Initial rapid assessment (IRA), 2–4 August 2008

An assessment was conducted on 2–4 August 2008 by a joint WHO and International Organization for Migration (IOM) team.


Summary of context at country level


From 23 July to the beginning of August, heavy rainfall in the Carpathian Mountains on the border between Ukraine and Romania resulted in rising high waters of the Rivers Dniester and Prut. Serious floods affected six oblasts in western Ukraine (Lviv, Zakarpattya, Chernivtsi, Ivano-Frankivsk, Ternopil, Vinnytsia). Thirty-six people died. The total losses in the western regions were estimated at Hrv 3–4 billion (approximately US$ 650–870 million); 40 703 houses and 33 882 hectares of farm land were flooded; around 230 houses destroyed; 360 cars and 561 foot bridges and 680 km of roads were damaged. The state railway and road transport administrations estimated their losses in the western regions of Ukraine at Hrv 1.155 billion (US$ 251 million).
Floods are considered common in the area. However, floods of such a scale last occurred in 1943 and 1969. As of 4 August the majority of evacuated population had returned home. Areas most affected by the floods were rural while urban areas remained intact. Vulnerability of a population is determined by several factors, including the extent of damage to the housing and infrastructure as well as social status.
The government, at both national and local levels, various organizations, groups and individuals responded to the disaster in a prompt and efficient manner. Other countries responded by launching initial humanitarian support. The most urgent public needs were addressed. The coordination of this mix of actors was the key to the sustainability of the assistance efforts and the prevention of duplication and inefficiency.
The mission concluded that there was no need for a large-scale international emergency humanitarian response assuming that the government would continue its effort in addressing the immediate and long-term needs. International assistance for targeted interventions aimed at selected vulnerable groups could be justified, if requested by the government.


Issues for response


1. Risk assessment

Floods can potentially increase the transmission of communicable diseases.

  • The risk of water-borne diseases was moderate since the majority of water sources (wells) were compromised, however, access to safe water (bottled and tanked), epidemiological surveillance and access to basic health care were in place.
  • Analysis of published evidence suggests flooding presents a relative risk associated with water-borne diseases such as cholera, cryptosporidiosis, nonspecific diarrhoea, poliomyelitis, rotavirus and typhoid and paratyphoid. However, in high-income countries the risk of diarrheal illness following flooding appears to be low, as shown by studies following floods in Czechoslovakia, Norway, and the United States. Experience from floods in Belgium shows that a number of people became infected with Shigella species and Giardia lamblia, during the clean-up phase and not during the flooding.
  • The risk of vector-borne diseases could not be substantiated. However, it could not be excluded given the resurgence of West Nile Fever in Europe following heavy rain and flooding, with outbreaks in neighbouring Romania in 1996–97, in the Czech Republic in 1997 and in Italy in 1998. Having had a flooded basement has been reported to be a risk factor for West Nile virus among apartment dwellers in Romania.
  • Diseases transmitted by rodents may also increase during heavy rainfall and flooding because of altered patterns of contact. There have been reports of flood-associated outbreaks of leptospirosis in various countries including Portugal in 1967 and of hantavirus pulmonary syndrome in Panama in 1999.
  • The risk of malnutrition was low as coping mechanisms (within country support) existed, however, long-term health effects of an unbalanced diet may be of some concern. 

 
2. Key response gaps

  • Implementation of sustainable solutions for access to clean water
  • Emphasis on public awareness activities related to food and water safety, recognition of suspected cases of communicable diseases, and adequate clean-up of flooded houses and agricultural property
  • Provision of items of personal hygiene
  • Improving disaster early warning system (medium-term)
  • Review and update the water safety plans to include flooding risk assessment and risk management (medium/long-term)
  • Implementation of flood management procedures (medium/long-term)


Critical questions for further data collection  

  • As of 4 August 2008, settlements in only two out of six regions were assessed.
  • However, these were the most affected regions and settlements as advised by knowledgeable local authorities.
  • No in-depth assessments are required.
  • It is recommended to monitor vulnerability of specific groups, disease surveillance and water resources.