CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



BASELINE SURVEY REPORT

Asgerkati Village, Naltona UZ, Barguna District (Nov 09).

Children

Gorapoda Village, Naltona UZ, Barguna District (Nov 09)

Ward # 85 NGO Partner School, Dhaka (Nov 09 from Ward # 85 look on (Nov 09)



Submitted
by
Dr. Rathana Peou van den Heuvel, Lucy Cooper
and A Kader based in Bangladesh


rathoune@msn.com





iamlucycoops@hotmail.com




 
01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 1







CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



Table of Contents





Executive
Summary............................................................................................................................. 4

Acronyms
and
Abbreviations .......................................................................................................... 6

1.
 Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 7

1.1.
 Background
and
Objectives........................................................................................................... 7

1.2.
 Sampling
Methods ............................................................................................................................ 7

2.
 Background ................................................................................................................................... 9

2.1.
 Situation
Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 9

2.2.
 Dhaka
Background ........................................................................................................................ 11

2.3.
 Barguna
Background .................................................................................................................... 12

3.
 Main
Findings .............................................................................................................................13

3.1.
 Learning
Process
and
Knowledge
empowerment .............................................................. 13

3.1.1.
 Local
Knowledge......................................................................................................................................13

3.1.2.
 Source
of
Knowledge
in
the
targeted
areas..................................................................................14

3.1.3.
 Knowledge
Sharing
–
Dissemination
Process .............................................................................15

3.1.4.
 Impact
of
the
information
dissemination
into
DRR..................................................................18

3.2.
 Sharing
of
Responsibilities
and
Level
of
Recognition ....................................................... 19

3.2.1.
 Overview
of
the
responsibilities
among
different
key
stakeholder ..................................19

3.2.2.
 Acknowledgement
of
children’s
potentiality ..............................................................................21

3.2.3.
 Acknowledgement
of
people
at
risk .....................................................................................................24

3.3.
 Confidence
Building ...................................................................................................................... 26

3.3.1.
 Physical
preparedness
to
a
disaster................................................................................................27

3.3.2.
 Psychological
preparedness
to
a
disaster.....................................................................................27

3.3.3.
 HH
oriented
culture................................................................................................................................29

4.
 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................30

4.1.
 Immediate
Recommendations
for
the
implementation
of
the
program
­
a
call
for

the
development
and
the
improvement
of
relevant
databases ................................................... 30

4.1.1.
 Review
and
changes
of
the
indicators
and
activities‐
The
challenges
of
the

community
participation...........................................................................................................................................31

4.1.2.
 Training
needed .......................................................................................................................................31

4.2.
Long­
term
Recommendations
­
Capitalisation,
Interaction
and
Diffusion ..................... 32

4.2.1.
Action
Plan...........................................................................................................................................................33

4.2.2.
 Advocacy
recommendations ..............................................................................................................33

5.
 List
of
Annexes ...........................................................................................................................34

6.
 Bibliography ...............................................................................................................................35









01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 2


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



List of Tables


Table
1:

Breakdown
of
sample
size
by
location. ....................................................................................... 8

Table
2:

Slums
of
Ward#85,
Dhaka...............................................................................................................11

Table
3:
Villages
of
Naltona
UZ,
Barguna.....................................................................................................12

Table
4:
Major
Roles
and
Responsibilities
in
a
Disaster .......................................................................20

Table
5:
Positive
and
Negative
Responses
to
a
Disaster
(non‐exclusive) .....................................21

Table
6:
Training
Recommendations
for
PLAN’s
CCDRR
Program..................................................32


List of Graphs

Graph
1:
Primary
Underlying
Risk
Factors
for
PLAN’s
CCDRR
Program
Implementation....10

Graph
3:
Frequency
of
Response
for
Identification
of
Primary
Areas
of
Concern
for

Community
Underpreparedness.....................................................................................................................17

Graph
4:
Frequency
of
training
requests
in
the
two
locations...........................................................17

Graph
5:
Major
Hazard
Identification
by
Location..................................................................................18

Graph
6:

Justification
of
capacity
to
cope
with
a
disaster. ..................................................................19

Graph
7:
Frequency
of
Positive
and
Negative
Responses
to
a
Disaster
by
Location ................21

Graph
8:
Community
Acknowledgement
of
Children’s
DRR
Potential ...........................................22

Graph
9:
Children’s
Identification
of
their
Roles
and
Responsibilities
in
a
Disaster................23

Graph
10:
Identification
of
Vulnerable
Groups
by
Location................................................................25

Graph
11:
Major
Justifications
for
Community
Confidence
Levels...................................................28




List of Maps


Map 1: Detailed location of the two areas of PLAN’s CCDRR intervention......................................
11





































01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 3


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH





Executive Summary


In the last three to four years the issue of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) has become increasingly
important in both developmental and humanitarian policy and programming. Reducing the
underlying vulnerability of people to disasters and increasing their resilience or coping capacities is
now seen as an important element in poverty reduction and ultimately in sustainable development
efforts. Following the World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction held in Japan in early 2006
many organisations, including multi- lateral and bi-lateral donors, have adopted DRR policies and
there is a common international agenda in the form of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA).

Box 1. Disaster Risk Reduction: The conceptual framework of elements considered with the
possibilities to minimize vulnerabilities and disaster risks throughout a society, to avoid (prevention) or to
limit (mitigation and preparedness) the adverse impacts of hazards, within the broad context of
sustainable development.
UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR)

In that context, DIPECHO was launched in 1996 as a programme within the European
Commission’s Humanitarian Aid Office (DG ECHO). Initially, the geographic focus of the
programme was on Central America, the Caribbean, and South-East Asia. Work in South-East Asia
included Bangladesh—the only country of the South Asia section now that has been involved with
DIPECHO since its inception. PLAN is a partner of DIPECHO in Bangladesh and it is under DIP
ECHO V that the Child Centered Disaster Risk Reduction (CCDRR) project is funded.

The CCDRR is based on the need assessment conducted in both Barguna and Ward # 85 (Dhaka)
in February 2009. Both locations are considered as high risk for disasters (Please refer to 02. Annex
1. Immersion Report Comparison).

The project proposes a fully integrated community development approach that will engage
communities in DRR. Given the specific contexts of intervention, the challenges are high to
provide a systematic, appropriate and qualitative support to all communities.
In this perspective the baseline survey aims at offering the most comprehensive approach on the
vulnerability of the population targeted by analysing both underlying risk factors and the level of
resilience of those communities. Understanding the concept of “Mitigation of the impact of
Disaster” involved both PLAN Staff and the beneficiaries, this bottom-up approach allows the
consultancy team to report and analyse the main trends on DRR in the given areas.
This report reveals that the will of knowledge is high in both areas as is the level of recognition of
the full potential of children. These factors will undoubtedly facilitate the smooth intervention of
PLAN in the areas. However, the Child Centered Community Development (CCCD) approach
faces in those disaster prone areas a lack of social community and sense of belonging that needs to
be addressed and enhanced.
The underlying risk factors of poverty and lack of solidarity system are the key issues to handle for
building resilience at different levels. The Rapid Catch Indicator (RCI) of both areas showed an
index of 40 out of 120. That means that the targeted communities are vulnerable. This is mainly due
to an extremely low level of physical preparedness and the low recognition of DRR activities or
organisations.
The main findings of the baseline are as following:

