INDEX

INDEX i

Table of Content ii

List of Table iii

Abstract iv

i
 Table of Content
Chapter I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
Introduction --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
1.1 General background: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
1.2 Objective of the Study ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3
1.3 Scope and Importance of the Study: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3
CHAPTER II -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
METHODOLOGY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
Chapter III --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
RESULT & DISCUSSION -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
3.1 Intervention ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
3.2 Feasibility Assessment ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7
3.3 Social Acceptability ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
3.3.1 Acceptance by Stakeholders----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
3.3.2 Water Smart ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
3.3.3 Ecosystem Smart ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
3.3.4 Disaster Smart ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
3.3.5 Social benefits income ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9
3.3.6 Employment ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
3.3.7 Women Participation------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
3.4 Technical Feasibility -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
3.4.1 Appropriateness ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
3.4.2 Input Availability------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11
3.4.3 Economic Viability----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12
3.4.3.1 Agricultural NCA and Output --------------------------------------------------------------------- 12
3.4.3.2 Intervention Cost ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 13
3.4.3.3 Value of Economic Indicators--------------------------------------------------------------------- 13
3.4.3.4 Environmental---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
3.4.4 Institutional ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15
3.5 Prioritization of Interventions ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16
Chapter IV -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18
Conclusion ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18
Reference--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19

ii
 List of Table
Table 1: Proposed hardware and software intervention ........................................................................ 6
Table 2: Proposed hardware intervention options in four hazard prone areas are presented ............. 6
Table 3: Interest of income by intervention implementation ................................................................ 9
Table4: Intervention acceptance in case of employment by four stakeholder group ........................... 9
Table 5: Intervention acceptance in case of women participation by four stakeholder group ........... 10
Table 6: Technical appropriate scores by three consulting groups ...................................................... 11
Table 7: Input availability of four stakeholder groups in ten villages ................................................... 11
Table 8: Economic viability of the project in four hazard prone regions.............................................. 13
Table 9: Intervention cost/measures (hard and soft measures) .......................................................... 13
Table 10: Economic viability of the project in four hazard prone regions............................................ 14
Table 11: Environmental impact of prioritized interventions............................................................... 14
Table 12: Project planning, implementing, co-ordination and sharing by stakeholders ...................... 15
Table 13: Overall feasibility ranking using technical feasibility and social acceptability index ............ 16

iii
 Feasibility Study for Implementing Climate Smart Village for
Bangladesh
By
S. M. Ashik-Uz-Zaman

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to prioritize and select the vulnerable area based on different
level of administrative units (districts, upazilas, unions and mouzas) targeted towards
the agriculture sector and in the context of climate change. It is expected that it will help
to develop a climate smart village model in Bangladesh. For scaling up climate smart
intervention options in village level, the present study anticipated some interventions
options that fit to specific hazard prone region (as mentioned Intervention options from
survey and mini-workshops section). It has been found that homestead and
embankment/roadside afforestation activities are climate smart intervention for all the
hazard prone regions for agricultural land, soil, crop production system and ecosystem.
Re-excavation of khal for ground water re- charge in drought, saline, river flood and
flash flood prone region and mini-pond construction in all the hazard prone regions are
identified as the climate smart intervention in water sector. Solar and electric pump are
considered climate smart interventions in terms of less energy consumption.
Embankment, mechanization of farm (Tractor), green/Organic manure, homestead
gardening of BARI model, khal re-excavation, Mini-pond construction, use of Leaf
Color Chart (LCC) and zero tillage with mulching are identified as the climate smart
interventions in agricultural crop production system and nutrition efficiency.

iv
 Chapter I

Introduction

1.1 General background:

Climate change has emerged as the greatest threat and challenge faced by mankind. Millions
of people all over the world are victims to the growing adverse impacts brought on by the
rapidly changing climate. Both rich and poor nations alike are experiencing the impacts but it
is the poor countries across the worlds that are most vulnerable to this onslaught mainly due to
lack of adaptive capacity. Climate change is now considered as a major development issue
instead being an only environmental problem.

