CHARACTERIZING THE FOOD SYSTEMS OF IGP-5 REGION: RESULTS FROM FIELD SURVEYS

1. CHARACTERIZING THE FOOD SYSTEMS OF IGP-5 REGION: RESULTS FROM FIELD SURVEYS Ahmed, A.U., Munim, K.M.A. and Alam, M.S BANGLADESH UNNAYAN PARISHAD (BUP)

2. Field study report: IGP-5 Kathmandu, 27-28 June, 2006 Study site for IGP-5: Greater Faridpur District (i.e., Rajbari, Faridpur, Madaripur, Shariatpur and Gopalganj)

3. Field study report: IGP-5 Kathmandu, 27-28 June, 2006 Food Utilization Nutritional value: food diversity All major types of food are being consumed. However, frequency of consumption of nutritious food varies with economic status of the households (i.e., on affordability) Diet is generally based on rice, fish, lentil, and vegetables.

4. Field study report: IGP-5 Kathmandu, 27-28 June, 2006 Primary protein: Fish Secondary protein: lentil (eggs?) Poor and MI hhs depend on open water capture fisheries Only 11% of total lentil consumed nationally has been produced by the farmers. Rest has been imported. Who can afford lentil? Transformation in fisheries: from capture to culture fisheries 41.6% poor hhs do not consume meat (high price!) Poor’s nutritional value from protein intake is declining fast.

5. Field study report: IGP-5 Kathmandu, 27-28 June, 2006 Food Utilization Social value: role of food in kinship Food has been playing quite an important role in maintaining kinship bonding or social relation. About 87 percent of the total respondents have ascribed high to moderate level of importance to the role of taking food altogether in a family or social gathering as a means of upholding kinship or social bonding. Although the attachment of degree of importance of food varies depending on the ability of the households, with 86% the rich attributing high importance whereas the proportion of the poor ascribing the same level of importance stands as 42%. About 13.6% of the hhs invite relatives and/or friends between 1 to 4 times per month. However, about 71% of the hhs invite relatives and/or friends somewhat less frequently: more than two times a year. Source of food: To 11.5% hhs, cent percent food which is served to the relatives/friends is procured from commercial sources, while only 3.6% hhs offer non-commercial (self-grown) food. 86% hhs procure over 50% of food from commercial sources while sharing with relatives/friends.

6. Field study report: IGP-5 Kathmandu, 27-28 June, 2006 Food Utilization Food safety: source of drinking water The two major sources of drinking water are: a) shallow tube well (56.8%), and b) deep tube well (41.2%). There exists a high level of awareness regarding safe drinking water. Two-thirds of the hhs interviewed could report whether the source of drinking water was pollution-free. However, people are facing increasing difficulties in finding sources of arsenic-free safe drinking water. The poor are particularly forced to drink water from STWs (69.4%), while the rich hhs find water from DTWs (apparently arsenic free) (78.6%). Only 28.2% poor hhs are lucky enough to fetch water from DTWs. Most of the respondent could identify diseases which might result from use of contaminated water for cooking, washing dishes etc.

7. Field study report: IGP-5 Kathmandu, 27-28 June, 2006 Almost all the hhs have awareness regarding seasonal influence on quality of food. However, other than keeping the prepared food under cover/lid, they do not consider any other safety measure. People are aware that reheating could enhance quality of stored food, however 56.4% do not follow such measure due to lack of energy insecurity. Only 14.4% of the hhs do not store food and cook afresh during every meal. Over 60% of the HHs just cover the prepared food. Only 1.2% of the hhs (all rich hhs) have the luxury of refrigerating their foods.

8. Field study report: IGP-5 Kathmandu, 27-28 June, 2006 Food Access Affordability: HH income To majority hhs, income reduces during peak monsoon and pre-monsoon months. A M J Jy A S O N D J F M

9. Field study report: IGP-5 Kathmandu, 27-28 June, 2006 Food Access Affordability: Seasonality of price To majority hhs, timing for lowering hh income and increasing prices of food items are superimposed. The poor hhs face the maximum difficulty towards purchasing food items.

10. Field study report: IGP-5 Kathmandu, 27-28 June, 2006 Myth: Bangladesh achieved near self-sufficiency in carbohydrate (rice+wheat) production. About 60% hh enjoy enough rice? Fact: The majority of the poor still need to purchase rice from local markets. Rice, salt and edible oil are the three most important food items which people need to purchase from market. Even if price of rice and edible oil increase, 52.3 and 71.5% hhs cannot reduce consumption of rice and edible oil, respectively, in order to cope with price hike.

11. Field study report: IGP-5 Kathmandu, 27-28 June, 2006 Food Access Affordability: Proportion of food purchased About 86.7% of the hhs require to purchase at least 50% of their food. 9.6% hhs purchase all their food from local markets. Ultra poor?

12. Field study report: IGP-5 Kathmandu, 27-28 June, 2006 Very high proportion of hh expenditure goes for purchasing food items. The condition of ultra poor hhs is rather dismal. Price hike translates into lesser consumption, reduced nutrition, health erosion… To 72% hh, there has not been any policy support by the state to maintain affordability of food. 11.8% hhs believe the support has been very nominal.

13. Field study report: IGP-5 Kathmandu, 27-28 June, 2006 Food Access Allocation: Ability to allocate production for own consumption Majority of the hhs have control over about 75% of their food production. Control diminishes for the poorer households.

14. Field study report: IGP-5 Kathmandu, 27-28 June, 2006 Food Access Allocation: Intra-household food allocation/distribution Intra-household food allocation is not equal. Over 86% households reported that there has been unequal distribution of food within their hh. There has been a distinct bias (84.3%) towards male members of the hh. The age group based distribution has also been found unequal. Extreme food vulnerability for the poor women.

15. Field study report: IGP-5 Kathmandu, 27-28 June, 2006 Food Access Allocation: Intra-household food allocation/distribution Intra-household food allocation is not equal. Very strong male bias. Deprivation is high among the poor households. Truth: Males are always males, irrespective of their hh’s economic structure. Even though the rich hhs claim that they do not discriminate in food allocation in terms of age, they do discriminate against women.

16. Field study report: IGP-5 Kathmandu, 27-28 June, 2006 Food Access Preference: Carbohydrates & protein People generally prefer rice as principal food (86.8%). Bread is common as a break fast item, however puffed rice (muri) is preferred over bread. Preferences for fish and meat are comparable. However, only the rich can have meat occasionally. Strong preference for meat does not necessarily mean people can have meat.

17. Field study report: IGP-5 Kathmandu, 27-28 June, 2006 Food Access Preference: Commercially available/processed food Peoples’ preference is moderate to high for commercially processed foods. However, it remains a question of affordability. About 57.8% hhs consume commercially processed/available food upto 10~12% of their total food consumption. With such low level of consumption of commercial foods, 36.9% hh reported that advertisements highly influence their preferences, while 30.1 hh reported that advertisements do not influence their preferences.

18. THANK YOU