Social Consequences of resettlement under Padma Multipurpose Bridge Project: A SIA approach

Social Consequences of resettlement under Padma Multipurpose Bridge Project: A SIA approach

SUPERVISED BY Samiha Rahman Bushra Examination roll: 4834 Session: 2011-12 Registration no: 2011-915-452 4th Year 8th Semester Department of Development Studies University of Dhaka

SUBMITTED TO Department of Development Studies University of Dhaka

Date of Submission: 21 December, 2015 i

DECLARATION Student’s Declaration I certify that this research does not incorporate without acknowledgement any material previously submitted for a degree or diploma in any university; and that to the best of my knowledge and belief it does not contain any material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the text.

………………………………. Samiha Rahman Bushra Examination roll: 4834 Session: 2011-12 Registration no: 2011-915-452 4th Year 8th Semester Department of Development Studies University of Dhaka Supervisor’s Declaration I believe that this research is properly presented, conforms to the best specifications of thesis presentation in the university and is prima facie worthy of examination.

……………………. Mohammed Abdul Baten Adjunct Faculty Department of Development Studies University of Dhaka

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Despite the ruthless feelings of desperation and inadequacies, this study owes its existence to a lot of people who stretched their hands out to rescue me from a thousand difficulties. The respondents of three villages of and Lohajong Upazila of Munshiganj district were, in general, helpful and some of them became very close to me; showing a lot of interest in my study. Their frank discussion on various issues provided a lot of insights into my investigations. I am grateful to my supervisor, Lecturer at Dept of Development Studies, University of Dhaka for all his patients, encouragement, valuable advises and above all for pushing me to work on this…without whose support I wouldn’t have been able to complete my study. I have taken the freedom to discuss my learning and problems with my friends on various incidences. They showed their massive cooperation and for that, I am grateful to all of them. Finally, I wish to thank my parents for their never-ending love and support for whatever I choose to do in my life. Samiha Rahman Bushra Exam roll: 4834 Session: 2011-12 Registration no: 2011-915-452 4th Year 8th Semester Department of Development Studies University of Dhaka

iii

ABSTRACT The Padma Multipurpose Bridge Project (PMBP) is being undertaken to construct a road and railway bridge over the River Padma, between Mawa (north side) and Janjira (south side) about 40 km south of Dhaka. The main objective of the project is to establish a reliable and safe river crossing on the highway from the capital towards the relatively isolated and under-developed Southwest Region of the country, which is home to 30% of the entire population. A large number of populations have already been resettled in the resettlement areas due to the project’s implementation procedure. In Mawa there are broadly three resettlement areas. The established SIA addressed compensation packages which would be ensured by the concerned authorities. This study has focused post-resettlement social consequences of the project affected people (PAPs) of Padma Multipurpose Bridge Project. The study was conducted on three villages named Wari, Dakhsin Kumarbhog and Uttar Kumarbhog of Lohajong Upazila under Munshiganj District. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used to collect the data required for understanding the dynamism of the post resettlement perception of the PAPs. A semi-structured questionnaire survey was conducted on 30 households randomly chosen from the mentioned villages and FGDs (focus group discussion) were stood to reason that the in-depth knowledge about their experiences regarding this whole resettlement process is gathered properly. The study finds that village- North Kumarbhog is one of the three resettlement areas of Mawa side known as ‘Resettlement Area 3’ and the other two villages are also unrecognized resettlement areas where mainly the landless PAPs were forced to be resettled being extracted from the established, well-planned resettlement areas. The study finds that the powerful PAPs (landowners) are being facilitated much higher than the powerless PAPs (landless). As stated before, powerless PAPs have no access to the resettlement areas where they were entitled to have 2.5 decimal lands per household. It is also found that most of the landless people think that after resettlement they have realized that the project has become a fool’s paradise for them. They have gone bananas not having compensation packages as promised by the concerned authorities. Study shows that both the groups are facing certain difficulties after resettlement but the iv

landless PAPs are juggling frogs to cope up with the unwanted problems originated from the resettlement course. They are experiencing difficulties with water collection, unavailability of electricity, lack of roads, drainage system, high school and so more. They said that they were just like the sitting ducks about the whole resettlement area related decisions taken by the landowners group and the concerned authority together. The study suggests that as they are in uncharted waters and seeking for ensuring their compensations as promised by the authority and which are also written in the official papers ‘Social Impact Assessment (SIA) volumes’ and the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) of PMBP published by Bangladesh Bridge Authority in 2010, the concerned authorities need to step up their games by introducing adequate facilities to the PAPs in no time. Key words: PMBP, SIA, Resettlement, PAP, Compensation

v

ABBREVIATION

BBA

Bangladesh Bridge Authority

SIA

Social Impact Assessment

EIA

Environmental Impact Assessment

ADB

Asian Development Bank

DC

Deputy Commissioner

FGD

Focus Group Discussion

GAP

Gender Action Plan

GOB

Government of Bangladesh

IDB

Islamic Development Bank

JBIC

Japan Bank for International Cooperation

JICA

Japan International Cooperation Agency

JMBP

Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge Project

PAP

Project Affected Person

PMBP

Padma Multipurpose Bridge Project

RAP

Resettlement Action Plan

RA

Resettlement Area

WB

World Bank

CCDB

Christian Commission for Development in Bangladesh

DOE

Department of Environment

vi

Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENT........................................................................................................ iii ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. iv ABBREVIATION .................................................................................................................... vi CHAPTER 1 .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction: .................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Justification: .................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Research objectives: ........................................................................................................ 3 1.4 Problem Statement: ......................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Research Question: .......................................................................................................... 4 1.6 Limitation of the Study: .................................................................................................. 4 CHAPTER 2 .............................................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Review of literature: ........................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Facts about Padma Multipurpose bridge ....................................................................... 12 CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................ 13 3.1 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 13 3.2 Study area: ..................................................................................................................... 16 CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................................ 19 4.1 Findings: ........................................................................................................................ 19 CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................ 30 5.1 Discussions .................................................................................................................... 30 CHAPTER 6 ............................................................................................................................ 42 6.1 Conclusion:.................................................................................................................... 42 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 44 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................. 47 Appendix 1: Questionnaire for households ......................................................................... 47 vii

Appendix 2. Pictures of roads of villages DakhsinKumarbhog and Wari( ‘khash lands’ used as resettlement areas) .................................................................................................. 51 Appendix 3: Pictures of houses (Resettlement area ‘3’, Uttar Kumarbhog) ....................... 52 Appendix 4: Picture of houses in villages Dakhsin Kumarbhog and Wari(Khash Lands) . 53 Appendix 5: Picture of prayer house built in the middle of Dakhsin Kumarbhog and Wari ............................................................................................................................................. 53 Appendix 6: Pictures of Solar panels in Dakhsin Kumarbhog and Wari villages ............... 54

viii

List of Tables Name of Tables

Page no

Table 1: Methods used for collecting data

13

Table 2: Distributions of FGD

14

Table 3: Age of the respondents

14

Table 4: Basic demographic information of the study areas

16

Table 5: Average household Size

19

Table 6: Highest class completed

20

Table 7: Opinion about Padma Bridge

21

Table 8: Difficulty faced during resettlement

21

Table 9: Adequacy of Compensation

22

Table 10: Problems due to resettlement

22

Table 11:Primary occupation (before and after resettlement)

25

Table 12: Providing job opportunities by the concerned authority for the

26

resettled population Table 13: Reasons behind negative impact on food habit

28

Table 14: Whether authorities have any role

29

Table 15: Roles that authority can play

29

Table 16: Principle of allotment of the PAPs of PMBP

32

ix

List of Figures:

Name of the figures

Page no

Figure 1: Respondent’s ratio

14

Figure 2: Sex Ratio

19

Figure: 3 Ownership of land before resettlement

20

Figure 4: Distribution of compensation

24

Figure 5: Change in income due to resettlement

24

Figure 6: Changes in monthly expenditure of PAPs after resettlement

27

Figure 7: Changes in food habit

27

Figure 8: Availability of proper schooling facilities for the children

28

x

CHAPTER 1 1.1 Introduction: Across the globe, Social Impact Assessment (SIA) has now emerged as one of the integral parts of large infrastructure projects, especially for the preparation of Resettlement Action Plans (RAPs). SIA stimulates the policy makers’ and project planners’ awareness of sustainable desired outcomes by catering the probable benefits and costs (environmental and social consequences) of any proposed large-scale project. At the early stages, SIA was carried out as a wing of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) clearance process. But SIA deserved to be a separate approach as it helps the decision makers to take decision in advance whether the project should be proceeded without any changes or with some minor or major changes or must be abrogated for safeguarding social constructive consequences of the project affected people. Therefore, to mitigate trade-offs both EIA and SIA have been obliged to be conducted under existing environment policies. Consideration of SIA against the multi-socio-cultural-cum-political background of any developing country is much challenging. Sometimes major policy shifts become mandatory to conduct SIA effectively (Momtaz, 2003). Cards are stacked against conducting social assessment in a developing country like Bangladesh.From a bird’s eye view, It is worth noting that this SIA is conducted in a socio-political setting where:SIA does not have a legislative mandatethat means there is no mention of SIA in any of the legal documents (ECA ‘95; ECR ‘97; DOE, 1997) rather, the DOE’s definition of the term ‘environment’ has been expanded to include human issues “the inter-relationship existing between physical properties of earth (water, air and soil) and living organisms (human beings, plants, micro-organisms)” (BCAS, 1999, pp. 39),socio-economic data (especially for rural areas) are not necessarily readily available or reliable, community participation practiced in western democracies are non-existent as well as conducting SIA is a complicated resource

1

consuming exercise, the quality of which is often determined by the requirements of donor agencies and the concerned authorities(Momtaz, 2003). A large project is considered as a litmus test for any country’s economic progress. Consequently Bangladesh government decided to construct Padma Multipurpose Bridge, the largest construction project in the history of the country. It is a multipurpose fixed crossing of approximately 6.15 km. long over the river Padma with provisions for a rail line, gas pipeline, and optic fiber cable and power transmission lines on the bridge. It is located at about 35 km southwest of Dhaka (BBA, 2010). It is so obvious that this infrastructure will ensure an increasing rate of economic growth as well as create variety of employment sources, but the social consequences for instance health, income source, food security etc. fundamental requirements of the project affected people (PAPs) after being resettledmust be addressed and that is the main concern of this research paper as it is anticipated that about 73,300 persons were affected by this multipurpose Padma bridge project, either by losing land or structures, or by impact on their business or employment (BBA, 2010).

1.2 Justification: This study followed the approach of SIA and tried to address the social impacts or consequences of the resettled PAPs of PMBP. There exists a well-designed EIA and SIA of this project which declared that they would ensure every possible way to find out the problems of the PAPs after resettlement but there always remains a purposiveness of these types of published studies. These studies are conducted keeping in mind that the concerned projects must be proceeded. This pre-determined knowledge to some degree certainly destroys the reliability of proper judgment. This particular study has made a bee line for addressing the after resettlement disputes related to property rights, employment, health concerns and other fundamental services they deserve as well as were promised to be provided. This study tries to find out women’s unwanted burden and their struggle for coping up with a new life at an unknown place with boundless responsibilities. All initiatives(evaluation and mitigation plans after resettlement) mentioned in the SIA and EIA papers run into the 2

sand when the concerned authority gives cold shoulder to assess the after resettlement scenario of the PAPs of any project. After being resettled the PAPs of PMBP were needed to be identified, their opinions regarding the compensation packages and women’s attitudes towards this whole process must be ascertained. Therefore, this study is attempted to understand social dynamics of resettlement regarding Padma multipurpose bridge.

1.3 Research objectives: This paper will try to focus on some criteria of social consequences in a resettlement area. The main objectives are: 

To identify the stakeholders;



To assess stakeholder’s response to rehabilitation;



To ascertain the impacts of rehabilitation on gender;

1.4 Problem Statement: Regarding the concernedPadma project, Bangladesh Bridge Authority (2009) stated that the affected households in resettlement sites raised some concerns, which are already addressed in the resettlement planning. They also declared that the affected households have positive attitudes to resettlement site’s development, and clearly understood the importance of the development of the sites. According to their statement the local affected people also saw the benefits of the bridge in terms of improved transportation and access to the southwest, increased value of residual land, opportunities for new businesses, employment and local development, including tourism. Finally, they also viewed that they will have a much improved living environment in the resettlement sites once the sites are developed with all civic amenities and community infrastructures. Moreover, several action plans have been developed to address the after resettlement impacts of the PAPs. These action plans are included in a Social Action Plan for Padma Bridge Project, including three components: Resettlement Action Plans, a Gender Action Plan, a Public health action plan and a consultation and participation plan. This specific study has focused on the after resettlement social consequences such as their real opinions about the PMBP, 3

ups and downs in the pattern of bringing home bacon of the resettled PAPs, changes in having health facilities and other fundamental services which were promised by the concerned authorities.

1.5 Research Question: Main Question: What are the social impacts of resettlements due to Padma multipurpose bridge? Sub questions: 1. What are the views of the PAPs about PMBP? 2. What are the social consequences of PAPs after resettlement? 3. Were women asked for their opinions before the resettlement took place? 4. What is the scenario of women’s work burden after being resettled? 5. What are the demands of the PAPs which were promised to be fulfilled by the concerned authorities?

1.6 Limitation of the Study: As I had to conduct the study on my own fund and without any assistance, there was resource constraint. I did not get much time to collect the primary data and to conduct the whole study, so there was time constraint too. The sample size of the study is very small and purposive, so the condition of poor households of the study area cannot be generalized for the broader population. However, it can provide the indicative picture.

4

CHAPTER 2 2.1 Review of literature: Social Impact Assessment (SIA) has become one of the central focuses of any large infrastructure projects, yet there is no universal definition or SIA nor any stand-alone procedure. Rather SIA is contextual both in defining terms and conditions and process of accomplishing. Key Concepts: SIA: In general, the SIA process provides direction in: ‘Understanding, managing, and controlling change; Predicting probable impacts from change strategies or development projects that are to be implemented; Identifying, developing, and implementing mitigation strategies in order to minimize potential social impacts (that is, identified social impacts that would occur if no mitigation strategies were to be implemented); Developing and implementing monitoring programs to identify unanticipated social impacts that may develop as a result of the social change; Developing and implementing mitigation mechanisms to deal with unexpected impacts as they develop; and finally Evaluating social impacts caused by earlier developments, projects, technological change, specific technology, and government policy’ (Burdge and Vanclay 1996). In the beginning, SIA was carried out as part of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Increasingly, SIA is now carried out as an exercise independently of EIA, because these are two different kinds of assessments. Goldman and Baum (2000:7) define Social Impact Assessment (SIA) as ‘a method of analyzing what impacts actions may have on the social aspects of the environment. It

5

involves characterizing the existing state of such aspects of the environment, forecasting how they may change if a given action or alternative is implemented and developing means of mitigating changes that are likely to be adverse from the point of view of the affected population.’ Finsterbusch and Freudenburg (2002: 409) define the three terms in ‘Socio-economic Impact Assessment’‘(socio-economic, impact, and assessment) as follows: ‘Socio-economic: In essence, the socio-half of the term socioeconomic can be seen as covering social and cultural impacts of development, and as incorporating the traditional subject matter of sociology, anthropology, and psychology, in particular, with input from other fields as well. The economic-half of the term is generally seen as including not only economics, but also demography and planning, again with input from other fields, as needed. These are emphases, rather than rigid distinctions. Impacts: The impacts are the direct as well as indirect “effects” or “consequences” of an action (such as constructing a dam, digging a coal mine, or building a highway). “In short, impacts include all of the significant changes that take place because of what an agency does and that would not have occurred otherwise”. Assessment: In the SIA context, assessment tends to have an unusual meaning: The “assessment” of impacts is carried out before the impacts actually occur. In other words, an SIA is often anticipatory rather than empirical. It attempts to assist the planning process by identifying the likely effects before they take place. The estimates of likely future impacts are based on the existing empirical knowledge of the impacts of similar actions in the past.’ Social Impacts or consequence: Vanclay, F. (2003) has regarded Social Impacts as changes to one or more of the following:

6

‘People’s way of life – that is, how they live, works, play and interact with one another on a day-to-day basis;Their culture – that is, their shared beliefs, customs, values and language or dialect;Their community – its cohesion, stability, character, services and facilities;Their political systems – the extent to which people are able to participate in decisions that affect their lives, the level of democratization that is taking place, and the resources provided for this purpose;Their environment – the quality of the air and water people use; the availability and quality of the food they eat; the level of hazard or risk, dust and noise they are exposed to; the adequacy of sanitation, their physical safety, and their access to and control over resources;Their health and wellbeing – health is a state of complete physical, mental, social and spiritual wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity; their personal and property rights – particularly whether people are economically affected, or experience personal disadvantage which may include a violation of their civil liberties;Their fears and aspirations – their perceptions about their safety, their fears about the future of their community, and their aspirations for their future and the future of their children.’ As this study tries to find out the social consequences of resettled PAPs it tries to find out if some of the Vanclay’s mentioned aspects are being changed for the resettlement process or not. He stated, even if changes occur in one of the mentioned aspects of the concerned population than that can be termed as social impact or consequence. The study finds out if there are any changes in the given aspects of the resettled PAPs of PMBP. SIA from global perspective There are some relevant studies all over the world which also focused on the SIA of some important projects of various countries in various socio-economic conditions.

7

Jackson and Sleigh (2000) examined socio-economic impact of three Georges dam in China and found that 1.3 million people would displace due to those dams. They therefore suggested resettlement in terms of the decision-making structure, property rights and incentives to move, and how the project exacerbates problems created by market reforms, especially rising unemployment and deteriorating public health. They conclude the project was boosting economic expectations while adversely affecting large sections of the population, and this could provoke widespread social unrest and eventual changes in political institutions. Roy Brouwer and Remco van Ek (2004) looked into the integrated ecological, economic and social impact assessment of alternative flood control policies in the Netherlands. They tried to assess and evaluate in an integrated way the ecological, economic and social impacts of state’s some alternative flood protection measures compared to the traditional technical engineering approach, based on existing scenarios of climate and socio-economic change over the next 50 years in a country of which approximately two thirds is situated below sea level. They made an effort to support decision-making in the context of flood control policy in the Netherlands through combining and integrating environmental, economic and social impact assessment procedures in order. SIA examples in Bangladesh There exist some reports of Social Impact Assessment of some Projects in Bangladesh.To give a feel for the status of social impact assessment a quick review of some major environmental impact statements (which also included a SIA part) have been conducted for this Study. Gorai River Restoration Project: Ministry of Water Resources of Bangladesh (2001) enquired into the environmental and social Impacts of Gorai River Restoration Project and also showed the social impacts on the project affected people and suggested some measures to mitigate the upcoming complications for that particular affected community.

