News

Community mistrust: why the DRC's Ebola epidemic is so distinctly complex

Context · Health emergencies

An outbreak response depends on people accepting that the responders should be there. Where they do not, the failure is a security problem before it is a public health one.

Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo presented a set of conditions that made the response unusually difficult, and most of them were not medical.

The outbreak occurred in an area with active armed conflict. Multiple armed groups operated in the affected provinces, and the security situation varied from one health zone to the next. Response teams could not be deployed on the assumption that a route was open, because that assumption expired within weeks.

Previous outbreaks had left their own history. Communities in the region had experienced earlier epidemics and earlier responses. What they remembered shaped how they received this one: the isolation units, the burial practices, the money that arrived, and who was seen to benefit from it.

Burial practice was central and could not be treated as a technical detail. Safe and dignified burial protocols conflicted with how families and communities were accustomed to burying their dead. The protocols were necessary for infection control. The way they were introduced determined whether they were accepted or resisted, and where they were resisted, response teams became the target.

The response brought resources into a contested economy. Jobs, allowances, vehicles and contracts arrived with the response, in places where employment was scarce and control of resources was part of what the conflict was about. That made the response an actor in the local political economy whether it intended to be or not.

Attacks on responders followed. Health facilities and response teams were attacked, and the pattern was not random: it clustered where mistrust was highest and where communities had least confidence that the response was for them.

The implications for security management are direct and they generalise beyond Ebola. An assessment that treats the community as a context variable rather than as a party will misread the risk. Acceptance is a security measure, and it is built by how the organisation behaves over time, not by a communication campaign at the start. Local staff are the organisation's only reliable source of information about how it is perceived, and they are also the people who carry the consequence when that perception is bad. And where a response brings resources into a contested economy, the organisation has to consider how its own hiring, procurement and allowances affect the conflict, because in those circumstances they do.