Assessment of the livelihood status of the fish farmers in some selected areas of Bagmara upazilla under Rajshahi district

The present investigation was carried out to assess the livelihood status of the fish farmers in Hamirkutsha and Kamarbari Unions of Bagmara upazilla under Rajshahi district during June to December 2006. Data were collected through the use of well structured questionnaire. Fifty farmers were included in this study who were directly involved in fish farming. Average pond size was 0.13 ha with single (64%) and multiple ownerships (36%). Most of the fishers were belonged to the age category of 31 to 40 years and average education level of 9.86 years of schooling, represented by 94% Muslims and 6% Hindus. About 54% of the farmers have tinshed house while 26, 14 and 6% of the farmers have half-building, building and kacha house, respectively. Average annual incomes of majority of fish farmers were above Tk. 75,000 per annum and 62% of the farmers used semi-pucca sanitary, 28% used pucca sanitary while only 10% used katcha sanitary. About 62% of the farmers had electricity facilities while 38% did not have and 88% of the farmers used own tube-well, while 12% of the farmers used neighbor’s tube-well. Forty six percent of the farmers received health service from village doctor or kobiraj, 18% have access to upazila health complex, 14% went to district hospital, 20% consulted with MBBS doctor and 2% of the farmers do not take any treatment due to lack of money. Lack of scientific knowledge, multiple ownerships and lack of capital for fish culture were the major constraints.


Introduction
Livelihood comprises the capabilities, the assets (natural, physical, human, financial and social capital), the activities and the accesses to these (mediated by institutions and social relations) that together determine the living gained by the individual household (Chambers and Conway, 1992).A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in future, while not undermining the natural resource base (Chambers and Conway, 1992).About 12 million people (10% of total population) directly or indirectly depend on fisheries sector for their livelihood (DoF, 2005).There are over 1.2 million fishermen in the country but almost two-thirds of the rural households get involved in fishing during the monsoon (DoF, 2005).Fish and fisheries are indispensable part in the life and livelihoods of the people of Bangladesh and it is the part of our cultural heritage.For sustainable rural development and poverty elimination, different approaches have been adopted and the "Sustainable Livelihood Approach" has been gradually expanded with its own core and principles for poverty focused development activities (DFID, 1998).The approach basically based on the fundamental principle analysis of capital assets (i.e.human capital, physical capital, financial capital, social capital and natural capital ) in the context of the external environment.According to Carney (1999), a sustainable livelihood approach is a way of thinking about the objectives, scope and priorities for development, in order to enhance progress in poverty elimination (Scones, 1998).Considering the financial hardship and other complexities of the rural fish farmers, it is important to analyze their livelihood status.In view of the above consideration; the present study was undertaken to determine the livelihood status of the fish farmers and to identify the socio-economic problems / constrains associated with fish farming.

Selection of the study area and target group
Two Unions in Bagmara upazilla under Rajshahi district were selected for the study, because; pond fish culture is heavily concentrated in this area, various NGOs and DoF have been working with fish farmers to increase fish production, well communication facilities, relatively homogenous physiographic condition and finally, suitable for researcher work in this area.Data were collected during June to December 2006 in Hamirkutsha and Kamarbari Union.Fifty farmers were randomly selected from two unions of Bagmara upazilla.Fish pond with different types of culture system, management practices and farmers age, number of family member; religion status, income level, health facilities, sanitary facilities, get of technical assistance, electricity facilities etc. were included in the sample.
For data collection, a set of interview schedule was designed.Data were collected from the fish farmers using questionnaire interviews, Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) tools such as Focus Group Discussion (FGD) and Cross-check interview with key informants.Data were processed and finally analyzed using tabular method.

