PART II: Findings and Discussion on Farming Systems by FFS Farmers

The impact of the FFS is analyzed in relation to five major farming sub-systems, namely (i) indigenous poultry rearing, (ii) vegetable gardening, (iii) aquaculture, (iv) rearing of small ruminants (goats and sheep), (v) rearing of large ruminants, both cattle-fattening and dairying, and in relation to nutrition, health and hygiene. The findings in relation to each sub-system are presented sequentially before drawing together the overall picture of impact and reviewing the FFS participants views of the FFS and service delivery through the CBOs. 4.1 Poultry Rearing The FFS Module on Poultry Rearing consists of 6-7 Learning Sessions, focusing on poultry housing, including the separation of chickens and ducks, broody hen management, including removal of the chicks from the broody hen, feed management and disease prevention. The latter subject focuses on the main diseases affecting chickens and the number and timing of vaccination. It is not expected that FFS participants know how to vaccinate themselves, since RFLDC has trained Poultry Workers through the CBO. It is expected that the Poultry Workers attend the session on disease prevention. Prior to FFS intervention, 81.4% of the FFS participants were engaged in poultry rearing. After intervention, the proportion had increased to 97.1% indicating that the learning sessions were found to be highly relevant to the resource-poor farmers of the Greater Noakhali region. 4.1.1 Analysis by Agro-ecological Zone Among the Noakhali FFS participants, the knowledge related to these issues in poultry rearing was generally very good, with an index of 2-5-2.7 on almost all learning points in each of the four main agro-ecologies (Table 1). Only in the Tripura hills did the index fall below 2.5 and even here it was above the satisfactory level. The only exception to this pattern related to vaccination / poultry disease and prevention where the index fell below 2.0 in both the isolated chars and in the Tripura hills. Arguably this situation relates to the fact that in both these areas it proved difficult actually to get the vaccination services required, so that, in the absence of regular practice, the participants forgot the details on the issue. This may be reflected in the actual adoption of disease prevention/vaccination which fell to an average of 1.7-1.8 in these areas. However, on the whole, the indices of practice were only a very little lower than those of knowledge which is a rather satisfactory situation and indicates that the technical recommendations contained in the FFS are relatively easily adopted by the participants. This problem of access to vaccination facilities is reflected in Table 2 where the final row gives the decline of mortality resulting from involvement in the FFS. Since the FFS itself does not provide vaccination services, but rather the farmers depend upon the services provided by the Poultry Workers through the CBOs then the fall in mortality is overall only 37% (thus for 10 chickens dying in the past, 6 die now). This percentage falls to only about one third in Hatiya and the Tripura Hills.

Tables 3 and 4 are further evidence of this problem. Table 3 shows that only 35% of 93% of respondents answering the question said that they had received support in vaccination services or veterinary medicines from the CBOs, only slightly more than the proportion receiving further training and the distribution of chicks and ducklings through the use of the refreshment funds under the FFS. Table 4 on the other hand shows the outstanding problems of poultry rearing identified by respondents. Altogether almost half (48%) of the respondents answering this question said that they had a problem and of that group 55% claimed that the biggest problem was disease and a further 31% talked of crisis in obtaining vaccination and veterinary medicines. It is interesting to note that there is a difference between the responses of the rather more developed areas in the flash flood zone and the waterlogged area on the one hand and the char lands and the hills on the other. In the former cases, only one-third of respondents mentioned disease as a problem and in the waterlogged area, shortage of vaccine was more frequent. However, in the char lands and the hills, the proportion of respondents mentioning disease rises to over two-thirds and many fewer mention the problem of vaccination. For this group, poultry disease is common and there may be limited perception of even the availability of vaccination services. It may also be noted that 17% of respondents mentioned that predation (wild animals) was a problem, mainly in the waterlogged area and in Hatiya. These problems may also explain the relatively modest increase in the number of broody hens and ducks being kept by the average household. Before taking part in the FFS the average number of broody hens ranged from 1.9 (irrigated area) 2.6 (coastal chars); at the time of the survey, the numbers had increased to 3.5 3.8, with the biggest increase in the Tripura Hills and the smallest in the coastal chars. The equivalent figures for ducks were: before FFS participation 0.9 (Tripura Hills) -3.8 (coastal chars); after participation, 1.9 (Tripura Hills) 7.9 (isolated chars). The greatest increase was in the isolated chars (Hatiya) with 122%, the smallest in the coastal chars (20%). Although the modest increases may be related to mortality, there may be other factors. The survey was conducted in May-July 2010, at the end of the dry season, when many households have few sources of income, so that some of the stock may have been sold. Certainly this appears to be reflected in the rather higher levels of increase in consumption and sale of eggs and meat and the increased income from poultry. As can be seen from Table 2, overall, the consumption of eggs per household increased by 99% and the numbers sold by 125%, while poultry meat consumed increased by 107% and income from poultry meat sale by 128%. These figures are very encouraging, particularly since the highest increases were to be found mainly in the isolated chars and, in the case of egg sale, the Tripura Hills, the poorest parts of the project area. The improvements in sale of eggs and poultry meat are also reflected in the over increases in income from poultry. Average gross income overall increased from Tk 4,276 to Tk9,138, an increase of 114.0% while in Hatiya the increase was from Tk 6,858 to Tk 18,710, a leap of fully 173%. Although the expenditure in almost every area increased, the average net income per household also almost doubled to roughly Tk8,000.

4.1.2 Analysis by Cycle Apart from the analysis by AEZ, we have examined the performance of the FFS by Cycle. Two possible hypotheses lie behind this analysis. The first is that the impact of the FFS learning may increase over time with the growing confidence of the farmers; thus the performance of the participants in Cycle 1 should be better than those who have recently completed the FFS in Cycle 4. The second, partly conversely, is that the quality of the FFS learning process has increased in the later cycles when the Local Facilitators have gained more confidence and the FFS curriculum has slowly improved with experience. Tables 5 and 6 examine these hypotheses. Table 5 suggests that the first hypothesis may be partly true, since it shows that the knowledge of the learning points and indeed adoption of the improved technologies contained therein appears to be higher amongst participants involved in the first two cycles. This is true of all learning points except for the issue of disease prevention and vaccination, on which the adoption of participants in Cycle 1 is the lowest. This may be interpreted as indicating that the CBO services on which vaccination depends were not fully developed when these participants were involved in the FFS. By contrast, the lowest adoption scores were recorded in Cycle 4; not only is this Cycle the most recent round of FFS, but it is also the Cycle where the Project sought to expand the FFS most dramatically expressed in the largest sample size. Arguably, therefore, the Project may have sacrificed a degree of quality in going for quantity. On the other hand, Table 6 does not exhibit the same pattern. Although the greatest improvements in the various indicators in seen in Cycle 1, the smallest improvement is exhibited in Cycle 2. Close scrutiny of this data, however, shows a further interesting feature. For almost all indicators, Cycle 2 has the highest scores before the participation in FFS so that the smaller improvement relates largely to this and may indicate that farmer selection in this Cycle towards the poorer households may not have been so stringent as in the other Cycles.

Table 1. Average score knowledge and adoption on major learning points of poultry rearing (Poor-1, Moderate-2and Adequate-3) SRC-A (Waterlog) SRC-B (Irrigated), SRC-C (Coastal), SRC-D (Isolated Major Learning Points N=270 N= 270 N=250 Char), N=180 SRC-E (Hills), N=30 Average Score Average Score Average Score Average Score Average Score Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Poultry Housing 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.0 Poultry Feed Management 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.7 2.4 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.0 Broody Hen Management 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.0 2.0 Separation of Chick 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.2 2.8 2.7 2.3 2.1 Rear duck and chicken 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.3 1.9 separately Vaccination 2.2 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.9 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.7 Poultry Disease & 2.0 1.9 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.7 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.8 Prevention

All (N=1000) Average Score Knowledge Adoption 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.1 2.1 2.4 2.0 1.9

Table 2. Production and income changes before and after FFS on poultry rearing by SRC SRC-A (N=270) SRC-B (N=270) SRC-C(N=250) Description B A Ch B A Ch B A Ch % Nos. of Broody hen (avg) Nos. of Duck (avg) Yearly Egg Consumption (nos) Yearly Egg Sale ( nos) Yearly Meat Consumption (Tk) Yearly Meat Sale (TK) Gross Income Yearly Expenses (Tk) Yearly Net Income (Tk) Mortality Rte Decrease 2.3 3.4 173 98 1177 772 3306 827 2479 3.5 5.2 318 275 2365 1610 7535 1511 6024 52 52 84 181 101 109 128 83 143 42 1.9 1.6 127 64 1104 822 2881 704 2177 3.5 3.2 257 194 2673 2246 7622 1479 6143 % 84 104 102 203 142 173 165 110 182 37 2.6 3.8 215 195 1728 1412 5190 563 4627 3.8 4.5 327 249 2991 2536 8981 1017 7964 % 46 20 52 28 73 80 73 81 72 37

SRC-D(N=180) B 2.2 3.6 322 342 2028 1510 6858 703 6155 A 3.8 7.9 810 867 4573 4075 18710 2320 16390 Ch % 70 122 152 154 125 170 173 230 166 31 2.0 0.9 106 35 1029 776 2510 360 2150 B

SRC-E(N=30) A 3.8 1.9 256 108 1917 1670 5771 315 5456 Ch % 94 104 142 209 86 115 130 -13 154 32 Before, n=814 2.27 2.94 196 155 1443 1078 4276 692 3584

All (N=1000) After, n=971 3.8 4.88 390 348 2989 2459 9138 1445 7693 Change % 67 66 99 125 107 128 114 109 115 37

Table 2.a: Range of Income Changes of Poultry rearing by SRC

Income Changes Up to 50% 50%-99% 100% & above Total

SRC-A (N=270) n=239 11 17 72 100

SRC-B (N=270) n=255 11 18 71 100

SRC-C(N=250) n=211 19 24 57 100

SRC-D(N=180) N=173 6 16 78 100

SRC-E(N=30) n=22 10 13 77 100

All (N=1000) n=896 11 19 70 100

Table 3. Support / input received from CBO on poultry rearing. SRC-A N=270 SRC-B, N= 270 No. % No. Response 266 99 252 No support 15 6 6 Vaccine and medicine 80 30 128 Feed 66 25 75 Training/ Advice 79 30 148 Chick/ Duckling 153 58 54 Input (Case, Pot, Housing materials ) 19 7 41 Percentages of different types of support are based on numbers of responses

% 93 2 51 30 59 21 16

SRC-C, N=250 No. % 237 95 56 24 81 34 26 11 13 5 91 38 13 5

SRC-D, N=180 No. % 148 82 14 9 36 24 11 7 28 19 9 6 103 70

SRC-E, N=30 No. % 27 90 3 11 4 15 0 0 6 22 10 37 7 26

All (N=1000) No. % 930 93 94 10 329 35 178 19 274 29 317 34 183 20

Table 4. Type of problems faced on poultry rearing. SRC-A N=270 SRC-B, N= 270 SRC-C, N=250 No. % No. % No. % Response 256 95 266 99 214 86 Problem 90 35 133 50 102 48 Of which Disease 51 34 47 36 69 68 Vaccine and Medicine crisis 24 27 58 44 21 21 Feed crisis 4 5 1 1 1 1 Lack Vaccinator 1 1 0 0 0 0 Steal 3 3 27 20 5 5 Wild animal 7 8 40 30 10 10 Natural disaster 1 1 1 1 0 0 Lack of Land 1 1 0 0 2 2 Crisis of breeder 2 2 1 1 4 4 Percentage of different types of problem are based on numbers of households stating they had problems

SRC-D, N=180 No. % 178 99 109 61 71 29 2 0 0 19 0 1 0 65 27 2 0 0 17 0 1 0

SRC-E, N=30 No. % 25 83 20 80 13 11 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 65 55 0 5 0 5 0 0 0

All (N=1000) No. % 939 94 454 48 251 143 8 2 35 77 2 4 7 55 31 2 0 8 17 0 1 2

Table 5. Average score Knowledge and adoption on major learning points of poultry rearing from FFS (Poor-1, Moderate-2and Adequate-3) by cycle

Major Learning Points

Poultry Housing Poultry Feed Management Broody Hen Management Separation of Chick Rear duck and chicken separately Vaccination Poultry Disease & Prevention

Cycle-1, N=62 Ave. Score Knowledg e Adoption 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.8

Cycle-, N=120 Ave. Score Knowledg e Adoption 2.7 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.2 2.7 2.5 2.2 2.0 2.2 1.8

Cycle-3, N=323 Ave. Score Knowledg e Adoption 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0

Cycle-4, N=495 Ave. Score Knowledg e Adoption 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9

All (N=1000) Ave. Score Knowledg e Adoption 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.1 2.0 2.1 1.9

Table 6. Production and income changes before and after FFS on poultry rearing by cycle Cycle-1, N=62 Cycle-2, N=120 Description Change Change Before After Before After % % 2 3.37 69 2.4 4 67 Nos. of Broody hen (Avg) 2.56 5.14 101 5.2 7.3 40 Nos. of Duck (Avg) 205 442 116 276 445 61 Yearly Egg Consumption (nos) 129 360 179 299 430 44 Yearly Egg Sale ( nos) Yearly Meat Consumption (Tk) 1361 3266 140 1645 3297 100 873 2564 194 1355 2620 93 Yearly Meat Sale (TK) 1029 3904 9840 152 5875 75 Gross Income 2 760 761 0 750 1542 106 Yearly Expenses (Tk) 3144 9079 189 5125 8750 71 Yearly Net Income (Tk) 37 35 Mortality Rate Decrease

Cycle-3, N=323 Change Before After % 2.22 3.46 56 2.66 4.48 68 185 375 103 125 338 170 1492 3066 105 1180 2389 102 4222 755 3467 9020 1674 7346 114 122 112 41

Cycle-4, N=495 Change Before After % 2.3 4.05 76 2.62 4.52 73 183 381 108 143 334 134 1372 2829 106 971 2452 153 3972 628 3344 8854 1343 7511 123 114 125 34

Before, n=814 2.27 2.94 196 155 1443 1078 4276 692 3584

All (N=1000) Change After, n=971 % 3.8 67 4.88 66 390 99 348 125 2989 107 2459 128 9138 1445 7693 114 109 115 37

Table 6a: Range of Income Changes of poultry rearing by Cycle Income Changes Cycle-1, N=62 Cycle-2, N=120 Cycle-3, N=323 n=54 n=102 n=292 Up to 50% 4 13 14 50%-99% 15 26 18 100% above 81 61 68 Total 100 100 100

Cycle-4, N=495 n=448 11 18 71 100

All (N=1000) n=896 11 19 70 100

4.2 Vegetable Gardening

The Vegetable Gardening Module in the RFLDC FFS consisted of between 7-9 Learning Sessions: Species selection (which vegetables to grow) and land preparation; Seedbed preparation; Seed selection and germination; Sowing and transplanting; Fertilization, especially composting; Insect and pest management (IPM for vegetables); Disease control; and Seed Preservation. Most participants in the FFS had already had a degree of experience in vegetable gardening (82.5%); the proportion of households engaged in this enterprise after FFS learning once again increased significantly (to 96.7%) so that almost all households were following this practice after their learning experience. 4.2.1 Analysis by Agro-ecological Zone As with poultry rearing, the knowledge of the learning points in vegetable gardening was generally encouraging, with some learning sessions like seedbed preparation and organic fertilization exhibiting scores of 2.6 and adoption of these practices was almost as high (Table 7). The only exception to this situation was amongst the small sample of farmers in the Tripura Hills, where issues of communication and the appropriateness of the technologies led to scores of only 1.9-2.1 for the same learning points. Almost in parallel with the poultry modules, the sessions scoring lowest across the board were those on insect and pest management and disease control, with a notable exception in the latter case in the isolated chars in Hatiya. Again this pattern is reflected in the responses to the questions on support from the CBOs and continuing problems of vegetables cultivation. Table 10 shows that, of the 36% of respondents who indicated that they still had problems in vegetable cultivation, fully 51% indicated that there main problems related to insects and disease. It may be noted that this was the dominant problem in almost all the agro-ecologies, but especially in the char lands (70% of respondents) and in the hills (83%). The only exception was in Hatiya where 51% said there main problem was natural disaster and another 17% water crisis, clearly relating to the impact of such events as Cyclone Aila. In the waterlogged area, it is also notable, but not surprising, that 27% of respondents mentioned shortage of land for vegetable cultivation. As Table 9 indicates, moreover, the support from the CBOs has been concentrated in the supply of quality seeds through the refreshment funds (84% of all respondents) and to some extent tree saplings and very little in the direction of agricultural chemicals. The positive impact of involvement in the learning sessions in vegetable gardening appears to have been greater than in poultry rearing. Although the production levels of vegetables were said to have increased by only between 49 - 77% in the different ecological zones, the value of vegetables both consumed and sold increased significantly after the FFS. Consumption levels overall increased by almost 100%, while the value of sales went up by one and three-quarter times. Gross income from vegetables thus increased by 125% and, as a result of a smaller increase in production costs, net incomes were up 134%. 4.2.2 Analysis by Cycle If we look again at the data by Cycle (Tables 11 and 12), once again the average scores for knowledge and adoption show that the participants in the earlier Cycles tend to have the better performance, while the participants in Cycle 4 exhibit the lowest scores. Presumably the scores for the latter Cycle are affected by the inclusion of the hill areas in this Cycle, as well, possibly by the rapid expansion of the numbers of FFS being conducted. However, there is no clear pattern when the production and income data are considered and there is an increase in expenditures in the flash flood area which means that the increase in net incomes is lowest.

Table 7. Average score Knowledge and adoption on major learning points Vegetable gardening from FFS (Poor-1, Moderate-2 and Adequate-3) Major Learning Points SRC-A N=270 SRC-B, N= 270 SRC-C, N=250 SRC-D, N=180 SRC-E, N=30 Average Score Average Score Average Score Average Score Average Score Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Species Selection and Land Preparation 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.1 2.9 1.8 Seedbed and Pit Preparation 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.1 1.8 Quality Seed and Germination Test 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.5 2.2 1.8 1.7 Use of Organic Fertilizer 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.1 1.9 1.5 Use of Inorganic fertilizer 2.3 2 2.1 2 2 1.9 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.6 Insect & Pest Management (ICP+IPM) 2.2 2 2.1 2 2 1.9 2.4 2.1 1.6 1.6 Sowing & Transplant systems 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.2 1.9 1.6 Disease Control 2.1 2 2 2 1.9 1.7 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.5 Seed Preservation 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 2 2 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.7

All (N=1000) Average Score Knowledge Adoption 2.3 2.2 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8

Table 8: Changes in Production and Consumption of and Income from Vegetables by SRC SRC-A (N=270) SRC-B (N=270) SRC-C(N=250) Vegetable Consumption (Tk) Sales (Tk) Gross Income Production (Kg) Expenses (Tk.) Net Income B 1873 927 2800 280 802 1998 A 3635 2187 5822 451 1395 4427 % 94 136 108 49 74 122 B 1584 1023 2607 261 723 1884 A 3042 2650 5691 407 1211 4480 % 92 159 118 56 67 138 B 1424 639 2063 206 330 1733 A 2951 2169 5120 366 751 4369 % 107 240 148 77 128 152 B

SRC-D(N=180) A 5347 4437 9783 699 1968 7816 % 101 192 134 67 139 133 B

SRC-E(N=30) A 3620 2897 6517 465 1448 5368 % 104 127 114 53 180 100 Before n=825 1824 1000 2824 282 660 2164

All (N=1000) After n=967 3617 2738 6355 454 1284 5071 % 98 174 125 61 95 134

2656 1517 4173 417 823 3350

1778 1273 3052 305 518 2533

Table 8a: Range of Income Changes of Vegetable gardening by SRC

Income Changes Up to 50% 50%-99% 100% & above Total

SRC-A (N=270) n=243 16 23 61 100

SRC-B (N=270) n=249 15 30 55 100

SRC-C(N=250) n=237 8 22 70 100

SRC-D(N=180) n=169 15 25 60 100

SRC-E(N=30) n=26 38 15 47 100

All (N=1000) n=924 14 25 61 100

Table 9. Support / input received from CBO on Vegetable gardening by FFS members SRC-A N=270 SRC-B, N= 270 SRC-C, N=250 No. % No. % No. % Response 258 96 256 95 240 96 Medicine 0 0 3 1 2 1 Seed 219 85 191 75 199 83 Training/ Advice 71 28 129 50 16 7 Plant (Tree) 45 17 20 8 50 21 Input (Fertilizer) 6 2 26 10 9 4 Table 10. Type of problems faced on Vegetable gardening. SRC-A N=270 SRC-B, N= 270 No. % No. % Response 233 86 257 95 Problem faced 45 19 103 40 Area of problems Insect and Disease 16 36 59 57 Medicine crisis 0 0 1 1 Seed crisis 3 7 14 14 Input crisis 0 0 3 3 Shortage of land 7 16 28 27 Natural disaster (Draught ness / 10 22 2 2 Flood) Water crisis 9 20 2 2 Marketing 3 7 0 0

SRC-D, N=180 No. % 175 97 1 1 170 97 32 18 9 5 29 17

SRC-E, N=30 No. % 25 83 0 0 19 76 11 44 2 8 1 4

All (N=1000) No. % 954 95 6 1 798 84 259 27 126 13 71 7

SRC-C, N=250 No. % 208 83 82 39 58 4 10 0 6 2 5 0 71 5 12 0 7 2 6 0

SRC-D, N=180 No. % 176 98 91 52 28 2 2 4 3 46 17 0 31 2 2 4 3 51 19 0

SRC-E, N=30 No. % 23 77 6 26 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 83 0 17 0 0 0 0 0

All (N=1000) No. % 897 90 327 36 166 7 30 7 44 60 33 3 51 2 9 2 13 18 10 1

Table 11. Average score Knowledge and adoption on major learning points of Vegetable gardening from FFS (Poor-1, Moderate-2and Adequate-3) by Cycle

Major Learning Points Species Selection and Land preparation Seedbed and pit preparation Quality Seed and Germination test Use of organic fertilizer Use of inorganic fertilizer Insect & pest Management (ICP+IPM) Sowing & Transplant systems Disease control Seed Preservation

Cycle-1, N=62 Ave. Score Knowledge Adoption 2.44 2.29 2.74 2.68 2.45 2.44 2.60 2.52 2.06 1.92 2.16 1.97 2.47 2.23 1.98 1.89 1.98 1.79

Cycle-, N=120 Ave. Score Knowledge Adoption 2.56 2.34 2.77 2.73 2.51 2.35 2.63 2.58 2.29 2.01 2.33 2.07 2.62 2.43 2.10 1.91 1.96 1.91

Cycle-3, N=323 Ave. Score Knowledge Adoption 2.34 2.23 2.61 2.47 2.34 2.26 2.44 2.35 2.08 1.97 2.14 1.99 2.37 2.23 2.02 1.91 1.98 1.93

Cycle-4, N=495 Ave. Score Knowledge Adoption 2.26 2.13 2.53 2.37 2.28 2.16 2.38 2.22 2.07 1.89 2.07 1.94 2.34 2.20 1.98 1.87 1.86 1.79

All (N=1000) Ave. Score Knowledge Adoption 2.3 2.2 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.0 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8

Table 12: Production, Consumption and Income Changes of Vegetable gardening. Cycle-1, N=62 Vegetable Consumption (Tk) Sales (Tk) Gross Income (Tk) Production (kg) Expenses (Tk.) Net Income Before 1812 927 2739 274 627 2112 After 3797 2564 6361 454 1544 4817 % 110 177 132 66 146 128 Cycle-, N=120 Before 2266 1114 3380 338 708 2672 After 4125 3600 7725 552 1582 6143 % 82 223 129 63 123 130 Cycle-3, N=323 Before 1887 814 2701 270 640 2061 After 3801 2563 6364 455 1368 4996 % 101 215 136 68 114 142 Cycle-4, N=495 Before 1674 1103 2777 278 665 2112 After 3347 2662 6009 429 1121 4888 % 100 141 116 55 69 131 Before (n=825) 1824 1000 2824 245 660 2164 All (N=1000) After (n=967) 3617 2738 6355 336 1284 5071 % 98 174 125 61 94 134

Table 12a: Range of Income Changes of Vegetable gardening by Cycle Income Changes Cycle-1, N=62 Cycle-2, N=120 Cycle-3, N=323 n=57 n=113 n=301 Up to 50% 16 13 11 50%-99% 16 24 28 100% above 68 63 61 Total 100 100 100

Cycle-4, N=495 n=453 17 24 59 100

All (N=1000) n=924 14 25 61 100

4.3 Aquaculture
The learning points for aquaculture are rather fewer than those for poultry and vegetable gardening, involving pond preparation, including nursing, stocking mix, stocking density, feed management, risk and hazard management, and harvesting and marketing. The numbers of households engaged in aquaculture is significantly smaller than in the other two sub-systems. Prior to the FFS interventions, only 44.5% of farmers were involved in this practice, although after FFS the proportion had increased by an encouraging 26% to 55.9% overall. There was a particularly noticeable increased in the isolated chars in Hatiya, although this was not supported by the increase in area cultured. 4.3.1 Analysis by Agroecology The knowledge and adoption of the FFS learning points in aquaculture was rather less satisfactory than in the case of poultry and vegetable farming, with the highest score at 2.4 for pond preparation and the scores for the other variables around 2.0. In this case, the slightly better performance in both knowledge and adoption was in the coastal and isolated chars where aquaculture has been rather less developed in the past. Perhaps naturally, the least knowledge and adoption was in the hills, where so far there has been limited scope for aquaculture development. There is little difference between the scores on the different learning sessions for aquaculture, although pond preparation seems to be better understood than others. Thus the problems related to aquaculture development do not correlate well with the scores on the learning sessions in the same way as for poultry and vegetable cultivation. Only one-third of farmers say that they experience problems (Table 17), with four main issues prominent: disease, which appears to be the main problem in the chars; natural disaster, mainly overbank flooding, but also drought/lack of water which are important in the waterlogged zone and Hatiya (again related to Aila?); quality of carp fingerlings, mentioned mainly in the waterlogged areas and in the chars; and, perhaps worryingly for the dogi intervention, theft in the waterlogged area. Most of these problems cannot easily be addressed by support services and other than training/advice, the support from CBOs is largely concentrated on ensuring quality fingerlings, mainly on the char lands and Hatiya (Table 16) Overall, after the FFS interventions, production from aquaculture had increased by 74%, with the best performance in the waterlogged lands and the isolated chars in Hatiya. Here too, and encouragingly fish consumption, had also increased markedly, by 175%, much higher than the overall average increase of 52%. However, the best performance in terms of net income was exhibited in the waterlogged area, A relatively small group of farmers engaged in carp polyculture with prawn were analyzed separately. The number of prawn farmers was only 5.3% of the total prior to the FFS and increased to 6.1% afterwards. [Where were they?] However, production increased very rapidly following the learning process and income from this system more than doubled. Clearly there is a need to encourage further the incorporation of prawn through the FFS, assuming appropriate rearing conditions.

4.3.2 Analysis by Cycle The analysis by cycle shows for aquaculture shows a rather different pattern from those for poultry and vegetable gardening. Although once again the scores for knowledge and adoption were much better in the early cycles than in Cycle 4, where some of the adoption scores drop to as low as 1.5, the impact in terms of production and income improvement is rather greater in the later cycles. Arguably, this may reflect farmer selection and possibly the greater concentration of the FFS in the poorer char land areas in these later cycles. The increase in production and consumption in these later cycles was rather encouraging and in Cycle 3 and 4 the net income from aquaculture increased by over 100%, in line with the targets in the logical framework.

