40534-013: Second Crop Diversification Project

Indigenous Community Monitoring Report

Project Number: 40534-013 Semestral Report December 2015

2649-BAN(SF): Second Crop Diversification Project

Prepared by Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE) for the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and the Asian Development Bank.

This indigenous community monitoring report is a document of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB's Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature.

In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

Second Crop Diversification Project –SCDP

Project Intervention on Indigenous Community Monitoring Report, December 2015

Department Of Agricultural Extension Middle Building (6th Floor), Khamarbari Farmgate, Dhaka-1215

February, 2016 Contents Acronym ...... ii 1. Project Background ...... 1 2. Indigenous People in Project Area (population) ...... 1 3. Introduction ...... 2 4. Organizing IPs under SFGs (Group formation) ...... 3 5. Credit accessibility ...... 3 6. Utilization of Credit ...... 4 7. Accessibility in production technology ...... 5 7.1 Technology Training ...... 5 7.2 Demonstration ...... 6 8. Planned Technology Transfer Support for IP Population in 2015‐16 ...... 8 8.1 Technology Training ...... 8 8.2 Crop Demonstration ...... 8 9. Adverse Impact of Project Intervention in Livelihoods of IPs ...... 9 10. Conclusion ...... 9

Acronym

ADB Asian Development Bank BRAC Bangladesh Rural Advancement Committee HVC High Value Crop MFI Microfinance Institute NGO Non Government Organization OFSSI On Farm Small Scale Infrastructure SFG Small Farmers Group

Second Crop Diversification Project (SCDP)

Project Intervention in Indigenous Community Monitoring Report Dec 2015

1. Project Background

The project officially launched in June 2010 but field operations commenced in Feb 2012 after recruiting of MFI/BRAC and BRAC started SFG formation in July 2012 when full swing field activities was under operation after completing the recruitment of necessary manpower and consultant. The project is being operated in 43 Upazilas of 18 districts of south and south‐west and 9 Upazilas of 9 districts in the northwest since June 2010 with the aim to reduce poverty by improving farmers’ incomes. The project is fostering commercialization of agriculture through interventions to promote diversification into high value crops (HVC) and value addition. The prime objective of the project is to raise farm incomes, alleviate poverty and stimulate the economy of both southwest and northwest through high value crop production among the small and medium farm households.

2. Indigenous People in Project Area (population)

As per census report 2011, total indigenous households in the country are 3,56,175 with 15,86,141 (7,97,477 male and 7,88,664 female) population. As reported by the Project’s Administrative Manual (PAM) of ADB some population of indigenous people are living in Godagari and Chapai Sadar Upazilas of Rajshahi districts and Birampur Upazila of Dinajpur district. With assistance from Upazila Statistics Offices the Upazila Agriculture Offices reported that in Godagari Upazila there are 5,155 households with 26,490 indigenous People (IP), in Chapai sadar 376 households with 1578 people and in Birampur 2,593 households with 12,107 people, who living in the remote areas of the Upazilas. The indigenous people living in the project area are mostly belongs to Santal, Orao, Saren, Kisku, Mardi, Tudu, Hamron, Rajbangshi, Hasda, Kesku etc. Generally development initiative does not benefit the IPs equally and particularly at times they are adversely affected and marginalized by development processes. In some instances IPs face eviction, loss of resources for livelihoods etc. During project design it has been clearly mentioned that the IPs should have to be treated equally as of local population. Following the ADB’s new safeguard policy the project included the IPs as project target population and started to form SFGs in the locality even though the area is comparatively remote and difficult to operate credit programs. The following table 2.1 shows the numbers of IP families as per ethnic groups available in the areas. Majority of them are belongs to the ethnic group Santal (42%). Of the IP families 67% are concentrated in the Godagari Upazila of Rajshahi districts.

