07 Inclusive Development Approach: Outcomes and Impacts from Homestead Based Production

From Blue Gold Program Wiki

Around 30% of the polder households do not have the necessary access to land or family labour to benefit from improved cropping systems - delivered through DAE FFSs and made possible by the rehabilitation of water management structures. These households rely on homestead land for part of their income. For such households, a more inclusive Farmer Field School (FFS) program for homestead production was implemented to improve their food security, nutrition, and their overall living standard. Chapter 25 provides more detailed information on how homestead production was enhanced within the Blue Gold Program through homestead FFSs. Most data in this chapter is from the household survey 2021, which complemented the 2021 WMG survey.[Notes 1]

From 2013 to 2021 fifteen cycles of 1,178 FFS were implemented for 25 farmers per FFS. In total 1,806 modules were delivered, covering homestead gardening (vegetables and fruit), poultry rearing, pond aquaculture, beef fattening and nutrition. From cycle 11 onwards, market orientation was part of the homestead FFS. The male / female ratio in the groups was initially set at a minimum of 50% women but - in practice – varied according to local demand. Overall, 87.6% of the participants were women.

Homestead vegetables production[edit | edit source]

Data from the household survey that was part of the 2021 WMG survey shows that most households (79%) grow homestead vegetables; this proportion has increased slightly since the start of BGP (Table 7.1). Vegetable sales are reported by 27% of households, or 34% of those growing vegetables. Compared to the other land holding groups of the households, landless and marginal landowning households are less likely to grow or sell vegetables, and households from these groups that do grow vegetables, produce and sell smaller volumes. This is not unexpected as they have less homestead land available.

Table 7.1: Homestead vegetables

Land ownership Grow homestead vegetable Sell Annual value (BDT)
2014-15 2020-21 Vegetables production sales costs
landless 62% 65% 13% 1,892 1,092 213
marginal 76% 78% 28% 3,293 2,484 459
small 86% 87% 32% 4,080 2,790 559
medium 86% 87% 37% 6,128 4,825 1,017
large 94% 94% 32% 7,074 5,752 1,055
total 77% 79% 27% 3,524 2,527 492
Khulna 69% 71% 31% 3,903 2,561 598
Satkhira 84% 89% 27% 2,081 1,460 230
Patuakhali 87% 87% 21% 3,683 3,114 470
Percentage of all households, average value for those households reporting. Source: HH survey 2021

Households in Satkhira more likely to grow vegetables, but if they do, production and sales are relatively low. In contrast, households in Khulna are less likely to grow vegetables, but if they do, production and sales are higher.

Homestead fruit production[edit | edit source]

A higher proportion of all households (94%) report producing homestead fruit than homestead vegetables (79%), and the average value of production is 44% higher (Table 7.2). Slightly more households sell fruit (30%) than vegetables (27%) and the average value of fruit sales is 48% higher than the average value of vegetable sales. With limited space landless (and to a lesser extent marginal) land owning households are less likely to grow and sell fruit, and the average value of their production and sales is lower. Slightly fewer households produce fruit in Satkhira, and the average value of production is lower. Fewer households here also sell vegetables, with the average value of sales being lower.

Table 7.2: Homestead fruit

Land ownership Grow homestead fruit Sell Annual value (BDT)
2013-14 2020-21 fruit production sales costs
Landless 68% 70% 10% 2,061 2,026 201
Marginal 96% 96% 30% 3,991 3,106 399
Small 99% 99% 39% 6,771 4,521 743
Medium 99% 99% 44% 10,400 7,490 1,327
Large 99% 99% 51% 13,903 8,630 1,519
Total 91% 92% 30% 5,078 3,734 550
Khulna 91% 92% 40% 5,579 3,730 642
Satkhira 86% 88% 22% 3,191 2,453 345
Patuakhali 94% 94% 19% 5,103 4,708 478
Percentage of all households, average value for those households reporting. Source: HH survey 2021

Commercial fruit production[edit | edit source]

In total, 3.4% of project sample households are commercial (i.e. orchard) fruit growers (Table 7.3). This is almost 10% in Satkhira and almost none in Patuakhali. Commercial mango production is popular on the high land in Satkhira. Although only 2.8% of households in Khulna are commercial fruit growers, the average area and value of fruit grown is larger than in the other zones. As would be expected, these growers are predominantly medium and large land owners.

