Riverbank Erosion:

Understanding & Approaches

By

S N Azad

Consultant, RDM Consulting, A SBU of Media-mix Enterprise Ltd.

www.media-mix.com.bd&

Member, Executive Committee, RMMRUwww.rmmru.org

April 2004

Disclaimer:The Paper was prepared with support from and as part of a related study done by

RMMRU & NBI, RDRS.But not used by RMMRU or NBI, RDRS.

Abstract

This Paper is organized into three parts. The first part outlines the patternof perspectives and vital dimensions in the discourse on riverbank erosion.In the process, it deals with different studies, publications, reports etcand analyses their contents. The second part discusses different approachestowards livelihoods and tries to locate it as the central point ofdiscussion in the present study. In that, it attempts to find a conceptualframework for the present study. The third part presents several checklistsfrom the mass of findings from this study under different heads formulatingkey themes in the study, which will be discussed in further detailsthroughout this volume.

Dimensions of and Perspectives on Riverbank Erosion

What is Erosion?

"Erosion" comes from erodere, a Latin verb meaning "to gnaw. "Erosion gnaws away at the earth like a dog at a bone. This hasgiven rise to the pessimistic view of some writers who seeerosion as a leprosy gnawing away the earth until only a whitenedskeleton is left. The chalky mountains around the Mediterraneanwell illustrate this stripping away of the flesh of mountains asthe trees are cut down and the sparse vegetation burned (e.g.Greece). In reality, this is a natural process, which indeedwears down all mountains (also referred to by the English schoolas the denudation rate, which is the lowering rate of the soillevel); however, at the same time erosion enriches valleys andforms the rich plains that feed a large part of humanity. It istherefore not necessarily desirable to stop all erosion, butrather to reduce it to an acceptable or tolerable level.

– Eric Roose, Land Husbandry: Components and Strategy,70 FAO SOILS BULLETIN, 1996.

STATE OF THE DISCOURSE ON RIVERBANK EROSION IN BANGLADESH

Over the years and across the world, disaster preparedness has meantpreparations for facing flood, drought, cyclone, tidal surge, tornado,pests, storms and now a new calamity earthquake. There is little signshowing concern or consensus at the national level, recognising riverbankerosion as an immediate and long-term threat to human life.

Research, surveys and actions in Bangladesh concentrated on floodpreparedness, flood proofing, post flood rehabilitation, at timesresettlement, river erosion mitigation etc. Flood Action Plan has played amajor role in shaping the focus and manner of focus that the problem ofriverbank erosion had as part of the flood problematic. A plethora ofliterature, in the form of books, pamphlets, brochures, flip charts,educational mapping, pictorials, posters, banners has been printed andpublished as part of awareness programmes run by the government, itsagencies and the NGOs. These activities are well appreciated by theinternational donor community as well.

Even within the intellectual community, still now, there is a tendency toconflate the issues of riverbank erosion with those of flash flood /flooding. Whereas, the two issues are very much different and differencesin impacts are often significant for policy makers, especially in countrieslike Bangladesh. The print media, especially the newspapers fail to reportsensitively while damaging the cause of riverbank erosion relateddisplacement, impact and recovery. The general understanding of the massand policy makers as well, is that the problem of riverbank erosion is anatural and eternal one and hence can not be mitigated or differently put,the people affected by riverbank erosion cannot be assisted as these peopleare supposed to have the natural instincts and ability to cope and adjustwith such phenomena as they are doing from time immemorial.

Facts - Figures vs. Policy and intervention

An important fact to recognise is that the problem of riverbank erosion anddisplacement is no longer an isolated event or a natural phenomenon onlyand cannot be left alone if there has to be universal education, healthcare, shelter, ensuring other basic human rights and capping growingpoverty. These are interlinked issues and riverbank erosion oftendislocates people from their entitlements in a major way by blocking theaccess to vital services / facilities / amenities and then by taking awaythe ability to utilise resources due to trauma / stress / spatial andcultural dislocation. Landlessness and pauperisation has increased to analarming proportion. There is good reason to believe that this increasingnumber of people is directly or indirectly victims of riverbank erosion.Almost a decade ago, a government report by the then Secretary, Ministry ofWater Resources, GoB, estimated over 728,000 people as being displaced dueto riverbank erosion during 1981-1993 and said annually, 60,000 people aremade landless by riverbank erosion. The ISPAN study published in 1995states almost a similar number of displaced and landless people within thesame period. ADB has put the number of riverbank erosion threatened andaffected people in Bangladesh at 2 million, directly displacing 1,00,000people directly per year and generation of a projected assetless poor of28,000 over the next 10 years (27 November 2002, Manila). According toWorld Disaster Report 2001 published by IFRC every year about 100,000people are affected by river erosion and 9, 000 hectares if cultivablelands vanish. Bruce Currey (1979), a researcher working for several yearson riverbank erosion, identified 66 out of 462 upazillas of the country asaffected and/or liable to bank erosion. Islam and Rahman (1987) found thatroughly one million people are directly affected each year by riverbankerosion in the country. The total monetary loss is estimated to beapproximately $500 million a year. An estimated 300,000 displacedhouseholds usually takes shelter, many for several years, on roads,embankments, and on khas land or on land requisitioned by the government.

In particular, the demographic and socio-economic impact as a result ofriverbank erosion significantly affect the condition of the household size,educational attainment, labour force participation and occupational status,land holding and income at both individual and household levels. NationalCommunity Resources and Economic Development (CRED) Disaster Database findscyclones, floods, riverbank erosion, tornados, droughts and earthquakes asmajor natural disasters that effect Bangladesh. It lists 93 disasters overthe period 1986 to 1995. Of these, 40 were cyclones and 31 floods. Thecyclone disasters in 1970 (300,000 dead) and 1991 (138,000 dead) are amongthe worst natural disasters in the world (CRED, 2002).

These contrasting and contradictory facts of least efforts for preparedness/ mitigation and figures related to affect and displacement prove not onlya paucity of research but a lack of a mind-set to recognise the issue ashaving consequences of national level and importance. Interestingly, thesocial scientists, practitioners and media people concerned are yet tounderstand the differences between the two. These are all due to a lack ofgeneral appreciation of the problematic. For that purpose an advocacy andactivism is severely lacking in raise the awareness of the public ingeneral, of the government functionaries, NGOs and local level politicalrepresentatives.

Riverbank erosion, as a subject of study and action has not been recognisedtoo many years ago. The disaster literature in Bangladesh and South Asiaoften dealt with riverbank erosion as part of the composite problematic offlooding. Focusing riverbank erosion and its associated impact as aseparate set of problem, new avenues have been created over the last decadeand half in the study and identification of the problem itself.

Approaches of search and research into riverbank erosion

There are limited numbers of studies on riverbank erosion in Bangladeshfocusing on the impact in terms of socio-economic and cultural dislocationsof the affected and displaced people living in the river basin areas. Manystudies have been commissioned and published in the form of reports orbooks, essentially dealing with issues like flooding, flood warningmechanism, flood preparation at individual and community level, water andland management, river erosion mitigation, (strategic) resettlement ofaffected population etc.

During the mid 1990s, a ground-breaking four year research and informationdissemination seminar under the Riverbank Erosion Impact Study (REIS)Program between University of Manitoba (UM), Canada and the JahangirnagarUniversity (JU) made the difference. The outcome a book published inBangladesh and several articles in journals abroad concentrated on

important aspects of riverbank erosion and its impact. The effort primarilywas about bringing physical and social scientists together in respect toresearch and providing policy directives. In so doing, the research andsubsequent publications created the most convincing, deliberate and detailstreatment of the problematic, a vivid reference book on the issue.

Subsequent research has focused on different issues like settlementpatterns and associated lifestyles of the people, problems and strategiesin resettlement of the displaced, the genre of reaction and indigenousmeasures of adjustments and coping in the face of displacement andcontinuous riverbank erosion, refuse in fatalism and power relationship inthe remote char areas, mobility around the affected area and towardscities, i.e. rural to urban migration of especially working age people. Fewarticles in relevant foreign journals have even concentrated on the aspectsof land degradation and mapping of psycho-social stress due to riverbankerosion.

The research so far conducted and published in Bangladesh on riverbankerosion can be divided into the following categories in so far as theirfocus and content is concerned. The books / publications / reports will bedealt with separately since the volume of noteworthy research or search islow.

1. Studies focusing on the structural / physical aspects(preparedness and mitigation) of riverbank erosion

2. Studies focusing on the functional issues of socio-economicrehabilitation and resettlement in the post displacementsituation of riverbank erosion

3. Studies focusing on the psycho-social mapping for preparednessand rebuilding of lives

4. Studies with a comprehensive approach covering almost all theaspects

5. Other studies, reports, publicaitons

1. Studies focusing on the structural and physical aspects

Published in 1998 Peopling in the Land of Allah Jaane, Power, Peopling and Environment:The Case of Char Lands of Bangladesh by Abdul Baqee deals with the structuralaspects of land management and distribution in char societies. The studyfinds char people as yielding to the power elite too often than not. Dueto endemic pauperisation, increasing decline of ability, affordabilityand access to services and amenities people become dependent on fatemore and more. Deprivation from elite comes in the package with naturalcalamity and sudden losses to the river through erosion.

According to Baqee, peopling of char-lands is rarely a spontaneous event.It is guided and selective. Baqee shows a pattern of linkage betweennatural process and power structure of the society. He relates the entirepeopling process with phases of surfacing of the char lands (formationstage, 0-3 years; pioneer stage, 4-7 years; proliferation stage, 8-12years; maturity and stabilisation stage, 13+ years) and with phases ofvegetation on the same. It is the pattern of land tenancy, existing andchanging influence network and relative gains from exploitation of the mostdeprived and general understanding among the parties involved that shapepeopling in the char-lands. The study areas included eight chars situatedin the river Padma from Padma-Jamuna confluence to the Padma-Meghnaconfluence and under the Districts of Dhaka, Faridpur and Manikganj. Thisalluvial area revealed that the process of peopling chars gives rise toviolent fights. The process of peopling of char lands is almost similar inall regions of Bangladesh, though occurrence of violence is dependent onthe fertility and vitality of the soil of the particular char.

Char occupancy and legal entitlement to land does not corroborate with eachother. It is overlooked in the interest of local power distribution byelite and local administration as well. Delineating the issue, Baqeediscussed the legal aspects and lists the existing laws in relationpresented chronologically:

1. The Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Regulation of 18252. The East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act of 1950 (Section

86 and 87)3. Presidential Order No.72 of 19724. Presidential Order No. 135 of 1972; and5. Presidential Order No. 137 of 1972 (Ordinance LXI of 1975)

The study argues that the prevalence of disputes arising out of thesettlement process in chars is greater where power is polarized in morethan one person or group than where power is concentrated in only one gushti(members of a group based on kinship).

Riverine Chars in Bangladesh: Environmental Dynamics and Management Issues, publishedby the Environment and GIS Support Project for Water Sector Planning(EGIS) and UPL in 2000. The Irrigation Support Project for Asia and theNear East (ISPAN) (covering the area extending from the border of Indiaalong the Ganges and the Jamuna through the Padma and Lower Meghna asfar as the southern edge of the Hijla thana of Barishal District) underthe Flood Action Plan supporting studies 16 (environmental Study) and 19(Geographic Information System), published a series of reports in 1995.This book is based on scientific data from the ISPAN study and furtheranalysis on previous research works, especially on Jamuna basin.

Climatic changes are expected to increase seasonal variation inprecipitation and thus in river flows implying higher maximum and lowerminimum flows. The increased variations stimulate erosion and accretionprocess. Increasing floods, higher water levels, lower slopes of riverscontribute to char formation and widening rivers. Lower slopes andsedimentation further decreases transport capacity of the rivers.Bangladesh is geologically active and tectonic subsidence continues. Due toshifting rivers, earthquakes huge amount of sediment gets dumped into theriver system. Again, upstream development continues. All of the abovefactors will influence river and char dynamics in the future leading to anintensification of river erosion.

The socio-economic activities of the char inhabitants are intimatelyrelated to the land use potential within the chars. There is variation infertility of char land based on location. In general, the chars in thelower reach of the Jamuna are more stable than the ones in the upper reachof the river. Furthermore, chars in the upper reach of the river are morevulnerable to floods than the ones in the lower reach.

The book notes that mobility of riverbank erosion affected or threatenedpeople are very limited.

“The majority of the people interviewed by RRA team had lived inchars for several generations. If they had moved, it was withingroups of local chars ... of the 89 erosion-affected householdsinterviewed by the Flood Response Study and Riverbank Erosion ImpactStudy indicate that such moves are within small areas, usually about2 miles or less.”

The main occupation of most people in the chars relates to crop /agriculture. The intensity with which agriculture can be pursued on a chardepends very much on the stage of its development (one may recall thestages of char development described by Baqee). Farming occupations includeboth owner cultivation as well as sharecropping. Wage labor is also used invarious agriculture operations.

The book elaborates on the need for transparent policy on land issues. Whenchar households are affected by land erosion, and are forced to move out oftheir areas, they prefer to move within parts of the river familiar tothem. As reported in the ISPAN study, the law on landownership in thecontext of erosion and accretion states that when the land belonging to anindividual gets eroded and resurfaces at a later stage, the newly emergedland becomes the property of the government. To effectively overcome thisproblem, often local leaders / owners use different techniques to keep andmaintain possession of the land. These include several types of resistance:

1) pay rent / land tax and avoid attention2) exert influence with the surveyors from the AC Land’s office3) when land resurfaces people pay back dated taxes to the government4) powerful people even pay taxes and change title of the land to grab

the newly accreted land thereby legalizing it

Char people feel that tax rates should be lower as land in chars is oftenless productive and takes a huge cost to irrigate them. A unique feature ofthe book is that it presents rare satellite imagery of chars in a mannerunderstandable to the laymen. It also gives a holistic idea of theproblematic covering physical, structural, socio-economic and psycho-socialaspects of impact of riverbank erosion and related displacement in theriver basin areas.

Jamuna-Meghna River Erosion Mitigation Project: Summary Resettlement Framework andResettlement Plan.

The Jamuna-Meghna River Erosion Mitigation Project in Bangladesh aims toprotect the livelihoods of 2 million people living within two floodprotection and irrigation project areas. The Bangladesh Water DevelopmentBoard (BWDB), ADB's Executing Agency for the project, proposes to establisha sustainable, reliable and cost-effective riverbank erosion managementsystem.

BWDB identified a 1.2-kilometer secondary defense line (SDL) of embankmentsto protect critical sections in the Pabna Irrigation and Rural DevelopmentProject area. Strip land acquisition for the SDL will affect 33 households.BWDP prepared a short resettlement plan to address these effects.

Location and impacts of further revetment works along the Jamuna and Meghnarivers will be identified during the final design stage based on therivers' morphological development. BWDB also prepared a resettlementframework to address the involuntary resettlement effects that may be

identified during project implementation. The involuntary resettlementsafeguard measures adopted by BWDB for this project are summarized in thisreport.

2. Studies focusing on the functional issues of socio-economic rehabilitation and resettlement in the post displacement situation

Published in 1999, Densification: A Strategic Plan to Mitigate Riverbank Erosion Disaster inBangladesh by Muhammad Z Mamun and A T M Nurul Amin, focuses and developsthe idea of dense settlement and resettlement of displaced people in asafer zone. The research was carried out in one of the richestcommercial hubs in the region and now one of the most affected byriverbank erosion, the Hizla upazilla of the Barishal District.

Scarcity of land is a severe problem in rural Bangla. As Mamun and Aminobserved:

“Half of the population of Bangladesh consists of poor peasant,households who either own 0.2 hectare or less land or none at all.Available data show that the bottom 60 percent of the householdsowned only about 8.3 percent of the total land in 1985, which was11 percent in 1981 and 24 percent in 1951 ... this landlessnessand impoverishment has much to do with natural disasters …”

It is in this backdrop that land distribution-management and settlement andentitlement-capability becomes so crucially linked. Mamun and Aminmaintains that riverbank erosion can be devastating – made worse by thefact that the majority of the population in Bangladesh are either land lessor owners of small scale land holdings. Moreover, highly unstable nature ofBangladesh’s riverbanks and channels frequently lead to land accretion.Accessibility to accreted lands by peasants, particularly, the displacedand pauper farmers, is limited by the web of local level politics and powerstructure. Small land owners consistently appear to be the losers whilelarge land owners gain control, often through violence, of most char lands.The latter thus extend and intensify the near feudal patron-clientrelationships that govern the society and economy throughout most of theriverine areas in Bangladesh. The cumulative effect of socio-economicimpact of river erosion plays a key role in impoverishing and marginalizingthose who are affected.

Although some households do move to safer areas and build safersettlements, many merely relocate within the same area that has either beenalready affected or bears known vulnerable characteristics. Mamun and Aminhave listed a number of deterrents that prevent the victims of river

erosion from moving to a distant and safe place. Among those are attachmentto kins, financial disadvantage, total dependence on farming, and besidesthese factors there is the lack of marketable education and skills, and thehope of getting back the lost land from possible land accretion thinking,accretion of land is less than depletion.

Despite their general vulnerability, the erosion-prone regions are alsoknown to contain areas that are comparatively safe for settlement building.While the majority of households from a sample numbering 328 of a surveycarried out in river erosion-prone areas of are aware of the damage causedby erosion and are even successful in settling in safer places. This,however, only happens after repeated experience. At first, the settlementis erratic and unplanned. With an increase in erosion, they realize therisk of living in vulnerable areas and opt to move to safer settlements.

The erosion-effected households are also found to gradually reduce theirdependence on farming as sole occupation and get more involved in smallbusinesses and fishing. The majority of both the affected and unaffectedgroups are found to adopt one or more secondary occupations suggesting thegrowing awareness of households of the need to bring down their reliance ononly one occupation and the adoption of contingency measures for copingwith the consequences of erosion. This is essentially livelihooddiversification.

In favour of densification, Mamun and Amin argues “... that safer area residents are better educated and areeconomically better-off. They participate more in salaried jobs,business and other non-farm activities; whereas, the residents ofthe vulnerable areas are more involved in fishing, farming, andagriculture. The displacees solely relying on agriculture and havingno education or non-farm skills tend to stay near their eroded landand plunge into downward spiral of overall well-being. On the otherhand, displaces having some non-farm occupation, education, andskills migrate to safer areas and are able to improve their economiccondition; even those who are engaged in farming in the safer areaare better-off than their counterparts in the vulnerable areas.These findings together with the fact of uneven populationdistribution in safer areas (i.e., varied density) suggest the senseand scope of settlement building in safer areas ...”

The British Development Organization (DfID) has identified river erosion asthe principal disaster of Bangladesh. There are differences in datacollection by different organizations and researchers regarding the exactnature of loss of property and casualties due to river erosion. It is anongoing disaster and there is no specific indicator to measure the extent

of damage. Hence, DFID conducted three studies into char livelihoods aimingto provide policy guideline for its up coming Char Livelihood Project to beimplemented by RDRS and other national NGOs.

The Chars Livelihood Assistance Scoping Study, a composite four-part report bySteve Ashley, Kamal Kar, Abul Hossain, Shibabrata Nandi produced in2000. The study focused on the Kurigram District in the North Bengal.

The reports presents some very useful and brisk checklists on problems andsolutions at different stages of riverbank erosion related displacement anddestitution. Due to the cohesion of geographical location of the study, thefindings and recommendations looks better focused. Some of the major issuesfacing the poor in the chars, as found by the study, are as follows:

Inability of the individual, community and government toresist physical hazards

Poor Access to essential services Inadequate savings and credit options Poor access to income enhancing opportunities and services Greater vulnerability of women and children The importance of local informal organizations and

institutions Inadequate cooperation, quality and coverage by NGOs

Livelihood Options: Livelihoods options preferred by people in the chars for DFID Charslivelihood project by Khurshida Alam, Anik Asad and Ashekur Rahman, producedin 2002.

In their analysis of preferred livelihood options expressed by the male andfemale members of different “well-being groups” across four differentcategories of chars, did not find any significant differences owing to thefact that these are about different categories of chars, particularly inrelation to livelihood options. People of the mainland chars did however,receive benefits / advantages while marketing their products. Among thefive key livelihood options recommended were:

Cultivation and sharecropping Livestock: rearing of cow and goat Rearing of poultry Homestead of gardening mainly vegetables Petty Business / peddling

Disaster Management Options for Chars Livelihood Programme by Roger Yates, S. A.Wahab and Shashanka Saadi, produced in 2002, reports on reducing

vulnerability of the people facing hazards. It is appropriate fordevelopment approaches to reduce the risk of shocks.

Due to inherent vulnerability, livelihood and disaster management cannot beseparated in the char areas. Disaster management involves all aspects ofplanning of and responding to disasters, including preparedness,mitigation, response and rehabilitation (Standing Orders on Disaster,1999).

The study presents an overview of the existing Disaster ManagementApproaches in the Char Areas. These include: relying on community forassistance, staying put in original homestead with few adjustments likeraising base of the house, raising height of the storage facility,clustered housing, sufficient high land to provide protection tolivestock / latrine and tube well. Yet the entire investment is dependenton the land and hence on the river course. For the poorer people on low-lying erosion prone ground it makes more sense to invest in livestock orother productive assets that they can move rather than in their houses.

The study stressed the need of operationalising early warning system withaccurate information, effective dissemination of that information, and getpeople to act on the information; plantation as preventive measure;capacity building and awareness raising; utilisation of the indigenousknowledge for preparation; emphasising on employing char dwellers to travelto other chars to share innovative approaches; moving in appropriate time;migrating to other chars / areas to cope better; ensuring access to relief;ensure safe distress selling and credit against assets; recovery andrehabilitation through re-establishing livelihoods; enhancing role ofconcerned government agencies.

The study points out potentials for enhancing existing community based disastermanagement programs at the household level. These include efforts like:

Menu of disaster management options Improve the quality of Union and Thana Disaster Action Plans Support the Implementation of Union Disaster Action Plans Improve accountability of disaster management assistance Extend Government services during vulnerable times Improve understanding and dissemination of early warnings Improve micro-finance systems Improve learning from Disaster Management Practice

3. Studies focusing on the psycho-social mapping for preparedness, coping and rebuilding

Facing the Jamuna River: Indigenous and engineering knowledge in Bangladesh by HannaSchmuck-Widmann is an outcome of an in depth ethnographic researchexploring the psycho-social map and indigenous knowledge of the peopleof rural Bangla on primarily the eastern bank and in the mid river charsof Jamuna. The research was carried out in phases, during 1994-1996 and1997-1998 and the book published in 2001.

Identifying indigenous knowledge of the affected and displaced or riverbankdwellers is the main thrust of Widmann’s work. Three corner stones of thewisdom of people of the river basin areas about nature are observation,experience and measuring. After forming a base of information and testing, theygo on to interpret the natural sequences of events. At this stage, interestplays a crucial role in validation and exactitude of the interpretation.The changing climatic condition and changing level of river water is markedand monitored by the local people at the boat ghats. For measuring riverwater level and depth, these people use bamboo, for measuring flood waterlevel they use either bridge, house or their own body. Observing thegathering of clouds and moving with strong winds for at least three daysfrom South to North, change in the colour and temperature of the water,heavy sweating “like fever”, rheumatic pains and extraordinary exhaustionetc. adds up as indigenous warning system to the local people living in thechars and river basin areas.

Widmann found that the local peoples’ awareness and knowledge issubstantial compared to the engineers involved in different projectscentering the Jamuna river and bridge. Rural people strategise to adjustand cope with the hazards of riverbank erosion. As found in other studies,flexibility in income sources, kinship ties, varied farming techniques, useof catkin as a tool for land/soil conservation, source for fuel or sellingfor money etc. constitutes the strategies of the people of the chars. Thesepeople clearly see the need for intervention by the government in a big wayfor technical solutions to the bank erosion problem. They find the NGOshandy in helping the poor in char areas, hence, demand expansion of creditintervention by NGOs. Besides the names for the different processes andphenomena – they have a more or less functional record of images anddevelop models of the river. The observations by the char dwellers that informer time they were always about the same level; today flood level ishigher. This is happening for several years now. A study carried out byThoman Hofer confirms the char dwellers’ statement.

Considering river erosion as a historical phenomenon, affected people oftentake refuse under the notion “hand of Allah”. Previously, some scholarshave identified this as fatalistic approach of the char dwellers. This,Widmann, sees as a convenient strategy and approach to cope with thesuddenness and effect of the riverbank erosion. Widmann, taking queue froma char dweller typifies the process as “a battle”, as a tactical withdrawal/ retreat (a time to reorganise / recuperate) in the face of advancing andprovocative nature. The practical solution to this problem is, however,moving settlement from one to another char, often shifting in a third charin a manner of triangulation.

“Patterns of Psychosocial Coping and Adaptation Among RiverbankErosion-Induced Displacees in Bangladesh: Implications forDevelopment Programming” in Journal of Prehospital and Disaster Medicine,Volume 15(3): 2000, by David Hutton. The field survey for the study wasconducted in Bangladesh during the 1998 flood season. Over 200displacees living in urban squatter settlements in the district ofSerajganj were sampled; a comparision group of 200 non-displacees wasdrawn from Shariakhandi district.

The primary purpose of this study was to identify psychosocial aspects ofriverbank erosion-induced displacement in the flood plains of Bangladesh.Although considerable research has examined the social and economic impactsof such disasters in Bangladesh, there has been a general neglect ofassociated psychosocial implications. The specific objectives of the studywere to: 1) assess hazard awareness in relation to riverbank erosion; 2)determine the magnitude of psychological distress associated withdisplacement; 3) examine patterns and predictors of economic and socialadaptation among displacees; and 4) identify patterns of psychosocialcoping and adaptation common to displaced and non-displaced poor inBangladesh.

The results indicate that the constant threat of riverbank erosion hascontributed to a substantial disaster subculture in the riverine zones ofBangladesh. Although frequent displacement was common among the floodplainresidents, only 17% had perceived riverbank erosion to be a seriousproblem, and just 10% believed that they eventually would be displacedpermanently. In most cases, displacees cope with erosion and land loss byrelocating to nearby lands; the impacts of displacement become acute onlywhen land scarcity forces displacees into urban areas, where they are bothremoved from their traditional rural way of life and marginalized botheconomically and politically.

Although displacees were found to have a significantly higher level ofdistress than did non-displacees, this was related primarily to socio-

economic deprivation, rather than to displacement per se. The commonlyhypothesized factors, such as loss of land and frequency and duration ofdisplacement, were not found to have significant association with distresslevels. Among both displacees and non-displacees, chronic survivalconcerns, daily hunger, and marginal living conditions were predictivefactors of psychological distress. Vulnerability to economic strain andassociated psychological distress was particularly high among women and theelderly.

The need to integrate disaster education and development projects within asocial, cultural and psychological context is reviewed. The capacity ofpeople to respond to environmental threats is a function not only of thephysical forces that affect them, but of the way people see themselves inrelation to these forces. It is important to recognize that Westernconceptualizations of poverty do not always take into account social andpsychological subtleties of coping and adaptation. Popular developmenttheory usually associates low personal control with maladaptive passivityand dependency. In this study, however, displacees more often responded totheir difficulties with active problem-solving efforts, with fatalism beingamong the least utilized forms of coping. It may be reasoned that lowaspirations and self-efficacy generated by poverty may be psychologicallyadaptive, reducing levels of frustration and distress, but notdetermination and perseverance.

