Blue Gold Program Wiki - User contributions [en]

30 Evolution of TA Organisational Arrangements

2021-10-18T08:22:41Z

Geerte: /* Original TA Organisational Structure */

After providing the scope of the technical assistance (TA) team as conceived in the Program Document and describing early arrangements for the TA organisation, this chapter sets out the reasons behind the organisational changes to the Technical Assistance (TA) team over the eight year life of the Blue Gold Program. In the final section, it explains how the practical exposure to developing and building water management organisations helped to identify the key elements for sustainable participatory water management.

== Scope of Technical Assistance in the Program Document ==
''<nowiki>''</nowiki>The set objectives are indeed very challenging and require a capable and effective TA consultant, but also more consultants than under the previous EKN funded programs. The number of international experts is relatively high but is proposed as to ensure the highest quality of outputs and the outcomes for the longer-term perspective."''

The [[:File:GoN Program Document BGP 28Aug12.pdf|Program Document]] (quoted above) established a sizeable Technical Assistance (TA) team under a direct contract with the Embassy of the Kingdom of The Netherlands (EKN), and considerably larger than other recent and current EKN-funded programs such as the Integrated Planning for Sustainable Water Management (IPSWAM) and the ongoing Char Development and Settlement Project (CDSP).

The allocation for Technical Assistance amounted to 66% of EKN’s contribution to the program<ref group="Notes">The 66% (i.e. € 33.1 million out of a total GoN contribution of € 49.8 million) is based on figures from the Administrative Arrangement signed on 20th February 2013. Over the course of the 7+ year life of the program, revisions to the TA contract, reduced the percentage allocated to the TA team to 52% (i.e. € 32.4 million out of a total GoN contribution of € 61.2 million).</ref> and 57%<ref group="Notes">The total original budget allocation was € 57.7 million (GoN €49.8 million and GoB € 7.9 million). Under the BWDB DPP (recast March 2013), GoB allocated a total equivalent budget of € 7.499 million (€ 1.349 million for the revenue component and € 6.150 million for the capital component) was allocated, and under the DAE DPP, GoB allocated a total equivalent budget of € 0. 356 million).</ref> of the overall projected expenditure. Roughly half of this was allocated to staff costs and the other half to equipment, training, operations, contracted services and an Innovation Fund. In addition to the Blue Gold TA team, EKN also contracted BRAC and Max Foundation for a separate WASH program and engaged Solidaridad to implement an agricultural value chain program, all in the south-western coastal region but not necessarily in the polders eventually selected by Blue Gold. Good contact was established and maintained between the various projects, but actual cooperation was limited because of the different focus of the projects and because the different teams were not always working in the same polders.

The Blue Gold Program had a large TA team responsible for a substantial share of the project activities including community mobilisation (with resources for the Department of Cooperatives - DoC), engineering supervision, agricultural development and homestead production (with resources for DLS and DoF), marketing and business development, as well as managing an innovation fund, training and capacity building, together with contracting services and program management. In addition, the TA team advised EKN on requests by BWDB for infrastructure funds. In part because of the changing operational modalities over time, and a sharpened focus on water management and agriculture, some of the original services included in the Program Document were dropped in later stages of the project. For example, in 2017 EKN decided to discontinue the vocational training program which evolved from the concept of the Program Document - as a platform for the Underprivileged Children's Education Programs (UCEP) - to using entrepeneur-technocrats or ''ustads'' to train mobile mechanics, an adaptation of the approach used in a parallel EKN-funded project, Profitable Opportunities for Food Security (PROOFS) managed by ICCO Cooperation (refer to [[31 Capacity Building#Vocational Training|Section G Chapter 31 Vocational Training]]).

== Early Arrangements for the TA Organisation ==
The [[:File:IR Inception Report, revised March 2014.pdf|Inception Report]] of the TA team (approved in March 2014) summarised the work plan and budget for the TA team, as well as the team organisation, tasks to be implemented and their overall timeline, and forms the basis of the 2014 and 2015 Annual Work Plans (based on calendar years at the time) and then the 2015/16 Annual Work Plan (when the planning period was changed to suit the July to June cycle used by GoB) and their corresponding budgets.

From late 2015, concerns were noted about the slow rate of implementation of Blue Gold infrastructure and the higher investment costs. As a result, the [[:File:ARM Aide Memoire 2-14oct 2016 31oct 16.pdf|2016 Annual Review Mission]] proposed to enhance funding to BWDB and to extend the timeframe of the Blue Gold Program by two years from end-December 2018 to end-December 2020. In addition to the major infrastructure activities addressed by the proposed changes, a number of other critical activities were to be included in the revised scope: (a) in-polder water management by WMGs and WMAs<ref group="Notes">Described in the Programme Document page 39.</ref>; (b) strengthened coordination between WMGs and Union Parishads as a priority, and also with Upazila and District levels; and (c) integrating capacity building activities for WMGs<ref group="Notes">The Programme Document describes three components, but at inception the TA-team organisation was further split-up into five components with little or no arrangements for their coordination</ref>. During late-2015 and early-2016, it became clear that further revisions to the scope of TA support were required, and the following exercises were completed:

* Recommendations for engaging Local Government Institutions (LGIs) in water management, which ''inter alia'' reemphasized the involvement of LGIs from the beginning of activities in any polders, in order to forge a ‘water management partnership’ between WMOs and Union Parishads<ref>{{Cite book|last=|first=|url=https://www.bluegoldwiki.com/index.php?title=File:TR_13_BlueGold_WMG_LGI_cooperation_Report_05.pdf|title=Engaging Local Government Institutions in Water Management – DRAFT Sourcebook|publisher=Euroconsult Mott MacDonald & Associates|year=February 2015|isbn=|location=|pages=}}</ref>;
* Prompted by the [[:File:ARM Aide Memoire 27Sep-13Oct 2015.pdf|2015 Annual Review Mission]] (ARM), an Exit Strategy was prepared to:
** set out an explicit, time-bound and staggered action plan for each polder;
** formulate a unified approach (single work process) to integrate the BGP components and thus provide greater coherence between agricultural activities, business development and internal polder water management activities;
** focus on the promotion of collective actions by WMGs;
** bring renewed attention to the national enabling environment for participatory water management; and
** to reorganise the TA team<ref>{{Cite book|last=|first=|url=https://www.bluegoldwiki.com/index.php?title=File:WP02A_Exit_Strategy_feb_16_v2.pdf|title=Sustainability from The Start - Exit Strategy (draft final), Working Paper 2A|publisher=Euroconsult Mott MacDonald & Associates|year=February 2016|isbn=|location=|pages=}}</ref> accordingly.
* In a parallel exercise which engaged all project partners, the Theory of Change (ToC) was examined and re-framed to reinforce cross-linkages between water management, agricultural technology and marketing support for greater productivity and profitability, and thereby to improve the livelihoods of polder communities. The lessons learnt from this process were then used in decentralising the TA team and integrating its field activities.<ref>{{Cite book|last=|first=|url=https://www.bluegoldwiki.com/index.php?title=File:WP5_-_Theory_of_Change_rev_2_25may_16.pdf|title=Theory of Change (version 2), Working Paper 5|publisher=Euroconsult Mott MacDonald & Associates|year=May 2016|isbn=|location=|pages=}}</ref>

The changes arising from these exercises were first formalised in the [[:File:AWP 2016 AnnualPlan201617V2.pdf|2016/17 Annual Work Plan]] and associated budget.

== Evolution of TA Organisation ==
This section describes the TA team organisational set-up in 2013 and its development with a view to drawing lessons for the design of future programs.

=== Timeline ===
Formal project documents, as listed in [[04 Policy framework, previous history and project definition|Section A Chapter 4]], set out the definition and scope of the Blue Gold Program. Underpinning this formal definition is the more philosophical notion of what and how the program sets out to achieve, termed the ‘project concept’. This concept is captured by the tagline ‘Water Management for Development’ and has, while retaining the spirit of the tagline, developed over time. Table 30.1 shows the timeline for this process.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Table 30.1 Phases in the Development of Blue Gold Concept
|'''Phase'''
|'''Main thrust'''
|'''Documents'''
|-
|2011 to 2012

'''Formulation'''
|WMG to be developed as cooperatives acting as main driver for economic development
|[[:File:GoN Program Document BGP 28Aug12.pdf|Program Document]]
|-
|2013 to 2015

'''‘IPSWAM plus’'''
|Start of the implementation period, in which infrastructural works and the formal establishment of WMGs (and their re-establishment under PWMR 2014) were undertaken along the lines of the precursor [[List of water resources management projects#Integrated Planning for Sustainable Water Management (IPSWAM) (2002-2011)|IPSWAM project]]; in parallel to implementation of novel project components for agricultural development and business development.
|
* [[:File:IR Inception Report, revised March 2014.pdf|Inception Report]]
* [[:File:GoB BWDB PWMR 2014 (english) 11feb 14.pdf|PWMR 2014]]
|-
|2015 to 2017

'''Transformation'''
|A reconsideration of the approach, enhancing the synergy between water management organisation, agricultural development and business development:

* From developing organisations to developing institutional networks
* From parallel components to an integrated approach
* From central control to decentral initiative
* From multi-purpose cooperatives to functional WMOs supporting multiple initiatives for economic development
|
* [[:File:TR 13 BlueGold WMG LGI cooperation Report 05.pdf|LGI Sourcebook]]
* [[:File:WP5 - Theory of Change rev 2 25may 16.pdf|Theory of Change 2016]]
* [[:File:WP02A Exit Strategy feb 16 v2.pdf|Exit Strategy]]
* Unified Approach ([[:File:TM Field Manual BGP PWM Bangla 28feb 17.pdf|Bangla]]/[[:File:TM Field Manual BGP PWM Eng 1feb 17.pdf|English]])
* ARM Aide Memoires [[:File:ARM Aide Memoire 27Sep-13Oct 2015.pdf|2015]], [[:File:ARM Aide Memoire 2-14oct 2016 31oct 16.pdf|2016]], [[:File:ARM Aide Memoire 25Nov-4Dec 2017 26feb 18.pdf|2017]]
|-
|2017 to 2019

'''Maturity'''
|Rapid emergence and consolidation of new approaches for in-polder water management, for agricultural development, for extension and dissemination, for targeting, for capacity building, and for the increased prominence given to gender issues.
|
* [[:File:O&M 16jul 19 evolution of catchment planning.pdf|Internal strategy documents on Catchment planning]]
* [[:File:TR20 2016 17 CAWM Strategic Plan 22 Sep 16.pdf|TR20]] and [[:File:TR24 2018 2019 CAWM Strategic Plan 16sep 18.pdf|TR24]] on Community Agricultural Water Management
* [[:File:EXT Strategic Action plan for Extension Methodology rev 15may 18.pdf|Internal concept notes on horizontal learning, extension methodologies and targeting]];
* BGP’s ‘Lessons Learnt’ repository
|-
|2019 to 2020

'''Handing-over'''
|Establishment and activation of WMAs and support to their functionality. WMAs in the driver seat for activities aimed at individual WMGs. Lessons learnt formulated with the aim to inspire improvement of national water governance environment and to support formulation of future programs and projects.
|
* Catchment Plans
* WMA work plans
* O&M agreements
* National PWM Conference
|}

=== Original TA Organisational Structure ===
The TA team was led by an international team leader and a national deputy team leader supported by professional, administrative and support staff. In line with the original concept (in the [[:File:GoN Program Document BGP 28Aug12.pdf|Program Document]], Section 28.3), the organisation for the project implementation (Figure 30.1) was initially concentrated into four parallel components for community mobilisation and institutional strengthening; water resources management; food security and agricultural production; business development with the fifth relating to cross-cutting issues.

[[File:BGP org chart original.png|none|thumb|779x779px|'''Fig 30.1''' Original organisation chart of the BGP TA team (only solid black lines imply hierarchical relations)]]Each of the components, barring the cross-cutting issues, was led by a component leader, assisted by a deputy component leader both of whom were Dhaka-based. In each of the two (later three) zonal offices national technical experts were based who reported directly to their respective component leaders. For three of the components (community development, agriculture and business), field workers were posted to live and work in Blue Gold polders. These were known as the Community Organisers (COs), Farmer Field School Organisers (FOs) and Producer Group Facilitators (PFs), respectively. These polder staff provided vital and direct connections with the polder communities – recognised by the large allocation over Blue Gold’s lifetime of some 22% of overall TA staff time, equivalent to around 100 staff during the main implementation period (2014-2019). Initially, some 50% of the polder staff were female, a percentage which reduced to around 35% with natural turnover and the greater proportion of males amongst applicants for the replacement positions. In due course, the senior zonal socio-economists in Khulna and Patuakhali Zonal Offices were assigned as Zonal Coordinators, with additional responsibilities for logistic coordination and administrative processes.

This structure emphasised vertical reporting while mechanisms for horizontal coordination were minimum. Unintentionally, the set-up in components resulted in ‘organisational silos’ that were poorly connected. The effects of these 'organisational silos' were:

* Community Organisers (COs) were confronted by WMG members about problems observed in infrastructure works, and especially the contractual arrangements with LCSs. Because the COs were neither involved in works planning, nor aware of the payments made to the LCSs, they were unable to help. The engineering team in the water resources management component (and the BWDB engineers) - who were responsible for planning of infrastructure contracts and works completion - preferred to leave community interactions to the COs, but without sharing information with them.
* The formation and registration of WMGs was initiated by COs and zonal-level Socio-Economists. But the capacity building arrangements through field crop FFSs, homestead FFSs and market-oriented FFSs were - at least initially - not coordinated with WMGs or, for that matter, with the COs because this training was organised by the two components concerned with food security and business development.
* Water management - as the founding principle for Blue Gold - presupposes cooperation between agriculturalists, engineers and communities. Given the rigid structure of BGP, in-polder water management activities (ie other than the development of the main infrastructure) were initially neglected. To some extent, the lack of clarity of the respective roles of BWDB and DAE in in-polder water management, was reinforced by the TA organisation, where water management was not owned by any one TA component whilst straddling all.

The lacking horizontal coordination mechanism was also reflected in the Polder Development Plans (see for example, [[:File:PDP P25 22mar 17.pdf|P25 PDP]]), where activities for specific components failed to address the real need - which was to develop cropping systems suitable for local environments around the opportunities offered by the major water management infrastructure. In-polder water management was a blind spot, and the reason it was overlooked can be explained - in part at least - by the way Blue Gold was originally organised and managed.

=== Revised TA Organisational Structure (2016) ===
One of the recommendations of the [[:File:ARM Aide Memoire 27Sep-13Oct 2015.pdf|2015 Annual Review Mission]] was to update the Theory of Change (ToC) - a process which brought participatory water management to its intended central position within the project, and which is explored in more detail later in this section. The process involved workshops and key informant interviews in Dhaka, Khulna and Patuakhali during February and March 2016, and led to the [[:File:WP5 - Theory of Change rev 2 25may 16.pdf|ToC's]] publication in May 2016. From early-2016 onwards, the TA organisation was re-shaped to address the priorities established from the ToC which resulted ''inter alia'' in the integration of different disciplines into teams, the empowerment of staff based in the polders, and the devolution of management responsibilities closer to the point of service delivery (see Figure 30.2).[[File:BGP org chart revised.png|none|thumb|778x778px|'''Fig 30.2''' Revised organisation chart of the BGP TA team (only solid black lines imply hierarchical relations)]]

A unified approach to management was set-up across three levels from the TA team office in Dhaka and via zonal offices to the polders. In practice, this meant that cross-disciplinary teams were formed at all three levels, integrated and given wider-reaching mandates for equitable water management and strengthened value chains - and this is expanded upon below in the section concerning participatory water management.

At polder level, the three previous categories of polder level staff each with a specific technical role (community organisation, farmer field schools or business development), were given the responsibility of coordinating all community interactions and delivering all activities on behalf of Blue Gold, and were renamed Community Development Facilitators (CDFs). In each polder, a senior CDF was made 'Polder co-Coordinator’, with the position of Polder Coordinator entrusted to the erstwhile subject matter specialists at Zonal level. The Zonal Coordinators – in each of Khulna, Patuakhali and Satkhira, respectively – were mandated to lead BGP’s TA teams in the zones and at polder level.

The single most important outcome from the revised ToC was the recognition of the crucial role that CDFs fulfil in empowering polder communities to take and act on decisions which prioritise the requirements of the wider community. This important distinction from the previous organisational arrangement is represented in Figure 30.2 by placing the WMGs and WMAs at the head of the organisational chart - placing their needs as primary stakeholders at the top of the hierarchy, and identifying the CDFs as the main point of contact between the WMGs/WMAs and the Blue Gold team. For the CDFs, this required a radical change from their primary role of routine administration of meetings, elections and audits; facilitating training modules (FFSs), and conveying project-level information to WMGs. Many of the CDFs were challenged by the changed expectation. Although many of them are university or college graduates, they had been used as functionaries in organisational development and training, managed by technical experts in Dhaka. It took time and effort to reorient the CDFs and their managers to their new role in empowering communities.

A fundamental re-structuring of an established organisation is difficult, in part because long-established concepts and roles and responsibilities are challenged, and - with that - the impact on personal authority of individuals resulting from changes in line-management relationships. A number of measures helped to initiate the integration and decentralisation processes:

* To translate the ToC into practice, new organisational arrangements with associated revised Terms of Reference – including decentralisation, and the development of multi-disciplinary polder teams - were implemented, and a number of staff were made redundant or reassigned.
* A PWM Field Manual (in [[:File:TM Field Manual BGP PWM Bangla 28feb 17.pdf|Bangla]] and [[:File:TM Field Manual BGP PWM Eng 1feb 17.pdf|English]]) was published in February 2017 to provide practical guidelines for participatory water management at polder level and to thus ‘create a larger critical mass, to make field activities more efficient and create a stronger interface with local government and others working in the polders’. The manual provided guidelines for field staff on the work processes: preparations, activation at entry, planning for action, WMG activation, and learning and networking. The distribution of the manual was followed by training and coaching of polder and zonal staff.
* A continuing process - reinforced at project-level meetings - by which the entire project team from top to bottom recognised the complementarity of expertise within the polder teams, and the combined strength provided by CDFs from different educational background, skills and experiences - in agriculture, community mobilisation, training, water management and market orientation. The aim was that CDFs would be equally regarded - irrespective of their technical background - and deployed in cross-disciplinary teams used in the capacity building of WMGs. Initially, zonal staff were appointed as 'Polder Coordinators' - to manage the polder teams and to encourage the CDFs to form cross-disciplinary sub-teams for each different activity, and to ensure that project-level messages were communicated quickly and accurately to polder level. Over time, with the growing understanding by CDFs of their roles, and with improved communications between project and polder level teams, selected CDFs were appointed as co-Coordinators to manage polder-level activities.
* The role of CDFs was to empower WMGs to take over the full range of activities involved in participatory water management, using complementary technical and financial resources available within the wider community and at union and upazila level. A long and iterative process was required to build sufficiently confident and assertive WMGs - using the WMG's knowledge of the local economy, constraints to successful water management within the catchment of their sluice/regulator, and their suggestions for activities to stimulate economic development through agriculture. When this local knowledge is assembled, the WMG can collectively decide on appropriate interventions, their relative priority, and seek technical and financial assistance is available from local public and private partners (UPs, UZPs, BWDB, DAE, input suppliers, ''fariahs'' etc).
* Awarding and recognising exemplary performance by specific CDFs and, at a later stage, exemplary team-work by specific polder teams.
* Establishing zonal-level monthly coordination meetings with all zonal and polder staff to facilitate informed decision-making with senior staff attending from the central team.
* Establishing project-level management team meetings with senior central and zonal-level staff to provide coordination and to ensure that both positive and negative lessons learnt were carried across the project area.