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 4


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



 Low indigenous knowledge and practice in DRR (specifically high level of negative response
to disaster in Dhaka)
 Disparity with knowledge dissemination (specifically problematic for the Early Warning
System (EWS) in Barguna)
 High level of demand for training
 High level of recognition of knowledge empowerment
 High level of recognition of children’s potential (65% of the population)
 Low level of recognition of PwD (15% of the population)
 Community identification of hazards in line with the PLAN hazard’s identification
 Community level of confidence (61%) is higher than the one of a household (41%)














































01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 5


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



Acronyms and Abbreviations





CBA Community Based Adaptation
CBO Community Based Organization
CCCD Child Centered Community Development
CDMP Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme
CCDRR Children Centered Disaster Risk Reduction
CO Children’s Organization
CPDRR Children’s Participation in Disaster Risk Reduction project
DMC Disaster Management Committee
DIPECHO Disaster Preparedness ECHO
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction
EWS Early Warning System
FGD Focal Group Discussion
FH-HH Female Headed Household
GAR Global Assessment Risk
GoB Government of Bangladesh
HH Household
NGO Non Governmental Organisation
PwD People with Disabilities
RCI Rapid Catch Indicator
SDMC School Disaster Management Committee
TEK Traditional Environmental Knowledge
TK Traditional Knowledge
UDMC Union Disaster Management Committee
UP Union Parishad

WASH Water Sanitation and Hygiene

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 6


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



1. Methodology





1.1. Background and Objectives



The general objective of this survey is to provide a clear and comprehensive picture of the project
intervention. As we are looking to two specific areas; urban and rural, the team considers to develop
different tools according to the needs expressed by the field and to cope to two different
environments and hazard exposures. A DRR vulnerability profile of the areas targeted will allow
PLAN to effectively measure the project impact over the course of the project life. In that respect
the RCI empowers the baseline survey by providing a profile of risk and vulnerability (Please refer to
03. Annex 2. RCI).
It was considered that although the HFA has been successful in focusing the efforts of national and
international NGOs working on DRR issues in Bangladesh, the conceptual framework on which it is
based is predicated on the idea of ‘community’. A shift was therefore needed to capture baseline
data in the working areas of PLAN, and the tools developed follow more closely the methodology
of the DIPECHO V Action Act for South Asia.

1.2. Sampling Methods



Through the course of this consultancy there has been a strong focus on collecting qualitative data.
The tools that have been developed have reflected this qualitative approach and the sample size has
been kept low within the overall beneficiary population in order to achieve a more vivid picture of
the current situation. The data collected through the tools is complimented by the inclusion of 4
case studies in the annex of this report.
The particular difficulties that occurred with regards the establishment of baseline sampling methods
were a consequence of the limited population data that was available for the baseline survey. This
issue has been discussed in section 4 of this report under Recommendations. Without an existent
database of the beneficiaries of PLANs CCDRR Program it was decided that the sample should
cover both direct and indirect beneficiaries. Due to the timing of the baseline survey in relation to
the timeline of the CCDRR program implementation it was not possible to conduct all interviews
with CO and CBO since they are still being established. Data was collected from across all villages
in Barguna and all slums in Ward # 85 in Dhaka in which PLAN is working. Due to the limited
population data that was available it was not possible to have proportional sample size in each
location, but given the volume of data to be collected it is understood that this has not detracted
from the quality of the sampling methodology in any way.
Since one of the primary focuses of PLANs work is to improve the dissemination of DRR
knowledge through the entire community data was collected from across the socio-economic
spectrum within communities: data was collected from adults (male and female) as well as PwD,
elderly, F-H HH and children. Table 1 below gives details of groups sampled under the 4 data
collection tools.

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 7


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



Tool
 Key
Informants
 Dhaka
Slum
 Barguna
 Total


CBO
 4
 2
 6

CO
Girls
 10
 5
 15

CO
Boys
 10
 5
 15

HH
Member
Adult
Male
 2
 2
 4

HH
Member
Adult
Female
 2
 2
 4

FGD


Female
Headed
HH
 2
 0
 2

PwD
 2
 2
 4

Elderly
 0
 2
 2

UP
Member
 1
 1
 2

PLAN
Staff
 1
 1
 2

FGD
 Total
 34
 22
 56

FGD
School
 School
Teacher
 4
 1
 5

FGD
School
 Total
 4
 1
 5

HH
Member
Adult
Male
 10
 10
 20

HH
Member
Adult
Female
 10
 10
 20

1‐2‐1
Interview
 Female
Headed
HH
 10
 10
 20

PwD
 10
 10
 20

Elderly
 10
 10
 20

1‐2‐1
Interview
 Total
 50
 50
 100

CO
Girls
 2
 2
 4

R&R
Game
 CO
Boys
 2
 2
 4

HH
Member
Child
(12‐16)
 5
 5
 10

R&R
Game
 Total
 9
 9
 18

Total
 97
 82
 179

All data collected can be found in the annex attached to this report.

Table 1: Breakdown of sample size by location.

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 8


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



2. Background



2.1. Situation Analysis



Poor and marginalized people’s hurdle towards disasters has never been greater in Bangladesh.
While average number of people killed and affected by disaster has fallen in long run, this remains
more than 50 million people in every five years from 1986 to 2007. The economic cost associated
with disaster has been increasing with significant burden on HH and local economy. “At least 8
million houses were destroyed each year by disaster during 1970 to 2007. The disaster problem
has further been exacerbated by the impact of climate change” (EU Strategy for Disaster Risk
Reduction in Developing Country, by the European Commission, Thematic issues- sustainable
management of natural resources, in 2008). The scientific predication and people’s experience clearly
identify that nature and impact of disaster is changing in Bangladesh.
Development does not automatically protect poor people from the consequences of hazards.
Bangladesh has achieved stable economic growth over last few decades. Significant achievement has
also been made in human development. In disaster management, notable improvement in some
critical areas such as public health awareness, early warning, infrastructure, communication,
community based preparedness and institutional strengthening helped minimizing disaster related
death. But their affect on local and national economy still continues to stagnate the national
potential. Poor and marginalized people’s limited access to the benefit of growth are partly to be
blamed, which otherwise could have been invested on HH preparedness as well as overall
investment on DRR.
Development factors continue to remain weaker than disaster forces in some parts of Bangladesh.
The scale and level of DRR investment either did not reach everyone or is still very inadequate in
comparison with scale of disasters. Poverty continues to deepen vulnerability of the poor and
marginalized HH. While people have clear knowledge on the measures that can protect them from
disaster, they cannot mitigate them because rural/HH economy does not generate enough surpluses
to invest on DRR.

The areas targeted by PLAN are the perfect reflection of these underlying risk factors. In Dhaka,
PLAN Bangladesh has been working for over 10 years and in Barguna PLAN has been working on
relief and rehabilitation since the 2007 cyclone SIDR. After the needs assessment conducted in
February 2009, two locations were selected Barguna (Cyclone and storm surge) and Dhaka
(earthquake and fire).

The CCDRR project of PLAN Bangladesh funded by DIPECHO V primarily targets 11, 549 direct
beneficiaries. They are considered to be the high-risk population who live in cyclone prone or water
logging, fire and earthquake areas in the coastal area of Barguna, Naltona Union (12 villages) and in
one urban slum in Dhaka (Ward # 85) under Dhaka Corporation.