Table 7.3: Commercial fruit

Land ownership Producers Area Value - BDT per year
% of HH decimals Income costs
landless 0.5% 50 40,000 80,000
marginal 1.0% 9 5,500 700
small 4.1% 27 14,000 1,800
medium 17.2% 54 42,349 10,008
large 21.6% 96 66,560 11,980
total 3.4% 27 18,527 17,527
Khulna 2.8% 22 16,650 18,171
Satkhira 10.5% 14 7,994 1,246
Patuakhali 0.2% 7 6,701 543
Percentage of all households, average value for those households reporting. Source: HH survey 2021

Poultry rearing[edit | edit source]

Almost all (94%) households rear poultry (Table 7.4), and there has been a slight increase during the BG period. Most households rear both ducks and chicken. Similar proportions of households in all land ownership categories rear poultry, showing that it is a popular enterprise for those with very little land, and there has been a more significant increase poultry rearing for landless households than for other households.

Table 7.4: Popularity of poultry rearing

Land ownership Rear chickens Rear ducks Rear any poultry
2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21
landless 78% 91% 74% 82% 85% 91%
marginal 84% 89% 84% 89% 91% 93%
small 96% 93% 92% 89% 98% 95%
medium 94% 94% 88% 89% 94% 94%
large 91% 89% 94% 89% 94% 92%
total 90% 91% 87% 89% 93% 94%
Khulna 78% 76% 76% 80% 84% 86%
Satkhira 79% 72% 78% 78% 88% 86%
Patuakhali 90% 91% 87% 89% 93% 94%
Percentage of all households; Source: HH survey 2021

Although the number of households keeping poultry has only increased very slightly, there has been a significant increase in the average number of birds kept by each household – which has gone up by 39% from 15 to 24 – although landless and marginal landowning households do not have as many (Table 7.5). Households in Satkhira now have the largest flocks, with double the number of birds (and over three times as many chickens) as in 2013-14.

Table 7.5: Number of poultry birds

Land ownership Number of chicken Number of ducks Number of birds
2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21
landless 7.8 9.9 7.3 9.5 13.9 17.8
marginal 8.4 12.6 7.7 9.4 14.8 20.2
small 8.4 13.9 8.6 12.1 15.7 24.0
medium 10.6 13.4 10.7 14.3 19.9 25.9
large 12.6 13.6 11.3 14.7 23.2 26.5
total 8.5 12.5 8.2 10.7 15.4 21.4
Khulna 10.2 12.5 9.2 12.0 17.9 22.2
Satkhira 6.4 21.7 6.4 6.3 11.5 24.7
Patuakhali 7.0 9.0 7.4 10.4 13.6 18.6
Average number for those households owning each type of bird; Source: HH survey 2021

Table 7.6 shows that virtually all households that keep poultry produce and consume eggs and also consume birds. About two-thirds of households sell eggs and slightly fewer sell birds. Although they have fewer birds, a higher proportion of households owning less land sell eggs and birds. More household in Khulna sell eggs and birds compared with the other two zones.

Table 7.6: Households selling eggs and birds

Land ownership Eggs Birds
produce consume sell Sell consume
landless 99% 99% 73% 73% 96%
marginal 100% 99% 71% 65% 96%
small 99% 99% 66% 62% 97%
medium 99% 99% 65% 56% 99%
large 100% 98% 59% 54% 99%
total 100% 99% 67% 62% 97%
Khulna 100% 100% 78% 76% 98%
Satkhira 99% 98% 67% 52% 98%
Patuakhali 99% 99% 52% 48% 97%
Percentage of households with poultry; Source: HH survey 2021

Data in Table 7.7 on poultry production and sales shows that households with larger land holdings (and with larger flocks) tend to produce, consume and sell more eggs and birds. Landless households consume a slightly smaller share of their egg production – possibly because they need income from sales, although this is not so apparent for birds. Households in Satkhira have higher sales of birds, but lower sales of eggs. Taking eggs and birds together, households in Khulna have higher sales.