Table 2.1: IP families in the project Upazilas by their ethnic groups Number of IP family in the project area with ethnic group Sl # Location Santal Orao Saren Mardi Tudu Hamron Kesku Hasda Baskee Rajbongshi Ekka Toppo Other Total 1 Godagari 2488 1246 78 130 91 120 80 70 300 80 90 382 5155 Chapai 2 Sadar 8 125 112 81 12 12 15 11 376 3 Birampur 1009 426 125 205 150 120 90 150 100 218 2593 Total 3270 1579 321 441 322 241 177 227 100 300 80 82 611 7751

The following table 2.2 shows the population of the Indigenous People (IP) by their ethnic identities. As reported there are more than 40 thousands IPs are living in the project areas and of them majorities (66%) belongs to the Godagari of Rajshahi. Of the ethnic groups Santals are more (43%) followed by Orao (22%) and Mardi (5%). There are numbers of ethnic groups with little population showed in the table 2.2.

Table 2.2: IP population in the project Upazilas by their ethnic groups IP Population in the project area with ethnic group Sl # Location Santal Orao Saren Mardi Tudu Hamron Kesku Hasda Baskee Rajbongshi Ekka Toppo Other Total 1 Godagari 12440 6852 390 680 500 600 450 340 1500 380 450 1908 26490 2 Chapai Sadar 44 512 454 274 65 69 76 84 1578 3 Birampur 4746 1968 595 895 687 600 360 600 400 1256 12107 Total 17186 8864 1497 2029 1461 1265 879 1016 400 1500 380 450 3248 40175

The following table 2.3 shows the distribution IPs by male and female population. It has been observed that male female ratio in the IP population is more or less 50:50. In both Godagari and Chapai Sadar the female populations are more than the males but in Birampur the male are more than the females, needs further clarification.

Table 2.3: IP population in the project Upazilas by male and female population Population (#) Sl # Location Number of family Male Female Total 1 Godagari 4782 12878 13612 26490 2 Chapai Sadar 376 754 824 1578 3 Birampur 2593 6659 5448 12107 Total 7751 20291 19884 40175

3. Introduction

The report is prepared as part of regular project activity and reporting systems. Following the design of the project, monitoring report on IP (Indigenous People) is being published biannually since 2013‐14. This progress report is compiled based on the data collected through field officials of the project (Program Associates) in January 2016. The report covers the activities completed by December 2015. The report is mainly focused on Credit and Technical support of the project towards IP population. As reported earlier the need assessment of training and

2 demonstrations had been done through special drive by organizing campaigns of IPs one in Godagari, Rajshahi and another in Chapai sadar of Chapai Nawabganj district during January to June 2014. Another awareness campaign among the IP population is organized by the project in the month of November 2015 in Birampur, Dinajpur with 125 participants.

4. Organizing IPs under SFGs (Group formation)

The project started formation of SFG in the IP areas of Godagari, Chapai Sadar and Birampur in July 2013 and till December 2015, 36 indigenous groups have been formed by the partner MFI with 522 members. Out of 36 SFGs (Indigenous People) 18 formed in Godagari Upazila, 6 in Chapai Sadar Upazilas of Rajshahi district and 12 in Birampur Upazila of Dinajpur district. Of 36 groups 14 are male with 225 members and rest 22 female groups with 297 members. In Godagari (18) and Chapai Sadar (6) number of IP groups not increased but in Birampur it increased from 5 to 12. As informed, BRAC is not in a position to increase the numbers of SFGs at this stage as target of 12000 already fulfilled. However the number of group members has increased than earlier to 522. Details are shown in table 4.1 below.

Table 4.1: Number of Adibashi group/member organized under the project till Dec 2015 Number of group Number of member Sl # Location Male Female Total Male Female Total 1 Godagari 5 13 18 75 195 270 2 Chapai Sadar 3 3 6 66 71 137 3 Birampur 6 6 12 84 31 115 All 14 22 36 225 297 522

5. Credit accessibility

As in other locations of the project BRAC is to mobilize production credit into the IP SFGs to promote high value crops in their locality and to increase the family income as well. The responses of the participants in respect of credit accessibility the situation has greatly been increased than the earlier quarters of the year. In earlier quarter only 15% IPs were reported as credit recipient, which increased to 44% by December 2015. In all Upazilas – Godagari, Chapai Sadar and Birampur both male and female SFG members received credit almost equally by numbers i.e. the number of loanees are by and large 50% male and 50% female. While in Birampur the situation is better in favor of male members because 68% of loan recipient are males. Out of the total SFG members 62% received credit in Birampur, 48% in Godagari and 23% in Chapai Sadar. Except Chapai Sadar the loan operation has been increased among the IP population. During IP campaign in Nov 2014 the BRAC representative informed that they have opened three new branches in the IP areas to intensify production credit among the interested members. Details of credit accessibility of IP members through project facilities are shown in the following table 5.1.

