G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation

7/28/2019 G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation

1/59

OUTPUTS, PROGRESS TO DATE AND

PLANS TO CLOSURE

G3: Water Governance and Community Based Management

Ganges Basin Development Challenge


2/59

PRESENTATION

1. Reminder on our objectives

2. G3 research activities Overall puzzle: description of the activities, outcomes

Experimental games

Preliminary results from household survey

3. Upcoming research questions


3/59

G3: Objectives

Main objective:

Understand the

different institutionsand key actorsinvolved in watergovernance in thecoastal polders

Understand the role of

communities in suchgovernance, conflictresolution andproductive use of landand water

Better governed polders

Suggestimplementable policysuggestions forimproving polder

governance inBangladesh


4/59

Understanding the actors,

communities and institutions

G3: Objectives


5/59

G3: Research Questions

Is community management the best way of

managing coastal polders? If so, under what

circumstances does it work?

If community management is indeed the wayforward, what are the constraints that communities

face in polder management?

What kind of policies and institution are needed sothat communities can participate in management of

polders?


6/59

G3: Study sites


7/59

gActivities

Data & Cases Participatory mapping

Situation analysis

In-depth case studies

Experimental Games

Household survey

WMO survey

Participatory Research

Research ValidationCollaboration with local universities

Focusing on PRA methods and inviting

different opinions from different

stakeholders Validation workshops

Policy Analysis &

Communications Research papers

Policy briefs

Workshops

Shushilan

(NGO), IWM,

BAU, BWDB ,

LGED,

consultants

Coastal

communities,

local

government

institutions

Regional and

national

policy makers

Partners

Outcomes

Polders

managed in a

way thathelps improve

food security

and

livelihoods

IMPACTContribute for building up longer term

resilience among the communities who

live in coastal areas in Bangladesh

Policyimpact

Informed

scientificresearch

Capacitybuilding

G3: Research framework and impact pathway


8/59

G3 RESEARCH ACTIVITIES


9/59

ACTIVITIES AND OUTPUTS

Desk reviews

Outputs 3 Literature reviews Water management

institutions and policies

Gender in water management

WMOs

Partners IWM, IWMI

Status Completed


10/59


Desk reviews

Outputs 51 FGDs

87 KIIs9 Situation analysis reports

Partners Sushilan, IWMI

Status Completed

Qualitative

survey


11/59


Desk reviewsOutputs 9 infrastructure maps

Partners IWM

Status Completed

Qualitative

survey

Infrastructures

mapping


12/59


Desk reviews

Outputs 9 flooding maps21 cropping patterns

9 canals maps

Partners IWM

Status Completed

Qualitative

survey

Infrastructures

mapping

Participatory

maps


13/59


Desk reviews

Qualitative

survey

Infrastructures

mapping

Participatory

maps

Official

consultations

Output Consultation meetings

Partners IWMI

Status Completed, but more canbe done


14/59


Desk reviews

Qualitative

survey

Infrastructures

mapping

Participatory

maps

Official

consultationsOutput 3 validation workshops

Partners IWMI, Shushilan

Status Completed, but morewill be done Community

consultations


15/59


Desk reviews

Qualitative

survey

Infrastructures

mapping

Participatory

maps

Official

consultations

Outputs Research papers

Partners IWMI

Status CompletedCommunity

consultations

Experimental games


16/59


Desk reviews

Qualitative

survey

Infrastructures

mapping

Participatory

maps

Official

consultations

Output Research report

Partners BELA

Status CompletedCommunity

consultations

Experimental games

Conflict case study


17/59


Desk reviews

Qualitative

survey

Infrastructures

mapping

Participatory

maps

Official

consultations

Community

consultations

Experimental games

Conflict case study

Outputs KIIs

Research reportPartners Dr Maniruzzaman

Status On going

Gender

case study


18/59


Desk reviews

Qualitative

survey

Infrastructures

mapping

Participatory

maps

