Towards Improving Food Security and Sustainable Livelihoods of Resource Poor Farmers in Bangladesh : Impact of the Foshol Projec
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Towards improving food security and sustainable livelihoods of resource poor farmers in Bangladesh: Impact of the FoSHoL project Mohammad A Jabbar A T M Ziauddin M Zainul Abedin The International Rice Research Institute Bangladesh Country Office, Dhaka January 2010 Table of Contents Foreword iv Acknowledgements v List of Acronyms vi List of Tables vii List of Figures viii 1 Background and Objectives of the Study 1 1.1 Background and objectives of the FoSHoL project 1 1.2 Project design and implementation 2 1.3 Objectives of the study 10 2 Methodology of the study 15 2.1 Framework for assessing project impact 15 2.2 Sampling and data collection 16 3 Results and Discussion 19 3.1 Acquisition of knowledge and adoption of technologies 19 3.1.1 Incidence of knowledge and adoption 19 3.1.2 Sources of knowledge 21 3.1.3 Expectation and outcome of adoption 22 3.1.4 Reasons for non-adoption 22 3.2 Yield and income 45 3.2.1 Yield of major crops 45 3.2.2 Costs and returns of rice crops 46 3.2.3 Household income 46 3.3 Food security status and coping strategies 51 3.3.1 Self-sufficiency in rice production and managing shortages 51 3.3.2 Shocks and coping strategies 52 3.3.3 Food consumption and nutritional status 59 3.3.3.1 Calorie intake 59 3.3.3.2 Consumption of selected quality food items 59 3.3.3.3 Child nutritional status 61 3.4 Living conditions and incidence of major diseases 62 3.5 Physical and social capital 64 ii 3.5.1 Ownership and tenure status of land 64 3.5.1.1 Size distribution of owned and cultivated land 64 3.5.1.2 Tenancy status of land 65 3.5.1.3 Availability and access to common property resources 66 3.5.2 Financial capital 69 3.5.3 Human and social capital 69 4 Summary and conclusions 74 4.1 Summary of findings 74 4.2 Conclusions and implications 77 References 79 APPENDICES Appendix-1 List of training courses offered to LNGO staffs 81 Appendix-2 List of training courses offered by the LNGOs to their village 82 group‘s Resource Farmers/Rural Technology Extensionists Appendix-3 List of training courses organised by the LNGOs to their 84 village group members iii Foreword The Food Security for Sustainable Household Livelihoods (FoSHoL) project was designed with the premise that food security of the poor - both in terms of access and affordability- could be improved by providing them with better knowledge, skills, technology, inputs, finance and organizational ability to better utilize their available resources – land, labour and capital- to improve productivity, marketability and get better prices and income. The project was designed as a follow up of the PETRRA (Poverty Elimination Through Rice Research Assistance) project implemented during 1999-2004 by IRRI jointly with the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (IRRI), which generated a number of technologies and innovations that could be used to address problems of the resource poor households. The FoSHoL project was implemented by three international NGOs –CARE, Practical Action and Action Aid - during May 2005 to April 2009. IRRI had a coordinating role mainly providing technical and methodological guidance. In order to monitor and assess the impact of the project FoSHoL-INGOs had conducted a baseline survey in their project locations separately during 2006 using a common structure of the survey questionnaire. It was developed jointly by three FoSHoL-INGOs with the technical support from FoSHoL-Coordination unit of IRRI. Similarly, an end of project survey was conducted during December 2008 – January 2009 with minor adjustment of methodology and the questionnaire. This report represents the changes in some of the key livelihood and food security parameters between the two periods. Several lessons in terms of technologies suitable for the poor, targeting technology for dissemination to the poor, alternative dissemination mechanisms, and importance of collective action and savings appear to be robust and these qualify for scaling up in the rest of the country beyond the project sites. We believe that this valuable report will be useful for the planners, policy makers, researchers, development practitioners and other donors to formulate future intervention strategies on food security and livelihoods in Bangladesh. Funding for the entire programme - three projects implemented by the three INGOs and a component for coordination at IRRI was provided by the European Commission, which is gratefully acknowledged. Apart from funding, EC staff have provided comments and feed back at various stages of the project which have been useful in improving the quality of project implementation and output. IRRI Headquarter leaders have supervised the project from time to time and the staff