Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
G3 Progress Report
G3: Water Governance and Community Based Management
Date: 21/03/2012
1 | Page PPR
Introduction
The Ganges Basin Development Challenge (GBDC) commissioned by the CPWF, aims to increase resilience of agricultural and aquaculture systems in the Ganges delta focusing water and food security. There are five projects namely G1, G2, G3, G4 and G5 having different objectives under Ganges Basin Development Challenge (BDC) program. The Project G3 is titled Water governance and community based management. The International Water Management Institute (IWMI) is the lead institute for the G3 research project and is responsible for coordinating all research activities under G3 and its partners with the aim to produce high quality research outputs. Inundation, salinity intrusion and severe flooding in the coastal areas are frequent occurrences in Bangladesh. This leads to loss of life and property as well as severe impacts on livelihoods. The government of Bangladesh has invested steadily in coastal zone management through construction and rehabilitation of polders. Involvement of communities in management of polders is now enshrined in Bangladeshs Water Policy. This project tries to understand various aspects of water governance and communities based management of polders in coastal zones in Bangladesh and then suggest implementable policy options for improving polder governance in Bangladesh.
Research Questions
1. Is community management the best way of managing coastal polders in Bangladesh? If so, under what circumstances is it likely to work best? 2. If community management is indeed the way forward, what are the constraints that communities face in polder management? 3. What kind of policies and institution are needed so that communities can indeed actively participate in management of polders?
Study Area
The study area is located in the coastal zone of Bangladesh, i.e. the southern part of the country adjoining the Bay of Bengal. A polder is a man-made structure consisting of mud walls surrounding a hydrological unit. In earlier decades when polders were not constructed, low-lying areas of coastal zone were frequently flooded by salt water during high tide and most of the area remained fallow and cropping intensity was very low, livelihood opportunity was also poor because of less intensive economic activities. In order to increase agricultural production by preventing the land of coastal area from frequent tidal flooding and salinity intrusion the Coastal Embankment Project (CEP) was implemented in accordance with the Master Plan adopted in 1964. Under this program Bangladesh Water Development Board (BWDB) had built a series of polders enclosing the low-lying coastal areas. Coastal polders are the first large scale human intervention in the coastal area. Over the years it is learned that efficient water management involving active participation of local community is a prerequisite for polder management in enhancing agriculture and aquaculture production. The study area of G3 is within the Ganges basin of the coastal zone of Bangladesh, which is, shown in Figure 2.1. The study area includes five BWDB polders namely P-3, P-31, P-30, P-43/2f and P-24G and four LGED sub projects namely Bhagirabad-Jainkathi, Jabusha Beel, Baganchra-Badurgacha, Latabunia.
2 | Page
PPR
Polder Subprojects Polder 3 Polder 24G Polder 31 Polder 30 Polder 43-2F Latabunia Jabusha Jainkathi BaganchraBadurgacha
Location (Upazila) Debhata & Kaliganj Keshobpur Daacope Batiaghata Amtoli Dumuria Rupsha Sadar Dumuria
Agency BWDB BWDB BWDB BWDB BWDB LGED LGED LGED LGED
Level of Salinity High Increasing Average to High Low to Average Low High Average to High Low High
WMOs (Yes/No) and project No informal management Yes KJDRP Yes 4th Fisheries Yes IPSWAM Yes IPSWAM Yes- SSWRDP Yes SSWRDP Yes SSWRDP Yes SSWRDP
Management challenges Shrimp- paddy conflict Water logging and salinity Salinity and river erosion Water logging Water scarcity Disaster vulnerability Salinity Water scarcity Declining shrimp productivity
3 | Page
PPR
Methodology
During Phase 1, G3 commissioned literature reviews on key policies, gender, WMOs and sustainable agriculture-aquaculture practices to better understand the issues arising from the literature and research debates. This was complemented by base maps by IWM to better understand the infrastructure of the polder, identifying areas with well versus poorly functioning polder management and potential conflicts in terms of unauthorized sluice gates and illegal cuts. Based on these polders, Shushilan has been conducting a qualitative survey based on 70 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and 70 Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), where G3 will be able to systematically understand the different problems, solutions and challenges on the ground through situation analysis reports. By this time, IWM will also have completed participatory mapping of land and water use, for us to have better visual grasp of the various conflicts and tensions on the ground related to the use of land and water. Based on situation analysis and findings from the participatory mapping exercises, G3 plans to commission indepth case studies to better identify causal mechanisms and social processes for certain themes in Phase 2. In particularly, G3 aims to use findings from the qualitative phase for quantitative research that models different livelihood impacts based on different governance modes and structures. In order to assure uptake and capacity building, G3 would during Phase 2 and 3 organize stakeholder interactions to disseminate findings from the problem identification phase, from community level to senior policy levels.
