BASELINE SURVEY REPORT COMMUNITY-BASED DISASTER RISK REDUCTION

Funded by the European Commission Humanitarian Aid and co-funded by Cordaid

Submitted by: Md. Fazlul Karim Chowdhury Consultant, Baseline Survey

CBDRR Project

Edited by: Concern Universal December 2009

This report has been produced with the assistance of he European Commission Humanitarian Aid. The contents of this report are the sole responsibility of Concern Universal Bangladesh and can in no ways be taken to reflect the views of the European Union.

The European Union is supporting the Fifth DIPECHO Action Plan for South Asia with the aim to support strategies that enable local communities and institutions to better prepare for, mitigate and respond adequately to natural disasters by enhancing their capacities to cope and respond, thereby

increasing resilience and reducing vulnerability.

BASELINE SURVEY REPORT

COMMUNITY-BASED DISASTER RISK REDUCTION PROJECT FIFTH DIPECHO ACTION PLAN FOR SOUTH ASIA

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................... 4 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 5 2 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 7

2.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 7 2.2 The Community-Based Disaster Risk Reduction Project ........................................... 7 2.3 Objectives of the baseline survey .............................................................................. 9

3 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY FOR THE BASELINE STUDY ............................ 10 3.4 General Approach .................................................................................................... 10 3.5 Methodology ............................................................................................................ 10

3.5.1 Sample Size Determination .............................................................................. 10 3.5.2 Survey Tools ..................................................................................................... 12 3.5.3 Composition of Study Team .............................................................................. 12 3.5.4 Training of Field Staff ........................................................................................ 13 3.5.5 Quality Control of Field Data ............................................................................. 13 3.5.6 Data accumulation and management ............................................................... 13 3.5.7 Data Entry, Processing and Analysis ................................................................ 13

4 FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................... 15 4.1 Brief description of the Household Questionnaire Respondents .............................. 15 4.2 Knowledge levels on DRR and climate change ....................................................... 15

4.2.1 Knowledge on Hazard, Risk and Vulnerability .................................................. 16 4.2.2 Knowledge on early warning ............................................................................. 22 4.2.3 Institutional knowledge on DRR ........................................................................ 23 4.2.4 Knowledge on Climate Change ........................................................................ 24

4.3 Practices and behaviors related to DRR .................................................................. 31 4.3.1 Practice before disaster .................................................................................... 31 4.3.2 Practice during Impending Disaster .................................................................. 33 4.3.3 Practice during Disaster .................................................................................... 35 4.3.4 Practice after disaster ....................................................................................... 38

4.4 Roles of local level Institutions and Coordination ..................................................... 40 4.4.1 Schools ............................................................................................................. 40 4.4.2 Union Parishad ................................................................................................. 41 4.4.3 Children Learning Centers and Learning Centers ............................................. 42

5 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 43 6 LIST OF ANNECES ....................................................................................................... 44

3

LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS TABLES

Table 1: Distribution of the household survey respondents by Upazila Table 2: Most common hazards Table 3: Understanding of warning signals Table 4: Observations of CLC/LC management committees on the consequences of climate change Table 5: Opinions of different groups about climate change Table 6: Observations of CLC/LC management committees on the causes of climate change Table 7: Observations of UP representatives on the causes of climate change Table 8: Roles of various respondents in Shelter Management Table 9: Self-assessment of UP representatives on DRR

CHARTS

Chart 1: Types of Hazards Chart 2: Perceived vulnerability to different hazards Chart 3: Understanding of Cyclone Signals Chart 4: Training on DRR Chart 5: Climate Change and patterns of disasters Chart 6: Reactions on hearing signal 7

GRAPHS

Graph 1: Most at-risk groups Graph 2: Causes of vulnerability Graph 3: Changes in Temperature and Rainfall Graph 4: Changes in Biodiversity - Forestry, Salinity Graph 5: Causes of Climate Changes Graph 5: Measures undertaken for disaster preparedness Graph 6: Measures undertaken during Disasters Graph 7: Measures undertaken after a Disaster

4

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS CBDRR Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction CBO Community Based Organization CLC Children Learning Center CMDRR Community Managed Disaster Risk Reduction CPP Cyclone Preparedness Programme CRA Community Risk Assessment CU Concern Universal DAM Dhaka Ahsania Mission DRR Disaster Risk Reduction FGD Focus Group Discussion LC Learning Center NGO Non Governmental Organization PNGO Partner Non Governmental Organization SMC School Management Committee SOD Standing Orders on Disaster UDMC Union Disaster Management Committee UP Union Parishad

5

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction Project is a CU-initiated project implemented jointly by CU and DAM with financial support from the European Union. The overall objective of the project is to achieve a ‘Sustainable decrease of the negative impact of natural disasters in the targeted Districts of Bangladesh’ with the specific objective that ‘communities, Partner NGOs, local NGOs and International Practitioners are practicing standard CBDRR Model in the targeted vulnerable Districts against multiple natural hazards’. Through this baseline study CU wanted to acquire a comprehensive picture of the project areas with regards to DRR knowledge, behaviors and practices, which would allow for the effective measuring of the intervention’s impact at the end of the project. Both qualitative and quantitative approaches were used for the study. Simple random sampling techniques were used to select 395 households from the communities under the project areas and a pre-structured questionnaire was developed for the household survey. FGD were conducted with CLC/LC management committees, UP representatives, school teachers, students and SMC members from randomly selected unions. FGD were also conducted with DAM field staff involved with project implementation and CLC/LC tutors from non-targeted areas. This report presents the findings from the baseline study. The findings of the study are presented sequentially in the report: following the methodology, the first section explores and analyzes existing knowledge levels on DRR and climate change; the second section focuses on practices and behaviors before, during and after disasters; and the third and final section examines the coordination, service provision and roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders. In each section of the report, a graphical analysis of findings from the household survey is presented followed by the FGD findings. One of the main findings of the baseline study is that even though very little institutional knowledge on DRR had reached the targeted communities, people in the area had gained empirical knowledge through their experience over time facing disasters of various types. Knowledge levels and understanding of risk, hazards and vulnerability were found to be high amongst respondents of both the household survey and the FGD, and communities had developed mechanisms to cope with and mitigate the losses due to disasters. Most of the respondents of the study were taking essential pre-disaster measures such as preserving dry food, saving money, keeping important documents in safe places, and becoming familiar with the nearest safe shelters. In particular, following cyclone Sidr in 2007, people had become more responsive towards DRR issues and some of the respondents explained that they had taken responsibility to raise community awareness on preparedness, prevention of losses, coping mechanisms, and warning signals. Awareness on the necessity to take shelter during disasters was also widespread amongst the respondents. Descriptions of what should be done, and by whom, during and after disasters in key areas such as shelter management, rescue, relief and rehabilitation were relatively detailed and realistic. Even though none of the respondents of the study had received formal training on climate change, most respondents were able to accurately highlight some of the effects of climate change on their environment and to identify the impact of such changes on their lives and livelihoods.

6

In spite of this strong knowledge base, it also appeared clearly from the baseline study that knowledge gaps remained extremely high, in particular in the area of early warning and climate change. Because the principal sources of knowledge were empirical or linked to the media, knowledge levels were found to be partial and incomplete and no respondent was able, for example, to define climate change or mention causes of climate change. Furthermore, very few could accurately interpret the complexity of the early warning system beyond the evacuation notice. The absence of institutionalized knowledge also meant that knowledge-sharing remained an individual initiative with no structured mechanism for dissemination of DRR or climate change messages, and no related quality control. Perceptions on vulnerability also appeared restrictive and took little account for people with disability. Finally, whereas some of the respondents were taking a significant range of preparedness measures, others were taking few or none at all, leaving them completely exposed to disasters. Strong requests were made throughout the data collection process and by all stakeholders surveyed for more training on DRR and the establishment of stronger information-sharing mechanisms. School and community actors (represented by CLC/LC respondents) in particular were not satisfied with their current level of knowledge on DRR and climate change or with their level of involvement in disaster-related activities. Coordination between UP, schools and CLC/LC was found to be another major gap regarding DRR at the local level, particularly at the pre-disaster stage. Risk assessments and risk reduction plans had not been shared with community stakeholders beyond the UP, and UDMC were completely dormant in normal times and would only be activated during an impending disaster. No preparedness activity was initiated by the UP in normal times and the role of CPP in Patharghata was found to be weak due to poor mobilization of volunteers, lack of equipment and training. During disasters, coordination mechanisms under the leadership of UP were found to be stronger but also very restrictive in terms of participation of key stakeholders such as schools and community action groups. CLC/LC were not playing any role as institutions in any component of the DRR cycle even though all of them expressed a strong interest in doing so. Schools were seen as extremely important in their role as cyclone shelters but school respondents expressed high levels of frustration to see their role confined to offering shelter when they wanted to be more involved in all disaster-related activities. Interestingly, “youth” was identified throughout the study as one of the key actors, especially during and after disaster even though there was no clear conception as to who the “youth” were. Also, the crucial role played by youth was not reflected in the participation of youth in key institutions (UDMC or CPP), or in projects related to DRR. This was highlighted by secondary school students who admitted that they played a key role assisting other community members during and after disasters, but who were not formally involved in any group or institution and were never included in training opportunities. Learning from the baseline study, the focus of the CBDRR intervention must be on building onto, and strengthening existing knowledge and good practices on DRR. Efforts should be made towards complementing and institutionalizing the existing community knowledge and creating strong and inclusive mechanisms for dissemination and information-sharing amongst community stakeholders. In that process, meaningful identification and participation of youth, women and people with disability is a pre-requisite to address some of the current gaps and weaknesses in the coordination system.

