Scale N 10 0 10 20 Kilometers ò òN ò ö ÿ ö òò òö òö òò ò ò ò ö ò ö ö N Nö ö ö N òö ö ö ò ò öÿ ö Nÿ ö öò ò ò ö öN ÿ ò ö N N ò ö òò ÿ ò òö ÿ N N ö ö ò ö ö ò ÿ ÿ ö òò ò ö ò ö ò öSHERPURò ö ö N N ò ò ò òò ò ò ò ò ÿ ò ò ö ö ö ò ò ò ò ö ö öö ö ò N ò òö ò ò ò ö ò ò ò ò ö ò ò ò ö ö N NETRAKONAö öò òöò ö ò ò ö òö LEGEND JAMALPUR ò ò ò ö ö ò ò ò N öN ò ò ö N ò ò ò òò òò ò ò ÿ District Boundary òòò ò ò ò ò ò ò ò ò ò ö Upazila Boundary öÿ ò ò öN ò ÿ ò ò òòN ò ö òò ò òò Ma jor River ò ò ò ÿ ò ÿ ò ò ò ò ò ò ò ò ÿ ÿ N ò ò Nö ÿ 3 Arsenic Contamination ò ò ò ö ö ò ò òò òò ò ö - ò ò ò ÿ by Tubewell (mg/l) ò ò ò ò ö ÿ 48 ò ò ò N ò ò ò òö ò N ö ò < 0.01 ö ö ò ò ò ò ò ö 0.01 - 0.05 ò ò ò öö ö ö ö ò ò ò ò ò ò öö N 0.05 - 0.1 MYMENSINGHò ö Nò N ö ò ö ò ò N ò ò N 0.1 - 0.3 ò ò ö ò ÿ ò ò òö # > 0.3 ö ò ò öö ò þ òò ò ò òÿ ò òÿ NÿN ò ò ò ò ò ò ò ò ò òò ò öN N ò ò ò òÿ Arsenic Contaminated ò öTANGAILò òò ò ö ò ö òö ò òòò òö ò ÿò N ö Tubewell (%) by Thana ò öö ò òò ö N ö ö ò ò ÿ 0 ò ò ò öòÿ òö 1 - 5 ö ò ò ò öNö ö ö ò KISHOREGANJ 5 - 20 ö ò ò ò ò ò Nòöò N ÿ N ö ò ò ö ò 20 - 40 ò öòö ò ö #ö òö ööò þNò òöòN 40 - 60 ö ÿ ö ò ÿ òÿ 60 - 80 N ö ö ö ö òÿö 80 - 100 ò ö ö ö ò ò Nÿö ò ö ò ö òö ò ÿ ö ò #öÿ Source: NAMIC, BAMWSP ò öÿ òöN þ ò ÿ (as of DFID assisted Study) ò & NWRD (WARPO) Figure 5.3.13 Arsenic Contamination in the Study Area Fig. 3.2.6 Arsenic Contamination in the Study Area Scale N 90918Kilometers 33915 33907 38990 38937 38970 36116 33929 36124 37218 SHERPUR 37240 38988 38967 33961 33958 36181 37283 37274 37209 NETRAKONA JAMALPUR 33936 37263 37204 36165 33985 36123 LEGEND 36152 District Boundary 3 MYMENSINGH 37247 Thana Boundary 37238 - 39357 37256 49 Major River 36131 36120 Inundation Land Type 39338 34833 36194 F0: High Land 36172 34892 (d<30cm) F1: Medium High Land 39319 39328 (d=30-90cm) 34827 34842 F2: Medium Low Land 34849 34859 (d=90-180cm) TANGAIL 36113 36122 F3: Low Land KISHOREGANJ34876 (d=180-300cm) 39347 34879 34802 F4: Very Low Land 39385 34845 (d>300cm) No Data 39395 39309 34806 where: d = depth of flooding 34854 39323 39366 34811 Source: NWRD (WARPO) 39376 Figure 4.2.10 Inundation Land Type Fig. 3.2.7 Land Classification by Flood Phase 3 - 50 Fig. 3.9.1 Agro-ecological Zone in the Study Area 3 - 51 Fig. 3.9.2 Zoning of Upazila in the Study Area CHAPTER 4 PROBLEMS ANALYSIS IN THE STUDY AREA 4.1 Problems Identified through the Workshops / Interviews in the Study Area In order to clarify the main issues concerning water resources and the livelihood of the Study Area, a total of 20 workshops for problem identification were held at various levels. The workshops were largely divided into two types; workshops targeting government officials to explain the contents of the Study and to discuss the related problems, and workshops targeting local residents to identify the problems related to their livelihoods and water resources development. Problem analyses were done in each workshop and problem trees were structured through the discussions. (Record of problem identification workshops are shown in Annex A-5.1) 4.1.1 Problem Identification Workshops of Government Officials Workshops targeting government officials were held at central and district levels. The central workshop was held on August 21, with representatives of relevant government agencies, donor organizations and LGED Chief Engineer and officials as participants. Contents of the Study were explained to the participants and issues related to Small Scale Water Resources Development (SSWRD) were discussed. District-level workshops were held at each of six districts in Greater Mymensingh during the period of 29 August to 7 September 2004. Each workshop took about two hours for discussing the issues related to SSWRD, with the participation of field LGED officials/officers (District Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer, Assistant Engineer SSWRDSP-2, Socio-economist SSWRDSP-2, Upazila Engineers and Community Organizers), district level representatives of relevant government agencies (BWDB, DAE, DoC, DoFo, DoFi and DoWA) and representative of Union Parishad (UP). 