1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Book project: where people and their land are safer - A Compendium of Good Practices in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) (where people and their land are safer)

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

Swiss Red Cross (Swiss Red Cross) - Switzerland

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

Nee

Comments:

The technology presented has no direct bearing on land degradation.

1.5 Reference to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Approaches (documented using WOCAT)

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Emergency infrastructure including shelter and linked transport infrastructure, consists in establishing specific flood shelters (for people and animals) including flood-proof collective water sources and communication infrastructure as well as health and school facilities that may serve at the same time as emergency shelters during floods.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The technology applies to the specific context of the ‘Char’ land in Bangladesh, characterised as riverine sandy Islands along the Jamuna River. More than 80% of the land in the intervention area can be classified as 'Char' and is inhabited by 60% of the population served by the project. Every year, especially during floods, the rivers deposit huge amount of silt sediment that makes the land fertile. At the same time, river action washes away some portion of the 'Char' which at times can be quite large and has a strong impact on people's lives and livelihoods. Before the intervention, people living on 'Char' land depended on their traditional early warning mechanisms and were frequently surprised by floods that destroyed their crops and put their lives in danger. Due to recurring floods, people didn’t have the means to improve their built environment. The 'Char' land is furthermore characterised by its lack of public infrastructure and remoteness to public services.

The technology consists of setting up an emergency infrastructure and ensuring community access to these infrastructures during times of floods. It has to be understood in close interrelation with the approach of setting up an early warning system. The emergency infrastructure includes specific flood shelters (for people and animals), flood-proof collective water sources and sanitation systems, transport infrastructure such as foot bridges and elevated rural roads, as well as flood-proof health and school facilities that also serve as emergency shelters during floods. The flood shelters are built on a raised bed of soil and located at sites selected by the communities that are relatively better protected from flood and river erosion within the 'Chars'. The purpose of the technology is to ensure safety of life and protection of assets during times of emergency and also to mitigate sufferings related to floods. The flood shelter is an elevated plane land which is on an average 220 square feet by size and at least five feet high from the existing ground level. The site is selected by the community and should be connected through an elevated road to the nearest community. This arrangement helps people to get easy access during times of floods. The shelter has collective hygienic latrine facilities and safe water sources. People generally dismantle their housing while evacuating and reinstall it on the flood shelter.
The major activities include facilitating the development of community-led risk reduction action plans and their implementation through community participation and engagement of local governance institutions. This includes maintenance of the built infrastructure as the joint responsibility of the community and the local government. Land use, especially sowing and harvesting, is increasingly linked to flood related forecasting measures which has led to significant adaptation in the timing of farming activities. This coupled with the creation and access to emergency infrastructure allows for a relatively safe and healthy living. The adopted technology and approach has led to adapted livelihoods, reduced health costs and increased income. The technology has furthermore led to mainstreaming disaster risk management in policies and approach of local government institutions. Increasingly the local government’s cash and food for work programmes are targeting establishment and/or reinforcement of emergency infrastructure that can cater to larger population. Increased investments are made especially towards flood shelters and improving communication and access to emergency infrastructure. Since the technology is based on local knowledge and has been developed in consultation with the involved communities, it is generally well accepted with a fair degree of ownership and involvement. However, parts of the region are also prone to river erosion and this has a destructive impact on built infrastructures. The technology does not assure any safeguard against this form of uncertain river action.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2014

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• as part of a traditional system (> 50 years)
• through projects/ external interventions

Comments (type of project, etc.):

The technology has elements of traditional practice (raised plinths for flood protection) and project promoted interventions (emergency shelter and access infrastructure).

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• reduce risk of disasters
• create beneficial economic impact
• create beneficial social impact

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Comments:

Despite the lack of public infrastructure and services and being exposed to natural hazards people tend to prefer to live in the 'Char' as it brings significant economic benefits for them: crops grow rapidly and abundantly with significantly lower input costs than on the mainland.
Cow, buffalo, goat, lamb and donkey are very common in the area. People rear these for cultivation, transportation and for having meat. Every household have at least a pair or more of livestock.

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• mixed rainfed-irrigated

Comments:

Water supply for the land comprises a mix of rainfed, irrigated and post flooding sources.

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• Emergency infrastructure, shelter and linked transportation infrastructure

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

In addition to the structural and management measures described above, the technology involves additional elements such as flood-proof collective water supply and sanitation systems and communication infrastructure.

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

Comments:

N/A

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• adapt to land degradation

Comments:

NA

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology unit

other/ national currency (specify):

Bangladeshi Taka (BDT)

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

79.0

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Construction of Flood Shelter	During dry season
2.	Raising school compound	During dry season
3.	Construction of Community Resource Center (CRC)	During dry season
4.	Installation of disaster resilient tube well	During dry season
5.	Construction of concrete platform for (existing) tube well	During dry season
6.	Construction of wooden bridge	During dry season
7.	Road construction above flood level	During dry season

Comments:

All activities are structural in nature and can be undertaken efficiently only in dry season.

