EFFECT OF VALUE CHAIN ON LIVELIHOOD DEVELOPMENT OF RDRS BENEFICIARIES

Abstract

The main focuses of this study were to: i) determine and describe some of the selected characteristics of the beneficiaries, ii) determine the extent of livelihood development of the beneficiaries due to their involvement in value chain process of RDRS, iii) explore the relationship of selected characteristics of the beneficiaries with their livelihood development and iv) determine the problems faced by beneficiaries in implementing value chain process and suggestions to overcome those problems. The study was carried out in Gangachara upazila of Rangpur District. One hundred and two (102) beneficiaries were selected as sample from an updated list of 203 beneficiaries using multi-stage random sampling method. Data were collected by a pre-tested interview schedule during 1 March to 15" April 2014. Based on Livelihood Development Index (LDI) of the 30 activities varied from 3.9 to 273.5. Top three activities of three aspects were i) Knowledge on price of milk in the market (273.5), ii) Family planning (236.2) and iii) Cattle (211.8). Near about two-third (62.7 percent) of the beneficiaries had medium development, 19.6 percent low and 17.6 percent had high development. Thus, majority (82.3 percent) of the beneficiaries had low to medium development in three aspects (assets and shelter, social empowerment and bargaining capacity). Among nine selected characteristics of the beneficiaries seven characteristics like educational qualification, farm size, annual family income, extension media contact and cosmopoliteness, savings and attitude towards RDRS showed significant positive relationship with their livelihood development, while their age, family size had no relationships. The two important problems were ‘lack of communication between buyers and producers’ (93.14 percent) and ‘lack of knowledge regarding value chain process in beneficiaries’ level’ (84.31 percent). The two important suggestions to overcome the problems were ‘collaborative action can be taken by GOs and NGOs to improve the transport system’ (95.10 percent) and ‘development of more local actors for better input supply to the beneficiaries’ (83.33percent).