Docstoc

HOMESTEAD FOOD PRODUCTION IN BANGLADESH

Document Sample
HOMESTEAD FOOD PRODUCTION IN BANGLADESH Powered By Docstoc
					HOMESTEAD FOOD PRODUCTION IN BARISAL, BANGLADESH




                       CAPSTONE REPORT BY

   Cynthia Berning, Bradley Corrêa, Krystal Sirman & Fernanda Sosa
          MA Candidates, International Development Studies
              The Elliott School of International Affairs
                 The George Washington University

                             May 5, 2008
                                 TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Acronyms                                                    iii
Acknowledgements                                                    iv
Executive Summary                                                    v

Part I: Introduction and Background Information

I.     Introduction                                                  1
II.    Background Information                                        2
III.   Homestead Food Production Program                             2
IV.    Research Components                                           4

Part II: Urban Homestead Food Production Program Strategy

I.   Urban Strategy Background                                       5
     A. Urbanization Food Trends                                     5
     B. Economic Development and Food Security                       6
     C. Urban Agriculture                                            6
         i.   Definition                                             6
        ii. Practical and Theoretical Considerations                 6
     D. Background Information on Barisal City                       8
         i.   Defining “Peri-Urban,” “Urban,” and “Slum,”
              in the context of Barisal City                         8
        ii. Demographic Information                                  8
       iii. Nutritional Information                                  9
II. Urban Strategy Methodology                                       9
     A. Research Questions                                           9
     B. Sample Selection                                            10
     C. Data Collection                                             11
         i.   Surveys                                               11
        ii. Direct Observation                                      12
       iii. Key Informant Interviews                                12
       iv.    Secondary Sources                                     12
III. Data Analysis                                                  12
     A. Challenges and Limitations for an Urban HFPP Intervention   12
     B. Opportunities for an Urban HFPP Intervention                13
     C. Role of NGOs and other Institutions                         14
IV. Recommendations and Conclusions                                 15
     A. Recommendations                                             15
     B. Conclusions                                                 16

Part III: Cost Benefit Analysis Models

I.     Cost-Benefit Analysis Models Research                        17
       A. Introduction                                              17



                                           i
       B.     Research Methodology                                               18
       C.     Research Questions                                                 18
       D.     Sample Selection                                                   18
       E.     Data Collection                                                    18
           i.    Surveys                                                         18
          ii. Direct Observation                                                 19
                 a. Village Model Farms                                          19
                 b. Homestead Gardens                                            19
                 c. Pricing Exercise                                             20
         iii. Key Informant Interviews                                           20
         iv.     Secondary Sources                                               21
II.    Cost-Benefit Analysis Models Components                                   21
       A. Explanation of Assumptions                                             21
       B. Measuring and Valuing Costs and Benefits                               21
       C. Testing the CBA Models: Analysis of Results                            23
           i.    Economic Rates of Return                                        23
                 a. Homestead Gardening CBA Model                                23
                 b. Goat Rearing CBA model                                       23
          ii. Discussion of Equity and Non-economic Effects                      24
         iii. Sensitivity Analysis                                               24
         iv.     Discussion of Sustainability                                    24
          v.     Validation of the CBA models                                    25
III.   Recommendations and Conclusions                                           25

References                                                                       26

Appendices
    1.   Detailed Map of Bangladesh                                              28
    2.   Address List of Slums in Barisal City with Slums Surveyed Highlighted   29
    3.   Slum Locations in Barisal City                                          34
    4.   Ward Maps of the Five Wards in which Slums and Peri-Urban
         Communities were Surveyed                                               35
    5.   UNDP List of Urban and Peri-Urban Locations in which they are
         Currently Implementing or are Planning to Implement their
         Livelihoods Program                                                     37
    6.   Urban Slum/Peri-Urban Community Survey                                  39
    7.   Minutes of Key Information Interviews                                   40
    8.   Peri-Urban Community HFPP Strategy                                      45
    9.   Urban Slum HFPP Strategy                                                51
    10. Cost-Benefit Analysis Models                                             56
    11. HFPP Homestead Gardening Component Survey                                65
    12. HFPP Goat Rearing Component Survey                                       67
    13. Sensitivity Analysis of CBA Models                                       69




                                         ii
                              LIST OF ACRONYMS

BCC      Barisal City Corporation
CBA      Cost-Benefit Analysis
CMG      Community Model Garden
CUS      Center for Urban Studies
DAE      Department of Agriculture Extension
DIP      Detailed Implementation Plan
DLS      Department of Livestock Services
ERR      Estimated Rate of Return
HFPP     Homestead Food Production Program
HKI      Helen Keller International
IPHN     Institute of Public Health Nutrition
JOJ      Jibon-o-Jibika
LNGO     Local non-governmental organization
NGNESP   NGO Gardening and Nutrition Education Surveillance Project
NGO      Non-governmental organization
NSP      Nutritional Surveillance Project
NPV      Net Present Value
SAP-BD   South Asia Partnership-Bangladesh
SC       Save the Children
SO1      Strategic Objective One
UA       Urban Agriculture
UNDP     United Nations Development Programme
USAID    United States Agency for International Development
USDA     United States Department of Agriculture
VMF      Village Model Farm




                                       iii
                                     ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research would not have been possible without the generous donations of time, guidance,
and support from a great number of individuals who contributed to this project. The Capstone
team would first of all like to thank the staff of Helen Keller International, especially Victoria
Quinn who encouraged the team to pursue this endeavor. Chantell Whitten, Nancy Haselow,
Aminuzzaman Talukder, Rejwanul Karim Anik, and Amin Uddin were critical to the
development of the project and their belief in the importance of this research was inspirational to
the Capstone team. The field components of the research would not have been possible without
the tireless translations and guidance of Shahidul Islam and Anjuman Tahmina Ferdaus, who
were an indispensable part of the research team. The team deeply thanks Linn Borgen-Nilsen for
her kindness and the rest of the HKI staff in Dhaka and Barisal for their hospitality. The team
would also like to thank those individuals who offered their advice and support in Washington,
DC throughout the research and analysis phases of the project. They greatly appreciate the
patience and thoughtful insight of Dr. David Gow, the experience and expertise of Jac Smit, and
the technical mentorship of Franck Wiebe, Ariel BenYishay, and the rest of the Economic
Analysis team at the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Finally, the team would like to thank
the 40 HFPP participants and their families, as well as the members of the Barisal slum and peri-
urban communities who shared their time and experiences with the team.

                           Dhonnobad! Amra Bangladesh bhalobashi!




                                                iv
                                     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 2008, for the first time in history, more than half of the world's population will live in urban
areas. This rapid expansion of urban populations around the world has too often exceeded the
capacity to provide essential services, such as adequate water, shelter, and, in particular,
nutritious food. At the same time, growing concern over rising food prices worldwide has
resulted in 2008 being called “The Year of the Global Food Crisis.” Urban agriculture can
contribute to alleviating this crisis by providing increased opportunities for economic
empowerment, regional and household food security, access to nutrition, sustainable
urbanization, and conservation of the natural environment.

Research Components

The Capstone team worked with Helen Keller International (HKI), an international non-profit
organization which is working to implement its Homestead Food Production Program (HFPP)
throughout Bangladesh. The team‟s research was comprised of two components, one urban and
one rural. The first deliverable was a strategy for implementing the HFPP in urban and peri-
urban communities in Barisal City. According to HKI‟s Nutritional Surveillance Project (NSP)
reports, Barisal City ranks among the lowest in Bangladesh on nearly every health and nutrition
indicator, demonstrating that its residents have some of the highest nutritional needs of any urban
location in the country.

The second deliverable was a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) model for each of the two projects that
comprise the HFPP, which can be used to assess the economic benefits of the program. HKI
requested an economic tool that the organization could use in the future to conduct a
comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of not only its HFPP in Barisal, but also its other HFP
programs throughout Bangladesh and even in other countries.

Urban Strategy Results and Conclusions

Although the quality of life was low and the individuals were very poor in both the urban slum
and peri-urban areas that the team visited during this research, the peri-urban communities
contained much more open space than the urban slums. There seemed to be an opportunity for
HKI to carry out the HFPP in peri-urban areas with minimal modifications to the program.
Implementing a program in the urban slums presents more challenging characteristics, such as:

      Very poor water, sanitation, and environmental conditions;
      Lack of open spaces; and
      Negative attitudes towards the concept of urban agriculture

Although the challenges to implementing an urban HFPP intervention in the urban slums of
Barisal City are considerable, opportunities for urban agriculture in Barisal do exist. The team
identified some characteristics of urban slums that may lend themselves to the implementation of
an agriculture program, including:




                                                v
      Traditional agricultural knowledge exists;
      Alternative uses of land and space exist (i.e. vertical growth, container gardening, rooftop
       gardening);
      Demand for nutrition education; and
      Few threats of eviction

Cost Benefit Analysis Models Results and Conclusions

The cost-benefit analysis models are tools that can be used for comprehensive assessments of
HKI‟s Homestead Food Production Program in the future. The assumptions that are used for the
test models are based on preliminary estimations of possible costs and benefits, and should not
be taken as concrete values, especially given that the data was collected from a small number of
households in an atypical year – one during which the region was affected by disastrous floods
and the most devastating cyclone in decades. For each situation in which this tool is applied, the
assumptions must be verified using statistically sound methods of research. In this way the
resulting benefit streams and Estimated Rates of Return (ERRs) can be used to generate accurate
and reliable projections for the program.

With the assumptions and data gained from interviews, a market pricing exercise, and budgetary
information about HKI programs, the Homestead Gardening CBA model shows an economic
rate of return of approximately 160%. Although the model is very sensitive to changes in certain
assumptions, which alter the ERR significantly, it is appropriate to conclude that this project has
led to a substantial increase in vegetable production at the household level and that its benefits
greatly outweigh its costs when projected over a ten-year horizon. The same can be concluded
about the Goat Rearing CBA model, which shows an economic rate of return of approximately
46%.

One important recommendation for future use of these models is to incorporate an aspect of self-
tracking of production at the household level. The researchers found that none of the participants
had ever attempted to quantify their outputs, which sometimes resulted in extremely rough
estimates during the course of the surveys. If HFPP training includes a section on the
importance of accurate record-keeping, future cost-benefit analysis research will be significantly
more accurate and reliable.




                                                vi
PART I: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION

I.     INTRODUCTION

The George Washington University‟s International Development Studies (IDS) program is an
interdisciplinary Master's program that prepares students for professional careers in the field of
international development. It is designed to provide a broad understanding of and appreciation
for current development issues and theories, as well as the processes involved in formulating
policy and implementing development projects.

The two-year IDS program culminates in the Capstone project, in which students undertake a
consulting experience with an organization that shares similar interests with the Capstone team.
In this applied research Capstone project, teams are challenged to advance poverty reduction
efforts around the world, taking into account the social and economic realities of the poorest
inhabitants. IDS graduate students and Capstone participants, Cynthia Berning, Bradley Corrêa,
Krystal Sirman, and Fernanda Sosa, in cooperation with Helen Keller International – Bangladesh
(HKI), set out to examine the perceived benefits and potential challenges of urban agriculture as
a means of improving the livelihoods of the ultra-poor in Bangladesh‟s Barisal Division (for the
Detailed Map of Bangladesh, see Appendix 1).

In 2008, for the first time in history, more than half of the world's population will live in urban
areas (UNFPA, 2007, 1). This rapid expansion of urban populations around the world has too
often exceeded the capacity to provide essential services, such as adequate water, shelter, and, in
particular, nutritious food. Urban agriculture can provide increased opportunities for economic
empowerment, regional and household food security, access to nutrition, sustainable
urbanization, and conservation of the natural environment.

Urban agriculture, which seeks to generate income by selling surplus goods in the local market,
offers the potential to address these issues from the bottom up, allowing the individual and/or
community to become active producers and entrepreneurs. With this entrepreneurial focus, this
type of “market-oriented” urban agriculture has emerged as a key tool in poverty alleviation
efforts because it aims to offer increased access to income and employment, particularly for the
poorest segments of a given population.

The IDS Capstone team was employed by HKI to examine their Homestead Food Production
Program (HFPP) as a potential livelihood-enhancing strategy for those individuals operating at
the economic margin in Barisal Division, Bangladesh and to develop a strategy for a possible
urban HFPP intervention. The team‟s research explored the following issues: 1) which social
and economic conditions enable the HFPP to become a profitable enterprise; 2) HKI‟s and the
project participants‟ contribution of inputs and outputs to individual and collective incomes; 3)
whether the impacts of the HFPP, both financial and non-financial, improve the quality of life of
the individual and the community; and 4) the possibility of an intervention in the urban and peri-
urban areas of Barisal City.

What follows in this report is a detailed description of the Capstone team‟s research project. The
remainder of this section introduces the background information of the Capstone project,



                                                1
including information on the location and the program examined. Part II provides an in-depth
description of the team‟s methodology, analysis, and deliverables for the Urban HFPP Strategy
component of their research. Section III provides an in-depth description of the Capstone team‟s
methodology, analysis, and deliverables for the Cost-Benefit Analysis Models component of
their research.

II.    BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Bangladesh, located between India and Myanmar (formerly Burma) in South Asia, is the most
populated country in the world. It has a surface area of just 144,000 square kilometers
(Heitzman and Worden, 1989, viii) and, as of a mid-2007 estimate, roughly 150 million people
(PRB, 2008). In just 30 years, Bangladesh‟s urban population increased nearly nine-fold – from
2.6 million in 1961 to 23 million in 1991 (UNICEF, 2008). Such growth is continuing to occur
today at more than double the rate of the population as a whole. As a result, the percentage of
individuals living in urban areas in 2005 was 25.1, and is estimated to reach 29.9 by the year
2015 (UNDP, 2007, 245). Moreover, more than 50 percent of the urban population is considered
poor, with 30 percent of these considered ultra-poor (UNICEF, 2008).

According to the 2007/2008 Human Development Report of the United Nations Development
Programme, 49.8 percent of Bangladesh‟s population lives below the national poverty line
(UNDP, 2007, 239). This equals roughly 74.7 million people. These individuals face numerous
hardships, including “yearly natural disasters, inefficient agricultural technologies, limited
employment, low wages, low education, a polluted environment and poor access to health
services” (SC, 2008).

In addition to these difficulties, many of Bangladesh‟s poor suffer from malnutrition. Indeed, the
prevalence of malnutrition in rural Bangladesh is among the highest in the world (HKI, 2004, 1).
One of the main reasons for this is that poor households lack the resources to grow or purchase
the food they need to meet their daily nutrition requirements. Data from a 2003 study conducted
by Helen Keller International and the Institute of Public Health Nutrition (IPHN) of the
Government of Bangladesh revealed that 48 percent of children under the age of five were
underweight and that 38 percent of mothers had chronic energy deficiency (Ibid.). This indicated
“a „serious‟ or „critical‟ food security problem” in Bangladesh, as “malnutrition has serious
implications for the health, productivity and development of the country because micronutrients
are essential for growth, protection from infections, cognitive function and for performing
physical work” (Ibid.).

III.   HOMESTEAD FOOD PRODUCTION PROGRAM

What is now known as Helen Keller International‟s Homestead Food Production Program
(HFPP) began as a pilot Home Gardening project among 1,000 households in rural Bangladesh
in 1989. HKI‟s evaluation of this pilot project in 1992-93 revealed that “vegetable and fruit
production and consumption increased among the program beneficiaries” (Bloem et al., 2001,
119). Based on these findings, HKI developed the NGO Gardening and Nutrition Education
Surveillance Project (NGNESP), whose main purpose was to reduce vitamin A deficiency
among the poor. Based on numerous studies conducted on the etiology of vitamin A deficit



                                                2
disorders, HKI recognized that in order to effectively improve vitamin A intake, it needed to
broaden its Home Gardening program to include the consumption of animal foods. As a result,
HKI incorporated animal husbandry and poultry rearing into the NGNESP and renamed it the
Homestead Food Production Program to distinguish it from a program that only carries out
gardening activities.

In collaboration with Save the Children-USA (SC), the NGO Forum, and the Cyclone
Preparedness Programme of the Bangladesh Red Crescent Society, Helen Keller International is
currently implementing the USAID Title II Development Assistance Program Jibon-o-Jibika
(JOJ). This program officially commenced on 1 October 2004 and is expected to be completed
in May 2010.1

The JOJ program is being implemented in three districts of Bangladesh‟s Barisal Division, which
is located in the southern portion of the country. Although individuals throughout the entire
country suffer from malnutrition, Barisal Division has been shown to be one of the most
vulnerable divisions in Bangladesh.

In 2003, Barisal Division had the highest prevalence of underweight children (56 percent),
stunting in children (53 percent), and chronic energy deficiency in non-pregnant women (42
percent) (HKI, 2006, 1). By 2005, these numbers had not seen any significant change: 53
percent of children were still underweight, 50 percent of children were still stunting, and 42
percent of non-pregnant women were still chronically energy deficient (HKI/IPHN, 2006, 45, 46,
55). By being implemented in Barisal Division, the JOJ program, whose ultimate goal is to
increase household food security, is also working to decrease the number of people suffering
from malnutrition. The JOJ program is composed of four components under three Strategic
Objectives (SC, 2007, 4):

      1.   A homestead horticulture and agro-forestry component implemented by HKI;
      2.   A maternal and child health and nutrition component implemented by SC;
      3.   A water and sanitation component implemented by the NGO Forum; and
      4.   An emergency preparedness component implemented by SC

Helen Keller International oversees and supports all the activities that fall under the JOJ
program‟s first Strategic Objective (SO1), which states that “By September 2009, food
availability and purchasing power at the household level will have increased” (SC, 2007, 4), and
encompasses the first component, mentioned above. SO1 utilizes roughly ten percent of the JOJ
program‟s financial resources and targets approximately 22,000 direct beneficiaries from 20,350
households (Ibid. 9).

In order to accomplish SO1, HKI provides oversight and support to its nine local partner
organizations that are implementing its Homestead Food Production Program in Barisal
Division. The HFPP is composed of two groups of participants, women‟s homestead gardening
groups and ultra-poor women‟s goat rearing groups. Under the homestead gardening
component, there are three major activities. One activity is the establishment and training of one
Village Model Farm (VMF) in each participating village. Each VMF provides technical support,
1
    Due to Cyclone Sidr in November 2007, the original completion date was extended from 30 September 2009.


                                                        3
training, and supplies to 40 HFPP participant households, who are divided into two groups of 20.
The VMF demonstrates model homestead interventions and enables the program participants to
observe and learn about new agricultural ideas and technologies. They are then able to use this
knowledge to improve their homestead gardens and agricultural performance.

The second activity is the selection and training of the participants, all of whom are women. The
target population for the homestead gardening component is poor to ultra-poor households that:

         are women-headed/represented by women, and have at least one child under two years of
          age;
         own 50 decimals (0.2 hectares) or less of land, including the homestead;
         are members of a local non-governmental organization (NGO) selected to be one of
          HKI‟s implementing partners;
         have little or no access to credit; and
         are food insecure

Each participant is provided with the seeds of nine varieties of vegetables and fruits rich in
micronutrients, as well as five chicks, for which they are responsible for providing a shed.
Participants are encouraged to produce year-round vegetables, fruits, poultry, and eggs primarily
for family consumption, but also to sell the surplus for additional income. Also, each participant
participates in a project training cycle that includes technical training, gender training, micro-
enterprise development, household budgeting, linkages to micro-credit and savings opportunities
through existing local NGO channels, and improved food preparation and consumption practices.

The third activity of the homestead gardening component is the establishment and training of
marketing groups, which are comprised of five to six HFPP participants. Each 20-member group has one
marketing group, which organizes transportation to and the sale of produce in the local market.

The second component of the HFPP is a goat-rearing activity for ultra-poor women, who are
typically elderly and widowed or abandoned. Each participant is given one vaccinated female
goat, which she can breed and generate income from selling the offspring in the local market. If
the beneficiary‟s goat dies within the first three years of the project, HKI will provide her with a
replacement goat.

Based on the recommendations of a 2007 mid-term evaluation of the JOJ commissioned by Save
the Children, in October 2008, HKI is planning to increase the number of participants in the
homestead gardening HFPP component by adding one more 20-member group to each VMF.

IV.       RESEARCH COMPONENTS

In response to the original JOJ program completion date of fall 2009 and the renewal of USAID
funding in 2010, HKI requested that the Capstone team‟s research contain two components, each
of which will be discussed in more detail in the following sections. The first component of the
Capstone team‟s research was to develop a strategy for implementing the HFPP in urban and
peri-urban communities in Barisal City. The motivation behind this component was two-fold.
First, the rapid urbanization occurring throughout the world today has led to widespread food


                                                 4
insecurity, particularly in developing countries such as Bangladesh. Secondly, according to
HKI‟s NSP reports, Barisal City ranks the lowest on nearly every health and nutrition indicator,
demonstrating that it has the highest nutritional needs of any urban location in the country.

The second research component was to create a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) model for each of
the two projects that comprise the HFPP as part of the JOJ, which can be used to assess the
economic benefits of the program. Through its NSP, HKI has been collecting data on the health
and nutritional impact of the HFPP since 1990, but the organization has yet to conduct an
assessment of the economic impact of this program and has no model for conducting such an
assessment. Consequently, HKI‟s interest in a CBA model stemmed from two issues: the need
to acquire a tool that HKI could use in the future to conduct a comprehensive cost-benefit
analysis of not only its HFPP as part of the JOJ, but also its other HFP programs being
implemented throughout Bangladesh and even in other countries; and secondly, the need to
provide USAID with valid data demonstrating the economic benefit of the HFPP in order to
continue to receive funding for the program.

PART II: URBAN HOMESTEAD FOOD PRODUCTION PROGRAM STRATEGY

     In 2008, the world reaches an invisible but momentous milestone: For the first time in
     history, more than half its human population, 3.3 billion people, will be living in
     urban areas. By 2030, this is expected to swell to almost 5 billion. Many of the new
     urbanites will be poor. Their future, the future of cities in developing countries, the
     future of humanity itself, all depend very much on decisions made now in preparation
     for this growth.

     - State of the World Population Report 2007, United Nations Population Fund

I.     URBAN STRATEGY BACKGROUND

A.     Urban Food Trends

Urbanization is occurring rapidly throughout the world, as populations are increasingly migrating
from rural areas to major cities. Such rapid urbanization has led to widespread food insecurity,
which is mainly the result of a lack of availability of food, lack of purchasing power, inadequate
access to employment opportunities, and deteriorating national economies, particularly in
developing countries. In response to the market demands arising from this rapid urbanization
(Sawio et al., 2001, 209), urban agriculture has emerged as a global trend in the fight to reduce
poverty and provide adequate and regular access to food supplies.

As urbanization, industrialization, and mobilization have increased, intensive agriculture has
shifted primarily to the peripheries of cities, creating disparities between urban and rural
settlements. As a result, conventional wisdom tends to think of cities and agriculture as two
separate, almost contradictory ideas. However, agriculture‟s long history began as an activity
within densely populated areas dating back hundreds of years. For example, in what is now
Mexico City, the proto-hydroponic chinampas garden system fed the Aztec city of Tenochititlan
(Rauber, 1998) and the ancient Mayans incorporated agriculture, horticulture, and arboriculture



                                                5
into their city centers (Graham, 1999). In this sense, cities have been important sites for food
production, including keeping livestock and growing fruits and vegetables. Even today, many
cities in the developing world are partially self-sufficient in food production.

