Comparing ecological resource - dependant livelihood patterns between a project and non - project area

Abstract

An attempt was made to establish linkage between ecological resources and livelihood patterns of the poor, during a comparative study between a water resource developments intervened area and a non-intervened area on a floodplain land. Two villages, Kakuibunia and Dariarkul both in Gopalganj district of Bangladesh were selected to represent, respectively, a water management project and a non-project area. Different PRA tools (resource mapping, seasonal calendars, transect walking and boating, FGD) were practiced and key informant interviews, group discussions were conducted with female participants from marginal and landless farmers’ families. Observations found livelihoods to be intertwined with the ecological resources in wetlands in the non-project area. Seasonal variations offer people there with diverse livelihood options to switch in between. Sustainable nature and sustained source of living are synonymous in the area. Families in the non-intervened area are found to be involved in a wide array of livelihoods varying not only with seasons but also with hours of a day. Livelihoods involve extracting ecological resources from open water (beels) during monsoon and cultivating rice during the short period they get during dry season before monsoon sets in and also include other relevant activities e.g. boat-making, earth-cutting. Naturally people here have more livelihood choices to make when required. On the contrary, in the water-project-intervened area, sole dependency only on two paddies put the farmers in a vulnerable state, with less option for alternative income. Projects may have offered them with new options like pulling vans as alternative and better communication but at the cost of a major shift in the ecological settings and relevant professions e.g. fishing, boat-pulling etc. Hence the entire system always is at risk from any sudden climatic, economic threats to crop production. Water interventions or irrigation projects focusing on higher rice-production might not be the only suitable development-option for such communities, especially when these are threatening the existing conventional, sustainable structure of ecological resource–dependent livelihoods. Often small-scale interventions like ensuring access to health-facility, safe drinking water and sanitation, education, women-health programs might set these communities on the track of real development while nature continues to sustain without any disturbance and maintain human wellbeing. Gender and IWRM-oriented water development intervention is only at flourishing-stage in Bangladesh; considering human wellbeing in development-planning is only emerging. Policies often fail to recognize the implications of ecological resource-livelihood linkages, gender and ultimately, the human wellbeing during water-resource development interventions which critically question the objective of the initiatives in the first place. Hence, sustainability of future water resource development policies lies in addressing these issues to support the co-existence of human and nature.