G3: Water Governance and Community Based Management Ganges Basin Development Challenge

Situation Analysis
LGED Jabusa Beel subproject, Rupsa Upazila, Khulna

Report from

C. Dewan and M. Maniruzzaman

Merged by Marie-Charlotte Buisson September 2012

Contents
1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 4
1.1. Aim of the report ................................................................................................................4 1.2. Methodology ......................................................................................................................4 1.3. Overview of Jabusa Beel Sub Project Area............................................................................7 1.3.1. Location and accessibility...................................................................................................... 7 1.3.2. Demographic features .......................................................................................................... 8 1.3.3. Basic Facilities Access ............................................................................................................ 9 1.3.4. History of the Jabusa Beel Sub Project and Physical Interventions .................................... 10 1.3.5. Physical Interventions in Jabusha beel sub-project ............................................................ 10

2.

FARMING SYSTEMS AND LIVELIHOODS ............................................................ 11

2.1. Change of the farming system in the three last decades .................................................... 11 2.2. Overall land use ................................................................................................................ 12 2.3. Current Agricultural Cropping Pattern.............................................................................. 12 2.3.1. Paddy................................................................................................................................... 12 2.3.2. Mixed: Paddy and Freshwater fish...................................................................................... 13 2.3.3. Fish ...................................................................................................................................... 13 2.3.4. Pulses, Vegetables, Potatoes and Sesame .......................................................................... 14 2.4. Irrigation .......................................................................................................................... 15 2.5. Productivity, costs and returns.......................................................................................... 15 2.6. Livestock ........................................................................................................................... 17

3.

LIVELIHOODS .......................................................................................................... 17
3.1. Employment opportunities ............................................................................................... 17 3.1.1. Labour Contracting Societies (LCS) ..................................................................................... 18 3.2. Demographic pressures .................................................................................................... 19 3.3. Drinking water situation ................................................................................................... 19

4.

CONDITION OF THE PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ....................................... 21

4.1. Condition of the Embankment ......................................................................................... 21 4.1.1. South and West Para (SL#1-3)............................................................................................. 21 4.1.2. Madhya and North Para ...................................................................................................... 22 4.1.3. Emergency responses ......................................................................................................... 22 4.2. Condition of the Sluice gates ............................................................................................ 23 4.3. Condition of the Canals .................................................................................................... 25 4.3.1. Siltation ............................................................................................................................... 25 4.3.2. Leasing................................................................................................................................. 26

5. 6.

OPERATION OF SLUICE GATES ............................................................................ 27

5.1. 6.1. 6.2. Opening and closing of the gate ....................................................................................... 27 Construction and Rehabilitation 1997-2001........................................................................ 29 Handover agreement and responsibilities ......................................................................... 29 2

MAINTENANCE OF PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE .......................................... 29

6.3. 6.4.

Maintenance from 2001 to 2012: when funding is insufficient ............................................ 31 Suggestions for Maintenance ............................................................................................ 33

7.

SWRDSP: PROJECT PROCESS AND RESULTS ...................................................... 34

7.1. WMCA formation ............................................................................................................. 34 7.2. WMCA Input in Project Design ........................................................................................ 34 7.3. Election and Selection of Executive Committee ............................................................... 34 7.4. Sub-committees................................................................................................................ 35 7.5. Training ........................................................................................................................... 35 7.6. Membership and Representativeness................................................................................ 36 7.6.1. Membership criteria and changes ...................................................................................... 36 7.6.2. Membership Composition .................................................................................................. 36 7.7. WMCA as a cooperative: funds and leasing as an income source ...................................... 37 7.7.1. Current funds and Monthly fees ......................................................................................... 37 7.7.2. Income-generation: Leasing and microcredit ..................................................................... 37 7.8. Activeness and Perception of WMCA post project ............................................................ 38

8. 9. 10.

CONFLICT REGARDING THE CONTROL OF CANALS ...................................... 40 INTERAGENCY COORDINATION ........................................................................ 42 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 43

ANNEX 1: INSTITUTIONS IN WATER GOVERNANCE ............................................. 44

Local Government Institutions .................................................................................................... 44 Upazila Parishad................................................................................................................................... 44 Union Parishad .................................................................................................................................... 44 Extension agencies...................................................................................................................... 44 Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE) ...................................................................................... 44 Department of Fisheries (DoF) ............................................................................................................ 44 Department of Livestock Services (DLS) ............................................................................................. 44 Department of Public Health Engineering (DPHE) ............................................................................. 45 NGOs.......................................................................................................................................... 46 Private Companies....................................................................................................................... 46

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Aim of the report

Based on Focus Group Discussions (FGD) and Key Informant Interviews (KII), this report aims to create a detailed situation analysis of Jabusa Beel polder in RupsaUpazila, Khulna. 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 LGED 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 Jabusa Beel subproject.

1.2.

Methodology

Four Focus Group Discussions and six Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) were conducted by the Shushilan research team from 29th March to 02 April, 2012.While the FGDs were held in four sub villages (para) of village Jabusa, the KIIs with farmers were held at their village home and the KIIs with officials were held at the respective offices in the UP and Upazila headquarters. The map below describes where the FGDs have been conducted. The FGD locations and participants were selected to represent various parts of the village, distance from the sluice gates, the gate condition and concentration of various types of farming, particularly paddy cultivation with or without aquaculture.
FGD Type General General LCS WMCA Village Jabusa(para) South para of Jabusa Modhyapara Jabusa West para North para Relevant Sluice Gate Numbers 1,2,3,9 & 10. Private gate of JeminiSeafood 4,5, 6 & 8 1 4,5 &6 Major Canals Haraniar, Noaisher, DoaliaHoglabonia, Gozalier, and Gupierkhal. Shukurmari, Horigosh, Madna and Gupierkhal. Haraniarkhal Madna, Harigosh, Shukumari

Table 1 -

List of the FGDs, villages, gates and canals

Figure 1 -

Map of the polder and location of FGDs

A glance look of the FGD participants reveals the following: 5

One of the two general FGD groups met at Modhyapara (middle part of the village) had six male participants, all farmers including one shrimp farmer. Two of the six were landless, but owned homestead land and the remaining four owned 0.33 to 1.15 acres land. The respondents age varied from 32 to 50 years. All respondents are WMCA members. The second general FGD group was held at Jabusa High School at South Para and all eight participants were from this part of the village. Four of the eight participants had combined paddy farming (mainly Aman) and aquaculture and one was a paddy farmer, one combined business with agriculture, one had salaried service and the last one had business combined with aquaculture. The respondents are a bit older, age varying from 42 to 57 and they owned 1.5 to 5.0 acres land. All respondents are WMCA members. The third FGD was conducted with a group of six male LCS group members. One of the six owns 0.75 acre land and another one owns 0.15 acre. The remaining four are landless. All six are WMCA members. The participants are younger, age varying from 18 to 40. The last FGD group met were seven WMCA EC members, all males, all own land varying from 1.0 to 10.0 acres and all have business including one having both salaried service and business. Age of the respondents varied from 36 to 60 years.

The list of FGD and KII is provided in Table 1 and 2.

SL # 1 2 3 4 FGD Type General General LCS WMCA Numbers of Participants (Female) 8 males, no female 6 males, no female 6 males, no female 7 males, no female Table 2 Village (para) South para of Jabusa Madhya para Jabusa West para Jabusa North para Union Parishad Naihati Naihati Naihati Naihati Relevant Sluice Gate Numbers 1,2,3,9 & 10. Private gate of Jemini sea food 4,5, 6 & 8 1 4,5 &6 Adjoining Canals Haraniarkhal,, Noaishyarkhal, Doaliarkhal, Hoglaboniakhal, Gozalierkhal, Gupierkhal. Shukurmari, Horigosh, Madnar and Gupierkhal. Haraniarkhal

Madnar, Mujamkhali, Harigosh, Mansurkhali, Fedurkhal, Golachipa&Shukumarikhal. List of FGDs conducted in polder Jabusa Sub Project

Sl # 1 2 3 4 5 6

Respondent Type UP Chairman Naihati CO, LGED UP Member Paddy farmer Fish farmer WMCA Secretary
Table 3 -

Village/ Venue

Date 29 March, 2012 02 Aril, 2012 30 March, 2012

Naihati UP Office Rupsa Upazila Office of LGED Ward no 1, Naihati UP West para, Jabusa West para, Jabusa Rupsa Upazila

01 Aril, 2012 30 March, 2012 01 April, 2012 List of KII conducted in Jsabishabeel Sub Project Polder

1.3.

Overview of Jabusa Beel Sub Project Area

1.3.1. Location and accessibility Location The Jabusa Beel Sub Project polder of LGED is located in Naihati Union Parishad of Rupsa Upazila in Khulna district. The polder area is surrounded by the old Khulna-Mongla highway in the north and east, Rupsa River in the west and Narayankhali canal in the south. Within this boundary, there is just one full village or mouza, Jabusa. However people of 13 villages around it own land inside of the Jabusa Beel. One village, Jabusa is located inside of the beel and the remaining 12 are surrounding it or have some land inside of the beel. The surrounding villages are: Bagmara, Char Rupsa, Ramnagar, Talimpur, Niklapur, Joypur, Elaipur, Amdabad, Machuadanga, and Kismot Khulna of Naihati UP, village Tilak of Bahirdia UP and village Khajura of Lokpur UP. Geographical characteristics The land in the beel area is regularly inundated by tide if not regulated by embankment and sluice gates. Again, because of inadequate drainage facility and for siltation and closing of canals, the area is often waterlogged. The area is also affected by moderate salinity during February to June. After construction of the Rupsa bridge river bank erosion increased downstream of the bridge in the left bank for protection on the right bank and which is more urbanized. Accessibility The sub project area is located just on the other side of Khulna City. The Rupsa River is the boundary between the sub project area and Khulna city. From the polder area people access Khulna city using the old highway and cross the river by engine boat. This is convenient for the people living in the north and east side of the polder. Further, the present Approach road to Rupsa bridge passes through the middle of the sub project area. Use of this road to Khulna city is convenient for the people lining in the middle and west side. In addition, there is a road along the left bank of the river. Because of having these roads and the river Rupsa, commercial importance of the polder area is increasing day by day. Bus, three wheeler auto-rickshaw (baby taxi) and tempo services (like 4 wheeler human hauler) are main modes of transport. In the short distance, rickshaw and rickshaw vans are uses extensively. Another mode of transport recently introduced but expanding rapidly is battery operated three wheeler auto-rickshaw, called easy bike. Urban influence and industrialization Because of its location very close to the countrys third largest city and having good highway, waterway and railway connectivity, good number of industrial and business establishments have been located in the polder area. They are located on three sides, in the north and east beside the old Khulna-Mongla highway particularly near Rupsa ferry ghat and along the left bank of river Rupsa. Only the southern side has less concentration of industries and business establishment while the central part is mainly agriculture and aquaculture area. About 10-15% of the area is covered by business and industrial enterprises, mainly fish and shrimp (both bagda and golda) processing factories and another 25-30% area is covered by homestead area.

1.3.2. Demographic features As noted earlier, Jabusa Beel Sub Project area has just one full village, Jabusa but people of 12 villages surrounding it have land inside of the sub project area. Of these 12, seven villages are partly located inside of the area bounded by the outer embankments and these villages have some settlement area inside of it. The villages having land and settlement area inside of the polder are Bagmara (500 households), Char Rupsa (300 households), Joypur (100 households), Elaipur (100 households), Amidabad (5-7 households), Tilok (3-4 households) and Khajura (100 households). On the whole, about 60% of the households living in the sub project area belong to just one village, Jabusa. Since other seven villages are partly inside of the polder, census data could not be segregated. Hence, information of Jabusa village is provided here to represent the polder. Table 3 below provides demographic data of village Jabuisha as compared to UP Naihati and Upazila Rupsa1. The village Jabusa is there considered to represent the polder for demographic and other information and the study was concentrated in this village.
Village Jabusa 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 4.11 1,474 6,195 1,507 4.2 3,129 3,066 102 94.2 5.2 0.6 55.8 58.1 53.4 UP Naihati 27.18 14,456 58,299 2,145 4.0 29,084 29,215 100 94.6 5.1 0.3 59.7 62.4 57.0 Upazila Rupsa 120.21 41,895 179,519 1,493 4.3 90,189 89,330 101 85.0 14.8 0.2 58.2 60.9 55.6

Source: BBS. Population Census, Community Series, Khulna Table 4 - Area and Population

Table 4 above shows employment status of male and female population of age 7 and above not attending school. In village Jabusa, 80.3% of the males (of age 7+ not attending school) are employed in various income earning activities and 18.2% are reported non-working. Of the female of 7+ age group (not attending school), 23% are reported to be working in various economic activities, 51% reported to be engaged in household chores only and about 26% non-working. The data should however be read with caution that age 7+ not in school, is not a good definition of labour force. If adjusted for population 15+, % of both male female population working, would be much higher and non-working for both sexes would be much lower.

