Abstract Number: 011-0029

CYCLONES IN BANGLADESH – A CASE STUDY OF A WHOLE COUNTRY RESPONSE TO RAPID ONSET DISASTERS

Peter Tatham

Centre for Human Systems, Cranfield University, UK,

Tel: +441793785734; Email:

Karen Spens

Supply Chain Management and Corporate Geography,

Department of Marketing, Hanken School of Economics, Finland,

Tel: +358403521428; Email:

Richard Oloruntoba

Supply Chain Management/Operations management/Logistics

School of Business and Management

Faculty of Business and Law

University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2324, Australia

Tel: +61 (0) 2 49217114; Email:

POMS 20th Annual Conference, Orlando, Florida, USA. May 1 to May 4, 2009

Abstract

Bangladesh, a densely populated country that is frequently beset by natural disasters, has been struck by three major cyclones in the past 37 years – but the resultant loss of life has diminished 100-fold (from some 300,000 in 1970 to around 4,000 in 2007). This bald statistic alone indicates that the Government of Bangladesh, together with a range of UN agencies and national and international NGOs, has developed an effective strategy that encompasses both disaster preparedness and response activities. This paper utilises the UK “Defence Lines of Development” model to analyse this strategy, and to identify key lessons that may be transferable to similar disasters such as the 2008 Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar/Burma that is estimated to have killed up to 1,000,000 people.

Keywords: Cyclones; humanitarian logistics; Bangladesh; disaster management; disaster strategies.

Introduction

There is a general acceptance that the frequency and severity of natural and man-made disasters is increasing, and that this is true whether it be counted in terms of the numbers of individuals killed, injured and affected, or in relation to the cost of response and recovery (McEntire, 1999; UN, 2006; EM-DAT, 2008). Whilst some of this increase may be the result of better reporting, the data clearly indicates that the Asia-Pacific region is one of the most disaster-prone regions in the world accounting for over 60 per cent of world’s disaster events (EM-DAT, 2008). For example, many countries in the region are frequently struck by a variety of disasters such as typhoons, earthquakes and floods that kill tens of thousands of people and caused billions of dollars in damage each year. Unfortunately, it is also anticipated that the situation will worsen in the future due to the effects of climate change (Dupont & Pearman, 2006).

Benson et al, (2001) argue that such disasters affect poorer countries disproportionately and, furthermore, that the poorer sections of the population are, typically, the most severely affected. Likewise, Samii (2008) suggests that 90% of all those affected by natural disasters are in countries of medium human development, and that two thirds of those killed are from countries of low human development. Nevertheless, natural disasters do occur also in more developed parts of the world causing major disruptions and affecting the population – although these do not usually result in massive loss of lives. There are, inevitably, exceptions such as the 1995 earthquake in Kobe (Japan) that killed over 5,000 people (USGS, 2009) and the 2009 Australian bushfires the death toll for which is likely to exceed 200 (AP, 2009). Usually, however, the seriousness of the effect of disasters in developed countries is reflected in financials terms as exemplified by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 which caused over US$ 26Bn of damage in Florida and Louisiana.

It is also important to note that recent records indicate that the first half of the 2008 hurricane season has been busier than usual in comparison with long term records. For example, in the period up to 1995 there were only some 5-7 storms each season whereas in 2008 there were 10 (NASA 2008). Given this increase in both the number and the effect of such severe weather events, action to mitigate their impact is clearly important. This can be achieved in a number of ways such as the work of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) that funds progammes including reforestation, coastal protection and agricultural and land-use planning, with the aim of reducing the impact of natural disasters (ADB 2004).

In addition however, and in the light of the history of natural disasters in the region, there is also clear benefit in countries learning from past experience and from each other. To an extent this is already taking place, for example in the case of Thailand where actions have been taken in order to mitigate the effects of future tsunamis hitting the region (Banomyong et al, 2008). However, the available literature is fragmented and mostly lacks a theoretical stand-point for its analysis. In addition, and despite the benefits of adopting a more systematic and scientific approach to learning from such past experiences, there is a dearth of empirically-based academic research on disaster lessons learned, and on comparative disaster mitigation and management. This paper aims to contribute to this void in the literature by focussing on the successful strategies that Bangladesh (aided by national and international aid agencies) has adopted in disaster preparedness and mitigation. Specifically, it will:

§  analyse Bangladesh’s response strategies to Cyclone SIDR (2007), using the United Kingdom Defence Lines of Development (DLOD) framework; and

§  identify and discuss the lessons that can be learned by other countries that face the threat of such cyclones.