Human Capital: Age distribution
Out of total 50 farmers, 52% belonged to the age group of 31 to 40 years whereas only 6% are found in the group of above 51 years (Table 1).Family size: The family size of the fish farmers were divided into three categories according to the number of the family members (Table 2).About 52% of the respondents had 4-5 family members, 28% had small family with 2-3 members, while 20% had more than 6 family members.Family status: About 28% farmers lived with joint families and 72% lived with nuclear families.The highest number of farmers with nuclear family structures was found in Hamirkutsha (76%) union than Kamarbari (68%).
Education: Fifty percent of the fish farmers had education up to S.S.C level, while 22% had H.S.C level of education.About 6% of the farmers were illiterate, 4% of the respondents possessed bachelors' degree.
Religious status: It was found that maximum fish farmers were Muslim (94%) while small proportions (6%) were Hindus (Table 4).Highest percentage of Muslims fish farmers were found in Kamarbari (96%) whereas the increased number of Hindus (8%) fish farmers were found in Hamirkutsha (Table 5).Human capital represents the farmer's age, education, family size and status, religious status etc. Ahmed (2001) reported that human capital is skills, knowledge, education, ability of labor and good health that together enable people to pursue their livelihood strategies.As well as being of intrinsic value, human capital is required in order to make use of any of the four other types of assets.From the present study it was found that, only 10% got health service from MBBS doctors, while 46% of fish farmers were dependent on village doctors.The poor health and inadequate nutrition of the children, women and old-aged members of farming communities also inhibits their development.The poor health facilities, sanitary facilities and inadequate access to safe drinking water make their human assets and consequently the livelihoods more vulnerable.The similar views were also expressed by Ali (1991) and Biswas et al. (2000).

Natural Capital: Pond size
The average pond size in the study area was found to be 0.15 ha (37 decimals).The average pond size in Kamarbari was 0.16 ha which was larger than in Hamirkutsha (0.14 ha).

Type of pond:
In the study area, 46% of the pond were seasonal and 54% pond were perennial (Table 7).The water level in the perennial ponds declined significantly during dry season and become unsuitable for fish culture.Some of the farmers filled their ponds up to 3-4ft level by pumping water from the nearly deep tube-well.Seasonal ponds become totally unsuitable for fish culture during dry season.
Natural capital of farmers represents the natural resources such as land, water, timber and wider environmental goods that are critical for farmers and associated groups, to support the production.People often sell their timber to make up the income shortfalls, resulting to a loss of biodiversity.Rapid population growth has to some extent led to accelerate natural capital depletion that has affected their income.Presence of canal; beels and existence of floodplains in the vicinity of the study area offer tremendous scope for harnessing natural resources for sustainable livelihood management of the fish farmers and fishing community.

Physical Capital: Housing conditions
The majority (54%) of the respondents had tinshed, 26% had half building, 14 % had building and only 6% had kacha house (Table 8).Health facilities: When the farmers face health problem then initially most of them go to the village doctor / kobiraj (46%).If the problem is severe then they go to upazila health complex (18%), district hospital (14%), and MBBS doctor (20%).But a few farmers do not get any treatment (2%) due to lack of money (Table 9).Drinking water facilities: In the study area, 88% of the fish farmers were used own tubewell and 12% of the farmers was used neighbor's tube-well for collecting drinking water (Table 10).
Electricity facilities: In the study area, it was found that 62% of the surveyed fish farmers have electricity facilities, whereas, 38% had no electricity facilities at their residence (Table 11).The farmers in Hamirkutsha union had more access to electricity (64%) as compared to those in Kamarbari (44%).Sanitary facilities: It was observed that the farmers' sanitary conditions were very poor in the surveyed area and only 28% stated that they had these (Table 12).The farmers had higher access to good sanitation in Kamarbari (36%) than Hamirkutsha (20%).A few farmers noted that the households of fish farmers often suffered from diarrhea and cholera due to lack of good sanitary facilities.Cooking fuels: At about 56% of respondents stated that they mainly used paddy straw, while 24% and 20% used wood and cow-dung, respectively (Table 13).The physical capital of fish farming is transport, drinking water supply, sanitary facilities, shelter, roads, market, electricity etc (DFID, 2000).The study showed that 88% of the farmers' household used their own tube-well for drinking water, while 12% used neighbor's tube-well.About 62% of the respondents stated that they had electricity.Poor physical capitals in turn affect higher production costs and lower production.

Social Capital
It was found that 60% of the farmers got technical assistance or advice on aquaculture from friends and neighbors.About 22% of the farmers acquired technical assistance from others (self-study), while 8% and 10% of the farmers got technical assistance from DoF and NGO, respectively.
Almost all fish farming people are disadvantaged in social capital such as the networks, groups, trust, access to institutions etc. Result of the present study showed poor existence of social organizations of the farmers.The lack of social capital has affected livelihoods of poor people in fish farming communities.The present findings agree well with the findings of Zaman (2006) and Hossain et al. (1992); while the opposite picture was noted by Sarker (2007) in Trishal upazila under Mymensingh district.The apparent difference in the functioning of social capital seems to be related with the localities and proximity to district town.
Savings: It was found that 38% of respondents had savings (Table 18).The farmers could save some from agriculture, fish culture, business, service and other activities.However, the rest of 62% farmers could not save money due to poor resources and household expenses.Pond ownership: In the study area, 64% of the ponds were under single ownership and 36% under multiple ownership (Table 19).Credit facilities: It was found that, 80% of farmers used their own money for fish farming, while the rest (20%) of the farmers received loans.Twenty four percent of fish farmers of Hamirkutsha union received loans where 16% in case of Kamarbari.In recent years several institutions such as, banks, NGOs, moneylenders (mohazon) etc. are providing credit to the farmers.
Financial capital denotes the financial resources that people use to achieve their livelihood objectives.Financial capital of fish farmers represents income, occupation, savings, credit etc.The fish farming sector has the potential to generate considerable amounts of financial capital to the resources of associated groups.However, the study showed that small farmers suffer more from lack of adequate financial resources.The similar situations were also noted by Sarker (2007) in Trishal upazila under Mymensingh district.

Constraints of fish production:
A number of constraints and risks were reported by the farmers which were inadequate technical knowledge, multiple ownership, theft, poisoning, lack of money, poor quality of fish seed etc.The single largest problem reported by 48% of respondents as lack of technical knowledge.Multiple ownership of pond was also a big problem (20%).
From the study, it was found that multiple ownership, lack of technical knowledge, lack of quality seed, high price of feed, lack of money etc. were the main constraints of fish production in the surveyed area.Rahman (2003) stated that the major constraints of carp farming were lack of money and higher production cost.Khan et al. (1998) found that the lack of extension work for fisheries improvements caused the highest difficulty in pond fish culture.The problems encountered by the fish farmers in the surveyed area are almost similar to those recorded by Ali et al. (1991) and Biswas et al. (2001).

Livelihood Outcomes
Livelihood outcomes can be thought of as the inverse of poverty.Contributing to the eradication of poverty and food insecurity depends on equitable access to resources, access of disadvantaged groups to sufficient, safe and nutritionally adequate food (Scones, 1998).In spite of poor resources livelihood outcomes of fish farming are positive and most of them increased their income, food security and basic needs.The survey suggests that 68% of fish farmers have improved their socio-economic condition through fish farming.Now, they have better food, cloths, housing conditions and children education.However, 32% farmers have not yet improved their status.Impact of fish farming were reflected in the process of increased saving, investment and purchasing capacity which have been increased and unemployment problem was decreased for both man and women.

Table 3 . Family status of the fish farmers in the study area
**Figure in the parenthesis indicate percentage of total

Table 4 . Educational status of the fish farmers in the study area
**Figure in the parenthesis indicate percentage of total

Table 5 . Religious status of the fish farmers in the study area
**Figure in the parenthesis indicate percentage of total

Table 7 . Distribution of the type of pond in the study area
**Figure in the parenthesis indicate percentage of total

Table 8 . Housing condition of the fish farmers in the study area
**Figure in the parenthesis indicate percentage of total

Table 9 . Health service received by the fish farmers in the surveyed area
**Figure in the parenthesis indicate percentage of total

Table 10 . Drinking water facilities of the fish farmers in the study area
**Figure in the parenthesis indicate percentage of total

Table 11 . Status of electricity facilities of the fish farmers in the study area
**Figure in the parenthesis indicate percentage of total

Table 12 . Use of sanitary facilities by the fish farmers in the study area
**Figure in the parenthesis indicate percentage of total

Table 13 . Use of cooking fuels by the fish farmers in the study area
**Figure in the parenthesis indicate percentage of total

Table 19 . Ownership of the ponds in the study area
**Figure in the parenthesis indicate percentage of total

Table 20 . Loan received by farmers for farming in the study area
**Figure in the parenthesis indicate percentage of total