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Flood shelter: earth work	m3	8000.0	64.0	512000.0	10.0
Labour	CRC: earth work	m3	53.0	138.0	7314.0	10.0
Labour	CRC: sand filling	m3	302.0	99.0	29898.0	10.0
Labour	Raised school compound: earth work	m3	1790.0	64.0	114560.0	10.0
Plant material	Flood shelter: grass plantation (turfing)	m2	4620.0	13.0	60060.0	10.0
Plant material	Flood shelter: seedlings	piece	20.0	53.0	1060.0	10.0
Plant material	CRC: grass plantation (turfing)	m2	3890.0	13.0	50570.0	10.0
Plant material	CRC: seedlings	piece	50.0	53.0	2650.0	10.0
Plant material	Raised school compound: grass plantation (turfing)	m2	1390.0	13.0	18070.0	10.0
Plant material	Raised school compound: seedlings	piece	40.0	53.0	2120.0	10.0
Construction material	CRC: roof truss	kg	4375.0	100.0	437500.0
Construction material	CRC: grill and iron work	m2	88.0	2091.0	184008.0
Construction material	CRC: gypsum board	m2	478.0	922.0	440716.0
Construction material	CRC: RCC work	m3	2.9	19557.0	56715.3
Construction material	CRC: deformed bar	kg	397.0	85.0	33745.0
Construction material	CRC: boundary fencing	m2	184.0	440.0	80960.0
Construction material	CRC: brick work	m3	44.0	5515.0	242660.0
Other	CRC: electric ware and solar panel	lumpsum	1.0	73000.0	73000.0
Other	CRC: water supply	lumpusm	1.0	66150.0	66150.0
Other	CRC: transportation	lumpsum	1.0	89000.0	89000.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					2502756.3
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					31680.46

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

10% of all construction cost (except community resource center) is borne by the user. Another 15% is provided by the local government bodies. The remaining 75% is subsidised by the project.

Comments:

Defining costs of establishment is bit tricky as the measures differ in size and number, costs vary from one village to another depending on the geographical location. However, average costs of the measures further to those highligted in the table are given below:
Disaster resilient tube well: labour (mason) 3'000, equipment (drilling charge) 1800, construction material (bricks, cement, sand, iron rod, PVC pipe, cylinder, GI pipe, tubewell head) 23'250, transportation 2'650, total unit costs (BDT) 30'700
Concrete platform for (existing) tube well : labour (mason) 600, construction material (bricks, cement, sand) 2'450, other (Transportation, waste water disposal) 1650, total unit costs (BDT) 4'700
Wooden bridge: labour (mason, mason assitant, painting assistant, earthwork) 30'000, plant material (grass plantation) 12'500, equipment (painting brush etc.) 1'000, construction material (timber, nails, tar, tarpin oil, paint) 260'000, Transportation 30'000, total unit costs (BDT) 333'500
Road construction/repair: labour (earthwork) 102'500, plant material (grass plantation/turfing), 12'500, total unit costs (BDT) 115'000

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Construction of Flood Shelter	During dry season
2.	Raising school compound	During dry season
3.	Construction of Community Resource Center (CRC)	During dry season
4.	Installation of disaster resilient tube well	During dry season
5.	Construction of concrete platform ror (existing) tube well	During dry season
6.	Construction of wooden bridge	During dry season
7.	Road construction above flood level	During dry season

Comments:

Due to the softness of the sandy soil and the annual inundation, every measure requires considerable maintenance. The flooding generally washes out sands and decays the foundation of the structure. If maintenance is done in regular intervals, the entire structure remains functional. Also, grass needs to be frequently replanted as it dries up during the dry season.
The users and the local government (Union Disaster Management Committee) are mainly responsible for maintenance of all built assets and structures including the Community Resource Center. The relevant operation/repair and maintenance training has been provided by the project.. Maintenance manuals and guidelines have been developed and disseminated. Also, repair and maintenance equipment has been provided to cadre of users/caretakers trained in repair/maintenance work.

