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 technologies by households of the 40 FoSHoL project at the end period Table 3.4.2 Reasons for not adopting livestock technologies by households of the 42 FoSHoL project at the end period Table 3.4.3 Reasons for not adopting fish culture technologies by households of 43 the FoSHoL project at the end period Table 3.4.4 Reasons for not adopting agro-processing and non-farm technologies 44 by households of the FoSHoL project at the end period Table 4.1 Changes in yield of major crops of the households in the FoSHoL 45 project

vii Table 4.2 Changes in costs and returns for rice production by the FoSHoL 49 project households Table 4.3 Changes in total household income (Taka) by sources 50 Table 5.1 Household consuming rice from own production by months 52 Table 5.2 Food crisis months and status of meals taken per day 55 Table 5.3 Shock faced by households of FoSHoL project during 2008-2009 56 Table 5.4 Annual non-working days due to sickness of wage earner of the 57 household during 2008-2009 Table 5.5 Main coping strategies due to shock faced by FoSHoL households 58 Table 5.6 Proportion of households consuming selected food items during past 60 week/month and average number of meals taken by age group and gender, 2006 Table 5.7 Percentage of wasting, stunting and underweight of children aged 61 between 0 and 59 months by gender Table 5.8 Changes in living conditions and incidence of common diseases 63 Table 6.1 Distribution of household by land size 65 Table 6.2 Tenancy pattern of households during 2008 67 Table 6.3 Common property resources accessable to households in overall 68 FoSHoL projects Table 6.4 Volume of accumulated savings and lending by farmers groups 69 affiliated to the three INGOs Table 6.5 Involvement of household heads and other members of households in 72 local institutions Table 6.6 Reasons for not selling goods through group or collective approach 73

List of Figures

No. of Title of Figures Page Figure Figure 1.1 Field locations of FoSHoL projects 5 Figure 1.2 Impact pathways for the FoSHoL project 14

viii 1. Background and objectives of the study

1.1 Background and objectives of the FoSHoL project

The Food Security for Sustainable Household Livelihoods (henceforth FoSHoL) project commenced on 1 July 2004 with European Commission funding. The project was coordinated by the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and implemented by three international non-government organizations (INGOs) through separate independent contracts with the European Commission. These are CARE, Action Aid and Practical Action (formerly Intermediate Technology Development Group). The three implementing INGOs commenced their field activities respectively on 16 April, 1 May and 25 May, 2005. The field activities ended on 31 May 2009.

The project was launched in the backdrop of the fact that poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition still remained major problems for the economy and society in the country, and the problems persisted due to lack of adequate access to food as well as affordability to acquire food among the poor. Eradication of extreme poverty and hunger was the first of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). In 2004, about 40% of the population were still living below the food consumption based poverty line, lacking adequate purchasing power to afford 2122 kcal per capita daily diet and other basic necessities. The food that poor people consumed was also unbalanced and nutritionally poor with 80% of calories derived from cereals and insufficient intake of protein, fats, oils and micronutrients. Women and children were more vulnerable due to their greater requirements of essential micronutrients in the diet (Hossain et al., 2004). The prevalence of underweight, stunting and wasting among preschool children in Bangladesh was respectively 51%, 49% and 12%, and these rates were much higher in rural compared to urban areas. These rates were about double those in Somalia and Mozambique and equal to that of Ethiopia. About two-thirds of child mortality and morbidity in Bangladesh was due to malnutrition (HKI, 2006).

Even if the country has achieved success in recent years in several fronts including food production, child nutrition, literacy, export diversification, infrastructure development and achievement of several targets related to the MDGs, the economic growth process has not been sufficiently beneficial for the poor, especially the extreme poor. Share of the poorest quintile in national income has reduced over the years, i.e. inequality between the rich and the poor has been increasing along with growth. Moreover, significant regional disparity has also emerged along with growth - regions receiving less development investment and regions with vulnerable ecosystems have fallen behind in the growth process (GOB, 2007). The extreme poor in these bypassed regions remained more disadvantaged compared to poor in the regions where more economic opportunities were created.

So the 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 (Magor et al., 2007; Orr, 2002; Islam et al., 2004).

1 According to the overall FoSHOL project log frame, the goal of the project was ―improvement of livelihoods, especially the food security of small and marginal farm households by increasing availability of and access to food as well as improving utilization of food by the targeted households‖. The purpose was ―sustainable improvement of food security and livelihoods of the agriculture dependent resource poor households by implementing and adopting appropriate technical, social and organizational aspects of farming including innovations generated by the PETRRA project‖.

The objectives for the three INGOs were the same as the purpose of the overall project stated above. There were minor differences in specific project activities including knowledge, technology, inputs, skills and other innovations delivered and the implementation mechanisms applied by each INGO. However, the broad results or project outputs desired and objectively verifiable indicators (OVI) identified to assess project outcome and impact were fairly similar though in a few cases they were defined or articulated slightly differently.

1.2 Project design and implementation

The project was designed to address problems of households that were food insecure. Operationally they were defined as agriculture dependent, resource poor households who were self sufficient in rice for 3-8 months per year and owned less than 0.6 hectares (about 1.5 acres) of land (see Box 1 for definition of food security and more detailed criteria for selection of participants in the project).

The project was implemented in 38 upazilas in 14 districts covering 1177 villages with a target of over 46, 000 participant households (Table 1.1 and Figure 1.1). The districts and upazilas selected were generally characterized as having a large section of the population suffering from moderate to severe food insecurity problems. They also represented specific vulnerable ecosystems which exacerbated the food insecurity problems. For example, Jamalpur, Kurigram and Faridpur have a sizeable portion of char land and adjacent land that suffer from floods and river erosion; Sunamganj is vulnerable to flush floods and deep floods; districts in south-west, south-central and south-east suffer from tidal surges and saline water intrusion; and districts in the Barind tract in Rajshahi region are vulnerable to drought and water shortage for drinking and irrigation (IRRI, 2007).

The project was implemented in two phases. Work was started with a certain number of villages and households from the selected upazilas. After several months, second batch of villages and households were included. This means that project participants had slightly different durations of involvement in the project (Table 1.1). The participants received 2-3 years of active project support according to project design (2 years for Action Aid and Practical Action and 3 for CARE) followed by less intensive support for another two years.

The project interventions or deliveries could be grouped into two main categories:

 Promotion of a range of agricultural technologies or technology components among participant households for adoption by creating awareness and imparting knowledge and skills through training and extension  Promotion of a range of organizational and institutional innovations to facilitate technology delivery and adoption, and access to inputs and services, and marketing of products.

2

Box 1: Meaning and pathways to food security as defined in the project

The project recognized two widely used definitions of food security as below:

Food security is defined as the ‖access by all people at all times to enough food needed for an active and healthy life. Its essential elements are the availability of food and the ability to acquire it‖ (Reutlinger, 1985).

―Food security exists when all people at all times have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life‖ (World Food Summit, 1996).

In defining pathways to food security, the project took cognisance of the European Commission‘s food security strategy in Bangladesh which is to contribute to the eradication of mal- and under- nutrition of the poor, especially the hard core poor households. This project did not include absolutely landless among the hard core poor as they were covered by other initiatives.

The operational definition of the target population was ―farm households who are self-sufficient in rice for three to eight months per year and own les then 0.6 hectare of land‖ (EC, 2002; Orr, 2002). Each implementing INGO used a set of objective criteria or indicators e.g. land size and family size, land ownership and tenancy status, women as family head, wage labour along with farm activities, etc to actually identify and induct participants in the project (IRRI, 2007). It was assumed that target households would depend on own production of rice as well as on the market for sale (even if deficit) and purchase. The deficit months would almost certainly coincide with higher market prices and these months could be further affected by sudden shocks such as floods or droughts. So the degree of market dependence would influence food security status.

It was hypothesized that food security of the target households could be achieved through (a) increased food availability by increased production of cereal and non-cereal crops, (b) changed socio-economic and political environment such as practice of the sharecropping law and increase tenant‘s share in output, and (c) increased access to food from enhanced farm and non-farm income. Further it was hypothesized that a more diversified diet and a more equitable intra- household distribution of food consumption might also contribute to improved food security. Among these elements, the most important and the common attribute of the projects implemented by the three INGOs was improvement of the productivity of the small land resources (owned or shared in) of the target households.

Source: IRRI (2007)

3 Table 1.1 Project districts and upazilas and target number of participants for each implementing INGO INGO Project districts and upazilas Target participant households by phase Rajshahi : Godagari, Tanore 1st phase Start April 2005 Naogaon: Mohadebpur, Niamatpur, Porsha, Participants 8,750 CARE Sapahar, Patnitala, Manda, Dhamoirhat Chapai Nawabganj : Sadar, Bholahat, 2nd phase Start July 2006 Gomostapur, Nachole Participants 10,000 Total 18,750 Jamalpur: Jamalpur Sadar, Dwanganj, Sharishabari, Islampur, Madargonj, 1st phase Start May 2005 Practical Bokshiganj, Melandha Participants 1,500 Action Faridpur: Faridpur Sadar, Boalmari, Char Bhadrasan, Nagarkanda, 2nd phase Start July 2006 Rajbari: Goalanda, Baliakandi Participants 6,000 Madaripur : Rajoir Shariatpur : Goshairhat, Bedhorganj Total 7,500

Satkhira: Satkhira Sadar, Tala, Kaira 1st phase Start May 2005 Khulna: Rupsha Participants 10,000 Patuakhali: Kolapara Action Noakhali: Noakhali Sadar 2nd phase Start Nov 2006 Aid Kurigram: Kurigram Sadar, Ulipur Participants 10,000 Sunamgonj : Biswambarpur Total 20,000

4

Fig. 1.1 Field locations of FoSHoL projects implemented by three INGOs

5 The types of agricultural technologies or technology components promoted depended on local ecology and farmers‘ needs and capacities. These included, among others, the following:  Fertilizer related technologies  Seeds and seedlings related technologies  Compost and green manure related technologies  Pesticides related technologies  Irrigation and water management related technologies  Home gardening and vegetable production related technologies  Cropping system related innovations  Livestock production and management related technologies  Fish culture, production and management related technologies  Agro-processing activites e.g. making value adding products like chutney and tomato sauce, fruit juice, yoghurt, powdered spices  Non-farm activities

In terms of organizational innovations, although resource poor food insecure households were considered as the ultimate target beneficiaries of the project, household level impacts were expected to be achieved through an impact pathway involving three other levels of change agents.

First, it was planned that each of the three INGOs would implement their activities in partnership with a number of local NGOs (LNGO) selected from their operational districts/upazilas. As such CARE, Practical Action and Action Aid respectively made secondary contracts with 5, 10, 6 number of LNGOs in their respective operational areas.1 They were provided with financial resources, knowledge and skills training by the parent INGO with support from the IRRI FoSHoL coordination unit to enable them to implement the FoSHoL project activities. A list of the training courses offered to LNGO staff is shown in Appendix 1. The long term objective of this arrangement was to enhance capacity of the LNGOs through training and learning by doing to design, seek funds and implement similar projects in their local areas in the future, thus contribute to long term sustainable development of their areas.

Second, it was planned that each implementing LNGO would identify Resource Farmers from among participating households based on their past experience and innovation abilities, then impart them with training to serve as informal extension agents and act as leaders, links, brokers or contacts between the participating farmers and various service providing agencies such as the Department Agricultural Extension, Rural Development, Livestock and Fisheries Departments, credit agencies, seed and fertilizer traders/dealers etc in order to facilitate access to knowledge, technology and inputs. It was also envisaged that such farmers would acquire at least one or more special skills such as vaccinator, plant doctor and nurseryman, which would allow them to earn some income by providing those services in their local communities. As such CARE, Practical Action and Action Aid respectively identified and

1 Although the LNGOs were supposed to be partners of the INGOs, the formal contracts between the INGO and the LNGOs designated the LNGOs as sub-contractors. Thus there was a hierarchical relationship both legally and in functional relationship which somewhat undermined the original spirit of the project. A mid term review by the donor European Commission criticized this aspect of the implementation modality of the project as it did not reflect the spirit of partnership envisaged in the project design, and advised correction (Gray and Nath, 2008) but with very little effect. This situation later diluted ownership of the project outcome with INGOs virtually claiming full credit for implementation with few, if at all, mention of contributions of the LNGOs.

6 trained 600, 750 and 324 Resource Farmers. A list of training courses offered to such farmers is shown in Appendix 2. The long term expectation was that such Resource Farmers would create familiarity and network among service providers and farmers, which would continue beyond the FoSHoL project life and enable them to access required knowledge, skills and inputs in a smooth manner. The special skills acquired would also help them earn some supplementary income.

Third, it was planned that participating households would be organized into farmer groups in which both men and women decision makers of the households would be encouraged to join. As such CARE, Practical Action and Action Aid and their partner LNGOs facilitated their participating households to organise themselves into 600, 770 and 813 groups respectively. Most of these groups had mixed membership with varying proportion of male and female members while some were organised with a mixed membership but majority members represented specific characteristics such as share croppers or female wage labourers. The objective for formation of such groups was to give them training to enable the group members to identify their individual household as well as collective constraints to achieve food security, potentialities and possible ways to overcome those constraints, and prioritize actions, then seek assistance (technology, inputs, skills, knowledge, finance as appropriate) to materialise the identified priority actions. The Resource Farmers and LNGOs were expected to assist farmer groups in their endeavour to access better technology, inputs and services. A list of the training courses organised for group members is shown in Appendix 3.

In addition to the above activities, the groups were also encouraged to make group savings for capital formation and productive investment. The participant members of the farmer groups were encouraged to make small regular savings to build up their own capital and lend among themselves at low interest rate rather than borrowing from micro-credit agencies or other sources at higher interest rates. The lending would be made to implement identified priority activities to overcome food security problems of the members and utilization of the loan would be monitored and supervised by the group to ensure its effective use. The groups were encouraged to decide on their own, based on their abilities, the amount of savings per member per time unit, the frequency of contribution, the accounting procedure including maintenance of bank account, the lending limit per borrower, repayment schedule, the interest rate to be paid for savings and to be charged for lending, any penalties or other measures against default etc. Thus no single formula for saving and credit management was promoted rather each group was allowed to make its own bylaws and decisions.

There was one exception, however. CARE provided matching funds to its affiliated groups – for every taka saved by the group members, on average CARE contributed an additional Taka 1.92 from its project budget to encourage group savings. The other two INGOs did not provide such incentives. 2 The long term expectation for the groups was that such group

2 A mid term review by the donor European Commission criticized the provision of matching fund by CARE as this was not explicitly mentioned in the budget and the other two INGOs did not follow similar approach even if they had separate contracts with the EC. Also such matching fund provision was considered by the review team as unhelpful for sustainability of such practices once the project life was over because the members might decide to divide the fund among themselves and discontinue the savings-lending scheme. Integration of the FoSHoL project members by the LNGOs in their own programmes and scaling up of FoSHoL project would also face problems in the absence of such matching funds ( Gray and Nath, 2008). However, CARE apparently disagreed with the EC comments about lack of budget provision and argued that even if a specific budget line was not there for this expense, they provided the matching funds from the operational budget to encourage

7 organisation and collective action would create both individual and group awareness and ability to identify and prioritize problems and potential solutions and seeks appropriate assistance from relevant agencies in the future for sustaining their drive for achieving food security and economic wellbeing

In addition the above general organizational innovations, each of the three INGOs promoted some other innovations in a few specific project locations based on local needs and opportunities. Some examples are as follows.

FoSHoL bazaar and assembly markets: Some of the project villages are located in remote areas, without good road connection with far away rural markets. Small resource poor farmers in such remote locations face enormous problems in marketing the small marketed or marketable surpluses of their various commodities due to long time required to go to distant markets, high marketing cost that leave them with low margins. Similar problems were faced in purchasing inputs. In a number of such villages, FoSHol-CARE farmer groups were encouraged to take initiative to consult with local organizations, leaders and rich farmers, to identify a common place and organize a local market. They were also encouraged to promote the market to traders operating in the distant markets to come to those markets. Further, some small farmers in the group were encouraged to pool their small marketed quantities to form a larger volume, then transport to a distant market or attract a distant trader to come to their market. The resulting economies of scale was expected to benefit both the small farmers and the traders by reducing overall marketing costs and lead to a negotiated equilibrium price that was expected to be beneficial for both the parties. Nine such bazaars have been organized by 95 FoSHoL-CARE farmer‘s groups, representing 16,000 farmers of the project villages, but the markets were also accessible to people outside the project.

Organizing sharecroppers for enforcement of the sharecropping law: Many farmer groups organised by CARE in its project areas in greater Dinajpur district had a sizeable proportion of sharecroppers as members because highly unequal land ownership in those areas led to sharecropping as a dominant mode of production. These members faced a set of unique problems to improve their productivity, food security and livelihood because of unfavourable terms in rental contracts, uncertainty and frequent change in contracts etc. The Government promulgated an ordinance in 1984 specifying sharing arrangements and rights and obligations of landlords and tenants (GOB, 1984)3. However, the law was never implemented or enforced. CARE and its sub-contractor local NGOs realised that the problems of the sharecropper members could be largely solved if the provisions of the sharecropping ordinance were implemented. Therefore CARE took initiative to identify a few farmer groups with majority members as share croppers or organise some groups with majority members as share croppers and facilitate dialogue between such groups and landlords in the village to first discuss the pros and cons of the sharecropping laws for both parties and then encourage them to mutually agree to enforce the provisions of the laws. Obviously this was easier said than done because of unequal power structure as well as problems of legal interpretation of the provisions of the laws. However, this innovation was pursued with vigour even if in a small number of villages in the beginning as a pilot. More than two hundred such sharecropper dominated groups have been organized.

savings behaviour of the members, which was legitimate and was for a good cause in relation to the project objectives. 3 Chapter V of the ordinance is devoted to the various types of legal rights and obligations of the landlords and the sharecroppers.

8 Sharecropping law allows equal share of the output produced on sharecropped land between the sharecropper, land owner and input supplier. This could be achieved by adopting a non- confrontational concerted effort involving all stakeholders, especially sharecroppers, landowners and locally elected UP councillors. Guaranteed tenancy rights for a period of minimum five years provide effective incentives for sharecroppers for taking good care of rented-in land and make investment in land improvement.

Organizing women wage labourers for negotiating fair wages: Like sharecroppers, greater Dinajpur also has a good proportion of women wage labourers, most of them belonging to local tribal ethnic groups. Lower wage payment to these women labourers even for work of equal quality as men is a common problem. In order to remedy this situation, farmer groups with a sizeable women labourer as members or newly formed groups with wage labourers as members were helped to undertake collective bargaining with employers for fair wages.

Union Livestock Service Centres (ULSC): In order to provide livestock services to every household an institutional innovation known as Union Livestock Service Centres (ULSCs) has been established by the communities assisted by FoSHoL-ActionAid. Eighteen such centres are run by the farmer group or community members trained in vaccination and animal care for providing livestock services to the farmers near to their doorstep for a small fee, which constitute a supplementary income for such persons. The centre also serves as a spot for visit by the Upazila veterinary experts for needed livestock treatment services. The centre provides an excellent example of public-private partnership (PPP) as the space and venue for its establishment is provided by the Union Parishad and the farmer groups, and the services and necessary supplies (such as, vaccine, semen for artificial insemination) are provided by the DLS and its doctors and officials. It may be noted here that DLS operates usually from the upazila headquarters having very few field-visiting staff, which prevents them from covering even a fraction of the needed services in the vast expanse of the upazilas. The ULSCs thus provide an excellent scope to expand the coverage and provide the essential services.

Rural Technology Centres (RTCs): In order to provide livelihood opportunities outside agriculture, especially for young people with some formal education, Practical Action provided starter funds out of the project to create a few rural technology centres with electronic and related facilities such as photography, photocopy, fax, internet etc. so that local people could access these services at low cost rather than travelling to distant urban centres. Young community members are trained to operate the centres with assistance from local NGOs, who provide training for farmers on transferable technologies as well as provide the rural youth various computer and IT courses. The centres are charging nominal affordable fees for their services, which on the one hand has created employment, and on the other, providing some highly valuable services and technology almost at the farmers‘ doorstep.

Bio-village : The objective is to encourage village people especially farmer group members to use natural resources such as soil, land, water and biodiversity judiciously to improve productivity and protect the environment. This has been promoted as pilot activities by Practical Action in three villages by forming Community Based Organizations (CBOs), building capacity of farmers and providing some essential inputs such as fruit tree sapling, bio-gas plants.

9 These minor innovations have been promoted as pilots in a few places to assess their scope and potential but the main thrust of the FoSHoL Project remained agricultural technology dissemination for production and productivity improvement.

1.3 Objectives of this study

The objective of this study was to assess the impact of the project only at the farm household level. Therefore, the farm level OVIs related to project purpose and expected results for each of the three INGOs are shown in Table 1.2. The stated OVIs are independent indicators without any order or internal linkages among them irrespective of the way they have been narrated or articulated in the log frames of the three INGOs. If outcome mapping framework is used in assessing impact of the project, then some of the OVIs represent project outputs, others represent short term outcomes yet others may be regarded as representing medium to longer term outcomes. Therefore, it is possible to chart a tentative pathway for impact starting from activities to outputs to short term outcomes and longer term impacts (Figure 1.2).

Some of the important activities pursued by the project and outputs generated have been discussed in connection with the implementation mechanism of the project. The impacts of the project were assessed principally in terms of short and medium term outcomes. They are discussed in the following order to reflect the chronology of possible impact linkages:  Acquisition of knowledge and adoption of technologies  Changes in yield of crops, and farm and non-farm income  Changes in food consumption and nutritional status  Changes in physical and social capital

It is posited that acquisition of knowledge will lead to adoption of improved technologies, which will lead to improved yield and income, which will further improve food consumption and nutritional status. At the same time some changes in the acquisition of physical capital like land and social capital like linkage with network of service and input providers will be increased for sustaining the capacity acquired during the project life.

The rest of this report is organized as follows. The methodology of the study is described in section 2. Results are discussed in section 3. Summary and conclusions are presented at the end.

10 Table 1.2 Project purpose, results and OVIs of the FoSHoL projects

INGO and Intervention Logic Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVIs) of Achievement CARE Food security and livelihoods of P.1. Number of lean months of participating farm households including the agriculture dependent female-headed households reduced by the end of the project (EoP).

resource poor households P.2. Diversity of food consumption in terms of items increased by the sustainably improved by EoP. implementing and adapting P.3. Average income from farm and non-farm activities of participating appropriate technical, social, and households increased. organizational aspects of P.4. Coping ability of the participating households from different shocks farming including innovations (during natural disaster, health hazards, asset loss, etc.) increased by Project Purpose obtained by the PETRRA the EoP. project. P.5. Social and physical capital of participating households, women and men members, increased. Result 1: Capacities of 1.1. Yield per unit of land of farm production of participating households participating farm households increased by 20% over the baseline by the EoP. representing women and men to 1.2. At least 75% of the participating farm households, representing increase farm production women and men, identified, tested and adapted at least 2 innovative through adoption of innovative farming technologies by the EoP. diversified farm activities 1.3. Women and men farmer groups are functionally linked with at least sustainably developed. 2 necessary sources of service providers/sources of innovations (e.g. IRRI, BRRI, BARI, DAE, DoLS relevant NGOs) 1.4. Each of the participating communities organised at least one farmer rally/village fair each year. Result 2: Trained women and 2.1 At least 75% of women and men resource farmers demonstrate men resource farmers developed improved knowledge, attitude and practice of recent technologies by and made functional to facilitate EoP. agricultural innovations 2.2 100% of women and men resource farmers linked to at least 4 sources

prioritized by their communities of innovative technologies such as BARI, BRRI, DAE, DoLS,

BADC, BMDA, NGOs, private sector (e.g. seed and fertilizer dealers) by EoP. 2.3 At least 50%of women and men participating group members demand support from resource farmers by EoP. 2.4 Contacts pursued by women and men resource farmers (both project

intended and resource farmer‘s own initiatives), including Expected Results participation in meetings, agriculture fairs and field/study days, visits to government officials and commercial agents, NGOs and NGO platforms, etc. enhanced. 2.5 At least 80% of women and men resource farmers are able to comply with their role and responsibilities without external incentives by project year 3 and onwards. Result 3: Community based 3.1 At least 70% of the groups are able to assess and prioritize constraints groups of participating farm and opportunities by PY2. households representing women 3.2 At least 60% of the groups are able to design activities against and men strengthened to identified priorities by PY3. effectively address constraints 3.3 At least 60% of the groups are able to identify issues, design and and opportunities for enhanced implement, monitor and evaluate activities by PY4. food security 3.4 At least 60% of the groups undertake collective actions by PY3. 3.5 At least 50 community- based groups established external relations to increase social capital and resource mobilization by EoP.

