2018 SMART SETTLEMENTS IN INDIAN SUNDARBAN DELTA FOR CLIMATE RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AAD Smart Settlements in Indian Sundarban Delta for Climate Resilience and Sustainable Development BISRCI Discussion Paper Anamitra Anurag Danda & Tapas Paul 6/30/2018 2 Smart Settlements in Indian Sundarban Delta for Climate Resilience and Sustainable Development Summary Parts of inhabited Sundarban region in India are becoming increasingly vulnerable to embankment failure and storm/tidal surge. Agrarian way of life is no longer viable in these places due to frequent brackish water incursion. Seasonal migration of the able bodied as labourers from these locations leaving behind the more vulnerable sections of the population is common. With sea level rise and more intense storms, the economic and social cost of maintaining habitation in these locations in the medium term is very high. The study therefore set out to identify the vulnerable locations and the population at risk, as well as potential host locations within the region that could accommodate the at-risk population should they chose to relocate. The objective of the study is to explore the prospects of developing smart settlements in the Sundarban region for climate resilience and sustainable development. Findings: 1. Out of 190 Gram Panchayats (GPs) in the region, 28 are at very high risk of inundation from surge of less than 2 metre height. Further 43 GPs are at high risk of inundation from surge of 2-3 metre height; a total of about 37% of the GPs in the region. These are mostly in the eight blocks of Sagar, Namkhana, Kultali, Basanti, Gosaba, Sandeshkhali-II, Minakhan, and Hingalganj. 2. About 1.7 million people (~38% of total population) are at risk of recurrent inundation due to storm/tidal surge and embankment failure. Of these, about 0.6 million are at very high risk. Over time, this population could become displaced, turning these into source blocks. 3. There are 33 GPs in the region with population density of 2000 or more. Eight of these are either within Coastal Regulation Zone 1A or high risk zone. That leaves 25 low risk, high density (LRHD) GPs that could serve as host locations for the at-risk population. 4. The 25 low risk, high density GPs are in four clusters and one stand alone GP. 5. The western most cluster is freshwater scarce but closer to River Hugli, and water works are being planned by Government of West Bengal. 6. Population density of potential host location GPs is 2682. By doubling population density in these locations it would be possible to accommodate the at-risk population. Key insights: 1. Constrained by the inability to look beyond existing livelihood practices while acknowledging the challenges of making a living and maintaining habitation, the issue of relocation from high risk zone (source) and densification of areas in the safe zone (host) never came up organically at any of the consultative sessions. However, people from Census Towns seemed more open to the idea of densification of host sites. 2. The population of extant high density GPs is relatively more inclined toward urban amenities while those from low density GPs seem indifferent. 3. Current government emphasis is on improving infrastructure and communication but with the help of external actors, is willing to address issues that appear difficult to resolve. 4. Current leadership is supportive of the idea of developing LRHD GP clusters but from the perspective of economic development and opportunities rather than potential host locations. Recommendations: 1. Detailed scientific exercise to identify vulnerable locations and downscaled modeling for spatio- temporal projections. Without such detailed information accessing large-scale international funding would be almost impossible. The Government will have to commission the exercise irrespective of the source of funding. 3 2. Undertake Social Impact Assessment or social preparedness assessment of host and source sites after these have been conclusively identified on the basis of the exercise in 1 above. 3. Untangle existing civil cases of land and property disputes, and land ownership records of host sites. 4. Consider doubling of population density of LRHD GP clusters through upgradation of urban amenities, healthcare and housing. 5. Consider establishing human capital development centres at LRHD GP clusters to cater to the existing population as well as those likely to move into these clusters. 6. As most of the Census Towns are within the identified clusters, at least 75% of the male working population is not engaged in agriculture making it conducive for promoting off-farm pursuits. Therefore, land pooling in the identified clusters should be considered. 8. Provisions for tenant-farmers of host sites need to be made. 7. Consider innovative financing options, including private capital and issue of bonds. 4 Introduction The Indian Sundarban delta is one of the most ecologically fragile and climatically vulnerable regions in India. The region supports rich biodiversity and a population of about 4.5 million (Census 2011) with more than 1400 people per sq km. The predominant livelihood activity is paddy cultivation. The region is prone to severe storms and cyclones and witnessing rapid sea level rise. Flooding of agricultural fields with brackish water and crop loss is common, leaving people impoverished. The Sundarban is the tide dominated, geo-morphologically dynamic part of the world’s largest delta, the Ganga–Brahmaputra–Meghna delta. The region is home to the largest contiguous mangrove forest spread over 10,277 sq km in parts of Bangladesh and India. This is the only mangrove tiger habitat in the world and also supports significant populations of salt water crocodiles, estuarine and marine turtles and a number of bird species. Fishing cat, leopard cat, spotted deer, wild boar and Rhesus monkey are among the prominent extant vertebrates of the terrestrial component of the ecosystem. Current policies and management practices in Sundarban do not adequately factor in the changes in the physical environment which makes it difficult to ascertain the types of interventions that would be most effective in mitigating adverse effects of climate change impacts, and improving the existing poverty conditions. In the absence of the needed new adaptive solutions, this ecologically and economically important area is rapidly heading towards an uncertain future. Alternatives to the business as usual, informed by best available current knowledge and research, are urgently required for climate resilience and sustainable development which is the objective of this study. 5 Context Sustainable development requires managing many threats and risks, including climate change. Because climate change is a growing threat to development, sustainability will be more difficult to achieve for many locations, systems, and populations unless development pathways are pursued that are resilient to effects of climate change. The links between sustainable development and climate adaptation and mitigation are cross-cutting and complex. First, the impacts of climate change, and ill-designed responses to these impacts may derail current sustainable development policy and potentially offset already achieved gains. These impacts are expected to affect sectors such as agriculture and fishery; threaten coastal zones; and pose critical challenges to governance and political systems (World Bank 2010, Adger et al 2011, IPCC 2012). Effects of climate change on key ecological resources and systems can jeopardize sustainable development in systems closely dependent on natural capital as in the Sundarban region owing to lower adaptive capacity (World Bank 2010, Lemos et al 2013). Second, mitigation has the potential to keep these threats at a moderate rather than extreme level, and adaptation will enhance the ability of different systems to cope with the remaining impacts, therefore modulating negative effects on sustainable development (IPCC 2007). Third, many of the conditions that define vulnerability to climate impacts and the ability to moderate and adapt to them are firmly rooted in development processes (Brooks et al 2005, Lemos et al 2013). In fact, climate change will act as a threat multiplier and will enhance poverty. Fourth, because several of the desirable characteristics of climate responses and sustainable development may overlap (e.g., implementation of no-regrets options, equitable distribution of resources, increased adaptive capacity and livelihood capitals, functioning ecosystems and maintained biodiversity), systems that prioritize sustainable development may be better at designing and implementing successful mitigation and adaptation (Forsyth 2007). Finally, climate mitigation and adaptation, if planned and integrated well, have the potential to create opportunities to foster sustainable development. Under the threat of climate change, sustainable development depends on changes in social awareness and values that lead to innovative actions and practices, including increased attention to both disaster risk management and climate change adaptation in anticipation of (and in response to) changes in climate extremes (IPCC 2012). Enhancing resilience to response to climate change effects includes adopting good development practices that are consistent with building sustainable livelihoods and, in some cases, challenging current models of development (Boyd et al 2008). Challenging current thinking and models of development in the Sundarban is necessary to not only usher in sustainable development but also be future ready in terms of dealing with impacts of climate change on natural and social systems. In Sundarban region the relationship between vulnerability to climate impacts and development is very close and mutually dependent as low per capita income and inequitable distribution of resources; inadequate or inappropriate education, health care, and safety; and weak institutions and unequal power relations fundamentally shape sensitivity, exposure, and adaptive capacity to climate impact. Here, reducing risks that affect resource-dependent communities is necessary but insufficient way to tackle the myriad problems associated with climate change impacts. Building the capacity of individuals, communities, and governance systems to adapt to climate impacts is both a function of dealing with developmental deficits (e.g., poverty alleviation, reducing risks related to food insecurity, enabling/implementing public health and mass education and literacy programmes) and of improving risk management (e.g., alert systems, disaster relief, crop insurance, seasonal climate forecasts, risk insurance) (Mirza 2003, Schipper and Pelling 2006, Warner et al 2012). 6 The options for climate resilient and sustainable development will depend on either the time horizon or on the future emission scenario. Given that there is no temporal certainty about when temperature thresholds will be crossed it might be prudent to think of the options in terms of scenarios defined by warming levels given that the average temperature in the region is about a degree higher than pre-industrial times, and that the world is locked in for an average decadal temperature rise of about 0.2°C per decade for the next two decades due to historical emissions irrespective of current climate action and future pathway. Emitted carbon is expected to persist in the atmosphere long enough to prolong temperature increases for thousands of years, long after human beings stop burning fossil fuels or clearing forests. A Climate Central research (Strauss et al 2015) has translated global temperature increases from carbon emissions into projections of locked-in long-term sea level rise, and puts these projections into context by assessing the current global population living on land that could be submerged. The temperature scenarios that appear logical at this point in time for the Sundarban region are 1.5°C and 2°C. The anticipated inundation due to sea level rise beyond 2°C appears so severe and widespread that it might not be worthwhile trying to identify options for higher global temperature rise. The image series on projected sea level rise in the region is derived from the sea level tools and analysis by Climate Central for different Global Temperature Rise scenarios (Surging Seas Seeing Choices 2015). These maps are not meant to be used for planning but to inform public discourse and policy dialogues about the future of the Sundarban region post 2100. Expected inundation for estimated sea level rise for 1.5°C temperature rise 7 Expected inundation for estimated sea level rise for 2.0°C temperature rise Expected inundation for estimated sea level rise for 3.0°C temperature rise 8 Resilient and sustainable development under climate change may be thought of as preparing for, coping with, or adjusting to climate changes and their associated impacts. To be able to do so, in a biodiversity rich area such as Sundarban, options have to be identified keeping in mind direct trade- off between human activities and biodiversity conservation. In the case of Sundarban, at the broadest level, the trade-off is between tiger habitat that makes this mangrove patch unique in the world, and the adjoining human inhabited areas. For both, vulnerability emanates mainly from sea level rise and the risk is permanent inundation accentuated by the possibility of more severe storms. Regarding protection from storm surges, Odd (1980) mentioned that it would be impractical to build embankments high enough to contain the waters from a peak surge occurring with spring tides. Instead, he proposed that each polder should contain special low lengths of embankments, which could be allowed to spill waters into the polders so that damage caused is reduced. In the villages prone to storm surges on the Arakan coast of Myanmar, artificial earthen mounds have already been constructed. Cyclones and storm surges, although not preventable, can at least be made less harmful and the suffering they inflict can be considerably diminished by timely action (Khalil 1992). At 1.5°C of warming Namkhana, Patharpratima, Hingulganj sub-districts (blocks) appear to bear the brunt (WWF 2017). A detailed study would allow identification of affected GPs and UPs, and thus identification and quantification of the population would be at risk. Tiger habitat does not appear to be greatly affected at this stage so as to necessitate management action. Given that the aforementioned description of scenario is decades away and the recorded rates of sea level rise is 18 mm per year at its highest, and elevation recovery if permitted is higher by a factor of 10, elevation recovery in the sub-districts may be possible through controlled embankment breaches. Controlled breaching of embankments has been reported to restore elevation and relieve environmental problems in some sites in Bangladesh but there has not been a detailed scientific study of this process. Post cyclone Aila, Polder 32 (Dacope) experienced tidal flooding for two years resulting in a mean annual accretion rate of about 18 cm per year. Of course, the sustained human suffering during the process of elevation recovery will have to be addressed. Also it has to be borne in mind that unless drastic mitigation action is implemented globally, greater inundation is in store at 2°C of warming towards the close of the century or after. At 2°C of warming, not only the extent of inundation of inhabited areas is much greater (apparently more in Bangladesh than in India), about half of the tiger habitat on the Indian side and about a quarter on the Bangladesh side would no longer be available for tigers. It may be possible to create large mounds from dredge material in forested and no longer human inhabited areas for tigers to take refuge. The human dimension acquires a much bigger scale in this temperature scenario and planned retreat may be the most viable option. This of course raises questions regarding host locations for the displaced population and their livelihoods. Rapid urbanization and orienting to an urban way of life is possibly the way forward but it has to be carried out in a manner that the well- being of the displaced is improved and that of the host population is not compromised, at the least. The main economic activity being rain-fed paddy agriculture on degrading and shrinking land, remittances play an important role although it is not enough to transform well-being of the population. In the short term agriculture output has to be and can be doubled provided land can be put to use during dry winter months which is currently constrained due to unavailability of irrigation. Rainwater harvesting has been promoted by the government but this route cannot meet the demand for all the agricultural land that remains fallow during winter months. Desalinisation of either shallow subsurface water provided it does not result in greater subsidence, or of creek water, and efficient irrigation could be an option but input costs would be higher and therefore high value 9 crops rather than paddy would have to be promoted. Support for the entire value chain would have to be in place. This will expand the economy but bearing in mind that the region has time between a few to several decades before sea level overwhelms the place, it would then be worth investing in human capital that will provide not only immediate benefits but also in the long run. This has the added advantage of not only pulling people out of poverty but also physically out of a very vulnerable region. A set of smart settlements for hosting the at-risk/displaced population could be envisaged as human capital building sites not only for the people of the region but from afar to be financially viable. In these settlements, homes and public infrastructure should be built on artificially raised land to deal with periodic flooding with rising sea level and more intense storms. Nearer to the coast, conserving and planting trees could not only create a buffer against storm surges (Schiermeier 2014) but also compensate for inundated tiger habitat and contribute to climate mitigation through carbon sequestration. Given the spate of seasonal migration from the region, it is evident that agriculture and fishery as means of livelihood under current circumstances do not hold much promise in terms of attaining sustainable development goals, nor are the enabling physical conditions in a state to usher in large- scale economic uplift of the people, this report explores the prospects of developing smart settlements in the Sundarban region for climate resilience and sustainable development. 10 Methodology All the blocks of the Indian Sundarban region have been divided into potential source and host blocks. Source blocks are in the vulnerable (high risk) zone, identified on the basis of incidence of inundation due to storm/tidal surge of up to 3m height. Within this zone, very high risk areas have been identified that get inundated by storm/tidal surge of less than 2m height. The potential host blocks are those outside the high risk zone. By strengthening infrastructure, providing urban amenities and avenues of economic development, these blocks could eventually host the population from the source blocks. A multi-pronged approach was taken to understand and analyze the existing conditions of potential host blocks and then delve deeper at the Gram Panchayat level to identify sites for planned development. This process included the following: Data analysis: The analysis was carried out using census data (2011) which helped in examining the blocks on the basis of available facilities such as water, electricity, housing, sanitation etc. to shortlist host blocks. Analysis of demographic data at the Gram Panchayat level1 was undertaken to identify high density areas with population density greater than or equal to 2000 persons per sq km based on a key insight gained from stakeholder consultations. High density GPs with Costal Regulation Zone 1A classification because of ecological sensitivity and geomorphological features were not considered for further densification due to the restrictions that apply (CZMP West Bengal 2018). Stakeholder consultations at the sub-division level were conducted that brought together local representatives, government officials, PRIs, NGOs and CBOs. The objectives of these consultative sessions being (i) presenting the macro picture of the challenges due to climate change induced risks and development deficit, and (ii) presenting strength and opportunities of the different areas within the landscape, (iii) soliciting views on climate resilient development in the region. While the deliberations were informed by findings of data analysis (background material was circulated in advance), further analysis were undertaken based on the insights shared at the consultative sessions. Another session was held in Kolkata chaired by the Minister-in-Charge of Department of Sundarban Affairs, Government of West Bengal. Select participants of the sub-division level were invited to this session to comment on the recommendations. Key informant interviews were conducted with academicians and experts working in the region for sharing the findings and outcomes of the consultative sessions, and eliciting their views on the recommendations. Another set of key informants were the officials of Kolkata Metropolitan Area to provide information regarding municipal standards and make suggestions on civic amenities for candidate sites for densification. 1 Mouza level population data is available but clubbed at the Gram Panchayat level so as to qualify as a mid- level population centre under Reserve Bank of India tier-wise classification guidelines for Underbanked Districts, and Underbanked Districts in Underbanked States. 11 Findings Eight blocks are in the high risk zone that could potentially displace people. Potential Source Blocks Potential Host Blocks Sagar Kakdwip Namkhana Patharpratima Kultali Mathurapur-I Basanti Mathurapur-II Gosaba Joynagar-I Sandehkhali-II Joynagar-II Minakhan Canning-I Hingalganj Canning-II Sandeshkhali-I Haroa Hasnabad The corollary to the above is that the remaining 11 blocks could potentially serve as host blocks. However, on examining the blocks on the basis of available facilities such as water, electricity, housing, and sanitation etc. (table below) and removing the potential source blocks from the top with score above 50 leaves only Haroa, Canning-I, Kakdwip, Sandeshkhali-I, Hasnabad, and Jaynagar-I as host blocks. Sanitation Sanitation Sanitation Electricity Housing Housing Quality Quality Facility Water Bank Total Type Type Blocks Haroa 9 9 7 6 9 8 6 9 63 Canning-1 9 9 6 6 9 5 7 9 60 Minakhan 6 9 6 6 9 9 4 9 58 Kakdwip 9 9 7 6 9 6 5 6 57 Sagar 9 9 6 6 9 7 5 6 57 Sandeshkhali- I 3 9 7 7.5 9 7 5 9 56.5 Hasnabad 6 9 7 7.5 6 5 6 9 55.5 Jaynagar –I 9 9 6 7.5 3 6 7 6 53.5 Namkhana 3 9 5 6 9 6 4 9 51 Gosaba 3 3 6 7.5 9 6 4 9 47.5 Hingalganj 3 3 7 7.5 9 6 5 6 46.5 Jaynagar – II 6 9 6 6 3 5 5 6 46 Mathurapur-I 9 9 6 6 3 5 4 3 45 Patharpratima 3 6 5 6 6 6 4 9 45 12 Canning-II 6 6 5 6 6 4 4 3 44 Mathurapur-II 9 6 7 6 3 6 3 3 43 Kultali 9 6 5 6 3 4 4 6 43 Sandeshkhali-II 3 3 5 6 9 5 5 6 42 Basanti 9 3 6 6 3 4 4 3 38 In the course of the consultative sessions, although the issue of relocation from high risk zone and densification of areas in the safe zone never came up organically, at each of these sessions, people from Census Towns seemed more open to the idea of densification. An implication of this was to take a closer look at the demographic data the Gram Panchayat and Mouza levels. The findings of this exercise are as follows. Population at very high climate risk in terms of surge (storm/tidal) inundation is 5,73,662 (Census 2011). This population in the blocks of Gosaba, Basanti, Sandeshkhali-II, Hingalganj, Kultali, and Namkhana is impacted by surge height of less than 2m height. In total 28 GPs are at very high risk, all of them Tier 3 and Tier 4 population centres as per RBI classification. None except one of the 28 GPs is a Census Town2 meaning that the population is dependent on agriculture. However, the prospects of farming are poor given the irrigation intensity and water deficit barring the Kharif season. None of these blocks can support the population through agriculture. Agriculture is at best an important occupation but not driver of the economy. Cropping Irrigation Water deficit Block GP Population Total intensity intensity w/o Kharif (%) (%) (mcm) GOSABA AMTOLI 17447 GOSABA BALLY-I 13124 GOSABA BALLY-II 18069 GOSABA CHOTOMOLLAKHALI 20236 GOSABA GOSABA 18254 GOSABA KUMIRMARI 17451 GOSABA RANGABELIA 14706 GOSABA SATJELIA 18081 GOSABA LAHIRIPUR 22108 142029 102.41 2.36 31.16 BASANTI JHARKHALI 22343 BASANTI NAFARGANJ 15958 BASANTI MASJID BATI 15526 BASANTI BASANTI 29320 BASANTI JYOTISHPUR 19010 BASANTI BHARATGARH 30568 132725 146.13 5.73 37.81 SANDESHKHALI-II DURGAMANDAP 24764 SANDESHKHALI-II JELIAKHALI 22623 SANDESHKHALI-II KORAKATI 23606 SANDESHKHALI-II MONIPUR 21200 SANDESHKHALI-II SANDESHKHALI 18310 110503 120.03 12.20 -8.21 HINGALGANJ JOGESHGANJ 21616 HINGALGANJ KALITALA 17584 2 Census Town is characterised by a) A minimum population of 5000, b) at least 75% of the male working population is engaged in non-agricultural pursuits, and c) population density not less than 400persons per sq. km. 13 Cropping Irrigation Water deficit Block GP Population Total intensity intensity w/o Kharif (%) (%) (mcm) HINGALGANJ DULDULI 22676 HINGALGANJ SAHEBKHALI 18489 HINGALGANJ GOBINDAKATI 17032 97397 109.56 3.54 18.59 GURGURIA KULTALI 28079 BHUBANESWARI MAIPITH KULTALI 26241 54320 127.57 12.09 56.56 BAIKUNTHAPUR NAMKHANA MOUSHUNI 19241 19241 117.67 19.05 15.26 5,73,662 With increased siltation of river courses, effective sea level rise, and increased frequency of high intensity weather events, the risk of storm/tidal surge of less than 2m height is increasing. Maintaining habitation and an agrarian way of life in the 28 GPs over the medium to long term does not seem viable. In any case, activities related to cultivation and livestock rearing among agricultural households in India contribute just about 43 percent of the average monthly household income (NABARD, 2018). Share of cultivation and livestock rearing in average monthly household income of agricultural households in SBR is possibly lower than the all-India figure since average cropping intensity in the Sundarban Blocks is about 130 percent. Therefore, neither now nor in the future can agriculture sustain the population in the Sundarban, particularly in these 28 GPs across six blocks. Do the reaming 162 GPs fare better and offer prospects to the people in imminent risk? Further 43 GPs with a population of 11,21,414 across 12 blocks are also at risk of inundation by surge height of 2-3m, only 11 of these GPs are free of CRZ IA restrictions, and water availability is no better in the blocks in South 24-Parganas. Moreover this population is not used to high density living by Sundarban standards (average density being ~1171 which is lower than the Sundarban average of 1240) making these 43 GPs unattractive for investment for doubling population density for climate resilience and economic growth. In the long term, this population would also have to be accommodated elsewhere. Cropping Irrigation Water deficit Block GP Population Total intensity intensity w/o Kharif (%) (%) (mcm) BASANTI KANTHAL BERIYA 29240 BASANTI R C KHALI 32719 BASANTI UTTAR MOKAMBERIYA 21225 BASANTI FUL MALANCHA 39230 BASANTI AMJHARA 30237 152651 146.13 5.73 37.81 CANNING-I ITKHOLA 32587 CANNING-I NIKARIGHATA 34025 CANNING-I DIGHIRPAR 33667 100279 141.2 26.48 52.2 GOSABA BIPRADASPUR 17226 GOSABA KACHUKHALI 13256 RADHANAGAR GOSABA TARANAGAR 23953 GOSABA PATHARKHALI 16405 70840 102.41 2.36 31.16 HAROA GOPALPUR-I 21692 HAROA GOPALPUR-II 18173 39865 171.05 52.69 -43.79 KAKDWIP RISHIBANKIM CHANDRA 26763 KAKDWIP SWAMI VIVEKANANDA 38251 65014 101.35 15.72 17.64 14 Cropping Irrigation Water deficit Block GP Population Total intensity intensity w/o Kharif (%) (%) (mcm) KULTALI DEULBARI DEBIPUR 26377 KULTALI GOPALGANJ 35782 KULTALI MERIGUNJ-II 32409 94568 127.57 12.09 56.56 MATHURAPUR-II NAGENDRAPUR 23069 MATHURAPUR-II NANDAKUMARPUR 27070 50139 152.27 21.92 48.79 MINAKHAN ATPUKUR 20359 MINAKHAN BAMANPUKUR 24033 MINAKHAN CHAITAL 26358 MINAKHAN CHAMPALI 17949 MINAKHAN MINAKHAN 31249 MINAKHAN MOHANPUR 21658 141606 156.10 38.01 -31.01 NAMKHANA BUDHAKHALI 26815 NAMKHANA HARIPUR 24626 NAMKHANA NAMKHANA 31913 NAMKHANA NARAYANPUR 25550 NAMKHANA SHIBRAMPUR 30131 NAMKHANA FRESHERGANJ 24554 163589 117.67 19.05 15.26 PATHARPRATIMA RAMGANGA 20340 PATHARPRATIMA DIGAMBARPUR 26930 47270 108.20 5.85 51.33 DAS PARA SAGAR SUMATINAGAR-II 20725 SAGAR MURIGANGA-I 20544 SAGAR RUDRA NAGAR 28750 SAGAR GANGA SAGAR 32470 SAGAR RAMKAR CHAR 30844 SAGAR DHABLAT 29439 DAS PARA SAGAR SUMATINAGAR-I 22793 185565 119.47 19.05 7.89 SANDESHKHALI-I NAZAT-I 10028 10028 101.31 2.22 -32.93 1121414 What are the prospects of the balance 119 GPs of accommodating the population of 5,73,662 from VHRZ? CRZ IA restrictions apply to all the revenue villages of 28 GPS and up to 33% of the revenue villages in further 16 GPs. Large scale construction for the purpose of densification would not be possible in these 44 GPs. That leaves 75 GPs of which 51 have population density of less than 2000 persons per sq km ranging from 529 to 1935. One of these, Nalua GP of Mathurapur-I has population density of 1913 and one of the two revenue villages is a Census Town and should be considered as a candidate GP for densification. Attempts at densification of regional average or less than average density GPs is fraught with possibility of social unrest. Thus the candidate GPs for doubling population density in select areas of Indian Sundarban for climate resilience and economic growth are the following. Block GP Population Tier Avg Density Census Town CRZ IA CANNING-I MATLA-I 15960 4 3128.89 1 0 15 Block GP Population Tier Avg Density Census Town CRZ IA CANNING-I TALDI 48225 3 2109.39 3/8 0 CANNING-I BANSRA 46822 3 2010.07 3/5 0 CANNING-II NARAYANPUR 29351 3 2652.12 1/4 0 HAROA HAROA 36881 3 2668.52 0 0 HAROA BORJURI 27219 3 2233.11 0 0 HASNABAD PATLIKHANPUR 22033 3 2798.43 0 0 HASNABAD BHEBIA 28032 3 2383.93 1 0 HASNABAD MAKHALGACHHA 26285 3 2195.35 0 1/13 HASNABAD AMLANI 24245 3 2049.11 0 1/12 JAYNAGAR-I HARI NARAYANPUR 21969 3 4099.20 1/9 0 JAYNAGAR-I BAHARU 16155 4 3430.15 1 0 JAYNAGAR-I JANGALIA 17406 4 3414.92 0 0 JAYNAGAR-I DAKSHIN BARASAT 29450 3 3287.29 1/10 0 JAYNAGAR-I NARAYANI TALA 14938 4 3194.00 0 0 JAYNAGAR-I KHAKUR DAHA 18636 4 2782.58 0 0 JAYNAGAR-I UTTAR DURGAPUR 22440 3 2566.74 1/5 0 JAYNAGAR-I SRIPUR 19872 4 2283.83 1/7 0 JAYNAGAR-II FUTIGODA 20699 3 2806.69 1/3 0 JAYNAGAR-II SAHAJADAPUR 21758 3 2365.70 0 0 JAYNAGAR-II MAYAHOWRI 19604 4 2092.25 0 0 MATHURAPUR-I LALPUR 20187 3 3474.50 1/3 0 MATHURAPUR-I DABIPUR 22019 3 3048.49 0 0 MATHURAPUR-I NALUA 23144 3 1913.16 1/2 0 MINAKHAN KUMARIOLE 30332 3 2056.17 0 0 Average Total population 623662 Density 2681.78 Total area sq km 232.55 Very high risk zone (source) population 573662 New Average Total population after densification 1197324 Density 5148.57 All of these 25 GPs are Tier 3 or 4 population centers as per RBI classification, with average population density of 2682. Within these GPs 17 revenue villages are Census Towns where at least 75% of the male working population is engaged in non-agricultural pursuits which could serve as examples for the others as well as those from the VHRZ. The candidate GPs have a population of 6,23,662 and if the population of VHRZ of 5,73,662 is accommodated, the total population would rise to about 1.2 million but spread across four clusters and one stand-alone GP. The additional population would raise the density to 5149; still less than double the current density. Since the population would no longer be practicing agriculture, climate risk to occupation would be eliminated. As it is non-agricultural sources already provide higher share of the earnings of which wage labour is the most significant at 34 percent (NABARD 2018) but insufficient to pull people out of poverty. Creation of non-farm livelihood opportunities in the densified GPs will have to precede densification for economic growth. Water demand and availability could constrain doubling of population density in some of the clusters. Freshwater scarcity is already acute in and around Cluster I but there is ongoing work by the 16 Department of Public Health Engineering, GoWB to transport water to Cluster I. Freshwater availability is higher in North 24-Pgs blocks. 17 Key insights 1. Constrained by the inability to look beyond existing livelihood practices while acknowledging the challenges of making a living and maintaining habitation, the issue of relocation from high risk zone (source) and densification of areas in the safe zone (host) never came up organically at any of the consultative sessions. However, people from Census Towns seemed more open to the idea of densification of host sites. 2. The population of extant high density GPs is relatively more inclined toward urban amenities while those from low density GPs seem indifferent. 3. Current government emphasis is on improving infrastructure and communication but with the help of external actors, is willing to address issues that appear difficult to resolve. 4. Current leadership is supportive of the idea of developing LRHD GP clusters but from the perspective of economic development and opportunities rather than potential host locations. Recommendations 1. Detailed scientific exercise to identify vulnerable locations and downscaled modeling for spatio- temporal projections. Without such detailed information accessing large-scale international funding would be almost impossible. The Government will have to commission the exercise irrespective of the source of funding. 2. Undertake Social Impact Assessment or social preparedness assessment of host and source sites after these have been conclusively identified on the basis of the exercise in 1 above. 3. Untangle existing civil cases of land and property disputes, and land ownership records of host sites. 4. Consider doubling of population density of LRHD GP clusters through upgradation of urban amenities, healthcare and housing. 5. Consider establishing human capital development centres at LRHD GP clusters to cater to the existing population as well as those likely to move into these clusters. 6. As most of the Census Towns are within the identified clusters, at least 75% of the male working population is not engaged in agriculture making it conducive for promoting off-farm pursuits. Therefore, land pooling in the identified clusters should be considered. 8. Provisions for tenant-farmers of host sites need to be made. 7. Consider innovative financing options, including private capital and issue of bonds. Cost implications Yet to be worked out Basic requirements Water treatment and supply (CPHEEO 135 lpcd) 1,62,000 kl/day @ Rs. 7/kl Sewage treatment 108 lpcd 1,30,000 kl/day @ Rs. 0.7/kl Solid waste management Housing 2,66072 units of 1000 sq ft @Rs. 1300/sq ft Hospital beds (bed to population ratio of 2.5 per 1000) 3000 beds Educational institutions Human capital development centres 18 Annex Data analysis The analysis is based on census data (2011) available for the different blocks that are located in and around the identified vulnerable area. The census data for the following indicators was used to identify the prospective host blocks. A weightage system was adopted for this identification. The indicators used are as below: Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Housing Housing Quality Good, Livable, Dilapidated Housing Type Permanent, Semi-permanent, Serviceable, Non-serviceable, Unclassifiable Water Water sources Tap water, Wells, hand pumps, Tube wells Energy sources Electric Electricity, Solar energy Lighting Oil Kerosene oil, Other oil, No lighting Sanitation Availability of Toilets Households having toilets in the premises, households having no toilets in the premises. Type of toilets Piped sewer system, septic tank other systems, open pits, closed pits Bathroom Facilities With roof, without roof Cooking fuel Sources of fuel Firewood, crop-residue, cowdung cake, coal/lignite/charcoal, kerosene, LPG/PNG, electricity, biogas, no cooking Banking Availing banking facilities Households availing banking facilities, households not availing banking facilities. Each of these sub categories has been assigned weightage based on a comparative percentile system. The values, when compared to national averages and indices are significantly lower. In 19 order to sort as per the level of infrastructure, these blocks have been compared with each other. For example, Category 3 is divided into three ranges (on the basis of predominant values). These are then rated on the scale of 0-30 developed individually for each category & sub category. The ranges and scores are established using the minimum and the maximum values of a particular data set. Scores of Categories have been normalized using multiplication factor of 3, 3/2 & 1 on the basis of number of categories that have been added together to obtain the cumulative scores that are represented on the following map. The blocks with higher scores have been identified as potential host blocks. Census analysis - Identifies seven blocks which includes Haroa, Minakhan, Sandeshkhali, Canning I, Jaynagar I, Kakdwip and Sagar From the above analysis, it can be observed that Haroa, Minakhan, Sandeshkhali-1, Canning-1, aynagar-1, Kakdwip and Sagar score higher. This is due to various reasons like location and connectivity, availability of basic facilities. These blocks are then further analyzed to be considered for developing drivers of growths on priority basis to attract people from vulnerable blocks to non-vulnerable block. The rating system of each category is explained below: 20 Housing Quality Range (%) Score Dilapidated housing - more than 30% 1 Good quality of housing - less than 30% but livable housing is 50% or 2 more Good quality of housing - 30% or more 3 Fig 3: Housing Quality 21 Housing Type Range (%) Score permanent housing - less than 35% 1 permanent housing- less than 60% but 2 more than35% permanent housing - 60% or more 3 Fig 4: Types of housing 22 Category : Water Facility Tap Water Tubewells Handpumps Range (%) Score Range (%) Score Range (%) Score 0-1.9% 1 0-9.9% 1 0-50% 1 2-5% 2 10-20% 2 51-80% 2 >5% 3 >20% 3 >80% 3 23 Fig 5: Water Facility Category : Energy Sources Electric Lighting Oils Range (%) Score Range (%) Score less than 20 1 less than 65 1 greater than 20 2 greater than 65 2 greater than 30 3 greater than 75 3 Fig 6: Energy 24 Category : Sanitation Toilets Availability Bathing facilities Range (%) Score Range (%) Score less than 50% 1 lesser than 85 1 within premises - more than 50% 2 lesser than 92 2 but less than 60% within premises - more than 60% 3 lesser than 85 3 25 Category : Sanitation – Toilet Types Sewer System Pit System Open Defecation Range (%) Score Range (%) Score Range (%) Score Less than 15 1 Less than 30 1 Greater than 3 1 Greater than 15 2 Greater than 30 2 More than 2 Less 2 than 3 Greater than 30 3 Greater than 40 3 Less than 2 3 Fig 7: Sanitation Availability 26 Fig 8: Type of Sanitation Category: Cooking Fuel Primary Sources Secondary sources Tertiary Sources Range (%) Score Range (%) Score Range (%) Score Greater than 92 1 Greater than 6 1 less than 2 1 Greater than 85 and 2 Greater than 4 Less 2 Greater than 2 less 2 less than 92 than 6 than 4 Greater than 92 3 Less than 4 3 Greater than 4 3 27 Fig 9: Cooking Fuel Category : Banking Facility Range (%) Score Less than 25% 1 25-35% 2 More than 35% 3 Fig 10: Availability of banking facility 28 Key Informant List S.NO Name Expertise/ Position 1 Dr. Kalyan Rudra Geomorphologist, Chairperson, West Bengal Pollution Control Board 2 Prof. Sunando Bandhopadhya Professor, Calcutta University 3 Prof. Sugata Hazara Dean, Jadhavpur University 4 Mr. Subhash Acharaya Consultant, WWF – India 5 Dr. Punarbasu Chaudhary Professor Calcutta University. 6 Dr. Tapas Ghatak Geologist, formerly with Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority 7 Mr. Debatosh Biswas Civil Engineer, Kolkata Metropolitan Water and Sanitation Authority 29