4 | Page
PPR
Activities
Data&Cases
Detailed infrastructure and resource maps Inundation modeling Detailed problem identification through FGDs and Kis In-depth case studies
IMPACT
Policy Analysis & Communications
International quality research papers and journal articles Policy briefs and dissemination workshops Contribute to building up longer term resilience among the communities who live in coastal areas in Bangladesh
Outcomes
Policy impact
Partners
Shushilan, IWM, local universities, CGIAR centers Regional and national policy makers Coastal communities, local government institutions
Capacity building
Better management of polders that helps improve food security and livelihoods
5 | Page
PPR
KIs with senior officials to understand official perspectives on community participation and polder management
From 26th February to 2nd March 2012, the Project Leader and Research Manager conducted 15 KIs with senior officials from government agencies and donors such as ADB, Dutch Embassy, LGED, BWDB, JICA, South-West, IPSWAM, SSWRDP, World Bank, as well as academics from BCAS, CEGIS and BIDS. Through this exercise IWMI was able to gain better understanding of the contextual and historical issues shaping coastal water policies and projects, as well as the evolution of community participation. Through discourse analysis, we can attempt to critically reflect on what community participation entails for different institutions and we are better enabled to understand the differences between BWDB and LGED. We learned about several challenges and success stories and came across several insights on what needs to change in order for better polder governance to happen. One main finding is that there are severe problems of sustainability of maintenance after an intervention stops. Community based management of polders consists of two main concepts, operation and maintenance (O&M). Operation tends to mean the mechanisms on how to decide when to close and open the sluice gate, who will do this and how this will be paid and by whom. Maintenance involves that sluice gates and polders need to be maintenance and repaired, while silted khals need to be re-excavated to allow for proper drainage and water storage. In many instances O&M are used as one single word, however peoples incentives to participate in operation where they can derive visible and direct benefits, may be different from maintenance that is a more costly public good with not as tangible individual benefits. However, the difference between operation and maintenance is not reflected in most community based water management designs, rather project designs speak of O&M. What we have seen over and over again is that attempts at organizing farmers to maintain infrastructure tend to fail with very little results. This has led to a vicious cycle of moral hazard, where maintenance deteriorates to the point that the government must step in due to lack of incentive/collective action problem. This is exacerbated by the fact that the government does not have enough maintenance funds or manpower to match the requests. In sum, after an intervention stops there are problems of sustainability of maintenances due to lack of incentives among the community and little resources from government to match the maintenance requests. 6 | Page PPR
Study instruments
Shushilan in collaboration with IWMI has finalized the study instruments based on pre-testing (completed in polder 5, Satkhira on 17th February 2012). The instruments include 3 FGD checklists for the general community, WMOs and Landless, as well as 3 KI checklists BWDB/LGED/Union Parishad, WMO executive committee members and individual community members.
