WFL Publisher Science and Technology Meri-Rastilantie 3 B, FI-00980 Helsinki, Finland e-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment Vol.8 (1) : 86-90. 2010

www.world-food.net

Adoption of organic farming and household food security of the smallholders: A case study from Bangladesh Md. Asaduzzaman Sarker 1 and Yoshihito Itohara 2 1

The United Graduate School of Agricultural Sciences,Tottori University, Japan. e-mail: [email protected] 2 Faculty of Agriculture, Yamaguchi University, Japan. e-mail: [email protected]

Received 20 September 2009, accepted 4 January 2010.

Abstract Smallholders are always vulnerable to food insecurity. According to many scientist, when smallholders will adopt organic farming as a means of livelihood then their chance of attaining household food security might be more risky due to relatively lower yield performance of organic farming. On the contrary, many scientists and researchers recommend organic farming for the smallholders due to its cost effectiveness and better performance for supplying safe food for the household members. Thus, to resolve this debate whether organic farming hampers or helps in attaining household food security the current study was conducted among the smallholder organic farming adopters of Tangail district in Bangladesh. Empirical data for the study was collected from 150 smallholder organic farmers by means of personal interviewing. The results of the study showed that among the respondent farmers 98% had attained household level food security, while only those who failed to attain household food security had started organic farming within last 4 years. Thus, the duration of organic farming was found as a very significant factor with household food security of the smallholders. The study also explored that education of the household head, farm size, household members, number of cattle and access to extension services are also significant for attaining household food security through adoption of organic farming. Key words: Household food security, smallholders, organic farming, adoption, Bangladesh.

Introduction Bangladesh is a very small (0.15 million km2) and poor country in South Asia with nearly 150 million people which are familiar with frequent problems 2. Among those problems, the Government of Bangladesh has identified “food security” as an important factor contributing to its socio-economic stabilization and development. Side by side, GOB has emphasized the importance of domestic food production, greater importance is given to ensure access to adequate and safe food by all people at all times for maintaining an active and healthy life 5. With a huge population to feed, the policymakers of Bangladesh in the area of agriculture are more concerned about food security through increased production, but the actual definition of the term “food security” covers more than just to increase food production. According to WFS 10, “food security” not only means the availability of foods but also the physical and economic access of all people, at all times to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life. In the past, Bangladesh suffered from a huge deficit in food production. However, continuous efforts of agriculturalists and farmers, the food production (especially of the staple food) has been more than doubled between 1975 and 2005, but the country is yet to attain self-sufficiency in food. The production of other food crops has also increased to a great extent over the past 3 decades 3, Bangladesh attained self-sufficiency in food grain production in 1999-2000 with a gross production of rice and wheat of 24.9 million tons which marginally met the country’s requirement of 21.4 million tons for the population of around 130 million, taking 86

453.6 g per capita per day requirement 6. However, all households in the country have not yet attained food security. Household level food security is dependent on a household’s access to enough food. A household is food secure when the household members have year-round access to the amount and variety of safe foods their members need to lead active and healthy life. At the household level, food security refers to the ability of the household to secure, either from its own production or through purchases, adequate food for meeting the dietary needs of all members of the household. There is a strong debate that whether organic farming can feed the world or not? According to analyses of Smil 8, 9, organic farming can feed about half of the world population. The question is raised due to its low productivity. Contrary, a study of Badgley et al. 1 claimed that organic farming, if used worldwide, would provide sufficient food for a growing world population. According to Juma4, organic production system has the potentiality to produce sufficient food of high quality. He also stated that organic farming is particularly well suited for the rural communities that are currently most exposed to food shortages. Thus, there is a strong debate about the negative or positive impact of organic farming adoption on household food security. This study has an implication for the debate over whether small farmers will be able to adopt organic farming and their household level food security will not be hampered. The issue of the present research is also relevant to policy decisions because if organic farming has a positive impact on Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.8 (1), January 2010

attaining household food security of the smallholders, then policies and programs to support organic farming could be justified on impartiality basis. If not, policy makers would do better to allocate resources to conventional agricultural development strategies. Exclusively, this paper addresses two related questions. First, is household food security of the participating small farmers hampered due to adoption of organic methods? Second, if organic farming raises household food security, which factors are associated with attaining household food security? Methodology Study area: Madhupur sub-district under Tangail district of Bangladesh was purposely selected for this study, because Proshika (a renowned NGO in Bangladesh) has been promoting organic farming (non-certified) among the smallholders of this area for about a decade. Three villages (Pirojepur, Kuragasa and Lokdeo) were selected as the study villages. The majority of the people in these villages are farmers and they grow a variety of vegetables and rice by following both conventional and organic methods. However, a significant portion of the smallholder farmers of these villages are growing organic vegetables according to guidelines of Proshika. Population and sample: The population of the study consisted of all smallholders (landholdings < 1 ha) of the three selected villages who have adopted organic farming. A total of 400 smallholder organic farmers of the three villages were identified as the population of the study among which some were the contract farmers of Proshika and some were individual farmers. Lists of the Proshika farmers was collected from Proshika’s Madhupur Area Development Centre (ADC) and from this list a total of 90 farmers were selected (30 farmers from each village) on a random basis. Similarly lists of the individual organic farmers of the selected three villages were collected separately from the concerned subassistant agricultural officers (SAAO) of the DAE. From these three lists a total number of 60 farmers were selected on a random basis. Finally, from these two categories of farmers a total of 150 smallholder organic farmers were selected as the sample for the current study. Data collection: A survey questionnaire was developed matching with the research objectives and used for data collection. The survey was conducted between 10 December 2007 and 10 January

2008. Data was collected from the targeted organic farmers by means of personal interviews. The researchers and three trained data collectors were involved in interviewing the respondent farmers. Statistical analysis: SPSS v 17 was used for analyzing the data of this study. Besides the ordinary statistical measures such as mean, standard deviation and percentage, a number of tests (i.e. unequal individual sample t-test, chi-square test, and multiple regression analysis) were performed. An unequal individual sample t-test was used to test the differences between the socio-economic profile of the Proshika organic farmers and individual organic farmers. Chi-square test was used to verify the food security status of both groups of organic farmers. Multiple regression analysis was used to identify the significant factors that may explain the variations in the household food security status. Results and Discussion Socio-economic features of the adopter organic farmers: The summary of the socio-economic attributes of the participating smallholder organic farmers are shown in Table 1. As shown in Table 1, the average age of the respondent household heads was 40.47 years and among the respondent farmers the average number of males was 0.76. Results of the study showed that the average number of household members were 5.19. The farm size of both groups was quite small, with less than one hectare of cultivated land, the average farm size of the Proshika farmers’ was 0.23 ha and individual farmers’ 0.24 ha. The respondent households were operating their farms with average 1.88 family laborers. None of these variables differed statistically significantly between Proshika and individual organic farmers. There were some differences between Proshika and individual organic farmers that were significant at the 1% level: these variables were education of the household head, organic farming duration and access to extension services. The above mentioned Table showed that Proshika organic farmers had relatively better educational background and their average educational level was 4.02, while the average educational level of the individual farmers was 2.7. It is also demonstrated in Table 1 that Proshika organic farmers had more experience of growing crops using organic methods and better access to extension services compared to individual organic farmers. There was another difference between Proshika and individual group of farmers that

Table 1. Mean and standard deviation of the independent variables. Explanatory variable Hh age Hh education (yrs) Hh gender (dummy) Household members (persons) Family laborers (number) Farm size (ha) Organic adoption rate (ratio) Organic duration (yrs) Access to extension (dummy) Number of cattle Farming experience (years)

