Waqar-ul-Hassan, Tareen (2011). - Pakistan Research Group

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF SOCIAL SAFETY NETS(SSN) IN BATTAGRAM DISTRICT OF KHYBERPAKHTUNKHWA PROVINCE: IMPLICATIONS FOR FOODSECURITY OF SMALL FARMERSbyWAQAR-UL- HASSAN TAREENB.SC. (HONS.) AGRI. EXTENSIONA THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FORTHE DEGREE OFMASTER OF SCIENCE (HONS.)inAGRI. EXTENSIONDEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSIONDIVISION OF EDUCATION AND EXTENSIONUNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, FAISALABADPAKISTAN2011

To,The Controller of Examinations,University of Agriculture,Faisalabad.We, the supervisory committee, certify that contents and form of the thesis submitted by Mr.Waqar-ul-Hassan Tareen (Regd. No. 2005-ag-1584) have been found satisfactory and recommendthat it be processed for evaluation by the external examiner(s) for the award of degree.SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE:CHAIRMAN: ----------------------------------------(Dr. Babar Shahbaz)MEMBER: -----------------------------------------(Dr. Tanvir Ali)MEMBER: ------------------------------------------(Dr. M. Iqbal Zafar)

DEDICATEDTOMY LOVING PARENTSandDR. BABAR SHAHBAZ

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSALHAMD-U-LILLAHIt is doneI feel highly privileged to take this opportunity to express my heartiest gratitude and deep sense ofindebt to my worthy supervisor, Dr. Babar Shahbaz Assistant Professor, Dept. of Agricultural Extension,University of Agriculture Faisalabad, for his skillful guidance, constructive criticism, masterly advice,valuable suggestions and sympathetic behavior for the completion of this manuscript. It was certainly amatter of pride to work under his guidance.I wish to acknowledge my deep sense of profound appreciation to the worthy member of mysupervisory panel Dr. Tanvir Ali, Professor, Dept. of Agricultural Extension and Dr. M. Iqbal Zafar,Professor, Dept. of Rural Sociology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. I am grateful to his everinspiring direction, keen interest, scholarly comments and beneficial suggestions throughout the course ofmy studies.This research work was conducted within the framework of Research Project RP2 (LivelihoodFutures) of National Center for Competence in Research (NCCR) North-South, Switzerland. NCCR(North-South) is externally funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) and Swiss Agencyfor Development and Co-operation (SDC). I am thankful to NCCR (North-South) as well as SustainableDevelopment Policy Institute (SDPI) Islamabad for their support. The team leaders of RP2 are Prof.Ulrike Mueler Boeker (Switzerland), Dr. Sagar Sharma (Nepal) and Dr. Babar Shahbaz.I am beholden to my Father Khair Muhammad Tareen due to whose prays and wishes, today Iam at this position and I do not have words at my command to express my heartiest thanks, gratitude andprofound admiration to my esteemed affectionate Mother, loving brothers Zulfqar Ali Tareen, IftikharAhmad Tareen, Ibrar Hassan Tareen and Shoaib Hassan Tareen, and My loving nephew Arslan AliTareen and Hussain Khan Tareen. For their encouragement, immense orisons, mellifluous moralsupport, patience, spiritual and intellectual inspirations who have always wished to see me glittering highon the skies of success and whose hands always rise in prayer for my success, it is day and night prayer,endurance and ambitious training of my family that brought such a fruit to me.I wish to extend my profound sense of gratitude from the core of my heart to my fellows andfriends Ch. Shahbaz Munawar, Ch. Hassan Rasheed Sial, Yousaf Tareen, Ch. Tahir, Ch. SaifWahla, Rana Afzal, Zahid Bhati, Rana Rizwan, Salman Ata for their good company, cooperation andencouragement.May Allah Almighty infuse with the energy to fulfill their inspirations and expectations andfurther modify my competence May Allah bless with long happy and peaceful lives (Aameen).Waqar ul Hassan Tareen

SPECIAL THANKSNational Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North-South Switzerlandwww.north-south.unibe.ch ; www.nccr-pakistan.orgOriginally launched in 2001, the NCCR North-South is one of twenty National Centresof Competence in Research (NCCRs) established by the Swiss National ScienceFoundation (SNSF) to promote scientific advancement in vital research areas. It wasfounded in the belief that increasing our understanding of global change and identifyingmeans of sustainable development are crucially important to Switzerland’s future andthat of the world. The programme is jointly funded by SNSF, the Swiss Agency forDevelopment and Cooperation, and the participating research institutions.Now in its third four-year phase, the research activities of the NCCR North-Southprogramme are currently organised between three Thematic Nodes grouped around anIntegrative Node that bridges them all together.The Thematic Nodes combine advanced research on‣ Institutions, Livelihoods, Conflicts‣ Health, Services, Planning‣ Natural Resources, Economy, GovernanceSustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI) Islamabad, Pakistanwww.sdpi-orgSDPI was founded in August 1992 on the recommendation of the Pakistan NationalConservation Strategy (NCS), also called Pakistan’s Agenda 21. It is registered under theSocieties Registration Act, XXI of 1860. SDPI provides the global sustainabledevelopment community with representation from Pakistan as well as South Asia as awhole.The Institute's mission is:To catalyse the transition towards sustainable development, defined as the enhancementof peace, social justice and well-being, within and across generations.The researcher pays special thanks to NCCR and SDPI for providing facilities forthis research

CONTENTSChapter # Title Page #1 INTRODUCTION2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE3 MATERIALS AND METHODS4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS5 SUMMARY19151957LITERATURE CITED61ANNEXURE – INTERVIEW SCHEDULE 64

LIST OF TABLESTable # TITLE Page #4.1 Distribution of the respondents according to their age 194.2 Distribution of the respondents according to their size of land holding 204.3 Distribution of the respondents according to their education 204.4 Distribution of the respondents according to their marital status 214.5 Distribution of the respondents according to their tenure ship 214.6 Distribution of the respondents according to their family size 224.7 Distribution of the respondents according to their family type 224.8 Distribution of the respondents according to their annual income 234.9 Distribution of the respondents according to their major source of 23income4.10 Distribution of the respondents according to their minor source of 24income4.11 Distribution of the respondents according to information about wheat 254.12 Distribution of the respondents according to information about maize 274.13 Distribution of the respondents according to information about Rice 304.14 Distribution of the respondents according to their no. of cows 314.15 Distribution of the respondents according to their no. of buffaloes 324.16 Distribution of the respondents according to their no. of goats 324.17 Distribution of the respondents according to their no. of sheep 324.18 Distribution of the respondents according to their sources of 33agricultural information4.19 Distribution of the respondents according to the Agri. Extension 33Department contacts with them4.20 Distribution of the respondents according to the forest ownership 344.21 Distribution of the respondents according to the forest area 344.22 Distribution of the respondents according to the pattern of crop 34rotation4.23 Distribution of the respondents according to their knowledge about 35social safety nets available at government level4.24 Distribution of the respondents according to their knowledge about 39social safety nets available at non-government level4.25 Distribution of the respondents according to get benefit from the 43programmes during the last 12 month available at government level4.26 Distribution of the respondents according to the get benefit during the 44last 12 months, available at non-government level4.27 Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about the 46access of people to the social safety nets provided at government level.4.28 Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about the 47access of people to the social safety nets provided at non-governmentlevel.4.29 Distribution of the respondents according to the Criteria of access of 48people to Govt. provided SSN4.30 Distribution of the respondents according to the Criteria of access of 48people to non-Govt. provided SSN4.31 Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about the 49

effectiveness of the social safety nets to improve the living standard ofthe small farmers provided at government level4.32 Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about theeffectiveness of the social safety nets to improve the living standard ofthe small farmers provided at non-government level.4.33 Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about therole of SSN for food security provided at government level.4.34 Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about therole of SSN for food security provided at non-government level.525455

AbstractAgriculture is the major driver of growth of Pakistan’s economy. However the agriculture in theKhyber Pukhtunkhwa (KP) province is primarily a small farm activity. Major part of KP ismountainous having severe cold weather. The heavy snowfall makes farming very difficult. As mostof the area is mountainous, “terrace farming” is practiced but due to scarcity of resources, there is notmuch agricultural production in mountainous areas of KP. The small farmers of KP have limitedresources to sustain their living. Moreover, in KP twelve (12) out of 24 districts are severelythreatened with food insecurity and access to food is said to have become a major problem for theentire province. Social safety nets (SSNs) are therefore introduced to assist people who have beenadversely affected due to poverty. SSNs are basically income maintenance programs. Therefore,keeping in view the above context, this research study was conducted to explore different kinds ofSSNs and farmers perceptions regarding these SSNs in Battagram district of KP. One of the twotehsils was chosen randomly through simple random method then from that tehsil two union councilswere selected randomly. From each of the selected union councils (UCs) 3 villages were selected byusing simple random sample technique. Later on, from each village 20 respondents were selectedrandomly thereby making a sample size of 120 respondents. Quantitative data were also collectedwith the help of well-structured interview schedule while qualitative data were collected by usingopen ended interview guide. The data were analyzed by using computer software Statistical Packagefor Social Sciences (SPSS). Results of the study revealed that majority of farmers had less access tothe government based safety nets and the access to such SSNs was mainly dependent on the politicaland social relations. Poverty was reported as the least important criteria for access to governmentbased SSNs. The access of small farmers to NGOs and semi government provided social safety netswas comparatively better but it was greatly influenced by the social contacts. The low level ofawareness and poverty were found to be the major factors limiting the access of farmers to differentsocial safety nets. There was meager interaction between different safety nets working in the studyarea. Social safety nets can play an effective role in food security if launched on regular basis andaccording to the needs of the local community. It was also suggested to launch agriculture basedSSNs to improve the situation of food insecurity in the study area.

CHAPTER IINTRODUCTIONAgriculture is the major driver of growth of Pakistan’s economy. It contributes 21.8% to thecountry's GDP and provides employment opportunities to 44.7% of the country's labor force. Itcontributes to the industrial growth as a supplier of raw materials to industry as well as market forindustrial products. Nearly 65.9% of country’s population living in rural areas is directly or indirectlylinked with agriculture for their livelihood. Agricultural sector consists of two sub-sectors i.e.livestock and crops. Major crops are accounting for 33.4% of value added in agriculture, while minorcrops are accounting for 12.0% in agricultural value added. The performance of livestock, accountingfor 51.8% of agricultural value added, was satisfactory at best as it grew by 3.7% this year (Govt. ofPak., 2010).The Khyber Pakhtonkhwa (KP) province of Pakistan possesses the cultivated area of 1.8million hectare which is 17.7% of the total area of the province (Govt. of Pak., 2001). The agriculturein KP is primarily a small farm activity and the farming community in the Province can becategorized into; small farms having an area of less than 5 hectare; medium farms having areabetween 5-10 hectare; and large farms having area over 10 hectares. Small farms are 41% of the totalfarming area, which is 87% of the total number of farms. Medium farms are 17% and large farms are42% of the total farm area, which is 5% of the total number of farms. The bulk of the marketablesurplus is produced from medium and large farm holders who cultivate nearly 60% of the totalcultivated area of the province. Due to great diversity in climate and soils, the KP province growsover 42 crops; the major ones being wheat, rice, barley, maize, sugarcane, tobacco, rape & mustard,groundnut, pulses, vegetables and fruits. Gram is the dominant pulse crop grown, while potato is themain vegetable. Apples, pears and peaches are the most important fruit crops. The major cropsoccupy nearly 90% of the total cropped area and play an important role in sustaining the livelihood ofthe rural population (Govt. of Pakistan, 2003).Major part of KP is mountainous having severe cold weather. The heavy snowfall makesfarming impossible. In some places people migrate to warmer places as well. As most of the area ismountainous, “terrace farming” is practiced here. In terrace farming, steps are cut out in to steep hillsand the edge of the slope is bordered with stone walls called “bunds”. The bunds check water and soilfrom flowing away. As agricultural resources are scarce, there is not much agricultural production inthe mountainous Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.1

A view of terrace farming in Tehsil Battagram (photo taken by author)The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa’s population is growing at a high rate, widening the gap betweenconsumption and resource availability. This is leading to unsustainable development patterns withinthe province. Disparities in development, resource use, and allocation prevail in regions, societies anddifferent groups developing a sense of inequity and causing poverty among different sections ofsociety (Govt. of NWFP, 2003). The small farmers of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have limited resourcesand to sustain their living, social safety nets are therefore introduced.1.1 Social safety nets: concept and definitionsThe term ‘‘social safety net’’ (SSN) began to be used by international financial institutions inconnection with structural adjustment programs related to their lending programs. Developingcountries introduced SSNs to mitigate the social impact of structural adjustment measures on specificlow-income groups. The safety net analogy is drawn from high-wire walkers who are protected by asafety net if they fall. The net reduces the chance of injury if the walker falls, and many walkers alsocarry long poles which help them to maintain their balance and prevent falls. The net and the polereduce the walker’s risk of falling and of an injury from a fall. However, neither the net nor the poleoffers insurance to the walker, as their use does not trigger compensation or services if the walkerfalls and is injured (Vivian, 1994; Wickramsekara, 1999).According to the World Bank (2001) SSNs are basically income maintenance programs thatprotect a person or household against two adverse outcomes: a chronic incapacity to work and earn,and a decline in this capacity caused by imperfectly predictable lifecycle events (such as the suddendeath of a bread winner), sharp shortfalls in aggregate demand or expenditure shocks (througheconomic recession or transition), or very bad harvests. Safety net programs serve two importantroles: redistribution (such as transfers to disadvantaged groups) and insurance (such as drought2

elief). A European Society For Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (ESCAP) study (Jurado, 2001)implicitly maintained that social safety nets are programs intended to assist people who have beenadversely affected by shocks and other kinds of emergencies, not necessarily the poor.ESCAP (1999) adopted a similar view while maintaining that the term should not encompassanti-poverty programs. Jimanez (1999) distinguished between formal and informal safety nets, withthe latter being more difficult to identify and their contributions being more costly to measure. Bycontrast, the International Labor Organization (ILO) used a narrower definition of SSNs. Socialinsurance systems financed by contributions from employers and workers did not strictly fall withinthe ILO’s SSN framework. The ILO maintained that ‘‘the social safety net is a government-providedanti-poverty benefit’’ (Gillion., et al. 2000, p. 465).1.2 Food security and social safety netsFood security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access tosufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an activeand healthy life (FAO, 2006). Food Insecurity is the global problem there are nearly 10 millionhunger-related deaths every year, half of them among children, provides testimony to this fact. Over900 million people are estimated to remain hungry around the world. The main factor which causefood insecurity are poverty, health, water and environment, gender equity, disasters and conflicts andincreasing prices of commodities. For almost a billion people around the world, sufficient food is notreadily accessible and its cost is a relatively high percentage of their annual income (Bankus et al.,2009).There is an increasingly serious problem of food scarcity in many areas of Pakistan, wherealmost 21 million people are facing food insecurity and threats like malnutrition, under-nutrition andhunger. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan are severly listed to be lacking food security.Moreover, in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 12 out of 24 districts are severly lacking food security and accessto food is said to have become a major problem for the entire Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Suleri, 2010).3

Poverty and food insecurity in district Battagram (photo by author)Social safety nets are necessary to alleviate poverty and reduce food insecurity within broadermacroeconomic growth policies that take a long time to trickle down benefits to the poorcommunities. To mitigate this situation, the need for efficient safety nets to ensure food security andsurvival of the sizeable population of very poor people in Pakistan is thus vital (Syed, 2009).1.3 Social safety nets in PakistanThere are several types of interventions which are regarded as SSN such as cash transferwhich includes Zakat, Ushar, Bait-ul-Maal, BISP (Benazir Income Support Programme), conditionalcash transfers (incentive payments for the poor to make use of health and education), old age incomesecurity which includes pension for govt. employees and employees old age benefit institutions,Micro credit and NGO programmes includes Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund, Khushhali Bank,Rural Support Programmes etc. Other employment-based programmes which includes workerswelfare fund, programmes through various foundations, public works programmes, food basedprogrammes, school meals,wheat subsidy and Social security programmes etc.A brief description of the some of the major SSNs in Pakistan are given as under,1.3.1 Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP)Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP) is basically cash transfer programme. Cashtransfer programs could be used for emergency purposes in periods of crisis or could be used as shortormedium term poverty alleviation program (Tabor, 2002). BISP is caters to the needs of the ‘poorestof the poor’ of the society not only in terms of cash assistance for day to day subsistence but alsoenabling them to exit the vicious cycle of poverty. An amount of Rs. 70 million was allocated for the4

