Showing posts with label Disaster.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Disaster.. Show all posts

27 March 2011

DIFFERENT TOOLS OF DISASTER MANAGEMENT BY KANIZ FATEMA

Chapter One
Introduction
The earth in the solar system is unique among the nine planets; that is it has enough oxygen and plentiful water to support life. It supports Human life but side by side it destructs Human life whenever the nature changes its course based on various geological reasons and that results various Natural disasters. During Jurassic time Gondwanaland was a southern super continent that included the present South America, Africa, Antarctica, Australia, New Zealand and India. The outer layers of the earth are always involved in a recycling known as tectonic cycle. Mountain rise, volcano eruption, earthquakes, bending down of sea floors etc. are the result of tectonics. Disasters occur where the earth unleashes its concentrated energy. A large earthquake or major volcanic eruption or Flood or drought is becoming a challenge for the survival of human beings in the affected areas.

Disaster is an event, natural or man-made, sudden or progressive, that seriously disrupts the functioning of a society, causing human, material, or environmental losses of such severity that the affected community has to respond by taking exceptional measures. The disruption (including essential services and means of livelihood) is on a scale that exceeds the ability of the affected society to cope with using only its own resources.
Disaster affects society as a whole these focusing events or destabilizing events have also had an impact on scholarly enterprises shifting the attention of sociologists from more traditional areas of professionals inquiry to the expansion and application of innovative concepts and methods to the study of disasters ( Birkland 1997 Picou and Marshall 2007).

Defining Disaster
‘Disaster’ is defined differently by different people: to some ‘disaster’ is a summative concept’ (Kreps, 1984) or a ‘sponge world’ (Qurantelli and Dynes, 1970). Some researchers mentioned disaster as a ‘collective stress situation’ (Barton, 1969) while others identified it with ‘social crisis period’ (Qurantelli and Dynes, 1977). Britton (1986) argued that “disasters can be more easily recognized than they can be defined”.

Disaster is a severe, relatively sudden and unexpected disruption of normal structural arrangements within a social system over which the system has no firm control (Barton, 1974). A disaster may also be viewed as “a significant departure from normal experience for a particular time and place” (Turner, 1978). Disaster is also viewed as a mental construct imposed upon experience. This is because to understand disaster knowing the number of deaths, the value of property destroyed or the decrease in per capita income is not sufficient. The symbolic component requires knowledge of the sense of vulnerability, the adequacy of available explanation and the society’s imagery of death and destruction (Barkun, 1977).

Objectives;
• To know about the disasterous condition of The Earth along with Bangladesh
• To know about different tools of disaster management
• To elaborate various types of approaches
• Specify Environmental approaches and Technical approaches of Disaster management.
• To know the advantages of environmental and technical approaches regarding disaster management
• To know the process of these two types approaches in global and national context
• To know different priority area of action about disaster management
Chapter Two
Situational analysis

International and Global Context

Disasters are situations or events which overwhelm local capacity, necessitating a request to national or international level for assistance. These are classified into two main categories i.e. Natural disasters which are hydro-meteorological and Geophysical, and non-natural disasters which are man-made and can be industrial related; chemical spill, collapse of industrial structures, explosion, fire, gas leak poisoning, radiation; miscellaneous events such as collapse of domestic/non industrial structures, explosion, fire, and Transport related; air, rail, road and water-borne accidents (World Disasters Report, 2002).

Disasters and how they are managed, have become the subject of increasing research and debate in recent years. This heightened interest signifies that the world has become a more dangerous place for its inhabitants who are becoming more vulnerable to disasters.
Data gathered worldwide over the last three decades suggest that, while the number of people killed by natural disasters has leveled out at around 80,000 per year, the number affected by disasters and associated economic losses have both soared. As during the 1990s, an annual average of around 200 million people was affected by natural disasters nearly three times higher than during the 1970s. Economic losses from such disasters in the 1990s averaged US$ 63 billion per year which is nearly five times higher in real terms than the figure for the 1970s (Brussels-based Centre for research on the Epidemiology of Disasters-CRED)

While the figures sound sobering, they disguise the devastating effects that disasters can have on poorer nations’ development as disasters undermine development by contributing to persistent poverty. As Didier Cherpited says “disasters are first and foremost a major threat to development, and specifically to the development of poorest and most marginalized people in the world. Disasters seek out the poor and vulnerable, and ensure they stay poor.” (World Disasters Report, 2002)

It has been evidently documented that, vulnerability to disaster is not simply by lack of wealth, but by a complex range of physical, economic, political and social factors. Flawed development is exacerbating these factors and exposing more people to disasters. Rapid population growth and unplanned urbanization force poorer communities to live in more hazardous areas. However, even the better-off are at risk as expansion of infrastructure over the past decades including bridges, railway lines and roads have created a barrier across the valley leading to limited access, and excessive rainfall resulting in floods. Growth in infrastructure across the globe has increased both the level of assets at risk from disasters, and the people dependent on such lifelines as electricity, gas and water mains.

Economic growth may increase risks particularly in the poorest countries of the world as economic activities can result to environmental degradation, deforestation which disrupts watersheds leading to more severe droughts, as well as floods. People switch jobs or their mode of crop production in response to improved marketing opportunities, and in doing so, they may increase their vulnerability to disasters. Clearly, disasters are a major threat to the global economy and to society and therefore sustainable development is society’s investment in the future or otherwise; investments will be squandered if not adequately protected against the risk of disaster.

Recognizing the fact that disasters are complex problems arising from the interaction between the environment and the development of human beings, disaster requires complex responses drawing on a wide range of skills and capacities. It requires the cooperation between multilateral development agencies, national and local governments, non-governmental organizations, businesses, natural and social scientists, technical specialists and the vulnerable communities. Central to the United Nations Conferences in Stockholm in 1972, Rio de Janeiro in 1992, and the World Summit on Sustainable Development held in Johannesburg, was global commitment to mainstreaming sustainable development in all aspects of national development.


National Context
Disasters are annual events in Bangladesh. These disasters range from ravaging tornadoes to devastating floods. Of all the disasters the problem of flood has aggravated most from 1955 to 2004 and become one of the main concerns of people in Bangladesh. Abnormal floods submerge about 60 percent of the land, damage crops, property; disrupt economic activities and cause diseases and loss of life. Similarly, cyclones, which are sometimes accompanied by storm and tidal surge, pose multiple threats to human society along with erosion of soils, riverbank and coasts. Surge water creates salinity problem in the coastal belts. Consequently, cyclones are very destructive of property and people and disruptive of economic activities. Another hazard, drought, affects the standing crops, water supplies and plant growth leading to loss of productions, food shortages and famine. (Nasreen and Hossain, 2002). Arsenic, a toxic element and a silent disaster, is teaching a bitter lesson to humankind, particularly to those in Bangladesh who have been suffering from arsenicosis. The excessive level of the presence of arsenic in drinking water is redefining water from 'life saver' to a 'threat' to human survival. Because it takes 10 to 20 years, depending on the amount of arsenic accumulated in the body, to be identified as arsenic patient, people's response to the disease is not so prompt. Because of its severity and frequent occurrence, floods have attracted wide attention and are well documented by the researchers. However, sociological research on disasters, even on flood, is scant in Bangladesh.

Bangladesh is beset by a myriad of natural disasters. Tropical cyclones, tidal surges, tornados, floods, droughts and large-scale riverbank erosion all wreak havoc on the lives and livelihoods of the population. The country’s propensity to natural disasters is due to various environmental factors and its geographical location. Recent estimates suggest that about 4 percent of the world’s cyclones hit Bangladesh and that damage and losses to the country amount to about 96 percent of the global total. In November 1970, Bangladesh’s coastal regions were devastated by a cyclone that killed more than 300,000 people and caused over $2.5 billion of property damage. More recently, floods in 1988 and 1998 brought immense suffering to the population. Agricultural production was disrupted and the country’s economy was severely affected in 1998, when nearly two thirds of the country was under water for three months. Bangladeshis and their government are doing their best to prevent and mitigate natural disasters, but there is an overwhelming need to strengthen the country’s disaster preparedness and management capabilities.

At the national level, disaster management issues are gradually being given more attention in national planning processes but until recently was seen in sectoral lens and hardly have the effective structures, policy, legal framework and more so the proper understanding and capacities.

The recurrence of disaster events and the increasing concerns about disaster impacts have attracted a lot of attention from both governments and development partners not the least because the risk calculus for vulnerable groups within society and the infrastructure is enormous.

The DFID Policy Paper entitled ‘Reducing the Risk of Disaster-Helping to Achieve Sustainable Poverty Reduction in a Vulnerable World’ among the developing countries at high risk of disaster. The highest in ranking is Bangladesh followed by Nepal. The implications for The Bangladesh in this ranking are evident in that if no prevention and preparedness measures are taken now to mitigate this high risk, it may erode the significant development gains registered in The Bangladesh especially in the area of infrastructure and the well elaborated poverty reduction strategies among others.

The risk calculus for vulnerable groups within society and infrastructure will be enormous and hence the urgent need to design strategy that would outline the development of standard instruments for disaster prevention and preparedness as well as the organizational mechanisms for plan implementation. The underlying assumption, as indicated in the Policy document, is that disaster prevention and preparedness are crucial entry points for disaster risk reduction.

Despite the potential high risk been posed by disaster, the old view of disasters as temporary interruptions on the path of social and economic progress and should be dealt with through humanitarian relief is deeply rooted in the country. Until recently, disaster issues were treated and handled through our various environmental management programmes and sectors as an added on activity. It is increasingly becoming evident that those notions are no longer credible and disaster issues are too big to be an added on to a sector or being perceived as a sectoral mandate. Disaster issues are multidimensional, multi-sectoral and need to be mainstreamed in all development concerns with a central coordination.

Analytical Review of Disaster issues in the Bangladesh

The World Watch Institute in Washington estimates that the earth’s continents lose 24 billion tons of fertile topsoil every year and forest destruction put at 15 million hectares of forest worldwide with depletion worst in developing countries such as the Gambia. The expansion of the agricultural frontiers into fragile ecosystems, eliminating stabilized forest cover has increased the frequency of flash floods and lower agricultural productivity.

In 2003, about most of the Bangladesh population lived in village area. Uncontrolled urban sprawl and speculative land markets have pushed many marginal settlements into high-risk areas that are flood-prone areas. The country’s natural resources and the environment are seriously endangered as human lives are increasingly harmed by pollution, desertification, climate change, floods and unplanned urbanization.

Climate change will have repercussions as it can lead to desertification, rising sea levels, rapid shifts in vegetable zones, lower agricultural production and a greater shortage of fresh water. This affects the country in general particularly the poorest who will be worst hit.

In recent years, the Bangladesh experienced a significant number of disastrous events of both natural and human origins. The Hazards Profile of the Bangladesh and its Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment Report indicates that these disasters are related to cyclone,floods,drought, river bank erosion ,environmental degradation and epidemics.

All these incidents, a combination of man-made and natural disasters are causes for concern and thus call for concerted and coordinated efforts to plan to prevent, manage and mitigate the effects of disasters. This should not be done in isolation but integrated into the national development planning framework.
Chapter three

NATIONAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT POLICY:
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Disaster Management in the Bangladesh

The main limitations and major obstacles to effective disaster management policies in the past has been a dominant approach that justifies disaster response. The current debate is now moving from the idea of a basic diagnosis of relief operation to a more proactive strategy of disaster prevention. Existing policy responses of both governments and the international community treat disaster as a series of unexpected events whose remedy lies in the provision of humanitarian relief which in essence is what is called ‘crisis survival’ as the aim is to minimize short-term suffering. The need to move away from the old technocratic, command-and control approach to risk reduction to more innovative approaches and partnerships opens the door for greater success in disaster management.

