Project Title: Water Governance and Community-based management (G3)
Project lead: Marie-Charlotte Buisson
Leader Center: IWMI
SRP/Theme mapped into: Water Future
Title: Unlocking the Potential: Improving Water Governance and Community-Based Management
in Coastal Bangladesh
What is the outcome of the research?
1.
Various stakeholders better appreciate the complexities involved in polder governance,
internalize the existence of conflicting interests and the requirement for a revised framework.
The project achieved to bring a better understanding between the stakeholders on their conflicting
interests but also on their different practices. All the stakeholders (community members, WMOs
members, local government officials, local officials from implementing agencies) had open discussions
and learnt from each other. The local officials also realized through the project that coordination was
required and that they can play a role in that sense.
2.
Government officials and elected representatives show interest in our research findings and
recommendations and some preliminary progresses are made toward policy change.
The interest arousing from the project findings is really encouraging on the potential future impacts,
especially in terms of policy change. For example, our recommendation on the importance of involving
Local Government Institutions (LGI) in water management is much more recognized today than it was
few years ago. In that respect, the Water Management Rules adopted in February 2014 specify the
role of LGIs representatives in water management.
3. Donors and implementing agencies positively welcome our recommendations and some are ready
to pilot those.
Blue Gold committed to be involved (through infrastructure development in 2015) aside with
researchers to pilot the small-hydrological unit concept which emerged from G3 and G2 projects as a
way to improve drainage and irrigation, to reduce conflicts and ultimately to sustain coastal zone
livelihoods. Similarly the project recommendation on the shift from an inclusive to a targeted group
approach has been positively welcome by various stakeholders, including donors and projects (Blue
Gold, Dutch Embassy).
What outputs produced in the 3 preceding years resulted in that outcome:
 Validation workshops created an arena for discussion between different stakeholders (Nov
2012, Nov 2013)
 Dissemination workshops at the Planning Commission, LGED and donors, CGIAR Advisory
Committee (Nov 2012, May 2014)
 Dewan, C., Buisson, M.-C., Mukherji, A. 2014. The imposition of participation? The case of
participatory water management in Coastal Bangladesh. Water Alternatives 7(2): 342-366.
 Tuong, T. P.; Humphreys, E.; Khan, Z. H.; Nelson, A.; Mondal, M.; Buisson, M.-C.; George, P.
2014. Messages from the Ganges Basin Development Challenge: Unlocking the Production
Potential of the Polders of the Coastal Zone of Bangladesh through Water Management
Investment and Reform. CPWF Research for Development Series, Paper 9. Colombo, Sri Lanka:
CGIAR Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF).
 Unlocking the Potential: Improving Water Governance and Community-Based Management
in Coastal Bangladesh, WLE technical brief (draft).
What partners helped in producing the outcome and what was their role?
 Institute of Water Modelling (IWM)
 Bangladesh Agriculture University (BAU)
 Shushilan
 Local Government Engineering Department (LGED)
 Bangladesh Water Development Board (BWDB)
 Other GBDC projects led by IRRI, IWM and World Fish
Partners have been involved at different steps of the project (not only as data collectors or
consultants), they contributed to the formulation of the recommendations and to the diffusion of the
results.
Who used the output?
 Donors, implementing agencies
 Communities, Local Government Institutions
 Project partners
How was the output used (or will be used in the future)?
 Appropriation of the research findings by the stakeholders (occurred)
 Potential evolution in the investment strategies of donors and implementing agencies (to be
confirmed)
 Potential change in the policy (yet to happen)
What is the evidence for this outcome?
 Materials from the validation workshops (report, pictures, transcripts).
 Minutes from the dissemination workshops
 Project proposal for SHU involving Blue Gold, IRRI, IWM and IWMI.
What are lessons did you learn in this process?
The selection of the partners is essential as well as the sustainability of the partnerships; trust is
required to establish effective relation and this require time. Similarly, we learnt that partnerships
are powerful when both organizations win (not only financially) in working together and when they
remain flexible to allow different level of contributions.
Building strong partnership is also closely related to capacity building which has also been a central
component of this project. Several partners’ organizations built their capacity for research in the
course of the project.
Finally, working together with several projects (GBDC-CPWF), several centers and researchers with
different disciplinary backgrounds really brought an open-minded spirit in this research. Also in term
of our impact, policy makers appreciate our recommendations because they are not coming from a
narrow project but are anchored in a more global picture.