Grants for Jehez (marriage dowry), and educational and medical expenses, make up the remaining 30percent.(Toor and Nasar, 2003).1.3.5 MicrofinanceMicrofinance is recognized as an effective tool to pull the poor and vulnerable out of povertyand vulnerability. It enables the poor to enhance their income earning capacity and empower them,especially women. Microfinance comprises Microcredit, Micro savings and Micro Insurance. It isprovided as package through Microfinance Banks (MFBs), Microfinance Institutions (MFIs), RuralSupport Programmes (RSPs), and Others including Commercial Financial Institutions (CFIs) andNongovernment Organizations (NGOs). Credit disbursements under Microcredit, amounting to Rs21.7 billion were made during July,December, FY 2009-10 as compared to Rs 18.7 billion during thesame period, FY 2008-09 showing an improvement of 16.04 percent. (Govt. of Pak., 2010).In addition to the formal SSNs, there are various forms of informal SSNs initiated at the localand national levels. The present research project was therefore proposed to conduct an exploratorystudy of SSNs and farmer’s perceptions regarding these SSNs in Battagram district of KP.1.3.6 Bacha Khan Poverty Alleviation Programme (BKAP)The BKPAP was initiated in Upper Dir, Battagram, Karak and Mardan districts with yearlybudgetary allocation of Rs501 million to set up 1,800 rural organizations, provide training to 11,000people and small loans to 2,600 people. The project was designed to set up 400 irrigation and waterschemes and 920 model fruit and vegetable orchards. The programme is being executed through anon-governmental development organisation, Sarhad Rural Support Programme (SRSP). Theprogramme is a two-year pilot multi-sector poverty alleviation programme of Khyber Pakhtunkhwaand it covers four districts of Mardan, Karak, Battagram and Upper Dir. The total cost of theprogramme is Rs1,500 million. According to the provincial government performance report, the maincomponents of the programme include social mobilisation, social protection, and livelihood increase.The programme is the first of its kind introducing micro-insurance services for the populationhouseholds to mitigate unforeseen social and health related shocks. The programme has so farfinished 37 community-owned and managed small infrastructure schemes apart from other variousschemes in the areas of population skills trainings, agriculture and livestock (The News International,2010).6

BKPAP in union council kozabanda tehsil and district Battagram1.4 Objectives of the studyThe general and specific objectives of the research are as follows;1.4.1 General objectiveTo conduct an exploratory study on Social Safety Nets in Battagram district of Khyber Pakhtunkhwaprovince with implications for food security.1.4.2 Specific objective1. To identify the demographic characteristics of the respondents.2. To explore the cropping pattern in the study area.3. To identify different types of social safety nets, in the study area.4. To explore the farmers perception towards access to social safety nets.5. To find out perceived effectiveness of social safety nets in the study area.6. To identify and analyze the perceived role of SSN in food security.7. To suggest policy recommendations to improve the effectiveness of SSNs and food security.1.4.3 AssumptionsFallowing assumptions guided the study.i. Respondents would provide accurate information on the basis of their own observations andexperiences without any biasness.ii. The responses of the respondents would be normally distributed.7

iii. Respondents would be well aware of various social safety nets.1.4.4 Limitationsi. It was not possible to cover the entire province due to shortage of time and resources.ii. Female respondents could not be approached directly due the customs and traditions of thearea.iii. Due to high illiteracy, interviews were conducted in the local language (Urdu, Pashto) andwere translated in English language.iv. It was not possible to cover some NGOs as they were hesitant to provide some personalinformation about their organization.8

CHAPTER 2REVIEW OF LITERATUREThe main aim of this chapter is to report the theoretical views and empirical finding of thepast and present investigations and proponents concerning the present research problem. It helps theresearcher in formulating the conceptual framework of the study and in understanding the methods ofconducting the research. It also provides comparable data on the interpretation of the results. It alsoprovides further orientation to the problem and eliminates the possibility of unnecessary duplicationof efforts. A brief review of the relevant studies is given below.2.1 Social safety netsGraham (1994) conducted a study on Social Safety Nets (SSNs) and concluded that aphenomenon of politico-economic reforms with SSNs was depended upon the logic that reformincluded various interest groups. The economic trauma during the transition period threw groups onrisky situation. The main repercussions of the reforms were; displaced urban workers and moremiserable situation of the poor’s. This group tends to be more vocal and organized. In that case, thenon-existence of SSNs generates opposition to further economic changes.Subbarao (1997) concluded that in order to achieve a high level of effectiveness in term ofpoverty reduction, the public works program should set a wage rate that is equivalent to the existingwage rate in local communities. However, if rationing is required it may be achieved by targeting thepublic works program to poor areas. People works programs as social safety nets and identified thekey design features of a good public works program. Furthermore, the public works programs aresuccessful where they are synchronized to the timing of the slack agricultural seasons when amajority of the labor force in rural areas is unemployed in farm activities.Reddy (1998) divided SSNs into two main types i.e. formal and informal. The differencebetween formal and informal public SSNs is whether there exists a formal legal support of theassistance. Public informal SSNs refer to the support which individuals can hope for from thegovernment, through programs which generate assets or employment, transfer income, or providebasic social services, as a means of helping affected individuals from falling below the designatedminimum standard of living.Rodrik (1998) provides cross-country evidence on the efficiency of social services throughgovt. provision and with special focus through effective govt. local institutions. His observationalbased evidence suggested that economies with marked institutional frameworks were most capable to9

deal with external shocks in the long term. Economies with weak institutions tend to delay price andfiscal adjustments in response to shocks, thus diverting resources away from productive andentrepreneurial activities, and increasing uncertainty in the economic environment. In essence, highqualityinstitutions can be seen as one mechanism to deal with internal conflicts over resources wheneconomies are hit by external shocks.Keane and Prasad (2000) argued that high level of cash transfers to households helped tomaintain social cohesion, a necessary condition for the reforms which brought growth. He alsoconcluded that the system overall has discouraged labor supply. This is one reason why employmentlevels have not recovered, there appears to have been substantial withdrawal from the labor force,which raised dependency ratios and lowered economic growth.Lewis (2000) deliberates on low income countries and concluded that Safety nets are verypoor in low income countries. This is all because of difference in the needs and sources of income. Itis all not worthy that some poor countries have decreased their total GDP for education and healtheven below than 3%. By the increase in private financing availability of SSNs has been decreased tocritical level. In central Asian states like Tajkistan, 37% of pregnant women did not seek pre-natalcare due to its cost, and in Kyrgyz Republic, more than 45% of the pregnant women were unable toget good medication because of its high costs and as a result protection from several health problemswas nominal. In these countries, a minimum element of the safety net, protection from the risk ofpoverty.Paitoonpong (2001) studied the source of informal safety net services showed that during theAsian Financial Crisis, temples were an emergency source of food and shelter for some villagers.Indeed, village people rely heavily on assistance from temples not only for food and shelter but alsofor consultations when they have problems or experience psychological stress. Temples also provideforums for social gathering in many communities. In 2000, there were 31,111 Buddhist temples, 3181mosques (Muslim temples), 2200 Christian churches and 40 Hindu temples in Thailand. At the sametime, the Crisis in Thailand presented an opportunity to increase informal social connections andassistance through relationships of trust and cooperation within a society or community. The crisisforced millions of families and communities to become more disciplined and resilient, and to increasecooperation and mutual support during the Crisis. He found that a portion of the social capital thathad eroded prior to the crisis was restored during the crisis. One example is the revival of the practiceof labor exchange in agriculture.Jurado (2001) implicitly explained that social safety nets are programs intended to assistpeople who have been adversely affected by shocks and other kinds of emergencies, not necessarilythe poor. It drew a line between social safety nets and other related concepts such as social protection,10

social security and anti-poverty programs. It distinguished between formal and informal safety netsand maintained that social safety nets should not include antipoverty programs.Rogers and Coates (2002) studied the food subsidy and cash transfer programmes andconcluded that an international comparison of the leakage in food subsidy programs shows that theuntargeted programs of food subsidies and food rations in India, Pakistan, Brazil, and Egypt have aleakage rate of 50-80 percent to the non needy population. Thus, it is important to identify the costeffectiveness of food transfer by comparing the food-based transfer programs to cash-based programsas well as identifying the cost effectiveness of various food-based transfer programs and focusingthem towards the particular objective of poverty reduction.Mordoch and Sharma, (2002) reported some beneficial techniques that can be helpful for thesaving and safety nets. Social safety net programmes are the dire need of time and should be takenseriously. All the poverty reducing programmes should be formulated on the basis of already workingsystems. Micro financing schemes are one of those systems which are trying to encounter poverty andhealth problems and masses should actively participate in these programmes. Any policy responsethat addresses poverty reduction through savings and insurance mechanisms should build on theexisting mechanisms of savings and insurance. Microfinance schemes emerging in many parts ofSouth Asia provide opportunities for new types of savings and community participation in addition tomicro insurance schemes that could be helpful in insuring against the weather related disasters.Dev et al., (2004) explained that food-based social safety nets that has been recentlyadvocated in South Asian countries are the Food Stamp Programs, which have been effectively usedin the past in Sri Lanka. Food stamp programs could identify target groups efficiently and restrict theuse of food stamps to those who receive them. It reduces the leakage that is prevalent in a generalsubsidy program. However, implementing food stamps requires good governance and administrativesetup from the public sector. Furthermore, the food stamp program reduces the role of theimplementing agency in transporting food from one place to another and thus substantially reducesthe cost of transferring food to beneficiaries. Food stamp programs are also considered an alternativeto the general food subsidy or food rationing programs, which could enhance the efficiency of thefood distribution system. Some states in India are currently experimenting with the food stampprograms.Alderman and Hoddinott (2007) concluded that poorly designed or implemented socialprotection programs, or those with only token funding, are unlikely to meet the intrinsic orinstrumental objectives. Much depends on correct design. All effective social safety nets have fivekey characteristics: (1) a clear objective; (2) a feasible means of identifying intended beneficiaries;(3) a means of transferring resources on a reliable basis; (4) ongoing monitoring of operations and11

igorous evaluation of effectiveness; and (5) transparency in operation to encourage learning,minimize corruption, and ensure that beneficiaries and the wider population understand how theprogram functions.Foxely (2010) concluded that there was a constant demand for the state to deliver more publicgoods, including better coverage and quality in basic social services such as health care andeducation, and at the same time to build a stronger, more inclusive social safety net. And this progressshould be achieved, according to middle-income groups, without increasing taxes and whileexpanding job opportunities. And he also studied the sustaining social safety nets for economicrecovery in middle-income societies.Synthesis:Most of the authors agreed that social safety nets are introduced for poor and vulnerablepeople. Social safety nets are generally introduced for reducing poverty and increasing the livingstandard of poor people. Some author also said that social safety nets are not antipoverty programsrather these are intended to assist the people during emergencies.2.2 Performance of SSNs in developing countriesAccording to Feridhanusetyawan (2000) emergency social funds should be introduced to stopthe living standards falling. During Asian financial crisis, emergency social funds in Indonesia provedhelpful. The term SSNs as emergency social funds that serve to protect individuals from fallingbelow a defined minimum standard of living. The Indonesia case study noted that social safety netprograms in Indonesia were ineffective during the Asian Financial Crisis. The implementation of theprograms was not only late, but they were also poorly designed and administered. The nationalbureaucracy lacked the capacity to manage the programs well and became demoralized during therapid economic decline and political turmoil of the crisis.Rao (2000) found that the performance of these systems has not always been great, typicallybecause of a combination of a lack of political will, corruption, and the high costs associated withdistributing food. The potential impact on poverty has often been affected by a combination of poortargeting and program design. For example, liquidity-constrained poor households have often notbeen able to take up their full ration entitlement.Toor and Nasar (2003) studied the Zakat which is very important social safety net. Theystudied this Social Safety Net in Pakistan and concluded that Zakat has emerged as the government’scentral program of social safety net instruments. However, its potential and scope in fighting povertyis yet to be fully realized. It is estimated that the Zakat system benefits about 2 million Pakistanis, ofwhich about 0.5 million are receiving assistance on a regular basis. It gives an understanding of theinstitutional arrangement for Zakat disbursement and assesses the impact of Zakat on household12

welfare. They also explored that all recipients are below the poverty line, have large families,majority are illiterate and virtually have no durable household goods.Babu (2003) studied social safety nets in South Asia (specially in Sri Lanka) and said thatsocial safety net programs can fill the poverty gap among very poor segments of society and SSNsprograms can provide consumption smoothing over seasons and years when natural disastersfrequently affect vulnerable groups. Social safety nets, in addition to protecting poor segments ofsociety from major shocks, are also proved to be an effective method of building human capitalthrough interventions in the health and education sectors providing school-based or health-basedincome transfers. Finally, he also concluded that social safety net programs alone cannot reducepoverty in the long run. Economic policies designed and implemented to provide a conductiveenvironment for broad based economic growth are also necessary to pull a large segment of societyfrom poverty in the long run.Coady (2004) conducted a study on the performance of commonly found social safety netprograms in developing countries. The evidence suggests that universal food subsidies have verylimited potential for redistributing income. While targeted food subsidies have greater potential, thiscan only be realized when adequate attention is given to the design and implementation, as well as tothe social and political factors influencing the adoption, of these programs.SynthesisMost of the authors reported that performance of SSNs in developing countries is generallynot satisfactory. Zakat is a very important social safety net in Pakistan. Targeted food subsidies havegreater potential, this can only be realized when adequate attention is given to the design andimplementation, as well as to the social and political factors influencing the adoption of theseprograms.2.3 State of food security in PakistanAhmed and Siddiqui (1995) stated that the population growth rate was not trendingdownward with significant reduction of production of food. This increasing gap between populationand production was bringing more problems especially for poor masses. The rates of daily food itemshould surging burgeoning population, poor and low-per hectare yield and high increasing food itemsrates are the main threats to food security.Krishnaraj (2005) argued that it is essential to understand, “how is food securityconceptualized, what steps have been taken and how appropriate are the questions in this context”.Food security is contingent upon three basic parameters i.e. availability, accessibility andaffordability. Availability comes from production and other related aspects of productivity thatsustain a desired level of production.13

Cheema (2005) studied the food insecurity areas of Pakistan and concluded that the reason ofmost food insecurity in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkwa is increasing alongwith rates. He alsoreported that poverty rates are generally higher in Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkwa than otherprovinces of Pakistan.Cohen et, al. (2008) studied the pillars of food security and narrated that availability of foodis possible where production and distribution channels are efficient. Similarly access to foodcontingent depends upon the socio-economic empowerment of the consumers. Stability of supply andaccess depends on food production, imports purchasing power and social safety nets. Stability can beadversely affected by climatic factor, price fluctuations and political and economic factors.Suleri and Haq (2009) opinioned that people spend more on food items and less on non fooditems because of increasing in poverty. About 61.6% money is spent on the food stuffs by the generalpublic. This is more than from 2005-2006 (55.6%). To encounter this problem people of urban andrural areas have to get the substandard food and less amount of food as well. The second mostadopted strategy is limiting the size of meals. Negative coping strategies, including reducingexpenditure on health and education, lead to chronic food insecurity.Ahmad (2009) reported that the wheat is the major staple food of people of Pakistan andincrease in per unit production of wheat through liberal financial support to small farmers, adequateavailability of fertilizers, weedicides and certified seed at affordable prices, containment of postharvestlosses and strong curb on wheat smuggling, is necessary to meet the food requirements of theever increasing population of Pakistan.McGregor et, al. (2009) conducted a research study on Pacific island food security situationand concluded that Pacific island countries are vulnerable to natural disasters that can causetemporary food insecurity. Climate change will put pressure on food production systems andadaptation measures must be put in place to deal with these impacts. Improving land productivity isvital to improving food security.Synthesis:In Pakistan the state of food security is not satisfactory because prices of food grow andcontinue to be unstable, poverty is high and population is increasing. Most of the authors concludedthat for improving the state of food security three basis parameters i.e. availability, accessibility andaffordability, need to be addressed. In south Asia food insecurity is increasing at high rate statetherefore SSNs are necessary for the poor people to decrease the rate of food insecurity.The present research project was therefore designed to conduct an exploratory study of SSNsin the Battagram ditrict of KP and access of the farmers to these SSNs.14

