Last year, the town of Krymsk was almost fully destroyed by the largest flood. A year after the disaster occurred, a citizen activist and coordinator of Civil Emergency Corps Volunteers Alyona Popova spoke with IMR Advisor Boris Bruk about the events and lessons of the Krymsk tragedy. Alyona Popova came to Krymsk shortly after the night of the flood and became one of the organizers and coordinators of the “Kind Camp” of volunteers, which provided assistance to the flood victims.
B.B.: In 2002, there was another flood in Krymsk that followed approximately the same route and also had victims. What do you think, why after ten years did everything repeat?
A.P.: That is a good question; actually, we asked it when we were in Krymsk. The fact is that Krymsk is located in a permanent flood zone. There are two major problems that no one is fixing: the first is that officials issue construction permits in the flood zone, and the second one is connected with the fact that so far, an emergency alert system has not been created. People who build in these areas have not been trained to respond to emergencies. In general, this is a strange story: if you issue a permit for construction, then it is necessary to train the population on what to do in the event of an emergency. I know that for example, in North Carolina, where they get “blown away” on a regular basis, people have already learned to build special homes, and everyone knows perfectly well what to do in one situation or another.
B.B.: When it became clear in Krymsk that the flood was approaching, was there any kind of alert sent to the people regarding the upcoming emergency situation?
A.P.: An emergency alert system in a small town of around 58,000 can work at the level of three cars with loudspeakers running across the town, a church striking the bells, and helicopters flying around and warning the population. Alerts through text messaging might also help; in Krymsk, a system was established, but only on the third day after the flood. When the flood happened, no one was forewarned. The water rose and came up to houses very quietly, and it was a terrifying hell… One man told us that he woke up early in the morning, went outside and saw the muddy stream of water. Horrified, he thought his two-month-old daughter was on the first floor, and that he could not save her ... There were many other stories like that one. Not only were people not warned, but also those who survived climbed onto roofs - they flew helicopters, rode boats, but not everyone was picked up. Some people were picked up on the second or third days. In fact, it is very simple to establish an emergency alert system. I remember that in Soviet times, there were big loudspeakers on poles. If these do not exist in small towns such as Krymsk, it would be sufficient to take a megaphone and ride along in a car to notify everyone. It is necessary to develop a system of coordination in emergencies. It is with horror that I think that something similar could return to Krymsk…
B.B.: You raised the question of coordination. Could you say a few words about coordination after the flood?
A.P.: There were headquarters created for the aftermath of emergencies but, especially at first, the big problem was that a game of musical chairs started there. For example, the person in charge of the utilities after the flood changed regularly. And often all these people could not agree among themselves. Up until the fourth day they could not make a map of the flood, although the map was the first thing that needed to be done. In the end we printed satellite maps, took markers, and shaded the squares with more or less damaged roads. In every region a field kitchen was set up, etc. Until the second week, coordination was very difficult, above all because of the game of musical chairs. As for the volunteers, the loading and unloading of humanitarian goods was probably the best of what they were requested to do at first. That is, in the beginning they were sent, for example, to clean up animal corpses. We now know that this work should be done by the sanitary service people in masks, gloves, etc. After some time, coordination was more or less established, responsibilities began to be distributed normally, and EMERCOM and local headquarters started giving coordinated tasks to everyone.
B.B.: After Krymsk, did any kind of “reassessment of values” happen for you – did your worldview change?
A.P.: Up until Krymsk I had global goals, like quite a number of people with an active civic stance: for example, I wanted to build something so great, to change life in this country. When Krymsk happened, however, I realized that the most important thing worth fighting for and doing is defending and saving the lives of actual people. Authorities try to split us, divide everyone into good and bad, white and black, friends and enemies. But we did not have such a thing in Krymsk. Robert Shlegel and I – ideological opponents – worked together, we cleaned up the mud. How can I say that Robert is an enemy when we worked together and know each other? I understood something that was definitely necessary – not to divide, but conversely, it is necessary to unite. After Krymsk, multiple individuals continued to help others; for many, helping people became their main activity. Having returned from Krymsk, I realized that I did not want to play the same game following their established rules … I have become set on the solution of real problems. One publication called those who returned from Krymsk the “New Believers”…
B.B.: Overall, in your opinion, what are the main lessons from Krymsk?