B.     Economic Development and Food Security

In developing countries such as Bangladesh, urban areas are more likely to experience food
insecurity because urban populations depend largely on income to purchase food. Although
urban centers typically have a larger number of employment opportunities than rural areas, the
number of opportunities is still not sufficient to meet the exceedingly high demand. Those
opportunities that are available are often very laborious and low-paying. This results in an
increased risk of food insecurity, as this economic constraint prevents individuals from
purchasing enough food to meet their daily needs.

Urban food security depends on various factors, including availability, access, and quality.
Urban agriculture (UA) is one source of supply in urban food systems and only one of several
food security options for households, communities, and the public at large.

Feeding a growing urban population, particularly the poor in urban slums and peri-urban
communities, is a major challenge for Bangladesh. According to the 2005 Annual Report of the
Nutritional Surveillance Project, urban slums in Barisal had high proportions of underweight and
wasted children with respect to the overall urban poor in Bangladesh (HKI/IPHN, 2006). With
the highest population density in the world, Bangladesh continues to search for solutions to its
food insecurity problems.

C.     Urban Agriculture

i.     Definition

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines urban agriculture as establishing
and performing “an agricultural practice in or near an urban or city-like setting" (Adeyemi,
2000). However, this narrow definition fails to encompass the magnitude of this global
phenomenon. More specifically, UA is, and has become, an increasingly powerful solution to
meeting local food demands, as it converts unused parcels of land in the urban environment into
sustainable food production areas, while also conserving natural resources in some cases.

Urban agriculture includes products from crop and livestock agriculture, fisheries, and forestry in
the urban and surrounding areas. It also includes non-wood forest products, as well as ecological
services provided by agriculture, fisheries and forestry. Today, UA takes the form of rooftop,
hydroponic, and community gardening; roadside urban fringe agriculture; field-to-direct-sale
farmers' markets; and livestock grazing in parks and feedlots (Ibid.).

ii.    Practical and Theoretical Considerations

Urban agriculture is essential for the livelihoods of the urban poor in most developing countries
as it allows them to reduce their reliance on the use of cash income for accessing food by



                                                6
growing their own food on plots within the city (Bryld, 2003). In many cities, particularly in the
developing world, UA has helped increase food security and reduce hunger among vulnerable
populations (UN Habitat, 2006).

The presence of agriculture in the urban environment affects the local economy, the natural
environment, social relations, and household economic behavior. Experience demonstrates that
UA is most viable where it is mainstreamed into robust strategies for land use, poverty
alleviation, economic development, and sound environmental management (Mougeot, 2000).
The quantity of food supplied through UA comprises a significant amount of the total food
consumed in cities and is worth tens of millions of dollars (UN Habitat, 2006).

In developing and developed countries alike, UA has been perceived by many to be a sign of
poverty and underdevelopment, as it challenges the image of what it means to modernize
(WinklerPrins et al., 2005). However, UA is not typically disputed in and of itself. When
implemented appropriately, UA incorporates various elements of modern sustainable farming –
establishing productive, reusable, and self-contained waste and nutrient cycles, which can
contribute to developing safe, non-polluting environments. At the same time, UA offers new
potential for recycling urban wastes and saving on marketing transport costs. Urban agriculture
also offers opportunities for productive employment and is estimated to involve 800 million
urban residents worldwide (FAO, 1999).

However, if not practiced correctly, UA has the potential to be hazardous to human and
environmental health and can present a number of challenges. Problems arise from the
inappropriate or excessive usage of agricultural inputs, such as pesticides, nitrogen, and raw
organic matter containing heavy metal residues, which may leach or run off into drinking water
sources, cause microbial contamination of soil and water, and pollute the air (FAO, 1999). Other
challenges include the competition for scarce available land, the use of techniques and
technologies that degrade the soil, and the increase of infectious diseases.

One major constraint to UA is that many municipalities, policy makers, and practitioners
continue to have concerns about its practice and have prevented its legalization or formalization
in many countries (Bryld, 2003). This reluctance stems partly from biases against the practice
and partly from concerns about food safety and the health and environmental impact of UA. The
uncertain legal status of UA is such that official projects or programs aimed at improving the
practice have been relatively rare and typically are not taken into account in the urban planning
process.

Another critical constraint to UA is access to land. While some forms of UA are so intensive
that they can actually compete with other land uses on an economic basis, much of the
subsistence production by the urban poor relies on informal access to underutilized or unutilized
urban land.

The cultivation of food crops on a large scale in the public and private open spaces of cities in
the developing world is common but has not attracted the research attention it deserves.
Therefore, UA has been somewhat of an unknown or unacknowledged phenomenon to policy-
makers and city planners in general (Obosu-Mensah, 2002). Identifying and dealing with



                                                7
potential risks not only offers critical support to producers and consumers in urban areas, but also
helps to dispel biases against the practice of urban agriculture.

D.     Background Information on Barisal City

i.     Defining “Peri-Urban,” “Urban,” and “Slum,” in the Context of Barisal City

The term “peri-urban” refers to an area that is in the process of transition, in which urban and
rural activities are juxtaposed. As a result, a formal consensus as to the defining indicators of
peri-urban zones has not been reached. Based on the Capstone team‟s observations in the field,
the following definition was created for the purposes of their research: a peri-urban community is
an area located within the city limit boundaries, which exhibits many of the following
characteristics:

              Rapid and unplanned growth in population size and the number of settlements;
              Predominantly poor housing;
              Inadequate service infrastructure, particularly water, sanitation, and electricity;
               and
              Low socioeconomic status for a significant proportion of residents

In Bangladesh, delineating an urban space is somewhat difficult due to the country‟s immense
population density. However, in general, the term “urban” refers to an area with an increased
density of human population, developed infrastructure, and government facilities and services
compared to the areas surrounding it.

For the purpose of this research, the definition of “urban slum” was taken from a 2005 report on
slums in urban Bangladesh conducted by the Center for Urban Studies (CUS), MEASURE
Evaluation, and the National Institute of Population and Research Training, and funded by
USAID. This report defines urban slums as neighborhoods or residential areas with a minimum
of ten households and meeting four of the following five criteria (CUS et al., 2006, 11):

              Predominantly poor housing;
              Very high population density and room crowding;
              Very poor environmental services, particularly water and sanitation;
              Very low socioeconomic status of the residents; and
              Lack of security of tenure

This definition drew on both international literature and widely accepted norms applied in the
context of Bangladesh. As such, the Capstone team deemed it to be particularly appropriate for
their research, as it was created specifically in terms of Bangladesh.

ii.    Demographic Information

In 2005, Barisal City‟s slum population was 30.1 percent that of the total city population (Ibid.,
20). The city, encompassing only 51 km2, contained 19,460 households living in 351 slums
(Ibid., 36). The population density in the city overall was 29 persons per acre, whereas the


                                                 8
population density in slum areas was 541 persons per acre, a ratio of nearly 19:1.

With roughly 500,000 inhabitants,2 Barisal City is considered to be a medium-sized city.
According to UN Habitat‟s State of the World’s Cities 2006/7, medium-sized cities are predicted
to grow faster than any other type of city as the majority of urban migrants will move to cities of
less than one million inhabitants (UN Habitat, 2006). These trends will have serious
consequences for Barisal City, which already has an exceedingly high population density, and
will exacerbate the already inadequate infrastructure and living conditions. Although poverty
remains primarily a rural phenomenon, urban poverty is becoming a severe, pervasive, and
largely unacknowledged feature of urban life.

iii.       Nutritional Information

Helen Keller International‟s Nutritional Surveillance Project has been collecting data on
indicators of household characteristics, health, and nutrition in Bangladesh since 1990. Based on
the 2005 NSP data on urban slums in Barisal, it is apparent that the individuals living in these
communities are not currently accessing adequate nutrition to meet their needs. For example,
only 41.1 percent of households in Barisal slums consumed green leafy vegetables, which are
high in vitamin A and are necessary for meeting one‟s nutritional needs, three or more days per
week (HKI/IPHN, 2006, 60). In addition, the proportion of stunted children aged 0-59 months
was 33.3 percent, and 31.1 percent of non-pregnant mothers were chronically energy deficient
(Ibid., 69, 79). Unfortunately, the NSP has only collected data on Bangladesh‟s urban slum
populations, and, thus, the Capstone team is unable to compare these statistics with the
remainder of Barisal City‟s urban population.

II.        URBAN STRATEGY RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This section explains in detail the Capstone team‟s methodology for their field research in
Barisal City for the urban HFPP strategy component.

A.         Research Questions

In order to develop a strategy for HKI to implement its HFPP in urban and peri-urban
communities in Barisal City, the Capstone team addressed the following questions:

          What are the socioeconomic conditions of Barisal City‟s slum and peri-urban community
           inhabitants?
          What resources do the urban poor have sufficient access to in order to be able to
           implement the HFPP?
          Are there any regulations or constraints related to land, water, or agriculture/poultry
           production that could affect the implementation of the HFPP in an urban setting in
           Bangladesh?
          Can HKI improve the livelihoods of the urban poor through the HFPP? If so, how will
           the program need to be modified in order to be implemented effectively in Barisal City?

2
    This estimate was provided by the Barisal City Corporation.


                                                           9
B.       Sample Selection

The Capstone team carried out the urban portion of their research for four days, from March 18 th
to March 21st. Before conducting surveys in any slums or peri-urban communities, the team
interviewed government officials and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),
which is currently implementing a livelihoods program in slums and peri-urban communities in
Barisal City. Following their meeting, the UNDP took the Capstone team to three locations, one
slum and two peri-urban communities, in which their program was being implemented. These
site visits and any information procured from them were recorded and included in the team‟s
data collection and analysis.

Due to the team‟s lack of familiarity with the slums and extremely poor peri-urban communities
in Barisal City, they attempted to obtain a detailed list and street map of these locations from the
Barisal City Corporation (BCC) to serve as a sampling frame from which to select the slums to
include in their sample. However, the BCC was unable to provide these tools, so the team began
conducting online research in an effort to find, at the least, a map of the city. Fortunately, the
team discovered the 2005 report Slums of Urban Bangladesh, mentioned above. This report
identified 351 urban slums in Barisal City, and included an “address” list and maps of the city‟s
30 wards (see Appendices 2-4), each pinpointing the location of slums.3 Using this list as their
sampling frame, the team chose the four slums with the largest populations from the four city
wards with the highest density of slums, for a total of 16 slums as their sample. The rationale for
this decision was two-fold. First, because of the address list‟s lack of specificity, the team
presumed that it would be easier to locate the larger slums. Second, the team believed that the
larger slums would provide them with the best opportunity to observe the living situations of
Barisal City‟s poorest inhabitants, and, ultimately, the most difficult and challenging
environments that may have to be overcome if an urban HFPP strategy were to be implemented
in such locations.

The team quickly realized that their method of selecting slums from the address list would need
to remain flexible. As literal addresses for the slums did not exist, it was often very difficult to
find the particular slum community the team had chosen, even though they were the largest ones
identified. The method of finding the slums included driving to the appropriate ward (which was
not always apparent in itself) and asking for directions from individuals on the streets. This
often proved effective; however, there were several instances in which the team ended up
visiting a slum not included in their original sample. This provided the team with a degree of
randomness in their sample selection, as well as diversity in the sizes of the slums visited.
Because of the time constraints faced by the team, they were only able to carry out surveys in 12
slums.

In the case of peri-urban communities, the team visited four locations but only conducted
surveys in two. The first two communities were the ones visited with UNDP staff. Although no
surveys were conducted in these locations, the team did perform direct observation and made
notes of their observations. For the last two communities visited, the team used the same address
list and ward maps previously discussed and selected one ward that it considered to be peri-urban

3
  Although the team labels this list as an “address” list, in actuality, this list did not contain literal addresses. Instead,
the list contained the street names that the slums were located on and any identifying landmarks within or nearby.


                                                             10
(within the City Corporation jurisdiction and more than 20 kilometers from the city center).4 It
should be noted that on March 20th, the second to last day in which the team was conducting its
research, the UNDP provided the Capstone team with the list of slums and peri-urban
communities in which their livelihoods program was being implemented (see Appendix 5). The
team used this list as a comparison tool, in an effort to avoid surveying slums in which the
UNDP was carrying out its program.

C.      Data Collection

i.      Surveys

A survey with both closed- and open-ended questions was designed in order to collect data from
each slum and peri-urban community visited (see Appendix 6). The survey questions aimed to
gather information from each community on population size, most pressing needs and concerns,
water and sanitation facilities, any services and trainings provided by other NGOs (currently or
in the past), and land tenure issues.

The Capstone team divided into two groups, each of which was accompanied by a translator to
conduct the surveys. These translators were HKI staff members who were familiar with Barisal
and the HFPP. In conducting the surveys, all of which were performed in Bengali, each
translator chose a different method: one translator preferred to translate the survey responses
immediately, while the other preferred to transcribe the responses at the end of each day. The
Capstone team determined that there was minimal, if any, difference in the amount or accuracy
of the information recorded through the use of these two different methods and concluded that
the remainder of the surveys could be conducted in this manner.

Once the team arrived in a slum or peri-urban community, the translators requested to speak with
a community leader or a knowledgeable community member, preferably a woman. Once an
individual was identified, the team would be invited into that individual‟s house or taken to an
open space within the community to conduct the survey. The Capstone members then divided
into their two interviewing groups and while one group conducted the survey, the other group
walked around the community noting their observations. The two groups switched tasks every
other survey conducted.

The Capstone team was able to survey a total of ten women and four men. In two cases the
individual who insisted on responding to the survey was the owner of the land on which the
community resided, providing the team with responses that were not necessarily reflective of the
community at large. It is also important to note that, in a majority of cases, the surveys would
initially begin with one respondent and, throughout the process, ended as a group discussion.
The advantage of this was that it facilitated group discussion around mutually-relevant issues.
On the other hand, this could have resulted in more sensitive information being concealed, as the
respondents may have been concerned about disturbing the power structure that exists within the
slums.5

4
 This definition is based on the Barisal City Corporation‟s classification of peri-urban locations.
5
 For more information on the power structure within slums, see CONCERN Worldwide interview minutes in
Appendix 7.


                                                    11
ii.    Direct Observation

At each slum and peri-urban community visited, at least two members of the Capstone team
walked through the community observing and recording particular characteristics. These
included water and sanitation facilities, housing construction, infrastructure, space availability,
environmental conditions, and evidence of gardening practices. Such direct observation
facilitated the team‟s understanding of the challenges and opportunities these types of
communities could present for an urban HFPP intervention.

iii.   Key Informant Interviews

Non-governmental organizations currently carry out extensive work in urban and peri-urban
areas in Barisal City. Their knowledge and experience served as valuable resources, which
enabled the Capstone team to better understand the needs of urban dwellers, identify challenges
to working in urban areas, and identify possible gaps in current urban interventions. The
questions asked during the interviews were aimed at collecting the above-mentioned information,
as well as details on the projects they implemented (when applicable). The organizations that the
Capstone team had the opportunity to talk to were the following (for summaries of the
interviews, see Appendix 7):

              Department Livestock Services (DLS)
              Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE)
              United Nations Development Programme
              Barisal City Corporation
              Concern Worldwide (in Dhaka)
              Jahangirnagar University (in Dhaka)

iv.    Secondary Sources

HKI and its HFPP partner organizations possess a great deal of information on the resources
needed to carry out the HFPP and the possibilities of altering some of its components for the
purpose of responding to urban and peri-urban needs. In addition to the interviews conducted
with HKI and some of its partner organizations, the Capstone team was able to obtain
organizational documents that provided them with a better understanding of the inner workings
of the HFPP as it is currently implemented, as well as data on the cost of resources needed to
implement the program. These documents were utilized throughout the team‟s analysis and
during the design of the urban HFPP strategies.

III.   DATA ANALYSIS

A.     Challenges and Limitations for an Urban HFPP Intervention

Although the quality of life was low and the individuals were very poor in both urban slums and
peri-urban communities, the peri-urban areas contained much more open space than the slums.
In fact, the peri-urban communities of Barisal City resemble rural areas of Barisal Division in
this and other ways. Thus, there seems to be an opportunity for HKI to carry out the HFPP in


                                                12
peri-urban areas with minimal modifications to the program.

Urban slums present more of a challenge, as they contain numerous variations in terms of space
availability, housing conditions, water and sanitation facilities, and population size. The team
identified three key challenges for an urban HFPP intervention.

The first challenge includes the extremely poor water, sanitation, and environmental conditions
in urban slums. The quantity and quality of water available to low-income residents in Barisal
falls short of acceptable standards. Not only does Bangladesh struggle to control the levels of
arsenic in its water, in every slum visited, the team observed still-water ponds, oftentimes filled
with trash, being used for washing clothes and dishes, bathing, urination and defecation, and
consumption. Barisal‟s sanitary conditions are also extremely poor due to the lack of sanitary
latrines and a trash disposal system. Such poor water, sanitation, and environmental conditions
pose a threat for safe horticulture and animal rearing practices.

The second challenge involves the lack of open space. While there was a great deal of variation
among the urban slums visited, each was characterized by a considerable lack of space available
for gardening. According to HKI‟s agricultural specialist, an ideal plot size would be a
minimum area of two by three feet, which, in some slums, may be difficult to procure.
Additionally, in more densely-constructed slums, the amount of sunlight reaching the ground
was minimal, which could potentially inhibit the successful growth of vegetation.

The third challenge is that urban agriculture is perceived as having only a marginal importance
on the urban economy by urban planners and is not seen as a high income-generating activity by
urban residents. This is apparent in Barisal, as UA is not included in the Barisal City
Corporation‟s 20-year Comprehensive Master Plan (see Appendix 7).

B.      Opportunities for an Urban HFPP Intervention

Although the challenges to implementing an urban HFPP intervention in the urban slums of
Barisal City are considerable, opportunities for UA in Barisal do exist. Due to the considerable
variation in the layout, housing construction, and population size among the slums, it is difficult
to generalize the types of opportunities that exist. However, from both the surveys and direct
observation, the team was able to identify a number of opportunities that are common to all
locations to some degree.

The first opportunity identified is the existence of traditional gardening practices, which is
defined by HKI as “growing vegetables seasonally in scattered plots” (HKI/IHPN, 2006, 2). 6 In
most of the communities the team visited, there was some form of traditional agriculture taking
place. This presents an opportunity for HKI to work with community members to transform
existing traditional into improved or developed gardens,7 where possible.

6
  According to HKI, households with traditional gardens predominantly grow gourd type vegetables, whereas those
with improved gardens grow a variety of vegetables/fruits and those with developed gardens grow a wide variety of
vegetables/fruits throughout the year.
7
  HKI defines improved gardens as those in which vegetables are grown in fixed plots but not throughout the year.
Developed gardens are defined as growing vegetables in fixed plots throughout the year.


                                                       13
Second, due to the severe spatial constraints, it will be necessary for HKI to make use of
innovative gardening techniques, such as container and rooftop gardening and vertical growing
methods. In fact, the Capstone team observed such techniques being utilized in several of the
slums visited, including the use of netting, which lifts the production process off the ground,
provides shade, and is aesthetically pleasing.

Third, the team identified that a demand for nutrition education exists among urban and peri-
urban community populations as every community that the team surveyed responded that they
had never received training on proper nutrition. This presents a comparative advantage for HKI,
as there is already a nutrition education component to the current HFPP. The key messages of
this training include information on proper vitamin-A, iron, and iodine consumption, breast
feeding, and complementary feeding, as well as the importance of a high-quality diet.

In order for these opportunities to be realized, an important factor to take into consideration is
the incidence of slum evictions. In recent years, the mass evictions of slum dwellers in various
developing countries “have raised fears that security of tenure and housing rights are becoming
increasingly precarious” (UN Habitat, 2006, 92). In the case of Barisal, the actual incidence of
slum eviction is only about five percent (CUS, 2006, 47). The team‟s surveys confirmed this, as
most of the communities have been in existence for over 30 years and none had ever been
evicted. However, the surveys also revealed that respondents living in communities on private
land perceived a higher incidence of threats of eviction. This suggests that although the
perception of threat may be high, the actual incidence of eviction is low, translating into a low-
risk investment for HKI.

C.      Role of NGOs and other Institutions

According to the Center for Urban Studies report, over 94 percent of slums in Barisal City
received services from at least one NGO in 2005 (CUS, 2006, 47). This finding was confirmed
during the Capstone team‟s research, as every slum they visited reported receiving services from
one or more NGOs either currently or in the recent past.8 Most of the NGO interventions in the
slums visited were focused on micro-credit or water and sanitation activities. This may present
an opportunity for HKI to consider bundled interventions through targeted partnerships with
these NGOs.

A program to be considered closely is that which is currently being carried out by the UNDP.
This program is currently in its pilot stage in 11 urban and peri-urban communities in Barisal
City, but the UNDP‟s objective is to expand it into 60 communities by 2010. The project does
include an urban agriculture training component, but of the roughly 11,000 current total project
participants, only 250 individuals received the training. Although the UNDP is planning on
expanding its UA component to include more individuals, there is still a need for a more holistic
intervention, such as the HFPP.


8
 Although this represents 100 percent of the team‟s sample, their sample was so small (12 of 351 slums) that it was
highly unlikely that they would have randomly chosen any of the less than six percent of slums with no NGO
activity.


                                                        14
IV.      RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

A.       Recommendations

What follows are the Capstone team‟s general recommendations, which served as foundations
for both the urban slum and peri-urban community HFPP strategies:

      1. Acknowledge the significant variation in available space, infrastructure, and housing
         conditions in urban slums and peri-urban communities. Not all poor urban communities
         are homogenous and not all poor urban inhabitants suffer from the same degree of
         deprivation. Therefore, a finalized urban HFPP strategy will need to remain flexible in
         order to respond to these variations among urban communities.
      2. Develop strategic partnerships to address the poor water and sanitation conditions. HKI
         should explore in depth the possibility of developing relationships with both the UNDP
         and NGOs currently implementing programs in Barisal City‟s slums for two reasons.
         First, this will provide an opportunity for HKI to fill any gaps in the current services and
         activities being carried out in the slums. For example, not a single slum surveyed by the
         Capstone team, including those in which the UNDP was present, had been provided with
         any nutrition and gender education. Additionally, only two of the 12 slums surveyed had
         received any sort of training on horticulture and poultry rearing (four women in one and
         25 women in another), with a third receiving only training in poultry rearing (two
         women). Second, and perhaps more importantly, developing partnerships with the
         UNDP and NGOs will ensure that efforts are not being duplicated.
      3. Develop an environmental education component. Considering the interconnectivity of
         human health, nutrition, and environmental and sanitary conditions, the proposed
         component would aim to promote awareness of threats to the physical environment.
         Urban cultivation is not very sustainable if steps are not taken to introduce recycling
         systems and create environmental awareness among producers (Bryld, 2003). An
         environmental education component would include educating the participants of the risks
         in using dangerous inputs, such as chemical fertilizers, and how to develop locally-
         appropriate natural yield-improving alternatives, such as organic compost.
      4. Carry out additional research. HKI should conduct baseline surveys in urban and peri-
         urban communities to collect data on income and employment, space availability, food
         security, and water and sanitation conditions. In finalizing the urban HFPP strategies,
         HKI should consider the value of stakeholders‟ involvement in this process. This will
         help to generate a more sustainable perception of urban agriculture among urban
         populations, as well as promote ownership of urban agricultural practices.

A pilot urban HFPP project would be implemented in a community with a target population of
between 100 to 500 households, taking into consideration available and trained staff, financial
constraints, existing and planned interventions of key amenities (i.e. water and sanitation) by
partnering organizations, and nutritional demand.

