Agricultural Research Management Information System

Home
Research Summary
Search
About Us
- ARMIS
- Brochure
Contact Us
Report
User Request
Data Input
Help
- Operation Manual
  - PDF
  - Video
- Program Area & Commodity
We have reached 37600 number of research entries at this moment.

- Logout

Research Detail

Home
Research
Detail

Livelihood and Food Security Status of Fishers Community in the Northern Districts of Bangladesh

M.A. Hossain
Department of Aquaculture, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University Gazipur-1706, Bangladesh

M.S. Alam
Department of Genetics and Fish Breeding, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University, Gazipur-1706, Bangladesh

M.E. Haque
Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, Gazipur-1706, Bangladesh

Abstract/ Executive Summary:

The present study was carried out to assess the livelihood and food security status of fishing community in the northern districts from February to June, 2010. Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) tools such as Focus Group Discussion (FGD) and Crosscheck Interviews (CI) with key informants were used to collect the information. Most of the respondents (fisher and non-fisher) were belonged to the age group of 30 to 45 years (50.0%) represented by 87% Hindus. Again most of the respondents had medium to small families. Small family (<4 members) was higher in non-fisher (57.9%) than in fisher (47.1%) households. But medium family (4-6 members) was higher in fisher (45.6%) than in non-fisher (37.6%) households. Most of the fishermen were illiterate (75%). Small portion of them can sign only. Only 20% and 5% of fishers had primary and secondary level education respectively. The main income source of fishers was fisheries (71.4%). Agriculture contributed only 7.4% to the family income of fishers, whereas contribution of agriculture to non-fishers’ family income was 50.1%. About 38% of fishers and 30% of non-fishers earned less than Tk. 70/day. Around 40% of fishers and 43% of non-fishers were medium category income (Tk.70-140/day) earners. Respondents getting more than Tk. 140/day were only 7.3% in fishers and 14.0% in non-fishers. In the study area 38.0% of the fishers and 15.7% of the non-fishers were under extreme form of poverty–they were in chronic food deficit situation. On the other hand, 37.2% of the fisher households and 32.0% of non-fisher households were in occasional food deficit. Fishing was more associated with food insecurity and poverty. In the study area health facilities of the fishers community was very poor. Fishers struggled for their livelihood. They always did not get access to adjacent water bodies and their access was limited. They were neglected in all respect in the society. Generation after generation they remain illiterate and are not able to contribute for the betterment of their community.

Keywords: Fisher, Livelihood, Monga, Constraints

Location: Rangpur, Kurigram and Lalmonirhat districts

Start Date: 20-02-2010

End Date: 19-06-2010

Program Area: Animal Health and Management

Non-commodity: Income generation

Objectives:

1. o assess the livelihood and food security status and constraints faced by the fishermen in northern districts of Bangladesh.

Methodology:

Study area: The present study was carried out on the fishermen community in three selected locations under Rangpur, Kurigram and Lalmonirhat districts of Bangladesh during the period between 20 February and 19 June, 2010. Collection of data: The study was based on collection of primary and secondary data. Before collecting the primary data, a draft questionnaire was developed which was pre-tested with a few fishermen. In the pre-testing, much attention was given to any new information in the draft questionnaire in order to reach the objectives of the study. According to the experience gained in pre-testing, the final questionnaire was improved, rearranged and modified. The final questionnaire was semi-structured so that interviewees had a wide scope in answering questions, thus allowing any topics of interest to be elaborated upon. Fishers of those communities were told that the purpose of the study was to find out about their present livelihood and food security status and to identify the alternative livelihood opportunities available in the northern districts of Bangladesh. Primary data were collected through household survey using multiple methodological Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) tools such as Focus Group Discussion (FGD) and Crosscheck Interviews (CI) with key informants. Thus, 274 fishers and 178 non-fishers were interviewed on the random selection basis at three different fishers’ communities which were mentioned. Fishermen were interviewed at home and/or fishing sites. In a given day approximately 5 to 7 interviews were conducted. Interview of a fisherman required about an hour. After collecting of data through questionnaire interviews and FGD the information was further discussed and justified with the key informants and fishers’ association. Cross-check interviews were conducted with key person such as, Upazilla and District level Personnel of Department of Fisheries (DoF), Ministry of Land, and also Ministry of Youth and Sports. The interviews of respondents were conducted in their office. Data analysis: All the collected information were summarized and scrutinized carefully and recorded. Finally, they were analyzed by MS-Excel and then presented in textual, tabular and graphical forms in accordance with the objectives of the study.

Source of Information: International Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 2015, 2(4): 23-29

Article Link (Online Journal):

Funding Source:

Total Budget (Tk.) :

Achievement/Findings:

The fishers were always deprived of many amenities. The education level of the fishers was so poor. Due to the lack of awareness as well as the poor income of the fisher’s families they cannot improve the education status at all. Educational facilities and easy access to educational institute is therefore necessary to improve the educational status of fisher’s community. Government should take necessary steps by taking some sorts of management policy as well as some extra providence during the ban season of the fishing. Alternative source of income should be introduced in the poor fisher’s community so that they can gain financial support outside of fishing.

Knowledge Management: Journal