8

Phulbari Coal Project: This EIA was for a proposal for an open-cast mine to cover an area of 2180 ha with mining foot print of 5192 ha. It was expected that the project would provide more than 20,000 jobs directly and indirectly as well as contribute about 1% to the country’s GDP. The proposal would lead to displacement of population with at least 160 households needing relocation. The EIA study developed various social plans in response to identified social impacts. They were: resettlement and compensation plan, livelihood restoration plan, an indigenous people’s development plan, conceptual land use plan for the extended township and surrounding villages, and public consultation and disclosure plan. The report indicated a thorough stakeholders’ consultation process. However, it was not clear whether the consultation outcomes were incorporated in the final decision-making (Asia Energy Corporation 2006). Siddhirganj-Maniknagar 230 KV Transmission Lines Project: This was a WB funded project 11 km long power lines. It would affect 82 households and some local organizations. As part of the EIA, a social impact assessment was conducted and a resettlement 13 action plan was developed. The SIA/RAP report spent several pages to identify how many households were going to be affected by it. Only 3 pages were dedicated to analyzing social impacts, the most important part of an SIA. The SIA was conducted by an organization with reputation in SIA. However, there was no sociologist or anthropologist included in the study team. The report indicated that public consultation was conducted through focus group discussions. The study team also conducted individual interviews with affected industries and real estate companies. The report listed the mitigation measures suggested by the participants and indicated that the suggestions were taken into consideration during the development of the management plan (CEGIS 2008). Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge Project (JMBP): The BBA has completed a number of large bridge projects requiring land acquisition and involuntary resettlement, including the Jamuna and Mukhtarpur bridge projects. They have gained experience in compliance with the social safeguard policies of the 9

international development financing institutions from these projects. It should be mentioned that the resettlement in the Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge Project (JMBP) offers many “good practices”, which include: (i) identification of all affected persons and issuance of identity cards (ID); (ii) cut-off date established by census; (iii) preparation of automated loss files of individual Entitled Persons (EP) and Entitlement Cards (EC); (iv) preparation of automated payment statements; (v) compensation for losses irrespective of titles; (vi) provision of replacement value of land and other assets; (vii) resettlement of affected households in GOB sponsored RS and host areas; (viii) special provisions for assistance to poor women and vulnerable groups; (ix) training/livelihood program for income and livelihood restoration; (x) project benefits for “host villages” receiving affected households; (xi) development of computerized management information systems for processing resettlement benefits, monitoring and evaluation; and (xii) involvement of NGOs in the implementation of Revised Resettlement Action Plans. Since the completion of the JMBP in 1998 these experiences have influenced the approach followed in many other projects in Bangladesh. Also a draft national policy on involuntary resettlement was developed, which is currently awaiting approval by the Government (BBA, 2010). Policy Framework, Entitlements and Relocation: The principal legal instrument governing land acquisition in Bangladesh is the Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Ordinance II (1982) and subsequent amendments of the Ordinance II (1989, 1993, and 1994). The 1982 Ordinance requires that compensation be paid for (i) land and assets permanently acquired (including houses, trees, and standing crops,); and (ii) any other impacts caused by such acquisition (BBA, 2009).The Ministry of Land deals with land acquisition and has delegated some of its authority to the Commissioner at Divisional level and to the Deputy Commissioner at District level. The Deputy Commissioners (DCs) have authority over land acquisition and payment of compensation to legal landowners (up to a maximum of 50 standard bighas or 16.7 acre) (BBA, 2010). The Deputy Commissioner (DC) determines (i) market value of acquired assets on the date of notice of acquisition (based on the registered value of similar property bought 10

and/or sold in the area over the preceding 12 months); and (ii) 50% premium on the assessed value (other than crops) due to compulsory acquisition. The value thus paid is invariably less than the “market value” as owners customarily report undervalued land transaction prices in order to pay lower stamp duty and registration fees. As a result, compensation for land paid by DC including premium remains less than the real market price or replacement value (RV) (BBA, 2009). The Ordinance II does not deal with social and economic impacts as a consequence of land acquisition. For instance, the Ordinance does not cover project-affected persons without titles such as informal settler (squatters), occupiers, and informal tenants and lease-holders (without registration document). Further, the Ordinance has no provision for resettlement of affected households and businesses or any assistance for restoration of livelihoods of the affected persons (BBA, 2009). Resettlement Experience in Bangladesh: As mentioned before, at present, there is no national policy for resettlement of project-affected persons in Bangladesh. However, many donor and multi-donor funded projects – particularly large bridge projects such as the Jamuna, Bhairab, Paksey, and Rupsa – have been successfully implemented in the country. Indeed, the Jamuna resettlement is considered a “model” with many “good practices” – for example, (i) identification of all affected persons; (ii) cut-off date established by census; (iii) video filming of project right-of-way; (iv) ID cards for affected persons; (v) compensation for losses irrespective of titles; (vi) replacement value of land and other assets; (vii) resettlement of the affected households; (viii) special provisions for assistance to poor women and vulnerable groups; (ix) training/livelihood programs for income restoration; (x) project benefits for “host” villages; (xi) management information system for processing resettlement benefits, monitoring and evaluation; and (xii) involvement of NGOs in RAP implementation – has influenced many other projects since its completion in 1998, including the development of the national policy, which is awaiting approval by the Government(BBA,2009). BBA (formerly Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge Authority) is fully familiar with the co-financiers policy requirements and has adopted many of the Jamuna “good practices” in designing 11

safeguard policies for the Short RAP prepared for resettlement of Padma RS development(BBA, 2009).

2.2 Facts about Padma Multipurpose bridge

The Bridge is being constructed between a site near the village of Mawa, lying north of the Padma River and Janjira on the south side. The 250 km project area comprises areas located in 3 separate administrative districts: Munshiganj district on the Mawa side (north bank) and Shariatpur and Madaripur districts on the Janjira side (south bank). Lauhajong and Sreenagarupazilla (sub-district) lie on the north bank and Janjira and Shibcharupazilla lie along the south bank (BBA, 2010). Fund arrangement: Project Financing agencies are World Bank (WB), Asian Development Bank (ADB), Japan International Co-operation Agency(JICA), Islamic Development Bank (IDB),Government of Bangladesh (GoB). Concerned authorities regarding resettlement process: BBA is the prime authority who gave CCDB the responsibility to assess and monitor the resettlement procedure directly. Bangladesh Bridge Authority (2009) named of five resettlement sites (RSs) for relocation of displaced households and businesses under the Project. A large proportion of affected households have indicated that they would opt for selfrelocation; as a result the number of households anticipated at the resettlement sites is considerably less than the total affected households. Of the five sites, three are on the Mawa side (RS I- Kabutorkhola; RS II – Jasaldia; RS III – Kumarbhog), and two on the Janjira side (RS IV – PaschimNaodoba, and RS V – Bakhorkandi). RS IKobutarkhola in Mawa includes provision for relocation of the existing market.

12

CHAPTER 3

3.1 Methodology Research Method: To meet the research questions and get the research done, relevant data and information both at primary and secondary level have been collected. To answer the research questions and to meet the objectives, this study will follow a mixture of methods (both quantitative and qualitative). Norms of exploratory as well as descriptive research were applied to gather data and information on every aspect of the study. Table 1: Methods used for collecting data Methods FGD ( Focus Group Discussion) Questionnaire survey Source: Author’s own compilation

Level Community level Household level

Quantitative method: A questionnaire survey was conducted with sample size 30, from which 19(63.3%) were male respondents and 11(36.7%) were female respondents.This is because the survey method has allowed a group of respondents to be selected from the larger population through random sampling. The adoption of the simple random procedure was based on the fact that the population was homogeneous in which all members are identical. The questionnaire includes both open-ended and close-ended questions. Qualitative method: FGD (Focus Group Discussion) was applied as a qualitative method. A total of 6 FGDs were taken place. The distributions of the FGD were like the following:

13

Table 2: Distributions of FGD Location Resettlement area Uari

FGD Group FGD 1: With male group FGD 2: With female group FGD 3: With male group FGD 4: With female group FGD 5: With male group FGD 6: With female group

Resettlement area South Kumarbhog Resettlement Area North Kumarbhog Source: Author’s own compilation

Data Collection: Sample size: Sample 30 respondents were collected from 3 villages: Wari, Uttar Kumarbhog and Dakhsin Kumarbhog. From each village 10 respondents were taken (see figure 1). Wari and North Kumarbhog villages are the khash lands of Government where basically landless people were resettled. South Kumarbhog village is known as ‘Padma Multipurpose Bridge Resettlement area 3’ where landowners were resettled. Figure 1: Respondent’s ratio

10

10

South Kumarbhag North Kumarbhag

10

Wari

Source: Author’s own compilation

14

Table 3: Age of the respondents: Age group

Frequency

Percent

21-40

10

33.3

41-60

17

56.7

60+

3

10.0

Total 30 Source: Author’s own compilation

100.0

Table 5 shows that Sample size includes 10 respondents (33.3% of the sample size) aged from 21 to 40, 17 respondents from 41 to 60 years aged, 3 respondents aged about 60 and above. Primary Data: Primary data and information has been collected through quantitative, qualitative as well as participatory methods. Secondary data: All through the study, the secondary data/information has been collected from different sources including relevant laws, policies, articles, journals, official reports, research reports and websites. Ethical issues considered: In times of data collection respondents enjoyed the freedom of giving data or not. Ethical issues were considered strictly. The respondents were made aware of the objectives of the study. When they agreed only then interview was taken. Data Analysis: The field data was first processed by editing and checking to ensure that everything was complete. Analysis of the output/data involved describing, summarizing and interpreting the data were obtained from each unit. SPSS software was used to generate the tables and percentages.