All farmers Mean 40.47 3.87 0.76 5.19 1.88 0.24 0.49 4.25 0.48 2.4 22.37

SD 10.87 3.96 0.43 2.12 0.92 0.19 0.21 1.50 0.49 1.85 11.29

Proshika farmers Mean 39.91 4.65 0.73 4.94 1.9 0.23 0.50 4.55 0.63 2.26 20.88

SD 10.94 4.02 0.44 2.01 0.89 0.13 0.21 1.64 0.46 1.81 11.18

Individual farmers Mean 41.30 2.7 0.80 5.55 1.85 0.24 0.49 3.88 0.43 2.62 24.62

SD 10.80 3.58 0.40 2.24 0.97 0.12 0.24 1.69 0.49 1.90 11.18

t-statistics -1.74 3.16** -1.0 -0.76 0.31 -0.75 0.25 2.82** 2.5** -0.6 -2.01*

t-statistics significance: ** at 1%; and * at 5% levels. Source: Authors’ household survey.

Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.8 (1), January 2010

87

was significant at the 5% level: individual organic farmers had more experience of farming compared to Proshika farmers. Household level food demand and production scenario: The major objective of the study was to verify the household food security status of the respondent households due to adoption of organic farming. Thus, the researchers took an attempt to assess the household food demand and production status through which it could be measured whether the household is food secured or not, and the data are presented in Table 2. Results of the study showed that the total and average household food production is higher than household food demand in the case of all villages. Table 2 also shows that like total food, item-wise food production of all villages is higher than their itemwise food demand. Only Lokdeo village had a deficit of spices and fruits production. The study also revealed that the respondent households were producing food using both conventional and organic methods of cultivations, where the household rice demand was almost totally met through conventional cultivations. On the other hand vegetables, spices, fruits and other food demand of the household were met by organic cultivation methods that are shown in Fig. 1. Fig. 1 demonstrates that in case of total food production the contribution of organic production is a bit higher than that of conventional production methods. The results of the study

showed that all the respondent households are still cultivating rice (staple food) by following conventional methods. This is due to the reason that Bangladeshi people consume a huge amount of rice everyday. Rice is the main dish at lunch and dinner in a typical Bangladeshi household. In many rural households they consume rice thrice a day. However, excluding rice, the other food items they are cultivating mostly by following organic methods. From Table 2 and Fig. 1 it is clear that on average the respondent households were food secured in the case of total food demand and item-wise food demand. However, in the case of individual household level there are a few food insecured households (Table 3). Considering total food demand, only 4.33% of Proshika farmers’ households failed to attain household level food security, while all individual farmers’ households attained household level food security. Among item-wise food demand, except vegetables, in all food items more Proshika farmers’ households had deficiency compared to individual farmers’ households. However, the results of the chi-square (χ2) statistics showed that there were no significant differences between the two groups of farm households concerning food security issues. Thus, it is extremely apparent that due to the adoption of organic farming, household level food security of the participating farmers was not hampered due to adoption of organic farming. The results of the study also illustrated that among the food insecured households 1.33% belonged to the category of laggards

Table 2. Household level food demand and food production scenario. Food item Rice Vegetables Spices Fruits Others Total

a b a b a b a b a b a b

Pirojepur (n = 48) FD FP FS/D 59.04 90.18 31.14 1.23 1.87 0.65 8.75 79.34 70.59 0.18 1.65 1.47 4.07 6.34 2.27 0.08 0.13 0.05 1.94 40.44 38.5 0.04 0.84 0.08 1.61 32.99 31.84 0.03 0.69 0.66 75.41 249.29 173.88 1.57 5.19 3.62

Kuragasa (n = 52) FD FP FS/D 61.36 104.56 43.2 1.18 2.01 0.83 9.6 70.21 60.61 0.18 1.35 1.17 4.47 8.60 4.13 0.09 0.17 0.08 1.48 19.44 17.96 0.03 0.37 0.35 2.76 28.97 26.21 0.05 0.56 0.50 79.67 231.78 152.11 1.53 4.46 2.93

Lokdeo (n = 50) FD FP FS/D 64.76 110.36 45.6 1.30 2.21 0.91 7.32 86.18 78.86 0.15 1.72 1.58 3.83 2.42 -1.41 0.08 0.05 -0.03 1.48 1.4 -0.08 0.03 0.02 -.002 2.18 16.4 14.22 0.04 0.33 0.28 79.57 216.76 137.19 1.59 4.33 2.74

All villages (N = 150) FD FP FS/D 185.16 305.1 119.94 1.23 2.03 0.8 25.67 235.73 209.97 0.17 1.57 1.40 12.37 17.36 4.99 0.08 0.12 0.03 4.89 61.28 56.39 0.03 0.41 0.38 6.55 78.36 71.81 0.04 0.52 1.44 234.64 697.83 463.19 1.56 4.65 3.09

a) Total; b) Per household ; FD- Food demand; FP – Food production; FS/D – Food surplus/deficit (- value indicates deficit) (unit tons); Source: Authors’ household survey.

Table 3. Household level food security status of the respondent farm families. Food item Rice Vegetables Spices Fruits Others Total

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %

Proshika farmers Deficit Balance 9 4 10.0 4.44 18 1 20.0 1.1 71 1 78.89 1.1 27 58 30.0 64.44 11 18 12.22 20.0 3 0 4.33 0.0

Surplus 77 85.56 71 78.89 18 20.0 5 5.56 61 67.78 87 96.67

Individual farmers Deficit Balance Surplus 3 0 57 5.0 0 95.0 13 2 45 21.67 3.33 75.0 44 1 15 73.33 1.67 25.0 10 44 6 16.67 73.33 10.0 6 10 44 10.0 16.67 73.33 0 0 60 0.0 0.0 100.0

Ȥ2 statistics 4.16 NS 3.96 NS 0.60NS 3.99NS 1.06NS 2.14NS

NS denotes not significant; Source: Authors’ household survey.

88

Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.8 (1), January 2010

Figure 1. Household level food production by cultivation methods.

(who had adopted organic farming within 1-2 years) and less than 1% of households belonged to late majority category (who had adopted organic farming within 3-4 years) (categories of the adopter farmers were made as categorization of Rogers 7 and are shown in Table 4). The results in Table 4 confirm that among those that adopted organic farming methods within the last two years (beginners) had a risk of deficient in household food security. However, the farmers who have adopted organic farming five or more years ago their household food security may not be hampered if other associated factors remain the same. This is due to the reason that after a long time using of chemicals when a farmer starts to handle his or her land only using organic manures then the soil cannot respond as it should do and hampers crop yields to some extent. Table 4. Cross tabulation between household level food security status and adopter categories. Adopter categories Innovators ( 9 and more yrs) Early adopters (7-8 yrs) Early majority (5-6 yrs) Late majority (3-4 yrs) Laggards (1-2 yrs) Total

Food insecured No. 0 0 0 1 2 3

% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.66 1.33 2.0

Food secured No. 1 13 45 78 13 147

% 0.66 8.67 30.0 52.0 8.97 98.0

However, by treating the same soil with organic manures for several years it adapts with the organic methods of cultivation and gives expected yields. Factors associated with household food security: Another important objective of the study was to identify the factors that are associated with household food security. With this purpose, multiple linear regression analysis was done where the dependent variable was household level food security and functionalized with amount of food in the form of deficit (-ve), balance (0), or surplus (+ve). The results of the multiple regression analysis between household level food security and all explanatory variables (mentioned in Table 1) are shown in Table 5. The results of the study (Table 5) showed that among the eleven explanatory variables six variables had significant relationships with household level of food security. These significant variables were education of the household head, number of household members, farm size, number of cattle, duration of organic farming and access to extension services, when combined they can explain 53% of variation in the household food security. Among these significant variables, except household members, all were positively related to household level food security . This is due to the reason that a household having more members requires more food, thus this household is relatively more vulnerable to food

Table 5. Linear regression model for household level food security of the organic farming adopter farm families. Unstandardized coefficient Model Constant Age of household head (years) Gender of household head (Dummy: 1= Male; 0 = Female) Hh education (years of schooling) Household members (number) Farm size (ha) Family laborers (number) Cattle (number) OF adoption rate (ratio of amount of land under OF and total farm size) Organic farming duration (years) Access to extension service (Dummy: 1= Have access; 0 = No access) Farming experience (years)

Standardized coefficient

B

Std. error

Beta

t

Sig.

