2019-04-MOZ-IDAI-aerial assessment report

MOZAMBIQUE - TC IDAIAerial Assessment Report

Date created : 31 March 2019 Created by : IFRC and MapAction

SUMMARY KEY FINDINGSTC Idai initially made landfall in Mozambique as a tropical storm causing flooding in the Tete and Zambezia provinces on __ March. Idai then moved back out to sea, gathered strength and returned to Mozambique on the night of 14/15 March as a tropical cyclone, with a strength equiva-lent to a category 3 hurricane. The cyclone made landfall very close to Beira, Mozambique’s fourth largest city with a population of 500,000. The cyclone then moved across the central part of the country.

The storm lingered for several days over Zimbabwe and Malawi causing heavy rains every day. The relentless rainfall caused several rivers to overflow downriver in the more low-lying Mozambique leading to wide-spread flooding, estimated through satellite imagery analysis on 20 March to cover 50,000.

A multi-agency rapid aerial assessment was conducted from 24-29 March, under the co-leadership of Mozambique National Disasters Management Institute (INGC), International Federation of Red Cross Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) and the United Nations Disaster Assess-ment and Coordination (UNDAC). The survey was initiated to:

1. Prioritise tasking for critical incidents 2. Estimate overall severity3. Estimate geographic extent of affected area4. Assess and geolocate points of interest

Over 1,000 geotagged images and initial estimates of severity have been collected, three quarters of which in the first three days, and made avail-able for the humanitarian community to use for analysis and planning.

An interactive web map providing access to all images and data is avail-able on the IFRC GO platform, (https://go.ifrc.org/emergencies/3469). Static maps available from MapAction’s map portal (maps.mapac-tion.org/mozambique). Raw data available on OCHA’s Humanitarian Data Exchange portal, HDX (https://bit.ly/2I5aADE)

Four geographic zones of greatest concern

1) Greater Beira area and surrounding lowlands

2) Foot of mountains on Mozambique - Zimbabwe border where fast-flowing mountain rivers fanned out

3) Buzi river basin

4) Coastal areas

Moderate wind damage suggests that the main impacts are a result of accumulated rainfall and downstream flooding Crop damage, particularly of maize, is of great concern – further agronomic assessments are urgently required to assess scale of damage, amount of seeds and crops salvaged by farmers and potential to take advantage of saturated ground for planting of rapidly growing varieties of maize and beans Flooding has receded since the peak and few households were identified which were still under standing water as of 28 March Key infrastructure has largely been rehabilitated and so large-scale delivery of aid by road is possible for the majority Search and rescue phase had ended before the initiation of the survey. While urgent needs remain, particularly in food security, health, shelter, WASH and livelihoods there were no strande communities found during the aerial survey.

Extensive shallow landslides in upper catchments of mountain rivers in the highlands to the east of the affected area (Moz-Zim border) with channelised debris flows that affected villages.



FURTHER USES Common situational awareness of affected areas and scale of need, including images to remotely verify and assess impacts

Key resource for prioritisation of ground assessments, includ-ing the INGC/IFRC/UNDAC multi-sectoral rapid assessment

Targeting aid distributions, including provision of coordinates and images for orientation

Informing the locations of operational hubs – likely that Beira will remain the focal point base of operations but consideration should be given to forward bases in the other four zones of great-est observed impact listed above

Identification of points of interest, including accommodation centres containing displaced people, schools and damaged infra-structure such as bridges and roads.

While there was only one critical incident reported during the aerial survey, the system of reporting, tasking and delivery of humanitarian assistance worked effectively. Within two hours a community judged to be in a critical situation with an estimated population of 500 individuals (Grid square G6) were delivered 1 tonne of food, shelter and other Non-Food Items using air assets, as well as the health of the affected population assessed by medi-cal professionals

Identified three damaged bridges, two of which were critical and one severely damaged

One critical incident reported for immediate tasking

864 points in the first three days (76%) giving a rapid and prioritised view of the geographic extent for early deci-sion-making

102 grids assessed covering an area roughly three times the size of the Serengheti, enabling a common situational over-view

TIMELINE

Chart displays number of points of interest recorded each day, with ¾ being collected over the �rst three days, 24-26 March, when �oodwaters were still near their high-est point