CHAPTER 3MATERIALS AND METHODSThe materials and methods provide a path to research how to complete the process ofcollection, analyzing and interpretation of data. The main focus of this exploratory research was theidentification of different types of SSNs in study area and perceptions of farmers toward the accessand usefulness of SSNs. Battagram district of KPK was chosen purposively because it is a marginaland resource scarce area with high incidence of food insecurity (Suleri, 2010). Therefore, keeping inview the above situation, the present study was designed in Battagram. District which consists of twotehsils i.e. Allai and Battagram.3.1 PopulationBattagram is the district of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. It has a total land areaof 1301 square kilometres and the estimated population of Battagram District in 2004-2005 was361,000. The main language of the district is Pashto. Battagram district consists of two tehsils i.e.Allai and Battagram.Location of Battagram District in KP (highlighted in yellow)Coordinates: 34°25′N 73°06′E34.41°N 73.1°E15

3.1.1SamplingOne of the two tehsils (Battagram and Allai) Battagram was chosen randomly throughsimple random method then from that tehsil two union councils Kozabanda and Ajmera were selectedrandomly. From U.C Kozabanda three (3) villages Pora, Sofian and Kozabanda were selected byusing simple random sample technique. From U.C Ajmera 3 villages Chapargram, Ajmera andMedan were selected by using simple random sample technique. Later on, from each village 20respondents were selected randomly thereby making a sample size of 120 respondents.3.2 Data collection3.2.1 Qualitative data collectionQualitative research means “any kind of research that produces findings not arrived at by anymeans of statistical procedures or other means of quantifications” and instead, the kind of researchthat produces findings arrived from real world settings.The qualitative data were collected to elucidate the quantitative data and to obtain the holisticunderstanding of the problem. Following tools were used to acquire the qualitative data.Key informant interviewsKey informant interview is one of the most important tools of qualitative data collection. Thedata from interviews consist of direct quotations from people about their experiences, opinions,feelings and knowledge.Following key informants were interviewedi. District Coordination Officer (Battagram)ii. Executive District Officer Planning and Financeiii. Agriculture Officeriv. Progressive farmersv. Small farmersvi. SRSP (Sarhad Rural Support Programme)vii. OPP (Organization of Peace and Prosperity)viii. Sungi Development Foundationix. Save the Childrenx. Al Khidmat foundationxi. Karwanxii. NCHD (National commission for Human Development)xiii. ASF (Agriculture Support Fund)Personal observations16

The data from personal observation consist of detailed description of people’s activities,behaviours, actions and the full range of interpretations.The researcher visited the study areas during the year 2010-2011. First researcher visited the studyarea and collected qualitative data by using personal observations. Useful information was collectedduring these visits.3.2.2 Quantitative data collectionInterview scheduleIn order to collect the desired data an interview schedule was developed which was later onpre-tested for its reliability and validity by interviewing from 30 respondents. As a result of pretestingnecessary amendments were incorporated to give final shape to interview schedule.Conducting interviewInterview of a farmer for pre-testingThe farmers were approached at farms and homes and information was collected in a veryfriendly and amicable way. Although the interview schedule was prepared in English but interviewswere conducted in local and urdu language to make it easy for communication and the requiredinformation was obtained with maximum accuracy.17

Interviewing the farmers in Sofian village for data collectionAnalysis of dataThe data were analyzed with the help of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).Descriptive analysis such as frequencies, percentages, means standard deviations and ranking wereused for interpretation of the data. In order to know the relative ranking of various factors, theirweighted scores were calculated by multiplying the score value allotted to each category of the scalewith frequency count. Means were calculated as sum of values divided by number of observations.Then, factors were ranked taking their mean value into consideration.Difficulties faced during data collection:1. Study area was mountainous and some of the selected villages were far away from mainroads, so it took much time to reach the farmers.2. Due to suspicious nature and illiteracy of the farmers a lot of time had to spend in explainingthe purpose of study before them.3. Some of the farmers provided the needed information willingly, while others were reluctant.4. There was also a gap of understanding between researcher and respondents, but researchertried his best to eliminate this chasm.5. Sometimes respondents were unavailable so it increased transportation cost.18

CHAPTER 4RESULTS AND DISCUSSION4.1 Demographic characteristics of the respondentsThe concept of socio-economic status of the farming community refers to the attributes ofage, education and size of land holding, so these factors were taken up for determining the generalsocio-economic status of the respondents and some have been discussed here.4.1.1 Age of respondentsIt is generally believed that with the increase in age, the individual becomes mentally matureand takes rational decisions and thereof. Age can be one of the important factors affecting theadoption behavior of respondents. The respondents were asked about their age and on basis of theirresponses they were classified into three categories. The data regarding this aspect of respondents aregiven in Table 4.1Table 4.1: Distribution of the respondents according to their ageAge categories Freq. PercentageYoung (Up to 35) 20 16.7Middle (35-50) 65 54.2Old (Above 50) 35 29.2Total 120 100.0The data in Table 4.1 shows that 54.2% of the respondents belong to the middle age while29.2% and 16.7% of the respondents were old and young respectively.These results are more or less similar to those of (Hussain, 2004) who found that 41.6% ofthe respondents belong to middle age category i.e. from 35-50 years, and other 28.0% were in younggroup (up to 35 years) while 30.4% belongs to old aged group of 50 years and above. These resultsare in contrast with (Bakhsh, 2010) who found that 51.3% of the respondents have age 36-50followed by 25.0% and 23.8% of the respondents have age up to 35 and above 50, respectively.19

4.1.2 Size of land holdingThe size of land holding is judiciously considered to be one of the important factors, whichaffect the cropping patterns of the farmers. Therefore, necessary information about the size of landholding of the respondents was obtained which has been presented in Table 4.2Table 4.2: Distribution of the respondents according to their size of land holdingSize of land holding (Kanals) Frequency PercentageUp to 10 68 56.711-20 28 23.3Above 20 24 20.0Total 120 100.0The study area was mountainous therefore terrace farming is practiced and land holdingcapacity is very low and data in table 4.2 shows that about 56.7% of the respondents have less than 10Kanals land. It shows land holding in study area is very low, and 23.3% farmers have 11-20 Kanalsand only 20% farmers possess above 20 Kanals of land which are very low in percentage.4.1.3 EducationEducation is an important factor in making decisions in the life of an individual. the numberof years of formal education completed by an individual is regarded as a significant factor in gainingaccess to better ideas, innovations and technologies. It can be defined as the process of developingknowledge, wisdom and other desirable qualities of mind, character and general competency,especially by a source of formal instructions. Hence education is considered very important in the useof latest agricultural technologies and in the adoption process of innovations to increase agriculturalproduction (Sadaf, 2005). The respondents were asked about their education level and the data in thisregard is presented in Table 4.3.Table 4.3: Distribution of the respondents according to their educationEducation Frequency PercentageIlliterate 48 40.0Primary 16 13.3Middle 27 22.5Matric and above 29 24.2Total 120 100.020

The data in Table 4.3 indicated that the major segment of (40.0%) of the respondents wereilliterate, while 13.3% of them had primary education and 22.5% of them had middle education.However, about one-fourth (24.2%) of the farmers were qualified up to matriculation or abovematriculation. The above results are more or less similar to those of (Bakhsh, 2010) who found that(20.0%) of the respondents were illiterate. Among the literates, (12.5%) of the respondent were up toPrimary. However, most (39.4%) of the respondents were up to Middle, and 28.1% of the respondenthad education level Matric and above Matric.4.1.4 Marital statusThe data regarding marital status of the respondents are presented in table 4.4Table 4.4: Distribution of the respondents according to their marital statusMarital status Freq. PercentageSingle 33 27.5Married 87 72.5Total 120 100.0There is trend of early marriages in the study area so most (72.5%) of the interviewed personswere married and only 27.5% were single.4.1.5 Land tenureBy the concept tenure ship we, in relation to the present study, mean the manner andcondition of landholding of the property rights of individuals to the land. In Pakistan mostly the typeof land tenure is owner, tenants and owner cum tenant. The data collected regarding tenancy status ofthe respondents is recorded in Table 4.5.Table 4.5: Distribution of the respondents according to their tenure shipTenure ship Freq. PercentageTenant 46 38.33Owner 34 28.33Owner-cum-tenant 40 33.33Total 120 100.021

The data mentioned in Table 4.5 reveal that most (38.33%) of the respondents were tenants,28.33% of the respondents were owners and 33.33% of the respondents were owner-cum-tenants.These results are more or less similar to those of Ali (2004) who revealed that 52.7% of therespondents were tenants, followed by 25.3 and 23.0% of the respondents were owner-cum-tenantsand owners, respectively.4.1.6 Family sizeFamily size of the respondents is also an important indicator that influence the perception andsuggestion of the respondents. Therefore keeping in view the importance of family size respondentswere asked regarding their family size (total family members). The data obtained are presented intable 4.6Table 4.6: Distribution of the respondents according to their family sizeFamily size (Nos.) Frequency PercentageUp to 5 18 15.06-10 24 20.0Above 10 78 65.0Total 120 100.0Family size is frequently found to be large in the study area as shown in the table 4.6 whichreveals that 65% of the respondents had a family size of more than 10 household members followedby 20% and 15% of the respondents having 6-10 and up to 5 family members.4.1.7 Family typeFamily type is mainly divided into two main categories i.e. nuclear family type whichincludes husband, wife and children. In case of joint family type it includes also members of familyother than husband, wife and children. The data regarding family type are presented in Table 4.7.Table 4.7: Distribution of the respondents according to their family typeFamily type Frequency PercentageNuclear 22 18.3Joint 98 81.7Total 120 100.022

The data presented in Table 4.7 shows that majority (81.7%) of the respondents were living injoint family system, while 18.3% of the respondents were living in nuclear family system. The aboveresults are more or less similar to those of (Latif, 2009) who found that majority (77.0%) of therespondents were living in joint family system, while 23.1% of the respondents were living in nuclearfamily system. It is depicted that mostly the trend in the family system is joint system.4.1.8 Annual incomeAnnual income means that the total income earned by the respondents from all the sources towhich they are engaged at the end of each year. The data regarding this respect of the study are givenin Table 4.8Table 4.8: Distribution of the respondents according to their annual incomeAnnual income (Rs.) Frequency Percentage< 50000 43 35.85000-100000 45 37.5> 100000 32 26.7Total 120 100.0The data presented in Table 4.8 shows that 35.8% of the respondents had annual income lessthan 50000 Rs. followed by 37.5% and 26.7% of the respondents between the range of 50000-100000Rs and above 100000 Rs. annual incomes respectively. The analysis of the data shows that majorityof the respondents had annual income 50000-100000 Rs.4.1.9 Source of incomeLivelihood diversification plays an important role in improving food security and income ofpeople in rural communities (Butler et al., 2007). The data regarding source of income of therespondents is given in table in 4.9Table 4.9: Distribution of the respondents according to their major source of incomeMajor source of income Frequency PercentageAgriculture 22 18.3Remittances 49 40.8Labour 22 18.3Govt. Job 21 17.5Any other (self business, pvt. job, shop etc.) 6 5Total 120 100.023

Table 4.9 depicts that 40.8% of the respondents had remittances as a major source of incomefollowed by 18.3% of respondents who rely on agriculture and same percentage was for the non-farmlabours while 17.5% of the respondents had government jobs. Only 5% of the respondents had othersources like business, private jobs etc. Talking with one of the respondents it was revealed that properreforms to the agricultural sector were not up to the mark. As he said,“Food insecurity is prevalent because there are limited agricultural activities; people, dueeconomic pressure are sending their young family members out of the country”.It is clear that major source of income for most of the respondents were remittances and daily wages.As it is evident from the local farmer who was a tenant, but this profession could not support him tofeed his family throughout the year so he had to move to another area to support his family’s breadsand butter.“We (my family) eat maize and wheat for alternative days. I have a medium family size (8persons in all); my brother is also living with me. I used to live outside the area for around 8 monthsand that time I work for earning my livings from daily wages. Thanks to my brother who takes care ofmy family during that time”The table 4.10 indicates the minor source of income of the respondent’s household.Table 4.10: Distribution of the respondents according to their minor source of incomeMinor source of income Frequency PercentageAgriculture 45 37.5Labour 38 31.7Any other (self business, private job,shop etc.)37 30.8Total 120 100.0The table 4.10 reveals that 37.5% of the respondents had agriculture as a minor source ofincome while for 31.7% and 30.8% of the respondents, labour and other business and jobsrespectively were the minor source of income.24

4.2 Agricultural practices of cropping patternThe major crops are wheat, rice, barley, maize, vegetables and fruits. The major crops occupynearly 90% of the total cropped area and play an important role in sustaining the livelihood of therural population. The data regarding wheat of the respondents is given below in table 4.11Table 4.11: Distribution of the respondents according to information about wheatWheat area (Kanals) Freq. Percentage1-5 38 31.76-10 46 38.3Above 10 36 30.0Total 120 100.0Sowing time Freq. PercentageOctober 8 6.7November 24 20.0December 88 73.3Total 120 100.0Harvesting timeMay 21 17.5June 94 78.3July 5 4.17Total 120 100.0Yield/Kanal (Manuds)1 77 64.21.1-1.5 31 25.8Above 1.5 12 10.0Total 120 100.0Consumption % at H.H level< 50% 11 9.251-99% 15 12.5100% 94 78.3Total 120 100.0SaleNo sale 94 78.3< 50% 11 9.251-99% 15 12.5Total 120 100.04.2.1 Area under wheatThe table 4.11 reveals that 38.3% of the respondents cultivated wheat in an area of 6-10Kanals while 31.7%, and 30% of the respondents had 1-5 Kanal, and above 10 Kanal of area underwheat cultivation respectively. Land holding is very low therefore production area is also very low.25

4.2.2 Sowing time of wheatThe table 4.11 reveals that the majority (73.3%) of the respondents sow wheat in Decemberwhile 20% of the respondents sow wheat in November and remaining 6.7% in October. On the otherhand recommended that sowing time of wheat is 15 October while the sowing trend in study area isDecember which gives a great impact on the yield.A view of wheat grown in union council Ajmera in battagram tehsilHarvesting timeThe table 4.11 reveals that the harvesting time for a large majority (78.3%) of respondentswas June while 17.5% and 4.17% of the respondents harvest wheat in May and July respectively. Theharvesting time is also late with respect to the sowing time.The table 4.11 also reveals that the yield of the wheat was 1 Manuds per Kanal for 64.2% ofthe respondents while 25.8% and 10% of the respondents had a yield of 1.1-1.5 and above 1.5Manuds per Kanal respectively. If we see yield in acres, it becomes only 8-12 mounds per acre whichis very low yield average. As discussed before land holding capacity is very low and adoption oflatest technologies is also very low in study area which gives great impact upon yield performance.4.2.4 Consumption of wheatAs far as the consumption of wheat is concerned, a large majority of respondents consumewheat within household for their own consumption. The table 4.11 reveals that 78.3% of therespondents consume wheat at their house hold level and don’t sell it. 12.5% of the respondents use51-99% of their total produce within household while only 9.2% use less than 50% wheat for their26

own consumption. A large majority of respondents consume wheat within household because theywheat is a regular meal along with maize and rice.The table 4.11 reveals that sale of wheat is very low and yield obtained by the farmers wasalso very low. The qualitative data in this regard indicated that main reason behind this wasunavailability of inputs and shortage of irrigation water as explained by a farmer,“Input problems are found to be the bone of contention as it is rendering the production of thewheat up to 8-12 Manuds per acre. The most important thing is that we need water courses andlandleveller”Table 4.12: Distribution of the respondents according to information about maizeMaize area (Kanals)PercentageNot cultivating 27.51-5 38.36-10 19.2Above 10 15.0Total 100.0Sowing timePercentageMay 9.2June 77.5July 13.3Total 100.0Harvesting timeOctober 1.7November 10.8December 87.5Total 100.0Yield/Kanal (manuds)> 2 16.72-2.5 60.0Above 2.5 23.3Total 100.0Consumption % at H.H level> 50% 57.551-99% 28.3100% 14.2Total 100.0SaleNo sale 14.2> 50% 25.851-99% 60.0Total 100.027

4.2.5 Area under maizeThe table 4.12 reveals that 38.3% of the respondents cultivated maize in an area of 1-5Kanals while 27.5% of the respondents don’t sow maize. 19.2% and 15% of the respondents had 6-10 Kanal, and above 10 Kanal of area under maize cultivation respectively.4.2.6 Sowing time of maizeThe table 4.12 reveals that a large majority (77.5%) of the respondents sow maize in Junewhile 13.3% of the respondents sow maize in July and remaining 9.2% in May.A view of land preparation for maize cultivation in Sofian village in Battagram district4.2.7 Harvesting time and yieldThe table 4.12 reveals that the harvesting time for a large majority (87.5%) of respondentswas December while 10.8% and 1.7% of the respondents harvest maize in November and Octoberrespectively.The yield obtained by a majority (60%) of the respondents was 2-2.5 Manuds per Kanalwhile 23.3% and 16.7% of the respondents obtained yield above 2.5 and less than 2 Manuds perKanal. The results shows yield of Maize is double as compared to wheat in study area.4.2.8 Consumption of maizeAs far as the consumption of maize is concerned, 57.5% of respondents use less than 50% oftotal maize produce within household. 28.3% of the respondents use 51-99% of their total produce28

within household while only 14.2% use all the maize produce for their own consumption and don’tsale.The table 4.12 reveals that the majority (60%) of the farmers sell 51-99% of total maizeproduction while 25.8 and 14.2% sale less than 50% and don’t sale maize respectively. As said by afarmer during the qualitative interview,“We sell maize and vegetables to purchase wheat for us”Cropping pattern of the area according to the studies was that maize and vegetables weregrown. One of the educated respondents stated in this regard that.“Maize was a popular crop earlier and population was also in some limit. Now populationhas gone up and the requirements are also rising accordingly. So far no agri. extension services arebeing given to us from Government side. Due to which the production of the crops is always at verylow level”.The qualitative interviews revealed that shortage of water has forced the farmers to relycompletely upon the rain water. The water channels destructed in earthquake of 2005 are not stillconstructed which is a great problem for the farming community.29

Table 4.13: Distribution of the respondents according to information about RiceRice area (Kanals)PercentageNot cultivating 59.21-5 7.56-10 11.7Above 10 21.7Total 100.0Sowing timePercentageMay 15.0June 73.3July 11.7Total 100.0Harvesting timeOctober 21.7November 25.0December 53.3Total 100.0Yield/Kanal (Manuds)2-3 43.33-4 45.0Above 4 11.7Total 100.0Consumption % at H.H level> 50% 24.251-99% 44.2100% 31.7Total 100.0SaleNo sale 31.7> 50% 40.851-99% 27.5Total 100.04.2.9 Area under riceThe table 4.13 reveals that 59.2% of the respondents don’t cultivated rice while 21.7% growrice in an area of more than10 Kanals. 11.7%, and 7.5% of the respondents had 6-10 Kanal, and 1-5Kanal of area under rice cultivation respectively. Most of the respondents cannot grow rice becausethe shortage of water. The areas near the river are water rich and mostly rice is cultivated on riverbanks.4.2.10 Sowing and harvesting time of riceThe table 4.13 reveals that a large majority (73.3%) of the respondents sow rice in June while15% of the respondents sow rice in May and remaining 11.7% in July.30

A view of Sowing of rice in u.c Kozabanda in Battagram districtThe table 4.13 reveals that the harvesting time for more than half (53.3%) of the respondentswas December while 25% and 21.7% of the respondents harvest rice in November and Octoberrespectively. The yield of the rice was 3-4 Manuds per Kanal for 45% of the respondents while 43.3%and 11.7% of the respondents had a yield of 2-3 and above 4 Manuds per Kanal respectively which isgreater in average per kanal from both wheat and maize.4.2.11 Consumption of riceAs far as the consumption of rice is concerned, 44.2% of respondents use 51-99% of ricewithin household for their own consumption while 31.7% of the respondents consumed all the riceproduction within household and don’t sale it and 24% of the respondents use >50% of their totalproduce within household.The table 4.13 reveals that the majority 40.8% of the farmers less than 50% sale the rice and31.7% and 27.5% don’t sale and sale 51-99% rice respectively.4.3 Number of farm animalsThe raring of animals is also a part of agriculture. In the study area the raring of farm animalstrend is gradually decreasing. The data regarding distribution of respondents according to their no. ofcows is given in table 4.14Table 4.14: Distribution of the respondents according to their no. of cowsCows (Nos.) Freq. PercentageNil 95 79.2One 20 16.7Two 2 1.7Three or above 3 2.5Total 120 100.031

Table 4.14 shows that a large majority of the respondents don’t had cow, 16.7% had only one cowwhile 2.5% and 1.7% had three or above and two cows respectively.Table 4.15: Distribution of the respondents according to their no. of buffaloesBuffaloes (Nos.) Freq. PercentageNil 98 81.7One 17 14.2Two 3 2.5Three or above 2 1.7Total 120 100.0Table shows that 81.7% of the respondents had no buffalo, 14.2% had one while 2.5% and 1.7% ofthe respondents had two and three or above number of buffaloes respectively.Table 4.16: Distribution of the respondents according to their no. of goatsGoats (Nos.) Freq. PercentageNil 74 61.7One 19 15.8Two 11 9.2Three or above 16 13.3Total 120 100.0Table 4.16 shows that 61.7% of the respondents had no goat, 15.8% had one while 13.3% and9.2% of the respondents had three or above and two goats respectively.Table 4.17: Distribution of the respondents according to their no. of sheepSheep (Nos.) Freq. PercentageNil 81 67.5One 9 7.5Two 13 10.8Three or above 17 14.2Total 120 100.0The table 4.17 reveals that 67.5% respondents had no sheep, 14.2% had three or above while10.8% and 7.5% of the respondents had two and one goats respectively.The qualitative data reveals that the number of farm animals is decreasing because trendchanged with the new generation which is not hard working and avoid from animals and anotherreasons are the foreign income and educational trend.32

4.4 Sources of agricultural informationThe respondents were asked to rank the sources of agricultural information. The data in thisregards is presented in table 4.18Table 4.18: Distribution of the respondents according to their sources of agriculturalinformationSource Mean SD RankFellow Farmer 5.89 .31 1Agri. Ext. Deptt. 4.30 .87 2NGOS 4.16 .82 3RADIO 3.18 1.25 4TV 2.54 .50 5Newspaper 1.67 .83 6Lowest 1,26 Highest sourceThe table 4.18 indicates that fellow farmer (X = 5.89) was the major source of agricultureinformation. Agriculture Extension Department whom duty is to provide latest information regardingagriculture information to farmers (X = 4.30) were also found a factor of the source of agricultureinformation. NGOs (X = 4.16), Radio (X = 3.18), T.V (X = 2.54), Newspaper (X = 1.67) were foundas minor source of agriculture information respectively. A farmer told“Agricultural information is mainly received from the fellow farmers in the area and there is ameager government intervention.”The respondents were asked to indicate the frequency of their contact with the agricultureextension department. Their responses are recorded in table 4.19Table 4.19: Distribution of the respondents according to the Agri. Extension Departmentcontacts with themPeriod Yes No TotalFreq. %age Freq. %age Freq. %ageLast month 0 0.0 120 100.0 120 100.0Last 63 2.5 117 97.5 120 100.0monthsLast 1219 15.8 101 84.2 120 100.0monthsLast 3 yearsor above98 81.7 22 18.3 120 100.033

The table 4.19 reveals that a majority of respondents 81.7% said that Agri. Extensiondepartment did not contact with them for the last three year or above. While 15.8%, 2.5% said thatAgri. Extension department did not contact with them for last 12 months and 6 months respectively.Not a single respondent said that Agri. Extension department contacted with him during last month.Table 4.20: Distribution of the respondents according to the forest ownershipForest ownership Freq. PercentageYes 30 25.0No 90 75.0Total 120 100.0The table 4.20 reveals that majority 75% of the respondents had no forest ownership,followed by 25% respondents who had forest ownership. A majority of the respondents did not haveforest ownership.Table 4.21: Distribution of the respondents according to the forest areaForest area (Kanals) Freq. Percentage1-5 13 10.86-10 8 6.7Above 10 10 8.3NA (No forest) 90 75.0Total 120 100.0The table 4.21 reveals that a majority of the respondents (75%) have no forest ownership.10.8% respondents have forest area only 1-5 kanals. Followed by 8.3% and 6.7% of the respondentshave only above 10 kanals and 6-10 kanals of forest respectively.Table 4.22: Distribution of the respondents according to the pattern of crop rotationCrop rotationPercentageWheat-Rice 26.7Wheat-Maize 56.7Wheat-Groundnut 0.0Vegetable-Maize 0.0Any other (Rice-fellow) 16.7Total 100.0The table 4.22 reveals that a majority of the respondents 56.7% have wheat-maize pattern ofcrop rotation. While 26.7% and 16.7% have wheat-rice and rice fellow respectively.34

4.5 SSN in the study areaSocial safety net programs can fill the poverty gap among very poor segments of society andSSNs programs can provide consumption smoothing over seasons and years when natural disastersfrequently affect vulnerable groups. Social safety nets, in addition to protecting poor segments ofsociety from major shocks, are also proved to be an effective method of building human capitalthrough interventions in the health and education sectors providing school-based or health-basedincome transfers (Babu, 2003).In the study area both type of Government based SSNs and non government or semiGovernment provided SSNs are available.The further information about these SSNs are given below:Table 4.23: Distribution of the respondents according to their knowledge aboutsocial safety nets available at government levelSocial safety nets Yes No TotalFreq. %age Freq. %age Freq. %ageZakat 120 100.0 0 0.0 120 100.0Benazir Tractor46 38.3 74 61.7 120 100.0scheme(ZTBL)Model Zari Farm Service 48 40.0 72 60.0 120 100.0ProgrammePakistan Bait ul Mal 120 100.0 0 0.0 120 100.0Benazir Income Support 88 73.3 32 26.7 120 100.0ProgrammeBacha Khan Poverty74 61.7 46 38.3 120 100.0Allevation ProgrammeMicrocredit (schemes) 17 14.2 103 85.8 120 100.0Senior Citizen Scholarship 19 15.8 101 84.2 120 100.0(by social welfare)TKPK(Tamir Khyber12 10.0 108 90.0 120 100.0Pakhtunkhwa)Peoples Work Programme 37 30.8 83 69.2 120 100.0C.M directive fund for21 17.5 99 82.5 120 100.0poverty alleviationWatan Card Scheme 61 50.8 59 49.2 120 100.0ERRA(Earthquake78 65.0 42 35.0 120 100.0Rehabilitation &Reconstruction Authority)Free education (Fee47 39.2 73 60.8 120 100.0waiving)Employees’ Old Age17 14.2 103 85.8 120 100.0Benefits InstitutionMicrofinance 18 15.0 102 85.0 120 100.0Free health care 38 31.7 82 68.3 120 100.035

4.5.1 Government based SSNsThe data regarding awareness of the respondents about different government based social safety netsare presented in table 4.23 table. It can be seen that majority of the respondents had no knowledge ofgovernment based SSNs. However all of the respondents only know about Zakat and Bait-ul-mall.Similarly 73.3% of the respondents told that they know about Benazir Income Support programme,while 61.7% of the respondents know about Bacha khan poverty alleviation programme. Very few(14.2%) of the respondents knew about Employees’ Old Age Benefits Institution EOABI and verylow only 10% respondents are aware with TKPK (Tamir Khyber Pakhtunkhwa).An in depth interview with Agriculture officer indicate that the Provincial government isrunning a project “promotion of vegetable”, in which farmers are motivated to install demonstrationplots of vegetables. In this project land remains possession of the farmers and expenses are made bythe provincial government. Dissemination of better agricultural practices, seminars and workshops arealso arranged in which latest agricultural practices are told to the farmers. It is a relatively new projectand with the help of FFS it is made feasible. Only 2 FFS are working in district Battagram , in whichweekly meetings are arraneged, one is in Allai and second is in Battagram. Model farm services arealso provided in which farmers are registered through membership and in its general body there arealmost 1741 members. Over every 20 member, an executive member is selected. The membership feeis Rs.600. The members further select the designations for their executive body. Model farm serviceis mainly concerned with new and latest seed provision to the farmers, providing fertilizers andpesticides on subsidized rates.36

Agriculture officer (Sadiq shah) of Battagram with Zarat nama (photo by author)The qualitative interviews with the farmers indicated that the agricultural extensiondepartment is not doing enough for in the promotion of agriculture in the area, while the people alsosaid that the input provision at subsidized rates is a very good step for the promotion of agriculture.By this step farmers always feel empowerment and capable for going to take good agriculturalproduction of different crops.In a key informant interview with Executive District Officer EDO (Finance and Planning); itwas found that under Tameer Khyber Pakhtunkhwa project the member provincial assembly (MPA)gets one crore rupee per annum. Now it depends on his decision whether to utilize this on upliftingthe people’s standards of life or not. People works programs are also functioning and providing onemember of national assembly (MNA) with 10 million of rupees for poor people. In addition to thatthe programme gives each MNA, 20 Million rupees that are directly given by the Prime Minister tohim. As Chief Ministers (CMs) poverty reduction Program which can be very productive butunfortunately, in this program people don’t get funds and remain less empowered and least benefitted.The main problem lies with the management of the programme. There is the allocation of hugeamount of the funds for the local area but the MPAs and MNAs are not capable enough to justify theproper use of that budget, so main objective of the funds remain unmet.37