Please note that village Jabusa in size is about 44% of the subproject area but have 60% of the population. Other 12 villages taken together have 56% area and 40% population, If people of other villages with house and land inside were counted, households living in the sub project area would be about bout 2584 and population would be about 10,852.
1

Village Jabusa Population age 7+ not in school Male 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 Feale Table 5 1,193 532 661 80.3 23.0 0.4 0.0 1.1 51.1 18.2 25.9

UP Naihati 10,540 4,637 5,903 79.1 25.2 0.7 0.19 1.1 51.82 19.1 22.82

Upazila Rupsa 33,305 14,856 18,449 79.1 14.1 0.6 0.2 1.4 62.2 19.0 23.6

Source: Bangladesh Population Census 2011: Community Series for Khulna District

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

Table 5 below shows distribution of male and female working population by broad economic sectors. In village Jabusa, a little over one half (51.5%) of the male workers are engaged in the agriculture sector, close to one third (32.8%) in industries and only one sixth (15.7%) in the service sectors. Of the female workers, about 84% are engaged in the industries sector, about 11% in agriculture sector and only about 6% in the service sector. Most women workers employed in the industries sector reflects that the shrimp and fish processing factories are employing many women workers. Proximity of the fish and shrimp processing factories has been an advantage to the women workers.
Village Jabusa 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 6 51.5 10.5 32.8 83.6 15.7 5.9 UP Naihati 20.1 2.8 23.7 39.0 56.2 58.2 Upazila Rupsa 35.2 10.4 16.82 30.53 48.0 59.1

Source: Bangladesh Population Census 2011: Community Series for Khulna District

Employment of Working Population by Broad Sectors

1.3.3. Basic Facilities Access Table 6 below shows that nearly 100% people of village Jabusa have access to safe drinking water and the main source is deep tube well. Limited number of households have own deep tube well but almost all others collect drinking water from the nearby deep tube wells. The NGO BRAC provide Deep Tube Wells (DTWs) under WASH project. Name of NGO ASA is also mentioned but there was no mention of Department of Public Health Engineering (DPHE) and UP providing DTWs for drinking water. It must be appreciated that people collect drinking water from WTWs even if they need to walk one or 1.5 kms. Most houses however have shallow tube well for but that is used more for bathing and washing. Fresh drinkable water is found at depth 600 to 900 feet or even deeper. (FGD)

In village Jabusa about 29.1% households have water sealed latrines and another 47.2% have ring-slab latrine (sanitary but not water sealed). One present doesnt have latrine and 22.7% use non-sanitary latrine. A little over one half of the households in village Jabusa has access to electricity (51.1%). Village 29.1 47.2 22.7 1.0 99.7 51.1 UP 21.1 49.9 27 1.9 98.6 76.8 Upazila 31.8 44.6 21.9 1.70 98.4 75.8

Sanitary Toilet water sealed % Sanitary not water sealed % Non sanitary% No latrine % water source: TW/Tape % Electricity Connected %
Table 7 -

Source: Bangladesh Population Census 2011: Community Series for Khulna District

Availability of or Access to Basic Facilities

1.3.4. History of the Jabusa Beel Sub Project and Physical Interventions Jabusa Beel area is not covered by the coastal embankment project of the BWDB. Therefore the area was inundated by two high tides and drained by two ebb-tides every day. Farmers constructed low dykes on the edge of their land to retain tide water for planting paddy. Homestead land was raised above normal tide level. Only one crop, local Aman could be produced and that too had very low yield. Due to salinity, no crop could be grown during the dry season. Information varied about pre-LGED construction of embankment. However, if all information are combined, a history of polder development emerges as followed: Local people and NGO CARITAS constructed a narrow dyke in 1975 Gen FGD Modhya Para CARE constructed a narrow embankment in 1982-83 General FGD, South Para The Union Parishad constructed embankment with the assistance of CARE in 1991- WMCA President

All three were however minor construction and each damaged in a few years due to flood and tidal surge. Also, due to low height, the embankment was frequently overtopped, hence was not long-lasting and did not serve the purpose of protecting crops. In 1996, the LGED constructed the embankment under the SSWRDP. In 2000, the LGED reconstructed it, made it elevated a bit higher. 1.3.5. Physical Interventions in Jabusha beel sub-project Physical Components of LGED Sub Project Under the sub project, the LGED constructed 8.42 km embankment, re-excavated 13.75 km of canals, constructed 5 sluice gates and provided fish screen in two sluice gates. Circumference of the polder area or length of the embankment is about 14.82 km of which 8.42 km is LGED embankment and the remaining 6.4 km is old Khulna Mongla highway, hence embankment construction not required. Local participants indicated that there are 11 canals with total length of 21 km in Jabusa Beel area, six of them have been reexcavated by the sub project and five sluice gate constructed. 10

Expectations and Objective of Sub Project Interventions The sub project information of the LGED showed the project aimed flood control and drainage (FCD). It intended to control flooding by saline water from the Rupsa River and Narayankhali Khal and thus secure cultivation of paddy. The drainage improvement through excavation of several canals intended to increase crop yield by removing water-logging. It was also envisaged that control of salt water entry will improve social and environmental conditions. The list of physical intervention shows construction of two fish screen which was intended to improve aquaculture by restricting entry of predator fishes. Physical Environment Around 1982/83 when there was no embankment, the whole area was flooded with tidal water (Gen FGD). Tide water entered the polder area from the rivers and the whole area was flooded twice a day. Entry of salt water was responsible for increased soil salinity and this continued until 1996 when LGED constructed embankment. Although the construction of polder aimed mainly to protect crops, presently, people are building houses in the beel area due to increasing population and proximity to the city and establishment of the fish processing factories increased demand for housing and staying in the area. Use of khas land (also khas canals) for agriculture (also aquaculture, housing, business etc.) has increased due to population growth and urbanization (also, greed, linkage with power holders and poor governance). Increased price of land contributed to increased greed and grabbing of khas land and khas canals.

2. FARMING SYSTEMS AND LIVELIHOODS

2.1. Change of the farming system in the three last decades

Cropping pattern and aquaculture changed over the past three decades mainly due to two factors. One is the growing importance of shrimp and prawn (here prawn is meant galda and shrimp is meant bagda) farming as export opportunity enhanced and subsequently shrimp and fish processing factories established in large numbers in the city of Khulna, along the Rupsa Mongla highway and on both sides of river Rupsa. The shrimp and fish (mostly brackish such as bagda, vetki, but presently also Tilapia) processing plants are located both within and in close proximity of the Jabusa Beel sub project area. In the recent years, besides shrimp and prawn farming, commercial production of various fresh water as well as brackish water fish expanded also targeting the growing local market. Another factor bringing change in crop production and aquaculture is the construction of embankment with regulators protecting the crops as well as fish, shrimp and prawn. The change of cropping pattern and aquaculture over the past three decades is briefly described below: Before 1980s: Only local Aman paddy was cultivated. Land was regularly inundated by tides and dried in the ebb-tides. Long stem local variety paddy was planted that could sustain in adverse condition. Yield was low to medium (Aman local 600-900 kg paddy/acre). There was no aquaculture as fish were available abundantly in the river and in the canals and beel. Sesame was second crop and yield was moderate, 200 kg/acre. FGD, KIIs and Follow up discussions. 11

1980s to 1996: Only Aman paddy was cultivated here before constructing the embankment andcrop yield was very low, 600 kg paddy/acre (sometimes even less than 240 kg per acre). Shrimp and prawn export began to expand. Saline water entered into beel area and many people used to culture bagda in one season and paddy in another season. Paddy yield was low but shrimp farming was profitable, hence expanding. There was outsider leaseholder domination who took away all fish and local landowner farmers got only paddy. After 1996: LGED constructed embankment in 1996. As a result, entry of salt water was controlled, risk of flooding, and water-logging reduced, crop protection measures improved. With this change, in place of local Aman, HYV Aman cultivation began. HYV Boro cultivation also began. Further to this, cultivation of sesame, winter vegetables and pulses increased and crop yield increased considerably. After constructing embankment, bagda area decreased and this has been taken up by increase of HYV Boro and expansion of Golda cultivation

Before 1980s No Embankment 1980-1996s Narrow Dukes Constructed by UP/CARE

Main Crop Local Aman Sesame Shrimp & Fish Gher by Leaseholder Paddy (Local Aman) By Parmer

1996-2000 onward LGED Subproject

Local Aman, HyvAman, HyvBoro Dyke Cropping Veg., Paddy and Aquaculture Mixed

Figure 2 -

Polder Development and the Change of Agriculture

2.2.

Overall land use

Of the total area of about 930 ha within sub project boundary, 10% is occupied by industries and business establishments, 25% by housing and 5% by homestead ponds. The remaining 60% is crop farming and aquaculture area.

2.3.

Current Agricultural Cropping Pattern

2.3.1. Paddy Aman paddy is cultivated from Asharh (June-July) to Agrohaeon (November-December) in the middle of the subproject (SL#4-8) and to Poush-Magh (December-February) in lower Jabusha by mixed crop farmers 12

(SL#1-3). In general, Aman is cultivated in low-lying lands, while high-elevated lands as in Elaipur village in the northeast can cultivate Boro paddy varieties. Both high-yielding varieties such as BR23 and BR11 are cultivated as well as local (desi) paddy such as Juto Balaam and Balaam. Morishail paddy is cultivated in the southern part of the polder in proximity to Jabusa Bridge. According to a respondent who is a mixed paddyfreshwater fish farmer (SL#1-3, 5 biggha), this area started with HYV Boro (locally called IRRI paddy) as a means to tackle food scarcity. Boro paddy requires several inputs, such as irrigation, fertiliser and pesticides. He stated that he spends 1 lakh BDT on Boro cultivation, including irrigation costs, where he can also earn a total of 1 lakh profit if prices are good in the market. HYV Boro is perceived as more profitable than Aman paddy despite its lack of requires inputs. This is the main reason for why increasing number of farmers cultivate Boro paddy. 2.3.2. Mixed: Paddy and Freshwater fish Another means of increasing profitable is mixed farming, where paddy is cultivated along with freshwater fish species, and in some instances also brackish fish and shrimp (Bagda). The former was mentioned by farmers located in the southern part of Jabusa (Sl#1-3, Narayankhali khal), while the General FGD in central east of the polder mentioned the (latter SL#58, Jabusa River). In the former cropping system, paddy is cultivated for 8 months starting with Aman in the beginning of Srabon/Bhadra (June), succeeded by Boro cultivation. Freshwater fish (Rui) is then cultivated from February to May (Mixed paddy-freshwater fish farmer, SL#1-3). In the latter system, fish can be cultivated throughout the year through freshwater ponds, allowing paddy and fish cultivation to be carried out simultaneously. The respondent engaged in 12-month aquaculture also owns 17-biggha of land and is a successful businessman connected to the thriving shrimp processing industries in northeast Jabusa. He has land both next to Haraniar khal (SL#1) and Gupier khal (SL#3-4) and thus has good access to water for replenishing the ponds. He cultivates mainly Pangash, Magur (Thai variety) and Tilapia for commercial purposes; and states that these are freshwater fish that can also survive in slightly brackish water. He has therefore been able to cultivate it with Bagda shrimp. The fact that the fish can tolerate similar PPT as required for Bagda may indicate that they are more brackish than freshwater fish.

2.3.3. Fish Other fish species cultivated are Bagda shrimp, Baila, Bhetkhi, and Parshe. However, many varieties have disappeared over the years. This includes other varieties of Parshe, Bele, Khurkuna, Horina Chingri, and Chali etc. In the General FGD held in Madhya Para (SL#4-8, Gupier khal, Sukurmari khal) this is due to overfishing through the use of nets in the canals and river as well as the excessive chase for fish fries for aquaculture cultivation. Now barely any fish enter the canal/Participant, General FGD, Madhya Para. In southern Jabusa (SL#3, Narayankhali khal) this reduction of fish was also attributed to the superficial depth of the canals. Very limited fish can be cultured in this khal due to lack of sufficient water. This area used to generate good income from fish cultivation. If the khal is deeper/excavated, it would also be good for fish culture/Participant, General FGD, South Para. There has therefore been an increasing shift from naturally occurring fish to cultivated fish. According to a WMCA member (33 decimal) at the General FGD, Madhya Para, fish is cultivated there throughout the year and is crucial for local livelihoods. In the Southwest of Jabusa (SL#1, Haraniar khal) the male LCS group mentioned that they would cultivate Bagda with paddy in light saline water, without any forceful intrusion of salinity. Bagda would be cultivated from Falgun (February) to the beginning of monsoon. Bagda cultivation used to be more extensive in Jabusa prior to the LGED construction. Collective shrimp farms, called gono gher were collectives where a group of local landowners would operate the shrimp farm together. These public models turned unprofitable, where the members experienced economic loss. There has therefore been a shift towards private ponds pocket ghers, 13

as well as a shift towards cultivating freshwater prawn Galda. /WMCA member, (117 decimal), General FGD Madhya Para (SL#4-8,). Does he not cultivate any Bagda? When does he cultivate Bagda?

2.3.4. Pulses, Vegetables, Potatoes and Sesame Though the LGED data mentioned the cultivation of pulses, vegetables and wheat, this was not mentioned by any of the respondent groups. Sunflower was not mentioned at all and it was noted that wheat production had reduced. Earlier we grew sesame, wheat, watermelon etc. Cultivation of these crops is reduced due to river erosion/General FGD, South Para (SL#3). River erosion leads to water toppling over the embankment and flooding the crops with saline water. Another reason stated is the construction of Jabusa Bridge in the south next to SL #3. However, in some areas they are able to cultivate sesame. It is sown in January and harvested in May.
Crop/ Fish Paddy Paddy Paddy Variety Aman Local Aman HYV Boro HYV Season Kharif 2 Kharif 2 Boro/Robi Duration Aug-Dec Sep-Dec Jan-May Irrigation Rain+ canals Rain+ canals Rivers Jan-Feb. Reserve water in canals partly: Mar-Apr DTW- March-May Salt water from river Yield/acre Paddy 1000 kg Paddy 1200 kg 1600 kg paddy Gross and Net Return (Tk/Acre) Gross 15,000 Net 9,000 Gross 16,000 Net 10,000 Gross 14,000 Net 3,000 Gross 81,000 Net 33,000 (6 months) Gross 84,000 Net 37,000 (10 months) Remarks 40% of the beel area 60% of the beel area 70% of beel area 20% area

Shrimp Bagda Fish Golda Fish

Shrimp, Tilapia, Parse, Ruhi, Katla, small shrimp (harina) Golda, Tilapia, Ruhi, Katla, Parse

Robi and Kharif 1 Kharif 1 and 2 overlapped

Feb-July

Bagda 100 kg Other fish 300 kg Golda 100 kg, Other fish 300 kg

June-Dec

Fresh water from river Canal when salinity decreases after monsoon rains No irrigation No irrigation, partly from canal, gher

Oil seed Vegetabl esFruits

Sesame Vegetables, water melon, melon, banana, papaya, arum

Robi Round the year

Feb-May Round the year

240 kg 2000 kg

20% area combined fish and paddy farming 20% area 5-10% area (homestead, elevated land, gher dyke)

Table 8 -

Cropping Pattern and Farming System

Crop/ Fish AmanLoc Aman HYV Boro HYV Sesame Fish &bagda Fish & Golda Veg/ fruits

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Table 9 -

Cropping Seasons

14

2.4.

Irrigation

Aman paddy is irrigated through the monsoon rains and water drawn from the canals. Boro paddy is more expensive as it must be irrigated through groundwater. This requires fuel or electricity for the pump machines. One problem there is that extensive power cuts in the area impedes the use of electric pump. Boring, or groundwater irrigation, is used for three months starting in Falgun as the water availability in the canals has reduced by then. Despite the costs of irrigation, paddy is seen as profitable. However, the lack of secured electricity is seen as a problem.
Power cut is so high that we cannot run engine for irrigation. This is a serious problem for us/ Farid, General FGD, Madhya Para). Irrigation of our area is fully dependent on electricity and diesel. We do not get electricity properly. This creates serious problems for irrigation. In addition, increased price of diesel has negative effects on crop production. Crop production in our area is at risk due to lack of irrigation because of shortage of electricity supply. /Akbar, General FGD, South Para.

A suggestion was therefore to supply proper electricity as well as re-excavate canals to increase their water retention capacity during the dry season. However, it was also noted that there is only a selected number of farmers that can afford deep tubewells for irrigation. This is very expensive and unaffordable to many farmers/Firoz, tea stall keeper, Jabusa village. Rather, irrigation via shallow tubewells is common. However, due to arsenic contamination in the water, Shahina Akter (Lippi), WMCA Executive Committee member, mentioned that the actual crops are highly likely to be contaminated with arsenic. The other WMCA members had not mentioned this issue, so it is not clear whether the issue of arsenic and public health related to irrigation is pursued by the WMCA or other government agencies. Shahina herself is a part of the political party, and they do not hold any political posts. During this KII, she did not offer any concrete solutions for how these different actors could work together to solve this.

2.5.

Productivity, costs and returns

Prior to the polder, the soil was extremely saline. Only Aman paddy was cultivated and with low yields (less than 80 kg paddy per biggha). In addition, flooding and inundation would further damage crops. However, fishery was more common, while now a range of fish have disappeared from the canals and rivers. Rather, the LGED embankment has seen the increase of agricultural productivity and cropping diversity. From single paddy crop, they now also grow Boro paddy in the high-elevated parts of the subproject, as well as vegetables, wheat and sesame. According to LGED (2008) data, cereal production in Jabusa Beel increased from 2271 ton pre-project to 2920 ton post-project, while fisheries went down from 23 ton to 0 ton. The previous table illustrates the diversity of cropping pattern after the LGED embankment was constructed. Interestingly, it also shows that productivity in terms of kg per hectare has not necessarily increased, rather it has decreased in some instances.

15

1997
Kharif-1/Aus (Pre-monsoon) B Aus HYV Aus LT Aus Jute Green Mung Kharif-2/Aman LT Aman HYV T Aman Vegetables Rabi/Boro (Winter) HYV Boro Wheat Mustard Local Boro Potato Vegetables Pulse Spices Sugarcane 1,200.0 3,200.0 1,926.6

2000

2001
2,717.0

2002
3,458.0 1,852.5 1,976.0

2003
3,211.0 1,853.0 1,111.0

2004
1,926.6 2,964.0 2,099.5 2,470.0

2006

3,258.0

1,852.5 1,976.0

2,710.0 4,940.0

2,964.0 5,187.0

2,593.5 4,199.0

2,964.0 5,187.0 8,645.0

2,964.0 4,248.4

5,928.0 2,800.0 5,263.6 2,099.5 3,211.0 19,760.0

4,940.0 4,569.5 2,099.5 3,211.0 22,230.0

5,187.0 2,470.0 1,037.0 3,211.0 9,880.0

5,434.0 2,766.0 1,037.0 3,211.0 3,088.0 9,880.0

2,470.0 988.0

30,000.0 1,161.0 1,037.0 111,150.0

Table 10 -

Agricultural Productivity in kg/ha 1997-2006

Cost and return of HYV Boro production Present cost of production of HYV Boro paddy per acre is estimated Tk. 14,000 (Tillage 2000, seed/sapling 1000, fertilizer and pesticide 3000, Irrigation 3000, hired labour 5000). Expected yield is 40 mounds paddy per acre or 2.6 MT rice per ha. Market value of the produce par acre is Tk. 28,000. Profit is only Tk. 14,000 per acre. If one deducts imputed value of rent, Tk. 8000 per acre for paddy season, profit comes down to Tk. 6,000 per acre. If one deducts the opportunity cost of family labor, Tk. 3000 per acre, the farmer is earning a profit of k. 3,000 per acre Follow up discussion with WMCA president and farmers proiducing bagda, fish and paddy Cost and return of producing HYV Aman Cost of cultivation of HYV Aman paddy is estimated Tk. 6000 per acre (Tillage Tk. 2000, seed sapling 1000, fertilizer/pesticide 2000, irrigation 500 and hired labour 1500). Expected yield is 1200 kg paddy per acre or 1.96 MT rice per ha. Market value of paddy produced per acre is Tk. 24,000. Profit per acre is Tk. 16,000. If one deducts imputed rent of Tk. 4000 per acre and opportunity cost of family labour Tk, 2000 per acre, then the net profit stands at around Tk. 10,000 per acre.

Cost and return of producing Local Aman Cost of cultivation of HYV Aman paddy is estimated Tk. 5000 per acre (Tillage Tk. 2000, seed sapling 1000, fertilizer/pesticide 1000, irrigation 00 and hired labour 1000). Expected yield is 1000 kg paddy per acre or 1.6 MT rice per ha. Market value of paddy produced per acre is Tk. 20,000. Profit per acre is Tk. 15,000. If one deducts imputed rent of Tk. 4000 per acre and opportunity cost of family labourTk, 2000 per acre, then the net profit stands at around Tk. 9,000 per acre.

16

VALUE OF INPUTS Shrimp fry 6,000 nos. 4,800 Golda fries 5,000 nos. 12,500 Dyke repair 2,000 Lab cost (hired) 4,000 Tilpia/ parse fish fries 2,000 Irrigation 1,000 Others Bamboo, fishing trap 2,000 Rent 4,000 TOTAL 32,300

VALUE OF OUTPUT Shrimp 80 kg @ 400 Golda 50 kg @ 500 Ruhi, katla, carp 100 kg Tilapia and other fish 200 kg

32,000 25,000 12,000 12,000

GROSS RETURN Family lab NET RETURN

81,000 48,700 15,000 33,000

Source: KII with a farmer, involved in fish, shrimp and paddy farming as well as fish business, Telephone interview with WMCA President and a WMCA member Table 11 Cost of cultivation and estimated return from mixed one acre shrimp and Tilapia farming

2.6.

Livestock

All participants said that the number of livestock decreased, particularly the number of cattle and buffaloes declined substantially. Reasons stated are: decrease of grazing area, increased price of straw which the main fodder (Gen FGD). Another reason for the decrease is that; farmers use tractor for tillage rather than cattle or buffaloes. So, they have reduced cattle and buffalo rearing. One KII participant owning 17 bigha land and renting in another 15 bigha said (fish and paddy farmer and also involved in fish business) that he had 20-30 cattle in the past, now he has only 3 cattle, two bulls and a cow. During follow up discussion, the informant said that, 15-20 years ago people had many buffaloes and cattle. Now buffaloes seen very rarely and cattle declined. He has also indicated that farmers do not have enough space in the house to build cattle and buffalo sheds big enough as they could 15-20 years ago. This happened for increased pressure on land to accommodate growing population.

3. LIVELIHOODS
3.1. Employment opportunities

As agricultural productivity has increased and the risk of flooding has decreased, the entire Jabusa area has seen improvements in livelihood opportunities. Previously, only Aman was cultivated with low yields and outmigration was the common strategy. Currently, crops and fish are cultivated three times a year and peoples livelihoods have been seen as improved across the range of respondents. One key trend is the entrance of industries in the area and the improvement of communication through the construction of Jabusa Bridge. Labour availability of local people is not sufficient to meet demand and people are moving to Jabusa. The employment opportunities for young males have increased, though there was little mention of this for women. However, a number of previous day labourers (both male and female) now work in the shrimp processing industries in the northeast and earn 3 000 BDT per month and feel that their livelihoods have improved. A woman landless respondent working in shrimp processing plant, New Foods Limited (SL#6, Sokurmari khal) stated that both she and her husband work at this company. They both prefer this employment form to working as agricultural day labourers as the latter employment involves high uncertainty, 17

dependence on others and seasonal unemployment. The shrimp processing industry provides stable employment with secured monthly payments. Negative aspects of the working conditions of processing industry was noted by the large fish businessman respondent, who mentioned that due to the problematic work condition of severe cold associated with frozen food ...people do not want to work in shrimp industry. They work in LCS based job./Fish Businessman (SL#3-4, Gupier khal). Another issue in the shrimp processing companies is the wage discrimination and specific gender issues. The woman landless respondent mentioned that men earn BDT 4000 for the same work that a woman is paid BDT 3000 for. Work conditions are not optimal with minimal leave, only 2 days off a month and few companies that give maternity leave. Women in the plant seem to be more vulnerable as almost half of the women there are single female-headed households, abandoned by their husbands. In addition, they do not receive ID cards from the companies that would entitle them to benefits that men are receiving. What was clear from the landless womans perspective, however, was that workers at this frozen food companies want to see their wages increase as food has become increasingly expensive to buy. The poorer groups seem to be in favour of the shrimp industry, where the male LCS group even mentioned how those with more incomes in their groups held 20 000 BDT shares in shrimp ghers/Participant, LCS West Para (SL#1). In addition to the shrimp industry (22-23 fish companies were mentioned), there are also jute mills and hatcheries. Overall, through Shushilans respondents it appears that unemployment has been reduced and people are able to buy food since the east side of Jabusa can be consider to be an industrial periphery to Khulna, the District capital. 3.1.1. Labour Contracting Societies (LCS) LGED and the SSWRDSP give a certain amount of direct earthwork contracts to local groups, so called Labour Contracting Societies (LCS). Traditionally, these LCS groups consist of poorer and disadvantaged groups, often landless and in recent times marginal farmers. The LCS concept in Jabusa stretches back to 1998 where the WMCA executive member Shamsur initiated the formation of LCS groups. Each LCS team consisted of 25 members and were initially paid and working under LGED. The work was usually given for 20 days, with a president and secretary among the 25 members to coordinate the group. Their actual purpose and role did not come out clearly from the LCS FGD other than that the President should lead the work. In fact, this was said to be a new group and they stated that they did not know where the funds to pay them is coming from. Old members have passed on what they know to them. The current LGED Community Organiser (CO) did also not seem to indicate any clear interactions with LCS teams. The LCS respondents mentioned that they repair roads through throwing mud where the polder is broken. Unfortunately, the group only listed their village as Jabusa, not indicating exactly the location of where they live. In addition, the landholding was not specified and instead of day labourers they listed themselves as working with agriculture as farmers. (What does it mean with 75% and 15% as landholding in LCS participant list?) It also seems that the LCS may be involved with the canal/gate sub-committee, as local water distributing activities was mentioned as one of their activities. According to the WMCA executive committee members, in total 12 LCS teams have been formed, with 4 last years and 3 of the 12 being women LCS teams. Nevertheless, the male LCS members argued that there are no women LCS teams in the fields or with earthwork. In their opinion local women work at home, while only women outsiders work in the shrimp processing industry. They claimed that the economic condition is so good in Jabusa that Women do not need to work. However, the landless woman respondent had also mentioned that more than half of the women in the shrimp industry are single female headed households. One might therefore argue that there might be a perception of honourable women who are married not needing to work as their husbands taking care of them, while in reality many of the women who do not have this luxury have to work on their own. The shrimp industry becomes a 18

convenient space as it is located indoors and removing women from working publicly and visibly in the fields. This may help understand why so few of the LCS teams formed consist of women, there might also be a connection to the area being a predominantly Muslim area. The male LCS FGD participants were all members of the WMCA and had paid the initial 200 BDT for membership shares for this. Interestingly, the criteria of landholding would thus suggest that there would be few, or no, landless among the LCS groups. This is difficult to verify. The LCS respondents mentioned that they would work with seasonal labour and only work with earthwork if there is funding from the WMCA and LGED. Without funding they will not work with earthwork, though it was not clear whether such work currently exists or how they support themselves in the meanwhile. Many of them seem to work with agriculture and LCS work is seen as a way to earn extra money to invest in their farming activities.
When there is no soil digging work, I work in the crop field. I have become more prosperous than before as I can use this money for other purposes. Besides in agricultural work if we work in LCS that will help us financially. Whatever the money came from this we could use in agriculture. /Male day labourer, LCS Jabusa

The answers to specific questions were vague and it is not clear whether the WMCA is fully inactive and whether any earthwork activities have been taking place. In addition, this new LCS group has not received any training and the LGED CO only mentioned that training would be desirable.

3.2.

Demographic pressures

According to the WMCA secretary, demographic pressures are increasing steadily. Jabusa subproject polder is a large area and population density was low a few decades back. Due to improved employment opportunities, agricultural productivity and proximity to Khulna; the population is increasing also through immigration. This in turn has created scarcity of farming land and increasing usage of khas (public/government) land. There also seem to be an influx of remittances, through the number of Western Union offices found in the subproject that may help increase incomes of the population in the area.

3.3.

Drinking water situation

Drinking water was mentioned as a key water problem in Jabusa. There are several shallow tubewells for the households, but it is contaminated with arsenic. In addition, the numbers of deep tubewells are limited leading to a number of poorer individuals unable to access deep tubewells. Those that can afford it buy water, and those that cannot afford buying their water they drink arsenic contaminated water/Woman WMCA EC, Elaipur village. The landless woman at New Food Company mentioned that she had access to deep tubewells and so did the participants of the FGD in West Para (SL#1, Haraniar khal). NGOs play a significant role in drinking water where they install deep tubewells for 12000 BDT
For drinking water we dug the soil up to 1000, 950 and 900 feet deep. We gave application in BRAC and ASHA. For one tube well we gave 12000 BDT. We 15 person together gave this money to BRAC NGO. /Participant, Male LCS, West Para.

However, the richer population seem to have personal access to deep tubewells (Fish businessman and Paddy farmer, Jabusa village South Para). BRAC was running a water and sanitation project (WASH), where a Paddy and fish farmer was able to install the BRAC deep tubewell beside the road of his house in early 2011 for the local community. For drinking purpose, water is needed because people from distant places come here to 19

collect drinking water from this tubewell. Everybody could get water if there are some more tube-wells. Many people use the water from these tube-wells. As such, poorer people must travel distances and rely on others to access safe drinking water. BRAC was the only institution mentioned in addressing drinking water scarcity. Nothing was mentioned of the WMCA, Union Parishad, Department of Public Health or LGED in this. There is therefore a reliance on NGOs and private costs to address scarcity of safe drinking water.

20

4. CONDITION OF THE PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

4.1. Condition of the Embankment

Figure 3 -

Condition of Embankment

The embankment is in good condition in the North and East of the subproject, while the South and West Para of Jabusa village is suffering from severe river erosion. According to the respondents, there are several reasons for why the embankment is damaged and in poor condition. River erosion is seen as the key threat for areas south of Rupsa Bridge. Tidal waves hitting the embankment are pervasive and dredging of the river is seen as an important external factor that damages the embankment. Lack of maintenance and the consequent reduction in height further increase the vulnerability of the embankment. Strengthening the embankment, adding brick pavement and increasing its height were seen as crucial in addressing river erosion.

4.1.1. South and West Para (SL#1-3) The FGD participants in South Para mentioned that the continuous erosion of the embankment each year 21

makes the economically vulnerable as it threatens 1500 acres of paddy cultivation. Several cracks have been noticed in the embankment in this area. In addition, the embankment is low and saline water frequently topples over the damaged embankment and floods the village. The portion of the embankment located near Haraniar khal (SL#1) in Nimtola is particularly vulnerable. During high tide and full moon the embankment erodes further and can be broken anytime. Saline water entered in the village by breaking the embankment adjacent to the river near Nimtola a week before. Then our village was submerged under water. Two full km of the southern portion of the embankment near Rupsa Bridge has increasingly deteriorated after the construction of Rupsa Bridge. In addition, gher owners have cut pipes adjacent to the Narayankhali khal to drain in saline water for their Bagda ghers.

Badh is broken at Nimtola of Jabusha. Badh (embankment) at Ram Nagar is severely damaged. There are also broken place at Srirampur, Shamantashena.
4.1.2. Madhya and North Para The North Para interior consists of the Khulna-Mongla Highway and a smaller LGED unpaved road. Madhya Para of Jabusa village is the area of the embankment between the Rupsa ferry ghat/Rupsa bus stop and the Rupsa Bridge in the south. This area of the embankment is in overall good condition. This is partly due to the section being paved with bricks and partly due to the companies maintaining the embankment for their own benefit. However, they have also created pipes to dump their waste into the river and this has weakened the embankment. According to the WMCA Secretary, the cooperative was able to remove 3 of these pipes, but several remain. At the same time, the fish feed company Gemini Seafood Limited at the south of Rupsa bridge is spending 50 lakh BDT to protect the embankment near their factory. The company has strengthened the embankment with more than one thousand bamboo poles and cement blocks to protect against river erosion. However, the villagers of the nearby area felt that these protection measures increase the risks of local villagers since river erosion has heightened only 20 meters away from where the bamboo poles end. 4.1.3. Emergency responses Jabusa is located next to the active Jabusa River. As mentioned previously, the embankment is vulnerable to frequent and intensive river erosion. In the General FGD, South Para of Jabusa village, the participants mentioned an incident five years ago when the embankment broke due to tidal surges. This happened 1500 feet south of Haraniar khal sluice gate (SL#1) during the night and inundated the adjacent village with saline water. Three people were informed of this during the night, including the LCS President Monirul and went to the damaged site and observed that approximately 300 feet of the embankment had eroded into the river. The remaining villagers were informed in the morning through a meeting. If we would wait for external assistance, our village would be flooded. Instantly, we formed a committee to reconstruct the embankment. The villagers then selected 12 people among themselves to lead the repair works and raise funds from within the village (NAME OF Village). Local villagers contributed as per their capacity, either through money, bamboo or voluntary labour, a total of 8000 BDT was raised and bamboo was bought with the money According to the FGD participants, the Union Parishad and WMCA had been informed about the incident 22

but did not respond in time (Gaffar and Akbar Ali). Both from the FGDs with WMCA and general participants was it stated that the LGED and WMCA must have immediate funds for emergency situations. The WMCA member Matiur even noted that If there is extra money in the society fund that may use in the maintenance work in emergency time would benefit us.

4.2.

Condition of the Sluice gates

The IWM map below lists 10 sluice gates in Jabusa Beel. However, only 7 of these are active. In the General FGD in South Para of Jabusa village it was mentioned that 6 of these sluice gates were constructed by LGED in 1996 (SL#1-6). SL#8 connected to Shigma/Modnar khal was argued by Biswas Anwar Ali, Union Parishad Member of the No3 Ward in Animate union, to have been constructed by the District Parishad. It was found that all of the LGED gates were active but in poor condition where the shutters were broken, gone, rusted or silted. In many instances, LGED had been notified, without any redress, the common reason given was the lack of funding.

Figure 4 -

Condition of Sluice gates Jabusa Beel

SL#1 is connected to Haraniar khal (Southwest) and is damaged due to salinity and rust. The shutter itself is broken. SL#2 connected to Noashiar khal (Southwest corner) is damaged with problems of the shutter. This had been repaired by the Union Parishad twice already, but was damaged again by 2012. SL#3 and 4 are connected to Gupier khal that runs throughout Jabusa Beel. It starts from Jabusa River as Baginara/Bagmara khal and flows out to Narayankhali khal as Gupier khal. SL#5 is connected to Harighosh khal and is also in poor condition, while SL#6 next to Sokurmari khal has been described as both being in poor condition (Abu 23

Syed Sheikh, General FGD Madhya Para) and good condition (Union Parishad Chairman, KII). SL#8 seems to have been constructed later and is connected to Modnar khal (also known as Shigma khal). SL#8 is completely broken and has been closed. It is thus the only fully inactive gate. It seems that this is not an LGED sluice gate, as the Union Parishad Member of Ward no 3 mentioned that it had been constructed by the District Parishad. In general it was perceived that all the sluice gates are in bad condition.
Sluice gate # SL#1 Khal Haraniar Khal Description Poor Condition: Gate is damaged due to salinity and rust. Shutter is broken Comment LGED has not focused on repair and maintenance of gates after implementation of the project in our village Jabusha. If we inform them, they express that there is no budget. Farmer, Madhya Para. UPM mentioned that the Union Parishad has repaired the front structure twice, but it was damaged again this year. South Para villagers have contacted LGED repeatedly about repairing it LGED did not give importance to this problem Only the Union Parishad Chairman argued that SL#6 is in good condition. SL#8 constructed by District Parishad.

SL# 2

Noashiar Khal

Poor Condition: The iron shutter in the front of the gate is damaged. Poor Condition: Shutter is broken and the gate is fully cracked allowing saline water to enter inside.

SL#3/4

Gupier Khal

SL#5, 6, 8

Harighosh, Sukurmari and Shigma/Modnar Khals

Poor Condition: Though active, various parts of the gates are damaged.

Many of the respondents mentioned that all the gates were constructed by LGED and there are no private gates in the area (General FGD, Madhya Para). It was further mentioned that prior to the LGED embankment when the area cultivated Bagda extensively, the gher owners constructed wooden gates at the cost of 50 000 to 60 000 BDT but that these gates are now gone. The statements of the WMCA President and another EC member contradict this as they argue that there are two private gates in the subproject. One belongs to the Gemini Seafood Company north of SL#1 and the other is located close to SL#5 next to Harighosh khal. These are used as personal property and used for their own needs. It was also mentioned that a new sluice gate is being constructed in the northwest by the Rupsa bus stand at Shufias canal at the cost of 1 to 1.5 crore at the initiative of the new Member of Parliament (Union Parishad Member of Ward No 3). Interestingly, there is a disagreement across the respondent as to whether or not there are informal pipes in the embankment. IWM did not list any pipes and the Union Parishad Chairman mentioned that there is not pipe in the river or canals in Jabusa as the embankment needs to withstand the huge pressure by passing trucks. The FGD with the male LCS group mentioned that there are no pipes used for intrusion of water. However, the mixed paddy-fish farmer in South Para mentioned that close to SL#3 there are several pipes by gher owners to intrude saline water in violation of LGED regulation. This is not mentioned in the maps. Pipes may also be used to remove drainage congestion as respondents in South Para complained that the number of sluice gate is insufficient. For example, pipes are used to remove drainage congestion in Mansurkhali khal. According to the fish businessman, the landowners themselves constructed the pipes using thick layers of cement and sand. Some of them obtained permission for this from the WMCA, and others did not. 24

We permitted people who wanted to remove water. Because we observed that if pipe constructs within embankment, there is no harm to embankment. Moreover, land owner repair their pipe by own expenses. Water from 4 to 5 Biggha of land removes from a single pipe. LGED prohibits the construction of pipe directly. We made an understanding the LGED that there will be no water logging. Thats why we constructed a pipe in Narayankhali River for the betterment of farmers and to ensure more productivity. In some places there will be no paddy productivity if waterlogging condition exists. Only fish is not our ultimate target. So we should both cultivate fish and produce paddy.

The sluice gates are mainly in poor condition and there are not enough of them to prevent drainage congestion. Pipes are used as an alternative, though whether or not they are also used for salinity intrusion seems to depend on the perspective of the respondent.

4.3.

Condition of the Canals

4.3.1. Siltation Most canals in Jabusa Beel are silted as the image below illustrates. The range varies from partially silted where water can flow through the canal; to fully silted and blocked where water distribution is hampered. According to the Union Parishad Chairman, Not a single canal in our locality is in good condition. To make these canals suitable for fish cultivation, excavation of canals is mandatory for each canal. The canal depth has reduced over time and silt enters into the canals via the sluice gates. In addition, the Jabusa River itself is becoming narrower and is silted with sedimentation depositing on the riverbed. The current silted condition is problematic as it is required for agricultural activities. Reduced size and depth in the canals has thus led to reduced water availability for freshwater irrigation required for paddy (Mixed paddy-shrimp farmer, South Para).

25

Figure 5 -

Condition of Canal system

4.3.2. Leasing The Gupier, Sukurmari, Haraniar and Modnar khal are currently controlled by private individuals as they have taken leases of the canals from the WMCA. Leasing canals is seen as an income generating activity for the WMCA. One has to be a general member of the WMCA to be allocated a lease. The decision of leasing is to be taken by the WMCAs executive committee. In a few statements it was mentioned that the leaseholder is then responsible for the operation of the sluice gate of the canal and the maintenance of both canals and sluice gate, while in the same session also stating that the WMCA gate sub-committees are responsible for these tasks. However, there seem to be conflicts regarding the right to lease, where the Upazila and District offices are using the leases as means of consolidating power for the ruling party, whether or not it is Bangladesh National Party (BNP) or Awami League. More about the leasing system will be discussed under the Section Conflicts.

26

5. OPERATION OF SLUICE GATES

5.1. Opening and closing of the gate

Operation of sluice gates entails the opening and closing of gates to both let water into the canals and drain out water. For Madhya Para and South Para of Jabusa village the gates are closed from the month of Poush to Joishtho (December to May) and opened again during Asharh (June-November) as the rainy season starts and transplantation of Aman paddy begins. During this time, the gate is further opened during ebb time and closed during tide (Follow up with Shushilan, why is it beneficial to have it open during ebb and closed during tide? The gate is opened to allow more water to enter the canals, as well as to drain out water when it is overflowing (General FGD, South Para). The WMCA gate sub-committee coordinates decision making on the gate for the benefit of all people. The existence of gate committees formed under the WMCA was further verified through General FGDs in Madhya Para and South Para as well as with the WMCA executive committee in Elaipur village. It seems that the general perception is that since the LGED handover of the subproject the WMCA Executive Committee holds the final responsibility to operate and maintain khals, embankment and sluice gate in Jabusa, while it is also able to delegate these functions to sub-committees. Several different versions are portrayed in the transcripts as to how this system works in practice. According to the former WMCA Secretary, these gate committees are formed with both farmers and fisherman and decide when to open and close the gate through discussion of differing water demands. Operators are designated, but are not remunerated for their work. Similarly, the current WMCA Executive Committee members (Treasurer and Businessman) mentioned that there is a different committee for each and every gate, while another participant mentions that villagers with land close to the gates are given the responsibility to take care and operate them. As such there is a geographical delineation of tasks.
WMA gives responsibility to the villagers. For example, most of the land of this Beel belongs to the villagers of south and eastern part of Gupier khal. So, they are given responsibility to take care of the gate. Inhabitants of North Para are responsible for Harighosh khal. Thus different communities in different areas play roles of gate operation. Villagers of Elaipur and Bagmara take care of Sokurmari and Modnar khal because most of the lands surrounding these khals belong to villagers of these two villages.

Interestingly, another FGD participant mentions landholding as a criterion for responsibility over gates. This does not necessarily correspond with residence. He further noted that conflicts in regards to the operation of the gates may take place when the responsibility of gate operation in a certain area is given to a people living in other areas. In South Para, the gate committee is referred to as a khal committee where six people are given the responsibility to oversee a canal. Among themselves they select a gate operators who in consultation with farmers of the village opens and closes the gate. This operator is given a salary from the khal committee, who earns this through leasing and fishing of the canal (General FGD, South Para). Which khals is Jabusa high school FGD talking about when they are talking about the 6 person gate committee? The WMCA Secretary corroborates this and mentioned that the operator is given 3000-4000 BDT in salary from the sub-committee, The above depicts that the WMCA through gate/khal committees are generally responsible for the operation of sluice gates. It also mentions that the salary of the operator is funded through leasing of the canals. In Figure 3, it was noted that the major canals of Jabusa were all under lease. The question is then, to what extent does the WMCA and gate committee have any real power over decision-making? Lease-holding in itself seems to be linked to political party affiliation. The Union Parishad member and Chairman both mentioned that it is the ruling party that takes the lease of the canals and control the operation of the 27

connected sluice gates. As such, the ownership of leases shifts after each change in government.
During the ruling of Ershad government in 1980-82 Jabusa Beel was controlled by Kashem Saheb and Mustakin. After that local BNP leaders used to control once they have won the national election. People who involve in running political party are control the gate. During Ershad govt. Abul Hossain, Jabusa school headmaster Abdul Haque and Motaher Hossain Mokhter controlled the canal. Then during BNP govt. people of BNP leader took the control over the Khal.

Currently, both the UP Member of Ward No 3 and UP Chairman of Naihati have leased khals in Jabusa. The UPC controls two thirds of the Shufia khal and the UPM took lease of the Gupier and Harighosh khals previously. In addition, the WMCA Secretary (who calls himself Secretary General and is a BNP member) has taken a lease from the District Commissioners office. In the KIIs it is confirmed that it is indeed the leaseholder, rather than the WMCA or the gate sub-committees that decide in the operation of the gate. Both the UPM and UPC say they operate the gates in accordance with peoples wishes. However, complaints about this have not been voiced. This may perhaps be attributed to the fact that the sample selection of respondents by Shushilan seems to have been strongly influenced through the assistance of the WMCA Secretary who has taken control of Gupier khal via the DC office and not through the WMCA. The WMCA President and Treasurer have filed a complaint against him for their perceived illegal use of Gupier canal, that is now blocked and obstructs access to the other villages using it. Similarly, the large Sukurmari khal is currently leased to a Mr Shajahan Haji, a large landowner (200-300 biggha) and WMCA member. It was mentioned by the UPC that he supervises the canal and sluice gates personally, yet the UPM mentioned of incidents where he had been reckless in the operation of the gate, allowing large amounts of agricultural land and even residential slums to be flooded during high tide and heave rainfall as the gate was not opened.
He [Shahjahan Haji] has no problem at all if production does not occur. But village people have less land. They fall in great trouble if production destroys. Most of the cases they do not open the gate./ UPM.

It was mentioned by the respondents that leases are to improve fish cultivation and raise agricultural productivity. This however, seems to be contested. There are therefore several different interests at play, one is the common farmer and villager, the other is the intra-personal conflicts within the WMCA, and the other is that of the role of political parties through the involvement of Union Parishad, Upazila Nirbahi Officer, District Commissioners office and even the Member of Parliament.

28

6. MAINTENANCE OF PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

6.1. Construction and Rehabilitation 1997-2001

The LGED initiated the SSWRDSP I project in Jabusa Beel in 1997. This involved re-sectioning and rehabilitation of the embankment and re-excavation of Gupier, Sukurmari, Haraniar, Noashiar and Harighosh canals. They further constructed the sluice gates in Gupier (SL#3 and 4), Haraniar (SL#1), Sokurmari (SL#6) and the box sluice in Harighosh (SL#5). One pipe sluice was further constructed in Noashiar (SL#2) as well as fish screens at Sokurmari and Gupier regulators. In total, over 102,4 lakh BDT was spent on this rehabilitation.
Name of Works
Embankment Re-sectioning Embankment Rehabilitation Gupier Khal Re-excavation Sukurmari Khal Re-excavation Haraniar Khal Re-excavation Sukurmari Khal Rehabilitation Noashiar Khal Re-excavation Haraniar Khal Rehabilitation Haraniar Khal(Br.) Rehabilitation Gupier Khal Rehabilitation Harighosh Khal Re-excavation Gupier Regulator Haraniar Regulator Sokurmari Regulator Harighosh Box Sluice Noashiar Khal Pipe Sluice Fish Screen at Sokurmari Regulator Fish Screen at Gupier Regulator

Size / Length(km)
5.66 km 2.76 km 1.05 km 3.26 km .9 km 2.37 km 1.25 km 1.5 km .64 km 1 km 1.78 km 2-V(1.5mX1.8m) 1-V(1.2mX1.5m) 2-V(1.5mX1.8m) 1-V(1.2mX1.2m) 1-V(900mm Dia)

Est. Cost (tk)

1,663,134 542,800 385,591 417,889 55,818 119,135 338,777 183,583 145,542 197,114 526,241 4,249,288 1,717,884 4,134,017 1,432,961 962,981 51,397 51,397

Table 12 -

Construction and Rehabilitation by LGED 1997-2001 (LGED, 2008)

6.2.

Handover agreement and responsibilities

LGED handed over the responsibility of the maintenance to the Jabusa Beel Water Management Cooperative Association on the 31st October, 2001, i.e. over a decade ago. The main categories are Additional Infrastructure such as regulators, Emergency Maintenance, Theft and wilful damage, Periodic maintenance and Routine maintenance. Table 3 illustrates how LGED will fund additional infrastructure and emergency maintenance entirely, while the WMCA is fully responsible for the minor maintenance such as removing water hyacinths from canals, greasing and repainting the gate and doing minor repairs of embankment after rainfall. Wilful damage of various parts, as well as canal excavation are to be shared evenly between LGED and the WMCA. As it was noted in Section 4, river erosion is a constant problem that damages the embankment in a way that is a risk for both lives (floods) and livelihoods (inundation of agricultural fields). River erosion is one of the biggest problems in the sub-project. In addition, all the canals are now silted leading to inundation. This is the case despite re-excavation works 5-8 years ago. The gates, despite only being 29

a decade old, are damaged to the extent that shutters need to be replaced. According to the WMCA, severe maintenance needs to be done. Most of their land is low-lying. This means that they are severely affected by inundation if the khals are not properly re-excavated. They find it unrealistic that they, i.e. the community, would be able to pay half of the required maintenance. The WMCA did not believe that this current division of responsibility is beneficial or effective. Though they are following LGED and GPWM protocols by keeping an O&M fund for minor repairs and filing a written petition to LGED for assistance of larger repairs, the funds are not adequate. Currently there is 125 000-130 000 BDT in the O&M fund (some disagreement on the exact number), 142 300 BDT in the Share fund and 190 540 BDT in the savings fund.
Category Additional infrastructure Description Additional regulators or bridges, extension of khals or embankments, construction of (brick) reference sections along khals, construction of masonry pillars to inform operations, brick paving to embankments Due to abnormal exposure condition such as floods, cyclones etc. Stolen parts on regulators, cuts and pipes etc. Sediment removal from khals, resectioning/modelling and sodding of embankments, tree planting, repair of failed brick paving every 3-6 years Gate greasing and re-painting, embankment rain cut repair and surface re-grading and removing plants from khal. Source of Funding 100% GoB j

Emergency maintenance Theft and wilful damage to infrastructure Periodic maintenance

100% GoB Matching fund: 50% GoB and 50% WMCA Matching fund: 50% GoB and 50% WMCA 100% WMCA

Routine (annual) maintenance

Table 13 -

Maintenance responsibilities LGED-WMCA (LGED, 2012)

According to the WMCA, LGED initiated maintenance works of the canals again in 2005 where the WMCA formed LCS groups to excavate Harighosh, Sukurmari, Haraniar Noashiar, Doaliar and Gupier khals. Shahjahan in South Para mentioned that five to six years ago (2006-7) LGED allocated BDT 70 000 for repairing the embankment, though they had requested BDT 300 000. To fill the gap they had collected contributions from the rich people of the village (from BDT 10 000 to 50 000 per person), while the Upazila Parishad contributed with 36 tons of wheat. These numbers seem really high, needs to be verified and more details on the role of WMCA, which year and how many km of embankment and where. Similarly, a WMCA executive committee member mentioned that they had requested 30 lakh from the government, but only received 3 lakh that they used to repair the embankment. Thus, the findings seem to indicate that though the LGED is providing funds in Jabusa, this is not enough and it not always matched. Interestingly, funds from rural employment schemes such as Food for Work seem to be used via the Upazila and Union Parishads to make up for this gap. It is stated that though membership fees and O&M funds are used for maintenance, this is not sufficient. Without the help of government it is not possible for us to continue this expensive project. We cannot go farther without the help of government. We have to go back in our previous condition./Matiur, WMCA President, Jabusa. Yet there are funds in the WMCA according to their own statements. It seems that such funds are only used during emergency and not as preventative maintenance. However, perhaps it would be unrealistic to assume that the local communities can afford such preventative maintenance as it were, when river erosion constantly damages the embankment at several locations, salinity is affecting the functioning of the gates and the rate of siltation requires constant excavation. The Union 30

Parishad Chairman, for instance, stated that the WMCA is doing a good job and they have funds for maintenance and there is no corruption. At the same time, he points out that excavation should be done yearly using money from leasing, indicating that siltation rates are quite high and periodic maintenance (3-6 years) may be inadequate in addressing the hydrological reality of high sedimentation rates in the delta. In addition, there seems to be a problem of the number of requests not being able to be matched by the maintenance funds. At the same time, the WMCA may be overestimating the budget submitted to LGED, expecting that the amount they will receive will be much lower than they have requested. When asked how LGED addresses this, the Executive Engineer for LGED in Khulna, answered that they prioritise which polders are most in need and allocate accordingly. Arguably this would mean that one would in fact be rewarding the worst performing sub-projects, as also suggested previously in a KII by Mr Alan Clark of LGED. There seems to be a conflict in Mr Kumars statement. On the one hand he says they prioritise based on need, on the other, he says they follow the MIS manual from LGED head office in Dhaka, where they evaluate the performance of WMCA activity. This would entail that those WMCAs who show more progress in terms of holding regular meetings, audits etc., would be prioritized. It is not clear if this is the practice. In addition, LGED keeps community organisers and socio-economists as part of its full time staff. Even after a handover, these people are still present. However, the KII with the Community Organiser for Jabusa who had worked in the area for two years, stated that he is new and knows little about the WMCAs responsibilities and activities. Considering the gap between the present day and the SSWRDSP activities of Jabusa a decade earlier, it is not clear if the institutionalisation of WMOs is always efficient.

6.3.

Maintenance from 2001 to 2012: when funding is insufficient

The above may serve to illustrate that maintenance activity and funds from LGED are insufficient to meet demands, while the WMCA does not see itself able to do any preventative maintenance without LGED or other Government support. It will do major works when external funds are available. This is further exacerbated by the fact that the handover agreement does not take into account the larger costs incurred through constant and severe river erosion, damaged gates and silted canals. The question is therefore, if the responsibility allocated to the WMCA is seen as unrealistic, how does actual maintenance take place if at all? Jabusa has been growing exponentially for the past decade. Its proximity and excellent communications to Khulna and the rest of the country has facilitated the growth of several different industries in the area. There is therefore a large presence of private sector actors, as well as considerable activity and presence of various political figures, such as Upazila Office, Member or Parliament and District Commissioners Office. The following table summarises perceptions of maintenance in Jabusa.

31

Maintenance Embankment repairs of river erosion

LGED Seen as inactive in

repairing embankment/ Paddy farmer South and West Para LGED gave 30-70 000 BDT for a repair estimated to 3 lakh near Mathavanga and Mansurkhali khal.

WMCA WMCA contracts LCS

to repair embankment. Their work is supervised by a Canal sub-committee

Union Parishad
Repairs embankment under Rural Employment schemes Constructs Guide walls through Upazila funds to protect against river erosion and inundation.

Local People
Voluntary labour and contributions during an emergency when the embankment breaks and floods homesteads/village. Local people repair the embankment voluntarily as it is perceived as the LGED and WMCA are not working properly.

Other
Upazila office seems to be a main source of funding for embankment repair. Private companies, such as Gemini Seafood also contribute. Gemini spent 50 lakh on strengthening the embankment with bamboo poles and cement blocks to protect against erosion. Leaseholders may sometimes excavate parts of the canal.

Canals

LGED funded and monitored the excavation of canals via WMCA/LCS 4-8 years ago. Including Harighosh, Sukurmari, Haraniar Noashiar, Doaliar and Gupier khals. Khal excavation seen as superficial LGED not seen as repairing gates in General FGDs

Gates

With LGED funding, the WMCA formed LCS teams for canal excavation. Would also use REMS from the Upazila office. General FGDs state that the WMCA has not excavated any canals since 2008 and when they have, they misappropriate funds. WMCA not seen as repairing gates in General FGDs UP Chairman mentioned that WMCA repairs gates.

The Union Parishad has obtained a Delivery order for canal excavation from the Upazila Land Office and will excavate Shufia canal next to the Jabusa bus stand. WMCA: Union Parishad does not do any canal excavation. N/A

N/A

General FGD with WMCA members mentioned that villagers collected 7080 000 BDT to repair the shutter of Gupier gate.

Other

LGED seen as the Godfather of water management.

The Union Parishad claims to spend approximately 5-20% of its budget on water management.

Leaseholders, who use the canals for fishing, hold the responsibility to maintain the gates connected to their canals. The Member of Parliament provides occasional funds.

Table 14 -

Overview of Maintenance in Jabusa Beel

32

Table 4 illustrates that different actors involved at various levels of maintenance, roughly divided into maintenance of (i) embankments; (ii) regulators and (iii) canals. In general, the FGDs and KIIs suggest varying perceptions of how maintenance is taking place. LCS and WMCA may for instance state that the Union Parishad is not active whatsoever in water management activities, while the Union Parishad informants state that they use 5-20% of the Union Parishad budget on maintenance related activities such as embankment repairs, structures to prevent river erosion (guide walls) and canal excavation. It was also noted that the various leaseholders of the canals should excavate the canals. The WMCA states it is still excavating canals through its canal sub-committees, while General FGD respondents accused it of misappropriation of funds and no major water management activity since 2008. Similarly, the WMCA states that its canal sub-committees repair the gates via LGED, while other respondents mention that it is the leaseholders responsibility to ensure that the gate is functioning. In South Para it was mentioned that local people collected 70 000 BDT to repair the shutter of the Gupier khal when LGED had not responded, yet it is not clear how this may be linked to funds coming from the leaseholder. Whether or not the canal sub-committees are still active is not clear since several actors are seen as holding the responsibilities of the same tasks. What is clear is that the condition of the various infrastructures in Jabusa is overall in poor condition and that local people do the best they can through voluntary contributions and labour to roughly repair the embankment when river erosion is causing flooding and salinity intrusion. However, in the areas where there are shrimp industries, it was mentioned that the private companies themselves repair the nearest gates, repair the embankment and construct measures (bamboo poles and cement blocks) that protect against river erosion. They also contribute funds when villages come together to repair the embankment. Gemini Seafood Limited was frequently mentioned in its active approach to water management in the direct area adjacent to its factory. The Upazila office and Member of Parliament seem to also provide funds wherever necessary, much of the recent activity is taking place in the northwest, close to the Jabusa bus stand and the shrimp industries. This may reflect interest (personal or financial) in the continued activities in these areas. The Union Parishad is similarly trying to involve itself through rural employment schemes, although very little has been done so far.

6.4.

Suggestions for Maintenance

Main focus on suggestions to improve maintenance was to strengthen the embankment by making it higher and wider, as well as implement measures that protect it from river erosion. In addition, it was requested that khals are excavated on a regular basis and to a deeper depth than previously. It was also stated that the WMCA should use the money from canal leasing to do maintenance (UP Chairman). The WMCA, on the other hand, wanted to see a shift in cost responsibility where LGED should contribute more funds. It was also mentioned by respondents that local governments such as Union Parishad/Upazila/Member of Parliament should become more active as the WMCA cannot work properly due to financial constraints.

33

7. SWRDSP: PROJECT PROCESS AND RESULTS

7.1. WMCA formation

The formal project and construction work started in 1997, while the mobilisation and community interactions started in 1996. Jabusa Beel was selected after LGED had conducted a survey and found that the area was suitable for the SSWRDSP. According to the WMCA treasurer, the Upazila Nirbahi Office and the District Commissioners office then discussed with people of the area and formed the Jabusa Beel Water Management Cooperative Association. The UP member of Ward No 3 Naihati, however, mentioned the active involvement of the LGED Socio-Economist to form the cooperative. He played a vital role for the formation of this committee. Mr Shahadat was a very good person during the formation of the committee. He helped considerably for its development. In addition, the first and current WMCA President, Matiur, had also played a role in discussing with villages to create a WMCA to have LGED work in their area. Interestingly, Matiur was the then Union Parishad Chairman and has since been an active WMCA member and long-term President. This mobilisation campaign entailed collection of membership fees so as to pay the initial funds for the subproject, i.e. for 50 lakh BDT on a project, the community would have to contribute 10%, i.e. 5 lakh BDT. The formal WMCA for Jabusa was finally formed in 1996.

7.2.

WMCA Input in Project Design

In section 6, the role of LGED in constructing and rehabilitating infrastructure in the Beel was mentioned. SSWRDSP Phase I took place prior to the Guidelines for Participatory Water Management (GPWM, Ministry of Water Resource, 2001) that stipulates that the local community should be consulted on project design and give feedback on any water management project in their area. Nevertheless, participation and consultation with the community was part of LGEDs approach and an integral feature of SSWRDSP. Formation of the WMCA and contribution to the construction of the infrastructure were seen as means of creating a sense of local ownership. According to the WMCA President, the LGED was responsive in the feedback from the WMCA in their construction and rehabilitation. This is contradicted by respondents with close linkages to the WMCA secretary Abdul Gaffar, who stated that the LGED did not discuss project design with the WMCA and hinted at corruption and collusion between the WMCA President and contractors. Again, there is a personal rivalry between the Secretary and the President that make it difficult to discern the truth of any of these statements.

7.3.

Election and Selection of Executive Committee

When the WMCA was formed, it was to create an executive committee with 12 members chosen from the body of general members. Three of them, i.e. one fourth, were to be women. In 1996, there was no requirement to have a landless representative in the committee. Popular elections were to be held every three years. To what extent the guidelines are followed in reality is difficult to confirm. Matiur Rahman who is currently the President of the WMCA was also the Union Parishad Chairman who brought the project to the area and had much incentive to gain the post. He has been president for 10 out of the 13 years since the WMCA was formed in 1996. He argued that three years for an EC is not enough as it

takes at least three years to get into what the WMCA does and how things can work better, building relationships and trust. Through elections every three years, he argues, things become unstable
and efficiency is lost as the new executive committee must reorient themselves. He did not, however, mention the role of political parties in any shift in the WMCA executive committee composition. The 34

WMCA Vice-President at the time was the large fish businessman, one of our key informants. He argues that he was elected through 350 out of 695 casted votes. Voting turnout seems to be high a decade after handover, as he mentioned that 695 out of 739 WMCA general members participated in these elections. It is not clear how these votes then materialise into the formation of the executive committee and if any geographical representation is occurring. In the IPSWAM system, two representatives from each village is sent to the Water Management Association where votes are cast to the 12 people for the WMA executive committee. In Jabusa, which consists of thirteen villages, a single tier system might be problematic for popular votes of a 12-person committee. It is not clear how village representation is represented and whether or not some villagers or landholders residing in certain areas in the polder are disproportionately more powerful in the WMCA in the other areas.

7.4.

Sub-committees

In the formal LGED guidelines, the WMCA ought to have sub-committees with specialised tasks with an executive committee to manage and supervise overall activities. The WMCA executive committee members mentioned that there are four types of subcommittees; canal committees, gate committees, agriculture committee and a loan committee where one can only be member of one sub-committee at a time. The WMCA secretary further mentioned the existence of a Fishery committee that carries out activities related to fish cultivation and canal maintenance works, as well as a water control committee ensures proper water distribution for agricultural productivity. It is not clear whether or not they are linked to the Agricultural and Canal committees, or if he is using different terms. Though the WMCA mentioned that there is a different canal and gate committee, other respondents throughout the subproject mentioned that there are canal committees for each gate and canal who operate and maintain the gate as well as implement canal maintenance based on the WMCA and LGED orders. As such, the functions of canal and gate committees seem to have become merged over time. There was no mention of the Agriculture or Fisheries committee by non-WMCA members. The loan-committee seems to be active through the leasing of the canals on behalf of the WMCA, which will be discussed in depth in the section on WMCA funds.

7.5.

Training

In SSWRDSP, WMCAs are to receive training on running a WMCA and cooperative. The Executive Engineer of LGED in Khulna mentioned that interagency coordination in training is important for the capacity and sustainability of WMCAs. LGED strongly emphasises training of WMCA as they follow a water-plus approach. Since LGED is a key player in rural development with established ties to other government agencies in this area, they serve as a facilitator of training for WMCA members on fisheries, agriculture, community development etc. They have signed Memorandum of Understandings (MoUs) with BRDB (Bangladesh Rural Development Board), Fisheries Department etc., so that they provide training for WMCAs. This has been a practice since 1995. The LGED community organiser mentioned that they would organise trainings through the Upazila-level Agricultural Officer for WMCA members, while the Union Parishad Chairman stated that the executive committee members have received training. Without training it is difficult to understand the job. However, there was little mentioned on trainings in the FGDs and KIIs.

35

7.6.

Membership and Representativeness

7.6.1. Membership criteria and changes There are several criteria for becoming a WMCA member. First, one must buy a share of the cooperative at BDT 200 per share. This has in the past few years now increased to BDT 500. A member must then also pay a monthly fee of BDT 10 per month. In addition it is mentioned that whoever who has land in the area is eligible for WMCA membership. This is interesting as in most guidelines on Water Management Organisations, it is emphasised that membership should be eligible for anyone residing in the project area, i.e. not only holding land. The former Vice-President also mentioned that one has to submit a written application. When the WMCA was first formed, it only had 25 members and now the membership is above 700 members (from 734-748) from the 13 villages in Jabusa. The initial surge in membership was attributed by the WMCA to two main financial incentives. WMCA members may take loans from the cooperative and membership also makes the eligible for leasing canals that are profitable for fishing. However, due to recent problems related to the WMCAs right to sub-lease the canals, WMCA President and Secretary note that people have become less interested in WMCA membership. Other respondents, on the other hand, have argued that it is due to the inactivity of the WMCA that membership is now stagnant or declining. 7.6.2. Membership Composition The IWM map only mentions three villages: Jabusa, Elaipur and Khajura. Shushilan stated that there is only one village divided into Paras. However, the field data indicates that there are 13 villages and it is not clear what the power distribution is between them. According to respondents approximately one third of WMCA members are from Jabusa village and they generally tend to acquire the leases of the canals. However, on another field visit for G3 in December it was revealed that Elaipur village that is in the interior northeast of the subproject would be the main user of water from low-lying Jabusa. According to the tea storekeeper in Jabusa village by the shrimp industries (SL#6), normal villagers do now know anything about the sluice gate and its operation. Instead landowners are more involved with this. These landowners in turn are often Bagmara people. Though this may indicate bias in the WMCA membership composition, a participant in the South Para FGD mentions that the responsibility of each section belongs to the villagers in close proximity to it by the WMCA. He argued that villagers of south and eastern part of Gupier khal are responsible for SL#3, while inhabitants of North Para are responsible for Harighosh khal and villagers of Elaipur and Bagmara take care of Sokurmari and Modonar khal. Though this seems like a straightforward solution, he also notes that conflicts may take place if the responsibility of gate operation in a certain area is given to a people living in other areas. This in turn may explain the issue of SL#6 being controlled by landowners from Bagmara. It seems that landowners hold substantial influence in the WMCA and that several of them may be absentee landowners living in Khulna or Dhaka (Shopkeeper, Elaipur). When asked about the composition of various occupational groups in the WMCA, the Treasurer said that they do not have any accurate percentage, but that most of them are small businessman, farmer, fisherman and some are service holders. Respondents in the LCS group further mentioned that it consists of respected local people, such as the UP Chairman and Members, landowners, teachers, contractors, influential and powerful people from this area. This is corroborated by the UP member who revealed that all UP members in Naihati Union are involved in the WMCA and that he himself is the Chairman of one of the canal sub-committees consisting of 7 members. Interestingly, the LCS group does not seem to be working with either earthwork or day labour activities, nor are they landless. Based on the their responses it seems that they see themselves as influential and feel that the respected people of the WMCA give importance to our words. This may either be due to 36

successful inclusion of poorer groups who have improved their livelihoods, or reflect that the most disadvantaged groups are not selected into LCS. The LCS group further mentioned that landless people were also WMCA members and that anyone, even those without land, can become members. However, several respondents mention that there are no landless in the WMCA or in its executive committee stating that one needs to have land and live permanently in the subproject in order to become a member. Even in the WMCA FGD it was stated that there are no landless in the executive committee. In terms of membership composition there is therefore a key gap in our understanding of the representativeness of the WMCA. Firstly, there seems to be some individuals with large landholdings that may control water infrastructure areas beyond the area of their residence; these seem to be prominent members of the WMCA. It is not clear if they are only landowners, or if they are also actively involved in farming and fishing activities and can therefore respond to local needs for water. This is difficult to ascertain without landholding and mouza data. This is further complicated by the fact that most of the respondents are tied to the WMCA in one way or another, that the LCS group does not seem to consist of poor individuals and that we have no way of understanding the different interests of the respondents as we can not verify the location of their landholding with their stated village of residence. In terms of landless representative, this is a requirement according to GPWM (MoWR, 2001) and thus came into place years after the WMCA was initially formed. Also, Labour Contracting Societies are supposed to consist of poor and marginal workers for earthworks. Since both embankment and canal maintenance is needed for proper water management, the perspective of these workers on water management could have potentially cast some interesting insights to what seems to be a conflicting and complex water management scenario in Jabusa. The data in this area is also lacking from a gender perspective with no information from women LCS, women WMCA members or a woman UP.

7.7.

WMCA as a cooperative: funds and leasing as an income source

7.7.1. Current funds and Monthly fees Considering a membership contribution of BDT 200 per member for 700 members, as well as a BDT 10 monthly fee, the WMCA should be earning BDT 140 000 for the shares and a total of BDT 84 000 per year. Over the course of 16 years, the WMCA should have been able to save up considerable saving on the monthly fees alone. The WMCA holds an account in Janata Agriculture Bank Rupsa and has a total fund of BDT 350 000 according the WMCA FGD. If this collection of monthly fees is taking place and there are indeed 700 WMCA members that are active, how is this money collected and then passed on to the WMCA? Do the canal sub-committees play any role or is perhaps more likely that such collection does not take place in the first place? However, according to the Abdul Gaffar (WMCA Secretary), only BDT 19 000 exists in reality after the WMCA President invested BDT 172 000 in Sonali Fish hatchery that ran at a loss and BDT 130 000 was disbursed as loans that were not repaid. In his view, the WMCA is running a BDT 48 000 deficit. The rivalry between the President and Secretary runs through all of the information, where they are both accusing each other of power grabbing and corruption. This may be further exacerbated by BNP and Awami League tensions, where former EC members speak negatively of the current members. 7.7.2. Income-generation: Leasing and microcredit In 2001, the LGED was able to give the WMCA the right to sublease the canals as an income generating activity and the rights were given to the cooperative from the Ministry of Land. The incomes from the leases would then be used for O&M and other WMCA activities. The leaseholder, in turn, would benefit from the fishing in the canals. According to Abdul Gaffar, the leaseholder gives BDT 40 000 to the WMCA, where BDT 20 000 goes to the WMCA funds and the rest is give as government revenue. For 37

the five canals, this would mean BDT 100 000 per year for the WMCA as lease revenue, in addition to the BDT 84 000 from monthly fees. The leaseholder in turn earns approximately BDT 160 000 in profits from fishing in the canals and pay for the canal maintenance and gate operation. As mentioned previously, the link between the canal sub-committee and the leaseholder is not clear, other than the fact that the leaseholder must be a WMCA member. It may therefore be the case that the leaseholder acts as the chairman of the sub-committee, similar to the UP member who is both a WMCA member and leaseholder. As a cooperative, the WMCA could engage in microcredit and loan activities as an incomegenerating source for itself and its members. In the initial years of the WMCA, the loan sub-committee was active. However, due to significant numbers of defaults of loans, the loan activity of the WMCA has halted. They have tried to retrieve the loans even without the interest, but to no avail. In contrast to many other WMCAs, the main source of income is the leasing and supposedly the membership monthly fees if this is indeed being collected. Despite having BDT 350 000 in the bank, the WMCA executive committee states that they do not have sufficient funds for maintenance. However, this is attributed to the lack of funds resulting from defaulted loans as well as from conflicts in khal leases, where the District Commission and Upazila office are instead leasing out the khals.

7.8.

Activeness and Perception of WMCA post project

Meetings may be seen as an indicator of continued activity of WMCA. There are three types of meetings, weekly or urgent meetings for the executive committee, monthly meetings between executive committee and sub-committees and the Annual General Meeting of all the general members of the WMCA. The key sources for these are the WMCA executive committee members. They mentioned that out of over 700 members, 300 people attended the last AGM. The main reason for this was that many poor members must work when these meetings are held and can therefore not afford attending. However, one passer-by in Elaipur village asked why he had never heard or been invited to any of these meetings. None of the General FGDs mentioned the monthly meetings, rather they found the WMCA inactive and not of use for water management. In South Para General FGD it was clearly stated that the WMCA had not been able to fulfil peoples expectations as the canals are silted and the gate is not maintained properly. Arguably, this discrepancy may be connected to the perception of the WMCA. For instance, of the selected respondents, only the Union Parishad Chairman argued that the WMCA is still doing a good job and that there is no corruption in water management. The General FGD in South Para, however, claimed that none of the government organisations, including the WMCA and UP, openly consult with local people about polder operation and maintenance, budget, sites and volume of work; Nobody works properly. Everybody works according to their interest. Nobody takes their responsibility. In contrast, the former Vice-President and large fish businessman stated that the WMCA was working better before (when he was in power) and is not working properly now due to the corruption of the current President. A Gher owner (115 decimal) and Farmer (85 decimals) in the Madhya Para General FGD also supported this negative perception of the WMCA and the President, though it should be mentioned that the FGD was organised through the WMCA Secretary. These perceptions may therefore reflect the interpersonal rivalry, or faction, within the WMCA between the President Matiur Rahman and the Secretary Abdul Gaffar. According to a woman EC member of the WMCA, there are currently political factions within the WMCA where Abdul Gaffar, has set up his own water management group. They have taken the lease over the Gupier canal from the District Commission and Upazila offices via political connections and have then blocked it in various places to cultivate shrimp and thus impeding water access downstream. In her view, he has become more powerful than the President who she believes to be a very honest man and someone who takes decisions via participation, while the Secretarys actions shows that he makes autocratic decisions no matter the 38

impact on others. Gaffar himself says that WMCA leasing is currently not taking place due to politically powerful people higher up in the government taking over the leasing process. He did not mention having his own group or cultivating ghers. It seems that perspective depends on faction. We have no way to validate the level of truth in the various statements, or rather, accusations. In general, political motivations tend to drive the activities in Jabusa. As the UP Member of Ward No 3 puts it Due to political interruption it is not possible to carry on work. 9 out of 12 members of executive committee of the WMCA executive committee are involved in political affairs. Thats why it is not possible to work neutrally. One or more members are actively involved in political activities. They try to take upper hand of the WMCA. They consume money raised from khal lease. For that reason general members show their apathy in any development work. He also seems to suffer from lack of neutrality as he further added that WMCA savings were better when I was secretary. 700 members submitted their monthly fees during my involvement. But due to internal complexities the work has been shrinking day by day.

39

8. CONFLICT REGARDING THE CONTROL OF CANALS

As has been mentioned previously, the LGED via the Ministry of Land had given the WMCA the right to lease out the khals to WMCA members as a source of income. Lately, the Upazila and District offices have taken the control over the leasing process and there is a conflict between the WMCA and higher level government offices regarding the ultimate control over the canals. According to the Upazila Nirbahi Office, the WMCA must pay annually to take the lease of the canals and as it has not been able to deposit this money for the past three years and does therefore not have the right to lease out the canals. However, WMCA has in its possession documents from the Ministry of Land, indicating its right to lease out the canals. The relations between WMCA executive committee and the Upazila and District offices are therefore tense. There appears to be an overlap between the current leaseholders and their involvement in local politics and the WMCA. It is often those connected to the ruling party or the important offices that are awarded the lease of canals. Both the Union Parishad Chairman and Member are leaseholders of sections of canals, thus clearly showing that they themselves might be biased in terms of how the water infrastructure is being managed when they state that they are managing the gates etc. in accordance with local needs. The UPC further mentions that the leaseholder of Sukurmari canal is the Union Secretary of the Awami League who also owns land beside the canal and uses it for brackish shrimp and fish cultivation. The Union Parishad leaseholders engage in similar aquaculture practices. The paddy-freshwater fish farmer in South Para mentioned that the leaseholders engage in forceful salinity intrusion that damage crops adjacent to Noashiar khal and Gupier khal. There is a person named Mr Sharif Khal who is involved with gher business, he does these types of activities. There is another person named Ahmed, he also took lease and does the same thing as Mr Sharif does. Another leaseholder is a landowner by the name of Mubarak who owns 50-biggha lands. Apparently he is competing for the Union Parishad elections and is distributing water from the canal to people as an election strategy according to the current UP Chairman. In the view of the WMCA President and his faction, the most contentious lease is that of Gupier canal that has been blocked in 9 places. As it is the longest running canal stretching from the northwest of the polder to the southeast, it plays a vital role for removing water congestion and distributing water to the villages it passes through. Due to the blockages by leaseholders in their endeavour to cultivate fish, these functions are hampered. At the same time, the same leasing process that the WMCA has obtained funds from has been based on exactly that, the usage of canals for fishing. It seems that they deem it negatively when it is their rival faction holding the lease. The paddy farmer in South Para was more concerned with the fact that saline intrusion was ruining his paddy fields. In addition, the operation of the gates under these gher owners/ leaseholders is done in a way that inundates low-lying fields of paddy. This in turn is further exacerbated by the pipes theyve installed. The interesting thing with the leasing process is that it seems to be a formal way of engaging with brackish shrimp and to enter brackish water into the subproject. However, the shrimp industries in the area tend to only process shrimp that usually comes from outside Jabusa. During the General FGDs it was mentioned that Bagda cultivation was prominent prior to the construction of the LGED subproject. There was considerable conflict and this was also mentioned in LGEDs project documents A smaller part of the subproject area is being used for shrimp culture by a privately owned shrimp farmer. To cultivate shrimp, the area is flooded with saline water. The majority of the farmers are opposed to shrimp cultivation (LGED, 2008). During this time, it was noted that those that opposed these activities were tortured and that this was perpetuated by the people belonging to the political parties. The construction of the embankment discontinued shrimp cultivation and allowed for the cultivation of crops and agriculture (WMCA executive committee member). This is supported by the former Vice-President and 40

large fish businessman, who mentioned that the former Member of Parliament, Mustafa Suja, was a key factor in convincing gher owners to shift from shrimp to the cultivation of paddy. This is interesting, as it also seems that the Vice-President himself is currently earning profits from brackish shrimp. However, the paddy farmer in South Para (SL#1-3), mentioned that the key problem was for those with small land holdings as they could not afford gher cultivation. Instead the salinity in the soil would negatively affect their paddy yields. In addition to the conflict between shrimp-saline water and paddy-fresh water, another layer of complexity is that of low-lying versus high-lying lands. The leaseholder may not take the differing needs into account and a common problem has been the flooding of low lying lands. The tea storekeeper in Jabusa (SL#6) mentioned that the leaseholder of Sokurmari khal operates the gate in a way that is beneficial to big farmers who often own the more expensive high-elevated lands. The concentration of large landholding seems to be more evident in an area called Bagmara towards Elaipur village. Lowlands sees the concentration of smaller landholdings divided into a larger number of farmers, whose fields are flooded when the highland large landowners access water. However, the various FGDs stated that the farmers are able to solve these issues by discussing among themselves without intervention from the Union Parishad or WMCA formally. The WMCA executive committee members, however, argued that they play an active role in mitigating such highland-lowland conflicts.

41

9. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
The previous section highlights the important roles that local government institutions at Upazila and District level plays in water management. They are currently in control over the leasing system in the area. However, there are disagreements between these LGIs and the WMCA who sees them as removing a valuable source of income for the cooperative funds. Arguably, the financial incentives to hold rights of the lease is alluring for all parties and it is not straightforward that either party would work in a way that would benefit the larger amount of people. However, it seems that the Upazila Nirbahi Office may also supervise the activities of the WMCA and all the executive committee members see these upper level LGIs as the first step of resort for any funding or development activity who then may decide to do works through LGED, WMCA or tender. The role of the Union Parishad seems to be diminished in comparison. They are minor leaseholders and claim themselves to work for the broader benefits of general people. Yet various respondents stated that they do not have any role in water management. Some did not want them involved due to perceived corruption (LCS FGD) and others want them to use rural employment schemes such as Kabikha for maintenance work. However, from both the perspectives of the Union Parishad and general members, the presence of LGED acts like a disincentive for the UP to allocate its limited budget to Jabusa. The perception of LGED is in itself mixed. On the one hand it is seen positively for ending saline intrusion, protecting against floods and increasing agricultural productivity in the area. It is one of the first institutions that the WMCA contacts for their water management needs and they have regularly obtained funds from the agency. However, the reply from LGED of insufficient funds has led to a growing perception of LGED as unresponsive to requests. It may also be that funds allocated are misappropriated. According to the paddy farmer in South Para, though LGED provides funds intermittently, this does not reach local people due to corrupt influential elites. It was further claimed that LGED officials at the local level themselves misuse substantial shares of allocated budget. In the WMCA FGD it was stated that it is better to work with LGED as there is no chance to cheat in their projects. All in all, quite contradictory statements are being made. A key thing mentioned is improved and standardised monitoring and supervision where LGIs, WMCA and LGED work correctly and honestly without misappropriating funds. In addition, LGEDs construction of the water infrastructure is seen as poor in general. The embankment is consistently made vulnerable due to river erosion and villagers want it to be higher, wider and stronger. The canals are in poor shape and need deeper and more regular excavation, while broken parts of the gates are making them less functional over time. As mentioned in previous sections, local people and/or private companies are taking over some of the responsibilities and costs that are typically designated to LGED. The paddy farmer in South Para emphasised the importance of the embankment being in good condition. He thus proposed that it would be better if the responsibility for maintaining the embankment is given to the Water Development Board instead and that the Member of Parliament should take on a greater coordinating various activities in the area. However, the Union Parishad member mentioned that through MPs say that they want to empower local governments like the Union Parishad, this does not take place in practice. Since they are the closest LGI to the people and thus more accountable, he argued that more work and projects should be developed and implemented through them.

42

10.

CONCLUSION

River erosion was seen as a main cause for concern that leads to increased risk and vulnerability for flooding and inundation of both villages and farmland. To address this the embankment needs to be strengthened and made higher and wider. Excavation of the canals was seen as a way to improve retention capacity of the canals and improve water accessibility. However, canals are silted and in poor condition. This is exacerbated by the current leasing system that obstructs the maintenance of the canals. In addition, the blockage in the leased canals hampers equitable water distribution throughout the subproject and adversely affects drainage. The blurring between canal committee and canal lease holder has further led to the operation of the gates being primarily controlled by large landowners of high-lying lands that often tend to neglect the needs of lowland small farmers. The WMCA is influenced by the political setting of the subproject that is located in close proximity to Khulna and local power politics. Water management in Jabusa Beel is thus contingent on political games at different levels of government and between the two main parties. When asked what Jabusa will look like 10 years from if things stay the same, a woman WMCA member expressed concern over the drinking water situation and the problem of arsenic contamination in the tubewells.
If things continue as they are now, people will become more sick, the place will be too over populated and people will leave. People will become ill by the water so that they cannot work. Those without opportunities are those that are also in majority, it is not clear to me where they will go. There are also too many outsiders that come with the shrimp processing companies. These companies pollute the water and there are too many people coming here. We need to make the khal deeper for water storage and to avoid inundation./ WMCA EC woman member

Arguably, the health implications could be quite large with several years of steady arsenic contamination, both in drinking water and irrigated crops. In addition, the lucrative shrimp processing industry has led to population growth in Jabusa as employment opportunities and incomes have increased. This in turn is increasingly also leading to smaller landholding shares. With river erosion, land is further being reduced. As such, cropping intensification may be necessary to meet increased food demand.

43

ANNEX 1: INSTITUTIONS IN WATER GOVERNANCE

Local Government Institutions
Upazila Parishad Rural governance in Bangladesh comprises of a three-tier local government system of which Union Parishad is the grassroots local government institution and its immediate upper tier is Upazila Parishad. The Upazila Nirbahi Office holds the right to lease the canals and is being discredited by the WMCA from taking away their right. They may allocate Upazila level funding for maintenance activities and can choose whether or not to contract it to LGED, Union Parishad, WMCA or a contractor via bidding. The Upazila Nirbahi Office is mentioned together with the District Commission office and is seen as a powerful and active actor. Union Parishad Rural governance in Bangladesh comprises of a three-tier local government system of which Union Parishad is the grassroots local government institution and its immediate upper tier is Upazila Parishad. The Union Parishad was not active in the issue of drinking water. The member and chairman interviewed in Jabusa Beel mentioned that they were proactive in using rural employment schemes allocated from the Upazila office to excavate canals, repair roads and embankments. The UP member of ward No 3 also mentioned that he is a leaseholder of a canal and holds the position of Chairman for a canal subcommittee. As such he is active in the operation and maintenance of gates. It did not seem that the UP is active in emergency response repairs.

Extension agencies
Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE) The Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE) is responsible for the dissemination of agricultural technology, information and relevant services to farmers and other stakeholders down to village level. It is the largest department under the Ministry of Agriculture having their extension officer down to village level (one extension officer called Sub Assistant Agriculture Officer for a cluster of villages called Block). In Jabusa Beel, the DAE was not mentioned in responses related to agriculture or irrigation. The CO mentioned that they organise trainings for the WMCA through the DAE Upazila offer, while the Union Parishad Chairman mentioned that the Officer visits Jabusa occasionally. In general it tends to distribute seeds through the Union Parishad and not engage in water management. However, we do not have a KII with the DAE officer in Rupsa Upazila, so there might be a gap in our understanding. Department of Fisheries (DoF) The Department of Fisheries (DoF) is responsible for the dissemination of fisheries resource conservation and aquaculture technology and is situated under the Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock. DoF provides training on fisheries and how to do combined cultivation of paddy and fish. They provide support to fish cultivators in the area and assist them if there are any problems. In Jabusa, the DoF was not mentioned in responses related to fish and cropping general FGD participants and farmers and fisherman. The Union Parishad chairman mentioned that their key role is to supervise and monitor the shrimp processing industries so that they do not inject unlawful chemicals into the shrimp so as to ensure premium export quality2. According to the Union Parishad Member, the DoF officer is inactive and does not take any initiative to address villagers problems or arrange training. Department of Livestock Services (DLS) The Union Parishad perceives the DLS officer as inactive and that they do not visit the village enough. There is a problem of the number of livestock reducing over time and a demand that vaccination of the cattle takes place as livestock disease is both common and costly. Former year we argued repeatedly to
He mentioned that previously the industries would increase the weight of Bagda and Galda through injecting a certain chemical. Due to import bans in foreign markets, the DoF has been tasked to ensure that such practices stop.
2

44

come to village for injection to animal and they visited only in 3 places. This year they have no interest to come to village. Department of Public Health Engineering (DPHE) The Department of Public Health Engineering (DPHE) is the national lead agency for provision of drinking water supply and waste management throughout the country excepting Dhaka, Narayanganj and Chittagong cities where water supply and sewerage authorities (WASAs) operate. With the challenges generated by the discovery of arsenic in incremental areas since its first detection in 1993, DPHE with its development partners is trying to ameliorate the sufferings caused by the lack of safe drinking water. Alternative options for safe water supply are being catered in worse affected areas. In the polder areas, the DPHE is involved in the installation of deep tube wells (since shallow tube wells are not enough to get safe drinking water), pond sand filter system, popularizing rain water storage, and provision of piped water supply etc. as per local need. Despite the problems of arsenic contamination and scarcity of deep tubewells in Jabusa-Beel, there was no mention of the DPHE by any of the respondents. It is not clear if it is more active at District and Upazila levels and then delegates the tasks assigned via the local government institutions, or if other actors such as NGOs and private companies are taking over its role.

45

NGOs
Active NGOs: BRAC, TMSS, ASA, Grameen Bank BRDPS, Heed Bangladesh, CSS, Nobolok, TMSS, Uttaran, and GGS Drinking water: BRAC and ASA were involved in loans for private deep tubewells. 15 households collected 12 000 BDT and then applied for a deep tubewell. Micro-credit and loans: Most of the NGOs in the area operate micro credit programmes. Emergency: NGOs were seen as inactive in providing relief and support during disasters. Social Welfare: BRAC had organised a one-month training on gender issues such as prohibition of the torture of women and of early marriage, according to Abdul Gaffar WMCA secretary. Agriculture: Via the Union Parishad some of the NGOs provide training on the cultivation of paddy and wheat. Role of NGOs in water management: It was mentioned that NGOs can use rural employment schemes such as Kabhika and 40 day work order to do maintenance activities such as the excavation of canals. It was made a suggestion that NGOs become more active in protective measures against river erosion.

Private Companies
There are several shrimp processing and fish feed industries in the northeast of the polder. Many of them take initiatives to repair and maintain the parts of canals, embankments and sluice gates that they directly rely on. Gemini Seafood Ltd seems to be the most active one, where the main person behind the company owns land in the subproject. It has used 5 000 000 BDT (50 lakh) to protect the embankment near the factory through more than one thousand of bamboo poles and cement blocks to protect against erosion. However, concerns have been raised that Geminis protection measures may increase the risk of river erosion in other areas. In addition, the waste from the shrimp industry is seen as polluting water ways and contributing to a foul stench in the air.

46