7

2 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Background If sea levels continue to rise at the present rate, experts estimate that by 2050 17% of Bangladesh territory will have vanished and 20 million people, or 16% of Bangladesh’s current population will be left landless. This is twice the entire population of the Netherlands. Bangladesh is the most densely populated country in the world, with over 755 people per square km, and one of the poorest countries in the world with 40 % of the population living below the poverty line. This wide-spread poverty combines with low levels of literacy, poor access to basic health services, and high unemployment, to undermine the country’s efforts towards national development, poverty reduction and social justice.

Above all, Bangladesh is a country that is intrinsically associated with natural disaster due to its geographical vulnerability. The country is an exceedingly flat, low-lying, alluvial plain covered by over 230 rivers and rivulets with approximately 580 kilometres of exposed coastline along the Bay of Bengal. As a result of this geography, Bangladesh frequently suffers from devastating floods, cyclones and storm surges, tornadoes, riverbank erosion, and drought as well as constituting a very high-risk location for devastating seismic activity. Impacts of global warming, which are recognized as being amongst the most severe in Bangladesh, are directly related not only to the frequency but also to the intensity of natural disasters. The country has registered an increase in temperature of around 1°C during the 14 year period of 1985 to 1998. This increase in temperature has occurred alongside an average of six major natural disasters each year in the country over the past 30 years, and this number is expected to soar in coming years. Concern Universal is an international development organization that has been working in Bangladesh for over 15 years. DRR is one of the key programming priority areas for Concern Universal with the objective to “develop and strengthen institutions, mechanisms and capacities at all levels, especially at community level, which can systematically contribute to building resilience to hazards” (Hyogo Framework for Action). Even though the effects of climate change and the increasing frequency and intensity of natural disasters are putting a huge strain on the country, we believe that supporting community-based preparedness and reinforcing local coping mechanisms will help save lives and minimize destruction of livelihoods. Evidence shows that investing in preparedness brings invaluable results and saves lives. For example, cyclone Sidr –a category 4 cyclone- struck Bangladesh in November 2007 and claimed the lives of 3,500 people. Cyclone Nargis struck neighboring Burma in May 2008 and claimed the lives of over 140,000. We believe that this difference lies in investing in preparedness.

2.2 The Community-Based Disaster Risk Reduction Project The Community-Based Disaster Risk Reduction Project is a DRR project implemented by CU in partnership with DAM in Southern Bangladesh. The project was supposed to start in June

8

2009 but due to practical and procedural limitations, field activities started at the beginning of August and will continue up to September 2010. The project was designed and is being funded under the framework of DIPECHO’s 5th Plan of Action for South Asia, with financial support from the European Union and co-funding by Cordaid. The principal objective of the project is to achieve a “Sustainable decrease of the negative impact of natural disasters in the targeted Districts of Bangladesh”. The specific objective of the project is that “communities, Partner NGOs, local NGOs and International Practitioners are practicing a standard model of CBDRR in the targeted vulnerable Districts against multiple natural hazards”. The project primarily targets people who live in cyclone prone areas. The Districts of Patuakhali and Barguna are among the most disaster prone areas in Bangladesh for cyclone, tidal surges and have been severely affected by past cyclones. The project works on a full Upazila approach covering 7 unions in Mirzagonj and 8 unions in Patharghata Upazila respectively under Patuakhali and Barguna districts. Two overall impact indicators have been set at the general objective level which directly feed into the priorities and objectives of the Hyogo Framework for Action and the DIPECHO 5th Action Plan for South Asia:

(i) Casualty, suffering and economic losses due to natural disaster are reduced by 50% amongst the targeted communities by the end of Project and

(ii) At least 60% of the targeted local institutions (Schools, Union Parishad, CBOs and NGOs) have perceived the benefits of and are replicating the CBDRR model

At specific objective level, another series of impact indicators have been set as follows:

(i) At least 75% of targeted households and communities are implementing preparedness and mitigation activities;

(ii) The CBDRR process is documented, disseminated and shared at local, national, regional and international levels;

(iii) At least 75% of the targeted communities and institutions are aware/involved with appropriate responses to natural disasters;

(iv) 1,106 out of 2,380 already existing CBOs/Gonokendra generated by DAM integrate the CBDRR model during the project period.

Most importantly, two of the 4 results of the project which relate to community-level DRR interventions are linked to a number of impact indicators that require going beyond output and activity reporting and questioning the actual impact of the activities onto people’s knowledge, practices and behaviors: Result 1: the capacity of communities and local institutions to operate as conduits for DRR at local level is strengthened

• Around 75% of the targeted communities and local institutions have incorporated disaster preparation mitigation and response into their official operational documents, and continue to disseminate the appropriate messages

9

• 90% targeted households received appropriate message on disaster risks and potential measures for risk reduction

• Around 85% of the beneficiaries are aware of the nature and level of disaster-related services offered by their community centre and other relevant institutions

• At least 33% of targeted community members have undertaken mitigation measures at individual/community level within the project period

Result 2: Productive linkages between the targeted community centres, relevant local government DRR mechanisms, local NGOs, GOB Administration and Service Providers are in place

• Around 75% of the targeted community centres are articulating their DRR activities with the local government, schools and NGOs and have established communication strategies

• Around 60% of the targeted community centres are familiar with the local government and local NGOs’ DRR plans and have established implementation mechanisms for their community

2.3 Objectives of the baseline survey The general objective of the baseline survey was to provide a comprehensive picture of the project intervention areas by looking at their institutions and communities with regards to DRR knowledge, behaviors and practices, thus permitting to effectively measure the project impact over the course of the project lifespan. Due to the nature of the DIPECHO funding cycles, the CBDRR project mainly emphasizes soft components and capacity-building on DRR at community level with a specific focus on disaster preparedness. This emphasis on software implies that unless levels of knowledge and behaviors on DRR are measured and compared before and after the project, it becomes impossible to demonstrate the effectiveness and impact of the intervention. The baseline report portrays the initial picture of the targeted communities and will be complemented by an end line evaluation that will follow the same methodology, thereby providing the grounds for meaningful comparison and evaluation of impact. Specific objectives of the baseline survey were as follows:

Develop easily replicable and usable tools for data collection at household, school, CLC/LC and Union Parishad levels

Develop effective and representative sampling methods Evaluate community stakeholders’ level of understanding and practice of DRR Evaluate community stakeholders’ level of understanding of and adjustment to climate

change and its impacts at community level Evaluate community stakeholders perception of vulnerability (children, women, elderly

and people with disability) before during and after disasters Evaluate impact of DRR mainstreaming outside project areas with partner NGO and

CLC/LC tutors

10

3 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY FOR THE BASELINE STUDY

3.4 General Approach Both qualitative and quantitative approaches were followed to conduct the baseline study. To collect quantitative data statistically representative households were surveyed using a pre-structured questionnaire. Participatory approaches such as FGD, case studies and individual consultations were followed to gather information from different groups of people such as, Union Parishad, CLC/LC management committees, school teachers, students and SMC members. Findings from quantitative household survey, desk review, and consultations through FGD were triangulated to obtain the results presented in this report.

3.5 Methodology Patharghata Upazila of Barguna District and Mirzagonj Upazila of Patuakhali District are the areas under this study. Primary target groups of the project are: Union Parishad, Schools (teachers, students and SMC), CLC/LC Management Committee, Household survey of parents/guardians of CLC/LC, CBOs/Self help groups and Tutors of CLC/LC in non-targeted area.