Table 7.7: Poultry production and sales

Land ownership Number of eggs per month Egg sales Birds sold Consumed Bird sales Cost
produced consumed BDT/month No./year No./year BDT/year BDT/month
landless 79 30 642 9 6 3155 162
marginal 75 36 538 15 7 4726 226
Small 85 41 655 17 8 5416 241
medium 108 51 852 17 10 5244 224
Large 117 58 975 13 11 4586 202
Total 82 37 624 15 7 4664 217
Khulna 104 35 838 14 7 4502 228
Satkhira 38 21 224 29 5 7530 346
Patuakhali 69 47 409 10 9 3348 148
Average number for those households reporting; Source: HH survey 2021

In total 5% of households reported to have ceased poultry production during BGP – less than for goats and cattle. Medium and large land owners are slightly less likely to have ceased keeping poultry. The main reason to stop rearing poultry was reported to be pests and diseases, followed by lack of space. Lack of space was reported by a higher proportion of landless and small land owners, while households with more land tended to cite lack of labour or time, poor economics and problems in getting inputs.

Goats[edit | edit source]

Overall, 30% of the surveyed households rear goats and/or sheep (but mainly goats), which is an increase from 24% since the start of BGP (Table 7.8). Increases are reported for all land-owning categories and in all three zones. The average number of animals per flock has fallen slightly, more so for landless households that own fewer animals. The average number of animals per household has increased in Patuakhali. Over the last 12 months, 16% of households (= 53% of goat rearers) sold an average of 3.1 animals, with fewer sales being made by those owning less land. Households in Satkhira now keep fewer goats, but fewer sell goats in Patuakhali. The value of sales is highest in Khulna.

Table 7.8: Goat rearing

Land ownership Goat rearing HH* Number of goats In last 12 months
2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21 selling HH* no. sell income BDT cost BDT
Landless 21% 25% 4.5 3.9 14% 2.5 13,107 3,027
Marginal 24% 30% 4.1 4.2 14% 3.5 18,883 2,429
Small 24% 32% 4.0 4.2 17% 2.6 14,865 2,869
Medium 26% 33% 5.3 5.2 20% 3.5 20,461 4,498
Large 27% 29% 5.7 5.8 18% 3.3 17,240 4,739
Total 24% 30% 4.7 4.6 16% 3.1 17,298 3,495
Khulna 23% 30% 5.3 5.0 18% 3.3 17,706 3,370
Satkhira 35% 41% 3.7 3.0 18% 1.7 10,180 2,403
Patuakhali 20% 26% 2.9 3.8 12% 2.8 17,775 2,222
* % of all households. Average number / value is average for reporting households; Source: HH survey 2021

Data also shows that overall, 7% of all households reported ceasing keeping goats during the BGP period, but the proportion is higher for landless households (especially in Khulna and Satkhira), and for the Satkhira zone as a whole. Overall, the main reason to quit is lack of space, especially for landless and marginal land owners, followed by availability of inputs (this being the main reason in Khulna). Lack of labour was cited by most medium land owners and was the main reason in Patuakhali.

Cattle and buffalo[edit | edit source]

Almost two-thirds (64%) of households own bovines (cattle and buffalo – mainly cattle), this having increased from 61% since the start of BGP (Table 7.9). Households with larger areas of land more often own animals. Since the start of BGP an increased number of households in all land ownership categories (except medium) now own animals, but fewer now own animals in Satkhira. The average number of animals for owning households has increased from 3.2 to 3.4 – but numbers have fallen in Satkhira. Again, households with more land own more animals. Half of all households have milking cows – with these being less widely owned by landless and marginal land owners. Households that have milk cows, own, on average,1.5 animals.

