Management of Aquatic Ecosystems through Community Husbandry (MACH) 
Program 
Report of Mid-term Review 
December 2001 
Prepared by 
Ian Tod 
Alamgir Chowdhury 
Md. Zahirul Islam 
A.S. Mahmood 
 Mid-term Review of 
Management of Aquatic Ecosystems through Community Husbandry (MACH) Program 
CONTENTS 
List of Acronyms and Glossary of Terms iv 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v 
1. INTRODUCTION 
1.1 Background 1 
1.2 Purpose of the Mid-term Review 2 
1.3 Staffing and Schedule of the Mission 2 
2. PROJECT SETTING 
2.1 National Context 4 
2.2 Other Projects 4 
3. MACH PROJECT 
3.1 Goals and objectives 5 
3.2 Strategic framework and targets 5 
4. ACTIVITIES AND ACHIEVEMENTS 
4.1 Scope of Activities 7 
4.2 Wetlands Resource Management 7 
4.3 Community Development and Supplemental Income Generating Activities 9 
4.4 Monitoring 10 
4.5 Special Programs 10 
4.6 Policy Dialogue 11 
4.7 Project management 12
5. REVIEW OF THE PERFORMANCE OF MACH 
5.1 Program and Rational and Objectives 13 
5.2 Wetlands Resource Management 13 
5.3 Community Development and Supplemental Income Generating Activities 14 
5.4 Monitoring 14 
5.5 Special Programs 15 
5.6 Policy Dialogue 15 
5.7 Project Management 15 
5.8 Sustainability 16 
5.9 Summary of Review Findings 16 
6. MAIN ISSUES ARISING AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
6.1 Wetlands Resource Management 17 
6.2 Community Development and Supplemental Income Generating Activities 18 
6.3 Monitoring 19 
6.4 Policy Dialogue 19 
6.5 Geographical coverage 19 
6.7 Timeframe 20 
ii
Appendix 1 Statement of Work 21 
Appendix 2 Schedule and List of Persons Met 28 
Appendix 3 Comparison of Projects to Improve Open Water Fisheries 32 
Appendix 4 Indicators, Targets and Achievements 35 
Appendix 5 Formation of Local Institutions 37 
Appendix 6 Alternative Income Generating Activities 47 
Appendix 7 Technical Aspects of Wetlands Management 60 
Appendix 8 References 66
iii
List of Acronyms and Glossary of Terms
BCAS Bangladesh Center for Advanced Studies 
beel Deeper area / depression in a floodplain which, if inundated during rainy 
season, becomes a large sheet of water. 
boro Rice planted in winter and harvested during April to June 
BWDB Bangladesh Water Development Board 
CARITAS CARITAS Bangladesh 
CBFM Community-based Fisheries Management 
chharra Stream 
CNRS Center for Natural Resource Studies 
CoP Chief of Party 
doho Deeper part in Beel / Depression 
DoF Department of Fisheries 
DFID Department for International Development 
EGIS Environmental and Geographical Information System 
FTF Farmer to Farmer Program 
GIS Geographic Information System 
GoB Government of Bangladesh 
HH Hail Haor 
ICLARM International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management 
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature 
jalmohal Section of River /A semi-closed or closed water body or group of water 
bodies owned by the Government and are usually leased out for Fishing 
khal Canals 
khas Government owned land 
KM Kongshaw Malijhee River Basin 
kum Deeper part in the river/ scour holes 
LCG Local Consultative Group 
LCS Labor Contracting Society 
LGED Local Government Engineering Department 
LGC Local Government Committee 
MACH Management of Aquatic Ecosystems through Community Husbandry 
MoFL Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock 
NGO Non-Government Organization 
para part of a village 
parishad Council 
RPT Result Package Team (Project Monitoring and Review Unit of MACH) 
thana Smallest administrative unit in Bangladesh, Sub-Districts 
TB Turag Bongshi River Basin 
UFO Upazilla Fisheries Officer 
UNO Upazilla Nirbahi Officer (Sub – District Executive Officer) 
upazila Sub-district 
UP Union Parishad (local government unit) 
WINROCK Winrock International Institute for Agriculture Development 
USAID United States Agency for International Development 
iv
Executive Summary 
Background 
1. The Management of Aquatic Ecosystems Through Community Husbandry (MACH) 
Program was formulated to develop new approaches to floodplain and wetlands resource 
conservation and management. The major purpose of the project is to demonstrate to 
communities, local government and policy-makers the viability of a community approach to 
natural resource management and habitat conservation over an entire wetland ecosystem. 
2. The program started in September, 1998 and following an inception period, field 
programs were initiated at two field sites in June of 1999 and a third site in July 2000. The overall 
purpose of the Mid-term Review is to review the performance of MACH and assess future 
directions for MACH, including possible extension and expansion of its coverage. 
National Context 
3. The MACH program supports the government's environmental and fisheries objectives 
including preservation, conservation, protection and development of natural resources, and 
increasing fish production. 
Strategic Objectives 
4. The MACH program comes under USAID’s Strategic Objective 6 (SO6) "Improved 
Management of Open Water and Tropical Forest Resources". The main indicators for SO6 are the 
area of floodplain where sustainable management is being implemented and increase production 
of floodplain fish resources. MACH has exceeded the target area of floodplain under improved 
management and is working on making their approach sustainable. MACH interventions are 
already having a measurable impact on increasing floodplain fish production. The third indicator 
of increased biodiversity is too early to assess. MACH has also been successful in meeting or 
exceeding the planned targets for the indicators of Intermediate Results. 
Activities and Achievements 
5. MACH is implementing a wide range of innovative activities to achieve its objectives, 
including: 
Wetland Resource Management: MACH has made good progress in rehabilitation of wetlands 
and related watersheds, and in developing local institutions to manage these areas 
Community Development and Supplementary Income Generating Activities: MACH is 
progressing well with raising the environmental awareness of fishers and other resource users and 
with the program for fisher households to form groups to access credit and skill development 
services. Group members are able to diversify their income generating activities and reduce their 
dependency on fishing. 
Monitoring. MACH has collected comprehensive data on many aspects of the three program sites, 
and used the data to increase the program's understanding of the requirements for improving 
wetland management, and evaluate the impact of program activities. 
v
Special Programs: MACH has undertaken a range of special programs to supplement MACH’s 
regular activities in response to local needs identified during the program's field activities. The 
Special programs have included studies on pollution, preparing watershed improvement plans and 
improving traditional practices for pineapple and lemon production. 
Policy Dialogue: MACH is involved in the essential task of policy dialogue with the government 
and other stakeholders in the management of wetlands, and is actively involved with the 
Wetlands Network and the Local Consultative Group (LCG). 
Summary of Findings of the Mid-term Review 
6. The concept of MACH is still valid. MACH is implementing a broad range of activities 
many of which are innovative and complex. Program activities are already having positive 
impacts on ecosystems at the program sites including fish production. Program activities are also 
resulting in increased incomes for beneficiary group members. MACH is on course to meet the 
targets set for the Strategic Objective and the Intermediate Results, although more time will be 
required to ensure sustainability of the MACH approach. MACH has developed considerable 
understanding of the requirements of improving the productivity and management of wetlands, 
and has responded to unforeseen local requirements by developing solutions acceptable to 
stakeholders. The present geographical coverage provides sufficient variety of ecosystems to 
fully test the MACH approach. The main issue that needs to be addressed is the sustainability of 
the MACH approach particularly with respect to local institution building and the time required 
to consolidate the environmental changes implemented by communities with program support. 
Recommendations 
7. The main recommendations of the Mission are: 
Wetland Resource Management 
• Prepare best practices of community based planning 
• Integrate MACH planning systems into union and upazila planning systems 
• Additional staff skilled in Institutional and Social Development appointed to develop RMOs 
• Prepare detailed plan for development of local institutions 
• Increase intensity of awareness program 
• RMOs to develop plans 
• Prepare case studies of RMOs 
• Consider sub-contracting implementation of schemes 
• Use Labor Contracting Societies to construct schemes 
• MACH should be given more time to fully develop the RMOs 
 Community Development and Supplemental Income Generating Activities 
• Develop strategy and plans for sustainability of groups 
• MACH supports beneficiary groups for about 5 years 
• Provision of group development and adult literacy training increased 
• Ensure separation of group’s savings and credit activities from RMOs 
• Focus awareness training on resources used by beneficiary groups 
• Increase group training and skill development activities to beneficiary group members 
• Develop integrated credit plans 
• Assist groups to prepare activity plans for their IGAs 
vi
vii
• Re-assess coverage of beneficiary groups 
Monitoring 
• Expedite processing and distribution of socio-economic and other data 
• Introduce standard activity monitoring system 
Policy Dialogue 
• Support Wetlands Network 
• Develop communications strategy 
Geographical Coverage 
• Continue MACH activities at three sites. 
Timeframe 
• Extend MACH for three years beyond September 2003. 

1. INTRODUCTION 
1.1 Background 
The floodplains of Bangladesh are one of the world's most important wetlands and home to 
hundreds of species of unique plants, fish, birds and other wildlife. The wetlands provide the 
habitat for over 260 fish species and thousands of migrating birds, and are an important source of 
income and nutrition for millions of households in rural Bangladesh. As many 80% of rural 
households catch fish for food or to sell, and about 60% of animal protein consumption comes 
from fish (MACH 2000f). In addition, poor and marginal households catch many small fish that 
are not included in official statistics or policies. 
The wetlands comprise of about 4 million hectares of open water during the monsoon season 
(Thompson et al 2001). In the dry season, the wetlands system reduces in extent to form of 
system of rivers, beels (permanent and seasonal lakes and wetlands), and baors (oxbow lakes). 
Conservation of the quality and quantity of wetlands during the dry season is critical for survival 
of the fish stocks that provide brood fish for spawning in the following wet season. 
Unfortunately, the wetlands of Bangladesh are in decline due to over fishing and habitat loss to 
meet the demands of the growing population. The decline in wetlands has resulted in more than 
40% of species of all freshwater fish, for which information is available, are in danger of 
extinction. Since 1985, natural carp spawn production has declined by 75% and major carp and 
large catfish have declined by 50%. 
The Management of Aquatic Ecosystems Through Community Husbandry (MACH) Program was 
formulated to develop new approaches to floodplain and wetlands resource conservation and 
management. The goal of MACH is to ensure the sustainable productivity of all wetland resources 
– water, fish, plants and wildlife– over an entire wetland ecosystem (beels, seasonal wetlands, 
rivers/streams), not just a single water body. Inherent in this goal are the conservation and 
sustainable management of wetlands and their natural resources and the element of sustainable food 
security. 
The MACH approach is to raise awareness of the need for change and to demonstrate in the field 
the benefits those changes can bring by considering all factors affecting the communities and 
their wetland resource. MACH advocates a multi-disciplinary, multi-sectoral and participatory 
process of planning, implementation and monitoring for sustainable wetland resource 
management. Recognizing that a reduction in fishing is likely to be a critical part of reviving the 
wetland fisheries, MACH has included supplemental income-generating activities to provide 
alternative income generating activities for existing and new fishers and others directly dependent 
on fishing. MACH is a “process” type of program supporting communities and local government 
in the planning and sustainable use of natural aquatic resources. 
MACH is a program of the Government of Bangladesh (GoB) sponsored by USAID. An 
agreement to implement the project was signed in May 1998. Winrock International (Winrock 
International Institute for Agriculture Development) in partnership with the Bangladesh Centre 
for Advanced Studies (BCAS), CARITAS Bangladesh and the Centre for Natural Resource 
Studies (CNRS) were selected to implement the project. The program started in September, 1998 
and following an inception period, field programs were initiated in Hail Haor in Maulovibazar 
District and the Lower Turag-Bongshi River Basin in Kaliakor Upazila in Gazipur District and 
1
part of Tangail District in June of 1999. A third site at the Upper Kongshaw-Malijhee River Basin 
in Sherpur District was started in July 2000. 
The Mid-term Programmatic Review is taking place at the end of the 3rd year of the project, as 
originally planned. 
1.2 Purpose of the Mid Term Review 
The Mid-term Review will focus on whether MACH is progressing toward the achievement of its 
goals and objectives. In particular, the Review will determine whether MACH has effectively: (a) 
developed innovative approaches to community-based aquatic resource management; (b) 
identified and stimulated alternative income generation opportunities for fisher folk; (c) 
facilitated appropriate technology transfer of community-based natural resource management 
interventions and approaches; (d) provided awareness building activities in project areas; (e) 
enhanced local government capacity to support community resource management initiatives; (f) 
led to adoption of best management practices (BMP) and is on track to achieving major targets of 
the program. The Mid-term Review is to comment on whether the approaches chosen at the 
beginning of the Project are still the most appropriate for achieving improved management of the 
aquatic floodplain resources, and what improvements are required to make the program even 
more effective in the years to come. The Review will also analyze the ability of the Project to 
successfully respond to its new performance indicators. 
The overall purpose of the review is therefore to: 
(a) Review the performance of MACH to date vis-à-vis the cooperative agreement; and 
(b) Assess future directions for MACH, including possible extension and expansion of its 
coverage. 
The complete Statement of Work for the Mid-term Review Mission is given in Appendix 1. 
1.3 Staffing and Schedule of the Mission 
The Mid-term Review Mission comprised of the 3 independent consultants and a representative 
from the government: 
Dr. Ian Tod Team Leader/Strategic Planning Specialist 
Mr. Alamgir Chowdhury Development/Communication Specialist 
Mr. Md. Zahirul Islam Environment and Fisheries Specialist (Part time) 
Mr. A.S. Mahmood Senior Assistant Secretary 
Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock 
The Mid-term Review Mission visited the three program sites and held discussions with 
Resources Management Organisations, beneficiary group members, other wetland and watershed 
resource users, union parishad chairmen and members, upazila government officials and program 
staff. In Dhaka, the Mission reviewed documents, and discussed MACH with government 
officials, program staff, staff of the program partners, USAID staff and staff of other donors and 
projects working with wetlands and fisheries. The draft report was prepared and discussed with 
2
program staff, USAID and the government before completion of the final report. The schedule for 
the Mid-term Review is given in Appendix 2, along with a list of the persons met during the 
Review. 
The Mid-term Review Mission wishes to express its appreciation for the cooperation received 
from the many stakeholders including representatives of the Resource Management 
Organisations, Beneficiary Groups and other wetland resource users, government officials and 
program staff interviewed at the program sites and in Dhaka.
3
2. NATIONAL CONTEXT 
2.1 National Level 
In the Government’s Fifth Five Year Plan (1997-2002), the environmental and fisheries 
objectives include among the control of pollution and degradation related to soil, water and air; 
promotion of environment friendly activities in the development process; preservation, 
protection, and development of the natural resource base; strengthening the capabilities of public 
and private sectors to manage environmental concerns as a basic requisite for sustainable 
development; creating and achieving fish production of 20.75 metric tones from 11.7 metric tones 
in 1995. 
In the subsequent National Fisheries Policy (1998), some of these objectives were re-emphasized 
and expanded including the establishment of production-based management system in place of 
revenue oriented leasing system, ensuring fishers right of fishing access and limiting fishing 
efforts to maximize sustainable yield; establishing fish sanctuaries in suitable places to increase 
fish production and to conserve biodiversity; giving responsibility to local fishers organization 
and local government for operation and maintenance (management); undertake mitigation 
measures for embanked and irrigation areas and to stop pollution due to industrial and municipal 
wastes and pesticide usage. There is also provision that canals, beels and other open waters 
cannot be dried using artificial methods; haors, baors, beels should be excavated and areas of 
these water bodies cannot be reduced so that their use for fish rearing is ensured; fishers be given 
priority for leasing out khas (government owned) water bodies; conservation measures be taken 
to conserve and increase the population of the endangered species. 
The Ministry of Fisheries has traditionally focused on increasing fish production by improving 
aquaculture in ponds and other closed water bodies, but more recently has also considered 
improving production of open water fisheries. The Ministry's priority is reflected in the activities 
of the Department of Fisheries where only 3 out of the 17 investment projects under the Annual 
Development Plan involve improvement to open water fisheries (DoF 1999). 
2.2 Related Projects 
There are three other projects that are working on improving wetland resources and open water 
fisheries. The Community Based Fisheries Management (CBFM) has the objectives of improving 
processes and policies for inland fisheries based on community based fisheries management. 
CBFM started its second Phase in September 2001. The Fourth Fisheries Project has the 
objective of establishing ecologically sound and community based sustainable fisheries 
management in inland waters. The Project started in 2000. The Jalmohal Project has the 
objective of increasing fish production and improving socio-economic conditions for fishers. A 
comparison of the features of these three projects with MACH is given in Appendix 4. 
4
3. THE MACH PROJECT 
3.1 Goals and Objectives 
The goal of MACH is the promotion of ecologically sound management of floodplain resources 
(fisheries and other wetland products) for the sustainable supply of food to the poor of 
Bangladesh. 
The objectives of MACH are: 
• To raise awareness (of communities and local government) about the importance of natural 
flood plain resources to secure food and income security for the people of Bangladesh 
• To maintain and recover the selected floodplain ecosystems and associated fisheries. 
• To identify activities to generate alternative income that will result in a reduction of pressure 
from fishing and agriculture in the floodplain fisheries. 
3.2 Strategic Framework and Targets 
The MACH program comes under USAID’s Strategic Objective 6 (SO6) "Improved Management 
of Open Water and Tropical Forest Resources". SO6 is an outgrowth of SO2 "Food Security for 
the Poor Improved". MACH is the only activity under SO6, although a new program in tropical 
conservation and management is expected to begin in 2002. Both programs focus on improved 
management of natural resources through community and local government participation. 
The indicators for SO6 are shown in Table 3.1, along with the planned targets and MACH's 
achievement for each indicator until September 2001. The main indicators for SO6 are the area 
of floodplain where sustainable management is being implemented and increased production of 
floodplain fish resources. The third indicator of increased biodiversity is too early to assess. 
MACH has exceeded the target area of floodplain under improved management and is working 
on making their approach sustainable. MACH interventions are already having a measurable 
impact on increasing floodplain fish production. MACH has been successful in meeting or 
exceeding the planned targets for each indicator, although further support is required to make the 
management practices sustainable. 
The indicators of Intermediate Results are shown in Table 3.2 along with the planned targets and 
MACH's achievements for each indicator until September 2001. MACH is supporting 16 
Resource Management Organisations (RMO) to manage wetlands. The RMOs have established 
59 sanctuaries to improve fish resource management. MACH has undertaken 484 public 
awareness activities that have been attended by 62,180 villagers. MACH has supported 
supplemental income generation by forming 177 groups and the income of the members of these 
groups has increased 31%. 180,060 villagers have benefited indirectly from MACH 
demonstration activities. The project has been successful in meeting or exceeding the planned 
targets for each indicator. The annual progress of MACH towards meeting the indicators for the 
Strategic Objective and Intermediate Results are shown in Appendix 4. 
5
Table 3.1 Indicators of Strategic Objective 6 (SO6) 
Reference Indicator(1) Year Planned Actual 
Sep 2001 
6.1 Area of Floodplain where sustainable 
management is being implemented (ha) 
2001 15,000 15,700 
6.2 Increase in production of floodplains 
Fish resources (kg/ha of wetland) 
Site 1: Hail Haor 2001 174 191 
Site 2: Turag-Bangshi 2001 61 124 
Riparian trees (number of trees-all sites) 2001 100,000 72,277 
6.3 Increase in biodiversity of floodplain 
resources (no. of species) 
2001 0 
6.4 Area of tropical forest areas conserved and 
sustainable management being implemented 
Not applicable to MACH 
Note: (1) Indicators are cumulative targets since the start of MACH 
Table 3.2 Intermediate Results (IR) Indicators 
Reference Indicator(2) Year Planned(1) Actual 
Sep 2001 
IR 6.1 Improved Floodplain Resource Management Practices 
IR 6.1.1 Management groups formed 
Units of measure: # of groups formed 
2001 20 16 
IR 6.1.2 Improved floodplain resource 
management established 
Unit of measure: # fish sanctuaries 
established 
2001 30 48 
IR 6.2 Increased Public Awareness 
IR 6.2.1 Community awareness of the need 
for renewable resource management 
Unit of measure: # of public awareness 
meetings 
2001 30(200) 484 
IR 6.2.2 as IR 6.2.1 but Unit of measure: 
Number of Participants in meetings 
2001 1,800 
(30,000) 
40,000 
IR 6.3 Generate Supplemental Income 
IR 6.3.1 Community groups involved in 
alternative income generating activities 
Unit of measure: Number of groups 
2001 100(150) 159 
IR 6.3.2 Increased income of community 
beneficiary 
Unit of Measure: % increase in supplemental 
income 
2001 30% 31% 
IR 6.3.3 Total number of indirect beneficiaries
Unit of Measure: total number of indirect 
beneficiaries (cumulative) 
2001 100,000 180,000 
Note: (1) Figures in brackets show the revised targets 
 (2) Indicators are cumulative since the start of MACH 
6
4. ACTIVITIES AND ACHIEVEMENTS 
4.1 Range of Activities 
To achieve the objectives of the program, MACH is implementing a wide range of innovative 
activities related to Wetland Resource Management, Community Development and Supplemental 
Income Generation, Monitoring, Policy Dialogue and Project Management. The targets and 
achievements of the main activities are shown in Table 4.1 and discussed in more detail below. 
The targets and measurable indicators stated in the MACH agreement (Winrock/USAID 1998) 
have been adjusted during the initial years of the program, with less emphasis now being given to 
the impact of program activities on poor households. 
4.2 Wetlands Resource Management 
 
Awareness raising. The purpose of awareness raising activities is to sensitise communities and 
government officials to the importance of the environment and the need for their participation in 
resource conservation, management and restoration. MACH started its awareness raising 
activities by initially holding meetings with UNO, union chairmen and other upazila government 
staff, and then holding larger meetings with all the union parishad members of the unions where 
program activities were likely to be implemented. These latter meetings were attended by district 
officials (District Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner (Revenue) and others). The purpose of 
these upazila and union meetings was to introduce the program and show that government 
supported the program. Subsequent awareness raising programs included awareness raising 
meetings at para and union level (16 programs with 7,217 participants)1
, introductory seminars 
and workshops at upazila and district levels (2 programs), awareness programs at schools, 
dramas, video presentations (5 programs with 850 people in the audiences), world environments 
day and wetlands day observances (26 programs), posters and other awareness material 
distribution. 
Community based planning: Participatory Action Plan Development PAPD (formerly 
Participatory Community Planning PCP) workshops are used to work with the community to 
identify problems and develop potential solutions. Half-day workshops are held on 4 consecutive 
days. Participants are from 5 randomly-selected households in each of four occupational groups 
(fishers, farmers, landless and women), making 20 participants per village. The outcome of the 
PAPD workshops is lists of management and physical interventions. The management 
interventions include an outline of the Resource Management Organisation. 
Formation of Resource Management Organisations. Following reconnaissance field visits, area 
exploration and rapid rural appraisals, the project identifies wetland management areas, around 
which a Resource Management Organisation (RMO) is organised. The RMO is elected by 
villagers living within the wetland management area. The RMO is responsible for the 
management of the wetland resource including deciding on appropriate management 
interventions identified during the PADP and implementing the physical interventions such as 
establishment of sanctuaries. 
 
1
 Figures in bracket shows awareness raising activities carried out in 2001 
7
Table 4.1 Summary of Main Activities, Targets and Achievements (1)
Activity Current Target to end of 
Program September 2003 
Cumulative 
Achievement until 
September 2001 
1. Area of improved wetlands/floodplain resources 
management 
See Table 3.1 
2. Increased production of floodplain resources See Table 3.1 
3. Increase in diversity See Table 3.1 
4. Floodplain wetland resource management 
organisation 
See Table 3.2 
5. Establish Access (capacity building) of RMOs 30 16 
6. Establishment of Fish Sanctuaries See Table 3.2 
7. Habitat Restoration/Conservation 
• Re-excavation of khals (m) 
• Re-excavation of beels (ha) 
• Beels converted from seasonal to permanent 
• Plantation-Swamp (No. of trees) 
25,000 
58 
33 
92,000 
3,000 
9.53 
8 
15,500 
8. Awareness Programs 
• Number of programs 
• Number of recipients 
400 
50,000 
484 
50,000 
9. Watershed management 
• Riparian Habitat (km) 
• Upper catchment forestation 
• Pineapple demonstration (No) 
20 
to be decided 
5 
14 
2 
10. Link program (provision of specialists) 1 2 
11. Livelihood Generated 
• Beneficiary group formed (No) 
• Demonstrations (No) 
• Indirect impact of demonstrations (No) 
220 
1,250 
150,000 
159 
358 
180,000 
12. Credit disbursed-grant funds available (Tk) 8,800,000 4,900,000 (2) 
13. Alternative Income increased for beneficiaries (%) 50% 31% 
14. Health care And Nutrition Services 
• Homestead vegetable (No) 
• Pit latrines installed (No) 
• Tubewells installed (No) 
3,125 
1,250 
240 
1,342 
778 
102 
15. Other activities 
• Adult literacy (No of courses/participants) 18/360 17/194 
(1) For table of targets and achievements for all activities see MACH (2001e) 
(2) Total credit disbursed is Tk 8.82 million that is made up of Tk 4.9 million grant funds plus accumulated interest 
paid by group members. See also Section A6.7 for more details 
8
The RMO is linked to government officials through the Local Government Committee, which is 
an upazila level committee, chaired by the Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO) and with union 
parishad chairmen and officials from government departments as members. By mid-2001, 16 
RMOs have been formed and are active in managing water bodies. The program is negotiating 
with MoFL to improve the terms for the khas water bodies leased to RMOs. RMOs are a key 
feature of the project and are discussed in more detail in Appendix 5. 
Physical Interventions: Physical interventions are implemented to restore and rehabilitate 
degraded habitats. Physical interventions are identified by the RMO and approved by the LGC. 
Interventions encouraged by the project include establishment of seasonal or permanent fish and 
wildlife sanctuaries (48 No.), roadside and wetland plantations, re-excavation of khals (1 khal) 
and beels (10 beels covering 6 ha). MACH has established a Physical Intervention Unit to plan 
design and implement earthworks scheme, in conjunction with the RMOs. MACH is scheduled to 
receive a significant increase in funds for physical interventions as Tk 330 million ($6 million) 
for physical interventions is being processed as a separate project under the control of MACH. 
These additional funds should be available during 2002-2005. MACH is intending to use the 
funds mainly for habitat restoration including conservation easements and long-rotation forests, 
and other environmentally sound interventions. 
Biodiversity Conservation and Enhancement: MACH is enhancing biodiversity by re-introducing 
plant and fish species that were historically present at a particular site. The Beel-resident fish 
species have been re-introduced into several sanctuaries, and swamp trees have been re￾introduced to beels and other seasonally-flooded areas. 
Watershed management: The goal of the watershed management is to demonstrate on a sub￾watershed scale, the benefits of improved land and water management practices that improve the 
flow and quality of water and reduce the sediment load into the haor. Chhara restoration plans 
have been prepared in collaboration with the Chhara Resource Management Organisations 
(CRMO) for 4 chharas. Vetiver grass hedges were planted along 18 km length of the 4 chharas 
and riparian tree plantations comprising of 10,000 saplings were also planted along the 4 
chhharas. 
4.3 Community Development and Supplemental Income Generating Activities 
Group Formation: The purpose of forming groups of fishers and women from fisher households 
using wetlands is to ensure participation of poorer resource users in the community management 
of flood plain resources and to create a system for providing services such as credit and training 
to poorer households. By September 2001, 125 fishers groups with 2479 members and 52 
women's groups with 1026 members had been formed at three sites. The groups have 
accumulated combined savings of Tk 1,254,335. 
Alternative income generation (AIG) and Credit: Alternative income generating activities are 
being promoted for fishers and other directly dependent on wetland resources to reduce the 
pressure on fishing and also provide alternative income during periods when fish are scarce or 
fishing is restricted during the breeding season. By September 2001, MACH had provided a 
range of training and skill development courses to group members including group management 
(158 courses for 2916 members), accounts (4 courses for 85 members) and pond fish culture (5 
courses for 84 members. In the same period, 1191 loans were allocated for alternative income 
9
generating activities and Tk 8,818,0002
 of credit was disbursed. The alternative income 
generation (AIG) and credit activities of MACH are discussed in more detail in Appendix 6. 
Demonstration Activities: MACH is supporting demonstration activities by providing seeds, 
fertilizers, and technical assistance. The beneficiary household provides the land and labor. 
During and after the demonstration, MACH arranges awareness sessions to disseminate the 
results. Demonstrations undertaken include pond fish culture (62 ponds); cage fish culture (64 
cages) wheat cultivation (64 plots covering 4.9 ha); granular ("guti") urea (15 farmers); vegetable 
(36 plots covering 2 ha); vegetable cultivation (85 farmers covering 0.7 ha); tree nursery (32 
beneficiaries producing 32,400 saplings). Other program activities such as homestead vegetable 
gardening (1342 beneficiaries) and homestead tree plantation (1000 beneficiaries received 5000 
saplings) also have demonstrations effects. In addition, selected beneficiaries were given training 
on primary health care, nutrition and sanitation (278 beneficiaries) and adult literacy (17 courses 
to 294 students of whom 147 graduated). 778 pit latrines and 102 tubewells were also distributed 
to selected beneficiaries. 
4.4 Monitoring 
Baseline Survey and Monitoring: MACH is conducting a comprehensive monitoring program by 
collecting baseline data and monitoring program impacts on communities and the wetland 
ecosystem in terms of bio-diversity, resource productivity, consumption and income. Three 
types of monitoring are being undertaken: baseline surveys and impact monitoring and 
community monitoring. Reports of the baseline studies on fisheries, vegetation, wildlife, and 
household protein consumption have been prepared for two sites and the report is in process for 
the third site. Data from 474 beneficiaries have been collected and is being processed to provide 
beneficiary profiles. 
Development of Databases: Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Remote Sensing are 
being used to prepare geospatial and non-geospatial databases of the three project sites. Maps 
have been prepared showing the regional setting, land use, location of project activities and 
monitoring sites for each site along with landsat and IRS images showing the extent of water 
bodies at the end of the monsoon and in the dry season. In addition, maps have been prepared for 
specific water bodies where the project is working. 
Hydrology: MACH has established several monitoring stations at each site to measure water 
levels, flows, rainfall and sediment loads. The data collected assists the Program's understanding 
of the complex flow patterns in and around the project sites and is used to analyse the feasibility 
of the physical interventions proposed by the RMOs. 
4.5 Special Programs 
Pollution Studies: The Turag-Bongshi site in Kaliakor is adjacent to several industries and poultry 
farms that discharge their untreated waste water directly into streams draining into the beels 
where the MACH is working. Following complaints about water quality by an RMO, MACH 
analysed effluent from the industries and found that heavy metals, sulphides and other chemicals 
 
2
 This amount is made up Tk 4.9 million grant funds provided by MACH plus accumulated interest paid by 
group members. 
10
were being discharged at concentrations in excess of national standards. MACH organised one 
workshop to introduce its activities to stakeholders and then another workshop to present its 
findings. MACH had success in convincing one poultry farm to use its waste to produce bio-gas 
and two textile mills to change from using kerosene to a chemical that was environmentally safe. 
A draft report describing the first phase of the Pollution activities (MACH 2001i) has been 
prepared. 
Watershed Planning for Hail Haor: MACH have prepared a draft watershed management plan 
for Hail Haor (MACH 2001h) to improve flows and reduce sediment loads by establishing 
environmentally sound water and land use. 
Feasibility Study for the Re-establishment of Connectivity between Kushiyara River and Hail 
Haor: Hail Haor was once directly connected to the Manu and Kushiyara rivers. The direct 
connections combined with overland flows allowed the seasonal migration of fish in both 
directions for breeding and nursing. The construction of embankments and the blocking of the 
connecting channels have eliminated the connections, resulting in a decline of biodiversity and 
fish production in Hail Haor. The study to determine the feasibility of re-establishing the 
connections found that there is potential for restoring and enhancing the connectivity between the 
Kushiyara River and Hail Haor. 
Pineapple/Lemon Land Use Activities. Cultivation of lemon and pineapples down contours of 
hills around Hail Haor cause considerable soil erosion and subsequent siltation of Hail Haor. 
MACH has established demonstration plots to show the benefits of planting pineapple along 
contours and providing more vegetative cover to the soil. 
Bio-economic model for Wetlands Evaluation: Even though wetlands are found throughout 
Bangladesh, there has been no analysis of the economic value of wetlands. MACH has completed 
an economic evaluation of the wetland resources in Hail Haor and found the fisheries gave a 
return of Tk 9,871/ha while boro rice production gave a return of Tk 5,192/ha. The results of the 
study indicate that economic factors are not driving landowners to maximise the area under rice at 
the expense of fisheries. 
Wetland and Watershed Afforestation Studies Guidelines for the specific vegetation to be used for 
canopies, under-story and ground cover are being developed, along with planting and growing 
instructions for riparian corridors, swamp plantations and roadside forestry. 
4.6 Policy Dialogue 
Although not explicitly discussed in the MACH program documents, the importance of MACH 
addressing policy issues was recognised during the Inception Phase (MACH 1999), and MACH 
has since become involved in the essential task of policy dialogue with the government and other 
stakeholders in the management of wetlands. MACH has been actively involved with the 
Wetlands Network and the Local Consultative Group (LCG). 
The Wetlands Network was created initially through a MACH program initiative. The Network's 
administrative functions are being carried out through IUCN with support from developmental 
partners involved in wetland related work in Bangladesh. The Network meets at least quarterly 
and includes representatives from projects working with wetlands, fisheries and environment, as 
well as representatives from the Department of Fisheries, Department of Environment, Ministry 
11
of Environment and Forests and the Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock. The Network serves as 
a forum for discussing issues of common concern, and for sharing of ideas, methods and results 
from all the development partners working with the conservation and improvement of wetland 
ecosystems. 
The Local Consultative Group (LCG) on fisheries comprises donors who support activities 
related to fisheries, and officials from concerned government departments. MACH has been 
active supporting USAID’s contribution to the LCG and is presently assisting with preparation of 
terms of reference for a study to review the fisheries sector. The study is scheduled to start in 
early 2002. In January 2002, the LCG is planning a workshop on natural resources management 
with the main theme of governance of natural resources. 
MACH has facilitated field visits by several government ministers and officials to the program 
sites and also discussed the MACH approach with numerous government officials including 
officials from the Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock, Ministry of Land, External Resources 
Division (ERD), and Planning Commission. 
4.7 Project Management 
National Steering Committee. The Steering Committee provides guidance and advice to MACH 
and is responsible for approval of project sites and annual work plans. The Steering Committee 
has met annually since the start of the program, and is performing the functions as intended. 
Results Package Team (RPT): The RPT has authority to carry out the activities under MACH, 
and is responsible for achievement of program objectives. The RPT meets regularly to decide on 
implementation issues and review progress. 
Local Government Committee (LGC): The LGC is an integral part of the MACH Program 
management at each site. The LGCs have worked well in linking project activities and 
communities with government staff and local government institutions, even though UNOs, UFOs 
and other key government staff are subject to frequent transfers. LGCs are discussed in more 
detail in Appendix 5. 
Financial Control: Financial Authority rests with the grantee, Winrock International which is 
solely responsible for fund distribution. Winrock and its partners are subject to standard USAID 
financial control and review of the financial aspects of the program has not been part of this Mid￾term Review. Up to September 2001, MACH has utilized $4.198 million out of the budget of 
$7.585 million. According to MACH, there are sufficient funds available to complete the current 
set of activities by the end of the program in September 2003. 
Linkage with other USAID-funded Projects. MACH has worked with several other USAID￾funded projects including FTF (provision of subject matter specialists); JOBS (for training and 
skill development); CYMMIT (for wheat demonstrations); ATDP1 (for ‘guti’ urea 
demonstrations); ICLARM (for cage and pond culture demonstrations); AVRDC (for vegetable 
seeds) and Helen Keller (for vegetables). MACH is also in discussion with the Democracy 
Project (project staff have visited MACH sites); and the Local Government Initiative. 
12
5. REVIEW OF MACH PERFORMANCE 
5.1 Program Rationale and Objectives 
The rationale and objectives of MACH are still valid as wetland habitats continue to decline 
throughout the country and ways to reverse this trend need to be developed otherwise fish and 
other animal and plant wildlife will disappear with catastrophic results for rural communities 
including poorer households. Overall, open water fish production continues to decline each year. 
Ways of reversing this trend need to be developed, and the MACH approach has the potential to 
make a significant contribution to reversing the decline in fish production and biodiversity. 
5.2 Wetland Resource Management 
The Awareness Raising Activities have had a positive impact and, based on the Mission’s 
discussions in the field, an estimated 50% of villagers are aware of MACH and its activities. 
There is scope to consolidate the impact of the initial awareness raising activities by continuing 
with awareness raising activities to specific environmental and wetland issues related to RMOs 
and their activities. 
Community based planning has been organised by MACH in the management areas of selected 
water bodies. MACH’s planning process has been effective in that communities have discussed 
the problems related to the water body and identified management and physical interventions to 
improve production from the water body. 
Following community based planning, MACH facilitates the formation of Resource Management 
Organisations (RMO). The MACH approach is different from other related projects because all 
socio-economic groups are included in the management organisation rather than only fisher 
households. MACH has refined the process of forming RMOs following their initial experience in 
Hail Haor and the Lower Turag-Bongshi as the initial RMOs comprise mainly of large farmers. 
The RMOs formed at the KM site included more representation of fisher households. The RMOs 
are still in the early stages of development but the early indications are promising that RMO 
could develop into sustainable institutions if more support is provided by MACH. The program 
has had some success in improving the terms of khas water bodies leased to RMOs, but more 
effort is required to finalise the leases. With the proposed extended duration of leases from 3 to 
10 years, the program needs to ensure proper management of the water bodies and transparency 
of RMOs. Linkages between the beneficiary groups and RMOs are weak and need to be 
strengthened to ensure equitable distribution of the benefits from increased fish production and 
biodiversity. Some of the interventions such as periodic fishing bans may be having a negative 
impact on fishers. 
Physical Interventions were included on a limited scale in the initial documentation of MACH, 
and in 2000-2001 MACH started to implement several different type of schemes to restore and 
rehabilitate degraded habitats. The schemes were small scale and cost Tk 2,291,513. The 
sanctuaries established by RMOs are already having a significant impact on fish production and 
biodiversity. Generally, the earthwork schemes were implemented according to the plans, even 
though the work season was very short (January-March) before sites became waterlogged. With 
the provision of the additional funds for physical interventions, MACH will have to be careful 
that the program does not become dominated by the implementation of schemes. Further delays 
in finalising the additional funds for physical interventions will limit the program’s impact on 
13
rehabilitating watersheds and the program’s ability to meet the targets for habitat 
restoration/conservation activities (See Table 4.1). 
Biodiversity Conservation Enhancement Enhancing biodiversity is an activity unique to MACH 
and several different activities have been implemented including re-stocking of sanctuaries with 
beel-based fish species that were once resident, and re-introducing swamp trees to beels. The 
trees should increase wildlife, particularly birds. 
Watershed management. Unlike other projects working to enhance wetlands, MACH is working 
with the watershed ecosystem. This has resulted in innovative work on habitat restoration along 
chhara (streams) in Hail Haor. These activities will have a major impact on the wetland and their 
watersheds if the trees and other vegetation are allowed to mature. Watershed management 
organisations have a different constituency from beel RMOs as there are no fish in the streams 
and poor households do not use the resource. Hence Chhara RMOs are formed from riparian 
landowners who will be the main beneficiaries from rehabilitation of the riparian habitat. 
5.3 Community Development and Supplementary Income Generating Activities 
Group formation. MACH activities with group formation are based on well-established 
procedures. Selection criteria and the selection process are sound. The savings system is working 
well and the additional savings made by group members indicates cohesiveness and trust within 
the groups. Access of members to their savings is flexible. Sustainability issues have not been 
discussed with group members. Linkages between the beneficiary groups and RMOs are weak . 
Alternative Income Generating and Credit Skill development activities are very popular and 
sought after by members. Encouragingly, skills taught by the program are transferred to other 
family members and friends. Vocational training is also in high demand in part because after 
training members are offered to loans of up to Tk 30,000. This allows graduates to start 
independent non-traditional enterprises, and also provides a major lift in their status. Credit 
process works well although approval of credit sometimes is slow in being given. The intensity 
of the training program is scheduled to increase during eth final two years of the program. 
Demonstration Activities Demonstrations of different activities have had a positive impact on 
incomes and production. The demonstrations of vegetable gardens and plant nurseries are 
particularly popular as these activities can be done on un-used land around the homestead. The 
demonstrations have reached more than the expected number of indirect beneficiaries. 
5.4 Monitoring 
Baseline surveys and monitoring. MACH has collected large data sets on the three program sites. 
There are needs to improve the quality control of the data to ensure its consistency, and to 
expedite the processing of some of the data so that it is available for use by the program. 
Databases. The GIS is being used effectively to prepare excellent maps of the program sites. 
Hydrology. Due to the limited topography in Bangladesh, hydrologic systems tend to be very 
extensive. Hail Haor has a clearly defined watershed but the tidal effects at the Turag-Bangshi 
site illustrate how extensive hydrologic networks can be. MACH needs to limit the extent of the 
14
wetlands in which it is working as the program is not in a position to solve the broader 
hydrological problems associated with some of the sites. 
5.5 Special Programs 
Pollution Studies. MACH has done sound work in responding to local problems with pollution 
from nearby industries and poultry farms, and has managed to provide solutions that have been 
adopted. The problems of industrial pollution are likely to become more widespread as the 
country' economy continues to develop. MACH has coordinated its pollution activities with other 
projects such as BEMP. 
Watershed Planning for Hail Haor. The draft Hail Haor Watershed Management Plan provides 
comprehensive data on resources within the watershed. The costs and the resources required to 
implement the proposed action plan is needed to assess the overall feasibility of the proposed 
action plan. 
Feasibility Study for the Re-establishment of Connectivity between Kushiyara River and Hail 
Haor This is a complex scheme, and although the scheme would bring benefits to Hail Haor, the 
program's operational area would have to be increased significantly. 
Pineapple/Lemon Land Use. The planting of pineapples along the contours could have a major 
impact on the erosion from hill areas, if the expected benefits are realised. MACH identified 
technically simple changes to cultural practices. 
Bio-economic Model of Hail Haor. A very timely study as government and other donors take 
more interest in wetlands. The study should be completed and distributed to stimulate wider 
discussion on the economics of wetlands and their rehabilitation. 
Wetland and Watershed Afforestation. The guidelines are being used in planning of rehabilitation 
schemes at the program's sites. The guidelines should be prepared for wider distribution. 
5.6 Policy Dialogue 
Policy dialogue is an additional activity of MACH, but MACH activities are contributing to the 
debate on key policy issues with the government, donors and other projects. Issues that require 
further work include sanctuaries, leasing of beels and resource management. 
5.7 Program Management 
The various committees set up to review the program and assist MACH with implementation are 
functioning as intended. The frequent transfer of UNOs, UFOs and other government staff 
working with the program is hampering the development of linkages between program activities 
and the government structure. The Local Coordinator post is vacant at present, and there is a 
need for more support for the CoP. The program could make additional efforts to integrate some 
of its activities such as beneficiary group involvement in RMOs, development of nurseries etc. 
15
There are possibilities of involving Peace Corps volunteers in MACH, but their role should be 
limited to activities such promotion of specific technologies (such as cage fish culture) or 
monitoring (data processing). 
5.8 Sustainability 
MACH Staff have been discussing issues related to sustainability of project activities, but 
unfortunately the Program Report on Sustainability was not available due to the absence of the 
CoP for health reasons. The Mission discussed sustainability issues with MACH staff and also 
RMOs and beneficiary groups. The Program needs to expedite addressing sustainability issues, 
including developing exit strategies for its activities. Time is short to implement actions required 
to ensure sustainability as the program has only two years until completion. Sustainability issues 
are mainly related to the RMOs and the beneficiary groups and are discussed under the relevant 
sections covering those activities. 
5.9 Summary of the Review Findings 
The concept of MACH is still valid. MACH is implementing a broad range of activities many of 
which are innovative and complex. Program activities are already having positive impacts on 
ecosystems at the program sites including fish production. Program activities are also resulting in 
increased incomes for beneficiary group members. MACH is on course to meet the targets set for 
the Strategic Objective and the Intermediate Results, although more time will be required to 
ensure sustainability of the MACH approach. MACH has developed considerable understanding 
of the requirements of improving the productivity and management of wetlands, and has 
responded to unforeseen local requirements by developing solutions acceptable to stakeholders. 
The present geographical coverage provides sufficient variety of ecosystems to fully test the 
MACH approach. The main issue that needs to be addressed is the sustainability of the MACH 
approach particularly with respect to local institution building and the time required to 
consolidate the environmental changes implemented by communities with program support. 
16
6. MAIN ISSUES ARISING AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
6.1 Wetland Resource Management 
Community based planning. MACH has developed and filed-tested a process for community 
based planning that identifies management and physical interventions required to improve 
wetlands. The Mid-term Review Mission recommends that: 
• MACH should prepare guidelines of best practices for community based planning 
• MACH should review the present upazila and union planning activities and identify ways 
how MACH practices can fit in and improve upazila and union planning. 
Formation of Resource Management Organisations The key issue to be addressed is the 
sustainability of the local institutions developed by MACH for managing the wetlands. The 
existing RMOs require more time to mature and fully adopt the responsibilities and requirements 
of the task. RMOs will probably require support from the program for about 5 years or more. 
The Mid-term Review Mission recommends: 
• MACH requires more time to develop RMOs as a sustainable management model (see also 
Section 6.6) 
• MACH staff working with RMOs should be strengthened with the addition of an Institutional 
Development Specialist and field staff with social development skills. 
• MACH should develop long term plans for the local institutions being developed by the 
program including exit strategies showing how project support will be phased out and ways 
to link the program institutions into local government structures. MACH is a pilot program 
and hence there is scope to try different approaches towards developing sustainability. 
• After the formation of the RMO, the awareness program should continue at greater intensity 
than at present to ensure the actions of the RMO are understood by the communities they 
represent and communities understand how the revenues raised by the RMO are being 
utilised for the improvement of wetland resources. 
• MACH-formed institutions should move closer to the existing government structure, and 
consideration should be given to making the UFO the member secretary of the LGC with the 
MACH Site Coordinator becoming the facilitator. 
• With assistance from MACH, RMOs should develop long-term plans to show inter alia how 
the RMO intends to manage the water body, annual fisheries management plans, the level of 
funding required and how they intend to raise the revenue required. 
• The project should prepare detailed case studies of RMOs to show how the RMOs are 
actually operating. Issues to be discussed in the case studies should include which members 
are dominant, who contributes to discussions during meetings, who within the RMO actually 
makes the decisions, the awareness of different groups within the village of the workings of 
the RMO, the extent of participation, how communities are informed of decisions taken by the 
RMO etc. 
Physical Interventions. MACH is to receive a major increase in funds for physical interventions, 
and there is a risk that the implementation of schemes will start to dominate program activities. 
The Mid-term Review Mission recommends that: 
• Where possibilities exist, MACH should consider out-sourcing the implementation of 
schemes. 
17
• MACH should consider using Labor Contracting Societies3
 to implement schemes as use of 
Labor Contracting Societies have been found to improve the quality of work and increase the 
sense of local ownership. 
Watershed management Establishing vegetative strips along the banks of chharas is a new 
concept in Bangladesh, and should result in significant improvements to the watershed and 
environmental habitats. The Chhara RMOs have a different composition than the Beel RMOs 
and the interaction between the two different RMOs need to be monitored. The Mid-term Review 
Mission recommends that: 
• MACH should be closely monitor the chhara rehabilitation schemes to determine the 
resources required (provision of caretakers; replacement of saplings etc.) for the vegetation 
to mature and become effective 
• As with the Beel RMOs. MACH should prepare case studies of the Chhara RMOs so that the 
performance of CRMOs are better understood. 
• MACH should investigate the linkages required between the chhara RMOs and Beel RMOs. 
6.2 Community Development and Supplementary Income Generating Activities 
Group Formation As with the RMOs, the issues of sustainability of the groups and the credit 
program need to be addressed. The importance of training and skill development to group 
development and to members should also be recognised. Group formation and consolidation is 
still going on and this process will probably take about 4-5 years to complete. The Mid term 
Review Mission recommends 
• MACH should support the beneficiary groups for about 5 years to ensure full development of 
groups 
• A plan for the sustainability of the groups should be developed, including an exit strategy and 
an estimate of the time required to consolidate the groups and phase out MACH support. 
• Group development training should cover more beneficiaries 
• Adult literacy courses should be increased to ensure members have basic literacy skills. 
• MACH should ensure the separation of the functions of the savings/credit/training of 
beneficiary groups and the functions of the RMO, as the requirements are very different. 
• Awareness training for beneficiary groups should be focused on resources that can be 
accessed by poor households and group members. 
• Target figures for group formation should be re-assessed 
Supplementary Income Generating Activities Training is a valuable and essential component for 
supplementary income generation, and MACH needs to provide the targeted training and skill 
development. The Mid-term review Mission recommends that: 
• MACH should develop an integrated credit plan including requirements for training and skill 
development. 
• Groups should prepare activity plans showing the expected costs and return from different 
income generating activities. 
 
3
 In Labor Contracting Societies, the laborers themselves are given the contract to construct a scheme. 
The laborers organise their own work and payment. LCS's have been used successfully by BWDB and 
LGED. 
18
• Consideration should be given to re-structuring the credit program so that re-payment is 
based on the income schedule for different activities. 
Demonstrations. Demonstrations are a key activity in diversifying local economies and reducing 
pressure on wetlands, and the program need to implement the targeted number of demonstrations. 
The Mid-term Review recommends that: 
• MACH ensures that the targeted number of demonstrations. are provided 
6.3 Monitoring 
MACH has collected extensive data on many aspects of wetlands and their related communities at 
the 3 program sites, but there seems to be a backlog in processing the data and making the data 
available to the program staff. MACH should expedite the processing of the data and the data 
should be made readily accessible for use by project staff and other development agencies. The 
Mid-term review Mission recommends that: 
• MACH expedites the compilation of the existing data (particularly socio-economic data) by 
the program and prepares reports and CDs of the data sets for distribution to site offices and 
other concerned agencies working in the Program areas. 
• MACH should develop a standard approach to monitoring. 
6.4 Policy Dialogue 
Policy dialogue is a valuable addition to MACH activities and should be supported further, and 
MACH should prepare a strategy for disseminating the MACH approach. The Mid-term Review 
Mission recommends that: 
• MACH provides financial support to the Wetlands Network if required. 
• MACH prepares a communications strategy 
6.5 Geographical Coverage 
MACH’s wetland management and rehabilitation models are not at a stage that they are replicable 
elsewhere. MACH should consolidate its activities in the three project sites, and focus on 
developing the institutions required to improve the management of wetlands and determining the 
resources required to rehabilitate the wetlands of these different ecosystems. The Mid-term 
Review Mission recommends that: 
• MACH should continue its activities at three sites 
• The K-M site should be expanded to include portions of Nalitabari and Nakla upazilas 
required to form a more complete hydrological unit. 
• The T-B site should be expanded to include the areas in Tangail district adjacent to Aola 
beel. 
• At HH the project should focus on rehabilitation of the watershed and catchments around 
Hail Haor. Re-connection of Kushiyara River to Hail Haor is complex and before proceeding 
the program should assess the program resources required to undertake the work required. 
19
6.6 Timeframe 
Key activities of MACH are the institutional development of management organizations and 
beneficiary groups, and wetland rehabilitation and environmental improvement. Achievements 
related to these components will take several years to realize as the processes involved are slow. 
Resource Management Organizations (RMO) will need to try managerial and physical 
interventions over several monsoons to find out the most beneficial mix of interventions for the 
resource users. Based on progress to date, the Mid-term Review Mission estimate that RMOs 
will need program support for up to 5 years before they become self managing and self sustaining 
organizations serving wetland users. Beneficiary groups start with low skill levels and project 
will be required over several years (credit cycles) for groups to mature, as discussed in Section 
A6.8. The MTR Mission estimate that the beneficiary groups will take up to 6 years after 
formation to become self managing and self sustaining, and for the overall support structure to be 
established and functioning. 
MACH is funding the implementation of innovative interventions to rehabilitate wetlands and 
their watersheds, but the resulting environmental change will take time to become affective 
because of the slow processes involved. Fore example, trees and other vegetation will take at 
least 5 years before they become established and start to make a tangible impact on the habitat. 
Swamp trees will take even longer (10-15 years) as they are slow growing. MACH interventions 
need to be supported and closely monitored for sufficient time to ensure the environmental 
improvements will be forthcoming. The Mid-term review Mission estimate that 5 years should 
be an adequate period for the environmental impacts of different interventions to be affective and 
the program support required to establish the interventions will be fully understood. 
Formation of RMOs and beneficiary groups started in year 2 of the program, and the first batch of 
organizations and groups will require until year 7 to reach maturity. Similarly the environmental 
interventions will take until year 7 to become established and for the full requirements for 
implementing similar interventions elsewhere to be determined. 
The Mid-term Review Mission recommends that: 
• MACH should be extended for three years beyond September 2003 in order for the RMOs 
and related institutions and beneficiary groups to be fully developed, for the wetlands 
rehabilitation activities to mature so that their impact can be assessed more fully and to 
establish the MACH approach as a replicable model. Additional resources will be 
required for this extension. 
20
APPENDIX 1 
STATEMENT OF WORK
Background 
The floodplains of Bangladesh form one of the world’s most important wetlands-- home to 
hundreds of species of unique fish, plants and wildlife and critical habitat for thousands of 
migrating birds. Alarmingly, in spite of a decade or more of project interventions, the inland 
fisheries and floodplain catch of Bangladesh, as well as the overall plant and animal bio-diversity 
within these wetlands continue to decline. 
Recognizing the need for new approaches to floodplain and wetlands resource conservation and 
management, the Governments of Bangladesh and the United States of America have jointly 
developed a program called Management of Aquatic Ecosystems Through Community 
Husbandry (MACH). An agreement to implement this program was signed in May 1998. 
Winrock International (Winrock International Institute for Agriculture Development) was 
selected, based on USAID procedures, with the participation of the GoB. Winrock is 
implementing this program with its three partners: the Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies 
(BCAS), CARITAS Bangladesh and the Centre for Natural Resource Studies (CNRS). 
The major purpose of the project is to demonstrate to communities, local government and policy￾makers the viability of a community approach to natural resource management and habitat 
conservation over an entire wetland ecosystem. The MACH ‘community’ includes those people 
who are dependent, either economically or nutritionally, on the wetland and its products. The 
program emphasizes and works with poorer individuals and groups, particularly fisher 
communities who are generally the poorest members of rural society. To be truly sustainable, the 
MACH project must continually involve the local government and local elite in its activities 
MACH’s goal is to ensure the sustainable productivity of all wetland resources – water, fish, plants 
and wildlife– over an entire wetland ecosystem (beels, seasonal wetlands, rivers/streams), not just a 
single water body. Inherent in this goal are the conservation and sustainable management of 
wetlands and their natural resources. Also inherent in this goal is the elements of sustainable food 
security. 
The MACH approach requires that all factors affecting the communities and their wetland 
resource be considered. MACH advocates a multi-disciplinary, multi-sectoral and participatory 
process of planning, implementation and monitoring for sustainable wetland resource 
management. Recognizing that the reduction of fishing pressure is likely to be a critical part of 
reviving the wetland fisheries, MACH has included supplemental income-generating activities that 
provide a development focus particularly for fishers and others directly dependent on fishing. The 
idea being that by providing workable income generating activities, existing and new entrants to 
the fishery will be reduced. 
Key components of the project are: 
• Participatory wetland resource and problem assessment 
• Integrated wetland resource planning and management 
• Alternative or supplemental livelihood development for wetlands resource users 
• Participatory resource use zoning to be used in part to establish limited access regimes 
such as sanctuaries 
21
• Skill training in integrated wetland resource management including cross-visits by 
beneficiaries to successful areas 
• Awareness building through information, education and communication 
• Leveraging support and creating synergy with other projects to boost impact. 
• Develop mechanisms for effective awareness building and policy strengthening at the 
national level 
• Community and MACH Impact monitoring and evaluation 
Under Strategic Objective No. 6 (Improved Management of Open Water and Tropical Forest 
Resources) USAID/Bangladesh addresses the natural resources management issues. The overall 
goal of the Environment program is to strengthen the efforts of the GoB and the NGO’s in 
environmental and natural resource management. The specific goal is to demonstrate improved, 
environmentally sustainable management of aquatic and tropical forest resources. The adaptive 
model is based on the need to restore or maintain ecosystem function of aquatic and forest 
habitats through a participatory approach. 
MACH is a five year integrated program that uses a participatory approach to community 
resource management. The project began in September of 1998 and following an inception period 
was able to establish field programs in June of 1999 at two of the projects three sites. The third 
site in and around Sherpur was started the following July of 2000. 
MACH like other environmental projects is working to institute radical changes in the way 
communities and local government approach and manage their natural resources. MACH is a 
“Process” type of project supporting communities and local government in the planning and 
sustainable use of natural aquatic resources. The approach is to raise awareness of the need for 
change and to demonstrate in the field the benefits those changes can bring. 
This mid-term programmatic review is taking place as originally planned, at the end of the 3rd
year of the project. This review will analyze the ability of the Project to successfully respond to 
its new performance indicators. The review will also inform the planned expansion in both area 
and time for the project. 
Purpose of the Mid-Term Review 
The mid-term review will focus on MACH’s effectiveness toward achieving the goals and 
objectives set out for the project. The MACH objective is for communities, in partnership with 
local government, to effectively manage their floodplain wetland resources. The rationale is that 
by improved management, limiting access and reducing fishing effort, sustainable harvests of fish 
will be possible, conserving freshwater resources while ensuring food security to the community 
over the medium to long-term. 
This mid-term review will focus on assessment of the aquatic (floodplain) resource management 
intermediate results package, and specifically on the Management of Aquatic Ecosystems through 
Community Management (MACH). 
The review will address whether MACH is progressing toward the achievement of its goals and 
more particularly whether MACH has effectively: (a) developed innovative approaches to 
community-based aquatic resource management; (b) identified and stimulated alternative income 
generation opportunities for fisher folk; (c) facilitated appropriate technology transfer of 
22
community-based natural resource management interventions and approaches; (d) provided 
awareness building activities in project areas; (e) enhanced local government capacity to support 
community resource management initiatives; (f) led to adoption of best management practices 
(BMP) and is on track to achieving major targets of the program. Along this line the review is to 
comment on whether the approaches chosen at the beginning of the Project are still the most 
appropriate for achieving improved management of the aquatic floodplain resources. The overall 
purpose of the evaluation is therefore to: (a) review the performance of MACH to date vis-à-vis 
the cooperative agreement; and (b) assess future directions for MACH, including possible 
extension and expansion of its coverage. This last question is key: how can the program be made 
even more effective in the years to come and what improvements can be suggested over the 
original design? 
Statement of Work (SOW) 
To meet the objectives of the Mid-Term review, the consultants shall: 
1. Assess the progress of MACH in implementing the co-management approach, i.e., involving 
the various stakeholders including GoB, elites of the area and the resource users in achieving 
the MACH main goal of: increasing the area of wetland floodplain under improved 
community management. 
2. Review MACH’s Awareness and training programs for the stakeholders at all levels. 
Establish the progress in achieving its objectives through increasing the awareness of the 
interest groups to the importance of wetland resources. 
3. Assess MACH programs effectiveness in improving the management of the floodplain 
wetland resources. Do the local management organizations and beneficiary groups take 
ownership of the MACH activities? How relevant/effective are the communication activities 
in strengthening the resource management capabilities of the communities and stakeholders? 
4. Review MACH’s Wetland Management Component. How relevant are the activities under 
this component to ensure sustainable productivity from the natural resources available. Are 
the activities improving management of the resources in measurable ways? 
5. Review of MACH’s Alternative Income Generation (livelihoods) Component. How effective 
is it in supporting the MACH’s larger objectives. Is it creating environmentally sound, 
socially feasible livelihood opportunities? Does it cater effectively to the targeted 
beneficiaries? Does the credit and savings program as designed provide adequate security to 
the beneficiaries? Make recommendations on the credit and savings program as to how the 
program should be structured by the end of the project and what institutions or groups should 
ultimately control. 
6. Review the “special programs” (programs requested by the communities not originally 
planned) element of MACH namely the “pollution” component of Kaliakor and the 
demonstration chara restoration of Hail Haor in Srimangal. Make recommendations for the 
future of these efforts that have been recommended by the stakeholders. 
7. Review the GIS and Hydrology components of the project and make recommendations on 
further requirements for these inputs through the remaining period of the project life. 
8. Assess the projects habitat improvement, i.e., the physical intervention program and the need 
for this kind of intervention into the future. 
9. Assess the degree of success in achieving wider (NGO & GoB) recognition of the MACH 
approach and achievements, & the extent to which MACH methodology is being replicated. 
10. Identify on the basis of the review, steps to help ensure sustainability of the co-management 
structure and the MACH activities into the future. 
23
11. Make recommendations on the future direction of MACH including possible expansion of 
area and influence, relative to the time frame allotted for the project. 
Methods and Procedures 
The review will be conducted in Dhaka, Kaliakor, Sreemongal, and Sherpur Bangladesh during 
the period from November 4, 2001 and December 4, 2001. 
Activities in Dhaka: The team will: 
1. Review the SOW and MACH documents (including the MACH project progress and 
technical reports, USAID/Dhaka R4, the latest indicators for the program and others as 
deemed necessary. 
2. Receive administrative and technical briefings from the MACH and USAID management 
teams. Refine the methodology for the Dhaka and site based portions of the review, and plan 
the site visits. The team will prepare a brief report that will outline any refinements in the 
review methodology and outline of the final report. 
3. Conduct interviews and discussions with appropriate partners of the project, USAID and the 
GoB. 
Site Visits: In the course of the site visits, the Team will: 
1. Interview program partner staff, key officials, and stakeholders of the project. 
2. Visit site field offices and all field activities so as to be able to assess the projects 
accomplishments and programs. 
3. Evaluate progress toward goal and assess future needs for the projects approach and 
activities. 
Activities in Dhaka: The team will: 
1. Prepare draft report 
2. Receive comments on the draft 
3. Finalize the report, and conduct formal exit debriefings. 
4. Make factual corrections identified by the reviewers but use its own professional judgement 
concerning matters of interpretations and analysis of findings. 
5. Complete the entire evaluation with 30 calendar days of starting. 
24
Proposed Schedule 
DAY ACTIVITY LOCATION 
1 Arrival of team members Dhaka 
2-3 Meetings with MACH HQ and COP, USAID, GoB. In 
consultation with MACH and USAID, make any final 
revisions to the statement of work, objectives, tasks and a 
preliminary work plan. 
Dhaka 
4 Conclude preliminary meetings in Dhaka commence 
visits to field sites. Visit to Kaliakor site. 
Dhaka/Kaliakor 
5 Visit to Kaliakor site Kaliakor 
6-9 Visit to Sreemongal site, discussions with staff and 
stakeholders, haor and chara visits, RMO groups and 
Beneficiary groups. 
Sreemongal 
10 Dhaka report work and meeting with MACH HQ and 
COP 
Dhaka 
11-13 Visit to MACH field site at Sherpur Sherpur 
14-21 Preparation of Draft report Dhaka 
22-23 Debriefing with MACH, USAID and GoB Dhaka 
24-29 Finalization of Report Dhaka 
30 Submission of Final Report Dhaka 
Reporting Requirements. 
Inception Report: The team will prepare a very brief inception report within the first two days. 
This report may include suggestions for revisions in the statement of work, objectives, tasks and a 
preliminary work plan (to be revised in consultation with MACH and USAID, as needed) and an 
outline of the final report. The work plan shall reflect the team’s schedule for data collection, 
analysis, report writing and periodic interim briefings with MACH and USAID. The outline of 
the final report shall be approved by MACH and in consultation with USAID. 
Draft Report: A draft report shall be submitted to MACH for forwarding to USAID not later 
than the 22nd day of the consultancy. 
Exit Debriefing: Prior to the Team’s departure from Bangladesh and to the submission of the 
final report, the team will conduct an exit debriefing for MACH and USAID. The debriefing will 
reflect the content of the draft report and focus on key issues that may be clarified with the team 
members. 
Final Report: The final report will be submitted to MACH and USAID by the team leader no 
later than 5 days after the exit debriefing. The report should include an executive summary, a 
brief background of MACH, a summary of the methodology used in the evaluation, issues, team 
findings, conclusions and recommendations, as well as a list of persons interviewed during the 
data collection period. The report will focus on addressing the topics and questions described in 
Section III. For each of the topics/questions the evaluation report will present the major findings 
of the team relevant implications, and recommendations for future action. 
Team Composition and Level of Effort 
25
The review team will be composed of four (4) members. The team members are as follows: 
Specialist
1 Strategic Planning Specialist (Expatriate, Team Leader) 
2 Environmental and Fishery Specialist (National) 
3 Social Science/Development Specialist (National) 
4 A Representative from the Government of Bangladesh 
The Strategic Planning Specialist (senior-level) should have at least a Master’s Degree in a 
field relating to natural resource management/social science/international development fields. 
S/he should have at least 10 years of field experience in Asia including but not limited to the 
design, implementation and evaluation of development projects, natural resource management 
projects, and expertise in strategic planning and analysis. S/he should also have experience in 
analyzing the development, diffusion, communication and adoption of new 
technologies/strategies in the context of development of programs and projects. The Strategic 
Planning Specialist will act as Team Leader. Level of effort will be 27 days. 
The Environment and Fishery Specialist (mid-level) should have at least a Master’s Degree in 
a relevant field and at least eight (8) years work experience in environment, natural resources or 
fisheries management related fields in Bangladesh. S/he should have expertise in the monitoring 
of project impacts and progress indicators, to include, but not be limited to, socio-economic and 
biophysical results indicators, institutional development, and related sustainability issues in 
developing countries. S/he is to be locally hired. Level of effort to be 27 days. 
The Development/Communication Specialist (mid-level) should have an advanced degree 
(M.A. or equivalent) in Community Development (or related field) and/or at least eight (8) years 
of experience working with diverse groups, especially in Bangladesh. S/he should be experienced 
in implementing community programs and alternative income generation schemes that have led to 
changes in the general public’s perceptions, understanding, and behavior as related to natural 
resources management. Some background and experience in communication and adoption of new 
technologies/strategies. S/he should have experience in the design and implementation of social 
research activities in Bangladesh, including the evaluation of development programs and projects. 
S/he is to be locally hired. Level of effort to be 27 days. 
Relationship and Responsibilities 
The review team will report to Chief of Party of the MACH project or his designee(s) on all 
matters related to the scope and issues/objectives of the evaluation. The team will be responsible 
for preparing interim reports and briefings for USAID and the GoB as required during the course 
of the assessment period. 
IX. Duty Post 
All fieldwork will be performed in Dhaka, and at the MACH sites of Srimangal, Sherpur, and 
Kaliakor in Bangladesh 
X. Logistic Support 
Logistical support will be provided by the project 
26
Schedule 
The review effort will be conducted over a period of one month from November 4th through 
December 4th 2001. 
27
 APPENDIX 2 
SCHEDULE OF MID-TERM REVIEW AND LIST OF PERSONS MET 
Date Time Activities 
Mon 5 Nov PM Briefing on Project, planning of review 
Tues 6 Nov AM 
PM 
Meeting with MoFL 
DoF Briefing 
Discussions with MACH Staff 
Wed 7 Nov AM 
PM 
Preparation of Inception Report 
Presentation to USAID and MACH. 
Thurs 8 Nov AM 
PM 
Travel to Kaliakor 
Briefing from MACH staff, Kaliakoir 
Visit Aowla Beel and Meeting with Aowla Beel, RMO 
Visit Lalkhar Kum and meet RMO 
Meeting with Beneficiary Group, and RMO Bashtoli 
Fri 9 Nov Reviewing Reports, discussing program 
Sat 10 Nov AM 
PM 
Travel to Srimongal and Site Visit 
Briefing from MACH staff, Srimongal 
Meeting with Jethua RMO and Beneficiary Group, Hajipur 
Sun 11 Nov AM 
PM 
Meeting with Beneficiary Group, Jethua Beel 
Visit to Balla Beel 
Meeting with Beneficiary Group, Boulashir 
Visit to Boula Chhara Riparian Plantation 
Meeting with Balla RMO 
Visiting IGA activities 
Meeting with UNO, Srimongal 
Mon 12 Nov AM 
PM 
Visit Chhara Riparian Planatation 
Meeting with Union Chairman, Mirzapur 
Visit to CAGES 
Visit to Gopla River at Uttar Panchaun 
Return to Dhaka 
Tues 13 Nov AM 
PM 
Meeting with, Dr. Azharul Mazumder, USAID 
Travel to Sherpur, Briefing from MACH staff, Sherpur 
Wed 14 Nov AM 
PM 
Meeting with Union Chairman, Malijhikanda 
Meeting with Takimari Darabashia RMO 
Meeting with Beneficiary Group, Julgaon 
Visit Riparian Plantation, swamp plantation and CNRS nursery 
Visit upper watershed 
28
Thurs 15 Nov AM 
PM 
Meeting with UFO (Jhenaigati) and UFO (Sherpur Sadar) 
Meeting with Deputy Director, Social Welfare Department, Sherpur 
Return to Dhaka 
Fri 16 Nov Reviewing Document and Report Preparation 
Meeting with ICLARM 
Sat 17 Nov Reviewing documents/ Report preparation 
Sun 18 Nov AM 
PM 
Meetings with BCAS 
Report Preparation 
Mon 19 Nov AM 
PM 
Meeting with Ted Thomas, USAID Governance project 
Meeting with CARITAS 
Tues 20 Nov AM 
PM 
Meeting with CNRS 
Discussion of specific issues with MACH staff 
Wed 21 Nov AM 
PM 
Meeting with USAID 
Report Preparation 
Thurs 22 Nov Preparing preliminary draft report 
Fri 23 Nov Preparing preliminary draft report 
Sat 24 Nov Preparing preliminary draft report 
Sun 25 Nov AM Preliminary draft Report submitted to MACH staff 
Mon 26 Nov AM 
PM 
Preliminary draft Report discussed with MACH staff 
Preparing draft report 
Tues 27 Nov AM Draft Report submitted to USAID/GOB 
Preparing appendices 
Wed 28 Nov AM Preparing appendices and presentation 
Thurs 29 Nov AM 
PM 
Preparing presentation 
Presentation to USAID 
Fri 30 Nov Preparing final report 
Sat 1 Dec AM 
PM 
De-briefing with GoB and USAID 
Preparing Final Report/Discussions with MACH 
Sun 2 Dec Preparing Final Report 
Mon 3 Dec AM Submission of Final Report 
29
List of Persons Met 
Government 
Mohammad Shah Alam Joint Secretary, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock 
Animul Islam Joint Secretary, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock 
Abdur Razzaque Senior Assistant Chief, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock 
Md. Nasiruddin Ahmed Director General, Department of Fisheries 
Mokammel Hossain Deputy Director Planning, Department of Fisheries 
Abdul Awal Deputy Director Social Welfare Department, Sherpur 
Anisur Rahman Upazila Nirbahi Officer, Srimongol, Maulovibazar 
Shahidul Islam Assistant Commissioner, Srimongol, Maulovibazar 
Jaharlal Majumder Upazila Agriculture Officer, Srimongol, Maulovibazar 
Siddiqur Rahman Upazila Nirbahi Officer, Jhenaigati, Sherpur 
Md. Matiur Rahman Upazila Social Welfare Officer, Jhenaigati, Sherpur 
Mizanur Rahman Upazila Fisheries Officer, Jhenaigati, Sherpur 
Guljar Hossain Upazila Fisheries Officer, Sherpur Sadar, Sherpur 
Anwar Ullah Upazila Fisheries Officer, Kaliakoir, Gazipur 
USAID-Dhaka 
Mary Ott Mission Director 
Charles Uphaus Deputy Mission Director (EGFAE ) 
John Riffenback Head of Programs Office USAID Dhaka 
R. David Hardin Regional Legal Officer 
Kathleen Bridges, Regional Contracting Officer (MACH Administrator) 
Azharul Haque Majumder Team Leader, Environmental Program 
Karyl Camesa Program Officer 
Carol Jenkins Programs Officer (MACH Program Officer) 
Alan Fleming EGFAE, Program Specialist 
Latifur Rahman MACH-Activity Manager, USAID-Dhaka 
Rowshan Akhtar, Program Assistant 
Luna Purification Program Assistant 
MACH Program 
Darrell Deppert Chief of Party 
William J. Collis Sr. Natural Resource Advisor 
Md. Shahabuddin Manager Administration and Finance 
Mahbubur Rahman Fisheries Biologist 
A. Atiq Rahman Senior Advisor, BCAS 
Mujibur Rahman Senior Fellow, BCAS 
Mazharul Alam GIS, MACH-BCAS 
Aminul Karim Chowdhury Hydrologist, MACH-BCAS 
Sharif Mominul Islam Pollution Expert 
Mukhlesur Rahman Floodplain Ecologist, MACH-CNRS 
Sachindra Halder Monitoring Coordinator, MACH-CNRS 
A. M. Kamaluddin Fisheries Biologist, MACH-CNRS 
30
Thomas Costa Director, Development, Caritas 
Anwara Begum Shelley Director, CFP, Caritas 
John Gomes Regional Director, Caritas Dhaka 
Md. Iqbal Faruk Program Officer/MACH-Caritas 
Ashoke Kumar Das Site Coordinator, MACH-CNRS, Kaliakoir 
Moloy K. Sarker Site Coordinator, MACH-CNRS, Hail Haor 
S.M. Ziaul Huque Site Coordinator, MACH-CNRS, Sherpur 
Hebina Azim Field Coordinator, MACH-CARITAS, Sherpur 
Field Staff of MACH 
Organizations and Projects 
Paul Thompson Officer In Charge, ICLARM, Dhaka 
Jock Campbell Consultant, ICLARM, Dhaka 
Ted Thomas CoP, Local Government Initiative, USAID 
Ainun Nishat Country Director, IUCN 
Abdullah Harun Chowdhury Program Officer (Wetlands Network), IUCN 
Bjorn Ceder Adviser, Productive Employment Program, BRDB 
31
APPENDIX 3 
COMPARISON OF PROJECTS TO IMPROVE OPEN WATER FISHERIES 
Management of Aquatic 
Resources through Community 
Husbandry (MACH)
Fourth Fisheries Project Community Based Fisheries 
Management (CBFM) Project
Funding Agency USAID 
GoB and Grantees 
DFID/World Bank/Global 
Environmental Fund 
GoB 
1stphase:Ford 
Foundation/GoB 
2nd phase-DFID/GoB 
Implementors Winrock 
BCAS, CNRS, Caritas 
Department of Fisheries ICLARM 
Budget $ 7.59 million $ 88 million $ 11 million 
Duration 1998-2003 2000-2004 1st phase-1996-99 
2nd phase-2001-06 
Approach • Whole ecosystem 
based 
• Co-management. 
• Direct participation of 
all users. 
• Involve local 
government 
• Not ecosystem based 
• Co-management. 
• Direct participation 
of 
• users group 
• No direct 
involvement of local 
government 
• At least 50% fishers 
in FMC 
• Not ecosystem 
based 
• Flexible co￾management with direct 
participation of fishers 
and/or other users groups 
• Only informal 
involvement of local 
government 
• Implemented 
through DoF and NGOs 
Objectives • To raise awareness (of 
community and Local 
Govt.) about the 
importance of natural 
floodplain resources to 
secure food and income 
security for the people of 
Bangladesh 
• To maintain and 
recover the selected 
floodplain ecosystems and 
associated fisheries 
• To identify activities 
to generate alternative 
income that will result in 
reduction of pressure of 
fishing and agriculture in 
the floodplain fisheries 
• To establish 
ecologically sound and 
community- based 
sustainable fisheries 
management in the inland 
open waters of 
Bangladesh 
CBFM 1: 
To test models for 
community based fisheries 
management and to ensure 
more equitable and 
sustainable benefits from 
fisheries 
CBFM 2: 
To improve processes and 
policies for inland 
fisheries based on 
evidence of testing 
community based fisheries 
management, including 
mechanisms for linking 
local community 
management and 
informing and influencing 
policy stakeholders of the 
outcome. 
32
Appendix 3 Comparison of Projects to Improve Open Water Fisheries (continued) 
Management of Aquatic 
Resources through 
Community Husbandry 
(MACH)
Fourth Fisheries Project Community Based Fisheries 
Management (CBFM) Project
Outputs • Increased production 
fish, floodplain resources 
and biodiversity. 
• There will be 
development and policy 
guideline at local level. 
• Community 
awareness of the need for 
renewable resource 
management will be 
established 
• Floodplain 
Management 
Organization will be 
organized 
• Improved floodplain 
resource management 
will be established 
• Community groups 
will be involved in 
alternative income 
generating activities. 
• Increased fish 
production of ?? 
tonnes 
• CBO is established 
in each of the 125-150 
sites and continue to 
function on their own 
• Improved 
Management in each of 
the sites 
• 50 aquatic 
sanctuaries 
• 16 fish passes and 
fish friendly regulators 
• Improved habitat in 
10 sites 
• at least 5 approaches to 
Community based fisheries 
management tested 
• community based 
organizations in at least 65 
water bodies 
• improved 
fisheries/wetland practices 
introduced by committee 
• wetland/floodplain 
institutions (clusters of 
CBOs) for 6+ systems 
established 
• recommendations for 
legal and policy changes 
Indicators • -Increased area of 
wetlands with sustainable 
management 
• -Increased production 
of floodplain resources 
• -Increased bio￾diversity 
• Increased production 
of fish amounting to ?? 
tonnes. 
• Sustainable 
livelihoods for the 
targeted beneficiaries 
• Poverty alleviation 
and improved socio￾economic condition of 
the beneficiaries. 
• number of CBOs 
operating and level of NGO 
support 
• Improved livelihoods 
for poor wetland users 
• improved decision 
making 
• more sustainable 
production 
• local government 
support for institutions 
• change attitudes and 
behavior of fisher 
communities and in 
awareness of government 
and non-government 
organisations 
Coverage • 3 sites of 3 different 
ecosystems/ habitats 
• 125-150 sites from 
all over Bangladesh 
• 1st phase- 19 sites 
• 2nd phase 46 sites or 
clusters (including 1st phase) 
Command area 
of each site 
• Larger • Larger • Smaller or as clusters 
medium-larger 
33
Appendix 3 Comparison of Projects to Improve Open Water Fisheries (continued) 
Management of Aquatic 
Resources through 
Community Husbandry 
(MACH)
Fourth Fisheries Project Community Based Fisheries 
Management (CBFM) Project
Physical 
Interventions 
• Plantation 
• Fish sanctuaries 
• Earth work for 
habitat improvement 
• Re-stocking of 
rare/endangered beel￾based species 
• Establish 50 
sanctuaries 
• Fingerling 
stocking in 60,000 
hectares 
• Earth work for 
improvement 10 
habitats 
• Construction of 6 
fish passes and convert 
10 regulators to fish 
friendly structure 
• Earth work for 
habitat improvement 
• Fingerling stocking 
• Establish sanctuaries 
• Training and inputs 
like nets, fingerlings 
Social 
Interventions 
• Awareness raising 
about m\natural aquatic 
resource conservation and 
community’s own 
management 
• Training and Credit 
for AIGA 
• Health and sanitation 
• Adult literacy 
• Awareness raising 
about inland fisheries 
resource conservation 
and community’s own 
management 
• Training and credit 
for AIGA 
• Awareness raising 
about natural aquatic 
resource conservation and 
community’s own 
management 
• Training and credit 
for AIGA 
• Grants for 
community development 
CBO Primary group at 
village/doho/kum level 
RMO with representative 
from each 
village/kumdoho at 
centralm beel/river level 
Institutional structure still 
being developed 
• FMC at central 
water body 
• Sanctuary level 
Executive body wit at 
least two 
representatives from 
each village 
• May or may not be 
any village committee 
• At least 50% 
should be fishers 
• Primary groups of 
fishers (100% fishers) 
• Beel or river MC at 
central water body level 
• Executive body with 
representatives from each 
group or from different 
stakeholder groups also 
• Flexible according to 
site and likely to be 
different/additional 
arrangements in CBFM-2 
34
APPENDIX 4 
INDICATORS, TARGETS AND ACHIEVEMENTS 
Table A4.1 Indicators and Achievements of Strategic Objective 6 
Reference Indicator Year Planned Actual 
Sep 2001 
6.1 Area of Floodplain where sustainable 
management is being implemented (ha) 
1999 
2000 
2001 
2002 
2003 
0 
1,000 
5,200 
10,000 
15,000 
200 
2,200 
6,300 
6.2 Increase in production of floodplains 
Fish resources (kg/ha of wetland) 
Site 1: Hail Haor 1999 164* 
2000 
2001 174 191 
2002 184 
2003 184 
Site 2: Turag-Bangshi 1999 51* 
2000 
2001 61 124 
2002 71 
2003 71 
Riparian trees (number of trees-all sites) 1999 
2000 2,000 40,000 
2001 100,000 103,952 
2002 150,000 
2003 276,000 
6.3 Increase in biodiversity of floodplain 
resources (no. of species) 
1999 
2000 
2001 
2002 
2003 
0 
0 
0 
0 
25 
6.4 Area of tropical forest areas conserved and 
sustainable management being implemented 
Not applicable to MACH 
* from Baseline Studies 
35
Table A4.2 Intermediate Results (IR) Indicators and Achievements 
Reference Indicator Results 
Year Planned(1) Actual 
IR 6.1 Improved Floodplain Resource Management Practices 
IR 6.1.1 Management groups formed 
Description: Formation of active wetland 
resource management committees (RMOs) 
made up of representatives of all resource 
users including fishers and women. 
Units of measure: # of groups formed
1999 
2000 
2001 
2002 
2003 
0 
13 
20 
30 
30 
1 
13 
16 
IR 6.1.2 Improved floodplain resource 
management established 
Description: Establishment of sanctuaries for 
the conservation of fish and other aquatic 
habitat. Sanctuaries identified, planned and 
managed by resource management 
organisations (RMOs) Unit of measure: 
Number of fish sanctuaries established 
1999 
2000 
2001 
2002 
2003 
0 
15 
30 
40 
50 
1 
16 
59 
IR 6.2 Increased Public Awareness 
1999 O 60 
2000 15 123 
2001 30(200) 484 
2002 40(300) 
IR 6.2.1 Community awareness of the need 
for renewable resource management 
Description: Increased awareness among the 
community and other stakeholders groups 
regarding the complexity of floodplain 
ecosystem Unit of measure: # of public 
awareness meetings 
2003 50(400) 
IR 6.2.2 as IR 6.2.1 but Unit of measure: 
Number of Participants in meetings 
1999 
2000 
2001 
2002 
2003 
0 
900 
30,000 
40,000 
50,000 
4,900 
6,100 
62,180 
IR 6.3 Generate Supplemental Income 
IR 6.3.1 Community groups involved in 
alternative income generating activities 
Description: Development of alternative 
income generating opportunities for groups 
formed from households dependent on 
fishing. Unit of measure: Number of groups 
0 
100 
100(150) 
100(220) 
100(220) 
1999 
2000 
2001 
2002 
2003 
44 
105 
159 
IR 6.3.2 Increased income of community 
beneficiary. 
Description: as IR 6.3.1 but Unit of Measure: 
% increase in supplemental income
1999 
2000 
2001 
2002 
2003 
20% 
30% 
40% 
50% 
10% 
19% 
31% 
IR 6.3.3 Total number of indirect beneficiaries 
Description: Through result demonstration, 
farmer field days, awareness sessions and 
improved resource planning, others in the 
community will directly benefit from MACH 
activities Unit of Measure: total number of 
indirect beneficiaries (cumulative) 
1999 
2000 
2001 
2002 
2003 
0 
60,000 
100,000 
120,000 
150,000 
10,000 
160,300 
180,000 
Note: (1) Figures in brackets show the revised targets
36
APPENDIX 5 
FORMATION OF LOCAL INSTITUTIONS 
A5.1 Introduction 
The most critical activity for the success of MACH approach is the development of local 
institutions to manage water bodies after the completion of the project. Without appropriate 
institutions being in place and functioning at the end of the project, the degradation and over￾exploitation of wetlands is likely to resume and the gains made by the project in improving 
biodiversity and wetland habitats lost. 
Creating local institutions is very challenging for many reasons including the weakness of 
existing local government structures and resources in rural areas are traditionally controlled by a 
small number of households. Recognising the dominance of better off households in local affairs, 
the program has included members of all socio-economic groups in the local institutions formed 
to manage the wetlands. Other projects working on improving wetlands have focused on 
developing homogeneous groups of fishers to take over the management of the wetlands but the 
results have been inconclusive as to whether such management organisations are sustainable. 
Another major difference between MACH and these other projects is that MACH is working on 
improving the management of resources over the entire wetlands ecosystem rather than working 
on just a single water body. The broader approach of MACH increases the complexities of who 
should be involved to make the management system sustainable. 
Creation of similar heterogeneous groups to manage natural resources has been tried in the water 
resources sector. Government agencies and NGOs have tried to create local institutions to 
manage the numerous flood control, drainage and irrigation schemes that have been constructed 
during the past four decades. A group or Water Management Organisation (WMO) is formed 
from predominantly farmers but also other resource users to manage the structures that control 
water levels within an area enclosed by embankments, The purpose of such schemes is usually is 
to provide farmers with irrigation water or to protect the land inside from floods or waterlogging. 
Unfortunately, there has been only limited success in creating sustainable groups to manage such 
flood control and irrigation schemes. The reasons why groups fail are often complex but usually 
include factors such as the inability to reach a consensus amongst the various groups using the 
water (such as highland farmers, lowland farmers and fishermen) about how the scheme should 
be operated, and an inability to collect sufficient funds from the users to cover operational and 
maintenance costs as farmers do not traditionally pay for water in rural Bangladesh. In the 
National Water Policy (MoWR 1999), the importance of wetlands and the need to address the 
requirements of different water users are recognised. The government has prepared guidelines 
for participatory water management, based on the experience of Bangladesh Water Development 
Board and LGED (MoWR 2001). 
A5.2 Types of Water Bodies 
MACH is forming local management institutions around three different types of water bodies, 
namely: 
• beels (deeper areas or depressions in the floodplain that are seasonal or perennial water 
bodies that become large areas of water during the monsoon season) 
• rivers (the main drainage channels, usually carrying perennial flows) 
37
• chhara (streams or smaller drainage channels) 
The program has developed different management systems for the different water bodies due to 
their different characteristics. For example, the users of beels tend to live in adjacent villages 
within about 1-2 km of the beel while the users of rivers tend to live within about 500m of the 
river channel but spread out over 5km to 10 km along the length of the river, 
A5.3 Ownership of Water Bodies 
A critical issue is the ownership of water bodies. Many beels are khas (owned by the 
government) but some beels are owned privately. In many areas throughout the country, khas 
land including beels has been either partially or fully encroached, and is now under the private 
control. Although land is registered, determining the status of land ownership is often very 
difficult because records are not kept up to date and are subject to change by illegal means. In 
many cases, khas and private beels are drained to extend the area available for boro rice 
cultivation. 
Under present government rules, khas beels are leased out for three years and the annual lease 
amount must be increased by 25% after the first year and an additional 10% after the second and 
third years. The lease conditions for beels tend to encourage over-exploitation of the resource as 
leasees tend to increase the catch of fish to cover the increased costs of the lease and at the end of 
the three year lease, the leasee may remove all the fish in case the lease is given to someone else. 
The project is working with the Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock, the Ministry of Land who 
are responsible for allocating the lease and other fisheries project is trying to reform the leasing 
system to protect fish stocks. 
Rivers are owned by the government and are open access to fishing. Chhara (streams) are owned 
by the government but tend not to carry fish due to deterioration of the riparian habitat. 
The program has made some progress in improving the terms for leasing khas water bodies, and 
is presently negotiating with MoFL to provide 10 year leases to RMOs. MACH has also been 
working with the Wetlands Network on the preparation of a position paper on leasing issues for 
submission to MoFL. 
A5.4 Formation of Resource Management Organisations 
The program’s present approach to formulating a Resource Management Organisation (RMO) for 
a particular water body is: 
• Introductory meetings at the upazila for UNOs and union chairmen by senior program 
staff, and staff from the ministry. 
• Followed by meetings at the union for union parishad members and community leaders 
by senior program staff, government staff including the Deputy Commissioner, and the 
Assistant Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), and staff from USAID. 
• Awareness program to introduce MACH and sensitise villagers about the importance of 
fisheries and other animal and plant wildlife. 
• Participatory action plan development (PADP) to identify possible management and 
physical interventions. 
38
• Delineation of the management area of a suitable water body and identification of 
associated villages and resource users. 
• Rapport building and awareness raising of communities within the management area 
including dissemination of messages regarding process of formation and activities of 
RMO. 
• Organisation of village committees by inviting all households to a village meeting. 
• Village committee comprising of all those attending the village meeting selects RMO 
members. 
• Meeting of RMO members to select Executive Committee and decide on constitution; 
and 
• Registration of RMO with Social Welfare Department who consider the RMO to be a 
non-government organisation. 
Wetlands usually have a number of lower pockets (locally known as kur, kum for rivers and doha
for beels) and separate committees are organised locally to look after particular features within 
the wetland but the committees come under the RMO. For example, a doha committee may be 
given responsibility for establishing a sanctuary in the lowest pocket of water but the committee 
is supervised by the RMO. 
The program initially formed RMOs be requesting existing Doha Committees to recommend 
RMO members. To encourage wider participation, the program modified the selection process by 
working through village committees. 
The main features of the 13 RMOs formed by MACH are shown in Table A5.1 for the 5 RMOs in 
Hail Haor, Table A5.2 for the 3 RMOs at Turag-Bongshi Basin and Table A5.3 for the 4 RMOs 
in Kongshaw-Malijhee Basin. The number of villages covered by one RMO ranges from 2 to 6 
with populations ranging from 555 to 1580. In Hail Haor, professional fishers comprise about 
30% to 40% of the villages while in Turag-Bongshi and Kongshaw-Malijhee, professional 
fishers comprise about 10% to 16% of villagers. The percentage of seasonal fishers is higher (25-
30%) in Kongshaw-Malijhee, while the percentage of subsistence fishers is higher (55-57%) in 
Turag-Bongshi. 
Based on the selections made by villagers, the number of members of the general body of Beel 
RMOs (BRMO) range from 21 to 78. The general members selected Executive Committees 
ranging in size 7 to 19. The general body members wanted large Executive Committees to ensure 
involvement of various influentials and interest groups. 
Medium and large farmers dominate the Executive Committees in Hail Haor and Turag-Bongshi 
except for I BRMO in Hail Haor where fishers have reasonable representation. In Kongshaw￾Malijhee, medium and large farmers dominate 1 BRMO, but in 2 BRMOs there are similar 
numbers of farmers and fishers and fishers have reasonable representation in the other BRMO. 
Some fishers have been elected to RMOs as individuals, but there has been limited linkage 
between the MACH Beneficiary Groups and the RMOs. The representation of different socio￾economic groups in the RMO is very variable, even though poorer households comprise about 
60% of the community. There is a high risk of not involving poorer households when there are so 
many social and cultural constraints on their actions in open forums. 
39
Table A5.1 Features of RMOs, Hail Haor 
Name of Committee/Organisation RMO1 RMO2 RMO3 RMO4 RMO5 
Location 
- union 
- upazila 
Sananda 
Mirzapur 
Sreemongal 
Balla Vunbir 
Sreemongal 
Jethua 
Kalapur 
Sreemongal 
Kajura 
Giannagar 
Moulavi 
bazar 
Agari 
Nazirabad 
Moulvi 
bazar 
Number of village involved 4 3 6 2 3 
Population of villages: total (Households) 
- professional fishers (%) 
- seasonal fishers (%) 
- subsistence fishers (%) 
- non fishers (%) 
1100 
33% 
20% 
40% 
10% 
825 
40% 
20% 
29% 
11% 
1200 
30% 
25% 
30% 
15% 
555 
25% 
20% 
30% 
25% 
830 
30% 
25% 
30% 
15% 
Type (RMO, Committee etc.) BRMO BRMO BRMO BRMO BRMO 
Date of formation Nov.'00 January'01 Nov.'00 Feb.'01 March'01 
Number of members-general body 40 30 42 21 30 
Number of members on Exec. Committee 
- number of professional fishers 
- number of women 
- medium or large farmer 
13 
2 
- 
11 
9 
6 
- 
4 
13 
2 
- 
11 
7 
2 
- 
5 
9 
2 
- 
7 
Registered with Social Welfare ? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
Number of CARITAS groups in Village 3 5 14 2 5 
Other NGOs active in Village BRAC, 
ASHA, 
Grameen 
Bank Pashabit 
Unnayan 
Sangtha, 
SPOSP, 
Sreemongal 
Foundation 
BRAC, 
ASHA, 
Grameen 
Bank, 
Pashabit 
Unnayan 
Sangtha, 
SPOSP, 
Sreemongal 
Foundation 
BRAC, 
ASHA, 
Grameen 
Bank, 
Pashabit 
Unnayan 
Sangtha, 
SPOSP, 
Sreemongal 
Foundation 
BRAC, 
ASHA, 
Grameen 
Bank, 
Pashabit 
Unnayan 
Sangtha, 
SPOSP, 
Sreemongal 
Foundation 
BRAC, 
ASHA, 
Grameen 
Bank, 
Pashabit 
Unnayan 
Sangtha, 
SPOSP, 
Sreemongal 
Foundation 
Type of water body Beel Beel Beel Beel Beel 
Area of water body in dry season (Acres) 
(Varies year to year) 
8.89 70.73 6.86 0.80 72.86 
Ownership/property rights 
- of dry season water bodies 
if khas land, state lease amount, and who 
holds lease 
Khas Khas 
lease still 
being 
processed 
Khas Khas 
Non-lease 
Khas 
Resources provided by project 
- purpose and amount of loans also 
provide conditions of loan 
- Purpose and amount of grants 
Tk 90,208 for 
details see 
Table A5.4 
Tk 341,893 
for beel 
excavation 
Tk 5,500 for 
details see 
Table A5.4 
Tk 82,799 
for beel 
excavation 
Tk 47,670 for 
details see 
Table A5.4 
Tk 825,712 
for beel 
excavation 
Tk 5,500 for 
details see 
Table A5.4 
Tk 165,358 
for beel 
excavation 
Tk 5,500 for 
details see 
Table A5.4 
Tk 374,149 
for beel 
excavation 
Fisheries management decisions and rules 
(for example: fishing ban; charges for 
fishing; sanctuary established etc.) 
Ban fishing 
throughout 
the year 
Ban fishing 
in sanctuary 
3-months 
Ban fishing 
in all areas 
Ban fishing in 
sanctuary Ban 
fishing in all 
areas for 5 
months 
Collect tolls 
details not 
available 
details not 
available 
40
Table A5.2 Features of RMOs, Turag-Bongshi 
Name of Committee/Organisation RMO1 RMO2 RMO3 
Location 
- union 
- upazila 
Mokash Kaliadoha 
para Kaliakoir 
Alua beel 
chapeion 
Kaliakoir 
Turag River 
Boali, Maddya 
Para Chapair, 
Sreepaltoli, 
Kaliakoir 
Number of village involved 6 nos. 5 nos. 20 nos. 
Total Population of villages (Households) 
- professional fishers (%) 
- seasonal fishers (%) 
- subsistence fishers (%) 
- non fishers (%) 
1440 
15% 
12% 
57% 
16% 
1200 
16% 
15% 
55% 
14% 
4600 
10% 
16% 
56% 
18% 
Type (RMO, Committee etc.) 5 Doha 
Committees 
5 Oho 
Committees 
3 section 
Committees 
Date of formation April'01 January'01 September'01 
Number of members-general body 73 member 78 members 57 members 
Number of members on Exec. Committee 
- number of professional fishers 
- number of women 
- medium or large farmer 
EC- 18 nos. 
Fisher – 5 
Medium - 13 
EC- 19 nos. 
Fisher – 3 
Farmer- 16 
EC- 19 nos. 
Fisher – 2 
Farmer- 17 
Is organization registered with Social Welfare ? Submitted Submitted Submitted 
Number of CARITAS groups in Village 08 06 08 
Other NGOs active in Village BRAC, Grameen 
Bank, ASHA, 
Proshika 
BRAC, Grameen 
Bank, ASHA, 
Proshika 
BRAC, Grameen 
Bank, ASHA, 
Proshika 
Type of water body (beel river, chhara etc.) Beel Beel River 
Area of water body (ha) (varies year to year) 
-dry season 
-wet season 
- number of separate dry season water bodies 
20 ha 
2000 ha 
1 no. 
50 ha 
5000 ha 
3 nos. 
Ownership/property rights 
- of dry season water bodies 
- of wet season water body 
% of Households in villages owning land used for boro 
cultivation. 
Khas 30 acre. 
Not leased 
2000 ha 
(50%) 
Khas 50 acre. 
Not leased 
5000 ha 
50% 
Khas 12 km 
Not leased 
- 
Resources provided by project 
- purpose and amount of loans 
- Purpose and amount of grants 
Tk 5,500 for 
details see Table 
A5.4 
Tk 154,626 for 
beel and khal 
excav. 
Tk 5,500 for 
details see Table 
A5.4 
no funds for PI 
Tk 5,500 for 
details see Table 
A5.4 
no funds for PI 
Fisheries management decisions and rules 
(for example: fishing ban; charges for fishing; sanctuary 
established etc.) 
No fishing by 
dewatering 
Stop fishing in 
sanctuary 
No fishing by 
Dewatering Stop 
fishing in 
sanctuary 
Ban on fishing 
for 5 months 
Collect tolls 
No fishing by 
Dewatering Stop 
fishing in 
sanctuaries 
41
Table A5.3 Features of RMOs, Kongshaw-Malijhee 
Name of Committee/Organisation RMO1 RMO2 RMO3 RMO4 
Location 
- union 
- upazila 
Kewta Beel 
RMO Pakuria 
UP Office, 
Pakuria Sherpur 
Takimari 
Darabashia 
Beel RMO 
Chenguria 
Kalibari bazar 
Jhenaigati, 
Dholi Beel 
RMO 
Jhenaigati 
Bailsha RMO 
Dhansail 
Jhenaigati, 
Number of village involved 3 4 4 2 
Total Population of villages (Households) 
- professional fishers (%) 
- seasonal fishers (%) 
- subsistence fishers (%) 
- non fishers (%) 
1215 
10% 
25% 
30% 
35% 
1580 
15% 
30% 
30% 
25% 
1490 
15% 
25% 
34% 
26% 
820 
14% 
27% 
35% 
24% 
Type (RMO, Committee etc.) RMO RMO RMO RMO 
Date of formation 19.2.2001 18.4.2001 22.5.2001 26.5.2001 
Number of members-general body 37 48 48 24 
Number of members on Executive Com. 
- number of professional fishers 
- number of women 
- medium or large farmer 
15 
1 
2 
10 
17 
7 
1 
9 
17 
7 
1 
8 
17 
12 
2 
3 
Is organization registered with Social Welfare ? Under process 
(Submitted) 
Under process Under process Under process 
Number of MACH beneficiary groups in Villages 
Other NGOs active in Village BRAC, 
Grameen, 
Unnayan 
Sangha 
BRAC, 
Grameen, 
Unnayan 
Sangha 
BRAC, 
Grameen, 
Unnayan 
Sangha 
BRAC, 
Grameen, 
Unnayan 
Sangha 
Type of water body (beel river, chhara etc.) Beel Beel Beel Beel 
Area of water body in dry season (ac) 
(Varies year to year) 
Ownership/property rights of dry season water 
bodies 
if khas land, state lease amount, and who holds 
lease 
- of wet season water body 
% of Households in villages owning land used for 
boro cultivation. 
Originally 
thought to khas 
but claimed to 
be private after 
construction of 
PI 
Private Khas Khas 
Resources provided by project 
- purpose and amount of loans 
- Purpose and amount of grants 
Tk 5,500 for 
details see Table 
A5.4 
Tk 216,347 for 
beel excavation. 
Tk 5,500 for 
details see 
Table A5.4 
Tk 128,001 for 
khal and beel 
excavation. 
Tk. 10,500 for 
details see 
Table A5.4 
no funds for PI 
No loan 
provided 
No funds for PI 
Fisheries management decisions and rules 
(for example: fishing ban; charges for fishing; 
sanctuary established etc.) 
Stop fishing 
control and stop 
destructive gear 
Stop fishing for 
2 moths 
Stop fishing 
control and 
stop 
destructive 
gear 
Stop fishing for 
2 moths 
Stop fishing 
control and 
stop 
destructive 
gear 
Stop fishing for 
2 moths 
Stop fishing 
control and 
stop 
destructive 
gear 
Stop fishing for 
2 moths 
42
Table A5.4 Details of Advances provided to RMOs
Name of RMO Funds provided as an Advance 
Opening of Bank 
Account 
(Tk) 
Registration fees 
(Tk) 
Lease Money 
(Tk) 
Capital and 
management 
Expenditure 
(Tk) 
Total 
(Tk) 
Hail Haor 
Sanonda RMO 5.000 500 21,708 63,000 90,208 
Balla RMO 5.000 500 15,000 27,170 47,670 
Jethua RMO 5.000 500 5,500 
Kajura RMO 5.000 500 5,500 
Agri RMO 5.000 500 5,500 
Turag Bongshi 
Mokesh RMO 5.000 500 5,500 
Alua RMO 5.000 500 5,500 
Turag River RMO 5.000 500 5,500 
Kongshaw Malijhee 
Kewta RMO 5.000 500 5,500 
Takimari RMO 5.000 500 5,500 
Dholi RMO 5.000 500 5,000 1000 
Bailsha RMO 0 0 0 
Source: CNRS 
The program recognised the importance of involving all socio-economic groups, and, in more 
recent RMOs, MACH has made progress by encouraging wider representation from fishers. The 
participation of members in the affairs of the Executive Committee is very variable, which is to 
be expected with such large committees.
MACH has provided advances to all but one RMO for opening a bank account and registration. 
In addition, 3 RMOs have been given advances to purchase leases and one RMO has been given 
an advance for capital management expenditure. (See Table A5.4). The Mission found that 
terms of the advance are not always clear to the RMOs. RMOs have also been given grants to 
implement physical interventions such as excavation of beels and khals (see Tables A5.1 to A5.3 
for details). The amounts provided as grants range from Tk 82,712 (Balla RMO) to Tk 825,712 
(Jethua RMO). 
MACH has modified the RMO for rivers and chhara to take account of the different physical 
layout of the resource and its users. For chhara, the RMO is formed from riparian landowners 
along the length of the chhara, as there are no other users of the water due to degradation of the 
resource. For rivers, the RMO is organised from users who live adjacent to a particular reach or 
section. For example, at the Kaliakor site, three RMOs have been formed along a 10 km stretch 
of the Turag River with 3 section committees. The RMO covers 20 villages with a total 
population of 4600 which is significantly larger than any BRMO. 
The program have also organised one Union Resource Management Committee (URMC) to 
oversee the establishment of a central sanctuary in Hail Haor. 
The RMOs have taken over the management of wetlands and had undertaken both management 
and physical interventions. The management interventions include: 
• Total ban on fishing in sanctuaries 
43
• Ban on fishing with certain types of gear and for specific fish species in all areas during late 
dry season/ early monsoon (April-June) 
• Stop de-watering 
• Imposing fees on fish catches. 
The ban on fishing in all areas needs to be a minimum of about 2 months during the critical early 
monsoon spawning period to yield significant benefits. Although banning fishing for longer 
periods will also benefit fish populations, extending the ban to 5 months causes particularly 
hardship for professional fishers, one of whom said that he was "forced to each vegetables" 
during the period of the ban. MACH should determine as to who is benefiting from the increase 
in fish production resulting from the ban and ensure fishers are receiving an appropriate share of 
the benefits. The Mission found that RMOs were not clear about the technical reasons for 
banning fishing, and hence some RMOs had imposed bans of up to 5 months. MACH needs to 
work with RMOs to clarify the basis for banning fishing during specific periods. Some RMOs 
have imposed fees to limit the extent of fishing and to raise revenue for the RMO. 
The physical interventions include: 
• Khal re-excavation 
• Beel/doha re-excavation 
• Establishment of sanctuaries 
Fish production had increased due to the interventions (see Table A4.1), but more data are 
required to determine the extent to which the increase is due to the interventions or more 
favorable hydrological conditions. 
RMOs visited by the Mission did not have long term plans to show how the wetlands would be 
improved further. Even though some RMOs were collecting fees from fishers, accounts were not 
readily accessible. There is need for transparency in the revenue collection, expenditure and 
investment of the RMOs. There is a need for transparency in the revenue collection, expenditure 
and investments of the RMOs. 
 
MACH is considering establishing Union Coordination Committees as an apex organisation for 
the RMOs in a union, but the details of how this committee would work are still being worked out 
and discussed with the existing RMOs and LGCs. 
A5.5 Local Government Committee (LGC) 
Local Government Committees have been established to link the RMO and other MACH 
activities with the upazila government staff and the union parishad chairmen. 
The Local Government Committee is chaired by the Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO) and the 
MACH Site Coordinator is the member-secretary. The chairmen of the Union Parishads are 
members of the LGC, along with officials of appropriate government departments such as the 
Upazila Fisheries Officer, the Upazila Agricultural Officer, the Assistant Commissioner (Land), 
the Assistant Conservator of Forests and the Thana Police Officer. The LGC meets quarterly. 
The terms of reference for the Local Government Committee include: 
44
• propose schemes and approve plans for physical interventions 
• review progress; 
• assist the project with implementation; 
• offer recommendations for program interventions; 
• suggest policy changes (local and national) needed to achieve project targets and goals; 
• provide advice and suggestions to achieve project targets and goals. 
The LGCs is recognised by UNOs and union parishad chairmen as a useful channel between the 
program activities and the government administration. One constraint on the performance of the 
LGC is that government staff are subject to frequent transfers. For example, in Srimongal, there 
have been 4 UNOs and 5 UFOs between 1999-2001. 
A5.6 Review of MACH's Institutional Development 
Developing sustainable institutions to manage natural resources in rural Bangladesh is very 
challenging ands there have been few successes. The environment for creating new institutions 
is difficult for many reasons including the hierarchical and conservative power structures in rural 
areas and weak local government institutions. Against this background, MACH is trying to create 
institutions to improve the management of wetlands for the betterment of local communities in 
general and poorer households in particular. 
All but one of the first batch of RMOs selected by villagers in Hail Haor and Turag-Bongshi are 
dominated by better-off farmers. According to the Baseline Survey of Turag-Bongshi (MACH 
2000e and Table A6.1) , better-off farmers are not involved in fishing, indicating that these RMO 
members may be more interested in management issues rather than the impact of interventions on 
their ability to catch fish. 
Resource Management Organisations are a new institution and will take some time to mature. 
MACH should monitor the development and functioning of the existing RMOs to determine who 
is making the decisions 
RMOs have the potential to become viable institutions to improve wetlands but they need to be 
strengthened as in their present form they are not sufficiently representative of the different 
resource users. 
The LGC was initiated by MACH and will probably not survive after MACH. The LGC has a 
similar composition to the Upazila Technical Development Committee (UTDC), and 
consideration should be given to merging the LGC into the UTDC. Similarly the union technical 
development committee could have a role in supporting RMOs. Upazila and unions should have 
development plan books showing the infrastructure (roads, khals for drainage and irrigation, etc.) 
to be developed for the next 5 years. The union and upazila technical development committees 
are meant to select all infrastructure development schemes from the books but the plan books are 
rarely prepared and used. 
Program staff need to be strengthened to support the development of the RMOs by the addition of 
an Institutional Development Specialist and field staff with social development skills. 
A5.7 Recommendations 
45
The key issue to be addressed is the sustainability of the local institutions developed by MACH 
for managing the wetlands. The existing RMOs require more time to mature and fully adopt the 
responsibilities and requirements of the task. RMOs will probably require support from the 
program for about 5 years or more. 
The Mid-term Review Mission recommends that: 
• MACH is extended as more time is required to fully develop RMOs 
• MACH staff working with RMOs should be strengthened with the addition of an Institutional 
Development Specialist and field staff with social development skills. 
• MACH should develop a long-term plan for the development of local institutions being 
developed by the program including exit strategies to show how project support will be 
phased out. MACH is a pilot program and hence there is the scope to try different 
approaches in different areas. MACH is a pilot program and hence there is scope too try 
different approaches towards developing sustainability. 
• MACH-formed institutions should move closer to the existing government structure, and 
consideration should be given to making the UFO the member secretary of the LGC with the 
MACH Sit Coordinator becoming the facilitator. 
 
• After the formation of the RMO, the awareness program should be continued at greater 
intensity than at present to ensure the actions of the RMO are understood by the communities 
they represent and communities understand how the revenues raised by the RMO are being 
utilised for the improvement of wetland resources. 
• With assistance from MACH staff, RMO members should develop long-term plans to show 
inter alia how the RMO intend to manage the water body, the level of funding required and 
how the RMO intend to raise the revenue required. 
• The project should prepare detailed case studies of the RMOs to show how the RMOs are 
actually operating. Issues to be discussed in the case studies should include which members 
are dominant, who contributes to discussions during meetings, and who within the RMO 
actually makes the decisions, the awareness of different groups within the village of the 
workings of the RMO, the extent of participation, how committees are informed of decisions 
taken by the RMO, and transparency of operation and fund management. 
• MACH should determine who is benefiting from the increase in fish production resulting 
from the ban on fishing and ensure fishers are receiving an appropriate share of the benefits. 
46
APPENDIX 6 
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPLEMENTARY INCOME 
GENERATING ACTIVITIES 
A6.1 Introduction 
MACH is a program of the Government of Bangladesh sponsored by USAID. The program is 
being implemented by four non-government organizations: Winrock International, Bangladesh 
Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS), Center for Natural Resource Studies (CNRS) and Caritas 
Bangladesh. The project started in September 1998 and is planned for a period of 5 years. 
Following an inception period, field programs were initiated in Hail Haor (HH) in Maulovibazar 
District and the Lower Turag-Bongshi (TB) River Basin in Kaliakor Upazila in Gazipur District 
and part of Tangail District in June of 1999. A third site at the Upper Kongshaw-Malijhee (KM) 
River Basin in Sherpur District was started in July 2000. 
The present targets and measurable indicators for the program place less emphasis on the impact 
of program activities on poor resource users than in the MACH agreement (Winrock/USAID 
1998) but the program still emphasizes the need for inclusion of all socio-economic groups in 
management of wetland resources. MACH has a twofold aim: (i) to ensure sustainable wetland 
resource management (water, fish, plants and wild life) through community participation and (ii) 
to ensure food security of those who depend on wetland/flood plain resources for their livelihood. 
As a part of ensuring food security, MACH is organizing groups of economically or socially 
disadvantaged individuals including fishers. The primary objective of this effort is to ensure the 
participation of poorer resource users in the management of the flood pain resources (MACH 
2000b). 
The MACH approach emphasizes on raising the awareness of the population in and around 
wetlands (haor, beel, etc) to restore the wetland resources through an appropriate management. 
The project focuses on a multi-disciplinary, multi-sectoral and participatory process of planning, 
implementation and monitoring for sustainable wetland resource management. The project 
encourages the communities and local government in the planning and sustainable use of natural 
aquatic resources. In order to reduce over-fishing, the project has included the development of 
alternative income generating activities for existing and new fishers as well as others who directly 
depend on fishing. 
A6.2 Socio-economic Profile of Program Sites 
The socio-economic condition of wetland areas in Bangladesh is generally backward. Wetland 
areas often have poor communications and infrastructure developments. In general, the 
livelihood strategies of the population are very traditional and depend mainly on utilization of 
natural resources and the incidence of poverty is widespread. MACH’s field sites have the typical 
characteristics of wetlands. Baseline socio-economic data are available for Hail Haor and the 
Lower Turag-Bongshi (TB) River Basin. Data for the third site at the Upper Kongshaw-Malijhee 
(KM) River Basin are still being processed. 
According to the baseline data, the average family size in Hail Haor is 5.7 and in the Lower 
Turag-Bongshi (TB) River Basin 5.3 (MACH 2000e). Interestingly, the family size is smaller 
among the poorer households at both locations. The incidence of illiteracy is high at both sites, 
and even higher among poorer families. The landholding patterns and crop related and non-crop 
47
related occupations of different socio-economic groups are shown in Table A6.1. In Hail Haor, 
92% of the households own only about 49% of agricultural land, while 8% households own about 
51% of the agricultural land. In the Lower Turag-Bongshi (TB) River Basin the landownership 
pattern is slightly less skewed: 88% of households own about 55% of the agricultural land, while 
12% of households own 45% of the agricultural land. The implications are that a few households 
control most of the land resources at both sites. The majority of households (64% at HH and 57% 
at TB) are functionally landless and have negligible access to land resources. The number of 
landless households in the program sites is higher than the national average of 53% (BBS 2001), 
particularly in Hail Haor.
Table A6.1: Occupational and landownership pattern in MACH Project areas 
Variables Landless 
(0 – .5 ac) 
Marginal 
(.51 – 1.50 
ac) 
Small 
(1.51 – 2.50ac) 
Medium 
(2.51 – 5.0 ac) 
Large 
(5.01 ac +) 
Srimongol (HH) 
Family Size 5.1 5.6 6.6 8.2 8.0 
Households (%) 64.0 19.0 9.0 6.0 2.0 
Land owned (%) 4.0 22.0 23.0 27.0 24.0 
Primary Occupation 
 Crop related (%) 15.0 37.0 55.0 56.0 70.0 
 Non-crop (%) 
 (Fisher - %) 
85.0 
(55.0) 
53.0 
(40.0) 
45.0 
(15.0) 
44.0 
(18.0) 
30.0 
(20.0) 
Kaliakoir (TB) 
Family Size 4.7 5.1 6.6 7.0 11.9 
Households (%) 57.0 24.0 7.0 9.0 3.0 
Land owned (%) 6.0 24.0 15.0 32.0 23.0 
Primary Occupation 
 Crop related (%) 34.0 53.0 65.0 88.0 87.0 
 Non-crop (%) 
 (Fisher - %) 
66.0 
(23.0) 
47.0 
(2.0) 
35.0 
(0) 
12.0 
(0) 
13.0 
(0) 
Source: MACH (2000d) 
In Srimongol the primary occupation of 15% of landless households are crop related, and 85% of 
landless households depend more on non-crop related activities. Fishing is a common activity 
among the non-crop related activities. It is noticeable that at least a certain percentage of 
households in all categories are involved in fishing related activities. Among the landless who 
depend on non-crop related occupations, 55% are fishers, while 20% of the large farm households 
have fishing as their primary occupation. 
In Kaliakoir, the primary occupation of 34% landless households are crop related, and 66% 
landless households depend more on non-crop related activities. Fishing is not so common in the 
TB area even among the land-poor categories. Among the landless who depend on non-crop 
related occupations, only 23% are fishers, while no large farm households are engaged in fishing 
as their primary occupation. The main reasons of less involvement in fishing related activities are 
(a) beels are not perennial – fish catch is seasonal; and (b) the area is located in an industrial 
environment and not far from Dhaka where there are alternative employment opportunities. 
Catching fish in fresh water and the marketing of fish are traditionally done by only male 
members of households. Women’s involvement in fishing tends to be limited to fish processing, 
although some extremely poor female headed households occasionally become involved in 
fishing. 
48
A6.3 Awareness Raising on Wetland Resources Management 
Activities to raise the awareness of communities about the potential of natural flood plain 
resources to secure food and income are being implemented by the program partners CNRS and 
Caritas. 
CNRS and Caritas organize awareness raising programs and activities for the communities living 
around the beels selected for inclusion in the program. CNRS takes the lead with awareness 
raising activities and focuses on organizing cultural programs, demonstrations and annual rallies 
to raise awareness about the potential of natural flood plain resources and their uses at para level 
meetings, village level meetings, and union level meetings. Caritas also organize awareness 
raising activities at para and village meetings. After the initial awareness raising campaign, 
CNRS concentrates mainly on formation and capacity building of Resource Management 
Organizations (RMO) comprising of representatives from different socio-economic groups, 
organizing sanctuaries, nurseries, plantations, and other physical activities and Caritas 
concentrates mainly on group formation, group management, skill training, demonstration, and 
development of IGAs for fisher community and poor females. Once the RMOs and the 
beneficiary groups have been formed, the intensity and coverage of awareness raising activities 
decline. MACH has the opportunity to use awareness raising campaigns to ensure discussion and 
transparency of key issues for groups such as the handing over process and future of their savings 
and credit and income generating activities, and key issues for RMOs such the reasons for 
changing the way resources are managed and the distribution of benefits from increased fish 
production. 
The purpose of awareness raising activities is to sensitize communities and government officials 
to the importance of the environment and the need for their participation in resource conservation, 
management and restoration. In 2001, the awareness programs included awareness raising 
meetings at para and union level (16 programs with 7,217 participants), introductory seminars 
and workshops at upazila and district levels (2 programs), awareness programs at schools, 
dramas, video presentations (5 programs with 850 people in the audiences), world environments 
day and wetlands day observances (26 programs), posters and other awareness material 
distribution. 
In general, awareness raising activities have had a positive impact and based on discussions with 
stakeholders, the Mission estimates that about 50% of villagers are aware of MACH and its 
activities. There is scope to consolidate the impact of the initial awareness raising activities by 
continuing with awareness raising activities to specific environmental and wetland issues related 
to RMOs and beneficiary groups. 
The Mid-term Review recommends that: 
• The intensity of the awareness raising activities should be maintained after the formation 
of RMOs and beneficiaries groups to ensure the transparency of RMOs. 
• The awareness campaigns of Caritas and CNRS should be integrated more closely to 
ensure that consistent messages are presented about the MACH approach. 
49
• Awareness campaigns should be designed for specific constituencies. For example, the 
awareness campaign for beneficiary groups should be focused on the resources that can 
be accessed by poor households and group members. 
A6.4 Group Formation and Savings 
Under MACH, Caritas is responsible for organizing beneficiary groups comprising of fishers and 
females from poor households utilizing the wetland/flood plain resources. Members may be full￾time, part-time or subsistence fishermen, farmers, hunters, grass collectors and other 
disadvantaged people living in close proximity of the wetlands. Female groups include mainly 
women from fisher households, but also other women like widows, orphan girls, and abandoned 
poor women. 
The selection criteria for group members are that members own less than 0.2 ha (0.5 acres) of 
land, are between 18-55 years old, have an average monthly income of about Tk. 3,000 or less, 
and educational qualification up to grade 10. A person who is involved in a government service, 
or a member in another NGO group or mentally disabled is disqualified from being a member. 
In the process of group formation, Caritas organize a series of para and village meetings to 
identify beneficiaries by their wealth ranking and other means. In these meetings the objectives of 
MACH are discussed and general awareness regarding conservation of wetland resources is 
emphasized. Once a group is formed, discussion takes place between group members about group 
management and importance of weekly meeting and savings. The group formation process takes 
about three months. 
After group formation, the basic training – group management, leadership and accounting training 
– is organized and group members become used to organizing and attending weekly meetings, 
and making weekly savings. Under MACH, there is a target to form 220 beneficiary groups in 
three MACH program areas. By September 2001, Caritas has organized a total of 177 groups, of 
which 125 are fisher groups and 52 are female groups. The number of groups and members at 
each program site are shown in Table A6.2, along with details of group savings. Though the 
standard group size is 20-30, in Sherpur area (KM) the average size of groups is generally smaller 
with 17 members. 
About 50% of the target population has joined groups. The target for group formation was fixed 
prior to the start of fieldwork, but the areas selected for MACH activities are larger than 
originally assumed and consideration should be given to increasing the target for number of 
groups so that MACH activities cover all possible target households in the communities where 
the program is working. MACH should assess whether accessing only 50% of target households 
will be sufficient to achieve MACH'S objectives or whether to reduce fishing pressures 
sufficiently requires that the target be increased to cover a larger percentage of target households. 
50
Table A6.2 Status of Organized Groups and Savings up to September 2001 
Particulars HH KM TB Total 
Target Achieved Target Achieved Target Achieved Target Achieved
Fisher Group 50 50 70 50 28 25 138 125
(Male) Member 1000 1005 1200 879 560 595 2760 2479
Av. Group Size 20 20.1 20 17.6 20 23.8 20 19.8
Female Group 30 30 30 10 12 12 57 52
Member 600 601 300 169 240 256 1140 1026
Av. Group Size 20 20.0 20 16.9 20 21.3 20 19.7
Total Group 80 80 75 60 40 37 195 177
Member 1600 1606 1500 1048 800 851 3900 3505
Av. Group Size 20 20.0 20 17.5 800 23.0 20 19.8
Savings Fisher 0 525,575 0 170,392 0 189,121 0 885,088
(Tk) Per Member 0 523 0 194 0 318 0 2,152
Women 0 280,020 0 15,153 0 74,074 0 369,247
Per Member 0 466 0 89 0 289 0 335
Total 0 805,595 0 185,545 0 263,195 0 1,254,335
Av. Savings/ 
Member 
0 502 0 177 0 309 0 1,520
Source: MACH-Caritas (2001) 
In the Caritas approach, regular weekly meetings and savings are indicators of group dynamism. 
MACH activities in Srimongol and Kaliakoir started about the same time, while MACH activities 
started in Sherpur one year later. The savings per member in Kaliakoir is Tk. 309 (Male: Tk. 318 
and Female: Tk. 289); in Srimongol Tk. 502 (Male: Tk. 523 and Female: TK. 466), and in 
Sherpur Tk. 177 (Male: Tk. 194 and Female: Tk. 89). Even with groups formed at the same time, 
the amount of savings differs from one group to another, and even from one member to another 
within a group. Part of the reason for differences in the amount of savings from one member to 
another is that there are two kinds of savings: (i) compulsory savings, and (ii) optional savings. 
Groups have generally kept up with compulsory savings while some members have made 
optional savings when there is a surplus in their household income. 
The level of group savings indicates that members are saving regularly and group self-discipline 
is strong. In addition, the fact that members are making optional savings indicates that members 
have confidence in the group. The program needs to address the reasons why the savings of 
female groups are less than the savings of fisher groups. The reason for lower savings of female 
group members include the more recent formation of female groups, and the tendency of female 
members to deposit only the compulsory savings as they have not yet received credit to start 
IGAs. The shortage of female program staff may be a factor in the slow development of female 
groups as with the present staffing female groups are mostly supported by male staff 
The purpose of forming groups of fishers and women from fisher households using wetlands is to 
ensure participation of poorer resource users in the community management of flood plain 
resources and to create a system for providing services such as credit and training to poorer 
households. Unfortunately, MACH has concentrated its efforts on the credit and training part and 
51
has not been so successful with the social mobilization required to ensure participation of poor 
resource users in RMOs, as discussed in Appendix 5. 
MACH group formation activities are based on well-established procedures. Selection criteria and 
the selection process are sound. The savings system is working well and the additional savings 
made by group members indicates cohesiveness and trust within the groups. Access of members 
to their savings is flexible. Sustainability issues have not been discussed with group members. 
Even though 30% of groups are females, there are few female field staff. 
The Mid-term Review Mission recommends that: 
• A plan for the sustainability of the groups should be developed, including an exit strategy and 
an estimate of the time required to consolidate the groups and phase out MACH support 
• Group development training should cover more beneficiaries. 
• MACH should determine the impact of the present coverage of groups and re-assess the 
targets for group formation. 
• As 30% of the groups are female, MACH should have a proportional number of female staff 
to work with these groups. 
A6.5 Income Generating Activities (IGAs) and Skill Training 
With help from Caritas field staff, group members identify suitable income generating activities. 
So far, members have identified income generating activities (IGAs) under two major areas: 
natural resources and non–natural resources. The groups select some of their members to receive 
micro-credit from the project to start income generating activities. Under the project framework 
Caritas provides skill training on cow rearing and fattening, plant nursery, poultry (chicken and 
duck) rearing, tailoring, vocational trainings and some other activities, as shown in Table A6.3. 
52
Table A6.3: Status of Imparted Training Courses up to September 2001 
Type of Training or Skill Development Project 
Target 
Srimongol (HH) Kaliakoir (TB) Sherpur (KM) 
Site 
Target 
Achieve￾ment to 
30tthSept 
Site 
Target 
Achieve￾ment to 
30th Sept 
Site 
Target 
Achieve￾ment to 
30thSept 
Group Development Training 
Group management Batch 220 80 80 40 36 100 42 
Participants 4400 1600 1451 800 660 2000 805 
 Leadership Batch 55 20 16 10 7 25 2 
Participants 1100 600 325 200 140 300 40 
Accounts keeping Batch 22 0 0 6 2 16 2 
Participants 440 0 0 120 45 320 40 
Resources awareness Batch 220 80 20 40 6 100 27 
Participants 4400 1600 367 800 78 2400 548 
 Skill Dev. for IGA & Demo
Cow rearing & fattening Batch 21 7 3 6 2 8 0 
Participants 420 140 48 120 48 160 0 
Poultry/Duck rearing Batch 13 6 1 3 0 4 2 
Participants 260 60 12 60 0 140 22 
Pond culture/nursery Batch 13 6 2 3 1 4 2 
Participants 195 90 47 45 9 60 29 
Cage/pen culture Batch 9 3 1 3 1 3 1 
Participants 90 30 21 30 10 30 16 
Plant nursery Batch 9 3 2 2 2 4 1 
Participants 90 30 29 20 17 40 16 
Vegetables cultivation Batch 21 7 3 3 1 11 2 
Participants 420 140 54 60 14 220 61 
Wheat cultivation Batch 21 6 5 7 5 8 1 
Participants 420 120 93 140 90 160 18 
Vocational - - - -- - - - 
Participants 50 20 10 30 5 0 9 
Tailoring Batch 9 0 2 3 0 6 1 
Participants 108 0 24 36 0 72 12 
Small business Batch 13 5 0 3 0 5 0 
Participants 260 100 0 60 0 100 0 
Source: MACH-Caritas ( 2001) 
The program is lagging behind in organizing accounts and resource awareness training courses, 
particularly in HH and in skill development training in general. 
NGOs usually provide skill development training and credit prior to taking up specific IGAs by 
individual group members, but, based on discussions with groups, some MACH group members 
received credit and have taken up an IGA before receiving the relevant training. As a result, the 
53
IGAs of some group members did not perform well and did not result in the expected profit. The 
provision of credit before training happened in the initial stage of the project when there was a 
pressure for credit disbursement from the project and demand from the groups. Skill training is 
need-based, and takes time to formulate but project approval and clearance to organize skill 
training has been subject to delays. 
Caritas also organizes training courses for group members on health, nutrition and sanitation. 
Along with this training, there is provision to install 240 hand tube wells for 4800 group members 
and 1250 pit latrines for 5000 group members. By end of September 2001, MACH has installed 
102 hand tube-wells to serve 2040 group members and 778 number of pit latrines for 3112 group 
members. The Department of Public Health Engineering has certified each tubewell installed by 
the program as being free of arsenic. 
The provision of training and skill development is very popular among group members, as they 
appreciate the benefits that the training can bring. Timely provision of appropriate training will 
increases the capacity of group members to repay the loans. 
Illiteracy amongst group members is very high, and during 2000 MACH provided adult literacy 
training for group members, but in 2001 no adult literacy training was provided. 
Skill development activities are very popular and sought after by members. Encouragingly, skills 
taught by the program are transferred to other family members and friends. Vocational training is 
also in high demand in part because after training members are offered to loans of up to Tk 
30,000. This allows graduates to start independent non-traditional enterprises, and also provides a 
major lift in their status. 
In addition to skill development and training, social mobilization is another important activity in 
the process of capacity development of beneficiary group members. Social mobilization 
activities can help the poor to understand their position and enhance their level of empowerment 
so that eventually they can establish their rights and access to public resources. This is very 
much related with the sustainability of the groups and establishing their rights in society. The 
program should provide more social mobilization activities to groups to enhance their capacities 
to deal with issues related to resource management. 
The Mid-term Review Mission recommends that: 
• MACH prepares a plan for skill development training to takes place on time and should 
include the annual plan and budget allocation 
• MACH simplifies the approval and clearance process fore training activities 
• Provision of literacy courses should be increase to ensure members have basic literacy 
skills. 
• MACH provides the targeted number of training and skill development courses. 
• Provision of adult literacy training should be increased to ensure members have basic 
literacy skills. 
• Special training should be given to female groups on family law and legal issues. 
54
A6.6 Demonstration Activities 
MACH also organizes demonstration activities to encourage and train the local population to take 
up alternative IGAs and make their income generating activities more productive. MACH 
provides inputs (such as fingerlings, seeds or fertilizers) and technical assistance and the 
beneficiary households provide the labor and the land. MACH arranges awareness sessions to 
disseminate the results. 
Demonstrations undertaken include pond fish culture (62 ponds); cage fish culture (64 cages) 
wheat cultivation (64 plots covering 4.9 ha); granular ("guti") urea (15 farmers); vegetable (36 
plots covering 2 ha); vegetable cultivation (85 farmers covering 0.7 ha); tree nursery (32 
beneficiaries producing 32,400 saplings); homestead vegetable gardening (1342 beneficiaries) 
and homestead tree plantation (1000 beneficiaries received 5000 saplings). In addition, selected 
beneficiaries were given training on primary health care, nutrition and sanitation (278 
beneficiaries) and adult literacy (17 courses to 294 students of whom 147 graduated). 778 pit 
latrines and 102 tubewells were also distributed to selected beneficiaries. 
MACH has introduced fish culture using cages as a pilot demonstration for beneficiary group 
members. Cages with dimensions of 1mx1mx1m have been installed at one location at each of the 
program sites. The cages are constructed using knotless synthetic twine on a bamboo frame. 
Each cage cost Tk 245. 
In Hail Haor, the cages were stocked with three species of fish, Thai pungus (P. sutchi), grass 
carp (Ptenopharyngodonidellus) and Thai swarputi. Supplementary feed at the rate of 5% of the 
fish's total body weight of fishes was supplied daily for pungus and punti at a cost of Tk 6 and Tk 
3 respectively. Grass carp were fed only aquatic plants and weeds of which there are usually an 
abundance nearby. Only aquatic plants and weeds of Hail haor are being supplied to the grass 
carp. After seventy days, the average growth of grass carp was 130 grams, punti 25 grams and 
pungus 40 grams. The growth of grass carp is promising while that of puti and pungus has not 
been so much. The rearing of grass carp in cages seems to be profitable. 
The effect of demonstrations is widespread. During the their field visits, the Mission observed 
that the demonstrations were well-accepted by the people in all project sites and the 
demonstrations are having widespread impact, although in some cases the demonstrations have 
not had the intended impact. For example, in Srimongol, the impact of demonstration pond fish 
culture did not result in improved management practices in adjacent ponds because of disputes 
amongst the joint owners about how the pond should be managed. 
Demonstrations of different activities have had a positive impact on incomes and production. 
The demonstrations of vegetable gardens and plant nurseries are particularly popular as these 
activities can be done on un-used land around the homestead. The demonstrations have reached 
more than the expected number of indirect beneficiaries (see Table A4.2). 
Demonstrations are a key activity in diversifying local economies and reducing pressure on 
wetlands, and the program needs to implement the targeted number of demonstrations. 
The Mid-term Review recommends that: 
55
• MACH provides the targeted number of demonstrations. 
A6.7 Micro-credit 
Provision of Micro-credit for the beneficiary group members is an essential part of developing 
alternative IGAs. MACH’s credit program started in Srimongol (HH) in April 2000, in Kaliakoir 
(TB) in May 2000 and in Sherpur (KM) in April 2001. Tk. 8.8 million is available for 
establishing revolving funds for micro-credit, and, by September 2001, Tk. 4.9 million had been 
provided as grants for micro-credit. 
Generally members of a group are eligible to receive credit for IGA about 5-6 months after 
formation of the group. During the period before credit is available, group members organize 
weekly meetings, deposit weekly savings and participate in skill development training for their 
selected IGAs. 
Credit management guidelines were developed in March 2000 for credit disbursement and 
recovery (MACH 2000c). MACH strictly follows a checklist to select members for credit 
disbursement and there is a scoring system to identify the eligible group members. Once selected, 
a member applies for credit using a standard credit application form, and credit is sanctioned or 
refused within 2-3 weeks following submission of the application form. There are three tiers of 
loans: the first-time borrower can receive up to Tk. 5,000 with the group’s recommendation; the 
second-time borrower can receive up to Tk. 8,000 provided he/she repaid the previous loan in 
time and the group recommends a further loan; and the third-time borrower can receive up to Tk. 
10,000 provided he/she repaid the previous loan in time and the group recommends a further 
loan. If a member wants to take further loans, the procedure for the third-time borrower is 
adopted. Interest is paid on annual basis and the current interest rate is 12%, which is lower than 
the rate of many other NGOs. The loan is repaid in 45 instalments and the first instalment is due 
after 7 days from the date of borrowing. 
Table A6.4 shows the details of credit disbursement in 3 program sites. The total number of loans 
allocated is 1,911 and Tk 8,818,000 has been disbursed. The credit fund is made up of Tk 4.9 
million from MACH grant funds plus the accumulated interest paid by group members. In 
Srimongol, the credit coverage is about 66% of group members, in Kaliakoir about 52% and in 
Sherpur about 20%. Significant numbers of group members still remain outside loan coverage. 
A general request to the Mission from many group members was that the first re-payment should 
be delayed because members take about 3-4 weeks to start the IGA and can only earn income 
thereafter. The present arrangement is a burden and members often use their savings to pay the 
initial instalments. 
56
Table A6.4: Status of Micro-credit up to October 2001 
Item HH TB KM 
Fund allocation (Tk.) 3,200,000 1,800,000 3,800,000 
Number of groups targeted 80 40 100 
Number of target beneficiaries 1,600 800 2,000 
Number of existing beneficiaries 1,606 851 1,048 
Number of loans 1,058 443 410 
Amount disbursed (Tk.) 5,128,000 2,309,000 1,381,000 
Amount recovered (Tk.) 3,192,025 1,386,150 223,326 
Percentage of recovery 100 100 99.15 
Interest rate – flat (%) 12 12 12 
Source: Caritas files 
The credit process works well although approval of credit sometimes is slow in being given. The 
percentage recovery is good being close to 100%, but experience form other micro-credit 
schemes suggests that the money used for repayment does not always come from the activity for 
which the loan was given. As part of the loan application, members should prepare a production 
plan to calculate the expected returns from an activity, and the program should monitor the net 
income from different IGAs is being realized. 
Credit and training are valuable and essential activities of supplementary income generation 
component and MACH needs to provide the targeted credit, training and skill development. 
The Mid-term review Mission recommends that: 
• MACH considers changing to flexible re-payment schedules based on the estimated income 
flow from an IGA. 
• MACH should integrate more the training, skill development and credit activities. . 
• Groups should prepare activity plans showing the expected costs and returns from different 
activities (see IGA profiles prepared by ITDGB 2000). 
A6.8 Sustainability 
Ensuring the sustainability of the MACH beneficiary groups and their income generating 
activities is under a great challenge for the program. Neither group members nor program staff 
are clear about how the group savings, micro-credit and income generating activities will be 
continued after MACH. So far, program staff has not discussed sustainability issues with group 
members. Group members are concerned about the ultimate destination of their savings, 
revolving credit fund and the accumulated interest paid by members. 
Group members are very much in favor of controlling their savings and the revolving fund 
themselves. The potential involvement of RMOs and LGCs with the savings and credit funds was 
also discussed with group members. At present, group members are not well represented in 
RMOs and LGCs; even when the representation is there, their voice is always ignored or 
overruled. Groups are suspicious about the intentions of RMOs because, in past months, some 
RMOs have banned fishing in the beels under their management, thereby depriving group 
members of catching fish and earning income. Therefore, beneficiary groups tend not to trust 
RMOs. Group members tend to view LGCs as being no different from RMOs. 
57
The possibility of involving union parishad and upazila parishad in managing the group savings 
and the revolving fund for IGAs was also discussed with the group members in the three program 
sites. The response of the group members was much more critical, and everywhere they were 
opposed. 
Another option discussed was for an organization at union level could be formed with 
representatives only from the primary groups. The financial responsibilities of savings and 
revolving credit fund, including earned interest would be entrusted to that organization. A higher 
organization would be formed at upazila level as an apex body with representations from Union 
level beneficiary organizations, which may also be entrusted with those financial responsibilities. 
Group members were negative towards this type of apex organization as they wanted to keep 
control of the funds themselves. Caritas has tried to form apex organizations but without much 
success. 
Members are in favor of organizing union and upazila level organizations by themselves. The 
union level organization may help to resolve internal conflicts within and between groups. It may 
also help for activities to be taken up by more than one group. Another advantage of this union 
level organization would be that they could select representatives for RMOs. Similarly, the 
upazila level organization could help at Upazila level and select representatives for LGCs.
Another possibility proposed by MACH staff was to form credit union. A credit union would 
create the scope for individual members to buy unlimited shares and to deposit unlimited savings. 
Under this arrangement the group members’ interest and their fund are secured. It also provides 
scope for credit following some set rules. For regular re-payers there is a scope for receiving a 
larger amount of credit up to the amount of his/her shares and savings. For credit greater than 
his/her total shares and savings, a member can borrow money taking collateral or security from 
other fellow group members. 
The capacity of the groups to take on their own financial responsibilities is limited to a large 
extent by the low literacy rates and low level of education of group members. On average only 3 
– 4 members know how to read and write the minutes of the meetings. Though Caritas has 
provided accounting/book keeping training to a limited number of group members, those people 
are not yet capable to maintain the accounts and book-keeping registers. Even if those people 
were well-trained, there would still be potential problems as most group members would have to 
depend on a few unless the level of literacy and numeracy of other members are upgraded. Group 
members are confident that the 3 year old groups need a further 2-3 years special training on 
literacy and accounting to make them capable of maintaining the books and registers 
independently. Group members would strongly like the project to continue for another 5 years, 
and by this time the existing groups and the groups to be formed in near future will be able to 
consolidate their experience and develop their operational capabilities. 
Furthermore, group members were of the view that, to reach a desired level of economic 
sustainability (food, cloth & shelter with little healthcare and education), would take a total of 7-8 
years. If the project continues for another phase they would feel more comfortable, but in case it 
does not, an arrangement must be made in a way that Caritas can continue its support to the 
groups for another 2-3 years after the closing of the project. During that time Caritas should 
prepare a plan by which the groups can operate their activities independently, including taking 
over their financial obligations; and such trial should be continued at least for 2-3 years under the 
guidance and supervision of Caritas. 
58
Part of the reason for the mistrust between beneficiary groups and RMOs is the lack of 
understanding of each other. MACH has not insisted on the inclusion of fishers in RMOs to 
ensure that fisher interests are properly represented. The RMOs need to accept that fishers have 
certain traditional fishing rights and many fisher households are completely dependent on the 
income form fishing. Groups need to understand that RMOs are trying to improve production 
from the wetland resources. 
Ways to improve the understanding of MACH activities by beneficiary groups would be to 
increase the intensity of awareness raising activities and to target the awareness messages to the 
resources used by group members and to increase the awareness of groups through social 
mobilization. 
The Mid-term Review recommends that: 
• MACH should support the beneficiary groups for about 5 years to ensure their full 
development 
• MACH should prepare a plan for the saving and credit activities including an exit strategy 
showing how program support will be phased out. 
• MACH should place more emphasis on social mobilization activities with beneficiary groups 
so that groups can become more involved in the management of local resources. MACH staff 
working with groups should have social mobilization skills and program staff should visit 
other social mobilization programs( such as SAMTA in Pabna) 
• MACH should continue to ensure the separation of functions of the savings/credit/training of 
beneficiary groups and the functions of RMOs as the requirements are very different. 
59
APPENDIX 7 
TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF WETLAND MANAGEMENT 
A7.1 Aquatic Sanctuaries 
In Bangladesh, most inland water bodies of rivers, floodplains, haors, beels and other wetlands 
have been degraded and reduced in area and depth due to changes resulting from both man-made 
and natural processes. Many water bodies now dry out rapidly soon after the start of the dry 
season and fish are caught in the shallow waters as the water recedes. As the dry season 
progresses, even the deeper parts of water bodies become short of water and fish have no place to 
shelter or take refuge. To make matters worse for fish, the water that remains is sometimes 
drained by pumps4
 enabling fishers to catch all of remaining fish. Other aquatic animals and 
plants are also destroyed when all the water is removed. Parent fish (fish brooders) have no 
chance to survive and are not available to breed in the next monsoon with the result that fish 
stocks decline. Similarly, the population of other aquatic flora and fauna including water fowl are 
declining due to habitat degradation. 
Establishment of aquatic sanctuaries is one of the management tools to conserve and enhance 
aquatic resources like fish and other aquatic flora and fauna. MACH has established 48 small￾scale aquatic sanctuaries at the three program sites, shown in Table A7.1. 40 sanctuaries are 
semi-permanent wherein there is a partial ban on fishing while 8 sanctuaries are permanent as 
there is a total ban on fishing. Five (5) of the sanctuaries are located in deeper parts of rivers 
(locally called kum and kur) and 43 sanctuaries are located in deeper parts of beels( locally called 
doho). 
Table A7.1 Sanctuaries Established by RMOs with support of MACH 
Type River Beel 
 HH TB KM HH TB KM Total 
Permanent 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 
Semi-permanent 0 3 2 9 14 12 40 
Totals 3 2 17 14 12 48 
Sanctuaries are demarcated by flags placed on bamboo poles. Tree branches called brush piles 
are placed in the sanctuaries to provide shelter for fish particularly during critical periods when 
surrounding areas are disturbed or become unsafe for fish. Aquatic flora and fauna like algae, 
plankton and other organisms grow on the surface of these tree branches and become a source of 
food for fish. 
The brush piles placed on the bed of sanctuaries tend to facilitate siltation. To avoid the problems 
of siltation and unnecessary expense, the program is considering a trial to determine whether 
brush piles are necessary for sanctuaries to be effective as there are no data to compare the 
benefits of sanctuaries with and without brush piles. 
RMOs have imposed bans of various lengths on fishing within the sanctuaries depending on the 
local circumstances. For example, in Alua beel in TB, there are three sanctuaries and each of the 
 
4
 The practice of de-watering beels is illegal but is not always enforced. 
60
sanctuaries is fished annually on rotation. Some RMOs have banned fishing in the areas 
surrounding sanctuaries for 3-5 months, starting at the end of the dry season and the onset of the 
monsoon. The fishing ban allows parent fish to breed, thereby allowing the fish population in 
and around sanctuaries to increase. 
There is one MACH sanctuary in KM located on private land and all the other MACH sanctuaries 
are located on khas land. 
The sanctuaries established by RMOs with support from MACH are very effective in increasing 
fish stock and fish production, and the sanctuaries are being used to demonstrate the benefits of 
sanctuaries to other projects and to government and NGO staff. 
Initial findings indicate that the management and physical interventions of which sanctuaries are 
an important component have resulted in increased fish production. For example, in Hail Haor, 
fish production has increased from 164 kg/ha in1999 to an estimated 194 kg/ha in 2001 and in 
Turag-Bongshi, fish production has increased from 50 kg/ha in 1999 to 124 kg/ha in 2001 (see 
Appendix 4). More data are required to separate out the influence of program interventions from 
seasonal fluctuations caused by changing hydrological conditions. 
MACH is working with the Fourth Fisheries Project and the Community Based Fisheries 
Management Project to design studies of sanctuaries as these other projects have funds for 
scientific studies of wetland components. 
The Mid-term Review Mission recommends that: 
• MACH develop best practices for sanctuary planning, design and management 
• The performance of sanctuaries is closely monitored to determine the impact of different 
management system methods including the costs and benefits of banning fishing for different 
periods 
A7.2 Riparian Rehabilitation 
MACH follows a holistic approach to rehabilitation of wetland habitats. Riparian areas adjacent 
to the streams and rivers flowing into wetlands are very important to maintaining and conserving 
wetlands and its aquatic resources. 
Previously there was about 150 hilly streams (locally called chharas) flowing from the 
surrounding hills into the Hail Haor. At present, many of the chhara around the Haor are silted up 
and blocked or converted to other land. The lands beside the chharas were covered with grasses, 
shrubs and trees and flows in the chharas were continuous, not highly variable and with low silt 
loads. Chharas were important and rich habitat for diversified species of plants, birds and other 
wildlife. Major changes in land use have resulted in deforestation of the catchments, causing 
major changes in the flow characteristics of the chharas. Chharas are now liable to flash floods 
during the monsoon season, negligible flows during the dry season, bankside erosion and heavier 
silt loads. The silt is deposited on the beds of the beels in Hail Haor, diminishing the volume of 
water stored, particularly during the dry season. 
61
The wetlands in Kongshaw-Malijhee basin are degrading for similar reasons, although the rivers 
of KM have larger flows and carry greater sediment loads. These hydrological changes have 
resulted in large areas of wetland and agricultural land being covered by sand and silts. In Turag￾Bongshi basin siltation is also causing degradation of the wetlands. The characteristics of these 
different ecosystems are being changed and wetland habitats are becoming uninhabitable for 
more and more species of plants and animals. 
MACH is the pioneer of rehabilitating upper watersheds, and is implementing restoration 
activities in the watersheds of 4 chharas of Hail Haor. The program initially facilitated riparian 
landowners to form a Chhara RMO (CRMO) and the CRMOs have implemented a range of 
measures to restore bankside vegetation including the planting of trees and grasses. 6,00,000 
tillers of vetiver and other shrubs were planted along the banks of 18 km of chharas. In K-M, 
464,000 tillers of vetiver and the shrub dholkalmi were planted along rivers. Similarly, hedges of 
vetiver and dholkalmi have been created in upper watershed and banks of T- B area. In addition, 
10,000 saplings of mostly timber and some fruit trees were planted. 
The Mission observed that the riparian vegetation planted along the 4 chharas in HH and the 
rivers in K-M area are in good condition although in some places, the banks had been eroded and 
the vegetation lost. 
The restored riparian habitat will take about 5-10 years to affect stream flows significantly and 
reduce sediment loads as the vegetation will take this time to become established. 
After planting the trees are looked after by a caretaker who is paid Tk 1200/month by the 
program. Each caretaker is responsible for trees a 1.6 km length of chhara. The caretaking 
requirements are based on the conditions developed for caretakers of roadside plantations. The 
program needs to determine whether the conditions for caretakers are applicable to the needs of 
establishing riparian habitat. 
The ownership of the trees has been discussed and agreed with the landowners but no formal 
agreement is still in process. Trees planted with program funds will be shared 80% for the 
landowner, 15% for the union parishad and 5% for the CRMO. 
Planting of trees will bring major benefits. In addition to many positive environmental impacts, 
the mature trees will provide annual income (for example from fruit and firewood) and when 
harvested will provide a large amount of capital for the owner. The program’s investment in tree 
planting could cover a significant part of the cost of the program by itself, as has been found 
elsewhere (IDP 2001). 
The Mid-term Review Mission recommends that: 
• Agreements for the ownership of the trees should be finalized 
• MACH should determine the requirements for the interface between the Chhara RMO and the 
Beel RMO. 
• MACH should closely monitor the chhara rehabilitation schemes to determine the resources 
required (provision of caretakers, replacement of saplings etc.) for the vegetation to mature 
and become effective. 
62
• As with beel RMOs, MACH should prepare case studies of Chhara RMOs so that the 
performance of CRMOs is better understood. 
A7.3 Re-excavation of Beel and Khal 
Siltation of khals and beels are a major problem for many wetlands. In addition to reducing the 
volume of water stored in beels, siltation also closes the connections between beels and the larger 
river system. These connections are important as some species of fish breed in the river 
environment and migrate from the river to the beel at the start of the monsoon when water levels 
are rising and then return to the river at the end of the monsoon as water levels are falling. Due to 
blocking of the connecting khals by siltation or sometimes man-made structures, the migration of 
brooders or offspring is disrupted or prevented. 
Wetland habitat can be improved by re-excavating khals to improve flows, and re-excavating 
beels to increase the volume of storage. The improved habitat provides better shelter for fish, and 
facilitates breeding nurseries and regeneration of aquatic plants and animals. 
Re-excavation of beels and khals is challenging due to the waterlogged conditions. Soils can be 
very wet. Disposal of soil can be difficult as the soil has to be carried sufficiently far away to 
prevent the soil being washed back into the hole. Sites are sometimes remote from villages which 
can cause problems with recruitment of labor. 
Earthwork schemes are being implemented by MACH's Physical Intervention Unit (PIU) and a 
Project Implementation Committee (PIC) appointed by the RMO. The PIC comprises of three 
members who receive an honorarium of Tk 200/day. The members organize the laborers required 
through work sadar (foreman). The Union Parishad Chairman as advisor to the PIC is paid 
Tk500/day for occasional visits to the site. 
During the 2000-01 dry season, MACH funded earthworks schemes for 5 RMOs in HH, 1 RMO 
in TB and 3 RMOs in KM. Six (6) beels were re-excavated in HH, 2 beels and 1 khal were re￾excavated in TB and 2 beels and 1 kum were re-excavated in KM. A total of 5.9 ha of beel area 
was re-excavated to depths of 3 to 9 ft. (1 to 3 m). A 70 m length of khal with an area of 0.35 ha 
was re-excavated at T-B. 
The costs of the schemes ranged from Tk 82,799 to Tk 825,712. The total cost of all earthworks 
schemes was Tk 2,291,413. 
MACH is to receive a major increase in funds for physical interventions, and there is a risk that 
the implementation of schemes will start to dominate program activities. 
The Mid-term Review Mission recommends that: 
• Where possibilities exist, MACH should consider out-sourcing the implementation of 
schemes. 
63
• MACH should consider using Labor Contracting Societies5
 to implement PI schemes as use 
of Labor Contracting Societies have been found to improve the quality of work and increase 
the sense of local ownership. 
A7.4 Re-stocking of endangered/threatened fish species 
Several indigenous fish species have disappeared or become rare or endangered due the over 
fishing and degradation of habitats. MACH has re-introduced some beel-resident species to beel 
where these fish were once resident or are now rare or endangered. As a trial and demonstration, 
16,936 fingerlings of beel-based indigenous fish species, nandil, saputi, air, kalibaush and 
goinna.) were reintroduced in 5 beels in HH, while 46,920 fingerlings of sholl, gajar, kalibaush, 
goinna, polida and saputi were released into 7 beels in TB. The cost of the fingerlings was Tk 
16,939 in HH and Tk 46,290 in TB. In addition, 661 brood fish (sharputi, kalibaush and pabda ) 
were released at a cost of Tk 20,866. Fishers and local people reported that some of the 
reintroduced fish were caught in good condition and hoped that the fish would regenerate if 
proper care was taken. 
There is reportedly evidence that some species of fish have re-appeared after MACH 
interventions have improved habitat. For example, in TB chapila and many/veda have re￾appeared in Alua Beel. 
A7.5 Kathas 
Kathas are a traditional fishing devise designed to encourage fish to aggregate. Kathas comprise 
of tree branches and bamboo poles placed in the deeper parts of water body and sometimes 
covered with water hyacinth. Kathas are installed in clusters usually at the end of the monsoon 
and provide shelter/ refuge for fishes, particularly at critical periods when water recedes and the 
surrounding area is disturbed. The brush in the kathas produce and harbor natural fish food and 
fish are attracted to stay in the katha. In the project areas kathas are constructed in the 
sanctuaries primarily for protecting fish from poaching and illegal fishing. Private kathas are 
usually harvested two to four times a season (December to April). 
The cost of kathas varies with size and the availability of brush wood. Small kathas can cost 
about Tk 3,000-4,000 while larger kathas can cost up to Tk 25,000. 
Kathas facilitate deposition of soil/ silts on the bed of river or beel if sediment loads are high. So 
area should be properly selected to avoid silts to deposit and usual fishing. 
One social problem with kathas are that use of kathas is usually monopolized by local influential 
households. In most cases, fishers provide only labor or catch fish on a nominal share basis, and 
most of the benefits from the increased catch go to the owner. MACH should support beneficiary 
groups to be involved in the construction of kathas. 
Another problem with kathas is that there are often too many. RMOs should be encouraged to 
control the number of kathas to ensure that sufficient stock remain in the water body. 
 
5
 In Labor Contracting Societies, the laborers themselves are given the contract to construct a scheme. 
The laborers organise their own work and payment. LCS's have been used successfully by BWDB and 
LGED. 
64
A7.6 Swamp Plantations 
Swamp trees are the indicator species of plants in the wetlands. Swamp trees like hijal, karach,
and sheora, can withstand flood and survive submerged for long periods. Swamp trees were 
once abundant throughout the beels of Bangladesh, but due to human pressure and encroachment 
of agriculture land, swamp trees have almost disappeared. These trees provide very good shelter 
for birds, and when submerged provide excellent habitat for fish. Branches of swamp trees are 
also good for use in kathas and can be used for up to 3 years. 
The program has been planting swamp trees to improve beel and river habitats. By the end of 
2000, MACH had planted a total of 16,200 hijal trees around beels of the three program sites. 
(2001c). 
65
APPENDIX 8 
REFERENCES 
Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (2001) 1999 Statistical Year Book of Bangladesh. 
BCAS (2001) Semi Annual Report on MACH Pollution Project August 
Department of Fisheries (1999) A Brief on Department of Fisheries. July 
Department of Fisheries (1999) Community Based Fisheries Management and Future Strategies 
for Inland Fisheries in Bangladesh. Proceedings of workshop 
IDP (2001) IDP Plantations over the Phases. Infrastructure Development Project, Local 
Government Engineering Department, Dhaka. March 
ITDGB (2000) IGA Profiles on Food Processing and Small Enterprises. Intermediate Technology 
Development Group, Bangladesh 
 
MACH (1999) Interim Inception Report January 
MACH (2000a) Hydrology Interim Report. Working Document #12. March 
MACH (2000b) 1st Annual Report. April 
MACH (2000c) Credit Management Guidelines 
MACH (2000d) Pollution Report and Proposal for Facilitating Mitigation of Industrial Pollution 
in MACH Project Area. Working Document #11. May 
MACH (2000e) Baseline Survey Report for Hail Haor and Turag Bongshi Basin. (draft) April 
MACH (2001a) Restoration of Vegetation and Sustainable Management of Wetlands and 
Watersheds of Hail Haor Basin and Turag Bongshi Floodplain February 
MACH (2001b) 2nd Annual Report, February 
MACH (2001c) Afforestation Program Implementation: Work Plan (2001-2003) 
MACH (2001d) Baseline Report on Fisheries, Vegetation, Wildlife and Household Protein 
Consumption. February 
MACH (2001e) Semi- annual Report August 
MACH (2001f) Project Profile. August 
MACH (2001g) Hail Haor Wetland: Estimation of Economic Value (Partial Draft) October 
MACH (2001h) Report on Hail Haor Watershed Management Plan (Draft) November 
MACH (2001i) Report on MACH-Kaliakoir Pollution Project (draft) November 
66
67
MACH(2000k) Progress Report-Caritas September 
Ministry of Water Resources (1999) National Water Policy. January 
Ministry of Water Resources (2001) Guidelines for Participatory Water Management. April 
Sultana, P. and P.M. Thompson (2000) Community Fishery Management Implications for Food 
Security and Livelihoods. Paper presented to IIFET Conference, Corvallis, Oregon. July 
Thompson, P.M., P. Sultana et al (1999) An Assessment of Co-management Arrangements 
Developed by the Community Based Fisheries Management Project in Bangladesh. 
Paper presented to International Workshop on Fisheries Co-management, Penang, 
Malaysia. 23-28 August. 
Thompson, P.M., P. Sultana et al (2001) Lessons from Community Based Management of 
Floodplain Fisheries in Bangladesh. Paper presented to Asian Wetlands Symposium 
2001, Penang, Malaysia 27-30 August 
Winrock and USAID (1998) MACH Agreement July