Interview with key informant (EDO planning and finance)The safety nets that are supposed to be functional in the study area were Zakat, Benezirtractor scheme, Pakistan Bait-ul-Maal, Benezir Income support program, Bacha Kahan PovertyAlleviation Program, Micro-credit schemes, Senior citizen scholarships, Tameer Khyber PukhtunKhwa Program, People’s Works Program, CM Directive Fund for Poverty Alleviation, Watan Cardscheme, ERRA (Earthquake rehabilitation and reconstruction Authority), Free education, EmployersOld Age Benefits institutions and Health care. Most of the respondents indicate that,“The government programs are any that would be accessible on political grounds or somekind of influences such as social status”.There are many government agencies who are not even familiar with the term social safetynets, most of the information collected in this regard were mainly taken from DCO office, EDOfinance and planning, Agriculture office, SRSP (Sarhad Rural Support Program), ZTBL (ZaraiTaraqiati Bank) and from other key informants. The programs on which the government is spendingbillion of rupees are wasted as the masses even don’t know about them.4.5.2 Non Government Based SSNsThe respondents were asked to indicate their awareness about non-Government SSNs. The data in thisregards is presented in table 4.24. It is evident from the table that majority of the respondents had noinformation about most of the non-Government based SSNs. Similarly 39.2% respondents told thatthey know about Agriculture motivation programme, while 32.2% of the respondents know about38

quality education programme run by Save the Children. Very few only 2.5% and 4.2% of therespondents knew about Bedar Devolution Support Programme and microcredit’s respectively. Thequalitative data revealed that only educated and elites were aware with both Govt. based and nonGovt. provided SSNs. Small farmers and poor people were unaware with these SSNs.Table 4.24: Distribution of the respondents according to their knowledge about social safetynets available at non-government levelSocial safety nets Yes No TotalFreq. %age Freq. %age Freq. %ageCRP(Community17 14.2 103 85.8 120 100.0Rehabilitation Project)SRSPCIF (Community Investment 35 29.2 85 70.8 120 100.0Fund) SRSPMicrocredits5 4.2 115 95.8 120 100.0SRSPDRU(District17 14.2 103 85.8 120 100.0ReconstructionUnit)OPPPPAF(Pakistan poverty21 17.5 99 82.5 120 100.0allevation fund) SungiFoundationSSP3(sungi strategic36 30.0 84 70.0 120 100.0programe3) SungiFoundationQuality Education Programme 41 34.2 79 65.8 120 100.0Save The ChildrenRehabilitization of Primary 38 31.7 82 68.3 120 100.0Health Care Save TheChildrenOrphan Support Programme 45 37.5 75 62.5 120 100.0Al_KhidmatBandhan Programme39 32.5 81 67.5 120 100.0Al_KhidmatHydro Power Plant14 11.7 106 88.3 120 100.0Al_KhidmatAgriculture Motivation47 39.2 73 60.8 120 100.0Programme KarwanAdult Litracy Programme 29 24.2 91 75.8 120 100.0NCHDBedar Devolution Support 3 2.5 117 97.5 120 100.0Programme ASFDevolution Trust for9 7.5 111 92.5 120 100.0Community Empowerment(DTCE)Community LivelihoodRehabilitization Plan (CLRP)ODC13 10.8 107 89.2 120 100.039

The Non-government and semi-government social safety nets, CRP (Communityrehabilitation Project), CIF (community investment fund), Micro-credits, Bacha Khan PovertyAlleviation Project were going on with the collaboration of SRSP (which is working on the paradigmof social mobilization). While talking to official of SRSP, it was explained at colony or village levelthe community organizations (CO) are made for that and only in Battagram there are 1200 CO’s. Atevery CO level there is one chosen president. At Moza level there are 110 VO (Village organizations)and one president is again chosen from them. After that there is union Council level which is LSO’s(Local support organizations). These are total of 4 Union Councils. The main focus is capacitybuilding programmes. Vocational trainings, income increasing programs, managerial trainings arealso conducted through these programmes. CIF randomly chose the beneficieries by considering thepoverty level. At micro-level it issues 5000 – 30000 credits and only the females are entitled to thatsupport. Only in 2011 they have given 350 micro-credits to the people. Bacha Khan Povertyalleviation program is supported by provincial government in which agriculture, horticulture andinfrastructure is promoted through these programmes. Community schools are built in the areas wheregovernment facility is not available and these are established at primary level.Interview with key informant (Executive officer of SRSP)Qualitative interviews with the respondents indicated that SRSP is familiar to the people andits program Bacha Khan Poverty Alleviation Programme is very much known to the common people.Respondents said that SRSP has made water channels and are working on agriculture reforms but onthe other hand they are not aware with the Bacha Khan Poverty Alleviation programs.40

Organization of prosperity & peace was funded by FAO. The main agenda of thisorganization is improving livelihoods of the people. It builds roads, irrigation channels, orchards fordemonstration, sewing center are also established for poor women, But this program is working whilein only one union council i.e. UC Tarand. The respondents commented on that;“We don’t know about this program”and even in the UC tarand’s people are not familiar with that.Sungi Development foundation provide micro-credits and water channels for povertyalleviation, especially in the disaster situation it provides support to the people. The sungi strategicprogramme is of three year’s duration and mainly it is working on health, educaitn and naturalresource management. In addition to that FAFEN (Free and Fair Election Network) is spreadingawareness to the people about the strength of their vote and monitoring the transparency for theelection systems. In this way it is consolidating the democracy in the area. It is also impartinglivestock trainings in the rural areas. Moreover, Gender action learning system and socialmobilization and PTC (Parent Teacher Council), in which old people are trained for communityoutcomes are among the prominent pillars of the project.Respondents also admitted the role of sungi in the livestock trainings by saying that; “Yesthey come to tell us about how to keep your animals and what are best ways for that but we are unableto identify its different programs separately. Its most of the working is in Allai Tehsil”.Quality education program and rehabilitation of primary health care are two of the programthat are working in whole battagram under save the children. The workshops for teachers are alsoarranged for training purpose, which is funded by the Canada. The master trainers were especiallyinvited from Peshawar and when he was asked for the need of the training he said;Quality education workshop organized by Save the Children (photo by author)41

“The teacher selection criterion is not good here and most of the teachers are selected on thereference and political basis, so they often are weak in the teaching skills”.On other side when teachers were interviewed in this regard they appreciated that and said that; thisprogram is very good and efficiency of the teacher is improving through this training programs.Health related Program was also going on in the whole district and it is funded JSDA (JapanSocial Development Fund). Delivery of the children is its point of special focus. The nutrition of thenewly born baby and its mother is the agenda of the health related improvements of the project.Furthermore, free medicines are given to the poor people in the whole of the district. When localrespondents are asked about this safety net; they showed their awareness for that and especiallyeducated people were quite satisfactory for its productivity for people.Al khidmat foundation is running orphan support program , where 400 orphans are facilitated in theway that school of those children is built and every 1800 rupees to each child is given through thatand free education and health care facilities are also provided.Bundhan support programme, is for the people who cannot afford the expenses of themarriage of their children. All the expenses are borne by the programme and in 2010, the 20 coupleswere connected to the bond of marriage through this program. Likewise, in 2011, about 20 coupleshave submitted application for the provision of the funds of their marriages.Hydro power plants are installed for free electricity to the 200 houses in Shimlai UnionCouncil. This union council is located in Battagram district and is the home place of the president ofthe program. Free water pumps are given and two water channels are also built through that. Mobilemedical camps have been installed. There are 1600 beneficiaries of that particular program.Karwan foundation is running agriculture motivation program funded by FAO (Food andAgriculture Program) and WFP (World Food Program). It is pure agricultural program and eligibilityis the person having 8 to 18 canals of land. Two trainings are given on pre-hervesting and postharvesting techniques. This programme was working in four union councils; Ajmera, Rajhdari,BattaMuri, Paiman Sharif.Free inputs are provided by the project, One seed bag, DAP and urea bag is given free of cost,new seed variety is given to the small farmers. Most importantly they provide 100 kg wheat onmonthly basis. When the project staff asked the reason; they told that the wheat is given to make themfeel that they are food secure and by this way main purpose is to restrain the outflow of the people toother areas for daily wages. Agricultural Officer of the government sector has nothing to do with thebusiness of this program. Formation of the irrigation channels for the people is also the mandate. Inevery union council these have two farmer field schools and in which mostly kitchen gardening ispromoted in this program.42

Universal Primary education Program is among the ongoing program of NCHD that. In thisprogram they went to the areas where there are no schools. Feeder teachers and feeder communityschools are made in this program. In the adult literacy program they provide education to between theage 11-45 years of the people. Mothers are especially given education so that they may become ableto train their next generation and children.Community livelihood rehabilitation landIt has got Technical support of FAO and is funded by ERRA. In this project at every unioncouncil level 10 committees are made and it work on participatory need based determination of theproblems of the masses. Every committee get 750000 Pakistani rupees. The committee afterconsulting with local people identifies the most urgent need of the local people and spends the moneyaccordingly. It highlights the local problems of the area in a very democratic way.“No support program for people I have ever heard about and never get that”.4.5.3 Beneficiaries of SSNsTable 4.25: Distribution of the respondents according to get benefit from the programmesduring the last 12 month available at government levelN=120Social safety nets Yes No No knowledgeFreq. %age Freq. %age Freq. %ageZakat 19 15.8 101 84.2 0.0 0.0Benazir Tractor scheme(ZTBL) 0 0.0 46 38.3 61.7 61.7Model Zari Farm Service20 41.7 28 23.3 60.0 60.0ProgrammePakistan Bait ul Mal 31 25.8 89 74.2 0.0 0.0Benazir Income Support17 19.3 71 59.2 26.7 26.7ProgrammeBacha Khan Poverty Allevation 13 17.6 61 50.8 38.3 38.3ProgrammeMicrocredit (schemes) 0 0.0 17 14.2 85.8 85.8Senior Citizen Scholarship (by 3 15.8 16 13.3 84.2 84.2social welfare)TKPK(Tamir Khyber1 8.3 11 9.2 90.0 90.0Pakhtunkhwa)Peoples Work Programme 6 16.2 31 25.8 69.2 69.2C.M directive fund for poverty 2 9.5 19 15.8 82.5 82.5alleviationWatan Card Scheme 6 9.8 55 45.8 49.2 49.2ERRA(Earthquake37 47.4 41 34.2 35.0 35.0Rehabilitation & ReconstructionAuthority)Free education (Fee weiving) 12 25.5 35 29.2 60.8 60.8Employees’ Old Age Benefits 1 5.9 16 13.3 85.8 85.843

InstitutionMicrofinance 4 22.2 14 11.7 85.0 85.0Free health care 9 23.7 29 24.2 68.3 68.3The table 4.25 reveals that the percentage of the getting benefits from the govt. providedSSNs is very low. Majority of the farmers are not aware of the working of support structures and theprograms are only working at governmental level. The most famous program that is working therewas Bacha Khan Poverty Alleviation Programme. When one of the respondent was asked SSnsexplained that;“Islamic support program is easily accessible and we know that, whereas the programs runby government are not familiar to us if there are any. When we would not be aware of them thenhow could we be benefited?”Table 4.26: Distribution of the respondents according to the get benefit during the last 12months, available at non-government levelN = 120Social safety nets Yes No No knowledgeFreq. %age Freq. %age Freq. %ageCRP(Community3 17.6 14 11.7 103 85.8Rehabilitation Project)CIF (Community Investment 11 31.4 24 20.0 85 70.8Fund)Microcredits 0 0.0 5 4.2 115 95.8DRU(District4 23.5 13 10.8 103 85.8ReconstructionUnit)PPAF(Pakistan poverty 5 23.8 16 13.3 99 82.5allevation fund)SSP3(sungi strategic23 63.9 13 10.8 84 70.0programe3)Quality Education19 46.3 22 18.3 79 65.8ProgrammeRehabilitization of Primary 18 47.4 20 16.7 82 68.3Health CareOrphan Support Programme 7 15.6 38 31.7 75 62.5Bandhan Programme 2 5.1 37 30.8 81 67.5Hydro Power Plant 0 0.0 14 11.7 106 88.3Agriculture Motivation 19 40.4 28 23.3 73 60.8ProgrammeAdult Litracy Programme 11 37.9 18 15.0 91 75.8Bedar Devolution Support 0 0.0 3 2.5 117 97.5ProgrammeDevolution Trust for2 22.2 7 5.8 111 92.5Community Empowerment(DTCE)Community LivelihoodRehabilitization Plan(CLRP) ODC4 30.8 9 7.5 107 89.244

The table 4.26 reveals that the percentage of the getting benefits from the non govt. providedSSNs are not satisfactory. The quantitative data of the table 4.25 was collected only from therespondents which were aware from the SSNs available at non govt. organizations level that they getbenefit from these given programmes or not.The qualitative interview reveals that the union councils in which the Agriculture motivationprogramme is working are located in the influential people’s area. Moreover people linked with thatis involved in corruption because they give those people inputs who have no relation to agricultureand have no land. Even market owners are getting benefits for whom this support or inputs areuseless.4.6 Perceived access of farmers to SSNsThe qualitative interviews revealed that governmental and NGOs programs are influence byelites and are less accessible. The Islamic programs (Zakat, Bait ul Maal etc) are easily accessible tothe poor people. Rest of the governmental programmes were difficult to access. The main reportedreason was the political barriers in that. Only those people get support who belong to the caste orparty of the ruling class. When one of the respondents was asked about Benezir Income SupportProgram he clearly said that it was available only for the supporters of PPP (Pakistan People Party’sworker) or who are financially sound. Unawareness is another factor, because people don’t knowabout the ongoing programs. Whereas NGOs support structures were perceived to be comparativelythrough personal contacts is also an important factor merit based.Table 4.27:Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about the access ofpeople to the social safety nets provided at government level.Social safety nets Access of people to these social safety nets Total1 2 3 4 5 NoknowledgeFreq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %Zakat 7 5.8 27 22.5 41 34.2 34 28.3 11 9.2 0 0.0 120 100.0Benazir Tractor 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 4.2 22 18.3 19 15.8 74 61.7 120 100.0scheme(ZTBL)Model Zari Farm 0 0.0 12 10.0 23 19.2 11 9.2 2 1.7 72 60.0 120 100.0Service ProgrammePakistan Bait ul Mal 5 4.2 37 30.8 32 26.7 31 25.8 15 12.5 0 0.0 120 100.0Benazir Income 2 1.7 13 10.8 14 11.7 41 34.2 18 15.0 32 26.7 120 100.0SupportProgrammeBacha Khan0 0.0 11 9.2 23 19.2 34 28.3 6 5.0 46 38.3 120 100.0Poverty AlleviationProgrammeMicrocredit0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.8 6 5.0 10 8.3 103 85.8 120 100.0(schemes)Senior Citizen 0 0.0 3 2.5 14 11.7 2 1.7 0 0.0 101 84.2 120 100.0Scholarship (bysocial welfare)TKPK(Tamir 0 0.0 1 0.8 8 6.7 3 2.5 0 0.0 108 90.0 120 100.045

KhyberPakhtunkhwa)Peoples Work0 0.0 4 3.3 26 21.7 6 5.0 1 0.8 83 69.2 120 100.0ProgrammeC.M directive fund 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 7.5 10 8.3 2 1.7 99 82.5 120 100.0for povertyalleviationWatan Card0 0.0 9 7.5 12 10.0 32 26.7 8 6.7 59 49.2 120 100.0SchemeERRA(Earthquake 0 0.0 14 11.7 37 30.8 23 19.2 8 6.7 38 31.7 116 96.7Rehabilitation &ReconstructionAuthority)Free education (Fee 4 3.3 9 7.5 13 10.8 11 9.2 10 8.3 73 60.8 120 100.0waive)Employees’ Old Age 0 0.0 0 0.0 12 10.0 5 4.2 0 0.0 103 85.8 120 100.0Benefits InstitutionMicrofinance 0 0.0 1 0.8 3 2.5 11 9.2 3 2.5 102 85.0 120 100.0Free health care 1 0.8 3 2.5 10 8.3 23 19.2 1 0.8 82 68.3 120 100.0The data presented in table 4.27 clearly indicate that for most of the respondents was IslamicGovt. provided programmes (Zakat and Bait ul mall) were most easily accessible as compared theother Govt. social safety nets. 5.8% respondents opinion was that Zakat was very easily accesile and22.5% respondents said that it was easily accessible while 34.2%, 28.3% and 9% respondents gavetheir opinion as medium, difficult and very difficult access toward Govt. provided SSNs respectively.While Pakistan Bait ul Mall was also easily accessible and 4.2%, 30.8%, 26.7%, 25.8%, 12.5%respondents gave opinion as very easily accessible, easily accessible, medium, difficult access andvery difficult access respectively. On the other hand Benazir Tractor Scheme, model zari farmservices, microcredit schemes, senior citizen scholarship, C.M directive fund for poverty allevation,Employe’s old age benefit institutions, watan card scheme, Benazir income support programme,TKPK, ERRA, Bacha khan poverty allevation programme, microfinance, free education were thesocial safety net programmes with difficult institutional access to respondents respectively.46

