1
Long and short-term actions taken by NGOs in a post
disaster scenario
A qualitative content analysis of the long and short-term forms of vulnerability reduction
taken by NGOs following the floods in northwestern Bangladesh in 2014
Tómas Vedie Bachelor Thesis Development Studies C
2
Abstract
This thesis looks into two intermediate reports and two final reports published by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and the Food Security Cluster following the floods in northwestern Bangladesh in 2014. The study uses the principles put forward by Mannakkara, Wilkinson and Potangaroa (2014) as a base for finding the long-term forms of vulnerability reduction in the reports. The study also looks at the short-term forms of vulnerability reduction that are presented in the reports. Qualitative content analysis is used to examine the reports and the results show that a short-term form of vulnerability reduction, disaster relief, is the form that is given the highest importance most consistently. This is contrary to what the literature suggests should be of the highest importance. Other key findings are, for example, that the long-term forms of vulnerability reduction are given to fewer districts affected by the flood in comparison to the short-term measures. Keywords: Vulnerability Reduction, Long-Term, Short-Term, NGOs, Natural Hazards, Disasters,
3
Table of Contents
1 INRODUCTION……….4
1.1 Question………6
2 THEORY……….7
2.1 Vulnerability and Hazards……….7
2.2 Vulnerability Reduction……….8
2.2.1 Short-Term Vulnerability Reduction………..9
2.2.2 Long-Term Vulnerability Reduction………10
3 DESIGN, METHOD AND MATERIAL...……….13
3.1 Design and Case Selection………13
3.2 Method………...13
3.3 Material………..14
4 ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK AND OPERATIONALIZATION…16
4.1 Analytical Framework………..16
4.2 Operationalization………16
4.3 Expectations………18
5 ANALYSIS………20
5.1 Intermediate Report- IFRC……….20
5.2 Final Report- IFRC………..21
5.3 Intermediate Report- Food Security Cluster………..23
5.4 Final Report/Assessment- Food Security Cluster………..24
5.5 Summary Table……….26
6 DISCUSSION………28
7 CONCLUSION……….30
4
1 Introduction
The story of a great deluge is something that most societies throughout history have told and passed on for generations. The story of Manu with origins in India (Leeming, 2006 (1)), Deucalion in Greece and of Noah, that is the most well known in the western hemisphere, are just a few of the many stories (Leeming, 2006 (2)). These stories have a lot in common, such as the building of an ark or a big boat, saving animals and so on. There is however, one thing that seems to be the main point of these stories and that is the fact that after the flood, you get a new beginning, the flood washes away the old and you get a chance to build something new and better. It makes no sense for Noah to rebuild Sodom and Gomorra as that was what caused the flood in the first place. The same argument can be put forward in today´s fight against floods and other hazards. We should not rebuild societies and communities with the same vulnerabilities after disasters but make them stronger and less vulnerable for future disasters. Between the years 2000 to 2011, 2.8 billion people were affected by natural hazards, and 1.3 trillion USD were lost worldwide (UNISDR, 2018). People who live in developing countries and/or are part of marginalized groups of society, for example women, minority groups and people under the poverty line, are more severely affected because they usually are more dependent on the vulnerable ecosystems and environments for agriculture and fisheries that are commonly destroyed by natural hazards (Thomalla et al., 2006). Developing countries also tend to have less human, institutional and financial capacity to respond to and anticipate the natural hazards and the effects of climate change (Thomalla et al., 2006). Natural hazards have taken place from the very beginning of earth and it was here before humans or other animals ever walked on this earth. Natural hazards are the natural phenomenon that happens, for example a flood or an earthquake (Albrecht, 2017). Disasters, however, is when the effects of a natural hazard hits a vulnerable community (Albrecht, 2017). They are a social phenomenon, the hazard does not lead to disaster, but the impact does (Perry, 2007), which depends on the characteristic of the hazard as well as the exposure and the vulnerability of the community. One formula that can be used to explain it is: Disaster Risk = Hazard X Exposure X Vulnerability (Albrecht, 2017).
5
short while after the natural hazard strikes. The first response is all about saving lives and is what happens during and for a limited time after a disaster (Coppola, 2015). The disaster relief phase focuses on short-term interventions when the immediate danger to human life has passed (ibid). Both the short and long-term are important to think about when it comes to disasters as they have different objectives that are important in their own right.
NGOs have the capacity of working with communities to reduce their vulnerability in the long-term recovery, as well as the short-term relief. NGOs working with affected communities do not face the risk of losing power, the same way that a government has (Lassa, 2018). NGOs are seen as playing a big role in providing knowledge about disaster management and they are seen as major players when it comes to relief and development around the world (Allen, 2006, Benson, Twigg and Myers, 2001). NGOs are also seen as being an essential part of civil society in many places (Benson, Twigg and Myers, 2001). This means that they have the opportunity to affect it and change it. This makes NGOs an important component in reducing vulnerabilities in communities or societies after a disaster. So what is being done by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to reduce vulnerabilities of affected communities in the short and long-term after a disaster?
6
this paper is to add to the existing knowledge and to fill a gap that was noticed while reviewing the literature, highlighting cases that are seen as successful. I will answer my research question through a qualitative content analysis assessing intermediate and final reports from the Food Security Cluster and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) and look at what efforts, measures and recommendations were taken in their attempts to reduce vulnerability post the flooding in Bangladesh 2014. These organizations were chosen because of their international recognition and size and the fact that they have been in the sector of disaster response, relief and recovery for a long time and because of the availability of reports. Due to the lack of available reports I will base my research only on reports from these two international bodies.
1.1 Question
7
2 Theory
In this section I will discuss how vulnerability and hazards are viewed in the existing literature. Thereafter vulnerability reduction discussed, first with a wide scope followed by a focus on the short-term forms of vulnerability reduction and the long-short-term forms of vulnerability reduction.
2.1 Vulnerability and hazards
UNISDR define vulnerability as “The conditions determined by physical, social, economic and
environmental factors or processes which increase the susceptibility of an individual, a community, assets or systems to the impacts of hazards.” (Unisdr.org, 2017). Using the formula given by Albrecht
(2017) of Disaster Risk = Hazard X Exposure X Vulnerability we can see that vulnerability is very important to this equation. As the exposure to a natural hazard does not solely lead to the emergence of a disaster, what determines the impact of hazards is the vulnerability of the exposed (Albrecht, 2017). This equation also means that if one of the hazard, exposure or vulnerability is zero then disaster risk will also become zero. Even though an absolute zero in vulnerability is very hard to achieve, the vulnerability part of the equation of disaster risk is the easiest one to decrease (Kelman, 2015).
The decisions taken by us, humans, are the root cause for disasters, not the natural hazard (Kelman, 2015). This means that it is not the hazard that kills people but the combination of the natural phenomenon with the exposure and vulnerability of the affected society that makes the disaster. In addition, the key part of vulnerability is that, as humans create it, we too can influence it.
8
different places and on different groups depending on where you live and how you use the natural resources (Adger, 2006). For example, marginalized groups often reside in more vulnerable and riskier areas, women having to work with recovery of the home after it has been destroyed (ibid).
2.2 Vulnerability Reduction
Vulnerability reduction is the reduction of vulnerabilities to the natural hazard, its goal is to reduce disaster risk through tackling the vulnerabilities, which means that using Albrechts (2017) equation reducing vulnerability would lead to less disaster risk. There are different ways to reduce vulnerability after a disaster. Long-term vulnerability reduction does not have to be in connection to a disaster, and can happen continuously without the disaster happening. After a disaster you can respond through two categories. Firstly, long-term vulnerability reduction, which could be done through building back better and secondly, short-term vulnerability reduction which is first response and disaster relief and in the best of worlds these two are not mutually exclusive. In developing countries where disasters are more frequent, like in Bangladesh, the focus on vulnerability reduction is often on the short-term to survive today and return to the status quo (Thomalla et al., 2006). This means the long-term perspective is neglected. This is contested by Kreibich et al. (2017) as they argue that vulnerability to floods has been shown to decrease if floods are common or if there is a devastating flood that affects a large population (ibid). They argue that societies and communities adapt in different ways to the flooding, which means they are better prepared for the next one (ibid). However, only the developed countries showed an improvement in organizational emergency management (ibid). This can be interpreted as more developed countries being able to reduce vulnerability to floods through organizational emergency management while the less developed countries were not able to learn in that area which could be because of incapacity or incapability. Toya and Skidmore (2007) support this interpretation and deem that the more developed countries, with more developed economies, can deal with disasters better than the less developed countries. Building Back Better can also be difficult in practice as some actors, such as insurance companies and some governments, might have interests that are contrary to what is presented through the term (Aldunce et al., 2014). This difficulty should however not stop us from aspiring to reach the goal of long-term vulnerability reduction as that is the best chance of reducing disaster risk in Albrechts (2017) equation (Aldunce et al., 2014, Kelman, 2015). This would save lives and capital, and reduce the need for extensive short-term relief and responses.
9
Short and long-term measures focus on two different areas of vulnerability reduction and if you succeed in the long-term vulnerability reduction, the short-term will not be needed in the same, excessive, way that it is used today. Short-term measures, as they look today, can hamper the long-term process of vulnerability reduction so even though it is important to still have the short-long-term and be quick to save lives, the measures taken must take into account the long-term effects (Ingram et al., 2006). The importance of short-term measures to save lives should, however, not mean that long-term measures should be omitted, as they are today (Mochizuki and Chang, 2017). Long-term vulnerability reduction should play an integral part in post disaster recovery and should be considered during the response and disaster relief so that this phase also contributes to the long-term vulnerability reduction (Coppola, 2015; Mannakkara, Wilkinson and Potangaroa, 2014; Ingram et al., 2006; Mannakkara and Wilkinson, 2015; Kennedy et al., 2008; Mochizuki and Chang, 2017; Clinton, 2006).
With the climate changing, hazards and disasters are becoming more frequent around the world (Glasser, 2017). If the approach in disaster management does not change, there will be an ever-decreasing focus on the long-term strategies and more on the short-term vulnerability reduction in the future (Thomalla et al., 2006).
2.2.1 Short-term vulnerability reduction
10
2015, IFRC, n.d.), disaster response and relief have important roles to play in today’s disaster management and without them many more lives would be lost (IFRC, n.d.).
The responding organizations and their ability to respond, is highly important in determining the impact of the natural hazard and how quickly the community will recover from the disaster (Coppola, 2015). This is often seen as choosing speed instead of quality (Mochizuki and Chang, 2017) or fighting one source of vulnerability by inducing another (Kennedy et al., 2008) or not giving communities roles to play in their own recovery (Mannkkara and Wilkinson, 2015). Aid agencies and NGOs play a big part in disaster relief (Benson, Twigg and Myers, 2001) and is also seen as a big business as shown in a report, in the year of 2004 when the combined budget of the top ten aid agencies was fourteen billion USD and is expected to rise (Kovacs and Spens, 2007).
2.2.2 Long-term vulnerability reduction
It is important to look at the long-term perspective when it comes to reducing vulnerabilities (Kennedy et al., 2008) as this is our best chance of saving lives and saving capital in the future. With climate change making extreme weather events more common and population growth along with urbanization making people live in more vulnerable places (Albrecht, 2017), reducing vulnerabilities in the long-term will be crucial in coping with the future (Mannakkara and Wilkinson, 2013). Clinton (2006) said that recovery must leave communities safer by reducing risk and build resilience. If this is achieved, we could reduce the number of people affected by natural disasters and in that way empower marginalized groups in societies all over the world. This paper will adopt the principles put forward by Mannakkara, Wilkinson and Potagaroa (2014) to investigate long-term vulnerability reduction. These principles of Building Back Better are supported by literature in the field, which will be discussed further below.
Build Back Better, or sometimes called Bounce Back Better, is a term that is connected with the phase of long-term vulnerability reduction and that is what the disaster literature says should happen after a disaster, which means recovery. Long-term vulnerability reduction however can take place anytime and is not necessarily connected to disasters in the same way as Build Back Better. As this paper will bring up what happens and what should happen after a disaster, the term Build Back Better fits well and will be the part of long-term vulnerability reduction that I will focus on. The term Build Back Better first arose after the tsunami in the Indian Ocean 2004 (Mannakkara, Wilkinson and Potangaroa, 2014). According to Mannakkara, Wilkinson and Potangaroa (2014) there are three concepts that represent Build Back Better and these concepts all have different principles which are supposed to be incorporated into the recovery effort. The first concept is (1) Risk Reduction, which in this case gets its meaning through the principles “improvement of structural designs” and “land use planning”.
11
this way reduce the vulnerability. This is also something that others see as important (FEMA, 2000). There are, however, few NGOs that focus on housing and if they do it tends to be in the cities (Baruah, 2015). Land use planning is described as being based on hazard assessments to control developments and through that way reduce the vulnerability. An example could be not to build new houses or structures in the areas most severely affected by floods (Mannakkara, Wilkinson and Potangaroa, 2014). This has also been proposed by Mora and Keipi (2006) and is for them an integral part in fighting long-term vulnerability. This will however not be measured in the analysis as it is something that is more prevalent to have in place as preparedness, and not first response, relief or recovery. And because the NGOs lack of say in the matter (Matin and Taher, 2001).
The second concept is (2) community recovery which should increase the long-term sustainability of communities to disasters through thinking of social and economic recovery. The social recovery means that we in the recovery of the society preserve the cultural and architectural heritage of the communities that are affected, and restore cultural and social activities. Houses are often the priority but schools and religious buildings that are connected to the cultural and social activities should also be prioritized (Halvorson and Hamilton, 2010). Psychological support is also a part of this principle.
Economic recovery means that the society and communities affected can start to generate profits and
for people to start to generate income again. For this to reduce vulnerability in the long-term you need to understand the communities in order to help them recover economically as best as they can, involving them in rebuilding their own society, this way using grass root schemes to build up the economy after a disaster (Mannakkara, Wilkinson and Potangaroa, 2014). This is acknowledged by the IFRC and an example that they use is the cash for work, which give the people affected an income whilst they are involved in rebuilding their community (IFRC, 2010).
12
analysis. The third principle is community consultation, which means that community members are consulted and play a part in the solutions and decision process as this empowers and encourages the local communities to support the recovery process (Mannakkara, Wilkinson and Potangaroa, 2014). Community consultation is very important and can be implemented in different ways. The way that it is implemented can have serious consequences (Davidson et al., 2007). This will be discussed further in the operationalization. The principle of community consultation is something that many scholars see as very important if you want to achieve a successful, long-term vulnerability reduction (Mannakkara, Wilkinson and Potangaroa, 2014; Ingram et al., 2006; Mochizuki and Chang, 2017). The last principle is monitoring and evaluation, used in order to store and pass on gained information and knowledge for further usage in battling these issues (Mannakkara, Wilkinson and Potangaroa, 2014). It is also necessary to evaluate the short and long-term impacts of the decisions taken (Baradan, 2006).
13
3 Design, Method and Material
In this section I look at the design of this paper and the case selection, more specifically why the specific case was chosen. That is followed by method where the qualitative content analysis is discussed. After that the material is discussed, where the NGOs chosen are looked at.
3.1 Design and Case Selection
The research question that is at the centre of this paper gives us the case study as the best option for design. The case study will help me to provide an analysis that can add to the existing knowledge and understanding of disaster research in general, which in recent years has been growing increasingly popular, and to the field of short and long-term reduction of vulnerabilities in areas highly exposed to natural hazards in particular. This paper will contribute to a lack of existing literature on testing theory on successful cases of short and long-term vulnerability reduction in areas highly affected by natural hazards. The current literature is focused mostly on examples that are seen as failures or where actors have made clear mistakes. Case studies are comprehensive and in depth in their analysis of single cases (Bryman, 2012). A case study gives us a chance to understand specific cases and to understand them better through the research question, theory section and analysis (Woodside, 2010). In disaster research, case studies are common as the analysis can be more focused on the one case and therefore show if the response efforts to that particular case were efficient or if there are areas in need of improving (Murray et al., 2012). The generalizability of case studies has been questioned with the argument that one case might not be applicable in another location or with different circumstances and therefore is only relevant to the one case that is being studied (Bryman, 2012). However, a case study is not necessarily done to be able to generalize to a larger population, but rather to get deeper knowledge of a specific case and this is what this paper will try to do.
Bangladesh is a favorable case when it comes to examining NGOs and their activities, as there are many NGOs stationed and working in Bangladesh, and have been there for a long time (Matin and Taher, 2001). It is also a favorable case when it comes to looking at the long-term reductions in vulnerabilities as Bangladesh is seen as a success case in reducing vulnerabilities to flood (Kreibich et al., 2017). Along with being seen as a successful case in reducing the vulnerabilities to disasters they are seen as global leaders in disaster management and in reducing the risks and vulnerabilities to disasters (UNDP, n.d.).
3.2 Method
14
specifically the long and short-term disaster literature. By doing this, this paper wants to answer how NGOs engage in long and short-term reduction of vulnerability. The qualitative approach is used as interpretation is needed. A quantitative study does not offer the same opportunities to interpret, as the whole picture only can be provided through interpretation of the context that short and long-term reduction of vulnerabilities is used in (Esiasson et al., 2017). Adding the words or the phenomena together will not give us the understanding that we need to answer this question. Which means that a purely quantitative study would not be suitable in this case. Content analysis has received most critique for its ability to make claims beyond the material used, and for the possibility of subjective interpretation (Bryman, 2012). In this case this paper does not wish to generalize to a bigger population outside of my case. This paper used the reports and assessments from two well-known, large and international organizations. The categories for the operationalization were based on previous literature on the disaster topic to tackle the objectivity problem. Because of the scope and time frame of this study inter coder was not possible, but that could have increased the reliability of the study (Esiasson et al., 2017). Intra coder reliability is reached through having mutually exclusive categories in the operationalization, as well as clear instructions about how to interpret the categories. I also analysed the material multiple times with time passing in between, and reached the same results. Because of the scope of the paper it was not possible to have this time between the different analyses enough for me to forget the material, which could have been a problem. Objectivity of the coder was also addressed through realising the biases that one can have towards the International Red Crescent Red Cross Society and the Food Security Cluster, who are partners with the United Nations, as they are seen as organizations that do good in the world and have noble intentions, this is something that was taken into account in the operationalization and in the analysis. The results from the analysis of the study could have been stronger if a combinations of methods would have been used, such as a minor field study and in-depth with aid workers or beneficiaries but because of the short time frame of this paper that was not possible.
3.3 Material
15
organizations are partly chosen for the availability of their intermediate and their final reports. These organizations were also chosen because they are two influential, internationally recognized organizations that have been in the business for a long time. The monetary funds that were used in the case of Bangladesh 2014 were also extensive as the IFRC provided more than 2 million dollars which corresponds to a little more than 13 percent of the 15.5 million USD that was requested (ReliefWeb, 2014). These two factors along with the significant efforts that these organizations put into post disaster relief and recovery, makes them powerful, and therefore interesting to look at. The documents used in the analysis are official documents coming from private sources, which leads us to assume that the documents are authentic and mean something (Bryman, 2012). As the reports used are made by the organizations themselves, objectivity could be brought up as one problem in the use of these reports (ibid). This means that the interpreter needs to be aware of this when interpreting the material (ibid). Therefore, both the sources used in the analysis are considered valuable, reliable and sufficient in supplying a discussion and add to the knowledge connected to the research question. The assessments and reports will constitute the units of analysis used in this paper. The assessment that is going to be used is provided by the Food Security Cluster that is part of the United Nations (UN); FOOD
SECURITY, NUTRITION, SHELTER AND EARLY RECOVERY ASSESSMENT IN FLOOD AFFECTED AREAS OF NORTH‐WEST BANGLADESH AUGUST 2014 (Food Security Cluster,
2015). And STRATEGIC RESPONSE PLAN BANGLADESH NORTWEST FLOODS (Food Security Cluster, Wash and Nutrition Cluster, 2014).The second organization that will be used in the analysis are the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC); FINAL REPORT
16
4 Analytical framework and Operationalization
In this chapter, the analytical framework and the operationalization is presented and discussed. Along with the expectations on the result, which are based on the literature presented in the theory section.
4.1 Analytical Framework
Disaster risk = Hazard X Exposure X Vulnerability (Albrecht, 2017) shows us that vulnerability plays a key role in reducing disaster risk. Reducing vulnerability to as close to zero as possible will reduce the disaster risk significantly, no matter the hazard or the exposure. Reducing vulnerabilities after a disaster, in the short-term is important to save lives and get society going again, but it needs to do this without affecting the possibility of long-term vulnerability reduction, as this will be our greatest chance of fighting disasters and the loss of human life and capital in the future. Literature says that developing countries that experience frequent natural hazards get more funding for short-term vulnerability reduction than long-term. The analysis will therefore look at the actions taken by NGOs post disaster in the 2014 floods in Bangladesh to see what actions they took to engage with short and long-term vulnerability, with short-term being focused on the first response and the disaster relief and the long-term being built on Mannakkara, Wilkinson and Potangaroas (2014) principles of Building Back Better. I will assess the measures taken and analyze them based on the literature about first response, disaster relief and the principles mentioned.
4.2 Operationalization
The operationalization bellow has been constructed through immersion into existing literature from Mannakkara, Wilkinson and Potangaroa (2014), Coppola (2015), Davidson et al. (2007) and more. Long-term Forms of Engagement
in Reduction of Vulnerability
Examples
Improvement of Structural Designs Enforce sustainable building codes
Improve construction standards
Repair with long-term vulnerability reduction in mind
Social Recovery Give communities psychological support
Preserve cultural heritage
Preserve architectural heritage
Make sure cultural and social activities are restored
Economic Recovery Cash for work
17
Stakeholders Make it clear what roles and responsibilities different stakeholders have
Community Consultation Involve the local community
Ask for their opinion and take it into account
Empower the community in their own recovery
Monitoring and Evaluation Make a final evaluation including lessons drawn
Make a final report Short-term Forms of Engagement
in Reduction of Vulnerability
Examples
First Response Search and Rescue
First Aid
Disaster Relief Disaster Assessment
Water and Food Provisions
Provide Shelter
Fatality Management
Sanitation
Security
Restore Social Services
Resumption of Critical Infrastructure
Davidson et al. (2007) uses a ladder, which he has adapted from Arnstein (1969) and Choguill (1996) which will be used to determine the level of community consultation that the NGOs looked at did.
18
To be able to measure how NGOs engage in short and long-term reduction in vulnerability I will first look at if the measures and forms are taken and then assess the importance given to the different measures and forms of vulnerability reductions in the intermediate and in the final reports. The word form that is used is meant to be understood as a form of reducing vulnerability and are parts of the operationalization above. The importance will be able to take five different categories. These are high importance, medium-high importance, medium-low importance, low importance and non-existent. The importance category that the measures fall into depends on how many of the parameters below that are fulfilled in the intermediate and final reports. The importance level will be measured through four parameters which are objectives, plan, implementation and formulation. If all four parameters are reached the form will get the high importance level. If three of the parameters are reached, the form will receive the medium-high importance level and so on. With objectives it is meant that the form of vulnerability reduction is mentioned as an objective and/or goal in the report. Plan means that there is a clear plan on how to reach the form of vulnerability reduction. Implementation means that it is actually done and the actions are carried out and formulation is about if the problem and/or solution are formulated in a way that makes it seem important in the reports.
Parameters
Explanation
Objective Is the form part of the overall objectives and/or of the goals in the reports?
Plan Is there a plan on how to reduce vulnerabilities through this form?
Implementation Is the form carried out?
Formulation Does the reports talk about the form as something important?
4.3 Expectations
19
in the recovery according to the literature (Mannakkara, Wilkinson and Potangaroa, 2014; Ingram et al., 2006; Mochizuki and Chang, 2017; IFRC, 2010). NGOs are also, particularly seen as being good at enhancing community participation (Matin and Taher, 2001). Improving structural design is something that I expect will get a low importance level as literature suggests that few NGOs engage in housing, both through regulation and the actual building, and especially in the rural areas (Baruha, 2015). I also will expect to see a high importance being put on stakeholders and monitoring and evaluation as these are important parts of the coordination’s of the efforts, which NGOs are given praise for being able to do (Izumi and Shaw, 2012). I will also expect to see high importance being put on disaster relief, as the lives being lost are fewer now than before (Kreibich et al., 2017, Matin and Taher, 2001) and NGOs often get praised for playing big roles in the disaster relief (Benson, Twigg and Myers, 2001). First response is expected to have medium importance, as it is not mentioned extensively in the literature and for the fact that not many lives are lost in floods in Bangladesh today as is seen in figure 2 below.
20
5 Analysis
In this section, I will look at the intermediate and the final reports published by the chosen NGOs. I will start with the intermediate report given by the IFRC followed by the final report, also from the IFRC. After that, the intermediate report from the Food Security Cluster will be analyzed followed by the final report from the Food Security Cluster. The flood hit in the middle of August in 2014 and receded in the middle of November. The intermediate reports were both published in September of 2014, which means that the floods had still not receded, while the final reports were published on the 31 of January 2016 for the IFRC and in January of 2015 for the Food Security Cluster. The reason for the delay of the final report from the IFRC was a storm that hit some of the flood affected areas in 2015.
5.1 Intermediate report- IFRC
21
water security. This can be shown through these formulations taken from the report: “In consideration
of the acute scarcity of safe drinking water among the affected population in the north-west region”
(IFRC, 2014) and “Food has been reported as the priority need in most districts.” (ibid). These formulations show us the importance being put on these two actions that are short-term forms of vulnerability reduction, namely disaster relief. It also says that the overall objective of the operation is to ensure that the immediate humanitarian needs are met, which will be done through the distribution of food, water, hygiene parcels and other NFIs to the displaced and affected population. This fits into the short-term vulnerability reduction form of disaster relief and is given significant space in the report and in the operational plan. There has also been some implementation of the distribution of food and water sanitation. This gives the disaster relief the high importance category in this report as it fits into all four parameters set for the importance levels. It is part of the objectives in the report, there is a clear plan in how it will be carried out and it is formulated as something of great importance in the report and it has been implemented. It should be said that full implementation has not yet taken place but 4.400 households have been provided with food which is about half of what is planned for the future. A final report along with lessons drawn workshop is something that is mentioned in the intermediate report and in the operational plan. Final reports and lessons drawn are part of the long-term form of reducing vulnerability called monitoring and evaluating. It is however not explained how this will be done or who will be invited to the workshop along with not being mentioned in the objective or as something of high importance. As a result, I categorize it in the low importance category, as it only fulfills one of the four parameters set up, which is plan.
This intermediate report from the IFRC shows that most of the long-term forms of vulnerability reduction are not taken into account. Even though stakeholders are of medium-low importance and monitoring and evaluation is of low importance it is just two of the six forms. The long-term forms of vulnerability reduction that is given most importance in the literature, namely community consultation, social and economic recovery (Mannakkara, Wilkinson and Potangaroa, 2014; Ingram et al., 2006; Mochizuki and Chang, 2017; IFRC, 2010), were not brought up in the report. The focus of this intermediate report from the IFRC is clearly on the short-term vulnerability reduction form, disaster relief and they are doing disaster relief without really thinking about the long-term forms of vulnerability reduction that have been put forward in the literature to be so important to reach long-term vulnerability reduction.
5.2 Final Report- IFRC
22
were planned to reach all affected areas of the flood. After that the recovery was supposed to focus on the two most severely affected districts, where assistance with shelter, livelihood and disaster risk reduction was the main objectives. The plan was, as mentioned, to provide relief to sixteen districts and recovery support to two districts. Shelter assistance was provided to 5.000 families across sixteen districts, the material provided was tarpaulin and rope. Affected areas were also provided with water purification tablets along with buckets and water purification kits. Food was also distributed, to 4.470 families across sixteen districts along with cash grants to buy food, which was given to 5.000 families in the affected districts. Food security, water scarcity and shelter were talked about in the report as something of great importance. This can be seen in these quotes from the report: “Access to safe water
has been one of the key concerns in the immediate aftermath of the flood.”, “Shelter has again come up as a critical need in the Early Recovery Assessment.” And “Food was reported as the highest priority need in the JNA due to displacement of people and loss of food stocks to the flood water”
(IFRC, 2016). These are all examples of actions that fit the disaster relief, which is a form of reducing vulnerability in the short-term. This means that the form disaster relief will be given the high importance level as it fulfills all the parameters that were set out.
This report says that the IFRC has set up complaints and feedback boxes in areas where they operate, along with hotlines where people can call and give feedback on the work of BDRCS, there has also been a radio program where people can call in and do the same. After the feedback and complaints have been received the BDRCS try to coordinate a response towards the issues brought up by the communities. Information kiosks and information boards have also been set up in the communities where they work. This shows us that many actions were taken to reach the long- term form of reducing vulnerability, which is community consultation. There is however no mentioning of it as a high priority nor is it mentioned in the objectives, which means it will be given a medium-low importance level as it reached two of the four parameters set up, namely implementation and plan.
23
improvement of structural designs will get a medium-high importance level as it fulfills three of the four parameters, implementation, plan and objective as I see it as part of the disaster risk reduction that is mentioned in the objectives. Cash grants for restoring livelihoods were given to 1.600 families in two districts. The same families also received cash for work to help restore roads, flood shelters, schools and embankments. This is cash for work which is economic recovery, which is a form of long-term vulnerability reduction. It is given in two of the sixteen affected districts and is not part of the priorities, but a part of the operational plan. The goals for the people targeted that were stated in the plan was not reached because of funding and other difficulties. This is evaluated and brought up extensively in the lessons learned. Therefore, the economic recovery is given a medium-low importance level as it lives up to implementation and plan but not the other two parameters. In the final report from the IFRC coordination meetings were mentioned and were held with other organizations, as well as day-to-day monitoring and sharing of data with their partners. This means that the long-term form of vulnerability reduction of stakeholders were a part of the report. This was not part of any objectives but was part of the plan. Plans and the list of partners with which the information was being shared was, however, not in the report. Stakeholders will get the medium-low importance level as it reaches two of the four parameters needed, which are implementation and plan. In this final report by the IFRC we can see that the only form of vulnerability reduction with a high importance level is the disaster relief, which is stated to be the main priority, and also take up majority of space in the operational plan. Community consultation, stakeholders, monitoring and evaluating, and economic recovery were all of medium-low importance and improvement of structural designs was of medium-high importance in the final report. These are all part of the long-term forms of vulnerability reduction. Community consultation in the form that it took according to the report fits well into the second step of the Davidson et al (2007) ladder presented in figure 1. Communities are informed of the decisions taken and do not have a say until after the decisions have been taken. This means that the community consultation that is employed according to the final report could use an upgrade to be able to empower communities more in their rebuilding of their societies. This could be done by bringing in communities earlier in the decision making process. Social recovery and first response was not mentioned in any form in the report, but the majority of the long-term forms of vulnerability reduction were mentioned and talked about, which indicates that even if the major priority is disaster relief, long-term vulnerability reduction is being taken into account while working with the short-term even though it is not the priority. However, we see that the long-term measures for vulnerability reduction were carried out in fewer districts than the short-term measures.
5.3 Intermediate report- Food Security Cluster
24
about is to meet the immediate needs of the most vulnerable populations in severely flood affected areas. They will provide food and sanitation assistance in forms of cash as well as a sanitation intervention with latrine rehabilitation. Hygiene kits will be distributed as well as cash based assistance. Another feeding program will be put in place to feed children under the age of two years old. These are all actions that fit into the disaster relief form of vulnerability reduction. Disaster relief was given importance in the report which can be seen through these two quotes: “Community and
household levels’ waste and sanitation intervention, including latrine rehabilitation, will be required as a priority.” and “The distribution of hygiene kits is also a priority for affected population.” (Food
Security Cluster, Wash and Nutrition Cluster, 2014). This means that the short-term form of reducing vulnerability, disaster relief will receive the medium-high importance level in this report. This is because it fulfils three of the four parameters of importance. It is part of the objectives, there is a plan on how to implement it and it is talked about as something of importance in the report. The only parameter missing is the implementation. Coordination of efforts and funding was also talked about in the report, as well as being part of the objectives. The report brings up coordinating a joint sectoral response plan, to reach the most hard to reach places. That coupled with trying to get other major organizations to make public their plans for their response, so that it can be planned better and duplicate efforts can be avoided. This is part of the stakeholder form of long-term vulnerability reduction and will be given the medium-low level of importance as it is part of the objectives and in the plans but is lacking in implementations and in formulations.
Disaster relief is given the medium-high importance level in this report. This while the large majority of long-term vulnerability reduction forms are not brought up or mentioned. Stakeholders got a medium-low importance level for coordinating efforts but that is the only long-term measure mentioned. This means that in this intermediate report given out by the Food Security Cluster in partnership with the UN focuses mainly on short-term measures without taking the long-term into account. This is in stark contrast to what the existing literature says is important for communities to be able to not just fight climate change in the future but also to save lives (Kennedy et al., 2008; Mochizuki and Chang, 2017; Ingram et al., 2006; Mannakkara and Wilkinson, 2013).
5.4 Final Report/Assessment- Food Security Cluster
25
objective of the report but even though it is talked about and explained in the report there is no formulation that makes it look as of being of importance in the report. This means that community consultation will get the level of medium-high importance in the final report. One of the objectives in the final report was food security which one of the suggested solutions would be by distributing cash to the most severely affected households. This shows us that there is a plan in place, although there is no implementation. The report formulates as something of importance in the following quote: “Cash,
food and access to work are consistently rated as the top priority needs across all districts.” (Food
Security Cluster, 2015). This fits into the disaster relief form of vulnerability reduction and fits into three of the four parameters which gives it medium-high importance in the final report. Shelter assistance was also one of the objectives in the report and was to be tackled through durable material distribution and cash as well as teaching communities how to build houses that withstand floods better and providing the communities with qualified builders that can build these houses that are better equipped when the next flood hits. It is also mentioned that the Build Back Better idea should be considered throughout this process. This means that there is a plan on how it should be done but it is yet to be implemented. This fits into the improving structural designs form of reducing vulnerabilities. It is, as mentioned, part of the objectives and talked about in the report, as something of importance, which is shown through this formulation: “Major support should be provided to repair/reconstruct of
different elements of the houses, mainly the walls and structural frames which constitute the major percentage among damage caused by flooding.” (Food Security Cluster, 2015). This means that it
fulfills three of the four importance parameters and is therefore given a medium-high importance level. In connection with this social and economic recovery is mentioned through cash for work in rebuilding the sustainable structures and the focus on religious and educational institutes in the rebuilding process. Economic recovery, which plays out through cash for work is mentioned in connection to a number of different rebuilding strategies as well as in the recommended response package, where it is given the highest priority. This can be seen through this formulation: “Deployment of local labours during repairing and rehabilitation of essential community
infrastructures are important to support to increase employment opportunities of the affected people and early recovery of affected community. Build Back Better approach also needs to be considered along with the existing vulnerabilities of the affected areas.” (Food Security Cluster, 2015). As there
26
this is part of the objectives and has been implemented, through this report, this form of vulnerability reduction will get a medium-low importance level in the report.
This final report from the Food Security Cluster has a clearer long-term vulnerability reduction approach as we can see more of them and them fulfilling more of the parameters than before. For example community consultation, economic recovery and improving structural designs were given medium-high importance. Disaster relief was still up there and was also given a medium-high importance level. Community consultation in this report also goes beyond merely informing, but takes the form of collaborating on Davidson et al (2007) ladder as the communities affected, through household engagement, key informant interviews and focus groups, get to determine what is needed. This is something that the literature has deemed important for vulnerability reduction to be successful (Mannakkara and Wilkinson, 2015; Mochizuki and Chang, 2017; Ingram et al., 2006). The ideas of Building Back Better were also present in the discussion of improving structural designs which means that the rebuilding of shelters and houses will be done with the long-term vulnerability reduction in mind. This can also be said about economic recovery as medium-high importance was put on the cash for work model as being a part of improving structural designs but also food security.
The final report is however, not talking about actions that the Food Security Cluster will do themselves, but actions that they recommend other actors to implement which means that these actions might never be implemented and therefore not making any impacts. So, even though this report looks like it focuses on the term vulnerability reduction, it might do nothing at all to reduce the long-term vulnerabilities in the affected communities. To put it another way, talk is cheap while actual actions are not. Another critique is that this report only focuses on five of the sixteen districts affected. The five most severely affected districts are taken into account, leaving out the others. This means that these districts did not get any recommendations of assistance on how to work towards long-term vulnerability, which fits the idea of Coppola (2015) that many of the least developed countries only get short-term measures, and when they are done the long-term is disregarded.
5.5 Summary table
IFRC Non-Existent Low
Importance Medium-Low Importance Medium-High Importance High Importance Intermediate Report Improving Structural Designs, Social Recovery, Economic Recovery, First Response, Monitoring and Evaluation
27 Community
Consultation Final Report First Response,
Social Recovery Community Consultation, Stakeholders, Economic Recovery, Monitoring and Evaluation Improving Structural Designs Disaster Relief Food Security Cluster Non-Existent Low Importance Medium-Low Importance Medium-High Importance High Importance Intermediate Report Improving Structural Designs, Social Recovery, Economic Recovery, Community Consultation, Monitoring and Evaluation, First Response
Stakeholders Disaster Relief
Final Report Monitoring and Evaluation, First Response
28
6 Discussion
In the analysis, I saw that most focus was being put on the short-term form of vulnerability reduction, disaster relief and the long-term forms often came second to the short-term.