3.5.1 Sample Size Determination For selection of sample size for household survey the following formula was used: (z) 2 p q

n =

d2

Where, n = Desired sample size z = Standard normal deviation usually set at 95 percent confidence interval p = Proportion in the target population estimated to have a particular characteristic q = 1.0 – p d = Degree of accuracy desired set at 0.05 For sampling one of the characteristics considered is the expected success rate of household participation. Based on statistical methods for unknown populations we considered a P value of (0.5). Therefore, (1.96)2 (0.5) (0.5)

n = (.05)2 = 384

11

In order to compensate for potential dropouts of the sampled households the total sample size was increased to 395 households. Specific sample units were selected after a series of sharing sessions conducted with Concern-Universal and Dhaka Ahsania Mission at Dhaka and project levels and are summarized in Table 1. Even though Upazila and District levels are very relevant to the CBDRR project, it was decided that the most accurate measure of project impact would be provided at Union level. The main beneficiaries of the project are (i) CLC/LC or Gonokendro, (ii) Secondary Schools, (iii) Union Parishad, (iv) Partner NGOs and (v) CLC/LC in non-targeted area. As a result, data collection focused on institutions, communities, individuals and households at these levels. In the project areas, the Upazila of Patharghata has more unions than Mirzagonj and also includes a Municipality. The sample size reflects the difference between the two Upazila with a higher number of respondents surveyed in Patharghata than in Mirzagonj. Table 1: Distribution of the household survey respondents by Upazila

Upazila Unions No. of HH Respondents

Patharghata

Kathaltali,

Patharghata

Patharghata Sadar

Charduani and

Raihanpur

245

Mirzagonj

Dewali Sibidkhali

Majidbaria,

Kakrabunia

150

Total 7 unions + 1 Pourashava 395

Household level data was collected from randomly sampled households from parents/guardians of CLC/LC in CLC/LC’s catchments areas and from randomly sampled households in areas where no CLC/LC was available prior to the project’s implementation period. In addition to the project areas, baseline information was also collected in CLC/LC from non-targeted areas in order to account for one of the activities of the project which is about mainstreaming DRR in Non Formal Education in 13 disaster-prone districts of Bangladesh. The results of these FGD are presented in the coordination section at the end of the report.

12

3.5.2 Survey Tools The survey used a combination of quantitative and qualitative tools. Quantitative data was collected through structured questionnaires, whilst qualitative data was collected through FGD, semi-structured interviews and case studies. After initial design, the draft tools were shared with Concern Universal and finalized based on the feedback received. To conduct data collection both through household survey and FGD with different groups, the design of the questionnaire and FGD checklists focused on the following areas:

• General knowledge on DRR and climate change o Understanding of hazards, risks and vulnerabilities o Knowledge of early warning o Awareness of changing patterns in climate and impact on livelihoods

• Community practices related to DRR o Mitigation measures (Homestead raising, protecting water resources, safe

storage of food, disaster resilient constructions, reforestation, etc) o Contingency plans (formal or informal) o Specific mechanisms for vulnerable groups o Prevention activities at community-level o Dissemination of early-warning o Mock drill exercises o Adjustment of livelihoods to changing climate patterns

• Awareness of DRR-related services available o Existence of resource people/groups on DRR o shelter o NGOs o GOB

More specifically, for each stakeholder interviewed, the following areas were considered: At CLC/LC and Union Parishad levels:

• General knowledge on DRR and climate change • Integration of DRR activities in operational documents and activities • Coordination on DRR

At school level (teachers, SMC and students): • General knowledge on DRR and utilization/appropriateness of DRR curriculum • Integration of DRR in school activities • Levels of involvement of schools in DRR

3.5.3 Composition of Study Team A data collection team composed of six members was put together for the study and divided into two sub-teams at field level throughout the data collection process: four members concentrated on collecting quantitative data through household survey whilst the other two

13

focused on collecting qualitative information through FGD. In addition to his/her data collection duties, one member of each team was assigned responsibility for supervision of the process of data collection, data quality control, and logistic support. The whole process of data collection was under the close supervision and technical guidance of the lead consultant. He made frequent and random visits to data collection spots, and provided feedback and guidance as required to ensure the reliability of the data collected.

3.5.4 Training of Field Staff Data collection tools i.e. household questionnaires, topical outlines for focus group discussions and case studies guidelines were prepared jointly by the entire team and were followed by a discussion and briefing on data collection ethics, understanding of the tools, quality control and management of the process of data collection. All the data collectors also attended a full day orientation session facilitated by the lead consultant, which included rehearsal and mock sessions.

3.5.5 Quality Control of Field Data To ensure quality data, the following measures were taken: Training for data collectors and supervisors on ethics and method of data collection

including best possible quality data collection and measures to minimize non-sampling errors;

In-built mechanisms in the checklist/schedules to cross-check consistency of the responses;

Probing techniques to ascertain the appropriateness/relevance and consistency of answers, and wherever necessary elaboration of answers;

Close supervision of the work of the data collectors; Random check on the work of the data collectors; Edition of filled questionnaires every evening to find out the omissions, non-response, and

irrelevant answers; Feedback by supervisors and solution to bottlenecks, as and when arisen.

3.5.6 Data accumulation and management Appropriate follow-up mechanisms were put in place to ensure that the data was collected, verified and submitted according to the agreed schedule and sample. After data collection all the filled questionnaires and field notes of focus group discussions were registered in a central book. Upon registration of the filled questionnaires, the data was coded and processed for entry into the computers under strict supervision of the quality controller and the lead consultant.

3.5.7 Data Entry, Processing and Analysis A user friendly data entry program was designed using SPSS/PC statistical software following validity, skip and range rules. All the processed data was analyzed to describe the current situation of the targeted groups based on the objectives of the study. Quantitative data was analyzed using parameters – uni-variate (frequency distribution) analysis using

14

SPSS software to generate tables. Harvard Graphics software was used to generate graphical presentations of the data.

15

4 FINDINGS

4.1 Brief description of the Household Questionnaire Respondents This sub-section describes the basic socio-economic characteristics of the respondents of the household survey. Due to the sampling technique adopted in the study, the data might present a bias towards the most vulnerable layers of the communities in the two Upazilas. This comes from the fact that the primary sample unit was parents and guardians of children enrolled in the Children Learning Centers and/or families enrolled in the Learning Centers. The CLC/LC provide non formal education services to children who have dropped-out of school and as a result mainly target the poorest and most vulnerable families in their catchment’s areas. The LC also reach out to the most vulnerable by providing basic literacy, numeracy and skills training to illiterate adults. The average size of the respondent’s household was 4.84 in Patharghata, 4.65 in Mirzagonj and 4.77 overall. Male members were slightly more numerous than females’ with a ratio of females of 49.4% and 48.1% in Patharghata and Mirzagonj respectively. The level of education found within the surveyed population was relatively low with only 3 Master Degree holders, 5 graduates and 27 High School Certificates amongst the total 395 households. Illiteracy rates were quite high with 7.4% in Patharghata and 10.0% in Mirzagonj (table-3, Annex 5). The analysis of the occupation of the household members provided an interesting insight. The highest percentage was composed of students with about 32% in both Upazilas. In the same way, housewives accounted for 24% of the household members in both Upazilas. Cumulated, both occupations represented more than half of the household members surveyed in each Upazila. In Patharghata and Mirzagonj respectively, about 10% and 18% of the household members were engaged in daily labor, 7% of both Upazilas were farmers, and 11% of the household members of Patharghata and only 4% in Mirzagonj were fishermen (table-6, Annex 5). Around 78.0% of the surveyed households depended entirely on a single earning member (table-7, Annex 5). Only 9 households in Patharghata and 7 in Mirzagonj had 3 earners. There were 22 household members with disabilities in both Upazilas, 13 in Patharghata and 8 in Mirzagonj. Only one household in Patharghata had 2 members with disabilities (table-8, Annex 5). 29 households in Patharghata and 31 in Mirzagonj included at least one elderly member (over 55).

4.2 Knowledge levels on DRR and climate change In this section, knowledge levels are explored in key dimensions of DRR such as hazard, risk and vulnerability as well as early warning systems and climate change. Different sources of

16

knowledge are laid out with a strong emphasis on empirically-gained knowledge as opposed to institutional knowledge.

4.2.1 Knowledge on Hazard, Risk and Vulnerability The main source of knowledge on Hazard, Risk and Vulnerability is empirical: “gained through repeated experiences with disasters in the area” as emphasized by the respondents of the survey with complementary information coming from the media (radio, television and newspapers).

4.2.1.1 Knowledge on types of hazards Chart 1.1 presents the different types of hazards identified as the most common in the area by respondents of the household survey. In the two Upazila combined 92.7% of the respondents were of the opinion that tidal surge was the most common hazard followed by cyclone with 58.0% of respondents. A few respondents expressed that earthquake (2.0%) and droughts (0.8%) were also relevant to the area. It is important to note that all the respondents surveyed expressed their opinions on this particular question. Chart 1: Types of Hazards

Drought 2

Tidal surge 92.7

Others 1.5Cyclone 58

Earthquake 0.8

FGD participants expressed similar opinions to those of the respondents of the household survey emphasizing cyclones and tidal surges as the most common types of hazards but more elaborate answers came from the FGD. Hence, the CLC/LC management committee members said that cyclone, flood, drought, excessive rainfall, river erosion, and earthquake were potential hazards for their areas and the UP representatives, school teachers, students and SMC members added inflow of saline water in the list of hazards affecting their community. The following table summarizes the findings on most common types of hazards.

17

Table 2: Most common hazards

Type of respondent Types of hazards identified as the most common in the area

Household survey Tidal surge and cyclone

CLC/LC Management Committee

Cyclone, tidal surge, drought, excessive rainfall, river erosion, and earthquake

UP and School Cyclone, tidal surge, drought, excessive rainfall, river erosion, earthquake and inflow of saline water

Even though none of the community members surveyed or interviewed apart from the UP members had participated in risk assessment exercises at the time of the baseline survey, responses from both the household questionnaires and the FGD revealed high levels of awareness and understanding from all community members as to the nature of hazards which affected their living areas. The responses not only converged regardless of the methodology used or of the group surveyed but were also consistent with the information contained in the Union profiles developed in each of the Unions of the two Upazila. The fact that all respondents decided to express their opinions on this particular question also showed high levels of confidence amongst community members regarding the issue of hazard identification. The testimonies below collected during the course of the baseline study provide some sense of the terrible events experienced by the communities in the two Upazila which are at the core of people’s knowledge on DRR.