11 Result 4: Capacities of local 4.1 All sub-contractors continued some of the project activities beyond sub-contractors increased to the areas of interventions by EoP. continue and/or replicate and • continuity on issues with groups and farmers mobilise resources towards • continuity in relation to the local community groups‘ capacity people centred development. enhancement • continuing functional relations with different resource organisations and institutions such as IRRI, BRRI, BARI, DAE and DoLS. 4.2 All sub-contractors mobilized complementary funding from inception period onwards. 4.3 All sub-contractor organizations demonstrate evolution toward more participatory decision-making process as well as responsiveness to small-scale farmer needs by the EoP. 4.4 All sub-contractors involved community in project design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation by EoP. 4.5 All sub-contractors established relations with at least 3 sources of innovations such as DAE, BRRI, BARI, DoLS, etc. by EoP. Practical Action Food security and livelihoods of P1. Food provisioning of the participating households, represented by the agriculture dependent women and men, increased by the end of the project (EoP).

resource poor households P2. Diversity of food consumption in terms of items increased by the sustainably improved by (EoP). implementing and adapting P3. Average income of participating households increased at constant appropriate technical, social and price by the EoP. organizational aspects of P4. Coping ability of majority of the participating households from farming including innovations different shocks increased by the EoP. Project Purpose obtained by the PETRRA P5. Forced sale of productive assets reduced by EoP. project. P6. Human and social capital of participating households, women and men members, increased by EoP. Result 1: Production of 1.1 Farm production per unit of land of beneficiaries increased by the

beneficiaries farming systems EoP.. increased. 1.2 Food consumption of participating households including women and children increased by the EoP. 1.3 Cropping intensity and agricultural diversity of land of the beneficiaries increased by EoP.

Expected Results Result 2: Market oriented 2.1 Return from non-farm and agro-processing activities of majority of livelihoods strategies of the participating households increased by the EoP. 2.2 More number and resource poor households with percentage of women involved in side-line income earning activities emphasis to women through by the EoP. non-farm and agro-processing 2.3 Majority of small enterprises operated profitably by the EoP. activities developed. 2.4 Seasonal out–migration of men reduced by EoP. 2.5 The majority of the targeted beneficiaries for food processing are women. 2.6 RPFs‘ access to market information and markets increased through links with private sector and other market intermediaries both financial and non-financial by the EoP. 2.7 Knowledge, attitude and practice of target beneficiaries on non-farm and agro-processing activities increased by EoP. Result 3: Capacity of partners 3.1 NGO‘s, service delivery agencies and local government organisations (NGO's, service delivery facilitate social approaches and technological interventions to the agencies, local government needs of the resource poor farmers by PY2. departments) strengthened to 3.2 Partner organizations participate in Upazila, district and regional respond to the needs of the forums by the PY2. resource poor farmers. 3.3 Partner organizations facilitate and develop Community Development Plans for each target village (total 75) by PY2. 3.4 Partner organizations document their learning, share with relevant stakeholders and develop their own organizational strategy for future planning by EoP.

12 Result 4: Access of the resource 4.1 Participation of the GO/NGO service delivery agencies in the poor farmers to get services from community development planning process increased by EoP. the relevant government 4.2 Access to inputs of the RPFs increased by EoP. agencies and to have control 4.3 Remunerative price of the produce obtained by the RPFs by the EoP. over local natural resources 4.4 Access to common property resources of resource poor farmers improved through advocacy. including women increased by EoP. 4.5 Number of visits between RPFs and service providers increased by EoP. 4.6 Response of research institutes to address RPFs issues increased by EoP. 4.7. Problems of the RPFs documented and disseminated in different Forums by PY2. 4.8 Different forums made recommendations to policy issues by the EoP. Action Aid Food security and livelihoods of P1. Food provisioning of participating households, represented by women the agriculture dependent and men, increased by the end of the project (EoP).

resource poor households P2. Diversity of food consumption in terms of items increased by the sustainably improved by EoP. implementing and adapting P3. Average income of participating households including women appropriate technical, social, and members increased by the EoP. organizational aspects of P4. Coping ability (during lean periods, natural disaster, health hazards, farming including innovations asset loss, etc.) of the participating households, women and men Project Purpose obtained by the PETRRA project members, from different shocks increased by the EoP. P.5. Human and physical capital of participating households, women and men members, increased by the EoP.

Result 1: Farm production of 1.1 Farm production of small and marginal farming households,

resource poor participating farm represented by women and men, increased by the end of project cycle. households, represented by  Rice production per unit of land increased. women and men, increased  Horticultural production (vegetables and fruits) per unit of land through adapting innovative and increased. environment friendly production  Production from poultry, fishery and livestock increased. technologies including Expected Results innovations of PETRRA project. Result 2: Marketing practices of 2.1 Understanding of participating households on dynamics of marketing agricultural produces adopted by systems improved by PY2. the participating farm 2.2 At least one marketing practices improved by the participating households improved. households by the EoP. 2.3 Participants involved in improved marketing increased cash income from their improved practices by the EoP. Result 3: Capacity of 3.1. Group members attend regular learning sessions and meetings participating farm households to (fortnightly/ monthly) facilitated by the project and maintain updated organize and manage livelihoods register. groups and centers to address 3.2. Group members maintain individual and group level savings and are social and technical issues properly utilized. related to food security and 3.3. At least one identified social/gender issue that hinders food security sustainable livelihoods addressed by livelihood groups by the EoP. developed. 3.4 At least 9 livelihood centers established by the EoP. Result 4: Access of livelihood 4.1. Livelihoods Groups (LG) received at least two types of services from groups to services and resources the service providers from an array of services by the EoP. of public and private institutions, 4.2. LG members and other community people are organised and taking market forces and civil society collective actions to realize their demands by PY3. organizations enhanced. Result 5: Project learning 5.1 Project learning documents made available among the relevant documented and shared among stakeholders by the EoP. the relevant stakeholders— Government departments, NGOs, Research Institutes and Donors.

13 Figure 1.2 Impact pathways for the FoSHoL project

Activities  Suitable farm and non-farm technologies for poor farmers identified  Suitable health and nutrition practices for poor farmers identified  Institutional innovations identified  Partner LNGO staff trained to promote new technologies and institutional innovations

Outputs  Suitable technologies, practices, institutional innovations communicated and made available to poor farmers  Awareness and capacities of poor farmers increased  Access to inputs, services and markets by poor farmers increased  Capacity of LNGOs and other service providers to respond to poor farmers‘ needs strengthened

Short-term outcomes  Adoption of technologies and practices by poor farmers increased  Yield of crops of poor farmers increased  Farm and non-farm income and savings of poor farmers increased  Food consumption and nutritional status of poor households improved

Medium to long-term outcomes and impact  Knowledge base and capacity of poor farmers created for use of improved technology, practices and inputs for sustained increase in income  Food security of poor farmers increased and vulnerability to food availability decreased  Physical and social capital of poor farmers increased

14 2 Methodology of the study

2.1 Framework for assessing project impact

One of the major problems in impact assessment is attribution- how much of any change in a project area or its target beneficiaries is purely due to the project intervention? Impact or change due to any innovation or intervention is usually assessed by one or more of the following ways: (a) comparison of situations before and after the intervention or innovation, (b) comparison of situations with and without the innovation or intervention at a point in time, usually at the end of the intervention period, (c) a combination of ‗before and after innovation or intervention‘, and ‗with and without innovation or intervention‘ comparisons (Table 2.1). In the table, if C=0 and G=0, i.e. initial conditions are the same and the entire change in the system is due to the intervention being assessed, then H or F would adequately represent the impact of the intervention; otherwise I should be measured to assess the net impact of the intervention. The third option is the most ideal to assess the net impact of any innovation or intervention as this procedure controls for any difference in initial conditions and in any change in the economic environment due to reasons other than the innovation or intervention being assessed (Jabbar, 2004). Data from without intervention area, or control area as it is often called, are required to provide counterfactual scenario because in the real world situation some changes occur everywhere naturally or due to interventions of one kind or another. The point then is to assess the net impact of the intervention under consideration when all other effects have been taken into account.

Table 2.1 Assessment of impact of innovation or intervention

Without intervention With intervention Difference Before intervention A B C=B-A After intervention D E F=E-D Difference G=D-A H=E-B I=(F-C)-(H-G) Source: Jabbar (2004)

A framework of the above nature was proposed while conducting a baseline survey in the FoSHoL project areas for providing the basis for assessment of the project impact later. In that framework, items C, F and I in Table 2.1 were not considered rather H-G was considered as equivalent to the impact of the project (IRRI, 2007). However, this is a minor difference of fineness of the assessment process and, if properly done, H-G should adequately capture the impact of any project if C and F are insignificant.

Even though by definition and in theory, the framework outlined above should allow measurement of net change due to project interventions, in practice, it may still be very difficult to attribute the entire net change to the project. In controlled laboratory or field experiments, all known sources of possible change in a phenomenon or environment may be identified and either included as treatments or as controls. Real world projects can‘t be fully treated in the same manner as controlled scientific experiments because many factors other than the project interventions may differ between the project and control areas and they may also account for some of the changes. Therefore, even though the nature and extent of change between two time periods may be quantified fairly accurately, it may not be appropriate to attribute the entire change to the project intervention rather it may be more appropriate to suggest that the net changes occurred largely due to the project interventions.

15 The FoSHoL project was implemented in diverse agro-ecological and socioeconomic situations by a diverse group of actors through a diverse range of interventions. Inclusion of a control to provide counter factual situation can only partially account for the effects of those diversities on the overall change. So, in this study, a qualified attribution approach, as indicated above, will be followed in the interpretation of the results.

2.2 Sampling and data collection

The baseline survey was conducted (completed) about a year after the field activities of the project was started though by that time only village and farmer selection process was completed so not much intervention was in place to effect change in initial conditions. The survey was done in the selected project villages as well as in similar nearby villages as control areas. The sample size was estimated in such a way as the results of the survey would be within 5% of the true value with 95% confidence level. Sample distributions for the first phase of the three INGOs are shown in Table 2.2. These numbers represent about 6% of the total number of households in the project as well as the control villages. The survey was done using a structured questionnaire. When the project became fully operational, it appeared that a small number of households which were interviewed assuming to be prospective project participants eventually did not join the project at that time. In such cases, the project took replacement households. For the control villages, this was not a problem.

A similar approach was taken when the second phase was started but with one main difference. In the baseline for the second phase, no control area was identified and surveyed (Table 2.2). The decision was based on the assumption that the control of the first phase would provide adequate basis for comparison even though it was known that the production and resource bases for the second phase villages and households might not be exactly the same.

Table 2.2 Sample distribution for baseline survey by project phase and implementing INGOs

1st phase 2nd phase Survey Project Control Total Survey Project Control Total INGO compl compl etion etion date date CARE May 370 370 740 Oct 370 - 370 2006 2006 Practical May 311 316 627 Nov 357 - 357 Action 2006 2006 Action Aid May 409 405 814 Nov 405 - 405 2006 2007 Total 1090 1091 2181 1132 - 1132 Source: IRRI (2007)

An end of project survey was planned in the fourth quarter of 2008 in order to assess the project impact taking the baseline as the basis for comparison. However, a major methodological problem arose in determining the sample frame to be used for the survey.

Given different durations of project involvement, it would be necessary to conduct separate assessments for phase 1 and phase 2 of the project. In case of the first phase, a comparison of participants and non-participants before and after the project was possible, which would be

16 ideal for project impact assessment according to the framework outlined in Table 2.1. In case of the second phase, in the absence of control samples, only before-after comparison for participants was possible with the constraint that the begin point was not the same so the length of project benefit was also not the same, so the conclusions drawn would be subject to many qualifications. Combining second phase participants with the first phase was not advisable as it would dilute the analysis even more as the comparisons would then be made among non-comparables, and it would be difficult to draw valid conclusions. Also conducting different set of surveys, analysis and producing two sets of outputs- one for phase 1 and one for phase 2 – would not be very useful and worthwhile given the time and resources available.

Given the above constraints in the design of the project, it was decided that the detailed end of project survey would be concentrated on the first phase sample households who enjoyed project involvement for a longer period. The lessons from the first phase would be adequate to understand the basic tenets of the project and its outcomes, which would provide a robust basis for any plan for scaling up the entire project.

Based on the above the households that were included in the first phase baseline in both project and control areas were resurveyed. The total sample for the three INGOs was 1074 project participants and 1055 in control areas compared to the base line sample of respectively 1090 and 1091. The smaller number in the end of project survey arose because some project participants left the project in the middle or were not available for interview during the survey period. However, given the small number of dropouts or missing samples, it was assumed that it would not affect the results given the large size of the overall sample.

The end of project survey was conducted using a questionnaire in which most of the elements of the baseline survey were retained for purposes of comparison. In a few cases, the format of the question was slightly changed to provide more clarity to the subjects. Only one subject area – food consumption in 24 hours - was completely dropped in the end of project survey for reasons explained below..

A major effort was made in the baseline to collect food consumption and child nutritional status (anthropometry) data. The household food consumption was recorded only for 24 hours at one point in time in a year. However, in standard food consumption and nutrition surveys, consecutive three 24-hour periods of data collection is recommended. Where seasonality is a major phenomenon, the same has to be repeated for each identifiable major season in order to make objective and realistic assessment of consumption and nutrition level. If child nutrition data is collected at the same time, the repetition is possible but is not always essential as child anthropometric parameters at a point in time is a result of cumulative effect of nutrition over the lifetime of the child, so a point-in-time measurement gives adequate indication about the child‘s as well as the household‘s nutritional status.

In 2008, the end of project survey year, food price rise and natural calamities had many effects on food consumption behaviour, and such changes may or may not have anything to do with the project and its achievements, so a point-in-time consumption data can‘t be objectively related to the project. Given these limitations of the 24-hour food consumption data, it was agreed that household food consumption data need not and would not be collected in the current survey but child anthropometric data and nature of consumption of selected quality food items would be collected and that would be adequate to get information on nutritional status of the household. Moreover, children who were surveyed in the baseline

17 and were still under 5 years would be available for comparison to see if their status has changed between the baseline and current period, and this would give a good basis to say something about change in nutritional status of the household.

The end of project survey was conducted during December 2008 – January 2009 collecting data for the calendar year or crop year from November 2007 to October 2008 (Aman to Aus cropping seasons). Hired trained staff of the three INGOs conducted the survey under the supervision of their senior staff and their partner LNGOs and the overall supervision and guidance of IRRI FoSHoL coordination unit. The raw data were entered into a common data entry template, designed by MS Access software. These were initially cleaned by the respective INGOs with their own staff in consultation with the IRRI Coordination Unit, which later merged the entire data into a common format using SPSS 16.0 for aggregate analysis.

18 3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Acquisition of knowledge and adoption of technologies

3.1.1 Incidence of knowledge and adoption

The main thrust of the project was on dissemination and adoption of agricultural and non- farm technologies. A technology was defined as a practice, mechanism or way of doing certain thing or a composite of several materials and practices such as a seed variety or a cropping system e.g. intercropping or way of raising animal or fish or producing a particular product e.g. handicraft or pickled vegetable each of which has an embedded technique or process. The baseline survey collected information on knowledge or awareness and adoption of a range of technologies which can be divided into the following groups:  Crop technologies including home gardening  Livestock technologies  Fisheries technologies  Agro-processing and non-farm technologies

Then the project disseminated knowledge on a long menu of tools, techniques, practices in each of the above areas. Thus resource poor households could choose from a diversity of activities and various ways of performing those activities in order to improve yield, output and income. The end of project survey collected information on all technologies – previously known as well as newly promoted by the project. The changes in knowledge and adoption of the promoted technologies reported by respondents are summarized below.

The long list of crop technologies promoted can be divided into the following groups (Table 3.1.1) :  fertilizers  seeds and seedlings  compost and green manure  pesticides  irrigation and water management  homestead gardening and vegetable production  cropping system (intercropping, relay cropping etc)  others

The livestock technologies were broadly of two categories- animal and poultry. Within each category, specific technologies were related to feeds and feeding, disease treatment, general management or husbandry practices for various species of animals and birds (Table 3.1.2). Fish culture technologies included pond preparation and management and various aspects of feeding and management of fish (Table 3.1.3). Agro-processing and non-farm technologies included preservation and post harvest processing of some crops for value addition, various marketing practices such as grading, collective buying of inputs and selling of outputs, and various non-farm income earning activities such as handicrafts making, tailoring, rickshaw pulling (Table 3.1.4).

In case of crop technologies, taken all the technology groups together, it appears that at the base period about a quarter of the households in both project and control areas had knowledge about improved seed variety and line sowing and in project areas nearly all who

19 had knowledge also adopted these technologies but in the control areas proportion of adopters was lower than proportion having knowledge (Table 3.1.1). A small proportion of households had knowledge about some other technologies including fertilizers and fewer still adopted them, and none knew or adopted a large number of those technologies. However, ‗no knowledge‘ or ‗no adoption‘ in case of some of the technologies might be an information error because it is possible that respondents were not asked about these technologies by name during the base line survey.

By the end period, there has been considerable improvement in both knowledge and adoption of existing as well as newly introduced technologies in both project and control areas but in general the rates of increases have been much higher in project areas compared to the control areas. Net changes in knowledge and adoption in project areas were high (30- 50%) in case of a number of fertilizer and seed related technologies like leaf colour chart for balanced fertilizer application, balanced fertilizer application on its own, improved seed variety, line sowing, improved seed bed preparation etc. In some other cases, net changes ranged from 20-30% and the rest were below 20%, which was still quite commendable given the short life of the project.

In case of livestock technologies, incidence of knowledge was slightly higher in the project areas than in the control areas for a number of existing technologies but there was no knowledge at all about a good number of technologies in both project and control areas (Table 3.1.2). Among these, complete lack of knowledge about some the technologies like goat and cow rearing seems very surprising even though it is possible that many of the resource poor households might not own these animals at the time of the base line survey. Most likely information on these and a few other technologies were actually missing because questions on those were not possibly asked at the base line survey. These were apparently promoted by the project later. Net changes in incidence of knowledge and adoption were quite high for some of the existing and newly promoted technologies and small for others but overall signs of net positive changes in the project areas are quite clear.

Incidence of knowledge and adoption of fish culture technologies were presented in the baseline survey report as percentages of the total sample households. Unlike crop and livestock technologies, total households were not the right base for estimating the incidence and adoption of fish culture technologies. Rather only sample households owning ponds and/or having access to water bodies for fish culture should have been used as the base, especially for calculating adoption, because households without owning or having access to pond might have knowledge but adoption was not possible without a pond or access to water body. In the base period, in both the project and control areas, only 2% of the sample households reported owning pond/ditch, another about 10% reported having access to pond or water bodies through leasing. Incidence of knowledge and adoption of various fish culture technologies were lower than the pond ownership rates, hence pretty miniscule (Table 3.1.3). At the end period, 32% of the sample households in project areas reported owning pond/ditch and another 4% reported access through leasing compared 18% and 1% in the control areas. These figures seem highly suspect because such dramatic increase in pond ownership is highly improbable within the short period under consideration. One possibility is that pond ownership was under reported during the baseline, while having seen or experiencing the operation of the project, more accurate information on pond were reported at the end period . However, incidence of knowledge and adoption of various fish culture technologies are within the upper limits of the proportion of households owning or having access to pond or water body. In the control areas, incidence of knowledge and adoption remained virtually

20 unchanged while in the project areas, there has been significant improvement, so net changes in the incidence and adoption in the project areas were quite good.

Incidence of knowledge and adoption of most of the agro-processing and non-farm technologies were very small for a small number of technologies and none for most in both the project and control areas, so they were newly promoted by the project (Table 3.1.4). By the end period, incidence of knowledge and adoption increased at varying rates, the highest being in case of marketing practices such as grading, cleaning and collective marketing, and nutrition education, and the rates were significantly higher in the project areas compared to the control areas.

3.1.2 Sources of knowledge

Those who reported awareness or knowledge about the identified technologies at the end period survey were further asked about the source of knowledge. In all the technology domains, i.e, crop, livestock, fish culture and agro-processing and non-farm technologies, an overwhelming majority in the project areas, in fact up to 90% of those who reported having knowledge, mentioned FoSHoL project as the source of knowledge for almost all the technologies – old or new (Tables 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4). Other sources such as the Department of Agricultural Extension, other extension agencies and neighbouring farmers were mentioned by a small proportion of households in the project areas. In the control areas, other sources such as extension and neighbouring farmers were reported by a majority of those who had knowledge but a small proportion, especially in case of crop technologies, mentioned FoSHoL project as the source even though by design, FoShoL project did not actively promote any technology in the control areas. However, naming FoSHoL as a source in the control areas might indicate some indirect spill over of knowledge from project to the control areas.

By definition the net changes in the incidence of knowledge can be attributed to the FoSHoL project. But a question can be asked whether FoSHoL was the real source at such a high scale and whether the other extension agencies really played such a poor role in knowledge dissemination. The question arises because if FoHoL was indeed the virtual source, then sustainability of knowledge dissemination after the project life would be in jeopardy and would defeat the whole purpose of the project. The FoSoL project organized a number of training courses for farmers on specific technologies, so it appears reasonable to attribute the project as the source of knowledge. But the project also trained farmer groups about organization, about alternative sources of knowledge for technology, inputs and services, and facilitated linkages between the groups and the service providers including the DAE and other agencies. The project also encouraged two way visits – farmer resource persons and farmers themselves visiting the various service providers to seek information and service providers visiting the farmer groups or individual farmers as need arose to disseminate knowledge or to respond to questions from knowledge seekers. The Resource Farmers and the Farmer Group Leaders were trained and were provided with information to make these linkages, initially with the assistance of the implementing INGOs and LNGOs, but eventually on their own. Table 3.2.5 summarizes the number of households that received at least one visit from each of different agencies during the 12 months prior to the base period and end period surveys and average number of visits per sample household, and number of households that made at least a visit to an agency during the 12 months prior to the base period and end period surveys and average number of visits per sample household. It appears that both visits received and visits made increased marginally in both project and control

21 areas for most of the agencies but net changes in project areas were positive in some cases while negative in others, i.e. in the latter case the net changes were more in the control areas. For example, net changes were positive in the project areas for Department of Agricultural Extension, Department of Livestock and Barendra Multipurpose Development Authority, while net changes were favourable in the control areas for the Department of Fisheries, Family Planning Department, NGOs and CBOs. In case of other agencies, net changes were negligible or none at all.

The marginal or negligible extent of changes in linkages through visits either way seem consistent with the findings that most of the new knowledge and information on new technologies and innovations came from the FoSHoL project. The low score on linkages indicates that (a) such linkages were either poor or not functional or not yet used for knowledge gathering due to the presence of the project but might be used in the future, (b) the sources themselves did not have knowledge about many of the newly promoted technologies, so FoSHoL remained the primary source, which seems less likely. However, even after discounting some amount of over crediting of the FoSHoL as the source, it can be reasonably said that the project has indeed succeeded in disseminating knowledge and inducing adoption of a number of technologies either directly or through other extension service providers.

3.1.3 Expectation and outcome of adoption

Those who adopted various technologies in both project and control areas were asked about the reason for adoption or expectation from the technology. A vast majority, 80-90% in case of each individual technology in each technology group in both project and control areas expected increased production or increased profit while a small proportion gave more specific reasons in some cases. For example, use of proper amount of fertilizer in case of guti urea and the leaf colour chart or better nutrition for plants for compost, green manure and LCC and less disease in case of vaccination of animals and bird were mentioned.

The adopter respondents were also asked about the outcome of the adoption. The answers given were fairly similar in both the project and control areas for all the four technology sub- groups (Tables 3.3.1-3.3.4) ). About 70-80% of adopters in each technology case mentioned outcome was ‗as expected‘, 10-15% mentioned outcome was ‗more than expected‘ and a small proportion said outcome was ‗less than expected or none at all‘.

3.1.4 Reasons for non-adoption

Those who had knowledge but did not adopt were asked about the reason for non-adoption. In the project areas, highest proportions in each technology sub-group mentioned that they did not yet care about those technologies or did not yet decide about them, a good proportion said they did not know how to use the technology and there might be a risk involved as the technology was new, and some respondents also mentioned that their neighbours were not yet using so they were also not using. The relative importance of these causes varied to some extent between the technology sub-groups (Tables 3.4.1- 3.4.4). In the control areas, the order of the reasons for non adoption was slightly different. Lack of knowledge about how to use the technology was a more important reason than other reasons for non-adoption, which was followed by ‗did not yet care or decide about these technologies‘, then non-use by neighbours and risks involved.

22 Two points mentioned by the respondents about reasons for non-adoption require further explanation. First is about ‗do not yet care or decided‘ as a reason for non-adoption. Conventional literature on agricultural technology adoption generally divides a population into adopters and non-adopters, and analyzes the reasons for adoption or non-adoption at a point in time. In reality, technology adoption is not a one-off static decision at a point in time rather it involves a dynamic process in which information gathering, learning and experience play pivotal roles particularly in the early stage of adoption. Farmers move from learning to adoption to continuous or discontinuous use of a technology over time. A decision on adoption may be deferred rather than taking a firm position – acceptance or rejection - because the initial learning and amount of knowledge acquired may be inadequate for an outright decision. A positive decision may be taken after acquiring more knowledge and observing others to practice the technology. Adopters may drop out based on poor performance or experience, or increase adoption intensity because of positive results and experience. Drop outs may readopt after acquiring more knowledge or after the circumstances have changed (Saha et al., 1994; Jabbar et al., 2003). There are clear indications that after the dissemination of knowledge about various technologies, households in the project areas have been going through a similar process of learning to adoption, hence a lower incidence of adoption compared to incidence of knowledge is quite realistic. The differences between knowledge and adoption incidences between different individual technologies also seem reasonable because knowledge is not the only determinant of adoption, it is likely that other conditioning factors were not yet present for some technologies to induce adoption. This was where the project‘s long term sustainability would be tested by whether adoption rate would increase over time in spite of the absence of the project.