For an HFPP intervention in Barisal City‟s peri-urban communities, which closely resemble the
rural areas of Barisal Division, particularly in terms of available space for cultivation, the HFPP
model will require minimal modifications. While household plot sizes may not be the same size



                                                  15
as that of rural households, the increased space availability offers the possibility to continue
considering the Village Model Farm (VMF) to demonstrate horticultural and animal husbandry
practices.

However, one of the major challenges will be in selecting the locations. Although the peri-urban
communities seem to have more access to open and cultivatable land, there also seem to be large
differences in the amount of available land, access to facilities, such as water and sanitation
conditions, and land tenure. Therefore, it will be necessary for HKI to conduct an extensive
assessment of Barisal City‟s peri-urban locations in order to select the most suitable communities
for an HFPP intervention.

For an HFPP intervention in urban slums, the current HFPP model will require a number of
modifications. The fundamental goals of the project will remain the same (i.e. to increase
household food security and supplement income). However, it will be necessary for HKI to
consider and embrace a number of traditional and/or innovative agricultural practices, which can
be carried out on a smaller scale, in order to overcome the spatial limitations that urban slums
present. As encountered in the field, these practices could include the use of containers, netting,
rooftops, and vertical growth methods. HKI‟s focus will need to concentrate on maximizing the
use of space that is available and high-yielding varieties of vegetables that are best suited for the
characteristics of the given community. Because of the high nutritional and market value of
eggs, the urban HFPP strategy should also include a poultry component. However, further
research is needed to determine if the conditions present in most urban slums will allow the
HFPP to thrive and be effective.

Considering HKI‟s comparative advantage in nutrition education, this component will become a
central tenet of HFPP interventions in urban slums. The findings of the Capstone team‟s
research demonstrated that urban slum residents have not been exposed to nutrition education.
Through a strong nutrition education component, which would emphasize not only maternal
health but also the importance of maintaining the physical environment, HKI could reach a
significant number of people and have a large impact on their communities.9

Considering urban slums‟ severe spatial limitations and the spatial distribution of the inhabitants‟
dwellings, HKI will need to consider modifying the use of the Village Model Farm. The VMF
may need to be substituted with a Community Model Garden (CMG), which could specialize in
innovative agricultural practices that would teach the beneficiaries how to maximize their
available space and make use of their traditional agricultural knowledge. The CMG could also
provide demonstrations on the use of container and rooftop gardening and vertical and netting
techniques.

B.      Conclusions

In conducting their research to develop an urban HFPP strategy, the Capstone team collected
data from 12 of the 351 existing urban slums in Barisal City, as well as four peri-urban

9
 For nutritional and other trainings implemented in urban areas, a short session with a maximum of three days
should be considered. According to CONCERN Worldwide, longer trainings require a commitment that poor urban
populations cannot commit to.


                                                     16
communities. After analyzing the data, the team determined that both urban slums and peri-
urban communities would be able to benefit from an urban HFPP intervention, albeit in different
ways and through different strategies. Thus, the team developed two separate strategies, one for
urban slums and one for peri-urban communities, each comprising a two-year implementation
period (see Appendices 8 and 9, respectively). These two strategies are considered works in
progress, which will require further research and consideration on the part of HKI. For this
reason, the team used HKI‟s Detailed Implementation Plan (DIP) of the HFPP as it currently
exists as a guide, and modified it to respond to the needs, constraints, and opportunities identified
in the urban slums and peri-urban communities surveyed, as well as through the interviews with
government officials and NGO staff.

While not the panacea for the nation‟s challenges, an urban Homestead Food Production
Program can help to alleviate the stresses associated with food insecurity at the local level for the
poor and ultra-poor of Barisal. HFPP strategies targeting households in the urban slums and
peri-urban communities of Barisal City do have the potential to increase urban households‟
abilities to access nutritious foodstuffs. By growing their own vegetables, households will be
able to supplement their income by lessening the need to purchase food from the local market
and will then be able to use this income for other purposes.

PART III: COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS MODELS

I.     Cost-Benefit Analysis Models Research

A.     Introduction

A cost-benefit analysis (CBA) compares all of the expected present and future benefits of a
project to its present and future costs. Quantitative analysis of probable outcomes of current or
alternative courses of action can diminish the uncertainty that accompanies any intervention and
can improve the decision-making process.

The aim of a CBA is to gauge the impact of an intervention relative to the status quo. A CBA
attempts to take into account all relevant costs and benefits based on the current and projected
future economic contexts. The guiding principle is to list all of the parties affected by an
intervention and place a monetary value on the effect that the project has on their economic
welfare.

In the context of Helen Keller International and the Homestead Food Production Program, a
CBA would illustrate how the levels of HKI‟s investment relate to changes in the productivity
and income of the HFPP beneficiaries. This is an extremely important objective for HKI, as they
have not collected any data on the economic impact of the HFPP to date. As a result, the
Capstone team‟s goal was to create a CBA model that would enable HKI to conduct a
comprehensive assessment of its HFP programs currently being implemented both throughout
Bangladesh and in other countries in order to determine their economic impacts on the
households and communities participating in the programs. Because the homestead gardening
and goat rearing components of the HFPP have different costs and benefits, the team created a
CBA model for each component (see Appendix 10).



                                                 17
B.       Research Methodology

This section explains in detail the Capstone team‟s methodology for their field research in
Babuganj sub-district of Barisal Division for the CBA models component of their research.

C.       Research Questions

In order to create models that can be useful for further research regarding the net economic
benefits of HKI‟s HFPP in Barisal Division, the Capstone team assessed the following questions:

        What cost and benefit information is necessary and sufficient to complete a cost-benefit
         analysis of the HFPP in Barisal? And, given the current context, what information is
         obtainable?
        Which questions should researchers ask in order to collect relevant data and what should
         be considered in order to create a representative sample?

D.       Sample Selection

The Capstone team conducted their field research in Babuganj sub-district of Barisal Division for
four days, from March 13th to March 16th. Babuganj encompasses a total area of 164.88 km²,
and according to the last census, conducted in 2001, had a population of nearly 147,000 (BBS,
2001). Babuganj has six Unions (or Wards) and 87 villages. The team‟s sampling focused on
four villages (Rajkor, Manikkathi, Shingherkathi, and Rajguru) located in Rahmatpur Union.

There are two main reasons as to why the Capstone team concentrated their efforts in Babuganj.
First, due to time constraints, the team needed a research location that would enable them to
return to Barisal City each day, where HKI‟s office and the first component of the team‟s
research were located. As the villages in Babuganj that the team visited were within 40
kilometers of Barisal City, they proved to be ideal locations to carry out the research both
efficiently and effectively. Second, considering that the goal was to develop and test CBA
models rather than conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis, the country director and the
Capstone team determined that a representative sample of HFPP households was not necessary.

In each village, the team used convenience sampling to conduct interviews with HFPP members
who were at home and whose houses were most accessible. When HKI decides to conduct a
complete cost-benefit analysis in the future, sampling will need to be randomized. However, for
the purpose of collecting enough data to be able to construct and test the CBA model, random
selection was not necessary.

E.       Data Collection

i.       Surveys

In order to collect the necessary data to complete the CBA model, surveys were carried out with
two sets of HFPP beneficiaries: the poor women involved in homestead gardening and animal
rearing and the ultra-poor women involved in goat rearing activities (see Appendices 11 and 12,


                                                18
respectively). Both surveys gathered information covering two broad topics: participants‟
tangible costs and benefits. In this sense, costs included such expenditures, both one-time and
recurring, as time, water, seeds, fertilizers, and poultry or goat feed, while benefits included the
value of the produce grown, poultry raised, or goats reared, improved access to nutritious
foodstuffs, and increased income.

In Barisal, the Capstone team held a meeting with all the HKI staff members involved in the
HFPP. During this meeting, each survey question was reviewed one by one in order determine
two things: one, was the question relevant to the target population; and two, was the data being
targeted by this question already available. Through this method, it was revealed that many of
the survey questions were either irrelevant or the data could be provided by HKI, in which case,
these questions were subsequently eliminated.

After the initial day of surveys, the team met with the translators in order to discuss and obtain
feedback on the surveys‟ structures, confusing wording, duplication of data, and other aspects of
the surveys. Based on that information, the surveys were revised accordingly. While the basic
structures of the surveys were conserved, some questions were revised in order to obtain more
detailed information from the respondents, such as a list of each crop grown, its respective yield,
and a distinction of the costs for and production of each growing season, summer and winter.

The survey questions required the respondents to remember detailed information regarding the
production process, such as one-time costs when they first started the program or the yield of a
crop in kilograms. At times, the respondents were unable to provide accurate measurements of
the weights and quantities of all of their outputs. In these instances, the translators assisted the
respondents by using different wording or converting local measurements into kilograms.

ii.    Direct Observation

Direct observation offered the Capstone team a form of data triangulation by comparing results
from the surveys, key informant interviews, and secondary sources. They performed direct
observation at three research sites: the Village Model Farms, the household gardens, and a local
produce and goat market.

a.     Village Model Farms

Visiting each village‟s VMF prior to conducting the surveys provided the Capstone team with a
snapshot of the types of vegetables grown within each community, both those produced as part
of the HFPP and those produced more for income-generating purposes. The Village Model
Farmer often led the Capstone team through his or her VMF identifying crops, explaining some
of the key components of the farm, and sharing their experiences in maintaining the VMF.

b.     Homestead Gardens

After each interview, the respondents took the team to their homestead gardens. The distance to
and sizes of the homestead gardens varied, but a majority of them were no more than three




                                                19
minutes walking distance from their home and between 1.5 and three decimals of land.10
Visiting the homestead gardens proved useful in verifying the respondents‟ responses,
particularly in relation to questions about distance to water sources and amount of time spent in
their gardens.

In one instance, one respondent stated seasonal production was above the average output that
other respondents in that village had stated. Upon visiting her garden, the team was able to
observe that it was nearly twice as large as the other participants‟ gardens. Additionally, HKI‟s
agricultural specialist confirmed that her production estimates were in proportion to her plot size.

While the team found that most respondents replied with some degree of proportionality, there
were some outliers. For example, one respondent explained that she spent roughly six hours per
day on her homestead garden and several hours per day gathering water. However, upon
observing her garden, it became clear to the team that the respondent was exaggerating her
circumstance, as her garden was of average size compared to those previously visited and
roughly 100 meters away from her water source.

c.         Pricing Exercise

In order to determine the market value of the produce, poultry, and goats, the Capstone team
visited Mohonganj Market, a local open-air market, and spoke with vendors about current and
seasonal prices. Although the team visited only one market to acquire pricing data, they also
spoke with local consumers to estimate prices for the vegetables and animals that were not
currently being sold at that market (i.e. because they were not currently in season).

When HKI decides to conduct a cost-benefit analysis in the future, they will need to conduct a
thorough price sampling exercise. For the purpose of collecting enough data to be able to
construct and test the CBA models, the Capstone team did not carry out a more in-depth pricing
exercise, particularly as prices fluctuate depending on season, geographical location and
conditions, and food availability. It was determined that a comprehensive market analysis was
not necessary at this stage of the research.

iii.       Key Informant Interviews

While in both Dhaka and Barisal the team conducted semi-structured interviews with HKI staff
and its partner organizations Save the Children and the South Asia Partnership – Bangladesh
(SAP-BD). The interviews with HKI staff included discussions on their expenditures and annual
budget, general projections for the future of the HFPP in Barisal, Detailed Implementation Plans,
trainings offered by field staff, and social and cultural implications of the HFPP. The Capstone
team met with Save the Children and SAP-BD to discuss in detail the activities each organization
carries out in cooperation with HKI and to share their experiences regarding the JOJ.




10
     One decimal of land equals 40.5 m2. Thus, 1.5 to 3 decimals of land equals roughly 61 to 122 m2 of land.


                                                          20
iv.    Secondary Sources

In addition to the interviews conducted with HKI and some of its partner organizations, the
Capstone team was able to obtain organizational documents that provided them with a better
understanding of the inner workings of the HFPP as it is currently implemented, as well as data
on the cost of resources needed to implement the program. These documents were utilized
throughout the team‟s analysis and during the development of the CBA models.

II.    COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS MODELS COMPONENTS

A cost-benefit analysis illustrates the increased benefits to a household after an intervention has
taken place. To illustrate this increase in benefits due to the project, two scenarios are compared:
one, what would likely happen in the absence of the intervention, called a “baseline” projection;
and two, what happens once an intervention is underway. The CBA models calculate the
benefits of the HFPP in terms of increased production at the household level as reported by
HFPP participants. A baseline level of production is subtracted from these figures, resulting in
the level of benefits that can be attributed to the HFPP intervention. The models then subtract
the total costs, including program costs and individual participant input costs, from the attributed
benefits to obtain a net level of benefits.

The Economic Rate of Return (ERR), also known as the Internal Rate of Return, calculates the
percent of increased benefit to an individual household as a result of the intervention. This value
is not simply the sum of the net benefits, but rather must take into account a discount rate, which
illustrates the cost of capital over time. One dollar (or, in the case of Bangladesh, taka) of
benefits in year 10 is significantly less valuable than one dollar of benefits in year 1, because the
former forgoes the interest that could be earned on that capital during the intervening years. The
ERR is equal to the interest rate at which the discounted benefits of a project equal the
discounted costs.

A.     Explanation of Assumptions

The CBA models are built on assumptions of the individual costs and benefits of the HFPP (see
Appendix 10). These assumptions are based on the best available information at the time of the
analysis and can be modified as the economic environment changes, more accurate information
becomes available, or external events affect market prices.

B.     Measuring and Valuing Costs and Benefits

Two types of costs are considered in the analysis of the homestead gardening HFPP component:
the costs to the implementing organization (HKI) and the costs to the individual beneficiaries.
Organizational costs include the cost of the physical inputs of the seeds, seedlings, poultry, and
vaccinations, as well as the costs associated with trainings, establishment of the VMFs, and staff
salaries and transportation. The HKI input cost assumptions were derived from the Jibon-o-
Jibika Detailed Budget, which outlines the costs associated with carrying out the program for
each sub-district. Because the budget line items are the total for the 1600 households in each
sub-district, costs were divided by 1600 to obtain a per-household amount for each item.



                                                 21
Beneficiary expenditures for the homestead gardening component include money spent on inputs
such as water, poultry feed, transportation to markets, and additional seeds and plants. These
input costs are derived from the responses obtained during the participant surveys. Of the 30
surveys that were conducted, 16 of the respondents were in their first year of participation in the
project and 14 in their second. The seasonal averages for first-year participants were used as the
input costs for year one, while the seasonal averages for second-year participants were used as
the input costs for year two. Generally, most costs were higher for first-year participants than for
second-year participants. In the absence of precise data about how costs may change in later
years, it is assumed that in the first year participants may be experimenting with different
gardening techniques and may not know the optimum level of inputs needed to yield the most
benefit. However, by the second year of participation they will have a better idea of the
necessary level of inputs. This leads to the assumption that input costs in years three through ten
will be the same as those in year two.

The analysis does not include the opportunity costs associated with land, labor, or time because
of two points that became clear during the course of the surveys. First, the land being used for
homestead gardening was not used in any productive manner prior to the HFPP. Second, the
time spent tending to the garden was minimal, averaging only 30 minutes to one hour per day,
and did not prevent the beneficiary from participating in other income-generating activities.
Therefore, the Capstone team determined that these opportunity costs were minimal.

Participants‟ benefits include only the market value of the produce grown and the poultry and
eggs produced. The benefit streams for the first and second years are derived from the
participants‟ survey responses. The level of benefits more than tripled between years one and
two, demonstrating a steep learning curve associated with commencing a new method of
gardening and poultry-rearing. It is assumed that the growth rate of production will decrease to
zero within five years as participants reach a level of production that optimizes their benefit
given their ability to provide time and physical inputs.

The baseline level of production of both vegetables and poultry products that was used to
calculate the net benefits due to the project was derived from a baseline survey that was carried
out before the JOJ began in 2005. This survey, as published in the 2006 Annual Report for JOJ,
shows a baseline production of 20 kg of vegetables per household per season. To calculate a
value for this baseline produce, the model uses an assumed “basket price” of 13 taka per
kilogram. This was derived from the average value per kilogram of production per household of
the 30 HFPP households surveyed.

In the case of the goat rearing component of the HFPP, each sub-district has 200 beneficiaries, so
costs are divided by 200 to obtain a per-household level of costs. Overhead costs such as staff
salaries and transportation are not included in this analysis because the goat rearing component
accompanies the homestead gardening component of the HFPP, sharing the same staff and
transportation resources. Because this component does not require any additional staff members
or travel time/costs, these expenses are only counted in the homestead gardening CBA model to
avoid the double-counting of costs.



                                                22
Goat rearing participant input costs include the cost of grain or other goat feed, a stud fee for
each insemination, and vaccination for each goat that the household decides to keep. These costs
are derived from the responses of the ten ultra-poor women who were surveyed.

Participants‟ benefits include only the sale of goats in the local market. The market values of
goats were obtained from vendors at Mohonganj Market, and reveal marked variation according
to the gender and age of the goat. The number of goats that a participant could expect to sell in
any given year after the project begins is determined from a complex herd projection model that
takes into account an assumed fertility rate per adult female goat, information which was
obtained from HKI‟s agricultural specialist and confirmed through our survey. The CBA model
also incorporates an annual mortality rate of 3%, which is derived from the actual incidence of
goat deaths during the first year of the goat rearing component. The two most sensitive
parameters in the model are the maximum number of adult reproducing goats that a given ultra-
poor woman would be able to manage on her own and the number of immature goats that are
raised for one year before being sold in the market. The imposition of this herd limit changes the
model from exponential growth to an equilibrium state after several years.

C.     Testing the CBA Models: Analysis of Results

i.     Economic Rates of Return

Based on assumptions derived from the participant surveys, interviews with vendors at
Mohonganj market, and interviews with HKI staff members, the Capstone team was able to
estimate an Economic Rate of Return for both HFPP components.

a.     Homestead Gardening CBA Model

With the current assumptions, the homestead gardening model shows an economic rate of return
of approximately 160%. Although the model is very sensitive to changes in certain assumptions,
which alter the ERR significantly, it is appropriate to conclude that this project has led to a
substantial increase in vegetable production at the household level and that its benefits greatly
outweigh its costs when projected over a ten-year horizon. While the first and sometimes the
second year of project participation result in negative net benefits, later years see significant
increases in production and benefits.

b.     Goat Rearing CBA Model

With the current assumptions, the Goat Rearing model shows an economic rate of return of
approximately 46%. This model is also highly sensitive to changes in certain assumptions and
demonstrates clear net benefits as the project extends to and beyond year ten. On average,
benefits only begin to outweigh costs in the fourth year of participation.




                                               23
ii.    Discussion of Equity and Other Non-Economic Effects

Though the survey questions solicited responses regarding the non-economic benefits of the
program, such as gender empowerment and other social indicators, the CBA models do not
include these non-economic costs and benefits quantitatively. Improvements in health and
nutrition are considered only in the proxy indicator of increased production of nutritious foods.
The rationale for this decision is that regardless of whether the produce is used to generate
income or for consumption, it still has a set market value and resulting improvements in health
and nutrition will be a result of a household‟s rational decisions about how to best allocate these
benefits.

iii.   Sensitivity Analysis

Benefit streams in both models are sensitive to changes in their assumptions (see Appendix 13).
Due to this sensitivity, the assumptions must be based on the most accurate information available
and backed up by detailed research. Each assumption is accompanied by its source so that the
user of the model can assess for himself his own level of comfort with the accuracy of the
assumptions and resulting analysis.

The most sensitive assumptions in the homestead gardening model include:

              The market prices of productive outputs, particularly poultry and eggs
              The estimated market price per kilogram of a “basket” of aggregated produce
               (used to estimate baseline values)
              The yearly growth rate for produce, poultry, and egg production

The most sensitive assumptions in the goat rearing model include:

              The market prices of goats of each gender and age group
              The maximum ideal herd size of adult female goats and young maturing goats
              The cost of goat feed

iv.    Discussion of Sustainability

For the homestead gardening component, HKI will provide inputs to participants only during
years 1-3. After the third year, participants are expected to have gained the technical knowledge
and capacity to continue gardening without further HFPP intervention. It is also expected that,
by the end of the program, the VMF will have become a sustainable small business as the Village
Model Farmer saves high-quality seeds from each harvest and sells them to members of the
community. HFPP participants are also taught how to save seeds from their own gardens so that
they will be able to plant them in later seasons and avoid future expenses. Improved gardening
techniques are also expected to spread from program participants to non-participants, and all
community members will be able to benefit from the expertise of the Village Model Farmer.

It is conceivable that as more community members begin to practice improved gardening
techniques the market may become saturated with produce and the prices of vegetables will


                                                24
decrease. The Capstone team did not factor this hypothetical scenario into their models, as their
surveys revealed that consumption was the primary purpose of household production. This
suggests that only surplus produce is being sold in the market.

Even in rural areas with relatively high population density, reaching such a saturation point
seems unlikely given Bangladesh‟s history of food insecurity and the current global food crisis.
According to Hossain et al., despite efforts to achieve food security, this has not been achieved,
and whatever progress that Bangladesh has made would be difficult to sustain in view of the
growing pressure of population growth on the country‟s extremely scarce natural resources
(Hossain et al., 2005). For this reason, it is highly likely that such small-scale agricultural
practices will be both a sustainable and essential tool in Bangladesh‟s struggle with food
insecurity.

v.     Validation of the CBA models

Both models have been reviewed and vetted by the chief economist at the Millennium Challenge
Corporation to ensure that they meet accepted standards for economic analysis.

III.   RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

The cost-benefit analysis models are tools that can be used for comprehensive assessments of
HKI‟s Homestead Food Production Program in the future. The assumptions that are used for the
test models are based on preliminary estimations of possible costs and benefits, and should not
be taken as concrete values, especially given that the data was collected from an atypical year –
one during which the region was affected by disastrous floods and the most devastating cyclone
in decades. Each of these assumptions must be verified using statistically sound methods of
research so that the resulting benefit streams and ERRs can be used to generate accurate and
reliable projections for the program.

One important recommendation for future use of these models is to incorporate an aspect of self-
tracking of production at the household level. The researchers found that none of the participants
had ever attempted to quantify their outputs, which sometimes resulted in extremely rough
estimates during the course of the surveys. If HFPP training were to include a section on the
importance of accurate record-keeping, future cost-benefit analysis research would be
significantly more accurate and reliable.




