Blue Gold Program Wiki - User contributions [en]

Blue Gold Lessons Learnt Wiki

2021-12-22T04:15:10Z

Guy.Jones:

[[File:Bgp-LLR-banner-wiki-01.png|frameless|491x491px]]

The wiki version of the Lessons Learnt Report of the Blue Gold program documents the experiences of a technical assistance (TA) team working in a development project implemented by the Bangladesh Water Development Board (BWDB) and the Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE) over an eight+ year period from March 2013 to December 2021. Blue Gold has rehabilitated and improved the main water infrastructure in 22 coastal polders in south-west Bangladesh and built the capacity of Water Management Groups (WMGs) and Water Management Associations (WMAs) to be the drivers of economic development in the polders – through organisational management, adoption of modern crop technologies and the importance of crop selection, collective purchase of inputs and sales of produce to maximise profitability.

The wiki lessons learnt report (LLR) is intended to complement the BWDB and DAE project completion reports (PCRs), by recording lessons learnt for use in the design and implementation of future interventions in the coastal zone. The aim of this report is to review and analyse approaches and methodologies used in the delivery of Blue Gold, how and why they evolved over the lifetime of Blue Gold with reasons for the adaptations and adjustments that were introduced and an explanation for the timing of the intervention.

Whilst Blue Gold will end in December 2021, much of the lessons learnt report will have been written in 2020 and early 2021 while the principal contributors in the TA team remained in place. But the completion of some sections of the report will only be possible when, for example, final payments have been made for water infrastructure contracts at end-June 2021, and findings are available from impact surveys conducted in 2021. DAE’s involvement as an implementation partner finished at end-December 2020, whilst BWDB’s involvement continued to 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 June 2021 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.

In particular, this wiki provides digital versions of documents prepared by the project team, by other organisations through the Innovation Fund and the many valuable references (policy documents, legislation etc) that have provided direction to Blue Gold. Guidance on how to locate a specific document is given in the section [[File library|File Library]]. Although the wiki report is in English, many documents were prepared in Bangla for use in training of Blue Gold communities and are also available in the File Library.

Aimed at first-time users, the [[Frequently Asked Questions|frequently asked questions]] (FAQ) page provides answers about the wiki, browsing, files and downloads and points of contact for further information.

==Table of Contents: overview==
To aid navigation through the report, this wiki has been organised into multiple sections and chapters. Within the table (bottom right hand corner), there is a [[file library]] to explore the hundreds of files generated or used as references during the 8+year period of Blue Gold. Below you will see multiple navigation boxes, divided and organised for easier use - so that you can browse through the wiki and find the subject matter which is of greatest relevance to you.

{{Full ToC}}

== Table of contents: detailed view ==
This section of table of contents provides a more detailed view of the contents of each chapter, allowing the reader to navigate directly to a specific subsection.

=== Executive summary: Call for Action ===
{{main|Executive summary: a call for action}}
===Section A: Background and context===
{{For|a summary of this section|Summary of Section A: Background and context}}{{ToC Section A}}

===Section B: Development Outcomes===
{{For|summary and introduction of this section|Summary and Introduction of Section B: Development Outcomes}}{{ToC Section B}}

===Section C: Water Infrastructure===
{{For|summary of this section|Summary of Section C: Water Infrastructure}}{{ToC Section C}}

===Section D: Participatory Water Management===
{{For|a summary of this section|Summary of Section D: BGP Interventions: Participatory Water Management}}{{ToC Section D}}
===Section E: Agricultural Development===
{{For|a summary of this section|Summary of Section E: Agricultural Development}}{{ToC Section E}}
===Section F: Responsible Development: Inclusion and Sustainability===
{{For|a summary of this section|Summary of Section F - Responsible Development: Inclusion and Sustainability}}{{ToC Section F}}

===Section G: Project Management===
{{For|a summary of this section|Summary of Section G: Project Management}}{{ToC Section G}}

===Section H: Innovation Fund===
{{For|summary of this section|Summary of Section H: Innovation Fund}}{{ToC Section H}}

===Files and others===
{| width="100%" style="background-color:#fff;margin:auto;" border="0" cellpadding="3px" cellspacing="2px"
|- align="center" style="background-color:tan;"
! width="25%" |'''[[File library]]'''
! width="25%" |'''[[Glossary and acronyms]]'''
|}__NOINDEX__
__NONEWSECTIONLINK__
__FORCETOC__

20 Way forward

2021-12-15T10:00:17Z

Guy.Jones:

The story of Participatory Water Management in BGP – but also in Bangladesh as a whole – is one of two steps forward and one step back. Critics could easily argue that the experiment, initiated by the 1999 National Water Policy, failed; while champions for community empowerment could and would quote a long list of success stories. Truth is that there is no alternative to a greater public participation in water management decisions ànd that, despite promising experiences, Bangladesh has not established a viable modus operandi for participatory water management as yet. With ample experience gained and being gained through several projects, it is time for the implementing agencies and the sector stakeholders to go back to the drawing board.

{{Briefing materials STV|decks=*[[:File:BGP slide deck WMO v4.pdf|WMOs: building sustainable partnerships for participatory water management]]|brochures=*[[:File:BGP 4 pager IPWM v3.pdf|In-polder water management: maximising returns from agriculture and aquaculture]]
*[[:File:BGP 4 pager lessons learnt v7.pdf|Lessons learnt for scaling out: how participatory water management contributes to inclusive development]]
*[[:File:BGP 4 pager WMO v3.pdf|WMOs: building sustainable partnerships for participatory water management]]|studies=No case studies for the current chapter.|videos=*[[:Category:Videos#What water management means to me: Bangladesh's polder farmers|What water management means to me (Bangla with English subtitles)]]
*[[:Category:Videos#Participatory Water Management: An integrated approach|PWM: an integrated approach - animation (Bangla with English subtitles)]]
*[[:#|Water Management Organisations (Bangla with English subtitles)]]|manuals=No manuals for the current chapter.|flipchart=No flipcharts for the current chapter.}}

The 1999 NWPo and the policy and regulatory framework for participatory water management that it helped establish, were a bold step forward towards enhanced public participation in water management. The experiences of BGP – and those gained in other similar projects – now show that it is high time to assess the progress made and to move forwards for taking a next stride.

For BGP, the need for modifications and amplifications in the enabling environment were clear as early as 2016. When articulating the project’s Theory of Change<ref>{{Cite book|last=|first=|title=Theory of Change – version 2, Working Paper 5|publisher=Euroconsult Mott MacDonald & Associates|year=May 2016|isbn=|location=|pages=|url=https://www.bluegoldwiki.com/index.php?title=File:WP5_-_Theory_of_Change_rev_2_25may_16.pdf}}</ref> and when devising its exit strategy<ref>{{Cite book|last=|first=|title=Sustainability from The Start - Exit Strategy (draft final), Working Paper 2A|publisher=Euroconsult Mott MacDonald & Associates|year=February 2016|isbn=|location=|pages=|url=https://www.bluegoldwiki.com/index.php?title=File:WP02A_Exit_Strategy_feb_16_v2.pdf}}</ref>; there was a clear and explicit realisation that the sustainability of the project outcomes critically depended on externalities with respect to the performance of WMOs. The question was, however, how the project – being by nature a focusses and clearly contained activity – could contribute to a review of something as wide as the enabling environment.

From 2019 onwards, BGP started pursuing a review of the enabling framework for participatory water management. Points of departure were (i) the modest role that a regional project has in something that is in essence a national debate; and (ii) the inherent national character of such a review, in which there should be little to no role for international consultancy. The way forward comprised the following:

* BGP could use its accumulated experience, network and resources to initiate discussions around participatory water management with stakeholders, policy makers and high-level stakeholder representatives. The resources for organising its completion conference, are therefore dedicated to initiating debate, rather than to the mere reporting of achievements;
* The policy review is organised under the umbrella of the Bangladesh’s Delta Plan and as such undertaken under the aegis of the General Economics Department of the Planning Commission, with the organisation vested in its ‘Support to the Implementation of the Bangladesh Delta Plan’ (SIBDP) project, and with Blue Gold supporting those preparations;
* Involvement of reputed senior national experts, with support teams, to prepare policy notes on three aspects of PWM: its institutional setting, its financing and its overall approach. These senior experts are to act as pathway leaders for the sector and – although engaged through the TA team of BGP – have a free hand as to what expert advice they would provide.

By mid-2020 the pathway leaders have drafted their policy notes, which will undergo a series of review events with stakeholder representatives ahead of the [[:File:PWM minutes 17nov 21.pdf|National PWM Conference]], held in November 2021.

== References ==
<references />

== See also ==
{{ArtNav|Prev_chap=[[19 Operationalisation of the PWM concept|Chapter 19: Operationalisation of the PWM concept]]|Curr_sect=[[Summary of Section D: BGP Interventions: Participatory Water Management|Section D: BGP Interventions: Participatory Water Management]]|Next_chap=[[21 The Evolving Approach to the Commercialization of Agriculture|Chapter 21: The Evolving Approach to the Commercialization of Agriculture]]}}

{{SeeMoreSectionD}}

13 Construction: Progress, Modalities and Lessons Learnt

2021-12-07T06:37:51Z

Guy.Jones: /* Analysis of Progress */

This chapter describes the [[13 Construction: Progress, Modalities and Lessons Learnt#Analysis of Progress|progress of construction]] over the eight construction seasons from 2013/14 to 2020/21, analyses the [[13 Construction: Progress, Modalities and Lessons Learnt#Nature of Works|nature of the works]] and the [[13 Construction: Progress, Modalities and Lessons Learnt#Contractors|contractors,]] the contracting modalities, makes some general observations on [[13 Construction: Progress, Modalities and Lessons Learnt#Construction quality|construction quality]], and draws the lessons learnt.

Six BWDB divisions in three Circles are responsible for tendering, the award of contracts and the day-to-day monitoring and quality control of the works:
{| class="wikitable"
!Zone
!Circle
!Division
|-
!South-West
|Khulna O&M
|Satkhira O&M-2
|-
!
|Jashore O&M
|Khulna O&M-1
|-
!
|Khulna O&M
|Khulna O&M-2
|-
!South
|Patuakhali WD
|Patuakhali O&M
|-
!
|
|Barguna O&M
|-
!
|
|Kalapara
|}

A map of the Circles and Divisions is provided [[:File:BWDB Circles, Divisions, BGP polders, Roads.pdf|here]].

The role of the Technical Assistance (TA) team during construction is to assist in occasional monitoring and quality control of implementation works, to carry out site checks and surveys prior to certifying payments, and to process all bills submitted by BWDB field offices for reimbursement by EKN.

== Analysis of Progress ==
Table 13.1 sets out the quantity and value of certified works for each of the construction seasons against each of the RDPP budget heads.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Table 13.1 Expenditure by construction season against RDPP Budget Heads
! colspan="1" rowspan="3" |SI. No
! colspan="1" rowspan="3" |Work Items
! colspan="3" rowspan="1" |FY 2013/14
! colspan="3" rowspan="1" |FY 2014/15
! colspan="3" rowspan="1" |FY 2015/16
! colspan="3" rowspan="1" |FY 2016/17
! colspan="3" rowspan="1" |FY 2017/18
! colspan="3" rowspan="1" |FY 2018/19
! colspan="3" rowspan="1" |FY 2019/20
! colspan="3" rowspan="1" |FY 2020/21
! colspan="4" |FY 2021/22
to end-Sep 2021
!
!
! colspan="3" rowspan="1" |TOTALcost adj RDPP
(as revised September 2020)
|-
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty

(Full)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty (Part)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Total Cost
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty

(Full)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty (Part)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Total Cost
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty

(Full)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty (Part)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Total Cost
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty

(Full)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty (Part)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Total Cost
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty

(Full)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty (Part)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Total Cost
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty

(Full)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty (Part)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Total Cost
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty

(Full)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty (Part)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Total Cost
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty

(Full)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty (Part)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Total Cost
! rowspan="2" |Qty
(Full)
! rowspan="2" |Qty (Part)
! rowspan="2" |Total Cost
!
!
!
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Cost
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |%age
|-
!
!Cum Total
!
|-
!1
!Re-sectioning of Embankment (km)
|2.80
|63.42
|220.88
|68.93
|82.98
|947.49
|89.31
|27.25
|781.83
|45.80
|44.35
|804.39
|57.86
|30.61
|778.8
|51.82
|13.76
|565.11
|8.48
|
|79.83
|5.12
|
|12.37
|
|
|
|
|4,190.70
|
|330.12
|4,232.67
|99%
|-
!2
!Retired Embankment (km)
|
|0.60
|0.99
|0.60
|2.24
|190.97
|2.24
|1.47
|123.90
|
|1.08
|24.57
|1.71
|
|168.95
|0.40
|1.31
|70.32
|9.86
|
|305.04
|5.21
|
|170.01
|0.33
|
|19.47
|
|1,074.22
|
|20.34
|1,252.01
|86%
|-
!3
!Re-excavation of khals (km)
|6.63
|0.55
|47.27
|21.36
|17.42
|365.30
|21.59
|33.35
|267.33
|50.14
|33.04
|798.57
|78.30
|30.10
|924.37
|152.13
|47.25
|2,692.27
|82.07
|24.02
|1,237.74
|106.98
|2.29
|1,156.72
|2.29
|
|7.94
|
|7,497.51
|
|521.48
|8,675.96
|86%
|-
!4
!Repair of Regulator/Sluice with gate (nos.)
|
|
| -
|2
|5
|27.98
|19
|27
|664.81
|27
|12
|610.02
|27
|3
|610.69
|26
|24
|605.70
|55
|5
|1,336.47
|14
|
|551.19
|6
|
|235.10
|
|4,641.96
|
|176
|5,025.24
|92%
|-
!5
!Repair of Inlets/Outlets (nos.)
|
|
| -
|
|4
|20.42
|139
|49
|207.12
|72
|
|41.70
|5
| -
|4.91
| -
| -
| -
| -
|
| -
|2
|
|4.61
|
|
|
|
|278.76
|
|218
|276.03
|101%
|-
!6
!Construction of Drainage Regulator/ Sluice (nos.)
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|2
|88.29
|
|7
|464.99
|3
|5
|480.74
|3
|12
|1,476.63
|6
|13
|3,279.51
|11
|6
|1,104.53
|6
|
|116.01
|
|7,010.71
|
|29
|7,220.47
|97%
|-
!7
!Construction of Drainage Outlet (nos.)
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
|
|
| -
| -
|
| 7
| 286.08
| 5
| 11
| 782.25
|10
|2
|207.97
|2
|
|160.65
|
|1,436.95
|
|17
|1,480
|97%
|-
!8
!Construction of Irrigation Inlet (nos.)
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|2
|
| 54.59
|
| -
| -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|54.59
|
|8
|192
|28%
|-
!9
!Construction of culvert (nos.)
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
| -
| -
| 3.42
|6
|
|126.13
| -
|1
|12.86
|2
|
|34.02
|
|
|7.56
|
|183.99
|
|4
|302
|61%
|-
!10
!Pump shed (nos.)
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
| -
|
| -
| -
|3
|8.49
|3
|1
|26.24
|1
|
|3.00
|
|
|
|
|37.73
|
|6
|48.43
|78%
|-
!11
!Low cost Bank Protection work (km)
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
| -
|
|19.21
|0.74
|0.51
|119.81
|0.80
|0.09
|159.49
|0.61
|
|87.02
|
|
|
|
|385.53
|
|LS
|620
|62%
|-
!12
!Rehabilitation of Interior Dike (km)
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
| -
| -
| -
|0.60
| -
|32.03
|3.95
|12.25
|213.75
|17.69
|
|124.37
|
|
|
|
|370.15
|
|21
|419.36
|88%
|-
!13
!Closure/ Cross-bundh (km)
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
| -
| -
| -
| 0.14
|20.58
| -
| -
| -
|
|
|
|0.14
|
|0.53
|
|21.11
|
|LS
|20
|106%
|-
!14
!Supply of Drain pipe (m)
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
| -
| -
| -
| -
|
| -
|4,168
|1,314
|139.62
|4,609.34
|
|87.86
|198
|
|5.17
|
|232.65
|
|9,000
|256
|91%
|-
!15
!Flood damage repair / Breach Closing
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
| -
| -
| -
|0.72
|0.12
|104.35
|13.58
|8.59
|482.22
|10.78
|
|161.09
|0.40
|
|0.22
|
|747.88
|
|LS
|800
|93%
|-
!16
!GoB O&M
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|1.19
|2.18
|173.28
|10.27
|0.03
|265.59
|0.44
|
|28.98
|
|
|35.44
|
|
|18.35
|
|521.64
|
|LS
|600
|87%
|-
! colspan="2" rowspan="1" |Total
!
!
!269.14
!
!
!1,552.16
!
!
!2,133.28
!
!
!2,798.82
!
!
!3,164.38
!
!
!6,373.09
!
!
!8,084.00
!
!
!3,740.20
!
!
!571.00
!
!28,686.08
!
!
!31,420
!91%
|}
In 2019/20, the most active construction season (as judged by the value of certified payments), there were a total of 332 active contracts: comprising 167 new contracts which started in the season and 165 contracts for carried-over works. Within the total of 332, there were 64 contracts for miscellaneous works (ie low cost bank protection, rehabilitation of interior dykes, flood damage repair, etc). The 167 new contracts included 87 for earthworks (or 11% of the total number of earthworks contracts awarded), 30 for the rehabilitation of structures (25% of the total number of the contracts awarded for the rehabilitation of structures) and 9 for the construction of new structures (15% of the total number of the contracts awarded for new structures).

Table 13.2 sets out the cumulative quantity and value of certified works for each of the construction seasons against each of the RDPP budget heads.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Table 13.2 Cumulative Expenditure against RDPP Budget Heads
! colspan="1" rowspan="3" |SI. No
! colspan="1" rowspan="3" |Work Items
! colspan="3" rowspan="1" |Comulative progress
upto June 2014
! colspan="3" rowspan="1" |Comulative progress
upto June 2015
! colspan="3" rowspan="1" |Comulative progress
upto June 2016
! colspan="3" rowspan="1" |Comulative progress
upto June 2017
! colspan="3" rowspan="1" |Comulative progress
upto June 2018
! colspan="3" rowspan="1" |Comulative progress
upto June 2019
! colspan="3" rowspan="1" |Comulative progress
upto June 2020
! colspan="3" rowspan="1" |Comulative progress
upto June 2021
! colspan="3" |Cumulative Progress
to end-Sep 2021
!
! colspan="3" rowspan="1" |TOTAL cost adj RDPP
(as revised September 2020)
|-
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty

(Full)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty (Part)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Total Cost
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty

(Full)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty (Part)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Total Cost
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty

(Full)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty (Part)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Total Cost
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty

(Full)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty (Part)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Total Cost
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty

(Full)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty (Part)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Total Cost
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty

(Full)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty (Part)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Total Cost
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty

(Full)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty (Part)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Total Cost
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty

(Full)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty (Part)
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Total Cost
! rowspan="2" |Qty
(Full)
! rowspan="2" |Qty (Part)
! rowspan="2" |Total Cost
!
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Qty
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |Cost
! colspan="1" rowspan="2" |%age
|-
!
|-
!1
!Re-sectioning of Embankment (km)
|2.80
|63.42
|220.88
|71.73
|82.98
|1,168.37
|161.04
|27.25
|1,950.20
|206.84
|44.35
|2,754.59
|264.70
|30.61
|3,533.39
|316.52
|13.76
|4,098.50
|325.00
|
|4,178.33
|330.12
|
|4,190.70
|330.12
|
|4,190.70
|
|330
|4,233
|99%
|-
!2
!Retired Embankment (km)
|
|0.60
|0.99
|0.60
|2.24
|191.96
|2.84
|1.47
|315.86
|2.84
|1.08
|340.43
|4.55
|
|509.38
|4.95
|1.31
|579.70
|14.81
|
|884.74
|20.01
|
|1,054.75
|20.34
|
|1,074.22
|
|21
|1,252
|86%
|-
!3
!Re-excavation of khals (km)
|6.63
|0.55
|47.27
|27.98
|17.42
|412.57
|49.57
|33.35
|679.90
|99.71
|33.04
|1,478.47
|178.01
|30.10
|2,402.84
|330.14
|47.25
|5,095.11
|412.21
|24.02
|6,332.85
|519.19
|2.29
|7,489.57
|521.48
|
|7,497.51
|
|545
|8,676
|86%
|-
!4
!Repair of Regulator/Sluice with gate (nos.)
|
|
| -
|2
|5
|27.98
|21
|27
|692.79
|48
|12
|1,302.81
|75
|3
|1,913.50
|101
|24
|2,519.20
|156
|5
|3,855.67
|170
|
|4,406.86
|176
|
|4,641.96
|
|186
|5,025
|92%
|-
!5
!Repair of Inlets/Outlets (nos.)
|
|
| -
|
|4
|20.42
|139
|49
|227.54
|211
|
|269.24
|216
| -
|274.15
|216
| -
|274.15
|216
|
|274.15
|218
|
|278.56
|218
|
|278.76
|
|235
|276
|101%
|-
!6
!Construction of Drainage Regulator/ Sluice (nos.)
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|2
|88.29
|
|7
|553.28
|3
|5
|1,034.02
|6
|12
|2,510.65
|12
|13
|5,790.17
|23
|6
|6,894.70
|29
|
|7,010.71
|
|31
|7,220
|97%
|-
!7
!Construction of Drainage Outlet (nos.)
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
|
|
| -
|
|
| 7
|286.08
|5
| 11
|1,068.33
|15
|2
|1,276.30
|17
|
|1,436.95
|
|8
|192
|97%
|-
!8
!Construction of Irrigation Inlet (nos.)
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|2
|
| 54.59
| 2
| -
| 54.59
| 2
|
|54.59
|2
|
|54.59
|2
|
|54.59
|2
|
|54.59
|
|17
|1,480
|28%
|-
!9
!Construction of culvert (nos.)
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
| -
| -
| 3.42
|6
|
|129.55
|6
|1
|142.41
|8
|
|176.43
|8
|
|183.99
|
|32
|302
|61%
|-
!10
!Pump shed (nos.)
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
| -
|
| -
| -
|3
|8.49
|3
|1
|34.73
|4
|
|37.73
|4
|
|37.73
|
|6
|48
|78%
|-
!11
!Low cost Bank Protection work (km)
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
| -
|
|19.21
|0.74
|0.51
|139.02
|1.54
|0.09
|298.51
|2.15
|
|385.53
|2.15
|
|385.53
|
|LS
|620
|62%
|-
!12
!Rehabilitation of Interior Dike (km)
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
| -
| -
| -
|0.60
| -
|32.03
|4.55
|12.25
|245.78
|22.23
|
|370.15
|22.23
|
|370.15
|
|21
|419
|88%
|-
!13
!Closure/ Cross-budh (km)
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
| -
| -
|
| 0.14
|20.58
|
| -
|20.58
|
|
|20.58
|0.14
|
|21.11
|
|LS
|20
|106%
|-
!14
!Supply of Drain pipe (m)
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
| -
| -
| -
| -
|
| -
|4,168
|1,314
|139.62
|8,777
|
|227.48
|8,975
|
|232.65
|
|9,000
|256
|91%
|-
!15
!Flood damage repair / Breach Closing
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
| -
| -
| -
|0.720
|0.12
|104.35
|14.30
|8.59
|586.57
|25.09
|
|747.66
|25.49
|
|747.88
|
|LS
|800
|93%
|-
!16
!GoB O&M
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|
|
| -
|1.19
|2.18
|173.28
|11.46
|0.03
|438.87
|11.89
|
|467.85
|11.89
|
|503.29
|11.89
|
|521.64
|
|LS
|600
|87%
|-
!
!Re-excavation of ponds
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
! colspan="2" rowspan="1" |Total
!
!
!269.14
!
!
!1,821.30
!
!
!3,954.58
!
!
!6,753.40
!
!
!9,917.78
!
!
!16,290.87
!
!
!24,374.87
!
!
!28,115.08
!
!
!28,686.08
!
!
!31,420
!91%
|}
The tables show the relatively slow start to the construction effort. The five-year duration assumed in the original DPP would have meant an average rate of implementation of BDT 5,350 lakh per annum (ie BDT 21,390 lakh over an effective four-year period<ref group="Notes">The ‘effective four-year period’ is recognition that a project start date in March 2013 does not allow the development of contracts for award in the first construction season (from January to June 2013).</ref>). By the end of the construction season in FY 2015/16 – just over half-way through the original 69 month project period – only 18% (a cumulative value of BDT 3,954 lakh against a total provision of BDT 21,390 lakh in the DPP of May 2013) had been disbursed, and Blue Gold was classified by MoWR/BWDB as a “sick project”.

To compensate for the numerous vacancies within the BWDB Division and Design Offices, the 2016 Annual Review Mission (Recommendation 1.1) allocated a € 500,000 budget for additional resources to BWDB. The fund was channelled through the TA team and used for additional junior professional staff in the BWDB Design Circles, field and technical support staff in Khulna and Patuakhali, and the appointment of survey firms to carry out surveys and design data collection under contract to the Executive Engineer of the responsible BWDB Division.

'''Design staff:''' Four junior design engineers were identified and selected by BWDB and subsequently contracted through the TA Team in April 2017 and appointed to Design Circles 2 and 5 in BWDB’s Green Road complex – and provided with computers and office furniture. In October 2017, a junior mechanical engineer for ME Khulna was appointed. These staff were recruited through the TA team but were accountable to BWDB line managers.

'''Survey and design data collection (SDDC):''' After appreciating the range of support likely to be required by BWDB if survey teams were recruited locally (ie recruitment of trained staff, provision of survey equipment, transport, field allowances etc), and the complexity of managing and obtaining transparent financing procedures, preference was instead given to contracting local survey firms to conduct survey and design data collection. Survey contracts were therefore outsourced to local service companies instead of hiring additional staff.

'''Procurement and quality control staff:''' Additional staff have yet to be appointed in field offices in field offices for the preparation of estimates and tendering, and quality control. With respect to estimates and tendering, there was understandable reluctance within BWDB about providing confidential and sensitive information on prices and tendering procedures to part-time staff – for fear of collusion with contractors.

These measures and the efforts of the incoming BWDB Program Coordinating Director (who started in March 2016) resulted in a steady increase in the construction during FY 2017/18 followed by significant year-on-year increases in both FY 2018/19 and FY 2019/20.<ref group="Notes">The increase in FY 2018/19 over FY 2017/18 was 100%+ (BDT 6,434 lakh cf BDT 3,181 lakh) followed by a 25% increase from FY 2019/20 over FY 2018/19 (BDT 8,027 lakh cf BDT 6,434 lakh).</ref>

== Nature of Works ==
Blue Gold infrastructure works comprise simple, relatively low-value, but scattered construction activities for which expertise in earthworks and reinforced concrete structures is required, as well as experience in working in, and alongside, tidal rivers.