This is because climate change impacts are considered to impose some of the greatest barriers
to achieving sustainable development especially for the poorer nations. Climate change is
making it more difficult for poorer countries to implement plans and strategies that will work
towards achieving their Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Other issues that are likely
to have an impact on sustainable development are loss of biodiversity and desertification. Since
these two issues are also closely interlinked to climate change, experts believe that a synergy
between these issues is crucial for the future of the planet. Climate change has taken precedence
over all other environmental problems and development concerns worldwide. The projections
reported by climate scientists in the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are even more serious than previously considered. There is
evidence that the changing climate is already causing seasonal fluctuations in precipitation and
temperature, raising the sea level, increasing sea surface temperature and causing the melting
of polar ice caps and glaciers. In an effort to reduce climate change, governments have agreed
under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) mandate to
combat climate change, set greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets and reduce the
vulnerability of nations and peoples. Various evidences show that climatic factors are creating
more risk and susceptibilities for the farmers of the country. So climate change, rice production
reduced paddy production reduced by an average of 3.9 percent each year. Seasonal hazards
create a reduction of cereal production causing food insecurity- the greatest threat to
sustainability. In this situation the farms are needed to be responsive to cope with the situation
in Bangladesh.

1
Sustainability increasing agriculture productivity is therefore a big challenge for the future food
security. To address this challenge, the Consultative Group of International Agriculture
Research (CGIAR) Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food security (CCAFS), in
collaboration with national programs is partnering with rural communities to develop “climate
smart village in Bangladesh” as models of local actions that ensure food security, promote
adaptation and build resilience to climatic stresses. To cope with the prevailing situation of
Bangladesh, the farmers living in the rural areas are considered as the key actors who can play
significant role for developing a suitable climate smart adaptation and implementation plan.
Participatory development of a plan makes it easier to implement so sharing of knowledge and
opinion among various stakeholders is a prerequisite. Local scientific knowledge will be key
to implementing goals on the ground. Before putting into operation, the “climate smart
adaptation and implementation plan”, it is required to conduct feasibility study for various
interventions in agriculture. A feasibility study was carried out in five separate segments which
are (i) vulnerability assessment and identification of village clusters, (ii) analysis of village
clusters; (iii) field works, (iv) national workshop with key stakeholders and (v) development
of scaling up and scaling out plan for climate smart villages in Bangladesh. To conduct
feasibility study at first four hazards has been considered in context of climatic vulnerability
namely:

1. drought,
2. Salinity,
3. flood
4. flash flood

10 villages including Panihara, Joypur and Kendua village in drought prone region, Sutarkhali
and Kalabagi Sutarkhali village in saline prone region, Noarpara and Maijbari village in flood
prone region and Ichhabpur, Chaliarghat and Puran lauar villages in flash-flood prone region.

2
1.2 Objective of the Study

From the above viewpoints, the seminar paper takes an attempt to depict the following
objectives:

 To bring into focus on the feasibility of selected adaptation measures/practices being

implemented in the drought, flood plains and coastal areas of Bangladesh.
 To understand the importance and challenges of the adaptation practices in terms of
their livelihood needs and priorities

1.3 Scope and Importance of the Study:

In view of the above objectives, the paper has the following scope:

 The study follows a scientific approach in which systematic detailed study of climatic,
socioeconomic, geophysical and institutional conditions of a particular village will be
carried out for a sustainable agricultural production.
 This will help to develop a climate smart village model in Bangladesh.

3
 CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

The seminar paper is completely a review paper. All the information has been collected from
the secondary sources. During the preparation of the paper, the author made an effort to go
through various books, journals, articles, reports, publications etc. with the help of the library
facilities of SAU, BARI, BRRI, BWDB, BINA and BADC and Internet search. After collecting
all the available information, it was compiled and presented in this seminar paper.

