What the evidence says
100% of FbA beneficiaries reported that they evacuated to a cyclone shelter, whereas 97% of comparison households declared the same (+3%). Therefore FbA assistance was effective in ensuring that everyone evacuates (whereas without FbA, 3% of households might not have been evacuated).
Of those who received an early warning, 33% of FbA beneficiaries said they were warned by BDRCS vs. only 13% of the comparison group were warned by BDRCS (+20%); 81% of FbA beneficiaries were warned by CPP1 vs. 92% of the comparison group (-11%); and 46% of FbA beneficiaries vs. 32% of the comparison group were warned by mobile phone (+14%).
Evacuation of animals was lower among FbA beneficiaries (42%) than in the comparison group (53%) with a difference of -11%. Other variables measuring actions taken by households after the warning were not statistically different between the two groups. Although the provision of shelter space for livestock is included in the EAP, only 30% of FbA beneficiaries said there was a place for their livestock at the shelter vs. 44% of the comparison group (-14%). This was likely due to the fact that BDRCS was not able to select the shelters at which to provide services; therefore in many cases the shelters were far away and difficult to reach, thus livestock shelters could not be built there.
There was no difference in the number of days that intervention and non-intervention households were unable to work after the cyclone. Both groups reported the inability to work for an average of 40 days as a result of the cyclone. Overall, 29 percent of beneficiaries reported experiencing the death or loss of at least one animal because of the cyclone, compared to 63% of respondents from the comparison group. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of loss of “chickens and pigeons,” “cows and calves,”or “sheeps and goats.” However, only 29 percent of the FbA beneficiaries reported losing ducks compared to 46% percent of non-beneficiaries.
FbA beneficiaries reportedly received a higher level of assistance at the shelters, they had an overall better experience with less problems, and access to more services. The overall shelter experience was rated better by FbA beneficiaries, with an average score of 6.2 (out of 10) vs. 5.3 (out of 10) for the comparison group (+0.9 points). 75% of FbA beneficiaries reported receiving water at the cyclone shelter (serviced with support from BDRCS), vs. only 58% from the comparison group who were at a shelter not supported by BDRCS (+17%). With regard to COVID-19 precautions, 62% of FbA beneficiaries said to have received masks and hand sanitizer at the shelter vs. 33% of comparison households (+29%). 41% of FbA beneficiaries received hygiene items such as soap vs. 29% of comparison households (+12%). 73% of FbA beneficiaries said that light was provided at the shelter vs. 60% of comparison households (+13%).
There was no statistically significant difference in the food available to the two groups at the shelters.
FbA beneficiaries reported fewer problems at the cyclone shelters: 29% of FbA beneficiaries said there was a lack of water at the shelter vs. 49% of comparison group households (-20%); A lack of sanitation facilities was experienced by 43% of FbA beneficiaries vs. 61% of the comparison group (-18%); 60% of FbA beneficiaries at shelters supported by BDRCS complained about the lack of space at the shelter (overcrowding) vs. 74% of the comparison group who experienced the same at shelters without BDRCS support (-14%) (Figure 11).
15% of FbA beneficiaries reported experiencing health problems and physical injuries (such as bruises and fractures) after and because of the cyclone comparted to 27% of non-beneficiary comparison households, a 12 percent reduction (statistically significant at the 90% confidence level). However, no differences between the two groups were observed for other health concerns such as coughing, skin rashes, and diarrhoea, or for mental health and psychological distress.
Only 4 percent of beneficiary households resorted to destitution sales of house assets (such as cooking stoves, radios, fridges, beds, furniture) to obtain cash to cope with cyclone impacts compared to 58 percent of households in the comparison group (a 54% reduction, statistically signficant to 99%). However, beneficiaries were more likely (24 percent of beneficiaries vs 2 percent of non-beneficiaries) to sell other assets, like jewelry or clothing.
There was no statisitcally significant difference between the number of households in each group taking out new loans or the value or interest rate of those loans
The anticipatory interventions were effective in reducing impacts on agricultural activities. 29 percent of total respondents owned or rented land for agricultural or aquacultural cultivation. Of these, FbA beneficiaries reported losing an average of 52 decimals of cultivated crops/aquaculture compared to average losses of 109 decimals in the comparison group (-57 decimals). Cyclone-induced losses to aquaculture occur when storm surges increase the salinity of water above shrimp’s tolerance. Given that average Bangladeshi farmer cultivates only 74 decimals (0.74 acres or 0.3ha), the losses of 109 decimals reported by the highly vulnerable comparison group are likely overreported (Asian NGO Coalition, 2012). Finally 14 percent of FbA beneficiaries reported having to replant their crops as a consequence of the cyclone, eight percent more than respondents in the comparison group (6%).