-0.793 0.000 0.345

0.688 0.015 0.251

-0.002 0.080

-1.152 -0.023 1.374

0.251 0.982 0.172

0.071 -0.121 4.022 0.010 0.167 0.714

0.030 0.058 0.691 0.133 0.068 0.568

0.148 -0.139 0.455 0.005 0.168 0.084

2.343 -2.090 5.820 0.077 2.455 1.257

0.021** 0.038** 0.000** 0.939 0.015** 0.211

0.143 0.608

0.080 0.238

0.115 0.164

1.781 2.556

0.077* 0.012**

-0.002

0.014

-0.016

-0.175

0.862

Adjusted R2: 0.53, F - statistics: 15.93**. Parameter estimate significance: ** at 1%; and ** at 5% levels. Source: Authors’ analysis.

Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.8 (1), January 2010

89

insecurity. Thus, household food security and number of household members had a significant negative relationship.

10

WFS 1996.World Food Summit. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

Conclusions The results of the study provide sufficient evidences to oppose the dispute that due to adoption of organic farming food security of the smallholder households will be hampered. It is evident from the study that 98% of respondent farm households had successfully attained household level food security after adoption of organic farming. The study also showed that only the farmers having very little land with more family members and who adopted organic farming in the recent years failed to attain their household food security. The study explored that education of the household head, number of household members, farm size, duration of organic adoption, number of cattle and access to extension services are significantly associated with household food security. Thus, it can be concluded that if a household is not a marginal household and don’t have more household members then after several years of organic farming adoption their household level food security will not be hampered, where household’s access to extension services is also found as an important factor. However, in Bangladesh public sector extension services do not have any initiative to promote organic farming and still they are confined only with integrated pest management (IPM), while only a few NGOs are promoting organic farming among the smallholders of Bangladesh for sustainable agricultural development. So, similar to the NGO’s, if the public sector extension organizations grant proper concentration on organic farming promotion it might benefit the farmers in improving their livelihood through attaining household level food security as well as in environmental protection that are the major mandates of the government of Bangladesh to build a healthy nation. References 1

Badgley, C., Moghtader, J., Quintero, E., Zakem, E., Chappel, M. J. and Aviles-Vazquez, K. 2007. Organic agriculture and the global food supply. Renewable Agricultural Food System 22:86-108. 2 Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) 2008. Statistical Pocket Book of Bangladesh. Planning Division, Ministry of Planning, Government of the People’s republic of Bangladesh. 3 FAO 2005. FAOSTAT. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from http:// faostat.fao.org/default. 4 Juma, M. A. 2007. IFOAM’s Perspectives on Organic Agriculture, Food Security and Sovereignity. Paper presented at the International Conference on Organic Agriculture and Food Security, Rome, Italy. 5 Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper 2005. Unlocking the PotentialNational Strategy for Accelerated Poverty Reduction. General Economics Division, Planning Comission, Government of People’s Republic of Bangladesh. 6 Rahman, S. M., Hoque, A. and Talukder, R. A. 2005. Food security in Bangladesh: Utilization, nutrition and food safety. Paper presented at the National Workshop on Food Security in Bangladesh. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Ministry of Food and Disaster Management, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and World Food Programme (WFP), Bangladesh. 7 Rogers, E. M. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. 4th edn. The Free Press, New York. 8 Smil, V. 2001. Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the Transformation of World Food Production. MIT Press,Cambridge, MA, 338 p. 9 Smil, V. 2001. Feeding the World: A Challenge for Twenty-first Century. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 360 p. 90

Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, Vol.8 (1), January 2010