4
 Chapter III

RESULT & DISCUSSION

3.1 Intervention

The study found that the study villages in four climatic hazards area (drought, salinity, river
flood and flash flood) have been severely affected by climatic vulnerability. Climate smart
adaption interventions are divided into six broad categories under two major types of measures:
(a) hardware measures including adequate interventions and (b) soft measures including
intelligent and robust strategies and institutions.
Hardware measures express five major categories, such as
i) water resource interventions,
ii) land and agriculture interventions,
iii) environmental interventions,
iv) social interventions and
v) Other infrastructural interventions.
Software measure includes policies, plans, strategies as well as responsible institutions and
their projects. These measures are necessary from national scale to local scale. After field
survey, discussion with local farmers and different stakeholders, Officials of Department of
Agriculture Extension(DAE), Bangladesh Water Development Board(BWDB), Non-
Government Organizations (NGOs) and mini-workshops , national workshop hazard prone
wise some intervention are suggested for development of climate smart village in Bangladesh
In drought prone, region following interventions are being proposed: khal re-excavation with
sand filled well, constructing mini-ponds, afforestation (roadside/pond side), capacity building
training, drought tolerant crop varieties, knowledge sharing among organizations, sharing work
experience, project design, planning and implementation, solar pump for irrigation and zero
tillage with mulching.
For saline prone region following interventions are being proposed: khal re-excavation,
constructing mini-ponds, afforestation (roadside/ homestead/ pondside), capacity building
training, green/organic manure, homestead gardening according to BARI model, knowledge
sharing among organizations, sharing work experience, project design, planning and
implementation, solar pump for irrigation.
The proposed interventions for flood prone region are: construction of embankment at river
bank, reexcavation of khal, electric pump for irrigation, solar pump for irrigation, disaster
preparedness training, flood forecasting by mike, mobile, radio, tv, use of leaf colour chart
(LCC), use of Integrated Pest Management(IPM)and Integrated Crop Management (ICM),
farm mechanization (tractor), system of rice intensification(SRI) technique for input
management, sub-mergence tolerance rice (BRRI dhan 51 & 52), expanding short duration rice
cultivation (BRRI dhan 28), plantation at roadside/embankment (mehogony, neem, tal, khejor),
turfing at embankment, training & credit support, rehabilitation, sharing work experience,
project design, planning and implementation.

5
The proposed interventions for flash-flood prone region are: construction of embankment at
river bank, re-excavation of khal, constructing mini-ponds, electric pump for irrigation, solar
pump for irrigation, disaster preparedness training, flood forecasting by mike, mobile, radio,
tv, construction of cyclone shelter and supply emergency medicine, provide lifesaving
equipment (boya, life jacket, etc.), use of leaf colour chart LCC), use of IPM and ICM, farm
use of granular urea, farm mechanization (tractor), system of rice intensification(SRI)
technique for input management, introduction and cultivation of sub-mergence tolerance rice
(BRRI dhan 51 & 52), expanding short duration rice cultivation (BRRI dhan 28), winter
vegetable (seed selection), plantation at roadside/embankment (hijal, koroch, barun), turfing at
embankment, Alternative Income Generations(AIGs) training & credit support, sharing work
experience, project design, planning and implementation.

Table 1: Proposed hardware and software intervention

Hardware Intervention Software intervention
Afforestation (Roadside/homestead/Pond AIGs training
side)
Drought tolerant crop varieties Capacity building training
Electric pump for irrigation Disaster preparedness training
Farm mechanization (Tractor) Knowledge sharing among organizations
Green/Organic manure Sharing the project design, planning and
implementation experience
Homestead gardening according to BARI Strengthening co-ordination among
model different organization
Khal re-excavation
Khal re-excavation with sand filled well
Solar Pump
Zero tillage with mulching
Embankment
Provide lifesaving equipment (Boya, Life
Jacket)
Use of IPM & ICM
Use of Leaf Colour Chart (LCC)
Source: Field information 2014

Table 2: Proposed hardware intervention options in four hazard prone areas are
presented
Smart against Hardware intervention Software intervention
climatic hazard
Drought Afforestation Capacity building training
(Roadside/homestead/Pond side)
Drought tolerant crop varieties Knowledge sharing among
organizations
Electric pump for irrigation Sharing the project design,
Farm mechanization (Tractor) planning and
Green/Organic manure implementation experience
Homestead gardening according to
BARI model

6
 Khal re-excavation
Khal re-excavation with sand filled
well
Solar Pump
Zero tillage with mulching
Salinity Afforestation Capacity building training
(Roadside/homestead/Pond side)
Electric pump for irrigation Knowledge sharing among
organizations
Farm mechanization (Tractor) Sharing the project design,
Khal re-excavation planning and
Solar Pump implementation experience
Homestead gardening according to
BARI model
River Flood Afforestation Disaster preparedness
(Roadside/homestead/Pond side) training
Embankment Sharing the project design,
planning and
implementation experience
Khal re-excavation Strengthening co-
Provide lifesaving equipment (Boya, ordination among different
Life Jacket) organization
Use of IPM & ICM
Use of Leaf Colour Chart (LCC)
Flash Flood Afforestation AIGs training
(Roadside/homestead/Pond side)
Embankment Capacity building training
Khal re-excavation Strengthening co-
Provide lifesaving equipment (Boya, ordination among different
Life Jacket) organization
Use of IPM & ICM
Source: Field information 2014

3.2 Feasibility Assessment

The interventions are identified according to the acceptance by different level of stakeholders
(i. farmers, ii. local government, iii. government and iv. non-government organizations) from
multi-purpose use, indigenous knowledge and previous experiences. Acceptability was scored
from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1) for particular proposed intervention. Then
opportunities of income, employment and women participation were assessed through opinion
analysis on four participant groups.
Technical feasibility has been assessed through analyzing appropriateness availability of
material, proximity to market (km) road (km) and river (km). Sustainability (Long term and
short term) and user friendliness were analyzed by the appropriateness of prioritized climate
smart interventions. Material availability has been assessed by analyzing resources in local
area, local market, GOs and NGOs. Proximity analysis of prioritized interventions was

7
conducted to assess market opportunity. Moreover, proximity to road and river has also been
analyzed for assessing sustainability of selected interventions.
Eco-climate area -wise cost benefit comparison has been applied for analyzing economic
viability for four hazard prone regions. Environmental friendliness was assessed by assessing
the mitigation measures through expert opinion. Institutional feasibility was assessed by
analyzing the competence, capacity and technical assistance of local GOs, NGOs and other
civil societies. Feasibility indexes for technical feasibility were calculated through applying
Iyengar and Sudarshan (1982) method. Since, the scores of different feasibility aspects are
different due to different dimensions; these unequal dimensions of scoring are normalized
through applying United Nation Development Program (UNDP) developed normalization
method.
Finally, the identified interventions are prioritized according to acceptance of four groups and
the study recommendation by Hussain, 2013. High ranked interventions are selected as Climate
Smart interventions for four hazard prone regions for eight developmental sectors.

3.3 Social Acceptability

3.3.1 Acceptance by Stakeholders

The interventions identified accepted by different level of stakeholders from multi- purpose
use, indigenous knowledge and previous experiences. Acceptability was scored from strongly
agree to strongly disagree for particular proposed intervention.
3.3.2 Water Smart

It has been found that khal re-excavation for ground water recharge was highly accepted in
drought prone villages. Embankment was highly accepted in river flood and flash flood prone
villages. Moreover, re-excavation of khal and mini-pond construction is widely accepted for
all hazard prone villages.
3.3.3 Ecosystem Smart

The homestead and embankment/roadside afforestation program for all the hazard prone
villages was highly agreed as the ecosystem solutions.
3.3.4 Disaster Smart

Capacity building training program including weather forecasting using mobile and internet,
disaster preparedness, etc. were highly accepted in drought prone and saline prone villages. All
of the stakeholder groups in flood prone villages highly accepted the alternative income
generating (AIG) training as disaster smart soft intervention. However, in flash flood prone
villages’ rehabilitation was high accepted.
Response from four consulting groups (strongly agree to strongly disagree) was analyzed in
order to assess the social acceptance. It has been found that some interventions are strongly
accepted by stakeholder groups, but opportunities of employment, income and women
participation are very low, such as mini-pond construction, farm mechanization through tractor,
etc.

8
3.3.5 Social benefits income

The income especially of farmer group is expected to be increased significantly through

applying the suggested interventions (Table 3). The local farmer group stated that with creating
employment opportunities the income source would be raised up especially by providing
capacity building training.

Table 3: Interest of income by intervention implementation

Serial Hazard Hazard Farmer Local GO NGO
no. Name Prone Government
Villages
1 Drought Panihara 45%(M) 15%(L) 10% (L) 14%(L)
2 Kendua 25%(L) 20%(L) 12%(L) 29%(L)
3 Joypur 15%(L) 17%(L) 23%(L) 19%(L)
4 Salinity Suterkhali 23%(L) 18%(L) 32%(L) 24%(L)
5 Kalabagi 17%(L) 30%(L) 12%(L) 17%(L)
6 River NoaPara 50%(M) 45%(M) 7%(L) 21%(L)
7 flood Maijbarifall 56%(M) 44%(M) 24%(L) 23%(L)
8 Flash Chaliarghat 75%(H) 50%(M) 19%(L) 21%(L)
9 Flood Puranlaur 70%(H) 54%(M) 29%(L) 11%(L)
10 Icchapur 20%(L) 60%(M) 14%(L) 21%(L)
Source: Field information; 2014; N. B.: L = Low: 1-33%; M = Medium: 34-66%; H: 67-100%
3.3.6 Employment

The farmer group expected that their employment opportunities would be created through
establishing khal re-excavation, embankment, etc. infrastructural development (Table 4).

Table4: Intervention acceptance in case of employment by four stakeholder group

Serial Hazard Hazard Farmer Local GO NGO
no. Name Prone Government
Villages
1 Drought Panihara 55%(M) 25%(L) 20% (L) 24%(L)
2 Kendua 45%(M) 22%(L) 24%(L) 19%(L)
3 Joypur 35%(M) 27%(L) 13%(L) 29%(L)
4 Salinity Suterkhali 13%(L) 24%(L) 23%(L) 30%(L)
5 Kalabagi 27%(L) 31%(L) 21%(L) 27%(L)
6 River NoaPara 40%(M) 55%(M) 47%(M) 12%(L)
7 flood Maijbarifall 56%(M) 34%(M) 44%(M) 32%(L)
8 Flash Chaliarghat 56%(M) 35%(M) 49%(M) 45%(M)
9 Flood Puranlaur 51%(M) 44%(M) 59%(M) 46%(M)
10 Icchapur 43%(M) 50%(M) 44%(M) 56%(M)
Source: Field information; 2014; N. B.: L = Low: 1-33%; M = Medium: 34-66%; H: 67-100%

9
3.3.7 Women Participation

Women participation in creases with increasing opportunities security in tackling local

resources especially of homestead tasks. The proposed interventions (green manuring, zero
tillage mulching, etc.) are such as that women can easily be involved. Therefore, women
participation in operating suggested interventions would be increased (Table5).

Table 5: Intervention acceptance in case of women participation by four

stakeholder group
Serial Hazard Hazard Farmer Local GO NGO
no. Name Prone Government
Villages
1 Drought Panihara 45%(M) 25%(L) 20% (L) 56%(M)
2 Kendua 35%(M) 10%(L) 32%(L) 45%(M)
3 Joypur 45%(M) 27%(L) 13%(L) 41%(M)
4 Salinity Suterkhali 43%(M) 28%(L) 22%(L) 45%(M)
5 Kalabagi 57%(M) 20%(L) 22%(L) 46%(M)
6 River NoaPara 50%(M) 15%(L) 13%(L) 54%(M)
7 flood Maijbarifall 56%(M) 24%(L) 14%(L) 60%(M)
8 Flash Chaliarghat 65%(M) 10%(L) 23%(L) 58%(M)
9 Flood Puranlaur 40%(M) 24%(L) 25%(L) 56%(M)
10 Icchapur 50%(M) 30%(L) 13%(L) 50%(M)
Source: Field information; 2014; N. B.: L = Low: 1-33%; M = Medium: 34-66%; H: 67-100%
Some interventions are strongly accepted by stakeholder groups, but opportunities of
employment, income and women participation are very low, such as min i-pond construction,
farm mechanization through tractor, etc. (Table4). Moreover, capacity building training has
been identified as the most technically feasible solution for protecting crop damage through
reducing flooding (Table5).

3.4 Technical Feasibility

3.4.1 Appropriateness

Khal re-excavation for ground water rev iv al, zero -tillage with mulching, use of green
manuring , laser led levelling , IPM/ICM, leaf color chart and capacity building training (s kill
and technical information) were found as the highly appropriate interventions for drought prone
villages
(Table6). While in river flood and flash flood prone villages, embankment construction, khal
re-excavation were highly appropriate interventions and sub-mergence tolerant and short
duration crop varieties. In saline prone villages, khal re-excavation, min i- pond for rainwater
harvesting, use of green manure, weather fore casting (using mobile, internet, etc.) and capacity
building training were the most appropriate interventions. Moreover, afforestation was high ly
appropriate for all of the ten (10) villages of four hazard prone regions.

10
Table 6: Technical appropriate scores by three consulting groups
Sl Interventions Score by Score by Score
No. Climate Smart GO by
*Expert’s NGO
1 Afforestation 8 7 7
(Roadside/homestead/Pondside)
2 2 AIGs training 8 10 10
3 Capacity building training 9 8 8
4 Disaster preparedness training 10 9 10
5 Drought tolerant crop varieties 10 10 10
6 Electric pump for irrigation 6 6 5
7 Embankment 7 9 9
8 Farm mechanization (Tractor) 6 6 6
9 Green/Organic manure 8 8 8
10 Homestead gardening according to BARI 8 7 8
model
11 IPM/ICM 6 10 10
12 Khal re-excavation 8 7 7
13 Khal re-excavation with sand-filled well 8 9 3
14 Knowledge sharing among organizations 7 6 6
15 Laser led leveling 7 10 10
16 Mini-pond construction 8 7 6
17 Provide lifesaving equipment (Boya, Life 8 10 10
Jacket)
18 Rehabilitation 10 8 8
19 Sharing the project design, planning and 9 6 6
implementation experience
20 Solar Pump 7 8 9
21 Use of Leaf Colour Chart (LCC) 7 8 9
22 Zero tillage with mulching 9 10 10
Source: Field information; 2014

