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, RMMRU
www.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 pattern of perspectives and vital
dimensions in the discourse on riverbank erosion. In the process, it deals with different studies,
publications, reports etc and analyses their contents. The second part discusses different
approaches towards livelihoods and tries to locate it as the central point of discussion in the present
study. In that, it attempts to find a conceptual framework for the present study. The third part
presents several checklists from the mass of findings from this study under different heads formulating
key themes in the study, which will be discussed in further details throughout 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 has given rise to the pessimistic view of some writers
who see erosion as a leprosy gnawing away the earth until only a whitened skeleton is
left. The chalky mountains around the Mediterranean well illustrate this stripping away of
the flesh of mountains as the trees are cut down and the sparse vegetation burned (e.g.
Greece). In reality, this is a natural process, which indeed wears down all mountains
(also referred to by the English school as the denudation rate, which is the lowering rate
of the soil level); however, at the same time erosion enriches valleys and forms the rich
plains that feed a large part of humanity. It is therefore not necessarily desirable to stop
all erosion, but rather 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 meant preparations for facing flood,
drought, cyclone, tidal surge, tornado, pests, storms and now a new calamity earthquake. There is
little sign showing concern or consensus at the national level, recognising riverbank erosion as an
immediate and long-term threat to human life.

Research, surveys and actions in Bangladesh concentrated on flood preparedness, flood proofing,
post flood rehabilitation, at times resettlement, river erosion mitigation etc. Flood Action Plan has
played a major role in shaping the focus and manner of focus that the problem of riverbank erosion
had as part of the flood problematic. A plethora of literature, in the form of books, pamphlets,
brochures, flip charts, educational mapping, pictorials, posters, banners has been printed and
published as part of awareness programmes run by the government, its agencies and the NGOs.
These activities are well appreciated by the international donor community as well.

Even within the intellectual community, still now, there is a tendency to conflate the issues of
riverbank erosion with those of flash flood / flooding. Whereas, the two issues are very much different
and differences in impacts are often significant for policy makers, especially in countries like
Bangladesh. The print media, especially the newspapers fail to report sensitively while damaging the
cause of riverbank erosion related displacement, impact and recovery. The general understanding of
the mass and policy makers as well, is that the problem of riverbank erosion is a natural and eternal
one and hence can not be mitigated or differently put, the people affected by riverbank erosion cannot
be assisted as these people are supposed to have the natural instincts and ability to cope and adjust
with 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 and displacement is no longer
an isolated event or a natural phenomenon only and cannot be left alone if there has to be universal
education, health care, shelter, ensuring other basic human rights and capping growing poverty.
These are interlinked issues and riverbank erosion often dislocates people from their entitlements in a
major way by blocking the access to vital services / facilities / amenities and then by taking away the
ability to utilise resources due to trauma / stress / spatial and cultural dislocation. Landlessness and
pauperisation has increased to an alarming proportion. There is good reason to believe that this
increasing number of people is directly or indirectly victims of riverbank erosion. Almost a decade ago,
a government report by the then Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, GoB, estimated over
728,000 people as being displaced due to riverbank erosion during 1981-1993 and said annually,
60,000 people are made landless by riverbank erosion. The ISPAN study published in 1995 states
almost a similar number of displaced and landless people within the same period. ADB has put the
number of riverbank erosion threatened and affected people in Bangladesh at 2 million, directly
displacing 1,00,000 people directly per year and generation of a projected assetless poor of 28,000
over the next 10 years (27 November 2002, Manila). According to World Disaster Report 2001
published by IFRC every year about 100,000 people are affected by river erosion and 9, 000 hectares
if cultivable lands vanish. Bruce Currey (1979), a researcher working for several years on riverbank
erosion, identified 66 out of 462 upazillas of the country as affected and/or liable to bank erosion.
Islam and Rahman (1987) found that roughly one million people are directly affected each year by
riverbank erosion in the country. The total monetary loss is estimated to be approximately $500 million
a year. An estimated 300,000 displaced households 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 of riverbank 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. National Community
Resources and Economic Development (CRED) Disaster Database finds cyclones, floods, riverbank
erosion, tornados, droughts and earthquakes as major natural disasters that effect Bangladesh. It lists
93 disasters over the period 1986 to 1995. Of these, 40 were cyclones and 31 floods. The cyclone
disasters in 1970 (300,000 dead) and 1991 (138,000 dead) are among the 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 only a paucity of research but a lack of a mind-set to
recognise the issue as having consequences of national level and importance. Interestingly, the social
scientists, practitioners and media people concerned are yet to understand the differences between
the two. These are all due to a lack of general appreciation of the problematic. For that purpose an
advocacy and activism is severely lacking in raise the awareness of the public in general, of the
government functionaries, NGOs and local level political representatives.

Riverbank erosion, as a subject of study and action has not been recognised too many years ago.
The disaster literature in Bangladesh and South Asia often dealt with riverbank erosion as part of the
composite problematic of flooding. Focusing riverbank erosion and its associated impact as a
separate set of problem, new avenues have been created over the last decade and 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 Bangladesh focusing on the impact in
terms of socio-economic and cultural dislocations of the affected and displaced people living in the
river basin areas. Many studies have been commissioned and published in the form of reports or
books, essentially dealing with issues like flooding, flood warning mechanism, flood preparation at
individual and community level, water and land management, river erosion mitigation, (strategic)
resettlement of affected population etc.

During the mid 1990s, a ground-breaking four year research and information dissemination seminar
under the Riverbank Erosion Impact Study (REIS) Program between University of Manitoba (UM),
Canada and the Jahangirnagar University (JU) made the difference. The outcome a book published in
Bangladesh and several articles in journals abroad concentrated on important aspects of riverbank
erosion and its impact. The effort primarily was about bringing physical and social scientists together
in respect to research and providing policy directives. In so doing, the research and subsequent
publications created the most convincing, deliberate and details treatment of the problematic, a vivid
reference book on the issue.

Subsequent research has focused on different issues like settlement patterns and associated
lifestyles of the people, problems and strategies in resettlement of the displaced, the genre of reaction
and indigenous measures of adjustments and coping in the face of displacement and continuous
riverbank erosion, refuse in fatalism and power relationship in the remote char areas, mobility around
the affected area and towards cities, i.e. rural to urban migration of especially working age people.
Few articles in relevant foreign journals have even concentrated on the aspects of land degradation
and mapping of psycho-social stress due to riverbank erosion.

The research so far conducted and published in Bangladesh on riverbank erosion can be divided into
the following categories in so far as their focus and content is concerned. The books / publications /
reports will be dealt with separately since the volume of noteworthy research or search is low.

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

riverbank erosion
2. Studies focusing on the functional issues of socio-economic rehabilitation and
resettlement in the post displacement situation of riverbank erosion
3. Studies focusing on the psycho-social mapping for preparedness and rebuilding of
lives
4. Studies with a comprehensive approach covering almost all the aspects
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 structural aspects of land
management and distribution in char societies. The study finds char people as yielding to the
power elite too often than not. Due to endemic pauperisation, increasing decline of ability,
affordability and access to services and amenities people become dependent on fate more and
more. Deprivation from elite comes in the package with natural calamity 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 between natural process and power structure of the society. He
relates the entire peopling process with phases of surfacing of the char lands (formation stage, 0-3
years; pioneer stage, 4-7 years; proliferation stage, 8-12 years; maturity and stabilisation stage, 13+
years) and with phases of vegetation on the same. It is the pattern of land tenancy, existing and
changing influence network and relative gains from exploitation of the most deprived and general
understanding among the parties involved that shape peopling in the char-lands. The study areas
included eight chars situated in the river Padma from Padma-Jamuna confluence to the Padma-
Meghna confluence and under the Districts of Dhaka, Faridpur and Manikganj. This alluvial area
revealed that the process of peopling chars gives rise to violent fights. The process of peopling of char
lands is almost similar in all regions of Bangladesh, though occurrence of violence is dependent on
the fertility and vitality of the soil of the particular char.

Char occupancy and legal entitlement to land does not corroborate with each other. It is overlooked in
the interest of local power distribution by elite and local administration as well. Delineating the issue,
Baqee discussed the legal aspects and lists the existing laws in relation presented chronologically:
 1. The Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Regulation of 1825
2. The East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act of 1950 (Section 86 and 87)
3. Presidential Order No.72 of 1972
4. Presidential Order No. 135 of 1972; and
5. Presidential Order No. 137 of 1972 (Ordinance LXI of 1975)
The study argues that the prevalence of disputes arising out of the settlement process in chars is
greater where power is polarized in more than 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, published by

the Environment and GIS Support Project for Water Sector Planning (EGIS) and UPL in 2000. The
Irrigation Support Project for Asia and the Near East (ISPAN) (covering the area extending from
the border of India along the Ganges and the Jamuna through the Padma and Lower Meghna as
far as the southern edge of the Hijla thana of Barishal District) under the 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 further
analysis on previous research works, especially on Jamuna basin.

Climatic changes are expected to increase seasonal variation in precipitation and thus in river flows
implying higher maximum and lower minimum flows. The increased variations stimulate erosion and
accretion process. Increasing floods, higher water levels, lower slopes of rivers contribute to char
formation and widening rivers. Lower slopes and sedimentation further decreases transport capacity
of the rivers. Bangladesh is geologically active and tectonic subsidence continues. Due to shifting
rivers, earthquakes huge amount of sediment gets dumped into the river system. Again, upstream
development continues. All of the above factors will influence river and char dynamics in the future
leading to an intensification of river erosion.

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

The book notes that mobility of riverbank erosion affected or threatened people are very limited.
“The majority of the people interviewed by RRA team had lived in chars for several
generations. If they had moved, it was within groups of local chars ... of the 89 erosion-
affected households interviewed by the Flood Response Study and Riverbank Erosion
Impact Study indicate that such moves are within small areas, usually about 2 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 char depends very much on the stage of its development (one may
recall the stages of char development described by Baqee). Farming occupations include both owner
cultivation as well as sharecropping. Wage labor is also used in various agriculture operations.

The book elaborates on the need for transparent policy on land issues. When char households are
affected by land erosion, and are forced to move out of their areas, they prefer to move within parts of
the river familiar to them. As reported in the ISPAN study, the law on landownership in the context of
erosion and accretion states that when the land belonging to an individual gets eroded and resurfaces
at a later stage, the newly emerged land becomes the property of the government. To effectively
overcome this problem, often local leaders / owners use different techniques to keep and maintain
possession of the land. These include several types of resistance:
 1) pay rent / land tax and avoid attention
2) exert influence with the surveyors from the AC Land’s office
3) when land resurfaces people pay back dated taxes to the government
4) 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 often less productive and takes a
huge cost to irrigate them. A unique feature of the book is that it presents rare satellite imagery of
chars in a manner understandable to the laymen. It also gives a holistic idea of the problematic
covering physical, structural, socio-economic and psycho-social aspects of impact of riverbank
erosion and related displacement in the river basin areas.

Jamuna-Meghna River Erosion Mitigation Project: Summary Resettlement Framework and

Resettlement Plan.

The Jamuna-Meghna River Erosion Mitigation Project in Bangladesh aims to protect the livelihoods of
2 million people living within two flood protection and irrigation project areas. The Bangladesh Water
Development Board (BWDB), ADB's Executing Agency for the project, proposes to establish a
sustainable, reliable and cost-effective riverbank erosion management system.

BWDB identified a 1.2-kilometer secondary defense line (SDL) of embankments to protect critical
sections in the Pabna Irrigation and Rural Development Project 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 Meghna rivers will be
identified during the final design stage based on the rivers' morphological development. BWDB also
prepared a resettlement framework to address the involuntary resettlement effects that may be
identified during project implementation. The involuntary resettlement safeguard measures adopted
by BWDB for this project are summarized in this report.

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 in

Bangladesh by Muhammad Z Mamun and A T M Nurul Amin, focuses and develops the idea of
dense settlement and resettlement of displaced people in a safer zone. The research was carried
out in one of the richest commercial hubs in the region and now one of the most affected by
riverbank erosion, the Hizla upazilla of the Barishal District.

Scarcity of land is a severe problem in rural Bangla. As Mamun and Amin observed:
“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 households owned only about 8.3 percent of the total land in 1985, which was 11
percent in 1981 and 24 percent in 1951 ... this landlessness and impoverishment has
much to do with natural disasters …”

It is in this backdrop that land distribution-management and settlement and entitlement-capability

becomes so crucially linked. Mamun and Amin maintains that riverbank erosion can be devastating –
made worse by the fact that the majority of the population in Bangladesh are either land less or
owners of small scale land holdings. Moreover, highly unstable nature of Bangladesh’s riverbanks and
channels frequently lead to land accretion. Accessibility to accreted lands by peasants, particularly,
the displaced and pauper farmers, is limited by the web of local level politics and power structure.
Small land owners consistently appear to be the losers while large land owners gain control, often
through violence, of most char lands. The latter thus extend and intensify the near feudal patron-client
relationships that govern the society and economy throughout most of the riverine areas in
Bangladesh. The cumulative effect of socio-economic impact of river erosion plays a key role in
impoverishing and marginalizing those who are affected.

Although some households do move to safer areas and build safer settlements, many merely relocate
within the same area that has either been already affected or bears known vulnerable characteristics.
Mamun and Amin have listed a number of deterrents that prevent the victims of river erosion from
moving to a distant and safe place. Among those are attachment to kins, financial disadvantage, total
dependence on farming, and besides these factors there is the lack of marketable education and
skills, and the hope 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 also known to contain areas that are
comparatively safe for settlement building. While the majority of households from a sample numbering
328 of a survey carried out in river erosion-prone areas of are aware of the damage caused by
erosion and are even successful in settling in safer places. This, however, only happens after
repeated experience. At first, the settlement is erratic and unplanned. With an increase in erosion,
they realize the risk of living in vulnerable areas and opt to move to safer settlements.

The erosion-effected households are also found to gradually reduce their dependence on farming as
sole occupation and get more involved in small businesses and fishing. The majority of both the
affected and unaffected groups are found to adopt one or more secondary occupations suggesting the
growing awareness of households of the need to bring down their reliance on only one occupation
and the adoption of contingency measures for coping with the consequences of erosion. This is
essentially livelihood diversification.

In favour of densification, Mamun and Amin argues

“... that safer area residents are better educated and are economically better-off. They
participate more in salaried jobs, business and other non-farm activities; whereas, the
residents of the vulnerable areas are more involved in fishing, farming, and agriculture. The
displacees solely relying on agriculture and having no education or non-farm skills tend to
stay near their eroded land and plunge into downward spiral of overall well-being. On the
other hand, displaces having some non-farm occupation, education, and skills migrate to
safer areas and are able to improve their economic condition; even those who are engaged
in farming in the safer area are better-off than their counterparts in the vulnerable areas.
These findings together with the fact of uneven population distribution in safer areas (i.e.,
varied density) suggest the sense and scope of settlement building in safer areas ...”

The British Development Organization (DfID) has identified river erosion as the principal disaster of
Bangladesh. There are differences in data collection by different organizations and researchers
regarding the exact nature of loss of property and casualties due to river erosion. It is an ongoing
disaster and there is no specific indicator to measure the extent of damage. Hence, DFID conducted
three studies into char livelihoods aiming to provide policy guideline for its up coming Char Livelihood
Project to be implemented by RDRS and other national NGOs.

The Chars Livelihood Assistance Scoping Study, a composite four-part report by Steve Ashley,
Kamal Kar, Abul Hossain, Shibabrata Nandi produced in 2000. The study focused on the
Kurigram District in the North Bengal.

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

 Inability of the individual, community and government to resist 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 Chars
livelihood project by Khurshida Alam, Anik Asad and Ashekur Rahman, produced in 2002.

In their analysis of preferred livelihood options expressed by the male and female members of
different “well-being groups” across four different categories of chars, did not find any significant
differences owing to the fact that these are about different categories of chars, particularly in relation
to livelihood options. People of the mainland chars did however, receive benefits / advantages while
marketing their products. Among the five 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 for development approaches to reduce the risk of shocks.

Due to inherent vulnerability, livelihood and disaster management cannot be separated in the char
areas. Disaster management involves all aspects of planning 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 Management Approaches in the Char Areas.
These include: relying on community for assistance, staying put in original homestead with few
adjustments like raising base of the house, raising height of the storage facility, clustered housing,
sufficient high land to provide protection to livestock / latrine and tube well. Yet the entire investment
is dependent on 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 or other productive assets that they can move
rather than in their houses.

The study stressed the need of operationalising early warning system with accurate information,
effective dissemination of that information, and get people to act on the information; plantation as
preventive measure; capacity building and awareness raising; utilisation of the indigenous knowledge
for preparation; emphasising on employing char dwellers to travel to 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 and rehabilitation
through re-establishing livelihoods; enhancing role of concerned government agencies.

The study points out potentials for enhancing existing community based disaster management
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 Hanna
Schmuck-Widmann is an outcome of an in depth ethnographic research exploring the psycho-
social map and indigenous knowledge of the people of rural Bangla on primarily the eastern bank
and in the mid river chars of Jamuna. The research was carried out in phases, during 1994-1996
and 1997-1998 and the book published in 2001.