Table 13. Average score Knowledge and adoption on major learning points Aquaculture from FFS (Poor-1, Moderate-2and Adequate-3) by SRC Major Learning Points SRC-A N=270 SRC-B, N= 270 SRC-C, N=250 SRC-D, N=180 SRC-E, N=30 All (N=1000) Average Score Average Score Average Score Average Score Average Score Average Score Knowled Adopti Knowled Adopti Knowled Adopti Knowled Adopti Knowled Adopti Knowled Adopti ge on ge on ge on ge on ge on ge on Pond Preparation (Nursery ) 2.4 1.8 2.3 1.6 2.5 2.1 2.5 2.0 0.9 0.7 2.4 1.8 Stocking Mix 2.2 1.7 2.0 1.5 2.1 1.9 2.0 1.7 0.7 0.6 2.0 1.6 Stocking Density 2.0 1.6 2.0 1.5 2.0 1.7 2.2 1.8 0.7 0.6 2.0 1.6 Feed Management 2.1 1.6 2.1 1.5 2.2 2.1 2.1 1.7 1.0 0.7 2.1 1.7 Risk and hazard 2.0 1.6 1.9 1.5 1.8 1.5 2.0 1.6 0.8 0.6 1.9 1.5 Harvesting and Marketing 2.1 1.6 1.9 1.5 1.8 1.7 1.9 1.5 0.8 0.6 1.9 1.6
Table 14 Production, Consumption and Income Changes of Poly-culture without prawn by SRC SRC-A (N=270) SRC-B (N=270) SRC-C(N=250) SRC-D(N=180) SRC-E(N=30) All (N=1000) Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change No. of farmers 114 136 19 114 141 24 183 207 13 31 70 126 3 5 67 445 559 26 Area (Deci) 15 18 15 16 19 12 17 17 0 15 17 11 12 18 44 16 17 6 Sale (Taka) 5984 9250 55 2225 3663 65 2167 3307 53 1797 5272 193 1000 920 -8 3126 5067 62 Consumption (Taka) 4772 13510 183 3820 6087 59 3642 5188 42 3545 6026 70 4167 10940 163 3974 7596 91 Production (Kg) 149 308 106 84 132 57 81 115 42 74 153 106 72 160 123 99 171 74 Gross Income 10757 22760 112 6045 9750 61 5809 8495 46 5342 11298 111 5167 11860 130 7100 12663 78 Expenses 4249 4376 3 2003 3428 71 1497 2532 69 1585 2265 43 1833 1440 -21 2340 3163 35 Net Income 6507 18384 183 4042 6322 56 4312 5963 38 3756 9033 140 3333 10420 213 4760 9500 100

Table 14.a: Range of Income Changes of Poly-culture without prawn by SRC Income Changes SRC-A (N=270) SRC-B (N=270) SRC-C(N=250) n=117 n=129 n=184 Up to 50% 19 28 30 50%-99% 15 20 15 100% & above 66 52 55 Total 100 100 100

SRC-D(N=180) N=58 17 8 75 100

SRC-E(N=30) n=3 0 33 67 100

All (N=1000) n=491 25 16 59 100

Table 15 Production and income from Carp-poly Culture with Prawn by SRC SRC-A, (N=270) SRC-B, (N=270) SRC-C, (N=250) B P % B P % B P Nos. of HH 2 7 250 2 5 150 2 1 Avg. Water Area (deci) 30 48 60 60 39 -35 57 14 Production (Kg.) 390 589 51 284 356 25 20 50 Consumption (Kg) 140 92 -34 170 178 5 9 20 3635 2350 Net Income (Taka) 31650 7 15 18000 0 31 1500 4000

% -50 -75 150 122

SRC-D, (N=180) B P % 48 48 0 13 13 0 38 74 95 32 39 22 11 167 2575 5418 0

All (N=970) B P 54 61 17 19 60 177 40 56 1042 4183 8

% 13 12 195 40 149

Table 16. Support / input received from CBO on Fish culture SRC-A N=270 SRC-B, N= 270 No. % No. % Response 146 54 179 66 Support Received 78 53 132 74 Medicine 0 0 3 2 Feed 6 8 21 16 Training/ Advice 51 65 113 86 Carp fingerling /PL 18 23 6 5 Input (Fertilizer, Chun) 12 15 42 32 Marketing 3 4 5 4

SRC-C, N=250 No. % 214 86 111 52 1 1 5 5 10 9 94 85 11 10 0 0

SRC-D, N=180 No. % 114 63 74 61 0 0 2 3 41 55 31 42 5 7 0 0

SRC-E, N=30 No. % 6 20 5 83 0 0 0 0 4 80 0 0 0 0 1 20

All (N=1000) No. % 659 65.9 400 58 4 1 34 9 219 55 149 37 70 18 9 2

Table 17. Type of problem faced on Fish culture SRC-A N=270 No. % 13 Response 9 51 Problem Faced 14 10 Type of problems Disease 3 21 Carp fingerling /PL 2 14 Feed crisis 1 7 Theft 0 0 Financial 1 7 Pond crisis 0 0 Natural disaster (Draught ness / Flood) Decrease water level 5 3 36 21

SRC-B, N= 270 No. % 179 59 2 13 3 25 3 9 22 3 66 33 3 22 5 42 5 15 37 5

SRC-C, N=250 No. % 190 68 35 17 4 1 1 1 5 7 76 36 51 25 6 1 1 1 7 10

SRC-D, N=180 No. % 113 69 33 4 2 0 2 2 16 13 63 61 48 6 3 0 3 3 28 19

SRC-E, N=30 No. % 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

All (N=1000) No. % 627 210 73 36 10 26 7 12 48 26 63 34 35 17 5 12 3 6 23 12

Table 18. Average score Knowledge and adoption on major learning points of Aquaculture from FFS (Poor-1, Moderate-2and Adequate-3) by Cycle Cycle-1, N=62 Cycle-2, N=120 Cycle-3, N=323 Cycle-4, N=495 All (N=1000) Major Learning Points Ave. Score Ave. Score Ave. Score Ave. Score Ave. Score Knowle Adoption Knowledg Adoption Knowledg Adoption Knowledg Adoption Knowledg Adoption dge e e e e Pond Preparation(Nursery ) 2.6 2.0 2.6 2.1 2.4 1.9 2.2 1.7 2.4 1.8 Stocking considering of Spices 2.2 2.0 2.2 1.9 2.1 1.7 1.9 1.5 2.0 1.6 Stocking considering of no. 2.2 2.0 2.1 1.8 2.0 1.7 1.9 1.5 2.0 1.6 Feed Management 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.0 2.2 1.7 2.0 1.6 2.1 1.7 Risk and hazard 2.0 1.6 2.0 1.7 2.0 1.6 1.8 1.4 1.9 1.5 Harvesting and Marketing 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.5 1.9 1.6

Table 19 Production, Consumption and Income Changes of Carp-poly culture without prawn by Cycle Cycle-1, N=62 Cycle-2, N=120 Cycle-3, N=323 Cycle-4, N=495 All (N=1000) Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change No. of farmers 34 38 12 71 78 10 147 191 30 193 252 31 445 559 26 Area (Deci) 17 27 60 19 21 8 16 16 -2 16 16 3 16 17 6 Sale (Taka) 4813 6165 28 4207 6062 44 2828 6177 118 2659 3753 41 3126 5067 62 Consumption (Taka) 4021 5750 43 4836 8732 81 3613 5716 58 3924 8948 128 3974 7596 91 Production (Kg) 123 161 31 126 200 59 89 161 80 91 172 88 99 171 74 Gross Income 8834 11915 35 9043 14794 64 6440 11893 85 6583 12700 93 7100 12663 78 Expenses 2774 5340 93 3102 4431 43 2563 2920 14 1814 2626 45 2340 3163 35 Net Income 6061 6576 8 5941 10363 74 3877 8972 131 4769 10074 111 4760 9500 100

Table 19a: Range of Income Changes of Carp-poly culture without prawn by Cycle Income Changes Cycle-1, N=62 Cycle-2, N=120 Cycle-3, N=323 n=29 n=73 n=175 Up to 50% 30 28 20 50%-99% 28 15 17 100% & above 42 57 63 Total 100 100 100

Cycle-4, N=495 n=214 27 14 59 100

All (N=1000) n=491 25 16 59 100

Table 20 Production and income from Carp poly Culture with Prawn by Cycle Cycle -1, N=62 Cycle -2, N=120 Cycle-3, N=323 Nos. of HH 6 10 67 7 9 29 8 9 Avg. Water Area (deci) 15 19 27 12 12 0 14 15 Production (Kg.) 46 79 72 50 66 32 55 81 Consumption (Kg) 23 33 43 30 28 -7 36 53 Net Income (Taka) 3091 7440 141 3142 6016 91 5083 7074

