The review of the secondary data embraced a wide range of issues and concerns. Information was obtained from a variety of
sources, including ICLARM, BFRI, IFADEPSP2 and the FMS DFID library.
For the field level PRA, two locations (Tangail and Faridpur) were selected on the basis of the local significance of SIS, and
the different agro-ecological conditions of the areas. In Faridpur, flood control and irrigation projects have been in progress
for the last 30 years. In Tangail it is only recently (1992) that "compartmentalization" of flood affected land through flood
control schemes are taking place. Both locations have considerable flood plain area, and therefore fish make significant
contributions to the diverse food production system and livelihood in these areas. Indications are that the freshwater
ecosystems of these two areas are among the most severely affected by human intervention.
These were therefore purposefully selected as areas where relatively recent changes have affected the status of SIS.
The PRA methodology was essentially designed by the research team. It comprised two main elements: focused group
discussions with specific stakeholder groups, and individual interviews with selected socio-economic categories from primary
stakeholder groups. In both areas, participants in both the focus group discussions and the individual interviews were
selected on a random basis.
Group discussions and individual interviews were conducted using open ended questions and selected topics; diagrams
were used to help understand changes over time. The PRA discussions were recorded for further reference and learning.
Timing:
This study was initially planned to take 6-weeks up to 25 March 1998. However, the time frame was extended by 4 weeks to
enable further analysis of information generated, and to allow for further validation by the scientific and rural communities.
The total study took 12-weeks.
PRA participants were selected from the following
socio-economic categories:
(figures in bracket indicate numbers of respondants)
The following process was adopted:
• selection and recruitment of
research team,
• finalizing TOR for work;
1. Full-time professional traditional fisherfolk (from Hindu and Muslim
communities traditionally associated with fishing) (108);
2. Full-time professional non-traditional fisherfolk (relatively recent
entrants to fishing, from mainly Muslim communities not
traditionally associated with fishing (71);
• review of secondary information
relating to SIS and the significance
to human society and aquatic
ecology;
• listing freshwater SIS species;
3. Part-time fisherfolk (43);
4. Landless households (32);
• analysing data to identify key
issues;
5. Rural poor households catching for subsistence of additional seasonal
income (47).
• conducting field level research
using check lists (see section 5.2.);
6. Households owning depression, kua, or beelland, etc. (7);
7. Fish traders (13);
• gathering primary data
(observations, responses to
8. Consumers (people eating fish) (27);
interviews, and other information
9. Customers (17); and
from various sources ( fisherfolk,
10. Housewives (23)
farmers, landless households,
women, children etc.);
by the study;
• analysing primary data generated
• verification of findings (through informal discussions with researchers and field practitioners (NGOs and field
workers);
• identification of strategic options for the future, suggested by the study;
• making recommendations for policy-makers, planners, practitioners.
5