The Vanishing Wetland: A Union Parishad's Climate Dilemma
You are the newly elected Chairman of a Union Parishad in Satkhira, adjacent to the Sundarbans. Your union has 18,000 residents across nine villages. In the last five years, salinity intrusion has increased by 40%, rendering 1,200 hectares of rice paddies fallow. The government has allocated BDT 2 crore for climate adaptation, but the funds must be spent within this fiscal year. Two proposals are on the table: (A) Build a 3-km embankment with a sluice gate to protect the remaining farmland, costing BDT 1.8 crore; (B) Introduce saline-tolerant rice varieties and rainwater harvesting ponds, costing BDT 1.5 crore, with training for 500 farmers. The embankment proposal has strong support from the wealthiest landowners, who own 60% of the land. The poorer farmers, including 300 landless households, prefer option B. A local NGO warns that the embankment may worsen waterlogging in the long run. The Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO) has asked for your recommendation within a week.
1. As Chairman, how would you evaluate the two proposals against the principles of good governance and sustainable development? Which would you recommend, and why?
Read the worked answer
I would evaluate both proposals using four criteria: effectiveness, equity, sustainability, and participation.
Effectiveness: The embankment (A) offers immediate protection to 800 hectares of remaining farmland, but the NGO's warning about waterlogging is credible; without proper drainage, trapped rainwater can salinize soils further. Option B (saline-tolerant rice and rainwater harvesting) directly addresses the salinity problem and builds long-term resilience, but yields may be lower and adoption takes time.
Equity: Option A benefits mainly the 60% landowners, while 300 landless households receive little. Option B targets 500 farmers, including smallholders, and rainwater ponds provide drinking water for landless families. Equity favours B.
Sustainability: Embankments require maintenance and may fail in cyclones; saline-tolerant agriculture and rainwater harvesting are decentralized and climate-adaptive. B is more sustainable.
Participation: The wealthiest landowners have lobbied for A. As Chairman, I must ensure marginalized voices are heard. I would hold a public consultation in all nine villages, document the concerns, and form a committee with representation from landless households, women, and farmers.
Recommendation: I would recommend a hybrid: allocate BDT 1.2 crore to option B (saline-tolerant seeds, 100 rainwater ponds, training) and BDT 0.6 crore to repair and improve drainage channels rather than a full embankment. This balances immediate relief with long-term adaptation, and I would explain to the UNO that this approach aligns with the Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan and the SDGs (especially SDG 2 and 13). I would also ensure transparency by publishing the budget and selection criteria on the Union Parishad notice board, and by involving the Union Parishad standing committee on agriculture.
2. What steps would you take to manage the political pressure from the wealthy landowners while maintaining transparency and accountability?
Read the worked answer
First, I would acknowledge their concerns publicly and invite them to a meeting, but I would clearly state that the decision must be based on evidence and the greater good. I would present the NGO's report and the Upazila Agriculture Officer's assessment on waterlogging risks. Second, I would form an inclusive selection committee with representation from all stakeholder groups, including landless and women farmers, and adopt written criteria for beneficiary selection. Third, I would ensure all meetings are minuted and the final decision is posted on the Union Parishad notice board and website, as required by the Right to Information Act 2009. Fourth, I would request the UNO to send a technical team to verify the embankment proposal's feasibility, so that the decision is seen as technically grounded rather than political. Finally, I would communicate to the landowners that the hybrid approach still protects their land through drainage improvements, while also addressing the needs of the poor, thus reducing opposition. If they persist, I would remind them that the funds are public money and that any misuse would be reported to the Upazila administration.