                                               25
                                           REFERENCES
Adeyemi, Abiola. "Urban Agriculture: An Abbreviated List of References and Resource Guide
       2000." National Agricultural Library, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Sep. 2000. 10
       Aug. 2007 <http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/AFSIC_pubs/urbanag.htm>.
Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS). ”Area, Population and Literacy Rate by Upazila/Thana-
       2001.” 5 Jul. 2007. 14 March 2008. < http://www.bbs.gov.bd/dataindex/census/
       ce_uzila.pdf>.
Bloem, Martin W., et al. “Homestead Food Production: A Strategy to Combat Malnutrition and
       Poverty.” 2001. Helen Keller International/Asia Pacific. 17 Jan. 2008 <http://www.hki.
       org/research/pdf_zip_docs/HFP%202001.pdf>.
Bryld, Erik. 2003. "Potentials, Problems, and Policy Implications for Urban Agriculture in
       Developing Countries." Agriculture and Human Values 20 (1): 79-86.
Center for Urban Studies (CUS), MEASURE Evaluation, and National Institute of Population
       and Research Training (NIPORT). “Slums of Urban Bangladesh: Mapping and Census,
       2005.” May 2006. 17 March 2008. <http://www.cpc.unc.edu/measure/publications/pdf/tr-
       06-35.pdf>.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). "Issues in Urban Agriculture."
       Agriculture 21. Jan. 1999. 3 Aug. 2007 <http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/9901sp2.htm>.
Graham, Elizabeth. "Farming the Built Environment." For Hunger-Proof Cities: Sustainable
       Urban Food Systems. Eds. Koc, Mustafa, Rod MacRae, Luc J.A. Mougeot, and Jennifer
       Walsh. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 1999.
Heitzman, James, and Robert L. Worden, eds. “Bangladesh: A Country Study.” Washington,
       DC: Library of Congress Federal Research Division, 1989.
Helen Keller International (HKI). “Homestead Food Production Improves Household Food and
       Nutrition Security.” Homestead Food Production Bulletin No. 2. Nov. 2004. Helen Keller
       International. 12 Feb. 2008 <http://www.hki.org/research/pdf_zip_docs/
       HFP_BD_Bulletin_2.pdf>.
Helen Keller International (HKI). “Homestead Food Production: The Potential and Opportunity
       to Improve the Food Security and Rural Livelihood in Barisal Division.” Homestead
       Food Production Bulletin No.3. Apr. 2006. Helen Keller International. 6 Dec. 2007
       <http://www.hki.org/research/pdf_zip_docs/HFP_Bul3.pdf>.
Helen Keller International and Institute of Public Health Nutrition (HKI/IPHN). “Bangladesh in
       Facts and Figures: 2005 Annual Report of the Nutritional Surveillance Project.” Dhaka,
       Bangladesh: Helen Keller International, 2006.
Hossain, Mahabub, Firdousi Naher, and Quazi Shahabuddin. 2005. “Food Security and Nutrition
       in Bangladesh: Progress and Determinants.” E-Journal of Agricultural and Development
       Economics 2(2): 103-132.
Mougeot, Luc J. A. “The Hidden Significance of Urban Agriculture.” 2020 Focus No. 3, Brief 6.
       Aug. 2000. 15 Aug. 2007. <http://www.ifpri.org/2020/focus/focus03/focus03_06.asp>.
Obosu-Mensah, Kwaku. "Changes in Official Attitudes Towards Urban Agriculture in Accra."
       African Studies Quarterly 6(3). 2002. 10 Aug. 2007. <http://web.africa.ufl.edu/asq/v6/
       v6i3a2.htm>.
Population Reference Bureau (PRB). “Bangladesh: Statistics.” 14 Jan. 2008.
       <http://www.prb.org/Countries/Bangladesh.aspx>.
Rauber, Paul. 1998. "Cultivating our Cities." Sierra 82(3): 19-21.




                                             26
Save the Children (SC). “The FY 2005-2009 Development Assistance Program Jibon o Jibika
       Mid-Term Evaluation.” Draft Report. 2007.
Save the Children (SC). “Bangladesh: Save the Children.” 2008. 12 Feb. 2008. <http://www.
       savethechildren.org/countries/asia/bangladesh.html>.
Sawio, C.J., L. Spies, and D. Doucoure. "Urban Agriculture: International Support and Capacity
       Building." Waste Composting for Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture: Closing the Rural-
       Urban Nutrient Cycle in Sub-Saharan Africa. Eds. Pay Drechsel and Dagmar Kunze.
       UK: CABI, 2001.
Unicef: Bangladesh. “The People.” 24 Feb. 2008 <http://www.unicef.org/bangladesh/index.
       html>.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). “World Urbanization Prospects: The 2005
       Revision.” Human Development Reports. 2006. 20 Feb. 2008 <http://hdrstats.undp.org/
       indicators/41.html>.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). “Human Development Report 2007/2008:
       Fighting Climate Change: Human Solidarity in a Divided World.” 2007. 26 Apr. 2008.
       <http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/hdr_20072008_en_complete.pdf>.
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN Habitat). “State of the World‟s Cities
       2006/7.” Sterling, VA: United Nations Human Settlements Programme, 2006.
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). “State of World Population 2007: Unleashing the
       Potential for Urban Growth.” 2007. 26 Apr. 2008. < http://www.unfpa.org/swp/
       2007/presskit/pdf/sowp2007_eng.pdf>.
WinklerPrins, Antoinette M.G.A., and Perpetuo S. de Souza. 2005. "Surviving the City: Urban
       Home Gardens and the Economy of Affection in the Brazilian Amazon." Journal of Latin
       American Geography 4(1): 107-126.




                                             27
Appendix 1: Detailed Map of Bangladesh




                 28
     Appendix 2: Address List of Slums in Barisal City with Slums Surveyed Highlighted

                                                      List of Slums in Barishal City Corporation Area
                                                        Address                                     Area in     No. of    Household       Mess             Total
                                                                                                     acre     household   population    population       population
                                                                                          Ward-01
Sekander Thikader er bari, , North Kaunia, Kotwali                                                     0.66          40           234                0           234
D. Bari, Maylakhola Road, North Kaunia, Kotwali                                                        0.31          21           110                0           110
Haolader Bari, Texttile Road, North Kaunia, Kotwali                                                    0.28          15            90                0            90
Bisic Basti, Bisic Road, Paschim Kaunia (Part-2), Kotwali                                              1.15          80           400                0           400
Jamider Bari, Bisic road, North Kaunia, Kotwali                                                        0.15          22            70                0            70
Choudhory Bari, North Kaunia, North Kaunia, Kotwali                                                     0.6          35           210                0           210
Mosharof Mia er Bari,Meyor er Bari, Sayedur Rahman Road, Paschim Kaunia (Part-1), kotwali              0.25          20           105                0           105
Meyor er Bharatey Bari, Sayedur Rahman Road, Paschim Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                           0.3          25           130                0           130
Rustam Miar Bari, Sayedur Rahman Road, Paschim Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                                0.32          20           118                0           118
Talukder Manjil, Sayedur Rahman Road, Paschim Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                                  0.3          18           108                0           108
Bisic Basti, Baghia, Paschim Kaunia (Part-2), kotwali                                                   0.4          25           150                0           150
Md Ali Sarder Bari, Bisic Road Shaw Saw Mill, Bisic Road, North Kaunia, Kotwali                        0.75          55           275                0           275
Haolader Bari (Choukider Bari), Bisic First lane (End), North Kaunia, Kotwali                           1.6         110           550                0           550
Bepari Bari, Hajera Khatun Road, Paschim Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                                      0.35          17           119                0           119
Hakim Bepari Bari, Hajera Khatun School Road, Paschim Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                          0.4          26           130                0           130
Volaia Bari, Mohammadia Mashjid Road, Paschim Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                                  0.7          45           270                0           270
Mashjid Road, Hajera Khatun Road, Paschim Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                                      0.3          25           125                0           125
Mujibor Masterer Bari, Mohammadia Jamey Mashjid Road, Paschim Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                 0.45          40           225                0           225
Sarder Bari, Howlader Sarok, Paschim Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                                           1.3          75           450                0           450
Bisic Basti 2, Bisic Sarok, Paschim Kaunia (Part-2), Kotwali                                            1.1          80           400                0           400
Khan Bari, Lakutia Sarok, Paschim Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                                             0.18          15            60                0            60
Howlader Bari, North Side of Gaji Sarok, North Kaunia, Kotwali                                          1.5         110           562                0           562
Howlader Bari, Bisic Road, North Kaunia, Kotwali                                                       1.01          52           312                0           312
Motaleb Howlader Bari, Al Mamun Majsid Sarok, Paschim Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                         0.15          11            55                0            55
Mansur Ali Khan Bari, East Side of Al Mamun Road, Paschim Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                     0.28          13            91                0            91
Howlader Bari, Howlader Sarok, Paschim Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                                         3.2         195          1170                0          1170
Mira Bari, Bisic Road, Paschim Kaunia (Part-2), Kotwali                                                1.55         107           565                0           565
House of Wahed Mian, Bayetul Jame Masjid Sarok, Paschim Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                        0.2          13            78                0            78
Howlader Bari, Madhu Miar Pull, Paschim Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                                        0.3          20           110                0           110
Hannan Howlader Bari, Sobhan Miar Pull, Paschim Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                               0.18          15            80                0            80
A. Salam Najir Bari, Bagan Bari, Paschim Kaunia, Paschim Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                       0.2          15            80                0            80
Talukder Bari, Bagan Bari, Najir Bari Road, Paschim Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                            0.4          65           390                0           390
Khan Bari, laku Tia sarok, Paschim Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                                             0.3          18           100                0           100
Khal Par, Bisic Bastee-1, Bisic Road, Khal Par, Paschim Kaunia (Part-2), Kotwali                       0.75          45           280                0           280
Marok Khola, Lakutia Sarok, Paschim Kaunia (Part-2), Kotwali                                           0.15          12            60                0            60
Dum bari, Marok Khola, Paschim Kaunia (Part-2), Kotwali                                                 0.2          25           150                0           150
                                                                                          Ward-02
Khan Bari, Januki Singh Road, Purba Kaunia (Part-2), Kotwali                                           0.45          40           212           40               252
Vasu Miar Bari, Januki Singh Road, Purba Kaunia (Part-2), Kotwali                                      0.35          50           225            0               225
Kader Miar Bari, Chhotto Miar Gola, Purba Kaunia (Part-2), Kotwali                                      0.3          24           144            0               144
Chhotto Miar Bari, Kobbat Mian Road, Purba Kaunia (Part-2), Kotwali                                     0.2          20           105            0               105
Burir Bari (Hannan Khalifa), Chhotto Miar Gali, Purba Kaunia (Part-2), Kotwali                          0.3          24           144            0               144
Kamal Miar Bari, Chhotto Miar Gali, Purba Kaunia (Part-2), Kotwali                                     0.25          35           170            0               170
Jadop Chandra Ghoser Bari, Chhotto Miar Gali, Purba Kaunia (Part-2), Kotwali                            0.1          12            55            0                55
Sarder Bari, Bisic Road, Purba Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                                                2.15         212           780            0               780
Beger Bari, Bisic Road, Purba Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                                                 1.02          80           480            0               480
Babul Bhila, East Side of the Gravard, Bisic Textile Road, Purba Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali              0.25          15            90            0                90
Kala Khar Bari, Back Side of Kader Commissionerer's House, Purba Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali               2.9         190          1100            0              1100
Khalek Miar Bari, Branch Road, Purba Kaunia (Part-3), Kotwali                                           0.6          75           455            0               455
House of Advocate Rubel, Dhighir Par, Cattle Market, Purba Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                     0.1          12            65            0                65
Hosue of Kala Khan, Road of Kala Khan's House, Purba Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                          3.05         210          1340            0              1340
House of Ali Hossain Talukder, Kazi Bari, Purba Kaunia (Part-2), Kotwali                                0.2          12            70            0                70
Moni Begum, C/o-Kaunia Basher Hat, Bisic Road, Purba Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                           0.3          30           115            0               115
Faruq Manjil, Kaunia Prodhan Sarok, Purba Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                                      0.3          40           250            0               250
Syed Manjil, Bisic Road, Purba Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                                                 0.1          14            75            0                75
, Road of Kala Khan's House, Purba Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                                            0.25          25           145            5               150
Dhanu Sarder Bari, 1st Gali (End of the street), Bisic, Purba Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                  0.5          35           250            0               250
Daudpur Ladge, 1st Gali, Purba Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                                                0.13          13            78            0                78
House of Khalil Mian, Manosa Bari Gali, Purba Kaunia (Part-3), Kotwali                                  0.2          17           102            0               102
Rimon's House, Janu Singh Road, Purba Kaunia (Part-2), Kotwali                                          0.2          25           160            0               160
Suiper Colony, Janu Singh Road, Purba Kaunia (Part-2), Kotwali                                          0.6          60           340            0               340
Yunus Mowlovi, Monosa Bari Gali, Purba Kaunia (Part-2), Kotwali                                        0.14          15            75            0                75
House of Mannan Mian, Manosa Bari Road, Purba Kaunia (Part-3), Kotwali                                 0.25          45           210            0               210
Bibir Bari, Club Road, Purba Kaunia (Part-3), Kotwali                                                   0.2          12            75            0                75
Nuru Poskar Bari, Club Road, Purba Kaunia (Part-3), Kotwali                                            0.15          15            90            0                90
Motaleb Mian's House, Marog Khola, Purba Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                                      0.32          19           133            0               133
Pal Bari, Pal Bari Road, Purba Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                                                0.18          20           120            0               120
Kabir Chairman Bari, Amin Bari Road, Purba Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                                     0.1          11            75            0                75
Amin Bari, Kaunia Prodhan Sarok, Purba Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                                         0.3          25           125            0               125
Sharif Manjil, Jallya Rarir Puller Gora, Purba Kaunia (Part-1), Kotwali                                0.18          13            78            0                78
Jallya Bari, Jele Bari Lane, Purba Kaunia (Part-3), Kotwali                                            0.12          15            90            0                90
, Kaunia Prodhan Sarok, Purba Kaunia (Part-3), Kotwali                                                 0.12          15            90            0                90
Habib Mian's House, Panir Tanki sarok, Purba Kaunia (Part-2), Kotwali                                   0.3          20           135            0               135
House of Moti Khan, Manosa Bari Raod, Purba Kaunia (Part-2), Kotwali                                   0.12          15            92            0                92
Monosa Bari, Monosa Bari Gali, Purba Kaunia (Part-3), Kotwali                                          0.18          15           105            0               105
Mallik Bari, Mallik Bari Road, Purba Kaunia (Part-3), Kotwali                                           0.3          18           130            0               130




                                                                                         29
Jamal Mian's House, Club Road, Purba Kaunia (Part-3), Kotwali                                                        0.13    12     96    0      96
Fakir Ali's House, Club Road, Purba Kaunia (Part-3), Kotwali                                                         0.18    20    120    0     120
Moktar Mian's House, Mallik Bari Road, Purba Kaunia (Part-3), Kotwali                                                0.35    32    224    0     224
Colony, Club Road, Purba Kaunia (Part-3), Kotwali                                                                     2.5   250   1350    0    1350
Rubi Ganguli, Northern Side of Night University, Barnch Road, Purba Kaunia (Part-3), Kotwali                          0.5    50    260    0     260
Akon Villa, Kaunia Prodhan Sarok, Purba Kaunia (Part-3), Kotwali                                                      1.1    70    405    5     410
House of Shahidul Islam, In Front of Akon Villa, Purba Kaunia (Part-3), Kotwali                                      0.12    12     62    0      62
House of Tapan Sen, Kaunia Prodhan Sarok, Purba Kaunia (Part-3), Kotwali                                             0.18    12     65    0      65
                                                                                           Ward-03
Howlader Bari, Kaksura Road, Baghia, Kotwali                                                                         0.15    10     70    0     70
Gaji Bari, Gaji Bari Road, Baghia, Kotwali                                                                           0.15    10     70    0     70
Howlader Bari, Kakasura Sarok, Puranpara, Kotwali                                                                    0.14    11     75    0     75
Molla Barir Dighir Par, East Side of Mobile Tower, Motasar, Kotwali                                                  0.25    22    135    0    135
Muhuri Bari, By Pass Sarok, Baghia, Kotwali                                                                          0.25    16    104    0    104
Fakir Bari, Daskhin Par, Baghia, Kotwali                                                                             0.75    35    245    0    245
House of Manik Mallik, Puran Para, Baghia, Kotwali                                                                    0.2    19    120    0    120
Abul Hossain Sarder Bari, Eastern Side of Moha Mian's Pull, Motasar, Kotwali                                         0.25    28    175    0    175
Chowkidar Bari, Puran Para Road, Puranpara, Kotwali                                                                   0.2    15     90    0     90
Matasar Colony, Matasar, Motasar, Kotwali                                                                               1    55    380    0    380
Fakir Bari, Puran Para, Puranpara, Kotwali                                                                           0.25    18    120    0    120
Meser Howlader Bari, Puran Para, Puranpara, Kotwali                                                                  0.15    20    140    0    140
Ismail Khan's House, Eastern Part of Puran Para Madrasa, Puranpara, Kotwali                                          0.15    13     80    0     80
Fakir Bari, Textile Road, Puranpara, Kotwali                                                                          0.2    16    112    0    112
Mridha Bari, Back Side of Textile, Puranpara, Kotwali                                                                0.15    12     75    0     75
Eastern Side of Puran Mayla Khola, Eastern Side of Serniabad College, Puranpara, Kotwali                              0.2    19    118    0    118
A. rahman Khan's House, Infront of Baghia Dakhil Madrasa, Motasar, Kotwali                                           0.25    13    101    0    101
Eastern Side of Wabda Khal, Infront of Grameen Tower, Motasar, Kotwali                                               0.15    20    110    0    110
Wabda, Lake Side, Motasar, Kotwali                                                                                   0.35    38    266    0    266
Nayda Bari, Lakutia sarok, Puranpara, Kotwali                                                                        0.25    15     75    0     75
House of Lokman Mian, Puran Para, Ganwasar, Kotwali                                                                  0.18    15     92    0     92
Dargah Bari, Adjucent of Textile, Ganwasar, Kotwali                                                                   0.2    18    110    0    110
Sarder Bari, Mayla Khola Road, Ganwasar, Kotwali                                                                      2.6   165    990    0    990
Western Side of Kazi Bar's Mosque, Sunia Jame Mosjid Sarok, Ganwasar, Kotwali                                         0.7    50    350    0    350
                                                                                           Ward-04
Hasem Kutir, Vati Khana Road, Vatikhana Part, Kotwali                                                                0.12    18     90    0      90
Bakergonj Brick Field, Amanatgonj, Amanatgonj (Paschim), Kotwali                                                      2.3   250   1420    0    1420
House of Kasem Mian, Vatikhana, Vatikhana Road, Vatikhana Part, Kotwali                                              0.25    20    122    0     122
House of Noor Islam Howlader, New Vati Khana Road, Vatikhana Part, Kotwali                                           0.12    10     55    0      55
House of Sonamuddi Howlader, New Vati Khan Road, Amanatgonj (Paschim), Kotwali                                        0.7    55    290    0     290
House of Halim Talukder, Banik Bari Road, Vatikhana Part, Kotwali                                                    0.24    30    185    0     185
House of Dhakaiya Razzaque, Munsi Bari Road, Vatikhana Part, Kotwali                                                 0.25    26    130    0     130
Datta Bari, Vati Khana, Vatikhana Part, Kotwali                                                                      1.05    90    550    0     550
                                                                                           Ward-05
Uttar Palashpur, Beltala Kheyaghat Mor, South Side, Char Upan (Palashpur), Kotwali                                    0.1    35    175    0     175
6 No. Guscho Gram, Uttar Palashpur, Char Upan (Palashpur), Kotwali                                                   2.28   250   1250    0    1250
Uttar Palashpur, Doctor Bari, Char Upan (Palashpur), Kotwali                                                         0.12    13     78    0      78
House of Habib Mian, Northern Side of Kazi's Gravyards, Char Upan (Palashpur), Kotwali                                0.1    17     85    0      85
4 No. Guscho Gram, Palashpur, Char Upan (Palashpur), Kotwali                                                          1.5   151    755    0     755
House of Idris Howlader, After Bou Bazar and before Kazi Graveyards, Char Upan (Palashpur), Kotwali                   0.2    12     60    0      60
7 No. Rajonigandha, Char Bandana, Char Upan (Palashpur), Kotwali                                                      9.2   600   3000    0    3000
Zia Colony, 8 No. Guscho Gram, Paner Dokan, Char Upan (Palashpur), Kotwali                                              4   250   1000    0    1000
3 No. Sugandha Gali, Palashpur Guscho Gram, Char Upan (Palashpur), Kotwali                                           2.46   152    760    0     760
Daskin Palashpur, Jame Masque Front Lane, Char Upan (Palashpur), Kotwali                                              1.4   100    500    0     500
2 No. Guscho Gram, Char Badna, Char Upan (Palashpur), Kotwali                                                         2.4   240   1440    0    1440
Char Badna, Palashpur, East- end of 1st Lane., Char Upan (Palashpur), Kotwali                                        2.74   250   1250    0    1250
Palashpur 5 No. Guscho Gram, Prodhan Sarok, Char Upan (Palashpur), Kotwali                                           6.88   520   3640    0    3640
                                                                                           Ward-06
Akbar Mian lane, Mowlana Yasin Sarok, Beltala, Kotwali                                                                0.3    16     96     0     96
Master Bari, Mowlana Yasin Road, Purba Amanatgonj, Kotwali                                                           0.28    16     96     0     96
Khan Villa, Amanatgonj Road, Purba Amanatgonj, Kotwali                                                               0.13    14     84     0     84
Harun Daroga Bari, Amanatgonj Road, Purba Amanatgonj, Kotwali                                                         0.3    16     96     0     96
Kazi Bari, Enayet Ullah Sarok, Purba Amanatgonj, Kotwali                                                              0.3    40    280     0    280
House of Harun Mian, Enayet Ullah Primary School Road, Purba Amanatgonj, Kotwali                                     1.15    75    450     0    450
House of Aziz Bepari, Darga Bari Road, Purba Amanatgonj, Kotwali                                                     0.16    15    100     0    100
Kheyaghat of Kali Babu, Proposed Coconaut Oil Mill, Hatkhola, Kotwali                                                 0.4    41    287     0    287
House of Delwar Bhuiyan, Infront of Sadem's House, Hatkhola, Kotwali                                                 0.15    24    146     0    146
Ali Lane, Puratan Koila Ghat, Hatkhola, Kotwali                                                                         3   340   1700     0   1700
Adjucent of Ahmed Gaji's House, Charmonai Troller Ghat, Hatkhola, Kotwali                                            0.15    12     35   100    135
House of Motaleb Muhoori, Charmonai Troller Ghat, Char Hatkhola, Kotwali                                              0.2    22    110     0    110
Hatkhola Shishu Park Community, New Sadar, Ghat Road, Adjucent of Palashpur Bridge, Hatkhola, Kotwali                2.34   475   2510     0   2510
Troller Ghat Bastee-1, Easternh Side of A. Karim Ideal College, Hatkhola, Kotwali                                     0.2    45    270     0    270
Gagangali Bastee, Northern Side of MEP Company, Hatkhola, Kotwali                                                     1.7   270   1890     0   1890
Kasaikhana Bastee (Uttar), Adjucent of Rice Research Institute, Char Hatkhola, Kotwali                               3.72   950   5700     0   5700
Back Side of Suvash Swamill, Daptarkhana, Hatkhola, Kotwali                                                           1.2   215   1290     0   1290
House of Khalek Mian, Swarup Ali Road, Hatkhola, Kotwali                                                             0.18    25    150     0    150
House of Pagla Kader Mian, Middle of Hatkhola and Mosque, Hatkhola, Kotwali                                          0.32    35    210     0    210
Kasaikhana Bastee Daskhin, Adjucent of Rice Research Intitute, Char Hatkhola, Kotwali                                0.95   125    640     0    640
House of Jalil Mian, Back Side of Piajpatti Temple, Hatkhola, Kotwali                                                0.25    29    203     0    203
House of Jamal Mian, Marich Patti, Hatkhola, Kotwali                                                                 0.24    23    161     0    161
1 No. Char Badna Bhumiheen Dinmajur Colony (Kalapatti Bastee), Kalapatti Bastee, Port Road, Char Hatkhola, Kotwali   2.22   248   1182     0   1182




