Analysis Report 3

7/31/2019 Analysis Report 3

1/84

- 1 -

G3: Water Governance and Community Based ManagementGanges Basin Development Challenge

Situation Analysis

Polder 3, Kaligonj and Debhata Upazila, Satkhira district

Report from

Sanjiv De Silva and Mahanambrota Das

Merged by Marie-Charlotte Buisson

October 2012
http://ganges-bdc.wikispaces.com/


2/84

- 2 -

ContentsAbout this report ............................... ................................ ................................ ................................. ............................ - 4 -1. INTRODUCTION ............................. ............................... ................................. ................................. ........................... 5

1.1. Aim of the report .............................. ................................ ................................ ................................. ...................... 51.2. Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................. ............................... ............................. 51.3. Overview of Polder 3 area ............................. ................................. ................................. ............................... ....... 9

1.3.1. Location and accessibility ............................. ................................ ................................. ................................ . 91.3.2. Demographic features ......................................................... ................................ ................................ .......... 101.3.3. Basic Facilities Access............................................... ................................ ................................ ..................... 121.3.3. History of the 3 polder and Physical Interventions ............................. ................................. .................... 13

2. FARMING SYSTEMS AND LIVELIHOODS ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 152.1. Past and Present (Changes) ............................ ................................. ................................. ............................... ..... 15

2.1.1. Agriculture ............................. ............................... ................................. ................................. ......................... 152.1.2. Fisheries ................................ ................................ ................................. ............................... ........................... 162.1.3. Livestock ................................ ............................... ................................. ................................ .......................... 17

2.2. Labour contracting societies and labourers ............................. ................................ ................................ .......... 172.2. Drinking water situation ................................. ................................. ............................... ................................. ..... 18

3. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF POLDER 3 ......................................................... ............................... ..... 193.1. Embankment, emergency and maintenance ................................. ............................... ................................. ..... 19

3.1.1. Condition of the Embankment ............................... ................................ ................................. .................... 193.1.2. Emergency response ................................ ................................. ............................... ................................. ..... 223.1.3. Maintenance of the embankment and roads ............................ ................................. ............................... 22

3.2. Sluice gates and inlets: Operation and Maintenance .............................. ................................. ......................... 233.2.1 Condition of the Sluice gates .............................. ................................. ................................. ......................... 233.2.2. Operation ........................................................................................................................................................ 24

3.3. Canals and re-excavation ............................................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 253.3.1. Condition of canals: Siltation .................................................. ................................. ............................... ..... 263.3.2. Canals: Leasing ............................. ................................. ................................ ................................ .......... 27

4. PARTICIPATION AND INFLUENCE ............................ ................................. ............................... ................ 27

5. INSTITUTIONAL COORINATION: ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ............................. .......... 295.1. Colonisation of the institutional framework ...................................................... ............................... ................ 295.2. Coordination ................................ ................................ ................................. ............................... ........................... 36


3/84

- 3 -

6. SUMMURY AND CONCLUSIONS .............................. ................................ ................................. .................... 36

Annex 1: Situation Report for Tarali Union ............................. ................................ ................................. .................... 41Annex 2: Situation Report for Parulia Union ................................ ................................. ............................... ................ 59Annex 3: Situation Report for Debhata Union ............................. ................................. ............................... ................ 71Annex 4: Situation Report for Bhara Simla Union ............................. ................................ ................................ .......... 78


4/84

- 4 -

About this report

This Situation Report was compiled primarily from information generated by Sushilan for the G3 Project

using semi-structured Focus Group Discussions and Key Informant Interviews in selected villages of selected

Unions found within this polder. The transcripts were coded and entered into the Atlas Ti software package(by Ms. Camelia Dewan of IWMI), following which queries were generated based on specific topics.

Union Village

Tarali Kharat, Batuadanga, Tarali, Purba Tetulia and Golkhali Satpur

Parulia Ranga Shisha, Nichintapur, Adorshogram Bashirabad and Komorpur

Debhata FGDs and KIIs conducted at Union level

Bharashimla Suelpur, Kandippur and Narayunpur

Nalta Nalta

Table 1 - Unions and villages covered by the study

It should be noted that the main report presents a summary of the more detailed information presented in

Annexes 1 to 4. These Annexes present a more detailed picture of the status in each of the four Unions

covered by this report, namely Tarali, Parulia, Debhata and Bhara Simla. As such, it is recommended that the

main report be read in conjunction with its Annexes. Although the union of Nalta was also covered by

Sushilan in its field surveys, it has been excluded in this report due to the extreme paucity of information.

Given that the analysis is still evolving, the available information from Sushilan has been presented atdifferent scales: sluice gate/canal, village, union and polder to provide as much detail as is available.

The information and views provided in this report should not be considered to be conclusive due to the

preliminary nature of the field work, the insufficiency of details with respect to several aspects, and the fact

that most of the responses by stakeholders are or are likely to be influenced by their individual or collective

interests and identities.


5/84

5

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Aim of the report

This report aspires to generate a detailed situation analysis report of polder 3 in Kaligonj and Debhata

sub-district of Satkhira district based on Focus Group Discussions (FGD) and Key Informant Interviews

(KII). It will do so by providing:

i) A historical narrative of the polder from the time it was constructed to present;

ii) Farming systems and livelihoods options;

iii) Current state of the polder infrastructure;

iv) Examining the results and process of the water management interventions of the BWDB

v) Reviewing how maintenance of water management infrastructure takes place;

vi) Reviewing how operation of sluice gates take place; and

vii) Discussing main conflicts.

It will then conclude by discussing the main findings and implementable policy recommendations that

came from the respondents for improving water management in the polder 3.

1.2. Methodology

Thirteen Focus Group Discussions and seventeen Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) were conducted by

the Shushilan research team from 17th February to 14th March, 2012. The FGDs were held in 13 venuesof 10 villages of Tarali and Varasimla Unions of Kaligonj Upazila and Parulia, Debhata sadar Unions of

Debhata Upazila. The venue of the FGDs were selected based on IWM map, transect walk and

consultation with the local people by considering various part of the union, distance from main rivers and

sluice gates, the situation of the rivers, canals, gates and concentration of various types of farming in

particular gher culture, paddy cultivation with or without aquaculture. The KIIs were selected through

snowball and opportunity process. The KIIs with farmers, women headed households, woman LCS

representative, gatemen were held at their village home and the KIIs with UP and BWDB officials were

held at the respective offices in the UP and Sub-district headquarters. Venues and time of KIIs were

selected through consultation with interviewees. The map below describes where the FGDs have been

conducted.

The map describes where the FGD have been conducted. The villages were selected according to their

location, sluice gates condition and concentration.

Suelpur village of Bhara Simla union (Sluice number 5 & 6): Southwest side of the polder,by the side of Ichamati River and Suelpur canal, highest concentration of private pipe inlets,

unauthorized cuts, sluice still active but has major problems, concentration of shrimp gher,

agriculture with and without aquaculture.

Nichintapur village of Parulia union (Sluice number 22& 23): Northern side of the polder,near Sapmara, Chengmari, Moyna canals; polder managed by BWDB drainage cum flushing sluice

gates, sluice gates active, not much problem, no adjoining unauthorized cuts.


6/84

6

Adorshogram village of Parulia Union (Sluice 22-24): Northern side of the polder, nearSapmari River and Chengmari canal, BWDB managed embankment, one sluice gate and active,

gher culture, aquaculture and very little agriculture.

Batuadanga village of Tarali UP (Sluice no 59-62): Southern side of the polder, near KaksialiRiver, canals -Tarali, Tuskhali, Kholisakhali, Kolkhali; BWDB sluice gates, unauthorized cuts, silted

canals, concentration of shrimp ghers, aquaculture.

Rangashiha village of Parulia union (Sluice number 34-37): Eastern side of polder,Banshdaha River, Rangashisa canal, private gates, unauthorized cuts, concentration of ghers, the

fastest and the largest gher existed, only aquaculture, no agriculture farming, high salinity, very

remote and acute drinking water crises.

Boshontopur villge of Debhata union (Sluice 11-17): Western side of the polder, very near toIchamoti River, nearer canals Sapmara, Bosontopur, Gopakhali, Sonakhali, Goalmari andSushilgati, UP managed sluice gates, unauthorized cuts, silted canals, gher culture, agriculture with

and without aquaculture.

Tarali village of Tarali Union (Sluice 48-60): South and South-east part of the polder, nearKakshiali and Habra River, canals- Sundarkhali, Tetuliya, Bariya & Gushuri, gates no 59 and 60 are

not in good condition, broken shutters, river erosion by the side of Kakshiali River, Tetuliya,

Gushuri canals silted, unauthorized cuts, concentration of ghers and very limited agriculture

practices.