Table 28: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about the access of peopleto the social safety nets provided at non-government level.Social safety nets Access of people to these social safety nets Total1 2 3 4 5 NoknowledgeCRP(CommunityRehabilitationProject)CIF (CommunityInvestment Fund)Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %1 0.8 3 2.5 6 5.0 5 4.2 2 1.7 103 85.8 120 100.06 5.0 8 6.7 17 14.2 4 3.3 0 0.0 85 70.8 120 100.0Microcredits 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.7 3 2.5 0 0.0 115 95.8 120 100.0DRU(District1 0.8 5 4.2 7 5.8 4 3.3 0 0.0 103 85.8 120 100.0ReconstructionUnit)PPAF(Pakistan 2 1.7 7 5.8 10 8.3 2 1.7 0 0.0 99 82.5 120 100.0poverty allevationfund)SSP3(sungi strategic 6 5.0 17 14.2 13 10.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 84 70.0 120 100.0programe3)Quality Education 11 9.2 13 10.8 15 12.5 2 1.7 0 0.0 79 65.8 120 100.0ProgrammeRehabilitization of 2 1.7 17 14.2 12 10.0 7 5.8 0 0.0 82 68.3 120 100.0Primary Health CareOrphan Support 0 0.0 4 3.3 18 15.0 17 14.2 6 5.0 75 62.5 120 100.0ProgrammeBandhan Programme 0 0.0 3 2.5 16 13.3 13 10.8 7 5.8 81 67.5 120 100.0Hydro Power Plant 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.7 8 6.7 4 3.3 106 88.3 120 100.0Agriculture3 2.5 16 13.3 10 8.3 11 9.2 7 5.8 73 60.8 120 100.0MotivationProgrammeAdult Litracy0 0.0 10 8.3 12 10.0 5 4.2 0 0.0 93 77.5 122 101.7ProgrammeBedar Devolution 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.5 0 0.0 117 97.5 120 100.0Support ProgrammeDevolution Trust for 1 0.8 3 2.5 1 0.8 4 3.3 0 0.0 111 92.5 120 100.0CommunityEmpowerment(DTCE)CommunityLivelihoodRehabilitization Plan(CLRP)2 1.7 4 3.3 3 2.5 2 1.7 2 1.7 107 89.2 120 100.0The table 4.28 reveals that most of the respondent perceived that the access of SSNs at nonGovt. level was easier as compared to Govt. provided SSNs. Quality education programme; 7.2%respondents perceived that this programme is very early accessible. While 10.8%, 12.5%, 1.7% gavetheir perceptions as easy accessible medium and efficient accessible. SSP 3 (Sungi strategicprogramme 3) were also perceived as easily accessible SSNs available at non-Govt. level. WhileBedar devolution support programme, hydro power plant, Bandhan programme, orphan supportprogramme, adult literacy programme, microcredits, CRP, DTCE, CLRP and rehabilitation ofprimary health care were difficult accessible respectively.The respondents were asked to rate the criteria of access to government based ssns on a 5-point scale (1=least important _______ 5= most important)Their perception is given in table 4.2947

Table 4.29: Distribution of the respondents according to the Criteria of access of people toGovt. provided SSN.Source Mean SD RankPolitical contacts 4.71 .57 1Other social contacts 3.69 .68 2Tribe (Khel) 2.70 .98 3Poverty 2.18 1.22 4Bribe 1.72 1.00 51=least important_______ 5= most importantThe table 4.29 reveals that the Political contacts (X = 4.71) were perceived as the mostimportant factor for the criteria of access of people to Govt. provided SSN. Other contacts (X = 3.69)were also found the main criteria of access of people to Govt. provided SSN. While tribe (Khel) (X =2.70), poverty (X = 2.18) and Bribe (X = 1.72) were found the minor factors for the access of Govt.Provided SSN.The perception of respondents about the criteria of access to non-Government based SSNs aregiven below in table 4.30Table 4.30: Distribution of the respondents according to the Criteria of access of people to non-Govt. provided SSN.Source Mean SD RankSocial contacts 3.90 .97 1Poverty 3.33 1.59 2Political contacts 3.25 1.43 3Bribe 2.52 1.21 4Tribe (Khel) 2.01 .95 51=Least important, ________ 5=most importantThe table 4.29 reveals that social contacts (X = 3.90) were perceived as the major factor foraccess of people to non Govt. provided SSN. Poverty (X = 3.33) was also found the main criteria ofaccess of people to non Govt. provided SSN. Political contact (X = 3.25), Bribe (X = 2.52), Tribe(Khel) (X = 2.01) were found the minor factors for the access of non Govt. provided SSN.The criteria of access of people to non govt. provided SSN is ranked in table 4.30 and if canbe seen the non Govt. organization prefer poverty during the distribution of SSNs. The qualitativedata also reveals that non Govt. provided SSNs were easily accessible and have minor politicalinvolvement as compared to Govt. provided SSNs.48

4.7 Perceived effectiveness of social safety netsEffective social safety nets are necessary to alleviate poverty and reduce food insecuritywithin broader macroeconomic growth policies that take a long time to trickle down benefits to thepoor communities. To mitigate this situation, the need for efficient safety nets to ensure food securityand survival of the sizeable population of very poor people in Pakistan is thus vital (Syed, 2009).The qualitative interviews of the respondents indicated that Social Safety Nets are effectivefor the local people. Income increasing opportunities are provided to the people. Regular programmesare mostly considered effective and farmers get help on regular basis because of that. In addition tothat during disaster and conflict condition the introduction of the social safety nets has special worthsocial safety nets of private groups are perceived as more effective than government. Moreover, theBenazir Income Support Programme is perceived as good but if it is distributed on the merit basis andnot on political grounds. In regular programmes Islamic programmes are perceived most effective.Table 4.31:Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about the effectiveness ofthe social safety nets to improve the living standard of the small farmersprovided at government level.Social safety nets Effectiveness Total1 2 3 4 5 NoknowledgeFreq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %Zakat 0 0.0 9 7.5 42 35.0 47 39.2 22 18.3 0 0.0 120 100.0Benazir Tractor 5 4.2 17 14.2 11 9.2 12 10.0 1 0.8 74 61.7 120 100.0scheme(ZTBL)Model Zari Farm 0 0.0 0 0.0 14 11.7 23 19.2 11 9.2 72 60.0 120 100.0Service ProgrammePakistan Bait ul Mal 0 0.0 15 12.5 27 22.5 47 39.2 31 25.8 0 0.0 120 100.0Benazir Income 0 0.0 9 7.5 39 32.5 34 28.3 6 5.0 32 26.7 120 100.0Support ProgrammeBacha Khan Poverty 0 0.0 6 5.0 32 26.7 34 28.3 2 1.7 46 38.3 120 100.0AllevationProgrammeMicrocredit0 0.0 2 1.7 6 5.0 7 5.8 2 1.7 103 85.8 120 100.0(schemes)Senior Citizen1 0.8 2 1.7 4 3.3 8 6.7 4 3.3 101 84.2 120 100.0Scholarship (bysocial welfare)TKPK(Tamir0 0.0 1 0.8 4 3.3 6 5.0 1 0.8 108 90.0 120 100.0KhyberPakhtunkhwa)Peoples Work0 0.0 1 0.8 21 17.5 13 10.8 2 1.7 83 69.2 120 100.0ProgrammeC.M directive fund 0 0.0 4 3.3 8 6.7 9 7.5 0 0.0 99 82.5 120 100.0for povertyalleviationWatan Card Scheme 4 3.3 6 5.0 17 14.2 23 19.2 11 9.2 59 49.2 120 100.0ERRA(Earthquake 0 0.0 0 0.0 19 15.8 32 26.7 27 22.5 42 35.0 120 100.0Rehabilitation &ReconstructionAuthority)Free education (Fee 0 0.0 0 0.0 15 12.5 29 24.2 3 2.5 73 60.8 120 100.0weiving)Employees’ Old Age 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.7 14 11.7 1 0.8 103 85.8 120 100.0Benefits InstitutionMicrofinance 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 3.3 11 9.2 3 2.5 102 85.0 120 100.0Free health care 0 3.0 1 0.8 6 5.0 26 21.7 5 4.2 82 68.3 120 100.049

The table 4.31 reveals that among Govt. based SSNs only Zakat and Bait-ul-mallare moreeffective than all other Govt. made programmes.The qualitative interviews reveals that on increasing the effectiveness of the support structurefirst and foremost is the availability of the safety nets on need based criterion. Local communitiesshould also be involved for the solution of the people’s problem and distributing benefits among themasses. For every section of society there should be different social safety nets as for the peopleconcerning with agriculture should be facilitated through this way. People who have low socialdevelopment need to provide the support for uplifting their social index.50

Table 4.32: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about the effectiveness ofthe social safety nets to improve the living standard of the small farmersprovided at non-government level.Social safety nets Effectiveness Total1 2 3 4 5 NoknowledgeFreq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %CRP(Community 0 0.0 1 0.8 6 5.0 9 7.5 1 0.8 103 85.8 120 100.0RehabilitationProject)CIF (Community 0 0.0 0 0.0 13 10.8 19 15.8 3 2.5 85 70.8 120 100.0Investment Fund)Microcredits 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 3.3 1 0.8 0 0.0 115 95.8 120 100.0DRU(District0 0.0 2 1.7 4 3.3 11 9.2 0 0.0 103 85.8 120 100.0ReconstructionUnit)PPAF(Pakistan 0 0.0 3 2.5 6 5.0 11 9.2 1 0.8 99 82.5 120 100.0poverty allevationfund)SSP3(sungi strategic 0 0.0 1 0.8 13 10.8 19 15.8 3 2.5 84 70.0 120 100.0programe3)Quality Education 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 3.3 35 29.2 2 1.7 79 65.8 120 100.0ProgrammeRehabilitization of 0 0.0 0 0.0 11 9.2 23 19.2 4 3.3 82 68.3 120 100.0Primary Health CareOrphan Support 1 0.8 19 15.8 13 10.8 11 9.2 1 0.8 75 62.5 120 100.0ProgrammeBandhan Programme 0 0.0 4 3.3 19 15.8 13 10.8 3 2.5 81 67.5 120 100.0Hydro Power Plant 0 0.0 1 0.8 2 1.7 7 5.8 4 3.3 106 88.3 120 100.0Agriculture1 0.8 2 1.7 18 15.0 23 19.2 3 2.5 73 60.8 120 100.0MotivationProgrammeAdult Litracy0 0.0 0 0.0 6 5.0 21 17.5 2 1.7 91 75.8 120 100.0ProgrammeBedar Devolution 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.7 1 0.8 0 0.0 117 97.5 120 100.0Support ProgrammeDevolution Trust for 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.5 5 4.2 1 0.8 111 92.5 120 100.0CommunityEmpowerment(DTCE)CommunityLivelihoodRehabilitization Plan(CLRP)0 0.0 0 0.0 4 3.3 7 5.8 2 1.7 107 89.2 120 100.051

The data presented in table 4.32 shows that agriculture motivation programme is mosteffective, the 2.5% of the respondents opinion was that it is very highly effective, 19.2% gave aseffective while 15% 1.7% and 8% gave opinion as medium, ineffective and very ineffective. While1.7% of the respondent’s revealed Quality education programme is highly effective,29.2% gave aseffective and 3.3% gave opinion as medium. In non-Govt based SSNs microcredits, districtreconstruction unit (DRU) and Bedar devolution support programmes were found least effective.The qualitative interviews revealed that the most of the respondents gave their suggestion forimproving the efficiency of SSNs. All SSNs are effective if provide to deserving people. The datapresented in table 4.32 revealed that the non-Govt. provided SSNs are more effective than Govt.based SSNs. One of the respondent revealsNon-Govt. provided SSNs are working very well for the promotion of the agriculture in the areaOn other side when a respondent (teacher) was interviewed in this regard he appreciated theQuality education programme and said that; this program is very good and efficiency of theteacher is improving through this training programs4.8 Perceived role of SSN in food securitySocial safety nets and food security are part and parcel for each other. As world over trend isfollowing the agenda of increasing the people’s economic status so that they may be able to find asufficient amount of money for their daily livings. It is considered under the assumptions that foodsecurity is precisely because of low income of the people in an area. It is quite evident because it isdue to low income of the people that they are forced to expand a large amount of money on otherexpenses on compromising their nutritional requirements. For filling that gap social safety nets aredesigned.When respondents in the food insecure area were asked about the worth of safety netsregarding food security, they told the researcher that;“There should necessarily the programmes that directly provide food to the people as wheatand other food items should be provided to the masses”.The respondents were asked to identify the role of SSNs in food security on five point scale with 1=least role and 5= maximum role. The perceptions of the respondents in this regards are give in table4.3352

Table 33: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about the role of SSN for foodsecurity provided at government level.Social safety nets Role of SSN for food security Total1 2 3 4 5 NoknowledgeFreq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %Zakat 0 0.0 4 3.3 34 28.3 61 50.8 21 17.5 0 0.0 120 100.0Benazir Tractor 2 1.7 8 6.7 26 21.7 7 5.8 3 2.5 74 61.7 120 100.0scheme(ZTBL)Model Zari Farm 0 0.0 15 12.5 18 15.0 11 9.2 4 3.3 72 60.0 120 100.0Service ProgrammePakistan Bait ul Mal 0 0.0 2 1.7 36 30.0 71 59.2 11 9.2 0 0.0 120 100.0Benazir Income 3 2.5 16 13.3 37 30.8 18 15.0 14 11.7 32 26.7 120 100.0Support ProgrammeBacha Khan2 1.7 6 5.0 30 25.0 24 20.0 12 10.0 46 38.3 120 100.0Poverty AllevationProgrammeMicrocredit0 0.0 1 0.8 11 9.2 4 3.3 1 0.8 103 85.8 120 100.0(schemes)Senior Citizen 0 0.0 3 2.5 7 5.8 5 4.2 4 3.3 101 84.2 120 100.0Scholarship (bysocial welfare)TKPK(Tamir0 0.0 1 0.8 7 5.8 3 2.5 1 0.8 108 90.0 120 100.0KhyberPakhtunkhwa)Peoples Work 0 0.0 0 0.0 17 14.2 19 15.8 1 0.8 83 69.2 120 100.0ProgrammeC.M directive fund 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 5.0 13 10.8 2 1.7 99 82.5 120 100.0for povertyalleviationWatan Card6 5.0 11 9.2 19 15.8 23 19.2 2 1.7 59 49.2 120 100.0SchemeERRA(Earthquake 0 0.0 8 6.7 11 9.2 42 35.0 17 14.2 42 35.0 120 100.0Rehabilitation &ReconstructionAuthority)Free education (Fee 0 0.0 3 2.5 29 24.2 11 9.2 4 3.3 73 60.8 120 100.0weiving)Employees’ Old 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 5.8 8 6.7 2 1.7 103 85.8 120 100.0Age BenefitsInstitutionMicrofinance 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.7 12 10.0 4 3.3 102 85.0 120 100.0Free health care 0 3.0 4 3.3 21 17.5 7 5.8 6 5.0 82 68.3 120 100.053

The 4.33 table reveals that most of the respondents gave opinion that only Zakat and PakistanBait-ul-Mall were most effective. 17.5% respondents gave opinion as Zakat was playing very highrole in food security while 50.8%, 28.3% 33% respondents gave opinion as high role, medium andlow role in food security respectively. 50.8% and 59.2% of the respondents perceived that Zakat andBait-ul-mall was playing high role in ensuring food security. 13.3% ,12.5%9.2% and 6.7% of therespondents perceived that Benazir income support programme, model zari farm service, watan cardand Benazir tractor scheme were playing low role in food security.The qualitative interviews, one of the respondents commented“The programmes of social safety nets if even easily accessible even then they can’t secure ourfood condition because at a same time inflation rate is touching the sky and the food is becomingout of the monetary range of the people. Just take example of the Benazir Income SupportProgramme in which 1000 rupees is given to the people but this small amount of the money is notenough to provide good quality food to the people due to the rising inflation. These programmeshave a limited contribution to our food security”.54

