Content uploaded by Florencia Gonzaga Palis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Florencia Gonzaga Palis on Jun 25, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Impact of Community-led Action Research
on Production Decisions and Food Adjustment
Strategies in a Grain-Producing Village
in Northwest Bangladesh
Md. Kamal Pasa
Department of Anthropology
University of Rajshahi, Bangladesh
kamal_pasa@yahoo.com; kamalpasa@ru.ac.bd
Md. Matiur Rahman
Research Initiatives Bangladesh (RIB)
rmdmatiur@gmail.com
Catalina P. Diaz
International Rice Research Institute (IRRI)
c.diaz@irri.org
Shejuti Nure Maksurat
University of Rajshahi Bangladesh
nure_maksurat@yahoo.com
Florencia G. Palis
Department of Social Sciences
University of the Philippines Los Banos
orenciagpalis@gmail.com
Pam Custodio
College of Development Communication,
University of the Philippines Los Banos
pacustodio@devcom.edu.ph
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the paper is to describe the impact of community-led action research on food security
and poverty alleviation on the production decisions and food adjustment strategies of farmers in a
grain-producing village in northwest Bangladesh. The study used a mixed method approach with 80
respondents for the quantitative part (survey), which are distributed equally between gono-gobeshona
participants and non-participant groups, and 30 for the qualitative part (10 in-depth interviews, 4
key informant interviews, 4 focus groups, and 10 case studies). Survey responses were analyzed using
SPSS software and content analysis framework was used for qualitative data. The ndings show that
far more households who participated in the from the gono-gobeshona make joint decisions (by both
husband and wife) in various aspects of production than non-participants. Women as authority gures
were higher in number among the participants than the non-participants and more households in
the non-participant group considered the husband as the authority gure. Finally, the community-led
action research process met sustainability features and was inclusive across social positions.
Keywords: gono-gobeshona, gendered decision, food adjustment, participatory action research
JEL Classication: Z1
78 M.D. Pasa, M.M. Rahman, C.P. Diaz, S.N. Maksurat, F.G. Palis, and P.A. Custodio
INTRODUCTION
The community-led action research
(locally known as gono-gobeshona [gono
= popular, gobeshona = research] and in
academic literature more popularly known
as participatory action research [PAR]) is
conceived as a cyclical process of researching
and acting under a common platform—a self-
help group. The main goal of the process is to
make farmers independent and key drivers of
change. By analyzing production decisions, the
researchers aimed to identify the instrumental
gure in decision making on various aspects
of production. Moreover, food adjustment,
which includes diverse measures taken by the
farmers during the food crisis period, were also
examined.
Food security data (BBS 2010) show a
vulnerable picture of unequal food distribution
despite Bangladesh being an agriculture-based
country. Seven percent of the households lack
food on a regular basis while 30 percent lack
food occasionally (WFP 2012). Among the
diverse categories of farmers, more than two-
thirds of the landless and agriculture-dependent
households face extreme food crisis four months
in a year (WFP 2012). In terms of geographic
division, high poverty headcount rates exist in
northwestern agricultural regions (BBS 2005).
Various studies (Zug 2006; Mazumder,
Ullah, and Wencong 2012; Rahman 2005)
show that the existing food crisis in the region
is usually minimized by food and non-food
coping strategies. The food coping strategies
include borrowing paddy with high return in
advance, buying food at prices a bit higher than
the regular price on credit, early sale of rice at
a relatively low price before yield, receiving
relief, and reducing diet and nutritional intake.
Non-food coping strategies include nding
extra work even with relatively lower wages
than usual, migrating, minimizing household
expenses, selling assets (e.g., livestock and
trees), borrowing money at high interest rates,
and early sale of labor before the season.
Many experts and institutions argue that the
emerging food crisis can be solved by updated
technology adoption (Dontsop-Nguezet
2011; Rahman et al. 2008; Zug 2006; USAID
2011; FAO 2010; FAO 2011). Surprisingly,
intervention data across cultures and societies
show a great disparity in adoption rate as well
as gender exclusion in technology adoption (US
Department of State 2011; FAO 2010; FAO
2011). As a result, such initiatives to curb the
food crisis do not bring signicant effect.
By reviewing several studies, Ragasa
(2012) demonstrated the relatively weaker
participation and engagement of women farmers
and stakeholders in priority-setting and decision
making. Kumar (1987) found that failure to
incorporate women’s roles in implementing
technological change led to three interrelated
consequences: loss of adoptive efciency,
reduction of women’s bargaining position, and
lower technology adoption rates. FAO (2010,
2011) also points out that women producers
all over the world who are constrained with
technology adoption experienced low levels
of productivity. If women had the same access
to productive resources as men, they could
increase yields on their farms by 20–30 percent.
Over the years, agriculture extension has
been supply-driven and follows a linear model
of technology transfer: researcher–extension–
farmer (Akinnagbe and Ajayi 2010). This has
little or no provision for addressing farmers’
actual needs; consequently failing to alleviate
poverty (Akinnagbe and Ajayi 2010). On the
other hand, demand-driven and participatory
approaches are assumed to be relatively
better in terms of identifying real need. The
approach invokes farmers’ participation, and
that greater participation will reap greater
benets. However, Rathgeber (2011) argues
that participatory approaches often involve
Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Vol. 12, No. 2 79
critical problem analysis; giving feedback to
policy makers and extension workers might
not be truly inclusive and, thus, does not ensure
cooperative action.
Another form of participatory approach is
participatory action research (PAR) by which
a community identies their actual needs and
translates these needs into action. Alternatively,
community-led action research approach values
people’s potentials and is sensitive toward their
actual need. This facilitates people’s freedom
to make their own choices and decisions
on particular technologies and encourages
acquisition and use of new knowledge. Thus,
the approach considers the individual as the
main driver of change in contrast to other
participatory approaches that depend on the
researcher and extension worker, who may be
outsiders.
However, there is a serious dearth of
information about the benets of community-
led action research. Rathgeber (2011) also
shows that there has been little systematic
analysis of the impacts of participatory methods
for gender-sensitive technology adoption versus
alternative approaches to adoption.
The foregoing contexts are our motivations
for addressing the following specic objectives:
to describe the process of the community-
led action research analyze the changes
in production decision making and food
adjustment measures. The ndings would
lessen the knowledge gap with regard to the
process and impact of community-led action
research approach. Finally, this would generate
policy recommendations and may be a model
for other agrarian societies with relatively
similar sociocultural conditions.
METHODS
Using a mixed method approach, the study
was conducted in Laxmichap village, Sadar
upazilla, Nilphamary district in northwestern
Bangladesh. It is one of the villages in the
region most affected by monga (seasonal
hunger). Research Initiative Bangladesh (RIB)
is one of the nongovernment organizations
(NGOs) working to alleviate poverty in the
locality. So far, RIB had reached a total of 44
farming households during the study period.
As this study aimed to show the difference
in production decision and food adjustment
between program participants and non-
participants, sample respondents were drawn
from both groups.
Using random sampling, 80 respondents1
(40 program participants and 40 non-
participants, for ease of comparison) were
included in the survey. For the in-depth
interviews and focus group discussions, 30
respondents were purposively selected (gender,
class, and status as selection criteria) from the
80 respondents of the survey. Simple random
sampling technique was used to identify survey
respondents.
A total of 80 households were surveyed
using a structured questionnaire, which covered
diverse issues, such as who would make the
decision on diverse aspects of production and
how often coping mechanisms were adapted.
The survey, which sometimes used probing to
elicit a meaningful answer, was conducted át
the respondent’s convenient schedule.
On the other hand, in-depth interviews using
a checklist were conducted with 30 individuals.
The checklist included issues such as the
process and activities in the community-led
1 Here we used at least 45 households (a 95 percent condence level with 5 percent margin of error) as target program
participants, which was a scientically representative sample determined using an online sampling computation tool
(http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html)
80 M.D. Pasa, M.M. Rahman, C.P. Diaz, S.N. Maksurat, F.G. Palis, and P.A. Custodio
research, the sociocultural contexts of decision
making, and challenges met. The interviewees
represented staff, program participants, and
non-participants of both genders. The interviews
were conducted in a manner that respondents
would feel empowered to disclose information.
A total of eight key informant interviews were
conducted with community resource persons in
both participant and non-participant groups to
understand participants’ motivation for joining
the project, their sociocultural contexts, and
intervention aws.
Four FGDs were done with six to seven
participants with relatively homogenous features
that included at least one male and one female
from both the participant and non-participant
groups. Each of the FGD participants was
encouraged to share their views on particular
issues during the session. The FGD checklist
covered decision making, sociocultural
contexts, and challenges met. Finally, for issues
which required in-depth investigation, a total of
10 case studies were conducted.
The same interview questions were asked
using the multiple tools and techniques of
data collection to ensure data validation. After
verication of the data, qualitative information
were analyzed manually using content analysis
framework and the survey responses were
analyzed using SPSS 15.1 software.
RESULTS
Community-led Action Research Process
Since 2006, the farmers of Laxmichap
village had been doing participatory action
research (locally known as gono-gobeshona) to
accelerate food security and poverty alleviation.