Table 5.1: Credit mobilization into the IP SFGs till December 2015 Number of loanee % Member Total credit Average loan Sl # Location received (Tk) size/member Male Female Total credit disbursed (Tk) 1 Godagari 54 76 130 48 2710000 20886 2 Chapai Sadar 13 18 31 23 545000 18167 3 Birampur 48 23 71 62 980000 24000 All 115 117 232 44 4235000 18254

6. Utilization of Credit

As informed during the discussion and report provided by the BRAC and Upazila Agriculture Officer 32% of the credit recipient in Godagari used their credit in producing tomato and onion while 19% used it in brinjal cultivation. In Chapai sadar 55% loanee used their money in producing brinjal and 16 used credit money in tomato production. While in Birampur, Dinajpur the IP SFGs used their credit in cultivating brinjal (38%), chili (3%), and maize‐potato (48%). The loan utilization enterprises included the popularly grown commercial crops in those particular Upazilas, so in designing the technology transfer activities care should be paid to this information. Details information is provided in the table 6.1.

Table 6.1: Credit mobilization by technology/crop in IP community till Dec 2015 Sl Name of # crop/tech Godagari (# loanee) Chapai sadar (# loanee) Birampur (# loanee) Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female 1 Tomato 18 23 41 2 3 5 0 0 0 20 26 2 Brinjal 11 14 25 8 9 17 17 10 27 36 33 3 Onion 13 29 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 29 4 Chili 3 7 10 3 6 9 3 2 5 9 15 5 Maize/potato 3 9 12 0 0 0 25 9 34 28 18 6 mango 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 5 3 2 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 48 82 130 13 18 31 48 23 71 109 123

The following table 6.2 shows the utilization of credit resources by crops grown. The highest resources have been used in brinjal production (Table 6.2) followed by tomato cultivation and then maize/potato production. Among the loan consumed crops brinjal and chili are found common in all three Upazilas. As observed tomato has popularly grown in godagari and Chapai but not in Birampur; similarly Maize/potato popularly grown in Godagari and Birampur but not in Chapai Sadar. Onion found popular in Godagari. Details are shown in the table 6.2.

Table 6.2: Credit mobilization by technology/crop in IP community till Dec 2015 Amount of Tk disbursed Sl # Name of crop/tech Godagari Chapai sadar Birampur Total 1 Tomato 920000 106000 0 1026000 2 Brinjal 668000 295000 217000 1180000 3 Onion 677000 0 0 677000 4 Chili 215000 144000 52000 411000 5 Maize/Potato 230000 0 641000 871000 6 Mango 0 0 70000 70000 7 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 Total 2710000 545000 980000 4235000

7. Accessibility in production technology

The accessibility of participants to the production technology through demonstration and technology training is assessed by the data collected from the Upazilas Agriculture Office. After the IP campaign in November 2014 & November 2015, and visit of ADB mission in the IP areas the technology transfer activities have been increased significantly by the agriculture offices of the respective Upazilas.

7.1 Technology Training

The data plotted in the following table 7.1 indicated that out of 522 enrolled IP members under SFGs, 444 (85%) received any of the technology training on production technologies by December 2015. Considering by Upazila 42% of enrolled IPs reported received training in Birampur, 129% in Chapai Sadar and 80% Godagari. The enrolled member in Godagari (270) is higher than the other two locations and as such percentage of training recipient is found slightly lower in Birampur Upazila than other two locations. The distribution of male and female trainees is found more for female than male members. In 2014‐15 out of total numbers of trainees 52% were female and 48% male while in 2015‐16 the figure is 55% female and 45% male SFG members. Though the enrollment of female members is higher than the males but in case of training operations it has not been adjusted. In earlier report the training recipient was 26% only. The details of training participants are shown in the following table 7.1. The table shows the training activities conducted in two years 2014‐15 and 2015‐16. In 2014‐15 only 159 IP members received training compare to 285 in 2015‐16.