A.P.: Above all, it is important to realize that it is necessary to deal with emergencies proactively and not after the fact. That is, training, alerting – in other words, reduction of work for the EMERCOM. Instead of bringing 300,000 forces and 5,000 domestic military forces, to do everything so that this becomes unnecessary. I think that the authorities never do work more effectively than volunteers. A volunteer is any citizen of the Russian Federation who wants to help at that moment. And if this person or people are located in an emergency zone, it should be understood that it is necessary to use them, coordinate their activities, and not consider them as some kind of enemy. Above all, town or city leadership should recognize how important the help of volunteers is in emergencies. Also, I think that quality control regarding the performance of work for the provision of humanitarian aid is important; that is, for example, whether humanitarian aid was given to targeted individuals, if it was found to be helpful, whether money was received. Public control should be the norm. Importantly, propaganda should work not on a fight, but on unity. Now the authority loves to divide volunteers into ours and not ours – this is a huge folly.
B.B.: You were on a business trip to the US after Hurricane Sandy. As far as I know, you were acquainted with the work of local volunteers who engaged in the cleanup after the hurricane, who helped the victims. Did you in any way compare the American and Russian experiences?
A.P.: Both here and there the work was absolutely the same – they also dispensed humanitarian goods, developed information systems. Honestly, I envied the quality of their information headquarters – there is much to learn from this. Most of all, I liked City Hall’s reaction to everything that was happening, when on the fourth day Bloomberg allocated an old fishing house to the volunteers, and without having to go anywhere, volunteers were able to be in immediate proximity to that hard-to-reach area. And, even more, after this, a commission for the organization of emergency notification systems was created. Volunteers became part of this commission and among them were volunteers from Occupy Wall Street – probably the most frightening protestors for Bloomberg. However, there is dialog between them. I think that this is the correct attitude. At home, authorities need to learn this; then the work will become more effective.
B.B.: What do you think, in the past few years have charity and volunteerism become greater or have there not been any significant changes?
A.P.: For quite a long time, I did not see so many people who wanted to help in their own country, and for whom this is a norm. Today, two countervailing processes are happening. On the one hand, we have all become accustomed to living in crisis and fighting for ourselves. On the other, a really good culture of mutual assistance is emerging. And that at home we have now introduced and implemented the NGO and volunteerism laws – this is just destruction for the terrific volunteering and charitable culture that is emerging. I do not understand what the pragmatic reasons are here… When, for example, people help TB patients, it is necessary to errect ten statues to them because in Russia this problem is generally silenced and hidden. The number of those sick with TB is not well known to people, but it is obvious that it grows exponentially, and everyone knows this. Or volunteers who go and help in hospices – it is also necessary to errect statues to these people… These are individuals who help with their souls, neither for a checkmark, nor for an award.
B.B.: Not long ago in the Duma, a draft law on volunteerism was introduced; many connect its advancement with the activities in Krymsk, where a substantial growth in civic activity was manifested. What do you think about the bill?
A.P.: Dasha Miloslavskaya was one of the first to develop the bill before Krymsk. Before there had been two definitions: “volunteers” of the Olympic Games in Sochi, and “volunteers” in the law on charitable activity. When the discussion started, we all said that we do not need a separate law because it is quite possible to simply add a defined number of amendments to the existing laws. This would allow us to more effectively provide help. At first the lawmakers said yes, there will simply be amendments. On January 11th, I was in the airport, and journalists called me and began to ask what I thought about the words of Senator Borisov that at the earliest possible date they will submit the bill for review in the Duma. I was shocked because Senator Borisov promised us personally that everything will be decided by amendments. A conflict began – the majority of NGOs and volunteers stood up to fight this, and a round table was held in Kudrin’s Civil Initiative Committee to which all of the best experts were invited. All of the specialists came to the conclusion that it was necessary to prepare amendments. A few days ago they submitted the draft law again and said that our suggestions had been taken into account. And we do not understand what it all means. We all began to raise our concerns and today, representatives of the Prosecutor General came to Mitya Aleshkovsky and Anya Puchkova. Now the third sector is treated this way in Russia. I think that someone from the top really wants, and actively lobbies for, revolution. It is impossible to explain this in any other way. And all of this despite the fact that the third sector really helps the government to patch holes; Krymsk is a good example.
B.B.: One year after Krymsk, what do you recall most often?
A.P.: I recall how once a small boy came up to us in the camp. Everyone was busy with something; I saw that the child was standing, walked up to him, began to talk with him, and he looked at me with his brown eyes and was silent. I asked, where is your mom or dad, but he was silent and pointed to the water. I took a bottle of water, poured some for him in a cup, but he got scared. Then a psychologist explained to me that for some time he will be afraid even to approach a washroom because he will recall the flood. This boy’s entire family died during the flood. Then when some time passed and Natasha Vodyanova opened the playgrounds, on the opening day I saw the boy again – and that time, there was a smile on his face. Then I understood that we are absolutely here for a reason. I will honestly say that for a long time I did not sleep there because there was a horrible cadaverous smell and it was hot, but that night I passed out. I awoke in the morning with one thought – this means that everything was right, that everything was not in vain.