Over the eight-year lifetime of Blue Gold (2013 to 2021), some 1,157 contracts have been awarded (excluding those awarded for GoB O&M works) for the fifteen main work items defined in RDPP in Table 12.1 as well as to BWDB's Mechanical Engineering (ME) Division.

For each of the fifteen main RDPP work items, Table 13.3 presents the numbers and values of contracts awarded to Labour Contracting Societies (LCSs) and to general contractors.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Table 13.3 Number and Values of Infrastructure Contracts Awarded under Blue Gold
! rowspan="3" |SI. No
! rowspan="3" |Work Items
! colspan="2" rowspan="2" |Re- Adjustment (approved 1 September 2020)
! colspan="3" |No. of Contracts
! colspan="6" |Contract Value (BDT lakh)
|-
! rowspan="2" |LCS
! rowspan="2" |Contractor
! rowspan="2" |TOTAL
! colspan="3" |LCS
! colspan="3" |Contractor
|-
!Quantity
!Cost (BDT lakh)
!Min
!Max
!Avg
!Min
!Max
!Avg
|-
!1
!Re-sectioning of Embankment (km)
|330.13
|4,233
|228
|104
|332
|3.0
|13.7
|7.7
|4.8
|132.3
|28.2
|-
!2
!Retired Embankment (km)
|20.58
|1,252
|14
|33
|47
|7.3
|9.9
|8.9
|2.8
|259.5
|35.1
|-
!3
!Re-excavation of khals (km)
|545.0
|8,676
|218
|228
|446
|4.2
|14.0
|7.6
|3.4
|332.3
|29.8
|-
!4
!Repair of Regulator/Sluice with gate (nos.)
|186
|5,025
|
|108
|108
|
|
|
|1.7
|95.9
|24.2
|-
!5
!Repair of Inlets/Outlets (nos.)
|235
|276
|
|13
|13
|
|
|
|1.6
|43.8
|15.8
|-
!6
!Construction of Drainage Regulator/ Sluice (nos.)
|31
|7,220
|
|29
|29
|
|
|
|101.9
|515.8
|241.7
|-
!7
!Construction Irrigation inlet (nos.)
|8
|192
|
|2
|2
|
|
|
|26.7
|28.8
|27.7
|-
!8
!Construction of Drainage Outlet (nos.)
|17
|1,480
|
|17
|17
|
|
|
|52.6
|139.6
|86.1
|-
!9
!Construction of culvert (nos.)
|32
|302
|
|8
|8
|
|
|
|14.3
|28.6
|23.0
|-
!10
!Pump shed (nos.)
|6
|48
|
|4
|4
|
|
|
|9.3
|9.7
|9.5
|-
!11
!Low cost Bank Protection work (km)
|LS
|620
|
|24
|24
|
|
|
|2.3
|40.5
|16.7
|-
!12
!Rehabilitation of Interior Dike (km)
|21.02
|419
|
|17
|17
|
|
|
|2.3
|63.9
|24.5
|-
!13
!Closure/ Cross-budh (km)
|LS
|20
|
|1
|1
|
|
|
|21.4
|21.4
|21.4
|-
!14
!Supply of Drain pipe (m)
|9,000
|256
|
|13
|13
|
|
|
|7.8
|37.2
|16.7
|-
!15
!Flood damage repair / Breach Closing
|LS
|800
|
|49
|49
|
|
|
|0.8
|76.5
|16.7
|-
!
!ME Works
|
|
|
|47
|47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
! colspan="2" |Total
!
!31,420
!460
!697
!1,157
!
!
!
!
!
!
|}
A summary of the information in Table 13.3 is provided below in Table 13.4.
{| class="wikitable"
|+'''Table 13.4 Summary of Contracts Awarded'''
!Grouping
!Work Items

(Ref Table 12.1)
!No. of contracts
|-
!Earthworks
|1,2, 3,
|825: 460 LCSs, 365 contractors
|-
!Rehabilitation of structures
|4, 5
|121
|-
!New structures
|6, 7, 8, 9, 10
|60
|-
!Others
|11, 12, 13, 14, 15
|151 (including ME works)
|-
!TOTAL
|
|1,157
|}

=== Earthworks ===
The scope of earthworks contracts includes the re-sectioning of embankments (Item 1), the construction of retired embankments (Item 2) and the re-excavation of khals (Item 3).

For earthworks, the value of contract varies depending on whether it is awarded to a contractor or a Labour Contracting Society (LCS). The value of earthworks contracts awarded to a contractor varied between BDT 2.8 lakh (for a retired embankment) and BDT 332.3 lakh (for re-excavation of khals). The value of an earthworks contract awarded to an LCS varied from BDT 3.0 lakh (for re-sectioning of an embankment) to BDT 14.0 lakh (for re-excavation of a khal).

The total value of the 460 earthworks contracts awarded to LCSs amounted to BDT 3,532 lakh, which was just under 25% of the total value of 825 earthworks contracts of BDT 14,447 lakh.

=== Structures – Rehabilitation ===
The description ‘rehabilitation of structures’ covers contracts for the repair of regulators (Item 4), and the repair of outlets and inlets (Item 5). The analysis of 120 repair contracts is provided in Table 13.5.

Table 13.5 Analysis of Contracts for Repair of Structures
{| class="wikitable"
|
|
|
| colspan="3" |Contract Value (BDT lakh)
|-
|Item
|No. of contracts
|No of structures
|Max
|Min
|Avg
|-
|4. Repair of regulator
|108
|148
|95.91
|1.70
|24.95
|-
|5(a) Repair of outlet
|5
|20
|36.74
|1.61
|23.26
|-
|5(b) Repair of inlet
|8
|172
|43.78
|3.08
|20.93
|-
|
|121
|340
|
|
|24.13
|}
Table 13.5 shows that the value of contracts for the rehabilitation of existing structures varies from an average of BDT 24.95 lakh for the repair of a regulator or sluice structure (based on 108 contracts for 148 structures) to an average of BDT 23.26 lakh for the repair of an outlet (based on 5 contracts for 20 structures) and an average of BDT 20.93 lakh for the repair of an outlet (based on 8 contracts for 172 structures).

=== Structures - New ===
The description ‘new structures’ covers contracts for the construction of regulators (Item 6), irrigation inlets (Item 7) and drainage outlets (Item 8), construction of culverts (Item 9), as well as the erection of pump sheds (Item 10).

The purpose of a regulator or drainage sluice is principally to allow the drainage of water from the polder into the tidal river when there is a differential head across the regulator (ie when the polder or country-side water level exceeds the level in the tidal river). The regulator is provided with a lift gate on the country-side (to allow freshwater to be held in the khal for irrigation during the dry season) and a flap gate on the river-side (to prevent water entry to the polder during high tide conditions). A frame is provided on the river-side so that the flap gate can be lifted when there is freshwater in the river (during the monsoon flood season) so that water can be stored in the khal within the polder and used for irrigation during the dry season. The size of the culvert is determined from the drainage area served by the structure.

An irrigation inlet or flushing sluice is a single barrelled 0.6m diameter piped structure provided with a lift gate on the country-side and a flap gate on the river-side. The purpose of the inlet is to allow freshwater to enter the polder during the monsoon period when there is freshwater in the tidal river, for storage for irrigation purposes during the dry season. Only two inlets were constructed under Blue Gold.

A drainage outlet comprises a single barrelled box culvert of one of three dimensions (0.6 x 0.9, 0.9 x 1.2, and 1.2 x 1.2m) and provided with lift gate on the country-side and a flap gate on the river-side. There is no provision for a frame to allow the flap gate to be raised to admit freshwater from the river.

A typical contract for the construction of a new regulator involves the closure of the area of works from tidal river/khal and arrangements for the pumping out of water, excavation for the structural foundation, sand piling across the foundation, construction of the reinforced concrete structure, and – after the installation of gates and associated equipment by a nominated contractor – the removal of the cross-bundhs and the commissioning and handing over of the completed structure to the BWDB Executive Engineer. The installation of gates is the responsibility of the BWDB’s Mechanical Engineering (ME) Department (see below).

Because a contract for a new regulator (for example) is in one location, it can be readily managed. But there are many technical complexities to be managed – the variable nature of ground conditions during excavation, and whilst excavations remain open, the presence of unrecorded abandoned structures below original ground level, heavy inflows into the excavation due to monsoonal rainfall, tidal river conditions as well as the threat of breaches to the cross-bundhs due to river erosion or cyclonic storms.

From an analysis of the 29 contracts awarded for new sluices, Table 13.6 presents the contract values against the number of vents. The first contracts were awarded in 2015/16 and the most recent in 2020/21, so the comparison is indicative as no account is taken of annual increases in the BWDB schedule of rates.
{| class="wikitable"
|+'''Table 13.6 Contract Values for Regulators'''
|-
!
!
! colspan="3" |Contract Value

(BDT lakh)
|-
!Size
!No
!Max
!Min
!Avg
|-
!4-V
|1
|515.83
|515.83
|515.83
|-
!3-V
|6
|430.09
|225.21
|332.58
|-
!2-V
|6
|285.83
|159.64
|245.10
|-
!1-V
|16
|299.00
|101.89
|191.9
|}
From an analysis of 17 contracts awarded for drainage outlets (as of end-November 2020), Table 13.7 presents the contract values against the size of the box culvert. The first contracts were awarded in 2018/19 and the most recent in 2019/20, so the comparison is indicative as no account is taken of annual increases in the BWDB schedule of rates.
{| class="wikitable"
|+'''Table 13.7 Contract Values for Drainage Outlets'''
|-
|
|
! colspan="3" |Contract Value

(BDT lakh)
|-
!Size (m)
!No
!Max
!Min
!Avg
|-
|0.6 x 0.9
|5
|60.73
|52.59
|54.77
|-
|0.9 x 1.2
|9
|139.55
|65.93
|106.70
|-
|1.2 x 1.2
|3
|92.22
|61.81
|76.56
|}
For the smaller structures:
* Average value of the 2 contracts awarded for 0.6m diameter flushing inlets was BDT 27.7 lakh
* Average value of the 8 contracts awarded for the construction of culverts was BDT 23 lakh
* Average value of the 4 contracts awarded for the construction of pump sheds was BDT 9.5 lakh.

=== Gates ===
The manufacture and installation of gates is contracted separately to BWDB’s Mechanical Engineering (ME) Department.

For all new structures, the installation of gates requires close coordination with the civil engineering contractor since gates are installed in dry conditions ie when earth bundhs are in position. Gates can only be manufactured when measurements have been taken after the construction of the regulator. There is therefore a limited window for the ME Department to survey, design, manufacture and instal the gates after the completion of the reinforced concrete regulator structure and before the contractor finalises the works for handover to BWDB/WMA.

== Contractors ==

=== General Contractors ===
BWDB adheres to the Public Procurement Act 2006 and Public Procurement Rules 2008 in identifying contractors, preparing tenders and awarding contracts. For Blue Gold contracts, the Open Tendering Method (OTM) is the preferred modality and this specifically excludes the process of pre-qualification. Tenders are therefore invited from all eligible Tenderers through public advertisement. The eligibility criteria from a typical tender data sheet (TDS) are as follows:

'''''15 Experience Criteria:''' Tenderers shall have the following minimum level of construction experience to qualify for the performance of the Works under the Contract:''

''(a) a minimum number of years of general experience in the construction of works as Prime Contractor or Subcontractor or Management Contractor as specified in the TDS; and''

''(b) specific experience as a Prime Contractor or Subcontractor or Management Contractor in construction works of a nature, complexity and methods/construction technology similar to the proposed Works in at least a number of contract(s) and of a minimum value over the period, as specified in the TDS.''

''(c) The minimum number of years of general experience of the Tenderer in the construction works as Prime Contractor or Subcontractor or Management Contractor shall be 3 (three) years.''

''(d) The minimum specific experience as a Prime Contractor or Subcontractor or Management Contractor in construction works of at least 1 (one) contract(s) of similar nature (repair/re-sectioning/construction of embankment), complexity and methods/construction technology successfully completed within the last 3 (three) years, each with the value specified in the TDS [years counting backward from the date of publication of IFT in the e-gp website/newspaper]''

'''''16. Financial Criteria:''' Tenderers shall have the following minimum level of financial capacity to qualify for the performance of the Works under the Contract:''

''(a) Average annual construction turnover i.e total certified payments received for contracts in progress or completed under public sector for a period as stated under ITT Sub Clause 16.1(a), substantiated by Statement(s) of Receipts, from any scheduled Bank of Bangladesh, issued not earlier than twenty-eight (28) days prior to the day of the original deadline for submission of Tenders;''

''(b) Availability of minimum liquid assets i.e. working capital or credit line(s) from any Scheduled Bank, net of other contractual commitments of the amount specified in the TDS;''

''(c) Satisfactory resolution of all claims, arbitrations or other litigation cases and shall not have serious negative impact on the financial capacity of Tenderer.''

''(d) The required average annual construction turnover shall be greater than the amount specified in the TDS over the last 3 (three) years. [years counting backward from the date of publication of IFT in the e-gp website/newspaper]''

''(e) The minimum amount of liquid assets or working capital or credit facilities of the Tenderer shall be as specified in the TDS. Note: The tenderer shall be submitted liquid asset by bank credit facilities as STD prescribed form is provided in Section 7 (General Specifications).''

''(f) Satisfactory resolution of all claims, arbitrations or other litigation cases and shall not have serious negative impact on the financial capacity of Tenderer.''

'''''17. Personnel Capacity:''' Tenderers shall have the minimum level of personnel capacity to qualify for the performance of the Works under the Contract consisting of a Construction Project Manager, Engineers, and other key staff with qualifications and experience as specified in the TDS:''

# ''Project Manager (B.Sc. in Civil Eng) 5 years’ total experience, 3 years’ experience with similar works''
# ''Site Engineer (Diploma in Civil Eng) 10 years’ total experience, 5 years’ experience with similar works''
# ''Site Supervisor (Diploma in Civil Eng) 5 years’ total experience, 3 years’ experience with similar works''

'''''18. Equipment Capacity:''' Tenderers shall own suitable equipment and other physical facilities or have proven access through contractual arrangement to hire or lease such equipment or facilities for the desired period, where necessary or have assured access through lease, hire, or other such method, of the essential equipment, in full working order, as specified in the TDS. Tenderer shall own or have proven access to hire or lease of the major construction equipment, in full working order as follows:''

''1 Levelling Machine with Staff 1 nos''

''2 Tape (30m) 2 nos''

=== Labour Contracting Societies<ref group="Notes">Refer to the Blue Gold Program report,”Impact of LCS Work on Poverty Reduction and Women’s Empowerment” by Dr Sharmind Neelormi (May 2020) and to LLR Section F Chapter 24.2 for a thorough presentation of the role of LCSs. </ref> ===
A Labour Contracting Society (LCS) is a group of disadvantaged rural people who are organised to carry out small-scale earthworks. Since the early-1980s, LCS construction activities have provided an important source of income for large numbers of rural poor men and women in Bangladesh. The inclusion of LCSs in development projects has aimed to provide some of the poorest households, particularly women from these households, with an income that could set them on a pathway out of poverty.

Recent legislation has formalised contracting arrangements for LCSs. To stimulate the engagement of the local poor in the construction and maintenance of small-scale earthworks, the Public Procurement Act 2006, and Public Procurement Rules 2008, endorsed ‘Direct Contracts’ with Labour Contracting Societies (LCSs) consisting of a group of landless men and/or women from the local community ‘under Direct Procurement Method’. The aim is to bypass traditional modes of contracting so that poorer members of the community can directly benefit from development projects.

BWDB’s Participatory Water Management Rules of 2014 (PWMR 2014)<ref group="Notes">Refer to Chapter Six, Clauses 43 and 44 PWMR 2014</ref> set out the mechanisms for the formation of LCSs by WMGs and the contractual arrangements. PWMR 2014 Clause 44.1 stipulates that ‘at least 25 percent of the earthwork of a project should be given to related WMGs which will implement the earthwork through LCSs’. In Blue Gold, this was increased to 50%.<ref group="Notes">Part B Clause 26 DPP (May 2013) </ref>

Under PWMR 2014 Clause 44, BWDB contracts a WMG to execute the earthwork, and the WMG in turn enters into a contract with an LCS. However, the WMG is responsible to BWDB for the proper execution of the earthworks. Payments for the earthwork are made in three equal instalments to the bank account of the WMG, each with a 10% deduction for the security deposit: first instalment, after the start of work; second, on completion of 50% of the work; and the third and final instalment, after completion of all works. The WMG is entitled to deduct 5% from the bills as a management fee. The security deposit is disbursed six months after the completion of work if any defects have been made good. Because of the transient nature of the LCSs, there is often some uncertainty as to whether this payment reaches individual LCS members.

Under the PWMR 2014 processes, BWDB has no direct dealings with the LCSs. Prior to PWMR 2014, LCSs were directly contracted by BWDB.

=== BWDB Mechanical Engineering Department ===
For Blue Gold, all gates and ancillary items are fabricated and installed by BWDB’s Mechanical Engineering (ME) Department. ME workshops in Tejgaon (for Patuakhali O&M, Barguna O&M and Kalapara) and in Khulna (for Khulna O&M-1, Khulna O&M-2 and Satkhira O&M-2) are assigned to carry out the manufacture and installation of the gates.

== Construction quality ==
This section comments on the quality of construction of earthworks, repair of structures, new structures and the gates installed in repaired and new structures.

=== Earthworks ===
Earthworks constructed in the coastal zone are generally of poor quality, and particularly vulnerable to settlement and gullying by rain before the turfing, and river erosion immediately after construction especially if there has been no compaction.

For Blue Gold earthworks, BWDB initially adopted an arrangement in which an allowance of 10% surcharge above crest design level was made to allow for consolidation settlement. Thus, an additional quantity of earthwork was provided in lieu of compaction. This arrangement was withdrawn in 2017 by the BWDB Task Force and replaced by BWDB’s Schedule of Rates Item Code 16-140 which included for placing earth in layers, breaking down of clods and manual ramming of earthwork with a 7kg hammer.<ref group="Notes">Item Code 16-140 Earth work by manual labour in re-sectioning of embankment manually compacted by 7kg iron rammer to avoid any air pockets in clayey soil and all lifts including throwing the spoils to profile in layers not exceeding 150mm thickness with clod breaking to a max size of 100mm</ref> This method has been found to be ineffective in coastal areas where the fill material has a high moisture content and is almost impossible to compact if it hasn’t been first laid out to dry. The increasing use of mechanical excavators for earthworks has resulted in large clods of earth placed in layers which are many more times the 150mm thickness of layers specified in Item Code 16-140, and this results – conversely – in embankments constructed using mechanical equipment being of even lower density than those prepared by manual labour.

If there is no compaction during construction, the resultant embankments are particularly susceptible to rainfall and erosion damage until “natural consolidation” takes place. Because there is no compaction, the settlement is non-uniform, and a certain amount of compensatory filling should be expected along embankment sections which settle below the design level. Embankments constructed without compaction should be subject to repair by contractors before final survey to check that the design crest level has been achieved along its full length before acceptance by BWDB and the WMG.

=== Earthworks – Alternative Modalities ===
In order to address the concerns about earthwork compaction, consideration could be given to including:

(a) Multi-year earthworks contracts so that consolidation settlement of earthworks during monsoon is made up to design levels in the subsequent construction season before final payment is made. However, Field XENs consider that there is no clear provision in the Public Procurement Rules 2008 (PPR 2008) for such multi-year contracts specifying yearly progress for earthwork, and therefore, is difficult to enforce in the field. In practice, however, most Blue Gold earthwork contracts are not completed in a single season and are inevitably extended – so they are in fact “unofficial multi-year contracts”.

(b) “Build, operate and transfer“ (BOT) contracts in which the contractor would be responsible for all works completed under the contract - for maintenance, and for any breach or damage to the embankment or structures – for a period of (say) five years.

=== Structures - Rehabilitation ===
The rehabilitation of structures can include repairs to the reinforced concrete structure, the railing and posts, head wall and abutment pier, to the concrete block revetment and to the gates (see below). For repairs to the concrete structure, the durability of the repair can be affected by the quality of the original concrete work to which the new work is bonded.

The successful replacement of gates in an existing structure requires careful investigation and measurement, ensuring that all silt is removed from the bed slab before the dimensions of the gates are determined, and that the installed gates are checked for full and complete closure. Where gates are to be replaced by ME Department without a civil contractor, experience has shown that detailed investigations required by the contractor before manufacture of the gate can reveal complexities which require assistance from a civil engineering contractor - for instance, the construction of cross-bundhs so that work on the sluice or regulator can be done in the dry, to remove silt from the invert base slab to ensure an effective gate seal, and to fix the gate frame securely into the concrete structure (for more on this, see below under ‘Gates’.)

=== Structures - New ===
New structures discussed below are regulators/drainage sluices, flushing inlets and drainage outlets.

===== ''New Regulators/Sluices (Item 6)'' =====
An analysis of construction records for new regulators shows that the length of construction is not related to size of structure (ie number of vents). The length of contract (in construction seasons) for 29 regulators is presented in Table 13.8 below. As can be seen from the table, it is possible for the largest 4-V regulator (P55/2A Dharandi) to be completed in two seasons, and conversely the construction of a 1-V regulator can take 3 seasons (P26 Boro Beeler Khal, P43/2D Keshobpur and P47/4 Tulatali). Thus, the quality of the contractor can have a considerable influence.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Table 13.8 Contract Period for New Regulators
!Size
!Nos.
!Average Length

(Seasons)
!Range of Seasons
|-
|4V
|1
|2.0
|2
|-
|3V
|6
|2.7
|2 to 4
|-
|2V
|6
|1.8
|1 to 3
|-
|1V
|16
|1.9
|1 to 3
|}
Lessons learnt from construction experiences are: (a) To avoid differential settlement, ground treatments should not be mixed ie don’t use bored piles and sand piles together as foundation treatment; and (b) ensure that checks are made on filter materials behind wing walls since piping failure can very quickly result in differential settlement and failure of the structure.

===== ''New Flushing Inlets (Item 7)'' =====
Only two flushing inlets were provided (P31-part and P22), so few general conclusions can be drawn from such a small sample. Both were completed in one season.

===== New Drainage Outlets (Item 8) =====
An analysis of construction records for new outlets shows that the length of construction is not related to size of structure. The length of contract (in construction seasons) for 17 outlets is presented in Table 13.9 below. As can be seen from the table, the average length of construction varies from 1.6 to 2.3 seasons with a range of 1 to 3 seasons. Thus, the construction of a relatively simply structure, such as a box culvert, can be affected by its proximity to a tidal river which, for example, can require cross bundhs or coffer dams and pumping to allow working in the dry below (tidal) river level, installing upstream and downstream sheet piling, dealing with complex ground conditions, and providing temporary drainage from khals within the polder during the construction period. Nevertheless, the capability and experience of the contractor – and the range of equipment he has available for construction activities – can influence the length of construction.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Table 13.9 Contract Period for New Outlets
!Size
!Nos.
!Average Length

(Seasons)
!Range of Seasons
|-
|0.6 x 0.9
|5
|1.6
|1 to 3
|-
|0.9 x 1.2
|9
|1.9
|1 to 2
|-
|1.2 x 1.2
|3
|2.3
|2 to 3
|}

=== Gates ===
Given the critical importance of gates for water management (and that the sole function of the reinforced concrete structure is to provide support for the gates), insufficient emphasis has been given to the functionality and durability of gates.

There have been many examples in Blue Gold where installation work has been repeated because the fixing of the gates to the structure was insufficient, or because the gates never achieved full closure. Some examples are provided: (a) In P55/2C, the flap gates were installed on the country-side and the vertical gates on the river-side; (b) the gap between the vertical lift gate and the channels for the fall board provides insufficient workspace for any maintenance activity; and (c) rubber seals are often missing.

Most of the work on regulators and inlets/outlets is carried out by a civil works contractor. The BWDB ME (Mechanical Engineering) is responsible for the fabrication and installation of gates, and ancillary fixings. The timing of commissioning needs to be carefully coordinated between the civil contractor and ME – for example, the closure bundhs which have to be removed by the civil contractor before he receives a final payment.

For durability, the gate frame needs to be firmly fixed to the concrete structure. This involves cutting back the concrete work and welding lugs attached to the frame to reinforcing bars in the concrete structure before replacing the concrete using a dry mix to minimise shrinkage. If this process is not carried out (perhaps because a civil contractor has not been contracted), then the durability of the gate is severely compromised, and its operational lifetime can be limited – especially if the operators use excessive force to close the gates.

There is a historical justification for the role of ME - when relatively few private sector operators had access to raw materials, and the facilities for fabrication, sandblasting and painting to meet the specifications for gates to regulating structures. However, with the increasing number of private sector workshops, the justification for ME’s continued monopoly of BWDB gates work is questionable.

For simplicity, it would be preferable to allow the civil contractor to select a firm, from an approved list, to manufacture and install the gates, so that the responsibility for coordination between the civil and mechanical contractor is given under a single contract – rather than relying on ME, a semi-autonomous organisation coming under the BWDB umbrella, and whose payments are only occasionally withheld.

The importance of taking life cycle costing approach to the design of gates, fixings and ancillary structures and the potential value of a fundamental design review has been emphasised elsewhere.<ref group="Notes">Section C Chapter 12</ref>

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

== See more ==
{{ArtNav|Prev_chap=[[12 Survey, Design and Procurement|Chapter 12: Survey, Design and Procurement]]|Curr_sect=Section C: Water Infrastructure|Next_chap=[[14 Consultation and participation in planning|Chapter 14: Consultation and participation in planning]]}}

{{SeeMoreSectionC}}

11 Investments for Polder Safety and Water Management

2021-12-07T02:42:56Z

Guy.Jones: /* Investments by Polder and by BWDB Division */

This chapter describes the evolution of investment fund allocations for infrastructure made through the Blue Gold Program as demonstrated by the revisions made to the original BWDB Development Project Proforma (DPP) in June 2018 and September 2020, then to itemise the actual investments made to each of the 22 polders, and to comment on lessons learnt in designing future projects. The final section of the chapter emphasises the importance of budgeting for emergency repairs to coastal infrastructure.

== Polder Investments ==
{{Briefing materials T|decks=No slide decks for the current chapter.|brochures=*[[:File:Bgp-4-pager-wrm-v1.1.pdf|Improved water distribution and drainage through rehabilitation of water management infrastructure]]|studies=No case studies for the current chapter.|videos=No videos for the current chapter.|manuals=No manuals for the current chapter.|flipchart=No flipcharts for the current chapter.}}
Under the Blue Gold Program, investments have been made to the physical infrastructure. Table 11.1 below summarises the 16 different budget headings of the interventions and repairs that have been carried out. Of these, four investments account for 80% of the budget: Item 1 re-sectioning of 330km of embankment, Item 3 re-excavation of 545km of drainage channels or khals, Item 4 repair of 186 regulators/sluices, and Item 6 construction of 31 new regulators or sluices.

{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
|+Table 11.1 Budget Allocations by Work Item (extracted from re-adjusted DPP)
! rowspan="3" |
! rowspan="3" |Work Items
! colspan="4" |Re-Adjustment (September 2020)
|-
! rowspan="2" |Quantity
! colspan="3" |Total Cost Allocation
|-
!BDT lakh
!Euro
!
|-
!1
!Re-sectioning of Embankment (km)
|330
|4,233
| 4,203,247
|13%
|-
!2
!Retired Embankment (km)
|21
|1,252
| 1,243,307
|4%
|-
!3
!Re-excavation of khals (km)
|545
|8,676
| 8,615,650
|28%
|-
!4
!Repair of Regulator/Sluice with gate (nos.)
|186
|5,025
| 4,990,308
|16%
|-
!5
!Repair of Inlets/Outlets (nos.)
|235
|276
| 274,111
|1%
|-
!6
!Construction of Drainage Regulator/ Sluice (nos.)
|31
|7,220
| 7,170,278
|23%
|-
!7
!Construction of Drainage Outlet (nos.)
|8
|192
| 190,665
|1%
|-
!8
!Construction Irrigation inlet (nos.)
|17
|1,480
|1,469,712
|5%
|-
!9
!Construction of culvert (nos.)
|32
|302
| 299,901
|1%
|-
!10
!Pump shed (nos.)
|6
|48
| 48,093
|0%
|-
!11
!Low cost Bank Protection work (km)
|LS
|620
| 615,690
|2%
|-
!12
!Rehabilitation of Interior Dike (km)
|21
|419
| 416,445
|1%
|-
!13
!Closure/ Cross-bundh (km)
|LS
|20
| 19,861
|0%
|-
!14
!Supply of Drain pipe (m)
|9,000
|256
| 254,220
|1%
|-
!15
!Flood damage repair / Breach Closing
|LS
|800
| 794,439
|3%
|-
!16
!GoB O&M
|LS
|600
| 595,829
|2%
|-
! colspan="3" |'''Total'''
!'''31,420'''
!'''31,201,758'''
!'''100%'''
|-
| colspan="6" |Exchange rate as of 25 November 2020 @100.7 BDT : 1 Euro
|}

== Revisions to Polder Infrastructure Investments<ref group="Notes">See also [[28 Project Management Arrangements#Development Project Proformas (DPPs)|Section G Chapter 28.3]]</ref> ==
In this sub-chapter, we review and comment on changes made to the original BWDB Development Project Proforma (in May 2013) through revisions approved in June 2018 and September 2020, which are set out below in Table 11.2.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Table 11.2 Investment Allocations by Budget Heads for DPPs and RDPPs (Costs in BDT lakh ie BDT 100,000)
! rowspan="2" |'''SI. No'''
! rowspan="2" |'''Work Items'''
! colspan="2" |'''DPP'''

''' (May 2013)'''
! colspan="2" |'''RDPP'''

''' (June 2018)'''
! colspan="2" |'''Cost Adjustment RDPP'''

''' (September 2020)'''
|-
! rowspan="1" |Qty
! rowspan="1" |Cost
! rowspan="1" |Qty
! rowspan="1" |Cost
! rowspan="1" |Qty
! rowspan="1" |Cost
|-
|-
!1
!Re-sectioning of Embankment (km)
|551
|6,627
|330
|5,327
|330
|4,233
|-
!2
!Retired Embankment (km)
|2
|86
|21
|2,303
|21
|1,252
|-
!3
!Re-excavation of khals (km)
|1514
|5,229
|545
|6,945
|545
|8,676
|-
!4
!Repair of Regulator/Sluice with gate (nos.)
|239
|3,322
|186
|4,876
|186
|5,025
|-
!5
!Repair of Inlets/Outlets (nos.)
|664
|2,887
|235
|674
|235
|276
|-
!6
!Construction of Drainage Regulator/ Sluice (nos.)
|11
|1,428
|31
|6,847
|31
|7,220
|-
!7
!Construction Irrigation inlets (nos.)
|11
|65
|8
|192
|8
|192
|-
!8
!Construction of Drainage Outlet (nos.)
|11
|267
|17
|1,300
|17
|1,480
|-
!9
!Construction of culvert (nos.)
|
|
|32
|704
|32
|302
|-
!10
!Pump shed (nos.)
|
|
|6
|60
|6
|48
|-
!11
!Low cost Bank Protection work (km)
|1.1
|66
|LS
|620
|LS
|620
|-
!12
!Rehabilitation of Interior Dike (km)
|38
|785
|21
|96
|21
|419
|-
!13
!Closure/ Cross-bundh (km)
|1
|20
|LS
|20
|LS
|20
|-
!14
!Supply of drainage pipe (m)
|
|
|9,000
|256
|9,000
|256
|-
!15
!Flood damage repair / Breach Closing
|
|
|LS
|600
|LS
|800
|-
!16
!GoB O&M
|LS
|600
|LS
|600
|LS
|600
|-
!
!Re-excavation of ponds
|2
|8
|
|
|
|
|-
! colspan="2" |'''Total'''
!
!'''21,390'''
!
!'''31,420'''
!
!'''31,420'''
|}

=== Original DPP ===
The DPP was split into two categories ‘Rehabilitation Polders’ (anticipating 5 to 6<ref group="Notes">{{Cite book|last=|first=|title=DPP Recast|publisher=|year=|isbn=|location=|publication-date=May 2013|page=21|pages=}}</ref> polders with an area of 25,000 ha) and ‘Fine-Tuning Polders’ (anticipating 20 to 22 polders with an area of 135,000 ha). The ‘Rehabilitation Polders’ had a heavier investment allocation (of circa Euro 300 per ha) as compared to the ‘Fine-Tuning Polders’ (of Euro 100 per ha). In addition, the scope for investments in ‘Rehabilitation Polders’ covered 11 of 12 DPP budget heads, whilst the scope for ‘Fine-Tuning Polders’ were restricted to 5 of 12 budget heads (refer Table 11.3): re-sectioning of embankments, re-excavation of khals, repairs to regulators/sluices, repairs to inlets/outlets, and O&M.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Table 11.3 DPP Allocations for Rehabilitation and Fine-Tuning Polders '''(costs in BDT lakh)'''
! rowspan="2" |'''SI. No'''
! rowspan="2" |'''Work Items'''
! colspan="2" rowspan="1" |'''DPP (approved 30 July 2013)'''
! colspan="2" rowspan="1" |'''Rehab Works'''
! colspan="2" rowspan="1" |'''Fine Tuning'''
|-
|-
!'''Qty'''
!'''Cost'''
!'''Qty'''
!'''Cost'''
!'''Qty'''
!'''Cost'''
|-
!1
!Re-sectioning of Embankment (km)
|551
|6,627
|112
|2,617
|439
|4,010
|-
!2
!Retired Embankment (km)
|2
|86
|2
|86
|
|
|-
!3
!Re-excavation of khals (km)
|1516
|5,237
|194
|1,220
|1320
|4,009
|-
!4
!Repair of Regulator/Sluice with gate (nos.)
|239
|3,322
|25
|649
|214
|2,673
|-
!5
!Repair of Inlets/Outlets (nos.)
|664
|2,887
|40
|214
|624
|2,673
|-
!6
!Construction of Drainage Regulator/ Sluice (nos.)
|11
|1,428
|11
|1,428
|
|
|-
!7
!Construction of Drainage Outlet (nos.)
|11
|267
|11
|267
|
|
|-
!8
!Construction Irrigation inlet (nos.)
|11
|65
|11
|65
|
|
|-
!9
!Construction of culvert (nos.)
|<nowiki>-</nowiki>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!10
!Pump shed (nos.)
|<nowiki>-</nowiki>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!11
!Low cost Bank Protection work (km)
|1.1
|66
|1.1
|66
|
|
|-
!12
!Rehabilitation of Interior Dike (km)
|38
|785
|38
|785
|
|
|-
!13
!Closure/ Cross-budh (km)
|1
|20
|1
|20
|
|
|-
!14
!Supply of Drain pipe (m)
|<nowiki>-</nowiki>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!15
!Flood damage repair / Breach Closing
|<nowiki>-</nowiki>
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!16
!GoB O&M
|LS
|600
|
|
|
|600
|-
!
!Re-excavation of ponds
|2
|8
|2
|8
|
|
|-
! colspan="2" |'''Total'''
!
!'''21,398'''
!
!'''7,425'''
!
!'''13,965'''
|}
The initial priority for infrastructure activities was on four ‘Fine-Tuning’ polders, thus allowing time for survey data to be collected and designs to be prepared for the ‘Rehabilitation’ polders.

Early surveys showed that a number of new regulators were required in the ‘Fine-Tuning Polders’ for which no allocation had been made. For example, the new 3-Vent Kherjurtala Sluice on the east side of P30 and draining to the active Kazibacha River was proposed to be located close to the existing 1-V Kherjurtala Sluice but with larger drainage capacity to take waters which had otherwise been expected to drain via the 2-V Kalatola Sluice on the west side of P30. However, the Jhapjhapia River which previously carried the drainage water from Kalatola Sluice had become blocked by sediment and so the sluice had become non-functional.

The absence of a DPP budget allocation for land acquisition and for the construction of new regulators in Fine-Tuning Polders meant that important investments were unable to be processed in the first five years of the project – from its start in March 2013 to June 2018, before the RDPP (first revision, June 2018) was approved. Although designs for some new structures and retired embankments had been prepared, tenders for these contracts could only be advertised when budgets were available in the Annual Development Plan (ADP) – and this required their inclusion in the revised DPP.

=== First Revision (June 2018) ===
To allow for the completion of investments, it was agreed that an additional fund would be made available which resulted in an increase to Blue Gold infrastructure investments from BDT 21,390 lakh to BDT 31,420 lakh, and that the duration of the project would be extended from end-December 2018 to end-December 2020.

The major increases in budget allocations in the June 2018 revision were for: retired embankments (from BDT 86 lakh to BDT 2,303 lakh), the construction of drainage regulators/sluices (from BDT 1,428 lakh to BDT 6,847 lakh), construction of drainage outlets (from BDT 267 lakh to BDT 1,300 lakh) and to add in culverts, pump-sheds, supply of drainage pipe, and flood damage repair.

The distinction between the two categories of ‘Rehabilitation Polders’ and ‘Fine Tuning Polders’ was abandoned in the June 2018 RDPP to allow greater flexibility in meeting the investment needs, and to thus allow the construction of new regulators and retired embankments in the earlier category of Fine-Tuning Polders. The 2018 revision also included a new item for land acquisition of BDT 3,300 lakh (equivalent to €3.3 million) by GoB alone, sufficient for the acquisition of an estimated 34.5 ha. This aimed to encourage landowners in Blue Gold to release land for retired embankments, since they had objected to releasing land when land acquisition payments were being made to landowners in nearby polders subject to rehabilitation under CEIP-1.

=== Second Revision (September 2020) ===
By December 2019, it was recognised that an additional season (ie FY 2020/21) would be required to complete project investments. A zero-cost extension to end-December 2021 was therefore agreed, along with adjustments between budget heads to maximise the use of available funds. It was also agreed that the functionality of infrastructure (ie operability of all gates, and removal of obstructions in primary khals) was an important objective of the extension.

A main aim of the September 2020 re-adjustment was to make transfers (of from 20% to 60% of the 2018 budget) between budget heads, taking account of implementation experience and the projected pipeline of new investments. The one major change made in the September 2020 revision was to increase the allocation to the rehabilitation of interior dykes (from BDT 96 lakh to BDT 419 lakh).

=== Lessons Learnt ===
A number of lessons learnt from the practical challenges which emerged from the planning process:

'''Build in allowance for climate change effects'''<ref group="Notes">See also [[12 Survey, Design and Procurement#Climate Change Effects|Chapter 12.3]] concerning design allowance for climate change effects.</ref> – The budget allocation was insufficient for the significantly higher budgets (ca 10+ times multiplier of funds available to Blue Gold) required to address the effects of climate change. This resulted in inconsistencies with design policies adopted for adjacent polders (eg where World Bank’s CEIP-1 designs allowed for incorporation of the full effects of climate change).

'''Go for greater flexibility –''' Don’t categorise polders as Fine-Tuning or Rehabilitation, since the dynamic situation in the coastal zone requires adaptation to changing events (eg previously active tidal rivers becoming silted up).

'''Include funds for land acquisition''' - No funds for land acquisition were envisaged in the DPP so no budget allocation was allowed for the land acquisition for retired embankments or for new structures. The June 2018 revision included a new item for land acquisition to which BDT 3,300 lakh (€ 330,000) was allocated for GoB funding, sufficient for the acquisition of an estimated 34.5 ha.

'''O&M Budget:''' In the coastal zone, water infrastructure serving polder communities is expected to provide protection and facilitate water management in a particularly aggressive environment - where floods, cyclones, river erosion and accretion, salinity, tidal flows etc can cause devastating damage to embankments with the associated adverse economic consequences of large-scale flooding, or result in structures falling into disuse and unable to regulate the flow of water in and out of the polder. The resultant heavy repair and maintenance costs required to ensure the continued serviceability of the infrastructure are currently not met in full - because O&M budgets with government organisations such as BWDB are – inevitably – heavily and never sufficient, local government is not mandated for this role, and community contributions fall far short of the huge sums required. This conundrum is well understood but remains unresolved, and because of these gaps, the coastal zone remains locked in a project-driven cycle where infrastructure deterioration both precedes and follows rehabilitation.

Given this unsatisfactory arrangement, the GoB O&M fund in the RDPP provides for the inevitable repairs to breached or vulnerable embankments in Blue Gold. In processing the RDPP (approved in June 2018), the O&M budget was set at BDT 18 crore by MoWR but was eliminated by the Planning Commission in the first round of discussions and then included after protests from MoWR but at the reduced amount of BDT 6 crore – an amount which was known by MoWR to be insufficient for the remaining three years of the project. In compensation, BDT 2 crore was added in the September 2020 re-adjustment to the allocation of BDT 6 crore provided for Flood Damage and Repair (Item 15) in the June 2018 RDPP. For future projects in the coastal zone, the importance of this budget is worth emphasising. A consideration of the implications for emergency repairs is presented below, with particular reference to the repair of a breach in Polder 29 along the Lower Bhadra River at the village of Chandghar.

'''Participatory Planning: '''Pre-DPP planning visits to rural communities are often exploratory and result in a long list of required interventions, some of which are later excluded from the DPP because of budgetary constraints. Because of the pressure to finalise a DPP, the choice of which investments to exclude from the DPP is often not referred back to the community. The high level of detail required in the DPP in order to obtain approval of the Project Evaluation Committee (PEC) means that there is limited opportunity for community participation after the DPP formulation has been approved, and only when the DPP is subject to revision. It is only during early contact with representatives from rural communities, and union and upazila parishads after DPP approval – when there is heightened interest by local parties in influencing how funds will be spent – that communities become aware that some of their priority investments are not included in the project. This breach of trust results in understandable reluctance from the local communities to start the process of formation of water management groups – which underpins participatory water management.
----

== Investments by Polder and by BWDB Division ==
For each of the six BWDB divisions responsible for polders in the Blue Gold Program, Table 11.4 summarises the amount invested in infrastructure for each polder. It shows the investments vary from BDT 166 lakh (equivalent to Euro 166,000) for P43/2E in Patuakhali O&M to BDT 3,318 lakh (equivalent to Euro 3.3 million) for P47/4 in Kalapara – with an average investment of BDT 1,304 lakh (equivalent to Euro 1.3 million).

Separate links to a series of tables provide the quantity and amount of infrastructure works contracted for each polder by each of the six BWDB Division against the RDPP budget heads: [[Summary of Works Contracted by Polder by BWDB Division#Satkhira O&M-2|Satkhira O&M-2]], [[Summary of Works Contracted by Polder by BWDB Division#Khulna O&M-1|Khulna O&M-1]], [[Summary of Works Contracted by Polder by BWDB Division#Khulna O&M-2|Khulna O&M-2]], [[Summary of Works Contracted by Polder by BWDB Division#Patuakhali O&M|Patuakhali O&M]], [[Summary of Works Contracted by Polder by BWDB Division#Barguna O&M|Barguna]] and [[Summary of Works Contracted by Polder by BWDB Division#Kalapara|Kalapara]]. A series of infrastructure maps covering each of the 22 Blue Gold polders is available [[:File:Infra rehab maps by polder 7apr 21.pdf|here]] showing the location of Blue Gold investments, with a summary table on each map of the quantity and cost for the RDPP budget heads.
{| class="wikitable"
|+'''Table 11.4 Summary of Works Contracted by Polder by BWDB Division'''
! rowspan="2" |BWDB Division
! rowspan="2" |Polder
! colspan="2" |Amount to Polder
! colspan="2" |Amount to Divn
|-
!BDT lakh
!%
!BDT lakh
!%
|-
!Satkhira O&M-2
!2
|2,634
|9%
|2,634
|9%
|-
! rowspan="7" |Khulna O&M1
!25
|1,387
|5%
|
|
|-
!26
|1,222
|4%
|
|
|-
!29
|1,794
|6%
|
|
|-
!27/1
|483
|2%
|
|
|-
!27/2
|170
|1%
|
|
|-
!28/1
|387
|1%
|
|
|-
!28/2
|1,130
|4%
|6,573
|23%
|-
! rowspan="4" |Khulna O&M-2
!22
|448
|2%
|
|
|-
!30
|1,199
|4%
|
|
|-
!31-part
|1,404
|5%
|
|
|-
!34/2-part
|1,560
|5%
|4,611
|16%
|-
! rowspan="6" |Patuakhali O&M
!43/2A
|2,045
|7%
|
|
|-
!43/2B
|2,100
|7%
|
|
|-
!43/2D
|1,528
|5%
|
|
|-
!43/2E
|166
|1%
|
|
|-
!55/2A
|1,588
|6%
|
|
|-
!55/2C
|1,236
|4%
|8,663
|30%
|-
! rowspan="2" |Barguna O&M
!43/1A
|504
|2%
|
|
|-
!43/2F
|1,423
|5%
|1,927
|7%
|-
! rowspan="2" |Kalapara
!47/3
|961
|3%
|
|
|-
!47/4
|3,318
|12%
|4,279
|15%
|-
! colspan="2" |Total
!28,686
|
|
|
|}

== Emergency Repairs ==
The importance of access to a budget for repairs and maintenance to water infrastructure in the coastal zone has been mentioned above under ‘O&M Budget’ in ‘Lessons Learnt’.

To give an idea of the scale of the threat of breaches to polder embankments, records from March 2017 for the 22 Blue Gold polders showed an active threat to 13 polders at 29 different locations in Patuakhali, Khulna and Satkhira. Since BWDB is responsible for 139 polders, the potential emergency arrangements to be addressed by the Board is considerable.

At polder level, when a BWDB Executive Engineer is confronted by a threatened breach to a polder embankment, he needs to make a series of decisions. One of his/her options is for embankment retirement, for which agreement will be required from the community: (a) that land will be provided for the retired embankment and/or to check whether funds are available for land acquisition; and (b) that the alignment of the retired embankment is accepted, and that it is sufficiently distant from the face of a bank which is being actively eroded to ensure embankment integrity for a period of (say) ten years – and this can be a distance of around 100m. Other options include provision of revetment to the affected length of embankment (plus a transition length both upstream and downstream) with a design that addresses the cause – which might be wind- or wave-induced erosion, or sub-surface riverbank scour resulting in geotechnical instability.

The ADB-funded Flood and Riverbank Erosion Risk Management Investment Program (FRERMIP) has significant experience with sand-filled geo-textile bags providing low-cost flexible revetment below low-water level in combination with concrete block revetment from low-water level to the upper limit of flood flows including a freeboard allowance. Although this form of revetment is being increasingly used in the tidal regions, it is generally restricted to sand-filled geo-textile bags alone. Because the geo-textile bags are degraded through exposure to ultraviolet (UV) when energy from ''sunlight'' breaks the bonds within the polymer structure, they do not provide a long-term solution for the inter-tidal zone. Whilst geo-textile bags are effective in stabilising riverbanks below low-flow level, other treatment is required for sections of riverbank which are exposed to sunlight. For tidal rivers, the diurnal variation in river levels means that the reaches exposed at low-tide level should be treated with materials that are resistant to UV exposure, potentially the reinforced concrete jute mattresses which are being tested and developed under FRERMIP. The jute mattress is filled with a dry sand-cement mix, laid across the shaped ground from the low-tide level to the flood-level with an allowance for freeboard (to cater for the wind-induced waves caused by a storm during high tide conditions) and overlapping the geo-textile bags. By soaking the mattress, the sand-cement mixture reacts to form a concrete blanket shaped to the ground profile. In due course, the jute material breaks down and is washed or blown away.

=== Case Study: Polder 29 at Chadghar in the Lower Bhadra River, Khulna District ===
All of those who live and work in the coastal zone face the consequences of erosion damage to polder embankments. But those who are resident in the polders, and whose families and livelihoods are dependent on the exclusion of flood waters from the polder bear the brunt of the consequences when polder embankments fail.

As a case study<ref group="Notes">[[:File:P29 BGP erosion presentation.pdf|A presentation at a seminar on bank protection in April 2017]] adds to the summary given below.</ref>, this section recounts the history leading to a breach in a polder embankment, the immediate aftermath and the consequences for the community. The section which follows it summarises the studies and research which was conducted in parallel to determine a longer-term intervention strategy.

Chadghar village is located in Sharafpur union of Dumuria upazila in Khulna district, close to the eastern perimeter bund of Polder 29 and adjacent to the Lower Bhadra river. Since the creation of the polder in 1968, the embankment has been prone to river erosion and has reportedly been eroded eleven times in this reach. During IPSWAM (2004-2011), the embankment was eroded twice.

To provide context, the image below in Figure 11.1 presents the eroding riverbank as well as alignments of the old and new embankments – and the extent of flooding.

[[File:Figure 11.1.jpg|center|thumb|844x844px|'''Figure 11.1''' Aerial photograph of breach in Lower Bhadra River near Chadghar village]]
For the sake of this discussion, the timeline starts from dry season 2014:

'''2014 Dry Season:''' Several meetings about a retired (realigned) embankment with a setback distance of around a 100m were held with WMGs, WMA and UPs. The community, however, was unwilling to accept a retirement of the embankment as a considerable area of land had been lost through erosion and retirement during over the last decade.

'''2014 Monsoon:''' Further erosion of the riverbank occurred and lengths of the polder embankment close to Chadghar were in a critical state and close to being breached by river-waters. WMA, WMGs, UP and the BWDB Divisional Executive Engineer held meetings at the erosion site to persuade landowners to donate land for a retired embankment.

'''2015 Dry Season:''' Despite the imminence of a breach, the local community (Chatchatia Sluice WMA - known as “CS WMA” in 2015) objected to the alignment of the proposed retired embankment because funds for land acquisition or compensation were not offered<ref group="Notes">The CS WMA was aware that the World Bank-funded Coastal Embankment Improvement Project Phase 1 was offering land acquisition and compensation in Polders 32, 33, 35/1 and 35/3. In a public meeting, they made clear their preference for financial compensation.</ref>, and because many houses and land would be outside the proposed embankment and remain at risk. Eventually, BWDB reluctantly accepted a compromise alignment acceptable to CS WMA but which was too close to the actively eroding riverbank.

'''April 2015:''' A construction contract for the retired embankment was awarded. In the meantime, apprehending a probable breach, the UP provided ‘backing’<ref group="Notes">‘Backing’ is the practice of using earth to build up the width of the embankment on its country-side.</ref> to the embankment in several reaches, as well as ‘porcupines’<ref group="Notes">To prevent riverbank erosion, ‘porcupines’ are installed to slow river velocities and thus encourage sediment deposition close to the riverbank.</ref>. Other local techniques were also used, but nothing worked well. '' ''At one location, because the embankment was weakened to such an extent that a breach was expected imminently, the BWDB Executive Engineer constructed a ‘ring dike’ on the country-side to provide a line of defence in the event of a breach.

'''July 2015:''' Early in the month, BWDB and TA visited the site and estimated physical progress to be around 20%, noting poor-quality uncompacted earthwork in an embankment which was aligned only 20m from the riverbank. There was fierce community hostility towards BWDB/TA. On 30 July 2015, a depression developed in the Bay of Bengal becoming ‘Cyclone Komen’ which crossed the shoreline on 31 July 2015. The original embankment breached at the end point Baintala khal during high tide compounded by effects of cyclone Komen accompanied with heavy rainfall, resulting in flooding and damage to houses and crops. The breach also developed three deep channels across the alignment of the partially-constructed retired embankment, making continuation of the work very difficult.

'''Impact of Breach:''' According to preliminary reports, the flood affected about 9 to 11 villages under Dumuria Upazila and 2 villages under Shurkhali Union of Batiaghata Upazila of Khulna District. About 1286 households were affected, 404 houses were destroyed and 325 houses were partially damaged. Some 684 ghers were destroyed. T Aman seedlings were damaged in about 30 ha of land and vegetables were damaged in about 20 ha of land. A vast area of land was covered by silt and saline water.

'''Emergency Measures:''' The Union Parishad (UP) and WMA, with technical advice from BWDB, mobilised the local community to construct a ring dike around the country-side of the existing embankment. Although all efforts were made to close the breach, they were prevented by high velocity flows. Photo 11.1 shows one of the three breaches through the realigned embankment at Chadghar, showing: (a) the high velocity flows leading to high tide; (b) the failed attempts – bamboo bandals and narrow earthen embankment - by the local community to close the breach; and (c) a child from one of the families whose home was on the original embankment.
[[File:Figure 11.2.jpg|center|thumb|853x853px|'''Photo 11.1''' The third breach in the realigned embankment (August 2015)]]
Photo 11.2 provides more detail of the failed attempts by the local community to close the breach, with bamboo bandals and narrow earthen embankment formed from sandbags.
[[File:Photo 11.2.jpg|center|thumb|850x850px|'''Photo 11.2''' Emergency embankment (August 2015)]]'''2016 Dry Season:''' To close the three breaches (deep channels/creeks) formed during monsoon 2015 and to protect Chadghar, BWDB’s Design Circle designed a new embankment with three closures provided with a minimum set-back distance of 100m. A contract for the works was awarded in February 2016. Two of the three breaches were closed by the contractor. For the closure of the third creek “breach 3”, an immense amount of work was required to drive bullah piles which would provide the framework for the sand-filled geobags which would close the breach. In late-May and early-June, repeated attempts to close the channel of the third creek failed as the inter-tidal velocities were too high. It was finally closed on 28 June 2016. The main embankment was still very weak but intact. The embankment withstood the 2016 floods.
----
[[File:Photo 11.3.jpg|center|thumb|853x853px|'''Photo 11.3''' Driving bullah piles in Breach 3 to provide a framework for sand-filled geobags ]]'''2017 Dry Season:''' The embankment withstood the 2016 floods. By April 2017, repair works carried over from 2015/16 were still only 50% complete. By June 2017, the contract was completed – in time for the flood season.