13 7 47 47 39

Cycle -4, N=495 32 33 3 17 23 35 70 172 146 46 54 17 5080 13254 161

54 17 60 40 4183

All (N=1000) 61 19 177 56 10428

13 12 195 40 149

4.4. Livestock Rearing

Livestock rearing in the FFS actually consists of three different sub-systems: rearing of small ruminants, goats and sheep, the latter being a particular activity in parts of the char lands in Noakhali; cattle fattening, usually oriented towards sale at festivals, especially Eid-ul-Azha; and dairying. However, in the FFS, the learning sessions for all of these sub-systems were rather similar and in the analysis all have been linked together into a single table (Table 21). A total of seven learning sessions were included: species selection, house management, feed management, deworming, vaccination and disease control and artificial insemination. Although in Noakhali FFS there was no specific session on artificial insemination, this was included and answered on the basis of general experience. Also it should be noted that these modules were only introduced in Cycle 3 of the FFS in Noakhali in line with the growing confidence of the field teams in the FFS process, but also when the expansion of the numbers of FFS began to take off. 4.4.1 Analysis by Agro-ecology In general, the knowledge and adoption scores for livestock rearing were rather lower than for the other systems. Only in the waterlogged area and in Hatiya did the scores for any of the learning points reach over two and this was not achieved anywhere for the vaccination, disease control and artificial insemination sessions. The artificial insemination scores were the lowest, falling to less than 1.5 in the waterlogged area and in the Tripura Hills. Once again this situation is likely to reflect the lack of services for either vaccination/disease control or artificial insemination; notably the adoption scores for AIT reached only a high of 1.35 in Hatiya, possibly because of the presence of BRAC AI volunteers, and fell to only 1.18 in the flash flood area. In general adoption scores were lower, best at around 1.7 in Hatiya and 1.6 in the waterlogged area, but rather low in the flash flood are and the hills. This situation may reflect the fact that these are systems in which practice takes place over a longer period of 12-13 months in the case of goats and sheep and over two years for dairy cattle; thus uptake of improved practices may also be delayed and may be difficult to sustain. The relatively low scores in livestock rearing do not seem to be linked to a major incidence of problems. Of the 49% of respondents (n486) answering this question, only 144 stated that they had problems in rearing of small and large ruminants. As might be expected the dominant problem as with poultry centered on disease (28% of those with problems), vaccination (22%) and the lack of vaccinators (6%). This was common throughout, especially in Hatiya and in the hills, the most isolated contexts. Moreover support from the CBOs was quite limited in addressing this problem. Of 215 households who said they received support from the CBOs, only one-third claimed support for vaccination and veterinary medicines and this was mainly in the waterlogged area. However, other problems were also felt. Wild animals was ranked equally with disease in the hills, but was a significant occurrence also in the flash flood area, where the sample Upazila, Chagolnaiya, is also on the border. An interesting response came from the waterlogged area, where two problems were highlighted, shortage of land and shortage of fodder; this can be explained by the fact that so much of the land here is under water in the monsoon season and is then put down to intensive rice cultivation in the boro season. There is simply no room for ruminants to graze. Although learning and adoption was measured in general, the impact of the FFS in terms of production, consumption and income was broken down by sub-system and will be described separately for goats and sheep, cattle fattening and dairy farming. The situation in the case of goat rearing is interesting. In the Baseline survey in Noakhali, a remarkably small number of households reared goats despite its apparent suitability for resource-poor farmers. The FFS survey substantiates this fact, with only 6% of households rearing goats before the FFS. However, after the FFS training, this proportion had risen to 20.3% an

increase of over 300% and the numbers of goats reared had also shot up from just 142 to 568 (400% increase. All agro-ecologies showed a significant upturn, with the number of families rearing going up six-fold in the char lands and the number of goats by a similar proportion in the waterlogged lands. Goat rearing was absent in the Tripura hills sample prior to the FFS, but has begun to make a contribution to the economy since. However, this is not reflected in the improvement in income from goat rearing to date which increased overall by only 42% and not at all in the flash flood area and in the chars. The highest improvement was in Hatiya where net income from goats more than doubled to Tk5,100 per year. Cattle fattening is also seen by RFLDC as having good potentials for improving the livelihood of the resource poor farmers. Purchase of a small cow (usually a bull calf) for a Tk3000-4000 and fattening this up for a period of 3-6 months prior to sale at Eid can yield a return of over 400% with little of no investment in supplementary feed. The popularity of the enterprise is indeed reflected in the fact that the number of households rearing since the FFS has increased by over 400% and the actual numbers of cattle by an even greater amount. The biggest increases are in the char lands as might be expected and in the Tripura hills where this enterprise was almost absent previously. However, just as with goat rearing, this is not reflected in the impact in terms of financial returns. There has only been a 34% improvement in net income from this activity, although this figure is much greater in Hatiya and in the hills. This may relate partly to the fact that the survey was conducted in May-June before the time of sale at Eid. However, production costs have been held stable or even declined under the FFS technology so that the improvement in net income is better than in gross income. Dairy cattle farming has not been a major thrust in the FFS in Noakhali, although, as stated above, many of the learning points are just as important for dairy cattle as they are for goats and for cattle fattening. This fact may be reflected in the relatively smaller expansion of the enterprise recorded in the survey, with the numbers of households going up from 14% to 28.7% after the FFS and the numbers of dairy cattle only doubling. Moreover milk production only increased by some 43% and not at all in the flash flood zone. There have been good increases in the waterlogged area and in Hatiya, but, interestingly the biggest increase has been in the hills where milk production has been constrained by the perception of lack of market. Both milk consumption and sales in this small sample have increased significantly since the start-up of FFS and gross and net incomes from milk has increased by over 100% in the hills, the waterlogged lands and in Hatiya. 4.4.2 Analysis by Cycle As mentioned above, RFLDC Noakhali only expanded its FFS to ruminant rearing in the third cycle from June 2008 and, as Table 28 indicates, there are only slight differences between the knowledge and adoption scores of participants in the third and fourth cycles. In Cycle 4, the adoption of artificial insemination practices was very limited, although deworming practices were rather high. Although ruminant rearing was not in the curriculum for the FFS for Cycles 1 and 2 in 2007, the analysis of production and income changes has been made for all four cycles. In this context, the changes in Cycles 1 and 2 cannot obviously be attributed to the FFS training, so that to some extent these cycles act as a control group against which to measure the FFS impact in Cycles 3 and 4. Thus in the case of goat rearing (Table 29), it is interesting to note that the improvements are least for those farmers involved in Cycle 1, amongst whom gross returns actually declined compared with before the FFS. It is only in Cycle 3 where there is a level of improvement significantly higher than the general situation, which may be encouraging since this may be the Cycle when improvements goat rearing ma have had time to emerge, as opposed to Cycle 4, when many farmers would not have gained the maximum benefit. Thus in Cycle 3, the numbers of households rearing goats increased by over 400%, the number of goats reared by a massive 800% and the net income by 66%.

However, a similar pattern is not observed in the case of cattle fattening (Table 30). Although, as we have seen, this has expanded dramatically, the best performance in economic terms was achieved by farmers in Cycle 1 amongst whom the number of rearers increased by 443%, the number of cattle fattened by 622% and the net returns by 174%. By contrast in Cycle 3, although the numbers of farmers involved and the numbers of cattle also increased dramatically, the net return only increased by 16% and the increase in involvement in Cycle 4 was least among the four cycles. Once again this may be partly a reflection of the timing of the survey, which took place before the Eid-ul-Azha festival and therefore before the benefits of cattle fattening had been translated into improved income. Turning to dairy farming (Table 31), it is even less likely that the changes can be attributed to the FFS since dairy farming was not central to the FFS curriculum as previously stated. Thus it may be observed that the numbers of farmers engaged in dairying and the expansion of numbers of cows increased most in Cycle 1 and least in Cycle 4; on the other hand, the improvement in net returns was greatest amongst farmers in Cycle 3 at over 200% from the baseline. Once again the pattern is not clear and seems to suggest general trends towards greater involvement in dairy farming in general, regardless of the FFS,

Table 21. Average score Knowledge and adoption on major learning points Beef Fettering, Milking cow and Goat/Sheep rearing from FFS (Poor-1, Moderate-2 and Adequate-3) Major Learning Points SRC-A, N=225 SRC-B,N=236 SRC-C,N=177 SRC-D, N=150 SRC-E, N=30 All, N=818 Average Score Average Score Average Score Average Score Average Score Average Score Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Knowledge Adoption Species selection House Management Feed Management Warm Vaccination Disease control Artificial Insemination 1.89 1.98 1.97 1.88 1.71 1.68 1.56 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.98 2.25 2.19 2.09 1.81 1.96 1.44 1.62 1.68 1.66 1.60 1.55 1.58 1.22 1.72 2.04 1.98 1.60 1.55 1.53 1.53 1.51 1.68 1.56 1.50 1.40 1.20 1.25 2.00 2.22 2.01 2.05 1.95 1.90 1.69 1.59 1.88 1.65 1.69 1.65 1.71 1.35 1.63 1.63 1.70 1.43 1.47 1.60 1.37 1.33 1.50 1.53 1.37 1.30 1.37 1.27 1.89 2.10 2.03 1.89 1.74 1.76 1.54 1.53 1.65 1.57 1.55 1.47 1.44 1.24

Table 22. Support / input received from CBO on Livestock.

SRC-A N=270
Response Received support Vaccine and Medicine Feed Training/ Advice species goat Input Marketing No. 103 58 12 9 37 4 0 0 % 38 56 21 16 64 7 0 0

SRC-B, N= 270
No. 150 96 42 6 69 1 0 0 % 56 64 44 6 72 1 0 0

SRC-C, N=250
No. 147 16 9 5 6 1 0 0 % 59 11 56 31 37 6 0 0

SRC-D, N=180
No. 86 38 8 0 29 2 0 0 % 48 44 21 0 76 5 0 0

SRC-E, N=30
No. 14 7 0 0 7 0 0 0 % 47 50 0 0 100 0 0 0

All (N=1000)
No. 500 215 71 20 148 8 0 0 % 50 43 33 9 69 4 0 0

Table 23. Type of problem faced on Livestock.

