Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Children
Ward # 85 NGO Partner School, Dhaka (Nov 09 from Ward # 85 look on (Nov 09)
Submitted
by
Dr. Rathana Peou van den Heuvel, Lucy Cooper
and A Kader based in Bangladesh
rathoune@msn.com
iamlucycoops@hotmail.com
CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH
Table of Contents
Executive
Summary............................................................................................................................. 4
Acronyms
and
Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... 6
1.
Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 7
1.1.
Background
and
Objectives........................................................................................................... 7
1.2.
Sampling
Methods ............................................................................................................................ 7
2.
Background ................................................................................................................................... 9
2.1.
Situation
Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 9
2.2.
Dhaka
Background ........................................................................................................................ 11
2.3.
Barguna
Background .................................................................................................................... 12
3.
Main
Findings .............................................................................................................................13
3.1.
Learning
Process
and
Knowledge
empowerment .............................................................. 13
3.1.1.
Local
Knowledge......................................................................................................................................13
3.1.2.
Source
of
Knowledge
in
the
targeted
areas..................................................................................14
3.1.3.
Knowledge
Sharing
–
Dissemination
Process .............................................................................15
3.1.4.
Impact
of
the
information
dissemination
into
DRR..................................................................18
3.2.
Sharing
of
Responsibilities
and
Level
of
Recognition ....................................................... 19
3.2.1.
Overview
of
the
responsibilities
among
different
key
stakeholder ..................................19
3.2.2.
Acknowledgement
of
children’s
potentiality ..............................................................................21
3.2.3.
Acknowledgement
of
people
at
risk .....................................................................................................24
3.3.
Confidence
Building ...................................................................................................................... 26
3.3.1.
Physical
preparedness
to
a
disaster................................................................................................27
3.3.2.
Psychological
preparedness
to
a
disaster.....................................................................................27
3.3.3.
HH
oriented
culture................................................................................................................................29
4.
Recommendations ....................................................................................................................30
4.1.
Immediate
Recommendations
for
the
implementation
of
the
program
a
call
for
the
development
and
the
improvement
of
relevant
databases ................................................... 30
4.1.1.
Review
and
changes
of
the
indicators
and
activities‐
The
challenges
of
the
community
participation...........................................................................................................................................31
4.1.2.
Training
needed .......................................................................................................................................31
4.2.
Long
term
Recommendations
Capitalisation,
Interaction
and
Diffusion ..................... 32
4.2.1.
Action
Plan...........................................................................................................................................................33
4.2.2.
Advocacy
recommendations ..............................................................................................................33
5.
List
of
Annexes ...........................................................................................................................34
6.
Bibliography ...............................................................................................................................35
List of Tables
Table
1:
Breakdown
of
sample
size
by
location. ....................................................................................... 8
Table
2:
Slums
of
Ward#85,
Dhaka...............................................................................................................11
Table
3:
Villages
of
Naltona
UZ,
Barguna.....................................................................................................12
Table
4:
Major
Roles
and
Responsibilities
in
a
Disaster .......................................................................20
Table
5:
Positive
and
Negative
Responses
to
a
Disaster
(non‐exclusive) .....................................21
Table
6:
Training
Recommendations
for
PLAN’s
CCDRR
Program..................................................32
List of Graphs
Graph
1:
Primary
Underlying
Risk
Factors
for
PLAN’s
CCDRR
Program
Implementation....10
Graph
3:
Frequency
of
Response
for
Identification
of
Primary
Areas
of
Concern
for
Community
Underpreparedness.....................................................................................................................17
Graph
4:
Frequency
of
training
requests
in
the
two
locations...........................................................17
Graph
5:
Major
Hazard
Identification
by
Location..................................................................................18
Graph
6:
Justification
of
capacity
to
cope
with
a
disaster. ..................................................................19
Graph
7:
Frequency
of
Positive
and
Negative
Responses
to
a
Disaster
by
Location ................21
Graph
8:
Community
Acknowledgement
of
Children’s
DRR
Potential ...........................................22
Graph
9:
Children’s
Identification
of
their
Roles
and
Responsibilities
in
a
Disaster................23
Graph
10:
Identification
of
Vulnerable
Groups
by
Location................................................................25
Graph
11:
Major
Justifications
for
Community
Confidence
Levels...................................................28
List of Maps
Map 1: Detailed location of the two areas of PLAN’s CCDRR intervention......................................
11
Executive Summary
In the last three to four years the issue of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) has become increasingly
important in both developmental and humanitarian policy and programming. Reducing the
underlying vulnerability of people to disasters and increasing their resilience or coping capacities is
now seen as an important element in poverty reduction and ultimately in sustainable development
efforts. Following the World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction held in Japan in early 2006
many organisations, including multi- lateral and bi-lateral donors, have adopted DRR policies and
there is a common international agenda in the form of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA).
Box 1. Disaster Risk Reduction: The conceptual framework of elements considered with the
possibilities to minimize vulnerabilities and disaster risks throughout a society, to avoid (prevention) or to
limit (mitigation and preparedness) the adverse impacts of hazards, within the broad context of
sustainable development.
UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR)
In that context, DIPECHO was launched in 1996 as a programme within the European
Commission’s Humanitarian Aid Office (DG ECHO). Initially, the geographic focus of the
programme was on Central America, the Caribbean, and South-East Asia. Work in South-East Asia
included Bangladesh—the only country of the South Asia section now that has been involved with
DIPECHO since its inception. PLAN is a partner of DIPECHO in Bangladesh and it is under DIP
ECHO V that the Child Centered Disaster Risk Reduction (CCDRR) project is funded.
The CCDRR is based on the need assessment conducted in both Barguna and Ward # 85 (Dhaka)
in February 2009. Both locations are considered as high risk for disasters (Please refer to 02. Annex
1. Immersion Report Comparison).
The project proposes a fully integrated community development approach that will engage
communities in DRR. Given the specific contexts of intervention, the challenges are high to
provide a systematic, appropriate and qualitative support to all communities.
In this perspective the baseline survey aims at offering the most comprehensive approach on the
vulnerability of the population targeted by analysing both underlying risk factors and the level of
resilience of those communities. Understanding the concept of “Mitigation of the impact of
Disaster” involved both PLAN Staff and the beneficiaries, this bottom-up approach allows the
consultancy team to report and analyse the main trends on DRR in the given areas.
This report reveals that the will of knowledge is high in both areas as is the level of recognition of
the full potential of children. These factors will undoubtedly facilitate the smooth intervention of
PLAN in the areas. However, the Child Centered Community Development (CCCD) approach
faces in those disaster prone areas a lack of social community and sense of belonging that needs to
be addressed and enhanced.
The underlying risk factors of poverty and lack of solidarity system are the key issues to handle for
building resilience at different levels. The Rapid Catch Indicator (RCI) of both areas showed an
index of 40 out of 120. That means that the targeted communities are vulnerable. This is mainly due
to an extremely low level of physical preparedness and the low recognition of DRR activities or
organisations.
The main findings of the baseline are as following:
Low indigenous knowledge and practice in DRR (specifically high level of negative response
to disaster in Dhaka)
Disparity with knowledge dissemination (specifically problematic for the Early Warning
System (EWS) in Barguna)
High level of demand for training
High level of recognition of knowledge empowerment
High level of recognition of children’s potential (65% of the population)
Low level of recognition of PwD (15% of the population)
Community identification of hazards in line with the PLAN hazard’s identification
Community level of confidence (61%) is higher than the one of a household (41%)
1. Methodology
2. Background
The areas targeted by PLAN are the perfect reflection of these underlying risk factors. In Dhaka,
PLAN Bangladesh has been working for over 10 years and in Barguna PLAN has been working on
relief and rehabilitation since the 2007 cyclone SIDR. After the needs assessment conducted in
February 2009, two locations were selected Barguna (Cyclone and storm surge) and Dhaka
(earthquake and fire).
The CCDRR project of PLAN Bangladesh funded by DIPECHO V primarily targets 11, 549 direct
beneficiaries. They are considered to be the high-risk population who live in cyclone prone or water
logging, fire and earthquake areas in the coastal area of Barguna, Naltona Union (12 villages) and in
one urban slum in Dhaka (Ward # 85) under Dhaka Corporation.
Thus the essential problem of both areas is poverty. This underlying poverty factor contributes to a
low solidarity and sense of belonging. The relief works in both areas has inhibited the growth of a
real sense of community as show in Graph 1.
Graph 1: Primary Underlying Risk Factors for PLAN’s CCDRR Program Implementation
Many poverty reduction strategies have potential to address the underlying risk drivers and do
recognise disaster impacts as a contributing factor to poverty. However, the disaster risk reduction
components in such strategies are often limited to preparedness and response aspects. In this
particular program, poverty reduction and disaster risk reduction are not strongly integrated in terms
of policy and planning.
One can look to the Crunch Model1 and identified the similar interaction between hazard and
vulnerability that put both population targeted by PLAN at high risk. However this model does not
highlight the impact of the NGO interventions into the vulnerability situation in both areas as
identified in Graph 1 above.