3.4.2 Input Availability

Input availability was ranged from moderate to high in farmer, local government and
government organization group (Table7). But in non-govt. organizations in drought prone
region input was limited.

Table 7: Input availability of four stakeholder groups in ten villages

Serial Hazard Hazard Farmer Local GO NGO
no. Name Prone Government
Villages
1 Drought Panihara 55%(M) 41%(M) 45%(M) 24%(L)
2 Kendua 40%(M) 51%(M) 42%(M) 19%(L)
3 Joypur 60%(M) 46%(M) 63%(M) 29%(L)
4 Salinity Suterkhali 76%(H) 63%(M) 43%(M) 14%(L)
5 Kalabagi 70%(H) 53%(M) 52%(M) 27%(L)
6 NoaPara 78%(H) 75%(H) 74%(H) 41%(M)

11
 7 River Maijbarifall 80%(H) 81%(H) 82%(H) 53%(M)
flood
8 Flash Chaliarghat 61%(M) 82%(H) 83%(H) 51%(M)
9 Flood Puranlaur 59%(M) 77%(H) 76%(H) 61%(M)
10 Icchapur 55%(M) 74%(H) 70%(H) 41%(M)
Source: Field information 2014
The re-excavation of khal with sand-filled well and min i-pond construction are the most
appropriate interventions in drought prone regions for the long term, widespread and user
friendly solutions. In addition, zero tillage with mulching is an essential intervention for
increasing soil moisture holding capacity. In saline prone region re- excavation of khal is the
most sustained intervention. In both the river flood and flash flood prone region embankment
is one of the most appropriate interventions against flooding to protect crop damage. It has also
been found that material availability is higher in case of khal re-excavation, mini pond
construction and homestead gardening, afforestation and embankment construction. However,
local resources can be highly used in green manuring and zero-tillage mulching.
3.4.3 Economic Viability

Eco-climate area-wise cost benefit comparison has been made for examining economic
viability for four hazard prone regions. The following issues have been considered for
economic analysis:
1. Agricultural NCA and output
2. Intervention cost/measures (hard and soft measures)
3. Economic cost/adjusted value of the intervention
4. Opportunity cost of capital assumed at 12% ,considered as discount rate
5. 20 years economic life of infrastructural pilot project in each hazard prone region
6. IRR, BCR and NPV have been estimated.
3.4.3.1 Agricultural NCA and Output
The cropping intensity with implementing selected climate smart interventions is expected to
increase about 2%, 1%, 2% and 10% in drought, salinity, river flood and flash flood prone
villages respectively. Moreover, food grain production would be increased by about 1746,
6046, 8339 and 7180 ton in drought, salinity, river flood and flash flood prone villages
respectively (Table8).

12
Table 8: Economic viability of the project in four hazard prone regions
Eco-Climatic Without Project With Project
Areas Cropping Food grain Cropping Food grain
intensity (% ) production intensity (% ) production
(tones) (tones)
Draught 226 1,873 231 1,977
River Flood 108 5,741 109 6,155
Flash Flood 129 8,113 131 8,470
Salinity 116 6,514 128 7,308
Source: Field information; 2014

Above table shows that all the four interventions in different eco -climatic areas are found to
be economically viable. The implication of the feasibility results is that the vulnerable
communities and the country as a whole would be benefitted by these interventions.
3.4.3.2 Intervention Cost
The proposed interventions are highly cost effective in implementing climatic hazard prone
regions in Bangladesh. Since the raw materials for many interventions (green manuring, IPM,
zero tillage, etc.) come mainly from local resources, the cost will be saved by implementing
these interventions. Highest cost is expected to be necessary for khal re- excavation with sand
filled well for ground water revival in drought prone villages (Table-9).