The paradigm shift in recent years from disaster response to disaster prevention and disaster risk reduction is largely motivated by the high toll of disasters both in terms of human sufferings and the loss of economic assets. What is needed, as clearly indicated in a recent Policy Paper is ‘a well-resourced and prepared response system with a focus on national and local capacity.’

Cognizant of the above, the Bangladesh government developed a National Disaster Management Bill and Policy which emphasizes that any successful mechanism for disaster prevention must be multifaceted and designed for the long-term. The capacity to anticipate and analyze possible disaster threats is a prerequisite for prudent decision-making and effective action. Yet even practical early warning will not ensure successful preventive action unless there is a fundamental change of attitude towards disaster perceptions. An integrated approach that brings together the efforts of the government, UN agencies, NGOs, civil Society, Local authorities and local communities is the most viable, effective and sustainable disaster management strategy.

Currently the UNDP provides project support in the form of a National Disaster management programme aimed at developing a comprehensive disaster management framework in the country and to improve national capacities to anticipate, manage and respond to disasters. Through the project, a secretariat was fully operational and served as the nerve-centre for all disaster related issues in the country. The capacities and institutional memory developed during the project implementation were used to establish a National Disaster Management Agency charged with the implementation of the disaster Policy and Act thus justifying the formulation of this strategy. The project also assisted in the development of a national hazard/disaster profile, restructured regional disaster committees and undertook training and capacity building country-wide in addition to the development of a comprehensive National Action Plan for Avian and Human Influenza.

Justification of the Strategic Plan

To operationalize the Disaster Management Bill and Policy, there is a need to develop a multi-dimensional strategy that provides for disaster mainstreaming in development, the strengthening of the institutionalization of disaster, the strengthening of disaster management analysis skills, research and the development of an information system, advocacy, partnership and policy dialogue.

The critical need for the disaster management agency to have a comprehensive plan that will guide its interventions towards effectively implementing its mandate gives the right to the formulation of the 2008-2011 Strategic Plan. The Plan is a critical instrument to establish, build capacity of the national disaster management office and creating the conditions to effectively execute its mandate.

The strategic plan will serve as the roadmap and building blocks for operating and reaching the disaster management goals and objectives in the Bangladesh.

It will further serve as an integrated document for all stakeholders’ participation in this urgent and important national task.


Vision, Goals and Objectives

Vision

Assurance of safer and resilient communities in which the impact of hazards would not hamper development and the ecosystem and provision for a better quality of life will be achieved through effective emergency and disaster services.

Policy Goals

The overall goal of the disaster management policy and strategy is to ensure a proper and effective mechanism for disaster mitigation and preparedness that will save lives and livelihoods in the country. The goals are:

1. Articulate the vision and goals for disaster management in the Bangladesh
2. Outline the strategic direction to guide the development of disaster management policies
3. Align the strategic direction for disaster risk reduction with international norms and framework conventions
4. Mainstream disaster mitigation into relevant areas of activity of Government, NGOs, Private Sector and Civil Society Organizations.
5. Strengthen the governance and accountability arrangements in place that support achievements of disaster management priorities.
6. Build adequate and sustainable capacity at the community level in order to enhance the culture of safety and resilience at the local level.

Policy Strategic Objectives
1. To integrate disaster risk reduction into sustainable development policies and planning;
2. To develop and strengthen institutional mechanisms and capacities to build resilience to hazards
3. To systematically incorporate all international, regional, national and local disaster risk reduction strategies and approaches into the implementation of emergency preparedness, response and recovery.
4. To achieve a comprehensive, all hazard, all agencies approach by achieving the right balance of prevention, preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery;
5. Prepare communities to ensure that they are fully equipped to anticipate and respond to disaster events.
6. To promote a transparent, systematic and consistent approach to disaster risk assessment and management.
7. A multi-stakeholder participatory approach including community participation at all levels
8. Develop a database and information exchange system at national, regional and international levels.

Chapter Four
Technical & Environmental Approaches Regarding Disaster Management

Natural and technological hazard
The principal focus of planning for natural and technological hazards is risk assessment and reduction. Efforts to prevent and plan for natural and technological disasters have arisen from the need to protect society from hazards that are prevalent in the area of governmental jurisdiction. This approach to risk reduction and civil protection has been developed through legislation, the defining of institutional responsibilities and the allocation of financial resources (top down), coupled with local responses and community involvement (O’Brien and Read, 2005; Alexander, 2002a). Such a comprehensive approach to multi-hazard planning is a feature of the strategy of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries and has evolved from extensive research into both natural and anthropogenic disasters (Lindell and Perry, 2003; Alexander, 2002b; McEntire et al., 2002; Mileti, 1999; Tobin, 1999). Disaster planning is based on risk assessment and lessons learned, which are codified into a set of risk management and emergency plans designed to enable effective and efficient policies and practices. This approach to risk management can be effective in areas prone to natural hazards, such as flood plains, storm corridors and seismically active zones. In Australia, Japan, the US and other MDCs, preparedness and mitigation strategies, combined with high coping capacity (a function of income, savings and insurance), ensure that, although events may cause extensive damage, mortality rates are usually low and communities are able to recover quickly.2 Examples include the recovery of Florida, US, from numerous recent hurricanes (Tobin, 1999), the decade-long recovery of Kobe, Japan, from the 1995 Great Hanshin-Awaji earthquake (Toshihisa et al., 1999) and the recovery of Darwin, Australia, from the destruction of 70% of its building stock by Cyclone Tracy in 1974 (Blong, 2004). The ultimate aim of planning is disaster risk reduction, with the final outcome being a decrease in losses and a speedy return to normality. To work effectively, this holistic approach to planning requires accountable, democratic government institutions, financial support, political will and the trust of civil society. In LDCs, such an approach to risk and disaster management also exists, at least on paper. It involves commissions and institutions at the national, sub-national, regional and municipal level, which have proliferated since the beginning of the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR) (1990–99). There had been another flurry of similar institution building during the ‘environment decade’ of the1970s, during which institutions were developed to monitor and protect the human environment from pollution. Implementation, however, lags behind institutionalization and planning in many of these countries.



Technical approaches
The technical approach (Bolt et al. 1977; El-Sabh and Murty, 1988) focuses on geophysical approaches to disaster such as studied in seismology, geomorphology and volcanology and seeks engineering solutions.

Some plannings;
The goal of the national disaster management strategic action plan is to contribute to the sustainable improvement of the well-being of Bangladeshi’s by:
(I) creating a socio-economic, legal and institutional environment that is conducive to disaster management in the Bangladesh and;
(ii) Effectively mainstreaming disaster management issues into national policies as well as in sector-specific development programmes and projects.

Some Principles
All the activities in operationalizing the national disaster management policy must consider the following crosscutting core principles and mainstream them into national development.
• Advocacy
• Service delivery
• Capacity Building
• Community/local empowerment
• Emergency Preparedness
• Integrated planning and programming
• Partnership and Alliance Building

For any disaster and risk reduction management programme, the following features are essential for any success;
• Social cohesion and solidarity (self-help and citizen-based social protection at the neighborhood level).
• Trust between the authorities and civil society
• Investment in economic development that explicitly takes potential consequences for risk reduction or increase into account.
• Investment in human development.
• Investment in social capital.
• Investment in institutional capital (e.g., capable, accountable and transparent government institutions for mitigating disasters.)
• Good coordination, information sharing and cooperation among institutions involved in risk reduction
• Attention to lifeline infrastructure.
• Attention to the most vulnerable.
• An effective risk communication system and institutionalized historical memory of disaster.
• Political commitment to disaster management.
• Laws, regulations and directives to support all of the above.


Key Stakeholders

The stakeholders involved in the implementation of this strategy are numerous and can be categorized as follows;
• Government including local authorities
• NGOs including civil society organizations
• Private sector
• International development partners
• Local communities
• Women and Youth groups
• Other vulnerable groups such as children and the physically challenged

Some Priority Areas for Action

The definition and identification of disaster management priority areas for intervention is informed by its’ policy, bill and the outcome of disaster analysis in the country. This strategic plan is thus an important framework for the establishment of an institutional framework for National Disaster Management which will position itself as an Office of excellence by responding to disaster and risk reduction matters in an efficient and prudent manner. The following priority areas will be the disaster management agency’s building blocks to championing disaster management and risk reduction issues in the country.

Priority Area 1: Development of institutional framework and structures capable of preventing, preparing for and responding to disasters at National, Regional and Local levels.

Interventions in this area will aim at creating institutional environment for addressing disaster and risk reductions. This will involve the establishment of a National Office and related technical committees at national, regional and local levels, and the strengthening of capacities of all actors: government, civil society, organized private sector, decentralized agencies, state institutions and development partners.

Priority Area 2: Integration of disaster risk reduction into sustainable policies and plans.

The interventions in this area will focus on mainstreaming disaster management and risk reduction into National policies and Plans through the development of national platform for disaster management, sensitization, and awareness creation on disaster management, capacity building and introduction of disaster risk reduction into the school system. Establishing the necessary linkages and capacity building will be among the key activities. Interventions in this area will aim at building capacity at all levels and develop and implement an effective resource mobilization mechanism and necessary follow ups. Mechanisms will be developed for mainstreaming disaster issues in overall development plans and policies.


Priority Area 3: creation of a body of knowledge that is useful to support government, humanitarian organizations and other partners; to anticipate, plan for and manage disasters effectively

Interventions in this area will aim at developing and improving on effective early warning systems, development of a comprehensive data-base, system development, conduct surveys and develop communication channels.

Priority Area 4: Create broad and effective partnership among government, humanitarian organizations and other partners, to engage in disaster risk reduction activities and addressing the underlying factors in disasters

The national disaster management Office’s intervention will focus on ensuring that the necessary platform or structures and processes exist for genuine partnership and concerted efforts in disaster risk reduction. The interventions will focus on policy dialogue and establishment of effective linkage with the environmental impact assessment process.

Priority Area 5: Develop an efficient response mechanism to disaster management and make available the necessary resources

Interventions in this area will aim at building capacities at all levels; develop strategies for resource mobilization and for monitoring and evaluation.

Priority Area 6: To strengthen national capacity in the timely detection, prevention, control, investigation and reporting of different diseases within animal and human populations

Interventions in this area will focus on training livestock, wildlife and health personnel and other critical partners for early diagnosis and reporting. It also emphasizes the need to provide basic supplies and also strengthen laboratory diagnostic capabilities.

Priority Area 7: Introduction of regional and international best practices in disaster and risk reduction management.

The National Office will establish links with external institutions for best practices and sharing of experiences in disaster and risk reduction issues.

Some Expected Outcomes
• A well functioning National Disaster Management Office under the Office of the Vice –President
• Formation of well functioning participatory structures e.g., committees at all levels
• Strengthened National capacities in disaster management and risk reduction strategies
• Availability of sufficient, reliable and timely data for informed decision-making on disaster and risk reduction matters
• Disaster issues fully mainstreamed or realigned in all national policies, programmes and projects
• School system introduces disaster management and risk reduction in their teaching curriculum e.g., integration into social studies
• Resources available for disaster management and risk reduction activities. (Government should take the lead role by making adequate provision as a startup for counter funding.)
• The adoption of the national disaster management bill and policy providing legal and administrative authority for implementing the set actions.
• Existence of a National early warning system which is regularly updated.
• Existence of effective communication strategy and a well informed citizenry on disaster and risk reduction issues.

Priority target groups

This strategy will assist every body in the development sector of the country in particular all the Departments of state, State authorities and agencies, local governments, private sector, civil society, youth organizations, children, women, the physically challenged, reproductive health needs of vulnerable groups, Parliamentarians, opinion leaders the university, technical and financial partners to acquire knowledge, skills and right attitude for the attainment of an effective disaster and risk reduction system in the country.
Special attention will be paid to special interest groups like school (formal and non-formal) and people living in highly disaster prone areas.

