Floods
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. Read More...
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. Read More...
Baseline Study of SUFAL Project Funded by ECHO “Supporting Flood Forecast-based Action and Learning in Bangladesh” (SUFAL)
Supporting Flood Forecast-based Action and Learning in Bangladesh (SUFAL) is being studied in 4 unions (Chinadulli, Kulkandi, Noarpara, Shapdhari) of Islampur Upazila of Jamalpur district, 4 unions (Bhartkhali, Ghuridaha, Haldia, Saghata) of Sagatha Upazila of Gaibandha district and 4 unions (Begumganj, Buraburi, Hatia, and Saheber Alga) of Ulipur Upazila of Kurigram districts by BCAS with the support of Care Bangladesh and the consortium members including Concern Worldwide, Islamic Relief Bangladesh, and the Regional Integrated Multi-Hazard Early Warning System (RIMES) and financially supported by ECHO. SUFAL will set up a Forecast-based Early Action (FbA) system in three northern flood-prone districts: Kurigram, Gaibandha, and Jamalpur. There are many char land in the study area which are the propensities of disaster. The inhabitants of Char land are the most vulnerable and poorest community who are in search of livelihood. Their daily life is full of uncertainty. Read More...
SUFAL II Baseline Report
The project “Scaling up Flood Forecast Based- Action and Learning in Bangladesh (SUFAL) – Phase II”, is aimed to strengthen resilience of communities to the impacts of frequent monsoon floods. SUFAL-II is being implemented in the districts of Kurigram and Gaibandha, Jamalpur and Bogura. In each district, two types of interventions (one intervention in one upazila) are being implemented. They are -
- Full scale implementation – Capacity development and support to communities to implement sector-specific early actions with extended lead times prior to monsoon floods.
- Partial scale implementation – Technical and capacity building support to the Disaster Management Committees (DMCs) and government officials, with the aim to demonstrate how the FbA mechanism can be operationalized in a district.
The selected areas in each district have ‘medium’ to ‘very high’ risk profiles as per INFORM Index on Risk Management. The risk profiles have been calculated based on the modelling of exposure to hazard, vulnerability and coping mechanisms in place.
Methodology
The baseline study uses a mixed method analysis. Thus, both quantitative and qualitative tools were administered to collect relevant data to assess the baseline status. The quantitative tool was administered to a sample of 1500 households, which were distributed across 60 wards. For the qualitative aspect of the study, a total of 28 Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) were conducted with DMCs and local government officials and 30 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were conducted with the community members.
Key Findings
Background of respondents
Under the household survey, a total of 1494 interviews were conducted, of which 1394 interviews were conducted in three treatment groups and 100 interviews were conducted in the control group. The majority of respondents were female (74%), Muslim (95.7%), and of Bangali (99.8%) ethnicity. Approximately 79% of households reported a monthly income that exceeded 5000 Taka.
Floods in 2022
Of all the respondents, 78.4% experienced floods in 2022, with the highest occurrence in the month of Ashar - Srabon. Treatment group 1 (64.7%) and the control group (70%) had a lower flood incidence compared to Treatment groups 2 (89.1%) and Treatment group 3 (86.8%).
Early warning
Of all respondents in the three treatment groups who faced floods in 2022, only 36.3% received early warnings. It was observed that a higher percentage of respondents from the treatment group 1 (69.4%) received early warnings as compared to treatment group 3 (35.4%) and treatment group 2 (11.8%). Overall, out of all the respondents who reported receiving early warning, 85.8% reported that they received it 1 to 5 days prior to the floods. Television (40.1%) and friends/relatives (29.7%) were the primary sources of early warning information. Among other sources, only 8.5% of respondents reported receiving early warning via Audio calls, 19.2% reported from community volunteers (miking or household visit) and 1.2% via digital boards. Among those who received early warnings, 60.3% had information about flood intensity/water level, and 52.9% had information about the lead time. However, only 36.2% received guidance on early actions, 24.7% received livestock advisory, and 13.0% received agromet advisory. This indicates a lack of agromet advisory, flood preparedness advisory, and health awareness across all treatment groups. Overall, 67.8% of respondents found the early warnings timely and understandable, and 98.8% expressed trust in the early warnings. Read More...
