Final Report - Study on livelihood systems assessment, vulnerable groups profiling and livelihood adaptation to climate hazard and long term climate change in drought prone areas of NW Bangladesh
| Final Report - Study on livelihood systems assessment, vulnerable groups profiling and livelihood adaptation to climate hazard and long term climate change in drought prone areas of NW Bangladesh |
 | Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations Department of Agricultural Extension, Bangladesh |  |
Improved Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change for Sustainable Livelihood in the
Agriculture Sector. [BGD/01/004/01/99 DP/9/1]
Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme (CDMP).
March 2006
Report prepared by:
Atiq Kainan Ahmed
and
Ehsan Hafiz Chowdhury
With overall technical guidance from:
Dr. Stephan Baas, SDAR, FAO, Rome Italy.
Submitted by
 | Center for Environmental and Geographic Information Services |
| House 6, Road 23/C, Gulshan-1, Dhaka-1212 Bangladesh. Tel. 8817648-52, Fax: 880-2-8823128 |
Principal contributors and report prepared by:
Atiq Kainan Ahmed (Livelihoods vulnerability specialist)
Ehsan Hafiz Chowdhury (Hydrologist and database expert)
Field research support by:
Sushanto Paul
Kazi Kamrull Hassan
Md. Akbar Ali
Md. Abdur Rashid
Md. Aminur Rahman Shah
For further information please contact:
Atiq Kainan Ahmed (Project Leader)
E-mail: [email protected]
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations
Hyperlinks to non-FAO Internet sites do not imply any official endorsement of or responsibility for the opinions, ideas, data or products presented at these locations, or guarantee the validity of the information provided. The sole purpose of links to non-FAO sites is to indicate further information available on related topics.
This electronic document has been scanned using optical character recognition (OCR) software. FAO declines all responsibility for any discrepancies that may exist between the present document and its original printed version.
1.2 Objectives of the CEGIS study
2.1 Sequential devising of the methodological measures
2.2 “Nature” and “representativeness” of the study
2.3 Review of secondary information
2.4 Reconnaissance field visit
2.5 Development of the detailed workplan
2.6 Identification of the major vulnerable livelihood groups
2.7 Selection of the study villages
2.8 Vulnerable group profiling and institutional analysis
2.8.2 Upazila and district workshops
2.8.3 Key informant interviews
2.9 Arrangements and implementation of the phases
3 Physio-geographic environment and framework conditions
3.2 Data collection and secondary review
3.10 Flooding and Surface water flow
3.11 Groundwater situation and resources
4 Risks and risk perceptions in the study area
4.1 Risk perceptions at community level
4.2 Past risks in the study area
4.3 Present risks in the non-irrigated areas
4.4 Present risks in irrigated areas
5 Vulnerable livelihood group profiles
5.2 Process of selecting livelihood groups for profiling
5.3 The analytical framework for profiling livelihoods
5.4 Evaluation of livelihood assets
5.5 Livelihood profile of “small and marginal farmers”
5.6 Livelihood profile of “wage labourers”
5.7 Livelihood profile of “petty traders/businessmen”
5.8 Livelihood profile of “fishers (fishermen/fish traders/fishing labours)”
5.9 Least vulnerable groups: “large businessmen”
5.10 Least vulnerable groups: “large farmers”
5.11 Climate variations and gender specific vulnerabilities
6 Review of literature on adaptation and coping strategies
6.2 A synoptic review of existing studies on climatic adaptation in Bangladesh
6.2.1 Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change for Bangladesh (Ahmed, AU et al: 1998, Kluwer)
6.2.2 Bangladesh: Climate Change & Sustainable Development (World Bank: 2000)
6.2.3 Reducing Vulnerabilities to Climate Change (RVCC: 2002–2005)
6.2.4 Final Report of National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA): Preparing for Future (MOEF: November 2005)
6.2.5 Bangladesh National Dialogue on Water and Climate: Report in Local Level Consultative Meeting by IUCN (July 2004)
7 Adaptive responses and coping strategies in the study area
7.2 A free listing of local level adaptive responses identified (prioritized)
7.3 Classification of local level adaptive responses
7.4 Description of some local adaptive responses
7.4.2 State supported responses
7.4.5 Socio-economic adaptive responses
7.4.6 Adaptive responses by livelihood groups
7.4.7 Local energy uses and sources: a glimpse into local level ‘mitigation’ scopes
8.2.2 NGOs and private institutions
8.2.3 Social, informal and private institutions
8.2.4 Farmers/water user groups
8.3 Coordination mechanism: institutional linkages vertical and horizontal
8.4 Status of disaster management and institutions at local level
8.5 Suggestions for improvements identified by agencies
8.6 Synergic conclusions of institutional domain
9 Conclusion and Recommendations
9.2 Recommendations and implications
List of Tables
Table 2-1. The methodological measure, issues, tools and sources
Table 2-2. Selected study villages by category
Table 2-3. Details of the field sessions and workshops by dates
Table 2-4. Dates, venue and participation related information of the district workshops
Table 3-1. Data interpreted for describing the geo-physical characteristics of the study area
Table 3-2. Drainage classification of the study area in percentage
Table 3-3. Monthly total rainfall and its distribution in the study upazila
Table 3-4 . Seasonal balance of rainfall excess and deficit (mm)
Table 3-5. Flooding situation in average year condition
Table 3-6. Groundwater development potential by irrigation mode
Table 3-7. Surface water bodies in the study area
Table 3-8. Agricultural land use of the selected study area
Table 5-1. Identified major vulnerable and non-vulnerable livelihood groups in the study area
Table 5-2. Proportion of main sources of income of the all households in the study villages
Table 5-3. Local indicators used for evaluation of the assets by livelihood groups
Table 5-4. Major vulnerability factors of the small and marginal farmers
Table 5-5. Major vulnerability factors of the wage labourers.
