1

Baseline Survey Report

Strengthening participation and influence of poor and vulnerable farmers and fisher folk in decision-making processes related to food security

Executive Summary Oxfam GB Bangladesh office with funding support of European Union initiated the project “Strengthening participation and influence of poor and vulnerable farmers and fisher folk in decision-making processes related to food security” since January 2013. According to Oxfam report „Nourish South Asia: Grow a Better Future for Regional Food Justice‟ food security in the region faces major challenges of equity, production and resilience. Addressing these requires a proper legislative and policy environment, and radical improvements in (and enforcement of) laws/ policies on land reform, agricultural inputs/services, research, market access, credit availability, and climate change adaptation to increase food security of the poorest and most vulnerable. This project therefore aims to address these barriers by strengthening the collective voice and influence of 21,430 farmers and fisherfolk involved in 481 groups and networks across the three countries to advocate for realisation of their rights. The project will be implemented in 60 villages in 12 Unions under three districts (Dinajpur, Kurigram, Rangpur) in Bangladesh with support of three partner NGOs. The purpose of conducting the baseline survey is to gather quantitative data and qualitative information that would be used to measure project progress and impact. In this context Oxfam GB authority has decided to conduct this baseline survey and this survey is implemented by Northbengal Institute of Development Studies (NIDS), an organization of development research, capacity building and academic excellence in Rangpur.

Methodology The baseline survey has given due consideration to the project proposal and the logical framework while designing the survey tools (questionnaire and qualitative information guidelines). In this regard the participatory socio-economic survey has been taken into consideration. Different types of stakeholders and project participants were interviewed and the relevant secondary documents were assessed. Structured questionnaire was used to collect the quantitative data through household survey, while for qualitative data focus group discussion, Key Informant Interview (KII) and field observations methods were followed. Qualitative information was compiled and presented with commonalities and differences of opinions.

Findings

1. Demographic characteristics Family composition Out of 375 HH, only 16 (4.3%) are female headed and the rest 359 (95.7) are male headed HH. It is, however, speculated that some female headed households could not be included due to non compliance of project criteria (ie, they are not farmers or fisher folk). This might have resulted in lower proportion of female headed households among the project participants compared to national average. By nature of profession, there was 25% fisher folks (93 paticipants) out of 375 participants selected for survey. By culture all respondent‟s HH are Bangladeshi. In a household the average number of members is 4.42. Out of this family members, female members (2.24) were little higher than the male members (2.18). More than 50% respondents were female (63% out of 375 total respondents). The age of

2

the respondents ranges from 22-58 in Kaonia, 18-65 in Kurigram and 22-60 in Kaharol indicating a mix of young, middle age and old age but within the limit of productive age. The highest concentration of the rspondents has been found married (96%) followed by the widower/widow group (2.5%). A total of 38.7 % respondents were literate out of the total sample (375), although more than half of the sample in Kaharol was literate (53%) compared to that of Kaonia and Kurigram. Occupation and employment Highest involvement of participants was found in household level productive work across all locations (37-50%) followed by agril day laborers (18-22%) and fishing (9-14%). Very few members were involved in income generating activity, rickshaw/van puling, tailoring and livestock husbandry as their occupation but they were reported to have been involved in agriculture partially.

Asset ownership

Highest average land holding per household was found in Kaharol (40.6 dec) compared to that in Kaonia (8.43 dec) and in Kurigram (7.38 dec) indicating a very low land asset base particularly in Kurigram and Kaonia. Highest proportion of respondents was landless (76.5%) followed by marginal and small farmers. However, the proportion of landless across the location of the project differs where landlessness was found higher in Kurigram (83.2%) than that in Kaonia and Kaharol. The survey reveals that only 12-15% of the participants in Kaonia and Kurigram have agricultural land under own operation. Ownership of other lands like ponds, forest (homestead and marginal land) and fallow lands (currently fallow) are also very low in proportion of participants (from 0.8% to 9.6%). However, the participants of Kaharol were in a better possition in terms of ownership of cultivable land (39.2%) indicating a potential for taping technical services of the government line agencies. Highest prevalence of cow (2.5), goat (2.5) and poultry (5.1) per household was recorded in Kaharol compared to those in Kurigram and Kaonia. The ownership of cow ranges from 1.4 to 2.5, goat from 1.8 to 2.5 and poultry from 2.9 to 5.1 per household across the locations. The ownership of these live assets in Kurigram and Kaunia was almost half of the ownership in Kaharol, which could be attributed to the lower ownership of land assets in Kaonia and Kurigram than in Kaharol as stated earlier. Highest live assets value (cow Tk 27,142, goat Tk. 4,396 and poultry Tk. 875 was recorded in Kaharol compared to that in Kaonia and Kurigram, which corresponds to the number of live assets per households as given earlier. The data also indicates that the average value/cow in Kaharol (Tk. 10,856) and Kaonia (Tk. 10,798) is almost similar to each other while that in Kurigram is relatively very low (Tk. 6,677). Status of houses of the participants also portrays a poor picture where almost all participant households (97%) possesed tin shed house in Kaonia and Kurigram compared to that in Kaharol (61%). In Kaharol, a quarter of the participant‟ houses were semi-pacca indicating the participants in this location was relatively better off compared to other location. However, more than 80% participants of the project have tin shed houses. Highest proportion of participants (81.6%) possessed tube well followed by mobile phone (61.1%) and hygeinic latrine (57.1%). Similar status of tube well prevailed in the participants households in Kurigram and Kaonia while lower proportion of households in Kurigram possesed hygeinic latrine (43.2%) and mobile phone (44.0%). About one-fifth of the total respondents possessed fish nets with nearly a quarter of the participants in Kaharol and Kurigram owning the same assets. However, the participants of Kaonia had a very poor ownership of fish nets (8.8% households). Highest total material asset value (Tk. 111,514) per participant was recorded in Kaharol followed by Kurigram and Kaonia, which was mainly attributed to higher values of gold/silver, solar panel, boat and stored grain compared to other locations.

3

Household income and expenditure Among all sources, about 40% income was generated from selling day lobor in Kaonia and Kurigram where in Kaharol three major sources were identified as agriculture, selling labor and small business which constitute 26.6%, 33.7% and 15.6% respectively of the total income. However, the income from fish culture was found highest in Kurigram (28.9% of total income) compared to that in Kaonia (16.3% of total income) and to Kaharol (5.2% of total income). Highest average expenditure per household was recorded in Kaharole (Tk. 94,125 annually, 7843 monthly) compared to that in Kaonia (Tk. 52,384 annually, 4365 monthly) and Kurigram (Tk. 49,305 annually, 4108 monthly). A lion share of expenditures (70%) went to the purchase of food items in Kaonia and Kurigram while about 54% of the total expenditure in Kaharol was eaten up for food. The participants of Kaharol spent more money for education of their children than the participants of other two locations, which may be due to higher income status in Kaharol. However, the situation of dowry payment was found alarming in Kaharol (Tk. 10,432 annually) compared to only Tk 1696 in Kaonia and nothing in Kurigram. The annual expenditure in all the locations exceeded the corresponding income by 5.3% in Kaonia, 12.4% in Kurigram and 14.0% in Kaharol.

Safe drinking and sanitation A total of 67.47% of the total participants‟ households are using safe drinking water and about 50% HHs are using hygeinic latrine, which corroborates with the ownership of tube well (81.6%) and hygeinic latrine (57.1%) as shown in the asset section earlier. Moreover, the lowest proportion of HHs with safe drinking water was recorded in Kaonia (47.2%) than that in Kurigram. The situation of access to safe drinking water was recorded as close to 100%. Moreover, access to hygeinic latrine in Kurigram was found very poor (37.6%). Household food security There was no one found in the project locations without a meal during the last bangla calender year. However, all the participants could not ensure 3 meals in all the months across the locations and the serious lean season was encountered when only 15-40% participants of all the locations ensured 3 meals during Aswin and Kartik (ie, September and October). The month of Kartik was one of the worse months for the participants of Kurigram when onle 15% of their HHs was able to take 3 meals a day. The month of Aswin and Kartik was the lean months when more than 50% participants faced difficulty of taking 3 meals a day and the participants of Kurigram showed on the peak of difficulty during Kartik. Another lean season was found in the month of Chaitra (ie, mid March to mid April) in Kurigram and Kaonia when more than 70% participants were not able to take 3 meals a day. There was a very high instance of taking loans as a coping strategy when more than 60% of HHs took loan to adapt to food insecurity and the worse was in the case of participants of Kaonia (>90%). On the other hand, more than 50% HHs in Kurigram and Kaonia took less food during food insecurity months meaning going towards hungry. It is also revealed that the around 30-40% participants‟s households of Kaharol sold their household productive assets, poultry and livestock as a coping strategy to adapt to food insecurity. Almost one third participants of Kaonia and Kurigram (26-33%) had taken help from relatives while this relationship was very negligible (only 15.2% HH) in Kaharol. Temporary migration for selling labor outside the location the participants live was higher in Kurigram (nearly one-fifth of the patticipants) compared to that of other location. Social power structure There are several power structures at the upazilla and union level, which are rsponsible for providing services to the community people related to food security as per the rules and regulations of the country. These are mainly Union Parishad (the lowest administrative unit), Bank, Project Implementation Office (PIO), Social and women affairs departments, Land Aquisition Office, Cooperative and Youth Development Offices, Agricultural departments, Health departments etc. Through the Key Informant Interview (KII) of the representatives from these power structures, their role, responsibilities and the current

4

situations of the access of the poor in particular to the services and resources were collected and presented in this report. 2. Awareness level on and access of marginal farmers and fisher folks to entitlement/ right base issues related to food security Agricultural services As per opinions of the senior staff in power structures the poor people including farmers and fisher folks have the access to services and resources of the different government line agencies (duty beares) which are accountable for the delivery of these services. The findings reveal that poor proportion of the participants (<40%) under the survey were aware of the services (eg, demonstration, training, technical advice, seed, loan, subsidy etc.) of the agriculture, livestock and fisheries regardless of the project location. The situation was worse in Kurigram (below 5%) and Kaharol (below 10%). Among the departments, the participants in Kaonia (25-35%) and Kaharol (7-15%) are in better position for the awareness on services of the agriculture depatments. Highest awareness was observed on the services of quality seed (35%) followed by training (30%) among the participants of Kaonia. Only few participants visited the office of agricultural department (below 16% HH) for claiming services. Out of this proportion the highest visit (15.2%) was made to agriculture department at Union office of Kaonia. Less than 3% participants visited these offices at Upazilla level which is the main place for decision making in agricultural programs. Only few of the participants (2-8%) visited agricultural departments alone. Highest proportion of participants (19.2%) visited with others at union office of Kaonia followed by Kaharol (12.8%). At upazilla office, the highest cantact was made by the participants with others in Kaonia. Almost no services were demanded by the participants from the livestock and fisheries departments in Kurigram and Kaonia. However, Kaonia was relatively in a better position where an average of 5.0% participants demanded for agriculture services, 3.8% demanded each for livestock and fisheries services. These proportions of participants who demanded services in Kaonia were found lower than the proportion of participants who visited agriculture office (16.8%), livestock office (13.6%) and fisheries (10.4%). Out of these demands, seed, training and loan from agriculture, training and loan each from livestock and fisheries offices were relatively higher than the other services. Less than 05% participant‟s HHs received some services from agricultural departments. However, the highest proportion of participants (4.8%) received subsidy in Kaharol and 3.2% received seed in Kaonia from agriculture department compared to other type of services regardless of departments. The average picture of the department was worse where less than 01% proportion of participants received services if different types of services are considered. Even one-third of the participants who visited to agriculture (16.8%), llivestock (13.6%) and fisheries (10.4%) offices couldnot receive services from them. During Focus Group Discussion the participants reported to have been aware of services regarding seeds and training from the government office. The participants did not know about any other services. Very few people received seeds and training from government offices. Khas land Poor proportion of the participants (up to 40%) under the survey knew about the khas land prevailed in their locality. It is also evident from the table below that a very few participants (<10%) approached land aquisition office for allocation of khas land regardless of locations. Although poor approach in general, Kurigram was in further worse situation (only 1.6% prticipants), who approached land office. Almost all of the participants who approached the land office visited with others. Less than 05% participant‟s HHs received khas land from the land department and the worse was again in Kurigram (<01%). Although a similar proportion of participants in Kaonia (4.8% or 6 out of 125 participants) and in Kaharol (4.0 % or 5 out of 125 participants) received khas lands, the amount being allocated was higher in Kaharol (total 64.8 decimal or 16.8 dec per participant) than that in Kaonia (total 15.2 dec

5

or 3.16 dec per participant). Despite poor approach from the participants, the response was found encouraging for khas land allocation in Kaharol (4% participants received and 4.8% approached) and in Kaonia (4.8% participants received and 6.4% approached). According to majority participants in Kurigram (89.6%) and Kaharol (68%), khas lands which were available in their village were not used by any body. In Kaonia, khas lands were used by the rich people as per opinion of majority participants (56%). The involvement of political leader was found very poor in terms of use of khas lands. The poor who are actually eligible for khas lands were the poorest users of the same as opined by 8% participants in Kaharol, 4% in Kurigram and none of the participants in Kaonia. Khas pond and open water bodies Poor proportion of the participants (below 40%) under the survey knew about the khas pond, khal and beel prevailed in their locality. The situation was worse in Kurigram (<05%) and Kaharol (<16%). It is also evident from the table below that almost none approached the office of Water Development Boad for allocation of khas water bodies regardless of locations. Only 4.8% participant‟s households received 128 dec khas pond from the water board in Kaharol and the nothing was allocated in other locations. Moreover, none received khal and beel regardless of locations. According to half of the participants in Kaonia (49.6%), khas ponds were used by the rich people. None of the participants in Kurigram and a few proportion in Kaharol (<15%) were aware about the use of these water bodies. The involvement of political leader was found very poor in these resources across all location. The poor who are actually eligible for these water bodies were the poorest users of the same as opined by less than 01% participants in Kaonia for khas pond and none for khal and beel in other locations, According to opinions of participants through Focuss Geoup Discussion (FGD), Rich and influential people were using khash ponds. They built Fish Hatcheries there. The rich people gave bribe to the government offices and get benefit from them. They do not know the process and information of getting allocation of khash land and water bodies. Although they applied to the government for assistance, no response or result was received. Rural credit/micro-credit/financial assistance Almost all participants (95-100%) knew about the credit opportunities available in their locality. It is also evident from the table that majority participants (>50%) approached credit institution for getting credit regardless of locations. About half of the participants in Kurigram (49.6%) visited credit office with others while similar proportion of participants (30-40%) in Kaharol and Kaonia visited alone and with others. More than 50% participants in Kaharol and Kurigram received credit. Highest proportions of participants in Kaharol (75%) received the highest amount of credit /participant (Tk. 157,046) while the lowest proportion in Kurigram (only 11%) received Tk. 7,543 /participan. According to most of the participants (85-100%) regardless of locations, credit was provided by the NGOs followed by government bank. Among the locations, highest proportion of participants (85%) in Kurigram knew about the access of credit from the bank. Poor proportion of participants (below 25%) knew about the acces to BRDB credit. According to participants of Focus Group Discussion (FGD), the microcredit facilities are generally available in Grameen Bank, BRAC, Asha, Buro Bank, TMSS, ASOD, SDS and BRDB. The process of getting loan from these institutions is easy, there are little formalities for getting NGO initiated microcredit. Although credit is available in the government Bank/ institution, their requirement for receiving credit is not easy, they want different types of documents, so the poor do not take this loan. They also acknowledged that they did not know the proper way of getting loan from government institutions. There was no soft bank loan although there was a provision of soft loan from the government bank as per the rural credit policy. It was reported that the poor people could not access to this opportunity as they were not able to afford their land as collateral

Social Safety Net Programs

6

More than 90% participants knew about the safety net programs prevailed in their villages regardless of the locations. Highest proportion of participants in Kaonia (69.6%) approached the office of the respective govt. department for allocation of safety net support compared to less than 50% in Kurigram and Kaharol although awarenes level was similar across the locations. Majority of the participants visited alone in Kaonia while in other locations the majority visited with others. Although highest awareness and approach of participants to visit was found in kaonia, lowest proportion of participants (only 16%) received support from safty net program compared to participants in Kurigram (38.4%) and Kaharol (18.4%). Highest benefit per participant was observed in Kaharol (Tk. 555) followed by Kurigram (Tk. 417) while the lowest was in Kaonia (only Tk 43). Vulnerable Group Development (VGD), Widdow Allowance and Old Age Allowance were popularly known to the majority participants (> 80%) regardless of locations. Test Relief, 100-day work and Disable Allowance were widely known by more than 50% participants in Kurigram and Kaharol. Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) was popularly known in Kaonia (87%) followed by Kaharol (62%). Less than 40% participants in all the locations knew about food for work (FFW), cash for work (CFW) and lactating mother allowance with the lowest awareness in Kaonia (<15%). The participants of Focuss Group Discussion (FGD) seldom got benefits from safety net pgrams except 100 days work program. VGD, VGF, Widow Allowance, Old age Allowance, Lactating mothers Allowance, Cash for Work, 80 days programme are provided by the government. Only few women / man get widow allowance or old age pension but in many cases women do not get old age allowance. The participants do not know the detail process of getting these services, they answered that “UP members know everything, we do not know.” Union Parishad budget and resources Less than 40% participants regardless of locations were aware of the Union Parishad (UP) budget, however the highest was in Kaonia compared to other locations. Majority of them who were aware on the budget across all locations (24-36%) knew about the budget allocated for road/culvert of their village. But poor proportion of participants (<10%) knew about the budget allocated for emergency relief, hat/bazar development, landless cooperative development and agriculture equipments in all the locations except higher awarenes (about 20%) on emergency relief in Kaharol. It is also evident that the participants mainly knew about the budget allocation from others in Kaonia (34.4%) while from the citizen charter in Kaharol (20.8%) and in Kurigram (15.2%). Almost none of the participant (<01%) participated during budget preparation of UP and a very neglegible proportion (<3%) was shared by UP after budget was prepared. Almost all participants of FGD echoed the voice of ignorance about their participation in the process of preparing the annual budget for their respective Wards / Union Parishads. 3. Gender Analysis (women status in family, society, role in decision making process related to food security interventions)

Land ownership as affected by gender Most of the land assets were owned by men in different types (Homestead, cultivable, pond, fallow land, bamboo bushes etc) across the location of the project. Land ownership of women ranges only 0.8 to 6.4 % of households where ownership of women to homestead (the area on which houses are built along with trees and bushes) was found higher in Kaonia followed by that in Kurigram. Joint ownership of women and men was also very insignificant ranging from 0.8 to 2.4%. Food intake as affected by gender The situation of taking 3 meals a day was the highest for male (as per 90.4% hoseholds) in Kaharol which was close to female (as per 84.4% households). But the situation of taking 2 meals a day was the highest for both female (as per 67% households) and male (as per 63%) in Kaonia and similar was the case in Kurigram where both female (as per 50%) and

7

male (as per 47.2%) usually took 2 meals a day. No significant discrimination in number of meals taken a day was prevailed between female and male regardless of locations. However, majority households in Kaonia and Kurigram went hungy due to lack of 3 meals a day. The situation of taking meals by female and male together was highest in Kaonia as per opinion of 58% female and 62 % male followed by the situation of taking meals together in Kurigram. However, the sitation of taking meals together and meals taken by female after male was recorded at par ie, 50:50. There was no signicant situation of taking meals by male after female (below 5% opinion). There was a disparity of taking different items between female and male when in general the nutritious and costly food like milk and fruits were not taken by female in Kaonia and the lower intake of the same by female was recorded in Kaharol. Although other food items were taken by a close proportion of female and male, very poor proportion of female and male took meat (about 10%) and egg (22-24%) in Kurigram compared to other locations. Mobility as affected by gender Males were higher in proportion who worked in the crop field (>60%) and purchased food items from the market (100%) in all the locations. Nonetheless, more than 30% females also worked in the crop field regardless of locations and the highest was in Kaharol (42.4%). Females purchasing food items from the market was less evident in Kaharol (only 10.4%) compared to other locations and the highest was in Kaonia (28.8%). The situation of participation in village shalish committee was found very poor for both female and male across the locations (below 20%) and it was even worse for female (below 5%). None of the participants either female or male were involved in the market/hat/bazar committee and therefore holding the positions in this committee is out of questions. However, a very few participants both female (7.2%) and male (12.8%) were involved in distribution of agriculture inputs and safety net supports from the government in Kaonia while no participants of Kurigram and Kaharol were involved in this distribution work. The involvement of participants in Kaonia was mainly in Unon and in agriculture office level for both female and male (3-4%). Role in decision making process for buying or selling household items According to highest proportion of participants in Kaonia (72%), female decided to buy small food items, groceries in consultation with the husband or other adult while in Kurigram the majority participants (52%) agreed that household (HH) head decided after discussion with wife and in Kaharol the majority (54%) agreed that male decided alone. Very few participants (<15%) agreed that female decided alone to buy food items regardless of locations. It is also evident from the table that the majority participants in Kaonia (79%) and in Kaharol (67.2%) agreed that female decided to buy cloths for their own and children in consultation with husband or with other adult while in Kurigram the majority (72%) said that HH heads decided to buy after discussion with wife. According to highest proportion of participants in Kaharol (>85%) and Kurigram (>40%), female decided to buy or sell livestock in consultation with the husband or other adult while in Kaonia the majority participants (45%) agreed that male decided alone. Highest proportion of participants in Kurigram (43%) and in Kaharol (78%) agreed that female decided to buy or sell poultry in consultation with husband or with other adult while in Kaonia the highest proportion (42%) said that male decided alone. Same picture as in buying or selling poultry was found true In case of buying or selling crop products. Very few participants (<10%) agreed that female decided alone to buy or sell livestock, poultry and crop products regardless of locations. According to highest proportion of participants in Kaharol (>26%) female decided to buy or sell jewelry in consultation with the husband or other adult while in Kurigram highest proportion (33%) said that household decided after discussion with wife and in Kaonia the highest (30%) participants agreed that male decided alone. Highest proportion of participants in Kurigram (36%) and in Kaharol (45%) agreed that female decided to buy or sell land in consultation with husband or with other adult while in Kaonia the highest proportion (31%) said that male decided alone. In case of buying or selling

8

houses, highest proportion of participants in Kaharol (86%) and Kaonia (42%) agreed that female decided to buy or sell this asset in consultation with husband or with other adult while in Kurigram the highest proportion (36%) said HH head decided to buy or sell this asset after discussion with wife. While buying or selling boat/fishing net, highest proportion of participants in Kurigram (35%) and in Kaharol (20%) agreed that female decided to buy or sell these assets in consultation with husband or with other adult while in Kaonia highest proportion (22%) agreed that male decided alone. The level of women empowerment in reality was still far behind regardless of locations as few female participants (<5%) were able to take decision alone at least for buying or selling their own jewelry. Role in decision making process for spending and enjoing money, using loan and saving money A joint decision was taken by the husband and wife for spending money that was earned in Kaharol (76% participants agreed female decided with husband) and in Kurigram (71% said HH heads decided with wife). While in Kaonia the situation was reverse as majority (63%) said that male decided alone. Similar picture was true to the decision for enjoing money that was spent as in the case of decision for spending money that was earned regardless of locations. The level of women empowerment in reality was still far behind regardless of locations as few participants (<10%) agreed that female were able to take decision alone for spending and enjoing money. Majority participants in Kaonia (61%) and in Kaharol (84%) agreed that female decided to use loan in consultation with husband while in Kurigram the highest proportion (46%) said that HH heads decided after discussion with wife meaning a joint decision was prefered regardless of locations. Similar picture was true to the decision for using saving money as in the case of decision for using loan regardless of locations. The level of women empowerment in reality was still far behind regardless of locations as few participants (< 5%) agreed that female were able to take decision alone for using loan and savings despite they were basically burrowers of loan particluarly from NGO sectors. Majority participants in Kaharol (74%) and in Kaonia (59%) agreed that female decided with husband for spending money for children education while in Kurigram (58%) said HH heads decided after discussion with wife. Highest proportions of participants among the type of decision taken were recorded in Kaharol (48%), Kurigram (45%) and Kaonia (26%) who agreed that female decided with husband for spending money for children marriage. In case of spending money for children medical treatment, majority participants in Kaharol (92%) and in Kaonia (77%) agreed that female decided with husband while in Kurigram (49%) said HH heads decided after discussion with wife. However, in no cases more than 10% participants agreed that female decided alone.

Role in decision making process for participation in social events, NGO credit group and govt. committees Highest proportion of participants in Kaonia (50%), Kurigram (26%) and Kaharol (27%) agreed that female decided with husband for participation in social events organized by NGO. Highest proportions of participants were recorded in Kaonia (60%) and in Kaharol (77%) who agreed that female decided with husband for becoming a member of NGO and receiving micro-credit while it was highest in Kurigram (35%) who said that husband decided after discussion with wife. In case of participation in advocacy campaign for women empowerment through network/allia nce, majority participants (>70%) regardless of locations said that this decision was not applicable for them indicating either the network/alliance was not available in their locality or they did not know this activity. Similar was also true to the other types of decision which indicate that either social events and NGO activities was not available or they did not know their activities. However, in no cases more than 7% participants agreed that female decided alone. Majority participants (>60%) regardless of locations said that the decision for participation in govt. supported input distribution was not applicable for them indicating either the activity was not available in their locality or they did not know this activity. Similar was also true to the other decision for participation in distribution of relief goods. However,

9

among the participants who decided, the highest proportion in Kaonia (33%) and Kaharol (only 3%) agreed that female decided with husband for participation in input distribution while it was highest in Kurigram (12%) who said husband decided after discussion with wife. Highest proportions of participants who decided in Kaonia (25%), Kurigram (5%) and in Kaharol (3%) agreed that female decided with husband for participation in distribution of relief goods. However, in no cases more than 04% participants agreed that female decided alone. Majority participants (>60%) regardless of locations said that the decision for participation in govt. committes for technical support and training was not applicable for them indicating either the committee was not available in their locality or they did not know this committee. However, among the participants who decided, the highest proportion in Kaonia (34%) and in Kaharol (only 4%) agreed that female decided with husband for participation in govt. committee for technical support while it was highest in Kurigram (10%) who said husband decided after discussion with wife. Highest proportions of participants who decided in Kaonia (28%), Kurigram (10%) and in Kaharol (4%) agreed that female decided with husband for participation in govt. committee for training. However, in no cases more than 03% participants agreed that female decided alone. Opinions of FGD (Focus Group Discussion) participants During Focus Group Discussion the participants said that they usually take meals 3 times in a day that is prepared in the morning and evening. They eat generally rice, smashed Potato, Dal and sometimes fish (once daily or once in 2 days). They mentioned that as they are very poor, they have no scope to prepare rich food or to discriminate while distributing food among family members. However, there is discrimination during distribution of food among male and female, as they need to pay dowry for girl child, they feed girl child less than the future bread earner boy child. Males are responsible to go to the field, market and earn money. Men try to do all outside work. Females do mostly household work,i.e. cooking, cleaning, child rearing including seed preservation and in-house crops processing including preparing and repairing nets. Poor women work in the field also. At the societal level, specially growing crops or raising livestock / poultry birds and the marketing of such products, combined decision – making process seems to have been prevailing among the male and female members of the family. Males are involved in Shalish and other decision making roles. Females do not participate in the Shalish or other social decision making activities. Males usually take decision for buying or selling family assets, sometimes share/ consult with females of the family. Both spend their earnings for family expenditures. They spend money for themselves only in their urgent need. Women except for a very few conservative families may usually become members of NGOs and can participate in their training programs, receive microcredit provided by NGOs as per their adherence of rules and regulations. However, before enlisting they consult with their husband/ male members. Although women are involved in NGO initiated micro credit, the money is used in Income Generating Activity (IGA) by husbands. In general they do not have scope or experience of participation in any network, training or workshop. 4. Community understanding on climate change, DRR and its effect on price hike, production and food security

Awareness level The awareness of the majority participants in Kaharol (62%) on climate change was poor while that in Kaonia (63%) and in Kurigram (52%) was fair. Only few participants (<12%) were well aware of the climate change regardless of locations. More than half of the respondents in all the locations said that they experienced in the past several year that it did not rain on time ie, lack of timely rainfall. More than 40% participants in all locations said that there have been changes in rainfall pattern and they experienced untimely rainfall, high and low rainfall. Majority participants of Kaharol and Kurigram (>60%) experienced cold wave and frequent drought. About half of the participants in Kurigram (around 50%)

10

experienced frequent and untimely flood. Rock rain was only experienced by majority participants in Kaharol (>60%). Effect of climate change, coping mechanisms and govt. support More than 70% participants encountered crop damage due to climate change while more than 40% participants encountered unusual diseases (both animal and human) and more than one-fourth of them encountered livestock damage, production decline, loss of income and price hike regardless of locations. Majority participants in Kaonia (80%) used alternate crop variety to adapt to climate change induced disaster followed by that half of them saved money, one-third raised homestead ground and one-fourth stored food and seeds. In Kurigram, majority participants (60%) sold their labor in advance at minimal rate which was followed by that one-fifth of them used alternate crop variety and raised homestead ground to adapt to disaster. In Kaharol, about one-fourth participants saved money and about one-fifth used alternate crop variety and stored food and seeds as adaptation strategies. Only one-third participants in Kurigram were aware of the govt. support available for disaster risk reduction while a few participants (<5%) in Kaharol and Kaonia were aware of this support. However, the picture of distribution of govt. support was found very discouraging as onle 10% participants in Kurigram and almost none in Kaonia and Kaharol received the support. Opinions of FGD participants During FGD When asked participants to ventilate their level of awareness and experience on the above issues, they seemed to have puzzling ideas, neither fully aware nor completely ignorant about it. They felt that there were fluctuating environments like sometimes high temperature, too much cold, abnormal rainfalls or droughts prevailing in their locality. These led to cause disruption in life style, bad infrastructure and bad road communication resulting in poor food production, marketing of farm products, causing health hazards (fever, diarrhoea cold cough, pneumonia, illness of livestock), flood, river erosion causing shelter less etc. They also observed crisis of water and fish occurred due to climate change. They explained that immense suffering was reduced by borrowing money from the informal money lenders at a high rate of interest or by going without food, or by migrating to safer places. They do not know how to address these difficulties. They do not know about government provided disaster risk reduction services as there is no programme in this area. 5. Participation of vulnerable farmers, fishers and woman with Upazila and district level network, in the decisions related to food security and in local government system

In general very poor participation of participants (<10%) in diiferent govt. committees, UP standing committee, CBO/Federation and network/alliace was found regardless of locations. Among the locations, Kurigram was found in relatively better position in terms of participation in govt. livestock and fisheries sectors, UP standing committee, disaster management committee and CBO/Federation (altogether 10.4% participants). But the proportion of participants who received benefit from involvement in theses committes/networks was very poor (less than 1%). However, despite poor participation in general, 8% participants in Kaharol were involved in network/alliance at the village level and all of them received benefit from this network. During Focus Group Discussion, the participant said they did not know any information regarding committees and services. However they thought that the rich people, who were owner of ponds and khash water bodies, coul have gotten access to such committee or bodies. They did not know about the standing committee of Union Parishads. They knew the importance of being members of alliances, federations, but they did not have scope to be involved.

11

6. Effectiveness of existing legislative and institutional arrangement of food security as understood by the participants

Social Safety Net programs Majority participants (>50%) regardless of locations were aware on old age allowance and about on-third of them verbalized the age limit (57 years and above), amount of support (Tk. 300/month) and frequevcy (until death). However, very few participants (<5%) regardless of locations mentioned Social Welfare department as the responsible organization. Similar observation was true to the case of widdow allowance in all loctions except relatively poor awareness in Kaonia (39%). It is also evident that a worse situation was noticed where less than 8% participants and even none in all locations were aware on and could verbalize wellbeing limit, amount of support, frequency and responsible organizations for the lactating mother allowance and khas land distribution as per the respective laws. A worse situation was noticed where less than 5% participants in all locations were aware on and could verbalize wellbeing limit, amount of support, frequency and responsible organizations for the food for work (FFW), rural maintenance program (RMP) and fertilizer subsidy. There was even none in all locations who were aware on and could verbalize the major ingridients of the laws of test relief and fund for mitigation of risks of natural disaster. However, more than half of participants in Kaonia were aware on and could verbalize extrem poor as wellbeing limit, amount of support (Tk. 175/day) and UP as the responsible organizations of the 100-day work program. But only one-third participants in Kurigram coud verbalize the above ingidients of the 100-day work program although half of them were aware on the same program. Moreover, less than 15% participants in Kaharol were aware on and could verbalize the major points of 100-day program. National Food Policy, Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries Policies A worse situation was also found when less than 15% participants in Kaharol and even none in Kurigram were aware on national food policy and most of them did not know the major ingridients of this policy. However, majority participants in Kaonia (76%) were aware on this policy but most of them could not verbalize the major ingridients of the policy except vaccination strategy of animals (44% participants) and rice plus fish production strategy (18%). Almost none of the participants in Kurigram and Kaharol were aware on and could verbalize major ingridients of the national agriculture policy, livestock development policy, fisheries policy and rural agriculture credit policy indicating a very worse situation regarding effectiveness of these policies. However, majority participants in Kurigram (73%) were aware on minimum wage for agricultural laborer although 39% participants could verbalize the minimum wage rate (Tk.200/person day). In Kaonia, the majority participants (>70%) were aware on the agriculture and minimum wage policies, and more than 40% participants could verbalize integrated pest management (IPM) strategy and minimum wage rate (Tk. 200/person-day). In addition, more than 40% participants in Kaonia were aware on national livestock development policy and could verbalize vaccination strategy of this policy. However, most of them did not know about many other important ingridients of the existing policies. Opinions of FGD participants From the discussion with the participants during FGD (Focus Group Discussion), it transpired that they had hardly any clear cut idea or knowledge about the existing rules and regulations and institutional strategies relating to food security and decision making processes at the local community level. They tended to be quite uninformed about the procedures and operations of social safety net programs, budgetary provision of Union Parishad, subsidies for poor agricultural community, agricultural policy, food policy, fisheries and livestock policy, khas land policy and management and operation of water bodies (Jalmahals) and their implementation procedures.

12

7. Participation of vulnerable farmers, fishers and woman in capacity building training Very few participants (<5%) across the locations received training on leadership, social mobilization, advocacy, monitoring, participatory planning, and use of social accountability tools. This finding indicates that most participants require trainings on these areas so that they become competent to conduct advocacy and lobbying to the duty bearers in order to make them responsive to establish an effective access of poor farmers and fisher folks to services and resources of the government. Overall findings of the survey indicate that the beneficiary households report low asset base, limited income opportunities, non-participation at local authorities and minimal skills in matters regarding their rights. The Local authorities and Non-state actors are not in a position to provide sufficient considerations for the poor / extreme poor to ensure their economic development. Partnership with local government and other government line agencies is very important to gear up the CBO activities. So, more networking and partnership needs to be developed within the project period are essential.

13

Baseline Survey Report Strengthening participation and influence of poor and vulnerable farmers and fisher folk in decision-making processes related to food security

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

Oxfam GB Bangladesh with funding support of European Union initiated the project “Strengthening participation and influence of poor and vulnerable farmers and fisher folk in decision-making processes related to food security” since January 2013. This project is being implementing with an ultimate intension to increase the participation and influence of poor and vulnerable farmers and fisher folk in decision making processes related to food security in Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan. The project will be implemented in 60 villages in 12 Unions under three districts (Dinajpur, Kurigram, Rangpur) in Bangladesh with support of three partner NGOs.

It is highlighted in the project proposal that in Bangladesh 42% of the rural population hold less than 0.5 acres or are landless, and the livelihoods of fisherfolk and farmers are jeopardised due to poor management of water resources. Across the three countries inequitable access to, and control over land, productive assets and credit, and the lack of influence in decision-making are major factors that exacerbate poverty and deepen inequality. In the rural areas with migration of male members, a widespread phenomenon, women have increasingly been playing a more prominent role in the home and community. However, their ability to play an effective leadership role and exercise citizenship is limited by a lower level of formal education, reduced mobility, lower levels of confidence and widespread societal values that actively discriminate against them. In addition, patriarchal systems and practices are deeply rooted in all three countries. Poor rural women remain dependant on agriculture and fisheries, and bear a considerable workload for food production, but are denied access to resources and decision making. All three countries are prone to climate induced disaster, particularly floods, cyclones and droughts, affecting agriculture. Poor and marginalised farmers/ fisherfolk are hardest hit being least prepared with low coping capacity to protect/recover livelihoods after disasters. According to Oxfam report „Nourish South Asia: Grow a Better Future for Regional Food Justice‟ food security in the region faces major challenges of equity, production and resilience. Addressing these requires a proper legislative and policy environment, and radical improvements in (and enforcement of) laws/ policies on land reform, agricultural inputs/services, research, market access, credit availability, and climate change adaptation to increase food security of the poorest and most vulnerable. This project therefore aims to address these barriers by strengthening the collective voice and influence of 21,430 farmers and fisherfolk involved in 481 groups and networks across the three countries to advocate for realisation of their rights. The purpose of conducting the baseline survey is to gather quantitative data and qualitative information that would be used to measure project progress and impact. The baseline survey will obtain information on ground realities in the targeted areas where Oxfam GB will be carrying out activities over the three years of FSTP project. The Baseline survey will identify and set indicators which will be intended to measure the impact of project activities on the targeted communities.

14

1.2 Rationale of the study Baseline survey provides a starting point from which a comparison can be made; and ideally, a baseline is conducted prior to the beginning of the project or at a stage of the program intervention and it becomes the point of comparison for monitoring and evaluation of data; and the bulk of baseline survey focuses on the intended outcomes of the program. In this context Oxfam GB authority has decided to conduct this baseline survey and this survey is implemented by Northbengal Institute of Development Studies (NIDS), an organization of development research, capacity building and academic excellence in Rangpur – the northwest Bangladesh. The survey conceived for a comprehensive understanding of various development indicators of social and economic well-being of people i.e. income, employment, water, sanitation, education and rights to govt. services and resources.

2. Methodology

The baseline survey has given due consideration to the project proposal and the logical framework while designing the survey tools (questionnaire and qualitative information guidelines). In this regard the participatory socio-economic survey has been taken into consideration.

Different types of stakeholders and project participants were interviewed and the relevant secondary documents were assessed. Data were collected through quantitative and qualitative methods. Structured questionnaire was used to collect the quantitative data through household survey, while for qualitative information focus group discussion, Key Informant Interview (KII) and field observations methods were followed. The quantitative data were collected through door to door survey on sample basis of the randomly selected respondent from the project working area. Selection criteria were fixed-up in consultation with the concerned staff of Oxfam GB and representatives of the partner organizations. The findings of socioeconomic mapping conducted by the project were used to select and finalize location of the survey.

a) Quantitative Method

Household Survey The sample household was selected following a multi-stage cluster sampling design. The rationale behind selecting multi-stage cluster sampling is its principle of simplicity and ease of operation. At the first stage a sample of areas or clusters (district, union, village etc) was drawn. At the second stage, requisite numbers of households with eligible respondents either male or female were selected randomly and interviewed using systematic sampling technique to complete the survey questionnaire individually.

The emphasis was given to develop the questionnaire on objectives and outcomes of the project as laid down in the Terms of Reference (Annex I) and in the project logical frame-work (Annex II). However before finalization, the questionnaire was field-tested and fitted accordingly. As the survey is involved with the estimation of specific objectives, a desired sample household is needed for collecting all the study information.

To determine the specific size of the sample, size of the target population, extent of homogeneity/heterogeneity of the target community and other related data are needed. So, exact sample size was determined using the formula and in consultation with the OXFAM GB project management team.

15

The sample size for data collection was determined by the following formula: n = Where, n = the desired sample size Z = the standard normal deviate = 1.96 p = the portion in the population estimated to have a particular characteristics (i.e. the probability in percentage) = 0.5 (maximum variability q = 1.0 – p= 1-0.5 = 0.5 N = Population size = 10,000 (targeted beneficiaries in Bangladesh) e = Degree of desired error level (suppose we desire 95% confidence level and +_5% precision = 0.05 1.96x1.96x0.5x0.5x10,000 Therefore, n = ___________________________________ = 369.98 or = 370 (samples) 0.05x0.05 (10,000 – 1) + 1.96x1.96x0.5x0.5 Based on the agreed selection criteria, 50 % of the total project intervention unions (ie, 6 unions out of 12 under 3 districts) were selected as sample area to conduct the survey. So, 2 unions each of Kaonia upazilla of Rangpur district, Kurigram sadar upazilla of Kurigram district and Kaharol upazilla of Dinajpur district were selected. In each selected union a total of 60-65 targeted households of the project were selected taking 12-13 households each of 5 groups or CBOs. Sixty percent of the selected households (12-13) from the group were female participants and 25% of the selected households from the union (60-65) were fisher folk. Following this criteria, a total of 375 project participants were interviewed with 125 each of Kaonia, Kurigram and Kaharol (Questionnaire is given in Annex III as English and in Annex IV as Bangla). A list of the total participants being interviewed is given in Annex V.

Household level interview with female participant

Z2*pq*N

e2*(N-1) + Z2*p*q

Household level interview with male participant

16

b) Qualitative method

The qualitative methods/techniques are termed as participatory methods in this proposal, which captured the relevant information from project participants, relevant organizations, the local government, and other concern stakeholders as deemed appropriate through semi-structured guidelines. The qualitative method includes PRA exercises for Focus Group Discussion (FGD), Socio-economic Mapping, Seasonality Mapping, Venn Diagram, Key Informant Interview (KII) etc. The survey team utilized the information of Socio-economic Mapping, Venn Diagram and Seasonality Mapping collected by OXFAM project staff. Therefore, the consultant team of NIDS conducted FGD and KII only.

i) Focus Group Discussion (FGD) - was done with the beneficiary groups to capture information from the target community on the various aspects of the interventions to be promoted by the project. A guideline was used while discussing with the participants. A total of 12 FGDs was facilitated with the CBOs and community people to represent the respective area‟s features taking 2 farmers CBOs from each selected sample union out of 6 targeted unions of the project as mentioned earlier. So, 4 groups each of Kaonia, Kurigram and Kaharole were selected for FGD. Out of the 4 groups, there were 1 female farmers group, 1 male farmers group, 1 mixed farmers group and 1 mixed fisher folk group. At least 10 project participants on an average from each group took part in the discussion in each session voluntarily with great enthusiasm and expectation. All of them were warmly received by the consultants – facilitators at an appropriate time convenient to them since boro paddy harvesting was going on in full swing during the period of holding FGDs. The FGDs were conducted using a predetermined check list encompassing the relevant issues and problems (Checklist is given in Annex VI as English and in Annex VII as Bangla).

ii) Key Informant Interview (KII) – was done with the appropriate stakeholders, implementing partners, government (eg, Agriculture, Food, Women Affairs, Disaster Management, Social Welfare, Rural Development, Environment etc), LGI, civil society, professionals, etc. to assess their views on the existing situation of the specific issues of the study. A total of 30 KII was conducted depending on the availability of the respondents.

17

The KII interviewees were selected randomly and interviewed as per the pre-designed checklist (Annex VIII). The respondent groups and methods were as follows:

Information source Method Sample size

Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol Total

Households

Project Participants

Structured

interview

125

125

125

375

Group

Members FGD 04 04 04 12

Duty bearers

UAO, ULO, UFO, DRR Officer, Women

Affairs Officer, Social Welfare Officer, AC

Land, Upazila Cooperative Officer, Youth

Development Officer, UP Chairman

Key Informant

Interview (KII) 10

10

10

30

Total 139 139 139 417

UAO = Upazilla Agriculture Officer, ULO = Upazilla Livestock Officer, UFO = Upazilla Fisheries Officer, DRR =

District Relief and Rehabilitation, AC = Assistant Commissioner, UP = Union Parishad

Among 417 samples, 375 are quantitative ones while the remaining 42 are qualitative

participants.

c) Data Validation

Data taken by the enumerators were validated through cross checking of filled in

questionnaire. In this regard, 2 locations (Kaonia and Kurigram) were taken in to consideration out of 3 locations under survey. A total of 5 questionnaires out of 125 (4%) each in Kaonia and Kurigram were cross checked and found validated with the data taken earlier.

d) Reporting

Quantitative data were encoded using Excel computer application. Data analysis was done using Excel and Word package. Qualitative information was compiled and presented with commonalities and differences of opinions.

The overall responsibility for coordination and preparing the report lied on the Team Leader (TL). Under his co-ordination and guidance, the team members prepared own part of their report and submitted the same to TL. The TL reviewed and compiled the report and edited the same prior submission to Oxfam GB.

e) Survey Team Composition of NIDS as the consulting firm

i) Survey Team Composition The study team was formed with most experienced and committed Consultants working in the development sector. There were two operational teams for the study.

18

Consultant Team: A four-member team was engaged in this survey. This team was comprised of Team Leader cum Food Security and Development Consultant Dr. Syed Samsuzzaman, Executive Director of NIDS, Rural Development Specialist Professor Dr. A.K.M Abdul Hannan Bhuiyan, Consultant of NIDS, and former Vice-Chancellor of Patuakhali Science and Technology, Empowerment, Institutional and community Development Specialist, Mr, Bhabatosh Nath, Consultant of NIDS, and Gender Expert Ms Nasima Akhter, Consultant of NIDS. The Team Leader formed the team involving staff of Northbengal Institute of Development Studies (NIDS) and hiring individual consultant to work on behalf of NIDS.

Field Operation Team: A total of 06 experienced and adequately qualified Data Enumerators were employed for conducting the household survey. In addition, 3 Data Entry Operators and one Data Analyst were employed for data entry and analysis. This field operation team was supervised by the Team Leader and other Consultants. The Enumerators was split into three sub-groups by district while collecting survey information. To avoid any sort of biasness, the enumerators collected information from the selected households as per the list supplied by the implementing organization. A brief action plan is given in Annex IX and a detail of NIDS profile can be seen in the Annex X.

f) Limitations of the study

For data collection NIDS has outsourced data enumerators for data collection. Although they have some experience in working as development staff of CARE and RDRS supported projects, they were not virtually commited to NIDS due to their short span of attachment. On the other hand they were deported as a new comer to the suvey area and therefore faced some difficulties to build rapport with the community people in such a very short time. Because of country‟s political unrest leading to intermittent hartal, mobility of survey team was significantly interrupted and so are the resultant effect of increased time of field work and related activities. Thus, the submission of report to Oxfam GB was delayed to some extent.

3. Findings of the survey

This chapter of the report represent the information based on quantitative data in details collected through structured questionnaires and analysis of qualitative information in line with the objectives and expected outcome/results of the project (Log Frame in Annex II) and as per ToR (Annex !).