Cyclone SIDR (and the associated response) has been selected as the basis for this research in the light of the massive decrease in the death toll experienced in Bangladesh over the period of some 4 decades of severe tropical cyclones. Thus, the track of SIDR, that struck in November 2007, was similar to its two major predecessors (BHOLA in 1970 and GORKY in 1991), and it devastated a similar area of the country. However, the estimated casualty figure of 4,234 deaths from SIDR (EM-DAT, 2008a) reflected a 100 fold improvement over the preceding 37 years. Unfortunately, the successful preparation and mitigation strategies of Bangladesh have not been emulated by neighbouring Burma as evidenced by the effects of Cyclone NARGIS in May 2008, in which somewhere between 138,000 people (Beck, 2008) and 1,000,000 (HRC, 2008) lost their lives.

O achieve this aim, the rest of the paper is structured as follows: first, an overview of the field of disaster management is presented and the disaster relief cycle discussed; second, the United Kingdom Defence Lines of Development (DLOD) model is justified as the framework against which the preparation and response strategies adopted by the Bangladeshi government are then analysed. Finally, a number of potential lessons and areas for further research are identified.

Disaster management and the disaster relief cycle

Disasters vary in size and effect, and there are a number of definitions, perspectives and conceptualisations to describe their outcomes. However, the most comprehensive database of emergency events defines an event as a “disaster” even if only 10 deaths have occurred (EM-DAT, 2008). By contrast, van Wassenhove (2006, p. 476) suggests that a disaster can be broadly defined as:

“a disruption that physically affects a system as a whole and threatens its priorities and goals”.

Whilst the United Nations (UN) (2004) defines a disaster as:

“A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society causing widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses which exceed the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources>”

Although, the primary focus of this paper is the Bangladeshi cyclones, the relatively broad definition of a disaster as offered by the UN usefully underpins the wide ranging nature of the analysis in this paper. Furthermore, the UN definition is aligned to the ‘all hazards approach’ that has been increasingly adopted by the Bangladeshi government in its disaster preparedness and mitigation activities and it will, therefore, be used as the basis for the research.

Within the UN definition, various types of disasters are distinguishable according to (1) the warning time (e.g. slow vs. rapid/sudden-onset disasters); (2) their causes (e.g. natural vs. man-made); and (3) according to their duration (van Wassenhove, 2006) (see fig. 1).

Fig. 1 A disaster taxonomy (van Wassenhove, 2006, p.476)

Thus, on one hand there are long-lasting events that can be characterised by continuous aid work (e.g. famine relief) and, on the other, disasters in which initial problems can be overcome in a relatively short time (Kovács Spens, 2007). Ludema and Roos (2000, p.144) further categorise disaster relief operations into: (1) emergency relief (an immediate response to a disaster); elementary (or subsistence) relief; rehabilitation relief (the restoration of everyday life); and developmental relief (aimed at improving a system such as education or gender). A similar phased approach to the management of humanitarian disasters is offered by Long (1997), although he suggests that in most cases there is a preparatory phase before a disaster strikes. This is in agreement to the Kovács and Spens (2007) model that offers three phases of disaster management, namely preparation, immediate response and reconstruction. However, a further view is offered by Safran (2005) and Houghton (2006) who emphasise the cyclical nature of disaster relief (see Figure 2). The reconstruction phase of disaster relief forms an essential link to a new preparation and prevention phase for future disasters. This is believed by the authors to be a particularly valuable insight and, as a result, Safran’s model is used as the basis for this research.