15

3.2 Study area: The study areas are the three resettlement areas, the villages named Dakhsin Kumabhag, Uttar Kumarbhog, Wari. These villages are situated within Kumarbhog union of Lohajong Upazila under Munshiganj District. Table 4: Basic demographic information of the study areas: Union

Kumarbhog

Total populatio n 10715

Dakshin Kumarbhog (village) Uttar Kumarbhog (village) Wari (village)

Population Density(per km)

sq.

Average Household Size

1225

Literacy rate (%)

Electricity Connection (%)

4.4

50.7

77.7

3697

4.8

38.7

80.0

3372

4.3

63.5

86.6

333

5.1

56.8

80.0

Source: Household and Population Census 2011 (BBS)

Table 4 shows the basic demographic information of Kumarbhog union as well as the three villages under this union which are the main study areas of the study. Kumarbhog Union: Total population is 101715 people. Population density per kilometer is 1225 people. Average household size is 4 members. Literacy rate is 50.7%. About 77.7% population of this union enjoy electricity connection. Dakshin Kumarbhog: Total population of this village is 3697 people. The average household size is nearly 5 members per household. Literacy rate is 38.7%.Around 80% people enjoy electricity connection.

16

Uttar Kumarbhog: Total population of this village is 3372 people. Average household size is 4 members per household. Approximately 63.5% population is literate. Nearly 86.6% people have electricity connections in their houses. Wari: Here the total population is only 333 people. The average household size is 5 members. About 56.8% people are literate. Around 80% populations are enjoying electricity connection. Map 3.1: Administrative map of Lohajong Upazila

Source: Wikimapia

17

Map 3.2: Map of Kumarbhog union

Study area 1

Study area 2

Study area 3

Source: Generated using Geographic Information System, BBS

18

CHAPTER 4

4.1 Findings: Figure 2: Sex Ratio 80 63.3%

60 40

36.7%

sex

20 0 male

female

Source: Author’s own compilation

Figure 2 indicates that sample size incorporates 36.7% female respondents and 63.3% male respondents. Table 5: Average household size: Name of the village

Number of family members

Dakshin Kumarbhog

5.00

Uttar Kumarbhog

6.38

Wari

5.10

Total

5.40

Source: Author’s own compilation

From figure 6 we can have a clear understanding about the average household sizes of the study areas and the total average household size of the 3 study areas that is 5.40 or approximately 6 members.

19

Figure: 3 Ownership of land before resettlement:

33.3% Landowner 33.3% landless

66.7%

Source: Author’s own compilation

Figure 3 points out that from the total sample size 33.3% were landowners and 66.7% were landless before resettlement. Table 6: Highest class completed Class

Frequency

Percent

Illiterate

15

50.0

Class i-iii

5

16.7

Class iv-v

6

20.0

Class vi-viii

2

6.7

SSC Pass

1

3.3

Undergraduate

1

3.3

Total

30

100.0

Source: Author’s own compilation

Table 7 provides us a perception about the literacy rate of the study areas where from the total sample size 50% were illiterate and another 50% were literate.

20

Table 7: Opinion about Padma Bridge Opinions

Amount of land Landless

Owned land

Total

6

6

12

30.0%

60.0%

We are the actual sufferers of this Count whole process % within Land

15

2

75.0%

20.0%

Good initiative for our country

Count

7

2

% within Land

35.0%

20.0%

20

10

Better for our future development Count % within Land

Total Count Source: Author’s own compilation

17 9 30

Table 8 clarifies that 75% of the landless people think that they are the actual sufferers of the whole construction process but from them 35% also added that PMBP is a good initiative for the country and in contrast 80% of the landowners mentioned that PMBP is a good initiative and it is better for their future development. Table 8: Difficulty faced during resettlement Response Yes No

Amount of land Landless

Owned land

Total

Count

19

7

26

% within Land

95.0%

70.0%

Count

1

3

% within Land

5.0%

30.0%

20

10

Total Count Source: Author’s own compilation

4 30

Table 9 shows the percentages of respondents who think that they faced difficulties during the course of resettlement( around 95% of the landless and 70% of the landowners) and the respondents who think they didn’t face any problem for resettlement procedure( roughly 5% of the landless and 30% of the landowners).

21

Table 9: Adequacy of compensation Response Satisfactory Not enough satisfactory

Amount of land

Total

Landless

Owned land

Count

1

7

% within Land

5.0%

70.0%

Count

19

3

% within Land

95.0%

30.0%

20

10

Total Count Source: Author’s own compilation

8 22 30

From the table 10 we can distinguish that where 95% of the landless people and only 30% of the landowners think that the volume of compensations determined for them is not adequate and satisfactory on the contrary merely 5% of the landless people and contrastingly70% of the landowners are satisfied and felt totally recompensed. Table 10: Problems due to resettlement Specific problems

Amount of land

Lack of income or job opportunity

No land for cultivation Unavailability of health centers Difficulties with collecting water Complications in managing fuel for daily need Scarcity of prayer houses No supply of electricity Lack of roads Lack of drainage facilities

Not Applicable

Source: Author’s own compilation 22

Landless Owned land

Total

Count

6

6

12

% within Land

30.0%

60.0%

Count

0

2

% within Land

.0%

20.0%

Count

9

0

% within Land

45.0%

.0%

Count

17

1

% within Land

85.0%

10.0%

Count

11

2

% within Land

55.0%

20.0%

Count

2

1

% within Land

10.0%

10.0%

Count

19

0

% within Land

95.0%

.0%

Count

16

0

% within Land

80.0%

.0%

Count

12

0

% within Land

60.0%

.0%

Count

1

3

% within Land

5.0%

30.0%

2 9 18 13 3 19 16 12

4

After resettlement both landless and landowner groups are dealing with some punitive problems in everyday lives. The landowners who are resettled in North Kumarbhog (Resettlement area: 3) mentioned a lesser amount of problems compared to landless group who live in Wari and South Kumarbhog villages. The landowners mainly mentioned difficulties with not having job opportunities( about 60% landowners) and lands for cultivation after being reallocated there (approximately 20% landowners). On the contrary the landless respondents were up a creek without a paddle. They mentioned plenty of difficulties such aslack of job opportunities, no supply of electricity, roads,drainagesystem,water,fuel etc. Figure 4: Distribution of compensation

50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

46.70% 20%

20%

13.30%

Proper Distribution of Compensation

Source: Author’s own compilation

While asking for their opinion about whether the compensation packages are distributed properly or not, about 46.7% PAPs think that they have got the compensation but meager amount and 20% were totally disappointed with the authorities. On the contrary, around 20% said that they have got everything they were promised to get and 13.3% said that they have got almost everything the authority mentioned to provide.

23

Figure 5: Change in income due to resettlement

Increased

10%

76.70%

decreased unchanged

13.30%

Source: Author’s own compilation

Figure 5 shows the change in income rates of the PAPS after being resettled. After resettlement about 76.7% PAPs told that their incomes have decreased, 13.30% said that their incomes have increased and 10% mentioned that their incomes are the same as before resettlement. Table 11: Primary Occupation (before and after resettlement) Major occupations

Before resettlement

After resettlement

Frequency

Percent

Frequency

Percent

Farmer

8

26.7

1

3.3

Day laborer

2

6.7

1

3.3

Shopkeeper

0

0.0

1

3.3

Taxi/bus/truck 2 driver/contractor/helper of vehicle

6.7

4

13.3

Fisherman

3

10.0

2

6.7

Small businessman (Hilsha Fish)

6

20.0

7

23.3

Trawler owner/driver

2

6.7

2

6.7

Tailor

3

10.0

2

6.7

Cook

1

3.3

1

3.3

Hawker

2

6.7

2

6.7

House owner

0

0.0

2

6.7

Social worker

1

3.3

1

3.3

Physically handicapped/No work

0

0.0

4

13.3

100.0

30

100.0

Total 30 Source: Author’s own compilation

24

The table number 12 displays PAPs’ primary occupations before being resettled as well as after being resettled. About 26.7% PAPs’ primary occupation before resettlement was cultivation but after resettlement the percentage reduced to 3.3% only.PAPs who used to be day laborers, fishermen after resettlement they had to take small businesses,shopkeeping or driving as their primary professions.After resettlement the number of workless PAPs increased at a large rate. New income source was introduced being as the owners of the houses after being resettled specially the landowner groups are benefitted with this opportunity. The PAPs who are small businessmen are mainly doing business of Hilsha fish. There remain also some PAPs who managed somehow to be with the same occupations before and after being resettled such as trawler drier or owners, tailors, cook, hawkers. Table 12: Providing job opportunities by the concerned authority for the resettled population Response

Frequency

Percent

No

11

36.7

I managed by myself

19

63.3

Total

30

100.0

Source: Author’s own compilation

From the table number 13 we can easily say that job opportunities were not introduced by the concerned authorities as 63.3% PAPs mentioned that they have managed their occupations by themselves after being resettled and 36.7% said that they were not provided with job opportunities so they are now workless or continuing the previous occupations.