                                                                                          30
                                                                                             Ward-07
Akon Bari, Akon Sarok, Purba Kaunia Part-4 (Uttar Kaunia and Vatikhana), Kotwali                                       1.6   135     510   0   510
House of Azam Khan, Last end of Kaunia Branch Road, Purba Kaunia Part-4 (Uttar Kaunia and Vatikhana), Kotwali          0.7    42     270   0   270
Branch Road, Saban Factory Road, Kaunia, Purba Kaunia Part-4 (Uttar Kaunia and Vatikhana), Kotwali                     0.9   105     425   0   425
Mannan Howlader Bari, Branch Road, Purba Kaunia Part-4 (Uttar Kaunia and Vatikhana), Kotwali                          0.08    12      62   0    62
House of Sonamuddi, Kaunia Branch Road, Purba Kaunia Part-4 (Uttar Kaunia and Vatikhana), Kotwali                      0.9   110     650   0   650
House of Choto Mian, Infront of Darul Ulum Kawmi Madrasa, Purba Kaunia Part-4 (Uttar Kaunia and Vatikhana), Kotwali   0.32    22     130   0   130
Sarder Bari, Uttar Kaunia, Janu Singh Road, Purba Kaunia Part-4 (Uttar Kaunia and Vatikhana), Kotwali                  0.3    21     126   0   126
Howlader Bari, Branch Road, Purba Kaunia Part-4 (Uttar Kaunia and Vatikhana), Kotwali                                  0.3    25     150   0   150
Mannan Chowkider Bari, Kaunia, Purba Kaunia Part-4 (Uttar Kaunia and Vatikhana), Kotwali                                 1    95     475   0   475
House of Din Mohammad Daroga, Branch Road, Purba Kaunia Part-4 (Uttar Kaunia and Vatikhana), Kotwali                   0.2    14      72   0    72
Mokles Palwan's House, Kaunia Saban Factory, Purba Kaunia Part-4 (Uttar Kaunia and Vatikhana), Kotwali                0.25    21     126   0   126
Rokeya Monjil, Sikder Bari, Barek Mian Lane, Purba Kaunia Part-4 (Uttar Kaunia and Vatikhana), Kotwali                0.68    50     300   0   300
House of Goni Mian, Southern Side of Sharif bari Mosque, Purba Kaunia Part-4 (Uttar Kaunia and Vatikhana), Kotwali     0.3    24     144   0   144
Bose Bari, Vati Khana 2 No., Purba Kaunia Part-4 (Uttar Kaunia and Vatikhana), Kotwali                                0.34    21     126   0   126
Nanna Khalifa Bari, Vatikhana 1st Lane, Purba Kaunia Part-4 (Uttar Kaunia and Vatikhana), Kotwali                     0.35    28     168   0   168
Hasanujjaman Akon Bari, Branch Road, Purba Kaunia Part-4 (Uttar Kaunia and Vatikhana), Kotwali                         0.3    16      96   0    96
House of Razzak Mian, Vatikhana, Purba Kaunia Part-4 (Uttar Kaunia and Vatikhana), Kotwali                             0.5    38     190   0   190
Ghool Bari, Vatikhana, Purba Kaunia Part-4 (Uttar Kaunia and Vatikhana), Kotwali                                       0.3    27     162   0   162
House of Salam Mian, Branch Road, Purba Kaunia Part-4 (Uttar Kaunia and Vatikhana), Kotwali                           0.09    11      66   0    66
House of Shahid Mian, Bamman Road, Purba Kaunia Part-4 (Uttar Kaunia and Vatikhana), Kotwali                          0.16    12      72   0    72
House of Hatem Mian, Barman Road, Purba Kaunia Part-4 (Uttar Kaunia and Vatikhana), Kotwali                           0.25    22     130   0   130
House of Rashid Moktar, Barman Road, Purba Kaunia Part-4 (Uttar Kaunia and Vatikhana), Kotwali                        0.15    10      70   0    70
Veni Singh Howli, Nazir Mahallah, Purba Kaunia Part-4 (Uttar Kaunia and Vatikhana), Kotwali                            0.9    62     372   0   372
                                                                                             Ward-08
Shakharee Sikder Bari, Swa-Road, Puran Bazar, Bazar Road, Kotwali                                                     0.85    48     336   0   336
Matsya Gali, Western Side of Bani Mandir School, Bazar Road, Kotwali                                                  0.18    21     147   0   147
Mohammad Hossain Talukder Bari, Senpara, Bazar Road, Bazar Road, Kotwali                                              0.28    38     266   0   266
Saroobali Chairman Bari, Bazar Road, Bazar Road, Kotwali                                                              0.31    32     210   0   210
                                                                                             Ward-09
Northern Side of Ghar Baron Mistanno Vander, Coart Compound, Girza Mahalla, Kotwali                                   0.12    14      84   0     84
Fall Patti, Chamar Patti, , Fariapatti, Kotwali                                                                       0.45    60     460   0    460
Char Badna, Rasulpur, Steamerghat, Kotwali                                                                            2.25   200    1000   0   1000
                                                                                             Ward-10
Chara Kutir, Collector Coart Compound, Band Road, DC Road, Majidbari (Part-1), Kotwali                                 0.7     65    455   0    455
Hemayet Uddin Eidga Maydan, Western Side of Bhatar Khal, Majidbari (Part-1), Kotwali                                   2.5    500   3000   0   3000
Coastal Baraf Call Area, Fire Service Station, Majidbari (Part-2), Kotwali                                            1.25    200   1200   0   1200
KDC Bastee, Northern Side of KDC, Majidbari (Part-2), Kotwali                                                          0.5     60    420   0    420
Balur Maath Bastuhara Bastee, Band Road, Majidbari (Part-2), Kotwali                                                  4.15   1050   5500   0   5500
Bels Park Para, Band Road, Majidbari (Part-2), Kotwali                                                                0.25     20    110   0    110
Kirtonkhola, KTC Adjucent, Bishwa Godown Road, Majidbari (Part-2), Kotwali                                             1.1     99    600   0    600
House of Kader Mian, Chandmari Road, Chandmari, Majidbari (Part-2), Kotwali                                           0.12     15     90   0     90
Manu Mian's Useless Land, Chandmari Road, Majidbari (Part-2), Kotwali                                                 0.08     15     90   0     90
                                                                                             Ward-11
House of Nilu Baburchi, Bangla Bazar, South Alikanda (Part-1), Kotwali                                                 0.2     22    135   0    135
Gaji Bari/ Sarder Bari, Manik Main's Garedge, South Alikanda (Part-1), Kotwali                                         0.8     65    390   0    390
Azahar Sharif's House, Arshed Ali Thikadar Road, South Alikanda (Part-1), Kotwali                                      0.7     60    380   0    380
Outdoor Stedium, Eastern Side of BIP Colony, Dakshin Alenkanda (Part-2), Kotwali                                       0.5     35    210   0    210
Outer Stedium, Chandmari Biddyut Office Adjusent Madrasa Road, Dakshin Alenkanda (Part-2), Kotwali                     3.5   1200   4800   0   4800
                                                                                             Ward-12
Durani and Howlader Bari, Daskhin Alekanda, Medical College, Kotwali                                                  1.15    72     432   0   432
Rahman Kootir, Back Side of Shere Bangla Medical College Hospital, Medical College, Kotwali                            0.4    28     206   0   206
Khan Bari, Torab Ali Road, Medical College, Kotwali                                                                   0.25    15     105   0   105
Majhi and Fakir Bari, Trish Godown Road, Bande Road, Kotwali                                                          0.75    55     330   0   330
Charer Bari, Trish Godown Road, Bande Road, Kotwali                                                                   1.05    63     441   0   441
                                                                                             Ward-13
Alekanda Kazi Para, Southern Side of Puran Medical, Uttar Alekanda, Kotwali                                            0.2    16     100   0   100
Amtala Panir Tank Bastee, Under Amtala Panir Tank, Uttar Alekanda, Kotwali                                            0.67    40     240   0   240
                                                                                             Ward-14
Sikder Bari, New Circular Road, Kazipara (Refuzee Colony), Kotwali                                                    0.15    21     105   0    105
Khaledabad Colony and Refujee Colony, Refujee Colony Road, Kazipara (Refuzee Colony), Kotwali                         3.05   350    2100   0   2100
House of Shahjahan Sikder, New House Road, Kazipara (Refuzee Colony), Kotwali                                         0.15    13      78   0     78
Gaji Bari-Talukder Bari, Infront of Nooria School Road, Kazipara (Refuzee Colony), Kotwali                             0.7    61     310   0    310
                                                                                             Ward-15
House of Lecturer Satter, Muslim Para, Muslimpara, Kotwali                                                            0.15    12      72   0    72
Bat Tala, Sharif Bari, Infront of Battala Polish Fari, Alekanda, Amir Kutir, Kotwali                                   0.4    40     240   0   240
Swuiper Colony, Amir Kutir Sarok, Amir Kutir, Kotwali                                                                  0.3    30     150   0   150
House of Farid Mian, Amir Kutir Road, Amir Kutir, Kotwali                                                             0.18    15      75   0    75
House of Moslem Muhoori, New Circular Road, Kalu Shah, Kotwali                                                        0.15    11      66   0    66
House of Dulal Khalifa, Kalu Shah Sarok, Kalu Shah, Kotwali                                                           0.18    18     118   0   118
House of A. Jalil sikder, Kalu Shah Sarok, Kalu Shah, Kotwali                                                         0.15    13      78   0    78
House of Ex Municipal Chairman Kamal Mian, Infront of Alekanda Girl's High School, Kalu Shah, Kotwali                 0.35    35     175   0   175
                                                                                             Ward-16
DTI and Politechnic Colony, Parash Sagor Road, Northern Side of DTI, North Zilla School, Kotwali                      0.48    25     175   0   175
                                                                                             Ward-17
Kazi Manjil, Kazi Rokon Uddin, Fakir Bari, Kotwali                                                                    0.15    11      44   0    44
Western Side of Rakhal Babu Pukur, Sikder Bari, Fakir Bari, Fakir Bari, Kotwali                                        0.3    24     144   0   144
Agarpur Road, Infront of Govt. Mohila College, Back Side of Beldi Hotel, Fakir Bari, Kotwali                             1    75     450   0   450
Peskar Bari, Bagura Road, Fakir Bari, Kotwali                                                                         0.08    12      72   0    72
Pyada Para, Agarpur, Fakir Bari, Kotwali                                                                              0.15    17     102   0   102
House of Matin Khan, Bagura Road, Fakir Bari, Kotwali                                                                  0.2    16      80   0    80




                                                                                          31
                                                                                        Ward-18
Talukder Villa, Uttar Bagura Road, Barisal, Kotwali                                                    0.1   10      40   0     40
House of Sobhan Mian, B.M. School Lane, Barisal, Kotwali                                              0.08    9      45   0     45
Puratan Gorstan, B.M. School Road, Barisal, Kotwali                                                    0.1   12      48   0     48
Datta Bari, Shri Nath Chatterjee Lane, Barisal, Kotwali                                                0.3   12      60   0     60
Yunus Villa, Shri Nath Chatterjee Lane, Barisal, Kotwali                                              0.15   10      50   0     50
Vyander Bari, Mallik Road, Barisal, Kotwali                                                            0.1   12      60   0     60
Hamida Manjil, Shri Nath Chatterjee Lane, Barisal, Kotwali                                             0.5   30     150   0    150
Daroga Bari, Western Side of B.M. School Road, Barisal, Kotwali                                       0.16   11      55   0     55
Hasem Manjil, B.M. School lane, Barisal, Kotwali                                                       0.2   20     100   0    100
Munsi Bari, Bagura Road, Barisal, Kotwali                                                              0.4   30     180   0    180
House of Adam Ali Haji Sobhan Mian, Mirod Mukherjee lane, Bottala (Part), Kotwali                      0.3   26     156   0    156
House of Shahjahan Chairman, Northern Side of Battala Mosque, Bottala (Part), Kotwali                 0.25   15      75   0     75
                                                                                        Ward-19
Adi Shwashan Ghat, Natun Bazar, Purba Jhautala, Kotwali                                               0.85    70    820   0     820
Brammo Samaj, Shwashan Ghat, Purba Jhautala, Kotwali                                                  0.32    50    250   0     250
Velter & Sukhi Mondal/ Badiul Alam's House, Natun Bazar, Purba Jhautala, Kotwali                         1   175   1050   0    1050
Chadra Bari, Chaltatala Road, Purba Jhautala, Kotwali                                                  0.3    25    125   0     125
House of Elemuddin Contractor, Hospital Road, Purba Jhautala, Kotwali                                  0.4    28    140   0     140
House of Hydar Mian, Hospital Road, Purba Jhautala, Kotwali                                            0.4    32    224   0     224
Hamid Manjil, Adjucent of Kather Pull, Nazir Mahalla, Kotwali                                         0.18    18    108   0     108
House of Manowar Chowdhury, Kather Pull road, Nazir Mahalla, Kotwali                                  0.22    30    120   0     120
Syed Manjil and Baishabari, Nazir Mahallah, Nazir Mahalla, Kotwali                                    0.45    30    180   0     180
Dhakaiya Bari, Nazir Mahallah, Nazir Mahalla, Kotwali                                                  0.4    33    231   0     231
                                                                                        Ward-20
Howlader Bari, Madhu Miar Pull, Paschim Professor Para, Kotwali                                       0.15   12      96    0    96
Tal Bhita, 2nd Lane, Infront of B.M. Collge, Paschim Professor Para, Kotwali                           0.1   12      60    0    60
College Road, Infront of Indo-Bangla, Badyapara, Kotwali                                              0.15   14      70    0    70
College Road, Infront of Banomali Ganguly Hostel, Purba B.M. College, Kotwali                          0.1   10      50    0    50
Northern Side of Mathura Nath Public School, Natun Bazar, Purba B.M. College, Kotwali                  0.2   10      70    0    70
Sarder Bari/Rokon Mian's House, Beside CNB Road, Badyapara, Kotwali                                    0.4   20     120   20   140
College Road, Christian Colony, B. M. College, Kotwali                                                 0.3   16     112    0   112
Back Side of Chemist Labrotory, College Row, Purba Bogra, Kotwali                                      0.2   24     120    0   120
House of A. Majid, Adarsha Govt. School bari, Purba Bogra, Kotwali                                    0.25   22     110    0   110
                                                                                        Ward-21
House of Raza Mian, TTC lane, Bogura Road (Alikanda), Kotwali                                          0.2   15      75   0     75
Khondakar Bari/ Syed Bari, Dhopa Barir Mor, Bogura Road (Alikanda), Kotwali                            0.7   70     490   0    490
Ghosh Bari, Oxford Mission Road, Paschim Oxford Mission, Kotwali                                       0.4   30     150   0    150
Shilpi Kutir, Oxford Mission Road, Paschim Oxford Mission, Kotwali                                    0.12   10      60   0     60
Nurul Alam Bachchu's House/Sikder Bari, Oxford Mission Road, Paschim Oxford Mission, Kotwali          0.35   35     210   0    210
Sobhan Miar Bari, Adam Ali Haji lane, Battala (Part), Kotwali                                          0.2   22     132   0    132
Adam Ali, Haji Lane, Battala (Part), Kotwali                                                          0.15   17     102   0    102
                                                                                        Ward-22
House of Wahab Mollah, Zia Sarok, Paschim Bogura, Kotwali                                             0.25   20     100    0   100
House of Anowar Khan, Zia Sarok, Paschim Bogura, Kotwali                                              0.15   16      80    0    80
House of Ratan Mridha, Zia Sarok, Paschim Bogura, Kotwali                                             0.32   30     150    0   150
House of Ismail Master, Zia Sarok, Paschim Bogura, Kotwali                                             0.6   50     250    0   250
Nayakanda Nayabari, Naya Sarok, Paschim Bogura, Kotwali                                               0.16   18     108    0   108
House of Priolal Gain, Zia Sarok, Paschim Bogura, Kotwali                                             0.15   11      66    0    66
Norther Side of Farazi Workshop, Kazi Para, Adjucent of Mosque, Paschim Bogura, Kotwali                0.3   22     110    0   110
House of Motahar Mira, Zia Sarok, Paschim Bogura, Kotwali                                              0.3   23     161    0   161
House of Shamim Kazi, Kazi Para, Paschim Bogura, Kotwali                                              0.25   22     110    0   110
House of Sultan Ahmed Mridha, Kazi Para, Paschim Bogura, Kotwali                                      0.15   16      80    0    80
A. Latif Khan's Jouse, Nabgram Road, Paschim Bogura, Kotwali                                           0.2   12      72    0    72
Gol Pukur Par, Nabgram Road, Paschim Bogura, Kotwali                                                   0.8   40     300    0   300
Ukil Bari, C & B Road, Paschim Bogura, Kotwali                                                        0.14   10      50    0    50
Commissioner Bari/Anowara Monjil, Nabgram Road, Paschim Bogura, Kotwali                               0.15   17      90   12   102
                                                                                        Ward-23
Baro Bari/Dr. Awlad Hossain's House, Nabgram Road, Uttar Sagardi, Kotwali                             0.25   20     120   0    120
Sadual Bari, Namoshudra Para, Paschim Sagardi, Kotwali                                                 0.3   22     132   0    132
House of Kanchan Ali Howlader, Islam Para Sarok, Uttar Sagardi, Kotwali                               0.22   17     102   0    102
House of Halim Mian, Tiakhali Road, Dakshin Sagardi, Kotwali                                          0.15   15      75   0     75
Osta bari/Dr. Bari, Tiakhali Road, Dakshin Sagardi, Kotwali                                            0.2   17     102   0    102
Napit Bari, Ashok Chndra Sheel, Dakshin Sagardi, Kotwali                                              0.45   25     150   0    150
House of Razzaq Sikder, Dighir Par, Dakshin Sagardi, Kotwali                                          0.32   20     100   0    100
Shahid Titumir Lane, Daskhin Sagordi, Dakshin Sagardi, Kotwali                                         0.8   50     300   0    300
House of Sohrab Khan, Fakir Bari Road, Dakshin Sagardi, Kotwali                                       0.15   12      60   0     60
Master Manjil, Madina Masjid, Dakshin Sagardi, Kotwali                                                 0.4   25     150   0    150
                                                                                        Ward-24
House of Hamid Diller, Southern Side of Hamid Khan, Sagardi Rupatali, Kotwali                          1.1   70     420   0    420
House of Ijaddin Mian, Western Side of Ijaddin Raod, Sagardi Rupatali, Kotwali                        0.18   18     108   0    108
House of Khalek Bhuiyan, Western Side of Hamid Khan Road, Sagardi Rupatali, Kotwali                    0.3   41     244   0    244
Howlader Bari, Eastern Side of Lallar Dighi, Sagardi Rupatali, Kotwali                                0.16   22     132   0    132
Western Side of Lalar Dighi, Rupatali, Sagardi Rupatali, Kotwali                                         1   60     420   0    420
House of Mafij Uddin Sikder, Patuakhali Road/Nurani Madrasa Road, Madhya & Purba Rupatali, Kotwali     0.2   13      78   0     78
Sharif Bari, Patuakhali Road, Madhya & Purba Rupatali, Kotwali                                         0.5   35     190   0    190
Fakir Bari (Kheyaghat), Rice Research Institute Road, Madhya & Purba Rupatali, Kotwali                0.12   13      91   0     91
Salam rari Chairman Bari, South-eastern Side of Sonargaon Textile, Madhya & Purba Rupatali, Kotwali    0.4   40     240   0    240
Wajed Ali Mira Bari, Patuakhali Highway, Madhya & Purba Rupatali, Kotwali                              0.4   22     132   0    132
Aftar Ali Howlader Bari, Patuakhali Road, Dakshin Rupatali, Kotwali                                   0.15   25     125   0    125




                                                                                         32
                                                                                            Ward-25
House of Delower Baburchi, Southern Side of Karigar Biri Factory, Rupatali Sagua, Kotwali              0.25   21    120    0   120
Fakir Bari School Sarok, Ahmed Molla Sarok, Rupatali Sagua, Kotwali                                    0.15   18     90    0    90
Molla Bari, Southern Side of Rupatali Bus Station, Rupatali Sagua, Kotwali                             0.12   10     50    0    50
Molla Bari, Southern Side of Rupatali Bus Station, Rupatali Sagua, Kotwali                              0.2   12     42   30    72
                                                                                            Ward-26
House of Moslem Mian, Tiakhali Road, Kalizira, Kotwali                                                 0.18   15     90   0     90
Sikder Para, Kalijira Bazar Adjucent, Kalizira, Kotwali                                                0.62   45    270   0    270
Sultan Khan's Bastee, Kalizira Bazar, Jagua, Kotwali                                                    1.2   96    576   0    576
House of Yusuf Ali Khan, Southern Side of Kalizira Bridge, Jagua, Kotwali                              0.26   22    132   0    132
House of Kader Sarder and Mallik Bari, Southern Side of Kalizira Bridge, Jagua, Kotwali                 0.3   17    102   0    102
                                                                                            Ward-27
Western Side of Ruar Pull, Southern Side of Talukder Bari, Ruiia, Kotwali                              0.16   13    78    0    78
                                                                                            Ward-28
Sarder Bari, Southern Side of Bartazzar Hat, Diapara, Kotwali                                          0.28   15    105   0    105
Baniyar Vita, Dashkindia Para, Diapara, Kotwali                                                         0.3   17    119   0    119
House of Harun Engineer and Natun Bari, Western Side of Post Office Bazar, Chahutpur, Kotwali          0.24   22    110   0    110
House of Anowar Doctor, Fishery Road, Chahutpur, Kotwali                                                  1   60    420   0    420
Khandoker Bari, Fishery Road, Chahutpur, Kotwali                                                       0.75   35    210   0    210
Barister Bari, Back Side of Surovi Pamp, Chahutpur, Kotwali                                            1.15   70    460   0    460
House of Malek Haji, Fishery Road, Chahutpur, Kotwali                                                  0.35   27    142   0    142
Adjusent of Karikar Biri, Fishery Road, Chahutpur, Kotwali                                             0.52   33    198   0    198
Parer Bari, Fishery Road, Chahutpur, Kotwali                                                           0.45   23    161   0    161
Hafez Uddin Howlader Bari, Shere Bangla Road, Chahutpur, Kotwali                                        0.2   15     95   0     95
Hason Mollah Bari, Southern Side of Nathullahbad Bus Stand, Chahutpur, Kotwali                            1   50    350   0    350
Nathullahbad Bastuhara, C & B Road, Chahutpur, Kotwali                                                  0.2   15     90   0     90
                                                                                             Ward-29
Paiker Bari, North-eastern Side of kashipur School, Ichakathi, Kotwali                                 0.26    15    90    0    90
Power Board Bastuhara, Kashipur High School Road, Ichakathi, Kotwali                                   0.18    13    91    0    91
Isakathi Colony, Mukherjee Lane, Ichakathi, Kotwali                                                    5.29   124   867    0   867
Bahumukhi Mesturi Samiti, Colony Road, Ichakathi, Kotwali                                              0.18    12    68    0    68
A. Hai Howlader, Adjusent of Divisional Commissioner Office, Ichakathi, Kotwali                        0.14    12    72    0    72
Milki Bari Mess, Kashipur, Ichakathi, Kotwali                                                          0.02     1     0   30    30
Milki Bari Mess, Kashipur, Ichakathi, Kotwali                                                          0.02     1     0   28    28
Milki Bari Mess, Adjucend of Kashipur Brac Office, Ichakathi, Kotwali                                  0.02     1     0   26    26
Rab Master Garage, Southern Side of Brac Office and Western Side of Dhaka Road, Ichakathi, Kotwali     0.05     1     0   40    40
Hatem Ali Dighir Par, Diapara Road, Isakathi, Ichakathi, Kotwali                                       0.35    22   115    0   115
House of Goni Doctor, Northern Side of Diapara Road, Infront of Proshika Office, Ichakathi, Kotwali    0.35    22   140    0   140
Banerjee Bari, Kashipur, Isakathi Bazar Adjucent, Ichakathi, Kotwali                                   0.15    13    80    0    80
House of Jamal Master Khan, Kashipur Bazar, Ichakathi, Kotwali                                         0.75    40   240    0   240
House of Samsu Mian, Southern Side of Harticulture Office, Ichakathi, Kotwali                           0.1    12    48    0    48
House of Shahjahan Mian, Northern Side of Weather Office, Ichakathi, Kotwali                           0.12    15    75    0    75
Howlader Bari, Shah Paran Road-1, Ichakathi, Kotwali                                                   0.27    15    90    0    90
Sufia Manjil, Shah Paran Road, Ichakathi, Kotwali                                                       0.4    25   130   10   140
House of Mojahar Ali Mollah, Shah Paran Road, Ichakathi, Kotwali                                        0.2    25   150    0   150
Khan Villa, Shah Paran Road-2, Ichakathi, Kotwali                                                      0.18    13    60    0    60
Majh Bari, Shah Paran Road, Ichakathi, Kotwali                                                          0.2    15    90    0    90
M. Manik, Shahjalal Road, Ichakathi, Kotwali                                                           0.25    20   100    0   100
House of Makbul Talukder, Southern Side of Weather Office, Ichakathi, Kotwali                           0.1    10    60    0    60
House of Halim Gaji, Southern Side of Weather Office, Ichakathi, Kotwali                                0.1    12    60    0    60
House of A. Haq Mian, Mindi Tala, North Side of Karigar Biri Factory, Ichakathi, Kotwali               0.15    20   100    0   100
Raham Ali Howlader, Lutfar Rahman Road, Ichakathi, Kotwali                                             0.32    20   105    0   105
Nathullahbad Colony, Bus Stand, Ichakathi, Kotwali                                                     0.14    10    50    0    50
Gaji Bari, Lufar Rahman Road, Ichakathi, Kotwali                                                       0.15    11    66    0    66
House of Ibrahim Mian, Lufar Rahman Road, Ichakathi, Kotwali                                           0.14    22   112    0   112
                                                                                             Ward-30
House of Moslem Khan, Northern Side of Banaripara Road, Kashipur Billa Bari, Kotwali                   0.15   12     84   0     84
Kalajema Sarder Bari, North-eastern Side of kalajema School, Kashipur Billa Bari, Kotwali              0.45   35    210   0    210
Joynal Karikar Bari, South-eastern Side of Solna Bazar, Kashipur Billa Bari, Kotwali                   0.35   24    164   0    164
House of Makbul Talukder, Chatha, Kashipur Billa Bari, Kotwali                                         0.45   30    180   0    180
Sarubali Khan Bari, Southern Side of Dairy Farm, Kashipur Billa Bari, Kotwali                          0.72   32    246   0    246
Bansh Tala Karikar Biri Branch, Southern Side of Dairy Farm, Kashipur Billa Bari, Kotwali              0.35   48    240   0    240
Akon Bari, Eastern Side of Kashimpur Girls High School, Solna Gariar Para, Kotwali                     0.25   21    120   0    120




                                                                                            33
Appendix 3: Slum Locations in Barisal City




                                             34
Appendix 4: Ward Maps of the Five Wards in which Slums and Peri-Urban Communities were
Surveyed




                                          35
36
Appendix 5: UNDP List of Urban and Peri-Urban Locations in which they are Currently
Implementing or are Planning to Implement their Livelihoods Program




                                         37
38
                   Appendix 6: Urban Slum/Peri-Urban Community Survey

Survey #:                                    Date:
Ward #:                                      Location:
Name:

1. How many households live in this community?


2. How long has this community been in existence?


3. What NGOs are working in this community? And what support do they provide?




4. Has your community received support in the following areas? If so, when and for how long?

Horticulture
Poultry
Nutrition education
Gender education

5. Is this community located on government or private land?


6. Do families pay land rent? Are there any threats of eviction?



7. How does this community access clean water? Sanitation?



8. Where do people buy their food? What is the distance to the local market?



9. What types of income opportunities exist for the people in this community?



10. What are the major needs, concerns and problems of this community?




                                                39
Appendix 7: Minutes of Key Informant Interviews

Respondent: Urban Planning Professor of Jahangirnagar University
Date: March 10, 2008

During the interview the respondent explained some of the thesis that he included in a recent
publication of his. He described the challenges that Dhaka and other large cities in Bangladesh
face in terms of urban planning. He believes that these challenges are not being adequately
addressed because the approach currently being implemented does not take into account all
sectors of society (i.e. household, commercial, institutions, etc.). He believes a more
comprehensive approach is needed for better urban planning and intervention.

The respondent‟s research is aimed at finding ways to improve Bangladesh‟s cities‟ urban
planning to reduce poverty. He stated that although lack of space in poor urban residential areas
is a problem, where people live on small plots of land and in overcrowded houses, other areas of
the city have unused land that could be used for horticultural activities. This could be one
initiative included cities‟ urban plans. Another option would be to construct low residential
buildings and practice rooftop gardening. According to the respondent, a major challenge to
implement either of these strategies is the common practice of private parties purchasing land
around the city in order to wait for its value to increase and make a profit several years later.
Government control to prevent this practice would be a good start for better land use around the
city.

Respondent: South Asia Partnership-Bangladesh (SAP-BD)
Date: March 12, 2008

SAP-BD is one of HKI‟s partner organizations. This NGO‟s headquarters are in Dhaka, but they
carry out programs in many of the country‟s rural areas. Their main mission is capacity building
at the local level, both of the population and local NGOs. SAP-BD projects include micro-credit,
training for income generation, child and adult education, and environmental conservation,
among others. Their projects have a special focus on women and gender in development.

The respondent was asked to talk to the capstone team about the organization‟s experience with
implementing the gender education component of the JOJ program. He expressed that the rural
women they work with are very accepting of their help. He also stated that in SAP-BD‟s
experience, there is evidence that the HFPP is achieving both better nutrition and increased
income for its beneficiaries.

The team asked the respondent about the differences in living conditions for rural and urban
populations. He stated that rural have lower mobility, access to more land, a feeling of
permanence in their homes, and more time for training because women work in the home. This
last fact makes it easier for the NGO‟s staff to work with them and monitor their progress.

The team explained that the research that would take place in Barisal would be to establish if it
would be possible to transfer the HFPP to urban areas. The respondent said that he thought this
was a valid exploration, and that the team would probably find that some modifications would




                                                40
need to be made to the original program design. He also said that an important part of this
potential project should be to encourage people to practice horticulture by educating them on the
benefits it would bring them. He recommended that if an urban project was to be implemented,
there should be a pilot phase and a period of 4 to 6 years should be allowed before replicating it
elsewhere.

Respondent: CONCERN Worldwide
Date: March 12, 2008

CONCERN Worldwide has been working in Bangladesh for 25 years. They implement gender-
related projects in four main areas: livelihood security (urban and rural), health, education, and
HIV/AIDS.

Their livelihoods projects are currently targeting the population living in underdeveloped slums,
and the “poorest of the poor” which are homeless families. These projects aim to enhance the
capacity of these groups to overtake loans and use them for entrepreneurial activities.
CONCERN believes that these groups have knowledge and potential to improve their quality of
life by increasing their income.

CONCERN‟s institutional knowledge about urban areas comes both from continual research and
experience in implementing projects. When asked what the major challenges of working in urban
slums were the respondent explained that they had found the following:
   - Land tenure: the people don‟t have the right to own the land they live on and eviction is a
       constant threat.
   - When people do own the land they live on, they face many difficulties obtaining legal
       evidence of entitlement.
   - Because of their employment, urban dwellers usually do not have the possibility to attend
       several-day long trainings. When training activities take place, they have to be divided
       into 2 or 3 day segments.
   - Government policies to improve the living conditions of the poor urban population are
       not being enforced in the cities of Bangladesh. The urban poor can depend only on
       themselves.
   - Politicians and elites are very influential, and there is a lot of corruption. Policies are
       focused on benefiting higher income groups and resources are commonly
       misappropriated.
   - A power structure exists within the slums and is backed by political powers. This
       hierarchy is run by “muscle men,” also known as mafia, tax collectors, and gangs.

The respondent also stated that although it is commonly mentioned that the urban population is
hard to work with because of high mobility, CONCERN has done formal research on this topic
and has found the contrary. Another finding of this research is that social networks are
immensely important for social and economic support of these populations, and that once people
have these networks, they avoid moving to other places because they rely on them.

When asked about the possibilities of implementing urban agriculture programs in the cities, the
respondent said that he believed that they have the potential to contribute to people‟s nutrition,




                                                41
but lower possibilities for income generation. He said that land availability and tenure could be a
major challenge and that more research should be done. However, he said that he had seen
horticulture practices taking place in Dhaka slums on very small portions of land.

Respondent: Dustha Shasthya Kendra (DSK)
Date: March 12, 2008

DSK is a local NGO whose objective is to reduce poverty and increase the quality of life of the
disadvantaged populations of Dhaka. In order to achieve these goals, they carry out projects in
water and sanitation, health care, informal education, and micro-credit.

During this meeting, the DSK staff gave the Capstone team a comprehensive presentation about
their projects in Dhaka. Because of time constraints there was very little opportunity for
questions or discussion at the end of the presentation.

All the projects implemented by this organization are carried out in poor urban areas, thus they
have extensive experience in urban slums. Based on this experience, they presented to the team a
list of challenges for working in urban slums: constant slum evictions, lack of policy related to
slum dwellers, seasonal variation of income, no land tenure, very limited space for living,
unhealthy environment, negative mindset of decision makers towards slum dwellers, and the
existence of a power structure within the slums.

Respondent: Department of Livestock Services (DLS)
Date: March 17, 2008

The Department of Livestock Services is a governmental office located in Barisal City. It has
four main objectives: farm registration, training of farmers, vaccination of livestock, and micro-
credit for livestock rearing.

During this interview the Capstone team posed questions to the respondent in order to learn more
about the possibility of implementing urban agriculture projects in Barisal. The team first
inquired about regulations that would impede urban agriculture projects from being implemented
in the city. The respondent stated that there are no legal constraints in place against livestock
rearing in the city. The same laws apply for rural and urban areas regarding all agricultural
activities.

The team also asked if there were any differences between the DLS‟s work in rural and urban
areas. The respondent explained that, where applicable, their projects had the same components
no matter which location.

Finally, the team asked the respondent if the DLS would be willing to provide support for an
urban agriculture project in Barisal, and if so, what type of support would they be willing to
provide. He responded that the DLS already provides support to some urban dwellers involved
in livestock activities, and that the support they provide is the same as in rural areas: financial,
training, and vaccination. He said that if more or larger projects were implemented, the DLS
would increase the support accordingly.




                                                 42
Respondent: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
Date: March 17, 2008

The UNDP has been working in Bangladesh for many years, and in Barisal for the past 9 years.
They are currently implementing a livelihoods program in some of the slums and peri-
communities of Barisal City. The program is currently being implemented in 11 communities
and will increase to 60 within the next two years. The target beneficiaries among the urban poor
are women. The core principle behind the project is to build capacity of local government and its
institutions, and for this reason, most of the program‟s components are implemented in close
collaboration with Barisal City Corporation.

In each selected location, a committee is created. A woman from the community is elected as the
committee president and she is in charge of reaching out to the community and encouraging
them to participate in the program. The president is also in charge of coordinating the
implementation of the program components and following up with beneficiaries after trainings
are completed. The president works closely with a treasurer to manage a portion of the program‟s
budget. UNDP staff conducts periodic visits to the communities during every phase of program
implementation.

This program includes an urban agriculture training component, which has so far only been
provided to 250 people. This training teaches the women how to practice horticulture in small
plots of land, but no inputs such as seeds, soil, or other materials are provided. Poultry-rearing is
also included in this component, but, again, no inputs are provided.

The respondent said that the challenges they have faced for the implementation of the urban
agriculture component of their program are the very poor water and sanitation conditions and
lack of land ownership. One benefit of their program is that it includes a component that installs
tube wells and sanitary latrines in all of the selected communities.

The respondent also stated that the UNDP would be willing to collaborate with other
organizations, including HKI, if they started implementing urban agricultural projects, and that
based on their experience, they think that the communities would be interested in such projects.

Respondent: Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE)
Date: March 18, 2008

The respondent explained that the bulk of their current work is to help farmers overcome the
market-related problems they face. Farmers are getting lower revenue from selling their products
than what those products are worth because of difficulties in communication and the intervention
of middlemen.

The team asked the respondent what his opinion was on urban agriculture. He said that he
thought that carrying out large-scale horticulture projects would be very difficult, but that poultry
had a great chance of success if it was accompanied by training and motivation of beneficiaries.
He also stated that an urban agriculture project would be a great way to teach people about




                                                 43
nutrition and get them involved in caring for their health.

The respondent also stated that if he continued in his current position he would support an HFPP
type project implemented by HKI.

Respondent: Barisal City Corporation (BCC)
Date: March 18, 2008

The Barisal City Corporation is the local government of Barisal. One of the major findings from
this interview was that the BCC does not have a Comprehensive Master Plan in place for Barisal
City at the moment. A plan being developed and is expected to be ready by 2010. The plan will
include strategies for improving infrastructure, communication, markets, housing, water and
sanitation, and environmental protection. Urban agriculture is not being considered as part of the
plan.

The team asked the respondent about eviction threats faced by the slum dwellers. He said that
there is no existing policy related to land tenure rights of residents. He also explained that in the
case of slums located on government-owned land, there were no plans of eviction and they do
not threaten the population. However, the government does intend to start applying leasing
charges to the people who live there. In the case of privately-owned land, there is nothing the
government can do to prevent evictions or threats because of the lack of policy.




                                                  44
Appendix 8: Peri-Urban Community HFPP Strategy

Year 1

Strategic Objectives
    Conduct extensive research on the peri-urban communities in Barisal City in order to
       select target locations and populations based on criteria that will also be defined during
       this exploration process.
    Engage in discussions with the Barisal City Corporation and NGOs currently carrying out
       water and sanitation projects (in selected communities) in order to explore the possibility
       of partnering with entities that provide these services.

Program Activities

Target # 1: Identify locations, select populations, and define criteria for beneficiary selection

In order to determine the target locations and populations for the peri-urban HFPP strategy, HKI
will have to carry out extensive research, which should attempt to obtain, at a minimum, the
following information:

           Locations of the majority, if not all, of the peri-urban communities in Barisal City;
           Community characteristics, including but not limited to population size, land size,
            infrastructure, government services (water, sanitation, electricity, etc.), and NGO activity;
            and
           Household characteristics, including but not limited to demographics, nutrition, health,
            income, and amount of land.

The data acquired during this research will inform which criteria, if any, should be added to the
following lists of initial recommended criteria for selecting the target locations and populations
for a peri-urban HFPP intervention.

The target locations will include communities that:

           are within the Barisal City Corporation jurisdiction;
           have appropriate water and sanitation conditions (to be defined during the course of the
            research and taking into account natural water sources such as ponds and the ratio of deep
            tube wells per family);
           have between 100 and 200 households11

The target population will include poor to ultra-poor households that12:

           are women headed/represented by women, and have at least one child under two years of
            age;

11
     This is based on observations in the field and HKI‟s suggestion as to the feasible size of a pilot project.
12
     These criteria are comparable to those for the current HFPP rural interventions.




                                                             45
          own 30 decimals or less of land, including the homestead;
          are food insecure;
          have little or no access to credit; and
          are members of one of HKI‟s implementing partner NGOs

Target # 2: Explore the possibility of and, if viable, establish partnerships with Barisal City
Corporation and NGOs

Urban communities present different challenges than rural communities. Most notably, they lack
adequate water and sanitation conditions, which are essential if a peri-urban HFPP intervention is
to be implemented successfully. Because HKI does not operate programs in these areas, the
possibility of partnering with one of the numerous NGOs in Barisal City that currently carries
out such programs must be considered.

In addition, HKI should explore the possibility of working with local Barisal City government
offices, including the Department of Agricultural Extension, Department of Livestock Services,
and Barisal City Corporation. These three offices were interviewed by the Capstone team, and
all expressed concern for the amount of poverty within the city and understood the importance of
NGO initiatives aiming at reducing poverty.

A second possibility that might be explored is the combination of micro-credit loans with
agriculture entrepreneurship, as all communities visited had at least one active micro-credit
NGO. This would be part of a longer-term goal, which could include food processing and
distribution after beneficiaries reach sustained levels of production. Micro-credit NGOs could
also play a more immediate role in a peri-urban HFPP intervention by providing small loans to
participants to defray any costs that fall outside of the scope of the current HFPP model, such as
purchasing land or tools.

Target # 3: Select and train local NGO implementation partners

Considering HKI is not an implementing organization, it will select local NGOs (LNGOs) to
serve as its implementation partners. HKI should first determine if any of its current partner
LNGOs are already located in any peri-urban communities or have the capacity, as well as
willingness, to expand into the peri-urban communities of Barisal City. If there is still a need for
partner LNGOs, HKI should then expand its search to organizations it does not currently
maintain active partnerships with. Depending on the size and scope of the pilot project, the
number of LNGOs may vary.

Each LNGO implementation partner will have extension officers, a field supervisor, and a
nutrition technical officer.13 HKI will train these partner LNGO staff in a wide range of
technical topics, producing a cadre of local technical specialists. In partnership with HKI,
LNGO activities will include, but are not limited to, the following:

          Establishing VMFs in assigned communities: LNGO staff will establish one VMF per

13
     This mirrors the staffing situation of the HFPP model as it currently exists.




                                                             46
           peri-urban community. They will provide training, technical assistance, and supervision
           to each of their assigned VMFs.
          Seed and animal distribution: The seeds to be distributed could include carrots, red and
           green amaranth, tomatoes, eggplant, okra, radish, and spinach, as well as the dark green
           leafy vegetables already associated with the project.14 In terms of animals, HKI should
           continue to support poultry rearing for all homestead gardening participants, and goat
           rearing for those individuals who qualify.
          Training HFPP participants: Trainings provided by LNGO staff will include technical
           training, gender training, micro-enterprise development, household budgeting, linkages to
           micro-credit and savings opportunities through existing local NGO channels, and
           improved food preparation and consumption practices. A new training on record keeping
           should be developed, in an effort to inform participants of how to keep proper records of
           their expenses and production.
          Conducting regular site visits of VMFs and HFPP participant households: Activities
           carried out during site visits will include monitoring of skills/knowledge application, one-
           on-one counseling to provide technical troubleshooting advice, and providing information
           on both agricultural/technical and health/nutrition services.

Throughout the project, HKI staff will accompany LNGO staff on site visits to VMFs and
participant households to ensure quality and to improve LNGO staff knowledge and training
skills to better assist project beneficiaries.

Target #4: Improve environmental and sanitation conditions of selected peri-urban communities

A new component of improving the environmental and sanitary conditions should be added to
the HFPP, and should be implemented once the communities have been selected and before the
participants begin the program. Through HKI‟s partnerships with NGOs and government
offices, this component should include efforts to remove the trash from the communities‟ ponds
and water systems, establish trash disposal systems, and install sanitary latrines to prevent water
and soil contamination. Additionally, LNGOs should educate community members about the
importance of maintaining sanitary conditions around their households and engage them in
becoming stewards of their own environment.


Year 2

Strategic Objective

By the second year of project implementation, participants will be ready to begin gardening and
poultry-rearing activities. Throughout this year, gardens will be established and participants will
begin to increase their vegetable consumption.

Program Activities


14
     These vegetables have been identified by HKI‟s agricultural specialist because they can grow well in small spaces.




                                                           47
Target # 1: Select Homestead Food Production Program participants

HKI will select the peri-urban HFPP participants, all of whom will be women, based on the
criteria determined as a result of the research conducted at the beginning of Year 1. Each peri-
urban community, and thus, each VMF, will have 40 participants, who will be divided into two
groups of 20.

Target # 2: Establish VMF and train Village Model Farmers

With technical assistance, training, and supervision from HKI, partner LNGOs will establish one
Village Model Farm per peri-urban community. VMFs will serve as a center for providing
training and demonstrations to HFPP participants and as a source of technical input and
information. Each Village Model Farmer will receive basic and technical training, as well as
refresher trainings throughout the length of the program, both from HKI and LNGO technical
staff. The VMF will serve as a key resource center for the HFPP participants, as well as the
community as a whole, and has a responsibility to provide them with any necessary technical
assistance. The Village Model Farmers will be selected from among the target beneficiaries
based on the following criteria:

      Leadership capacity and willingness to provide service/sharing information to other
       group members in the village;
      Experience and initiative for developing the model farm;
      Larger homestead area (10 decimals or more);
      Interest in agribusiness;
      Women will be given priority

Through its partner LNGOs, HKI will provide each VMF with adequate amounts of fruit and
vegetable seeds to begin seed multiplication and cultivation activities to support its HFPP
groups. Each VMF will also receive ten to fifteen poultry (chicks and/or ducklings) in the first
year, and will be required to provide a poultry shed for them. Poultry vaccines and other
supplies or materials will be obtained by the LNGOs from the Department of Livestock Services
and provided to the VMFs free of charge in the first year.

Each Village Model Farmer will be responsible for providing technical support, training, and
supplies to 40 HFPP participants and their households. Village Model Farmers will also be
encouraged to develop and maintain gardening/farming resources and inputs for the entire
community, with the goal of becoming a self-sufficient business once the program ends. In this
way, both the HFPP participants and the community as a whole will have local technical
assistance services available to them over the long term. The number of VMFs will depend on
the number of communities served by the program.

Target # 3: Train HFPP participants

Each LNGO implementation partner will be responsible for training the HFPP participants in a
wide range of technical topics, including, but not limited to:




                                              48
          Nutrition education
          Horticultural training
          Poultry rearing (and goat rearing for those who qualify)
          Gender training
          Micro-enterprise development
          Household budgeting
          Linkages to micro-credit and savings opportunities through existing local NGO channels
          Improved food preparation and consumption practices
          Record keeping

Throughout the program, HKI staff will accompany LNGO staff on site visits to VMFs and
participant households to ensure quality and to improve LNGO staff knowledge and training
skills to better assist project beneficiaries.

Target # 4: Provide Homestead Food Production inputs

The initial Homestead Food Production inputs will be procured by HKI and its partner LNGOs
and distributed to the VMFs and HFPP participants.15 These inputs include:
    Seeds: To establish VMFs and homestead gardens, all participants will receive up to nine
        varieties of vegetables and fruits in the form of seeds or seedlings according to the size of
        their land.
    Poultry: Each VMF will receive between ten and 15 improved-breed poultry (chicks
        and/or ducklings). HFPP participants will receive three to five improved-breed poultry
        on the condition that they construct a shed and agree to feed and vaccinate them as
        required. The first two poultry vaccinations will be provided to all HFPP participants
        free of charge.
    Assistance for the ultra-poor: Those individuals considered “ultra poor” will qualify to
        receive a female goat.

Target # 5: Establish and train HFPP Marketing Groups

In the second half of the year, if production reaches a level where there is enough surplus to be
sold in the market, one marketing group consisting of four to five women should be established
by the LNGO for each 20-member HFPP group. Each marketing group will also include a male
from the community, preferably the husband of one of the participants, as women are prohibited
from going to markets in Bangladesh. Every marketing group will receive micro-enterprise
development training and will provide its HFPP group members with technical support and
market information, as well as a mechanism by which to sell their surplus produce.

Target # 6: Monitoring

LNGO staff members are required to conduct regular site visits of the VMFs and HFPP
participant households. Activities carried out during site visits will include monitoring of
skills/knowledge application, one-on-one counseling to provide technical troubleshooting advice,

15
     These inputs are comparable to those provided in the current HFPP model.




                                                         49
and providing information on both agricultural/technical and health/nutrition services.
Periodically, HKI staff will accompany LNGO staff on site visits to ensure the quality of and to
improve, if necessary, LNGO staff knowledge and training skills to better assist project
beneficiaries.