29
was not a final report in the same way as the one from IFRC as it focused more on recommendations for the future than on evaluating what had been done, although a small piece deemed what had been done as insufficient. This means that what is being judged from this report are the recommendations and not the actions. In the recommendations of the final report there was a much clearer focus on the long-term forms of reducing vulnerability. Community consultation was of medium-high importance along with economic recovery and improving structural designs. Stakeholders were of a medium-low importance. Social recovery was of low importance while disaster relief was given medium-high importance. Which means that the ones left out was the monitoring and evaluation and first response. There were no lessons learnt workshop, no final report evaluating what had been done, and what could have been done better. Community consultation was on the level of collaborating with the affected communities, which is a step in the right direction and the medium-high importance of economic recovery and on cash for work played a large part in their recommendations. The recommendations put forward in the report had a clear long-term trail of thought in them and also mentioned Building Back Better, which is something that the literature has deemed important to have in mind while recovering.
Something that was striking when looking at the reports were the extent of the different forms of vulnerability reduction as the short-term measures often targeted all affected districts while the long-term measures affected far less and only the most severely affected districts. This means that the majority of people affected will only receive short-term forms of vulnerability reduction and then nothing more. This means that the majority of the population affected will not get reduced disaster risk. To explain this further we could use Albrechts (2017) formula of Disaster Risk = Hazard X Exposure X Vulnerability, if vulnerability is not reduced, then disaster risk will not reduce, but stays the same.
30
7 Conclusion
How do non-governmental organizations (NGOs) engage in long and short-term reduction of vulnerability after the floods in Bangladesh in 2014? This was the question that this paper sought to answer. The question was answered through qualitative content analysis and a case study of the floods in Bangladesh in 2014, where intermediate and final reports from the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies and the Food Security Cluster were studied. The extent to which NGOs engage in long and short-term vulnerability reduction in countries highly affected by natural hazards is that the focus of the engagement is on the short-term forms of vulnerability reduction, mainly disaster relief, while the long-term forms are, at best considered or recommended. How the NGOs do it is through disaster relief as a main objective and highest priority. This is something that goes against what the literature on the subjects recommend and see as important, which is a very interesting result. With Bangladesh being seen as a success case in the eyes of the world when it comes to reducing vulnerabilities in the long-term, this is also an interesting result as it means that the success is not because of the way the NGOs work for a long-term reduction of vulnerabilities. The fact is that the bulk of the affected district only got short-term forms of vulnerability reduction and the long-term vulnerability reduction forms were given to the most severely affected only. This fits into the idea of Thomalla et al (2006) that developing countries that are frequently affected by natural hazards do not get long-term vulnerability reduction to the same extent as they do the short-term and in that way they have an adverse effect on their development.
31
Bibliography
Adger, W. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), pp.268-281.
Albrecht, F. (2017). The Social and Political Impact of Natural Disasters : Investigating Attitudes and
Media Coverage in the Wake of Disasters. PH.D. Uppsala University.
Aldunce, P., Beilin, R., Handmer, J. and Howden, M. (2014). Framing disaster resilience. Disaster
Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 23(3), pp.252-270.
Allen, K. (2006). Community-based disaster preparedness and climate adaptation: local capacity-building in the Philippines. Disasters, 30(1), pp.81-101.
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4).
Asian Development Bank. (2018). Poverty in Bangladesh. [online] Available at:
https://www.adb.org/countries/bangladesh/poverty [Accessed 30 Nov. 2018].
Baradan, B. (2006) Analysis of the Post-disaster Reconstruction Process following the Turkish Earthquakes, 1999. Izmir: Faculty of Architecture, Izmir Institute of Technology
Bassett, M., Wilkinson, S. and Mannakkara, S. (2017). Legislation for building back better of horizontal infrastructure. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 26(1), pp.94-104.
Bdrcs.org. (2018). Integrated Flood Resilience Program (IFRP) | BDRCS. [online] Available at:
http://www.bdrcs.org/programs-and-projects/integrated-flood-resilience-program-ifrp [Accessed 30 Nov. 2018].
Benson, C., Twigg, J. and Myers, M. (2001). NGO Initiatives in Risk Reduction: An Overview. Disasters, 25(3), pp.199-215.
Bipasha Baruah (2015) NGOs as intermediaries in post-disaster rural reconstruction: findings from research in India, Development in Practice, 25:7, 951-965, DOI: 10.1080/09614524.2015.1072132 Bryman, A. (2012) Social Research Methods, 4th Edition: Oxford University Press
Choguill, M. B. G. (1996). A ladder of community participation for underdeveloped countries. Habitat
International, 20(3), 431–444
32
Coppola, D. (2015). Introduction to International Disaster Management. 3rd ed. Elsevier, pp.321-380. Davidson, C.H., et al. (2007) ‘Truths and Myths about Community Participation in Post-disaster Housing Projects’. Habitat International. 31(1), pp. 100–15.
Esaiasson, P., Gilljam, M., Oscarsson, H., Towns, A. & Wängnerud, L (2017) Metodpraktikan – konsten att studera samhälle, individ och marknad. Stockholm: Wolters Kluwer
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) (2000) Rebuilding for a More Sustainable Future: An Operational Framework. Washington, DC: FEMA
Food Security Cluster (2015). FOOD SECURITY, NUTRITION, SHELTER AND EARLY RECOVERY
ASSESSMENT IN FLOOD AFFECTED AREAS OF NORTH‐WEST BANGLADESH AUGUST 2014.
Food Security Cluster.
Food Security Cluster, Wash and Nutrition Cluster (2014). Strategic Response Plan Bangladesh
Northwest Floods. [online] UN. Available at:
https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/JRP_Bangladesh_Sep%202014_V%201%200_1
pdf [Accessed 14 Dec. 2018].
Glasser, R. (2017). Climate Change Is Key Driver Of Disasters - UNISDR. [online] Unisdr.org. Available at: https://www.unisdr.org/archive/54505 [Accessed 12 Dec. 2018].
Halvorson, S.J. and J.P. Hamilton (2010) ‘In the Aftermath of the Qa’yamat: The Kashmir Earthquake Disaster in Northern Pakistan’. Disasters. 34(1), pp. 184–204.
Hdr.undp.org. (2018). | Human Development Reports. [online] Available at:
http://hdr.undp.org/en/composite/HDI [Accessed 30 Nov. 2018].
IFRC (2014). Emergency Plan of Action (EPoA) Bangladesh: Floods. [online] IFRC. Available at:
https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/MDRBD014EPoA_DREF.pdf [Accessed 14 Dec. 2018].
IFRC (2016). Final Report Bangladesh: Floods. IFRC.