- Full scale implementation – Capacity development and support to communities to implement sector-specific early actions with extended lead times prior to monsoon floods.
- Partial scale implementation – Technical and capacity building support to the Disaster Management Committees (DMCs) and government officials, with the aim to demonstrate how the FbA mechanism can be operationalized in a district.
The selected areas in each district have ‘medium’ to ‘very high’ risk profiles as per INFORM Index on Risk Management. The risk profiles have been calculated based on the modelling of exposure to hazard, vulnerability and coping mechanisms in place.
Methodology
The baseline study uses a mixed method analysis. Thus, both quantitative and qualitative tools were administered to collect relevant data to assess the baseline status. The quantitative tool was administered to a sample of 1500 households, which were distributed across 60 wards. For the qualitative aspect of the study, a total of 28 Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) were conducted with DMCs and local government officials and 30 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were conducted with the community members.
Key Findings
Background of respondents
Under the household survey, a total of 1494 interviews were conducted, of which 1394 interviews were conducted in three treatment groups and 100 interviews were conducted in the control group. The majority of respondents were female (74%), Muslim (95.7%), and of Bangali (99.8%) ethnicity. Approximately 79% of households reported a monthly income that exceeded 5000 Taka.
Floods in 2022
Of all the respondents, 78.4% experienced floods in 2022, with the highest occurrence in the month of Ashar - Srabon. Treatment group 1 (64.7%) and the control group (70%) had a lower flood incidence compared to Treatment groups 2 (89.1%) and Treatment group 3 (86.8%).
Early warning
Of all respondents in the three treatment groups who faced floods in 2022, only 36.3% received early warnings. It was observed that a higher percentage of respondents from the treatment group 1 (69.4%) received early warnings as compared to treatment group 3 (35.4%) and treatment group 2 (11.8%). Overall, out of all the respondents who reported receiving early warning, 85.8% reported that they received it 1 to 5 days prior to the floods. Television (40.1%) and friends/relatives (29.7%) were the primary sources of early warning information. Among other sources, only 8.5% of respondents reported receiving early warning via Audio calls, 19.2% reported from community volunteers (miking or household visit) and 1.2% via digital boards. Among those who received early warnings, 60.3% had information about flood intensity/water level, and 52.9% had information about the lead time. However, only 36.2% received guidance on early actions, 24.7% received livestock advisory, and 13.0% received agromet advisory. This indicates a lack of agromet advisory, flood preparedness advisory, and health awareness across all treatment groups. Overall, 67.8% of respondents found the early warnings timely and understandable, and 98.8% expressed trust in the early warnings. Read More...
Up-Scaling Community Resilience through Ecosystem-based Disaster Risk Reduction (Eco-DRR) Project: Baseline Report
The Ecosystem based Disaster Risk Reduction project will contribute to addressing the current challenges through a combination of activities to increase the ability of communities to anticipate, absorb, adapt, and transform towards the impact of hazards such as drought and floods, enhance the capacity of district local governments, CSOs and the private sector to improve, inclusive and effective multi-stakeholder governance at catchment level to foster sustainable development that takes a landscape approach, is risk-informed and eco-sensitive.
The study objectives were to determine the baseline status on selected outcome and output indicators as established in the ECO DRR PME plan, and to provide specific and achievable recommendations on possible improvement.
Read More...
The study objectives were to determine the baseline status on selected outcome and output indicators as established in the ECO DRR PME plan, and to provide specific and achievable recommendations on possible improvement.
Read More...
Final ecrp flood study report
This 46 page documents highlights families' resilience to flooding crises in th 2014 floods in Malaw... Read More...