Increasing Adaptive Capacities to Enhance Resilience of the South-West Communities

United Nations Development Programme Process documentation

INCREASING ADAPTIVE CAPACITIES TO ENHANCE RESILIENCE OF THE SOUTH-WEST COMMUNITIES

DRAFT Process Report 15th October 2014 – 15th May 2015 United Nations Development Programme

Report produced by UNDP Bangladesh Climate Change, Environment and Disaster cluster.

Front cover photo: Members of the community, Jalalpur Union, 6th May 2015.

United Nations Development Programme

1 BACKGROUND

Chronic waterlogging since the 1980s, exacerbated by recent events such as cyclone Aila and the 2011 floods, is a ‘slow onset and persistent disaster’ prevalent in the south-western districts of Bangladesh. Steadily undermining the resilience of people, dwellings, infrastructure and livelihoods in the region over time, waterlogging is also causing localized humanitarian crises as inundated areas remain waterlogged long after flooding events have occurred. Tidal River Management (TRM) is regarded as one of the most effective technical solutions to prevent waterlogging in the short to mid-term perspective. TRM allows tidal flow to flood in a designated low- lying area and over the course of time the soil rises above the water level, due to controlled riverine sedimentation process. However, despite its potentials, the current system for implementing TRM has struggled to take into account governance and the complex political-economy in the waterlogged areas. Landowners giving up land to be raised through the TRM process have been unable to access the compensation offered by the government. Likewise, the loss of livelihood opportunities for landless people who would otherwise labor on the designated TRM area has not been addressed by previous TRM interventions. As a result, TRM has met with strong resistance from the people. Through the “Increasing adaptive capacity to increase resilience of the South-West communities” project, UNDP is attempting to pilot an inclusive, participatory model for TRM implementation – a “TRM ++”. Through a combination of physical and social interventions, a) reduce the physical and livelihood risks of local inhabitants, b) enhance the capacity of local stakeholders dealing with waterlogging, c) improve social cohesion for community resilience, and, d) enhance the enabling environment for sustaining resilience initiatives. The project is designed to demonstrate a more accessible compensation mechanism for affected landowners, create alternate livelihood options for landless and marginalized farmers affected by the reservation of land for the TRM process, and raise the capacity of local actors to manage and respond to waterlogging and other disaster issues. In order to develop locally appropriate solutions in a participatory manner, project plan provided for the following process in each of the two localities Keshra Union and Jalalpur Union:

1) Baseline survey of physical and environmental, and socioeconomic, situation. 2) A participatory planning exercise to establish baselines and form cooperatives to lease the site for physical TRM for open fisheries. 3) Excavation of canal from TRM site to river and embankment strengthening work to be done by local landless people, not contractors. 4) Provision of off-firm livelihood supports and livelihood training opportunities for youth and women. 5) Engagement of local institutions in social mobilization and capacity building of Disaster Management Committees, Water Management Groups, CBOs and NGOs for disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation, crisis management, and water management.

United Nations Development Programme

2 ESTABLISHING THE BASELINE

In order to identify the physical and livelihood risks of the targeted communities and establish the baseline situation in the project localities before implementation, two baseline assessments were commissioned – one physical and environmental, and one socioeconomic. In order to mobilize young people in researching and addressing the increasingly pressing issue of waterlogging, both studies were conducted by students.

2.1 PHYSICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSED TRM++ SITES This report was conducted by students at the Earth and Environmental Studies Faculty at University of Dhaka for the UNDP in December 2014. The key findings were:

 Based on hydrological and siltation measurements, it was found that with no site regulation or compaction, filling up the proposed 100 620 m3 site at Jalalpur would take 245 days to raise, while the 232 050 m3 site at the Kheshra site Shaltola beel would take 377 days. However, as natural compaction will compress the sediments height-wise, the actual time period necessary for the sites to fill up will be longer.

 It was found that the sediments carried and deposited by the river are predominantly silt with clay, and the grain size distribution of an excellent quality for cultivation and adding nutrients.

 PH values and observations of crops indicate that the cultivated soil is being depleted of micronutrients and increasingly salinized. Inhabitants reported a reduction in the variety of crops they are to grow.

