RESEARCH REPORT ON

STAKEHOLDERS AWARENESS TOWARD THE EMBEDDED

PROBLEMS OF THE SHRIMP INDUSTRY: A STUDY ON THE SOUTH WEST REGION OF BANGLADESH

A Report on the Stakeholders Awareness Toward The Embedded Problems Of The Shrimp Industry: A Study On The South West

Region Of Bangladesh

Supervised by:

Md. Nur Alam

Asst. Professor Business Administration Discipline

Khulna University

Prepared by:

Saidul Hassan

ID. 020320

Date of Submission: December 10, 2006.

December 10, 2006.

Chairman

Internship and Placement Committee

Business Administration Discipline

Khulna University

Sub: Submission of Research Repot

Dear Sir:

Enclosed herewith is my report on “Stakeholders Awareness toward the Embedded

Problems Of The Shrimp Industry: A Study On The South West Region Of

Bangladesh” submitted to you as a mandatory part of the fulfillment of the Research

Study/ Internship Program.

While preparing this report, I tried to gather what I believed to be the most complete

as well as relevant information regarding my study. The primary data has been

collected through survey conducted on individual respondents and the secondary data

has been collected from various secondary sources.

I sincerely hope that my work will help future researchers for intensive research in

this field. If any further clarification is needed or any question arises about my work,

please let me know.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

___________________

Saidul Hassan ID: 020320 Business Administration Discipline, Khulna University Approved By: _____________________

Md. Nur Alam Asst. Professor (Supervisor) Business Administration Discipline, Khulna University

I

Acknowledgement

It’s my immense pleasure to completed this study in due time. I wish to express

my profound sense of gratitude to my respected supervisor Md. Nur Alam,

Assistant Professors of Business Administration discipline, Khulna University, for

his inspiration, guide, valuable suggestions, sympathetic advice and enthusiastic

encouragement made throughout the course of study work. I express my profound

gratitude to my respected teacher Md. Noor Un Nabi, Assistant Professors of

Business Administration discipline, Khulna University, for his inspiration, guide

and valuable suggestions.

I would like to avail the opportunity to express my deep gratitude and regards to

Md.Al Masud, Extension specialist of SSOQ for his cooperation and help. I would

also like to thank Dr. Anisul Haque, Associate Professor of FMRT discipline of

Khulna University for his guidance and cooperation.

Last but not least, I am very grateful to Kayas Mahmud, student of Business

Administration discipline 14th batch, Khulna University for his time to time

cooperation in the whole process of the study. I also extend my thanks to Mr.

Hanif Hayat Shohag, assistant technician, Red Star Hatchery- Chalna; for his

cooperation.

II

List of Abbreviations

1. ADB Asian Development Bank

2. ATDP Agro-based Industries and Technology Development Project

3. BCAS Bangladesh Center for Advanced Studies

4. BFFEA Bangladesh Frozen Fish Exporters Association

5. BSF Bangladesh Shrimp Foundation

6. BSFF Bangladesh Shrimp and Fish Foundation

7. DOF Department of Fisheries

8. EC European Commission

9. EU European Union

10. FMRT Fisheries & Marine Resource Technology

11. GOB Government of Bangladesh

12. HACCP Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point

13. LDC Least Developed Country

14. P L Post Larvae

15. R & D Research and Development

15. SSOQ Shrimp Seal of Quality

16. USAID United States Agency for International Development 17. USFDA United States Food and Drug Administration

18. WB World Bank

19. WTO World Trade Organization

III

Executive Summary

The Shrimp industry of Bangladesh is one of the most important contributors for

economic sustenance at present and is the second largest export commodity of the

country. The industry suffers from significant production inefficiencies and is

exposed to important social and environmental risks. However, the contribution of

the industry both in terms of helping the poor as well as earning foreign exchange

is immense and thus is considered by many as the future prospect of the country.

Shrimp culture is expected to continue to play an important role in ensuring food

security and poverty alleviation, particularly for the rural poor. The urban

population will benefit from the improvement in processing, value adding,

marketing and the shrimp industry as a whole. Increase in production efficiency is

required for large-scale industrial farms since currently it is not fully exploited. It

is indeed possible for Bangladesh to meet the international market, environmental,

and social challenges of shrimp cultivation while the sector can thrive and

continue to benefit the hundreds of thousands of people who rely on this multi-

million dollar industry for their living.

Incident like “EU ban on Bangladeshi shrimp” should not happen again and most

importantly this industry is operating under capacity and can increase the

productivity up to five times than the current capacity. To achieve these targets,

this study tried to identify whether the hypothetical 60% of the mass members of

the industry are aware about the shrimp industry embedded problems or not and to

identify the significance of difference among the cluster members opinion on a

specific issue.

On the average, the mass member of the industry was found aware about the

problems and the difference among the cluster members opinion was found

insignificant. Thus the proper authority including the GOB, DOF, donor agency

and individual actor in particular level of the supply-chain should take immediate

initiative to eradicate these industry-embedded problem.

Page No.

Acknowledgement I List of Abbreviation II Executive Summery

III

PART I Introduction

1.1 Background 1 1.2 Problem Discussion 2 1.3 Purpose of the Research 3 1.4 Scope 4 1.5 Limitations 4 1.6 Detailed Methodology 4 1.6.1 Sources of Data 4 1.6.2 Research Approach 5 1.6.3 Instruments 5 1.6.4 Attitude Measurement 5 1.6.5 Sample Design And Sampling Procedures 7 1.6.6 Data Collection 8 1.6.7 Analysis Plan 8 1.6.8 Questionnaire Design 9 1.6.9 Hypothesis 11 1.6.10 The Chi-Square (χ2) Test For Goodness Of Fit 12 1.6.11 Application Procedure of χ2 Test in this Report 14 1.6.12 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) 15 1.6.13 Application Procedure of ANOVA in this Report 17 PART II

Literature Review

Background Study Information

18

PART III

Shrimp in Bangladesh

32

PART IV

Analysis and Findings

4.1 General Tendency of the Respondents

41

4.2. Hypothetical 60% mass members awareness toward the industry-embedded problems

42

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.3. The significance of the difference among the cluster members opinion on specific issues:

48

4.3.1 Facilities issue 48 4.3.2 Monitoring issue 48 4.3.3 Quality issue 48 4.3.4 Technology issue

49

PART V Conclusion and Recommendations 5.1 Conclusion 50 5.2 Recommendation 50 Appendices

Reference 52 Bibliography 54 Electronic Sources

54

Annex 1: Survey Questionnaire i Annex 2: Calculation of chi-square χ2 iii Annex 3: Calculation of ANOVA xi Annex 4: Frequency Table of the Respondents xix Annex 5: Chi-Square χ2 Table Annex 6: F Table

Part-I Introduction

- 1 -

1.1 Background

Shrimp is one of the major export products of Bangladesh. Second only in value to its

ready-made garment exports, shrimp exports from Bangladesh have been earning

US$300 million annually. Bangladeshi shrimp is exported to more than 30 countries

all over the world. The leading importing nations are USA, Belgium, Japan, UK,

Germany, Netherlands, France, Italy, Vietnam, Korea, Thailand, Canada and

Singapore. In 2003-2004 fiscal, Bangladesh exported shrimp and other fishes worth

US$ 390 million against US$321.81 million of 2002-03 fiscal1. In 2000-2001 fiscal,

shrimp exports amounted to US$ 322.4 million. Its importance is highlighted by the

fact that it constitutes more than 70% of the export of primary products from

Bangladesh2.The United States and the European Union (EU) each import 40 percent

of the shrimp, with the remaining 20 percent going to Japan. Bangladesh is already

among the top 10 exporters of shrimp in the world and accounts for some 3 percent of

global production.3 Numerous people are engaged in upstream and downstream

activities related to shrimp culture in the country - in harvesting, culture, processing

and exporting. A majority of these workers are women. The shrimp industry benefits

three to four million “mostly poor” Bangladeshis while providing livelihood directly

to 142,000 farming households numbering some 600,000 people. Over 200,000

hectares are now under shrimp farming.4

Evidently, the importance of the EU market for this particular export sector of

Bangladesh is indeed very high. Any disruption in this market is bound to have severe

and important implications for this export-oriented sector of the country, and negative

multiplier impact for the national economy.

____________________________________________________________________________________________ 1: Bangladesh Shrimp Exports Poised To Soar with U.S. Assistance, August 10, 2005 (USAID-funded

project aiding production of quality shrimp) By Afzal Khan. 2: EU Ban on Shrimp Imports from Bangladesh: A Case Study on Market Access Problems Faced by the

LDCs by Professor Mustafizur Rahman. 3: Bangladesh Shrimp Exports Poised To Soar with U.S. Assistance, August 10, 2005(USAID-funded

project aiding production of quality shrimp) By Afzal Khan,Washington File Special Correspondent. 4: Quazi Kudrat-e-Kabir, SSOQ’s regional director in Khulna, Bangladesh.

- 2 -

Unfortunately this sector suffers from severe problem relating production inefficiency,

bio-security, monitoring compliances, corruption, technology and knowledge transfer.

Study and research have been conducted to some extent on the part of the donor

agencies, individual research farms and scholars. But still there is a lack of holistic

approach addressing the persisting bottlenecks from the part of the GOB, DOF, donor

agencies and companies operating in the industry.

Author of this report, therefore, attempts a procedure that tried to understand the

awareness level of the actors in this industry regarding the industry embedded

problems which have been utterly identified for about one decade. To make the

procedure workable, a comprehensive survey was conducted that not only determined

the attitude of each respondent about the problems but also revealed the beliefs

(perception and knowledge) of the actors on the basis of different population cluster.

The key feature of this suggested procedure is that it unveils the real situations about

them who are comprised of the uttered problems in question depending on their

attitude, not on the opinion of any authority that is judging this industry depending on

their resources, facilities, projects and investments etc. As attitude is formed on the

basis of individuals’ perceptions and knowledge rather than fact, this procedure can be

followed by any institution operating in this industry to collect useful information

about the industry to re-adjust or re-structure their strategy and operation.

1.2 Problem Discussion

Secondary studies extensively indicate that the Shrimp industry of Bangladesh is

severely disintegrated at each level of the cluster. And insufficient infrastructure and

monitoring body, ignorance and various kinds of problems prevail at almost every

level of the value chain. Several incidents like ban on import in the EU, continuous

rejection of the shipments and low price compared to the other importing country etc.

has become the common phenomenon of this industry. SPS measure, HACCP

regulation, buyers specifications, bio-safety etc have been continuously uttered by the

importer, GOB, donor agencies, EC and the U.S. After the 1997 ban incident;

- 3 -

country's shrimp export industry is put under severe strain, and led to serious market

disruptions from which the country is still trying to recover.

Both the firms and GOB have taken initiative to upgrade the facilities to comply with

the HACCP regulation and SPS measure. But some of the regulations require high

cost and considerable time to upgrade the industry up to date. Besides, farming

practice is conventional here and most of the actors lack awareness and a massive

level of infrastructure is still to be build. The need to respond to the international

market is undoubtedly acknowledged widely by the cluster members. But the burning

question here is whether the mass root level feels the deadly need for the huge up-

gradation of the facilities and modern practice or not.

1.3 Purpose of the Research

The purpose of this study is to find out the root level peoples perceptions about the

dire problem. Because without the mass root level participation; no initiative to the

modern technology and farming practice would be fruitful. For this purpose, author of

this research identifies sixteen problem areas basing on the secondary source and a

pilot investigation at the field level. Members of the various clusters are asked

whether they agree with these problems or not.

Aim is to identify whether the stakeholders are aware at the level secondary source

indicates or the ignorance levels of the members are so acute.

More specifically the goals are:

To identify whether hypothetical 60% of the mass members of the industry are aware

about the shrimp industry embedded problems or not.

To identify whether the difference among the cluster members opinion on a specific

issue is significant or not.

- 4 -

1.4 Scope

The research will be limited to the revelation of the awareness and determination of

the uniformity of awareness of the various cluster members of the shrimp industry in

the south-western region of Bangladesh; namely the cultivation area of Khulna,

Bagerhat and Satkhira district of Bangladesh. Various cluster members include actors

involved in Hatchery, Processing Factory, Shrimp and Post Larvae (PL) Trading

Agency, Feed Agency, Transportation Agency and Shrimp Farmer.

1.5 Limitation

Reluctance of the respondents to go through a survey process was the main limitations

of this survey. Lack of acquaintance to this kind of questionnaire may also have

caused some distortion of real information. Besides, the severe level of illiteracy

among the majority of the stakeholders was a major obstacle to collect reliable

information.

This research is an approach to check the awareness level of the people involved in

shrimp industry in south-western area depending only upon the attitude of the

stakeholders toward the highly threatening problems of this industry. Thus the result

of this study lacks in usability in any field other than the insight about the problems.

1.6 Detailed Methodology

1.6.1 Sources of Data

Both primary and secondary source was used for collection of necessary data. Primary

data was collected through a questionnaire survey. Use of secondary data was strictly

limited to the background discussion of the research and the designing of the report

and construction of the survey questionnaire (primary source was also used in these

purpose).

- 5 -

1.6.2 Research Approach

This study was the combination of Qualitative and Quantitative Research. A

Quantitative approach was taken to describe the research problem. Quantitative

analysis was done in a formal and rigid fashion to draw inference about the opinion of

the population. Assumption and Hypothesis were made basing on the secondary

sources and depth-interview following Qualitative approach.

1.6.3 Instruments

To collect the data from the population, a structured questionnaire had been followed.

Primary data have been gathered through interviewing respondents in their respective

workplaces. An unstructured questionnaire had been used to collect the data from the

stakeholders. The procedure of information collection from various categories was of

conversation type.

1.6.4 Attitude Measurement:

1. Attitude Defined:5 An attitude is usually viewed as an enduring disposition to

respond consistently in a given manner to various aspect of the world; composed of

affective, cognitive and behavioral components. In this study, awareness of the

stakeholders is measured as an attitude.

Affective component is the component of attitude that reflects ones general feelings or

emotions toward an object. Cognitive component is the component of attitude that

represents ones awareness of and knowledge about an object. Behavioral component

is the component of attitude that includes buying intentions and behavioral

expectations; reflects a predisposition to action.

5: William G. Zikmund, Business Research Methodology (7th edition); p. 308 Chapter14

- 6 -

2. Awareness as a Hypothetical Construct:5 Hypothetical construct describes a

variable that is not directly observable but is measured through indirect indicators,

such as verbal expressions or overt behavior. In this study, hypothetical construct of

the stakeholders’ awareness was described as: People are aware if they agree that the

problems exist or if they choose between 6-10 on a 1-10 scale.

3. Technique Used For Measuring Attitude: Choice technique is a measurement

task that identifies preferences by requiring respondents to choose to between two or

more alternatives.5 Choice technique was used to measure the respondents attitude.

4. Attitude Rating Scales: 6

Simple attitude scale was used in this study. In its most basic form, attitude scaling

requires that an individual agree or disagree with a statement or respond to a single

question. Because this type of self-rating scale merely classifies respondents into one

of two categories, it has only the properties of a nominal scale. Despite disadvantages,

simple attitude scaling was used because the questionnaires were extremely long,

respondents have little education, and the time and cost were scarce.

Category scales: An attitude scale consisting of several response categories to

provide the respondents with alternative ratings. Category scales were used in the

field level survey for the convenience of the respondents following the expert

opinion.7

5: William G. Zikmund, Business Research Methodology (7th edition); p. 308 Chapter14 6: William G. Zikmund, Business Research Methodology (7th edition); p. 310 Chapter14 7: Al-Masud, Extension Specialist of ATDP-SOQ and Dr.Anisul Haque, Assosiate Professor of Fisheries &

Marine Resource Technology Discipline of Khulna University

- 7 -

1.6.5 Sample Design And Sampling Procedures:8

1. Target population: The target population for the study was defined as follows:

Elements— All the actors of the shrimp industry was considered as the elements from

where required information was collected.

Sampling units— The sampling unit is a single element or a group of elements subject

to selection in the sample. For this study sampling units was the same as elements for

the study. It includes all People involved at different hatcheries, processing factories,

feed, PL and shrimp trading agencies, transportation agencies and culturing farms

are considered as the sampling frame for this study.

Extent— The south-western region of Bangladesh; namely the cultivation area of

Khulna, Bagerhat and Satkhira district of Bangladesh.

Time—2006.

2. The sampling frame: A sampling frame is the list of elements form which the

sample may be drawn; also called working population. People involved at

different hatcheries, processing factories, feed, PL and shrimp trading agencies,

transportation agencies and culturing farms are considered as the sampling frame

for this study.

3. Sampling Technique (Quota sampling): Quota sampling is a non probability

sampling procedure that ensures that certain characteristics of a population sample

will be represented to the exact extent that the investigator desires. Following the

research objective, quota sampling was followed.

8: William G. Zikmund, Business Research Methodology (7th edition); p. 373-375 Chapter16

- 8 -

4. Sample Size: The study required information from all the cluster members of the

shrimp industry. Sample size for the study was as follows:

A B C D E F G

Hatchery PL Agents Transportation & Feeding

Farmer

Shrimp Agent

Processors

Scholar & Researcher

Total

10 15 10 30 15 10 10 100

1.6.6 Data Collection

Both primary and secondary source was used for collection of necessary data. Primary

data was collected through a questionnaire survey. Secondary data was collected from

various reports, newspapers, books, journals and websites.

1.6.7 Analysis Plan

Depending on the specific objective to be met nominal scales had been used in the

questionnaire. For analyzing the data obtained from the survey, statistical calculations

had been done to make inferences.

- 9 -

1.6.8 Questionnaire Design:7

1. What Was Asked: To determine the awareness level of the stakeholders, a survey

questionnaire was used dealing with sixteen important problems found through

extensive study of secondary data (reports, journals, newspapers, books & various

published and unpublished papers). The questions to the respondents were

whether they agree on the hampering existence of these problems or not. Agreed

respondents on particular issue were considered well aware about the problem.

Though in field level survey, for convenience and according to the expert advice*,

given choice for respondents were followed an interval scale ranging from 1-10.

Responses ranging from 1-5 were considered as agreed and 6-10 were considered

as disagreed on the particular issue. Main reason for this type of given choice is

that most of the stakeholders lack industry awareness and institutional education

and they would be confused if they were asked “Yes or No” type questions.*

Questionnaire Relevancy: A questionnaire is relevant if no unnecessary

information is collected and if the information that is needed to solve the

business problem is obtained. In the survey questionnaire, only the particular

issues regarding the plaguing problems were asked.

Questionnaire Accuracy: Accuracy means that the information is reliable and

valid. Question wording and sequences substantially influence accuracy. I’ve

tried to obtain the most reliable and valid information. For the question

wording and sequences, expert* consultancy has taken.

7: William G. Zikmund, Business Research Methodology (7th edition); p. 330-333 Chapter15 * Al-Masud, Extension Specialist of ATDP-SOQ and Dr.Anisul Haque, Assosiate Professor,

Fisheries & Marine Resource Technology Discipline of Khulna University.

- 10 -

2. Phrasing Questions:

Fixed-alternative questions are the question in which the respondent is given

specific limited alternatives responses and asked to choose the one closest to his/her

own viewpoint.

• Simple-dichotomy question of the type Fixed-alternative was used in this

study. Simple-dichotomy question is a fixed alternative question that requires

the respondent to choose one of two alternatives. For example:

PL (Post Larvae) supplied by the hatcheries is of low quality.

O Yes O No

3. Question sequence: Since all the 16 questions are within 4 broad categories

(quality, technology, facility &technology), questions were sequenced carefully to

disguise the purpose from the respondents following the experts instructions.*

Order bias is the bias caused by the influence of earlier questions in a

questionnaire or by an answer’s position in a set of answers.

* : Al-Masud, Extension Specialist of ATDP-SOQ and Dr.Anisul Haque, Assosiate Professor of Fisheries &

Marine Resource Technology Discipline of Khulna University

- 11 -

1.6.9 Hypothesis11

Hypothesis: In statistical theory a hypothesis is an unproven proposition or

supposition that tentatively explains certain facts or phenomena. A hypothesis is a

statement, an assumption about the nature of the world. In its simplest form a

hypothesis is a guess.

The Null Hypothesis (H0) and the Alternative Hypothesis (H1): Statistical

hypothesis are generally stated in a null form. A null hypothesis is a statement about

a status quo. It is a conservative statement that communicates the notion that any

change from what has been thought to be true or observed in the past will be due

entirely to random error. The alternative hypothesis is a statement indicating the

opposite of the null hypothesis.

The Level of Significance: The significance level is a critical probability in choosing

between the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. the level of significance

determines the probability level-say .05 or .01- that is to be considered to low or to

warrant support of the null hypothesis. on the assumption that the null hypothesis

being tested is true, if the probability of occurrence of the observed data is smaller

than the level of significance, then the data suggests the null hypothesis should be

rejected. in other words, there is evidence to support contradiction of the null

hypothesis, which is equivalent to supporting the alternative hypothesis.12

Procedure of Hypothesis Testing13

The general procedure followed in testing hypothesis comprises the following steps:

1. Set up a hypothesis. 2. Set up a suitable significance level. 3. Determination of a suitable test static. 4. Determine the critical region/value. 5. Doing computation. 6. Making decisions. 7.

11: William G. Zikmund, Business Research Methodology (7th edition); p. 499 Chapter21 12: William G. Zikmund, Business Research Methodology (7th edition); p. 500 Chapter21 13: S.P. Gupta & M.P. Gupta, Business Statistics (2005-2006); p. 583-585 Chapter15

- 12 -

1.6.10 The Chi-Square (χ2) Test For Goodness of Fit:

One of the simplest techniques for describing sets of relationships is the cross

tabulation. Chi-square (χ2) is a test that statistically determines significance in the

analysis of frequency distribution. The Chi-square (χ2) test allows us to test for

significance in the analysis of frequency distributions. The logic inherent in the Chi-

square (χ2) test allows us to compare the observed frequencies (f) with the expected

frequencies (fe) based on our theoretical ideas about the population distribution or

our proposed proportions. It tests the “goodness of fit” of the observed distribution

with the expected distribution.

The steps in the calculation of the Chi-square (χ2) test are as follows: 14

1. Formulate the null hypothesis and determine the expected frequency of each answer

2. Determine the appropriate significance level.

3. Calculate the Chi-square (χ2) value, using the observe frequencies from the sample and the expected frequencies.

4. Make the statistical discussion by comparing the calculated Chi-square (χ2) value with the critical χ2 value.

After we’ve determined that the Chi-square (χ2) test is appropriate at the .05 level of

significance (or some other probability level), the χ2 statistic may be calculated using

the following formula:

χ2 = With (R-1)(C-1) degrees of freedom;

Where χ2 =chi-square static f = observed frequency in the ith cell fe = expected frequency in the ith cell

14: William G. Zikmund, Business Research Methodology (7th edition); p. 511 Chapter21

]2)([∑ − fefef

- 13 -

The chi-square (χ2) test allow us to conduct tests for significance in the analysis of an R x C contingency table (where R=row and C=column).Like many other probability distributions, the chi-square (χ2) distribution is not a single probability curve but a family of curves. These curves vary according to the degrees of freedom. Thus we must calculate the number of freedom. Degrees of freedom refers to the number of observations that can be varied without changing the constrains or assumptions associated with a numerical system. To compute a chi-square (χ2) static, we calculate degrees of freedom as the number of rows minus one (R-1) times the number of columns minus one (C-1).15 If the calculated chi-square (χ2) is larger than the tabular chi-square (χ2) the null hypothesis is rejected. Grouping when Frequencies are small

If small theoretical frequencies occur, it is generally possible to overcome the

difficulty by grouping two or more classes together. In other words, one or more

classes with theoretical frequencies less than five (5) may combined into a single

category before calculating the differences between observed and expected

frequencies. The number of degrees of freedom would be determined with number of

classes after the regrouping.16

Whether or not a calculated value of chi-square (χ2) is considered significant is

ascertained by reference to tabulated value for a given degrees of freedom at a certain

level of confidence. If the value of chi-square (χ2) exceeds the tabulated value, the

difference between the observed and expected frequencies is significant. On the other

hand, if its value is less than the table value, the difference is attributed to chance and

may be ignored.17

15: William G. Zikmund, Business Research Methodology (7th edition); p. 523 Chapter22. 16: S.P. Gupta & M.P. Gupta, Business Statistics (2005-2006); p. 635 Chapter1. 17: M.C. Shukla & S.S. Gulshan, Statistics Theory and Practice. (7th edition)); p. 720 Chapter23.

- 14 -

1.6.11 Application Procedure of chi-square(χ2) Test in This Report:

Cross tabulation was used for organizing data by groups or categories to facilitate

comparison. It is a joint frequency distribution of observations on seven sets of

variable. The purpose of categorization and cross-tabulation is to allow the inspection

of differences among groups and to make comparison.

Here the theoretical idea about the expected frequency is that 60% of the respondents

are well aware about the industry-embedded problems (H0). 0.05 was taken as the

level of significance and initial degrees of freedom was (R-1)(C-1)=(7-1)(2-1)=6; but

as the row A, C, F & G produced expected frequency less than 5, A+C & F+G was

combined and the final degrees of freedom was (5-1)(2-1)=4.

Every problem question was considered separately and thus the calculations consisted

of 16 particular chi-square (χ2) test individually. Theoretical assumption on each

problem was that 60% of the respondents are well aware about the particular problem.

- 15 -

1.6.12 Analysis Of Variance

Analysis of variance is a technique to test for the significance of the difference

between more than two samples means and to make inferences about whether our

samples are drawn from the population having the same mean. The analysis of

variance procedure or F-test is used in such problems where we want to test for the

significance of the difference among more than two sample means. In fact the

technique of analysis of variance is one of the most powerful of statistical methods

developed by R.A Fischer.

Irrespective of the type of classification, the analysis of variance is a technique of

partitioning the total sum of square deviations of all sample values from the grand

mean and is divided into two parts: sum of squares between the samples and sum of

squares within the samples.18 If we have three groups or levels of the independed

variable, the null hypothesis is stated as follows:

u1=u2=u3

The null hypothesis is that all the means are equal. If we calculate the variance within

group and compare it to the variance of the group mean about a grand means, we can

determine whether the means are significantly different.

