Final Report CF # 5/07

Integrated Management of Coastal Zone for Food Security

By B. K. Bala, Principal Investigator Md. Anower Hossain, Ph D Research Fellow

Department of Farm Power and Machinery Bangladesh Agricultural University

This study was carried out with the support of the

National Food Policy Capacity Strengthening Programme

March 2009 This study was financed under the Research Grants Scheme (RGS) of the National Food Policy Capacity Strengthening Programme (NFPCSP). The purpose of the RGS was to assist in improving research and dialogue within civil society so as to inform and enrich the implementation of the National Food Policy. The NFPCSP is being implemented by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Food Planning and Monitoring Unit (FPMU), Ministry of Food and Disaster Management with the financial support of EU and USAID.

The designation and presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of FAO nor of the NFPCSP, Government of Bangladesh, EU or USAID and reflects the sole opinions and views of the authors who are fully responsible for the contents, findings and recommendations of this report.

ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Costal Zone is most frequently defined as land affected by its proximity to the sea and that part of the sea affected by its proximity to the land or, in other words, the areas where the processes which depend on the sea-land interactions are the most intensive. The coastal zone of Bangladesh is 47,203 km2 and it is roughly 32% of the whole country. According to 2001 population census, total population of Bangladesh is 123.15 millions. Of which 35.1 millions live in coastal area and it is approximately 28% of the total population of Bangladesh. The coastal zone of Bangladesh is rich in natural resources offering many tangible and intangible benefits to the nation. Excessive fishing and over exploitation of coastal resources, water quality deterioration, mangrove destruction for aquaculture and conversion of agricultural land into aquaculture pond are the major problems which need to be managed on a priority basis. Integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) consists of the population, crop production, aquaculture and forestry with two unique features of food security and environmental degradation (ecological footprint). There is lack of integration of environmental consideration in the integrated coastal zone management of Bangladesh. The problem can not be solved in isolation, an integrated and systems approach is needed. For clear understanding of this complex system before its implementation, it must be modeled and simulated. The purposes of this study are: (i) to estimate the present status of the contribution of expanding population, decreasing agriculture, expanding aquaculture for shrimp farming and forests to food security and ecological factor, (ii) to develop a computer model to simulate integrated coastal zone management systems for sustainable development and (iii) to determine the management strategies for sustainable development of the coastal zone system. To address the food security and ecological footprint, an indicator of environmental sustainability of the coastal zones of Bangladesh, nine upazilas of the coastal zones in the five districts of Bangladesh were selected and data on population, crop production, aquaculture, livestock and forestry were collected to estimate the present status of the food security and environmental degradation of the coastal zones of Bangladesh from upazila office of Government Department of Statistics, Agriculture, Fishery and Livestock. A typical village named Baraikhali was selected from Dacop upazila of Khulna district to find

iii out the individual household food security status. Total number of household of the village was 182. The collected data and information were compiled, edited, summarized and analyzed and the present status of food security and environmental degradation (in terms of ecological footprint) were determined. A quantitative method for computation of food security in grain equivalent based on economic returns (price) is developed. Ecological footprint was computed based on a method of measuring sustainable development in terms of ecological footprint developed by Wackernagel and Rees (1996) and Chambers, et al. (2000) is used. The food security and ecological footprint of the coastal zone of Bangladesh are estimated and a database has been prepared. This research shows that the overall status of food security at upazila levels is good for all the upazilas (8.53% to 164.19%) except Shoronkhola (-23.65%), Shyamnager (-6.08%) and Morrelgonj (-30.29%), and the best is the Kalapara upazila (164.19%). But status of food security at household levels is poor. The environmental status in the coastal zones is poor for all the upazilas ( -0.5076 to -0.027) except Kalapara (+0.306) and Galachipa (+0.322) and the worst is the Mongla upazila (-0.5076). The environmental status in the coastal zones has degraded mainly due to shrimp culture. A system dynamics model of integrated management of coastal zone for food security has been developed. This model predicts that expanding shrimp aquaculture industry ensures high food security at upazila levels with increasing environmental degradation. The model also predicts that if shrimp aquaculture industry continues to boom from the present status to super intensive shrimp aquaculture, a collapse of the shrimp aquaculture industry will ultimately occur turning shrimp aquaculture land neither suitable for shrimp culture nor crop production. The control of growth of the shrimp production intensity stabilizes the system at least in the short run. The control of population and growth of thee shrimp production intensity should be considered for stabilization of the system in the long run. The sustainable development of the coastal zone of Bangladesh in the long run without control of both the growth of shrimp production intensity and population will remain mere dream. It is now high time to design an integrated management system for the coastal zones of Bangladesh for sustainable development. This model can be used to assist the policy planners to asses different policy issues and to design a policy for sustainable development of the coastal zones of Bangladesh.

iv The boost up of coastal agriculture and restriction on rapid growth of shrimp culture and its intensity to reduce ecological footprints are two pathways for sustainable development of food security in the coastal zones of Bangladesh. This study examines the short term and long term policy options for sustainable food security. A computer simulation based on system dynamics methodology is developed to provide an understanding of how things have been changed with time and this approach has been adopted to simulate the highly complex coastal zone management system. But there is another approach called multi agent system which focuses more on stakeholder’s interactions and it is an emerging sub-field of artificial intelligence. Furthermore, a successful sustainable development requires coastal zone management be carried out in a participatory approach. An artificial society of primary coastal zone actors are to be built using multi agent system approach for developing scenarios to increase the sustainability of the coastal zone management. Certainly the food security and ecological footprint will be the indicators of the sustainability. Such a study is recommended for management of successful sustainable development on a rational basis

v Table of Contents

Sl. Title Page No. No. Executive summery ii Table of contents v List of tables vi List of figures vii Nomenclature 1 Introduction 1 2 Materials and methods 11 2.1 Computation of food security 13 2.2 Computation of ecological footprint and. biocapacity 15 2.3 Modeling of integrated coastal zone management 17 2.4 Policy options 22 3 Results and discussion 24 3.1 Food security and ecological footprint at upazila level 24 3.2 Simulated scenarios 36 4 Key findings 43 5 Policy implications and recommendations 44 6 Areas of further research 45 7 Conclusions 46 Acknowledgements 47 References 48 Appendices 54

vi List of Tables

Table Title Page No. No. 1 Selected upazilas from exposed coastal zone 11 2 Daily balance food requirement 14 3 Major cropping pattern and cropping intensity of different upazilas 24 4 Major crop and fish area of of different upazilas 25 5 Ecological footprint, bio-capacity and ecological status of 52 34 countries in the world

6 The present status of food security and ecological status of nine 34 upazilas of the coastal zones of Bangladesh at a glance.

vii List of Figures

Fig. Title Page No. No. 1 Map of the coastal zone of Bangladesh 12 2 Structure of food security computation 15 3 Structure of ecological footprint computation 16 4 Structure of biological capacity computation 17 5 Interrelationships of integrated coastal zone management systems 18 6 Simplified flow diagram of integrated coastal zone management 19 system 7 STELLA flow diagram of the integrated coastal zone management 20-22 system 8 Growth patterns for different policy options 23 9 Population in 2007 of different upazila 26 10 Rice production of different upazila 27 11 Shrimp production of different upazila 27 12 Food sortage/surplus of different upazila 28 13 Self sufficiency ratio of rice of different upazila 28 14 Food security status of different upazila 29 15 Contributions of crop and fish to food security 29 16 Percent ecological distribution of six upazilas of Khulna region 30 17 Percent ecological distribution of three upazilas of Barisal region 31 18 Ecological footprint of different upazila 32 19 Biological capacity of different upazila 32 20 Ecological status of different upazila 33 21 Ecological status from crop and fish of different upazila 33 22 Household food security status in the village Baraikhali 35 23 Percentage distribution of food security 35 24 Simulated population, food availability and food security of Dacop 36 upazila. 25 Simulated pond area bagda, crop area and shrimp production bagda 37 of Dacop upazila. 26 Simulated ecological footprint, biocapacity and ecological status of 37 Dacop upazila. 27 (a) Simulated food security status of Dacop upazila for different options 38

viii

Contd.

Fig. Title Page No. No. 27 (b) Simulated ecological footprint of Dacop upazila for different options 39 (c) Simulated ecological status of Dacop upazila for different options 39 28 (a) Simulated population, food security and food available of Dacop 40 for120 years (b) Simulated pond area bagda, shrimp production and crop area of 40 Dacop for120 yrs (c) Simulated ecological footprint , biocapacity and ecological status of 41 Dacop for120 years 29 (a) Simulated population, food security and food availability of Dacop 42 under control of both normal growth and population for a period of 120 years (b) Simulated pond area bagda, shrimp production and crop area of 42 Dacop under control of both normal growth and population for a period of 120 years. (c) Simulated ecological footprint, biocapacity and ecological status of 43 Dacop under control of both normal growth and population for a period of 120 years.

ix Nomenclature

BBS Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics BC Biological Capacity ( Bio-Capacity) BRRI Bangladesh Rice Research Institute DoF Department of Fisheries EEF Emergetic Ecological Footprint EF Ecological Footprint ES Ecological Status FAO Food and Agricultural Organization FS Food Security GDP Gross Domestic Product gha Global hectare ha Hectare ha/cap Hectare/capita ICZM Integrated coastal zone management IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute INFS Institute of Nutrition and Food Science km Kilometer MOFL Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock NACA Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia Pacific NPV Net Present Value NSF Non-Sufficient Food PDO-ICZMP Program Development Office for Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal RDRS Rangpur Dinajpur Rural Service SF Sufficient Food SRF Sunderban Reserve Forest SSR Self Sufficiency Ratio USDA United State Department of Agriculture WHO World Health Organization

x 1. Introduction

Costal Zone is most frequently defined as land affected by its proximity to the sea and that part of the sea affected by its proximity to the land or, in other words, the areas where the processes which depend on the sea-land interactions are the most intensive. Coastal zone always include floodplains, mangroves, marshes, and fringing coral reefs. In general, there are tide flats, as well as beaches and dunes, and multiple aerial foci for ICZM (Integrated Coastal Zone Management). The coastal zone of Bangladesh is rich in natural resources offering many tangible and intangible benefits to the nation. Excessive fishing and over exploitation of coastal resources, water quality deterioration, mangrove destruction for aquaculture and conversion of agricultural land into aquaculture pond are the major problems which need to be managed on a priority basis (Banglapedia, 2003). The total area of Bangladesh is 147,570 km2. Of which coastal zone is 47,203 km2 and it is roughly 32% of the whole country. According to 2001 population census, total population of Bangladesh is 123.15 millions. Of which 35.1 millions live in coastal area and it is approximately 28% of the total population of Bangladesh. Out of 2.85 million ha of coastal cultivable land in Bangladesh about 1.0 million ha of arable land are affected by varying degrees of salinity and most of these lands remain fallow in dry season (Karim et al. 1990). Out of 1.0 million ha of saline area, 0.38 million ha are in Khulna, 0.22 million ha in Patuakhali, 0.11 million ha in Chittagong and the rest are in Barisal and Noakhali regions. For crop production in coastal zone crop selection/development of saline resistant variety and management practices are essential for maximum benefit. In coastal zone, T. Aman rice is mainly cultivated depending on rainfall and the later part sometimes supplemental irrigation is applied during September to October from the low salinity river water sources and the land remains fallow due to salinity development and scarcity of irrigation water during the rest periods of the year. The present cropping pattern in the coastal zone is mostly T. Aman- Fallow- Fallow. Occasionally in few areas, T. Aman- Rabi crops - Fallow is followed. Cropping intensity in the coastal areas is low compared to other part of the country. This is due to unfavorable soil and land characteristics like salinity, flood, water logging, late drainage condition, scarcity of irrigation water, acidity, low fertility status, cyclonic storm surges etc.

1 It is estimated that about 0.25 million ha of land has a good potential for coastal aquaculture (Ahmed, 1995). Out of that, about 0.18 million ha of land area is suitable for shrimp culture (Khan and Hossain, 1996). Coastal aquaculture increased from 20,000 ha in 1994 – 1995 to 135,000 ha in 1996–1997, and production from 4000 to 35,000 metric tons in the same period (MOFL, 1997). Shrimp aquaculture in the coastal zones is expanding rapidly and agricultural lands are converted into aquaculture ponds. Shrimp areas in Bangladesh have already expanded from 51812 ha in 1983 to 137996 ha in 1994 and to 141353 in 2002 causing environmental degradation in the coastal zone (DoF, 1995, 2003). The rapid expansion of shrimp farm development during the last decade along with the adoption of extensive and improved extensive culture techniques has caused growing concern as to its adverse effect on the coastal environment and damage to the traditional agricultural systems. The socioeconomic scenarios have changed rapidly. Brackish water shrimp farming has altered the physical, ecological (aquatic and terrestrial) and socioeconomic environment. The practice of shrimp culture needs saline water as an input to the shrimp pond. Sluice gates are normally allowed to open two or three times when the salinity in the shrimp pond decreases and saline-water exchange from the river is necessary. As a result, heavy sedimentation from upstream water settles in the riverbed and canal bed, causing waterlogging in the shrimp ponds and on agricultural land. The shrimp- processing depot and industry drain their pollutants into the river, causing water pollution. Water in the shrimp ponds is also polluted because of the application of feed and fertilizer for the development of the shrimp. Thus, the by-products of the shrimp ponds and shrimp industry pollute water and soil and degrade the quality of the overall environment. Vegetation, crops, fish and livestock are seriously damaged by the process of shrimp cultivation. The coastal region, especially the southwestern portion (Satkhira, Khulna and Bagerhat), is one of the most promising areas for shrimp cultivation for two major reasons (MOFL, 1997): first, its fresh- and saline-water resources are abundant in almost all seasons; second, the world’s largest continuous mangrove forest, the Sundarbans, provides a food source and nursery for the offshore fishery. The mangrove forests provide a critical habitat for shrimp and other fish. Most of the shrimp culture being practiced is by the extensive and improved extensive methods known as gher culture. Gher means an enclosed area characterised by an encirclement of land along the banks of tidal rivers. Dwarf earthen dikes and small wooden sluice boxes control the free entrance of saline water into the enclosed areas. In the gher, the sluice gates are opened from February to April to allow the entry of saline water containing 2 a wide variety of fish fry and shrimp postlarvae that have grown naturally to the juvenile stage in the adjacent sea and estuarine waters. This practice of natural stocking is being progressively replaced by artificial stocking of the ghers with only the young of specific desired species of shrimp. Aquaculture at coastal agricultural lands has adverse effects on environment and crop and animal production. The entry of seawater for aquaculture causes salinization of land and groundwater thereby affecting the productivity of agricultural crops (Akteruzzaman, 2004). The pumping of groundwater for agriculture leads to intrusion of soluble salts into aquifers and salinity gradually builds up in the soil. Remote sensing studies in Thailand indicate that 3444 ha area of shrimp ponds caused salinization of 1168 ha of agricultural lands mostly rice fields (NACA, 1994). Forest in coastal zone plays an important role in maintaining the global system in balance and these forests are also the largest carbon sink above the soil. Deforestation for fuel wood for cooking has adverse effect on both people and the environment, including degradation of surrounding ecosystems, reduced crop yields, loss of biodiversity, reduced timber supply, flooding, siltation, soil degradation and climate irregularities (De Souza et al. 2003). Furthermore, Forest coverage in the coastal zone is below the world average. Sunderban is located in the coastal zone of Bangladesh and it is the largest productive mangrove forest in the world. The Sunderban Reserve Forest (SRF) comprises 45 percent of the productive forest of the country, contributing about one-half of forest-related revenue and is an important source of wood and non-wood resources (Hussain and Karim, 1994). The coastal zone is relatively income-poor compared to the rest of the country. Average per capita GDP (at current market price) in the coastal zone was Tk 18,198 in 1999-2000, compared to Tk 18,291 outside the coastal zone (BBS, 2002). Extent of poverty in terms of calorie intake is relatively high in the coastal zone, where 52 percent people are poor and 25 percent are extreme poor. Corresponding figures for Bangladesh are 49 and 23 percent respectively. (PDO-ICZMP, 2003) The other special features of the coastal zone is its multiple vulnerabilities out of periodic cyclone and storm surges, salinity intrusion, erosion, pollution, and overall lack of physical infrastructure. Coastal natural-resource uses reflect primarily subsistence agriculture with an emphasis on food production, e. g. paddy rice along with some cash crops and coastal fisheries, which provide a major food and income source. Also important, in some areas, is

3 aquaculture with an emphasis on shrimp production for the export market, and some salt production for domestic needs. Food security is a worldwide problem that has called the attention to Governments and the scientific community. It particularly affects developing countries. The scientific community has had increasing concerns for strategic understanding and implementation of food security policies in developing countries, especially since the food crisis in the 70s. The process of decision-making is becoming increasingly complex due to the interaction of multiple dimensions related to food security (Giraldo et al., 2008). Food security is a social sustainabilty indicator and most commonly used indicators in the assessment of food security conditions are food production, income, total expenditure, food expenditure, share of expenditure of food, calorie consumption and nutritional status etc. (Riely et al., 1999). Accounting tools for quantifying food secuirty are essential for assessment of food security status and also for policy planning for sustainable development. Ecological footprint is an ecological stability indicator. The theory and method of measuring sustainable development with the ecological footprint was developed during the past decade (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996 and Chambers, et al., 2000). The Ecological Footprint is a measurement of sustainability illustrating the reality of living in a world with finite resources and it is a synthetic indicator used to estimate a population’s impact on the environment due to its consumption; it quantifies total terrestrial and aquatic area necessary to supply all resources utilized in sustainable way and to absorb all emissions produced always in a sustainable way. Apart from analyzing the present situation, ecological foot print provides framework of sustainability planning in the public and private scale. Accounting tools for quantifying humanity’s use of nature are essential for assessment of human impact and also for policy planning towards a sustainable future. Many pertinent questions pertinent to build a sustainable society can be addressed by using ecological footprint as indicator. This tool has evolved from largely being pedagogical use to become a strategic tool for policy analysis. Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) is an internationally accepted approach for achieving sustainable development. Coastal area is the different from the rest of the country and an ICZM program is needed. The natural resources of the coastal areas are as different from their terrestrial counterparts as to require different and special forms of management. Coastal areas are important ecologically, as they provide a number of environmental goods

4 and services. Coastal areas frequently contain critical terrestrial and aquatic habitats, such as the mangrove forests, wetlands and tidal flats. Integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) consists of the population, crop production, aquaculture and forestry with two unique features of food security and environmental degradation (ecological footprint). There is a need to assess the present status of food security and environmental degradation (ecological footprint) of the coastal zone of Bangladesh to find out the leaverge points and also to explore management scenarios of integrated coastal zone management system for policy planning. Dynamic behaviour of physical system can be studied by experimentation. Sometimes it may be expensive and time consuming. Full scale experimentation of integrated coastal zone management system is neither possible nor feasible. Most inexpensive and less time consuming method is to use mathematical model or computer model. Integrated coastal zone management system is a highly complex system containing biological, agricultural, aquacultural, environmental, technological, and socio-economic components. The problem can not be solved in isolation, an integrated and systems approach is needed. For clear understanding of this complex system before its implementation, it must be modeled and simulated. System Dynamics, a methodology for constructing computer model for dynamic and complex systems, is the most appropriate technique to model such a complex system There is a need to develop a dynamic model to explore management scenarios of policy planning and management of integrated coastal zone management system (Iftekhar, 2006 and Klinger, 2004). This type of integrated study in the field of coastal zone management is relatively new in Bangladesh. Therefore, a dynamics of integrated costal zone management need to be studied in the Khulna-Barisal region for a sustainable management of food production, ecology and environment aiming to alleviate the poverty of coastal population and ensure food security.

Objectives of the study

Rapid conversion of agricultural lands into agricultural ponds and the growth of penaeid shrimp culture are considered to increase the food security with increased environmental degradation of the coastal zones in Bangladesh. Also boom and burst of shrimp culture work against agriculture and aquaculture in the long run (Arquitt. et al, 2005). Farmers in the coastal zones are also in panic for the long term consequences of shrimp culture. The

5 purpose of this research is to examine the present status of food security and environmental degradation; address the short term and long term policy options for sustainable food security to assist the policy planners to design the policies for enhancing food security improving agriculture and aquacultural technology and at the same time reducing the environmental degradation in the challenging years ahead and also recommend the policies for sustainable food security.

Specific objectives are: a) To estimate the present status of the contribution of expanding population, decreasing agriculture, expanding aquaculture for shrimp farming and forests to food security and ecological factor. b) To develop a computer model to simulate integrated coastal zone management systems for sustainable development. c) To determine the management strategies for sustainable development of the coastal zone system.

6 2. Review of Literature Many studies have been reported on food security, ecological factor and management and modeling of integrated coastal zone management. Some studies on food security, an indicator of social stability, ecological footprint, an indicator of ecological stablility and previous efforts on management and modeling of coastal zone management systems are critically examined under the subheadings of food security ecological footprint and integrated coastal zone management.

Food security Per capita food availability in Bangladesh has declined from 458 g/day in 1990/1991 to 438 g/day in 1998/1999 while per capita fish intake has decreased from 11.7 kg/year in 1972 to 7.5 kg/year in 1990 (Begum, 2002). Also vegetables, the major dietary source of vitamin A, meet only 30 percent of recommended minimum needs. Food security and hunger focusing on concentration and trend of poverty, pattern of household food consumption and causes of food insecurity and hunger have also been reported and the key findings are demographic and socio-economic conditions of the ultra poor, extent and trend of poverty in Bangladesh, food consumption pattern and level of food insecurity and hunger of the ultra poor and the causes of food insecurity and hunger (RDRS, 2005). FAO (1996a) defined the objective of food security as assuring to all human beings the physical and economic access to the basic food they need. This implies three different aspects: availability, stability and access. USDA evaluated food security based on the gap between projected domestic food consumption and a consumption requirement (USDA, 2007). Mishra and Hossain (2005) reported an overview of national food security situation and identified key issues, challenges and areas of development in policy and planning; also addressed the access and utilization of food and the issues of food and nutritional security. During the last half century, a number of individuals and institutions have used models with the aim of projecting and predicting global food security, focusing on the future demand for food, supply and variables related to the food system at different levels (MacCalla and Revoredo, 2001). The methodology used to develop the projections and predictions on food relies on correlated models. Such methodology is controlled purely by data and do not give insights into the causal relationships in the system. Several models have been developed to

7 address the food security (Diakosavvas and Green, 1998, Coxhead, 2000, Mohanty and Peterson, 2005, Rosegrant et al., 2005, Holden et al., 2005, Shapouri and Rosen, 2006, Ianchovichina et al., 2001, FAO, 1996b, Falcon et al., 2004). System dynamics is a problem-oriented multidisciplinary approach that allows to identify, to understand, and to utilize the relationship between behavior and structure in complex dynamic systems. The underlying concept of the System Dynamics implies that the understanding of complex system’s behavior -such as the national food insecurity- can only be achieved through the coverage of the entire system rather than isolated individual parts. Several models have been developed using the System Dynamics around the food security (Bach and Saeed, 1992, Bala, 1999a, Gohara, 2001, Meadows, 1976, Meadows, 1977, Quinn, 2002, Saeed, et al., 1983, Georgiadis et al., 2004 and Saeed, 2000). Bala (1999b) reported an integrative vision of energy, food and environment applied to Bangladesh.

Self sufficiency ratio Bangladesh achieved impressive gain in food grain production in the last two decades and reached to near self-sufficiency at national level by producing about 26.76 million metric tons of cereals, especially rice and wheat in 2001 (Hossain et al., 2002 and Ministry of Finance, 2003). The Self Sufficiency ratio (SSR) calculated as per FAO’s method (FAO, 2001) was stood at 90.1 percent in 2001 and 91.4 percent in 2002. Estimates on food grain gap and SSR reveal that Bangladesh has a food grain gap of one to two million metric tons (Mishra and Hossain, 2005). Based on the official and private food grain production and import figures the food grain SSR for Bangladesh is gradually declining from 94.1 in 2000-2001 to 87.7 in 2004-2005 and lowest self-sufficiency rate in Bangladesh was in 2005, which could be attributed to the crop damage during the severe flood in 2004(Mishra and Hossain, 2005). PER PINSTRUP-ANDERSEN, Director General of IFPRI in his forward message claimed that for many years Bangladesh depended heavily on food aid, but recently it has emerged as a country approaching self-sufficiency in rice, the main staple food of its population (IFPRI, 1998).

Ecological footprint Wackernagel et al. (1999) developed a simple assessment framework for national and global natural accounting and applied this technique to 52 countries and also to the world as a whole. Out of these 52 countries, only 16 countries are ecologically surplus, 35 are 8 ecologically deficit including Bangladesh (0.2 gha/cap) and the rest one is ecologically balance. The humanity as a whole has a footprint larger than the ecological carrying capacity of the world. They also pointed out some strategies that can be implemented to reduce footprint. Monfreda et al. (2004) described computational procedure of Ecological Footprint and Biological Capacity systematically with laps and gaps to eliminate potential errors. For the meaningful comparison of the Ecological Footprint all biologically productive areas were converted into the standardized common unit global hectares (gha). Zhao et al. (2005) reported a modified method of ecological footprint calculation by combining emergy analysis and compared their calculations with that of an original calculation of ecological footprint for a regional case. Gansu province in western China was selected for this study and this province runs ecologically deficit in both original and modified calculation. Medved (2006) reported ecological footprint of Slovenia and it was found that current ecological footprint of Slovenia (3.85 gha/capita) exceeds the available biological productive areas (2.55 gha/capita) and significantly exceeds the biological productive areas of the planet (1.90 gha/capita). Chen and Chen (2006) investigated the resource consumption of the Chinese society from 1981 to 2001 using ecological footprint and emergetic ecological footprint and suggested using emergetic ecological footprint (EEF) to serve as a modified indicator of ecological footprint (EF) to illustrate the resources, environment, and population activity, and thereby reflecting the ecological overshoot of the general ecological system. Bagliani et al. (2008) reported ecological footprint and bio-capacity as indicators to monitor the environmental conditions of the area of Siena (Italian’s province). Among the notable results, the Siena territory is characterized by nearly breakeven total ecological balance, a result contrasting with the national average and most of the other Italian provinces. Niccolucci et al. (2008) compared the ecological footprint of two typical Tuscan wines and the conventional production system was found to have a footprint value almost double than the organic production, mainly due to the agricultural and packing phases. These examples suggest that viable means of reducing the ecological footprint could include organic procedures, a decrease in the consumption of fuels and chemicals, and increase in the use of recycled materials in the packing phase.