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 9


 CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



Thus the essential problem of both areas is poverty. This underlying poverty factor contributes to a
low solidarity and sense of belonging. The relief works in both areas has inhibited the growth of a
real sense of community as show in Graph 1.


 


Graph 1: Primary Underlying Risk Factors for PLAN’s CCDRR Program Implementation 


Many poverty reduction strategies have potential to address the underlying risk drivers and do
recognise disaster impacts as a contributing factor to poverty. However, the disaster risk reduction
components in such strategies are often limited to preparedness and response aspects. In this
particular program, poverty reduction and disaster risk reduction are not strongly integrated in terms
of policy and planning.

One can look to the Crunch Model1 and identified the similar interaction between hazard and
vulnerability that put both population targeted by PLAN at high risk. However this model does not
highlight the impact of the NGO interventions into the vulnerability situation in both areas as
identified in Graph 1 above.


























































1
Developed by Tearfund in 2006, by Blaike and Cannon

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 10


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH


































Map 1: Detailed location of the two areas of PLANs CCDRR intervention.


 



 2.2. Dhaka Background





Dhaka is a city teeming with NGOs of all sorts, yet their presence in the slums is not as obvious as
one would imagine. The degree of involvement of NGOs varies quite
38 Ghar markedly from one slum to another. Facing legal (mainly land related)
96 Ghar issues most of the NGOs prefer to intervene in governmental slums.
Adorsho Ward #85 is one such government slum located in Shyamoli.

Aynal
Since 10 years, PLAN is among 35 other NGOs intervening in the
City Polli Ward # 85 which is an agglomeration of 10 slums. Due to the high
Mannaner Bosil presence of NGOs, the slum dwellers are enabled to acknowledge the
Moddho diverse mandates of those NGOs. There are around 3, 550 HH
Nobu living in those non-homogenous slums. Half of them are permanent
Pora slum dwellers and the other half are seasonal slum dwellers attracted
by job opportunities or illegal source of incomes notorious in this
Telegue area. Both high turn over of the population and the diversity of the
Table 2: Slums of communities have added to the low sense of belonging of the slum
Ward#85, Dhaka dweller of Ward # 85.
If the low community sense appears as one of the main underlying

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 11


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



risk factors for the Ward# 85, the holistic view on it shows that the poverty factor is the one that
affect most the DRR intervention (Please refer to the 04. Annex 3. Problem Tree Dhaka
November 09).

2.3. Barguna Background

PLAN is working in twelve villages in the Union of Naltona within Barguna District with a total
population of around 5,070 households (HH). The low lying land
Aga Padma is situated on the Bay of Bengal and surrounded by the fast
Amtola flowing waters of the Bishkhali River. Both the topography of the
Asgarkati area and the seasonal flooding that accompanies the Monsoon
Gazi Mahmud rains means that the lands are often submerged under water. 

Golbuniya In 2007 the area was hit by cyclone SIDR that saw huge loss of
Gora Padma life and caused widespread damage. In 2009, cyclone AYLA
Gorjonbuniya struck and families lost their homes, livelihoods, and
Kumirmara infrastructure once again, although due to the nature of the
Naltona cyclone the loss of life was far less. The past experiences of
disaster and the hazardous environment in which they live have
Nishanbariya shaped the way in which communities and individuals are
Shiyaliya responding to risks: The population is characterised by a low level
Sonatola of resilience2 to disaster, a consequence not only of the huge
damage done during SIDR and AYLA but also in part due to the
Table 3: Villages of Naltona
lack of knowledge (indigenous or otherwise) on DRR issues. This
UZ, Barguna is not to suggest that financial capacity is not an essential factor
but rather that there is a lack of knowledge that limits HH
spending on disaster preparedness.
This lack of knowledge relates not only to preparation for a disaster but the response to it. The
capacity of these households to respond to a disaster is, and always will be, limited by the adequacy
of the Early Warning System (EWS). Even with the presence of livelihood opportunities which
would allow some HH sufficient income to spend on preparedness, without an adequate early
warning system in place the primary means of community preparedness is not being utilised. Within
and between PLAN’s twelve villages there are vast differences in the socio-economic status of the
households, and the existing EWS follow closely the lines that distinguish those with power and
wealth from those without. Within this context ensuring the implementation of the EWS is not only
a logistical undertaking but a social one (Please refer to 05. Annex 4. Problem Tree- Barguna-
Nov. 09).


























































2
Level of Disaster resilience within the community can be understood as the capacity to absorb stress or
destructive forces through resistance or adaptation and the capacity to manage or maintain basic functions and
structures and the capacity to recover after a disaster events, from the Characteristics of a Disaster- resilient
Community- A guidance Note by J Twigg, in 2007 for DFID Disaster Risk Reduction Interagency Coordination
Group

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 12


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



3. Main Findings



3.1. Learning Process and Knowledge empowerment




Box 1: Definition of Local Knowledge

“ Traditional knowledge (TK), indigenous knowledge (IK), traditional environmental knowledge (TEK)
and local knowledge generally refer to the long-standing traditions and practices of certain regional,
indigenous, or local communities. Traditional knowledge also encompasses the wisdom, knowledge, and
teachings of these communities. In many cases, traditional knowledge has been orally passed for
generations from person to person. Some forms of traditional knowledge are expressed through stories,
legends, folklore, rituals, songs, and even laws. Other forms of traditional knowledge are often
expressed through different means.
"Traditional knowledge" is not recognized as "knowledge" by all who study it since it includes beliefs,
values and practices.
Such knowledge typically distinguishes one community from another. For some communities, traditional
knowledge takes on a personal and spiritual meaning. Traditional knowledge can also reflect a
community's interests. Some communities depend on their traditional knowledge for survival. This is
particularly true of traditional environmental knowledge, which refers to a "particular form of place-
based knowledge of the diversity and interactions among plant and animal species, landforms,
watercourses, and other qualities of the biophysical environment in a given place ”
Wikipedia, Pena 2005

3.1.1. Local Knowledge

By looking at what people living in both urban and rural localities know that is useful to them in
their lives will empower this report by linking that to DRR.

Local knowledge, like all knowledge, is social. Local knowledge is not entirely “traditional” (passed
on by generations). It is more local knowledge may opportunistically incorporate versions of outside
specialist knowledge. For instance, weather or climate forecasts listened to on the radio may be
interpreted and modified according to local weather signs and past experience. Within a community,
local knowledge is not uniformly distributed. Local knowledge may be a source of power and status
as we can see with EWS challenges.

 Why is Local Knowledge Important to DRR?

Both the ISDR’s Global Risk Assessment 2009 (GAR)3 and the GNDR’s Views from the Front
Line (VFL)4 (two global studies completed for the Global Platform5) came up with the same
quantitative and qualitative result: the international and national scale knowledge and the practices


























































3
Global Risk Assessment 2009 http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/report/index.php?id=9413 .
4
Clouds but Little Rain http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php?id=9822 .
5
UN-ISDR Global Platform 2009 for Disaster Reduction; Geneva, June 2009; see
http://www.preventionweb.net/globalplatform/2009/ .