The F-Test

The F-Test is a procedure for comparing one sample variance to other sample

variance. (The principal is similar to that of the Chi-Square, where a sample variance

is compared to a population variance.). The F-test determines whether there is more

variability in the scores of one sample than in the scores of another sample.

To obtain the F-statistic (or F-ratio), the larger sample variance is divided by the

smaller sample variance. To test the null hypothesis of no difference between the

sample variance, a table of the F distribution is necessary and degree of freedom must

be specified. Inspection of an f table allows the researcher to determine the probability

of finding an f as large as the calculated F.

18: S.P. Gupta & M.P. Gupta, Business Statistics (2005-2006); p. 664 Chapter18.

- 16 -

∑∑= =

−n

i

c

jij xx

1 1

2)(

∑∑= =

−n

i

c

jjij xx

1 1

2)(

2

1)( xxn

c

jjj −∑

=

)1( −cMSbetween

Calculating the F-ratio19

The calculation of the F-ratio requires that we partition the total variation into two

parts:Total sum of squares = Within group sum of squares + Between group sum of

squares.

SStotal = SSwithin + SSbetween

The total sum of squares, or SStotal, is computed by squaring the deviation of each

score from grand mean and summing these squares:

SStotal =

SSwithin, the variability that we observe within each group, is calculated by squaring

the deviation of each score from its group mean and summing these scores:

SSwithin =

SSbetween, the variability of the group means about a grand mean, is calculated by

squaring the deviation of each group mean, multlipling by the number of items in the

group, and summing these score:

SSbetween =

The next calculation requires dividing the various sums of squares by their

appropriate degrees of freedom. These divisions produce the variances, or mean

squares. To obtain the mean square between groups, SSwithin is divided by c-1 degrees

of freedom:

MSbetween =

19: William G. Zikmund, Business Research Methodology (7th edition); p. 531-534 Chapter22.

- 17 -

To obtain the mean square within groups, SSwithin is divided by cn-c degrees of

freedom:

MSwithin = SSwithin /(cn-c)

Finally, the F-ratio is calculated by taking the ratio of the mean square between groups

to the mean square within groups. The between-groups mean square is used as the

numerator and the within-groups mean square is used as the denominator:

F = MSbetween/MSwithin

There will be (c-1) degrees of freedom in the numerator and (cn-n) degrees of

freedom in the denominator: (c-1)/(cn-c).

Then, the calculated F-ratio is compared with the tabulated F-ratio with respect to

appropriate degrees of freedom from the F-table. If the computed value of F exceeds

the table value of F, the null hypothesis is rejected.

1.6.13 Application Procedure of ANOVA in this Report:

The analysis of variance procedure (F-test) is used in such problems where we want

to test for the significance of the difference among more than two sample means.

Here, awareness levels of the various categories are compared. Shrimp industry-

embedded problems were categorized into four broad groups following the extensive

study of the secondary study (reports, journals, newspapers, books & various

published and unpublished papers); namely- 1.Quality issues 2.Technology issues

3.Facility issues and 4.Monitoring issues. Then all the cluster members’ awareness

level was compared regarding one of the four broad categories issues.

Part-II Literature Review

- 18 -

2.0 Background Study Information: This study was based on extensive study of secondary data, especially

published reports, journals, papers etc on the shrimp industry of Bangladesh.

Background problem, research approach, hypothetical construct and author’s

personal judgments were exclusively based on these secondary studies. For

further clarification and to give a deep insight about the shrimp industry

embedded problems analyzed in this study, a brief description on the most

relied studies are presented below. Point to note here is that, Literatures from

the respective studies are presented here in the original form as they were

found in the original studies.

Impact of Market Access Barrieres and Subsidies: The Case of Shrimp in Bangladesh Presented at the Hong Kong Trade and Development Symposium Session on Fisheries and Trade – Exploring Opportunities for Advancing Sustainable Development Hong Kong: 15 December 2005 by Dr Fahmida Khatun, Senior Research Fellow, CPD E-mail: fahmida@cpd-bangladesh.org © Centre For Policy Dialogue (CPD), 2004

Recommendations

• Assessment of the Sector to Determine the Needs • Monitoring of Shrimp Farms and Close Supervision of Quality Control • Access to Information on technological improvement and change in

global policies • Market Diversification to Avoid Sudden Shocks • Financial Support to Small Farmers • Infrastructural Development for Better Processing, Handling and

Storing Facilities • Ensuring Security and Reducing Tensions • Capacity Building in Trade Issues

- 19 -

Bangladesh Shrimp Exports Poised To Soar with U.S. Assistance, August 10, 2005 (USAID-funded project aiding production of quality shrimp) By Afzal Khan Washington File Special Correspondent Summary of the paper: Effort to impose uniform quality standards became necessary after the EU imposed a ban on Bangladesh shrimp imports in 1997 because of a failure to comply with EU quality regulations in shrimp processing plants in Khulna and Chittagong. At the same time, the Bangladesh government realized that up-to-date scientific methods were needed to maximize shrimp production for export.

A major thrust of the SSOQ program is to get rid of a wide-spread viral disease that has been responsible for declining production since the early 1990s of the marine shrimp known as “Black Tiger,” or “Bagda,” which dominates the export market. The other main variety of Bangladesh shrimp is actually a giant fresh water prawn known as “Galda,” which is immune to this viral disease. The Bagda proliferates in tidal basin areas along the Bay of Bengal coastline in brackish water, while the Galda can flourish farther inland in ponds.

The disease known as White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV) was detected through tests in a laboratory set up by the SSOQ program. The tests found the incidence of WSSV at over 70 percent.

Although WSSV is harmless to the human consumer, it cuts down shrimp production in the farms drastically. The laboratory in Cox’s Bazar, at the southeastern tip of Bangladesh, screens shrimp fry, or larvae, for the disease from four designated hatcheries. So far, only 4 percent of the total larvae used in shrimp production are screened by this laboratory.

In addition to screening for WSSV, the SSOQ program seeks to put into practice shrimp farming techniques to improve yields, while decreasing the risk of the white spot virus spreading. Demonstration farms and field schools disseminate information about best management practices while providing training and consulting services to shrimp farmers.

Finally, the SSOQ, through its voluntary certification program, aims to assure buyers overseas that the Bangladesh shrimp industry has met international food safety standards, has addressed global environmental concerns, and has followed to international labor practices.

By adhering to international food safety standards, Bangladesh is able to assure overseas buyers that the shrimp are free from disease and harmful chemicals and additives that are sometimes used to reduce spoilage. International labor standards include banning of child labor and ensuring fair treatment of seasonal workers.

- 20 -

Shrimp Industry Study: Problems, Prospects and Intervention Agenda Submitted To: USAID, Bangladesh Submitted By: ATDP Research Team September 18, 2005

Management Summary:

Shrimp is one of the leading export items of Bangladesh. It accounts for roughly 2.5 percent of global exports and fetches a fair amount of foreign exchange ($250-330 million for last three years). There is ample demand in the international market for shrimp and Bangladesh is blessed with an environment congenial for shrimp production. However, the industry is fraught with many obstacles at present.

A primary study was undertaken to detect the problems plaguing the different levels of the value chain of shrimp in the country. Consequently, a study was conducted in which the participants were representatives of the various stakeholders in this industry. The discussion that ensued aimed to identify obstacles to the growth of the industry, develop some intervention strategies that would help eradicate these obstacles . The problems that were revealed through the study are the following:

Inefficient management

High mortality rate

Low quality shrimp

Negative country image abroad

Indiscriminate catching of brood mothers

Lack of an integrated agriculture policy

Inadequate Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Measures (SPS)

Lack of standards and Lack of traceability

Vertical competition amongst different actors in the value chain due to supply-demand inconsistency

Lack of coordination amongst donor agencies

Lack of monitoring of compliance on the part of the government

Lack of awareness

Unfair practices by agents

Almost non-existent R&D endeavors

- 21 -

Problems in the Shrimp Industry:

The problems described below were pointed out by the participants in the primary study. The workshop also shed light on some additional problems. The problems prevalent at different levels of the value chain are enumerated below:

1. General

An integrated agricultural policy is a prerequisite for the development of any primary market. However, the present agricultural policy can at best be described as disjointed and non-functional.

There also exist serious shortcomings in the government regulation and control of the following environmentally important issues:

o Wild Fry Collection o Standards maintenance o Land grabbing o Inadequate Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary measures (SPS)

Lack of standards at all levels of the value chain

The members in the value chain also seem to be involved in vertical competition.

There are quite a large number of hatcheries operating within the country under capacity. The farms are running at capacity (although with high mortality rates) as a result the farms have abundant demand for their supply. Thus a captive market results in manipulation by the agents.

The processors are faced with huge demand from the international markets. But they aren’t able to meet this demand because of failure of the part of the farms to supply them with adequate shrimp.

Inconsistency in the supply chain results in substantial and rapidly changing price structure. As a result unethical practices are prevalent in the value chain. In order to meet the necessary weight requirements, farmers sometimes inject the shrimp with illegal material.

The various donor bodies at the field level are working in isolation as opposed to creating partnerships. As a result transfer of learning and experience is sporadic and uncoordinated. The various donor bodies at the field level are working in isolation as opposed to creating partnerships. As a result transfer of learning and experience is sporadic and uncoordinated. Endeavors by BRAC, DANIDA and ATDP-II have yielded positive results in their respective fields. However, very little effort has so far been taken to share the knowledge gathered which could have resulted in even better results.

Lack of a proper monitoring mechanism plagues every level of the value chain.

There also exists no formal exit strategy on the part of the donors. Moreover the exit strategy lacks transfer to the private sector. The present practice is geared towards either the government or creation of NGO based private sector which seriously affects free market principles.

The extension workers provided by the government have so far performed very poorly and failed to facilitate the farmers properly.

- 22 -

2. Brood Parent Collectors

Indiscriminate catching of brood mothers has emerged as a serious threat. In fact, experts forecast that brood mothers may become extinct in two to three years from Bangladesh waters if this present practice persists.

In Bangladesh the male and female shrimp are harvested together. There is no mechanism to harvest the brood mother separately. In the case of galda cultivation however, the mechanism for collecting brood mothers only has been developed.

Inadequate policy measures regarding the time of catching, technology, human resources, etc. also presents a great threat to the brood parent collection. There exists no legal mechanism for licensing the nets and vessels used for this purpose.

Lack of appropriate technology is also a big problem. Fry collection from the sea, called baish dhora in Cox’s Bazaar and baccha dhora in Satkhira/Khulna, is skilled work that requires hard physical labor and local expertise is inadequate which results in the death of a large number of fries.

A large number of the poor — men, women and children (child labor) — do such work in these areas. Child labor seems to be more rampant in golda cultivation. In case of bagda farming children are mainly employed for catching fry. The sector however, ensures gender equality. In fact the majority of the workers involved in this sector are female especially in the processors and hatcheries.

People involved in this business as well as those who live in the shrimp habitats have no knowledge regarding wild life.

Lack of monitoring of compliance afflicts this level of the value chain as well.

3. Agents (brood)

These agents are mostly traders with local influence in the society and thus have entered the business not due to need in business but by force. The traders also force the farmers to buy shrimp of PL in stocks. It is often found that only 5% of this stock contains brood mothers.

Quality and price control measures are compromised due to inadequate supply. This level of the chain is also characterized by too much dependence on catchers and they eventually dictate prices.

Inadequate monitoring and control by law enforcing and monitoring agencies is also a troubling issue in this phase of the chain.

- 23 -

4. Hatchery/Nursery Unlike the other levels in the value chain, this level is characterized by too many

players. However, almost all of them are engaged in marginal operations. No extensive studies have been undertaken so far to ascertain the required number of hatcheries.

Most investors are motivated to turn black money white. Production and sales figures are often exaggerated to override the law. That is why frequent changing of hands (of facilities) is quite a common practice in this field.

Inadequate bio-security measures such as drainage, bacterial control, viral control, use of medication, etc. due to inadequate technology base also results in high mortality rate and low quality of the product. The disease called White Spot Syndrome Virus (WSSV) effects the bagda species specifically and is the sole contributor behind falling productivity of bagda. In the case of golda bio security related problems mainly involve bacterial infections and contaminated medicine and feed. The EU imposed a ban on Bangladesh shrimp imports in 1997 because of a failure to comply with EU quality regulations. These events have resulted in a bad image of Bangladeshi shrimp in foreign markets. As a result Bangladesh cannot demand the same price as its competitors in the international market.

Lack of trained human resources in this field necessitates the influx of foreign technicians. In fact 70% of technicians are from outside the country. The majority (50%) of them are Indian nationals. These foreign experts at times enter the country illegally and apply their technology, medication, and at times even strains without any pre-testing measures. This quite clearly represents a potential threat to bio-security.

Weak association among the different hatcheries exist since a large number are involved in unethical business practices and are least concerned about business development.

Although businesses change hand regularly, they do not close indicating that unethical practices rather than business itself promotes sales. Most of these unethical practices are a direct result of government incentive programs directed in favor of the hatcheries.

The cost of undertaking R&D activities at the hatchery level is clearly uneconomical for private industry and other stakeholders to undertake at the present capacity utilization rates.

5. Agents (Post Larvae – PL)

These agents constitute the major profit making actor in the chain with the least risk.

These agents are very influential in the value chain and determine prices. Lack of working capital and availability of special interest rates are outlined as major constraints faced by the group.

High mortality rates during transshipment from hatchery to farms especially in the case of bagda are also observed.

- 24 -

These agents control both farmers as well as hatchery owners. On one hand, they purchase on credit from the hatchery owners and on the other they derive commission from the farmers.

In the case of galda, a large amount of the PL is imported from neighboring India. Some PL imported from India contains excess amounts of nitrofurine which is a prohibited substance.

6. Transport Agency

The poor transportation infrastructure of the country further cripples the industry. This problem is even more acute in the case of bagda as in this case the shrimp have to be transported from Cox’s bazaar to Khulna. Lack of landing facility for air transporters in Khulna results in high carrying and time costs which ultimately results in the farmers paying higher prices. Idle capacity for air transport during off-season makes it difficult for them to sustain their operations.

Inadequate aircraft parking facility in Cox’s bazaar airport during peak season contributes to even more delay in shipment.

It takes a total of thirty hours to reach the farms from Cox Bazar to Khulna by road. Some hatcheries have taken it upon themselves to transport the PL by road; however, this has not yet improved the situation.

Policy regarding licensing for air transport is inadequate – the status of both leased aircraft and owned aircraft are regarded as same.

Temperature and oxygen controlled vans for road transport are still at the experimental stage.

7. Farmer/Nursery

Low awareness level regarding proper farming practices results in high mortality rates and diseases in the farms.

The weak financial capability of the farmers is also a great barrier towards development. Inadequate banking support makes it impossible for the farmers to obtain the funding they require.

High mortality of Post Larvae of both bagda and golda result primarily from the previously mentioned shortcomings.

Although export benefits are extended to this sector, the processors are the ones who mostly get to enjoy the same. They pass some of the benefit to the agents in the form of higher prices. However, the other members of the value chain are not able to absorb much of this benefit.

The farmers in Bangladesh get higher prices for their products compared to farmers in countries like Thailand primarily due to higher production cost

- 25 -

resulting from low management capability, inefficient quantity management and high mortality. This on the other hand affects the market share in the international market. This aspect can be summarized in the illustration from group discussion presented below.

o High prices do not necessarily mean high profits as the cost of operation are also high in these farms. After covering all the overheads a very meager profit is left. On an average, 20% of the overheads fall under labor.

o The sales price is completely independent of costs o The price is dictated by competition alone. o Management inefficiency and lack of technology are considered the main

contributing forces behind these rising costs of production. o Primary production cost is quite low in Bangladesh compared to other countries as

90% of the Bagda larvae are traditionally produced and therefore entail no spending at all. In fact some regard this as the sole reason behind the survival of this sector in Bangladesh.

o The start-up capital and input cost is much lower in Bangladesh. However, it is important to properly define sustainability in this aspect.

o Although some shrimp farms are sustaining, the owners are doing so by engaging themselves in side businesses.

o A study conducted under the ATDP surveyed about 600 such farmers and found that average production was less than 100 kg per hectare even though it was required to produce 148kg per hectare to break even considering the price of land.

The government has also failed to play a constructive role, evidenced by the lack of support from government extension workers.

The cost of maintaining nurseries and undertaking experiments is at times too risky and expensive.

8. Agents (shrimp)

No special interest rates for working capital are available.

As mentioned before, there exists a huge gap between the demand for shrimp by processors and the supply of the same provided by the farmers.

Processors dictate prices based on international market rates.

Too many depots are engaged in this stage and a large number of these depots and sub-depots are either owned or controlled by agents. All adulteration is performed in the depots or sub-depots. Here shrimp are injected with fluids and other substances or immersed in water to increase their weight.

Again, the measures taken by the government in monitoring of compliance are alarmingly inadequate

- 26 -

9. Processor

The quality of raw material (shrimp/prawn) supplied to the processors is not satisfactory because of adulteration, cool chain maintenance, size variation etc. Processors should reject these shipments but do not due to their desperate need for raw material to fulfill orders.

It has also been observed that, some processors engage in this business only for the period for which the tax holiday has been extended. After expiry they simply get a new registration. This practice results in financial default.

Lack of marketing efforts and a negative country image are also great obstacles. The negative country image is solely responsible for the low prices Bangladeshi shrimp commands in the international markets and its failure to increase its market share and acquire new markets.

Inadequate technology and knowledge transfer also impact operations.

Although in recent times, there have been efforts to comply; compliance with HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point) is still not adequate.

Non tariff barriers from the developed world at times are considered inappropriate by local producers. For instance, although EU regulations prohibit child labor, in Bangladesh complete abolition of the practice is impossible as the children are forced to work for their very sustenance mostly at the lowest ladder of the value chain.

EU regulations also necessitate the availability of proper sanitary conditions which most of the farms simply cannot afford. In fact some requirements of the SPS don’t even fall under the standard regulations of health and sanitation. For example in case of golda, the acceptable level for nitrofurans required by the EU is substantially and impractically lower than that approved by general health and sanitation standards. This is a perfect example of inappropriate grounds for rejection by the developed countries. International laws can therefore sometimes be questionable.

Intervention Strategy:

Results of the field level survey suggests that by pursuing an integrated policy, under the current capacity figures, the shrimp production per unit area of land can be raised manifold provided that the current bottle necks are eliminated. It is therefore quite possible to attain the year 2010 export revenue target of $1 billion if the above-mentioned obstacles are overcome.

The study strongly recommends an integrated model for both Golda and Bagda projects. It suggests formation of strategic business units based on clusters incorporating members of value chain.

Strategic business units can be cooperative based, where groups of farmers work together under a commercial umbrella, or individual based where existing agents

- 27 -

are enlisted to disseminate technical information and training to their farmer clients.

Dialogues and forums should be held regularly with exporters and importers to raise and address questionable trade practices and standards.

The government must formulate an integrated agricultural policy to ensure sustainable development in this sector. Enforcement of the policy must be done with the assistance of industry groups.

Instead of working in isolation, the donors should address these problems collaboratively so that transfer of learning and experience is ensured.

Donors should also formulate smooth exit strategies whereby projects are handed over to the private sector after completion.

Ecological protection and gender equity issues can be controlled by working with the aforementioned strategic units to prohibit certain dangerous practices like land grabbing, indiscriminate catching, child labor and participation of women across the value chain, etc.

Mass awareness can be generated on such issues as bio-security by again working through the established industry channels that will benefit from them. These again are the business units and association groups.

The SSOQ and DANIDA models can be applied in this area. The positive aspects of both the models may be applied in the value chain.

The study suggests that implementation of these strategies is quite possible if all the stakeholders in the sector confront them jointly in an integrated fashion. Given the various existing interest groups, there is a fair amount of negotiation and information dissemination that has to be done to ensure implementation success.

- 28 -

Shrimp Culture in Bangladesh with Emphasis on Social and Economic Aspects Financially supported by the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) Project ASEM/1995/039. By Mohammad Alauddin and M. Akhter Hamid Department of Economics, University of Queensland, 4072, Australia.

The Shrimp Industry: Linking the Components

The shrimp industry comprises four sub-sectors: shrimp farms (ghers), shrimp hatcheries, feed mills and shrimp processing plants (Haque 1994). Figure 1 represents sectoral linkages in the shrimp industry. The success of the industry depends on the concurrent development of all these sub-sectors. It is important to note that development, on the other hand, depends on the availability of modern technology, management concepts and finance. The shrimp marketing system is also crucial and comprises a complex chain of agents who are involved in the process from the farm gate to the processing plants. While providing the details of shrimp marketing is beyond the scope of this paper, it is important to mention that the processing plant sub-sector has ultimate command of the marketing system. In other words, this sector has a vertical line of command, which in turn acts on international market signals. Most of the people engaged in shrimp marketing are either directly or indirectly employed by this sub-sector. Often ‘buying houses’ act as negotiators between the exporting and importing companies.

Shrimp hatcheries

About 95% of farm stock come from wild fry catch (Ahmed 1996) and this has implications for biodiversity. Since black tiger shrimp (bagda chingri—P. monodon) is the most targeted species, wild shrimp collectors discard other shrimp and fish species onshore. For every single bagda fry collected from the natural habitat, up to 99 other species of shrimp and finfish could be destroyed (Selim 1994). Realising this, DOF provided plans for construction of about 30 private-sector hatcheries (Selim 1994) 12 of which were under construction in 1995 (Haque 1995). In 1995, there was only one bagda hatchery (out of 10 shrimp hatcheries; DOF 1995) in Bangladesh producing between 20–30 million post larvae. The estimated requirement for the 130,000 h of shrimp farms is 2.6–3.0 billion post larvae and the difference is made up from wild fry (Karim 1995; Rahman and Pal 1995). Mazid (1995) suggested the establishment of a shrimp hatchery village for galda (M. rosenbergii) shrimp which would be specially designed for small farmers with a production capacity of 150,000–200,000 postlarvae/unit/season.

The greatest obstacle to shrimp hatchery technology is the collection of unstressed brood stock from the sea. Unfortunately, there are no definite data on the distribution and abundance of such stock, the state of standing stock (stock assessment by various research teams revealed different results), or the timing of their availability. Khan (1994) quoted a standing stock of 7,000–8,000 t of shrimp, but there is a wide variation in standing stocks reported by several authors (for details see Khan 1994). In

- 29 -

addition, there is no provision for brood stock collection on a commercial basis (Hossain 1995). In 1995, hatcheries relied on the government research vessel, Anusandhani, which catches broodstock from the sea. Largely under-utilized public-sector hatcheries suffer from various management problems that limit their pro-duction(Khan1995).

Shrimp feed mills

There is a shortage of artificial shrimp feed in Bangladesh (Hussain 1994; Hossain 1995; Karim 1995; Khan 1995). Only 6,000 t of shrimp and fish feed are produced locally as opposed to a total requirement of more than 100,000 t (Hussain 1994). Apart from the Bangladesh Fisheries Development Corporation’s fishmeal plant, there is only one other feed mill operating in Mymensingh and a few small-scale local manufacturers of fish feed (Karim and Aftabuzzaman 1995). Shrimp feeds, usually with a shelf-life of about three months, are imported from Thailand and Taiwan. It has been reported that stale feeds are supplied at the farm level, leading to adverse effects on shrimp farming (Karim and Aftabuzzaman 1995). Consequently, most farmers rely on natural feed and their farms suffer from lower productivity.

Processing plants

There is a big mismatch between the raw material requirements of shrimp processing plants and the supply of farmed shrimp. As of 1994, while there was a requirement of 156,000 t of shrimp to utilize the maximum production capacity of 93 plants, the sup-ply was only about 20,000 t, resulting in only 13% utilization of plant capacity (Haque 1994).

Further, Hussain (1994) pointed out that the processing industry had a 500% overgrowth in capacity as compared to raw material production. He added that in 1992–93, only 32 plants were under production. In 1994, most of the plants were out of operation, mainly due to the lack of raw material supply. He argued that factors such as an unplanned credit system, liberal attitudes of financial institutions towards this industry, expectations of some stakeholders to make quick fortunes, and easy availability of loans to build plants, were the main reasons for this unpleasant situation.

- 30 -

Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Barriers to Trade and its Impact on the Environment The Case of Shrimp Farming in Bangladesh By A. K. Enamul Haque North South University, Dhaka Trade Knowledge Network Paper 2004 http://www.tradeknowledgenetwork.net

Executive Summary 1. Shrimp is the second largest source of export from Bangladesh. In the late 1980s, the shrimp industry grew out of a major non-traditional item of export from Bangladesh. Commercial culture of shrimp increased rapidly in the coastal belt of Bangladesh and it went through several stages of transformation. 2. There are now approximately 37,397 farms cultivating bagda (tiger shrimp) with an average farm size of 4.5 ha. Twenty-five thousand tons of bagda was produced in 2001. Bagda production has increased by 20 per cent per annum in the last fifteen years. There are 124 shrimp processing factories in Bangladesh sited mostly in Khulna and Chittagong and about 60 hatcheries, mostly in Cox’s Bazar. There are also 30,000 ha of land under galda (sweet water shrimp) production that produced 11,942 tons in 2001. Because galda farms are generally smaller than bagda mud (averaging 0.28 ha and four ha respectively), they support a greater proportion of poor and marginal farmers. 3. There are 105,000 galda farms, mostly located in the Khulna division although this method of cultivation is spreading rapidly in other parts of Bangladesh. Unlike brackish water cultivation of bagda (tiger shrimp, Penaeus monodon), freshwater galda cultivation is not restricted to the coastal regions and is expanding at a rate of 10–20 per cent per annum. Moreover, galda shrimp (fresh water scampi, Marobhrachium rosenbergii) farming is usually done on family farms by small farmers who have transformed their tiny plots of agricultural land into shrimp-cum-rice farms. 4. There are 600,000 people employed in the shrimp sector in Bangladesh generating US$301 million annually, from bagda and galda farms (US$243 million from bagda alone). Yet the industry suffers from significant production inefficiencies and is exposed to important social and environmental risks. 5. One of the risks has emerged out of sanitary and phyto-sanitary agreements and subsequent standardization of production and processing methods using HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point) methods. As of now, HACCP is applied on the processing plants, but to ensure the quality of production and to reduce risks, shrimp farms are also required to adopt HACCP methods. Processing plants, being the large investors and the ultimate risk taker in the business, have already adopted the procedures mentioned in HACCP, but it has been quite difficult for them to impose the same on the small shrimp farms. Overall, the industry is in crisis—low production capacity at plants and very low yields at the shrimp farms. 6. The farming community lacks capital, education, and also motivation to accept changes under the current market conditions. This study has shown that, while most

- 31 -

of the shrimp farmers are aware of the risks in the business, they are also not very active to adopt the standards. It was also found that most farmers need to be trained regarding the impact on shrimp quality of the use of chemicals during crop production. 7. Using field data, the study developed a simulation exercise to show that, under the current situation, the trend in the industry is toward intensive shrimp farming. This will threaten the ecosystem and the social fabric in rural Bangladesh and increase social conflicts. Consequently, an alternative strategy has been devised and found feasible. 8. The alternative is to provide training to the farmers and make them aware of the risks in the business, create meaningful liaison with the processing plants and reduce inefficiencies in production. This is a more socially-desirable response to resolve the current crisis in the industry. 9. The result of the study was presented at a national workshop in Dhaka and during presentation of the report at the workshop it was further observed that stakeholders of the shrimp industry lack a common understanding of their roles and responsibilities. Moreover, there exists severe mistrust between the farmers and the processors. High rate of marketing margin is also a genuine problem. These are all rooted in the overall lack of awareness and information at the primary level of production. It is, therefore, suggested that a multi-stakeholder dialogue process may be initiated by a neutral organization to buildup the trust between them. The objective of the dialogue will also include developing a common policy prescription for the industry to make it environmentally sustainable. For further clarification, author recommends following studies:

An Evaluation of The Bangladesh Agro-Based Industries And Technology Development Project (ATDP II).Submitted to: United States Agency for International Development/Bangladesh; Under: Evaluation IQC No. AEP-I-00-00-00023-00 Task Order No. 855. Submitted by: Development Associates, Inc. 1730 N. Lynn St. Arlington, VA 22209

EU Ban on Shrimp Imports from Bangladesh: A Case Study on Market Access Problems Faced by the LDCs by Professor Mustafizur Rahman

Challenges facing the Shrimp Industry in Bangladesh Claire Fleming American International School/Dhaka. Senior Project 2004

Policy Research – Implications of Liberalization of Fish Trade for Developing Countries. A Case Study for Bangladesh Fish Trade Liberalization in Bangladesh: Implications of SPS Measures and Eco-Labelling for the Export-Oriented Shrimp Sector by Fahmida Khatun,Project PR 26109,July 2004. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, Rome.(Regional workshop on commodity export diversification and poverty reduction in south and south-east Asia, (Bangkok, 3-5 April, 2001) organized by UNCTAD in cooperation with ESCAP)

Part-III Shrimp In Bangladesh

- 32 -

3.0 Shrimp In Bangladesh: Background

In the early seventies, Bangladesh entered the global export market for shrimp. This

aquatic animal, which was locally much cheaper than any other seafood, suddenly

became a very high priced commodity. Since then, much attention has been focused

on increasing shrimp production. (Karim, 2003). Initially, the public sector efforts

concentrated on exploitation of the shrimp from the sea by employing trawlers which

were not only costly to buy and import, but also expensive to operate. The increasing

demand and steadily rising prices of shrimp encouraged its cultivation in the coastal

belt of the country.

Once it got started with some success, the practices expanded very quickly, and with

cheap land and cheap labor, shrimp farming expanded phenomenally. By 1982-83, the

shrimp farming area occupied nearly 52,000 hectares, and by 1986 had spread to over

115,000 hectares. (Karim, 2003). Currently, an area of an estimated 160,000 Ha is

under shrimp farming, although actual numbers may differ somewhat. Of the total

shrimp farming area, some 30,000 ha is fresh water shrimp farming while the rest is

devoted to marine shrimp farming. The main districts in which marine shrimp are

being farmed include Satkhira, Khulna, Bagerhat and Cox’s Bazar. The main Fresh

water shrimp farming districts are Khulna, Bagerhat, Jessore, Narail, Gopalganj,

Pirojpur and Noakhali. More or less 80% of the shrimp farming areas are in the

country’s southwestern region while the rest are in the southeastern part.

Shrimp is the second most important export item to Bangladesh. The cultured

(cultivated) shrimp constitutes more than 95% of the total shrimp export. The main

cultured species is the tiger shrimp (locally known as bagda shrimp) of which the

technical name is Penaeus monodon. It is a marine shrimp and is cultivated in

brackish water. The next most important export is the fresh water species, locally

called galda, technically known as Macrobrachium rosenbergii.

Large-scale shrimp cultivation is a relatively new phenomenon to the country. Coastal

shrimp aquaculture in Bangladesh was greatly aided by the country’s unique natural

features, including large areas of low-lying tidal land, a favorable environment, and a

high market demand and economic returns (WARPO, 2003). Table 1 refers to exports

- 33 -

of shrimp from the major exporting countries in the world. Notice that Bangladesh is

ranked eighth by value.

Table 1. Export of shrimp from the major exporting countries in 1998 by volume and value. (Ranked in

order of importance). Volume (1,000 mt) Value ($ US millions) Thailand 247.2 Thailand 2306.6 Indonesia 128.0 Indonesia 864.0 Ecuador 115.0 Ecuador 857.1 Norway 152.3 India 761.2 India 101.4 Mexico 494.6 Denmark 75.2 Viet Nam 4 01.5 VietNam 50.8 Denmark 379.0 Mexico 46.9 Bangladesh 246.6 China 43.1 Netherlands 213.5 Netherlands 43.1 China 206.8 Greenland 43.0 Iceland 191.6 Canada 36.7 Greenland 171.1 Iceland 32.0 Canada 170.9 Malaysia 27.6 Argentina 167.4 Norway 27.3 Malaysia 158.1 UK 23.8 Belgium 155.4 Argentina 23.4 Norway 152.3 Bangladesh 23.0 UK 145.4

Note. From The Coastal shrimp sector in Bangladesh (36), Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS), 2001, Dhaka, Bangladesh: Author.

Bagda

“There are around 38,000 Bagda ghers in Bangladesh.” (WARPO, 2003). Bagda

farms are mostly rice fields converted into shrimp ponds varying in size from .4 to

200 ha. (Banks, 2002). Most of the shrimp farmers are not permanent residents of the

areas in which their ghers are situated; even the local big landowners typically lease

their land to outside entrepreneurs. Although both types of farming are profitable, the

larger scale Bagda exports bring in the lion’s share of foreign exchange, second only

to ready-made garments. Because it requires saline water throughout the entire

process, Bagda farms cause more damage to the soil and the environment.

- 34 -

Galda

There are about 105,000 freshwater prawn farms in Bangladesh’s “Shrimp Region,”

the average size of the farms being approximately .3 ha. (WARPO, 2003). Galda

farming has increased quite rapidly in recent years, and because it tends to be on a

smaller scale, and the prawns are grown in freshwater that can often be re-used three

or four times, the environmental impact is much less than in Bagda farming. Galda

shrimp are cultured in ponds and ghers. “The practice of integrated farming of prawn

with rice, fish, and vegetables is spreading, particularly among small-scale farmers,

providing a year-round supply of crops for family subsistence, supplemented by a

cash crop (Galda).” (U.S. Agency for International Development, 2003). An

interesting fact about Galda shrimp is that unlike Bagda, they are always de-headed

before selling, as the heads are part of the diet of farm households. (Williams & Khan,

2003).

Shrimp Farming: A Brief History

Shrimp farming itself is not a new phenomenon in the southwestern region of

Bangladesh. Farmers used to construct shallow, seasonal enclosures on the banks of

rivers and canals, to grow brackish water finfish and Bagda shrimp as an extra source

of income. They also cultivated fresh water Galda prawns.

In the 1960s, the government felt the need to enhance the country’s domestic rice

production to feed its rapidly increasing population. Fortunately, this coincided with

the development of High Yielding Varieties (HYV) of grain. (Coastal Development

Partnership [CDP], 2003). To expand the area of cultivable land for rice productivity,

the tidal flood plains of the southwestern region were then converted into permanent

fresh water areas by building high embankments to create polders as well as by

closing many canals, especially in the Khulna region. (Tutu, 2001). Eventually, due to

large quantities of silt deposits in the riverbeds and to the embankments blocking the

flood plains, water logging occurred and then spread from the north to the south,

becoming a permanent feature of the region. With no agricultural alternative, a few

farmers experimented with “small-scale shrimp cultivation in their water-logged

plots.” Their success encouraged others and the practice [began to] spread gradually.