7 | Page
PPR
1. Sluice gates constructed and managed by BWDB or private individuals/ groups/UP (public) 2. High or low concentration of private pipe inlets and polder cuts 3. Sluice condition and problems 4. Geographical location (East, West, South, North) 5. Location along main river or minor river/ canal 6. Bagda/golda culture and agriculture practices
General Group
General group
Suelpur, Vara 17 February Shimla of 2012 Kaliganj Nichintapur, 17 February Parulia of 2012 Debhata Bashirabad, Parulia Debhata 17 February of 2012
General Group
General Group
Tarali of Kaliganj
19 February 2012
8 | Page
PPR
G3: Water Governance and Community Based Management Group Name Village and Union Date & time Contact person Status Complete Transcribi d Yes/No ng into Bangla (draft) Complete Completed d Complete d Completed Translati on into English (draft) Completed
General Group
Rangashisha, 19 February Shuvnkar, Parulia of 2012 Cell: Debhata 01714515109 General Group Batuadanga, 19 February Mr. Mozaffar Tarali of Kaliganj 2012 Hossain Cell: 01921 477859 LCS/Landless, Nichintapur, 17 February Mr. Mukarram, Male Parulia of 2012 Member, UP Debhata Cell: 01712 259852 LCS/landless Rangashisha, 19 February Shibpada, Male Parulia of 2012 Cell: Debhata 01748670488 LCS/landless Adorshogram, 19 female parulia February, 2012 LCS/landless Trali, Trali 20 female February, 20 Union level water Trali union 20 Md. Mainul management February, Hossain Chuto committee 2012 (WMC) Union level water Debhata union 20 Riazul Islam management February, committee 2012 (WMC) Sluice gate Boshontopur, 23 February Liton/Jamuna committee Debhata union Sl No 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Category of KII President WMC, Debhata upazila Female headed household Female headed household Big Paddy farmer Small Paddy farmer Big shrimp farmer Small shrimp farmer Affected person Illegal cutter/pipe inlet Case hanging person Gateman, BWDB Gateman, private (gate committee) SO, BWDB, Kaligonj Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed -
Completed
Complete d
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Completed
Complete d
Status Bangla -
English -
9 | Page
PPR
G3: Water Governance and Community Based Management Upazila Engineer, LGED, Kaligonj Sub-assistant Agriculture Officer, Kaligonj Fisheries officer, Kaligonj UP member, Parulia UP member, Parulia male, female, Completed Completed -
10 | Page
PPR
1.
Location, no. of vents, vent Size, silt & soffit Polder 3, 30, 31, Inventories of level, type of Structures, 24G, 43/2F and 4 regulator Active/ Inactive, Fall LGED subprojects board/Flap Gate Picture Inventories of Location Unauthorized Type Structures Size / Pipe Diameter Alignment of All the existing drainage Khal khal along with name So All the planned polders and LGED subprojects
RTK GPS and Level machines are used for this survey
2.
So Conducted by hand GPS and by using existing google image Hand GPS
3.
Completed All data collection except 50% work of 24G which will be completed
4.
Surrounding the polders All the planned Alignment of mentioning the existing polders and LGED Embankment condition subprojects Location of important features like educational institution, religious Institution, Important Office, Hatbazar etc
5.
All data collection except 50% work of 24G which will be completed March 2012
Hand GPS
11 | Page
PPR
The inventory surveys of existing structures are conducted for the Polder 3, 30, 31, 24G, 43/2F and 4 LGED subprojects. For the structure inventory the main features survey are location (GPS & also village name), type of structure (Pipe, regulator, Box culvert), no of vent, size of vent or dia, silt level, sofit level, deck level, Fall board/flap gate, active/inactive, condition (good, minor problem, major problem), interviewing of the local people if it is adequate or not. RTK GPS has been used to establish the reduced level on the deck level of the each structure with respect to IWM existing nearest BM/TBM values. Then the another team measure the silt level, soffit level, structure dimension by using level machine and tape and made interview of the local people for necessary information. During this data collection, inventory of the unauthorized structures constructed by the people for the own purpose also conducted. The alignment survey of embankment, Khals and roads and the Geographical coordinates of the feature in the polders and subprojects have been taken with Hand GPS. These maps identify the existing structures and who has created them (BWDB or local community people), while in a systematic way evaluating their current condition. We see especially in polders 3 and 31 that many informal sluice gates and pipes have been made on the embankment, G3 partners can then ask the people close to these areas why these structures have been made. Is it related to 12 | Page PPR