Research Initiative Bangladesh (RIB), a
national NGO, provides technical assistance
in developing the gono-gobeshna group
and its function. They promoted the group
through meetings both at the individual and
group levels. The promotion strategies include
informal chatting and discussion in various
public spots, such as tea stalls, grocery shops,
and gathering places outside and within homes.
At the gathering spots, the staff introduced
themselves to the farmers and went on to talk
about contemporary issues in the country and
the socioeconomic changes that farmers wanted
to see in their own village. The participants
were encouraged to discuss their present
social conditions or problems, their reasons,
and possible solutions. As a consequence of
the discussion, many of the participants found
value in the gono-gobeshana.
The gono-gobeshona group was developed
in a participatory manner. The participants who
found value in the group gradually diffused
the idea to other villagers. Then the interested
farmers came together to form groups in various
areas of the village. Group size (which varied
based on the consensus), membership criteria
(which included a person’s desire, availability,
diverse land holding status, and geographical
proximity), and norms and rules (which included
how to identify meeting agenda, how to interact
with each other in the meeting, and how to
implement decisions taken in the meeting) were
set in consultations with members and the RIB
staff. As soon as the group was developed, the
members in each group selected a leader with
consensus from either gender. Then, all the
group leaders nominated a member, who is
called an RIB animator, to act as liaison with
the RIB, other groups, and other agencies. Each
gono-gobeshona leader was responsible for
gathering his group members twice a month in
the afternoon (when work pressure is relatively
less) for an open discussion on various social
issues. All the members encourage each other to
attend the meeting by sharing the meeting date,
time, and venue. To maintain the dynamics of
the group, they upheld the traditional social
network composed of kin and neighbors.
Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Vol. 12, No. 2 81
The gono-gobeshona functioned through a
cyclical process (Figure 1). During the meeting,
the leader adds concerns or issues in addition to
the xed meeting agenda to be discussed. The
agenda is then discussed, covering the nature
and extent of the problem, possible reasons,
and solutions. After friendly discussion and
critical reection on the agenda, the group
comes up with decisions together. As soon as
the meeting is accomplished, the group leader
informs the RIB animators about the meeting
minutes verbally. Members then implement
the decisions either individually or in groups
by mobilizing their own resources. When
necessary, the group sought technical support
from RIB and other agencies. The need for
training and other resources was assessed by the
group leaders and the RIB animator together.
RIB support, so far, have included providing
training on updated technologies and agriculture
inputs (e.g., seeds, tools, and fertilizers and
pesticides). Finally, farmers, along with their
group and RIB animators, carefully monitored
various stages of the production cycle on a
regular basis. Experiences during the eld visits
were shared during group meetings for critical
discussion, the proposed solutions were then
utilized to improve production.
In the initial stage of the gono-gobeshona,
farmers started producing Lac2 with technical
assistance from the RIB. Later on, they shifted
to agricultural crop production. After being
a collaborative partner of the Cereal System
Initiative South Asia (CSISA) project in 2011,
RIB provided more technical support including
subsidies particularly on rice, wheat, and sh
production. During the time of the study, one of
the main components of gono-gobeshona was
agricultural production.
2 Lac is the scarlet resinous secretion of a number of species of insects of the genera Metatachardia, Laccifer, Tachordiella,
Austrotacharidia, Afrotachardina, and Tachardina of the superfamily Coccoidea, of which the most commonly cultivated
species is Kerria lacca.
Figure 1. Gono-gobehsana process
82 M.D. Pasa, M.M. Rahman, C.P. Diaz, S.N. Maksurat, F.G. Palis, and P.A. Custodio
Gono-gobeshana Activities
Farmers undertook several activities
under the gono-gobeshona framework:
capacity building; behavior change session;
demonstration plot development and
experimentation; information and input sharing
network; and risk management through paddy
bank, seed bank, and land bank; and social
awareness session.
Capacity building
Capacity building comprised of training
farmers on how to improve agricultural
production and eld visits. The leaders of the
groups and RIB management jointly identied
training needs on up-to-date technologies and
developed the content of the proposed training
activities. The trainings covered diverse topics,
such as seed management, transplantation, plant
care, nutrition management, harvesting, and
disaster risk mitigation. The trainings had 30–
50 (ensuring that both males and females were
represented, as well as couples) participants.
The gono-gobeshona group selected training
participants by assessing one’s motivation,
hands-on farming experience, and interpersonal
communication skills. The three to four-hour
long training sessions, which usually followed
a lecture-based approach, were conducted
in venues identied in consultation with
participants. The training ended with a eld
visit and discussions about the eld experience.
Behavior change sessions
Behavior change sessions consisted of
one-on-one and group sessions. The gono-
gobeshona group identied misconceptions
on new rice technologies prevailing among
its members and among males and females.