Rehabilitation programming may be most effective when it takes into accountthe psychosocial aspects of disasters, both because psychological distressimpacts the capacity of people to achieve livelihoods, but also becauseimportant social and psychological processes determine the way peopleperceive and adapt to natural hazards. Research has shown that displaceesin Bangladesh usually survive poverty and marginalization because of mutualkinfolk obligations of assistance. Rehabilitation programming in thiscontext may have the most benefit when it assumes a socio-ecentric ratheregocentric Western perspective, assisting communities to maintain anddevelop natural social coping mechanisms that enhance adaptive functioningand promote self-determination.

4. Studies with a comprehensive approach covering almost all the aspects for research and activism on riverbank erosion

The research / reports / books mentioned above have covered differentaspects of the riverbank erosion problematic. A comprehensive study andpublication, has not been enlisted in one of the categories mentionedabove. As far as this study is concerned, there is a single such study, the

REIS Program. The study covers physical and structural, socio-economicrehabilitation and resettlement in the post displacement situation, psycho-social mapping for preparedness, coping and rebuilding by the local peopleof the river basin areas. The study covered “three out of 94 upazillasaffected annually by riverbank erosion: Kazipur in the Brahmaputra-Jamunafloodplain, Chilmari at the mouth of the Tista overlooking the Brahmaputraand Bhola in the Meghna floodplain on the Bay of Bengal ... near about 2000households consisting of both displaced and non-displaced persons, werecovered in the survey during 1985 and 1986”.

An outcome of REIS Program, the book – Riverbank Erosion, Flood and PopulationDisplacement in Bangladesh edited by K. Maudood Elahi, K. Saleh Ahmed and M.Mafizuddin, published in 1991 reveals that bank erosion is taking placein roughly in about 50 districts or Zillas. In 35 upazillas bankerosion is severe and most recurrent. But acute population pressureforces more and more people to settle in the flood and erosion-proneareas on mid-channel islands (chars) and in the delta region. This inturn intensifies the annual risk to human life and of severe economicdislocation permanently and directly displacing the one million peopleannually. Roughly, 30% of these displaced take shelter on roads, BWDBembankments, and khas land.

The book deals extensively on the physical aspect and process of riverbankerosion. The articles extends on analyses of data and satellite imagery,modeling on forecasting, historical conditions of the Jamuna river, bankline movement and erosion deposition, river course monitoring using remotesensing technique, characteristics of riverbank erosion etc.

The second major section is on demographic and socio-economic impacts.Starting with an overview by Elahi, the section covers issues like socio-economic profiling of the sample population, direct economic impact andresultant landlessness, destitution, downward spiral of wage for labour dueto a surplus of agricultural labour force, characteristics of the displaceeand non-displacee households, characteristics of land potentials of thehousehold by distance from the riverbank, mobility characteristics ofdisplacees, vulnerability syndrome and peasant’s adjustment etc. The studyfound char and embankment zones to ‘have nearly three times as many female-headed households as the [mainland] zones.’ According to the study “Most ofthe female headed households are headed by wives of men temporarily absentfor labour.’ The third and most relevant section of the REIS study to this study ispopulation displacement and resettlement. Our focus will be particularly onthis section. In addition to the listed articles below, the section dealswith issues like group dynamics in resettlement process, char land politics

and role of administration, traditional land grabbing and settlementpattern, settlement strategy for displacees etc. Reviews of some of theimportant articles of the section follow:

“Human Response to Riverbank Erosion Hazard in Bangladesh: Some Lessonsfrom Indigenous Adjustment Strategies” by Chowdhury E. Haque in Elahi et.al. eds. 1991, investigates the nature of perception towards hazardsamong flood plain inhabitants in Kazipur and attempts to determine theindigenous adjustment strategies to cope with effects of hazards andformulates policy lessons from the survey results and analysis.

According to Haque, perception of extreme natural events, albeit subjectivein nature, plays a profound role in decision-making for adjustments by thepeople living in the hazard prone areas. Following White (1974), the authordefines perception as “individual organization of stimuli relating to anextreme event or a human adjustment.” Nine hazard concepts resulted inrequest for identification of hazards likely to occur and impact onhousehold. The responses reveal that there is a pattern that clearlyindicates a relationship of perception of hazard concept with previousexperience of the event or the natural phenomenon.

Haque observes that respondents’ adjustment strategies are “corrective” not“preventative” in nature. Corrective measures “include purposeful attemptsto modify the event or change location or resource use to minimise thehazard loss” (Burton, et. al. 1978 excerpted in Haque 1991). Clusteredsettlement patterns are useful in mobilizing necessary manpower in anemergency and to take “corrective” measures to reduce hazard loss. A commonstrategy to reduce anticipated loss is to salvage housing structures.Education of respondents proved to have no relationship to potentialadjustment strategies of the resource managers. These people invested inlivestock and other movable assets. Built bamboo fences on the water-frontto protect land and houses from the physical impact of erosion. They builtbamboo crates and placed them on water-front filled with bricks to protectland from sub aqueous erosion, built embankments with earth to protectsettlements from river encroachment. They planted different crops indifferent zones of the floodplain. In Kazipur the non-structural and socialadjustment measures adopted by the local people are a combination ofincidental and purposeful adjustment or responses.

“Individual and Institutional Responses to Riverbank Erosion Hazards”by John R. Rogge in Elahi et. al. eds., 1991, finds that high levels ofrisk awareness are deeply embedded in rural populations, as is theknowledge that sooner or later most will be affected by flood orerosion.

Rogge contends that the diverse dimensions that make up the structuralcauses are less readily understood or perceived by affected population orthe agencies responsible for assisting them. These structural causes are oftwo kinds: human and institutional. The human causes are deep rooted inhistory, culture, religion, and traditional economic system. These humanvalues and behaviors cannot be changed overnight and makes interventioninto the rural system difficult. The institutional causes involve disparityin access to resources, political immaturity and lack of farsightedness,concentration of power and wealth, associated near feudal bondage, lack ofresources at the disposal of local administration, bureaucracy andcompeting jurisdiction of agencies etc.

“Displacees of Riverbank Erosion in urban Squatter Settlements inSerajganj: the Process of Impoverishment” by M. Ziarat Hossain of theREIS Study looks at land occupancy and socioeconomic change insirajganj squatters.

It was found that more than 82 percent of the surveyed households becamelandless where the small and middle class peasants suffer the most. Losingtheir land, the principal means of livelihood, these displaces becomemarginalized in the socio-economic processes. Land loss, economicdeprivation, social isolation, and administrative or institutionalnegligence exacerbates the continuing poverty of the displaces. The cycleprevents them from achieving socio-economic success. Hence, moving to urbansquatter settlement becomes the only solution left even though that entailsa complete cultural dislocation or even uprooting. (Hossain in Elahi, et. al.eds.,1991)

“Urban Adjustment by Erosion Induced Migrants to Dhaka” by A. Q. M.Mahbub and Nazrul Islam analyse urban bound migration.

Caused by riverbank erosion this is an involuntary type of movement wherethe migrants largely come from the lower socio-economic strata and fromrural background. Compared with this group, people from middle to upperstrata are less likely to leave their home villages permanently, as theytend to have land in different parts of the village and have other means ofsurvival. These include off farm and urban area based income, relatives’support and good connection with rural power elite.

When erosion occurs it affects all – rich or poor, but when out-migrationstarts, the poor and the destitutes leave the village first. Often this actof leaving is towards uncertainty. They leave the village for employment aswell as for a piece of land where they can build their own shelter. Theideal place of living for the destitute households thus should be an areavery close to a town or a port where a wide range of work (often daily wage

based) may be available on regular basis. An alternative is resettlement onkhas land in and near the rural area. In either case, government assistanceor that of its other agencies is required. (Mahbub and Nazrul in Elahi, et.al. eds.,1991)

Hutton, David & Haque, C. Emdad (2004). “Human Vulnerability,Dislocation and Resettlement: Adaptation Processes of River-bankErosion-induced Displacees in Bangladesh”. Disaster 28 (1), 41-62.

The purpose of this research was to identify and analyse patterns ofeconomic and social adaptation among river-bank erosion-induced displaceesin Bangladesh. It was hypothesised that the role of social demographic andsocio-economic variables in determining the coping ability and recovery ofthe river-bank erosion-induced displacees is quite significant. Thefindings of the research reveal that displacees experience substantialsocio-economic impoverishment and marginalisation as a consequence ofinvoluntary migration. This in part is a socially constructed process,reflecting inequitable access to land and other resources. Vulnerability todisasters is further heightened by a number of identifiable social anddemographic factors including gender, education and age, although extremepoverty and marginalisation create complexity to isolate the relativeinfluence of these variables. The need to integrate hazard analysis andmitigation with the broader economic and social context is discussed. It isargued that the capacity of people to respond to environmental threats is afunction of not only the physical forces which affect them, but also ofunderlying economic and social relationships which increase humanvulnerability to risk. Hazard analysis and mitigation can be more effectivewhen it takes into account such social and demographic and socio-economicdimensions of disasters.

5. Other Studies / Reports / Publications on (or that includes) Riverbank Erosion in Bangladesh

Numerous reports have been published or submitted as direct outcome ofcommissioned studies. Regular / periodic or yearly reports are publishedby government and non-governmental agencies dealing with disasterpreparedness and mitigation. These reports essentially contain areaspecific facts on disaster, including riverbank erosion. A list isprovided below: Charland Study, CEGIS Bangladesh Disaster Report, Disaster Forum Bangladesh State of the Environment, Center for Sustainable Development

(CFSD)

Regular and Annual Reports by Bangladesh Center for Advanced Studies(BCAS)

Publications by Samata, an advocacy and training organisation forland rights

Chakma, Sinora, March 2003. Fighting with Calamities: Coping Strategies of theExtreme Poor. Research Report 4, The Livelihoods of the Extreme Poor(LEP) Study. Impact Monitoring and Evaluation Cell (IMEC), PROSHIKA.