7/84

7

Figure 1 - Localisation of the FGD


8/84

8

The list of FGD and KII is provided in Table 3 and 3.

FGD Type Numbers ofParticipants

(Female)

Numbers ofParticipants

(Male)

Total Village (para) UnionParishad

RelevantSluiceGate

Numbers

Adjoining Canals Age

Max Min

General 0 11 11 Suelpur, Varasimla

5&6 Ichamati,Suelpur khal

65 40

General 3 11 14 Nischintopur, Parulia 22 & 23 Sapmara, Chengmari,Moyna, Haldar khal

55 25

General 2 8 10 Tarali Tarali 58-62 Kaksiali, Tarali,Tuskhali, Kholisakhali

& Golkhali

60 32

General 0 10 10 Batuadanga Tarali 59-62 Kaksiali, Tarali.Tuskhali,

Kholisakhali, Kolkhali

65 28

General 1 8 9 Bashirabad Parulia 59-62 Tuskhali,

Kholisakhali, Kolkhali

30 51

General 1 10 11 Rangashisha Parulia 34-37 Banshdaha River,Rangashisa canal

47 31

LCS-female 10 0 10 Adorshogram Parulia 24 Sapmari river &Chengmari khal

22 50

LCS-female 9 0 9 Tarali Tarali 48-54 Kaksiali, Tarali,Tuskhali, Kholisakhali

& Golkhali

46 26

LCS-male 0 10 10 Nichintapur Parulia 22-24 Sapmara, Chengmari,Moyna, Haldar khal

52 30

LCS-male 0 12 12 Rangashisha Parulia 34-37 Banshdaha River,Rangashisa canal

60 25

Union

Level WMC

1 8 9 Debhata 11-17 Ichamoti, Sapmara.

Bosontopur,Gopakhali, Sonakhali,

Goalmari khal

72 30

UnionLevel WMC

2 8 10 Tarali Tarali 48-62 Kaksiali, Tarali,Tuskhali, Kholisakhali

& Golkhali

54 32

Gatecommittee

1 8 9 Boshontopur Debhataunion

11-14 Ichamoti, Sapmara,Gopakhali, Sushilgati

70 32

Table 2 - List of FGDs conducted in polder3


9/84

9

Respondent Type Village/ Venue

Affected person Trali village, taraliPaddy Farmer Nalta UPMixed farmer Chitra tetulpur, Tarali

Big shrimp farmer Varasimla

Medium shrimp farmer Batuadanga, taraliSmall shrimp farmer TaraliFemale headed household Batuadanga, TaraliFemale headed household Tarali UPPresident WMC, Debhata upazila Parulia UPGateman, BWDB Golkhali, Tarali UpGateman, private (gate committee) Trali UPGateman, Parulia Parulia UPIllegal cutter/pipe inlet VarasimlaCase hanging person Tarali UPUP member, male, ParuliaUP member, female, Parulia House of UP member,

Parulia

Table 3 - List of KII conducted in Polder 3

1.3. Overview of Polder 3 area

1.3.1. Location and accessibility

Location and Geographical Features

The southwest coastal region of Bangladesh is part of Ganges delta of which land is formed by the silt

deposit over the past millennia and where formation of new island and char is going on. The worlds

largest mangrove forest is located in the south, between the vast plain land and the Bay of Bengal. It

protects the area from the devastation of cyclone and tidal surges to a considerable extent. However, with

the gradual rise of sea level and increasing occurrence of cyclones, this deltaic plain (hardly a few feet

above sea level) is severely affected by such natural calamities.

Polder 3 comprises the southern half of Debhata (four UP) and northern half of Kaliganj Upazilla (three

UP) covering total area of 226 sq km. This area is encircled by 64 kms embankment along the two major

rivers in the west and south and two minor rivers in the north and east. The polder area has 86 kms

canals but two thirds of them are closed for having inadequate structures and gradual encroachment by

the gher owners. Polder 3 has two major rivers, Ichamoti in the west and Kakshiali in the south. Thesetwo rivers are navigable throughout the year. The Ichamoti which lies between Bangladesh and India

demarcates the border between the two.

To regulate water flow into the polder area and to drain out excess water, BWDB constructed 32 sluice

gates with steel shutters in the 1960s when the polder was built. Thereafter, to expand shrimp farming

area, local shrimp farmers either individually or collectively, constructed 23 sluice gates, usually without

formal approval of the BWDB but with informal deals with the local BWDB officials. And, practically all

of the about 85 pipe inlets are unauthorized.

The land profile of the study polder is saucer shaped, the lands along the riverbanks are a bit higher

elevated that the land in the middle of the polder and the land along the inner canals. Due to this


10/84

10

topographic feature, the settlement area and the villages are located along the river banks and along major

canals. Rural roads were also constructed along the river banks while inner side of the polder was

agricultural area, now the bulk of which is converted to shrimp gher. Expansion of shrimp farming later

encroached to a bit elevated land along the embankment taking advantage of the BWDB embankment,

sluice gates and canals. For further expansion of shrimp area, private sluice gates have been constructed

and pipe inlets set to bring brackish water from the river to the agriculture area.

Accessibility by road and waterways

Polder 3 has two major rivers, Ichamoti in the west and Kakshiali in the south. These two rivers are

navigable round the year. Ichamoti is a border river between Bangladesh and India. As a result, traffic

movement is restricted, hence waterway transportation is very limited. River Kakshiali has considerable

traffic and the river Bansbari in the east and Habra Khal in the north have limited navigability depending

on tide and monsoon water flows. In the past, water transport was important for both passenger and

cargo movement. Presently, passenger boat service is totally abandoned due to improved road network.

Goods transport is still continued but that too is gradually declining.

Polder 3 is connected to the district town Satkhira and divisional city Khulna by a regional highway.

Distance of Satkhira town from the centre of the polder is about 30 kms in the north and Khulna city

about 90 kms in the northeast. Dhaka city is about 400 kms northeast from polder 3. There is inter-

district bus service from Khulna, Dhaka and Satkhira to the polder area. Travel time needed from Sathira,

Khulna and Dhaka to the polder area is one hour, three hours, and ten hours respectively.

On the highways, bus and lorries are most frequent and convenient transport but in the short distance

people use rickshaw van and engine van even on the highways. In the feeder roads and rural roads, most

frequent transport is rickshaw van and engine van for both passenger and goods transportation.

In the past, bicycle service for passenger transport (called helicopter!) was very common. Now motorbike

service has replaced it. Another type of transport now expanding is battery operated three-wheeler called

autobike. In the rivers, main transport is mechanized boat which has almost entirely replaced both

country boat and motor launch. Country boats are still visible but on the decline.

1.3.2. Demographic features

Geographical area of polder 3 comprising six UPs of Debhata and Kaliganj Upazilla is 22,609 ha or about

194.29 sq km of which total population is 157,616 as per population census 2011 and 170,817 as per Land

Zoning Report of the two Upazilla. Population density per sq km is estimated 811.

A total of 37990 households lived in the study polder with average household size of 4.1. Sex Ratio

(defined as proportion of male population per 100 female population) was 100.30 in the study polder as

of 2011. It means that the study area had more men than women. In this polder Muslim population is

85%, Hindu and others 15%. Minority population is little bit more than national average.

Literacy rate of the population is 52.25% where male 56.05% and female 48.5%. Literacy rate is little bit

less than national average. .


11/84

11

Of the about 32,000 and 69,000 working population in Debhata and Kaliganj Upazilla respectively, 48

and 55 percent are engaged in agriculture (including fisheries and other sub sectors), 27 and 21 percent

are engaged in various trading, and 16 and 15 percent are engaged in the miscellaneous sector.

Table below shows occupation pattern of the working population in the two Upazillas.