also provided technical and managerial support towards successful completion of the projects. These efforts are also appreciated. Dr. Achim Doberman DDG, IRRI iv Acknowledgements The authors would like to express their thanks to a range of people including respondent farmers, interviewers, field supervisors, data entry operators, and data analysts who contributed to this study. The survey was conducted by hired trained staff of the three INGOs who worked under the supervision of their senior staff and their local partner NGOs and the overall supervision and guidance of FoSHoL-Coordination Project of IRRI. Among senior staff of the three INGOs, Mr. Md. Sarwar, Mr. Abdus Salam and Mr. Jitendra Nath Halder, and Mr. Tarequzzaman, M & E officers of FoSHoL-CARE, FoSHoL-Practical Action and FoSHoL-ActionAid, respectively are appreciated for their sincere efforts in developing the survey questionnaire, conducting field survey, and entry and compilation of data. Special thanks are also due to Mr. M. Zakaria, Mr. Mohammad Ali, and Mr. Masud Alam Khan, the Team Leaders of FoSHoL-Care, FoSHoL-Practical Action and FoSHoL-ActionAid, respectively for their inputs and guidance towards successful completion of the field surveys. Thanks are also due to senior management of the three INGOs for their cooperation in conducting a coordinated survey covering all three projects. The authors alone are responsible for the content of the report. October 2009 The Authors v List of Acronyms AAB : Action Aid Bangladesh BADC : Bangladesh Agricultural Development Corporation BBS : Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics BMDA : Barendra Multipurpose Development Authority BRDB : Bangladesh Rural Development Board CARE : Cooperation Assistance Relief Emergency CBO : Community based Organization DAE : Department of Agricultural Extension DLS : Department of Livestock Services DoF : Department of Fisheries DYD Department of Youth Development DTW : Deep Tube well DWA Department of Women Affairs EC : European Commission EoP : End of Project FoSHoL : Food Security for Sustainable Household Livelihoods FGD : Focus Group Discussion GoB : Government of Bangladesh HES : Household Expenditure Survey HH : Household HKI : Helen Keller International INFS : Institute of Nutrition and Food Science INGO : International Non-government Organisation IRRI : International Rice Research Institute LM : Last Month LNGO : Local Non-government Organisation LV : Local Variety LW : Last Week MV : Modern variety NGO : Non-Government Organization OVI : Objectively Verifiable Indicator PETRRA : Poverty Elimination Through Rice Research Assistance PM&E : Project Monitoring and Evaluation PPP : Public Private Partnership PPS : Probability Proportional to Size PRA : Participatory Rural Appraisal RF : Resource Farmer RPF : Resource Poor Farmer RTC : Rural Technology Centre STW : Shallow Tube well THH : Total Household ULSC : Union Livestock Services Centre UP : Union Parishad WBA : Well Being Analysis WFP : World Food Programme vi List of Tables No. of Name of Table Page Table Table 1.1 Project districts and upazilas and target number of participants for 4 each implanting INGO Table 1.2 Project purpose, results and OVIs of the FoSHoL projects 11 Table 2.1 Assessment of impact of innovation or intervention 15 Table 2.2 Sample distribution for baseline survey by project phase and 16 implementing INGOs Table 3.1.1 Knowledge and adoption of crop technologies by households of 24 FoSHoL project Table 3.1.2 Knowledge and adoption of livestock technologies by households of 26 FoSHoL project Table 3.1.3 Knowledge and adoption of fish culture technologies by households of 27 FoSHoL project Table 3.1.4 Knowledge and adoption of agro-processing and non-farm 28 technologies by households of FoSHoL project Table 3.2.1 Sources of knowledge on crop technologies of households of FoSHoL 29 project at the end period Table 3.2.2 Sources of knowledge on livestock technologies of households of 31 FoSHoL project at the end period Table 3.2.3 Sources of knowledge of fish culture technologies of households of 32 FoSHoL project at the end period Table 3.2.4 Sources of knowledge on agro-processing and non-farm technologies 33 of households of FoSHoL project at the end period Table 3.2.5 Changes in the number of visits received and paid by households to 34 different service and input providing agencies Table 3.3.1 Outcomes of adopted crop technologies by households of the FoSHoL 35 project at the end period Table 3.3.2 Outcomes of adopted livestock technologies by households of the 37 FoSHoL project at the end period Table 3.3.3 Outcomes of adopted fish culture technologies by households of the 38 FoSHoL project at the end period Table 3.3.4 Outcomes of adopted agro-processing and non-farm technologies for 39 households of the FoSHoL project at the end period Table 3.4.1 Reasons for not adopting crop