances, or the inability to adapt these to disaster risk management, cause preventive efforts to remain at the level of rhetoric in risk reduction processes and push society to swiftly return to its pre-disaster routine by ignoring risk.
Yet, allocating resources for preventive efforts not only contributes to building resilient communities but also limits potential economic losses and enhances societal well-being after possible disasters. Most importantly, since 1900, over 100,000 lives have been lost in earthquakes alone. These preventive measures will also help reduce potential loss of life.
So, why is the role of local CSOs in disaster management critical?
Humanitarian aid was established and developed as a civil movement. Over time, as humanitarian aid organizations became international entities, their work in disaster-affected areas sometimes failed to address diverse local needs, raising participation-centered criticism in both development and aid processes. Developing community-based approaches in aid and subsequent development efforts highlighted the importance of local organizations. Efforts to rebuild lives and normalize after disasters gain continuity through local participation and organizations, illustrating the importance of local groups.
Within this process, participation, especially with the growth of rights-based work in civil society, has evolved into a fundamental approach that emphasizes disaster-affected communities as active agents over mere recipients of aid. Local organizations are key carriers and agents of transformation for disseminating international standards and in terms of individual, community, environmental, and animal rights.
Local civil society organizations are considered main actors in people-centered approaches in disaster risk management, as outlined in the Sendai Framework. Thus, ensuring continuity in disaster risk management, keeping collective memory alive, building local capacity, and creating a resilient society around potential risks are inconceivable without the roles of local CSOs.
Staying Together After the Disaster: The Story of the Antakya Office
The STGM Antakya Office opened in the first year after the Kahramanmaraş Earthquakes. What role did the Antakya office assume during this period?
Following the February 6 Earthquakes, STGM worked on two fronts: the well-being of civil society organizations and individuals.
First, regular meetings were held regarding the situation, needs, and problems of civil organizations and people in the 11 provinces affected by the earthquake. Listening and supporting solidarity processes, contributing to solidarity platforms with both local and national organizations, and facilitating STOs in the disaster region to reach Turkey’s public were carried out.
Secondly, STGM came together with Turkish civil society conducting solidarity work in the quake zone. It contributed to the development of discussion and solidarity platforms regarding the work being conducted in the disaster area.
Taking disaster risk management needs in civil society into account, a participatory approach was adopted with the European Union Delegation to Turkey to establish the Program for Supporting Civil Society Organizations in Disaster Risk Management. The program, designed to answer the needs of the two target groups mentioned above, began on December 27, 2024, including two sub-grant works, solidarity, network building, joint advocacy, and more.
While supporting organizations working in the earthquake zone and furthering solidarity processes, the program also contributes to efforts to build a resilient civil society and develop disaster risk management processes in the civil society field by prioritizing collaborations among public institutions, civil society, and the private sector.
What distinguishes this program from others?
This program was implemented with an approach that supports CSOs and actors in the earthquake region on site, moving away from the classic grant practice. At a time when civil participation processes in the earthquake area had declined, resources were less accessible, and international organizations had withdrawn, we established the Antakya solidarity office, recognizing the importance of local presence and supporting post-disaster work.
This work, symbolic in one respect, also serves as a space for solidarity for local, national, and international organizations. Situated in the historic part of the city, within the reconstruction zone, this office has become a symbolic oasis for civil society organizations and volunteers, witnessing the rebuilding of life after destruction. The Antakya office continues its work as a token of gratitude to all the public, local administrations, and civil initiatives making efforts for the city’s recovery.
Multi-Stakeholder Solidarity Practices After the Earthquake
In this program, you also support civil society organizations working in cities affected by the earthquake. What contributions have these organizations made in the field?
The project consists of two sub-grants. Under the first, we supported the Disaster Platform—a coalition of 64 organizations across different thematic fields—in their organization and capacity development processes. We facilitated strong civil society participation in Disaster Risk Management (DRM) processes, supporting policy development, content creation, capacity and empowerment processes, and the development of an upper-level organization that advocates in different thematic areas.