The second point is about the nature of influence of neighbour farmers‘ adoption behaviour on potential adopters. Adoption literature identifies innovators and slow adopters or laggards or followers. The first sign of the potential for adoption of a technology may be indicated by the interest shown by neighbours of an innovator who adopted and tested the technology and demonstrated its outcome. A good response from neighbours can be taken as an indication of good potential for wide adoption of the technology while a lack of interest or poor interest may indicate the opposite (Rogers, 1983; Thirtle and Ruttan, 1987). It was mentioned earlier in case of sources of knowledge for new technologies that neighbouring farmers was a source of information for a small proportion of respondents in the project areas and a reasonably good proportion in the control areas. A similar pattern was found in responses to causes for non-adoption of new technologies - respondents did not adopt because their neighbours did not yet adopt it. The fact that neighbours, especially innovative farmers, play a key role in technology dissemination and adoption is borne out by these responses. This also highlights the importance of farmer-to-farmer or horizontal extension and the need for using innovative farmers as extension agents. So, the FoSHol project has rightly targeted resource farmers as a key link in the process of dissemination of knowledge.

23 Table 3.1.1 Knowledge and adoption of crop technologies by households of the FoSHoL project End period (2008) Base period (2006) Net change (2006-2008), (A2-A1)-(B2-B1) Project Area (A2) Control Area (B2) Project Area (A1) Control Area (B1) Have Have Have Have Have Name of crop technologya knowledge Adopted knowledge Adopted knowledge Adopted knowledge Adopted knowledge Adopted % of % of % of % of Change in Change in THH % of THH THH % of THH THH % of THH THH % of THH % of THH % of THH Fertilizers Balanced Fertilizer 76.8 68.7 44.3 19.3 4.8 3.1 8.9 5.2 36.7 51.5 Use of guti urea 58.1 10.9 22.0 2.9 b 36.1 8.0 Use of LCC for balanced fertilizer 75.4 54.9 21.1 5.2 54.3 49.7 Seeds and seedlings Improved variety 83.9 72.5 57.9 28.0 27.7 24.2 24.6 19.6 22.8 40.0 Improved seed 74.2 66.1 27.4 19.1 22.9 18.4 21.0 15.3 44.9 44.0 Line sowing 94.3 70.7 49.8 27.7 24.5 11.8 23.4 16.6 43.4 47.8 Improved seed-bed preparation 63.3 52.9 16.2 8.4 15.8 13.9 6.3 3.5 37.6 34.0 Appropriate spacing 68.7 60.0 21.1 14.8 18.2 13.1 13.4 10.8 42.8 42.9 Improved seed production 51.7 40.2 10.3 5.0 3.8 2.7 3.9 2.1 41.5 34.6 Improved seed preservation 58.4 47.4 13.4 5.5 9.8 8.7 7.0 4.4 42.2 37.6 Proper aged seedling plantation 60.0 54.2 20.5 14.2 39.5 40.0 Improved rice seedling production 33.7 23.8 7.1 3.4 26.6 20.4 Seed school set up 7.8 4.3 2.5 0.2 5.4 4.1 Use of drum seeder 9.8 1.7 3.1 0.5 6.6 1.2 Compost and green manure Compost/organic fertilizer 78.3 63.5 32.5 23.6 12.3 6.5 7.4 4.2 40.9 37.6 preparation Green manuring 28.2 19.0 5.8 2.9 9.5 2.8 3.3 0.6 16.3 13.9 Compost pit preparation 22.8 14.8 4.4 1.3 18.5 13.5 Super compost preparation 9.9 3.9 3.2 0.6 6.6 3.3 Improved pit 65.5 61.5 27.2 13.2 38.3 48.3 Pesticides Organic pesticides 33.8 21.3 8.0 3.6 8.4 7.2 4.1 2.1 21.5 12.7 Integrated Pest management 57.1 45.5 16.8 9.7 7.3 6.2 2.0 1.4 35.0 31.0 Irrigation &water management Irrigation 29.0 25.3 21.9 10.1 7.1 15.2 Water management 27.1 23.3 6.4 4.5 20.7 18.7 Rice cultivation with improved 39.5 33.8 11.6 8.1 27.9 25.7 irrigation

24 Mulching 29.4 25.5 6.0 3.6 23.5 21.9 Home gardening and vegetables Homestead gardening in planned way 51.6 42.6 11.9 7.7 9.7 6.3 8.0 3.9 37.9 32.6 Vegetable production on platform 73.7 65.7 34.8 21.8 39.0 43.9 Climbing vegetable production on 45.3 33.4 16.1 9.3 29.2 24.1 tree Ginger-turmeric in shady land 36.9 20.9 11.0 5.6 25.9 15.4 Vegetable production on land near 60.1 48.2 23.9 13.0 36.3 35.2 dwelling house Community based vegetables 15.3 3.7 3.8 0.8 11.5 3.0 cultivation Commercial vegetables cultivation 27.2 13.7 5.8 1.8 21.4 11.9 Dike crop/Road side/Embankment 41.8 29.0 10.4 6.3 31.4 22.7 /Pond Mushroom cultivation 5.4 0.1 3.0 0.0 2.4 0.1 Budding 10.5 6.3 2.7 0.6 7.8 5.8 Pruning 15.5 12.2 2.8 0.8 12.6 11.4 Inarching 5.4 1.9 2.3 0.3 3.1 1.6 Propagation 13.3 4.5 3.7 0.7 9.6 3.8 Nursery development 18.0 4.6 4.0 0.1 14.0 4.5 Fruits cultivation in homestead 63.1 57.4 25.4 17.1 37.7 40.3 Cropping system Advanced cropping 37.2 27.5 6.8 3.5 10.7 2.8 3.9 0.8 23.5 21.9 Late cultivation 18.5 10.0 4.2 1.4 14.4 8.5 Intercropping 28.1 20.1 7.1 3.5 9.0 3.4 3.2 0.6 15.2 13.9 Relay cropping 21.0 15.2 4.2 1.6 7.0 2.9 2.7 1.1 12.6 11.7 System of Rice Intensification (SRI) 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.2 Rice fish culture 31.7 7.6 8.0 2.2 8.9 1.0 2.4 0.0 17.2 4.4 Rice-duck cultivation 2.3 0.1 3.2 0.3 0.9 0.2 Maize cultivation 11.6 2.6 3.8 0.3 7.8 2.3 Spice cultivation 18.8 11.3 4.0 1.3 14.8 9.9 Others Tree Plantation & Management 43.3 40.6 13.2 9.6 3.1 1.5 4.0 1.3 31.0 30.8 Bee keeping 6.0 0.4 2.7 0.1 3.3 0.3 Power tiller RTE developed 3.6 1.1 2.1 0.0 1.5 1.1 a. Some of the technologies may not be mutually exclusive or fully different from one another e.g. improved seed and improved variety, and four different types of compost related technologies. However, they are kept as reported by respondents. This note also applies to some extent in other tables of similar nature b. All blanks indicate that the technology was not known or adopted but in some case it is possible that question was not asked about the technology THH = Total Households

25

Table 3.1.2 Knowledge and adoption of livestock technologies by households of the FoSHoL project End period (2008) Base period (2006) Net change (2006-2008), (A2- Project Area (A2) Control Area (B2) Project Area (A1) Control Area (B1) A1)-(B2-B1) Have Have Have Have Have Name of technologya knowledge Adopted knowledge Adopted knowledge Adopted knowledge Adopted knowledge Adopted Change in % Change in % % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH of THH of THH Animal Technology Deworming livestock 74.7 59.4 51.1 20.5 26.0 12.2 13.7 7.8 11.3 34.5 Vaccination 70.7 56.9 39.1 18.4 27.3 11.7 15.9 9.4 20.2 36.1 Goat rearing 52.2 33.6 34.3 15.3 b 17.9 18.4 Milk cow rearing 40.1 27.5 15.6 9.5 24.5 18.0 Balanced feed 43.2 32.1 14.2 5.8 4.1 2.3 3.8 1.6 28.6 25.6 Beef fattening 48.0 19.2 17.3 6.0 6.1 1.7 5.4 0.9 30.1 12.5 Improved breeding 29.7 15.0 11.4 4.4 11.7 5.2 8.7 4.3 15.3 9.7 Improved shelter 36.5 28.6 11.8 5.4 10.7 7.8 2.8 1.5 16.7 16.9 Processing and preservation of fodder & feed 19.8 12.0 4.7 2.7 4.7 3.9 1.8 1.7 12.2 7.2 Goat rearing through semi intensive method 13.6 2.8 3.0 0.5 2.7 0.6 0.2 0.0 8.1 1.7 Sheep rearing 16.9 4.2 8.0 2.0 9.0 2.2 Pig rearing 3.8 0.8 2.4 0.3 12.6 2.0 8.3 1.2 -2.9 -0.3 Paravat/RTE livestock 6.1 3.4 3.3 1.3 2.8 2.0 RTE breeding buck 5.2 1.7 2.8 0.5 2.4 1.2 Fodder production (Napier) 13.3 4.1 2.5 0.6 10.9 3.5 Poultry Technology Vaccination of poultry 75.9 63.9 44.6 21.5 27.7 11.1 16.0 6.8 19.6 38.0 Balanced feed 50.5 39.1 9.6 4.7 2.7 1.1 3.0 0.5 41.3 33.7 Improved shelter 51.3 42.6 12.5 7.0 9.4 8.1 2.1 1.5 31.5 28.9 Improved management 37.2 31.3 6.4 4.4 30.8 26.9 Poultry rearing (broiler) 9.1 1.9 3.9 0.5 1.8 0.1 1.6 0.2 5.0 1.5 Poultry rearing (Faoumi/ Sonali) 12.2 4.4 2.8 0.1 9.4 4.3 Deshi poultry improved method 47.8 37.7 13.7 10.1 34.0 27.6 Semi-intensive poultry rearing (Hen/Cock) 36.1 20.0 5.8 2.3 30.3 17.7 Semi-intensive poultry rearing (Duck) 26.4 10.2 5.2 1.9 21.1 8.3 Pigeon/ Koel rearing 23.2 8.8 4.1 1.2 19.1 7.6

a. Some of the technologies may not be mutually exclusive or fully different from one another e.g. improved seed and improved variety, and four different types of compost related technologies. However, they are kept as reported by respondents. b. All blanks indicate that the technology was not known or adopted but in some case it is possible that no question was not asked about the technology THH = Total Households

26

Table 3.1.3 Knowledge and adoption of fish culture technologies by households of the FoSHoL project End period (2008) Base period (2006) Net change (2006- Project Area Control Area Project Area Control Area 2008), (A2-A1)-(B2- (A2) (B2) (A1) (B1) B1) Have Have Have Have Have Name of technology knowledge Adopted knowledge Adopted knowledge Adopted knowledge Adopted knowledge Adopted Change % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of Change in in % of THH THH THH THH THH THH THH THH % of THH THH Pond preparation 41.0 26.4 10.2 3.8 10.6 3.1 9.1 5.0 29.3 24.5 Fish seed production 18.8 3.7 5.2 0.8 1.7 0.8 1.5 0.5 13.3 2.6 Cage culture 12.6 0.5 3.6 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 8.3 0.2 Improved mono fish culture 21.1 9.5 4.2 0.9 1.7 1.0 1.5 0.6 16.7 8.3

25.0 14.6 4.8 2.2 1.2 0.9 0.6 18.8 12.4 Supplementary feed use 1.6 Recommended fertilizer use 22.2 12.3 4.2 1.3 1.6 1.0 2.0 1.1 18.4 11.1 Common carp spooning 22.9 13.1 5.3 1.5 3.6 1.9 6.7 3.8 20.7 13.4 Recommended number 24.4 15.0 4.1 1.3 0.9 0.7 1.7 0.6 21.0 13.6 Recommended species 20.2 11.6 3.9 1.0 0.8 0.6 1.2 0.6 16.7 10.6 Traditional fish culture with carp 21.7 11.2 4.9 1.9 2.9 1.7 0.6 0.2 14.5 7.8 Collective fish culture (pond, gher) 20.6 4.7 4.6 1.0 0.9 0.3 1.5 0.1 16.5 3.4 Community fish culture (pond, gher, 16.0 2.2 3.8 0.4 12.2 1.9 bill) Fish cum duck-dike 18.9 2.8 4.3 0.7 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 13.7 1.9 Community based fish cultivation 14.1 1.3 3.9 0.3 10.2 1.0 (pond, gher) RTE fisheries 4.7 1.6 2.2 0.3 2.5 1.3 THH = Total Household

27 Table 3.1.4 Knowledge and adoption of agro-processing and non-farm technologies by households of the FoSHoL project

End period (2008) Base period (2006) Net change (2006-2008), (A2-A1)-(B2-B1) Project Area (A2) Control Area (B2) Project Area (A1) Control Area (B1) Have Have Have Have knowledg knowled Adopte Have Name of technology knowledge Adopted knowledge Adopted e Adopted ge d knowledge Adopted % of % of % of % of Change in % Change in % % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH THH THH THH THH of THH of THH Agro-processing Preservation techniques (green chili, green mango, olive) 11.2 4.7 4.2 1.7 7.52 3.6 6.0 4.3 5.4 3.7 Post harvest processing of (turmeric, chili, coriander) 12.1 7.0 6.2 2.5 11.1 7.6 9.3 5.8 4.1 2.7 Processed food (pickle, jelly) 8.0 2.4 4.3 0.5 3.6 1.9 RTE agro processing 2.8 0.9 1.8 0.0 1.0 0.9 Marketing practices General marketing technique (cleaning, grading etc.) 36.2 32.4 10.2 5.1 26.0 27.3 Collective sale(vegetable, egg, Egg, Milk Fish, Fruit) 32.9 20.9 8.1 2.4 24.8 18.5 Collective purchase of agril. inputs 19.0 12.8 3.7 1.2 15.3 11.5 Small entrepreneur development ( Seed traders, Grinding 15.4 6.6 3.5 0.9 11.9 5.8 spices) Assemble market/farmer bazaar/farmer sell centre 12.0 4.7 8.2 0.9 3.8 3.8 Other professional work Nutrition education 37.2 33.3 9.6 4.1 27.6 29.3 Handicrafts (bamboo, cane) 7.5 5.3 4.3 0.7 7.6 5.6 2.7 1.6 -1.7 0.6 Marketable quilt sewing 7.4 3.9 3.5 0.9 6.7 3.6 2.3 0.9 -0.5 0.3 Tailoring 4.4 2.4 1.8 0.0 2.0 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.7 2.2 Driving (tractor, power tiller, shallow machine & auto 4.2 1.4 2.9 0.2 1.3 1.2 rickshaw Rickshaw/cycle repair 3.1 0.7 2.1 0.2 1.2 0.6 1.4 1.0 1.2 0.8 Candle making 2.1 0.5 1.9 0.0 0.2 0.5 Packaging making 2.1 0.3 2.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 Irrigation equipment repair 2.1 0.6 2.0 0.1 2.4 1.7 0.6 0.5 -1.6 -0.8 Ring slab building 1.9 0.1 2.0 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.1 -0.6 -0.3 Block batik 1.9 0.1 1.9 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.1 -0.5 -0.4 RTE CNE 1.6 0.8 1.5 0.0 0.1 0.8 Others 1.1 0.2 1.7 0.1 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 -0.4 0.4 THH = Total Household

28 Table 3.2.1 Sources of knowledge on crop technologies of households of the FoSHoL project at the end period Project Area Control Area Have Have Name of crop technology Source of knowledge Source of knowledge knowledge knowledge FoSHoL Neighbor FoSHoL Neighbor Project DAE farmer Others* Project DAE farmer Others* % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH Fertilizers Balance Fertilizer 76.8 68.3 5.1 3.1 0.3 44.3 24.8 10.0 7.1 2.4 Use of guti urea 58.1 48.1 6.4 2.6 0.9 22.0 2.7 6.6 9.1 3.6 Use of LCC for balanced fertilizer 75.4 71.9 2.9 0.2 0.5 21.1 15.6 2.6 0.9 2.1 Seeds and seedlings Improved variety 83.9 74.4 5.6 3.1 0.8 57.9 25.1 12.5 17.7 Improved seed 74.2 67.7 4.6 1.7 0.3 27.4 5.2 9.4 11.0 1.8 Line sowing 94.3 85.2 5.5 3.3 0.4 49.8 7.1 13.6 26.5 2.5 Improved seed-bed preparation 63.3 59.9 2.5 0.8 0.1 16.2 5.3 5.4 4.1 1.4 Appropriate spacing 68.7 64.7 2.8 1.0 0.2 21.1 5.8 3.6 10.0 1.7 Improved seed production 51.7 48.7 2.2 0.7 0.1 10.3 4.5 2.1 2.4 1.3 Improved seed preservation 58.4 56.1 1.2 0.8 0.3 13.4 5.4 2.7 3.6 1.6 Proper aged seedling plantation 60.0 58.4 1.0 0.5 0.1 20.5 5.4 5.2 8.3 1.5 Improved rice seedling production 33.7 32.3 0.8 0.3 0.3 7.1 3.1 0.9 1.9 1.2 Seed school set up 7.8 6.1 1.4 0.0 0.4 2.5 0.8 0.5 0.1 1.1 Use of drum seeder 9.8 7.1 1.7 0.3 0.7 3.1 0.9 0.8 0.3 1.1 Compost and green manure Compost/organic fertilizer preparation 78.3 72.0 2.3 3.4 0.7 32.5 6.4 6.3 16.4 3.4 Green manuring 28.2 26.4 1.4 0.3 0.1 5.8 2.6 1.0 1.0 1.1 Compost pit preparation 22.8 21.0 1.4 0.1 0.3 4.4 1.4 0.9 0.9 1.0 Super compost preparation 9.9 8.8 0.9 0.0 0.1 3.2 1.3 0.6 0.3 1.0 Improved pit 65.5 63.5 0.7 0.7 0.5 27.2 5.4 1.0 18.4 2.4 Pesticides Organic pesticides 33.8 29.0 1.8 0.7 2.4 8.0 2.8 1.0 1.2 2.8 Integrated Pest management 57.1 49.3 5.1 2.2 0.5 16.8 5.2 3.6 5.8 2.2 Irrigation and water management Irrigation 29.0 25.9 1.3 0.1 1.7 21.9 3.5 0.9 15.1 2.5 Water management 27.1 24.9 1.3 0.3 0.7 6.4 3.7 0.6 0.7 1.4

29 Rice cultivation with improved irrigation 39.5 35.2 0.9 0.5 2.9 11.6 4.4 1.4 2.7 3.0 Mulching 29.4 28.2 0.7 0.2 0.3 6.0 3.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 Home gardening and vegetables Homestead gardening in planned way 51.6 50.0 0.4 0.7 0.5 11.9 5.3 0.6 4.4 1.7 Vegetable production on platform 73.7 69.7 0.6 2.5 0.9 34.8 5.6 1.5 24.5 3.1 Climbing vegetable production on tree 45.3 41.6 1.2 1.6 0.9 16.1 3.4 1.2 8.7 2.7 Ginger-turmeric in shady land 36.9 32.2 1.6 2.1 0.9 11.0 3.8 1.0 4.4 1.8 Vegetable production on land near house 60.1 56.9 0.9 1.4 0.9 23.9 5.3 2.1 14.0 2.5 Community based vegetables cultivation 15.3 12.9 0.7 1.1 0.6 3.8 2.4 0.3 0.0 1.1 Commercial vegetables cultivation 27.2 25.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 5.8 2.2 0.8 1.5 1.3 Dike crop/Road side/Embankment/Pond 41.8 39.9 0.4 1.3 0.2 10.4 4.9 0.8 3.2 1.5 Mushroom cultivation 5.4 4.0 1.0 0.0 0.4 3.0 1.2 0.6 0.0 1.2 Budding 10.5 8.8 0.9 0.1 0.7 2.7 0.8 0.6 0.2 1.2 Pruning 15.5 14.0 0.9 0.1 0.5 2.8 0.9 0.6 0.2 1.2 Inarching 5.4 3.3 1.0 0.1 1.0 2.3 0.3 0.6 0.1 1.3 Propagation 13.3 11.4 1.1 0.4 0.5 3.7 1.5 0.6 0.3 1.3 Nursery development 18.0 16.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 4.0 2.0 0.6 0.1 1.3 Fruits cultivation in homestead 63.1 58.9 1.7 1.6 0.9 25.4 5.6 1.8 15.9 2.1 Cropping system Advanced cropping 37.2 34.5 0.7 1.1 0.8 6.8 3.8 0.5 1.5 1.0 Late cultivation 18.5 16.6 1.1 0.3 0.6 4.2 1.4 0.7 1.3 0.8 Intercropping 28.1 26.2 0.8 0.6 0.6 7.1 2.8 0.3 2.7 1.3 Relay cropping 21.0 20.1 0.6 0.3 0.1 4.2 2.2 0.6 0.4 1.0 System of Rice Intensification(SRI) Rice fish culture 31.7 29.1 0.5 1.9 0.3 8.0 4.5 0.3 2.4 0.9 Rice-duck cultivation Maize cultivation 11.6 9.6 1.1 0.7 0.2 3.8 1.4 0.6 1.8 0.0 Spice cultivation 18.8 17.3 0.6 0.5 0.5 4.0 2.0 0.5 0.3 1.2 Others Tree Plantation & Management 43.3 41.6 1.0 0.6 0.1 13.2 5.4 1.4 5.2 1.1 Bee keeping 6.0 4.2 1.3 0.0 0.5 2.7 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.7 Power tiller RTE developed 3.6 2.4 0.8 0.2 0.2 2.1 0.5 0.6 0.0 1.0 THH = Total household Others includes DYD= Department of Youth Development, DWA= Department of Women Affairs, BMDA=Barind Multi-purpose Development Authority, NGO= Non- government Organization and UP= Union Parishad

30 Table 3.2.2 Sources of knowledge on livestock technologies of households of the FoSHoL project at the end period End period (2008) Project Area Control Area Have Have Name of technology Source of knowledge Source of knowledge knowledge knowledge FoSHoL Neighbor FoSHoL Neighbor Project farmer DLS Others Project farmer DLS Others % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH Animal Technology Deworming livestock 74.7 60.2 1.5 11.0 2.0 51.1 5.4 29.4 12.3 4.0 Vaccination 70.7 58.9 1.0 9.3 1.4 39.1 5.4 20.3 10.3 3.0 Goat rearing 52.2 46.6 2.1 1.9 1.7 34.3 4.3 24.0 2.9 3.1 Milk cow rearing 40.1 36.1 1.6 1.7 0.7 15.6 4.4 6.5 2.0 2.7 Balance feed 43.2 41.3 0.4 1.4 0.1 14.2 3.6 6.6 2.5 1.5 Beef Fattening 48.0 45.2 0.7 1.2 0.9 17.3 4.6 8.6 1.9 2.1 Improved breeding 29.7 26.0 0.2 2.9 0.7 11.4 3.2 5.2 1.7 1.2 Improved shelter 36.5 35.7 0.3 0.5 0.1 11.8 4.5 5.3 1.1 0.9 Processing and preservation of fodder & feed 19.8 18.0 0.6 0.9 0.4 4.7 2.7 0.6 0.2 1.2 Goat rearing through semi intensive method 13.6 11.9 0.2 0.8 0.7 3.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.4 Sheep rearing 16.9 14.4 0.8 0.7 0.9 8.0 2.9 4.1 0.4 0.6 Pig rearing 3.8 2.6 0.1 0.2 0.9 2.4 0.6 0.2 0.2 1.4 Paravat,/RTE livestock 6.1 5.4 0.0 0.2 0.6 3.3 1.7 0.2 0.0 1.4 RTE breeding buck 5.2 4.1 0.0 0.5 0.7 2.8 1.4 0.2 0.0 1.2 Fodder production (Napier) 13.3 11.9 0.0 0.7 0.7 2.5 2.3 0.1 0.1 Poultry Technology Vaccination poultry 75.9 66.7 1.0 6.3 1.9 44.6 7.4 23.9 8.4 4.9 Balanced feed 50.5 47.9 0.2 1.8 0.7 9.6 4.2 1.6 1.7 2.1 Improved shelter 51.3 49.8 0.4 0.8 0.3 12.5 5.2 3.4 2.0 1.9 Improved management 37.2 36.0 0.0 0.8 0.4 6.4 4.1 0.4 0.6 1.4 Poultry rearing (broiler) 9.1 8.2 0.0 0.2 0.7 3.9 1.9 1.1 0.1 0.8 Poultry rearing (Faoumi/Sonali) 12.2 11.1 0.0 0.6 0.6 2.8 1.2 0.2 0.0 1.4 Deshi poultry improved method 47.8 46.6 0.5 0.5 0.2 13.7 5.2 5.3 0.9 2.4 Semi-intensive poultry rearing (Hen/Cock) 36.1 35.6 0.0 0.1 0.5 5.8 2.4 1.6 0.3 1.5 Semi-intensive poultry rearing (Duck) 26.4 25.2 0.1 0.6 0.5 5.2 2.7 0.9 0.3 1.3 Pigeon/ Koel rearing 23.2 21.6 1.3 0.1 0.2 4.1 1.8 1.8 0.0 0.5 THH = Total Household