Sector Number % of Working People

Debhata Kaliganj Debhata KaliganjAgriculture 15266 37793 48.18 54.84Industry 529 2097 1.67 3.04Construction 557 1085 1.76 1.57Transport 1086 1912 3.43 2.77Hotel/Restaurant 83 108 0.26 0.16Business 8448 14348 26.66 20.82Services 526 1520 1.66 2.21Others 5192 10047 16.39 14.58

All Working People 31687 68910 100.00 100.00

Source: Calculated on the basis of Census Data 2001. Community Series for Satkhira district

Table 4 - Occupation Pattern of the Working People

Debhata upazila Kaligonj upazila TotalPolder 3Debhata

upParulia

UPNoapara

UPBharashimla

UPNaltaUP

TaraliUP

Area (Sq km) 21.47 43.84 34.92 23.39 40.96 29.71 194.2915Household 3,901 7,784 6,597 5,749 8,270 5,689 37,990

Population Total 16,036 32,179 27,943 24,621 34,719 22,118 157,616

Density 747 734 800 1053 848 745 811Household Size 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.2 3.9 4.1Male Population 7,831 16,115 13,900 12,312 17,433 11,096 78,687

Female Population 8,205 16,064 14,043 12,309 17,286 11,022 78,929Sex Ratio 95 100 99 100 101 101 100Religion Muslim % 85.6 84.6 82.0 87.9 90.0 77.8 85.0Hindu % 14.4 15.4 18.0 12.1 10.0 22.2 15.0

Christian and others % 0 0.003 0.011 0.008 0.000 0.045 0.010Literacy All 57.2 49.7 53.7 48.8 53.9 50.2 52.25Literacy M 61.7 52.8 58 52.4 57.4 54 56.05Literacy F 52.9 46.6 49.5 45.2 50.4 46.4 48.5

Table 5 - Area and Population

Table 6 below shows employment status of male and female population of age 7 and above not attending

school. In polder 3, 83.5% of the males (of age 7+ not attending school) are employed in various

income earning activities and 0.1% are represented not working. Of the female of 7+ age group (not

attending school), 7.6% are reported to be working in various economic activities, 74.9% reported to be

engaged in household chores only and about 1.8% non-working.


12/84

12

Debhata upazila Kaligonj upazila TotalPolder 3

Debhataup ParuliaUP NoaparaUP BharashimlaUP Nalta UP TaraliUPPopulation age 7+ not in school 3,669 7,990 6,743 7,207 8,640 5,335 39,584Male 1,513 3,386 2,773 3,121 3,663 2,232 16,688Female 2,156 4,604 3,970 4,086 4,977 3,103 22,896Employed Male 1,234 2,842 2,455 2,601 2,934 1,875 13,941Employed Female 168 498 244 256 305 265 1,736% employed Male 81.6 83.9 88.5 83.3 80.1 84.0 83.5% employed Female 7.8 10.8 6.1 6.3 6.1 8.5 7.6% Looking for Job Male 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.5% Looking for Job Female 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1% in household work Male 0.5 0.5 1.4 1.1 1.6 2.1 1.2

% in household work Female 73.8 71.4 80.9 75.0 73.2 76.0 74.9% not working Male 17.4 15.4 9.6 15.1 17.7 13.0 14.7% not working Female 18.3 8.6 10.0 9.7 8.0 12.9 1.8

Table 6 - Employment Status of Polder Area People (age 7+ not in school)

Table 7 below shows distribution of male and female working population by broad economic sectors. In

polder 3, about three fourth (73.82%) of the male workers are engaged in the agriculture sector, only

3.5% in industries and near about one fourth (22.68%) in the service sectors. Besides, of the female

workers, about 57.49% are engaged in the agriculture sector, about 39.17% in service sector and only

3.34% in industry sector. Many of women workers employed in service sectors such shrimp ghers and

shrimp processing.


UPParulia

UPNoapara

UPBharashimla

UPNaltaUP

TaraliUP

Agriculture % of male worker 61.67 78.92 73.44 55.52 84.66 82.99 73.82

Agriculture % of female worker 41.67 69.88 58.61 42.97 67.21 46.04 57.49

Industry % of male worker 0.89 1.69 1.18 6.15 5.69 3.89 3.50

Industry % of female worker 1.19 1.00 2.87 5.47 9.18 0.75 3.34

Services % of male worker 37.44 19.39 25.38 38.33 9.65 13.12 22.68

Services % of female worker 57.14 29.12 38.52 51.56 23.61 53.21 39.17

Source: BBS, Population Census 2011, Community Series for Satkhira district

Table 7 - Employment of Working Population by Broad Sectors

1.3.3. Basic Facilities Access

Table 6 below shows about 94% of the households of polder 3 have access to water source such as tube-

well or tape and the remaining of them collect drinking water from nearby deep tube-wells. In polder 3

about 36.3% households have water sealed latrines and about 39% have ring-slab latrine (sanitary but not


13/84

13

water sealed). About 22% use non sanitary latrine and about 2% do not have latrine. About 38% of the

households of this polder have access to electricity.


upParulia

UPNoapara

UPBharashimla

UPNaltaUP

TaraliUP

Sanitary Toilet water sealed % 50.3 62.1 47.1 10.3 26.2 21.6 36.3

Sanitary not water sealed % 30.2 21.4 34.3 55.9 40 53.9 39.3

Non sanitary% 17.3 13.1 17.40 33.2 30.1 23.2 22.4

No latrine % 2.2 3.4 1.1 0.7 3.7 1.3 2.1

water source:TW/Tape % 97.6 96.6 91 93.2 90.2 98 94.4

Electicity Connected % 35.5 41.7 49.6 31.2 44.9 27.2 38.4

Source: BBS, Population Census 2011, Community Series for Satkhira district

Table 8 - Availability of or Access to Basic Facilities

1.3.3. History of the 3 polder and Physical Interventions

History of polder development

The polder area was at one time part of the Sundarbans. Still today, remains of Sundari and other trees are

found when ponds are excavated. Along the marshy land near the river bank or in the char, various

species of mangrove trees and plants are found such as gewa, goran, bain, kakra, kewra and goolpata.

These are now decreasing. Along the highways, roads and embankment plantation of quick growing

timber trees like raintree, mehogoni, shishu, eucalyptus, chambul etc. are found. In the past, fruit treeswere abundant such as mango, and date palm plantation was very popular to make indigenous sugar from

its juice.

In the homestead area, people plant mainly quick growing timer trees such as raintree and mehogoni.

Coconut plantation is popular and a new fruit, sofeda grow well in the salty soil.

Mainly to protect the agricultural crops and human settlements, the then Government of East Pakistan,

through its Water and Power Development Board, with the assistance of the World Bank, took up a

massive program in the 1960s of constructing embankment coving the entire coastal region. After

independence, Government of Bangladesh continued it. As per comments of BWDB officials of Kaligonj

Upazila, the polder 3 had been constructed in 1960s by WAPDA, now its called BWDB.

Polder is a water management unit surrounded by embankment constructed along the river banks with

the provision of sluice gates to regulate water flow.

The polders initially helped protecting agriculture. But complexities grew over the decades. In the past,

silt deposit was spread over the whole deltaic plains but after construction of the polders it has been

largely confined to river area and major canals. As a result, the rivers and canals silted up more rapidly and

water logging increased inside of the polders, crops and settlement lands drowned and gradually crop

production became increasingly difficult.


14/84

14

The economy of the region is still agricultural. Paddy, shrimp and fish are the main produces. However,

paddy area and production decreased over the past three decades for rapid expansion of shrimp farming

while shrimp area and production both expanded although shrimp yield remained low for not applying

appropriate technology and good management practices. With shrimp farming, culture of fin fish is

combined, particularly tilapia, carp, parsheand small shrimp includingharinaand chaka. Goldafarming is

rare as high salinity in the area and longer farming season made it less attractive.

Presently, the polder area economy comprises two main sub sectors- crop agriculture, mainly paddy

farming and aquaculture, mainlybagdashrimp. Most economic activities in the area are shrimp based such

as shrimp trading, shrimp fry trading, processing plants, ice making, shrimp packing, transportation, land

leasing,

Current land use pattern shows that 29% of the area is used for crop production (mainly paddy), 47% is

used for aquaculture (mainly bagda shrimp mixed with fin fish), 17% used for housing and settlement

(including homestead garden, plantation), 5% area is under water bodies (rivers and canals) and 2% is

used for urban housing and establishments.

As per comments of gatemen and BWDB officials, in the absence of the BWDB gateman, thegherowners

open and close the gates as per their needs although they are not officially authorized for this. In many

places, the gher owners hired gatemen and are paying them privately. Often, the gher owners open the

gate at midnight so that nobody can witness and complain specifically with the identification of the

offenders. Lots of unauthorized cuts and pipe inlets are found in this area to take salt water from the river

to the shrimp gher area. In many places, gher owners constructed private gates. In a few cases, BWDB

approved design but most often private gates are constructed without permission. People avoid taking

permission because it is time consuming due to bureaucratic system, often not giving decision. Further,

the designs approved by the BWDB are more expensive to follow. Gher owners use the gates like private

property and do not want to give water to other people. Occasionally, they agree to give water but chargea fee. Other gher owners (excepting those controlling the gate) often dont want to pay for water and thus

they cut the polder or make new pipe inlets to get their required water. Thus, the number of cuts and pipe

inlets are increasing, risking the embankment. Former gate committees are not active. New committees

are formed under the leadership of UP Chair but this too is yet to become active. In the absence of

BWDB gateman there is none from the government side to take care of the gates.

