When a flood occurs, what exactly is lost? Crops in the fields, household furniture, the gourd vines in the yard, the flowers in the garden—are these direct damages the ultimate economic cost of a disaster?
Let us consider some statistics. In the 2017 flood in the Kachiar Beel region of Sirajganj, the direct damage—loss of crops, household furniture, and other assets—amounted to only 2.44% of the annual income of the affected people. However, in that same year, the income of the people in the region declined by 21.49% compared to the previous year.
What caused such a stark disparity? How did damage amounting to only 2.44% result in a 21.49% decline in income? The unexplained income shortfall (21.49% – 2.44% = 19.05%) needed further investigation.
Understanding how the flood had such a profound economic impact took countless sleepless nights, rigorous discussions, and debates with experts. Finally, the answer became clear.
The 2017 flood was prolonged, with water levels rising and receding multiple times, preventing many farmers from planting transplanted Aman rice. Those who did take the risk faced substantial losses. Additionally, mustard, which is usually cultivated in these fields, could not be planted in many areas because the floodwaters took too long to recede. The delayed water retreat resulted in a late sowing season, reducing yields. Furthermore, a cold wave struck, further hampering mustard production. As a result, many farmers struggled even to recover their investments.
Floods and Economic Impact Beyond Direct Damage
Readers, observe this crucial insight: the economic consequences of the flood persisted long after the waters had receded. In reviewing disaster damage assessment forms prepared by the Ministry of Disaster Management, as well as forms from national and international institutions, it became evident that they primarily focused on counting submerged houses, affected croplands, and lost livestock. However, these forms could not fully capture the true extent of the economic losses suffered by the farmers of Kachiar Beel.
My deep dive into disaster economics led me to question traditional damage assessment models. I discussed my concerns with experts, including my esteemed teachers, Mr. Md. Juel Mia (Lecturer, IDMVS, University of Dhaka) and Dr. A.K.M. Nazrul Islam (Associate Professor, Dhaka School of Economics, University of Dhaka).
My research ultimately led me to Nobel Laureate Dr. Amartya Sen’s book Poverty and Famines, where he analyzed the economic dimensions of the 1943 Bengal Famine. His insights provided a theoretical framework that resonated deeply with my findings.
Dr. Amartya Sen’s Entitlement Theory and the economics of disasters
Before the 1943 famine, a moderate drought occurred in some parts of Bengal, resulting in a certain degree of crop failure. However, the direct damage was not catastrophic. Despite this, nearly 33% of Bengal’s population perished from starvation.
Dr. Sen’s analysis led to the development of the Food Entitlement Theory. He argued that for an individual to have access to a resource, they must have two types of access: physical access (availability of the resource without physical barriers) and legal/economic access (ownership or purchasing power to acquire the resource).
Although Bengal had enough rice to sustain its population, various wartime policies severely restricted the transport of food grains between regions. The British government destroyed boats to prevent a Japanese invasion, imposed restrictions on inter-regional trade, and prohibited farmers from traveling to harvest paddy in unaffected areas like Sylhet and Mymensingh. Consequently, food availability in famine-stricken areas plummeted, not due to an absolute shortage but due to a loss of physical access to food.
Moreover, even where food was available, exorbitant prices made it unaffordable for the poor, leading to starvation due to economic inaccessibility. Dr. Sen (1981) emphasized that the primary cause of the famine was not a lack of food but rather the breakdown of entitlement mechanisms that govern access to food.
Applying Entitlement Theory to the 2017 Sirajganj Flood
Inspired by Dr. Sen’s entitlement theory, I analyzed the economic impact of the 2017 flood in Sirajganj.
The flood caused agricultural lands to remain unused for months, and in some cases, the once three-crop lands turned into single or double-crop lands. Farmers retained legal ownership of their lands, yet they could not cultivate them due to physical inaccessibility. This mirrors Dr. Sen’s concept of loss of physical access, where ownership does not guarantee usability.
To validate this hypothesis, my research team and I developed a set of variables and tested them through a survey of 181 families in the region. The data revealed that, compared to 2016, the income of the people in Kachiar Beel dropped by 21.49% in 2017. The primary reason was the “land inaccessibility” caused by the flood.
A Solution-Oriented Approach: Mitigating Economic Loss from Floods
If we want to reduce the economic damage of floods, we must address the root causes that amplify losses. The key solution lies in altering land-use patterns to counteract flood-induced inaccessibility.
By integrating ecosystem analysis, labor dynamics, and financial structures, we can restructure the use of land, labor, and capital to minimize flood losses and even harness floodwater for economic growth.
The principles of disaster economics are not confined to floods alone. By applying similar frameworks, we can analyze and mitigate the effects of riverbank erosion, cyclones, earthquakes, and other disasters. The key lies in formulating Integrated Land Use and Disaster Transformation Plans tailored to specific regions and their agricultural ecosystems.
During my research, I developed a theoretical framework outlining such an integrated plan, which has been published in the International Journal of Disaster Response and Emergency Management (IJDEM), a peer-reviewed journal in the United States.
For an in-depth exploration of our findings and methodology, you may go through our article, linked below:
By reevaluating our understanding of disaster economics and implementing proactive strategies, we can not only mitigate losses but also transform disasters into opportunities for sustainable development.