31 Table 3.2.3 Sources of knowledge of fish culture technologies of households of the FoSHoL project at the end period

Project Area Control Area Name of technology Source of knowledge Source of knowledge Have FoSHoL Neighbor Have FoSHoL Neighbor knowledge Project farmer Others knowledge Project farmer Others % of % of THH % of THH % of THH HH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH Pond preparation 41.0 38.4 1.1 1.5 10.2 3.6 4.5 2.1 Fish seed production 18.8 16.8 0.7 1.4 5.2 2.6 1.3 1.3 Cage culture 12.6 11.5 0.0 1.1 3.6 2.1 0.0 1.5 Improved mono fish culture 21.1 19.9 0.1 1.1 4.2 2.5 0.2 1.5 Supplementary feed use 25.0 23.7 0.2 1.0 4.8 2.6 0.7 1.6 Recommended fertilizer use 22.2 21.1 0.1 0.9 4.2 2.6 0.2 1.4 Common carp spooning 22.9 21.3 0.2 1.4 5.3 2.3 1.4 1.6 Recommended number 24.4 23.4 0.0 1.0 4.1 2.5 0.1 1.5 Recommended species 20.2 18.7 0.0 1.5 3.9 2.0 0.3 1.6 Traditional fish culture with carp 21.7 20.6 0.0 1.1 4.9 2.4 0.9 1.6 Collective fish culture (pond, gher) 20.6 20.0 0.1 0.5 4.6 2.5 0.5 1.7 Community fish culture (pond, gher, bill) 16.0 15.1 0.3 0.7 3.8 2.1 0.2 1.5 Fish cum duck-dike 18.9 17.9 0.4 0.7 4.3 2.4 0.5 1.4 Community based fish cultivation (pond, gher) 14.1 13.6 0.2 0.3 3.9 2.5 0.2 1.2 RTE fisheries 4.7 4.1 0.1 0.5 2.2 0.8 0.1 1.3

32 Table 3.2.4 Sources of knowledge on agro-processing and non-farm technologies for households of the FoSHoL project at the end period Project Area Control Area Have Have Name of technology Source of knowledge Source of knowledge knowledge knowledge FoSHoL Neighbor FoSHoL Neighbor Project farmer Others Project farmer Others % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH Agro-processing Preservation techniques (green chili, green mango, 11.2 10.2 0.5 0.5 4.2 2.3 0.8 1.2 olive) Post harvest processing of (turmeric, chili, coriander) 12.1 11.1 0.7 0.3 6.2 2.3 2.7 1.1 Processed food (pickle, jelly) 8.0 7.1 0.3 0.6 4.3 2.5 0.6 1.3 RTE agro processing 2.8 2.3 0.0 0.5 1.8 0.4 0.0 1.4 Marketing practices General marketing technique (cleaning, grading) 36.2 35.9 0.2 0.1 10.2 3.8 5.2 1.2 Collective sale(vegetable, egg, Egg, Milk Fish, Fruit) 32.9 32.4 0.3 0.2 8.1 3.6 3.1 1.3 Collective purchase of agril. inputs 19.0 18.4 0.0 0.6 3.7 2.1 0.3 1.3 Small entrepreneur development ( Seed traders, 15.4 14.3 0.1 0.9 3.5 1.9 0.1 1.5 Grinding spices) Assemble market/farmer bazaar/farmer sell centre 12.0 11.2 0.1 0.7 8.2 2.2 4.7 1.3 Other professional work Nutrition education 37.2 36.4 0.6 0.2 9.6 3.2 3.5 2.8 Handicrafts (Bamboo, cane) 7.5 5.6 0.9 1.0 4.3 0.4 2.3 1.6 Marketable quilt sewing 7.4 5.7 0.7 1.1 3.5 1.2 0.9 1.3 Tailoring 4.4 2.5 0.3 1.6 1.8 0.2 0.0 1.6 Driving (tractor, power tiller, shallow machine, auto 4.2 3.1 0.4 0.7 2.9 1.2 0.2 1.5 rickshaws) Rickshaw/cycle repair 3.1 1.6 0.7 0.8 2.1 0.4 0.3 1.4 Candle making 2.1 0.9 0.1 1.1 1.9 0.3 0.0 1.6 Packaging making 2.1 1.0 0.1 1.0 2.0 0.4 0.0 1.6 Irrigation equipment repair 2.1 1.1 0.2 0.8 2.0 0.4 0.0 1.6 Ring slab building 1.9 0.5 0.0 1.4 2.0 0.1 0.0 1.9 Block batik 1.9 0.5 0.0 1.4 1.9 0.1 0.0 1.8 RTE CNE 1.6 1.2 0.0 0.4 1.5 0.2 0.0 1.3 Others 1.1 0.3 0.1 0.7 1.7 0.1 0.0 1.6 THH = Total Household

33 Table 3.2.5 Changes in the number of visits received and paid by households to different service and input providing agencies End period (2008) Baseline period (2006) Net changes (2006-2009), Project Area (A2) Control Area (B2) Project Area (A1) Control Area (B1) (A2-A1)-(B2-B1) HHs receiving N of HHs N of HHS N of HHs N of HHs N of HHs N of HHs No of HHs N of HHs N of HHs making Name of Service delivery agencies visits from receiving visits making visits to receiving visits making visits to receiving visits making visits to receiving visits making visits visits to agency agency from agency agency from agency agency from agency agency from agency to agency Cha Cha nge Change Change nge in TH Averag Averag TH Averag TH Averag Averag TH Averag TH Averag Avera in total in in THH THH THH total H e/hh e/hh H e/hh H e/hh e/hh H e/hh H e/hh ge/hh n of average aver no. HH /hh age/ of hh HH Department of Agriculture Extension(DAE) 544 0.5 773 0.7 237 0.2 342 0.3 431 0.40 140 0.13 352 0.32 117 0.11 228 0.2 408 0.4 - Department of Fisheries(DoF) 136 0.1 266 0.2 16 0.0 54 0.1 125 0.11 157 14.00 35 0.03 65 0.06 30 0.0 120 13.7 Department of Livestock(DLS) 472 0.4 595 0.6 181 0.2 214 0.2 437 0.40 177 0.16 260 0.24 333 0.31 114 0.1 537 0.5 Bangladesh Rice Research Institute(BRRI) 20 0.0 35 0.0 0 0.0 3 0.0 3 0.00 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 17 0.0 31 0.0 Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute(BARI) 25 0.0 40 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 12 0.01 10 0.01 0 0.00 0 0.00 12 0.0 29 0.0 Department of Youth Development 36 0.0 87 0.1 10 0.0 23 0.0 27 0.02 9 0.01 46 0.04 25 0.02 45 0.0 80 0.1 Department of Women's Affairs 21 0.0 58 0.1 6 0.0 23 0.0 77 0.07 12 0.01 1 0.00 6 0.01 -61 -0.1 29 0.0 Department of Cooperatives 16 0.0 38 0.0 3 0.0 16 0.0 10 0.01 2 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 0.0 20 0.0 Family Planning Department 758 0.7 627 0.6 649 0.6 523 0.5 3718 3.41 1348 1.24 3980 3.65 900 0.82 371 0.3 -344 -0.3 Bangladesh Rural Development Board(BRDB) 49 0.0 62 0.1 35 0.0 36 0.0 190 0.17 40 0.04 450 0.41 122 0.11 274 0.3 108 0.1 Extended Program on Immunization 690 0.6 609 0.6 526 0.5 448 0.4 2230 2.05 1328 1.22 2158 1.98 1165 1.07 92 0.1 -2 0.0 Union Parishad 576 0.5 786 0.7 475 0.5 673 0.6 1438 1.32 1505 1.38 929 0.85 1474 1.35 -408 -0.4 82 0.1 - NGOs 545 0.5 502 0.5 450 0.4 427 0.4 11691 10.73 3113 2.86 2536 11.49 1550 1.42 -9060 0.8 1488 -1.4 CBOs 461 0.4 456 0.4 46 0.0 49 0.0 538 0.49 816 0.75 219 0.20 1293 1.19 96 0.1 884 0.8 Commercial Bank 28 0.0 69 0.1 11 0.0 28 0.0 14 0.01 256 0.23 36 0.03 145 0.13 39 0.0 -70 -0.1 Grameen Bank 166 0.2 160 0.1 131 0.1 122 0.1 3292 3.02 853 0.78 3578 3.28 504 0.46 321 0.3 -311 -0.3 BADC 63 0.1 138 0.1 6 0.0 19 0.0 42 0.04 31 0.03 13 0.01 22 0.02 28 0.0 110 0.1 Barendra Multipurpose Development Authority(BMDA) 35 0.0 63 0.1 32 0.0 55 0.1 500 0.46 1182 1.08 273 0.25 1772 1.62 -224 -0.2 598 0.5 Others( Insurance, Answer VDP, Missionary hospital etc) 85 0.1 99 0.1 30 0.0 38 0.0 170 0.16 54 0.05 143 0.13 99 0.09 28 0.0 106 0.1 Social Welfare Department(DSS) 48 0.0 88 0.1 5 0.0 14 0.0 43 0.0 74 0.1 Animal Husbandry 34 0.0 47 0.0 9 0.0 10 0.0 25 0.0 37 0.0

34 Table 3.3.1 Outcomes of adopted crop technologies by households of the FoSHoL project at the end period

Project areas Control areas Adopted Result/outcome Adopted Result/outcome More than As Less than More than Less than Name of crop technology expected expected expected expected As expected expected

% of HH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH Fertilizers Balanced Fertilizer 68.7 8.6 57.1 0.6 19.3 0.8 16.0 0.3 Use of guti urea 10.9 2.1 7.3 0.3 2.9 0.2 2.7 0.1 Use of LCC for balanced fertilizer 54.9 7.8 46.3 0.2 5.2 0.4 4.0 0.0 Seeds and seedlings Improved variety 72.5 9.1 60.6 0.4 28.0 1.1 24.1 1.1 Improved seed 66.1 7.9 54.2 0.5 19.1 0.6 15.2 0.6 Line sowing 70.7 11.9 54.9 0.7 27.7 2.0 22.7 1.4 Improved seed-bed preparation 52.9 7.2 43.2 0.4 8.4 0.5 6.4 0.2 Appropriate spacing 60.0 9.1 46.8 0.2 14.8 0.8 11.7 0.5 Improved seed production 40.2 5.0 31.8 0.3 5.0 0.5 3.1 0.0 Improved seed preservation 47.4 6.1 37.1 0.2 5.5 0.6 3.5 0.0 Proper aged seedling plantation 54.2 7.9 41.6 0.6 14.2 1.0 11.8 0.4 Improved rice seedling production 23.8 3.4 17.5 0.3 3.4 0.3 2.3 0.2 Seed school set up 4.3 0.4 3.9 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 Use of drum seeder 1.7 0.1 1.2 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 Compost and green manure Compost/organic fertilizer preparation 63.5 7.0 49.3 1.3 23.6 0.9 19.7 0.7 Green manuring 19.0 1.2 16.4 0.4 2.9 0.0 2.4 0.0 Compost pit preparation 14.8 0.9 11.4 0.7 1.3 0.1 0.9 0.1 Super compost preparation 3.9 0.3 2.6 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.1 Improved pit 61.5 10.0 45.8 1.2 13.2 0.9 10.2 0.4 Pesticides Organic pesticides 21.3 2.0 17.4 0.4 3.6 0.2 2.7 0.0 Integrated Pest management 45.5 4.9 37.2 0.3 9.7 0.7 7.4 0.6

35 Irrigation and water management Irrigation 25.3 2.4 20.6 0.3 10.1 0.3 8.3 0.6 Water management 23.3 3.4 17.4 0.3 4.5 0.4 2.9 0.0 Rice cultivation with improved irrigation 33.8 3.2 26.5 0.3 8.1 0.4 6.0 0.1 Mulching 25.5 3.2 19.3 0.3 3.6 0.2 2.7 0.0 Home gardening and vegetables Homestead gardening in planned way 42.6 6.1 34.4 0.2 7.7 0.5 6.2 0.0 Vegetable production on platform 65.7 9.9 50.2 1.1 21.8 1.5 17.4 1.1 Climbing vegetable production on tree 33.4 4.8 26.1 0.2 9.3 0.8 7.0 0.0 Ginger-turmeric in shady land 20.9 3.3 15.4 0.7 5.6 0.9 3.2 0.2 Vegetable production near dwelling house 48.2 7.4 36.6 0.6 13.0 0.9 9.8 0.3 Community based vegetables cultivation 3.7 0.7 3.0 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.1 Commercial vegetables cultivation 13.7 2.9 9.8 0.6 1.8 0.0 1.2 0.3 Dike crop/Road side/Embankment/Pond 29.0 5.6 19.6 0.5 6.3 1.0 3.8 0.2 Mushroom cultivation 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Budding 6.3 0.4 4.6 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.0 Pruning 12.2 1.3 8.8 0.0 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.0 Inarching 1.9 0.0 1.4 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 Propagation 4.5 0.7 3.3 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.2 Nursery development 4.6 0.7 2.9 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 Fruits cultivation in homestead 57.4 5.3 45.8 2.8 17.1 1.3 12.8 0.9 Cropping system Advanced cropping 27.5 4.9 20.3 0.2 3.5 0.4 2.4 0.2 Late cultivation 10.0 1.1 7.9 0.4 1.4 0.0 1.0 0.2 Intercropping 20.1 2.8 15.9 0.3 3.5 0.3 2.6 0.0 Relay cropping 15.2 0.8 12.7 0.4 1.6 0.1 0.9 0.1 Rice fish culture 7.6 1.9 4.9 0.3 2.2 0.3 0.9 0.4 Maize cultivation 2.6 0.3 2.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 Spice cultivation 11.3 0.9 8.9 0.4 1.3 0.0 0.9 0.1 Others Tree Plantation & Management 40.6 5.5 28.7 1.8 9.6 0.9 6.2 0.6 Bee keeping 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 Power tiller RTE developed 1.1 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

36 Table 3.3.2 Outcome of adopted livestock technologies by households of the FoSHoL project at the end period Project Area Control Area Name of technology Adopted Result/outcome Adopted Result/outcome More than Less than More than Less than As expected As expected expected expected expected expected % of HH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH Animal Technology Deworming livestock 59.4 8.5 46.5 0.5 20.5 0.9 17.7 0.8 Vaccination 56.9 6.8 45.1 0.4 18.4 0.9 14.9 0.8 Goat rearing 33.6 3.4 27.2 1.3 15.3 0.6 12.1 1.3 Milk cow rearing 27.5 2.7 22.2 0.6 9.5 0.6 6.8 0.3 Balance feed 32.1 3.3 26.4 0.2 5.8 0.4 4.5 0.2 Beef Fattening 19.2 3.1 14.2 0.7 6.0 0.4 4.5 0.4 Improved breeding 15.0 2.1 10.7 0.5 4.4 0.3 2.7 0.1 Improved shelter 28.6 3.4 21.0 0.2 5.4 0.6 3.6 0.0 Processing and preservation of fodder, and feed 12.0 1.3 9.2 0.2 2.7 0.3 2.2 0.0 Goat rearing through semi intensive method 2.8 0.5 2.1 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.1 Sheep rearing 4.2 0.3 3.4 0.4 2.0 0.2 1.7 0.0 Pig rearing 0.8 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 Paravat/RTE livestock 3.4 0.3 2.2 0.1 1.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 RTE breeding buck 1.7 0.3 1.3 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.0 Fodder production( Napier) 4.1 0.5 3.3 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.0 Poultry Technology Vaccination poultry 63.9 6.4 53.1 1.7 21.5 0.9 16.3 1.9 Balanced feed 39.1 2.5 34.5 0.2 4.7 0.2 4.2 0.0 Improved shelter 42.6 3.4 35.4 0.5 7.0 0.3 5.2 0.2 Improved management 31.3 2.7 25.8 0.1 4.4 0.2 3.6 0.0 Poultry rearing (broiler) 1.9 0.5 1.5 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.1 Poultry rearing (Faoumi/Sonali) 4.4 0.7 3.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Deshi poultry improved method 37.7 3.4 30.6 0.6 10.1 0.9 8.2 0.1 Semi-intensive poultry rearing (Hen/Cock) 20.0 3.2 15.2 0.3 2.3 0.0 2.2 0.1 Semi-intensive poultry rearing (Duck) 10.2 1.3 7.8 0.3 1.9 0.2 1.6 0.0 Pigeon/ Koel rearing 8.8 1.1 6.7 0.4 1.2 0.1 0.9 0.0 THH = Total Household

37 Table 3.3.3 Outcome of adopted fish culture technologies by households of the FoSHoL project at the end period Project Area Control Area Name of fish culture technology Adopted Result/outcome Adopted Result/outcome More than As Less than More than Less than expected expected expected expected As expected expected % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH Pond preparation 26.4 3.9 20.4 0.7 3.8 0.1 3.1 0.5 Fish seed production 3.7 0.6 2.9 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.7 0.0 Cage culture 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 Improved mono fish culture 9.5 0.8 7.8 0.4 0.9 0.0 0.8 0.0 Supplementary feed use 14.6 1.0 12.5 0.1 1.6 0.0 1.4 0.0 Recommended fertilizer use 12.3 0.9 10.6 0.0 1.3 0.0 1.1 0.0 Common carp spooning 13.1 1.6 10.7 0.3 1.5 0.1 1.1 0.1 Recommended number 15.0 2.0 12.1 0.0 1.3 0.1 1.0 0.0 Recommended species 11.6 1.5 9.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 Traditional fish culture with carp 11.2 1.8 8.2 0.4 1.9 0.2 1.4 0.1 Collective fish culture (pond, gher) 4.7 0.2 3.8 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 Community fish culture (pond, gher, bill) 2.2 0.1 1.9 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 Fish cum duck-dike 2.8 0.2 2.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.6 0.0 Community based fish cultivation (pond, gher) 1.3 0.1 1.2 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 RTE fisheries 1.6 0.4 1.1 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 HH = Total Household

38 Table 3.3.4 Outcome of adopted agro-processing and non-farm technologies for households of the FoSHoL project at the end period

Project Area Control Area Name of technology Adopted Result/outcome Adopted Result/outcome More than Less than More than Less than expected As expected expected expected As expected expected % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH Agro-processing Preservation techniques (green chili, green mango, olive) 4.7 0.9 3.4 0.1 1.7 0.2 1.2 0.0 Post harvest processing of (turmeric, chili, coriander) 7.0 0.7 5.6 0.1 2.5 0.1 2.1 0.0 Processed food (pickle, jelly) 2.4 0.3 1.6 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.0 RTE agro processing 0.9 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Marketing practices General marketing technique (cleaning, grading) 32.4 5.0 22.3 0.6 5.1 0.1 3.3 0.1 Collective sale(vegetable, egg, Egg, Milk Fish, Fruit) 20.9 3.3 15.5 0.5 2.4 0.3 1.6 0.1 Collective purchase of agril. inputs 12.8 1.9 9.8 0.3 1.2 0.0 1.0 0.1 Small entrepreneur development 6.6 0.8 5.4 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.7 0.1 ( Seed traders, Grinding spices) Assemble market/farmer bazaar/farmer sell centre 4.7 0.2 4.4 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.9 0.1 Other professional work Nutrition education 33.3 2.9 23.6 0.6 4.1 0.3 3.4 0.0 Handicrafts (Bamboo, cane) 5.3 0.6 3.9 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.0 Marketable quilt sewing 3.9 0.7 3.5 0.2 0.9 0.2 0.8 0.0 Tailoring 2.4 0.2 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Driving (tractor, power tiller, shallow machine, auto 1.4 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 rickshaws) Rickshaw/cycle repair 0.7 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 Candle making 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Packaging making 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Irrigation equipment repair 0.6 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 Ring slab building 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Block batik 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RTE CNE 0.8 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Others 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 THH = Total Household

39

40 Table 3.4.1 Reasons for not adopting crop technologies by households of the FoSHoL project at the end period Project Area Control Area Not Not Name of crop technology Reasons for not adopting Reasons for not adopting adopted adopted Do not Do not There is a Neighbors Not yet There is a Neighbors Not yet know know how risk as it is not yet care or risk as it is not yet care or how to to use new practicing decided new practicing decided use % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of THH THH THH THH THH THH THH THH THH THH Fertilizers Balance Fertilizer 8.4 1.9 0.4 0.7 2.1 10.3 6.6 0.2 0.5 1.4 Use of guti urea 49.2 2.5 4.1 9.3 16.2 25.7 8.6 1.4 3.5 6.3 Use of LCC for balanced fertilizer 21.1 2.8 1.3 2.9 9.4 11.2 6.8 0.5 1.3 1.5 Seeds and seedlings Improved variety 11.9 1.1 0.6 0.7 4.8 16.1 6.5 1.1 0.2 3.0 Improved seed 8.8 1.2 0.1 0.3 3.7 10.0 6.2 0.2 0.1 1.5 Line sowing 23.8 1.2 0.6 5.0 9.9 25.8 5.6 1.1 3.4 9.0 Improved seed-bed preparation 11.3 1.5 0.6 0.9 5.4 10.6 5.8 0.3 0.7 2.7 Appropriate spacing 9.2 1.1 0.2 0.7 4.2 10.0 5.4 0.3 0.2 1.9 Improved seed production 12.6 1.9 1.2 1.2 4.5 8.9 5.9 0.2 0.5 1.0 Improved seed preservation 12.1 2.2 0.7 0.9 4.4 10.3 6.3 0.1 0.6 1.9 Proper aged seedling plantation 6.7 1.2 0.4 0.3 2.0 8.7 5.5 0.5 0.0 0.9 Improved rice seeding production 11.4 1.9 1.0 1.1 3.4 9.3 6.2 0.2 0.6 1.2 Seed school set up 7.8 4.1 0.5 0.8 1.1 7.9 5.7 0.1 0.1 0.5 Use of drum seeder 12.5 3.1 2.0 2.3 1.8 8.8 6.3 0.4 0.2 0.8 Compost and green manure Compost/organic fertilizer preparation 15.6 2.0 0.7 0.9 8.1 12.9 6.0 0.5 0.5 3.5 Green manuring 11.7 2.9 1.0 1.0 3.7 8.2 5.5 0.1 0.4 0.8 Compost pit preparation 10.4 3.1 0.8 0.9 3.7 8.7 6.2 0.1 0.3 0.9 Super compost preparation 9.1 2.3 1.2 1.0 2.7 8.2 6.3 0.1 0.1 1.0 Improved pit 4.7 0.8 0.4 0.3 2.0 9.4 6.0 0.7 0.2 1.7 Pesticides Organic pesticides 14.4 2.0 1.7 2.1 6.0 9.8 5.8 0.2 0.6 2.0 Integrated Pest management 13.0 1.6 0.8 2.4 4.5 11.9 6.2 0.7 0.7 2.9

41 Irrigation and water management Irrigation 5.6 2.2 0.7 0.5 0.8 7.1 5.6 0.1 0.0 0.5 Water management 5.9 2.3 0.5 0.7 1.1 6.9 5.5 0.0 0.1 0.3 Rice cultivation with improved irrigation 7.4 1.4 0.8 0.8 1.9 8.1 6.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 Mulching 5.1 1.4 0.4 0.4 0.9 7.6 6.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 Home gardening and vegetables Homestead gardening in planned way 10.1 1.7 0.4 0.2 3.6 9.5 5.4 0.1 0.2 2.2 Vegetable production on platform 8.7 1.0 0.2 0.5 3.6 12.4 5.0 0.4 0.1 4.1 Climbing vegetable production on tree 13.4 1.3 0.7 0.8 5.8 11.1 5.0 0.3 0.0 4.3 Ginger-turmeric in shady land 17.6 1.4 0.4 2.0 7.2 9.8 5.4 0.2 0.2 2.5 Vegetable production on land near dwelling house 12.8 1.2 0.1 0.7 3.7 12.5 5.3 0.0 0.1 2.7 Community based vegetables cultivation 14.1 1.9 1.2 2.4 5.0 8.3 5.8 0.3 0.6 0.8 Commercial vegetables cultivation 16.1 2.0 1.2 1.6 7.5 9.6 6.2 0.1 0.3 1.1 Dike crop/Road side/Embankment/Pond dike 13.6 1.0 0.5 1.2 6.0 8.6 5.3 0.1 0.0 2.2 Mushroom cultivation 9.2 3.4 1.0 1.1 1.3 8.6 5.8 0.1 0.3 0.8 Budding 7.5 2.9 0.9 1.0 1.3 7.6 6.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 Pruning 6.1 2.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 7.5 6.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 Inarching 7.4 2.7 0.8 1.1 0.9 7.4 6.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 Propagation 12.4 3.5 1.7 1.6 3.0 8.9 6.4 0.2 0.1 1.1 Nursery development 16.5 3.0 2.0 2.2 4.6 9.6 6.7 0.3 0.6 0.8 Fruits cultivation in homestead 6.8 1.6 0.6 0.5 2.0 9.4 5.9 0.1 0.1 1.7 Cropping system Advanced cropping 10.9 1.5 1.2 1.6 3.8 9.1 6.3 0.2 0.4 1.0 Late cultivation 10.5 2.2 1.2 1.3 3.3 8.4 6.5 0.4 0.1 0.9 Intercropping 9.9 1.6 0.7 0.8 3.8 8.8 5.4 0.1 0.1 1.5 Relay cropping 8.1 1.9 0.4 1.2 2.2 8.1 5.6 0.1 0.3 0.7 Rice fish culture 26.5 2.0 3.4 4.6 8.1 11.7 6.5 0.5 0.7 2.1 Maize cultivation 12.6 3.1 1.2 1.3 4.0 10.0 6.4 0.5 0.5 0.9 Spice cultivation 10.0 2.0 0.7 1.5 3.4 7.9 6.0 0.0 0.1 0.9 Others Tree Plantation & Management 3.4 0.9 0.3 0.1 1.1 7.7 5.1 0.3 0.1 1.2 Bee keeping 9.8 3.7 1.0 1.2 1.2 8.8 6.4 0.1 0.3 0.5 Power tiller RTE developed 6.6 3.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 7.7 5.7 0.1 0.2 0.3 THH = Total Household; SD = Standard Deviation

42 Table 3.4.2 Reasons for not adopting livestock technologies by households of the FoSHoL project at the end period Project Area Control Area Not Not Name of technology Reasons for not adopting Reasons for not adopting adopted adopted

Do not There is a Neighbors Not yet There is a Not yet Do not know Neighors not know how risk as it is not yet care or risk as it is care or how to use yet practicing to use new practicing decided new decided % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of HH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH Animal Technology Dew-arming livestock 16.1 1.1 0.6 0.2 8.0 16.6 6.1 0.8 0.4 6.0 Vaccination 14.8 1.3 0.4 0.7 6.9 16.4 6.4 0.1 0.6 6.0 Goat rearing 20.9 1.7 0.9 1.0 9.2 14.8 6.3 0.5 0.1 4.7 Milk cow rearing 14.2 1.1 1.0 0.7 5.3 10.3 5.2 0.3 0.0 2.3 Balance feed 12.3 1.4 0.2 0.3 6.9 9.0 5.7 0.1 0.1 1.8 Beef Fattening 30.1 2.1 2.0 1.0 17.6 13.8 6.1 0.8 0.4 4.3 Improved breeding 16.0 1.5 2.0 0.8 7.7 9.5 6.0 0.4 0.2 1.4 Improved shelter 9.0 1.0 0.5 0.3 3.4 7.8 5.6 0.2 0.0 0.9 Processing and preservation of fodder, & feed 9.4 1.3 0.7 0.8 4.3 6.6 5.3 0.1 0.1 0.4 Goat rearing through semi intensive method 13.2 1.6 1.3 1.4 5.4 7.9 5.6 0.1 0.4 0.4 Sheep rearing 15.8 2.0 1.3 1.5 4.9 11.8 6.0 0.3 0.2 2.6 Pig rearing 6.6 1.9 1.0 1.1 0.7 7.8 5.7 0.1 0.2 0.3 Paravat/RTE livestock 6.1 2.0 0.8 1.0 0.7 7.6 5.6 0.1 0.2 0.2 RTE breeding buck 7.3 2.0 0.9 1.3 1.6 8.0 5.7 0.1 0.2 0.6 Fodder production( Napier) 11.5 1.7 1.2 2.7 3.4 8.5 5.6 0.0 0.7 0.7 Poultry Technology Vaccination poultry 12.5 1.6 0.5 0.7 7.3 17.6 5.2 0.5 0.9 8.1 Balance feed 12.2 1.9 0.7 0.7 6.9 9.2 5.1 0.2 0.2 2.2 Improved shelter 9.4 1.3 0.4 0.5 5.0 9.7 4.8 0.1 0.3 2.6 Improved management 6.5 1.3 0.3 0.3 2.2 6.4 4.8 0.0 0.2 0.2 Poultry rearing (broiler) 10.3 2.4 1.8 0.9 2.1 9.0 6.3 0.0 0.3 0.9 Poultry rearing (Faoumi/ Sonali) 10.0 1.4 1.3 1.4 3.4 7.9 5.4 0.1 0.3 0.7 Deshi poultry improved method 11.0 2.1 1.1 0.7 4.2 8.6 5.5 0.2 0.2 1.1 Semi-intensive poultry rearing (Hen/Cock) 17.1 1.4 1.2 0.8 10.8 8.5 5.4 0.2 0.5 0.9 Semi-intensive poultry rearing (Duck) 17.5 1.5 0.6 2.1 7.9 8.1 5.3 0.0 0.3 0.9 Pigeon/ Koel rearing 15.6 1.5 0.9 1.2 7.4 8.2 5.6 0.4 0.3 0.7 THH = Total Household

43

Table 3.4.3 Reasons for not adopting fish culture technologies by households of the FoSHoL project at the end period Project Area Control Area Not Not Name of technology Reasons for not adopting Reasons for not adopting adopted adopted Do not There is a Neighbors Not yet Do not There is a Neighbors Not yet know how risk as it not yet care or know how risk as it is not yet care or to use is new practicing decided to use new practicing decided % of % of % of % of % of % of % of THH THH THH % of THH THH THH THH THH % of THH % of THH Pond preparation 16.4 1.6 0.9 0.5 3.6 11.7 6.0 0.3 0.2 0.8 Fish seed production 17.3 2.0 1.5 1.3 4.8 10.2 5.6 0.2 0.6 1.2 Cage culture 14.9 2.0 1.3 1.8 3.5 8.9 5.4 0.2 0.6 0.7 Improved mono fish culture 14.0 1.9 1.1 1.0 3.4 8.7 5.3 0.2 0.4 0.7 Supplementary feed use 12.3 1.7 0.7 1.0 1.9 8.8 5.7 0.2 0.3 0.6 Recommended fertilizer use 12.0 1.4 0.8 1.0 2.3 8.3 5.5 0.1 0.3 0.5 Common carp spooning 11.8 2.0 0.7 1.1 1.1 9.2 5.5 0.1 0.1 1.0 Recommended number 11.3 1.9 0.7 1.0 1.3 8.2 5.4 0.1 0.2 0.4 Recommended species 10.4 1.8 0.6 1.4 1.0 8.3 5.5 0.1 0.1 0.6 Traditional fish culture with 12.9 2.1 1.1 1.0 2.7 8.4 5.4 0.1 0.1 0.6 carp Collective fish culture (pond, 17.9 1.7 1.2 1.6 5.3 8.9 5.4 0.2 0.6 0.8 gher) Community fish culture (pond, 16.2 2.0 1.1 2.0 4.7 8.6 4.9 0.2 0.6 0.6 gher, bill) Fish cum duck-dike 18.9 2.4 1.6 1.9 5.1 8.9 5.3 0.1 0.4 0.7 Community based fish 15.3 2.4 0.7 1.9 4.5 9.0 5.3 0.1 0.6 0.9 cultivation (pond, gher) RTE fisheries 6.1 1.8 0.5 0.7 0.7 7.1 5.3 0.1 0.1 0.3 THH = Total Household

44 Table 3.4.4 Reasons for not adopting agro-processing and non-farm technologies by households of the FoSHoL project at the end period Project Area Control Area Not Not Name of technology Reasons for not adopting Reasons for not adopting adopted adopted Do not There is a Neighbors Not yet Do not There is a Neighbors know how risk as it is not yet care or know how risk as it is not yet Not yet to use new practicing decided to use new practicing decided % of % of % of % of % of % of THH THH % of THH THH THH THH % of THH % of THH THH % of THH Agro-processing Preservation techniques (green chili, green mango, olive) 9.1 2.7 1.5 0.9 2.8 7.2 4.7 0.0 0.4 0.9 Post harvest processing of (turmeric, chili, coriander) 7.9 2.7 0.7 1.0 2.6 6.0 4.4 0.0 0.2 0.5 Processed food (pickle, jelly) 8.8 4.1 1.0 1.1 1.7 8.7 5.6 0.3 0.6 1.4 RTE agro processing 5.1 3.2 0.4 0.4 0.7 6.5 5.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 Marketing practices General marketing technique (cleaning, grading) 4.9 1.2 0.7 0.4 1.2 6.9 5.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 Collective sale(vegetable, egg, Egg, Milk Fish, Fruit) 13.7 2.0 0.8 2.3 4.7 7.7 5.2 0.1 0.6 0.5 Collective purchase of agril. inputs 7.7 2.0 0.3 1.2 2.6 7.3 4.7 0.1 0.3 0.6 Small entrepreneur development ( Seed traders, Grinding 10.1 1.8 1.4 1.9 3.1 7.5 5.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 spices) Assemble market/farmer bazaar/farmer sell centre 9.7 2.4 0.8 1.2 3.0 7.6 5.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 Other professional work Nutrition education 4.9 1.3 0.3 0.7 1.8 8.2 5.1 0.1 0.4 1.5 Handicrafts (Bamboo, cane) 5.7 3.2 0.6 0.2 0.5 6.4 4.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 Marketable quilt sewing 6.8 3.5 0.5 0.8 0.6 7.3 5.0 0.1 0.4 0.5 Tailoring 5.9 4.0 0.4 0.5 0.3 6.4 5.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 Driving (tractor, power tiller, shallow machine, auto 6.0 2.9 0.5 0.3 1.0 7.7 5.2 0.1 0.2 0.7 rickshaws) Rickshaw/cycle repair 6.1 3.5 0.5 0.3 0.6 6.6 5.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Candle making 5.2 3.3 0.6 0.2 0.4 6.6 5.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 Packaging making 5.4 3.2 0.7 0.2 0.5 6.7 5.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 Irrigation equipment repair 5.6 3.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 6.6 5.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 Ring slab building 5.8 3.7 0.4 0.6 0.4 6.7 5.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 Block batik 5.8 3.7 0.6 0.6 0.2 6.5 5.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 RTE CNE 3.9 2.8 0.3 0.2 0.2 6.3 4.9 0.1 0.1 0.2 Others 3.8 2.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 6.2 4.8 0.1 0.1 0.2 THH = Total Household

45 3.2 Yield and income

3.2.1 Yield of major crops

Although a long list of major and minor crops were grown, and in many cases one or the other technology component was applied, it was very difficult to monitor changes in yield of all the crops as a result of all the innovations used. It was even more difficult to accurately attribute any change in yield due to the activities of the project as yield is a function of many variables. In order to highlight possible changes due to the project interventions, changes in yield of selected major crops were collected in detail in both base and end period surveys. The results are summarized in Table 4.1

Table 4.1 Changes in yield of major crops of the households in the FoSHoL project

End period (2008) Base period (2006) Net change (2006- Name of field Project Control Project Control 2008) crops Area (A2) Area (B2) Area (A1) Area (B1) (A2-A1)-(B2-B1) Yield Yield Yield Yield % change in Yield (ton/ha) (ton/ha) (ton/ha) (ton/ha) (ton/ha) 5.20 4.38 5.09 5.17 17 Boro rice (4.07) (4.51) (5.71) (3.77) 3.79 2.77 3.55 3.24 21 Aman rice (2.33) (1.73) (2.72) (1.77) 2.48 2.50 3.00 3.11 2 Aus rice (1.85) (2.52) (4.31) (1.51) 2.25 2.01 2.20 2.04 3 Wheat (1.09) (0.66) (2.24) (2.72) 2.66 3.29 2.48 3.30 Maize (3.52) (2.97) (3.75) (3.28) 8 2.34 2.11 2.89 1.90 Jute (0.60) (0.65) (0.72) (1.35) -30 9.36 6.85 6.76 5.78 Potato (8.27) (6.56) (1.06) (3.05) 20 0.94 0.86 1.00 1.06 Mustard (0.80) (1.11) (0.42) (2.62) 13 4.65 5.01 2.37 2.68 Chili (4.91) (4.40) (0.54) (0.48) 9 Figures in the parentheses are standards deviations

It appears that net increase in the yield rate of boro rice, aman rice, potato, mustard, chilli and maize was respectively 17%, 21%, 20%, 13%, 9% and 8% in the project areas. Net increase for aus rice and wheat was only 2 and 3% and in case of jute there was 30% net decrease. The case of jute is rather difficult to explain though jute yield is sensitive to time of sowing, germination rate, rainfall, and quality of retting and one or more of these factors might have affected the jute crop at the end period. Yield is a function of many factors including quality and quantity of inputs and quality of management as well as the agroecology under which production takes place. A proper comparison of the sources of yield difference would require estimating multivariate production functions for the two periods encompassing all the factors and agroecological diversities, which was not possible in this study. However, much of the promotional work was centred on dissemination of new technologies, especially for the crops under discussion, and some of which were adopted at varying rates by majority of the

46 farmers in the project areas and few in the control areas. So the net positive yield changes for some of these crops in the project areas could be reasonably attributed to the project efforts.

3.2.2 Costs and returns of rice crops

Detailed data on costs and returns were collected for three rice crops, as examples of crop profitability, from each farmer producing these crops in the base and end periods. Costs and returns were estimated at current or nominal prices of inputs and outputs. Cash cost included value of purchased inputs (seed, fertiliser, pesticide, hired labour, hire of plough/tiller etc). Full cost included all input costs including opportunity costs of fixed inputs. Overall, there was net increase in net return (value of output – cash costs) by 44, 67 and 121% for boro, aus and aman rice respectively in the project areas but net profit (value of output – full cost) declined by 26, 17 and 7% for the three rice crops respectively (Table 4.2). This has happened in spite of significant positive net changes in yields because net increase in costs, especially in case of aman rice, outweighed net increase in yield rates.

Prices of inputs and outputs might have changed between the two periods at varying rates, especially food prices increased unusually highly in 2008 due to a general global food shortage. So ideally constant base year prices should have been used for both inputs and outputs for a more accurate comparison of the extent of net changes. But detailed itemised costs were not shown in the base period report so it was not possible to attempt any standardization of costs and returns based on the end period data. Even if itemised costs for the base period were available, finding an appropriate deflator would be a major problem for standardizing costs and returns. Usually general inflation rate or consumer price index inflation rate is used for normalizing prices but these indices are based on a basket composed primarily of consumer goods. Rural indices are constructed on the basis of 215 commodities and services – 106 food items and 109 non-food items respectively giving 63% and 37% weight in the composite index. During 2005-2008, general rural CPI inflation rate was 6 - 9% but food inflation rate was 7 - 10% and non-food inflation rate was 4 - 7% (Mujeri et al., 2008). Therefore, these inflation rates would not be fully appropriate for deflating all the costs and returns of rice production by resource poor households for whom non-market inputs constituted a large share of costs and a large share of output was consumed at home. Moreover, actual acquisition costs for inputs involved significant transaction costs per unit due to scarcity, unequal market access and small volume of purchases, and similar problems affected prices received for small quantities of output sold. Therefore, comparison of changes in cash and full costs provided a good approximation of the reasons for net changes in net return and profit as explained above.

3.2.3 Household income

Fairly detailed records on household income by sources or activities were collected during both the base and end period surveys. Normally, it is quite impossible to fully account for income from all sources in a single visit survey of smallholder poor households who earn small income from a variety of sources but have no written records. Moreover, the arrangements of the items on which data were collected were somewhat complicated in the baseline survey, which was simplified in the end period survey. A consequence of this is that overall household income in the baseline was more underestimated than in the end period survey. The results are summarised in Table 4.3. Two major features emerge : there has been improvement in income, and there has been structural changes in the sources of income.

47 First, overall gross annual nominal income per household from agricultural and non- agricultural sources together was Tk 25703 and Tk 27046 respectively in the project and control areas during the base period. At the end period, income in the project areas increased by 4.3 times to Tk 111047 compared to 2.9 times to Tk 78898 in the control areas. So there was a net increase in income in the project areas by Tk 32149. Per capita annual household income in the base period was respectively Tk 5278 and Tk 5554 in the project and control areas. At the end period, per capita annual income increased by 4.2 and 2.8 times to respectively Tk 22165 and Tk 15780 in the project and control areas. So there was a net change in per capita income in the project areas by Tk 6385, or Taka 532 per month or Taka 18 per day. During 2005-2008, in rural areas general consumer price index inflation rate was 6-9% per year while food inflation rate was 7-10% and non-food inflation was 4-7% (Mujeri et al., 2008). If end period nominal income is deflated by the CPI inflation rate of 8% over the three year period, the end period income decreases by 24% to Tk 16845 and Tk 11992 in the project and control areas. Net change in income in the project areas also decreases to Tk 5062 or Tk 422 per month or Tk 14 per day. Therefore, the overall increase in income was very modest indeed. If the possibility of larger underestimation of base period income is considered, the net increase in income was even more negligible. Given the fact that grain is the most important item of consumption and expenditure for the poor target households and grain prices were exceptionally high in 2008, the net increase in income could possibly afford a marginally better, if at all, level of consumption or living in 2008-09 than in 2006.

The changes in income can be also shown in dollar terms though the implication will be different from that shown in terms of Taka. The base period income in the project and control areas was equivalent to about US$ 76 and 81, which was 21-22% of the poverty line defined as dollar a day income. The end period income was equivalent to US$325 and 232 in the project and control areas respectively. These were 89% and 63% of the poverty line income level yet the gains were substantial. Net change in per capita income was equivalent to US$98 or about US$8 per month or US$0.27 per day. Since the exchange rate between Taka and US$ remained fairly stable at around Taka 68-69 to a dollar throughout the study period, the increase in income in dollar terms looks quite substantial. However, because of the erosion of the purchasing power of taka due to domestic inflation, which basically determined the real income and poverty status of the project participants, measurement of change in income in dollar terms was not very meaningful.

Second, relative contributions of agricultural and non-agricultural activities changed in both the project and control areas but at different rates. In the base period, agriculture income in the project and control areas accounted for 70 and 66% of overall household income. At the end period, the ratios were respectively 57 and 53%, which implies that income from non- agricultural sources increased more than agricultural income. In the project areas, non- agricultural income increased from Tk 7656 to Tk 48443 or by 6.3 times and in the control areas it increased from Tk 9240 to Tk 37197 or by 4 times. On the other hand, agricultural income in the project areas increased from Tk 18046 to Tk 62604 or by 3.5 times and in the control areas it increased from Tk 17806 to Tk 41700 or by 2.3 times.

Third, relative contributions of individual activities within agriculture and non-agriculture also changed at different rates in the project and control areas. About two third of the net increase in agricultural income in the project areas came from significantly increased share of rice in agricultural income, which appeared reasonable because rice technologies received the highest attention from the project in terms of knowledge and capacity development as well as facilitation of access to inputs and services. Vegetables, livestock, poultry and fisheries

48 activities also made significant contribution to net increase in income in the project areas. The share of agricultural day labour decreased in both project and control areas but at a higher rate in the project areas, thus made a negative contribution to net change in income in the project areas. This seems consistent with the fact that rather than hiring out labour, participants were able to make more productive use of labour on own crop and other agricultural activities, enhancing their contribution to income generation. Among the non- agricultural activities, all the types of activities except service and relief/pension made positive contribution to net increase in income in the project areas. Business income alone accounted for nearly 60% of net increase in non-agricultural income, other main contributors were driving, carpentry, rickshaw pulling and non-agricultural wages.

Thus it appears that there has been significant increase in nominal household income and a change in the structure of the sources of income. It can be reasonably argued that a large share of the increase in agricultural income resulted from the FoSHoL project related technology adoption and related efforts though putting an actual number would be difficult. It is difficult to say how much of increased non-agricultural income, if any, resulted from FoSHoL project interventions.

49 Table 4.2 Changes in costs and returns for rice production by the FoSHoL project households

a. Costs (Tk/ha) Net changes (2006-2008), End period (2008) Base period (2006) (A2-A1)-(B2-B1) Rice Production cost in project Production cost in control Production cost in project area Production cost in control Crop area (A2) area (B2) (A1) area (B1) % change % change Full cost Cash cost Full cost Cash cost Full cost Cash cost Full cost Cash cost in cash cost in full cost Aman 25335 14938 22296 12995 17497 14136 20782 14828 18 38 Boro 37455 23871 35800 23740 28444 23898 29940 21495 -11 12 Aus 24547 13152 27959 18672 19140 12596 20120 18193 2 -11

b. Returns (Tk/ha) End period (2008) Base period (2006) Net changes Rice Project Area Control Area Project Area Control Area (2006-2008), (A2- Crop (A2) (B2) (A1) (B1) A1)-(B2-B1) % % Total Total Total change change value of Net Net value of Net Net Total value Net Net value of Net Net in net in net output return profit output return profit of output return profit output return profit return profit Aman 45577 30639 20242 31971 18976 9675 37063 22927 19566 35961 21133 15179 67 -7 Boro 58571 34700 21116 48383 24643 12583 53641 29743 25197 47916 26421 17976 44 -26 Aus 28222 15070 3675 32878 14206 4919 27067 14471 7927 38609 20416 18489 121 -17 Net return = Total value of output - cash cost; Net profit = Total value of output - full cost

50 Table 4.3 Changes in total household income (Taka) by sources End period (2008) Base period (2006) Net changes (2006-2008), Project Area (A2) Control Area (B2) Project Area (A1) Control Area (B1) (A2-A1)-(B2-B1) change in Change Number Annual Number Annual Number of Annual Number Annual change in % of % of % of % of number in annual Source of income of HH income of HH income HH income of HH income % of HH income income income income of HH income involved per HH involved per HH involved per HH involved per HH income involved per HH A. Agricultural activities Rice production 882 61.5 38519.5 716 56.7 23630.6 943 37.9 6,844.0 936 34.2 6086.7 159.0 1.1 14131.6 Non-rice production 710 7.1 4413.9 466 8.5 3557.5 339 6.8 1226.8 292 8.3 1470.3 197.0 0.0 1099.9 Vegetable production 658 4.5 2811.3 394 3.7 1555.7 574 4.4 795.1 574 3.7 661.7 264.0 0.1 1122.2 Livestock 802 11.2 6995.4 552 9.6 4020.4 441 14.9 2686.6 423 13.4 2386.4 232.0 0.0 2674.8 Poultry 824 3.0 1849.6 633 1.7 723.8 834 4.4 787.5 854 4.5 797.3 211.0 1.3 1135.5 Fisheries 263 2.7 1690.4 134 1.4 602.8 205 3.3 600.7 186 5.2 920.1 110.0 3.1 1407.0 Trees and fruits 162 1.0 601.1 117 1.5 610.3 390 2.7 486.4 431 3.3 581.1 86.0 0.1 85.5 Agricultural day labour 296 7.2 4499.3 397 15.2 6330.0 411 19.6 3543 464 22.5 4012.9 -48.0 -5.1 -1360.8 Others 106 0.7 407.8 118 0.9 375.5 279 5.5 983 294 4.6 812.5 3.0 -1.1 -138.2 Agro-processing 16 1.3 815.6 8 0.7 293.8 37 0.5 93.2 64 0.4 76.9 35.0 0.5 505.5 Sub-total (A) 1074 100.0 62604.0 1022 100 41700.4 1043 100 18,046.2 1087 100.0 17805.9 96.0 0.0 20663.3 B. Non-agricultural activities Service 101 6.3 3037.0 90 11.0 4073.3 82 15.9 1217.3 69 12.7 1177.0 -2.0 -7.8 -1076.7 Business(shop-keeping, 232 40.9 19815.5 159 32.6 12136.7 177 33.8 2586.8 180 26.5 2445.3 76.0 0.9 7537.2 contractor,mechanics etc.) Cottage industry 76 2.1 1028.4 35 1.6 589.0 27 0.9 71.7 21 1.6 143.8 35.0 1.2 511.5 Tailoring 38 1.7 813.2 26 2.1 775.7 23 1.2 95.2 32 2.6 239.4 21.0 0.9 181.8 Carpenter/Mason 49 7.9 3804.2 63 8.2 3063.7 71 7.6 580.0 78 9.6 889.0 -7.0 1.7 1049.5 Rickshaw/Van pulling 98 6.2 2988.3 84 5.1 1884.9 82 11.3 868.0 84 10.2 942.0 16.0 0.0 1177.5 Driving (mechanized transport) 47 10.4 5039.6 28 6.2 2304.2 20 3.9 299.0 11 2.2 198.0 10.0 2.5 2634.4 Non-agricultural wages 194 13.5 6531.1 171 15.8 5882.1 155 9.1 698.0 142 11.5 1066.0 10.0 0.1 1017.0 Foreign remittance 24 2.9 1392.5 22 3.1 1163.5 3 0.2 12.0 3 0.9 80.0 2.0 0.5 297.0 In country remittance 12 0.5 236.4 26 1.2 440.2 54 3.2 246.0 147 8.5 786.0 79.0 4.6 336.2 Interest from Bank, NGOs, CBOs 23 0.5 226.5 10 0.5 173.8 13 0.1 5.0 27 0.3 27.0 27.0 0.2 74.7 etc.) Others (pension, relief etc.) 84 7.3 3530.5 96 12.7 4710.8 109 12.8 977.0 164 13.5 1245.0 43.0 -4.6 -912.3 Sub-total (B) 854 100.0 48443.1 836 100.0 37197.8 657 100 7656.0 731 100 9240.0 92.0 0.0 12829.3 C. Annual income per household 1074 111047.1 1055 78898.3 1090 25703.0 1091 27046.0 20.0 33491.8 (A + B) D. Per capita annual income 22165.1 15779.7 5278 5554 6661.4

51 3.3 Food security status and coping strategies

Food security is indicated by availability and access to food. While food is a composite term encompassing all kinds of food items, a greater emphasis in this section is given on rice because of the overwhelming importance of rice in poor people‘s diet and the general norm in village society, especially among the poor, to consider self sufficiency in rice as more or less synonymous with self sufficiency or security in food. Achieving self-sufficiency in rice production therefore remains an overwhelming goal of poor households to shield them from the effects of market uncertainties. It may be noted that in economic terms, subsistence production is usually defined as production for own consumption rather than for the market. However, subsistence in this case does not necessarily imply full self sufficiency or food security or complete non-participation in the market. This was clarified by Wharton Jr (1962) who distinguished three meanings of subsistence: subsistence production – production only for own consumption; subsistence consumption – a level of consumption that is adequate for life sustenance, and subsistence income – a level of income that gives subsistence level of consumption or living. Thus, a producer may participate in the market as a buyer or a seller yet achieve only subsistence level of consumption or living, which may in some cases fall short of full food security.

The FoSHoL project recognized that resource poor households would partly produce food and depend on the market for the rest based on income earned one way or another, and tried to contribute to improved food security in that context (IRRI, 2007). So in this section, changes in availability and access to food will be discussed in terms of a number of indicators such as degree of self sufficiency in rice production, crisis or difficult months faced by households for food especially rice consumption, strategies to cope with such crisis, types of shocks faced and strategies adopted to deal with them, consumption pattern for selected food items and nutritional status of children by gender.

3.3.1 Self-sufficiency in rice production and managing shortages

The respondents were asked about the months during the 12 months preceding the survey when they were able to consume rice from own production. At the base period, there was a similar pattern in responses in the project and control areas. A maximum of 70% of the households in both areas were able to consume rice from own production in the month of Joistho, about the same proportion did so in project areas in Poush but in control areas it was a slightly lower proportion (Table 5.1). Choitro and Kartick appeared to be leanest months in both areas when only about 20% of the households were able to consume own produced rice followed by Aswin when 30-33% were able to do so. By the end period, proportion of households able to consume own produced rice on a month by month basis increased in both control and project areas, but the rate of increase was much higher in the project areas. And Choitra, Kartik and Aswin still remained the leanest months. Overall, net changes in the percentage of households able to consume own produced rice varied from 8% in Magh to 29% in Aswin.

Respondents were asked in which of the 12 months preceding the survey they faced food crisis or shortage, if any. These respondents primarily included households which could not consume own produced rice in the relevant months and also included some households which consumed own produced rice but did not necessarily had full food security or adequate level of food or rice consumption. Such crisis ridden households were also asked how they coped with the shortages. The responses summarized in Table 5.2 show that a fairly similar

52 proportion of households in both the control and project areas faced food shortage throughout the year at the base period but at the end period a smaller proportion did so in the project areas. The two most direct ways such households dealt with the crisis at the base as well as the end period were reducing the number of meals per day and/or reducing the quantity of food per meal. The leanest months like Aswin, Kartick, Falgoon and Choitra also coincided with highest proportion of households applying these instruments in meeting food shortage in both the project and control areas. Overall, there was net decline in the proportion of households facing food crisis and proportion of households who reduced quantity of food and/or number of meals per day in almost every month, especially during the leanest months in the project areas.

Some households have used alternative ways of accessing food to deal with the shortage rather than accepting lower intake by reducing quantity of food and/or number of meals per day, so as to maintain the consumption level. About 0.7 % to 8.0 % of the households borrowed rice from relatives or neighbours, sometimes with interest, 0.9 % to 10 % borrowed money to buy rice, 0.1 % to 0.7 % sold other crop(s) in stock or standing crop(s), 0.1 % to 2 % sold labour in advance or other assets. There was no significant difference in the use of these strategies between the project and the control areas. Only remarkable difference is observed in selling labour in advance in control area ranges from 1.2 % to 3.8 %.

Table 5.1 Household consuming rice from own production by months End period (2008) Base period (2006) Net change (2006-2008), Project Control Project Control (A2-A1)-(B2-B1) area(A2) area(B2) area(A1) area(B1) Month % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH Boishak 80.7 59.8 39.3 36.1 17.7 Joistho 93.0 77.3 70.3 70.3 15.7 Asar 89.3 71.4 69.4 67.8 16.3 srabon 86.1 64.6 61.0 61.1 21.6 Bhadro 80.4 55.5 51.6 54.8 28.2 Aswin 66.3 40.6 29.6 33.2 29.3 Kartik 59.0 35.8 21.7 22.1 23.6 Agrahayan 85.2 64.7 62.3 55.9 14.1 Poush 87.2 71.7 71.4 64.1 8.2 Magh 84.2 67.3 64.4 55.5 8.0 Falgun 73.0 50.6 39.1 33.5 16.8 Choitro 62.1 37.6 20.3 18.4 22.6 THH-Total Household

3.3.2 Shocks and coping strategies

Respondents were asked if in the 12 months preceding the survey they suffered from any natural/environmental calamities or unexpected events or shocks that exacerbated their food crisis. At the base period, a quarter of the households in both project and control areas reported sufferings due to various natural calamities or social shocks, the major ones being sickness of the main income earner leading to loss of working days and income; other major shocks arose from flood/monsoon, sickness of other members of the family, loss/death of

53 animals and poultry, theft/robbery, and a number of other reasons (Table 5.3). At the end period, the main sources of shocks were more or less the same as in the base period and the proportion of households affected by a particular shock was higher in some cases and lower in others and there was a difference in the direction and extent of change between the project and the control areas. Also the outcome of these shocks varied between the two periods and project and control areas. For example, average annual working days lost due to sickness of the wage earner of the household decreased from 45 days in the base period to 31 days at the end period in the project areas but remained unchanged at 38 days in the control areas (Table 5.4).

At the end period survey, an attempt was made to assess the money value of various losses due to the shocks/crisis events whether in the form of loss or damage to crops, property or other assets or loss of wage and income. Since this information was not available for the base period, project and control areas were compared at the end period. On average, on a per event basis, dowry payment was one of the highest loss inflicting event followed by cyclone, divorce/separation, flood, sickness of main income earner and loss/death of livestock. Overall average loss per household was Tk 5024 in project areas and Tk 3398 in control areas (Table 5.3). These numbers are quite close to the net increase in overall household income in real terms, which means that shocks and crises have in fact eater up the gains made through adoption of improved technologies and resulting outcomes.

Respondents were asked about the strategies they used to deal with the after effects of the shocks/crises faced. Information on shock specific coping strategies was not available for the base period but strategies used in the aggregate for all kinds of shocks showed that generally borrowing from various formal and informal sources, adjustment in meals and disinvestment of various assets were the most important strategies used. At the end period, strategies varied to some extent by type of the shock, the nature of effects or losses, and location, i.e. project vs control areas. Some shocks, for example loss of crops due to flood or loss of livestock due to diseases or floods, required to be handled over a longer period and some shocks such as dowry payment or settlement for divorce had to be resolved instantaneously or within short periods. However, it appears that borrowing from formal and informal sources and utilization of savings, where available, were used by most of the affected households as the mechanism to deal with the after effects of nearly all types of shocks/crises – some more than others. Disinvestment of assets of one kind or another was also commonly used as a mechanism to cope with shocks (Table 5.5). For certain types of shocks, there was some difference between the project and control areas but for others, there was little or no difference.

Natural calamities and other kinds of shocks were external events which the FoSHoL project could not prevent but perhaps it was hoped that project interventions might enable affected project participants deal with the shocks better than the non-participants because of higher output and income and also support (financial, physical & moral) from their own groups in which they belonged. However, no clear indication of such difference emerged from the coping strategies used by affected households in the project and control areas. For example, borrowing and utilization of savings was a commonly used strategy by affected households in both project and control areas but households in the project areas did not at all mention borrowing from the group savings funds to deal with shocks. The source of savings used for crisis management was also not clear, perhaps it was family savings other than the contributions to the group saving fund because access to that savings would only be in the form of borrowing from the group. The group savings was promoted by the project to meet

54 the financial needs of the members but it is unclear if it was meant only for productive investment needs and not for other purposes such as dealing with crisis. If the latter, the savings funds would not be fully useful for enhancing food security of the poor as ability to deal with crisis is an essential means of reducing food insecurity of such households.

55

Table 5.2 Food crisis months and status of meals taken per day End period (2008) Base period (2006) Net change (2006-2008), (A2-A1)-(B2-B1) Project Area(A2) Control Area(B2) Project Area(A1) Control Area(B1) % change of HHs Average HHs Average HHs Average HHs HHs Average % change HH who HHs reduced no. of HHs reduced no. of meal HHs reduced no. of facing reduced no. of of HH reduced facing quantity meal taken facing quantity taken per facing quantity meal taken difficult quantity meal taken facing quantity of Month difficulty of food per day difficulty of food day difficulty of food per day y of food per day difficulty food

% of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of THH THH THH THH THH THH THH THH Boishak 17.6 5.0 2.9 33.4 10.0 2.6 32.4 30.0 2.74 37.0 34.9 2.7 -11.2 0.0 Joistho 6.2 1.2 3.0 14.8 4.6 2.9 9.6 9.0 2.92 9.6 9.5 2.9 -8.5 -2.9 Asar 10.1 3.5 3.0 20.9 5.9 2.8 14.4 13.6 2.9 14.1 13.9 2.8 -11.1 -2.0 srabon 12.8 4.9 3.0 26.8 7.1 2.7 17.3 16.4 2.87 17.0 16.9 2.8 -14.3 -1.7 Bhadro 18.3 5.6 2.9 37.0 9.5 2.5 25.3 24.0 2.79 20.3 20.2 2.8 -23.6 -7.7 Aswin 36.0 11.1 2.7 56.6 13.9 2.3 55.5 50.8 2.59 48.5 45.2 2.6 -27.6 -8.5 Kartik 45.5 12.7 2.6 65.3 16.2 2.2 67.2 61.5 2.48 63.2 59.4 2.6 -23.8 -5.7 Agrahayan 12.1 4.3 3.0 27.3 7.5 2.7 16.9 15.1 2.79 16.0 15.5 2.8 -16.1 -2.8 Poush 10.8 3.6 3.0 19.8 5.0 2.8 10.7 9.4 2.86 11.9 11.8 2.9 -7.8 1.0 Magh 13.3 4.0 3.0 23.7 6.1 2.7 15 13.5 2.83 16.4 16.2 2.8 -9.0 0.6 Falgun 23.0 6.7 2.8 41.5 10.7 2.5 32.1 29.2 2.71 34.5 33.4 2.7 -16.1 0.2 Choitro 37.5 8.8 2.6 59.1 15.3 2.3 54.9 51.0 2.61 65.7 62.1 2.6 -10.7 4.7

THH – Total Household

Note : this table can be supplemented with table 31c in your table output list. In that table there are various means to cope with food crisis but some means can be merged to reduce n of columns e.g. borrow rice or money can be one column by merging adding) four columns, sale of crops can be one column by merging two columns, sale of assets and other can be one column by merging

56 Table 5.3 Shock faced by households of FoSHoL project during 2008-2009 Net change End period (2008) Base period (2006) (2006-2008), Project Area (A2) Control Area (B2) Project Control Area (A2-A1)-(B2- Area (A1) (B1) B1) Shock/crisis Value of loss Shock/crisis Value of loss Shock/crisis Shock/crisis Kind of shock faced (Tk/HH) faced (Tk/HH) faced faced % of THH Mean Standard % of THH Mean Standard % of THH % of THH Change in % of Deviation Deviation THH Flood (Flash/monsoon) 16.7 5873 6496 11.8483 5189 7190 12.9 20.0 11.9 Excessive rain 3.9 1943 3509 6.1 2233 3662 10.8 11.3 -1.7 Cyclone 9.6 6946 28676 9.4 4294 8782 6.4 6.1 -0.2 Drought 1.6 1377 3961 1.1 1362 4849 2.8 7.5 5.2 Water logging 3.8 3451 6412 3.6 2465 8857 2.7 2.1 -0.3 Increase of salinity 1.1 542 1193 0.7 431 1865 0.6 2.7 2.5 Death of income earner 1.0 3575 14623 0.7 1158 6727 1.3 0.7 -0.2

Sickness of income earner 25.4 4942 8563 29.1 4499 6117 24.7 27.9 -0.5 and loss of working days Serious sickness of other 24.1 5202 8213 26.2 6558 11601 8.6 15.6 family members 4.9 Divorce/Separation 0.4 5976 19475 0.9 1400 6685 0.7 0.6 -0.6 Theft/ robbery 2.6 4335 9787 2.4 1319 2863 2.7 15.4 13.0 Loss of land 0.5 3111 12678 0.6 3279 14951 1.0 0.4 -0.7 Loss/death of livestock 8.8 5321 10812 10.0 3886 7488 9.2 10.8 0.5 Loss/death of poultry 24.9 1598 4450 24.5 1182 1557 18.6 16.9 -1.3 Dowry payment 1.9 16355 35591 2.1 8397 26856 2.8 2.7 -0.4 Recent price hike 10.3 5196 5954 6.8 4339 6109 6.8 10.3 Others* 5.4 9674 20003 3.8 5788 12382 8.3 6.7 0.0 Overall average 5024 3398 THH = Total Households; HH = Household

*Judicial case, injury from accident, wedding expenses, river erosion etc.

57

Table 5.4 Annual non-working days due to sickness of wage earner of the household during 2008-09

End period (2008) Base period (2006) Net change (2006-2008), Duration Project Area (A2) Control area (B2) Project Area (A1) Control Area (B1) (A2-A1)-(B2-B1) N of HHs N of HHs % N of HHs N of HHs % % % Change in % of affected affected affected affected household

Up to 7 days 63 19.3 66 18.8 24 8.9 15 4.9 -3.5 8 to 14 days 56 17.2 56 15.9 35 13.0 37 12.2 0.5 15 to 30 days 121 37.1 115 32.7 123 45.7 162 53.3 12 31 to 60 days 53 16.3 53 15.1 42 15.6 58 19.1 4.7 61 to 90 days 19 5.8 32 9.1 25 9.3 17 5.6 -7 Above 90 days 14 4.3 29 8.3 20 7.4 15 4.9 -6.5 Total 326 100 351 100 269 100 304 100

Average non- working days per 31.2 38.2 44.6 38.9 household

58 Table 5.5 Main coping strategies due to shock faced by FoSHoL households Project Area Control Area Flood Droug Cyclon Excess Water Increa Death Sickne Seriou Divorc Theft/ Loss of Loss/d Loss/d Dowry Recent Flood Droug Cyclon Ex W Inc De Sickne Seriou Di Th Lo Lo Lo Do Re (Flash/ ht e ive rain logging se of of ss of s e/Sepa robber land eath of eath payme price (Flash/ ht e ce ate re ath ss of s vor eft/ ss ss/ ss/ wr ce monso salinity income income sickne ration y livesto of nt hike monso ssi r as of income sickne ce/ ro of de de y nt on) earner earner ss of ck poultry on) ve log e inc earner ss of Se bb lan ath ath pa pri other rai gin of om other pa ery d of of ym ce family n g sal e family rati liv po ent hik memb init ea memb on est ultr e ers y rn ers oc y er k Coping strategy % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % of % % % % % of % of % % % % % % % AHH AHH AHH AHH AHH AHH AHH AHH AHH AHH AHH AHH AHH AHH AHH AHH AHH AHH AHH of of of of AHH AHH of of of of of of of AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH AH H H H H H H H H H H H Loan from 25. 13. 42. 14. 11. 20. 16. 13. 15. neighbours/relative 30.7 41.2 35.0 26.2 19.5 25.0 0.0 38.1 31.7 75.0 39.3 20.0 17.9 18.0 10.0 13.5 21.6 16.7 38.4 34.5 31.9 9.1 8.3 0 2 9 3 1 0 7 3 5 s Loan from money 14. 71. 14. 11. 13. 7.8 5.9 7.8 4.8 9.8 0.0 9.1 12.1 5.8 0.0 3.6 0.0 2.1 2.2 10.0 4.5 16.8 16.7 10.1 5.3 16.3 14.9 4.0 0.0 2.9 2.7 4.2 lender 1 4 3 1 6 17. 10. 28. 12. 16. 36. Loan from NGO 23.5 5.9 27.2 19.0 24.4 16.7 18.2 11.4 19.3 25.0 14.3 20.0 5.3 7.1 15.0 7.2 42.4 8.3 23.2 0.0 12.4 14.1 0.0 5.7 4.3 9.7 2 5 6 0 7 4 12. 15. 8.9 5.9 1.9 14.3 7.3 8.3 0.0 3.7 1.9 0.0 3.6 0.0 2.1 1.1 0.0 1.8 10.4 33.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.6 0.0 0.0 Grain loan from kin 5 8 50. 2.2 0.0 1.0 2.4 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.1 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Loan from bank 0 Adjustment to 13. 33. 12. 7.8 5.9 1.0 7.1 0.0 8.3 0.0 1.8 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 3.0 0.0 3.6 3.2 8.3 4.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.7 0.0 4.0 2.9 4.3 4.5 meals 2 3 5 Farmland 22. 16. 27. 1.7 23.5 2.9 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 2.6 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 1.1 25.0 2.7 0.8 8.3 2.0 1.6 7.9 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.4 0.0 1.0 0.4 4.2 mortgage out 2 7 3 Farmland leased 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 5.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 1.4 out Sold household 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 5.9 4.6 0.0 3.6 0.0 4.2 1.9 0.0 1.8 0.8 8.3 1.0 1.6 5.3 0.0 0.0 2.9 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 productive assets 11. 31. 4.5 0.0 5.8 2.4 14.6 0.0 9.1 9.9 11.6 25.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.7 25.0 3.6 7.2 0.0 4.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 9.4 4.0 0.0 1.0 0.4 2.8 Sold livestock 1 8 Sold poultry / egg 15.6 0.0 1.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 9.1 7.0 10.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 2.1 2.2 0.0 10.8 7.2 0.0 1.0 1.6 2.6 0.0 0.0 4.6 8.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 6.9 10. 14. 9.5 0.0 3.9 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 4.6 25.0 14.3 40.0 5.3 6.0 10.0 6.3 8.0 0.0 5.1 3.1 0.0 2.0 4.3 0.0 4.0 0.0 5.7 2.7 9.1 9.7 Sold trees 5 3

Sold jewellery 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 11. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.4 5.0 0.9 0.8 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Sold tin sheets 1 Sold standing 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 20.0 1.1 0.4 5.0 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.1 0.0 4.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 crops in advance Sold fish in advance at a lower 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 0.0 9.1 0.4 1.2 0.0 3.6 0.0 2.1 1.5 0.0 3.6 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.8 0.0 2.8 price Sold agri. products 1.7 0.0 1.0 7.1 0.0 0.0 18.2 2.6 1.5 0.0 0.0 20.0 3.2 2.6 5.0 4.5 2.4 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 2.3 2.9 0.0 4.0 0.0 4.8 3.1 0.0 2.8 at a low price Sold fruits in 11. 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.8 0.0 3.6 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0 0.9 0.8 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.8 0.0 0.0 advance 1 Sold advance men 1.7 5.9 0.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.5 0.0 3.6 0.0 1.1 4.1 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 5.1 3.1 2.6 0.0 0.0 2.9 2.5 0.0 4.0 0.0 1.9 1.6 9.1 4.2 labour Sold land 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 14. 22. 16. 15. 12. 34. 19.6 0.0 16.5 9.5 9.8 33.3 18.2 21.2 27.4 25.0 17.9 20.0 10.5 15.0 10.0 31.5 10.4 0.0 24.2 7.8 0.0 0.0 20.8 25.7 8.0 9.1 Utilized savings 3 2 7 2 8 7 Purchased goods 10. 23. 2.8 0.0 1.9 4.8 9.8 0.0 0.0 4.4 2.3 0.0 3.6 0.0 2.1 3.4 0.0 4.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.5 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 5.8 0.0 8.3 on credit 9 7 14. 12. Others 3.4 0.0 6.8 4.8 0.0 16.7 18.2 6.4 8.5 0.0 7.1 20.0 7.4 4.2 20.0 15.3 5.6 16.7 4.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 3.6 5.8 0.0 0.0 4.8 4.7 4.5 9.7 3 0

AHH = Affected Household ; Others include taken relief, eaten low grade food, reduced treatment, send son to work in lieu of school, sold child labour, migrated temporarily, etc.

59

3.3.3 Food consumption and nutritional status

In the baseline the following indicators were quantified to assess food consumption and nutritional status in project and control areas: per capita calorie intake, frequency of consumption of some quality food items by gender, and child nutritional status.

3.3.3.1 Calorie intake

The calorie intake was measured on the basis of food consumed on a single 24-hour recall basis. It was found that in the project areas 45% of the sample household population had per capita calorie consumption below 2122 kcal per day compared to 48% in the control areas; others had above 2122 kcal consumption per capita. About 28% of the household population in both project and control areas consumed below 1805 kcal per day. It has been argued in the methodology section that a single 24-hour recall was not adequate for accurately measuring food intake in nutritional terms, and time and resources were not adequate for collecting data for 3 consecutive days considered appropriate for accurate estimation. Moreover, it was argued that estimation of calorie intake based on full meal count for the entire household was not essential to determine nutritional status of the household, rather child nutritional status and other parameters such as consumption of selected quality food items were adequate for evaluating nutritional status of the household. So detailed food consumption was not quantified during the end of project survey.

3.3.3.2 Consumption of selected quality food items

The base line presented data on proportion of households that consumed fish, egg, pulses, milk, fruits and vegetables during the week prior to the survey and meat during the month prior to the survey. Data was also presented on the number of meals containing those items taken by male and female members during the past week or month. These are shown in Table 5.6.

It appears that there was a fair amount of similarity between the project and control areas in terms of proportion of households consuming the selected food items and the number of meals taken by age group and gender. However, a smaller proportion of households in control areas consumed meat, infants in general took slightly fewer number meals compared to other age groups and female infants consumed a slightly larger number of meals with milk. Other than these, no significant differences between gender were observed in the survey areas. Possible gender differences in the consumption of the selected food items, which are regarded as quality foods, was perhaps the logic behind estimating average number of meals taken by age and gender. But any discrimination between male and female by age in terms of number of meals taken would be exception rather than common even under conditions of extreme poverty. If a food item was cooked, it would be normally expected that all members of the household would have some share in it.

Empirical evidence in other contexts have found that discrimination by age or sex might be shown in terms of the quantity offered or certain portion offered to certain age or sex group e.g. best portion of a fish or chicken may be given to a particular sex or age group. Therefore, in the end of project survey, information of the same type were not collected, rather questions were asked on whether the selected food items were consumed during the week or month

60 preceding the survey, and if so whether any age or sex group within the household was given priority in allocating the specific food item. The results are summarized for the project and control areas in Table 5.7. In interpreting the table it should be noted that not every household had household members in the three age brackets and sex groups mentioned in the table. Therefore the answers were given on the basis of types of members present in the household at the time of the survey.

Table 5.6 Proportion of households consuming selected food items during past week/month and average number of meals taken by age group and gender, 2006 Food items Ref % Av number of meals taken by age group and gender unit households consumed 0-5 years 6-14 years 15 + years Male Female Male Female Male Female Project areas Meat LM 50 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 Fish LW 87 2.3 2.4 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.6 Egg LW 62 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.3 Milk LW 38 1.9 2.1 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 Fruits LW 45 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.2 1.3 Vegetables LW 99 7.7 8.8 11.9 12.6 12.4 12.5 Pulses LW 68 2.2 2.4 3.7 3.8 3.6 3.5 Control areas Meat LM 43 0.5 0.6 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 Fish LW 86 2.1 2.7 4.4 4.2 4.0 4.0 Egg LW 59 1.0 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 Milk LW 39 2.0 2.5 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.3 Fruits LW 40 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.9 Vegetables LW 99 8.9 9.1 15.7 14.8 14.2 14.0 Pulses LW 71 2.0 2.5 3.6 3.7 3.5 3.5 LM- last month, LW - Last week

It appears that a higher proportion, in some cases significantly higher proportion, of households in project areas consumed the selected food items compared to those in the control areas. Only small fish was consumed by about the same proportion of households in both the areas. In terms of priority given to any age or sex group, the following patterns emerge. First, for infants, proportion of consuming households that gave priority to male was about the same as that gave priority to female in both project and control areas except that in case of milk in the project areas, a slightly higher proportion mentioned giving priority to male infants. Second, for other age groups, for all the food items, generally a higher proportion of consuming households mentioned giving priority to males compared to those who mentioned giving priority to females and the differences in favour of males were quite large in case of some items like fish, meat and eggs. Third, a good proportion of households mentioned that they did not give any priority to any age or sex group in food allocation, and a small proportion did not answer the question.

Rationally, any discrimination in food allocation by sex or age is unethical and undesirable. When there is inadequate supply to meet everyone‘s needs, sometimes some rationing may be required yet discrimination would still be undesirable. But in reality it appears that among the resource poor households, who usually have inadequate quantities available to meet everyone‘s needs, some give priority to either male or female of a particular age group and others don‘t and it appears that a higher proportion of households give priority to males compared to those that give priority to females. So although there was no universal

61

Table 5.7 Important food items consumed by household members during last week/month prior to survey 2009

Project Area Reference Food item time No of days eaten Priority given to Male Famale Male Female Male Female All HH No child( Child ( child(5- child(5- aduld(16 (16&above) members anwser below 5) below 5) 15) 15) & above)

Mean % of HH % of HH % of HH % of HH % of HH % of HH % of HH % of HH % of HH Large fish Last Week 2 72.9 2.8 3.1 13.1 8.0 31.1 3.7 9.8 1.2 Small fish Last Week 3 87.9 3.3 4.1 12.2 7.6 22.8 16.3 18.4 3.0 Meat Last month 2 59.6 2.5 2.6 12.2 6.4 19.9 3.4 10.9 1.6 (chicken/duck) Meat( beef) Last month 3 32.6 0.7 1.5 5.0 2.6 12.0 1.8 8.4 0.7 Meat( mutton) Last month 2 10.4 0.4 0.3 1.7 0.9 2.5 0.6 3.8 0.3 Egg Last week 3 81.5 6.9 5.9 18.3 11.2 18.4 4.9 14.0 1.9 Milk Last week 4 46.5 5.6 3.8 9.5 6.3 9.9 3.0 7.1 1.2 Fruit(local) Last week 3 65.5 3.9 3.8 13.8 8.5 12.1 6.5 15.0 1.9 Fruit( imported) Last week 2 24.4 1.9 1.6 5.7 3.1 4.4 2.2 4.4 1.1 Vegetable Last week 6 99.8 3.1 3.1 7.9 6.7 20.3 23.9 33.0 4.4 Dal Last week 3 16.7 0.2 0.4 1.1 1.1 4.3 2.3 4.9 2.0 HH = Households

62 unidirectional male bias in food allocation, there was more male bias than female bias within the sample in both project and control areas.

3.3.3.3 Child nutritional status

The base line survey reported high incidence of under nutrition reflected in wasting, stunting and underweight of infants (0-59 months age) in both the project and control areas (Table 5.8). Wasting and stunting rates were slightly higher among male infants than female infants. It should be noted that these rates were much higher than the national averages because the sample in the present study involved only resource poor food insecure households.4 By the end period, child nutritional status improved significantly in the project areas : compared to the base period, wasting rate halved, stunting rate decreased by one third and underweight rate decreased by a quarter. On the other hand, the status in the control areas remained virtually unchanged. For the end period, infants who were measured at the base period and were still below 60 months of age and infants born after the base line survey were separately analysed to see if the status of these two groups differed but no significant difference was found. In the project areas, wasting and stunting rates in the base period were higher among male infants than female infants. At the end period, the position reversed because of higher rates of improvement among male compared to female infants.

Table 5.8 Percentage of wasting, stunting and underweight of children aged between 0 and 59 months by gender Nutrition status Project Area Control Area Male Female Total Male Female Total End period 2008 Total number 224 212 436 207 191 398 Wasted (%) 6.8 9.7 8.1 17.3 14.3 15.9 Stunted (%) 42.2 46.7 44.4 61.3 61.5 61.4 Underweight (%) 34.6 33.0 33.8 48.5 40.1 44.4 Base period 2006 Total number 232 235 467 259 242 501 Wasted (%) 19.0 14.5 16.7 18.9 16.1 17.6 Stunted (%) 65.9 58.3 62.1 63.7 59.9 61.9 Underweight (%) 44.0 44.7 44.3 51.7 46.3 49.1 Note: Wasted (Weight-for-height); Stunted (Height-for-age); Underweight (Weight-for-age)

The general improvement in child nutritional status in the project areas is consistent with the fact that a significantly higher proportion of households in the project areas reported consumption of selected high quality food items compared to the control areas (cf Table 5.6). Also a reasonable amount of net increase in income in the project areas afforded them to acquire relatively more and better quality food than in the control areas. The reason for higher rate of improvement for male infants in the project areas however can‘t be explained easily because only a small but almost equal proportion of respondents reported bias towards either male or female infants in allocating quality food items.

4 For example, in 2000, BBS child nutrition survey reported wasting, stunting and underweight rates of 11.7%, 48.8% and 51.1% respectively. Hellen Keller International‘s 2000 survey reported the rates respectively as 11.9%, 50.7% and 52.8% for rural areas (HKI, 2004).

63 3.4 Living conditions and incidence of major diseases

Food consumption on its own may not ensure good nutritional status for infants and good health for the adults unless appropriately complemented by a number other health conditioning factors such as a dwelling house that can protect from cold and unfavourable weather, access to clean potable water, hygienic toilet facilities. The status of these indicators of living conditions and some hygienic practices such as washing hands with soap after using toilet, washing hands with soap before and after taking meals and wearing sleepers or shoes, may influence incidence of common diseases especially worm and bacterial infections, and moderate positively or negatively the effectiveness of food consumed and nutritional or health status achieved. Information on hygienic practices such as washing hands and wearing sleepers were incomplete, so changes in the indicators of living conditions and incidence of diseases between base and end period have been compared.

It appears that there has been only a marginal net improvement in the quality of dwelling houses in the project areas as the proportion of households owning semi-pucca houses increased and those of mud-floor and jhupri decreased (Table 5.9). Access to clean water has also increased moderately in the project areas as proportion of households owning hand tube well- the most common cheapest form of access to clean water in rural areas- increased in the project areas but remained virtually unchanged in the control areas. There has been also a moderate net improvement in the acquisition of ring slab water sealed type latrine in place of ring slab without water sealed type latrine and open space toileting in the project areas.

Incidence of common diseases could not be measured using standard epidemiological concepts. However, households were asked to report if any member of the family suffered at least once from some of the common diseases or disease conditions during 12 months prior to the survey. It appears that cold attack with or without fever, gastric, diarrhoea and dysentery are the most common diseases from which the household members suffered during both base and end periods. Only in case of two diseases – cold attack/fever and dysentery- there has been perceptible net changes in incidences. Incidences of these two diseases decreased in both project and control areas but the rate of decrease was higher in the control areas, so there was a net change in favour of the control areas. In case of other diseases, net changes in incidences were none or very minor.

Therefore, overall living conditions have improved slightly and incidence of common diseases either decreased slightly or at least did not worsen significantly between the two periods. These might have played some role in the improved nutritional status of infants. However, how much of these changes have occurred due to FoSHoL project interventions or actions by other government and non-government development agencies as part of routine development work is difficult to ascertain.

64 Table 5.9 Changes in living conditions and incidence of common diseases

Net changes (2006-2008) End period (2008) Base period (2006) (A2-A1)-(B2- B1) Project area Control area Project area Control area (A2) (B2) (A1) (B1) Change in % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH % of THH House typea Pucca 1.0 0.8 0.8 1 0.5 Semi pucca 10.9 7.9 5.8 6.7 3.9 Kancha floor 84.0 82.9 87.7 85.1 -1.4 Jhupri 3.9 7.9 5.7 7.1 -2.5 No house 0.2 0.5 0.0 0.1 -0.2 100 100 100 100 Access to clean water Households owing hand tubewell 53.8 46.3 41 48 14.5

Latrine type Sanitary or pucca (water sealed) 7.2 3.2 2.3 1.2 2.9 Pucca (not water sealed 2.4 3.2 1.7 1.2 -1.3 Ring–slab (water sealed) 40.1 27.3 21.1 21.5 13.2 Ring-slab (not water sealed) 30.1 35.1 33.6 29.1 -9.5 Open toilet 10.6 17.1 21.6 26.6 -1.4 Open space 9.6 14.1 19.8 19.8 -4.5 Total 100 100 100 100 Family members suffered from diseases at least once Cold attack/fever 72.0 69.5 80.8 86.3 8.0 Gastric 31.8 34.5 34.8 39.4 1.9 Diarrhoea 17.9 19.5 26.7 27.6 -0.7 Dysentery 14.1 13.8 19.7 25.2 5.7 Typhoid 6.2 6.4 9.3 8.7 -0.8 Skin diseases 8.8 8.7 7.5 7.6 0.2 Rheumatic fever 5.9 5.2 8.4 5.9 -1.8 Anemia 2.5 4.4 4.9 5.8 -0.9 Asthma 3.9 5.1 2.8 4.9 0.9 Tuberculosis 0.7 1.0 0.4 1.1 0.4 Night blindness 0.5 1.2 1.1 0.4 -1.5 Cancer 0.5 0.4 1.3 0.9 -0.3 Pneumonia 3.4 2.6 4.7 4.2 0.3 Chicken Pox 2.1 1.8 4.7 3.8 -0.6 Blood pressure 5.7 5.1 4.6 5.1 1.1 a. Definition of house type : Pucca – the floor of the main house is completely made of brick and cement

65 3.5 Physical, financial, human and social capital

The main thrust of the project was on dissemination and adoption of agricultural technologies and inputs for which land is the primary resource. Although major changes in land ownership in terms of size structure were not envisaged over the short period under consideration as land acquisition requires resources and few people want to part with land except under distress as a last resort. However, tenure status might have changed because of existing laws and practices and rental market conditions e.g. frequent change of rental contracts, as well as due to certain intervention of the project, especially the enforcement of the sharecropping laws in some areas. Therefore, an assessment was made of any change in the ownership and tenure status of land between the base and the end periods.

3.5.1 Ownership and tenure status of land

3.5.1.1 Size distribution of owned and cultivated land

Table 6.1 shows distribution of sample households – participants and non-participants- at two time periods according to ownership and cultivation of cultivable land and net changes between the two time points. Given that only resource poor food insecure household were targets, the distributions are heavily biased towards small holdings and do not resemble overall national level distribution by size of land. The fact that a few fairly large holdings by Bangladesh standard have been included is explained by the fact that some of them are joint families with a large family size so have food security problems as defined for this project or they have been inducted by the group because of their special skills or innovative and leadership capacity in addition to their food security problem of some degree.

The distributions in the project and control areas were fairly similar at the base period. But there have been some small net changes by the end period. According to the size of land owned (which included homestead, garden, crop land and pond), proportion of households in project areas belonging to <0.05 acre (landless) and 0.50-0.99 acre categories decreased by 3.4 and 0.7% respectively and proportion of households belonging to 0.05-0.49 and 1.00 to 4.99 acres increased by 0.5 to 1.9% (Table 6.1). This means that some very small land owners in the project areas have increased their land ownership by acquiring small amount of land and graduated them to a slightly higher scale more than their counterparts in the control areas. Similarly, according to size of land cultivated for crop production, there was no change in case of landless but proportion of households in the project areas cultivating 0.05 to 1.49 acres decreased by 0.3 to 9.2% and proportion of households cultivating over 1.5 acres increased by 0.4 to 5.9%. This means that some small farmers in project areas have been able to access some additional land for cultivation either through purchase or other means and graduated them to a slightly larger scale of cultivated land more than their counterparts in the control areas. 5

5 Information on land was recorded as reported by the households without verification as is the normal practice in surveys. Information on land is one of the most tricky areas in survey as errors can occur either because respondents may report amounts in round numbers or because of a tendency to somewhat under report for fear of tax imposition etc. So, the small net changes in the size of land owned and cultivated in the present sample should be interpreted in the above context with caution.

66

Table 6.1 Distribution of household by land size

Net change (2006- End period (2008) Base period (2006) 2008), (A2-A1)-(B2- B1)

Project Area Project Area (A2) Control area (B2) Control area (B1) Size of land (A1) (acre) % of % of % % % of % of hh hh by % of hh by % of % of hh change change hh by by size % of hh size of hh by size of hh by by size of hh by of hh by size of of by size cultiva size of cultiva size of of size of size of owned cultivabl of owned ble owned ble owned cultivabl owned cultivabl land e land land land land land land e land land e land

<.05 18.0 4.2 23.7 4.3 39.4 0.05 41.8 0.2 -3.4 0.0 (Landless) 0.05 to 0.49 65.7 44.7 63.9 52.2 31.7 24.86 31.9 23.1 1.9 -9.2 0.50 to 0.99 9.2 27.9 7.2 25.1 19.5 36.47 16.8 31.8 -0.7 -1.9 1.00 to 1.49 3.8 11.0 2.6 10.1 5.8 18.22 5.2 17.1 0.6 -0.3 1.50 to 2.49 3.1 10.2 2.0 6.2 3.1 15.52 3.1 16.5 1.1 5.0 2.50 to 4.99 0.4 2.1 0.5 2.1 0.5 3.48 1.1 9.5 0.5 5.9 5.00 to 7.49 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.40 0.1 1.8 0.0 0.4 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0.0 0.0

3.5.1.2 Tenancy status of land

By their very nature resource poor households do not depend on their own little land for their livelihood rather try to access land through other means such as renting and mortgaging, and they also sometimes rent and mortgage out their land for various reasons. Therefore, the tenure status of crop land and other types of land of the sample households is summarized in Table 6.2. During the base period, an average household in the project areas cultivated 0.79 acres compared to 0.91 acres in the control areas but at the end period the situation reversed: average cultivated area in project areas was 0.99 acres compared to 0.72 acres in the control areas. There was a net change of 0.4% in favour of the project areas.

At the base period, proportion of sample households owning, share cropping in, mortgaging in and leasing in were about the same in the project and control areas. The proportion of cultivated land under ownership, share cropping, mortgage and lease in also had a fairly similar pattern between the project and the control areas. At the end period, there was a net change in the proportion of sample households accessing cultivated land through different means and tenure status of cultivated land. At the end period, 11% more households owned land, 3% more households sharecropped in land, 7-8% more households mortgaged in or leased in land, and 0.3% more households accessed khas land in the project areas. Also there was 7.5% net decrease in the share of cultivated land under ownership, 5.7% decrease under sharecropping but 2.4-9.8% net increase in the share of cultivated land under mortgage in or lease in. In both project and control areas a small proportion of households had access to khas land but at the end period, none of the groups or group members had access to khas land and in the control areas fewer had access to a much smaller amount of such land compared to the base period.

A small proportion of sample households – 0.2 – 8%- in both project and control areas sharecropped out, mortgaged out, leased out or given out their crop land under other

67 arrangements at the base period. For the sample as a whole, the average amount per household was 0.05 and 0.07 acre in project and control areas respectively. At the end period, the proportion of sample households giving out land under these arrangements remained fairly the same as the base period and the average amount given out increased slightly to 0.08 and 0.10 acre respectively in project and control areas.

The end of project survey revealed that all the sample households had at least some homestead land, and 26-31% had additional land as garden/bushes. Average amount of land per household covering homestead, garden, bushes and fallow was 0.16 and 0.13 acre in project and control areas respectively. The baseline survey apparently did not record these types of land separately but included in the total amount of land owned as reported in Table 6.2.

In case of pond/ditch, in the base period, in both the project and control areas, only 2% of the sample households reported owning pond/ditch, another about 10% reported having access to pond or water bodies through leasing. At the end period, 32% of the sample households in project areas reported owning pond/ditch and another 4% reported access through leasing compared 18% and 1% respectively in the control areas. These figures seem highly suspect because such dramatic increase in pond ownership is highly improbable within the short period under consideration. One possibility is that pond ownership was under reported during the baseline, while having seen or experiencing the operation of the project and its good deeds, more accurate information on pond was reported at the end of project survey.

3.5.1.3 Availability and access to common property resources

Resource poor households may derive part of their livelihood from access to various common property resources including khas land and khas pond discussed earlier. Other than khas land, khas pond, beel and river, a miniscule proportion of households reported availability and access to other types of common property resources at baseline and end period (Table 6.3). In case of the main common property resources, compared to the base period, a somewhat higher proportion of households in both project and control areas reported availability and access.

So it appears that between the two periods there has been some net changes in the size structure of owned and cultivated land due to acquisition of more land and accessing more cultivated land through various arrangements in the project areas. Also there has been some net change in the proportion of households engaged in various tenure arrangements

68 Table 6.2 Tenancy pattern of households during 2008 Net change (2006-2008), (A2-A1)- End period (2008) Base period (2006) (B2-B1) Tenancy pattern Control Area (B2) Control Area (B1) Project Area (A2) Project Area (A1) % Change in change acre per % change of total HH in Percent of Acres per Cultivated Percent of Acres per Cultivated Percent of Acres per Cultivated Percent of Acres per Cultivated HH cultivated total HH household land (%) total HH household land (%) total HH household land (%) total HH household land (%) land Own land cultivated 70.8 0.67 47.6 57.5 0.59 47.2 61.2 0.6 46.2 59.9 0.6 38.2 11.9 0.1 -7.5 Land sharecropped-in 40.7 0.82 33.5 37.6 0.74 38.5 36.6 0.79 36.4 36.7 0.91 35.7 3.1 0.2 -5.7 Land mortgaged-in 18.4 0.48 9.0 11.3 0.42 6.5 11.0 0.47 6.6 11.0 0.56 6.6 7.1 0.2 2.4 Land leased/rent-in 10.0 0.99 10.0 6.9 0.79 7.5 11.4 0.71 10.2 16.2 1.01 17.6 7.9 0.5 9.8 Share of Kash land taken- 0 0 0 0.4 0.61 0.3 1.2 0.46 0.7 1.8 1.01 2.0 0.3 -0.1 1.0 in by group Land under cultivation - 0.99 100 - 0.72 100 - 0.79 100 - 0.91 100 0.4 0.0 (A) Land sharecropped-out 2.1 0.71 18.5 3.1 0.63 19.6 1.5 0.5 15.5 2.1 0.64 19.2 -0.4 0.2 2.7 Land mortgaged-out 6.0 0.36 26.9 4.9 0.28 13.7 8.1 0.42 71.5 8.5 0.43 51.4 1.5 0.1 -6.9 Land leased/rent-out 1.1 0.77 11.0 2.1 0.76 15.6 0.9 0.65 12.5 2.3 0.88 28.5 0.4 0.2 11.3 Land given-out for other 4.6 0.75 43.6 4.9 1.05 51.2 0.2 0.14 0.5 0.3 0.26 1.0 -0.3 -0.2 -7.1 arrangement Land given-out (B) - 0.08 100 - 0.1 100 - 0.05 100 - 0.07 100 0.0 0.0

Own pond/ditch 32.1 0.12 49.5 17.9 0.08 75.1

Pond leased in 1.9 0.86 19.9 0.8 0.41 16.7

Share of Kash pond leased 2.1 1.21 30.6 0.3 0.54 8.2 taken by group

Land under pond (C) - 0.08 100 - 0.02 100

Pond leased out (D) 1.2 0.003 100 1.2 0.002 100

Own homestead land 100 0.12 100 0.1

Own garden/bushes land 31.1 0.11 26.5 0.1

Own fallow land 1.6 0.3 1.5 0.17

Land under homestead & - 0.16 - 0.13 bushes(E)

69

Table 6.3 Common property resources accessible to households in overall FoSHoL projects

Net change (2006-2008), End period (2008) Base period (2006) (A2-A1)-(B2-B1) Project Area (A2) Control Area (B2) Project Area (A1) Control Area (B1) Percent of Percent of total Percent Percent of total Percent of Percent of household of total % Percent of total total households total Percent of total total s that househo change households households that households households household mentioned lds that in that mentioned that have mentioned that have that mentioned s that have availabilit have availabi % change in Type of property availability access availability access availability access y access lity accessibility Khas land 38 16 38 1 0 15 Khas pond 24 16 27 16 18 14 22 19 1 5 Vested land 2 0 2 0 0 0 Vested Pond 3 3 2 2 1 1 Beel 33 29 27 23 17 15 12 11 1 2 River 29 26 22 20 23 22 25 24 9 8 Community based water body 7 6 3 2 4 4 12 11 12 11 Grassing land 4 6 3 3 6 6 5 5 0 2 Forest food 1 0 1 1 1 1 3 3 2 1 Forest wood 3 3 3 2 3 3 5 5 2 3 Hills 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 -1 0 Roadside land 9 8 6 5 3 3 Others (specify) 14 13 15 13 14 13 18 16 3 3

70 for accessing and giving out crop land, and there has been some net change in the amount of land involved in these arrangements. Also a slightly higher proportion of households reported access to some types of common property resources. Net change in the pond/ditch ownership was however suspect though there was a possibility of under reporting at the base period.

Whether these net changes were due to the project interventions can‘t be fully ascertained. It is possible that land acquisition was possible due to income generated by the project but other sources of income might have been used as well. Similarly, access to cultivated land might have occurred due to greater access to sharecropped land or leased in land, which might have resulted only partly due to the project. Given that renting, mortgaging and leasing are need based actions of households depending on their circumstances as well as local practices such as seasonal or yearly contracts for sharecropping without guarantee for renewal of contract, it is highly improbable that the entire net changes in the tenure status of crop land resulted from the project intervention. However, two specific interventions in specific areas – advocacy for enforcement of sharecropping law and advocacy for smallholder or landless households‘ access to khas land and khas pond–can be considered as having played some role in net changes with respect to these items.

3.5.2 Financial capital

An important aspect of the project was to create financial capital through promotion of saving by the farmer groups for lending among members at low interest rate for financing their identified priority farm activities, thus reduce dependence on NGOs and other formal and informal sources for credit at high interest rates. A summary of the savings and lending by the groups under the three INGOs is given in Table 6.4. Over 90% of CARE group members stopped borrowing from micro-credit and other agencies by the end period. The groups indicated that they would continue the saving and lending activities after the project terminates to achieve and sustain their financial self-sufficiency and reduce dependence on borrowing at high cost from other sources.

Table 6.4 Volume of accumulated savings and lending by farmer groups affiliated to the three INGOs

INGO and dates Savings Lending Total, Total, Taka Taka CARE, up to February 2008 100,995, 211a 219,906,724 Practical Action, up to February 2008 NA NA Action Aid, up to February 2008 5,000,000 NA a. Includes Taka 51, 588,874 own savings including interest and service charges earnings and Tk 49,406,618 matching grant from CARE.

3.5.3 Human and social capital

One of the objective of the project was to facilitate linkages between the participating households and various service and input providing agencies, both government and non- government, operating the project areas. The Resource Farmers and the Farmer Group Leaders were trained and were provided with information to make these linkages, initially with the assistance of the implementing INGOs and LNGOs, but eventually on their own. Such linkages could be considered as constituting local social capital and these were expected

71 to improve access to information, advice and inputs required for utilizing the knowledge acquired during project activities, especially through formal and informal training, for sustained improvement in output and income.

It has been shown earlier that linkages with various service providers indicated by visits to the agencies by farmer households or by agency staff to the households were very poor. The marginal or negligible extent of changes in linkages through visits either way seem to indicate that the project has not been able to make much headway in creating a sufficiently elaborate functional network among service providers and poor smallholder project participants to enable them to continue to get adequate access to inputs and services to sustainably use improved technologies to enhance income and food security. Whether such linkages will flourish once the FoSHoL project terminates remains to be seen.

Another important aspect of the project was encouraging group members, especially group leaders, to also try to participate in various formal and informal organisations in the locality to create ‗social capital‘. It was envisaged that active participation and where possible taking leadership positions in local formal and informal organisations such as Union Parishad, cooperatives, NGO initiated groups, market committees, and various other local leadership positions would enhance their position and power in the society so that in the future they would be able to bargain for a fair share of resources coming though various channels and get access to markets for inputs and services. If such social capital formation is backed by the spirit of group action, this would also enable them to collectively deal with the after effects of various shocks – natural or man made. Such social capital would be one of the contributors to longer term achievement of sustainable food security of the resource poor households.

However, no significant change in terms of participation in leadership roles in local organizations was observed except that there was significant reduction in the participation of members in NGOs while there was significant increase in participation in community based organisations (Table 6.5). In fact CBOs were virtually non-existent in the base period and most of these were created by the FoSHoL project itself. The survival and sustainability of the CBOs may depend very much on what happens to the savings and lending activities of the groups as that was the primary reason for less participation in NGOs during the project life. Since the spirit of collective action to achieve self-sufficiency in finance and bargaining power has been created, in the future farmer resource persons or innovative farmers may try to make good use of them and build them as a vehicle to address their food security and related problems.

Creation of village markets in a few pilot villages have increased access to market for small scale producers who have small volumes to sell or buy, so found distant markets costly to participate. The project disseminated knowledge on improved marketing practices such as cleaning, grading etc and also disseminated knowledge about collective marketing to achieve economies scale by pulling together saleable products of a few members to increase volume for either transporting to distant larger markets or to attract larger buyers to come to the local market. Group marketing was also expected to build social capital for handling various marketing problems in the future together based on mutual interest. However, no significant change in the improved marketing practices like cleaning and grading were observed and similar was the case for collective or group marketing. Asked about the reasons for not using group marketing, 18% of the respondents in project areas in baseline survey said they had no idea about collective or group marketing approach (Table 6.6). Also, about similar percent of respondents had a belief that there was lack of unity or trust among the people. A reduced

72 percentage of respondents had negative perceptions about collective or group marketing during the end of project survey.

73

Table 6.5 Involvement of household heads and other members of households in local institutions End of Project survey (2009) Baseline survey(2006) Project impact (2006-2009), (A2-A1)- Project area(A2) Control area (B2) Project area(A1) Control area (B1) (B2-B1) No. of other No. of other No. of other No. of other Change in no. of Name of NGOs, members of the members of the members of the members of the Change in no.of other members of local government, No. of HH heads HHS No. of HH heads HHS No. of HH heads HHS No. of HH heads HHS household heads HH CBOs and local committees Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

Union Parishad 14 0 0 10 10 1 1 5 4 1 2 1 0 -2 -1 4 Bazar Committee 11 0 2 7 2 0 1 8 4 1 4 9 0 1 -2 Masjeed or religious 56 0 5 1 31 0 2 1 18 4 2 10 17 0 -1 -2 committee School/ Madrasa 22 1 0 4 15 0 0 2 12 3 5 0 1 0 -1 committee Village court/salish 3 1 0 2 5 0 15 0 10 4 2 -8 1 -15 4 NGOs 115 20 8 395 95 7 4 509 435 34 49 774 64 12 11 449 -351 -9 -34 -439 CBOs 259 13 16 183 30 2 4 17 50 5 22 39 1 13 8 218 12 20 152 Others( insurance group, VDP, BRDB 22 2 3 24 18 2 13 18 6 14 22 2 2 16 8 2 -1 13 group etc) Total response 502 37 34 626 206 12 27 555 551 35 64 720 818 15 26 476 563 5

74 Table 6.6 Reasons for not selling goods through group or collective approach End of project survey (2009) Baseline survey (2006) Project impact (2006- Reasons Project area (A2) Control area (B2) Project area (A1) Control area (B1) 2009), (A2-A1)-(B2-B1) % of HH % of HH % of HH % of HH Change in % of HH No idea about collective or group marketing approach 14.6 23.1 17.97 20.72 -5.8

Lack unity or trust among the people 4.4 4.5 17.78 3.61 -14.3

No excess produce for sale 6.9 5.1 10.56 5.83 -3.0 Individual selling is more convenient 4.7 2.9 9.86 4.31 -3.8 Don't feel necessity for collective sale 14.4 9.0 8.47 5.42 2.3 Lack of initiators/organizations/facility/CBOs for 8.1 19.7 5.69 20.72 3.4 collective marketing Produces are not sold at a time, depends on individual 7.3 6.2 4.72 2.36 -1.2 necessity Not convinced of getting higher price through 3.0 2.2 2.78 3.75 1.8 collective marketing Dependency on others for selling is not preferred 1.9 1.2 2.22 0.97 -0.6 Different people produce different crops and quality 1.8 1.7 1.38 0.42 -0.9 Farmers are not organized for collective marketing 0.3 0.7 1.38 1.11 -0.7 Road and communication system is not good 0.7 0.3 0.83 0.42 0.0 Lack of conducive environment for collective 0.8 1.0 0.69 1.81 0.9 marketing Harvesting of crops in different times 4.1 5.0 0.56 6.67 5.2

Middle-man buy produce/commodity from door step 4.7 2.9 0.42 0.14 1.5 No good market place at locality 0.1 0.3 0.42 0.14 -0.5

75 4. Summary and conclusions

4.1 Summary of findings

Poverty, food insecurity and malnutrition are major problems in Bangladesh and these problems have been persisting due to, among other reasons, lack of adequate access to food as well as affordability to acquire food among the poor. The 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. It targeted households that were food insecure which was operationally defined as agriculture dependent, resource poor households who were self sufficient in rice for 3-8 months per year and owned less than 0.6 hectare (about 1.5 acres) of land. Additional criteria were also applied in selecting participants in the project activities.

The project was implemented in 38 Upazilas in 14 districts. In addition to prevalence of widespread food insecurity, these districts also represented specific vulnerable ecosystems which exacerbated the food insecurity problems. For example, Jamalpur, Kurigram and Faridpur have a sizeable portion of char land and adjacent land that suffer from floods and river erosion; Sunamganj is vulnerable to flush floods and deep floods; districts in south- west, south-central and south-east suffer from tidal surges and saline water intrusion; and districts in the Barind tract in Rajshahi region are vulnerable to drought and water shortage for drinking and irrigation.

The project commenced in Mid 2005 and ended in May 2008. It was implemented by three international NGOs – CARE, Practical Action and Action Aid- in collaboration with local NGOs in the project districts. The implementing INGOs had separate contracts with the donor though their individual projects were fairly similar with some minor differences in content and mode of implementation. IRRI played a coordinating and supporting role by providing methodological guidance and synthesizing the project outcomes of the three INGOs.

The impact of the project was measured by net changes in a number of criteria related to  Acquisition of knowledge and adoption of technologies  Changes in yield of crops, and farm and non-farm income  Changes in food consumption and nutritional status  Changes in physical, financial and social capital It was posited that acquisition of knowledge will lead to adoption of improved technologies, which will lead to improved yield, income and saving, which will further improve food consumption and nutritional status. At the same time some changes in the acquisition of physical capital like land and social capital like linkage with network of service and input providers will be increased for sustaining the capacity acquired during the project life. Net change in a criteria or indicator of impact was assessed by comparing difference in the criteria in the project areas between base and end year after controlling for changes in the control areas between the two years.

A wide range of crop, livestock, fisheries, agro-processing and non-farm technologies have been promoted. Some of these are quite old and widely used in agriculturally well developed

76 areas but are less known or used in the project areas which are backward and remote, so the idea was to induce their adoption in the project areas. Other technologies are relatively new.

Crop technologies included component technologies on fertilizers, seeds and seedlings, green manure and compost, pesticides, irrigation and water management, home gardening and vegetables, cropping systems. The livestock technologies were broadly of two categories- animal and poultry- each related to feeds and feeding, disease treatment, general management or husbandry practices for various species of animals and birds . Fish culture technologies included pond preparation and management and various aspects of feeding and management of fish. Agro-processing and non-farm technologies included preservation and post harvest processing of some crops for value addition, various marketing practices such as grading, collective buying of inputs and selling of outputs, and various non-farm income earning activities such as handicrafts making, tailoring, rickshaw pulling.

Innovations used for capacity building included training of local NGO staff, organizing farmers into groups, selecting innovative farmers as Resource Farmers to serve as informal extension agents linking farmers with service and input providers, and farmer group leaders and farmers themselves, promotion of savings and lending within the group to reduced dependence on borrowing from external sources. In some areas other specific innovations were promoted. For example, CARE in its project areas promoted landlord- tenant dialogue to implement the provisions of the sharecropping act passed in 1984, which was passed to protect the sharecroppers from exploration by landlords but never implemented.

For each component technology, net changes in the incidence of knowledge about the technology and its adoption were measured. It appeared that for technologies which were more vigorously promoted through knowledge dissemination, input supply etc, both incidence of knowledge and adoption increased significantly in the project areas, and in some cases net change in adoption was more than in knowledge acquisition perhaps because previously people knew certain technologies but did not practice them due to some constraints which were removed by the project activities. For some technologies net changes were small while in other cases virtually none.

The FoSHoL project was reported as the principal source of knowledge for most of the technologies in the project areas and DAE was the main source in the control areas. Although the project did not actively promote any technology in the control areas, in case of some technologies, the FoSHoL project was mentioned as the source of information. This is an indication of spill over of knowledge from project to control areas or neighbouring areas through farmer to farmer knowledge dissemination. The prospect of scaling up such technologies are quite high because the potential for scaling up of any technology is indicated by the degree of interest shown by next door neighbours who are not involved in its initial trial.

Net changes in yields of selected major crops were recorded as examples as it was difficult to measure yields of all crops grown. Net change in the yield of aman and boro rice, potato, mustard, chilli and maize increased in the project areas respectively by 21, 17, 20, 13, 9 and 8%. Net changes for other crops were marginal. Overall, there was net increase in net return (value of output – cash costs) by 44, 67 and 121% for boro, aman and aus rice respectively in the project areas but net changes in profit (value of output – full cost) were negative to the

77 tune of 26, 7 and 17% for the three rice crops respectively. This has happened in spite of significant net increase in yields because net increase in costs, especially in case of aman rice, outweighed net increase in yield rates.

There has been significant increase in nominal household income from all sources. Net increase in per capita nominal annual income in the project areas was Tk 6385, or Taka 532 per month or Taka 18 per day. In real terms ( after deflating by inflation rate) net increase in per capita annual income in the project areas was Tk 5062 or Tk 422 per month or Tk 14 per day. Therefore, the overall increase in income was very modest due to inflation. Also there has been a change in the structure of the sources of income. First, the net increase from non- agriculture was higher than from agriculture. Second, within agriculture and non-agriculture, relative shares of income from different activities also changed due to diversification of activities and adoption of new activities.

Impact on food security in terms of changes in availability and access to food were measured by a number of indicators such as degree of self sufficiency in rice production, crisis or difficult months faced by households for food especially rice consumption, strategies to cope with such crisis, types of natural or other shocks faced and strategies adopted to deal with them, consumption pattern for selected food items and nutritional status of children by gender.

Overall, there was net decline in the proportion of households facing food crisis in the project areas. The two most direct ways households facing food crisis dealt with it were reducing the number of meals per day and/or reducing the quantity of food per meal. The leanest months like Aswin, Kartick, Falgoon and Choitra also coincided with highest proportion of households applying these instruments in meeting food shortage in both the project and control areas. Overall, there has been net decrease in the proportion of households who reduced quantity of food and/or number of meals per day in almost every month, especially during the leanest months in the project areas. A small proportion of households borrowed rice from relatives or neighbours sometimes with interest or borrowed money or sold some assets to buy rice. No significant change was reported in the use of these instruments to meet food crisis.

In both base and end periods, households in both project and control areas reported sufferings various natural calamities or social shocks, the major ones being sickness of the main income earner leading to loss of working days and income; other major shocks arose from flood/monsoon, sickness of other members of the family, loss/death of animals and poultry, theft/robbery, and a number of other minor reasons. At the end period, overall average loss per household due such shocks was Tk 5024 in project areas and Tk 3398 in control areas. These numbers are quite close to the net increase in income, so it can be said that losses due to shocks and crises have eaten up most of the gains achieved through adoption of improved technologies. On a per event basis, dowry payment was one of the highest loss inflicting event followed by cyclone, divorce/separation, flood, sickness of main income earner and loss/death of livestock.

Generally borrowing from various formal and informal sources, adjustment in meals and disinvestment of various assets were the most important strategies used to deal with the after effects of shocks in the base as well as end period. For certain types of shocks, there was some difference between the project and control areas but for others, there was little or no difference. In the project areas, group savings apparently were not accessible for dealing with

78 shocks, which limited its effectiveness to deal with food security of households who faced shocks and did not have adequate financial resources to deal with it.

Frequency of consumption of some quality food items was significantly higher in the project areas and there was more bias towards male infants than female infants in the allocation of some quality food items in both project and control areas but there was no universal male bias as sometimes perceived. There has been some marginal improvement in the quality of housing, access to quality drinking water, quality of sanitary latrine in the project areas. Anthropometric measures indicate that there was significant reduction in the proportion of infants suffering from wasting, stunting and underweight in the project areas but virtually no reduction in the control areas. This appears consistent with higher yield and income and higher proportion of households consuming quality food items and some improvement in living conditions in the project areas.

There has been slight increase in the size of own land among the smaller land owners and there has been some increase in the size of cultivated land among smaller land owners as well indicating that they had improved access either by acquiring or through renting. In CARE project areas, there has been some changes in the tenancy terms because of the special programme to engage landlords and tenants to implement the provisions of the sharecropping act passed in 1984, which was never implemented.

Financial capital of the participating households also improved because of group savings induced through the project, and lending the savings among members for productive purposes significantly reduced their dependence on high interest loans from traditional NGOs and other informal sources.

4.2 Conclusions and implications

The findings of this study indicate that even when technologies are scale neutral, poor and marginal farmers may not be aware about them and may not adopt them or adopt adequately due to lack of knowledge and access to inputs and services. Therefore, much social gains can be derived by designing and implementing extension, information dissemination and input supply programmes targeted to such households so that they may have access to better knowledge, technology and inputs to make best use of their meagre land, labour and capital resources to improve productivity and income and improve food security. Such programmes should have a long menu of technologies, innovations and activities suitable for poor households, so that people can choose what suits them most

Public sector extension has played a key role in the past in the success achieved in food production and in various sub-sectors of agriculture. However, public sector extension had and still has limited capacity to reach the entire farming population with their services. The findings of this study suggest that public sector extension may play a role in enhancing the capacity of NGOs, especially smaller local NGOs to perform complementary role in knowledge and information dissemination to small and marginal households. Further, innovative farmers and framer leaders may also be trained to serve as informal extension agents to link with formal service providers.

Small scale or resource base is a major handicap for acquisition of inputs and services and marketing of products as it involves high transaction costs. Collective efforts – whether in the form of form cooperatives or some other kind of group organization- can overcome such

79 problems. Although cooperatives have earned bad name due its misuse and mismanagement, the findings of this study indicate that self organised collective efforts are useful and necessary to tackle the problems of poor households to get them out of poverty. Public and NGO investment in creating awareness about the benefits of collective action and capacity to self organise rather than imposing any pre-designed organisational form may have high pay off in helping poor get out of poverty.

Lack of financial capital to acquire productive inputs and to meet food crisis and various natural and social shocks is a major handicap for the poor to get out of poverty. Hard working poor often fall back after making some gain due to unexpected losses due to crisis and shocks. Micro-credit has been playing a major role in alleviating this problem but its high cost remains a barrier for its full effectiveness sin poverty alleviation. The findings of this study indicate that along with collective action and input acquisition, marketing and other productive activities, group savings and lending within the group at low interest rate can be a self-sustaining mechanism to solve the problem financial capital of poor households, Once again, public and NGO investment in making poor people aware of the gains of group saving and lending and its proper and transparent accounting management may help farmers make their own choices about these options to solve the financial problems. By doing so the traditional NGOs will essentially make them redundant or out of business but in theory that is what they want to achieve in the long run anyway.

80 References

EC (2002) NGO calls for proposals 2002 – Bangladesh country technical department: support to small and marginal farmers. European Commission, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

GOB (Government of the People‘s Republic of Bangladesh) (1984) The Land Reform Ordinance 1984. Bangladesh Government Press, Dhaka.

GOB (2007) Millennium Development Goals, Mid-term Bangladesh Progress Report 2007. General Economics Division, Planning Commission, Dhaka.

Gray, S and Nath, B (2008) Mid-Term review of FoSHoL programme with four specific project components : FoSHoL- Action Aid (Contract no 56503), FoSHol - CARE (contract no 56581), FoSHoL – ITDG (contract no 56558) and FoSHoL- Coordination (contract no 82929). Final report submitted to the European Union, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

HKI (2006) Trends in child malnutrition , 1990 to 2005: Declining rates at national level mask inter-regional and socio-economic differences. In: Nutritional Surveillance Project Bulletin, No 19, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Hossain, M, Naher, F and Shahabuddin, Q (2004) Food security and nutrition in Bangladesh : Progress and determinants. FAO, Rome, Italy.

IRRI (2007) Food security and livelihood status of agriculture dependent resource poor households in Bangladesh – A synthesis report of first cycle baseline study. Food Security for Sustainable Livelihoods (FoSHoL) Programme, International Rice Research Institute, Bangladesh Country Office, Dhaka.

Islam, M R, Adolph, B and Orr, A W (2004) Rice and poverty – a case book for researchers and practitioners. PETRA-IRRI, Dhaka, Bangladesh and natural Resources Institute, Chatham, UK.

Jabbar, M A (2004) Assessing the poverty consequences of contract farming: Some methodological considerations. Paper presented at the Regional workshop on contract farming and poverty reduction – issues and research methodology, United Nations Conference Centre, Bangkok, Thailand, 9-11 August, 2004.

Jabbar, M A, Beyene, H, Mohamed Saleem, M A and Gebreselassie, S (2003) Role of knowledge in the adoption of new agricultural technologies – an approach and application. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, 2(3-4): 312-328.

Magor, N.P., Salahuddin, A., Haque, M., Biswas, T.K. and Bannerman, M. (2007) PETRRA- an experiment in pro-poor agricultural research. The International Rice Research Institute, Los Banos, Philippines.

Meisner, C and Sulaiman, M (2009) Training programmes for PNGO staff and village group‘s Resource Farmers/Rural Technology Extensionists. Consultancy report submitted to IRRI, Dhaka, Bangladesh

81 Mujeri, M K, Murtaza, M G and Shahiduzzaman, M (2008)Trend and characteristics of recent inflation in Bangladesh. Policy paper no 0901, Policy Analysis Unit, The Bangladesh Bank, Dhaka.

Orr, A W (2002) Poverty elimination through rice research assistance (PETRA) : Project strategy. IRRI, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Reutlinger, S (1985) Food security and poverty in LDCs. Finance and Development, 22(4): 7-11.

Rogers, E M (1983) Diffusion of innovations. 3rd Ed. Macmillan Co., New York.

Saha, A, Love, H A, and Schwart, R (1994) Adoption of emerging technologies under output uncertainty. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76:836-846.

Thirtle, C G, and Ruttan, V W (1987) The role of demand and supply in the generation and diffusion of technical change. Harwood Academic Publishers, London.

World Food Summit (1996) Rome Declaration on World Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action. Rome, Italy.

82 Appendix 1

List of training courses offered to LNGO staff

Partner INGO Proportion Trainings Provided to Staff LNGO Male:Female CARE CARE 6:4 One month training basic foundation on FoSHoL. 2 Refresher courses were conducted as well. Subjects were on facilitating, groups development. Total about 8-10 trainings have been conducted on village and member selection. LUSTER CARE 13:6 Foundation was given for all staff for 26 days; Participatory mgmt skill training 5 days training; Financial Mgmt, to the admin + GDFs; Financial and credit mgmt for admin + GDF; Gender Framework workshop Proj Mgr and gender focal point person; Report writing training, admin; IT training 3 days admin; Modern boro rice prod 4 days Proj Mgr and 4 selected FTs; Nursery training 3 days FT; Poultry rearing 3 days FT; refreshers on village group formation 2 days FT & GDF; MIS all staff; TOT FT and GDF; Ag ext all FT; refresher training FT and GDF; marketing mgmt training FT and GDF is ongoing; Entrepreneur dev 3 selected staff; UDP CARE 4:4 Foundation training 15 days, after 6 months another foundation and group development; refresher training after 1 year for 5 days; Accounting training for 3 days; Ag extension for 5 days; TOT for 5 days; BRRI on aman rice; poultry rearing RDSM Practical 5:2 Super: Consensus building 7 days; Foundation training; BRRI 3 days; BLRI 3 days; Nutrition 4; Gender 4 days; Action CO: Foundation for 14 days; Nutrition 4 days; 2 days Marketing; Multimedia 7 day; 2 days vegetable production; Leadership 4 days; BLRI 4 days on goat rearing; Mushroom 2 days; Gender 4 days; RTC IT cum Marketing: Ag Tech & Fair at BARI 4 days; ICT movement Dhaka arranged by UNDP; 2 days vegetables; Gender 4 days; 9 days ICT content development-BTN; RTC Assistant: Gender 4 days; 2 days mushroom; BLRI 2 days; Food processing 14 days; APUS Practical 6:0 Supervisor: home gardening 3 days, & seed production 3 days, Leadership 7, gender 3 days. Action CO: foundation training for 14 days + refresher for 4 days, rice prod 4 days at BRRI, seed production 2 days, nutrition 3 days, gender 4 days, Leadership 2 days. Marketing training 2 days. Community Dev plan 2 days with leadership training. VPKA Practical 6:0 Supervisor 6 days on supervising and management; 2 days on accounting, 3 days marketing; Foundation training was 10 days Action on ag, livestock, fisheries; then 4 days BRRI on rice, 4 days with BARI on IPM, 2 days with BLRI, mushroom 2 days; most took training from BRAC on accounting, management and nutrition NRDS Action 6:3 Gender-AA 2 days; disaster mgmt-AA 2 days; institution dev-3 days; Rice prod 3 days; marketing & gender & CBO 5 days; Aid Foundation training 61 days; baseline survey 2 days; BARI/BRRI did some training ZIBIKA Action 5:3 Every staff got Foundation training about 2.5 months ag, fisheries, social, group formation involving practical hands on work Aid on 5 bighas land; B‘desh Rice Knowledge Bank for team leaders for 4 days; gender training twice 2+ 2; Leadership, accounting for accountant and TL for 2 days; Group dev for all staff for 3 days by IRRI/AA/EU; for CDB: livestock for 3 days; fisheries 2 days; bookkeeping/savings 3 days; disaster 3 days; advocacy and linkage dev 3 days; Marketing 5 days; mushroom 2 in Savar by IRRI; natural resource 6; water mgmt 2 days; IPM 3; (poultry and nutrition was in foundation). Seed production 3 days; Source: Meisner and Sulaiman (2009)

83 Appendix 2

List of training courses offered by the LNGOs to their village group’s Resource Farmers/Rural Technology Extensionist

Partner NGO: UDP CARE LUSTER NRDS ZIBICA APUS6 RDSM VPKA INGO: CARE CARE CARE AA AA Practical PA PA Action Leadership √ Foundation √ Poultry √ √ Fisheries √ √ √ √ √ Pigeon √ Female Goat rearing √ Castrated Goat Rearing √ √ Nutrition √ √ √ Gender √ √ By law and group finance √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ Finance mgmt √ √ √ New Rice Variety Seed Preservation √ √ √ Early Marriage √ Rice seed Production √ √ √ √ √ Hort Propagation/ Nursery √ √ √ √ √ Vegetable Seed Prod √ √ √ √ √ √ Livestock Mgmt √ √ √ √ Safe use pesticides √ DLS √ Handicrafts √ Small Business √ Apiculture √ √ Marketing √ IPM √ Mushroom √ Spice/Food Processing √ √ Disaster Mgmt √

6 APUS did not mention specifically what trainings they gave to RTEs

84 Partner NGO: UDP CARE LUSTER NRDS ZIBICA APUS6 RDSM VPKA INGO: CARE CARE CARE AA AA Practical PA PA Action SRI Poultry Vaccinator √ √ √ √ √ √ Livestock Vaccinator √ Power Tiller/ Mechanics √ √ Plant Doctor √ √ Para-vet √ √ Total Trainings of RF, RTE, FT 8 14 8 7 8 6 16 11 Source: Meisner and Sulaiman (2009)

85 Appendix 3

List of training courses organised by the LNGOs to their village group members

Partner NGO: UDP CARE LUSTER NRDS ZIBICA APUS RDSM VPKA INGO: CARE CARE CARE AA AA PA PA PA Leadership √ √ √ Poultry √ √ √ √ √ √ Vegetable √ √ √ √ Rice Fish √ √ √ Fisheries √ √ √ √ Pigeon √ √ Female Goat rearing √ √ √ Castrated Goat Rearing √ √ √ Rice √ √ √ √ √ Nutrition √ √ Gender √ √ By law and group finance √ Finance mgmt √ √ Alternative Leadership √ Rice Seed Preservation √ √ √ Rice Variety √ Early Marriage √ √ Dowry √ √ Sanitation √ √ Human Rights √ Rice seed Production √ √ Hort Propagation √ √ Vegetable Seed Prod √ √ Vaccination √ Livestock Mgmt √ √ √ √ √ Safe use pesticides √ DLS √ Handicrafts √ Small Business √ Apiculture √ Marketing √ √

86 Partner NGO: UDP CARE LUSTER NRDS ZIBICA APUS RDSM VPKA INGO: CARE CARE CARE AA AA PA PA PA IPM √ Composting √ √ Alt. Wet-Dry Rice √ Sheep Prod √ Maize √ Sharecropping Law √ Wheat √ Mustard √ Onion/Garlic √ Tailoring √ Mushroom √ Spice √ Soil Solarization √ Drum Seeder √ Disaster Mgmt √ SRI √ TOTAL Trainings 11 22 3 7 7 10 13 15 Comparison of Table 5 Total 8 14 8 7 8 6 16 11 Trainings for RT or RTEs Total Trainings for both Village 19 26 11 14 15 16 29 26 RT/RTEs and general group members Source: Meisner and Solaiman (2009)

87