=== Research Leading to Intervention ===
In parallel, with the activities to complete the polder embankment at Chadghar, various studies and investigations were initiated to address the cause of the long-term erosion and to invest in mitigation measures.

IWM was contracted by Blue Gold on 19th February 2015 to carry out investigations for "Riverbank Erosion Management in polder 29, Khulna" to identify the causes of erosion and develop a comprehensive adaptive approach to mitigation. The [[:File:P29 IWM Final Report polder29 red 24may 16.pdf|final report]], submitted in May 2016, recommended a series of top blocked semi-permeable spars with sand filled geo-bag in the scour holes as erosion protection measure. in October 2016, BWDB’s Design Circle-5 supplied a [[:File:P29 BWDB design drawings groynes 1nov 16.pdf|design]] in line with IWM’s recommendation. A [[:File:P29 Deltares review of BWDB designs 30may 17.pdf|review]] by Deltares (May 2017) of the design documents expressed serious reservations about the current design and recommended against proceeding with the design in its present form:

''‘If the purpose of the structure merely consists of testing a new type of groyne battery, it remains worth noting that bank erosion upstream and downstream of the battery will change the direction of attack at the upstream and downstream terminations. The structure has not been conceived for this and might fail as a result, putting an untimely end to the corresponding monitoring programme.’''

Furthermore, the results of a [[:File:P29 FRERMIP Top Blocked Spur Numerical Modelling v3 12jul 17.pdf|report]] in July 2017 on the numerical modelling of top blocked spurs, recommending that a more suitable location (than the Lower Bhadra River) should be selected for pilot testing where environmental conditions are milder and where there would be no interaction with any other bank protection or river training structures.

In March 2017, a reconnaissance visit was made to the site of the breach by a specialist river engineer, the team leader of the Flood and Riverbank Erosion Risk Management Investment Program (FRERMIP). '' ''During the field trip, the thalweg of the incoming high velocity spring tide flows were close to the riverbank in the area of the breached embankment. The [[:File:P29 FRERMIP visit 13 March2017 v3 11apr 17.pdf|report]] on the visit recommended emergency riverbank protection, to control the riverbank erosion, using sand-filled geotextile bags along the bank. These bags, once undercut from erosion slide down the underwater slope and protect the slope against further erosion, as the sand-fill acts as filter against the fine clayey and silty subsoils. Further investigation was recommended to: (a) study the underwater slopes of the eroding banks, to assure that the launching process can take place; and (b) fix the scour depth to correctly calculate the required number of bags.

A series of studies were undertaken to provide design information:

* [[:File:P29 Lower Bhadra float tracking Ghani 24apr 17.pdf|Float tracking survey results]] – Abdul Ghani (April 2017)
* [[:File:P29 Lower Bhadra IWM river survey report 23jul 17.pdf|IWM River surveys]] (12/13 and 27/28 May 2017)
* [[:File:P29 Lower Bhadra IWM borehole investigation 23jul 17.pdf|IWM Borehole investigation]] (11 to 15 June 2017)

and after the installation of the emergency protection works:

* [[:File:P29 IWM Lower Bhadra Survey Report 3rd Cycle nov 17.pdf|IWM Post-monsoon river survey]] (11 and 17 November 2017)

Procurement arrangements were put in place for the award of a contract to carry out the emergency protection works. Tenders from a number of pre-alerted shortlisted contractors were evaluated and a contract was awarded on 15th May 2017 to LA-TTSL Joint Venture, a firm with experience in implementing similar works in the Jamuna River under FRERMIP. The works were completed by early July 2017, involving the placement of nearly 17,250 geobags.

The emergency protection works implemented by Blue Gold comprised of: (i) a dumped 6m wide underwater apron consisting of 3 layers of 250kg geobags along 950m of bankline and (ii) an above low water level protection of 1.5 layers of placed 250kg geobags on the slope along 111m. While the purpose of the underwater protection is to prevent large scale, continuous erosion of the bankline, the slope protection above low water level is designed to minimize local erosion in places with settlements close to the bankline.

In June 2018, a [[:File:P29 FRERMIP Final report Emergency protection works P29 v5 23jun 18.pdf|report]] on the emergency works provided an overview of the studies, the results, the type of protection works, the works which were implemented and the performance of the works after the 2017 flood season. The report concluded that the implemented emergency works appeared to perform satisfactorily, and that the river was not expected to significantly change course over the next years. However, it also noted that the nature of the protection was not suitable for a long-term protection, and that adaptation works were required as well as erosion protection of the upper bank above low water level. To ensure the sustainability of the implemented works and to avoid future problems with erosion in the vulnerable reach, the report advised that the implemented emergency works should be upgraded and extended in both upstream and downstream directions to minimize the risk of outflanking of the protection.

Through the Blue Gold Innovation Fund, EKN financed all the research studies and reports, as well as the contract for the emergency protection works by the LA-TTSL Joint Venture.

=== Lessons Learnt ===
Adequate funds for unforeseen emergencies should be made available.

Under BWDB rules, funds for “emergency works” are allocated only after a breach is imminent or has occurred. At this stage, costs for repair are much more expensive because land in the vicinity of a breach is flooded, so:
<ol style="list-style-type:lower-alpha">
<li>borrow pits with soils suitable for use in embankments are generally not available close to the site of a breach, so there is a cost of haulage – delivering materials to the site of the breach</li>
<li>It is difficult to get machinery, equipment and materials to the site of a breach, and required labour gangs and boats</li>
<li>Access by land to the site of a breach is restricted, along narrow embankments especially constructed to gain access to the breach site</li>
<li>Soil from borrow pits is often saturated, and achieving acceptable level of soil compaction at high moisture content is impossible</li>
<li>In tidal reaches of coastal rivers:
<ol style="list-style-type:lower-roman">
<li> the effective working time for a contractor is limited to 4 hours in two sessions either side of high or low tide (depending on the tidal regime during daylight hours); and </li>
<li> the velocities either side of high tide can be very considerable. In these conditions, the final closure of breaches often requires driving bandals to contain earth-filled geotextile bags – so that they are not swept away by the high velocity flows.</li></ol>
</li>
</ol>
Pre-emptive action to strengthen vulnerable embankments before they fail is justified because:

# Costs of repair of threatened infrastructure (embankments, sluices etc) are much reduced if work is done before embankment failure; and
# Costs in terms of human lives, and damage to crops, livestock, businesses and households can be prevented.

Possible measures which could be considered:

# Providing the field XEN with technical assistance from an experienced design team – supported, for example, by IWM - who would prepare recommended engineering interventions and obtain local community acceptance, assisted by representatives from WMG, WMA, UP, UZP and any local MP.
# Providing flexible funding arrangements by pre-allocating budgets under the Annual Development Plan (ADP) so that pre-emptive actions can be included in the Revised Annual Development Plan (RADP) in February/March, thus leaving a four-month window for tendering and construction from March to June (when the onset of the monsoon prevents work from continuing).
# Providing a 5-year on-call framework contract for pre-emptive emergency repair including stock-piling geotextile bags in ''godowns'' (storage sheds) of BWDB Divisions. Incentivising contractors through appropriate contractual arrangements to complete pre-emptive works on time and to a good quality, and to be accountable for successful implementation and the integrity of the embankment, perhaps for the duration of the framework contract.

Emergency maintenance is a major role of BWDB in the O&M Agreement between BWDB and polder-level WMA, and should be extended to include investments for pre-emptive works – with BWDB and WMA together agreeing a prioritized list of actions.

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

== See more ==
{{ArtNav|Prev_chap=[[10 Coastal Infrastructure|Chapter 10: Coastal Infrastructure]]|Curr_sect=Section C: Water Infrastructure|Next_chap=[[12 Survey, Design and Procurement|Chapter 12: Survey, Design and Procurement]]}}{{SeeMoreSectionC}}

23 Outreach and Outcomes of Commercialisation Interventions

2021-11-30T04:40:00Z

Guy.Jones: /* Changes in land use */

{{Briefing materials STC|decks=* [[:File:BGP slide deck lessons learnt v8.pdf|Lessons learnt]]
* [[:File:BGP slide deck outcomes v8.pdf|Improving the productivity of land in coastal Bangladesh: outcomes of Blue Gold interventions 2013-2019]]
* [[:File:Bgp-slide-deck-commercialisation-of-farming-long-v4.1.pdf|Commercialisation of agriculture: improved water management conditions driving reductions in poverty (long)]]|brochures=* [[:File:BGP 4 pager commercialisation of farming v8.pdf|Commercialisation of agriculture: improved water management conditions driving reductions in poverty]]
* [[:File:BGP 4 pager Fisheries v3.8.pdf|Outcomes of fisheries interventions to increase production, food security and incomes]]
* [[:File:BGP 4 pager IPWM v3.pdf|In-polder water management: maximising returns from agriculture and aquaculture]]
* [[:File:BGP 4 pager Livestock v9.4.pdf|Outcomes of livestock interventions in improving livelihoods and access to markets]]
* [[:File:Bgp-4-pager-outcomes-v9.pdf|Improving the productivity of land in coastal Bangladesh: outcomes of interventions 2013-2019]]|studies=* [[:File:BGP case study Rudhaghara CII v3.pdf|Cropping intensity initiative: Rudhagara WMG increasing production of crops by effective water resources management]]
* [[:File:BGP case study CAWM Uttar Khekuani v4.pdf|Community-led agricultural water management at Uttar Khekuani]]
* [[:File:BGP case study SVC fisheries v5.pdf|Transformation from resource farmer to micro-entrepeneur]]
* [[:File:Bgp-case-study-svc-rice-v3.1.pdf|Improving supply chain efficiency for rice farmers: Anowar's story]]
* [[:File:BGP case study commercialisation of farming activities in polder 22 v5.pdf|Commercialising watermelon farming]]
* [[:File:BGP case study impact of WRM at Amodkhali Satkhira v1.pdf|Impact of water resource management at Amadkhali, Satkhira]]
* [[:File:BGP case study collective action v2.3.pdf|Women in collective action and market linkages: increasing benfits and empowerment]]
* [[:File:Bgp-case-study-feminisation-of-agriculture-v3.7.pdf|Feminisation of agriculture and the impact on women's workload]]

Many of the terms used for rice crops and seasons are explained in [[:File:Bengali-agricultural-calendar.pdf|this schematic representation]]|videos=* No videos for the current chapter.}}

== Impacts of the commercialisation interventions ==
The information presented in this section on outcomes and outreach of Blue Gold interventions on commercialization has been taken from various documents that documented the economic changes and significant income increases brought about by changes in cropping patterns. In particular the findings of BGP’s [[:File:TR26 outcomes report WMG survey 2019 final 18nov 19.pdf|Technical Report 26]] on Improving Productivity – Outcomes of Blue Gold Interventions (of November 2019) are discussed. This report presents the findings of a survey in 2019 gathering data from all WMGs within the 22 BGP polders, comparing the situation before Blue Gold with the situation in 2019. The information on cropping intensity from TR26 is supplemented with similar data derived from satellite images (the [[:File:Satelligence final report 9jul 19.pdf|Satelligence Report]] – Earth Observation for Monitoring and Evaluation of Blue Gold Interventions of July 2019), which compared baseline data from 2011-2015 (pre-BGP) with 2017/2018 data.

This section occasionally also refers to [[:File:TR25 Outcomes report WMG survey 2018 29oct 18.pdf|Technical Report 25 (TR25)]], which presented Blue Gold outcome data similar to TR26, but collected in 2018 and among a selection of BGP polders and WMGs.

=== Changes in land use ===
The WMG survey results of [[:File:TR26 outcomes report WMG survey 2019 final 18nov 19.pdf|Technical Report 26]] (TR26) show that since the start of BGP changes in land use were significant. The report distinguishes 3 categories of land use: paddy (rice), other or non-rice crops, and fish/shrimp ''ghers'' (ponds). This [[:File:Bengali-agricultural-calendar.pdf|schematic presentation]] shows the cropping seasons (''kharif-1, kharif-2'' and ''rabi)'' and the rice crops (''aus'', ''aman'' and ''boro'') within the Bengali and the Gregorian calendars.

In Khulna, where BGP worked in 11 polders, the biggest change has been the increase in the area under fish ''ghers'', with about 5% in the ''rabi'' season (up to 16% of the available land), and about 10% in both ''kharif-1'' and ''kharif-2'' (up to 43 and 40% of the land, respectively). There was also a net increase in the area of paddy because of the significant expansion of ''boro'' rice from 28 to 47% of the land, despite a decrease in ''aman'' paddy from 57 to 48%. The land used for other crops did not change much. The available land that remained fallow decreased in all seasons, with the biggest reduction in ''rabi'' (from 35 to 16%).

In Satkhira, where BGP worked in one polder (polder 2), the increase in area under fish ''ghers'' was even bigger and the area has doubled. Both in ''kharif-1'' and ''kharif-2'' the area used for ''ghers'' increased from about 25% to over 50%. In Satkhira the area under ''boro'' paddy also increased, i.e. from 75% to 85%. Changes in the area under other crops were minor. The land that stayed fallow reduced in all seasons, with the biggest reduction in ''kharif-1'' (from 68 to 34%).

In Patuakhali, where BGP worked in 10 polders, fish ''ghers'' are virtually absent. There was a little net increase in the area of paddy, with a small reduction in ''aus'' paddy land in ''kharif''-1, which was compensated with a similar increase in ''aman'' paddy in ''kharif-2''. The most significant change in Patuakhali was the increase in area of non-rice crops in the ''rabi'' season (from 53 to 85% of the available land), which resulted in a great reduction of fallow land in this season (from 46 to 12%). In ''kharif-1'' there was some increase in fallow land (from 75 to 81%); in ''kharif-2'' some reduction, with less than 1% remaining fallow.

Combining all seasons in the three zones, there have been (net) increases in in the total areas with paddy, non-rice crops and fish ''ghers'' as per 2019; but the increase in area under fish ''ghers'' was greater than the combined increase in paddy and non-rice crops. It can therefore be concluded that on average the expansion of fish ''ghers'' did not mean a reduction in cropped areas. However, in 23% of the WMGs in Khulna and Satkhira (excluding polder 28/2) the increase in the area of fish ''ghers'' led to a reduction of the cropped area. This suggests that some switching is taking place from crops to fish.

The [[:File:Satelligence final report 9jul 19.pdf|Satelligence report]] of 2019, comparing baseline data of 2011-2015 with data of 2017/2018, had similar findings on changes in land use, such as the reduction in fallow land.

=== Changes in crop types ===
In all zones there has been a move to more productive types of paddy as demonstrated by the 2019 WMG survey findings. In both Khulna and Satkhira most of the ''boro'' is now of the more productive hybrid type, which has replaced much of the HYV ''boro''; in Patuakhali very little ''boro'' is grown. The only areas with a significant proportion of ''aus'' paddy, grown in ''kharif-1,'' are in Patuakhali, where there has been a sharp switch from local varieties to HYV. ''Aman'' is grown in all three zones and there was a clear trend towards HYV, although local ''aman'' is still grown in Khulna in Patuakhali despite a substantial reduction: from 72% to 47% of all ''aman'' in Khulna and from 84 to 44% of all ''aman'' in Patukhali. In Satkhira already two thirds of all ''aman'' was HYV before the start of BGP.

Although the changes in total area of non-rice crops were not big in two of the three zones (Patuakhali being the exception), there were considerable changes in crop types. In Khulna there was a sharp drop in sesame and also in mung bean (though not so much was grown there), against an increase in more profitable vegetables and watermelon, whereby the cultivation of the latter was concentrated in a few polders. In Satkhira non-rice crops were only grown on a small area, which were mainly vegetables (which slightly increased) and jute (slightly declined).

The non-rice crops are most important in the ''rabi'' season in Patuakhali, where their total area has increased from just over half of cultivable land to 85% in this season. Prior to BGP, the main non-rice crop used to be ''keshari'', a local pulse crop, which had almost disappeared by 2019. It has been replaced by the more profitable mung bean, which now accounts for 70% of the area of non-rice crops. Relatively small but increasing areas of groundnut, watermelon and chilli were also grown, whereas areas under sesame and sweet potato declined. As compared to the [[:File:TR25 Outcomes report WMG survey 2018 29oct 18.pdf|2018 survey (TR25)]], the area under mung bean declined somewhat in 2019, whereas the area under watermelon and groundnut increased.

=== Increase in cropping intensity ===
Cropping intensity refers to the number of crops from a same area during all seasons of one agricultural year. Within Blue Gold the land used for ''ghers'' is also included in the determination of cropping intensity. In Blue Gold polders two crops are possible per year; in some parts of the polders even three crops per year are possible where the situation allows this, e.g. on higher lands and/or near a good source for irrigation water (canals).

The findings from the [[:File:TR26 outcomes report WMG survey 2019 final 18nov 19.pdf|2019 WMG survey (TR26)]] demonstrate that on average the overall cropping intensity in the Blue Gold polders increased by 41% from 187% before BGP to 228% in 2019, but with differences over the three zones. Increases in cropping intensity were reported by 80% of the 511 WMGs and for all polders, apart from polder 28/2, where the cropping intensity fell with 34% due to land being absorbed by urban expansion of Khulna city. On average WMGs with a greater improvement in water management problem scores (i.e. a greater reduction of their problems) also have a larger increase in cropping intensity and a bigger increase in area under high yielding and high value crops. However, there is considerable variability in this correlation, so the relationship is not strong.

In Khulna the average cropping intensity has increased with 38% from 199% before BGP to 237% in 2019 ([[:File:TR26 outcomes report WMG survey 2019 final 18nov 19.pdf|TR26]]). This means a further increase in cropping intensity as compared with the 2018 data (in [[:File:TR25 Outcomes report WMG survey 2018 29oct 18.pdf|TR25]]), which were collected in five of the ten Khulna polders, when the average cropping intensity in 2018 was established at 215%. In the 2019 survey 8% of the Khulna WNGs reported a fall in cropping intensity as compared to before BGP, against 14% in 2018. The Satelligence data for the Khulna polders also showed a substantial increase in average cropping intensity (i.e. crops and ''ghers)'' of 57% between baseline and 2017/2018 data, though from a lower baseline value, i.e. from 138 to 195%.

The 2019 survey (TR26) showed a considerable larger increase in cropping intensity in Satkhira with 76%, largely due to the expansion of fish ''ghers'' in polder 2. The pilot survey of 2018 (TR25) showed a more modest increase of 31% but this was based on only 6 WMGs in the central part of the polder (beel area), which were not representative for polder 2 as a whole. Data from Satelligence, covering the entire polder 2, showed a higher increase in cropping intensity than the data of the 2018 survey, i.e. of 50%, and from a lower pre-project value (130%) to a slightly higher end value in 2017 (180%). It should be noted that at the time that the Satellingence end value data were collected (2017/2018) and the TR25 data (2018), the drainage improvements in Satkhira were not yet completed.

The 2019 survey results (as in TR26) demonstrate that in the 10 BGP polders in Patuakhali the average cropping intensity increased with 31% from 173 to 205%. This end value is somewhat lower than the findings of the 2018 WMG survey (which did not cover all polders) and which showed an overall increase in cropping intensity of 34% from 181% to 214%. The Satelligence data for the Patuakhali polders showed a considerable higher increase of 71%, but from a much lower baseline value (136%) to a similar end value of 207%.

Comparing the cropping intensity data from the two WMG surveys with the data in the Satelligence report, see also table 23.1, it can be concluded that the end values in 2017/2018 of cropping intensity found in the Satellingence report are quite close to the end values of the 2018 WMG survey, especially for Satkhira and Patuakhali. The 2019 WMG survey demonstrated an increase in average cropping intensities in all zones from 2018 to 2019
{| class="wikitable" style="width:75%; margin:auto;"
|+Table 23.1 Average cropping intensity (in % of available land) before and after BGP interventions for the three zones, based on three assessments
|
! colspan="3" |'''TR25'''<ref group="Notes">Note that in the 2018 survey, as reported upon in TR25, not all Blue Gold polders or all WMGs were covered</ref>
! colspan="3" |'''TR26'''
! colspan="3" |'''Satellingence'''
|-
!Zone
!'''before'''
!'''2018'''
! '''change'''
!'''Before'''
!'''2019'''
!'''change'''
!'''Before'''
!'''2017/18'''
!'''Change'''
|-
|Khulna
|178
|215
|36
|199
|237
|38
|138
|195
|57
|-
|Satkhira
|141
|172
|31
|176
|252
|76
|130
|180
|50
|-
|Patuakhali
|181
|215
|34
|173
|205
|31
|136
|207
|71
|}
The Satellingence study also used comparison or control polders (i.e. non-Blue Gold polders). On average a similar increase in cropping intensity was found for non-BGP polders as compared to the average for the BGP polders, however, with lower values both for the baseline and for the 2017/2018 data.

=== Crop Yield Increase ===
There has been a substantial increase in the productivity of paddy as per 2019 data from TR26. Apart from a switch to more productive HYV and hybrid varieties, average yields of each type of paddy increased by between 10% to 25% per unit of land. Differences in yield levels between zones are usually small, with ''boro'' yields being slightly higher in Satkhira and HYV ''aman'' yields higher in Patuakhali. In general, a higher proportion of the WMGs reported increases in yields of ''boro'' and ''aman'' in Patuakhali than in the other two zones.

However, the picture regarding the 2019 yields of non-rice crops was more mixed, with significant falls in yields of some of the key crops, including mung bean and sesame, whereas the 2018 survey had reported significant yield increases for most non-rice crops. Farmers interviewed as part of the 2019 survey said that the unpredictable weather conditions during the growing season (excessive drought, unexpected and heavy rainfall) adversely affected non-irrigated ''rabi'' crops. This seems a valid explanation because the 2018 WMG survey (TR25) found a significant increase in mung bean yields as compared to the pre-project situation, i.e. 34% in Khulna and 39% in Patuakhali. This confirms that measuring outcomes of agricultural development based at one point of time after interventions can give a distorted picture of the achievements if the weather conditions were rather exceptional at that time. However, the overall picture was mixed as some non-rice crops demonstrated a good increase in yields as per 2019, in particular sunflower (with 130% increase) and chilli (42%).

The production of fish g''hers'', as reported in TR26, showed a significant increase of about 40% per unit of land in the ''kharif'' seasons, the seasons with the largest area under aquaculture.

=== Feedback from FGDs with farmers on outcomes of BGP interventions ===
In the Khulna zone better water management, resulting in improved irrigation water supply, allowed increased cultivation of ''boro'' paddy in the ''rabi'' season. This replaced sesame, which was previously grown as a main crop in the rabi season, but was risky due to erratic rains prior to harvest damaging the sesame crop and reducing its yields.

In the Patuakhali zone farmers reported that better water management brought more land under cultivation in ''rabi'' season, and allowed the adoption of HYVs in the ''aman'' and ''aus'' seasons. Better drainage allowed the expansion of ''rabi'' crops; the increased supply of fresh water in ''khals'' allowed the irrigation of watermelon and ''boro'' paddy in some locations.

The 2019 WMG survey (TR26) identified which improved methods and technologies for crop production, introduced and disseminated through the Farmer Fields Schools, were best adopted. These were line sowing of paddy, improved paddy seedbed management, the use of improved seeds and varieties, and perching branches for birds, all mentioned in at least 21 of the 24 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) held. Use of light trap, proper seed preservation and balanced fertilizer were mentioned as adopted technologies in half or more of the FGDs.

Adoption rates of improved fish production technologies were generally higher than for most crop production technologies, with the use of improved fingerlings / spawn, balanced feed for fish and liming of fish ponds as the most commonly adopted technologies.

In the 2019 survey farmers were also asked for their most pressing problems, which turned out to be dominated by economic issues such as falling prices of farm products and increased costs of labour and farm inputs. In 2018 farmers had been benefiting from a spike in paddy prices following poor harvest in the preceding year. This encouraged increased paddy production, and the market seemed to become oversupplied; as a consequence farmers interviewed in 2019 no longer thought that paddy was such a profitable crop.

A main production-related problem was identified as pests and diseases, as well as increased damage by rats. Over half of the FGDs also reported that drought had been a problem. But few FGDs reported salinity, water logging and/or excess rainfall as problems, even though there was also reporting that unexpected rains in winter had damaged ''rabi'' crops.

=== Increase in farm income ===
The increased area of crops, improved cropping patterns and increased yields contributed to an increase in farm incomes. In TR26 this has been calculated based on budgets for the main crops in each zone, also estimating the net income ‘before BGP’. The results of these calculations showed that the total net farm income has almost doubled with an increase of 89%. 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 (with 165% increase), and lowest in Khulna (77% increase); in Satkhira the farm income increase was calculated as 117%.

The overall increase in net farm income was compared with the total BGP costs, including TA, per polder to assess the payback period. For almost all Khulna polders the payback period was less than two years, and for many even less than one year. For polder 2 in Satkhira the payback period was calculated as less than two years. For Patuakhali, however, the payback periods per polder were in excess of 5 years, with the exception of 3 polders that had a payback period of 1 – 3 years.

=== Other benefits and impacts ===
Increased paddy production has greatly reduced or even eliminated food insecurity for households with access to land, while the cultivation of high value crops, especially rabi crops, provide more cash income. Although there is a general trend for more households to have non-farm incomes, agriculture remains the major source of income in most villages. Improvements in agriculture even meant a stronger focus of farmers on agricultural production. Apart from households deriving income from field crops, an increasing number of landless households benefited from increased income from agricultural wage labour, as the demand for such wage labour considerably increased.

Apart from spending more on food, additional farm income usually is spent on children’s education and improved housing and sanitation, but also invested in farming, which includes land leases, purchase of livestock and investments in high value crops requiring more costly inputs. People are also saving more.

== Household outreach of commercialisation interventions ==
Blue Gold’s initial Household Survey ([[:File:TR14 Phase 1 Baseline Survey Report.pdf|Baseline study of 2014]]) across eight polders indicated that between 45% and 65% of the households had access to land and relied on farming for their livelihoods. As a rough estimate, Blue Gold considered 55% of the households in its 22 polders (with 185,000 households in total), corresponding to just over 100.000 households, as households owning or leasing land and therefore directly benefiting from water management interventions through better opportunities for field crop production.

Table 23.2 provides an overview of Blue Gold’s cropping system interventions and their outreach. A distinction is made between the 1358 FFS type interventions (984 crop FFS, 142 CAWM FFS and 232 MFS), the 67 large and 628 small demonstrations, and the various Horizontal Learning events including FFS and Demonstration Farmer Field Days (FFD), Melas (farmer fairs) and Exchange visits.
{| class="wikitable" style:"margin:auto; width:85%;"
|+Table 23.2 Blue Gold's cropping interventions and their outreach
!'''Key activity'''
!'''#'''
!'''# participants / activity'''
!'''Total # of participants'''
!'''# households directly reached'''<ref group="Notes">Adjustments made for multiple participation</ref>
!'''Total # attendants Horizontal Learning'''<ref group="Notes">Horizontal Learning include learning from neighbours, from Farmer Field Days (FFD), Melas, exchange visits and demonstrations</ref>
!'''# households indirectly reached and affected'''<ref group="Notes">Based on assumptions for the proportion of HL attendants likely to apply the improved technologies, depending on the nature of the HL event</ref>
|-
!Crop FFS
|984
|25
|24600
|'''19680'''
|4920
|'''4920'''
|-
!Crop FFS FFD
|964
|100
|
|
|96432
|'''24108'''
|-
!Melas
|8
|3000
|
|
|24000
|'''5760'''
|-
!CAWM FFS3
|142
|50
|7100
|'''3550'''
|
|
|-
!CAWM FFD
|
|100
|
|
|7100
|'''2485'''
|-
!CAWM exchange visits
|
|
|
|
|1563
|'''1563'''
|-
!MFS
|232
|25
|5800
|'''2175'''
|
|
|-
!MFS FFD
|
|100
|
|
|5220
|'''1305'''
|-
!CII demonstrations
|67
|6
|402
|'''402'''
|
|
|-
!CII demo HL events
|34
|100
|
|
|3350
|'''1005'''
|-
!Small demos
|628
|3
|1884
|'''1884'''
|
|
|-
!Small demo HL events
|628
|20
|
|
|12560
|'''9420'''
|-
!'''Total hh = 78257'''
!
!
!
!'''27691'''
!
!'''50566'''
|}
With respect to outreach, BGP distinguished between:

# '''The number of households directly reached'''. These are the households of whom at least one member participated in an FFS (either crop FFS, CAWM FFS or MFS) or was actively involved as a demonstration farmer, either in Cropping Intensity Initiatives (CII) or in smaller demonstrations. Usually 25 households were represented per FFS. After applying a correction for duplication / multiple participation (i.e. when two members of one household participated in any FFS or a same farmer participated in two activities) on the total number of direct participants in FFS and demonstrations, it was estimated that 27,691 households were directly reached by BGP interventions on commercialization of agriculture, and are applying at least part of the learnings.
# '''The number of households indirectly reached through horizontal learning'''. These are the households of whom at least one member took up improved practices for commercialization through participating in Farmer Field Days, exchange visits, attending demonstration events and/or learning from neighbours who had been FFS participants. It is estimated that 50,566 households were indirectly but effectively reached. This number was determined by applying a correction factor on the total number of persons who attended Horizontal Learning events; the correction factor depending on the nature and the participants of the HL event. This correction is both for multiple participation and for the fact that a considerable number of participants in Farmer Field Days, ''Melas'' and demonstration attended out of curiosity, without being able to apply the learnings.

The combined outreach, in terms of households reached for commercialization of agriculture, directly through program interventions and indirectly through Horizontal Learning events, is thus estimated at 78,257 or nearly 80.000 households, while the potential was established as 100.000 households. In fact, Blue Gold reached 42% of all households in its polders, which compares well with the estimated 55% of the households with access to land. Thus about 76% of the households with access to land and therefore likely to benefit from WRM interventions, were actually reached and affected based on the calculations and assumptions presented in Table 23.2.

== Cost of commercialisation interventions ==
The approximate cost of the commercialisation program Euro 1,410,000 is detailed in Table 23.3 below. It covers the actual cost of the individual program interventions, along with the Horizontal Learning activities and capacity building of field staff, resource providers and private sector actors. The Technical Assistance cost to manage the program is not included.

The cost of the range of FFS based interventions was around 43 Euro per household directly reached. Considering the additional households reached through Horizontal Learning, the average costs dropped to 17 Euro per household. In contrast, the less resource intensive Cropping Intensity Initiatives (CII) demonstrations cost more or less a quarter of the FFS costs per household directly reached (11 Euro) and only 3 Euro per household indirectly reached or affected. A comparison of their effectiveness with the more resource intensive FFS based interventions is difficult. The large-scale, yearlong CII demonstrations focus on a group of farmers within a sub-catchment. A limited number of sessions and workshops were built around the demonstrations, while leaving sufficient room for the expanded content of agricultural extension in the coastal zone, as set out in chapter 19. BGP believes that the effectiveness of the CII approach is likely to be similar to the more resource intensive FFS based interventions, while obviously a lot more resource efficient, in terms of direct costs and staff input.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Table 23.3 Cost of Commercialisation interventions
!Key Activity
!#
!Unit cost BDT
!Unit cost €
!Total cost BDT
!Total cost €
!Cost per reached HH BDT
!Cost per reached HH €
!Cost reached & affected HH BDT
!Cost reached & affected HH €
|-
|Crop FFS
|984
|82,600
|€860
|81,278,400
|€ 846,650
|4,130
|€ 43
|1,669
|€ 17
|-
|Mela
|8
|147,500
|€1,536
|1,180,000
|€ 12,292
|
|
|
|
|-
|CAWM
|142
|82,600
|€860
|11,729,200
|€ 122,179
|3,304
|€ 34
|1,944
|€ 20
|-
|CAWM HL & exchange visits
|13
|20,000
|€ 208
|260,000
|€ 2,708
|
|
|
|
|-
|MFS
|232
|28,473
|€ 297
|6,605,722
|€ 68,810
|3,037
|€ 32
|1,898
|€ 20
|-
|CII demonstrations
|67
| colspan="2" |2,147/acre
|426,145
|€ 4,439
|1,060
|€ 11
|303
|€ 3
|-
|CII demo HL events
|34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|Small demos
|600
| colspan="2" |inclus materials
|8,160,000
|€ 85,000
|4,331
|€ 45
|722
|€ 8
|-
|Small demo HL events
|600
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
|Training 150 SAAO, 25 DT, 150 FTs
|
|
|
|21,437,400
|€223,306
|
|
|
|
|-
|Training 91 SAAO, 700 RF, 125 IP
|
|
|
|4,354,500
|€45,359
|
|
|
|
|-
|
|
! colspan="2" |Total inclus training
!135,431,367
!€1,410,743
!
!€ 51
!
!€ 18
|}
These commercialisation intervention costs alone do not form an appropriate basis for an outcome based cost/benefit assessment. As argued extensively, Blue Gold outcomes in terms of production increase, are the result of the integration of water infrastructure, water management and agricultural commercialisation interventions.

What these costs do provide is an idea of this type of intervention costs per farmer and/or per household directly and indirectly reached. This can be of use for future programming whereby consideration should be given to the extent that BGP’s lessons learned on agricultural extension (see [[22 Lessons for Agricultural Extension in the Coastal Zone|chapter 22]]) are adopted, particularly those relating to increasing the efficiency of the extension approach. It is felt that, with the adoption of these lessons learnt, intervention costs per farmer could be reduced substantially.

== Outcomes of Commercialisation interventions ==
Commercialisation interventions combined and aligned with the interventions to improve water resources management contributed to the core of Blue Gold outcomes. These outcomes were described in quantitative terms of productivity shifts across the polders on the basis of the WMG surveys, see also Section B.

This section presents the direct qualitative outcomes of the commercialisation interventions in relation to extension delivery, farmer market orientation and market systems development. In addition, impacts in terms of polder economic growth are identified.

=== Outcomes related to enriched extension delivery ===

* New extension curricula take a cropping system perspective, consider water management conditions and include market orientation topics.
* Cost-effective extension methods, based on demonstrations and Horizontal Learning, are more often undertaken by lead farmers and private extension agents.
* Added impetus to extension sessions by the involvement of Resource Farmers, local entrepreneurs as input suppliers and traders, farmer role models, and private sector companies.
* Increased outreach and accessibility of agricultural extension field officers by contacting groups through their Resource Farmers.

=== Outcomes related to enhancement of farmer market orientation ===

* A growing number of farmers, men and women, consider farming as a business and use simplified gross margins, weigh up risks, and involve their spouses in joint decision making.
* Expanded networks for goods, services and information support broadening production options.
* Mobile phones became a virtual access to markets, especially enhancing market linkage opportunities for women farmers.
* Increased farmer bargaining power through producer groups reduces costs and increases revenues. See also [[Collective Actions for Economic Activities|Annex 23.1]].

=== Outcomes related to market systems development ===

* Positive and timely response by other market actors to new demands for goods, services and labour, resulting from alternative and/or more intensified cropping systems.
* More accessible and trustworthy input and service providers, growing trade volumes and revenues by offering quality products and services.
* Reduced transaction costs to both parties, evolving from collective actions.
* Upgraded and new market linkages, of higher levels of mutual understanding and trust, constitute systemic changes. Such market linkages make present innovations sustainable and will facilitate future adaptations to changing conditions.

=== Outcomes related to the impact of polder economic growth ===
* Growth of agricultural production through increases in yields, cropping intensity and diversification.
* For households without access to land for field crops, but with some homestead land, the improvement of homestead production through homestead FFS (see [[25 Poverty Focus: development of homestead production|chapter 25]]) often also meant a critical improvement, as food production increased as well as income from surplus sales.
* Along with farm production, incomes and labour requirements have increased. In turn, the increased labour demand increased wage incomes for landless households. And increased incomes from agriculture boost the demand for goods and services, increasing trader volumes, which results in more jobs and higher non-farm incomes.
* Labour remuneration and land leases have increased with higher land productivity. In some polders the wage gap between men and women labourers decreased.
* Not all farmers adopted (yet) the improved practices with higher productivity and profitability; rather, they continued to cultivate traditional crops or varieties with less investment and less income.
* Cost benefit analyses show that overall returns to cropping system improvements justify large-scale infrastructure investments, and clearly justify spending on maintenance as a production cost that results in more than enough income from selling the resulting additional produce.

== Miscellaneous References ==

# Blue Gold Program [[:File:TN 03 Benchmark Report on Mung Bean Patu MFS-final.pdf|Technical Report 03]]: Benchmark Report on Mung Bean MFS. September 2015.
# Blue Gold Program [[:File:TN06 Sajna (Moringa Oleifera) Cuttings 23dec 15.pdf|Technical Report 06]]: Sajna (Moringa Oleifera) Cuttings. 23 December 2015.
# Blue Gold Program [[:File:TN08 Nursery Management in Khulna and Patuakhali 6jan 16.pdf|Technical Report 08]]: Nursery Management in Khulna and Patuakhali. 6 January 2016.
# Blue Gold Program [[:File:TN09 FFS Fish Trial Ponds 2015 20mar 16.pdf|Technical Report 09]]: Trial Ponds of Fish FFS 2015. March 2016.
# Blue Gold Program [[:File:TN13 P22 Mini Ponds for Watermelon and Fish 13nov 16.pdf|Technical Report 13]]: Watermelon Production and Fish Culture in Mini Ponds in Polder 22. October 2016.
# Blue Gold Program [[:File:TN14 FFS Trial fish ponds 2017 16apr 17.pdf|Technical Report 14]]: Trial Ponds of Fish FFS 2016. April 2017.
# [[:File:SVC 20mar 16 Information needs of smallholder sesame farmers.pdf|Information Needs]] of Smallholder Sesame Farmers in Bangladesh. Erasmus University Rotterdam and Blue Gold Program. 20 March 2016.
# Impact Assessment Report on Fisheries Development Activities under Blue Gold Program. [[:File:DoF Fisheries Consultant Final Report Mar02,2020.pdf|Final Report]] by Monwar Hossain, independent consultant. March 2020.
# Impact Assessment Report on Fisheries Development Activities under Blue Gold Program. [[:File:DoF Presentation Mar 02, 2020.pdf|Presentation]] by Monwar Hossain, independent consultant. March 2020.
# Blue Gold [[:File:BGIF05 CDI WUR - Opportunities for development of the Moringa sector Jul2015.pdf|Innovation Fund (BGIF) 05]]: Opportunities for development of the Moringa sector in Bangladesh. CDI Wageningen for the Blue Gold Program. July 2015.
# Blue Gold [[:File:BGIF15 Just Farming - Increasing Quality in Mungbean Production 23oct 17.pdf|Innovation Fund (BGIF) 15]]: Increasing Quality of Mung Bean Production of Small Farmers. Just Farming Bangladesh Limited for the Blue Gold Program. 23 October 2017.
# Blue Gold [[:File:BGIF24 Moringa Ltd - Moringa Business Plan 11feb 18.pdf|Innovation Fund (BGIF) 24]]: Moringa Business Plan. Moringa Private Limited for the Blue Gold Program. 11 February 2018.

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

== See more ==
{{ArtNav|Prev_chap=[[22 Lessons for Agricultural Extension in the Coastal Zone|Chapter 22: Lessons for Agricultural Extension in the Coastal Zone]]|Curr_sect=[[Summary of Section E: Agricultural Development|Section E: Agricultural Development]]|Next_chap=[[24 Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment|Chapter 24: Gender equality and women's empowerment]]}}

{{SeeMoreSectionE}}

Category:Maps

2021-11-29T11:28:44Z

Guy.Jones:

A collection of detailed technical maps are presented here for the 22 polders included in the Blue Gold Program. The maps are categorised as either:

* '''[[:Category:Maps-overview|Overview Maps]]''' which provide a range of information presented on a map whose coverage is that of the entire project area: innovation fund project locations; polders, District and Upazila boundaries and main roads; BWDB Zones, Circles and Divisions; locations of Community Animal Health Workers (CAHWs); locations of Community-led Agricultural Water Management (CAWM) schemes; locations of Cropping Intensity Initiatives (CII); locations of Farmer Field Schools (FFSs); locations of Farmer Trainers (FTs); locations of input providers; BWDB South-West Zone; and polder maps overlaid on Upazila and Union boundaries (on four maps).
* '''[[:Category:Maps-polder|Polder Maps]]''' which provide detailed technical information for each of the 22 polders: locations of Community Animal Health Workers (CAHWs); sluice/regulator catchments; locations of Community-led Agricultural Water Management (CAWM) schemes; locations of Farmer Field Schools (FFSs); locations of Farmer Trainers (FTs); locations of contracts to rehabilitate or construct infrastructure improvements; locations of input providers; locations of market growth centres; locations of Resources Farmers (RFs); maps of Unions and Mouzas. The individual files include maps of each of the 22 polders covered by the Blue Gold Program.

Summary of Section A: Background and context

2021-11-14T04:33:08Z

Guy.Jones: /* Setting: the coastal zone */

This section provides background and context for lessons learnt during the Blue Gold Program by providing a description of the '''project''', its ambitions, resources, and underpinning concepts. It will also detail ‘'''the setting'''’ (institutions, social and physical context, previous experiences, the enabling environment of policies, laws and regulations) in which the project was implemented, as well as describe how the '''Participatory Water Management''' approach defined at the project’s start evolved during the seven-year implementation period.

BGP postulates that ‘'''water management for development'''’- the combining of water infrastructure and locally-led initiatives for better water management with a transformative approach to smallholder agriculture- provides a robust pathway to development.

The purpose of this wiki is to present this pathway and the many lessons that help to describe it. Blue Gold Program lessons serve as input for the definition of future water sector investments in Bangladesh’s coastal zone, and as a contribution to policy choices on Bangladesh’s water sector governance. Both investment decisions and policy choices take place under the aegis of the Delta Plan 2100.

==The project: the Blue Gold Program==
{| style="background:#FFF1E1; float:right; margin: 10px; width:30%; padding:10pt; font-size:small;"
! colspan="2" style="color:#f5911f;" |Blue Gold Program
|-
| colspan="2" style="font-size:small;" |The Blue Gold Program (2013-2021) promotes Participatory Water Management in 22 polders in the southwestern coastal belt by:
|-
|style="padding-right: 10px;|[[File:Icon wm.png|center|frameless|40x40px]]
|Improving water management
|-
|style="padding-right: 10px;|[[File:Icon agronomy.png|center|frameless|40x40px]]
|Increasing and diversifying agricultural production
|-
|style="padding-right: 10px;|[[File:Icon-revenue.png|center|frameless|40x40px]]
|Increasing income and employment through market-led agriculture
|-
|style="padding-right: 10px;|[[File:Development (1).png|center|frameless|40x40px]]
|Reducing poverty and improving food security
|-
|style="padding-right: 10px;|[[File:Icon-inclusive.png|center|frameless|40x40px]]
|Using a pro-poor, inclusive approach, targeting men and women, to include all polder inhabitants and also to enhance development outcomes
|}
The Blue Gold Program is funded by the governments of Bangladesh and the Netherlands and aims to reduce poverty for 185,000 households in the coastal districts of Patuakhali, Khulna, Satkhira, and part of Barguna. Blue Gold helps local communities stabilise their environments, and pursue sustainable socio-economic development through participatory water management and diversified farming practices with an increased orientation on markets. It aims to reduce poverty and enhance food security by strengthening the institutional framework, water resources infrastructure and through agricultural transformation.

==Setting: the coastal zone==
Over 1 million hectares of agricultural lands were enclosed in polders in the 1960s and 1970s to provide protection from tidal flooding and saline water intrusion. Now, these polders are home to about 10 million people. Yet, despite the enormous investment in embankments and associated infrastructure, some 38% of rural households in the polders live below the national poverty line. The polders are subjected to flooding during the rainy season, drought and salinity during the dry season, as well as cyclones. As a result, productivity is low. These problems will be exacerbated by climate change and sea-level rise over time.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.bluegoldbd.org/|title=Blue Gold Program|last=|first=|date=|website=Blue Gold Program|url-status=live|archive-url=|archive-date=|access-date=July 8, 2020}}</ref>
[[File:Overview Map.jpg|center|frameless|1000x1000px]]
 

==Participatory Water Management==
The Blue Gold Program functions within the country policy and legal framework for Participatory Water Management (PWM). This framework, of which the basic principles were laid down some 20 years back, structures the involvement of communities in water management through a nested structure of Water Management Groups and Water Management Associations, which are to be formally given responsibility for routine maintenance and operation of water infrastructure.

==Water management for development==
Through its implementation period, BGP sought to bring the benefits of water management to all corners of the polders. Increased agricultural returns through better in-polder water management provide a reason for polder inhabitants to assume operation and maintenance responsibilities and to contribute to their cost.
[[File:BGP ToC v9.png|alt=BGP Theory of change diagram|center|frameless|600x600px|Blue Gold Programme's Theory of Change]]To promote in-polder water management, BGP intervenes in three realms:
*Infrastructure development: complementing rehabilitation works on embankments, sluices and main drainage channels with small-scale works within the polders’ internal water systems;
*Institutional development: strengthening recently established water management organisations by the development of their networks and partnerships with local governments, departments and the private sector;
*Agricultural development: Aiming to bring the benefits of commercial agriculture through the dissemination of knowledge on field crop production, support to diversified homestead production and support to market linkages. 

==Purpose of the ‘lessons learnt’ wiki==
This wiki records lessons learnt for use in the design and implementation of future interventions in the coastal zone.

The purpose of this wiki is to pass on this knowledge and experience to the planners and policymakers working towards the realisation of the Delta Plan, and to those responsible for the design and implementation of future projects in the coastal zone.
{| style="background:#FFF1E1; margin: auto; width:50%; padding:10pt; font-size:small;"
! colspan="2" style="color:#f5911f;" |The way forward
|-
| colspan="2" style="font-size:small;" |The Blue Gold Program and other PWM projects apply the existing legal, regulatory and institutional framework. Given the proven potential of participatory water management for enhancing development, the time has come to reassess the enabling framework for PWM. The experience of BGP suggests rethinking the following:
|-
|style="padding-right: 10px;|[[File:Talking.png|center|frameless|40x40px]]
|style="padding-bottom: 10px;|Participatory water management must be initiated and supported. But where is the institutional capacity to do so at a nationwide scale?

|-
|style="padding-right: 10px;|[[File:Group.png|center|frameless|40x40px]]
|style="padding-bottom: 10px;|Water Management Groups and Associations flourish when working closely with Local Government Institutions and line agencies. How can this partnership be extended to the whole country?

|-
|style="padding-right: 10px;|[[File:Dam.png|center|frameless|40x40px]]
|style="padding-bottom: 10px;|Water Management Groups and Associations develop small-scale infrastructure but also are stakeholders in the main infrastructure. How can the planning of small and large-scale infrastructure be optimised to complement each other?

|-
|style="padding-right: 10px;|[[File:Certificate.png|center|frameless|40x40px]]
|style="padding-bottom: 10px;|New legislation establishes local and regional water resource committees. How can such bodies enhance the synergy between national, regional and local interest?

|}

 
== References ==
<references />

==Table of contents==
{{ToC Section A}}

== See more ==
{{ArtNav|Prev_chap=[[Executive summary: a call for action|Executive summary: A Call for Action]]|Curr_sect=[[Summary of Section A: Background and context|Section A: Background and context]]|Next_chap=[[01 Overview, Purpose and Structure of Report|Chapter 01: Overview, Purpose and Structure of Report]]}}{{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}}
|}

Logframe in DPP of DAE

2021-11-09T03:46:14Z

Guy.Jones:

This logframe was prepared in November 2012 and included in DAE's original Development Project Proforma (DPP) which was recast in May 2013. The logframe was revised in April 2018 for the RDPP (approved in October 2018) to extend the project period to end-December 2020 from the original project completion date of end-December 2018.
{| class="wikitable"
!'''Narrative Summary'''
!'''Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVI)'''
!'''Means of Verification'''
!'''Important Assumption'''
|-
|'''Goal :'''

To improve livelihood of small-scale farmers in polders of Khulna, Satkhira, Patuakhali & part of Borguna district.
|

Increase household income of farmers in the project areas by 15-20% after pc.

Households expenditure on housing and education increased up to 20% after pc

|

Compare Benchmark survey & Follow up survey,

mid-term evaluation , Project evaluation
|

No major natural disasters

Political stability
|-
|'''Purpose :'''

Crop production of the Project area will be increased by intensifying & diversifying.
|Increase area under modern cultivation practices up to 20% (field crops, fruits and vegetables) by project period.

Per capita income improved by 10 -12%.

Modern production technology adoption increases by 20% by 2018.
|Follow up survey, field survey, Impact assessment report and outcome surveys undertaken by the M&E unit.
|Farmers willingness to follow modern cultivation practices.

No natural calamities.
|-
! colspan="4" |'''Output'''
|-
|
* About 37,300 (1492*100) farm family trained on modern production technology.
* Planting materials distribution, established demonstrations 380).
* Skilled manpower (FFS facilitators-75 DT, monitor) in DAE.
* Developed 150 Farmer Trainer (FT).
* Supported established Farmers organization
* Ensured vehicle
* Induced use of machinery & equipment.
* Developed ICT facilities.
|
* 1492 no. of FFS organized on modern production technology by project period.
* Distributed 4000 fruit saplings, vegetable seeds, fertilizers with other inputs for 380 demonstrations.
* Implemented 2 batches TOTs to develop FFS facilitators, 6 batches tag SAAOs, 4 batches of FFS monitor, 25 motivational tours, workshop on technology selection (3), awareness creation (1) & seasonal review & planning (10) by the project period.
* Provided support of Tk 20,000/ (Tk twenty thousand) to 375 good farmers groups/clubs.
* Received two Jeeps from the Embassy of Netherlands, Procured 25 motorcycles by 2014.
* One digital camera, one photocopier, one Fax machine, one Multimedia, one Air Conditioner, one IPS procured by 2014.
* Two Laptops & two desktop computer procured by 2014
|
* Participatory monitoring feedback and surveys.
* Project reports
* Progress report
* IMED report
* Production statistics.
|
* Project personnel will not be over burdened with additional charges.
* Availability of sweet water will ensured in time.
* No natural hazard/ Calamity and political unrest.
* Co-operation from other related Ministries, departments, agencies and farmer groups.
* GoN allocation will be available in time
* Timely availability of quality inputs.
|-
! colspan="4" |Inputs/Activities
|-
|
* Man power with additional charges
* Providing Training of GoB staff on FFS
* Distribution of planting materials, Seeds, FYM with other inputs for demonstration with field days
* Training of FFS Facilitators
* Training of FFS monitor
* Training of Tag SAAO
* Implementation of FFS
* Implementation of FFS representation/ motivation tour.
* Support to Farmers Organizations (FO)
* Motorcycle with other capital components procured.
* Transport facilities
|
* 3 number of manpower to be ordered for additional charges by January 2013.
* GoB Staff trained by 2018 -11 lakh taka
* 4000 planting materials, different kinds of seeds, FYM with other inputs to be distributed to establish 380 demonstrations by 2018 -81.60 lakh taka
* 2 batches of FFS facilitator trained by 2015. - 91.80 lakh taka
* 4 batches of FFS monitor trained by 2016 - 6.00 lakh taka
* 6 batches of Tag SAAO trained by 2016 - 4.80 lakh taka.
* 1492 FFS implemented by 2018. - 612 lakh taka
* 25 batches of FFS representation /motivational tour implemented by 2018.-12.50 lakh taka.
* Completed support to 375 Farmers Organization/club by 2018- 75.00 lakh taka.
* Procured 25 motorcycles,4 computers set,1 photocopier and furniture procured by - 2014. - 46.80 lakh taka
* Receive two vehicles with driver from the Embassy of Netherlands
|
* Approved DPP,
* Project management records
* Office file
* Tender document
* Project reports
|
* Timely approved from Planning Commission,
* timely set-up of manpower,
* & GoN allocation .
* Implementation of activities as par schedule
* Fund Flow available according to demand.
|}

28 Project Management Arrangements

2021-11-09T03:32:04Z

Guy.Jones: /* DAE DPP and Revision (October 2018) */

== Introduction ==
This section of the report aims to set out the arrangements for implementing the Blue Gold Program, covering a range of issues:
{| class="wikitable"
|+
!28
!project management
|formal agreements, project committees, review missions, coordination meetings, progress reports and work plans
|-
!29
!technical assistance
|TA contractual arrangements and services
|-
!30
!evolution of the TA organisation
|organisational arrangements from program document to redrafted theory of change, decentralisation, exit strategy
|-
!31
!capacity building
|large-scale capacity building, the move to customised training, refocused TA FFSs, vocational training
|-
!32
!agricultural extension methods and communication
|approaches and instruments
|-
!33
!horizontal learning
|farmer-to-farmer learning and its evolution
|-
!34
!monitoring and evaluation
|Baseline and endline surveys, WMG surveys, DAE data, remote sensed imagery, WMG tracker
|-
!35
!management information system
|polder dashboard and post-project data management, trend watcher
|-
!36
!environmental due diligence
|environmental impact assessments and modalities
|}
Whilst the technical content of these subjects is covered elsewhere in the report, the purpose of this section is to set out the managerial and organisational arrangements for delivering the project.