Table 9: Intervention cost/measures (hard and soft measures)

Serial No Major Interventions Tentative Total cost in
lakh/Mouza (Tk.)
1 Khal re-excavation with sand-filled well 200
2 Mini-pond construction 10
3 Solar pump 100
4 Capacity building training 20
5 Drought tolerant crop varieties 75
6 Afforestation 8
7 Training 20
8 Knowledge sharing among organizations 5
9 Sharing the project design, planning and 1
implementation experience
10 Other cost i)In situ 2
11 Zero tillage with mulching 3
Source: Field information; 2014

3.4.3.3 Value of Economic Indicators

Above table shows that all the four interventions in different eco-climatic areas are found to
be economically viable. The implication of the feasibility results is that the vulnerable
communities and the country as a who le would be benefited by these interventions (Table-
10)

13
Table 10: Economic viability of the project in four hazard prone regions
Eco-Climatic Economic indicators
Areas BCR NPV(Lakh Tk) IRR (%)
Draught 1 84 24
River Flood 4 1002 39
Flash Flood 3 1055 33
Salinity 2 700 23
Source: Field information; 2014

3.4.3.4 Environmental
It is expected that the prioritized interventions have some environ mental benefits. Impact has
been analyzed on the basis of the year of 2020. The following matrix expresses the likely
benefits of both the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem (Table11).

Table11: Environmental impact of prioritized interventions

Climate Smart Impact Scale
Environmental
Sl Interventions Benefit Net Impact (Lg, St, Lo and
Impact
W)
Water turbidity would
Khal re- temporarily be Capture fish
Fish production
excavation with increased resulting in production would be Lg, W
would be increased
1 sand-filled well decreasing habitat increased
quality
Mini-pond - Fish production would Income would be
Lg, Lo
2 construction be increased increased
Water turbidity would
temporarily be Capture fish
Khal re- Fish production
increased resulting in production would be Lg, W
3 excavation would be increased
decreasing habitat increased
quality
- Fish production would Income would be
Embankment Lg, W
4 be increased increased
Capacity - Fish production would
Lg, Lo
5 building training be increased
Habitat quality for Fish production
- capture fisheries would would be increased Lg, W
6
Zero tillage with be improved
mulching Aquatic floral
- composition would be Lg, W
7 Aquatic floral
enriched
composition
Habitat quality for
would be enriched
- capture fisheries would Lg, W
8
Green/Organic be improved
manure Aquatic floral Aquatic floral
composition would be composition Lg, W
9
enriched would be enriched

14
 Use of Leaf Habitat quality for
Colour - capture fisheries would Lg, W
10
Chart (LCC) be improved
Aquatic floral Aquatic floral
- composition would be composition Lg, W
11
enriched would be enriched
Habitat quality for
- capture fisheries would Lg, Lo
12 Aquatic floral
Use of IPM & be improved
composition
ICM Aquatic floral
would be enriched
- composition would be Lg, Lo
13
enriched
Afforestation Floral diversity
(Road would be enriched
Floral diversity would
side/home - Lg, Lo
14 be enriched
stead/Pond
side)
Source: Field information; 2014; Lg: Long term; St: Short term; Lo: Localized; W: Widespread
3.4.4 Institutional

The existing government and non -government organizations are capable to provide technical
and financial support against extreme climatic events (drought, salinity, river flood and flash
flood).
However, an institutional co-ordination is lacking among these organizations. Moreover, the
existing organizations are not performing sufficient activities in training of disaster
preparedness and use of weather forecasting in formation. The following table shows the
institutional feasibility to implement the prioritized interventions. The stakeholder (farmer,
local government, GO and NGO) are analyzed in respect of their ability and interest to share
their resources for implementation of model Climate Smart Village. The present study has
found that four groups of stakeholders who can contribute to implement Climate Smart Village.
Table 12: Project planning, implementing, co-ordination and sharing by
stakeholders
Climate Smart Village Sharing Stakeholders
Implementing Sectors
Farmer Local Govt. Organization Non-Govt.
Government Organization
Project planning and - - + +
designing
Resource sharing + + + +
Disaster Management - + + +
Technical competence - - + +
Financial support - + + +
Capacity building - + +
Implement - + + +
Monitoring and Evaluation - + + +

