Disaster Risk Governance in Bangladesh: How Do NGOs Find Themselves in the Network?

Abstract

The roles and responsibilities of state-led organizations have remained the primary focus of disaster risk governance (DRG) literature. While integration of NGOs into formal disaster risk reduction (DRR) has been persistently promoted by the recent United Nations’ DRG frameworks to support state interventions, the low uptake of embracing core principles of DRR by NGOs is noted. Tension within network governance of DRG, including state and non-governmental actors, is also reported by several scholars, particularly in developing countries, but has not been investigated empirically with greater details. To contribute to this research agenda, the study aims to explore how NGOs perceive and value their contributions to DRG. Based on a structured questionnaire survey with development activists (DAs) from NGOs in the southwest coastal region of Bangladesh, the study found that reactive interventions (emergency response and post-disaster support) by them was perceived to be the most critical focus of DRG despite changing theoretical and global perspectives towards pre-disaster preparedness and mitigative measures. Vertical network governance was favoured within NGOs’ own networks outside the state’s direct supervision, identifying a critical role played by local NGOs. The capacity of leadership of NGOs was promoted by the respondents who worked in decision-making positions within their organizations, whilst professionals with lack of experience within the NGO sector tended to favour state actors. The findings could be critical in understanding local capacities and in co-creating hazard specific plans using various stakeholders.

Keywords

Disaster risk governance (DRG)disaster risk reduction (DRR)NGOs hazard cycle network governance Bangladesh

Introduction

Bangladesh is considered as one the most disaster-prone nations in the world due to its geographic and environmental susceptibility to natural hazardous events. This is further aggravated by the combined effects of a large population and unresponsive growth of built environments (Shaw et al., 2013). Bangladesh was ranked the 7th most affected country by climate change in the 2019 Global Climate Risk Index (Eckstein et al., 2019). According to the World Bank (2018), over 80% of Bangladesh’s population is potentially exposed to annual flooding and drought while more than 70% is exposed to cyclones (World Bank, 2018). The United Nations Development Panel reports that 219 natural disasters occurred in ∆Bangladesh between 1980 and 2008 causing damage worth US$16 billion across the country.

Several approaches and actions have been tested around the globe to reduce the impacts throughout the hazard cycle (i.e., pre-, during and post-stages). Disaster risk reduction (DRR) in most developing countries often remains highly contested due to the state’s inability to reach the grassroots level. In this respect, improving governance capacity is now increasingly emphasized to enhance community resilience and reduce risks locally as evident in Bangladesh and other countries that are most vulnerable to climate change impacts (Douglass, 2016). The roles and responsibilities of state-led organizations have remained the core focus in disaster and emergency management studies (Lassa, 2018). Stemming from a more neo-liberal thinking, disaster risk governance (DRG) has recently emerged as an inclusive concept as prescribed by international policy regimes (e.g., the International Decade for Disaster Reduction [1990–1999]; the Hyogo Framework for Action [2005–2015] and the Sendai Framework for DRR [2015–2030]). It proposes to shift away from a merely state-led intervention-based risk reduction approach to a more strategic and policy-oriented governance by creating negotiation and integration among multiple actors considering ‘legal, social, economic and institutional contexts’ (Douglass, 2016, p. 27).

In line with the global movement around the inclusive DRR approach and to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goal 11 (SDG 11, Sustainable Cities and Communities), DRG is explained as an agenda performed in a decentralized, multi-scalar and multi-disciplinary manner, which relies on a diverse knowledge base and actors (Etinay et al., 2018). The prerequisites of an effective DRG entail collaborative contributions of all stakeholders (state and non-state) throughout the hazard cycle, frequent interactions (along vertical and horizontal networks) among them and bilateral partnerships and mutual motivation between actors (Douglass, 2016). DRG facilitates the involvement of non-state actors as critical players who participate and cooperate to achieve shared development goals (Melo Zurita et al., 2015). Lassa (2018, p. 1) further ascertains that ‘recent shifts in attention to promote bolder engagements of (non-governmental organisations [NGOs], community-based organisations [CBOs]) and business communities in risk reduction can be seen as a necessary condition for the future resilience of society’. One of the comparative advantages of NGOs is their coverage at grassroots level, which allows them to respond to affected communities immediately. In some cases, NGOs play a greater role than the state in delivering disaster management services where the government is detached from community-level operations or unable to reach the grassroots level due to resource constraints (Kita, 2017).

Historically, NGOs primarily appeared to offer humanitarian services to disaster affected communities and then moved on to community development, environmental mobilization and awareness building works. Their role later shifted to a more collaborative and ecosystem-based approach since the beginning of the twenty-first century. Recently, NGOs have been heavily engaged in promoting community-based DRR programmes through their own efforts or through bilateral partnerships (e.g., local NGOs [LNGOs]/International NGOs [INGOs] or NGOs/state) as well as working towards disaster justice (Swapan et al., 2020). They have also been engaged in long term recovery of affected communities (Islam & Walkerden, 2015). The literature on NGO interventions in DRG highlights the opportunity to engage with DRR principles and build more resilient communities beside the state actors.

While there is a global trend in rolling out decentralization and strengthening partnerships between local government and NGOs, the low uptake of DRR principles in the core business of NGOs is also noted (Izumi & Shaw, 2012). For example, Seddiky et al. (2020) show that only a few of the more than 2,500 registered NGOs in Bangladesh are directly engaged in the DRG systems. It indicates both institutional and motivational challenges in the DRG approach. Previous studies suggest that engagement of NGOs in DRG is critical to reflect on the national progress in response to the Sendai Framework and its predecessors (Surianto et al., 2019). However, Kita (2017) reports on the poor performance of the overall national DRG system in many developing countries including Bangladesh due to lack of coordination and institutional impediments among key actors. There is a dearth of empirical studies investigating the status of such networks and landscape of perceptions and motivations of the actors to be involved in this process, particularly the NGOs who are one of the critical partners of the state actors, but this is mostly under-reported.

To address this research gap, the study aims to investigate how development activists (DAs)¹ perceive and value their contributions to DRG. In this regard, we first identify DAs’ perceptions towards interventions of DRG across the cycles of natural hazards. Secondly, the study seeks to characterize the role of the actors within the intra and inter sectoral network environment to deliver effective DRG outcomes, and finally to understand the extent of motivations of DAs for bilateral partnerships. The study contributes to the body of knowledge which can help better understand the actions and relationships undertaken and valued in the context of the DRG theory, frameworks and policy guidelines. The study is divided into seven broader sections. Following the background, it begins with defining NGOs in a disaster context and discussing the theoretical framework of DRG. The third section takes a comprehensive outlook of disaster management in Bangladesh to define various actors within the networks. Methods and analytical tools involved in the empirical study in Bangladesh follow in the fourth section. The fifth section reports on the results. The next section discusses key findings and finally we conclude with the future implications of DAs’ perceptions and lessons for better integration among key actors.

Framework for Disaster Risk Governance

Who Are NGOs?

NGOs are non-profit voluntary citizen groups acting as an organization at a local, regional, state or national level driven by task-oriented humanitarian services and functions. Mawlawi (1993) defines NGOs as private and voluntary non-profit organizations, which combine their skills in the service of shared ideals, concentrating on the influence of public policy and private behaviour as well as operational engagement and relief for disadvantaged communities (Guay et al., 2004). Broader literature on NGO practice in governance outlines that they are active through horizontal and vertical linking networks established to implement their development goals and are formally recognized as ‘third sector actors’ within the Sendai Framework. NGOs have a long humanitarian history in Bangladesh with their presence being felt as early as the 1970s, just after the independence (Davis, 2006). Recently, they have become key actors in DRG to combat increasing risks of climate change along with the state.

NGOs in Disaster Cycle: A Literature Review

Effective governance is critical to deliver sustainable development to human populations worldwide. Governance literature has come under scrutiny in recent years, coinciding with a greater understanding of the role of effective governance in ensuring prosperous and functional human settlements. Within the domain of disaster research, the ‘significance of governance in disaster risk management’ was endorsed by the Sendai Framework for Action (2015) as a formal governance strategy to prevent natural hazards becoming disasters (Kita, 2017, p. 245). DRG defines legal and policy framework, interrelationships and interactions between actors, and promotes practices that are effective in reducing disaster risks (Tierney, 2012). Miller and Douglass (2016) further highlight that DRG has emerged to extend beyond generalized procedures to embody varying actors, processes, structures and practices, both formal and informal within which information and knowledge are generated and applied to reduce disaster susceptibility. Ikeda and Nagasaka (2011) showed that the DRG framework is particularly effective when tailored to specific communities and groups in Japanese urban prefectures and rural districts to improve their coping capacity towards hazards. Garschagen (2016) also found that DRG in Vietnam plays an important role in reducing vulnerability to hazards at grassroots level, where more critical and closer engagement occurs between actors than at state or national level.

The risk reduction principles of both the Hyogo and Sendai frameworks offer insight into how the 3rd sector organizations and civil societies can be better equipped to provide more effective governance. In response, NGOs have increasingly been involved in reducing localized risk through multiple functions of DRR and disaster management (Olowu, 2010). DRR involves strategies and interventions aimed to reduce the risks from forthcoming disasters, including ‘mitigation, preparedness, and preventive measures, all based on data-led predictions’ (Seddiky et al., 2020, p. 4). Disaster management, on the other hand, refers to immediate response (e.g., emergency relief), recovery and rehabilitation (e.g., training, shelter and jobs) during the post-disaster phase in order to build community resilience. Previous studies suggest a greater evidence of NGOs’ involvement in disaster management interventions rather than in DRR. However, such interventions often become questionable for bias in designing programmes and projects induced by the external funding agencies and political elites (Gibson & Wisner, 2019). Financial irregularities and lack of accountability were also reported in relief disbursement and livelihood assistance to the affected communities in many South Asian countries (Cheema et al., 2016; Seddiky et al., 2020). A number of post-disaster studies in South Asian and African countries found that NGOs’ performances were undermined by misappropriation of donors’ funds, favouritism, corrupt practices, asset stripping and poor quality of relief goods (Islam et al., 2017; Kimemia, 2014). It is also noted that most countries place state actors as leaders of intersectoral collaboration and act as regulators and facilitators of network activity regarding DRG (Eyerkaufer et al., 2016). This raises further challenges, including a lack of mutual understanding and commitments between actors, transparency and responsibility across the hazard cycle (Tomasini et al., 2009).

DRG actions taken within the hazard cycle can be further explained against either the action or service itself, or the stages of the hazard cycle at which the said action occurred. The Sendai Framework (2015) outlines six DRG stages: prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery and rehabilitation. These are further narrowed down to three distinct stages by Acosta et al. (2013): pre-hazard preparedness, during-hazard response and post-hazard recovery. An environmental determinist approach in disaster research conceptualizes disaster as a product of physical casualties (Pelling, 2003). This theoretical approach traditionally relies heavily on trend analysis and technical solutions and invests in physical infrastructure to combat natural hazards, ‘usually at the expense of local knowledge and social adaptation strategies’ (Miller & Douglass, 2016, p. 3). It includes hazard mitigation infrastructure, hazard resilient design, micro-credit support and transit networks spread across the hazard cycle (Chan et al., 2012). More recently disaster governance literature borrowed ideas from the public administration domain to better understand the complex and legitimate governance for disaster management. This is particularly getting popular in theorizing resilience mechanisms (Duit, 2016). In this regard, the disaster administration theory (DAT) is introduced that tends to view DRG as a policy domain where the actors and agencies construct appropriate governance agendas/policies and establish links with local communities (Miller & Douglass, 2016). In this respect, DAT also endorses amplified roles of non-state actors (e.g., NGOs) in DRR and disaster management due to their comprehensive engagement in local development discourse. Vedder (2007) shows that while NGOs work collaboratively with both corporate and state actors in governance processes, INGOs have become more influential and involved at national-level governance in developing countries, often acting as the critical driver for DRG and sustainable development of the country.

Network Governance

The structural change of global governance practices transitioning into the twenty-first century highlights the emergence of network governance and growth of non-state actors. Promoted by the multi-level governance theories, network governance aids in understanding the vertical and horizontal interplay across institutions, within and outside their boundaries (Van Niekerk, 2015). It further contributes in ‘losing the policy gaps that may exist across (various) levels of government’ (Kita, 2017, p. 246). Network governance theory holds importance with increased global urbanization, exaggerating the vulnerability of human settlements to disasters and the rise of third-party government (non-state actors) (Miller & Douglass, 2016). Agranoff and McGuire (2003) further define new governance space as networks of collaborative management by various stakeholders, with issues being solved by multiple interconnected actors either horizontally or vertically. Collaboration between NGOs and local government is considered a key element in the DRG process and an absence of such partnerships could result in a poor outcome of overall DRR efforts. Islam et al. (2017) note that NGOs are often reluctant to collaborate with local government agencies. In a post-cyclone context in Bangladesh, their study found that NGOs disregarded such interactions due to the ‘fear of losing autonomy’ perceived ineffective outcome of such relations, lack of trust in local governments and the possibility of being controlled by political interests (Islam et al., 2017, p. 374). Therefore, it is imperative to understand the perceptions and motivations of NGOs in guiding an effective DRG process.

Network governance in DRG suggests that the role of NGOs can be defined by their interactions within respective networks between actors on different levels. It can be established across state-NGOs-community levels as well as within horizontal (same actor level: INGOs-regional/LNGOs) relationships. While the state is positioned as the leader of their vertical networks and the facilitator of horizontal networks to deliver DRG, Panday (2018) claims that NGO-driven DRG is more effective than state-led practice as they can establish vertical networks between themselves and communities at the local scale. It is contended that sectoral horizontal networks or 3rd sector relationships between NGOs and other charity-based or non-profit organizations are far more common and viable than NGO/corporate partnerships. Although many NGOs aim to build relationships on equal terms with localized institutions, the power balance of these relationships can become an issue (Schöneberg, 2017).

Disaster Governance in Bangladesh

In addition to its vulnerability, Bangladesh was chosen for this study due to its long affiliation with NGOs and their widespread contribution to development efforts in the country. Shifts in risk reduction practices and changing DRG networks have been embodied within Bangladesh to reduce the impacts of natural hazards on its human populations. This has contributed to changing national governance structures both organizationally and through policy frameworks to accommodate such transitions. The DRG structure of Bangladesh is a combination of its statutory management framework and organizational/institutional structure behind its national DRR and emergency response actions. Choudhury (2008) highlights that although NGOs have become key partners in transitioning to the risk reduction approach, the overall DRG structure of Bangladesh is still predominantly defined by the state and national-level government policy and management plans.

Legal and Policy Framework for DRG

Bangladesh has a well-established legal framework for hazard mitigation and management that facilitates all actions for hazard risk reduction and disaster risk mitigation. This shows a top-down policy approach to DRG in Bangladesh outlining four key policy instruments: (a) Disaster Management Act 2012 (DMA); (b) Disaster Management Policy (DMP); (c) National Plan for Disaster Management (NPDM 2016–2020); and (d) Standing Orders on Disaster (SOD). These instruments guide all actions relating to overall disaster management in this country, which in turn broadly influence its DRG regime. The DMA acts as its overarching statutory document for the facilitation of DRG and provides more of an administrative overview, rather than an action-based approach. DMA operates within the scope of DAT by placing its sole focus on the policy domain and the coordination of actors. The DMP states broad national objectives and strategies to follow for hazard risk management (Choudhury, 2008). On the other hand, SOD acts as a guideline for all state bodies and actors at all levels to follow in the wake of a hazardous event or disaster. Most importantly, SOD defines roles and responsibilities of the affiliated bodies and formalizes the contribution of NGOs and civil societies in the DRG process.