FACTS AND FIGURES

ZIMBABWE

CIDADE DECHIMOIO

BARUE

GONDOLA

MACHAZE

MACOSSA

MANICA

MOSSURIZE

SUSSUNDENGA CIDADEDA BEIRA

BUZI

CAIA

CHERINGOMA

CHIBABAVA

DONDO

MACHANGA

MARINGUE

MARROMEU

MUANZA

NHAMATANDA

GORONGOSA

CHINDE

INHASSUNGEMOPEIA

A94A95

A96

B95

C95

D95

E95 E9

G10G11

H95H96

H97 H7 H8 H9 H10H11

H12

I95I96

I7 I8 I9 I10 I11I12

I13

J95J99

J3 J4 J7 J8 J9J10 J11 J12

J13 J14J15

K95 K98 K99 K3 K4K7

K8 K9 K10 K11 K12 K13 K14

K15K16

L95 L98 L99

L2

L3 L4 L5L6

L7 L8 L9

L10

L11 L12 L13L14

L15

L16

L17

M95 M97 M98M99

M1M2

M3 M4 M5M6

M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12

M13

M14 M15 M16

M17

A97n = 3

A98n = 5

A99n = 7

A1n = 4

A2n = 3

A3n = 4

A4n = 5 A5

n = 4

A6n = 17

A7n = 10

B96n = 6 B97

n = 8 B98n = 8

B99n = 9

B1n = 4

B2n = 8

B3n = 6 B4

n = 5B5

n = 10B6

n = 20

C96n = 8 C97

n = 9C98n = 6

C99n = 6

C1n = 4

C2n = 3

C3n = 5

C4n = 3

C5n = 21

C6n = 6

C7n = 4

D96n = 10

D97n = 9 D98

n = 19

D99n = 23 D1

n = 7D2

n = 6D3

n = 2D4

n = 9D5

n = 36D6

n = 38D7

n = 4

E96n = 10 E97

n = 3

E98n = 7

E99n = 7

E1n = 1

E2n = 12 E3

n = 15 E4n = 10

E5n = 17

E6n = 16 E7

n = 26

E8n = 14

F95n = 4

F96n = 13

F97n = 7

F98n = 6

F99n = 6 F1

n = 3F2

n = 6F3

n = 7 F4n = 13

F5n = 14

F6n = 31

F7n = 42

F8n = 1 F9

n = 19

G95n = 3 G96

n = 4

G97n = 15

G98n = 14

G99n = 7

G1n = 3

G2n = 5

G3n = 13

G4n = 21

G5n = 23

G6n = 12

G7n = 5

G8n = 10

G9n = 10

H98n = 9

H99n = 6

H1n = 6

H2n = 16

H3n = 21

H4n = 13

H5n = 12

H6n = 11

I97n = 7

I98n = 3 I99

n = 8

I1n = 10

I2n = 23

I3n = 11

I4n = 3

I5n = 9 I6

n = 3

J96n = 8

J97n = 6

J98n = 12

J1n = 5

J2n = 8

J5n = 4

J6n = 6

K96n = 7

K97n = 7

K1n = 8

K2n = 4

K5n = 2

K6n = 3

L96n = 8

L97n = 5 L1

n = 2

M96n = 10

Grid Severity scoreCriticalSevereSeriousOf concernNo / Minor

FloodFlood extent (26th March)

RoadsPrimary roadSecondary roadTertiary road

PhysicalRivers

Water bodies

100

Mozambique: Cyclone Idai - results and analysis of aerial survey as of 29th March 2019 v09MA023

Grid score is mean of severity scale weighted by estimated population from aerial survey. n = number of GPS location recorded in each Grid.