15
 Source: Field information; 2014; Note: Sharing (+); Not Sharing (-)
3.5 Prioritization of Interventions

It has been found that homestead and embankment/roadside afforestation activities are climate
smart intervention for all the hazard prone regions for agricultural land, soil, crop production
system and ecosystem (Table 13). Re-excavation of khal for ground water re- charge in
drought, saline, river flood and flash flood prone region and mini-pond construction in all the
hazard prone regions are identified as the climate smart intervention in water sector. Solar and
electric pump are considered climate smart interventions in terms of less energy consumption.
Embankment, mechanization of farm (Tractor), green/Organic manure, homestead gardening
of BARI model, khal re-excavation, Mini-pond construction, use of Leaf Colour Chart (LCC)
and zero tillage with mulching are identified as the climate smart interventions in agricultural
crop production system and nutrition efficiency.
Table 13: Overall feasibility ranking using technical feasibility and social
acceptability index
Sl Interventions Technical Social Feasibility Ranking
1 Disaster preparedness training 0.79 0.72 0.80 1

2 AIGs training 0.57 0.89 0.79 2

3 Afforestation (Roadside/homestead/Pond 0.76 0.71 0.79 3
side)

4 Capacity building training 0.55 0.89 0.78 4

5 Homestead gardening according to BARI 0.67 0.78 0.78 5

model

6 Khal re-excavation with sand-filled well 0.69 0.67 0.74 6

7 Use of IPM & ICM 0.69 0.66 0.74 7

8 Rehabilitation 0.53 0.78 0.73 8
9 Khal re-excavation 0.62 0.67 0.72 9
10 Green/Organic manure 0.56 0.66 0.69 10

11 Use of Leaf Color Chart (LCC) 0.62 0.61 0.69 11

12 Sharing the project design, planning and 0.81 0.44 0.69 12

implementation experience
13 Embankment 0.79 0.72 0.68 13
14 Knowledge sharing among organizations 0.68 0.49 0.66 14

15 Drought tolerant crop varieties 0.79 0.61 0.60 15

16 Provide lifesaving equipment (Boya, Life 0.50 0.38 0.55 16

Jacket)
17 Solar Pump 0.61 0.28 0.51 17
18 Electric pump for irrigation 0.41 0.34 0.46 18

19 Mini-pond construction 0.59 0.17 0.45 19

20 Farm mechanization (Tractor) 0.18 0.55 0.43 20

16
21 Laser led leveling 0.48 0.50 0.40 21

22 Zero tillage with mulching 0.63 0.66 0.10 22

17
 Chapter IV

Conclusion

The conducted study identified a number of climate- smart adaptation interventions from the
selected pilot areas of Bangladesh by collecting required information from the four participants
groups of farmer, local Government, Government organizations and NGOs. Scaling up plan
assists to implement climate-smart interventions to a macro-level. Scaling up can be done to
union level and then to the district levels depending on vulnerability to climatic hazards. It has
been found that homestead and embankment/roadside afforestation activities are climate smart
intervention for all the hazard prone regions for agricultural land, soil, crop production system
and ecosystem (Table 13). Re-excavation of khal for ground water re-charge in drought, saline,
river flood and flash flood prone region and mini-pond construction in all the hazard prone
regions are identified as the climate smart intervention in water sector. Solar and electric pump
are considered climate smart interventions in terms of less energy consumption. Embankment,
mechanization of farm (Tractor), green/Organic manure, homestead gardening of BARI model,
khal re-excavation, Mini-pond construction, use of Leaf Colour Chart (LCC) and zero tillage
with mulching are identified as the climate smart interventions in agricultural crop production
system and nutrition efficiency. The local level farmers of Bangladesh will be benefitted by
implementing this scaling up model. Agricultural productivity and crop production will be
increased. Adaptable crop resilient to disaster, climate change and hazards will be defined and
knowledge on agricultural management practices will be enhanced. As a result, sustainability
in agricultural development of Bangladesh will be achieved in near future.

18
 Reference
Ahmed, A. U. (2006). Bangladesh Climate Change Impacts and Vulnerability: A Synthesis,
Climate Change Cell, Department Of Environment, Comprehensive Disaster
Management Programme, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh,
Paribesh Bhabhan, Agargaon, Dhaka.
CCAFS & UNFAO. (2014). Questions & Answers: Knowledge on Climate-Smart
Agriculture. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (UNFAO), Rome.
Iyengar, N.S.; & P. Sudarshan. (1982). ‘A Method of Classifying Regions from Multivariate
Data’, Economic and Political Weekly, Special Article: 2048-52.
Hussain, S. G. (2013). Stakeholders’ workshop on Prioritizing Intervention for Climate Smart
Agriculture in Bangladesh, Climate Change, Agriculture and food Security (CCAFS),
South Asia International Water Management Institute, New Dilhi.

19