G3: Water Governance and Community Based Management Ganges 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 -1-

Contents
About this report ............................................................................................................................................................- 4 1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1. Aim of the report ..................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.2. Methodology ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 1.3. Overview of Polder 3 area..................................................................................................................................... 9 1.3.1. Location and accessibility ............................................................................................................................... 9 1.3.2. Demographic features ...................................................................................................................................10 1.3.3. Basic Facilities Access....................................................................................................................................12 1.3.3. History of the 3 polder and Physical Interventions ..................................................................................13 2. FARMING SYSTEMS AND LIVELIHOODS .....................................................................................................15 2.1. Past and Present (Changes) ..................................................................................................................................15 2.1.1. Agriculture .......................................................................................................................................................15 2.1.2. Fisheries ...........................................................................................................................................................16 2.1.3. Livestock..........................................................................................................................................................17 2.2. Labour contracting societies and labourers .......................................................................................................17 2.2. Drinking water situation .......................................................................................................................................18 3. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF POLDER 3 .............................................................................................19 3.1. Embankment, emergency and maintenance ......................................................................................................19 3.1.1. Condition of the Embankment....................................................................................................................19 3.1.2. Emergency response ......................................................................................................................................22 3.1.3. Maintenance of the embankment and roads ............................................................................................22 3.2. Sluice gates and inlets: Operation and Maintenance ........................................................................................23 3.2.1 Condition of the Sluice gates.........................................................................................................................23 3.2.2. Operation ........................................................................................................................................................24 3.3. Canals and re-excavation ......................................................................................................................................25 3.3.1. Condition of canals: Siltation .......................................................................................................................26 3.3.2. 4. 5. Canals: Leasing........................................................................................................................................27

PARTICIPATION AND INFLUENCE ............................................................................................................27 INSTITUTIONAL COORINATION: ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.......................................29 5.1. Colonisation of the institutional framework .....................................................................................................29 5.2. Coordination ...........................................................................................................................................................36 -2-

6.

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

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

-3-

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 Tarali Parulia Debhata Bharashimla Nalta Village Kharat, Batuadanga, Tarali, Purba Tetulia and Golkhali Satpur Ranga Shisha, Nichintapur, Adorshogram Bashirabad and Komorpur FGDs and KIIs conducted at Union level Suelpur, Kandippur and Narayunpur 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 at different 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.

-4-

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 venues of 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. 5

 Adorshogram village of Parulia Union (Sluice 22-24): Northern side of the polder, near Sapmari 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 Kaksiali River, 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 to Ichamoti River, nearer canals Sapmara, Bosontopur, Gopakhali, Sonakhali, Goalmari and Sushilgati, 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, near Kakshiali 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.

Figure 1 -

Localisation of the FGD

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

FGD Type Numbers of Numbers of Total Participants Participants (Female) (Male) 0 3 2 0 1 1 10 9 0 0 1 11 11 8 10 8 10 0 0 10 12 8 11 14 10 10 9 11 10 9 10 12 9 Village (para) Union Relevant Parishad Sluice Gate Numbers Varasiml a Parulia Tarali Tarali Parulia Parulia Parulia Tarali Parulia Parulia 5&6 22 & 23 58-62 59-62 59-62 34-37 24 48-54 22-24 34-37 11-17 Adjoining Canals Age Max Min Ichamati, Suelpur khal Sapmara, Chengmari, Moyna, Haldar khal Kaksiali, Tarali, Tuskhali, Kholisakhali & Golkhali Kaksiali, Tarali. Tuskhali, Kholisakhali, Kolkhali Tuskhali, Kholisakhali, Kolkhali Banshdaha River, Rangashisa canal Sapmari river & Chengmari khal Kaksiali, Tarali, Tuskhali, Kholisakhali & Golkhali Sapmara, Chengmari, Moyna, Haldar khal Banshdaha River, Rangashisa canal Ichamoti, Sapmara. Bosontopur, Gopakhali, Sonakhali, Goalmari khal Kaksiali, Tarali, Tuskhali, Kholisakhali & Golkhali Ichamoti, Sapmara, Gopakhali, Sushilgati 65 55 60 65 30 47 22 46 52 60 72 40 25 32 28 51 31 50 26 30 25 30

General General General General General General LCS-female LCS-female LCS-male LCS-male Union Level WMC Union Level WMC Gate committee

Suelpur, Nischintopur, Tarali Batuadanga Bashirabad Rangashisha Adorshogram Tarali Nichintapur Rangashisha Debhata

2 1

8 8 Table 2 -

10 9

Tarali Boshontopur

Tarali Debhata union

48-62 11-14

54 70

32 32

List of FGDs conducted in polder3

Respondent Type Affected person Paddy Farmer Mixed farmer Big shrimp farmer Medium shrimp farmer Small shrimp farmer Female headed household Female headed household President WMC, Debhata upazila Gateman, BWDB Gateman, private (gate committee) Gateman, Parulia Illegal cutter/pipe inlet Case hanging person UP member, male, Parulia UP member, female, Parulia
Table 3 -

Village/ Venue Trali village, tarali Nalta UP Chitra tetulpur, Tarali Varasimla Batuadanga, tarali Tarali Batuadanga, Tarali Tarali UP Parulia UP Golkhali, Tarali Up Trali UP Parulia UP Varasimla Tarali UP House of UP member, Parulia

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. These two 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 9

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 interdistrict 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. .

10

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 Agriculture Industry Construction Transport Hotel/Restaurant Business Services Others All Working People Table 4 Number Debhata Kaliganj 15266 37793 529 2097 557 1085 1086 1912 83 108 8448 14348 526 1520 5192 10047 31687 68910

% of Working People
Debhata 48.18 1.67 1.76 3.43 0.26 26.66 1.66 16.39 100.00 Kaliganj 54.84 3.04 1.57 2.77 0.16 20.82 2.21 14.58 100.00

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

Occupation Pattern of the Working People

Area (Sq km) Household Population Total Density Household Size Male Population Female Population Sex Ratio Religion Muslim % Hindu % Christian and others % Literacy All Literacy M Literacy F

Debhata upazila Debhata Parulia Noapara up UP UP 21.47 43.84 34.92 3,901 7,784 6,597 16,036 32,179 27,943 747 734 800 4.1 4.1 4.2 7,831 16,115 13,900 8,205 16,064 14,043 95 100 99 85.6 84.6 82.0 14.4 15.4 18.0 0 0.003 0.011 57.2 49.7 53.7 61.7 52.8 58 52.9 46.6 49.5
Table 5 -

Kaligonj upazila Bharashimla Nalta UP UP 23.39 40.96 5,749 8,270 24,621 34,719 1053 848 4.3 4.2 12,312 17,433 12,309 17,286 100 101 87.9 90.0 12.1 10.0 0.008 0.000 48.8 53.9 52.4 57.4 45.2 50.4
Area and Population

Tarali UP 29.71 5,689 22,118 745 3.9 11,096 11,022 101 77.8 22.2 0.045 50.2 54 46.4

Total Polder 3 194.2915 37,990 157,616 811 4.1 78,687 78,929 100 85.0 15.0 0.010 52.25 56.05 48.5

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.

11

Population age 7+ not in school Male Female Employed Male Employed Female % employed Male % employed Female % Looking for Job Male % Looking for Job Female % in household work Male % in household work Female % not working Male % not working Female
Table 6 -

Debhata upazila Debhata Parulia Noapara up UP UP 3,669 7,990 6,743 1,513 3,386 2,773 2,156 4,604 3,970 1,234 2,842 2,455 168 498 244 81.6 83.9 88.5 7.8 10.8 6.1 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.5 0.5 1.4 73.8 71.4 80.9 17.4 15.4 9.6 18.3 8.6 10.0

Kaligonj upazila Bharashimla Nalta UP Tarali UP UP 7,207 8,640 5,335 3,121 3,663 2,232 4,086 4,977 3,103 2,601 2,934 1,875 256 305 265 83.3 80.1 84.0 6.3 6.1 8.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.1 1.6 2.1 75.0 73.2 76.0 15.1 17.7 13.0 9.7 8.0 12.9

Total Polder 3 39,584 16,688 22,896 13,941 1,736 83.5 7.6 0.5 0.1 1.2 74.9 14.7 1.8

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. Debhata upazila Debhata Parulia Noapara UP UP UP Agriculture % of male worker Agriculture % of female worker Industry % of male worker Industry % of female worker Services % of male worker Services % of female worker
Table 7 -

Kaligonj upazila Bharashimla Nalta Tarali UP UP UP 55.52 42.97 6.15 5.47 38.33 51.56 84.66 67.21 5.69 9.18 9.65 23.61 82.99 46.04 3.89 0.75 13.12 53.21

Total Polder 3 73.82 57.49 3.50 3.34 22.68 39.17

61.67 41.67 0.89 1.19 37.44 57.14

78.92 69.88 1.69 1.00 19.39 29.12

73.44 58.61 1.18 2.87 25.38 38.52

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

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 tubewell 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 12

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.

Sanitary Toilet water sealed % Sanitary not water sealed % Non sanitary% No latrine % water source:TW/Tape % Electicity Connected % Table 8 -

Debhata upazila Kaligonj upazila Debhata Parulia Noapara Bharashimla Nalta Tarali up UP UP UP UP UP 50.3 62.1 47.1 10.3 26.2 21.6 30.2 21.4 34.3 55.9 40 53.9 17.3 13.1 17.40 33.2 30.1 23.2 2.2 3.4 1.1 0.7 3.7 1.3 97.6 96.6 91 93.2 90.2 98 35.5 41.7 49.6 31.2 44.9 27.2
Availability of or Access to Basic Facilities

Total Polder 3 36.3 39.3 22.4 2.1 94.4 38.4

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

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 trees were 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.

13

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, parshe and small shrimp including harina and chaka. Golda farming 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, mainly bagda shrimp. 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, the gher owners 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 charge a 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 marginal gher owners 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 because they 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.

14

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 (primarily paddy) 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 Agricultural land use and paddy production, productivity and profits declined. Land converted 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.

Tarali

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. 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

Debhata

15

Union

Status and BR-28. Some Bagda and Aman rice during the rainy season. 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 is now interspersed with saline shrimp. Some rice-fish systems practiced by gher owners.
Table 9 Past and current status of agriculture, by Union

Bhara Simla

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 given rise 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-fishrice 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 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. 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

Tarali

Parulia

P34: FGD_General_Batua Danga_Tarali UP_SL59-62

16

Union

Status details are available. 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. 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

Debhata

Bhara Simla

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 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. Earlier many people reared poultry. Now it is impossible due to salinity. 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. 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 Cattle have decreased as (seasonally fallow) pasture land has been converted to shrimp ghers and salinity has increased.
Table 11 Past and current status of livestock, by Union

Tarali

Parulia

Debhata

Bhara Simla

2.2. Labour contracting societies and labourers

Though not influential in decision making, the LCS groups are seen to contribute the labour for any maintenance work that does take place. They are also seen as a mechanism to channel employment to individuals 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 of shrimp culture and the demise of agriculture which was a primary user of wage labour. The decline in 17

state-sponsored polder and other infrastructure maintenance also adversely impacts on the LCSs, being the other traditional consumer of wage labour, often through work programmes funded by Union Parishad budget lines. Now, it seems that there is no formal LSC group in this polder, formal would mean with state agency involvement. Consequently, participants may speak about LSC work even for daily labour 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: I arranged marriage ceremony for my daughter due to my work. I suffered a lot before, mostly suffered for food but now situation is not like that. This employment also appears impact positively on peoples level of self-respect and 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 opportunities from the agriculture and maintenance sectors. This labour is hired at several stages of production, namely filling the ghers with water; introducing shrimp fry, and processing the shrimp upon harvest for packaging. In Ranga Shisha village (Debhata Union) for example, the LCS group was formed with the initiative of gher owners. Some of the LCS members are unable to seek work outside of this area during seasonal unemployment, and thus depend on the ghers for work. Others, especially the men, work out side of this area in the rainy season, including Madaripur and other districts such as Barisal. The Falgun period (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 LCS members well below the government daily rate. This is significantly more so for women who are considerably worse off under gher owners. Women usually are paid between 60 120 taka per day if they work from morning to evening compared to 175 taka under government schemes. Men get substantially more (200 tk per day) for the same length of time. The lower wages are partly because the bigger gher owners require a large number of labour, and thus suppress wage rates to minimize overall labor costs. In addition, gher owners can reject any worker at any time: sometimes the gher owners give more priority to 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 from employment 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 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 in Nalta) at 15 taka/30 litres. 18

Tarali

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). 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. 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

Debhata

Bhara Simla

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 bank of 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 Informal pipes Poor condition Silted river Informal pipes closed Poor condition, damaged river erosion River condition dried up Responses 20 7 5 4 4 2 19

Embankment too low Condition good partially Poor design Condition poor salinity Condition good
Table 13 -

2 1 0 0 0

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

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 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. 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. 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. High concentration of private pipe inlets and embankment cuts that have weakened the embankment.
Table 14 Embankment condition and causes by Union

Tarali

Parulia

Debhata

Bhara Simla

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

20

Source: Institute of Water Modelling (2012). Figure 2 -

Map of Polder 3 showing locations of illegal pipes and cuts

21

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 these works. 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 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. 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. No information. 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

Tarali

Parulia

Debhata Bhara Simla

3.1.3. Maintenance of the embankment and roads Maintenance appears to be minimal, even though both the BWDB and any Water Management Organisations (WMOs) that exist are required to ensure the embankment is maintained. BWDB is considered to be unresponsive, a state linked to allegations of bribery. Union Status 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 project using female LCSs. The work is overseen by a LGED engineer from the Upazila. No information.

Tarali

Parulia

22

Union

Status 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. BWDB is unresponsive to local requests for maintenance. People thus seem to rely on self-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

Debhata

Bhara Simla

3.2. Sluice gates and inlets: Operation and Maintenance

3.2.1 Condition of the Sluice gates Condition Need to redesign embankment sluice gate and drainage Condition poor BWDB Condition active BWDB Condition good BWDB Condition inactive BWDB Condition active informal Condition active LGED Condition good informal Condition good LGED Condition inactive LGED Condition poor informal Condition poor LGED
Table 17 -

Responses 18 9 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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

Stakeholder opinion of the condition of sluice gates

Table 17 shows clearly an overwhelming view that much of the water conveyance infrastructure including the 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 mutually exclusive. A gate may well be in active use despite being in poor condition, as Table 11 suggests is in fact the case with several gates. Union Status Overall condition is poor. Most gate were constructed many years ago and are now too vulnerable to operate. 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.

Tarali Parulia

23

Union

Status Two gates are operational while the rest are damaged to varying degrees. 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 water to continuously leak into the polder.
Table 18 Condition of sluice gates by, Union

Debhata Bhara Simla

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 the existence 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 18 13 5 3 58 18 13 6 1 0 0 0 17 5 3 1

Operation
Locally appointed sluice gate operator BWDB appointed khalashi Gate committee None

Decision making
Gher owners/influential Union Parishad Local people needs based BWDB Gate committee WMG/WMCA WMA Saline water prevention committee

Funding
Local land/gher owners Local contributions Fishing rights Voluntary labour
Table 19 -

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

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 24

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 a Union Parishad. Union Status 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. 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. 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

Tarali

Parulia

Debhata

Bhara Simla

There is no designated gateman. The gher owners are in control, and operate the gates at their 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 25

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 summarised in Table 21. There does however appear to be some re-excavation taking place, although there is little information on the extent of these initiatives. Status Silted Re-excavation: taking place Lease problem yes CONFLICT Re-excavation: more needed Dried up Good condition
Table 21 -

Responses 28 11 10 4 1 0

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

Condition of canals

It is evident from Table 22 that lack of maintenance over a long period (10-15 years) has contributed to situation building up in several canals. The leasing of canals to gher owners and encroachment most often by gher owners are other important causes. These have resulted in an overall drainage system failure resulting in flooding and waterlogging. The BWDB is again conspicuous in its absence, and the control over the infrastructure exercised by gher owners again emerges as a cause for proper management practices not being followed. Union Status 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). 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. 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 26

Tarali

Parulia

Debhata

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: Leasing

The 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 government will 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 INFLUENCE

Overall, 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 making over 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 nonenforcement 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.

27

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) committees by 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 of disempowerment 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 been active 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.

28

5. INSTITUTIONAL COORINATION: ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

5.1. Colonisation of the institutional framework
Despite BWDBs formal mandate to oversee and regulate the operation and maintenance of water infrastructure 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 owners Beel 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 gate Petty repair of embankment Repair, replacement of shutter, provide wooden shutter Re-excavation of canals Water distribution among the ghers Consultations with UP, UNO and BWDB to repair polder infrastructure Mitigation 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. What these 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 for the 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.

29

Function

O&M

Responses 35 18 15 9 6 5 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 16 9 6 4 2 1 1 0 0 0

Union Parishad Gher committee responsible BWDB Local people informal technology Local people None BWDB tender contractor WMA WMG/WMCA Other Project IPSWAM NGO BWDB tender local people LGED

Funding
Union Parishad via REMP Gher owners BWDB NGO LGED Local contributions No/voluntary labor PROJECT Others Maintenance fund WMCA/WMG
Table 23 -

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

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 as limited 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 closely with 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

30

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 by monopolistic control by the shrimp farming interests.

31

Function Overall

BWDB Mandated to regulate the operation and maintenance of sluice gates; repair and reconstruct embankments; excavate and re-excavate Khals and canals and improvement drainage. Does not maintain the khals and canals inside the polder. Perceived to exercise very limited oversight. Claimed its officers know about illegal pipes but keep silent. SO investigates complaints only if he gets money. BWDB conducts the occasional repair of a wooden shutter which is financed by gher owners. Corruption of BWDB came up several times in the discussion. Seen as non-transparent and antiparticipation. Low physical presence and deals mainly with the elites. Low level of awareness of what BWDB is supposed to do with respect to water management. Some individuals seem not even know what the BWDB is.