The LEP Study was conducted in eight broad agro-ecological zones ineight thanas of the country. These included: Patgram of Lalmonirhat,Rangamati sadar, Puthia of Natore, Kotalipara of Madaripur, Durgapurof Netrokona, Rampal of Bagerhat, Chakaria of Cox’s Bazar andNiamatpur of Naogaon District.

RDRS Newsletter. Regular Updates on Riverbank Erosion in Quarterly Newsletter Udbastu, the

uprooted, Refugee and Migratory Movements Research Unit (RMMRU) Life in the Chars in Bangladesh: Improving nutrition and supporting

livelihoods through homestead food production, in Nutritional SurveillanceProject, Bulletin No.14, Helen Keller International, Bangladesh, July 2003.

This is a report based on the HKI/IPHN Nutritional SurveillanceProject (NSP) and its findings from the char communities in Kazipurin Serajganj District, Nagessawari and Rajibpur in Kurigram District.Study carried out between December 2001 and September 2002

Absolutely donor driven reports or project based feasibility studies orprojection studies on riverbank erosion or which include the sameinclude the following:

Mathematical Morphological Model of Jamuna River, Jamuna Bridge Site, Second ForecastReport, October 1996, Danish Hydraulic Institute in association withSurface Water Modelling Centre (SWMC) Submitted to JMBA, GoB and theWorld Bank

Jamuna-Meghna River Erosion Mitigation Project, Interim Report Volume 1, OptionsAssessment, February 2002, produced by Halcrow and Associates forDirector, PMU-CADP, BWDB, Dhaka and ADB

Regular and Annual Reports by Asian Development Bank (ADB) ADB News bites, Media Center, ADB Water Resource Management In Bangladesh: Steps Towards A New National Water Plan

Bangladesh Report No. 17663-BD, Rural Development Sector Unit, SouthAsia Region, The World Bank Dhaka Office

Considering Adaptation to Climate Change Towards a Sustainable Development ofBangladesh, October 1999, Prepared for South Asia Region, The WorldBank, Washington, DC

Bangladesh 2020, A Long-run Perspective Study, Bangladesh DevelopmentSeries, (2003). UPL for The World Bank and Bangladesh Centre forAdvanced Studies (BCAS).

Articles / Books published abroad and domestic and foreign journals onriverbank erosion include:

Haque, Chowdhury E., (December 1988). “Human Adjustments to Riverbank Erosion Hazard in the Jamuna Floodplain, Bangladesh”, in HumanEcology, An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 16, No. 4.

Currey, Bruce (1979): Mapping Areas Liable to Famine in Bangladesh. PhDDissertation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.

Haque, C. Emdad, (December 1997). Hazards in a Fickle Environment: Bangladesh. Farid, A. T. M. (Paper no. 2003). Riverbank Erosion and Soil Fertility

Improvement by Vetiver Hedgegrow under Bangladesh Condition, Symposium no: 37. Wiest, Raymond E. (1994). The family in Bangladesh: coping with

natural disasters. In Natural Disasters in Bangladesh: Views andIssues for the Social Sciences, edited by S.M. Nurul Alam. Dhaka:Academic Press.

Wiest, R.E., J.S.P. Mocellin, D.T. Motsisi. (1994). The Needs ofWomen in Disasters and Emergencies. Prepared for United NationsDevelopment Programme. Disaster Research Institute, University ofManitoba; Gender and Disaster Network – Papers (10):http://www.apu.ac.uk/geography/gdn/resources/papers.html.

Zaman, M.Q., R.E. Wiest. (1991). “Riverbank erosion and populationresettlement in Bangladesh.” Practicing Anthropology. 13(3): 29-33.

Reports, publications related to Flood preparedness and mitigation fromBangladesh Disaster Preparedness Centre (BDPC) were found particularlyuseful as reference for studies and activism on riverbank erosion. Feware named below:

People-oriented Area-specific Flood Warning Dissemination Procedure, January 2002 Disaster Response Plan for Pabna Irrigation and Rural Development Project (PIRDP),

produced under the Jamuna Meghna River Erosion Mitigation Project forADB, March 2002.

Promotion of Family and Community Level Flood Preparedness Through Public AwarenessProgramme, November 2002.

Interestingly, most of the books on internal migration in Bangladeshsomehow fail to incorporate the topic of riverbank erosion as animportant cause of endemic poverty. These books list number of reasonsfor migration from rural to urban areas. For example, Mobility Behaviour ofWorking People in Bangladesh: Rural-rural and Rural-urban Circulation by A Q M Mahbubdiscusses the typology, reasons of migration and ultimate circular

effect on the rural to urban flow. The book, however, fails to focus onriverbank erosion as a major cause of migration from rural to urbanareas.

The state of the discourse on riverbank erosion is pretty clear from theabove discussion on particular studies. The contradiction betweenfacts/figures of the severity of riverbank erosion as a problematic and therelative reluctance and inactive / passive approach towards the wholeproblem clearly typifies the mode of the present culture in research-advocacy-activism.

It is really hard to identify a single effort from the above mentionedstudies or successive reports and analyses on the problematic where acoordinated activity can be found either on the part of the government,within and among its agencies and functionaries or on the part of thedonors / NGOs, within their concerned bodies. Private sector can be hardlybe seen anywhere near any initiative other than relief distribution, whereGO / NGO interest remain high as ever.

It is heartening though that national level NGOs like RDRS and others arecoming up with brilliant ideas of targeting the ultra poor where specificpriority groups would be riverbank erosion affected and displaced people.They deem it as their corporate responsibility. This we might think, wouldhave substantial effect on reducing the dependency culture in the face ofcalamities and reduce long term destitution among the ultra poor.

It seems, survey and research from within the country and from abroad havegathered just enough information, insights and grassroots experience tostart activism and have a national policy and action plan in place. Theimplementation process would, however, need deliberate participation of allconcerned and a coordinated effort should be launched to at least mitigateif not prevent the impact of the disaster: riverbank erosion anddisplacement.

Livelihood Strategies in the Face of RiverbankErosion

Formulating a Conceptual Framework

Instead of taking a physical approach towards the research of riverbankerosion and its effects on displaced people, researching through preventiveand structural measures, this study delves into the socio-economic andpsycho-social stress mitigation approach in the pre and post riverbankerosion and displacement phase. Hence, entitlement to livelihood of theriverbank erosion affected and displaced people, is the prime concern ofthis study. This study tries to present the field findings with simplicityand straightforwardness. There is little attempt towards a criticalanalysis. Livelihood as a concept, its modality and applicability to thesubjects of the research is discussed below:

Understanding of Livelihood

Different definitions of livelihood are found in the development discourse.A simple and functional one is offered below:

'A livelihood comprises people, their capabilities and their means ofliving, including food, income and assets. Tangible assets are resourcesand stores, and intangible assets are claims and access to facilities /benefits.

A livelihood is environmentally sustainable when it maintains or enhancesthe local and global assets in which livelihoods depend, and has netbeneficial effects on other livelihoods.

A livelihood is socially sustainable which can cope with and recover fromstress and shocks, and provide for future generations.'

– Chambers and Conway (1991)

Livelihood Approach

The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) was developed in the 1980s andhas been evolving since then. It is used by a number of developmentagencies such as UNDP and the UK Government’s Department for InternationalDevelopment (DFID), CARE and Oxfam. DFID’s sustainable livelihoods

approach was formalised in the UK government’s White Paper on InternationalDevelopment in 1997.

The LEP Project, PROSHIKA, presents the classic formulation of livelihoodapproach by Carney and Ashley 2000. The sustainable livelihood approachesevolved as a mapping of the poor peoples’ living, the importance ofstructural and institutional issues. The principles of the concept are:

People – centred: Sustainable poverty elimination will be achieved only ifexternal support focuses on peoples’ concerns. Understanding about theneed-based segmentation among people within the context of their currentlivelihood strategies, social environment and ability to adapt, is key forsuccess.

Responsive and participatory: Poor people themselves must be the key actors inidentifying and addressing livelihood priorities. Outsiders need processesthat will enable them to listen and respond to the poor.

Multi-level: Poverty elimination is an enormous challenge that will only beovercome by working at multiple levels, ensuring that micro-level activityinforms the development of policy and an effective enabling environment,and that micro – level structures and processes support people to buildupon their own strengths.

Conducted in partnership: With both the public and private sector.

Sustainable: There are four key dimensions to sustainability – economic,institutional, social and environmental sustainability. All are importantand a balance must be found between them.

Dynamic: External support must recognise the dynamic nature of existinglivelihood strategies, respond flexibly to changes in peoples’ situationand the catalytic variables and develop long-term commitments.

To operationalise the concept of "sustainable livelihoods", the UKDepartment for International Development has developed a framework tounderstand and analyse the livelihoods of the poor (Figure 1). Theunderstanding of the poor's assets, in terms of human, natural, physical,financial and social capitals, and strategies to cope with external factorssuch as shocks, trends and seasonality (i.e. vulnerability context) andinstitutional, commercial and cultural structures and processes, canprovide avenues to target development strategies more adequately to thepoor and support them to achieve new livelihood outcomes.

