characterizing the food systems of igp-5 region: results from field surveys

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)

Kathmandu, 27-28 June, 2006Field study report: IGP-5

12.3

23.4

28.530.9

3.81.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Ultrapoor

Poor LowerMC

MiddleClass

HigherMC

Rich

Distribution of hhs in economic classes

Study site for IGP-5:

Greater Faridpur District

(i.e., Rajbari, Faridpur, Madaripur, Shariatpur and Gopalganj)

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)

100 97.3

83.2

97.1

54.5

13.8

0

40

80

120

Food items

Per cent of households taking nutritious foods regularlyDiet is generally based on rice, fish, lentil, and vegetables.


Frequency of fish consumption (% HHs)

66

51

72.4

96.4

24.6 13.9

29.5

50

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

All HHs Poor hhs Middle incomehhs

Rich hhs

Household type

Per

cen

t h

ou

seh

old

One serving per day Tw o servings per dayFrequency of lentil consumption (% HHs)

34.4

23.4

39.1

53.6

10.4

3.9

14.210.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

All HHs Poor hhs MI hhs Rich hhs

Household type

Per

cen

t h

ou

seh

old

s

One serving/day Two servings/day

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.


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.


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.

Source of pollution in drinking water

1

81.7

2

19.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

Pesticides Arsenic Pathogen Other sources

% hh r

espond

ing

Pesticides Arsenic Pathogen Other sources

Most of the respondent could identify diseases which might result from use of contaminated water for cooking, washing dishes etc.


40.3

71.3

7.512.3

3.7

17.2 14.3

01020304050607080

Types of diseases identified (% hhs)

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.


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Baishakh Srabon Kartik Magh

Bangla calendar Months

Months when hh income gets reducedA M J Jy A S O N D J F M

Food Access

Affordability: HH income

To majority hhs, income reduces during peak monsoon and pre-monsoon months.


0

5

10

15

20

25

30


Months when price of food items increases

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14


Bangla calendar Months

Months when hh income gets reduced

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.


61.7

50.1

88.7

78.2

94.7 96.6 94.2

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Food types

Food items needs to be purchased

Food items need to be purchased by class

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Rice Wheat Lentil Milk Fish Meat Edible Oil

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Poor MI group Rich

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.

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.


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?

0

20

40

60

80

100

At least25%

At least50%

Betw een51 & 75%

Greaterthan 75%

Greaterthan 90%

Level of purchase

Proportion of hh requiring purchase of food


Share of hh expnditure going for food purchase

4.8

66.3

90.1

99.5

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

All expenses

Up to 75% expenses

Up to 50% expenses

Within 25% expenses

Proportion of households

Comparison of hh expenditure going for food purchase

4.8

66.3

90.1

99.5

20.1

85.2

95.7

97.6

All expenses

Up to 75% expenses

Up to 50% expenses

Within 25% expenses

Proportion of hhs

All households Poor households

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.


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.

Proportion of hhs having control over own production

9.4

38.3

58.1

36.4

3.8

75.6

35.9

18.7

Up to 25%

Up to 50%

Up to 75%

Above 95%

All households Poor households

18.7

43.4

82.1

0

50

100

Poor hhs MI hhs Rich hhs

Proportion of hhs having control over 95% food production (by class)

Poor hhs MI hhs Rich hhs


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.

37.7

28.3

17.3

16.7

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Young

Middle-age

Old

Equal

Proportion of hh having age-based bias towards allocation

The age group based distribution has also been found unequal.

Extreme food vulnerability for the poor women.


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.Intra-household food allocation/distribution

53.1

37.3

22

3.3

39.5

31.4

19.924.8

17.910.7

3.6

67.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Young Middle-age Old Equal

Bias towards age-groups

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80Poor MI Group Rich

Gender bias in intra-hh food allocation (% hh)

87.1 82.289.3

6.2 4.3 0

6.7

13.2

7.1

0

20

40

60

80

100

Poor MI Group Rich

Economic classes

02

46810

1214

Male Female Equal

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.


47

2.6

4.1

46.1

0.2

0 10 20 30 40 50

Meat

Egg

Lentil

Fish

Others

Preference for protein (% hh)

Meat Egg Lentil Fish Others

Preference for Carbohydrates

86.8

7.7 4.6

0.7

0.2

Rice Wheat Potato Maize Others

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.


Level of preference for commercially processed foods

45

32.8

3.1

7.2 7.7 4.2

High Moderate Moderate to low Low No preference Others

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.

THANK YOU

characterizing the food systems of igp-5 region: results from field surveys

Documents

rich hhs96

rich hhs53

middle income hhs29

food systems of igp

rich hhs50all hhs6624

poor hhs13

poor hhs5113

poor hhs23