SRC-A N=270
Response Problem Faced Disease Vaccine and Medicine crisis Feed crisis Vaccinator crisis Steal /Social Financial Natural disaster Land crisis Wild animal No. 91 21 5 2 1 0 0 5 1 2 5 % 34 30 24 10 5 0 0 24 5 10 24

SRC-B, N= 270
No. 149 69 10 19 17 4 2 1 1 19 5 % 55 87 14 28 25 6 3 1 1 28 7

SRC-C, N=250
No. 142 18 6 5 1 2 3 0 0 1 1 % 57 15 33 38 6 11 18 0 0 6 6

SRC-D, N=180
No. 87 24 15 3 3 0 0 1 0 1 1 % 48 38 63 13 13 0 0 4 0 4 4

SRC-E, N=30
No. 17 12 5 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 5 % 57 70 42 17 0 17 8 0 0 0 42

All (N=1000)
No. 486 144 41 31 22 8 6 7 2 23 17 % 49 43 28 22 15 6 4 5 1 16 12

Table 24 : Production and Income Changes before and after FFS of Goat Rearing by SRC SRC-A N=270 SRC-B, N= 270 SRC-C, N=250 Description Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change No. of HH 16 52 225 7 26 271 8 49 513 Nos. of Animal 44 162 268 10 60 500 22 106 382 Average Cost (Tk.) 1,700 1,652 -3 971 2,471 154 1525 1551 2 Gross Return 6,300 6,210 -1 2886 6,786 106 4,038 4,137 2 Net Income 4,600 4,558 -1 1,914 3,486 82 2513 2586 3

SRC-D, N=180
Before 29 66 1103 3372 2270 After 72 234 1210 6310 5100 Change 148 255 10 87 124

SRC-E, N=30
Before After 4 6 1500 3375 1875 Change

All (N=1000)
Before 60 142 1303 4185 2882 After 203 568 1573 5656 4,084 Change 238 300 21 35 42

Table 24 a: Range of Income Changes of Goat Rearing by SRC Income Changes SRC-A (N=270) SRC-B (N=270) SRC-C(N=250) n=48 n=23 n=44 Up to 50% 2 9 0 50%-99% 2 4 2 100% & above 96 87 98 Total 100 100 100

SRC-D(N=180) N=71 7 6 87 100

SRC-E(N=30) n=4 0 0 100 100

All (N=1000) n=190 4 4 92 100

Table 25: Production and Income Changes before and after FFS of Sheep Rearing by SRC Description SRC-A N=270 SRC-B, N= 270 SRC-C, N=250 SRC-D, N=180

SRC-E, N=30

All (N=1000)

No. of HH Nos of Animal Average Cost (Tk.) Gross Return Net Income

2 5 1500 8400

6 20 154 1 806 6

200 300 3 -4

Table 26: Production and income changes before and after FFS on Beef Fattening by SRC Description SRC-A N=270 SRC-B, N= 270 SRC-C, N=250 SRC-D, N=180 SRC-E, N=30 All (N=1000) Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change % % % % % % No. of HH 24 83 246 29 99 241 9 115 1178 23 80 248 1 13 1200 86 390 Nos. of Animal 44 138 214 37 143 286 15 197 1213 48 200 317 3 22 633 147 700 Average Cost (Tk.) 12,508 11,848 -5 10,500 11,315 8 14,111 14,304 1 8,480 10,033 18 21,000 18,077 -14 10,881 12,272 Gross Return 22,833 22,887 0 19,786 22,178 12 21,222 23,959 13 26,420 42,794 62 30,000 42,385 41 22,470 27,757 Net Income 10,325 11,039 7 9,286 10,863 17 7,111 9,655 36 17,940 32,761 83 9,000 24,308 170 11,589 15,484

353 376 13 24 34

Table 26a: Range of Income Changes of Beef Fattening by SRC Income Changes SRC-A (N=270) SRC-B (N=270) SRC-C(N=250) n=74 n=84 n=91 Up to 50% 3 1 0 50%-99% 0 5 2 100% & above 97 94 98 Total 100 100 100

SRC-D(N=180) n=78 5 4 91 100

SRC-E(N=30) n=11 0 0 100 100

All (N=1000) n=338 2 3 95 100

Table 27 Production and income changes before and after FFS on Milking Cow Rearing by SRC Description SRC-A N=270 SRC-B, N= 270 SRC-C, N=250 SRC-D, N=180 Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Before After

SRC-E, N=30 All (N=1000) Change Before After Change Before After Change

% No. of HH Nos. of Milking Cow Yearly Milk Sale (Kg.) Yearly Milk Consumption (kg) Yearly Milk Production (kg) Yearly gross Income (TK) Yearly Expenses (Tk) Yearly Net Income (Tk) 32 47 39 54 280 275 142 134 422 409 12,647 16,364 6,894 8,273 5,753 8,091 47 38 38 40 -2 219 -5 136 -3 356 29 10,669 20 6,566 41 4,103 74 97 399 206 605 24,199 11,807 12,393

% 95 18 73 143 25 111 82 340 413 51 158 151 70 498 564 127 14,933 22,575 80 3,389 4,769 202 11,544 17,806

% 306 46 84 344 57 132 22 178 390 -4 208 229 13 386 620 51 11,568 24,789 41 2,266 4,104 54 9,303 20,685

% 83 5 9 132 6 9 120 52 119 10 74 216 61 126 335 114 3,780 13,400 81 3,460 5,078 122 320 8,322

% 80 139 287 50 167 403 129 229 371 192 162 187 166 391 558 254 11,726 22,337 47 4,695 6,972 2501 7,031 15,365

% 106 141 62 16 43 90 49 119

Table 27a: Range of Income Changes of Milking Cow by SRC Income Changes SRC-A (N=270) SRC-B (N=270) SRC-C(N=250) n=30 n=58 n=72 Up to 50% 13 7 6 50%-99% 13 3 6 100% & above 74 90 88 Total 100 100 100

SRC-D(N=180) N=79 4 16 80 100

SRC-E(N=30) n=7 0 14 86 100

All (N=1000) n=246 6 10 84 100

Table 28. Average score Knowledge and adoption on major learning points Beef Fattening, Milking cow and Goat/Sheep rearing from FFS (Poor-1, Moderate-2and Adequate-3) by Cycle Cycle-3, N=323 Ave. Score Knowledge Adoption 1.84 1.59 2.07 1.69 2.01 1.63 1.89 1.62 1.69 1.48 1.70 1.46 1.59 1.35 Cycle-4, N=495 Ave. Score Knowledge Adoption 1.92 1.49 2.12 1.63 2.04 1.54 1.90 1.51 1.77 1.46 1.81 1.43 1.50 1.17 All (N=818) Ave. Score Knowledge Adoption 1.89 1.53 2.10 1.65 2.03 1.57 1.89 1.55 1.74 1.47 1.76 1.44 1.54 1.24

Major Learning Points Species selection House Management Feed Management Warm Vaccination Disease control Artificial Insemination

Table 29. Production and income changes before and after FFS on Goat rearing by Cycle Description Cycle-1 (N=62) Cycle-2 (N=120) Cycle-3 (N=323)

Cycle-4 (N=495)

All (N=1000)

No. of HH Nos. of Animal Average Cost (Tk.) Gross Return Net Income

Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change 5 20 300 8 29 263 13 60 362 34 94 176 60 203 238 11 51 364 22 87 295 19 158 732 90 272 202 142 568 300 2,580 1,403 -46 1,685 2,088 24 988 1,686 71 1,146 1,378 20 1,303 1,573 21 5,840 5,705 -2 4,900 6,786 38 3,115 5,215 67 4,182 5,579 33 4,185 5,656 35 3,260 4,303 32 3,215 4,698 46 2,127 3,530 66 3,037 4,201 38 2,882 4,084 42

Table 29a: Range of Income Changes on Goat Rearing by Cycle Income Changes Cycle-1, N=62 Cycle-2, N=120 Cycle-3, N=323 n=18 n=27 n=56 Up to 50% 0 0 5 50%-99% 0 4 0 100% above 100 96 95 Total 100 100 100

Cycle-4, N=495 n=89 5 7 88 99

All (N=1000) n=190 4 4 92 100

Table 30. Production and income changes before and after FFS on Beef Fattening by Cycle Description Cycle-1 (N=62) Cycle-2 (N=120) Cycle-3 (N=323) Cycle-4 (N=495) All Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change % % % No. of HH 7 343 51 538 477 269 353 31 8 22 127 49 181 86 390 Nos. of Animal 9 522 106 607 543 256 376 56 15 35 225 88 313 147 700 Average Cost (Tk.) 7,714 12,165 58 14,413 14,167 -2 8,482 13,463 59 11,834 10,922 -8 10,881 12,272 13 Gross Return 12,000 23,919 99 32,000 31,114 -3 19,027 25,674 35 23,955 28,929 21 22,470 27,757 24 Net Income 4,286 11,755 174 17,588 16,947 -4 10,545 12,211 16 12,121 18,008 49 11,589 15,484 34

Table 30a: Range of Income Changes of Beef Fattening by Cycle Income Changes Cycle-1, N=62 Cycle-2, N=120 Cycle-3, N=323 n=27 n=41 n=111 Up to 50% 0 2 1 50%-99% 0 0 2