Strategies

To achieve this, the National Disaster Agency will embark on the following:

Financing and Resource Mobilization Strategy

To mobilize funds for financing of the strategic plan, two funding sources are identified, namely:
• To take advantage of available resources by incorporating some of the activities of the plan into the regular annual budget of government
• To resort to the mobilization of additional resources from development partners and the private sector for activities that could not be incorporated in the government budget.

For resource mobilization, the government budget is very important for successful implementation of the strategic plan. It will illustrate government’s strong commitment to disaster management and risk reduction.
The Disaster Secretariat will organize mini roundtable discussions with its development partners and other stakeholders with a view of informing them about the programmes of the strategic plan and identifying possibilities for partnership and financing.

Partnership Strategy

The Disaster Agency will establish strategic partnerships and network with key actors involved in disaster management and risk reduction in the country namely:

• Departments of State
• Disaster management focal points
• National Assembly
• UN Agencies
• National, regional and international NGOs
• Traditional institutions and leaders
• Private sector/business community
• Researchers
• Civil society organizations
• Faith-based organizations
• Security and Emergency Services

The Agency will also develop partnership with actors internationally to share knowledge, experience and good practices.

Communication Strategy

Communication strategy is instrumental not only in the implementation of the strategic plan but also in the area of profiling and positioning the newly created National disaster Management Office in the country and beyond.

Within the framework of information and communication technology (ICT) the National Disaster Office will:
• Establish a documentation and information centre responsible for collecting, managing and disseminating reliable information on disaster and risk reduction in the country.
• Develop a national platform that will organize on-line discussions on current and emerging disaster and risk reduction issues in the country.
• Create a bi-annual news letter that will keep all actors informed on national disaster and risk reduction issues
• Involve the private and public media in the activities of the National Office.

Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Strategy

Monitoring and evaluation is part and parcel of any planning process, as it is critical to the assessment of progress against benchmarks.
While monitoring and evaluation are closely linked, it is important to understand the distinction between them. Whereas monitoring is a routine on-going activity to assess programme implementation in terms of resources (inputs) invested in the programme and the outputs produced, evaluation is concerned with the assessment of the programmes’ impacts on disaster and risk reduction management e.g. on the safety and welfare of citizens.



National Emergency Strategy
There is an urgent need to develop a national emergency strategy/plan since not all emergencies are classified as disaster but could be fatal and threaten national security and stability.

Risks

During the implementation of this strategic plan, the disaster management agency is likely to face a number of risks that can undermine and or slow down the effective implementation of the well-outlined strategic actions. Some of these risks are:
• Lack of adequate capacity to implement the strategic plan owing to the weak agency staffing (in quality and quantity)
• Lack of enough funding is also an important risk as, without enough resources, the agency will not be able to translate the strategy into concrete actions.
However, giving the high commitment of government and the donor community specially UNDP, these risks could be met.


In Global context, different steps to manage disaster. Different types of conventions are held several times to manage disaster and to raise public awareness regarding disaster. The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) also provides the international community with a framework for sustainable development of dry lands. The objective of the convention is to secure the long-term commitment of its parties through a legally binding document. It provides an international framework for States affected by desertification to work jointly with industrialized countries to implement National Action Programmes. The Convention is a powerful instrument for sustainable natural resource management in affected regions and for ensuring long-term, mandatory external support for these efforts. Such declaration calls for the concerted efforts of all UN member states to reducing the occurrence and impact of natural disasters and therefore disaster mitigation and preparedness appear to be firmly on the aid agenda.

Further to the declaration of the international decade for disaster reduction (1990-1999) the UN General Assembly in 2000 founded the ISDR (International Strategy for Disaster Reduction), a coalition of governments, UN agencies, regional organizations and civil society organizations. In 2002, the UN published a document entitled Living with Risk: A Global review of disaster reduction initiatives. In 2005, a major reform within the UN system resulted in some UN agencies, in particular UNDP, becoming increasingly concerned about disaster risk issues by actively engaging in enhancing disaster risk programmes at country level. The road map towards the implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration (Secretary –General’s report to the General Assembly) touches on areas which are closely linked to vulnerability to natural hazards such as ensuring environmental stability, the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger and promoting gender equality.
In furtherance of these UN’s efforts, several governments and NGOs championed issues of disaster reduction. During the world conference on disaster reduction held in Kobe, Hyogo, Japan, world governments agreed on the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015 which was formulated as a comprehensive action-oriented response to international concern about disaster impacts on communities and national development. For its part, the World Bank launched the Global Environment Facility in the mid 1990s and Provension Consortium in 2000, which works towards a more effective public- private dialogue on disaster risk.
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) declared by the international community to halve extreme poverty and hunger, combating infectious diseases, ensuring universal primary education and sustainable development, are critical to disaster management. Bearing in mind the importance of disaster management, the UN declared in 1990 the International Decade for Natural disaster Reduction (IDNDR). Thus the realization that environmental threats could result in serious socio-economic and human costs has refocused the disaster management agenda on some critical challenges relating to disaster reduction initiatives. Some of these challenges are in essence development challenges,
especially when many of these threats that confront the international community emanate largely from failures of development.


Environmental Approaches
In Bangladesh It can be said that disaster research from Environmental approach is done only in rare occasions.Past research on natural disasters (such as, famine, river bank erosion, floods or cyclones) in Bangladesh has followed the it of the Chicago-Colorado-Clark-Toronto School of Natural Hazard Studies associated with Kates, 1962, 1971, White, 1964, 1974 and Burton et al., 1978. Disaster response studies (Islam, 1974; Paul, 1984; Alam, 1990, 1991) deal with people's behaviour, such as their perception, attitudes, beliefs, values, response and personalities. These studies fall in the first school of thought (i.e. Environmental approach) described by Alexander. They are concerned with discovering people's choices, behaviour and adjustments to disaster, for example, how people viewed the hazard and how they perceived alternative opportunities available to them in coping with the hazardous events. However, social impact of disaster is also mentioned in some of these studies.A recent publication, following the regarding topic (Ahsan and Khatun, eds., 2004) in disaster focused on gender aspects during disasters. Various disasters such as flood, cyclone, riverbank erosion, earthquake, arsenicosis, famine and others have been discussed from geographical perspective. However, although in some of the writings in the study impact of disasters on people and coping with disasters have been emphasized, majority of them have only a environmental perspective.Hossain et al (1987) examined, from this approach, whether rural people in flood-free and flood-prone areas adopted different survival strategies or not and also focused on the responses of rural people in general, but not on women's responses. Shaw (1989) highlighted the problems of poor women in a relief camp in Dhaka city. She noted how women bore the social burden of shame when living with strangers and drew attention to the difficulties women faced when trying to maintain parda during floods. In his study on riverbank erosion and floods Rahman (1988) argued that people's ability to adjust to hazards should be viewed as an extension of social and natural systems already existing in society. He also pointed out that there are differences in people's reaction to riverbank erosion and flooding according to their socio-economic location.Alam's (1991) study focused on the survival strategies of rural people on the flood-prone and relatively flood-free villages. The author observed that some middle and poor income households sold or mortgaged their lands and other assets to avert hunger during floods.
Research conducted following geographical and behavioural approaches are significant in
relation to disaster studies but some of their interpretations regarding people's problems and behaviour are misleading (see for example, Islam, 1974). They see Bangladeshi people as 'traditionally fatalist'. This mistaken idea came from certain answers given by rural people in response to questions such as, "What do you do when flood hits your homestead?" and from the response, "Pray to God". The reasons for such responses were not studied carefully (Rahman,1988). Zaman (1989; 1986) points out that behaviouralists fail to understand the socio-cultural background of adjustment for Bangladeshi people. Alam's (1991) study, however, discusses human behavioural factors in the context of existing social relations. He sees flood-prone people in relation to vulnerability and argues that people's behaviour differs by gender, age, ethnic group and economic status.
There are also some approaches to natural disasters. The structural approach sees disaster
as a consequence of administrative or institutional weakness. This approach makes a valuable contribution regarding structural remedial measures to cope with disasters but lacks an understanding of people's own initiatives to cope with disaster. According to the historicostructuralist approach individual responses to disasters in Bangladesh should be viewed in a broad socio-cultural and historical context ( Haque and Zaman, 1989). Some of the researchers (Latif, 1989; Custers, 1993) have pointed out that any steps to control disasters, e.g. floods, should emphasise both the structural (i.e. building of embankments) and non-structural (i.e.people's initiatives) approach. They have discussed the problems and the negative consequences of floods and flood control projects for the environment, fisheries and many other aspects of life (Adnan, 1990; Boyce, 1990; Rogers et al., 1989; Pearce, 1991; Custers, 1993, Khalequzzaman, 1994).Very recently (Hussain, 2001) anthropological approach to disaster has been discussed with only a few relevant ethnographic examples. The theoretical viewpoints of anthropological approach can be divided into four perspectives: human behavioural perspective, eco-feminist perspective, theories of vulnerability, and theories on women’s oppression. The Flood Action Plan 14's (FAP-14) study (1992) on peoples' responses to floods was conducted under the auspices of the Bangladesh Flood Action Plan. Findings of ‘The Gender Study’ were included in FAP 14's draft final report (Hanchett and Nasreen, 1992). Using the case study method this study dealt with the experiences of a few women in female-headed households. It contributed significantly to the understanding of gender issues in floods through highlighting some of the major problems faced by women during floods. Ahmed (1993) emphasizes the importance of kinship during disasters. The author conducted the anthropological study on the survivors of riverbank erosion and found that kinship, especially patriarchal, bonds are very strong in Bangladesh. In most of the cases the whole patrilineage becomes affected by riverbank erosion due to their proximity. The author argues that under such circumstances, it becomes difficult to seek support from patrilineage and many people depend on matrilineage for their family sustenance.Like flood, cyclone is also a regular phenomenon, especially in the coastal areas and in offshore islands. In the Ain-E-Akbori of the 16th century cyclone is mentioned as a disaster in this belt. During the last three decades almost all of the coastal areas and offshore islands faced cyclones. Detail and in depth sociological study on cyclone is also limited in Bangladesh. Hossain et al (1992) conducted a research after the devastating cyclone of 1991. The cyclone extended from Teknaf in the southeastern seaboard to Barguna – a coast line of 644 kilometers. The study dealt with peoples’ immediate responses to disaster in the context of providing support to the survivors, governments’ relief operation, problems and contributions of women during disaster, warning system, support from NGOs, health, conditions of children and others. Although the researchers emphasized on some of the coping mechanisms adopted by the cyclone affected people and some of the social aspects related to disaster, they were not based on sociological approach and lack proper methods in social research.Though useful, past studies did not take sociological approach into account. Although some of the above-mentioned studies have considered socio-economic and cultural variables in assessing human responses to cyclones, riverbank erosion and floods, they have failed to provide a theoretical basis.
The pioneering disaster research (Nasreen, 1995) based on sociological approach portrait a detailed picture of a disaster experienced by rural households. It focused on the pre, during and post disaster activities performed by men and women during floods. The author argues that disaster affect both women and men but the burden of flood coping falls heavily on women.During floods men in rural areas lose their place of work while women shoulder the responsibilities to maintain households’ sustenance. Nasreen (1995, 1999) argued that although poor rural women have very few options open to them to overcome their problems, their roles in disasters are obviously not simple: they relate to a complete range of socio-economic activities.During floods women continue to be bearers of children and responsible for their socialization,collectors and providers of food, fuel, water, fodder, building materials and keepers of household belongings: they also represent a productive potential which was not recognised earlier. The study argues that it is women's strategies, developed over the last few years, those are vital in enabling the rural people to cope with disaster. Government and many other bodies dealing with disaster management mainly communicate with wealthier, influential landowners who do not represent or serve the interest of the poor or of women. Nor does it seem to have occurred to policy makers that women might be involved in activities different from men or experience disasters differently than men.Vast majority of the rural people is inextricably linked with the arsenic contaminated water for their daily survival. It is reported that most of these people neither had the idea of arsenic contamination, or the future impact of the catastrophe of arsenicosis. However, there has been very limited discussion on the socio-economic impact of arsenicosis in Bangladesh.
A research (Nasreen, 2002) has been conducted on the problem of arsenicosis from
a new environmental paradigm. It has been argued in the study that arsenic contamination in Bangladesh ground water is a widely recognized fact and that is causing suffering to millions. The author identified some of the social consequences related to arsenicosis such as social instability,superstition, ostracism, diminishing of working ability, increase of poverty, impact on women,disruption of social network and marital ties and causing death.Hanchett (2003) argued that there is a gender side to the arsenic problem because women and men are affected in different ways.