                                              50
Appendix 9: Urban Slum HFPP Strategy

Year 1

Strategic Objectives
    Conduct extensive research on the urban slums in Barisal City in order to select target
       locations and populations based on criteria that will also be defined during this
       exploration process.
    Engage in discussions with the Barisal City Corporation and NGOs currently carrying out
       water and sanitation projects (in selected communities) in order to explore the possibility
       of partnering with entities that provide these services.

Target # 1: Identify locations, select populations, and define criteria for beneficiary selection

In order to determine the target locations and populations for the urban slum HFPP strategy, HKI
will have to carry out extensive research, which should attempt to obtain, at a minimum, the
following information:

           Locations of the majority, if not all, of the urban slums in Barisal City;
           Community characteristics, including but not limited to population size, space
            availability, infrastructure, government services (water, sanitation, electricity, etc.), and
            NGO activity; and
           Household characteristics, including but not limited to demographics, nutrition, health,
            income, and amount of land.

The data acquired during this research will inform which criteria, if any, should be added to the
following lists of initial recommended criteria for selecting the target locations and populations
for an urban slum HFPP intervention.

The target locations will include communities that:

           are within the Barisal City Corporation jurisdiction;
           have suitable water and sanitation conditions (to be defined during the course of the
            research and taking into account natural water sources such as ponds and the ratio of deep
            tube wells per family); and
           have between 200 and 300 households16

The target population will include poor to ultra-poor households that:
    have women able and willing to participate in the project;
    have at least one child under the age of two; and
    are food insecure

Target # 2: Explore the possibility of and, if viable, establish partnerships with Barisal City
Corporation and NGOs

16
     This is based on observations in the field and HKI‟s suggestion as to the feasible size of a pilot project.




                                                             51
HKI will need to work with the local Barisal City government offices, including the Department
of Agricultural Extension, Department of Livestock Services, and Barisal City Corporation. In
addition, HKI must consider the possibility of partnering with one of the numerous NGOs in
Barisal City that currently carries out water and sanitation programs in urban slums. In past
years, such partnerships had been established with DSK and CONCERN Worldwide, and HKI
should consider reestablishing these partnerships.

A second possibility that might be explored is the combination of micro-credit loans with
agricultural activities, as over 94% of slums in Barisal have at least one active NGO (CUS, 2006,
47), many of which provide micro-credit loans. Micro-credit NGOs could also play a more
immediate role in an urban slum HFPP intervention by providing small loans to defray any costs
that fall outside of the scope of the current HFPP model, such as purchasing poultry sheds, pots,
or tools.

Target # 3: Select and train local NGO implementation partners

As HKI is not an implementing organization, it will select local NGOs to serve as its
implementation partners. HKI should first determine if any of its current partner LNGOs are
already located in any urban slums or have the capacity as well as the willingness to expand into
the urban slums of Barisal City. HKI should then expand its search to organizations it does not
currently maintain active partnerships with. Depending on the size and scope of the pilot project,
the number of LNGOs may vary.

Each LNGO implementation partner will have extension officers, a field supervisor, a nutrition
technical officer, and an urban agriculture specialist, a position that would concentrate on
producing and conveying innovative and community-appropriate agricultural techniques. HKI
will train all partner LNGO staff members in a wide range of technical topics, particularly in
relation to the circumstances and needs of urban slums and the innovate agricultural techniques
required in these communities, producing a cadre of local technical specialists. In partnership
with HKI, LNGO activities will include, but are not limited to, the following:

          Establishing Community Model Gardens (CMGs) in assigned communities: LNGO staff
           will establish one CMG per urban slum. They will provide training, technical assistance,
           and supervision to each of their assigned CMGs.
          Seed and poultry distribution: The seeds to be distributed could include carrots, red and
           green amaranth, tomatoes, eggplant, okra, radish, and spinach, as well as the dark green
           leafy vegetables already associated with the project.17
          Training HFPP participants: Trainings provided by LNGO staff will include technical
           training, gender training, micro-enterprise development, household budgeting, linkages to
           micro-credit and savings opportunities through existing local NGO channels, improved
           food preparation and consumption practices, and record keeping.
          Conducting regular site visits of CMGs and HFPP participant households: Activities
           carried out during site visits will include monitoring of skills/knowledge application, one-

17
     These vegetables have been identified by HKI‟s agricultural specialist because they can grow well in small spaces.




                                                           52
         on-one counseling to provide technical troubleshooting advice, and providing information
         on both agricultural/technical and health/nutrition services.

Throughout the project, HKI staff will accompany LNGO staff on site visits to CMGs and
participant households to ensure quality and to improve LNGO staff knowledge and training
skills to better assist project beneficiaries.


Target #4: Improve environmental and sanitation conditions of selected urban slums

A new component of improving the environmental and sanitary conditions should be added to
the HFPP, and should be implemented once the communities have been selected and before the
participants begin the program. Through HKI‟s partnerships with local NGOs and government
offices, this component should include efforts to remove the trash from the communities‟ ponds
and water systems, establish trash disposal systems, and install sanitary latrines to prevent water
and soil contamination. Additionally, LNGOs should educate community members about the
importance of maintaining sanitary conditions around their households and engage them in
becoming stewards of their own environment.


Year 2

Strategic Objectives

By the second year of project implementation, participants will be ready to begin gardening and
poultry-rearing activities. Throughout this year, gardens will be established and participants will
begin to increase their vegetable consumption.

Program Activities

Target # 1: Select Homestead Food Production Program participants

HKI will select the urban slum HFPP participants, all of whom will be women, based on the
criteria determined as a result of the research conducted at the beginning of Year 1. Each urban
slum, and thus, each CMG, will have 20 participants, who will be divided into two groups of
10.18

Target # 2: Establish CMG and train Community Model Gardeners

Due to the lack of sufficient space for establishing a Village Model Farm, as an alternative, an
active member of each urban slum community will be selected to serve as the Community Model
Gardener. The house of the Community Model Gardener will serve as a center for providing
training and demonstrations to HFPP participants and as a source of technical input and
information. Each CMG should exhibit at least five urban agriculture techniques: poultry

18
  This number is a suggestion for the pilot project and can be adjusted according to what would be feasible in each
context.




                                                         53
rearing, container gardening, vertical growth, roof-top gardening, and the utilization of netting.
Each Community Model Gardener will receive basic and technical training, as well as refresher
trainings throughout the length of the program, from HKI and LNGO technical staff. The
Community Model Gardeners will be selected from among the target beneficiaries based on the
following criteria:

      Leadership capacity and willingness to provide service/sharing information to other
       group members in the community;
      Experience and initiative for developing the CMG;
      Household area large enough to support all five urban agriculture practices;
      Interest in agribusiness;
      Women will be given priority

Through its partner LNGOs, HKI will provide each CMG with adequate amounts of fruit and
vegetable seeds to begin seed multiplication and cultivation activities to support its HFPP
groups. Each CMG will also receive approximately five to seven poultry (chicks and/or
ducklings) in the first year, and will be required to provide a poultry shed for them. Poultry
vaccines and other supplies or materials will be obtained by the LNGOs from the Department of
Livestock Services and provided to the CMGs free of charge in the first year.

Each Community Model Gardener will be responsible for providing technical support, training,
and supplies to 20 HFPP participants and their households. Community Model Gardeners will
also be encouraged to develop and maintain gardening/farming resources and inputs for the
entire community, with the goal of becoming self-sufficient once the program ends. In this way,
both the HFPP participants and the community as a whole will have local technical assistance
services available to them over the long term. The number of CMGs will depend on the number
of slum communities served by the program.

Target # 3: Train HFPP participants

Each LNGO implementation partner will be responsible for training the HFPP participants in a
wide range of technical topics, including, but not limited to:

      Nutrition education
      Horticultural training
      Poultry rearing
      Gender training
      Micro-enterprise development
      Household budgeting
      Linkages to micro-credit and savings opportunities through existing local NGO channels
      Improved food preparation and consumption practices
      Record keeping

Throughout the program, HKI staff will accompany LNGO staff on site visits to CMGs and
participant households to ensure quality and to improve LNGO staff knowledge and training
skills to better assist project beneficiaries.



                                               54
Target # 4: Provide Homestead Food Production inputs

The initial Homestead Food Production inputs will be procured by HKI and its partner LNGOs
and distributed to the CMGs and urban slum HFPP participants. These inputs include:

      Seeds: Each Community Model Gardener and participant will receive up to five varieties
       of vegetables and fruits in the form of seeds or seedlings.
      Poultry: Each Community Model Gardener will receive between five and seven
       improved-breed poultry (chicks and/or ducklings). HFPP participants will receive three
       to five improved-breed poultry on the condition that they construct a shed and agree to
       feed and vaccinate them as required. The first two poultry vaccinations will be provided
       to all HFPP participants free of charge.
      Assistance for the ultra-poor: In the event that they are needed by poor HFPP
       participants, HKI may provide a limited supply of inputs that may be required in the
       urban slum environment such as pots, nets, and soil. These participants may also receive
       a traditional variety of chicks if they are unable to afford a shed and vaccinations.

Target # 5: Monitoring

LNGO staff members are required to conduct regular site visits of the CMGs and HFPP
participant households. Activities carried out during site visits will include monitoring of
skills/knowledge application, one-on-one counseling to provide technical troubleshooting advice,
and providing information on both agricultural/technical and health/nutrition services.
Periodically, HKI staff will accompany LNGO staff on site visits to ensure the quality of and to
improve, if necessary, LNGO staff knowledge and training skills to better assist project
beneficiaries.


Other considerations:

Security of crops and poultry might be an issue in both slums and peri-urban communities. If
HKI determines that this is the case, there will be a need to create strategies to avoid theft. Some
possibilities include:

      Fencing
      Partnering participants so crops can be protected by more than one producer
      Using space in or behind houses where outside access is limited
      Sharing production or selling at lower-than-market prices for people within the
       community who are not program participants in an effort to create a sense of “benefit for
       all” from the production

As the program expands beyond the pilot phase, interventions in new communities could
incorporate exchange visits to proximate communities in which the program is already
underway. In this way, new participants would learn from the experiences of more experienced
program participants.



                                                55
Appendix 10: Cost-Benefit Analysis Models


                     Homestead Food Production Program
                                    Helen Keller International

                                        In collaboration with

                        the International Development Studies Program
                           The Elliott School of International Affairs
                               The George Washington University


        Project Description:

        Helen Keller International (HKI), an international non-governmental organization dedicated to fighting and treating preventable blindness and
        malnutrition, has been working in Bangladesh since 1978. One of HKI’s current efforts to reduce malnutrition is its Homestead Food Production
        Program (HFPP), which is a program that supports household gardening in different geographical settings throughout the country. In Bangladesh’s
        Barisal Division, HKI, in collaboration with Save the Children-USA (SC), implements the HFPP component of the Jibon-o-Jibika (JOJ) project, a USAID
        Title II Development Assistance Program, the strategic objective of which is to increase food availability and purchasing power at the household level .

        Project Components:
        The Homestead Food Production Program has two main components:

        1. A homestead gardening program which supplies beneficiaries with plant and seed inputs and technical assistance with the goal of increasing food
        production, both to enhance nutritious consumption of produce and animal products, and to supplement income

        2. A goat-rearing program for ultra-poor women who have no other source of income. With the initial receipt of a single female goat, beneficiaries can
        benefit from the sales of offspring.

        Economic Rationale:
        A cost-benefit analysis illustrates the increased benefits to a household after an intervention has taken place. To illustrate this increase in benefits due
        to the project, two scenarios are compared: one, what would likely happen in the absence of the intervention, called a “baseline” projection; and, two,
        what happens once an intervention is underway. The CBA model calculates the benefits of the HFPP project in terms of increased production at the
        household level as reported by HFPP participants. A baseline level of production is subtracted from these figures, resulting in the level of benefits that
        can be attributed to the HFPP intervention. The model then subtracts the total costs, including program costs and individual participant input costs, from
        the attributed benefits to obtain a net level of benefits. The Economic Rate of Return (ERR), also known as the Internal Rate of Return, calculates the
        percent of increased benefit to an individual household as a result of the intervention. The ERR is equal to the interest rate at which the discounted
        benefits of a project equal the discounted costs.




                                                                                        56
           User's Guide to the Cost Benefit Analysis Model
                 To determine the level of benefits that can be expected at the household level as a result of the HKI
                 HFPP Interventions
  Purpose        To determine how changes in costs of inputs and market values of outputs will affect the benefit streams
                 resulting from the project

                 All assumptions for costs and benefits for the gardening project can be altered on the "Assumptions"
                 sheet whenever future research shows differing input costs and market prices. All assumptions for
                 costs and benefits for the ultra poor goat-rearing project can be altered in the "Goat Rearing Model"
Directions for   sheet.
 Future Use
                 These assumptions are referenced in the CBA models, so any changes made to the assumptions sheet
                 will result in changes in the cost and benefit streams
                 Gardening Assumptions
Sheets in this   This sheet lists the cost and benefit assumptions that were used in the HFPP and Ultra Poor Cost
                 Benefit Analysis models. These assumptions can be modified to reflect changing costs and market
 Workbook        prices of output

                 Gardening CBA
                 This sheet shows the yearly costs and benefits of the HFPP project for years 1-4 of the project and the
                 following six years

                 Goat Rearing Assumptions
                 This sheet demonstrates the growth of a goat herd resulting from an HFPP-given goat, taking into
                 account mortality, years of fertility and birth rates. This model is referenced in the "Ultra Poor CBA"
                 sheet. All of the assumptions used to calculate the ERR for the Ultra Poor CBA can be found and
                 modified here.
                 Goat Rearing CBA
                 This sheet shows the yearly costs and benefits of the Ultra Poor Goat Rearing project for years 1-4 of
                 the project and the following six years

                 Questionnaire
                 This sheet is a blank copy of the suggested questionnaire that can be used to collect data for future cost-
                 benefit analyses.
                 Output
                 This sheet calculates the value of the produce and poultry products for each household we interviewed,
                 taking into account the market price of various vegetables and poultry products. A similar sheet could
                 be used for future research in the field

                 Input
                 This sheet notes the costs of inputs for each household interviewed. A similar sheet could be used for
                 future research in the field

                 Data Collection
                 This sheet shows the verbatim answers to our questionnaire and can be used for reference, for
                 clarification, and for anecdotal accounts of participants' experiences with the HFPP program




                                                     57
    Homestead Gardening Model Assumptions
    numbers highlighted in yellow are assumptions that can be changed which will alter cost and benefit streams                                                     Source:

Cost Assumptions:
    HKI Overhead Costs:
    Personel Costs                                       227.50   taka   per hh per year in year 1                                                                  JOJ Detailed Budget
                                                         238.88   taka   per hh per year in year 2                                                                  JOJ Detailed Budget
                                                         250.82   taka   per hh per year in year 3                                                                  JOJ Detailed Budget
                                                         221.03   taka   per hh per year in year 4                                                                  JOJ Detailed Budget
    Transportation                                        45.13   taka   per hh per year in year 1                                                                  JOJ Detailed Budget
                                                          42.00   taka   per hh per year in year 2                                                                  JOJ Detailed Budget
                                                          42.00   taka   per hh per year in year 3                                                                  JOJ Detailed Budget
                                                          32.63   taka   per hh per year in year 4                                                                  JOJ Detailed Budget
    Seeds per Household:
    Seed Budget per household                             60.00   taka   per year in years 1-3                                                                      JOJ Detailed Budget
    Seed Budget per group leader                         100.00   taka   per year in years 1-3                                                                      JOJ Detailed Budget
    group leaders per upazila                             80.00                                                                                                     JOJ Detailed Budget
    households per upazila                             1,600.00   hh     in years 1-3                                                                               JOJ Detailed Budget
    households served by 1 group leader                   20.00                                                                                                     JOJ Detailed Budget
    hh's share of the gl's extra 40 taka/year              2.00   taka   per year in years 1-3                                                                      JOJ Detailed Budget
    Seed budget per hh, including gl's share              62.00   taka   per year in years 1-3                                                                      JOJ Detailed Budget

    Poultry provided to households                       325.00 taka     in year 1                                                                                  JOJ Detailed Budget

    HFPP training costs:
    4 types of training: HFPP, Gender Awareness, Poultry rearing, and Marketing                                                                                     JOJ Detailed Budget
    All trainings include a basic training in year 1 and a refresher training in year 2                                                                             JOJ Detailed Budget
    HFPP training: 2 day training for gls                   100.00 taka per gl per day in years 1 and 2        2 days     200 per gl per year in years 1 and 2      JOJ Detailed Budget
    HH's share of gl training                                  9.00 taka per hh per year in years 1 and 2                                                           JOJ Detailed Budget
    HFPP training for household: 1 day                       20.00 taka per hh per day in years 1 and 2        1   days    20    per hh per year in years 1 and 2   JOJ Detailed Budget
    Poultry training: 1 day                                  20.00 taka per hh per day in years 1 and 2        1   days    20    per hh per year in years 1 and 2   JOJ Detailed Budget
    Gender Awareness training: 1 day                         20.00 taka per hh per day in years 1 and 2        1   days    20    per hh per year in years 1 and 2   JOJ Detailed Budget
    Marketing Training: 2 days                               20.00 taka per hh per day in years 1 and 2        2   days    40    per hh per year in years 1 and 2   JOJ Detailed Budget

    Producer Inputs:
    We assume that years 3-10 will have the same input costs as year 2                                                                                              Interview with Shahidul Islam, Agriculturist and HKI staff

    VMF Costs:
    Microenterprise training for VMF                     150.00   taka   per VMF per day in years 1 and 2      3 days     450 per VMF per year in years 1 and 2     JOJ Detailed Budget
    Day old chick rearing unit basic training            100.00   taka   per VMF per day in year 1             1 days     100 per VMF in year 1                     JOJ Detailed Budget
    Day old chick rearing unit refresher training        150.00   taka   per VMF per day in year 2             1 days     150 per VMF in year 2                     JOJ Detailed Budget
    Signs and materials                                  500.00   taka   per VMF in year 1                                500                                       JOJ Detailed Budget
    Seeds and Seedlings                                  600.00   taka   per VMF in years 1 and 2                         600                                       JOJ Detailed Budget
    Seeds and Seedlings                                  300.00   taka   per VMF in year 3                                                                          JOJ Detailed Budget
    Poultry                                            1,050.00   taka   per VMF in year 1                                1050                                      JOJ Detailed Budget
    VMFs per Upazila                                      40.00                                                                                                     JOJ Detailed Budget
    VMFs which are special chick-rearing facilities       25.00                                                                                                     JOJ Detailed Budget
    Special chick-rearing costs                        5,000.00   taka per special VMF in year 1                                                                    JOJ Detailed Budget
    HHs per special chick-rearing VMF                     64.00   households                                                                                        JOJ Detailed Budget
    VMF intro training: 3 days                           100.00   taka per VMF per day in years 1 and 2        3 days     300 per VMF per year in years 1 and 2     JOJ Detailed Budget

    Poultry Vaccines:
    Local NGOs Provided vaccines, syringes and flasks to vaccinator
    Cost of vaccine materials:
    year 1                                          20,000.00 taka total in year 1                          1,600 hh      12.5 per hh - year 1                      JOJ Detailed Budget
    year 2                                          10,000.00 taka total in year 2                          1,600 hh      6.25 per hh - year 2                      JOJ Detailed Budget
    year 3                                           5,000.00 taka total in year 3                          1,600 hh      3.13 per hh - year 3                      JOJ Detailed Budget
    year 4                                                0.00 taka                                                                                                 JOJ Detailed Budget
    Households covered                               1,600.00                                                                                                       JOJ Detailed Budget
    Vaccine cost                                     3,781.82 taka per upazila in year 1                    1,600 hh      2.36 per hh - year 1                      JOJ Detailed Budget
    Vaccinator uses this for all community members, not just HFPP participants                                                                                      JOJ Detailed Budget
    Carrier costs                                         1.25 taka per hh in years 1 and 2                                                                         JOJ Detailed Budget



                                                                                                                   58
        Homestead Gardening Model Assumptions (cont.)
Benefit Assumptions:

  Prices are for rural markets - Mohongonj Market, Babugonj Upazila, Barisal District, Barisal Division
  Prices are generally double in urban areas                                                                                                         Interview with Shahidul Islam, Agriculturist and HKI staff
  Market price of outputs:
  Chickens - 2 months old                             80.00                                                                                          Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj Market, Babugonj Upazila, Barisal District, Barisal Division
  Ducks - 2 months old                                50.00                                                                                          Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj Market, Babugonj Upazila, Barisal District, Barisal Division
  eggs                            each                 4.00                                                                                          Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj Market, Babugonj Upazila, Barisal District, Barisal Division

  Baseline vegetable production                         60.00 kg     per season per hh before project
  Baseline vegetable production per kg                  13.00 taka   basket value of produce                            780 taka per season per hh   Annual Program Report, HFPP, JOJ, 2006
  Baseline egg production                              102.00 eggs   per year                                                                        Annual Program Report, HFPP, JOJ, 2007
  Growth rate for poultry production yr 3                0.20        per year for year 3                                                             Interview with Shahidul Islam, Agriculturist and HKI staff
  Growth rate for poultry production yr 4                0.10        per year for year 4                                                             Interview with Shahidul Islam, Agriculturist and HKI staff
  Growth rate for poultry production yrs 5-10            0.00        per year for years 5-10                                                         Interview with Shahidul Islam, Agriculturist and HKI staff

  Produce:
  Yard long bean                  per kg                15.00                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division
  kangkong                        per kg                 5.00                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division
  spinach                         per kg                 7.00                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division
  knolkhol                        per kg                10.00                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division
  pumpkin                         each                  12.00                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division
  snake gourd                     per kg                11.00                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division
  ridge gourd                     per kg                11.00                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division
  carrot                          per kg                13.50                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division
  radish                          per kg                10.00                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division
  red amarinth                    per kg                 6.00                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division
  green amarinth                  per kg                10.00                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division
  chili peppers                   per kg                45.00                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division
  guava                           per kg                20.00                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division
  batishok                        per kg                 8.00                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division
  coriander                       per kg                45.00                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division
  sweet potato leaves             per kg                 8.00                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division
  cauliflower                     each                  12.00                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division
  ash gourd                       per kg                12.00                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division
  taro                            per kg                12.00                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division
  ground nuts                     per kg                60.00                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division
  tomato                          per kg                12.00                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division
  cabbage                         per kg                10.00                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division
  eggplant                        per kg                15.00                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division
  bottlegourd                     each                  20.00                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division
  country bean                    per kg                14.00                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division
  bitter gourd                    per kg                30.00                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division
  cucumber                        per kg                16.00                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division
  okra                            per kg                22.00                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division
  indian spinach                  per kg                10.00                                                                                        Interview with market vendors in Mohongonj      Market, Babugonj   Upazila, Barisal   District, Barisal   Division

  When only total output was given without disaggregating by produce type, we used a "basket price" per kg of produce
  basket of produce              per kg               13.00                                                                                          Author's calculations

  Growth rate for output from year 2-3                   0.20                                                                                        Interview with Shahidul   Islam, Agriculturist and HKI staff
  Growth rate for output from year 3-4                   0.10                                                                                        Interview with Shahidul   Islam, Agriculturist and HKI staff
  Growth rate for output from year 4-5                   0.02                                                                                        Interview with Shahidul   Islam, Agriculturist and HKI staff
  Growth rate for output after year 5                    0.00                                                                                        Interview with Shahidul   Islam, Agriculturist and HKI staff