The group leader and the RIB animator, either
alone or together, arranged a daily one-on-one
and weekly group sessions with those who had
misconceptions. The group leader requested
the animator to be present during the meeting
as the animator was thought to be relatively
knowledgeable on new technologies. As part
of the behavior change session, the group
together with the animator sometimes visited
the elds. The session covered a wide range of
issues, such as crop succession, rice technology,
and alternative solutions for family and social
problems, among others.
Demonstration plot development and
experimentation
Experimentation involved creating
demonstration plots supported by the RIB.
Specically, the participants experimented on
the suitability of rice varieties in relation to
land elevation, soil type, and climatic condition.
Again, they tried to measure the effects of
changes in water level and amount of fertilizers
and pesticides on crops. Despite using the same
technology, there were inconsistencies in results
because of the disparity in technical knowledge.
The result of the experiments were immediately
shared in their respective groups. Moreover,
some of the participants also developed
demonstration plots for new rice technology in
the roadsides, managing the plot by combining
modern and traditional knowledge. The RIB
offered farm inputs (e.g., seeds, fertilizer,
pesticides, and ploughing machines), either
for free or at subsidized prices. To further
promote the program, the RIB provided new
technologies, such as early-maturing varieties
and direct-seeded rice technologies (e.g., lithao
[a Philippine farm implement used for making
small parallel furrows] and drum seeder) for
free. The RIB animator also imparted knowledge
on how to manage the demonstration plots. The
gono-gobeshona group played an advisory
role, although the plot owner was basically the
main actor. Other farmers beyond the gono-
gobeshona group were also encouraged to
observe the crop management in each stage of
the production cycle. The groups and the RIB
Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Vol. 12, No. 2 83
ofcials committed to support potential new
technology adopters.
Information and input sharing network
Both male and female participants, with
technical support from the RIB, arranged a
yearly village fair, which included a cultural
evening, to exchange agricultural knowledge.
The gono-gobeshona group, NGOs, and the
government agriculture ofce disseminated
information about updated technologies by
establishing stalls in the fair. In addition,
participants also delivered lessons learned
through cultural performances, such as songs
and dramatizations.
Agriculture inputs were reciprocally shared
within the gono-gobeshona network, which
reinforced declining traditional reciprocal
relationships. This decline, occurred gradually
over many years because of NGO intervention
and expansion of modernity agents such as
media, modern markets, and education. As a
consequence, kin and neighbors have reduced
reciprocal exchange of agriculture inputs.
However, the development and function of
the gono-gobeshona group reinforced this
traditional relationship.
On their own, farmers had difculty
claiming services from the government and
NGOs. However, the gono-gobeshona group
united them and made them aware of their
rights, thus, empowering the participant(s),
individually or jointly, to negotiate support from
various agricultural institutions and personnel.
Risk management through paddy bank, seed
bank, and land bank
To manage production risks and seasonal
food crises, the participants decided to develop
community storage to address the declining
quality of home seeds that were traditionally
produced and stored. During extreme food
crisis periods, farmers consume their stored
seeds. Furthermore, there was limited access
to seeds from external sources, such as market,
the government, NGOs, and other commercial
sellers. Among the difculties identied were
high cost, inadequate supply, uncertainty about
seed quality, and unavailability of desired
varieties. As a result, seed banks were built
by the participants in cooperation with the
community and technical support from the
RIB. Furthermore, the success of the seed
banks encouraged many farmers to also build
paddy banks to cope with monga. Likewise, to
address landlessness and small farm size, RIB
developed a land bank in cooperation with the
gono-gobeshona group. The land bank leases
land for one or more years and the groups were
responsible for distributing the land to the
needy farmers, whether participants and non-
participants of gono-gobeshona. Thus, the poor
and landless would be able to lease or buy land
using income from production.
The constitution and operational guidelines
for the seed, paddy, and land banks were
developed through participatory discussions
among the gono-gobeshona participants.
Among the strengths of the constitution was
that it allowed women and marginal farmers
to be members of the executive committee and
they also had equal access to the banks.
Social awareness
Finally, another important agenda of
the gono-gobeshona meeting was social and
political awareness, particularly on human
rights issues. In the meetings, the RIB personnel
informed participants about the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Among the
diverse rights issues that were discussed were
unfair distribution of government subsidies
by the union council, rights of women in the
household, and abuse and violence against
women. Moreover, they were also taught and
encouraged to resist any sort of discrimination
in society. One of the many successes of the
gono-gobeshona movement was that union
84 M.D. Pasa, M.M. Rahman, C.P. Diaz, S.N. Maksurat, F.G. Palis, and P.A. Custodio
council leaders were forced to include in the
master list the unlisted elderly who qualied for
pension and food support.
Impact of Gono-Gobeshana
Production decisions
When it comes to production decisions,
Figure 2 shows that participants of the gono-
gobeshona group are better off than non-
participants in terms of making decisions jointly
(both husband and wife make the decision),
having the wife as an authority gure, and
the decline of the husband’s role in various
production activities. More gono-gobeshona
participants made decisions jointly compared
to non-participants. Compared to the wife, the
husband was more often the authority gure
in both groups. Interestingly, however, fewer
husbands from the participant group were
identied as authority gures than in the non-
participant group.
One of the key informants, a 26 year old
woman from the gono-gobeshona group, said:
My husband has now been consulting
with me for any decision about the
household and agriculture activities.
However, the scenario was totally
reverse before we joined group.
Among the participants, jointly making
decisions varied depending on the aspect of
production. Most gono-gobeshana participants
(87.5%) consulted jointly about the use of
land bank and the least (50%) about buying
farm inputs. More than half (65%) of the non-
participants made joint decisions on borrowing
land and buying farm inputs (40%). Thus,
respondents buying farm inputs was the factor
which respondents least often decided jointly.
The husband’s role in decision making
in all aspects of production was less critical
in the participants’ group compared to the
non-participants. Many husbands from both
groups decided alone in buying farm input, but
interestingly, husbands from the participants
had less authority than non-participants.
Wives from the participant group
were authority gures in most aspects of
the production process, compared to non-
participants. On the other hand, the wives
from the non-participant group played more
contributory roles. An equal percentage (10%)
of wives from both groups decided on the use
of technology.
The gono-gobeshona activities were
instrumental in inuencing decision making
although there may be other reasons such
as micro-credit programs, local government
efforts, self-endeavor in coping with poverty,
increasing mobility, and so on. However, the
gono-gobeshona activities helped to make its
members independent by encouraging them
to identify roots of the problems and to nd
solutions through their own efforts. Participants
also became more condent by realizing the
value of staying in the group, which was
institutionalized through regular activities and
mobilization of others.
Women participants became aware about
their rights and knowledgeable about technical
aspects of agricultural production. The gono-
gobeshona meetings allowed participants to
play an active role in the discussion sessions.
At the same time, they were also called to solve
problems by joining hands with the men. Their
contribution was not conned to disseminating
information to their husbands but also in actively
engaging in eld activities. Being a member of
the gono-gobeshona was a sign of recognition
of women’s role in production. By doing the
same roles that men play in gono-gobeshona,
women felt empowered. Meanwhile, male
participants became sensitized in seeing the
equal participation of women.
Figure 2. Production decisions at household level
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Husband Wife Jointly Husband Wife Jointly
Participants Non-participants
What crop to grow Buying farm input Lending land Borrowing land Using technology
What variety to plant Using seed bank Using paddy bank Using land bank
86 M.D. Pasa, M.M. Rahman, C.P. Diaz, S.N. Maksurat, F.G. Palis, and P.A. Custodio
Food Adjustment Measures
One of the signicant aspects of RIB’s
intervention was to promote early maturing
varieties (EMVs) to tackle seasonal hunger.
Across participants and non-participants, almost
all respondents opined that the introduction
of EMVs was benecial. In general, the
respondents who had been producing EMVs
in the last three years experienced substantial
economic improvement at the household
level. Almost half (47.5%) of the participants
experienced the substantial impact of producing
EMVs while only a fourth (25%) of the non-
participants did. Non-participants identied
several reasons for problems in production,
which include knowledge gap and unavailability
of quality seeds.
Food adjustment was basically undertaken
during the seasonal crisis period. As shown in
Table 1, fewer gono-gobeshona participants
took food adjustment measures than non-
participants. To cope, about 42.5 percent of
the participants sometimes consumed less
expensive food, while more non-participants
often (40%) did. About a third of the participants
(35%) never borrowed food but non-participants
(87.5%) did sometimes, often, or daily.
More non-participants bought food on credit
(77.5%) and relied on wild food (87.5%) than
participants (62.5% and 80%, respectively).
Similarly, more non-participants (80%) reduced
the amount of food consumed during meals
than participants (67.5%). Finally, almost an
equal number of non-participants (47.5%) and
participants (40%) went through a day without
food; although 60 percent of participants and
52.5 percent of non-participants never had to
use this food adjustment measure.
One of the reasons for these results might
be that many poor farmers joined the gono-
gobeshana.
Challenges
The participants also described some
constraints of the gono-gobeshona approach.
First, the intervention did not have any structured
participatory monitoring and evaluation
mechanism to measure overall progress. So,
corrective measures were rarely undertaken.