Chapter Five
Conclusion & References

Disasters are frequent events in Bangladesh. Disaster research in Bangladesh has been
dominated by environmental approach probably because disasters are mainly considered as physical phenomena. However, although many disasters are related to physical phenomena, they mostly affect society, community, people, institutions and the overall environment. In this paper it is argued that much attention has been given to conducting in-depth research on disasters,especially from sociological perspective. In times of disasters government and otherorganizations pay attention to identify causes of disasters, mechanisms to control disasters and disaster mitigation instead of focusing on coping strategies. There is a need for timely and wellfocused policy to solve disaster related problems. Raising of awareness regarding the coping mechanisms of disaster should be given priority. Sensitization of community people, lawenforcement authority and policy makers to manage disasters and support to survivors are also necessary. Rehabilitation programme for disaster victims/survivors should be taken by all.Adopting environmental & technical approach is necessary to exhilarate any programme to manage disasters.Sociological research is very much relevant to identify what attempts should be made to grasp the different issues relating to disasters, such as the problems, coping with the wounds and gender based differential impact of disasters on the survivors. It has been argued by the disaster research that women are the major victims of disasters due to their lower status than men in society. Thus attention should be given to special groups such as women and children.Programmes on disaster management will be most effective if they are backed by strong policy support and guidance. This paper lends support to the policy that a sociological perspective is necessary to involve disaster survivors in planning, that takes into account the disadvantageous position, especially of poor and of women and give priority to them.Different approaches are available to protect these distressed condition.Appropriate measures should be taken to implement these approaches. Public awareness should be raised.
References

Chen, L.C., A.K.M. Chowdhury, S.L. Huffman 1980. 'Anthropometric assessment of energy-protein malnutrition and
subsequent risk of mortality among pre-school age children' American Journal of Clinical and Nutrition 33:1836-
1845.
Cuny, Frederick C. 1983. Disasters and Development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Currey, Bruce. 1978. 'The Famine Syndrome: Its Definition for Relief and Rehabilitation in Bangladesh' Ecology of Food
and Nutrition 7(78):87-98.
Custers, Peter. 1993. 'Bangladesh Flood Action Plan: A Critique' Economic and Political Weekly July 17-24, 1993: 1501-
1503.
Davis, I. 1978. Shelter after disaster. Headington, Oxford: Oxford Polytechnic Press.
Drabek, Thomas, E. 1986. Human System Response to Disaster: An Inventory of Sociological Findings. London:
Springer-verlag.
Drabek, Thomas, E and Keith Boggs. 1968. 'Families In Disaster: Reactions and Relatives' Journal of Marriage and
The Family 30:443-451.
Dynes, Russel R. et al (eds). 1978. Sociology of Disasters: Contribution to Disaster Research Italy: franco Angeli.
Dynes, Russel R. 1970. Organised behaviour in disaster. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books.
El-Sabh, M. I. and T. S. Murty (eds). 1988. Natural and man-made hazards. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Fritz, C.E. 1961. ‘Disaster’ in R.R. Merton and R.A. Nisbet (eds.) Contemporary Social Problems, New York: Harcourt,
Brace and World.
Hanchett, Suzanne and Mahbuba Nasreen. 1992. 'Gender Issues in the Flood Action Plan'. A paper presented at the
workshop of Flood Response Study (FAP 14) organised by Bangladesh Flood Action Plan, Dhaka, November 9,
1992.
Hanchett, Suzanne, 2003. ‘Gender and Water in Bangladesh’, paper presented at the Annual Conference of American
Anthropological Association, USA: Chicago, Illinois, November, 2003.
Hansen, A. and Oliver-Smith (eds.) 1982. Involuntary Migration and Resettlement. Boulder: West View Press.
Haque, C.E. and M.Q. Zaman. 1989. 'Coping With Riverbank Erosion Hazard and Displacement in Bangladesh: Survival
Strategies and Adjustments' Disasters: The Journal of Disaster Studies and Management 13(4):301-314.
Hossain, H., C.P. Dodge and F.H. Abed. 1992. From crisis to Development: Coping with Disasters in Bangladesh. Dhaka:
University Press.
Hossain, M. et al. 1987. Flood in Bangladesh: Recurrent Disasters and Peoples Survival. Dhaka: University Research
Centre.
Hussain, A.M. 2001. ‘Anthropological Approach to the Study of Natural Disaster’ in Proshanta Tripura (ed.) Nribiggan
Potrika 6, Jahangornagar University, Dhaka
Islam, Aminul, M. 1974. 'Tropical Cyclones: Coastal Bangladesh' in G.F. White (ed) Natural Hazards: Local, National,
Global. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kates, R.W. 1971. 'Natural Hazard in Human Ecological perspective: Hypotheses and Models' Economic Geography
47:438-451.
8
Kates, R.W. 1962. Hazard and Choice Perception in Flood Plain Management. Research Paper No. 78. Chicago:
Department of Geography, University of Chicago.
Khalequzzaman, MD. 1994. 'Recent Floods in Bangladesh: possible causes and solutions' Natural Hazards 9:65-80.
Knott, R. 1987. ‘The Logistics of Bulk Relief Supplies’ Disasters 11:113-116.
Latif, A. 1989. 'Control of Flood in Bangladesh: Need for International Co-operation for solution of problem' in Mohiuddin
Ahmad (ed) Flood In Bangladesh. Dhaka: Community development Library.
Mileti, Dennis S, T.E. Drabek and J.E. Haas. 1975. Human Systems in Extreme Environments. Boulder, Colorado:
Institute of Behavioural Science, University of Colorado.
Nasreen, Mahbuba. 1995. Coping with Floods: The Experience of Rural Women in Bangladesh. Unpublished PhD.
Dissertation. Massey University, New Zealand.
Nasreen, Mahbuba. 1999. ‘Coping with Floods: Structural Measures or Survival Strategies?’in Imtiaz Ahmed (ed.) Living
with Floods: An Exercise in Alternatives. Dhaka: The University Press Limited.
Nasreen, Mahbuba. 2001. Socio-Cultural Impact of Arsenicosis in Rural Bangladesh in Journal of Asiatic Society,
Bangladesh, 47 (2): 159-172.
Nasreen, Mahbuba and K.M. Hossain. 2002. ‘Sustainable Development: Bangladesh Perspective’, paper presented at the
NGO session of World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), held in Johannesburg, South Africa, August 26-
sSeptember 4, 2002.

26 March 2011

KANIZ FATEMA'S ASSIGNMENT ON LIVES,LIVELIHOOD AND NATURAL DISASTER


An Assignment
On
Lives, Livelihood And Natural Disaster

Assignment Given By ;
Dr. Mahmudul Islam
Centre for Disaster and Vulnerability Studies

University of Dhaka.

Course No- 504
Course Title –Institutional & Regulatory Framework in Disaster Management

Acknowledgement

This paper is outcome of cordial help of various persons and institutions.At first, I would like to present my gratitude to Centre for Disaster and Vulnerability Studies (CDVS), Department of Sociology, Dhaka University for offering this subject, providing us with a sound environment and facilities to gain knowledge. Then I would like to thank my respected Teacher Professor Dr. Mahmudul Islam.He cordially selected my subject and supervised it with his affable mind . Without his consent the purpose might not be finished. Then my acknowledgement goes to my dear teacher Professor Dr. Mokaddem Hossain. I am also indebted to our Azad via for his cordial response. I am also thankful to all of my classmates, who accompanied me during processing this paper. All these made me to complete the paper.

Abstract

Disasters are widely acknowledged to affect disproportionately the poorest in a community, as they have relatively higher sensitivity to disaster events compared with communities of higher development status. Recurrent events increase the vulnerability of the poor to disasters, increasing poverty levels such that many households often are unable to break out of the poverty cycle. The exact relationship between disasters and livelihood is context specific and often poorly understood. There is little empirical evidence of the long term impact of disasters on the lives and livelihoods of people and on national development prospects.Increased vulnerability is reflected in current disaster trends. In addition the activities of Human beings in the Globe also become a cause because of which nature at times changes its routine course. All these Geological Disasters, biological and other man made disasters affect the livelihood of people of various regions or nations. There is a danger that these disasters may one or other day destroy the Globe or all the life in the Globe. In such circumstances, every Government has the responsibility to plan on issues, strategy, etc., for ensuring the well beings of its citizens.

LIST OF ACRONYMS

CEO - Chief Executive Officer
DFID - Department of Foreign International Development
DOSFEA - Department of State for Finance and Economic Affairs
DOSH - Department of State for Health
DPWM - Department of Parks and Wildlife Management
ECOWAS - Economic Community of West African States
GAMTEL - Gambia Telecommunication Company
GEAP - Gambia Environmental Action Plan
MDFT - Multi- Disciplinary Facilitation Team.
MDGs - Millennium Development Goals
NAWEC - National Water and Electricity Company
NEA - National Environment Agency
NEPAD - Non Economic Partnership for African Development
NGOs - Non Governmental Organizations
PURA - Public Utility Regularity Authority
R/MDMC - Regional/Municipal Disaster Management Committee
UN - United Nations
UNDP - United Nations Development Program
Introdution
Disaster is an event, natural or man-made, sudden or progressive, that seriously disrupts the functioning of a society, causing human, material, or environmental losses of such severity that the affected community has to respond by taking exceptional measures. The disruption (including essential services and means of livelihood) is on a scale that exceeds the ability of the affected society to cope with using only its own resources.