Union Parishads Emerge as not only the most active state institution in the water sector, but also as the preferred organisation in the opinion of many stakeholders. Considered the most suitable option for water management because: They work closely with the people; People can easily access UPs to make complains, request help, and express opinions; Have has authority to take-up issues to the Upazila, DC/UNO; Has demonstrated the ability to take decisions quickly; The primary source of information on planned development activities; and Supports urgent repairs to sluice gates and embankment. Seen as key actor, along with Upazilas in conflict resolution, though no examples were provided. (Nichintapur, Parulia Uninion) Plays major role in promoting safe drinking water, but has an insignificant role in open water management. According to governments standing order, one of the thirteen committees of the UP is responsible for working on water, sanitation and awareness raising. Funds small scale repairs to the embankment, canals and gates and also excavates blocked canals primarily through its social employment programmes and donor projects.

WMAs Discusses problems related to water and sanitation in monthly meetings. Claim to resolve conflicts regarding water sharing, but this seems limited to conflicts between gher owners. Sometimes referred to the UNO and then to the DC Office. Water management issues also discussed at Upazila coordination meetings. Chairman of UP is also the Chair of the WMA. (Tarali Union) Membership does not include any landless people since as they do not have land, their opinions do not come properly. Does not have a fund with which to finance activities, and intends to establish a cooperative to raise funds. (Debhata Union)

WMCs & WMGs Debhata Upazila WMG working on availability of water for agriculture; water logging and salinity problems, and improving public awareness on water use and management. Active with continued support of Uttaran (an NGO).

Other actors Significant number of informal institutions especially for sluice gate operation and management. Tend to be established and run by gher operators for their own purposes.

32

Function

BWDB

Union Parishads Often coordinates responses to emergencies and the provision of relief to affected persons. Because their formal role in water management outside of drinking water is marginal, budget allocations for any large scale maintenance and other work are a constant restriction. Possibility of there being a strong undercurrent of self-interest behind responses where respondents are members of either the UP itself or of other water bodies (WMC, WMG, Gate Committee) as well as shrimp farmers. Assessing the suitability of the UP as a harmonising and organising entity in the water sector is therefore complex, especially given the entrenched nature of the current and often informal decision making mechanisms. This is a major concern when considering option of expanding the role of UPs in water management. Perceived by some to be absorbed with the interests of the elites and disinterested in serving the poor. (Parulia Union)

WMAs

WMCs & WMGs

Other actors

Embankment

Attempts at prohibiting people to bring saline water into the polder, thwarted by gher owners. (Satpur, Tarali Union) Is meant to implement all maintenance work, but most often does not. (Ranga Shisha, Parulia Union) Appears to allocate money even where the work is done by the Union Parishad.

Not involved in water management. (Ranga Shisha, Parulia union) Ward no. 7 and 8 were flooded by damaged embankment. UP repaired it. This was done under the Extreme Poor (40 Days) project where 30 (usually landless) people under each UP member are to get work through a lottery. Claimed that this is manipulated through bribes and nepotism.

No reference to WMA involvement.

No reference to WMC/WMG involvement.

33

Function

BWDB (Nichintapur, Parulia Union) Appears to be inactive, and is said to exist in name only. (Bosontopur, Debhata Union)

Union Parishads (Komorpur, Parulia Union) Tests drinking water quality. (Komorpur, Parulia Union) Only agency that provides a budget for water management (e.g. Embankment and khal repairs) from its Kabikha, TR and 40 days poverty reduction programmes. The DC has empowered the UP to work with embankment issues (Debhata Union) Sometimes implements a few small repairs, but is not formally mandated to do so. Has failed to repair foot-bridge on Shapmara canal despite requests from the village. (Nichintapur, Parulia Union) Excavates and re-excavates canals to mitigate water logging. Forms a committee to oversee the work. 2 UP members designated to supervise. (Komorpur, Parulia Union) If a proposal for infrastructure (e.g. canal/pipe) is received, it is reviewed by the chairman. He shares it with the TNO if necessary. UP members and standing committee then sit in meeting in Union Parishad to make a decision on the proposal. (Komorpur, Parulia Union) Installed pipe in the road to drain out water from village and Gher. Provides pipe once it is approved by UNO office. (Komorpur, Parulia Union) Implements canal excavations .(Bharat Simla Union)

WMAs

WMCs & WMGs

Other actors

Canals

Constructed some culverts and drains in association with LGED with financial support from ADB. (Tarali Union)

Despite not possessing funds or assets, Debhata WMC is said to engage in drainage maintenance with funds from ActionAid channelled via Uttaran. It claims it freed a canal from blockage by gher owners in 2010 with help of the Upazila chairman and police. But in general WMC activities impeded by gher owners who occupy land and canals and refuse to cooperate.

34

Function Gates

BWDB Gatemen removed from BWDB cadre in the 1998 restructuring, leaving a vacuum in gate O&M.

Union Parishads

WMAs Employs a gate operator (gate not specified). His salary is arranged by the UP by collecting money from local people.

WMCs & WMGs No reference to WMC/WMG involvement.

Other actors Gate committees dominated by gher owners who control gate operation based on their requirements. (Debhata) Department of Public Health installs deep tube wells in association with Union Parishad. (Komorpur, Parulia Union)

Other

Table 24 -

Summary of stakeholder views of key local water sector actors

35

5.2. Coordination
There has been little or no investigation into this aspect of institutional operation thus far. However, it appears that no formal links exist between BWDB and Union Parishads in water management, other than for the UPss supporting maintenance work by funding the labour through their social programmes. There is in fact some reference to BWDB obstructing UP initiatives. Coordination does appear to take place between the UPS and the UNO and DC Offices, although their formal mandates in the water sector are marginal. Coordination between Union Parishads, WMAs, WMGs/WMCs and the mostly informal gate committees occurs mainly due to the overlaps in memberships where UP members are also members of (and usually run) the other organisations. Thus the UP members are well placed to inform the memberships of the other organisations of relevant decisions and information on developments in the area. A coordination function is also played by monthly meetings organised by the UNO which are attended by officers from different government agencies. It is claimed that open discussions are held at ward level, and that participants are aware of the decision taken. These meetings are not limited to water management, and there is insufficient information regarding exactly how they do and can influence coordination within the water sector and between the water and other sectors.

6. SUMMURY AND CONCLUSIONS

Table 25, confirms that water management and the broader developmental trajectory of this polder is dominated by the overarching influence of shrimp (bagda) that has dramatically altered the ecological, economic, social, institutional and political landscapes within this polder over the past two or three decades. This situation can also be expressed in the form of key conflicts between the commercial shrimp interests and arguably the rest of the local stakeholder groups as expressed in Table 25. Problem Salinity poor food security LIV DRINKING WATER Salinity crops FARMSYST WATERLOGGING MANAGEMENT Future Scenario Drinking Water Salinity Salinity deforestation LIV Drinking Water Arsenic SALINITY Waterlogging effects damages crops Waterlogging no Salinity biodiversity loss LIV Salinity health LIV Drinking Water tubewells scarce RIVER EROSION_Q3 Waterlogging effects damages shrimp SILTATION_Q2 Responses 32 28 26 24 21 16 14 10 10 8 8 8 8 7 5 4 3 36

Problem EM PROBLEM cyclone/tidal surge Waterlogging drainage remedy Drinking Water Iron Drinking Water tubewells distance Salinity gate Q3 Irrigation PROBLEM Salinity less fish LIV Waterlogging SUG:TRM
Table 25 -

Responses 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0

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

Stakeholder responses on problems they face

Parties Paddy farmers versus shrimp farming entrepreneurs/ gher owners

Cause

Effect

Resolution Unresolved despite surface appearance of peace through Union Parishad mediation Usually) and UNO (occasionally). The conflict persists despite token show of law enforcement; hidden under corrupt disregard of lawbreaking.

Outcome The weaker parties fail to fight back the strong shrimp gher owners and resent the adversaries Ordinary people see government as unfriendly, uncaring, corrupt and incompetent.

Entry of saline water Serious reduction in inside of the polder crop farming, and major disruption in ecological balance of flora and fauna Illegal installation of pipes to take saline water to gher and the illegal occupation of government land (khas canals) Influx of saline water detrimental to farms and small gher; weakening of embankment, water logging through occupying canals and obstructing water flows General disregard of The poor lose their the weak and the poor lands and livelihoods security. They have trouble getting fresh drinking water and water for irrigation to produce paddy/ other crops Table 26 -

Government versus gher owners

The rich elite (mainly large gher owners) versus the voiceless poor, paddy farmers, small gher owners, landless and women

The poor are unable to fight back, but they wish the ghers to go away and the old days of farming to come back or at least alternating paddy farming with shrimp gher.

Social marginalization of the poor leading towards destitution and sickness.

Key conflicts between gher owners and other stakeholders

Impacts on ecological and livelihoods systems

The changes in land use patterns due mainly to shrimp culture, and their impacts on the local biophysical conditions and associated traditional livelihoods are clear and enormous. Not only have shrimp farmers captured the institutional landscape, they have also been allowed to take control of large extents of land that was either privately owned and used for farming, or state owned and used as common pool resources in local livelihood strategies. Tactics adopted to achieve this have included outright purchase, informal and illegal leases, outright encroachment of land and canals, and the more insidious ploy of wilfully raising water and soil salinity levels of agricultural land adjacent to shrimp farms, making them non-productive 37

and leaving their owners little choice but to either sell or lease the land to gher owners. In doing this, salinity levels in both water and soil have risen sharply in most parts of the polder making any economic activity other than shrimp culture virtually futile. Some farmers capable of making the required investments needed have opted to become shrimp farmers themselves. Others have lost their primary (in not only) livelihood asset, as well as a way of life. It appears that significant numbers of households are marginalised due to the decline in agriculture, and in Nalta up to 80% of households are now reported to be landless, indicating a significant concentration of land ownership. The role of land (ownership or access) must be emphasised as a critical resources that cannot be separated from issues of water management. Without the ownership over or ability to access land, access to water will have limited value especially from livelihoods and food security perspectives. This is especially so considering the interrelated services provided by water and land (including soil) for meeting broader national goals and key international commitments such as Bangladeshs Millennium Development Goals commitments. The available information strongly suggests that the well-being of a majority of households has deteriorated significantly with the decline of paddy cultivation (the primary livelihood activity) as well as livestock and open access fisheries. While prior to shrimp farming, the wealthy land owners leased their land to the landless for agriculture, when they saw shrimp culture gave more profit, they occupied all lands (stopped leasing out land) and started shrimp culture themselves. This further reduced the land available for agriculture. Income and food insecurity has risen as has unemployment and outmigration since less crop cultivation also means less demand for labour. The shrimp farms that have replaced crop cultivation are significantly less labour intensive, and the labour that does wok in the ghers when needed, are at the mercy of the owners with respect to wages and security of work in the absence of any regulatory oversight by the state. This is in contrast to the more structured LCS system under the Union Parishads that almost assures individuals of a fixed number of work days when labour is needed as well as a higher wage rate. Failure to conduct repairs on the water infrastructure has also caused a paucity of such labour contracts, making many unemployed individuals dependant on the ghers. Migration has become a livelihood strategy for many of the men. For women, the water situation is particularly problematic. Fresh water is scarce and due to salinity they need to buy food from the bazaar as the homestead garden is insufficient. The loss of fruit trees, fish, livestock and paddy are seen as extreme costs not being outweighed by any contributions to the local economy by shrimp cultivation.

Unravelling of objectives behind polderisation

From a water management standpoint too, the original objectives of constructing the embankment (physical protection and promotion of saline-free agriculture) have been reversed by the active encouragement of saline water into the polder at the expense of agriculture. The methods used to bring in saline water to the ghers and the ghers themselves (proximity to embankment) also undermine the structural integrity of the embankment. The direct or indirect control of water management institutions by gher owners has further meant that maintenance work is impeded where it does not correspond to the production requirements of the shrimp farms. Moreover, this factor is likely to supersede the problem of financing such maintenance, in the event that a solution to the later problem is identified. The same issues plague the canals and sluice gates, causing water logging. Unplanned location of ghers and barriers built to keep out fresh water from their ponds, coupled with silted canals and faulty sluice gates means monsoonal water does not drain out quickly from the villages and at other times, saline water cannot be kept out. The consequences for income and food security of prolonged waterlogging are severe for several thousands of households throughout the polder.

38

Capture of institutions
There seems to be firstly little maintenance of the infrastructure according to what is technically required, and secondly, decisions over the release of water appear to be controlled by a single interest group, namely the shrimp farmers. An overarching driver of this situation is the inability or unwillingness of the BWDB and other state actors to implement the law and stipulated maintenance regimes. According to the report by BELA for the G3 project, despite the many illegal actions of gher owners, no case from polder 3 has been filed in the courts as no charge sheet was given by the police. This was attributed to the political power of the shrimp interests and their ability to influence the authorities with money. It notes that Union Parishads, BWDB, Department of Agriculture Extension, Upazila level committees and the police have all been unsuccessful, if not inactive, in handling conflicts of salinity intrusion, particularly in polder 3. This is mainly due to the governments arbitrary support to commercial shrimp cultivation and its protective policies for the rich shrimp traders. Other factors observed in polder 3 are that shrimp farmers are much more organized and powerful, and that small farmers and other marginalised groups lack the organisation needed to resist salinity intrusion. This absence of regulatory authority has allowed what are meant to be multi-stakeholder, democratic institutions (WMA, WMG, WMC and Gate Committee) to be colonised by a single interest group. The membership of these water management organisations and that of Union Parishads often overlap to varying degrees. If such an individual is also a shrimp farmer, then a three, four or even five-way conflict of interest arises whereby the shrimp interest is infused into each institution where he/she is a member. In this manner, ensuring the interests of shrimp farmers has become the all-pervasive logic throughout this institutional landscape, and the local water management institutions have become little more that vehicles by which to legitimize control. Farmers and other local stakeholders appear to be almost completely shut out or are at best, a voiceless minority. The degree to which this status quo is entrenched can be seen from responses to issues of participation where the experience of marginalisation has become a logic for disinterest in participation. While this study focuses on water government mechanisms, the above makes clear that it is difficult to disentangle water governance from an overall governance failure. In fact, it may be argued that the economic imperative of bagda, not only for individuals, but also for the government (foreign currency) has been a major driver in undermining not just water management institutions but also those such as Union Parishads. As is made clear by the report on case law compiled by BELLA related to shrimp cultivation, the Shrimp Mohal Management policy seeks to further entrench shrimp culture by formally demarcating land for the exclusive purpose of this endeavour, with little or no consideration for safeguards against infrastructure and local livelihoods failure. It is also noteworthy that no role is seen for the BWDB in effecting change, reflecting a total lack of confidence in both its capacities for and sincerity in discharging its duties. In fact, and as indicated by Table 27 the most common view is for Union Parishads to assume a much greater role in water management to the degree that these institutions will assume a primary organising and decision making function. However, assessing the suitability of the UP as a harmonising and organising entity in the water sector is complex given the significant merging of its membership with gher interests. Actor Union Parishad: perception positive First point of contact Conflict resolution: local people Conflict resolution: Union Parishad Conflict resolution: shrimp court cases Responses 39 8 8 7 39

Conflict resolution: Upazila Parishad 6 Conflict resolution: WMC 3 Conflict resolution:s hrimp mass movement against salinity 2 Source: Extracted from transcripts of FGDs and KIIs conducted by Sushilan (2012).
Table 27 Stakeholders institutional preferences for conflict resolution

Fate of water infrastructure and shrimp culture management are intertwined

Aside from the disastrous impacts on local livelihoods and ecological systems, the influence exerted by shrimp farming emerges as a major factor when considering options for improved water infrastructure operation and maintenance. The level of control it exercises over O&M practices, the violation of canal and embankment structural integrity, and its ability to negate the BWDBs regulatory mandate has effectively dismantled any regularised O&M schedule that may have existed. Therefore, while financing O&M remains one of the main challenges, solving this is unlikely to be enough if the government is unable to wrest control of the decision making over O&M from the gher owners. This in turn suggests that a significant change in policy towards shrimp culture is unavoidable, and the options in this respect a range from the outright banning bagda culture, to various degrees of regulation, or the enforcement of existing rules. Suggestions that emerge from the stakeholder dialogs reflect this, and include banning; preparation according to strict environmental standards, and modernisation. Several considerations in addition to the obvious vested interests and bagdas status as a major export commodity suggest that a ban will be an unlikely option. As one gher operator recognised, a change from shrimp to rice would take several years for excess salinity to leave the soil, during which time agriculture will be not practical. Any such change would also need to involve everyone as only a few operators making the change is unlikely to have an impact. Another basic challenge is the greater profitability of bagda over agriculture, and the likelihood that a large proportion of operators resides outside the polder and thus has no vested interest in the long-term impacts within the polder. In the absence of a ban, a combination of approaches will be necessary to ensure that the location of ghers does not undermine the embankment or canals, and that authority over O&M decisions are restored to the formal authorities (the BWBD in this polder) as well as to more representative local institutions, whether these are WMAs/WMCs or an alternate model.

40

Annex 1: Situation Report for Tarali Union 1. Farming systems and livelihoods
1.1. Past and Present (Changes)

Agriculture
A decline in agricultural land use and paddy production levels are seen, along with a shift to modern varieties (and loss of traditional ones) often linked to higher use of chemical fertilisers. Cost of fertiliser appears to have risen from 4 to 20 takka.2 Farmers with land on higher ground are at an advantage due to less salinity intrusion and risk of flooding. Profits from paddy have declined, as has productivity.

Fisheries
Shrimp farming dominates fisheries, although mixed shrimp-fish-rice systems exist. Shrimp started in the early 1970s but grew commercially in the 1980s. Most of the fresh water fish species have almost disappeared. Governments support to shrimp farming is the key driver. Galda is not grown in most villages because the water requirement is very high and growth requires 7-8 months whereas bagda can be sold in 3 months.. Overall expenses for galda are higher. Now the salinity levels also prohibit galda production.

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 grasslands to ghers where access is now restricted: Cattle are not allowed to enter others land. They do not allow us to collect a little amount of grass. As a result we keep our cows on our house. I am facing problem on this because I cannot feed my cow properly. I have to cut the Bichuli or Pol (Straw/Residues of paddy) to feed them. Straws of the paddy (Bichuli) is taka 200 which is difficult for me to collect. As a result, milk is not produced enough, I got 2 kg milk at the previous time but now only 500 gram. I cannot bear my family by selling that milk. I cannot rear the ducks, hen or other cattle.3

2.2

Drinking water situation

There is meant to be a project to supply drinking water through a pipe line in this union, but it has not happened yet. Presently tube well water is contaminated with Arsenic which is said to be a recent occurrence.4 Several villages therefore are forced to obtain (mainly by women) water for households and cattle from a distance.

P51: KII_WHH_65 years illiterate_Tarali-Tarali UP_SL_60-61 P51: KII_WHH_65 years illiterate_Tarali-Tarali UP_SL_60-61 4 P39: FGD_UP_WMA_Tarali UP_SL48-60
2 3

41

Table 1.1: Changes and trends in agriculture

Kharat Used to grow indigenous paddy varieties (Ayish pile, Chini pile, Nazir shail, Patna, Chini kani, Begun bichi). Also grew wheat, jute, various oil seeds and lentil. Now trees are dying due to salinity. Now transplanted Boro in privately/community managed irrigation blocks. Amon in rainy season and jute in summer. Prawn (Galgda) also in rainy season. Paddy now uses only 30% of land due to shrimp farms and resulting saline intrusion and water logging. About 1,000 farmers affected in 2011.5 Demand for labour also declined accordingly. Batuadanga Paddy production started to decrease in the last 10-12 years after shrimp culture started. Amon rice and BRRI 23 cultivated after rains in a small area. Salinity has to be first washed out by rain water. Paddy yield is not very good. Water salinity is very high.6 Cultivation very limited and only in rainy seasons. Existing trees are dying. Irrigation not needed earlier. Natural flow of rain was good enough for crops and indigenous aquaculture. Now irrigating by tube wells at 200 hands length intervals. Sometimes there is no water for paddy even after digging 1200 feet.7 Demand for labour also declined along with paddy cultivation. Villages in Tarali Union Tarali Used to grow indigenous varieties of paddy such as Ayish pile, Chini pile, Nazir shail, Patna, Chini kan and, Begun bichi. Now, BR-10, 11, 12, 23, and 30 varieties and China paddy (requires less fertiliser) are cultivated. BR 30 grown in rainy season. It is grown as it ripens within 4 months before the water rises. It is harvested during June-July.8 Salt tolerant rice variety (BR41) newly introduced. Integrated rice and fish farming in sweet water during the rainy season. Earlier we did not have irrigation system. (Natural flow of water and rain was good enough for crop production and indigenous aquaculture). Now irrigation is by shallow pumps. Land was very fertile and no chemical fertilizer was need. Now, chemical fertilizer is essential for rice because soil fertility has decreased significantly due to salinity.9 Purba Tetulia Amon paddy in monsoon and BR23 and 4. Mixed with white fish (Ruhi, Mrigel, Tablet) during monsoon.10 Depend on rain water for agriculture and fish. In dry season, water is pumped using shallow machine. Due to soil salinity crop land is limited. Land owners no longer lease their land for agriculture. Golkhali 15 years earlier, mainly rice was cultivated, but has been displaced by ghers.11 Branches of tress used for cooking. Satpur Paddy is difficult to grow due to saline water. People cultivate block paddy where effects of salinity is lower. People have also cultivating some paddy with fish for last three years.12 Vegetables are difficult to grow in homesteads. Land owners no longer lease their land for agriculture.

Note: Not data for Golkhali village.

P28: FGD_General_Kharat_Tarali_SL60 P34: FGD_General_Batua Danga_Tarali UP_SL59-62 7 P47: KII_Gateman_Batuadanga_Tarali UP SL62 8 P51: KII_WHH_65 years illiterate_Tarali-Tarali UP_SL_60-61 9 P39: FGD_UP_WMA_Tarali UP_SL48-60 10 P49: KII Paddy farmer mixed_Purba Tetulia_Tarali UP_SL59-60 11 P46: KII_Gateman_Golkhali_Tarali UP_SL61 12 P44: KII_Landless_anti_shrimp_Satpur_Tarali_UP_SL60-61
5 6

42

Table 1.2: Changes and trends in fisheries

Villages in Tarali Union Kharat Used to have access to native fish (Chang, Shoil, Puti, Jiol) in canal. Now only Tilapia and small shrimp. 70% land ghers. used for Batuadanga When the embankment was built, canals were wide and full of water. Huge numbers of fish could be caught in the canals. Today, shrimp is more profitable than paddy. But recently shrimp is affected by virus infection causing huge losses. Incidence of infection has increased for last few years. It was not so much in the past years.13 Galda is not grown. Tarali Culture fisheries due to water logging. Most fresh water species (e.g. Boal, Tola, Shoal, Koi, Magur, Chang, Gura) have almost disappeared. This area is shrimp dominated due to extended salinity. As the government encourages shrimp production, the people have widely started shrimp culture by using saline water over the past 5 years. Gher owners cultivate Tilapia, Glasscup, Silvercup, Pangas, Tangra, Teblet fish due to their high prices.14 Purba Tetulia Most people engaged in shrimp culture. Some evidence of move away from bagda to white fish culture and paddy in last two years after bagda virus.15

Note: Not data for Golkhali and Satpur villages.

Table 1.3: Changes and trends in livestock

Villages in Tarali Union Kharat Earlier many crops and grass grew in the Bee (low lying area) where cattle were grazed after Amano paddy harvest in December. 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.16 Loss of open access beels as a source for grazing. Note: No data for Purba Tetulia, Golkhali and Ghusuri villages. Batuadanga Cattle have no food. Earlier many people reared poultry. Now it is impossible due to salinity.17 Loss of open access beels as a source for grazing. Tarali Livestock is about to disappear. Used to be thousands of bighas paddy land and cattle food was available. Now area of paddy land has decreased as have grasslands (e.g. in beels). Satpur Earlier we could raise cattle in our house. Poor farmers are not getting land as lease after the initiation of shrimp culture. As a result, with the land, the amount of grass (e.g. in beels) decreased and the number of cattle decreased as well.

P54: KII_Shrimp farmer small_Batuadanga_Tarali UP_SL62-63 P51: KII_WHH_65 years illiterate_Tarali-Tarali UP_SL_60-61 15 P49: KII Paddy farmer mixed_Purba Tetulia_Tarali UP_SL59-60
13 14 16 17

P28: FGD_General_Kharat_Tarali_SL60

P54: KII_Shrimp farmer small_Batuadanga_Tarali UP_SL62-63

43

Table 1.4: Drinking water

Villages in Tarali Union Kharat There is a huge drinking water crisis.18 No deep tube wells. A few shallow tube wells. Women bring water from 1.5 km away. Batuadanga Drinking water scarcity is severe. Most of the tubewells are affected by arsenic.19 Some people bring water from a tube well 2 km from the village. Fresh water also needed for cattle. Tarali 85% of people in this area used to drink pond water. There was 1 tube well per 100 people. Presently, pond water is drunk through Pond-Sand-Filters (PSF) due to increased water salinity. Delta Fish (a private enterprise) at Nalta sells sweet water, but only affordable to some. Many people also collect water from there. Deep tube wells of this area are inactive.20 Iron and arsenic are said to be prevalent, but drinking water scarcity arises more due to salinity.21 Women collect water from Paigora (no payment required except when that tube well needs repairs). Purba Tetulia Drinking water has to be collected from Delta fish (private company in Nalta). It costs 15 taka per 30 litres.22 Ghusuri Scarcity of water for drinking and cooking. Drinking water is sourced from a pond after filtering, and from a private tub well between 8am to 3pm.23 Satpur Used to drink pond water after filtering. Now face serious shortage of drinking and cooking water. Have to fetch water from 3 miles away. There is no deep tube well or PSF. Arsenic was found in the shallow tube wells.24

Note: Not data for Golkhali village.

P28: FGD_General_Kharat_Tarali_SL60 P34: FGD_General_Batua Danga_Tarali UP_SL59-62 20 P39: FGD_UP_WMA_Tarali UP_SL48-60 21 P51: KII_WHH_65 years illiterate_Tarali-Tarali UP_SL_60-61; P55: KII_WHH_42years_Tarali_Tarali UP, SL59-60 22 P49: KII Paddy farmer mixed_Purba Tetulia_Tarali UP_SL59-60 23 P37: FGD_LCS_ female_Ghusuri_Tarali UP_SL_52-54 24 P44: KII_Landless_anti_shrimp_Satpur_Tarali_UP_SL60-61
18 19

44

2. Physical characteristics
2.1. Embankment, emergency and maintenance

Condition of the Embankment The embankment is considered to be at risk in Kharat due to the salt water used in the many ghers situated along the embankment which erodes it and allows water to leach in. It is suggested that this can be avoided if the ghers maintains safe distance from the embankment. However, another cause is the illegal pipes and cuts which also undermine the structures integrity.25 In Batuadanga, some pipes appear to have been removed by BWDB after Aila, although influential gher owners continue with this practice. Nobody obstructs them. Consequently, there are said to be a large number in the embankment.26 Part of the reason for this that most people of this village have a gher, and so everyone needs the water.27 It was explained that when pipes are installed by drilling into the embankment, water pressure causes this openings to become larger and the embankment becomes weaker. During Aila the embankment was damaged at Gabura, Munsigonj.28 The eroding effect of salinity is present here as well.29 In Ghusuri, the issue of illegal pipes also exists. Gher owners also construct new gates by cutting the embankment to get water for their gher.30 The embankment has been damaged close to Basukhali (no details given as to the cause). There are between 20-30 illegal pipes in Purba Tetulia,31 while there are said to be almost 100 of cuttings or pipes in Golkhali Emergency response According to the Tarali WMA, the Union Parishad carries out maintenance activities under the leadership of UNO during emergencies.32 This seems to be confirmed by the LCS (female) FGD in Ghusuri where Union Parishad announces damage to the embankment through loud speakers. Gher owners also do this (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. The gher owners initially bear the cost and later are reimbursed by the Government (BWDB or UP?).33 Similarly, in Kharat, when the embankment was damaged by floods and river erosion in 2011, the UP chairman had taken initiatives to organize the village for repairs and supplied sand bags.34

25 26 27

P42: KII_UPM_male_Batuadanga_Tarali UP_SL62 P54: KII_Shrimp farmer small_Batuadanga_Tarali UP_SL62-63 28 P47: KII_Gateman_Batuadanga_Tarali UP SL62 29 P34: FGD_General_Batua Danga_Tarali UP_SL59-62 30 P37: FGD_LCS_ female_Ghusuri_Tarali UP_SL_52-54 31 P49: KII Paddy farmer mixed_Purba Tetulia_Tarali UP_SL59-60 32 P39: FGD_UP_WMA_Tarali UP_SL48-60 33 P37: FGD_LCS_ female_Ghusuri_Tarali UP_SL_52-54 34 P28: FGD_General_Kharat_Tarali_SL60

P28: FGD_General_Kharat_Tarali_SL60

45

Maintenance of the embankment and roads According to the Tarali WMA, although BWDB works in this area through contractor, it has no acceptance amongst the general people since any work they do is based on bribes.35 In Khata, it is also claimed that the SO never speaks against gher owners even though there are a lot of pipe inlets. It appears that in Ghusuri, the top of the embankment is being repaired with funds the LGEDs RREMP project using female LCSs. The work is overseen by a LGED engineer from the Upazila. Male labour gets 180 taka per day, and they work from 8am to 2 pm, while female workers get only 80 per day, but work from 8 am to 4 pm. Male labour gets more money because they work under the REOPA project of an NGO, while the women work under LGED.36 Reference to bribes appears again in Golkhali where attempts to remove pipes and cuts have been blunted by bribes.37 The removal of pipes appears to have been successful in Purba Tetulia following complaints to the UNO with follow up by the Upazila near Kaligonj. This had resulted in many paddy fields being saved.38

2.2.

Sluice gates and inlets: Operation and Maintenance

Condition of the Sluice gates Gate 48-60 59-60 60 60-61 62-63 Village All Purba Tetulia Kharat Golkhali Batuadanga Condition Constructed many years ago and are now too vulnerable to operate due to the lack of maintenance and proper repair work.39 Wooden plate of sluice gates should be replaced to steal doors.40 The gate is at risk. When water drains out during low tide, water also drains out from the embankment area causing erosion.41 In good working order (possibly gate 61). Felt that the gate should be widened.42 The Gateman claims the gate is being damaged by snails.43 The gate is broken and the canal is about to close.44

With respect to gates 59 and 60, BWDB staff maintain the big gate (not specified) while a Gher owner maintains the small gate. It is stated that the Union Parishad repairs the sluice gates 62 and 63 when any small repair is needed.

P39: FGD_UP_WMA_Tarali UP_SL48-60 P37: FGD_LCS_ female_Ghusuri_Tarali UP_SL_52-54 37 P46: KII_Gateman_Golkhali_Tarali UP_SL61 38 P49: KII Paddy farmer mixed_Purba Tetulia_Tarali UP_SL59-60 39 P39: FGD_UP_WMA_Tarali UP_SL48-60 40 P49: KII Paddy farmer mixed_Purba Tetulia_Tarali UP_SL59-60 41 P28: FGD_General_Kharat_Tarali_SL60 42 P46: KII_Gateman_Golkhali_Tarali UP_SL61 43 P46: KII_Gateman_Golkhali_Tarali UP_SL61 44 P42: KII_UPM_male_Batuadanga_Tarali UP_SL62; P54: KII_Shrimp farmer small_Batuadanga_Tarali UP_SL62-63
35 36

46

Operation From the table below it is clear not only that most gates are under the control of gher owners, often loosely formed into a committee, but also the considerable overlap of official responsibilities and powers and private (gher) interests, especially through the dual identities of UP Chairmen and members. The logic for gher owners seeking to control the gates is clear: The main income for our family comes from shrimp culture. Shrimp is not produced well when water is insufficient in the gher. As a result virus infects the gher. At least 23 feet water has to be maintained in gher. It helps in fish production. It is better if the amount of water remains enough. If the water decreases in gher, the production of shrimp will reduce.45
Gate 48-60 Village Operation Old gate committee is there. The committee was formed in association with BWDB. Chairman of UP is the Chair of this Committee. There is a dedicated person to operate the gate. Ghusuri Purba Tetulia (not consistent with 59-62) Batuadanga Similar to gate 62.46 Each UP member controls the sluice gate in his ward. A man is appointed by the local people to operate the gate and maintain water flow. The Union Parishad is also connected, it seems through the UP chairman.47 Previously BWDB was active and employed gatemen. This stopped 10-15 years back. Now there is no formal committee. There is a private gate keeper employed by the gher owners. He opens the gate for 6 days of each goan (fortnightly), so that the gate remains open for 12 days monthly.48 The gate is not operated properly (opened at night). This is blamed on the BWDB officers who are not active. Claimed they have a good relationship with gher owners. Enabled gher owners to take control of gate operation and also maintain their illegal pipes. There had earlier been a committee which was formed by involving local people.49 However, claimed in the same FGD that the gate is controlled by the Union Parishad, and that the BWDB implements all the main maintenance work, while the UP does the minor repairs. Whether this reflects the fact that the UP Chairman is also a gher owner and also controls this committee is unclear. The small and tail end ghers receive comparatively less water.50 Gate committee meetings are called once per year, but more often if there are severe problems. One of the large gher owners conducts the meeting.51 Implied by the gateman that Type of committee Unclear. Difficult to deduce the level of control exercised by the Chairman. Informal committee of gher owners. Possibly informal headed by the UP Chairman who may also be a gher owner. Informal. Controlled gher owners. by

52-54 59-60

59-62

60

Kharat

Informal. controls.

Unclear

who

61

Golkhali

Controlled by gher owners.

P54: KII_Shrimp farmer small_Batuadanga_Tarali UP_SL62-63 P37: FGD_LCS_ female_Ghusuri_Tarali UP_SL_52-54 47 P49: KII Paddy farmer mixed_Purba Tetulia_Tarali UP_SL59-60 48 P34: FGD_General_Batua Danga_Tarali UP_SL59-62 49 P28: FGD_General_Kharat_Tarali_SL60 50 P28: FGD_General_Kharat_Tarali_SL60 51 P46: KII_Gateman_Golkhali_Tarali UP_SL61
45 46

47

Gate

Village

Operation election of the committee was not fair, and without real participation.52 He is accountable to 1065 gher owners, and especially to Mr. Monir who has ghers covering 100-150 bigha.53

Type of committee

62

Batuadanga

Before 2000 BWDB maintained the gate. Responsibility shifted to Union Parishad chairman after 2000 (not clear why).54 There now is a committee of 12 formed by 150 Hindu and Muslim gher owners who help maintain the gate. They monitor embankment damage and decide when the gate is opened and closed based on needs of gher owners. 55 Gate actually operated by one of the small gher owners named Shamsur.56 Claimed the Union Parishad chairman in fact controls the gher committee.57 The gate remains open for 1-2 hours during high tide. The local people take the decision, and the gate man and people of this area open the gate collectively. The way by which water is managed is good for shrimp culture.58

Informal committee of gher owners.

62-63

Batuadanga

Not explicit, but appears to be informal and controlled by gher owners.

2.3.