Second, some members of the group alleged
domination and bias in their leader. During
the crisis period, the extremely needy were
sometimes excluded from the share of rice from
the rice bank. In fact, the amount of rice stored
in the bank was inadequate, but fair distribution
could at least fulll the main objective of
Table 1. Food adjustment measures used by respondents
Food
Adjustment
Strategy
Participants Non-participants
Never Sometimes Often Daily Never Sometimes Often Daily
Less expensive
food
27.50 42.50 25 5 17.50 22.50 40 20
Borrowed food 35 32.50 27.50 5 12.50 30 40 17.50
Bought food on
credit
37.50 35 25 2.50 22.50 30 35 12.50
Wild food 20 35 35 10 12.50 32.50 42.50 12.50
Reduced food
amount
32.50 42.50 15 10 20 47.50 22.50 10
Went through
a day without
eating
60 22.50 12.50 5 52.50 25 17.50 5
Case Study of a Program Participant
45 years old, wife of agricultural laborer,
lives in Hori Mondir, Poschim Para, Laxmichap
My family size is large, consisting of ve members, maintaining 0.61 acres of land in the
highland area. We struggle every day for our existence. We cultivate tobacco and rice during
the boro and aman seasons on that small piece of land. Aman rice cultivation is difcult often
because of the uncertainty of rainfall and unavailability of surface water. Boro rice is also not
cost effective. In terms of total production, we could only meet half of the year’s need. As
a result, my husband and teenaged children have to work as wage laborers. We could not
maintain the family expenses well and my husband was forced to abandon my only son’s
schooling to cut down on the family’s expenses.
During the past crisis days, a researcher from the Research Initiatives Bangladeshspoke
about the value of gono-gobeshona (farmer-led action research). Initially, I was confused. I
shared the information with my husband but he did not give much importance. As my husband
was reluctant about it, I thought about the idea critically and nally joined Hori Mondir Para, a
gono-gobeshona group for women. When I shared a key part of the discussion to my husband,
he listened to everything. I informed him about the early maturing seeds, direct seeding, and
its implementation process but he refused to accept my suggestion. He went for the traditional
variety and had the same result as in the past. That aman season, some of my friends adopted
the technology and found it benecial. Soon after this, my husband joined the gono-gobshona
group for men and participated in the fortnightly meetings.
In the following aman season we cultivated BRRI Dhan33 rice, a short-duration rice variety,
on 0.24 acre of land following the traditional transplanting method. Although we wanted to
use the one-pass power-tiller-operated seeder (PTOS), we could not do so due to the heavy
rainfall during the sowing period. We harvested 400 kilograms of rice from the plot and sold it
for a total amount of BDT 8,000 (USD 100). The cost of production was only BDT 3,200 (about
USD 40). After harvesting rice, we planted cabbage and earned BDT 8,000 (USD 100) with
a production cost of only BDT 4,000 (USD 50). We then produced maize and earned BDT
5,200 (USD 65) with a production cost of only BDT 2,500 (about USD 31.3). For that year,
we earned a net BDT 10,500 (about USD 131.25) from 0.24 acres. The next year, we adopted
the rice–wheat–jute cropping pattern and found it benecial. Following these crop succession
we had solvency within two years and could offer adequate food to our children. From our
earnings, my husband put up a bicycle workshop and we were able buy additional 0.04 acre
of land.
Now, my husband and I jointly make decisions on production and other household matters.
Interestingly, I received recognition from my husband and neighbors, and could now exercise
more power in my family and I am even called to settle informal judiciary matters for my
neighbors.
I think, gono-gobeshona teaches us how to work collectively in the family.
88 M.D. Pasa, M.M. Rahman, C.P. Diaz, S.N. Maksurat, F.G. Palis, and P.A. Custodio
the bank. Third, many could not adequately
learn from the training because of the lecture-
based training approach. Often, the training
participants were not able to participate equally
in the training session but the trainer often
ignored the issue. Although the gono-gobeshona
group addressed this issue to the management,
their concern was not acted upon. The number
of trainings were also too few to cover the
large number of expected participants. Fourth,
technologies such as EMVs did not consider
share croppers’ and contract farmers’ limited
freedom who could not negotiate adequately
with the land owners because the required land
for contract farming and share cropping was
higher than the available land. The existence
of the land bank ameliorated the problem for
only a few because of its small size. Finally, a
national issue (i.e., unfair pricing of crops and
agriculture inputs) was left unaddressed by the
gono-gobeshona group because of its limited
organizational capacity.
DISCUSSION
The farmer-led action research, was found
to be very promising. The results showed that
gono-gobeshona encouraged more husbands
and wives to make decisions jointly. It should
be noted that wives of gono-gobeshona
households were at least informed about what
their husbands wanted to do. They consider
this an improvement as their husband did not
usually inform them in the past, much less
accommodated their voices in decision making.
Many contemporary studies, however, still show
women’s lack of participation in production and
technology adoption decisions (US Department
of State 2011; Rahman and Routray 1998).
Rathgeber (2011) argues that women’s
traditional knowledge was often based on
years of observation and experimentation in
the eld. It should be seen as a starting point
for the introduction of new technologies. The
gono-gobeshona approach not only addresses
the women from the very beginning of the
group formation but also ensures women’s
participation in every aspect of learning and
dissemination of technologies. Again, critical
discussion covers diverse areas from agricultural
production to social, familial, and human rights
issues. Surely, the production decision was not
an isolated aspect, but embedded with other
aspects of life. So, knowledge on updated
technologies and social awareness enhance
negotiation power while making decisions.
Similarly, Zepeda and Castillo (1997) found
that farm technology decisions cannot be
viewed as isolated decisions but as part of an
overall household strategy as most farms are
family businesses.
Women’s successful participation in
technology adoption and in production
decisions has positive outcomes in scaling up
production (US Department of State 2011),
raising women’s self-condence (Rathgeber
2011), and enhancing well-being. The
Agriculture Empowerment Index (USAID
2011) clearly shows that women participants
are empowered because of the holistic approach
of gono-gobeshona. Their decision-making role
in production and their leadership role in the
community are increased.
In terms of coping with seasonal hunger,
fewer gono-gobeshona households employed
food adjustment measures. This indicates an
improvement in participants’ household food
status being augmented by their own production
and an increase in working opportunity.
Zug (2006) found that seasonal hunger
forced households to take various food coping
mechanisms in the same region. Alternative
income-generating activities are inadequate to
reduce their vulnerability. However, participants
of gono-gobeshona coped with seasonal hunger
with minor technical support from RIB by
improving food production and taking off-farm
jobs during the seasonal crisis period.
Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development, Vol. 12, No. 2 89
Gono-gobeshona speeds up the adoption
of EMVs and other technologies that lead to an
increase in cropping intensity and a reduction
in production cost. Rahman et al. (2008) shows
that the overall experience of farmers who
produce BRRI Dhan33, are very positive.
In another study, Majid et al (2010) found
that early harvest provides early food supply,
generates employment during monga period,
and increases cropping intensity.
Finally, the gono-gobeshona process
meets the features of sustainability. The gono-
gobeshona group is developed by utilizing
traditional social bonds such as kinship, peer
network, and friendship. Rathgeber (2011)
shows that in India, the uptake of groundnut
production technology is accelerated through
the kinship and formal networks, farmers’
groups, and self-help groups. The self-help
gono-gobeshona groups not only research on
the problem but also translate their ideas into
action. The group represents a symbol of unity
and cooperative action. Rathgeber (2011) also
argues that farmers’ groups are effective in
disseminating technologies, building a sense of
shared purpose, and enabling cooperative action
in sustainable natural resources management
and development.
Both males and females across social
positions have equal access to the group
operations. Everyone is welcome to be a
member and everyone has the chance to be a
leader of the group. Everyone is encouraged
to participate in joint activities. Reciprocal
network exists in relation to agriculture inputs.
Critical reection in group meetings reduces
one’s misconception about technologies. It
is found that old beliefs (Chi and Yamada
2002) and perception regarding technology
(Kshirsagar, 2002), often affects technology
adoption. Rathgeber (2011) further argues
that gender-sensitive participatory methods
can be important mechanisms for introducing
new technologies to women, but they are not
sufcient to guarantee self-sustained adoption
of new technologies. However, the gono-
gobeshona approach, assumed to be inclusive,
creates a possibility of self-sustained adoption
of new technology.
CONCLUSION
The gono-gobeshona approach does
matter in terms of production decisions and
food adjustment measures. Compared to non-
participants, more program participants make
joint household decisions in various aspects of
production. Wives from the participant group
are also considered authority gures. Moreover,
food status at the household is improved more
among the participant group than the non-
participant group. Finally, because of initiative
and participatory activities the gono-gobeshana
approach was considered sustainable. Farmers
across social positions have equal access to the
self-help action research group and participate
in its functions. Women, equally with men,
engage in all gono-gobeshona activities
including technology adoption. Thus, by
minimizing some aws of the approach, such as
power differentials among groups, it could be
replicated for agriculture technology adoption
in general. The government may consider this
approach in its agriculture policies and plans.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The study was conducted by the collaborative
effort between the International Rice Research
Institute, which provided nancial support, and
the Department of Anthropology, University of
Rajshahi, Bangladesh.
90 M.D. Pasa, M.M. Rahman, C.P. Diaz, S.N. Maksurat, F.G. Palis, and P.A. Custodio
REFERENCES
Akinnagbe, O.M., and A.R. Ajayi. 2010. “Challenges
of Farmer-led Extension Approaches in Nigeria.”
World Journal of Agricultural Sciences 6 (4):
353–359.
BBS (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics). 2005.
“Income, Expenditure & Poverty.” Accessed
November 10, 2012. http://www.bbs.gov.bd/
PageWebMenuContent.aspx?MenuKey=366
———. 2010. “Income, Expenditure & Poverty.”
Accessed November 10, 2012. http://
www.bbs.gov.bd/PageWebMenuContent.
aspx?MenuKey=366
Zepeda, L., and M. Castillo. 1997. “The Role of
Husbands and Wives in Farm Technology
Choice.” American Journal of Agricultural
Economics 79: 583–588.
Dontsop-Nguezet, P.M., A. Diagne, V.O. Okoruwa,
and V. Ojehomon. 2011. “Impact of Improved
Rice Technology on Income and Poverty among
Rice Farming Households in Nigeria: A Local
Average Treatment Effect (LATE) Approach.”
In Contributed Papers Presented at the 25th
Conference of the Centre for the Studies of
African Economies (CSAE). London: Oxford
University.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations). 2004. Consultation Meeting Report.
Bangkok, Thailand: FAO Regional Ofce for
Asia and the Pacic.
———. 2010. The State of Food and Agriculture 2010.
Rome: FAO.
———. 2011. The State of Food and Agriculture 2011.
Rome: FAO.
Kshirsagar, K.G., S. Pandey, and M.R. Bellon. 2002.
“Farmer Perceptions, Varietal Characteristics and
Technology Adoption: A Rainfed Rice Village
in Orissa.” Economic and Political Weekly 37:
1239–1246.
Kumar, S.K. 1987. “Women’s Role and Agricultural
Technology.” In Accelerating Food Production
in Sub-Saharan Africa edited by John Mellor,
Christopher L. Delgado, and Malcolm J.
Blackie,135–147. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Ragasa, C. (2012). “Gender and Institutional Dimensions
of Agricultural Technology Adoption: A Review
of Literature and Synthesis of 35 Case Studies.”
Paper presented at the International Association
of Agricultural Economists (IAAE) Triennial
Conference, Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil.
Rahman, M.S., E. Haque., M.K Ali, Z. Alam, and T.
Nazim. 2012. “Farmer’s Response towards
the Cultivation of BRRI Dhan 33 to Mitigate
Monga.” Bangladesh Research Publication
Journal 5 (1): 42–51
Rahman, M.S., M.E. Hague, M.K. Ali, M.A. Rashid,
and M.H.A. Amin. 2008. “Study on Relative
Protability of BRRI Dhan33 over BR11 for
Monga Mitigation in Greater Rangpur Region.”
Journal of Innovation and Development Strategy
2 (3): 65–70.
Rahman, S., and J.K. Routray. 1998. “Technological
Change and Women’s Participation in Crop
Production in Bangladesh.” Gender, Technology
and Development 2 (2): 243–267.
Rathgeber, E.M. 2011. Rural Women’s Access to
Science and Technology in the Context of
Natural Resource Management. Paper presented
at the Expert Group Meeting Enabling Rural
Women’s Economic Empowerment: Institutions,
Opportunities and Participation, Accra, Ghana,
September 20–23.
USAID (United States Agency for International
Development). 2011a. Agriculture Technology
Adoption and Food Security in Africa Evidence
Summit Event Brief. Washington, D.C.: USAID.
US Department of State. 2011. Women and Agriculture:
Improving Global Food Security. Washington,
D.C.: US Department of State.
Mazumder, M., S. Ullah, and L. Wencong. 2012.
“Monga Vulnerability in the Northern Part of
Bangladesh.” African Journal of Agricultural
Research 7 (3): 358–366.
WFP (World Food Program). 2012. “Food Security at
a Glance.” Accessed November 10, 2012. http://
www.foodsecurityatlas.org/bgd/country/food-
security-at-a-glance
Chi, T.T.N., and R. Yamada. 2002. “Factors Affecting
Farmers’ Adoption of Technologies in Farming
System: A Case Study in Omon District, Can
Tho Province, Mekong Delta.” Omonrice 10:
94–100.
Zug, S. 2006. “Monga-seasonal Food Insecurity in
Bangladesh: Bringing the Information Together.”
Journal of Social Studies-Dhaka 111: 21.