FIG; Atmospheric depression

Defining Disaster

‘Disaster’ is defined differently by different people: to some ‘disaster’ is a summative concept’ (Kreps, 1984) or a ‘sponge world’ (Qurantelli and Dynes, 1970). Some researchers mentioned disaster as a ‘collective stress situation’ (Barton, 1969) while others identified it with ‘social crisis period’ (Qurantelli and Dynes, 1977). Britton (1986) argued that “disasters can be more easily recognized than they can be defined”.
Disaster is a severe, relatively sudden and unexpected disruption of normal structural arrangements within a social system over which the system has no firm control (Barton, 1974). A disaster may also be viewed as “a significant departure from normal experience for a particular time and place” (Turner, 1978). Disaster is also viewed as a mental construct imposed upon experience. This is because to understand disaster knowing the number of deaths, the value of property destroyed or the decrease in per capita income is not sufficient. The symbolic component requires knowledge of the sense of vulnerability, the adequacy of available explanation and the society’s imagery of death and destruction (Barkun, 1977).
Bangladesh is a disaster prone country in the world. Cyclones, storm surges, floods etc extract a heavy toll on lives and animals and damage valuable property almost every year, disrupting the total development activities of the country. About 120 million people live within 144,000 sq.km of land. Bangladesh is one of the most densely populated countries in the world and suffers heavy casualties in a disaster. It is estimated that a total 775,303 people died in the coastal areas and offshore islands of Bangladesh within the last 222 years (1775–1997) time, only due to cyclone and storm surges. The main causes of these huge casualties were:(1) a weak cyclone warning and weather forecasting system, (2) often no cyclone/ storm came, despite of high warning signals and (3) no disaster awareness programmes were taken in before. About 15.0 million people live in the vulnerable areas, covering 21,000 sq.km in the coastal and offshore islands of Bangladesh which cover 14.8 % of the land area of the county. A total of 1350 cyclone shelters are located now in this zone. They can accommodate 1.3 million people. About 2.3 million more people can take refuge in the school and office buildings, altogether 4.0 ssmillion people could thus be accommodated, but the remaining 11.0 million people (about 73.3 %) are still unsafe. The Government of Bangladesh has given emphasis and priority to develop the weather forecasting system using satellite imageries and computer methods. So, now cyclone warning signals can be given and disseminated to the community/vulnerable people at the earliest time, by radio, television and information media at frequent intervals in the event that a cyclone strikes. Bangladesh has already established a set up of Disaster Management Bureau to co-ordinate disaster management through national to local level to persue the objectives of the IDNDR to develop disaster awareness. A success has been achieved during the last May 19, 1997 cyclone time, which was of similar intensity as the May 25, 1985 cyclone which had killed 11,069 persons. But this time - due to early warning system and taking proper precautionary measures - only 127 people died. The paper discusses the disaster management and the development of a cyclone warning system in Bangladesh.



What is a livelihood?

A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base. Source: Chambers and Conway, 1992.
The definition of ‘livelihood’ has been extensively discussed among academics and development practitioners (see for instance Ellis, 1998, Batterbury, 2001; Chambers and Conway, 1992; Carney, 1998; Bernstein, 1992; Francis, 2000, 2002; Radoki, 2002). There is a consensus that livelihood is about the ways and means of ‘making a living’. The most widely accepted definition of livelihood stems from the work of Robert Chambers and Gordon Conway: ‘a livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living’ (Carney, 1998:4). Ellis (2000) suggests a definition of livelihood as ‘the activities, the assets, and the access that jointly determine the living gained by an individual or household’. Wallman (1984) who did research on livelihoods in London in the early 1980s approached livelihoods as always more than just a matter of finding or making shelter, transacting money, and preparing food to put on the table or exchange in the market place. It is equally a matter of the ownership and circulation of information, the management of social relationships, the affirmation of personal significance and group identity, and the inter relation of each of these tasks to the other. All these productive tasks together constitute a livelihood. For an anthropologist such as Wallman livelihood is an umbrella concept, which suggests that social life is layered and that these layers overlap (both in the way people talk about them and the way they should be analysed). This is an important analytical feature of the notion of livelihoods.One feature that these definitions and interpretations share in common is that they eloquently underline the generally accepted idea that ‘livelihood’ deals with people, their resources and what they do with these. Livelihoods essentially revolve around resources (such as land, crops, seed, labour, knowledge, cattle, money, social relationships, and so on), but these resources cannot be disconnected from the issues and problems of access and changing political, economic and socio-cultural circumstances.Livelihoods are also about creating and embracing new opportunities. While gaining a livelihood, or attempting to do so, people may, at the same time, have to cope with risks and uncertainties, such as erratic rainfall, diminishing resources, pressure on the land, changing life cycles and kinship networks, epidemics such as HIV/AIDS, chaotic markets, increasing food prices, inflation, and national and international competition. These uncertainties, together with new emerging opportunities, influence how material and social resources are managed and used, and on the choices people make.
Livelihood analysis and crisis

The impact of a crisis on any given population group results from the shock itself and the vulnerability of the affected people. In many situations, needs assessment is “supply driven” i.e. needs are defined in relation to particular agency mandates. Thus the same crisis can be variously described as a “food crisis” an “agricultural crisis” or a ‘health crisis’ depending on the perspective of the agency conducting or sponsoring the assessment, with needs and responses defined accordingly. Properly undertaken, a livelihoods analysis can circumvent such difficulties by helping to understand better the actual assets of affected people, which eventually shape people’s livelihood strategies (thus explaining their behaviour). People’s ability to withstand shocks, will ultimately depend on their asset base.
Assets are classified into:
 human capital, e.g. education, formal and informal skills, health;
 natural capital e.g. natural resources such as farming and grazing land, forests and non timber products, wildlife, and water;
 physical capital e.g. shelter, infrastructure such as roads and transport, buildings, irrigation systems, and productive assets such as seed, tools, livestock, fishing gear and other farm and processing equipment;
 financial capital e.g. cash income and remittances, credit, savings in kind and cash;
 social capital e.g. formal and informal institutions (including markets), associations (e.g. water users and savings and credit associations), extended families, and local mutual support mechanisms.

Livelihood strategies are the range and combination of activities and choices that people make in order to achieve their livelihoods goals. On the basis of their personal goals, their resource base and their understanding of the options available, different categories of households – poor and less poor – develop and pursue different livelihood strategies. These strategies include short term considerations such as ways of earning a living, coping with shocks and managing risk, as well as longer-term aspirations for children’s future and old age. Livelihood strategies can be positive, helping households become more resilient and less vulnerable, or negative when they result in the further erosion and decrease of the asset base.

THE FUNDAMENTALS OF A LIVELIHOODS STRATEGY

PRINCIPLE ONE: COMPLEX EMERGENCIES REQUIRE STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT, ANALYSIS AND INTERVENTIONS

Effective emergency responses to complex emergencies require sophisticated analysis of highly dynamic military, economic, social and political systems. Today’s relief worker must be part political scientist, part economist, part anthropologist, part military analyst, part historian, part peace negotiator, part logistician. Given the brutal realities of civil conflict, failed economies, illegitimate and undemocratic political systems, today’s relief worker must also be part – but only part -- humanitarian. Well-intended, but poorly designed relief operations only serve to exacerbate the plight of the vulnerable by creating dependency, enriching those with monopolistic market power or protracting conflict. Effectively providing basic humanitarian assistance can be ultimately political and frequently controversial. Relief workers must understand and then design interventions grounded in these difficult realities.
STRATEGY: ASSESS THE POLITICAL, MILITARY, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF EACH
CRISIS IN COMPLEX EMERGENCIES AND RESPOND ACCORDINGLY
ACTION A: PREPARE RELIEF WORKERS TO THINK AND ACT STRATEGICALLY
Disaster relief has not enjoyed the same career rewards and status as international development.It is difficult to attract qualified individuals to the profession. A common expression from the field claims that disasters attract three kinds of people: missionaries, mercenaries and misfits. Disaster relief work is extremely demanding. Days are long and stressful. Relief workers are expected to be highly mobile. Decisions involving massive resources are made with insufficient information. Field work is dangerous and often emotionally disturbing. Finally, few relief organizations invest adequately in their staff. Staff turnover and “burnout” are relatively high. As a consequence, institutional memories are shallow, leaving the most experienced with the Saving Lives and Livelihoods least time to train and educate other staff. In order to respond strategically to complex emergencies, a stronger cadre of qualified relief professionals needs to be developed by:
• requiring longer-term contracts for field- and headquarters-based staff;
• training staff in the theories, practices and assessment methodologies;
• recruiting exiled, talented individuals from disaster-prone countries;
• (as donors) requiring basic educational and experiential qualifications of funded
NGO and UN staff, not only in vocational areas (agriculture, health, water), but also
in areas of economics, anthropology, political science, development, language or
international relations;
• appealing to universities to provide training in complex emergencies, including the
establishment of a certificate course in disaster relief management;
• hiring individuals with broad backgrounds and relevant overseas experience.

ACTION B: IDENTIFY HOW TO MOVE BEYOND THE DISTRIBUTION OF FREE RELIEF
The basic tool used to inform the relief response is the emergency assessment. Despite the overarching importance of the assessment tool, it is underutilized in the disaster situation. In too many instances, the emergency assessment comprises only the roughest of estimates of population size and nutritional status of the most vulnerable groups. Based on this, relief food requirements are calculated, plans for feeding centers and health units are drawn and submitted for funding, transportation is arranged, etc. Assessments of complex emergencies must delve beyond the observable, beyond physical appearances. This requires drawing information from a variety of sources in the disaster areas, as well as those on the outside, such as national and international anthropologists, historians, sociologists and economists. Importantly, former development workers who were previously assigned to the country can provide a contextual understanding of the social, political and economic relations among affected populations. Assessors must seek to comprehend the economic system that is providing essential supplies to disaster-affected populations in the absence, lateness or inadequacies of free relief distributions.All too often these life-saving mechanisms are ignored. Restrictions on access to non-market goods (firewood, water and wild foods) must also be examined. Assessments of intra- and inter-communal tensions, such as cattle raiding, should highlight both potential problem areas as well as opportunities for local peace initiatives. Analysis should include consideration of economic, military and political systems to identify “winners” and “winner strategies”. Potential targets of economic appropriation should be assessed, and alternatives to counter the threat of appropriation should be designed, e.g. interventions to create markets for surplus production, negotiated access to communal natural resources, etc. Such investigations will reveal the extent of a community’s vulnerabilities as they Saving Lives and Livelihoods relate to priorities for assistance. They will also identify functioning coping strategies and available capacity that can be strengthened.
ACTION C: FORMULATE COUNTRY STRATEGIES EARLY IN THE EMERGENCY
Pressure from the media, often referred to as the “CNN Factor”, forces relief organizations to react at break-neck speed. In the rush to “do something” relief workers understandably leave detailed analysis necessary for the formulation of country strategies until “later”. In the heat of crisis, such as the first weeks or even months of a crisis, this modus operandi is unavoidable. In the case of the displaced persons emergency, however, this “later” has been nearly a decade in coming. Those currently working on the Bangladesh crisis look back and recognize that a transition to improve productivity and reduce dependency could have commenced as early as possible. A more rapid transition to strategic planning, once response mechanisms are in place,will greatly increase the effectiveness of relief interventions. There comes a time when “don’t just do something, stand there”7 is the appropriate action for all staff. The keys are
• to identify the earliest opportunity for initiating a country strategy process by
charging one member of the response team to plan such a transition from the initial
phase of the emergency response;
• to equip staff to incorporate rigorous political, economic and military analysis in their
assessments and funding decisions by providing training, requiring comprehensive
analytical situation reports, and authorizing more frequent field travel for relief
personnel in the field and at headquarters;
• to include development specialists in the planning of relief operations in extended
complex emergencies;
• to form a policy spelling out the practical means of dealing with media pressure at the onset of emergencies; and,
• to strive for a high level of effective coordination with host authorities, donors, nongovernment organizations, and UN agencies.

ACTION D: IMPROVE COORDINATION IN THE DISASTER RELIEF COMMUNITY
Donors must support creative interventions to foster self-sufficiency in complex emergencies and each must work in concert with other major donors, host authorities, the United Nations and NGO implementing partners. An individual donor’s efforts to improve the effectiveness of emergency interventions can be easily compromised by others who readily fund less strategically designed relief interventions. Indeed, relief organizations have an important motive for seeking funds elsewhere. In times of budget crises, donors will be asking project implementors to do a lot more with a lot less. The UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs (DHA) was created to address problems of coordination in disaster situations. To date, it has but a few successes. This is a time of Saving Lives and Livelihoods apparently low donor confidence. However, effective coordination of strategic interventions, especially those that are required in protracted complex emergencies, is the only way donors, as a group, can systematically and effectively support interventions to foster self-sufficiency and productivity on a wide scale.



DEFINITION OF SELF-SUFFICIENCY

With respect to complex emergencies, self-sufficiency is the capacity of a community to
either produce, exchange or lay claim to resources necessary to ensure both survival
through and resilience against life-threatening stresses. This definition has three parts.
1. Self-sufficiency is community-wide. Not everyone is expected to be self-sufficient, but it is the primary responsibility of communities to take care of their own.
2. Resources to achieve self-sufficiency are produced, exchanged or claimed. This precludes autarky (freedom from imports) or “we eat what we grow” mentalities while highlighting the crucial role of local markets. “Lay claim” recognizes that public goods (roads, schools, clinics, etc.) diminish or disappear in complex emergencies.
3. Self-sufficiency entails equipping communities to ensure both survival through and resilience against life-threatening stresses. Expectations about laying foundations for economic growth or facilitating a “return to development” may be unrealistic, but interventions to strengthen a community’s capacity to prevent or mitigate disasters are essential to ensure survival over the course of repeated crises.



Some concepts regarding self-sufficiency
Complex emergencies are characterized, in part, by the deliberate exploitation of civilians.Undermining self-sufficiency and productivity are not merely by-products of conflict, but also are the intended consequences of war. In complex emergencies, systems of production are particularly vulnerable, rendering these types of disasters fundamentally different from natural disasters. Consequently, innovative approaches to providing relief and recovery assistance are essential. Tools for analyzing the critical trade-offs between implementing more immediate survival interventions and fostering self-sufficiency to ensure longer-term survival, i.e., saving lives and livelihoods, are much-needed by the international humanitarian relief community. In any complex emergency, there are at least three options: a) not intervening because conditions of operations are untenable, there is a significant risk of causing more harm than good
or relief resources not reaching intended beneficiaries, etc.; b) rapidly distributing free relief goods; or, c) strategically intervening to save lives through more “livelihood-oriented” relief interventions. Relief operations are currently a combination of these options. During every complex emergency, these routes should be frequently revisited and programs modified according to changing conditions. The aim is to minimize the number of disaster-affected people who must do without, while maximizing the effectiveness of limited humanitarian relief resources. Eight basic principles of self-sufficiency and productivity in complex emergencies form the foundation of the fundamentals of a livelihoods strategy presented in this paper. These principles emphasize the importance of 1) rigorous assessment, 2) aggressive capacity building, 3)
appropriate market support, 4) protecting essential assets, 5) easing vulnerables’ burdens, 6) timely interventions, 7) limiting harmful population displacement, and, 8) establishing sustainable systems. They, in turn, inform eight components of a strategy to wisely intervene in complex emergencies, as outlined in the table on the following page. The bulk of this paper analyzes these principles and their corresponding strategies and actions. Aside from the first principle, “Complex emergencies require strategic assessment, analysis and intervention”, the principles are not listed in order of importance. Rather, what is presented here is a toolbox, of sorts. The context of each emergency will determine which of these tools will be most useful.
Analytical Review of Disaster issues in the Bangladesh

The World Watch Institute in Washington estimates that the earth’s continents lose 24 billion tons of fertile topsoil every year and forest destruction put at 15 million hectares of forest worldwide with depletion worst in developing countries such as the Gambia. The expansion of the agricultural frontiers into fragile ecosystems, eliminating stabilized forest cover has increased the frequency of flash floods and lower agricultural productivity.
In 2003, about most of the Bangladesh population lived in village area. Uncontrolled urban sprawl and speculative land markets have pushed many marginal settlements into high-risk areas that are flood-prone areas. The country’s natural resources and the environment are seriously endangered as human lives are increasingly harmed by pollution, desertification, climate change, floods and unplanned urbanization.
Climate change will have repercussions as it can lead to desertification, rising sea levels, rapid shifts in vegetable zones, lower agricultural production and a greater shortage of fresh water. This affects the country in general particularly the poorest who will be worst hit.
In recent years, the Bangladesh experienced a significant number of disastrous events of both natural and human origins. The Hazards Profile of the Bangladesh and its Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment Report indicates that these disasters are related to cyclone,floods,drought, river bank erosion ,environmental degradation and epidemics.
All these incidents, a combination of man-made and natural disasters are causes for concern and thus call for concerted and coordinated efforts to plan to prevent, manage and mitigate the effects of disasters. This should not be done in isolation but integrated into the national development planning framework.







Major Disasters in Bangladesh
Major disasters that occur in Bangladesh are : Tropical cyclone, Tidal bore, Flood, Tornado, River bank erosion, Earthquake etc.
Outline of Most Severe Disasters
I. Cyclone:
o Cyclones are the worst killer;
o The severe cyclone of 12 November 1970 took a tool of 0.3 million human lives in Bangladesh and put property damages to more than one billion US dollars;
o Yet another worst cyclone which hit Bangladesh coast on April 1991 killed 0.14 million people and property damages were more than two billion US dollars;
o The cyclone of 1876, 1919, 1961, 1963, 1965, 1985 and 1988 were also of severe nature.
II. Floods:
o Floods are another devastating recurring phenomena in Bangladesh;
o The flood of 1988 during August-September inundated 89,000 sq. Km. Areas of 52 districts of the country and caused loss of 1517 human lives;
o The 1998 flood in Bangladesh with unprecedented duration of 65 days inundated 53 districts covering about 100,000 sp. Km. Areas and it took lives of 918 people;
o The severe floods of 1922, 1954, 1955, 1974, 1984 and 1987 are worth mentioning.

III. Droughts:
o Drought is another severe natural phenomenon which at some intervals visits Bangladesh and causes disastrous crop failures.
o In 1979 the country was hit by a severe drought, which was termed by many as the worst in the recent past.
o Droughts of 1957 and 1972 were of severe nature.
o
IV. Tornado:
o Tornadoes during pre-monsoon period hit Bangladesh and cause localized devastation, both in terms of lives and properties.
o Tornadoes of 14 April, 1969; 11 April, 1974; 01 April, 1977 and 26 April, 1989 are noteworthy.
Disasters over last 15 years in Bangladesh
Year Disaster Death
1987 Flood 1657
1988 Flood 1517
1988 Cyclone 5704
1989 Drought 800
1991 Cyclone 138,868
1994 Cyclone -
1996 Tornade 545
1997 Cyclone 550
1998 Flood 918
1999 Flood 15
2000 Flood 36
2002 Flood -
2003 Flood 104

Earthquake: Potential Threat
The historical seismic data of Bangladesh and adjoining areas indicate that Bangladesh is vulnerable to earthquake hazard. Bangladesh, as a whole, lies in the earthquake zone of which two-third comes under major and moderate fault. In fact, highly seismic belts and fault zones border Bangladesh to its east, northeast and north. These fault zones were instrumental to cause some of the world's severest earthquake in the past. The record of approximately 150 years shows that Bangladesh and the surrounding region experienced seven major earthquakes (with M ( 7). In the recent past, a number of tremors of moderate to severe intensity had already taken place in and around Bangladesh. As examples, the Chittagong earthquake of 21 November, 1997 (M= 6.1), the Bhuj earthquake of 26 January, 2001 ( M= 7.9) and the Chittagong -Rangamati earthquakes of 27 July, 2003 (M=5.9, M = 3.69 and M=4.79) may be cited. All these indicate, as also apprehended by the geophysicist Roger Bilham, that 'major earthquakes in the Himalayan region may place at risk the capital cities of Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan as well as numerous other small cities. In Bangladesh a good number of cities and towns with construction boom of high rise building and infrastructural facilities are at high vulnerability due to earthquake hazard. This vulnerability has become all the more alarming because of the existing dense population in urban as well as rural areas. These factors call for critical evaluation of seismic hazard involving major cities in Bangladesh so that proper mitigation measures (both structural and non-structural) may be undertaken before it is too late.
Disaster impacts

Disasters cause both direct and flow-on (indirect) effects on people and their livelihood, including effects on economic and social wellbeing, infrastructure and the environment. Government finances and services are also affected by disasters. The following discussion is based on information from post-disaster impact assessments undertaken by government and nongovernment agencies. These assessments were largely made from the perspective of the disaster response and humanitarian assistance, so often focused on only some of the disaster effects, such as fatalities, the number of people affected and some of the direct economic costs (discussed later). Also note that impact assessments were not always conducted in times of disasters and, where they were undertaken, they did not systematically report or quantify all impacts. The data are thus only partial.Globally, natural disasters have killed more than 1.5 million people in the past two decades and affected 255 million annually. Ninety-seven per cent of disaster related deaths reported globally occurred in developing countries (World Bank 2000). Economic losses associated with natural disasters are now estimated to be 15 times higher than they were in the 1950s (adjusting for inflation), and disasters caused approximately US$67 billion in losses in each year from 1994 to 2003 (Peek 2008; World Bank 2006). Whatever the origin of disasters, their impacts include loss of life, injury to persons, damage to property,destruction of assets, loss of services, social and economic disruption and or environmental degradation.Disasters often affect water supply and sanitation, adding pressure to already poor health conditions in many communities. Cyclones and floods particularly result in an increased incidence of water and vector borne diseases (Campbell-Lendrum and Woodruff 2007). Such effects also lower economic capacity (Freeman 1999), causing further medium term economic losses that usually are not captured by impact assessments conducted in the immediate aftermath of disasters. At the national level, the impacts of natural disasters are not merely a social and humanitarian issue. They are economically significant, affecting national macroeconomic and the national fiscal environment (Benson and Clay 2004). Disasters usually mean higher government expenditure and/or part reallocation of already committed financial resources (usually from the capital budget), to meet the costs of disaster relief and the costs of repair and rehabilitation of public property, and to provide support to victims. Disasters also mean a fall in government revenue because they cause a reduced level of economic activity, including possible net falls in imports and exports. Reduced economic activity implies reduced direct and indirect tax revenue, and thus increased budgetary pressures, which may result in governments borrowing more, placing inflationary pressures on the economy. International modeling results also suggest disasters can dampen investment and reduce long term economic growth, through their negative effect on a country’s credit rating and an increase in interest rates for external borrowing (Benson and Clay
2004; Cochran 1994). Ultimately, such effects manifest themselves at the highest level.



Disaster management

Disaster management constitutes having emergency plans, equipment and trained and knowledgeable people to help monitor hazards, operate end-to-end early warning systems and manage emergency responses. The nature and frequency of awareness programs, the strength of the media in reaching every part of the country, past experiences of the public and cultural beliefs also determine the extent of a community’s vulnerability.A weak end-to-end early warning system increases the vulnerability of the poor, along with their ability to make decisions and respond appropriately during an emergency. Although Bangladesh has sophisticated equipment at the Meteorological Centre in Agargaon, other parts of the country lag in having updated early warning systems. In recent years, this discrepancy has severely affected efforts to distribute warnings in time to different parts of the country.Also constraining the early warning system are poor hazard monitoring capabilities due to limited institutional capacity, difficulty in retaining qualified staff and limited monitoring stations in key locations in the hazard prone areas. In addition, poor communication equipment, a lack of proper rescue equipment and insufficient
personnel training in disaster management have resulted in the inefficient operation of the Disaster Management Team in some parts of the country.

Natural Disaster and Vulnerable Lives

Disaster is defined as a serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society, involving widespread human, material, economic and/or environmental losses and impacts that exceed the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources (adapted from UNISDR 2009). Disaster events may be sudden and unexpected, or slow moving in their onset. They share a common characteristic, however, in their potential to cause widespread community disruption, displacement, economic loss, property damage, death potential impact of disasters is described by the term ‘disaster risk’.


Sensitivity of lives and disaster risk

Disaster impacts are determined not only by the nature of the hazard, but also by the society’s vulnerability.Vulnerability is defined as the characteristics and circumstances of a community, system or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard (UNISDR 2009). These circumstances can be linked to the structure and the status of the national economy, the condition of physical infrastructure (including access to water and sanitation) and the ocioeconomic characteristics of households (including income, health and education).Vulnerability is thus the concept that explains why, with a given level of physical exposure, people are more or less at risk (UNDP 2009).Vulnerability has three component elements: the sensitivity of households and communities to hazards; the ability to respond to disasters; and the ability to cope with the immediate effects of disasters. (The term ‘sensitivity’ is used in this report to emphasise individuals’ and communities’ conditions that particularly have the potential to magnify the effect of disaster.) Vulnerability is high in many areas as a result of poor infrastructure, which is often perceived as a key component of a country’s economic status. Freeman (1999),demonstrated a direct link between vulnerability to natural disasters and poor infrastructure. Poor infrastructure affects people’s ability to engage in income generating activities, as well as their ability to respond to disasters.Poor infrastructure standards, weak government regulations (such as the absence of building codes) and weak regulatory enforcement also increase disaster risks.Countries that heavily rely on the primary sector are also generally found to be more sensitive to the effects of natural disasters (Benson 1997; Benson and Clay 2004), particularly disasters of hydro-meteorological origin. At the same time, the process of development adopted and the development choices made in many countries affect those countries’ vulnerability to disasters—for example, environmentally unsustainable development practices, such logging in areas prone to landslides, increase disaster risks.Human vulnerability is exacerbated by weak end-to-end disaster warning systems and the ability of people to manage disaster. Disaster management constitutes having emergency plans, equipment, and trained and knowledgeable people to help monitor hazards, operate end-to-end early warning systems and manage emergency responses. The nature and frequency of awareness programs, the strength of the media in reaching every part of the country, past experiences of the public and cultural beliefs also determine the community’svulnerability. At the household level, sensitivity to external shocks can be viewed in terms of livelihoods and food and nutritional status. The former also depends on human development conditions, such as household income,access to water and sanitation, maternal and child mortality, and education. The poorer the economic and
social wellbeing at the household level, the more sensitive the household is to the impact of hazards (primarily because it has a low threshold for withstanding external shocks) and the less able it is to respond to, cope with and adapt to disasters (because it does not have much, if any, capital reserve on which to draw).The vulnerability of communities, economies and countries is thus a result of the interaction of hazards exposure, the economic status of households, the sensitivity of the environment and economy to hazards, the state of infrastructure, and the ability to respond to and cope with disaster events.



Poverty

Poverty is usually considered an important factor for determining household sensitivity and vulnerability to hazards because household income level determines people’s coping and adaptation capacities. Poverty exacerbates the negative effects of disasters on households, increasing the severity of existing poverty and/or increasing the number of people suffering from it. Before examining this relationship, it is important to explain what is meant by ‘poverty’. The most common definition is based on household and per person incomes. A person is conventionally considered poor if his or her income level falls below some minimum level necessary to meet needs such as housing, food, clothing,education, health and so on. This minimum level is usually called the ‘poverty line’. The World Bank defined the global poverty line to be in the range of US$1.25 and US$2 per day (in terms of 2005 purchasing power parity). The 10 to 20 poorest countries of the world have an average poverty line of $1.25 a day, and about 1.4 billion people in the developing world lived in poverty (or on less than US$1.25 a day) in 2005.
An alternative measure used to describe poverty is the ability to meet basic needs. The basic needs poverty line (BNPL) is the minimum income that an individual requires to meet his or her basic needs and is based on the food poverty line and the non-food poverty line. The latter, at its basic level, ‘is the monetary cost of the non-food essentials’ deemed necessary for a ‘standard’ household to achieve the minimum socially acceptable standard of living in non-food items (Narsey 2008). It comprises housing and household expenses, utilities, transport, education, medical expenses, clothing and entertainment.What is necessary to satisfy basic needs varies across time and societies, however, so the definitions of poverty and poverty lines also vary across time and place. Each country uses a poverty line appropriate to its level of development, and societal norms and values. For the Pacific, poverty is thus defined in terms of not
only income level but also other social indicators, including education level and access to water and sanitation.




The link between disaster risk and poverty

There is considerable anecdotal evidence of a link between disaster risk and poverty. Findings from worldwide consultations with the poor (World Bank 2000), the UNDP’s (2004) report on mutual links between disaster and development, and the UK Department for International Development’s (Department for International Development 2004) explanation of the links between development and disasters in view of the long term impacts on poverty trends have all pointed to a relationship between disasters and poverty. It is widely acknowledged that the poor often live on marginal lands and in poorly constructed houses, and often have poor access to water and sanitation—for example, 80 per cent of the poor in Latin America, 60 percent of the poor in Asia, and 50 per cent of the poor in Africa live on marginal lands characterised by poor
productivity (World Bank 1997). According to White et al. 2004, people living in such conditions generatea range of immediate ‘unsafe conditions’. Such conditions make the poor more sensitive to disasters and exacerbate their poor economic status. While those better-off may choose to live in higher risk areas, the poor often have no other choice. Poor thus live in poorly constructed houses, have poor access to water and sanitation, and often do not have food and nutritional security. Living in poverty thus increases their sensitivity to disaster. Given limited income and limited financial savings (if any), the ability of the poor to respond to and recover from disaster is limited at best. Further, the poor cannot easily adapt to disaster by investing in options such as disaster-proof technology, relocating to less hazardous areas, replacing lost items or even taking out insurance (World Bank 1997).It has been noted that disasters can even induce poverty, especially among those living near the poverty line.The World Bank (2000) also noted disasters and the destruction of assets of the poor can trap families in chronic poverty because they will not have the necessary income to rebuild their homes, replace assets and meet basic needs. In other words, disasters can be a source of poverty (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007).At the national level, the ability of a community to cope with and recover from external shocks also depends on the health of natural resources and supporting ecosystems (natural capital asset), human health (human capital asset), physical infrastructure (physical asset) and financial resources (financial asset) available to people (Carney 1998). It is often stated that recurring disasters can hold back development and progress towards national development goals, including the millennium development goals (MDGs) (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007, UNDP 2004). Many countries report this problem in their national MDG progress reports.The impacts of natural disasters at the national level are, however, not merely a matter of social and humanitarian importance; they are of economic importance too. They manifest in households’ socioeconomic status, and the cumulative effects will be experienced across sectors and through government finances. The impact of disaster at household, communities and national levels limits their ability to respond to and recover and rehabilitate from external shocks, influencing economic productivity, economic growth and the status of economic development. There is, however, little quantitative empirical evidence of the long term impact of disasters on the lives and livelihoods of people, and on national development prospects .




Link between disasters and poverty –

To examine the relationship between disasters and poverty, partial analytical and quantitative relational analysis could be adopted, depending on the scale of analysis of interest as well as the availability of quantitative data (table 2). Partial analysis can describe:
• hazard characteristics and disaster profiles (qualitative and quantitative)
• the structure of the economy and economic development trends based on official government statistics
and statistics reported by international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the Asian
Development Bank (quantitative)
• the nature of household wellbeing (including poverty status), using official statistics released by the governments, reports from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, official international statistics released by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (the human development index [HDI] and the human poverty index [HPI]), and academic reports released on the subject (trend analysis as well as qualitative).
On the other hand, to determine empirically the link between poverty and disaster, the following questions must be asked:
(1) do natural hazards contribute to or exacerbate poverty? And
(2) does poverty have an impact on susceptibility to loss of life, buildings and agricultural assets? From these questions, two generic hypotheses are derived:
Hypothesis 1: Natural disasters are likely to (a) contribute to poverty by affecting key conditions reflected in human development indicators and assets directly, as well as indirectly by affecting their value and productivity; and (b) exacerbate households’ ability to avoid and recover from poverty, and restrict their coping mechanisms.
Hypothesis 2: Poverty is likely to correlate with (a) the exposure of households to natural hazards, and (b)households’ susceptibility to suffering loss from hazard events.An econometric assessment of the two-way relationship between poverty and disaster, at the aggregate national level or cross sectional household level could be adopted to empirically test these hypotheses.


Household characteristics and sensitivity to disasters

The socioeconomic characteristics of households-including their economic wellbeing, access to water and sanitation, and education-are important determinants of households’
sensitivity to disaster, as well as their ability to respond and cope. In other words, those characteristics determine household vulnerability to disasters. Bangladesh is a multicultural society, with a population of near about 16 core .Migration trends is very common from rural to urban area .With the demand for land and housing outstripping the capacity of the towns and cities to accommodate it,many of the new migrants (particularly the non-professional class) find themselves in squatter and other informal settlements. These settlements are usually on marginal lands located, for example, on flood plains,on steep land or in mangrove areas along the coast, which are often susceptible to flooding and/or ther natural hazards. Conditions in squatter settlements around Bangladessh are very poor, with families usually having no access to clean piped water or power, and shelters are often rudimentary. Reflecting the lack of employment opportunities for the families living in squatter settlements, households generally lack access to health services, and malnutrition is also often high. Compounding the lack of income, unemployment for many dwellers makes it difficult for children to complete their education, aggravating already limited employment opportunities. Such social conditions also decrease these households’ ability to respond to and cope with disasters, increasing human vulnerability to natural disaster. Disaster impact assessments in Bangladesh usually also do not include the costs of flow-on effects, yet such effects can be devastating in the short and long terms. Indirect costs not often captured by impact assessment include:
• the household’s reduced ability to pay for schooling less, forcing children to drop out of schools
• the cost to families of the increased incidence of water and vector borne diseases
• decreased government services following a reduction in tax revenues
• the forced relocation sale of productive assets by affected households, which push many into poverty
• a reduced ability to afford clean water, food, clothing and medicine
• migration to urban areas to live in other hazardous areas without access to basic health services
• flow-on economy-wide impacts on other sectors and employment.




Assets and livelihoods

We ran a multinomial logit regression to asset the relation between capital endowments and livelihood strategy in 1998. We distinguished human capital, natural capital, i.e. land, and location capital. These assets are relatively stable over time and are therefore likely to be predetermined. While we may expect that profitable livelihood strategies result in a higher demand for education and higher schooling achievements, thiswillmainly affect the education level of the younger generation and not of the household head,whichwe include as a proxy for human capital. Still, we must interpret the relationship between human capital and livelihood strategies with care, because livelihood strategies could be ‘inherited’ if access is facilitated through inheritance or networks. We did not account for physical capital, which was measured with great error, or for livestock, as this is a relatively liquid asset which is more likely to be the result than the cause of livelihood strategy choice.Preliminary regressions, however, indicate that these variables mostly had insignificantly coefficients (only the coefficient for physical assetst for the farm worker strategy was significantly negative) and hardly affected the results for the other variables.As expected, location capital was important for nonfarm activities . Households in the Pacific were more likely to be involved, and also paved road access and nearness to a health centre increased the probability of household engaging in nonfarm activities. This indicates that market access and closeness to urban centers to a large extend determined access to the rural nonfarm economy. Yet not all households in the same location had a similar probability of being engaged in the nonfarm economy. Human capital seems to play an important role. Compared to annual farming households, households engaged in the nonfarm economy were more likely to have a head who finished high school, or–in case of nonfarm wages or a diversified strategy including both farm and nonfarm activities–could at least read and write. Perhaps surprisingly, also female headed households were more likely to engage in nonfarm activities. Generally higher engagement of women in the nonfarm economy seems not to be the only reason: the share of female adults significantly increased the probability to specialize in nonfarm wage employment or to combine nonfarm activities with annual farming,but not the probability of specialization into nonfarm self-employment. Possibly, women engaged in remunerative nonfarm activities found it easier to maintain an independent household. The main differences between households engaging in the two specialized nonfarm strategies seems to be that employees were somewhat younger and more likely to be literate than the self-employed. Farm households specializing in livestock or perennials had large landholdings and better educated household heads than annual farmers had.Yet, contrary to nonfarm households, they did not have more nonfarm wage employment, these households, however, were more location capital. Households combining annual cropping with farm wages, on the other hand, had smaller landholdings, lower education,
and better road access than farmers specializing in annual cropping. Due to the active land rental markets, the size of owned land did not affect the probability of specializing in agricultural wage employment as compared to annual crop production. Like households specialized in likely to be female headed and have direct access to a paved road, and
they generally had younger household heads.