1
Developed by Tearfund in 2006, by Blaike and Cannon
Map 1: Detailed location of the two areas of PLANs CCDRR intervention.
risk factors for the Ward# 85, the holistic view on it shows that the poverty factor is the one that
affect most the DRR intervention (Please refer to the 04. Annex 3. Problem Tree Dhaka
November 09).
PLAN is working in twelve villages in the Union of Naltona within Barguna District with a total
population of around 5,070 households (HH). The low lying land
Aga Padma is situated on the Bay of Bengal and surrounded by the fast
Amtola flowing waters of the Bishkhali River. Both the topography of the
Asgarkati area and the seasonal flooding that accompanies the Monsoon
Gazi Mahmud rains means that the lands are often submerged under water.
Golbuniya In 2007 the area was hit by cyclone SIDR that saw huge loss of
Gora Padma life and caused widespread damage. In 2009, cyclone AYLA
Gorjonbuniya struck and families lost their homes, livelihoods, and
Kumirmara infrastructure once again, although due to the nature of the
Naltona cyclone the loss of life was far less. The past experiences of
disaster and the hazardous environment in which they live have
Nishanbariya shaped the way in which communities and individuals are
Shiyaliya responding to risks: The population is characterised by a low level
Sonatola of resilience2 to disaster, a consequence not only of the huge
damage done during SIDR and AYLA but also in part due to the
Table 3: Villages of Naltona
lack of knowledge (indigenous or otherwise) on DRR issues. This
UZ, Barguna is not to suggest that financial capacity is not an essential factor
but rather that there is a lack of knowledge that limits HH
spending on disaster preparedness.
This lack of knowledge relates not only to preparation for a disaster but the response to it. The
capacity of these households to respond to a disaster is, and always will be, limited by the adequacy
of the Early Warning System (EWS). Even with the presence of livelihood opportunities which
would allow some HH sufficient income to spend on preparedness, without an adequate early
warning system in place the primary means of community preparedness is not being utilised. Within
and between PLAN’s twelve villages there are vast differences in the socio-economic status of the
households, and the existing EWS follow closely the lines that distinguish those with power and
wealth from those without. Within this context ensuring the implementation of the EWS is not only
a logistical undertaking but a social one (Please refer to 05. Annex 4. Problem Tree- Barguna-
Nov. 09).
2
Level of Disaster resilience within the community can be understood as the capacity to absorb stress or
destructive forces through resistance or adaptation and the capacity to manage or maintain basic functions and
structures and the capacity to recover after a disaster events, from the Characteristics of a Disaster- resilient
Community- A guidance Note by J Twigg, in 2007 for DFID Disaster Risk Reduction Interagency Coordination
Group
3. Main Findings
Local knowledge, like all knowledge, is social. Local knowledge is not entirely “traditional” (passed
on by generations). It is more local knowledge may opportunistically incorporate versions of outside
specialist knowledge. For instance, weather or climate forecasts listened to on the radio may be
interpreted and modified according to local weather signs and past experience. Within a community,
local knowledge is not uniformly distributed. Local knowledge may be a source of power and status
as we can see with EWS challenges.
3
Global Risk Assessment 2009 http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/report/index.php?id=9413 .
4
Clouds but Little Rain http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php?id=9822 .
5
UN-ISDR Global Platform 2009 for Disaster Reduction; Geneva, June 2009; see
http://www.preventionweb.net/globalplatform/2009/ .
base on that knowledge is not “trickling down” and penetrating local communities at all fast enough
to achieve Hyogo Framework of Action (HFA)6 goals.
This is not the place to discuss in detail why knowledge based diffusion of innovation is proceeding
so slowly. There are many factors highlighted by GAR and VFL. Amongst these one might single
out in the context of knowledge management the following:
• Top down diffusion of knowledge and practice require fine-tuning to local conditions.
Diffusion “by the book” seldom works.
• At the local level people experience threats in a more holistic way that specialists who design
practices focused on one hazard or another. Poverty, violence, climate change, and many
different natural and other hazards confront people at the scale of 1:1 where they live, work,
raise children, celebrate, and suffer. Local efforts to deal with one of these challenges
generally involve dealing with the others. Fine tuning takes such experience into account.
• There is sometimes a lack of trust between communities and governments or outside/ non-
local institutions. Trust and partnership must be built; it cannot be assumed. Without trust
and mutual respect, the exchange of knowledge and production of a useful hybrid of outside
and local knowledge is not possible.
Local knowledge is important for DRR because it is the lens through which people perceive and
understand the world in which they live. All innovation including risk reduction will have to be
carried out at the end of the day by people in places. Aside from this sociological and geographical
reality, there is even a more important reason why local knowledge is important: people are
constantly coping with threats. They share knowledge with neighbours, may draw knowledge in
from far away, boil it down and work out ways to apply it locally. Local communities are workshops
of knowledge production, not just museums of tradition. Thus for the outside specialist, the village,
the slum, town and city neighbourhood are as much sources of new ideas to be tested, refined, and
shared as is the outside specialists skill a source for local people. There is a broad and deep
partnership in knowledge production for DRR possible in the world that is very seldom actually
capitalised upon.
6
HFA refers to the Hyogo Framework of Action, the detailed work PLAN created at the World Conference on
Disaster Reduction held in Kobe, Hyogo Prefecture, Japan in 2005 and signed by 168 governments. See
http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/hfa.htm .
7
Knowledge transfer is complete when the individual/ communities are able to apply this knowledge to appropriate
situations
http://www.profoundlearning.com/Content/EducationSolutions/knowledgetransfer.jpg
Knowledge of climate change issues and their relatedness to disaster was very low. Only 10% of
groups understood certain mechanism by which climate change was perceived to be taking place.
However only two groups (both in Dhaka) felt that there was no change to the environment in
which they were living. The extent to which groups attributed the changing environments to climate
change was not established. To reinforce the knowledge transfer in the area targeted by PLAN, this
following process should be followed:
The locality division is relevant to handle this issue of access to knowledge. The urban poor of the
slum in Dhaka because of the access to electricity and the presence in almost all of the HH of a TV
(Please refer to 06. Annex 5. Case Study 1- The Small Picture) have a high access to knowledge.
Their knowledge on DRR is quite high but not linked to a global interest of DRR as the major issues
to handle. This is easily explained by the low intensity and frequency of hazards. The slum dweller’s
perceptions of hazards vulnerability are limited as HH need to cope with hazards but do not see
them as a destructive force.
Contrary to Dhaka case, Barguna focused on Disasters as a primary problems faced by both HH
and communities. The post- trauma of SIDR and AYLA contributed to increase the interest on
DRR. However, this expressed will is far to be enough without any access to knowledge as opposed
to Dhaka. The populations in Barguna rely heavily on the knowledge provided by the NGOs and
the schools. According to both pupils and teachers, the knowledge that they are learning through the
textbooks is neither sufficient nor practical. However children are listened while disseminating their
knowledge on DRR. While asking to the community “Why do you feel that children can support your
community? “, the community pointed out the knowledge empowerment as the main reason of the
acknowledgment of the children. Most of the adults in both areas are illiterate that can explain why
they looked to the youngest generation that benefited from the free education as a source of
knowledge.
The school in this context could have been a strong medium of knowledge dissemination but the
limited number of teachers and their own ignorance on DRR aspect add to the vicious circle of
Barguna.
3.1.3.2. Raising the will to knowledge?
After looking to the type, availability, access and quality of knowledge one must look to the
willingness of the beneficiaries to increase their knowledge. As most of the population targeted are
Muslim the constant reference to the verse of the Quran “Know that knowledge is light. And the
light of Allah is not bestowed upon a disobedient”. (Talib al Habib) is symptomatic of a real
hunger of knowledge in both affected areas. The role then of the religious leader is quiet important
in those area as it is the main source of social knowledge for the illiterate adults (mainly males)
outside DRR focus.
According to the results of the general FGD, the major areas of “under preparedness” that the
groups perceived within their communities are as following:
Lack of infrastructures
Lack of knowledge
Those main finding are presented in the below graph. It is interesting to note the differences of risk
perceptions between Dhaka and Barguna. Of the 13 Groups in Dhaka 10 reported feeling unable to
cope and in Barguna 16 of the 17 groups felt the same way.
Graph 2: Frequency of Response for Identification of Primary Areas of Concern for Community
Underpreparedness
Lack of knowledge is a big area the PLAN’s DRR will be working in, and the participants of the
group discussions were often clear that they wanted training.
3.1.3.3. Type of Knowledge
The beneficiaries targeted their training needs during Focus Group Discussion. In general, those are
related to practical aspect and more to a response aspect. The details of the training are given below.
Graph 3: Frequency of training requests in the two locations.
In Barguna lack of community capacity to cope was frequently seen as a problem. The
majority of groups in both locations asked for DRR related training, or training on general
community issues as determined by NGOs. The population in Barguna, where access to
communications, services and employment opportunities are more limited, called for
livelihoods and medical training, although their primary concern was for training on EWS.
In Dhaka there were also requests for personal security training and training that can enable
improvements to the environment (sanitation issues). Please refer to 04 Annex 3. Problem
Tree of Dhaka for further information.