Canals and re-excavation

Condition of canals: Siltation According to the WMA of Tarali, there is an overall need to de-silt the canals and reconstruct the drainage system.59 In Kharat, the canal is silted and needs to be re-excavated, with an alternate way provided to drain water (no reason given for this).60 About 5000 bigha of land was under water for one and half months during the 2012 rainy season. The canal has not been de-silted for the past 15-20 years. In Batuadanga, water drainage is decreasing because of siltation, and the outlet drains have to be constructed to connect culverts and canals.61 The river bed is also filling up. Drainage is also blocked by the proliferation of ghers.62 A contrary picture is presented by an UP member who claims that no canal is blocked.63 According to the general FGD, government (seems to be the UP) has re-excavated the bigger canal of Amenia beel (wetland).64 Sometimes wheat is allocated for canal re-excavation under Food for Works programmes (WFP funded) and 40 days employment support programme. It however seems that

P46: KII_Gateman_Golkhali_Tarali UP_SL61 P46: KII_Gateman_Golkhali_Tarali UP_SL61 54 P47: KII_Gateman_Batuadanga_Tarali UP SL62 55 P42: KII_UPM_male_Batuadanga_Tarali UP_SL62 56 P42: KII_UPM_male_Batuadanga_Tarali UP_SL62 57 P47: KII_Gateman_Batuadanga_Tarali UP SL62 58 P54: KII_Shrimp farmer small_Batuadanga_Tarali UP_SL62-63 59 P39: FGD_UP_WMA_Tarali UP_SL48-60 60 P28: FGD_General_Kharat_Tarali_SL60 61 P34: FGD_General_Batua Danga 62 P54: KII_Shrimp farmer small_Batuadanga_Tarali UP_SL62-63 63 P42: KII_UPM_male_Batuadanga_Tarali UP_SL62_P3 - 42 64 P42: KII_UPM_male_Batuadanga_Tarali UP_SL62
52 53

48

inadequate allocation of funds meant that only half of the 3km canal was excavated.65 Encroachment by gher owners is also causing the canals to become progressively narrower. The major portion of Tushkhali canal is in the ghers now.66 Siltation is also a problem in Golkhali where the canals are silted.67 In Tarali, people have built the house beside the government khal as the government has given permission and leased land for the poor to do so. These households have filled the khals, making the canal narrow. Where people have not built their houses, the size of the canal remains wide. Consequently, if water comes in the canal, the char along with the houses are flooded.68 In Ghusuri, the Ghorer Khal was excavated by the UP through an Excavation of Khal Program (Khal Kata Kormosuchi) which is implemented by employing local people.69 Canals: Leasing No canals are said to be leased in Tarali (because they have been encroached?). However, the government has leased land along the Tarali west beel (wetlands) khal and Tarali north side khal.70 In Batuadanga, canals have been leased under DCR (leased out by local bureaucracy), presumably to gher owners.71

3. Participation and influence

Tarali
According to the WMA in Tarali, women are not aware about water management, and so they do not participate. They are also not encouraged and engaged in water management activities.72 No, I am not involved in any water management organization. I am a woman, why I will be involved there. I do not know if there is any committee at my village.73

Kharat
There appears to be no space created for the participation of the community at large in water management: nobody calls us and listens to us...they do not think to inform the common people. Nobody has participation in polder management. In fact, oppression of public opinion seems to occur: Last year, some young man protested the low quality work of road construction which was implemented by LGED; for this reason they were rebuked as terrorist. People also feel threatened. They do not want to speak anything because of fear. Fear of case and fear of harassment. Government officer and contractor may harass us. 74 Another factor underlying this situation is the lack of initiative in our community. All of us want to participate. We do not have any committee.75 This may be a result of a sense of disempowerment and
P34: FGD_General_Batua Danga_Tarali UP_SL59-62 P34: FGD_General_Batua Danga_Tarali UP_SL59-62 67 P46: KII_Gateman_Golkhali_Tarali UP_SL61 68 P47: KII_Gateman_Batuadanga_Tarali UP SL62) 69 P37: FGD_LCS_ female_Ghusuri_Tarali UP_SL_52-54 70 P51: KII_WHH_65 years illiterate_Tarali-Tarali UP_SL_60-61 71 P34: FGD_General_Batua Danga_Tarali UP_SL59-62 72 P39: FGD_UP_WMA_Tarali UP_SL48-60 73 P51: KII_WHH_65 years illiterate_Tarali-Tarali UP_SL_60-61 74 P28: FGD_General_Kharat_Tarali_SL60 75 P28: FGD_General_Kharat_Tarali_SL60
65 66

49

peoples perception that since they do not own ghers, they have no interest in influencing how water in managed: We have no land in gher. It is their personal interest who will take saline water or fresh water in their land. We have nothing to say. We have no participation in this water management. General people and poor people have no involvement. 76 It is also a result of a lack of awareness: we do not know and understand many things. 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 out. They believe the UP can have a strong role in improving peoples participation.

Batuadanga
The situation is similar in this village: No government officials come here. Villagers also do not communicate with government officials...Influential persons play all the roles. Their role in water management is more because of their own necessity. We are ordinary people. What can we do there! We solve our village problem through our unity.77 Unlike in Kharat, the UP does not encourage community participation in water management.78 This was stated by a UP member, although the same respondent goes on to claim that there is no political influence while forming the water management committee, and that committee members are selected through discussion in a meeting with everyones participation. In the general FGD in Batuadanga, it is stated that when the Union Parishad arranges its budget session (not only for water management), 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.79 This lack of dialog between the local community (especially the poor) and key local agencies seems to be pervasive throughout this Union as this pattern is repeated in Ghusuri80 and Golkhali.81

Perceptions
This absence of any meaningful dialogue contrasts with the perceptions amongst the communities that participation is important for sharing and making collective and informed decisions,82 and being able to make informed decisions.

4. Institutional coordination: role of local governments

BWDB
BWDB is mandated to regulate the operation and maintenance of sluice gates; repair and reconstruct embankments; excavate and re-excavate Khals and canals and improvement drainage. In Tarali,
P28: FGD_General_Kharat_Tarali_SL60 P34: FGD_General_Batua Danga_Tarali UP_SL59-62 78 P42: KII_UPM_male_Batuadanga_Tarali UP_SL62 79 P34: FGD_General_Batua Danga_Tarali UP_SL59-62 80 P37: FGD_LCS_ female_Ghusuri_Tarali UP_SL_52-54 81 P46: KII_Gateman_Golkhali_Tarali UP_SL61 82 P39: FGD_UP_WMA_Tarali UP_SL48-60; P42: KII_UPM_male_Batuadanga_Tarali UP_SL62
76 77

50

conflicting views of BWDB have emerged, including from the same FGD. Although according to the WMA, BWDB controls sluice gates, it has been established in Section 4.1 that in fact many of the gates are controlled by gher owners through their own committees. Truer perhaps to the reality, the WMA confirms that BWDB does not maintain the khals and canals inside the polder. This however is contradicted in the same FGD where it is claimed that the SO (Section Officer), SD and EXEN (Executive Engineer at Upazila Level) used to call meeting with the WMA to discussed details about work/projects and to obtain project proposals. 2-3 priority interventions are chosen from 6-7 projects for implementation. Many of these projects are linked with water management in this area.83 This seems like an example where BWDB is demand driven asking communities for a proposal and the active role of UP. In Kharat, BWDB is said to implement most of the work, with the UP undertaking some small works.84However, the same FGD states that they do not talk to the general people, but only to those who can provide financial benefits.85 Corruption of BWDB came up several times in the discussion. In Satpur, BWDB are seen to make attempts at prohibiting people to bring saline water into the polder, but are powerless against the gher owners.86 The Gatemen employed by BWDB were removed from its cadre in the 1998 restructuring, leaving a vacuum in terms of gate O&M.

Union Parishads
The Union Parishads emerge as not only the most active state institution in the water sector, but also as the preferred organisation in the opinion of many stakeholders. If we face any problem, we inform Union Parishad; they think amongst themselves and talk to them (GoB agencies). Union Parishad chairman shares the need of people in the meeting of Upazila Parishad. Nobody of this village ever thinks about communicating with any government agencies... They depend on (UP) chairman and member to contact with government offices, if they need. As chairman and members regularly move to these offices and have relationship with them. 87 According to the WMA in Tarali, the UP plays major role in promoting safe drinking water, but has an insignificant role in open water management. According to governments standing order, one of the thirteen committees of the UP is responsible for working on water, sanitation and awareness raising.88 However, because their formal role in water management outside of drinking water is marginal, budget allocations for any large scale maintenance and other work are a constant restriction: When we go to Union Parishad, they reply we have budget scarcity, so we will do it later.89 Nevertheless, as has been observed in sections 3-5 above, the UP does fund small scale repairs to the embankment, canals and gates and also excavates blocked canals primarily through its social employment programmes and donor projects. From most accounts throughout this polder, the UP in fact seems the only active government institution, stepping in to perform tasks formally assigned to the seemingly inactive and disinterested BWDB. This also includes responding to emergencies and the provision of
P39: FGD_UP_WMA_Tarali UP_SL48-60 P28: FGD_General_Kharat_Tarali_SL60 85 P28: FGD_General_Kharat_Tarali_SL60 86 P44: KII_Landless_anti_shrimp_Satpur_Tarali_UP_SL60-61 87 P28: FGD_General_Kharat_Tarali_SL60 88 P39: FGD_UP_WMA_Tarali UP_SL48-60 89 P28: FGD_General_Kharat_Tarali_SL60
83 84

51

relief to affected persons. Moreover, apart from these physical interventions, the UPs are seen as the sole window of communication between the ordinary people and government service agencies: We inform UP about the damage of embankment. If our lands flooded with over raining, we inform UP. We speak with chairman and members about our problems.90 Union Parishads also seem to play a primary role in conflict resolution,91 although given the existence of major conflict over land and water use, it is not clear what issues are resolved. Contrary opinions on the utility of UPs also exist, and can be represented by the quote below by a female LCS member, which perhaps reflects the variation of experience based on gender, class and wealth category: If we tell about our problem to the Union Parishad, they tell us why do you come to us, even elite person who are living in this area do not come to us to inform this problem. Do not come to us again.92 There is also another and arguably less positive reason for the prominence of UPs in the water sector. This is the noticeably common overlap between the roles and powers of a UP chairman and members as government representatives and their private identity as gher owners/investors. Thus their prominence and indeed leadership of many gate committees for example reflect as much a personal interest as a professional one. From the perspective of water management, such arrangements seem more oriented towards entrenching a single interest (bagda farming) agenda 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. Assessing the suitability of the UP as a harmonising and organising entity in the water sector is therefore complex, especially given the entrenched nature of the current and often informal decision making mechanisms.

WMA
According to members of the WMA in Tarali, the WMA discusses problems related to water and sanitation in monthly meetings. Conflicts regarding water sharing in ghers are often resolved. If they are unable to solve problems locally, these are referred to the UNO and then to the DC Office. Water management issues, it is claimed, are also discussed at Upazila coordination meetings. Members claim they do not face any challenges. As elected representatives of the community, the members claim they work with them, and inform people about budget and, meetings by sending messengers to respective people or by announcement by microphone. The WMA, according to its members, has constructed some culverts, drainage and rural roads in association with LGED with financial support from ADB. There is a dedicated person to open and close the sluice gate, and his salary is arranged by the UP by collecting money from local people.93 Funds are generally inadequate as there is no mechanism for generating a regular income. However, water management in Tarali Union was describes as being very poor.

P34: FGD_General_Batua Danga_Tarali UP_SL59-62 P28: FGD_General_Kharat_Tarali_SL60 92 P37: FGD_LCS_ female_Ghusuri_Tarali UP_SL_52-54 93 P39: FGD_UP_WMA_Tarali UP_SL48-60
90 91

52

The Chairman of UP is also the Chair of this WMA. It is stated that the Chairman must be a Member of UP (no reason provided). The present committee is comprised with 7 members of whom 3 are women. The women members are seen to be highly self-motivated.

Gate Committees
There is little specific information about these committees, with existing information captured in section 4.3 above. Overall, those committees that do exist are often little more than an extension of gher owner influence.

Agriculture Office
Its officers advice farmers on fertilizer and pesticide use, and promote some high yielding paddy such as BIRI 47 (meaning BRRI 47), and some salinity tolerant hybrid paddy.94

Traditional/Customary actors (traditional village leader, Salish, etc.)

The only reference to these actors was in Kharat were their influence has been side-lined over the past 15-20 years.95

Coordination
There appears to be little coordination between the key actors such as BWDB and the Union Parishads. Coordination does appear to take place between the UPS and the UNO and DC Offices, although their formal mandates in the water sector are marginal.

In this Union, the overall institutional landscape appears to contain a high degree of informal committees with respect to actual control and maintenance of water infrastructure in the absence of a strong organising and regulator presence of the BWDB. Most Union Parishads appear to be the only active state institution, while the WMA and other committees appear to lack an independent identity, being very much controlled by either the UP chairman and members or gher owners. Often, these two identities are merged, thereby entrenching shrimp farmer interests in the exercise of formal powers of the state. This status quo is further ensured by collusion by BWDB SOs (based on the frequency of references to this) who seem to use their powers as leverage to extract bribes from gher owners. Through these mechanisms, any space for multi-stakeholder consultative decision making for infrastructure management and water distribution, as was envisaged through the creation of WMAs, has been replaced by monopolistic control by the shrimp farming interests.

5. Summary and Conclusions

Water management and the broader developmental trajectory of this Union is dominated by the fundamental conflict between gher owners (the elite) and arguably the rest of the local communities. It seems clear from responses to the investigations carried out in this Union that the economic interest of saline shrimp culture has gained control of virtually all formal and informal institutions and decision making processes in the Union. This has occurred through a combination of merging gher and official interests (mainly in the Union Parishads), and the buying out or pressurizing of others (e.g. BWDB SOs) through bribes and political patronage. The members of beel committee (Gher owners) have huge amount of money, they operate the gate with the power of money. They have connection with all government
94 95

P28: FGD_General_Kharat_Tarali_SL60 P28: FGD_General_Kharat_Tarali_SL60

53

officers. Everyone listen to them because they have money. The powerful person of this area leased the land with the support of UNO, Chairman and members. Thana, UNO and the fishery officers help them.96 All institutions meant to be community-based and community-driven, such as WMAs and gate committees are not just controlled by shrimp farmers, but appear to consist almost exclusively of these actors. Farmers and other local stakeholders appear to have been almost completely shut out or are at best, a voiceless minority. The degree to which this status quo is entrenched can be seen from responses to issues of participation where the experience of marginalisation has become a logic for disinterest in participation: In every year, conflicts occur with Pal mashai (Mr. Pal). Crops are getting damaged because of saline water. They do it with us, as we are Hindu minority. Even if they do not hear our complain, they told us if you can then cut another Nayanjaal (out drainage) for you. It is happening in 4-5 years. Suppose they have harvested the paddy then someone open the gate to bring saline water as a result the crops wash away. They tell to 4 or 5 elite persons for conflict resolution but they do not give any solution. They do not get any compensation. And it is on-going process. Gher owners tell us not to cultivate paddy on our land and they tell us to give them our land. Farmers tolerate the loss of crops and do not complain to anyone. Because they do not find any solution and justice to make complain to anyone.97 The changes in land use patterns and their impacts on the local biophysical conditions and associated traditional livelihoods are clear and enormous. Not only have shrimp farmers captured the institutional landscape, they have also been allowed to take control of large extents of land that was either privately owned and used for farming, or state owned and used as common pool resources in local livelihood strategies. Tactics adopted to achieve this have included outright purchase, informal leases, outright encroachment and the more insidious method of wilfully raising water and soil salinity levels of agricultural land adjacent to shrimp farms, making them non-productive and leaving their owners little choice but to either sell or lease the land to gher owners. There was a lot of paddy field beside the canal run by the side of my house. Some influential gher owners started shrimp culture in this area and took lease of the paddy fields from farmers with the help of local Union Parishad members and chairman and even with the help of Upazila Nirbahi Office (UNO). Many of us protested against it. But they influenced police, Upazila fisheries officer, UNO, and DC and enlarging their gher by capturing cultivated land of farmers like us by force. They cut the out drainage along with the agriculture land so that saline water can enter and as a result nobody can cultivate crops. We urged for justice to government officials (UNO) against them. But nobody took any steps. As a result, I and some others became bound to start gher.98 In doing this, salinity levels in both water and soil have risen sharply in most parts of the Union making any economic activity other than shrimp culture futile:

P44: KII_Landless_anti_shrimp_Satpur_Tarali_UP_SL60-61 P55: KII_WHH_42years_Tarali_Tarali UP, SL59-60 98 P44: KII_Landless_anti_shrimp_Satpur_Tarali_UP_SL60-61

96 97

54

Most trees died due to salinity. Only a few trees are surviving now. Saline water disturbs our life extremely. If there is paddy cultivation, we could get residues of the paddy, could cut the branch of trees if there are trees, we would be benefited by that. I want to plant vegetable e.g. cucumber, papaya, sojne, but due to saline water I cannot plant those. Poor people are affected more We cannot buy rice, vegetable properly. During rainy season, rain water enters through the roof inside our house to our body and we have to sleep at that house because I cannot give the roof as leaves are not available now for roof.99 Some farmers capable of making the investments needed, opted to become shrimp farmers themselves. This appears to have occurred extensively in some villages such as Batuadanga and Satpur in Tarali Union where all of us have gher in this beel (wetland). Most of the gher are small no one make conflict with big gher owners.100 We were bound to shift from paddy to Shrimp culture unintentionally because of salinity of water. Some of us started shrimp culture since 1980. Many of us bound to start shrimp culture because of infiltration of saline water in the cultivated land Recently I released 2000 Bagda fry in my gher. I spent only 1000 taka for this purpose. I have been cultivating Bagdha for last 5 years after stopping paddy cultivation. I have not stopped Bagda cultivation. I planted paddy on 3 bigha land, I got 12 sacks of paddy where I supposed to get 35 sacks of paddy. Later on I have been cultivating Bagda.101 Consequently, the available information strongly suggests that the well-being of a majority of households has deteriorated significantly with the decline of paddy cultivation (the primary livelihood activity) as well as livestock and open access fisheries. While prior to shrimp farming, the wealthy land owners leased their land for agriculture, when they saw shrimp culture gave more profit, then they occupied all lands (stopped leasing out land) and started shrimp culture themselves.102 This further reduced the land available for agriculture. Income and food insecurity has risen as has unemployment and outmigration since les agriculture also means less demand for labour. The shrimp farms that have replaced agriculture are significantly less labour intensive, and the labour that does work in the ghers when needed, are at the mercy of the owners with respect to wages and security of work in the absence of any regulatory oversight by the state. This is in contrast to the more structured LCS system under the Union Parishads that almost assures individuals of a fixed number of work days when labour is needed as well as a higher wage rate. Failure to conduct repairs on the water infrastructure has also caused a paucity of such labour contracts, making many unemployed individuals dependant on the ghers. 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.103

P37: FGD_LCS_ female_Ghusuri_Tarali UP_SL_52-54 P34: FGD_General_Batua Danga_Tarali UP_SL59-62 101 P44: KII_Landless_anti_shrimp_Satpur_Tarali_UP_SL60-61 102 P28: FGD_General_Kharat_Tarali_SL60 103 P34: FGD_General_Batua Danga_Tarali UP_SL59-62
99 100

55

From a water management standpoint too, the original objectives of constructing the embankment (physical protection and promotion of saline-free agriculture) have been reversed by the active encouragement of saline water into the polder at the expense of agriculture. Here most of the gher owners are interested in shrimp culture. Shrimp culture is profitable compared to paddy cultivation. Bagda cultivation needs less labour. The gher can be maintained by few workers. It is easy to sell Bagda at a high price. Paddy cultivation is huge endeavour.104 The methods used to bring in saline water to the ghers and the ghers themselves (proximity to embankment) also undermine the structural integrity of the embankment. The direct or indirect control of water management institutions by gher owners has further meant that maintenance work is impeded where it does not correspond to the production requirements of the shrimp farms. Moreover, this factor is likely to supersede the problem of financing such maintenance, in the event that a solution to the later problem is identified. The same issues plague the canals and sluice gates, causing water logging. Unplanned location of ghers and barriers built to keep out fresh water from their ponds, coupled with silted canals and faulty sluice gates means monsoonal water does not drain out quickly from the villages and at other times, saline water cannot be kept out. Village water falls in the wetland and then it has to run out through gher. But it is not possible if the gher owners do not agree. Therefore, sometimes villages are flooded and waterlogged.105 The consequences for local income and food security are severe: In rainy season we cannot plant trees because of water logging. In dry season we also cannot cultivate vegetable for dry weather. Now I do not cultivate vegetable because the land I have, becomes water logged during rainy season, beside this on other time, neighbours cattle also feed my vegetables. I cultivate Kachumuki, turmeric but due to water logging, it does not grow well.106 If there is paddy at my house, I could sell that paddy and collect everything. If there is no paddy, nothing could be collected. Our life is in water, we could survive by drinking saline water of our house, but if there is no water for paddy field, then nothing will be remained.107 One respondent from Satpur estimated that salinity and waterlogging have affected between 250-300 families.108 The landless poor settled by the government on the bank of the river Kakshiali are especially vulnerable.109

P54: KII_Shrimp farmer small_Batuadanga_Tarali UP_SL62-63) P34: FGD_General_Batuadanga_Tarali UP_SL59-62. 106 P55: KII_WHH_42years_Tarali_Tarali UP, SL59-60 107 P51: KII_WHH_65 years illiterate_Tarali-Tarali UP_SL_60-61 108 P44: KII_Landless_anti_shrimp_Satpur_Tarali_UP_SL60-61 109 P37: FGD_LCS_ female_Ghusuri_Tarali UP_SL_52-54)
104

105

56

While this study focuses on water government mechanisms, the above makes clear that it is difficult to disentangle water governance from an overall governance failure. In fact, it may be argued that the economic imperative of bagda, not only for individuals, but also for the government (foreign currency) has been a major driver in undermining not just water management institutions but also those such as Union Parishads. As is made clear by the report on case law compiled by BELLA110 related to shrimp cultivation, Shrimp Mohal Management policy seeks to further entrench shrimp culture by formally demarcating land for the exclusive purpose of this endeavour, with little or no consideration for safeguards against infrastructure and local livelihoods failure. It may thus be concluded that the information generated by the stakeholder dialogs show clearly the central role played by current shrimp culture practices not just from a livelihoods or equity perspective (though this is a serious consequence), but as being fundamental to the governments ability to maintain its investments in polder infrastructure. Local water management institutions such as those envisaged by the Guidelines of 2000 to have become little more that vehicles by which to legitimize control over the operation of key components of polder infrastructure (canals, sluice gates). The direct links to central government economic policy (foreign currency) makes clear that policy realignment and harmonisation at the centre is a pre-requisite for change. Such change moreover, can either be proactive via government initiatives or reactive in the event that shrimp culture profitability declines either due to changing global demand-price conditions, or an escalation in virus incidents. The need for more systematic and inclusive planning is thus obvious and desired by those who are presently marginalised. In their opinion, a WMC needs to be established, interestingly by the Union Parishad rather than BWDB, and must include all stakeholders. Work plans, tenders and budget should be openly discussed and information regarding planned work should be publicly displayed on a sign boards. It is felt this will reduce the opportunities for corruption where a significant part of budgets have been lost to contractors. No role is seen for the BWDB in effecting change. In fact, the most common view is for Union Parishads to assume a much greater role in water management to the degree that these institutions will assume a primary organising and decision making function: Union Parishad should play a strong role in water management. To build a Gher, one has to take permission from Union Parishad. Union Parishad will play role in operating sluice gate. Power should be given to members area wise and also budget should be allocated. Government offices will closely work with Union Parishad in embankment and water management.111 People also seem to recognise that more fundamental change in the form of either a ban or strict regulation of shrimp farming is ultimately necessary is many of the biophysical and socio-economic impacts are to be addressed. However, the practical challenges leaving aside the politics that would be necessary are also understood by some: Still I am involved in shrimp culture. I am less interested in Bagda culture. It becomes difficult to live for saline water. Houses are being destroyed. It would be better if everyone cultivate paddy. I cannot cultivate paddy alone. My cultivated land is
Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELLA). 2012. Case Study Report Polder 3 (Satkhira) and Polder 31 (Khulna). 36pp. 111 P42: KII_UPM_male_Batuadanga_Tarali UP_SL62
110

57

surrounded by the gher of saline water. I am bound to cultivate Bagda. It would be better if the salinity problem could eliminate by government initiatives. Gradually paddy cultivation should reintroduce by stopping gher culture. It will be better if everybody stops Gher practice together.112

112

P54: KII_Shrimp farmer small_Batuadanga_Tarali UP_SL62-63

58

Annex 2: Situation Report for Parulia Union 1. Farming systems and livelihoods
1.1. Past and Present (Changes)
Agriculture
It was found that mainly brackish water shrimp is produced in the area. Shrimp gher are of two types. One type is round the year shrimp (bagda) and fish farming and the other type is alternating shrimp with paddy (shrimp during Feb-July and paddy during Aug-Dec). Golda farming is of little significance in polder 3. In the past Aman paddy was the main crop (planted in August, harvested in December), but has now declined following an increase in water-logging and salinity. Some land owners alternate Aman paddy with shrimp. In some villages, shrimp and paddy are produced in separate blocks of land within the polder but having distinct physical boundaries through bandhs, mudwalls. High-yield variety (HYV) Boro paddy is produced in some areas where the same land is not used for bagda farming. These are a bit elevated land, less saline and have irrigation facility. In some areas, salinity tolerant paddy has been cultivated on trial basis and it was found encouraging. It was pointed out in Ranga Shisha that if paddy cultivated everyone has to do it together. Table 2.1: Changes and trends in agriculture at village level
Villages in Parulia Union Ranga Shisha113 Currently there is no or only limited agriculture116 as all cultivable lands are used for shrimp culture. Two years ago, paddy was damaged due to saline water intrusion, and this prompted an expansion of fish 117 culture. However, fish cultivation started as early as 1979/80, when paddy had been affected.118 Salinity levels are high in the soil as well, preventing rice production in the summer. Nichintapur114 Paddy cultivation is now limited to the rainy season due to saline water intrusion. The height of the canal has increased and is now higher than the cultivable land. Water enters during high tide and cannot drain out. A very small amount of HYV paddy is cultivated, though this amount is only 1%.119 Fruit trees and vegetable are no longer grown other than sopheda (Acrus sapota), though this too is short-lived due to salinity. In 1960 the salinity of water had risen due to the high tide of river. Rice production consequently reduced, and recovered only after construction of the embankment, resulting in
113 114

Adorshogram Bashirabad115 Paddy had been cultivated for several years since the embankment was constructed, but production was not on expected level because of water logging due to poor drainage system. This situation pushed the farmers steadily starting the Bagda (shrimp) culture. Although paddy is not being cultured here, people are not unhappy because they can earn from fish culture. Paddy cultivation had been continued up to the decade of 70s. Later on crops and paddy production had been decreased due to water logging and people started to culture fish. Forests and vegetables declined along with paddy.

Komorpur Less information available on agriculture. The almost total loss of trees suggests situation is similar to the other villages.

SL 33-35 SL22-23 115 P32:FGD_General_Adorshogram_Bashirabad_Parulia_UP_SL24_P3 - 32:3 116 There is some variation in responses. Some state that agriculture has virtually stopped, while others suggest it continues to a limited extent, with lower production levels than in the past. 117 Terminology seems to switch between shrimp and fish. Unclear whether these are meant to be interchangeable. 118 The cause of the impact on paddy is not specified. 119 Whether it is 1% of total production or area is not specified.

59

Villages in Parulia Union Ranga Shisha113 Nichintapur114 elevated productivity during 1970-1975. Adorshogram Bashirabad115 Komorpur

Fisheries
Bagda/golda (Shrimp) culture is very profitable. The apparent shrimp virus in Nichintapur suggests an interesting case study. Table 2.2: Changes and trends in fisheries at village level
Villages in Parulia Union Ranga Shisha120 Shrimp and saline and white fish cultivation are now the primary forms of food production, and account for much of the non-dwelling land use. Tilapia produced year round. The first shrimp hatchery was established in 1995, using fry stock from nature. This had been sustainable, with benefits being distributed.123 People sourced Horina chingri (a kind of small shrimp) from nature and the gher. This kind is no longer cultured and is scarce in the river and canals. Shrimp fry are stocked in February, while prawn fry stocking starts in Chaitra -Boishakh (March-April). Carp are grown in the rainy season (Rui). Nichintapur121 Shrimp culture began in 1985. There currently appear to be problems in shrimp production due to the spread of a virus, though no details are available. Adorshogram Bashirabad122 Now, both white and saline water fish and shrimp are cultivated. Shrimp is cultivated from February to August. Tilapia always can be cultured. Besides this, Galda, Rui, Katla, Grass carp, Vetki and Paissha are also cultivated. Fresh water fish produced during rainy season. Komorpur

Livestock
Table 2.3: Changes and trends in livestock at village level
Villages in Parulia Union Ranga Shisha124 Cattle farming has been severely affected due to closure of open access land used for grazing by prawn farms. Cows are not allowed on the roads/bunds of these farms. Secession of rice farming has also made cattle feed scarce. This was a cost-free bi-product of farming. Since soil salinity prevents fodder from being grown
120 121

Nichintapur125 Livestock including poultry has declined.

Adorshogram Bashirabad126 There was no reference to livestock.

Komorpur There was no reference to livestock.

SL 33-35 SL22-23 122 P32:FGD_General_Adorshogram_Bashirabad_Parulia_UP_SL24_P3 - 32:3 123 P30: FGD_General_Ranga Shisha_Parulia UP_SL 33-35_P3 - 30:44 124 SL 33-35 125 SL22-23 126 P32:FGD_General_Adorshogram_Bashirabad_Parulia_UP_SL24_P3 - 32:3

60

Villages in Parulia Union Ranga Shisha124 even in homesteads, it now has to be purchased at high price.127 Nichintapur125 Adorshogram Bashirabad126 Komorpur

1.2.

Impacts and Drivers

From section 2.1 increases in water and soil salinity emerge as the primary biophysical change across the polder that underpins a fundamental shift in food production systems from agriculture (mainly paddy) to primarily bagda and combinations of bagda and white and marine fish. The pervasiveness of salinity in water and soil has also meant the loss of other food and livelihood resources on both private and open access land. This includes the death of most fruit and other trees which also deprives the poor households in particular of firewood and material for constructing and maintaining the roof of their dwellings a significant problem especially during the monsoons. This shift away from agriculture to bagda has been accompanied by a major alteration in the distribution of incomes derived from land uses. This appears to operate overwhelmingly against any household which has not had the resources or chosen not enter into bagda production. Moreover, it appears that this group includes the majority of villages surveyed as a few elite individuals have acquired through long term leases and outright (and often illegal) acquisition of land. This process of land capture has had diverse and severe consequences for the poor. Leasing paddy land to gher owners has been a major factor. In many cases, this has not been voluntary, but rather a consequence of salinity intrusion either naturally or due to wilful acts of gher owners to undermine paddy production. The most significant impact of leasing is the loss of often the single resource available to households for food production and income generation, including livestock (grazing and fodder) and white fish production through seasonal rice-fish systems. The resulting decline in agriculture has also significantly reduced the need for agricultural labour for the landless. The gher owners success in acquiring control over state land (e.g. wetlands and canals) has also significantly impacted the food and livelihood resources of the poor who depended on these open access areas for livestock grazing, fish and shrimp, firewood and building materials and non-timber forest products (NTFPs) such as fruit and neem. These changes have simultaneously reduced significantly households income earning capacities while increasing the necessity to purchase food and other material (e.g. fodder, fuel wood). With seemingly limited non-land employment opportunities,128 though migration does occur, many of the now landless have become dependent on bagda production for their income. This is mainly as day labour, but without any fixed number of days per month, meaning a significant degree of uncertainty involved. The seasonality of this type of work further limits its viability as a source of primary income. Although this labour is organised into Labour Contacting Societies (LCS), this does not appear to have led to any ability to negotiate better terms from the gher owners. A surfeit of labour and the possibility of contracting labour from other areas, and the absence of a close affiliation of the LCSs to any local organisation appear to be nor regulated by any agency (check role of UP), leaves individuals. Since the LCSs in this polder have not resulted from any specific project, they are essentially informal groups of landless individuals. The only tenuous links to local government is the role of the Union Parishad in allocating land when any maintenance work is planned. However, this relationship appears to be limited to this function, with no formal responsibility vested on the UP to work towards the well-being of the LCS members overall. Hence there is no formal compulsion on the UP to mediate between gher owners and LCSs with respect to setting wage rates and addressing other issues such as the non-payment of the savings component of the wage, as appears to occur frequently (example). The apparent low level of infrastructure maintenance is another blow to LCSs by minimizing the availability of work outside of the ghers.
127 128

SL 33-35 Available does not provide enough information on such livelihood options.

61

The above inferences are summarised in the following quote from Nichintapur Village: Saline water is not useful to us. Saline water harms the poor. Solvent people are constructing saline water reservoir. They have been renting our cultivation land and running shrimp gher for only 8,000-10,000 taka/bigha per year for 3-4 years. Once the poor people used to fish in this area. Now the gher owners have been fishing here by creating barrier (Pata) in the gher. 2-3 workers are good enough for a gher which area is 100 bigha. We can work as labour here if crop cultivation has been taken place.129 The impacts of salinity have also reduced the availability of drinking water by increasing salinity in tube wells and displacing fresh water from seasonal ponds and the canals which were also used to source water for drinking and domestic uses. It also appears that being surrounded by saline water is causing the spread of diseases (e.g. Komorpur village). The dominance of gher operations has been further facilitated by the privatisation of many sluice gates through leases, and their operation according to the sole requirements of the gher owners.130 Not only is this responsible for the continued prevalence of salinity, and the inability to address water logging, but in some areas such as Ranga Shisha, it also monopolises access to fresh water which paddy farming households have to pay for at the rate of 50 taka per bigha per year.

1.3.

Drinking water situation

There is arsenic contamination in many places of the Union along with saline intrusion. The table below provides an overview of the current status at village level. Table 2.4: Drinking water status at village level
Village Ranga Shisha Drinking water is tested by the UP. Salinity and arsenic limit drinking water from tube wells. Women bring water from a government deep tube well about half mile away. Nichintapur Presently there is no water from shallow pumps. Water is collected from far away. The problem is more acute in summer. Adorshogram People face more difficulties during the rainy season, as saline water contaminates deep tube wells. Komorpur No information.

According to a KII in Komorpur village,131 the Department of Public Health in tandem with the Union Parishad provides service. They install deep tube wells and coordination meetings are held in the Union Parishad. UP members, representatives from different government office, health workers, representatives of community clinic, Shakhipur hospital and NGO representatives are present at these meetings.

2. Physical characteristics
2.1. Embankment, emergency and maintenance

P29: FGD_General_Nichintapur_Parulia UP_SL22-23, P3 - 29:6 P38: FGD_LCS_male_Ranga Shisha_Parulia_UP_SL34-38_P3 - 38:15 131 P41: KII_UPM_female_Komorpur_Parulia UP_SL?P3 - 41:19
129 130

62

Condition of the Embankment Interviews in Ranga Shisha village generated an opinion that the height of the embankment needs to rise by putting earth on it. It is unclear whether this reflects the lack of maintenance or is a response to an aspect of the environment such as a change in the level of the river. As similar sentiment was forthcoming in Adorshogram Bashirabad, in that the height and width of the embankment has to be increased as the lack of maintenance has seen it becoming narrower and break. This was seen as mismanagement by the community, which was also cognisant of the age of the embankment. The situation is similar in Komorpur where the embankment is not functioning effectively because of erosion at its base, causing water to enter the polder freely.132 Emergency response In Ranga Shisha village the embankment was damaged two years ago. The respondents state that they repaired it with straw and mud after the damage was not addressed by the BWDB for one year. They cite the failure of the BWDBs SO to communicate the need for repair to senior BWDB staff. The repair was funded by the Gher owner who had a gher at the area.133 In Adorshogram, most members of the village get involved initially in protecting the embankment as a breach would affect the village as a whole. The role of the LCS members is especially important, and they are notified by loudspeaker/microphone of any issue with the embankment (e.g. a crack) by the chairman and members (not clear of what organisation; UP in the absence of a WMG?) of the date, time and location of a meeting. The gher owners are also involved and will also inform the chairman about any crack in the embankment. Support from the Union Parishad is generally received within a few days. The Union Parishad gets involved with planning and implementing the repair work by sending the written application for assistance to the Government. Maintenance of the embankment and roads Maintenance is seen as an on-going requirement in Ranga Shisha where water pressure may damage it each year.

2.2.

Sluice gates and inlets: Operation and Maintenance

Condition of the Sluice gates Gate Village Condition 22-24 Nichintapur Length of the gate located in between Ranga Shisha end and Chaltatala needs to increase, and silt should be removed from the front of the gate. This is not possible as the gate has been leased from government and it remains closed by the gher owners (the lessees) who take water as per their need. There is no operator in Sapmara gate in Nichintapur.134 Width needs to be extended from 5 to 12 feet. 135 Damage caused to the embankment by water leakages due to the fact that these gates are often wooden and very porous Damage to the base of an unspecified gate built by the Water Development Board is noted in Komorpur village. Water is continuously infiltrating through the gate, and another (unspecified) gate with 5 sheets has been

24 34-38 Not specified

Adorshogram Ranga Shisha

P41: KII_UPM_female_ _Parulia UP_SL?P3 - 41:19 P30: FGD_General_Ranga Shisha_Parulia UP_SL 33-35_P3 - 30:44 134 P36: FGD_LCS_male_Nichintapur_Parulia UP_SL_22-24 135 P32: P32: FGD_General_Adorshogram_Bashirabad_Parulia_UP_SL24
132 133

63

constructed as a result. This does not however explain why the damaged gate is not being repaired, although a lack of interest by the responsible agency (BWDB?) may be inferred.

Operation Gate 22-24 Village Nichintapur Operation Government-appointed gateman, but claimed he will open the gate if he gets a bribe from gher owners who bear the cost of operating the gate. Chairman and members of the Water Development Committee (all gher owners) are in control Type committee of

Gateman is a BWDB appointee, but operational decisions taken informally by gher owners.

24

Nichintapur/ Adorshogram ? Ranga Shisha

Two different statements: 1) Union Parishad personnel Informal. and gher owners maintain the gate in self-interest. 2) Operated by a large gher owner (Mr. Jalil) in Adorshogram. Controlled by gher owners. Informal

33-35

There are no references to water management groups or committees in this Union. Instead, it is clear that the operation of most sluice gates is controlled by the larger gher owners, some of them who are not from the village in which they operate (e.g. in Ranga Shisha). These are seen as personal gates linked to individual or groups of gher owners. Examples include gates linked to the Bashdaha River in Ranga Shisha. It is interesting that three such gates (gates 33-35?) were made with the financial support of BWDB (formerly WAPDA).136 Any attempts by the SO to regulate such use by calling for discussions with the gher owners appear to have been futile.137 Such attempts at regulation are linked to the damage caused to the embankment by water leakages due to the fact that these gates are often wooden and very porous.138 The gher owner does however bear the cost of operating the gate, and recruits a worker to take care of their gher and gate. The gateman is paid between taka 3000-3200 per month, and is allowed to catch fish from gher and canal.139 From the interviews in Ranga Shisha it can be gathered that such scenarios of monopolisation are facilitated by corruption and collusion. It was claimed for example that a gher owner can easily get control of a gate by paying 1000-5000 takka to the SO,140 who also does not monitor gate usage due to this good relationship with the gher owners. This position of the sole decision maker on gate operation enables the gher owners flush in water at night to ensure the ponds have the necessary level of water. 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.141

P30: FGD_General_Ranga Shisha_Parulia UP_SL 33-35_P3 - 30:44 P30: FGD_General_Ranga Shisha_Parulia UP_SL 33-35_P3 - 30:44 138 P38: FGD_LCS_male_Ranga Shisha_Parulia_UP_SL34-38_P3 - 38:15 139 P29: FGD_General_Nichintapur_Parulia UP_SL22-23, P3 - 29:6 140 P30: FGD_General_Ranga Shisha_Parulia UP_SL 33-35_P3 - 30:44 141 P30: FGD_General_Ranga Shisha_Parulia UP_SL 33-35
136 137

64

In Nichintapur, there is a government-appointed gateman for the sluice (not specified), but it is claimed he will open the gate if he gets a bribe (taka 500) from the large gher owners.142 With respect to sluice gates 22-24, the Chairman and members of the Water Development Committee (all gher owners) are in control of their operation.143 It appears to be suggested that in Nichintapur, Unions Parishad personnel and gher owners maintain the gate in self-interest.144 It may be inferred that the UP personnel are also gher owners, though this needs to be verified. The picture for the operation of gates 22-23 in Nichintapur becomes less clear considering that the Focus Group Discussion with mixed participants believes the BWDB takes the decision to open the sluice gate.145 This could either mean that BWDB has the formal role in making these decisions (needs to be verified) while the gher owners actually operate them, or it could reflect confusion amongst stakeholders about who makes the decisions. In Adorshogram, it was mentioned that the gate is operated by a large gher owner (Mr. Jalil) with considerable influence in the area. He employs a gateman who is paid by the gher owners.146 Members of the LCS (women) consider him to be responsible for increasing salinity intrusion.147 When asked about their participation in gate operation, the female LCS responded: We never participate in such activities. Nobody cares our opinion. The large gher owners can participate in decision making of sluice gate operation and maintenance.148

2.3.

Canals and re-excavation

Condition of canals: Siltation In Ranga Shisha, there is no longer a canal as all canals have been converted to ghers.149 This appears to have been possible since the (Rangasisha?) canal has not been excavated since our childhood.150 In Nichintapur, the depth of the canal (either Nararchok or Chaltatola) had become shallow due to siltation.151 Another canal (Kayar Khal?) was excavated two years ago, improving drainage.152 The local people have re-excavated the canal along the embankment to drain out water in Adorshogram, to prevent flooding. The re-excavation did not require public funds as it seems to have been funded by gher owners and effected by employing LCS members. Despite this activity, the water drainage system in the villages is still considered to be poor, whereby people do not get water during the month of Boyshakh-Jayshtha (April-May).153 Siltation also affects Doupkhali canal Komorpur village where little water can pass through this khal.154 The situation is similar in Nichintapur where all canals needs to be reexcavated.155 Though responsible for looking after the canals, the BWDB officers are hardly seen, and allocated resources are not fully mobilized. It is claimed this results from a lack of transparency of BWDB and their contractors.156

P29: FGD_General_ _Parulia UP_SL22-23, P3 - 29:6 P36: FGD_LCS_male_Nichintapur_Parulia UP_SL_22-24_P3 - 36:8 144 P36: FGD_LCS_male_Nichintapur_Parulia UP_SL_22-24_P3 - 36:8 145 P29: FGD_General_Nichintapur_Parulia UP_SL22-23, P3 - 29:6 146 P32: FGD_General_Adorshogram_Bashirabad_Parulia_UP_SL24_P3 - 32:13 147 P35: FGD_LCS_female_Adorshogram_Parulia UP_SL_22-24 148 P35: FGD_LCS_female_Adorshogram_Parulia UP_SL_22-24 149 P30: FGD_General_Ranga Shisha_Parulia UP_SL 33-35_P3 - 30:44 150 P38: FGD_LCS_male_Ranga Shisha_Parulia_UP_SL34-38_P3 - 38:15 151 P29: FGD_General_Nichintapur_Parulia UP_SL22-23 152 P36: FGD_LCS_male_Nichintapur_Parulia UP_SL_22-24_P3 - 36:8 153 P32: FGD_General_Adorshogram_Bashirabad_Parulia_UP_SL24 154 P41: KII_UPM_female_Komorpur_Parulia UP_SL?P3 - 41:19 155 P29: FGD_General_Nichintapur_Parulia UP_SL22-23, P3 - 29:6 156 P32: FGD_General_Adorshogram_Bashirabad_Parulia_UP_SL24_P3 - 32:13
142 143

65

Canal Leasing

Ranga Shisha

The canal on the upper side of Ranga Shisha has been leased to gher owners by the DC office. The gate of the khal of this area has been closed since last 20-22 years. Attempts by the Upazila (sub-district) Chairman to re-excavate it failed as the gher owners did not agree to it. This is despite the canal being state property (need to understand leasing conditions).157 The lack of access due to private leasing is a significant constraint to khal excavation.

Nichintapur

According to members of a male LCS, although the Land Office is meant to grant leases to the poor, the land is leased instead to influential individuals.158 Whether this in fact involves a lease, or a regularisation after illegal grabbing is not clear.

Adorshogram

There is conflicting information regarding leasing from the same FGD. On the one hand, one statement claims there are no leased canals, while according to another participant, the UNO Office leases the khals by tender.159

3. Participation and influence

Overall, there does not appear to be any meaningful participation where participation is understood at least as the opportunity to and actual expression of views and interests by diverse stakeholders in decision making scenarios. 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 with respect to embankment, canal and gate maintenance, and ensuring gate maintenance serves the interests of the community as opposed to a few gher owners. Such a status quo appears to sit on a foundation of what can be described at best as irregularities in rule implementation and enforcement. This in turn appears to be driven by a blurring of identities of gher owners and key positions in local state agencies, particularly the Chairmanship of Union Parishads. This not only introduces a strong element of self-interest, but also provides a cloak of immunity against being held accountable under the law.

Ranga Shisha

Respected people from the village are called, for meetings, and some of them attend. Women are not informed.160 A different view is that the government agencies are disinterested in the well-being of the ordinary person, in preference to satisfying the needs of the elite. As such, it is stated that there is no participation. Our opinion has no value. Gher owners control everything.161 It is claimed that the (Union Parishad?) Chairman and members deal only with their friends and associates. This lack of access to decision making is viewed with frustration. It also appears that minorities (not specified) are less willing to participate due to fear of repercussions.162 Government officers (not specified, but most likely BWDB) do not came to the village or ward, restricting opportunities for local views to be communicated.

Nichintapur

Opportunities to participate do not appear to exist, and this fact with respect to sluice gate operation is seen as an issue.163 Stakeholders feel that they are not called upon to participate because they do not have any land:

P38: FGD_LCS_male_Ranga Shisha_Parulia_UP_SL34-38_P3 - 38:15 P36: FGD_LCS_male_Nichintapur_Parulia UP_SL_22-24 159 P32: FGD_General_Adorshogram_Bashirabad_Parulia_UP_SL24_P3 - 32:13 160 P30: FGD_General_Ranga Shisha_Parulia UP_SL 33-35 161 P38: FGD_LCS_male_Ranga Shisha_Parulia_UP_SL34-38 162 P30: FGD_General_Ranga Shisha_Parulia UP_SL 33-35 163 P36: FGD_LCS_male_Nichintapur_Parulia UP_SL_22-24_P3 - 36:8
157 158

66

Wealthy people do everything. They play a big role in water management as it is important to them. We dont have land in the shrimp gher. It is their matter whether they would accumulate saline water or fresh water in their gher. We have nothing to say. Nobody comes to work here. Everyone neglects our village.164 Another reason is that many stakeholders do not know how to convey their needs to officials, and the lack of unity amongst the marginalised stakeholders: Majority of us have no shelter. We are not united; and nobody respects us. Women are seen as an especially marginalised group: Women have no scope.165

Adorshogram

A lack of confidence in government agencies stops members of this village from communicating with them.166 Moreover, although some people are called during budget declaration of Union Parishad, they are never the poor people who are not informed of such meetings.167 The marginalised claim that these planning processes are controlled by the gher owners who give priority to their own people and relatives. Some of the poor thus believe that nobody will pay attention to them even if they do attempt to participate. Others however express a different attitude: We have to discuss well with the chairman and member, if they do not hear us, then we all will go for movement (Michil) and keep their office block. Then they will hear us.168

Komorpur

The situation is similar in Komorpur. The Union Parishad seeks to influence the manner in which gher owners use of saline water through community meetings, but do not appear to be successful. Ironically, while the gher owners and those perceived as the elites attend, those who do not own ghers do not attend on the premise that they do not have any role in water management. This picture is however contradicted in the same Key Informant Interview by the statement that landless people participate in these field level meetings, and that prior to implementing any work, meetings are held to take everybodys opinion.169 Female participation is said to be low.

Local stakeholder Perceptions of Participation

The responses indicate quite a passive view of what participation entails. This includes: Making decisions by sharing views through discussion. involving everybody, working together meetings held for stakeholders to express their views The need for marginalised peoples opinion to be valued because we are also part of the society. The involvement of traditional leaders such as educated individuals such as teachers and Imams in decision making process of government agencies, on the belief that these authority figures possess the skills as well as motivation to represent the interests of the common man fairly and effectively.170

4. Institutional coordination: role of local governments

There exists a high level of variation in awareness amongst community members of the formal functions of the various state agencies.
P29: FGD_General_Nichintapur_Parulia UP_SL22-23 P36: FGD_LCS_male_Nichintapur_Parulia UP_SL_22-24; P36: UP_SL_22-24 166 P32: FGD_General_Adorshogram_Bashirabad_Parulia_UP_SL24 167 P35: FGD_LCS_female_Adorshogram_Parulia UP_SL_22-24 168 P35: FGD_LCS_female_Adorshogram_Parulia UP_SL_22-24 169 P41: KII_UPM_female_Komorpur_Parulia UP_SL? 170 P35: FGD_LCS_female_Adorshogram_Parulia UP_SL_22-24
164 165

FGD_LCS_male_Nichintapur_Parulia

67

BWDB

There appears to be a low level of awareness of what BWDB is supposed to do with respect to water management. Some individuals seem not even know what the BWDB is.171 Others are aware that they are supposed to take various decisions regarding the embankment.

Union Parishads

The view of the Union Parishads is also negative, even though people see the UP as the better of the various organisations: We go nowhere except Union Parishad. We go to our member and chairman as we know them. But they never give importance to us. We do not go to other organization because we do not know them and they never come here. We do not get any kind of government subsidy. Nobody comes because it is the end of the union. They do not provide any facilities. Nobody listen to us and invite us. Chairman and member invite the elite or the persons with whom they have good term.172 Work of the UP linked to Ranga Shisha also seems to be undermined by internal strife: members and chairman is always busy with their personal clash, as a result their acceptance is decreasing everywhere.173 Inaction also seems to characterise the situation in Nichintapur: A bamboo foot-bridge on Shapmara canal is damaged for long time. It is said several times to the Union Parishad members, chairman, and other government official but nobody repairs it. All of us from this village are poor. This village is a deprived from all aspects. There is no electricity. This abandoned an area.174 The views emerging from Adorshogram are more mixed. The UP is seen as the preferred source for obtaining information of any plans and activities linked to the village. However, it seems also the case that sometimes when people go to the chairman and members, they do not hear our problems, they want money from us.175 In Komorpur the UP is more active, excavating and re-excavating canals to mitigate water logging. This is done through a committee of two UP members designated to supervise the work. Union Parishad has installed a pipe a month ago in the road to drain out water from village and Gher. This was done to resolve conflict with gher owners by redirecting the flow of water outside of the ghers. Union Parishad provides pipe once it is approved by UNO office.176 Each such request for UP involvement commences with a proposal which is reviewed by the chairman. He shares it with the TNO if necessary. UP members and standing committee then sit in meeting in the Union Parishad to make a decision on the proposal. It should however be noted that this particular work was possible only because the gher owners gave their consent.177 The UP has implemented several other water related activities as well.

Agriculture Department

The views of this department are mixed. In Ranga Shisha, it is claimed that the agriculture officer was not present during the season of paddy cultivation, and farmers had to rely on a private agriculture company for support.178 The experience in Komorpur has been more positive, where farmers have received seed
P30: FGD_General_Ranga Shisha_Parulia UP_SL 33-35_P3 - 30:44 P38: FGD_LCS_male_Ranga Shisha_Parulia_UP_SL34-38 173 P30: FGD_General_Ranga Shisha_Parulia UP_SL 33-35 174 P29: FGD_General_Nichintapur_Parulia UP_SL22-23; P36: FGD_LCS_male_Nichintapur_Parulia UP_SL_2224 175 P35: FGD_LCS_female_Adorshogram_Parulia UP_SL_22-24 176 P41: KII_UPM_female_Komorpur_Parulia UP_SL?P3 - 41:19 177 P41: KII_UPM_female_Komorpur_Parulia UP_SL?P3 - 41:19 178 P30: FGD_General_Ranga Shisha_Parulia UP_SL 33-35
171 172

68

and fertilizer free of cost. However, not all farmers will get this service. A list is prepared and distributed by Ward members, with a focus on small farmers (land less than 2 bigha) and share croppers.179

Department of Public Health

Department of Public Health also provides service to this area. They install deep tube wells in association with Union Parishad. These are planned through a coordination meeting in the Union Parishad. UP members, representatives from different government office, health workers, representatives of the community clinic, Shakhipur hospital and NGO representatives are present.180

LCS

In Ranga Shisha the LCS group was formed with the initiative of gher owners. The group consists of people who are seasonally unemployed: from Falgun (February- March) to Agrahayan (SeptemberOctober). They work for a daily wage. Some of the LCS members also are unable to seek work outside of this area, and thus depend on the ghers for work. Others, especially the men, work out side of this area in rainy season, including Madaripur and other district such as Barisal. The Falgun period (February-March) is considered the best while the period of Chaitra-Boishakh (April-May) generates the least work, and is when temporary outmigration occurs. The groups are led by a Shibpada da who is elected by the group and represents it in all matters. Gher owners inform him/her of the number of labour they need, and payments are also made to the leader who distributes it to the group. Female workers usually are paid less (60 taka) because especially the larger gher owners require a large number of labour, and thus suppress the unit price. It is observed that seeing big gher owners, small gher owners also pay 60 taka per day to each labour.181 During 40 days projects in Nichintapur that usually involve work on local infrastructure, LCS members are paid after every 10 day at the government rate of 175 taka (does not specify if men and women are paid the same). Taka 130 is received in cash and taka 45 is withheld as savings deposited in each members a bank account by the project. The members also work in rice fields.182 Work from Gher owners seems to dominate the scenario in Adorshogram. This occurs at several stages of production, namely filled the ghers with water; introducing shrimp fry, and processing the shrimp upon harvest for packaging. Women get 110-120 taka per day if they work from morning to evening. Men get substantially more (200 taka per day) for the same length of time. Gher owners can reject any worker at any time: sometimes the gher owners give more priority to their relatives. Gher owner always selects the healthy labour, they dont want to engage aged person.183 This makes this source of employment highly vulnerable, and represents a significant difference from employment on a government project. The decline in state-sponsored polder and other infrastructure maintenance thus seems to constitute considerable adverse impact on the LCSs, and this is significantly more so for women who also seem to be paid less than the government daily rate. Nevertheless, employment through the LCSs seem to be highly valued as the only source of income for some: I arranged marriage ceremony for my daughter due to my work. I suffered a lot before, mostly suffered for food but now situation is not like that.184 This employment also appears impact positively on peoples level of self-respect and confidence: We can participate after getting the job, everybody respects our opinion now.185

Coordination

Information on institutional coordination is not available other than that the BDWD calls the Union Parishads to support any maintenance activities being carried out. Though no details as to how this is done or how the Ups support these activities, it may be surmised that it is likely to include the provisions
P41: KII_UPM_female_Komorpur_Parulia UP_SL? P41: KII_UPM_female_Komorpur_Parulia UP_SL? 181 P38: FGD_LCS_male_Ranga Shisha_Parulia_UP_SL34-38 182 P36: FGD_LCS_male_Nichintapur_Parulia UP_SL_22-24 183 P35: FGD_LCS_female_Adorshogram_Parulia UP_SL_22-24 184 P35: FGD_LCS_female_Adorshogram_Parulia UP_SL_22-24 185 P35: FGD_LCS_female_Adorshogram_Parulia UP_SL_22-24
179 180

69

of labour contracts to local people (and hence a budget) for carrying out earth works, excavations and repairs.

5. Summary and Conclusions

The primary issue across this polder is clearly the salinization of the land and water, driving out virtually all the main traditional livelihoods options (paddy farming, livestock and fisheries (wild, canals and seasonal natural ponds). This displacement is a direct result of the spread of shrimp aquaculture, driven by large investors attracted by high profits (despite high risks) and ultimately by an escalation in world shrimp prices and the governments desire to maximize foreign revenue as a macroeconomic policy. Their control of the canals and sluice gates has also radically altered the flow of water in the polder to the detriment of paddy farmers who often require water when gher owners desire the opposite. The shrimp farms also appear to pose a physical barrier to the entry of river water into the beel (wetland). According to a UP member, earlier river water came to wetland, as a result silt used to deposit on the land. River water cannot come to land because of gher. Silt is now depositing on river bed. As a result the river is filling in very quickly.186 Another direct result of the expansion of ghers has been the loss of both private and public land. In Ranga Shisha for example, land ownership was more distributed in the village before 1962. Following the loss of much of this land to gher owners, a case has been filed in 2006 with respect to 206 bigha, although no agency has taken any action to date.187 The level of entrenchment of shrimp farming can be seen from the comment: there is no conflict. Because we cannot protest against gher owners.188 Similarly in Nichintapur, conflict takes place for canal water between the landless and gher owners. These conflicts began in the 1980s and have continued since. Access is also restricted to the canals where people used to catch fish and shrimp till this was stopped by gher owners in 2000.189 Water logging occurring during excessive rainfall is another major consequence of gher owners control of sluice gates and canals which are left to silt up (Adorshogram). In the same village, some conflicts also seem to occur between owners of ghers located at the head and tail ends of canals, where the latter do not receive adequate water. However it is claimed these are resolved quickly through dialogue amongst themselves.190 Thus, the general FGD in Nichintapur was clear about the need for a significant change in the policy towards shrimp culture: There have to be a change. Shrimp culture needs to be reduced. Gher system should be banned. Fresh water has to be arranged for cultivating paddy. We have to cultivate paddy. Green forests need to establish. Vegetable should be cultivated. WAPDA road needs to be permanent and solid.191

P41: KII_UPM_female_Komorpur_Parulia UP_SL?P3 - 41:19 P30: FGD_General_Ranga Shisha_Parulia UP_SL 33-35 188 P38: FGD_LCS_male_Ranga Shisha_Parulia_UP_SL34-38 189 P36: FGD_LCS_male_Nichintapur_Parulia UP_SL_22-24 190 P32: FGD_General_Adorshogram_Bashirabad_Parulia_UP_SL24 191 P29: FGD_General_Nichintapur_Parulia UP_SL22-23
186 187

70

Annex 3: Situation Report for Debhata Union 1. Farming systems and Ilivelihoods
1.1. Past and Present (Changes)

Agriculture

Agriculture was the primary livelihood and everyone used to cultivate.192 Crops cultivated other than paddy after construction of the embankment included jute, mustard and wheat. At that time the production of paddy was 12 sacks per bigha. Some High Yielding Variety (HYV) rice appears also to have been grown, yielding more than 20 sacks per bigha. As fresh water was available, irrigation was not essential. Today, agriculture has decreased due to siltation of canals, waterlogging and salinity caused by shrimp ponds. Initially paddy and then Bagda used to cultivate in the same land. Now, though crops are cultivated, yields are low. Boro rice is cultivated in winter using deep tube wells, and Jamaibabu and BR28 variety of rice are planted in Shrabon mash (Jul-Aug). Some ghers cultivate both Bagda and Aman rice during the rainy season. In the area of sluice gates 11-17, sweet water is still available in the rainy season and paddy is cultivated. Some paddy farmers also use shallow pumps to get sweet water.

Fisheries

Prior to bagda cultivation, several native fish such as Shol, Boal, koi, Magur, Rui and Catlac were abundant. These species are now rare due to saline water. They have been virtually replaced by new species such as Tilapia, Vetki, Parse, Tengra and Nilotica (does not specify whether these are cultured).

Livestock

Prior to the onset of shrimp farming, 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 is now devoted to breeding Bagda. Overall, the significant environmental changes detrimental to farming and livestock since the 1980s when Bangladeshi shrimp came into high demand in the international market, were noted by the WMC Chairman.

1.2.

Drinking water situation

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. Most of the water in Ward number 5 (constituency of a UP member) is sweet water. Installation of 36 feet pipe is enough in Shib Nagar to get water. The levels of arsenic and iron are high.

2. Physical characteristics
2.1. Embankment, emergency and maintenance

Condition of the Embankment The Chairman of the WMC described the BWDB embankment as a death trap, although no reasons were given. It may be a reference to the crack that has appeared as a result of to water logging due to an absence of drainage facilities. Embankments are also broken because of the huge water pressure exerted
192

P40: FGD_UP_WMA_Debhata UP_SL11-17

71

by the Ishamati River. River erosion is also damaging the river bank. The road constructed by BWDB (the bund?) has also narrowed considerably. Emergency response No information is available. Maintenance of the embankment and roads It is claimed that the Chairman (of the WMA or the UP?) has removed the illegal pipes from the embankment after being elected. However, in the same discussion, it is stated that illegal pipes must be banned. The actual situation is therefore unclear. From the poor condition of the embankment described under 3.1, it may be surmised that maintenance has been minimal.

2.2.

Sluice gates and inlets: Operation and Maintenance

Condition of the Sluice gates According to the WMC Chairman, two gates are operational while the rest are damaged to varying degrees. An unspecified sluice gate in Bosontopur is unable to regulate flashing and drainage of water as it has no cover plate. Although water logging emerged as a primary problem for agriculture, it is claimed by the Gate committee in Bosontopur that water can pass quickly to the Isamati River through the sluice gates. They may have been referring to the Khal through which 3-4 thousand bigha land is said to drain out. This is then contradicted by the UP WMA which states that siltation has blocked two thirds of the canal, and in the rainy season the problem now involves the entry and exit of water. Operation of gates The discussions with the Gate Committee and the WMA suggest that control of gates 11 to 17 are distributed amongst several committees. The Gate Committee of nine people is headed by the UP chairman. It was formed recently to replace the earlier one that was not performing due to the negligence of BWDB (not elaborated on) and vacuum of leadership. Regular meetings are held with gher owners, suggesting that what really exists is a committee of gher owners. This committee was formed through the Union Parishad Chairman. The Committee collects fees (50-100 Taka per bigha) from the Gher owners, and has appointed a person to open and close the gate, although activities are hampered because of the lack of regular gateman. 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. Members are selected through a selection process whereby those who have knowledge about water and are able to lead are selected as members. There is no executive committee. It is stated that women members of the UP participate in water management through their membership in the committee. The discussion with the Debhata WMA suggests that BWDB takes the decisions over at least one gate, while the Union Parishad looks after 3 gates in consultation with the SO of BWDB.193 Neither the Gate Committee nor WMC have specified which specific gates are being referred. There is also reference to a beel (pond) committee consisting of 5-7 persons from village, formed by the Union Parishad. Again this committee seems oriented to serving the water needs of the ghers, and funds for its operation have been provided by the Union Parishad through its Kabikha, TR and 40 days poverty reduction programmes.194 According to the Chairman of the WMC on the other hand, it is the gher owners who are operating the gates according to their requirements. This may not however be a contradiction, but rather a reflection that membership of the Gate and Beel committees is in fact monopolised by gher owners, and that the
193 194

FGD_UP_WMA_Debhata UP_SL11-17 P31: FGD_Gate committee_Bosontopur_Debhata_UP_SL11-17

72

BWDB allows these groups a free hand: Water development board cannot make decision properly regarding management of sluice gate. The persons responsible for the gate are not aware of their responsibility. 195 This seems the likely scenario since he also confirms that the gateman is appointed by Gher owners who pay his wages.

2.3.

Canals and re-excavation

Condition of canals: Siltation According to the WMA, siltation has blocked two thirds of a canal (not specified) which causes it to overflow and impede the entry and exit of water in the rainy season.196 It is also stated that Bolmari canal is almost blocked. Is not clear whether these two canals are one and the same. Another canal (Kaldagor) which enters into Shokhipur Union, is currently being de-silted after 35 years.197 According to the WMA, drains need to be constructed in the ghers for water discharge so that water can easily flow to the canals, suggesting the ghers lack a proper system for water discharge. Though the canals belong to the BWDB, they are inactive due to man power and budget shortages. Thus, allocations for canal re-excavation and maintenance are also inadequate, relying mainly on various UP initiatives such as the KABIKHA (Food for Works Programme). Consequently water from canals overflows and houses, roads and as much as 95% of cultivated land has been damaged as a result. Earth made houses and roads are especially affected. Failure to re-excavate canals, according to the WMC Chairman, has also provided gher owners in particular the opportunity to gradually encroach onto canals that are almost fully silted. Once this happens, he states that the Government cannot (or will not?) recover these canals. Some canals have been built over by other actors, and are now under other structures such as homes and markets. Landless households have also begun to settle on such canals. 198 It appears therefore that the BWDB has lost control of its canals in this Union. Canals: Leasing Rather that access canals through any leasing arrangement, it seems that in this Union, Gher owners are able to encroach on and occupy partially and fully silted canals without any government authorisation or repercussion. It appears that the BWDB is either unable to or unwilling to enforce the rules.

3. Participation and influence

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. There is also a more generic reference to marginalized people. 199 Although whether this includes people other than women is not made clear, it is likely this refers to all people classed as being poor.200

Perceptions
P50: KII_WMC chairman_Debhata Upazila WMG P40: FGD_UP_WMA_Debhata UP_SL11-17 197 P40: FGD_UP_WMA_Debhata UP_SL11-17 198 P50: KII_WMC chairman_Debhata Upazila WMG 199 P40: FGD_UP_WMA_Debhata UP_SL11-17 200 P31: FGD_Gate committee_Bosontopur_Debhata_UP_SL11-17
195 196

73

Despite the absence of participatory processes in this Union, most stakeholders perceive participation, it is clear that they recognise the value of taking decisions collectively, especially whereby users are be able to participate in local water management. They see opportunities to participate also as an avenue for increasing their awareness in water management related issues.201 This also appears involve an appreciation of the link between knowledge of issues and the assumption of responsibility, where the community people will know and understand everything.202

4. Institutional roles and coordination

BWDB
The BWDB appears to be inactive, and is said to exist in name only. Infrastructure is not monitored and there is said to be no interaction with local people or groups (e.g. Gate Committee). Officers not aware of their responsibilities, and no oversight exercised over them by BWDB.203 It is seen to be disinterested in this polder204.

Union Parishad

Despite lacking a strong formal mandate on water management, the UP is considered the most suitable option for water management by the WMA, Chairman of the Debhata Upazila WMG and the Bosontopur Gate Committee as they work closely with the common people and are liable the people. It is seen as the only agency that provides a budget for water management (e.g. Embankment and khal repairs) from its Kabikha, TR and 40 days poverty reduction programmes.205 This may explain why the DC has empowered the UP to work with embankment issues.206 According to some members of the Debhata WMA, if the UP wants to plan any work or budget, a meeting is held at each ward each month. An accessible location is selected, and people are notified through loudspeaker or letter. Problems of the ward are discussed openly, and the work plan evolves from these discussions.207 If a problem with a sluice gate arises in the monthly meeting, the Chairman solves it. Each ward has a ward development committee.208 Obtaining an accurate picture of the UP however is more difficult due to some variation in views and the possibility of there being a strong undercurrent of self-interest behind responses where respondents are members of either the UP itself or of other water bodies (WMC, WMG, Gate Committee) as well as shrimp farmers. This is illustrated by the following statement also by a WMA member, whereby it is claimed that although the UP Chairman and members are included in the WMC, they do not respond actively even though the UP can intervene (presumable to the contrary) if the government rules that nobody can occupy/encroach a river/canal.209 It seems quite clear that the response is loaded with a desire to protect the interests of shrimp farmers, and demonstrates the highly subjective nature of these responses.

WMA

According to the FGD with the WMA members, the WMA was formed with the involvement of journalist, gher owners, businessmen and general members of the community. Its membership of 7 does not notably, include any landless people since as they do not have land, their opinions do not come properly.210 The WMA does not have a fund with which to finance activities, and intends to establish a

P40: FGD_UP_WMA_Debhata UP_SL11-17; P50: KII_WMC chairman_Debhata Upazila WMG P31: FGD_Gate committee_Bosontopur_Debhata_UP_SL11-17 203 P50: KII_WMC chairman_Debhata Upazila WMG 204 P31: FGD_Gate committee_Bosontopur_Debhata_UP_SL11-17 205 P40: FGD_UP_WMA_Debhata UP_SL11-17 206 P40: FGD_UP_WMA_Debhata UP_SL11-17 207 P40: FGD_UP_WMA_Debhata UP_SL11-17 208 P40: FGD_UP_WMA_Debhata UP_SL11-17 209 P50: KII_WMC chairman_Debhata Upazila WMG 210 P40: FGD_UP_WMA_Debhata UP_SL11-17
201 202

74

cooperative to raise funds. Nevertheless, its members state that it is working very well and water logging has being reduced after it built a canal adjacent to a gher to drain out water in rainy season.211.

WMG and WMC

The Debhata Upazila Water Management Group consisting of 3-4 members was formed in 2002 with assistance from the NGO Uttaran. It was formed for social development by involving local civil society, and is working to ensure availability of sweet water for agriculture and to solve water logging and salinity problems.212 They also seek to improve public awareness on water use and its management. It appears that with the continued support of Uttaran, this WMG and WMC remains active, having organized meetings with BWDB and attended a round table discussion presided by the Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources held at Jessore DC Office regarding water management in this area. The WMC seems also to have been influential in the Government allocation for water management in the south-western part the country,213 although what this refers to in not clear. Although the WMC does not have a mandate and capacity to excavate canals, it is claimed it was successful in freeing a canal from blockage by gher owners in 2010 with help of the Upazila chairman and police.214 In general however, it is stated that WMC activities are impeded by gher owners who occupy land and canals and refuse to cooperate. Despite not possessing funds or assets, the WMC is said to have engaged in drainage maintenance with funds from ActionAid channelled via Uttaran in 2007.215 Where external funds are not forthcoming, attempts are made to collect small contributions (50-100 taka) from land owners to implement a programme of work (no indication of how effective this is, though it is likely to enable limited activities at best). Meetings are held every 3 months. These are organised by the committee secretary through Uttaran. Everybody is informed through mobile phones. Work plans are prepared and issues regarding water management are discussed. Topics discussed in the last meeting held two months ago included the reexcavation of rivers and khals; rain water harvesting, and how water logging can be mitigated or prevented. It had been decided to collectively stop the use of illegal pipes cutting the embankment with the help of the administration (potential G3 case study: monitoring how this is implemented). Members do not get any kind of remuneration, and work on a voluntary basis.216 Coordination with the Union Parishad occurs through the inclusion of some UP members in the WMC. It seems that it is these UP members who inform village level members and the WMG about the committees decisions.217 According to the WMCs Chairman, activities are constrained in absence of village level committees where the water problems manifest. The WMC has failed to form village level committee due to some limitations (Reasons not given. Will be useful to know). In general, problems are communicated to the District level committee through a meeting, and they inform the government. This appears how the WMC was able to influence the government to repair the Shakra gate and embankment near Shushilgati which were damaged during last flood. It is also noteworthy that the post of President has been held by the same individual since the WMCSs creation in 2002.

Gate Committee Other Actors

What really exists is a committee of gher owners who control the gate operation.

P40: FGD_UP_WMA_Debhata UP_SL11-17 P50: KII_WMC chairman_Debhata Upazila WMG 213 P50: KII_WMC chairman_Debhata Upazila WMG 214 P50: KII_WMC chairman_Debhata Upazila WMG 215 P50: KII_WMC chairman_Debhata Upazila WMG 216 P50: KII_WMC chairman_Debhata Upazila WMG 217 P50: KII_WMC chairman_Debhata Upazila WMG
211 212

75

It as opined by the WMC chairman that the Upazila Parishad and UNO should be involved in water management, although no reasons were indicated. 218

Coordination

In addition to coordination between the WMC and UP through common members, the WMA Chairman participates in the monthly coordination meeting at TNO (Present UNO) office. These are also attended by officers from different government agencies. It is claimed that open discussions are held at ward level, and that participants are aware of the decision taken. These meetings are described by the WMA Chairman as a venue for everyone to share their opinion regarding polder management. Consequently, the BWDB and others can know what people require of them.219 According to the WMA, it tries to coordinate different government agencies. If there is any problem, the WMA writes to the UNO and DC. If it is urgent, they meet them physically. It is claimed that the UNO and DC are receptive to their concerns.220 It was also apparent from the same interview that villagers inform their concerns to the government agencies through the Chairman and members of the UP. Overall, the institutional structure in this Union may seem largely consistent with what is envisaged by the Government, with a WMA, WMC and WMG in place. Yet in practice, it is clear that there is little decision making that is truly objective. There seems to be firstly little maintenance of the infrastructure according to what is technically required, and secondly, decisions over the release of water appear to be controlled by a single interest group, namely the shrimp farmers. An overarching driver of this situation is the inability or unwillingness of the BWDB to exercise a strong regulatory presence to ensure adherence to stipulated maintenance regimes, avoidance of illegal occupation of land and canals by shrimp farmers and the taking of rational decisions on sluice gate operation by the responsible committees. This absence of regulatory authority has allowed what are meant to be multi-stakeholder, democratic institutions (WMA, WMG, WMC and Gate Committee) to be colonised by a single interest group. For example, while the WMA Chairman believed that the High Court ruling on intrusion of saline water must be implemented, other WMA members disagreed stating that: Gher is the main source of income in our locality. If the ruling is implemented, we cannot do shrimp farming. In addition to this conflict of interest, the memberships of these water management organisations as well as the UP also overlap to varying degrees. For instance, as was noted under section 4.2, the Gate Committee is headed by the UP chairman, who may then be reluctant to expose weaknesses of both organisations. If such an individual is also a shrimp farmer, then a three, four or even five-way conflict of interest arises whereby the shrimp interest is infused into each institution where he/she is a member. In this manner, ensuring the interests of shrimp farmers has become the all-pervasive logic throughout this institutional landscape.

