Umma HABIBA, Rajib SHAW, Yukiko TAKEUCHI Kyoto University, Japan

1. Enhancing Farmer’s Resilience toward Droughts:
Perspective from Northwestern Region of Bangladesh
Umma Habiba, Rajib Shaw and Yukiko Takeuchi
Kyoto University International Environment and Disaster Management
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies

2. Overview of the Presentation 2
Background
Objective of the study
❑Methodology
❑Results
❑Conclusion
Kyoto University International Environment and Disaster Management
2
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies

3. Impacts of Drought in Bangladesh 3
o Annually affected area:
12.49 million hectares of cultivable T-aman crop in kharif season
9.32 million hectares of rabi crops in rabi season
o Yield reduction: 45 to 60 % in T-aman and 50 to 70 % in rabi crops
Kyoto University International Environment and Disaster Management
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies

4. Drought in Bangladesh 4
oMajor droughts occurred in Bangladesh are 1973, 1978, 1979, 1981, 1982,
1992, 1994, 1995, 2000, 2006 and 2009
oDrought mostly appear in pre-monsoon (March-May) and post-monsoon
season (October-November)
Pre-kharif season: Kharif season: Rabi season:
16 March-30 June 1 July-15 October 16 Oct-15 March
Pre-Kharif, Kharif and Rabi drought-prone areas of Bangladesh
(Source: Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council (BARC), 2010)
Kyoto University International Environment and Disaster Management
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies

5. Causes of Drought in Bangladesh (1) 5
Avg. 2,300mm
Around
1,000mm
Avg. 1,329mm
Annual average total rainfall (mm) from 1991-2008
Monthly mean rainfall (mm) distribution in drought-prone area
(Source: Bangladesh Meteorological Department, 2011)
Kyoto University International Environment and Disaster Management
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies

6. Causes of Drought in Bangladesh (2) 6
Dry season:
November- May
(of 7 months)
Monsoon season:
June - October
(of 5 months)
Rainfall and evapotranspiration in the study area
(Source: Bangladesh Meteorological Department, 2011)
Depth of groundwater table (m)
2008
% of irrigation coverage Depletion of groundwater depth
Kyoto University International Environment and Disaster Management
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies

7. Drought Risk Management Actions in Bangladesh 7
Drought risk management practices
At institutional At infrastructure At community and household
Level (Physical) level (Social) level
Crop diversification,
Governmental activities- Change cropping pattern,
EWS, relief , demonstration Establishment of irrigation
channel through deep tube other income generating
program activities
well (DTW)
NGO activities
Kyoto University International Environment and Disaster Management
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies

8. Research Objectives 8
To develop a tool that is able to measure the socio-economic,
institutional and physical resilience of a drought affected area
•To find out drought impacts on farmers livelihood and existing
adaptive practices to cope with it
•To document adaptive practices, and suggest policy and actions
links
Kyoto University International Environment and Disaster Management
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies

9. Development of SIP Approach (1) 9
•How to measure resilience on the basis of socio-economic, institutional
and physical aspect of a drought affected area?
SIP approach: 3 dimensions, 11 primary indicators and 55 secondary
indicators
Analysis: Weighted Mean Index ands Average Weighted Mean Index
SIP Approach
Kyoto University International Environment and Disaster Management
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies

10. Development of SIP Approach (2) 10
➪ SIP approach consist of
- 3 dimensions
- 11 primary indicators Literacy rate
- 55 secondary indicators Knowledge about drought
Having predictability
Taking preventive
measures
S Awareness about drought
Collaboration
 Co-ordination
School/college
I Highlighting drama
Community leader/imam
Electricity supply
P  Fuel supply
Dam
Water reservoir
Drought warning system
Kyoto University International Environment and Disaster Management
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies

11. Upazila Level Resilience Assessment (Study details) 11
o Conducted at: upazila level (sub-district)
in Rajshahi and Chapai Nawabganj
o Key aim of the study: N
To measure the socio-economic, institutional Bholahat Chapai Nawabganj
and physical resilience of a drought affected Gamastapur
area Shibganj
Nachole
o Methodology: Develop SIP approach Tanore
Baghmara
Rajshahi
Nawabganj Mohanpur
Godagari
o Sample no: 14 (14 upazilas of two district) Durgapur
Paba Puthia
- 9 from Rajshahi district Charghat
Legend
Study area
- 5 from Chapai Nawabganj district) Bagha
District boundary
oTarget group: Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO) Upazila boundary
o Data collection period: 6 Jan- 19 Feb, 2010
Kyoto University International Environment and Disaster Management
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies

12. Upazila Level Resilience Assessment (Key results) 12
B- Socio-economic
A- Overall Bholahat
Bholahat
Gamastapur
Gamastapur
Nachole
Shibganj
Nachole
Shibganj
Tanore Baghmara
Tanore Baghmara
Nawabganj Mohanpur
Very high Godagari
Nawabganj Mohanpur
Durgapur
Very High Godagari High
Durgapur Puthia
High Paba Puthia Medium Paba
Charghat
Medium
Low
Charghat
Low Bagha
Very low
Very Low Bagha
D- Physical
C- Institutional Bholahat
Bholahat Gamastapur
Gamastapur
Nachole
Shibganj
Nachole
Shibganj
Tanore Baghmara
Tanore Baghmara
Nawabganj Mohanpur
Nawabganj Mohanpur Godagari
Godagari Very High Durgapur
Very High Durgapur
Puthia
High
Paba Puthia High
Paba
Charghat
Medium
Charghat Medium
Low Bagha Low Bagha
Very Low Very Low
Resilience levels of Rajshahi and Chapai Nawabganj districts
Kyoto University International Environment and Disaster Management
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies

13. Farmers’ Adaptive Practices towards Drought 13
Conducted at: Village level
Aims: To enhance drought resilience at farmer’s level through
adaptive practices
Target Group: Farmer
No of Questionnaire : 718 farmers from those two district
358 farmer from irrigated village
360 farmer from non-irrigated village
Data Collection Period: 2 October- 26 November, 2010
Kyoto University International Environment and Disaster Management
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies

14. Impacts of Drought on farmer’s Livelihood 14
Impacts
of
Drought
Key points:
Sample no:
Irrigated village: 358
Agriculture as well as daily life and health were badly
Non-irrigated village: 360 affected by drought
Kyoto University International Environment and Disaster Management
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies

15. Farmer’s Adaptive Practices towards Drought 15
Sample no:
Adaptive Practices Irrigated village: 358
Non-irrigated village: 360
Legend:
1. Agronomic practices
2. Water Harvesting
3. Water resources exploitation
4. Crop intensification
5. Alternate crops cultivation
6. Other income generating activities
7. Others
Kyoto University International Environment and Disaster Management
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies

16. Formulation of Drought Adaptive Practices (DAP) 16
16
Dimensions Primary Secondary Indicators Selection of Drought Adaptive options
indicators from Secondary Indicators
Socio- Education ￭ Literacy rate ￭ Knowledge about drought ￭ Having predictability ￭ Having predictability
and awareness ￭ Taking preventive measure ￭ Awarded about drought ￭ Taking preventive measure
economic Health ￭ Access to safe water ￭ Time period having access of safe water ￭ Extent ￭ Primary health care facility
of diseases ￭ Primary health care facility ￭ Recovery
Usage ￭ Food consumption ￭ Reserved food grain ￭ Migration ￭ Changing
occupation ￭ Non agricultural farming
Social capital ￭ Social cohesion ￭ Participation ￭ Water related conflict ￭ Build
consensus ￭ Acceptance of leader
Economic ￭ Income source ￭ Other income generating activities ￭ Use of savings ￭ Other income generating activities
aspect ￭ Sell off assets, land or livestocks ￭ Credit, subsidy ￭ Use of savings
￭ Sell off assets, land or livestocks
Institutional Policy ￭ Incorporation into plan ￭ Effectiveness of the plan ￭ Support by GO ￭ Public awareness program
and NGO ￭ Water management activities ￭ Public awareness program
Management ￭ Collaboration ￭ Co-ordination ￭ Community leader/imam
￭ School/college ￭ Highlighting dramas
￭ Community leader/imam
Co-ordination ￭ Training ￭ Demonstration ￭ Credit/loan ￭ Aids
￭ Aids ￭ Subsidy
Physical Infrastructure ￭ Electricity supply ￭ Fuel supply ￭ Dam ￭ Water reservoir ￭ Drought ￭ Electricity supply (Alternative
development warning system energy sources)
￭ Water reservoir
￭ Drought warning system
Irrigation ￭ Irrigation system ￭ Irrigation facilities (DTW, STW, over head tank etc) ￭ Supplemental irrigation
￭ Supplemental irrigation ￭ Dependency on rainfall ￭ Rain water
harvest
Land use ￭ Built up area ￭ Vegetative area ￭ Water bodies ￭ Drought tolerant ￭ Drought tolerant crop
crop ￭ Fruit tree plantation ￭ Fruit tree plantation
Kyoto University International Environment and Disaster Management
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies

17. Prioritized Drought Adaptive Practices (DAP) 17
17
(At Community Level)
Name of the most prioritized
Drought Adaptive Practices:
1.Dairy farm/ community savings and
credit system
2. Received information from
TV, radio
3. Community health care service
4. Establish dairy farm
5. save money
6. Sell agricultural goods
7. Extension worker
8. Public awareness program
9. Cash/ electricity
Key points: 10. Establish drought information center
More than 50% of the farmer’s in both 11. Vegetable gardening
irrigated and non-irrigated areas agreed 12. Establish mango orchard
13. Use of plastic pipe
with these 13 DAP. Moreover, 80% of
14. Dredge the river and use of river
the farmer’s highlighted only 3 DAP that water
is the topmost prior adaptive practices 15. Use of diesel
Kyoto University International Environment and Disaster Management
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies

18. Framework for Drought Risk Management Policy and Actions 18
Process
Assessment Level
SIP Approach
3 dimensions Upazila Level
Resilience 11 primary indicators (Sub-district level)
Assessment 55 secondary indicators Key Interviews
(14)
Drought Resilience Mapping
15 drought adaptive options Farmer’s level
60 prioritized drought adaptive 81 barriers to adopt (Irrigated village
practices practices at community level & Non-irrigated
Solution for Irrigated area Non-irrigated area Irrigated Non- village)
area irrigated
enhancing I& F L CL I &F L CL area Key Interview s
Drought 15 15 15 15 40 41 (718)
Resilience Irrigated
Development of Drought Adaptive Practices (DAP) village(358)
30 drought adaptive practices at community level Non-irrigated
village (360)
Focus Group
Discussion (4)
Sustaining
Drought National level
Community
Resilience Local level
through Workshop(2)
Implementation National level (1)
Local level (1)
Kyoto University Drought Policy School of Globaland Disaster Management
International Environment
Graduate Framework Environmental Studies

19. Conclusions 19
 SIP approach highlights that physical measure such as irrigation alone can
not solve the drought problem. It gives emphasis on the execution of
institutional role towards drought such as translating drought risk
reduction policy at local to national level, effective water management
activities, and networking among GOs, NGOs and other institutions
 The DAP, as the outcome of farmer’s adaptive practices, requires
institutionalization and broader stakeholders dialogue to strengthen the
linkage between community and national government
 The drought risk management policy and action framework developed in
this study brings together both community and national government in
identifying time frame and responsibilities, thus strengthening the link
between the DAP to national policy
Kyoto University International Environment and Disaster Management
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies

20. Thank you very much for your kind attention
Kyoto University International Environment and Disaster Management
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies

21. Dimension and Indicators used for SIP Approach
Dimensions Primary Secondary indicators
indicators
Socio- Education ￭ Literacy rate ￭ Knowledge about drought,
economic and awareness ￭ Having predictability ￭ Taking preventive
measure,
￭ Awareness about drought
Health ￭ Access to safe water ￭ Time period having access
of safe water ￭ Extent of diseases ￭ Primary health
care facility ￭ Recovery
Usage ￭ Food consumption ￭ Reserved food grain
￭ Migration
￭ Changing occupation ￭ Non agricultural farming
Social capital ￭ Social cohesion ￭ Participation ￭ Water related
conflict ￭ Build consensus ￭ Acceptance of leader
Economic ￭ Income source ￭ Other income generating
activities
￭ Use of savings ￭ Sell off assets, land or live
stocks
￭ Credit, subsidy
Kyoto University International Environment and Disaster Management
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies

22. Dimension and Indicators used for SIP Approach
Dimensions Primary Secondary indicators
indicators
Institutional Policy ￭ Incorporation into plan ￭ Effectiveness of the plan
￭ Support by GO and NGO ￭ Water management
activities ￭ Public awareness program
Management ￭ Collaboration ￭ Co-ordination ￭ School/college
￭ Highlighting dramas ￭ Community leader/imam
Co-ordination ￭ Training ￭ Demonstration ￭ Credit/loan
￭ Aids ￭ Subsidy
Physical Infrastructure ￭ Electricity supply ￭ Fuel supply ￭ Dam ￭ Water
development reservoir ￭ Drought warning system
Irrigation ￭ Irrigation system ￭ Irrigation facilities (DTW, STW,
over head tank etc ￭ Supplemental irrigation
￭ Dependency on rainfall ￭ Rain water harvest
Land use ￭ Built up area ￭ Vegetative area ￭ Water bodies
￭ Drought tolerant crop ￭ Fruit tree plantation
Kyoto University International Environment and Disaster Management
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies

23. Farmer’s prioritized and recommendedPractices (DAP) (3) 23
Formulation of Drought Adaptive Drought Adaptive Pra 23
Selection and Prioritization of Drought Adaptive Practices
For the prioritization of each drought adaptive practice
3 adaptive practices were proposed at the farmer’s level. Another prictice
was kept in blank for the farmer to find out any additional option coming
from them
For example: Taking preventive measure
•What kind of preventive measures are taken to face drought during the drought
period? (Prioritize or rank actions, 1= most important, 2= important and 3= least
important)
A1. A2. A3. A4.
Individual and Changing cropping Cultivate diversified Stored food
family level pattern crops
A1. A2. A3. A4.
Community savings Establish grain bank Establish dairy
Community level and credit system farm
Kyoto University International Environment and Disaster Management
Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies