Establishing political impact assessment: revisiting contemporary approaches with Bangladesh cases

Abstract

Despite the enormous significance of differentiated interests and power relations among the stakeholders in development interventions, political impact does not receive adequate attention and space in existing environmental impact assessment and social impact assessment frameworks. The goal of political impact assessment is to ensure democratization, participation, equity; human rights and understand the marginalization process, conflict and cooperation. Inadequate focus on political impacts like participation, marginalization and democratization could have severe impacts like increasing vulnerability and inequality. Using qualitative approaches, this study demonstrates that political impacts like lack of participation, democratization, access to service delivery and violation of human rights created and is predicted to create marginalization in case of Jamuna Bridge and Padma Bridge in Bangladesh. The paper argues that political impacts needs to be emphasized and assessed separately for facilitating more equitable distribution of benefits of infrastructure project and mitigating marginalization of individuals and communities.

Keywords:

• Bangladesh
• democratization
• participation
• political impact assessment
• social impact assessment

Introduction

Politics and development are inseparable both conceptually and operationally. No development intervention can be implemented without leaving any political impact and also the nature of politics in a society heavily shapes the nature and direction of development. Without being engaged in the debate over definition, reasonably, politics can be conceived as any kind of activities of conflict, cooperation or negotiation in relation to distribution or redistribution of resources (Rickson et al. 1990; Leftwich 2000). Having taken this definition into account, the goal of political impact assessment (PIA) is to ensure democratization, participation, equity in relation to management of development interventions; and also to provide the managers and policy-makers with a clearer understanding of change in the power relations, the marginalization process and pattern of potential conflicts between the groups with competing interests in the catchment area. PIA thus focuses on understanding the layout of the political configuration, i.e. web of interest and power relations among and between individuals and groups within a development project context. This political configuration is likely to be affected by the flow of material and non-material resources brought into the context through the development intervention. In doing so, PIA can facilitate, if not ensure, rights and entitlements of the stakeholders, especially of the marginalized groups.

At this stage, PIA is not a well-established impact assessment protocol among the existing impact assessment scholarship; not many people have attempted to develop the protocol yet. One of the champions, Vanclay says that PIA helps to understand ‘the extent to which people are able to participate in decisions that affect their lives, the level of democratization that is taking place, and the resources provided for this purpose’ (Vanclay 2003, p. 5). Elaborating Vanclay’s argument, taking politics as a separate but most influential domain of human interactions, PIA as a separate impact assessment protocol aims to understand the changes in interest relation and power relation between and among competing groups and classes in the catchment area of the development project. The scope of PIA may include (a) pattern of potential conflict between the competing interests, (b) pattern of emerging coalition between various groups, (c) pattern of participation of various groups into the negotiation (over compensation and resettlement issues) process, (d) violation of rights and entitlements of the people in the project catchment, (e) access to legal procedure and services and (f) marginalization and/or loss of identity among the affected individuals and communities.

With that said, it can reasonably be argued that the PIA could generate a set of positive outcomes including:

(a)	empower the affected communities being able to engage in negotiations;
(b)	help the managers to map out the interest relations among the stakeholders in the catchment based on what they can work out appropriate strategy of engagement;
(c)	provide the managers with a clearer idea of potential conflict triggers in the catchment based on what they can take mitigation measures in advance; and
(d)	mitigate marginalization of individuals and communities in the catchment.

In general, it can be said that the PIA has potential to make the development process democratic and empowering for the affected communities.

As far as infrastructure development projects are concerned, environmental impact assessment (EIA) and social impact assessment (SIA) are well-established and commonly used protocols. Despite the fact that all infrastructure projects immediately affect existing power relations in the catchment communities by influencing the way that benefits are distributed among the stakeholders, political implications have not been addressed adequately in both EIA and SIA frameworks. The existing SIA framework can cover very limited political impacts (Vanclay 2002). While SIA focuses on health, living environment, economic and material well-being, community impact gender relation and political impact (Vanclay 2002), PIA focuses on the participation of the affected communities in decision-making, level of democratization, access to legal procedure and human rights and equity (Sharif & Hannan 1999; Cox et al. 2000; Vanclay 2002; Momtaz 2005). Figure 1 shows that there is an area where several elements of SIA and PIA overlap; however, both have distinct scopes and specific focuses and thus could play a complementary role in building our capacity to implement infrastructural projects.

Figure 1. The intersection between SIA and PIA.

Having laid out the conceptual skeleton of PIA, the paper argues that in order to be able to manage projects better and mitigate marginalization, inequity and conflict in a project context, political impacts need to be assessed and thus addressed separately as an independent domain of enquiry and action. To that end, this paper presents and analyses evidences from contemporary Bangladesh. Within the limited scope, the paper, more specifically, examines only four elements of PIA as follows:

(a)	Participation of the affected communities: Pattern of participation of stakeholders including the vulnerable communities and most affected groups
(b)	Democratization process: Whether benefits are being distributed to the majority of the affected people and if the distribution process is fair, compensation, resettlement benefits
(c)	Access to legal procedure: Access to information, legal services, access to grievance redress mechanism
(d)	Violation of human rights: Forced relocation, migration, etc.

In the context of a developing country like Bangladesh PIA could contribute even more because usually the development projects are designed and implemented with a top-down approach which very often neglects measures for ensuring community participation, human rights and equity, democratization and access to legal procedure. Consequently, the vulnerable groups become more susceptible; marginalization of displaced communities occurs. While the right to actively participate and provide honest opinion of the affected communities are acknowledged (Esteves et al. 2012; Hanna & Vanclay 2013; Kemp & Vanclay 2013), they are rarely given chances to meaningful participation.

Infrastructural development has taken faster pace in the last two decades in Bangladesh. One of the major projects is the Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge, which is the longest, 4.8 km, bridge in Bangladesh, was constructed in 1998 to foster economic development (Asian Development Bank (ADB) 2004; Siddique 2013). The Padma Multipurpose Bridge is the latest addition to the list. The construction of the 6.15 km bridge has started in 2015 and is expected to be completed in 2018 with the same goal of ensuring a fast communication network in Bangladesh (Raihan & Khondker 2010). Like other large-scale development projects, the construction of Jamuna Bridge had and Padma Bridge will have significant impacts on economic, environment, social and political domains in the country. This study demonstrates that lack of participation, democratic process and access to legal services created marginalization in the case of the Jamuna Bridge, and is predicted to create marginalization in case of Padma Bridge.

Methodology

Before the construction of Jamuna Bridge, the north-western and eastern part of Bangladesh was divided by the river Jamuna. The only means of crossing the Jamuna was a ferry that involved huge time and cost (Badruzzaman & Ahmed 1995). Similarly, Padma Bridge connects the south-west and northern-eastern parts of Bangladesh by connecting Mawa and Janjira (Raihan & Khondker 2010). The construction cost of Jamuna Bridge was $900 million (Siddique 2013), while the expected construction cost of Padma Bridge is $3 billion (Bangladesh Bridge Authority (BBA) & Asian Development Bank (ADB) 2011). Nevertheless, in addition to economic change, the construction of Jamuna Bridge significantly impacted on the livelihood of the communities by forcing many people to relocate and change professions. The construction of Padma Bridge is predicted to create similar effects on the affected communities.

Considering the similar context and objectives of both of the bridges, one would assume that the actual impacts of Jamuna Bridge should help to inform the prediction of impacts for Padma. The impact assessment of Padma Bridge mentions that ‘Utilization of post-construction experience of Bangabandhu (Jamuna) Bridge in EIA and EMP (Environmental Management Plan) of the proposed Padma Multipurpose Bridge’ is recommended for the Padma Bridge (ADB 2004, p. 31). However, rather than following the lessons learnt from the case of Jamuna Bridge, the impact assessment process of Padma Bridge followed the stereotype flawed process of impact assessment where participation and democratization were not ensured. The study aims to explore level of participation of the affected communities, democratization process, access to legal services and human rights violations in the concerned process.

Using qualitative approaches, this study compares the post impact assessment documents of the Jamuna Bridge and pre assessment document of Padma Bridge. Qualitative research provides a more holistic view in the natural setting (Denzin & Lincoln 2005). Thus, qualitative research is more objective for it does not intend to validate or refute any existing theories (Marschan-Piekkari & Welch 2004).

To explore participation, democratization, access to legal services and human rights violations, the study addressed four research questions for both Jamuna Bridge and Padma Bridge.

(1)	How participation of the affected communities was ensured?
(2)	How democratization process was ensured?
(3)	How access to legal procedure for the affected communities was ensured?
(4)	How human rights violation has been addressed?

Secondary data have been analysed from different reports and journal articles. The construction of Padma Bridge started in 2015. So far, two major impact assessment reports on Padma Bridge have been published, and more are expected to be published. The environmental assessment report by the BBA and ADB (2011) and economic impact assessment report of Padma Bridge by Raihan and Khondker (2010) have been reviewed for Padma Bridge. The economic impacts report on Jamuna Bridge (ADB 2004), World Bank (2003) report on accountability (the case of Jamuna Bridge was included there), BRAC¹ research report on resettlement sites of Jamuna Bridge and research report by the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (Bayes 2007) on impact assessment of Jamuna Bridge have been reviewed. Newspaper articles from the Daily Star² have also been reviewed for Jamuna Bridge.

Six Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) have been conducted with the affected communities and two in-depth interviews took place with the implementers (local government agency and representatives from NGOs) in 2014. A FGD is a ‘planned, facilitated discussion among a small group of stakeholders designed to obtain perceptions in a defined area of interest in a permissive, non-threatening environment’ (USAID 2008, p. 3). ‘In-depth interviewing is a qualitative research technique that involves conducting intensive individual interviews to explore their perspectives on a particular idea, program, or situation’ (Boyce 2006, p. 3). The duration of each of the FGDs and interviews was approximately an hour. Eight to ten participants from affected communities (both male and female) attended the FGD sessions.

The following sections reveal the scope of participation, democratization, access to legal services and human rights violations in the case of Jamuna Bridge and Padma Bridge.

The case of Jamuna Bridge

Participation

The construction of Jamuna Bridge was started in 1995 and finished in 1998. Though World Bank and Asian Development Bank (ADB) have developed guidelines for SIA in Bangladesh (Momtaz 2005), participation of the affected communities in the SIA process of Jamuna Bridge remained minimal. Even in selecting resettlement sites, the community voice remained unheard. Though resettlements were managed by resettlement units, NGOs were delegated with the responsibilities of the implementation. People from the villages were engaged as village resettlement workers to represent the affected people and negotiate the rehabilitation process and compensation rate (Penz et al. 2011). Though these groups helped in better selection of resettlement site, they were not successful at all because of their limited authority and scarce room for participation. The initiative did not continue for long and only few numbers of sites were selected (Rahman 2001; Penz et al. 2011). Also, all the selected sites were not used for resettlement (Daily Star 2015).

Democratization

Few people benefited from land reclamation, rehabilitation and compensations. Only the landowners were compensated and the other affected people like tenants, farmers and sharecropper were neglected (Field Data). Categories of the compensation were not made clear to the affected people. They reported that the compensations differed even though the category and amount of the land was same (Atahar 2013). Land reclamation took place on the basis of oral statement of the influential people. Only one-third of the affected households were rehabilitated (Ghosh et al. 2010). Hence, the whole process again served the interest of influential groups rather than the majority. The field data show that the small farmers and sharecroppers were particularly hampered from the process. The small farmers lost their limited lands and became landless.

A capacity-building initiative was undertaken for the affected communities in 1990, which focused on improving production capacity and accessing market information (demand, supply and presence of middle man, etc.) However, only limited numbers of influential farmers benefited from the capacity building initiatives as most of small farmer groups and share croppers were not considered under the initiative (Field Data). Consequently, improved communication mostly benefited affluent farmers rather than the small farmers (Bayes 2007; Field Data).

Similarly, women became involved in income-generating activities in the post construction period. However, the increased income did not significantly reduce their vulnerability as particular initiatives to increase their capacity and to link them with the market, like providing information on market demand and building their capacities accordingly, were missing. The female members depended on their spouse for selling products in the post construction period also (Field Data).

Access to legal services

Many people were not aware about the possible impacts of the construction of the Jamuna Bridge (Daily Star 2015). BRAC was responsible for communicating and implementing guidelines for the compensation measures in case of Jamuna Bridge. Posting notices in the main lands and limited visits of the BRAC staff in the Char areas were not effective means for communication as most of the people in the Char area were illiterate. Instead of providing individual notices, only public announcements were made (Atahar 2013). As travelling to the BRAC office for information required time and finance, only the influential and financially well-off groups had access to information. The major portion of the affected communities did not have access to information. Particularly, women did not have any access to information as they have limited decision-making authority and the particular culture restricts women from travelling alone (Amin et al. 1998; Srinivasan & Mehta 2003). Thus women’s voice remained unheard, contributing to increasing the vulnerability of women.

Violation of human rights

Human rights include the right to life, property, health, education, free association, among others (Sepúlveda et al. 2004).

The obligation for governments and companies to engage impacted communities is recognized in international law, especially with the principle of ‘Free, Prior and Informed Consent’, which is outlined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and in the International Labour Organization Convention 169. (Kemp & Vanclay 2013, p. 86)

Tugendhat et al. (2009) consider that the ILO 169 is the only legally binding document regarding the rights of Indigenous peoples.

Forced migration without taking ‘Free, Prior and Informed Consent’ and violation of right to health, loss of property in this regard have been discussed as violations of human rights for Jamuna and Padma Bridge.

Violation of human rights in the form of forced migration impacts on the social and cultural tradition also. Forced relocation three or more times changed the social and cultural tradition of the affected group. After relocation, they were treated as outsiders. A large number of former ferry workers who shifted their profession to road transport labourers faced hostility and unreceptive behaviour from the existing transport workers (Dulu 2003). Also, social status changed to lower class for the people who changed their occupation from agriculture to day labour or rickshaw-pulling as these professions are considered less esteemed in comparison to agriculture.

After relocation, the women became a comparatively easy target for harassment. Such attitudes limited their movements. Also, inadequate health care service in the resettlement sites compelled women to travel to cities to access health care (Ghosh et al. 2010). Thus, the vulnerability of the women increased as a result of the forced relocation.

The case of Padma Bridge

Participation

Before the construction process, public consultation meeting took place with 81 people in Mawa and 185 people in the Janjira site (BBA & ADB 2011). The impact assessment report mentions that the major portion of people took part in the FGD were willing to migrate. Local government bodies were responsible for ensuring people’s participation. The field data reveal that most of people who participated in the FGDs were landowners. Participation of the landless and vulnerable groups was not ensured in the entire process. Moreover, as one of the participants reported,

The meeting was a kind of big, many people were there and it was not conducive for an individual to give any alternative opinions. Only a few spoke. Union Parishad³ members were there to see who say what. (Field Data)

What it suggests is that the quality of participation was very poor.

Also, participation of the affected communities was not ensured in determining the compensation measures, distribution process and resettlement sites. Though, the landowners have been compensated, most of the sharecroppers and small farmers again did not receive any compensation. At the same time, there were no compensation or mitigation measures for reduced income and changed livelihood (Field Data).

In the impact assessment reports of Padma Bridge, only the positive income-generating activities of women have been emphasized (BBA & ADB 2011). Though vulnerable groups are particularly hit in times of a transition process, there is no mention of participation of vulnerable groups like women in the assessment reports of Padma Bridge in selecting resettlement sites. However, the impact assessment report mentions that women’s participation will be increased as a women’s corner will be established at each resettlement site where women will have scope for networking (BBA & ADB 2011). Though women have started to migrate to the resettlement sites, they are not aware about such women’s corner yet (Field Data).

Democratization

For the construction of Padma Bridge, 1409 hectares have been acquired and 1045 plots have been approved for resettlement sites in four villages (BBA & ADB 2011). More land has been acquired than actually needed (BBA & ADB 2011). 16500 households were affected. Among the affected household, only around 5940 households were landowners who were considered for compensation (BBA & ADB 2011). However, in the four resettlement sites only 1231 households could be relocated (BBA & ADB 2011). At the same time, people from outside migrated into the resettlement site considering the facilities to access market and improved road communication. Thus, all of the landowners were not even considered for residing in resettlement sites. Before resettlement, land price was determined. There were loopholes in the land pricing process, like there was only inflation value adjustment for determining land price. The actual price of the land considering the current market price was ignored. Also, land reclamation and relocation was a lengthy and cumbersome process. At the same time, thousands of people were forced to relocate without any compensation.

Access to legal services

The affected communities were not informed about the possible impacts of the construction. There was no formal mechanism to ensure access to information about the impacts. The affected communities were informed about the construction process and consequences from the affluent groups and representatives from local government bodies like Upazila Parishad and Union Parishad⁴ members (Field Data). Generally, people were scared to protest against the influential local political and local government leaders. At the same time, they had inadequate information about the actual compensation process (Field Data). Poor and vulnerable groups could not access the influential local government bodies who were responsible for ensuring access to information. Information about the land pricing, land reclamation process and resettlement sites were available to the comparatively affluent and influential people who maintained social or political network with the local government bodies and district administration (Field Data).

Violation of human rights

The land acquisition process compelled thousands of people to relocate without taking their prior consent. A large number of local residents, who were not considered for resettlement site, migrated, mainly to squatters and slums in Dhaka. As a result, they faced economic hardship, deteriorated health condition and inferior social status as most of the slum-dwellers do not have adequate access to health and sanitation services (Field Data).

It was reported that about 20,000 people were dependent on ferry-related activities (BBA & ADB 2011). However, the impact of construction compelled them to change their profession or relocate. Most of the farmers who used live on farming of char land have changed their profession into day labourers and rickshaw pullers with a lower social status. The forced relocation made several farmers unemployed (Field Data).

Before resettlement, 72% people were engaged in agriculture, after resettlement, only 21% people are involved in agriculture. Also, day labourer as a profession increased from 4 to 13% (BBA & ADB 2011). However, no relevant capacity building initiatives were undertaken to help them adapt to new condition and link them with the market. Consequently, the forced relocation process violated human rights that resulted in loss of income and limited access to health services for a number of people.

Analysis

The level of democratization, participation and access to legal service was low for both Jamuna Bridge and Padma Bridge. Forced relocation without taking prior consent, loss of property and difficulty in accessing health service for women violated human rights in both cases. Allocated resources for access to information and compensatory measures were unequally distributed, where the affluent groups benefited and the lower and middle income groups became more vulnerable. Moreover, the level of participation ensured in the process of SIA of Jamuna Bridge and Padma Bridge was minimal to the point of being ‘non-participation’ on Arnstein’s ladder of participation⁵ (Arnstein 1969).

The compensatory measures in the impact assessment report of Padma Bridge focus on the economic value and production of the crops. For Padma Bridge, land acquisition, cutting of trees, loss of crops, change in land use, impact on health, sanitation and hygiene of the construction workers and public have been mentioned as significant impact (BBA & ADB 2011). Generation of excess materials, blockage of water and drainage, noise and air pollution, soil erosion, and traffic problems and road safety have been indicated as medium impact (BBA & ADB 2011). However, land acquisition and relocation are social change processes that might have equally or more significant impacts that warrant attention.

For both the Jamuna and Padma bridges, from the national/regional economic perspective the investment was worthwhile for facilitating better road communication and thus contributing to economic development. From the social perspective, the construction also has several positive impacts. However, vital political impacts like loss of identity, and increased marginalization and distortion of social coherence have been neglected. For example, in Kumarbhog⁶ village of Lauhajang upzila, Munshiganj district there were about 200 households who lived there for last 15 years or so on rented private land. This population came from the other side of the river, Shariatpur. They migrated from their own villages of Shariatpur to Kumarbhog because of river erosion and established settlements with long-term leasing of lands from the local landowners. This population is locally known as utholi (displaced). By these years, they have coped to the new situation and found some alternative living. However, since the land they lived on was acquired for Padma Bridge they were considered for compensation and housing plots in the resettlement site. However, according to the compensation policy and resettlement guideline (BBA & ADB 2011) those who won a house/accommodation of any type in the country were not eligible for land allocation in the resettlement site. Most of the owners of land on which the utholi community lived on have owned a flat or house in Dhaka, thus they were not considered for the housing land in the resettlement sites. As a result, what happened is that the outsider utholis have now been settled in Kumarbhog as the permanent resident (in the resettlement sites) and the original century-long residents of the village lost their ancestral land and permanent address, and were permanently displaced. This change in the demography and social landscape created hostility between the local and the utholis. Also, it changed the balance of political power at the local level. Arguably, small groups of influential people have particularly benefited where the vulnerability of the majority increased. Thus, the impact assessment processes of both Jamuna and Padma Bridge were less effective in reducing the negative impacts and expanding positive impacts for the targeted communities. Hence, instead of achieving the ultimate goal of development, inequality and vulnerability is now on increase.

This warrants an institutional framework and proper implementation of the framework to ensure participation and address the vulnerable groups. Better understanding of diversity and conflicts of interests is necessary in this regard. On the one hand, PIA would address vital issues like democratization, violation of human rights, access to legal services, pattern of conflict and relation between different groups, and their capacity to mobilize political and economic resources among them. On the other hand, participation of the affected communities would get particular focus and reduce the marginalization process instigated by the lack of participation.

Having analysed the above data, it is seen that typical SIA cannot ensure quality participation of the majority on one hand; and on the other, it systematically does not take into account the detailed political impacts thus can hardly contribute to mitigate the negative impacts of development-induced displacement in the project catchment. However, ensuring democratization in the impact assessment process through PIA is expected to develop greater protection against economic shock as democracy has robust, significant, and positive indirect effects on economic freedom and higher human capital formation (Doucouliagos & Ulubaşoğlu 2008). Non-democracies suffer significant economic harm (Krieckhaus & Lusztig 2006). Democratization and access to legal services and information would serve the interest of the majority in the land reclamation and compensation process. Capacity building initiatives (as part of democratization) according to the market assessment would create opportunities for employment and income for the landless, sharecroppers and other vulnerable groups. PIA would facilitate participation of the affected communities including the vulnerable groups at each stage of project implementation. Ensuring human rights through taking consent before relocation would help the majority to relocate in a convenient place. Consequently, the overall vulnerability will be reduced and less people will need government support⁷ for poverty reduction. As a result, the ultimate goal of economic development will be served better through conducting PIA.

However, there are some challenges in implementing PIA, which can be identified from the lessons of existing practices of SIA in Bangladesh. Jamuna Bridge was constructed from the fund of the international donor communities. The donors were more focused on implementing their own conditions and guidelines (e.g. recruiting consultants from outside Bangladesh, emphasizing the economic impacts etc.), rather than promoting community participation and democratization in the resettlement and rehabilitation process; as a result community participation was minimal (Interview data 2014). On the other side of the donor funding is that the donors like World Bank and ADB have now established a standard system of impact assessments and monitoring protocols which are attached to their loan agreement. This loan conditionality compels the implementing agencies to comply with the minimum assessment standards. Donor monitoring sometimes makes the national bureaucracy follow the minimum standards, which in effect may provide minimum safeguards to the affected communities. However, unlike Jamuna Bridge, Padma Bridge is being constructed by the Government of Bangladesh with its own fund. Though, the impact assessment report of Padma Bridge mentioned that lessons learnt from Jamuna Bridge would be implemented, in practice the impact assessment of Padma Bridge followed the same flawed impact assessment process characterized by less community participation and democratization. Moreover, using their own fund for Padma Bridge from Government of Bangladesh made the authority more independent of any guidelines that could ensure participation, democratization and access to legal services. This practice is rooted in the centralized administrative tradition and culture in Bangladesh. Thus, without establishing an accountable, participatory and responsive governance culture in the government bureaucracy – those who are mainly responsible for implementing the project– separating PIA might not ensure participation, democratization, access to services and protected human rights in a day.

However, separation of PIA from SIA could be the first step to institutionalize the provision for analysing and valuing the differences of interests, nature of relations between the stakeholders, and the types and quality of participation of the vulnerable communities, and ensure democratization by covering most of the affected communities.

Development projects in developing countries could bring real benefit to disadvantaged groups if the interventions are designed and decisions are based on the differentiated distribution of interests and the potential impact on power relations. PIA could be a vehicle to assess the nature and ways of participation of disadvantaged stakeholders, thereby reducing inequality between the stakeholders in implementation of development projects. PIA could help to ensure democratic processes in development project management. Establishing PIA may not alone ensure proper democratic implementation; however, this could be the initiation for the institutionalization of PIA in the developing countries like Bangladesh through which the existing inequality of the society can be adequately addressed by the policy-makers and project managers.

Notes

1. BRAC is an international development organization, originated in Bangladesh, working since 1972 with primary goal to reduce poverty.

2. English newspaper in Bangladesh.

3. The elected local government body at the village level that controls the public resources at the grassroots. Members of this local government bodies were responsible for mobilizing FGD participants.

4. Bangladesh, at present, has 489 upazilas. The upazilas parishads are the second lowest tier of local government system at the subdistrict level in Bangladesh. The administrative structure consists in fact in Divisions (8), Districts (64), Upazila and Union Parishads (4489).

5. Arnstein’s ladder of participation follows a chronological order. (1) Manipulation (2) Therapy (3) Informing (4) Consultation (5) Placation (6) Partnership (7) Delegated Power (8) Citizen Control. The first two steps (Manipulation and Therapy) have been described as non-participation where the level of participation is almost non-existent. The middle three steps (Informing, Consultation and Placation) have been assigned as token participation is evident; still the extent is not very effective. The last three stages (Partnership, Delegation of Power and Citizen Control) promote an active level of participation.

6. Kumarbhog is one of the most affected seven villages on the East bank of Padma river.

7. Government of Bangladesh has different social safety net programs like vulnerable group feeding, widow allowance etc.