Figure 1: Sustainable Livelihood Approach (SLA)

Source: Curney, 1998 in DfID Report on Gender-Responsive Aquaculture Policy,Produced as a paper for workshop on May 2-3, 2000, for Asian Institute ofTechnology, Bangkok, Thailand

DFID's sustainable livelihood (SL) framework is an evolutionary (Ashley &Carney 1999) and analytical tool to improve our understanding of thecomplexity of livelihoods while assisting in the identification of suitable'entry points' for external support that are congruent with vulnerablepeople's survival strategies and priorities (Farrington, Carney, Ahsley &Turton 1999).

Figure 2. Entry Points and Livelihood change

Source: Dorward et. al. , Asset Functions and Livelihood Strategies: A Framework for Pro-Poor Analysis, Policy and Practice. Contributed Paper To EAAE Seminar On Livelihoods And Rural Poverty, September 2001.

The entry points clearly indicate the role external or catalytic forcesshould play in case of an attempt to facilitation at the grassroots level.Sen’s ‘entitlement’ with endowment (set of resources) and exchange (set ofrelationship) is vital to ensure flourish of a livelihood. These resourceswill include material, human, social and common property resources.

This study by RMMRU will show that the entry points in the rural areas arevery much neglected. There is hardly any coordinated effort from allconcerned to prop up these entry points. The emerging insecurity andunchanged or worsening situation of poverty and lack of access to basicrights, benefits / amenities / facilities, all deepens the vulnerability ofthe victims of riverbank erosion. These are the vital areas where NGOs canessentially contribute as part of their corporate responsibility.

In Figure 3, IDS’s formulation of sustainable rural livelihoods frameworkis presented. It has a holistic nature and covers a wide range of aspectsembedded in the social relational setting.

Figure 3. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods Framework, Institute of Development Studies (IDS), University of Sussex, UK

Source: Solesbury, William, June 2003, Sustainable Livelihoods: A Case Study of the Evolution of DFID Policy, Working Paper 217, Overseas Development Institute, UK.

Framework for a Livelihood Study

Livelihood studies are generally used to cluster information along several analytical categories:

Context – social, economic, political and environmental dimensions,

conditions and trends. Livelihood resources – financial, natural, physical, human, politicaland social capitalInstitutional Processes and Organisational Structures – GO, civil society, private sectorLivelihood Strategies – productive and exchange activities and coping strategiesLivelihood outcomes – food security, health security, habitat security, education

security, safety and environmental security

Livelihood Approach vs. Rights Based Approach

Adopting a livelihood approach does not mean that the study abandons therights based approach of research and activism. Interestingly thislivelihood approach does not dismiss or contradict the existing developmentpractice with a rights based approach.

As the LEP study points out, a rights based approach encompasses notion andaction on empowerment, equality of entitlement, dignity, justice andrespect for all people. It encourages poor people to assert and demandservices actively, directly, based on their own priorities. This in turndevelops self-esteem and promotes agency of the people at the lower rung.This approach sees that the existing and developing mechanisms to redresswrongs or injustice in the society are actively nurtured and utilised.Within this approach, DfID identifies three underlying principles:

Participation: enabling people to realise their rights to participate in, andget access to information relating to the decision-making processes, whichaffect their lives.

Inclusion: building socially inclusive societies, based on the values ofequality and non-discrimination, through development that promotes allhuman rights for all people.

Fulfilling obligation: strengthening institutions and policies that ensure thatobligations to protect and promote the realisation of all human rights arefulfilled by states and other duty barriers.

Approach taken in this Study

It is our contention that developing the livelihood approach “in publicpolicy implementation” and in mitigating the sufferings of the riverbankerosion affected and displaced people would require a bearing of rightsbased perspective. Because the riverbank erosion affected and displacedpeople are often paupers and marginalised, hence located at the lowest rungof the society. This will help enhance a process of self-sustaining socialjustice and non-discrimination in even the remote char areas.

Target Group of the Study

For the purpose of this study, we recap some of the key features ofsustainable livelihoods approach (SLA). It prioritises the following:

– people's assets (tangible and intangible); – their ability to withstand shocks (the vulnerability

context); – policies and institutions that reflect poor people's priorities,

rather than those of the elite.

Figure 4. Components and Flows in a Livelihood

Source: Chambers, R. and Conway, Gordon R. (December 1991), Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21 st Century , IDS Discussion Paper 296.

Using the SLA frame work we can conclude:

– ‘Poor’ is a non homogenous category in Bangladesh (access toresources and exposure to risk is different for evendifferent households)

– Using poverty ranking of previous studies we can divide poorof these areas into three categories

Segmentization of population for livelihood scheme

Some studies and social / development research has categorised andsegmented their subjects of research in the following manner. This studyfinds it useful.

Social poor – moderate or tomorrows’ poor (have some land and can meet up to 6 months of foodsecurity from their own production; have good ties with relatively better off families; can secure employment; and can access credit in times of crises)

Helpless poor – marginal or extreme poor (Functionally landless in terms of homestead; could meet food security for 2 months throughsharecropping; both male/female sell their labour during the off andpeak seasons;lack of link to wealthier families

– limited access to (timely) credit– limited access to (timely) employment)

Bottom poor – poorest of the poor(have no land and lives on borrowed or common land;they have food insecurity round the year;have 1 meal per day during the lean season;children do not go to school;have a single set of clothes;work as wage labour round the year;sell labour in advance / pledge labour;have very low social capital – no access to credit

during crisis)

A possible outline of Sustainable Livelihoods Approach in respect to the riverbankerosion affected and displaced people:

GoalPositive outcomes for poor and vulnerable people with focus on displaced people. 

ImmediateObjective

Wider, more generalised aims, which are inclusive of sectoral objectives. 

Principles Wider in perspective. More concerned with empowerment aspects.

StrategiesMore bottom-up and non-specific. To be led by the local people. More an approach than a tool.

Entry PointsMainly transforming structures and processes, and capital assets. Less so in the vulnerability context and livelihood strategies.

Figure 5. A Modified SLA Framework to incorporate the private sector

Source: Andrew Dorward, Pro-Poor Livelihoods: Addressing the Market / Private

Sector Gap Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, http://www.wye.ac.uk/AgEcon/ADU/index

Figure 6. Entry Points and change in Livelihoods (private sector involvement)

Source: Andrew Dorward, Pro-Poor Livelihoods: Addressing the Market / Private Sector Gap Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine,http://www.wye.ac.uk/AgEcon/ADU/index

Different Options for Livelihood for Different Segments in the River Basin Areas

Strategy Poverty Ranking

Exchange Activities

– Mixture of local labour, agriculture and seasonal migration

– Livestock & poultry (only share rearing)– Accepting relatives’ help / shelter as they

want to repay for previous helps from the RbE victim

– Petty trading (may be starting with vegetables grown in the homestead garden)

– Relying on neighbours to feed children and 1 meal per day

Helpless Poor >>

Bottom Poor

Coping Strategies

– Networking with relatives and depending on them– Hand to mouth (daily labour in the locality)– Long term migration (family or only husband)– Moving away from business to peddling– Peddling and sharecropping

Bottom Poor >>

Helpless Poor

Productive Strategies

– Local labour, – Agriculture (share cropping or small piece of

own land), – Livestock (share rearing), – Other income sources at the locality like shop

keeping by one member of the family, working atrestaurant in the upazilla or part time job as a carpenter etc.

– Migration and taking land lease at home– Disinvesting (in chars) and moving towards main

land– Established due to back up (landed) at more

than one place and now investing through creditoffers to viable borrowers

Social Poor >>

once established, now socio-

economicallyrelegated

There are, however, other segmentisation / category groups used bydifferent organisations. These are: very poor, primary poor, chronic poor,absolute poor, relative poor, hardcore poor and so on.

Of these, different development organisations have their own pet terms todefine the extreme poor or often said to be the ultra poor. Examples are:

What does all these categorisations mean and lead ultimately? When we checkwith the definitions they offer (for quick reference, LEP Study by IMEC,PROSHIKA), these definitions are often based on ideas and stereotypingassociated with land holding, calorie / food intake, number of incomeearning member, access to loans (institutional / non-institutional), accessto NGO membership, access to healthcare and medication, low interactionwith other social groups, both men and women of a household sell labourround the year, begging for living, women with disabled husband, femaleheaded household with a single earner, dependent on manual labour do nothave bargaining power, lives in a jhupri, i.e. thatched house, annual percapita income of 2,800 tk., chronic food insecurity and so on.

These are interesting as some of these goes against key themes for advocacyfor gender empowerment. For example, why should selling labour round theyear by a women or a women with disabled husband or a female-headedhousehold with a single earner, be considered as a weakness and as in acondition of vulnerability? If we observe closely, there are reasons whythese people could be considered as ultra poor or hard core poor. Thesocial context in rural Bangla has to be brought into perception. As the LEPstudy points out following Narayan et. al, 2000, creation of social exclusioncan be possible through various means and conditions and antecedents. Theseinclude:

Geography Entry barrier Intimidation Corruption Physical violence etc.