Table 7.9: Ownership of cattle and buffalo

Land ownership Have bovine* Have milk cow* Number of bovines Number of milk cow
2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2020-21 2013-14 2013-14 2013-14 2020-21
landless 42% 47% 26% 33% 2.4 2.8 1.4 1.3
marginal 60% 62% 45% 45% 3.1 3.2 1.5 1.6
small 74% 75% 67% 64% 3.6 3.9 1.5 1.5
medium 71% 69% 66% 60% 4.2 4.4 1.7 1.7
large 76% 71% 67% 68% 4.9 5.3 1.9 1.8
total 61% 64% 50% 50% 3.2 3.4 1.5 1.5
Khulna 68% 70% 53% 55% 3.4 3.6 1.6 1.6
Satkhira 58% 51% 50% 35% 2.3 1.8 1.6 1.3
Patuakhali 56% 60% 47% 48% 3.4 3.8 1.2 1.5
* % of all households. Average number / value is average for reporting households; Source: HH survey 2021

Almost half (48%) of all households consume some of their milk (which amounts to almost all households with milking animals, and three-quarters of households than own bovines (Table 7.10). 24% of all households sell milk. Over one third (36%) of all households sold animals in the last year (=56% of bovine owners).

Table 7.10: Utilisation of milk and sales of animals

Land ownership Consume milk Sell milk Sale of animals in last year Costs
% HH* BDT/year % HH* BDT/year % HH* no. sold BDT/year BDT/year
landless 30% 10,157 14% 15,320 22% 1.4 58,349 18,543
marginal 43% 11,690 20% 17,416 34% 1.3 60,313 24,371
small 63% 13,079 33% 28,052 46% 1.7 76,931 37,463
medium 59% 13,209 30% 37,817 44% 2.0 98,234 37,895
large 67% 15,185 29% 40,546 47% 1.9 95,239 38,915
total 48% 11,972 24% 22,105 36% 1.5 68,351 28,421
Khulna 55% 10,845 30% 22,775 41% 1.4 66,396 33,889
Satkhira 29% 22,105 24% 29,577 28% 1.7 84,688 28,996
Patuakhali 47% 11,941 14% 8,439 33% 1.7 67,690 17,613
* % of all households. Average number / value is average for reporting households; Source: HH survey 2021

Although average sales of milk are about double the average value of milk consumed at home, twice as many households consume milk as sell milk, so the overall value of milk produced is more or less evenly split between home consumption and sales (but only 17% of milk is consumed in Patuakhali). Of the total value of bovine production, sales of animals make up 69%, home consumed milk 16% and milk sales 15%. However the value of animal sales may over-state the output of this sub-sector as animals tend to be bought and sold a number of times over their life-cycles.

During the BG period 10% of all households report that they ceased to keep bovines. With little use now being made of draught animals, there is no longer a need to keep animals to cultivate land, but they are still useful to produce milk, manure and as animals to sell. The main reason cited to cease keeping bovines was lack or labour or time, followed by lack of space. Landless households said lack of space was the main reason, while marginal households placed lack of space equal with lack of labour.

Pond fisheries[edit | edit source]

Overall 44% of households have fish ponds and 31% operate ghers (Table 7.11). Almost no landless households have fish ponds, but 18% operate ghers using rented land (all of them are in Khulna). There has been very little change in the number of fish pond households since the start of BGP, but more households now operate fish ghers– especially landless and marginal households in Khulna and medium land owning households in Satkhira. Almost two thirds (64%) of the households are involved in a forms of aquaculture, either operating ponds (see Table 7.11) or ghers (as discussed in chapter 6).

Table 7.11: Fish ponds

Land ownership Pond operators* Pond area decimals
2013-14 2021 2013-14 2021
Landless 1% 2% 1.5 6.3
Marginal 39% 40% 6.9 7.0
Small 66% 65% 12.1 12.2
Medium 81% 84% 19.1 19.3
Large 91% 91% 32.9 34.4
Total 44% 44% 18.5 19.7
Khulna 35% 36% 17.5 17.6
Satkhira 24% 24% 19.4 19.7
Patuakhali 67% 68% 19.4 22.2
* % of all households Average for households with ponds ; Source: HH survey 2021

As would be expected, households owning more land have larger pond and gher areas. There has been a tiny increase in the average size of pond and small increase in size of gher since the start of BGP. All pond operators consume some or all of the fish they produce (Table 7.12). This table also shows that 5% of the surveyed households produce vegetables on the sides of fish ponds.