Graph 4: Major Hazard Identification by Location
In Dhaka the most commonly perceived threat comes from water logging. FGD participants
particularly felt vulnerable to water logging because of the poor drainage system in place, meaning
that community members were exposed to raw sewage and contaminated water. In Barguna floods
were seen as the primary hazard, both in terms of frequency and the damage they caused. The lower
reference to cyclones despite the damage caused by SIDR and AYLA may be in part due to the fact
that many respondents understood these events as floods and not cyclones (this was especially true
of AYLA where water levels rose very slowly). The vulnerability to flooding was primarily explained
by the major devastation they cause in terms of loss of life, livelihoods and infrastructure. It was the
proximity to the water that people understandably felt was the driving factor in their vulnerability.
The capacity of the population to conceptualise their own risks could lead some to think that due to
the increased awareness a radical change in practices would occur. This is far from the reality as
discussed previously in this report, the underlying risk factor which is mainly poverty limits the
potential of growing resilience in the community. According to the main findings from the 1-2-1
interview (pleaser refer to 08. Annex 7. One to One Interview Main Findings), people are not
careless but due to their low incomes and the geographical vulnerability, the physical opportunity to
rehabilitate a shelter to make it hazards friendly/ resilient is close to zero. As it is seen in graph 6
below, the justification of their capacities to cope better with a disaster is mainly due to a
geographical asset rather than a change/ rehabilitation in the houses. People are more willing to
move to a safer location than build a stronger house. Once again the sense of ownership is an
essential underlying factor as most of the people are new comers or for Dhaka more seasonol
renters. The economical growth of the population will allow them to leave a risky place. The feeling
of attachment to a property is low even in Barguna where the adding factors to live into some
makeshift houses since SIDR and the trauma of both extensive and intensive risks (Please refer refer
to the Hyogo Framework for Action, Chapter 1) experiences8 contribute to a dynamic of migration
to the next closest town.
Among both the communities of Dhaka and Barguna there are common threads that can be seen
between the responsibilities taken by different actors. The responsibilities can be understood to fall
into seven areas as outlined in Table 1 below.
8
Extensive risks refer to the geographically dispersed exposure of vulnerable people and economic assets to low or moderate
intensity hazard. Intensive risks refer to the major concentrations of vulnerable population and economic assets exposed to extreme
hazard.
Analysis of the data collected in the Roles and Responsibilities Game shows that responsibilities
relate directly to capacity (those who have difficulty moving around are not expected to rescue
others but they may have responsibility for providing knowledge). The primary responsibilities of
the main stakeholders are provided in 09. Annex 8. R&R Game Analysis.
There are clear gender division in responses to a disaster, with women’s activities centred much
more on the home and the protection of the children. Men were more focused on the community
level interactions, leading rescue efforts and were more likely to take primary responsibility for
moving the household to a safe place and protecting the household assets. These gender divides in
responsibilities during a disaster follow clearly the gender divides within the society, and this suggest
that PLAN’s DRR approach should seek to capitalise upon the existent social structures when
enabling disaster response.
Perhaps the two main areas where we see differences between Dhaka and Barguna are in the role of
the elderly and the role of neighbours. In Dhaka the elderly population are seen as needing the help
of the community during a disaster. Their limited mobility means that they are in need of assistance
to move to a safe place. Although the same is certainly true in Barguna it was also clear that the
elderly are also seen as a source of knowledge during a disaster. Their experiences in dealing with
floods and their knowledge of the environment and weather provided valuable information to
families who suffered their first major disaster when SIDR struck.
The same phenomenon is not seen in Dhaka and this may be due to the fact that the scale of the
disasters is lower than the one in Barguna. The slum dwellers faced disaster that has not required
them to seek advice from others. The scale of the disasters then is perhaps the major contributory
factor in determining the extent to which the elderly are currently being involved in responding to a
disaster.
The same may perhaps be true for the differing roles that neighbours are taking in the two areas. In
Dhaka neighbours provided relief after a disaster, in the form of food, clothes, medicines, etc ... In
Barguna neighbours capacity to provide relief was limited as everyone suffered in the devastation. In
this situation neighbours were more important in spreading the EWS and offering advice on what to
do and where to go. Households provided little in the way of tangible inputs but were integral in
offering advice and help in taking shelter and moving vulnerable people to a safe place.
is reflected in the nature of many of the responses individuals reported. The time impact of the
hazards in Dhaka does not force them to move to a safe place. Because the scale of the disaster is
lower than in Barguna.