3.1 Demographic Characteristics Household is the smallest and primary unit of this survey. Household is defined as a dwelling unit where one or more than one persons are living under one roof or occupying a separate housing unit (generally people sleep at night under the same roof at least in last six month, guests are not included) and having a common cooking facility. To get the actual picture of target population, different demographic characteristics, socio-economic issues and educational status are considered as household background information in this survey. The baseline survey findings, mainly the human capital, on the demography of the sample households are presented in this sub-section; the data include household composition, sex ratio; age of population; marital status, occupation, assets, Income and expenditure, water and sanitation, food security etc. of poor vulnerable and marginalized farmers and fishers folk including female headed households are given below:

19

Household Composition Data were collected from 375 households (HH) of the project area under Kaonia upazilla of Rangpur district, Kurigram sadar upazilla of Kurigram district and Kaharol upazilla of Dinajpur district. Out of 375 HH, only 16 (4.3%) are female headed and the rest 359 (95.7) are male headed HH (Table 3.1.1). No female headed households were found in Kaharol out of 125 selected HH and similar was the case in Kaonia and Kurigram (only 4% and 8.8% respectively). It is, however, speculated that some female headed households could not be included due to non compliance of project criteria (ie, they are not farmers or fisher folks). This might have resulted in lower proportion of female headed households among the project participants compared to national average. However, this finding indicates that as per the general senarion of Bangladeshi culture most of the families are controlled by the male. It implies that the project has the challenges ahead for creating spaces of women participant for their real empowerement. By nature of profession there was 25% fisher folks (ie 93) out of 375 participants selected for the survey. By culture all respondent‟s HH are Bangladeshi. Although some adivashis, who are poor and socially neglected, are scattered in Dinajpur district, the project may not have captured any of these HHs. Table-3.1.1: Household composition

Composition Location

By gender (HH head) Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol Total

Female headed 5 11 0 16

Male headed 120 114 125 359

Total 125 125 125 375

By nature of professtion

Fisher folk 31 31 31 93

Farmers 94 94 94 282

Total 125 125 125 375

By culture

Bangladeshi 125 125 125 375

Total 125 125 125 375

Family Size

Table 3.1.2 shows that in a household the average number of members is 4.42. As per census report 2010, the national average family size is 4.90, so the family size of the target HH of the project is a little lower than the national average. Out of this family members, female members (2.24) were little higher than the male members (2.18). However, female children of below 18 years (0.88) were relatively lower than male children (0.91). The findings also reveal that largest family size was found in Kaharol (4.79) compared to that of Kurigram (4.48) and Kaonia (4.0) indicating relatively poor effect of family planning program in Kaharol. Across locations, the adult female members were higher than the adult male and the difference was more visible in Kaonia than the other areas. However, the size of female children was relatively lower than that of male children except Kaharol.

Table-3.1.2: Family size

Family size Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol Total

Adult female (Age 18 and above) 1.30 1.33 1.47 1.36

Adult male (Age 18 and above) 1.15 1.19 1.45 1.27

Female children (Age below 18) 0.74 0.94 0.97 0.88

Male children (Age below 18) 0.81 1.02 0.90 0.91

Average family size 4.00 4.48 4.79 4.42

20

Sex, Age and Marital Status of the project participant Table 3.1.3 shows that more than 50% respondents were female (63% out of 375 total respondents) while the respondents were mostly female in Kurigram (88% out of 125 respondents). The age of the respondents ranges from 22-58 in Kaonia, 18-65 in Kurigram and 22-60 in Kaharol indicating a mix of young, middle age and old age but within the limit of productive age. The highest concentration of the rspondents has been found married (96%) followed by the widower/widow group (2.5%), who were mostly found in Kurigram (6 out of 125 participants. No separated and abandoned cases were found among the interviewees. The data, however, indicate that the target population of the project may not have a significant disadvantaged population like widow, divorcee, separated, abandoned etc. 3.1.3 Sex, age and marital status of the participants

By project participant Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol Total

Female project participant 67 108 61 236

Male project participant 58 17 64 139

Total 125 125 125 375

Age of participant 22 to 58 18 to 65 22 to 60

Marital satus By project participant Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol Total

Married participant 119 116 125 360

Unmarried participant 02 01 0 3

Divorced 01 0 0 1

Widow 03 06 0 9

Separated 0 0 0 0

Abandoned 0 02 0 2

Sample base 125 125 125 375

The data given in table 3.1.4 shows that 38.7 % respondent were literate out of the total sample (375), although more than half of the sample in Kaharol was literate (53%) compared to that of Kaonia and Kurigram. This information implies that the participants of Kaharol will replicate the project learning quickly than the participants of other two areas. 3.1.4 Literacy of the project participants

Educational Qualification By project

participant Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol Total

Literate 46 33 66 145

Non-literate 79 92 59 230

Sample base 125 125 125 375

Occupation of project participant

An occupation means a person/family member spends most of time or from which she/he earns most of her/his income and/or by which she/he is recognized in the society. Table 3.1.5 reveals that highest involvement of participants was found in house wife activities across all locations (37-50%) followed by agril day laborers (18-22%) and fishing (9-14%). Very few members were involved in income generating activity, rickshaw/van puling, tailoring and livestock husbandry as their occupation but they were reported to have been involved in agriculture partially. The data indicate that occupation as own agriculture and share cropper was limited perhaps due to poor land holdings for agriculture. So, more

21

acces of these participants to the improved technologies and technical support is required for utilization of their tiny homesteads through income generating activities. The information regarding highest involvement of participants in working as house wife, correlate well with the sex of project participants where more than half of the respondents were female who mainly prefers to work in the house. 3.1.5 Occupation of project participants

Occupation District

Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol

Own Agriculture (crop production)

3.2 3.2 8

Share cropper 1.6 2.4 0.8

Own agriculture & Share cropper

1.6 0 0

House wife 37.6 49.6 38.4

Livestock husbandry 1.6 1.6 0

Agriculture day labourer 18.4 19.2 21.6

Non agriculture day labourer

1.6 6.4 5.6

Working in other‟s house 4.8 0.8 0

Professional skill labourer 0.8 0 0

Service 0.8 0 0

Business 5.6 0 8

Tailoring 1.6 0.8 0

Income generating activity (IGA)

1.6 0 0.8

Rickshaw/Van pulling 4 1.6 2.4

Fishing 10.4 14.4 9.6

Driver/Boatman 0 0 0

Unemployed 0.8 0 0

Others 4 0 4.8

Sample base 125 125 125

Assets, Income and Expenditure

The ownership of asset reflects the economic and social well-being of the household. The composition of the assets can be different by the geographical variation, different socio-cultural practice and level of poverty. Thus, the ownership pattern of household assets is considered as a good indicator to assess economic status. Apart from fixed asset i.e. land, different types of movable assets were found in the surveyed households. The movable assets are house and house structure, agricultural equipments, livestock and poultry items, transport equipments, communication equipment, Luxurious goods, entertainment equipments and others.

The survey in general reveals that the targeted project participants have a very low asset base in terms of land, livestock and other fixed/ movable assets. The low asset base limits their opportunity for generating sufficient income for livelihoods and restricts their future prospects. In the agriculture-based rural economy of countries like Bangladesh, land

22

ownership is very crucial for economic activities. As non-agricultural activities are limited in rural areas, especially in the northern part of Bangladesh, low agricultural land asset base certainly creates vulnerability for the poor/ extreme poor section of the population.

Household own Land Status and Category Figure 3.1.1 shows that highest average land holding per household was found in Kaharol (40.6 dec) compared to that in Kaonia (8.43 dec) and in Kurigram (7.38 dec) indicating a very low land asset base particularly in Kurigram and Kaonia.

Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol

8.43 7.38

40.6

Status of land ownership

Amount /HH (Decimal)

Figure 3.1.1: Land ownership status of target households of the project

Land ownership category Highest proportion of respondents was landless (76.5%) followed by marginal and small farmers (Figure 3.1.2). However, the proportion of landless across the location of the project differs where landlessness was found higher in Kurigram (83.2%) than that in Kaonia and Kaharol. The data reveals that although most of the participants are poor in land holdings (landless and mariginal category), the prevalence of marginal and small farmers were higher in Kaharol (23.2% and 9.6% respectively). The findings indicate that targeting of project participants in Kaharol was skewed towards a little better off people compared to that in other locations.

Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol Total

79.283.2

67.2

76.5

17.6 1623.2

18.9

3.2 0.8

9.64.6

Land ownership category

Landless Marginal Small

Figure 3.1.2: Land ownership category of target households HH own status of different land types

23

The table 3.1.6 shows that a very small portion of the participants had land for performing

agricultural activities. Only 12-15% of the participants in Kaonia and Kurigram had

agricultural land under own operation. Ownership of other lands like ponds, forest and

fallow lands were also very low (from 0.8% to 9.6%). However, the participants of Kaharol

were in a better possition in terms of ownership of cultivable land (39.2%) indicating a

potential for taping technical services of the government line agencies. Ladlessness as

shown in the table eventually forces the participants to gor for working as agricultural/ non-

agricultural laborer or other low income occupations, which correlate well with the status of

occupation as stated earlier.

Table 3.1.6: Ownership status of households to different land types

Land Type District Amount /HH (Decimal)

Homestead

Kaonia 6.10

Kurigram 3.42

Kaharol 7.00

Cultivable

Kaonia 2.10

Kurigram 3.30

Kaharol 29.80

Pond

Kaonia 0

Kurigram 0

Kaharol 1.33

Fallow land

Kaonia 0

Kurigram 0

Kaharol 1

Bamboo bushes/forest/others

Kaonia 0.23

Kurigram 0.66

Kaharol 1.42

Status of HH live assets and corresponding value

Status of HH live assets

Figure 3.1.3 shows that highest prevalence of cow (2.5), goat (2.5) and poultry (5.1) per

household was recorded in Kaharol compared to those in Kurigram and Kaonia. The

ownership of cow ranges from 1.4 to 2.5, goat from 1.8 to 2.5 and poultry from 2.9 to 5.1

per household across the locations. The ownership of these live assets in Kurigram and

Kaunia was almost half of the ownership in Kaharol, which could be attributed to the lower

ownership of land assets in Kaonia and Kurigram than in Kaharol as stated earlier. So,

Kaonia and Kurgram need special attention for improvement of livestock sectors. Livestock

are considered as moveable assets and as a life boat for women as well and thus the

24

participant being mostly landless requires better service delivery of technical supports from

the government line agencies at least for scientific management of existing livestock health

care.

KaoniaKurigram

Kaharol

N0./HH Average

1.41.5 2.5

1.8 2.0 2.5

2.9 2.95.1

HH Live Assets StatusCattle Goat Poultry

Figure 3.1.3: Live asset status of target households

Value of Live Assets From the figure 3.1.4, it is revealed that highest live asset value (cow Tk 27,142, goat Tk.

4,396 and poultry Tk. 875) was recorded in Kaharol compared to that in Kaonia and

Kurigram, which corresponds to the number of live assets per households as given earlier.

The data also indicates that the average value/cow in Kaharol (Tk. 10,856) and Kaonia (Tk.

10,798) was almost similar while that in Kurigram was relatively very low (Tk. 6,677), which

could either mean cow differs in age and size between Kaharol and Kurigram or the cows

in Kurigram is poor in health. If the latter is the reason, an intensive technical support is

required for livestock health care especially in Kurigram.

15118.9

10016.7

27142.9

3493.8 2510.54396.6

802.2 352.1 875.0

Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol

Value of Assets /HH Avarage

HH Live Assets Value

Cattle Goat Poultry

Figure 3.1.4: Value of live assets per target household

Status of HH house assets

25

Status of houses of the participants also portrays a poor picture (Table 3.1.7) where almost

all participant households (97%) possesed tin shed house in Kaonia and Kurigram

compared to that in Kaharol (61%). In Kaharol, a quarter of the participant‟ houses were

semi-pacca indicating the participants in this location was relatively better off compared to

other location. However, more than 80% participants of the project had tin shed houses.

Table 3.1.7: House asset status of target households

Type

By location (%HH) All

project

area

(%HH)

Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol

Pacca house 0 0.8 1.6 0.8

Semi-pacca house 0.8 0.8 24.8 8.8

Tin shed house 98.4 97.6 60.8 85.6

Thatched house 0 0 3.2 1.1

Others 0.8 0.8 9.6 3.7

Sample size 125 125 125 375

Status of other material assets

Table 3.1.8 reveals that highest proportion of participants (81.6%) possessed tube well

followed by mobile phone (61.1%) and hygeinic latrine (57.1%). Similar status of tube well

prevailed in the participants households in Kurigram and Kaonia while lower proportion of

households in Kurigram possesed hygeinic latrine (43.2%) and mobile phone (44.0%). This

poor status of latrine in Kurigram does not comply with the current massive drive of the

government for ensuring 100% sanitation in rural areas. So, local government through

union parishad could be sensitized by the project interventions. It is important to take note

that government is obligated to establish access of all the people, at least poor, to safe

drinking water and sanitation.

About one-fifth of the total respondents possessed fish nets with nearly a quarter of the

participants in Kaharol and Kurigram owning the same assets. However, the participants of

Kaonia had a very poor ownership of fish nets (8.8% households). This status across the

locations indicates that the fisher folk were spread thinly in the project area of Kaharol and

Kurigram.

Table 3.1.8 Ownership status of target households to different material assets

Type of material asset

Availability in HH (no.)

Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol All project area

Electricity 36.0 1.6 9.6 15.7

TV/Radio 17.6 2.4 24.8 44.8

Tube well 80.8 76.8 87.2 81.6

Hygienic Latrine 68.0 43.2 60.0 57.1

Mobile phone 60.0 44.0 79.2 61.1

26

Value of HH material Assets

The data in the table 3.1.9 shows that the highest total material asset value (Tk. 111,514)

per participant was recorded in Kaharol followed by Kurigram and Kaonia, which was

mainly attributed to higher values of gold/silver, solar panel, boat and stored grain

compared to other locations. The status of asset value is found in cognizance of the status

of assets across the locations. The findings also indicate that the worth of productive

material assets (eg, Boat, fishing net, stored grain, sewing machine etc.) was poor in

Kurigram. Thus the project is required to take a special initiative for increasing access to

resources from the respective government line agencies.

Table 3.1.9: Value of household material assets

Gold/Silver 68.8 45.6 40.0 51.5

Sewing machine 2.4 1.6 6.4 3.5

Solar panel 0.8 0.8 8.8 3.5

Boat 0.8 9.6 2.4 4.3

Fishing Net 8.8 22.4 25.6 18.9

Stored grain, Fingerling

4.0 1.6 6.4 4.0

Others (specify) 4.0 0 38.4 14.1

Sample base 125 125 125

375

Material Asset Type

Approximate Present value (Tk.)/HH

Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol

Electricity 1506.7 4075.0 1575.2

TV/Radio 5168.2 2233.3 3858.1

Tube well 1184.7 2510.9 2669.7

Hygienic Latrine 752.4 1508.3 3841.3

Mobile phone 1424.0 1389.1 2657.6

Gold/Silver 906.4 5210.5 17974.0

Sewing machine

2600.0 3000.0 5325.0

Solar panel 1200.0 35000.0 40886.4

Boat 14000.0 5291.7 12333.3

Fishing Net 6000.0 3617.9 3612.5

Stored grain, Fingerling

21200.0 5000.0 13475.0

Others (specify) 5440.0 0.0 3306.3

Total 61,382 68,836 111,514

27

Status of HH income Income is the main and one of the major determinants for the socio-economic condition of households. But researchers are usually facing problems to collect the data on this aspect, primarily due to lack of understanding, hiding tendency, mistrust, lack of rapport building etc. Generally it has been seen that a number of factors are responsible for income variation, e.g. poverty level of clients, access to sources, availability of sources, communications, regional disparity, longer association of clients etc. So considering all these things the data in the table 3.1.10 shows that the household of Kaharol earned on an average Tk. 82,558 per annum (Tk 6.879 per month) compared to that in Kaonia (Tk. 49,750 annually, 4,145 monthly) and in Kurigram (Tk. 43,880 annualy, 3,656 monthly) from different sources.

3.1.10 Source of income and average annual income of HH

Source of Income

Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol

Women

Men

Total Women

Men

Total

Women

Men

Total

Agriculture 0 506 506 24 3688 3712 840 2120 22040

Day labour 1208 19887 21095 3527 17096 20623 5481 22320 27801

Service 0 2160 2160 0 0 0 0 2848 2848

Business 86 6086 6173 0 64 64 48 12856 12904

Rickshaw/van/ boat/Auto

0 5258 5258 0 2356 2356 0 3000 3000

Livestock and poultry selling

184 972 1156 720 1461 2182 3547 1173 4720

Fish culture 0 8120 8120 288 11248 11536 0 4284 4284

Homestead garden

70 0 70 10 4 14 235 48 283

Working as servant

476 360 836 120 0 120 36 93.6 130

Begging 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0

Others (specify)

1843 2312 4156 240 2872 3112 284 4260.8 4545

Others (specify)

219 0 219 0 160 160 0 0 0

Total/ Year 4087 45663 49750 4930 38950 43880 10474 72084 82558

Total/ Month

340 3805 4145 410 3245 3656 872 6007 6879

Among all sources, about 40% income was generated from selling day lobor in Kaonia and Kurigram whereas in Kaharol three major sources were identified as agriculture, selling labor and small business which constitute 26.6%, 33.7% and 15.6% respectively of the total income (Table 3.1.10). However, the income from fish culture was found highest in Kurigram (28.9% of total income) compared to Kaonia (16.3% of total income) and to Kaharol (5.2% of total income). The findings indicate that the participants selected in Kaharol are advanced in income generation from diversified sources primarily due to higher ownership of land assets for agriculture production. The overall income scenarion of the project participants corresponds to the status of their occupation and degree of productive assets as shown earlier.

28

Status of HH expenditure

In relation to the income, there are various aspects of expenditure is one of the most commonly adopted way to form comprehensive idea on household economy-related indicators, like preferences, human development, propensity to spend, capacity to save and invest, extent of poverty, etc. Fifteen categories of expenditure were identified from the participants and the highest average expenditure per household was recorded in Kaharole (Tk. 94,125 annually, 7843 monthly) compared to that in Kaonia (Tk. 52,384 annually, 4365 monthly) and Kurigram (Tk. 49,305 annually, 4108 monthly) as given in table 3.1.11. Table 3.1.11: Expenditure status of target households

Type of expenditure Annual expenditure (TK.)

Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol

Food purchasing 37584 35192 50598

Education 1550 1726 4052

Health/Medical expenditure 1600 3838 3940

Cloth 2218 3757 4768

Household construction/repairing 1569 1797 2684

Social, Religious and Cultural Festival

730 335 1894

Marriage (if any) 0 0 3200

Dowry (if any) 1696 0 10432

Loan Interest repayment 1725 1429 2440

Entertainment including festival 947 226 3084

Cosmetic 594 245 1466

Firewood/Kerosene 742 518 1270

Electricity 460 32 305

Communication (including mobile) 812 177 2398

Others (specify) 152 28 1588

Grand Total/Year (Avarage) 52384 49305 94125

Grand Total/Month (Avarage) 4365 4108 7843

The data in the above table 3.1.11 reveals that a lion share of expenditures (70%) went to purchase of food items in Kaonia and Kurigram while about 54% of the total expenditure in Kaharol was eaten up for food. The participants of Kaharol spent more money for education of their children than the participants of other two locations, which may be due to higher income status in Kaharol. However, the situation of dowry payment was found alarming in Kaharol (Tk. 10,432 annually) compared to only Tk 1696 in Kaonia and nothing in Kurigram. It is really difficult to gauge the actual scenario of dowry due to hiding tendency of people regarding dowry payment. Nevertheless, the project requires special attention for sensitization of participants and duty bearers to create dowry free environment in Kaharol.

The findings also indicate that the annual expenditure in all the locations exceeded the corresponding income by 5.3% in Kaonia, 12.4% in Kurigram and 14.0% in Kaharol. This variation could have met up from taking credit as the data in the table 3.1.11 above shows that there was a repayment of loan interest in all the locations.

Household Drinking water and hygienic sanitation Access to safe drinking water and sanitation is a major parameter to determine the status of health of a community. Lack of accessibility to these basic facilities creates serious threats like out-break of waterborne diseases.

29

The data presented in the figure 3.1.5 below reveals that 67.47% of the total participants‟ households were using safe drinking water and about 50% HHs were using hygeinic latrine, which corroborates with the ownership of tube well (81.6%) and hygeinic latrine (57.1%) as shown in the asset section earlier. The lower status of access to safe drinking water despite higher ownership could be due to non-functioning of some tube wells. It is ,however, important to take note that the current status of the project participants on access to safe drinking water and hygeinic latrine stands below the national average. Moreover, the lowest proportion of HHs with safe drinking water was recorded in Kaonia (47.2%) than that in Kurigram. The situation of access to safe drinking water was recorded as close to 100%. On the other hand, access to hygeinic latrine in Kurigram was found very poor (37.6%). These status of safe drinking water and hygeinic latrine correlates with the ownership of latrine but do not correlate with the ownership of tubewell, which could be due to non functioning of tubewells. The advancement of participants in Kaharol compared to other locations may be attributed to their higher income and asset level.

Figure 3.1.5: Status of water and sanitation

Household Food Sufficiency An inherent feature in northern Bangladesh especially in Rangpur Division is very dependent on agriculture. Evidence available in Bangladesh indicates that the people of northern Bangladesh are facing food insecurity every year as compared to other parts of Bangladesh. In two periods of each year (between the month of mid-September to mid November and mid March to April), the rural poor who rely on agro based farm work suffer severe seasonal hardship, when household food availability and farm employment dries-up. Mid March to April lean season also brings hardship but this is now less severe due to recent crop diversification in this area.

Food security of HH in different moths of the year taking 3 meals a day

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Baisa

kh

Jaisth

ya

Asha

r

Srab

an

Bhad

ra

Aswi

n

Karti

k

Agra

haya

n

Pous

h

Mag

h

Falgu

n

Chait

ra

Months of the year when HH take three full meals per day

Kaonia

Kurigram

Kaharol

Figure 3.1.6: Household food security in different months

30

Accessibility of food is the basic rights of poor people. The figure 3.1.6 above reveals that there was no one found in the project locations without a meal during the last Bangla calender year. However, all the participants could not ensure 3 meals in all the months across the locations and the serious lean season was encountered when only 15-40% participants of all the locations ensured 3 meals during Aswin and Kartik (ie, September and October). The month of Kartik was one of the worse months for the participants of Kurigram when onle 15% of their HHs was able to take 3 meals a day. The participants of Kaharol seem to be experiencing better situation of taking 3 meals a day compared to other locations, which could be due to their higher income and asset level.

Food insecured months in a year facing difficaulty of taking 3 meals a day The status of food security stated above can further be validated by the data presented in the figure 3.1,7 below. The figure reveals that the month of Aswin and Kartik was the lean months when more than 50% participants faced difficulty of taking 3 meals a day and the participants of Kurigram showed on the peak of difficulty during Kartik. Another lean season was found in the month of Chaitra (ie, mid March to mid April) in Kurigram and Kaonia when more than 70% participants were not able to take 3 meals a day.

