Growing the Wealth of the Poor - World Resources Institute

Creating Institutions, Empowering CommunitiesThe next step involved establishing the institutional frameworkfor communities and local government to co-manage thewetlands on their doorsteps. Three new types of institutions werecreated—at the village, wetland, and local government levels, aswell as one village-level federation. (See Table 1.)The first priority was establishing 16 Resource ManagementOrganizations to take over day-to-day control of wetlandmanagement. These represented a radical departure from thestatus quo, as community institutions had rarely played a role innatural resource management in Bangladesh. Each organizationhad jurisdiction over part of the wetland ecosystem,incorporating several villages. All local wetland users—fishers,farmers, women, aquatic plant harvesters, and other resourcecollectors—were represented in its membership, along withother local stakeholders such as farmers (MACH 2006:2;Sultana 2006b:1–5).After each RMO had drawn up a constitution, annualbudget, and wetland management plan, with MACH assistance,it was registered with the government’s Social Welfare Directorateand awarded 10-year leases to manage and harvest localwater bodies by the Ministry of Land. The only condition wasprompt payment of annual dues, which were set at lower ratesthan those charged to individual leaseholders (MACH 2006:2;MACH 2007:19–22).This granting of medium-term tenure rights was critical toengaging communities’ self-interest in the success of the fledglingresource management institutions. Previously fishers and otherwetland harvesters could only receive annual permits and had nosay over wetland management. Awarding villagers a measure ofcontrol over the natural resources on which they depended gavethem a compelling reason to invest time and resources in the newgovernance institutions. By 2006, RMO memberships (rangingfrom a few dozen to several hundred people) and their electedexecutive committees had successfully developed, implemented,and enforced wetland restoration plans and equitable harvestingrights across 25,000 ha of permanent and seasonal wetlands(MACH 2007:v, 20).A second tier of local wetland governance—the comanagementinstitution—was established at the upazila (subdistrict)administrative level, in the form of Local GovernmentCommittees (renamed and formalized by the Bangladeshigovernment in 2007 as Upazila Fisheries Committees). Thesebrought together local administrators, elected local councilors,and community representatives from both RMOs and villagebasedwetland user groups representing poor households. Theirrole was to coordinate wetland management activities within theirboundaries, approving RMO management plans and measuresand arbitrating conflicts. They therefore had the final say overwetland development, marking a significant departure from thestatus quo in which wetland management decision-making waspassed down from ministries in Dhaka to local governmentadministrators, bypassing communities (Deppert 2006a).TABLE 1WETLANDS MANAGEMENT INSTITUTIONS, MACH PROGRAMManagement InstitutionResource ManagementOrganization (RMO)Local Government Committee(Upazila Fisheries Committee)Resource User Group (RUG)Federation of Resource UserGroups (FRUGs)MembershipAll local wetland users and local stakeholdersLocal administrators, elected local councilors,community representatives from RMOs and RUGsPoor fishing families, aquatic plant collectors, andlandless peopleResource User GroupsRoleExercises day-to-day control of wetland managementCoordinates wetland management activities within theirboundaries, approves RMO management plans and measures,arbitrates conflicts, has final say in wetland developmentCreates opportunities for skills training, microcredit loansHelps RUGs become self-sufficient through training in literacy,record-keeping, and other skillsSources: Deppert 2006a; MACH 2006:2; MACH 2007:30; Sultana 2006a:2-4; Sultana 2006b: 1-5115