4.1.2 Problem Identification Workshops of Villagers in Subproject Areas Workshops at Union/WMA level were held at 13 unions and WMAs during the period of 9 - 26 September 2004. Each workshop took about three to four hours for discussions. Arrangements of the workshops were kindly made by the UP Chairman/WMA Chairman through LGED Upazila Engineer and District Assistant Engineer/Socio-economist. Some workshops held with wide variations, such as lack of female participants or a total of more than 600 participants, which were too many. Selection of the workshop sites was done based on the zoning of the Upazilas in Greater Mymensingh using elevation data and gross cropped area data of Census of Agriculture-1996 so that each site not only represent the district but also a zone (Table 3.9.2). Among the proposed subprojects, one that have passed screening of SSWRDSP-2 and the other that have not passed were selected in each district of the Study Area. 4 - 1 4.1.3 Summary of the Problem Analysis Workshops Problem analyses were done at each workshop with the core problem defined as “villagers income is low”. Discussions were made with local residents and government officers, and problem trees consisting of various issues leading to the core problem were structured. The results of problem analysis in the workshops are summarized as follows. (1) Direct Causes Ranking of the direct causes of the core problem was done by voting for 11 workshops at Unions/WMAs level. The issue of “agricultural production is low” was chosen as the most significant of the direct causes at nine Unions/WMAs. For other Unions/WMAs, “villagers cannot market their crop products” was chosen at Rasulpur Union, Ghatail Upazila, Tangail District, and “it is difficult to find jobs/work” was chosen at Iswanganj Union, Iswanganj Upazila, Mymensingh District (Table 4.1.2). “It is difficult to find jobs / work” was determined as the second significant direct cause in five Unions/WMAs, while “fishery production is low” was second in three Unions/WMAs, and “villagers cannot get good price of products” was also second in two Unions/WMAs. Other direct causes were “family expenditure is large”, “women cannot earn”, “livestock production is low”, “villagers’ wage is low”, “per capita farm land is small” etc. Since no women participated in two workshops and only one woman participated in three workshops, the ranking did not represent the voice of the women. It is expected that “women cannot earn” could be at least second or third direct cause, if women were there. Ranking of Direct Causes Identified in Union/WMA Workshops Number of Unions/WMAs regarding the issue as: Most significant Second significant Agricultural production is low 9 - Villagers cannot market their crop products 1 - It is difficult to find jobs/work 1 5 Fishery production is low - 3 Villagers cannot get good price of products - 2 (2) Problem Analysis Model for Greater Mymensingh The least common multiplier of all the problems identified in the Union/WMA level workshop is described in Fig. 4.1.1. The direct causes identified are: 1. Agricultural production is low. 2. Limited work opportunity. 3. Low profits from production 4. Fish production is low. 5. Family expenditure is high. 6. Less opportunity and access to income generation activities for women1. Livestock production is low. Most of the villagers are landless. Villagers cannot work hard. Few family members earn. (Tangail, Jamalpur and Sherpur) Villagers cannot sell timber. (Jamalpur, Sherpur and Kishoreganj) Villagers wage is low. (Netrokona) 1 only the 6th in ranking, just because only few women participated the problem analysis workshops. 4 - 2 4.1.4 Interviews and Statements at the Workshops Interviews were conducted at each workshop site to listen to the voices of villagers and to prepare for the problem analysis. To avoid the influence of local leaders and politicians such as UP Chairman and WMA Chairman, the workshop team tried to visit medium or rather shabby farm houses. Also additional interviews were conducted at two sites to find out the reasons for failure and success; 1) Digha Beel Subproject, Jatia Union, Iswanganj Upazila, Mymensingh District where many villagers opposed to the subproject, and 2) Mutbari Khal Khonnon, Mesta Union, Jamalpur Sadar Upazila, Jamalpur District.