In the Project for Supporting the Capacity of Civil Society Organizations Sub-Grant Program, we supported 20 organizations working on disaster risk management both in the earthquake-affected zone and throughout Turkey. Within the framework of these two ongoing sub-grant supports, various outcomes have been achieved so far. With different cooperation models and approaches, CSOs fostered interaction with the public, civil society, and private sector, creating an accelerating and complementary synergy for Disaster Risk Management processes.
- Organizations operating in the earthquake zone continued their work in Adana, Adıyaman, Diyarbakır, Hatay, and Malatya, expanded their access in certain areas, and developed a healthy exit strategy.
- Civil society organizations defined DRM processes in thematic areas and contributed to content and institutionalization processes. With content developed in thematic fields and dissemination efforts, resilience was built at both community and societal levels. By highlighting the special needs and problems of different communities and groups, especially in the earthquake area, influence was exerted on local governments, and the development and empowerment of social inclusion processes were supported.
- Although advocacy efforts remained weak, community and theme-oriented work was conducted.
- Organizations receiving grants, especially in the disaster zone, developed practical examples of solidarity, joint thinking, and action in shared working spaces.
- They developed active collaborations with local administrations and contributed to the mainstreaming of DRM.
- A rights-based approach and gender equality mainstreaming were implemented in humanitarian aid and DRM processes.
- In a limited capacity, support was provided for CSO accreditation before AFAD and relevant public institutions.
- Both civil society and various segments of society were encouraged to become disaster volunteers. (https://gonullulerharitasi.org )
- International standards and content/methods appropriate to Turkey’s conditions were developed regarding DRM processes. (https://360.hayatadestek.org)
- On the scale of networks, platforms, national, and community-based organizations, efforts contributed to making DRM processes part of the civil society agenda.
- Support was provided for organizational practices in the earthquake zone, strengthening localization processes and fostering active involvement of organizations in their own locales.
- Support was given to work at the neighborhood level. (https://mahalleafetgonulluleri.org)
- A new generation with experience and capacity in rights-based DRM emerged in the Turkish civil society field.
Integrated and Participatory Disaster Risk Management
Why is it important to move beyond classical approaches in disaster risk management?
Disaster risk management is an approach that includes preparedness, post-disaster response, and recovery as a whole. A lack of preparedness means that work carried out in the other two areas increases the burden and leads to greater loss of life and property. Disaster risk management is not solely the responsibility of the public sector—it is an approach that concerns the private sector, civil society, and society in general. While every group has responsibilities, especially regarding resilience, an integrated, participatory, and transparent process of collaboration is essential.
Bringing disaster risk management approaches to disasters raised the necessity of preventive measures being rights-based and participatory, rather than focusing exclusively on the post-disaster phase and sticking to classical methods.
Turkey, as a country subjected to multiple disasters and crises—including humanitarian crises as well as natural disasters—should abandon classical approaches in disaster risk management and focus on developing resilient communities, institutions, and organizations. Keeping societal memory and institutional memory alive cannot be achieved through volunteerism alone. Therefore, public, civil society, and private sector actors must not only allocate resources to risk reduction and resilience-building but also develop policies for lasting structural transformations beyond mainstreaming processes.
The Necessity of Developing Community-Based Disaster Risk Management Processes
What is your roadmap for jointly learning and preparing in the upcoming period?
We will continue working to ensure civil society organizations—and therefore their members—are ready for disasters. In this sense, especially following the experience gained after the February 6 Earthquakes, we will support the institutionalization of these in civil society structures by developing resources and creating programs based on participatory planning principles.
While the initial implementation focused on mainstreaming rights-based and gender-sensitive disaster risk management, in the upcoming period we will concentrate on mainstreaming environmental and climate risks in the civil society field.
The February 6 Earthquakes and the increasingly widespread forest fires in recent years have shown us that change and transformation processes cannot happen overnight. Solidarity with the disaster zone and normalization of life must continue until no one is left behind. The solidarity practices developed must transform from approaches that weaken and exhaust organizations to approaches that strengthen them.
While DRM efforts continue at the national and regional levels as umbrella organizations, it is essential to develop community-based disaster risk management processes.