Dara - HRI

Bangladesh has unique disaster preparedness and response tools

Interview with Philip Tamminga

With more than 20 years experience in development and humanitarian action, Philip Tamminga took part in preparing the 2008 Humanitarian Response Index. For two weeks, he led the DARA team that studied the measures taken in Bangladesh after Cyclone Sidr in August 2007. For Philip Tamminga, the experience was fascinating.

You have participated in the preparation of the HRI for the first time. What’s your opinion of this initiative?

I believe it’s an excellent initiative. Before collaborating with DARA, I worked for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Federation and we used to ask ourselves how we could improve the communication channels with donors, understand their views as key actors in the humanitarian system, and get them to understand our point of view. We sought mutual understanding in order to improve responses. So, when I heard about DARA’s initiative, I thought it was an excellent idea because it focused on one part of the humanitarian system – donor intervention – which, until now, hadn’t received much attention. In effect, during the mission in Bangladesh, I was able to see how the HRI worked to highlight contributors’ strengths and weaknesses, and on this basis, define the areas that could be improved. And this is really positive, both for organisations in the field and for headquarters where policies are drawn up. In the day to day it’s easy to lose sight of certain things that could improve humanitarian aid. Therefore, I see it as a tool that can serve the entire humanitarian sector.

As a result of your participation in the HRI 2008, you studied the humanitarian emergency in Bangladesh caused by Hurricane Sidr. What makes this humanitarian crisis unique?

First of all, Bangladesh is a country that constantly suffers from natural disasters. Cyclone Sidr happened just two months after the floods in July and August 2007. The population was already in a vulnerable situation which was aggravated by the effects of one of the worst cyclones in the country’s history. This is why the enormous destruction compounded the situation of a very poor country with many limitations. Nevertheless, Bangladesh does have a surprisingly good level of preparedness and disaster response, which I think are unique in this context. Because of its long history of confronting natural disasters, Bangladesh has developed its own response capacity at the community level, as well as among NGOs and the government. And this was one of the reasons why the cyclone’s impact and consequences were much less severe than they were thirty or forty years ago. In 1971, nearly half a million people died from a disaster of similar characteristics. This time, in 2007, there were only 3,500 deaths. The drop in casualties is quite impressive: the country was able to take advantage of its investment in disaster preparedness in order to respond on all levels. Furthermore, donors and humanitarian actors have been collaborating for many years with the country and I think this relationship of trust and knowledge also played an important role. The international community already had an operative capacity and coordination mechanisms that were rapidly activated, and in addition, communication and coordination channels with the government and communities already existed. Lastly, I’d like to highlight the role of national NGOs and the communities themselves, as they both have a great deal of experience in disaster response. Without them, the situation would have been much more severe. However, there are issues that need to be taken very seriously in order to improve the response to future disasters in the country. For example, in February 2008, when the DARA team travelled to Bangladesh, there were still no firm commitments to finance recovery and rehabilitation efforts: there was a 60% funding gap compared to what the country needs. And this, of course, is a huge problem. The government and humanitarian organisations are finding it hard to cover needs in terms of shelter and livelihood recovery, and the response to these two key areas has not been fully effective.

For two weeks, you spoke directly to humanitarian actors working in Bangladesh. What was a normal working day like there?

We usually had a meeting in the morning at 8:00AM or 8:30AM to organise the day. During breakfast we would divide the tasks: who was going to what organisation to do interviews. Then, after 9:30AM or 10:00AM, we would begin the interviews. To be honest, the big challenge in the capital, which is where all the national and international organisations have their headquarters, is dealing with the traffic chaos, and sometimes it would take us an hour or an hour and a half to get from one appointment to the next. We tried to do between ten and fifteen interviews a day and be back at the hotel around 8 or 9 at night. Then, we held another meeting to share our impressions, analyse the responses and plan the following day. After that, each one of us would work for a couple of hours to compile all the data and organise our interview notes. So, the workdays were very long and intense: from 8:00AM until midnight. The good thing is that thanks to our team meetings, we could see that some answers appeared recurrently, helping us to create an overall picture of how the humanitarian actors intervened, and what worked well and what didn’t. And this gave us an overall viewpoint that even some organisations working there told us they were not able to achieve. Daily life was very interesting because each moment produced another piece of information that helped form this overarching perspective.

How do the humanitarian actors feel about the HRI initiative?

Very well. Of course a lot of work remains to be done to diseminate the initiative, but I don’t think there was a single person or organisation that questioned it. On the contrary, everyone thinks it’s a very positive proposal. They say it’s really interesting to be able to influence donor accountability. In the case of humanitarian organisations, owing to their policies, the conditions in which they receive aid and their commitment to beneficiaries, they are always open to, and subject to, evaluation to enhance transparency and accountability. And in this sense, the HRI initiative is truly welcome: many appreciate it because they can use the Index to initiate a more rewarding dialogue with donors; as a tool to raise donor awareness.

And from a more personal point of view, what was your overall impression of participating in this process?

It was really intense and interesting. It was my first visit to Bangladesh. When I got there, I was expecting to see more material damage. It was quite a surprise not to see mass destruction. But, obviously, when you talk to people, the situation is much worse than what you see on the surface. Now, I must admit that I was very surprised by how well the people recovered. On a personal level, it was fascinating, both the whole process and the chance to meet actors and wonderful people. People who have totally dedicated themselves to helping, in the best way possible, a country hit by a cyclone. People who are 100% committed, engaged and very interested in the HRI initiative. I felt quite happy because this task wasn’t difficult at all: nobody we interviewed raised any objections. In fact, it was quite the opposite. And the team was marvellous. It was a small group, but we all got on very well and worked together efficiently; everything just came together and worked out really well. And from my point of view, the team’s commitment and attitude was a true success and I liked that a lot.

Were all those hours of work worth it?

Of course, it was a pleasure! There were never any problems within the team and we shared everything. I think this is what made our mission a success. So, on a personal level, it was very interesting. Overall, the experience was fascinating. It was interesting to learn about the Humanitarian Response Index and see how it is developed on the ground. Working with the DARA team was wonderful: it’s a fully committed institution producing significant initiatives, such as the HRI, and it has an excellent work dynamic.

Translated by Heather Sutton and Fionnuala Ni Eigeartaigh