IFRC (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies) (2010) World Disasters Report 2010: Focus on Urban Risk. Geneva: IFRC
33
Ingram, J., Franco, G., Rio, C. and Khazai, B. (2006). Post-disaster recovery dilemmas: challenges in balancing short-term and long-term needs for vulnerability reduction. Environmental Science &
Policy, 9(7-8), pp.607-613.
IRDR. (2018). World Risk Index. [online] Available at:
http://www.irdrinternational.org/2016/03/01/word-risk-index/ [Accessed 30 Nov. 2018].
Izumi, T. and Shaw, R. (2012). In: R. Shaw, ed., Community-Based Disaster Risk Reduction. Emerald Publishing Limited, pp.35-54.
Kelman, I. (2015). Climate Change and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 6(2), pp.117-127.
Kennedy, J., Ashmore, J., Babister, E. and Kelman, I. (2008). The Meaning of ‘Build Back Better’: Evidence From Post-Tsunami Aceh and Sri Lanka. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 16(1), pp.24-36.
Khasalamwa, S. (2009) ‘Is “Build Back Better” a Response to Vulnerability? Analysis of the Posttsunami Humanitarian Interventions in Sri Lanka’. Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift–Norwegian
Journal of Geography. 63, pp. 73–88.
Koivisto, J. and Nohrstedt, D. (2016). A policymaking perspective on disaster risk reduction in Mozambique. Environmental Hazards, 16(3), pp.210-227.
Kreibich, H., Di Baldassarre, G., Vorogushyn, S., Aerts, J., Apel, H., Aronica, G., Arnbjerg-Nielsen, K., Bouwer, L., Bubeck, P., Caloiero, T., Chinh, D., Cortès, M., Gain, A., Giampá, V., Kuhlicke, C., Kundzewicz, Z., Llasat, M., Mård, J., Matczak, P., Mazzoleni, M., Molinari, D., Dung, N., Petrucci, O., Schröter, K., Slager, K., Thieken, A., Ward, P. and Merz, B. (2017). Adaptation to flood risk: Results of international paired flood event studies. Earth's Future, 5(10), pp.953-965.
Lassa, J. (2018). Roles of Non-Government Organizations in Disaster Risk Reduction. [online] Available at: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/acrefore-9780199389407-e-45.pdf
[Accessed 30 Nov. 2018].
Leeming, D. (2006) (1). Hindu Mythology. [online] Oxfordreference.com.ezproxy.its.uu.se. Available at:
34
Leeming, D. (2006) (2). Flood. [online] Oxfordreference.com.ezproxy.its.uu.se. Available at:
http://www.oxfordreference.com.ezproxy.its.uu.se/view/10.1093/acref/9780195156690.001.0001/acre f-9780195156690-e-567?rskey=3abMFg&result=590 [Accessed 30 Nov. 2018].
Mannakkara, S., Wilkinson, S. and Potangaroa, R. (2014). Build back better: implementation in Victorian bushfire reconstruction. Disasters, 38(2), pp.267-290.
Mannakkara, S. and Wilkinson, S. (2013). Build Back Better principles for post‐disaster structural improvements. Structural Survey, 31(4), pp.314-327.
Mannakkara, S. and Wilkinson, S. (2015). Supporting post-disaster social recovery to build back better. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment, 6(2), pp.126-139. Mochizuki, J. and Chang, S. (2017). Disasters as opportunity for change: Tsunami recovery and energy transition in Japan. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 21, pp.331-339. Mora, S. and K. Keipi (2006) ‘Disaster Risk Management in Development Projects: Models and Checklists’. Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment. 65(2), pp. 155–65.
Murray, V., G. McBean, M. Bhatt, S. Borsch, T.S. Cheong, W.F. Erian, S. Llosa, F. Nadim, M. Nunez, R. Oyun, and A.G. Suarez, (2012) Case studies, In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 487-542
Nibs.org. (2018). National Institute of Building Sciences Issues New Report on the Value of Mitigation
- National Institute of Building Sciences. [online] Available at:
https://www.nibs.org/news/381874/National-Institute-of-Building-Sciences-Issues-New-Report-on-the-Value-of-Mitigation.htm [Accessed 30 Nov. 2018].
Perry, R.W., 2007. What Is a Disaster. In H. Rodríguez et al., eds. Handbook of disaster research.
Handbooks of sociology and social research. New York: Springer, pp. 1–15.
Preventionweb.net. (2015). Country Risk Profile: Bangladesh. [online] Available at:
35
ReliefWeb. (1998). Bangladesh's worst floods since 1954 are now affecting 30 million people -
Bangladesh. [online] Available at: https://reliefweb.int/report/bangladesh/bangladeshs-worst-floods-1954-are-now-affecting-30-million-people [Accessed 9 Dec. 2018].
ReliefWeb. (2018). Disasters. [online] Available at: https://reliefweb.int/disasters?country=31#content
[Accessed 30 Nov. 2018].
ReliefWeb. (2014). 2014 Strategic Response Plan Bangladesh (Northwest Flood), September 2014 -
Bangladesh. [online] Available at: https://reliefweb.int/report/bangladesh/2014-strategic-response-plan-bangladesh-northwest-flood-september-2014 [Accessed 26 Dec. 2018].
Strömberg, D. (2007). Natural Disasters, Economic Development, and Humanitarian Aid. Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 21(3), pp.199-222.
Sultana, P. and Thompson, P. (2017). Livelihoods in Bangladesh Floodplains. [online] Available at:
http://oxfordre.com/naturalhazardscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389407-e-258 [Accessed 30 Nov. 2018].
Thomalla, F., Downing, T., Spanger-Siegfried, E., Han, G. and Rockström, J. (2006). Reducing hazard vulnerability: towards a common approach between disaster risk reduction and climate
adaptation. Disasters, 30(1), pp.39-48.
Toya, H. and Skidmore, M. (2007). Economic development and the impacts of natural disasters. Economics Letters, 94(1), pp.20-25.
UNDP. (n.d.). Bangladesh: Disaster Risk Reduction as Development. [online] Available at:
http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/poverty-reduction/supporting_transformationalchange/Bangladesh-drr-casestudy-transformational-change.html
[Accessed 19 Dec. 2018].
Unisdr.org. (2017). Terminology - UNISDR. [online] Available at:
https://www.unisdr.org/we/inform/terminology#letter-v [Accessed 30 Nov. 2018].
UN (United Nations) (2005) Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters
UNISDR. (2018). What is Disaster Risk Reduction. [online] Available at:
https://www.unisdr.org/who-we-are/what-is-drr [Accessed 30 Nov. 2018].