Table 4.34: Distribution of the respondents according to their opinion about the role of SSN forfood security provided at non-government level.Social safety nets Role of SSN for food security Total1 2 3 4 5 NoknowledgeFreq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %CRP(Community 0 0.0 1 0.8 8 6.7 6 5.0 2 1.7 103 85.8 120 100.0RehabilitationProject)CIF (Community 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 5.0 12 10.0 17 14.2 85 70.8 120 100.0Investment Fund)Microcredits 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.7 3 2.5 0 0.0 115 95.8 120 100.0DRU(District0 0.0 2 1.7 9 7.5 6 5.0 0 0.0 103 85.8 120 100.0ReconstructionUnit)PPAF(Pakistan0 0.0 2 1.7 4 3.3 13 10.8 2 1.7 99 82.5 120 100.0poverty allevationfund)SSP3(sungi strategic 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 5.0 27 22.5 2 1.7 85 70.8 121 100.8programe3)Quality Education 0 0.0 4 3.3 10 8.3 19 15.8 8 6.7 79 65.8 120 100.0ProgrammeRehabilitization of 1 0.8 1 0.8 17 14.2 13 10.8 6 5.0 82 68.3 120 100.0Primary Health CareOrphan Support 0 0.0 11 9.2 18 15.0 9 7.5 7 5.8 75 62.5 120 100.0ProgrammeBandhan Programme 0 0.0 9 7.5 18 15.0 8 6.7 4 3.3 81 67.5 120 100.0Hydro Power Plant 0 0.0 2 1.7 9 7.5 3 2.5 0 0.0 106 88.3 120 100.0Agriculture2 1.7 7 5.8 18 15.0 16 13.3 4 3.3 73 60.8 120 100.0MotivationProgrammeAdult Litracy1 0.8 8 6.7 13 10.8 5 4.2 2 1.7 91 75.8 120 100.0ProgrammeBedar Devolution 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 117 97.5 120 100.0Support ProgrammeDevolution Trust for 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 2.5 4 3.3 2 1.7 111 92.5 120 100.0CommunityEmpowerment(DTCE)CommunityLivelihoodRehabilitization Plan(CLRP)0 0.0 1 0.8 2 1.7 6 5.0 4 3.3 107 89.2 120 100.055

The table reveals that 14.2% respondents said that CIF (community investment feud) wasvery high effective role playing in food security in while 10%, 5% respondents gave opinion as highrole and medium role while the rest programmes were also playing an important role if provided atpoverty basis.During qualitative interviews, the respondents emphasized that the distribution of the supportpackage should be based upon the equality criteria. No political involvement should be there duringits distribution. At governmental level the support structure should be launched that are easilyaccessible. For the people belonging to the agricultural sector there should be specific social safetynets which are related to the agriculture. The need based social safety nets should be launched. As thearea is mostly comprise of mountainous so which programme is launched there should be properawareness campaign for SSNs so that everyone may be able to get benefit out of that easily.According to the respondents, food insecurity in the area, despite the presence of socialsafety nets, is because of the rising prices of the food items and non availability of the economicsupport (SSN) on equality grounds. Another relevant reason is the mismanagement of the SSNs givento the people by the support structures. As it is perceived in the response of people that even if thepeople are given monetary support their food security would remain under threat and they wouldspend that amount on the celebrating on the different events. So there is a major role of governmentto keep the food items related prices under strict check and control. Furthermore, the respondentssuggested that people should be trained to manage their monthly expenses.56

CHAPTER 5SUMMARYAgriculture is the major driver of growth of Pakistan’s economy. However the agriculture inthe Khyber Pukhtunkhwa (KP) is primarily a small farm activity. Major part of KP is mountaineoushaving severe cold weather. The heavy snowfall makes farming very difficult. As most of the area ismountainous, “terrace farming” is practiced but due to scarcity of resources, there is not muchagricultural production in mountainous areas of KP. The small farmers of KP have limited resourcesto sustain their living. Moreover, in KP, 12 out of 24 districts are severely threatened with foodinsecurity and access to food is said to have become a major problem for the entire province. Socialsafety nets (SSNs) are therefore introduced to assist people who have been adversely affected due topoverty. SSNs are basically income maintenance programs. Therefore, keeping in view the abovecontext, the present study was to be conducted to explore different kinds of SSNs and farmersperceptions regarding these SSNs in Battagram district of KP. One of the two tehsils was chosenrandomly through simple random method then from that tehsil 2 union councils were selectedrandomly. From each of the selected union councils (UCs) 3 villages were selected by using simplerandom sample technique. Later on, from each village 20 respondents were selected randomly therebymaking a sample size of 120 respondents. Quantitative data was also collected with the help of wellstructuredinterview schedule while qualitative data was collected by using open ended interviewguide. The data was be analyzed by using computer software Statistical Package for Social Sciences(SPSS). The main purpose was to explore the social safety nets available both at Govt. and non Govt.level and to check their access to people, their effectiveness and to study their role in food securitywas also conducted. It was concluded that majority of farmers had less access to the governmentprovided safety nets and was mainly dependent on the political relations. The access of people toNGOs and semi government provided social safety nets was comparatively better but access wasgreatly influenced by social relations. The low level of awareness and poverty were found to be themajor factors limiting the access of people to different social safety nets. There was meagerinteraction between different safety nets working in the study area. The respondents suggested thatthe social safety nets can play an effective role in food security if launched on regular basis andaccording to the needs of the local community.57

5.1 Main Findings5.1.1 Demographic charactersMost of the respondents (54.2%) belong to the middle age while 29.2% and 16.7% of therespondents were old and young respectively. About 56.7% have less than 10 Kanals. It shows landholding in study area is very low. The major segment of (40.0%) of the respondents was illiterate,while 13.3% of them had primary education and 22.5% of them had middle education. However,about one-fifth (24.2%) of the farmers were qualified up to matriculation or above matriculation.Most (72.5%) of the interviewed persons were married and only 27.5% were single. Most (38.33%)of the respondents were tenants.Most of the respondents 65% had a family size of more than 10 household members.Majority (81.7%) of the respondents were living in joint family system, while 18.3% of therespondents were living in nuclear family system. Most of the respondents (35.8%) had annualincome less than 50000 Rs. followed by 37.5 and 26.7% of the respondents 50000-100000 Rs andabove 100000 Rs. annual incomes respectively. 40.8% of the respondents had foreign earning as amajor source of income. 37.5% of the respondents had agriculture as a minor source of income.5.2 Agricultural practicesWheat was grown by all the respondents. 38.3% of the respondents cultivated wheat in anarea of 6-10 Kanals. Majority (73.3%) of the respondents sow wheat in December. (78.3%) ofrespondents was June. Wheat was 1 Manuds per Kanal for 64.2% of the respondents. Most of therespondents (78.3%) consume their wheat at their house hold level and don’t sale it. 12.5% of therespondents use 51-99% of their total produce within household. Most of the respondents (38.3%)cultivated maize in an area of 1-5 Kanals while 27.5% of the respondents don’t sow maize. Majority(77.5%) of the respondents sow maize in June. A large majority (87.5%) of respondents harvestmaize in December. Most of the respondents (60%) had 2-2.5 Manuds per Kanal. 57.5% ofrespondents use less than 50% of total maize produce within household. 28.3% of the respondentsuse 51-99% of their total produce within household. Majority (60%) of the farmers sell 51-99% oftotal maize production while 25.8 and 14.2% sale less than 50% and don’t sale maize respectively.Most of the respondents (59.2%) don’t cultivated rice while 21.7% grow rice in an area ofmore than10 Kanals. Majority (73.3%) of the respondents sow rice in June. More than half (53.3%)of the respondents was December while 25% and 21.7% of the respondents harvest rice in Novemberand October respectively. The yield of the rice was 3-4 Manuds per Kanal for 45% of therespondents. 44.2% of respondents use 51-99% of rice within household for their own consumption.Majority 40.8% of the farmers less than 50% sale the rice and 31.7% and 27.5% don’t sale and sale51-99% rice respectively. A large majority 79.2% of the respondents don’t had cow, 16.7% had only58

one cow. 81.7% of the respondents had no buffalo, 14.2% had one buffaloes. Most of the respondents(61.7%) had no goat, 15.8% had one goat. 67.5% respondents had no sheep, 14.2% had three orabove while 10.8% and 7.5% of the respondents had two and one goats respectively.A majority of respondents 89.2% got agricultural information from the fellow farmer andwere not aware from the latest techniques related to agriculture. The remaining 10.8% gave 2 nd rankto fellow farmer. It shows fellow farmer was a major source of agricultural information in the studyarea. Followed by only 5.8% and 5% respondents gave 1 st rank to NGOs and Agri. extensiondepartments. 81.7% said that Agri. Extension department did not contact with them from last threeyear or above. While 15.8%, 2.5% said that Agri. Extension department did not contact with themfrom last 12 months and 6 months respectively. Not a single respondent said that Agri. Extensiondepartment contact with him last month.A majority of 75% respondents did not have forest ownership and only 30% had forestownership. A majority 75% have no forest ownership while 10.8%, 8.3% and 6.7% have 1-5 kanals,above 10 kanals and 6-10 kanals respectively. 56.7% of the respondents have wheat-maize croppingpattern while 26.7% and 16.7% respondents have wheat-rice and rice fellow crop rotation.5.3 Social safety nets (SSNs)Different types of government and non-government based SSN, were found in the study area.The major government based programmes include Zakat, Bait-ul-Mal, Benzir income supportprogramme, Bacha Khan, poverty alleviation programme, models Zari Farm Services Pgroamme,Senior Citizen Scholarship, TKPK (Tamir Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peoples work pgroamme, C.M.Directive fund for poverty alleviation, ERRA (Earthquake Rehabilitation & ReconstructionAuthority, free education, Microcredit schemes, etc. Most of the respondent were aware of Zakat,Bait-ul-Mal and BISP, but majority of the respondents had no knowledge about govt. based projects.Similarly many non-government SSN were working in the area in-including poverty alleviation fund,micro-credits education support and marriage support programmes etc.Political and (X = 4.71) and social contacts (X = 3.79) were found as the major factorsregarding access the governments based SSNs, followed by tribe, while poverty (x = 2.18) was leastimportant factor of access to such SSNs, however in non-government based SSNs, social contacts andpoverty (X = 3.25) were the major criteria for access to these SSNs, followed by political contact andbribe.Most of the respondents perceived the Zakat was playing an important role in food securityhowever most of the government based SSNs were not easily accessible to the food insecure people.59

Most the respondents admitted that SSNs, can reduce food security if sole criteria of their access ispoverty rather than political and social contacts.Suggestions• The distribution of the support package SSNs should be based upon poverty criteria ratherthan political and social contacts.• At the governmental and non-government levels the support structure should be launched thatare easily accessible. For the small farmers there should be specific social safety nets whichare related to the agriculture.• Need based social safety nets should be launched. As the area is mostly comprised ofmountains so there should be proper awareness campaign regarding SSNs, so that everyonemay be able to get benefit.• The role of Agri. Extension services was negligible in the area, there in need to strengthagricultural extension services in the mountainous areas to improve production of crops andensuring food security.60

LITERATURE CITEDAhmad, F. (2009). Food security in Pakistan. Pak. J. Agri. Sci., 46(2) : 83-89.Ahmed, A.M and Siddiqui, R. (1995). Food security in Pakistan: can it be achieved?. The PakistanDevelopment Review. 34:4 pp 723-731.Alderman, H, and J. Hoddinott. (2007) Growth promoting social safety nets. 2020 Focus Brief on theWorld’s Poor and Hungry People. Washington: International Food Policy Research Institute.Babu, C. S. (2003). Social safety nets for poverty reduction in South Asia – global experiences. SriLankan Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol. 5, No. 1, 2003.Bakhsh, A. 2010. An evaluation of extension services provided by Pakistan oilseed developmentboard to canola growers in district faisalabad. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Dept. of Agri.Ext., Univ. of Agri., Faisalabad.Bankus, Brent C.; Delosua, Jason. (2009). Food Security. Volume 14-09.CSL IssuePaper.hppt:handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA509074.Butler, M., R. Robert and E. Mazur. 2007. Principles and processes for enhancing sustainable rurallivelihoods: Collaborative learning in Uganda Lorna. International Journal of SustainableDevelopment and World Ecology., 14: 604–617.Cheema, I. A. (2005). A profile of poverty in Pakistan: Centre for Research on Poverty Reduction andIncome Distribution Planning Commission Islamabad, Pakistan.Coady, D. P. (2004) Designing and evaluating social safety nets : theory, evidence and policyconclusions. FCND discussion paper 172.Cohen J, (2008), Achieving food security in vulnerable populations,Dev, M., C. Ravi, Brinda Viswanathan, Ashok Gulati, and Sangamitra Ramachander. (2004).Economic liberalisation, targeted programmes and household food security: a case study ofIndia, MTID Discussion Paper No. 68. Washington D.C.: IFPRI.ESCAP (1999). Social safety nets: Social safety net programmes, social safety nets in the ESCAPregion: progress and problems. Note by the Secretariat, Committee on socio-economicmeasures to alleviate poverty in rural areas (2nd session).FAO, (2006) Food security: Policy Brief. FAOs Agriculture and Development Economics Division(ESA).hppt:www. foodsecinfoaction.org.(website accessed_2010).Feridhanusetyawan, T. (2000). The social impact of Indonesian economic crisis, in TDRI 2000.Social impacts of the Asian Economic Crisis in Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and thePhilippines. Bangkok: Ford Foundation.Foxely, A. 2010. Sustaining social safety nets: critical for economic recovery. Carnegie Endowmentfor International Peace 1779 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 2003661

Govt. of NWFP. (2003). Poverty reduction strategy paper. Planning and development department.North Western Frontier Province of Pakistan.Govt. of Pakistan. (2003). Economic survey: Economic Advisor’s Wing, Finance Division, govt. ofPakistan Islamabad.Govt. of Pakistan. (2010). Economic survey: Economic Advisor’s Wing, Finance Division, govt. ofPakistan Islamabad.Gillion, C., Turner, J., Bailey, C., and Latulippe, D. (2000). Social security pensions: developmentand reform. Geneva: ILO.Graham, C. (1994). Safety nets, politics, and the poor: transition to market economies, WashingtonDC: The Brooking Institution.Hussain, A. 2004. Effectiveness of various extension methods being used by Rafhan Maize ProductsCo. for the dissemination of recommended maize production practices among registeredgrowers in tehsil Depalpur. M.Sc. (Hons.) Agri. Ext.Jimanez, E. (1999). Issues in modernizing social safety nets. Paper presented at the Manila SocialForum: The New Social Agenda for East and Southeast.Jurado, G. M. (2001). An integrated study of selected social safety net policies and programmes inAsia and the Pacific. Paper presented at the regional seminar on strengthening policies andprogrammes on social safety nets, ESCAP.Keane, Michael P., and Eswar S. Prasad. 2000. “Inequality, Transfers and Growth: New Evidencefrom the Economic Transition in Poland.” IMF Working Paper WP/00/117.Klugman, Jeni, 1999, “The Pove rty Impact of Government Safety Nets During Recent Periods ofEconomic Crisis,” draft (Washington: World Bank).Krishnaraj, (2005) Food security: how and for whom? Economic and Political Weekly, June 18; pp2508-2512.Latif, M. 2009. Compatibility of Two Methods for Assessing the Needs of Small ScaleCottonGrowers in Kamal Pur Union Council, District Muzaffar Garh. Unpublished Master’s Thesis,Dept. of Agri. Ext., Univ. of Agri., Faisalabad.Lewis, Maureen. 2000. Who is Paying for Health Care in Europe and Central Asia? Washington, DC:World Bank.McGregor, A., M. Bourke, M. Manley, S. Tubuna, and R.Deo. (2009). Pacific Island food security:situation, challenges and opportunities. Pacific Economic Bulletin. 24 (2). 24–42.Mordoch, J. and M. Sharma. (2002). Strengthening public safety nets from the bottom up. SocialProtection Discussion Paper Series No. 0227. Social Protection Unit, Human DevelopmentNetwork, Washington D.C.: The World Bank.Paitoonpong, S. (2001). Social impacts of the crisis and safety nets strengthening in Thailand(Mimeo.). Bangkok: TDRI62