The below graphs show a breakdown of the positive and negative responses as in table 5 above
between the two areas (Please refer to 08. Annex 7. One to One Interviews Main Findings)
Negative
Positive
children in their communities with regards to their capacity and potential to be involved in
community DRR.
Graph 7: Community Acknowledgement of Children’s DRR Potential
There is also a slight difference between men and women, with men more likely to report that they
do recognise the potential of children. This may be in part due to the fact that women’s disaster
response activities are focused around protection of children and they are therefore more likely to
see them as a vulnerable group. Those interviewed from high-risk groups were no more of less
likely than the general population to acknowledge the potential of children and this again supports
the overall picture that has been drawn – around two-thirds of people acknowledge CCDRR as a
feasible intervention. Of those who do not recognise children’s potential there seems to be no real
information given other than that they do not have the capacity to respond. This may be more a
consequence of the interpretation of the question than a rejection of the child’s potential. If at the
individual level, the understanding of DRR as disaster response and not disaster preparedness then it
is possible to understand that the individual may see children primarily in terms of their high
vulnerability. This suggests that although there is acceptance for the CCDRR paradigm in general it
is also important that PLAN educates the wider community as to the real meaning of DRR.
Graph 8: Children’s Identification of their Roles and Responsibilities in a Disaster
The major differences that can be seen in the responses of the children relate primarily to the need
to move to a safe place – a more pressing requirement for children during a cyclone. In Barguna the
existence of an EWS, although limited, was also a major area in which children made a valuable
contribution to disaster response. In both areas around 75% of children reported either moving to a
safe place or undertaking some disaster response action (see table 5). There was also a similar
instance of protective measures (protection in this instance refers to the protection of vulnerable
groups), which suggests that some children recognised others within their community as more
vulnerable than themselves. Recognition of the vulnerability of others is important in empowering
the children to take responsibilities to be assigned to them under PLAN’s CCDRR approach, and
the fact that this is something of which they may have experience will enable them to take this
responsibility more readily.
In Dhaka there were also children who reported that they played no role in the last disaster. This
may reflect either that their parents and community did not acknowledge their potential to respond,
or that perhaps the scale of the disaster was limited in that there was no need for them to take any
actions. No particular gender division was noticed between the two communities with regards to
children’s response to disaster.
The risks that communities, households, and individuals are facing are different and entirely context
specific. One can imagine a sliding scale which mirrors the wealth ranking in the community where a
PwD living outside of the embankment in Barguna is suffering a higher level of risk than a teacher
living next to the cyclone shelter. Although there is a close link between poverty and increased risk
to disaster the determining factor will always be the size of the disaster that strikes.
Providing a real overview of the risks that people are facing may additionally require that the
population be empowered to acknowledge risks they had previously ignored. This constitutes an
important part of the work of PLAN and can be managed in such a way as to empower the
community to recognise the needs of those who may be more vulnerable to the effects of a disaster.
The main difficulty then arises from the differences that exist between the acknowledged risks and
the unacknowledged risks that different members of the community face. One way this can be
addressed is during the DRR plan development process, where children and adults will identify
specific DRR activities. The facilitator should raise awareness about the importance to support the
most vulnerable in their community.
In 21 of the 30 FGD’s respondents felt
that nothing was done to reduce the Box 2: People’s immediate recovery priority
vulnerabilities of the most at risk groups. • Embankment r epairing
The discussion of what should be done to • Family shelter r epairing & construction
reduce the vulnerability of these particular • Access to food & livelihood r ecover y
at risk groups was particularly interesting. • Access to safe water supply and sanitation
The requests for action were for • Access to health and education
interventions that would have benefits for
the entire community; in Barguna
particularly respondents called for more cyclone shelters, repair and raising of embankments, and
training on early warning systems. A recent Report of ECHO entitled In depth Recovery Needs
Assessment of Cyclone Affected Areas underlined those same activities to ensure the recovery
after a disaster.
Only three groups mentioned provision of stretchers to move people or safely jackets for the water
to specifically address the particular needs of those with mobility issues during a disaster (those
particularly at risk). This means that PLAN should focus its awareness creation on changing the
attitude of the community away from structural measures to ones of supporting the most vulnerable.
In Dhaka the respondents were more aware of the need to raise the profile of vulnerable groups in
order to reduce their risk. From Barguna there was a call for physical inputs, from Dhaka the call
was for information. This marks an important point of distinction between the two populations and
gives a clear indication that in Dhaka the populations feel more confidence to address DRR issues
from within although they addressed as well some protection issues that are their main concern
(please refer to 10 Annex 9. Case Study 2. Another Day in Paradise). This may in part be due to
the difference in the severity of the disasters that the two areas have faced, but it may also signal a
greater existing capacity to work within PLAN’s DRR model.
FGD respondents in Barguna and Dhaka were asked which groups they could identify within their
community as being particularly vulnerable to the negative impact of the hazards they faced, the
results are presented in Graph 8 below.
* Barguna Only
Perhaps the major point of note is the differing attitudes towards PwD between the two sites. FGD
participants in Dhaka were three times more likely to have recognised the particular vulnerabilities
of PwDs than those in Barguna, which suggests that much more awareness raising must be done
before a successful risk assessment can be carried out. Plan is currently developing a child Centered
risk assessment process which should start with awareness creation of community members on who
are the most vulnerable groups. A wealth ranking process would be highly beneficial, especially done
by children who are less biased in wealth ranking. In Dhaka the particular vulnerabilities of women
were not commonly identified. Although this may simply reflect the greater capacity that women
have in responding to hazards that occur it also supports the findings of this baseline survey that
there is a problem in Ward # 85 of ensuring the safety of women as they move about the slum at
night, or in the case of a disaster to take shelter (please refer to 10. Annex 9 Case Study 3.
Another Day in Paradise). The problem was acknowledged but not openly discussed by all
members of the community (a taboo issue within the slum) and as such the real risks that women
are facing are not being identified.
The high risks that children face in a disaster were acknowledged in both areas but it is clear that
there was limited awareness both in Dhaka and Barguna as to the impact that poverty can have on
increasing vulnerability to disaster. Given the level of social stratification and income distribution in
both locations one would perhaps have anticipated that the vulnerability of the extreme poor may
have been recognised. It may be that in areas with relatively stable access to livelihoods and
employment opportunities poverty is a consequence of inability to work (Elderly/PwD/Female-
Headed HH) and so by identifying these groups people were already identifying the extreme poor.
However it is also the case that within each community there are households that are easily
identifiable as wealthier and those that are identifiable as poorer. PLAN must ensure that children
from poorer households are encouraged into the programme because they represent families that are
more vulnerable to any disaster that strikes. This can be done through a wealth ranking process and
those households identified in the wealth ranking from lowest category must be represented in Plans
Children’s Organization (COs) and Community Based Organizations (CBOs). Due to reduced
access to education (where the child is working to supplement the income of the family) and
reduced time to invest in CCDRR activities these children may be the most difficult for PLAN to
identify and work with. However, if PLAN’s approach is to be successful it is absolutely necessary
that these children be involved.
Physical preparedness relates primarily to the quality of the shelter. Quality shelter means shelter on a
raised plinth that is capable to withstand both flood and storm surge. The walls of the shelter should
be weather proof and the support beams should be concrete and deeply set into the ground. The roof of
the shelter should be tethered to the ground in case of high winds. Trees around the homestead plinth
offer further protection and the shelter should be behinds a raised embankment. (For further
information please refer to the ECHO design developed by all partner N GO post-SIDR.)
Psychological preparedness in post-disaster communities can come only once the psychological trauma
has been overcome. Overcoming the trauma of such a devastating event can be a long process and will
inevitably involve community participation. Preparedness then can be seen as the absence or reduction
of fear in an individual, which leads the individual to feel some capacity to protect them against further
disaster. The instinct of protection over fear can have physical manifestations (the women of a village
may decide to wear a “shalwar chamise9’ in stormy weather instead of a sari that can inhibit mobility)
or emotional manifestations (commemorative plaques in the community or a day of remembrance).
Further than the community healing there needs to be individual healing whereby people have the
opportunity to discuss in a safe environment their experiences and the difficulties they faced. Both
healing of the community and the individual are delicate interventions that should only be undertaken
by trained professionals and those known and accepted by the communities.
9
Modern piece of clothe that women are wearing instead of the traditional “sari”
Justification of Positive Response
Justification of Negative Response
4. Recommendations
1. Geographical Vulnerability
2. Physical Vulnerability
3. Financial Vulnerability
4. Knowledge Vulnerability
It is clear that the focused mandate of PLAN on the third component of resilience,
Knowledge and Education10 will centre- based the program on the knowledge vulnerability.
The main challenge then is to empower PLAN to design a relevant awareness campaign that
will take in account those particular contexts and homogeneity of the population. As
analysed in both essays of Melkote E. Srinivas and Steeves Leslie H, Communication for
development in the third world ,First Edition. Sage publication, New Delhi, 2001 and
Genilo, Jude 2004, Community –Based Communication A new Approach to
Development Communication, Great Books Publishing, Quezon City, the environmental
context need to be analysed in order to reach the targeted audiences.