Aerial survey conducted by: INGC,IFRC, UNDAC, MSF, DFID, Save thechildren, MapAction

Base data sources: GADM,OpenStreetMap, WFP, UNOSAT, GDACSMap created by MapAction (29/03/2019)

Map shows data collected frommulti-agency aerial assessments to:a) Prioritise tasking for critical incidentsb) Estimate overall severityc) Estimate geographical scoped) Assess and geolocate points of interest

ZIMBABWE

CIDADE DECHIMOIO

BARUE

GONDOLA

MACHAZE

MACOSSA

MANICA

MOSSURIZE

SUSSUNDENGA

CIDADEDA BEIRA

BUZI

CAIA

CHERINGOMA

CHIBABAVA

DONDO

MACHANGA

MARINGUE

MARROMEU

MUANZA

NHAMATANDA

GORONGOSA

CHINDE

INHASSUNGEMOPEIA

NICOADALA

A94

A95

A96

A97

A98 A99A1

A2 A3A4

A5 A6 A7

B95B96

B97B98

B99 B1 B2B3

B4 B5 B6

C95

C96

C97 C98 C99C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7

D95 D96D97

D98D99

D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7

E95 E96 E97 E98 E99 E1E2

E3 E4 E5 E6

E7

E8 E9

F95

F96

F97 F98

F99

F1 F2 F3F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9

G95G96

G97 G98 G99 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8

G9 G10

G11

H95H96

H97H98

H99 H1 H2 H3 H4 H5 H6 H7 H8 H9 H10H11

H12

I95I96

I97I98 I99

I1 I2 I3I4 I5

I6I7 I8 I9 I10 I11

I12I13

J95 J96 J97 J98 J99 J1 J2J3

J4 J5J6

J7 J8 J9J10

J11 J12

J13 J14J15

K95 K96 K97 K98

K99

K1 K2 K3 K4 K5

K6

K7K8 K9 K10 K11 K12 K13

K14K15

K16

L95L96

L97L98

L99 L1L2

L3 L4 L5 L6 L7 L8 L9 L10 L11 L12 L13L14

L15

L16

L17

M95 M96M97

M98 M99 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5M6

M7 M8 M9 M10 M11 M12

M13

M14 M15 M16

M17

36°48'0"E

36°48'0"E

36°36'0"E

36°36'0"E

36°24'0"E

36°24'0"E

36°12'0"E

36°12'0"E

36°0'0"E

36°0'0"E

35°48'0"E

35°48'0"E

35°36'0"E

35°36'0"E

35°24'0"E

35°24'0"E

35°12'0"E

35°12'0"E

35°0'0"E

35°0'0"E

34°48'0"E

34°48'0"E

34°36'0"E

34°36'0"E

34°24'0"E

34°24'0"E

34°12'0"E

34°12'0"E

34°0'0"E

34°0'0"E

33°48'0"E

33°48'0"E

33°36'0"E

33°36'0"E

33°24'0"E

33°24'0"E

33°12'0"E

33°12'0"E

33°0'0"E

33°0'0"E

32°48'0"E

32°48'0"E

32°36'0"E

32°36'0"E

32°24'0"E

32°24'0"E

37°0'0"E

18°0

'0"S

18°1

2'0"

S

18°1

2'0"

S

18°2

4'0"

S

18°2

4'0"

S

18°3

6'0"

S

18°3

6'0"

S

18°4

8'0"

S

18°4

8'0"

S

19°0

'0"S

19°0

'0"S

19°1

2'0"

S

19°1

2'0"

S

19°2

4'0"

S

19°2

4'0"

S

19°3

6'0"

S

19°3

6'0"

S

19°4

8'0"

S

19°4

8'0"

S

20°0

'0"S

20°0

'0"S

20°1

2'0"

S

20°1

2'0"

S

20°2

4'0"

S

20°2

4'0"

S

20°3

6'0"

S

20°3

6'0"

S

20°4

8'0"

S

Grid Severity scaleCriticalSevereSeriousOf concernNo / Minor

Estimated Population

More than 5,000

1,001 to 5,000

101 to 1,000Less than 100None

Survey GridsNot Tasked YetCompleted, IFRC / UNDAC

Road Status: 28thRoad: OpenRoad: Restricted accessRoad: ImpassableRailway: Open

RoadsPrimary roadSecondary roadTertiary road

Cyclone IdaiCyclone path

Flood extent (26th March)

Rivers

Water bodies

50

km

´

Mozambique: Cyclone Idai - results and analysis of aerial survey as of 29th March 2019

Base data sources: GADM,OpenStreetMap, WFP, UNOSAT, GDACSMap created by MapAction (29/03/2019)

Aerial survey conducted by: INGC,IFRC, UNDAC, MSF, DFID, Save thechildren, MapAction

Map shows data collected frommulti-agency aerial assessments to:a) Prioritise tasking for critical incidentsb) Estimate overall severityc) Estimate geographical scoped) Assess and geolocate points of interest

v11MA028



ANALYSIS Comparison of severity category against estimated population Number of points of interest collected for each

point of interest

Chart shows the distribution of severity across estimated population of the point of interest.