25

Figure 6: Changes in monthly expenditure of PAPs after resettlement

93.3% 100 50

expenditure

3.3% 3.3%

0

increased decreased

unchanged Source: Author’s own compilation

Figure 6 indicates that after being resettled about 93.3% PAPs expenditures have risen and 3.3% PAPs mentioned that their monthly expenditures have decreased and about 3.3% PAPs said that their expenditures have remained unchanged. Figure 7: Changes in food habit

6.70%

negative change

93.30%

No significant change

Source: Author’s own compilation

Figure & shows that about 93.3% PAPs mentioned that they are facing negative changes with food management after being resettles and according to only 6.7% PAPs there isn’t any significant change in the habit of foods after resettlement.

26

Table 13: Reasons behind negative impact on food habit Reasons

Frequency

There were lands in/or around my homestead where I could cultivate but

Percent 10

33.3

2

6.7

17

56.7

1

3.3

30

100.0

now they are not given cultivable lands after resettlement I accustomed to go for fishing daily The prices of commodities are relatively higher after starting the PMBP Not applicable Total Source: Author’s own compilation

Table 14 shows the reasons behind negative impacts on food habits after PAPs were resettled. Approximately more than half of the sample size (56.7%) claimed the higher price of the commodities after starting the construction of PMBP. About 33.3% mentioned that they used to have lands around their homesteads where they could cultivate rice, vegetables and other food crops. Another 6.7% PAPs mentioned that they accustomed to go for fishing and which Figure 8: Availability of proper schooling facilities for the children

56.70%

60.00% 40.00%

33.30% Availability of proper schooling facilities for the children

20.00%

10%

0.00% yes

no not applicable

Source: Author’s own compilation

27

Figure8 shows that 56.7% of the respondents said that after resettlement they are having proper school facilities for their school going children on the other hand 33.3% respondents mentioned that they are facing difficulties of having adequate school facilities like before being resettled. For 10% respondents this aspect was not applicable as they don’t have school going children. Table 14: Whether authorities have any role Response

Amount of land

Total

Landless Yes of course

Count % within Land

No need at all

Owned land 20

6

100.0%

60.0%

0

4

.0%

40.0%

20

10

Count % within Land

Total

Count

26

4

30

Source: Author’s own compilation

As displayed by table number 15, 100% of the landless respondents and 60% of the landowners think that obviously there remain some inescapable roles to play for the resettled people. Oppositely 40% respondents from landowners group mentioned that they don’t think so there can be some further roles to play for the PAPs. Table 15: Roles that authority can play Roles

Amount of land Landless

Owned land

Total

2

3

5

10.0%

30.0%

Ensure the transparency of Count distributing the compensation % within Land packages properly

18

3

90.0%

30.0%

Job or income opportunities Count should be introduced % within Land

13

2

65.0%

20.0%

Number of prayer houses and Count schools should be increased % within Land

6

2

30.0%

20.0%

Not Applicable

Count

0

4

% within Land

.0%

40.0%

20

10

Increase the compensation

volume

of Count % within Land

Total Count Source: Author’s own compilation

28

21

15 8 4 30

Table 17 shows the affected PAPs recommendations about the authorities’ probable roles that should be played as their roles or ways of working for them are as clear as mud to the PAPs. Every respondent were flexible of providing one or more recommendations. 10% from the landless respondents and 30% of the landowners demanded that the authority must increase the volume of compensation.Almost everyone from landless group (about 90%) and 30% from the landowners mentioned that the authorities should focus on the transparency of distributing the existing compensation packages as it should be.Introducing the income opportunities was another recommended role for the concerned authorities articulated by 65% of the landless respondents and 30% of the landowners.30% of the landless respondents and 20% of the landowner respondents mentioned that the authority must increase the number of prayer houses for every religion-believed persons in the resettlement areas. There was an another group of respondents from the landowners group ( about 40%) who think that the authority has no role to play at all for them as they are provided with what they were promised to be provided.

29

CHAPTER 5 5.1 Discussions Opinions of the respondents of the development project: While asking about PAP’s personal opinions about the construction of the Padma Bridge, about 75% PAPs from landless group claimed that they are rapscallions and the actual sufferers of this whole undesirable process. On the contrary, approximately 80% landowner PAPs think that this project is a very good initiative for the country and it will make their future life improved.

Diversity of problems faced trough the resettlement procedure: There are broadly 3 resettlement areas at Mawa side. Uttar Kumarbhog is ‘Resettlement Area 3’. According to the respondents and the published SIA report (volume III) of BBA, in every resettlement area, there remain three categories of plot sizes: (i) 2.5 decimal; (ii) 5.0 decimal, and (III) 7.5 decimal. Table 16: Principle of allotment of the PAPs of PMBP Category Category A

Plot size 2.5 Decimal

Principle of Allotment This category is for landless, squatters, and uthulis displaced from the project ROW. PAPs receiving 2.5 decimal size plots will receive them free of cost. They will only bear the cost of registration. The plots will be registered in the joint names of the husband and wife or only women in case of female headed households. On divorce/separation/death of husband the ownership will automatically be vested to the wife. Category B 5.0 Decimal Affected households losing their homestead and structures due to land acquisition for the project will be entitled to 5.0 decimal plots. They will pay a modest price for the plot and bear the registration cost. They will bear full stamp duty and registration fee admissible under the compensation package for the registration of the plots. Category C 7.5 Decimal Affected households losing large homestead land (20 decimal or more) or who have two or more married sons living with the head of households will be entitled to 7.5 decimal plot under the same conditions explained in B above. Source: SIA of Padma Multipurpose Bridge, BBA, 2010.

30

In the principle of allotment, it is clearly mentioned that the landless people should be provided with 2.5 decimal plots at the same resettlement area. But the real scenario is very astonishing as well as disappointing. The local people mentioned that in the time of random discussions with the concerned authority members, the landowner group totally declared that they would not take the plots rather they would prefer to get the market price of the acquired volume of land. So in consonance with this decision, the construction of resettlement area for the landless continued. After some months, when the landowner group saw that the resettlement area is very well planned and there are prayer houses, schools, markets, wide roads, proper water supply and electricity and many other town-type facilities and the compensated cash amount of their acquired lands are less than the market price, they started to rethink about their decision and then they cast a long shadow (utilized their every possible powers and strategies) to become the plot owners of the resettlement areas. Now, in Uttar Kumarbhog, there weren’t any genuine landless people. Even the landowners used their unemployed sons as an effective weapon to capture the ‘Category A’ plots pretending that they are landless affected people. They couldn’t be extracted from the ownerships because their fathers are alive and they are not provided with their share of lands yet, so they could easily claim them as landless people. So, this has become the bone of contention between the landowner and landless groups. But we should not tar everyone with the same brush as from those landowners 2 households were found who left the luxuries they could get and decided to live with the landless people as their near ones are entitled as landless. The landowner used their political and social powers to make the ‘Resettlement Area’ only for their living and thrown out the real affected landless people with their own fates. After few months the authority distributed ‘khash’ lands (Daksin Kumarbhog,Uari villages) to these landless people where they are experiencing boundless sufferings. Even in JMBP the scenario was the same. Only the land owners but no other affected groups like tenants, farmers and sharecroppers were treated for compensations (Atahar, 2013).

31

Change in Income due to Resettlement: From 5 principles of RAP,2 major principles were income and livelihood restoration measures designed for a 10-year period following the implementation of the resettlement plan and the income and livelihood restoration program should consider the needs, personal capacities and skills, existing practices, gender, market demand, future potentials and availability of resources of affected persons(BBA,2010).But the study shows that both groups (landless, landowner) are the victims of income reduction (approximately 76.7% PAPs, see figure number 5). Table number 12 shows that while before resettlement 8 PAPs out of 30 respondents were farmers in occupation, only one had been able to continue this occupation. But he had been able to continue his occupation as his land of cultivation is situated near to his in law’s home that is far from his previous home. So it is an exceptional case. But the rest 7 farmers have to switch their occupation as they were not provided the same volume of land they used to have. The farmers accustomed to have more than 20 decimal lands were provided maximum plot size declared by the concerned authority that is 7.5 decimal plots (BBA, 2010). As a result they are not capable to cultivate and had to leave their occupations. Unlike this project even in the case of JMBP it was noticed that household cultivation reduced in the post project period (Barua, Nath and Jahan 1993) for reducing amount of lands.This has been also observed that for the construction of Padma Multipurpose Bridge, the price of the land increased dramatically (which is a natural process) but the PAPs mentioned that they are not provided with the market price of their lands. Similarly the compensated amount of JMBP was not sufficient to buy the same amount of land. (Ghosh, Rahman and Rana, 2010). From those farmers, who were landowners have become house owners or small businessmen using their assets compensated. But those landless farmers are facing difficulties with their mundane livelihoods. They are on the process of switching from one to another occupation to find the appropriate one which can ensure the same amount of income as before (being as farmers). Mainly they have taken driving,

32

tailoring as their occupations or have become unemployed opening the gate for endless uncertainties. The other occupation holding PAPs are broadly facing the following difficulties, 

In the ‘Khash land’ of Wari and Daksin Kumarbhog, where the landless were forced to be resettled, there isn’t any market nearby as well as in Uttar Kumarbhog a market is built but not in function up till now. As a result, the fishermen and small businessmen of the three study areas are not capable to sell their products or have to go far to sell those which is not cost-effective. So these occupations-holding PAPs have beefed about ensuring low income compared to before resettlement period.



Additionally, as the incomes of the PAPs have reduced, consequently with the reduction of income rate, the demands of purchasing any commodity have also decreased. Hence, where a tailor used to stitch 10 dresses per month (roughly) now he or she has 3 to 5 dresses to sew per month, likewise a hawker and a cook can’t get that much customers now a days because of the decreasing rate of income and new place oriented uncertainties.



About 13.3 %( see table number 11) of the PAPs (who are mainly the landowners and now in profession businessmen of Hilsha fish as well as have become house owners by utilizing the money got as compensations) told that their income has been increased after the rehabilitation.



Some PAPs who used to be social workers, drivers of various vehicles didn’t feel any necessity to switch their occupations and mentioned that their income is unchanged (Approximately 10%).

PAPs stated that they are pounding the pavements for months. They were promised before resettlement that they will have job opportunities in the construction sectors of the bridge after being relocated according to their respective abilities. It was mentioned that BBA would make provisions in the contract with the contractors to employ qualified PAPs and their dependents in the recruitment of local labor, including affected women (BBA, 2010). Employment in project construction would act as an added source of income in the income and livelihood restoration processes 33

of PAPs (BBA, 2010). But as stated by the PAPs of PMBP, they went there for finding works but the concerned authority rejected them and brought day laborers from the northern districts of the country where labor cost is comparatively lower than these capital centered areas. The PAPs showed another reason behind being rejected that as they went there asking for jobs as a group of 20 to 30 people, the concerned authority might feel insecure as the PAPs are deprived of the promised compensation package and from that dissatisfactions they can quit the jobs unexpectedly at whatever time. Here this thing must be mentioned that some of the PAPs have said that they themselves didn’t want to work at construction sites as the labor cost is too low (8000 taka per month) but the witty thing is that who mentioned about this problem are now comfortable enough sitting at home being unemployed mainly enjoying to feel asleep at the switch. In the time of JMBP, improved marketing opportunities, better access to input for production, better inflow of workers were facilitated by the construction of Jamuna Bridge were introduced(Bayes, 2007).But as income and livelihood restoration measures for affected persons, skills training and supply of micro-credit were not effective in the long term (BBA, 2010).But for PMBP affected persons there are even no skills training initiatives undertaken to make them become reconciled with the new phase of life. Figure 6 shows that about 93.3% PAPs mentioned that their expenditure increased due to resettlement, the reasons behind this unwanted problem were addressed: 

Scarcity of cultivable land: Almost every household used to cultivate most of their food items before, but now they have to purchase each and every commodity (even rice) from the market which has increased their expenditures.



Price hike of commodities: After starting the construction work of Padma multipurpose bridge the prices of necessary commodities have increased dreadfully.



Market, Schools are far from the resettlement areas: The landless people are the foremost sufferers of this problem as in the ‘khash’ land, (village:Wari and 34

Daksin Kumarbhog) there is not even the supply of electricity, roads, water let alone the availability of markets or schools. So the cost increased as they have to go for purchasing or schools far away from home by vehicles. 

No supply of Electricity in Khash Land: In the resettlement areas of landless PAPs, they are not provided with the electricity services. 95% people resettled in the khash land of govt. took 20,000 taka as loan from the NGOs and bought Solar panels to meet the demands of the households. They pay 300 taka per month as the repayment of those loans. So this is another burden which every PAP has to bear monthly.



Scarcity of water: Landless people were not provided the sources of collecting water or tube wells, so they have to buy or go distant which increased their expenditure.



No sources of fuel: PAPs has to buy the fuel for meeting daily requirement.



In the landless area the plots were not higher than the roads besides the plots, they were promised to make the plots 1.5 feet higher than the roads but the authority didn’t ensure this facility up till now. So, the PAPs themselves took some loan from various NGOs to fix this problem which introduced an unwanted area for spending the money.

After finalization of construction there will be new permanent jobs created, most of them related to Operation and Maintenance (O & M) of the Padma Bridge. Also new employment will be created by associated components of the project (e.g. in the nature reserve, visitors center, tourism and recreational facilities) (BBA, 2010).Let’s hope for this miracle happening soon to ensure the ways of income generation. Impact of resettlement on health facilities: After resettlement this is very natural that the health of affected persons tends to deteriorate rapidly due to malnutrition, increased stress and psychological traumas. Infectious diseases are very significantly noticed among the vulnerable groups for instance- infants, children and elderly. Main causes are using or drinking unsafe

35

water, waste disposal due to lack of drainage system, mental trauma for displacement etc. Consequently, proper treatment and availability of clinics are to be ensured. In Uttar Kumarbhog there is a clinic where the PAPs are having proper treatment and guidance for any type of physical complication. But the scenario of Daksin Kumarbhog and Wari village is very sensitive; they are at the bottom of the ladder of having necessary health services. They have to walk 7.5 kilometers to seek for a clinic for treatment. Even there isn’t any medicine store nearby. From table 10 we can see that around 45% people of these areas pointed out the availability of health center as their prime demand to be fulfilled. In JMBP public health was also not considered a concern (BBA, 2010). A major lesson learned was that an increased risk of occupational hazards and health problems occurs during construction due to the presence of a large workforce at site (BBA, 2010). The population of the project area has voiced its concerns for potential adverse project impacts on health in the area, particularly in respect to noise and dust pollution, reproductive health, sexually transmitted diseases and HIV/AIDS, and traffic accidents (BBA, 2010). Impacts on Food Management Forced uprooting increases the risk that people will fall into temporary or chronic undernourishment, defined as calorie-protein intake levels below the minimum necessary for normal growth and work. Figure 7 shows that about 94% respondents mentioned that they can’t ensure required amount of food 3 times a day like that before resettlement. From their opinions broadly three reasons seemed to be prominent behind this negative change in food habit: 

Like other development projects Padma Bridge project also has become the stimulation of price hike of all necessary commodities. Most of the respondents (56.7%) told about this reason of not being able to manage the required food items as earlier. (See table no 13). 36



Around 33.3% respondents (from table no: 13) made the scarcity of cultivating land one of the prime reasons for this unwanted deprivation. They claimed that they used to have some lands for food (vegetables, rice) cultivation which helped them safeguarding their adequate level of calorieprotein intake.



They mentioned resettlement areas are situated quite far from the Padma River, consequently they can’t manage going for fishing in the same way as before. Table number 13 shows that nearly 6.7% people mentioned about this obstacle.

Education facilities in resettlement areas: While asking about their experience with the schooling related difficulties, from table number 10, we can perceive that about 57% mentioned, they are facing the distance related problems after being relocated. Primary schools are nearby but the higher secondary school was near to their previous villages. Authority promised to build primary and secondary schools in the boundary of resettlement areas. In the ‘Resettlement Area 3’ (Uttar Kumarbhog) there is only a primary school and in the ‘khas land’ (other 2 villages), there isn’t even any boundary around the areas let be a school for the children of the PAPs. Table number 10 demonstrates that 33.3% of the PAPs (Uttar Kumarbhog) are happy from this perspective that their primary school going children are now having the opportunity to study just beside their houses, within the boundary of the resettlement area.