Sukhi, Student of class IV in Haritana Model Primary School, Union: Patharghata Sadr, Upazila: Patharghata, District: Barguna

“My father was not at home when Sidr hit. My mother, three siblings and our grandmother were at home. My mother told all of us to climb on a large mango tree near our house. Then she remembered about the cows and decided to go to the shed to free them. By then the wind was blowing faster. When she entered the cow-shed a large rain tree fell over the building. We heard her scream. The next morning, when Sidr ended, we found the dead cows tied up with rope, but the dead body of our mother had been flashed away with tidal flow.”

18

4.2.1.2 Perceptions on vulnerability to hazards Chart 1.2a shows the perceived vulnerability to different hazards in the two Upazilas as expressed by the respondents of the questionnaires. It was clear from the household survey that communities in both Upazila felt primarily vulnerable to tidal surges (73.7%) followed by cyclones (27.8%). Only 1.5% of the respondents chose not to express their opinions on this question. Chart 2: Perceived vulnerability to different hazards

Tidal surge 73.7

Cyclone 27.8

Can't tell 1.5

FGD with CLC/LC management committees revealed no deviation from the findings of the household survey and confirmed that impacts of tidal surges and cyclones were the worst in terms of creating vulnerability for the communities. In the case of tidal surges, reasons mentioned for this high vulnerability included the fact that water penetrated into their houses and land, destroyed everything including crops, decreased the fertility of land due to saline intrusion, polluted sources of drinking water, and caused death of fish in their ponds. With regards to cyclones, negative effects mentioned included damages to houses and crops. The

Mr. Sohrab Mridha (48), Village: Charkhali, Union: Deuli Subidkhali, Upazila: Mirzagonj, District: Patuakhali, LC: Surjomukhi “I, my wife, mother and my two sons took shelter on a large tree during the cyclone. I climbed up to the top of the tree with my elder son and my mother held onto a branch. My wife took hold of the base of the tree with my younger son. But my wife and younger son were soon swept away by the current. I told my mother to save them. After a while, the branch broke down and my mother died falling from the tree. I have not found their dead bodies. Now I survive with my elder son by working in other people’s fields. I still visualize the pathetic scene that I experienced.”

19

FGD participants from selected schools agreed with the responses of the CLC/LC management committee members but added the loss of life and assets, increased salinity, increased incidence of water borne diseases, and loss of livestock and poultry. The UP representatives explained that tidal surges and cyclones caused loss of crops, plants and trees, destroyed houses, and damaged infrastructures like roads and bridges. They also mentioned that pandemics arose as a result of these two hazards. Similarly to hazard identification, there was a clear convergence of responses from both household survey and FGD regarding the vulnerability of communities to different hazards. Details about the reasons for this perceived vulnerability provided during the various FGD also revealed high levels of awareness and understanding of the negative impacts of disasters on lives, assets and livelihoods. The fact that only 1.5% of household survey respondents decided not to express themselves on this question showed that the perception of vulnerability and the awareness of negative impact of disasters was widely shared. As shown in figure 1.3a, children and elderly people were overwhelmingly identified by respondents as the most at risk groups with regards to disasters with 49.0% and 40.9% respectively. Fishermen and people living on the bank of the river/sea were also identified as being at particular risk as expressed by 22.8% of respondents for each group. Other at-risk groups identified by the respondents included women (11.4%), pregnant mothers (6.1%) and poor people (8.6%). Only 5.3% of the respondents said that people with disability could also be at risk with regards to disasters. Graph 1: Most at-risk groups

Chi

ldre

n

Eld

e rly

Fish

erm

en

Riv

ersid

e pe

ople

Wo m

en

Preg

n ant

mot

h ers

Poor

peo

ple

Peop

le w

ith d

isabi

lity

Can

't te

ll

Oth

ers0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Perc

ent

Figure 1.3b describes opinions of the respondents of the household survey as to the causes of this increased vulnerability to hazards of particular groups. As shown in the figure, 36.7%

20

of the respondents identified “impossibility to move alone to shelter” as the main cause of vulnerability, which according to them primarily affected children, mothers, and elderly people. Similarly another 20.1% expressed that the movement limitation was a major cause of vulnerability which once again affected mainly women, children and elderly people: reasons given for these included physical or cognitive impairment and issues of protection/security. Other causes of increased vulnerability to disasters mentioned by the respondents included poverty as it was perceived that poor people did not have well structured houses (8.6%), difficulty to reach a safe place on time for fishermen (12.2%), lack of reach of early warning signals to fishermen (6.8%), living in river bank areas as people there were the first to be hit by tidal surge water (9.7%) and impossibility to swim for children (7.2%). Interestingly, even though movement limitation was perceived by respondents as the main cause of vulnerability, this was primarily associated with children, women and elderly people but only marginally with people with disability. This shows that amongst community respondents the level of awareness on the issue of disability, especially in relation to disaster, is relatively low and that the connection between increased vulnerability and disability in the context of disaster is far from automatic unlike the connection between age, gender and disaster vulnerability. Graph 2: Causes of vulnerability

Ch i

ld, m

oth e

r, el

derl

yca

n't m

ove

alon

e

Wom

e n, C

hild

r en

Eld

erly

can

't m

ove

to s

helt

er fa

st

Poor

peo

ple

don '

tha

ve s

olid

hou

s es

Fis h

erm

en c

a n't

reac

h sa

fe s

helt

er

Chi

ldre

n ca

n't s

wim

Fis h

erm

en d

on't

get s

igna

l in

t im

e

Wat

er h

its

rive

rba

nk fa

st

Riv

e rsi

de p

eopl

eca

n't m

ove

fast

to s

a fe

plac

e

Oth

ers

0

10

20

30

40

Percent

In convergence with the findings from the household survey, the CLC/LC management committees as well as the UP and school representatives expressed in the FGD session that

21

people living on the river banks particularly outside of the embankment, fishermen, children, elderly, people with disability and the poor people were the most at risk. The FGD participants of schools (teachers, students and SMC members) and the UP representatives specifically mentioned some important factors behind this increased vulnerability. These were as follows:

Lack of awareness, Inadequate number of volunteers; Fishermen do not get warning signals in time; The meaning of warning signals is not properly understood or followed by the

community; Absence of or improper or inadequate or unplanned embankment. Lack of

maintenance and reconstruction of embankment; Absence of sluice gate; Illiteracy; The women, elderly people, fishermen, children, person with disability, can not move

to shelters immediately. Two case studies collected over the course of the study exemplify the specific issues faced by fishermen during disasters as raised by both respondents of the household survey and participants in FGD.

Overall, the perceptions of all respondents –FGD and household survey alike- accurately reflected patterns of vulnerability to hazards in the area and awareness levels on the negative impacts of disasters on lives, assets and livelihoods were high. The idea that some groups within the community were particularly at risk with regards to the different hazards was also

Safura Khatun (35), Housewife Village: South Patharghata, Union and Upazila: Patharghata, District: Barguna, CLC: South Patharghata Children Learning Center

“My husband and his three brothers were out in the sea for fishing. After becoming aware of the danger signal I tried my best to contact them but unfortunately I could not. When Sidr was over I heard that they had all died, but even their dead bodies could not be traced. Government should have a system by which the fishermen in the deep sea get the warning first.”

Nasima (50), Housewife Village: Haritana, Union and Upazila: Patharghata, District: Barguna CLC: West Badurtala Children Learning Center “My husband accompanied by our four sons was in the deep sea for fishing at the time of Sidr, but they never returned. Other people say that they are not alive, but I can not accept that. Since Sidr I have been living my life like a dead person.”

22

widely shared, and so were the reasons for this increased vulnerability. The explanations provided in both the household survey and the FGD as to why certain groups are particularly at risk when disasters strike covered a wide range of structural and non structural elements including not taking shelter, lack of reach of early warning signals, lack of infrastructure, lack of knowledge and/or capacity. However the household survey in particular revealed a knowledge gap with regards to the issues of disability which was not systematically considered as a vulnerability factor in the context of disaster risk by community members.

4.2.2 Knowledge on early warning As shown in figure 1.5a, the overall understanding of the early warning system was very low as 81.0% of the household survey respondents declared “not understanding the meaning of cyclone warning signals” against 19% who claimed that they understood the warning signals. Chart 3: Understanding of Cyclone Signals

No ideaabout Signal

81.0%

UnderstandSignal19.0%

Refining the analysis per Upazila presented an interesting contrast since CPP had been operational in Patharghata but not in Mirzagonj. Even though the overall knowledge on early warning remained low, Patharghata was doing significantly better than Mirzagonj with 22.9% of respondents who understood the warning signals against only 12.4% in Mirzagonj. The declared low level of understanding of early warning signals was inconsistent with another outcome of the household survey which is that over 90% of the respondents would move to safe places (54% to cyclone shelters and 39% to other identified safe places) on hearing signal 7 as detailed in paragraph 5.2.2. However this was explained by the fact that community members were not aware of the different grades of the warning system and the corresponding behaviors but only reacted upon receiving evacuation notice. Table 3: Understanding of warning signals

Upazila Understand warning signals (%)

Mirzagonj 12.4

Patharghata 22.9

23

Responses from the FGD differed to a certain extent from those of the household survey. If CLC/LC management committees also had low levels of understanding of the warning system, a majority of school and UP respondents described the different signals and corresponding prescribed behaviors accurately. In Mirzagonj, all FGD participants declared relying entirely on radio and television for warning messages whereas UP participants in particular mentioned that CPP/BDRCS and the UP were also sources of information for warning messages in Patharghata. In both Upazila, participants in the FGD said that they generally warned their neighbors after getting the evacuation signal and UP members in Patharghata said that they used megaphones to disseminate warning messages through UP Chowkidars and CPP volunteers during impending disaster. However in both cases, dissemination efforts only started when evacuation to safe shelter was required and in none of the institution surveyed was there any effort to educate community members or share knowledge on early warning systems during normal times.

4.2.3 Institutional knowledge on DRR The main sources of institutional knowledge on DRR include training from various governmental and non governmental organizations for different community stakeholders on disaster-related issues, the community risk assessment process which should result in each Union having accurate profiles of their risk and vulnerabilities as well as corresponding action plans, and finally the school curriculum which for both primary and secondary school includes a chapter on DRR.

4.2.3.1 Training on DRR Almost all the respondents (97%) had never received any training on DRR. However, the respondents emphasized that they gained some knowledge on disaster issues through the media, namely newspaper, radio and television. Chart 4: Training on DRR

TrainingReceiv ed

3.3

Trg notreceiv ed

96.7

24

FGD participants had relatively been involved in more training opportunities even though that varied significantly from one institution to the other. CLC/LC management committee members had never received any training on DRR as an institution and only few members had received a relevant training but as holder of another responsibility. Most teachers also declared having never participated in training on disaster-related topics. Only UP members declared having been involved in training courses facilitated by various NGOs on disaster management, CRA, and SODs. NGOs mentioned included Concern Worldwide, Ahsania Mission, Sankalpa, Shushilan, Sangram, CCDB, Rupantar, Caritas, Unicef and Save the Children UK In Patharghata, UP representatives also declared having received training and support on these issues from CPP. All the participants in the FGD, including UP representatives, expressed a strong interest in receiving training on disaster-related issues. This was particularly the case of school-based actors and CLC/LC management committee members.

4.2.3.2 Risk assessment process In all the Unions surveyed except Patharghata Paraushava, the community risk assessment process had been completed but this only came out from FGD with UP members as both school and CLC/LC participants declared having never been involved with risk mapping exercises and not being aware of the existence of a union profile. Under the leadership of two local NGOs (Shushilon and UJMS), UP members declared having been involved with Community Risk Assessment (CRA) exercises but they neither shared the outcomes with community members nor did they share with CLC/LC and schools. Also and according to UP members, no risk reduction strategy or action plan was developed or initiated by the UP as a result of the CRA. In fact, none of the UP members interviewed was preserving a copy of the CRA profile and plan at their office.

4.2.3.3 School curriculum All the teachers interviewed were not only aware of the chapter on DRR in the school textbooks but also declared systematically providing students with information on disaster and disaster risk reduction regardless of the level. However, all the teachers also declared that the chapter on DRR was incomplete and inadequate. Furthermore they added that the main sources from which they drew to provide students with information on DRR was not the textbooks but the media and all the complementary information they receive mainly through newspapers, TV and radio. Teachers, SMC and students consistently expressed their interest in receiving training and information on disaster-related issues.

4.2.4 Knowledge on Climate Change Knowledge levels of respondents of the household survey and participants in the FGD on climate change were explored through questions on the changes observed in different areas, namely disaster patterns, rainfalls and temperature and biodiversity. Only then were direct questions on climate change made to the respondents and mainly relating to what they perceived as being the causes of climate change.

25

4.2.4.1 Perceived effects of climate change Observed changes in the patterns of disasters Respondents were asked if they had observed any changes in the pattern of disasters over the course of their lives. More than 93% of the respondents believed that both the incidence and the severity of disasters had increased. The rest of the respondents i.e. 6.6% could not respond. Chart 5: Climate Change and patterns of disasters Increased

no. & severi93.4%

Can't tell6.6%

Observed changes in temperature and rainfall Respondents were asked if they had observed changes in temperature and rainfall over the course of their lives and what these changes were. Figure 1.6b presents the range of responses provided. Most respondents were aware of a raise in temperature in the last few

decades (70.3%) and other responses included increase in the level of ebb and tide (35.5%), increase in rainfalls (22.1%), decrease in rainfalls (1.5%), changes in the seasons (17.3%). However, a high 18% of the respondents could not share any opinion on this issue. Graph 3: Changes in Temperature and Rainfalls

Tem

p ara

ture

incr

ease

d

Leve

l of e

bb a

ndtid

e in

crea

s ed

Lev e

l of r

ain f

all

inc r

ease

d

Seas

on C

hang

ed

Leve

l of r

a inf

all

decr

ease

d

Can

' t te

ll

0

20

40

60

80

Per

cent

26

Observed changes in biodiversity Figure 1.6c shows the opinions of the respondents about changes in biodiversity, forestry and salinity in their communities. As shown in the figure 44.5% of the respondents said that there was a decrease in forestry, 32.4% believed that the number of fish, animal, birds and plants including agricultural crops had declined, and 34.6% declared that salinity had increased in the area. Yet again 21% of the respondents were unable to give any comment on biodiversity, forestry, salinity. Graph 4: Changes in Biodiversity - Forestry, Salinity

Fore

stry

dec

reas

ed

F ish

Ani

mal

Bird

harv

est d

ecre

ased

Salin

ity in

crea

s ed

Can

't te

ll0

10

20

30

40

50

Percent

Responses from the household survey showed that overall community members were able to accurately identify some of the main effects of climate change on different elements of their environment. However, the technicality of the debate and the lack of awareness of a segment of the population were highlighted by the fact that a very high number of respondents could not express any opinion on questions relating to the effects of climate change. Similar questions were made during FGD with different groups and the following table summarizes the responses from CLC/LC management committee members.

27

Table 4: Observations of CLC/LC management committees on the consequences of climate change Sl. No.

Name of the CLC/LC

Management Committee

Any Change in frequency and

severity of disaster?

Any change in temperature,

season, rainfall, tidal water level,

etc.

Change in forestryand salinity

1 Amtala CLC/LC Management Committee

Increase severity of disaster

Increased temperature and decreased rainfall

Damage of plants, decrease fish, and increased salinity

2 South Kathaltoli CLC/LC Management Committee


Increased temperature

Damage of plants

3 Saherabad CLC/LC Management Committee


Increased temperature

Increased salinity

4 West Badurtala CLC/LC Management Committee

Increase both severity and frequency of disaster

Increased temperature and level of tidal water

Decrease fish and birds and increase salinity

5 South Patharghata CLC/LC Management Committee


Increased temperature and change in season

Decrease fish and increase salinity

6 Surjamukhi CLC/LC Management Committee


Increased temperature and level of tidal water, and change in season

Decrease fish and birds and increase salinity

Observations of the UP representatives about climate change were similar to those of the CLC/LC management committees in both Patharghata and Mirzagonj. The UP representatives mentioned that incidence and severity of disasters, temperature, water and salinity had increased. They also mentioned that there were changes in seasons, irregular rainfalls, decrease in crops and agricultural products, and fish. Most of the household survey respondents and the FGD participants accurately described the main effects of climate change onto their environment. Yet, when FGD participants were asked to give a definition of climate change, none of them was able to do so, which reveals a gap in knowledge at conceptual level. The following table presents a summary of opinions regarding climate change captured from consultation with different groups including the household survey. Table 5: Opinions of different groups about climate change

28

Respondent Changes as a result of climate change Effects of climate change

Household survey

• Increased incidence of disasters

• Increased temperature

• No rainfall in time

• Expanded coverage of tidal surges

• Increased water levels

• Decreased vegetation

Crop production and vegetation diminish due to decreased fertility of land resulting from salinity

FGD with CLC/LC Management Committee

• Increased incidence and severity of disasters


• Increase in both rainfall and drought

• Irregular season changes


• Increased water levels


• Water logging

• Loss of environmental balance

• Increased salinity

Crop production and vegetation diminish due to poor fertility of land resulting from salinity

Decline of fish due to frequent flood, catch of mother fish bearing eggs and fish fries

FGD with School teachers, students

and SMC members

• Increased incidence and severity of disaster


• Increased untimely rainfall and drought

• Irregular season change


No response

FGD with UP representatives

• Increased incidence and severity of disaster


• Excessive rainfall and drought

• Irregular seasonal changes


• Increased depression in the sea


• Loss of balance in flora and fauna

• Increased salinity

Crop production and vegetation diminish due to poor fertility of land resulting from salinity

Decline of diversity of species of fish

29

4.2.4.2 Causes of climate change Figure 1.7 shows that a majority of respondents of the household survey (71.3%) had no idea as to the causes of climate change. When respondents declared knowing what the causes of climate change were, the responses were not directly relevant to climate change and included over-fishing, saline intrusion, cyclones and tidal surges or over-population, showing confusion between effects and causes of climate change and broader contributing factors to changes in communities’ environment such as population growth or over-fishing. Only 6.2% of the respondents came out with relevant answers linked to deforestation. Graph 5: Causes of Climate Changes

Can

't te

l l

No .