Cycle-4, N=495 n=159 3 5

All (N=1000) n=338 2 3

100% above Total

100 100

98 100

97 100

92 100

95 100

Table 31. Production and income changes before and after FFS on Milking Cow Rearing by Cycle Description Cycle-1 (N=62) Cycle-2 (N=120) Cycle-3 (N=323) Cycle-4 (N=495) All (N=1000) Chang Chang Chang Chang Before After e Before After e Before After e Before After e Before After Change % No. of HH Nos. of Milking Cow (avg) Yearly Milk Sale (Kg.) Yearly Milk Consumption (kg) Yearly Milk Production (kg) Yearly gross Income (TK) Yearly Expenses (Tk) Yearly Net Income (Tk) 10 13 36 9 12 0 48 9 14,67 0 5,23 0 9,44 0 24 38 39 8 15 6 55 3 22,13 3 6,72 3 15,41 0 140 192 8 30 13 51 29 63 25 28 28 4 13 9 42 3 12,67 6 3,90 9 8,76 7 54 74 37 0 17 1 54 1 21,64 3 5,43 6 16,20 6 % 116 164 30 23 28 71 39 85 36 44 18 3 11 9 30 2 9,04 6 4,41 9 4,62 6 80 109 40 1 17 4 57 5 23,01 2 8,50 6 14,50 6 % 122 148 120 46 91 154 92 214 68 82 21 3 19 8 41 1 12,33 3 5,05 1 7,28 1 129 182 34 8 20 8 55 6 22,24 7 6,71 1 15,53 6 % 90 122 64 5 35 80 33 113 139 287 167 403 22 37 9 1 16 18 1 7 39 55 0 8 11,71 22,33 1 7 4,69 6,97 5 2 7,01 15,36 6 5 % 106 141 62 16 43 91 49 119

Table 31a: Production, Consumption and Income Changes of Milking Cow Income Changes Cycle-1, N=62 Cycle-2, N=120 Cycle-3, N=323 n=22 n=49 n=62 Up to 50% 5 2 5 50%-99% 9 12 10 100% above 86 86 85 Total 100 100 100

Cycle-4, N=495 n=113 9 9 82 100

All (N=1000) n=246 6 10 84 100

4.5 Overall Impact 4.5.1 Change in Income Levels The previous sections have shown the changes in knowledge, adoption, production, consumption and sale, and income levels from the various enterprises included in the Farmer Field Schools by sector (poultry rearing, vegetable growing, aquaculture and livestock rearing. Table 32 puts the sectors together in terms of the change in gross income levels achieved since the participants entered the FFS. The Table shows that overall the average income in the Noakhali region increased from a little over Tk10,000 before the participants entered the FFS to over Tk30,000 at the present time, an increase of almost 200%. Income from rearing poultry increased from Tk3,593 to Tk8,436 (134.8%), that from vegetables increased from Tk2,174 to Tk4,987 (129.4%) and that from aquaculture from Tk2,380 to Tk5,219 (119.3%). These increases are very similar to those recorded in the previous RFLDC, Noakhali, survey of Cycles 1 and 2 (Reference). However, the major increase in incomes came through the ruminant livestock sector, where, it may be more difficult to attribute the increase to the FFS. Across the three enterprises of goat rearing, cattle fattening and dairying, incomes increased from just Tk2,150 before entering the FFS to Tk11,865 at the present time, almost a fivefold increase. The increase from beef fattening from Tk1,002 to Tk6,038 was over 500% By zone, the greatest increase in overall average income was in the Tripura Hills from Tk5,375 to Tk 25,844, closely followed by Hatiya, where incomes jumped from Tk16,034 to Tk56,735 chiefly as a result of the dramatic increase from cattle fattening, aquaculture and dairying. The least satisfactory performance was recorded in the flash flood zone where incomes increased by only 150.7% from Tk9,329 to Tk23,387. 4.5.2 Uses of Additional Income The improvement in agricultural earnings after involvement in the Farmer Field School has enabled the participating households to significantly improve their living standards. Overall an the sample spent an extra Tk18,476 after the FFS, most of the increased wealth (42%) going on household consumption (Table 33). 88% of sample households spent extra money on this, with an overall average increase of Tk7,694. Other significant areas of spending were medical treatment (51% of households with an average increase of Tk1,385) and childrens education (47% of households with an average increase of Tk1,409). 39% of households invested more in the agricultural (crops) sector with an average of Tk1,910, while smaller proportions of households invested in purchase of poultry (15%), cows and goats (13%) and land or pond lease (11%). Arguably the investments in cows and goats a step up the livestock ladder - partly explain the increased income coming from livestock enterprises amongst households who had not completed ruminant sessions in the FFS. Table 34 shows the focus of extra spending by agro-ecological zone. There are some interesting differences in the spending priorities in the different zones. Thus, the greatest proportion of households tending to invest in the agricultural sector, especially in leasing land or ponds for

aquaculture and in cow and goat purchase appears to be in Hatiya, while the greatest proportion of households investing in poultry (probably ducks) is in the waterlogged area. On the other hand, the largest percentage of households using money for repaying loans is in the charlands, while both here and in Hatiya there are significant minorities who use the money for house repair, probably reflecting the effects of bad weather/cyclones. Very few households in the hills use their earnings for childrens educational probably reflecting the lack of physical access to school facilities. 4.5.3 Impact on health and hygiene From Cycle 5, nutrition, health and hygiene issues were incorporated into the Farmer Field School following hire of a specialist consultant team for this purpose. Four learning sessions were incorporated dealing with understanding of the need for a balanced diet, the specific needs of vulnerable groups such as small children, pregnant and lactating women and adolescent girls, the importance of health and hygiene on nutrition and the importance of proper, hygienic food preparation. As formal FFS sessions, these topics were not included up to Cycle 4 so that it is difficult at this point to attribute improvements in the situation to the FFS as such. Moreover, it may be assumed that other projects in the area were operating in the field of heath and hygiene parallel to RFLDC; in the area of water supply and sanitation, for example, Danidas own Water Supply and Sanitation Programme (WSSP) is to be found in several areas of Noakhali operating either directly through DPHE, through the NGO Forum or via the HYSAWA fund through the Union Parishad. These facts should be bone in mind in assessing Table 35, which shows the changes which have taken place amongst the FFS groups in the survey across a range of nine variables, five of them relating to water supply and sanitation, three to food preparation and preservation and one to the use of improved stoves. The table shows widespread improvements across the board particularly in the food preservation and in the use of improved stoves, albeit the latter as been from very low levels. Again encouragingly, the changes are most marked in the poorest areas: in the Tripura hills and Hatiya in relation to washing of hands before taking food and after defecation and in Hatiya and the waterlogged paddy areas in relation to food preservation.

Table 32: Overall change in income levels by zone

Description Poultry Vegetable Aquaculture Aquaculture with prawn Aquaculture total Milking Cow Beef Fattening Goat Rearing Livestock total Total Table 32 Continued Description Poultry Vegetable Aquaculture Aquaculture with prawn Aquaculture total Milking Cow Beef Fattening Goat Livestock total Total SRC-D(N=180) SRC-E(N=30) All (N=1000) Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Average St. Dev. Average St. Dev. % Average St. Dev. Average St. Dev. % Average St. Dev. Average St. Dev. % 6146 5060 16631 9676 171 2156 2761 5461 5133 153 3593 4522 8436 7391 135 3522 3913 7815 6844 122 2533 3765 5368 6585 112 2174 3094 4987 5588 129 647 1932 3512 11719 443 333 1116 1736 6854 421 2154 5947 4583 18922 113 686 686 1445 1445 111 226 225 636 636 181 1333 4957 272 333 1736 421 2380 5219 119 2377 8883 10732 24613 351 53 1502 2496 5195 4609 975 4974 4998 18527 413 2291 7219 14560 23817 536 300 1643 10533 19242 3411 1002 4445 6038 14010 503 365 1112 2040 3314 459 250 762 173 953 829 2383 379 5033 27332 443 353 13279 3662 2150 11865 452 16034 56735 254 5375 25844 381 10297 30507 196 SRC-A (N=270) SRC-B (N=270) SRC-C(N=250) Before After Change Before After Change Before After Change Average St. Dev. Average St. Dev. % Average St. Dev. Average St. Dev. % Average St. Dev. Average St. Dev. % 2477 2461 6028 5043 143 2220 2416 6146 5773 177 4616 6363 7967 4848 73 1991 2823 4427 5205 122 1967 3014 4557 5163 132 1581 2357 3973 4596 151 2757 9554 6310 33574 129 1809 3870 3387 7803 87 3192 4546 5122 6473 60 234 3515 943 13126 303 133 1546 435 3238 227 12 190 16 253 33 2991 7253 142 1942 3822 97 3204 5138 60 681 3794 1408 4051 107 570 2644 3433 11823 502 831 4166 5600 10092 574 917 4199 3393 7464 270 997 3835 3983 9236 299 256 2178 4441 10704 1635 272 1457 878 2704 223 50 363 335 1480 570 80 505 506 1755 533 1870 5679 204 1617 7751 379 1167 10547 804 9329 23387 151 7746 22276 188 10568 27625 161