A gender sensitive, rights based livelihood approach is needed to prepare,mitigate and even prevent sufferings and destitution from riverbank erosioninduced displacement. As one of the most affected regions, Districts in theNorth-West Bangladesh can be a starting point for a national levelcoordinated effort. In this joint effort private sector has to be on boardalong with the NGO sector and government. With the development of road

DfID – extreme poorWorld Bank – bottompoor Proshika – extreme poorCARE – extreme poor

BRAC – ultra poor anddestituteBIDS – extreme poor UN, OECD &Amartya Sen – absolute

network, particularly in the northern Districts of Bangladesh, with thehelp of ever increasing reach of rural electrification board the privatesector can be persuaded by incentives from the government to establishbusiness in safer but nearer areas to river basin vulnerable hot spots.Corporate responsibility of the NGOs, especially the big ones like BRAC,Grameen, ASA, PROSHIKA, CARE, RDRS, Oxfam, Action Aid should enrich theefforts further.

Livelihood and Pertinent Issues / Findings at aGlance

Study on RbE Induced Displacement in North-West Bangladesh

LIVELIHOOD AND RIVER BASIN AREAS IN NORTH WEST BANGLADESH

Temporal and spatial dimensions of livelihood

TemporalPeriodisation according to RbE and flooding Seasonality of occupation

SpatialSpecific nature of livelihood depending on soil / crop

variationsSpatial / traditional orientation or root of occupationsPre-existing migrant communities from other districts,

still regarded as outsiders

Preparedness & adjustments

Nature of settlements – chars (new and old) /mainland / riverbank          

Nature of Riverbank Erosion – chapa bhanga / bhanga /haria bhanga

– early warning & harnessing indigenous knowledge– shifting and rebuilding

Displacement and settlement

– Its is always ad hoc – leading to environmental destruction

– NGOs do not facilitate the settlement process– Settlements are not linked to income generating

activities – These activities and the trade, scale and type could

be decided upon by the RbE affected people

– Livestock cannot be attended and fed by the poor displaced people

– Settlements are often insensitive to the hostcommunity

The Destitution ladder

Loss of agricultural land / livestock due to riverbank erosion

Income loss and coping strategies Vulnerability and adaptation through diet change,

borrowing, seasonal labour migration etc. Lack of organisation(al support) at local level Loss of better social status Lack of access to financial capital sell of liquid assets, productive assets (land cattle

etc.)

Destitution & long distance migration

LIVELIHOOD MANAGEMENT & MISMANAGEMENT

Aspects of Management

Observation of early signs Organisation at individual level Removal of household goods Erection of temporary shelter Quick selling of goods/animals Work as labour in local agriculture Organisation at community level Agricultural (crop / land / cow) loss > community support

> income substitution through livestock rearing / fishing/ wage labour / sharecropper

Social security of women (-headed households) ensured bycommunity

Displacement and shelter in adjacent / relatives’ places Displacement and relocation in new lands (khas and / or

private as uthuli) Displacement and resettlement utilising backup (land /

money-lending / re-emerged char in other locations)

Alternatives

Chain ofcrises

Switching to small businesses Use of productive land bought elsewhere Sub-contracting several arrangements of sharecropping Seasonal migration becomes routine Getting decisions from local and informal organisations

(e.g. panchi) of char areas in favour Asset rebuilding for long term gains > GO / NGO support

(loan / grant)

Dimensions of Mismanagement

Lack of understanding in early days of RbE Lack of organisation and local standard pricing for

distress sale Sudden loss & no help of neighbours / locals / relatives

          previous enmity with the local elite/interest groups           pre existing difficult relations

Lack of access to physical capital Lack of access to human capital (family level) Lack and/or loss of social networking and capital Lack of political capital – articulate and a single voice Arbitrariness in decisions of shamaj and shalish

          land reclamation           redistribution of social wealth

Social insecurity of family / women due to seasonal migration of the male

Reinforcement and re imposition of earlier elite (community solidarity among the ultra poor does not grow even after RbE)

Lack of understanding / operational expediency of the GO / NGO officials

Lack of required diversity in both market and skill Lack of links to the market Lack of stocking of savings / grain storage / livestock /

trees / bamboo Lack of savings (tendency of withholding investment in

productive ventures in the post displacement phase)

Gender empowerment / disempowerment

– Difficulty in finding employment as they were women – Receives low wages even if employed

– Women are forced to work as wage labour and are still discriminated upon (e.g. stone collection from river, stone crushing etc.)

– Women are yet to have significant control over their earning and expenditure

– Difficulty faced in Educating Children – Women have lesser extent of association with any formal

organisation / NGO / GO activities

– Lack of proper latrine facilities– Lack of safe drinking water source as tube wells / wells

and ponds gets washed away in riverbank erosion– Unsafe on the embankments in terms of road safety,

privacy, etc. – At times women are by default thrust into decision making

positions within the household due to migration of husband or abandonment or widowing

– Women are subjected to rampant abuse by male counterparts, especially husbands who beat them dutifully!!!

– Women shows reluctance to get loan from NGOs, these people are also skeptical as to whether NGOs will give them loan in future that would not trap them in spiralinginterest; special package for ultra poor could interest them

– GO training on rights / social issues and trade learning (stitching) is very limited in spatial terms

– Awareness campaign / training on women’s rights is absent– Vulnerability in crises management

Community mobilization – long term awareness and coping ability

– Very low level of organisation in seeking rights– Community mobilisation for shifting has a high visibility

in some areas– Community level interaction needed between settlers and

host community– Role of RDRS Federation is laudable. It is creating

political capital through organisation of people– Social security is often ensured by the community

Institutional responses – GO / NGO role in long term planning and action

– Relief distribution is not the only task of the Govt. GO should reset its priorities and give due attention to RbEvictims

– Piecemeal policy measures are hampering than helping– Inter agency coordination is absent within the GO

functionaries– Service delivery by NGOs is not tied and conditioned to

participation in awareness programmes on different socialissues, so effectiveness of awareness programmes may be at stake

– Clear national policy on settlement is non-existent– Local and smaller NGOs do not get enough attention of

donors to motivate the local level people for the cause of the RbE victims and displaced

Legal aspects

– (Almost) No case at the courts on land reclamation, resolved by shalish, panchi

– Laws on land accretion has to be communicated to the people

– Policy makers lack any useful idea on rights of the displaced

– Rights to khas land and preference given by the GO on the RbE victims should immediately reach the concerned communities at the river basin areas

– Laws on land do not get enforced as they often become anti people, hence the surveyors at the offices of AC Lands do not care to measure emerged chars unless it is of a trouble. So there is a contradiction between realityof poor people and the legal code, especially regarding claims on re-emerged char lands

– Community mobilisation is absent due to ignorance about their rights on land and settlement

SUSTAINABLE LIVING IN THE RIVER BASIN AREA AND LIVELIHOOD – THE WAY FORWARD

Social forestry Crop diversification and awareness programme Community fisheries (common pool resources) Income diversification and linking with settlement Development of communication and commuting for easier

access to resources Providing incentives to field level officers / workers of

GO and NGO River management should be combined with input from social

scientists Land rights have to be established & propagated by the

Govt. / NGOs

References:

1. ADB News bites, Media Center, ADB2. Alam, Khurshida, Asad, Anik and Rahman, Ashekur (2002). Livelihood

Options: Livelihoods options preferred by people in the chars for DFID Chars livelihoodproject, produced for DfID, Dhaka.

3. Ashley, C. & Carney, C. (1999). Sustainable Livelihoods: Lessons from an earlyexperience. Department for International Development, London.

4. Ashley, Steve, Kar, Kamal, Hossain, Abul, Nandi, Shibabrata (2000).The Chars Livelihood Assistance Scoping Study, a composite four-part reportproduced for DfID, Dhaka.

5. Association for Land Reform and Development (ALRD) website:6. Bangladesh 2020, A Long-run Perspective Study, Bangladesh Development

Series, (2003). UPL for The World Bank and Bangladesh Centre forAdvanced Studies (BCAS).

7. Bangladesh Disaster Report, Disaster Forum8. Bangladesh State of the Environment, Center for Sustainable Development

(CFSD)9. Bangladesh Statistical Year Book, Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, 1992.10. Baqee, Abdul, (1998). Peopling in the Land of Allah Jaane, Power, Peopling and

Environment: The Case of Char Lands of Bangladesh. Dhaka, UPL.11. BCAS website: http://www.bcas.net/12. Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disaster (CRED) website:

http://www.cred.be/ 13. Centre for Sustainable Development (CFSD) Publications.14. Chakma, Sinora, March 2003. Fighting with Calamities: Coping Strategies of the

Extreme Poor. Research Report 4, The Livelihoods of the Extreme Poor(LEP) Study. Impact Monitoring and Evaluation Cell (IMEC), PROSHIKA.

15. Chambers, R. and Conway, Gordon R. (December 1991), Sustainable RuralLivelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century, IDS Discussion Paper 296.

16. Charland Study, CEGIS17. Considering Adaptation to Climate Change Towards a Sustainable Development of

Bangladesh, October 1999, Prepared for South Asia Region, The WorldBank, Washington, DC

18. Curney, 1998 in DfID Report on Gender-Responsive Aquaculture Policy, Producedas a paper for workshop on May 2-3, 2000, for Asian Institute ofTechnology, Bangkok, Thailand

19. Currey, Bruce (1979): Mapping Areas Liable to Famine in Bangladesh. PhDDissertation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.