== Implementing Modalities ==
The Administrative Arrangement signed on 20th February 2013 between the Minster for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation for the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Economic Relations Division (ERD) for the Government of Bangladesh (GoB) sets out the broad arrangements for the implementation of the Blue Gold Program. The following amendments were agreed:
{| class="wikitable"
|+
|11 Feb 2014
|First Amendment to Administrative Arrangement
|-
|29 Dec 2016
|Second Amendment to Administrative Arrangement (extend to 31 Dec 2020, increase financial contributions to BWDB (to €27.32 million) and DAE (to € 1.495 million)
|-
|21 Oct 2020
|Third Amendment to Administrative Arrangement (extend to 31 Dec 2021, no payments after 30 Jun 2021, final reports by 31 Mar 2022)
|}
A further Arrangement (known as the ‘Contribution Arrangement’) - signed on 4th December 2013 by the same two parties - expands on the Administrative Arrangement to provide specific start and end dates, responsibilities of BWDB and DAE, details of arrangements for transfers of funds by instalments, requirements for progress and financial reports, final reports, and annual audit reports, arrangements for evaluations of the program. The following amendments were agreed:
{| class="wikitable"
|+
|11 Feb 2014
|First Amendment to Contribution Arrangement
|-
|29 Dec 2016
|Second Amendment to Contribution Arrangement
|}
Under both of these Arrangements, the Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (EKN) represents the Kingdom of the Netherlands. And grant funds are contributed by EKN for administration by BWDB, DAE and a technical assistance (TA) team through direct contracting with EKN. Also through TA funding, support is provided to the activities of the Department of Cooperatives (DoC), Department of Fisheries (DoF) and Department of Livestock Services (DLS).

With respect to the GoB implementing organisations, separate Development Project Proposals (DPPs) for BWDB and DAE set out the aims and objectives of the project, its financial and physical scope, intended objectives and benefits, and proposals for monitoring and internal and external audits.

Working arrangements between BWDB and the Department of Livestock Services (DLS) and Department of Fisheries (DoF) were set out in Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs). Both DLS and DoF come under the administration of the Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock.

The Department of Cooperatives (DoC), under the Rural Development and Cooperatives (RDC) Division of the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Cooperatives (MoLGRDC), was an early partner in the formation and registration of water management groups (WMGs). After the publication of the Participatory Water Management Rules (PWMR) of 2014, BWDB was mandated to form and register WMGs, and the arrangement with DoC was discontinued.

The collaboration between MoWR and MoA has been an important ingredient for success, communicating that the overall focus is on increasing agricultural production and empowering WMGs to be the main drivers of development, rather than on the traditional focus on infrastructure alone. But increased agricultural production is only possible when improved infrastructure provides safety from flooding to all polder communities and the main framework for water management to control waterlogging; and only then are farmers prepared to invest in high value crops and higher cropping intensities. Thus, infrastructure and agriculture are inextricably linked and co-dependent.

Although there was no formal agreement in place, the collaboration between the Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR) and Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) has been a well understood critical relationship, fostered by a close BWDB/DAE partnerships at District level, and the attendance of BWDB representatives at DAE steering committee meetings and other workshops and conferences.

Local Government Institutions (LGIs) were not formally included in either of the BWDB or DAE DPPs, but – as will have been seen from Section D of this report – it will be important to do so in the future.

== Development Project Proformas (DPPs) ==
Through the DPP, GoB organisations set out their intentions to invest in a development project, seeking approval for the investment and, if successful, a budget allocation. The DPP follows a prescribed format, including the project’s financial and physical scope, benefits, and proposals for monitoring and internal and external audits. The approval of a development project proposal follows a number of stages:

* '''Formation:''' a project often starts with preliminary studies of its desirability in terms of national needs, with likely costs and benefits
* '''Formulation:''' the project scope is developed in greater detail and supported by economic studies so that decision-making bodies can evaluate and then approve, postpone or reject the project.
* '''Scrutiny:''' executing agencies and concerned ministries scrutinize the DPP, and when convinced that the case is well-argued, submit the DPP to the Planning Commission
* '''Appraisal:''' Sector Divisions of the Planning Commission appraise the DPP
* '''Recommendation for Approval:''' If appraisal is successful, a Project Evaluation Committee (PEC) meets to review the DPP and, if positive to recommend it for approval
* '''Minister/ECNEC Approval:''' Approval of the DPP is made by the Minister for Planning (up to BDT 50 crore, equivalent to €5 million) or the ECNEC (over BDT 50 crore)
* '''Inclusion in Annual Development Plan (ADP):''' When approved, a budgetary allocation for the project is made through the departmental annual work plans and budgets, centralised in the Annual Development Plan.

=== BWDB DPP and Revisions ===
The BWDB Development Project Proposal (DPP) for Blue Gold was prepared in November 2012, recast in March and May 2013 and formally approved in the ECNEC meeting of 30th July 2013. [[11 Investments for Polder Safety and Water Management#Polder Investments|Table 11.1]] sets out the budget heads for investments from the original DPP approved on 30th July 2013, the Revised Development Project Proposal (RDPP) approved on 21st June 2018 and the re-adjusted budget heads approved on 1st September 2020.

=== BWDB RDPP First Revision (June 2018) ===
The process for revising the DPP started in September 2016, when EKN confirmed to DG BWDB their interest in overcoming the shortfall in the DPP budget, by adding to their funding for Blue Gold. In turn, on 27th October 2016, a letter was sent by the Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR) to the External Relations Division (ERD) asking them to process EKN’s offer. The RDPP was finally approved at a meeting of ECNEC 21st June 2018. The ECNEC approval took 20 months from the MoWR letter dated 27th October 2016 notifying ERD of the additional funding offered by EKN.

=== BWDB RDPP Extension and Re-Adjustment (September 2020) ===
On 3rd December 2019, a meeting of the Inter-Ministerial Steering Committee (IMSC) agreed that the project should be extended to end-December 2021 to allow for an additional full construction season in 2020/21 and to allow the subsequent processing of final payments to contractors, and also authorised a no-cost re-adjustment between budget heads to maximise the project impact. The readjusted budget and supporting papers were submitted by DG BWDB to MoWR in February 2020, and finally approved by Minister MoWR on 1st September 2020.

=== DAE DPP and Revision (October 2018) ===
The DAE DPP for Blue Gold was prepared in November 2012 and recast in May 2013. The DPP was revised to incorporate the additional funds provided by EKN and to extend the period to end-December 2020. The DAE RDPP was approved by the Pre-ECNEC Committee (PEC) meeting in the Planning Commission on 16th October 2018.

== Project Meetings ==
There was no single committee which provided joint coordination of all project activities. However, steering committees and project management committees (PMCs) were established in BWDB and DAE.

=== Inter-Ministerial Steering Committee (BWDB Component) ===
As per the provisions of the Development Project Proposal (DPP), the MoWR constituted an Inter-Ministerial Steering Committee on the Blue Gold Program (BWDB Component) with the following officials:
----'''Chair''' - Secretary MoWR

'''Member Secretary -''' Project Coordinating Director Blue Gold Program

Members include representatives from MoWR, MoA, MFLS, ECNEC Planning Commission, ERD, IMED, BWDB, DAE, with EKN and TA as observers.

=== Inter-Ministerial Project Steering Committee (DAE Component) ===
The DPP sets out the membership of the PSC as follows:

'''Chair''' - Secretary MoA

'''Member Secretary -''' Project Director Blue Gold Program

Members include DG DAE, Joint Chief and Deputy Chief Planning MoA, and representatives from Ministry of Finance, MoWR, IMED, ERD, Planning Commission (Crop Wing), and Additional Director Planning and Evaluation Wing DAE.

=== Project Management Committees ===

==== BWDB Project Management Committee ====
As per the provisions of the Development Project Proposal (DPP), a Project Management Committee as the central decision-making body for the implementation of the Blue Gold Program (BWDB Component). The following officials were appointed:

'''Chair''' - Project Coordinating Director Blue Gold Program

'''Member Secretary –''' TA Team Leader Blue Gold Program

Members include representatives from MoWR, Planning Commission (Irrigation Wing), IMED, DAE, DoF, DLS, DoC, and Executive Engineer DP-3.

==== DAE Project Management Committee Technology Transfer for Agricultural Production (TTAP) ====
The DAE DPP sets out the membership of the PMC as follows:

'''Chair''' – Director General DAE

'''Member Secretary -''' Project Director Blue Gold Program

Members include Director Field Services DAE, MoA, and representatives from IMED, Planning Commission (Crop Wing), Additional Director Planning and Evaluation Wing DAE, Additional Director Barisal Region DAE, Additional Director Jessore Region DAE, Assistant Director Finance DAE, and M&E Officer Blue Gold Program.

=== Coordination Meetings ===
From 2016 onwards - although not officially mandated - informal project coordination meetings were held regularly between project-level representatives of the main implementing agencies: EKN, BWDB, DAE and TA team. These provided an excellent forum for discussing progress, identifying constraints to implementation, and suggested mitigating actions.

== Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) ==
Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) were signed between BWDB and the Department of Livestock Services on 30th April 2014, and between BWDB and the Department of Fisheries on 25th November 2014. These MoUs set out the scope for collaboration and mandated the appointment of a focal point in each organisation to coordinate activities with Blue Gold.

== Review Missions ==
Five review missions took place over the eight-year lifetime of the project. The broad objective of each of the missions was to secure and where possible further enhance the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of the project. The third mission was designated as a mid-term review mission and resulted in a significant revision to the TA budget.
{| class="wikitable"
|+
![[:File:ARM Aide Memoire 23Aug-5Sep 2014.pdf|ARM 2014]]
|23 August to 4 September 2014
|-
![[:File:ARM Aide Memoire 27Sep-13Oct 2015.pdf|ARM 2015]]
|27 September to 12 October 2015
|-
![[:File:ARM Aide Memoire 2-14oct 2016 31oct 16.pdf|MTR 2016]]
|18 to 29 September 2016
|-
![[:File:ARM Aide Memoire 25Nov-4Dec 2017 26feb 18.pdf|ARM 2017]]
|24 November to 4 December 2017
|-
![[:File:ARM Aide Memoire 9-20Nov 2018 11jan 19.pdf|ARM 2018]]
|9 to 19 November 2018
|-
! colspan="2" |ARM: Annual Review Mission
MTR: Mid-Term Review Mission
|}
Given that the project was due to end in December 2020, and that the main focus in 2019 would be on arrangements for the completion of water management infrastructure, a single-focus review was planned after the results of the 2018/19 construction season were available. After internal discussions with BWDB, EKN agreed with BWDB that planning for the 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons would be better served by engaging BWDB and TA teams in setting ambitious targets aiming to complete as much infrastructure as possible by the revised end of construction at end-June 2021.

Copies of the Aide Memoires of the five missions are available in the File Library, along with three collections of position papers prepared by the TA team for [[:File:PP TA ARM Discussion Paper 2016 1oct 16.pdf|MTR 2016]], [[:File:PP TA ARM position paper 2017 18nov 17.pdf|ARM 2017]] and [[:File:PP TA ARM position paper 2018 3nov 18.pdf|ARM 2018]].

== Annual Work Plans ==
Annual Work Plans (AWPs) set out the activities planned for the year ahead and the associated budget requirements. The first two AWPs covered the calendar years 2014 and 2015. So that the documents could be aligned with the Government of Bangladesh planning cycle, AWPs were reformulated to cover the Financial Year (July to June) from July 2015. AWPs were prepared and submitted to EKN: [[:File:AWP 2014 blue-gold-annual-plan-2014.pdf|2014]] (24 June 2014); [[:File:AWP 2015 Annual Plan 2015 v5 241214.pdf|2015]] (24 December 2014); [[:File:AWP 2015 16 Annual Work Plan 2015 - 2016 14 July 2015.pdf|2015/16]] (14 July 2015); [[:File:AWP 2016 AnnualPlan201617V2.pdf|2016/17]] (30 September 2016); [[:File:AWP 2017 18 BGPAnnualPlan20172018.pdf|2017/18]] (15 June 2017); [[:File:AWP 2018 19 Annual Work Plan 2018-2019 1aug 18.pdf|2018/19]] (1 August 2018); [[:File:AWP 2019 20 Annual Work Plan 2019-2020 10jul 19.pdf|2019/20]] (10 July 2019) and 2020/21 (18 September 2020).

== Polder Development Plans ==
Polder Development Plans (PDPs) present an integrated analysis and planning for a specific polder covering community mobilization, water management, agriculture, business development, environment, gender and institutions. PDPs for all 22 polders are available through the File Library (keyword [[:Category:PDP|PDP]]).

== Progress Reports ==
Progress reports were prepared by all three implementing organisations. For the TA team, the first progress report covered the six-month period from April to September 2013. Thereafter, from October 2013 to June 2015, quarterly progress reports were prepared by the TA team. At the request of EKN, half yearly progress reports covering the GoB financial year (July to June) commenced from July 2015 and continued throughout the remaining life of the project. TA Progress Reports are available in the File Library (keyword [[:Category:Progress|PR]]).

== See more ==
{{ArtNav|Prev_chap=[[27 Sustainability|Chapter 27: Sustainability]]|Curr_sect=[[Summary of Section G: Project Management|Section G: Project Management]]|Next_chap=[[29 Technical Assistance: Context, Scope, Contractual Arrangements and External Service Contracts|Chapter 29: Technical Assistance: Context, Scope, Contractual Arrangements and External Service Contracts]]}}

{{SeeMoreSectionG}}

Summary of Works Contracted by Polder by BWDB Division

2021-10-31T11:13:23Z

Guy.Jones: /* Polder 2 */

{{For|the main article on investment|11 Investments for Polder Safety and Water Management}}{{For|downloading a single PDF with all the tables|File:Tab 11 3 Polder Level Investments 24mar 21.pdf}}This page hosts a series of tables provide the quantity and amount of infrastructure works contracted for each polder by each of the six BWDB Division against the RDPP budget heads.

Presented contracted quantities and amounts are in BDT Lakh and as of March 2021.

Amounts are based on the following figures:

* Work not yet awarded = vetted amount
* Ongoing works = contract amount
* Completed works = paid amount

== Satkhira O&M-2 ==

=== Polder 2 ===
{| class="wikitable"
!SI. No
!Work Items
!Quantity
!Amount
|-
!1
!Re-sectioning of Embankment (km)
|35.620
|658.17
|-
!2
!Retired Embankment (km)
| -
| -
|-
!3
!Re-excavation of khals (km)
|34.850
|610.36
|-
!4
!Repair of Regulator/Sluice with gate (nos.)
|9
|60.96
|-
!5
!Repair of Inlets/Outlets (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!6
!Construction of Drainage Regulator/ Sluice (nos.)
|5
|872.21
|-
!7
!Construction Drainage Outlet (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!8
!Construction of Irrigation Inlet (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!9
!Construction of culvert (nos.)
|10
|101.28
|-
!10
!Pump shed (nos.)
|4
|37.73
|-
!11
!Low cost Bank Protection work (km)
|LS
|112.89
|-
!12
!Rehabilitation of Interior Dike (km)
| -
| -
|-
!13
!Closure/ Cross-bundh (km)
| -
| -
|-
!14
!Supply of Drain pipe (m)
|499
|15.78
|-
!15
!Flood damage repair / Breach Closing
|LS
|30.04
|-
!16
!GoB O&M
|LS
|11.39
|-
! colspan="2" |Total
!
!2,654.04
|}

== Khulna O&M-1 ==

=== Polder 25 ===
{| class="wikitable"
!SI. No
!Work Items
!Quantity
!Amount
|-
!1
!Re-sectioning of Embankment (km)
|6.4
|132.23
|-
!2
!Retired Embankment (km)
| -
| -
|-
!3
!Re-excavation of khals (km)
|50.84
|913.75
|-
!4
!Repair of Regulator/Sluice with gate (nos.)
|10
|123.94
|-
!5
!Repair of Inlets/Outlets (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!6
!Construction of Drainage Regulator/ Sluice (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!7
!Construction Drainage Outlet (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!8
!Construction of Irrigation Inlet (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!9
!Construction of culvert (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!10
!Pump shed (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!11
!Low cost Bank Protection work (km)
| -
| 1.87
|-
!12
!Rehabilitation of Interior Dike (km)
| -
| -
|-
!13
!Closure/ Cross-bundh (km)
| -
| -
|-
!14
!Supply of Drain pipe (m)
|750
|15.21
|-
!15
!Flood damage repair / Breach Closing
|LS
|62.05
|-
!16
!GoB O&M
| -
| -
|-
! colspan="2" |Total
!
!1567.8
|}

=== Polder 26 ===
{| class="wikitable"
!SI. No
!Work Items
!Quantity
!Amount
|-
!1
!Re-sectioning of Embankment (km)
|11.86
|266.34
|-
!2
!Retired Embankment (km)
| -
| -
|-
!3
!Re-excavation of khals (km)
|18.69
|153.45
|-
!4
!Repair of Regulator/Sluice with gate (nos.)
|1
|23.78
|-
!5
!Repair of Inlets/Outlets (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!6
!Construction of Drainage Regulator/ Sluice (nos.)
|4
|598.38
|-
!7
!Construction Drainage Outlet (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!8
!Construction of Irrigation Inlet (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!9
!Construction of culvert (nos.)
|3
|82.72
|-
!10
!Pump shed (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!11
!Low cost Bank Protection work (km)
| -
| -
|-
!12
!Rehabilitation of Interior Dike (km)
| -
| -
|-
!13
!Closure/ Cross-bundh (km)
| -
| -
|-
!14
!Supply of Drain pipe (m)
|198
|5.17
|-
!15
!Flood damage repair / Breach Closing
|LS
|4.98
|-
!16
!GoB O&M
|LS
|35.44
|-
! colspan="2" |Total
!
!1222.56
|}

=== Polder 29 ===
{| class="wikitable"
!SI. No
!Work Items
!Quantity
!Amount
|-
!1
!Re-sectioning of Embankment (km)
|18.49
|174.91
|-
!2
!Retired Embankment (km)
|1.47
|272.7
|-
!3
!Re-excavation of khals (km)
|38.38
|440.07
|-
!4
!Repair of Regulator/Sluice with gate (nos.)
|13
|139.84
|-
!5
!Repair of Inlets/Outlets (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!6
!Construction of Drainage Regulator/ Sluice (nos.)
|2
|404.40
|-
!7
!Construction Drainage Outlet (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!8
!Construction of Irrigation Inlet (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!9
!Construction of culvert (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!10
!Pump shed (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!11
!Low cost Bank Protection work (km)
|LS
|78.85
|-
!12
!Rehabilitation of Interior Dike (km)
| -
| -
|-
!13
!Closure/ Cross-bundh (km)
| -
| -
|-
!14
!Supply of Drain pipe (m)
|399.6
|9.42
|-
!15
!Flood damage repair / Breach Closing
|LS
|47.40
|-
!16
!GoB O&M
|LS
|122.37
|-
! colspan="2" |Total
!
!1811.49
|}

=== Polder 27/1 ===
{| class="wikitable"
!SI. No
!Work Items
!Quantity
!Amount
|-
!1
!Re-sectioning of Embankment (km)
| -
| -
|-
!2
!Retired Embankment (km)
| -
| -
|-
!3
!Re-excavation of khals (km)
|27.48
|336.34
|-
!4
!Repair of Regulator/Sluice with gate (nos.)
|5
|55.38
|-
!5
!Repair of Inlets/Outlets (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!6
!Construction of Drainage Regulator/ Sluice (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!7
!Construction Drainage Outlet (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!8
!Construction of Irrigation Inlet (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!9
!Construction of culvert (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!10
!Pump shed (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!11
!Low cost Bank Protection work (km)
| -
| -
|-
!12
!Rehabilitation of Interior Dike (km)
|3.5
|43.93
|-
!13
!Closure/ Cross-bundh (km)
| -
| -
|-
!14
!Supply of Drain pipe (m)
|350
|7.9
|-
!15
!Flood damage repair / Breach Closing
| -
| -
|-
!16
!GoB O&M
| -
| -
|-
! colspan="2" |Total
!
!614.4
|}

=== Polder 27/2 ===
{| class="wikitable"
!SI. No
!Work Items
!Quantity
!Amount
|-
!1
!Re-sectioning of Embankment (km)
|2.7
|52.5
|-
!2
!Retired Embankment (km)
| -
| -
|-
!3
!Re-excavation of khals (km)
|5.74
|75.96
|-
!4
!Repair of Regulator/Sluice with gate (nos.)
|3
|20.02
|-
!5
!Repair of Inlets/Outlets (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!6
!Construction of Drainage Regulator/ Sluice (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!7
!Construction Drainage Outlet (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!8
!Construction of Irrigation Inlet (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!9
!Construction of culvert (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!10
!Pump shed (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!11
!Low cost Bank Protection work (km)
| -
| -
|-
!12
!Rehabilitation of Interior Dike (km)
| -
| -
|-
!13
!Closure/ Cross-bundh (km)
| -
| -
|-
!14
!Supply of Drain pipe (m)
|100
|2.59
|-
!15
!Flood damage repair / Breach Closing
| -
| -
|-
!16
!GoB O&M
| -
| -
|-
! colspan="2" |Total
!
!170.07
|}

=== Polder 28/1 ===
{| class="wikitable"
!SI. No
!Work Items
!Quantity
!Amount
|-
!1
!Re-sectioning of Embankment (km)
| -
| -
|-
!2
!Retired Embankment (km)
| -
| -
|-
!3
!Re-excavation of khals (km)
|14.05
|152.43
|-
!4
!Repair of Regulator/Sluice with gate (nos.)
|9
|111.97
|-
!5
!Repair of Inlets/Outlets (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!6
!Construction of Drainage Regulator/ Sluice (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!7
!Construction Drainage Outlet (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!8
!Construction of Irrigation Inlet (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!9
!Construction of culvert (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!10
!Pump shed (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!11
!Low cost Bank Protection work (km)
| -
| -
|-
!12
!Rehabilitation of Interior Dike (km)
|3.6
|28.07
|-
!13
!Closure/ Cross-bundh (km)
| -
| -
|-
!14
!Supply of Drain pipe (m)
|350
|7.9
|-
!15
!Flood damage repair / Breach Closing
| -
| -
|-
!16
!GoB O&M
| -
| -
|-
! colspan="2" |Total
!
!468.26
|}

=== Polder 28/2 ===
{| class="wikitable"
!SI. No
!Work Items
!Quantity
!Amount
|-
!1
!Re-sectioning of Embankment (km)
|0.15
|9.00
|-
!2
!Retired Embankment (km)
| -
| -
|-
!3
!Re-excavation of khals (km)
|24.80
|549.78
|-
!4
!Repair of Regulator/Sluice with gate (nos.)
|6
|127.78
|-
!5
!Repair of Inlets/Outlets (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!6
!Construction of Drainage Regulator/ Sluice (nos.)
|1
|287.26
|-
!7
!Construction Drainage Outlet (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!8
!Construction of Irrigation Inlet (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!9
!Construction of culvert (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!10
!Pump shed (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!11
!Low cost Bank Protection work (km)
| -
| 30.10
|-
!12
!Rehabilitation of Interior Dike (km)
| -
| -
|-
!13
!Closure/ Cross-bundh (km)
| -
| -
|-
!14
!Supply of Drain pipe (m)
|350
|7.9
|-
!15
!Flood damage repair / Breach Closing
|LS
|11.09
|-
!16
!GoB O&M
|LS
|0.94
|-
! colspan="2" |Total
!
!1146.84
|}

== Khulna O&M-2 ==

=== Polder 22 ===
{| class="wikitable"
!SI. No
!Work Items
!Quantity
!Amount
|-
!1
!Re-sectioning of Embankment (km)
|4.78
|72.55
|-
!2
!Retired Embankment (km)
| 0.55
| 19.73
|-
!3
!Re-excavation of khals (km)
|8.67
|75.48
|-
!4
!Repair of Regulator/Sluice with gate (nos.)
|3
|6.22
|-
!5
!Repair of Inlets/Outlets (nos.)
| 5
| 61.86
|-
!6
!Construction of Drainage Regulator/ Sluice (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!7
!Construction Drainage Outlet (nos.)
| 2
| 28.06
|-
!8
!Construction of Irrigation Inlet (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!9
!Construction of culvert (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!10
!Pump shed (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!11
!Low cost Bank Protection work (km)
| LS
| 32.62
|-
!12
!Rehabilitation of Interior Dike (km)
| 0.47
| 33.4
|-
!13
!Closure/ Cross-bundh (km)
| -
| -
|-
!14
!Supply of Drain pipe (m)
|200
|4.71
|-
!15
!Flood damage repair / Breach Closing
|LS
|60.51
|-
!16
!GoB O&M
|LS
|28.85
|-
! colspan="2" |Total
!
!407.53
|}

=== Polder 30 ===
{| class="wikitable"
!SI. No
!Work Items
!Quantity
!Amount
|-
!1
!Re-sectioning of Embankment (km)
|15.98
|110.94
|-
!2
!Retired Embankment (km)
| -
| -
|-
!3
!Re-excavation of khals (km)
|25.35
|355.29
|-
!4
!Repair of Regulator/Sluice with gate (nos.)
|14
|98.34
|-
!5
!Repair of Inlets/Outlets (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!6
!Construction of Drainage Regulator/ Sluice (nos.)
|1
|418.22
|-
!7
!Construction Drainage Outlet (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!8
!Construction of Irrigation Inlet (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!9
!Construction of culvert (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!10
!Pump shed (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!11
!Low cost Bank Protection work (km)
| LS
| 70.72
|-
!12
!Rehabilitation of Interior Dike (km)
| -
| -
|-
!13
!Closure/ Cross-bundh (km)
| -
| -
|-
!14
!Supply of Drain pipe (m)
|400
|9.43
|-
!15
!Flood damage repair / Breach Closing
|LS
|43.05
|-
!16
!GoB O&M
|LS
|19.95
|-
! colspan="2" |Total
!
!1210.96
|}

=== Polder 31-part ===
{| class="wikitable"
!SI. No
!Work Items
!Quantity
!Amount
|-
!1
!Re-sectioning of Embankment (km)
|15.49
|377.26
|-
!2
!Retired Embankment (km)
| 1.16
| 81.32
|-
!3
!Re-excavation of khals (km)
|29.74
|321.73
|-
!4
!Repair of Regulator/Sluice with gate (nos.)
|5
|75.39
|-
!5
!Repair of Inlets/Outlets (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!6
!Construction of Drainage Regulator/ Sluice (nos.)
|2
|434.10
|-
!7
!Construction Drainage Outlet (nos.)
|
|
|-
!8
!Construction of Irrigation Inlet (nos.)
| 1
| 26.53
|-
!9
!Construction of culvert (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!10
!Pump shed (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!11
!Low cost Bank Protection work (km)
| -
| -
|-
!12
!Rehabilitation of Interior Dike (km)
| -
| -
|-
!13
!Closure/ Cross-bundh (km)
| -
| -
|-
!14
!Supply of Drain pipe (m)
|200
|4.72
|-
!15
!Flood damage repair / Breach Closing
|LS
|8.14
|-
!16
!GoB O&M
|LS
|19.33
|-
! colspan="2" |Total
!
!1428.39
|}

