River Erosion, Resettlement and a Failing Embankment
A 12 km stretch of an embankment protects 9,000 households and 4,000 hectares of farmland. A 2019 feasibility study recommended strengthening it, but only 3 km were completed. In the last two monsoons, erosion has cut 400 metres inland at two points, displacing 320 households, who now squat on the embankment crest. The Water Development Board says the remaining work needs Tk 480 crore and two more seasons; the local member of parliament wants immediate hard structures at the two breach points. A donor offers climate-adaptation funding but requires a resettlement plan and environmental assessment, which would add 14 months. The district administration must decide the sequencing before the next monsoon, now five months away.
1. Recommend a sequencing of works and safeguards over the next five months, explaining the trade-offs.
Read the worked answer
Sequencing:
- Immediate (months 1–2): Emergency protection at the two erosion points using low-cost, fast measures (sandbags, revetment, geobags) to slow retreat; relocate the 320 squatter households to safe, serviced land away from the crest, with rental support.
- Months 2–5: Complete designs and the resettlement plan in parallel with donor processes, so the 14-month requirement does not delay emergency works.
- Post-monsoon: Begin the permanent 9 km strengthening with full safeguards.
Trade-offs: Hard structures are fast but expensive and can shift erosion downstream; soft or temporary measures buy time but are not permanent. Donor conditions add delay but reduce long-term harm and unlock larger funding. The MP's demand for immediate hard structures at two points is defensible as emergency protection, not as a substitute for the full scheme.
Judgement: Do not choose between protection and safeguards; run them on different timelines. The five-month window is for emergency action and planning, not for a rushed permanent contract.
2. The displaced households are squatting on the embankment crest. What resettlement approach is both humane and consistent with public safety?
Read the worked answer
Approach:
- Treat them as disaster-displaced, not encroachers, and identify them through a transparent survey.
- Offer relocation to safe land with basic services (water, sanitation, access to livelihoods), plus transitional rental support.
- Involve the union parishad and affected households in site selection to reduce resistance.
- Set a clear, enforced deadline for clearing the crest, with alternatives offered before enforcement.
- Record entitlements in writing to prevent later disputes.
Rationale: The crest is unsafe for the households themselves and weakens the embankment. Eviction without alternatives is both cruel and unenforceable; relocation without livelihoods fails within months. Pairing a firm safety rule with genuine alternatives is the defensible course.
Judgement: Public safety justifies removal; human dignity requires that removal be the last step, not the first.