Table 7.12: Fish pond production

Land ownership Percent of all households Fish produce Fish consume Fish sold Vegetables Costs
Produce Sell Prod veg Kg/year BDT/year BDT/year BDT/year BDT/year
Landless 2% 1% 0% 84 7,160 15,000 - 3,667
marginal 40% 10% 3% 90 8,355 12,945 5,267 3,082
Small 66% 26% 7% 141 11,180 15,233 2,688 4,470
Medium 84% 36% 13% 183 13,606 20,425 3,188 6,398
Large 91% 50% 19% 293 18,225 38,377 3,781 12,642
Total 44% 16% 5% 114 9,510 14,955 3,269 3,999
Khulna 36% 13% 6% 90 7,256 13,576 4,203 3,160
Satkhira 24% 9% 0% 64 5,018 6,980 95 2,254
Patuakhali 68% 23% 4% 131 11,204 14,118 1,876 4,277
Average for households reporting production and/or sales; Source: HH survey 2021

Performance parameters in Table 7.13, calculated from data in Table 7.12, show that over one third (35%) of fishpond owners sell fish – with a higher proportion for larger land owners – as they have bigger ponds and so produce more fish. Vegetables are grown on the sides of ponds by 10% of pond operators – again this is more common with larger land owners. The yield of fish per unit area of pond increases as land owning gets less – suggesting that smaller ponds are managed more intensively. However, the very high yield for landless households should be disregarded as there was only one landless household with a pond. Just over 60% of fish produced (by value) is sold, and marginal (and landless) pond owners obtain a higher average price per kg. A higher proportion of fish is sold in Khulna where prices are also higher.

Table 7.13: Fish pond performance

Land ownership % of pond operators yield % sold Fish price Costs
sell fish grow veg kg/dec by value Tk/kg Tk/dec
landless 33% 0% 56.0 68% 264 44
marginal 25% 7% 13.1 61% 238 34
small 40% 11% 11.6 58% 187 32
medium 42% 15% 9.6 60% 186 35
large 54% 20% 8.9 68% 193 43
total 35% 10% 13.1 61% 215 35
Khulna 37% 16% 10.7 65% 232 35
Satkhira 39% 1% 11.5 58% 188 35
Patuakhali 33% 7% 12.9 56% 193 33
Fish price includes fish consumed at home; Source: HH survey 2021

Feedback from FGDs on homestead production[edit | edit source]

The information from informal interviews and anecdotal feedback from field staff suggested homestead production became both more widespread and had increased during the BG period. Data from the household survey in 2021 shows that 79% of the households produce homestead vegetables (an increase from 71%) and 92% homestead fruit (up from 91%). This data is supported by information from FGDs which indicated that homestead vegetables were grown by 50% to 90% of households in Khulna, 50% to 80% in Satkhira and 80% to 100% in Patuakhali. FGDs reported that homestead fruit was grown by 50% to 100% of households in Khulna, 80% to 20% in Satkhira, and 70% to 100% in Patuakhali. The lower figures from Satkhira refer to an area of saline ghers, which is not typical of the zone (polder 2&2E) as a whole. FGDs reported that production of homestead vegetables had increased by between 30% and 65% in Khulna, zero to 80% in Satkhira and 40% to 90% in Patuakhali. For fruit the increases were 30% to 70% in Khulna, zero to 40% in Satkhira and 30% to 70% in Patuakhali. These increases were attributed to improved production methods learned in the Blue Gold homestead Farmer Field Schools as well as more households now being involved in agriculture; increases could be constrained in some locations by unfavourable water management conditions.

The household survey 2021 reported that there has been a marginal increase (90% to 91%) in the number of households keeping poultry. This is supported by the FGDs which indicated that poultry are reared by 80% to 100% of households in Khulna, 90% to 100% in Satkhira and 50% to 100% in Patuakhali. The survey shows growth in average flock size (15 to 21 birds in this WMG survey). FGDs reported increased poultry production (20%-70% in Khulna, 20% in Satkhira and 30% to 70% in Patuakhali) due to the provision of know-how and inputs as incentives by BGP.

The household survey 2021 reported a larger proportion of households with goats (30%), this having increased from 24% since the start of BGP, with average flock size slightly declining from 4.7 to 4.6 animals. The FGDs reported that between 2% and 80% of households keep goats in Khulna, 30% to 80% in Satkhira, and 5% to 80% in Patuakhali. In Khulna five FGDs reported an increase in goats of between 10% and 55%, and six FGD reported a decrease of 20% to 70%. In Satkhira one FGD reported a 20% increase, and the other a 10% decrease. In Patuakhali five FGDs reported increases of 15% to 100%, and five reported decreases of 10% to 30%. The reasons for increases were the profitability, adoption of improved methods for livestock (with training and support from BGP and/or NGOs), as well as availability of grazing. Decreases were caused by problems with keeping goats out of crops and homestead gardens – as crop areas are increasing.

The household survey 2021 found that a larger and increasing proportion of households kept cattle (64%, increasing from 61% before BGP) with herd size increasing from 3.2 to 3.4 animals. The FGDs in Khulna found that between 10% and 100% of households kept bovines, in Satkhira this was 30% to 70%, and in Patuakhali 50% to 100%. All 23 FGDs said bovine numbers had increased, except for one in Khulna (decrease of 25%), one in Satkhira (down 20%) and three in Patuakhali (down 10% to 30%). Increases ranged from 10% to 80%. The reasons for decreasing the numbers of bovines were the move away from the use of animals in ploughing land, lack of grazing, and the cost, time and effort needed for their care. Increasing bovine numbers were attributed to training and support from BGP.

The household survey data 2021 showed that the number of ponds owners has been static since the start of BGP. The FGDs in Khulna reported that up to 90% of the households had ponds, and production had increased by 10% to 60% due to training and support from BGP. However, at two locations the number of ponds were decreasing - in polder 28/2 ponds are being filled in to build houses, and in polder 25 they are being replaced by fish ghers. In Satkhira at one location all households have ponds and production is increasing. At the other location, only 20% have ponds and fish production is decreasing due to salt contamination (due to saline water fish ghers). In Patuakhali, between 50% and 100% of households have ponds and production increased by between 30% and 80% due to support from BGP.

Problems of agricultural and homestead production[edit | edit source]

Sample households were asked to identify the problems they face in production of crops, poultry, livestock and fish. These problems have been grouped into five categories (i) pests and diseases, including damage by birds and animals; (ii) water and weather-related problems, including waterlogging/poor drainage heavy rain/hail, flooding, drought, lack of irrigation water and salinity; (iii) input problems including lack of fertilisers, pesticides, medicines, feeds, seeds, plants, fish fry etc, high and rising cost of inputs, low quality of inputs (including adulteration), labour shortages and high wages; (iv) finance problems including lack of capital for investment and difficulty in getting loans; and (v) other problems including lack of technical services and lack of technical knowledge and skills.

The data in Table 7.14 is reported as a percentage of all households, so the proportion of households reporting problems partly depends on the numbers of households involved in different sub-sectors. Almost three-quarters (74%) of households reported a major problem for poultry, but these are reared by 94% of all households, so 79% of the poultry rearers reported a problem. Almost two-thirds (64%) of households are involved in aquaculture, and 31% reported a main problem, which is 48% of aquaculture households. Most (79%) households grew homestead vegetables, and a small number also grew field vegetables. Main problems for vegetables were reported by 62% of households so most vegetable growers had problems. Land was cultivated by 88% of the households – almost all of whom grew paddy and main problems for paddy were reported by 74% of all households. A quarter (24%) of households reported main problems in non-rice crops, but fewer households grew non-rice crops. Some households specifically said that they have no major problems. This is as much of 32% of all households for fish (=50% of fish producers), and 29% for vegetables (=37% of vegetable growers), but only 7% for paddy (=8% of crop cultivators).

Table 7.14: Production problems

Sub-sector problem pests and diseases water and weather inputs finance other no problem
Paddy main 54% 20% 0% 0% 0% 7%
other 9% 23% 1% 0% 0% 0%
Vegetables main 60% 1% 1% 0% 0% 29%
other 5% 2% 1% 0% 0% 1%
Other crops main 11% 14% 0% 0% 0% 6%
other 5% 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Fish main 20% 1% 9% 0% 1% 32%
other 2% 1% 2% 5% 0% 0%
Poultry main 74% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15%
other 7% 0% 4% 0% 0% 0%
Livestock main 39% 0% 0% 2% 3% 27%
other 0% 0% 0% 5% 1% 0%
* % of all households; Source: HH survey 2021

Problems reported by sample households mainly relate to pests and diseases (which also include losses due to damage by animal and birds – but this is much less widespread). This is followed by water and weather-related problems, mainly flooding and also drought. Water and weather-related problems are placed slightly higher than pests and diseases for non-rice crops. In all other sub-sectors, pests and diseases were the main problem. Relatively few households reported other problems. Input problems for fish (mainly lack of good quality fingerlings) were reported as a major or secondary problems by 11% of households (=17% of fish producers). Lack of finance was an issue for some livestock and fish producers.

FGDs also identified pests and diseases as major problems in crops (and virus diseases for fish), and some groups mentioned that farmers lacked knowledge on this problem and on how to use pesticides. Weather related disasters including heavy rainfall and drought were also problems, and a number of FGDs mentioned problems in water management, including lack of control over the infrastructure. Input quality (especially seed) along with high prices were also often mentioned. In a few locations, FGDs said there were clashes over water management between different crops such as local aman and boro. In one place grazing cattle was damaging crops. Lack of labour and high wages were another problem.

COVID-19 was still said to be a significant problem in 20 out of the 23 FGDs. Limitations on movement made marketing difficult and there were shortages of labour with rising wages. Prices of perishable commodities were lower and inputs could be difficult to get. In discussing problems, economic issues dominated the FGDs in the 2019 WMG survey – the falling price of farm products (especially paddy) and the increasing cost of labour and farm inputs. This has now changed, although some of the 2021 FGDs did feel they were not getting fair prices for their crops and markets could be manipulated by middlemen. Farmers were now much more positive about paddy production, but less enthusiastic about expanding fish.

Notes[edit | edit source]

  1. Section B Introduction and Summary provides an overview of the studies conducted through the Blue Gold Program, and the studies and reports which were the main sources of information for Section B.

See more[edit | edit source]

Previous chapter:
Chapter 06: Outcomes and Impact from Agricultural Development
Blue Gold Lessons Learnt Wiki
Section B: Development Outcomes
Next chapter:
Chapter 08: The Outcomes and Impact on the Livelihoods of Women
Section B: Development Outcomes
Chapter 05: Outcomes and Impact from Participatory Water Management Chapter 06: Outcomes and Impact from Agricultural Development Chapter 07: Inclusive Development Approach: Outcomes and Impacts from Homestead Based Production
  1. Increased resilience against climatic variability: outcomes and impact of rehabilitation work on water management
  2. Organised coastal communities: outcomes and impact of institutional development
  1. Changes in crop agricultural production
  2. Change in cropping pattern and crop types
  3. Increase in Cropping intensity
  4. Increase in Crop yields
  5. Increase in employment through agricultural development
  6. Economic return of improved agriculture production
  1. Homestead vegetables production
  2. Homestead fruit production
  3. Commercial fruit production
  4. Poultry rearing
  5. Goats
  6. Cattle and buffalo
  7. Pond fisheries
  8. Feedback from FGDs on homestead production
  9. Problems of agricultural and homestead production
Chapter 08: The Outcomes and Impact on the Livelihoods of Women Chapter 09: The Overall Outcomes and Impacts on the Livelihoods of Coastal Communities in Blue Gold Polders
  1. Women’s role in economic activities
  2. Main Occupation of women
  3. Equality in food consumption
  4. Decision making regarding assets and land
  5. Mobility and participation
  6. Overall empowerment of women
  1. General features of coastal households
  2. Land ownership and land tenure
  3. Improvement in household income and asset
  4. Enterprise development
  5. Improvements in Living Standards
Blue Gold Wiki
Executive summary: A Call for Action
Section A: Background and context Section B: Development Outcomes Section C: Water Infrastructure


Summary


Summary and Introduction


Summary

Section D: BGP Interventions: Participatory Water Management Section E: Agricultural Development Section F: Responsible Development: Inclusion and Sustainability


Summary



Summary


Summary

Section G: Project Management Section H: Innovation Fund Files and others


Summary


Summary