A pilot that prepared urban communities in 16 wards of Dhaka City for earthquakes by organising residents under their ward commissioners and linking them with the public agencies that would respond. It was run by the Bangladesh Disaster Preparedness Centre (BDPC) and Oxfam GB with funding from the European Commission’s humanitarian aid office (ECHO), between June 2004 and May 2005.
Map
Community-based earthquake risk management in Dhaka City
General Information
ISIG
A pilot in Dhaka City organised residents of 16 wards, led by their ward commissioners, to prepare for earthquakes and to work with the agencies that would respond.
The Bangladesh Disaster Preparedness Centre (BDPC) and Oxfam GB ran it with ECHO funding, and according to the case study it was the first community-based earthquake preparedness project in Bangladesh. Wards were chosen for their physical vulnerability and their interest, residents carried out a participatory vulnerability assessment, and deeper work followed in the eight most receptive and vulnerable wards. A central workshop with Dhaka City Corporation brought about 150 officials, ward commissioners and community representatives together, and ward commissioners then formed Ward Disaster Preparedness Committees of 11 members and 12 to 15 volunteers, who were trained and wrote work plans. Service providers such as the fire service and civil defence joined community meetings, one ward took part in a national mock exercise, and blood donor registers with 200 names were kept in two communities.
Many people in Bangladesh regarded a large earthquake as a distant risk, even though the case study says a UN urban earthquake risk project had rated Dhaka as high risk because of its dense population, weak buildings, poverty and limited response and recovery capacity. The 2001 Gujarat earthquake prompted national preparedness steps: a national seminar in March 2002, contingency plans from 17 service providers for the disaster ministry’s standing order, and a national mock demonstration in which they tested their plans. It was established that preparedness at community level was missing.
The project came at a time when building collapses in Dhaka (June 2004 and April 2005) and the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami had made residents more worried about their safety.
Hazard Type
Geographical Scope - Nuts
Geographical Scope
Population Size
Population Density
Needs Addressed
- Residents did not see earthquakes as a real threat and had no living memory of a major one.
- Dhaka has unplanned, high-rise and poorly built housing, congested neighbourhoods and exposed electrical lines.
- Residents and service providers had no dialogue; residents were negative about the service providers’ response, and the providers did not feel responsible towards communities.
- Preparedness plans existed for service providers but not for communities, and urban communities did not fit the usual rural idea of a community.
- Residents felt unable to strengthen their buildings because of their economic situation.
The case study does not target vulnerable groups by name directly, but school students took part in school orientation and in a community mock drama, and the vulnerability assessment asked for equal numbers of women and men among respondents.
BDPC and Oxfam GB led the project with ECHO funding. They worked with Dhaka City Corporation, whose urban planning department helped as a project facilitator and whose letters encouraged ward commissioners to take part, and with the Bangladesh Red Crescent Society’s youth volunteers programme and the blood donation organisation Sandhani. Ward commissioners headed the ward committees, and the service providers (fire service and civil defence, water, electricity and gas utilities) took part in community meetings.
At national level, 17 service providers had contingency plans and had tested them in a national mock demonstration, but communities had no plans, and residents were negative about the providers’ response.
Emergency services and utilities existed, but emergency response and recovery capacity were low, buildings were weak and congested, and there was a request for more equipment, skills and staff for the responding departments.
To create a dialogue between community groups and service providers, and to involve ward commissioners as leaders of community activities.
A day-long central workshop on 14 October 2004 with about 150 people, including the Dhaka mayor; sensitisation meetings in each ward; a participatory vulnerability assessment in which residents gave their views on service providers and policies; community coordination meetings that service providers attended; and a community’s participation in a national mock exercise.
Degree of influence: residents mapped their own vulnerability and capacity, hosted the meetings and made small contributions for venues and refreshments, and ward committee members wrote work plans that included further awareness activities. Residents mobilised for the national mock exercise and organised the community mock drama.
A day-long training for committee members and volunteers (disaster basics, earthquakes in Bangladesh, community-based disaster risk management, risk reduction, service providers, work plans), school orientation, a blood grouping programme, and residents’ requests for further training in first aid and search and rescue.
Vulnerable Groups
Governance
Emergency Preparedness
Infrastructure Readiness
Engagement Level
Empowerment Level
Implementation
- A working definition of an urban community as people with a common interest living close together, covering apartments, markets, schools, hospitals, factories and offices.
- Selection of receptive communities by testing the response to newspaper leaflets and by community inspection.
- Ward commissioners as the lead for community mobilisation, activated through a workshop with the city corporation.
- Ward Disaster Preparedness Committees of respected local people with young volunteers such as scouts and guides.
- Service providers brought into community meetings and into a national mock exercise with a community.
- Participatory vulnerability assessment run before and after the project.
Not stated in the sources reviewed, likely Bengali.