Table 5-6. Major vulnerability factors of the petty traders/businessmen
Table 5-7. Major vulnerability factors of the fishers
Table 5-8. Major vulnerability factors of the large businessmen
Table 5-9. Climatic variations and gender specific vulnerabilities
Table 7-1. Various types of adaptive responses identified and prioritized
Table 7-2. Adaptation practices of livelihood groups
Table 7-3. Types, uses and vulnerabilities of energy in the study area
Table 8-1. Upazila level government agencies working in the area
Table 8-2. NGOs working in the area
Table 8-3. Activities of informal institutions
Table 8-4. Generic composition of union disaster management committee
Table 8-5. Information sources, flow and level of dissemination
Table 8-6. Suggestions for improvement by agency representatives
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Pilot study area is shown in the map
Figure 2-1. Sequential progression of four phases of the study
Figure 3-1. Location map of the study area
Figure 3-2. General Topography (DEM)
Figure 3-3. Major physiography of the study area
Figure 3-4. Annual temperature variation in the study upazilas
Figure 3-3 to 3-5. Rainfall trend in the study upazilas
Figure 3-6. Water Deficits in the study area (Annual mean rainfall and ET condition)
Figure 3-7. Minimum river flow of Mohananda and Punarbhava river
Figure 3-8. Groundwater depth from surface of the study area
Figure 3-9. Groundwater development in the selected upazilas
Figure 3-10. Groundwater depletion and irrigation development trend in the selected upazila
Figure 3-11. Present agricultural land use of the selected study area
Figure 3-12. Growth of area and production of major rice crops
Figure 3-13. Output of drought mapping exercise through DRAS
Figure 4-1. Risk composition and climatic risks in non-irrigated areas
Figure 4-2. Non-climatic risks in non-irrigated areas
Figure 4-3. Risk composition and climatic risks in irrigated areas
Figure 4-4. Non-climatic risks in irrigated areas
Figure 5-1. Percentage of total number of hhs in relation to land-holdings in the study villages
Figure 5-2. Average proportion of total household in each livelihood groups calculated from censuses
Figure 5-3. Simplified operational version of SLF (modified from Ashley and Carney: 1999)
Figure 5-4. Asset composition of small and marginal farmers in non-irrigated and irrigated areas
Figure 5-6. Income earnings from livelihood activities of small-marginal farmer in irrigated area.
Figure 5-7. Asset composition of rural wage labourers in non-irrigated and irrigated areas
Figure 5-8. Income earnings from livelihood activities of wage labour in non-irrigated area
Figure 5-9. Income earnings from livelihood activities of wage labour in irrigated area
Figure 5-10. Asset composition of petty traders/businessmen in non-irrigated and irrigated areas
Figure 5-13. Asset composition of fishers in non-irrigated and irrigated areas.
Figure 5-14. Income earnings from livelihood activities of large businessmen in non-irrigated area
Figure 5-15. Income earnings from livelihood activities of large businessmen in irrigated area
Figure 5-16. Asset composition of petty traders/businessmen in non-irrigated and irrigated area
Figure 7-1. Traditional pond storage for irrigation and household use
Figure 7-2. khari for irrigation water storage near the cultivable lands
Figure 7-3. Tillage on the topsoil in the fields after and before crop cultivation
Figure 7-4. ail lifting for storing water in the field
Figure 7-5. State assisted responses
Figure 7-6. Adoption of mango farming as alternative
Figure 7-7. Homestead vegetation for household food security
Figure 7-9. Different types of pot sources and storage used for drinking water
Figure 7-10. Community involvement (different groups) in collecting potable water
Figure 7-11. Various uses of energy recorded in the study area
Figure 7-12. Various sources of energy in the study area
Figure 8-1. Some of the govt. agency activities were found demonstrated in billboards
Figure 8-2. Billboards of some NGOs, informal, private institutions in the study area
Figure 8-4. A metaphor of lack of coordination among national NGOs at local level is shown
Figure 9-1. Combination of few possible adaptive options
Annex A. Various parameters on physio-geographic context.
Annex B. PRA matrices (for upazila and community level sessions.)
Annex C. Key informant interview/RRA Checklist for community (Non-institutional)
Annex D. Key informant interview/RRA Checklist for community (Institutional)
Annex E. Reflections of participation in various rounds of study activities
Annex F. SWORT Analysis of Irrigated areas.
Annex G. SWORT Analysis of non-irrigated areas