5. Summary and Conclusions

The main physical problems in this Union linked to water management include poor maintenance and regulation of the embankment (failure to repair and prevent/remove illegal pipes); canals (siltation, illegal occupation) and sluice gates (failure to repair). This is turn creates water logging and soil and water salinity which have triggered a biophysical chain reaction that has severely undermined agriculture as the primary livelihood activity as well as almost all other livelihoods that relied on natural assets (e.g. traditional fisheries, livestock and vegetable farming). This represents a deteriorating development trajectory for the majority of people in this Union. Driving these changes is the dominance of organised large scale shrimp/prawn farming, often by parties not native to the area. Operating in a macro policy atmosphere hungry for the foreign currency prawn exports generate given the demand for this product in international markets, the gher operators appear to enjoy an effectively free reign over local assets including the infrastructure built originally to keep out salt
P50: KII_WMC chairman_Debhata Upazila WMG P40: FGD_UP_WMA_Debhata UP_SL11-17 220 P40: FGD_UP_WMA_Debhata UP_SL11-17
218 219

76

water and promote agriculture, and local landholdings bought or leased from farmers no longer able to produce due to salt water inundation and residual soil salinity. The complete dominance of gher owners can be seen in their dominance of almost all local institutions involved in water management, and their tacit liaisons with government agencies such as BWDB. While the local water institutions established under a national policy of decentralisation and democratisation of water resource management have been taken over virtually whole sale by capturing and controlling their memberships, gher owners appear to ensure their illegal actions (pipes in embankments, occupation of canals and land) and monopolisation of sluice gate operation go unchecked by BWDB through the exercise of the considerable financial and political capital. The massive social and local developmental consequences aside, this influence exerted by prawn farming represents a fundamental challenge to the maintenance of the physical investments of the State, even if the original economic rationale behind their construction (agriculture) has been displaced. While the inability of local water institutions to raise funds for maintenance is clear, solving the question of funding regular maintenance is unlikely to ensure proper maintenance so long as gher owners are able to incentivise the BWDB to be passive observers as they undermine the embankments structural integrity with their cuts and pipes. Thus, reform of the current prawn farming process appears to be a fundamental condition better water infrastructure management, let alone making water management more conducive to multiple land uses and livelihood strategies that will reverse the current trend of local community disempowerment. Some of the urgent actions needed as suggested by stakeholders include: Banning ghers altogether or the leaving of 500 feet between ghers and the embankment; Excavation of rivers and canals to reduce water logging and flood intensity; Maintenance of a natural tidal flow; and Removal of illegal settlements from canal and river banks.

77

Annex 4: Situation Report for Bhara Simla Union 1. Farming systems and Irrigation
1.1. Past and Present (Changes)

Agriculture
This Union has seen a significant reduction in agriculture as bagda production has increased and salinity levels have risen221 causing an almost total fresh water scarcity. Consequently, the range of crops grown (not specified) has reduced and an implied scarcity of food has replaced abundance. Today paddy cultivation (the primary crop) is restricted to the rainy season (June to October) when fresh water becomes available. Rice varieties cultivated include Boro, Aush, BR 23 and Jamai babu.222 Table 4.1: Changes and trends in agriculture Villages in Bhara Simla Union Suelpur Kandippur Narayunpur In the past, all types of crops were produced. There Some rice-fish systems Very little agriculture due was no scarcity of food. Production reduced due to practiced by gher owners. to soil salinity. increase salinity. Paddy and white fish grown in Ashar and Srabon months. 70% of paddy is Aman-Boro. Other varieties are Amon-23 grows very well in BR 23, Jamai babu from Ashar to Kartik (rainy rainy season when shrimp season: June to October). Earlier paddy can be does not grow well. The cultivated year round, but is now interspersed with expense is low and profit is saline shrimp. high in paddy cultivation Some rice-fish systems practiced by gher owners. during rainy season. Rice Bagda, Vetki, Parshe etc.) grown from January to production varies: 480September. BR 23 and Jamai babu paddy in the 600kg/bigha.224 same field from Ashar to Kartik (rainy season: June to October). Profits higher when fish and paddy are cultivated together. Paddy production is 681kg/bigha.223

Fisheries
Fish was abundant in nature in the 1960, and fish cultivation was not practiced. At the time of polder construction, fish was very cheap (12-25 paisa per kg). It was significantly cheaper than rice.

Table 4.2: Changes and trends in fisheries Villages in Bhara Simla Union Suelpur Kandippur Narayunpur Salt water fish (Bagda, Vetki, Parshe, White fish (Rui. Mrigel, Horina) Rui, Katla, Paisa and other fish are etc.) from January to September (Up and some Golda are grown in the cultivated during rainy season.

P57: KII_Shrimp farmer_pipes15-16bg_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6 P33: FGD_General_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6 223 P57: KII_Shrimp farmer_pipes15-16bg_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6 224 P56: KII_Paddy-fish-shrimp farmer_2 bg_Kandippur_Bhara Simla UP_SL_3
221 222

78

Villages in Bhara Simla Union Suelpur to Vadro-Asshin). Kandippur Narayunpur monsoon when ghers fill with rain Galda is not cultivated due to fresh water.225 water scarcity and the need for Galda is not cultivated due to fresh higher investments than bagda.226 water scarcity. Water is supplied to the ghers using the ninety kall tube well system. Almost all ghers use it. This has enabled saline water to be lifted over the embankment. This system costs 20,000 taka to install.

Livestock
Table 4.3: Changes and trends in livestock Villages in Bhara Simla Union Suelpur Kandippur Narayunpur Now cattle are not seen like before. As paddy is not grown much, cattle fodder has to be bought. Cattle have decreased as (seasonally No information. fallow) pasture land has been converted to shrimp ghers and salinity has increased.227

1.2.

Drinking water situation

Villages in Bhara Simla Union

Suelpur Conflicting statements. Medium size shrimp farmer claims that there is only a very small amount of salinity in ponds and tube wells,228 while the General FGD respondents state that due to shrimp culture and climate change, fresh water level is about to disappear.229

Kandippur No information

Narayunpur No information

2. Physical characteristics
2.1. Embankment, emergency and maintenance

Condition of the Embankment Although people expected an abundance of paddy after the polder was constructed, this has not materialised due to shrimp culture, and Suelpur has the highest concentration of private pipe inlets and embankment cuts. It is claimed that BWDB know about these. But if anybody bribes them, they remain
P56: KII_Paddy-fish-shrimp farmer_2 bg_Kandippur_Bhara Simla UP_SL_3 P48: KII_Shrimp_farmer_pipes_20bg_Narayunpur_Bhara Simla_SL_1-4 227 P33: FGD_General_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6 228 P57: KII_Shrimp farmer_pipes15-16bg_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6) 229 P33: FGD_General_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6
225 226

79

silent.230 The situation appears to be similar in Kandippur and Narayunpur where pipe installations have weakened the embankment. 231 In Kandippur, there are pipes in the embankment of the Kakshiali River near the government hatchery, installed by the richer gher owners.232 Emergency response 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.233 Maintenance of the embankment and roads In Suelphur, people contact BWDB if maintenance is needed, but this does not appear to elicit a response (If we go to WAPDA office they try to ignore us and to keep us waiting for long time) unless, it is suggested, bribes are offered.234 People thus seem to rely on self-help. The demise of a committee (no reasons given) has exacerbated the issue. When this committee existed, it would meet or otherwise inform the SDE of BWDB of any damage to the embankment and BWDB responded. This system is no longer as well structured.235

2.2.

Sluice gates and inlets: Operation and Maintenance

Condition of the Sluice gates 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.236 Currently the Chairman and members of the informal gate committee consisting of gher owners (see 4.2 below) appear to do some maintenance work.237 Nevertheless, it is claimed that both sides of the sluice gate is porous, causing saline water to continuously leak into the polder.238 Operation of gates There is no designated gateman in Suelphur and the gate is operated at the discretion of the gher owners. It appears to be left open for long periods such as from ekadoshi (eleventh of each lunar fortnight) to soshti or somptomi (sixth or seventh of the next lunar fortnight).239 Occasional repairs of the wooden shutter occur at the cost of gher owners. Previously, gate committee conducted meeting regularly (lead by the BWDB) and they made their decision there; but that committee is inactive now and no new committee has been formed. Gher owners operate gate according to their will. 240 Complaints by non-gher owners to BWDB appear to have been futile. Here too, allegations of BWDB officers being bought over by gher owners exist, interestingly made by a medium sized gher owner.241 The
P33: FGD_General_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6 P48: KII_Shrimp_farmer_pipes_20bg_Narayunpur_Bhara Simla_SL_1-4 232 P56: KII_Paddy-fish-shrimp farmer_2 bg_Kandippur_Bhara Simla UP_SL_3 233 Shushilan PowerPoint presentation on Polder 3. 234 P33: FGD_General_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6 235 P33: FGD_General_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6 236 Shushilan PowerPoint presentation on Polder 3. 237 P33: FGD_General_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6 238 P33: FGD_General_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6 239 P33: FGD_General_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6 240 P33: FGD_General_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6 241 P57: KII_Shrimp farmer_pipes15-16bg_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6
230 231

80

quote below in fact suggests that the BWDB Officer uses the formal rules as leverage for obtaining money from gher owners. Sometimes small problems arise with sub assistant officer of WAPDA regarding water use. If I do not get water in my gher when I need, my shrimp can be infected by virus. Initially SO sir does not convince, but we get permission by giving him some money. Earlier I brought in water using underneath pipe through the embankment, but last year my pipe has closed due to siltation. Without getting permission from SO, I was trying to pick up my pipes by cutting the embankment and I was setting up a ninety kall that is why a case was filed against me. Later on, the case was managed by local influential leaders and UNO. Some money had to pay to BWDB officer.242 Saline water is also lifted over the embankment using the ninety kall which all ghers seem to have243. In Kandippur, there is a person from Beel committee who stays at the gate of Muchor Khal. We get water through that man. I pay to the gate man 50 taka per bigha annually.244 This committee consists entirely of gher owners, and the President and secretary of the committee communicate with government officers. Government officers listen to them.245 In Narayunpur, the sluice gate (called Narayanpur) near to Kakshiali River is used exclusively by Gher owners. The saline water passes through the canal and enters the different ghers.246 There is a committee consisting of 70-80 gher owners, who self-manage any conflicts over the gate operation. According to a gher owner247, the Government khalashi used to take care of the sluice gate but this has stopped now due to a shortage of BWDB manpower. The vacuum left has been filled by the gher owners. The committee appoints its own gate operator and the members pay him a monthly salary and also permit him to catch fish in the gher. This arrangement allows the gher owners to ensure the required quantities of saline water are maintained at the required times: we do not need to wait for water; it saves time and money because we had to bring water by pipe from the long distance before. 248 An excellent illustration of the extension of this logic and gher owners attitude towards state regulation is provided by the following response: WAPDA (BWDB) does not work anything, because if we work according to them, our gher work will not continue. We know how to cultivate. If we follow Government rules, the condition of the gher will become worse. A sluice gate was constructed beside the fish hatchery; this gate was not constructed from any Government channel. We do not need anybody, we are fine. Sometimes I go to the fisheries office if there is any problem on bagda fry (Chingri Pona). Fisheries department can only provide suggestion for cleaning the harmful species (chala) of the gher. Beside this, they will not be required in others work. Our gher business will not proceed smoothly if we pay the attention to the Government paid staff and what they are saying.249 Naturally then, there is high resistance to any court ruling against saline intrusion: It will put strain on us and also has a bad impact on national economy. It will decrease foreign income. We are not in favour of this rule. This step will result in
P57: KII_Shrimp farmer_pipes15-16bg_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6 P57: KII_Shrimp farmer_pipes15-16bg_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6 244 P56: KII_Paddy-fish-shrimp farmer_2 bg_Kandippur_Bhara Simla UP_SL_3 245 P56: KII_Paddy-fish-shrimp farmer_2 bg_Kandippur_Bhara Simla UP_SL_3 246 P48: KII_Shrimp_farmer_pipes_20bg_Narayunpur_Bhara Simla_SL_1-4 247 P48: KII_Shrimp_farmer_pipes_20bg_Narayunpur_Bhara Simla_SL_1-4 248 P48: KII_Shrimp_farmer_pipes_20bg_Narayunpur_Bhara Simla_SL_1-4 249 P48: KII_Shrimp_farmer_pipes_20bg_Narayunpur_Bhara Simla_SL_1-4
242 243

81

single crop, double crop will be impossible in this area. Then we will be distressed. Saline water is good for us.250

2.3.

Canals and re-excavation

Condition of canals: Siltation From the general FGD in Suelphur, it is learned that the canal and rivers have not been re-excavated for a long period and these are badly sedimented, resulting in flooding even after moderate rains.251 The same discussion however reports that excavation of Siddir Khal has just been completed by the Union Parishad. This seems a contradiction as there is only one drain and one gate in Suelphur. In Kandippur, the Muchor canal needs to be re-excavated. Canals: Leasing No information is available.

3. Participation and influence

Participation appears to be limited to collective action in times of emergencies. There is no opportunity for the landless and other marginalised people (i.e. anyone other than gher owners) to participate in decision making over maintenance and operation. Experience seems to have also influenced how stakeholders perceive what participation should be: Participation means leading and volunteering. Beside that to repair embankment, money is also an essential part. 252

4. Institutional coordination: role of local governments

BWDB
BWDB is perceived to exercise very limited manpower. It is claimed its officers know about pipe inlets but they keep silent. The SO investigates the objection only if he gets money. BWDB conducts the occasional repair of a wooden shutter which is financed by the gher owners.253 The perception from the general FGD is as follows: Generally they do not come to people. Sometimes, we work for ourselves, maintain the embankment with our money. They do not complete any work; after some minor action they leave most of work incomplete. There is no specification about starting, completing or clear-cut idea of the work.254

Union Parishads

Canal excavations are implemented by the UP according to the general FGD. The same source however states that this work is funded by the TNO (Existing UNO) through the BWDB which seems an unlikely scenario (needs clarification).

P33: FGD_General_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6 P33: FGD_General_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6 252 P33: FGD_General_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6 253 P33: FGD_General_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6 254 P33: FGD_General_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6
250 251

82

A negative view of the UP is expressed by a shrimp farmer making clear that responses are significantly driven by personal experience and vested interests: Union Parishad cannot be used for any purpose and we do not need and we do not go there.255

5. Summary and Conclusions

Traditional livelihoods have been undermined by bagda cultivation which began when outsiders from Dhaka started cultivation in the 1970s.256 This was a response to rises in global shrimp prices after 1971 and promotion of exports by the government. This cultivation was originally outside the new polder by repairing older embankment. As aquaculture is more profitable than paddy cultivation, everybody accepted this cultivation process.257 However, unlike most other Unions in this polder, mixing of paddy and shrimp appears to be prevalent, and therefore the overall impacts of at least paddy production do not seem to be as severe: Here cultivation of rice, jute, betel leaf, and shrimp is better than other areas 258. In fact, these rice-fish-shrimp systems appear to be quite profitable for those who still own or afford to rent land, and have the capital to invest. While the General FGD in Suelpur indicates that everyone including small land owners involved with this type of cultivation,259 more detailed information on who controls land use (ownership and leases) is necessary to better understand how concentrated land holdings have become. Reference to the leasing of land by several bagda operators suggests that this may be at the expense of traditional farmlands. Hence the continuance of paddy production may belie a shift in control over land. Such an inference appears to be supported by statements by some of the smaller bagda operators who confirm that the wealthy people are becoming wealthier and poor people are poorer.260 A likely scenario may be that many of the smaller operators are local paddy farmers who have voluntarily or involuntarily switched to mixes bagda-fish-rice systems. Another perspective is provided by a mid-sized gher operator from Narayunpur who states that: fish cultivation is good for the rich and poor, but not good for the middle class family. Poor people are working at the gher, they are living in a better condition than before. Employment opportunity has been increased due to gher culture.261 For those who continue to farm and the communities as a whole, water logging continues to be a significant problem. This occurs even after moderate rainfall because the unplanned proliferation of small ghers has blocked drainage. Though every gher is required to have an out drain, this rule is not enforced.262 It is thus interesting to note that participants in the general FGD in Suelphur are nevertheless in favour of shrimp culture. They believe that if shrimp culture stopped it will adversely affect foreign income.263 Not surprisingly, gher owners do not see any conflicts There is no conflict or quarrel regarding water management in this area. If there is any conflict, it is resolved by discussion with the local leaders and chairman. He, who has enough money, gets some extra benefit, later on others accept it.264 As everybody has gher, there is no tension or conflict. Everybody get water for their gher at high tide.265
P48: KII_Shrimp_farmer_pipes_20bg_Narayunpur_Bhara Simla_SL_1-4 P57: KII_Shrimp farmer_pipes15-16bg_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6 257 P33: FGD_General_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6 258 P33: FGD_General_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6 259 P33: FGD_General_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6 260 P57: KII_Shrimp farmer_pipes15-16bg_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6 261 P48: KII_Shrimp_farmer_pipes_20bg_Narayunpur_Bhara Simla_SL_1-4 262 P33: FGD_General_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6 263 P33: FGD_General_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6 264 P57: KII_Shrimp farmer_pipes15-16bg_Suelpur_Bhara Simla UP_SL5-6 265 P56: KII_Paddy-fish-shrimp farmer_2 bg_Kandippur_Bhara Simla UP_SL_3
255 256

83

Similar views were expressed by a gher owner in Narayunpur. There is no quarrel, conflict there, because everybody does the gher culture, everybody is living a happy life. Now local people are living well and they can buy the livestock food by money.266 The condition of water infrastructure appears to be poor overall with proper maintenance regimes blocked by the control exercised by gher operators directly with respect to sluice gate and canal operation and maintenance, and indirectly through their representation in the Union Parishads and informal understandings with BWDB, it is claimed, based on bribes. Thus in this Union too, the shrimp industry emerges as the fundamental driver of the fundamental alterations that have occurred to the water management system, water flows, levels of salinity, and consequently the livelihood systems that had supported the vast majority of the local communities as envisaged by construction of the embankment. The affected stakeholders therefore call for the regulation, if not banning, of the shrimp industry through the enforcement of the gher registration process and attendant rules. This should be also in line with a land use plan that should be modified on yearly basis. They also believe that strengthening the role of the Union Parishads will benefit them.

266

P48: KII_Shrimp_farmer_pipes_20bg_Narayunpur_Bhara Simla_SL_1-4

84