9 Integrated coastal zone management Fabbri (1998) proposed a method and tool for improved decision aid in integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) and discussed the advantage of implementing, in a spatial decision support system, the most efficient strategies for data capture, integration, analysis and modeling, for the assessment of impacts deriving from possible development scenarios. The importance of integrating socio-economic and biophysical parameters in the context of ICZM and the need to define environmental indicators on which decision-making processes are based are also discussed. Belt et al. (1998) applied computer modeling as a consensus building tool as part of the development of the Patagonia Coastal Zone Management Plan (PCZMP) and the model provides some interesting preliminary conclusions. The model indicates that the total net present value (NPV) of the fisheries sector over a period of 40 years may be increased by 13% compared with current income, with a decrease in hake fishing levels by ≈50% and the natural capital on which the fishery sector depends would be used in a more sustainable way, both ecologically and economically. The model also simulates possible impacts of oil spills and dumping of tanker ballast water on the penguin population which can have a significant negative impact on tourist industry incomes. The model implies that the importance of the tourist sector in Patagonia could in the future greatly exceed the value of the fishing industry (by 29%). Pedersen et al. (2005) examined the key problem of developing capacities for integrated approaches to coastal zone management, especially in the context of newly industrialized and developing countries. Through the discussion from an integrated coastal zone management project in Malaysia it was learned that some practical approaches have to be needed to develop capacities for acquiring and performing integrated approaches to the management of the coastal zone. Siry (2006) analyzed decentralized coastal zone management in two neighbouring countries, Malaysia and Indonesia and discussed in details significant differences in the pattern of coastal zone management in these two countries. The lessons learnt from this study provide insight in how far decentralized coastal zone management has taken place in Malaysia and Indonesia. Finally it was concluded that co-management and community- based approaches can be appropriate in dealing with coastal zone management. Chua et al. (2006) studied the dynamics of integrated coastal management (ICM) in China and discussed the role of the interactions between the dynamic forces and essential elements of ICM to address the environmental and management issues at the local level. The 10 tangible, intangible and socioeconomic issues were also addressed. It was concluded that dynamism in integrated coastal management mobilizes significant benefits of intangible assets. Sonak et al. (2008) documented several issues involved in the recovery of tsunami-affected areas in India and the application of the ICZM concept to the reconstruction efforts and assessed of the damage caused by the tsunami and its impact on the coastal states of India. The status of ecology such as: mangroves, coastal fisheries, agricultural lands and wet lands, ground water etc. after affected by tsunami were also addressed. However, the concept of ICZM (integrated coastal zone management) has been effectively used in most parts of the world. Cao and Wong (2007) identified and examined social-economic and environmental issues recently emerged in China's coastal zone. They identified that Pollution from agriculture, livestock, domestic and industrial sources, ecosystem degradation, coastal reclamation, aquatic water depletion and coastal erosion are the main issues in the coastal zone of China. Comprehensive coastal management in China is a big challenge, facing with many difficulties and recommendations for tackling these issues for China's coastal zone management have also been made. Nguyen and Kok (2007) discussed the inherent complexity of the integrated systems model, the philosophical debate about the model validity and validation; the uncertainty in model inputs, parameters and future context and the scarcity of field data that complicate model validation. Three tests, namely, Parameter-Verification, Behaviour-Anomaly and Policy- Sensitivity to test the model for coastal-zone management were selected. To facilitate these three tests Morris sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis were performed. Growing international demand for shrimp and stagnating catches of wild shrimp in the early 1980s created an opportunity for the development of export-oriented shrimp aquaculture industries (Csavas, 1995). Robertson and Phillips (1995) reported that depending on the shrimp pond management between 2 and 22 hectares of forest area are required to filter the nitrogen and phosphorus loads from effluent produced by a 1hectare shrimp pond. Arquitt et al. (2005) developed a system dynamics model to examine boom and burst in the shrimp aquaculture industry in Thailand and suggested that a policy that taxes the industry and rebates proceeds to licensed producers may help shift the system towards sustainability. The assessment of present state of art of food security, ecological footprint and presnt status of managemant and modeling of integrated coastal zone management prompted to develop a new quantitative method of compuation of food security based on the USDA concept of the 11 definition of food secuirity to understand, design and implement food security policies towards a sustainable future; to address environmental degradation in terms of ecological footprint developed by Wackernagel and Rees (1996) and Chambers, et al. (2000) for assessment of human impact and also for policy planning towards a sustainable future and also to develop a computer model to explore management scenarios of policy planning and management of integrated coastal zone management system.

12 3. Materials and Methods

Site selection

The coastal zone of Bangladesh covers 147 upazilas (sub-district) within 19 districts. Further, a distinction has been made between upazilas facing the coast or the estuary and the upazilas located behind them. A total of 48 upazilas in 12 districts that are exposed to the sea and or lower estuaries, are defined as the exposed coast and the remaining 99 upazilas of the coastal districts are termed interior coast. Exposed and interior coastal zones of Bangladesh are indicated in the map of Bangladesh as shown in Fig. 1. To address the food security and ecological footprint, an indicator of environmental sustainability of the coastal zones of Bangladesh, nine upazilas of the coastal zones in the five districts of Bangladesh were selected. Most of these upazilas have been seriously affected by the recent super cyclone SIDR. The selected upazilas are given in Table 1 and the selected upazilas are the representatives of the coastal zones of Bangladesh.

Table 1. Selected upazilas from exposed to the coastal zone of Bangladesh.

District Upazila Patuakhali Kalapara, Galachipa Borguna Patharghata Satkhira Shyamnagar Khulna Dacop, Koyra Bagerhat Mongla,, Morrelgonj, Sharonkhola

Questionnaire development

To estimate the present status of the food security and ecological footprint of the integrated coastal zone management systems two sets of questionnaire for primary and secondary data collection were developed with emphasis on food security and environmental degradation (ecological footprint). These are shown in Appendix A and B respectively. Two sets of questionnaire were pre-tested and necessary improvement was made. .

13

Exposed coast

Interior coast

Fig. 1. Map of the coastal zone of Bangladesh

14 Data collection

Data on population, crop production, aquaculture, livestock and forestry were collected to estimate the present status of the food security and environmental degradation of the coastal zones of Bangladesh from upazila office of Government Department of Statistics, Agriculture, Fishery and Livestock. Purposeful random sampling was conducted for primary data collection and four different categories of farm size were considered and these are landless (<0.02 ha), small (0.02- 1.0 ha), medium (1.0-3.0 ha) and large (> 3.0 ha). Pre- tested questionnaire was used for primary data collection from individual farmers with emphasis on food security and ecological footprint. Primary data also served as a cross check for the secondary data as well a measure to fill up the missing gaps in the secondary data. Collected data and information were compiled, edited, summarized and analyzed, and the present status of food security and environmental degradation (in terms of ecological footprint) were calculated. Database was prepared in Excel format separately for computation of food security and ecological footprint from primary and secondary information for the nine upazilas of the coastal zone of Bangladesh. Excel format permits easy change or refinement of any data and the subsequent computation of food security and ecological footprint for changed or refined data in the designed Excel computation mode automatically. A database prepared for the nine upazilas of the coastal zone of Bangladesh.are shown in Appendix C. A typical village named Baraikhali was also selected from Dacop upazila of Khulna distict to find out the individual household food security status. Data were collected from the all households of the village using pre-designed questionnaire. Total number of households of the village was 182.

3.1 Computation of food security Food security is a situation in which people do not live in hunger or fear of starvation. Food security exists when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (FAO, 2002). Food security for a household means access by all members at all times to enough food for an active and healthy life. Food security includes at a minimum (1) the ready availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods, and (2) an assured ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways (USDA,1999). USDA evaluated food security based on the gap between projected domestic food consumption and a consumption requirement (USDA,

15 2007). All food aid commodities were converted into grain equivalent based on calorie content. Based on USDA concept the food security is defined as

Food Security = (Food available from different sources and also equivalence food from different sources - Food requirement) / Food requirement

Yusuf and Islam (2005) reported that the daily food requirement data of BBS (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics and INFS (Institute of Nutrition and Food Science) are not adequate and consumption of such a diet would produce physiological deficiencies of both energy and protein leading to protein-energy malnutrition as well as micronutrient malnutrition and proposed a dietary composition for balanced nutrition in Bangladesh as shown in Table 2. The total food intake proposed is 2345 kcal/cap and it is midway between the values suggested by WHO (2310 kcal) and FAO (2400 kcal). The proposed 2345 kcal is equivalent to 1.357 kg of rice based on price. All food aid commodities were converted into grain equivalent based on economic returns (price) to compute the food security. Based on this concept the food security is computed as

Food Security = ((Food available from crops + Food available from aquaculture and equivalent food from income of aquaculture + Food available from livestock and equivalent food from income of livestock + Food available from forestry and equivalent food from income of forestry)– Total food requirement) / Total food requirement

Table 2. Daily balanced food requirement

SL. Food Item Amount Price Total price Equi rice kcal No. (gm) (Tk. /kg) (Tk.) (kg) 1 Rice 312 26.60 8.30 0.312 1086 2 Wheat 60 28.00 1.68 0.063 209 3 Pulse 66 55.00 3.63 0.136 228 4 Animal products 126 110.00 13.86 0.521 176 5 Fruits 57 30.00 1.71 0.064 41 6 Vegetables 180 12.00 2.16 0.081 113 7 Potato 80 12.00 0.96 0.036 71 8 Oil 36 80.00 2.88 0.108 324 9 Sugar and Gur 22 30.00 0.66 0.025 88 10 Spices 14 20.00 0.28 0.011 09 Total 953 36.12 1.357 2345

16 Positive food security means surplus food and negative food security means shortage in food supply to lead healthy life. The structure of food security computation is shown in Fig. 2. Income from Equivalent

Crop t t n

n crop rice (ton) e

e l ) n r a i o n e

i v f t t o i f t a n i u (

Income from Equivalent r

e

d q )

Fish e e y s m n c

fish rice (ton) t i e m i e o n r r r t c i o

i

( r t r u

= f e u u c

÷ n

e q e e o c n m l e s s i

o o Income from Equivalent r a r i

d c t Animal v d i o n c animal rice (ton) i o u o

u l o q d F a e F o t r o

P Income from Equivalent Forest T forest rice (ton)

Fig. 2. Structure of food security computation

Self Sufficiency Ratio (SSR) is calculated as per FAO’s method (FAO, 2001) to express magnitude of production in relation to domestic utilization as well as food deficiency in the country. SSR is defined as:

SSR = Production / (production + imports – exports)

3.2 Computation of ecological footprint and biological capacity Ecological footprint represents the human demands, taking into accounts the production and supply of resources (energy, food and materials) and assimilation of the wastes (in all forms) generated by the analyzed system. Ecological footprint of a given population is the total area of productive land and water required to produce all the resources (energy, food and materials) consumed and to absorb the waste generated by that population of a region or nation using prevailing technology and resource management practices. The ecological footprint calculation is based on the average consumptions data are converted into uses of productive lands. The bioproductive land is divided into 6 categories according to the classification of the World Conservation Union: (1) cropland; (2) grazing land; (3) forest; (4) fishing ground; (5) build-up land; (6) energy land. Total ecological footprint is the sum of the ecological footprints of all categories of land areas which provide for mutually exclusive demands on the bio-sphere. Each of these categories represents an area in hectares, which is then multiplied by its equivalence factor to obtain the footprint in global hectares. One global hectare is equal to 1 ha with

17 productivity equal to the avarage of all the productive ha of the world. Thus, one ha of highly productive land is equal to more global hectares than 1 ha of less productive land. The ecological footprint can be expressed as

Footprint (gha) = Area (ha) × Equivalence Factor (gha/ha) where Equivalence Factor = the world average productivity of a given bioproductive area / the world average potential productivity of all bioproductive areas.

Equivalence factor represents the world average productivity of a given bioproductive area relative to the world average potential productivity of all productive areas and it is the quantity of global hectares contained within an average hectare of cropland, build-up land, forest, pasture or fishery. The structure of the computation of ecological footprint is shown in Fig. 3.

equivalence l crop yield global crop occupied crop a F

factor crops b O [t/yr] / yield [t/ha/yr] = area [gha] o

× l

) [gha/ha] g t [ r

o N p x animal equivalence occupied O e global pasture I - G

t products factor pasture pasture area E r / yield [t/ha/yr] × = o [t/yr] [gha/ha] [gha] R

p F m i O

+ T

equivalence occupied ] n N

fish products global fisheries a o h factor fisheries fisheries area E i I t [t/yr] / yield [t/ha/yr] = g N

c × R [gha/ha] [gha] r u O P o I d

T s o G r e O r E p

forest equivalence a O t R = c

global timber occupied forest F (

products 3 factor forest e L h N 3 / yield [m /ha/yr] × = area [gha]

[m /yr] [gha/ha] A O I C I T G P

equivalence O M

build-up area yield factor occupied build- L U factor crops O S [ha] crop = up area [gha]

× × C N [gha/ha] E

O L C

A T equivalence occupied T E energy fuel wood yield O

N factor forest energy area [GJ/yr] / [GJ/ha/yr] = T × [gha/ha] [gha]

Fig. 3. Structure of ecological footprint computation

An important part of the ecological footprint analysis of a region or zone is represented by the calculation of its Biological Capacity (Biocapacity) that takes into account the surfaces of ecologically productive land located within the area under study. Biological capacity represents the ecologically productive area that is locally available and it indicates the local

18 ecosystems potential capacity to provide natural resources and services. Biological capacity is the total annual biological production capacity of a given biologically productive area. Biological capacity can be expressed as

Biocapacity (gha) = Area (ha) × Equivalence Factor (gha/ha) × Yield factor where Yield factor = Local yield/ global yield Total biocapacity is the sum of all bioproductive areas expressed in global hectares by multiplying its area by the appropriate equivalence factor and the yield factor specific to that country/locality. The structure of the computation of biocapacity is shown in Fig. 4. Biological capacity can be compared with the ecological footprint, which prodides an estimation of the ecological resources required by the local population. The ecological status is expressed as the difference between biocapacity and eclogical footprint. A negative ecological status (BC < EF) indicates that the rate of consumption of natural resources is greater than the rate of production (regeneration) by local ecosystems (Rees, 1996). Thus, an ecological deficit (BC < EF) or surplus (BC > EF) provides an estimation of a local territory’s level of environmental sustainability or unsustainability. This also indicates how close to sustainable development the specific area is.

equivalence existing crop yield factor equivalence × × factor crops =

] area [ha] crop crop area [gha]

a [gha/ha] h

r N o

O s existing equivalence equivalence I e r yield factor G a

pasture area factor pasture = pasture area E t × ×

c pasture R

e [ha] [gha/ha] [gha] h F [

O

N ] Y a

O existing equivalence equivalence h T I

yield factor I g

G fisheries area factor fisheries = fisheries area r × × C E

fisheries o A

R [ha] [gha/ha] [gha] s

P e F r A a O t C

equivalence equivalence c e A L

existing forest yield factor h E A

factor forest = forest area l

R × × C area [ha] forest a I b A

[gha/ha] [gha] G o l G O g [ N L I O

T equivalence equivalence I

S existing build- yield factor B I × × factor crops = build -up area X

up area [ha] crop L

E [gha/ha] [gha] A

T L O A T T existing energ

O equivalence equivalence

T biomass yield factor factor forest = energy area accumulation × forest × [gha/ha] [gha] area [ha]

Fig. 4. Structure of biological capacity computation

19 3.3 Modeling of integrated coastal zone management. The integrated coastal zone management system consists of population, crop production, aquaculture, forestry and ecological sector. These sub-models are integrated for sustainable development. The system as a whole can be described in terms of interconnected blocks. Block diagram representation of the integrated coastal zone management system is shown in Fig. 5. The major influences to a sector from other sectors and its influences on the other sectors are shown in the diagram. Crop area is converted into aquaculture pond area and the shrimp production is highly dependent shrimp production intensity and pond area. Major contributions to the food security of coastal zone come from the shrimp production and crop production and the environmental degradation i.e. ecological footprint comes from mainly shrimp production intensity and pond area and cropping intensity and crop area. The simplified flow diagram of integrated coastal zone management system is shown in Fig. 6. The building blocks of the model are stock and flow. The stock is a state variable and it is represents the state or condition of the system at any time t. The stock is represented by a rectangle. The flow shows how the stock changes with time and it is represented by valve symbol. The flow with arrow towards the stock indicates inflow and the flow with arrow outwards indicates outflow. The lines with arrow are influence lines and the direction indicates the direction of information flow. The variable/factor at the starting point indicates the variable/factor affecting the variable/factor at the terminating point and this in essence shows how one variable/factor influences other variable/factor with direction of information flow. In Fig. 6 pond area is a stock variable and pond growth rate is inflow to the stock – pond area and outflow for the stock - crop area. The line starting from the population to population growth with arrow towards the population growth indicates that population level depends on population growth. The STELLA flow diagram of the detailed model is shown in Fig. 7. This model is essentially a detailed mathematical description of the system and it is a system of finite-difference integral equations. The system of equations of the model is given in Appendix-D. The principles of System Dynamics are given in Bala (1999a).

20 Population Crop production

Forestry Aquaculture

Food Security Environment

Fig. 5. Interrelationships of integrated coastal zone management systems

Simplif ied f low diagram

population

shrimp production intensity

energy consumption population growth

crop area pond area cropping intensity per capita f ood requiremenr pond growth rate

shrimp production

crop production

f ood av ailability f ood requirement

f ood security

ecological f ootprint biocapacity

ecological status

Fig. 6. Simplified flow diagram of integrated coastal zone management system.

21 Food security sector

food per capita other fish yield other fish ~ population ecological foot print per capita shrimp production intensity ~ shrimp ecological shrimp yield bagda ~ population growth foot print multiplier shrimp intensity multiplier bagda equivalent factor other fish shrimp production bagda food eqivalent other fish pond area bagda population growth factor shrimp yield normal bagda food equivalent of fish

land transfer rate for bagda ecological footprint for crop crop area food requirement transfer fraction for bagda equivalence factor ~ transfer fraction no of days crop ecological for bcrop plus fish food security foot print multiplier crop fish integrated Graph 2 farming area Graph 3

Table 1 ~ veg yield cropping intensity Graph 4 veg arealand transfer rate for crop fish food available ~ cropping intensity multiplier veg area growth rate veg production

equivalence factor veg crop yield Table 2 veg growth fraction food from veg food from crop area

crop yiled normal

food from forest normal food from forest crop yield for crop fish fish yield galda shrimp productionintegrated galda farming

food from crop plus fish fish from crop plus fish food from animal normal animal area forest area food from animal

animal growth rate forest growth forest growth factor animal growth fraction

22 Ecological footprint sector

population pond area bagda ~ food consumption per capita shrimp production intensity food consumption

global yield for crop fish consumption per capita ecological footprint for crop

equivalence factor for crop total pond area

fish consumption energy consumption per capita ~ eco factor for semi crop fish integrated intensive culture farming area global yield for fish ecological footprint for fish consumption equivalence factor for fish

global average of energy consumption energy consumption

ecological foot print per capita

ecological footprint for energy eclogical footprint per capita animal consumption for shrimp culture

equivalence factor for energy

global average of animal consumption animal consumption equivalence factor for animal global average of forest consumption ecological footprint for animal

non rice consumption per capita forest consumption equivalence factor for forest

global average of non ecological footprint for forest rice consumption equivalence factor for non rice

forest consumption per capita non rice consumption

build up growth factor ecological footprint ecological footprint buildup area for non rice for build up area yield factor crop

buildup area growth rate

23 Biocapacity sector

equiv alence f actor f or crop biocapacity f or crop crop area y ield f actor f or crop non rice area Boro Aus area

biocapacity f or non rice

equiv alence f actor f or f orest equiv alence f actor f or f ish pond area bagda biocapacity f or f ish crop f ish integrated f arming area y ield f actor f or f ish f orest area Area of canal riv er & pond total biocapacity y ield f actor f or f orest biocapacity f or f orest

equiv alence f actor f or animal animal area y ield f actor f or animal biocapacity f or animal

buildup area

biocapacity f or buildup area

population ecological status ecological f oot print per capita biocapacity per capita

Fig. 7. STELLA flow diagram of the integrated coastal management system

3.4 Policy options

The model was simulated to assess different policy options and to explore management scenarios of integrated coastal zone management system. Basic scenario is the projection of the system behaviour based the present trends of the growth of the system i.e. it is based on existing trend of the growth of the shrimp production intensity termed as normal growth. The system behaviour for super intensive shrimp production intensity is termed as super intensive and the system behaviour under stabilized shrimp production intensity is termed as control growth. Fig. 8 shows the growth patterns for different policy options. Also the

24 model was simulated to search for policy options for the long run sustainability of the integrated coastal zone management system.

120

100 )

% Normal growth (

y t

i 80 Super-intensive s n e

t Control growth n i

n o i

t 60 c u d o r p

p 40 m i r h S

20

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Year

Fig. 8. Growth patterns of the different policy options.

25 4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Food security and ecological footprint at upazila level

The major cropping patterns and cropping intensity of nine upazilas in the coastal zone of Bangladesh are shown in Table 3. Cropping patterns of six upazilas of Satkhira, Khulna and Bagerhat district are almost similar while the cropping patterns of the other three upazilas of Patuakhali and Barguna district are also similar. The cropping pattern T. Aman – Fallow – Fallow has the highest coverage in all the upazilas. This pattern has the highest coverage in Mongla and Shyamnagar upazila (93.6 %) followed by Morrelgonj Upazila (82.8 %) and the lowest is found in Galachipa upazila (24.4%). Some areas were cultivated for production of high yielding varieties during Boro season, where the irrigation facilities were available either from surface water or groundwater sources. The Boro area could be expanded by introducing salt tolerant Boro Variety BRRI Dhan47, where the water salinity ranges upto 8 dS/m. Pulse followed by T. Aman pattern dominated in Pathargata, Kalapara and Galachipa upazilas of Barguna and Patuakhali district. The highest cropping intensity of 199% was observed in Kalapara upazila followed by Galachipa upazila (195%). This is mainly due to the coverage of pulse and Aus crop. The lowest cropping intensity of 103% was observed in Mongla upazila

Table 3. Major cropping patterns and cropping intensity in 2006-2007 of different upazilas

Sl. Upazila Major cropping pattern % Cropping No. Coverage intensity (%) 1 Shyamnagar T. Aman – Fallow – Fallow 93.6 115 T. Aman – Boro - Fallow 5.4 2 Dacop T. Aman – Fallow – Fallow 56.5 159 T. Aman – Fish 42.2 3 Koyra T. Aman – Fallow – Fallow 63.8 138 T. Aman – Boro – Fallow 16.8 T. Aman – Fish 4.5 T. Aman – Potato – Vegetables 4.6 4 Shoronkhola T. Aman – Fallow – Fallow 53.9 148 T. Aman – Khesari – Fallow 28.2 T. Aman – Fallow – T. Aus 6.1 5 Morrelgonj T. Aman – Fallow – Fallow 82.8 128 T. Aman – Fallow – Aus 13.4 T. Aman – Boro – Fallow 3.1 6 Mongla T. Aman – Fallow – Fallow 93.6 103

26 7 Patharghata T. Aman – Fallow – Fallow 45.0 187 T. Aman – Khesari – Fallow/ T. Aus 30.0 T. Aman – Mung – Fallow/ T. Aus 7.0 T. Aman – Sweet potato/ Chilli – Fallow 7.0 8 Kalapara T. Aman – Fallow – Fallow 27.7 199 T. Aman – Khesari – Fallow/ T. Aus 18.9 T. Aman – Mung – Fallow/ T. Aus 6.8 T. Aman – Fallow – Aus 13.0 T. Aman – Cowpea – Aus 12.7 T. Aman – Cowpea – Fallow 11.0 9 Galachipa T. Aman – Fallow – Fallow 24.4 195 T. Aman – Khesari – T. Aus 13.0 T. Aman – Mung – T. Aus 12.0 T. Aman – Groundnut – Fallow 10.3 T. Aman – Khesari – Fallow 9.5 T. Aman – Chilli – Fallow 9.6

Major crop and aquaculture areas are shown in Table 4. T. Aman is the major crop for all the upazilas. Boro cultivation is limited and limited to mainly Galachipa (2610 ha), Shyamnagar (1500 ha), Koyra (1400 ha) and Morrelgonj (680 ha). The highest Gher area is in Shyamnagar (15622 ha) followed by Dacop (13395 ha) while the highest rice-fish integrated area is in Morrelgonj (11437 ha) followed by Mongla (9806 ha). There is no Gher in Shoronkhola, Morrelgonj, Mongla and Patharghata and also there is no rice-fish integrated farming in Dacop and Kalapara.