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Earthwork	m3	80.0	63.0	5040.0	10.0
Labour	Sand bag filling	piece	50.0	15.0	750.0	10.0
Labour	Pipe fitting	piece	2.0	300.0	600.0	10.0
Labour	Mason	lumpsum	1.0	500.0	500.0	10.0
Plant material	Grass plantation (turfing)	m2	85.0	13.0	1105.0	10.0
Plant material	Seedlings	piece	15.0	53.0	795.0	10.0
Construction material	Plastic bag	piece	50.0	10.0	500.0	10.0
Construction material	PVC pipe	m	15.0	120.0	1800.0	10.0
Construction material	Polythene pipe	kg	5.0	160.0	800.0	10.0
Construction material	Ciment	bag	0.5	540.0	270.0	10.0
Construction material	Sand	ft3	5.0	18.0	90.0	10.0
Construction material	Caping socket	piece	2.0	35.0	70.0	10.0
Construction material	Tape etc.	lumpsum	1.0	250.0	250.0	10.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					12570.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					159.11

If land user bore less than 100% of costs, indicate who covered the remaining costs:

Maintenance costs are to date (2017) distributed as construction (10% by the users, 15% by the local government). A cost transfer scheme to the users and local government for maintenance is developped to be applied in the follow-up phase.

Comments:

Again, defining costs of maintenance is also not easy as the measures differ in size and number. Average costs of the measures, further to those for flood shelter including disaster resilient tube well as highligted in the table, are given below:
Raised school compound: labour (earth work and sand bag filling) 7'800, plant material (grass plantation) 1'000, construction material (plastic bag, rope) 500, total unit maintenance costs (BDT) 9'300
Community resource Center (CRC): labour 1'200, plant material (grass plantation, seedlings) 10'500, Transportation 1'000, total unit maintenance costs (BDT) 12'700
Concrete platform for (existing) tube well : labour (mason) 500, construction material (bricks, cement, sand) 600, total unit maintenance costs (BDT) 1'100
Wooden bridge: labour (earthwork) 2'500, plant material (grass plantation) 3'000, construction material (plastic bag, rope) 2'000, total unit maintenance costs (BDT) 7'500
Road construction/repair: labour (earthwork) 10'000, plant material (grass plantation/turfing), 1'500, construction material (plastic bag, rope) 500, total unit maintenance costs (BDT) 12'000

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Transportation of raw material from the mainland to the sites on the 'Char' Islands varies across seasons. In the dry season it is much higher compared to monsoon as the delivery of material is easier in the latter due to extended river outreach.

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

Comments and further specifications on topography:

Information on altitudinal zone collected from the website: www.getamap.net

5.3 Soils

If available, attach full soil description or specify the available information, e.g. soil type, soil PH/ acidity, Cation Exchange Capacity, nitrogen, salinity etc.

N/A

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

Nee

Is flooding of the area occurring?

Ja

Regularity:

frequently

Comments and further specifications on water quality and quantity:

In the dry season water crisis occurs. Open defecation and use of pesticide in farming are key pollutants of water sources.

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Biodiversity can be rated as moderate or medium both in terms of species and habitat. It is stable and and often self generating.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

N/A

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• state
• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• open access (unorganized)
• leased

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)
• individual

Comments:

Land ownership is quite complex as Chars by nature are unstable habitats. In principle land is owned by state but in most cases the politician - musclemen nexus exercises real control. This results in leasing and renting of land which is the predominant form of land ownership in Chars.

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Water availability and quality

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Climate and disaster risk reduction

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

Specify assessment of off-site impacts (measurements):

N/A

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
local rainstorm	moderately
local sandstorm/ duststorm	well
local windstorm	well

Climatological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
heatwave	well
cold wave	well
drought	well

Hydrological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
general (river) flood	well
landslide	not well

Comments:

In some cases the appropriate answer would have been "not applicable" but since this is not there, we have selected "well".

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

Comments:

The limited returns that have been generated by the project is highly valued by the users from a cost - benefit perspective; especially when they understand that the project is not directly linked to land management practices. Thus, the indirect benefits are perceived to have high value.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• > 50%

If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

Out of a total of 8828 HHs targeted by the project, around five thousand HHs in three union have benefitted from the implementation of the technology.

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 0-10%

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

Ja

If yes, indicate to which changing conditions it was adapted:

• labour availability (e.g. due to migration)

Specify adaptation of the Technology (design, material/ species, etc.):

Dredging machine has been used for building some emergency infrastructure at few sites due to unavailability of labour at the time of construction.

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Emergency structures are collectively owned and have a multipurpose use; in 'normal' (non-emergency) times they are used for other purpose than safety and protection which includes community meeting, workshop and training
Expanded opportunities of communication during flood

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Community is aware and driven to implement flood preparedness and risk reduction measures on its own
Appropriate measures can significantly change people's mindset and behaviour

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
River erosion threatens built structures	Careful site selection for construction work through in depth discussion with community people supported by scientific analysis
High investment needed for building physical structures (e.g. CRC building) in the char which the local government and community find difficult to finance without external support.	Install portable semi-permanent structures in the char; Lobby for greater decentralisation of finances to local government

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Latrine and Tube well maintenance manual, SRC-BDRCS-DASCOH

Available from where? Costs?

SRC