The Bangladesh Disaster Preparedness Centre (BDPC), a Bangladeshi organisation set up in 1992 that facilitates disaster management and preparedness work, and Oxfam GB, with ECHO funding. Dhaka City Corporation’s urban planning department, the Bangladesh Red Crescent Society’s youth and volunteers programme and Sandhani acted as project facilitators.
BDPC describes itself as a facilitator in disaster management, risk reduction and preparedness since 1992. The case study calls this project the first community-based earthquake approach in Bangladesh, so the partners’ own earthquake experience with communities was new.
The Bangladesh Disaster Preparedness Centre (BDPC); Oxfam GB; ECHO; Dhaka City Corporation (including its urban planning department and the mayor); ward commissioners and Ward Disaster Preparedness Committees; community volunteers including scouts and guides; Bangladesh Red Crescent Society youth volunteers; Sandhani; service providers (fire service and civil defence, the water, electricity and gas utilities); the disaster management ministry; schools and students; and the Asian Disaster Preparedness Center (ADPC), which published the case study.
- Defined an urban community for the project and set selection criteria: physical vulnerability and the community’s interest.
- Identified 30 communities with at least two physical risk factors, tested their response with newspaper leaflets and a community inspection with a checklist, and chose 16.
- Held a central workshop with Dhaka City Corporation, service providers, ward commissioners and community representatives (14 October 2004), and obtained the corporation’s letters asking the commissioners to take part.
- Had ward commissioners organise sensitisation meetings in their wards and ran a participatory vulnerability assessment with mapping in the 16 communities, then selected the 8 most receptive and vulnerable ones.
- Formed Ward Disaster Preparedness Committees chaired by the ward commissioners, trained committee members and volunteers, and prepared work plans, school orientation and a blood donor register.
- Involved service providers in community coordination meetings, took a ward into the national mock exercise, held a community mock drama and spread awareness through leaflets, posters and a television spot.
- Repeated the vulnerability assessment in the 16 communities at the end to assess awareness (results not reported in the case study).
ECHO funded the project through BDPC and Oxfam GB. Communities contributed venues and refreshments, and the ward committee in Lalbag provided a hall for 800 people free of charge for the community mock drama. The training was planned around available funds and the blood grouping programme was limited to two communities for lack of funds.
The project ran from June 2004 to May 2005 in staged steps: selecting communities, linking communities and service providers, sensitising, assessing vulnerability and building capacity. A repeat assessment was planned to measure change in awareness.
Experience of the Implementing Organisation in DRM
Target Audience
Resources Required
Timeframe & Phases
Participation Results
Brought in the community’s main decision maker, since the ward commissioners’ direct role helped mobilisation;
Planned events at times that suit residents;
Let the community host so that it feels the programme is its own;
Included items that serve the aim, such as video shows;
Working with the city corporation built rapport;
A mock drill was an effective way to raise awareness and capacity.
Low risk awareness: with no recent earthquake in living memory, the team chose receptive communities, used newspaper leaflets, and showed films of earthquakes elsewhere.
Distrust between residents and service providers: joint workshops and coordination meetings let each side explain its problems and limits, and attitudes became more positive.
Fitting an urban setting: the team wrote a working definition of an urban community so that buildings, markets, schools and offices could take part.
Limited time and money: training was one day, meetings were sometimes held at night, and the blood grouping programme covered two communities only.
Residents’ sense of helplessness over unsafe buildings: the project raised awareness of building codes and soil testing, and the case study calls on policy makers to enforce them.
Risk: residents lose interest or do not see the threat. Mitigation: select receptive communities and use leaflets, films and a mock drill.
Risk: ward commissioners do not engage. Mitigation: a workshop with the city corporation and its letters to the commissioners.
Risk: service providers stay distant from communities. Mitigation: involve them in community meetings and a national mock exercise.
Risk: meetings do not fit residents’ schedules. Mitigation: plan around residents’ convenience and let communities host.
Risk: limited funds. Mitigation: short training, small local contributions and a limited blood grouping programme.
Risk & Mitigation Plan
Scalability and Sustainability
Local ward committees led by ward commissioners, set up with one year of external funding. The case study reports no handover plan, funding or follow-up after May 2005, so continuation is not shown.
Repeating similar projects in other urban areas would speed up earthquake risk management at all levels. The list of further references includes a parallel community-based earthquake project in Sylhet City (2004–2005) run by another organisation. What would need local adaptation is the definition of community, the role of local government and the service providers involved.
The project used communication tools only: newspaper leaflets, posters, video shows, a television spot and community mapping.
No public information on the cost of the project was found in the sources reviewed. Based on the available information, it can be inferred that costs included staff and facilitators, a central workshop, training days, printed leaflets and posters, and a television spot.
No public information on running costs after the project was found. Based on the available information, keeping committees active would need meeting costs, volunteer time and refresher training, partly covered by communities, who paid for venues and refreshments during the project.
The case recommends that earthquake preparedness be written into the ministry’s standing order, that disaster management be built into city planning, that ward commissioners’ offices have contingency plans, that building codes and soil testing be enforced, and that similar projects be repeated in other urban areas.