Table 4. Major crop and fish area in 2006-2007 of different upazilas

Sl. Upazila Total area T. Aman Boro area Rice-fish Gher area (ha) area (ha) (ha) integrated (ha) No. area (ha) 1 Shyamnagar 196824 21370 1500 357 15622 2 Dacop 133736 19500 15 0 13395 3 Koyra 181343 15220 1400 470 5203 4 Shoronkhola 74615 9200 10 48 0 5 Morrelgonj 43830 28280 680 11437 0 6 Mongla 18688 11220 0 9806 0 7 Patharghata 49210 18500 0 55 0 8 Kalapara 48347 40450 10 0 985 9 Galachipa 126891 69500 2610 40 2600

27 The present status of population, food security, food self sufficiency ratio, contributions of crop production and aquaculture to food security, and environmental degradation in terms of ecological footprint of nine upazilas of the coastal zones of Bangladesh are estimated and these upazilas are Shyamnagar, Dacop, Koyra, Shoronkhola, Morrelgonj, Mongla, Patharghata, Kalapara and Galachipa. Fig. 9 shows the present levels of population in these nine upazilas. Morrelgonj (384479) has the largest population followed by Shyamnagar (347178) and Galachipa (351026) while Shoronkhola (128021) has the lowest population level.

450

400

) 350 Population d n a s 300 u o h t 250 n i (

n 200 o i t a l 150 u p o

P 100

50

0 Shyam Dacop Koyra Shorn Morrl Mong Pathr Kala Gala . Fig. 9. Population in 2007 of different upazilas

Fig. 10 shows the present production levels of rice production in the nine upazilas of Shyamnagar, Dacop, Koyra, Shoronkhola, Morrelgonj, Mongla, Patharghata, Kalapara and Galachipa. Galachipa (167198 tons) and Kalapara (158464 tons) have the largest rice production among these nine upazilas and the levels of rice production of Galachipa and Kalapara are almost same followed by Shyamnagar (64598 tons). Rice productions of Dacop (60958 tons) and Koyra (62144 tons) are also almost same. The production level of rice in Galachipa and Kalapara is more than double of that of Shyamnagar, Dacop and Koyra. Shoronkhola has the lowest level of rice production. Thus, Galachipa and Kalapara are rich in rice production but Shoronkhola (21630 tons) is poor in rice production having the lowest population level.

28 180

160 ) s

n Rice Production

o 140 t

o

o 120 o ' (

n 100 o i t

c 80 u d o

r 60 P

e

c 40 i R 20

0 Shyam Dacop Koyra Shorn Morrl Mong Pathr Kala Gala

Fig. 10. Rice production of different upazilas Fig. 11 shows the present levels of shrimp production in the nine upazilas of Shyamnagar, Dacop, Koyra, Shoronkhola, Morrelgonj, Mongla, Patharghata, Kalapara and Galachipa. Shyamnagar (4213 tons), Dacop (3467 tons) and Mongla (3461 tons) are the largest shrimp producers while the shrimp production in Shoronkhola (81 tons) and Patharghata (16 tons) is almost absent. Galachipa (2128 tons) and Koyra (2163 tons) is a moderate shrimp producer with high level of rice production, but Shoronkhola is poor both in terms of shrimp and rice production.

4500

4000 Shrimp Production )

s 3500 n o t (

3000 n o i t

c 2500 u d o

r 2000 P

p 1500 m i r h

S 1000

500

0 Shyam Dacop Koyra Shorn Morrl Mong Pathr Kala Gala

Fig. 11. Shrimp production of different upazilas Fig. 12 shows the food situation in terms of surplus or shortage in the nine upazilas of Shyamnagar, Dacop, Koyra, Shoronkhola, Morrelgonj, Mongla, Patharghata, Kalapara and Galachipa. Galachipa, Kalapara, Dacop, Koyra, Mongla and Patharghata are the food surplus upazilas while Shyamnagar, Morrelgonj and Shoronkhola are food deficit upazilas.

29 Galachipa has the largest surplus (223,272 tons) followed by Kalapara (179,166 tons) and Patharghata is marginally surplus (7617 tons). Morrelgonj is the largest food deficit upazila (57,695 tons) and Shyamnagar (10456 tons) and Shoronkhola (14995 ton) are food deficit by a small margin.

250000

200000 Food sortage/surplus )

s 150000 n o t (

e

c 100000 i r

t n e l 50000 a v i u q

E 0 Shyam Dacop Koyra Shorn Morrl Mong Pathr Kala Gala -50000

-100000

Fig.12. Food sortage/surplus of different upazilas Fig. 13 shows the SSR (Self Sufficiency Ratio) of rice in the nine upazilas of Shyamnagar, Dacop, Koyra, Shoronkhola, Mongla, Morrelgonj, Patharghata, Kalapara and Galachipa. Out of nine upazilas 5 upazilas are self sufficient in rice and four upazilas are deficit in rice. Kalapara has the largest SSR (3.06) and the SSR for Patharghata is marginally surplus (1.10). Morrelgonj has the largest deficit (0.70).

3.5

3

o 2.5

i SSR of Rice t a r

y

c 2 n e i c i f f 1.5 u s

f l e

S 1 Shyam Dacop Koyra Shorn Morrl Mong Pathr Kala Gala 0.5

0

Fig. 13. Self sufficiency ratio of rice of different upazilas

30 Fig. 14 shows the food security status in the nine upazilas of Shyamnagar, Dacop, Koyra, Shoronkhola, Mongla, Morrelgonj, Patharghata, Kalapara and Galachipa. Kalapara (+164.19%), Galachipa (+128.42%), Dacop (+77.24%), Koyra (+34.42%), Mongla (+36.87%) and Patharghata (+8.53%) have positive food security status and Shyamnagar (- 6.08%), Shoronkhola (-23.65%) and Morrelgonj (-30.29) have negative food security status. This implies that Kalapara, Galachipa, Dacop, Koyra, Mongla and Patharghata are food surplus and Shyamnagar, Shoronkhola and Morrelgonj are food deficit upazilas.

200

) Food Security Status (%) %

( 150

s u t a t

S 100

y t i r u c

e 50 S

d o o

F 0

Shyam Dacop Koyra Shorn Morrl Mong Pathr Kala Gala

-50

Fig.14. Food security status of different upazilas Fig. 15 shows the contributions of crop and fish to food security in the nine upazilas of Shyamnagar, Dacop, Koyra, Shoronkhola, Mongla, Morrelgonj, Patharghata, Kalapara and Galachipa. Galachipa (69%) has the largest contribution to food security from crop followed by Kalapara (57%) and Patharghata (53%) and these upazilas are crop dominated while Mongla (71%) has the largest contribution to food security from fish followed by Shyamnagar (47%) and Dacop (44%) and these upazilas are aquaculture dominated. Koyra and Morrelgonj have almost equal contributions from crop and fish.

80 70

) 60 Crop Fish % (

n 50 o i t

u 40 b i r t 30 n o

C 20 10 0 Shyam Dacop Koyra Shorn Morrl Mong Pathr Kala Gala

Fig. 15. Contributions of crop and fish to food security of different upazilas 31 Fig. 16 shows the contributions to ecological footprint from different resources in the Khulna region (Shyamnagar, Dacop, Koyra, Shoronkhola, Mongla, and Morrelgonj). For all these upazilas the contributions to ecological footprint from crop is 29-54%, from energy is 17-35% and from fishery is 5-40%. But the contribution from fishery is the largest in Mongla and it is 40%. Thus, in this region shrimp culture is popular and its contribution to environmental degradation is large.

Shyamnagar Dacop Energy Energy 23% 17% Crop Crop 29% Forest 38% Forest 0% 0%

Fishery Animal 25% Fishery Animal 8% Build-up 37% Build-up 9% 5% 9%

Koyra Shoronkhola Energy 28% Energy 35% Crop 46% Crop Forest Forest 54% 0% 0% Fishery Fishery Animal 5% 18% Build-up Build-up Animal 5% 3% 2% 4%

Morrelgonj Mongla

Energy Energy 23% 18% Crop Forest 35% Forest Crop 0% 0% 45%

Fishery Animal 24% Animal 5% Build-up Fishery Build-up 6% 2% 40% 2%

Fig: 16. Percent ecological distribution of six upazilas of Khulna region

32 Fig. 17 shows percents of contributions to ecological footprint from different resources in the Barisal region (Patharghata, Kalapara and Galachipa). For all these upazilas the major contribution comes from crop (49-56%) followed by energy (24-26%). But the contribution from fishery is 4 to 9%. Thus, in this region shrimp culture is still not popular and its contribution to environmental degradation is very small.

Patharghata Kalapara Energy Energy 26% 24% Forest 0% Crop Forest Fishery 51% 0% Crop 4% 56% Fishery Build-up 8% 11% Animal Build-up Animal 8% 2% 10%

Galachipa Energy 24%

Forest 0% Crop 49% Fishery 9%

Build-up 10% Animal 8%

Fig.17. Percent ecological distribution of three upazilas of Barisal region

Fig. 18 shows the ecological footprint in the nine upazilas of Shyamnagar, Dacop, Koyra, Shoronkhola, Mongla, Patharghata, Kalapara and Galachipa. The largest ecological footprint is at Dacop (0.74 gha/cap) followed by Mongla (0.664 gha/cap) and the lowest ecological footprint is at Shoronkhola (0.389 gha/cap). This implies that Dacop and Mongla have suffered serious environmental degradation and Shoronkhola is the least suffered upazila.

33 0.8

) 0.75

p Ecological footprint a c

/ 0.7 a h

g 0.65 (

t

n 0.6 i r p t 0.55 o o f

l 0.5 a c i 0.45 g o l

o 0.4 c E 0.35 0.3 Shyam Dacop Koyra Shorn Morrl Mong Pathr Kala Gala

Fig. 18. Ecological footprint of different upazilas Fig. 19 shows the biocapacity in the nine upazilas of Shyamnagar, Dacop, Koyra, Shoronkhola, Mongla, Morrelgonj, Patharghata, Kalapara and Galachipa. Kalapara and Galachipa have the largest biocapacity (+0.802 gha/cap) and the lowest is at Mongla (+0.157 gha/cap).

0.9 0.8 Bio capacity )

p 0.7 a c /

a 0.6 h g ( 0.5 y t i

c 0.4 a p

a 0.3 c o i 0.2 B 0.1 0 Shyam Dacop Koyra Shorn Morrl Mong Pathr Kala Gala

Fig. 19. Biological capacity of different upazilas Fig. 20 shows the ecological status the nine upazilas of Shyamnagar, Dacop, Koyra Shoronkhola, Mongla, Morrelgonj, Patharghata, Kalapara and Galachipa. The ecologial status of Kalapara and Galachipa is surplus (+0.306 gha/cap, +0.322 gha/cap) and this implies that these upazilas are not facing any environmental degradation. These two upazilas are crop dominated. The upazilas that have suffered the most are Mongla, Shyamnagar, Dacop, and Morrelgonj where shrimp culture is at commercial level for export market. The highest and the least suffered upazilas are Mongla (-0.5076 gha/cap) and Patharghata (-0.027 gha/cap) respectively. Wackernagel et al. (1999) also reported that the ecological status for Bangladesh as a whole is -0.20 gha/cap. The ecologial footprints of 52

34 countries of the world are shown in Table -5. The largest ecological suprplus country among these 52 countires is New Zealand (+12.8) and the lowest ecological deficit country is Singapore (-6.8). The average ecologial status (-0.2) of Bangladeesh is marginally deficit, but the ecologial status (-0.51) of Mongla is 2.5 times of the national average of Bangladesh and needs policy and programs to arrest the growth and reduce the degradation.

0.4

0.3

0.2 Ecological Status ) p a

c 0.1 / a h g

( 0

s

u Shyam Dacop Koyra Shorn Morrl Mong Pathr Kala Gala t

a -0.1 t s

l a

c -0.2 i g o l

o -0.3 c E -0.4

-0.5

-0.6

Fig.20. Ecological status of different upazilas

Table 5. Ecological footprint, bio-capacity and ecological status of 52 countries in the world

Sl Country Ecological Available Ecological No. footprint (ha/cap) bio-capacity (ha/cap) status (ha/cap) 1 Argentina 3.9 4.6 0.7 2 Australia 9.0 14.0 5.0 3 Austria 4.1 3.1 -1.0 4 Bangladesh 0.5 0.3 -0.2 5 Belgium 5.0 1.2 -3.8 6 Brazil 3.1 6.7 3.6 7 Canada 7.7 9.6 1.9 8 Chile 2.5 3.2 0.7 9 China 1.2 0.8 -0.4 10 Colombia 2.0 4.1 2.1 11 Costa Rica 2.5 2.5 0.0 12 Czech Rep 4.5 4.0 -0.5 13 Denmark 5.9 5.2 -0.7 14 Egypt 1.2 0.2 -1.0 15 Ethiopia 0.8 0.5 -0.3

35 Sl Country Ecological Available Ecological No. footprint bio-capacity status (gha/cap) (gha/cap) (gha/cap) 16 Finland 6.0 8.6 2.6 17 France 4.1 4.2 0.1 18 Germany 5.3 1.9 -3.4 19 Greek 4.1 1.5 -2.6 20 Hong Kong 5.3 0.0 -5.1 21 Hungary 3.1 2.1 -1.0 22 Iceland 7.4 21.7 14.3 23 India 0.8 0.5 -0.3 24 Indonesia 1.4 2.6 1.2 25 Ireland 5.9 6.5 0.6 26 Israel 3.4 0.3 -3.1 27 Italy 4.2 1.3 -2.9 28 Japan 4.3 0.9 -3.4 29 Jordan 1.9 0.1 -1.8 30 Korea 3.4 0.5 -2.9 31 Malaysia 3.3 3.7 0.4 32 Mexico 2.6 1.4 -1.2 33 Netherlands 5.3 1.7 -3.6 34 New Zealand 7.6 20.4 12.8 35 Nigeria 1.5 0.6 -0.9 36 Norway 6.2 6.3 0.1 37 Pakistan 0.8 0.5 -0.3 38 Peru 1.6 7.7 6.1 39 Philippines 1.5 0.9 -0.6 40 Poland, Rep 4.1 2.0 -2.1 41 Portugal 3.8 2.9 -0.9 42 Russian Federation 6.0 3.7 -2.3 43 Singapore 6.9 0.1 -6.8 44 South Africa 3.2 1.3 -1.9 45 Spain 3.8 2.2 -1.6 46 Sweden 5.9 7.0 1.1 47 Switzerland 5.0 1.8 -3.2 48 Thailand 2.8 1.2 -1.6 49 Turkey 2.1 1.3 -0.8 50 United Kingdom 5.2 1.7 -3.5 51 USA 10.3 6.7 -3.6 52 Venezuela 3.8 2.7 -1.1

World 2.8 2.0 -.0.8 Source: Wackernagel et al. (1999)

Fig. 21 shows the contributions of crop and fish to ecological status in the nine upazilas of Shyamnagar, Dacop, Koyra, Shoronkhola, Morrelgonj, Mongla, Patharghata, Kalapara and Galachipa. The contributions of both crop and fish to ecological status of Shyamnagar, 36 Morrelgonj and Mongla are negative resulting ecologically deficit upazilas while the rest of the upazilas have surplus ecological status from crop production. However, fish production (shrimp) always creates deficit ecological footprint and Dacop and Mongla are mainly affected (ecological deficit) by the shrimp production.

0.6

0.5 Crop Fish

) 0.4 p a c

/ 0.3 a h g (

0.2 s u t

a 0.1 t s

l a

c 0 i g

o Shyam Dacop Koyra Shorn Morrl Mong Pathr Kala Gala l -0.1 o c

E -0.2

-0.3

-0.4

Fig. 21. Ecological status from crop and fish of different upazilas

The present status of food security, food self sufficiency ratio, contributions of crop production and aquaculture to food security and environmental degradation in terms of ecological footprint in the nine upazilas of the coastal zones of Bangladesh at a glance are given in Table 6.

Table 6. The present status of food security and ecological status of nine upazilas of the coastal zones of Bangladesh at a glance.

Name of Contribution Food self Food Ecological Bio- Ecological Upazila to food sufficiency security footprint capacity status security (%) Ratio status (gha/cap) (gha/cap) (gha/cap) Crop Fish (%) Shyamnagar 34 47 0.86 -6.08 0.601 0.207 -0.394 Dacop 32 44 1.72 77.24 0.741 0.418 -0.322 Koyra 41 38 1.24 40.06 0.530 0.309 -0.22 Shoronkhola 37 19 0.92 -23.65 0.389 0.220 -0.169 Morrelgonj 36 40 0.70 -30.29 0.482 0.192 -0.2896 Mongla 20 71 0.85 36.87 0.664 0.157 -0.5076 Patharghata 53 18 1.10 8.53 0.495 0.467 -0.027 Kalapara 57 15 3.06 164.19 0.461 0.768 +0.306 Galachipa 69 16 2.12 128.42 0.480 0.802 +0.322

37 This research shows that the overall status of food security at upazila levels is good for all the upazilas (8.53% to 164.19%) except Shoronkhola (-23.65%), Shyamnager (-6.08%) and Morrelgonj (-30.29%), and the best is the Kalapara upazila (164.19%). The environmental status in the coastal zones is poor for all the upazilas (-0.5076 to -0.027) except Kalapara (+0.306) and Galachipa (+0.322) and the worst is the Mongla upazila (-0.5076). The environmental status in the coastal zones has degraded mainly due to shrimp culture.

Household food security Fig. 22 shows the household level food security of the village Baraikhali. Only about 37.4% of the population of the village Baraikhali has food security for round the year and the picture of food security at village level is different from that of upazila level where the overall status of food security is good. This happens mainly due to the fact that shrimp production in the village is dominated by local/non-local private enterprises who care mainly for profit maximization rather than poverty alleviation of the local poor and also care little to protect the local environment.

70 62.6

60

d 50 l o h e s u

o 40 37.4 H

f o

e

g 30 a t n e c r e

P 20

10

0 SF Non-SF

Fig. 22. Household food security status in the village Baraikhali

Fig. 23 shows the percentage distribution of food security in the village Baraikhali. Almost 42.3% of the households of the village Baraikhali have suffered from food insecurity for 0-3 months followed by 10.4% of the households for 3-6 months and 9.9% for more than 6 months.

38 >6 M NSF 16%

3-6 M NSF 17%

0-3 M NSF 67%

Fig. 23. Percentage distribution of food security

4.2 Simulated scenarios The computer model was simulated to predict the contributions of coastal zones of Bangladesh to food security and environmental degradation. The initial values of the stock variables and the values of the parameters were taken from the primary and secondary data. The sensitivity of the important parameters was also estimated. To build up confidence in the predictions of the model various ways of validating a system dynamics model, such as comparing the model results with historical data, checking whether the model generates plausible behavior and checking the quality of parameter values were considered. To judge the plausibility of the model, the behavior of the key variables in the base run were examined. The validated model was used for base line scenario and policy analysis, assessment of management strategies and searching for sustainable development policy for food security. The simulated results of a typical upazila, Dacop is presented here. The simulated results of other upazilas are presented in Appendix E. Fig. 24 shows the simulated population, food availability and food security of Dacop upazila for simulation period of 12 years. The population is increasing rapidly from 172613 in 2007 to 207650 in 2019 but the food availability (380207 tons) become almost constant after 9 years and the food security (204%) become almost constant after 8 years of increasing trend. This indicates the sustainability in term of food security is ensured in the short run in Dacop upazila.

39 1: population 2: f ood security 3: f ood av ailable 1: 210000 2: 250 3: 350000

2 3 2 1 3

2 1: 190000 2: 150 3 1 3: 250000

1 2 3

1: 170000 1 2: 50 3: 150000 0.00 3.00 6.00 9.00 12.00 Page 1 Years 12:28 PM Thu, Sep 11, 2008 Simulation of f ood security of Dacop (Normal growth)

Fig. 24. Simulated population, food availability and food security of Dacop upazila.

Fig. 25 shows the simulated penaeid (bagda) shrimp pond area, crop area and penaeid (bagda) shrimp production of Dacop upazila. Cropped area is converted into aquaculture pond area at the rate of 1.2%. This causes the increase of pond area with the decrease of cropped area resulting shrimp production of 3257 tons in 2007 to 12425 tons in 2019.

1: pond area bagda 2: shrimp production bagda 3: crop area 1: 16000 2: 13000 3: 19500 3 2 1 2

3 1 1: 14500 2 2: 8000 3: 17000 3 1

3 1 2 1: 13000 2: 3000 3: 14500 0.00 3.00 6.00 9.00 12.00 Page 1 Years 12:12 AM Mon, Oct 20, 2008 Simulation of crop and shrimp production of Dacop (Normal growth)

Fig. 25. Simulated penaeid (bagda) shrimp pond areada, crop area and penaeid shrimp production of Dacop upazila

40 Fig. 26 shows the short run simulated ecological footprint per capita, biocapacity per capita and ecological status of Dacop upazila. The ecological footprint per capita increases rapidly from 0.741 gha/cap to 9.90 gha/cap within a period of 12 years, but in the same period biocapacity decreases from 0.42 gha/cap to 0.32 gha/cap. As a consequence the ecological status decreases rapidly from -0.74 gha/cap to -9.9 gha/cap. This implies that the environmental degradation is also rapid in Dacop mainly due to increased shrimp culture.

1: ecological f oot print per capita 2: ecological status 3: biocapacity per capita 1: 11 2: 0 3: 11 2

1 2

1: 6 1 2: -5 3: 6 2

1 2

1: 1 2: -10 1 3 3 3 3 3: 0 0.00 3.00 6.00 9.00 12.00 Page 1 Years 12:34 PM Sat, Oct 18, 2008 Fig. 25(b) Simulation of Ecological Footprint of Dacop (Normal growth)

Fig. 26. Simulated ecological footprint, biocapacity and ecological status of Dacop upazila.

Fig. 27 shows the simulated food security, ecological footprint and ecological status of Dacop upazila for normal growth (current trend), super intensive culture and control growth (stable growth) for a simulation period of 12 years. In Fig. 27 (a) the simulated results show that food security increases up to 9 years and then it drops quickly to 122% from 224% under super intensive culture whereas the food security is almost constant for a simulation period of last 5 years for both normal and control scenarios. This implies that if shrimp aquaculture industry continues to boom from the present status to super intensive shrimp aquaculture, a collapse of the shrimp aquaculture industry will ultimately occur turning shrimp aquaculture land neither suitable for shrimp culture nor crop production. Arquitt et al. (2005) reported similar results for super intensive shrimp production in Thailand.

41 250

200 ) % (

y 150 t i r u c e s 100 FS (Normal growth) d o

o FS (Super-intensive) F 50 FS(Control growth)

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final Year

Fig. 27(a). Simulated food Security status of Dacop upazila for different options

Fig. 27 (b) shows the simulated ecological footprint increases exponentially from a value +0.74 gha/cap to +17.24 gha/cap under super intensive culture whereas the ecological footprint under normal growth increases linearly from a value +0.74 gh/cap to +9.9 gha/cap and the ecological footprint under control growth increases from a value +0.74 gha/cap to +8.0 gha/cap and becomes almost contant towards end of the simulated period. This implies that if shrimp aquaculture industry continues to boom in terms of super intensive shrimp aquaculture, the environment is seriously affected resulting ecological foot print of +17.24 gha/cap within 12 years.

20 18 ) p

a 16

c EF(Normal growth) /

a 14 h

g EF (Super-intensive) (

t 12 n

i EF(Control growth) r 10 p t

o 8 o f

l

a 6 c i

g 4 o l o

c 2 E 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final Year

Fig. 27(b). Simulated ecological footprint of Dacop upazila for different options

42 Fig. 27 (c) shows that the simulated ecological status decreases exponentially under super intensive culture from a value of -0.32 gha/cap to -16.92 gha/cap whereas the ecological status under normal decreases linearly from a value of -0.32 gha/cap to -9.58 gh/cap. Ecological status under control growth decreases from a value of -0.32 gha/cap to -7.72 gha/cap and the rate of growth of control growth is lower than that of the normal growth. The absolute magnitude of the ecological status is almost same as the absolute magnitude of the ecological footprint since the magnitude of initial biocapacity and its growth are very small. This implies that if shrimp aquaculture industry continues to boom from the present status to super intensive shrimp aquaculture, the environment is seriously affected resulting ecological status of-18 gha/cap.

Year 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final

) -2 p a c

/ -4 a h g

( -6

s u t

a -8 t s

l ES (Normal growth)

a -10 c i

g ES (Super-intensive)

o -12 l

o ES (Control growth) c -14 E -16

-18

Fig. 27(c). Simulated ecological status of Dacop upazila for different options

Fig. 28 shows the simulated population, food security and ecological status under normal growth for a period of 120 years. Fig.28(a) shows that the population increases exponentially from 172613 in 2007 to 1095594 in 2119 but the food security increase initially up to 12 years and reach a value of 205 and then decreases linearly for rest of the period and ultimately collapses because of the population explosion. This implies that sustainable development of the coastal zone in the long run through the control of shrimp production intensity without the control of population is a mere dream.

43 1: population 2: f ood security 3: f ood av ailable 1: 1150000 2: 300 3: 650000 3

3 2

1 1: 650000 3 2: 150 2 3: 400000

3 2 1

2 1 1: 150000 2: 0 1 3: 150000 0.00 30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00 Page 1 Years 7:00 PM Mon, Oct 20, 2008 Simulation of f ood security of Dacop (Normal growth long term)

Fig. 28(a). Simulated population, food security and food available of Dacop for120 years.

28(b) shows that the pond area increases gradually and becomes almost stable at 23272 ha within 120 years. As a consequence the crop area decreases gradually and becomes almost stable at 1391 ha within 120 years. This implies that although pond area and crop area become almost stable in the long run, food security decreases because of the population explosion.

1: pond area bagda 2: shrimp production bagda 3: crop area 1: 24000 2: 30000 3: 20000 1

1 2 3 2

1: 18500 1 2 2: 15000 3: 10000 2 3

3

1: 13000 1 3 2: 0 3: 0 0.00 30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00 Page 1 Years 7:16 PM Mon, Oct 20, 2008 Simulation of Dacop (Control growth long term) Fig. 28(b). Simulated penaeid (bagda) shrimp pond area, penaeid shrimp production and crop area of Dacop for120 yrs

44 Fig. 28 (c) shows that the ecological footprint increase rapidly from 0.74 to +8.07 gha/cap within 13 years and then decreases linearly to +2.97 gha/cap at the end of the simulation period of 120 years. As a consequence ecological status decreases rapidly from -0.32 to - 7.80 gha/cap within 16 years and then again increase linearly to -2.92 gha/cap at the end of the simulation period of 120 years since the contribution of biocapacity is very small. This implies that sustainable environmental development of the coastal zone in the long run through the control of shrimp production intensity without the control of population remains a mere dream.

1: ecological f oot print per capita 2: ecological status 3: biocapacity per capita 1: 9 2: 0 3: 9 1

1

1: 5 2 2: -4 3: 5 1

2 1 2

2 1: 1 2: -8 3 3 3 3: 0 3 0.00 30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00 Page 1 Years 4:59 PM Sat, Oct 18, 2008 Simulation of Ecological Footprint of Dacop f or 120 y ears

Fig. 28(c). Simulated ecological footprint, biocapacity and ecological status of Dacop upazila for120 years

Fig. 29 shows the simulated population, food security and ecological status under control of both normal growth and population for a period of 120 years. Fig. 29 (a) The population initially increases to 321816 in 90 years and then becomes stabilized but the food security increase initially to a value of 203 in 10 years, then decreases slowly for a the period of 60 years to a value of 150 and then becomes stabilized. This implies that sustainable development of the coastal zone in terms of population and food security in the long run can be realized through the control of shrimp production intensity and population control.

45 1: population 2: f ood security 3: f ood av ailable 1: 350000 2: 250 3: 450000 1 3 3 2 1 3

2 1: 250000 3 1 2: 150 2 3: 300000 2

1 1: 150000 2: 50 3: 150000 0.00 30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00 Page 1 Years 9:55 AM Sat, Oct 18, 2008 Simulation of f ood security of Dacop (Control growth)

Fig. 29(a). Simulated population, food security and food availability of Dacop under control of both normal growth and population for a period of 120 years

Fig. 29 (b) shows that the pond area increases gradually and becomes stable at almost 23372 ha within 120. As a consequence the crop area decreases gradually and becomes stable at almost 1391 ha within 120 years. This implies that sustainable development of the coastal zone in terms of crop and shrimp production in the long run can be realized through the control of shrimp production intensity and population control.

1: pond area bagda 2: shrimp production bagda 3: crop area 1: 24000 2: 20000 3: 1 2 1 2 3 2

1: 18500 2 1 2: 10000 3: 3

3

1: 13000 1 3 2: 3: 0 0.00 30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00 Page 1 Years 12:28 AM Mon, Oct 20, 2008 Simulation of crop and shrimp area of Dacop (Control growth)

Fig. 29(b). Simulated penaeid (bagda)shrimp pond area, penaeid shrimp production and crop area of Dacop under control of both normal growth and population for a period of 120 years

46 Fig. 29(c) shows that the ecological footprint increases rapidly from almost 0.74 to +8.20 gha/cap within 12 years and then becomes stabilized at +8.60 gha/cap. The ecological status decreases rapidly from almost -0.32 to -7.90 gha/cap within 12 years and then remains almost constant at -8.35 gha/cap. This implies that sustainable development of the coastal zone in terms of environment in the long run can be realized through the control of shrimp production intensity and population control.

1: ecological f oot print per capita 2: ecological status 3: biocapacity per capita 1: 10 2: 0 3: 10 1 1 1

1: 5 2: -5 3: 5

2 1

1: 1 2 2 2 2: -9 3 3 3 3 3: 0 0.00 30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00 Page 1 Years 4:46 PM Sun, Oct 19, 2008 Simulation of Ecological Footprint of Dacop (Control growth) Fig. 29(c). Simulated ecological footprint, biocapacity and ecological status of Dacop under control of both normal growth and population for a period of 120 years 5. Key Findings

A quantitative method for computation of food security in grain equivalent based on economic returns (price) is developed. A database has been prepared for computation of food security and ecological footprint. Also the food security and ecological footprint of the coastal zone of Bangladesh are estimated. This research shows that the overall status of food security at upazila levels is good for all the upazilas (8.53% to 164.19%) except Shoronkhola (-23.65%), Shyamnager (-6.08%) and Morrelgonj (-30.29%), and the best is the Kalapara upazila (164.19%). But status of food security at household levels of a typical village found to be poor. The environmental status in the coastal zones is poor for all the upazilas (-0.5076 to -0.027) except Kalapara (+0.306) and Galachipa (+0.322) and the worst is the Mongla upazila (-0.5076). The environmental status in the coastal zones has degraded mainly due to shrimp culture.

47 A system dynamics model of integrated management of coastal zone for food security and ecological footprint has been developed. This model predicts that expanding shrimp aquaculture industry ensures high food security at upazila levels with increasing environmental degradation. The model also predicts that if shrimp aquaculture industry continues to boom from the present status to super intensive shrimp aquaculture, a collapse of the shrimp aquaculture industry will ultimately occur turning shrimp aquaculture land neither suitable for shrimp culture nor crop production. The control of growth of the shrimp production intensity stabilizes the system at least in the short run. The control of population and growth of the shrimp production intensity should be considered for stabilization of the system in the long run.

6. Policy Implications and Recommendations

Shoronkhola, Shyamnager and Morrelgonj are poor in food security as well as in environmental degradation. To improve the situation any further expansion of shrimp aquaculture should be considered with cautions and rice – shrimp aquaculture should be explored on a priority basis. Mongla upazila is the worst environmentally affected upazila and this implies that the shrimp aquaculture in Mongla should be restricted. Since all the upazilas except Kalapara and Galachipa are environmentally affected, any further expansion of shrimp aquaculture to enhance food security should be considered with cautions. Since the status of food security at household levels is poor, action programmes are needed to improve the food security at household and also to ensure the payment of reasonable rent of the land used in shrimp aquaculture to the poor farmers. A system dynamics model of integrated management of coastal zone for food security has been developed. This model can be used to predict food security and environmental degradation in terms of ecological footprint of the coastal zone of Bangladesh. This model can provide better insights and understanding of integrated coastal zone system. This model can be used to assist the policy planners to assess different policy issues and to design a policy for sustainable development of the coastal zones of Bangladesh. It is now high time to design an integrated management system for the coastal zones of Bangladesh for sustainable development. Super intensive shrimp aquaculture must not be allowed to avoid the collapse of the shrimp aquaculture industry ultimately turning shrimp aquaculture land neither suitable for shrimp culture nor crop production. The control of

48 population and growth of thee shrimp production intensity should be considered for the long run sustainability of the coastal zone of Bangladesh. Higher contributions to food security from shrimp culture in the coastal zones of Bangladesh may be attributed to two reasons: first, the potential of shrimp culture in the coastal zone; second, the export market of the shrimp which prompted to expansion of shrimp culture in the coastal zone. However, the ecosystem of the coastal zone already has degradeded due to the expansion of shrimp culture and there is a scope for sustainable development of the coastal zones of Bangladesh. The policy regime of shrimp farming may also have induced some additional distortion to environmental degradation. As already mentioned farmers are converting agricultural land into shrimp farming pond and intruding saline water for penaeid shrimp culture. Practically there is no regulation on conversion of agricultural land into shrimp culture intruding saline water. Local elites and private enterprizes are attracted to shrimp farming for export. Our findings give rise to a number of observations regarding shrimp farming and environmental protection. In practice, the shrimp is not intensive. In principle, it requires not only simply restricting the conversion of agriculture land into intensive shrimp pond but also restricting the growth of the shrimp farming intensity.Our findings, therefore suggest that policy planning of coastal zone development should take into account the following:

* Effort to achieve higher food security must be combined with effort to achieve lower ecological footprint (environmental degradation). This can be done via policies design to establish through application of restriction on conversion agriculture land into conversion of shrimp ponds and resticted growth of intensity and development of salinity resistant rice variety. Right policies and programs to boost up shrimp culture in rice field using improved technology and extension services and sustainable penaeid shrimp culture with restriction on uncontrolled growth of the shrimp culture pond and intensity of shrimp culture in the high salinity areas with tax to reduce ecological footprint need promotion to increase the food security with reduced environmental degradation. * For the success of the sustainable development of coastal zone of Bangladesh requires awarness based on participitary approach with shrimp culture technology, crop production in saline water and environment related problems. Effective extension service should be further strengthened for awarness development regarding environmental degradation and

49 sustainable development of coastal zone i. e. restricted growth of shrimp farming and farming intensity. * Sustainable development of the coastal zone in the long run without any population control would remain a mere dream amd hence policies targeted for sustainable development must include population control measures.

7. Areas of Further Research

A computer simulation based on system dynamics methodology is developed to provide an understanding of how things have been changed with time and this approach has been adopted to simulate the highly complex coastal zone management system. But there is another approach called multi agent system which focuses more on stakeholder’s interactions and it is an emerging sub-field of artificial intelligence. Furthermore, a successful sustainable development requires coastal zone management be carried out in a participatory approach. An artificial society of primary coastal zone actors are to be built using multi agent system approach for developing scenarios to increase the sustainability of the coastal zone management. Certainly the food security and ecological footprint will be the indicators of the sustainability. Such a study is recommended for management of successful sustainable development on a rational basis. Within this century, thousands of people are likely to be displaced by sea level rise at the coastal zone of Bangladesh and the accompanying economic and ecological damage will be severe for many. Sarwar (2005) assessed the impacts of sea level rise on Bangladesh using secondary data. This study revealed that a one meter sea level rise will affect the vast coastal area and flood plain zone of Bangladesh. Both livelihood options of coastal communities and the natural environment of the coastal zone will be affected by the anticipated sea level rise. It will also affect national and food security of the country. Further research is needed on impacts of sea level rise on the food security of the coastal zone of Bangladesh. The mangroove forest of the Sunderbans serves a shield against cyclonic surges such as SIDR. Climate change over the next 100 years is expected to have significant impacts on forest ecosystems of the sunderbans. The forestry community needs to evaluate the long- term effects of climate change on forests and determine what the community might do now and in the future to respond to this threat. Management can influence the timing and

50 direction of forest adaptation at selected locations, but in many situations society will have to adjust to however forests adapt. A high priority will be coping with and adapting to forest disturbance while maintaining the genetic diversity and resilience of forest ecosystems. Bala et al. (2003, 2004 & 2008) adapted the process based cohort model (Kohler, 2000 and Kohler and Huth, 2004) to simulate the mangrove forest growth of the sunderbans and also applied the aggregate model CO2FIX (Masera et al., 2003). Further research is needed on modeling of the sunderbans and also on the climate change impacts on the mangrove forests of the sunderbans to address the long-term effects of climate change on forests and its contribution to food security and environment.

8. Conclusions

A quantitative method for computation of food security in grain equivalent based on economic returns (price) is developed. The food security and ecological footprint of the coastal zone of Bangladesh are estimated and a database has been prepared. Overall status of food security at upazila levels is good for all the upazilas except Shoronkhola, Shyamnager and Morrelgonj and the best is the Kalapara upazila. But, the status of food security at household levels is poor. Environmental status in the coastal zones is poor for all the upazilas except Kalapara and Galachipa. The worst is the Mongla upazila. Environmental status has degraded mainly due to shrimp culture. A system dynamics model of integrated management of coastal zone for food security and ecological footprint has been developed. This model predicts that expanding shrimp aquaculture industry ensures high food security at upazila levels with increasing environmental degradation. The model also predicts that if shrimp aquaculture industry continues to boom from the present status to super intensive shrimp aquaculture, a collapse of the shrimp aquaculture industry will ultimately occur turning shrimp aquaculture land neither suitable for shrimp culture nor crop production. The control of growth of the shrimp production intensity stabilizes the system at least in the short run. The control of population and growth of the shrimp production intensity should be considered for stabilization of the system in the long run.

51 It is now high time to design an integrated management system for the coastal zones of Bangladesh for sustainable development. This model can be used to assist the policy planners to assess different policy issues and to design a policy for sustainable development of the coastal zones of Bangladesh and also to address climate change issues. A computer simulation based on system dynamics methodology is developed to provide an understanding of how things have been changed with time and this approach has been adopted to simulate the highly complex coastal zone management system. But there is another approach called multi agent system which focuses more on stakeholder’s interactions and it is an emerging sub-field of artificial intelligence. Furthermore, a successful sustainable development requires coastal zone management be carried out in a participatory approach. An artificial society of primary coastal zone actors are to be built using multi agent system approach for developing scenarios to increase the sustainability of the coastal zone management. Certainly the food security and ecological footprint will be the indicators of the sustainability. Such a study is recommended for management of successful sustainable development on a rational basis.

Acknowledgments

The financial support of FAO is gratefully acknowledged for this study under National Food Policy Capacity Strengthing Programme (CF-5).

This study was carried out with the support of the

National Food Policy Capacity Strengthening Programme

52 References

Ahmed, A.T.A. 1995. Impacts of shrimp culture on the coastal environment of Bangladesh. Proceedings of the National Workshop on Coastal Aquaculture and Environmental Management. Institute of Marine Sciences, 25-28 April 1995. Nuruddin Mahmood, University of Chittagong/UNESCO, Bangladesh. pp. 77–84.

Akteruzzaman, M. 2004. A cost benefit analysis of breakish water management for shrimp farming in southwest coastal belt of Bangladesh. 9th Biannual Research and Training Workshop. 01-09 November. Banglore, India.

Arquitt, S., Honggang, X. and Johnstone, R. 2005. A system dynamics analysis of boom and burst in the shrimp aquaculture industry. Systems Dynamics Review. 4(2), 305- 324.

Bach, N.L., & Saeed, K. 1992. Food self-sufficiency in Vietnam: a search for aviable solution. System Dynamics Review, 8(2), 129-148.

Bagliani, M., Galli, A., Niccolucci, V., Marchettini, N. 2008. Ecological footprint analysis applied to a sub-national area : The case of the Province of Siena Italy). Environmental Management. 86(2).354-364.

Bala, B. K. 1999a. Principles of System Dynamics. Agrotech Publishing Academy, Udaipur, India.

Bala, B. K. 1999b. Computer Modelling of Energy, Food and Environment: The case of Bangladesh. Paper presented at the 17th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society and 5th Australian & New Zealand Systems Conference,Wellington, New Zealand.

Bala, B.K., Matin, M. A. and Hossain, M. A. 2003. Modeling of Forest Dynamics of the Sunderbans. Proceedings of the International Conference on Mechanical Engineering 2003 (ICME2003), held on 26-28 December 2003, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Bala, B.K., Matin, M. A. and Hossain, M. A. 2004. Modeling of forest dynamics of the Sunderbans. Proceedings of the International Conference on Modeling Forest Production, held on 19-21 April 2004, Vienna, Austria.

Bala, B.K.; Matin, M.A. and Fazlul Hoque, A.K. 2008. Simulation of forest dynamics of the Sunderbans. Proceedings of the National Conference on Systems thinking and system dynamics (NCSD-2886), held on 29 February-01 March 2008, Baranas Hindu university, Varanasi, India, pp. 30-44.

Banglapedia, 2003. National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh. Vol. 03. p. 56. Asiatic Society of Bangladesh.

BBS, 2002. Statistical Pocketbook Bangladesh.2001. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. Semtember. 2002.

53 Begum, S. 2002. Proceedings of the APO seminar on role of rural women in food security in Asia and the Pacific. Held in Thailand from 21-25 August.2000. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo, Japan.

Belt, M. V. D., Deutsch, L. and Jansson, A. 1998. A consensus-based simulation model for management in the Patagonia coastal zone. Ecol. Model. 110. 79-103.

Cao, W. and Wong, M. H. 2007. Current status of coastal zone issues and management in China: A review. Environment International. 33. 985-992.

Chambers, N., Simmons, C. and Wackernagel, M. 2000. Sharing Nature’s Interest- Ecological Footprint as an indicator of Sustainability. Earthscan Publication Ltd, London, UK, ISBN 1-85383-739-3.

Chen, B. and Chen, G. Q. 2006. Ecological footprint accounting based on emergy- Acase study of the Chinese society. Ecol. Model. 198, 101-114.

Coxhead, Ian. 2000 Consequences of a food security strategy for economicwelfare, ncome distribution and land degradation the Philippine case. World Development Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 111-128, 2000.

Chua, T. E., Bonga, D. and Atrigenio, N. B. 2006. Dynamics of integrated coastal management: PEMSEA’s Experience. Coastal Management. 34:303-322.

Csavas, I.. 1995. Development of shrimp farming with special reference to Southeast Asia. Presented at INDAQUA 1995 Exposition of Indian Aquaculture, Madras.

De Souza, R., Williams, J. S. and Meyerson Frederick, A. B. 2003. “Critical Links. Population, Health and Environment”. In population Bulletin, 58 (3).

Diakosavvas and Green. 1998. Assessing the impact on food security of alternative compensatory financing schemes. A simulation approach with an application to India. World Development Vol. 26, No. 7, pp. 1251-1265, 1998

DoF (Department of Fisheries) 1995. Shrimp resources statistics. Central Shrimp Cell, Department of Fisheries, Dhaka.

DoF (Department of Fisheries) 2003. Fishery Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh: 2002- 2003. Department of Fisheries, Dhaka, 41 pp.

Fabbri, K. P. 1998. A methodology for supporting decision making in integrated coastal zone management. Ocean and Coastal management. 39. 51-62.

Falcon, Walter P., Naylor, R. L., Smith, W. L. S. W. L., Burke, M. and McCullough. 2004. Using climate models to improve Indonesian Food Security. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, Vol. 40, No. 3, 355–77

FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 1996a. “Implications of Economic Policy for Food Security: A Training Manual”, Rome.

54 FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 1996b. Technical Background Document, prepared for the World Food Summit, Rome,

FAO. 2001. Food Balance Sheet- A Handbook. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

FAO. 2002. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2001. Rome.

Georgiadis, P., Vlachos, D. and Iakavou, E. 2004. A system dynamics modeling framework for the strategic supply chain management of food chains. Journal of Food Engineering, 70 351–364.

Giraldo, D. P., Betancur, M. J. and Arango, S. 2008. Food Security in Developing Countries: A systemic perspective. Paper presented at the International Conference of the System Dynamics Society held on July 20-24, 2008 at Athens, Greece.

Gohara, R. 2001. A System Dynamics Model for Estimation of Future World FoodProduction Capacity. Unpublished Thesis (M.S.) University of New Hampshire.

Holden, S., Shiferaw, B., and Pender, J. 2005. Policy Analysis for Sustainable Land Management and Food Security in Ethiopia. A Bioeconomic Model with Market Imperfections. IFPRI, Washington D.C.

Hossain, S. M. A., Ahmad, S., Halim, A., Dewan, S., Talukder, M. S., Islam, M. S. and Bhuiya, M. S. U. 2002. Fact searching and intervention 1999-2001. Studies on integrated farming. FSES Publication No. 78. Farming Systems and Environmental Studies, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh.

Hussain, Z. and Karim, A. 1994. Introduction. In: Hussain, Z. and Acharya, G. (eds.). Mangrove of the Sunderban.Volume 2: pp. 1-10. IUCN- The World Conservation Union, Bangkok. Ianchovichina, E., Darwin, R. and Shoemaker, R. 2001. Resource use and technological progress in agriculture: a dynamic general equilibrium analysis. Ecological Economics 38, 275–291.

IFPRI, 1998. Sustainable Food Security for All by 2020. Proceedings of an International Conference. September 4-6. Bonn, Germany.

Iftekhar, M. S. 2006. Conservation and management of the Bangladesh coastal ecosystem: overview of an integrated approach. Natural Resources Forum. 30. 230-237.

Karim, Z., Hossain, S. G. and Ahmed, M. 1990. Salinity problem and crop intensification in the coastal region of Bangladesh, BARC, Dhaka.

Khan, Y. S. A. and Hossain, M.S. 1996. Impact of shrimp culture on the coastal environment of Bangladesh. International Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences 22(2), 145–158.

55 Klinger, T., 2004. International ICZM: In search of successful outcomes. Ocean and Coastal Management, 47: 195–196.

Köhler, P. 2000. Modeling anthropogenic impacts on the growth of tropical rain forests using an individual-oriented forest growth model for analyses of logging and fragmentation in three case studies. Ph.D Thesis, University of Kassel, Germany.

Köhler, P. and Huth, A. 2004. Simulating growth dynamics in South-east Asian rainforest threatened by recruitment shortage and tree harvesting. Climate Change, 67, 95-117.

MacCalla, A. and Revoredo, C. 2001. Prospects for Global Food Security. A Critical Appraisal of Past Projections and Predictions. International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington, D.C. U.S.A.

Masera, O. R., Garza-Caligaris, J F., Kanninen, M., Karjalainen, T., Liski, J., Nabuurs, G. J., Pussinen, A., de Jong, B. H. J. and Mohren, G. M. J. 2003. Modeling carbon sequestration in afforestation, agroforestry and forest management projects: the CO2FIX V.2 Approach. Ecological Modeling, 164, pp. 177 – 199.

Meadows, D. H. 1976. Food and Population: Policies for the United States. In D.Baldwin (Ed.), America as an Interdependent World. Hanover, NH: Univ. Press of New England.

Meadows, D. H. 1977. The World Food Problem: Growth Models and Nongrowth Solution. In D. L. Meadows (Ed), Alternatives to Growth-I: A Search for Sustainable Futures. Cambridge MA: Ballinger Publishing Co.

Medved, S. 2006. Present and future ecological footprint of Slovenia- The influence of energy demand scenarios. Ecol. Model. 192, 25-36.

Ministry of Finance. 2003. Bangladesh: A National Strategy for Economic Growth, Poverty reduction and Social Development. Economic Relation Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka.

Mishra, U. and Hossain, S. A. K. 2005. Current food security and challenges: Achieving 2015 MDG hunger milepost. Food Security in Bangladesh. Paper presented in the national workshop. pp 01-06. October 19-20. Dhaka. Bangladesh.

MOFL (Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock) 1997. Fisheries resources development and management. Paper presented at the National Workshop, 29 October to 1 November 1997, MOFL, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Mohanty, S. and Peterson, E. 2005. Food security and government interventions a study of Indian grain markets. J. Int. Trade & Economic Development Vol. 14, No. 3. 337- 352. September 2005.

Monfreda, C., Wackernagel, M. and Deumling, D. 2004. Establishing national natural capital accounts based on detailed ecological footprint and biological capacity assessment. Land Use Policy 21. 231-246.

56 NACA (Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia Pacific). 1994. Environmental management for coastal aquaculture. An assessment of shirimp culture in Southern Thailand. Niccolicci, V., Gall, A., Kitzes, J, Pulselli, R. M., Borsa, S. and Marchettini, N. 2008. Ecological footprint analysis applied to the production of two Italian wines. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 128:162-166.

Nguyan, T. G.and Kok, J. L. 2007. Systematic testing of an integrated systems model for coastal zone management using sensitivity and uncertainty analyses. Environmental Model. and Software. 22. 1572-1587.

PDO-ICZMP (Program Development Office for Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan). 2003. Coastal livelihood. Situation and context (WP 005). Water Resources Planning Organization, Dhaka. September, 2002.

Pedersen, J. D., Beck. S., Johansen, H. B. and Jensen, H. B. 2005. Capacity development in integrated coastal zone management: Some lessons learned from Malaysia. Coastal Management. 33. 353-372.

Quinn, P. M., 2002. Nation State Food Security: A Simulation of Food Production, Population Consumption, and Sustainable Development. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 20th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Palermo, Italy.

RDRS. 2005. A report of survey on food security and hunger in Bangladesh. ISBN 984-32- 2562-7.

Rees, W. E. 1996. Revisiting carrying capacity: area-based indicators of sustainability. Population and Environment 17, 195-215.

Riely, F., Mock, N., Cogill, B., Bailey, L. and Kenefick, E. 1999. Food security indicators and framework for use in the monitoring and evaluation of food aid programs. Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance. Washington D. C.

Robertson, A. I. and Phillips, M. J. 1995. Mangroves as filters of shrimp pond effluent: predictions and biogeochemical research needs. Hydrobiologia. 295, 311-321.

Rosegrant, M. W., meijer, S. and Cline, S. A. 2005 The International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT-WATER). International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington, D.C.

Saeed, K., Satter, M. A., & Singh, G. 1983. Rice Crop Production Policies and Food Supply in Bangladesh. Paper presented at the International System Dynamics Conference, Chestnut Hill, MA.

Saeed, K. 2000. Defining Developmental Problems for System Dynamics Modeling: An Experiential Learning Approach. Social Science and Policy Studies Department. Worcester Polytechnic Institute. USA.

57 Sarwar, M. G. M. 2005. Impacts of sea level rise on the coastal zone of Bangladesh. MS Thesis, Lund University, Sweden.

Shapouri, S. and Rosen, S. 2006. Food Security Assessment. United States Department of Agriculture USDA.

Siry, H. Y. 2006. Decentralized coastal zone management in Malaysia and Indonesia: A comparative perspective. Coastal Management. 34:267-285.

Sonak, S., Pangan, P. and Giriyan, A. 2008. Green reconstruction of the tsunami-affected areas in India using the integrated coastal zone management concept. Environmental Management. Accepted 17 January 2007. In press.

USDA. 1999. Food Security Assessment. USDA Economic Research Service. Situation and Outlook series GFA-11 Washington DC

USDA. 2007. Food Security Assessment. USDA Economic Research Service. Appendix- Food Security Model: Definition and Methodology.GFA-19. Washington DC

Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L;, Bello, P., Belllo, P., Linares, A.C., Falfn, I.S.L., Garca, J.M. Guerrere, A.I.S. and Guerrero, M.G.S. 1999. National Natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept. Ecol. Econ. 29, 375-390.

Wackernagel. M. and Rees, W.E. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New Society, Gabrioala, BC, Canada.ISBN 1-55092-251-3.

Yusuf, H. K. M. and Islam, A. 2005.Setting standard cereal intake for balanced nutrition in Bangladesh. Food Security in Bangladesh. Paper presented in the national workshop. pp 51-60. October 19-20. Dhaka. Bangladesh.

Zhao, S., Li, Z.Z., Li and W.L. 2005. A modified method of ecological footprint calculation and its application. Ecol. Model. 185, 65-75.

58 Appendix-A Questionnaire for secondary data collection from different sources

Integrated Management of Coastal Zone for Food Security

Information to be collected from secondary sources

Name of Upazila Name of District

1. Population information Total Male Female No. of M/F Birth Death Family population Children ratio rate rate size

2. Household information No. of Non-farm Number of farm holding household household Total Small Medium Large

3. Area related information

a. Total area of upazila (ac/ha) b. River area (ac/ha) c. Total household area (ac/ha) d. Total cultivated land area (ac/ha) e. Irrigated land area(ac/ha) f. Fallow land area (ac/ha) g. Fallow land in dry season area (ac/ha) h. Crop land area (ac/ha) i. Forest area (ac/ha) j. Aqua cultural land area (ac/ha) k. Roads and highways area (ac/ha) l. Market area (ac/ha) m. Cropping intensity (%)

59 4. Year wise area Year Crop area Forest Area Aquaculture Area Others Area Total Area (ac/ha) (ac/ha) (ac/ha) (ac/ha) (ac/ha)

5. Cropping pattern: Sl. Cropping pattern Area Percentage No. (%)

6. Crop information A. Crop Crop Area Yield Straw No. of Cost/ha Price of Price of (ac/ha) (t/ac/ha ) yield irrigation (Tk.) grain(Tk.) straw (t/ac/ha ) (Tk.)

60 B. Fertilizer and pesticides Crop Area Fertilizer Pesticides (ha) Urea TSP MP Amount Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount Price (Kg) (Tk.) (Kg) (Tk.) (Kg) (Tk.) (Kg) (Tk.) (Kg) (Tk.)

7. Livestock and poultry Cattle Buffalo Goats/sheep Poultry/ duck Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female No. Meat Milk

8. Aquaculture

Category No. Area Production Price (Tk./ Cost (Tk/ Gross income (ha) (ton) ton) ha) (Tk.) Marine Shrimp Others River Shrimp Others Canal Shrimp Others Fish+ Shrimp Rice Others Gher Shrimp Others Pond Shrimp Others Total

61 9. Forestry Sl. No. Area Density Growth Age ht Ave dia Unit vol Total vol Prod (ac/ha) (No./ha) rate (m) (m) (m3) (m3) (m3/year) Agro- forestry agro- forestry products

10. Information needed to compute Food Security and Ecological Footprint Category Existing Yield Production Inside Outside Consumpt Footprint Area supply supply ion component (ac/ha) (t/ac/ha) (ton) (ton) (ton) (ha/capita) (ton) A. Crop Aus e c

i Aman R Boro

B. Animal Product

y Meat r t l u

o Egg P

y Meat r i a Milk D C. Fishery Marine Riverine Shrimp a u

q Others A

62 D. Build-up Area: - Transportation: i) Length of road (km): ii) Average width (km): iii) Total Area (ac/ha):

Mode No. Average Area (ac/ha) Total Area (ac/ha) Housing Industry Market Others Roads Total

E. Energy: (a) Cultivation No. Area Operating Average Field Fuel Total of PT cultivated by no. of capacity consumption fuel PT hrs/day passes (ac/ha/hr) (lit/hr) (ac/ha) (lit)

(b) Irrigation No. of Irrigated No. of Ave Fuel consumption Total STW land (ac/ha) irrig/ time/irrigation/ha (lit/hr) fuel season (hr) (lit)

(c) Threshing and Milling Item No. Total Average Fuel Total fuel operating operating consumption (lit) days hrs/day (lit/hr) Power thresher Mill

63 (d) Transportation Mode No. of Avg. distance Average Fuel Total vehicles (km/day) hrs/day consumption fuel (lit) (lit/hr) Launch Bus Track Tempo/motor vehicle Engine boat PT/Tractor Others

(f) Electricity Heads No. Average Total consumption Total consumption consumption (kwh/month) (kwh/year) (kwh/month) Domestic Commercial Industrial Irrigation Total

(g) Cooking fuel energy (Mds/month) Heads No. Fire Leave Straw Tree Jute Cowdung Others wood branches sticks cake Households Brick Kiln Bazar

Total

Name of the Interviewer

64 Appendix-B Questionnaire for primary data collection from farmers

Integrated Management of Coastal Zone for Food Security Questionnaire Field level data for computing Food Security and Ecological Footprint

Sl. No. Date

1. Name of the household

Age Education Profession

2. Address of the household Father’s name Village Electrified P.O. Union Upazila District (Y/N)

3. Family details of the household No. of No. No. of No. of Earning Yearly Yearly family of. female children member(s) income expenditure (Tk.) members male (Tk.)

4. Land distribution Land area Homestead Cropped area Aquaculture Forest Others (ha/ac/bigha) (ha/ac/bigha) (ha/ac/bigha) (ha/ac/bigha) (ha/ac/bigha) (ha/ac/bigha)

5. Crop information A. Crop Crop Area grain Straw No. of Cost Price of Price of (Bigha) yield yield irrigation (Tk/bigha) grain straw (md/big) (md/big) (Tk/md) (Tk/md)

65 B. Fertilizer and pesticides Crop Area Fertilizer Pesticides (big) Urea TSP MP Amount Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount Price Amount Price (Kg) (Tk.) (Kg) (Tk.) (Kg) (Tk.) (Kg) (Tk.) (Kg) (Tk.)

6. Livestock and poultry Cattle Buffalo Goats/sheep Poultry/ duck Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female No. Meat Milk

7. Aquaculture Name of fish/ Area Production (ton) Price Cost Gross income Net integrated (ac/ha) Fish others (Tk/kg) (Tk./kg) (Tk.) income crops (Tk.)

8. Forestry Sl. No. Area Density Growth Age ht Ave dia Unit vol Total vol Prod (ac/ha) (No./ha) rate (m) (m) (m3) (m3) (m3/yr) Forestry Forestry products

66 9. Energy (a) Power tiller No. Cultivated Operating Average no. Field Fuel Total of PT area hrs of passes capacity consumption fuel (lit) (bigha) (hr/bigha) (lit/hr)

(b) Irrigation Irrigated No. of Ave Fuel consumption Total land (ha) irrigation/ time/irrigation/bigha (lit/hr) fuel (lit) season (hr)

(c) Threshing and Milling Item Total operating Average Fuel consumption Total day operating hrs/day (lit/hr) fuel (lit) Power thresher Mill

(d) Transportation Mode Avg. distance/day Average Fuel Total fuel (km) hrs/day consumption (lit) (lit/hr) Tempo/motor vehicle Engine boat PT/Tractor Others

(e) Electricity Heads Total consumption Total consumption Total cost (kwh/month) (kwh/year) (Tk/year) Domestic Commercial Industrial Irrigation Total

67 (f) Cooking fuel energy (Mds/month) Heads Fire Leave Straw Tree Jute Cowdung wood branches sticks cake Households Brick Kiln Bazar

Total

10. Daily/Monthly food consumption (kg) Item No. of Rice Wheat Potato Fish Meat Milk Egg Pulse Veg Spi meal/day Amount Tk/kg Total

Name of the Interviewer

68 Appendix-C Database in Excel for computation of food security and ecological footprint in the nine upazilas of Shyamnagar, Dacop, Koyra, Shoronkhola, Morrelgonj, Mongla, Patharghata, Kalapara and Galachipa.

FOOD SECURITY CALCULATION Name of Upazila: Shayammnagar District : Satkhira

A. Crop Crop Area Yield Production Price Gross Equi rice (ha) (t/ha ) (ton) (Tk./ton) income (ton) (Tk.)

Aman 800 1.4 1120 18750 21000000 789.4737 (L) Aman 20,570 2.8 57596 18750 1.08E+09 40598.68 (U) Aus 180 2.67 480.6 17000 8170200 307.1504 Boro 1500 3.6 5400 17500 94500000 3552.632 Potato 410 8 3280 13000 42640000 1603.008 Khesari 250 1 250 30000 7500000 281.9549 Veg (S) 187 2.304 430.848 10000 4308480 161.9729 Veg (W) 650 34.5 22425 8000 179400000 6744.361 Straw 43065 750 32298750 1214.239 Total 24547 134047.4 133750 1.47E+09 55253.47 B. Fish Category Area (ha) Production Price Gross Equi rice (ton) (Tk./ ton) income (ton) (Tk.)

Marine Shrimp 0 Others River Shrimp 4591 15 450000 6750000 253.759398 Others 356 140000 49840000 1873.68421 Canal Shrimp 1338 0 450000 0 0 Others 248 120000 29760000 1118.79699 Fish+ Shrimp 357 140 450000 63000000 2368.42105 Rice Others 60 80000 4800000 180.451128 Gher Shrimp 15622 4050 450000 1822500000 68515.0376 Others 322 80000 25760000 968.421053 Pond Shrimp 150 4 450000 1800000 67.6691729 Others 173 70000 12110000 455.263158 Total 5368 2740000 2016320000 75801.5038

69 C. Animal Category Area Production Price Gross Equi rice (ha) (ton/No.) (Tk./ton/No.) income (ton) (Tk.)

Poultry Meat 9.28 1898 80000 1.5E+08 5708.27068 Egg 5380000 3.4 1.8E+07 687.669173 Dairy Meat 54.56 2500 150000 3.8E+08 14097.7444 Milk 1900 22000 4.2E+07 1571.42857

Total 63.84 5.9E+08 22065.1128 D. Forestry i) Fruit Tree Gross Equi rice Area Production income (ton) Name No. (ha) (ton) Price (Tk./ton) (Tk.)

Mango 105 840 30000 25200000 947.368 Guava 43 1240 25000 31000000 1165.41 Coconut 36 124 12000 1488000 55.9398 Jackfruit 10 140 6000 840000 31.5789 Bar 17 140 35000 4900000 184.211 Palm 30 250 6000 1500000 56.391 Berry 10 45 25000 1125000 42.2932 Banana 14 280 18000 5040000 189.474

Total 71093000 2672.67 ii) Non-fruit Tree: Category Quantity (ton) Price Gross income Equi rice (Tk./ton) (Tk.) (ton)

Wood 42578 1625 69189250 2601.0996 Treebranch 66124 1250 82655000 3107.3308 Total 151844250 5708.4305

Food from all sources Food Requirement Food Security Food Security Equivalent rice Equivalent rice ratio status (%) (ton) (ton)

161501.2 171957 0.9392 -6.08

70 ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT CALCULATION Name of Upazila: Shayammnagar District : Satkhira

Category Produ Inside Outsi Consu Global Equiva Populat Footprint ction supply de mption yield factor ion component (ton) (ton) suppl (ton) (t/ha) (gha/ha) (gha/cap) y (ton) Crop Rice 6459 10393 0 74990 3.75 2.8 0.161279 7 347178 Wheat 0 3750 0 3750 2.62 2.8 347178 0.0115435 Potato 3280 14426 0 17706 16.47 2.8 0.0086703 347178 Pulses 250 1503 0 1753 0.837 2.8 347178 0.0168913 Vegetabl 2285 17764 0 40620 18 2.8 0.0182001 es 6 347178 Oils 0 1000 0 1000 2.24 2.8 347178 0.0036005 Spices 0 2118 0 2118 14.17 2.8 347178 0.0012055 Tea 0 139 0 139 0.56 2.8 347178 0.0020019 Sugar 0 2711.4 0 2711 6.82 2.8 347178 0.0032064 Sub-total 0.2265983 Animal Meat 4398 2200 2925 3673 0.457 1.1 347178 0.0254651 Egg 316 909 0 1225 0.304 1.1 347178 0.0127674 Milk 1900 700 0 2600 0.52 1.1 347178 0.015842 Sub-total 0.0540745 Fishery Shrimp 4213 0 4043 170 3.25 0.2 347178 3.013E-05 Others 1159 0 116 1043 0.05 0.2 347178 0.0120169 Waste 0.1380761 Sub-total 0.1501232 Forest Fruit 3059 1000 569 3490 18 1.1 347178 0.0006143 Sub-total 0.0006143 Total 0.4314103

Build-up Area: Area Yield Equivalence factor Population Footprint (ha) factor (gha/ha) component (crop) (gha/capita)

4771 0.85 2.8 347178 0.032706508

71 Energy Name Amount Convers Amount Global Equivale Population Footprint consum ion consume averag nce component ed factor d e factor (gha/capita) (GJ/year) (GJ/ha (gha/ha) /yr)

Fire wood 42578 15.4 655701 59 1.1 0.0352123 (ton) 347178 Twigs 66124 15.4 1E+06 59 1.1 0.054685 (ton) 347178 Straw (ton) 13193 12.23 161350 32 1.1 0.0159757 347178 Cowdung 13232 8.75 115780 49 1.1 0.0074865 (ton) 347178 Diesel 539944 0.038 205179 71 1.1 0.0091562 (litre) 5 347178 Petrol 359999 0.034 122400 71 1.1 0.0054621 (litre) 5 347178 Kerosine 192355 0.037 71171 71 1.1 0.0031761 (litre) 0 347178 Electricity 325000 0.0036 11700 1000 1.1 3.707E-05 (kwh) 0 347178 Coal (ton) 3500 27 94500 55 1.1 347178 0.0054439

Total 0.13663487

Category Existing Yield Equivalence Population Bio- Ecological Ecological Area factor factor capacity Footprint Status (gha/ha) (gha/capita) (gha/capita) (gha/cap)

Crop 24547 0.85 2.8 347178 0.1682764 0.2265983 Animal 63.84 150.84 1.1 0.0305105 0.0540745 - 347178 0.394093 Build-up 4771 0.85 2.8 347178 0.0327065 0.0327065 Fishery 22058 0.147 0.2 347178 0.0018679 0.1501232 Forest 583 0.8 1.1 347178 0.0014777 0.0006143 Energy 0.1366349 Total 0.2348391 0.6007517 Available BC (-12% for Biodiversity) 0.2066584

72 FOOD SECURITY CALCULATION

Name of Upazila: Dacop District : Khulna

A. Crop Crop Area Yield Production Price Gross Equi rice (ha) (t/ha ) (ton) (Tk./ton) income (ton) (Tk.)

Aman 10500 2.8 29400 18750 551250000 20723.68 (L) Aman 9,000 3.5 31500 18750 590625000 22203.95 (U) Boro 15 3.9 58.5 17500 1023750 38.48684 Veg (S) 270 22.38 6042.6 10000 60426000 2271.654 Veg (W) 284 28.54 8105.36 8000 64842880 2437.702

Straw 40842 750 30631500 1151.56 Total 20069 115948.5 73750 1.299E+09 48827.03

B. Fish Category Area Production Price Gross income Equi rice (ha) (ton) (Tk./ ton) (Tk.) (ton)

Marine Shrimp Others River Shrimp 1947 40.89 450000 18400500 691.748 Others 27.26 130000 3543800 133.226 Canal Shrimp 352 62.69 450000 28210500 1060.55 Others 94.04 110000 10344400 388.887 Fish+ Shrimp 0 0 0 0 0 Rice Others 0 0 0 0 Gher Shrimp 13395 3363 450000 1513350000 56892.9 Others 1880 80000 150400000 5654.14 Pond Shrimp 254 0 0 0 0 Others 508.28 75000 38121000 1433.12 Total 15948 5976.16 1745000 1762370200 66254.5

73 C. Animal Category Area Production Price Gross Equi rice (ha) (ton/No.) (Tk./ton/No.) income (ton) (Tk.) Poultry Meat 10.11 183 80000 1.5E+07 550.376 Egg 5000000 3.5 1.8E+07 657.895 Dairy Meat 73.16 3416 160000 5.5E+08 20547.4 Milk 14400 23000 3.3E+08 12451.1 Total 83.27 9.1E+08 34206.8

D. Forestry i) Fruit Tree Name No. Area Production Price Gross Equi rice (ha) (ton) (Tk./ton) income (ton) (Tk.)

Mango 35 280 30000 8400000 315.789 Guava 12 345 25000 8625000 324.248 Coconut 12 41 12000 492000 18.4962 Jackfruit 3 42 6000 252000 9.47368 Bar 5 41 35000 1435000 53.9474 Palm 8 67 6000 402000 15.1128 Berry 9 40 25000 1000000 37.594 Banana 7 140 18000 2520000 94.7368 Total 996 23126000 869.398 ii) Non-fruit Tree: Wood Category Quantity Price Gross income Equi rice (ton) (ton) (Tk./ton) (Tk.)

Wood 14891 1625 24197875 909.69455 Treebranch 9943 1250 12428750 467.24624 Total 36626625 1376.9408

Food from all Food Requirement Food Security ratio Food Security status sources Equivalent rice (%) Equivalent rice (ton) (ton)

151534.7 85495 1.772438856 77.24388556

74 ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT CALCULATION Name of Upazila: Dacop District : Khulna

Category Production Inside Outside Consu Global Equiva Populati Footprint (ton) supply supply mption yield factor on component (ton) (ton) (ton) (t/ha) (gha/ha) (gha/cap)

Crop Rice 60958 0 25538 35420 3.75 2.8 172613 0.15321519 Wheat 0 1771 0 1771 2.62 2.8 172613 0.01096483 Potato 0 8362 0 8362 16.47 2.8 0.00823571 172613 Pulses 0 828 0 828 0.837 2.8 172613 0.01604684 Vegeta 14148 5038 0 19186 18 2.8 172613 0.01729006 Oils 0 472 0 472 2.24 2.8 172613 0.00341805 Spices 0 990 0 990 14.17 2.8 172613 0.00113331 Tea 0 62 0 62 0.56 2.8 172613 0.00179592 Sugar 0 1267 0 1267 6.82 2.8 172613 0.00301354 Sub- 0.21511345 total Animal Meat 3599 0 908 2691 0.457 1.1 172613 0.03752465 Egg 294 112 0 406 0.304 1.1 172613 0.00851082 Milk 14400 0 13109 1291 0.52 1.1 172613 0.0158213 Sub- 0.06185677 total Fishery Shrimp 3467 0 3432 35 3.25 0.2 172613 1.2478E-05 Others 2509 600 1604 1505 0.05 0.2 172613 0.0348757 Waste 0.23280402 Sub- 0.2676922 total Forest Fruit 996 765 200 1561 18 1.1 172613 0.00055265 Sub- 0.00055265 total Total 0.54521507

Build-up Area: Area (ha) Yield factor Equivalence factor Population Footprint component (crop) (gha/ha) (gha/capita)

4199 0.99 2.8 172613 0.067431932

75 Energy Name Amount Convers Amount Global Equivale Populati Footprint consumed ion consumed average nce on component factor (GJ/year) (GJ/ha/yr) factor (gha/cap) (gha/ha)

Fire wood 14891 15.4 229321.4 59 1.1 0.0247692 (ton) 172613 Twigs 9943 15.4 153122.2 59 1.1 0.0165389 (ton) 172613 Straw 16398 12.23 200547.5 32 1.1 0.039938 (ton) 172613 Cowdung 26445 8.75 231393.8 49 1.1 0.0300936 (ton) 172613 Diesel 2461095 0.038 93521.61 71 1.1 0.0083941 (litre) 172613 Petrol 366500 0.034 12461 71 1.1 0.0011184 (litre) 172613 Kerosine 2199490 0.037 81381.13 71 1.1 0.0073044 (litre) 172613 Electricity 291995 0.0036 1051.182 1000 1.1 6.699E-06 (kwh) 172613 Coal (ton) 0 27 0 55 1.1 172613 0

Total 0.1281633

Category Existing Yield Equivalence Population Bio- Ecological Ecological Area factor factor capacity Footprint Status (crop) (gha/ha) (gha/capita) (gha/capita) (gha/cap)

Crop 20069 0.99 2.8 172613 0.322289 0.2151134 Animal 83.27 150.84 1.1 172613 0.0800432 0.0618568 -0.322318 Build-up 4199 0.99 2.8 0.0674319 0.0674319 172613 Fishery 15948 0.227 0.2 172613 0.0041946 0.2676922 Forest 314 0.8 1.1 172613 0.0016008 0.0005526 Energy 0.1281633 Total 0.4755595 0.7408103 Available BC (-12% for Biodiversity) 0.4184923

76 FOOD SECURITY CALCULATION

Name of Upazila: Koyra District : Khulna

A. Crop Crop Area Yield Production Price Gross Equi rice (ha) (t/ha ) (ton) (Tk./ton) income (ton) (Tk.)

Aman (L) 900 2.4 2160 18750 40500000 1522.556 Aman (U) 14,320 3.7 52984 18750 993450000 37347.74 Boro 1400 5 7000 17000 119000000 4473.684 Watermel 190 50 9500 15000 142500000 5357.143 Potato 80 16 1280 12500 16000000 601.5038 Veg (S) 310 19.03 5899.3 8000 47194400 1774.226 Veg (W) 296 15.55 4602.8 9500 43726600 1643.857 0 0 0 0 0 0 Straw 41636 750 31227000 1173.947 Total 17496 125062.1 100250 1.434E+09 53894.66

B. Fish Category Area Production Price Gross income Equi rice (ha) (ton) (Tk./ ton) (Tk.) (ton)

Marine Shrimp Others River Shrimp 732 28 450000 12600000 473.684 Others 112 150000 16800000 631.579 Canal Shrimp 1485 594 450000 267300000 10048.9 Others 2376 140000 332640000 12505.3 Fish+ Shrimp 470 209 450000 94050000 3535.71 Rice Others 870 80000 69600000 2616.54 Gher Shrimp 5203 1290 450000 580500000 21823.3 Others 94 80000 7520000 282.707 Pond Shrimp 214.4 42 450000 18900000 710.526 Others 798 75000 59850000 2250 Total 8104.4 6413 2775000 1459760000 54878.2

77 C. Animal Category Area Production Price Gross Equi rice (ha) (ton/No.) (Tk./ton/No.) income (Tk.) (ton)

Poultry Meat 2.1 113 75000 8475000 318.609 Egg 9300000 3.5 3.3E+07 1223.68 Dairy Meat 74.64 4760 150000 7.1E+08 26842.1 Milk 88 21000 1848000 69.4737 Total 7.6E+08 28453.9

D. Forestry i) Fruit Tree Name No. Area Production Price Gross income Equi rice (ha) (ton) (Tk./ton) (Tk.) (ton)

Mango 8 64 30000 1920000 72.1805 Guava 12 346 25000 8650000 325.188 Coconut 10 34 12000 408000 15.3383 Jackfruit 12 168 6000 1008000 37.8947 Bar 6 49 35000 1715000 64.4737 Palm 3 26 6000 156000 5.86466 Berry 7 32 25000 800000 30.0752 Banana 12 240 18000 4320000 162.406 Total 70 959 18977000 713.421 ii) Non-fruit Tree: Wood Category Quantity Price (Tk./ton) Gross income Equi rice (ton) (ton) (Tk.)