Changing livelihoods and natural hazards

The above results seem to suggest that livelihood strategies are relatively stable. The only difference between 1998 and 2005 is that in the latter year more farmers grew perennial crops or were engaged in livestock production. Yet, even though the overall distribution of households over the strategies did not change much, individual households may have shifted between categories. Livelihood strategies may change as a result of asset accumulation or shocks such as market liberalization or natural disasters (Block and Webb, 2001; Orr and Mwale, 2001). Possibly, the observed stability of livelihood distribution was the result of a combination of households affected by hurricane Mitch or other shocks moving down and non shock affected households moving up across livelihood strategies. Before we move onto transition matrices describing the livelihood dynamics of individual households, we first discuss the possible transitions households can make.Which potential pathways out of poverty could we deduct? The three poorest groups were agricultural workers, farmers producing annual crops, and those combining these two activities. The transition from agricultural worker to producer was therefore insufficient to escape poverty. Finding a full-time job in the nonfarm sector seems a
successful strategy to escape poverty. Alternatively, farming households could get engaged in the nonfarmsector alongside annual cropping and possibly drop farming altogether later on. Yet these strategies seem open mainly to educated people in locations with a thriving nonagricultural ector. For others, adopting perennial crops or purchasing
livestock could increase income. No formal education is required for these activities, although literacy and education do seem to facilitate them. Themost obvious cause of a possible downward transition seems to be the death or illness of an educated family member, resulting in the loss of a nonfarmjob or business, butwe are especially interested in the consequences of a common natural shock such as hurricane Mitch. Just losing land seems not likely to have much effect on household poverty status. Agricultural self-imployment was not sufficient to lift people out of poverty and land ownership had only a very limited impact on the choice of livelihood strategy. Losing livestock and plantations, however,could throw back people from the intermediate or h igh income strategies of non-annuals farming to production of annuals and/or agricultural wage employment. Other relatively remunerative livelihood strategies involved specialization in nonfarm activities. Formal employment was probably not much affected and most self-employment activities were service-related and therefore not highly capital intensive. Commercial activities would have suffered more than only in the short run had overall income gone down. However, the country experienced moderate growth after Mitch, and poverty did not increase. Overall, our results up to now therefore do not strongly suggest that Mitch has thrown many people back into low-welfare livelihood strategies and thus trapped them into poverty. The panel nature of the data allows us to test this conjecture, and this is what we will do below. The transition matrices reveal that many households moved out of the panel between the different survey runs: in 2005 only 40% of the
original households were left, and attrition rates were especially high between 1998 and 2001 . These high dropout rates could mean that many people moved and changed their livelihood strategy but we cannot be sure. Also considering the remaining households, we find little evidence that livelihood strategies are choices that remain stable over a period of 3 to 7years. Not surprisingly, the most stable livelihood strategies are nonfarm wage employment and non-annuals farming, but even for those strategies between 37 and 64% of household switched strategies. This limited stability is not merely the result of our clustering procedure. Many households actually moved in and out of profitable activities such as nonfarm wage employment, and all correlation coefficients between the resource allocation variables used for clustering are less than 0.5 between years. Hence, households do not stick to the livelihood strategies as defined by the cluster analysis. The three low-welfare strategies–annual farming, farm wages, and farm wages with annual farming–could be part of a single strategy of poor households, who depend on agriculture for their livelihood. Some years they rent in (additional) land and focus (more) on production, other years they participate (more) in the labor market.More than 60% of households belonged to this group or specialized in one of the substrategies. Also, people may switch between the farm and the nonfarm labor market, depending on availability of (casual) jobs. This group was, however, small, which–like the large income differences between the two activities–points to a dual labor market with on the one hand low-skilled agricultural jobs and on the other hand relatively skilled nonfarm jobs. Also the other clusters seem to represent separate livelihood strategies, and moving between strategies often means a transition to more or less remunerative activities.


Relation between Lives , livelihood and natural disaster in Global context

Pakistan. On 8 October 2005, an earthquake measuring 7.6 on the Richter scale, with its epicentre located 19 km northeast of Muzaffarabad struck the northern areas of Pakistan and India. Azad Jammu Kashmir and North West Frontier Province were severely affected, including 3 – 4 million people and an estimated death toll of 80,000. A rapid participatory assessment was conducted by an FAO Livelihoods Adviser in collaboration with ILO and the Department of Agricultural Extension, Government of AJK, during the period 27 to 31 October 2005. Its objective was to provide some qualitative information on how the earthquake has affected people’s lives and how they make a living. The survey looked at what resources people had lost, the coping strategies which they adopted to deal with the situation, and the outcomes that they sought to achieve when the immediate effects of the emergency were over. The rapid assessment also set out relevant responses based on the livelihood analysis, and gave a one year timeline for phasing in these responses. Use of a livelihood framework, as in this example, was instrumental in allowing the analysis to be organised in a way that clearly showed the impact of the crisis on people’s lives and relevant intervention priorities. This would not have been possible with a more sectoral analysis based on pre-conceived ideas of need.

Somalia. The Food Security Analysis Unit – Somalia (FSAU) has been developing a tool with which to classify the severity of impact of different situations on people’s lives and livelihoods. The Integrated Phase Classification (IPC) makes use of a number of different information sources to derive a “phase classification” of a particular geographic area. The phases range from phase 1 – generally food secure to phase 5 – famine / humanitarian catastrophe. In arriving at the classification, fairly detailed analysis is done of the state of and prospects for the five capital assets noted above. The following table presents indicates how the results of such analysis is translated into a “phase” indication


Source: Integrated Food Security and Humanitarian Phase Classification: Technical Manual Version I, FSAU, May 11 2006.



Conclusion

Lastly, we can say that Bangladesh is a country of Disaster due its geographical location.Large parts of the developing world lie in areas with substantial risk of being hit by natural hazards such as earthquakes, droughts, floods and hurricanes. People living in these areas have limited capacity to cope with shocks and consequently natural disasters can have persistent effects on welfare. Through destruction or distress sales of productive assets, a natural hazard could thus induce people with relatively remunerative livelihoods to choose more defensive strategies which allow them to survive, but at a permanently lower welfare level than before. The lowest welfare is generated by households engaging in annual farming, farm employment, or a combination of these two activities. The households engaged in livelihood strategies resulting in medium or high welfare levels during at least one of the years. Relatively high incomes were generated by specialization in nonfarm wage employment or ranching. Nonfarm self-employment, perennial farming and annual cropping with nonfarm employment resulted in medium-income levels. The distribution of households over the strategies is very similar between years, the only difference being a slightly larger share of farmers engaged in other activities that annual cropping in the later years. The clear welfare ordering of livelihood strategies indicates that there were entry barriers to the high-returns activities. Multinomial logit analysis supports this suggestion: Households with more human, location, and to a smaller extent natural capital have a larger probability of being engaged in (medium or) high-return activities. Hence, although previous studies have shown a strong correlation between land ownership and welfare, this study thus suggests that land alone is not enough to improve welfare and that location and possibly education are at least as important. The potentially causal role of education requires some qualification. As proxy for human capital, we considered the education of the household head, which is unlikely to be affected by the current livelihood strategy. Yet,if livelihood strategies affect child education and strategies are somehow inherited, e.g. because land ownership is required for ranching or formal sector jobs are only accessible with the right contacts, the causality may have run from livelihood strategy to education and not vice versa. The existence of livelihood strategies with different welfare levels and a more or less constant overall distribution of households over the strategies seem to suggest that there was a group of households
trapped in poverty. This suggests that there was no absolute poverty threshold, but also that being able to initiate a relatively profitable livelihood strategy was no guarantee that this strategy could be maintained. Anti-poverty policies should therefore not only focus on helping people to overcome entry barriers to profitable activities, but also to build and maintain a viable business over time. Disaster creates disturbance in season and out of season in several times of the year. Livelihood pattern is totally changed during the moment of disaster but the inhabitants of Bangladesh are optimist that they will overcome all sorts of problem.





References

Chen, L.C., A.K.M. Chowdhury, S.L. Huffman 1980. 'Anthropometric assessment of energy-protein malnutrition and
subsequent risk of mortality among pre-school age children' American Journal of Clinical and Nutrition 33:1836-
1845.
Cuny, Frederick C. 1983. Disasters and Development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Currey, Bruce. 1978. 'The Famine Syndrome: Its Definition for Relief and Rehabilitation in Bangladesh' Ecology of Food
and Nutrition 7(78):87-98.
Custers, Peter. 1993. 'Bangladesh Flood Action Plan: A Critique' Economic and Political Weekly July 17-24, 1993: 1501-
1503.
Davis, I. 1978. Shelter after disaster. Headington, Oxford: Oxford Polytechnic Press.
Drabek, Thomas, E. 1986. Human System Response to Disaster: An Inventory of Sociological Findings. London:
Springer-verlag.
Drabek, Thomas, E and Keith Boggs. 1968. 'Families In Disaster: Reactions and Relatives' Journal of Marriage and
The Family 30:443-451.
Dynes, Russel R. et al (eds). 1978. Sociology of Disasters: Contribution to Disaster Research Italy: franco Angeli.
Dynes, Russel R. 1970. Organised behaviour in disaster. Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books.
El-Sabh, M. I. and T. S. Murty (eds). 1988. Natural and man-made hazards. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Fritz, C.E. 1961. ‘Disaster’ in R.R. Merton and R.A. Nisbet (eds.) Contemporary Social Problems, New York: Harcourt,
Brace and World.
Hanchett, Suzanne and Mahbuba Nasreen. 1992. 'Gender Issues in the Flood Action Plan'. A paper presented at the
workshop of Flood Response Study (FAP 14) organised by Bangladesh Flood Action Plan, Dhaka, November 9,
1992.
Hanchett, Suzanne, 2003. ‘Gender and Water in Bangladesh’, paper presented at the Annual Conference of American
Anthropological Association, USA: Chicago, Illinois, November, 2003.
Hansen, A. and Oliver-Smith (eds.) 1982. Involuntary Migration and Resettlement. Boulder: West View Press.
Haque, C.E. and M.Q. Zaman. 1989. 'Coping With Riverbank Erosion Hazard and Displacement in Bangladesh: Survival
Strategies and Adjustments' Disasters: The Journal of Disaster Studies and Management 13(4):301-314.
Hossain, H., C.P. Dodge and F.H. Abed. 1992. From crisis to Development: Coping with Disasters in Bangladesh. Dhaka:
University Press.
Hossain, M. et al. 1987. Flood in Bangladesh: Recurrent Disasters and Peoples Survival. Dhaka: University Research
Centre.
Hussain, A.M. 2001. ‘Anthropological Approach to the Study of Natural Disaster’ in Proshanta Tripura (ed.) Nribiggan
Potrika 6, Jahangornagar University, Dhaka
Islam, Aminul, M. 1974. 'Tropical Cyclones: Coastal Bangladesh' in G.F. White (ed) Natural Hazards: Local, National,
Global. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kates, R.W. 1971. 'Natural Hazard in Human Ecological perspective: Hypotheses and Models' Economic Geography
47:438-451.
8
Kates, R.W. 1962. Hazard and Choice Perception in Flood Plain Management. Research Paper No. 78. Chicago:
Department of Geography, University of Chicago.
Khalequzzaman, MD. 1994. 'Recent Floods in Bangladesh: possible causes and solutions' Natural Hazards 9:65-80.
Knott, R. 1987. ‘The Logistics of Bulk Relief Supplies’ Disasters 11:113-116.