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 13


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



base on that knowledge is not “trickling down” and penetrating local communities at all fast enough
to achieve Hyogo Framework of Action (HFA)6 goals.
This is not the place to discuss in detail why knowledge based diffusion of innovation is proceeding
so slowly. There are many factors highlighted by GAR and VFL. Amongst these one might single
out in the context of knowledge management the following:
• Top down diffusion of knowledge and practice require fine-tuning to local conditions.
Diffusion “by the book” seldom works.
• At the local level people experience threats in a more holistic way that specialists who design
practices focused on one hazard or another. Poverty, violence, climate change, and many
different natural and other hazards confront people at the scale of 1:1 where they live, work,
raise children, celebrate, and suffer. Local efforts to deal with one of these challenges
generally involve dealing with the others. Fine tuning takes such experience into account.
• There is sometimes a lack of trust between communities and governments or outside/ non-
local institutions. Trust and partnership must be built; it cannot be assumed. Without trust
and mutual respect, the exchange of knowledge and production of a useful hybrid of outside
and local knowledge is not possible.

Local knowledge is important for DRR because it is the lens through which people perceive and
understand the world in which they live. All innovation including risk reduction will have to be
carried out at the end of the day by people in places. Aside from this sociological and geographical
reality, there is even a more important reason why local knowledge is important: people are
constantly coping with threats. They share knowledge with neighbours, may draw knowledge in
from far away, boil it down and work out ways to apply it locally. Local communities are workshops
of knowledge production, not just museums of tradition. Thus for the outside specialist, the village,
the slum, town and city neighbourhood are as much sources of new ideas to be tested, refined, and
shared as is the outside specialists skill a source for local people. There is a broad and deep
partnership in knowledge production for DRR possible in the world that is very seldom actually
capitalised upon.

3.1.2. Source of Knowledge in the targeted areas

Communities in both Barguna and Dhaka report learning about disaster primarily through TV and
Radio. The major difference is that in Dhaka access to these knowledge sources is far more
widespread than it is in Barguna. The number of televisions and radios in each village was very low
in Barguna and this is perhaps why understanding of the EWS was much lower than in Dhaka. Of
all groups interviewed in Barguna ten did not understand the EWS and only 6 groups reported that
they received the EWS and responded to it in the last disaster. Only two groups from all thirty
interviewed felt that they received enough information on disasters. All these finding point towards
the need for PLAN to focus their attentions on knowledge transfer 7in the communities.


























































6
HFA refers to the Hyogo Framework of Action, the detailed work PLAN created at the World Conference on
Disaster Reduction held in Kobe, Hyogo Prefecture, Japan in 2005 and signed by 168 governments. See
http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/hfa.htm .
7
Knowledge transfer is complete when the individual/ communities are able to apply this knowledge to appropriate
situations

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 14


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



http://www.profoundlearning.com/Content/EducationSolutions/knowledgetransfer.jpg

Knowledge of climate change issues and their relatedness to disaster was very low. Only 10% of
groups understood certain mechanism by which climate change was perceived to be taking place.
However only two groups (both in Dhaka) felt that there was no change to the environment in
which they were living. The extent to which groups attributed the changing environments to climate
change was not established. To reinforce the knowledge transfer in the area targeted by PLAN, this
following process should be followed:

 identifying the knowledge holders within the organization

 motivating them to share
 designing a sharing mechanism to facilitate the transfer
 executing the transfer plan
 measuring to ensure the transfer
 applying the knowledge transferred

3.1.3. Knowledge Sharing – Dissemination Process



In Dhaka, there is no main source of knowledge, no main focal point information is coming from
anyone (Please refer to the 06. Annex 5. Case Study 1. The Small Picture). The results of the
FGD show that communities in Barguna were more likely to be discussing disaster preparedness
with members of their families or communities (Please refer to 07. Annex 6. FGD Write up of
Results).
3.1.3.1. Access to knowledge

The locality division is relevant to handle this issue of access to knowledge. The urban poor of the
slum in Dhaka because of the access to electricity and the presence in almost all of the HH of a TV
(Please refer to 06. Annex 5. Case Study 1- The Small Picture) have a high access to knowledge.
Their knowledge on DRR is quite high but not linked to a global interest of DRR as the major issues
to handle. This is easily explained by the low intensity and frequency of hazards. The slum dweller’s
perceptions of hazards vulnerability are limited as HH need to cope with hazards but do not see
them as a destructive force.

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 15


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



Contrary to Dhaka case, Barguna focused on Disasters as a primary problems faced by both HH
and communities. The post- trauma of SIDR and AYLA contributed to increase the interest on
DRR. However, this expressed will is far to be enough without any access to knowledge as opposed
to Dhaka. The populations in Barguna rely heavily on the knowledge provided by the NGOs and
the schools. According to both pupils and teachers, the knowledge that they are learning through the
textbooks is neither sufficient nor practical. However children are listened while disseminating their
knowledge on DRR. While asking to the community “Why do you feel that children can support your
community? “, the community pointed out the knowledge empowerment as the main reason of the
acknowledgment of the children. Most of the adults in both areas are illiterate that can explain why
they looked to the youngest generation that benefited from the free education as a source of
knowledge.

The school in this context could have been a strong medium of knowledge dissemination but the
limited number of teachers and their own ignorance on DRR aspect add to the vicious circle of
Barguna.
3.1.3.2. Raising the will to knowledge?


After looking to the type, availability, access and quality of knowledge one must look to the
willingness of the beneficiaries to increase their knowledge. As most of the population targeted are
Muslim the constant reference to the verse of the Quran “Know that knowledge is light. And the
light of Allah is not bestowed upon a disobedient”. (Talib al Habib) is symptomatic of a real
hunger of knowledge in both affected areas. The role then of the religious leader is quiet important
in those area as it is the main source of social knowledge for the illiterate adults (mainly males)
outside DRR focus.

According to the results of the general FGD, the major areas of “under preparedness” that the
groups perceived within their communities are as following:

 Lack of infrastructures
 Lack of knowledge

Those main finding are presented in the below graph. It is interesting to note the differences of risk
perceptions between Dhaka and Barguna. Of the 13 Groups in Dhaka 10 reported feeling unable to
cope and in Barguna 16 of the 17 groups felt the same way.

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 16


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH





Graph 2: Frequency of Response for Identification of Primary Areas of Concern for Community
Underpreparedness

Lack of knowledge is a big area the PLAN’s DRR will be working in, and the participants of the
group discussions were often clear that they wanted training.
3.1.3.3. Type of Knowledge
The beneficiaries targeted their training needs during Focus Group Discussion. In general, those are
related to practical aspect and more to a response aspect. The details of the training are given below.



Graph 3: Frequency of training requests in the two locations.
 In Barguna lack of community capacity to cope was frequently seen as a problem. The
majority of groups in both locations asked for DRR related training, or training on general
community issues as determined by NGOs. The population in Barguna, where access to
communications, services and employment opportunities are more limited, called for
livelihoods and medical training, although their primary concern was for training on EWS.

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 17


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



 In Dhaka there were also requests for personal security training and training that can enable
improvements to the environment (sanitation issues). Please refer to 04 Annex 3. Problem
Tree of Dhaka for further information.

3.1.4. Impact of the information dissemination into DRR

3.1.4.1. Recognize the risk and the importance of DRR



FGD participants in both Dhaka and Barguna were able to identify the major hazards in their
areas. The hazards were, as the environments are, different. In Dhaka the major vulnerabilities
were identified with respect to waterlogging and fire. In Barguna the major vulnerabilities were
resulting from cyclones and floods.
The below graphs detail the top three most frequently cited hazards that the groups identified
within their communities.



Graph 4: Major Hazard Identification by Location

In Dhaka the most commonly perceived threat comes from water logging. FGD participants
particularly felt vulnerable to water logging because of the poor drainage system in place, meaning
that community members were exposed to raw sewage and contaminated water. In Barguna floods
were seen as the primary hazard, both in terms of frequency and the damage they caused. The lower
reference to cyclones despite the damage caused by SIDR and AYLA may be in part due to the fact
that many respondents understood these events as floods and not cyclones (this was especially true
of AYLA where water levels rose very slowly). The vulnerability to flooding was primarily explained
by the major devastation they cause in terms of loss of life, livelihoods and infrastructure. It was the
proximity to the water that people understandably felt was the driving factor in their vulnerability.




3.1.4.2. Behaviour changes

The capacity of the population to conceptualise their own risks could lead some to think that due to
the increased awareness a radical change in practices would occur. This is far from the reality as
discussed previously in this report, the underlying risk factor which is mainly poverty limits the
potential of growing resilience in the community. According to the main findings from the 1-2-1
interview (pleaser refer to 08. Annex 7. One to One Interview Main Findings), people are not
careless but due to their low incomes and the geographical vulnerability, the physical opportunity to
rehabilitate a shelter to make it hazards friendly/ resilient is close to zero. As it is seen in graph 6
below, the justification of their capacities to cope better with a disaster is mainly due to a
geographical asset rather than a change/ rehabilitation in the houses. People are more willing to

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 18


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



move to a safer location than build a stronger house. Once again the sense of ownership is an
essential underlying factor as most of the people are new comers or for Dhaka more seasonol
renters. The economical growth of the population will allow them to leave a risky place. The feeling
of attachment to a property is low even in Barguna where the adding factors to live into some
makeshift houses since SIDR and the trauma of both extensive and intensive risks (Please refer refer
to the Hyogo Framework for Action, Chapter 1) experiences8 contribute to a dynamic of migration
to the next closest town.

Graph 5: Justification of capacity to cope with a disaster.

3.2. Sharing of Responsibilities and Level of Recognition



Sharing of responsibilities and level of recognition of within communities constitutes a major area
work for PLAN’s CCDRR Program. The following sections look in detail at the key aspects of the
responsibility and recognition within the communities.

3.2.1. Overview of the responsibilities among different key

stakeholder
Assessing the current situation with regards to the major responsibilities that different key
stakeholders has is important for PLAN in allowing the identification of areas in which community
members need to be empowered through knowledge to take on extra responsibilities with regards to
DRR.
3.2.1.1. Analysis of the key stakeholders

Among both the communities of Dhaka and Barguna there are common threads that can be seen
between the responsibilities taken by different actors. The responsibilities can be understood to fall
into seven areas as outlined in Table 1 below.

























































8
Extensive risks refer to the geographically dispersed exposure of vulnerable people and economic assets to low or moderate
intensity hazard. Intensive risks refer to the major concentrations of vulnerable population and economic assets exposed to extreme
hazard.

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 19


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



Table 4: Major Roles and Responsibilities in a Disaster

Move to safe Disaster Spreading Provide relief Protection of Rescue Provide
place response warning vulnerable knowledge of
actions message individuals disaster

Analysis of the data collected in the Roles and Responsibilities Game shows that responsibilities
relate directly to capacity (those who have difficulty moving around are not expected to rescue
others but they may have responsibility for providing knowledge). The primary responsibilities of
the main stakeholders are provided in 09. Annex 8. R&R Game Analysis.
There are clear gender division in responses to a disaster, with women’s activities centred much
more on the home and the protection of the children. Men were more focused on the community
level interactions, leading rescue efforts and were more likely to take primary responsibility for
moving the household to a safe place and protecting the household assets. These gender divides in
responsibilities during a disaster follow clearly the gender divides within the society, and this suggest
that PLAN’s DRR approach should seek to capitalise upon the existent social structures when
enabling disaster response.
Perhaps the two main areas where we see differences between Dhaka and Barguna are in the role of
the elderly and the role of neighbours. In Dhaka the elderly population are seen as needing the help
of the community during a disaster. Their limited mobility means that they are in need of assistance
to move to a safe place. Although the same is certainly true in Barguna it was also clear that the
elderly are also seen as a source of knowledge during a disaster. Their experiences in dealing with
floods and their knowledge of the environment and weather provided valuable information to
families who suffered their first major disaster when SIDR struck.
The same phenomenon is not seen in Dhaka and this may be due to the fact that the scale of the
disasters is lower than the one in Barguna. The slum dwellers faced disaster that has not required
them to seek advice from others. The scale of the disasters then is perhaps the major contributory
factor in determining the extent to which the elderly are currently being involved in responding to a
disaster.
The same may perhaps be true for the differing roles that neighbours are taking in the two areas. In
Dhaka neighbours provided relief after a disaster, in the form of food, clothes, medicines, etc ... In
Barguna neighbours capacity to provide relief was limited as everyone suffered in the devastation. In
this situation neighbours were more important in spreading the EWS and offering advice on what to
do and where to go. Households provided little in the way of tangible inputs but were integral in
offering advice and help in taking shelter and moving vulnerable people to a safe place.

3.2.1.2. Discussion of the appropriate responses



The data collected in the 1-2-1 interviews offers important insights into the differing roles that
individuals played during a disaster. The nature of the disasters these communities have faced is as
such that they have been unforeseen and therefore people have had to respond instinctively. In
such instances it is possible to categorise the nature of the response as either positive or negative
(passive responses included here as negative), outlined in Table 5 below. There is some suggestion
that the larger the scale of the disaster the more ‘positive’ the nature of the response it elicits, when
it is a question of life or death as in the cyclones of Barguna then individuals are not afforded the
luxury of complacency. When in Ward # 85, flooded people are not fighting for their lives and this

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 20


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



is reflected in the nature of many of the responses individuals reported. The time impact of the
hazards in Dhaka does not force them to move to a safe place. Because the scale of the disaster is
lower than in Barguna.

Positive To move to a safe place

Response
To communicate
Help family and protect household
Disaster response action (any action to protect the assets of the HH)
Help family and community

Negative None as there is no way to fight against

Response
No positive response to a disaster as above (passive actor)
No positive response as vulnerable (i.e. PwD cannot move alone to a
safe place)

Table 5: Positive and Negative Responses to a Disaster (non-exclusive)

The below graphs show a breakdown of the positive and negative responses as in table 5 above
between the two areas (Please refer to 08. Annex 7. One to One Interviews Main Findings)

Negative


Positive


Graph 6: Frequency of Positive and Negative Responses to a Disaster by Location

3.2.2. Acknowledgement of children’s potentiality

Acknowledgement of children’s potential to be involved in DRR is a key factor in drawing
community support behind the CCDRR model. The following sections look at the position of

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 21


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



children in their communities with regards to their capacity and potential to be involved in
community DRR.