20. Deb, Uttam Kumar, (2002). “Has Bangladesh really Achieved SelfSufficiency in Foodgrain? A Review of the Evidence,” in Bangladesh facingChallenges of Globalisation, A Review of Bangladesh’s Development 2001, Dhaka, Centrefor Policy Dialogue and The University Press Limited (UPL).

21. DFID (1999) Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. Department forInternational Development, London.

22. Disaster Response Plan for Pabna Irrigation and Rural Development Project (PIRDP),produced under the Jamuna Meghna River Erosion Mitigation Project forADB, March 2002. Dhaka, BDPC.

23. Dorward et. al., Asset Functions and Livelihood Strategies: A Framework for Pro-PoorAnalysis, Policy and Practice. Contributed Paper To EAAE Seminar OnLivelihoods And Rural Poverty, September 2001.

24. Dorward, Andrew, “Pro-Poor Livelihoods: Addressing the Market / Private Sector Gap”, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, in http://www.wye.ac.uk/AgEcon/ADU/index

25. Dr. Lenin, Arif Alam, Delegate, Solidarity, (January 2004). Monga andFood scarcity in the Country in Peoples’ view: The Kurigram Context, Paper presented atthe workshop marking 20 years of Action Aid Bangladesh. Dhaka.

26. Elahi, K. Maudood, Ahmed, K. Saleh and Mafizuddin, M., (1991). eds.Riverbank Erosion, Flood and Population Displacement in Bangladesh. Dhaka, RiverbankErosion Impact Study (REIS), Jahangirnagar University.

27. Famine Like situation Prevailing in Panchagarh, from Panchagarh, in BangladeshObserver, 01.10.03.

28. Farid, A. T. M. (Paper no. 2003). Riverbank Erosion and Soil FertilityImprovement by Vetiver Hedgegrow under Bangladesh Condition, Symposium no: 37.

29. Farrington, J., Carney, D., Ashley, C. & Turton, C. (1999) SustainableLivelihoods in Practice: Early applications of concepts in rural areas. Natural ResourcePerspectives, No. 42, June 1999. ODI, DFID, London.

30. Food Security Policy Matrix, collected from the internet.31. Framework for Food Crisis Contingency Planning and Response, (July 2000).

FEWS/Famine Early Warning System. FEWS website.32. Haque, C. Emdad, (December 1997). Hazards in a Fickle Environment: Bangladesh. 33. Haque, Chowdhury E. (1991) “Human Response to Riverbank Erosion

Hazard in Bangladesh: Some Lessons from Indigenous AdjustmentStrategies” in Elahi et. al. eds. Riverbank Erosion, Flood and PopulationDisplacement in Bangladesh. Dhaka, Riverbank Erosion Impact Study (REIS),Jahangirnagar University.

34. Haque, Chowdhury E., (December 1988). “Human Adjustments to Riverbank Erosion Hazard in the Jamuna Floodplain, Bangladesh”, in HumanEcology, An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 16, No. 4.

35. Hossain, M. Ziarat, (1991). “Displacees of Riverbank Erosion in urbanSquatter Settlements in Serajganj: the Process of Impoverishment” inElahi et. al. eds. Riverbank Erosion, Flood and Population Displacement in Bangladesh.Dhaka, Riverbank Erosion Impact Study (REIS), JahangirnagarUniversity.

36. Hossain, Mohammad Shazzad, Living with the Food Insecurity: CopingStrategies of the Livelihoods of the Extreme Poor, Research Report –8, The Livelihoods of the Extreme Poor (LEP) Study. Impact Monitoringand Evaluation Cell (IMEC), PROSHIKA.

37. Hutton, David & Haque, C. Emdad (2004). “Human Vulnerability,Dislocation and Resettlement: Adaptation Processes of River-bankErosion-induced Displacees in Bangladesh”, in Disaster, 28 (1), 41-62.

38. Hutton, David (2000). “Patterns of Psychosocial Coping and AdaptationAmong Riverbank Erosion-Induced Displacees in Bangladesh:Implications for Development Programming” in Journal of Prehospital andDisaster Medicine, Volume 15(3).

39. Islam, A and Rahman M.A. (1987). “Riverbank Erosion in Bangladesh: AnOverview of Field Observation, REIS Newsletter, (3), REIS-JU, Dhaka.

40. IUCN website:http://www.iucn.org/places/asia/old170603/bangladesh.htm

41. Jamuna-Meghna River Erosion Mitigation Project, Interim Report Volume 1, OptionsAssessment, February 2002, produced by Halcrow and Associates forDirector, PMU-CADP, BWDB, Dhaka and ADB

42. Life in the Chars in Bangladesh: Improving nutrition and supportinglivelihoods through homestead food production, in Nutritional SurveillanceProject, Bulletin No.14, Helen Keller International, Bangladesh, July 2003.

43. Mahbub, A. Q. M. and Islam, Nazrul (1991). “Urban Adjustment byErosion Induced Migrants to Dhaka” in Elahi et. al. eds. Riverbank Erosion,Flood and Population Displacement in Bangladesh. Dhaka, Riverbank Erosion ImpactStudy (REIS), Jahangirnagar University.

44. Mamun, Muhammad Z and Amin, A T M Nurul (1999). Densification: A StrategicPlan to Mitigate Riverbank Erosion Disaster in Bangladesh. Dhaka, UPL.

45. Mathematical Morphological Model of Jamuna River, Jamuna Bridge Site, Second ForecastReport, October 1996, Danish Hydraulic Institute in association withSurface Water Modelling Centre (SWMC). Submitted to JMBA, GoB and theWorld Bank.

46. Mazhar, Farhad, et. al, eds. (2002). Food Security in South Asia: EnhancingCommunity Capacity to Generate Knowledge and Influence Policy, Selected Abstractsof Farmer and Community Led Research in South Asia, Led by South AsiaNetwork on Food Ecology and Culture.

47. Monga takes critical Turn in N Districts, Govt. relief meagre, from Thaurgaon, inBangladesh Observer, 07.10.03.

48. People-oriented Area-specific Flood Warning Dissemination Procedure, January 2002.Dhaka, BDPC.

49. Playing Upon the Monga Plight, from Kurigram, in The Daily Star, 08.11.03.50. Promotion of Family and Community Level Flood Preparedness Through Public Awareness

Programme, November 2002. Dhaka, BDPC.51. Publications by Samata, an advocacy and training organisation for

land rights52. RDRS Newsletters53. Regular and Annual Reports by Asian Development Bank (ADB) 54. Regular and Annual Reports by Bangladesh Center for Advanced Studies

(BCAS)

55. Rogge, John R. (1991). “Individual and Institutional Responses toRiverbank Erosion Hazards” in Elahi et. al. eds. Riverbank Erosion, Flood andPopulation Displacement in Bangladesh. Dhaka, Riverbank Erosion Impact Study(REIS), Jahangirnagar University.

56. Roose, Eric, 1996, Land Husbandry: Components and Strategy, 70 FAO SOILSBULLETIN.

57. Shikosti-Poyosti Ain Poribortone Shanglap (Some dialogues on the changes on theBengal Alluvion and Diluvion Act (Shamota), Dhaka. September, 2002.

58. Solesbury, William, June 2003, Sustainable Livelihoods: A Case Study of theEvolution of DFID Policy, Working Paper 217, Overseas Development Institute,UK.

59. Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) website:http://www.sdnbd.org/

60. The Environment and GIS Support Project for Water Sector Planning(EGIS) and UPL, (2000). Riverine Chars in Bangladesh: Environmental Dynamics andManagement Issues, Dhaka, UPL.

61. U.S. Agency for International Development. Fact Sheet. (2002).Background Paper: Famine. Washington.

62. Updates on Riverbank Erosion in Quarterly Newsletter Udbastu, the uprooted,Refugee and Migratory Movements Research Unit (RMMRU)

63. Waiting for the end of Monga Spell, from Rangpur, in The Daily Star, 08.11.03.64. Water Resource Management In Bangladesh: Steps Towards A New National Water Plan

Bangladesh Report No. 17663-BD, Rural Development Sector Unit, SouthAsia Region, The World Bank Dhaka Office

65. Widmann, Hanna Schmuck (2001). Facing the Jamuna River: Indigenous and engineeringknowledge in Bangladesh. Dhaka, Bangladesh Resource Centre for IndigenousKnowledge (BARCIK).

66. Wiest, R.E., J.S.P. Mocellin, D.T. Motsisi. (1994). The Needs ofWomen in Disasters and Emergencies. Prepared for United NationsDevelopment Programme. Disaster Research Institute, University ofManitoba; Gender and Disaster Network – Papers (10):http://www.apu.ac.uk/geography/gdn/resources/papers.html.

67. Wiest, Raymond E. (1994). The family in Bangladesh: coping withnatural disasters. In Natural Disasters in Bangladesh: Views andIssues for the Social Sciences, edited by S.M. Nurul Alam. Dhaka:Academic Press.

68. Yates, Roger, Wahab, S. A. and Saadi, Shashanka (2002). DisasterManagement Options for Chars Livelihood Programme by, produced for DfID,Dhaka.

69. Young, Helen. (25 September, 1998). Food Security Assessment in Emergencies:Theory and Practice of a Livelihoods Approach. A paper prepared for Oxfam andcollected from the internet.

70. Zaman, M.Q. and Wiest, R.E. (1991). “Riverbank erosion and populationresettlement in Bangladesh.” Practicing Anthropology. 13(3): 29-33.