Growing the Wealth of the Poor - World Resources Institute

W O R L D R E S O U R C E S 2 0 0 82006a:2; MACH 2007:30; Deppert 2006a). In 2004, the villagegroups were organized into 13 Federations of Resource UserGroups (FRUGs), which employed staff to help member groupsbecome self-sufficient via training in literacy, record-keeping, andother key skills. By 2007, these federations had been registered asindependent organizations with the Bangladesh government’sSocial Welfare Department, had taken control of the revolvingmicrocredit funds built up by the project, and were operatingindependently of Caritas (MACH 2007:30).116Five such committees were established, each chaired bythe senior local administrator—the Upazila Nirbahi Officer—with the Upazila Fisheries Officer acting as secretary. Othermembers included the elected chairmen of local councils(Union Parishads) and local government officials responsiblefor land management and agriculture as well as the leaders oflocal RMOs and Resource User Groups (RUGs). Everymember had equal voting rights, and the committees provideda new forum for communities to exert influence and voice theirneeds (MACH 2007:3).Darrell Deppert of Winrock International, who headed theMACH program until late 2007, describes the innovativeUpazila Fisheries Committees as the key to the program’ssuccess and long-term sustainability. “They are the backbonerequired to support community-based institutions in sustainablymanaging wetlands for the benefit of all users. I am often told bypoor community members that to sit at the same table as electedofficials and government administrators is very important andempowering” (Deppert 2006a).While the co-management committees fostered localgovernment investment in sustainable fisheries, the third tier ofnew institutions created by MACH helped win over the poor.Drawing on existing successful microcredit programs inBangladesh, Caritas organized village-level Resource UserGroups (RUGs), targeting poor fishing families, aquatic plantcollectors, and landless people. Each group elected a chairperson,and members applied for skills training and microcreditloans to start new livelihoods. These activities were managed byCaritas Bangladesh, which also provided literacy and nutritionprograms (Sultana 2006a:2-4).The objective was twofold: to prevent the poor being penalizedby fishing restrictions imposed by RMOs to regeneratewetlands and to reduce pressure on fisheries by helping the poorgain access to new and more profitable livelihoods. By the end of2006, project villages boasted 250 RUGs with 5,202 members,bringing income benefits to more than 25,000 people (SultanaWetland Managementby the People, for the PeopleEach Resource Management Organization was given jurisdictionover a distinct area of one of the three project wetlands.These were typically made up of a series of beels and streamsand a floodplain that were connected during the monsoonmonths but isolated in the dry season (MACH 2003:25-26).After it was legally registered, an RMO’s first step was tohold community planning meetings to identify the mainproblems affecting local wetlands. These generally included thefollowing concerns: siltation due to soil erosion, overharvestingand use of harmful fishing gear, destructive fishing methodssuch as the dewatering of deeper pockets in the floodplain tocatch fish sheltering in the dry season, industrial pollution, andblocked fish migratory routes.To address these problems, the RMOs adopted wetlandmanagement plans dictating when and where fishing couldtake place, banning harmful practices, and outlining physicalinterventions, such as excavating corridors between dry-seasonwater bodies. These were developed by the membershipfollowing community consultations and were implemented byelected executive committees of 10–20 people. Once theirplans were approved by Local Government Committees, theTYPICAL COMMUNITY WETLAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES■ Creating small sanctuaries, usually of 10 ha or less, where fishing isbanned year-round, enabling fish and other aquatic organisms torepopulate the wider floodplain during the wet season.■ Excavating silted-up channels to create new dry-season habitat andincrease water flow and fish movement in the wider wetland.■ Observing two- to three-month fishing bans during the early monsoonfish spawning season.■ Banning damaging practices such as dewatering in the dry season.■ Banning hunting of wetland birds.■ Planting indigenous wetland and riparian swamp trees.Source: MACH 2006:4.1–4.5