& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Whither Flood Control?

by Firclous Mursjud
The n~xi» of h>«7 .«nd 198M In Bangladesh ha ve had a profound Impact on our P»veb< and ns a nation *r haw resolved to do something about il We have decided that we do not want to Itve with the Honda . notwithstanding th* ndvire of n section of rlonon and I heir friends who think w< should In concrete terms. we have embarked upon the Flood Action Plan (FAP) which con slats of ■ number of studies both socio-economic and cngi nee ri rig. Intended to pave Inc way for an integrated plan that gives sufficient weight to so cial, environmental and dtstri butlonal aspects, in addition to economic and engineering ones.
There appears to be a great deal of misunderstanding and ignorance about FAP in the popular mind, some of which ts shared even by those whose job it is to be slightly better informed Thus one is repeatedly confronted by statements of the sort, we have floods and we have plans, but where is the action?" The failure of course ts not one sided, and lies heavily with the Government, and In particular with the Flood Plan Coor dlnation Office (FPCO), whose job should certainly have been to inform the public- about FAP. to allay fears and doubts.
The source of the mtsun dcrstandlng about Flood Action Plan (FAP) probably stems from the very name, which seems to emphasis action to solve the flood problem, and clearly, action in the lay mind refers not to studies and supporting activities needed before a plan 1s finalised and implemented, but to actual, physical structures, protective devices, etc. The current status of FAP however, is still tentative. A fully developed plan docs not yet exist, and current endeavour Is basically geared to ultimately come up with an integrated and co herent plan. What exists of FAP on Ihc ground, consists of flood control and drainage (FCD) projects that have already been executed and arc a [all accompli! This article reports on the findings of a Just concluded evaluation of FCD projects, and tn particular on the impacts of such Investments Ils objective 1s to In form and promote public de bale. Flood control is much too important an area of activity to be left entirely to policy mak
ers and planners, because of the complex Impacts asooci a led with it. However, the de bale about FAP and flood con trol Is rapidly degenerating towards an idcotegically based polarisation and hardening of positions, with the "struc I u rah st s (1 e the engineers and their supporters who tend to favour structural solutions — embankments, sluice gates and so on. particularly If the Investment involved is large) and the non-structundtets (1 c those who oppose structural solutions. primarily of environmental and equity grounds — the green imperial tsts). This Is an undesirable and unproductive tendency because what tn needed Is du> loguc and debate, and the wfl! Ingness to learn. Let me be quite emphatic about one point no one has all the an swers. neither the greens, nor the engineers or Indeed the donors There Is nevertheless a wealth of knowledge in the country. Including knowledge that ordinary people as well as experts have accumulated over the years In dealing with and adjusting to floods. It ts Impcr stive to harness this knowledge and to generate new knowledge, and can best be done through dialogue and retaining a genuinely open mind to new Ideas and solution*
Economic Evaluation investments tn flood con trol have to be appraised be fore implementation, to de tcrmlnc whether a project ts desirable. In economic terms this means that a project should only be taken up If a taka Invested yields more than its opportunity cost or alterna tivv use. which usually means an economic return of at least around 10-15 per cent. Project benefits arc normally measured In terms of the Impact on agricultural output, more specifically on paddy output, reflecting the obsession of planners with foodgrain self-
sufficiency. However, the impact of FCD projects is much more complex and far reaching and not limited to food-graln production alone While there Is Increasing recognition of such complexity, this is yet to be reflected in the planning and design stages, and perhaps FAP will be able to make a contribution tn this area There Is also an urgent need to incorporate the non-agricuhural effects. both positive and negative. In economic evaluation — a task that ts made doubly difficult because of the problems of quantifying some of these tmpqcts
The basic Impact of an FCD project ts hydrological. I e It altera the volume, depth of flooding and Its timing, and consequently, the area under temporary and permanent water bodies Such a fundamental change In hydro-eco logic al conditions is bound to lead to numerous repercussions, the main ones are discussed below.
Positive Impacts
Perhaps the most Important impact of an FCD project is on crops, especially the Aman paddy crop Reduction In Inundation levels means that deeply flooded lands are con verted to shallow flooded lands, permitting a shift from low yielding deep water Aman to the much more productive transplanted variety Further, areas that are prone to early flash floods tn April-May eg tn the SyIhct basin, are now protected. enabling the Boro crop to be safely harvested.
An effective FCD projeel will contain the damage to life and property associated with unusual floods. This effect will be particularly Important in the flood plains of the more active rivers. eg the Brahmaputra and ihe Tees la where the problem of erosion can assume very grave proper Hons, as well as projects de-
signed to protect urban areas (Kurigram. Sirajganj).
Apart from providing protection. embankments also serve as roads, enabling more rapid transport of goods and people, as well as generating employment In this sector.
Embankments also provide scope for development of forestry projects — an area that has received some attention from NCOS By and large this potential remains largely unutilised.
Protection of an area allows fish culture to take place, as annual floods wifi not wash away the fish stock. Again, thia is a potential that has remained largely unutilised
Negative Impacts
These are less well understood and rarely taken account of tn project feasibility. However, for some projects, these effects could be suffi clcntly high to offset any benefits
FCD is unquestionably implicated tn the decline In fish • to< ks because of the physical barriers to migration, spawning and reduction In the flood plain area and areas under heels and other water bodies. In general, submersible embankment schemes (projects that prevent early flooding but allow the more intense monsoon floods to occur) do less harm than projects that provide full protection.
Wherever FCD projects have led to an Increase In cropped areas, this has led to reduced livestock activities, due tn the foes of grazing area This loss is not offset by the Increased availability of crop residue used as feed Smallstock (goal, poultry) however usually tends to Increase because of the better feed situation.
In areas where this was Important, boat transport has been seriously Impeded.
The overall distributional Impact is complex There Is no
doubt that most projects in volve Hmocs and gains to identifiable groups, eg farmers "benefit, fishermen and boatmen lose out; those outside the project suffer more acute flooding. In many eases. FCD projects lead to increased so cial disharmony, especially between those inside snd out side the project A symptom of this Is the frequency of public cuts tn the embankments to relieve flooding of homesteads outside the project Nevertheless, at many projects the perceived reduction in flood hazard had a clear 'psychologteaF Impact, leading to greater confidence In the security of housing and other assets and presumably to a greater willingness to Invest within the project area This raises the risk of a false sense of security. In many areas, cm bankments have cither already breached or been overtopped, and on others this appears likely given the state of repair In such circumstances, there 1s greater need for advance warning and emergency planning tn avert disaster
Important Findings
All the Impacts Identified need to be quantified and valued before economic evalua lion can be conducted This ts a formidable task and In many eases Impacts can only be assessed tn qualitative terms Most analysts slick to the easily quantifiable aspects, namely the Impart on crop agriculture. This Is Inadequate FAP 12 (Agricultural Study) made an attempt to Incorpo rate fish losses In their evalua lion of 17 projects. The broad findings arc reported below
— A striking Inverse reia tlonshlp was found between the economic rate of return and the period of project Im plcmcnlation. suggesting that frequent delays In Implementation has often rendered a project non-viable
— Projects with a high rate
of return are generally small. ronccptuaUy simple projects This M not to say that aH large projects perform poorly ,
— Capital costs per hectare are small by International standards and do not vary greatly from project to project
— Operation and maintc nance costs have tended to vary between 3 and 5 per cent of the capital cost, which ts higher than Is generally assumed tn feasibility studies.
— Fisheries losses have been very significant tn many projects, but were generally not high enough to destroy project viability
Lack of public participation tn project design and implementation means that considerable local knowledge (eg about local hydrology, relief) is not made use of This can spell the difference between a successful project and an unsuccessful one The high frequency of public cuts experienced in most projects could be greatly reduced If public participation could be ensured
In many countries projects arc required to pass an environmental lest as well as an economic one There is how ever an increasing tendency amongst some environmentalists to subsume everything under the rubric of envtronmen lai evaluation. Including eco nomic. ecological and social aspects of a project While the aim is quite noble, the required wherewithal (methodology) Is Inadequate. The methodology of environmental Impact assessment Is still al a very rudimentary stage. At best, this yields a Hat of different types of protect Impact, often un quantified, which arc not explicitly weighted and which cannot be reduced to a single number (like the rate of return). This makes M very difficult to com pare between projects. Until the methodology of environmental assessment improves very significantly. It should take a back scat to economic assessment, baslcslly complementing the economic analysis by drawing attention Io any serious environmental Impacts not Uken into account.
(The author Is a Senior Research Fellow at BIDS and has been involved in the FAP 12 Agricultural Study as the Senior Economist in the team. Views expressed in this article need nor reflect those of BIDS or of FAP)