Figure 2: Phases of disaster relief (Safran, 2005)

Safran’s model adds an additional element of granularity to the immediate aftermath of disasters, distinguishing between two parts of the transition phase, the “disaster”, and the “emergency” elements. Whilst it is not possible to be absolute in terms of the timescale of these two elements, a broad estimate was made by Tatham and Kovács (2007) in which they suggest that the disaster element lasts until 5-7 days after the onset of the event, and the emergency element for a further 30-40 days. The key distinguishing feature being that the former is characterised by the extent to which relief is provided by local and national resources, whereas in the latter there is, typically, support from international agencies. In essence, the differentiation between the two elements reflects the reality that it takes some 5-7 days for the international system to react and respond to a disaster and put personnel, equipment and materiel on the ground.

It is also important to appreciate that there is a myriad of actors who are involved in disaster relief. Oloruntoba and Gray (2006) depict the humanitarian supply chain as including governmental donors, international agencies, international and local non-governmental organisations[1] (NGOs), community-based organisations and aid recipients. Van Wassenhove (2006, p. 477) considered the stakeholders of disaster relief which he suggests include “large numbers of uncoordinated and disparate donors, the media, governments, the military not to mention the final beneficiaries”. Kovács and Spens (2007) analysed humanitarian actors from the supply network perspective, and listed donors, aid agencies, NGOs, governments, the military and logistics providers as being involved in disaster relief; while Tatham and Kovács (2007) emphasised the importance of the media in influencing public opinion and governmental responses.

In essence, the disaster relief cycle may be characterised by its complexity in terms of both the origins of a particular disaster, the extent of the pre-disaster mitigation, and the involvement before, during and after of a broad range of actors who may have differing perspectives and agendas. Given this complexity, and in order to be able to understand how Bangladesh has been able to achieve such a dramatic reduction in the death toll from essentially similar severe weather events, it is clearly necessary to adopt a suitable analytical framework. The next section will, therefore, offer such a framework and the justification for its use.

The UK model of defence lines of development (DLODs) and capability management model (CMM)

It is recognized that, at first sight, it may seem a strange choice to employ a military model in a humanitarian context, but consideration of the characteristics of an emergency relief scenario demonstrates clear parallels between the environment of humanitarian and military operations. For example:

·  rapid on-set disasters frequently (although not exclusively) fall into the category of “uncertain future events” with the location, severity and outcomes difficult to accurately forecast (van Wassenhove, 2006);

·  rapid on-set disasters are characterized by major disruption to the physical infrastructure at the disaster site with an attendant negative impact on relief response (e.g. critical infrastructure like communications, electricity, and water do not work) (Pettit Beresford, 2005; Banipal, 2006; Denning, 2006; van Wassenhove, 2006);

·  there is frequently a loss of some of the normal functions of state (e.g. law enforcement, local government and, even in some cases, national government (e.g. in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina) (Derthick, 2007);

·  there is frequently an influx of both indigenous and foreign responding NGOs and, in many cases, military personnel (Couldrey & Morris, 2005; Telford Cosgrave, 2007; Khan, 2008);

·  the disaster area usually contains significant numbers of injured and/or traumatized individuals, with an equally large number of homeless and/or displaced persons and families (e.g. the estimated casualties in the 2008 Cyclone Nargis in Burma is between 138, 000 and 1,000,000 (HRC, 2008; Phillips et al, 2008); and

·  there is likely to be a convergence of the global news media (IBLF, 2005).

Therefore, given the similarities in the underlying environment in which both the humanitarian and military operations are conducted, it is potentially helpful to consider the utility of a model that was initially developed as a means of guiding the planning and execution of military operations – recognizing that the description of the operational military environments is markedly similar to that following a disaster as described above.

The fundamental role of the military is to defend a country and its population, and ensure its stability. Thus, for example, the UK’s Defence Vision states that the primary purpose of the Armed Forces is “to defend the UK and its interests” (MOD, 2009). Therefore, in peacetime, governments and, ultimately, tax-payers are prepared to maintain military forces “just in case”. In this regard, there is a clear difference between the military funding model and that of the typical humanitarian or disaster NGO which is, to a large extent, financially supported through governmental and private contributions that are provided after a disaster has taken place (Thomas & Fritz, 2005). Nevertheless, it is believed that the military capability-based model is one that the NGO community should aspire to move towards, and it is, therefore, used as the basis for our analysis of Bangladesh’s response strategies to Cyclone SIDR.