Midline (monsoon flood) and baseline (flsh flood) study of SUFAL-!! project

The baseline study concerning the impact of flash floods and lightning on the SUFAL-II project aims to analyze the context of flash floods and lightning, assess the scopes of the Early Warning System, and examine current trends of hazard-specific responses taken by individual, community, and institutional levels. The objective of this project is to bolster the capabilities of vulnerable communities and institutions in Bangladesh to implement forecast-based early actions. The study employed a mixed-method approach, amalgamating both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis techniques. This was done to assess the context, accessibility, usage, and potential of early warning systems and early actions for mitigating the risks associated with flash floods and lightning hazards.
The study encompassed three districts prone to flash floods, namely Sylhet, Sunamganj, and Netrokona. For treatment group areas the selected Upazilas were Gowainghat, Dharmapasha, and Khaliajuri and for control group areas the selected areas were Sylhet Sadar, Sunamganj Sadar, Madan.
Data was collected from 502 households, 12 focus group discussions, and 19 key informant interviews. The study's findings indicate that flash floods and lightning are recurrent and severe hazards that pose significant threats to the communities' lives, assets, and livelihoods. These hazards disproportionately affect women, individuals with disabilities, and farmers. The study also identified several shortcomings in the existing early warning systems, including issues related to timeliness, quality, coverage, accessibility, comprehension, and trust.
The study further investigated the current and potential early actions that can be undertaken by communities and institutions to alleviate the impact of flash floods and lightning. These actions include seeking safe shelter, securing assets and livestock, and implementing strategies to cope with shocks and stress. Most significantly, there are no functional early warning systems in the targeted areas.
A total of 90.00% of the respondents from the treatment group and 50.80% of respondents from the control group areas said they were affected by flash floods within the previous three years. On the other hand, 69.30% of the respondents of treatment group and 50.80% of the respondents of control group areas admitted that their community members were affected by lightning in the past two years. Moreover, 74.40% of respondents of treatment group areas and 58.30% respondents of control group areas said that loss of human lives or major injury occurred due to lightning. Notably, Highest 81.90% of the respondents from both group areas said they did not get any early warning information regarding floods. FGD with respondents discovered that there is no functional early warning system in their areas for flash floods. Sometimes they got warnings through loudspeaker announcements when nearby areas got affected by the flood. In the case of lightning, 92.80% of the respondents from both group areas said they didn’t get any early warning information. Though there isn`t any early warning system for lightning, some respondents said in FGD that they occasionally identify symptoms by evaluating the cloud and notifying each other of the possibility of lightning which is considered as early warning for them. The respondents from both treatment and control group areas shared their opinions about different types of early warnings they received for different natural disasters. The highest 38.20% and 18.80% of the respondents received early warning (supposed to situation update) through television broadcasts from treatment and control group areas. The respondents from the treatment group and control group areas usually don’t get any functional early warnings. Hence, they consider flood situation updates and weather updates as early warnings. A total of 16.70% of the respondents admit that they won’t understand the early warning information due to language barriers, or technical jargon. From the treatment group areas, 61.50% of the respondents shared that due to a lack of clear instructions on severity and impact of the hazards, they won’t understand the warnings. Interestingly, a total of 17.90% of the respondents from both treatment and control group areas admitted some traditional beliefs and superstition might generate distrust against the early warnings.