Official

consultations

Community

consultations

Experimental games

Conflict case study

Gender

case study

Outputs KII, FGD

Evolution of coastal zonepolicies in West Bengal

Situation analysis report

Partners The Researcher

Status On going

West Bengal case study


19/59


Students thesis

Qualitative

survey

Participatory

maps

Official

consultations

Community

consultations

Experimental games

Conflict case study

Gender

case studyInfrastructures

mapping

Output 5 student thesis

Partners BAU

Status Completed

Desk reviews



20/59


Desk reviews

Qualitative

survey

Infrastructures

mapping

Participatory

maps

Official

consultations

Community

consultations

Experimental games

Conflict case study

Gender

case study

Students thesis

Household

WMO survey

Outputs Database 1000 households

Database 40 WMOsDescriptive report

Research papers

Partners IWMI, Shushilan

Status On going



21/59


Infrastructures

mapping

Participatory

maps

Official

consultations

Community

consultations

Experimental games

Conflict case study

Gender

case study


Students thesis

Desk reviews

Qualitative

survey

Household

WMO survey


22/59

HOUSEHOLD SURVEYPreliminary descriptive results

Household

WMO survey


23/59

INTRODUCTION

G3: Water governance and community based management

Deepening

Phase 1Qualitative phase

Focus group discussion, key informant interviews

Participatory mapping

Cases studies: institution, gender

Situation analysis, to identify institutions livelihoods, social processes, operation andmaintenance in the polders and subproject.

Measuring

Phase 2Quantitative phase

Use findings from qualitative phase for quantitative research that models different livelihoodimpacts based on different governance modes and structures.


24/59

PURPOSES OF THE QUANTITATIVE SURVEY

Bring quantitative answers to our research

questions

Draw a comprehensive overview of the householdvulnerability

Focus on operation and maintenance in water

management at the household and communitylevel


25/59

DETAILED SAMPLE

Number of

households

Number of villages Number of sampled

households

Number of sampled

villages

Latabunia 104 1 40 1

Jabusa 2,267 2 80 2

Jainkati 71 1 36 1

Polder 30 8462 44 280 14

Polder 3 35356 117 280 14

Poler 43-2F 6457 12 284 12

TOTAL 52,542 177 1000 44

Section 1 Identification

Section 2 Institutional features

Section 3 Financial features, income

Section 4 Financial features, expensesSection 5 operation and maintenance

HH questionnaire WMO questionnaire

Section 1 Identification

Section 2 Demography

Section 3 Housing and assetsSection 4 Lands

Section 5 Agriculture

Section 6 Aquaculture

Section 7 IGA

Section 8 Saving and creditSection 9 Social capital

Section 10 WMO


26/59

PROJECT SITES AND DESCRIPTION

Polder

Subprojects Agency Level of Salinity WMOs (Yes/No) andproject ManagementchallengesPolder 3 BWDB High No informal

management Shrimp- paddyconflictPolder 30 BWDB Low to Average YesIPSWAM Water loggingPolder 43-2F BWDB Low YesIPSWAM Water scarcityLatabunia LGED High Yes- SSWRDP Disaster

vulnerabilityJabusha LGED Average to High YesSSWRDP SalinityJainkathi LGED Low YesSSWRDP Water scarcity


27/59

FINDINGS


28/59

3 different indices has been created using Principal Component Analysis to capture the wealth level of each HH

Housing Index - - - using material of roof, floor, toilet, tube-well

Domestic Asset Index - - - using information about 20 household items like radio, sewing machine, table etc.

Productive Asset Index - - - using information about 22 productive assets like tube-well, pump, livestock etc.

Next for each index the 33rd & 66th percentile is identified based on the whole sample.

Used to create a discrete index with 3 levels

POVERTY LEVEL

Assets index


29/59

0%

50%

100%

TOTAL Jabusha Jainkati Latabunia Polder 3 Polder 30 Polder 43-2F

Housing Index

Group 3

Group 2

Group 1

0%

50%

100%


Domestic Assets Index

Group 3

Group 2

Group 1

0%

50%

100%


Agricultural and Productive Assets Index

Group 3

Group 2

Group 1

Polders 30 & LT fare

very badly ; while JB

AND 43 do quite well at

housing index.