Table 7.1: Distribution of training recipient by male and female IP members Number of IP member participated in training courses Sl Location 2014‐15 2015‐16 # Total Male Female Total Male Female Total 1 Godagari 32 24 56 61 100 161 217 2 Chapai Sadar 40 56 96 36 46 82 178 3 Birampur 4 3 7 31 11 42 49 Total 76 83 159 128 157 285 444 5

The following table 7.2 shows the numbers of IP members received training by subjects. Highest numbers of IP members (210 (47%) out of 444) received training on HVC production, the next highest numbers received training on homestead vegetable gardens (22%). Godagari mostly provided training on HVC production and gender awareness; while Chapai Sadar given training mostly on Homestead vegetable garden and on post harvest technology. On the other hand Birampur concentrated the technology traing to the IPs on HVC production only. Among the targeted training subject of SCDP the specific subject are being selected by the Upazila management based on need.

Table 7.2: Number of IP members attended training courses by location and technology Number of IP member participated in training courses 2014‐15 2015‐16 SL # Training subject Chapai Chapai Total Godagari Birampur Total Godagari Birampur Total Sadar Sadar 1 Homestead Vegetable Garden 75 75 22 22 97 2 Post Harvest Technology 0 60 60 60 3 Climate Change Adaptation 21 21 5 15 36 4 HVC Production 31 7 38 130 42 172 210 5 Gender awareness 25 25 16 16 41 Total 56 96 7 159 161 82 42 285 444

7.2 Demonstration

The setting of technology demonstrations into the IP SFGs gets momentum after the campaign of IP in November 2014 in Godagari Upazila, Rajshahi district. During the campaign one short assessment revealed that only 3% participants received demonstrations of 200 IP enrolled members. By this time (Dec 2015) the situation has been changed and average 21% enrolled members received demonstrations on varying crops with improved technologies. In earlier quarter the demonstration recipient IPs were 12% only. It indicates that the situation is improving with time. The Agriculture office put importance on IP communities and set 45 demonstrations in Godagari, 27 demos in Chapai sadar and 37 in Birampur. The earlier quarter the demo recipient farmers (IP) were 35 in Godagari, 9 in each Upazilas of Chapai Sadar and Birampur. The situation has been improved. The DAE sets more numbers of demonstrations with male members (82) than the female members (27). Though female members are more and received credit but in contrary more numbers of demonstrations set with male members. However it is expected that this should be minimized in the next successive cropping seasons. Details of distribution of demonstrations among the IP SFGs are shown in the following table 7.3.

Table 7.3: distribution of demonstration by male and female farmers Number of Demonstration set during project period SL # Name of Upazila 2014‐15 2015‐16 Total Male Female Total Male Female Total 1 Godagari 18 4 22 16 7 23 45 2 Chapai Sadar 5 2 7 16 4 20 27 3 Birampur 8 1 9 19 9 28 37 Total 31 7 38 51 20 71 109

The table below (Table 7.4) shows the distribution of demonstrations by cropping season. The data indicated that more numbers of demonstrations started to set with IP members from Kharif I season (Mid March to mid June) of 2014‐15. Maximum numbers of demonstrations as observed set in rabi season 2015‐16. It is expected the trends will continue to support the IPs through technology support and training cources.

Table 7.4: Distribution of demonstration in IP SFGs by cropping season and location Number of Demonstration set during project period SL Name of Upazila 2014‐15 2015‐16 # Total Kh II Rabi Kh I Total Kh II Rabi Kh I Total 1 Godagari 5 7 10 22 5 18 23 45 2 Chapai Sadar 7 7 4 16 20 27 3 Birampur 9 9 12 16 28 37 Total 5 7 26 38 21 50 0 71 109

The following table 7.5 shows the distribution of demonstrations set in the IP communities by technologies. It has been observed that highest numbers of demonstrations set in Brinjal followed by homestead vegetable garden, medicinal plants, country bean, chili, garlic etc. without considering the locations. Considering locations brinjal and homestead gardens are found popular in all three Upazilas.