the changing function of the polder and the original design is ill-suited for these purposes? Or are there other reasons? Example of detailed BWDB structure information
Sl no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Structure name Per Batiaghata Sluicegate Per Batiaghata Regulator Aushkhali Regulator Titokhali Sluicegate Kholishabunia Regulator Sukdara Sluice Sukdara Sluice Amtola Regulator Kashidanga Sluice Kaimkhola Hula Sluice Mosherdanga Regulator Barunpara Sluice Gopalpur Sluice Katiangla Sluice Khejurtola Sluice Andaria Regulator Gagramary Sluice Fultola mot Sluice Kismot Fultola Regulator Kismot Fultola Sluice Shoilmary Shoilmary Khalishabunia Chak Shoilmary Hoglabunia Sluicegate Hatbati Sluicegate Hoglabunia Moddhopara Sluicegate Uttar Hoglabunia Sluice Khal name Per Batiaghata Khal Batiaghata Khal Kalar Khal No khal Kolatola khal No khal No khal Amtola khal Kashidanga sluice No khal Mosherdanga khal Barunpara khal Gopalpur khal Katiangla khal Khejurtola doani Khoria nodi No khal No khal Batiaghata Khal No khal Bheeler Khal Kata khal Thakuntole Khal Chak Shoilmary Hoglabunia khal Hatbati khal Balar khal No khal Village Per Batiaghata Per Batiaghata Aushkhali Titokhali Kholshibunia Sukdara Sukdara Gondamari Kashidanga Kaimkhola hula Mosherdanga Barunpara Gopalpur katiangla Khejurtola Andaria Gagramary Fultola Kismot fultola Kismot fultola Shoilmary Shoilmary Khalishabunia Chak Shoilmary Hoglabunia Hatbati Hoglabunia Uttar Hoglabunia Union Gangarampur Gangarampur Gangarampur Gangarampur Gangarampur Surkhali Surkhali Gangarampur Gangarampur Gangarampur Gangarampur Gangarampur Gangarampur Gangarampur Gangarampur Gangarampur Gangarampur Batiaghata Batiaghata Batiaghata Batiaghata Batiaghata Batiaghata Batiaghata Batiaghata Batiaghata Batiaghata Batiaghata Easting Northing 445167 445686 445862 446396 446530 447121 447885 448292 448844 449452 449930 451059 451663 451922 451821 451855 451950 451638 451015 450895 446199 446878 445780 447280 449704 450517 449430 448126 514210 513410 511587 509982 508654 506929 506522 505857 504755 503210 502988 503417 505162 506468 507879 508887 509412 511173 512834 513117 516295 517738 515561 517752 515434 514985 516277 517445 1 0.90 1.10 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1.80 0.00 0.80 1.50 0.90 1.50 0.90 0.90 1.50 0.60 1.07 0.90 1.50 0.90 1.50 1.50 0.00 1.15 1.20 1.10 1.80 0.95 0.95 1.20 0.90 1.22 1.22 1.80 1.10 1.80 Vent Vent Height Pipe dia nos width (m) (m) 0.75 2 1.50 1.80 0.00 1 1.50 1.80 0.00 1 0.90 0.90 0.00 2 1.50 1.80 0.00 0.50 1 0.90 0.80 0.00 2 1.50 1.80 0.00 0.45 0.55 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.75 0.00 Gate type Lift Gate Lift Gate Lift Gate Flap Gate Lift Gate Fall Board Fall Board Lift Gate Fall Board Fall Board Lift Gate Lift Gate Flap Gate Lift Gate Flap Gate Lift Gate Flap Gate Flap Gate Lift Gate Fall Board Lift Gate Flap Gate Lift Gate Fall Board Lift Gate Fall Board Lift Gate Fall Board Length Barrel (m) 4.80 5.00 5.00 18.00 4.80 13.00 13.00 4.00 13.00 13.00 4.00 16.00 7.30 4.00 18.00 3.70 14.00 15.00 4.30 14.00 5.00 7.30 7.70 16.00 4.65 15.00 15.00 15.40 Sill Level -0.13 -1.37 -0.85 -0.19 -0.76 1.32 0.03 -0.75 0.98 0.94 -0.84 -0.05 0.46 0.08 -0.31 -0.49 0.97 -0.05 -0.32 1.23 -0.32 -0.22 -0.59 0.00 -0.52 -0.31 -0.04 -0.63 Sofit level 0.89 0.43 0.95 0.71 1.05 1.82 0.83 1.05 1.43 1.49 0.96 0.08 1.61 1.28 0.79 1.31 1.92 0.99 0.88 2.13 0.90 1.00 1.24 Condition Good Good Good no gate Good Good Good d/s silted, gate broken, ironcap broken no fall board no need, no board good, iron cap broken good, no wheel no gate good, iron cap broken Active/ Inactive Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Inactive Active Active Active Active Inactive Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Active Inactive Active Active Active Active
barrel dammage iron cap broken no gate good railing broken d/s silted, good good good good u/s and d/s silted,barrel 0.00 damage 1.28 good 0.65 no gate 0.71 0.45 good, c/s siltation good, no gate
4. Md Chhiddikur Rahman
Fieldwork
All of them have started their formal research activities (i.e., review of literature, selection of research topic, preparation of questionnaires, selection of study villages, etc) from 01 January 2012 under the direct supervision of Prof. Tofazzul Miah. He has been working as Principal Investigator of the BAU component of G3 and is supervising the research activities of the fellows. It may be noted here that the duration of fellowship of serial Nos. 1 to 3 is 6 months, while this is 12 months for Md Chhiddikur Rahman. Fieldwork and data collection was completed in February 2012.