Wood 24901 1625 40464125 1521.2077 Treebranch 20094 1250 25117500 944.26692 Total 65581625 2465.4746

Food from all Food Requirement Food Security ratio Food Security sources Equivalent Equivalent rice status (%) rice (ton) (ton)

140405.6 104450.35 1.344233169 34.423

78 ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT CALCULATION Name of Upazila: Koyra District : Khulna

Category Produc Inside Outside Consum Global Equiva Populat Footprint tion supply supply ption yield factor ion component (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) (t/ha) (gha/ha) (gha/cap)

Crop Rice 62144 0 12039 50105 3.75 2.8 210883 0.1774 Wheat 0 2004 0 2004 2.62 2.8 210883 0.0102 Potato 1280 8937 0 10217 16.47 2.8 0.0082 210883 Pulses 0 1118 0 1118 0.837 2.8 210883 0.0177 Vegetables 10502 16639 0 27141 18 2.8 210883 0.0200 Oils 0 577 0 577 2.24 2.8 210883 0.0034 Spices 0 1351 0 1351 14.17 2.8 210883 0.0013 Tea 0 85 0 85 0.56 2.8 210883 0.0020 Sugar 0 1581 0 1581 6.82 2.8 210883 0.0031 Sub-total 0.2433 Animal Meat 4873 0 3819 1054 0.457 1.1 210883 0.0120 Egg 547 0 180 367 0.304 1.1 210883 0.0063 Milk 88 790 0 878 0.52 1.1 210883 0.0088 Sub-total 0.0271 Fishery Shrimp 2163 0 2120 43 3.25 0.2 210883 0.0000 Others 4250 400 3800 850 0.05 0.2 210883 0.0161 Waste 0.0807 Sub-total 0.0968 Forest Fruit 959 728 0 1687 18 1.1 210883 0.0005 Sub-total 0.0005

Total 0.3678

Build-up Area: Area (ha) Yield factor Equivalence factor Population Footprint (crop) (gha/ha) component (gha/capita)

1043 1.16 2.8 210883 0.016064187

79 Energy Name Amount Convers Amount Global Equivale Population Footprint consume ion consumed average nce (gha/cap) d factor (GJ/year) (GJ/ha/yr) factor (gha/ha)

Fire wood 24901 15.4 383475.4 59 1.1 0.0339 (ton) 210883 Twigs 20094 15.4 309447.6 59 1.1 0.0274 (ton) 210883 Straw (ton) 12020 12.23 147004.6 32 1.1 0.0240 210883 Cowdung 24040 8.75 210350 49 1.1 0.0224 (ton) 210883 Diesel 9826250 0.038 373397.5 71 1.1 0.0274 (litre) 210883 Petrol 766500 0.034 26061 71 1.1 0.0019 (litre) 210883 Kerosine 2831473 0.037 104764.5 71 1.1 0.0077 (litre) 210883 Electricity 779635 0.0036 2806.686 1000 1.1 0.0000 (kwh) 210883 Coal (ton) 500 27 13500 55 1.1 210883 0.0013

Total 0.1460

Category Existing Yield Equivalence Population Bio- Ecological Ecological Area factor factor capacity Footprint Status (crop) (gha/ha) (gha/capita) (gha/capita) (gha/cap)

Crop 17496 1.16 2.8 210883 0.2694717 0.2433322 Animal 76.74 150.84 1.1 210883 0.0603795 0.0271347 -0.220079 Build-up 1043 1.16 2.8 0.0160642 0.0160642 210883 Fishery 8104 0.48 0.2 210883 0.0036892 0.0968388 Forest 567 0.8 1.1 210883 0.0023661 0.0004889 Energy 0.1459545 Total 0.3519706 0.5298132 Available BC (-12% for Biodiversity) 0.3097342

80 FOOD SECURITY CALCULATION

Name of Upazila: Shoronkhola District : Bagerhat

A. Crop Crop Area Yield Production Price Gross Equi rice (ha) (t/ha ) (ton) (Tk./ton) income (ton) (Tk.)

Aus 2000 1.5 3000 17000 51000000 1917.293 Aman 9,200 2 18400 18000 331200000 12451.13 (U) Boro 10 3 30 17000 510000 19.17293 Potato 200 1 200 14000 2800000 105.2632 Veg (S) 112 12.13 1358.56 11000 14944160 561.8105 Veg (W) 521 15.25 7945.25 9000 71507250 2688.242 Straw 14358 750 10768500 404.8308 Total 12043 45291.81 106750 482729910 18147.74

B. Fish Category Area Production Price Gross income Equi rice (ha) (ton) (Tk./ ton) (Tk.) (ton)

Marine Shrimp 0 Others River Shrimp 1515 16 450000 7200000 270.677 Others 780 200000 156000000 5864.66 Canal Shrimp 39.68 0 0 0 0 Others 0.9 150000 135000 5.07519 Fish+ Shrimp 48 64.5 525000 33862500 1273.03 Rice Others 7 120000 840000 31.5789 Gher Shrimp 0 0 0 0 0 Others 0 0 0 0 Pond Shrimp 192.1 0 0 0 0 Others 474 100000 47400000 1781.95 Total 1342.4 1545000 245437500 9226.97

81 C. Animal Category Area Production Price Gross Equi rice (ha) (ton/No.) (Tk/ton/No.) income (Tk.) (ton)

Poultry Meat 2.67 143 80000 1.1E+07 430.075 Egg 93465 3.5 327128 12.298 Dairy Meat 29.14 1933 150000 2.9E+08 10900.4 Milk 19.75 23000 454250 17.0771 Total 3E+08 11359.8

D. Forestry i) Fruit Tree Name No. Area Production Price Gross Equi rice (ha) (ton) (Tk./ton) income (ton) (Tk.)

Bar 32 190 38000 7220000 271.429 Mango 110 760 32000 24320000 914.286 Banana 270 5720 18000 102960000 3870.68 Coconut 600 2100 12000 25200000 947.368 Sofeda 28 700 11000 7700000 289.474 Guava 45 700 25000 17500000 657.895 Palm 50 1050 6000 6300000 236.842 Papaya 70 1260 8000 10080000 378.947 Total 12480 201280000 7566.92 ii) Non-fruit Tree: Wood Category Quantity Price (Tk./ton) Gross income Equi rice (ton) (ton) (Tk.)

Wood 15754 1625 25600250 962.41541 Treebranch 24466 1250 30582500 1149.718 Total 56182750 2112.1335

Food from all Food Requirement Food Security ratio Food Security sources Equivalent Equivalent rice Status (%) rice (ton) (ton)

48413.59 63408.8 0.763515342 -23.65

82 ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT CALCULATION Name of Upazila: Shoronkhola District : Bagerhat

Category Product Inside Outsid Consu Global Equiva Populati Footprint ion supply e mptio yield factor on (gha/cap) (ton) (ton) supply n (t/ha) (gha/ha) (ton) (ton)

Crop Rice 21630 7174 0 28804 3.75 2.8 128021 0.1680 Wheat 0 1410 0 1410 2.62 2.8 128021 0.0118 Potato 2000 3223 0 5223 16.47 2.8 0.0069 128021 Pulses 0 484 0 484 0.837 2.8 128021 0.0126 Vegetables 9303 2679 0 11982 18 2.8 128021 0.0146 Oils 0 331 0 331 2.24 2.8 128021 0.0032 Spices 0 711 0 711 14.17 2.8 128021 0.0011 Tea 0 49 0 49 0.56 2.8 128021 0.0019 Sugar 0 799 0 799 6.82 2.8 128021 0.0026

Sub-total 0.22271 Animal Meat 2076 0 1820 256 0.457 1.1 128021 0.00481 Egg 5.5 220.5 0 226 0.304 1.1 128021 0.00639 Milk 19.75 172.25 0 192 0.52 1.1 128021 0.00317 Sub-total 0.01437 Fishery Shrimp 80.5 0 78.89 1.61 3.25 0.2 128021 7.7E-07 Others 1261.9 0 756.9 505 0.05 0.2 128021 0.01578 Waste 0.00112 Sub-total 0.0169 Forest Fruit 12480 1300 11020 3120 18 1.1 128021 0.00149 Sub-total 0.00149 Total 0.25548

Build-up area: Area (ha) Yield factor Equivalence factor Population Footprint component (crop) (gha/ha) (gha/capita)

560 0.67 2.8 128021 0.008206154

83 Energy Name Amount Convers Amount Global Equiva Population Footprint consumed ion consumed average factor (gha/cap) factor (GJ/year) (GJ/ha/yr) (gha/ha)

Fire wood 15754 15.4 242611.6 59 1.1 0.0353 (ton) 128021 Twigs 24466 15.4 376776.4 59 1.1 0.0549 (ton) 128021 Straw 4881 12.23 59694.63 32 1.1 0.0160 (ton) 128021 Cowdung 1295 8.75 11331.25 49 1.1 0.0020 (ton) 128021 Diesel 1997794 0.038 75916.17 71 1.1 0.0092 (litre) 128021 Petrol 1331998 0.034 45287.93 71 1.1 0.0055 (litre) 128021 Kerosine 577108 0.037 21353 71 1.1 0.0026 (litre) 128021 Electricity 595892 0.0036 2145.211 1000 1.1 0.0000 (kwh) 128021 Coal (ton) 0 27 0 55 1.1 128021 0.0000 Total 0.1255

Category Existing Yield Equivalence Population Bio- Ecological Ecological Area factor factor capacity Footprint Status (crop) (gha/ha) (gha/capita) (gha/capita) (gha/cap)

Crop 12043 0.65 2.8 128021 0.1712083 0.2227139 Animal 31.81 150.84 1.1 128021 0.0412279 0.0143735 -0.168749 Build-up 560 0.67 2.8 0.0082062 0.0082062 128021 Fishery 1795 0.45 0.2 128021 0.0012619 0.0169043 Forest 4158 0.8 1.1 128021 0.0285816 0.0014893 Energy 0.1254894 Total 0.2504859 0.3891766 Available BC (-12% for Biodiversity) 0.2204276

84 FOOD SECURITY CALCULATION

Name of Upazila: Morrelgonj District : Bagerhat

A. Crop Crop Area Yield Production Price Gross Equi rice (ha) (t/ha ) (ton) (Tk./ton) income (ton) (Tk.)

Aman 24150 1.6 38640 18500 714840000 26873.68 (L) Aman 4,130 2.6 10738 18500 198653000 7468.158 (U) Aus 1550 2.4 3720 17000 63240000 2377.444 Boro 91 1.6 145.6 17000 2475200 93.05263 Boro 779 2.72 2118.88 17000 36020960 1354.171 Potato 275 12 3300 14000 46200000 1736.842 Veg (S) 760 11.1 8436 11000 92796000 3488.571 Veg (W) 750 12.88 9660 9000 86940000 3268.421 Straw 37092 750 27819000 1045.827 Total 32485 113850.5 122750 1.269E+09 47706.17

B. Fish Category Area Production Price Gross income Equi rice (ha) (ton) (Tk./ ton) (Tk.) (ton)

Marine Shrimp Others River Shrimp 2332 4 450000 1800000 67.6692 Others 188 200000 37600000 1413.53 Canal Shrimp 1537 1.28 450000 576000 21.6541 Others 127 120000 15240000 572.932 Fish+ Shrimp 11437 2620 450000 1179000000 44323.3 Rice Others 291 70000 20370000 765.789 Gher Shrimp 0 0 0 0 0 Others 0 0 0 0 Pond Shrimp 1217 0 0 0 0 Others 2608 60000 156480000 5882.71 Total 5839.28 1800000 1411066000 53047.6

85 C. Animal Category Area Production Price Gross Equi rice (ha) (ton/No.) (Tk./ton/No.) income (ton) (Tk.) Poultry Meat 6.19 332 80000 2.7E+07 998.496 Egg 549578 3.5 1923523 72.3129 Dairy Meat 54.99 3589 160000 5.7E+08 21588 Milk 228.5 22500 5141250 193.28 Total 6.1E+08 22852.1

D. Forestry i) Fruit Tree Name No. Area Production Price Gross Equi rice (ha) (ton) (Tk./ton) income (ton) (Tk.)

Mango 100 850 30000 25500000 958.647 Guava 0 0 0 0 0 Coconut 0 0 0 0 0 Jackfruit 0 0 0 0 0 Bar 0 0 0 0 0 Palm 0 0 0 0 0 Papaya 50 500 8000 4000000 150.376 Banana 1100 8800 15000 132000000 4962.41 Total 161500000 6071.43 ii) Non-fruit Tree: Wood Category Quantity Price (Tk./ton) Gross income Equi rice (ton) (ton) (Tk.)

Wood 33091 1625 53772875 2021.5367 Treebranch 22095 1250 27618750 1038.2989 Total 81391625 3059.8355

Food from all Food Requirement Food Security ratio Food Security sources Equivalent Equivalent rice status (%) rice (ton) (ton)

132737.1 190432.45 0.69702978 -30.29

86 ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT CALCULATION Name of Upazila: Morrelgonj District : Bagerhat

Category Produ Inside Outside Consump Global Equiva Population Footprint ction supply supply tion yield factor (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) (t/ha) (gha/ha) (gha/cap)

Crop Rice 55362 23533 0 78895 3.75 2.8 384479 0.1532 Wheat 0 3654 0 3654 2.62 2.8 384479 0.0102 Potato 3300 17288 0 20588 16.47 2.8 0.0091 384479 Pulses 0 1903 0 1903 0.837 2.8 384479 0.0166 Vegetab 18096 24638 0 42734 18 2.8 384479 0.0173 Oils 0 1162 0 1162 2.24 2.8 384479 0.0038 Spices 0 2462 0 2462 14.17 2.8 384479 0.0013 Tea 0 169 0 169 0.56 2.8 384479 0.0022 Sugar 0 2699 0 2699 6.82 2.8 384479 0.0029 Sub-total 0.2164 Animal Meat 3921 0 653 3268 0.457 1.1 384479 0.0205 Egg 32.32 419.68 0 452 0.304 1.1 384479 0.0043 Milk 228.5 130 0 358.5 0.52 1.1 384479 0.0020 Sub-total 0.0267 Fishery Shrimp 2625. 0 2573.28 52 3.25 0.2 0.0000 28 384479 Others 3214 0 553 2571 0.05 0.2 384479 0.0267 Waste 0.0892 Sub-total 0.1160 Forest Fruit 8800 900 6232 3468 18 1.1 384479 0.0006 Sub-total 0.0006 Total 0.3597

Build-up Area: Area Yield factor Equivalence factor Population Footprint (ha) (crop) (gha/ha) component (gha/capita)

1986 0.69 2.8 384479 0.009979614

87 Energy Name Amount Conversion Amount Global Equiva Populat Footprint consumed factor consumed average factor ion component (GJ/year) (GJ/ha/yr) (gha/ha) (gha/cap)

Fire wood 33091 15.4 509601.4 59 1.1 0.0247 (ton) 384479 Twigs 22095 15.4 340263 59 1.1 0.0165 (ton) 384479 Straw 36440 12.23 445661.2 32 1.1 0.0398 (ton) 384479 Cowdung 33056 8.75 289240 49 1.1 0.0169 (ton) 384479 Diesel 6152737 0.038 233804 71 1.1 0.0094 (litre) 384479 Petrol 916250 0.034 31152.5 71 1.1 0.0013 (litre) 384479 Kerosine 2495128 0.037 92319.74 71 1.1 0.0037 (litre) 384479 Electricity 2730613 0.0036 9830.207 1000 1.1 0.0000 (kwh) 384479 Coal (ton) 0 27 0 55 1.1 384479 0.0000

Total 0.1124

Category Existing Yield Equivalence Population Bio- Ecological Ecologic Area factor factor capacity Footprint al Status (crop) (gha/ha) (gha/capita) (gha/capita) (gha/cap)

Crop 32485 0.69 2.8 384479 0.1632365 0.2164463 Animal 61.18 150.84 1.1 0.0264026 0.0266854 - 384479 0.289639 Build-up 1986 0.69 2.8 0.0099796 0.0099796 384479 Fishery 16523 0.214 0.2 384479 0.0018393 0.1159965 Forest 7500 0.8 1.1 384479 0.0171661 0.0005512 Energy 0.1123696 Total 0.2186241 0.4820286 Available BC (-12% for Biodiversity) 0.1923892

88 FOOD SECURITY CALCULATION

Name of Upazila: Mongla District : Bagerhat

A. Crop Crop Area Yield Production Price Gross Equi rice (ha) (t/ha ) (ton) (Tk./ton) income (ton) (Tk.)

Aman 11220 2.45 27489 18750 515418750 19376.64 (L) Potato 45 1.1 49.5 18750 928125 34.89192 Veg 332 1.2 398.4 17000 6772800 254.6165 Chilli 30 1.1 33 17500 577500 21.71053 Garlic 6 2.1 12.6 13000 163800 6.157895 Khesari 2 0.9 1.8 30000 54000 2.030075

Straw 18118 750 13588500 510.8459 Total 537503475 20206.9

B. Fish Category Area Production Price Gross income Equi rice (ha) (ton) (Tk./ ton) (Tk.) (ton)

Marine Shrimp 0 Others River Shrimp 2746 30 450000 13500000 507.5188 Others 1500 140000 210000000 7894.7368 Canal Shrimp 101 0 450000 0 0 Others 3.5 120000 420000 15.789474 Fish+ Shrimp 9806 3187 450000 1434150000 53915.414 Rice Others 1372 80000 109760000 4126.3158 Gher Shrimp 0 0 450000 0 0 Others 0 80000 0 0 Pond Shrimp 253 144.45 450000 65002500 2443.703 Others 672.78 70000 47094600 1770.4737 Total 6909.73 2740000 1879927100 70673.951

89 C. Animal Category Area Production Price Gross Equi rice (ha) (ton/No.) (Tk./ton/No.) income (ton) (Tk.) Poultry Meat 4.98 268 80000 2.1E+07 806.015038 Egg 5225000 3.4 1.8E+07 667.857143 Dairy Meat 13.79 940 150000 1.4E+08 5300.75188 Milk 472 22000 1E+07 390.37594

Total 1.9E+08 7165

D. Forestry i) Fruit Tree Name No. Area Production Price Gross Equi rice (ha) (ton) (Tk./ton) income (ton) (Tk.) Coconut 8 25 11000 275000 10.3383459 Mango 7 56 28000 1568000 58.9473684 Guava 10 280 24000 6720000 252.631579 Papaya 5 50 8000 400000 15.037594 Bar 4 32 32000 1024000 38.4962406 Sofeda 3 55 11000 605000 22.7443609 Banana 3 50 16000 800000 30.075188 Total 548 11392000 428.270677 ii) Non-fruit Tree: Category Quantity Price (Tk./ton) Gross income Equi rice (ton) (ton) (Tk.)

Wood 11580 1625 18817500 707.42481 Tree branch 8530 1250 10662500 400.84586 Total 29480000 1108.2707

Food from all Food Requirement Food Security ratio Food Security status sources Equivalent rice (%) Equivalent rice (ton) (ton)

99582.39 72755.6 1.368724745 36.87247447

90 ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT CALCULATION Name of Upazila: Mongla District : Bagerhat

Category Production Inside Outside Consu Global Equiva Footprint (ton) supply supply mption yield factor (gha/cap) (ton) (ton) (ton) (t/ha) (gha/ha) Populat ion

Crop Rice 27970 5080 0 33050 3.75 2.8 146892 0.1680 Wheat 0 1652 0 1652 2.62 2.8 146892 0.0120 Potato 13 8066 0 8079 16.47 2.8 0.0094 146892 Pulses 2 746 0 748 0.837 2.8 146892 0.0170 Vegeta 398 17229 0 17627 18 2.8 146892 0.0187 Oils 0 381 0 381 2.24 2.8 146892 0.0032 Spices 0 998 0 998 14.17 2.8 146892 0.0013 Tea 0 62 0 62 0.56 2.8 146892 0.0021 Sugar 0 1013 0 1013 6.82 2.8 146892 0.0028 Sub-total 0.2346 Animal Meat 1208 0 398 810 0.457 1.1 146892 0.0133 Egg 307 38 0 345 0.304 1.1 146892 0.0085 Milk 472 155 0 627 0.52 1.1 146892 0.0090 Sub-total 0.0308 Fishery Shrimp 3361 0 3328 33 3.25 0.2 146892 0.0000 Others 3548 0 1065 2483 0.05 0.2 146892 0.0676 Waste 0.2003 Sub-total 0.2679 Forest Fruit 548 480 0 1028 18 1.1 146892 0.0004 Sub-total 0.0004 Total 0.5337

Build-up Area: Area (ha) Yield factor Equivalence factor Population Footprint component (crop) (gha/ha) (gha/capita)

850 0.65 2.8 146892 0.010531547

91 Energy Name Amount Conver Amount Global Equiva Population Footprint consumed sion consumed average factor (gha/cap) factor (GJ/year) (GJ/ha/yr) (gha/ha)

Fire wood 11580 15.4 178332 59 1.1 0.0226 (ton) 146892 Twigs (ton) 8530 15.4 131362 59 1.1 146892 0.0167 Straw (ton) 13417 12.23 164089.9 32 1.1 0.0384 146892 Cowdung 25440 8.75 222600 49 1.1 0.0340 (ton) 146892 Diesel 1476657 0.038 56112.97 71 1.1 0.0059 (litre) 146892 Petrol (litre) 91625 0.034 3115.25 71 1.1 146892 0.0003 Kerosine 649357 0.037 24026.21 71 1.1 0.0025 (litre) 146892 Electricity 1340984 0.0036 4827.542 1000 1.1 0.0000 (kwh) 146892 Coal (ton) 0 27 0 55 1.1 146892 0.0000

Total 0.1205

Category Existing Yield Equivalence Population Bio- Ecological Ecological Area factor factor capacity Footprint Status (crop) (gha/ha) (gha/capita) (gha/cap) (gha/capita)

Crop 11259 0.65 2.8 146892 0.1394996 0.2345935 Animal 18.77 150.84 1.1 146892 0.0212019 0.0308007 -0.50766 Build-up 850 0.65 2.8 0.0105315 0.0105315 146892 Fishery 12906 0.324 0.2 146892 0.0056934 0.2678977 Forest 273 0.8 1.1 146892 0.0016355 0.0004277 Energy 0.1205434 Total 0.178562 0.6647945 Available BC (-12% for Biodiversity) 0.1571345

92 FOOD SECURITY CALCULATION

Name of Upazila: Patharghata District : Barguna

A. Crop Crop Area Yield Production Price Gross Equi rice (ha) (t/ha ) (ton) (Tk./ton) income (ton) (Tk.)

Rice 20615 2.3 47414.5 18750 889021875 33421.88 Potato 700 20 14000 8000 112000000 4210.526 S. potato 625 14 8750 5000 43750000 1644.737 G. Nut 275 1 275 30000 8250000 310.1504 Chilli 485 1.3 630.5 40000 25220000 948.1203 Pulses 7275 0.67 4874.25 35000 170598750 6413.487 Veg (S) 425 13.13 5580.25 12000 66963000 2517.406 Veg (W) 180 14.25 2565 11000 28215000 1060.714 Straw 31767 750 23825250 895.6861 Total 30580 115856.5 160500 1.368E+09 51422.7

B. Fish Category Area Production Price Gross income Equi rice (ha) (ton) (Tk./ (Tk.) (ton) ton)

Marine Shrimp Others River Shrimp 296 0 0 0 0 Others 370 150000 55500000 2086.47 Canal Shrimp 228 0 0 0 0 Others 3430 100000 343000000 12894.7 Fish+ Rice Shrimp 55 16 500000 8000000 300.752 Others 60.3 100000 6030000 226.692 Gher Shrimp 0 0 0 0 0 Others 0 0 0 0 Pond Shrimp 461.86 0 0 0 0 Others 616.325 100000 61632500 2317.01 Total 1040.86 4492.625 950000 474162500 17825.7

93 C. Animal Category Area Production Price Gross Equi rice (ha) (ton/No.) (Tk./ton/No.) income (ton) (Tk.) Poultry Meat 6.92 372 80000 3E+07 1118.8 Egg 200000 3.4 680000 25.5639 Dairy Meat 48.7 3227 160000 5.2E+08 19410.5 Milk 120 21000 2520000 94.7368 Total 55.62 5.5E+08 20649.6

D. Forestry i) Fruit Tree Name No. Area Production Price Gross Equi rice (ha) (ton) (Tk./ton) income (ton) (Tk.) Mango 22 704 30000 21120000 793.985 Jackfruit 25 1300 5000 6500000 244.361 Banana 60 1800 15000 27000000 1015.04 Papaya 10 260 8000 2080000 78.1955 Guava 20 320 20000 6400000 240.602 Coconut 160 4950 10000 49500000 1860.9 Others 25 400 5000 2000000 75.188 Total 9734 114600000 4308.27 ii) Non-fruit Tree: Wood Category Quantity Price (Tk./ton) Gross income Equi rice (ton) (ton) (Tk.)

Wood 21234 1375 29196750 1097.6222 Tree branch 33062 1250 41327500 1553.6654 Total 70524250 2651.2876

Food from all Food Requirement Food Security ratio Food Security sources Equivalent Equivalent rice status (%) rice (ton) (ton)

96857.54 89241.17 1.0853 8.53

94 ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT CALCULATION Name of Upazila: Patharghata District : Barguna

Category Produ Inside Outside Consum Global Equiva Population Footprint ction supply supply ption yield factor component (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) (t/ha) (gha/ha) (gha/cap)

Crop Rice 47414 1900 6420 42894 3.75 2.8 180176 0.1778 Wheat 0 1950 0 1950 2.62 2.8 180176 0.0116 Potato 1325 7882 0 9207 16.47 2.8 0.0087 180176 Pulses 4874 500 4174 1200 0.837 2.8 180176 0.0223 Vegeta 8145 12160 0 20305 18 2.8 180176 0.0175 Oils 0 490 0 490 2.24 2.8 180176 0.0034 Spices 630 490 100 1020 14.17 2.8 180176 0.0011 Tea 0 65 0 65 0.56 2.8 180176 0.0018 Sugar 200 1450 0 1650 6.82 2.8 180176 0.0038 Sub-total 0.2479 Anima l Meat 3599 0 1763 1836 0.457 1.1 180176 0.0245 Egg 12 355 0 367 0.304 1.1 180176 0.0074 Milk 120 580 0 700 0.52 1.1 180176 0.0082 Sub-total 0.0401 Fisher y Shrimp 16 0 14 2 3.25 0.2 180176 0.0000 Others 4476 0 3581 895 0.05 0.2 180176 0.0199 Waste 0.0009 Sub-total 0.0208 Forest Fruit 9734 450 8551 1633 18 1.1 180176 0.0006 Sub-total 0.0006

Total 0.3094

Build-up Area: Area Yield factor Equivalence factor Population Footprint (ha) (crop) (gha/ha) component (gha/capita)

4187 0.87 2.8 180176 0.056608716

95 Energy Name Amount Conve Amount Global Equiv Population Footprint consumed rsion consume average factor component factor d (GJ/ha/yr) (gha/ha) (gha/cap) (GJ/year)

Fire wood 21234 15.4 327003.6 59 1.1 0.0338 (ton) 180176 Twigs (ton) 33062 15.4 509154.8 59 1.1 180176 0.0527 Straw (ton) 7546 12.23 92287.58 32 1.1 0.0176 180176 Cowdung 6232 8.75 54530 49 1.1 0.0068 (ton) 180176 Diesel 1413168 0.038 53700.38 71 1.1 0.0046 (litre) 180176 Petrol 127227 0.034 4325.718 71 1.1 0.0004 (litre) 180176 Kerosine 1245826 0.037 46095.56 71 1.1 0.0040 (litre) 180176 Electricity 541872 0.0036 1950.739 1000 1.1 0.0000 (kwh) 180176 Coal (ton) 3000 27 81000 55 1.1 180176 0.0090

Total 0.1289

Category Existing Yield Equiva Population Bio- Ecological Ecological Area factor factor capacity Footprint Status (crop) (gha/ha) (gha/cap) (gha/cap) (gha/cap)

Crop 30580 0.87 2.8 180176 0.413445 0.2479026 Animal 55.62 150.84 1.1 180176 0.051220 0.0401163 -0.027091 Build-up 4187 0.87 2.8 0.056608 0.0566087 180176 Fishery 1041 1.65 0.2 180176 0.001906 0.0207859 Forest 1712 0.8 1.1 180176 0.008361 0.0005539 Energy 0.1288808 Total 0.531542 0.4948481 Available BC (-12% for Biodiversity) 0.467757

96 FOOD SECURITY CALCULATION

Name of Upazila: Kalapara District : Patuakhali

A. Crop Crop Area Yield Production Price Gross Equi rice (ha) (t/ha ) (ton) (Tk./ton) income (ton) (Tk.) Rice 48460 3.27 158464.2 18750 2.971E+09 111699.4 Potato 35 12 420 8000 3360000 126.3158 S. Potato 504 10 5040 5000 25200000 947.3684 Chilli 410 1.5 615 35000 21525000 809.2105 Pulse 7675 0.92 7061 35000 247135000 9290.789 W melon 1091 40 43640 20000 872800000 32812.03 G. Nut 530 1.5 795 24000 19080000 717.2932 Maize 58 5 290 15000 4350000 163.5338 Til 70 0.9 63 22000 1386000 52.10526 Veg (S) 160 8.78 1404.8 11000 15452800 580.9323 Veg (W) 850 13.1 11135 10000 111350000 4186.09 Straw 106170 750 79627500 2993.515 Total 59843 4.372E+09 164378.6

B. Fish Category Area Production Price Gross income Equi rice (ha) (ton) (Tk./ ton) (Tk.) (ton)

Marine Shrimp 0 Others River Shrimp 241 22 200000 4400000 165.413534 Others 1300 140000 182000000 6842.10526 Canal Shrimp 1091 5 200000 1000000 37.593985 Others 4680 120000 561600000 21112.782 Fish+ Shrimp 0 0 0 0 0 Rice Others 0 0 0 0 Gher Shrimp 985 375 500000 187500000 7048.87218 Others 0 0 0 0 Pond Shrimp 1196 147 500000 73500000 2763.15789 Others 1175 110000 129250000 4859.02256 Total 3513 7704 1770000 1139250000 42828.9474

97 C. Animal Category Area Production Price Gross Equi rice (ha) (ton/No.) (Tk./ton/No.) income (ton) (Tk.) Poultry Meat 53.44 534 70000 3.7E+07 1405.26 Egg 5024708 3.4 1.7E+07 642.256 Dairy Meat 198.26 13648 120000 1.6E+09 61569.9 Milk 12790 18000 2.3E+08 8654.89

Total 251.7 1.9E+09 72272.3

D. Forestry i) Fruit Tree Name No. Area Production Price Gross Equi rice (ha) (ton) (Tk./ton) income (ton) (Tk.)

Mango 35 280 25000 7000000 263.158 Jackfruit 22 308 6000 1848000 69.4737 Banana 112 2040 16000 32640000 1227.07 Papaya 13 208 7000 1456000 54.7368 Coconut 160 550 11000 6050000 227.444 Bar 40 328 25000 8200000 308.271 Guava 230 3890 22000 85580000 3217.29 Litchi 22 53 22000 1166000 43.8346 Palm 37 222 6000 1332000 50.0752 Total 7879 145272000 5461.35 ii) Non-fruit Tree: Wood Category Quantity Price (Tk./ton) Gross income Equi rice (ton) (ton) (Tk.)

Wood 26824 1375 36883000 1386.5789 Treebranch 41658 1250 52072500 1957.6128 Total 88955500 3344.1917

Food from all Food Requirement Food Security ratio Food Security sources Equivalent Equivalent rice status (%) rice (ton) (ton)

288285.4 109118.55 2.6419 164.19

98 ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT CALCULATION

Name of Upazila: Kalapara District : Patuakhali

Category Produ Inside Outside Consum Global Equiva Popula Footprint ction supply supply ption yield factor tion component (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) (t/ha) (gha/ha) (gha/cap)

Crop Rice 158464 2500 109221 51743 3.75 2.8 220308 0.1754 Wheat 0 2250 0 2250 2.62 2.8 220308 0.0109 Potato 5390 6119 0 11509 16.47 2.8 0.0089 220308 Pulses 7061 600 6392 1269 0.837 2.8 220308 0.0193 Veget 7300 17884 0 25184 18 2.8 220308 0.0178 Oils 0 620 0 620 2.24 2.8 220308 0.0035 Spices 615 656 0 1271 14.17 2.8 220308 0.0011 Tea 0 82 0 82 0.56 2.8 220308 0.0019 Sugar 400 1362 0 1762 6.82 2.8 220308 0.0033 Sub-total 0.2420 Animal Meat 14182 0 11868 2314 0.457 1.1 220308 0.0253 Egg 296 196 0 492 0.304 1.1 220308 0.0081 Milk 12790 0 10970 1820 0.52 1.1 220308 0.0175 Sub-total 0.0508 Fishery Shrimp 594 0 587 7 3.25 0.2 220308 0.0000 Others 7155 0 5724 1431 0.05 0.2 220308 0.0260 Waste 0.0134 Sub-total 0.0394 Forest Fruit 7879 1300 6981 2198 18 1.1 220308 0.0006 Sub-total 0.0006

Total 0.3328

Build-up Area: Area Yield factor Equivalence factor Population Footprint component (ha) (crop) (gha/ha) (gha/capita)

848 0.87 2.8 220308 0.009376546

99 Energy Name Amount Conversion Amount Global Equiv Popul Footprint consumed factor consumed average factor ation (gha/cap) (GJ/year) (GJ/ha/yr) (gha/ha)

Fire wood 26824 15.4 413089.6 59 1.1 0.0350 (ton) 220308 Twigs 41658 15.4 641533.2 59 1.1 0.0543 (ton) 220308 Straw (ton) 7916 12.23 96812.68 32 1.1 0.0151 220308 Cowdung 8601 8.75 75258.75 49 1.1 0.0077 (ton) 220308 Diesel 1943106 0.038 73838.03 71 1.1 0.0052 (litre) 220308 Petrol 159033 0.034 5407.122 71 1.1 0.0004 (litre) 220308 Kerosine 574086 0.037 21241.18 71 1.1 0.0015 (litre) 220308 Electricity 2450769 0.0036 8822.768 1000 1.1 0.0000 (kwh) 220308 Coal (ton) 0 27 0 55 1.1 220308 0.0000

Total 0.1191

Category Existing Yield Equivalence Population Bio- Ecological Ecological Area factor factor capacity Footprint Status (crop) (gha/ha) (gha/capita) (gha/capita) (gha/cap)

Crop 59843 0.87 2.8 220308 0.6616988 0.2420165 Animal 251.7 150.84 1.1 220308 0.1895667 0.0508382 0.3066846 Build-up 848 0.87 2.8 0.0093765 0.0093765 220308 Fishery 3513 1.33 0.2 220308 0.0042416 0.0393828 Forest 1976 0.8 1.1 220308 0.0078929 0.0006097 Energy 0.1191351 Total 0.8727767 0.4613588 Available BC (-12% for Biodiversity) 0.7680435

100 FOOD SECURITY CALCULATION

Name of Upazila: Galachipa District : Patuakhali

A. Crop Crop Area (ha) Yield (t/ha ) Production Price Gross income Equi rice (ton) (Tk./ton) (Tk.) (ton)

Rice 88935 1.88 167197.8 18750 3.135E+09 117855.6 Pulse 23,500 1.2 28200 40000 1.128E+09 42406.02 Chilli 6700 1.1 7370 50000 368500000 13853.38 Potato 1200 22 26400 9000 237600000 8932.331 S.Potato 5500 16 88000 6000 528000000 19849.62 W. melon 1200 48 57600 20000 1.152E+09 43308.27 Veg (S) 425 17.83 7577.75 12000 90933000 3418.534 Veg (W) 2645 18 47610 11000 523710000 19688.35 Straw 112022 750 84016500 3158.515 Total 130105 541977.6 167500 7.248E+09 272470.6

B. Fish Category Area (ha) Production Price (Tk./ Gross income Equi rice (ton) ton) (Tk.) (ton)

Marine Shrimp Others River Shrimp 810 1510 200000 302000000 11353.4 Others 5300 140000 742000000 27894.7 Canal Shrimp 404 20 200000 4000000 150.376 Others 213 90000 19170000 720.677 Fish+ Rice Shrimp 40 10 550000 5500000 206.767 Others 50 100000 5000000 187.97 Gher Shrimp 2600 586 500000 293000000 11015 Others 300 100000 30000000 1127.82 Pond Shrimp 2095 1 550000 550000 20.6767 Others 2936 105000 308280000 11589.5 Total 5949 10926 2535000 1709500000 64266.9

101 C. Animal Category Area Production Price Gross Equi rice (ha) (ton/No.) (Tk./ton/No.) income (ton) (Tk.) Poultry Meat 16.27 874 75000 6.6E+07 2464.29 Egg 29200000 3.4 9.9E+07 3732.33 Dairy Meat 116.33 8028 150000 1.2E+09 45270.7 Milk 1095 21000 2.3E+07 864.474 Total 132.6 1.4E+09 52331.8

D. Forestry i) Fruit Tree Name No. Area Production Price Gross Equi rice (ha) (ton) (Tk./ton) income (ton) (Tk.) Mango 40 320 25000 8000000 300.752 Jackfruit 20 280 6000 1680000 63.1579 Banana 60 1200 16000 19200000 721.805 Papaya 15 240 7000 1680000 63.1579 Coconut 170 580 11000 6380000 239.85 Bar 35 280 25000 7000000 263.158 Guava 80 1240 22000 27280000 1025.56 Litchi 12 40 30000 1200000 45.1128 Palm 27 135 6000 810000 30.4511 0 Total 4315 73230000 2753.01

ii) Non-fruit Tree: Wood Category Quantity Price (Tk./ton) Gross income Equi rice (ton) (ton) (Tk.)

Wood 42590 1375 58561250 2201.5508 Treebranch 66200 1250 82750000 3110.9023 Total 141311250 5312.453

Food from all Food Requirement Food Security ratio Food Security sources Equivalent Equivalent rice status (%) rice (ton) (ton)

397134.8 173863.18 2.2842 128.42

102 ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT CALCULATION Name of Upazila: Galachipa District : Patuakhali

Category Produ Inside Outside Consum Global Equiva Popula Footprint ction supply supply ption yield factor tion (gha/cap) (ton) (ton) (ton) (ton) (t/ha) (gha/ha)

Crop Rice 167198 4200 92408 78990 3.75 2.8 351026 0.1680 Wheat 0 3780 0 3780 2.62 2.8 351026 0.0115 Potato 114400 0 96790 17610 16.47 2.8 0.0085 351026 Pulses 28200 800 27040 1960 0.837 2.8 351026 0.0187 Veget 55188 2500 16968 40720 18 2.8 351026 0.0180 Oils 0 998 0 998 2.24 2.8 351026 0.0036 Spices 7370 855 6210 2015 14.17 2.8 351026 0.0011 Tea 0 135 0 135 0.56 2.8 351026 0.0019 Sugar 700 2200 0 2900 6.82 2.8 351026 0.0034

Sub-total 0.2348 Animal Meat 8902 0 5632 3270 0.457 1.1 351026 0.0224 Egg 1718 0 693 1025 0.304 1.1 351026 0.0106 Milk 1095 200 0 1295 0.52 1.1 351026 0.0078 Sub-total 0.0408 Fishery Shrimp 2127 0 2107 20 3.25 0.2 351026 0.0000 Others 8799 0 7039 1760 0.05 0.2 351026 0.0201 Waste 0.0226 Sub-total 0.0426 Forest Fruit 4315 550 1585 3280 18 1.1 351026 0.0006 Sub-total 0.0006

Total 0.3188

Build-up Area: Area Yield factor Equivalence factor Population Footprint (ha) (crop) (gha/ha) component (gha/capita)

7334 0.72 2.8 351026 0.042120367

103 Energy Name Amount Conver Amount Global Equiva Population Footprint consumed sion consumed average factor component factor (GJ/year) (GJ/ha/yr) (gha/ha) (gha/cap)

Fire wood 42590 15.4 655886 59 1.1 0.0348 (ton) 351026 Twigs 66200 15.4 1019480 59 1.1 0.0541 (ton) 351026 Straw 13290 12.23 162536.7 32 1.1 0.0159 (ton) 351026 Cowdung 12900 8.75 112875 49 1.1 0.0072 (ton) 351026 Diesel 2826336 0.038 107400.8 71 1.1 0.0047 (litre) 351026 Petrol 254454 0.034 8651.436 71 1.1 0.0004 (litre) 351026 Kerosine 1203945 0.037 44545.97 71 1.1 0.0020 (litre) 351026 Electricity 2709359 0.0036 9753.692 1000 1.1 0.0000 (kwh) 351026 Coal (ton) 0 27 0 55 1.1 351026 0.0000

Total 0.1192

Category Existing Yield Equivalence Populati Bio- Ecological Ecological Area factor factor on capacity Footprint Status (crop) (gha/ha) (gha/cap) (gha/cap) (gha/cap)

Crop 130105 0.72 2.8 351026 0.7472144 0.234783 Animal 132.6 150.84 1.1 351026 0.0626778 0.040792 0.3219556 Build-up 7334 0.72 2.8 0.0421204 0.042120 351026 Fishery 5949 1.11 0.2 351026 0.0037623 0.042619 Forest 22210 0.8 1.1 351026 0.0556791 0.000571 Energy 0.119238 Total 0.9114539 0.480124 Available BC (-12% for Biodiversity) 0.8020795

104 Appendix- D. Equations for normal growth of Dacop upazila Biocapacity sector biocapacity_for_animal = animal_area*equivalence_factor_for_animal*yield_factor_for_animal biocapacity_for_buildup_area = buildup_area*equivalence_factor_for_crop*yield_factor_for_crop biocapacity_for_crop = (crop_area+crop_fish_integrated_farming_area+Boro_Aus_area)*yield_factor_for_crop*eq uivalence_factor_for_crop biocapacity_for_fish = (crop_fish_integrated_farming_area+pond_area_bagda+Area_of_canal_river_&_pond)*equ ivalence_factor_for_fish*yield_factor_for_fish biocapacity_for_forest = forest_area*equivalence_factor_for_forest*yield_factor_for_forest biocapacity_for_non_rice = non_rice_area*equivalence_factor_for_crop*yield_factor_for_crop biocapacity_per_capita = (total_biocapacity-.12*total_biocapacity)/population Boro_Aus_area = 15 ecological_status = biocapacity_per_capita-ecological_foot_print_per_capita total_biocapacity = biocapacity_for_animal+biocapacity_for_buildup_area+biocapacity_for_crop+biocapacity_ for_fish+biocapacity_for_forest+biocapacity_for_non_rice yield_factor_for_animal = 151 yield_factor_for_crop = .99 yield_factor_for_fish = .227 yield_factor_for_forest = .8

Ecological footprint sector buildup_area(t) = buildup_area(t - dt) + (buildup_area_growth_rate) * dt INIT buildup_area = 4199

INFLOWS: buildup_area_growth_rate = buildup_area*build_up_growth_factor animal_consumption = population*per_capita_animal_consumption build_up_growth_factor = .0012 eclogical_footprint_for_shrimp_culture = total_pond_area*eco_factor_for_semi_intensive_culture/population ecological_footprint_for_animal = (animal_consumption/global_average_of_animal_consumption)*equivalence_factor_for_an imal/population ecological_footprint_for_build_up_area = buildup_area*yield_factor_crop*equivalence_factor_for_non_rice/population ecological_footprint_for_crop = ((food_consumption/global_yield_for_crop)*equivalence_factor_for_crop)/population ecological_footprint_for_energy = ((energy_consumption/global_average_of_energy_consumption)*equivalence_factor_for_e nergy)/population ecological_footprint_for_fish_consumption = ((fish_consumption/global_yield_for_fish)*equivalence_factor_for_fish)/population

105 ecological_footprint_for_forest = (forest_consumption*equivalence_factor_for_forest)/global_average_of_forest_consumptio n/population ecological_footprint_for_non_rice = (non_rice_consumption*equivalence_factor_for_non_rice)/global_average_of_non_rice_co nsumption/population ecological_foot_print_per_capita = eclogical_footprint_for_shrimp_culture+ecological_footprint_for_animal+ecological_footpr int_for_build_up_area+ecological_footprint_for_crop+ecological_footprint_for_energy+ec ological_footprint_for_fish_consumption+ecological_footprint_for_forest+ecological_footp rint_for_non_rice energy_consumption = population*energy_consumption_per_capita energy_consumption_per_capita = 5.81 equivalence_factor_for_animal = 1.1 equivalence_factor_for_crop = 2.8 equivalence_factor_for_energy = 1.10 equivalence_factor_for_fish = 0.20 equivalence_factor_for_forest = 1.1 equivalence_factor_for_non_rice = 2.8 fish_consumption = population*fish_consumption_per_capita fish_consumption_per_capita = .0089 food_consumption = population*food_consumption_per_capita food_consumption_per_capita = 0.216 forest_consumption = population*forest_consumption_per_capita forest_consumption_per_capita = .009 global_average_of_animal_consumption = .452 global_average_of_energy_consumption = 49.92 global_average_of_forest_consumption = 18 global_average_of_non_rice_consumption = 8.63 global_yield_for_crop = 3.75 global_yield_for_fish = .05 non_rice_consumption = population*non_rice_consumption_per_capita non_rice_consumption_per_capita = .180 per_capita_animal_consumption = .025 total_pond_area = crop_fish_integrated_farming_area+pond_area_bagda yield_factor_crop = .99 eco_factor_for_semi_intensive_culture = GRAPH(shrimp_production_intensity) (1.00, 3.00), (9.25, 18.8), (17.5, 34.5), (25.8, 50.3), (34.0, 66.0), (42.3, 78.8), (50.5, 93.6), (58.8, 106), (67.0, 124), (75.3, 139), (83.5, 156), (91.8, 172), (100, 197)

Food security sector animal_area(t) = animal_area(t - dt) + (animal_growth_rate) * dt INIT animal_area = 83.27

INFLOWS: animal_growth_rate = animal_area*animal_growth_fraction crop_area(t) = crop_area(t - dt) + (- land_transfer_rate_for_bagda - land_transfer_rate_for_crop_fish) * dt INIT crop_area = 19500

106 OUTFLOWS: land_transfer_rate_for_bagda = crop_area*transfer_fraction_for_bagda land_transfer_rate_for_crop_fish = crop_area*transfer_fraction_for_crop_plus_fish crop_fish_integrated_farming_area(t) = crop_fish_integrated_farming_area(t - dt) + (land_transfer_rate_for_crop_fish) * dt INIT crop_fish_integrated_farming_area = 0

INFLOWS: land_transfer_rate_for_crop_fish = crop_area*transfer_fraction_for_crop_plus_fish forest_area(t) = forest_area(t - dt) + (forest_growth) * dt INIT forest_area = 314

INFLOWS: forest_growth = forest_area*forest_growth_factor non_rice_area(t) = non_rice_area(t - dt) + (non_rice_area_growth_rate) * dt INIT non_rice_area = 554

INFLOWS: non_rice_area_growth_rate = non_rice_area*non_rice_growth_fraction pond_area_bagda(t) = pond_area_bagda(t - dt) + (land_transfer_rate_for_bagda) * dt INIT pond_area_bagda = 13395

INFLOWS: land_transfer_rate_for_bagda = crop_area*transfer_fraction_for_bagda population(t) = population(t - dt) + (population_growth) * dt INIT population = 172613

INFLOWS: population_growth = population*population_growth_factor animal_growth_fraction = 0.0012 Area_of_canal_river_&_pond = 2553 crop_yield = crop_yiled_normal*crop_ecological_foot_print_multiplier*cropping_intensity_multiplier crop_yield_for_crop_fish_integrated_farming = 2.20 crop_yiled_normal = 1.95 equivalence_factor_non_rice = 0.332 equivalence_factor_shrimp = 16.91 equivalent_factor_other_fish = 3.03 fish_from_crop_plus_fish = shrimp_production_galda*equivalence_factor_shrimp fish_yield_galda = 0.39 food_available = fish_from_crop_plus_fish+food_equivalent_from_bagda+food_from_animal+food_from_cr op_area+food_from_crop_plus_fish+food_from_forest+food_eqivalent_other_fish+food_fr om_non_rice+food_from_shrimp_rcp food_eqivalent_other_fish = equivalent_factor_other_fish*other_fish_production food_equivalent_from_bagda = shrimp_production_bagda*equivalence_factor_shrimp food_from_animal = animal_area*food_from_animal_normal food_from_animal_normal = 410.8 food_from_crop_area = crop_area*crop_yield

107 food_from_crop_plus_fish = crop_fish_integrated_farming_area*crop_yield_for_crop_fish_integrated_farming food_from_forest = forest_area*food_from_forest_normal food_from_forest_normal = 7.15 food_from_non_rice = equivalence_factor_non_rice*non_rice_production food_from_shrimp_rcp = equivalence_factor_shrimp*Shrimp_production_rcp food_per_capita = 0.001357 food_requirement = population*food_per_capita*no_of_days food_security = ((food_available-food_requirement)/food_requirement)*100 forest_growth_factor = .0015 non_rice_growth_fraction = 0.0012 non_rice_production = non_rice_area*non_rice_yield non_rice_yield = 25.5 no_of_days = 365 other_fish_production = (crop_fish_integrated_farming_area+pond_area_bagda+Area_of_canal_river_&_pond)*yiel d_other_fish population_growth_factor = .0154 shrimp_production_bagda = pond_area_bagda*shrimp_yield_bagda shrimp_production_galda = fish_yield_galda*shrimp_ecological_foot_print_multiplier*crop_fish_integrated_farming_a rea Shrimp_production_rcp = Area_of_canal_river_&_pond*Yield_of_shrimp_rcp shrimp_yield_bagda = shrimp_yield_normal_bagda*shrimp_intensity_multiplier_bagda*shrimp_ecological_foot_ print_multiplier shrimp_yield_normal_bagda = 0.251 transfer_fraction_for_bagda = .0120 transfer_fraction_for_crop_plus_fish = .010 Yield_of_shrimp_rcp = 0.04 yield_other_fish = 0.157 cropping_intensity = GRAPH(TIME) (0.00, 1.59), (1.00, 1.73), (2.00, 1.84), (3.00, 1.86), (4.00, 1.92), (5.00, 1.96), (6.00, 2.02), (7.00, 2.09), (8.00, 2.12), (9.00, 2.10), (10.0, 2.13), (11.0, 2.15), (12.0, 2.15) cropping_intensity_multiplier = GRAPH(cropping_intensity) (1.00, 1.01), (1.20, 1.12), (1.40, 1.19), (1.60, 1.24), (1.80, 1.28), (2.00, 1.33), (2.20, 1.35), (2.40, 1.38), (2.60, 1.41), (2.80, 1.43), (3.00, 1.45) crop_ecological_foot_print_multiplier = GRAPH(ecological_footprint_for_crop) (0.00, 1.00), (0.3, 0.965), (0.6, 0.94), (0.9, 0.925), (1.20, 0.9), (1.50, 0.87), (1.80, 0.845), (2.10, 0.815), (2.40, 0.8), (2.70, 0.765), (3.00, 0.73) shrimp_ecological_foot_print_multiplier = GRAPH(ecological_foot_print_per_capita) (0.00, 1.00), (2.00, 0.91), (4.00, 0.814), (6.00, 0.71), (8.00, 0.605), (10.0, 0.512), (12.0, 0.429), (14.0, 0.356), (16.0, 0.269), (18.0, 0.176), (20.0, 0.098) shrimp_intensity_multiplier_bagda = GRAPH(shrimp_production_intensity) (1.00, 1.00), (10.9, 2.04), (20.8, 2.84), (30.7, 3.61), (40.6, 4.51), (50.5, 5.18), (60.4, 6.09), (70.3, 6.80), (80.2, 7.34), (90.1, 7.84), (100, 8.15) shrimp_production_intensity = GRAPH(TIME) (0.00, 1.00), (1.00, 5.95), (2.00, 10.9), (3.00, 15.9), (4.00, 21.3), (5.00, 26.2), (6.00, 31.2), (7.00, 35.6), (8.00, 40.1), (9.00, 44.6), (10.0, 49.5), (11.0, 54.5), (12.0, 59.9) Not in a sector

108 Equations for super-intensive growth of Dacop upazila

Biocapacity sector biocapacity_for_animal = animal_area*equivalence_factor_for_animal*yield_factor_for_animal biocapacity_for_buildup_area = buildup_area*equivalence_factor_for_crop*yield_factor_for_crop biocapacity_for_crop = (crop_area+crop_fish_integrated_farming_area+Boro_Aus_area)*yield_factor_for_crop*eq uivalence_factor_for_crop biocapacity_for_fish = (crop_fish_integrated_farming_area+pond_area_bagda+Area_of_canal_river_&_pond)*equ ivalence_factor_for_fish*yield_factor_for_fish biocapacity_for_forest = forest_area*equivalence_factor_for_forest*yield_factor_for_forest biocapacity_for_non_rice = non_rice_area*equivalence_factor_for_crop*yield_factor_for_crop biocapacity_per_capita = (total_biocapacity-.12*total_biocapacity)/population Boro_Aus_area = 15 ecological_status = biocapacity_per_capita-ecological_foot_print_per_capita total_biocapacity = biocapacity_for_animal+biocapacity_for_buildup_area+biocapacity_for_crop+biocapacity_ for_fish+biocapacity_for_forest+biocapacity_for_non_rice yield_factor_for_animal = 151 yield_factor_for_crop = .99 yield_factor_for_fish = .227 yield_factor_for_forest = .8

Ecological footprint sector buildup_area(t) = buildup_area(t - dt) + (buildup_area_growth_rate) * dt INIT buildup_area = 4199

INFLOWS: buildup_area_growth_rate = buildup_area*build_up_growth_factor animal_consumption = population*per_capita_animal_consumption build_up_growth_factor = .0012 eclogical_footprint_for_shrimp_culture = total_pond_area*eco_factor_for_semi_intensive_culture/population ecological_footprint_for_animal = (animal_consumption/global_average_of_animal_consumption)*equivalence_factor_for_an imal/population ecological_footprint_for_build_up_area = buildup_area*yield_factor_for_crop*equivalence_factor_for_non_rice/population ecological_footprint_for_crop = ((food_consumption/global_yield_for_crop)*equivalence_factor_for_crop)/population ecological_footprint_for_energy = ((energy_consumption/global_average_of_energy_consumption)*equivalence_factor_for_e nergy)/population ecological_footprint_for_fish_consumption = ((fish_consumption/global_yield_for_fish)*equivalence_factor_for_fish)/population

109 ecological_footprint_for_forest = (forest_consumption*equivalence_factor_for_forest)/global_average_of_forest_consumptio n/population ecological_footprint_for_non_rice = (non_rice_consumption*equivalence_factor_for_non_rice)/global_average_of_non_rice_co nsumption/population ecological_foot_print_per_capita = eclogical_footprint_for_shrimp_culture+ecological_footprint_for_animal+ecological_footpr int_for_build_up_area+ecological_footprint_for_crop+ecological_footprint_for_energy+ec ological_footprint_for_fish_consumption+ecological_footprint_for_forest+ecological_footp rint_for_non_rice energy_consumption = population*energy_consumption_per_capita energy_consumption_per_capita = 5.81 equivalence_factor_for_animal = 1.1 equivalence_factor_for_crop = 2.8 equivalence_factor_for_energy = 1.10 equivalence_factor_for_fish = 0.20 equivalence_factor_for_forest = 1.1 equivalence_factor_for_non_rice = 2.8 fish_consumption = population*fish_consumption_per_capita fish_consumption_per_capita = .0089 food_consumption = population*food_consumption_per_capita food_consumption_per_capita = .205 forest_consumption = population*forest_consumption_per_capita forest_consumption_per_capita = .009 global_average_of_animal_consumption = .452 global_average_of_energy_consumption = 49.92 global_average_of_forest_consumption = 18 global_average_of_non_rice_consumption = 8.63 global_yield_for_crop = 3.75 global_yield_for_fish = .05 non_rice_consumption = population*non_rice_consumption_per_capita non_rice_consumption_per_capita = .180 per_capita_animal_consumption = .025 total_pond_area = crop_fish_integrated_farming_area+pond_area_bagda eco_factor_for_semi_intensive_culture = GRAPH(shrimp_production_intensity) (1.00, 3.00), (9.25, 18.8), (17.5, 34.5), (25.8, 50.3), (34.0, 66.0), (42.3, 78.8), (50.5, 93.6), (58.8, 106), (67.0, 124), (75.3, 139), (83.5, 156), (91.8, 172), (100, 197)

Food security sector animal_area(t) = animal_area(t - dt) + (animal_growth_rate) * dt INIT animal_area = 83.27

INFLOWS: animal_growth_rate = animal_area*animal_growth_fraction crop_area(t) = crop_area(t - dt) + (- land_transfer_rate_for_bagda - land_transfer_rate_for_crop_fish) * dt INIT crop_area = 19500

OUTFLOWS:

110 land_transfer_rate_for_bagda = crop_area*transfer_fraction_for_bagda land_transfer_rate_for_crop_fish = crop_area*transfer_fraction_for_crop_plus_fish crop_fish_integrated_farming_area(t) = crop_fish_integrated_farming_area(t - dt) + (land_transfer_rate_for_crop_fish) * dt INIT crop_fish_integrated_farming_area = 0

INFLOWS: land_transfer_rate_for_crop_fish = crop_area*transfer_fraction_for_crop_plus_fish forest_area(t) = forest_area(t - dt) + (forest_growth) * dt INIT forest_area = 314

INFLOWS: forest_growth = forest_area*forest_growth_factor non_rice_area(t) = non_rice_area(t - dt) + (non_rice_area_growth_rate) * dt INIT non_rice_area = 554

INFLOWS: non_rice_area_growth_rate = non_rice_area*non_rice_growth_fraction pond_area_bagda(t) = pond_area_bagda(t - dt) + (land_transfer_rate_for_bagda) * dt INIT pond_area_bagda = 13395

INFLOWS: land_transfer_rate_for_bagda = crop_area*transfer_fraction_for_bagda population(t) = population(t - dt) + (population_growth) * dt INIT population = 172613

INFLOWS: population_growth = population*population_growth_factor animal_growth_fraction = 0.0012 Area_of_canal_river_&_pond = 2553 crop_yield = crop_yiled_normal*crop_ecological_foot_print_multiplier*cropping_intensity_multiplier crop_yield_for_crop_fish_integrated_farming = 2.2 crop_yiled_normal = 1.95 equivalence_factor_non_rice = 0.332 equivalence_factor_shrimp = 16.91 equivalent_factor_other_fish = 3.03 fish_from_crop_plus_fish = shrimp_production_galda*equivalence_factor_shrimp fish_yield_galda = 0.39 food_available = fish_from_crop_plus_fish+food_equivalent_from_bagda+food_from_animal+food_from_cr op_area+food_from_crop_plus_fish+food_from_forest+food_eqivalent_other_fish+food_fr om_non_rice+food_from_shrimp_rcp food_eqivalent_other_fish = equivalent_factor_other_fish*other_fish_production food_equivalent_from_bagda = shrimp_production_bagda*equivalence_factor_shrimp food_from_animal = animal_area*food_from_animal_normal food_from_animal_normal = 410.8 food_from_crop_area = crop_area*crop_yield food_from_crop_plus_fish = crop_fish_integrated_farming_area*crop_yield_for_crop_fish_integrated_farming

111 food_from_forest = forest_area*food_from_forest_normal food_from_forest_normal = 7.15 food_from_non_rice = equivalence_factor_non_rice*non_rice_production food_from_shrimp_rcp = equivalence_factor_shrimp*Shrimp_production_rcp food_per_capita = 0.001357 food_requirement = population*food_per_capita*no_of_days food_security = ((food_available-food_requirement)/food_requirement)*100 forest_growth_factor = .0015 non_rice_growth_fraction = 0.0012 non_rice_production = non_rice_area*non_rice_yield non_rice_yield = 25.5 no_of_days = 365 other_fish_production = (crop_fish_integrated_farming_area+pond_area_bagda+Area_of_canal_river_&_pond)*yiel d_other_fish population_growth_factor = .0154 shrimp_production_bagda = pond_area_bagda*shrimp_yield_bagda shrimp_production_galda = fish_yield_galda*shrimp_ecological_foot_print_multiplier*crop_fish_integrated_farming_a rea Shrimp_production_rcp = Area_of_canal_river_&_pond*Yield_of_shrimp_rcp shrimp_yield_bagda = shrimp_yield_normal_bagda*shrimp_intensity_multiplier_bagda*shrimp_ecological_foot_ print_multiplier shrimp_yield_normal_bagda = .251 transfer_fraction_for_bagda = .0120 transfer_fraction_for_crop_plus_fish = .010 Yield_of_shrimp_rcp = 0.04 yield_other_fish = 0.157 cropping_intensity = GRAPH(TIME) (0.00, 1.59), (1.00, 1.73), (2.00, 1.84), (3.00, 1.92), (4.00, 1.97), (5.00, 2.02), (6.00, 2.07), (7.00, 2.11), (8.00, 2.16), (9.00, 2.19), (10.0, 2.22), (11.0, 2.24), (12.0, 2.26) cropping_intensity_multiplier = GRAPH(cropping_intensity) (1.00, 1.00), (1.20, 1.08), (1.40, 1.14), (1.60, 1.22), (1.80, 1.28), (2.00, 1.32), (2.20, 1.36), (2.40, 1.38), (2.60, 1.41), (2.80, 1.43), (3.00, 1.45) crop_ecological_foot_print_multiplier = GRAPH(ecological_footprint_for_crop) (0.00, 1.00), (0.3, 0.965), (0.6, 0.94), (0.9, 0.925), (1.20, 0.9), (1.50, 0.87), (1.80, 0.845), (2.10, 0.815), (2.40, 0.8), (2.70, 0.765), (3.00, 0.73) shrimp_ecological_foot_print_multiplier = GRAPH(eclogical_footprint_for_shrimp_culture) (0.00, 1.00), (2.00, 0.91), (4.00, 0.814), (6.00, 0.71), (8.00, 0.605), (10.0, 0.512), (12.0, 0.429), (14.0, 0.356), (16.0, 0.269), (18.0, 0.176), (20.0, 0.098) shrimp_intensity_multiplier_bagda = GRAPH(shrimp_production_intensity) (1.00, 1.00), (10.9, 2.04), (20.8, 2.84), (30.7, 3.61), (40.6, 4.51), (50.5, 5.18), (60.4, 6.09), (70.3, 6.80), (80.2, 7.34), (90.1, 7.84), (100, 8.15) shrimp_production_intensity = GRAPH(TIME) (0.00, 1.00), (1.00, 5.95), (2.00, 10.9), (3.00, 15.9), (4.00, 21.3), (5.00, 26.2), (6.00, 33.7), (7.00, 41.1), (8.00, 51.0), (9.00, 61.9), (10.0, 71.8), (11.0, 83.7), (12.0, 99.0)

Not in a sector

112 Equations for control growth of Dacop upazila

Biocapacity sector biocapacity_for_animal = animal_area*equivalence_factor_for_animal*yield_factor_for_animal biocapacity_for_buildup_area = buildup_area*equivalence_factor_for_crop*yield_factor_for_crop biocapacity_for_crop = (crop_area+crop_fish_integrated_farming_area+Boro_Aus_area)*yield_factor_for_crop*eq uivalence_factor_for_crop biocapacity_for_fish = (crop_fish_integrated_farming_area+pond_area_bagda+Area_of_canal_river_&_pond)*equ ivalence_factor_for_fish*yield_factor_for_fish biocapacity_for_forest = forest_area*equivalence_factor_for_forest*yield_factor_for_forest biocapacity_for_non_rice = non_rice_area*equivalence_factor_for_crop*yield_factor_for_crop biocapacity_per_capita = (total_biocapacity-.12*total_biocapacity)/population Boro_Aus_area = 15 ecological_status = biocapacity_per_capita-ecological_foot_print_per_capita total_biocapacity = biocapacity_for_animal+biocapacity_for_buildup_area+biocapacity_for_crop+biocapacity_ for_fish+biocapacity_for_forest+biocapacity_for_non_rice yield_factor_for_animal = 151 yield_factor_for_crop = .99 yield_factor_for_fish = .227 yield_factor_for_forest = .8

Ecological footprint sector buildup_area(t) = buildup_area(t - dt) + (buildup_area_growth_rate) * dt INIT buildup_area = 4199

INFLOWS: buildup_area_growth_rate = buildup_area*build_up_growth_factor animal_consumption = population*per_capita_animal_consumption build_up_growth_factor = .0012 eclogical_footprint_for_shrimp_culture = total_pond_area*eco_factor_for_semi_intensive_culture/population ecological_footprint_for_animal = (animal_consumption/global_average_of_animal_consumption)*equivalence_factor_for_an imal/population ecological_footprint_for_build_up_area = buildup_area*yield_factor_crop*equivalence_factor_for_non_rice/population ecological_footprint_for_crop = ((food_consumption/global_yield_for_crop)*equivalence_factor_for_crop)/population ecological_footprint_for_energy = ((energy_consumption/global_average_of_energy_consumption)*equivalence_factor_for_e nergy)/population ecological_footprint_for_fish_consumption = ((fish_consumption/global_yield_for_fish)*equivalence_factor_for_fish)/population

113 ecological_footprint_for_forest = (forest_consumption*equivalence_factor_for_forest)/global_average_of_forest_consumptio n/population ecological_footprint_for_non_rice = (non_rice_consumption*equivalence_factor_for_non_rice)/global_average_of_non_rice_co nsumption/population ecological_foot_print_per_capita = eclogical_footprint_for_shrimp_culture+ecological_footprint_for_animal+ecological_footpr int_for_build_up_area+ecological_footprint_for_crop+ecological_footprint_for_energy+ec ological_footprint_for_fish_consumption+ecological_footprint_for_forest+ecological_footp rint_for_non_rice energy_consumption = population*energy_consumption_per_capita energy_consumption_per_capita = 5.81 equivalence_factor_for_animal = 1.1 equivalence_factor_for_crop = 2.8 equivalence_factor_for_energy = 1.10 equivalence_factor_for_fish = 0.20 equivalence_factor_for_forest = 1.1 equivalence_factor_for_non_rice = 2.8 fish_consumption = population*fish_consumption_per_capita fish_consumption_per_capita = .0089 food_consumption = population*food_consumption_per_capita food_consumption_per_capita = 0.216 forest_consumption = population*forest_consumption_per_capita forest_consumption_per_capita = .009 global_average_of_animal_consumption = .452 global_average_of_energy_consumption = 49.92 global_average_of_forest_consumption = 18 global_average_of_non_rice_consumption = 8.63 global_yield_for_crop = 3.75 global_yield_for_fish = .05 non_rice_consumption = population*non_rice_consumption_per_capita non_rice_consumption_per_capita = .180 per_capita_animal_consumption = .025 total_pond_area = crop_fish_integrated_farming_area+pond_area_bagda yield_factor_crop = .99 eco_factor_for_semi_intensive_culture = GRAPH(shrimp_production_intensity) (1.00, 3.00), (9.25, 18.8), (17.5, 34.5), (25.8, 50.3), (34.0, 66.0), (42.3, 78.8), (50.5, 93.6), (58.8, 106), (67.0, 124), (75.3, 139), (83.5, 156), (91.8, 172), (100, 197)

Food security sector animal_area(t) = animal_area(t - dt) + (animal_growth_rate) * dt INIT animal_area = 83.27

INFLOWS: animal_growth_rate = animal_area*animal_growth_fraction crop_area(t) = crop_area(t - dt) + (- land_transfer_rate_for_bagda - land_transfer_rate_for_crop_fish) * dt INIT crop_area = 19500

114 OUTFLOWS: land_transfer_rate_for_bagda = crop_area*transfer_fraction_for_bagda land_transfer_rate_for_crop_fish = crop_area*transfer_fraction_for_crop_plus_fish crop_fish_integrated_farming_area(t) = crop_fish_integrated_farming_area(t - dt) + (land_transfer_rate_for_crop_fish) * dt INIT crop_fish_integrated_farming_area = 0

INFLOWS: land_transfer_rate_for_crop_fish = crop_area*transfer_fraction_for_crop_plus_fish forest_area(t) = forest_area(t - dt) + (forest_growth) * dt INIT forest_area = 314

INFLOWS: forest_growth = forest_area*forest_growth_factor non_rice_area(t) = non_rice_area(t - dt) + (non_rice_area_growth_rate) * dt INIT non_rice_area = 554

INFLOWS: non_rice_area_growth_rate = non_rice_area*non_rice_growth_fraction pond_area_bagda(t) = pond_area_bagda(t - dt) + (land_transfer_rate_for_bagda) * dt INIT pond_area_bagda = 13395

INFLOWS: land_transfer_rate_for_bagda = crop_area*transfer_fraction_for_bagda population(t) = population(t - dt) + (population_growth) * dt INIT population = 172613

INFLOWS: population_growth = population*population_growth_factor animal_growth_fraction = 0.0012 Area_of_canal_river_&_pond = 2553 crop_yield = crop_yiled_normal*crop_ecological_foot_print_multiplier*cropping_intensity_multiplier crop_yield_for_crop_fish_integrated_farming = 2.20 crop_yiled_normal = 1.95 equivalence_factor_non_rice = 0.332 equivalence_factor_shrimp = 16.91 equivalent_factor_other_fish = 3.03 fish_from_crop_plus_fish = shrimp_production_galda*equivalence_factor_shrimp fish_yield_galda = 0.39 food_available = fish_from_crop_plus_fish+food_equivalent_from_bagda+food_from_animal+food_from_cr op_area+food_from_crop_plus_fish+food_from_forest+food_eqivalent_other_fish+food_fr om_non_rice+food_from_shrimp_rcp food_eqivalent_other_fish = equivalent_factor_other_fish*other_fish_production food_equivalent_from_bagda = shrimp_production_bagda*equivalence_factor_shrimp food_from_animal = animal_area*food_from_animal_normal food_from_animal_normal = 410.8 food_from_crop_area = crop_area*crop_yield

115 food_from_crop_plus_fish = crop_fish_integrated_farming_area*crop_yield_for_crop_fish_integrated_farming food_from_forest = forest_area*food_from_forest_normal food_from_forest_normal = 7.15 food_from_non_rice = equivalence_factor_non_rice*non_rice_production food_from_shrimp_rcp = equivalence_factor_shrimp*Shrimp_production_rcp food_per_capita = 0.001357 food_requirement = population*food_per_capita*no_of_days food_security = ((food_available-food_requirement)/food_requirement)*100 forest_growth_factor = .0015 non_rice_growth_fraction = 0.0012 non_rice_production = non_rice_area*non_rice_yield non_rice_yield = 25.5 no_of_days = 365 other_fish_production = (crop_fish_integrated_farming_area+pond_area_bagda+Area_of_canal_river_&_pond)*yiel d_other_fish population_growth_factor = .0154 shrimp_production_bagda = pond_area_bagda*shrimp_yield_bagda shrimp_production_galda = fish_yield_galda*shrimp_ecological_foot_print_multiplier*crop_fish_integrated_farming_a rea Shrimp_production_rcp = Area_of_canal_river_&_pond*Yield_of_shrimp_rcp shrimp_yield_bagda = shrimp_yield_normal_bagda*shrimp_intensity_multiplier_bagda*shrimp_ecological_foot_ print_multiplier shrimp_yield_normal_bagda = 0.251 transfer_fraction_for_bagda = .0120 transfer_fraction_for_crop_plus_fish = .010 Yield_of_shrimp_rcp = 0.04 yield_other_fish = 0.157 cropping_intensity = GRAPH(TIME) (0.00, 1.59), (1.00, 1.73), (2.00, 1.84), (3.00, 1.86), (4.00, 1.92), (5.00, 1.96), (6.00, 2.02), (7.00, 2.09), (8.00, 2.12), (9.00, 2.17), (10.0, 2.17), (11.0, 2.15), (12.0, 2.15) cropping_intensity_multiplier = GRAPH(cropping_intensity) (1.00, 1.01), (1.20, 1.12), (1.40, 1.19), (1.60, 1.24), (1.80, 1.28), (2.00, 1.33), (2.20, 1.35), (2.40, 1.38), (2.60, 1.41), (2.80, 1.43), (3.00, 1.45) crop_ecological_foot_print_multiplier = GRAPH(ecological_footprint_for_crop) (0.00, 1.00), (0.3, 0.965), (0.6, 0.94), (0.9, 0.925), (1.20, 0.9), (1.50, 0.87), (1.80, 0.845), (2.10, 0.815), (2.40, 0.8), (2.70, 0.765), (3.00, 0.73) shrimp_ecological_foot_print_multiplier = GRAPH(ecological_foot_print_per_capita) (0.00, 1.00), (2.00, 0.91), (4.00, 0.814), (6.00, 0.71), (8.00, 0.605), (10.0, 0.512), (12.0, 0.429), (14.0, 0.356), (16.0, 0.269), (18.0, 0.176), (20.0, 0.098) shrimp_intensity_multiplier_bagda = GRAPH(shrimp_production_intensity) (1.00, 1.00), (10.9, 2.04), (20.8, 2.84), (30.7, 3.61), (40.6, 4.51), (50.5, 5.18), (60.4, 6.09), (70.3, 6.80), (80.2, 7.34), (90.1, 7.84), (100, 8.15) shrimp_production_intensity = GRAPH(TIME) (0.00, 1.00), (1.00, 5.95), (2.00, 10.9), (3.00, 14.4), (4.00, 19.8), (5.00, 23.8), (6.00, 27.7), (7.00, 32.2), (8.00, 35.2), (9.00, 38.6), (10.0, 42.1), (11.0, 45.1), (12.0, 47.0) Not in a sector

116 Appendix-E Simulated results in the eight upazilas of in the nine upazilas of Shyamnagar, Koyra, Shoronkhola, Morrelgonj, Mongla, Patharghata, Kalapara and Galachipa. 160

140 FS (Normal growth)

120 FS (Super-intensive) ) FS(Control growth) %

( 100

y t i

r 80 u c

e 60 S

d

o 40 o F 20

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final -20 Year Figure Food Security status of Shyamnagar upazila for different options

12 ) p a

c 10

/ EF(Normal growth) a h

g EF (Super-intensive) ( 8 t

n EF(Control growth) i r p t

o 6 o F

l a

c 4 i g o l

o 2 c E

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final Year

Figure Ecological footprint of Shyamnagar upazila for different options

Year 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final )

p -2 a c / a h

g -4 (

s u t a t -6 ES (Normal growth) S

l a

c ES (Super-intensive) i -8 g

o ES (Control growth) l o c

E -10

-12

Figure Ecological status of Shyamnagar upazila for different options

117 140

120 ) %

( 100 y t i r

u 80 c e S FS (Normal growth) d 60 o o FS (Super-intensive) F 40 FS(Control growth) 20

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final Year

Figure Food Security status of Koyra upazila for different options

8 ) p a 7

c EF(Normal growth) / a h 6 EF (Super-intensive) g ( t n 5 EF(Control growth) i r p t

o 4 o F

l 3 a c i g 2 o l o c 1 E 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final Year

Figure Ecological footprint of Koyra upazila for different options

Year 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final -1 ) p a c

/ -2 a h g (

-3 s u t a t -4 ES (Normal growth) S l a c -5 ES (Super-intensive) i g o l -6 ES (Control growth) o c E -7

-8

Figure Ecological status of Koyra upazila for different options

118 50

40 FS (Normal growth) 30 FS (Super-intensive) ) % ( 20 FS(Control growth) y t i r u 10 c e S

d 0 o o 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final F -10

-20

-30 Year

Figure Food Security status of Shoronkhola upazila for different options

3.5 ) p a

c 3 / a h g

( 2.5 EF(Normal growth)

t n i

r EF (Super-intensive) 2 p t

o EF(Control growth) o

F 1.5

l a c i 1 g o l o

c 0.5 E

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final Year

Figure Ecological footprint of Shoronkhola upazila for different options

Year 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final )

p -0.5 a c / a

h -1 g ( s u -1.5 t a t S

ES (Normal growth) l -2 a c i ES (Super-intensive) g o -2.5 l

o ES (Control growth) c

E -3

-3.5

Figure Ecological status of Shoronkhola upazila for different options 119 Year 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final -5 ) % ( -10 y t i FS (Normal growth) r u c -15

e FS (Super-intensive) S

d FS(Control growth)

o -20 o F -25

-30

-35

Figure Food Security status of Morrelgonj upazila for different options

8

) 7 p a

c EF(Normal growth) / a 6 h EF (Super-intensive) g (

t 5

n EF(Control growth) i r p 4 t o o

F 3 l a c i 2 g o l o 1 c E 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final Year

Figure Ecological footprint of Morrelgonj upazila for different options

Year 0

) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final p

a -1 c / a h

g -2 (

s u t

a -3 t S

l ES (Normal growth) a

c -4 i ES (Super-intensive) g o l

o -5 ES (Control growth) c E -6

-7

Figure Ecological status of Morrelgonj upazila for different options

120 40

30 FS (Normal growth)

) FS (Super-intensive) % ( 20 y

t FS(Control growth) i r u c e 10 S d o o 0 F 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final -10

-20 Year

Figure Food Security status of Mongla upazila for different options

14 ) p a 12 c

/ EF(Normal growth) a h g 10 ( EF (Super-intensive) t n i r 8 EF(Control growth) p t o o

F 6 l a c i 4 g o l o

c 2 E 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final Year

Figure Ecological footprint of Mongla upazila for different options

Year 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final ) p a -2 c / a h g (

-4 s u t a t

S -6 l a ES (Normal growth) c i g -8 o ES (Super-intensive) l o c ES (Control growth) E -10

-12

Figure Ecological status of Mongla upazila for different options

121 160

140 FS (Normal growth)

) 120 FS (Super-intensive) % (

y 100 FS(Control growth) t i r u

c 80 e S

d 60 o o

F 40

20

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final Year

Figure Food Security status of Pathargata upazila for different options

4.5 ) p a 4 c / a

h 3.5 EF(Normal growth) g ( t 3 EF (Super-intensive) n i r p

t 2.5 EF(Control growth) o o

F 2 l a c 1.5 i g o l 1 o c

E 0.5 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final Year

Figure Ecological footprint of Pathargata upazila for different options

Year 0

) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final p -0.5 a c / a -1 h g (

s -1.5 u t a t -2

S ES (Normal growth) l a

c -2.5 i ES (Super-intensive) g o

l -3 o ES (Control growth) c

E -3.5

-4

-4.5

Figure Ecological status of Pathargata upazila for different options

122 400

350

) 300 % ( y t 250 i r u c

e 200 S

FS (Normal growth) d

o 150

o FS (Super-intensive) F 100 FS(Control growth) 50

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final Year

Figure: Food Security status of Kalapara upazila for different options

) 9 p a

c 8 / a h 7 g (

t EF(Normal growth) 6 n i r

p EF (Super-intensive)

t 5 o o EF(Control growth)

F 4 l a

c 3 i g o 2 l o c 1 E 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final Year

Figure: Ecological footprint of Kalapara upazila for different options

Year 1 )

p 0 a c

/ 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final a -1 h g ( -2 s u t a

t -3 S

l ES (Normal growth) a -4 c i g ES (Super-intensive) o -5 l o c -6 ES (Control growth) E -7

-8

Figure: Ecological status of Kalapara upazila for different options

123 250

200 ) % (

y 150 t i r u FS (Normal growth) c e

S 100 FS (Super-intensive) d o o FS(Control growth) F 50

0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final Year

Figure Food Security status of Galachipa upazila for different options

10 )

p 9 a c / 8 a EF(Normal growth) h g

( 7 EF (Super-intensive) t n

i 6 r EF(Control growth) p t

o 5 o F 4 l a c

i 3 g o l 2 o c

E 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final Year

Figure Ecological footprint of Galachipa upazila for different options

Year 1

) 0 p a

c 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final

/ -1 a

h -2 g (

s -3 u t a

t -4

S ES (Normal growth)

l

a -5 c i ES (Super-intensive)

g -6 o l

o -7 ES (Control growth) c

E -8 -9 -10

Figure Ecological status of Galachipa upazila for different options

124