The sluice gates are effectively occupied by local elites or large gher owners and they mange it either

individually by large gher owner or collectively by a group of gher owners (a sort of informal committees

are formed in such case). Khas canals are leased out. This creates social conflicts because the small and

marginalgherowners are negatively affected by excessive saline water due to selfishness of large shrimp

farmers who get lease and take control of the canals. Womens suffering increased in many folds becausethey have to collect drinking from far away.

There are four types of land use which includes settlements along the rural roads in the elevated areas,

crop agriculture next to settlement area and up to about three hundred meters towards the middle of the

polder, only aquaculture in the low land area which is the main cultivation of the union and integrated rice

and fish in two wetland areas like Khejur Bari Beel and Shegun Bari Beel. Bagda cultivation started in

80s. Salinity level for bagda requires a range between 5 ppt. to 18 ppt. People usually start bagda

cultivation when salinity remains 5 ppt. to 7 ppt in Jan-Feb. Bagda season includes January to October

and Golda (in limited areas) from March to December. They also cultivate other fresh water species

during monsoon mixed with shrimp.


15/84

15

2. FARMING SYSTEMS AND LIVELIHOODS

2.1. Past and Present (Changes)

As indicated by the tables 3 to 5 below, we can see that several changes have happened to traditional

agrarian livelihood systems following the introduction of saline shrimp (bagda) culture.

2.1.1. Agriculture

Prior to construction of the embankment, salinity and water logging had made agriculture virtually

impossible in this area. The situation was been reversed after the embankment prevented saline water

entering cultivable land, and harvests were good until the proliferation of bagda farms since the 1980s and

attendant issues of water and soil salinity. As shown by Table 9, the decline in agriculture (primarilypaddy) and with it the primary livelihood activity, has been dramatic. Bagda farming has virtually replaced

agriculture as the main economic land use, accounting for 47% of the land, while agriculture has dwindled

to 29% (with production restricted mainly to the rainy season). Housing and settlements (including

homestead garden, plantation) account for 17% while 5% of the land is under water bodies (rivers and

canals) and 2% is used for urban housing. Consequently, most economic activities in the area are shrimp

based such as shrimp trading, shrimp fry trading, shrimp processing, ice making, shrimp packing,

transportation and land leasing.

Union Status

Tarali Agricultural land use and paddy production, productivity and profits declined. Landconverted to ghers or is too saline. Cultivation mainly in rainy seasons. Shift to modern

(over traditional) paddy varieties (e.g. Amon rice, BRRI 23, BR-10, 11, 12, 23, 30 and 41).

Higher dependence on chemical fertilisers. Cost of fertiliser risen from 4 to 20 takka.

Bagda-linked salinity (water and soil) is the primary agent of change. Farmers with land

on higher ground are at an advantage - less salinity and flooding.

Irrigation not needed earlier as agriculture (and indigenous aquaculture) was based on the

natural flow of rain (rainfed). Now irrigating by tube wells at 200 hand length intervals.

GW tables falling - sometimes there is no water even at 1200 feet. Paddy is mixed with

white fish (Ruhi, Mrigel, Tablet) during monsoon in some areas. Significant decline in

vegetables and fruit trees.

Parulia No or only limited crop cultivation as all cultivable lands are used for shrimp culture.

now limited to the rainy season. Water salinity and water logging. Salinity levels are high

in the soil as well, preventing rice production in the summer. Significant decline in

vegetables and fruit trees.

Debhata Paddy (aman), jute, mustard and wheat grown after embankment was made. Paddy yield

was 12 sacks/ bigha. Some High Yielding Variety (HYV) yielded over 20 sacks/bigha. As

fresh water was available, irrigation was not essential. Today, crop cultivation has

decreased due to siltation of canals, waterlogging and salinity caused by shrimp ponds. In

the area of sluice gates 11-17, sweet water is still available in the rainy season and aman

paddy is cultivated. Varieties used are Boro (winter) using deep tube wells, and Jamaibabu


16/84

16

Union Status

and BR-28. Some Bagda and Aman rice during the rainy season.

Bhara

Simla

In the past, all types of crops were produced. No scarcity of food. Production reduced

due to increase salinity. 70% of paddy is Aman-Boro. Other varieties are BR 23 and Jamai

babu. Yields variy: 480-600kg/bigha. Earlier paddy can be cultivated year round, but isnow interspersed with saline shrimp. Some rice-fish systems practiced by gher owners.

Table 9 - Past and current status of agriculture, by Union

This transformation has occurred to the detriment of most smallholder paddy cultivators whose land has

been made non-productive be saline intrusion. Whereas land was fertile and no chemical fertilizer was

need before salinity became an issue, now chemical fertilizer is essential for rice because soil fertility has

decreased significantly due to salinity. The lease of land for shrimp farms rather than for crop cultivation

has contributed to the decline of paddy cultivation, and has shut out the landless from access to

agriculture land. In fact the number of landless is likely to have increased as farmers unable to cultivate,

and without the capital to invest in bagda culture, have sold their only productive asset. This has givenrise to a serious food security issue, where households are compelled to purchase a greater amount of

food (rice, vegetables, fruit) from markets, while concurrently suffering major setbacks to their own

incomes. The overall decline in cropping has also meant that demand for agriculture labor has declined. A

greater reliance on groundwater (GW) as the only source of fresh water has caused GW tables to fall.

A lot of people become unemployed. Earlier, there was happiness in life because paddy, crops, dairy were available

(abundantly). Peace existed here. But thereafter, due to shrimp culture, some people have become rich. No prosperity has

come to general people; they have become poorer and employment decreased. People are going far away for employment.1

2.1.2. Fisheries

As evidenced from Table 10, shrimp farming dominates the fisheries sector, although mixed shrimp-fish-

rice systems also exist. Shrimp started in the early 1970s but grew commercially in the 1980s. In contrast,

fish was abundant in nature in the 1960, and fish cultivation was not practiced. At the time of polder

construction, fish was significantly cheaper than rice (12-25 paisa per kg). Most of the fresh water fish

species have now almost disappeared. Governments support to shrimp farming is the key driver.

Union Status

Tarali When the embankment was built, canals were wide and full of water. Huge numbers of

fish (Chang, Shoil, Puti, Jiol) could be caught in the canals. Now most fresh water species(e.g. Boal, Tola, Shoal, Koi, Magur, Chang, Gura) have almost disappeared. Only Tilapia

and small shrimp. Recently shrimp has been affected by virus infection causing huge

losses. Incidence of infection has increased over last few years. Some evidence of move

away from bagda to white fish culture and paddy (Purba Tetulia village). Galda is not

grown.

Parulia Shrimp and saline and white fish cultivation are the primary forms of food production, and

account for much of the non-dwelling land use. Tilapia produced year round. Galda, Rui,

Katla, Grass carp, Vetki and Paissha are also cultivated. Appear to be problems in shrimp

production in some areas (e.g. Nichintapur village) due to the spread of a virus, though no

1 P34: FGD_General_Batua Danga_Tarali UP_SL59-62


17/84

17

Union Status

details are available.

Debhata Several native fish such as Shol, Boal, koi, Magur, Rui and Catlac were abundant. These are

now rare due to saline water. Replaced by new species such as Tilapia, Vetki, Parse, Tengra

and Nilotica.Bhara

Simla

Salt water fish (Bagda, Vetki, Parshe, etc.). Golda cultivated in some areas (e.g. Kandippur

) where salinity is lower.

Table 10 - Past and current status of fisheries, by Union

Water is supplied to the ghers using the ninety kall tube well system, this system takes water from the

river in a ninety degree position and above the embankment rather than through it.. Almost all ghers use

it. This has enabled saline water to be lifted over the embankment. This system costs 20,000 taka to

install.

2.1.3. Livestock

A significant decline in livestock is observed due to loss of grazing and fodder sources caused by reduced

agriculture, salinity and conversion (privatisation) of open-access grasslands to ghers where access is now

restricted.

Union Status

Tarali Now reduced paddy production and lack of grass due to salinity has restricted availability

of fodder for cattle. High market prices (300 taka/pile) make it expensive to purchase.

Cattle restricted to homesteads. Loss of open access beels as a source for grazing. Earliermany people reared poultry. Now it is impossible due to salinity.

Parulia Cattle farming has been severely affected due to the closure of open access land used for

grazing by prawn farms. Cows are not allowed on the roads/bunds of these farms. Since

soil salinity prevents fodder from being grown even in homesteads, it now has to be

purchased at high price. Poultry has also declined due to lack of feed.

Debhata Cattle and poultry farming was common. Today, domestic animals are confined to

homestead land as there is no grazing land because of the ghers. More than 80% of the

area of the beel are now devoted to breeding Bagda

BharaSimla

Cattle have decreased as (seasonally fallow) pasture land has been converted to shrimpghers and salinity has increased.