Utility in resettlement areas Supply of electricity The landless people were being resettled in the khash lands about 1 year ago but still now there is no supply of electricity. The dilemma is that khash land is just beside the construction area where electricity is available for 24 hours. According to table number 10, around 95% landless people mentioned that electricity scarcity is one of 37

the key problems after migrating to resettlement areas. Almost everyone took some loans from the NGOs and bought solar panels for temporary solution (see appendix no 6). The construction side of the bridge just beside these villages has electricity supply; this situation is really very unfortunate one. Water: In the Daksin Kumarbhog and Wari resettlement areas the concerned authority didn’t ensure the sources of water. The PAPs have to go roughly 2 kilometers to collect water from other houses or ponds or have to buy water. They were promised to be delivered tube wells but are not ensured till now. Some households managed tube wells at their own costs. But in Uttar Kumarbhog, the supply of water was ensured from the beginning and the PAPs are satisfied enough with the service. Roads facility: In the Daksin Kumarbhog and Wari villages (where landless people were forced to be resettled), there isn’t any road for driving any type of vehicles. Authority promised them to construct 5 fit wide roads within six months of their displacement. But even after nearly 2 years of resettlement, there isn’t any sign for the implementation procedure (see appendix no 2).80% PAPs of these villages mentioned that lack of roads is their one of the dominant problems of everyday lives. On the contrary, the scenario of Uttar Kumarbhog is totally different. They are enjoying 5 fit wide roads in and around the resettlement area. Here we can perceive the excruciating level of discrimination of compensation packages between the landowners and the landless PAPs. Drainage system: In every resettlement area the concerned authority declared of providing proper drainage system. But as the locations-Wari and Daksin Kumarbhog were selected as resettlement area all of a sudden, the PAPs of these areas are disadvantaged from this 38

facility like other essential facilities. In rainy season, water flows into the houses and causes enormous sufferings to their lives and also causes various water-borne diseases. Similar to this project inadequate drainage system in the resettlement sites of JMBP caused water logging and outbreak water borne diseases (Ghosh, Rahman and Rana, 2010). On or about 60% people of Wari and Daksin Kumarbhog villages have addressed this problem as a vital problem which they want to be resolved almost immediately (see table no: 10). In Uttar Kumarbhog, there exists adequate drainage system for the PAPs but they are unsatisfied with the process of garbage disposal as they are not delivered dustbins which were assured by the authority. Prayer Houses: In Daksin Kumarbhog and Wari, there weren’t any single prayer house for any religion-oriented people. Maximum population of this area are Muslim in religion so they collected some money from everyone and raised a fund for at least a tin-shaded prayer house and they did build (see appendix no 5). They were promised to get prayer houses for each religion-believed group but they are not provided with this compulsory part of compensation. In Uttar Kumarbhog, there is a well-structured prayer house for the Muslim people only. The authority isn’t that much concerned about the other religion based population.

Cultural Impactsafter resettlement : There aren’t any significant changes in PAPs shared beliefs, customs, values, language and dialect as their resettlement areas are situated in the same district they werebelong to. But as they are living with new people around this is so obvious that their values and ways of thinking will change (positively or negatively). They are getting low acceptance from the agricultural communities as they have changed the occupation for the lack of cultivable lands in the resettlement areas. Even same case was noticed in the period of JMBP after resettlement situation; people who changed their occupation from agriculture to day labor or rickshaw pulling had to go 39

through a change of social status as these occupations are considered as less prestigious in comparison to agriculture and they had to adopt to the culture of the lower class people (Dulu, 2003). After migration they are breaking joint families for ensuring their shares of compensations. This will create significant changes in their life styles. As mentioned before there were two households who didn’t take the advantages of being the landlords rather they stayed with their relatives and neighbors to avoid the cultural changes and to ensure social bondage.

Women’s sufferings and decision making BBA (2010) stated that a gender action plan has been prepared on the basis of a gender assessment and consultations with women in the project areas. It aims to promote women’s participation in project planning and implementation and to maximize women’s access to project benefits.Women shared many positive impacts of the bridge. Some village women were anxious about having to move to a new location. Older women particularly were upset and worried about the changes the project would cause to their lives, while younger women were more accepting and pragmatic’. While asking to the female respondents if they were asked for giving their opinions about the resettlement process, most of the female respondents mentioned that they were not considered as a part of making any decision about their own life or her family let alone the displacement related issues. Even gender issues were not particularly addressed in the JMBP. However, it proved that women could play a major role in increasing participation of affected women, giving access to project benefits, reducing social vulnerability, and providing opportunities to improve skills and employment (BBA, 2010).So, concerned authorities of the resettlement process of PMBP must take this fact into account to ensure good outcomes. GAP didn’t mention about evaluating and monitoring the after-resettlement situations of women as this is so evident that involuntary displacement and resettlement 40

typically increase household burden and sufferings on women by increasing women’s domestic (looking after children, kitchen gardening, livestock rearing, arranging food for family members) and outside activities (in the agricultural or fisheries sector).In Wari and Dakhsin Kumarbhog. Women are facing unexplainable troubles as they have to walk kilometers to bring water, have to collect the sources of fuel, have to go far to have any kind of health facilities for her or her family members. They mentioned that before resettlement they had to work in the agricultural sector with their husbands but now the burden seems to be added because their husbands are workless and it has snatched the mental satisfaction of every family member. Same situation noticed in the time of after resettlement consequences of JMBP, unemployment by the men caused increased tension in the family (Dulu, 2003). But in North Kumarbhog, women’s work burden has reduced because they are enjoying proper water supply, availability of gas, health centers, proper drainage system etc. The GAP would also focus on income and livelihood issues, including provisions for training, credit and marketing support for income-generating activities and enhanced organizational and leadership/advocacy among poor women for sustainable social development. Inrecruitment of workers and technicians for the project priority will be given to individuals who are affected by the project, including women. Women and vulnerable groups of people will be employed in the tree plantation and maintenance program. There will also be new businesses opportunities in the resettlement sites and jobs to replace the loss in employment in agriculture, fisheries and ferry operations (BBA, 2010).The scenario is different after resettlement, women are not provided with the economic facilities they were promised to have. After resettlement BBA stated that they will establish a Social Development Fund (SDF) to support income-generating activities, particularly targeting the poor and vulnerable groups (widows), including poor female-headed households. But the mentioned vulnerable groups are not given extra attention or facilities for coping with the new uncertainties. Similar situation was prevailing in the JMBP, Affected widows were not considered for any compensation (Dulu, 2003). 41

CHAPTER 6 6.1 Conclusion: Unfortunately any large project typically displaces people and disrupts their livelihoods. To be above board, the costs and time taken to do resettlement are underestimated. Resettlement can be regarded as an impoverishment risk as well as an opportunity of being developed especially economically with the completion of the project. But the ratio of these two aspects is needed to be explored appropriately to identify the intensity of upcoming social consequences of PAPs.As mentioned before; Social Impact Assessment is not considered as a core issue for implementing any development projects in Bangladesh let alone the implementation of the most significant step of SIA methods termed as ‘establishing the procedures to monitor and evaluate the implementation of a Resettlement Action Plan and Livelihood Restoration Plan and take corrective action as necessary’. Like other developing countries, in Bangladesh the concerned authorities have a tendency to avoid the responsibilities towards post resettlement assistance programs after starting the implementation phase of any project. During the study, a very important issue has come into light; the PAPs have already consumed the compensated amount of money. Paying out large amounts of cash can immediately lead to local inflation. It leads to unwise and inappropriate spending specially in consuming various goods rather investing them in enhancing sustainable livelihoods. The study has found that about 90% PAPs mentioned that the authority should ensure the accountability and transparency of the distribution program of compensation packages as they experienced innumerable difficulties for being powerless. The study has also showed that there remains a dominance of power of the landowners group and the authority jointly to make the lives of the landless people miserable. Michael Cernea identified eight major impoverishment risks to people that commonly arise from project-induced displacement and resettlement: landlessness; 42

joblessness; homelessness; marginalization; increased morbidity and mortality; food insecurity; loss of access to common property; and social disarticulation. Almost mentioned all risks are prevalent in the livelihoods of the PAPs, more specifically in the landless PAPs.

These landless people should be the prime concern of the

authorities who are directly or indirectly associated with the resettlement process. Therefore, changes have occurred in the PAPs way of life, in their culture, in their environment, in their community, in their health and well-being and even in their aspirations after being resettled. So as stated by Vanclay, these can be termed as the social impacts or consequences of project affected people. If the impacts seem to be negative for the PAPs, some drastic measures should be taken to shelter the rapscallions as early as possible. ‘SIA of Padma Multipurpose Volume 3’ has all appropriate process and procedures to address the negative impacts and mitigate those problems following those pathways but the authority is ignorant especially for the landless people’s situation. They should follow the measures step by step not putting the cart before the horse to ensure desired outcomes. The authority should go for further studies regarding finding out the social consequences of the PAPs after being resettled with collecting data in the participatory manners as only the wearer knows where the shoe pinches.

43

REFERENCES

Asia Energy Corporation.(2006) Phulbari Coal Project: Environmental Impact Assessment. Dhaka: Asian Development Bank. Atahar, S. A. (2013) Development project, land acquisition and resettlement in Bangladesh: a quest for well formulated national resettlement and rehabilitation policy.International Journal of Humanities and Social Science. 3(7), pp.306-319. Bangladesh Bridge Authority. (2009) Padma Multipurpose Bridge Project: resettlement action plan. Dhaka: BBA. Bangladesh Bridge Authority. (2010) Environmental and social impact assessment. Volume 2. Dhaka: BBA. Bangladesh Bridge Authority. (2010) Padma Multipurpose Bridge Project: environmental and social impact assessment. Volume 1. Dhaka: BBA. Bangladesh Bridge Authority. (2010) Padma Multipurpose Bridge Project: summary of social action plan. Volume 3. Dhaka: BBA. Bangladesh Centre for Advance Studies. (1999) Guide to the Environmental Conservation Act 1995 and Rules 1997. Dhaka: BCAS. Barua, T.K., Nath S.R., &Jahan S. (1993) JamunaMutipuporse Bridge: surveys of residual land and project affected persons. Dhaka: Research and Evaluation Division, BRAC. Brouwer, R. & van Ek, R. (2004) Integrated ecological, economic and social impact assessment of alternative flood control policies in the Netherlands. Ecological Economics. 50(1-2), pp. 1-21. Burdge, RJ. & Vanclay, F. (1996) Social impact assessment: a contribution to the state of the art series.Environmental and Social Impact Assessment.14, pp. 59-86.

44

Centre for Environmental and Geographic Information Services.(2008)Social impact assessment/

resettlement

action

plan

of

Siddhirganj-Maniknagar

230

KV

transmission lines project. Dhaka: CEGIS. Cernea, M. (1997) The risks and reconstruction model for resettling displaced populations.

World

Development

[online].

25(10),

pp.1569-1587.Available

fromhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(97)00054-5 [Accessed 17 November 2015]. Dulu, M.H. (2003) The experience of Jamuna Bridge: issues and perspectives. In: Clark, D., Fox, J., Treakle, K. (eds.) Demanding accountability. United States of America:Rowman& Littlefield Publishers, p. 93-114. Dutta, B. (2014). Social Impact Assessment on Social Change Process: An Analysis of the Case of Jamuna Bridge in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Research Publications Journal.

10(3),

pp.

263-269.

Available

from

http://www.bdresearchpublications.com/admin/journal/up load/1410035/1410035.pdf

Finsterbusch, K. and Freudenburg, W.R (2002) Social Impact Assessment and Technology Assessment. In: Dunlop, R.E. and Michelson, W. (ed.) Handbook of Environment Sociology. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 407-447 Ghosh, S. C., Rahman, H. and Rana, M. (2010) Revisiting Jamuna bridge resettlement areas: exploring livelihood status of the affected people. Dhaka: BRAC. Glasson, J., Therivel, R. & Chadwick, A. (2012) Introduction to environmental impact assessment. 4th ed. London and New York: Routledge. Goldman, L. and Scott, B. (2000) Introduction. In: Goldman. L. (ed.) Social Impact Analysis: An Applied Anthropology Manual. Oxford/New York: Berg, pp. 1-31. Islam, SN.,Karim, RU., Newaz, N., Alam, SI., Akter, Z., Akter, S., Rouf, A. &Shaheed, H. (2011) Padma Bridge in Bangladesh - an opportunity and challenges for char-land livelihoods sustainability: a case study on char-Janajat in the Ganges active delta.Asia-Pacific Journal of Rural Development. 21(2), pp. 119-144.

45

Jackson, S. & Sleigh, A. (2000) Resettlement for China’s Three Gorges Dam: socioeconomic impact and institutional tensions.Communist and Post-Communist Studies. 33(2), pp. 223-241. Ministry of Water Resources. (2001) Environmental and social impact assessment of Gorai river restoration project. Volume 1. Dhaka: MoWR. Momtaz, S. (2003) The practice of social impact assessment in a developing country: the case of environmental and social impact assessment of Khulna-Jessore drainage rehabilitation project in Bangladesh. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 21(2), pp.125-132.

Available

from

http://dx.doi.org/10.3152/147154603781766347

[Accessed 17 November 2015]. The State of Queensland., Department of State Development. and Infrastructure and Planning.

(2013)

Social

impact

assessment

guideline.

Available

from

http://www.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/resources/guideline/social-impactassessment-guideline.pdf [Accessed 15 November 2015]. Vanclay, F. (2003) International principles for social impact assessment. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 21(1), pp.5-11.

46

APPENDIX

Appendix 1: Questionnaire for households A. Identification

No. I1.

Question Name of the Respondent

I2.

Name of village

I3.

Upazila

I4.

District

I5.

Religion of the Respondent

Response

Code

Muslim ................................................... 1 Hindu ...................................................... 2 Other (specify)________________________

B. Background information of the households Sl N o

First name (Start with househol d head)

Relation with the household head (Code:1)

Sex

Male.1 Femal e.2

Age (years )

Marital Status (Code:2 )

Education Amount of (Highest Income class completed) (taka)

Primary occupation before resettlement

(Code:3)

(Code:4)

Primary occupation after resettlement (Code:4)

Have your income increased or decreased after resettlement Increased = 1 Decreased = 2 Unchanged =3

47

Code 1: Relation with the HHH Self =1 Spouse =2 Son/Daughter = 3 Father/Mother =4 Grand Parents =5 Grand Children =6 Uncle/Aunt = 7 Nephew/Niece =8 Brother/Sister = 9 Other (Specify) = 10

C.

Code 2: Marital Status

Code 3: Educational Status

Code 4: Primary Occupation

Married = 1 Unmarried = 2 Widowed/Widower =3 Separated = 4

Illiterate=1 Class i-iii=2 Class iv-v=3 Class vi to viii=4 SSC Pass=5 HSC Pass = 6 Ga Undergraduate = 7 Technical/vocational = 8 Yet not going to School =9

Small trader /Petty trader =1 day laborer / Unskilled labor/ Helper of the vehicle /Domestic servant / Rickshaw puller/ Van puller = 2 Garments worker/Security Guards/Shopkeeper/ Skilled laborer /mechanic/ Bus/truck driver = 3 Begging :4 Fisherman:5 Middleman = 6 Housewife = 7 No work = 8 Physically handicapped = 9 Farmer:10 Others =11

To explore specific social impacts specific social impacts engendered by the resettlement process of Padma multipurpose bridge

Question What is your opinion about construction of Padma Multipurpose Bridge for your betterment?

Response Better for our future=1 We are the actual sufferers of this whole process=2 Good initiative for our country=3 No comments=4

2.

Are you facing any type of difficulty in this whole resettlement procedure?

Yes=1 Not at all=2

3.

Mention your main 5 key problems regarding this whole resettlement process.

Lack of income or job opportunity=1 Problem increased in food management=2 Children’s schooling related complexities=3 Difficulties with collecting water=4 Complications in managing fuel for daily need=5 Physical activities regarding household activities increased =6 There are scarcity of prayer houses=7 No supply of electricity=8 Lack of roads=9 Lack of Drainage facilities =10 Others.. (Specify)……………………………………

1.

48

Code

Question What was the volume of private property you used to belong at your own village? Is the amount of compensation promised by the concerned authority enough for your household for starting a new life here? Have you got the promised compensation package yet?

Response

7.

Is there any change in food habit after resettlement?

Positive change=1 Negative change=2 No significant change=3

8.

If negative what is the reason?

There were farming lands of rice and vegetables of my own in our own home=1 I accustomed to go for fishing daily =2 The prices of commodities are relatively higher here=3 Others: (Specify)………

9.

In the case of affirmative change what are the advantages here?

We are given more lands for food cultivation=1 The grocery store is neighboring=2 The prices of commodities are comparatively less here=3

10.

Are you provided with fitting occupation opportunity at this resettlement area?

Yes = 1 No = 2 I managed by myself=3

11.

Is your occupation after resettlement providing same satisfaction compared to previous occupation?

Yes=1 No =2

12.

Have your expenditure increased after resettlement?

Yes =1 No =2

13.

Are proper facilities available here for schooling for children like your own village? Do you miss your social and friendly relations with your neighbors and village people? Do you think the concerned authority can play more roles to make your life better here? If yes mention the roles they can play for your melioration.

Yes =1 No =2

4.

5.

6.

14.

15.

16.

Satisfactory=1 Not enough satisfactory=2

Yes = 1 No = 2 Meager amount=3 Almost everything=4

Yes =1 Not that way=2 No we are good here=3 Yes of course=1 No need at all=2 Increase the volume of compensation=1 Ensure the transparency of distributing the compensation packages properly=2 Job or income opportunities should be

49

Code

Question

Response introduced=3 Number of prayer houses and schools should be increased=4 Others…

Code

D. Questions for the women of the households to identify if they are experiencing extra burden after resettlement or not. Sl. 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Question Has your work burden (physical) at home increased after resettlement? Do you face more troubles managing food three times a day after being resettled here compared to your own villagehome? Do you have to go far from your home to collect water compared to previous experience of water collection at your village? Have your burden of fuel collection increased?

Tell me about your memories preserved in your mind of your own home as we know a woman do have the most emotional attachments with anything they used to care, maintain, be connected with. Are you satisfied with the resettlement and compensation provided? Had your opinions regarding the resettlement decisions been taken before the resettlement by the bridge authority members?

Response Increased =1 Decreased =2 Unchanged =3 Yes=1 No =2 Less than previous=3

Yes=1 No=2 Same distance =3 Increased =1 Decreased=2 The same=3

Yes = 1 No = 2 Yes=1 No=2

50

Code

Appendix 2. Pictures of roads of villages DakhsinKumarbhog and Wari( ‘khash lands’ used as resettlement areas)

Picture 2.1: Roads of DakhsinKumarbhog

Picture 2.2: Roads of Wari

51

Appendix 3: Pictures of houses (Resettlement area ‘3’, Uttar Kumarbhog)

Picture 3.1: pictures of houses in Uttar Kumarbhog

Picture 3.2: Pictures of houses in Uttar Kumarbhog village

52

Appendix 4: Picture of houses in villages Dakhsin Kumarbhog and Wari(Khash Lands)

Picture 4.1: Picture of houses in Khash lands.

Appendix 5: Picture of prayer house built in the middle of Dakhsin Kumarbhog and Wari

Picture 5.1: Picture of prayer house in Dakhsin Kumarbhog and Wari

53

Picture 5.2: Solar panels in the house of Wari village

Appendix 6: Pictures of Solar panels in Dakhsin Kumarbhog and Wari villages

Picture 6.1: Solar panel in the houses of Dakhsin Kumarbhog

54