3.2.2.1. Overview of the children’s potentiality



The primary component of PLAN’s work is centred on the involvement of children in DRR
activities. This work then requires that the community recognised the potential that children have to
be involved in reducing risk. The data collected in the 1-2-1 interviews (Please refer to 08. Annex 7.
One to One Interviews Main Findings) shows that there is general acknowledgement of the
potential of children from amongst other members in their communities. This potential is seen to
stem directly from the knowledge empowerment that children have through their increased access to
formal education over that of older generations. Graph 6 gives an overview of the general
consensus across the two areas.



Graph 7: Community Acknowledgement of Children’s DRR Potential

3.2.2.2. Group- wise acknowledgement



Between Barguna and Dhaka there was a small difference in the number of people who recognised
children as a group with DRR potential. The difference was minor, in Barguna 65% and in Dhaka
60% recognised children’s potential. The slightly lower acknowledgement in Dhaka may reflect the
fact that other members of the community are feeling capable to respond to the disasters they face
and so there is no necessity to recognise the potential of others.

There is also a slight difference between men and women, with men more likely to report that they
do recognise the potential of children. This may be in part due to the fact that women’s disaster
response activities are focused around protection of children and they are therefore more likely to
see them as a vulnerable group. Those interviewed from high-risk groups were no more of less
likely than the general population to acknowledge the potential of children and this again supports
the overall picture that has been drawn – around two-thirds of people acknowledge CCDRR as a
feasible intervention. Of those who do not recognise children’s potential there seems to be no real
information given other than that they do not have the capacity to respond. This may be more a
consequence of the interpretation of the question than a rejection of the child’s potential. If at the

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 22


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



individual level, the understanding of DRR as disaster response and not disaster preparedness then it
is possible to understand that the individual may see children primarily in terms of their high
vulnerability. This suggests that although there is acceptance for the CCDRR paradigm in general it
is also important that PLAN educates the wider community as to the real meaning of DRR.

3.2.2.3. Children acknowledgement



Children’s acknowledgement of their own capacity and potential to reduce disaster risk vulnerability
within their communities is a major challenge for PLAN. Children of both populations have
experience of disaster in which they have been able to formulate their own conceptions of their
capacity. PLAN needs to pay particular attention to the previous experiences of disaster since this is
the lens through which children are responding to CCDRR interventions. The data from the Roles
and Responsibilities Game ((Please refer to 09. Annex 8. R&R Game Analysis) shows clearly that
the experiences in Dhaka differ greatly from the experiences in Barguna, as shown in Graph 7
below.




 Graph 8: Children’s Identification of their Roles and Responsibilities in a Disaster

The major differences that can be seen in the responses of the children relate primarily to the need
to move to a safe place – a more pressing requirement for children during a cyclone. In Barguna the
existence of an EWS, although limited, was also a major area in which children made a valuable
contribution to disaster response. In both areas around 75% of children reported either moving to a
safe place or undertaking some disaster response action (see table 5). There was also a similar
instance of protective measures (protection in this instance refers to the protection of vulnerable
groups), which suggests that some children recognised others within their community as more
vulnerable than themselves. Recognition of the vulnerability of others is important in empowering
the children to take responsibilities to be assigned to them under PLAN’s CCDRR approach, and
the fact that this is something of which they may have experience will enable them to take this
responsibility more readily.
In Dhaka there were also children who reported that they played no role in the last disaster. This
may reflect either that their parents and community did not acknowledge their potential to respond,
or that perhaps the scale of the disaster was limited in that there was no need for them to take any
actions. No particular gender division was noticed between the two communities with regards to
children’s response to disaster.

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 23


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



3.2.3. Acknowledgement of people at risk

The communities’ acknowledgements of the risk they are facing require first the acknowledgement
of the socio-economic difference between, and even within, households. The following section
attempts to give an overview of different risk factors and an overview of the communities’
perceptions of the differing risks that individuals are facing.
3.2.3.1. Overview of the risks

The risks that communities, households, and individuals are facing are different and entirely context
specific. One can imagine a sliding scale which mirrors the wealth ranking in the community where a
PwD living outside of the embankment in Barguna is suffering a higher level of risk than a teacher
living next to the cyclone shelter. Although there is a close link between poverty and increased risk
to disaster the determining factor will always be the size of the disaster that strikes.
Providing a real overview of the risks that people are facing may additionally require that the
population be empowered to acknowledge risks they had previously ignored. This constitutes an
important part of the work of PLAN and can be managed in such a way as to empower the
community to recognise the needs of those who may be more vulnerable to the effects of a disaster.
The main difficulty then arises from the differences that exist between the acknowledged risks and
the unacknowledged risks that different members of the community face. One way this can be
addressed is during the DRR plan development process, where children and adults will identify
specific DRR activities. The facilitator should raise awareness about the importance to support the
most vulnerable in their community.
In 21 of the 30 FGD’s respondents felt
that nothing was done to reduce the Box 2: People’s immediate recovery priority
vulnerabilities of the most at risk groups. • Embankment r epairing
The discussion of what should be done to • Family shelter r epairing & construction
reduce the vulnerability of these particular • Access to food & livelihood r ecover y
at risk groups was particularly interesting. • Access to safe water supply and sanitation
The requests for action were for • Access to health and education
interventions that would have benefits for
the entire community; in Barguna
particularly respondents called for more cyclone shelters, repair and raising of embankments, and
training on early warning systems. A recent Report of ECHO entitled In depth Recovery Needs
Assessment of Cyclone Affected Areas underlined those same activities to ensure the recovery
after a disaster.
Only three groups mentioned provision of stretchers to move people or safely jackets for the water
to specifically address the particular needs of those with mobility issues during a disaster (those
particularly at risk). This means that PLAN should focus its awareness creation on changing the
attitude of the community away from structural measures to ones of supporting the most vulnerable.
In Dhaka the respondents were more aware of the need to raise the profile of vulnerable groups in
order to reduce their risk. From Barguna there was a call for physical inputs, from Dhaka the call
was for information. This marks an important point of distinction between the two populations and
gives a clear indication that in Dhaka the populations feel more confidence to address DRR issues
from within although they addressed as well some protection issues that are their main concern
(please refer to 10 Annex 9. Case Study 2. Another Day in Paradise). This may in part be due to

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 24


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



the difference in the severity of the disasters that the two areas have faced, but it may also signal a
greater existing capacity to work within PLAN’s DRR model.

3.2.3.2. Common identifications of people at risk

FGD respondents in Barguna and Dhaka were asked which groups they could identify within their
community as being particularly vulnerable to the negative impact of the hazards they faced, the
results are presented in Graph 8 below.

*
Barguna
Only


Graph 9: Identification of Vulnerable Groups by Location

Perhaps the major point of note is the differing attitudes towards PwD between the two sites. FGD
participants in Dhaka were three times more likely to have recognised the particular vulnerabilities
of PwDs than those in Barguna, which suggests that much more awareness raising must be done
before a successful risk assessment can be carried out. Plan is currently developing a child Centered
risk assessment process which should start with awareness creation of community members on who
are the most vulnerable groups. A wealth ranking process would be highly beneficial, especially done
by children who are less biased in wealth ranking. In Dhaka the particular vulnerabilities of women
were not commonly identified. Although this may simply reflect the greater capacity that women
have in responding to hazards that occur it also supports the findings of this baseline survey that
there is a problem in Ward # 85 of ensuring the safety of women as they move about the slum at
night, or in the case of a disaster to take shelter (please refer to 10. Annex 9 Case Study 3.
Another Day in Paradise). The problem was acknowledged but not openly discussed by all
members of the community (a taboo issue within the slum) and as such the real risks that women
are facing are not being identified.
The high risks that children face in a disaster were acknowledged in both areas but it is clear that
there was limited awareness both in Dhaka and Barguna as to the impact that poverty can have on
increasing vulnerability to disaster. Given the level of social stratification and income distribution in
both locations one would perhaps have anticipated that the vulnerability of the extreme poor may

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 25


 CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



have been recognised. It may be that in areas with relatively stable access to livelihoods and
employment opportunities poverty is a consequence of inability to work (Elderly/PwD/Female-
Headed HH) and so by identifying these groups people were already identifying the extreme poor.
However it is also the case that within each community there are households that are easily
identifiable as wealthier and those that are identifiable as poorer. PLAN must ensure that children
from poorer households are encouraged into the programme because they represent families that are
more vulnerable to any disaster that strikes. This can be done through a wealth ranking process and
those households identified in the wealth ranking from lowest category must be represented in Plans
Children’s Organization (COs) and Community Based Organizations (CBOs). Due to reduced
access to education (where the child is working to supplement the income of the family) and
reduced time to invest in CCDRR activities these children may be the most difficult for PLAN to
identify and work with. However, if PLAN’s approach is to be successful it is absolutely necessary
that these children be involved.

3.3. Confidence Building



Building the confidence of any post-disaster community is a difficult task, but a task of paramount
importance if the population is to implement a household level DRR strategy. Growing confidence
can be seen through the growing acknowledgement within households that disaster preparedness is
possible (not just disaster response). If a household has willingly prepared for a disaster it is because
they feel that it is worth their time and/or money to do this, and they understand that their
investments could offer them some advantage if a disaster strikes. In this respect there are two
major areas of preparedness that one can see within individuals and communities: physical
preparedness and psychological preparedness to a disaster.


 BOX 4: Physical and Psychological Preparedness.

Physical Preparedness to a Disaster:

Physical preparedness relates primarily to the quality of the shelter. Quality shelter means shelter on a
raised plinth that is capable to withstand both flood and storm surge. The walls of the shelter should
be weather proof and the support beams should be concrete and deeply set into the ground. The roof of
the shelter should be tethered to the ground in case of high winds. Trees around the homestead plinth
offer further protection and the shelter should be behinds a raised embankment. (For further
information please refer to the ECHO design developed by all partner N GO post-SIDR.)

Psychological Preparedness to a Disaster:

Psychological preparedness in post-disaster communities can come only once the psychological trauma
has been overcome. Overcoming the trauma of such a devastating event can be a long process and will
inevitably involve community participation. Preparedness then can be seen as the absence or reduction
of fear in an individual, which leads the individual to feel some capacity to protect them against further
disaster. The instinct of protection over fear can have physical manifestations (the women of a village
may decide to wear a “shalwar chamise9’ in stormy weather instead of a sari that can inhibit mobility)
or emotional manifestations (commemorative plaques in the community or a day of remembrance).
Further than the community healing there needs to be individual healing whereby people have the
opportunity to discuss in a safe environment their experiences and the difficulties they faced. Both
healing of the community and the individual are delicate interventions that should only be undertaken
by trained professionals and those known and accepted by the communities.


























































9
Modern piece of clothe that women are wearing instead of the traditional “sari”

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 26


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



3.3.1. Physical preparedness to a disaster



The data collected in the 1-2-1 interviews shows clearly that household level confidence is coming
directly from the confidence in the physical structure of the home. 85% of those who felt that their
household could cope better than other households in their area felt that this was due to the quality
of the building in which they were living. Interestingly however those who felt that their household
would cope worse than other households in their area did not directly attribute this to the physical
structure of their homes but rather that the geography of their environment put them at greater risk
(45%) or that their financial insecurity limited their capacity to cope with a disaster (22%).

3.3.2. Psychological preparedness to a disaster



Psychological preparedness to a disaster in an area in which PLAN will be working more directly
and thus can hope to have more impact through their CCDRR programme. The presence of
psychological preparedness can be seen through two major indicators, community level confidence
and behaviour change.
3.3.2.1. Community Level Confidence


During the 1-2-1 interviews ( please refer to 08. Annex 7. One to One Interview Main Findings)
64% of people reported that their communities would cope worse with the effects of a disaster that
other communities in the surrounding area. 36% of respondents therefore felt that their
communities could cope better than other communities nearby. There was little difference between
Barguna (42%) and Dhaka (38%) in the numbers reporting their communities could cope better.
The major justifications for the confidence are outlined in the positive and negative responses below
are shown below in Graph 11.
In both instances the geography of the area (high/low land or inside/outside the embankments) was
seen as the major determining factor in community confidence. This again supports the findings of
this baseline that in both areas there is limited solidarity and community cohesion to the extent that
individuals are conceptualising the community in terms of the physical (i.e. environmental –
structural) and not in terms of the emotional (i.e. psychological support). Although it is clear that
the physical environment is high risk it is also not necessarily a variable factor (especially in Barguna
where all villages suffered loss of life and livelihoods during SIDR) and therefore geography is not
the only cause of vulnerability. By focusing on interventions (training on EWS/First Aid) that aim
to promote and nurture any blossoming community spirit PLAN’s CCDRR programme needs to
alter this situation (Please refer to the 11. Annex 10. Case Study 3 - Red Crescent).

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 27


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



Justification
of
Positive
Response


Justification
of
Negative
Response


Graph 10: Major Justifications for Community Confidence Levels

3.3.2.2. Behaviour Change



40% of participants in FGDs reported that they had changed their behaviour to prepare for a
disaster. Although there was perhaps some limitation to the knowledge of what constituted a
preparatory behaviour it is clear that within both communities there is some willingness and desire
to undertake some preventative measures. PLAN should seek to capitalise upon this existent will
and capacitate further through knowledge empowerment in the form of practical (Technical aspects)
advice for the household. ACF- France is working in Barguna supporting communities to make
disaster resilient communities. Technical training from their staff to PLAN staff and communities
may facilitate this process. However it needs to be underline that ACF- France may close their
project at the beginning of next year.

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 28


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



3.3.3. HH oriented culture



Physical and psychological preparedness are not separate concepts but should be seen as tightly
interwoven within each household and community. In both areas the interaction between physical
preparedness and psychological preparedness is exaggerated due to the impact of the household
oriented culture (Please refer to 12. Annex 11. Case Study 4. Life of Extreme Poor in the
Cyclone Belt). .

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 29


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



4. Recommendations



4.1. Immediate Recommendations for the implementation of

the program - a call for the development and the
improvement of relevant databases
This report constantly draws the attention on the heterogeneity of the population targeted.
The different underlying factors of low resilience being as well a major angle to analyse the main
challenges of PLAN into the implementation of the CCDRR project.
Taking the main objective of CCDRR project that is to mitigate the impact of disaster in vulnerable
areas, the main findings allow us to get a more comprehensive approach that is based on those four
pillars:

1. Geographical Vulnerability
2. Physical Vulnerability
3. Financial Vulnerability
4. Knowledge Vulnerability

 It is clear that the focused mandate of PLAN on the third component of resilience,
Knowledge and Education10 will centre- based the program on the knowledge vulnerability.
The main challenge then is to empower PLAN to design a relevant awareness campaign that
will take in account those particular contexts and homogeneity of the population. As
analysed in both essays of Melkote E. Srinivas and Steeves Leslie H, Communication for
development in the third world ,First Edition. Sage publication, New Delhi, 2001 and
Genilo, Jude 2004, Community –Based Communication A new Approach to
Development Communication, Great Books Publishing, Quezon City, the environmental
context need to be analysed in order to reach the targeted audiences.