Table 7.5: Distribution of demonstration by technology and cropping season Name of Demonstration technology (crop) set during project period SL # Name of Technology 2014‐15 2015‐16 Total Godagari Chapai Birampur Total Godagari Chapai Birampur Total 1 Homestead 4 1 3 8 2 2 2 6 14 2 Brinjal (FT) 3 3 6 6 6 6 18 24 3 Country Bean 5 3 3 11 0 11 4 Tomato (Safe) 0 3 3 3 9 9 5 B. Gourd (Summer) 3 3 0 3 6 Chili (Safe) 1 1 4 3 3 10 11 7 Garlic (var) 0 4 3 3 10 10 8 Papaya (GAP) 0 3 3 3 9 9 9 Pointed gourd 5 5 0 5 9 Summer onion 1 1 0 1 9 Medicinal plant 3 3 1 8 9 12 Total 22 7 9 38 23 20 28 71 109

8. Planned Technology Transfer Support for IP Population in 2015‐16

The project started to provide separate technology training and crop demonstrations for the IP groups in 2014‐15, which is being continued for the current cropping year too. In current year special thrust programs on technology transfer activities have been identified for the IP population. The programs are:

8.1 Technology Training

During planning session for 2015‐16 of the project in June 2015 the following training activities were identified for the IP SFGs in the concerned 3 Upazilas (Godagari, Chapai Sadar and Birampur) where IP groups are available. These training sessions are exclusively designed for the IP groups. Details of the training programs with number of batches to be trained are shown in the following Table 6.

Table 6: Training programs to be conducted in IP SFGs during 2015‐16 Number of batch (25 participant in each batch) Sl # Location HVC Gender Post Climate Production Homestead development harvest change Total 1 Godagari 5 2 1 1 1 10 2 Chapai Sadar 2 1 1 1 1 6 3 Birampur 1 1 1 1 1 5 All 8 4 3 3 3 21

8.2 Crop Demonstration

The project is treating IP population with special attention and designed separate crop demonstrations for them for the cropping year 2015‐16. Crop demonstrations designed for the year 2015‐16 (Kharif II, Rabi and Kharif I seasons) are shown in the following table 7.

Table 7: Crop demonstrations to be conducted in IP SFGs in 2015‐16 Kharif II Rabi Kharif I Homestea Homestead Brinjal Papaya Brinjal Tomato Chili Garlic Bean Tot Location d To Tot al Space Phero tal Phero Variet Space al Summer GAP GAP GAP utilization trap trap y utilization var Godagari 1 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 1 16 3 23 Chapai 1 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 1 16 3 23 Sadar Birampur 1 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 1 16 3 23 Total 3 9 12 9 9 9 9 9 3 48 9 69

The IP communities are comparatively poor inhabitants living mostly as agriculture farm laborers. Some of them have small pieces of cultivated land where they can produce very traditional local crops. Considering the socio‐economic conditions of the people demonstrations are planned for crops feasible for them to cultivate without much investment. Maximum members are not yet using the production credit available for them. As they are mostly laborer, so, not courageous to get credit from NGOs at this stage, rather needs more facilitation works.

9. Adverse Impact of Project Intervention in Livelihoods of IPs

During FGD session community consultation is made with the people around (besides the group members) to identify the negative impact of project interventions towards livelihoods of the IP populations. The project has civil works component including construction of OFSSI (On Farm Small Scale Infrastructure) but in Godagari there is no civil works except OFSSIs (two). One OFSSI is planned to be constructed in Gopalpur village where there is IP households but the site as found 1.5 to 2.0 km away from the residence of the IP communities. As such there is least possibility of sound hazards or any other pollution of construction for the IP communities. During consultation with the key informant people no negative impact was mentioned by the communities due to other projects’ interventions like credit operations, crop demonstrations, technology training etc. At this stage it could be concluded that so far no project activities have been identified that can impact negatively to the livelihoods of indigenous people.

10. Conclusion

The baseline survey on IP population in the project area is captured the intensity of IP population in the project area and their challenges towards livelihood improvement. This progress monitoring report elaborated the activities already been done for their (IP) improvement and opportunities of crop production into the IP communities. This is the 2nd monitoring report of its kind on activities being done into the IP villages.