Rao, V. (2000). Price heterogeneity and real inequality: a case study of poverty and prices in ruralsouth India. Review of Income and Wealth 46 (2): 201-211.Reddy, S. (1998). Social funds in developing countries: recent experiences and lessons. UNICEFStaff Working Papers, Evaluation, Policy and Planning Series, Number. EPP-V98-002. NewYork: UNICEF.Rodrik, D. 1998. “Globalization, Social Conflict and Economic Growth.” Harvard University,Cambridge, Mass. Processed.Rogers, B. L. and J. Coates. (2002). Food based safety nets and related programs. Washington D.C.:The World Bank Institute.Sadaf, S. 2005. Need for agricultural extension services for rural women in tehsil Faisalabad.Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Dept. of Agri. Ext., Univ. of Agri., Faisalabad.Subbarao, K. (1997). Public works as an anti-poverty program: an overview of cross countryexperience. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 79:678-683.Suleri, (2010). Food for survival. Coping with growing food insecurity: A daunting challenge. SDPI(Sustainable Development Policy Institute). Research & News, Bulletin. Vol. 17 (2). Apriljune,2010.Suleri, A. Q. and Haq, S (2009). Food insecurity in Pakistan SDPI (Sustainable Development PolicyInstitute). WFP (World Food Programme, Pakistan).Syed, Mohammad, Ali, june, 23, (2009), Creating efficient safety nets in Pakistan, Daily Times,www.opfblog.comTabor, S. R. (2002). Assisting the poor with cash: design and implementation of social transferprograms. Social Safety Net Primer Series, The World Bank Institute. Washington D.C.:TheWorld Bank.The News International, (2010) KP extends Bacha Khan Poverty Alleviation Programme.www.dailynews.net.pkToor, I. A. and Nasar, A. (2003). Zakat as a social safety net: Exploring the impact. ResearchReport 53.Social Policy and Development center Karachi.Vivian, J. (1994). Social safety nets and adjustment in developing countries. Occasional paper no. 1.World Summit for Social Development. Geneva: United Nations Research Institute for SocialDevelopment.Wickramsekara, P. (1999). Responding to the Asian economic crisis: Social investments and socialsafety nets. ILO East Asia Multidisciplinary Advisory Team (ILO/EEASTMAT), Bangkok.Paper prepared for the 23rd ACAES international conference on Asian economics: The postfinancialcrisis: Challenges for progressive industrialization of Asian economics.World Bank. (2001). World development report 2000/2001: Attacking poverty. New York/London:Oxford University Press.63

INTERVIEW SCHEDULEWaqar-ul-Hassan TareenAnnexureDepartment of Agri. Extension, University of Agriculture, FaisalabadAn exploratory study of Social safety Nets (SSN) in Battagram district ofKhyber Pakhtunkhwa province: Implication for food security of smallfarmersObjective 1: To identify the demographic characteristic of the respondents.1. Name of the respondent __________________2. Village __________________3. Union Council __________________4. Age (Years) __________________5. Land holding (Kanal) __________________6. Education (Years of schooling) __________________7. Tenancy Status; i) Owner _____ii) Owner-cum-tenant _____iii) Tenant_______8. Marital: status i) Single ______ ii) Married______9. Size of your family __________________10. Type of family i) Nuclear _____ii) Joint____11. Net annual income (Rs.) __________________12. Major source of income __________________13. Minor source of income i) ___________ ii) __________ iii) ______________Objective 2: To explore the cropping pattern in the study area.Which one is the major crop grown by you?Crops Area SowingtimeWheatHarvestingtimeYieldConsumption% at H.Hlevel% SaleMaizeSugarcaneRiceBajraJowarGroundnutGrams64

PeasTobaccoMustardRapeseedOtherFruitsApplePearApricotPeachPlumPistachioWalnutCitrusLoquatOtherVegetablesCabbageCarrotReddishPotatoOnionTomatoCucumberCauliflowerChiliesCucurbits65

GingerOtherMiscellaneous Agricultural informationNo. of Farm Animalsa) Cow ________________b) Buffalo ________________c) Goat ________________d) Sheep ________________e) Other ________________What is your source of Agri. information?Please rankRANKa) Agri. Extension department _______________b) Radio _______________c) T.V _______________d) Newspaper _______________e) Fellow farmers _______________f) If any other ( ) _______________Do Agri. Extension department contacts you regarding for providing latest productiontechnology?a) Last month YES NOb) Last 6 months YES NOc) Last 12 months YES NOd) Last 3 years YES NODo you have Forest ownership?1. YES2. NOIf yes than Area?What type of your crop rotation?1. Wheat - Rice2. Wheat - Maize3. Wheat – Groundnut4. Vegetable – Maize5. Any otherIn your opinion what are farming related problems?_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Objective 3: To identify different types of social safety nets, in the study areaDo you know about these social safety nets available at government level?1. Zakat YES NO66

2. Benazir Tractor scheme(ZTBL) YES NO3. Model Zari Farm Service Programme YES NO4. Pakistan Bait ul Mal YES NO5. Benazir Income Support Programme YES NO6. Bacha Khan Poverty Allevation Programme YES NO7. Microcredit (schemes) YES NO8. Senior Citizen Scholarship (by social welfare) YES NO9. TKPK(Tamir Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) YES NO10. Peoples Work Programme YES NO11. C.M directive fund for poverty allevation YES NO12. Watan Card Scheme YES NO13. ERRA(Earthquake Rehabilitation & Reconstruction YES NOAuthority)14. Free education (Fee weiving) YES NO15. Employees’ Old Age Benefits Institution YES NO16. Microfinance YES NO17. Free health care YES NO18. Any other (_________) YES NODo you know about these social safety nets available at Non Government Organization or SemiGovt.level?1. CRP(Community Rehabilitation Project) SRSP YES NO2. CIF (Community Investment Fund) SRSP YES NO3. Microcredits SRSP YES NO4. DRU(District ReconstructionUnit) OPP YES NO5. PPAF(Pakistan poverty allevation fund) Sungi Foundation YES NO6. SSP3(sungi strategic programe3) Sungi Foundation YES NO7. Quality Education Programme Save The Children YES NO8. Rehabilitization of Primary Health Care Save The Children YES NO9. Orphan Support Programme Al_Khidmat YES NO10. Bandhan Programme Al_Khidmat YES NO11. Hydro Power Plant Al_Khidmat YES NO12. Agriculture Motivation Programme Karwan YES NO13. Adult Literacy Programme NCHD YES NO14. Bedar Devolution Support Programme ASF YES NO15. Devolution Trust for Community YES NOEmpowerment (DTCT)16. Community Livelihood Rehabilitization ODC YES NOPlan (CLRP)17Any other (_________) YES NOHave you or your family member get benefit from these programmes last 12 months availableat government level?1. Zakat YES NO2. Benazir Tractor scheme(ZTBL) YES NO3. Model Zari Farm Service Programme YES NO4. Pakistan Bait ul Mal YES NO5. Benazir Income Support Programme YES NO67

6. Bacha Khan Poverty Allevation Programme YES NO7. Microcredit (schemes) YES NO8. Senior Citizen Scholarship (by social welfare) YES NO9. TKPK(Tamir Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) YES NO10. Peoples Work Programme YES NO11. C.M directive fund for poverty allevation YES NO12. Watan Card Scheme YES NO13. ERRA(Earthquake Rehabilitation & Reconstruction YES NOAuthority)14. Free education (Fee weiving) YES NO15. Employees’ Old Age Benefits Institution YES NO16. Microfinance YES NO17. Free health care YES NO18. Any other (_________) YES NOHave you or your family member get benefit from these programmes last 12 monthsavailable at Non Govt. or Semi Govt. level?1. CRP(Community Rehabilitation Project) SRSP YES NO2. CIF (Community Investment Fund) SRSP YES NO3. Microcredits SRSP YES NO4. DRU(District ReconstructionUnit) OPP YES NO5. PPAF(Pakistan poverty allevation fund) Sungi Foundation YES NO6. SSP3(sungi strategic programe3) Sungi Foundation YES NO7. Quality Education Programme Save The Children YES NO8. Rehabilitization of Primary Health Care Save The Children YES NO9. Orphan Support Programme Al_Khidmat YES NO10. Bandhan Programme Al_Khidmat YES NO11. Hydro Power Plant Al_Khidmat YES NO12. Agriculture Motivation Programme Karwan YES NO13. Adult Litracy Programme NCHD YES NO14. Bedar Devolution Support Programme ASF YES NO15. Devolution Trust for Community YES NO16. Empowerment (DTCT)17. Community Livelihood Rehabilitization ODC YES NO18. Plan (CLRP)1. 17Any other (_________) YES NOObjective 4: To explore the farmers perception towards access to social safety nets.Please give your opinion about access of people to these social safety nets (SSNs).Government provided1 2 3 4 51. Zakat ____ ____ _____ ____ _____2. Benazir Tractor scheme(ZTBL) ____ ____ _____ ____ _____3. Model Zari Farm Service Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____4. Bacha Khan Poverty Allevation Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____5. Microcredit(schemes) ____ ____ _____ ____ _____6. Senior Citizen Scholarship ____ ____ _____ ____ _____7. TKPK(Tamir Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) ____ ____ _____ ____ _____8. Peoples Work Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____9. C.M directive fund for poverty allevation ____ ____ _____ ____ _____68

10. Watan Card Scheme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____11. ERRA(Earthquake Rehabilitation & ____ ____ _____ ____ _____Reconstruction Authority)12. Pakistan Bait ul Mal ____ ____ _____ ____ _____13. Benazir Income Support Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____14. Free education (Fee weiving) ____ ____ _____ ____ _____15. Employees’ Old Age Benefits Institution ____ ____ _____ ____ _____16. Health care ____ ____ _____ ____ _____17. Microfinance ____ ____ _____ ____ _____18. Any other (_____________) ____ ____ _____ ____ ____NGO’s provided1. CRP(Community Rehabilitation Project) ____ ____ _____ ____ _____2. CIF (Community Investment Fund) ____ ____ _____ ____ _____3. Microcredits ____ ____ _____ ____ _____4. DRU(District ReconstructionUnit) ____ ____ _____ ____ _____5. PPAF(Pakistan poverty allevation fund) ____ ____ _____ ____ _____6. SSP3(sungi strategic programe3) ____ ____ _____ ____ _____7. Quality Education Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____8. Rehabilitization of Primary Health Care ____ ____ _____ ____ _____9. Orphan Support Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____10. Bandhan Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____11. Hydro Power Plant ____ ____ _____ ____ _____12. Agriculture Motivation Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____13. Adult Litracy Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____14. Bedar Devolution Support Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____15. Community Livelihood Rehabilitization ____ ____ _____ ____ _____Plan (CLRP)16. Devolution Trust for Community ____ ____ _____ ____ _____Empowerment (DTCT)17. Any other (__________)Scale: 1=Very easy, 2= Easy, 3=Medium 4=Difficult, 5= Very difficultObjective 5: To find out perceived effectiveness of social safety nets in the study areaWhich type of social safety net is more effective to improve the living standard of Smallfarmers?Government provided1 2 3 4 51. Zakat ____ ____ _____ ____ ____2. Model Zari Farm Service Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____3. Bacha Khan Poverty Allevation Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____4. Microcredit(schemes) ____ ____ _____ ____ _____5. Senior Citizen Scholarship ____ ____ _____ ____ _____6. Benazir Tractor scheme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____7. TKPK(Tamir Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) ____ ____ _____ ____ _____8. Peoples Work Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____9. C.M directive fund for poverty allevation ____ ____ _____ ____ _____10. Watan Card Schem ____ ____ _____ ____ _____11. ERRA(Earthquake Rehabilitation ____ ____ _____ ____ _____Reconstruction Authority)12. Pakistan Bait ul Mal ____ ____ _____ ____ ____13. Benazir Income Support Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ ____69

14. Free education (Fee weiving) ____ ____ _____ ____ ____15. Employees’ Old Age Benefits Institution ____ ____ _____ ____ ____16. Health care ____ ____ _____ ____ ____17. Microfinance ____ ____ _____ ____ _____18. Any other (___________) ____ ____ _____ ____ ____NGO’s or Semi Govt. provided1. CRP(Community Rehabilitation Project) ____ ____ _____ ____ _____2. CIF (Community Investment Fund) ____ ____ _____ ____ ____3. Microcredits ____ ____ _____ ____ _____4. DRU(District ReconstructionUnit) ____ ____ _____ ____ _____5. PPAF(Pakistan poverty allevation fund) ____ ____ _____ ____ _____6. SSP3(sungi strategic programe3) ____ ____ _____ ____ _____7. Quality Education Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____8. Rehabilitization of Primary Health Care ____ ____ _____ ____ _____9. Orphan Support Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____10. Bandhan Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____11. Hydro Power Plant ____ ____ _____ ____ _____12. Agriculture Motivation Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____13. Adult Litracy Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____14. Bedar Devolution Support Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____15. Community Livelihood Rehabilitization ____ ____ _____ ____ _____Plan (CLRP)16. Devolution Trust for Community ____ ____ _____ ____ _____Empowerment (DTCT)17. Any other (____________) ____ ____ _____ ____ _____Scale: 1=Very ineffective, 2= ineffective, 3=Medium 4=Highly effective, 5= Very highlyeffectiveObjective 6: To identify and analyze the perceived role of SSN in food securityPlease give your opinion about which type of SSN is playing important role for food security?Government provided1 2 3 4 51. Zakat ____ ____ _____ ____ _____2. Pakistan Bait ul Mal ____ ____ _____ ____ _____3. Model Zari Farm Service Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____4. Bacha Khan Poverty Allevation Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____5. Microcredit ____ ____ _____ ____ _____6. Senior Citizen Scholarship ____ ____ _____ ____ _____7. Benazir Tractor scheme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____8. TKPK(Tamir Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) ____ ____ _____ ____ _____9. Peoples Work Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____10. C.M directive fund for poverty allevation ____ ____ _____ ____ _____11. Watan Card Schem ____ ____ _____ ____ _____12. ERRA(Earthquake Rehabilitation & ____ ____ _____ ____ _____Reconstruction Authority)13. Benazir Income Support Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____14. Free education (Fee weiving) ____ ____ _____ ____ _____15. Employees’ Old Age Benefits Institution ____ ____ _____ ____ _____16. Health care ____ ____ _____ ____ _____17. Microfinance18. Any other (_________) ____ ____ _____ ____ _____70

NGO’s or Semi Govt. provided1. CRP(Community Rehabilitation Project) ___ ____ _____ ____ _____2. CIF (Community Investment Fund) ____ ____ _____ ____ _____3. Microcredits ____ ____ _____ ____ _____4. DRU(District ReconstructionUnit) ____ ____ _____ ____ _____5. PPAF(Pakistan poverty allevation fund) ____ ____ _____ ____ _____6. SSP3(sungi strategic programe3) ____ ____ _____ ____ _____7. Rehabilitization of Primary Health Care ____ ____ _____ ____ _____8. Quality Education Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____9. Orphan Support Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____10. Bandhan Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____11. Hydro Power Plant ____ ____ _____ ____ _____12. Agriculture Motivation Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____13. Adult Litracy Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____14. Bedar Devolution Support Programme ____ ____ _____ ____ _____15. Community Livelihood Rehabilitization ____ ____ _____ ____ _____Plan (CLRP)16. Devolution Trust for Community ____ ____ _____ ____ _____Empowerment (DTCT)17. Any other (___________) ____ ____ _____ ____ _____Scale: 1=Very low, 2= Low, 3=Medium 4=High, 5= Very highObjective 7: To suggest policy recommendations to improve the effectiveness of SSN and foodsecurity.General opinion about Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP)?_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Please suggest what measures should be taken by the government to improve the access ofsocial safety nets?__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Please suggest what measures should be taken by the government to improve the effectivenessof social safety nets?______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________71