Organizational Governance Structure

The NPDM (2016‒2020) is a strategic document developed by the state under the Ministry of Disaster Management and Relief that provides an overall guideline for sectoral involvement in DRG. It focuses on the strategic outlook of a DMP that integrates risk reduction and emergency responses to the impact of natural, environmental and human induced hazardous events. The NPDM embodies Bangladesh’s national shift towards collaborative governance in order to reduce hazard risk through partnerships between government agencies and non-government actors (e.g., NGOs, academic institutions and private sectors). The plan also outlines guidelines for sectoral involvement in DRG, which is vertical in nature. However, none of the policy documents clearly delineate the scope of work, roles and responsibilities of the actors involved. In contrast to this, network governance is well defined in DRG through the SOD, which outlines categories and timing of actions needed to be taken by actors. It also prescribes the nature of interactions among different parties to deliver adequate preparedness, response and recovery for effective outcomes. This formalizes a cross-sectoral network collaboration in line with the Sendai Framework suggesting vertical relationships between state actors as outlined in the NPDM and horizontal relationships, with NGOs defined within the SOD.

Methods and Materials

We conducted a structured questionnaire survey on DAs representing NGOs working in the southwest coastal region of Bangladesh. The region is highly vulnerable to extreme cyclones every year and numerous NGOs are located there for community development as well as disaster risk management. The aim of the field study was to investigate the perceptions of DAs on DRG in their working jurisdiction. The questionnaire was developed along three key areas of DRG, which are identified as the study targets as well as outlined in the literature review (Figure 1):

Action within hazard cycle to determine the focus of the NGOs—The roles of the NGOs in the hazard cycle can be categorized into two phases (Mojtahedi & Oo, 2017; Seddiky et al., 2020):

Proactive approach—DRR approach or pre-hazard preparedness;

Reactive approach—Disaster management (includes emergency response and post-hazard recovery).

Effectiveness of network governance, which explains respondents’ understanding of vertical and horizontal interactions (within and between organizations) for DRG (Ikeda & Nagasaka, 2011).

Motivations and perceptions of DAs in terms of inter/intra-agency partnerships.

Figure 1.

Source: The authors.

A group of multiple-choice questions was utilized to address the first two topics (stated above) relating to the hazard cycle and interactions between actors. The questionnaire comprised 19 statements to investigate DA’s perceptions and motivations for bilateral partnerships. The 5-point Likert scale responses were applied for each statement to test the levels of agreement of the DAs. A set of questions about their professional background was listed at the end of the questionnaire to determine any influence on respondents’ perceptions. The list of NGOs working in the southwest region was collected from the NGO Affairs Bureau of Bangladesh. We selected 185 NGOs on the basis of their close involvement in disaster risk management and circulated survey information with an online link of the questionnaire during August 2019. By October 2019, a total of 162 valid responses were recorded.

A series of descriptive statistics was generated to understand the responses highlighting the NGOs’ focus and priority within the hazard cycle and levels of interaction with other actors in network governance. To determine the relative importance of the tasks performed by NGOs along the hazard cycle, a rank order analysis of the six criteria of DRG (i.e., prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, recovery and rehabilitation) outlined in the Sendai Framework was conducted. The following equation was used to calculate the average rank-order of individual criteria based on the total responses (Malhotra, 2019):

R = \frac{\sum^{​} {(r_{1} f_{1}) + \dots + (r_{n} f_{n})}}{N}

Equation 1

where R = final rank value calculated for each criterion; r = individual rank given by the respondent; f = frequency; n = no. of criteria identified (i.e., 1–6); and N = number of total respondents.

In order to summarize levels of agreement on bilateral partnerships (5-point Likert scale), a single weighted average score (agreement score) was calculated for each statement using the following equation (Swapan et al., 2017):

A v e r a g e a g r e e m e n t s c o r e = \frac{S A + A - D - S D}{S A + A + N + D + S D}

Equation 2

where SA = strongly agree; A = agree; N = neutral; D = disagree; and SD = strongly disagree.

Results

Profile of the Respondents

The participants of the survey represent a quite diverse professional background. Among 162 total respondents, 75% worked for 5–15 years in the NGO sector and 13% worked less than five years (Table 1). Around 62% of them had been working in the current position between one and five years. Around 60% of the survey participants were involved either with local or international NGOs. Almost half of them served in managerial positions during the survey and 27% were at entry level positions.

Table 1.

Professional Background of the Respondents

Variables	Sub-categories	Frequency	Percentage
Work experience in NGO sector	Less than one year	22	13.2
	One to five years	71	42.5
	Five to ten years	55	32.9
	10–15 years	13	7.8
	15–20 years	1	0.6
	25+ years	5	3.0
Current role	Top management	24	14.4
	Managerial	82	49.1
	Field officer	15	9.0
	Entry level	46	27.5
Work experience at current organization	Less than one year	38	22.8
	One to five years	103	61.7
	Five to ten years	6	3.6
	10–15 years	3	1.8
	15–20 years	17	10.2
Types of NGO worked for	Local NGO	55	32.9
	Regional NGO	37	22.2
	National NGO	26	15.6
	International NGO	49	29.3
Focus of NGOs	Preparedness/early warning	82	49.1
	Emergency response	25	15.0
	Short-term recovery	13	7.8
	Long term disaster risk reduction projects	47	28.1

Source: The authors.