Clear ranking :

JB>3>JK>30>LT>4

3

Surprisingly JK & LT

are best ; 30 & 43 are

also just slightlybehind, while 3 & JB

lags behind

POVERTY LEVEL

Assets indexCont

Group 1 = Very Good

Group 2 = Not so good not so bad

Group 3 = Bad


30/59

LAND

80.34 87.34 86.11 62.5 80.58 75.36 84.86

15.7510.13 5.56

25

15.11 2013.73

3.91 2.53 8.33 12.54.32 4.64 1.41


Land holding distribution

Small farmer (< 2.49) Medium farmer (2.5 - 7.49) Large farmer (> 7.5)

Area measured in acres

Average number of plots per HH varies from 3 - 4.5

The most important cropping season is Kharif-2

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Total Jabusha Jainkati Latabunia Polder 3 Polder 30 Polder 43-2F

%o

fplotscultivated

Intensivity of plot use

3 seasons

2 seasons

1 season

Latabuniahas a lowerproportion of small

farmers although it is one

of the poor polders


31/59

AGRICULTURE & AQUACULTURE

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

TOTAL JB JK LT 3 30 43

Importance of Agriculture and Aquaculture

No agriculture, no aquaculture Agriculture

Aquaculture Agriculture and aquaculture

Latabunia is totally dependent

on agriculture + aquaculture,

while Jabusa has least

dependence

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

3 30 43 JB JK LT Total

Water problems while practicing

agriculture

yes

no

Except for JB, in all the polders approximately20% of the people face water problems

Aquaculture is important for polders 3 &

30, while 43 & LT has some

No aquaculture activities in JK & JB

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

3 30 43 LT

Aquaculture activities across polders

Bagda Golda mixed fish other fish/crab

3JB


32/59

44%

9%

1%

28%

6%

5%1%

5%

1%

3

46%

6%

4%6%

3%

1%

34%

30

35%

20%

3%

9%

16%

4%7%

3%

1%1% 1%43

43%

6%

4%

27%

10%

4%

6%

JK

95%

5%

LT43%

10%

2%

11%

7%

2%

5%

4%

2%

1% 2% 11%

Cropping pattern across polders

Aman

Aus

Betel

Boro

Chickling etc.

Chilli

Lentil/Masur

Oilseeds

Other Veg

Other crops

Potato

Sesame

60%

5%

26%

3%

3%3%

JB

Aman rice is the most important

crop, across all polders.

Polder 43 & JK are most diversified

in terms of crop production ,

whereas Latabunia is at the other

extreme with just two crops.


33/59

INCOME GENERATING ACTIVITIES -

across Gender

Signif icant difference in yearly income earned from other activit ies between male

(BDT 75530) and fem ale(BDT 32543).

Female part icipation is less in High Income Generating A ctivit ies like Trade &

Services.

Female part ic ipation in terms o f num bers is highest in Poul t ry, Sewing, Agr icul tura l

Labour er, Cash for Work, NGO and Petty comm erce, whic h are the Low in com e

generating activit ies

Acro ss Polders, daily labour seems to be the main sou rce of IGA. However, in JB

sinc e it is close to indus tr ial area trade and service are main so urces .

Activ it ies don e per HH=1.333

42% Males & 7.6% Females are involv ed in IGA


34/59

% of HHs that participate in different Social Groups

No. of Groups 3 30 43 JB JK LT Total

0 64 59 65 63 33 33 61

>0 36 41 35 37 67 67 39

SOCIAL GROUP :

Participation


323 25 24

5842

2210

7 6 0

0

3

613

6 20

0 22

7

5748

6168

42 22

53

17 176 9

011 12

Group membership across Polder

Water Related Political Party Youth/Sport NGO Others

Part icipation in so cial group amon g females (8.81%) is sign if icantly less than that

among males (12.21%)

In social groups inf lu encial pos it ions like president , secretary , etc are mo stly held by

male members

NGOs dominates female participation in social groups

Water intrusion in


35/59

24%

2%

35%

28%

9%

2%

Who should act to solve the problem?

Community people WMO UP BWDB LGED Other

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Extent to which problem was solved across polder

High

Medium

Low

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Reasons for BWDB/LGED intervention across polders

Other

Natural disaster

River erosion

Water-logging

Salinity

Crop damage

Water intrusion in

high tide

Most Important Problem in

village3 30 43 JB JK LT Total

Water Logging 11.79 23.57 16.9 17.5 0 15 16.7

Water Scarcity 47.86 24.29 47.54 31.25 22.22 25 38

Lack of irrigation 1.43 10 7.39 2.5 11.11 0 5.9

Salinity 9.29 3.93 2.82 16.25 5.56 27.5 7.1

Canal Siltation 3.57 12.86 7.39 7.5 11.11 0 7.7

Sluice gate condition 2.5 10.36 7.39 2.5 36.11 7.5 7.5

WMO :

Water related problems

high tide is the

most common

reason. Salinity is

also important,

specially for 30

and JB.

The most important problem is water scarcity across poldersfollowed by water logging


36/59

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0


Percentage of HHs doing voluntary gate work

Yes

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0


Percentage of People participating

Physical participation of

gate operations

Decision making in the

gate operation

GATES

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Who operates Gate?Others

Several people depending on the needs

Voluntary gateman living nearby

Gateman appointed by gher owners

Gateman appointed by committee

Khalasi


37/59

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

3 30 43 JB JK LT

Average monetary payment for canal and embankment

maintenance

Spend for maintainence of the Canal

Spend for maintainence of the embankment

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

3 30 43 JB JK LT

Av. No. of days of voluntary work for canal and

embankment

No of days worked voluntary last yr to maintian the canal

No of days worked voluntary last yr to maintian the embankment

Monetary payment for embankment and voluntary

work for canal?

CANALS AND EMBANKMENT

0%

50%

100%


Canal Condition

Very Good

Neither Good nor Bad

Very Bad

0%

50%

100%


Condition of Gate

Very Good


Very Bad

0%

50%

100%


Embankment Condition

Very Good


Very Bad


38/59

Next steps .

Use Regression analysis to find out what affects the decision to participate inoperation/maintenance and the willingness to pay ,at the HH level.

Create and use village Level characteristics like Social capital , Income inequalityand Land distribution, geographic characteristics etc. to understand the dynamicsof Water governing Institutions that develop there.

Understand how water related issues affect livelihood choices and create economicvulnerabilities , by using the collected data on water related problems faced by the

HHs and the data on their economic activities .

Use hydrological data like salinity, level of land, etc to find out how livelihoodchoices, cropping pattern, etc are affected

CONCLUSION


39/59

EXPERIMENTAL GAMES

Experimental games


40/59

INTRODUCTION Embankments constructed by the Government of Bangladesh (GoB) across the entire

coastal zone in the 1960s and 1970s.

1st objective: Protection for tidal surge, flood, natural calamity

2nd objective: Increasing agricultural productivity

Operation and maintenance of the infrastructures is the key challenge to ensure the

sustainability of the system.

GoB that requires local communities to organize themselves into Water Management

Organizations (WMOs) and contribute towards minor maintenance of water

infrastructure.

National Water Policy of 1999 (MoWR, 1999)

Guidelines for Participatory Water Management, (MoWR, 2001).

RESEARCH PURPOSE

To understand the factors

that help or impede

collection of voluntary

maintenance funds from

members of WMOs.

POLICY PURPOSE

Improve water governance

and the maintenance of the

infrastructure for enhancing

the productive uses of land

and water resources.

MOTIVATION AND BACKGROUND


41/59

MOTIVATION AND BACKGROUNDWater policy in Bangladesh

Before 60s

60s 80s

Protection by temporary and seasonal earthen

Maintenance by the landlords (zamindars)Voluntary labour from their tenants.

Coastal Embankment Project (CEP)

No mention of participatory water management.

BWDB khalashis responsible for managing and maintaining coastal embankments.

80s

Involvement of communities in design and implementation of projects introduced.

Financial contribution towards maintenance not required.

Late 1980s, entry of LGED in the water sector

Community contribution towards maintenance tested for the first time.

Realization that regular upkeep of infrastructure is the Achilles heel of entireinfrastructure investments.

GoB enunciated community participation as its core principle of water

management through its NWP (MoWR, 1999) and GPWM (MoWR, 2001).

Requirement of financial contribution by the community for maintenance

90s



42/59

MOTIVATION AND BACKGROUNDMaintenance situation

Perception of the infrastructures condition 20% of the households consider the gates as being in good condition

15% of the households consider the canals as being in good condition

Contributions

Both for LGED and BWDB data shows that maintenance funds always fall

to answer to the requirements.

91% of the household did not contribute to maintain the gates in 2012

95 % of the household did not contribute to maintain the canals in 2012

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Very bad canal condition

Very bad gate condition



43/59

MOTIVATION AND BACKGROUNDInstitutional differences

Theoretical and empirical research shows the importance of institutions in forging

cooperative outcomes (Bardhan, 2005; Agarwal, 2001; North, 1990). Importance of institution in sustainable management of common property resources

(Wade, 1988; Ostrom, 1990; Baland & Platteau, 1996)

Entered the water sector in 1980s, culture of

community participation was already well

entrenched.