=== Polder 34/2-part ===
{| class="wikitable"
!SI. No
!Work Items
!Quantity
!Amount
|-
!1
!Re-sectioning of Embankment (km)
|14.79
|258.07
|-
!2
!Retired Embankment (km)
| 2.18
| 75.46
|-
!3
!Re-excavation of khals (km)
|24.95
|321.37
|-
!4
!Repair of Regulator/Sluice with gate (nos.)
|
|
|-
!5
!Repair of Inlets/Outlets (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!6
!Construction of Drainage Regulator/ Sluice (nos.)
|3
|559.48
|-
!7
!Construction Drainage Outlet (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!8
!Construction of Irrigation Inlet (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!9
!Construction of culvert (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!10
!Pump shed (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!11
!Low cost Bank Protection work (km)
| -
| -
|-
!12
!Rehabilitation of Interior Dike (km)
| 5.19
| 91.28
|-
!13
!Closure/ Cross-bundh (km)
| -
| -
|-
!14
!Supply of Drain pipe (m)
|200
|4.71
|-
!15
!Flood damage repair / Breach Closing
|LS
|89.76
|-
!16
!GoB O&M
|LS
|77.29
|-
! colspan="2" |Total
!
!1628.4
|}

== Patuakhali O&M ==

=== Polder 43/2A ===
{| class="wikitable"
!SI. No
!Work Items
!Quantity
!Amount
|-
!1
!Re-sectioning of Embankment (km)
|29.65
|371.50
|-
!2
!Retired Embankment (km)
| 3.71
| 263.61
|-
!3
!Re-excavation of khals (km)
|26.19
|255.78
|-
!4
!Repair of Regulator/Sluice with gate (nos.)
|4
|57.17
|-
!5
!Repair of Inlets/Outlets (nos.)
| 36
| 33.36
|-
!6
!Construction of Drainage Regulator/ Sluice (nos.)
|3
|509.00
|-
!7
!Construction Drainage Outlet (nos.)
| 4
| 382.37
|-
!8
!Construction of Irrigation Inlet (nos.)
|
|
|-
!9
!Construction of culvert (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!10
!Pump shed (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!11
!Low cost Bank Protection work (km)
| LS
| 2.76
|-
!12
!Rehabilitation of Interior Dike (km)
| -
| -
|-
!13
!Closure/ Cross-bundh (km)
| -
| -
|-
!14
!Supply of Drain pipe (m)
|556.32
|15.69
|-
!15
!Flood damage repair / Breach Closing
|LS
|29.24
|-
!16
!GoB O&M
|LS
|35.38
|-
! colspan="2" |Total
!
!2062.86
|}

=== Polder 43/2B ===
{| class="wikitable"
!SI. No
!Work Items
!Quantity
!Amount
|-
!1
!Re-sectioning of Embankment (km)
|16.47
|172.85
|-
!2
!Retired Embankment (km)
| 1.4
| 65.33
|-
!3
!Re-excavation of khals (km)
|41.06
|588.01
|-
!4
!Repair of Regulator/Sluice with gate (nos.)
|5
|71.63
|-
!5
!Repair of Inlets/Outlets (nos.)
| 42
| 22.98
|-
!6
!Construction of Drainage Regulator/ Sluice (nos.)
|2
|793.52
|-
!7
!Construction Drainage Outlet (nos.)
| 2
| 148.48
|-
!8
!Construction of Irrigation Inlet (nos.)
|
|
|-
!9
!Construction of culvert (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!10
!Pump shed (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!11
!Low cost Bank Protection work (km)
| -
| -
|-
!12
!Rehabilitation of Interior Dike (km)
| 2.22
| 26.37
|-
!13
!Closure/ Cross-bundh (km)
| LS
| 20.58
|-
!14
!Supply of Drain pipe (m)
|556.32
|15.69
|-
!15
!Flood damage repair / Breach Closing
|LS
|56.25
|-
!16
!GoB O&M
|LS
|34.09
|-
! colspan="2" |Total
!
!2170.81
|}

=== Polder 43/2D ===
{| class="wikitable"
!SI. No
!Work Items
!Quantity
!Amount
|-
!1
!Re-sectioning of Embankment (km)
|32.8
|210.18
|-
!2
!Retired Embankment (km)
| -
| -
|-
!3
!Re-excavation of khals (km)
|43.93
|553.77
|-
!4
!Repair of Regulator/Sluice with gate (nos.)
|17
|160.21
|-
!5
!Repair of Inlets/Outlets (nos.)
| 49
| 55.00
|-
!6
!Construction of Drainage Regulator/ Sluice (nos.)
|1
|234.22
|-
!7
!Construction Drainage Outlet (nos.)
| 2
| 175.25
|-
!8
!Construction of Irrigation Inlet (nos.)
|
|
|-
!9
!Construction of culvert (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!10
!Pump shed (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!11
!Low cost Bank Protection work (km)
| -
| -
|-
!12
!Rehabilitation of Interior Dike (km)
| -
| -
|-
!13
!Closure/ Cross-bundh (km)
| -
| -
|-
!14
!Supply of Drain pipe (m)
|556.32
|15.73
|-
!15
!Flood damage repair / Breach Closing
|LS
|6.45
|-
!16
!GoB O&M
|LS
|0.87
|-
! colspan="2" |Total
!
!1520.21
|}

=== Polder 43/2E ===
{| class="wikitable"
!SI. No
!Work Items
!Quantity
!Amount
|-
!1
!Re-sectioning of Embankment (km)
|3.03
|34.70
|-
!2
!Retired Embankment (km)
| -
| -
|-
!3
!Re-excavation of khals (km)
|4.60
|18.13
|-
!4
!Repair of Regulator/Sluice with gate (nos.)
|7
|40.89
|-
!5
!Repair of Inlets/Outlets (nos.)
| 42
| 19.70
|-
!6
!Construction of Drainage Regulator/ Sluice (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!7
!Construction Drainage Outlet (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!8
!Construction of Irrigation Inlet (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!9
!Construction of culvert (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!10
!Pump shed (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!11
!Low cost Bank Protection work (km)
| -
| -
|-
!12
!Rehabilitation of Interior Dike (km)
| -
| -
|-
!13
!Closure/ Cross-bundh (km)
| -
| -
|-
!14
!Supply of Drain pipe (m)
|201.3
|5.69
|-
!15
!Flood damage repair / Breach Closing
| -
| -
|-
!16
!GoB O&M
| -
| -
|-
! colspan="2" |Total
!
!156.73
|}

=== Polder 55/2A ===
{| class="wikitable"
!SI. No
!Work Items
!Quantity
!Amount
|-
!1
!Re-sectioning of Embankment (km)
|15.06
|135.62
|-
!2
!Retired Embankment (km)
| -
| -
|-
!3
!Re-excavation of khals (km)
|17.93
|227.73
|-
!4
!Repair of Regulator/Sluice with gate (nos.)
|12
|255.45
|-
!5
!Repair of Inlets/Outlets (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!6
!Construction of Drainage Regulator/ Sluice (nos.)
|1
|514.14
|-
!7
!Construction Drainage Outlet (nos.)
| 1
| 111.45
|-
!8
!Construction of Irrigation Inlet (nos.)
|
|
|-
!9
!Construction of culvert (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!10
!Pump shed (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!11
!Low cost Bank Protection work (km)
| -
| -
|-
!12
!Rehabilitation of Interior Dike (km)
| 6
| 119.97
|-
!13
!Closure/ Cross-bundh (km)
| -
| -
|-
!14
!Supply of Drain pipe (m)
|556.32
|15.73
|-
!15
!Flood damage repair / Breach Closing
|LS
|6.54
|-
!16
!GoB O&M
|LS
|38.47
|-
! colspan="2" |Total
!
!1592.78
|}

=== Polder 55/2C ===
{| class="wikitable"
!SI. No
!Work Items
!Quantity
!Amount
|-
!1
!Re-sectioning of Embankment (km)
|17.76
|154.17
|-
!2
!Retired Embankment (km)
| 4.66
| 85.28
|-
!3
!Re-excavation of khals (km)
|19.4
|208.81
|-
!4
!Repair of Regulator/Sluice with gate (nos.)
|7
|147.03
|-
!5
!Repair of Inlets/Outlets (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!6
!Construction of Drainage Regulator/ Sluice (nos.)
|1
|235.68
|-
!7
!Construction Drainage Outlet (nos.)
| 1
| 138.34
|-
!8
!Construction of Irrigation Inlet (nos.)
|
|
|-
!9
!Construction of culvert (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!10
!Pump shed (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!11
!Low cost Bank Protection work (km)
| -
| -
|-
!12
!Rehabilitation of Interior Dike (km)
| -
| -
|-
!13
!Closure/ Cross-bundh (km)
| -
| -
|-
!14
!Supply of Drain pipe (m)
|556.32
|15.72
|-
!15
!Flood damage repair / Breach Closing
|LS
|76.23
|-
!16
!GoB O&M
|LS
|13.07
|-
! colspan="2" |Total
!
!1249.31
|}

== Barguna O&M ==

=== Polder 43/1A ===
{| class="wikitable"
!SI. No
!Work Items
!Quantity
!Amount
|-
!1
!Re-sectioning of Embankment (km)
|18.42
|216.79
|-
!2
!Retired Embankment (km)
| -
| -
|-
!3
!Re-excavation of khals (km)
|15.88
|166.61
|-
!4
!Repair of Regulator/Sluice with gate (nos.)
|5
|32.22
|-
!5
!Repair of Inlets/Outlets (nos.)
| 16
| 13.95
|-
!6
!Construction of Drainage Regulator/ Sluice (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!7
!Construction Drainage Outlet (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!8
!Construction of Irrigation Inlet (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!9
!Construction of culvert (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!10
!Pump shed (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!11
!Low cost Bank Protection work (km)
| -
| -
|-
!12
!Rehabilitation of Interior Dike (km)
| -
| -
|-
!13
!Closure/ Cross-bundh (km)
| -
| -
|-
!14
!Supply of Drain pipe (m)
|500
|11.6
|-
!15
!Flood damage repair / Breach Closing
| -
| -
|-
!16
!GoB O&M
| -
| -
|-
! colspan="2" |Total
!
!504.37
|}

=== Polder 43/2F ===
{| class="wikitable"
!SI. No
!Work Items
!Quantity
!Amount
|-
!1
!Re-sectioning of Embankment (km)
|33.00
|199.27
|-
!2
!Retired Embankment (km)
| -
| -
|-
!3
!Re-excavation of khals (km)
|22.31
|275.16
|-
!4
!Repair of Regulator/Sluice with gate (nos.)
|16
|94.07
|-
!5
!Repair of Inlets/Outlets (nos.)
| 41
| 65.68
|-
!6
!Construction of Drainage Regulator/ Sluice (nos.)
|2
|418.57
|-
!7
!Construction Drainage Outlet (nos.)
| 4
| 209.39
|-
!8
!Construction of Irrigation Inlet (nos.)
|
|
|-
!9
!Construction of culvert (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!10
!Pump shed (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!11
!Low cost Bank Protection work (km)
| -
| -
|-
!12
!Rehabilitation of Interior Dike (km)
| -
| -
|-
!13
!Closure/ Cross-bundh (km)
| -
| -
|-
!14
!Supply of Drain pipe (m)
|500
|11.60
|-
!15
!Flood damage repair / Breach Closing
|LS
|43.61
|-
!16
!GoB O&M
| -
| -
|-
! colspan="2" |Total
!
!1425.87
|}

== Kalapara ==

=== Polder 47/3 ===
{| class="wikitable"
!SI. No
!Work Items
!Quantity
!Amount
|-
!1
!Re-sectioning of Embankment (km)
|14.86
|191.03
|-
!2
!Retired Embankment (km)
| -
| -
|-
!3
!Re-excavation of khals (km)
|12.57
|207.64
|-
!4
!Repair of Regulator/Sluice with gate (nos.)
|8
|182.26
|-
!5
!Repair of Inlets/Outlets (nos.)
| 3
| 1.61
|-
!6
!Construction of Drainage Regulator/ Sluice (nos.)
|1
|250.47
|-
!7
!Construction Drainage Outlet (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!8
!Construction of Irrigation Inlet (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!9
!Construction of culvert (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!10
!Pump shed (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!11
!Low cost Bank Protection work (km)
| -
| -
|-
!12
!Rehabilitation of Interior Dike (km)
| -
| -
|-
!13
!Closure/ Cross-bundh (km)
| -
| -
|-
!14
!Supply of Drain pipe (m)
|500
|14.88
|-
!15
!Flood damage repair / Breach Closing
| -
| -
|-
!16
!GoB O&M
|LS
|14.29
|-
! colspan="2" |Total
!
!969
|}

=== Polder 47/4 ===
{| class="wikitable"
!SI. No
!Work Items
!Quantity
!Amount
|-
!1
!Re-sectioning of Embankment (km)
|22.85
|393.74
|-
!2
!Retired Embankment (km)
| 5.45
| 210.85
|-
!3
!Re-excavation of khals (km)
|37.6
|690.10
|-
!4
!Repair of Regulator/Sluice with gate (nos.)
|23
|651.84
|-
!5
!Repair of Inlets/Outlets (nos.)
| 1
| 3.00
|-
!6
!Construction of Drainage Regulator/ Sluice (nos.)
|2
|481.52
|-
!7
!Construction Drainage Outlet (nos.)
| 3
| 271.58
|-
!8
!Construction of Irrigation Inlet (nos.)
|
|
|-
!9
!Construction of culvert (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!10
!Pump shed (nos.)
| -
| -
|-
!11
!Low cost Bank Protection work (km)
| LS
| 55.72
|-
!12
!Rehabilitation of Interior Dike (km)
|
| 27.15
|-
!13
!Closure/ Cross-bundh (km)
| -
| -
|-
!14
!Supply of Drain pipe (m)
|500
|14.88
|-
!15
!Flood damage repair / Breach Closing
|LS
|172.57
|-
!16
!GoB O&M
|LS
|69.94
|-
! colspan="2" |Total
!
!3403.82
|}

01 Overview, Purpose and Structure of Report

2021-10-21T07:12:42Z

Guy.Jones: /* Lessons Learnt Report */

==Overview==

===The Coastal Zone===
Bangladesh, the largest river delta in the world, depends for its economic growth largely on integrated and sustainable water resources management. The three major river systems of the country mark its physiography and life of its people. Its waters - its ‘blue gold’ - have fundamentally shaped Bangladesh culture. Efficient management of this immense natural resource remains a continuing challenge and offers at the same time tremendous opportunities. Starting from the 1960s, low lying tracts of land in the south-western coastal zone were enclosed by earthen embankments to create polders which protect coastal communities from tidal floods and surges. There are now 139 coastal polders enclosed by embankments of an overall length of nearly 6,000 km.

About 38% of the population in the coastal regions of Bangladesh live below the poverty line and face high vulnerabilities in terms of insecurity of food, income, water and health. However, there are ample opportunities to harness the resources of the coastal areas that can lift the population from poverty, create a sustainable environment and provide security and quality of life to present and future generations.

In addition to suffering from the effects of tidal floods and surges, the people in the coastal polders are vulnerable to the intrusion of saline water, shortage of fresh water in the dry season and the impact of extreme events such as cyclones. In the south-western coastal zone, river siltation hinders drainage and causes prolonged waterlogging in the polder after monsoon rains, which can persist for extended periods of up to six months. This in turn results in loss of crops and income, reduced food security and explains in part the higher than average poverty levels in the coastal belt. Climate change will only increase the threats posed to coastal livelihoods.

===Blue Gold Program===
To address the situation of the coastal zone, the Governments of Bangladesh and The Netherlands agreed to improve the quality of life for communities in south-western Bangladesh. The 22 polders selected for interventions through Blue Gold are located in the districts of Patuakhali, Khulna, Satkhira and Barguna, have a resident population of around 800,000 and cover a gross area of 115,000 ha (refer to Figure 1.1). Specific objectives of the Blue Gold Program are to:

#Reduce the threat to polder communities and their land from floods from river and sea, and from saline intrusion;
#Optimise the use and management of water resources for agricultural production, thereby increasing economic development for the polder communities, with a special focus on creating income opportunities for the poor and landless;
#Encourage the adoption of modern agricultural technologies and strengthen linkages with the private sector
#Empower communities through water management organisations to lead natural resources-based development (agriculture, fisheries and livestock) with the support of public and private sector partners; and
#Strengthen the institutional framework for sustained water resources development and related development services.

 
[[File:Overview map updated.jpg|alt=|border|center|thumb|800x800px|'''Figure 1.1''' Map of Project Area]]

A number of government agencies implement the program:

''The '''Bangladesh Water Development Board''' (BWDB) is the lead agency, responsible inter alia for protecting the communities from flooding and surges by ensuring the integrity of the embankments and associated structures, and for forming and registering water management organisations (WMOs).''

''The '''Department of Agricultural Extension''' (DAE) works alongside farmers to encourage the selection and cultivation of crops and varieties that are well-suited to the coastal environment and which, as part of an interlinked annual cropping system, form the basis for profitable business.''

''In addition, the '''Department of Livestock Services''' (DLS) and '''Department of Fisheries''' (DoF) provide specialist advice for the development of training modules to farmer field schools, and contribute to other project interventions.''

'''''Local government institutions''' (LGIs), especially Union Parishads (UPs), are partners in polder development planning, coordination and maintenance.''

The total project investment amounts to € 75.3 million, allocated as follows (Table 1.1):
{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
|+Table 1.1: Project budget by financier
|'''Contribution'''
|'''Amount'''
|-
| colspan="2" |'''Government of Bangladesh'''
|-
|BWDB
|€ 13,513,713
|-
|DAE
|€ 535,015
|-
|'''Total'''
|'''€ 14,048,728'''
|-
| colspan="2" |'''Government of the Netherlands''' (grant)
|-
|Administered by BWDB
|€ 27,320,000
|-
|Administered by DAE
|€ 1,495,000
|-
|Technical Assistance
|€ 32,425,663
|-
|'''Total'''
|'''€ 61,240,663'''
|-
|'''Grand Total'''
|'''€ 75,289,391'''
|}
The Blue Gold Program was implemented from 2013 to 2021. Project implementation activities were planned to be completed by end-June 2021, whilst administrative closure of the project continued for the six-month period from July to end-December 2021. During this period of administrative closure, final payment certificates for civil engineering construction contracts and other service contracts were processed, recommendations for reimbursement by EKN were prepared, and contributions to the BWDB project completion report were made.

==Water management for development==
For the inhabitants of the 22 polders selected for support by the Blue Gold Program, water is the most significant natural resource. This resource would be the ‘blue gold’ of their local economy, if its destructive force were sufficiently controlled and if its productive potential were adequately harnessed. To fulfil these conditions, a ‘water management for development’ approach is adopted in which water safety is improved by repair and rehabilitation of main polder-level water management infrastructure, and water productivity and profitability are enhanced by optimising the synergy between agriculture, market opportunity and in-polder water management.

The Blue Gold Program is established to help enhance local development through improved water safety and enhanced water profitability - summarised in the strapline ‘water management for development’.

In 2018, in the face of long-term uncertainties and risks brought on by global climate change, the Government of Bangladesh adopted a long-term perspective on the management of its water resources. With a view to achieve a safe, climate-resilient and prosperous delta, the ‘Bangladesh Delta Plan 2100’ sets out a strategy and investment plan for the water sector.

The experience of the Blue Gold Program contains lessons on how to apply a ‘water management for development’-approach. While BGP’s setting is specific (i.e. 22 predominantly rural polders in the coastal zone), some of its lessons may be generic for the coastal zone; while others might even by relevant for the country as a whole.

==Purpose of the Report==
Now that the investment portfolio of the Bangladesh Delta Plan 2100 is gradually taking shape, there is a window of opportunity to inform future investment strategies and plans for the coastal zone with lessons that can be drawn from the Blue Gold Program.

At the end of a project implementation cycle, the governments of Bangladesh and the Netherlands require documentation of the scope of project investments, and their impact and outcomes. In the case of the Blue Gold Program, a number of reports are planned. BWDB and DAE will prepare Project Completion Reports to account for the funds provided through their respective Development Project Proformas (DPPs), and these are then complemented by a “lessons learnt” report prepared by the technical assistance (TA) team. The separate purposes for these two types of report are described below.

===Project Completion Reports (PCRs)===
On completion of a development project, all implementing agencies that receive public funds are obliged to prepare and submit a formal Project Completion Report (PCR) to the Implementation Monitoring and Evaluation Division (IMED) of the Ministry of Planning. For the Blue Gold Program, both BWDB and DAE received funding in accordance with separate Development Project Proformas (DPPs) approved by the Planning Commission.

The format for an IMED PCR is strictly controlled to ensure coverage of standard items, including: a description of the project, the status of implementation at the time of reporting, the project’s financial and physical scope, its achievements, an analysis of benefits, evidence of monitoring and internal and external audits, and a descriptive report.

===Lessons Learnt Report===
This report has been prepared to complement the BWDB and DAE PCRs, with the aim of recording lessons learnt for use in the design and implementation of future interventions in the coastal zone. The aim of this report is to review and analyse approaches and methodologies used in the delivery of Blue Gold, how and why they evolved over the lifetime of Blue Gold with reasons for the adaptations and adjustments that were introduced and an explanation for the timing of the intervention.

One of the main aims of this report then is to pass on this knowledge and experience to the 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 lessons learnt report was written before the end of the project while resources within the technical assistance (TA) team were available. DAE’s involvement as a stakeholder partner finished at end-December 2020, whilst BWDB’s involvement continued to end-December 2021. During 2021, a reduced TA team with a limited analytical capacity was largely focused on assisting with quality control and payment certification for construction contracts, and with capacity building of water management organisations focusing mainly on the new polders.

==Structure of this report==
This report is laid out in eight sections (Sections A to H), as described in Table 1.2.
{| class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
|+Table 1.2: Report Structure and Content
|'''Section'''
|'''Summary content'''
|-
|[[Section A: Background and context|A Background and context]]
|Background and context; Institutional setting; social physical and environmental context; project design; previous interventions; project definition
|-
|B Development Outcomes
|Overview of monitoring and evaluation work; outcomes at household and community level
|-
|C Water Infrastructure
|Overall objectives of structural interventions; investments; preparatory works; construction and quality control; reimbursement
|-
|[[Section D: BGP Interventions: Participatory Water Management|D Participatory Water Management]]
|Consultation; capacity building of water management organisations; women’s participation; in-polder water management; partnerships; from concept to implementation; and way forward
|-
|E Agricultural Development
|Commercialisation of agriculture based on improved water resource management, to drive economic development in the polders
|-
|F Responsible Development
|Reaching marginalised groups: women, landless households and extremely poor
|-
|G Project Management
|Project management arrangements; technical assistance; organisational development; training; horizontal learning; communications; monitoring and evaluation; project database; environmental impact assessments
|-
|H Innovation Fund
|Objectives, evolution of procedures, types of projects and implementers, contracting modalities, lessons learnt, management arrangements, achievements, conclusions
|}

==See more==
{{ArtNav|Prev_chap=[[Summary of Section A: Background and context|Summary of Section A: Background and context]]|Curr_sect=[[Summary of Section A: Background and context|Section A: Background and context]]|Next_chap=[[2 - Institutional Setting|Chapter 02: Institutional Setting]]}}

{{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}}
|}

34 Monitoring and evaluation

2021-10-10T06:18:12Z

Guy.Jones: /* Comparative agricultural performance[Notes 4] */

Together, Chapters 34 and 35 describe the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) process and management information system used in Blue Gold. Chapter 34 gives an overview of the processes of designing the monitoring, evaluation and learning and how the information was collected, analysed, communicated and used in Blue Gold Program and Chapter 35 explains how the M&E and other information was included in MIS to provide a consistent set of data for analysis, data presentation and reporting, and facilitated informed, timely and evidence-based project decisions. Part of the M&E processes are also included in Chapter 35 to illustrate how these fit into the MIS.

An analysis of the development outcomes from the M&E process is presented in Section B Chapters 5 to 9.

== M&E Objectives ==
The M&E system was designed to collect and manage data to allow a regular assessment of the relevance, performance, efficiency, outcomes and impact against the stated objectives of the Blue Gold Program. The M&E activities aimed to collect, analyse, communicate and disseminate the information. Key information users were the direct beneficiaries (local communities), government and other collaborating institutions, technical assistance (TA) team, donors and similar projects.

The [[:File:GoN Program Document BGP 28Aug12.pdf|Program Document]] of August 2012 states (Section 6.4.7 p74): “Monitoring of progress towards the goals will be a task of the TA-consultant, at the start of the Program a baseline survey will be conducted per polder as to define clearly the status then of the households and of the physical and socio-economic environment. The monitoring will be done at an annual basis. The monitoring will have to be done by an independent organisation and will report directly to the members of the Steering Committee and EKN.”

The information gathered and analysed through the M&E process was used to improve strategies programs and other activities, to assist organisational learning and development, to ensure that decisions were based on sound evidence, and to provide accountability. These monitoring, evaluation and learning processes provided insights into the opportunities and challenges of implementing PWM in Blue Gold as well as outcomes and impact of the PWM interventions on livelihood, poverty and food security. Based on these findings, lessons were drawn on the impact and likely benefits of scaling-up the PWM interventions. The lessons learnt from M&E in Blue Gold will therefore be of value to projects in the coastal zone which include participatory water management and agricultural production.

== Approach to the Participatory Water Management Project Monitoring and Evaluation Framework ==

=== Conceptual Basis ===
Soon after the start of Blue Gold, four logical frameworks (or ‘logframes’) were in existence – the [[:File:GoN logframe Program Document aug 12.pdf|GoN/EKN version]] of August 2012 from the Program Document (Annex 3), the BWDB version (in the BWDB Development Project Proforma, DPP of March 2013<ref group="Notes">Updates were made to BWDB’s logframe in BWDB’s revised DPPs dated June 2018 and September 2020</ref>), the DAE version (in DAE’s DPP from May 2013<ref group="Notes">DAE’s logframe was updated in the revised DPP approved in October 2018</ref>), and the [[:File:TA logframe Inception Report nov 13.pdf|version which appeared in the TA Inception Report]] (Annex 11) dated November 2013. The TA’s November 2013 version was essentially a reworked version of the GoN/EKN logframe from the Program Document, modified to take out the WASH component (which had been contracted to BRAC for Khulna and Max Foundation for Patuakhali).

The BWDB and DAE logframes were a results-based management tool intended to address targets within components which were primarily of interest to the parent organisation.

The [[:File:ARM Aide Memoire 27Sep-13Oct 2015.pdf|Aide Memoire of the 2015 Annual Review Mission]] suggested (in Annex 11) that the Theory of Change should be revisited to better focus on integration, collaborative working relationships and developing the analytical and reflective capacity within the program. In addition, the Policy and Operations Evaluation Department (IOB) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Government of the Netherlands had provided inputs in March 2014 and March 2015, which ''inter alia'' resulted in a draft Theory of Change, and they also recommended an examination of the underlying assumptions of how Blue Gold interventions contribute to the project goal. Revising the Theory of Change (ToC) offered the opportunity to be more explicit about how the inter-relation between the different program activities could be strengthened to achieve the project goal. And a related benefit was expected to be the harmonisation of the three logframes (ie BWDB, DAE and EKN/TA).