0102030405060708090

100

Bai

sakh

Jais

thya

Ash

ar

Srab

an

Bh

adra

Asw

in

Kar

tik

Agr

ahay

an

Po

ush

Mag

h

Falg

un

Ch

aitr

a

Months of the year when HHs face food deficiency i.e. not able to take three full meals per day

Kaonia

Kurigram

Kaharol

Figure 3.1.7: Food insecured months of the target households Insecurity of food has some other direct relationships with poverty some of which have been examined in this baseline survey. These are explained through their coping strategy as stated below: The survey findings shows a very high instance of taking loans as a coping strategy when more than 60% of HHs took loan to adapt to food insecurity (Table 3.1.12) and the worse was the participants of Kaonia (>90%). On the other hand, more than 50% HHs in Kurigram and Kaonia took less food during food insecurity months meaning going towards hungry. It is also revealed that the around 30-40% participants‟s households of Kaharol sold their household productive assets, poultry and livestock as a coping strategy to adapt to food insecurity. This finding in Kaharole corroborates well with the higher ownership of these assets by the participants of Kaharol as stated earlier in asset section. Almost one third participants of Kaonia and Kurigram (26-33%) took help from relatives while this relationship was very negligible (only 15.2% HH) in Kaharol indicating a poor social relationship of the participants with their neighbors/relatives. Temporary migration for selling labor outside the location the participants live was higher in Kurigram (nearly one-fifth of the patticipants) compared to that of other locations, which may be due food

31

insecurity coupled with river erosion. It implies that the participants in Kurigram could have been compelled to leave their family unattended during the period of migration and in particular put their women at risk of social insecurity and injustice.

Table 3.1.12: Coping strategy of households to adapt to climate change

District

Coping strategy to adapt to food insecurity

Tak

e l

oan

Do

mo

re w

ork

Go

ou

tsid

e t

o s

ell

lab

ou

r

(Tem

po

rary

mig

rati

on

)

Uti

lize o

wn

savin

gs

Tak

e h

elp

fro

m

rela

tiv

es

Tak

e l

ess f

oo

d

Pu

rch

ase

le

ss

exp

en

siv

e f

oo

d

Se

ll p

rod

uc

tiv

e

ho

useh

old

assets

Se

ll p

ou

ltry

/

liv

esto

ck

Oth

ers

Kaonia 92.8 2.4 3.2 26.4 33.6 50.4 28 1.6 2.4 0

Kurigram 68.8 10.4 19.2 9.6 26.4 66.4 56.8 6.4 11.2 5.6

Kaharol 78.4 10.4 10.4 4 15.2 40.8 20.8 28.8 40.8 6.4

Sample base

125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125

3.2 Understanding Social power structures and their present role for establishing access to resources and services for marginal farmers and fishers. There are several power structures at the upazilla and union level, which are rsponsible for providing services to the community people related to food security as per the rules and regulations of the country. These are mainly Union Parishad (the lowest administrative unit), Bank, Project Implementation Office (PIO), Social and women affairs departments, Land Aquisition Office, Cooperative and Youth Development Offices, Agricultural departments, Health departments etc. Through the Key Informant Interview (KII) of the representatives from these power structures, their role, responsibilities and the current situations of the access of the poor in particular to the services and resources were collected which are given below: i. Union Parishad At present major responsibilities of the UP Chairman are: (i) handling police cases on behalf of the people of this union, (ii) work against any violence, (iii) issuing different certificates including birth certificate, (iv) attending meeting with the UP members in the respective wards, (v) leads and handles village court, (vi) infrastructure building like roads, culverts, drains etc. (vii) Monitor sanitation work, visit community clinics, viii) Prepare list of ultra-poor families in the union ix) Implement disaster preparedness and rehabilitation programs x) Identification of khas lands and selection of landless poor for distribution of khas land xi) protection of early marriage xii) Awareness raising on prevention of women and children abuse xiii) conduct campaign for improvement of agriculture, livestock and fisheries xiv) Market/hat/bazar development xv) Monitor NGO programs viii) provide support to the poor through safety-net programmes eg, VGD, Food for Works, Test Relief (TR), Local Government Support Program (LGSP) (cash), Widow allowance, Old age allowance, Freedom Fighters‟ allowance, People with diasability‟s (PWD) allowance. (ix) Revenue collection, budget preparation and develop three years‟ action plan, (x) Run UP information centre, (xi) Involvement in social development works. Beside these, they are

32

also involved in distribution of rice seeds, jute seeds, fertilizers, irrigation pump etc. through subsidy. However, these supports are insufficient compared to deman. Draft budget is prepared at ward level with the presence of community people. Among the participants, 30% are poor /ultra poor, 5% to 10% are female and the rest are the other community people (male) from different socio-economic group. Farmers and Fisher folks are the part of community people, however, they are not particularly invited as „farmers‟ or as „fisher folk‟. There is a provision to share budget and expenditures at UP office level where the general people are invited to share their ideas and feedback. Budget is also shared with the community people through miking. In UP Budget, major components are infrastructure building (eg, bridge, culverts, roads etc.) and safety-net programs (70% of the total budget is allocated for these two components). Besides, there are allowances (salary) for Chairman, members and other support staff, entertainment, education, sanitation [10% of the total budget], tube-well distribution. tree plantation, running information centre, furniture fixtures and other compliances, others (miscellaneous). Regarding climate change, there is no specific programme. However, UP has its own programme for tree plantation at road sides and conducts early warning before disaster including rehabilitation of victims after disaster. There are a total of 13 standing committees at UP level. In each committee there are 14 – 15 members. But the meeting of the standing committee is not regular and some committees are inactive. Farmers and fisher folks are not particularly invited /selected as members of these standing committees. If any farmer or fisher folk joins the committee, UP will welcome them. NGOs support people through their own channel while the government line agencies channel services through Union Parishad. As per the laws of the country, fisher folks are provided with fingerlings and fishing net free of cost together with credit assistance. Poor farmers are also provided with seeds, fertilizers, mechinaries and other production inputs at a subsidized rate. Poor women are supported with legal assistance for abuse and injustice. ii. Project Implementation Office Under this department there are some safety-net programmes like: EGPP (Employment Generation for Poor People i.e. 100 days‟ work), VGF (Vulnerable Group Feeding), FFW (Food for Works), TR (Test Relief), distribution of CI sheet, GR- rice, Gr- cash. One of the responsibilities of PIO office is to identify the poor and vulnerable people who are eligible for receiving resources under safety-net programme. Respective Union Parishad is responsible for making the list of beneficiaries for this purpose. There is a committee at upazila level, PIO is the member secretary of this committee. The committee approves the list and distribution of services/resources is made accordingly through UP. There are some limitations at UP level as some of the UP Chairmans and UP members are not able to come into common consensus regarding preparation of lists of vulnerable people. Compared to demand, the allocation is very poor in amount. With this limited allocation, a maximum of 20% demand could be fulfilled. As per their opinion, cyclone, drought, flood are the impacts of Climate change in the locality. Upazila and Union Disaster Management Committee are responsible to take initiatives for disaster preparedness and also to take steps after the disaster is occured. As a part of preparedness some infrastructural works like construction of culverts, box culverts, U-drain etc. are done by this department. However, there is no specific support from the central government. If there are allocations during emergency, the amount is limited compared to demand. At the government higher authority level there are policy papers, but these are not disseminated to this upazia level in many cases.

33

iii. Upazila Social Wellfare and Women Affairs Offices Social Welfare The major responsibilities of Social Wellfare Office are: identification of service recipients at field, approval of allocated resources, to ensure food security for the poor people as per policy /law of the government. There is no specific programme particularly for poor farmers and fisher folk. However, if they come in „group‟ and are registered with this department, they will be provided supports. Safety-net programmes are implemented by this department and the supports include: Widow Allowance, allowances for PWD (Person With Disability), Old Age Allowance and allowance for freedom fighters. A special programme of this department is: “Rural Service Programme” through which interest free loan is provided to run small-scale enterprises including agriculture work at rural areas. Under this programme the farmers, poor people and other professionals from the community are generally involved in service delivery mechanisms. Another important programme is to provide interest free loan to acid throwing victims and PWDs. In order to increase the role of mothers in population programme, awareness building sessions are organized by this department. Alongside, to develop socio-economic status, interest free loans are provided to these mothers. In one village one mothers‟ group is organized to run this loan programme. Compared to demand, it is not possible to provide services to all the needy people. As of now, in case of old age allowance, 80% old people are covered; in case of widow allowance, 60% are covered, and in case of PWDs 40-50% are covered in Kawnia upazila. There are limitations in selecting the service recipients because of the undue influence of the local leaders. Sometimes, it takes long time to finalize the list of service recipients. For adaptation to climate change, there is no specific programme. Occasionally, some awareness building trainings are organized for the people in general. Tree plantation, distributions of hygienic latrine, tube-wells are also some initiatives taken by this department. It was strongly recommended that NGOs should arrange more awareness building programmes for the poor people. Group strengthening and developing liaison with the govt. resource departments are some major initiative, which can be taken up by NGOs. Running feasible IGAs by the poor people would help their family to cope with the crisis and vulnerability. NGO staffs are familiar with the government officials, but the beneficiaries of the NGOs are not able to get access to the government departments. So it is needed to invite the government officials at group level to develop communication. NGOs can play a vital role to develop this communication chain. Visibility of safety-net programmes and other resources/ services should be ensured at NGO office and at poor people‟s group level. Providing cell phone numbers of the government support service departments to the poor people and their village level groups would be a good idea to communicate with the officials of the service providers. Although there is no programme specifically for poor farmers and fisher folk, in the policy guidelines it is mentioned clearly that preference should be given to the vulnerable people including women for distribution of services and resources. So, from the poor farmers‟ and fisher folks‟ families, women can take services from this department easily. Women Affairs Office Women Affairs Office is providing services only to the women. Major safety-net programme from this departments are- to provide VGD (Vulnerable Group Development) card to the vulnerable women; maternal allowance (from pregnancy up to two years- at union level); allowance to the lactating mothers who are the working women (at urban level). Other

34

support services are: to provide registration to the women samity; provide skill training to the women; provide small loan to the women entrepreneurs (soft loan- with 5% interest); extend legal assistance to the women victims of poor families; rehabilitation support for the victimized women. In case of receiving loan, a woman can take as much as taka 15,000 at a time and she can take loan for three consecutive years. The role of this department is to ensure support services to the actual beneficiaries. Decision regarding final approval of the list of beneficiaries and allocation of supports are lying with this department, but the respective UP is the grassroots level authority to prepare the primary list of beneficiaries under its jurisdiction. The dept. provides policy guidelines to prepare the list authentically. In this case sometimes conflicts are created between Women affairs Department and the Union Parishad (UP). In some cases UP Chairman and members prepare the list as per their own wish by including women of their choice, ignoring the guidelines. There is no specific programme from this department for poor farmers and fisherfolk. However, if a woman from any of these categories fulfils the criteria, she will receive support from this department. Moreover, farmers group and fisher folk group can communicate with this department for any possible supports. As per demand of the area, support services are less, and it creates confusion and misunderstanding among the women, UP Chairman and members and the personnel of Women Affairs Department. There is no specific programme on climate change in this department.

According to their opinion, NGO‟s responsibility should be to strengthen access of the poor to available services and resources. The officers in Women Affairs Department put importance on mobilizing the community people as a whole and especially the resource people in the locality to do work in favor of the poor. NGO should also work with those resource people at community level to do work in favour of the poor. These resource persons include public representatives/ UP members, chairman, teachers, religious leaders, other social leaders who have influences at UP, Upazila and district levels. It would be easy for them to pursue (if they wish to do so) the respective service and resource sectors to ensure supports to the poor people.

Government has a different policy papers, laws, rules and regulations but these are not circulated/ disseminated properly at Upazila level. Sometimes the policy is there, but it is not possible to apply these policies properly due to influences of public representatives.

iv. Land Aquisition Department The department ensures allocation of government land to the landless people, establishes cluster village, house buildings for the poor, vulnerable and landless people. Government agriculture Khas land is distributed to the farmers‟ group and/or to the individuals. Khash pond and water body (below 20 acre size) are allocated to registered fisher folk group. However, the allocation process is sometime affected as influential persons in the area impose their ideas and wishes politically. For climate change there is no specific programme. It was suggested that NGOs should organize poor people, develop capacity to empower them in the community. It is also very important to make liaison between the poor people and the government service sectors. „Group strengthening‟ (as cooperative power creation) is also a prime task of NGOs at grassroots level. Policy, rules, guidelines on land acquisition are available at district and upazila level. But the poor people and the NGOs don‟t know all these policies and do not have easy access to these papers. NGOs can organize advocacy programme. v. Upazila Youth Development and Cooperative Offices Youth Development Office

35

Major responsibilities of this department are to provide skill training to the youths (of 18 – 35 years): poultry, livestock, beef fattening, tree plantation, tailoring /dress-making, block boutique, nakshi kantha, embroidery, herbal medicine, vegetables cultivation etc. Among the training participants, 15% are from poor /vulnerable families; 40% are female. Trainees are provided loans as much as Taka 40,000 per trainee and as low as Taka 25,000 with 10% interest rate. They also enlist youth club with youth ministry. These clubs are not „registered‟, but enlisted with youth ministry. If there is any support service to be provided from the ministry in future, these clubs will be given preference. There is no provision to extend technical support or follow-up of training programmes. Although no provision exists particularly for the poor farmers and fisher folks, but the youths in general even from these groups are invited to join the training courses. As per procedure there is no specific direction to involve poor farmers or fisher folks. But the youth from these families can join this training course and after successful completion of training course, they can receive loan to run enterprises at their family level or can get a job. As per government plan, annual allocation is sufficient to cover training courses. However, there is a lack of interest of the educated youths to join this training course. There is no provision to pay fee or allowances or any travelling cost for the trainees. So, many youths loose their interest to attend the sessions regularly. NGOs should strengthen poor people‟s capacity to access to government support services, arrange regular awareness building sessions, develope communication /liaison with the service sectors, build knowledge on service delivery system of government departments.

Upazila Cooperative Office Major roles and responsibilities are to form and register Cooperative groups, arrange training on Cooperative group management, conduct election of the cooperative groups every after three years‟ term, arrange AGM of cooperative groups, arrange training to cooperative group members on book-keeping and documentation, ensure Annual Audit There is no provision to particularly invite the poor farmers or fisher folks to be the cooperative group members. But anybody of them can come willingly to become the members or to form a cooperative group. There is only tree plantation programme to adapt to climate change. But there is no specific budget allocation for climate change programme. No regular and formal communication or liaison is prevailed between this department and NGOs. When an NGO likes to register their groups under cooperative law, only then the department has the communication with the respective group. Laws and policy guidelines are in place and these are very specifically developed. There is a provision under the law that a total of 29 types of cooperative groups could be formed in any upazila. For example in Kaharol upazia there are Cooperative groups as Fisherman Cooperative Group, Farmers Cooperative Group, Multipurpose Cooperative Group etc. In OXFAM funded project, if the farmers and fisher folks form groups, they can be registered under cooperative law in this department. vi. Agricultural Departments Agricultural department include offices of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries located mainly at upazilla level. Only the Agriculture department has grass-root staff named Sub Assistant Agriculture Officers (SAAO), who are posted at union level (2-4/union). Agriculture Farmers Group development, training, demonstration on improved technologies and technical support are the major responsibilities of this department. They provide services to all categories of farmers (Landless, Marginal, Small, Medium and Large) and develop 10

36

groups of 25 farmers per union. Apart from these services, they register fertilizer dealers for smoth selling of subsidized fertilizers to the farmers. They also implement many development projects including food security related issues. Many trainings and demonstration supports are provided from theses projects. However, these projects are time bound and location specific as conditioned by the donor agencies. Moreover, revenue budget is not sufficient to continue providing services to even all farmers at all the time. So, the services of agriculture department eventually limited by the foriegn aided projets. However, only integrated pest management program (IPM) is mainstreamed for all categories of farmers. SAAO provides technical advice at the village level. Among the production imputs, seeds are sold through BADC and the fertilizers are through registered dealers. Cash incentives at the rate of Tk 300 are provided to farmers through bank account for promotion of aus rice. Extension coverage of SAAO is now very wide meaning one has to cover 2,000 HHs while earlier it was 800-1,000 HHs per SAAO. So, this high coverage results in poor extension services for the farmers. There is no specific program for adaptation to climate change under this department. However, after disaster (especially flood) a package support of seeds, fertilizers and cash is provided under agriculture rehabilitation program to the farmers being affected. These supports are limited to farmers owning from 0.33 acres (1 bigha) up to 2.5 acres and also go to share croppers with at least 1 bigha. Recently, flood and drought tolerant varieties are promoted through demostration programs supported by different projects. According to their perception, NGOs should coordinate with other development partners including government departments to avoid duplication and overlaping of resources. It is highly emphasized in the current agriculture policy for GO-NGO collaboration. DAE can provide technical services to NGO organized groups. There are several other policies/laws prevailed in the country as New Agriculture Extension policy, IPM policy, fertilizer act, pesticide rules etc. but not all are practiced by the upazila level officers due to lack of clear understanding. Therefore, it requires a special attention for orientation to the department personnels. Upazilla Livestock Office Training, demonstration and technical advice are the major responsibilities of this department similar to agriculture. Apart from these, vaccination is another common activity undertaken by this department. They establish vaccination camp at village level and the animals are brought to camp for vaccination. They also provide services to all categories of farmers like Agriculture. Local service providers are developed from among the local advanced farmers by the department through training and logistic support so that they establish vaccin chain from the Upazilla livestock office to the village/union carrying vaccine with cooling flux. They buy vaccine @ Tk. 0.50 and are allowed to sale @ Tk. 1.00 to the farmers. So, it helps them become a local entrepreneur. Artificial Insemination points are also developed at the Union Parishad Office and volunteers are developed to provide AI services. They buy frogen sement from ULO office @ Tk. 15 and are allowed to sale @ Tk. 30 as per govt. policy. Vaterinery Field Assistant (VFA) is assigned to monitor the activities of local AI volunteers. Regular services through demonstration, training and input support are limited due to insufficient reveue budget and these activities are mainly supported from the foriegn aided projects. No provision for adapting to climate change programs is available at upazilla level. Through normal program, they are promoting biogas utilizing cow dung for clean environment and organic fertilizers. Sometimes, feed and medicines are provided to the farmers during disaster and outbreak of diseases. They suggested that NGOs should play a vital role for facilitation of farmers groups to get access to services of livestock department. NGOs also can approach Upazilla Livestock

37

office to provide services to their groups but need to conclude MoU with the department. It, however, seems to be a long way to go due to bureacratic channel of the government department. Several policies/acts are in place namely slaughter act, poultry policy, Artificial Insemination Act etc, But these act/policies are not clearly understood by the local officials of the department. Upazilla Fisheries Office Similar to agriculture and livestock departments, training, demonstration and technical advice are the major responsibilities of this department. Local extension agents are also developed from among the farmers through training and the technical advice to farmers are channeled either directly or through cell phone. In some cases fishing net of fisher folk being used for catching jhatka fishes are replaced by alternate nets from the department along with loan for the group so that they are encouraged to catch fishes of the acceptable size and quality. Apart from these activities, technical assistance are provided for the allocation of haor/baor/beel to the fisher folk on a long term lease basis for catching natural fishes. Regular servces are also limited due to insufficient revenue budget and the services are mainly provided through the donor supported projects. There is a conflict of decision making for allocation of open water bodies to the fisher folk as Water Development Board is empowered to take final decision in consultation with the department of fisheries. Althoug no specific program is available, HYV and quick growing fishes are introduced to adapt to climate change. As per their suggestion, NGO should coordinate with govt. departments for better access of poor farmers to the services and resources. NGOs can develop lead farmers and request Upazila Fisheries Office for training of trainers so that they in turn can provide training to the community farmers. There are several acts/laws like fish hatchery law, feed law, act for fishing in open water bodies etc,. However, orientations are required for the department personnels on the existing laws and policies for better understanding and practices. vii. Rajshahi Krishi Unnayan Bank (RAKUB) RAKUB is reponsible for providing credit among the farmers of different categories on a specific interest rate, repayment schedule, duration and criteria for eligibility. In general, farmers need collateral of land as mortgage for taking loan which means landless farmers eventually do not get access to their credit facilities. However, as per the current law of Bangladesh Bank, landless who are share croppers can get loan without collateral of land but need to submit the deed of agreement with the land owner for share cropping for a particular period. Despite this inactment, RAKUB generally requires share croppers to provide the land deeds of the owner as mortgage before the loan is approved. But it is difficult in many cases to get the land owner convinced in favor of this arrangement for his/her share cropper. On the other hand RAKUB generally tries to avoid risk of overdue by the sharecroppers by ensuring some binding at least from the land owners of the share croppers. This becomes comebursome for the sharecroppers and thus results in poor access of landless sharecroppers to RAKUB credit despite the law is in place. According to RAKUB representatives, NGOs can approach them for credit support to its groups but in that case NGOs require to comclude MoU with the competent authority of RAKUB and ensure repayment of credit from farmers groups. This means NGOs will act as collateral. It was also suggested that NGOs can act as local agent and ensure repayment of credit with high interest rate than the RAKUB (say 14% on declining method while NGOs receive from bank at 10-12% declining method).

38

Rural Credit Policy is not much known by RAKUB personnel but they pointed out several categories of loan eg, Freedom Fighter‟s Loan, Overseas Employment Credit, Scheme for Rich and Poor. There is a special agricultural credit program for a particular union and the credit is provided to farmers of that union as selected through the agriculture credit committee. But the performance of this special program is not up to the mark as the size of overdue is high compared to other program primarily due to local influence and NGO credit overlaping. A detail report of the Key informant Interview can be seen in Annex XI 3.3 Awareness level on and access of marginal farmers and fisher folks to

entitlement/ right base issues related to food security There is a clear picture from the description of the power structure stated earlier in section 3.2 that the poor people including farmers and fisher folks have the access to services and resources of the different government line agencies (duty beares) wo are accountable for the delivery of these tasks. It is, however important to gauge how many poor farmers and fisher folks are aware of their entitlement to these services and resources, and how many of them receive the benefit from this service delvery systems of the government. In addition the level of awareness and access to benefit will help understand the level of responsiveness of the duty bearers. As per log-frame of the project, the OVI of the specific objective is “50% of target groups (with 60% women representation) report increased confidence and competence in advocating with government authorities for their right to food security by the mid-point of project”. This relates to increase in the level of awareness on access to services and practices for receiving the services. Overall, the project will facilitate the access of target people and the OVI is set as “70% of target groups / networks access social safety nets and other forms of government support related to food security”. Therefore, the level of awareness on and access to services of different govt. line agencies was measured at the initial stage of the project so that the effect of the project interventions can be seen compared to the baseline. 3.3.1 Awareness on and access to entitlement to govt. services of Agriculture,

Livestock and Fisheries Department of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries are mandated to provide information, services and resources to the local farmers, promote new technologies developed by public agricultural research institutes through farmer‟s training and demonstration, manage supply of agriculture inputs, assist farmers getting small loan from bank/ NGOs.

The findings reveal that poor proportion of the total 375 participants (<45%) were aware of the services (eg, demonstration, training, technical advice, seed. loan, subsidy etc.) of the agriculture, livestock and fisheries departments (Table 3.3.1.1). It is also evident that less than 20% of 375 participants were aware of these services of livestock and fisheries departments indicating a very poor service delivery channel of these departments compared to that of agriculture. The situation was worse in Kurigram (below 5%) and Kaharol (below 10%). Among the departments, the participants in Kaonia (25-35%) and Kaharol (7-15%) were in better position for the awareness on services of the agriculture depatments. Highest awareness was observed on the services of quality seed (35%) followed by training (30%) among the participants of Kaonia. Out of total 375 participants of all locations, highest awareness was on seed (44%) followed by technical advice (42%) and training (41%) from agriculture. Overall the data indicates that in general the level of awareness on the services of agricultural departments is very poor although the

39

participants of Kaonia are little advanced in the case of agriculture. It implies that although services are available in the government line agencies, poor farmers and fisher folks are not receiving the benefit due to lack of awareness leading to their poor development in these sectors.

Table 3.3.1.1: Awareness on services of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries depatments

Type of services

Kaonia (%HH) Kurigram

(%HH) Kaharol (%HH)

All Projec Area (%HH)

Ag

ril

Liv

e

Fis

heri

es

Ag

ril

Liv

e

Fis

heri

es

Ag

ril

Liv

e

Fis

heri

es

Ag

ril

Liv

e

Fis

heri

es

Demonstration 20 6.4 4 2.4 0.8 1.6 15 2.4 3.2 37.6 9.6 8.8

Technical advice

28 8 7.2 1.6 0.8 1.6 13 4 1.6 42.4 12.8 10.4

Training 30.4 12 12 0.8 0.8 1.6 10 4 4 41.6 16.8 17.6

Seed 35.2 10.4 8 2.4 0.8 1.6 7.2 2.4 2.4 44.8 13.6 12

Loan 28 8 5.6 0.8 0.8 1.6 4 0.8 1.6 32.8 9.6 8.8

Subsidy 26.4 8 5.6 1.6 0.8 1.6 9.6 0 0 37.6 8.8 7.2

Others 9.6 4 3.2 0.8 0.8 2.4 0.8 0.8 0.8 11.2 5.6 6.4

Sample base 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 375 375 375

Visit to Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries offices for claiming services

Household visited to service providers The data given in the table 3.3.1.2 below show that few participants out of total 375 participants (<25%) visited the office of agricultural department for claiming services of which the highest visit (20%) was made to the office of agriculture at union level. Similarly the highest visit by the participants of Kaonia (15.2%) was made to agriculture department at Union office. Less than 4% participants by location or of all locations visited these offices at Upazilla level which is the main place for decision making in agricultural programs. This poor visit to agricultural departments for claiming services could be primarily due to lack of awareness of participants as they do not know what services they are supposed to get from which departments. The intrinsic implication is poor awareness that results in less pressure to the duty beares and so is the result of poor accountability of the duty bearers.

Table 3.3.1.2: Visit of target household to service providers

Location of services

Kaonia (%HH) Kurigram

(%HH) Kaharol (%HH)

All Projec Area (%HH)

Ag

ril

Liv

e

Fis

heri

es

Ag

ril

Liv

e

Fis

heri

es

Ag

ril

Liv

e

Fis

heri

es

Ag

ril

Liv

e

Fis

heri

es

Union 15.2 12 8 2.4 0.8 1.6 2.4 0 0 20 12.8 9.6

Upazilla 1.6 1.6 2.4 0.8 0 0.8 1.6 1.6 0.8 4 3.2 4

District 0 0 0 0 0 1.6 0 0 0 0 0 1.6

Sample base 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 375 375 375

40

Way of Visit / communication to Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries offices for claiming services The data in the table 3.3.1.3 below reveals that only few of the target households (2-8%) visited alone. Highest proportion of participants (19.2%) visited with others at union office of Kaonia followed by Kaharol (12.8%). At upazilla office, the highest cantact was mad by the participants with others in Kaonia. The findings indicate that there was a poor cosmopoliteness in Kurigram compared to other locations and the influence created by a group visit was insignificant across the locations. This implies that the strength of advocacy among the participants is at minimum level leading to claiming of services from these departments. Table 3.3.1.3: Way of visit of target households to service providers

Location and way of visit/communication

Kaonia (%HH) Kurigram

(%HH) Kaharol (%HH)

Union

Visited alone 8.8 2.4 3.2

Visited with others 19.2 0.8 12.8

Mobile 0 0.8 2.4

Upazilla

Visited alone 2.4 0.8 0.8

Visited with others 16 0.8 4

Mobile 0 0.8 1.6

District

Visited alone 0 0.8 0

Visited with others 0 0.8 0

Mobile 0 0.8 0

Sample base

125 125 125

Service (s) demanded from Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries offices Household demanded services from duty bearer’s offices It is generally expected that the participants, who visited the offices of agricultural departments, claimed services they were entitled to receive. The scenario is given in the table 3.3.1.4 below. The data show that almost no services was demanded by the participants from the livestock and fisheries departments in Kurigram and Kaonia which corroborates with the fact that a very negligible proportion of participants visited the offices of these departments as shown in the earlier table. However, Kaonia was relatively in a better position where an average of 5.0% participants demanded for agriculture services, 3.8% demanded each for livestock and fisheries services. These proportions of participants who demanded services in Kaonia were found lower than the proportion of participants who visited agriculture office (16.8%), livestock office (13.6%) and fisheries (10.4%). This difference could be due to lack of awareness on the procedure of demanding services. Out of these demands, seed, training and loan from agriculture, training and loan each from livestock and fisheries offices were relatively higher than the other services. The data on the visit to offices given earlier and demand for services also indicate that not all the participants who visited did deman for services. Overall the findings indicate that there was poor demand for services to the agricultural departments which were primarily due to poor proportion of participants visited their offices.

41

Table 3.3.1.4: Services demanded by target households

Type of services

demanded

Kaonia (%HH) Kurigram (%HH) Kaharol (%HH)

Agril Live Fish Agril Live Fish Agril Live Fish

Demonstration 2.4 3.2 2.4 2.4 0 0.8 0 0 0

Technical advice

6.4 3.2 4 0 0 0 1.6 0 0.8

Training 8 7.2 8.8 0.8 0 0 0.8 0 0

Seed 8.8 3.2 3.2 0.8 0 0 0 0 0

Loan 5.6 5.6 5.6 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subsidy 2.4 2.4 2.4 0.8 0 0.8 0.8 0 0

Others 1.6 1.6 0 0.8 0 0 0 0.8 0.8

Average 5.0 3.8 3.8 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.2

Sample base

125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125

Service (s) received from Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries offices

Household received services upon demans from duty bearers offices This section deals with how much proportion of participants received services from agriculture, livestock and fisheries departments which could be either due to the claim of the participants who visited or due to normal dispersal of services or in combination of both. The table 3.3.1.5 below shows that less than 05% participant‟s HHs received some services from agricultural departments. However, the highest proportion of participants (4.8%) received subsidy in Kaharol and 3.2% received seed in Kaonia from agriculture department compared to other type of services regardless of departments. The average picture of the department was worse where less than 01% proportion of participants received services if different types of services are considered. This findings indicate a very poor response from the the department of agriculture, livestock and fisheries as even one-third of the participants who visited to agriculture (16.8%), llivestock (13.6%) and fisheries (10.4%) offices couldnot receive services from them. Overall the findings imply that neither the pressures are created from the duty holders nor the response is made from the duty bearers and thus the project needs to work on both sides to create happy marriage between the two – claim or pressure versus response.

Table 3.3.1.5: Target households received services upon demands

Type of services received

Kaonia (%HH) Kurigram (%HH) Kaharol (%HH)

Ag

ril

Liv

e

Fis

heri

es

Ag

ril

Liv

e

Fis

heri

es

Ag

ril

Liv

e

Fis

heri

es

Demonstration 0 0 0 0.8 0 0 0.8 0 0

Technical advice 2.4 2.4 0 0 0 0 0.8 0 0.8

Training 0.8 0 1.6 0 0 0 0.8 0.8 0.8

Seed 3.2 0 0.8 0.8 0 0 0.8 0 0

Loan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subsidy 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 4.8 0 0

Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.8 0.8 4.0

Average 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.2 0.8

Sample base 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125

42

Opinions of groups on Services of government agriculture, livestock and fisheries department The above situation was further validated with the participants in a group. During Focus Group Discussion the participants were asked to react about the information, services and benefits they received / receiving. The Government offices were responsible to provide seeds and Training, the participants did not know about any other services. Very few people received seeds and training from Government offices. The extension agents of DAE sometimes visited their homes and provide information on improved farm technologies but they did not give any other benefits. The livestock extension agents did not visit their homes but they met at the Office of the Union Parishad (UP) for 3-4 times a year. Consequently they did not get any benefits from their visits. When they urgently needed their services to treat their ailing livestock heads and poulty birds, they did not get it rather they (concerned officials) demanded high fees for treating their animals. At this stage they got frustrated being unable to get the veterinary services even at a reasonable cost at their homestead level. Same was the case of fisheries extension agents. They never visited their homes nor were available at the Union Office. Upazilla Fisheries Office gave some nets to few fisherman only instead of their “chotjaal‟(seized as it is prohibited net that catches small fishes). They expected agricultural machineries, seed, fertilizer and suggestions from the government offices, but they did not get any services from them. A detail report of FGD can be seen in Annex XII. 3.3.2 Awareness on and access to khas land The findings reveal that poor proportion of the participants (up to 40%) under the survey knew about the khas land prevailed in their locality (Table 3.3.2.1). The situation was worse in Kurigram (only 11%). It is also evident from the table below that a very few participants (<10%) approached land aquisition office for allocation of khas land regardless of locations. Although poor approach in general, Kurigram was in further worse situation (only 1.6% prticipants), who approached land office. Out of the participants approached land office, almost all of them visited with others. This poor approach to land office for claiming allocation of khas land could be primarily due to lack of awareness of participants as they do not know what amount of khas lands are available in their locality and what amount they are supposed to get from which departments. The intrinsic implication is poor awareness results in less pressure to the duty beares and so is the result of poor accountability of the duty bearers. Table 3.3.2.1: Awareness on and access of target household to khas land

Type of awareness and Access Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol

Prevalence of khas land in the locality (%HH) 40.8 11.2 33.6

AC land office approached for land allocation (%HH)

6.4 1.6 4.8

Visit to the land office Visited alone 2.4 0 0

Visited with others 4 1.6 4.8

Khas land received Received (%HH) 4.8 0.8 4

Total amount received (dec.)

15.2 3.2 64.8

Sample base 125 125 125

43

The data presented in the table above show that less than 05% participant‟s HHs received khas land from the land department and the worse was again in Kurigram (<01%). Although a similar proportion of participants in Kaonia (4.8% or 6 out of 125 participants) and in Kaharol (4.0 % or 5 out of 125 participants) received khas lands, the amount being allocated was higher in Kaharol (total 64.8 decimal or 16.8 dec per participant) than that in Kaonia (total 15.2 dec or 3.16 dec per participant). The data indicate that the land office did not apply the same principle in these two locations. Despite poor approach from the participants, the response was found encouraging for khas land allocation in Kaharol (4% out of 4.8% approached) and in Kaonia (4.8% out of 6.4% approached). However, the project has huge potential to work on both the claim or pressure side from the participants and the response or accountability side of the duty bearers. User of Khas Land as identified by respondent The data from the figure 3.3.2.2 below reveal that according to majority participants in Kurigram (89.6%) and Kaharol (68%), khas lands which were available in their village were not used by any body. In Kaonia, khas lands were used by the rich people as per majority participants (56%). The involvement of political leader was found very poor in terms of use of khas lands. The poor who are actually eligible for khas lands were the poorest users of the same as opined by only 8% in Kaharol, 4% in Kurigram and none of the participants in Kaonia. Although this information does not correlate with the proportion of participants of Kaonia (4.8%) received khas lands as stated earlier, the participants who received khas land couldnot use the land due to other factors. Overall findings imply that there is ample opportunity for the poor participants to get access to the khas lands as these are mostly kept unallocated or not used by any body. However, the opinions of the participants require further validation with the land department what is actually the status of these khas lands.

0

56

0 0

44

0 5.6 4 0.8

89.6

4

19.28 0.8

68

User of khash land as identified HHs (%)

Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol

Figure 3.3.2.2: User of khas lands

3.3.3 Awareness on and access to govt. water body management

The findings reveal that poor proportion of the participants (below 40%) under the survey knew about the khas pond, khal and beel prevailed in their locality (3.3.3.1). The situation was worse in Kurigram (<05%) and Kaharol (<16%). It is also evident from the table below that almost none approached the office of Water Development Boad for allocation of khas water bodies regardless of locations. This no approach situation could be primarily due to lack of awareness of participants as they do not know what amount of khas water bodies are available in their locality and what amount they are supposed to get from which

44

departments. The intrinsic implication is poor awareness that results in less pressure to the duty beares and so is the result of poor accountability of the duty bearers. Table 3.3.3.1: Awareness on and access of target households

Type of awareness and Access Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol

Prevalence of water body (khas pond, khal, beel etc,) in the locality

Khas pond prevailed (%HH) 36.8 3.2 15.2

Khal prevailed (%HH) 35.2 1.6 0.8

Beel prevailed (%HH) 32.8 0.8 0

Other prevailed (%HH) 20 0 0

Water Development Board approached for allocation of water body

Approached (%HH) 0 0 0.8

Visit to the WDB office

Visited alone (%) 0 0 0

Visited with others (%) 0 0 0.8

Water body received for use

Pond received (%HH) 0 0 4.8

Amount of pond (dec.) 0 0 128

Khal received (%HH) 0 0 0

Beel received (%HH) 0 0 0

Others received (%HH) 0 0 0

Sample base 125 125 125

The data presented in the table above show that only 4.8% participant‟s HHs received 128 decimal khas pond from the water board in Kaharol and the nothing was allocated in other locations. Moreover, none received open water bodies like khal and beel regardless of locations. However, the project has the potential to facilitate allocation of these water bodies available in the project areas but needs to work intensively on both the claim or pressure side from the participants and the response or accountability side of the duty bearers. User of water body as identified by respondent The data from the table 3.3.3.2 below reveal that according to half of the participants in Kaonia (49.6%), khas ponds were used by the rich people. None of the participants in Kurigram and a few proportion in Kaharol (<15%) were aware about the use of these water bodies. The involvement of political leader was found very poor in these resources across all locations. The poor who are actually eligible for these water bodies were the users of the same as opined by less than 01% in Kaonia for khas pond and none for khal and beel in other locations indicating a poorest user of the households eligible for khas ponds. Although this information does not correlate with the proportion of participants of Kaharol (4.8%) received khas ponds as stated earlier, the participants who received khas pond couldnot use the same due to other factors. Overall findings imply that there is opportunity for the poor participants to get access to the khas water bodies but the challenge here is immense as to how the undue use by the rich person is eliminated. However, the opinions of the participants require further validation with the department of water board what is actually the status of these water bodies.

Table 3.3.3.2: User of khas pond, khal and beel (open water bodies)

Type of User Kaonia

(% Respondent) Kurigram

(% Respondent) Kaharol

(% Respondent)

Political Leader

Khas pond 3.2 0 1.6

Khal 0.8 0 0

Beel 3.2 0 0

45

Rich person

Khas pond 49.6 0 13.6

Khal 12 0 0

Beel 12 0 0

Poor person

Khas pond 0.8 0 0

Khal 0 0 0

Beel 0 0 0

Community Based Organization (CBO)

Khas pond 0 0 0

Khal 0 0 0

Beel 0 0 0

Not used

Khas pond 0 0 0

Khal 0 0 0

Beel 0 0 0

Sample base

125 125 125

Opinions of groups on awareness and access to khas land and water bodies

During Focus Group Discussion the participants were asked to react about the management and utilization of common resources like khas land, water bodies, rivers and canals, etc. Rich and influential people were using khash ponds. They built Fish Hatcheries there. The rich people gave bribe to the government offices and got benefit from them. They did not know the process and information of getting allocation of khash land and water bodies. Although they applied to the government for assistance, no response or result was received. There was a canal of WAPDA dam, khash ponds, but they couldnot catch fish over there as these were taken on lease basis by the influential people of the area.

They used to lease in common resources (water bodies, haor / baor, rivers, canals, khas land etc.) through a group of vested interests or political touts or influential people who made a coterie and maintained an unholy contact with the Upazila Level Officials of Fisheries Department, Land Offices, Tahsilder etc. These Officials of the government agencies, in connivance with local Union Parishad Chairmen / Members secretly float tenders, it was learnt, who did not make them public. Finally, those who were close to the concerned officials were successful in bidding and they got the offer. Because of these vicious circles, poor and ordinary people do not have any access to the common properties or resources mentioned above. A detail report of FGD can be seen in Annex XII. 3.3.4 Awareness on and access to Rural Credit

Awareness and access The findings in the table 3.3.4.1 below reveal that almost all participants (95-100%) under the survey knew about the credit opportunities available in their locality. It is also evident from the table that majority participants (>50%) approached credit institution for getting credit regardless of locations. About half of the participants in Kurigram (49.6%) visited credit office with others while similar proportion of participants (30-40%) in Kaharol and Kaonia visited alone and with others. This better level of approach compared to other services could be primarily due to higher level of awareness (almost 100% participants) and also due to ease of receiving credit particularly from NGOs. More than 50% participants in Kaharol and Kurigram received credit. Highest proportions of participants in Kaharol (75% or 94 HHs) received the highest amount of credit /HH (Tk. 157,046 /HH) while the lowest proportion in Kurigram (only 11% or 14 participants) received Tk. 7,543

46

/HH). It is noted that this credit assistance was not a soft bank loan although there was a provision of soft loan from the government bank as per the rural credit policy. It was reported that the poor people could not access to this opportunity as they were not able to afford their land as collateral. Table 3.3.4.1: Awareness on and access of target households to rural credit

Type of awareness and Access Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol

Institutional credit opportunities in the locality 95.2 100 100

HH approached institutions for getting credit 60.8 55.2 76

Visit to the credit institution

Visited alone 32.8 8.8 40.8

Visited with others 28 49.6 33.6

Credit received Received (%HH) 53.6 11.2 75.2

Amount received (Tk).)

1102800 105600 14762400

Sample base 125 125 125

Name of the credit institution The data from the table 3.3.4.2 below reveal that according to most of the participants (85-100%) regardless of locations, credit was provided by the NGOs followed by bank. Among the locations, highest proportion of participants (85%) in Kurigram knew about the access of credit from the bank. Poor proportion of participants (below 25%) knew about the acces to BRDB credit. Overall findings imply that the participants of Kurigram were suffering from poor access to credit regardless of credit institutions although many NGOs and banks are available in this area. However, the opinions of the participants require further validation with the credit institutions what is actually the status of credit disbursement to the poor farmers and fisher folks.

Table 3.3.4.2: Credit institution available and active in the locality

Type of credt institution Kaonia

(% Respondent) Kurigram

(% Respondent) Kaharol

(% Respondent)

NGO 85.6 97.6 100

Bank 56 84.8 53.6

BRDB 1.6 0.8 23.2

CBO 5.6 0 3.2

Others 4 4 36.8

Not Known 0 0 0

Sample base 125 125 125

Opinions of groups on financial assitance from credit giving organizations eg, NGO, Bank and others The microcredit facilities were generally available in Grameen Bank, BRAC, Asha, Buro Bank, TMSS, ASOD, SDS and BRDB. The process of getting loan from these institutions was easy, there were little formalities for getting NGO initiated microcredit. The government Bank/ institution‟s requirement for credit was not so easy, they wanted different types of

47

documents, so the poor did not take this loan. They also acknowledged that they did not know the proper way of getting loan from government institutions. They hardly got any financial services, namely microcredit, bank loan from the government agencies. Because of their financial insolvency and landlessness they were not qualified to get bank loan. As per bank rules, they were to submit their legal land deeds with uptodate paid up land taxes, development taxes, etc. in order to get the production loan / credit from the formal financial institutions (Krishi Bank, and such other national credit banks (NCBs) - Sonali, Janata, Rupali etc.). Since they did not have land mortgaged ability, they were not eligible to get loan from the formal banking sector. On further queries about other sources of loan, they however informed that they managed such production credit from the non-banking institutions like money lenders/ usurers, neighbours, friends / relatives at an exorbitant rate of interest, by selling their advance labour or offering a lion portion of their farm products at the time of harvesting. To another question, what were the remedies to overcome such vulnerable or exploiting situation, many of them could not give proper replies but some suggested that if they were supported or guided by some powerful agencies, they could fight it out combinedly through forming societies or bargaining institutions as lobbyists.

A detail report of FGD can be seen in Annex XII.

3.3.5 Awareness on and access to Safety Net The findings reveal that more than 90% participants knew about the safety net programs prevailed in their villages regardless of the locations under survey (Table 3.3.5.1). It is also evident from the table that the highest proportion of participants in Kaonia (69.6%) approached the office of the respective govt. department for allocation of safety net support compared to less than 50% in Kurigram and Kaharol although awarenes level was similar across the locations. This situation could be primarily due to lagardness of the participants in Kurigram and Kaharol. The data also show that out of the participants approached the respectives offices, majority of them visited alone in Kaonia while in other locations the majority visited with others. Although highest awareness and approach of participants was found in kaonia, lowest proportion of participants (only 16%) received support from safte net program compared to participants in Kurigram (38.4%) and Kaharol (18.4%). This difference in acces to safety net program resulted in poor amount of support (only Tk. 860) for participants in Kaonia compared to that in other locations (about Tk. 12,000). The data also indicate that highest benefit per participant was observed in Kaharol (Tk. 555) followed by Kurigram (Tk. 417) while the lowest was in Kaonia (only Tk 43). Overall the findings imply that very poor responsiveness of the duty bearers in Kaonia resulted in lower establishment of access to safety net programs. The project therefore requires to build a strong advocacy network from grassrots to upazilla level as safety net programs are the largest programs of the government being implemented by more than a dozen of ministries and 30 departments.

Table 3.3.5.1: Awareness and access of target households to safety net programs

Type of awareness and Access Kaonia

(% Respondent) Kurigram

(% Respondent) Kaharol

(% Respondent)

Availability of govt, safety net program in the locality

99.2 93.6 96.8

Govt. dept. approached for getting support

69.6 46.4 44

Visit to their office

Visited alone 52.8 12 20.8

Visited with others 24 38.4 20

Support received

Received (%HH) 16 23.2 18.4

Amount received (Tk.)

860 12120 12760

Sample base 125 125 125

48

Name of the Safety net program The data from the table 3.3.5.2 below reveal that Vulnerable Group Development (VGD), Widdow Allowance and Old Age Allowance were popularly known to the majority participants (> 80%) regardless of locations. Test Relief, 100-day work and Disable Allowance were widely known by more than 50% participants in Kurigram and Kaharol. Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF) was popularly known in Kaonia (87%) followed by Kaharol (62%). Less than 40% participants in all the locations knew about food for work (FFW), cash for work (CFW) and lactating mother allowance with the lowest awareness in Kaonia (<15%). Overall findings imply that the participants of Kaonia were suffering from poor access to Test Relief, FFW, CFW, 100-day work, lactating mother allowance and disable allowance. However, the opinions of the participants require further validation with the respective govt. line agencies what is actually the status of safety net program to the poor farmers and fisher folks.

Table 3.3.5.2: Safety net programs available in the locality

Type of safety net program

Kaonia (% Respondent)

Kurigram (% Respondent)

Kaharol (% Respondent)

Test Relief 0.8 51.2 61.6

FFW 4.8 34.4 17.6

CFW 13.6 38.4 14.4

VGD 92.8 88.8 93.6

VGF 87.2 41.6 62.4

Widow Allowance 96.8 88.8 96.8

Old Age Allowance 88.8 89.6 94.4

100 day work 9.6 85.6 85.6

Breast feeding mother

3.2 27.2 38.4

Disable allowance 9.6 56.8 80

Sample base 125 125 125

Opinions of groups on Social Safety Net Programs Related Affairs When the participants were asked during FGD whether they are supported by the highly acclaimed social safety net (SSN) programs of the government, they seldom got such benefits except 100 days work program. VGD/VGF, Widow Allowance, Old age Allowance, Lactating mothers Allowance, Cash for Work and 80 days programme were provided by the government. Only few women / man got widow allowance or old age pension but in many cases women did not get old age allowance. The participants did not know the detail process of getting these services, they answered that “Union Parishad (UP) members know everything, we do not know.” On a query about their experience how they got such benefits, many narrated that the local UP members and chairmen maintained a list of such people (widow / old age men) but hardly distributed these benefits to the real suffering people. In most cases, they (Chairmen / members) consumed those benefits personally or submit fictitious list by dropping the real snuffers‟ names. They knew that the allowances were given through UP. But the poor eligible persons needed to pay money as bribe to be enlisted to the safety net programme. Even those who were paid, they did not get such benefits regularly rather, one or two times a year. As a result, their hardship went unabated since they could not mitigate their sufferings when they needed those supports urgently at the time of family crisis. A detail report of FGD can be seen in Annex XII.