& v

arie

ty o

f fish

decr

ease

due

tocy

clon

e, ti

dN

o . &

var

iety

of f

ishde

cre a

se d

ue t o

over

fish

ing

Salin

e in

tru s

ion

red u

ces

no. &

va r

iety

of f

ish

Def

ores

tatio

n

Popu

l atio

n G

r ow

th

Oth

ers0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Percent

The same lack of understanding of the causes of climate change emerged from FGD with CLC/LC management committee members. In only one of the CLC/LC were relevant answers given such as deforestation and emission of carbon dioxide. The following table summarizes the contributing factors to climate change according to CLC/LC management committee members. Table 6: Observations of CLC/LC management committees on the causes of climate change

Sl. No. Name of the CLC/LC

Management Committee

Causes of Climate Change

1 Amtala CLC/LC Management Committee

• Decrease of trees due to deforestation

• Fish decreased because of catching fish fries and mother fish

30

• Due to increased salinity, fertility of land decreasesresulting in damage to plants and trees

2 South Kathaltoli CLC/LC Management Committee

• Decrease of trees due to deforestation

• Increased carbon-dioxide level in air and water level because of melting ice in the polar regions

3 Saherabad CLC/LC Management Committee

• Increase salinity due to frequent floods

• Water level increase by melting ice due to increased temperatures

4 West Badurtala CLC/LC Management Committee

• Change in climate due to increased population

5 South Patharghata CLC/LC Management Committee

• Decrease of fish due to frequent floods

• Fish die due to increased salinity

• Decrease crop and other agricultural production as saline water from sea enters into the crop area

6 Surjamukhi CLC/LC Management Committee

• Decrease in species of fish due to catching fish fries


UP representatives showed similar levels of unawareness about the causes of climate change and just like the other respondents, they mainly mentioned unrelated phenomena such as over-fishing or chose not to respond at all as shown in the table below. Table 7: Observations of UP representatives on the causes of climate change

Sl. No.

Name of the UP Causes of Climate Change

1 Charduani • Due to deforestation and decrease of forest area

• Because of siltation in rivers the open water level increases creating floods


2 Patharghata Sadar No clear idea

3 Patharghata Pourashava

No clear idea

4 Raihanpur • Saline and polluted water from the sea enters into the Sundarban and destroys the forest

• Temperature increase due to loss of trees in the Sundarban

5 Deuli Subidkhali • Inadequate agricultural products due to lack of rainfall in time

• Decrease of fish due to over-fishing

• Due to cyclones there is loss of vegetation resulting in

31

Sl. No.

Name of the UP Causes of Climate Change

increased temperatures

6 Majidbaria Fish die due to increased salinity in water

Results of the household survey and of the FGD converged to show relatively high levels of awareness on the effects of climate change on various dimensions of communities’ environment such as patterns of disasters, temperature and rainfalls and biodiversity. If the technicality of the debate meant that fewer respondents and participants in FGD contributed than on other topics, responses provided on the nature of changes observed were consistent with scientific findings on the effects of climate change in the coastal belt of Bangladesh. Household respondents and FGD participants also showed awareness on the implications of these changes on their livelihoods mentioning decrease in fertility of land, agricultural production and in diversity and availability of fish due to increased salinity in particular. However, none of the participants of the FGD were able to provide a definition of climate change and both the FGD and household survey showed confusion and lack of awareness on the causes of climate change.

4.3 Practices and behaviors related to DRR If the previous sections explored knowledge levels on DRR, this section focuses on community practices and behaviors before, during and after disasters. It also looks at how knowledge on these practices was acquired and what mechanisms are in place to share and disseminate good practices.

4.3.1 Practice before disaster As shown in figure 2.1 community members declared taking a wide range of measures in order to be prepared for disasters. According to household respondents, the two most common measures taken were keeping dry food ready (67.8%) and becoming familiar with the nearest safe shelters (55.9% respondents). About 29% respondents said that they reinforced their houses, 33% preserved portable stoves with required fuel stock and 28.6% kept important things, papers and documents in safe places. Other preparatory activities of the respondents included raising homestead (18.3%), keeping cash in safe places (20.4%), keeping banana rafts and boats ready for emergency movement (21.3%), preserving drinking water (13.6%), planting trees around the homestead area for better protection from disaster, and preserving emergency medicine and food for cattle. The community members as expressed by the respondents of the household survey were taking these initiatives based on their perceptions and on experience and knowledge gained empirically in particular following Sidr in 2007. Graph 5: Measures undertaken for disaster preparedness

32

Rai

sing

hom

este

ad

Rei

nfo r

cing

hou

ses

Kee

pin g

dry

foo d

Rai

sing

latr

ines

Prot

ectin

g tu

be w

ell

S tor

ing

food

for c

a ttle

Savi

ng c

ash

Kee

ping

ban

ana

raft

boa

tsPr

ese r

ving

em

erge

ncy

med

icin

eP l

antin

g tr

ees

arou

nd th

e ho

use

S tor

ing

seed

sPr

e ser

ving

por

tabl

est

oves

& fu

elSt

orin

g d r

inki

ngw

ater

Get

ting

info

abo

utcy

clon

e ce

nter

Pres

ervi

ng im

p ort

ant

docu

men

tsO

the r

s0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percent

FGD findings confirmed the practice of a range of preparedness measures by community members whilst also highlighting the absence of organized mechanism to systematically adopt these measures or of information-sharing mechanisms. During the FGD, the youth of the area (FGD with students) highlighted the importance of keeping houses ordered and well organized and of preserving important things in safe places. Based on experience from previous disasters, adolescent respondents of FGD mentioned taking preparedness measures such as keeping dry food, clothes, beddings, kitchen utensils etc. tightly in a high place. Most were also aware of the need to keep some money and important documents underground after covering them in polythene. The CLC/LC management committee members declared using the same techniques also based on their previous experience and school respondents mentioned tying women’s hair, holding onto strong plants, participating in rescue and first aid activities for the victims. During FGD with UP representatives they also mentioned asking people of the area to go to the shelters. All participants of the FGD were taking those measures on an individual basis. The CLC/LC management committee members sometimes encouraged their relatives and neighbors to follow their example; but neither CLC/LC nor schools had a designated person for awareness-raising and information-sharing on these measures and sharing remained an individual initiative. The UP had disaster management committees but did not have any preparedness plan or any activity to encourage the adoption of preparedness measures by the community. Only after getting the warning signals did the UP activate their disaster management committees and start taking concrete actions such as mobilizing community members to move to shelters.

33

4.3.2 Practice during Impending Disaster The following findings are mainly based on results from FGD conducted with different stakeholders in the study area, except for the section on taking safe shelter which includes responses from the household survey.

4.3.2.1 Announcing warning signals The CLC/LC management committee members of Badurtala Union under Patharghata Upazila shared that they informed people using megaphones when they received the evacuation notice from radio or television. All other CLC/LC management committee members expressed that they did not have any assigned person or any instrument for dissemination such as megaphones or microphones. However, they declared that as soon as they got warning signals through radio or television, they informed their close relatives and neighbors. Teachers and SMC members portrayed the same reality: there was no mechanism or tool to disseminate early warning messages within or around schools. Some teachers believed that disseminating warning signals was not their responsibility, because the government did not impose this assignment on them. Few teachers had taken initiative for disseminating warning messages through students. At UP level and according to UP representatives, dissemination of early warning was more systematic and organized: early warning messages were disseminated through Chowkidars using megaphones and loudspeakers in mosques. The UP chairmen got information on warning signals directly from media and Upazila administration and informed the people in their respective areas. Even though CPP was supposed to be active in the Upazila of Patharghata, the role of CPP volunteers was only found to be significant for early warning dissemination and evacuation in one out of the five sampled Unions of the Upazila (see Table 9). In the other sampled Unions, CPP volunteers were no longer playing their role as prescribed due mainly to lack of equipment: CPP volunteers interviewed shared that most of the megaphones and radios provided to them during the set-up were out of order. In these Unions just like in all sampled Unions of Mirzagong, the UP were identified by all FGD respondents as the main actor for warning dissemination during impending disaster.

4.3.2.2 Moving to safe shelter The following chart presents the different reactions of the household survey respondents on hearing Signal 7. A majority of the respondents said that they would move to cyclone shelters (54.2%) and about 39% would go to safe places.