As this awareness campaign aims at reaching a large and diverse group of persons, we
encourage the creation of different tools and supports coming from the beneficiaries in
order to improve the current social cohesion (i.e. child to child methodology focusing to the
creation of tools in the school).
Prior to that Awareness Campaign for PLAN, the design of a comprehensive matrix on the
population (through a population survey) and the resource of each area to identify, assess
and monitor disaster are necessary. Indeed the starting point for reducing disaster risk and
for promoting a culture of disaster resilience lies in the knowledge of the hazards and the
physical, social, economic and environmental vulnerabilities to disasters that those antithetic
areas face. Once established, PLAN will periodically review this tool and systematise the
information dissemination to stakeholders and decision makers of the areas.
To enhance early warning system in the 12 villages targeted by PLAN in Barguna district is
the third priority. The beneficiaries urge on the need to develop early warning systems that
10
Classification coming from Characteristics of a Disaster- Resilient Community- A Guidance Note, August 2007,
John Twigg for the DFID Disaster Risk Reduction Interagency Coordination Group.
are people centre. Systems that is timely and understandable to those at risk and in remote
areas. That could come only with the knowledge of the population (taking into account the
demographic, gender, cultural and livelihood characteristics…). But a partnership with the
Red Cross to strengthen their capacities to reach the remote areas of Barguna and to
disseminate information on first aid and classification on cyclone signals.
As said in the first part of this report both time constraint and pressure on their daily
activities are underlying risk factors for PLAN success. The beneficiaries have basically no
time for activities. The Awareness campaign should then focus rather on providing visual
support in key area meeting locations (i.e. water points, tea shop…) than long session of
awareness in a HH.
The current logical framework of the program is indeed community-based focus but the
sense of belonging is so low that a more local aspect should be first prioritized. The
allocation of resources to villages or to slums scale to build community centres, place to
meet will determine in a second phase the success of a more holistic social approach.
A market analysis should as well be put into perspective by PLAN through market
networking. So then the beneficiaries will know who to ask to rehabilitate the houses or
where to find the different items to rehabilitate their houses.
It is clear that PLAN need to promote and improve the dialogue and cooperation among
scientific, academic communities and practitioners working on DRR and encourage
partnership among stakeholders, particularly for training and for sharing and dissemination
of information.
Please find below in Table 3 a non-exhaustive listing of training needed by both staff of
PLAN and the communities:
The support the development of library in each sub office of PLAN with relevant
documents in both Bangladeshi and English will increase the learning process of the staff
and add to the quality of the future work. A real listing of relevant books available nowadays
in the market should be done in partnership with relevant academics.
Annual Report on the best lessons learnt by PLAN into DRR should be diffused to
strengthen the image of PLAN in an area that is started to be fashionable and where the
constant increasing number of stakeholders contribute to make that area a marketable one.
Protection: This issue is particularly meaningful in the slum (Please refer to the Case
Study 2. Another Day in Paradise) and should be a component of a further program.
5. List of Annexes
02. Annex 1. Immersion Report Comparison
12. Annex 11. Case Study 4 .Life of Extreme Poor in the cyclone Belt
6. Bibliography
Websites Accessed November 09
PreventionWeb
http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/report/index.php?id=9413
http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php?id=9822 .
http://www.preventionweb.net/globalplatform/2009/
Profound Learning
http://www.profoundlearning.com/Content/EducationSolutions/knowledgetransfer.jpg
UNISDR
http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/hfa.htm
http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/hfa.htm
Wikipedia
http://www.wikipedia.org
Publications Consulted
UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR)
EU Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction in Developing Country, by the European Commission,
Thematic issues- sustainable management of natural resources, in 2008
Crunch Model published by Tearfund in 2006, written by Blaike and Cannon –
Characteristics of a Disaster- resilient Community- A guidance Note by J Twigg, in 2007 for DFID
Disaster Risk Reduction Interagency Coordination Group
Communication for development in the third world, Melkote E. Srinivas and Steeves Leslie H , First
Edition. Sage publication, New Delhi, 2001
Community –Based Communication A new Approach to Development Communication, Genilo,
Jude 2004, Great Books Publishing, Quezon City,
World Conference on disaster reduction- 18- 22 January 2005, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan – Hyogo
Framework for Action 2005- 2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to
Disasters, extract (A/CONF. 206/6)
In- depth Recovery Needs Assessment of Cyclone AYLA Affected Areas, 25 to 31 October 2009
Conducted by International agencies (ActionAid, Concern WorldWide, DanChurchAid, MuslimAid,
Islamic Relief, Oxfam-GB and Save the Children-UK) currently involved in AYLA response
programme funded by ECHO