Challenges
Data collection from the respondents of remote villages in Khulna district was really challenging tasks for both male and female research fellows/enumerators. Transport and communication were the biggest problems for the researchers. All of them had to travel everyday from Upazila headquarter to the study villages by motor bike. But in the villages, walking was the only means of communication from one house to another respondents house and it took on an average 20 to 30 minutes. However, Dr Rayan Hayat Sarwer of WorldFish, Mr Aminul Islam, Dacope Area Manager of HEED, Bangladesh, Mr Subir Kumar Banarjee, Dacope Upazila Ag Extension Officer, Mr Amal Krishna Roy (retired worker of HEED, Bangladesh) of Batiaghata and Mr Sheikh Akhter Hossain (Honours final year student of Khulna University) of Latabunia under Dumuria Upazila extended the whole-hearted cooperation to arranging 14 | Page PPR
accommodation, transport and field level data collection. Despite the fact, the researchers had to face tremendous difficulties to obtain accurate information from the respondents since they did not maintain any written records for farm business transactions and/or household consumption. In other words, the enumerators had to rely on their memories and sincerity.
15 | Page
PPR
f.
In Bangladesh, there are two organizations in the water sector that implements water sector projects. These are LGED and BWDB. Both their projects incorporate participatory principles, but the way they actually operationalize it differs.
2. Things that we know a little about, but need to know more a. We know that polders now serve more functions than they were originally designed for. We also know that there have been design changes (either authorized or un-authorized, or what we will call informal changes) in terms of location and number of sluice and flushing gates and pipe inlets and outlets. But to the best of our knowledge, there is no comprehensive database of these design changes. Nor do we know how local communities negotiate and re-negotiate these changes and how it affects their day to day activities and their productive and non-productive uses of water. b. We know that there are formal and informal rules and institutions in place and these dictate norms of water use within polders, but we do not know enough about how these institutions and policies get affected by local power structures and by physical condition of the infrastructure. c. We know that conflicts are widespread, especially among powerful shrimp farmers and paddy farmers. We also know that there are environmental concerns regarding shrimp farming and the Supreme Court has recently ruled against shrimp farming. In some polders, criminal cases have been registered against those who have made unauthorized pipes. But we do not know enough about reasons for these unauthorized structures, the way court cases have been pursued and overall impact of these court cases. d. We know that landless contracting societies are an integral part of implementation of participatory water projects in Bangladesh, but we do not enough how they actually work and the impacts these have on landless people in the area. e. We know that LGED and BWDB differ in its approach to community participation in its water projects. But we do not know enough about how this difference gets translated on ground and how it affects outcomes in terms of both community participation and overall success of schemes. f. We know and it is also widely acknowledged that maintenance of infrastructure (gates, sluices, canals etc.) in the post project period is poor and communities are often unwilling to shoulder this responsibility. The donors and the governments too are unwilling to make adequate allocation for maintenance in the post project period. This syndrome of deferred maintenance is at the heart of built-neglect-rebuilt cycle of infrastructure development. What we do not enough is how do communities cope in face of deteriorating infrastructure and what can be done to reverse this vicious cycle of built-neglect-rebuild? g. We know that formal institutions created for polder management, such as WMGs, WMAs and WMCAs are only partially successful. But we do not know the conditions under which they are more likely to be successful and conditions under which they are most likely to fail. 3. Things we do not know about: a. The guidelines for participatory water management make it mandatory to include women in executive committee of WMAs and WMCAs. However, we do not know anything about the experiences of those women and the impact of their participation on their own lives and that on the functioning of WMA and WMCAs.
16 | Page
PPR