Table 11 - Past and current status of livestock, by Union

2.2. Labour contracting societies and labourers

Though not influential in decision making, the LCS groups are seen to contribute the labour for anymaintenance work that does take place. They are also seen as a mechanism to channel employment toindividuals with little or no livelihood assets. Many of the members are seasonally unemployed. However,

the position of these groups has also been significantly and negatively affected by the ascendance ofshrimp culture and the demise of agriculture which was a primary user of wage labour. The decline in


18/84

18

state-sponsored polder and other infrastructure maintenance also adversely impacts on the LCSs, beingthe other traditional consumer of wage labour, often through work programmes funded by UnionParishad budget lines. Now, it seems that there is no formal LSC group in this polder, formal would meanwith state agency involvement. Consequently, participants may speak about LSC work even for dailylabour and the contracts may be collective or individual.

Employment through the LCSs seems to be highly valued as the only source of income for some: Iarranged marriage ceremony for my daughter due to my work. I suffered a lot before, mostly suffered for food but nowsituation is not like that.This employment also appears impact positively on peoples level of self-respectand confidence: We can participate after getting the job, everybody respects our opinion now.

Today the landless groups appear to be dependent on gher operators for work, with limited opportunitiesfrom the agriculture and maintenance sectors. This labour is hired at several stages of production, namelyfilling the ghers with water; introducing shrimp fry, and processing the shrimp upon harvest forpackaging. In Ranga Shisha village (Debhata Union) for example, the LCS group was formed with theinitiative of gher owners. Some of the LCS members are unable to seek work outside of this area duringseasonal unemployment, and thus depend on the ghers for work. Others, especially the men, work outside of this area in the rainy season, including Madaripur and other districts such as Barisal. The Falgunperiod (February-March) is considered the best while the period of Chaitra-Boishakh (April-May)generates the least work, and is when temporary outmigration occurs.

This dependence and the seemingly surfeit of labour is exploited by the shrimp operators to pay LCSmembers well below the government daily rate. This is significantly more so for women who areconsiderably worse off under gher owners. Women usually are paid between 60120 taka per day if theywork from morning to evening compared to 175 taka under government schemes. Men get substantiallymore (200 tk per day) for the same length of time. The lower wages are partly because the bigger gherowners require a large number of labour, and thus suppress wage rates to minimize overall labor costs. Inaddition, gher owners can reject any worker at any time: sometimes the gher owners give more priorityto their relatives. Gher owner always selects the healthy labour, they dont want to engage aged person.This makes this source of employment highly vulnerable, and represents a significant difference fromemployment on a government project.

2.2. Drinking water situation

Drinking water is extremely scarce in most parts of Polder 3. A fresh water layer is found about 800 to

1,000 feet below the surface, making the installation of deep tube wells very expensive. Private tube wells

are therefore rare in the area. Public tube wells are provided by the DPHE but are limited in number and

are confined to areas where fresh the water layer is available. In addition, groundwater suffers from

arsenic (said to be a recent occurrence) and iron contamination, warranting caution in the use of deep

tube wells. This contrasts sharply with the past when the area had plenty of ponds reserved for drinking

water. Many of these have been taken over and converted by commercial shrimp farming and most others

have been contaminated by salt water. DPHE provides filtration options through the Pond Sand Filter

(PSF) facility but these are very limited.

Union Status

Tarali The situation is described as a huge drinking water crisis. No deep tube wells. A few

shallow tube wells. Iron and arsenic is prevalent, but drinking water scarcity arises more

due to salinity. Women bring water from 1.5 2 km away. Pond water is drunk through

PSF in some areas. Others purchase drinking water from Delta fish (private company inNalta) at 15 taka/30 litres.


19/84

19

Parulia Salinity and arsenic limit drinking water from tube wells. Women bring water from a

government deep tube well about half mile away. Problem more acute in summer in some

areas (Nichintapur village) while for others (Adorshogram village), it is worse in the rainy

season due to saline intrusion (even if the reason is unclear).

Debhata Fresh water is not available in Bosontopur Village without installing a 250 foot pipe. It is

also not available in Shushilgaiti. Everybody drinks deep tube well water, which has to be

collected from a long distance. The levels of arsenic and iron are high.

Bhara

Simla

Shrimp farmers claim there is only a very small amount of salinity in ponds and tube wells,

while the General FGD respondents state that due to shrimp culture and climate change,

fresh water level is about to disappear.

Table 12 - Status of drinking water, by Union

Over the last few years, the DPHE and NGOs have been trying to popularize rainwater harvesting,

though this has turned out to relatively expensive, where primarily richer stakeholders can afford to store

rainwater for a few months drinking water needs. For other uses, rainwater harvesting has not been

sufficient and even the rich have to depend on pond and other sources.

3. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF POLDER 3

3.1. Embankment, emergency and maintenance

Construction of the embankment was precipitated by the floods of 1962, after which the Water and

Power Development Board of Pakistan (now the BDWD) constructed the embankment along the bankof the river in 1964 under the Coastal Embankment Project of the World Bank. The objectives were

twofold: to prevent destruction by flooding, and to avert saline intrusion and maintain fresh water

supplies for cultivation. The embankment was constructed to also protect homes from river erosion, and

saved our lives and assets from flood in 2000 and 2011.

Given the interest in the effectiveness of Water Management Organisations (WMOs) and Water

Management Associations (WMAs) in infrastructure moderation and maintenance, the absence of any

reference to these local institutions in this section is noteworthy.

3.1.1. Condition of the Embankment

Condition/Cause Responses

Informal pipes 20

Poor condition 7

Silted river 5

Informal pipes closed 4

Poor condition, damaged river erosion 4River condition dried up 2


20/84

20

Embankment too low 2

Condition good partially 1

Poor design 0

Condition poor salinity 0

Condition good 0Source: Extracted from transcripts of FGDs and KIIs conducted by Sushilan (2012).Table 13 - Stakeholder opinion of the embankment condition and contributory factors

Table 13 shows clearly that the embankment is in poor condition, as well as the overwhelming influence

of informal (and illegal) pipes (approximately 85) used by gher operators to access saline water. Figure 2

indicates that these pipes and cuts are found along the majority of the embankment, it is possible to

consider that the location of the pipes are a good proxy for the location of portion of the embankment at

risk..

The Union-wise status is provided in Table 14 below.

Union Status

Tarali The embankment is considered to be at risk in in several areas. The ghers are located too

close to the embankment, allowing salt water to erode it and water to leach in. Another

cause is the many illegal pipes and cuts which also undermine the embankments integrity.

In Batuadanga village, some pipes appear to have been removed by BWDB after Alila,

although influential gher owners continue with this practice. Gher owners also construct

new gates by cutting the embankment to directly access water for their ghers.

Parulia Embankment height and width needs to be increased as the lack of maintenance has seen

it becoming narrower and break. Embankment is not functioning effectively because of

erosion at its base, causing water to enter the polder freely.

Debhata Embankment has been described as a death trap. A crack that has appeared because of

to water logging caused by an absence of drainage facilities. Embankment is also broken

because of the huge water pressure exerted by the Ishamati river. River erosion is also

damaging the river bank. The road (bund?) constructed by BWDB has also narrowed

considerably.

Bhara

Simla

High concentration of private pipe inlets and embankment cuts that have weakened the

embankment.

Table 14 - Embankment condition and causes by Union

In addition to the threats posed to the embankment by the gher operations, river discharge has decreaseddue to siltation, and the Kakshiali river is silted. Consequently the height of the river is now on par with

the embankment.


21/84

21

Source: Institute of Water Modelling (2012).

Figure 2 - Map of Polder 3 showing locations of illegal pipes and cuts


22/84

22

3.1.2. Emergency response

The FGD and KII transcripts suggest that emergency responses are most often coordinated by the UP

Chairman and Members who mobilize the local people to conduct emergency repairs. This is usually done

through voluntary and immediate responses by the community. Gher owners are also motivated to

contribute in the interest of saving their investments, and therefore often contribute money for theseworks. Farmers, land owners and others work voluntarily if crops/houses are at risk. In essence, during

an emergency, people from all walks of life participate, although there is some evidence (See Table 15)

that women participate less during emergency responses. At a later stage the UP tries to pay the landless

workers either through contributions from gher owners or from other project funding. In some cases UP

member/ Chairman have been known to invest their personal funds to repair the embankment due to

two interests: as gher owners themselves, and to gain popularity as public leaders.

Union Status

Tarali The Union Parishad are active in organising maintenance activities under the leadership of

the UNO during emergencies. Gher owners also do this through self-interest given their

proximity to the embankment. People (but not women) participate in the repairs for a

wage between 100-200 takka. The women stay back on safety considerations.

Parulia Union Porishad gets involved with planning and implementing the repair work by sending

the written application for assistance to the Government and providing materials such as

sand bags. Labor for repairs provided by the communities as a breach would affect the

village as a whole. The role of the LCS members is especially important. BWDB is inactive

Some repairs funded by the large Gher owners who stand to be affected.

Debhata No information.

Bhara

Simla

During hurricane Aila, the responses appear to have been individual and collective, where

people whose lands were affected due to embankment damage took action while the rest

of the community was mobilised by announcements through microphones. No agencies

came forward to help.

Table 15 - Key actors in emergency responses, by Union

3.1.3. Maintenance of the embankment and roads

Maintenance appears to be minimal, even though both the BWDB and any Water ManagementOrganisations (WMOs) that exist are required to ensure the embankment is maintained. BWDB isconsidered to be unresponsive, a state linked to allegations of bribery.

Union Status

Tarali Although BWDB works in this area through contractors, it has no acceptance amongst the

general people since any work they do is based on bribes. It is claimed that the SO never

speaks against gher owners even though there are a lot of pipe inlets. In Ghusuri, the top

of the embankment is being repaired with funds the LGEDs RREMP projec t using

female LCSs. The work is overseen by a LGED engineer from the Upazila.

Parulia No information.


23/84

23

Union Status

Debhata From the poor condition of the embankment described under 4.1, it may be surmised that

maintenance has been minimal. No clear information is provided as to who is involved in

maintenance, if any.

BharaSimla

BWDB is unresponsive to local requests for maintenance. People thus seem to rely onself-help. Used to be a committee to oversee the embankment, but this no longer exists

(no reasons given).

Table 16 - Key actors in embankment maintenance, by Union

3.2. Sluice gates and inlets: Operation and Maintenance

3.2.1 Condition of the Sluice gates

Condition Responses

Need to redesign embankment sluice gate and drainage 18

Condition poor BWDB 9

Condition active BWDB 8

Condition good BWDB 1

Condition inactive BWDB 1

Condition active informal 0

Condition active LGED 0

Condition good informal 0Condition good LGED 0

Condition inactive LGED 0

Condition poor informal 0

Condition poor LGED 0

Source: Extracted from transcripts of FGDs and KIIs conducted by Sushilan (2012).

Table 17 - Stakeholder opinion of the condition of sluice gates

Table 17 shows clearly an overwhelming view that much of the water conveyance infrastructure includingthe sluice gates, need to be redesigned. The condition of the gates themselves (a majority of the 32 gates

are represented) seems to be split between poor and active although these two states are not mutuallyexclusive. A gate may well be in active use despite being in poor condition, as Table 11 suggests is in factthe case with several gates.

Union Status

Tarali Overall condition is poor. Most gate were constructed many years ago and are now too

vulnerable to operate.

Parulia Overall condition is poor. Damage caused to the embankment by water leakages as many

of the gates are wooden and very porous. By virtue of being wooden, the gates have also

reversed the intended flow of water so that water no longer drains out during floods, but

rather enters the polder.


24/84

24

Union Status

Debhata Two gates are operational while the rest are damaged to varying degrees.

Bhara

Simla

There are two sluice gates (Gates 1&2) beside BWDB Office and one sluice gate at the

linking point of Jamuna-Kakshaili rivers. The BWDB gates are still active but the structure

has a major problem, making them vulnerable. The gates are porous, causing saline waterto continuously leak into the polder.

Table 18 - Condition of sluice gates by, Union

3.2.2. Operation

The results of stakeholder consultations, as summarised in Table 19 below shows the variation in

institutions in charge of actual gate operation. Of particular note is that many if not all the locally

appointed operators are informal, and this may be the case with the five Gate Committees as well. The

prevalence of informal operators may be further supported by a discrepancy in data relating to theexistence of the Khalashi appointed by the BWDB. Although table 19 suggests 13 such operators, other

data from the FGDs indicates that only one Khalashi remains (Nichintapur village, Parulia Uninion). This

practice has all but vanished over time due to restructuring within the BWDB. The total lack of influence

of any WMOs that may exist is also borne out by Table 19.

Function Responses

Operation

Locally appointed sluice gate operator 18

BWDB appointed khalashi 13

Gate committee 5

None 3

Decision making

Gher owners/influential 58

Union Parishad 18

Local people needs based 13

BWDB 6

Gate committee 1

WMG/WMCA 0

WMA 0Saline water prevention committee 0

Funding

Local land/gher owners 17

Local contributions 5

Fishing rights 3

Voluntary labour 1


Table 19 - Actors involved in sluice gate operation

What is not in dispute is the overwhelming dominance exercised by gher owners in deciding when the

gates are to be open and closed, along with other aspects such as gate maintenance. The vacuum created

by the demise of the Khalashi system has been exploited by gher owners who have, either individually or


25/84

25

collectively, taken over the effective control of the gates and adjoining canals (Table 20). They have

formed their own committees to operate the gates, and in many instances, have recruited gatemen

privately. In some cases proxy gatemen are found. Such proxy persons are often descendants of the

former gatemen. They receive some payment from the gher owners and enjoy fishing rights in the

adjoining canal. Real control of the gates are in the hands of the large gher owners who are often the

committee leaders and also hold key local government posts especially that of Chairman or member of aUnion Parishad.

Union Status

Tarali Most gates are under the control of gher owners, often loosely formed into a an informal

gate committee. There is also a considerable overlap of official responsibilities and

powers and private (gher) interests, especially through the dual identities of UP

Chairmen/member and gher owners/investor. For example, in Purba Tetulia village, each

UP member controls the sluice gate in his ward. BWDB no longer employs gate keepers.

This is done by gher owners, according whose instructions the gates are operated. This

happens whether or not there is a gate committee. BWDB officers are inactive, and is

claimed are paid off by gher owners.

Parulia There is still a BWDB-appointed gateman in Nichintapur village (gates 22-24), though it

is claimed he will open the gate if he gets a bribe from gher owners who bear the cost of

operating the gate. There are no references to water management groups or committees

in this Union. Instead, it is clear that operation of most sluice gates are controlled by the

larger gher owners, some of them who are not from the village in which they operate (e.g.

in Ranga Shisha village).These are seen as personal gates linked to individual or groups

of gher owners. Such scenarios of monopolisation are facilitated by corruption and

collusion. This enables the gher owners flush in water at night to ensure the ponds have

the necessary level of water.

Debhata Control of gates 11 to 17 appear to be distributed amongst several committees formed

through the Union Parishad Chairman. Regular meetings are held with gher owners,

suggesting that what really exist are committees of gher owners. Fees (50-100 Taka per

bigha) are collected from the Gher owners, and gatemen are appointed. Problems within

the committee are resolved by the UP Chairman through consultation. If he fails, he asks

for help from the Upazila Chairman & UNO in coordination meeting.

BWDB takes decisions over at least one gate, while the Union Parishad looks after 3 gates

in consultation with the SO of BWDB

BharaSimla

There is no designated gateman. The gher owners are in control, and operate the gates attheir discretion. Occasional repairs are done their cost. Complaints by non-gher owners

to BWDB appear to have been futile. Allegations of BWDB officers being bought over

by gher owners exist. Saline water is also lifted over the embankment using the ninety

kall which all ghers seem to have.

Table 20 - Condition of sluice gates by Union

3.3. Canals and re-excavation

To regulate water flow into the polder area and to drain out excess water, BWDB constructed 32 sluice

gates with steel shutters when the polder was built. Local shrimp farmers either individually or


26/84

26

collectively, constructed another 23 sluice gates without formal approval of the BWDB. However,

informal deals were made between the shrimp farmers and the local BWDB officials on this matter.

3.3.1. Condition of canals: Siltation

The majority of canals are silted with none in good condition according to stakeholder views summarisedin Table 21. There does however appear to be some re-excavation taking place, although there is littleinformation on the extent of these initiatives.

Status Responses

Silted 28

Re-excavation: taking place 11

Lease problem yes CONFLICT 10

Re-excavation: more needed 4

Dried up 1Good condition 0


Table 21 - Condition of canals

It is evident from Table 22 that lack of maintenance over a long period (10-15 years) has contributed tosituation building up in several canals. The leasing of canals to gher owners and encroachment most oftenby gher owners are other important causes. These have resulted in an overall drainage system failureresulting in flooding and waterlogging. The BWDB is again conspicuous in its absence, and the controlover the infrastructure exercised by gher owners again emerges as a cause for proper managementpractices not being followed.

Union Status

Tarali An overall need to de-silt the canals and reconstruct the drainage system. Some canals

have not been de-silted for the past 15-20 years. Water drainage is decreasing because of

siltation. Drainage is also blocked by the proliferation and encroachment of ghers,

causing the canals to become progressively narrower. Exacerbated in Tarali village where

people were granted permission to build houses beside the government khal. In Kharat,

5000 bigha of land was under water for one and half months during the 2012 rainy

season. government (seems to be the UP) has partially re-excavated the bigger canal of

Amenia bil (wetland).

Parulia In Ranga Shisha, there is no longer a canal as all canals have been converted to ghers.

Other canals have become shallow due to siltation. One canal (Kayar Khal?) was

excavated two years ago, improving drainage. It is not clear who organised and funded

this. BWDB is hardly seen. It is claimed that local people carry out some desilting to

prevent flooding. Overall, most canals seem to be silted, and drainage out as well as water

inflows are blocked.

Debhata Most canals seem to be silted, while one (Kaldagor?) is being de-silted. Absence of drains

between ghers and the canals is a major cause of flooding and water logging. 95% of

cultivated land has been damaged as a result. Fund allocations for canal re-excavation and

maintenance is also inadequate, relying mainly on various UP initiatives. Failure to de-silt

canals has allowed gher owners to gradually encroach onto canals that are almost fully


27/84

27

Union Status

silted.

Bhara

Simla

Overall, the canals and rivers have not been re-excavated for many years and these are

badly sedimented, resulting in flooding even after moderate rains. An exception appears

to be Siddir Khal which has recently been excavated by the Union Parishad.

Table 22 - Condition of canals by Union

3.3.2. Canals: LeasingThe government has a system of leasing canals to fisherman cooperatives (in the case of water bodies)

and to landless (in the case of canals fully silted up and not required to be re-excavated). However in

practice, the land administration has leased out khas canals to influential elites misusing the policy of

allocating khas land and khas water bodies to the landless and fishers. Moreover, the lease agreements

specify certain conditions which include that no obstruction to water flow will be created and governmentwill take back the land by cancelling the lease in case of any breach of agreement, or if the land is needed

for any development work. Such conditions are frequently broken but no corrective measure have been

taken by the government.

4. PARTICIPATION AND INFLUENCEOverall, there does not appear to be any meaningful participation where participation is understood at

least as the effective expression of views and interests by diverse stakeholders whereby decision makingover the infrastructure management and resource allocation is required to reflect and balance these views

and needs. It appears that in fact, decision making especially with respect to key land use decisions (lease

of land and canals) and infrastructure (sluice gate) operation is the almost exclusive domain of gher

owners despite clear formal authorities and obligations vested on the BWDB in particular to oversee

embankment, canal and gate maintenance. Such a status quo appears to sit on a foundation of

irregularities in rule implementation and enforcement, induced by a mutually convenient relationship

between gher owners and BWDB officers who leverage their powers to receive bribes in return for non-

enforcement of rules. It should however also be noted that in the exceptional case where the BWDB

sought to remove illegal cuts and pipes, it has been unable to compete with the financial and political

power of the gher owners.

The BWDB also appears to genuinely dislike the notion of participation itself. It is seen as an

organization that does not encourage or want peoples participation, and does not value local stakeholder

opinion, especially in the case of the poor and landless. The study found that BWDB/ GoB agencies tend

to avoid information dissemination. At the most, they inform the Union Parishad and elites by calling

them to a meeting. It is more often the District Commissioner (DC) or the Upazila Nirbahi Officer

(UNO) that keeps the Union Parishad Chairman informed. In most cases, the landless and women are

never informed on matters of water management and not called to meetings by BWDB. This lack of

dialog between the local community (especially the poor) and BWDB staff seems to be pervasive

throughout this Union, and people believe it is disinterested in the well-being of the ordinary person, in

preference to satisfying the needs of the elite.


28/84

28

Thus, participation appears to be limited to collective action in times of emergencies, often supported by

the UPs. But there seems to be no space created for the participation of the community at large in either

general water infrastructure maintenance or operation, and dialogue on water management in the broader

sense seems to be absent altogether. In fact, oppression of public opinion is what seems to occur, and

applies especially in the case of minorities (not specified) who are less willing to participate due to fear of

repercussions. Colonisation or buying up of local government institutions and local (e.g. gate) committeesby gher owners seems to have made decision making a single-interest process. The gate/gher committees

only tend to inform gher owners who dominate the committees membership.

Another factor underlying this situation is the lack of awareness of rights, confidence and initiative

amongst community members. One view is that many stakeholders do not know how to convey their

needs to officials effectively, and lack unity amongst themselves. A lack of confidence in government

agencies also stops members from communicating with them. This situation may be a result of the sense

ofdisempowerment reflected in numerous stakeholder responses, and peoples perception that since they

do not own ghers, they have no interest in influencing how water in managed.

In this atmosphere of poor governance with low participation and lack of transparency particularly of the

GoB agencies such as BWDB, some people see enhancing the role of the Union Parishad as a way to

improve water governance. People still believe the UPs can have a strong role in improving peoples

participation were their water sector mandate be strengthened. The Union Parishads along with the UNO

and/or other agencies have solved problems related to water management, ranging range from drinking

water to canal re-excavation or minor polder maintenance work. It is found that the Union Parishad is

seen as closest to the people as their public representative. This could be attributed to their more open

approach to organising local work programmes (not limited to the water sector), and greater contact with

stakeholders. When a Union Parishad holds its overall annual budget session for example,

announcements of the date are made by loud speaker to inform all interested parties. This is in contrast to

BWDB which does not inform people about their budget. However, while Union Parishads have beenactive especially in responding to emergencies and informally in minor maintenance works, they lack a

mandate over water infrastructure management like that of the BWDB. Moreover, there appears to be a

high degree of blurring of identities between gher owners and UP members. Most gate committees for

instance appear to be dominated by gher owners who are also members and often Chairmen of a UP.

This not only introduces a strong element of self-interest, but also provides a cloak of immunity against

being held accountable. Thus the perception of gate committees is that the Chairman and members deal

only with their friends and associates.

The marginalisation of women in water management decisions emerges strongly through the various

interviews on the subject of participation. Womens main reason for contact with government officials is

during a disaster when they depend on the Union Parishad for relief. The reasons appear to be twofold:

BWDB officials do not visit the villages on the one hand, while women themselves have come to (been

made to) feel they have nothing worth contributing at discussions.


29/84

29

5. INSTITUTIONAL COORINATION: ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS5.1. Colonisation of the institutional framework

Despite BWDBs formal mandate to oversee and regulate the operation and maintenance of waterinfrastructure in Polder 3, the institutional landscape is in practice dominated by a high degree of informal

committees which exercise actual control over O&M decisions in the absence of a strong organising and

regulating presence either by BWDB or any other formal organisation. These informal include:

Committees headed by UP Chairman (covering larger area)Committees headed by individual UP Members (in smaller areas)Committees formed by local gher ownersBeel Committees formed and headed by UP Chairman.

A generic list of functions of these committees is given below, although the degree to which these occur

was found to vary significantly.

Day to day decisions on opening, closing gatePetty repair of embankmentRepair, replacement of shutter, provide wooden shutterRe-excavation of canalsWater distribution among the ghersConsultations with UP, UNO and BWDB to repair polder infrastructureMitigation of local conflicts

The majority of these institutions are informal sluice gate committees that have filled the vacuum created

by the removal of the BWDBs gateman (khalashi) when this agency was restructured in 1998. Whatthese really amount to in most instances is a group of gher owners who control the operation of gates

according to the requirements of their operations, to the exclusion of other local stakeholder needs. The

frequent involvement of the Chairmen and other members of Union Parishads in both forming and

heading these gate committees is also significant given that they are almost always also prominent gher

owners. This effectively marries the interests of gher operations and the exercise of formal powers and

functions of the Union Parishads. This status quo is further assured through collusion between the

BWDB SOs (based on the frequency of references to this) and gher operators, where the SOs seem to

use their powers as leverage to extract bribes in return for non-enforcement of the law. These

arrangements have provided the fundamental platform from which the bagda industry has assumed

control over not only the water management infrastructure, but all other assets such as land required forthe expansion of shrimp culture. Such arrangements have entrenched a single interest (bagda farming)

agenda within the institutional structure at the expense of agriculture and other local livelihood strategies

based upon the availability of fresh water, private land as well as open-access ecosystem services such as

the beels and natural fisheries. The influence of gher owners is further ensured by the district Shrimp

Farmer Association based in Satkhira town which lobbies the central government to protect shrimp

farmer interests. The association is controlled by the large shrimp gher owners and business

entrepreneurs.


30/84

30

Function ResponsesO&M

Union Parishad 35

Gher committee responsible 18

BWDB 15

Local people informal technology 9

Local people 6

None 5

BWDB tender contractor 4

WMA 1

WMG/WMCA 1

Other 1

Project IPSWAM 0

NGO 0BWDB tender local people 0

LGED 0

Funding

Union Parishad via REMP 16

Gher owners 9

BWDB 6

NGO 4

LGED 2

Local contributions 1

No/voluntary labor 1

PROJECT 0

Others 0

Maintenance fund WMCA/WMG 0


Table 23 - Stakeholder responses on institutions involved in infrastructure maintenance

While Table 23 confirms the prominence of these gher-controlled gate committees, it also suggests the

active role of Union Parishads in maintenance activities. The Union Parishads in fact emerge as the only

active state institution in the water sector given their responsiveness to both emergencies as well aslimited maintenance needs (see Table 23 for details). The latter function however is limited to relatively

minor repairs, and the fact that funds are not specifically allocated for water infrastructure maintenance

significantly restricts the frequency of these repairs. This limitation arises from the limited mandate

enjoyed by Union Parishads with respect to water management. This is in fact generally seen as a problem

by local stakeholders (other than most gher owners) given BWDBs ineffectiveness and the Union

Parishads track record of working closelywith the local people in various local development initiatives.

Their operational approach is also seen as far more transparent and inclusive than that of BWDB, and is

thus often the preferred government organisation of the people. Consequently, that the mandate of these

organisations with respect to water management be expanded has been a commonly held view in many

parts of this polder. This view persists despite the paradoxical overlap between the roles and powers of a


31/84

31

UP chairman and members as government representatives and their private identity as gher

owners/investors.

Another notable feature in this polder is the negligible influence of Water Management Associations,

Committees and Groups, initially WMO were not created in this polder. WMAs appear to be restricted to

the Tarali and Debhata Unions, while members of one WMC have been interviewed in Debhata Union,this WMC was created with the support of the Union Parishad and NGO. Though expected to provide

leadership for greater community-driven water management by government policy, Table 24 suggests

strongly that where these institutions exist, they do so in name only, as decisions over the maintenance

and operation of the embankment, canals and sluice gates have been usurped by mainly the informal gher

committees. The WMAs and WMCs also are unable to resolve the on-going conflicts between gher

operators and marginalised groups, even though control over water management lies at the heart of this

discord. Although these is insufficient data on the membership of the WMAs and WMCs that exist, it

would not be surprising if their membership is also dominated by shrimp interests. Consequently, any

space for multi-stakeholder consultative decision making for infrastructure management and water

distribution, as is envisaged through the promotion of WMAs and WMCs has been replaced bymonopolistic control by the shrimp farming interests.


32/84

32

nction BWDB Union Parishads WMAs WMCs & WMGs Other actors

erall Mandated to regulate the operation andmaintenance of sluice gates; repair andreconstruct embankments; excavate andre-excavate Khals and canals andimprovement drainage.

Does not maintain the khals and canalsinside the polder.

Perceived to exercise very limitedoversight. Claimed its officers know

about illegal pipes but keep silent. SOinvestigates complaints only if he getsmoney. BWDB conducts the occasionalrepair of a wooden shutter which isfinanced by gher owners.

Corruption of BWDB came up severaltimes in the di scussion.

Seen as non-transparent and anti-participation. Low physical presence anddeals mainly with the elites.

Low level of awareness of what BWDBis supposed to do with respect to watermanagement. Some individuals seem noteven know what the BWDB is.

Emerge as not only the most active stateinstitution in the water sector, but also asthe preferred organisation in the opinion ofmany stakeholders.

Considered the most suitable option forwater management because:

They work closely with the people; People can easily access UPs to make

complains, request help, and expressopinions;

Have has authority to take-up issues tothe Upazila, DC/UNO;

Has demonstrated the ability to takedecisions quickly;

The primary source of information onplanned development activities; and

Supports urgent repairs to sluice gatesand embankment.

Seen as key actor, along with Upazilas inconflict resolution, though no examples

were provided. (Nichintapur, ParuliaUninion)

Plays major role in promoting safe drinkingwater, but has an insignificant role in openwater management.

According to governments standing order,

one of the thirteen committees of the UP isresponsible for working on water,sanitation and awareness raising.

Funds small scale repairs to theembankment, canals and gates and alsoexcavates blocked canals primarily throughits social employment programmes anddonor projects.

Discusses problems related to waterand sanitation in monthly meetings.Claim to resolve conflicts regarding

water sharing, but this seems limitedto conflicts between gher owners.Sometimes referred to the UNO andthen to the DC Office. Watermanagement issues also discussed atUpazila coordination meetings.

Chairman of UP is also the Chair ofthe WMA. (Tarali Union)

Membership does not include anylandless people since as they do nothave land, their opinions do not comeproperly. Does not have a fund with

which to finance activities, andintends to establish a cooperative toraise funds. (Debhata Union)

Debhata Upazila WMGworking on availability ofwater for agriculture; waterlogging and salinity problems,and improving publicawareness on water use andmanagement. Active withcontinued support of Uttaran(an NGO).

Significant number ofinformal institutionsespecially for sluice gateoperation andmanagement. Tend to beestablished and run bygher operators for theirown purposes.


33/84

33


Often coordinates responses toemergencies and the provision of relief toaffected persons.

Because their formal role in watermanagement outside of drinking water ismarginal, budget allocations for any largescale maintenance and other work are aconstant restriction.

Possibility of there being a strong

undercurrent of self-interest behindresponses where respondents are membersof either the UP itself or of other waterbodies (WMC, WMG, Gate Committee) as

well as shrimp farmers.

Assessing the suitability of the UP as aharmonising and organising entity in the

water sector is therefore complex,especially given the entrenched nature ofthe current and often informal decisionmaking mechanisms. This is a majorconcern when considering option ofexpanding the role of UPs in watermanagement.

Perceived by some to be absorbed with theinterests of the elites and disinterested inserving the poor. (Parulia Union)

mbankment Attempts at prohibiting people to bringsaline water into the polder, thwarted bygher owners. (Satpur, Tarali Union)

Is meant to implement all maintenancework, but most often does not. (RangaShisha, Parulia Union)

Appears to allocate money even wherethe work is done by the Union Parishad.

Not involved in water management. (RangaShisha, Parulia union)

Ward no. 7 and 8 were flooded by damagedembankment. UP repaired it. This wasdone under the Extreme Poor (40 Days)project where 30 (usually l andless) peopleunder each UP member are to get workthrough a lottery. Claimed that this ismanipulated through bribes and nepotism.

No reference to WMA involvement. No reference toWMC/WMG involvement.


34/84

34


(Nichintapur, Parulia Union)

Appears to be inactive, and is said toexist in name only. (Bosontopur,Debhata Union)

(Komorpur, Parulia Union)

Tests drinking water quality. (Komorpur,Parulia Union)

Only agency that provides a budget forwater management (e.g. Embankment andkhal repairs) from its Kabikha, TR and 40days poverty reduction programmes. TheDC has empowered the UP to work withembankment issues (Debhata Union)

nals - Sometimes implements a few small repairs,but is not formally mandated to do so. Hasfailed to repair foot-bridge on Shapmaracanal despite requests from the village.(Nichintapur, Parulia Union)

Excavates and re-excavates canals tomitigate water logging. Forms a committeeto oversee the work. 2 UP membersdesignated to supervise. (Komorpur,Parulia Union)

If a proposal for infrastructure (e.g.canal/pipe) is received, it is reviewed by thechairman. He shares it with the TNO ifnecessary. UP members and standingcommittee then sit in meeting in Union

Parishad to make a decision on theproposal. (Komorpur, Parulia Union)

Installed pipe in the road to drain out waterfrom village and Gher. Provides pipe onceit is approved by UNO office. (Komorpur,Parulia Union)

Implements canal excavations .(BharatSimla Union)

Constructed some culverts and drainsin association with LGED withfinancial support from ADB. (TaraliUnion)

Despite not possessing fundsor assets, Debhata WMC issaid to engage in drainagemaintenance with funds from

ActionAid channelled viaUttaran. It claims it freed acanal from blockage by gherowners in 2010 with help ofthe Upazila chairman andpolice. But in general WMCactivities impeded by gherowners who occupy land andcanals and refuse tocooperate.


35/84

35


tes Gatemen removed from BWDB cadre inthe 1998 restructuring, leaving a vacuumin gate O&M.

Employs a gate operator (gate notspecified). His salary is arranged bythe UP by collecting money fromlocal people.

No reference toWMC/WMG involvement.

Gate committeesdominated by gherowners who control gateoperation based on theirrequirements. (Debhata)

her Department of PublicHealth installs deep tube

wells in association withUnion Parishad.

(Komorpur, ParuliaUnion)

Table 24 - Summary of stakeholder views of key local water

Analysis Report 3

Documents

Transcript of Analysis Report 3