 As this awareness campaign aims at reaching a large and diverse group of persons, we
encourage the creation of different tools and supports coming from the beneficiaries in
order to improve the current social cohesion (i.e. child to child methodology focusing to the
creation of tools in the school).

 Prior to that Awareness Campaign for PLAN, the design of a comprehensive matrix on the
population (through a population survey) and the resource of each area to identify, assess
and monitor disaster are necessary. Indeed the starting point for reducing disaster risk and
for promoting a culture of disaster resilience lies in the knowledge of the hazards and the
physical, social, economic and environmental vulnerabilities to disasters that those antithetic
areas face. Once established, PLAN will periodically review this tool and systematise the
information dissemination to stakeholders and decision makers of the areas.

 To enhance early warning system in the 12 villages targeted by PLAN in Barguna district is
the third priority. The beneficiaries urge on the need to develop early warning systems that


























































10
Classification coming from Characteristics of a Disaster- Resilient Community- A Guidance Note, August 2007,
John Twigg for the DFID Disaster Risk Reduction Interagency Coordination Group.

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 30


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



are people centre. Systems that is timely and understandable to those at risk and in remote
areas. That could come only with the knowledge of the population (taking into account the
demographic, gender, cultural and livelihood characteristics…). But a partnership with the
Red Cross to strengthen their capacities to reach the remote areas of Barguna and to
disseminate information on first aid and classification on cyclone signals.

4.1.1. Review and changes of the indicators and activities- The

challenges of the community participation

 As said in the first part of this report both time constraint and pressure on their daily
activities are underlying risk factors for PLAN success. The beneficiaries have basically no
time for activities. The Awareness campaign should then focus rather on providing visual
support in key area meeting locations (i.e. water points, tea shop…) than long session of
awareness in a HH.

 The current logical framework of the program is indeed community-based focus but the
sense of belonging is so low that a more local aspect should be first prioritized. The
allocation of resources to villages or to slums scale to build community centres, place to
meet will determine in a second phase the success of a more holistic social approach.

 A market analysis should as well be put into perspective by PLAN through market
networking. So then the beneficiaries will know who to ask to rehabilitate the houses or
where to find the different items to rehabilitate their houses.

4.1.2. Training needed

 It is clear that PLAN need to promote and improve the dialogue and cooperation among
scientific, academic communities and practitioners working on DRR and encourage
partnership among stakeholders, particularly for training and for sharing and dissemination
of information.

 Please find below in Table 3 a non-exhaustive listing of training needed by both staff of
PLAN and the communities:

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 31


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



PLAN staff Beneficiaries

Basic First Aid X X
Project Cycle Management X
Mandate of PLAN X
Building Training X X
Livelihood X X
Water and Sanitation X X
Climate Change X X
Extensive Risks X X
EWS X X
Psychological Support X X

Table 6: Training Recommendations for PLAN’s CCDRR Program

4.2. Long- term Recommendations - Capitalisation, Interaction

and Diffusion
 It appears during the consultancy that the level of interaction between the different
departments of PLAN is low and that is reflected as well on the physical/ space sharing -
distribution of the departments. That is mainly relevant in the office of PLAN located in the
slum. A new space sharing could increase the level of interactivity as the level of
coordination among the different departments (specifically the seating arrangement of the
area coordinators). A more integrated approach could be considered for future DIPECHO
cycles in which PLAN mainstreams DRR activities into its ongoing activities.

 The support the development of library in each sub office of PLAN with relevant
documents in both Bangladeshi and English will increase the learning process of the staff
and add to the quality of the future work. A real listing of relevant books available nowadays
in the market should be done in partnership with relevant academics.

 Annual Report on the best lessons learnt by PLAN into DRR should be diffused to
strengthen the image of PLAN in an area that is started to be fashionable and where the
constant increasing number of stakeholders contribute to make that area a marketable one.

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 32


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



4.2.1. Action Plan

 Coordination and Planning meetings inside PLAN concentrated on a bottom-up

approach on how to improve the working efficiency that PLAN promoted.
 Strategy planning for the new program should involve both beneficiaries and academics.

4.2.2. Advocacy recommendations



 Livelihood Recovery and Basic WASH activities: PLAN will need to look at the
opportunities or to manage other program in the areas or to target some NGOs who
could support the beneficiaries to get a comprehensive aids.

 Protection: This issue is particularly meaningful in the slum (Please refer to the Case
Study 2. Another Day in Paradise) and should be a component of a further program.

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 33


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



5. List of Annexes




02. Annex 1. Immersion Report Comparison

03. Annex 2. RCI Baseline Level. CCDRR

04. Annex 3. Problem Tree- Dhaka- Nov 09

05. Annex 4. Problem Tree- Barguna- Nov. 09

06. Annex 5. Case Study 1- The Small picture

07. Annex 6. FGD Write up of results

08. Annex 7. One to One Interview Main Findings

09. Annex 8. R&R Game Analysis

10. Annex 9. Case Study 2 .Another Day in Paradise

11. Annex 10. Case Study 3 .Red Crescent

12. Annex 11. Case Study 4 .Life of Extreme Poor in the cyclone Belt

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 34


CCDRR
Project
‐
PLAN
BANGLADESH



6. Bibliography


Websites Accessed November 09
PreventionWeb
http://www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/report/index.php?id=9413
http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php?id=9822 .
http://www.preventionweb.net/globalplatform/2009/
Profound Learning
http://www.profoundlearning.com/Content/EducationSolutions/knowledgetransfer.jpg
UNISDR
http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/hfa.htm

http://www.unisdr.org/eng/hfa/hfa.htm

Wikipedia

http://www.wikipedia.org

Publications Consulted
UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR)
EU Strategy for Disaster Risk Reduction in Developing Country, by the European Commission,
Thematic issues- sustainable management of natural resources, in 2008
Crunch Model published by Tearfund in 2006, written by Blaike and Cannon –
Characteristics of a Disaster- resilient Community- A guidance Note by J Twigg, in 2007 for DFID
Disaster Risk Reduction Interagency Coordination Group
Communication for development in the third world, Melkote E. Srinivas and Steeves Leslie H , First
Edition. Sage publication, New Delhi, 2001
Community –Based Communication A new Approach to Development Communication, Genilo,
Jude 2004, Great Books Publishing, Quezon City,
World Conference on disaster reduction- 18- 22 January 2005, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan – Hyogo
Framework for Action 2005- 2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to
Disasters, extract (A/CONF. 206/6)
In- depth Recovery Needs Assessment of Cyclone AYLA Affected Areas, 25 to 31 October 2009
Conducted by International agencies (ActionAid, Concern WorldWide, DanChurchAid, MuslimAid,
Islamic Relief, Oxfam-GB and Save the Children-UK) currently involved in AYLA response
programme funded by ECHO

01. Baseline Survey Report – November, 2009 35