INTRODUCTION
42 Dead and about 100 people injured at the Oppenheimer Stadium in Orkney on 13 January
1991.
25 People injured when a wall collapsed at the mouth of the Boet Erasmus Stadium's tunnel in
Port Elizabeth on 4 March 1991.
Whoever thought that we in South Africa would experience these kinds of disasters.
THE PRESENT SITUATION
The Africa Nations Cup and the Rugby World Cup has caused us to sit up and take note of the
fact that disasters are waiting to happen at mass sporting events.
With the Rugby World Cup, a lot of planning went into ensuring that the safety of players and
spectators alike were provided for. This was part of the agreement between Rugby World Cup
and South African organisers.
However, the soccer authorities do not seem to be too interested in ensuring that the game stays
disaster free.
One only has to look at the number of people who were at the recent game against the Congo at
the FNB Stadium.
I was told that the stadium could accommodate 80 000 spectators and yet the newspaper reports
indicated that 95 000 people had entered the stadium for the match.
When one considers that at the Orkney soccer match in 1991, only 20 000 spectators were
present, then the possibility of many more people being injured is indeed a probability.
The Orkney disaster occurred when some fans began to fight in the stands after a goal had been
scored by Kaizer Chiefs, against Orlando Pirates.
Bottles were hurled and fans began to scream and run onto the pitch. Fans became trampled in
the rush and there are witnesses who say that some fans were stabbing each other.
Another issue to consider is the condition of some of the stadia which are at the disposal of sports
organisations.
Newspaper reports over the years have continuously highlighted the need for stadia, especially
those which are old, to be upgraded and even rebuilt.
Some key aspects which need attention are :
- access and exit routes (spectators)
- access for emergency vehicles
- condition of stands/buildings
- lack of preparedness plans
- reduction of alcohol use
- education of spectators of the consequences of contributing factors to disaster and the results of disaster
- co-ordination between services
FACTORS WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO DISASTERS AT STADIA
Disasters, we know, occur without warning and normally when least expected.
1. SAFETY CULTURE
One of the more important factors which leads to disaster is the lack of a safety culture by the
event organisers and the spectators.
The organisers are apt to ignore or bend the safety rules and/or do not have sufficient structures in
place to ensure that safety is a priority. The spectators are not educated about the rules and
consequences of rule bending and so give little to no attention to this issue. Furthermore,
spectators are prone to smuggling alcohol into the stadia and this causes many to become highly
emotional.
Emotional people largely act before they think and there are numerous incidences of this
occurring. At the final rugby match between South Africa and the British Lions at Ellis Park, I
witnessed many people who were obviously intoxicated, throwing beer cans, which they had
smuggled into the stadium, after an unpopular decision by the referee. Now this behaviour is not
particular to members of one race group. The common factors here are the misuse of alcohol and
the emotional aspect.
The result is that the safety of other spectators is ignored and so some are struck by these missiles
and are then angered. Tempers boil over and so fights result.
2. CRIME
Crime is another factor which contributes to the volatile situation at stadia. Often, police report
that fighting has occurred as a result of petty theft and theft from motor vehicles. Mass events are
ideal opportunities for criminals as there is a large number of people who ave money on their
person and also a large number of motor vehicle targets.
3. STADIUM CONSTRUCTION
Another factor is the issue of stadium construction. At Ellis Park and other stadia around the
country, the gradient of the seating is so steep that should spectators need to urgently evacuate
the stadia, it is a given that some people are going to be trampled upon as well as fall down the
steep steps. Egress routes are normally large enough to accommodate the crowd, but the sudden
rush of people through these routes is seen as a potential disaster situation.
The condition of some of the stadia, i.e. Rand Stadium, etc, have become so poor that they are
death traps. The stands are still constructed from wood and fans have, in the past, shown
displeasure of the teams playing soccer by burning the seating.
Another point of concern is access routes to the stadia for the Emergency Services in the event of
disaster. Under normal situations, routes have, in most cases, been identified. However, these
routes will not be accessible to the emergency vehicles because they would encounter the crowds
of spectators who are either evacuating the disaster site, or who are milling around the gates of
the stadia or in the case of some cultural groups who have strong family ties, will be attempting to
return to the disaster site as they cannot find relatives who have been lost in the confusion.
The lack of liaison between the local Emergency Services and mass event organisers is another
problem. So often the Emergency Services are called in and then the event organisers do not
comply with the requirements for holding the event. An example of this occurred in Johannesburg
during July 1997, when event organisers at a Rave did not comply with the Fire Prevention
requirements. Fortunately, Fire Prevention officers became aware of the fire safety shortcomings
and threatened to stop the event only a few hours before it was about to begin.
The organisers had to find and instal the fire safety equipment while thousands of Rave-goers
stood outside the venue, many drinking and doing drugs.
Co-ordination between the Disaster Response agencies and the mass event organisers is an issue
which, over time, has continuously reared its ugly head. So often co-ordination is only a paper
exercise, i.e. all plans are made and recorded in writing but never to seldom tested. The co-ordination between the senior staff of agencies might be good, but the co-ordination at the
disaster site between the staff of the various agencies is lacking.
One often has to ask if crowd control or the lack of it, does not contribute to disaster at mass
events. The answer is a resultant yes. Many of the Trade Unions have, over the last few years,
recognised this.