 Intrusion of salt water from downstream combines with a close-to-surface water table in the area to exacerbate accumulation of salt in top soil. Out of 21 inspected wells in the two unions, 2 wells in each union were found to contain saline water.

 In those settlements where water logging affects the village area, people have had to abandon traditional earthen house building practices and now live in very poorly constructed dwellings. Furthermore, it was reported that decreased agricultural productivity has led to fewer employment opportunities, and that illegal employment migration across the border to India has increased.

 Focus group discussions showed that local levels of knowledge about TRM vary, and that some groups advocate for focusing on the excavation of congested old canals instead of TRM interventions.

2.2 BASELINE SURVEY AND SOCIOECONOMIC ANALYSIS This study was conducted by a multidisciplinary team of students and one teacher from Khulna University in November and Desember 2014. The key findings and recommendations were:

 Attitudes to TRM seems to vary most according to status in relation to land. Day labourers unemployed due to waterlogging and salinization were more likely to be positive to TRM if convinced that it will combat these two issues, and even more so if TRM++ provides alternative livelihood opportunities for addresses their needs in other ways. Businessmen holding leases for

United Nations Development Programme

ghers and using them for activities such as shrimp farming were found to be negative, and unwilling to give up use of the lands they have leased for the time period it takes for TRM to raise the land. Land owners varied in their opinions, but were identified in all the sites as key gatekeepers, who might be persuaded to support the process if the incentive to let their land be used for TRM is larger than letting it to gher businessmen.

 Knowledge about TRM was found to vary a lot between the different cluster villages in the area. Intensive consultation with the local community about TRM should therefore be taken to raise awareness, design appropriate solutions, and build consensus about subsequent courses of action.

 While the people living in the area reported high levels of social and political security and stability, governance in the area was deemed weak, with low levels of transparency and public participation in decision-making and budget processes, and high levels of corruption and nepotism. Proper implementation of inclusive TRM would therefore avoid overly bureaucratic processes, implement intensive monitoring of budget and expenditure, and ensure fair allocation of benefits.

 Water logging was found to have significant impact on the water and sanitation status of the people living in the area. The majority of the water pumps submerged in periods of floods or water logging, leaving people reliant on tube wells, ponds and canals.

Left: Map of Keshra Union. Right: Map of Jalalpur Union. Jalalpur lies directly north of Keshra.

United Nations Development Programme

Community meeting about TRM++ in North Shajadpur, Keshra Union, 24th January 2015.

3 SITE 1: KHESHRA UNION

At the outset of the IP, Jalalpur Union and Keshra Union in Tala had both been selected for prototyping. Accordingly, baseline studies (more below) were conducted for both union. However, as it was uncovered that a GoB TRM intervention was slated to take place in Jalalpur Union independently of the IP, it was decided to only focus on the Keshra site.

At Keshra, the physical interventions were slated to take place at Shaltola beel. The site had been selected in consultation with community members, landowners and the Union Parishad. Accordingly, the initial effort was spent trying to establish community consensus and approval in the local government institutions and in village closest to the Shaltola beel, North Shajadpur. Project staff met with people living in the community often to establish relationships and networks. A household survey and participatory social mapping was conducted to identify landless and marginalized farming households who should be targeted for cooperative formation, Cash for Work opportunities and livelihoods training. The vast majority of inhabitants in the closest village, North Shajadpur, expressed their support for the project during the household survey, with the poor and ultra-poor being elated at the project addressing livelihoods as well as land raising.

However, as became increasingly obvious, a small group of key players within the local power structure were not in favor of the project. As leaseholders of land on the site, these key players hold influence both directly by controlling land and indirectly by swaying the opinions community members in their employ. Initially, their objections to the project were expressed directly to the project staff and to Upazila and Union officials. However, dialogue between the project staff, Upazila officials, and the Union Parishad (UP) chairman indicated that while challenging, the benefits provided by TRM++ to the local population were desirable enough to make it possible to overcome this resistance. Work continued in close dialogue with the UP chairman, and with the support of intermediaries such as the local Head Teacher and a UP member with land in Shaltola beel.

United Nations Development Programme

Objections were, however, brought up again during an open meeting about the project organized at the end of January 2015 and attended 84 people from North Shajadpur. While the UP helped set the date and disseminate information about the meeting, its Chairman remained absent during the meeting. Several of the poorer people from the community were reluctant to express their favor for the project in the presence of the more powerful objecting parties.

Attempts at building community support and consensus continued throughout February and March, but to little avail. At that point, most of the first quarter of 2015 had been spent on community consultation in Keshra, but the project was unable to progress further without access to land for a site for the physical intervention. In response, at the end of March 2015, a group of staff from the UNDP Climate Change, Environment and Disaster (CCED) team travelled to Keshra to meet with community members, with the purpose of

a) understanding the opposition to TRM++, b) try to convince the opposing group to support TRM++, c) if unable to gain support for TRM++ in Keshra at this time, explore alternatives in order to achieve results within the project time constraints.

During this field visit, two in-depth community consultations with stakeholders – including the lease- giving landowners and lease-holding shrimp businessmen – were conducted, with the Union Parishad as mediator. While people with small to moderate land holdings were in favor of TRM++, the elite - large landowners and lease-holding shrimp businessmen, people with political power - were opposing. They put the following reasons forward as the cause of their opposition:

a) They are unsure about the results of TRM++ and whether it would actually benefit them. They would prefer to see a demonstration site somewhere else first. The elite wants to transfer the risk of the physical intervention to small and moderate land owners. b) They want full compensation for their investments, i.e. the lease holders want full compensation from UNDP to recover their investments in land leased until 2017 for fishing. The indicated investment costs appeared inflated.

In light of the time-bound, results-focused pilot nature of the TRM++ project, there was a pressing need to move forward with both the physical and social interventions. However, the lack of community consensus and the demands of the local elites were effectively blocking progress. To either to wait until 2017 or provide inflated compensation to already privileged members of the community were deemed irreconcilable with the time frame and purpose of the project.

After consulting with the regional Water Development Board, it was decided to close project activity in Keshra union at the beginning of April 2015, and instead explore options for project implementation in Jalalpur district instead.

United Nations Development Programme

4 SITE 2: JALALPUR UNION

With further progress at the Keshra site effectively blocked and go-ahead given from the regional Water Board, the decision was made to shift project implementation to Jalalpur from 1st of April 2015. .

With the experience from Keshra fresh in mind, project staff spent the first moth focused on building relationships with the Union Parishad and with the affected landowners at the Jalalpur TRM site. Waterlogging issues in Jalalpur are more severe than in Keshra, and people’s motivation to participate in the project high. Lease-holding shrimp fishermen do not appear to be a powerful faction in Jalalpur. Previous to the decision to move the project, some members of community even independently contacted UNDP to advocate for implementation of TRM++ in their union

On 5th and 6th May, a group of staff from the UNDP CCED team visited Jalalpur with the purpose of

a) Meeting with different groups in Jalalpur to hear their impressions on the project so far, b) Observing how the project is progressing and speak with the field staff.

During the field visit, the CCED staff and the field staff met with landowners holding land at the TRM site in both an open meeting attended by a number of people from the community, and in a closed meeting; with community women in a closed meeting; with poor and extremely poor community women in their homes; with the UP chairman and UP members from the affected wards; and with one of the key intermediaries in his NGO office.

The feedback from the landowners about implementation of the project was overall very positive. Project implementation at Jalalpur is set to not excavate a new canal leading to the TRM site, but to dredge an existing one, as recommended by local people during the baseline surveys. The results of the baseline physical-environmental study have also been shared with them for their use. They expressed confidence both in UNDP and the TRM process itself – several of them had witnessed a small islet in a nearby river raised by naturally occurring siltation.

Left: Jalalpur site for land raising 5th May 2015, before TRM implantation. Right: Jalalpur canal 5th May 2015, before dredging.

United Nations Development Programme

However, it was also clear that in order to maintain their confidence, the UNDP needs to prioritize a) quickly disbursing the compensation for use of their land as a TRM site, and b) implementing and finishing the physical interventions – canal dredging and road-cum-embankment strengthening – before the monsoon starts. A lot of the landowners were also of the opinion that some of the work that UNDP had planned to be done through local labor might better be done by machines, while some enquired about compensation for any land of theirs that would be covered by the broad base of the road-cum- embankment. They also raised the question of whether the project would address arsenic contamination of the local drinking water.

At this early stage in project implementation in Jalalpur and with the focus having been on gaining UP and landowners’ consent, the community at large did not know that much about the project yet. The meeting with the community women therefore started with a presentation of the project by the field staff, and focused on their experience of waterlogging and their reactions to the proposed project activities. The prime concern of the women were the livelihoods results of the project, especially getting livelihood training and equal pay for men and women in any project construction work. When met in their homes, the poor and extremely poor women spoke about limited crop and food staple variety and poor nutrition as a consequence of the waterlogging problems.

During the meeting with the UP chairman and members, the chairman emphasized being pleased by the close communication being nurtured between himself and the project staff – talking weekly or even more often. The need to implement the physical interventions before the monsoon was emphasized once again. In the meeting, measures to further strengthen project communication and accountability to the community were discussed. Among the proposed measures were publicizing the list of compensated landowners in the UP office and erecting a placard with information about the project and project finances in the village center.

In the time following the field visit to date (15th May 2015), the following progress has been made:  Field staff have finished household level survey and social mapping activities to identify needs and beneficiaries.  Field staff have been in contact with Union Disaster Management Committee (UDMC) to initiate contingency planning activities.  Field staff have continued planning for People’s Participatory Planning session for project activities, scheduled for 21st May.  A technical engineer has been hired locally to assess and suggest the appropriate solutions for the physical interventions.  Field staff and CCED staff have designed mechanism for transferring compensation to landowners.

United Nations Development Programme

Dec '14: Project established Feb '15: in Keshra. Efforts to Apr '15: Oct '14: Baseline resolve Project Project surveys resistance in moves to initiated. conducted. Keshra stall. Jalalpur.

Nov '14: Jan '15: Elite Mar '15: May '15: Baseline resistance in Dialogue Participatory surveyers Keshra with elites in activities and trained. begins to Keshra does physical show. not resolve interventions resistance. begin. 5 LESSONS LEARNT

Based on project implementation so far, these are the key lessons learnt:

 Conflicts of interest between the elite and the majority: The TRM++ project has been designed to include activities to address land use conflicts arising from project implementation. As shown at Keshra, however, there may be existing land use power structures in the community blocking the project from even beginning, where the people holding the actual power of the land have no interest in raising it. Considering the extent of leasing plots for shrimp-farming in the South- West, there is a need to develop ways to address and resolve this basic conflict of interest so that the interest of the elite does not stop projects and programmes from addressing the needs of the vulnerable majority.

 Seeing is believing: Giving up land to a TRM process lasting up to several years represents a risk to landowners and to the livelihoods of those working that land. Having seen the process in action appears to have given landowners in Jalalpur confidence in the process which landowners in Keshra did not have. Showing members of the community proof of the physical process may help increase motivation for participating in the project.

 Mainstreaming social inclusion in project activities: Project design should consider how activities which appear socially neutral – such as creating paid construction work - may be implemented in a way that supports the overall socially inclusive agenda of the project, e.g. by giving equal pay for work and providing child care at the construction site.

 Complexity of issues: Waterlogging might be one of several water issues the community is dealing with. When implementing a project, it may be beneficial to consider in advance how to respond to requests from the community to tackle other water issues – such as drinking water contamination, or sanitation.

 Planning for windows of opportunity: Due to the complex socioeconomic issues and severe and long-lasting impacts of seasonal rainfall, flooding and cyclones in the South-West, projects

United Nations Development Programme

involving physical interventions need to align their implementation timeline with the seasonal calendar in order to prevent long delays due to indundation and severe waterlogging.

 Holistic assessment of project viability: In order to ensure a truly socially inclusive and participatory project, the following aspects should be assessed before beginning implantation of activities in a given locality: