Unlocking ecosystem based adaptation opportunities in coastal Bangladesh

Basic information

• Case ID: INT-071-1
• Intervention type: Mixed created/non-created habitats
• Intervention description:

  The Community Based Adaptation to Climate Change through Coastal Afforestation (CBACC-CF) is the first Bangladesh NAPA project under GEF-UNDP portfolio, currently implemented by the Government of Bangladesh in four coastal districts. The significant features of the pilot project has opened innovative land management and livelihood diversification, social equity through ownership, capacity building of diverse stakeholders, and community access to local government services. 1. With a total of 6, 100 ha of new mangrove plantation and introducing 10 important mangrove species in existing monoculture area Mound and dyke plantation also reclaimed for innovative use of unused coastal lands to accommodate non-mangrove species in salinity dominated coastal belts by involving local communities (Fig. 2). 3. The project covered 95 ha with model plantation and involved 143 coastal families. 4. Mound and dyke plantation also reclaimed for innovative use of unused coastal lands to accommodate non-mangrove species in salinity dominated coastal belts by involving local communities 5. The project provided income opportunities through cash for work to 12, 371 coastal people in afforestation interventions for nursery bed preparation, seedling raising, plantation and maintenance.

• Landscape/sea scape ecosystem management: Yes

• Climate change impacts	Effect of Nbs on CCI	Effect measures
  Biomass cover loss	Positive	no measures reported, only anectodal report collated below. Other impacts mentioned as driving the project are “coastal inundation, salinity, storm damage, impacts on agriculture/fisheries productivity, storm surge” but no outcome assessment reported. “Coastal afforestation through mangrove afforestation in more 6,000 ha of newly accreted lands (Fig. 1) has improved continuous land stabilization capacity which is important for maintaining protective green coverage in the coastal areas as well as securing the lives and livelihood of local communities.” We code for biomass cover loss because they explicitly state that the above ground vegetation (mangrove coastal forest) has been degraded by cyclonic activity “Cyclonic shocks caused severe damages of both Sundarbans and planted mangroves through species loss and creating large gaps, loss of shelter habitat and species migration capacity.” And they measure how the intervention is addressing that, through restoration success i.e. replanting of mangroves to fill gaps.
  Coastal erosion	Positive	no measures reported, only anectodal report collated below. Other impacts mentioned as driving the project are “coastal inundation, salinity, storm damage, impacts on agriculture/fisheries productivity, storm surge” but no outcome assessment reported. “Coastal afforestation through mangrove afforestation in more 6,000 ha of newly accreted lands (Fig. 1) has improved continuous land stabilization capacity which is important for maintaining protective green coverage in the coastal areas as well as securing the lives and livelihood of local communities.”
  Loss of food production	Positive	no measures reported, only anectodal report collated below. Other impacts mentioned as driving the project are “coastal inundation, salinity, storm damage, impacts on agriculture/fisheries productivity, storm surge” but no outcome assessment reported. “Coastal afforestation through mangrove afforestation in more 6,000 ha of newly accreted lands (Fig. 1) has improved continuous land stabilization capacity which is important for maintaining protective green coverage in the coastal areas as well as securing the lives and livelihood of local communities.” impacts – decline of coastal fishing intake/production; aquaculture (fish cultivation ditch systems) supplanting lost fish production Ditch-dyke land use restored periodically inundated and salinity affected coastal lands into productive and diverse livelihood practices. Recurrent income generation with traditional livelihoods has enhanced food security and adaptive capacity of coastal communities. Each family is producing different vegetables on their dykes in two seasons which secures their household food and income generating up to BDT 20,000–25, 000 from selling of vegetables (Table 1). Fish cultivation in the ditch system is providing household protein sources and income for poor households in coastal areas (Fig. 3). Though coastal areas are dominated by fishermen groups, with changing extreme events, most of the people are losing seasonal fish catch. Each family is producing 400–500 kg of fishes annually from own ditch which secures their household protein and additional income after consumption. Within only six (6) months of project supports, a family generates at least BDT 20,000–30,000 from selling of fish

• Approach implemented in the field: Yes
• Specific location:

  coastal districts in Bangladesh, not specified

• Country: Bangladesh
• Habitat/Biome type: Created forest | Mangroves |
• Issue specific term: Community-based (general)
  Ecosystem-based adaptation
  

Evidence

• Notes on intervention effectivness: This report does not detail the methodology by which the findings were derived. Is this just a first hand summary account from the implementers themselves? Do they draw on a more rigorous qualitative analysis? It just sounds like they want to report a set of positive outcomes, the validity of the assessment isn’t clear. They mainly seem to infer some of the benefits based on what was implemented. Some of the reported ‘outcomes’ may also not have fully materialized and may reflect instead what they expect to happen - Ecosystem effects unclear because authors do not make a conclusion - Note that additional intervention elements (e.g. establishment of the co-benefit regime governance structure), and other alternative livelihood interventions (aquaculture, fruit tree planting, and vegetable planting) also took place, which contributed to social & economic benefits. - While the intervention’s overall socio-economic impact stems from the integrated measures as a whole, they were clear enough in attributing these benefits in part to the NBS component of the intervention (see intervention description).
• Is the assessment original?: Yes
• Broadtype of intervention considered: Not applicable
• Compare effectivness?: No
• Compared to the non-NBS approach: Not applicable
• Report greenhouse gas mitigation?: Yes
• Impacts on GHG: Positive
• Assess outcomes of the intervention on natural ecosystems: Yes
• Impacts for the ecosystem: Positive
• Ecosystem measures: Effectiveness assessment notes – this report intends to provide an evaluation of the intervention, but does not detail the methodology by which the findings were derived. Is this just a first hand summary account from the implementers themselves? Do they draw on a more rigorous qualitative analysis? It just sounds like they want to report a set of positive outcomes, the validity of the assessment isn’t clear. They mainly seem to infer some of the benefits based on what was implemented Coded for ecosystem outcomes because the intervention is EBA and framed as restoring resilience of coastal ecosystem/mangroves - "Mangrove afforestation programme of the project reinforced the existing roles of greenbelt in coastal areas through enhancing forest coverage and capacity to adapt to observed climatic threats"
• Assess outcomes of the intervention on people: Yes
• Impacts for people: Positive
• People measures: Positive from the perspective of the authors but no methodology reported for how they derived their conclusions. No social impact analysis was conducted, merely anectodal information relating to project involvement of communities. Authors claim the way the project is managed has contributed to increasing adaptive capacity. Involving people in work – local communities involved in carrying out project activities. The project provided income opportunities through cash for work to 12, 371 coastal people in afforestation interventions for nursery bed preparation, seedling raising, plantation and maintenance.
• Considers economic costs: Yes
• Economic appraisal conducted: No
• Economic appraisal described:
• Economic costs of alternative considered: No
• Compared to an alternative: Not reported

Evaluation methodology

• Type of data: Mixed qualitative/quantitative
• Is it experimental: No
• Experimental evalution done: Not applicable
• Non-experimental evalution done: Empirical case study
• Study is systematic: