Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Integrated Management of Coastal Zone for Food Security
Final Report CF # 5/07
By
B. K. Bala, Principal InvestigatorMd. Anower Hossain, Ph D Research Fellow
Department of Farm Power and MachineryBangladesh Agricultural University
March 2009
This study was carried out with the support of the
National Food Policy Capacity Strengthening Programme
ii
This study was financed under the Research Grants Scheme (RGS) of the National Food Policy Capacity Strengthening Programme (NFPCSP). The purpose of the RGS was to assist in improving research and dialogue within civil society so as to inform and enrich the implementation of the National Food Policy. The NFPCSP is being implemented by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Food Planning and Monitoring Unit (FPMU), Ministry of Food and Disaster Management with the financial support of EU and USAID.
The designation and presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of FAO nor of the NFPCSP, Government of Bangladesh, EU or USAID and reflects the sole opinions and views of the authors who are fully responsible for the contents, findings and recommendations of this report.
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Costal Zone is most frequently defined as land affected by its proximity to the sea and that
part of the sea affected by its proximity to the land or, in other words, the areas where the
processes which depend on the sea-land interactions are the most intensive. The coastal
zone of Bangladesh is 47,203 km2 and it is roughly 32% of the whole country. According to
2001 population census, total population of Bangladesh is 123.15 millions. Of which 35.1
millions live in coastal area and it is approximately 28% of the total population of
Bangladesh.
The coastal zone of Bangladesh is rich in natural resources offering many tangible and
intangible benefits to the nation. Excessive fishing and over exploitation of coastal
resources, water quality deterioration, mangrove destruction for aquaculture and conversion
of agricultural land into aquaculture pond are the major problems which need to be
managed on a priority basis.
Integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) consists of the population, crop production,
aquaculture and forestry with two unique features of food security and environmental
degradation (ecological footprint). There is lack of integration of environmental
consideration in the integrated coastal zone management of Bangladesh. The problem can
not be solved in isolation, an integrated and systems approach is needed. For clear
understanding of this complex system before its implementation, it must be modeled and
simulated.
The purposes of this study are: (i) to estimate the present status of the contribution of
expanding population, decreasing agriculture, expanding aquaculture for shrimp farming
and forests to food security and ecological factor, (ii) to develop a computer model to
simulate integrated coastal zone management systems for sustainable development and (iii)
to determine the management strategies for sustainable development of the coastal zone
system.
To address the food security and ecological footprint, an indicator of environmental
sustainability of the coastal zones of Bangladesh, nine upazilas of the coastal zones in the
five districts of Bangladesh were selected and data on population, crop production,
aquaculture, livestock and forestry were collected to estimate the present status of the food
security and environmental degradation of the coastal zones of Bangladesh from upazila
office of Government Department of Statistics, Agriculture, Fishery and Livestock. A
typical village named Baraikhali was selected from Dacop upazila of Khulna district to find
iv
out the individual household food security status. Total number of household of the village
was 182. The collected data and information were compiled, edited, summarized and
analyzed and the present status of food security and environmental degradation (in terms of
ecological footprint) were determined.
A quantitative method for computation of food security in grain equivalent based on
economic returns (price) is developed. Ecological footprint was computed based on a
method of measuring sustainable development in terms of ecological footprint developed by
Wackernagel and Rees (1996) and Chambers, et al. (2000) is used. The food security and
ecological footprint of the coastal zone of Bangladesh are estimated and a database has been
prepared.
This research shows that the overall status of food security at upazila levels is good for all
the upazilas (8.53% to 164.19%) except Shoronkhola (-23.65%), Shyamnager (-6.08%) and
Morrelgonj (-30.29%), and the best is the Kalapara upazila (164.19%). But status of food
security at household levels is poor. The environmental status in the coastal zones is poor
for all the upazilas ( -0.5076 to -0.027) except Kalapara (+0.306) and Galachipa (+0.322)
and the worst is the Mongla upazila (-0.5076). The environmental status in the coastal zones
has degraded mainly due to shrimp culture.
A system dynamics model of integrated management of coastal zone for food security has
been developed. This model predicts that expanding shrimp aquaculture industry ensures
high food security at upazila levels with increasing environmental degradation.
The model also predicts that if shrimp aquaculture industry continues to boom from the
present status to super intensive shrimp aquaculture, a collapse of the shrimp aquaculture
industry will ultimately occur turning shrimp aquaculture land neither suitable for shrimp
culture nor crop production.
The control of growth of the shrimp production intensity stabilizes the system at least in the
short run. The control of population and growth of thee shrimp production intensity should
be considered for stabilization of the system in the long run. The sustainable development of
the coastal zone of Bangladesh in the long run without control of both the growth of shrimp
production intensity and population will remain mere dream.
It is now high time to design an integrated management system for the coastal zones of
Bangladesh for sustainable development. This model can be used to assist the policy
planners to asses different policy issues and to design a policy for sustainable development
of the coastal zones of Bangladesh.
v
The boost up of coastal agriculture and restriction on rapid growth of shrimp culture and its
intensity to reduce ecological footprints are two pathways for sustainable development of
food security in the coastal zones of Bangladesh. This study examines the short term and
long term policy options for sustainable food security.
A computer simulation based on system dynamics methodology is developed to provide an
understanding of how things have been changed with time and this approach has been
adopted to simulate the highly complex coastal zone management system. But there is
another approach called multi agent system which focuses more on stakeholder’s
interactions and it is an emerging sub-field of artificial intelligence. Furthermore, a
successful sustainable development requires coastal zone management be carried out in a
participatory approach. An artificial society of primary coastal zone actors are to be built
using multi agent system approach for developing scenarios to increase the sustainability of
the coastal zone management. Certainly the food security and ecological footprint will be
the indicators of the sustainability. Such a study is recommended for management of
successful sustainable development on a rational basis
vi
Table of Contents
Sl.
No.
TitlePage
No.
Executive summery ii
Table of contents v
List of tables vi
List of figures
Nomenclature
vii
1 Introduction 1
2 Materials and methods 11
2.1 Computation of food security 13
2.2 Computation of ecological footprint and. biocapacity 15
2.3 Modeling of integrated coastal zone management 17
2.4 Policy options 22
3 Results and discussion 24
3.1 Food security and ecological footprint at upazila level 24
3.2 Simulated scenarios 36
4 Key findings 43
5 Policy implications and recommendations 44
6 Areas of further research 45
7 Conclusions 46
Acknowledgements 47
References 48
Appendices 54
vii
List of Tables
Table
No.
TitlePage
No.1 Selected upazilas from exposed coastal zone 11
2 Daily balance food requirement 14
3 Major cropping pattern and cropping intensity of different upazilas 24
4 Major crop and fish area of of different upazilas 25
5 Ecological footprint, bio-capacity and ecological status of 52 countries in the world
34
6 The present status of food security and ecological status of nine upazilas of the coastal zones of Bangladesh at a glance.
34
viii
List of Figures
Fig.
No.
TitlePage
No.
1 Map of the coastal zone of Bangladesh 12
2 Structure of food security computation 15
3 Structure of ecological footprint computation 16
4 Structure of biological capacity computation 17
5 Interrelationships of integrated coastal zone management systems 18
6 Simplified flow diagram of integrated coastal zone management system
19
7 STELLA flow diagram of the integrated coastal zone management system
20-22
8 Growth patterns for different policy options 23
9 Population in 2007 of different upazila 26
10 Rice production of different upazila 27
11 Shrimp production of different upazila 27
12 Food sortage/surplus of different upazila 28
13 Self sufficiency ratio of rice of different upazila 28
14 Food security status of different upazila 29
15 Contributions of crop and fish to food security 29
16 Percent ecological distribution of six upazilas of Khulna region 30
17 Percent ecological distribution of three upazilas of Barisal region 31
18 Ecological footprint of different upazila 32
19 Biological capacity of different upazila 32
20 Ecological status of different upazila 33
21 Ecological status from crop and fish of different upazila 33
22 Household food security status in the village Baraikhali 35
23 Percentage distribution of food security 35
24 Simulated population, food availability and food security of Dacop upazila.
36
25 Simulated pond area bagda, crop area and shrimp production bagda of Dacop upazila.
37
26 Simulated ecological footprint, biocapacity and ecological status of Dacop upazila.
37
27 (a) Simulated food security status of Dacop upazila for different options 38
ix
Contd.
Fig.
No.
TitlePage
No.
27 (b) Simulated ecological footprint of Dacop upazila for different options 39
(c) Simulated ecological status of Dacop upazila for different options 39
28 (a) Simulated population, food security and food available of Dacop for120 years
40
(b) Simulated pond area bagda, shrimp production and crop area of Dacop for120 yrs
40
(c) Simulated ecological footprint , biocapacity and ecological status of Dacop for120 years
41
29 (a) Simulated population, food security and food availability of Dacop under control of both normal growth and population for a period of 120 years
42
(b) Simulated pond area bagda, shrimp production and crop area of Dacop under control of both normal growth and population for a period of 120 years.
42
(c) Simulated ecological footprint, biocapacity and ecological status of Dacop under control of both normal growth and population for a period of 120 years.
43
x
Nomenclature
BBS Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics
BC Biological Capacity ( Bio-Capacity)
BRRI Bangladesh Rice Research Institute
DoF Department of Fisheries
EEF Emergetic Ecological Footprint
EF Ecological Footprint
ES Ecological Status
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization
FS Food Security
GDP Gross Domestic Product
gha Global hectare
ha Hectare
ha/cap Hectare/capita
ICZM Integrated coastal zone management
IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
INFS Institute of Nutrition and Food Science
km Kilometer
MOFL Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock
NACA Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia Pacific
NPV Net Present Value
NSF Non-Sufficient Food
PDO-ICZMP Program Development Office for Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
RDRS Rangpur Dinajpur Rural Service
SF Sufficient Food
SRF Sunderban Reserve Forest
SSR Self Sufficiency Ratio
USDA United State Department of Agriculture
WHO World Health Organization
1
1. Introduction
Costal Zone is most frequently defined as land affected by its proximity to the sea and that
part of the sea affected by its proximity to the land or, in other words, the areas where the
processes which depend on the sea-land interactions are the most intensive. Coastal zone
always include floodplains, mangroves, marshes, and fringing coral reefs. In general, there
are tide flats, as well as beaches and dunes, and multiple aerial foci for ICZM (Integrated
Coastal Zone Management).
The coastal zone of Bangladesh is rich in natural resources offering many tangible and
intangible benefits to the nation. Excessive fishing and over exploitation of coastal
resources, water quality deterioration, mangrove destruction for aquaculture and conversion
of agricultural land into aquaculture pond are the major problems which need to be
managed on a priority basis (Banglapedia, 2003).
The total area of Bangladesh is 147,570 km2. Of which coastal zone is 47,203 km2 and it is
roughly 32% of the whole country. According to 2001 population census, total population
of Bangladesh is 123.15 millions. Of which 35.1 millions live in coastal area and it is
approximately 28% of the total population of Bangladesh.
Out of 2.85 million ha of coastal cultivable land in Bangladesh about 1.0 million ha of
arable land are affected by varying degrees of salinity and most of these lands remain fallow
in dry season (Karim et al. 1990). Out of 1.0 million ha of saline area, 0.38 million ha are in
Khulna, 0.22 million ha in Patuakhali, 0.11 million ha in Chittagong and the rest are in
Barisal and Noakhali regions. For crop production in coastal zone crop
selection/development of saline resistant variety and management practices are essential for
maximum benefit.
In coastal zone, T. Aman rice is mainly cultivated depending on rainfall and the later part
sometimes supplemental irrigation is applied during September to October from the low
salinity river water sources and the land remains fallow due to salinity development and
scarcity of irrigation water during the rest periods of the year. The present cropping pattern
in the coastal zone is mostly T. Aman- Fallow- Fallow. Occasionally in few areas, T. Aman-
Rabi crops - Fallow is followed. Cropping intensity in the coastal areas is low compared to
other part of the country. This is due to unfavorable soil and land characteristics like
salinity, flood, water logging, late drainage condition, scarcity of irrigation water, acidity,
low fertility status, cyclonic storm surges etc.
2
It is estimated that about 0.25 million ha of land has a good potential for coastal aquaculture
(Ahmed, 1995). Out of that, about 0.18 million ha of land area is suitable for shrimp culture
(Khan and Hossain, 1996). Coastal aquaculture increased from 20,000 ha in 1994 – 1995 to
135,000 ha in 1996–1997, and production from 4000 to 35,000 metric tons in the same
period (MOFL, 1997). Shrimp aquaculture in the coastal zones is expanding rapidly and
agricultural lands are converted into aquaculture ponds. Shrimp areas in Bangladesh have
already expanded from 51812 ha in 1983 to 137996 ha in 1994 and to 141353 in 2002
causing environmental degradation in the coastal zone (DoF, 1995, 2003). The rapid
expansion of shrimp farm development during the last decade along with the adoption of
extensive and improved extensive culture techniques has caused growing concern as to its
adverse effect on the coastal environment and damage to the traditional agricultural
systems. The socioeconomic scenarios have changed rapidly.
Brackish water shrimp farming has altered the physical, ecological (aquatic and terrestrial)
and socioeconomic environment. The practice of shrimp culture needs saline water as an
input to the shrimp pond. Sluice gates are normally allowed to open two or three times when
the salinity in the shrimp pond decreases and saline-water exchange from the river is
necessary. As a result, heavy sedimentation from upstream water settles in the riverbed and
canal bed, causing waterlogging in the shrimp ponds and on agricultural land. The shrimp-
processing depot and industry drain their pollutants into the river, causing water pollution.
Water in the shrimp ponds is also polluted because of the application of feed and fertilizer
for the development of the shrimp. Thus, the by-products of the shrimp ponds and shrimp
industry pollute water and soil and degrade the quality of the overall environment.
Vegetation, crops, fish and livestock are seriously damaged by the process of shrimp
cultivation.
The coastal region, especially the southwestern portion (Satkhira, Khulna and Bagerhat), is
one of the most promising areas for shrimp cultivation for two major reasons (MOFL,
1997): first, its fresh- and saline-water resources are abundant in almost all seasons; second,
the world’s largest continuous mangrove forest, the Sundarbans, provides a food source and
nursery for the offshore fishery. The mangrove forests provide a critical habitat for shrimp
and other fish. Most of the shrimp culture being practiced is by the extensive and improved
extensive methods known as gher culture. Gher means an enclosed area characterised by an
encirclement of land along the banks of tidal rivers. Dwarf earthen dikes and small wooden
sluice boxes control the free entrance of saline water into the enclosed areas. In the gher, the
sluice gates are opened from February to April to allow the entry of saline water containing
3
a wide variety of fish fry and shrimp postlarvae that have grown naturally to the juvenile
stage in the adjacent sea and estuarine waters. This practice of natural stocking is being
progressively replaced by artificial stocking of the ghers with only the young of specific
desired species of shrimp.
Aquaculture at coastal agricultural lands has adverse effects on environment and crop and
animal production. The entry of seawater for aquaculture causes salinization of land and
groundwater thereby affecting the productivity of agricultural crops (Akteruzzaman, 2004).
The pumping of groundwater for agriculture leads to intrusion of soluble salts into aquifers
and salinity gradually builds up in the soil. Remote sensing studies in Thailand indicate that
3444 ha area of shrimp ponds caused salinization of 1168 ha of agricultural lands mostly
rice fields (NACA, 1994).
Forest in coastal zone plays an important role in maintaining the global system in balance
and these forests are also the largest carbon sink above the soil. Deforestation for fuel wood
for cooking has adverse effect on both people and the environment, including degradation
of surrounding ecosystems, reduced crop yields, loss of biodiversity, reduced timber supply,
flooding, siltation, soil degradation and climate irregularities (De Souza et al. 2003).
Furthermore, Forest coverage in the coastal zone is below the world average.
Sunderban is located in the coastal zone of Bangladesh and it is the largest productive
mangrove forest in the world. The Sunderban Reserve Forest (SRF) comprises 45 percent of
the productive forest of the country, contributing about one-half of forest-related revenue
and is an important source of wood and non-wood resources (Hussain and Karim, 1994).
The coastal zone is relatively income-poor compared to the rest of the country. Average per
capita GDP (at current market price) in the coastal zone was Tk 18,198 in 1999-2000,
compared to Tk 18,291 outside the coastal zone (BBS, 2002). Extent of poverty in terms of
calorie intake is relatively high in the coastal zone, where 52 percent people are poor and 25
percent are extreme poor. Corresponding figures for Bangladesh are 49 and 23 percent
respectively. (PDO-ICZMP, 2003)
The other special features of the coastal zone is its multiple vulnerabilities out of periodic
cyclone and storm surges, salinity intrusion, erosion, pollution, and overall lack of physical
infrastructure. Coastal natural-resource uses reflect primarily subsistence agriculture with an
emphasis on food production, e. g. paddy rice along with some cash crops and coastal
fisheries, which provide a major food and income source. Also important, in some areas, is
4
aquaculture with an emphasis on shrimp production for the export market, and some salt
production for domestic needs.
Food security is a worldwide problem that has called the attention to Governments and the
scientific community. It particularly affects developing countries. The scientific community
has had increasing concerns for strategic understanding and implementation of food security
policies in developing countries, especially since the food crisis in the 70s. The process of
decision-making is becoming increasingly complex due to the interaction of multiple
dimensions related to food security (Giraldo et al., 2008).
Food security is a social sustainabilty indicator and most commonly used indicators in the
assessment of food security conditions are food production, income, total expenditure, food
expenditure, share of expenditure of food, calorie consumption and nutritional status etc.
(Riely et al., 1999). Accounting tools for quantifying food secuirty are essential for
assessment of food security status and also for policy planning for sustainable development.
Ecological footprint is an ecological stability indicator. The theory and method of
measuring sustainable development with the ecological footprint was developed during the
past decade (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996 and Chambers, et al., 2000). The Ecological
Footprint is a measurement of sustainability illustrating the reality of living in a world with
finite resources and it is a synthetic indicator used to estimate a population’s impact on the
environment due to its consumption; it quantifies total terrestrial and aquatic area necessary
to supply all resources utilized in sustainable way and to absorb all emissions produced
always in a sustainable way. Apart from analyzing the present situation, ecological foot
print provides framework of sustainability planning in the public and private scale.
Accounting tools for quantifying humanity’s use of nature are essential for assessment of
human impact and also for policy planning towards a sustainable future. Many pertinent
questions pertinent to build a sustainable society can be addressed by using ecological
footprint as indicator. This tool has evolved from largely being pedagogical use to become a
strategic tool for policy analysis.
Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) is an internationally accepted approach for
achieving sustainable development. Coastal area is the different from the rest of the country
and an ICZM program is needed. The natural resources of the coastal areas are as different
from their terrestrial counterparts as to require different and special forms of management.
Coastal areas are important ecologically, as they provide a number of environmental goods
5
and services. Coastal areas frequently contain critical terrestrial and aquatic habitats, such as
the mangrove forests, wetlands and tidal flats.
Integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) consists of the population, crop production,
aquaculture and forestry with two unique features of food security and environmental
degradation (ecological footprint). There is a need to assess the present status of food
security and environmental degradation (ecological footprint) of the coastal zone of
Bangladesh to find out the leaverge points and also to explore management scenarios of
integrated coastal zone management system for policy planning.
Dynamic behaviour of physical system can be studied by experimentation. Sometimes it
may be expensive and time consuming. Full scale experimentation of integrated coastal
zone management system is neither possible nor feasible. Most inexpensive and less time
consuming method is to use mathematical model or computer model.
Integrated coastal zone management system is a highly complex system containing
biological, agricultural, aquacultural, environmental, technological, and socio-economic
components. The problem can not be solved in isolation, an integrated and systems
approach is needed. For clear understanding of this complex system before its
implementation, it must be modeled and simulated. System Dynamics, a methodology for
constructing computer model for dynamic and complex systems, is the most appropriate
technique to model such a complex system
There is a need to develop a dynamic model to explore management scenarios of policy
planning and management of integrated coastal zone management system (Iftekhar, 2006
and Klinger, 2004). This type of integrated study in the field of coastal zone management is
relatively new in Bangladesh. Therefore, a dynamics of integrated costal zone management
need to be studied in the Khulna-Barisal region for a sustainable management of food
production, ecology and environment aiming to alleviate the poverty of coastal population
and ensure food security.
Objectives of the study
Rapid conversion of agricultural lands into agricultural ponds and the growth of penaeid
shrimp culture are considered to increase the food security with increased environmental
degradation of the coastal zones in Bangladesh. Also boom and burst of shrimp culture
work against agriculture and aquaculture in the long run (Arquitt. et al, 2005). Farmers in
the coastal zones are also in panic for the long term consequences of shrimp culture. The
6
purpose of this research is to examine the present status of food security and environmental
degradation; address the short term and long term policy options for sustainable food
security to assist the policy planners to design the policies for enhancing food security
improving agriculture and aquacultural technology and at the same time reducing the
environmental degradation in the challenging years ahead and also recommend the policies
for sustainable food security.
Specific objectives are:
a) To estimate the present status of the contribution of expanding population, decreasing
agriculture, expanding aquaculture for shrimp farming and forests to food security and
ecological factor.
b) To develop a computer model to simulate integrated coastal zone management systems
for sustainable development.
c) To determine the management strategies for sustainable development of the coastal zone
system.
7
2. Review of Literature
Many studies have been reported on food security, ecological factor and management and
modeling of integrated coastal zone management. Some studies on food security, an
indicator of social stability, ecological footprint, an indicator of ecological stablility and
previous efforts on management and modeling of coastal zone management systems are
critically examined under the subheadings of food security ecological footprint and
integrated coastal zone management.
Food security
Per capita food availability in Bangladesh has declined from 458 g/day in 1990/1991 to 438
g/day in 1998/1999 while per capita fish intake has decreased from 11.7 kg/year in 1972 to
7.5 kg/year in 1990 (Begum, 2002). Also vegetables, the major dietary source of vitamin A,
meet only 30 percent of recommended minimum needs.
Food security and hunger focusing on concentration and trend of poverty, pattern of
household food consumption and causes of food insecurity and hunger have also been
reported and the key findings are demographic and socio-economic conditions of the ultra
poor, extent and trend of poverty in Bangladesh, food consumption pattern and level of food
insecurity and hunger of the ultra poor and the causes of food insecurity and hunger (RDRS,
2005).
FAO (1996a) defined the objective of food security as assuring to all human beings the
physical and economic access to the basic food they need. This implies three different
aspects: availability, stability and access. USDA evaluated food security based on the gap
between projected domestic food consumption and a consumption requirement (USDA,
2007).
Mishra and Hossain (2005) reported an overview of national food security situation and
identified key issues, challenges and areas of development in policy and planning; also
addressed the access and utilization of food and the issues of food and nutritional security.
During the last half century, a number of individuals and institutions have used models with
the aim of projecting and predicting global food security, focusing on the future demand for
food, supply and variables related to the food system at different levels (MacCalla and
Revoredo, 2001). The methodology used to develop the projections and predictions on food
relies on correlated models. Such methodology is controlled purely by data and do not give
insights into the causal relationships in the system. Several models have been developed to
8
address the food security (Diakosavvas and Green, 1998, Coxhead, 2000, Mohanty and
Peterson, 2005, Rosegrant et al., 2005, Holden et al., 2005, Shapouri and Rosen, 2006,
Ianchovichina et al., 2001, FAO, 1996b, Falcon et al., 2004).
System dynamics is a problem-oriented multidisciplinary approach that allows to identify,
to understand, and to utilize the relationship between behavior and structure in complex
dynamic systems. The underlying concept of the System Dynamics implies that the
understanding of complex system’s behavior -such as the national food insecurity- can only
be achieved through the coverage of the entire system rather than isolated individual parts.
Several models have been developed using the System Dynamics around the food security
(Bach and Saeed, 1992, Bala, 1999a, Gohara, 2001, Meadows, 1976, Meadows, 1977,
Quinn, 2002, Saeed, et al., 1983, Georgiadis et al., 2004 and Saeed, 2000). Bala (1999b)
reported an integrative vision of energy, food and environment applied to Bangladesh.
Self sufficiency ratio
Bangladesh achieved impressive gain in food grain production in the last two decades and
reached to near self-sufficiency at national level by producing about 26.76 million metric
tons of cereals, especially rice and wheat in 2001 (Hossain et al., 2002 and Ministry of
Finance, 2003). The Self Sufficiency ratio (SSR) calculated as per FAO’s method (FAO,
2001) was stood at 90.1 percent in 2001 and 91.4 percent in 2002. Estimates on food grain
gap and SSR reveal that Bangladesh has a food grain gap of one to two million metric tons
(Mishra and Hossain, 2005).
Based on the official and private food grain production and import figures the food grain
SSR for Bangladesh is gradually declining from 94.1 in 2000-2001 to 87.7 in 2004-2005
and lowest self-sufficiency rate in Bangladesh was in 2005, which could be attributed to the
crop damage during the severe flood in 2004(Mishra and Hossain, 2005).
PER PINSTRUP-ANDERSEN, Director General of IFPRI in his forward message claimed
that for many years Bangladesh depended heavily on food aid, but recently it has emerged
as a country approaching self-sufficiency in rice, the main staple food of its population
(IFPRI, 1998).
Ecological footprint
Wackernagel et al. (1999) developed a simple assessment framework for national and
global natural accounting and applied this technique to 52 countries and also to the world as
a whole. Out of these 52 countries, only 16 countries are ecologically surplus, 35 are
9
ecologically deficit including Bangladesh (0.2 gha/cap) and the rest one is ecologically
balance. The humanity as a whole has a footprint larger than the ecological carrying
capacity of the world. They also pointed out some strategies that can be implemented to
reduce footprint.
Monfreda et al. (2004) described computational procedure of Ecological Footprint and
Biological Capacity systematically with laps and gaps to eliminate potential errors. For the
meaningful comparison of the Ecological Footprint all biologically productive areas were
converted into the standardized common unit global hectares (gha).
Zhao et al. (2005) reported a modified method of ecological footprint calculation by
combining emergy analysis and compared their calculations with that of an original
calculation of ecological footprint for a regional case. Gansu province in western China
was selected for this study and this province runs ecologically deficit in both original and
modified calculation.
Medved (2006) reported ecological footprint of Slovenia and it was found that current
ecological footprint of Slovenia (3.85 gha/capita) exceeds the available biological
productive areas (2.55 gha/capita) and significantly exceeds the biological productive areas
of the planet (1.90 gha/capita).
Chen and Chen (2006) investigated the resource consumption of the Chinese society from
1981 to 2001 using ecological footprint and emergetic ecological footprint and suggested
using emergetic ecological footprint (EEF) to serve as a modified indicator of ecological
footprint (EF) to illustrate the resources, environment, and population activity, and thereby
reflecting the ecological overshoot of the general ecological system.
Bagliani et al. (2008) reported ecological footprint and bio-capacity as indicators to monitor
the environmental conditions of the area of Siena (Italian’s province). Among the notable
results, the Siena territory is characterized by nearly breakeven total ecological balance, a
result contrasting with the national average and most of the other Italian provinces.
Niccolucci et al. (2008) compared the ecological footprint of two typical Tuscan wines and
the conventional production system was found to have a footprint value almost double than
the organic production, mainly due to the agricultural and packing phases. These examples
suggest that viable means of reducing the ecological footprint could include organic
procedures, a decrease in the consumption of fuels and chemicals, and increase in the use of
recycled materials in the packing phase.
10
Integrated coastal zone management
Fabbri (1998) proposed a method and tool for improved decision aid in integrated coastal
zone management (ICZM) and discussed the advantage of implementing, in a spatial
decision support system, the most efficient strategies for data capture, integration, analysis
and modeling, for the assessment of impacts deriving from possible development scenarios.
The importance of integrating socio-economic and biophysical parameters in the context of
ICZM and the need to define environmental indicators on which decision-making processes
are based are also discussed.
Belt et al. (1998) applied computer modeling as a consensus building tool as part of the
development of the Patagonia Coastal Zone Management Plan (PCZMP) and the model
provides some interesting preliminary conclusions. The model indicates that the total net
present value (NPV) of the fisheries sector over a period of 40 years may be increased by
13% compared with current income, with a decrease in hake fishing levels by ≈50% and the
natural capital on which the fishery sector depends would be used in a more sustainable
way, both ecologically and economically. The model also simulates possible impacts of oil
spills and dumping of tanker ballast water on the penguin population which can have a
significant negative impact on tourist industry incomes. The model implies that the
importance of the tourist sector in Patagonia could in the future greatly exceed the value of
the fishing industry (by 29%).
Pedersen et al. (2005) examined the key problem of developing capacities for integrated
approaches to coastal zone management, especially in the context of newly industrialized
and developing countries. Through the discussion from an integrated coastal zone
management project in Malaysia it was learned that some practical approaches have to be
needed to develop capacities for acquiring and performing integrated approaches to the
management of the coastal zone.
Siry (2006) analyzed decentralized coastal zone management in two neighbouring countries,
Malaysia and Indonesia and discussed in details significant differences in the pattern of
coastal zone management in these two countries. The lessons learnt from this study provide
insight in how far decentralized coastal zone management has taken place in Malaysia and
Indonesia. Finally it was concluded that co-management and community- based approaches
can be appropriate in dealing with coastal zone management.
Chua et al. (2006) studied the dynamics of integrated coastal management (ICM) in China
and discussed the role of the interactions between the dynamic forces and essential elements
of ICM to address the environmental and management issues at the local level. The
11
tangible, intangible and socioeconomic issues were also addressed. It was concluded that
dynamism in integrated coastal management mobilizes significant benefits of intangible
assets.
Sonak et al. (2008) documented several issues involved in the recovery of tsunami-affected
areas in India and the application of the ICZM concept to the reconstruction efforts and
assessed of the damage caused by the tsunami and its impact on the coastal states of India.
The status of ecology such as: mangroves, coastal fisheries, agricultural lands and wet
lands, ground water etc. after affected by tsunami were also addressed. However, the
concept of ICZM (integrated coastal zone management) has been effectively used in most
parts of the world.
Cao and Wong (2007) identified and examined social-economic and environmental issues
recently emerged in China's coastal zone. They identified that Pollution from agriculture,
livestock, domestic and industrial sources, ecosystem degradation, coastal reclamation,
aquatic water depletion and coastal erosion are the main issues in the coastal zone of China.
Comprehensive coastal management in China is a big challenge, facing with many
difficulties and recommendations for tackling these issues for China's coastal zone
management have also been made.
Nguyen and Kok (2007) discussed the inherent complexity of the integrated systems model,
the philosophical debate about the model validity and validation; the uncertainty in model
inputs, parameters and future context and the scarcity of field data that complicate model
validation. Three tests, namely, Parameter-Verification, Behaviour-Anomaly and Policy-
Sensitivity to test the model for coastal-zone management were selected. To facilitate these
three tests Morris sensitivity analysis and Monte Carlo uncertainty analysis were performed.
Growing international demand for shrimp and stagnating catches of wild shrimp in the early
1980s created an opportunity for the development of export-oriented shrimp aquaculture
industries (Csavas, 1995). Robertson and Phillips (1995) reported that depending on the
shrimp pond management between 2 and 22 hectares of forest area are required to filter the
nitrogen and phosphorus loads from effluent produced by a 1hectare shrimp pond. Arquitt et
al. (2005) developed a system dynamics model to examine boom and burst in the shrimp
aquaculture industry in Thailand and suggested that a policy that taxes the industry and
rebates proceeds to licensed producers may help shift the system towards sustainability.
The assessment of present state of art of food security, ecological footprint and presnt status
of managemant and modeling of integrated coastal zone management prompted to develop a
new quantitative method of compuation of food security based on the USDA concept of the
12
definition of food secuirity to understand, design and implement food security policies
towards a sustainable future; to address environmental degradation in terms of ecological
footprint developed by Wackernagel and Rees (1996) and Chambers, et al. (2000) for
assessment of human impact and also for policy planning towards a sustainable future and
also to develop a computer model to explore management scenarios of policy planning and
management of integrated coastal zone management system.
13
3. Materials and Methods
Site selection
The coastal zone of Bangladesh covers 147 upazilas (sub-district) within 19 districts.
Further, a distinction has been made between upazilas facing the coast or the estuary and the
upazilas located behind them. A total of 48 upazilas in 12 districts that are exposed to the
sea and or lower estuaries, are defined as the exposed coast and the remaining 99 upazilas of
the coastal districts are termed interior coast. Exposed and interior coastal zones of
Bangladesh are indicated in the map of Bangladesh as shown in Fig. 1.
To address the food security and ecological footprint, an indicator of environmental
sustainability of the coastal zones of Bangladesh, nine upazilas of the coastal zones in the
five districts of Bangladesh were selected. Most of these upazilas have been seriously
affected by the recent super cyclone SIDR. The selected upazilas are given in Table 1 and
the selected upazilas are the representatives of the coastal zones of Bangladesh.
Table 1. Selected upazilas from exposed to the coastal zone of Bangladesh.
District Upazila
Patuakhali Kalapara, Galachipa
Borguna Patharghata
Satkhira Shyamnagar
Khulna Dacop, Koyra
Bagerhat Mongla,, Morrelgonj, Sharonkhola
Questionnaire development
To estimate the present status of the food security and ecological footprint of the integrated
coastal zone management systems two sets of questionnaire for primary and secondary data
collection were developed with emphasis on food security and environmental degradation
(ecological footprint). These are shown in Appendix A and B respectively. Two sets of
questionnaire were pre-tested and necessary improvement was made.
.
14
Fig. 1. Map of the coastal zone of Bangladesh
Exposed coast
Interior coast
15
Data collection
Data on population, crop production, aquaculture, livestock and forestry were collected to
estimate the present status of the food security and environmental degradation of the coastal
zones of Bangladesh from upazila office of Government Department of Statistics,
Agriculture, Fishery and Livestock. Purposeful random sampling was conducted for
primary data collection and four different categories of farm size were considered and these
are landless (<0.02 ha), small (0.02- 1.0 ha), medium (1.0-3.0 ha) and large (> 3.0 ha). Pre-
tested questionnaire was used for primary data collection from individual farmers with
emphasis on food security and ecological footprint. Primary data also served as a cross
check for the secondary data as well a measure to fill up the missing gaps in the secondary
data.
Collected data and information were compiled, edited, summarized and analyzed, and the
present status of food security and environmental degradation (in terms of ecological
footprint) were calculated. Database was prepared in Excel format separately for
computation of food security and ecological footprint from primary and secondary
information for the nine upazilas of the coastal zone of Bangladesh. Excel format permits
easy change or refinement of any data and the subsequent computation of food security and
ecological footprint for changed or refined data in the designed Excel computation mode
automatically. A database prepared for the nine upazilas of the coastal zone of
Bangladesh.are shown in Appendix C.
A typical village named Baraikhali was also selected from Dacop upazila of Khulna distict
to find out the individual household food security status. Data were collected from the all
households of the village using pre-designed questionnaire. Total number of households of
the village was 182.
3.1 Computation of food security
Food security is a situation in which people do not live in hunger or fear of starvation. Food
security exists when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food
to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life (FAO, 2002).
Food security for a household means access by all members at all times to enough food for
an active and healthy life. Food security includes at a minimum (1) the ready availability of
nutritionally adequate and safe foods, and (2) an assured ability to acquire acceptable foods
in socially acceptable ways (USDA,1999). USDA evaluated food security based on the gap
between projected domestic food consumption and a consumption requirement (USDA,
16
2007). All food aid commodities were converted into grain equivalent based on calorie
content. Based on USDA concept the food security is defined as
Food Security = (Food available from different sources and also equivalence food from
different sources - Food requirement) / Food requirement
Yusuf and Islam (2005) reported that the daily food requirement data of BBS (Bangladesh
Bureau of Statistics and INFS (Institute of Nutrition and Food Science) are not adequate and
consumption of such a diet would produce physiological deficiencies of both energy and
protein leading to protein-energy malnutrition as well as micronutrient malnutrition and
proposed a dietary composition for balanced nutrition in Bangladesh as shown in Table 2.
The total food intake proposed is 2345 kcal/cap and it is midway between the values
suggested by WHO (2310 kcal) and FAO (2400 kcal). The proposed 2345 kcal is equivalent
to 1.357 kg of rice based on price. All food aid commodities were converted into grain
equivalent based on economic returns (price) to compute the food security. Based on this
concept the food security is computed as
Food Security = ((Food available from crops + Food available from aquaculture and
equivalent food from income of aquaculture + Food available from livestock and equivalent
food from income of livestock + Food available from forestry and equivalent food from
income of forestry)– Total food requirement) / Total food requirement
Table 2. Daily balanced food requirement
SL. No.
Food Item Amount (gm)
Price (Tk. /kg)
Total price (Tk.)
Equi rice (kg)
kcal
1 Rice 312 26.60 8.30 0.312 10862 Wheat 60 28.00 1.68 0.063 2093 Pulse 66 55.00 3.63 0.136 2284 Animal products 126 110.00 13.86 0.521 1765 Fruits 57 30.00 1.71 0.064 416 Vegetables 180 12.00 2.16 0.081 1137 Potato 80 12.00 0.96 0.036 718 Oil 36 80.00 2.88 0.108 3249 Sugar and Gur 22 30.00 0.66 0.025 8810 Spices 14 20.00 0.28 0.011 09
Total 953 36.12 1.357 2345
17
Positive food security means surplus food and negative food security means shortage in
food supply to lead healthy life. The structure of food security computation is shown in Fig.
2.Pr
oduc
tion
fro
m d
iffe
rent
so
urce
s
CropIncome from
cropEquivalent rice (ton)
Tot
al in
com
e in
equ
ival
ent
rice
(to
n)
Food
req
uire
men
t in
equi
vale
nt r
ice
(ton
)
Food
sec
urit
y ra
tio
FishIncome from
fishEquivalent rice (ton)
÷ =
AnimalIncome from
animalEquivalent rice (ton)
ForestIncome from
forestEquivalent rice (ton)
Fig. 2. Structure of food security computation
Self Sufficiency Ratio (SSR) is calculated as per FAO’s method (FAO, 2001) to express
magnitude of production in relation to domestic utilization as well as food deficiency in the
country. SSR is defined as:
SSR = Production / (production + imports – exports)
3.2 Computation of ecological footprint and biological capacity
Ecological footprint represents the human demands, taking into accounts the production and
supply of resources (energy, food and materials) and assimilation of the wastes (in all
forms) generated by the analyzed system. Ecological footprint of a given population is the
total area of productive land and water required to produce all the resources (energy, food
and materials) consumed and to absorb the waste generated by that population of a region or
nation using prevailing technology and resource management practices. The ecological
footprint calculation is based on the average consumptions data are converted into uses of
productive lands. The bioproductive land is divided into 6 categories according to the
classification of the World Conservation Union: (1) cropland; (2) grazing land; (3) forest;
(4) fishing ground; (5) build-up land; (6) energy land.
Total ecological footprint is the sum of the ecological footprints of all categories of land
areas which provide for mutually exclusive demands on the bio-sphere. Each of these
categories represents an area in hectares, which is then multiplied by its equivalence factor
to obtain the footprint in global hectares. One global hectare is equal to 1 ha with
18
productivity equal to the avarage of all the productive ha of the world. Thus, one ha of
highly productive land is equal to more global hectares than 1 ha of less productive land.
The ecological footprint can be expressed as
Footprint (gha) = Area (ha) × Equivalence Factor (gha/ha)
whereEquivalence Factor = the world average productivity of a given bioproductive area / the
world average potential productivity of all bioproductive areas.
Equivalence factor represents the world average productivity of a given bioproductive area
relative to the world average potential productivity of all productive areas and it is the
quantity of global hectares contained within an average hectare of cropland, build-up land,
forest, pasture or fishery.
The structure of the computation of ecological footprint is shown in Fig. 3.
NE
T C
ON
SU
MP
TIO
N (
= p
rodu
ctio
n +
impo
rt -
expo
rt)
OF
R
EG
ION
crop yield [t/yr] /
global crop yield [t/ha/yr] ×
equivalence factor crops
[gha/ha]=
occupied crop area [gha]
TO
TA
L E
CO
LO
GIC
AL
FO
OT
PRIE
NT
OF
RE
GIO
N [
glob
al
hect
ares
or
gha]
animal products
[t/yr]/
global pasture yield [t/ha/yr] ×
equivalence factor pasture
[gha/ha]=
occupied pasture area
[gha]
fish products [t/yr] /
global fisheries yield [t/ha/yr] ×
equivalence factor fisheries
[gha/ha]=
occupied fisheries area
[gha]
forest products [m3/yr]
/global timber
yield [m3/ha/yr] ×
equivalence factor forest
[gha/ha]=
occupied forest area [gha]
build-up area [ha] ×
yield factor crop ×
equivalence factor crops
[gha/ha]=
occupied build-up area [gha]
energy [GJ/yr] /
fuel wood yield [GJ/ha/yr] ×
equivalence factor forest
[gha/ha]=
occupied energy area
[gha]
Fig. 3. Structure of ecological footprint computation
An important part of the ecological footprint analysis of a region or zone is represented by
the calculation of its Biological Capacity (Biocapacity) that takes into account the surfaces
of ecologically productive land located within the area under study. Biological capacity
represents the ecologically productive area that is locally available and it indicates the local
19
ecosystems potential capacity to provide natural resources and services. Biological capacity
is the total annual biological production capacity of a given biologically productive area.
Biological capacity can be expressed as
Biocapacity (gha) = Area (ha) × Equivalence Factor (gha/ha) × Yield factor
where Yield factor = Local yield/ global yieldTotal biocapacity is the sum of all bioproductive areas expressed in global hectares by
multiplying its area by the appropriate equivalence factor and the yield factor specific to
that country/locality. The structure of the computation of biocapacity is shown in Fig. 4.
Biological capacity can be compared with the ecological footprint, which prodides an
estimation of the ecological resources required by the local population. The ecological
status is expressed as the difference between biocapacity and eclogical footprint. A negative
ecological status (BC < EF) indicates that the rate of consumption of natural resources is
greater than the rate of production (regeneration) by local ecosystems (Rees, 1996). Thus,
an ecological deficit (BC < EF) or surplus (BC > EF) provides an estimation of a local
territory’s level of environmental sustainability or unsustainability. This also indicates how
close to sustainable development the specific area is.
TO
TA
L E
XIS
TIN
G A
RE
A O
F R
EG
ION
[he
ctar
es o
r ha
]
existing crop area [ha] × yield factor
crop ×equivalence factor crops
[gha/ha]=
equivalence crop area [gha]
TO
TA
L B
IOL
OG
ICA
L C
AP
AC
ITY
OF
RE
GIO
N
[glo
bal h
ecta
res
or g
ha]
existing pasture area
[ha]× yield factor
pasture ×equivalence
factor pasture [gha/ha]
=equivalence pasture area
[gha]
existing fisheries area
[ha]×
yield factor fisheries ×
equivalence factor fisheries
[gha/ha]=
equivalence fisheries area
[gha]
existing forest area [ha] × yield factor
forest ×equivalence factor forest
[gha/ha]=
equivalence forest area
[gha]
existing build-up area [ha] ×
yield factor crop ×
equivalence factor crops
[gha/ha]=
equivalence build -up area
[gha]
existing energ biomass
accumulation area [ha]
× yield factor forest ×
equivalence factor forest
[gha/ha]=
equivalence energy area
[gha]
Fig. 4. Structure of biological capacity computation
20
3.3 Modeling of integrated coastal zone management.
The integrated coastal zone management system consists of population, crop production,
aquaculture, forestry and ecological sector. These sub-models are integrated for sustainable
development. The system as a whole can be described in terms of interconnected blocks.
Block diagram representation of the integrated coastal zone management system is shown in
Fig. 5. The major influences to a sector from other sectors and its influences on the other
sectors are shown in the diagram. Crop area is converted into aquaculture pond area and the
shrimp production is highly dependent shrimp production intensity and pond area. Major
contributions to the food security of coastal zone come from the shrimp production and crop
production and the environmental degradation i.e. ecological footprint comes from mainly
shrimp production intensity and pond area and cropping intensity and crop area. The
simplified flow diagram of integrated coastal zone management system is shown in Fig. 6.
The building blocks of the model are stock and flow. The stock is a state variable and it is
represents the state or condition of the system at any time t. The stock is represented by a
rectangle. The flow shows how the stock changes with time and it is represented by valve
symbol. The flow with arrow towards the stock indicates inflow and the flow with arrow
outwards indicates outflow. The lines with arrow are influence lines and the direction
indicates the direction of information flow. The variable/factor at the starting point indicates
the variable/factor affecting the variable/factor at the terminating point and this in essence
shows how one variable/factor influences other variable/factor with direction of information
flow. In Fig. 6 pond area is a stock variable and pond growth rate is inflow to the stock –
pond area and outflow for the stock - crop area. The line starting from the population to
population growth with arrow towards the population growth indicates that population level
depends on population growth. The STELLA flow diagram of the detailed model is shown
in Fig. 7. This model is essentially a detailed mathematical description of the system and it
is a system of finite-difference integral equations. The system of equations of the model is
given in Appendix-D. The principles of System Dynamics are given in Bala (1999a).
21
Population Crop production
Forestry Aquaculture
EnvironmentFood Security
Fig. 5. Interrelationships of integrated coastal zone management systems
population
population growth
f ood requirement
per capita f ood requiremenr
f ood security
f ood av ailability
crop production
cropping intensity
shrimp production
ecological f ootprint biocapacity
ecological status
shrimp production intensity
energy consumption
pond area
pond growth rate
crop area
Simplif ied f low diagram
Fig. 6. Simplified flow diagram of integrated coastal zone management system.
22
crop area
land transfer rate for bagda
transfer fraction for bagda
pond area bagdashrimp production bagda
shrimp yield bagda
~
shrimp production intensity
~
shrimp intensity
multiplier bagda
~
shrimp ecological
foot print multiplier
shrimp yield normal bagda
crop yield
forest growth factor
crop yiled normal
~
cropping intensity
~
cropping intensity multiplier
~
crop ecological
foot print multiplierGraph 2
crop fish integrated
farming area
land transfer rate for crop fish
transfer fraction
for bcrop plus fish
population
population growth
population growth factor
food requirement
food per capita
food security
food available
Table 1
food from crop area
crop yield for crop fish
integrated farming
food from crop plus fish
food equivalent of fish
food from forest
equivalence factor
no of days
fish from crop plus fish
ecological foot print per capita
ecological footprint for crop
shrimp production galdafish yield galda
forest area
forest growth
food from forest normal
Table 2
food from animal
animal area
animal growth rate
animal growth fraction
food from animal normal
other fishyield other fish
food eqivalent other fishequivalent factor other fish
veg area
veg area growth rate
veg growth fraction
veg yield
veg production
equivalence factor veg
food from veg
Graph 3
Graph 4
Food security sector
23
ecological foot print per capita
pond area bagda
crop fish integrated
farming area
population
food consumption per capitafood consumption
global yield for crop
equivalence factor for crop
ecological footprint for cropfish consumption per capita
fish consumption
equivalence factor for fishecological footprint
for fish consumption
global yield for fish
energy consumption
ecological footprint for energy
energy consumption per capita
global average of
energy consumption
equivalence factor for energy
total pond area
~
eco factor for semi
intensive culture
eclogical footprint
for shrimp culture
animal consumptionglobal average of
animal consumption
per capita animal consumption
ecological footprint for animal
equivalence factor for animal
forest consumption per capita
global average of
forest consumption
forest consumptionequivalence factor for forest
ecological footprint for forest
non rice consumption per capita
non rice consumption
global average of non
rice consumption
ecological footprint
for non rice
equivalence factor for non rice
build up growth factor
ecological footprint
for build up area
yield factor crop
~
shrimp production intensity
buildup area
buildup area growth rate
Ecological footprint sector
24
pond area bagda
crop area
y ield f actor f or crop
y ield f actor f or f ish
biocapacity f or crop
equiv alence f actor f or crop
biocapacity f or f ish
equiv alence f actor f or f ish
total biocapacity
biocapacity per capita
ecological status
biocapacity f or non rice
populationecological f oot print per capita
animal area
non rice area
biocapacity f or f orest
equiv alence f actor f or f orest
y ield f actor f or f orest
f orest area
y ield f actor f or animalbiocapacity f or animal
equiv alence f actor f or animal
biocapacity f or buildup area
buildup area
crop f ish integrated
f arming area
Area of canal riv er & pond
Boro Aus area
Biocapacity sector
Fig. 7. STELLA flow diagram of the integrated coastal management system
3.4 Policy options
The model was simulated to assess different policy options and to explore management
scenarios of integrated coastal zone management system. Basic scenario is the projection of
the system behaviour based the present trends of the growth of the system i.e. it is based on
existing trend of the growth of the shrimp production intensity termed as normal growth.
The system behaviour for super intensive shrimp production intensity is termed as super
intensive and the system behaviour under stabilized shrimp production intensity is termed as
control growth. Fig. 8 shows the growth patterns for different policy options. Also the
25
model was simulated to search for policy options for the long run sustainability of the
integrated coastal zone management system.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Year
Shrim
p pr
oduc
tion
inte
nsity
(%)
Normal growth
Super-intensive
Control growth
Fig. 8. Growth patterns of the different policy options.
26
4. Results and Discussion4.1 Food security and ecological footprint at upazila level
The major cropping patterns and cropping intensity of nine upazilas in the coastal zone of
Bangladesh are shown in Table 3. Cropping patterns of six upazilas of Satkhira, Khulna and
Bagerhat district are almost similar while the cropping patterns of the other three upazilas of
Patuakhali and Barguna district are also similar. The cropping pattern T. Aman – Fallow –
Fallow has the highest coverage in all the upazilas. This pattern has the highest coverage in
Mongla and Shyamnagar upazila (93.6 %) followed by Morrelgonj Upazila (82.8 %) and
the lowest is found in Galachipa upazila (24.4%). Some areas were cultivated for production
of high yielding varieties during Boro season, where the irrigation facilities were available
either from surface water or groundwater sources. The Boro area could be expanded by
introducing salt tolerant Boro Variety BRRI Dhan47, where the water salinity ranges upto 8
dS/m. Pulse followed by T. Aman pattern dominated in Pathargata, Kalapara and Galachipa
upazilas of Barguna and Patuakhali district. The highest cropping intensity of 199% was
observed in Kalapara upazila followed by Galachipa upazila (195%). This is mainly due to
the coverage of pulse and Aus crop. The lowest cropping intensity of 103% was observed in
Mongla upazila
Table 3. Major cropping patterns and cropping intensity in 2006-2007 of different upazilas
Sl. No.
Upazila Major cropping pattern % Coverage
Cropping intensity (%)
1 Shyamnagar T. Aman – Fallow – FallowT. Aman – Boro - Fallow
93.65.4
115
2 Dacop T. Aman – Fallow – FallowT. Aman – Fish
56.542.2
159
3 Koyra T. Aman – Fallow – FallowT. Aman – Boro – FallowT. Aman – FishT. Aman – Potato – Vegetables
63.816.84.54.6
138
4 Shoronkhola T. Aman – Fallow – FallowT. Aman – Khesari – FallowT. Aman – Fallow – T. Aus
53.928.26.1
148
5 Morrelgonj T. Aman – Fallow – FallowT. Aman – Fallow – AusT. Aman – Boro – Fallow
82.813.43.1
128
6 Mongla T. Aman – Fallow – Fallow 93.6 103
27
7 Patharghata T. Aman – Fallow – FallowT. Aman – Khesari – Fallow/ T. AusT. Aman – Mung – Fallow/ T. AusT. Aman – Sweet potato/ Chilli – Fallow
45.030.07.07.0
187
8 Kalapara T. Aman – Fallow – FallowT. Aman – Khesari – Fallow/ T. AusT. Aman – Mung – Fallow/ T. AusT. Aman – Fallow – AusT. Aman – Cowpea – AusT. Aman – Cowpea – Fallow
27.718.96.813.012.711.0
199
9 Galachipa T. Aman – Fallow – FallowT. Aman – Khesari – T. AusT. Aman – Mung – T. AusT. Aman – Groundnut – Fallow T. Aman – Khesari – FallowT. Aman – Chilli – Fallow
24.413.012.010.39.59.6
195
Major crop and aquaculture areas are shown in Table 4. T. Aman is the major crop for all
the upazilas. Boro cultivation is limited and limited to mainly Galachipa (2610 ha),
Shyamnagar (1500 ha), Koyra (1400 ha) and Morrelgonj (680 ha). The highest Gher area is
in Shyamnagar (15622 ha) followed by Dacop (13395 ha) while the highest rice-fish
integrated area is in Morrelgonj (11437 ha) followed by Mongla (9806 ha). There is no
Gher in Shoronkhola, Morrelgonj, Mongla and Patharghata and also there is no rice-fish
integrated farming in Dacop and Kalapara.
Table 4. Major crop and fish area in 2006-2007 of different upazilas
Sl.
No.
Upazila Total area (ha)
T. Aman area (ha)
Boro area (ha)
Rice-fish integrated area (ha)
Gher area (ha)
1 Shyamnagar 196824 21370 1500 357 15622
2 Dacop 133736 19500 15 0 13395
3 Koyra 181343 15220 1400 470 5203
4 Shoronkhola 74615 9200 10 48 0
5 Morrelgonj 43830 28280 680 11437 0
6 Mongla 18688 11220 0 9806 0
7 Patharghata 49210 18500 0 55 0
8 Kalapara 48347 40450 10 0 985
9 Galachipa 126891 69500 2610 40 2600
28
The present status of population, food security, food self sufficiency ratio, contributions of
crop production and aquaculture to food security, and environmental degradation in terms of
ecological footprint of nine upazilas of the coastal zones of Bangladesh are estimated and
these upazilas are Shyamnagar, Dacop, Koyra, Shoronkhola, Morrelgonj, Mongla,
Patharghata, Kalapara and Galachipa. Fig. 9 shows the present levels of population in these
nine upazilas. Morrelgonj (384479) has the largest population followed by Shyamnagar
(347178) and Galachipa (351026) while Shoronkhola (128021) has the lowest population
level.
.
Population
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
Shyam Dacop Koyra Shorn Morrl Mong Pathr Kala Gala
Popu
latio
n (in
thou
sand
)
Fig. 9. Population in 2007 of different upazilas
Fig. 10 shows the present production levels of rice production in the nine upazilas of
Shyamnagar, Dacop, Koyra, Shoronkhola, Morrelgonj, Mongla, Patharghata, Kalapara and
Galachipa. Galachipa (167198 tons) and Kalapara (158464 tons) have the largest rice
production among these nine upazilas and the levels of rice production of Galachipa and
Kalapara are almost same followed by Shyamnagar (64598 tons). Rice productions of
Dacop (60958 tons) and Koyra (62144 tons) are also almost same. The production level of
rice in Galachipa and Kalapara is more than double of that of Shyamnagar, Dacop and
Koyra. Shoronkhola has the lowest level of rice production. Thus, Galachipa and Kalapara
are rich in rice production but Shoronkhola (21630 tons) is poor in rice production having
the lowest population level.
29
Rice Production
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Shyam Dacop Koyra Shorn Morrl Mong Pathr Kala Gala
Ric
e Pr
oduc
tion
('oo
o to
ns)
Fig. 10. Rice production of different upazilas
Fig. 11 shows the present levels of shrimp production in the nine upazilas of Shyamnagar,
Dacop, Koyra, Shoronkhola, Morrelgonj, Mongla, Patharghata, Kalapara and Galachipa.
Shyamnagar (4213 tons), Dacop (3467 tons) and Mongla (3461 tons) are the largest shrimp
producers while the shrimp production in Shoronkhola (81 tons) and Patharghata (16 tons)
is almost absent. Galachipa (2128 tons) and Koyra (2163 tons) is a moderate shrimp
producer with high level of rice production, but Shoronkhola is poor both in terms of shrimp
and rice production.
Shrimp Production
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Shyam Dacop Koyra Shorn Morrl Mong Pathr Kala Gala
Shri
mp
Prod
ucti
on (t
ons)
Fig. 11. Shrimp production of different upazilas
Fig. 12 shows the food situation in terms of surplus or shortage in the nine upazilas of
Shyamnagar, Dacop, Koyra, Shoronkhola, Morrelgonj, Mongla, Patharghata, Kalapara and
Galachipa. Galachipa, Kalapara, Dacop, Koyra, Mongla and Patharghata are the food
surplus upazilas while Shyamnagar, Morrelgonj and Shoronkhola are food deficit upazilas.
30
Galachipa has the largest surplus (223,272 tons) followed by Kalapara (179,166 tons) and
Patharghata is marginally surplus (7617 tons). Morrelgonj is the largest food deficit upazila
(57,695 tons) and Shyamnagar (10456 tons) and Shoronkhola (14995 ton) are food deficit
by a small margin.
Food sortage/surplus
-100000
-50000
0
50000
100000
150000
200000
250000
Shyam Dacop Koyra Shorn Morrl Mong Pathr Kala Gala
Equi
vale
nt ri
ce (t
ons)
Fig.12. Food sortage/surplus of different upazilas
Fig. 13 shows the SSR (Self Sufficiency Ratio) of rice in the nine upazilas of Shyamnagar,
Dacop, Koyra, Shoronkhola, Mongla, Morrelgonj, Patharghata, Kalapara and Galachipa.
Out of nine upazilas 5 upazilas are self sufficient in rice and four upazilas are deficit in rice.
Kalapara has the largest SSR (3.06) and the SSR for Patharghata is marginally surplus
(1.10). Morrelgonj has the largest deficit (0.70).
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Shyam Dacop Koyra Shorn Morrl Mong Pathr Kala Gala
Self
suf
fici
ency
rati
o SSR of Rice
Fig. 13. Self sufficiency ratio of rice of different upazilas
31
Fig. 14 shows the food security status in the nine upazilas of Shyamnagar, Dacop, Koyra,
Shoronkhola, Mongla, Morrelgonj, Patharghata, Kalapara and Galachipa. Kalapara
(+164.19%), Galachipa (+128.42%), Dacop (+77.24%), Koyra (+34.42%), Mongla
(+36.87%) and Patharghata (+8.53%) have positive food security status and Shyamnagar (-
6.08%), Shoronkhola (-23.65%) and Morrelgonj (-30.29) have negative food security status.
This implies that Kalapara, Galachipa, Dacop, Koyra, Mongla and Patharghata are food
surplus and Shyamnagar, Shoronkhola and Morrelgonj are food deficit upazilas.
Food Security Status (%)
-50
0
50
100
150
200
Shyam Dacop Koyra Shorn Morrl Mong Pathr Kala Gala
Foo
d Se
curi
ty S
tatu
s (%
)
Fig.14. Food security status of different upazilas
Fig. 15 shows the contributions of crop and fish to food security in the nine upazilas of
Shyamnagar, Dacop, Koyra, Shoronkhola, Mongla, Morrelgonj, Patharghata, Kalapara and
Galachipa. Galachipa (69%) has the largest contribution to food security from crop
followed by Kalapara (57%) and Patharghata (53%) and these upazilas are crop dominated
while Mongla (71%) has the largest contribution to food security from fish followed by
Shyamnagar (47%) and Dacop (44%) and these upazilas are aquaculture dominated. Koyra
and Morrelgonj have almost equal contributions from crop and fish.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Shyam Dacop Koyra Shorn Morrl Mong Pathr Kala Gala
Con
trib
utio
n (%
) Crop Fish
Fig. 15. Contributions of crop and fish to food security of different upazilas
32
Fig. 16 shows the contributions to ecological footprint from different resources in the
Khulna region (Shyamnagar, Dacop, Koyra, Shoronkhola, Mongla, and Morrelgonj). For
all these upazilas the contributions to ecological footprint from crop is 29-54%, from energy
is 17-35% and from fishery is 5-40%. But the contribution from fishery is the largest in
Mongla and it is 40%. Thus, in this region shrimp culture is popular and its contribution to
environmental degradation is large.
Shyamnagar
Crop 38%
Build-up5%
Fishery25%
Forest0%
Energy23%
Animal9%
Dacop
Crop 29%
Animal8%Fishery
37%
Forest0%
Energy17%
Build-up9%
Koyra
Crop 46%
Build-up3%
Fishery18%
Forest0%
Energy28%
Animal5%
Shoronkhola
Crop 54%
Energy35%
Fishery5%
Animal4%
Build-up2%
Forest0%
Morrelgonj
Crop 45%
Build-up2%
Fishery24%
Forest0%
Energy23%
Animal6%
Mongla
Crop 35%
Fishery40%
Forest0%
Energy18%
Animal5%Build-up
2%
Fig: 16. Percent ecological distribution of six upazilas of Khulna region
33
Fig. 17 shows percents of contributions to ecological footprint from different resources in
the Barisal region (Patharghata, Kalapara and Galachipa). For all these upazilas the major
contribution comes from crop (49-56%) followed by energy (24-26%). But the contribution
from fishery is 4 to 9%. Thus, in this region shrimp culture is still not popular and its
contribution to environmental degradation is very small.
Patharghata
Crop 51%
Animal8%
Build-up11%
Fishery4%
Energy26%
Forest0%
Kalapara
Crop 56%
Build-up2%
Forest0%
Energy24%
Animal10%
Fishery8%
Galachipa
Crop 49%
Animal8%
Build-up10%
Fishery9%
Forest0%
Energy24%
Fig.17. Percent ecological distribution of three upazilas of Barisal region
Fig. 18 shows the ecological footprint in the nine upazilas of Shyamnagar, Dacop, Koyra,
Shoronkhola, Mongla, Patharghata, Kalapara and Galachipa. The largest ecological
footprint is at Dacop (0.74 gha/cap) followed by Mongla (0.664 gha/cap) and the lowest
ecological footprint is at Shoronkhola (0.389 gha/cap). This implies that Dacop and Mongla
have suffered serious environmental degradation and Shoronkhola is the least suffered
upazila.
34
Ecological footprint
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8
Shyam Dacop Koyra Shorn Morrl Mong Pathr Kala Gala
Eco
logi
cal f
ootp
rint
(gha
/cap
)
Fig. 18. Ecological footprint of different upazilas
Fig. 19 shows the biocapacity in the nine upazilas of Shyamnagar, Dacop, Koyra,
Shoronkhola, Mongla, Morrelgonj, Patharghata, Kalapara and Galachipa. Kalapara and
Galachipa have the largest biocapacity (+0.802 gha/cap) and the lowest is at Mongla
(+0.157 gha/cap).
Bio capacity
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Shyam Dacop Koyra Shorn Morrl Mong Pathr Kala Gala
Bio
capa
city
(gha
/cap
)
Fig. 19. Biological capacity of different upazilas
Fig. 20 shows the ecological status the nine upazilas of Shyamnagar, Dacop, Koyra
Shoronkhola, Mongla, Morrelgonj, Patharghata, Kalapara and Galachipa. The ecologial
status of Kalapara and Galachipa is surplus (+0.306 gha/cap, +0.322 gha/cap) and this
implies that these upazilas are not facing any environmental degradation. These two
upazilas are crop dominated. The upazilas that have suffered the most are Mongla,
Shyamnagar, Dacop, and Morrelgonj where shrimp culture is at commercial level for export
market. The highest and the least suffered upazilas are Mongla (-0.5076 gha/cap) and
Patharghata (-0.027 gha/cap) respectively. Wackernagel et al. (1999) also reported that the
ecological status for Bangladesh as a whole is -0.20 gha/cap. The ecologial footprints of 52
35
countries of the world are shown in Table -5. The largest ecological suprplus country among
these 52 countires is New Zealand (+12.8) and the lowest ecological deficit country is
Singapore (-6.8). The average ecologial status (-0.2) of Bangladeesh is marginally deficit,
but the ecologial status (-0.51) of Mongla is 2.5 times of the national average of Bangladesh
and needs policy and programs to arrest the growth and reduce the degradation.
Ecological Status
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
Shyam Dacop Koyra Shorn Morrl Mong Pathr Kala Gala
Eco
logi
cal s
tatu
s (g
ha/c
ap)
Fig.20. Ecological status of different upazilas
Table 5. Ecological footprint, bio-capacity and ecological status of 52 countries in the world
Sl No.
Country Ecological footprint (ha/cap)
Available bio-capacity (ha/cap)
Ecological status (ha/cap)
1 Argentina 3.9 4.6 0.72 Australia 9.0 14.0 5.03 Austria 4.1 3.1 -1.04 Bangladesh 0.5 0.3 -0.25 Belgium 5.0 1.2 -3.86 Brazil 3.1 6.7 3.67 Canada 7.7 9.6 1.98 Chile 2.5 3.2 0.79 China 1.2 0.8 -0.410 Colombia 2.0 4.1 2.111 Costa Rica 2.5 2.5 0.012 Czech Rep 4.5 4.0 -0.513 Denmark 5.9 5.2 -0.714 Egypt 1.2 0.2 -1.015 Ethiopia 0.8 0.5 -0.3
36
Sl No.
Country Ecological footprint (gha/cap)
Available bio-capacity (gha/cap)
Ecological status (gha/cap)
16 Finland 6.0 8.6 2.617 France 4.1 4.2 0.118 Germany 5.3 1.9 -3.419 Greek 4.1 1.5 -2.620 Hong Kong 5.3 0.0 -5.121 Hungary 3.1 2.1 -1.022 Iceland 7.4 21.7 14.323 India 0.8 0.5 -0.324 Indonesia 1.4 2.6 1.225 Ireland 5.9 6.5 0.626 Israel 3.4 0.3 -3.127 Italy 4.2 1.3 -2.928 Japan 4.3 0.9 -3.429 Jordan 1.9 0.1 -1.830 Korea 3.4 0.5 -2.931 Malaysia 3.3 3.7 0.432 Mexico 2.6 1.4 -1.233 Netherlands 5.3 1.7 -3.634 New Zealand 7.6 20.4 12.835 Nigeria 1.5 0.6 -0.936 Norway 6.2 6.3 0.137 Pakistan 0.8 0.5 -0.338 Peru 1.6 7.7 6.139 Philippines 1.5 0.9 -0.640 Poland, Rep 4.1 2.0 -2.141 Portugal 3.8 2.9 -0.942 Russian Federation 6.0 3.7 -2.343 Singapore 6.9 0.1 -6.844 South Africa 3.2 1.3 -1.945 Spain 3.8 2.2 -1.646 Sweden 5.9 7.0 1.147 Switzerland 5.0 1.8 -3.248 Thailand 2.8 1.2 -1.649 Turkey 2.1 1.3 -0.850 United Kingdom 5.2 1.7 -3.551 USA 10.3 6.7 -3.652 Venezuela 3.8 2.7 -1.1
World 2.8 2.0 -.0.8Source: Wackernagel et al. (1999)
Fig. 21 shows the contributions of crop and fish to ecological status in the nine upazilas of
Shyamnagar, Dacop, Koyra, Shoronkhola, Morrelgonj, Mongla, Patharghata, Kalapara and
Galachipa. The contributions of both crop and fish to ecological status of Shyamnagar,
37
Morrelgonj and Mongla are negative resulting ecologically deficit upazilas while the rest of
the upazilas have surplus ecological status from crop production. However, fish production
(shrimp) always creates deficit ecological footprint and Dacop and Mongla are mainly
affected (ecological deficit) by the shrimp production.
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Shyam Dacop Koyra Shorn Morrl Mong Pathr Kala Gala
Ecol
ogic
al st
atus
(gha
/cap
) Crop Fish
Fig. 21. Ecological status from crop and fish of different upazilas
The present status of food security, food self sufficiency ratio, contributions of crop
production and aquaculture to food security and environmental degradation in terms of
ecological footprint in the nine upazilas of the coastal zones of Bangladesh at a glance are
given in Table 6.
Table 6. The present status of food security and ecological status of nine upazilas of the coastal zones of Bangladesh at a glance.
Name of Upazila
Contribution to food
security (%)
Food self sufficiency
Ratio
Food security status (%)
Ecological footprint (gha/cap)
Bio-capacity (gha/cap)
Ecological status
(gha/cap)Crop Fish
Shyamnagar 34 47 0.86 -6.08 0.601 0.207 -0.394Dacop 32 44 1.72 77.24 0.741 0.418 -0.322Koyra 41 38 1.24 40.06 0.530 0.309 -0.22Shoronkhola 37 19 0.92 -23.65 0.389 0.220 -0.169Morrelgonj 36 40 0.70 -30.29 0.482 0.192 -0.2896Mongla 20 71 0.85 36.87 0.664 0.157 -0.5076Patharghata 53 18 1.10 8.53 0.495 0.467 -0.027Kalapara 57 15 3.06 164.19 0.461 0.768 +0.306Galachipa 69 16 2.12 128.42 0.480 0.802 +0.322
38
This research shows that the overall status of food security at upazila levels is good for all
the upazilas (8.53% to 164.19%) except Shoronkhola (-23.65%), Shyamnager (-6.08%) and
Morrelgonj (-30.29%), and the best is the Kalapara upazila (164.19%). The environmental
status in the coastal zones is poor for all the upazilas (-0.5076 to -0.027) except Kalapara
(+0.306) and Galachipa (+0.322) and the worst is the Mongla upazila (-0.5076). The
environmental status in the coastal zones has degraded mainly due to shrimp culture.
Household food security
Fig. 22 shows the household level food security of the village Baraikhali. Only about 37.4%
of the population of the village Baraikhali has food security for round the year and the
picture of food security at village level is different from that of upazila level where the
overall status of food security is good. This happens mainly due to the fact that shrimp
production in the village is dominated by local/non-local private enterprises who care
mainly for profit maximization rather than poverty alleviation of the local poor and also
care little to protect the local environment.
37.4
62.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
SF Non-SF
Perc
enta
ge o
f Hou
seho
ld
Fig. 22. Household food security status in the village Baraikhali
Fig. 23 shows the percentage distribution of food security in the village Baraikhali. Almost
42.3% of the households of the village Baraikhali have suffered from food insecurity for 0-3
months followed by 10.4% of the households for 3-6 months and 9.9% for more than 6
months.
39
0-3 M NSF 67%
3-6 M NSF 17%
>6 M NSF 16%
Fig. 23. Percentage distribution of food security
4.2 Simulated scenarios
The computer model was simulated to predict the contributions of coastal zones of
Bangladesh to food security and environmental degradation. The initial values of the stock
variables and the values of the parameters were taken from the primary and secondary data.
The sensitivity of the important parameters was also estimated. To build up confidence in
the predictions of the model various ways of validating a system dynamics model, such as
comparing the model results with historical data, checking whether the model generates
plausible behavior and checking the quality of parameter values were considered. To judge
the plausibility of the model, the behavior of the key variables in the base run were
examined. The validated model was used for base line scenario and policy analysis,
assessment of management strategies and searching for sustainable development policy for
food security. The simulated results of a typical upazila, Dacop is presented here. The
simulated results of other upazilas are presented in Appendix E.
Fig. 24 shows the simulated population, food availability and food security of Dacop
upazila for simulation period of 12 years. The population is increasing rapidly from 172613
in 2007 to 207650 in 2019 but the food availability (380207 tons) become almost constant
after 9 years and the food security (204%) become almost constant after 8 years of
increasing trend. This indicates the sustainability in term of food security is ensured in the
short run in Dacop upazila.
40
12:28 PM Thu, Sep 11, 2008
Simulation of f ood security of Dacop (Normal growth)
Page 10.00 3.00 6.00 9.00 12.00
Years
1:
1:
1:
2:
2:
2:
3:
3:
3:
170000
190000
210000
50
150
250
150000
250000
350000
1: population 2: f ood security 3: f ood av ailable
1
1
1
1
2
2
22
3
3
3
3
Fig. 24. Simulated population, food availability and food security of Dacop upazila.
Fig. 25 shows the simulated penaeid (bagda) shrimp pond area, crop area and penaeid
(bagda) shrimp production of Dacop upazila. Cropped area is converted into aquaculture
pond area at the rate of 1.2%. This causes the increase of pond area with the decrease of
cropped area resulting shrimp production of 3257 tons in 2007 to 12425 tons in 2019.
12:12 AM Mon, Oct 20, 2008
Simulation of crop and shrimp production of Dacop (Normal growth)
Page 10.00 3.00 6.00 9.00 12.00
Years
1:
1:
1:
2:
2:
2:
3:
3:
3:
13000
14500
16000
3000
8000
13000
14500
17000
19500
1: pond area bagda 2: shrimp production bagda 3: crop area
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
23
3
3
3
Fig. 25. Simulated penaeid (bagda) shrimp pond areada, crop area and penaeid shrimp production of Dacop upazila
41
Fig. 26 shows the short run simulated ecological footprint per capita, biocapacity per capita
and ecological status of Dacop upazila. The ecological footprint per capita increases rapidly
from 0.741 gha/cap to 9.90 gha/cap within a period of 12 years, but in the same period
biocapacity decreases from 0.42 gha/cap to 0.32 gha/cap. As a consequence the ecological
status decreases rapidly from -0.74 gha/cap to -9.9 gha/cap. This implies that the
environmental degradation is also rapid in Dacop mainly due to increased shrimp culture.
12:34 PM Sat, Oct 18, 2008
Fig. 25(b) Simulation of Ecological Footprint of Dacop (Normal growth)
Page 10.00 3.00 6.00 9.00 12.00
Years
1:
1:
1:
2:
2:
2:
3:
3:
3:
1
6
11
-10
-5
0
0
6
11
1: ecological f oot print per capita 2: ecological status 3: biocapacity per capita
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3 3 3 3
Fig. 26. Simulated ecological footprint, biocapacity and ecological status of Dacop upazila.
Fig. 27 shows the simulated food security, ecological footprint and ecological status of
Dacop upazila for normal growth (current trend), super intensive culture and control growth
(stable growth) for a simulation period of 12 years. In Fig. 27 (a) the simulated results show
that food security increases up to 9 years and then it drops quickly to 122% from 224%
under super intensive culture whereas the food security is almost constant for a simulation
period of last 5 years for both normal and control scenarios. This implies that if shrimp
aquaculture industry continues to boom from the present status to super intensive shrimp
aquaculture, a collapse of the shrimp aquaculture industry will ultimately occur turning
shrimp aquaculture land neither suitable for shrimp culture nor crop production. Arquitt et
al. (2005) reported similar results for super intensive shrimp production in Thailand.
42
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 FinalYear
Food
sec
urit
y (%
)
FS (Normal growth)
FS (Super-intensive)
FS(Control growth)
Fig. 27(a). Simulated food Security status of Dacop upazila for different options
Fig. 27 (b) shows the simulated ecological footprint increases exponentially from a value
+0.74 gha/cap to +17.24 gha/cap under super intensive culture whereas the ecological
footprint under normal growth increases linearly from a value +0.74 gh/cap to +9.9 gha/cap
and the ecological footprint under control growth increases from a value +0.74 gha/cap to
+8.0 gha/cap and becomes almost contant towards end of the simulated period. This implies
that if shrimp aquaculture industry continues to boom in terms of super intensive shrimp
aquaculture, the environment is seriously affected resulting ecological foot print of +17.24
gha/cap within 12 years.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 FinalYear
Eco
logi
cal f
ootp
rint
(gha
/cap
)
EF(Normal growth)
EF (Super-intensive)
EF(Control growth)
Fig. 27(b). Simulated ecological footprint of Dacop upazila for different options
43
Fig. 27 (c) shows that the simulated ecological status decreases exponentially under super
intensive culture from a value of -0.32 gha/cap to -16.92 gha/cap whereas the ecological
status under normal decreases linearly from a value of -0.32 gha/cap to -9.58 gh/cap.
Ecological status under control growth decreases from a value of -0.32 gha/cap to -7.72
gha/cap and the rate of growth of control growth is lower than that of the normal growth.
The absolute magnitude of the ecological status is almost same as the absolute magnitude of
the ecological footprint since the magnitude of initial biocapacity and its growth are very
small. This implies that if shrimp aquaculture industry continues to boom from the present
status to super intensive shrimp aquaculture, the environment is seriously affected resulting
ecological status of-18 gha/cap.
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final
Year
Eco
logi
cal s
tatu
s (g
ha/c
ap)
ES (Normal growth)
ES (Super-intensive)
ES (Control growth)
Fig. 27(c). Simulated ecological status of Dacop upazila for different options
Fig. 28 shows the simulated population, food security and ecological status under normal
growth for a period of 120 years. Fig.28(a) shows that the population increases
exponentially from 172613 in 2007 to 1095594 in 2119 but the food security increase
initially up to 12 years and reach a value of 205 and then decreases linearly for rest of the
period and ultimately collapses because of the population explosion. This implies that
sustainable development of the coastal zone in the long run through the control of shrimp
production intensity without the control of population is a mere dream.
44
7:00 PM Mon, Oct 20, 2008
Simulation of f ood security of Dacop (Normal growth long term)
Page 10.00 30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00
Years
1:
1:
1:
2:
2:
2:
3:
3:
3:
150000
650000
1150000
0
150
300
150000
400000
650000
1: population 2: f ood security 3: f ood av ailable
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Fig. 28(a). Simulated population, food security and food available of Dacop for120 years.
28(b) shows that the pond area increases gradually and becomes almost stable at 23272 ha
within 120 years. As a consequence the crop area decreases gradually and becomes almost
stable at 1391 ha within 120 years. This implies that although pond area and crop area
become almost stable in the long run, food security decreases because of the population
explosion.
7:16 PM Mon, Oct 20, 2008
Simulation of Dacop (Control growth long term)
Page 10.00 30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00
Years
1:
1:
1:
2:
2:
2:
3:
3:
3:
13000
18500
24000
0
15000
30000
0
10000
20000
1: pond area bagda 2: shrimp production bagda 3: crop area
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
Fig. 28(b). Simulated penaeid (bagda) shrimp pond area, penaeid shrimp production and crop area of Dacop for120 yrs
45
Fig. 28 (c) shows that the ecological footprint increase rapidly from 0.74 to +8.07 gha/cap
within 13 years and then decreases linearly to +2.97 gha/cap at the end of the simulation
period of 120 years. As a consequence ecological status decreases rapidly from -0.32 to -
7.80 gha/cap within 16 years and then again increase linearly to -2.92 gha/cap at the end of
the simulation period of 120 years since the contribution of biocapacity is very small. This
implies that sustainable environmental development of the coastal zone in the long run
through the control of shrimp production intensity without the control of population remains
a mere dream.
4:59 PM Sat, Oct 18, 2008
Simulation of Ecological Footprint of Dacop f or 120 y ears
Page 10.00 30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00
Years
1:
1:
1:
2:
2:
2:
3:
3:
3:
1
5
9
-8
-4
0
0
5
9
1: ecological f oot print per capita 2: ecological status 3: biocapacity per capita
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3 3 3 3
Fig. 28(c). Simulated ecological footprint, biocapacity and ecological status of Dacop upazila for120 years
Fig. 29 shows the simulated population, food security and ecological status under control of
both normal growth and population for a period of 120 years. Fig. 29 (a) The population
initially increases to 321816 in 90 years and then becomes stabilized but the food security
increase initially to a value of 203 in 10 years, then decreases slowly for a the period of 60
years to a value of 150 and then becomes stabilized. This implies that sustainable
development of the coastal zone in terms of population and food security in the long run can
be realized through the control of shrimp production intensity and population control.
46
9:55 AM Sat, Oct 18, 2008
Simulation of f ood security of Dacop (Control growth)
Page 10.00 30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00
Years
1:
1:
1:
2:
2:
2:
3:
3:
3:
150000
250000
350000
50
150
250
150000
300000
450000
1: population 2: f ood security 3: f ood av ailable
1
1
1
1
2
2
2 23
3
33
Fig. 29(a). Simulated population, food security and food availability of Dacop under control of both normal growth and population for a period of 120 years
Fig. 29 (b) shows that the pond area increases gradually and becomes stable at almost 23372
ha within 120. As a consequence the crop area decreases gradually and becomes stable at
almost 1391 ha within 120 years. This implies that sustainable development of the coastal
zone in terms of crop and shrimp production in the long run can be realized through the
control of shrimp production intensity and population control.
12:28 AM Mon, Oct 20, 2008
Simulation of crop and shrimp area of Dacop (Control growth)
Page 10.00 30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00
Years
1:
1:
1:
2:
2:
2:
3:
3:
3:
13000
18500
24000
0
10000
20000
1: pond area bagda 2: shrimp production bagda 3: crop area
1
1
1
1
2
2
22
3
3
3
3
Fig. 29(b). Simulated penaeid (bagda)shrimp pond area, penaeid shrimp production and crop area of Dacop under control of both normal growth and population for a period of 120 years
47
Fig. 29(c) shows that the ecological footprint increases rapidly from almost 0.74 to +8.20
gha/cap within 12 years and then becomes stabilized at +8.60 gha/cap. The ecological status
decreases rapidly from almost -0.32 to -7.90 gha/cap within 12 years and then remains
almost constant at -8.35 gha/cap. This implies that sustainable development of the coastal
zone in terms of environment in the long run can be realized through the control of shrimp
production intensity and population control.
4:46 PM Sun, Oct 19, 2008
Simulation of Ecological Footprint of Dacop (Control growth)
Page 10.00 30.00 60.00 90.00 120.00
Years
1:
1:
1:
2:
2:
2:
3:
3:
3:
1
5
10
-9
-5
0
0
5
10
1: ecological f oot print per capita 2: ecological status 3: biocapacity per capita
1
1 1 1
2
2 2 23 3 3 3
Fig. 29(c). Simulated ecological footprint, biocapacity and ecological status of Dacop under control of both normal growth and population for a period of 120 years
5. Key FindingsA quantitative method for computation of food security in grain equivalent based on
economic returns (price) is developed. A database has been prepared for computation of
food security and ecological footprint. Also the food security and ecological footprint of the
coastal zone of Bangladesh are estimated.
This research shows that the overall status of food security at upazila levels is good for all
the upazilas (8.53% to 164.19%) except Shoronkhola (-23.65%), Shyamnager (-6.08%) and
Morrelgonj (-30.29%), and the best is the Kalapara upazila (164.19%). But status of food
security at household levels of a typical village found to be poor. The environmental status
in the coastal zones is poor for all the upazilas (-0.5076 to -0.027) except Kalapara (+0.306)
and Galachipa (+0.322) and the worst is the Mongla upazila (-0.5076). The environmental
status in the coastal zones has degraded mainly due to shrimp culture.
48
A system dynamics model of integrated management of coastal zone for food security and
ecological footprint has been developed. This model predicts that expanding shrimp
aquaculture industry ensures high food security at upazila levels with increasing
environmental degradation.
The model also predicts that if shrimp aquaculture industry continues to boom from the
present status to super intensive shrimp aquaculture, a collapse of the shrimp aquaculture
industry will ultimately occur turning shrimp aquaculture land neither suitable for shrimp
culture nor crop production. The control of growth of the shrimp production intensity
stabilizes the system at least in the short run. The control of population and growth of the
shrimp production intensity should be considered for stabilization of the system in the long
run.
6. Policy Implications and RecommendationsShoronkhola, Shyamnager and Morrelgonj are poor in food security as well as in
environmental degradation. To improve the situation any further expansion of shrimp
aquaculture should be considered with cautions and rice – shrimp aquaculture should be
explored on a priority basis. Mongla upazila is the worst environmentally affected upazila
and this implies that the shrimp aquaculture in Mongla should be restricted. Since all the
upazilas except Kalapara and Galachipa are environmentally affected, any further expansion
of shrimp aquaculture to enhance food security should be considered with cautions. Since
the status of food security at household levels is poor, action programmes are needed to
improve the food security at household and also to ensure the payment of reasonable rent of
the land used in shrimp aquaculture to the poor farmers.
A system dynamics model of integrated management of coastal zone for food security has
been developed. This model can be used to predict food security and environmental
degradation in terms of ecological footprint of the coastal zone of Bangladesh. This model
can provide better insights and understanding of integrated coastal zone system. This model
can be used to assist the policy planners to assess different policy issues and to design a
policy for sustainable development of the coastal zones of Bangladesh.
It is now high time to design an integrated management system for the coastal zones of
Bangladesh for sustainable development. Super intensive shrimp aquaculture must not be
allowed to avoid the collapse of the shrimp aquaculture industry ultimately turning shrimp
aquaculture land neither suitable for shrimp culture nor crop production. The control of
49
population and growth of thee shrimp production intensity should be considered for the long
run sustainability of the coastal zone of Bangladesh.
Higher contributions to food security from shrimp culture in the coastal zones of
Bangladesh may be attributed to two reasons: first, the potential of shrimp culture in the
coastal zone; second, the export market of the shrimp which prompted to expansion of
shrimp culture in the coastal zone.
However, the ecosystem of the coastal zone already has degradeded due to the expansion of
shrimp culture and there is a scope for sustainable development of the coastal zones of
Bangladesh. The policy regime of shrimp farming may also have induced some additional
distortion to environmental degradation. As already mentioned farmers are converting
agricultural land into shrimp farming pond and intruding saline water for penaeid shrimp
culture.
Practically there is no regulation on conversion of agricultural land into shrimp culture
intruding saline water. Local elites and private enterprizes are attracted to shrimp farming
for export. Our findings give rise to a number of observations regarding shrimp farming and
environmental protection. In practice, the shrimp is not intensive. In principle, it requires
not only simply restricting the conversion of agriculture land into intensive shrimp pond but
also restricting the growth of the shrimp farming intensity.Our findings, therefore suggest
that policy planning of coastal zone development should take into account the following:
* Effort to achieve higher food security must be combined with effort to achieve lower
ecological footprint (environmental degradation). This can be done via policies design to
establish through application of restriction on conversion agriculture land into conversion of
shrimp ponds and resticted growth of intensity and development of salinity resistant rice
variety. Right policies and programs to boost up shrimp culture in rice field using improved
technology and extension services and sustainable penaeid shrimp culture with restriction
on uncontrolled growth of the shrimp culture pond and intensity of shrimp culture in the
high salinity areas with tax to reduce ecological footprint need promotion to increase the
food security with reduced environmental degradation.
* For the success of the sustainable development of coastal zone of Bangladesh requires
awarness based on participitary approach with shrimp culture technology, crop production
in saline water and environment related problems. Effective extension service should be
further strengthened for awarness development regarding environmental degradation and
50
sustainable development of coastal zone i. e. restricted growth of shrimp farming and
farming intensity.
* Sustainable development of the coastal zone in the long run without any population
control would remain a mere dream amd hence policies targeted for sustainable
development must include population control measures.
7. Areas of Further ResearchA computer simulation based on system dynamics methodology is developed to provide an
understanding of how things have been changed with time and this approach has been
adopted to simulate the highly complex coastal zone management system. But there is
another approach called multi agent system which focuses more on stakeholder’s
interactions and it is an emerging sub-field of artificial intelligence. Furthermore, a
successful sustainable development requires coastal zone management be carried out in a
participatory approach. An artificial society of primary coastal zone actors are to be built
using multi agent system approach for developing scenarios to increase the sustainability of
the coastal zone management. Certainly the food security and ecological footprint will be
the indicators of the sustainability. Such a study is recommended for management of
successful sustainable development on a rational basis.
Within this century, thousands of people are likely to be displaced by sea level rise at the
coastal zone of Bangladesh and the accompanying economic and ecological damage will be
severe for many. Sarwar (2005) assessed the impacts of sea level rise on Bangladesh using
secondary data. This study revealed that a one meter sea level rise will affect the vast
coastal area and flood plain zone of Bangladesh. Both livelihood options of coastal
communities and the natural environment of the coastal zone will be affected by the
anticipated sea level rise. It will also affect national and food security of the country.
Further research is needed on impacts of sea level rise on the food security of the coastal
zone of Bangladesh.
The mangroove forest of the Sunderbans serves a shield against cyclonic surges such as
SIDR. Climate change over the next 100 years is expected to have significant impacts on
forest ecosystems of the sunderbans. The forestry community needs to evaluate the long-
term effects of climate change on forests and determine what the community might do now
and in the future to respond to this threat. Management can influence the timing and
51
direction of forest adaptation at selected locations, but in many situations society will have
to adjust to however forests adapt. A high priority will be coping with and adapting to forest
disturbance while maintaining the genetic diversity and resilience of forest ecosystems. Bala
et al. (2003, 2004 & 2008) adapted the process based cohort model (Kohler, 2000 and
Kohler and Huth, 2004) to simulate the mangrove forest growth of the sunderbans and also
applied the aggregate model CO2FIX (Masera et al., 2003). Further research is needed on
modeling of the sunderbans and also on the climate change impacts on the mangrove forests
of the sunderbans to address the long-term effects of climate change on forests and its
contribution to food security and environment.
8. ConclusionsA quantitative method for computation of food security in grain equivalent based on
economic returns (price) is developed. The food security and ecological footprint of the
coastal zone of Bangladesh are estimated and a database has been prepared.
Overall status of food security at upazila levels is good for all the upazilas except
Shoronkhola, Shyamnager and Morrelgonj and the best is the Kalapara upazila. But, the
status of food security at household levels is poor.
Environmental status in the coastal zones is poor for all the upazilas except Kalapara and
Galachipa. The worst is the Mongla upazila. Environmental status has degraded mainly due
to shrimp culture.
A system dynamics model of integrated management of coastal zone for food security and
ecological footprint has been developed. This model predicts that expanding shrimp
aquaculture industry ensures high food security at upazila levels with increasing
environmental degradation.
The model also predicts that if shrimp aquaculture industry continues to boom from the
present status to super intensive shrimp aquaculture, a collapse of the shrimp aquaculture
industry will ultimately occur turning shrimp aquaculture land neither suitable for shrimp
culture nor crop production.
The control of growth of the shrimp production intensity stabilizes the system at least in the
short run. The control of population and growth of the shrimp production intensity should
be considered for stabilization of the system in the long run.
52
It is now high time to design an integrated management system for the coastal zones of
Bangladesh for sustainable development. This model can be used to assist the policy
planners to assess different policy issues and to design a policy for sustainable development
of the coastal zones of Bangladesh and also to address climate change issues.
A computer simulation based on system dynamics methodology is developed to provide an
understanding of how things have been changed with time and this approach has been
adopted to simulate the highly complex coastal zone management system. But there is
another approach called multi agent system which focuses more on stakeholder’s
interactions and it is an emerging sub-field of artificial intelligence. Furthermore, a
successful sustainable development requires coastal zone management be carried out in a
participatory approach. An artificial society of primary coastal zone actors are to be built
using multi agent system approach for developing scenarios to increase the sustainability of
the coastal zone management. Certainly the food security and ecological footprint will be
the indicators of the sustainability. Such a study is recommended for management of
successful sustainable development on a rational basis.
AcknowledgmentsThe financial support of FAO is gratefully acknowledged for this study under National Food
Policy Capacity Strengthing Programme (CF-5).
This study was carried out with the support of the
National Food Policy Capacity Strengthening Programme
53
References
Ahmed, A.T.A. 1995. Impacts of shrimp culture on the coastal environment of Bangladesh.Proceedings of the National Workshop on Coastal Aquaculture and Environmental Management. Institute of Marine Sciences, 25-28 April 1995. Nuruddin Mahmood, University of Chittagong/UNESCO, Bangladesh. pp. 77–84.
Akteruzzaman, M. 2004. A cost benefit analysis of breakish water management for shrimp farming in southwest coastal belt of Bangladesh. 9th Biannual Research and Training Workshop. 01-09 November. Banglore, India.
Arquitt, S., Honggang, X. and Johnstone, R. 2005. A system dynamics analysis of boom and burst in the shrimp aquaculture industry. Systems Dynamics Review. 4(2), 305-324.
Bach, N.L., & Saeed, K. 1992. Food self-sufficiency in Vietnam: a search for aviable solution. System Dynamics Review, 8(2), 129-148.
Bagliani, M., Galli, A., Niccolucci, V., Marchettini, N. 2008. Ecological footprint analysis applied to a sub-national area : The case of the Province of Siena Italy). Environmental Management. 86(2).354-364.
Bala, B. K. 1999a. Principles of System Dynamics. Agrotech Publishing Academy, Udaipur, India.
Bala, B. K. 1999b. Computer Modelling of Energy, Food and Environment: The case of Bangladesh. Paper presented at the 17th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society and 5th Australian & New Zealand Systems Conference,Wellington, New Zealand.
Bala, B.K., Matin, M. A. and Hossain, M. A. 2003. Modeling of Forest Dynamics of the Sunderbans. Proceedings of the International Conference on Mechanical Engineering 2003 (ICME2003), held on 26-28 December 2003, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Bala, B.K., Matin, M. A. and Hossain, M. A. 2004. Modeling of forest dynamics of the Sunderbans. Proceedings of the International Conference on Modeling Forest Production, held on 19-21 April 2004, Vienna, Austria.
Bala, B.K.; Matin, M.A. and Fazlul Hoque, A.K. 2008. Simulation of forest dynamics of the Sunderbans. Proceedings of the National Conference on Systems thinking and system dynamics (NCSD-2886), held on 29 February-01 March 2008, Baranas Hindu university, Varanasi, India, pp. 30-44.
Banglapedia, 2003. National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh. Vol. 03. p. 56. Asiatic Society of Bangladesh.
BBS, 2002. Statistical Pocketbook Bangladesh.2001. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics. Semtember. 2002.
54
Begum, S. 2002. Proceedings of the APO seminar on role of rural women in food security in Asia and the Pacific. Held in Thailand from 21-25 August.2000. Asian Productivity Organization, Tokyo, Japan.
Belt, M. V. D., Deutsch, L. and Jansson, A. 1998. A consensus-based simulation model for management in the Patagonia coastal zone. Ecol. Model. 110. 79-103.
Cao, W. and Wong, M. H. 2007. Current status of coastal zone issues and management in China: A review. Environment International. 33. 985-992.
Chambers, N., Simmons, C. and Wackernagel, M. 2000. Sharing Nature’s Interest-Ecological Footprint as an indicator of Sustainability. Earthscan Publication Ltd, London, UK, ISBN 1-85383-739-3.
Chen, B. and Chen, G. Q. 2006. Ecological footprint accounting based on emergy- Acase study of the Chinese society. Ecol. Model. 198, 101-114.
Coxhead, Ian. 2000 Consequences of a food security strategy for economicwelfare, ncome distribution and land degradation the Philippine case. World Development Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 111-128, 2000.
Chua, T. E., Bonga, D. and Atrigenio, N. B. 2006. Dynamics of integrated coastal management: PEMSEA’s Experience. Coastal Management. 34:303-322.
Csavas, I.. 1995. Development of shrimp farming with special reference to Southeast Asia. Presented at INDAQUA 1995 Exposition of Indian Aquaculture, Madras.
De Souza, R., Williams, J. S. and Meyerson Frederick, A. B. 2003. “Critical Links. Population, Health and Environment”. In population Bulletin, 58 (3).
Diakosavvas and Green. 1998. Assessing the impact on food security of alternative compensatory financing schemes. A simulation approach with an application to India. World Development Vol. 26, No. 7, pp. 1251-1265, 1998
DoF (Department of Fisheries) 1995. Shrimp resources statistics. Central Shrimp Cell, Department of Fisheries, Dhaka.
DoF (Department of Fisheries) 2003. Fishery Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh: 2002-2003. Department of Fisheries, Dhaka, 41 pp.
Fabbri, K. P. 1998. A methodology for supporting decision making in integrated coastal zone management. Ocean and Coastal management. 39. 51-62.
Falcon, Walter P., Naylor, R. L., Smith, W. L. S. W. L., Burke, M. and McCullough. 2004. Using climate models to improve Indonesian Food Security. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, Vol. 40, No. 3, 355–77
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 1996a. “Implications of Economic Policy for Food Security: A Training Manual”, Rome.
55
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 1996b. Technical Background Document,prepared for the World Food Summit, Rome,
FAO. 2001. Food Balance Sheet- A Handbook. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
FAO. 2002. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2001. Rome.
Georgiadis, P., Vlachos, D. and Iakavou, E. 2004. A system dynamics modeling framework for the strategic supply chain management of food chains. Journal of Food Engineering, 70 351–364.
Giraldo, D. P., Betancur, M. J. and Arango, S. 2008. Food Security in Developing Countries: A systemic perspective. Paper presented at the International Conference of the System Dynamics Society held on July 20-24, 2008 at Athens, Greece.
Gohara, R. 2001. A System Dynamics Model for Estimation of Future World FoodProduction Capacity. Unpublished Thesis (M.S.) University of New Hampshire.
Holden, S., Shiferaw, B., and Pender, J. 2005. Policy Analysis for Sustainable Land Management and Food Security in Ethiopia. A Bioeconomic Model with Market Imperfections. IFPRI, Washington D.C.
Hossain, S. M. A., Ahmad, S., Halim, A., Dewan, S., Talukder, M. S., Islam, M. S. and Bhuiya, M. S. U. 2002. Fact searching and intervention 1999-2001. Studies on integrated farming. FSES Publication No. 78. Farming Systems and Environmental Studies, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh.
Hussain, Z. and Karim, A. 1994. Introduction. In: Hussain, Z. and Acharya, G. (eds.). Mangrove of the Sunderban.Volume 2: pp. 1-10. IUCN- The World Conservation Union, Bangkok.
Ianchovichina, E., Darwin, R. and Shoemaker, R. 2001. Resource use and technological progress in agriculture: a dynamic general equilibrium analysis. Ecological Economics 38, 275–291.
IFPRI, 1998. Sustainable Food Security for All by 2020. Proceedings of an International Conference. September 4-6. Bonn, Germany.
Iftekhar, M. S. 2006. Conservation and management of the Bangladesh coastal ecosystem: overview of an integrated approach. Natural Resources Forum. 30. 230-237.
Karim, Z., Hossain, S. G. and Ahmed, M. 1990. Salinity problem and crop intensification in the coastal region of Bangladesh, BARC, Dhaka.
Khan, Y. S. A. and Hossain, M.S. 1996. Impact of shrimp culture on the coastal environment of Bangladesh. International Journal of Ecology and Environmental Sciences 22(2), 145–158.
56
Klinger, T., 2004. International ICZM: In search of successful outcomes. Ocean and Coastal Management, 47: 195–196.
Köhler, P. 2000. Modeling anthropogenic impacts on the growth of tropical rain forests using an individual-oriented forest growth model for analyses of logging and fragmentation in three case studies. Ph.D Thesis, University of Kassel, Germany.
Köhler, P. and Huth, A. 2004. Simulating growth dynamics in South-east Asian rainforest threatened by recruitment shortage and tree harvesting. Climate Change, 67, 95-117.
MacCalla, A. and Revoredo, C. 2001. Prospects for Global Food Security. A Critical Appraisal of Past Projections and Predictions. International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington, D.C. U.S.A.
Masera, O. R., Garza-Caligaris, J F., Kanninen, M., Karjalainen, T., Liski, J., Nabuurs, G. J., Pussinen, A., de Jong, B. H. J. and Mohren, G. M. J. 2003. Modeling carbon sequestration in afforestation, agroforestry and forest management projects: the CO2FIX V.2 Approach. Ecological Modeling, 164, pp. 177 – 199.
Meadows, D. H. 1976. Food and Population: Policies for the United States. In D.Baldwin (Ed.), America as an Interdependent World. Hanover, NH: Univ. Press of New England.
Meadows, D. H. 1977. The World Food Problem: Growth Models and Nongrowth Solution. In D. L. Meadows (Ed), Alternatives to Growth-I: A Search for Sustainable Futures. Cambridge MA: Ballinger Publishing Co.
Medved, S. 2006. Present and future ecological footprint of Slovenia- The influence of energy demand scenarios. Ecol. Model. 192, 25-36.
Ministry of Finance. 2003. Bangladesh: A National Strategy for Economic Growth, Poverty reduction and Social Development. Economic Relation Division, Ministry of Finance, Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka.
Mishra, U. and Hossain, S. A. K. 2005. Current food security and challenges: Achieving 2015 MDG hunger milepost. Food Security in Bangladesh. Paper presented in the national workshop. pp 01-06. October 19-20. Dhaka. Bangladesh.
MOFL (Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock) 1997. Fisheries resources development and management. Paper presented at the National Workshop, 29 October to 1 November 1997, MOFL, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Mohanty, S. and Peterson, E. 2005. Food security and government interventions a study of Indian grain markets. J. Int. Trade & Economic Development Vol. 14, No. 3. 337-352. September 2005.
Monfreda, C., Wackernagel, M. and Deumling, D. 2004. Establishing national natural capital accounts based on detailed ecological footprint and biological capacity assessment. Land Use Policy 21. 231-246.
57
NACA (Network of Aquaculture Centres in Asia Pacific). 1994. Environmental management for coastal aquaculture. An assessment of shirimp culture in Southern Thailand.
Niccolicci, V., Gall, A., Kitzes, J, Pulselli, R. M., Borsa, S. and Marchettini, N. 2008.Ecological footprint analysis applied to the production of two Italian wines. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 128:162-166.
Nguyan, T. G.and Kok, J. L. 2007. Systematic testing of an integrated systems model for coastal zone management using sensitivity and uncertainty analyses. Environmental Model. and Software. 22. 1572-1587.
PDO-ICZMP (Program Development Office for Integrated Coastal Zone Management Plan). 2003. Coastal livelihood. Situation and context (WP 005). Water Resources Planning Organization, Dhaka. September, 2002.
Pedersen, J. D., Beck. S., Johansen, H. B. and Jensen, H. B. 2005. Capacity development inintegrated coastal zone management: Some lessons learned from Malaysia. Coastal Management. 33. 353-372.
Quinn, P. M., 2002. Nation State Food Security: A Simulation of Food Production, Population Consumption, and Sustainable Development. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 20th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Palermo, Italy.
RDRS. 2005. A report of survey on food security and hunger in Bangladesh. ISBN 984-32-2562-7.
Rees, W. E. 1996. Revisiting carrying capacity: area-based indicators of sustainability. Population and Environment 17, 195-215.
Riely, F., Mock, N., Cogill, B., Bailey, L. and Kenefick, E. 1999. Food security indicators and framework for use in the monitoring and evaluation of food aid programs. Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance. Washington D. C.
Robertson, A. I. and Phillips, M. J. 1995. Mangroves as filters of shrimp pond effluent: predictions and biogeochemical research needs. Hydrobiologia. 295, 311-321.
Rosegrant, M. W., meijer, S. and Cline, S. A. 2005 The International Model for Policy Analysis of Agricultural Commodities and Trade (IMPACT-WATER). International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington, D.C.
Saeed, K., Satter, M. A., & Singh, G. 1983. Rice Crop Production Policies and Food Supply in Bangladesh. Paper presented at the International System Dynamics Conference, Chestnut Hill, MA.
Saeed, K. 2000. Defining Developmental Problems for System Dynamics Modeling: An Experiential Learning Approach. Social Science and Policy Studies Department. Worcester Polytechnic Institute. USA.
58
Sarwar, M. G. M. 2005. Impacts of sea level rise on the coastal zone of Bangladesh. MS Thesis, Lund University, Sweden.
Shapouri, S. and Rosen, S. 2006. Food Security Assessment. United States Department of Agriculture USDA.
Siry, H. Y. 2006. Decentralized coastal zone management in Malaysia and Indonesia: A comparative perspective. Coastal Management. 34:267-285.
Sonak, S., Pangan, P. and Giriyan, A. 2008. Green reconstruction of the tsunami-affected areas in India using the integrated coastal zone management concept. Environmental Management. Accepted 17 January 2007. In press.
USDA. 1999. Food Security Assessment. USDA Economic Research Service. Situation and Outlook series GFA-11 Washington DC
USDA. 2007. Food Security Assessment. USDA Economic Research Service. Appendix-Food Security Model: Definition and Methodology.GFA-19. Washington DC
Wackernagel, M., Onisto, L;, Bello, P., Belllo, P., Linares, A.C., Falfn, I.S.L., Garca, J.M. Guerrere, A.I.S. and Guerrero, M.G.S. 1999. National Natural capital accounting with the ecological footprint concept. Ecol. Econ. 29, 375-390.
Wackernagel. M. and Rees, W.E. 1996. Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New Society, Gabrioala, BC, Canada.ISBN 1-55092-251-3.
Yusuf, H. K. M. and Islam, A. 2005.Setting standard cereal intake for balanced nutrition in Bangladesh. Food Security in Bangladesh. Paper presented in the national workshop. pp 51-60. October 19-20. Dhaka. Bangladesh.
Zhao, S., Li, Z.Z., Li and W.L. 2005. A modified method of ecological footprint calculation and its application. Ecol. Model. 185, 65-75.
59
Appendix-A Questionnaire for secondary data collection from different sources
Integrated Management of Coastal Zone for Food Security
Information to be collected from secondary sources
Name of Upazila Name of District
1. Population information
Total population
Male Female No. of Children
M/F ratio
Birth rate
Death rate
Family size
2. Household information
No. of household
Non-farm household
Number of farm holdingTotal Small Medium Large
3. Area related information
a. Total area of upazila (ac/ha)
b. River area (ac/ha)
c. Total household area (ac/ha)
d. Total cultivated land area (ac/ha)
e. Irrigated land area(ac/ha)
f. Fallow land area (ac/ha)
g. Fallow land in dry season area (ac/ha)
h. Crop land area (ac/ha)
i. Forest area (ac/ha)
j. Aqua cultural land area (ac/ha)
k. Roads and highways area (ac/ha)
l. Market area (ac/ha)
m. Cropping intensity (%)
60
4. Year wise area
Year Crop area (ac/ha)
Forest Area (ac/ha)
Aquaculture Area (ac/ha)
Others Area (ac/ha)
Total Area (ac/ha)
5. Cropping pattern:
Sl.
No.
Cropping pattern Area Percentage
(%)
6. Crop information
A. Crop
Crop Area (ac/ha)
Yield (t/ac/ha )
Straw yield
(t/ac/ha )
No. of irrigation
Cost/ha (Tk.)
Price of grain(Tk.)
Price of straw (Tk.)
61
B. Fertilizer and pesticides
Crop Area (ha)
Fertilizer PesticidesUrea TSP MP
Amount(Kg)
Price (Tk.)
Amount(Kg)
Price (Tk.)
Amount(Kg)
Price (Tk.)
Amount(Kg)
Price (Tk.)
Amount(Kg)
Price (Tk.)
7. Livestock and poultry
Cattle Buffalo Goats/sheep Poultry/ duck
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
No.
Meat
Milk
8. Aquaculture
Category No. Area (ha)
Production (ton)
Price (Tk./ ton)
Cost (Tk/ ha)
Gross income (Tk.)
Marine Shrimp
Others
River Shrimp
Others
Canal Shrimp
Others
Fish+
Rice
Shrimp
Others
Gher Shrimp
Others
Pond Shrimp
Others
Total
62
9. Forestry
Sl. No. Area (ac/ha)
Density(No./ha)
Growth rate
Age ht(m)
Ave dia(m)
Unit vol(m3)
Total vol(m3)
Prod(m3/year)
Agro-forestryagro-forestry products
10. Information needed to compute Food Security and Ecological Footprint
Category Existing Area
(ac/ha)
Yield
(t/ac/ha)
Production
(ton)
Inside supply (ton)
Outside supply (ton)
Consumption
(ton)
Footprint component(ha/capita)
A. Crop
Ric
e
Aus
Aman
Boro
B. Animal Product
Pou
ltry Meat
Egg
Dai
ry Meat
Milk
C. Fishery
Marine
Riverine
Aqu
a Shrimp
Others
63
D. Build-up Area:
- Transportation:
i) Length of road (km): ii) Average width (km): iii) Total Area
(ac/ha):
Mode No. Average Area (ac/ha) Total Area (ac/ha)
Housing
Industry
Market
Others
Roads
Total
E. Energy:
(a) Cultivation
No.of PT
Area cultivated by PT (ac/ha)
Operating
hrs/day
Average no. of passes
Field capacity (ac/ha/hr)
Fuelconsumption (lit/hr)
Total fuel
(lit)
(b) Irrigation
No. of STW
Irrigated land (ac/ha)
No. ofirrig/
season
Ave time/irrigation/ha
(hr)
Fuel consumption(lit/hr)
Total fuel(lit)
(c) Threshing and Milling
Item No. Total operating
days
Average operating hrs/day
Fuel consumption
(lit/hr)
Total fuel(lit)
Power
thresher
Mill
64
(d) Transportation
Mode No. of vehicles
Avg. distance (km/day)
Average hrs/day
Fuel consumption
(lit/hr)
Total fuel (lit)
Launch
Bus
Track
Tempo/motor
vehicle
Engine boat
PT/Tractor
Others
(f) Electricity
Heads No. Average consumption(kwh/month)
Total consumption(kwh/month)
Total consumption(kwh/year)
Domestic
Commercial
Industrial
Irrigation
Total
(g) Cooking fuel energy (Mds/month)
Heads No. Fire wood
Leave Straw Tree branches
Jute sticks
Cowdung cake
Others
Households
Brick Kiln
Bazar
Total
Name of the Interviewer
65
Appendix-B Questionnaire for primary data collection from farmers
Integrated Management of Coastal Zone for Food Security
Questionnaire
Field level data for computing Food Security and Ecological Footprint
Sl. No. Date
1. Name of the household
Age Education Profession
2. Address of the household
Father’s name Village Electrified(Y/N)
P.O. Union Upazila District
3. Family details of the household
No. of family
members
No. of.
male
No. offemale
No. ofchildren
Earning member(s)
Yearlyincome (Tk.)
Yearly expenditure (Tk.)
4. Land distribution
Land area (ha/ac/bigha)
Homestead(ha/ac/bigha)
Cropped area (ha/ac/bigha)
Aquaculture(ha/ac/bigha)
Forest(ha/ac/bigha)
Others(ha/ac/bigha)
5. Crop information
A. Crop
Crop Area (Bigha)
grain yield
(md/big)
Straw yield
(md/big)
No. of irrigation
Cost(Tk/bigha)
Price of grain
(Tk/md)
Price of straw
(Tk/md)
66
B. Fertilizer and pesticides
Crop Area (big)
Fertilizer Pesticides
Urea TSP MPAmount
(Kg)Price (Tk.)
Amount(Kg)
Price (Tk.)
Amount(Kg)
Price (Tk.)
Amount(Kg)
Price (Tk.)
Amount(Kg)
Price (Tk.)
6. Livestock and poultry
Cattle Buffalo Goats/sheep Poultry/ duck
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
No.
Meat
Milk
7. Aquaculture
Name of fish/integrated
crops
Area (ac/ha)
Production (ton) Price(Tk/kg)
Cost(Tk./kg)
Gross income (Tk.)
Net income (Tk.)
Fish others
8. Forestry
Sl. No. Area (ac/ha)
Density(No./ha)
Growth rate
Age ht(m)
Ave dia(m)
Unit vol(m3)
Total vol(m3)
Prod(m3/yr)
Forestry
Forestry products
67
9. Energy
(a) Power tiller
No.of PT
Cultivated area
(bigha)
Operating hrs
Average no. of passes
Field capacity
(hr/bigha)
Fuel consumption
(lit/hr)
Total fuel (lit)
(b) Irrigation
Irrigated land (ha)
No. ofirrigation/
season
Ave time/irrigation/bigha
(hr)
Fuel consumption(lit/hr)
Total fuel (lit)
(c) Threshing and Milling
Item Total operating day
Average operating hrs/day
Fuel consumption (lit/hr)
Total fuel (lit)
Power thresher
Mill
(d) Transportation
Mode Avg. distance/day (km)
Average hrs/day
Fuel consumption (lit/hr)
Total fuel (lit)
Tempo/motor vehicleEngine boat
PT/Tractor
Others
(e) Electricity
Heads Total consumption(kwh/month)
Total consumption(kwh/year)
Total cost(Tk/year)
Domestic
Commercial
Industrial
Irrigation
Total
68
(f) Cooking fuel energy (Mds/month)
Heads Fire wood
Leave Straw Tree branches
Jute sticks
Cowdung cake
Households
Brick Kiln
Bazar
Total
10. Daily/Monthly food consumption (kg)
Item No. of
meal/day
Rice Wheat Potato Fish Meat Milk Egg Pulse Veg Spi
Amount
Tk/kg
Total
Name of the Interviewer
69
Appendix-C Database in Excel for computation of food security and ecological footprint in the nine upazilas of Shyamnagar, Dacop, Koyra, Shoronkhola, Morrelgonj, Mongla, Patharghata, Kalapara and Galachipa.
FOOD SECURITY CALCULATIONName of Upazila: Shayammnagar District : Satkhira
A. CropCrop Area
(ha)Yield (t/ha )
Production (ton)
Price (Tk./ton)
Gross income (Tk.)
Equi rice (ton)
Aman (L)
800 1.4 1120 18750 21000000 789.4737
Aman (U)
20,570 2.8 57596 18750 1.08E+09 40598.68
Aus 180 2.67 480.6 17000 8170200 307.1504
Boro 1500 3.6 5400 17500 94500000 3552.632
Potato 410 8 3280 13000 42640000 1603.008Khesari 250 1 250 30000 7500000 281.9549
Veg (S) 187 2.304 430.848 10000 4308480 161.9729Veg (W) 650 34.5 22425 8000 179400000 6744.361
Straw 43065 750 32298750 1214.239
Total 24547 134047.4 133750 1.47E+09 55253.47
B. FishCategory Area (ha) Production
(ton)Price (Tk./ ton)
Gross income (Tk.)
Equi rice (ton)
Marine Shrimp 0
Others
River Shrimp 4591 15 450000 6750000 253.759398Others 356 140000 49840000 1873.68421
Canal Shrimp 1338 0 450000 0 0
Others 248 120000 29760000 1118.79699
Fish+ Rice
Shrimp 357 140 450000 63000000 2368.42105
Others 60 80000 4800000 180.451128
Gher Shrimp 15622 4050 450000 1822500000 68515.0376Others 322 80000 25760000 968.421053
Pond Shrimp 150 4 450000 1800000 67.6691729
Others 173 70000 12110000 455.263158
Total 5368 2740000 2016320000 75801.5038
70
C. AnimalCategory Area
(ha)Production (ton/No.)
Price (Tk./ton/No.)
Gross income (Tk.)
Equi rice (ton)
Poultry Meat 9.28 1898 80000 1.5E+08 5708.27068
Egg 5380000 3.4 1.8E+07 687.669173
Dairy Meat 54.56 2500 150000 3.8E+08 14097.7444
Milk 1900 22000 4.2E+07 1571.42857
Total 63.84 5.9E+08 22065.1128
D. Forestry
i) Fruit Tree
Name No.Area (ha)
Production (ton) Price (Tk./ton)
Gross income
(Tk.)
Equi rice (ton)
Mango 105 840 30000 25200000 947.368
Guava 43 1240 25000 31000000 1165.41
Coconut 36 124 12000 1488000 55.9398
Jackfruit 10 140 6000 840000 31.5789
Bar 17 140 35000 4900000 184.211
Palm 30 250 6000 1500000 56.391
Berry 10 45 25000 1125000 42.2932
Banana 14 280 18000 5040000 189.474
Total 71093000 2672.67
ii) Non-fruit Tree: Category Quantity (ton) Price
(Tk./ton)Gross income
(Tk.)Equi rice
(ton)
Wood 42578 1625 69189250 2601.0996
Treebranch 66124 1250 82655000 3107.3308
Total 151844250 5708.4305
Food from all sources Equivalent rice
(ton)
Food Requirement Equivalent rice
(ton)
Food Security ratio
Food Security status (%)
161501.2 171957 0.9392 -6.08
71
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT CALCULATIONName of Upazila: Shayammnagar District : Satkhira
Category Production (ton)
Inside supply (ton)
Outside
supply
(ton)
Consumption (ton)
Global yield (t/ha)
Equiva factor
(gha/ha)
Population
Footprint component
(gha/cap)
CropRice 6459
710393 0 74990 3.75 2.8
347178
0.161279
Wheat 0 3750 0 3750 2.62 2.8 347178 0.0115435Potato 3280 14426 0 17706 16.47 2.8
3471780.0086703
Pulses 250 1503 0 1753 0.837 2.8 347178 0.0168913Vegetables
22856
17764 0 40620 18 2.8347178
0.0182001
Oils 0 1000 0 1000 2.24 2.8 347178 0.0036005Spices 0 2118 0 2118 14.17 2.8 347178 0.0012055Tea 0 139 0 139 0.56 2.8 347178 0.0020019Sugar 0 2711.4 0 2711 6.82 2.8 347178 0.0032064Sub-total 0.2265983
AnimalMeat 4398 2200 2925 3673 0.457 1.1 347178 0.0254651Egg 316 909 0 1225 0.304 1.1 347178 0.0127674Milk 1900 700 0 2600 0.52 1.1 347178 0.015842Sub-total 0.0540745
FisheryShrimp 4213 0 4043 170 3.25 0.2 347178 3.013E-05Others 1159 0 116 1043 0.05 0.2 347178 0.0120169Waste 0.1380761Sub-total 0.1501232
ForestFruit 3059 1000 569 3490 18 1.1 347178 0.0006143Sub-total 0.0006143
Total 0.4314103
Build-up Area:
Area (ha)
Yield factor (crop)
Equivalence factor (gha/ha)
Population Footprint component (gha/capita)
4771 0.85 2.8 347178 0.032706508
72
EnergyName Amount
consumed
Conversion
factor
Amount consume
d (GJ/year)
Global averag
e (GJ/ha
/yr)
Equivalence
factor (gha/ha)
Population Footprint component (gha/capita)
Fire wood (ton)
42578 15.4 655701 59 1.1347178
0.0352123
Twigs (ton)
66124 15.4 1E+06 59 1.1347178
0.054685
Straw (ton) 13193 12.23 161350 32 1.1347178
0.0159757
Cowdung (ton)
13232 8.75 115780 49 1.1347178
0.0074865
Diesel (litre)
5399445
0.038 205179 71 1.1347178
0.0091562
Petrol (litre)
3599995
0.034 122400 71 1.1347178
0.0054621
Kerosine (litre)
1923550
0.037 71171 71 1.1347178
0.0031761
Electricity (kwh)
3250000
0.0036 11700 1000 1.1347178
3.707E-05
Coal (ton) 3500 27 94500 55 1.1 347178 0.0054439
Total 0.13663487
Category Existing Area
Yield factor
Equivalence factor
(gha/ha)
Population Bio-capacity
(gha/capita)
Ecological Footprint
(gha/capita)
Ecological Status
(gha/cap)
Crop 24547 0.85 2.8 347178 0.1682764 0.2265983
Animal 63.84 150.84 1.1347178
0.0305105 0.0540745 -0.394093
Build-up 4771 0.85 2.8 347178 0.0327065 0.0327065
Fishery 22058 0.147 0.2 347178 0.0018679 0.1501232Forest 583 0.8 1.1 347178 0.0014777 0.0006143Energy 0.1366349
Total 0.2348391 0.6007517Available BC (-12% for Biodiversity) 0.2066584
73
FOOD SECURITY CALCULATION
Name of Upazila: Dacop District : Khulna
A. CropCrop Area
(ha)Yield (t/ha )
Production (ton)
Price (Tk./ton)
Gross income (Tk.)
Equi rice (ton)
Aman (L)
10500 2.8 29400 18750 551250000 20723.68
Aman (U)
9,000 3.5 31500 18750 590625000 22203.95
Boro 15 3.9 58.5 17500 1023750 38.48684
Veg (S) 270 22.38 6042.6 10000 60426000 2271.654
Veg (W) 284 28.54 8105.36 8000 64842880 2437.702
Straw 40842 750 30631500 1151.56
Total 20069 115948.5 73750 1.299E+09 48827.03
B. FishCategory Area
(ha)Production
(ton)Price
(Tk./ ton)Gross income
(Tk.)Equi rice
(ton)
Marine Shrimp
Others
River Shrimp 1947 40.89 450000 18400500 691.748Others 27.26 130000 3543800 133.226
Canal Shrimp 352 62.69 450000 28210500 1060.55Others 94.04 110000 10344400 388.887
Fish+ Rice
Shrimp 0 0 0 0 0
Others 0 0 0 0Gher Shrimp 13395 3363 450000 1513350000 56892.9
Others 1880 80000 150400000 5654.14Pond Shrimp 254 0 0 0 0
Others 508.28 75000 38121000 1433.12Total 15948 5976.16 1745000 1762370200 66254.5
74
C. AnimalCategory Area
(ha)Production (ton/No.)
Price (Tk./ton/No.)
Gross income (Tk.)
Equi rice (ton)
Poultry Meat 10.11 183 80000 1.5E+07 550.376
Egg 5000000 3.5 1.8E+07 657.895
Dairy Meat 73.16 3416 160000 5.5E+08 20547.4Milk 14400 23000 3.3E+08 12451.1
Total 83.27 9.1E+08 34206.8
D. Forestryi) Fruit TreeName No. Area
(ha)Production
(ton)Price
(Tk./ton)Gross
income (Tk.)
Equi rice (ton)
Mango 35 280 30000 8400000 315.789
Guava 12 345 25000 8625000 324.248
Coconut 12 41 12000 492000 18.4962Jackfruit 3 42 6000 252000 9.47368
Bar 5 41 35000 1435000 53.9474Palm 8 67 6000 402000 15.1128Berry 9 40 25000 1000000 37.594Banana 7 140 18000 2520000 94.7368Total 996 23126000 869.398
ii) Non-fruit Tree: WoodCategory Quantity
(ton)Price
(Tk./ton)Gross income
(Tk.)Equi rice (ton)
Wood 14891 1625 24197875 909.69455
Treebranch 9943 1250 12428750 467.24624
Total 36626625 1376.9408
Food from all sources
Equivalent rice (ton)
Food Requirement Equivalent rice
(ton)
Food Security ratio Food Security status (%)
151534.7 85495 1.772438856 77.24388556
75
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT CALCULATIONName of Upazila: Dacop District : Khulna
Category Production (ton)
Inside supply (ton)
Outside supply (ton)
Consumption (ton)
Global yield (t/ha)
Equiva factor
(gha/ha)
Population
Footprint component
(gha/cap)
CropRice 60958 0 25538 35420 3.75 2.8 172613 0.15321519
Wheat 0 1771 0 1771 2.62 2.8 172613 0.01096483
Potato 0 8362 0 8362 16.47 2.8172613
0.00823571
Pulses 0 828 0 828 0.837 2.8 172613 0.01604684
Vegeta 14148 5038 0 19186 18 2.8 172613 0.01729006
Oils 0 472 0 472 2.24 2.8 172613 0.00341805Spices 0 990 0 990 14.17 2.8 172613 0.00113331
Tea 0 62 0 62 0.56 2.8 172613 0.00179592
Sugar 0 1267 0 1267 6.82 2.8 172613 0.00301354
Sub-total
0.21511345
Animal
Meat 3599 0 908 2691 0.457 1.1 172613 0.03752465
Egg 294 112 0 406 0.304 1.1 172613 0.00851082
Milk 14400 0 13109 1291 0.52 1.1 172613 0.0158213
Sub-total
0.06185677
Fishery
Shrimp 3467 0 3432 35 3.25 0.2 172613 1.2478E-05
Others 2509 600 1604 1505 0.05 0.2 172613 0.0348757
Waste 0.23280402
Sub-total
0.2676922
Forest
Fruit 996 765 200 1561 18 1.1 172613 0.00055265
Sub-total
0.00055265
Total 0.54521507
Build-up Area:Area (ha) Yield factor
(crop)Equivalence factor
(gha/ha)Population Footprint component
(gha/capita)
4199 0.99 2.8 172613 0.067431932
76
EnergyName Amount
consumedConvers
ion factor
Amount consumed (GJ/year)
Global average
(GJ/ha/yr)
Equivalence
factor (gha/ha)
Population
Footprint component (gha/cap)
Fire wood (ton)
14891 15.4 229321.4 59 1.1172613
0.0247692
Twigs (ton)
9943 15.4 153122.2 59 1.1172613
0.0165389
Straw (ton)
16398 12.23 200547.5 32 1.1172613
0.039938
Cowdung (ton)
26445 8.75 231393.8 49 1.1172613
0.0300936
Diesel (litre)
2461095 0.038 93521.61 71 1.1172613
0.0083941
Petrol (litre)
366500 0.034 12461 71 1.1172613
0.0011184
Kerosine (litre)
2199490 0.037 81381.13 71 1.1172613
0.0073044
Electricity (kwh)
291995 0.0036 1051.182 1000 1.1172613
6.699E-06
Coal (ton) 0 27 0 55 1.1 172613 0
Total 0.1281633
Category Existing Area
Yield factor (crop)
Equivalence factor
(gha/ha)
Population Bio-capacity
(gha/capita)
Ecological Footprint
(gha/capita)
Ecological Status
(gha/cap)
Crop 20069 0.99 2.8 172613 0.322289 0.2151134
Animal 83.27 150.84 1.1 172613 0.0800432 0.0618568 -0.322318
Build-up 4199 0.99 2.8172613
0.0674319 0.0674319
Fishery 15948 0.227 0.2 172613 0.0041946 0.2676922
Forest 314 0.8 1.1 172613 0.0016008 0.0005526
Energy 0.1281633Total 0.4755595 0.7408103
Available BC (-12% for Biodiversity) 0.4184923
77
FOOD SECURITY CALCULATION
Name of Upazila: Koyra District : Khulna
A. CropCrop Area
(ha)Yield (t/ha )
Production (ton)
Price (Tk./ton)
Gross income (Tk.)
Equi rice (ton)
Aman (L) 900 2.4 2160 18750 40500000 1522.556
Aman (U) 14,320 3.7 52984 18750 993450000 37347.74
Boro 1400 5 7000 17000 119000000 4473.684
Watermel 190 50 9500 15000 142500000 5357.143
Potato 80 16 1280 12500 16000000 601.5038
Veg (S) 310 19.03 5899.3 8000 47194400 1774.226Veg (W) 296 15.55 4602.8 9500 43726600 1643.857
0 0 0 0 0 0
Straw 41636 750 31227000 1173.947
Total 17496 125062.1 100250 1.434E+09 53894.66
B. FishCategory Area
(ha)Production
(ton)Price
(Tk./ ton)Gross income
(Tk.)Equi rice
(ton)
Marine Shrimp
Others
River Shrimp 732 28 450000 12600000 473.684Others 112 150000 16800000 631.579
Canal Shrimp 1485 594 450000 267300000 10048.9Others 2376 140000 332640000 12505.3
Fish+ Rice
Shrimp 470 209 450000 94050000 3535.71
Others 870 80000 69600000 2616.54Gher Shrimp 5203 1290 450000 580500000 21823.3
Others 94 80000 7520000 282.707Pond Shrimp 214.4 42 450000 18900000 710.526
Others 798 75000 59850000 2250Total 8104.4 6413 2775000 1459760000 54878.2
78
C. AnimalCategory Area
(ha)Production (ton/No.)
Price (Tk./ton/No.)
Gross income (Tk.)
Equi rice (ton)
Poultry Meat 2.1 113 75000 8475000 318.609
Egg 9300000 3.5 3.3E+07 1223.68
Dairy Meat 74.64 4760 150000 7.1E+08 26842.1Milk 88 21000 1848000 69.4737
Total 7.6E+08 28453.9
D. Forestryi) Fruit TreeName No. Area
(ha)Production
(ton)Price
(Tk./ton)Gross income
(Tk.)Equi rice
(ton)
Mango 8 64 30000 1920000 72.1805
Guava 12 346 25000 8650000 325.188
Coconut 10 34 12000 408000 15.3383Jackfruit 12 168 6000 1008000 37.8947
Bar 6 49 35000 1715000 64.4737Palm 3 26 6000 156000 5.86466Berry 7 32 25000 800000 30.0752Banana 12 240 18000 4320000 162.406Total 70 959 18977000 713.421
ii) Non-fruit Tree: WoodCategory Quantity
(ton)Price (Tk./ton) Gross income
(Tk.)Equi rice (ton)
Wood 24901 1625 40464125 1521.2077
Treebranch 20094 1250 25117500 944.26692
Total 65581625 2465.4746
Food from all sources Equivalent
rice (ton)
Food Requirement Equivalent rice
(ton)
Food Security ratio Food Security status (%)
140405.6 104450.35 1.344233169 34.423
79
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT CALCULATIONName of Upazila: Koyra District : Khulna
Category Production (ton)
Inside supply (ton)
Outside supply (ton)
Consumption (ton)
Global yield (t/ha)
Equiva factor
(gha/ha)
Population
Footprint component
(gha/cap)
Crop
Rice 62144 0 12039 50105 3.75 2.8 210883 0.1774
Wheat 0 2004 0 2004 2.62 2.8 210883 0.0102
Potato 1280 8937 0 10217 16.47 2.8210883
0.0082
Pulses 0 1118 0 1118 0.837 2.8 210883 0.0177
Vegetables 10502 16639 0 27141 18 2.8 210883 0.0200
Oils 0 577 0 577 2.24 2.8 210883 0.0034Spices 0 1351 0 1351 14.17 2.8 210883 0.0013
Tea 0 85 0 85 0.56 2.8 210883 0.0020
Sugar 0 1581 0 1581 6.82 2.8 210883 0.0031
Sub-total 0.2433
Animal
Meat 4873 0 3819 1054 0.457 1.1 210883 0.0120
Egg 547 0 180 367 0.304 1.1 210883 0.0063
Milk 88 790 0 878 0.52 1.1 210883 0.0088
Sub-total 0.0271
Fishery
Shrimp 2163 0 2120 43 3.25 0.2 210883 0.0000
Others 4250 400 3800 850 0.05 0.2 210883 0.0161
Waste 0.0807
Sub-total 0.0968
Forest
Fruit 959 728 0 1687 18 1.1 210883 0.0005
Sub-total 0.0005
Total 0.3678
Build-up Area:Area (ha) Yield factor
(crop)Equivalence factor
(gha/ha)Population Footprint
component (gha/capita)
1043 1.16 2.8 210883 0.016064187
80
EnergyName Amount
consumed
Conversion
factor
Amount consumed (GJ/year)
Global average
(GJ/ha/yr)
Equivalence
factor (gha/ha)
Population Footprint (gha/cap)
Fire wood (ton)
24901 15.4 383475.4 59 1.1210883
0.0339
Twigs (ton)
20094 15.4 309447.6 59 1.1210883
0.0274
Straw (ton) 12020 12.23 147004.6 32 1.1210883
0.0240
Cowdung (ton)
24040 8.75 210350 49 1.1210883
0.0224
Diesel (litre)
9826250 0.038 373397.5 71 1.1210883
0.0274
Petrol (litre)
766500 0.034 26061 71 1.1210883
0.0019
Kerosine (litre)
2831473 0.037 104764.5 71 1.1210883
0.0077
Electricity (kwh)
779635 0.0036 2806.686 1000 1.1210883
0.0000
Coal (ton) 500 27 13500 55 1.1 210883 0.0013
Total 0.1460
Category Existing Area
Yield factor (crop)
Equivalence factor
(gha/ha)
Population Bio-capacity
(gha/capita)
Ecological Footprint
(gha/capita)
Ecological Status
(gha/cap)
Crop 17496 1.16 2.8 210883 0.2694717 0.2433322
Animal 76.74 150.84 1.1 210883 0.0603795 0.0271347 -0.220079
Build-up 1043 1.16 2.8210883
0.0160642 0.0160642
Fishery 8104 0.48 0.2 210883 0.0036892 0.0968388
Forest 567 0.8 1.1 210883 0.0023661 0.0004889
Energy 0.1459545Total 0.3519706 0.5298132
Available BC (-12% for Biodiversity) 0.3097342
81
FOOD SECURITY CALCULATION
Name of Upazila: Shoronkhola District : Bagerhat
A. CropCrop Area
(ha)Yield (t/ha )
Production (ton)
Price (Tk./ton)
Gross income (Tk.)
Equi rice (ton)
Aus 2000 1.5 3000 17000 51000000 1917.293
Aman (U)
9,200 2 18400 18000 331200000 12451.13
Boro 10 3 30 17000 510000 19.17293Potato 200 1 200 14000 2800000 105.2632
Veg (S) 112 12.13 1358.56 11000 14944160 561.8105Veg (W) 521 15.25 7945.25 9000 71507250 2688.242Straw 14358 750 10768500 404.8308Total 12043 45291.81 106750 482729910 18147.74
B. FishCategory Area
(ha)Production
(ton)Price
(Tk./ ton)Gross income
(Tk.)Equi rice
(ton)
Marine Shrimp 0
Others
River Shrimp 1515 16 450000 7200000 270.677Others 780 200000 156000000 5864.66
Canal Shrimp 39.68 0 0 0 0Others 0.9 150000 135000 5.07519
Fish+ Rice
Shrimp 48 64.5 525000 33862500 1273.03
Others 7 120000 840000 31.5789Gher Shrimp 0 0 0 0 0
Others 0 0 0 0Pond Shrimp 192.1 0 0 0 0
Others 474 100000 47400000 1781.95Total 1342.4 1545000 245437500 9226.97
82
C. AnimalCategory Area
(ha)Production (ton/No.)
Price (Tk/ton/No.)
Gross income (Tk.)
Equi rice (ton)
Poultry Meat 2.67 143 80000 1.1E+07 430.075Egg 93465 3.5 327128 12.298
Dairy Meat 29.14 1933 150000 2.9E+08 10900.4Milk 19.75 23000 454250 17.0771
Total 3E+08 11359.8
D. Forestryi) Fruit TreeName No. Area
(ha)Production
(ton)Price
(Tk./ton)Gross
income (Tk.)
Equi rice (ton)
Bar 32 190 38000 7220000 271.429
Mango 110 760 32000 24320000 914.286
Banana 270 5720 18000 102960000 3870.68Coconut 600 2100 12000 25200000 947.368
Sofeda 28 700 11000 7700000 289.474Guava 45 700 25000 17500000 657.895Palm 50 1050 6000 6300000 236.842Papaya 70 1260 8000 10080000 378.947Total 12480 201280000 7566.92
ii) Non-fruit Tree: WoodCategory Quantity
(ton)Price (Tk./ton) Gross income
(Tk.)Equi rice (ton)
Wood 15754 1625 25600250 962.41541
Treebranch 24466 1250 30582500 1149.718
Total 56182750 2112.1335
Food from all sources Equivalent
rice (ton)
Food Requirement Equivalent rice
(ton)
Food Security ratio Food Security Status (%)
48413.59 63408.8 0.763515342 -23.65
83
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT CALCULATIONName of Upazila: Shoronkhola District : Bagerhat
Category Production
(ton)
Inside supply (ton)
Outside
supply (ton)
Consumptio
n (ton)
Global yield (t/ha)
Equiva factor
(gha/ha)
Population
Footprint (gha/cap)
Crop
Rice 21630 7174 0 28804 3.75 2.8 128021 0.1680
Wheat 0 1410 0 1410 2.62 2.8 128021 0.0118
Potato 2000 3223 0 5223 16.47 2.8128021
0.0069
Pulses 0 484 0 484 0.837 2.8 128021 0.0126
Vegetables 9303 2679 0 11982 18 2.8 128021 0.0146
Oils 0 331 0 331 2.24 2.8 128021 0.0032Spices 0 711 0 711 14.17 2.8 128021 0.0011
Tea 0 49 0 49 0.56 2.8 128021 0.0019
Sugar 0 799 0 799 6.82 2.8 128021 0.0026
Sub-total 0.22271
Animal
Meat 2076 0 1820 256 0.457 1.1 128021 0.00481
Egg 5.5 220.5 0 226 0.304 1.1 128021 0.00639
Milk 19.75 172.25 0 192 0.52 1.1 128021 0.00317
Sub-total 0.01437
Fishery
Shrimp 80.5 0 78.89 1.61 3.25 0.2 128021 7.7E-07
Others 1261.9 0 756.9 505 0.05 0.2 128021 0.01578
Waste 0.00112
Sub-total 0.0169
Forest
Fruit 12480 1300 11020 3120 18 1.1 128021 0.00149
Sub-total 0.00149
Total 0.25548
Build-up area:Area (ha) Yield factor
(crop)Equivalence factor
(gha/ha)Population Footprint component
(gha/capita)
560 0.67 2.8 128021 0.008206154
84
EnergyName Amount
consumedConvers
ion factor
Amount consumed (GJ/year)
Global average
(GJ/ha/yr)
Equivafactor
(gha/ha)
Population Footprint (gha/cap)
Fire wood (ton)
15754 15.4 242611.6 59 1.1128021
0.0353
Twigs (ton)
24466 15.4 376776.4 59 1.1128021
0.0549
Straw (ton)
4881 12.23 59694.63 32 1.1128021
0.0160
Cowdung (ton)
1295 8.75 11331.25 49 1.1128021
0.0020
Diesel (litre)
1997794 0.038 75916.17 71 1.1128021
0.0092
Petrol (litre)
1331998 0.034 45287.93 71 1.1128021
0.0055
Kerosine (litre)
577108 0.037 21353 71 1.1128021
0.0026
Electricity (kwh)
595892 0.0036 2145.211 1000 1.1128021
0.0000
Coal (ton) 0 27 0 55 1.1 128021 0.0000
Total 0.1255
Category Existing Area
Yield factor (crop)
Equivalence factor
(gha/ha)
Population Bio-capacity
(gha/capita)
Ecological Footprint
(gha/capita)
Ecological Status
(gha/cap)
Crop 12043 0.65 2.8 128021 0.1712083 0.2227139
Animal 31.81 150.84 1.1 128021 0.0412279 0.0143735 -0.168749
Build-up 560 0.67 2.8128021
0.0082062 0.0082062
Fishery 1795 0.45 0.2 128021 0.0012619 0.0169043
Forest 4158 0.8 1.1 128021 0.0285816 0.0014893
Energy 0.1254894Total 0.2504859 0.3891766
Available BC (-12% for Biodiversity) 0.2204276
85
FOOD SECURITY CALCULATION
Name of Upazila: Morrelgonj District : Bagerhat
A. CropCrop Area
(ha)Yield (t/ha )
Production (ton)
Price (Tk./ton)
Gross income (Tk.)
Equi rice (ton)
Aman (L)
24150 1.6 38640 18500 714840000 26873.68
Aman (U)
4,130 2.6 10738 18500 198653000 7468.158
Aus 1550 2.4 3720 17000 63240000 2377.444Boro 91 1.6 145.6 17000 2475200 93.05263
Boro 779 2.72 2118.88 17000 36020960 1354.171Potato 275 12 3300 14000 46200000 1736.842Veg (S) 760 11.1 8436 11000 92796000 3488.571Veg (W) 750 12.88 9660 9000 86940000 3268.421Straw 37092 750 27819000 1045.827Total 32485 113850.5 122750 1.269E+09 47706.17
B. FishCategory Area
(ha)Production
(ton)Price
(Tk./ ton)Gross income
(Tk.)Equi rice
(ton)
Marine Shrimp
Others
River Shrimp 2332 4 450000 1800000 67.6692Others 188 200000 37600000 1413.53
Canal Shrimp 1537 1.28 450000 576000 21.6541Others 127 120000 15240000 572.932
Fish+ Rice
Shrimp 11437 2620 450000 1179000000 44323.3
Others 291 70000 20370000 765.789Gher Shrimp 0 0 0 0 0
Others 0 0 0 0
Pond Shrimp 1217 0 0 0 0Others 2608 60000 156480000 5882.71
Total 5839.28 1800000 1411066000 53047.6
86
C. AnimalCategory Area
(ha)Production (ton/No.)
Price (Tk./ton/No.)
Gross income (Tk.)
Equi rice (ton)
Poultry Meat 6.19 332 80000 2.7E+07 998.496Egg 549578 3.5 1923523 72.3129
Dairy Meat 54.99 3589 160000 5.7E+08 21588Milk 228.5 22500 5141250 193.28
Total 6.1E+08 22852.1
D. Forestryi) Fruit TreeName No. Area
(ha)Production
(ton)Price
(Tk./ton)Gross
income (Tk.)
Equi rice (ton)
Mango 100 850 30000 25500000 958.647
Guava 0 0 0 0 0
Coconut 0 0 0 0 0Jackfruit 0 0 0 0 0
Bar 0 0 0 0 0Palm 0 0 0 0 0Papaya 50 500 8000 4000000 150.376Banana 1100 8800 15000 132000000 4962.41Total 161500000 6071.43
ii) Non-fruit Tree: WoodCategory Quantity
(ton)Price (Tk./ton) Gross income
(Tk.)Equi rice (ton)
Wood 33091 1625 53772875 2021.5367
Treebranch 22095 1250 27618750 1038.2989
Total 81391625 3059.8355
Food from all sources Equivalent
rice (ton)
Food Requirement Equivalent rice
(ton)
Food Security ratio Food Security status (%)
132737.1 190432.45 0.69702978 -30.29
87
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT CALCULATIONName of Upazila: Morrelgonj District : Bagerhat
Category Production (ton)
Inside supply (ton)
Outside supply (ton)
Consumption (ton)
Global yield (t/ha)
Equiva factor
(gha/ha)
Population Footprint
(gha/cap)
Crop
Rice 55362 23533 0 78895 3.75 2.8 384479 0.1532
Wheat 0 3654 0 3654 2.62 2.8 384479 0.0102
Potato 3300 17288 0 20588 16.47 2.8384479
0.0091
Pulses 0 1903 0 1903 0.837 2.8 384479 0.0166
Vegetab 18096 24638 0 42734 18 2.8 384479 0.0173
Oils 0 1162 0 1162 2.24 2.8 384479 0.0038Spices 0 2462 0 2462 14.17 2.8 384479 0.0013
Tea 0 169 0 169 0.56 2.8 384479 0.0022
Sugar 0 2699 0 2699 6.82 2.8 384479 0.0029
Sub-total 0.2164
Animal
Meat 3921 0 653 3268 0.457 1.1 384479 0.0205
Egg 32.32 419.68 0 452 0.304 1.1 384479 0.0043
Milk 228.5 130 0 358.5 0.52 1.1 384479 0.0020
Sub-total 0.0267
Fishery
Shrimp 2625.28
0 2573.28 52 3.25 0.2384479
0.0000
Others 3214 0 553 2571 0.05 0.2 384479 0.0267
Waste 0.0892
Sub-total 0.1160
Forest
Fruit 8800 900 6232 3468 18 1.1 384479 0.0006
Sub-total 0.0006
Total 0.3597
Build-up Area:
Area (ha)
Yield factor (crop)
Equivalence factor (gha/ha)
Population Footprint component (gha/capita)
1986 0.69 2.8 384479 0.009979614
88
EnergyName Amount
consumedConversion
factorAmount
consumed (GJ/year)
Global average
(GJ/ha/yr)
Equiva factor
(gha/ha)
Population
Footprint component (gha/cap)
Fire wood (ton)
33091 15.4 509601.4 59 1.1384479
0.0247
Twigs (ton)
22095 15.4 340263 59 1.1384479
0.0165
Straw (ton)
36440 12.23 445661.2 32 1.1384479
0.0398
Cowdung (ton)
33056 8.75 289240 49 1.1384479
0.0169
Diesel (litre)
6152737 0.038 233804 71 1.1384479
0.0094
Petrol (litre)
916250 0.034 31152.5 71 1.1384479
0.0013
Kerosine (litre)
2495128 0.037 92319.74 71 1.1384479
0.0037
Electricity (kwh)
2730613 0.0036 9830.207 1000 1.1384479
0.0000
Coal (ton) 0 27 0 55 1.1 384479 0.0000
Total 0.1124
Category Existing Area
Yield factor (crop)
Equivalence factor
(gha/ha)
Population Bio-capacity
(gha/capita)
Ecological Footprint
(gha/capita)
Ecological Status (gha/cap)
Crop 32485 0.69 2.8 384479 0.1632365 0.2164463
Animal 61.18 150.84 1.1384479
0.0264026 0.0266854 -0.289639
Build-up 1986 0.69 2.8384479
0.0099796 0.0099796
Fishery 16523 0.214 0.2 384479 0.0018393 0.1159965
Forest 7500 0.8 1.1 384479 0.0171661 0.0005512
Energy 0.1123696Total 0.2186241 0.4820286
Available BC (-12% for Biodiversity) 0.1923892
89
FOOD SECURITY CALCULATION
Name of Upazila: Mongla District : Bagerhat
A. CropCrop Area
(ha)Yield (t/ha )
Production (ton)
Price (Tk./ton)
Gross income (Tk.)
Equi rice (ton)
Aman (L)
11220 2.45 27489 18750 515418750 19376.64
Potato 45 1.1 49.5 18750 928125 34.89192
Veg 332 1.2 398.4 17000 6772800 254.6165Chilli 30 1.1 33 17500 577500 21.71053
Garlic 6 2.1 12.6 13000 163800 6.157895Khesari 2 0.9 1.8 30000 54000 2.030075
Straw 18118 750 13588500 510.8459Total 537503475 20206.9
B. FishCategory Area
(ha)Production
(ton)Price
(Tk./ ton)Gross income
(Tk.)Equi rice
(ton)
Marine Shrimp 0
Others
River Shrimp 2746 30 450000 13500000 507.5188Others 1500 140000 210000000 7894.7368
Canal Shrimp 101 0 450000 0 0Others 3.5 120000 420000 15.789474
Fish+ Rice
Shrimp 9806 3187 450000 1434150000 53915.414
Others 1372 80000 109760000 4126.3158Gher Shrimp 0 0 450000 0 0
Others 0 80000 0 0
Pond Shrimp 253 144.45 450000 65002500 2443.703Others 672.78 70000 47094600 1770.4737
Total 6909.73 2740000 1879927100 70673.951
90
C. AnimalCategory Area
(ha)Production (ton/No.)
Price (Tk./ton/No.)
Gross income (Tk.)
Equi rice (ton)
Poultry Meat 4.98 268 80000 2.1E+07 806.015038
Egg 5225000 3.4 1.8E+07 667.857143
Dairy Meat 13.79 940 150000 1.4E+08 5300.75188Milk 472 22000 1E+07 390.37594
Total 1.9E+08 7165
D. Forestryi) Fruit TreeName No. Area
(ha)Production
(ton)Price
(Tk./ton)Gross
income (Tk.)
Equi rice (ton)
Coconut 8 25 11000 275000 10.3383459
Mango 7 56 28000 1568000 58.9473684
Guava 10 280 24000 6720000 252.631579Papaya 5 50 8000 400000 15.037594
Bar 4 32 32000 1024000 38.4962406Sofeda 3 55 11000 605000 22.7443609Banana 3 50 16000 800000 30.075188Total 548 11392000 428.270677
ii) Non-fruit Tree: Category Quantity
(ton)Price (Tk./ton) Gross income
(Tk.)Equi rice (ton)
Wood 11580 1625 18817500 707.42481
Tree branch 8530 1250 10662500 400.84586
Total 29480000 1108.2707
Food from all sources
Equivalent rice (ton)
Food Requirement Equivalent rice
(ton)
Food Security ratio Food Security status (%)
99582.39 72755.6 1.368724745 36.87247447
91
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT CALCULATIONName of Upazila: Mongla District : Bagerhat
Category Production (ton)
Inside supply (ton)
Outside supply (ton)
Consumption
(ton)
Globalyield (t/ha)
Equiva factor
(gha/ha) Population
Footprint (gha/cap)
Crop
Rice 27970 5080 0 33050 3.75 2.8 146892 0.1680
Wheat 0 1652 0 1652 2.62 2.8 146892 0.0120
Potato 13 8066 0 8079 16.47 2.8146892
0.0094
Pulses 2 746 0 748 0.837 2.8 146892 0.0170
Vegeta 398 17229 0 17627 18 2.8 146892 0.0187
Oils 0 381 0 381 2.24 2.8 146892 0.0032Spices 0 998 0 998 14.17 2.8 146892 0.0013
Tea 0 62 0 62 0.56 2.8 146892 0.0021
Sugar 0 1013 0 1013 6.82 2.8 146892 0.0028
Sub-total 0.2346
Animal
Meat 1208 0 398 810 0.457 1.1 146892 0.0133
Egg 307 38 0 345 0.304 1.1 146892 0.0085
Milk 472 155 0 627 0.52 1.1 146892 0.0090
Sub-total 0.0308
Fishery
Shrimp 3361 0 3328 33 3.25 0.2 146892 0.0000
Others 3548 0 1065 2483 0.05 0.2 146892 0.0676
Waste 0.2003
Sub-total 0.2679
Forest
Fruit 548 480 0 1028 18 1.1 146892 0.0004
Sub-total 0.0004
Total 0.5337
Build-up Area:Area (ha) Yield factor
(crop)Equivalence factor
(gha/ha)Population Footprint component
(gha/capita)
850 0.65 2.8 146892 0.010531547
92
EnergyName Amount
consumedConver
sion factor
Amount consumed (GJ/year)
Global average
(GJ/ha/yr)
Equiva factor
(gha/ha)
Population Footprint (gha/cap)
Fire wood (ton)
11580 15.4 178332 59 1.1146892
0.0226
Twigs (ton) 8530 15.4 131362 59 1.1 146892 0.0167
Straw (ton) 13417 12.23 164089.9 32 1.1 146892 0.0384
Cowdung (ton)
25440 8.75 222600 49 1.1146892
0.0340
Diesel (litre)
1476657 0.038 56112.97 71 1.1146892
0.0059
Petrol (litre) 91625 0.034 3115.25 71 1.1 146892 0.0003Kerosine (litre)
649357 0.037 24026.21 71 1.1146892
0.0025
Electricity (kwh)
1340984 0.0036 4827.542 1000 1.1146892
0.0000
Coal (ton) 0 27 0 55 1.1 146892 0.0000
Total 0.1205
Category Existing Area
Yield factor (crop)
Equivalence factor
(gha/ha)
Population Bio-capacity
(gha/capita)
Ecological Footprint (gha/cap)
Ecological Status
(gha/capita)
Crop 11259 0.65 2.8 146892 0.1394996 0.2345935
Animal 18.77 150.84 1.1 146892 0.0212019 0.0308007 -0.50766
Build-up 850 0.65 2.8146892
0.0105315 0.0105315
Fishery 12906 0.324 0.2 146892 0.0056934 0.2678977
Forest 273 0.8 1.1 146892 0.0016355 0.0004277
Energy 0.1205434Total 0.178562 0.6647945
Available BC (-12% for Biodiversity) 0.1571345
93
FOOD SECURITY CALCULATION
Name of Upazila: Patharghata District : Barguna
A. CropCrop Area
(ha)Yield (t/ha )
Production (ton)
Price (Tk./ton)
Gross income (Tk.)
Equi rice (ton)
Rice 20615 2.3 47414.5 18750 889021875 33421.88
Potato 700 20 14000 8000 112000000 4210.526
S. potato 625 14 8750 5000 43750000 1644.737
G. Nut 275 1 275 30000 8250000 310.1504
Chilli 485 1.3 630.5 40000 25220000 948.1203
Pulses 7275 0.67 4874.25 35000 170598750 6413.487Veg (S) 425 13.13 5580.25 12000 66963000 2517.406
Veg (W) 180 14.25 2565 11000 28215000 1060.714
Straw 31767 750 23825250 895.6861
Total 30580 115856.5 160500 1.368E+09 51422.7
B. FishCategory Area
(ha)Production
(ton)Price (Tk./ ton)
Gross income (Tk.)
Equi rice (ton)
Marine Shrimp
Others
River Shrimp 296 0 0 0 0Others 370 150000 55500000 2086.47
Canal Shrimp 228 0 0 0 0Others 3430 100000 343000000 12894.7
Fish+ Rice Shrimp 55 16 500000 8000000 300.752Others 60.3 100000 6030000 226.692
Gher Shrimp 0 0 0 0 0Others 0 0 0 0
Pond Shrimp 461.86 0 0 0 0Others 616.325 100000 61632500 2317.01
Total 1040.86 4492.625 950000 474162500 17825.7
94
C. AnimalCategory Area
(ha)Production (ton/No.)
Price (Tk./ton/No.)
Gross income (Tk.)
Equi rice (ton)
Poultry Meat 6.92 372 80000 3E+07 1118.8Egg 200000 3.4 680000 25.5639
Dairy Meat 48.7 3227 160000 5.2E+08 19410.5Milk 120 21000 2520000 94.7368
Total 55.62 5.5E+08 20649.6
D. Forestryi) Fruit TreeName No. Area
(ha)Production
(ton)Price
(Tk./ton)Gross
income (Tk.)
Equi rice (ton)
Mango 22 704 30000 21120000 793.985
Jackfruit 25 1300 5000 6500000 244.361
Banana 60 1800 15000 27000000 1015.04Papaya 10 260 8000 2080000 78.1955
Guava 20 320 20000 6400000 240.602Coconut 160 4950 10000 49500000 1860.9Others 25 400 5000 2000000 75.188Total 9734 114600000 4308.27
ii) Non-fruit Tree: WoodCategory Quantity
(ton)Price (Tk./ton) Gross income
(Tk.)Equi rice (ton)
Wood 21234 1375 29196750 1097.6222
Tree branch 33062 1250 41327500 1553.6654
Total 70524250 2651.2876
Food from all sources Equivalent
rice (ton)
Food Requirement Equivalent rice
(ton)
Food Security ratio Food Security status (%)
96857.54 89241.17 1.0853 8.53
95
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT CALCULATIONName of Upazila: Patharghata District : Barguna
Category Production (ton)
Inside supply (ton)
Outside supply (ton)
Consumption (ton)
Global yield (t/ha)
Equiva factor
(gha/ha)
Population Footprint component
(gha/cap)
Crop
Rice 47414 1900 6420 42894 3.75 2.8 180176 0.1778
Wheat 0 1950 0 1950 2.62 2.8 180176 0.0116
Potato 1325 7882 0 9207 16.47 2.8180176
0.0087
Pulses 4874 500 4174 1200 0.837 2.8 180176 0.0223
Vegeta 8145 12160 0 20305 18 2.8 180176 0.0175
Oils 0 490 0 490 2.24 2.8 180176 0.0034Spices 630 490 100 1020 14.17 2.8 180176 0.0011
Tea 0 65 0 65 0.56 2.8 180176 0.0018
Sugar 200 1450 0 1650 6.82 2.8 180176 0.0038
Sub-total 0.2479
Animal
Meat 3599 0 1763 1836 0.457 1.1 180176 0.0245
Egg 12 355 0 367 0.304 1.1 180176 0.0074
Milk 120 580 0 700 0.52 1.1 180176 0.0082
Sub-total 0.0401
Fishery
Shrimp 16 0 14 2 3.25 0.2 180176 0.0000
Others 4476 0 3581 895 0.05 0.2 180176 0.0199
Waste 0.0009
Sub-total 0.0208
Forest
Fruit 9734 450 8551 1633 18 1.1 180176 0.0006
Sub-total 0.0006
Total 0.3094
Build-up Area:Area (ha)
Yield factor (crop)
Equivalence factor (gha/ha)
Population Footprint component (gha/capita)
4187 0.87 2.8 180176 0.056608716
96
EnergyName Amount
consumedConversion factor
Amount consume
d (GJ/year)
Global average
(GJ/ha/yr)
Equivfactor
(gha/ha)
Population Footprint component (gha/cap)
Fire wood (ton)
21234 15.4 327003.6 59 1.1180176
0.0338
Twigs (ton) 33062 15.4 509154.8 59 1.1 180176 0.0527
Straw (ton) 7546 12.23 92287.58 32 1.1180176
0.0176
Cowdung (ton)
6232 8.75 54530 49 1.1180176
0.0068
Diesel (litre)
1413168 0.038 53700.38 71 1.1180176
0.0046
Petrol (litre)
127227 0.034 4325.718 71 1.1180176
0.0004
Kerosine (litre)
1245826 0.037 46095.56 71 1.1180176
0.0040
Electricity (kwh)
541872 0.0036 1950.739 1000 1.1180176
0.0000
Coal (ton) 3000 27 81000 55 1.1 180176 0.0090
Total 0.1289
Category Existing Area
Yield factor (crop)
Equiva factor
(gha/ha)
Population Bio-capacity (gha/cap)
Ecological Footprint (gha/cap)
Ecological Status
(gha/cap)
Crop 30580 0.87 2.8 180176 0.413445 0.2479026
Animal 55.62 150.84 1.1 180176 0.051220 0.0401163 -0.027091
Build-up 4187 0.87 2.8180176
0.056608 0.0566087
Fishery 1041 1.65 0.2 180176 0.001906 0.0207859
Forest 1712 0.8 1.1 180176 0.008361 0.0005539
Energy 0.1288808Total 0.531542 0.4948481
Available BC (-12% for Biodiversity) 0.467757
97
FOOD SECURITY CALCULATION
Name of Upazila: Kalapara District : Patuakhali
A. CropCrop Area
(ha)Yield (t/ha )
Production (ton)
Price (Tk./ton)
Gross income (Tk.)
Equi rice (ton)
Rice 48460 3.27 158464.2 18750 2.971E+09 111699.4
Potato 35 12 420 8000 3360000 126.3158
S. Potato 504 10 5040 5000 25200000 947.3684Chilli 410 1.5 615 35000 21525000 809.2105
Pulse 7675 0.92 7061 35000 247135000 9290.789W melon 1091 40 43640 20000 872800000 32812.03G. Nut 530 1.5 795 24000 19080000 717.2932Maize 58 5 290 15000 4350000 163.5338Til 70 0.9 63 22000 1386000 52.10526Veg (S) 160 8.78 1404.8 11000 15452800 580.9323Veg (W) 850 13.1 11135 10000 111350000 4186.09Straw 106170 750 79627500 2993.515Total 59843 4.372E+09 164378.6
B. FishCategory Area
(ha)Production
(ton)Price
(Tk./ ton)Gross income
(Tk.)Equi rice
(ton)
Marine Shrimp 0
Others
River Shrimp 241 22 200000 4400000 165.413534Others 1300 140000 182000000 6842.10526
Canal Shrimp 1091 5 200000 1000000 37.593985Others 4680 120000 561600000 21112.782
Fish+ Rice
Shrimp 0 0 0 0 0
Others 0 0 0 0Gher Shrimp 985 375 500000 187500000 7048.87218
Others 0 0 0 0Pond Shrimp 1196 147 500000 73500000 2763.15789
Others 1175 110000 129250000 4859.02256Total 3513 7704 1770000 1139250000 42828.9474
98
C. AnimalCategory Area
(ha)Production (ton/No.)
Price (Tk./ton/No.)
Gross income (Tk.)
Equi rice (ton)
Poultry Meat 53.44 534 70000 3.7E+07 1405.26
Egg 5024708 3.4 1.7E+07 642.256
Dairy Meat 198.26 13648 120000 1.6E+09 61569.9Milk 12790 18000 2.3E+08 8654.89
Total 251.7 1.9E+09 72272.3
D. Forestryi) Fruit TreeName No. Area
(ha)Production
(ton)Price
(Tk./ton)Gross
income (Tk.)
Equi rice (ton)
Mango 35 280 25000 7000000 263.158
Jackfruit 22 308 6000 1848000 69.4737
Banana 112 2040 16000 32640000 1227.07Papaya 13 208 7000 1456000 54.7368
Coconut 160 550 11000 6050000 227.444Bar 40 328 25000 8200000 308.271Guava 230 3890 22000 85580000 3217.29Litchi 22 53 22000 1166000 43.8346Palm 37 222 6000 1332000 50.0752Total 7879 145272000 5461.35
ii) Non-fruit Tree: WoodCategory Quantity
(ton)Price (Tk./ton) Gross income
(Tk.)Equi rice (ton)
Wood 26824 1375 36883000 1386.5789
Treebranch 41658 1250 52072500 1957.6128
Total 88955500 3344.1917
Food from all sources Equivalent
rice (ton)
Food Requirement Equivalent rice
(ton)
Food Security ratio Food Security status (%)
288285.4 109118.55 2.6419 164.19
99
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT CALCULATION
Name of Upazila: Kalapara District : Patuakhali
Category Production (ton)
Inside supply (ton)
Outside supply (ton)
Consumption (ton)
Global yield (t/ha)
Equiva factor
(gha/ha)
Population
Footprint component
(gha/cap)
Crop
Rice 158464 2500 109221 51743 3.75 2.8 220308 0.1754
Wheat 0 2250 0 2250 2.62 2.8 220308 0.0109
Potato 5390 6119 0 11509 16.47 2.8220308
0.0089
Pulses 7061 600 6392 1269 0.837 2.8 220308 0.0193
Veget 7300 17884 0 25184 18 2.8 220308 0.0178
Oils 0 620 0 620 2.24 2.8 220308 0.0035Spices 615 656 0 1271 14.17 2.8 220308 0.0011
Tea 0 82 0 82 0.56 2.8 220308 0.0019
Sugar 400 1362 0 1762 6.82 2.8 220308 0.0033
Sub-total 0.2420
Animal
Meat 14182 0 11868 2314 0.457 1.1 220308 0.0253
Egg 296 196 0 492 0.304 1.1 220308 0.0081
Milk 12790 0 10970 1820 0.52 1.1 220308 0.0175
Sub-total 0.0508
Fishery
Shrimp 594 0 587 7 3.25 0.2 220308 0.0000
Others 7155 0 5724 1431 0.05 0.2 220308 0.0260
Waste 0.0134
Sub-total 0.0394
Forest
Fruit 7879 1300 6981 2198 18 1.1 220308 0.0006
Sub-total 0.0006
Total 0.3328
Build-up Area:
Area (ha)
Yield factor (crop)
Equivalence factor (gha/ha)
Population Footprint component (gha/capita)
848 0.87 2.8 220308 0.009376546
100
EnergyName Amount
consumedConversion
factorAmount
consumed (GJ/year)
Global average
(GJ/ha/yr)
Equiv factor
(gha/ha)
Population
Footprint (gha/cap)
Fire wood (ton)
26824 15.4 413089.6 59 1.1220308
0.0350
Twigs (ton)
41658 15.4 641533.2 59 1.1220308
0.0543
Straw (ton) 7916 12.23 96812.68 32 1.1220308
0.0151
Cowdung (ton)
8601 8.75 75258.75 49 1.1220308
0.0077
Diesel (litre)
1943106 0.038 73838.03 71 1.1220308
0.0052
Petrol (litre)
159033 0.034 5407.122 71 1.1220308
0.0004
Kerosine (litre)
574086 0.037 21241.18 71 1.1220308
0.0015
Electricity (kwh)
2450769 0.0036 8822.768 1000 1.1220308
0.0000
Coal (ton) 0 27 0 55 1.1 220308 0.0000
Total 0.1191
Category Existing Area
Yield factor (crop)
Equivalence factor
(gha/ha)
Population Bio-capacity
(gha/capita)
Ecological Footprint
(gha/capita)
Ecological Status
(gha/cap)
Crop 59843 0.87 2.8 220308 0.6616988 0.2420165
Animal 251.7 150.84 1.1 220308 0.1895667 0.0508382 0.3066846
Build-up 848 0.87 2.8220308
0.0093765 0.0093765
Fishery 3513 1.33 0.2 220308 0.0042416 0.0393828
Forest 1976 0.8 1.1 220308 0.0078929 0.0006097
Energy 0.1191351Total 0.8727767 0.4613588
Available BC (-12% for Biodiversity) 0.7680435
101
FOOD SECURITY CALCULATION
Name of Upazila: Galachipa District : Patuakhali
A. CropCrop Area (ha) Yield (t/ha ) Production
(ton)Price
(Tk./ton)Gross income
(Tk.)Equi rice
(ton)
Rice 88935 1.88 167197.8 18750 3.135E+09 117855.6
Pulse 23,500 1.2 28200 40000 1.128E+09 42406.02
Chilli 6700 1.1 7370 50000 368500000 13853.38Potato 1200 22 26400 9000 237600000 8932.331
S.Potato 5500 16 88000 6000 528000000 19849.62W. melon 1200 48 57600 20000 1.152E+09 43308.27Veg (S) 425 17.83 7577.75 12000 90933000 3418.534Veg (W) 2645 18 47610 11000 523710000 19688.35Straw 112022 750 84016500 3158.515Total 130105 541977.6 167500 7.248E+09 272470.6
B. Fish
Category Area (ha) Production (ton)
Price (Tk./ ton)
Gross income (Tk.)
Equi rice (ton)
Marine Shrimp
Others
River Shrimp 810 1510 200000 302000000 11353.4Others 5300 140000 742000000 27894.7
Canal Shrimp 404 20 200000 4000000 150.376Others 213 90000 19170000 720.677
Fish+ Rice Shrimp 40 10 550000 5500000 206.767Others 50 100000 5000000 187.97
Gher Shrimp 2600 586 500000 293000000 11015Others 300 100000 30000000 1127.82
Pond Shrimp 2095 1 550000 550000 20.6767Others 2936 105000 308280000 11589.5
Total 5949 10926 2535000 1709500000 64266.9
102
C. AnimalCategory Area
(ha)Production (ton/No.)
Price (Tk./ton/No.)
Gross income (Tk.)
Equi rice (ton)
Poultry Meat 16.27 874 75000 6.6E+07 2464.29
Egg 29200000 3.4 9.9E+07 3732.33
Dairy Meat 116.33 8028 150000 1.2E+09 45270.7Milk 1095 21000 2.3E+07 864.474
Total 132.6 1.4E+09 52331.8
D. Forestryi) Fruit TreeName No. Area
(ha)Production
(ton)Price
(Tk./ton)Gross
income (Tk.)
Equi rice (ton)
Mango 40 320 25000 8000000 300.752
Jackfruit 20 280 6000 1680000 63.1579
Banana 60 1200 16000 19200000 721.805Papaya 15 240 7000 1680000 63.1579
Coconut 170 580 11000 6380000 239.85Bar 35 280 25000 7000000 263.158Guava 80 1240 22000 27280000 1025.56Litchi 12 40 30000 1200000 45.1128Palm 27 135 6000 810000 30.4511
0Total 4315 73230000 2753.01
ii) Non-fruit Tree: WoodCategory Quantity
(ton)Price (Tk./ton) Gross income
(Tk.)Equi rice (ton)
Wood 42590 1375 58561250 2201.5508
Treebranch 66200 1250 82750000 3110.9023
Total 141311250 5312.453
Food from all sources Equivalent
rice (ton)
Food Requirement Equivalent rice
(ton)
Food Security ratio Food Security status (%)
397134.8 173863.18 2.2842 128.42
103
ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT CALCULATIONName of Upazila: Galachipa District : Patuakhali
Category Production (ton)
Inside supply (ton)
Outside supply (ton)
Consumption (ton)
Global yield (t/ha)
Equiva factor
(gha/ha)
Population
Footprint (gha/cap)
Crop
Rice 167198 4200 92408 78990 3.75 2.8 351026 0.1680
Wheat 0 3780 0 3780 2.62 2.8 351026 0.0115
Potato 114400 0 96790 17610 16.47 2.8 351026 0.0085
Pulses 28200 800 27040 1960 0.837 2.8 351026 0.0187
Veget 55188 2500 16968 40720 18 2.8 351026 0.0180
Oils 0 998 0 998 2.24 2.8 351026 0.0036Spices 7370 855 6210 2015 14.17 2.8 351026 0.0011
Tea 0 135 0 135 0.56 2.8 351026 0.0019
Sugar 700 2200 0 2900 6.82 2.8 351026 0.0034
Sub-total 0.2348
Animal
Meat 8902 0 5632 3270 0.457 1.1 351026 0.0224
Egg 1718 0 693 1025 0.304 1.1 351026 0.0106
Milk 1095 200 0 1295 0.52 1.1 351026 0.0078
Sub-total 0.0408
Fishery
Shrimp 2127 0 2107 20 3.25 0.2 351026 0.0000
Others 8799 0 7039 1760 0.05 0.2 351026 0.0201
Waste 0.0226
Sub-total 0.0426
Forest
Fruit 4315 550 1585 3280 18 1.1 351026 0.0006
Sub-total 0.0006
Total 0.3188
Build-up Area:
Area (ha)
Yield factor (crop)
Equivalence factor (gha/ha)
Population Footprint component (gha/capita)
7334 0.72 2.8 351026 0.042120367
104
EnergyName Amount
consumedConver
sionfactor
Amount consumed (GJ/year)
Global average
(GJ/ha/yr)
Equiva factor
(gha/ha)
Population Footprint component (gha/cap)
Fire wood (ton)
42590 15.4 655886 59 1.1351026
0.0348
Twigs (ton)
66200 15.4 1019480 59 1.1351026
0.0541
Straw (ton)
13290 12.23 162536.7 32 1.1351026
0.0159
Cowdung (ton)
12900 8.75 112875 49 1.1351026
0.0072
Diesel (litre)
2826336 0.038 107400.8 71 1.1351026
0.0047
Petrol (litre)
254454 0.034 8651.436 71 1.1351026
0.0004
Kerosine (litre)
1203945 0.037 44545.97 71 1.1351026
0.0020
Electricity (kwh)
2709359 0.0036 9753.692 1000 1.1351026
0.0000
Coal (ton) 0 27 0 55 1.1 351026 0.0000
Total 0.1192
Category Existing Area
Yield factor (crop)
Equivalence factor
(gha/ha)
Population
Bio-capacity (gha/cap)
Ecological Footprint (gha/cap)
Ecological Status
(gha/cap)
Crop 130105 0.72 2.8 351026 0.7472144 0.234783
Animal 132.6 150.84 1.1 351026 0.0626778 0.040792 0.3219556
Build-up 7334 0.72 2.8351026
0.0421204 0.042120
Fishery 5949 1.11 0.2 351026 0.0037623 0.042619
Forest 22210 0.8 1.1 351026 0.0556791 0.000571
Energy 0.119238Total 0.9114539 0.480124
Available BC (-12% for Biodiversity) 0.8020795
105
Appendix- D. Equations for normal growth of Dacop upazila
Biocapacity sectorbiocapacity_for_animal = animal_area*equivalence_factor_for_animal*yield_factor_for_animalbiocapacity_for_buildup_area = buildup_area*equivalence_factor_for_crop*yield_factor_for_cropbiocapacity_for_crop = (crop_area+crop_fish_integrated_farming_area+Boro_Aus_area)*yield_factor_for_crop*equivalence_factor_for_cropbiocapacity_for_fish = (crop_fish_integrated_farming_area+pond_area_bagda+Area_of_canal_river_&_pond)*equivalence_factor_for_fish*yield_factor_for_fishbiocapacity_for_forest = forest_area*equivalence_factor_for_forest*yield_factor_for_forestbiocapacity_for_non_rice = non_rice_area*equivalence_factor_for_crop*yield_factor_for_cropbiocapacity_per_capita = (total_biocapacity-.12*total_biocapacity)/populationBoro_Aus_area = 15ecological_status = biocapacity_per_capita-ecological_foot_print_per_capitatotal_biocapacity = biocapacity_for_animal+biocapacity_for_buildup_area+biocapacity_for_crop+biocapacity_for_fish+biocapacity_for_forest+biocapacity_for_non_riceyield_factor_for_animal = 151yield_factor_for_crop = .99yield_factor_for_fish = .227yield_factor_for_forest = .8
Ecological footprint sectorbuildup_area(t) = buildup_area(t - dt) + (buildup_area_growth_rate) * dtINIT buildup_area = 4199
INFLOWS:buildup_area_growth_rate = buildup_area*build_up_growth_factoranimal_consumption = population*per_capita_animal_consumptionbuild_up_growth_factor = .0012eclogical_footprint_for_shrimp_culture = total_pond_area*eco_factor_for_semi_intensive_culture/populationecological_footprint_for_animal = (animal_consumption/global_average_of_animal_consumption)*equivalence_factor_for_animal/populationecological_footprint_for_build_up_area = buildup_area*yield_factor_crop*equivalence_factor_for_non_rice/populationecological_footprint_for_crop = ((food_consumption/global_yield_for_crop)*equivalence_factor_for_crop)/populationecological_footprint_for_energy = ((energy_consumption/global_average_of_energy_consumption)*equivalence_factor_for_energy)/populationecological_footprint_for_fish_consumption = ((fish_consumption/global_yield_for_fish)*equivalence_factor_for_fish)/population
106
ecological_footprint_for_forest = (forest_consumption*equivalence_factor_for_forest)/global_average_of_forest_consumption/populationecological_footprint_for_non_rice = (non_rice_consumption*equivalence_factor_for_non_rice)/global_average_of_non_rice_consumption/populationecological_foot_print_per_capita = eclogical_footprint_for_shrimp_culture+ecological_footprint_for_animal+ecological_footprint_for_build_up_area+ecological_footprint_for_crop+ecological_footprint_for_energy+ecological_footprint_for_fish_consumption+ecological_footprint_for_forest+ecological_footprint_for_non_riceenergy_consumption = population*energy_consumption_per_capitaenergy_consumption_per_capita = 5.81equivalence_factor_for_animal = 1.1equivalence_factor_for_crop = 2.8equivalence_factor_for_energy = 1.10equivalence_factor_for_fish = 0.20equivalence_factor_for_forest = 1.1equivalence_factor_for_non_rice = 2.8fish_consumption = population*fish_consumption_per_capitafish_consumption_per_capita = .0089food_consumption = population*food_consumption_per_capitafood_consumption_per_capita = 0.216forest_consumption = population*forest_consumption_per_capitaforest_consumption_per_capita = .009global_average_of_animal_consumption = .452global_average_of_energy_consumption = 49.92global_average_of_forest_consumption = 18global_average_of_non_rice_consumption = 8.63global_yield_for_crop = 3.75global_yield_for_fish = .05non_rice_consumption = population*non_rice_consumption_per_capitanon_rice_consumption_per_capita = .180per_capita_animal_consumption = .025total_pond_area = crop_fish_integrated_farming_area+pond_area_bagdayield_factor_crop = .99eco_factor_for_semi_intensive_culture = GRAPH(shrimp_production_intensity)(1.00, 3.00), (9.25, 18.8), (17.5, 34.5), (25.8, 50.3), (34.0, 66.0), (42.3, 78.8), (50.5, 93.6), (58.8, 106), (67.0, 124), (75.3, 139), (83.5, 156), (91.8, 172), (100, 197)
Food security sectoranimal_area(t) = animal_area(t - dt) + (animal_growth_rate) * dtINIT animal_area = 83.27
INFLOWS:animal_growth_rate = animal_area*animal_growth_fractioncrop_area(t) = crop_area(t - dt) + (- land_transfer_rate_for_bagda -land_transfer_rate_for_crop_fish) * dtINIT crop_area = 19500
107
OUTFLOWS:land_transfer_rate_for_bagda = crop_area*transfer_fraction_for_bagdaland_transfer_rate_for_crop_fish = crop_area*transfer_fraction_for_crop_plus_fishcrop_fish_integrated_farming_area(t) = crop_fish_integrated_farming_area(t - dt) + (land_transfer_rate_for_crop_fish) * dtINIT crop_fish_integrated_farming_area = 0
INFLOWS:land_transfer_rate_for_crop_fish = crop_area*transfer_fraction_for_crop_plus_fishforest_area(t) = forest_area(t - dt) + (forest_growth) * dtINIT forest_area = 314
INFLOWS:forest_growth = forest_area*forest_growth_factornon_rice_area(t) = non_rice_area(t - dt) + (non_rice_area_growth_rate) * dtINIT non_rice_area = 554
INFLOWS:non_rice_area_growth_rate = non_rice_area*non_rice_growth_fractionpond_area_bagda(t) = pond_area_bagda(t - dt) + (land_transfer_rate_for_bagda) * dtINIT pond_area_bagda = 13395
INFLOWS:land_transfer_rate_for_bagda = crop_area*transfer_fraction_for_bagdapopulation(t) = population(t - dt) + (population_growth) * dtINIT population = 172613
INFLOWS:population_growth = population*population_growth_factoranimal_growth_fraction = 0.0012Area_of_canal_river_&_pond = 2553crop_yield = crop_yiled_normal*crop_ecological_foot_print_multiplier*cropping_intensity_multipliercrop_yield_for_crop_fish_integrated_farming = 2.20crop_yiled_normal = 1.95equivalence_factor_non_rice = 0.332equivalence_factor_shrimp = 16.91equivalent_factor_other_fish = 3.03fish_from_crop_plus_fish = shrimp_production_galda*equivalence_factor_shrimpfish_yield_galda = 0.39food_available = fish_from_crop_plus_fish+food_equivalent_from_bagda+food_from_animal+food_from_crop_area+food_from_crop_plus_fish+food_from_forest+food_eqivalent_other_fish+food_from_non_rice+food_from_shrimp_rcpfood_eqivalent_other_fish = equivalent_factor_other_fish*other_fish_productionfood_equivalent_from_bagda = shrimp_production_bagda*equivalence_factor_shrimpfood_from_animal = animal_area*food_from_animal_normalfood_from_animal_normal = 410.8food_from_crop_area = crop_area*crop_yield
108
food_from_crop_plus_fish = crop_fish_integrated_farming_area*crop_yield_for_crop_fish_integrated_farmingfood_from_forest = forest_area*food_from_forest_normalfood_from_forest_normal = 7.15food_from_non_rice = equivalence_factor_non_rice*non_rice_productionfood_from_shrimp_rcp = equivalence_factor_shrimp*Shrimp_production_rcpfood_per_capita = 0.001357food_requirement = population*food_per_capita*no_of_daysfood_security = ((food_available-food_requirement)/food_requirement)*100forest_growth_factor = .0015non_rice_growth_fraction = 0.0012non_rice_production = non_rice_area*non_rice_yieldnon_rice_yield = 25.5no_of_days = 365other_fish_production = (crop_fish_integrated_farming_area+pond_area_bagda+Area_of_canal_river_&_pond)*yield_other_fishpopulation_growth_factor = .0154shrimp_production_bagda = pond_area_bagda*shrimp_yield_bagdashrimp_production_galda = fish_yield_galda*shrimp_ecological_foot_print_multiplier*crop_fish_integrated_farming_areaShrimp_production_rcp = Area_of_canal_river_&_pond*Yield_of_shrimp_rcpshrimp_yield_bagda = shrimp_yield_normal_bagda*shrimp_intensity_multiplier_bagda*shrimp_ecological_foot_print_multipliershrimp_yield_normal_bagda = 0.251transfer_fraction_for_bagda = .0120transfer_fraction_for_crop_plus_fish = .010Yield_of_shrimp_rcp = 0.04yield_other_fish = 0.157cropping_intensity = GRAPH(TIME)(0.00, 1.59), (1.00, 1.73), (2.00, 1.84), (3.00, 1.86), (4.00, 1.92), (5.00, 1.96), (6.00, 2.02), (7.00, 2.09), (8.00, 2.12), (9.00, 2.10), (10.0, 2.13), (11.0, 2.15), (12.0, 2.15)cropping_intensity_multiplier = GRAPH(cropping_intensity)(1.00, 1.01), (1.20, 1.12), (1.40, 1.19), (1.60, 1.24), (1.80, 1.28), (2.00, 1.33), (2.20, 1.35), (2.40, 1.38), (2.60, 1.41), (2.80, 1.43), (3.00, 1.45)crop_ecological_foot_print_multiplier = GRAPH(ecological_footprint_for_crop)(0.00, 1.00), (0.3, 0.965), (0.6, 0.94), (0.9, 0.925), (1.20, 0.9), (1.50, 0.87), (1.80, 0.845), (2.10, 0.815), (2.40, 0.8), (2.70, 0.765), (3.00, 0.73)shrimp_ecological_foot_print_multiplier = GRAPH(ecological_foot_print_per_capita)(0.00, 1.00), (2.00, 0.91), (4.00, 0.814), (6.00, 0.71), (8.00, 0.605), (10.0, 0.512), (12.0, 0.429), (14.0, 0.356), (16.0, 0.269), (18.0, 0.176), (20.0, 0.098)shrimp_intensity_multiplier_bagda = GRAPH(shrimp_production_intensity)(1.00, 1.00), (10.9, 2.04), (20.8, 2.84), (30.7, 3.61), (40.6, 4.51), (50.5, 5.18), (60.4, 6.09), (70.3, 6.80), (80.2, 7.34), (90.1, 7.84), (100, 8.15)shrimp_production_intensity = GRAPH(TIME)(0.00, 1.00), (1.00, 5.95), (2.00, 10.9), (3.00, 15.9), (4.00, 21.3), (5.00, 26.2), (6.00, 31.2), (7.00, 35.6), (8.00, 40.1), (9.00, 44.6), (10.0, 49.5), (11.0, 54.5), (12.0, 59.9)Not in a sector
109
Equations for super-intensive growth of Dacop upazila
Biocapacity sectorbiocapacity_for_animal = animal_area*equivalence_factor_for_animal*yield_factor_for_animalbiocapacity_for_buildup_area = buildup_area*equivalence_factor_for_crop*yield_factor_for_cropbiocapacity_for_crop = (crop_area+crop_fish_integrated_farming_area+Boro_Aus_area)*yield_factor_for_crop*equivalence_factor_for_cropbiocapacity_for_fish = (crop_fish_integrated_farming_area+pond_area_bagda+Area_of_canal_river_&_pond)*equivalence_factor_for_fish*yield_factor_for_fishbiocapacity_for_forest = forest_area*equivalence_factor_for_forest*yield_factor_for_forestbiocapacity_for_non_rice = non_rice_area*equivalence_factor_for_crop*yield_factor_for_cropbiocapacity_per_capita = (total_biocapacity-.12*total_biocapacity)/populationBoro_Aus_area = 15ecological_status = biocapacity_per_capita-ecological_foot_print_per_capitatotal_biocapacity = biocapacity_for_animal+biocapacity_for_buildup_area+biocapacity_for_crop+biocapacity_for_fish+biocapacity_for_forest+biocapacity_for_non_riceyield_factor_for_animal = 151yield_factor_for_crop = .99yield_factor_for_fish = .227yield_factor_for_forest = .8
Ecological footprint sectorbuildup_area(t) = buildup_area(t - dt) + (buildup_area_growth_rate) * dtINIT buildup_area = 4199
INFLOWS:buildup_area_growth_rate = buildup_area*build_up_growth_factoranimal_consumption = population*per_capita_animal_consumptionbuild_up_growth_factor = .0012eclogical_footprint_for_shrimp_culture = total_pond_area*eco_factor_for_semi_intensive_culture/populationecological_footprint_for_animal = (animal_consumption/global_average_of_animal_consumption)*equivalence_factor_for_animal/populationecological_footprint_for_build_up_area = buildup_area*yield_factor_for_crop*equivalence_factor_for_non_rice/populationecological_footprint_for_crop = ((food_consumption/global_yield_for_crop)*equivalence_factor_for_crop)/populationecological_footprint_for_energy = ((energy_consumption/global_average_of_energy_consumption)*equivalence_factor_for_energy)/populationecological_footprint_for_fish_consumption = ((fish_consumption/global_yield_for_fish)*equivalence_factor_for_fish)/population
110
ecological_footprint_for_forest = (forest_consumption*equivalence_factor_for_forest)/global_average_of_forest_consumption/populationecological_footprint_for_non_rice = (non_rice_consumption*equivalence_factor_for_non_rice)/global_average_of_non_rice_consumption/populationecological_foot_print_per_capita = eclogical_footprint_for_shrimp_culture+ecological_footprint_for_animal+ecological_footprint_for_build_up_area+ecological_footprint_for_crop+ecological_footprint_for_energy+ecological_footprint_for_fish_consumption+ecological_footprint_for_forest+ecological_footprint_for_non_riceenergy_consumption = population*energy_consumption_per_capitaenergy_consumption_per_capita = 5.81equivalence_factor_for_animal = 1.1equivalence_factor_for_crop = 2.8equivalence_factor_for_energy = 1.10equivalence_factor_for_fish = 0.20equivalence_factor_for_forest = 1.1equivalence_factor_for_non_rice = 2.8fish_consumption = population*fish_consumption_per_capitafish_consumption_per_capita = .0089food_consumption = population*food_consumption_per_capitafood_consumption_per_capita = .205forest_consumption = population*forest_consumption_per_capitaforest_consumption_per_capita = .009global_average_of_animal_consumption = .452global_average_of_energy_consumption = 49.92global_average_of_forest_consumption = 18global_average_of_non_rice_consumption = 8.63global_yield_for_crop = 3.75global_yield_for_fish = .05non_rice_consumption = population*non_rice_consumption_per_capitanon_rice_consumption_per_capita = .180per_capita_animal_consumption = .025total_pond_area = crop_fish_integrated_farming_area+pond_area_bagdaeco_factor_for_semi_intensive_culture = GRAPH(shrimp_production_intensity)(1.00, 3.00), (9.25, 18.8), (17.5, 34.5), (25.8, 50.3), (34.0, 66.0), (42.3, 78.8), (50.5, 93.6), (58.8, 106), (67.0, 124), (75.3, 139), (83.5, 156), (91.8, 172), (100, 197)
Food security sectoranimal_area(t) = animal_area(t - dt) + (animal_growth_rate) * dtINIT animal_area = 83.27
INFLOWS:animal_growth_rate = animal_area*animal_growth_fractioncrop_area(t) = crop_area(t - dt) + (- land_transfer_rate_for_bagda -land_transfer_rate_for_crop_fish) * dtINIT crop_area = 19500
OUTFLOWS:
111
land_transfer_rate_for_bagda = crop_area*transfer_fraction_for_bagdaland_transfer_rate_for_crop_fish = crop_area*transfer_fraction_for_crop_plus_fishcrop_fish_integrated_farming_area(t) = crop_fish_integrated_farming_area(t - dt) + (land_transfer_rate_for_crop_fish) * dtINIT crop_fish_integrated_farming_area = 0
INFLOWS:land_transfer_rate_for_crop_fish = crop_area*transfer_fraction_for_crop_plus_fishforest_area(t) = forest_area(t - dt) + (forest_growth) * dtINIT forest_area = 314
INFLOWS:forest_growth = forest_area*forest_growth_factornon_rice_area(t) = non_rice_area(t - dt) + (non_rice_area_growth_rate) * dtINIT non_rice_area = 554
INFLOWS:non_rice_area_growth_rate = non_rice_area*non_rice_growth_fractionpond_area_bagda(t) = pond_area_bagda(t - dt) + (land_transfer_rate_for_bagda) * dtINIT pond_area_bagda = 13395
INFLOWS:land_transfer_rate_for_bagda = crop_area*transfer_fraction_for_bagdapopulation(t) = population(t - dt) + (population_growth) * dtINIT population = 172613
INFLOWS:population_growth = population*population_growth_factoranimal_growth_fraction = 0.0012Area_of_canal_river_&_pond = 2553crop_yield = crop_yiled_normal*crop_ecological_foot_print_multiplier*cropping_intensity_multipliercrop_yield_for_crop_fish_integrated_farming = 2.2crop_yiled_normal = 1.95equivalence_factor_non_rice = 0.332equivalence_factor_shrimp = 16.91equivalent_factor_other_fish = 3.03fish_from_crop_plus_fish = shrimp_production_galda*equivalence_factor_shrimpfish_yield_galda = 0.39food_available = fish_from_crop_plus_fish+food_equivalent_from_bagda+food_from_animal+food_from_crop_area+food_from_crop_plus_fish+food_from_forest+food_eqivalent_other_fish+food_from_non_rice+food_from_shrimp_rcpfood_eqivalent_other_fish = equivalent_factor_other_fish*other_fish_productionfood_equivalent_from_bagda = shrimp_production_bagda*equivalence_factor_shrimpfood_from_animal = animal_area*food_from_animal_normalfood_from_animal_normal = 410.8food_from_crop_area = crop_area*crop_yieldfood_from_crop_plus_fish = crop_fish_integrated_farming_area*crop_yield_for_crop_fish_integrated_farming
112
food_from_forest = forest_area*food_from_forest_normalfood_from_forest_normal = 7.15food_from_non_rice = equivalence_factor_non_rice*non_rice_productionfood_from_shrimp_rcp = equivalence_factor_shrimp*Shrimp_production_rcpfood_per_capita = 0.001357food_requirement = population*food_per_capita*no_of_daysfood_security = ((food_available-food_requirement)/food_requirement)*100forest_growth_factor = .0015non_rice_growth_fraction = 0.0012non_rice_production = non_rice_area*non_rice_yieldnon_rice_yield = 25.5no_of_days = 365other_fish_production = (crop_fish_integrated_farming_area+pond_area_bagda+Area_of_canal_river_&_pond)*yield_other_fishpopulation_growth_factor = .0154shrimp_production_bagda = pond_area_bagda*shrimp_yield_bagdashrimp_production_galda = fish_yield_galda*shrimp_ecological_foot_print_multiplier*crop_fish_integrated_farming_areaShrimp_production_rcp = Area_of_canal_river_&_pond*Yield_of_shrimp_rcpshrimp_yield_bagda = shrimp_yield_normal_bagda*shrimp_intensity_multiplier_bagda*shrimp_ecological_foot_print_multipliershrimp_yield_normal_bagda = .251transfer_fraction_for_bagda = .0120transfer_fraction_for_crop_plus_fish = .010Yield_of_shrimp_rcp = 0.04yield_other_fish = 0.157cropping_intensity = GRAPH(TIME)(0.00, 1.59), (1.00, 1.73), (2.00, 1.84), (3.00, 1.92), (4.00, 1.97), (5.00, 2.02), (6.00, 2.07), (7.00, 2.11), (8.00, 2.16), (9.00, 2.19), (10.0, 2.22), (11.0, 2.24), (12.0, 2.26)cropping_intensity_multiplier = GRAPH(cropping_intensity)(1.00, 1.00), (1.20, 1.08), (1.40, 1.14), (1.60, 1.22), (1.80, 1.28), (2.00, 1.32), (2.20, 1.36), (2.40, 1.38), (2.60, 1.41), (2.80, 1.43), (3.00, 1.45)crop_ecological_foot_print_multiplier = GRAPH(ecological_footprint_for_crop)(0.00, 1.00), (0.3, 0.965), (0.6, 0.94), (0.9, 0.925), (1.20, 0.9), (1.50, 0.87), (1.80, 0.845), (2.10, 0.815), (2.40, 0.8), (2.70, 0.765), (3.00, 0.73)shrimp_ecological_foot_print_multiplier = GRAPH(eclogical_footprint_for_shrimp_culture)(0.00, 1.00), (2.00, 0.91), (4.00, 0.814), (6.00, 0.71), (8.00, 0.605), (10.0, 0.512), (12.0, 0.429), (14.0, 0.356), (16.0, 0.269), (18.0, 0.176), (20.0, 0.098)shrimp_intensity_multiplier_bagda = GRAPH(shrimp_production_intensity)(1.00, 1.00), (10.9, 2.04), (20.8, 2.84), (30.7, 3.61), (40.6, 4.51), (50.5, 5.18), (60.4, 6.09), (70.3, 6.80), (80.2, 7.34), (90.1, 7.84), (100, 8.15)shrimp_production_intensity = GRAPH(TIME)(0.00, 1.00), (1.00, 5.95), (2.00, 10.9), (3.00, 15.9), (4.00, 21.3), (5.00, 26.2), (6.00, 33.7), (7.00, 41.1), (8.00, 51.0), (9.00, 61.9), (10.0, 71.8), (11.0, 83.7), (12.0, 99.0)
Not in a sector
113
Equations for control growth of Dacop upazila
Biocapacity sectorbiocapacity_for_animal = animal_area*equivalence_factor_for_animal*yield_factor_for_animalbiocapacity_for_buildup_area = buildup_area*equivalence_factor_for_crop*yield_factor_for_cropbiocapacity_for_crop = (crop_area+crop_fish_integrated_farming_area+Boro_Aus_area)*yield_factor_for_crop*equivalence_factor_for_cropbiocapacity_for_fish = (crop_fish_integrated_farming_area+pond_area_bagda+Area_of_canal_river_&_pond)*equivalence_factor_for_fish*yield_factor_for_fishbiocapacity_for_forest = forest_area*equivalence_factor_for_forest*yield_factor_for_forestbiocapacity_for_non_rice = non_rice_area*equivalence_factor_for_crop*yield_factor_for_cropbiocapacity_per_capita = (total_biocapacity-.12*total_biocapacity)/populationBoro_Aus_area = 15ecological_status = biocapacity_per_capita-ecological_foot_print_per_capitatotal_biocapacity = biocapacity_for_animal+biocapacity_for_buildup_area+biocapacity_for_crop+biocapacity_for_fish+biocapacity_for_forest+biocapacity_for_non_riceyield_factor_for_animal = 151yield_factor_for_crop = .99yield_factor_for_fish = .227yield_factor_for_forest = .8
Ecological footprint sectorbuildup_area(t) = buildup_area(t - dt) + (buildup_area_growth_rate) * dtINIT buildup_area = 4199
INFLOWS:buildup_area_growth_rate = buildup_area*build_up_growth_factoranimal_consumption = population*per_capita_animal_consumptionbuild_up_growth_factor = .0012eclogical_footprint_for_shrimp_culture = total_pond_area*eco_factor_for_semi_intensive_culture/populationecological_footprint_for_animal =(animal_consumption/global_average_of_animal_consumption)*equivalence_factor_for_animal/populationecological_footprint_for_build_up_area = buildup_area*yield_factor_crop*equivalence_factor_for_non_rice/populationecological_footprint_for_crop = ((food_consumption/global_yield_for_crop)*equivalence_factor_for_crop)/populationecological_footprint_for_energy = ((energy_consumption/global_average_of_energy_consumption)*equivalence_factor_for_energy)/populationecological_footprint_for_fish_consumption = ((fish_consumption/global_yield_for_fish)*equivalence_factor_for_fish)/population
114
ecological_footprint_for_forest = (forest_consumption*equivalence_factor_for_forest)/global_average_of_forest_consumption/populationecological_footprint_for_non_rice = (non_rice_consumption*equivalence_factor_for_non_rice)/global_average_of_non_rice_consumption/populationecological_foot_print_per_capita = eclogical_footprint_for_shrimp_culture+ecological_footprint_for_animal+ecological_footprint_for_build_up_area+ecological_footprint_for_crop+ecological_footprint_for_energy+ecological_footprint_for_fish_consumption+ecological_footprint_for_forest+ecological_footprint_for_non_riceenergy_consumption = population*energy_consumption_per_capitaenergy_consumption_per_capita = 5.81equivalence_factor_for_animal = 1.1equivalence_factor_for_crop = 2.8equivalence_factor_for_energy = 1.10equivalence_factor_for_fish = 0.20equivalence_factor_for_forest = 1.1equivalence_factor_for_non_rice = 2.8fish_consumption = population*fish_consumption_per_capitafish_consumption_per_capita = .0089food_consumption = population*food_consumption_per_capitafood_consumption_per_capita = 0.216forest_consumption = population*forest_consumption_per_capitaforest_consumption_per_capita = .009global_average_of_animal_consumption = .452global_average_of_energy_consumption = 49.92global_average_of_forest_consumption = 18global_average_of_non_rice_consumption = 8.63global_yield_for_crop = 3.75global_yield_for_fish = .05non_rice_consumption = population*non_rice_consumption_per_capitanon_rice_consumption_per_capita = .180per_capita_animal_consumption = .025total_pond_area = crop_fish_integrated_farming_area+pond_area_bagdayield_factor_crop = .99eco_factor_for_semi_intensive_culture = GRAPH(shrimp_production_intensity)(1.00, 3.00), (9.25, 18.8), (17.5, 34.5), (25.8, 50.3), (34.0, 66.0), (42.3, 78.8), (50.5, 93.6), (58.8, 106), (67.0, 124), (75.3, 139), (83.5, 156), (91.8, 172), (100, 197)
Food security sectoranimal_area(t) = animal_area(t - dt) + (animal_growth_rate) * dtINIT animal_area = 83.27
INFLOWS:animal_growth_rate = animal_area*animal_growth_fractioncrop_area(t) = crop_area(t - dt) + (- land_transfer_rate_for_bagda -land_transfer_rate_for_crop_fish) * dtINIT crop_area = 19500
115
OUTFLOWS:land_transfer_rate_for_bagda = crop_area*transfer_fraction_for_bagdaland_transfer_rate_for_crop_fish = crop_area*transfer_fraction_for_crop_plus_fishcrop_fish_integrated_farming_area(t) = crop_fish_integrated_farming_area(t - dt) + (land_transfer_rate_for_crop_fish) * dtINIT crop_fish_integrated_farming_area = 0
INFLOWS:land_transfer_rate_for_crop_fish = crop_area*transfer_fraction_for_crop_plus_fishforest_area(t) = forest_area(t - dt) + (forest_growth) * dtINIT forest_area = 314
INFLOWS:forest_growth = forest_area*forest_growth_factornon_rice_area(t) = non_rice_area(t - dt) + (non_rice_area_growth_rate) * dtINIT non_rice_area = 554
INFLOWS:non_rice_area_growth_rate = non_rice_area*non_rice_growth_fractionpond_area_bagda(t) = pond_area_bagda(t - dt) + (land_transfer_rate_for_bagda) * dtINIT pond_area_bagda = 13395
INFLOWS:land_transfer_rate_for_bagda = crop_area*transfer_fraction_for_bagdapopulation(t) = population(t - dt) + (population_growth) * dtINIT population = 172613
INFLOWS:population_growth = population*population_growth_factoranimal_growth_fraction = 0.0012Area_of_canal_river_&_pond = 2553crop_yield = crop_yiled_normal*crop_ecological_foot_print_multiplier*cropping_intensity_multipliercrop_yield_for_crop_fish_integrated_farming = 2.20crop_yiled_normal = 1.95equivalence_factor_non_rice = 0.332equivalence_factor_shrimp = 16.91equivalent_factor_other_fish = 3.03fish_from_crop_plus_fish = shrimp_production_galda*equivalence_factor_shrimpfish_yield_galda = 0.39food_available = fish_from_crop_plus_fish+food_equivalent_from_bagda+food_from_animal+food_from_crop_area+food_from_crop_plus_fish+food_from_forest+food_eqivalent_other_fish+food_from_non_rice+food_from_shrimp_rcpfood_eqivalent_other_fish = equivalent_factor_other_fish*other_fish_productionfood_equivalent_from_bagda = shrimp_production_bagda*equivalence_factor_shrimpfood_from_animal = animal_area*food_from_animal_normalfood_from_animal_normal = 410.8food_from_crop_area = crop_area*crop_yield
116
food_from_crop_plus_fish = crop_fish_integrated_farming_area*crop_yield_for_crop_fish_integrated_farmingfood_from_forest = forest_area*food_from_forest_normalfood_from_forest_normal = 7.15food_from_non_rice = equivalence_factor_non_rice*non_rice_productionfood_from_shrimp_rcp = equivalence_factor_shrimp*Shrimp_production_rcpfood_per_capita = 0.001357food_requirement = population*food_per_capita*no_of_daysfood_security = ((food_available-food_requirement)/food_requirement)*100forest_growth_factor = .0015non_rice_growth_fraction = 0.0012non_rice_production = non_rice_area*non_rice_yieldnon_rice_yield = 25.5no_of_days = 365other_fish_production = (crop_fish_integrated_farming_area+pond_area_bagda+Area_of_canal_river_&_pond)*yield_other_fishpopulation_growth_factor = .0154shrimp_production_bagda = pond_area_bagda*shrimp_yield_bagdashrimp_production_galda = fish_yield_galda*shrimp_ecological_foot_print_multiplier*crop_fish_integrated_farming_areaShrimp_production_rcp = Area_of_canal_river_&_pond*Yield_of_shrimp_rcpshrimp_yield_bagda = shrimp_yield_normal_bagda*shrimp_intensity_multiplier_bagda*shrimp_ecological_foot_print_multipliershrimp_yield_normal_bagda = 0.251transfer_fraction_for_bagda = .0120transfer_fraction_for_crop_plus_fish = .010Yield_of_shrimp_rcp = 0.04yield_other_fish = 0.157cropping_intensity = GRAPH(TIME)(0.00, 1.59), (1.00, 1.73), (2.00, 1.84), (3.00, 1.86), (4.00, 1.92), (5.00, 1.96), (6.00, 2.02), (7.00, 2.09), (8.00, 2.12), (9.00, 2.17), (10.0, 2.17), (11.0, 2.15), (12.0, 2.15)cropping_intensity_multiplier = GRAPH(cropping_intensity)(1.00, 1.01), (1.20, 1.12), (1.40, 1.19), (1.60, 1.24), (1.80, 1.28), (2.00, 1.33), (2.20, 1.35), (2.40, 1.38), (2.60, 1.41), (2.80, 1.43), (3.00, 1.45)crop_ecological_foot_print_multiplier = GRAPH(ecological_footprint_for_crop)(0.00, 1.00), (0.3, 0.965), (0.6, 0.94), (0.9, 0.925), (1.20, 0.9), (1.50, 0.87), (1.80, 0.845), (2.10, 0.815), (2.40, 0.8), (2.70, 0.765), (3.00, 0.73)shrimp_ecological_foot_print_multiplier = GRAPH(ecological_foot_print_per_capita)(0.00, 1.00), (2.00, 0.91), (4.00, 0.814), (6.00, 0.71), (8.00, 0.605), (10.0, 0.512), (12.0, 0.429), (14.0, 0.356), (16.0, 0.269), (18.0, 0.176), (20.0, 0.098)shrimp_intensity_multiplier_bagda = GRAPH(shrimp_production_intensity)(1.00, 1.00), (10.9, 2.04), (20.8, 2.84), (30.7, 3.61), (40.6, 4.51), (50.5, 5.18), (60.4, 6.09), (70.3, 6.80), (80.2, 7.34), (90.1, 7.84), (100, 8.15)shrimp_production_intensity = GRAPH(TIME)(0.00, 1.00), (1.00, 5.95), (2.00, 10.9), (3.00, 14.4), (4.00, 19.8), (5.00, 23.8), (6.00, 27.7), (7.00, 32.2), (8.00, 35.2), (9.00, 38.6), (10.0, 42.1), (11.0, 45.1), (12.0, 47.0)Not in a sector
117
Appendix-E Simulated results in the eight upazilas of in the nine upazilas of Shyamnagar,Koyra, Shoronkhola, Morrelgonj, Mongla, Patharghata, Kalapara and Galachipa.
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final
Year
Food
Sec
urit
y (%
)FS (Normal growth)
FS (Super-intensive)
FS(Control growth)
Figure Food Security status of Shyamnagar upazila for different options
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 FinalYear
Eco
logi
cal F
ootp
rint
(gha
/cap
)
EF(Normal growth)
EF (Super-intensive)
EF(Control growth)
Figure Ecological footprint of Shyamnagar upazila for different options
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final
Year
Eco
logi
cal S
tatu
s (g
ha/c
ap)
ES (Normal growth)
ES (Super-intensive)
ES (Control growth)
Figure Ecological status of Shyamnagar upazila for different options
118
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 FinalYear
Food
Sec
urit
y (%
)
FS (Normal growth)
FS (Super-intensive)
FS(Control growth)
Figure Food Security status of Koyra upazila for different options
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final
Year
Eco
logi
cal F
ootp
rint
(gha
/cap
)
EF(Normal growth)
EF (Super-intensive)
EF(Control growth)
Figure Ecological footprint of Koyra upazila for different options
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final
Year
Eco
logi
cal S
tatu
s (g
ha/c
ap)
ES (Normal growth)
ES (Super-intensive)
ES (Control growth)
Figure Ecological status of Koyra upazila for different options
119
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final
Year
Food
Sec
urit
y (%
)
FS (Normal growth)
FS (Super-intensive)
FS(Control growth)
Figure Food Security status of Shoronkhola upazila for different options
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final
Year
Eco
logi
cal F
ootp
rint
(gha
/cap
)
EF(Normal growth)
EF (Super-intensive)
EF(Control growth)
Figure Ecological footprint of Shoronkhola upazila for different options
-3.5
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final
Year
Eco
logi
cal S
tatu
s (g
ha/c
ap)
ES (Normal growth)
ES (Super-intensive)
ES (Control growth)
Figure Ecological status of Shoronkhola upazila for different options
120
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final
Year
Food
Sec
urit
y (%
)
FS (Normal growth)
FS (Super-intensive)
FS(Control growth)
Figure Food Security status of Morrelgonj upazila for different options
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 FinalYear
Eco
logi
cal F
ootp
rint
(gha
/cap
)
EF(Normal growth)
EF (Super-intensive)
EF(Control growth)
Figure Ecological footprint of Morrelgonj upazila for different options
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final
Year
Eco
logi
cal S
tatu
s (g
ha/c
ap)
ES (Normal growth)
ES (Super-intensive)
ES (Control growth)
Figure Ecological status of Morrelgonj upazila for different options
121
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final
Year
Food
Sec
urit
y (%
)
FS (Normal growth)
FS (Super-intensive)
FS(Control growth)
Figure Food Security status of Mongla upazila for different options
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final
Year
Eco
logi
cal F
ootp
rint
(gha
/cap
)
EF(Normal growth)
EF (Super-intensive)
EF(Control growth)
Figure Ecological footprint of Mongla upazila for different options
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final
Year
Eco
logi
cal S
tatu
s (g
ha/c
ap)
ES (Normal growth)
ES (Super-intensive)
ES (Control growth)
Figure Ecological status of Mongla upazila for different options
122
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final
Year
Food
Sec
urit
y (%
)
FS (Normal growth)
FS (Super-intensive)
FS(Control growth)
Figure Food Security status of Pathargata upazila for different options
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final
Year
Eco
logi
cal F
ootp
rint
(gha
/cap
)
EF(Normal growth)
EF (Super-intensive)
EF(Control growth)
Figure Ecological footprint of Pathargata upazila for different options
-4.5
-4
-3.5
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final
Year
Eco
logi
cal S
tatu
s (g
ha/c
ap)
ES (Normal growth)
ES (Super-intensive)
ES (Control growth)
Figure Ecological status of Pathargata upazila for different options
123
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final
Year
Food
Sec
urit
y (%
)
FS (Normal growth)
FS (Super-intensive)
FS(Control growth)
Figure: Food Security status of Kalapara upazila for different options
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final
Year
Eco
logi
cal F
ootp
rint
(gha
/cap
)
EF(Normal growth)
EF (Super-intensive)
EF(Control growth)
Figure: Ecological footprint of Kalapara upazila for different options
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final
Year
Eco
logi
cal S
tatu
s (g
ha/c
ap)
ES (Normal growth)
ES (Super-intensive)
ES (Control growth)
Figure: Ecological status of Kalapara upazila for different options
124
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final
Year
Food
Sec
urit
y (%
)
FS (Normal growth)
FS (Super-intensive)
FS(Control growth)
Figure Food Security status of Galachipa upazila for different options
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final
Year
Eco
logi
cal F
ootp
rint
(gha
/cap
)
EF(Normal growth)
EF (Super-intensive)
EF(Control growth)
Figure Ecological footprint of Galachipa upazila for different options
-10
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Final
Year
Eco
logi
cal S
tatu
s (g
ha/c
ap)
ES (Normal growth)
ES (Super-intensive)
ES (Control growth)
Figure Ecological status of Galachipa upazila for different options
![Coastal zone [autosaved]](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/58ab9f8c1a28abdf3c8b46b5/coastal-zone-autosaved.jpg)