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

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

Considering river erosion as a historical phenomenon, affected people often take refuse under the
notion “hand of Allah”. Previously, some scholars have identified this as fatalistic approach of the char
dwellers. This, Widmann, sees as a convenient strategy and approach to cope with the suddenness
and effect of the riverbank erosion. Widmann, taking queue from a char dweller typifies the process as
“a battle”, as a tactical withdrawal / retreat (a time to reorganise / recuperate) in the face of advancing
and provocative nature. The practical solution to this problem is, however, moving settlement from
one to another char, often shifting in a third char in a manner of triangulation.
 “Patterns of Psychosocial Coping and Adaptation Among Riverbank Erosion-Induced
Displacees in Bangladesh: Implications for Development Programming” in Journal of
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, Volume 15(3): 2000, by David Hutton. The field survey for
the study was conducted in Bangladesh during the 1998 flood season. Over 200 displacees
living in urban squatter settlements in the district of Serajganj were sampled; a comparision
group of 200 non-displacees was drawn from Shariakhandi district.

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

The results indicate that the constant threat of riverbank erosion has contributed to a substantial
disaster subculture in the riverine zones of Bangladesh. Although frequent displacement was common
among the floodplain residents, only 17% had perceived riverbank erosion to be a serious problem,
and just 10% believed that they eventually would be displaced permanently. In most cases,
displacees cope with erosion and land loss by relocating to nearby lands; the impacts of displacement
become acute only when land scarcity forces displacees into urban areas, where they are both
removed from their traditional rural way of life and marginalized both economically and politically.

Although displacees were found to have a significantly higher level of distress than did non-
displacees, this was related primarily to socio-economic deprivation, rather than to displacement per
se. The commonly hypothesized factors, such as loss of land and frequency and duration of
displacement, were not found to have significant association with distress levels. Among both
displacees and non-displacees, chronic survival concerns, daily hunger, and marginal living conditions
were predictive factors of psychological distress. Vulnerability to economic strain and associated
psychological distress was particularly high among women and the elderly.

The need to integrate disaster education and development projects within a social, cultural and
psychological context is reviewed. The capacity of people to respond to environmental threats is a
function not only of the physical forces that affect them, but of the way people see themselves in
relation to these forces. It is important to recognize that Western conceptualizations of poverty do not
always take into account social and psychological subtleties of coping and adaptation. Popular
development theory usually associates low personal control with maladaptive passivity and
dependency. In this study, however, displacees more often responded to their difficulties with active
problem-solving efforts, with fatalism being among the least utilized forms of coping. It may be
reasoned that low aspirations and self-efficacy generated by poverty may be psychologically adaptive,
reducing levels of frustration and distress, but not determination and perseverance.

Rehabilitation programming may be most effective when it takes into account the psychosocial
aspects of disasters, both because psychological distress impacts the capacity of people to achieve
livelihoods, but also because important social and psychological processes determine the way people
perceive and adapt to natural hazards. Research has shown that displacees in Bangladesh usually
survive poverty and marginalization because of mutual kinfolk obligations of assistance. Rehabilitation
programming in this context may have the most benefit when it assumes a socio-ecentric rather
egocentric Western perspective, assisting communities to maintain and develop natural social coping
mechanisms that enhance adaptive functioning and 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 different aspects of the riverbank
erosion problematic. A comprehensive study and publication, has not been enlisted in one of the
categories mentioned above. As far as this study is concerned, there is a single such study, the REIS
Program. The study covers physical and structural, socio-economic rehabilitation and resettlement in
the post displacement situation, psycho-social mapping for preparedness, coping and rebuilding by
the local people of the river basin areas. The study covered “three out of 94 upazillas affected
annually by riverbank erosion: Kazipur in the Brahmaputra-Jamuna floodplain, Chilmari at the mouth
of the Tista overlooking the Brahmaputra and Bhola in the Meghna floodplain on the Bay of Bengal ...
near about 2000 households consisting of both displaced and non-displaced persons, were covered in
the survey during 1985 and 1986”.

An outcome of REIS Program, the book – Riverbank Erosion, Flood and Population
Displacement in Bangladesh edited by K. Maudood Elahi, K. Saleh Ahmed and M. Mafizuddin,
published in 1991 reveals that bank erosion is taking place in roughly in about 50 districts or
Zillas. In 35 upazillas bank erosion is severe and most recurrent. But acute population pressure
forces more and more people to settle in the flood and erosion-prone areas on mid-channel
islands (chars) and in the delta region. This in turn intensifies the annual risk to human life and
of severe economic dislocation permanently and directly displacing the one million people
annually. Roughly, 30% of these displaced take shelter on roads, BWDB embankments, and
khas land.

The book deals extensively on the physical aspect and process of riverbank erosion. The articles
extends on analyses of data and satellite imagery, modeling on forecasting, historical conditions of the
Jamuna river, bank line movement and erosion deposition, river course monitoring using remote
sensing 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 and resultant landlessness, destitution, downward spiral of wage for labour
due to a surplus of agricultural labour force, characteristics of the displacee and non-displacee
households, characteristics of land potentials of the household by distance from the riverbank,
mobility characteristics of displacees, vulnerability syndrome and peasant’s adjustment etc. The study
found char and embankment zones to ‘have nearly three times as many female-headed households
as the [mainland] zones.’ According to the study “Most of the female headed households are headed
by wives of men temporarily absent for labour.’

The third and most relevant section of the REIS study to this study is population displacement and
resettlement. Our focus will be particularly on this section. In addition to the listed articles below, the
section deals with issues like group dynamics in resettlement process, char land politics and role of
administration, traditional land grabbing and settlement pattern, settlement strategy for displacees etc.
Reviews of some of the important articles of the section follow:

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

According to Haque, perception of extreme natural events, albeit subjective in nature, plays a
profound role in decision-making for adjustments by the people living in the hazard prone areas.
Following White (1974), the author defines perception as “individual organization of stimuli relating to
an extreme event or a human adjustment.” Nine hazard concepts resulted in request for identification
of hazards likely to occur and impact on household. The responses reveal that there is a pattern that
clearly indicates a relationship of perception of hazard concept with previous experience of the event
or the natural phenomenon.

Haque observes that respondents’ adjustment strategies are “corrective” not “preventative” in nature.
Corrective measures “include purposeful attempts to modify the event or change location or resource
use to minimise the hazard loss” (Burton, et. al. 1978 excerpted in Haque 1991). Clustered settlement
patterns are useful in mobilizing necessary manpower in an emergency and to take “corrective”
measures to reduce hazard loss. A common strategy to reduce anticipated loss is to salvage housing
structures. Education of respondents proved to have no relationship to potential adjustment strategies
of the resource managers. These people invested in livestock and other movable assets. Built
bamboo fences on the water-front to protect land and houses from the physical impact of erosion.
They built bamboo crates and placed them on water-front filled with bricks to protect land from sub
aqueous erosion, built embankments with earth to protect settlements from river encroachment. They
planted different crops in different zones of the floodplain. In Kazipur the non-structural and social
adjustment measures adopted by the local people are a combination of incidental 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 of risk awareness are deeply embedded in rural
populations, as is the knowledge that sooner or later most will be affected by flood or erosion.

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

“Displacees of Riverbank Erosion in urban Squatter Settlements in Serajganj: the Process of

Impoverishment” by M. Ziarat Hossain of the REIS Study looks at land occupancy and
socioeconomic change in sirajganj squatters.

It was found that more than 82 percent of the surveyed households became landless where the small
and middle class peasants suffer the most. Losing their land, the principal means of livelihood, these
displaces become marginalized in the socio-economic processes. Land loss, economic deprivation,
social isolation, and administrative or institutional negligence exacerbates the continuing poverty of
the displaces. The cycle prevents them from achieving socio-economic success. Hence, moving to
urban squatter settlement becomes the only solution left even though that entails a 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 where the migrants largely come
from the lower socio-economic strata and from rural background. Compared with this group, people
from middle to upper strata are less likely to leave their home villages permanently, as they tend to
have land in different parts of the village and have other means of survival. 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-migration starts, the poor and the
destitutes leave the village first. Often this act of leaving is towards uncertainty. They leave the village
for employment as well as for a piece of land where they can build their own shelter. The ideal place
of living for the destitute households thus should be an area very 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 on khas land in and near the rural area. In either case, government assistance or 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-bank Erosion-induced Displacees in Bangladesh”.
Disaster 28 (1), 41-62.

The purpose of this research was to identify and analyse patterns of economic and social adaptation
among river-bank erosion-induced displacees in Bangladesh. It was hypothesised that the role of
social demographic and socio-economic variables in determining the coping ability and recovery of
the river-bank erosion-induced displacees is quite significant. The findings of the research reveal that
displacees experience substantial socio-economic impoverishment and marginalisation as a
consequence of involuntary migration. This in part is a socially constructed process, reflecting
inequitable access to land and other resources. Vulnerability to disasters is further heightened by a
number of identifiable social and demographic factors including gender, education and age, although
extreme poverty and marginalisation create complexity to isolate the relative influence of these
variables. The need to integrate hazard analysis and mitigation with the broader economic and social
context is discussed. It is argued that the capacity of people to respond to environmental threats is a
function of not only the physical forces which affect them, but also of underlying economic and social
relationships which increase human vulnerability to risk. Hazard analysis and mitigation can be more
effective when it takes into account such social and demographic and socio-economic dimensions 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 of commissioned studies.
Regular / periodic or yearly reports are published by government and non-governmental agencies
dealing with disaster preparedness and mitigation. These reports essentially contain area specific
facts on disaster, including riverbank erosion. A list is provided 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 for land rights
 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.

The LEP Study was conducted in eight broad agro-ecological zones in eight thanas of the
country. These included: Patgram of Lalmonirhat, Rangamati sadar, Puthia of Natore,
Kotalipara of Madaripur, Durgapur of Netrokona, Rampal of Bagerhat, Chakaria of Cox’s
Bazar and Niamatpur 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 Surveillance Project, Bulletin No.14, Helen Keller
International, Bangladesh, July 2003.

This is a report based on the HKI/IPHN Nutritional Surveillance Project (NSP) and its findings
from the char communities in Kazipur in 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 or projection studies on
riverbank erosion or which include the same include the following:

 Mathematical Morphological Model of Jamuna River, Jamuna Bridge Site, Second Forecast
Report, October 1996, Danish Hydraulic Institute in association with Surface Water Modelling
Centre (SWMC) Submitted to JMBA, GoB and the World Bank
 Jamuna-Meghna River Erosion Mitigation Project, Interim Report Volume 1, Options
Assessment, February 2002, produced by Halcrow and Associates for Director, 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, South Asia Region, The
World Bank Dhaka Office
 Considering Adaptation to Climate Change Towards a Sustainable Development of
Bangladesh, October 1999, Prepared for South Asia Region, The World Bank, Washington,
DC
 Bangladesh 2020, A Long-run Perspective Study, Bangladesh Development Series, (2003).
UPL for The World Bank and Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS).

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

 Haque, Chowdhury E., (December 1988). “Human Adjustments to River bank Erosion Hazard
in the Jamuna Floodplain, Bangladesh”, in Human Ecology, An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol.
16, No. 4.
 Currey, Bruce (1979): Mapping Areas Liable to Famine in Bangladesh. PhD Dissertation.
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 and Issues 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 of Women in Disasters and
Emergencies. Prepared for United Nations Development Programme. Disaster Research
Institute, University of Manitoba; 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 population resettlement in
Bangladesh.” Practicing Anthropology. 13(3): 29-33.

Reports, publications related to Flood preparedness and mitigation from Bangladesh Disaster
Preparedness Centre (BDPC) were found particularly useful as reference for studies and activism
on riverbank erosion. Few are 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 for ADB, March 2002.
 Promotion of Family and Community Level Flood Preparedness Through Public Awareness
Programme, November 2002.

Interestingly, most of the books on internal migration in Bangladesh somehow fail to incorporate
the topic of riverbank erosion as an important cause of endemic poverty. These books list number
of reasons for migration from rural to urban areas. For example, Mobility Behaviour of Working
People in Bangladesh: Rural-rural and Rural-urban Circulation by A Q M Mahbub discusses the
typology, reasons of migration and ultimate circular effect on the rural to urban flow. The book,
however, fails to focus on riverbank erosion as a major cause of migration from rural to urban
areas.

The state of the discourse on riverbank erosion is pretty clear from the above discussion on particular
studies. The contradiction between facts/figures of the severity of riverbank erosion as a problematic
and the relative reluctance and inactive / passive approach towards the whole problem clearly typifies
the mode of the present culture in research-advocacy-activism.

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

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

It seems, survey and research from within the country and from abroad have gathered just enough
information, insights and grassroots experience to start activism and have a national policy and action
plan in place. The implementation process would, however, need deliberate participation of all
concerned and a coordinated effort should be launched to at least mitigate if not prevent the impact of
the disaster: riverbank erosion and displacement.
 Livelihood Strategies in the Face of Riverbank Erosion
Formulating a Conceptual Framework

Instead of taking a physical approach towards the research of riverbank erosion and its effects on
displaced people, researching through preventive and structural measures, this study delves into the
socio-economic and psycho-social stress mitigation approach in the pre and post riverbank erosion
and displacement phase. Hence, entitlement to livelihood of the riverbank erosion affected and
displaced people, is the prime concern of this study. This study tries to present the field findings with
simplicity and straightforwardness. There is little attempt towards a critical analysis. Livelihood as a
concept, its modality and applicability to the subjects 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 of living, including food,
income and assets. Tangible assets are resources and stores, and intangible assets are claims
and access to facilities / benefits.

A livelihood is environmentally sustainable when it maintains or enhances the local and global
assets in which livelihoods depend, and has net beneficial effects on other livelihoods.

A livelihood is socially sustainable which can cope with and recover from stress and shocks,
and provide for future generations.'
– Chambers and Conway (1991)

Livelihood Approach

The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) was developed in the 1980s and has been evolving
since then. It is used by a number of development agencies such as UNDP and the UK Government’s
Department for International Development (DFID), CARE and Oxfam. DFID’s sustainable livelihoods
approach was formalised in the UK government’s White Paper on International Development in 1997.

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

People – centred: Sustainable poverty elimination will be achieved only if external support focuses on
peoples’ concerns. Understanding about the need-based segmentation among people within the
context of their current livelihood strategies, social environment and ability to adapt, is key for
success.

Responsive and participatory: Poor people themselves must be the key actors in identifying and
addressing livelihood priorities. Outsiders need processes that will enable them to listen and respond
to the poor.
Multi-level: Poverty elimination is an enormous challenge that will only be overcome by working at
multiple levels, ensuring that micro-level activity informs the development of policy and an effective
enabling environment, and that micro – level structures and processes support people to build upon
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 important and a balance must be found between them.

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

To operationalise the concept of "sustainable livelihoods", the UK Department for International

Development has developed a framework to understand and analyse the livelihoods of the poor
(Figure 1). The understanding of the poor's assets, in terms of human, natural, physical, financial and
social capitals, and strategies to cope with external factors such as shocks, trends and seasonality
(i.e. vulnerability context) and institutional, commercial and cultural structures and processes, can
provide avenues to target development strategies more adequately to the poor 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 of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand

DFID's sustainable livelihood (SL) framework is an evolutionary (Ashley & Carney 1999) and
analytical tool to improve our understanding of the complexity of livelihoods while assisting in the
identification of suitable 'entry points' for external support that are congruent with vulnerable people'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 forces should play in case of an attempt
to facilitation at the grassroots level. Sen’s ‘entitlement’ with endowment (set of resources) and
exchange (set of relationship) is vital to ensure flourish of a livelihood. These resources will include
material, human, social and common property resources.

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

In Figure 3, IDS’s formulation of sustainable rural livelihoods framework is presented. It has a holistic
nature and covers a wide range of aspects embedded 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,

Livelihood resources
Institutional Processes
and Organisational Structures
Livelihood Strategies
Livelihood outcomes
conditions and trends.
– financial, natural, physical, human, political and social capital
– GO, civil society, private sector
– productive and exchange activities and coping strategies
– 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 the rights based approach of
research and activism. Interestingly this livelihood approach does not dismiss or contradict the
existing development practice with a rights based approach.

As the LEP study points out, a rights based approach encompasses notion and action on
empowerment, equality of entitlement, dignity, justice and respect for all people. It encourages poor
people to assert and demand services actively, directly, based on their own priorities. This in turn
develops self-esteem and promotes agency of the people at the lower rung. This approach sees that
the existing and developing mechanisms to redress wrongs 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, and get access to information
relating to the decision-making processes, which affect their lives.

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

Fulfilling obligation: strengthening institutions and policies that ensure that obligations to protect and
promote the realisation of all human rights are fulfilled by states and other duty barriers.
Approach taken in this Study

It is our contention that developing the livelihood approach “in public policy implementation” and in
mitigating the sufferings of the riverbank erosion affected and displaced people would require a
bearing of rights based perspective. Because the riverbank erosion affected and displaced people are
often paupers and marginalised, hence located at the lowest rung of the society. This will help
enhance a process of self-sustaining social justice 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 of sustainable 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
st
Concepts for the 21 Century, IDS Discussion Paper 296.

 Using the SLA frame work we can conclude:

– ‘Poor’ is a non homogenous category in Bangladesh (access to resources and

exposure to risk is different for even different households)
– Using poverty ranking of previous studies we can divide poor of these areas into
three categories
Segmentization of population for livelihood scheme

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

Social poor – moderate or tomorrows’ poor

(have some land and can meet up to 6 months of food security 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 through sharecropping;
both male/female sell their labour during the off and peak 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 riverbank erosion

affected and displaced people:

Positive outcomes for poor and vulnerable people with focus on displaced
Goal
people.
Immediate
Wider, more generalised aims, which are inclusive of sectoral objectives.
Objective

Principles Wider in perspective. More concerned with empowerment aspects.

More bottom-up and non-specific. To be led by the local people. More an

Strategies
approach than a tool.

Mainly transforming structures and processes, and capital assets. Less so in

Entry Points
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 Helpless Poor >>
previous helps from the RbE victim
– Petty trading (may be starting with vegetables grown in the Bottom Poor
homestead garden)
– Relying on neighbours to feed children and 1 meal per day
 Coping Strategies
– Networking with relatives and depending on them
Bottom Poor >>
– Hand to mouth (daily labour in the locality)
– Long term migration (family or only husband)
Helpless Poor
– Moving away from business to peddling
– Peddling and sharecropping
 Productive Strategies
– Local labour,
– Agriculture (share cropping or small piece of own land),
– Livestock (share rearing),
Social Poor >>
– Other income sources at the locality like shop keeping by one
member of the family, working at restaurant in the upazilla or
once established,
part time job as a carpenter etc.
now socio-economically
– Migration and taking land lease at home
relegated
– Disinvesting (in chars) and moving towards main land
– Established due to back up (landed) at more than one place and
now investing through credit offers to viable borrowers

There are, however, other segmentisation / category groups used by different 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 to define the extreme poor or
often said to be the ultra poor. Examples are:
DfID – extreme poor BRAC – ultra poor and destitute
World Bank – bottom poor BIDS – extreme poor
Proshika – extreme poor UN, OECD &
CARE – extreme poor Amartya Sen – absolute poor
RDRS – hardcore ultra poor

What does all these categorisations mean and lead ultimately? When we check with the definitions
they offer (for quick reference, LEP Study by IMEC, PROSHIKA), these definitions are often based on
ideas and stereotyping associated with land holding, calorie / food intake, number of income earning
member, access to loans (institutional / non-institutional), access to NGO membership, access to
healthcare and medication, low interaction with other social groups, both men and women of a
household sell labour round the year, begging for living, women with disabled husband, female
headed household with a single earner, dependent on manual labour do not have bargaining power,
lives in a jhupri, i.e. thatched house, annual per capita income of 2,800 tk., chronic food insecurity and
so on.

These are interesting as some of these goes against key themes for advocacy for gender
empowerment. For example, why should selling labour round the year by a women or a women with
disabled husband or a female-headed household with a single earner, be considered as a weakness
and as in a condition of vulnerability? If we observe closely, there are reasons why these people could
be considered as ultra poor or hard core poor. The social context in rural Bangla has to be brought
into perception. As the LEP study points out following Narayan et. al, 2000, creation of social
exclusion can be possible through various means and conditions and antecedents. These include:

 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 erosion induced displacement. As one of the most affected
regions, Districts in the North-West Bangladesh can be a starting point for a national level coordinated
effort. In this joint effort private sector has to be on board along with the NGO sector and government.
With the development of road network, particularly in the northern Districts of Bangladesh, with the
help of ever increasing reach of rural electrification board the private sector can be persuaded by
incentives from the government to establish business 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 the efforts further.
 Livelihood and Pertinent Issues / Findings at a Glance
Study on RbE Induced Displacement in North-West Bangladesh

LIVELIHOOD AND RIVER BASIN AREAS IN NORTH WEST BANGLADESH

 Temporal and spatial dimensions of livelihood

Temporal
Periodisation according to RbE and flooding
Seasonality of occupation

Spatial
Specific nature of livelihood depending on soil / crop variations
Spatial / traditional orientation or root of occupations
Pre-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 host community

 The Destitution ladder

 Loss of agricultural land / livestock due to riverbank erosion

Chain of  Income loss and coping strategies
crises
 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 by community
 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

 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
 – 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 required diversity in both market and skill
 Lack of links to the market
 Lack of stocking of savings / grain storage / livestock / trees / bamboo
 endency 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 spiraling interest; 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 RbE victims
– 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 social issues, 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 reality of
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, ADB

2. Alam, Khurshida, Asad, Anik and Rahman, Ashekur (2002). Livelihood Options: Livelihoods
options preferred by people in the chars for DFID Chars livelihood project, produced for DfID,
Dhaka.
3. Ashley, C. & Carney, C. (1999). Sustainable Livelihoods: Lessons from an early experience.
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 report produced 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 for Advanced Studies (BCAS).
7. Bangladesh Disaster Report, Disaster Forum
8. 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 Rural Livelihoods:
Practical Concepts for the 21st Century, IDS Discussion Paper 296.
16. Charland Study, CEGIS
17. Considering Adaptation to Climate Change Towards a Sustainable Development of
Bangladesh, October 1999, Prepared for South Asia Region, The World Bank, Washington,
DC
18. Curney, 1998 in DfID Report on Gender-Responsive Aquaculture Policy, Produced as a paper
for workshop on May 2-3, 2000, for Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand
19. Currey, Bruce (1979): Mapping Areas Liable to Famine in Bangladesh. PhD Dissertation.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
20. Deb, Uttam Kumar, (2002). “Has Bangladesh really Achieved Self Sufficiency in Foodgrain? A
Review of the Evidence,” in Bangladesh facing Challenges of Globalisation, A Review of
Bangladesh’s Development 2001, Dhaka, Centre for Policy Dialogue and The University Press
Limited (UPL).
21. DFID (1999) Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. Department for International
Development, London.
22. Disaster Response Plan for Pabna Irrigation and Rural Development Project (PIRDP),
produced under the Jamuna Meghna River Erosion Mitigation Project for ADB, March 2002.
Dhaka, BDPC.
23. 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.
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 and Food scarcity in the
Country in Peoples’ view: The Kurigram Context, Paper presented at the 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, Riverbank Erosion Impact Study
(REIS), Jahangirnagar University.
27. Famine Like situation Prevailing in Panchagarh, from Panchagarh, in Bangladesh Observer,
01.10.03.
28. Farid, A. T. M. (Paper no. 2003). Riverbank Erosion and Soil Fertility Improvement by Vetiver
Hedgegrow under Bangladesh Condition, Symposium no: 37.
29. Farrington, J., Carney, D., Ashley, C. & Turton, C. (1999) Sustainable Livelihoods in Practice:
Early applications of concepts in rural areas. Natural Resource Perspectives, 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 Adjustment Strategies” in Elahi et. al. eds. Riverbank Erosion,
Flood and Population Displacement in Bangladesh. Dhaka, Riverbank Erosion Impact Study
(REIS), Jahangirnagar University.
34. Haque, Chowdhury E., (December 1988). “Human Adjustments to River bank Erosion Hazard
in the Jamuna Floodplain, Bangladesh”, in Human Ecology, An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol.
16, No. 4.
35. Hossain, M. Ziarat, (1991). “Displacees of Riverbank Erosion in urban Squatter Settlements in
Serajganj: the Process of Impoverishment” in Elahi et. al. eds. Riverbank Erosion, Flood and
Population Displacement in Bangladesh. Dhaka, Riverbank Erosion Impact Study (REIS),
Jahangirnagar University.
36. Hossain, Mohammad Shazzad, Living with the Food Insecurity: Coping Strategies of the
Livelihoods of the Extreme Poor, Research Report – 8, The Livelihoods of the Extreme Poor
(LEP) Study. Impact Monitoring and Evaluation Cell (IMEC), PROSHIKA.
37. Hutton, David & Haque, C. Emdad (2004). “Human Vulnerability, Dislocation and
Resettlement: Adaptation Processes of River-bank Erosion-induced Displacees in
Bangladesh”, in Disaster, 28 (1), 41-62.
38. Hutton, David (2000). “Patterns of Psychosocial Coping and Adaptation Among Riverbank
Erosion-Induced Displacees in Bangladesh: Implications for Development Programming” in
Journal of Prehospital and Disaster Medicine, Volume 15(3).
39. Islam, A and Rahman M.A. (1987). “Riverbank Erosion in Bangladesh: An Overview 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, Options
Assessment, February 2002, produced by Halcrow and Associates for Director, PMU-CADP,
BWDB, Dhaka and ADB
42. Life in the Chars in Bangladesh: Improving nutrition and supporting livelihoods through
homestead food production, in Nutritional Surveillance Project, Bulletin No.14, Helen Keller
International, Bangladesh, July 2003.
43. Mahbub, A. Q. M. and Islam, Nazrul (1991). “Urban Adjustment by Erosion Induced Migrants
to Dhaka” in Elahi et. al. eds. Riverbank Erosion, Flood and Population Displacement in
Bangladesh. Dhaka, Riverbank Erosion Impact Study (REIS), Jahangirnagar University.
44. Mamun, Muhammad Z and Amin, A T M Nurul (1999). Densification: A Strategic Plan to
Mitigate Riverbank Erosion Disaster in Bangladesh. Dhaka, UPL.
45. Mathematical Morphological Model of Jamuna River, Jamuna Bridge Site, Second Forecast
Report, October 1996, Danish Hydraulic Institute in association with Surface Water Modelling
Centre (SWMC). Submitted to JMBA, GoB and the World Bank.
46. Mazhar, Farhad, et. al, eds. (2002). Food Security in South Asia: Enhancing Community
Capacity to Generate Knowledge and Influence Policy, Selected Abstracts of Farmer and
 Community Led Research in South Asia, Led by South Asia Network on Food Ecology and
Culture.
47. Monga takes critical Turn in N Districts, Govt. relief meagre, from Thaurgaon, in Bangladesh
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 rights
52. RDRS Newsletters
53. 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 to Riverbank Erosion Hazards”
in Elahi et. al. eds. Riverbank Erosion, Flood and Population Displacement in Bangladesh.
Dhaka, Riverbank Erosion Impact Study (REIS), Jahangirnagar University.
56. Roose, Eric, 1996, Land Husbandry: Components and Strategy, 70 FAO SOILS BULLETIN.
57. Shikosti-Poyosti Ain Poribortone Shanglap (Some dialogues on the changes on the Bengal
Alluvion and Diluvion Act (Shamota), Dhaka. September, 2002.
58. Solesbury, William, June 2003, Sustainable Livelihoods: A Case Study of the Evolution 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 and Management 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, South Asia Region, The
World Bank Dhaka Office
65. Widmann, Hanna Schmuck (2001). Facing the Jamuna River: Indigenous and engineering
knowledge in Bangladesh. Dhaka, Bangladesh Resource Centre for Indigenous Knowledge
(BARCIK).
66. Wiest, R.E., J.S.P. Mocellin, D.T. Motsisi. (1994). The Needs of Women in Disasters and
Emergencies. Prepared for United Nations Development Programme. Disaster Research
Institute, University of Manitoba; 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 with natural disasters. In Natural
Disasters in Bangladesh: Views and Issues for the Social Sciences, edited by S.M. Nurul
Alam. Dhaka: Academic Press.
68. Yates, Roger, Wahab, S. A. and Saadi, Shashanka (2002). Disaster Management 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 and collected from the
internet.
70. Zaman, M.Q. and Wiest, R.E. (1991). “Riverbank erosion and population resettlement in
Bangladesh.” Practicing Anthropology. 13(3): 29-33.