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.
Field study report: IGP-5 Kathmandu, 27-28 June, 2006
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.
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.
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.
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.
Field study report: IGP-5 Kathmandu, 27-28 June, 2006
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.
Field study report: IGP-5 Kathmandu, 27-28 June, 2006
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.
Field study report: IGP-5 Kathmandu, 27-28 June, 2006
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Baishakh Srabon Kartik Magh
Months when price of food items increases
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Baishakh Srabon Kartik Magh
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.
Field study report: IGP-5 Kathmandu, 27-28 June, 2006
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.
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?
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
Field study report: IGP-5 Kathmandu, 27-28 June, 2006
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.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.
Field study report: IGP-5 Kathmandu, 27-28 June, 2006
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.
Field study report: IGP-5 Kathmandu, 27-28 June, 2006
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