                                                                                                                                 59
Homestead Gardening Cost-Benefit Analysis Model

Costs                                    Year       1              2             3                 4                5                6                7                8                9               10
                                                Oct 2005 -     Oct 2006 -    Oct 2007 -       Oct 2008 -        Oct 2009 -       Oct 2010 -       Oct 2011 -       Oct 2012 -       Oct 2013 -       Oct 2014 -
                                                Sept 2006      Sept 2007     Sept 2008        Sept 2009         Sept 2010        Sept 2011        Sept 2012        Sept 2013        Sept 2014        Sept 2015
HFPP Costs per Household                                                                                                                                                                                           Total Cost

Seeds and Seedlings                              62.00           62.00         62.00            0.00                                                                                                                186.00
Poultry                                          325.00           0.00         0.00             0.00                                                                                                                325.00
Share of VMF setup costs                         78.75           37.50         7.50             0.00                                                                                                                123.75
Poultry vaccinations and equipment               16.11            7.50         3.13             0.00                                                                                                                26.74
Share of special chick rearing costs             78.13            0.00         0.00             0.00                                                                                                                78.13
Trainings                                                                                                                                                                                                            0.00
HFPP Training                                     29.00          29.00         0.00             0.00                                                                                                                58.00
Poultry Training                                  20.00          20.00         0.00             0.00                                                                                                                40.00
Gender Awareness Training                         20.00          20.00         0.00             0.00                                                                                                                40.00
Marketing Training                                40.00          40.00         0.00             0.00                                                                                                                80.00
Overhead Expenditures
HFPP Staff Salaries                              227.50         238.88        250.82           221.03                                                                                                               938.23
HFPP Staff Transporation                         45.13          42.00          42.00            32.63                                                                                                               161.75

                   Total Project Costs           941.61         496.88        365.44           253.66                                                                                                               2057.59

Producer Inputs                                                                                                                                                                                                    Total Cost

Transportation to Market                              167.27        156.43           156.43            156.43           156.43           156.43           156.43           156.43           156.43        156.43     1575.13
Water                                                 123.64        171.43           171.43            171.43           171.43           171.43           171.43           171.43           171.43        171.43     1666.49
Fertilizers/Pesticides                                201.82        100.00           100.00            100.00           100.00           100.00           100.00           100.00           100.00        100.00     1101.82
Seed/plant costs                                       96.48        106.43           106.43            106.43           106.43           106.43           106.43           106.43           106.43        106.43     1054.34
Tools                                                 194.55        131.43           131.43            131.43           131.43           131.43           131.43           131.43           131.43        131.43     1377.40
Poultry Feed                                         1033.82        450.00           450.00            450.00           450.00           450.00           450.00           450.00           450.00        450.00     5083.82
Poultry Vaccinations                                   98.79         65.63            65.63             65.63            65.63            65.63            65.63            65.63            65.63         65.63      689.45
Poultry shed                                          309.09        278.57           278.57            278.57           278.57           278.57           278.57           278.57           278.57        278.57     2816.23
Purchase more Poultry                                 292.73         64.29            64.29             64.29            64.29            64.29            64.29            64.29            64.29         64.29      871.30
Other food production costs                             0.00         28.57            28.57             28.57            28.57            28.57            28.57            28.57            28.57         28.57      257.14

                Total Producer Costs                 2518.18       1552.77       1552.77           1552.77          1552.77          1552.77          1552.77          1552.77          1552.77          1552.77 16493.13

                       TOTAL COSTS                   3459.80       2049.65       1918.22           1806.43          1552.77          1552.77          1552.77          1552.77          1552.77          1552.77 18550.73




                                                                                              60
Benefits
                                                                      Oct 2005 -       Oct 2006 -    Oct 2007 -       Oct 2008 -        Oct 2009 -       Oct 2010 -           Oct 2011 -      Oct 2012 -       Oct 2013 -     Oct 2014 -
                                                                      Sept 2006        Sept 2007     Sept 2008        Sept 2009         Sept 2010        Sept 2011            Sept 2012       Sept 2013        Sept 2014      Sept 2015
Gardening Benefits:
Average Value of Produce Winter                                             788.81         2484.11       2980.93              3279.02       3344.60            3344.60            3344.60          3344.60         3344.60        3344.60 29600.48
Season
Average Value of Produce Summer                                             513.53         1692.54       2031.04              2234.15       2278.83            2278.83            2278.83          2278.83         2278.83        2278.83 20144.24
Season
Growth rate                                                                                                  0.20                0.10             0.02            0.00                0.00             0.00            0.00           0.00

           Total Gardening Benefits:                                       1302.34         4176.64       5011.97              5513.17       5623.43            5623.43            5623.43          5623.43         5623.43        5623.43 49744.71

Baseline Production - without project                                      1560.00         1560.00       1560.00              1560.00       1560.00            1560.00            1560.00          1560.00         1560.00        1560.00 15600.00

            Production due to project                                      -257.66         2616.64       3451.97              3953.17       4063.43            4063.43            4063.43          4063.43         4063.43        4063.43 34144.71

Poultry-Rearing Benefits:
Average Value of Poultry and Eggs                                           837.65          892.31       1070.77              1177.85       1177.85            1177.85            1177.85          1177.85         1177.85        1177.85 11045.65
Winter Season
Average Value of Poultry and Eggs                                          1410.59         1265.85       1519.02              1670.92       1670.92            1670.92            1670.92          1670.92         1670.92        1670.92 15891.87
Summer Season
Growth rate                                                                                                 0.20                 0.10          0.00               0.00               0.00             0.00            0.00           0.00
               Total Poultry Benefits                                      2248.24         2158.15       2589.78              2848.76       2848.76            2848.76            2848.76          2848.76         2848.76        2848.76 26937.52
Baseline Production - without project                                       408.00          408.00        408.00               408.00        408.00             408.00             408.00           408.00          408.00         408.00 4080.00
      Poultry Benefits due to Project                                      1840.24         1750.15       2181.78              2440.76       2440.76            2440.76            2440.76          2440.76         2440.76        2440.76 22857.52

  Total Economic Benefits of Project                                       1582.57         4366.80       5633.76              6393.93       6504.20            6504.20            6504.20          6504.20         6504.20        6504.20 57002.23



                                                                      Oct 2005 -       Oct 2006 -    Oct 2007 -       Oct 2008 -        Oct 2009 -       Oct 2010 -           Oct 2011 -      Oct 2012 -       Oct 2013 -     Oct 2014 -
                                                                      Sept 2006        Sept 2007     Sept 2008        Sept 2009         Sept 2010        Sept 2011            Sept 2012       Sept 2013        Sept 2014      Sept 2015    Total
Costs                                                                      3459.80         2049.65       1918.22          1806.43           1552.77          1552.77              1552.77         1552.77          1552.77        1552.77 18550.73

Benefits                                                                   1582.57         4366.80       5633.76              6393.93       6504.20            6504.20            6504.20          6504.20         6504.20        6504.20 57002.23

Net Benefits                                                              -1877.22         2317.15       3715.54          4587.50           4951.42          4951.42              4951.42         4951.42          4951.42        4951.42 38451.50
Net Benefits - GWU estimate                                           -1877.221925     2317.149217   3715.539807      4587.500412       4951.422533      4951.422533          4951.422533     4951.422533      4951.422533    4951.422533
                                        ERR 10 yrs             160%



                                                                                                                    Net Benefits

                                                   6000

                                                   5000

                                                   4000

                                                   3000

                                                   2000
                                            Taka




                                                                                                                                                                                 Net Benefits - GWU estimate
                                                   1000

                                                      0
                                                           1           2           3          4         5            6             7          8            9             10
                                                   -1000

                                                   -2000

                                                   -3000
                                                                                                            Year



                                                                                                                         61
Ultra-Poor Goat Rearing Model Herd Projections and Assumptions

Year                         0      1      2      3      4      5      6        7       8       9      10      11

Adult female goats         0.00   1.00   1.00   0.97   1.91   2.79   4.56     5.00    5.00    5.00    5.00    5.00
of which age 1-5 yrs       0.00   1.00   1.00   0.97   1.91   2.79   4.56     4.00    5.00    5.00    5.00    5.00
of which age 5-8 yrs       0.00   0.00   0.00   0.00   0.00   0.00   0.00     1.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00
of which age 8+            0.00   0.00   0.00   0.00   0.00   0.00   0.00     0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00    0.00
Births                     0.00   0.00   2.00   1.94   3.82   5.59   9.13     9.00   10.00   10.00   10.00   10.00
of which female            0.00   0.00   1.00   0.97   1.91   2.79   4.56     4.50    5.00    5.00    5.00    5.00
of which male              0.00   0.00   1.00   0.97   1.91   2.79   4.56     4.50    5.00    5.00    5.00    5.00
Immature goats             0.00   0.00   0.00   2.00   1.94   3.82   5.00     5.00    5.00    5.00    5.00    5.00
of which female            0.00   0.00   0.00   1.00   0.97   1.91   2.21     0.44    0.50    1.00    1.00    1.00
of which male              0.00   0.00   0.00   1.00   0.97   1.91   2.79     4.56    4.50    4.00    4.00    4.00
Year-old males to sell     0.00   0.00   0.00   1.00   0.97   1.91   2.79     4.56    4.50    4.00    4.00    4.00
year-old females to sell   0.00   0.00   0.00   1.00   0.97   1.91   2.21     0.44    0.50    1.00    1.00    1.00
Baby males to sell                                                               0       1       1       1
Baby females to sell                                                          4.00       4       4       4

Value of goats sold          0      0      0 3,100 3,007 5,924 8,015 12,408 13,250 12,800 12,800 taka



                                         Assumptions:
Cost Assumptions
Source: JOJ Detailed Budget, interviews with beneficiaries
Vaccination cost                      0.80 taka per goat
Cost of grain/feed                     900
Cost of grain/feed for young goats     300
Stud Fee                                50 taka per insemination
HKI Training Costs                      80 taka per hh per year - yrs 2,3,4
Cost of HKI provided goat             1000 taka per hh in year 1

Goat Reproductive Assumptions
Source: interview with Shahidul Islam, agriculturalist
Black Bengal variety of goats are used
Years before reproductive maturity         1
Average births goats age 1-5 yrs           2 per adult female goat per year
Average number of births age 5-8           1 per adult female goat per year
Average age for infertility                8 years
% births female                        50%
% births male                          50%
Mortality rate                          3% per year for adult female goats            97%
Maximum ideal herd size                    5 reproducing female goats
Maximum immature goats                     5 immature goats
Preference is to keep males as immature goats to sell later

Benefit Assumptions
Source: interviews with goat vendors at Mohongonj Market, Babugonj Upazila, Barisal
Value of female baby goat               700 taka
Value of male baby goat                 900 taka
Value of male goat age 1 yr           2000 taka
Value of female goat age 1-5          1100 taka
Value of female goat age 5-8              0 taka consumed by family

numbers highlighted in yellow are assumptions that can be changed which will alter cost and benefit streams




                                                              62
Goat Rearing Cost-Benefit Analysis Model

Costs                                              Year       1            2            3               4     5         6         7            8            9           10
                                                          Oct 2005 - Oct 2006 - Oct 2007 - Oct 2008 - Oct 2009 - Oct 2010 - Oct 2011 -     Oct 2012 -   Oct 2013 -   Oct 2014 -
                                                          Sept 2006 Sept 2007 Sept 2008 Sept 2009 Sept 2010 Sept 2011 Sept 2012            Sept 2013    Sept 2014    Sept 2015
HFPP Costs per household                Quantity                                                                                                                                   Total Cost
Goats                                     1                 0.00         1000.00      0.00          0.00     0.00      0.00      0.00        0.00         0.00         0.00         1000.00
Veterinary Care/Vaccinations                                0.00           0.80       0.02          0.02     0.00      0.00      0.00        0.00         0.00         0.00           0.85
Replacement goat                         0.03               0.00          30.00       30.00        30.00     0.00      0.00      0.00        0.00         0.00         0.00          90.00
Training                                                    0.00          80.00       80.00        80.00     0.00      0.00      0.00        0.00         0.00         0.00          240.00

                  Total Project Costs                       0.00         1110.80      110.02       110.02    0.00      0.00      0.00        0.00         0.00         0.00         1330.85

Producer Inputs                                                                                                                                                                    Total Cost
Feed/grain                                                        0.00     900.00       900.00     1473.00   2301.81   3661.57   5607.79      6000.00      6000.00       6000.00     32844.17
Transportation to Market                                          0.00     117.78       117.78      117.78    117.78    117.78    117.78       117.78       117.78        117.78      1060.00
Vaccination                                                       0.00       0.00         0.00        1.60      1.55      3.06      4.00         4.00         4.00          4.00
Stud fees                                                         0.00      50.00       100.00       97.00    191.09    279.45    456.42       450.00       500.00        500.00      2623.96

                Total Producer Costs                              0.00    1067.78      1117.78     1689.38   2612.23   4061.85   6185.99      6571.78      6621.78       6621.78     36550.33

                       TOTAL COSTS                                0.00    2178.58      1227.80     1799.40   2612.23   4061.85   6185.99      6571.78      6621.78       6621.78     37881.18



Benefits                                           Year       1            2            3               4     5         6         7            8            9           10
                                                          Oct 2005 - Oct 2006 - Oct 2007 - Oct 2008 - Oct 2009 - Oct 2010 - Oct 2011 -     Oct 2012 -   Oct 2013 -   Oct 2014 -
                                                          Sept 2006 Sept 2007 Sept 2008 Sept 2009 Sept 2010 Sept 2011 Sept 2012            Sept 2013    Sept 2014    Sept 2015
Income from sale of goats                                         0.00         0.00         0.00   3100.00   3007.00   5923.79   8015.03     12407.79     13250.00      12800.00     58503.61
Residual value of female goats                                                                                                                                           5500.00      5500.00

  Total Economic Benefits of Project                              0.00         0.00         0.00   3100.00   3007.00   5923.79   8015.03     12407.79     13250.00      18300.00     64003.61




                                                                                                   63
                                                                Oct 2005 - Oct 2006 - Oct 2007 - Oct 2008 - Oct 2009 - Oct 2010 - Oct 2011 -        Oct 2012 -    Oct 2013 -       Oct 2014 -    Total
                                                                Sept 2006 Sept 2007 Sept 2008 Sept 2009 Sept 2010 Sept 2011 Sept 2012               Sept 2013     Sept 2014        Sept 2015

Costs                                                                0.00       2178.58        1227.80    1799.40     2612.23   4061.85   6185.99      6571.78        6621.78          6621.78   37881.18

Benefits                                                             0.00           0.00           0.00   3100.00     3007.00   5923.79   8015.03     12407.79      13250.00          18300.00   64003.61

Net Benefits from Project                                            0.00       -2178.58       -1227.80   1300.60      394.77   1861.94   1829.04      5836.01        6628.22         11678.22   26122.42
Net Benefits - GWU Estimate                                          0.00       -2178.58       -1227.80   1300.60      394.77   1861.94   1829.04      5836.01        6628.22         11678.22
                                             ERR 10 yrs   46%




                                                                                                   Net Benefits

                              14000.00

                              12000.00

                              10000.00

                               8000.00

                               6000.00
                       Taka




                                                                                                                                                     Net Benefits - GWU Estimate
                               4000.00

                               2000.00

                                  0.00
                                         1          2           3           4              5          6           7         8        9         10
                              -2000.00

                              -4000.00
                                                                                               Year




                                                                                                          64
              Appendix 11: HFPP Homestead Gardening Component Survey

Survey #                                            Date:
Location:                                           Program Start Date:
Name:                                               Age:

1. What is the total number of people living in your household?

2. The total monthly income of this household is between:
        0 – 2000 Taka
        2001 – 3000 Taka
        3001 – 4000 Taka
        4001 – 5000 Taka
        5001 – 6000 Taka
        More than 6000 Taka

3. Has any member of your household borrowed money in the last 6 months? Source? Why?




4. Please estimate how much your household spent on the following inputs in the last winter
season:
________ Land rent                        _________ Poultry feed
________ Transportation to market         _________ Poultry vaccinations
________ Water/Irrigation                 _________ Poultry shed/shelter
________ Loan repayment                   _________ Purchase more poultry
________ Fertilizers/Pesticides           _________ Other food production costs
________ Seed/Plant costs
________ Tools

5. Please estimate how much your household spent on the following inputs in the last summer
season:
________ Land rent                        _________ Poultry feed
________ Transportation to market         _________ Poultry vaccinations
________ Water/Irrigation                 _________ Poultry shed/shelter
________ Loan repayment                   _________ Purchase more poultry
________ Fertilizers/Pesticides           _________ Other food production costs
________ Seed/Plant costs
________ Tools

6. Does your household have other sources of income (besides HFPP)? If so, how many people
in your household are engaged in income-earning activities?



7. If you were not participating in the HFPP, what other income-earning activities would/could
you be participating in?


                                               65
8. How much time does each of the following individuals spend per day in the following
activities?

                            HFPP Member       Husband            Children         Others
Tending to garden/poultry
Getting Water

9. What vegetables does your household grow for the HFPP? What animals does your household
raise?




10. Do you participate in sharecropping as part of the HFPP?


11. What is your average winter yield? Please specify the yield of each vegetable grown, and
also include the yield of poultry and eggs.




12. What is your average summer yield? Please specify the yield of each vegetable grown, and
also include the yield of poultry and eggs.




13. Do you produce enough to sell your vegetables in the local market? If so, how much income
do you make from selling your vegetables each season (winter and summer)?



14. Do you secure your HFPP crops and poultry? If so, in what way(s)?



Additional open-ended questions

How has your income increased as a result of your participation in the HFPP?




How has your homestead production been affected by Cyclone Sidr?



                                               66
                   Appendix 12: HFPP Goat Rearing Component Survey

Survey #                                            Date:
Location:                                           Date Received Goat:
Name:                                               Age:

1. What is the total number of people living in your household?

2. The total monthly income of this household is between:
        0 – 500 Taka
        501 – 1000 Taka
        1001 – 1500 Taka
        1501 – 2000 Taka
        More than 2000 Taka

3. Has any member of your household borrowed money in the last 6 months? Source? Why?



4. Please estimate how much your household spent on the following inputs in the course of a
month:
_________ Goat feed
_________ Goat vaccinations
_________ Goat shed/shelter
_________ Transportation to market
_________ Purchase more goats
_________ Loan repayment
_________ Other goat rearing costs

5. Does your household have other sources of income (besides Goat Rearing Program)? If so,
how many people in your household are engaged in income-earning activities?




6. If you were not participating in the Goat Rearing Program, what other income-earning
activities would/could you be participating in?




7. Do you expect to sell any goats in the local market? If so, when? And how much income will
you make from selling your goats?




                                               67
8. How will you get your goats to the market?



9. How long will it take you to get to the market?



10. How much will it cost you to get to the market?




Additional open-ended questions

How has your income increased as a result of your participation in the Goat Rearing Program?




How has your goat rearing been affected by Sidr?




                                                68
Appendix 13: Sensitivity Analysis of CBA Models

Homestead Gardening Component

                                               Net Benefits

         6000

         5000

         4000

         3000

         2000
  Taka




                                                                           Net Benefits - GWU estimate
         1000

            0
                 1   2   3   4      5           6         7   8   9   10
         -1000

         -2000

         -3000
                                        Year




ERR = 160%


50% reduction in market price of chickens, ducks and eggs
                                               Net Benefits

         6000

         5000

         4000

         3000

         2000                                                              Net Benefits - GWU estimate
  Taka




         1000                                                              Net Benefits

            0
                 1   2   3   4      5           6         7   8   9   10
         -1000

         -2000

         -3000
                                        Year




ERR = 84%


0% growth rate for vegetable production after year 2
                                               Net Benefits

         6000

         5000

         4000

         3000

         2000                                                              Net Benefits - GWU estimate
  Taka




         1000                                                              Net Benefits

            0
                 1   2   3   4      5           6         7   8   9   10
         -1000

         -2000

         -3000
                                        Year




ERR = 140%

                                                    69
Actual value of produce at 50% of estimated value:
                                                 Net Benefits

         6000

         5000

         4000

         3000

         2000                                                                Net Benefits - GWU estimate
  Taka




         1000                                                                Net Benefits

            0
                 1   2   3    4       5           6         7   8   9   10
         -1000

         -2000

         -3000
                                          Year




ERR = 48%


HKI Project Costs double:
                                                 Net Benefits

         6000

         5000

         4000

         3000

         2000                                                                Net Benefits - GWU estimate
  Taka




         1000                                                                Net Benefits

            0
                 1   2   3    4       5           6         7   8   9   10
         -1000

         -2000

         -3000
                                          Year




ERR = 102%


Bird Flu kills all poultry, no more poultry products:
                                                 Net Benefits

         6000

         5000

         4000

         3000

         2000                                                                Net Benefits - GWU estimate
  Taka




         1000                                                                Net Benefits

            0
                 1   2   3    4       5           6         7   8   9   10
         -1000

         -2000

         -3000
                                          Year




ERR = 42%




                                                      70
Goat Rearing Component

                                                  Net Benefits

         14000.00

         12000.00

         10000.00

          8000.00

          6000.00
  Taka




                                                                                  Net Benefits - GWU Estimate
          4000.00

          2000.00

             0.00
                    1   2   3      4       5           6         7   8   9   10
         -2000.00

         -4000.00
                                               Year




ERR = 46%


50% Increase in Price of Goat Feed:
                                                  Net Benefits

         14000.00

         12000.00

         10000.00

          8000.00

          6000.00                                                                 Net Benefits - GWU Estimate
  Taka




          4000.00                                                                 Net Benefits from Project

          2000.00

             0.00
                    1   2   3      4       5           6         7   8   9   10
         -2000.00

         -4000.00
                                               Year




ERR = 18%


Fertility rate reduced to 1 birth per female goat per year:
                                                  Net Benefits

         14000.00

         12000.00

         10000.00

          8000.00

          6000.00                                                                 Net Benefits - GWU Estimate
  Taka




          4000.00                                                                 Net Benefits from Project

          2000.00

             0.00
                    1   2   3      4       5           6         7   8   9   10
         -2000.00

         -4000.00
                                               Year




ERR = 6%



                                                      71
Fertility rate reduced to 1.5 births per female goat per year:
                                                  Net Benefits

         14000.00

         12000.00

         10000.00

          8000.00

          6000.00                                                                   Net Benefits - GWU Estimate
  Taka




          4000.00                                                                   Net Benefits from Project

          2000.00

             0.00
                    1   2   3      4       5           6         7   8   9     10
         -2000.00

         -4000.00
                                               Year




ERR = 32%


Value of all ages and sexes of goats reduced by 25%:
                                                  Net Benefits

         14000.00

         12000.00

         10000.00

          8000.00

          6000.00                                                                   Net Benefits - GWU Estimate
  Taka




          4000.00                                                                   Net Benefits from Project

          2000.00

             0.00
                    1   2   3      4       5           6         7   8   9     10
         -2000.00

         -4000.00
                                               Year




ERR = 23%


Maximum Ideal Herd Size reduced to 3 adult female goats and 3 maturing goats
                                                  Net Benefits

         14000.00

         12000.00

         10000.00

          8000.00

          6000.00                                                                   Net Benefits - GWU Estimate
  Taka




          4000.00                                                                   Net Benefits from Project

          2000.00

             0.00
                    1   2   3      4       5           6         7   8   9     10
         -2000.00

         -4000.00
                                               Year




ERR = 32%




                                                      72

				
DOCUMENT INFO