Action within Hazard Cycle

First, the respondents were asked about the relative importance of the tasks they perform within DRG. A weighted average rank-order analysis score (out of 6) for individual DRG criteria reveals response (5.61) and preparedness (5.53) as the most important tasks for NGOs, while prevention (3.8) received the lowest importance from the respondents (Figure 2A calculated from Equation 1). Figure 2B shows that the respondents perceived ‘early detection monitoring systems’ as the most important aspects of the pre-hazard preparedness stage of a hazard cycle (26%) followed by ‘hazard response plans’ and ‘emergency material storage’. Providing hazard education and delivering disaster management plan and strategies (21%) were reported as the most frequent resources offered to affected communities across the overall hazard cycle (Figure 2C). In response to the post-hazard recovery stage, aid provision (food and water) was perceived as the most important task (29%) of cases while re-establishment of transport networks and provision of micro-credit were also highlighted (Figure 2D).

Figure 2.

Source: The authors.

A further compilation of the results indicating the roles of the respondents based on the scope of their NGOs within the hazard cycle demonstrates that organizational scope of work influenced NGOs’ contribution to DRG. The survey reveals that DAs from international organizations were mostly engaged in physical interventions (e.g., shelter and providing infrastructure and building materials), while NGOs at the regional and local scales contributed through services (e.g., food, clothing, medicine and household items) and material-based support (e.g., educational facilities, hazard education/disaster management plans and strategies) (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Source: The authors.

Interactions of NGOs with Other Actors in Network Governance

The literature and policy documents highlight that an active network governance is a critical factor of DRG practices for better outcomes. The survey results identified that the NGOs or international aid agencies primarily lead Bangladeshi DRG networks. However, as DAs were the sole actor surveyed, this data may be potentially skewed with a professional bias. When the scope of this was refined further to assess the hierarchy of these networks at an organizational level, it was revealed that smaller NGOs operated within governance networks, predominantly led by other bigger NGOs, while regional and national NGOs primarily operated within DRG networks, led by international aid organizations. Only 12% of surveyed respondents stated that state agencies were the leaders of the DRG networks they were a part of. Figure 4A shows that interactions between DAs with LNGOs are by far the most common, while DAs employed in decision making (managerial) positions most frequently interact with other actors in DRG networks (Figure 4B). Interactions with LNGOs during standard DRG work are shown to occur independently of scale of operations. These results also suggest a level of horizontal governance taking place between INGOs.

Figure 4.

Source: The authors.

Motivations of NGOs for Bilateral Partnerships

The respondents mostly showed a positive attitude towards working with other actors within DRG networks (60%‒70% of all responses) while there was no correlation between their frequency of interactions with other horizontal and vertical actors (e.g., state agencies, aid organizations and private corporations).

There was a comparatively positive attitude identified among the respondents towards NGO/state actor collaboration in delivering effective DRG, however NGO/NGO collaboration in DRG was favoured as more effective as well as the easiest relationship to maintain (overall agreement score = 0.47 calculated using Equation 2) (Table 2). A positive attitude was also revealed in terms of the effectiveness of a vertical network collaboration of NGOs in DRG, while NGOs were perceived as the most effective actor at local levels. There was a notable difference observed in perceiving the effectiveness of state actors and NGOs’ ability to provide effective DRG in the absence of state actors. A cross tabulation with the professional background of the respondents shows that DAs working for national NGOs most often provided contrary or non-confirming responses. This may have been because of the responses from a few DAs employed in national NGOs making discrepancies or outliers that were more prominent. The respondents from national level NGOs (13% of the total respondents) responded negatively to statements stating that ‘NGOs interact better with local communities than with other actors’ and that ‘local NGOs’ partnerships with larger NGOs help empower local community groups’.

Table 2.

Agreements over Bilateral Partnerships by the Respondents

Topics	Statements	Average Agreement Score	Agreement Scores by Professional Role at NGOs
Topics	Statements	Average Agreement Score	Top Management	Managerial	Entry Level	Field Staff
Perception on network governance	NGOs interact better with local communities than other actors	0.67	0.92	0.68	0.54	0.53
	NGOs lack the capacity to deliver DRG as a sole actor	0.19	0.08	0.13	0.23	0.35
	Network governance is effective in delivering good DRG	0.56	0.83	0.59	0.38	0.40
	Network governance leads to conflicting actor interests hindering development	−0.27	−0.58	−0.34	0.23	−0.12
	Network governance creates power struggles	−0.31	−0.50	−0.46	0.08	−0.02
Perception on NGO–NGO partnerships	Local NGO interaction with national/international NGOs leads to beneficial local knowledge	0.63	0.92	0.66	0.23	0.53
Perception on NGO–NGO partnerships	NGO/NGO collaboration is more effective due to share desired development outcomes	0.69	0.92	0.71	0.54	0.56
	Local NGOs’ partnerships with larger NGOs help empower local community groups	0.64	0.83	0.71	0.23	0.53
	NGO/NGO collaborations in disaster management are the easiest to maintain	0.47	0.83	0.51	0.23	0.26
	NGO/NGO collaboration in DRG achieves the best results	0.56	0.92	0.66	0.15	0.28
	Local NGOs are dependent on international/national NGOs to achieve desired goals	0.10	0.17	0.16	0.23	−0.09
Perception on NGO–state partnerships	Local NGO interaction with state departments leads to beneficial local knowledge for DRG	0.43	0.83	0.49	0.23	0.16
	NGO/State collaboration is more effective due to share desired development outcomes	0.40	0.08	0.46	0.83	0.12
	Local NGO/State partnerships help empower local community groups	0.42	0.08	0.46	0.92	0.16
	NGO/State collaborations in disaster management are the easiest to maintain	−0.07	0.13	−0.11	0.08	−0.14
	NGO/State collaboration in DRG achieves the best results	0.00	−0.08	0.10	0.08	−0.16
	Local NGOs are dependent on state agencies to achieve desired development goals	0.05	−0.08	−0.05	0.08	0.30
	State actors hinder NGOs’ ability to deliver effective governance	−0.20	0.25	−0.35	−0.38	−0.09
	State actors are effective at providing long term assistance to the affected communities	0.04	0.08	−0.01	0.77	−0.09

Source: The authors.

Note: Agreement scores were calculated using Equation 2.

DAs in decision making roles, who interact frequently with other actors, were less likely to perceive network governance to create conflicts between actors (Agreement score = −0.58) as well as create power struggles between actors (−0.50). They were also more likely to favour DRG collaboration between NGO actors. Overall responses showed that DAs in decision making positions are more likely to favour the effectiveness and ability of NGOs to deliver DRG within their own networks independent of state actors. On the other hand, entry level respondents were shown to find state actors more effective and viewed LNGOs as less capable in dealing with local disaster issues. They unanimously agreed with the statement that LNGOs are dependent on international/national NGOs to achieve desired goals. Overall, the less experienced the participants were in a professional setting, the more they perceived the dominance of state actors in the DRG process. Entry level DAs with a shorter career length were also more likely to perceive state actors as effective at providing long-term assistance to communities at risk from natural hazards than to all other groups (Agreement score = 0.77).

Discussion

Favouritism of Disaster Response

Natural hazards are not lone events in themselves, they are a culmination of a failed capacity to cope with them across the entirety of their cycle—pre-hazard preparedness, emergency response and post-hazard recovery. Recent paradigm shifts in global DRG practice emphasize a proactive approach including preparedness and mitigation during the pre-hazard stage. Findings of this study showed that NGOs still perceived the reactive strategy to be the most important approach for DRG actions (Figure 2). This is despite the nature of policy instruments guiding one towards more proactive measures to minimize potential risks. Implementing a strong organizational and strategic structure for DRG means Bangladesh now has the capacity to effectively act in the pre-hazard stages, rather than needing to rely heavily on aid distribution. While disaster management during and post-hazard phases is still viewed as an important stage in the hazard cycle, concerns have been raised across literature that this can lead to a relief dependency and foster devolution of hazard resilience. Justification of DAs’ perceptions and emphasis on disaster management rather than on preparedness can be attributed to the availability of funding from external sources and its importance to prevent sufferings of the affected communities. It is evident from policy instruments in Bangladesh that state activity is traditionally focused on hazard response, NGOs consequently act on state interests including the distribution of aid provisions and medical resources through utilising their horizontal links with other NGOs, and vertical links with impacted communities to distribute aid goods.

Importance of Environmental Determination Versus Disaster Administration Theory (DAT)

In this study, respondents perceived interventions in line with DAT to be more important components of preparedness, planning and delivering emergency services. In contrast, physical and direct interventions (refer to Environmental Determination attributes) are perceived to be less important components throughout the hazard cycle (Figure 2A). DRG literature, however, validates the importance of both theoretical spheres. It is equally important that hazard risks are often exaggerated without effectively supporting strategic frameworks and coordination of services and actors, while hazard resilient infrastructure is critical to pre-hazard and post-hazard stages. The SOD in Bangladesh defines the role of NGOs in the pre-hazard stage to be solely focused on actions that fit under DAT, including the production of hazard awareness campaigns and pre-hazard plans for communities they work with. Previous studies show that NGOs are extremely effective at providing these sorts of contributions to DRG as they are well connected to grassroots level. Unlike with pre-hazard preparedness, the role of NGOs in the post-disaster stage was perceived to be less influenced by the national policies. The difference in perception of DAT and environmental determination actions to pre- and post-stages of the hazard cycle demonstrates an imbalanced theoretical proposition to its cyclic functionality. Actions relating to hazard risk mitigation are shown across the hazard cycle to be a fluid process, with effective hazard recovery fostering increased pre-hazard preparedness. From an environmental determination scope, the connection between effective recovery and increased hazard preparedness is comparatively absent in Bangladesh. While the respondents’ perceptions are in favour of DAT, literature backs up the importance of DAT principles as being effective in breaking the cycle of relief dependency by fostering community resilience strategies (Padawangi, 2016).

Vertical and Horizontal Network Governance

The findings also identified that interactions between NGOs predominantly occurred on a vertical scale for risk governance. Horizontal coordination was also reported at the international and local scales. The hegemony of the vertical networks conforms with a strategic approach of DRG in Bangladesh. The respondents significantly supported the view that vertical collaboration among NGOs contributes to local development. While LNGOs have greater connectivity to impacted communities, they do not possess the same resource base as larger organizations. The larger NGOs with critical resources can capitalize on the credibility of LNGOs to deliver services during pre- and post-hazard stages.

The study indicates a consensus on limitations of state actors as the leaders of DRG in the country. This perceived ineffectiveness and inability of state actors may be attributed to endemic corruption and bureaucracy in Bangladeshi development sectors. However, there were no explicit comments mentioned by the respondents to testify to such distrust, rather, it could possibly be the NGOs’ viewing of disastrous events as symptoms of maldevelopment across the country. The study shows that the professional background of the respondents impacted on their perceptions regarding the effectiveness of state actors. For example, inexperienced DAs were less likely to view NGOs as capable actors on their own, suggesting they are reliant upon other actors in DRG facilitated by state actors. On the other hand, senior staff with longer work experiences and decision-making roles valued the capacity and the ability of NGOs to deliver DRG effectively and independently.

Finally, respondents revealed a universal willingness to work with other actors in DRG regardless of their sectoral nature or scope. This conforms to the current understanding of network governance, particularly in relation to DRG, given its adoption within formal frameworks such as the Sendai Framework. Despite initial positive perceptions, the average agreement scores of the statements on effectiveness of the NGO/state partnerships was significantly lower than that of NGO/NGO partnerships. This is particularly evident in terms of providing long-term assistance to the affected communities. It shows another instance of NGOs’ perception being contrary to recent DRG frameworks as well as Bangladeshi policy instruments, given that state actors are positioned as the leaders of DRG.

Conclusion

The study has outlined how NGOs holistically perceive and value their contribution to DRG in relation to theoretical and overarching frameworks. At the same time the risk perceptions of DAs to hazards from an overall perspective being contextually appropriate can be debated. The study found some key contrasts between Bangladeshi DRG practice, which can be critical in understanding local capacities and to co-create hazard specific plans. The study suggests that disaster development practice in Bangladesh could be enhanced with the integration of more communicative and interactive DRG initiatives at the community level, spearheaded by local organizations with better connection at the community level. Implementation of bottom-up strategies has the potential to reduce the spatial disparity of the top-down DRG approaches which have in the past seen disadvantaged groups marginalized. Bottom-up practice has been shown in other studies to increase resilience and empowerment at the community level, and may be used as a method to develop a more rights-based approach to DRG through empowerment and participation (Bongo et al., 2013). This study calls for further research in the future towards this direction.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Note

References

Acosta

J. D.

, Chandra

, & Ringel

J. S.

(2013). Nongovernmental resources to support disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 7(4), 348–353.

ADRC. (2019). Information on Disaster Risk Reduction of the Member Countries-Bangladesh. Asian Disaster Reduction Centre. https://www.adrc.asia/nationinformation.php?NationCode=50&Lang=en

Agranoff

, & McGuire

(2003). Collaborative public management: New strategies for local governments. Georgetown University Press.

Bongo

P. P.

, Chipangura

, Sithole

, & Moyo

(2013). A rights-based analysis of disaster risk reduction framework in Zimbabwe and its implications for policy and practice. JAMBA: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 5(2), 1–11.

Chan

F. K. S.

, Mitchell

, Adekola

, & McDonald

(2012). Flood risk in Asia’s urban mega-deltas: Drivers, impacts and response. Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 3(1), 41–61.

Cheema

A. R.

, Mehmood

, & Imran

(2016). Learning from the past. Disaster Prevention and Management, 25(4), 449–463.

Choudhury

J. R.

(2008). Disaster risk reduction national coordinating mechanisms in Bangladesh [Paper presentation]. Workshop on National Platforms, Davos, Switzerland. https://www.unisdr.org/preventionweb/files/3559_BangladeshNPworkshopDavos240808.pdf

Davis

J. K.

(2006). NGOs and development in Bangladesh: Whose sustainability counts [Paper presentation]. Anti-Poverty Academic Conference with International Participation, Perth.

Douglass

(2016). The urban transition of disaster governance in Asia. In Miller

M. A.

& Douglass

(Eds.), Disaster governance in urbanising Asia (pp. 13–43). Springer.

10.

Duit

(2016). Resilience thinking: Lessons for public administration. Public Administration, 94(2), 364–380.

11.

Eckstein

, Künzel

, Schäfer

, & Winges

(2019). Global climate risk index 2020: Who suffers most from extreme weather events? (Weather-Related Loss Events in 2018 and 1999 to 2018). Berlin Germanwatch e.V. Retrieved from https://www.germanwatch.org/sites/germanwatch.org/files/20-2-01e%20Global%20Climate%20Risk%20Index%202020_16.pdf

12.

Etinay

, Egbu

, & Murray

(2018). Building urban resilience for disaster risk management and disaster risk reduction. Procedia Engineering, 212, 575–582.

13.

Eyerkaufer

M. L.

, Lima

F. S.

, & Gonçalves

M. B.

(2016). Public and private partnership in disaster risk management. JAMBA: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 8(1), 1–10.

14.

Garschagen

(2016). Decentralizing urban disaster risk management in a centralized system? Agendas, actors and contentions in Vietnam. Habitat International, 52, 43–49.

15.

Gibson

, & Wisner

(2019). Global overview of the role of NGOs in natural hazard governance. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.013.187

16.

Guay

, Doh

J. P.

, & Sinclair

(2004). Non-governmental organizations, shareholder activism, and socially responsible investments: Ethical, strategic, and governance implications. Journal of Business Ethics, 52(1), 125–139.

17.

Ikeda

, & Nagasaka

(2011). An emergent framework of disaster risk governance towards innovating coping capability for reducing disaster risks in local communities. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 2(2), 1–9.

18.

Islam

, & Walkerden

(2015). How do links between households and NGOs promote disaster resilience and recovery? A case study of linking social networks on the Bangladeshi coast. Natural Hazards, 78(3), 1707–1727.

19.

Islam

, Walkerden

, & Amati

(2017). Households’ experience of local government during recovery from cyclones in coastal Bangladesh: Resilience, equity, and corruption. Natural Hazards, 85(1), 361–378.

20.

Izumi

, & Shaw

(2012). Role of NGOs in community-based disaster risk reduction. In Shaw

(Ed.), Community-based disaster risk reduction (Community, Environment and Disaster Risk Management) (Vol. 10, pp. 35–54). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

21.

Kimemia

(2014). Non-governmental organizations and corruption: The case of Kenya. In Mudacumura

& Morçöl

(Eds.), Challenges to democratic governance in developing countries (pp. 157–170). Springer.

22.

Kita

S. M.

(2017). Government doesn’t have the muscle: State, NGOs, local politics, and disaster risk governance in Malawi. Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 8(3), 244–267.

23.

Lassa

J. A.

(2018). Roles of non-government organizations in disaster risk reduction. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science (pp. 1–23). Oxford University Press.

24.

Malhotra

N. K.

(2019). Marketing research: An applied orientation (7th ed.). Pearson Higher Ed.

25.

Mawlawi

(1993). New conflicts, new challenges: The evolving role for non-governmental actors. Journal of International Affairs, 46(2), 391–413.

26.

Melo Zurita

M. d. L.

, Cook

, Harms

, & March

(2015). Towards new disaster governance: Subsidiarity as a critical tool. Environmental Policy and Governance, 25(6), 386–398.

27.

Miller

M. A.

, & Douglass

(2016). Disaster governance in an urbanising World region. In Miller

M. A.

& Douglass

(Eds.), Disaster governance in urbanising Asia (pp. 1–12). Springer.

28.

Mojtahedi

, & Oo

B. L.

(2017). Critical attributes for proactive engagement of stakeholders in disaster risk management. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 21, 35–43.

29.

Olowu

(2010). The Hyogo Framework for Action and its implications for disaster management and reduction in Africa. JAMBA: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 3(1), 303–320.

30.

Padawangi

(2016). Muddy resistance: Community empowerment in Mudflow disaster governance in Porong, Sidoarjo, Indonesia. In Miller

M. A.

& Douglass

(Eds.), Disaster governance in urbanising Asia (pp. 61–84). Springer.

31.

Panday

(2018). Making innovations work: Local government–NGO partnership and collaborative governance in rural Bangladesh. Development in Practice, 28(1), 125–137.

32.

Pelling

(2003). The vulnerability of cities: natural disasters and social resilience. Earthscan.

33.

Schöneberg

J. M.

(2017). NGO partnerships in Haiti: Clashes of discourse and reality. Third World Quarterly, 38(3), 604–620.

34.

Seddiky

M. A.

, Giggins

, & Gajendran

(2020). International principles of disaster risk reduction informing NGOs strategies for community based DRR mainstreaming: The Bangladesh context. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 48, 101580.

35.

Shaw

, Mallick

, & Islam

(2013). Disaster, risk and evolution of the concept. In Shaw

, Mallick

, & Islam

(Eds.), Disaster risk reduction approaches in Bangladesh: Methods, Approaches and Practices (pp. 3–22). Springer.

36.

Surianto

, Alim

, Nindrea

R. D.

, & Trisnantoro

(2019). Regional policy for disaster risk management in developing countries within the Sendai Framework: A systematic review. Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences, 7(13), 2213.

37.

Swapan

M. S. H.

, Ashikuzzaman

, & Iftekhar

(2020). Equitable access to formal disaster management programmes: Experience of residents of urban informal settlements in Bangladesh. In Lukasiewicz

& Baldwin

(Eds.), Natural hazards and disaster justice: Challenges for Australia and its neighbours. Palgrave Macmillan.

38.

Swapan

M. S. H.

, Iftekhar

M. S.

, & Li

(2017). Contextual variations in perceived social values of ecosystem services of urban parks: A comparative study of China and Australia. Cities, 61, 17–26.

39.

Tierney

(2012). Disaster governance: Social, political, and economic dimensions. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 37, 341–363.

40.

Tomasini

, Van Wassenhove

, & Van Wassenhove

(2009). Humanitarian logistics. Palgrave Macmillan.

41.

Van Niekerk

(2015). Disaster risk governance in Africa. Disaster Prevention and Management, 38(4), 858–877.

42.

Vedder

(2007). NGO involvement in international governance and policy: Sources of legitimacy. Brill.

43.

World Bank. (2018). Bangladesh disaster risk and climate resilience program. Retrieved from https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/bangladesh/brief/bangladesh-disaster-risk-climate-change-program#:~:text=The%20%24375%20million%20Multipurpose%20Disaster,climate%20chance%20and%20natural%20disasters