49

3.3.6 Awareness on and access to UP (Union Parishad) Budget

The surveyed households were asked on the budget of Union Parishad so far. Less than 40% participants regardless of locations were aware of the budget, however the highest was in Kaonia compared to other locations (Table 3.3.6.1). Majority of them who were aware on the budget across all locations (24-36%) knew about the budget allocated for road/culvert of their village while poor proportion of participants (<10%) knew about the budget allocated for emergency relief, hat/bazar development, landless cooperative development and agriculture equipments in all the locations except higher awarenes (about 20%) on emergency relief in Kaharol. It is also evident from the table below that the participants mainly knew about the budget allocation from others in Kaonia (34.4%) while from the citizen charter in Kaharol (20.8%) and in Kurigram (15.2%). This difference in means of knowing budget may be attributed to more publicity of UP works through citizen charter in Kaharol and Kurigram compared to that in Kaonia. Almost none of the participant (<01%) participated during budget preparation of UP and a very neglegible proportion (<3%) was shared by UP after budget was prepared. This finding contradicts with the opinion of UP Chairman who narrated that the budget was prepared at ward level and the representative from poor people including poor farmers and fisher folks were included. They also added that they shared the budget publickly through meeting and miking. This means there is a gap between UP systems of involving poor people and claiming of poor people‟s right to be involved in UP system of budgeting. So, the project needs to facilitate publicity of UP activities and development of effective linkage between UP and the poor people in the project areas. Table 3.3.6.1: Awareness on and access of target households to UP budget

Type of awareness and Access Kaonia

(%Respondent)

Kurigram (%Respondent

)

Kaharol (%Respondent)

Awareness of HH on UP budget 36 24 23.2

Areas of budget allocated for locality

Road/culvert dev. 36.8 22.4 24

Emergency relief 5.6 7.2 19.2

Hat/Bazar dev. 7.2 5.6 12.8

Landless Cooperative Society

3.2 0 4.8

Agriculture equiptment 0 0 8.8

Means of knowing budget allocation

Participated during budget preparation

0 0 0.8

Through UP sharing meeting

2.4 2.4 0

Citizen Charter 1.6 15.2 20.8

Through others 34.4 1.6 0.8

Sample base

125 125 125

Opinions of groups on Union Parishad Budget related affairs When the participants of FGD were asked to express their opinions about their participation in the process of preparing the annual budget for their respective wards / union parishads, almost all of them echoed the same voice of ignorance about it. The participants never heard or participated in any UP budget preparation process or Ward meeting as these were never organized. (During discussion of this point, a UP member suddenly came and

50

protested about not holding UP budget, moreover, he claimed that they tried hard, but people did not attend the budget preparation meeting).They said that the concerned UP Chairmen and members prepared it by themselves sitting at their Union Offices. They were neither consulted on this issue nor the amount and volume of the budget was made public. The participants also did not know about UP budgeting process or Ward meeting. The Ward member was neighbor of the FGD participants. So he shared the plan of development informally with the participants. But it is interesting to note that the concerned officials got singed a long list of such issue by them every year. They were never informed of what purpose they (Officials) were collecting such signatures rather they were asked to sign it. When further asked to provide their opinions on their roles in this regard, they replied that they did not seem to have any role on the issue since they were poor and neglected segment of the society. Poor are always helpless and functionless unless they are organized systematically. A detail report of FGD can be seen in Annex XII. 3.4 Gender Analysis (women and men status in family, society, role in decision

making process related to food security interventions) As per log-frame of the project, the OVI of Result – 1 is “At least 162,500 (50000 in Bangladesh) women and men (data disaggregated by gender) pledge support for initiatives to protect vulnerable farmers’ and fisherfolk’s right to food security and ensure their participation in decision making related to food security”. This relates to increase in the level of involment and participation in different decision making processes. Therefore, the level of involvement and participation in decision making process is measured at the initial stage of the project so that the effect of the project interventions can be seen compared to the baseline. Among the various other mechanisms, current scenario with women empowerment was examined with the selected participants during the baseline survey. This issue was verified through examining land ownership, food intake and mobility of women and their role in decision making process in the family and in the society. 3.4.1 Land ownership as affected by gender Generally in Bangladesh the land ownership of women is very low which is reflected in this baseline survey. The findings reveal that most of the land assets were owned by men in different types (Homestead, cultivable, pond, fallow land, bamboo bushes etc) across the location of the project (Table 3.4.1.1). Land ownership of women ranges from only 0.8 to 6.4 % of households (HH) where homestead ownership of women was found higher in Kaonia followed by Kurigram. Joint ownership of women and men was also very insignificant ranging from 0.8 to 2.4%. Land is an important element of social status, but unfortunately women are still in a disadvantaged position in this regard resulting in potential low level of empowerment at the family level as well as in the society.

Table 3.4.1.1: Status of land owned by women and men of the target households

Land Type District Amount

/HH (Decimal)

Land Ownership (%)

Women Men Both Sample

base

Homestead

Kaonia 6.10 6.4 78.4 1.6 125

Kurigram 3.42 4.8 59.2 1.6 125

Kaharol 7.00 0.8 92.8 2.4 125

51

Cultivable

Kaonia 2.10 0 12.8 0 125

Kurigram 3.30 0.8 15.2 0 125

Kaharol 29.80 1.6 39.2 2.4 125

Pond

Kaonia 0 0 0 0 125

Kurigram 0 0 0 0 125

Kaharol 1.33 0 9.6 0.8 125

Fallow land

Kaonia 0 0 0 0 125

Kurigram 0 0 0 0 125

Kaharol 1 0 0.8 0 125

Bamboo bushes/forest/others

Kaonia 0.23 1.6 0 0 125

Kurigram 0.66 0.8 0 0 125

Kaharol 1.42 0 13.6 0.8 125

3.4.2 Food intake and mobility status in the family and society

The data disaggregated by gender presented in the figure 3.4.2.1 below reveal that the situation of taking 3 meals a day was the highest for male (as per opinion of 90.4% HH) in Kaharol which was close to female (as per 84.4% HH). But the situation of taking 2 meals a day was the highest for both female (as per 67% HH) and male (as per 63% HH) in Kaonia and similar was the case in Kurigram where both female (as per 50% HH) and male (as per 47.2% HH) usually took 2 meals a day. The data also indicate no significant discrimination in number of meals taken a day was prevailed between female and male regardless of locations, however a majority participants in Kaonia and Kurigram went hungy due to lack of 3 meals a day. The better situation of 3 meals a day in Kaharol could be attributed to the higher land holding and income level of participants compared to those in Kaonia and Kurigram.

Female Male Female Male Female Male

Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol

32.8 36.8 33.6 32.8

84.890.4

67.2 63.2

50.4 47.2

126.4

0 0

16 20

3.2 3.2

Status of food intake per day as affected gender

3 meals 2 meals 1 meal

Figure 3.4.2.1: Status of food intake as affected by gender The figuure 3.4.2.2 below shows that the situation of taking meals by female and male together was highest in Kaonia as per opinion of 58% female and 62 % male followed by

52

the situation of taking meals together in Kurigram. However, the sitation of taking meals together and meals taken by female after male was recorded at par ie, 50:50. There was no signicant situation of taking meals by male after female (below 5% opinion). This finding indicate that the participants in Kaonia and Kurigram were more advanced in women empowerment compared to those in Kaharol as the sharing of food together is one of the basic indicator for measuring women empowerment in the family.

Female Male Female Male Female Male

Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol

57.661.6

38.4 39.2

52 50.4

40.836.8

59.256

48 49.6

1.6 1.6 2.4 4.80 0

Time of meals taken as affected by gender

Meals taken TogetherMeals taken Female after maleMeals taken Male after female

Figure 3.4.2.2: Time of meals taken as affected by gender

Food items taken and mobility as affected by gender

The data given in the table 3.4.2.1 below reveal that there was a disparity of taking different items between female and male when in general the nutritious and costly food like milk and fruits were not taken by female in Kaonia and the lower intake of the same by female was recorded in Kaharol. Although other food items were taken by a close proportion of female and male, very poor proportion of female and male took meat (about 10%) and egg (22-24%) in Kurigram compared to other locations. The findigs indicate that women participants in kaonia and Kahorol could be at threat to malnutrition due to poor intake of milk and friuits, and both male and female in Kurigram were at threat to malnutrition due to poor intake of meat and egg.

It is also evident from the table that males were higher in proportion who worked in the crop field (>60%) and purchased food items from the market (100%) in all the locations. Nonetheless, more than 30% females also worked in the crop field regardless of locations and the highest was in Kaharol (42.4%). Females purchasing food items from the market was less evident in Kaharol (only 10.4%) compared to other locations and the highest was in Kaonia (28.8%). The situation of participation in village shalish committee was found very poor for both female and male participants across the locations (below 20%) and it was even worse for female (below 5%). The findings indicate that females of Kaharol was more involed in agriculture in the field which may be primarily due the higher ownership of land and the same was true for females in Kaonia but more mobility to market which may be due to higher urbanization at the down town of Rangpur. Overall the findings indicate a seriuos concern of poor involvement of poor female and male in the village shalish committee due to which the common interest of the poor people could have been bi-passed, and unfair justice could affect them as well.

53

Table 3.4.2.1: Status of food items taken and mobility as affected by gender

Status Kaonia (%HH) Kurigram (%HH) Kaharol (%HH)

Female Male Female Male Female Male

Food items generally taken by female and male

Rice 100 100 100 100 100 100

Fish 72.8 83.2 56.8 56.8 75.2 75.2

Meat 32.8 33.6 9.6 10.4 45.6 46.4

Egg 65.6 72.8 22.4 24 58.4 59.2

Vegetable 81.6 77.6 96.8 96 97.6 97.6

Dal 48 41.6 88 88.8 79.2 79.2

Vorta 35.2 34.4 80.8 82.4 69.6 69.6

Milk 0 0.8 8.8 8.8 48.8 54.4

Fruit 0 7.2 0 0 39.2 44

Others 0 0 0 0 5.6 6.4

Working in the crop field 38.4 68 38.4 70.4 42.4 84.8

Purchasing food items from the market 28.8 100 19.2 100 10.4 100

Participation in the village shalish committee 0 20.8 2.4 1.6 3.2 17.6

3.4.3 Involvement in market/hat/bazar committee and in govt. committes

The data in the table 3.4.3.1 below reveal that none of the participants under survey either female or male were involved in the market/hat/bazar committee and therefore holding the positions in this committee is out of questions. However, a very few participants both female (7.2%) and male (12.8%) were involved in distribution of agriculture inputs and safety net supports from the government in Kaonia while no participants of Kurigram and Kaonia were involved in this distribution work. The involvement of participants in Kaonia was mainly in Unon and in agriculture office level for both female and male (3-4%). Overall the findings indicate that women empowerment is still behind in the project areas due to their poor involvement in local power structures. Table 3.4.3.1: Involvment of female and male in different committees

Status Kaonia (%) Kurigram (%) Kaharol (%)

Female Male Female Male Female Male

Involvement in the market/hat/bazar committee 0 0 0 0 0 0

Position in the market committee

Member 0 0 0 0 0 0

Secretary 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cashier 0 0 0 0 0 0

President 0 0 0 0 0 0

Involvement in distribution of govt. support (eg, safety net, fertilizer, seeds etc) for the poors 7.2 12.8 0 0 0 0

Location of involvement

Union Parishad 3.2 4.8 0 0 0 0

Agril. office 3.2 4 0 0 0 0

Livestock Office 0.8 2.4 0 0 0 0

Fisheries Office 0 1.6 0 0 0 0

54

3.4.4 Role in decision making process The role of women in decision making is not found to be satisfactory in any area. Despite the fact that the group under study has exposure to social development activities through the existing projects, there are a lot of areas for improvement. Special areas of concern are buying and selling properties, spending and enjoing money, use of loan and savings, income generating activities, participation in social mobilization events etc. In fact, these are the areas which indicate the actual empowerment and freedom of women at the family and society level. Decision in bying household food, cloths etc The data in the table 3.4.4.1 below reveal that according to highest proportion of participants in Kaonia (72%) female decided to buy small food items, groceries in consultation with the husband or other adalt while in Kurigram the majority participants (52%) agreed that household (HH) heads decided after discussion with wife and in Kaharol the majority (54%) agreed that male decided alone. Very few participants (<15%) agreed that female decided alone to buy food items regardless of locations. It is also evident from the table that the majority participants in Kaonia (79%) and in Kaharol (67.2%) agreed that female decided to buy cloths for their own and for their children in consultation with husband or with other adult while in Kurigram the majority (72%) said that HH heads decided to buy after discussion with wife. Overall findings indicate that the participants of Kaonia was more advanced in women empowerment compared to other locations while buying food items and cloths although female decided not alone but with husbands. However, further advancement in women empowerment was required in all locations so that female can decide alone to buy small food items and cloths. Table 3.4.4.1: Decision as affected by gender in buying food, cloths etc.

Status Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol

Female Male Female Male Female Male

Buying small food items, groceries

Decide alone 15.2 54.4 4.8 9.6 4 54.4

Decide with husband or with other adult 72 40.8 41.6 38.4 51.2 42.4

HH head decides after discussion with wife 0 0.8 45.6 52 0.8 3.2

Not involved in decision 5.6 0 4.8 0 0.8 0

Not applicable 7.2 4 3.2 0 43.2 0

Buying clothing for own and children

Decide alone 8 53.6 6.4 8.8 1.6 48.8

Decide with husband or with other adult 79.2 42.4 20.8 17.6 67.2 47.2

HH head decides after discussion with wife 0 0.8 66.4 72 0.8 3.2

Not involved in decision 4.8 0 4 0 2.4 0

Not applicable 8 3.2 2.4 1.6 28 0.8

Sample base 125 125 125 125 125 125

55

Decision in bying or selling household live assets The data in the table 3.4.4.2 below show that according to highest proportion of participants in Kaharol (>85%) and Kurigram (>40%) female decided to buy or sell livestock in consultation with the husband or other adalt while in Kaonia the majority participants (45%) agreed that male decided alone. It is also evident from the table that the highest proportion of participants in Kurigram (43%) and in Kaharol (78%) agreed that female decided to buy or sell poultry in consultation with husband or with other adult while in Kaonia the highest proportion (42%) said that male decided alone. Same picture as in buying or selling poultry was found true In case of buying or selling crop products. Very few participants (<10%) agreed that female decided alone to buy or sell livestock, poultry and crop products regardless of locations. Overall findings indicate that the participants of Kaharol and Kurigram was relatively more advanced in women empowerment compared to Kaonia in case of decision making for buying or seling livestock, poultry and crops although female decided not alone but with husbands. Overall findings indicate that women were not virtually empowered regardless of locationsw as female couldnot decide alone to buy or sell their live assets despite they were mainly involved in rearing poultry and livestock in particular. So, further advancement in women empowerment was required in all locations so that female can decide alone in this regard. Table 3.4.4.2: Decision as affected by gender in buying or selling live assets

Type of decision

Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol F

em

ale

Ma

le

Fem

ale

Ma

le

Fem

ale

Ma

le

Buying or selling Livestock

Decide alone 5.6 45.6 5.6 4.8 0.8 3.2

Decide with husband or with other adult 37.6 12 43.2 43.2 85.6 81.6

HH head decides after discussion with wife 0 0 31.2 32.8 0.8 4

Not involved in decision 4 0 0.8 0 0 0

Not applicable 52.8 42.4 19.2 19.2 12.8 11.2

Buying or selling Poultry

Decide alone 4 42.4 6.4 4 1.6 3.2

Decide with husband or with other adult 35.2 11.2 39.2 43.2 78.4 73.6

HH head decides after discussion with wife 0 0 35.2 23.2 0 4.8

Not involved in decision 3.2 0 0.8 0.8 0 0

Not applicable 57.6 46.4 18.4 28.8 20 18.4

Buying or selling Crops

Decide alone 4 36 4 3.2 0 2.4

Decide with husband or with other adult 22.4 8.8 42.4 30.4 72 67.2

HH head decides after discussion with wife 0 0 24.8 32.8 0.8 4.8

Not involved in decision 7.2 0 0 0.8 0 0

Not applicable 66.4 55.2 28.8 32.8 27.2 25.6

Sample base 125 125 125 125 125 125

Decision in bying or selling household material and natural assets The table 3.4.4.3 below show that according to highest proportion of participants in Kaharol (>26%) female decided to buy or sell jewelry in consultation with the husband or other adult

56

while in Kurigram highest proportion (33%) said that household decided after discussion with wife and in Kaonia the highest (30%) agreed that male decided alone. It is also evident from the table that the highest proportion of participants in Kurigram (36%) and in Kaharol (45%) agreed that female decided to buy or sell land in consultation with husband or with other adult while in Kaonia the highest proportion (31%) said that male decided alone. In case of buying or selling houses, highest proportion of participants in Kaharol (86%) and Kaonia (42%) agreed that female decided to buy or sell this asset in consultation with husband or with other adult while in Kurigram the highest proportion (36%) said HH head decided to buy or sell this asset after discussion with wife. While buying or selling boat/fishing net, it was evident that highest proportion of participants in Kurigram (35%) and in Kaharol (20%) agreed that female decided to buy or sell these assets in consultation with husband or with other adult while in Kaonia highest proportion (22%) agreed that male decided alone. The data across the type of decisions reveals that a significant proportion of participants said that the decision was not applicable for them indicating they did not own these assets becuase of poor status of their family. However, overall findings indicate that although the participants of Kurigram and Kaharol were relatively advanced in decision making process of women compared to those in other locations, the level of women empowerment in reality was still far behind regardless of locations as few female participants (<5%) were able to take decision alone at least for buying or selling their own jewelry. Table 3.4.4.3: Decision as affected by gender in buying or selling household material and natural assets

Type of decision

Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol

Fem

ale

Ma

le

Fem

ale

Ma

le

Fem

ale

Ma

le

Buying or selling Jewelry

Decide alone 3.2 30.4 3.2 3.2 0 0

Decide with husband or with other adult 15.2 8 30.4 30.4 26.4 22.4

HH head decides after discussion with wife 0 0 33.6 33.6 0 4

Not involved in decision 9.6 0.8 0 0 0 0

Not applicable 72 60.8 32.8 32.8 73.6 73.6

Buying or selling Land

Decide alone 3.2 31.2 3.2 4 0 0

Decide with husband or with other adult 14.4 7.2 36.8 36 45.6 40.8

HH head decides after discussion with wife 0 0 24.8 25.6 0 4.8

Not involved in decision 9.6 0 0.8 0 0 0

Not applicable 72.8 61.6 34.4 34.4 54.4 54.4

Buying or selling House

Decide alone 3.2 27.2 4 4 0 4

Decide with husband or with other adult 42.4 32.8 30.4 30.4 86.4 78.4

HH head decides after discussion with wife 0 0 35.2 36 0 3.2

Not involved in decision 9.6 0 0.8 0 0 0

Not applicable 44.8 40 29.6 29.6 13.6 14.4

Buying or selling Boat/Net

Decide alone 2.4 22.4 1.6 2.4 0 4

Decide with husband or with other adult 13.6 9.6 35.2 35.2 20 20

57

HH head decides after discussion with wife 0 0 20.8 21.6 0 1.6

Not involved in decision 9.6 0 0.8 0 0 0

Not applicable 74.4 68 41.6 40.8 80 74.4

Sample base 125 125 125 125 125 125

Decision in spending and enjoying mone being spent The table 3.4.4.4 below reveal that a joint decision was taken by the husband and wife for spending money that was earned in Kaharol (76% participants agreed female decided with husband) and in Kurigram (71% said HH heads decided with wife). While in Kaonia the situation was reverse as majority (63%) said that male decided alone. Similar picture was true to the decision for enjoing money that was spent regardless of locations. So, it indicates that among the participants of Kaonia female were still dominated by male in decision making process in this regard. Overall findings indicate that although the participants of Kurigram and Kaharol were relatively advanced in decision making process of women compared to other locations, the level of women empowerment in reality was still far behind regardless of locations as few participants (<10%) agreed that female were able to take decision alone for spending and enjoing money. Table 3.4.4.4: Decision as affected by gender in spending and enjoying money

Status Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol

Female Male Female Male Female Male

Spending money that was earned

Decide alone 8 63.2 6.4 8 2.4 48.8

Decide with husband or with other adult 54.4 31.2 21.6 18.4 76 46.4

HH head decides after discussion with wife 0 0.8 64.8 71.2 0 4

Not involved in decision 3.2 0.8 4 0 0.8 0

Not applicable 34.4 4 3.2 2.4 20.8 0

Total 100 100 100 100 100 99.2

Enjoying money that was spent

Decide alone 8 63.2 5.6 8 3.2 52

Decide with husband or with other adult 54.4 31.2 24 21.6 76 45.6

HH head decides after discussion with wife 0 0.8 64.8 70.4 0.8 2.4

Not involved in decision 4 0 4 0 0 0

Not applicable 33.6 4.8 1.6 0 20 0

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

Decision making process in use of loan and saving The data presented in the table 3.4.4.5 below reveal that majority participants in Kaonia (61%) and in Kaharol (84%) agreed that female decided to use loan in consultation with husband while in Kurigram the highest proportion (46%) said that HH heads decided after discussion with wife meaning a joint decision was prefered regardless of locations. Similar picture was true to the decision for using saving regardless of locations. So, it indicates that among the participants of Kaonia female were still dominated by male in decision making process in this regard. Overall findings indicate that the level of women empowerment in reality was still far behind regardless of locations as few participants (< 5%) agreed that female were able to take decision alone for using loan and savings despite they were basically burrowers of loan particluarly from NGO sectors.

