WELCOME

1
 FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR
IMPLEMENTING CLIMATE SMART
VILLAGE FOR BANGLADESH

2 Md . Mahidul Islam
MS Student
Reg. No. 18-09148
Department of Agricultural Extension & Information System
 Introduction

• 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.

• 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).

• 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.

• 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 3
nations and peoples.
• 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.

• Before putting into operation, the “climate smart adaptation and implementation plan”,
it is required to conduct feasibility study for various interventions in agriculture.

4
 Climate Smart
Village

Climate Local Village

Climate Smart
information Knowledge and Development
Technology
service Institution plan

5
 To conduct feasibility study at first four
hazards has been considered in context of
climatic vulnerability namely:

Flash
Drought Salinity Flood
Flood

6
Drought Prone Region
• Panihara
• Joypur
• Kendua

Saline Prone Region

• Sutarkhali
• Kalabagi

Flood Prone Region

• Noarpara and
• Majibari

Flash Flood Prone Region

• Ichhabpur
• Chaliarghat and
• Puran lauar
7
 4 Stakeholder group

Non-
Local Government
Farmers government
Government Organization
Organization

8
 Objective of the Study

 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

9
 Scope and Importance of the Study

 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.

10
 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.

SAU BARI

BRRI BWDB
11
 Result & Discussion

Hardware measures

●
water resource interventions,
●
land and agriculture interventions,
●
environmental interventions,
●
social interventions and
●
Other infrastructural interventions.

software measures

●
policies, plans, strategies as well as responsible institutions and their projects
12
 Table 1: Proposed hardware and software intervention
Hardware Intervention Software intervention
Afforestation (Roadside/homestead/Pond side) AIGs training
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 model Strengthening co-ordination among different
Khal re-excavation organization
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)

13

Source: Field information 2014

 Drought

●
Hardware intervention
●
Afforestation (Roadside/homestead/Pond side)
●
Drought tolerant crop varieties
●
Electric pump for irrigation
●
Farm mechanization (Tractor)
●
Green/Organic manure
●
Homestead gardening according to BARI model
●
Khal re-excavation
●
Khal re-excavation with sand filled well
●
Solar Pump
●
Zero tillage with mulching
●
Software intervention
●
Capacity building training
●
Knowledge sharing among organizations
●
Sharing the project design, planning and
●
implementation experience

14
 Salinity

●
Hardware intervention
●
Afforestation (Roadside/homestead/Pond side)
●
Electric pump for irrigation
●
Farm mechanization (Tractor)
●
Khal re-excavation
●
Solar Pump
●
Homestead gardening according to BARI model
●
Software intervention
●
Capacity building training
●
Knowledge sharing among organizations
●
Sharing the project design, planning and
●
implementation experience

15
 Flood

●
Hardware intervention
●
Afforestation (Roadside/homestead/Pond side)
●
Embankment
●
Khal re-excavation
●
Provide lifesaving equipment (Boya, Life Jacket)
●
Use of IPM & ICM
●
Use of Leaf Colour Chart (LCC)
●
Software intervention
●
Disaster preparedness training
●
Sharing the project design, planning and
●
implementation experience
●
Strengthening co-ordination among different organization

16
 Flash Flood

●
Hardware intervention
●
Afforestation (Roadside/homestead/Pond side)
●
Embankment
●
Khal re-excavation
●
Provide lifesaving equipment (Boya, Life Jacket)
●
Use of IPM & ICM
●
Software intervention
●
AIGs training
●
Capacity building training
●
Strengthening co-ordination among different
●
organization

17
 Social Acceptability

Drought, Salinity, Flood,

Flash Flood

khal re- roadside

excavati
mini-pond
constructi
Home afforest
on on stead ation
18
Table 2: Interest of income by intervention implementation
Seri Hazard Name Hazard Farmer Local GO NGO
al Prone Government
no. 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 flood NoaPara 50%(M) 45%(M) 7%(L) 21%(L)
7 Maijbarifall 56%(M) 44%(M) 24%(L) 23%(L)
8 Flash Flood Chaliarghat 75%(H) 50%(M) 19%(L) 21%(L)
9 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%
19
Table 3: Intervention acceptance in case of employment by four stakeholder group

Seri Hazard Name Hazard Farmer Local GO NGO

al Prone Government
no. 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 flood NoaPara 40%(M) 55%(M) 47%(M) 12%(L)
7 Maijbarifall 56%(M) 34%(M) 44%(M) 32%(L)
8 Flash Flood Chaliarghat 56%(M) 35%(M) 49%(M) 45%(M)
9 Puranlaur 51%(M) 44%(M) 59%(M) 46%(M)
10 Icchapur 43%(M) 50%(M) 44%(M) 56%(M)
20
Source: Field information; 2014; N. B.: L = Low: 1-33%; M = Medium: 34-66%; H: 67-100%
 Table 5: Intervention acceptance in case of women participation by four stakeholder group

Seri Hazard Name Hazard Farmer Local GO NGO

al Prone Government
no. 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 flood NoaPara 50%(M) 15%(L) 13%(L) 54%(M)
7 Maijbarifall 56%(M) 24%(L) 14%(L) 60%(M)
8 Flash Flood Chaliarghat 65%(M) 10%(L) 23%(L) 58%(M)
9 Puranlaur 40%(M) 24%(L) 25%(L) 56%(M)
10 Icchapur 50%(M) 30%(L) 13%(L) 50%(M)
21
Source: Field information; 2014; N. B.: L = Low: 1-33%; M = Medium: 34-66%; H: 67-100%
 Table 6: Technical appropriate scores by three consulting groups
Sl Interventions Score by Climate Smart Score by GO Score
No *Expert’s by NGO
.
1 Afforestation (Roadside/homestead/Pondside) 8 7 7
 
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 model 8 7 8
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 Jacket) 8 10 10
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

22

Source: Field information; 2014 Note: Low Appropriate: 0-3; Appropriate: 4-7; High Appropriate: 8-10
 Technical Feasibility

Drought Flood and Flash Flood Saline

Khal re-excavation embankment khal re-excavation,

construction
zero -tillage with mulching
mini- pond,
khal re-excavation
use of green manuring ,
use of green manure,
IPM/ICM, sub-mergence
tolerant
weather fore casting
leaf color chart
short duration crop capacity building 23
capacity building training varieties training
 Economic Viability

Agricultural NCA and output

Intervention cost/measures (hard and soft measures)

Economic cost/adjusted value of the intervention

Opportunity cost of capital assumed at 12% ,considered as discount rate

20 years economic life of infrastructural pilot project in each hazard prone region

IRR, BCR and NPV have been estimated

24
 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

25

Source: Field information 2014

 Agricultural NCA and Output

Salinity

Cropping Production
Intensity
1% 6046 ton
26
 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
27

Source: Field information 2014

 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

28
 Table11: Environmental impact of prioritized interventions

Climate Smart Impact Scale (Lg,

Sl Interventions Environmental Impact Benefit Net Impact St, Lo and W)
Water turbidity would
Khal re- temporarily be increased Capture fish production Fish production would
excavation with resulting in decreasing Lg, W
would be increased be increased
1 sand-filled well habitat quality
Mini-pond - Fish production would be Income would be
Lg, Lo
2 construction increased increased
Water turbidity would
Khal re- temporarily be increased Capture fish production Fish production would
resulting in decreasing Lg, W
3 excavation would be increased be increased
habitat quality
- Fish production would be Income would be
Embankment Lg, W
4 increased increased
Capacity building - Fish production would be
5 training increased Lg, Lo
Habitat quality for capture Fish production would
- fisheries would be be increased Lg, W
6
Zero tillage with improved
mulching Aquatic floral composition Aquatic floral
- would be enriched composition would be Lg, W
7
enriched 29

Source: Field information; 2014; Lg: Long term; St: Short term; Lo: Localized; W: Widespread
 Habitat quality for capture
- fisheries would be improved   Lg, W
8
Green/Organic
manure Aquatic floral composition
would be enriched Lg, W
9 Aquatic floral
composition would be
Habitat quality for capture
Use of Leaf Colour enriched
- fisheries would be improved Lg, W
10 Chart (LCC)

Aquatic floral
Aquatic floral composition composition would be
- Lg, W
11 would be enriched enriched
Habitat quality for capture
- fisheries would be improved Lg, Lo
12 Aquatic floral
Use of IPM & ICM composition would be
Aquatic floral composition
enriched
- would be enriched Lg, Lo
13

Afforestation (Road Floral diversity would be

side/home Floral diversity would be enriched
stead/Pond side) - Lg, Lo
14 enriched

Source: Field information; 2014; Lg: Long term; St: Short term; Lo: Localized; W: Widespread 30
 Table 13: Overall feasibility ranking using technical feasibility and social acceptability index

Sl Interventions Technical Social Feasibility Rankin

g
1 Disaster preparedness training 0.79 0.72 0.80 1
2 AIGs training 0.57 0.89 0.79 2
3 Afforestation 0.76 0.71 0.79 3
(Roadside/homestead/Pond side)
4 Capacity building training 0.55 0.89 0.78 4
5 Homestead gardening according to 0.67 0.78 0.78 5
BARI 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

31
Sl Interventions Technical Social Feasibility Ranki
ng
11 Use of Leaf Color Chart (LCC) 0.62 0.61 0.69 11
12 Sharing the project design, planning 0.81 0.44 0.69 12
and implementation experience
13 Embankment 0.79 0.72 0.68 13
14 Knowledge sharing among 0.68 0.49 0.66 14
organizations
15 Drought tolerant crop varieties 0.79 0.61 0.60 15
16 Provide lifesaving equipment (Boya, 0.50 0.38 0.55 16
Life 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
21 Laser led leveling 0.48 0.50 0.40 21
22 Zero tillage with mulching 0.63 0.66 0.10 22

32
Source: Field information; 2014; N.B.: Feasibility Index: 0-0.19: Very Low; 0.20-0.39: Low; 0.40-0.59:
Moderate; 0.60-0.79: High and 0.80- 1.00: Very High
 Conclusion
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.

33
Thank You

34