Small Scale Water Resources Sector

Development Project (SSWRDSP), phase I in

1994, now phases III and IV, funding support

until 2017.

WMCAs registered with the cooperative

department.

Communities contribute 4% of the capital cost

of physical infrastructure.

Maintenance funds , yearly audit statements

NGOs and extension agencies for

implementing community participation

Declining field presence.

WMGs or WMAs registered as rural

cooperatives since 2008.

No contribution of the WMO required at initial

stage.

Encouragement of the WMO for starting

maintenance fund and collecting subscriptions

BWDBLGED

METHODOLOGY


44/59

METHODOLOGYPublic good game

Purpose of the game

Designing a fictive situation to reproduce real life

Understanding the determinants of contribution to maintain a public good.

Understanding the willingness to contribute to common maintenance funds.

Understanding the behaviours: from cooperation to free-riding

Sample

Game played 18 times:- Polder 3, polder 30, polder 31

- Latabunia, Jabusha, Bagachra-Badurgachra 5 players per game 90 players

30 rounds per game 2700 decisions

METHODOLOGY


45/59

Each player has to decide the allocation of a cash

amount (20, 35/10) among a common fund andprivate fund.

The incentive for contributing in the commonfund is that if the fund reaches a certainthreshold (50 or 95), a payment is added (25 or75).

The common pool is then distributed betweenthe players.

The rules vary from one session to another toreflect real life conditions.

METHODOLOGYProcedure of the game

TREATMENTS C T1 T2 T3 T4 T5

Information No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Initial cash = = =

Gains distribution = = = =

Threshold 50 50 50 50 50 95

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS


46/59

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICSAverage contribution per round

Control Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 Treatment 48

10

1

2

14

0 5 10 15 20 25

Rounds



47/59

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICSInformation effect

Control

No information

Treatment 1

Information

T-test of

differences

(p-value)

Individual variables

Individual contributions 11.448 9.442 (0.000)

Individual gains 26.117 22.702 (0.000)

Group variable

Proportion of rounds with success 0.744 0.533 (0.003)

Contribution standard deviation, within group 5.009 4.174 (0.020)

Control Round 5

No information

Treatment 1

Round 6

Information


Individual contributions 12.277 10.233

Individual gains 27.666 22.488



48/59

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICSUnequal gain distribution effect

Treatment 1

Equal gains distribution

Treatment 2

Proportional gains

distribution

T-test of

differences

(p-value)




Group variable

Proportion of rounds with success 0. 533 0.777 (0.000)

Contribution standard deviation,

within group

4.174 4.005 (0.640)Equal

Endow

ment



49/59

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICSInequalities in endowments effect

Equal

Endow

ment

Treatment 1

Equal

endowments

Treatment 3

Unequal

endowments

T-test of

differences

(p-value)




Group variable

Proportion of rounds with success 0.533 0.611 (0.294)

Amount collected in the collective fund 47.211 51.044 (0.274)

Contribution standard deviation, within group 4.174 8.394 (0.000)

REGRESSION ANALYSIS


50/59

REGRESSION ANALYSISModel

Equal

Endow

ment

xijt = 1Rt + 2Ii + 3Gj + ijt

Individual contribution

Individual earning

Round characteristics

Game-rules variables

Past events from the game(success, contributions, earning)

Group characteristics

Number of relatives and

friends

Heterogeneity of the group(sex, religion, wealth)

Institutional context

Individual characteristics Age, sex, religion

Level of education

Main source of income, land size

Participation and contribution

REGRESSION ANALYSIS


51/59

REGRESSION ANALYSISGame variables - Results

Equal

Endow

ment

VARIABLES

(1)

OLS

(3)

OLS

Individual contribution Individual earning

Initial endowment 0.566*** 0.963***

(0.0348) (0.0270)

Information -1.851*** -3.754***

(0.449) (0.871)

Inequalities in endowments -2.497*** -3.400**

(0.753) (1.425)

Unequal sharing of the pot 1.204** 1.270

(0.508) (0.901)

Previous round unsuccessful 0.249*** 0.423***(0.0747) (0.144)

Round, learning effect -6.277*** -7.717***

(0.559) (0.668)

Observations 2,250 2,250

R-squared 0.523 0.473

Information has a negative and significant effect on the

individual contribution as well as on the earning

Endowment heterogeneity in the game design has a significantnegative influence on the individual earning and contribution.