58

Table 3.4.4.5: Decision as affected by gender in use of loans and savings

Type of decision Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol

Female Male Female Male Female Male

Use of loans

Decide alone 4 37.6 4 4 0.8 5.6

Decide with husband or with other adult 61.6 27.2 40.8 35.2 84.8 76

HH head decides after discussion with wife 0 0 39.2 46.4 0 6.4

Not involved in decision 1.6 0 0 0 0 0

Not applicable 32.8 35.2 16 14.4 14.4 12

Sample base 125 125 125 125 125 125

Use of savings

Decide alone 4 36.8 3.2 3.2 1.6 3.2

Decide with husband or with other adult 62.4 27.2 35.2 28.8 82.4 79.2

HH head decides after discussion with wife 0 1.6 35.2 41.6 0 2.4

Not involved in decision 1.6 0 0 0 0 0

Not applicable 32 34.4 26.4 26.4 16 15.2

Sample base 125 125 125 125 125 125

Decision in spending money for children welfare The table 3.4.4.6 below reveals that the majority participants in Kaharol (74%) and in Kaonia (59%) agreed that female decided with husband for spending money for children education while in Kurigram (58%) said HH heads decided after discussion with wife. It is also evident that highest proportions of participants among the type of decision taken were recorded in Kaharol (48%), Kurigram (45%) and Kaonia (26%) who agreed that female decided with husband for spending money for children marriage. In case of spending money for children medical treatment, majority participants in Kaharol (92%) and in Kaonia (77%) agreed that female decided with husband while in Kurigram (49%) said HH heads decided after discussion with wife. The data across the type of decisions reveals that a significant proportion of participants said that the decision was not applicable for them indicating either they did not have children yet or the children did not attain the age of schooling and or marriage. However, in no cases more than 10% participants agreed that female decided alone. So, it indicates that females were still dominated by male in decision making process in this regard. Overall findings indicate that although a joint dicision was taken between husband and wife regardless of locations in all the cases, the level of women empowerment in reality was still far behind. Table 3.4.4.6: Decision as affected by gender in spending money for children affairs

Type of decision Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol

Female Male Female Male Female Male

Children's education

Decide alone 8 32.8 4.8 5.6 0 1.6

Decide with husband or with other adult 59.2 39.2 31.2 25.6 74.4 71.2

HH head decides after discussion with wife 0 0 52 58.4 0 3.2

Not involved in decision 2.4 0 1.6 0 0 0

59

Not applicable 30.4 28 10.4 10.4 25.6 24

Children's marriage

Decide alone 3.2 20 4 5.6 0 0.8

Decide with husband or with other adult 26.4 17.6 45.6 40.8 48.8 47.2

HH head decides after discussion with wife 0 0 32 37.6 0 1.6

Not involved in decision 7.2 0 2.4 0 0 0

Not applicable 63.2 62.4 16 16 51.2 50.4

Children's medical treatment

Decide alone 7.2 37.6 5.6 6.4 1.6 4.8

Decide with husband or with other adult 77.6 48.8 34.4 29.6 92 89.6

HH head decides after discussion with wife 0 0 44 49.6 1.6 2.4

Not involved in decision 1.6 0 2.4 0 0 0

Not applicable 13.6 13.6 13.6 14.4 4.8 3.2

Sample base 125 125 125 125 125 125

Decision for participation in social mobilization events and NGO programs

The table 3.4.4.7 below shows that the highest proportion of participants in Kaonia (50%), in Kurigram (26%) and Kaharol (27%) agreed that female decided with husband for participation in social events organized by NGO. It is also evident that highest proportions of participants were recorded in Kaonia (60%) and in Kaharol (77%) who agreed that female decided with husband for becoming a member of NGO and receiving micro-credit while it was highest in Kurigram (35%) who said that husband decided after discussion with wife. In case of participation in advocacy campaign for women empowerment through network/alliance, majority participants (>70%) regardless of locations said this decision was not applicable for them indicating either the network/alliance was not available in their locality or they did not know this activity. Similar was also true to the other types of decision which indicate that either social events and NGO activities was not available or they did not know their activities. However, in no cases more than 7% participants agreed that female decided alone in this regard. So, it indicates that females were still dominated by male in decision making process. Overall findings indicate that although a joint dicision was taken between husband and wife regardless of locations in all the cases, the level of women empowerment in reality was still far behind.

Table 3.4.4.7: Decision as affected by gender for participation in social mobilization events and NGO programs

Type of decision making Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol

Female Male Female Male Female Male

Participation in the social event organized by NGO

Decide alone 6.4 42.4 4 3.2 0 8

Decide with husband or with other adult

50.4 20.8 26.4 26.4 17.6 27.2

HH head decides after discussion with wife

0 0 14.4 15.2 0 0

Not involved in decision

1.6 0 1.6 0.8 22.4 6.4

60

Not applicable 41.6 36.8 53.6 54.4 60 58.4

Become a member and receive micro-credit from NGO

Decide alone 6.4 38.4 6.4 3.2 0 11.2

Decide with husband or with other adult

60 27.2 36 32.8 77.6 63.2

HH head decides after discussion with wife

0 0 30.4 35.2 0 2.4

Not involved in decision

0 0 0 0 0 0

Not applicable 33.6 34.4 27.2 28.8 22.4 23.2

Participation in advocacy campaign for women empowerment through network/alliance

Decide alone 2.4 16.8 0 0 0 0.8

Decide with husband or with other adult

25.6 10.4 8 7.2 0.8 2.4

HH head decides after discussion with wife

0 0 1.6 1.6 0 0

Not involved in decision

0 0 0 0 0 0

Not applicable 72 72.8 90.4 91.2 99.2 96.8

Sample base 125 125 125 125 125 125

Decision for participation in Govt. activities regarding distribution of inputs and relief goods The table 3.4.4.8 below shows that majority participants (>60%) regardless of locations said that the decision for participation in govt. supported input distribution was not applicable for them indicating either the activity was not available in their locality or they did not know this activity. Similar was also true to the other decision for participation in distribution of relief goods which indicates that either this activity was not available or they did not know this activity. However, the highest proportion in Kaonia (33%) and in Kaharol (only 3%) agreed that female decided with husband for participation in input distribution while it was highest in Kurigram (12%) who said husband decided after discussion with wife. It is also evident that highest proportions of participants who decided in Kaonia (25%), Kurigram (5%) and in Kaharol (3%) agreed that female decided with husband for participation in distribution of relief goods. However, in no cases more than 04% participants agreed that female decided alone. Overall findings indicate that although a joint dicision was taken between husband and wife regardless of locations in all the cases, the level of women empowerment in reality was still far behind. Table 3.4.4.8: Decision as affected by gender for participation in distribution of govenment inputs and relief goods

Type of decision making Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol

Female Male Female Male Female Male

Input distribution

Decide alone 3.2 25.6 2.4 0.8 3.2 1.6

Decide with husband or with other adult

33.6 11.2 4.8 5.6 0 3.2

HH head decides after

0 0 12 12 0 0

61

discussion with wife

Not involved in decision

0 0 0 0 0.8 0

Not applicable 63.2 63.2 80.8 81.6 96 95.2

Distribution of relief goods

Decide alone 2.4 17.6 0 0 0 0.8

Decide with husband or with other adult

25.6 9.6 5.6 5.6 3.2 3.2

HH head decides after discussion with wife

0 0 1.6 1.6 0 0

Not involved in decision

0 0 0 0 0 0

Not applicable 72 72.8 92.8 92.8 96.8 96

Sample base 125 125 125 125 125 125

Decision for participation in Govt. Committee for technical support and training The table 3.4.4.9 below reveals that majority participants (>60%) regardless of locations said that the decision for participation in govt. committes for technical support and training was not applicable for them indicating either the committee was not available in their locality or they did not know this committee. However, highest proportion in Kaonia (34%) and in Kaharol (only 4%) agreed that female decided with husband for participation in govt. committee for technical support while it was highest in Kurigram (10%) who said husband decided after discussion with wife. It is also evident that highest proportions of participants who decided in Kaonia (28%), Kurigram (10%) and in Kaharol (4%) agreed that female decided with husband for participation in govt. committee for training. However, in no cases more than 03% participants agreed that female decided alone. Overall findings indicate that although a joint dicision was taken between husband and wife regardless of locations in all the cases, the level of women empowerment in reality was still far behind. Table 3.4.4.9: Decision as affected by gender for participation in government committee for technical support and training

Type of decision making Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol

Female Male Female Male Female Male

Technical support

Decide alone 2.4 22.4 1.6 0.8 0 3.2

Decide with husband or with other adult

33.6 12.8 6.4 7.2 4 2.4

HH head decides after discussion with wife

0 0 10.4 10.4 0 0

Not involved in decision

0 0 0 0 0 0

Not applicable 64 64.8 81.6 81.6 96 94.4

Training

Decide alone 2.4 19.2 1.6 1.6 0 1.6

Decide with husband or with other adult

28 10.4 9.6 10.4 4 3.2

HH head decides after

0 0 8 8 0 0

62

discussion with wife

Not involved in decision

0 0 0 0 0 0

Not applicable 69.6 70.4 80.8 80 96 95.2

Sample base 125 125 125 125 125 125

Opinion of groups on the status of gender and their role in decision making process relating to food security and social standing During Focus Group Discussion the participants said that they usually took meals 3 times in a day that was prepared in the morning and evening. They ate generally rice, smashed Potato, Dal and sometimes fish (once daily or once in 2 days). They mentioned that as they were very poor, they did not have scope to prepare rich food or to discriminate while distributing food among family members. However, there was discrimination during distribution of food among male and female, as they needed to pay dowry for girl child, they fed girl child less than the future bread earner boy child. Traditionally, the women always eat after male persons and distribute better food to the male persons. Traditionally and habitually the women always offer better food (in terms of quality and quantity) to the bread owners and male child of the family. Some participants were found aware of giving better food to the girls‟ children as they experienced that a difficult time was waiting for girls in their future in laws house where they might not have freedom of taking food. Generally, better and larger portion of good food went to the men and male children and the remaining portion of food, if any, went to the women (mother) and female children. When there was work and food was available, they could share it among the family members in an appropriate manner as per social system as indicated above. On the contrary, in a situation (monga period) when no work, no food available, they used to go half-fed at one or hardly two meals a day or sometimes go hungry even not one meal a day. This means that women were the worst sufferers of the family compared to their male members resulting in food insecurity for the women who suffered most from malnutrition and short life expectancy. Participants also shared that there were culture of domestic violence (mostly wives were bitten by husband). Male and female both thought that it was normal, husband could beat his wife to control her and for her betterment. There were division of labour in the family and society. Males were responsible to go the field, market and to earn money. Men tried to do all outside work. Females did mostly household work,i.e. cooking, cleaning, child rearing including seed preservation and in-house crops processing including preparing and repairing nets. Poor women worked in the field also. At the societal level, specially growing crops or raising livestock / poultry birds and the marketing of such products, combined decision – making process seemed to have been prevailing among the male and female members of the family. There appeared to be hardly any dispute among them in this regard and the sale proceeds of farm products and livestock / poultry products were jointly shared by themselves since they spent those family incomes for their own welfare or children‟s clothes and educational expenses. Males were involved in Shalish and other decision making roles. Females did not participate in the Shalish or other social decision making activities. Sometimes when they felt curious, they saw Shalish from a far convenient place (where they could hide themselves). The also shared that female had no experience of Shalish or decision making activities; they were less meritorious, so females were not involved in these activities. They were hardly or never consulted by men.

63

But women had almost same role as those of men in the choice of procuring seeds, fertilizers and other farm inputs, cultivating what type of crops to be grown, livestock to be purchased and even selling of farm produce. In the case of marketing of those products men usually did it outside home but women also participated at homestead level and both men & women had almost equal role in this regard. Males usually took decision of buying or selling family assets, sometimes shared/ consulted with females of the family. Both spent their earnings for family expenditures. They spent money for themselves only in their urgent need. Regarding participation in the NGOs activities there was hardly any restriction on the part of women except for a very few conservative families might usually become members of NGOs and could participate in their training programs, receive microcredit provided by NGOs as per their adherence of rules and regulations. This facilitated their (women‟s) participation and empowered them to take decision in the activities launched by NGOs. However, before enlisting they consulted with their husband/ male members. Although women were involved in NGO initiated micro credit, the money was used in IGA by husbands. In general they did not have scope or experience of participation in any network, training or workshop. If they get the scope, they are interested to participate. Some women participated in CARE Bangladesh organized training and think that the training was good. A detail report of FGD can be seen in Annex XII. 3.5 Community understanding on climate change, Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)

and its effect on price hike, production and food security

As per log-frame of the project, OVI (Result – 1): “80% of target group members and fisher folk in the project countries have increased knowledge and understanding of potential threats to sustainable food security such as climate change, disaster, and food price volatility”. This relates to increase in the level of knowledge and understanding on the climate change and its effect on food security and livelihoods. Therefore, the level of knowledge and understanding is measured at the initial stage of the project so that the effect of the project interventions can be seen compared to the baseline.

3.5.1 Understanding of the effect of climate change

Bangladesh is very vulnerable to climate change. The country is mostly formed of low lying alluvial plains that are at risk by rising sea levels. Apart from these problems, Bangladesh frequently experiences natural calamities like floods, cyclones etc. Desertification in certain areas is also a problem. The baseline survey verified awareness level on climate change among the selected participants and the adaptation methods practiced.

Awarenes level on climate change The figure 3.5.1.1 below reveals that the awareness of only 6% participants of the project was good while it was poor in 40% participants and the other 12% even did not know the issue. However, another 42% participants showed fair knowledge about climate change. This indicates that overall the awareness of project participants on climate change was below average. It is also evident that the awareness of majority participants in Kaharol (62%) on climate change was poor while that in Kaonia (63%) and in Kurigram (52%) was fair. This finding therefore indicates that although the participants of Kaonia and Kurigram were advanced in awareness on climate change compared to Kaharol, the level of understanding on climate change across the participants of locations was not up to the mark and thus requires updating the awareness and understanding of all the participants.

64

Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol All project area

5.611.2

1.66.1

63.2

52

11.2

42.1

30.426.4

62.4

39.7

0.8

10.4

24.8

12

Awareness on climate change (%HH)

Good Fair Poor Not known

Figure 3.5.1.1: Awareness level of target households on climate change Changes due to climate change The figure 3.5.1.2 below shows that majority respondents (65%) of the total HH under survey experienced in the past several years that it did not rain on time ie, lack of timely rainfall followed by high and low rainfall, untimely rainfall and cold wave (> 50% respondents), More than 40% participants in all locations said that there were changes in rainfall pattern and they experienced untimely rainfall, high and low rainfall. It is also evident that majority participants of Kaharol and Kurigram (>60%) experienced cold wave and frequent drought. About half of the participants in Kurigram (around 50%) experienced frequent and untimely flood. Rock rain was only experienced by majority participants in Kaharol (>60%). Overall findings indicate that high and low rainfall, untimely and lack of timely rainfall and cold wave were the major changes occurred according to majority participants of all locations. These changes eventualy resulted in flood and drought leading to damage of crops, livestock, fisheries, communication etc.

84

72.868

72.8

29.6

17.6

30.4

12

36.8

17.6

55.2

43.248

64.8

58.4

49.6

38.4

56.862.4

14.4

45.6 46.447.2

59.2

13.6 12.8

66.4 65.6 66.4

12

61.6

54.1 54.4

65.6

33.9

26.7

45.1 44.8

55.2

14.7

Changes experienced (%HH) due to climate change

Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol All project area

Figure 3.5.1.2 Changes experienced by target households due to climate change

65

Problems encountered due to climate change Climate change has exerted a number of negative impacts on the lives of ordinary people. The figure 3.5.1.3 below reveals that more than 80% of all participants of the project encountered crop damage due to climate change while more than 60% participants encountered unusual diseases (both animal and human) and more than one-third of them encountered livestock damage, production decline, loss of income and price hike. Simlar trend was also found in Kaonia, Kurigram and Kaharol where majority participants (>70%) encountered crop damage and more than one-fourth encountered livestock damage, production decline, loss of income and price hike. Among the locations, unusual disease (both animal and human) was encountered by the highest proportion of participants in Kurigram (81%) followed by more than 50% participants in Kaharol. The findings indicate the crop sector was mainly affected as per majority participants, which could be attributed to high and low rainfall, untimely and lack of timely rainfall as stated earlier. The resultant implication due to this impact may lead to a serious food insecurity of the poor people in these locations.

92.8

24 27.2

44.839.2 36

41.6

10.43.2

9.60.8

83.2

38.4 31.2

81.6

44 36.8

56.8

3.2 4.8

21.6

0.8

70.4

43.239.2

55.2

24

12.8

24.88.8

1.65.6

0

82.1

35.232.5

60.5

35.728.5

41.1

7.5 3.212.3

0.5

Problems encountered (%HH) due to climate change

Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol All project area

Figure 3.5.1.3: Problems encountered by target households due to climate change 3.5.2 Disaster risk reduction strategy and support from the government Disasters are sudden natural phenomena that disrupt the normal life of the people and put them in a vulnerable position. Sometimes the extent of these disasters reaches such an extreme level that the lives and the assets of the people become endangered. Natural disasters are sometimes inevitable. There is no way to escape from the wrath of the nature. But adequate preparation may reduce the losses caused by these natural calamities. The table 3.5.2.1 below shows that among all participants the highest proportion (39%) used alternate crop variety to adapt to climate change followed by 33% of them saved money and 26% sold their labor in advance at minimal rate. It is also evident that the majority participates in Kaonia (80%) used alternate crop variety to adapt to climate change induced disaster followed by half of them saved money, one-third raised homestead ground

66

and one-fourth stored food and seeds. In Kurigram, majority participants (60%) sold their labor in advance at minimal rate which was followed by one-fifth of them used alternate crop variety and raised homestead ground to adapt to disaster. In Kaharol, about one-fourth participants saved money and about one-fifth used alternate crop variety and stored food and seeds as adaptation strategies. The findings indicate that use of alternate crop variety, selling labor in advance at minimal rate, homestead ground raising, storage of food and seeds and saving money were the common coping mechanisms of the participants in project areas. The table also reveals that only few of all participants (12%) were aware of the govt. support available for disaster risk reduction and only 4% participants received govt. support. It is evident that one-third participants in Kurigram were aware of the govt. support available for disaster risk reduction while a few participants (<5%) in Kaharol and Kaonia were aware of this support. However, the picture of distribution of govt. support was found very discouraging as only 10% participants in Kurigram and almost none in Kaonia and Kaharol received support. The relatively better position in Kurigram compared to other locations could be due to existence of many NGOs working in the area of disaster mitigation along with advocacy to loby for govt. assistance.

Table 3.5.2.1: Disaster risk reduction strategy and support from the government

Type of strategy and support Kaonia (%HH)

Kurigram (%HH)

Kaharol (%HH)

All project (%HH)

Adaptation strategy to climate change

Use of alternate crop variety

80 19.2 18.4 39.2

Storage of food and seed 26.4 14.4 18.4 19.7

Homestead ground raising

36.8 19.2 0 18.7

Migrate to flood shelter 0.8 3.2 0.8 1.6

Migrate to flood free area 4 12 0.8 5.6

Selling animal and or assets before disaster

4.8 0.8 12 5.9

Selling labor in advance at minimal rate

9.6 60.8 8 26.1

Saving money 59.2 17.6 22.4 33.1

Others 0 8.8 33.6 14.1

Any support available in government agencies for disaster risk reduction (DRR)

Available 4.8 29.6 2.4 12.3

Know nothing 10.4 16 3.2 9.9

Any support ever received from govt. for DRR

Received 0 10.4 1.6 4

Opinion of groups on climate change, disaster risk reduction and their impact on food production and food security. During FGD When asked participants to ventilate their level of awareness and experience on the above issues, they seemed to have puzzling ideas, neither were fully aware nor

67

were completely ignorant about it. They felt that there were fluctuating environments like sometimes high temperature, too much cold, abnormal rainfalls or droughts prevailing in their locality. These led to cause disruption in life style, bad infrastructure and bad road communication resulting in poor food production, marketing of farm products, causing health hazards (fever, diarrhoea cold cough, pneumonia, illness of livestock), flood, river erosion causing shelter less etc. These were some of the impacts of climate change and disaster risks they perceived. They also observed crisis of water and fish occurred due to climate change. They expressed that they had no money, power, even required training, and so they felt that they had responsibilities to combat these problems. Regarding coping mechanisms, they explained immense suffering could be reduced by borrowing money from the informal money lenders at a high rate of interest or by going without food, or migrating to safer places. They did not know how to address these difficulties. They did not know about government provided disaster risk reduction services as there was no programme in this area. They also suggested that government agencies should come forward to help these sufferings humanity at their distress time. A detail report of FGD can be seen in Annex XII.

3.6 Participation of vulnerable farmers, fishers and woman with Upazila and district level network, in the decisions related to food security and in local government system

As per log-frame of the project, OVI of the Specific objective is “70% of target groups / networks undertake advocacy and lobby key decision makers and duty bearers in the project countries from the mid-point of the project” and OVI of the Result – 2 is “21,430 (10,000 in Bangladesh) target group members (60% women) organize in community, district and provincial level groups and networks in the three countries by mid-point of project”. This relates to increase in the involvement of majority participants including women in groups and network at different tiers of the administrative units of the project areas to influence duty bears in favour of their food security. Therefore, the level of the participant‟s involvement in different network is measured at the initial stage of the project so that the effect of the project interventions can be seen compared to the baseline. 3.6.1 Participation in different networks and benefit received (% HHs) The table 3.6.1.1 below shows that in general very poor participation of all participants under survey (<3%) in diiferent govt. committees, UP (Union Parishad) standing committee, CBO (Community Based Organization)/Federation and network/alliace was found while in respect of locations not more than 8% participants were involved. Among the locations, Kurigram was found in relatively better position in terms of participation in government livestock and fisheries sectors, UP standing committee, disaster management committee and CBO/Federation (altogether 10.4% participants). But the proportion of participants who received benefit from involvement in theses committes/networks was very poor (2.9 %) and even none received benefit in Kaonia. However, despite poor participation in general, 8% participants in Kaharol were involved in network/alliance at the village level and all of them received benefit from this network. This poor level of participation of participants in network/committee could be primarily due to lack of awareness and understanding of the benefit from doing so and also poor initiatives of NGOs and civil society to facilitate this process. Overall findings imply that a combined influence or pressure from the poor farmers and fisher folks are poor to make a significant advocacy and lobbying to the duty bearers for the benefit of their food security.

68

Table 3.6.1.1: Participation of target households in different networks and benefit received

Type of network Kaonia (%HH)

Kurigram (%HH)

Kaharol (%HH)

All project area (%HH)

Member of govt. agriculture sectors 0 0 0 0

Member of govt. Livestock sectors 0 1.6 0.8 0.8

Member of govt. Fisheries sectors 0 0.8 0 0.3

Member of UP standing committee 0 2.4 0 0.8

Member of Disaster Management Committee 0 3.2 0 1.0

Member of Market /Hat/ Bazar Committee 0 0 0 0

Member of CBOs/Federation 0.8 2.4 0.8 1.3

Membe of Network/Alliance of the village 0 0 8 2.7

Member of Network/Alliance of the Union 0 0 0 0

Member of Network/Alliance of the Upazilla 0 0 0 0

Member of Network/Alliance of the District 0 0 0 0

Member of Network/Alliance of the division/region 0 0 0 0

Any benefit received due to the above network/alliance 0 0.8 8

2.9

Sample base 125 125 125 375

Opinion of groups on their participation in government initiated food security related committees, services etc. During Focus Group Discussion (FGD), the participant said they did not know any information regarding committees and services. However they thought that the reach people, who were owner of ponds and khash water bodies, coul have gotten access to such committees or bodies. They did not know about the Standing committee of Union Parishads. They knew the importance of being members of alliances, federations, but they did not have scope to be involved. They only knew about an Agriculture Committee with 25 memberships. The committee gave suggestions to the farmer for better production. They said that some committees might be availablew in the Union Parishad (UP), but they were not active and did not provide any support to the community people. However, they felt if they would have formed any group, they could have been powerful to protest corruption and undertake better initiative for the development of their area. A detail report of FGD can be seen in Annex XII. 3.7 Effectiveness of existing legislative and institutional arrangement of food security as understood by the participants As per Log Frame of the project, the OVI of Result – 1 is “80% of 21,430 (10000 in Banladesh) target group members (60% women) in the project countries verbalize the major points of existing laws and policy related to food security and duty-bearers' responsibilities, and articulate their rights relating to food security, by the mid point of the project”. This relates to increase in the capacity of the project participants to understand the major ingridients of the existing laws and policies related to food security. Therefore, the level of understanding of the participant about different laws and policies is measured at the initial stage of the project so that the effect of the project interventions can be seen compared to the baseline. 3.7.1 Effectiveness of long term safety net programs The table 3.7.1.1 below reveals that majority participants (>50%) regardless of locations were aware on old age allowance and about on-third of them verbalized the age limit (57

69

years and above), amount of support (Tk. 300/month) and frequevcy (until death). However, very few participants (<5%) regardless of locations and only 2.7% of all participants mentioned Social Welfare department as the responsible organization. Similar observation was true to the case of widdow allowance of all participants in all loctions except relatively poor awareness in Kaonia (39%). It is also evident that a worse situation was noticed where only 4.3 % of all participants, and less than 8% participants and even none in all locations were aware on and could verbalize wellbeing limit, amount of support, frequency and responsible organizations for the lactating mother allowance. None was aware on khas land distribution law of the country. Overall finding indicate that poor understanding of majority participants on the existing laws could have eventually led to the minimal access of them to the benefit of these safety net programs. Table 3.7.1.1: Awareness of target households on the existing laws of safety net programs (long term)

Type of institutional arrangement Kaonia (%HH)

Kurigram (%HH)

Kaharol (%HH)

All project area (%HH)

Awareness on Old Age Allowance

Aware 52.8 80.8 56.8 63.5

Age limit (57 and above) 36.8 33.6 31.2 33.8

Amount of support (300Tk.) 37.6 53.6 41.6 44.3

Frequency (Until Death) 35.2 27.2 42.4 34.9

Responsible organization (Social Welfare)

4.8 0 1.6 2.1

Awareness on Widow Allowance

Aware 39.2 71.2 47.2 52.5

Wellbeing limit (extreme poor) 23.2 31.2 41.6 32.0

Amount of support (300Tk.) 28.8 38.4 33.6 33.6

Frequency (Until Death) 19.2 23.2 36 26.1

Responsible organization (UP)

15.2 19.2 15.2 16.5

Awareness on Brest Feeding Mother Allowance

Aware 0.8 7.2 4.8 4.3

Wellbeing limit (extreme poor) 0.8 0 4.8 1.9

Amount of support (300Tk.) 0 2.4 0 0.8

Frequency 0 0 0 0

Responsible organization (UP)

0.8 0 3.2 1.3

Awareness on govt. Khas land distribution for the poor

Aware 0 0 0 0

Wellbeing limit 0 0 0 0

Amount of support 0 0 0 0

Frequency 0 0 0 0

Responsible organization 0 0 0 0

Sample base

125 125

125

375

3.7.2 Effectiveness of mid-term safety net programs The table 3.7.2.1 below reveals that majority participants (>60%) regardless of locations were aware on vulnerable group development (VGD) and could verbalize the sex limit (female) and amount of support (30 kg/month) while about 40% knew frequency of support (yearly 2 times) and Union Parishad as responsible organization. Relatively better situation was found in Kaonia where more than 80% participants verbalized the above points of VGD law. Unlike VGD, only 13% of all participants knew vulnerable group feeding (VGF) and around 10% could verbalize amount of support, frequency and responsible organization. Among the locations, few participants of Kaharol and Kurigram (5-6%) knew about VGF although around one-third participants of Kaonia were found in a better position in this

70

aspect. It is also evident that a worse situation was noticed when none regardless of locations were aware on and could verbalize major ingredients of eligibility for receiving benefit from the khas water body as per govt. policy. Overall finding indicate that poor understanding of majority participants on the existing laws especially VGF and govt. policy for khas water bodies could have eventually led to the minimal access of them to the benefit of these safety net programs. Table 3.7.2.1: Awareness of target households on the existing laws of safety net programs (mid-term)

3.7.3 Effectiveness of short term safety net programs

It is evident from the table 3.7.3.1 below that a worse situation was noticed where less than 3% of all participants were aware on and could verbalize wellbeing limit, amount of support, frequency and responsible organizations for the food for work (FFW), rural maintenance program (RMP) and fertilizer subsidy. There was even none in all locations who were aware on and could verbalize the major ingridients of the laws of test relief and fund for mitigation of risks of natural disaster. However, about one-third of the total participants were aware on and could verbalize extrem poor as wellbeing limit, amount of support (Tk. 175/day) and Union Parishad (UP) as the responsible organizations of the 100-day work program. Among locations, more than half of participants in Kaonia and only one-third participants in Kurigram could verbalize the above ingidients of the 100-day work program. Moreover, less than 15% participants in Kaharol were aware on and could verbalize the major points of 100-day program. Overall finding indicate that poor understanding of majority participants on the existing laws could have eventually led to the minimal access of them to the benefit of these safety net programs.

Type of institutional arrangement Kaonia (%HH)

Kurigram (%HH)

Kaharol (%HH)

All Project

area (%HH)

Awareness on Vulnerable Group Development (VGD)

Aware 92 79 66 63.2

Sex limit (Femal) 91 71 66 60.8

Amount of support (30kg) 87 74 66 60.5

Frequency (Yearly 2 time) 85 38 31 41.1

Responsible organization (UP)

89 43 23 41.3

Awareness on Vulnerable Group Feeding (VGF)

Aware 38 6 5 13.1

Wellbeing limit (extreme poor)

30 1 0 8.3

Amount of support (Kg) 23 5 0 7.5

Frequency (Yearly 1 time) 36 4 0 10.7

Responsible organization (UP)

33 4 0 9.9

Awareness on eligibility for receiving benefit from the khas water body as per govt. policy

Aware 0 0 0 0

Fisher folk 0 0 0 0

Farmers 0 0 0 0

Others 0 0 0 0

Amount of support 0 0 0 0

Frequency 0 0 0 0

Responsible organization 0 0 0 0

Sample base

125 125

125

375

71

Table 3.7.3.1: Awareness of target households on the existing laws of safety net programs (short-term)

Type of institutional arrangement Kaonia (%HH)

Kurigram (%HH)

Kaharol (%HH)

All project area (%HH)

Awareness on Food For Work (FFW)

Aware 0 2.4 0 0.8

Well being limit 0 0 0 0

Amount of support (Tk. 175) 0 0.8 0 0.3

Frequency 0 0 0 0

Responsible organization 0 0 0 0

Awareness on Rural Maintenance Program (RMP)

Aware 4.8 3.2 0 2.7

Wellbeing limit (extreme poor) 4.8 0.8 0

1.9

Amount of support (Tk. 175) 2.4 0 0 0.8

Frequency (Yearly 1 time) 1.6 0 0 0.5

Responsible organization (UP) 2.4 0 0

0.8

Awareness on govt, 100-days work program

Aware 65.6 52.8 14.4 44.3

Wellbeing limit (extreme poor) 64 32.8 14.4

37.1

Amount of support (Tk. 175) 63.2 36 14.4 37.9

Frequency (Yearly 1 time) 3.2 8.8 3.2 5.1

Responsible organization (UP) 63.2 30.4 4.8

32.8

Awareness on Test Relief (TR)

Aware 0 8 0 2.7

Wellbeing limit 0 0 0 0

Amount of support 0 0 0 0

Frequency 0 0 0 0

Responsible organization 0 0 0 0

Awareness on Fund for Mitigation of Risks of Natural Disaster

Aware 0 0 0 0

Wellbeing limit 0 0 0 0

Amount of support 0 0 0 0

Frequency 0 0 0 0

Responsible organization 0 0 0 0

Awareness on Fertilizer subsidy for the farmers

Aware 0.8 0 5.6 2.1

Wellbeing limit ( Middle) 0.8 0 3.2 1.3

Subsidy in kind 0 0 0 0

Subsidy in cash 0 0 0 0

Responsible organization (Agriculture sector) 0.8 0 2.4

1.1

Sample base

125 125

125

375

3.7.4 Effectiveness of National Food Policy

The table 3.7.4.1 below shows that one-third of all participants were aware on the national food policy but less than 3% knew about the major ingredients of the policy except vaccination strategy of animals (17%) and rice plus fish production strategy (8%). A worse situation was found when less than 15% participants in Kaharol and even none in Kurigram were aware on national food policy and most of them did not know the major ingridients of this policy. However, majority participants in Kaonia (76%) were aware on this policy but most of them could not verbalize the major ingridients of the policy except vaccination

72

strategy of animals (44% participants) and rice plus fish production strategy (18%). Overall finding indicate that poor understanding of majority participants on the existing national food policy could have eventually led to the minimal access of them to the benefit of this policy.

Table 3.7.4.1: Awareness of target households on the existing National Food Policy

Ingridients of Food Policy Kaonia (%HH)

Kurigram (%HH)

Kaharol (%HH)

All project area (%HH)

Aware 76 0 13.6 29.9

Irrigation strategy 0.8 0 0 0.3

Agril input supply Strategy 0 0 0 0

Strategy non grain of production y 0 0 0 0

Investment Assistance and training strategy for non-cereal production 1.6 0 0.8

0.8

Vaccination strategy of animals 44.8 0 6.4 17.1

Rice plus fish production strategy 18.4 0 5.6 8.0

Credit access strategy 7.2 0 0 2.4

Price incentives for domestic food production 2.4 0 0

0.8

Consumer price support through Open Market Sales 0 0 0

0

Emergency food distribution from govt. stock 0 0 0

0

Support to women in income generating activity 0.8 0 0.8

0.5

3.7.5 Effectiveness of National Agricultural Policy

The table 3.7.5.1 below reveals that almost none of the total participants could verbalize major ingridients of the national agriculture policy, livestock development policy, fisheries policy and rural agriculture credit policy except integrated pest management (23%) and veterinary strategy of animal (13%). This indicates a very worse situation regarding effectiveness of these policies. However, majority participants of all locations (55%) and in Kaonia (92%) were aware on minimum wage for agricultural laborer although 28% of all participants and 45% participants in Kaonia could verbalize the minimum wage rate (Tk.200/person day). In Kaonia, the majority participants (>65%) were aware on the agriculture and could verbalize integrated pest management (IPM) strategy. In addition, more than 40% participants in Kaonia were aware on national livestock development policy and could verbalize vaccination strategy of this policy. However, most of them did not know about many other important ingridients of the existing policies. Overall finding indicate that poor understanding of majority participants on the existing national agricultural policies, minimum wage rate, and rural credit policies and their important ingredients could have eventually led to the minimal access of them to the benefit of these policies. This imply that the poor famers and fisher folk are in general exploited by the duty beares from the legal claim of their benefit, for example, share croppers are demanded by the krishi bank for land mortgage of the land owners but as per policy submission of deeds for share cropping is only the requirement.

73

Table 3.7.5.1: Awareness of target households on the existing National Agricultural policies

Type of institutional arrangement Kaonia (%HH)

Kurigram (%HH)

Kaharol (%HH)

All project area

(%HH)

Awareness on the National Agriculture Policy of Bangladesh

Aware 70.4 0 2.4 24.3

Crop production strategy 0 0 0 0

Quality seed production strategy 0 0 0

0

Integrated Pest Management Strategy 69.6 0 0.8

23.5

Mechanization strategy 0 0 0.8 0.3

Land acquisition strategy 0 0 0.8 0.3

Strategy for women in agriculture 0 0 0

0

Agricultural extension strategy 0 0 0

0

Women in agri. Extension 0.8 0 0 0.3

Awareness on National Livestock Development Policy of Bangladesh

Aware 44 0 1.6 15.2

Milk marketing strategy 0 0 0 0

Veterinary service strategy 40 0 0.8 13.6

One stop service center strategy 4 0 0

1.3

Demand led extension strategy 0 0 0

0

Fodder extension strategy 0 0 0.8 0.3

Women in livestock extension 0 0 0

0

Awareness on National Fisheries Policy of Bangladesh

Aware 2.4 0 8.8 3.7

Management strategy for open water bodies 0 0 0.8

0.3

Execution of fish conservation strategy 0 0 0.8

0.3

Management govt. owned khas pond and water bodies 0 0 4

1.3

Management strategy of Haor 0 0 0

0

Fish insurance systems 0.8 0 0.8 0.5

Credit assistance strategy 1.6 0 1.6 1.1

Women in fisheries extension strategy 0 0 0.8

0.3

Awareness on Minimum wage for agricultural laborer

Aware 92 73.6 1.6 55.7

Minimum wage (Tk. 200) 45.6 39.2 0.8

28.5

Awareness on rural agricultural credit policy

Aware 0 0 0 0

Credit receiving system for sharecropers/leasee 0 0 0

0

Priority crops for credit assistance 0 0 0

0

Sample base 125 125 125 375

74

Opinion of groups on management and implementation of existing laws/policies and institutions relating to Food Security and Decision making Processes. From the discussion with the participants during Focus Group Discussion (FGD), it transpires that they had hardly any clear cut idea or knowledge about the existing rules and regulations and institutional strategies relating to food security and decision making processes at the local community level. They tended to be quite uninformed about the procedures and operations of social safety net programs, budgetary provision of Union Parishad, subsidies on poor agricultural community, agricultural policy, food policy, fisheries and livestock policy, khas land policy and management and operation of water bodies (Jalmahals) policy and their implementation procedures. However, they knew about some information about government services and safety net programme, but did not know the process and where they could avail these services. They knew about poor‟s rights on khash land and water bodies, but they did not have scope of exercising the rights. It was suggested that they deserved to be motivated through intuitional frame work and were made aware of their rights and privileges to have an access to the community resources. Genuine stakeholders and lobbyists through vigorous efforts of government, NGOs, Private sectors, CBOs etc. should take initiative combinedly in order to upscale their fortunes. A detail report of FGD can be seen in Annex XII. 3.8 Participation of vulnerable farmers, fishers and woman in capacity building training As per Log Frame of the project, the OVI of Result – 2 is “at least 13,730 [BGD 3,500, NEP 1,230, PAK 9,000] target group and network members (60% women) trained in essential disciplines such as leadership, social mobilization, advocacy, monitoring, participatory planning, and use of social accountability tools”. This relates to increase in the capacity of the project participants through training on different social empowerment issues related to food security. Therefore, the level of training received by the participants on these issues is measured at the initial stage of the project so that the training needs of the participants can be gauzed during the project period.

3.8.1 Participation of vulnerable farmers, fishers folk and women in capacity building training

The table 3.8.1.1 below reveals that very few participants (<5%) across the locations received training on leadership, social mobilization, advocacy, monitoring, participatory planning, and use of social accountability tools. This finding indicates that most participants require trainings on these areas so that they become competent to conduct advocacy and lobbying to the duty bearers in order to make them responsive to establish an effective access of poor farmers and fisher folks to services and resources of the government. Table 3.8.1.1: Participation of target households in capacity building training

Type of institutional arrangement Kaonia Kurigram Kaharol

Training received on Leadership development

Received 4.8 3.2 1.6

Duration up to 6 days 4.8 2.4 1.6

Duration up to 10 days 0 0.8 0

Training received 1-6 months ago 4 2.4 0.8

Training received 7-12 months ago 0.8 0 0

Training received > 12months ago 0 0.8 0.8

Training received on Social Mobilization

Received 0.8 0.8 2.4

Duration up to 6 days 0.8 0.8 2.4

Training received 1-6 months ago 0.8 0 1.6

75

Training received 7-12 months ago 0 0 0

Training received > 12months ago 0 0 0.8

Training received on Advocacy

Received 0 0.8 2.4

Duration up to 6 days 0 0.8 1.6

Duration up to 10 days 0 0 0.8

Training received 1-6 months ago 0 0 0.8

Training received 7-12 months ago 0 0 0

Training received > 12months ago 0 0 1.6

Training received on Monitoring

Received 0 0.8 0

Duration up to 6 days 0 0.8 0

Training received 1-6 months ago 0 0 0

Training received 7-12 months ago 0 0 0

Training received > 12months ago 0 0 0

Training received on Participatory Planning

Received 0 0.8 0.8

Duration up to 6 days 0 0.8 0.8

Training received 1-6 months ago 0 0 0

Training received 7-12 months ago 0 0 0

Training received > 12months ago 0 0 0.8

Training received on use of social accountability tools

Received 4.8 0.8 0

Duration up to 6 days 4.8 0.8 0

Training received 1-6 months ago 4 0 0

Training received 7-12 months ago 0.8 0 0

Training received > 12months ago 0 0 0

Training received on the area other than the above trainings

Received 7.2 2.4 13.6

Key Findings and Recommendations Targeting of project paticipants

Targeting of project participants in Kaharol was skewed towards a little better off people compared to that in other locations. The project should replace better-off people with poor farmers and fisher folks in Kaharol.

General awareness, advocacy and technical support

Occupation as own agriculture and share cropper was limited due to poor land holdings for agriculture. So, increased access of these participants to the improved technologies and technical support is required for utilization of their tiny homesteads through income generating activities.

Participants in Kaonia and Kurgram need special attention for improvement of their livestock sectors due to shortage of own agriculture land. Livestock are considered as moveable assets and as a life boat for women as well. Thus, the participant being mostly landless, requires better service delivery of technical supports from the government line agencies at least for scientific management of existing livestock health care.

Poor status of latrine in Kurigram does not comply with the current massive drive of the government for ensuring 100% sanitation in rural areas. So, local government through union parishad could be sensitized by the project interventions.

76

Awareness on and access to agricultural services, khas land, open water bodies, rural credit, safety net and UP services of the government

Although services are available in the government line agencies, poor farmers and fisher folks are not receiving the benefit due to lack of awareness leading to their poor development in these sectors. Neither the pressures are created from the duty holders nor the response is made from the duty bearers, and thus the project needs to work on both sides to create happy marriage between the two – claim or pressure versus response.

There is ample opportunity for the poor participants to get access to the khas lands as these lands are mostly kept unallocated or not used by any body. However, the opinions of the participants require further validation with the land department what is actually the status of these khas lands.

The participants of Kurigram were suffering from poor access to credit regardless of credit institutions although many NGOs and banks are available in this area. However, the opinions of the participants require further validation with the credit institutions especially the government banks what is actually the status of credit disbursement to the poor farmers and fisher folks as per existing rural credit policy.

Very poor responsiveness of the duty bearers resulted in lower establishment of access to safety net programs. The project, therefore, requires to building a strong advocacy network from grassrots to upazilla level as safety net programs are the largest programs of the government being implemented by more than a dozen of ministries and 30 departments.

Almost none of the participants participated during budget preparation of Union Parishad (UP) and a very neglegible proportion was shared by UP after budget was prepared. This contradicts with the opinion of UP Chairman. This means that there is a gap between UP systems of involving poor people and claiming of poor people‟s right to be involved in UP system of budgeting. So, the project needs to facilitate publicity of UP activities and development of effective linkage between UP and the poor people in the project areas.

Gender Analysis (women and men status in family, society, role in decision making process related to food security interventions)

The findigs indicate that women participants could be at threat to malnutrition due to poor intake of milk and friuits, meat and egg due to discrimination between female and male. So, the project should provide awareness raising training to the female participants and their husband or male counterpart together on equitable family nutrition.

There was a seriuos concern of poor involvement of female and male from the poor communities in the village shalish committee due to which the common interest of the poor people could have been bi-passed, and unfair justice could affect them as well. So, the project should involve the village leaders or matabbar, imam of the mosque, informal youth club members, rich and influential people as the secondary participants so that they are motivated to create space for the primary participants –the poor female and male in the shalish meeting.

Although a joint dicision was taken between husband and wife regardless of locations in decision making processes for both internal and external affairs of household, the level of women empowerment in reality was still far behind as they cannot decide alone and enjoy the outcome of the decision in their favor. Therefore,

77

the project should provide awareness raising training to the female participants and their husband or male counterpart together on gender and women rights.

Community understanding on climate change, Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and its effect on price hike, production and food security

The level of understanding on climate change across the participants of locations was not up to the mark, and thus the project requires updating the awareness and understanding of all the participants.

Crop sector was mainly affected as per the opinion of majority participants, which could be attributed to high and low rainfall, untimely and lack of timely rainfall. The resultant implication due to this impact may lead to a serious food insecurity of the poor people in these locations. So, the project needs to develop a special agriculture program like adjustment of cropping patterns and the crop varieties, flood and drough tolerant crops, short duration crops etc together with a strong linkage with the department of agriculture.

Selling labor in advance at minimal rate was found one of the common coping mechanisms of the participants in project areas, which eventually binds them in a vicious cycle of poverty. There are best practices available in northwest Bangladesh where some NGOs like RDRS, SEED etc. organized poor climate victims to operate a village rice bank from which they burrow rice during disaster and return the same amount when situation is normal. So, the project should explore the similar best practices for replication in the project areas and also should develop a formal linkage with the rural credit systems of the government bank.

Participation of vulnerable farmers, fishers and woman with Upazila and district level network related to food security and in local government system

There was a poor level of participation of participants in network/committee primarily due to lack of awareness and understanding of the benefit from doing so and also poor initiatives of NGOs and civil society to facilitate this process. This means that a combined influence or pressure from the poor farmers and fisher folks are poor to make a significant advocacy and lobbying to the duty bearers for the benefit of their food security. So, the project should give massive efforts to facilitate grass-roots network with poor farmers and fisher folks involving local NGOs, Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and civil society members.

The local authorities and non-state actors are not in a position to provide sufficient considerations for the poor / extreme poor to ensure their economic development. Participation of the community, especially poor/extreme poor etc in the planning process and decision making in Union Parishad and other government departments is not at an acceptable level. Partnership with local government and other government line agencies is very important to gear up the CBO activities. So, more networking and partnership needs to be developed within the project period are essential.

Effectiveness of existing laws and policies related to food security

Poor understanding of majority participants on the existing laws could have eventually led to the minimal access of them to the benefit of safety net programs. Similarly, there was a poor understanding of the govt. officials at upazilla level on the availability of existing laws and policies of the country. So, the project should provide orientation to the duty bearers, which they also demanded during KII and provide awareness training to the project participants through pictorial materials

78

translating messages of the laws and policies related to the rights and entitlements of poor farmers and fisher folks

Poor famers and fisher folk are in general exploited by the duty beares from the legal claim of their benefit, for example, share croppers are demanded by the krishi bank for land mortgage of the land owners but as per policy submission of deeds for share cropping is only the requirement. So, the project needs a special drive for policy advocacy with the high officials of Bangladesh Bank or other banks at national level.

Participation of vulnerable farmers, fishers folk and woman in capacity building training

Most participants require trainings on leadership, advocacy, social mobilization, gender and women rights etc, so that they become competent to conduct advocacy and lobbying to the duty bearers in order to make them responsive to establish an effective access of poor farmers and fisher folks to services and resources of the government. So, the project ensures these training to them during the project period.

Conclusion

It is important that Oxfam GB has taken initiative to do the baseline in line with objectively verifiable indicators (OVI) of log-fram of the project at the initial stage of it‟s implementation. The OVI of the project is mostly based on the rights and entitlement of poor farmers and fisher folks related to their food security and so it is difficualt to collect the information from the grass-roots level and summarize the same for users. Despite all limitations, this survey has generated extensive pool of data on indicators concerning the socio-economic condition of the population and level of their acces to entitlement of services and resources of the government. The survey results show a number of positives as well identifying scope for measuring impact of the project, which help the project show the changes compared to the base line. In general, this survey portrays socio-economic situation as well as awareness and skills of the project participants on the acces to services and resources of the duty bearers. Overall, the beneficiary households report low asset base, limited income opportunities, non-participation at local authorities and minimal skills in matters regarding their rights. Food security situation with them is poor with seasonal differences. The common lack of access to services and resources and climate change induced disasters further binds them into poverty trap.

A picture clearly comes out from this survey that there is a huge potential of developing access of poor farmers and fisher folks to financial services, agricultural management, access to safety-net programme and many other entitlements. Data of this baseline survey can be used for addressing the gaps of project that will help implement activities efficiently leading to the attainment of the project objectives.

References 1. Statistical Year Book 2010 2. Oxfam project proposal 3. Project Logical Frame-work 4. Baseline Survey Terms of Reference 5. Social mapping in Kaharol, Kaonia and Kurigram Sadar Upazilla 6. Project Participant Lists