As part of the process of revisiting the ToC, four workshops were organised in February and March 2016 - two in Dhaka, one in Patuakhali and one in Khulna. In Dhaka, the key workshop was entitled ‘Theory of Change for Monitoring & Evaluation’ and involved representatives from BWDB, DAE, DoF, DLS and EKN. A fuller description of the process, the agenda for the workshops and a list of participants is provided in [[:File:WP5 - Theory of Change rev 2 25may 16.pdf|Working Paper 5]] of May 2016 – which also provides the summary results chain and five logical pathways to change.

The main aim of the ToC was to interlink the various levels of the program and which moved from input and activity-based indicators towards results/outcomes-based indicators and to provide the basis for program planning, monitoring and reflection. By improving both the development pathway as well as the broader (relational) perspectives of M&E to enhance impact.

A workshop to present the outcome of the workshops and the impact of the ToC was held on 29th August 2016 chaired by BWDB’s ADG (Planning) with senior representatives from BWDB, DAE, DoF and DLS. The workshop discussed the revised set of indicators for program achievements, the benefit of a single integrated Logical Framework for the whole program, and the organisational implications for the TA team. In his introductory remarks, First Secretary EKN stated that ''‘water management is not an end in itself, but a means to come to, among others, higher incomes through increased agricultural production in the broadest sense. But the link between water management and agricultural production is not automatic. In the ToC, this link is explored and provides an important step towards understanding the processes involved.’'' Although the benefits of the ToC and the reorganisation of the TA team were recognised, neither BWDB nor DAE was able to authorise changes to their respective logframes – both of which had been authorised through the DPP planning process.

An updated version of the ToC development pathways for participatory water management was developed in 2019 based on the experience of WMGs with participatory water management (refer Chapter 30 "[[30 Evolution of TA Organisational Arrangements#Theory of Change: the emergence of a practical approach to PWM|Theory of Change: the emergence of a practical approach to PWM"]]). Given the setup and operational levels of the program, the M&E framework was designed to combine selected elements of the traditional project type M&E which focused on assessing inputs-outputs relationship and implementation processes, with results-based M&E, or outcome monitoring.

== Key elements in the Project’s M&E Framework ==
The M&E framework for Blue Gold comprised five elements, each of which fed into and informed the others:

# '''Definition of appropriate indicators'''
# '''Establishing the baseline situation'''
## Phase I Baseline in 2014
## Phase II Baseline in 2017
# '''Regular performance monitoring of activities levels of achievement of outputs (which led to the development of the WMG Tracker)'''
# '''Monitoring and evaluating outcomes of the outputs'''
## Participatory monitoring of WMOs
## Outcome Surveys
### WMG surveys 2018, 2019 and 2021
### Polder-level surveys using restructured DAE data
### Remote sensing/earth observation survey
# '''Monitoring and evaluating the impact of program'''
## Impact assessment/endline survey 2020

=== 1. Definition of appropriate indicators of attainment of targets ===
Key indicators were suggested for each stage of the M&E for each of three main areas of interventions: development of infrastructure, institutional development and agricultural development. Formats for the key indicators were formulated to guide the collection of data and so that specific progress at each level was recorded. Initially, indicators were based on the original logframe. In 2016, these were revised to reflect the five main development pathways identified in Blue Gold’s Theory of Change (ToC).

=== 2. Establishing the baseline surveys/situation ===
At the start of the program interventions, information was collected on the pre-implementation levels of each of the key indicators identified for each of the specific objectives of the project. This baseline provided a quantitative data set that guided project implementation and evaluation. It provided a benchmark for measuring a wide range of outcomes and impacts over the life of the project. In addition to assessing the prevailing socio-economic situation with a special emphasis on agricultural, fisheries and livestock production, it served as both a valuable information source for the program as well as a method for tracking the progress and outcomes of the Blue Gold Program. This served as the baseline data to be inbuilt as a benchmark against which progress in putting in place the desired outcomes and levels of achievements of the objectives over time were measured during the implementation of the projects by regularly assessing the levels of achievement of some of the important indicators.

Blue Gold implemented the interventions in 22 polders in two rounds<ref group="Notes">The first polders selected for Blue Gold interventions included nine IPSWAM polders: 22, 29, 30, 43/1A, 43/2A. 43/2B, 43/2D, 43/2E, 43/2F; plus three with no previous history: 26, 31-part and 2. The selection of the second round of ten polders was finalised in 2015, comprising 25, 27/1, 27/2, 28/1, 28/2, 34/2 part, 47/3, 47/4 and 55/2A and 55/2C.</ref>. The majority of the first round of polders aimed to have relatively a low level of investment (termed ‘fine-tuning’ in the BWDB DPP) – so nine IPSWAM polders were included. The second round covered a wider spread of polders, the selection for which was finalised in 2015. Baseline studies were conducted in two phases using sample surveys. The Phase I Baseline survey was conducted in 2014 covering 9 polders and 1,400 households. And the Phase II Baseline survey was conducted in 2017 covering 7 polders as representatives of the balance of the 13 polders with interviews of 3,651 households. In the first phase 9 polders got the interventions while rest of the polder were from 2nd and 3rd phasing out polders. Both databases and reports are available in the MIS for the use of the stakeholders.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Table 34.1: Sample design of the baseline phase-I survey
!Zone
!Polder
!Village
!Total HHs
!Sample villages
!Sample HHs
|-
! rowspan="3" |Khulna
|22
|12
|2,768
| rowspan="4" |25
| rowspan="4" |600
|-
|29
|47
|13,395
|-
|30
|31
|6,511
|-
!Total Khulna
|
|90
|22674
|-
! rowspan="6" |Patuakhali
|43/1A
|11
|4,542
| rowspan="7" |45
| rowspan="7" |900
|-
|43/2A
|14
|8,133
|-
|43/2B
|25
|8,575
|-
|43/2D
|21
|9,593
|-
|43/2E
|4
|2,745
|-
|43/2F
|12
|6,457
|-
!Total Patuakhali
|
|87
|40045
|-
!Total
|9 polders
|177
|62,719
|70
|1400
|}
{| class="wikitable"
|+Table 34.2: Sample design of the baseline phase-II survey
!Zone
!Polder
!Mouza
!Total HHs
!sample HHs
|-
! rowspan="4" |Khulna
|25
|50
|18,816
|755
|-
|31 Part
|14
|4,196
|169
|-
|28/1
|14
|6,056
|242
|-
|34/2 part
|23
|11,227
|448
|-
! rowspan="2" |Patuakhali
|55/2A
|31
|13,966
|558
|-
|47/4
|12
|11,853
|474
|-
!Satkhira
|2 & 2 Ext.
|50
|25,077
|1,005
|-
!Total
|7 polders
|194
|91,191
|3651
|}
The reports on these studies include:

* 2015 [[:File:TR14 Phase 1 Baseline Survey Report.pdf|TR 14: Socio-Economic Baseline Survey Report-Phase 1]]
* 2017 [[:File:TR23 Phase II Socio-Economic Baseline Survey 31may 18.pdf|TR 23: Socio-Economic Baseline Survey Report-Phase 2]]

----

=== 3. Regular performance monitoring of planned activities and expected outputs ===
In Blue Gold, outputs were considered as the immediate products and used to monitor the progressive achievement at WMG-level to check whether the project was meeting quality, quantity and timeliness targets. To collect and store output information relating to every water management group (WMG), a ‘WMG Tracker’ was developed (refer to Chapter 35 “[[35 Management Information System#Establishing a WMG Tracker|Establishing a WMG Tracker]]”).

=== 4. Monitoring and evaluating outcomes/results ===
A main purpose of M&E was to measure and assess performance to manage the development results - outputs and outcomes. M&E at this level, therefore, helped to improve performance and achieve results. It was one thing to implement activities and report about the many quantitative achievements, and another for these achievements to cause the necessary changes or livelihood improvements within the coastal communities. Outcomes of BGP were measured through the organisational development of WMOs as well as increases in agricultural production and profitability.

==== Participatory outcomes monitoring for WMOs ====
Refer to Chapter 35 “[[35 Management Information System#Self-assessment of WMG performance|Self-assessment of WMG performance]]”

==== Outcome surveys for monitoring and evaluation ====
Here we examine outcomes resulting using three different instruments: WMG outcome surveys, DAE agricultural data and earth observation data.

===== WMG outcome surveys 2018, 2019, and 2021 =====
To evaluate the outcomes of BGP interventions through the changes in production and profitability resulting from changes in cropping patterns and improved farming at WMG level, BGP conducted series of WMG surveys in 2018 and 2019. In 2021, BGP team implemented another WMG survey, that made available data on the changes in production and profitability of main crops over the three seasons 2017/18, 2018/19 and 2020/21. An independent consultancy firm was responsible for data collection, analysis and reporting of these surveys.

Before carrying out the first full WMG survey, a pilot study was conducted in P2 in Satkhira and P43/2B in Patuakhali by the TA team and an independent economic analyst appointed by EKN. Based on the findings of the study of the two pilot polders, the study team made some estimates of changes in profitability and income, along with suggestions for further data gathering and analysis to fill gaps in data from these two polders and for assessment of benefits in other polders of BGP. Along with this pilot study, BGP conducted a full phase study to understand the economic changes in all phase I &II polders (P22, P26, P29, P30, P43/1A, P43/2D, P43/2E and P43/2F, P31 Part, P43/2A, P43/2B, P55/2A, P55/2C and P2 & 2Ext.) except polder 2 & 2 Ext. and P43/2B as we had enough information of these two polders from the pilot study. The report on the 2018 WMG Survey was submitted in October 2018.

The WMG survey was repeated in 2019 with 509 WMGs in 22 polders. These surveys compared the pre-project with the present situation of the water management system, along with changes in land use and yields for the main crops, land tenure arrangements, employment and income generation in the three main seasons (''rabi'', ''kharif-1'' and ''kharif-2''). Based on this data Technical Reports TR 25 and TR 26 were prepared and shared with all stakeholders.

A final WMG survey was conducted in 2021. The rationale for planning another round of WMG survey were: WMG survey 2019 was conducted when 53% of the construction works were completed. BGP conducted the impact assessment/endline survey 2020. This survey was conducted when 72% of the construction works were completed. Data shows that the production of ''aman'' 2019 and ''boro'' 2020 were hampered significantly due to pest/disease attract and uneven weather conditions. So, with a bad production year in the endline survey was not able to cover the full outcomes and impact scenarios of BGP interventions. The 2021 WMG survey was therefore be extended to include all registered WMGs (509) of BGP and 1018 households (2 households per WMG) covering changes in household level in a normal production year compared with the start of BGP for a limited number of key indicators. As a result, along with earlier WMG surveys and end-line survey 2020, WMG survey 2021 will gave a complete outcomes and impact scenario of BGP interventions.

In the WMG surveys, the outcome indicators were carefully identified to enable the assessment of perceptions and responses of the target groups to the program activities and outputs. These surveys helped the implementers to understand the level of acceptance (adaptation) of the expected outputs among the communities of coastal areas. Outcome indicators therefore measured changes in responses of coastal communities particularly concerning the agricultural production and profitability of the specific interventions of BGP. The focuses were on the changes in production, profitability, income and employment generation through adopting new technologies. A thorough analysis of this information at this level showed whether the program was in the right direction or the strategies have some problems. The questionnaires, database of the surveys and all related reports are available in the MIS of BGP.

The reports on these studies include:

* 2018 [[:File:TR25 Outcomes report WMG survey 2018 29oct 18.pdf|TR 25: Improving the Productivity of Land in Coastal Bangladesh: Outcomes of Blue Gold Program Interventions 2013-2018]]
* 2019 [[:File:TR26 outcomes report WMG survey 2019 final 18nov 19 edited.pdf|TR 26: Improving the Productivity of Land in Coastal Bangladesh: Outcomes of Blue Gold Program Interventions 2013-2019]]
* 2021 TR 29: Improving the Productivity of Land in Coastal Bangladesh: Outcomes of Blue Gold Program Interventions 2013-2021.

===== Comparative agricultural performance<ref group="Notes">Using DAE production data collected at ‘Block’ level, the information was reorganized to provide data for the 22 Blue Gold polders over the period 2012-13 to 2020-21</ref> =====
DAE, as one of the two implementing organizations, plays a vital role in increasing agricultural production and profitability through educating farmers on technologies for improved crop production and by utilizing the benefit of improved water management and organizational strength of the WMOs. DAE assembles agricultural data for administrative units, starting with ‘Block level’ (on average there are three Blocks per Union) where DAE Sub-Assistant Agricultural Officers (SAAOs) are responsible for data collection. The data is then aggregated at Upazila and District levels and reported to DAE’s Director Field Services. This means compiling data from all Blocks within a specific polder, on an areal ''pro rata'' basis where the Block is divided between on one or more polders. BGP restructured those preserved data as a secondary source of information and analysed the data to compare practices and land utilization pattern, changes in cropping intensity and yield over the period 2012/13 to 2020/21.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Table 34.4: DAE data analysis of BGP polders
!
! colspan="9" |Analysis in 2021 (TR 28)
! rowspan="3" |Upazila
|-
!
! colspan="5" |Analysis in 2017 (TR 22)
! colspan="4" |
|-
!Polder
!2012/13
!2013/14
!2014/15
!2015/16
!2016/17
!2017/18
!2018/19
!2019/20
!2020/21
|-
!'''Khulna'''
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
|-
!P22
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Paikgacha
|-
!P26
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Dumuria
|-
!P29
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Dumuria, Batiaghata
|-
!P30
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Batiaghata
|-
!P31-part
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Batiaghata
|-
!'''Satkhira'''
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!P2 and P2 Ext.
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Satkhira sadar & Assasuni
|-
!'''Patuakhali'''
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|-
!P43/2A
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Patuakhali Sadar (PS)
|-
!P43/2D
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|PS
|-
!P43/2E
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|PS
|-
!43/2B
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Galachipa, PS & Amtali
|-
!43/1A
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Amtali
|-
!P43/2F
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Y
|Amtali
|}
In this analysis 12 polders were taken as representative of 22 polders of BGP. The selected polders were polder 2 & 2 ext. from Satkhira, polder 22, 26, 29, 30, 31-part from Khulna, and polder 43/1A, 43/2A, 43/2B, 43/2D, 43/2E, 43/2F from Patuakhali. The study covered 53 blocks under 8 Upazilas (see the table). These exercises have been done in two stages. In the first stage in 2017, BGP analyzed the data from 2012-13 to 2016-17 and prepared a report (TR 22). In the second stage in 2021, BGP updated the analysis that covered the whole project period 2012-13 to 2020-21 and prepared a report (TR 28). In the second stage an independent consultant was responsible to conduct the survey. The questionnaire, database of the surveys and all related reports are available in the MIS of BGP.

The reports on these studies include:

* 2017 [[:File:TR22 Agric changes 2013 to 2017 v2 25mar 18.pdf|TR 22: Agriculture Improvements/changes in Blue Gold Polders 2012-13 to 2016-17]]
* 2021 [[:File:TR28 Agricultural Changes 2013 20 v 23sep 21.pdf|TR 28: Agriculture Improvements/changes in Blue Gold Polders 2012-13 to 2020-21]]

==== Remote Sensing/Earth observation survey ====
To evaluate the outcomes of BGP interventions through the changes in the agricultural productivity with cropping intensity and changes in the cultivated area as main indicators, BGP took another survey by making use of Earth Observation (EO) methods (combining Landsat and Sentinel-I). An efficient organisation on EO, Satelligence was contracted for doing this work. The objectives of this survey were 1) to create a baseline for agricultural productivity, 2) show changes in agricultural productivity - which could be related to BGP interventions, and 3) make agricultural productivity information accessible and understandable for the BGP technical team to use for further (intervention) planning. Performance of the polders was estimated for the start of BGP (2011-2015) and two years during the project (2017 and 2018). A report was prepared based on this remote sensing data and shared with all the stakeholders of the BGP.

To update this work BGP contracted another reputed organisation on EO, Terrasphere. They provided analysis and map of agricultural productivity to make a comparison between 2011 and 2020/21 for 22 polders of BGP. A report was prepared based on the analysis of the updated remote sensing data. The database of the surveys and all related reports are available in the MIS of BGP.

The reports on these studies include:

* 2018 [[:File:Satelligence final report 9jul 19.pdf|Earth Observation for Monitoring and Evaluation of Blue Gold Interventions (2011-2017/18)]] (Satelligence)
* 2021 [[:File:10jun 21 TerraSphere satellite mapping 2011 21.pdf|Satellite Mapping of Blue Gold Polders 2011-2021]] (Terrasphere)

=== 5. Monitoring and evaluating the impact of Blue Gold program ===
As the ultimate goal of the entire M&E process, the focus in impact assessment was to analyse the effects of the outcomes measured in relationship with the overall goals or development objectives. Impact M&E involves the application of information and data generated from the different stage of the outcome monitoring surveys to conduct an end of the project evaluation. With this data, an impact assessment/end-line survey was conducted in 2020. This data collected and analysed in comparison with the baseline information about actual effects of implementation of PWM of BGP on poverty and food security and a sustainable socio-economic development of the communities of Southwest Coastal Zone of Bangladesh.
----

== Impact assessment/Endline survey 2020 ==
The impact assessment/endline survey was designed to be follow-up to baseline surveys carried out in 2014 and 2017 to assess and measure 1) changes in agricultural and other livelihoods, income, food security, living standards for households benefitting from BGP; 2) Extent to which BGP has addressed major constraints faced by farmers and achieved its objectives; 3) Identify major problems that remain for farmers, including those that may stem from climate change; 4) Gather data on participation in community institutions and in water management, and assess possible factors that may motivate households to join WMGs. The investigation also highlighted the issue of gher as significant areas in the Khulna and Satkhira zones are occupied by ghers and the effect of recent events (cyclone Amphon and COVID-19) on livelihoods and living standards. Another organization and independent consultant were responsible for data collection, analysis and reporting of this survey.

The impact assessment survey covered 9 polders from the 17 polders that were surveyed in of baseline-1 &2. The impact survey used a panel sample<ref group="Notes">A panel sample also allows analysis to trace the impact for a group of households defined by a baseline parameter. For example, have the poorest households benefited? </ref>, interviewing the same households as those in the baseline survey. The table below shows the required sample. In total the impact survey covered 92 villages and mouzas from nine polders, with a target number of 4,111 sample households and a required minimum of 3,719 sample households.
{| class="wikitable"
|+Table 34.3: Sample design of the impact assessment survey
! rowspan="2" |Polder
! rowspan="2" |District
! colspan="2" |Sample HHs
! rowspan="2" |Interviewed HHs
! rowspan="2" |Analysed HHs
|-
!target
!minimum
|-
!25
!Khulna
|755
|680
|754
|743
|-
!31P
!Khulna
|169
|169
|166
|162
|-
!28/1
!Khulna
|242
|218
|239
|237
|-
!34/2P
!Khulna
|448
|403
|433
|431
|-
!2 & 2 ext.
!Satkhira
|1005
|905
|1018
|982
|-
!55/2A
!Patuakhali
|558
|502
|534
|529
|-
!47/4
!Patuakhali
|474
|427
|456
|452
|-
!43/2B
!Patuakhali
|240
|216
|234
|230
|-
!43/2D
!Patuakhali
|220
|200
|204
|203
|-
!
!total
|4111
|3719
|4038
|3969
|}
----20 qualitative interviews were conducted in 9 polders (2 interviews from each polder except the polder 2 and 2 ext.) for in-depth understanding of the quantitative findings. Polder 2 and 2 ext. is the biggest polder in term of area and numbers of households. So, 4 interviews were conducted in this polder. Data was analysed by polder and zone (Khulna, Satkhira and Patuakhali), with further analysis by key parameters such as farm size and poverty/income levels. The questionnaire, database of the survey and the report is available in the MIS of BGP. The report on this study was issued as [[:File:TR27 Impact of Blue Gold Program draft final 24apr 21.pdf|TR 27 Impact of the Blue Gold Program]] in May 2021.

== Independence of M&E Reporting ==
One of the recommendations of the 2016 Annual Review Mission was that the TA team should pay greater attention to the collection and analysis of data to provide: evidence of economic changes for use by Annual Review Missions; increased knowledge and understanding of beneficiaries’ responses to project interventions and adaptations; and quality-assured data for the Policy and Operations Evaluation Department (IOB) with material to carry out a post-project review of Blue Gold.

To ensure impartiality and objectivity, the economic analyst is contracted by, and reports directly to, EKN Dhaka. The independence of the economic analyst from the TA team has been an important modality in achieving the acceptance of the analysis and reporting by the implementing agencies BWDB and DAE.

Another degree of independence has been achieved by using external organisations to carry out the field surveys. The use of polder-based TA staff (now termed Community Development Facilitators) as enumerators was identified as a potential conflict of interest<ref group="Notes">Because the role of CDFs is to empower the polder communities, their relationship is often complex, multi-faceted with a great deal of co-dependence. For this reason, the impartiality of the CDFs when collecting data from their communities could be compromised.</ref> and resulted in a decision to contract external organisations to carry out field data collection.

The international economic analyst (Edward Mallorie) carried out fieldwork in Blue Gold polders with the national TA M&E Expert (Dr Sharmin Afroz) in May 2018, through which an effective and complementary working relationship has developed. This complementarity creates a powerful combination of high level analytical and reporting ability, detailed local socio-economic knowledge and interpretation of events which is well placed to identify, portray and explain trends as polder communities respond to the complex mix of economic, weather events, market forces, and personal circumstance.
----

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

== See more ==
{{ArtNav|Prev_chap=[[33 Horizontal learning|Chapter 33: Horizontal Learning]]|Curr_sect=[[Summary of Section G: Project Management|Section G: Project Management]]|Next_chap=[[35 Management Information System|Chapter 35: Management Information System]]}}

{{SeeMoreSectionG}}

Summary of Section G: Project Management

2021-05-23T08:46:55Z

Guy.Jones: /* Project coordination – a point of attention */

Earlier sections in BGP’s lessons learnt report have consistently demonstrated how the project concept evolved from complementary interventions in community organisation, water security, agriculture and markets into an integrated approach aimed to drive local economic development, inclusiveness and sustainability in the 22 coastal polders where the project operates. The evolution of the approach required the project management to adapt and refine the organisational structure of the team to meet the changing priorities, and a willingness of team members to operate in multi-disciplinary teams and to refocus on delivering tools for community leadership in agricultural water management with relevant information and access to resources. Mechanisms for project coordination were employed and augmented. Planning evolved from a one-off effort at the project’s onset to a recurrent field of attention. Monitoring and evaluation moved towards a position of analysing and reflecting on project survey data to inform project management on implementation progress and impact, with lessons on ‘what works’ and ‘what doesn’t work’. And finally, the project’s fresh outlook on local economic development changed its communications with beneficiaries and stakeholder; a change that is reflected in training and extension approaches.

== Project coordination – a point of attention ==
The design of Blue Gold, as set down in the GoN Program Document and the BWDB and DAE Development Project Proformas (DPPs), sets out arrangements for Implementation through complementary interventions by BWDB, DAE and the TA team, with mechanisms for coordination to ensure coherence. In addition to dedicated management teams for each implementation unit, a program coordinating director was assigned; steering committees for the BWDB and DAE activities were put in place; and the project performance was externally reviewed each year. Recognising the benefits of working-level coordination of activities, regular meetings were instituted between the BWDB Project Coordinating Director, the DAE Project Director, the TA management team and the Embassy of the Kingdom of The Netherlands. Mechanisms were proposed for coordination at zonal and polder levels, but in practice, this continued largely through ad hoc meetings.

Future project interventions in the coastal zone would be well-advised to incorporate arrangements for strong cross-sectoral coordination. This would include a close association with existing coordination structures – especially with government line agencies, Union and Upazila Parishads and local private sector and NGO representatives – complemented by agile structures for strategic coordination at national level.

== Planning – sustainability from the start ==
The two separate Development Project Proforma (DPPs) – one with BWDB for investments in flood control and drainage infrastructure, and the other with DAE for the transfer of agricultural technology – were complemented by a substantial Technical Assistance (TA) team with workplan and budget.

The TA team had a budget and organisation structure that could adapt with more flexibility to the changes in the project concept. While the two separate plans for the main implementing agencies existed throughout the project duration; the TA team was able to do away with its component structure and to plan its work in a more integrated way.

A future integrated ‘water management for development’-project should seek to maximise the flexibility of the DPPs of the line agencies (e.g. through block allocations) and should explicitly use technical assistance resources to strengthen coherence between local ambitions expressed by WMOs and LGIs; and line agency plans.

== Monitoring & Evaluation – An evolving Theory of Change ==
The M&E system derives from the project plan, and more specifically from its Logical Framework. The indicators of the M&E system had to be adjusted in keeping with the changing project approach. While output indicators were largely unchanged and reported in a monthly Tracker Report, outcome indicators had to be adjusted to the changed view on WMG performance. More emphasis was given to self-monitoring by the WMGs, complemented with in-depth surveys on their performance. Triangulation between data sources provides a deeper understanding of processes – and weaknesses – and helped move the M&E function from ‘recording’ to ‘reflection’.

The impacts of some changes in the project concept can only be partially reviewed, as no baseline is available for these changes. Thus, impacts on inclusiveness and sustainability – which are seen as important by-products of the integrated approach to local economic development – could not be fully captured by BGP’s M&E products.

Future projects are advised to use M&E from the onset as a key management tool for reflection by using diverse data and information sources and by a focussed and strongly independent analytical function.

== Communication – new perspectives on training and extension ==
The change in project concept pursued local initiatives with respect to water management and agricultural change. Rather than having a central message and disseminating this as efficiently as possible; the project stimulates its intended beneficiaries to use opportunities in water and agriculture in ways appropriate to their specific locality.

Centrally purchased capacity building courses (for leadership, gender and accounting) were replaced by facilitated local planning processes for water management. Such plans develop from an initial replication of a standard WMG plan, to a cascading planning process from sub-catchment, to catchment to polder with particular emphasis on mobilising own resources and obtaining additional support through association with local governments, departments and private sector.

The approach for agricultural extension broadened: in addition to farmer field schools for field crops and for homestead production; use was made of horizontal learning between communities and local resource farmers were mobilised and trained. The field crops FFSs were reviewed to include attention to opportunities in the year-round cropping cycle, to the potential of improved water management in sub-catchments and to farming as a business. Homestead FFSs were split into short and specific courses.

To support a change from dependency on external project-support to local initiative for economic development; future projects must employ a diverse set of communication interventions, which help people take action; rather than simply telling them to take action.

== See more ==
{{SeeMoreSectionG}}