34

Chart 6: Reactions on hearing signal 7

Go to Shelter54.2%

Go to Saf e Place38.9%

Others6.9%

According to FGD participants, the readiness of community members to take shelter on hearing signal 7 was a consequence of cyclone Sidr. It was shared by all FGD respondents that before Sidr, community members were reluctant to move to shelters due to frequent errors in signaling from the meteorological department and to a widespread perception that saving assets and cattle by staying at home was more important than taking shelter. All participants agreed that this perception was completely altered by the Sidr experience. This change in perception is well illustrated by the two case studies below collected during FGD.

In spite of the awareness on the importance of taking shelter created by Sidr, participants in the FGD mentioned that the number of shelters in the area was inadequate to cover for the

Mr. Abdul Barek Mia, Chairman, Mirzagonj Union Parishad Upazila: Mirzagonj, District: Patuakhali “I called upon a meeting of the Union Disaster Management Committee (UDMC) as soon as I heard on the news the danger signal for cyclone Sidr. Personally I went to the cyclone shelter with some dry food, and sent the UP members and some local young volunteers to organize and inform other people so that they might come to the cyclone center. Many people in the Union did not take it seriously and criticized me and refused to go to the shelter. That caused a huge number of casualties. The incident of Sidr taught me to be determined to bring people to the Cyclone shelter if such incident occurs in future -God forbids! I have all kind of preparedness for this.”

Majeda Begum (50), Housewife Village: Betmor, Union: Raihanpur, Upazila: Patharghata, District: Barguna

“My younger daughter was a student of Dhaka University. She came home to visit us just before cyclone Sidr. There was heavy wind blowing on Sidr night. I was at home with my daughter. We were very much afraid. A big tree broke down over our house all of a sudden. My daughter screamed once and then became absolutely silent. Had we taken shelter such a sad incident would not have occurred in our family! ”

35

entire population and that some shelters were not properly equipped, especially in terms of water and sanitation facilities. All FGD participants highlighted the key role played by the youth of the area during impending disaster in helping vulnerable groups to move to safe shelters. The CLC/LC management committee members also said that they encouraged their neighbors to go to the shelters but no particular person had been assigned to this task and they did not have any equipment to help moving vulnerable people to shelters. School teachers and SMC members declared that they took initiative to encourage general movement to the shelters through students but again on an ad hoc basis as they said that there was no committee or identified group of students assigned for this purpose. Few UP representatives declared arranging boats and/or vans to move people to shelters but most of them declared lacking basic equipment to help with evacuation and relying on groups of adolescents to provide targeted support to children, women, people with disability and elderly. Even though the crucial role of young people during impending disaster was emphasized by all the participants in the FGD, it was not always clear from the discussions who these young people were and how they became mobilized. Some participants mentioned that youth clubs and other CBOs composed of young people would immediately assume an emergency role during impending disaster and come forward to support the community. Others in Patharghata mentioned that the youth were involved through CPP. More generally, participants declared relying on dynamic young people well-known for their commitment to the community who would be assigned specific roles by UP representatives and school authorities during and after disasters.

4.3.3 Practice during Disaster The single most important measure for people of the study area to undertake during disaster was going to the cyclone shelter as expressed by 76.4% of the respondents. As shown in figure 2.2 other measures related to water and sanitation, coordination, protection of cattle and assistance to the victims.

36

Graph 6: Measures undertaken during Disasters

Coo

rdin

atin

g

Goi

ng to

cy c

lone

cent

erT a

king

sh e

lter a

ta

rela

tive's

ho u

seTa

king

she

lter

on a

dam

/road

Taki

n g m

easu

res

top u

rify

wa t

er

Com

mu n

icat

ing

with

relie

f ag e

ncie

s

Bui

ldin

g la

trin e

Kee

ping

cat

tlein

saf

e pl

aces

Patro

l ing

hous

esf o

r war

ning

Prov

idin

g as

sist

ance

to m

ove

tocy

c lon

e ce

n ter

Oth

ers

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Percent

FGD with CLC/LC management committee, School teachers, students, SMC members and UP representatives highlighted two main priority areas for intervention during disaster: shelter management and search and rescue of victims.

4.3.3.1 Shelter management When describing shelter management participants of the FGD disaggregated roles and responsibilities amongst different groups and institutions and the following table summarizes the respective roles attributed to each and every stakeholder: Table 8: Roles of various respondents in Shelter Management

Respondent Group Roles

Community • Maintain discipline and peace in the shelter

• Supply dry food and drinking water to children

• Provide first aid (treatment) for the victims CLC/LC Management

Committee No specific role as a committee

School teachers, students and SMC

• Organize the school to use as shelter

37

• Organize security

• Arrange dry food

Union Parishad

• Regular visit to all the shelters

• Assign chowkidar to keep security

• Arrange food and drinking water

• Request physician of Upazila health complex to visit the shelters

One of the main challenges raised by FGD participants on the issue of shelter management was that due to lack of space in the shelters it was sometimes difficult to keep them clean and to provide special arrangements for children, elderly, people with disability and pregnant women. Other participants also mentioned duplication of roles or absence of organized structure to effectively manage the shelters. In spite of CPP’s presence in Patharghata, it is interesting to note that none of the groups which participated in the FGD made mention of CPP as playing a role in shelter management.

4.3.3.2 Search and rescue All participants in FGD declared that only two groups of stakeholders would intervene for rescue activities during disasters: the youth and the UP. Marginally, CLC/LC members and school personnel declared that they would provide assistance to neighbors if they were stuck under a tree or parts of a house but overall this was perceived as part of the youth and the UP responsibilities. There again, no mention was made of CPP as having a particular role regarding search and rescue even in the FGD that took place in the one Union of Patharghata where CPP had been seen as playing a key role in terms of early warning dissemination. According to the FGD participants, some young people of the area were organized to perform the following activities in the area of rescue:

Security for life and assets of the victims; Immediate rescue of the people who have fallen below broken houses or trees Assistance to move the assets of victims to a safe place Referral of injured persons to health centers for treatment Removal of dead bodies Organization of funerals

Responsibilities of the UP were described as follows:

Maintaining security through chowkidar; Requesting support from the police; Arranging rescue and treatment for the victims; Manage transport and human resources to shift assets of the victims to safe places Organizing visits to the shelters of government physicians Coordinating with NGOs for extra support when needed

38

The roles and responsibilities of different institutions at local level during disasters are clearly defined by the Government of Bangladesh Standing Orders on Disaster. The findings of the FGD found some consistency between the SOD and the roles and responsibilities attributed to the UP by the participants but considerable gaps were also found in particular with regards to the role that should be played by CPP in the Upazila of Patharghata on shelter management and search and rescue. There seemed to be a consensus on the key role played by the youth during disaster even though this was not reflected in the institutional set-up for disaster response, in particular in the membership of CPP or of UDMC. There was no evidence that the youth had any mandate and/or training to perform the activities that seemed to be expected from them during disasters.

4.3.4 Practice after disaster Immediately after a disaster, the main priority as expressed by the respondents of the survey related to accommodation: 93% of the respondents declared that their first measure would be to clean their houses followed by repairing houses with 82%. Other important measures included repairing latrines (30.3%) and applying for a loan (29.3%). Interestingly only 19.6% of the participants declared that they would seek assistance from UP and NGOs following a disaster. Graph 7: Measures undertaken after a Disaster

Cle

anin

g h o

uses

Re p

airin

g h o

uses

Rep

airin

g la

trin

e

Res

umin

g ag

ricul

tura

lac

tiviti

e s

Taki

n g a

ssist

ance

from

UP

/ N

GO

s

Sell i

ng li

vest

ock

Mak

i ng

a lo

an

Oth

ers0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent

39

Findings of the FGD highlighted two particular priority areas following a disaster: rehabilitation of key infrastructures and relief.

4.3.4.1 Rehabilitation of roads, transport and social infrastructures With regards to rehabilitation, the roles of two groups were once again highlighted: the community youth and the UP. FGD participants mentioned that the youth of the community took initiative immediately after a disaster to clear roads from garbage and dead trees, and to temporarily repair the damaged bridges. CLC/LC management committee did not take any initiative as an organization, but individual members provided support to the youth. Similarly, though schools did not initiate any post disaster activity, the teachers individually participated together with the youth. The UP representatives declared encouraging the work of community youth as well as performing the following:

Reconstruction and maintenance of roads and bridges through the 100 days’ program of the government;

Communication with the deputy commissioner regarding emergency reconstruction and maintenance of embankment, culverts, bridges and roads by the Water Development Board (WDB) and the Local Government Engineering Department (LGED);

Communication with relevant authority for re-establishment of electrical and telecommunications lines.

In none of the FGD were NGOs mentioned as playing a role in the immediate rehabilitation phase.

4.3.4.2 Relief operations According to the FGD, the people of the study areas received relief assistance from both government and NGOs and support to distributions was provided by volunteers and youths of the respective communities. As expressed by the CLC/LC management committee the victims of different community generally received food and cloths, fishing gears, agricultural implements, tents, and interest-free loans for house reconstruction and repair and self employment. Though the CLC/LC management committees did not have any role in relief operations as an organization, they individually participated with the community and volunteers in relief related activities. During FGD with schools the participants said that even though they played a key role in allowing and arranging space in schools to use as shelters, their role did not extend to relief operations. Many teachers complained that the UP did not involve them in relief activities. According to FGD with UP, the victims of the areas generally received fishing tools and gears, cash, and food. The UP said that they prepared a list of affected populations based on which the donors and NGOs distributed relief items. The UP claimed that they followed government policies and rules on DRR to prepare the list of victims and relief distributions. They also declared providing all possible support to different agencies for distribution, that

40

they arranged security during and after disaster and that they maintained regular communication with all government and other relevant agencies. According to FGD, post disaster activities mainly focused on infrastructure rehabilitation and relief and were led by local authorities in coordination with NGOs. Coordination was seen as restrictive with a dominant role of UP and no involvement of community stakeholders or other institutions such as schools.

4.4 Roles of local level Institutions and Coordination This section explores the current roles and responsibilities of different local level institutions – corresponding to the CBDRR project’s key stakeholders – with regards to DRR as well as the level of involvement that each of the organization would like to play. It also summarizes current coordination efforts amongst these local level institutions on DRR.

4.4.1 Schools During FGD with school personnel – teachers, students and SMC members- the participants showed high levels of awareness on the types of hazards that affect their communities as well as a solid understanding of vulnerability patterns and some awareness on climate change. School-based participants of FGD also showed much higher levels of knowledge on the early warning system than household survey respondents. However, school respondents declared having never received training on disaster-related topics and expressed a strong interest in participating in training courses. The secondary school curriculum includes messages on DRR and all the teachers interviewed declared teaching the students on DRR. However, the teachers also mentioned that the current syllabus is inadequate and that they used complementary information taken from the media to share information on disaster with the students. None of the schools surveyed had a contingency plan in place or any plan that would prescribe specific behaviors before, during and after disaster; yet most of the schools surveyed had been and/or could be used as cyclone shelters. SMC members declared participating in pre, during and post disaster activities as individuals, but not as an organization. Only one school in Patharghata had regular DRR activities for students beyond the lesson on DRR planned in the curriculum but in all the other schools surveyed, the students declared having no scope to get involved in disaster-related activities in school. Even though young people were described as a key group with regards to DRR action during the FGD, both students and teachers interviewed expressed their frustration with UP for not involving them in any disaster-related activity before and after disaster. None of the school surveyed had official coordination mechanisms with the UP or any other local institutions for disaster-related issues. All the school actors expressed a strong interest in developing their capacity on DRR and integrating DRR within the school activities. Students in particular mentioned that the level of information they currently had on disaster was not satisfactory and

41

that they wanted to be systematically involved in disaster-related activities in and outside of schools. However, girls expressed that they thought they would face some obstacles to their participation in DRR activities due to negative community perceptions on woman’s participation. Schools are a key institution when it comes to effective community-based DRR, yet their involvement and integration into coordination mechanism is currently very low or inexistent apart from the role they play as cyclone shelters.

4.4.2 Union Parishad The table below summarizes the self-assessment made by interviewed UP members with regards to their roles and responsibilities in DRR, capacity and compliance with national policy framework. Table 9: Self-assessment of UP representatives on DRR

Sl No

Issues

Unions

Charduani

Patharghata Sadr

Patharghata Pourashava

Raihanpur

Deuli Subidkhali

Majidbaria

1 Whether work as per Standing order on disaster (SOD)

√ √ √ √ √ √

2 Active UP Disaster Management Committee?

√ √ √ √ √ √

3 Community Risk Assessment - - √ √ √ √

4 Existence of DRR plan - - - - - √

5 Existence of Emergency Plan - - - - - -

6 Roles of UP during last disaster

√ √ √ √ √ √

7 Received any training √ √ - √ √ √

8 Contact with NGOs √ √ √ √ √ √

9 Contact with relevant govt. offices

√ √ √ √ √ √

10 Active role of Red Crescent and CPP

- - - √ - -

Detailed roles during last disaster as described by interviewed UP members included:

• Dissemination of warning signals • Assistance for evacuation to shelters • Rescue of victims during and after disaster • Organization of funerals and removal of dead livestock animals and poultry birds

42

• Security for the area and the shelters • Coordination with schools, various government departments, NGOs, and the police • Assessment and data collection on impact of disaster • Preparation of list of victims • Participation in relief and rehabilitation activities

All UP members interviewed declared maintaining close contacts with district and Upazila disaster management committees, Upazila Nirbahi Officer, Upazila project implementation officer (PIO), CPP, Red Crescent, and NGOs working in the area. They also said that they coordinated with schools for shelter purposes and physicians of Upazila health complex on a regular basis. However they also declared that this level of coordination was only attained after receiving instructions from Upazila level and only in case of impending disaster or after disaster. Triangulation with other FGD and with secondary data confirmed that the UP played a key role during and after disaster but that very little was done by UP representatives during normal times in terms of disaster preparedness. Levels of compliance with SOD were only partial as UDMCs were only active during disasters and key documentation such as Union profiles, Risk Reduction plans or contingency plans was not available in UP offices. Overall, coordination of DRR activities under the leadership of the UP was restricted in time and in reach: coordination mechanisms were only activated during emergency time and were mainly limited to government bodies and NGOs with very little scope for community members including CBO and schools to participate.

4.4.3 Children Learning Centers and Learning Centers Existing CLC/LC surveyed during the baseline had been formed with support from the UNIQUE project for Non Formal Education purposes and therefore most of the CLC/LC surveyed were playing no significant role in DRR as an institution at the time of the baseline. At the initiative of CPP one disaster management committee had been formed in a CLC/LC of Kathaltali Union (Patharghata Upazila). The committee conducted monthly meetings and declared sharing information with CLC/LC members on disaster preparedness. Overall, CLC/LC were not involved in coordination mechanisms on disaster and had very little contact with other institutions such as UP and schools. Only one CLC/LC (Saherabad Union of Pathaghata) said that its members were invited by UP to join the meetings when emergency was declared. CLC/LC in Non-Targeted Areas Respondents from CLC/LC in non-targeted areas had little knowledge about the hazards that affected their communities and relied entirely on Radio/TV broadcasts for early warning during impending disasters. Tutors interviewed had received some training on personal hygiene and health from other projects and declared disseminating messages amongst their learners accordingly. None had received any training on DRR and none included any information on disaster in the current curriculum taught to learners. All the discussions held in CLC/LC revealed a willingness on the part of CLC/LC members, learners and tutors to be involved in DRR activities at local level on behalf of their broader

43

communities. CLC/LC members felt that they had the potential to play a key role but that they currently lacked capacity, equipment and contacts with other institutions.

5 CONCLUSION The Upazilas of Patharghata and Pathuakhali have witnessed a significant number of devastating natural disasters in recent decades, and if current global warming trends remain unchanged this phenomenon is only likely to increase in coming years. Communities in the two Upazilas have learnt only through a high cost to themselves that being prepared can save their own lives and those of their relatives. As illustrated in the different case studies presented in this report, this learning process was a traumatic one but had created a momentum in bringing communities together to become disaster-resilient. This is not only a request arising from the communities themselves but also a humanitarian obligation in the context of a changing climate. Repeated experiences of various types of disasters, and information received through the media have provided community members in Patharghata and Pathuakhali with a solid knowledge on hazard and vulnerability. It has also allowed them to develop essential and simple preparedness measures that can make the difference when a disaster strikes. Any project that aims to work at making the communities disaster-resilient should build on this existing knowledge and reinforce it mainly by ensuring that good practices are singled out, promoted and disseminated, and that knowledge is institutionalized and shared in a systematic way. Schools, UP and CBO such as the CLC/LC have a key role to play in ensuring knowledge institutionalization and sharing. The baseline survey identified informational and knowledge gaps at community levels which requires addressing through targeted and relevant training and awareness-raising campaigns, in particular in the areas of early warning, climate change and disability. Key institutions in the area of DRR such as UP, CPP, schools and CBO need to be strengthened, and bridges built between them all for an enhanced cooperation and effectiveness before, during and after a disaster. In this process, women, youth and people with disability have a major role to play that should be adequately reflected through their formal identification and involvement in each of these institutions. The CBDRR project has the potential to contribute to making the communities of Patharghata and Mirzagonj disaster-resilient if it manages to effectively address the existing informational and knowledge gaps, to create sustainable and institutionalized knowledge networks at community levels as well as to establish functioning coordination mechanisms that are active during, but also before disasters, and that will survive beyond the project lifespan.

44

6 LIST OF ANNECES Annex 1: Terms of Reference of the Baseline Survey

Annex 2: Household Survey Questionnaire

Annex 3: Checklists for Focus Group Discussions

Annex 4: Disaster-related Information – Household Survey

Annex 5: Basic Information – Household Survey

Annex 6: Case Studies

Annex 7: List of Household Survey Respondents

Annex 7: List of FGD participants

BASELINE SURVEY REPORT COMMUNITY-BASED DISASTER RISK REDUCTION

Documents

Transcript of BASELINE SURVEY REPORT COMMUNITY-BASED DISASTER RISK REDUCTION