Table 33: Proportion of all households by additional income uses and

average spending HH Family consumption Children Educational Medical Treatment Agriculture Land/Pond lease Poultry Purchase Cow /Goat Purchase Business purpose Savings Loan Refund House repair Others Overall average amount 881 470 510 394 109 147 126 165 60 90 93 77 HH % 88 47 51 39 11 15 13 17 6 9 9 8 Amount/H H 7694 1409 1385 1910 1038 308 1066 443 452 493 678 1600 18476 Amount % 42 8 7 10 6 2 6 2 2 3 4 9

Table 34: Uses of additional income Uses additional income SRC-A (N=270) HH Nos. 236 119 133 95 30 45 29 18 12 13 7 % 87.41 44.07 49.26 35.19 11.11 16.67 10.74 6.67 4.44 4.81 2.59 Average Expenses 8371 2460 1988 3499 5496 2084 5093 7939 2941 4753 2628

SRC-B (N=270) HH Nos. 261 152 126 92 31 53 68 18 28 23 14 % 96.67 56.30 46.67 34.07 11.48 19.63 25.19 6.67 10.37 8.52 5.19 Average Expenses 9915 4278 3001 4302 2955 1286 6182 8588 4327 5887 7143

SRC-C(N=250) HH Nos. 184 86 97 99 21 11 23 13 18 49 29 % 73.60 34.40 38.80 39.60 8.40 4.40 9.20 5.20 7.20 19.60 11.60 Average Expenses 7101 2057 2972 4039 12295 2200 8092 7173 2889 6863 12793

SRC-D(n=180) HH Nos. 175 108 142 104 24 17 43 11 29 6 26 % 97.22 60.00 78.89 57.78 13.33 9.44 23.89 6.11 16.11 3.33 14.44 Average Expenses 9433 2516 2979 7381 14424 3173 6563 4756 8043 1916 6886

SRC-E(N=30) HH Nos. 25 5 12 4 3 0 2 0 3 2 1 % 83.33 16.67 40.00 13.33 10.00 0.00 6.67 0.00 10.00 6.67 3.33 Average Expenses 6935 3440 1667 3500 11666 14700 3493 8200 10000

All (N=1000) HH Nos. 881 470 510 394 109 126 165 60 90 93 77 Average Expenses 8733 2998 2694 4847 8219 1905 6459 7384 5024 6036 8811

Family consumption Children Educational Medical Treatment Agriculture Land/Pond lease Poultry Purchase Cow /Goat Purchase Business purpose Savings Loan Refund House repair

Table 35: Health and Hygiene Description

Hand wash with soap or ash before taking food Hand wash with soap or ash after deviation Drinking Safe water Uses Safe water Using sanitary latrine Washing vegetable before slice Adapt hygienic cooking process Food preserve Uses Environment friendly burner

SRC-A (N=270) Before Afte Change % r 104 186 79 108 190 76 118 175 48 65 158 143 113 175 55 27 130 381 40 140 250 94 145 54 2 14 600

SRC-B (N=270) Before Afte Change % r 128 226 77 114 224 96 172 228 33 80 181 126 149 219 47 30 183 510 34 176 418 49 139 184 9 17 89

SRC-C(N=250) Before Afte Change % r 65 121 86 89 124 39 102 123 21 71 115 62 64 115 80 12 104 767 14 61 336 43 71 65 1 7 600

Table 35 continued Description

Hand wash with soap or ash before taking food Hand wash with soap or ash after deviation Drinking Safe water Uses Safe water Using sanitary latrine Washing vegetable before slice Adapt hygienic cooking process Food preserve Uses Environment friendly burner

SRC-D(N=180) Before Afte Change % r 48 149 210 53 150 183 118 151 28 62 116 87 66 129 95 11 135 1127 9 61 578 8 35 338 1 3 200

SRC-E(N=30) Before Afte r 7 30 5 28 24 29 12 22 15 25 0 20 3 17 2 7 0 1

Change % 329 460 21 83 67 100 467 250 100

All(N=1000) Before After 352 369 534 290 407 80 100 196 13 712 716 706 592 663 572 455 397 42

Change % 102 94 32 104 63 615 355 103 223

4.6 Views on FFS and CBOs The final section of investigation in the study relates to the participants views of FFS and of CBOs as the main organizers of the FFS, as well their ideas on possible expansion of the FFS to other fields. Table 36 shows that the overwhelming majority (98%) of respondents see the FFS as superior to other training approaches, mainly because of the emphasis on learning by doing (30% of all respondents based upon single responses, but rising to 44% in the waterlogged area) and quality/nature of the trainer/training system (a further 24%). This was ranked highest amongst the small sample in the Tripura Hills. In some ways overlapping with both these answers is the reference to the participatory learning approach by a further 16% of respondents; the proportion again increased to 26% in the waterlogged area. 15% of respondents gave the answer that the FFS covers a range of topics, clearly contrasting with the typical single topic transfer of technology approaches commonly used in group training by government line departments and most NGOs. The percentages answering in this way increased in the chars, Hatiya and the Tripura Hills. Another measure of the value of the FFS is found in the question to respondents about organic spread within the community. Almost 60% of the respondent group as a whole said that non-FFS members had come to them to seek advice; this group claimed that an average of over 6 persons had sought such advice. Most (53.6%) said they had offered such advice to other farmers, with each case claiming an average of 4.63 persons contacted. The greatest proportions by zone in each case appear to have been in the waterlogged area and in Hatiya (Table 37) Table 38 addresses the issue of sustainability in asking respondents what they would do to sustain the FFS experience (not necessarily the FFS which is seen as a training mode, not as an institution) after the withdrawal of Project support. The 83% of respondents answering this question came up with three major responses: 35% indicated that they would maintain communication within the group, a proportion which increased to 50% in the Tripura Hills; 32% said that they would adapt their existing experience, very much the heart of the empowerment approach in FFS; on this answer, the proportion increased to 46% in the charlands; 20% said that they would maintain communication with the CBOs, with the highest proportion being in the flash flood area and in Hatiya

However, this last response was not reflected in CBO membership (Table 39). Only 16% of FFS respondents were members of a CBO at the time of the survey emphasizing the problem that RFLDC, Noakhali, has in increasing CBO membership, and only a further 29% claimed to be interested in becoming members. This clearly reflects in part a lack of information at this stage in the case of the Tripura Hills, but the proportion rises above the median only in the charlands (50%) and is particularly disappointing in the waterlogged area (only 17%). FFS participants appear happy to take services from the CBOs, but, as poorer groups, find the time and financial

obligations of membership onerous at this stage. On the other hand it may be encouraging that 40% of respondents are or would like to be members.

Table 36: Whether FFS learning method is better in comparison to others and why? SRC-A N=270 SRC-B, N= 270 No. % No. % Positive Response 266 99 265 98 No Response 4 1 5 2 Trainer / Training/System 88 33 43 16 Participatory learning process 28 11 69 26 Learning by doing /Demonstrate 82 31 117 44 Follow the method we are change our income 15 6 9 3 and livelihood so this is good system Learning various item 19 7 27 10 Increase production by follow the system 10 4 0 0 No comment 0 0 0 0 Got Several type of advice 1 0 0 0 Table 37: Spread to Indirect Beneficiaries SRC-A N=270 No. 110 105 Average 6.5 6 SRC-B, N= 270 Averag No. e 190 7 184 4

SRC-C, N=250 No. % 242 97 8 3 40 17 22 9 54 22 46 57 21 4 0 19 24 9 2 0

SRC-D, N=180 No. % 172 96 8 5 47 27 32 19 39 23 17 41 2 0 0 10 24 1 0 0

SRC-E, N=30 No. % 27 90 3 10 11 41 4 15 4 15 2 6 0 0 0 7 22 0 0 0

All (N=1000) No. % 972 97 38 4 229 24 155 16 296 30 89 150 33 4 1 9 15 3 0 0

Non-FFS members come to FFS members for advice FFS members willing give advice to others

SRC-C, N=250 Averag No. e 139 5 109 4

SRC-D, N=180 No. 140 129 Average 6 5

SRC-E, N=30 No. 8 9 Average 4 4

All (N=1000) No. 587 536 Average 6.15 4.63

Table 38: After project support how can the FFS experience be sustained? SRC-A N=270 SRC-B, N= 270 No. % No. % Response 240 89 254 94 Not Response 30 11 16 6 Continue group communication 94 39 77 30 communication with LF 8 3 21 8 communication with CBO 68 28 54 21 Adapted Prior experience 64 27 83 33 According my ability I will try 3 1 1 0 Create new organization 3 1 1 0 Till now no thinking about FFS 1 0 16 6 Dont know 1 0 2 1

SRC-C, N=250 No. % 178 71 72 29 58 33 4 2 10 6 81 46 8 4 10 6 4 2 5 3

SRC-D, N=180 No. % 132 73 48 27 46 35 12 9 31 23 38 29 7 5 2 2 0 0 3 2

SRC-E, N=30 No. % 22 73 8 27 11 50 4 18 1 5 2 9 2 9 0 0 1 5 0 0

All (N=1000) No. % 826 83 174 17 286 35 49 6 164 20 268 32 21 3 16 2 22 3 11 1

Table 39: Interest in CBO Membership SRC-A N=270 No. % 46 17 68 25 SRC-B, N= 270 No. % 16 6 47 17 SRC-C, N=250 No. % 34 14 125 50 SRC-D, N=180 No. % 9 5 49 27 SRC-E, N=30 No. % 0 0 0 0 All (N=1000) No. % 105 11 289 29

FFS members already also CBO members FFS members interested in becoming CBO members