The ensuing organisation was more agile and supportive of initiatives prioritised by the WMGs. The reorganisation enabled the TA team to focus as an integrated team on in-polder water management. Different polder teams made use of (local) opportunities to enhance the project impacts, eg initiatives for summer tomato, ''boro'' cultivation, and the expansion of improved poultry sheds and ''hajols''.

=== Lessons Learnt ===
Despite distinct progress and important successes, achieving a genuine decentralised mode of operation within the TA polder teams required careful monitoring and adjustment to management practices. Promoting and sustaining decentralisation for the implementation period of a typical project should take into account the following factors which were revealed and addressed in Blue Gold:

* While the reorganisation aimed to establish decentralised and integrated teams, the established hierarchical relations continued to exert influence over ‘their staff’ - in some cases, by after-hours coaching and mentoring - which continued for some time, slowing down the actual implementation of a true multi-disciplinary approach.
* The lack of soft or managerial multi-disciplinary skills within the team since most staff had been originally recruited as technical specialists – agriculturalists, engineers, social scientists, etc - and were reluctant to take on a role of managing staff from different disciplines in a cross-disciplinary activity that was on the edge of their experience.
* A genuine reluctance by staff from one discipline to be managed by a line manager from another discipline, and a concern that the management skills in their new role (eg as ‘polder coordinator’) would not be recognised by a future employer.
* There were relatively few team members who appreciated, for example, the contrast between traditional top-down lecture-style training and facilitation and participatory and experiential training – and how a modern approach aims to incentivise self-evolution ie ‘taking control’.
* Annual performance assessments of CDFs were successfully introduced to encourage the CDFs to recognise the importance of complementarity, learning from peers (and WMG members), as well as a willingness to work outside their ‘comfort zone’. The performance assessments were also used to allocate increments in recognition of those who had adopted the new approaches and who had taken on coordinating responsibilities. In addition, excellence in team-work was recognised with occasional awards.
* Regular meetings were held by the central management team with zonal and polder staff to reinforce the principles of decentralisation, integration, and coaching for WMG-led initiatives, and to assess the degree of adoption of the decentralised and integrated approach.
* In early stages of the decentralisation of responsibilities, zonal teams aimed at meeting the requirements of the central team but with a high degree of independence, exerting control over the upward flow of information (especially where negative), and being reluctant to host visits by experts from the central team - who had earlier led the development of new tools for WMG development, including CAWM, catchment planning, CII, etc.
* A series of WMG ‘health checks’ by combined teams of central and zonal experts used focus group discussions with WMG representatives to assess their level of maturity and autonomy, and to use the results in fine-tuning project interventions. As a by-product, these health checks also allowed central and zonal staff to jointly reflect on the complementarity of their differing perspectives and helped to heal the rift between central experts and zonal management.
* The ultimate aim of empowering WMGs to ''inter alia'' take over the role of CDFs created uncertainty amongst the CDFs about their job security - which needed to be addressed as part of the performance assessments of the CDFs.
* Success stories were often difficult to obtain for complex reasons – eg individual CDFs were criticised by their line managers for self-promotion, or there was a reluctance for an individual to document a community experience in which many CDFs had played a role, etc. However, once it had been established that the success stories were used in planning horizontal learning exchange visits, the initial reluctance to provide these case studies was overcome.
* An unwanted result of stimulating the flow of success stories meant that there became an unexpected singular 'focus on the positive' and that case studies which investigated 'why things didn't work' were avoided by zonal and polder level staff. From this, we learnt that nuanced messages were difficult to transfer through the chain of command. Thus, a 'counter campaign' was required to explain that learning opportunities from failures of interventions were a also a constructive part of the feedback process.
* In addition to their main purpose of empowering WMGs, polder teams became increasingly involved in data collection and preparatory works as well as other monitoring tasks for the project. There was a growing awareness that CDFs were not able to focus on their key activities, so a workload assessment for CDFs was carried out in June 2017 which revealed that - in addition to the project duties mentioned above - they were also fulfilling administrative responsibilities of the WMGs, such as preparing resolutions from meetings, organising elections and meetings, preparing for audits and AGMs etc. In order to return CDFs to their main purpose, the accumulated obligations of the TA team and WMGs were removed, in particular, WMGs were expected to carry out their own administration by themselves, and reporting responsibilities by the CDFs were streamlined.
* The decentralisation of the Blue Gold TA team took shape from 2016 (the fourth year of implementation). From 2017, there was a gradual transfer of staff from 'old' polders - where they had worked for the five year period of Blue Gold - into newly selected polders. In some new polders, where there had been no previous community mobilisation activity by earlier projects, CDFs working on the front-line observed that the new communities were much more willing to engage with them than those who 'knew what to expect' from previous experience with other projects and were more cynical.
* Staff reductions and transfers sometimes undermined the morale of the polder teams, and resulted in a loss of contextual information and networking knowledge from the institutional memory of the polder team. Whilst this loss of local knowledge from the TA polder team could interrupt the information flow within the TA team, it was of greater importance that this local knowledge was retained within the WMGs - and this should be the aim from the start of engagement with the WMG to the finish.
* Resistance to change in its many forms should be anticipated when a major reorganisation takes place. In any society, a change from a top-down to a bottom-up management system brings major upsets to many, especially those in a senior position with most to lose. While decentralisation aimed that WMGs take ownership of their activities at an early stage, often with only tacit support from CDFs and no involvement of senior TA staff, working with WMGs was likely to be scrutinised and possibly resisted by senior team members who were not included in the process. Recognising and rewarding these local initiatives was part of the process of encouraging others to 'let go of control', including recognising that not all local initiatives are successful or based on a representative collective view - experience had shown that local elites can capture decision making to serve their own specific interests. But this and other similar cases can also be used as a 'learning event' for the local WMG.

Whilst the length of this list of lessons learnt may appear disheartening, our aim is that future PWM projects will build on Blue Gold's experience with polder-based multi-disciplinary teams. Independent reviewers, such as Dr Shamsul Alam of the Planning Commission has endorsed his confidence in the approach, observing that:

'''The Dutch funded Blue Gold Program of Water Development Board is playing a role model for integrated water management in the coastal areas of Bangladesh. It is necessary to continue this as a role model even after the implementation period of Blue Gold Program. For this, government and private cooperation and effective participation of local people must be ensured.''' Dr Shamsul Alam, General Economics Division as published in 'Bonik Barta', 3rd February 2020 (See also full article in [[:File:3feb 20 সম্পাদকীয় PWM field experience Shamsul Alam Bangla.pdf|Bangla]] and [[:File:3feb 20 PWM field experience shamsul alam English.pdf|English]])

For polder teams to provide situation-specific and tailor-made support, they need to be given a clear mandate and authority and a suitable degree of freedom in their actions. This must be done from the onset of the project, rather than as an afterthought.

== Theory of Change: the emergence of a practical approach to PWM ==

=== 2016 Theory of Change ===
Starting from the approaches set down in [[:File:GoB MoWR GPWM April 2001.pdf|GPWM 2000]] and [[:File:GoB BWDB PWMR 2014 (english) 11feb 14.pdf|PWMR 2014]], Blue Gold developed and sharpened the concept of participatory water management (PWM) around four elements (which are further elaborated in [[19 Operationalisation of the PWM concept|Section D chapter 19]]):

# Promoting in-polder water management as a pre-requisite for commercialising agriculture;
# Making water management the core function of the WMOs;
# Empowering WMOs to seek out partnerships for local economic development;
# Forming WMOs within hydrological boundaries (as opposed to community or administrative boundaries).

Blue Gold's practical experience of developing PWM has also allowed an examination of the applicability of the [[:File:GoB BWDB PWMR 2014 (english) 11feb 14.pdf|Participatory Water Management Rules 2014]] (PWMR 2014), and resulted in a clearer understanding of the inter-relations between water resources infrastructure investment, organisation and cooperation, and opportunities for commercial agriculture in achieving local economic development objectives. An important contribution to this growing understanding was gained during the development of a ‘Theory of Change’ (ToC) in 2016.

The [[:File:WP5 - Theory of Change rev 2 25may 16.pdf|2016 Theory of Change]] (ToC) describes five main development pathways that comprise the BGP intervention. Within these five pathways, a total of 39 causal relationships are described, which link the actions of the Project, through a chain of effects and impacts to its intended development outcomes. Figure 30.3 provides a visual summary of the development pathways. [[File:Figure 5.1 toc old-01.png|center|thumb|'''Fig 30.3''' BGP Theory of Change – summary results chain (2016 version)|alt=]]

The Blue Gold activities are represented by the two boxes (water management support and agriculture and marketing support). The five main development pathways are:

* Pathway 1: From Water Management Support to Environmental Sustainability
* Pathway 2: From Water Management Support to Agricultural & Economic Development
* Pathway 3: From Agriculture & Marketing Support to Environmental Sustainability
* Pathway 4: From Agriculture & Marketing Support to Agricultural & Economic Development
* Pathway 5: From Environmental Sustainability and Agricultural & Economic Development to Improved Livelihoods

=== 2019 Theory of Change ===
During 2019, the Theory of Change was revised to better reflect the importance of in-polder water management as a means for achieving development outcomes. Figure 30.4 below is the distillation of Blue Gold’s experience, setting out the conceptual basis for PWM in coastal polders. The figure reads from bottom to top and shows the steps to achieve the objective of agriculture-based growth in the polders – of enhanced incomes and employment – resulting in overall economic development and poverty reduction. [[File:BGP ToC v9.png|center|thumb|600x600px|'''Fig 30.4''' Participatory Water Management – The BGP Theory of Change (2019 version)|alt=]]At the heart of Blue Gold are the local stakeholders, WMGs, which were empowered to be the drivers for local development through water management. The project focused on ‘in-polder water management’ – bringing benefits of water management to the polders, with increased returns from more intensive agriculture and more profitable crop choices. The expectation was that a portion of these increased returns would be contributed by stakeholders to the operation (eg salary of officials and gate keepers) and maintenance (eg painting of gates, clearance of sediment, water hyacinth etc) of the improved water management infrastructure.

As of June 2019, just under an average of BDT 7,000 - equivalent to Euro 70) was held in WMG bank accounts to fund O&M activities ([[:File:WP09H 30oct 19 WP9H WMG Tracker FINAL Report jun 19.pdf|WP9H WMG Tracker Final Report to June 2019]]). Given the anticipated scale of O&M expenditures, this is a negligible amount. Interviews with WMGs revealed that they preferred to fund specific O&M activities through a general collection from both WMG members and non-members - and this is could be in cash, by crop share or in labour. For the period July 2017 to June 2019, collective actions by WMGs on O&M activities averaged BDT 14,000 per WMG, mostly made in labour and in-kind contributions for khal clearance (41%), excavation of field channels (21%), embankment repair (18%) and repair of structures (19%).

To promote in-polder water management (IPWM), interventions were made through Blue Gold to improve or rehabilitate infrastructure, to develop institutional partnerships and to promote cropping patterns suited to the local conditions and from the perspective of farming-as-a-business:

* Infrastructure development initially focussed on rehabilitation works on embankments, sluices and primary ''khals'' or drainage channels. From 2015, Blue Gold promoted the utilisation and improvement of water management infrastructure to provide better conditions for agricultural production and sometimes fisheries: ''khals'' were cleaned, illegal obstructions (both cross-bundhs and fishing nets) were removed from the ''khals'' and communities were helped to invest in new small-scale infrastructure to optimise local conditions for profitable agriculture.
* Institutional development kicked-off with the establishment of WMGs (an average of 23 WMGs per polder), followed by a single WMA at polder level<ref>BWDB preference was to have a single WMA per polder so that there was a single point of contact for the O&M Agreement between the WMA and BWDB’s Executive Engineer. For historical reasons, and because of the large size and population of some of the Bleu Gold polders, it was impossible to have a single WMA per polder in all cases.</ref>. The initial focus on WMG formation and registration was replaced by the practical development of institutional networks – between WMGs/WMAs and departments, local governments, other community-based organisations and the private sector. By promoting partnerships for water management, WMGs and WMAs achieve much more than they would in isolation.
* For agriculture, the transfer of technology for field crops was led by DAE, and support was provided through the TA team working with the Department of Livestock Services (DLS) and Department of Fisheries (DoF) to diversify, increase and improve homestead production. For both field crops and homestead production, a strong market-orientation was provided. For field crops, the aim was to demonstrate how improved water management and a more desirable cropping pattern would realise higher productivity and profitability. Activities used to provide practical demonstrations included farmers’ field schools (FFSs), community-led agricultural water management (CAWM) schemes, the cropping intensification initiative (CII), and a large number of horizontal learning activities for field crop and homestead production. Collective activities, such as the bulk purchase of inputs (eg seeds and fertilisers) and the joint sale of agricultural produce, demonstrated the immediate benefits of working together – lower unit rates for bulk purchases and higher prices and/or additional services for bulk sale of agricultural produce (for example, collection of watermelons from the farm).

----Whilst some activities remain within one of the three activity areas of the ToC, there was increasing recognition of the importance of cross-linkages. For example, DAE used CAWM schemes to demonstrate adjustments to the year-round cropping cycle to favour the winter cultivation of high value crops. WMGs promoted crop synchronisation amongst the farmers so that planting of the T Aman (monsoon rice) crop could be carried out at the same time (with the result that drainage of the paddy fields prior to harvesting is also synchronised) and so that ''rabi'' winter crops – with higher profit margins than rice - could be planted in December.

The demonstration activities described above typically covered relatively small blocks of about 20 to 100 ha. But the aim of Blue Gold was to scale these benefits to a wider group of farmers, and eventually to all 22 polders. The first step was to encourage those farmers within the catchment drained by a regulator or sluice to agree on how the sluice should be operated so as to optimise water levels for all farmers in the catchment, and to also consider potential investments in works to improve the drainage (and irrigation) infrastructure within the catchment area. A typical sluice catchment area averages 470 ha (ranging from 185 ha to 1,300 ha) and involves up to five WMGs. There are many examples where catchment committees formed from these WMGs have used investment plans, backed collectively by the WMGs within the catchment area, to present a case for financial assistance from the Union Parishad (UP) - for example, for small-scale infrastructure such as the clearance of ''khals'' and construction of culverts. Over the years of BGP implementation, the (financial) support from UPs to WMGs for the implementation of small-scale water management infrastructure has increased significantly.

These various IPWM activities have resulted in:

* reduced waterlogging;
* higher cropping intensities and reduction in fallow areas;
* higher paddy production due to the selection of varieties which are better suited to local conditions (eg BR 52 which has submergence tolerance);
* an expansion of the area under high value crops such as watermelon and sunflower;
* development of water management partnerships;
* greater awareness of commercial opportunities, which led to higher incomes (for those who own and operate land) and better employment opportunities (for those who provide labour);
* Increases in farmers’ incomes, also enhancing non-farm economic development in the polders.

Local economic development is most effective when it is based on collaborative decisions by community-based water management organisations, technical departments, local governments and local businesses. When communities, leaders and experts work together there is an opportunity to take account of long-term sustainability and how outcomes contribute to livelihood of different classes of people. The majority of Blue Gold beneficiaries were smallholder farmers or landless farmers – making it a poverty-targeted project at its core.

==== Inclusiveness and Sustainability ====
Apart from in-polder water management being the main driver for to achieving BGP’s outcomes and impact, two transversal themes were considered essential for the success of the program: inclusiveness and sustainability, which became explicitly included as part of BGP’s Theory of Change, see Figure 30.4.

From its start, the Blue Gold Program aimed to be inclusive. Inclusive development intended to achieve that potentially all inhabitants of the Blue Gold polders, including marginalized groups, had access to opportunities and benefits created by BGP. In practice this meant that women / women farmers, landless and smallholder farmers were also explicitly targeted by BGP interventions. Gender mainstreaming was the main approach to ensure that women were reached (i.e. ensuring that activities involved both men and women). This was complimented by selected specific gender activities, eg for raising gender awareness and some special training for women, eg on market linkages and women’s empowerment. Poor and (nearly) landless households were reached by pro-poor interventions, including homestead FFS, and by creating income generating opportunities through Labour Contracting Societies, that acted as contractors to implement earthwork for the water management infrastructure. It should be realized that this inclusiveness approach was not only helpful to the concerned (marginal) groups, but also contributed to better achieving BGP’s goal of economic development within its polders.

The need for more attention to sustainability emerged at the start of BGP. The assumption, implicitly made in the Blue Gold [[:File:GoN Program Document BGP 28Aug12.pdf|Program Document]] of 2012, that organizing community members into WMGs and WMAs would be adequate enough to ensure that the Blue Gold outcomes would be sustained after the closing of the program, was found to be overoptimistic. This meant that over time more attention was given to sustainability, focusing on sustaining maintaining and operating the water management infrastructure, thereby discussing to which extent WMGs and WMAs are an end (and hence need to be sustained) or rather a tool (hence accepting that they become inactive if there is no felt need for them anymore). Maintaining and improving increased agricultural production as well as local capacities of polder inhabitants to cope and handle risks were also seen as important sustainability elements. Because the (future) role and capacity of BWDB as a support organisation of WMGs and WMAs, including to actively maintain major polder infrastructure, was considered very limited, other avenues of enhancing sustainability were emphasized, focusing more on the strengthening of local networks, involving local governments and relevant private sector actors.

== References ==
<references />

== Notes ==
<references group="Notes" />

== See more ==
{{ArtNav|Prev_chap=[[29 Technical Assistance: Context, Scope, Contractual Arrangements and External Service Contracts|Chapter 29: Technical Assistance: Context, Scope, Contractual Arrangements and External Service Contracts]]|Curr_sect=[[Summary of Section G: Project Management|Section G: Project Management]]|Next_chap=[[31 Capacity Building|Chapter 31: Capacity Building]]}}

{{SeeMoreSectionG}}

35 Management Information System

2021-09-30T12:58:15Z

Geerte:

Chapter 34 'Monitoring and Evaluation' describes the role of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in assisting strategic planning and management. Chapter 35 aims to complement the earlier chapter by describing the background leading to the emergence of a WMG tracker in 2016/17 as a response to:

* a growing capacity of WMGs in four key areas: economic development, water management, organisational management and capacity development;
* recognising the value of a dashboard to monitor the adoption of Blue Gold norms by individual polders;
* the value to the TA team of hands-on health checks conducted with specific WMGs; and
* the positive response from water management organisations to participatory monitoring and eventually to self-assessment.
The final sections of this chapter account for the development of a polder dashboard to provide an overview of the progress of individual polders towards the goals of the Blue Gold Program, and how 'health checks' of WMGs gave insights into progress, achievements and challenges, and allowed project resources to be targeted more effectively and efficiently. And finally, a discussion about arrangements for the continuation of self-assessments by WMGs after the project.

== Background ==
The original main purpose of monitoring and evaluation (M&E) in Blue Gold was to monitor and evaluate progress and achievements against key performance indicators of the program at output and outcome levels, with the aim of enhancing evidence to use in planning and management of the program. Information on, and the progress of different activities was collected by technical assistance (TA) sub-teams - then known as ‘components’ - who analysed the data and presented progress and shortcomings against the targets set in the Annual Work Plan - which in turn was based on the project logframe.

From the outset, data related to the different TA activities were collected – at output level as well as at outcome level. This data was then compiled and analysed, and reports were prepared:

* [[:File:TR06 Household Survey Report P22 30 43 2D 43 2F 31mar 14.pdf|TR06]] household surveys for P22, P30, P43/2D and P43/2F (31 Mar 2014)
* [[:File:TN07 FFS Cycle 4 Mar-Sep 2015 23dec 15.pdf|TN07]] FFS Cycle 4 benchmark and end data: Mar-Sep 2015 (23 Dec 2015)
* [[:File:TR14 Phase 1 Baseline Survey Report.pdf|TR14]] Phase I Socio-Economic Baseline Survey Report (28 Dec 2015)
* Master Files<ref group="Notes">The Master Files on these 12 polders were incorporated into the Polder Development Plans (PDPs). For the remaining 10 Blue Gold polders the information assembled for the Master Files was published only in the PDPs. </ref> with geography, present situation, economic sectors and potential value chains for [[:File:MF P2 master file 29jul 15.pdf|P2]], [[:File:MF P22 master file 15jun 14.pdf|P22]], [[:File:MF P26 master file 30sep 15.pdf|P26]], [[:File:MF P29 master file 4nov 14.pdf|P29]], P30, [[:File:MF P31-part master file 6apr 15.pdf|P31-part]], [[:File:MF P43 1A master file 4aug 15.pdf|P43/1A]], [[:File:MF P43 2A master file 26apr 15.pdf|P43/2A]], [[:File:MF P43 2B master file 7jul 15.pdf|P43/2B]], [[:File:MF P43 2D master file 20apr 15.pdf|P43/2D]], [[:File:MF P43 2E master file 24jun 15.pdf|P43/2E]] and [[:File:MF P43 2F 27sep 18.pdf|P43/2F]] (various dates from Jun 2014 to Sep 2018).

Figure 35.1 shows how data was collected, stored and distributed before the introduction of a digital management information system (MIS). The data were collected on paper and entered into spreadsheets, and were then analysed by specific individuals. Access to information by other project stakeholders was only then available through project reports, as processed data .

[[File:Figure 33.1.png|'''''Figure 35.1''' M&E data management system prior to MIS''|alt=|center|frame|border]]

== Establishing a WMG Tracker ==
In August 2016, as part of a refocusing of the scope of the monitoring, reflection and learning team, an activities plan<ref>{{Cite book|last=|first=|title=Monitoring, Reflection and Learning Plan|date=August 2016|publisher=Euroconsult Mott MacDonald|year=|isbn=|series=Working Paper 6|location=|pages=}}</ref> was prepared and discussed with the 2016 Annual Review Mission (ARM). This included a prototype WMG tracker which had been developed in September 2016. During its visit in October 2016, the ARM recommended that the strengthening of WMOs should ''“be supported with an adequate MIS system”,'' and that the TA’s prototype WMG tracker should be converted to a dashboard type MIS with target setting that is open access, with quarterly reports from the MIS provided to all stakeholders. (Recommendations 2.3 and 4.4)

A provisional format for data collection for the WMG Tracker was prepared in January 2017 and given to polder teams for a trial. WMG data was collected by TA polder-level staff, Community Development Facilitators (CDFs). Steps to overcome a difficulty with accurate data entry were agreed in March/April 2017 and the revised format was finalized in May 2017. A first report on the WMG Tracker<ref>{{Cite book|last=|first=|title=WMG Tracker Report – to June 2017|date=November 2017|publisher=|year=|isbn=|series=Working Paper 9A|location=|pages=}}</ref> for the period up to June 2017 was issued in November 2017. WMG tracker data continued to be collected by CDFs on a quarterly basis for each of the Blue Gold WMGs.
== Management Information System (MIS) ==
A vast amount of data is collected from the WMG Tracker and from field surveys and the participatory monitoring system. A rationalisation of the systems for data collection and management aimed to collect and store data from different sources at one location (a central server), which would allow better analysis and data presentation to aid decisions for project implementation. The main objectives of the Blue Gold MIS were therefore to:

* Collect and store information collected by the program in one place/server
* Standardise the information collected by the project;
* Present the data in standard reports that can be shared with program partners; and,
* Make the MIS accessible so that interested users can obtain and analyse data.

The ultimate aim of providing a consistent set of data for analysis, data presentation and reporting, was to facilitate informed, timely and evidence-based project decisions.

Figure 35.2 shows the proposed M&E data management system, in which data collected through electronic device are stored in a single location, the server where data can be analysed and presented in an MIS dashboard. In addition, data can be downloaded from the server in MS Excel for further analysis as may be required – all stakeholders have real time access to data and the dashboard without having to wait for a report to be generated.[[File:Figure 33.2.png|frame|'''''Figure 35.2''' Digital Management Information System''|alt=|center]]

== MIS Design and Development ==
In March 2017, Blue Gold contracted mPower Social Enterprises of Dhaka, to develop an MIS platform. Their specialist team included system design and database analysts, mobile and web app developers and quality assurance engineers. During the inception phase for mPower's project, the technical data requirements of Blue Gold stakeholders were mapped and the project activity chain was agreed. Proposed features of the MIS platform included customizing Open Data Kit (ODK) software so that data could be collected through android devices, and uploaded into a custom-made, cloud-based data collection system with a visual reporting dashboard at the front-end.

The MIS system was ready in October 2017, and output results from the WMG tracker were first [[:File:WMG tracker mPower presentation 25oct 17.pdf|presented]] to BWDB during a workshop on 25th October 2017. Training in the design and use of the database was then provided to staff of BWDB and DAE both in Dhaka and in field offices. The MIS system was used from June 2017 to June 2019, when the collection of data was discontinued because of the expectation (in June 2019) that there would be staffing reductions in preparation for closure of the program at end-June 2020.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Box 35.1 ''An overview of the MIS system''
|'''Blue Gold’s MIS system''' is a mobile, web-based solution with built-in forms for the collection and combination of historical data (from previous data sets), baseline data, WMG tracker data, participatory monitoring as well as outcome and impact assessment data. Data is entered through an android-based mobile application using standardised forms which – after completion – can be saved locally and reviewed and then submitted to the server.
Users are able to view and export raw data and review reports. Those with administrative user rights are able to create, assign, edit and build new functions into the system. Data required for reporting can be exported imported into the M&E database from the MIS, providing a quick and simple way to share the data without disrupting the proven MIS processes. All M&E databases and reports are available in the MIS. The MIS can also be linked to a GIS-enabled solution so that information can be depicted graphically on a cadastral map, with interrogation possible at division, District, Upazila, Union and WMG level.
|}

[[File:Figure 33.3.png|center|frame|'''''Figure 35.3''' An overview of the MIS system'']]

== MIS Results Reporting ==
Reports on the gathered data were available through a dashboard as well as in various working papers.

One series of working papers, WP9 (see below and in the File Library), presented an analysis of information of data collected through the WMG Tracker. They provided evidence of growing WMG capacity in four key areas: economic development, water management, organizational management and capacity development.
{| class="wikitable"
|22 November 2017
|[[:File:WP9A WMG Tracker Report without annexes to June 2017 23nov 17.pdf|WP 9A]]
|WMG Tracker Report-June 2017
|-
|15 April 2018
|[[:File:WP09B 11apr 18 WP9B WMG tracker to Dec 2017.pdf|WP 9B]]
|WMG Tracker Report-December 2017
|-
|20 June 2018
|[[:File:WP09C WMG Tracker Report to MARCH 2018 v5 20 06 2018 SKD.pdf|WP 9C]]
|WMG Tracker Report-March 2018
|-
|27 August 2018
|[[:File:WP09D WMG Tracker Report up to JUNE 2018 v4 27 08 2018 SKD.pdf|WP 9D]]
|WMG Tracker Report-June 2018
|-
|26 January 2019
|[[:File:WP09E WMG Tracker Report up to SEPT 2018 iss 26jan 19.pdf|WP 9E]]
|WMG Tracker Report-September 2018
|-
|20 February 2019
|[[:File:WP09F WMG Tracker Report to Dec 2018 iss 20feb 19 opt.pdf|WP 9F]]
|WMG Tracker Report-December 2018
|-
|16 May 2019
|[[:File:WP09G WMG Tracker Report up to MARCH 2019 v3 16 05 2019 SKD.pdf|WP 9G]]
|[[:File:WP09G WMG Tracker Report up to MARCH 2019 v3 16 05 2019 SKD.pdf|WMG Tracker Report-March 2019]]
|-
|30 October 2019
|[[:File:WP09H 30oct 19 WP9H WMG Tracker FINAL Report jun 19.pdf|WP 9H]]
|[[:File:WP09H 30oct 19 WP9H WMG Tracker FINAL Report jun 19.pdf|WMG Tracker Report-June 2019]]
|}
BWDB’s Project Coordinating Director (PCD) used the dashboard, analysed and cross-checked data, and monitored the activities and progress of WMGs. He used information from the dashboard in preparing articles for publication in newspapers, making presentations, and shared information on WMOs with other BWDB officials.

== WMG Tracker Closure ==
Plans to discontinue the WMG tracker were made during 2019, as part of a gradual phasing out of TA staff in expectation of project closure at end-December 2020, and with reductions in TA polder-level staffing (the staff who collected the raw data) planned at end-December 2019, and in the absence of a stakeholder willing to take over its management. The final report was issued in October 2019 based on information collected from April to June 2019.

== Polder Dashboard ==
To provide an overview of the progress of individual polders towards the goals of the Blue Gold Program, ten proxy indicators were identified from project monitoring tools to represent the four broad thematic areas towards empowering WMGs:

* overall achievement
* organisation
* water management, and
* economic development

For each of the ten indicators, targets were set for achievement by end-June 2020 but without defining the modality, thus freeing polder teams to select implementation arrangements which best suited the local environment, in other words, providing ‘a clear destination’ but with some flexibility as to how to get there. Figure 35.3 provides an example of a dashboard summarising results as of June 2019. A short note accompanied the dashboard to identify actions required to achieve the targets, and to identify the achievements for each polder and to recommend corrective actions (for example, see the note dated September 2019).

The polder dashboard was in use from December 2018 to September 2019 but discontinued when information for the WMG tracker - from which some of the proxy indicators were derived - ceased to be collected from end-September 2019.
[[File:Fig 35 3 polder dashboard 30sep 19.pdf|center|thumb|805x805px|'''''Fig 35.4''''' ''Polder Dashboard to end-June 2019'']]

== Polder "Health Checks" ==
In addition to the quantitative data obtained on polder and WMG performance, qualitative polder “health checks” have been carried out by multidisciplinary teams of TA staff (see example output in Figure 35.4). These health checks were intended as a third-eye, qualitative assessment, which in combination with quantitative project data, provides insight into progress, achievements and challenges in specific polders, and help the team to target project resources more effectively and efficiently.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Table 35.1 '''''Health Check for Polder 29 WMG'''''
!'''Topic'''
!'''Snap shot of discussion'''
!'''Outcome & Remark'''
|-
!'''Goal'''
|Members think WMG is for achieving something jointly. They gave emphasis to water management for development.
|This is an organisation based on a temple. It is a close-knit community. Whatever, the goal, they focused mostly on unity.
|-
!'''Leadership'''
|It is a close-knit temple committee. Same leadership since 2005.
|Members think they are well consulted. They are happy with leadership. Seems mostly democratic.
|-
!'''O & M'''
|They performed collective actions for improved water management.
|Collected BDT 4,150 yearly from members. When needed they employ self-labor and raise fund.
|-
!'''Networking'''
|Sound knowledge about potential support they can get from DAE, DLS and LGIs.
|It seems that leadership is well-shaped to network with GoB organisations and LGIs.
|-
!'''Sustainability'''
|They are very confident about sustaining as WMG. They have been working as a coherent group since 2005.
|They are more a temple committee who are ready to work jointly to solve any problems; WMG is just a label for them.
|-
!'''Functionality'''
|They have the potential to evolve / sustain.
|Leadership & members need to strengthen vision.
|}

== Participatory Monitoring ==
Through participatory monitoring of both WMGs (from October 2016 to October 2019) and WMAs (from May to October 2019), WMGs and WMAs had rich experience of using monitoring information to make decisions. Working papers WP8 are a series of reports using information collected through participatory monitoring at WMG level to present self-assessments by WMGs of their performance against potential targets at outcome level – and actions required to move towards full achievement of the targets.
{| class="wikitable"
|28-Feb-17
|[[:File:WP08A participatory monitoring red 28feb 17.pdf|WP 8A]]
|Participatory Monitoring October - November 2016
|-
|20-Nov-17
|[[:File:WP08B participatory monitoring v4 20nov 17.pdf|WP 8B]]
|Participatory Monitoring April-May 2017
|-
|07-Apr-18
|[[:File:WP08C participatory monitoring oct nov 2017 5apr 18.pdf|WP 8C]]
|Participatory Monitoring October -November 2017
|-
|24-Jul-18
|[[:File:WP08D Report on Participatory Monitoring Apr-May 2018 v1 24jul 18.pdf|WP 8D]]
|Report on Participatory Monitoring April/May 2018
|-
|26-Jan-19
|[[:File:WP08E Report on Participatory Monitoring Oct 2018 iss 26jan 19.pdf|WP 8E]]
|Report on Participatory Monitoring October 2018
|-
|10-Jul-19
|[[:File:WP08F report on Participatory Monitoring Apr 2019 v1 10jul 19.pdf|WP 8F]]
|Report on Participatory Monitoring April 2019
|-
|15-Dec-19
|[[:File:WP08G Report on Participatory Monitoring Oct 2019 15dec 19.pdf|WP 8G]]
|Report on Participatory Monitoring October 2019
|}
Working papers WP10 use information collected through participatory monitoring at WMA level to present self-assessments by WMAs of their performance against potential targets at outcome level.
{| class="wikitable"
|05-Aug-19
|[[:File:WP10A WMA Participatory Monitoring May 2019 5aug 19.pdf|WP 10A]]
|WMA Participatory Monitoring to May 2019
|-
|24-Dec-19
|[[:File:WP10B WMA Participatory Monitoring Oct 2019 23dec 19 opt.pdf|WP 10B]]
|WMA Participatory Monitoring to October 2019
|}

== Post-Project Monitoring ==
Whilst the closure of the WMG tracker was because of resource constraints within the TA team, WMAs - the key players for polder water management - had indicated their interest in continuing to operate and use a streamlined version of the self-monitoring system beyond the end of TA involvement. In addition, a meeting held on 20th August 2019 with representatives of EKN/BWDB/TA supported the continuation and suggested that the views of potential stakeholders and options for handover should be examined. During this review, BWDB’s Chief Water Management (CWM) and WMO representatives agreed that the monitoring should continue, but because of resource constraints, CWM requested that WMOs take the major responsibility for data collection and management. The WMOs were willing, but unable to handle large amounts of data. To minimise data processing and reporting, an ICT-based data collection and reporting system was proposed, with WMGs and WMAs collecting and entering data on their status and performance.

== Self-assessment of WMG performance ==
WMAs and WMGS are familiar with the process of participatory monitoring. For three years (from October 2016 to October 2019), WMAs and WMGs have assessed their progress and performance against potential development targets - and have used this information in meetings to decide on interventions to lead to a full achievement of those targets. During this participatory monitoring, Blue Gold worked with the WMOs to evolve the process and to observe how the output was used to encourage internal reflection by the WMO – with actions corresponding with the targets. With this experience, there is reasonable confidence that WMOs will continue the self-monitoring using the mobile App. The presence of the TA team in 2020/21 (at a reduced level) will allow some hands-on assistance to establish a quarterly monitoring routine - led and owned by the WMAs.

In January 2020, an IT solution provider, mPower Social Enterprises of Dhaka<ref group="Notes">mPower Social Enterprises had worked earlier with Blue Gold in developing the overall MIS system so were already familiar with the project and its aims and objectives.</ref>, was contracted to develop a web-based system for collating and organising data about the status and progress of activities collected and entered by WMGs and WMAs - and for it to be automatically uploaded to a web-platform. The system has been designed so that WMOs can collect data through, and view results in Bangla on, their mobile phones. The mobile application is used for data collection each quarter. Through self-monitoring, the WMAs and WMGs are able to examine their performance in three key areas of their organizations:

* Legality – Does the WMA, and its constituent WMGs, still comply to the formal requirements of its registration: are there timely elections, are accounts ready for audit, are annual general meetings (AGMs) held?
* Legitimacy – is the WMA recognised within the polder; does it represent 70% of active WMGs and well-connected to LGI, BWDB and others?
* Functionality – Does the WMA do what it is set-up for: ensure catchment management plans are current, and that water management activities are carried out?

The performance assessments are colour coded, and WMAs can also access status reports of their constituent WMGs as well as the status reports of other WMAs (for purposes of comparison).

At the time of writing (in March 2021), two rounds of WMO self-assessment have by been conducted using the IT-based mobile application, and a third is planned for Q1 2021. All WMOs were trained in the use of the App, and most WMOs - 35 out of 36 WMAs and 507 out of 511 WMGs - participated in the self-monitoring exercise. The feedback from the WMOs has been mostly positive, they find the system simple and intuitive. The two main challenges were that: (a) the App couldn’t be installed on some of the WMO mobiles because the configuration was incompatible; and (b) the signal from the mobile network was not always sufficiently strong to operate the App.

The polder teams have reviewed the monitoring results with a number of WMAs and WMGs during meetings for other purposes, during which they encourage the WMOs to reflect on the results and plan follow-up actions. From March 2020 and through the first half of 2021 (when permitted by government restrictions to minimise the spread of COVID), WMA capacity building workshops used the self-monitoring outcomes to help WMAs analyse their strengths and the areas for improvement.

Reports (in English) on the findings of the first two self-monitoring exercises are available in the File Library:
{| class="wikitable"
|28-Dec-20
|[[:File:WP11A WMO self-monitoring Q3-2020 28dec 20.pdf|WP 11A]]
|WMO Self-Monitoring Q3- 2020
|-
|25-Mar-21
|[[:File:WP11B WMO self-monitoring Q4-2020 25mar 21 opt.pdf|WP 11B]]
|WMO Self-Monitoring Q4- 2020
|-
|
|WP 11C
|WMO Self-Monitoring Q1- 2021
|}

== Notes ==
<references group="Notes" />

== References ==
<references />

== See more ==
{{ArtNav|Prev_chap=[[34 Monitoring and evaluation|Chapter 34: Monitoring and evaluation]]|Curr_sect=[[Summary of Section G: Project Management|Section G: Project Management]]|Next_chap=[[36 Environmental Due Diligence|Chapter 36: Environmental Due Diligence]]}}

{{SeeMoreSectionG}}

02 Institutional Setting

2021-09-30T12:48:52Z

Geerte:

This chapter presents the organisations that gave direction and shape to the Blue Gold Program. It presents the development partners that own the program, the implementation agencies and key implementation partners, as well as other public and private sector agencies that played an important role in program implementation.

==Executive Authorities==
The Administrative Arrangement and the Contribution Arrangement - which formed the legal basis for establishing the Blue Gold Program – were signed on 20th February 2013 and 4th December 2013 respectively, between the Minister of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation of the Netherlands, represented by the Ambassador of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Dhaka on the one hand; and the Economic Relations Division of the Ministry of Finance of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, on the other.

The original agreements covered a period of six years (i.e. up to 19th February 2019) but this was extended to 31st December 2020 through an amendment signed on 29th December 2016<ref>Amendment 2 to the Administrative Arrangement signed on 29th December 2016</ref>, and to 31st December 2021 through an amendment signed on 21st October 2020<ref>Amendment 3 to the Administrative Arrangement signed on 21st October 2020</ref>. The agreements stipulate ''inter alia'' that Bangladesh’s Ministry of Water Resources and the Embassy of the Kingdom of The Netherlands were ‘Executive Authorities’.<ref>Administrative Agreement, signed on 20th February 2013</ref>

===Ministry of Water Resources<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://mowr.gov.bd/site/page/328c56b4-a102-48bc-be1c-bbc6a99c902d/Brief-History|title=Brief-History - পানি সম্পদ মন্ত্রণালয়-গণপ্রজাতন্ত্রী বাংলাদেশ সরকার|last=|first=|date=|website=Text based on the brief history of MWRI|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=}}</ref>===
The Ministry of Water Resources is mandated to develop and manage all water resources of the country. It formulates policies, plans, strategies, guidelines, instructions, acts, rules and regulations relating to the development and management of water resources; and it governs a number of professional organisations within the water sector.

According to the [[:File:GoB MoWR National Water Policy January 1999.pdf|National Water Policy, 1999]] the Ministry is responsible for the formulation of a framework for institutional reforms to guide all water sector related activities. Inter alia, the Ministry prepared the [[:File:GoB MoWR GPWM April 2001.pdf|Guidelines for Participatory Water Management (GPWM)]] which is followed by stakeholders at all levels, and which was – as discussed later – a highly important strategic document for BGP.

MoWR’s policy role also includes:

*Macro-planning exercises. The Water Resources Planning Organization (WARPO) of the Ministry has prepared the [[:File:GoB National Water Policy 1999 bangla.pdf|National Water Policy]], the Coastal Zone Policy, National Water Resources Database (NWRD), National Water Management Plan (NWMP) and Integrated Coastal Resources Database (ICRD). Recently, WARPO led the preparation of the [[:File:GoB WARPO Bangladesh Water Act 2013 (English).pdf|2013 Water Act]], its underlying [[:File:GoB WARPO Water Rules Bidhimala aug 18 (Bangla).pdf|Water Rules (2018)]] and the subsequent guidelines for integrated water resources management (2019) for [[:File:GoB WARPO Water Rules District Guideline 2019.pdf|District]], [[:File:GoB WARPO Water Rules Upazila Parishad Guidelines 2019 bangla.pdf|Upazila]] and [[:File:GoB WARPO Water Rules - Union Parishad Guideline 2019 bangla.pdf|Union]] levels.
*Knowledge development and coordination.
**The River Research Institute (RRI) undertakes physical and mathematical modelling of the river system and supports the Joint Rivers Commission to act as the secretariat for the Ministry with respect to shared management of transboundary rivers;
**The Institute of Water Modelling (IWM) provides public services in the field of physical and mathematical water modelling, whereas
**The Center for Environmental and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS) provides services in the field of integrated environmental analysis using geographical information systems, remote sensing, and other forms of ICT-based information management.
**International cooperation, liaison with international organisations, processing matters relating to treaties and agreements with other countries and world bodies in the field of water development and management.

In addition to its role in policy development, strategic planning and coordination, MoWR is also described as a development ministry. It prepares, implements and monitors water sector development projects that are funded by GoB solely or jointly with international partners; processes the approval of such projects by the Planning Commission as well as the release of necessary funds through the Annual Development Plan; and oversees the administration of such projects.

MoWR-implemented development projects relate to flood control and drainage (FCD); flood control, drainage and irrigation (FCDI); riverbank erosion control; delta development and land reclamation; and provide irrigation, drainage, flood protection, bank erosion protection, land reclamation facilities by constructing barrages, regulators, sluices, canals, cross-dams, embankments and sea-dykes along the banks of the rivers and the coast. The Bangladesh Water Development Board (BWDB) is the principal implementing agency of the Ministry for such projects; with the Bangladesh Haor and Wetland Development Board (BHWDB) playing a similar role for the development of haors and wetlands.

The Blue Gold Program was governed by the policy framework of the Ministry, and specifically by its Guidelines for Participatory Water Management (GPWM). It applied these guidelines through a development investment to selected polder areas in the South-West of Bangladesh, through the Bangladesh Water Development Board.

The Blue Gold Program, however, transcended disciplinary boundaries and complemented the investment in better water management conditions with support to agricultural development.

===Embassy of the Kingdom of The Netherlands<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.netherlandsandyou.nl/your-country-and-the-netherlands/bangladesh/and-the-netherlands/development-coorporation|title=Development cooperation: the Netherlands and Bangladesh|last=|first=|date=|website=The section is based inter alia on Kingdom of Netherlands website.|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=}}</ref>===
The Netherlands established a diplomatic mission in Bangladesh shortly after the country’s independence. The Embassy of the Kingdom of The Netherlands (EKN) had an initial strong focus on supporting the development of the new nation, but over the years assumed a growing focus on stimulating a sustainable trade relationship between both countries.

The Netherlands’ development cooperation with Bangladesh aims to improve living conditions of the poor, particularly in three areas: water, sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), and food security. Another priority is labour conditions in the Ready-Made Garments (RMG) sector. Activities align with national policy and development plans. EKN pursues partnerships, and complements technical assistance with investment funds from international financial institutions (IFI).

The overall aim of the EKN water program is to contribute to a healthy living environment for and the wellbeing of the population, as well as economic growth. Particular focus is on the poor and vulnerable, who are likely to be affected by more extreme rainfall, higher sea water levels, increasing industrial pollution and further urbanisation.

At the time of formulating the Blue Gold Program, the EKN focused its support to south-west Bangladesh, reflecting ''inter alia'' the need to address the high regional incidence of poverty and the after-effects of recent cyclones. After 2014 – prompted by climate change – the focus of the EKN water program shifted to water sector resilience and governance. A flagship investment was made in the development of the Bangladesh Delta Plan 2100 (BDP), while BGP’s focus on decentralised governance of local water systems remained well-aligned to the overall program objectives and focus.

EKN's strategy for supporting food security builds on its synergy with improved water resource management and infrastructure for agricultural production; but it adds important focus on fisheries and aquaculture development, livestock development and nutrition. Moreover, the strategy seeks to help small producers develop profitable linkages with input and output markets, trough active involvement of the private sector, facilitation of market access and value chain development.

The synergy between the water and agriculture program of EKN, the focus of the former on resilience and governance and the focus of the latter on a broad definition of agriculture with attention to market integration is strongly reflected in the design of BGP; and it followed logically that EKN welcomed both MoWR and MoA as development partners for BGP.

===Ministry of Agriculture<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://moa.gov.bd/|title=কৃষি মন্ত্রণালয়|last=|first=|date=|website=The section reflects information found on the Ministry’s website.|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=}}</ref>===
The Administrative Arrangement for BGP indicated that a proportion of the funds made available for the Project were to be administered by the Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE), which comes under the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA). Although MoA is not identified in the Administrative arrangement as an Executive Authority, it has played an influential role in policy-level decisions concerning BGP alongside the two Executive Authorities, MoWR and EKN.

The Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) comprises seven wings with responsibilities of policy formulation, planning, monitoring and administration as shown below. Sixteen agencies operate under this ministry which are responsible for implementation of the different projects and plans of MOA. MoA's mandate includes:

*Develop policies, plans, regulations, and acts for sustainable agricultural development and for self-sufficiency in food;
*Provide support in developing new agricultural technologies to boost agricultural production and coordinate with local and international trade agencies for marketing;
*Monitor implementation of agricultural policies, plans, projects, programs and regulations;
*Monitor distribution of agricultural inputs and subsidies and marketing of the agricultural products in local and international markets;
*Update the capacity of professionals and other stakeholder with respect to recent global agricultural developments;
*Provide administrative and policy support to MoA agencies for planning and implementation of development programs/projects and coordinate with donors and development partners for funding and technical assistance.

The Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE) is the main agency of the Ministry for implementing projects aimed at optimising agricultural production. DAE is strictly concerned with field crops, as services in the fields of livestock and fisheries resort under the Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock.

==Implementing Agencies==
The Administrative Agreement for the Blue Gold Program set out the arrangements for project implementation, through the Bangladesh Water Development Board and the Department of Agricultural Extension. Resources were also allocated via the technical assistance contract to the Department of Fisheries (DoF) and the Department of Livestock Services (DLS), both of which come under the Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock, and initially to the Department of Cooperatives (DoC), under the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives.

===Bangladesh Water Development Board===
The Bangladesh Water Development Board (BWDB) started operations in 1959 as the water wing of the erstwhile East Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (EPWAPDA) and was established as BWDB in 1972 after independence, when the former EPWAPDA was split into two organisations: BWDB dealing with water and PDB dealing with power.). BWDB has a long history with the implementation of major water resources projects. It is responsible for preparing and implementing development projects related to flood control, drainage and irrigation, including riverbank protection, coastal development and land reclamation. The [[:File:GoB MoWR National Water Policy January 1999.pdf|National Water Policy]] specifies that this mandate is for development projects benefitting 1,000 ha or more.

BWDB is an autonomous organisation mandated to undertake activities for the whole of Bangladesh or any part thereof for development and efficient management of water resources. It exercises the right of the government to control the flow of water in all rivers, channels and underground aquifers. To this end, it develops standards and guidelines for the operation and maintenance of all water management structures; it signs contracts for procurement of works, goods and services in connection with project implementation; it can – with prior government approval – levy and collect service charges for operation and maintenance and cost recovery of FCDI projects; and execute water related projects on behalf of any public agency with full technical, administrative and financial control of the project.<ref>{{Cite act|type=Act|index=XXVI|year=2000|title=The Bangladesh Water Development Board Act|legislature=Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh}}</ref>

BWDB was responsible as lead executing agency for the overall implementation of the Blue Gold Program from planning to approval of completed works and for establishing arrangements for operation and maintenance. A Program Coordinating Director (PCD) was appointed by BWDB as its representative for the daily operations of the Blue Gold Program. The Director DP-III was appointed as PCD. For the execution of the activities related to the water resources infrastructure in the polders, Blue Gold worked with the Zonal Offices of the Chief Engineers in the Southern and South-Western Zones, and the associated O&M Circles and Divisional offices. Within BWDB Headquarters in Dhaka (initially in Motijheel, and from April 2020 in Pani Bhaban, Green Road), Blue Gold also worked with the Chief Engineer (Civil) Design, the Office of Chief Water Management (OCWM), Chief Staff Development and Training, Chief Engineer Mechanical Equipment (ME) and the Chief Engineer O&M. BWDB management was responsible for ensuring effective cooperation between DP-III and the BWDB offices mentioned.<ref>{{Cite report|url=https://www.bluegoldwiki.com/index.php?title=File:GoN_Program_Document_BGP_28Aug12.pdf|title=Program for Integrated Sustainable Economic Development by improving the Water and Productive Sectors in selected Polders|last=Government of Bangladesh|first=|last2=Government of Netherlands|date=August 2012|issue=|doi=|volume=Program Document|pmid=|last3=Blue Gold|access-date=}}</ref>

The Chief Engineer for the South-Western Zone is based in Khulna. He is supported by two Superintending Engineers: Khulna O&M Circle (with 5 BGP Polders) and Jessore O&M Circle (with 7 BGP polders). Two Executive Engineers, who report to the Superintending Engineer for Khulna O&M Circle, are responsible for the following Divisions (and Blue Gold polders): Satkhira O&M Division-2 (P2) and Khulna O&M Division-2 (P22, P30, P31-part and P34/2-part). One Executive Engineer, who reports to the Superintending Engineer for Jessore O&M Circle, is responsible for Khulna O&M Division-1 (P25, P26, P27/1, P27/2, P28/1, P28/2 and P29).

The Chief Engineer for the Southern Zone is based in Barisal. He is supported by a Superintending Engineer for Patuakhali Water Development (WD) Circle based in Patuakhali, who is responsible for 10 BGP polders. A Superintending Engineer for Barisal Circle also reports to the Chief Engineer of Southern Zone, but there are no BGP polders in his jurisdiction. Three Executive Engineers, who report to the Superintending Engineer for Patuakhali WD Circle, are responsible for the following Divisions (and Blue Gold polders): Barguna O&M (P43/1A and P43/2F); Patuakhali O&M (P43/2A, P43/2B, P43/2D, P43/2E, P 55/2A and P 55/2C); and Patuakhali WD, Kalalapara (P47/3 and P47/4).These jurisdictions are summarised in the table (Table 2.1), while Figure 2.1 provides a map, which overlays the Blue Gold polders on the boundaries of the six BWDB divisions, three circles and two zones that are responsible for implementing Blue Gold.

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: left; margin: auto;"
|+Table 2.1: BWDB Jurisdiction by Division, Circle and Zone for BGP Polders
!'''Polder / District'''
!'''BWDB Zone'''
!'''BWDB Circle'''
!'''BWDB Division'''
!'''Gross Area''' (ha)
!'''Embankment'''
(km)
|-
| colspan="6" |
|-
|P2
|SW
|Khulna O&M
|Satkhira O&M-2
|12,600
|64
|-
|'''Satkhira'''
|'''SW'''
| colspan="2" |
|'''12,600'''
|'''64'''
|-
| colspan="6" |
|-
|P22
|SW
|Khulna O&M
|Khulna O&M-2
|1,630
|20.0
|-
|P26
|SW
|Jessore O&M
|Khulna O&M-1
|2,696
|29.0
|-
|P29
|SW
|Jessore O&M
|Khulna O&M-1
|8,218
|49.0
|-
|P30
|SW
|Khulna O&M
|Khulna O&M-2
|6,396
|40.0
|-
|P31-Part
|SW
|Khulna O&M
|Khulna O&M-2
|4,848
|26.7
|-
|P25
|SW
|Jashore O&M
|Khulna O&M-1
|17,400
|61.0
|-
|P27/1
|SW
|Jashore O&M
|Khulna O&M-1
|3,765
|30.0
|-
|P27/2
|SW
|Jashore O&M
|Khulna O&M-1
|495
|15.3
|-
|P28/1
|SW
|Jashore O&M
|Khulna O&M-1
|5,600
|32.2
|-
|P28/2
|SW
|Jashore O&M
|Khulna O&M-1
|2,590
|30.0
|-
|P34/2 part
|SW
|Khulna O&M
|Khulna O&M-2
|4,900 (5,633)
|52.0
|-
|'''Khulna'''
|'''SW'''
| colspan="2" |
|'''58,538'''
|'''385.2'''
|-
| colspan="6" |
|-
|P43/1A
|S
|Patuakhali WD
|Barguna O&M
|2,675
|27.1
|-
|P43/2A
|S
|Patuakhali WD
|Patuakhali O&M
|5,182
|39.0
|-
|P43/2B
|S
|Patuakhali WD
|Patuakhali O&M
|5,460
|39.8
|-
|P43/2D
|S
|Patuakhali WD
|Patuakhali O&M
|6,500
|42.4
|-
|P43/2E
|S
|Patuakhali WD
|Patuakhali O&M
|1,650
|20.0
|-
|P43/2F
|S
|Patuakhali WD
|Barguna O&M
|4,453
|33.0
|-
|P55/2A
|S
|Patuakhali WD
|Patuakhali O&M
|7,166
|45.0
|-
|P55/2C
|S
|Patuakhali WD
|Patuakhali O&M
|6,275 (7,120)
|47.5
|-
|P47/3
|S
|Patuakhali WD
|Patuakhali WD, Kalapara
|2,025
|19.7
|-
|P47/4
|S
|Patuakhali WD
|Patuakhali WD, Kalapara
|6,600
|59.0
|-
|'''Patuakhali'''
|'''S'''
| colspan="2" |
|'''47,986'''
|'''372.5'''
|-
| colspan="6" |
|-
|'''TOTAL'''
|'''2 Zones'''
|'''3 Circles'''
|'''6 Divisions'''
|'''119,124'''
|'''821.7'''
|}
[[File:BWDB Circles, Divisions, BGP polders, Roads.pdf|alt=|center|thumb|898x898px|'''Figure 2.1''' BWDB administrative areas and BGP polder location]]
The administrative boundaries for the BWDB differ from the boundaries adhered to by regional and local governments (Division, District, Upazila, Union) and the BWDB is not decentralised at any of the regional or local levels of administration.

Although not explicit in the BGP Program Document, the BWDB Office of the Chief Water Management (OCWM) played a role in BGP with respect to community participation. OCWM is responsible for the following: preparing and periodically updating of the Participatory Water Management Rules that apply to BWDB; supervising community mobilisation in BWDB projects that include establishment of participatory water management; directing the process of establishment of Water Management Organisations; and – from 2014 onwards – for registering WMOs. OCWM is, however, severely constrained in human and financial resources and was unable to mobilise polder-level staff for organisational development through its own resources. In BGP, polder-level staff are mobilised through the TA team.

===Department of Agricultural Extension===
The present Agriculture Extension Department (DAE) was formed in 1982. From 1990 onwards it adopted the concept of group-based extension services. The 1996 New Agriculture Extension Policy (NAEP) further consolidated the Agriculture Extension Service. DAE’s mission is to provide efficient and effective needs-based extension services to all categories of farmers, to enable them to optimise their use of resources, in order to promote sustainable agricultural and socio-economic development.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.dae.gov.bd/site/page/545aac27-134b-49ee-aa31-3eb9a5aed928/-|title=Based on DAE’s website information|last=|first=|date=|website=কৃষি সম্প্রসারণ অধিদপ্তর-গণপ্রজাতন্ত্রী বাংলাদেশ সরকার|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=}}</ref>

DAE is decentralised up to Union-level. Through this decentralised structure, DAE provides crop-based extension services, along with services with respect to inputs and plant protection, through Farmer Field Schools (FFSs). The usual point of contact between farmers and DAE is at field level, through Sub-Assistant Agricultural Officers (SAAOs). Although farmers also come into contact with DAE through mass media, the success of extension services is largely dependent on the quality of the personal contact between SAAOs and farmers.

Within BGP, DAE implemented intensified crop-based extension in the thirteen Upazilas which cover the 22 BGP polders, or parts thereof (see Table 2.2 below). DAE was the primary government counterpart agency responsible for supervising the food security activities of BGP. A senior officer was designated as a dedicated national project director based in DAE's head office in Khamar Bari, Dhaka.

===Implementation Partners===
The Program Document identified the Departments of Cooperatives (DoC), Fisheries (DoF) and Livestock Services (DLS) also as implementing agencies. Since no separate DPP was established for the three departments, financial assistance was provided through EKN's Technical Assistance (TA) funds.

The '''Department of Cooperatives (DoC)''' comes under the administrative control of the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives (MoLGRDC) and is responsible for the registration of, support to and auditing of cooperatives. DoC is established at the District and Upazila levels. Through assistance from LGED’s ADB-supported Small-Scale Participatory Water Resources Management Project, DoC established a Water Cell to monitor the performance of Water Management Cooperative Associations. The design of Blue Gold anticipated that DoC’s assistance would be continued throughout the life of BGP. However, the 2014 Participatory Water Management Rules (PWMR) introduced registration of WMOs directly under BWDB and DoC’s intended role has since become obsolete. The key role of auditing of the WMOs, which would be outsourced through DoC, had been transferred to the BWDB Audit Department. Given the change introduced by the new rules, the memorandum of understanding proposed to be signed between BWDB and DoC, therefore became superfluous.

The '''Department of Fisheries''' (DoF) and the '''Department of Livestock Services''' (DLS) both come under the administrative control of the Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock. Both DoF and DLS supported BGP through their officers at District and Upazila level. They have been involved in the activity planning in the polders and as advisors to the TA-consultant on the creation of farmer field schools (FFSs) for fish and livestock. The involvement of DoF and DLS was governed by memoranda of understanding (MoU) between respectivelt [[:File:MoU DoF 25nov 14.pdf|DoF]] and [[:File:MoU DLS 30apr 14.pdf|DLS]] and the BWDB; with resources reserved in the TA budget. The MoUs designate focal points to coordinate fisheries and livestock activities in Blue Gold.

==Other public sector organisations==
Water management by its very nature transcends disciplinary boundaries as well as the borderlines between departments and agencies. In the course of BGP implementation relations were established with Local Government Institutions and with additional technical departments.

===Local Government Institutions===
The support of the Union Parishad and the Upazila Parishad proved to be essential for the successful implementation of BGP.

The Union is the lowest level of Government and is governed by a board (Parishad) comprised of elected male and female members representing the nine wards that comprise a Union, headed by an elected chairperson. The UP chairperson is mandated through the Participatory Water Management Rules to advise the Water Management Organisations. At the same time, the WMOs – being community-based organisations – are an important partner for the coordination mechanisms established within each Union: Ward sobha (public meeting), standing committees and Union Development Coordination Committee (UDDC). WMOs are also a natural stakeholder in the Union’s mandated activities in the field of disaster preparedness and emergency response.

Unions can play an important role towards water management by encouraging WMO formation; by assisting in planning works on embankments, khals and sluices; and by enhancing synergy between water sector development efforts in their areas. A number of departments, including DAE, are decentralised to the Union level and have staff posted in each Union.

The Upazila (‘sub-District’) is the next tier of local government. It is governed by a board (parishad) comprised of the Union chairpersons, headed by an elected Upazila chairperson and assisted by a government-assigned Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO or Upazila Executive Officer). The chair and the UNO have a co-signing responsibility. DoF and DLS have staff at the Upazila. The BWDB is not represented at Upazila (or Union) level.

While most issues in project implementation are, as far as local government is concerned, primarily addressed by the Unions, the Upazila is an important entity in those cases where the issue has to be addressed by higher authorities.

For most organisations other than BWDB, locations are described in terms of mouza, village, Union, and Upazilas rather than by polder number. The maps below provide overlays of the Blue Gold polders on maps of Upazilas and Unions. Table 2.2 summarises the polder locations in administrative terms.
{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
|+Table 2.2: Polder locations by Division, District, Upazila and Union
!'''Polder'''
!'''Division'''
!'''District'''
!'''Upazila'''
!'''Unions'''
|-
| colspan="5" |
|-
|P22
|Khulna
|Khulna
|Paikgacha
|Deluti
|-
|P26
|Khulna
|Khulna
|Dumuria
|Shovna
|-
|P29
|Khulna
|Khulna
|Dumuria, Batiaghata
|Dumuria (Dumuria, Sahas, Bhandar Para, Sarappur);

Batiaghata (Surkhali)
|-
|P30
|Khulna
|Khulna
|Batiaghata
|Batiaghata, Gangarampur, Surkhali
|-
|P31-part
|Khulna
|Khulna
|Batiaghata
|Surkhali
|-
|P34/2
|Khulna
|Khulna
|Batiaghata
|Amirpur, Bhanderkote, Baliadanga
|-
|P25
|Khulna
|Khulna
|Dumuria, Fultala, Dighlia
|Dumuria (Kharnia, Rudaghara, Dhamalia, Raghunathpur, Rangpur)

Fultala (Jamira, Damodar, Atra Gilatola)

Dighalia (Jugipul, Arongghata)
|-
|P27/1
|Khulna
|Khulna
|Dumuria
|Raghunathpur, Dumuria, Gutudia
|-
|P27/2
|Khulna
|Khulna
|Dumuria
|Gutudia, Dumuria, Kharnia
|-
|P28/1
|Khulna
|Khulna
|Dumuria, Batiaghata
|Dumuria (Gutudia),

Batiaghata (Jalma)
|-
|P28/2
|Khulna
|Khulna
|Batiaghata
|Jalma
|-
|P2 and P2-Ext
|Khulna
|Satkhira
|Satkhira Sadar, Assasuni
|Satkhira Sadar (Balli, Jhaudanga, Labsa, Brahmarajpur, Dhulihar, Fingri)

Assasuni (Kulla, Budhhata)
|-
|P43/2A
|Barisal
|Patuakhali
|Patuakhali Sadar
|Chhota Bighai, Bara Bighai
|-
|P43/2D
|Barisal
|Patuakhali
|Patuakhali Sadar
|Marichbunia, Madarbunia, Kalikapur, Jainkati, Auliapur
|-
|P43/2E
|Barisal
|Patuakhali
|Patuakhali Sadar
|Jainkati
|-
|P55/2A
|Barisal
|Patuakhali
|Patuakhali Sadar, Bauphal, Dashmina, Galachipa
|Patuakhali Sadar (Kamalapur), Bauphal (Adabaria, Noawmala); Dashmina (Alipur);

Galachipa (Bakulbaria, Kalagachia, Chiknikandi)
|-
|P55/2C
|Barisal
|Patuakhali
|Dashmina, Galachipa
|Dashmina (Alipur)

Galachipa (Bakulbaria, Kalagachia, Chiknikandi)
|-
|P47/3
|Barisal
|Patuakhali
|Kalapara
|Mithaganj
|-
|P47/4
|Barisal
|Patuakhali
|Kalapara
|Mithaganj, Baliatali, Khaprabanga, Dhulasar
|-
|43/2B
|Barisal
|Patuakhali & Barguna
|Galachipa, Patuakhali Sadar, Amtali
|Galachipa (Amkhola)
Patuakhali Sadar (Auliapur)

Amtali (Atharagashia);
|-
|43/1A
|Barisal
|Barguna
|Amtali
|Kukua, Atharagashia
|-
|P43/2F
|Barisal
|Barguna
|Amtali
|Gulisakhali
|-
| colspan="5" |
|-
!'''22 polders'''
!'''2 divisions'''
!'''4 Districts'''
!'''13 Upazilas'''
!'''56 Unions'''
|}

===Technical Departments===
In the course of project implementation coordination took place with a wider group of technical departments; while in some cases these also played a supportive role for specific activities using their own resources. Among the key technical departments were the Local Government Engineering Department (LGED), Department of Public Health Engineering (DPHE) and the Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation (BADC).

==Private Sector==
Given BGP's emphasis on commercialisation of agriculture, the Provate Sector is considered part and parcel of the institutional setting of BGP. The scope of the private sector involvement in creating forward and backward market linkages for farmers in the BGP project area was largely determined by the characteristics of the coastal region. The coastal region can be termed as a frontier area where market channels of the large private sector organisations are either non-existent or weak and where the commerce that exists is largely driven by local retailers. The market for agricultural inputs (seed, pesticide, fertiliser, etc.) is limited, irregular, non-repetitive and discrete, whereas a multitude of small buyers comprise the output market. Given this background, BGP interacted largely with local small and medium – and sometimes even micro – enterprises. The BGP interventions for commercial agriculture engaged the following partners:

*Small producer groups, which were usually formed for a specific crop; they work together on the purchase of inputs and, less frequently, on the joint sale of produce. Resource farmers – trained by the Project – help producer groups organise collective actions such as input supply or bulk sale of products;
*Local input retailers were trained to enhance their business management capacities and to be well informed by and linked with national private companies to enhance supply of quality inputs. This category includes local collectors (''farias'' or ''arothdars'') who were linked to producer groups; women buying and selling vegetables and eggs; female collectors of eggs to enable selling of produce; and a rice mill who could sustain itself thanks to the enhanced production by HYVs;
*National lead enterprises in agricultural input supply (LalTeer, Metal, AR Malik, ACI, Syngenta etc.) were informed through their top management of the market potential and situation in the project area, thereby paving the path for regional support and cooperation from private sector organizations to establish demonstration plots of improved and suitable product and technology at producer group level involving Resource Farmers (farmer leaders) and WMGs;
*There was a limited potential for sourcing local production to international enterprises, but a varietal shift in Mung bean enabled the supply of high-quality produce to a Japanese importer (Euglena), while Natural Agro could export black sesame after supporting farmers in the project area in their cultivation.

== Reference ==
<references />

== See also ==
{{ArtNav|Prev_chap=[[01 Overview, Purpose and Structure of Report|Chapter 01: Overview, Purpose and Structure of Report]]|Curr_sect=[[Summary of Section A: Background and context|Section A: Background and context]]|Next_chap=[[3 - Social, Physical and Environmental Context|Chapter 03: Social, Physical and Environmental Context]]}}{{ToC Section A Collapsed}}
{| class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="3px" cellspacing="2px" style="background-color:#fff;margin:auto;"
|- align="center" style="background-color:tan;"
! width="25%" |Blue Gold Wiki
|- valign="top" align="left" style="background: antiquewhite; font-size: 92%;"
|{{Full ToC}}
|}

Summary of Section D: BGP Interventions: Participatory Water Management

2021-09-14T13:22:07Z

Geerte: /* In-Polder Water Management */

[[File:BGP ToC v0.9 PWM Highlighted.png|thumb|600x600px|'''Figure D.1:''' Participatory Water Management and it's components, highlighted on the ToC.|alt=]]
Participatory Water Management (PWM) in BGP comprises a set of activities that aims to utilise water infrastructure for transforming agriculture in the coastal polders; and which thereby forms the central driver for intensified local economic development in the project area. The PWM activities includes: '''consultation''' of communities; '''capacity building''' of water management organisations; addressing '''gender dimensions''' of water management; physical '''in-polder water management''' interventions); and development of a '''water management partnership'''.

Under Blue Gold, a unified approach towards Participatory Water Management was developed. This approach was documented in February 2017 in the form of a PWM Field Manual (in ''[[:File:TM Field Manual BGP PWM Eng 1feb 17.pdf|English]]'' and ''[[:File:TM Field Manual BGP PWM Bangla 28feb 17.pdf|Bangla]]''). Alongside the distribution of the manual, dedicated training in the unified approach was provided to all Community Development Facilitators (CDFs) in December 2016 and January 2017. A vivid testimony on the implementation of this approach in Polder 47/4 in Kalapara is presented in a ''[[:File:27feb 21 WMO unified development of WMOs.pdf|paper]]'' prepared on behalf of the CDFs by colleagues at zonal level.

Through Blue Gold, O&M Agreements (in [[:File:O&M Agreement P47 3 Bangla version.pdf|Bangla]] and an unofficial [[:File:O&M Agreement approved Eng ver recd 6aug 18.pdf|English translation]]) have been used to set out the respective responsibilities of BWDB and WMAs for routine, periodic and emergency maintenance. The main purpose of the agreements is to sustain the benefits arising from bringing land into cultivation – to protect the land from further waterlogging and to bring new land into cultivation. O&M agreements have been signed by the BWDB Executive Engineer with representatives of the Executive Councils for the 36 WMAs in the Blue Gold Program area.

To encourage good practice in water management, two versions of a manual for WMO executive members and BWDB field staff were prepared: a [[:File:3dec 20 WM Manual text based-reduced.pdf|‘text-based’ manual]] (in Bangla) for a more literate audience; and a [[:File:3dec 20 WM Manual picture based-reduced.pdf|‘picture-based’ manual]] (again in Bangla) for an audience that is less familiar with text-based advice. During preparation of the manuals, Blue Gold worked closely with field staff, WMO executives and other WMO members and incorporated their feedback to ensure that the manuals serve the needs and interests of farmers and fishermen. Feedback sessions with BWDB zonal staff have been used to establish that all required material is covered. Copies of the manuals were distributed to WMOs during the first quarter of 2021.

The key message of this section is that presently, Bangladesh does not use the full potential of participatory water management for engendering local economic development. Infrastructure development and agricultural development are generally undertaken as separate interventions, often under a strong central coordination; while the capability of local stakeholders to utilise water resources and associate infrastructure for a dynamic development of agriculture goes largely ignored. In addition to reviewing the PWM activities listed above, this section also looks at how BGP operationalised the '''PWM concept''' and it concludes with a section on a '''way forward''' for participatory water management to become the glue that welds water resources infrastructure and local agricultural-based development together.

== Consultation and participation in planning ==
BGP, at its inception, addressed community consultation and participation in planning through a Polder Development Plan and local-level WMG Action Plans. Several lessons are drawn:

* Consultation of communities and their representatives is more meaningful if it starts well before the definition of infrastructure investments in implementation budgets;
* Local governments and representatives of decentralised departments are relevant and constructive partners in local water resources planning;
* Facilitated community planning should be complemented with coaching of community actions, e.g. for better agricultural production. A little encouragement helps people undertake the actions that they have planned for;

Periodic review and adjustment is required to arrive at realistic ambitions, possibly in terms of higher productivity or profitability, and coherent and do-able actions.

Using these insights, BGP in the second half of its implementation period, linked local water management plans to catchment plans and subsequently to polder-level WMA plans. The ensuing plans focus on water management actions at different levels of the polder water system (see: In-Polder Water Management).

== WMO capacity building ==
BGP helped activate 511 water management groups and 36 water management associations in 22 polders. In order to help these organisations to work for better water management, BGP applied the following principles in building their capacity:

* Build capacities of groups and teams;
* Support both planning and implementation;
* Let WMOs take the lead in implementing actions;
* Promote WMOs to use their local network for achieving their aspirations.
[[File:Structure of water management organisations.png|center|thumb|800x800px|'''Figure D.2:''' Structure of water management organisations in a polder]]

== Women’s participation in water management ==
While the regulatory framework sets quota for women’s participation in WMOs, BGP explicitly pursued that women in and above this quota would participate in an active and significant way. This resulted in women taking part with voice and vote in WMO meetings; in a significant number of women being executives in the WMOs; and in experienced female office bearers becoming successful contestants in local government elections.

== In-Polder Water Management ==
Community participation helps shape actions that make better combinations of production practices and water management, at different levels of scale:

* Small-scale infrastructure and synchronised cropping at sub-catchments help bring forward the harvest of T Aman and creates the possibility to grow an additional winter season crop, often of high commercial value. Other combinations of improved production and better water management are possible;
* Operation of a sluice combined with keeping the khal functional ensures better water levels for production within the catchment;

Sound plans for catchment management together with active water management associations, helps local communities exercise control over the sluices that serve their areas.
[[File:IPWM interventions.png|center|thumb|800x800px|'''Figure D.3:''' In-polder water management – interventions at different levels of scale]]

== Water Management Partnership ==
Water Management Groups and Associations achieve more when working with other people and entities:

* Having an ‘orbit’ of capable resource persons, helps WMOs undertake actions for better production;
* Good relations with local governments ensures WMOs are backed in a practical sense when (i) taking control over sluices; (ii) pursuing open drainage connections, and: (iii) mobilising resources for investment in small-scale infrastructure;
* Being known to staff of government departments enables WMOs to access their expertise and support. Given the special relation between WMAs and the BWDB, for each polder O&M Agreements ([[:File:O&M Agreement P47 3 Bangla version.pdf|Bangla]] and [[:File:O&M Agreement approved Eng ver recd 6aug 18.pdf|English]] version) have been entered into by these parties;
* Entering into a formal O&M agreement with BWDB makes it easier to face future challenges to the sustainability of main infrastructure;

Representing their members to market partners (private sector) creates win-win opportunities in input procurement, production and marketing.

A strong WMO ensures it is supported by good and close friends.

== Evolution of the PWM concept ==
BGP has built on the national regulations, rules and practices of participatory water management. It helped clarify the WMO’s relation to commercial activities; it enhanced the WMOs’ focus on water management; it defined WMOs as entities with their own mandate; and it established a functional relationship between WMA and WMGs. In doing so, BGP – while being true to the spirit of the national policies – went beyond their letter. The regulatory framework now should consider the innovations that were tested in practice.

== Way Forward ==
In realising that its take on Participatory Water Management has moved beyond how PWM is defined; BGP is presenting its experiences for review and consideration by the sector. To this end, it facilitated an independent expert panel to review how participatory water management can be improved as part of the overall governance of water resources in Bangladesh. This expert panel is to present its recommendations to the Bangladesh Delta Plan and its community of professionals.

== See more ==
{{SeeMoreSectionD}}

6 BGP Outcomes and Impact on the Livelihoods of Coastal Communities

2021-09-02T12:21:47Z

Geerte: /* Changes in agriculture land use */

The Blue Gold lessons learnt report (LLR) will be completed in full at project closure at end-December 2021. Meanwhile, in order to pass on the knowledge and experience gained from the implementation of Blue Gold to planners and policy makers working towards the realisation of the Delta Plan, and to those responsible for the design and implementation of future projects in the coastal zone, the report is published in a partially-complete form. Those sections of the report which are either incomplete or missing will be marked accordingly in the draft report, and then finalized before end-December 2021.

== Introduction ==
Bangladesh has experienced significant economic growth in recent decades and classifies as a lower middle-income economy (World Bank 2016). The incidence of poverty has declined but is still 31.5% overall and 35.5% in rural areas. One-fifth of the country’s GDP comes from agriculture and two-thirds of the workforce is directly or indirectly engaged in agricultural activities. Hence the country’s economy is highly vulnerable to the degradation of natural resources and to variability and trends in climate. To eliminate poverty, Bangladesh has a long way to go. The incidence and severity of poverty is even more pressing in the predominantly rural coastal region of Bangladesh (see chapter 3). Alleviating this, requires high and inclusive growth of the rural agricultural economy in a sustainable manner. To address this situation, the ‘Blue Gold Program’ became operational in March 2013 and extends over an 8-year period to improve agricultural water management in 22 polders of four districts: Khulna, Satkhira, Patuakhali, and Barguna (see chapter 5). This project aims to reduce poverty and improve food security through equitable water management and strengthened value chains resulting in improved livelihoods for communities.

This chapter explains the outcomes and impacts of the BGP interventions. In other words, this chapter assesses the effectiveness of BGP’s interventions and judges the significance of changes in the livelihoods of BGP beneficiaries. Here, outcomes and impacts are seen as the contribution of the BGP interventions to the overall goal of the program.

This chapter is not complete chapter as yet. It is a living chapter that will be updated once outcomes from additional surveys become available:

* Sections 7.2 and 7.3 cover the outcomes and impact of improved water management and of adoption of new technologies on agricultural production, using data presently available. The main data source is the WMG survey-2019<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|last=|first=|title=Improving the Productivity of Land in the Coastal Bangladesh: The Outcomes of Blue Gold Program Interventions – WMG survey 2019, Technical Report 26|publisher=Euroconsult Mott MacDonald & Associates|year=November 2018|isbn=|location=|pages=}}</ref> that gathered data from almost all WMGs (501) from all polders (22), and that mainly focused on the improvement in water management and agriculture production. Some data from the WMG survey-2018<ref>{{Cite book|last=|first=|title=Improving the Productivity of Land in Coastal Bangladesh: Outcomes of Blue Gold Program Interventions 2013-2018, Technical Report 25|publisher=Euroconsult Mott Mcdonald & Associates|year=|isbn=|location=|pages=}}</ref> are also used here. This chapter will be revised after completion of the end-line survey-2020 and WMG survey-2021.
* Sections 7.4 to 7.6 cover changes in homestead production, economic changes of coastal households and women empowerment. These will be prepared after the completion of the end-line survey-2020 and WMG survey-2021.

== Improvements to water management ==

=== Increased resilience against climate variability: outcomes of rehabilitation work on water infrastructure ===
WMG report a reduction in water-related constraints to crop production. Data shows that Blue Gold has improved the local management of water resources and thereby removed water-related constraints to crop production. Apart from improving conditions for crop production and aquaculture, in some areas the quality of water in the khals has improved (“less polluted”) and can sometimes be used for domestic purposes. Comparing the present and pre-project situations, there has not been much change in the type of main problems. These changes primarily relate to water scarcity (for irrigation) and waterlogging – with salinity and flooding mentioned considerably less often. Water scarcity is now slightly more frequently reported than waterlogging. Data on the main type of water-related problem in Table 1 shows that water scarcity (for irrigation purposes) is, as would be expected, the main problem for farmers in the rabi (boro) season, with waterlogging the main issue in kharif 2 (aman) and with a more even problem division between water scarcity and waterlogging in kharif 1. For the three BGP zones, taking the average for each season, waterlogging is the major issue for WMGs in Satkhira, while water scarcity is number one in Khulna and Patuakhali. Flooding and salinity are much less likely to be the major constraint.
{| class="wikitable"
|+'''Table 1: Principal water management problems'''
! colspan="2" |Main problem
!'''rabi'''
!'''kharif-2'''
!'''kharif-1'''
!'''Khula'''
!'''Satkhira'''
!'''Patuakhali'''
!'''All'''
|-
! rowspan="4" |Before BGP
|Waterlogging
|13%
|78%
|32%
|37%
|59%
|41%
|41%
|-
|Flooding
|1%
|3%
|1%
|1%
|1%
|2%
|1%
|-
|Water scarcity
|69%
|6%
|44%
|40%
|25%
|44%
|39%
|-
|Salinity
|12%
|3%
|9%
|9%
|6%
|8%
|8%
|-
! rowspan="4" |Now
|Waterlogging
|12%
|71%
|20%
|33%
|54%
|29%
|34%
|-
|Flooding
|1%
|1%
|0%
|1%
|1%
|0%
|1%
|-
|Water scarcity
|58%
|5%
|52%
|39%
|26%
|40%
|38%
|-
|Salinity
|9%
|1%
|7%
|8%
|0%
|5%
|6%
|-
| colspan="9" |''Percentage of WMG reporting in each season. The percentages for zones are the average number of WMG reporting for each of three seasons. As some WMG did not report a main problem in all seasons, the totals in each row may not add up 100%.''
|}
Other water management problems are shown in Table 1. In the rabi season and in the Khulna zone, salinity was and still is the main other problem; but this issue seems to have now largely been eliminated in some polders (26 and 29), while remaining significant in one polder (polder 30). In the Patuakhali zone, there is no over-riding other problem, but salinity was an issue for two polders (47/3 and 47/4), where it is now much less significant. In the 2018 WMG survey, a slightly higher proportion of WMGs reported that salinity was another problem, but more WMGs now put waterlogging as the other problem.
{| class="wikitable"
|+'''Table 2: Severity of water management problems'''
| colspan="2" rowspan="2" |
! colspan="5" |Pre-project situation
! colspan="5" |Current situation
|-
!1
!2
!3
!4
!5
!1
!2
!3
!4
!5
|-
! rowspan="4" |Season
|Rabi
|2%
|9%
|24%
|50%
|15%
|8%
|51%
|31%
|9%
|1%
|-
|Kharif-2
|1%
|13%
|37%
|37%
|12%
|10%
|62%
|16%
|10%
|3%
|-
|Kharif-1
|4%
|7%
|24%
|45%
|17%
|7%
|30%
|41%
|15%
|4%
|-
|Total
|2%
|10%
|28%
|44%
|15%
|8%
|48%
|29%
|11%
|3%
|-
! rowspan="4" |Zone
|Khulna
|2%
|13%
|28%
|43%
|14%
|6%
|42%
|31%
|16%
|5%
|-
|Satkhira
|9%
|22%
|19%
|30%
|21%
|16%
|51%
|21%
|9%
|2%
|-
|Patuakhali
|0%
|1%
|33%
|50%
|13%
|8%
|55%
|28%
|5%
|1%
|-
|Total
|2%
|10%
|28%
|44%
|15%
|8%
|48%
|29%
|11%
|3%
|-
| colspan="12" |''Score: 1 = very good, 2 = good (i.e. no problem), 3 = average, 4 = bad, 5 = very bad. Percentage of WMG reporting''
|}
Data shows the severity of the problem (ranked 1 to 5) for each season and each zone (see Table 2). In general, problems have reduced compared to the pre-project situation. Overall, over half of the seasonal reports from WMGs (56%) say the situation is now good or very good (score of 1 or 2), compared with only 12% in the pre-project situation. The improvement has been greatest in Patuakhali where only 1% of WMG seasons were rated as very good or good before BGP, but now 63% are at this level. WMGs in Khulna registered the lowest improvement – 15% good or very good before, compared with 48% now. Satkhira (the single polder no.2) had a relatively better position prior to BGP (31% good or very good) and now has the highest proportion of WMG seasons in these categories (67%).

The average water management scores for each WMG are summarised by season and zone (see Annex table 2). This shows that there has been a greater improvement in water management (i.e. reduction in the water management problem score) in the rabi season followed by kharif 2 with the least improvement in kharif-1. The Khulna zone showed relatively little improvement, and WMGs report that they still have higher levels of water management problems than in the other two zones. In Satkhira, the problem score has been relatively low in the rabi season, and this season showed relatively small improvement. Patuakhali showed the greatest improvement, especially in khairif-2 – but this zone had the highest problem scores before the start of the project, so there was the greatest potential for improvement. The overall average improvement is 1.06 – meaning the WMGs have moved up one place on the problem ranking of 1 to 5.

=== Organised coastal communities: outcomes of institutional development of WMOs ===
The section of BP’s lessons learnt report on participatory water management sections (Section D, chapters 14-20) elaborate how BGP organised coastal communities for participating in water management for development. The outcome surveys reviewed the WMOs’ roles in better water management in BGP areas. The previous section reports a significant improvement in water management in BGP areas. The vast majority of WMGs (86%) confirm that water management infrastructure has improved. The most widely (80%) reported reason why water management was considered to have improved was re-excavation and de-silting of khals, but many WMG (30-50%) reported khal cleaning (i.e. removal of weeds, nets and cross dams), sluice repairs, new/repaired culverts, better sluice operation and repaired embankments (Table 3).
{| class="wikitable"
|+'''Table 3: Improvements in infrastructure and reasons for the improvement'''
|
!Khulna
!Satkhira
!Patuakhali
!Total
|-
|Improvement in infrastructure1
|73%
|97%
|100%
|86%
|-
! colspan="5" |Reasons for improvement2
|-
|Re-excavate or de-silt khal
|78%
|77%
|83%
|80%
|-
|Clean khal / remove dams
|25%
|36%
|60%
|41%
|-
|Sluice: new or repair3
|11%
|34%
|70%
|39%
|-
|Culvert: new or repair
|39%
|43%
|74%
|54%
|-
|Better sluice operation
|12%
|23%
|51%
|29%
|-
|Embankment repair
|22%
|66%
|51%
|40%
|-
| colspan="5" |''1 Percentage of all WMG, 2 Percentage of WMG reporting improvements, 3 Includes inlets and outlets.''
|}
Most of these works leading to improved water management in the BGP area were undertaken by BWDB with WMG support; with WMG mainly being responsible on-their-own for khal cleaning and better sluice operation. The main organisations responsible for each type of infrastructure improvement are shown in Annex Table 3. Khal re-excavation (including de-silting) is seen as the main reason for improved water management and has largely been implemented using BGP resources, usually with a form of involvement of the WMGs. Khal cleaning was mostly done by the WMG with their own resources (i.e. voluntary labour by members and non-member farmers). The same is true for improved operation of sluices. This is an outcome of BGP’s work in establishing, activating and strengthening WMGs. Culverts (new and repaired) were primarily done by local government (Union Parishads), as culverts usually cross roads which are a government responsibility. In cases where BGP co-funded WMGs to place or repair culverts; the WMGs actively informed the Union about their need for work and the plan for implementation. WMGs also developed a good relationship with other agencies such as BADC, LGED (responsible for water management schemes of up to 1,000 ha), ADB (may be funding LGED schemes) and NGOs. Qualitative interviews also mentioned DANIDA.

Having control over sluice relates significantly to improved water management as well as to the WMO’s institutional development. Data from the WMG survey in Table 4 shows that in 50% of sluices are controlled by WMGs (either the WMGs interviewed or another WMG – the sluice may serve more than one WMG). Often sluices were controlled by “influentials” who operated the sluices for their own benefit rather than for that of the wider farming community. These persons are often linked with local government and may want to let water in or out to catch fish (netting fish at the sluice or in the khals) or to let water (often brackish) in for replenishing the water in the large fish/shrimp ghers that they operate. In Khulna, where there is a significant area of fish/shrimp gher, 53% of WMGs say sluices are operated by other people. To a lesser extent this also applied in Satkhira where one third of WMGs report that sluices are operated by other people. In Patuakhali, where there are no fish ghers, almost 80% of WMGs report WMG control of sluices and all WMGs say sluices are functional.
{| class="wikitable"
|+'''Table 4: Control of sluices and water management'''
! rowspan="2" |Sluice control by:
! rowspan="2" |Khulna
! rowspan="2" |Satkhira
! rowspan="2" |Patuakhali
! rowspan="2" |Total
! colspan="2" |WM problem score
|-
!now
!change
|-
!WMG interviewed
|12%
|17%
|46%
|25%
|2.35
|1.39
|-
!Other WMG
|19%
|22%
|33%
|25%
|2.47
|1.22
|-
!Other people
|53%
|33%
|21%
|39%
|2.59
|0.93
|-
!Not functional
|16%
|27%
|0%
|12%
|2.82
|0.52
|-
!Total
|100%
|100%
|100%
|100%
| colspan="2" |
|-
| colspan="7" |''Percentage of WMGs reporting (n = 501); Problem score: 1 = very good, 2 = good (i.e. no problem), 3 = average, 4 = bad, 5 = very bad''
|}
Having functional sluices and sluices controlled by WMGs is corelated to reduced water management problems. Table 4 shows that WMGs whose sluice is under the control of a WMG have lower water management problem scores. There is a large difference in the reduction in water management problems for WMGs where sluices are not functioning (where water management problems have not been much reduced), where sluices are controlled by other people (‘influentials’), and where they are controlled by WMGs. Having the WMG in control is clearly linked to better water management, but having a functional sluice is even more important. It should be pointed out that many sluices that are presently non-functioning are in so because bed levels of the rivers outside the polder have risen above the original sill levels. River dredging is beyond the scope of BGP and the economic case for it has not been established.

== Changes in crop agricultural production ==

=== Changes in agriculture land use ===
Since the start of BGP there have been significant changes in land use and cropping. Use of cultivated land has been grouped into three categories for each season: (i) paddy; (ii) other crops; and (iii) fish/shrimp ghers. Table 5 shows the seasonal land use for each of the three zones. For the Khulna zone, in the rabi/boro (winter/dry) season before the project, boro paddy and other crops were of almost equal importance, followed by fish ghers, with over one third of land fallow. There has now been considerable expansion in boro, some growth in fish and some decline in other crops, with significantly less fallow land. In the kharif 1 (early monsoon) season fish ghers were, and still are, the main land use, with the area now significantly increased. This, along with some growth in other crops, means that more than half of the land is now cultivated in this season. In the kharif 2 (late monsoon) season, over half the land was used to grow aman paddy. This has now fallen slightly, with a significant increase in area under fish.
{| class="wikitable"
|+'''Table 5: Seasonal land use (% of cultivable land)'''
|
|
! colspan="2" |Khulna
! colspan="2" |Satkhira
! colspan="2" |Patuakhali
! colspan="2" |Total
|-
|
|
!Before BGP
!Now
!Before BGP
!Now
!Before BGP
!Now
!Before BGP
!Now
|-
! rowspan="4" |Rabi/boro
!paddy
|27.7
|46.6
|74.7
|84.8
|0.1
|2.3
|23.8
|35.7
|-
!other crops
|26.2
|21.3
|1.8
|1.7
|53.3
|84.9
|32.8
|41.4
|-
!fish
|11.2
|16.0
|8.7
|12.2
|0.0
|0.0
|6.9
|9.8
|-
!total
|65.1
|83.9
|85.2
|98.7
|53.5
|87.3
|63.5
|86.9
|-
! rowspan="4" |Kharif 1
!paddy
|1.5
|0.4
|2.0
|4.2
|24.5
|18.8
|9.7
|7.4
|-
!other crops
|9.3
|13.0
|5.6
|6.9
|0.3
|0.0
|5.6
|7.6
|-
!fish
|30.5
|43.2
|23.8
|54.8
|0.0
|0.0
|18.8
|29.3
|-
!total
|41.3
|56.6
|31.4
|65.8
|24.8
|18.9
|34.2
|44.4
|-
! rowspan="4" |Khairif 2
!paddy
|56.9
|48.3
|33.0
|33.2
|94.5
|99.4
|67.2
|64.5
|-
!other crops
|6.3
|8.4
|0.0
|0.6
|0.1
|0.0
|3.3
|4.4
|-
!fish
|29.8
|40.0
|26.0
|53.5
|0.0
|0.0
|18.7
|27.5
|-
!total
|93.0
|96.7
|59.0
|87.3
|94.5
|99.4
|89.3
|96.5
|-
! rowspan="4" |Total
!paddy
|86.1
|95.1
|109.7
|122.2
|119.1
|120.5
|100.8
|107.7
|-
!other crops
|41.8
|42.7
|7.5
|9.1
|53.7
|85.0
|41.7
|53.5
|-
!fish
|71.5
|99.2
|58.5
|120.4
|0.0
|0.0
|44.5
|66.6
|-
!total
|199.4
|237.2
|175.7
|251.7
|172.8
|205.5
|187.0
|227.8
|}
In Satkhira, land use in the rabi-boro season is predominantly boro paddy, and the area of this has increased. Along with a small increase in area of fish gher, overall land use in this season is now nearly 100%. The main land use in kharif-1 is fish, which has increased significantly as before BGP over two thirds of land was left fallow. An increasing area under fish ghers, along with small areas of paddy and other crops mean that almost two-thirds of land is now utilised in this season. In kharif-2, prior to BGP, one third of land was growing aman paddy, and just over one quarter used for fish ghers. The area under fish ghers has now doubled, with little change in aman paddy – and an overall increase in land utilisation.

In Patuakhali, there is virtually no use of land for fish/shrimp ghers. In the rabi/boro season virtually the only use of land is for other (non-rice) crops, which have expanded considerably during BGP. In the kharif-1 season almost one quarter of land was used for aus paddy, but this s now declined, with an increase in the area of fallow land. In kharif-2 almost all land is (and was) used for aman paddy.

The area under fish ghers has increased substantially (Annex table 4). There has been an increase of 50% of the cultivable area spread over three seasons. This is far greater than the increase in area of paddy (7% of the cultivable area) and other crops (28% of the cultivable area). But in none of the zones has there been a decline in the area of crops while the area of fish increased – suggesting that land has not switched from crops to fish. The expansion of fish culture occupies land that was previously fallow.

=== Changes in cropping pattern and crop types ===
For paddy there has been a move from traditional local varieties to modern HYVs and hybrids (Table 6). There are no reports of cultivation of local varieties of boro (these seem to have disappeared in Bangladesh), but there is a move from conventional HYVs to hybrid seeds. This is particularly apparent in the Khulna zone. Only in Patuakhali a significant area of aus is grown, and there has been a dramatic switch from local varieties to HYVs. There has also been a switch from local to HYV in the aman season – less so in Satkhira where HYVs predominated before BGP, and significant (but reduced) areas of local aman continue to be grown in the other two zones.

The area of land occupied by other crops is shown in Table 7. In the Khulna zone, sesame was an important crop, but this and a number of other more minor crops have declined in importance due to a combination of unfavourable growing conditions – with more emphasis being placed on more reliable irrigated boro and on more profitable fish ghers. However, the area of two non-rice crops has expanded – vegetables and water melons – these are profitable and, farmers report that they would like to grow more water melon in particular if they would have access to the required irrigation water.
{| class="wikitable"
|+'''Table 6: Land under different types of paddy'''
!
!
! colspan="2" |Khulna
! colspan="2" |Satkhira
! colspan="2" |Patuakhali
! colspan="2" |Total
|-
!
!
!before
!Now
!Before
!Now
!before
!Now
!before
!now
|-
! rowspan="2" |Boro
!HYV
|22.6
|13.7
|64.1
|57.2
|0.1
|2.1
|19.8
|15.1
|-
!hybrid
|5.1
|32.9
|10.6
|27.5
|0.0
|0.2
|4.0
|20.6
|-
! rowspan="2" |Aus
!local
|1.0
|0.1
|0.7
|0.6
|19.2
|1.7
|7.4
|0.7
|-
!HYV
|0.5
|0.4
|1.3
|3.6
|5.3
|17.2
|2.3
|6.8
|-
! rowspan="2" |Aman
!local
|41.1
|22.7
|10.1
|5.4
|79.4
|41.4
|50.8
|27.2
|-
!HYV
|15.8
|25.6
|22.9
|27.8
|15.0
|58.0
|16.4
|37.4
|-
! rowspan="3" |All paddy
!local
|42.1
|22.8
|10.8
|6.0
|98.7
|43.0
|58.2
|27.9
|-
!HY/hybrid
|44.0
|72.6
|98.9
|116.2
|20.4
|77.5
|42.6
|79.8
|-
!total
|86.1
|95.4
|109.7
|122.2
|119.1
|120.5
|100.8
|107.7
|-
| colspan="10" |''Percentage of cultivable land''
|}
In Satkhira, there is only a small area of non-rice crops – mainly vegetables and a little jute. The area of vegetables has been increasing. Non-rice crops are most important in Patuakhali. Mung bean is by far the most important of these crops, and its area has increased by almost five times. Prior to BGP, keshari was the principal non-rice crop, but this has now virtually disappeared, farmers report that keshari now is unprofitable and difficult to grow with uncertain weather conditions. Areas under sesame, felon (a local pulse) and sweet potato have also declined, while more groundnut, chilli, sunflower, vegetables and watermelon are being grow. As in Khulna, farmers are keen to grow more watermelon. Compared to 2018, less land in Patuakhali is now under mung bean and more under watermelon and groundnut.
{| class="wikitable"
|+'''Table 7: Land under other crops'''
!
! colspan="2" |Khulna
! colspan="2" |Satkhira
! colspan="2" |Patuakhali
! colspan="2" |Total
|-
!
!before
!now
!before
!now
!before
!now
!before
!now
|-
!maize
|0.1
|0.0
|0.0
|0.0
|0.1
|0.1
|0.0
|0.0
|-
!Mung bean
|3.6
|1.3
|0.0
|0.0
|12.1
|59.1
|6.1
|21.7
|-
!keshari
|0.0
|0.0
|0.0
|0.0
|22.6
|1.2
|8.0
|0.4
|-
!felon
|0.0
|0.0
|0.0
|0.0
|0.8
|0.5
|0.3
|0.2
|-
!sesame
|15.1
|4.8
|0.0
|0.0
|2.2
|0.2
|8.7
|2.6
|-
!groundnut
|0.0
|0.0
|0.0
|0.0
|4.5
|8.2
|1.6
|2.9
|-
!sunflower
|0.2
|0.0
|0.0
|0.0
|0.2
|0.8
|0.1
|0.3
|-
!sweet-potato
|0.0
|0.0
|0.0
|0.0
|2.9
|1.3
|1.0
|0.4
|-
!Jute
|0.6
|0.1
|3.0
|2.7
|0.0
|0.0
|0.7
|0.4
|-
!Chili
|0.1
|0.1
|0.2
|0.0
|3.7
|4.6
|1.4
|1.7
|-
!watermelon
|0.2
|4.7
|0.0
|0.0
|1.4
|5.4
|0.6
|4.3
|-
!vegetable
|15.1
|22.3
|3.5
|5.5
|0.6
|0.8
|8.5
|12.5
|-
!other
|6.9
|9.4
|0.7
|1.0
|2.6
|2.9
|4.6
|1.6
|-
!total
|41.9
|42.7
|7.5
|9.1
|53.7
|85.0
|41.7
|53.5
|-
| colspan="9" |''Percentage of cultivable land''
|}
Farmers confirm the decline in non-irrigated rabi. They reported that this is partly due to excessive rainfall resulting in waterlogging. Farmers inform that crops such as keshari and sesame are not profitable, and would prefer to focus their efforts on smaller areas where irrigation is now possible and where high value crops such as watermelon can be grown.

In Patuakhali, farmers reported the switch from growing keshari to more profitable mung bean was due to better water management and the training they got in mung production. There has been a significant reduction in fallow land during the boro season, with some WMGs growing a little boro paddy as well as more groundnuts and sunflower.

In Satkhira (polder 2), farmers confirmed a general switch to hybrid boro and HYV aman paddy and a reduction in fallow area in the rabi (boro) and kharif 2 (aman) seasons. This has come about due to better drainage. More timely planting of HYV paddy has increased crop yields. Farmers reported an increased amount of fallow in the kharif 1 in some areas which could be linked to the expansion of boro paddy which tends to overlap into the kharif 1 season. In general, the area of fish ghers has expanded. Better water management and reduced risk of flooding due to repaired embankments have encouraged expansion of ghers as well as of paddy.

As mentioned earlier; while the area under fish ghers has increased substantially (see Annex Table-4), this has not gone to the detriment of areas used to produce paddy or other crops. The expansion of fish culture occupies land that was previously fallow.

=== Cropping intensity ===
The review of changes in cropping intensity shows a significant increase in cropping intensity in all three zones of BGP.

Cropping intensity has been calculated as the sum of crops and fish ghers in each season divided by the sum of crops, ghers and fallow land. This treats fish ghers as another crop in each season and takes no account of the frequency of fish harvests – so land used as a perennial (year-round) gher would have a 300% cropping intensity.

The surveys show that overall cropping intensity has increased from 187% to 228%, with a larger increase in Satkhira of 76 percentage points – largely due to expansion of fish ghers in polder 2, together with an increase in the area of paddy (Table 8).
{| class="wikitable"
|+'''Table 8: Cropping intensity'''
!
! colspan="2" |Rabi /boro season
! colspan="2" |Kharif 1 season
! colspan="2" |Kharif 2 season
! colspan="3" |Cropping intensity
|-
!Zone
!before
!Now
!before
!now
!before
!Now
!before
!now
!change
|-
!Khulna
|65
|84
|41
|57
|93
|97
|199
|237
|38
|-
!Satkhira
|85
|99
|31
|66
|59
|87
|176
|252
|76
|-
!Patuakhali
|53
|87
|25
|19
|95
|99
|173
|205
|33
|-
!Total
|64
|87
|34
|44
|89
|96
|187
|228
|41
|-
| colspan="10" |''Percentage of cultivable area used in each season (including fish gher)''
|}
Changes in cropping intensity vary considerably between WMGs. Overall, 80% of WMGs report an increase in cropping intensity; 11% no change; and 8% a decrease. The proportion of WMGs with an increase in cropping intensity was highest in Satkhira at 92% and lowest in Khulna at 75% (Table 5).
{| class="wikitable"
|+'''Table 9: Cropping intensity (DAE method)'''
!
!before
!now
!change
|-
!Khulna
|128
|138
|10
|-
!Satkhira
|117
|131
|14
|-
!Patuakhali
|173
|205
|33
|-
!Total
|143
|161
|19
|}
Cropping intensity was also calculated as the area of crops divided by the sum of the areas of crops, fish ghers and fallow land (DAE method). Cropping intensity calculated in this way is lower in Khulna and Satkhira, with a smaller increase (Table 9). However, it does show that, even leaving aside the fish ghers, the area of field crops has expanded.

=== Link between water management and cropping intensity ===
There appears to be a link between a reduction in water management problem scores and an increase in cropping intensity. This suggests that improvements in water management may lead to increases in crop areas. Table 9 shows that the 87 WMG where water management problems were unchanged or increased had, on average, an increase in cropping intensity of only 11.6 percentage points, while the 38 WMG where overall water management problem scores increased by under 0.5 had an average increase in cropping intensity of 19.3. In contrast, the 40 WMG where water management problem scores increased by more than 2.0 had an average increase in cropping intensity of 74.8 percentage points. There was a similar pattern with changes in the area of high yielding and high value crops<ref group="Notes">HYV and hybrid paddy, chilli, watermelon, and vegetables.</ref>.
{| class="wikitable"
|+'''Table 10: Changes in water management and cropping'''
!Change in WMPS*
!No. of WMG
!cropping intensity change1
!HYVC change1
|-
!over 2
|40
|74.8
|71.8
|-
!1.5 to 2
|125
|60.8
|64.8
|-
!1 to 1.5
|55
|44.7
|57.6
|-
!0.5 to 1
|156
|36.2
|40.4
|-
!0 to 0.5
|38
|19.3
|34.8
|-
!under 0
|87
|11.6
|11.4
|-
!Total
|501
|40.8
|45.4
|-
| colspan="4" |''* improvement (reduction) in water management problem score; 1 Change in terms of percent of cultivable land''
|}

=== Crop yield ===
There has been a substantial increase in the productivity of paddy (Table 10). Apart from a switch to more productive HYV and hybrid varieties, average yields of each type of paddy have increased by around 10 to 25%. However, there is a more mixed picture regarding the yields of non-rice crops, with significant falls in yields of some of the key crops including mung bean<ref group="Notes">Many farmers have adopted modern, high yielding types of mung bean, especially BARI-6. However, these improved types inter-breed with older local types, so much mung bean is of a semi-improved type. For this reason, this report has not tried to differentiate between modern and local varieties of mung bean, and farmers report that, despite adopting improved varieties, overall yields have fallen.</ref> and sesame. During the Focus Group Discussions (qualitative interviews) farmers reported that unpredictable weather conditions during the growing season (excessive drought, unexpected and heavy rainfall) have adversely effected non-irrigated rabi crops. Data on aquaculture yields needs to be used with caution as seasonal yield data may not reflect the annual productivity of ghers.

'''Table 11: Average crop yield'''
{| class="wikitable"
!
!
!Before BGP (kg/acre )
!Now
!change
|-
!Paddy
!boro HYV
|2,023
|2,287
|13%
|-
!
!boro hybrid
|2,808
|3,114
|11%
|-
!
!aman local
|1,088
|1,256
|15%
|-
!
!aman HYV
|1,604
|1,975
|23%
|-
!
!aus local
|894
|1,116
|25%
|-
!
!aus HYV
|1,431
|1,746
|22%
|-
!Other crops<ref group="Notes">Yields of crops such as maize, sunflower and felon only comes from a few WMG and so may not represent average yields.</ref>
!Maize
|1,173
|1,211
|3%
|-
!
!mung bean
|368
|289
|<nowiki>-21%</nowiki>
|-
!
!Keshari
|463
|430
|<nowiki>-7%</nowiki>
|-
!
!Felon
|496
|444
|<nowiki>-11%</nowiki>
|-
!
!Sesame
|459
|338
|<nowiki>-26%</nowiki>
|-
!
!Groundnut
|847
|895
|6%
|-
!
!Sunflower
|458
|1,055
|130%
|-
!
!sweet-potato
|5,342
|5,325
|0%
|-
!
!Jute
|922
|1,006
|9%
|-
!
!Chilli
|608
|866
|42%
|-
!
!Watermelon
|18,476
|19,872
|8%
|-
!
!Vegetable
|1,480
|1,507
|2%
|-
!Aquaculture
!Rabi
|283
|283
|0%
|-
!
!kharif-2
|319
|445
|39%
|-
!
!kharif-1
|183
|258
|41%
|}
----

=== Technology adoption through Farmers’ Field Schools ===
The outcomes of Farmers’ Field Schools (FFS) are shown by qualitative data. Interview participants were able to list around 22 different crop-related technologies (Table 11). Adoption rates were usually (but not always) somewhat lower for other (non-FFS) WMG members and lower again for other farmers – typically with a drop of 5% to 20% from FFS to WMG and the same from WMG to other farmers. In some cases, other farmers did not adopt at all – but this would be for technologies with relatively low adoption rates for FFS and WMG members.

'''Table 12: Adoption of crop-related technologies'''
{| class="wikitable"
! rowspan="2" |
! rowspan="2" |Technology
! colspan="3" |Percent FGD with adoption rate1
! rowspan="2" |no. of FGD out of 24 FGDs
|-
!high
!Medium
!low
|-
!1
!Improved seeds & varieties
|91%
|5%
|5%
|22
|-
!2
!Pulse cultivation
|80%
|20%
|0%
|5
|-
!3
!Seedbed preparation
|74%
|22%
|4%
|23
|-
!4
!Line sowing
|74%
|22%
|4%
|23
|-
!5
!Balanced fertiliser
|70%
|30%
|0%
|10
|-
!6
!Pheremone trap
|67%
|33%
|0%
|3
|-
!7
!Seed preservation
|64%
|27%
|9%
|11
|-
!8
!Perching branches for birds
|48%
|24%
|29%
|21
|-
!9
!Logo sowing method2
|37%
|47%
|16%
|19
|-
!10
!Leaf colour chart
|17%
|17%
|67%
|6
|-
!11
!Pest control methods
|14%
|43%
|43%
|7
|-
!12
!Organic pesticides
|13%
|0%
|88%
|8
|-
!13
!Light trap
|8%
|15%
|77%
|13
|-
!14
!Vermicompost
|0%
|0%
|100%
|3
|-
| colspan="6" |''1 Adoption rates for FFS members were categorised as; (i) high – over 61% adopting; (ii) medium – 60% to 31% adopting; and (iii) low – 30% or fewer adopting. 2 Logo is omitting sowing some rows in a crop to act as a guide for application of fertiliser and pesticide''
|}
Although pheromone traps were adopted quite well (though only reported upon in three WMG), other pest control methods, light traps and organic pesticides, along with vermicompost, were not much adopted. The most widely cited reason for non-adoption was “lack of awareness” which could suggest a failure in training – the participant was not made aware of the technology. However, it is more likely that participants did not feel that the technology was relevant to their situation or needs. Light traps were also said to be too costly and, along with organic pesticides and vermicompost, “not convenient” or “difficult” which may relate to a high labour requirement or a specific skill need. Leaf colour charts were not thought to add much to farmers’ existing experience.

In Khulna and Satkhira zones (but not in polder 30), FFS also covered fishery technologies. Adoption rates for these technologies are shown in Annex-Table 6. In general adoption rates were higher than for crop-related technologies. Some respondents say that FFS have directly encouraged expansion of fish ghers in Khulna. However, it should be pointed out that BGP FFS for fisheries were targeted at operators of small fish ponds, not those of much larger ghers. However, the FGD clearly saw these FFS as supporting gher production. For example, an FFS topic on preparation of fish ponds prior to stocking was identified in the Focus Group Discussions as “gher preparation”.

=== Changes in land tenure ===
Data shows (Table 12) that less land is now being farmed by its owner and less is being sharecropped, with a significant increase in other lease arrangements (mainly annual cash rental). This pattern is followed in all three zones and in most seasons. In Satkhira, there has been a smaller decline in cultivation by owners, and Khulna has seen a slightly smaller drop in sharecropping and a smaller increase in other types of lease. Although land for fish ghers is often rented in by large operators, there has also been an increase in cash rental in Patuakhali, where there are no ghers. A similar trend was observed in the 2018 WMG survey.
{| class="wikitable"
|+'''Table 13: Land tenure'''
|
!
! colspan="3" |Owner cultivator
! colspan="3" |Sharecropper
! colspan="3" |Other lease
|-
!
!
!before
!now
!change
!before
!now
!change
!before
!now
!change
|-
! rowspan="3" |Khulna
!rabi/boro
|53.2
|44.8
|<nowiki>-8.4</nowiki>
|21.8
|16.2
|<nowiki>-5.6</nowiki>
|23.8
|37.9
|14.1
|-
!kharif 1
|58.6
|52.1
|<nowiki>-6.4</nowiki>
|9.4
|6.0
|<nowiki>-3.4</nowiki>
|25.5
|38.0
|12.5
|-
!kharif 2
|57.1
|49.7
|<nowiki>-7.3</nowiki>
|19.2
|12.6
|<nowiki>-6.7</nowiki>
|23.3
|37.7
|14.4
|-
! rowspan="3" |Satkhira
!rabi/boro
|58.3
|55.2
|<nowiki>-3.1</nowiki>
|28.5
|13.0
|<nowiki>-15.5</nowiki>
|11.7
|31.8
|20.2
|-
!kharif 1
|37.5
|44.6
|7.1
|13.9
|7.2
|<nowiki>-6.7</nowiki>
|16.9
|45.0
|28.1
|-
!kharif 2
|45.3
|46.5
|1.2
|19.0
|9.4
|<nowiki>-9.7</nowiki>
|16.6
|44.1
|27.5
|-
! rowspan="3" |Patuakhali
!rabi/boro
|59.4
|48.0
|<nowiki>-11.4</nowiki>
|22.7
|14.2
|<nowiki>-8.5</nowiki>
|17.3
|37.2
|19.9
|-
!kharif 1
|44.1
|36.5
|<nowiki>-7.6</nowiki>
|14.9
|9.5
|<nowiki>-5.4</nowiki>
|12.9
|27.5
|14.6
|-
!kharif 2
|59.0
|47.8
|<nowiki>-11.2</nowiki>
|22.7
|14.5
|<nowiki>-8.1</nowiki>
|17.8
|37.1
|19.3
|-
! rowspan="3" |Total
!rabi/boro
|56.0
|47.2
|<nowiki>-8.8</nowiki>
|23.0
|15.1
|<nowiki>-7.9</nowiki>
|20.0
|36.9
|16.9
|-
!kharif 1
|50.8
|45.6
|<nowiki>-5.1</nowiki>
|11.9
|7.4
|<nowiki>-4.5</nowiki>
|19.9
|35.2
|15.2
|-
!kharif 2
|56.3
|48.6
|<nowiki>-7.6</nowiki>
|20.4
|12.9
|<nowiki>-7.6</nowiki>
|20.5
|38.3
|17.8
|-
| colspan="11" |''Average percentage of land under different tenure arrangements''
|}
Qualitative data shows a mixed picture. At a few locations less land is being leased out or sharecropped as land owners now want to grow highly profitable crops such as watermelon on newly irrigated/drained land. But in most of the locations with improved water management much more land is now being leased-out (in line with the WMG survey data) as farming has become more profitable for tenants. Where improvements in water management were limited, there may not be much increase in the amount of land being leased out. Here, more land was being sharecropped in the rabi season (as it was more profitable for tenants than cash rental), but less was sharecropped in kharif as aman production had become unprofitable. There were large increases with the amount of land being leased out for cash rents. In general people who rent or sharecrop in land are farmers with limited land holdings (landless, marginal and small farmers), but who have labour available within their families. But at some locations in Khulna and Satkhira land is being rented in by larger farmers and businessmen for fish/shrimp ghers, along with vegetables and paddy.

Cash rents have risen significantly during the BGP period – often by multiple times. Typical annual rent per acre reported in Khulna were around Tk 20,000 – less in polder 30, but up to Tk 50,000 in polder 29. In Satkhira rents were higher – typically around Tk 30,000, while Patuakhali Tk 13,000 per acre was typical – lower as fish ghers are not a land use option here.

=== Farm labour and the role of women in agriculture ===
With an increased area of crops, more labour is now hired. Participants said that much of the available male labour has been absorbed in the non-farm sector and by fish and poultry enterprises. As a result, women are now hired. Earlier they were either not hired at all or only for limited tasks such as post-harvest work on paddy. In Khulna and Satkhira, women are now hired for almost all farm operations, including transplanting and weeding paddy, and preparation of fish ghers, and have, to some extent, replaced male labour. Women provide 50% or more of the labour for some operations. However, this pattern varied between different locations, with the amount of women’s participation varying. In Patuakhali, women are still primarily hired for work in mung beans and other non-rice crops (but they may provide all the hired labour for these crops). Here women provide little or none of the hired labour for paddy. They do at most only limited tasks, such as uprooting aman seedlings.

Women are almost always paid less than men – typically being paid between 50 and 80% of the male wage. Only in a few instances (e.g. weeding of paddy) are equal wages paid. In many areas, it is reported that the differential between male and female wages has narrowed, at least in relative terms, with female wages doubling since the start of BGP, while male wages have only gone up 50%.

Increased participation in the workforce has added to the overall workload of women – although a greater contribution to domestic tasks my men was also mentioned. But FGDs said that women thought that, overall, they were better off – with additional income in their hands to meet the needs of their households. As they now earn an income, they have a greater say in household decision-making and their position in the household has improved.

=== Increase in farm income ===
An increased area of crops, intensified cropping patterns and increased yields have resulted in increased farm income. This increase in income has been assessed based on budgets for the main crops<ref group="Notes">Crop budgets are based on the current situation, and to incorporate yield increases net income “before BGP” has been estimated. This deducts approximately half of the value of the yield increase reported in the BGP survey to arrive at a before BGP net income. This is on the assumption that, without BGP interventions, yields would have increased by about 50% of the reported increase. </ref><ref name=":0" /> in each zone and using cropping patterns and yields derived from WMG survey data. These budgets were drawn up prior to collection of WMG survey data and yields have been subsequently adjusted in the crop budget to

# be in line with those from the WMG survey, and
# to reflect what farmers tell about the relative profitability of crops.

The cropping patterns in the current and pre-project situation are taken from the WMG survey data for each polder. These crop areas and the net income per acre for each crop are used to give the total net farm income in each polder, before BGP and for the current situation<ref name=":0" />.

Table 13 shows that net farm income has almost doubled, and that more comes from aquaculture than from crops – and aquaculture contributes over half the increase in farm income. However, in relative terms the increase has been higher for paddy and for other crops. The relative increase has also been higher in Patuakhali zone, and lowest in Khulna.
{| class="wikitable"
|+'''Table 14: Total net farm income'''
!
! colspan="4" |Before BGP - Tk million
! colspan="4" |Now - Tk million
! colspan="2" rowspan="2" |Change
|-
!
!paddy
!other crops
!Fish
!total
!paddy
!other crops
!fish
!total
|-
!Khulna
|453
|1,640
|4,316
|6,408
|665
|3,440
|7,210
|11,316
|4,908
|77%
|-
!Satkhira
|101
|289
|285
|675
|247
|419
|802
|1,468
|793
|117%
|-
!Patuakhali
|37
|729
|<nowiki>-</nowiki>
|765
|364
|1,666
|<nowiki>-</nowiki>
|2,030
|1,264
|165%
|-
!total
|590
|2,657
|4,601
|7,849
|1,276
|5,525
|8,012
|14,813
|6,965
|89%
|-
! colspan="5" |Increase
|116%
|108%
|74%
|89%
|
|
|}

=== Return to the investment in BGP ===
The increase in net farm income in the 22 polders can be compared to the investment made through BGP to see if benefits (in terms of increased farm income) justify the investments made. Cumulative expenditure of BGP funds by BWDB on water management infrastructure and by DAE on its FFS<ref group="Notes">BWDB expenditure is to June 2019, and DAE expenditure is to June 2018. Given the timing of this survey, expenditure data to June or December 2018 is appropriate for comparison with benefits to date. </ref> is shown in Table 14. In terms of average expenditure per WMG, more has been spent in Patuakhali than in the other two zones, reflecting the more extensive works reported in Table 3.
{| class="wikitable"
|+'''Table 15: Cumulative expenditure by BWDB and DAE'''
!
! colspan="4" |Million Taka
! colspan="2" |Payback period (years)
|-
!Zone
!BWDB
!DAE
!Total
!Avg per WMG
!A (BWDB+DAE expenditure)
!B (Total BGP expenditure)
|-
!Khulna
|1,254.10
|19.66
|1,273.76
|4.90
|0.26
|0.74
|-
!Satkhira
|352.85
|9.00
|361.85
|5.74
|0.46
|1.30
|-
!Patuakhali
|1,415.06
|30.07
|1,445.13
|8.12
|1.14
|3.27
|-
!Total
|3,022.02
|58.73
|3,080.75
|6.15
|0.44
|1.26
|}
Right column of Table 14 also shows the ‘payback period’, i.e. the period it takes for the increase in annual net farm income to equal the cumulative project expenditure to date<ref group="Notes">Column A is the payback period for BWDB and DAE expenditure only. Column B is the payback period for total BGP expenditure assuming that DAE and BWDB expenditure are 35% of cumulative total BGP expenditure including the TA team etc. (35% is approximately correct for the end of 2018).</ref>. Taking column A (BWDB and DAE expenditure only) the payback period is very short – less than six months for all polders taken together. Even if only part of the increase in net income were to be attributed to BGP interventions, the payback period would still be very acceptable.

This approach in measuring the viability of the BGP investment in terms of payback is crude<ref group="Notes">It takes no account of complementary investments in water management using other resources. A full economic analysis of the project would adjust input and output prices to reflect their real value to the economy. </ref>. However, BGP is generating very rapid returns and if the increase in farm income covers project investment costs in a few years, it is fairly certain that a full economic analysis, where benefits are accrued over a 20 or30 year period, would give positive results, with an acceptable economic internal rate of return.

Taking “case B” – including all BGP costs, almost all polders in Khulna have a payback period of less than two years (and many less than one year)<ref group="Notes">Exceptions are polder 28/2 (where there is no (or almost no) increase in farm income) and polder 34/2.</ref>. The payback for Polder 28/1 is under three years. Polder 2 in Satkhira has a payback period of under two years, but most of the Patuakhali polders are in excess of five years, apart from 43/1A, 43/2B (both under 2 years) and 55/2C (under 3 years).

It is not surprising that investment in BGP has generated rapid returns and the resulting increase in farm income very quickly equals the investment cost. Improvements in water management infrastructure have removed bottlenecks in an existing system. No account has been taken of the original investment in building the system in the first place as this is a sunk cost. Removing bottlenecks gets the whole system, including the original investment to work better. Similarly, training enables farmers to get their own production systems to work better. Training does not cost much, while increasing productivity generates more income for very little extra cost (mainly harvesting and marketing the increased volume of production).

=== Increase in Farm employment ===
Changes in labour use in crop and fish production have been calculated based on the crop budgets for each zone and crop areas in each polder. Before project labour use has been estimated taking into account that lower yields would have meant less labour was needed for harvest and post-harvest work. Based on information from the FGDs, the total proportion of labour that is hired has increased, with a particularly sharp increase in hired female labour. There has also been some increase in the share of work done by women on their own farms.

Table 15 shows the total labour used in crop production and gher aquaculture in each of the three zones. The total labour requirement is now estimated to be 15.4 million person-days, an increase of around 50% on the pre-project situation. Paddy production absorbs over half of this labour, followed by fish / shrimp aquaculture and then non-rice crops. The table also shows how much labour is hired (men and women) and how much comes from men and women members of farm households.

The share of each of these four sources of workers in the total supply of labour for the three subsectors (paddy, non-rice crops and aquaculture) in each zone shows that over half (57%) of the labour is hired and 43% comes from farm households (see Annex Table 7). Paddy production uses a slightly higher proportion of hired labour than the other sub-sectors. With increasing shortages of male workers there has been a four-fold increase in the number of days provided by hired female workers. Women (including those from farm households) provide 63% of labour for non-rice crops.
{| class="wikitable"
|+'''Table 15: Labour inputs for crops and aquaculture (thousand person-days)'''
|
|
! colspan="2" |paddy
! colspan="2" |other crops
! colspan="2" |fish / shrimp
! colspan="2" |total
|-
|
|
!before
!now
!before
!now
!before
!now
!before
!now
|-
!Khulna
!hired men
|1323
|1549
|164
|209
|944
|1308
|2431
|3067
|-
!
!hired woman
|165
|509
|71
|188
|0
|238
|235
|935
|-
!
!HH men
|990
|1083
|235
|212
|981
|1189
|2206
|2484
|-
!
!HH women
|300
|404
|142
|192
|223
|297
|666
|893
|-
!Satkhira
!hired men
|434
|457
|43
|45
|168
|360
|645
|861
|-
!
!hired woman
|152
|307
|23
|39
|44
|650
|219
|996
|-
!
!HH men
|306
|307
|52
|63
|175
|327
|532
|696
|-
!
!HH women
|122
|150
|20
|27
|40
|82
|182
|259
|-
!Patuakhali
!hired men
|1700
|2098
|247
|103
|0
|0
|1947
|2201
|-
!
!hired woman
|0
|0
|152
|747
|0
|0
|152
|747
|-
!
!HH men
|851
|940
|371
|431
|0
|0
|1222
|1371
|-
!
!HH women
|231
|302
|277
|561
|0
|0
|508
|863
|-
!total
!hired men
|3457
|4105
|453
|357
|1112
|1668
|5022
|6129
|-
!
!hired woman
|317
|816
|245
|973
|44
|888
|606
|2677
|-
!
!HH men
|2148
|2330
|657
|705
|1156
|1516
|3961
|4552
|-
!
!HH women
|653
|857
|440
|780
|263
|379
|1355
|2016
|-
!
!total
|6575
|8108
|1796
|2815
|2574
|4451
|10945
|15373
|}

{{UDNotice}}<blockquote>The following sections will be developed after completing the end-line survey in 2021</blockquote>

== Changes in homestead production ==

=== Changes in homestead gardening production ===

=== Changes in poultry production ===

=== Changes in livestock production ===

=== Changes in pond fisheries production ===

== Economic changes of the households of coastal areas ==

=== Changes in HH income ===

=== Changes in HH assets ===

== Women empowerment ==

=== Changes in participation in income generating activities ===

=== Feminisation of agriculture and impact on women livelihoods ===

=== Changes in decision-making authority ===

=== Changes in mobility of women ===

== Reference ==
<references />

== Notes ==
<references group="Notes" />

== See more ==
{{Full ToC Collapsed}}

Category:Monitoring, Reflection and Learning Courses

2021-05-11T09:21:52Z

Geerte: /* Overview of courses on Monitoring, Reflection and Learning */

==Overview of courses on Monitoring, Reflection and Learning==
{{For|overall overview of capacity building programs|31 Training#Capacity Building Programs}}{{For|detailed statistics of all capacity building courses in a PDF document|File:19feb 21 BGP cap build courses.pdf}}{{Hatnote|For reports of each training course, click on the name of the course.}}
{| class="wikitable"
! rowspan="2" |SL #
! rowspan="2" |Capacity Building Course
! rowspan="2" |Duration
(days)
! rowspan="2" |Batches
! rowspan="2" |Venue/Place of Training
! rowspan="2" |Date
! rowspan="2" |Lead Organisation
! rowspan="2" |Participants
! colspan="3" |No of Participants
|-
!Male
!Female
!Total
|-
!J-1
![[:File:J-1 Data collection process by ODK Training Sep - Dec 2014.pdf|Data Collection Process of WMG Outcome Monitoring Progress Marker by Tablet Operation using ODK Programing (4 days)]]
|4
|4
|Patuakhali & Khulna
|Sep 14-17 Patuakhali & Oct 26-29, 2014 at Khulna.
|TA
|BWDB XO & CDF
|24
|22
|46
|-
!J-2
![[:File:J-2 Refresher training on data collection using ODK 2015.pdf|Refresher Training on Data Collection Process of WMG Outcome Monitoring Progress Marker by Tablet Operation using ODK Programing (4 days)]]
|1
|4
|Pauakhali & Khulna
|Aug 3 & 5 2015 (Patuakhali & Khulna)
|TA
|BWDB Xos & CDF
|24
|22
|46
|-
!J-3
![[:File:J-3 ToT on Participatory Monitoring for CDF.pdf|ToT on WMG Participatory Monitoring for CDF]]
|2
|4
|Khulna & Patuakhali
|Oct - Nov 2016
|TA
|BWDB Xos and CDF
|55
|15
|70
|-
!J-4
!Participatory Monitoring Systems for WMG ([[:File:J-4.2 Manual Outcome Monitoring Data Collection.pdf|Data collection manual]], [[:File:J-4.3 Module Participatory Monitoring 20.11.2016.pdf|Participatory Monitoring training module (Bangla)]])
|1
|51
|Polder level training
|Nov - Dec 2016
|TA
|WMG EC members
|1,054
|352
|1,406
|-
!J-5
!Refresher Training on Participatory Monitoring for CDF
|1
|4
|Khulna & Patiakhali BGP Training Room
|Patuakhali Mar 13-14 & Khulna 20-21, 2017
|TA
|BWDB XOs and CDF
|55
|15
|70
|-
!J-6
!Orientation on Participating Monitoring System
|1
|3
|Khulna, Satkhira & Patiakhali BGP Training Room
|Khulna: Mar 19, Satkhira: Mar 21 & Patuakhali: 4 Apr, 2018
|TA
|CDF & Polder Team members
|27
|13
|40
|-
!J-7
!Refresher Training on Participatory Monitoring for WMG
|1
|51
|Khulna & Patuakhali
|Patuakhali Mar 13-14 & Khulna 20-21, 2017
|TA
|WMG EC Committee members
|785
|271
|1,056
|-
!J-8
![[:File:J-8 Training report on Dashboard & MIS Development.pdf|Dashboard and MIS Development]]
|2
|3
|Patiakhali & Khulna BGP Training Room
|Dec 17-18 & 20-21 2017
|mPower
|BWDB, DAE & TA
|85
|12
|97
|-
!J-9
!ToT on WMO Health Dashboard App
|2
|2
|Ava Center, Khulna & BGP Training room, Patuakhali
|Sep 13-14 2020 (khu) & Sep 15-16 2020 (Pat)
|mPower
|CDF, CoCo, Xos
|38
|8
|46
|-
!J-10
!WMO Health Dashboard App
|1
|51
|35 WMA and 22 Polder level
|21 Sep - 8 Oct, 2020
|TA
|WMG & WMA representatives
|981
|101
|1,082
|-
!
!Sub Total
!
!
!
!
!
!
!3,128
!831
!3,959
|}