Proportional distribution of the common fund has a

significant and positive effect on the contributions.

REGRESSION ANALYSIS


52/59

REGRESSION ANALYSISIndividual variables - Results

Equal

Endow

ment

VARIABLES

(1)

OLS

(3)

OLS


Main income from agriculture 2.364** -2.223**

(0.955) (0.895)

Main income from aquaculture 2.753*** -1.500*

(0.917) (0.846)

Sex, men -0.516 0.244

(0.988) (0.750)

Religion, Muslim 3.768*** -1.711**

(0.898) (0.833)

Age 0.0539* 0.0312

(0.0321) (0.0336)

Education level 0.319*** -0.0843(0.101) (0.0812)

WMCA, WMO member 0.683 -1.541**

(0.678) (0.662)

Contribution in maintenance fund -0.497 -1.400

(0.881) (0.976)

Land size -0.00208** 0.00162

(0.000942) (0.00131)


R-squared 0.523 0.473

Players are drawing most of their income from agriculture oraquaculture they are contributing more to the common fund.

Age as well as the highest level of education achieved determine

positively and significantly the individual contribution.

REGRESSION ANALYSIS


53/59

REGRESSION ANALYSISGroup variables - Results

Equal

Endow

ment

VARIABLES

(1)

OLS

(3)

OLS


LGED sub-project 2.376*** 2.637***

(0.876) (0.831)

Number of relative in the group -1.073** 0.641

(0.418) (0.475)

Number of close friend in the group -0.312 0.718

(0.405) (0.450)

Same religion within the group 0.767 -0.304

(0.902) (0.841)

Standard deviation of land size 0.00177 0.00189

(0.00141) (0.00132)Group of men 0.765 1.452*

(0.781) (0.731)

Constant -7.898*** 7.467***

(2.250) (2.264)


R-squared 0.523 0.473

Group composition in terms of gender, religion or wealth doesnt

have any significant effect on the individual contribution.

The more a player is surrounded by relatives in his group, the less

he contributes.

Players from LGED villages are contributing higher amounts in the

common fund than other players whatever are the individual,

group and game characteristics.

MAIN RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


54/59

MAIN RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Equal

Endow

ment

1. Principal users and beneficiaries of the infrastructures should

be targeted first for contributing.

2. Homogeneous groups would contribute more and maintain

their infrastructure better. But: How to create homogeneous groups in heterogeneous villages?

Solution: Membership conditions

Ex: In some WMOs, only landowners can be members.

3. Contributions are higher when there are related benefits. But: In reality, benefits are not related to the contributions.

Solution: Introducing benefits for members, even if not related to water

Ex: In some WMOs, access to micro-credit for members, fishing rights

4. Strong institutions support individual contributions for

maintenance. Institutions created by the community itself

Involvement at the early stage of the project, create an ownership, a

willingness to cooperate in the future.


55/59

REMAINING RESEARCH QUESTIONS

G3: Water Governance and Community Based ManagementGanges Basin Development Challenge


56/59

How to do expenses?We can improve the collection of funds for maintenance at the

community level.But: How to ensure that the funds will be used for maintenance?

The problem:

In some WMCAs with ability to collect funds and to generate

incomes, the infrastructures are not really in better condition

because the funds are not allocated to maintenance.

Reasons:

Preference for the present Corruption

Project cycle: minor reparation will become major and will

be solved


57/59

What is behind institutions? We notice that institutions matters:

Villages from LGED subprojects contribute more formaintenance.

What are these institutions? Where does it come from?

Social trust among the community members?

Commonality of interest?

Long term interactions?

Community involvement?

Leaders, influential people?

How to create better institutions for a better water

governance?

How socio economic factors and


58/59

How socio-economic factors and

hydro-ecological factors interact?

How the hydro-ecological situation within the coastal zonedetermines the livelihoods and the adaptation strategies of the

households?

Is the geography of the coastal zone a constraint or an

opportunity for the farmers?

How households implement adaptation strategies and which are

the constraints they face?

DATA

GIS data from G1, G4

Socio-economic data from G3


59/59

Thank you

Documents

G3 Presentation_Reflection Workshop_April 10-11_2013Gbdc 5 Presentation