Previously, marches and mass action would very often result in some marchers breaking away
from the main group and causing havoc by breaking shop windows and damaging property.
However, the Trade Unions quickly recognised the need for crowd control and the need for those
members of the community not involved in the mass action to do so without intimidation. I am,
however, not saying that intimidation does not exist any longer, merely that it has become either
more subversive or is gradually disappearing, as people begin to understand the rights of others.
Crowd control is now more effectively managed by the march organisers and one sees officials
keeping the crowd together.
At any mass event that has become out of control, very little can be done to stop the crowds and
practice crowd control measures. So it is vital for event organisers to plan adequately for all such
situations and to ensure that the crowd control is done prior to or before the event begins.
This is done in many ways but the more effective include education of the possible attendees prior
to the event, of the time that they should arrive and be seated when seating is available.
Where the event occurs on a regular basis, like sports events, the crowds can be educated via the
programmes or the spectators can be informed about the correct procedures prior to the staging
of the event.
The possibility of the 2004 Olympic Games in Cape Town will, should this country host the
games, provide the Disaster Management team there with a number of new and challenging
opportunities and challenges.
I personally hope and pray that they will take up the challenge and show the world that, although
Disaster Management is a relatively new concept in South Africa, that they are able to provide for
a hazard free games.
This then leads us to the issue of preparedness plans for mass events.
Disaster preparedness has some important issues that need addressing prior to a mass event.
Efforts have to be made to anticipate possible impacts and hazards and then develop mitigation
strategies which neutralise or lessen the impacts.
Personnel in the form of volunteers, from various agencies, need to be mobilised and trained in a
host of skills to meet a variety of pre-disaster and post-disaster scenarios.
Some of the important principles that would need addressing in preparing for mass event disaster
situations include :
PREPAREDNESS AND IMPROVISATION
Preparedness means to organise the Disaster Response prior to an event. This means that a
number of issues need to be addressed. These include :
- warning
- evacuation
- damage assessment
- response, and
- recovery
The importance of mitigation measures, where possible, should never be overlooked.
It also includes the co-ordination between all role players and each should understand how their
specific function fits into the whole plan and that they are indispensable parts of the plan.
People and material resources be needed to get the job done must be available and be mobilised
quickly. What is ultimately needed is the right resource at the right time and at the right location.
All the preparedness measures will require a certain amount of improvisation during the event, as
no disaster can be accurately planned for. Conditions and situations pertaining to the disaster will
change and could do so rapidly, leaving little time to confer in depth about what plan of action of
response is necessary.
The preparedness plan therefore should be flexible enough to allow for any eventuality.
An important note is that the improvisation is not the opposite of preparedness but that the two
issues go hand in hand and one cannot exist without the other.
A CONTINUOUS PROCESS
The writing of a preparedness plan is a continuous process. It would be a serious mistake to
assume that preparedness is complete when the written document has been finalised. It would be
safe to say that, in many instances, that written plans are already outdated as the environment and
people and circumstances are continuously changing. It may even be that a totally outdated plan
is worse than no plan at all as services get confused as to their specific roles.
REDUCES UNKNOWNS
By isolating problems that might occur and planning for possible solutions, preparedness aims at
reducing some of the uncertainty which surrounds disasters.
TRAINING
Preparedness is based on knowledge and knowledge can be obtained through training and the
imparting of information as well as testing.
The skills taught to response workers can be tested during training exercises but it must be
remembered to keep the training current.
Not only do the Emergency Services and other role players require this training, but so too do the
spectators and officials and staff at regular sporting events.
One of the keys to successful preparedness measures would be to inform the mass event goers
about the preparedness issues and what they should do in the event of a disaster.
Who should be responsible for the stands / terraces? Should it be the Police or the security
personnel employed or delegated to monitor security or should there be a separate group of
people to do this? My view is that all personnel who have a view of the stands should monitor the
situation. At Ellis Park, the Management has constructed a control centre which has a view of
approximately 90% of the grounds. From here security personnel can be directed to trouble spots
and so prevent situations becoming out of control. The security personnel employed to ensure
that spectators do not run onto the playing field also watch the spectators for any signs of trouble
and where this does occur, the reaction teams are sent in to remove the person(s) who are causing
trouble before the situation is allowed to get out of control.
What must be remembered though is that the event organisers are ultimately responsible for the
safety of the people who attend mass events. This fact will have to be borne in mind when the
planning for the Olympics is done. Dedicated persons with access to various areas of the venues
to be used will be needed to ensure that safety standards are met and adhered to.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion ladies and gentlemen, The need for adequate pre-planning for any mass event is
essential. The importance of joint co-operation and joint planning cannot be over-emphasised.
South Africa does not need a mass event disaster that will negatively affect international relations
on the sports front, especially now that the Africa games will be staged in Johannesburg. I there-for appeal to all people who have an input to make in disaster prevention, to do so for the benefit
of the communities they serve.
Thank you.
References
Hazard Management and Emergency Planning - Perspectives on Britain, Parker and Handmer, 1992
"Safety Cultures" in British stadia and sporting venues: understanding cross-organisational collaboration dor managing public safety in British sports grounds,Disaster Prevention and Management Volume 4, 1995
The Star, 22 May 1992
Business Day, 14 January 1991
Sowetan, 4 March 1991
Citizen, 2 June 1993