Chart shows the distribution of points of interest across the di�erent categories, with the majority of points collected being houses / communities



Graphic shows the prioritisation of aerial assessment according to �rst satellite detected �ood waters, storm track and then comprehen-siveness

TIMEFRAME



METHODOLOGY LIMITATIONSThe novel use of a grid system and electronic data capture process enabled common analysis of a standardised dataset the size of 20km x 20 km grid squares was set as it was judged that it would be possible to provide an overview of each grid square from the centre point to inform further investigation. Given competing priorities for delivery of aid using air assets, a balance was struck between greater coverage and detailThe data collection form used KoBo (https://kobo.humanitarianre-sponse.info) form with 5 steps:

• Location (GPS coordinates and grid square)• Image• Point of interest• Severity• Critical incident reporting Aerial assessments were conducted by two person inter-agency teams over 5 day periodWhile the assessment teams predominantly used Squirrel helicopters, a Bell 412EP helicopter and fixed wing planes were also used to survey lower risk areas • Pilots navigated to the centre of the grid square and then assessment of the grid square area for further detailed investigation was made• Enumerators kept in contact during the aerial data collection process. After each grid square a check-in was used to calibrate the severity scoring. During the analysis process, IFRC and MapAction checked the calibration scores against the aggregated scores for each point of inter-est within grid squares.• The ACAPs severity ranking was used. While dependent on subjective assessments this was appropriate for the context and situation. • Purposive sampling approach – main purpose is to get a quick over-view.• Analysis and data processing was conducted in R using the sf package and the tidyverse. This allowed for multiple updates per day to be processed in an expedient timeframe. Map products were created in ArcGIS.

• Aerial survey is deemed inappropriate for crop damage assessments. Recommendations have been made to the Food Security cluster to complete this complementary survey as a matter of priority

• While the grid squares give an impression of 100% coverage of the area surveyed, the points of interest were captured as representative and not comprehensive. Any aggregation of the data would need to bear this in mind.

• Humanitarian experts from INGC, IFRC, UNDAC, MapAction, IHP and MSF contributed to the data, however there was no prior training provid-ed, meaning that results might not be calibrated between the enumera-tors. There will inevitably be an impact from human bias and variation in subjective severity scoring

• The KoBo form was produced rapidly and so therefore, while appropri-ate for the context, it could be optimised for more consistent data capture

• ¾ of data was collected over the first three days of the assessment giving a picture of damage and needs which will change over the coming days as floodwaters recede, populations move and gather in new accommodation centres and secondary impacts emerge, including in health. Even over the 5 day assessment period observed conditions may have change; this was mitigated by publishing interim results twice daily

• There are always limitations on detailed assessments when conducting this aerially. However 70% of observations were from less than 500 metres altitude as Squirrel helicopters were used for the majority of the recces.



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS• Assessments completed by representatives from IFRC, UNDAC/OCHA, MapAction, MSF, DFID, International Humanitarian Partnership (IHP)

• Data collection process and analysis by IFRC Assessment Cell (Richard Devill, Ana-Maria Escobar and Luke Caley)

• Air support was provided by AirBus, Save the Children, IHP, Mission Aviation Fellowship, Mercy Air

• Particular thanks to Sebastian Rhodes Stampa (UN Deputy Humanitari-an Coordinator) for inspiration, Adrien Nance (Wings like Eagles) for air ops support

• Report authors: Luke Caley (IM analyst, IFRC) and Christopher Jarvis (Data scientist and volunteer, MapAction, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine)

2019-04-MOZ-IDAI-aerial assessment report

Documents

Transcript of 2019-04-MOZ-IDAI-aerial assessment report