(Tutu, 2001).

- 35 -

Reasons For Growth Of The Sector

“International pressure on wild, caught species, increasing global incomes, importing

significant quantities of seafood products, and a strengthening demand in these

countries, have all combined to result in a steady rise in international prices for

shrimp, and the growing importance for cultured shrimp.” (Bangladesh Centre for

Advanced Studies, 2001). When the demand for shrimp began to increase during the

80s, the proportion of Bagda shrimp also began to increase gradually, and ultimately

dominated the economy of the brackish water regions of the southwest. The source of

the demand was from foreign buyers and specifically from consumers’ preference for

that kind of shrimp, i.e. “Tiger shrimp.” Bagda shrimp cultivation was started in these

regions on a comparatively large scale, extensive basis and has remained that way.

In 1984, the percent of global shrimp supply from wild capture fisheries was

approximately 20% higher than it is today and is continuing to decline – although it

has been steady in recent years. This decline in wild fry collection has been another

factor in the growth of the cultivated shrimp industry. Another major reason for the

development of the shrimp industry in Bangladesh is government assistance to the

sector through bank loans, tax breaks, technical expertise, etc. Over the past 30 years,

production has been increasing in response to strong international demand and rising

prices, and like many export-oriented industries, profitability is extremely sensitive to

changes in international prices, therefore the recent dip in prices is having significant

impacts on the profitability of shrimp processing industries in Bangladesh. (BCAS,

2001).

Bangladesh also has certain natural factors that have favored the growth of the shrimp

industry. Compared to other shrimp-producing countries, this country is fortunate to

have a large inter-tidal range and broad low-lying areas of land, meaning that water

circulation can be achieved through natural tidal fluctuations without artificial

pumping. This greatly reduces costs. (BCAS, 2001).

- 36 -

Shrimp Cultivation

Bangladeshi shrimp culture is practiced in brackish water, saltwater, and freshwater.

The two main cultivated species are Bagda shrimp (Tiger shrimp) and Galda (Giant

Freshwater prawn). (Banks, 2002). While these are the two main varieties of shrimp, a

small amount of other shrimp species are also harvested. Because of poor screening,

other species of wild shrimp get trapped in the tidal pools. Two systems are currently

in operation: extensive gher (or pond) culture, which is used to produce the marine

and brackish water species of shrimp, and fresh water gher culture used to produce

prawn. The average marine aquaculture farm is 4.5 ha, while the fresh water ponds on

inland farms are usually no greater than 0.3 ha. (Banks, 2002).

In order to understand the production process more clearly, a brief description of the

four key stages in shrimp cultivation is necessary. Please refer to Table 2 for the

estimated number of people employed in selected areas of the sector.

Table 2. Estimated employment in selected areas of the shrimp sector. Employment

Persons employed

effective months

Galda farm owner 105,000 8 Bagda farm owner 80,000 8 Bagda farm worker 130,000 8 Galda farm worker 105,000 8 Shrimp hatchery owner 60 12 Bagda hatchery worker 500 6 Galda hatchery worker 100 6 Wild hatchling and fry collectors 250,000 6 Fry transporters, trader 30,000 5 Bagda and Galda nursery operators 300 6 Shrimp depot works 35,000 8 Shrimp processing casual workers 24,000 8 Shrimp processing permanent workers 6,000 12 Total 765,960 Note. From The coastal shrimp sector in Bangladesh (23), by Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS), 2001, Dhaka, Bangladesh: Author.

In the first stage, the fry (or larvae) are either collected in the wild from the rivers

(using one of four principal types of nets: the pull net, push net, bag net, or shooting

net) or they are produced in hatcheries. (Department of Fisheries, 2003). Wild fry

collection in general is still preferred by farmers, but there is a strong opposition to

- 37 -

this practice, and has been officially banned by the government because “biodiversity

is being negatively impacted by the capture of fry and destruction of by-catch.”

(WARPO, 2003). In practice however, wild fry collection continues. Secondly, the fry

are sold to agents in local markets, small local businessmen who sell to agents, and

occasionally directly to the shrimp farms. In the third stage, the fry are grown in ghers

(ponds of brackish water) in shrimp farms, which vary in size from 1 to 600 hectares.

Work on shrimp farms includes building gher walls, guarding the shrimp from

thieves, and catching the shrimp. Lastly, all harvested shrimp are collected in depots

to ready them for onward export processing or local consumption. (Delap & Lugg,

1998). This involves de-heading and cleaning the shrimp and subsequent freezing and

packaging.

EU Ban On Imports Of Bangladesh Shrimp: 1

In July, 1997 the European Commission imposed a ban on imports of shrimp products

from Bangladesh into the EU on the ground that exports of this commodity did not

meet the stringent provisions of EC's HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control

Point) regulations. The ban originated from (a) concerns as regards standards in areas

related to health safeguards, quality control, infrastructure and hygiene in the

processing units, and (b) lack of trust in the efficiency of the controlling measures

carried out by designated authorities in Bangladesh, in this particular case, the

Department of Fisheries (DOF). The ban was imposed following EU inspection of

Bangladesh's seafood processing plants in July 1997 which raised questions as regards

compliance with HACCP regulations in the processing plants in Bangladesh.The

visiting team also expressed its doubt with respect to reliability and efficiency of the

controlling function of the GOB inspectors. The EC determined that "consuming

fishery products processed in Bangladesh posed a significant risk to public health in

EU member countries”. Thus, both the firms and the GOB were put on the dock. The

ban put the country's shrimp export industry under severe strain, and led to serious

market disruptions from which the country is still trying to recover.

1 EU Ban on Shrimp Imports from Bangladesh: A Case Study on Market Access Problems Faced by the

LDCs by Professor Mustafizur Rahman

- 38 -

International Standards And Regulatory Requirements:

Shrimp processed for global markets has to comply with the international standards

and has to meet buyer specifications as well as the regulatory requirements of the

importing country. Unfortunately, as in may other LDCs, Bangladesh have difficulty

in meeting with the required safety standards and quality requirements.

Problems with quality compliance arise at pre-processing phase at the stage of

handling of raw shrimp (harvesting, sorting by size and color, removal of heads and

peeling which are often carried out under conditions and facilities that are unsuitable

from hygiene perspective) and also at processing stage (absence of high quality water

and ice, irregular electricity supply, poor infrastructure and transportation facility)

which seriously constrain Bangladeshi firms' ability to pursue modern sanitary

practices. As is the case in other LDCs, Bangladeshi plants do not have sufficient

funds to invest in expensive mechanical equipment, fishing boats, quality control

measures and adequately trained staff. The GOB's governance capacity to design,

implement and monitor quality and safety compliance is also very weak.

Value Chain In The Shrimp Industry:

Value Chain in Shrimp industry starts with the collecting activities of the brood

mother from the deep sea or the collecting activities of the fry (or larvae); collected in

the wild from the rivers (using one of four principal types of nets: the pull net, push

net, bag net, or shooting net) or they are produced in hatcheries. Hatchery owners

usually contact with foreign experts from India, Thailand etc for collecting the brood

mother from the sea. Sea plane, motorboat etc is used for the means of transport. The

concerns related quality-control and bio-hazard is present at some hatchery-level-

activities. After producing the

PL (Post Larvae) at hatchery, the activities are transferred to the farmers through the

agents/dealers. The farmers directly culture the fry without treating the water. Most of

the times, the way they feed and use antibiotic doesn’t meet the safety regulations.

- 39 -

Importer

Processing Industry

Agent/Trader

Depot

Farmer

Agent/Trader

Hatchery

Transport Air/Motorboat

Brood Parent

Transport (Air/Road)

Post Larvae

Department of Fisheries Shrimp Technologist Facilitating Agency Financial Agency

Donor Agency Association Laboratory

After harvesting, shrimp is brought to the agents or depot for sale. Small agents or

depots supply these shrimp to large depots or to the processing industries. Amazing

factor here in the value chain is that, almost every phase of the chain, there persist

agents/trader/middleman who don’t care about this industry and/or know very poor

about the bio-hazard and safety regulations. Another important value chain

component is the transport system. It consists of air, water and road. Finally, the

processing industry exports the processed shrimp to the importing country.

Secondary studies extensively indicate that the Shrimp industry of Bangladesh is

severely disintegrated at each level of the value chain. And insufficient infrastructure

and monitoring body, ignorance and various kinds of problems prevail at almost every

level of the value chain.

The value chain in the shrimp industry is provided below:

- 40 -

Recent Developments In The Shrimp Industry

One of the ways of developments is through a new closed fresh water shrimp

cultivation method, launched in 2003 by the USAID-funded Agro-based industries

and Technology Development Project (ATDP) that provides “technical assistance for

the promotion of virus-free shrimp farming in Bangladesh,” which is now bringing

hope to many farmers.2 The method reuses and recycles water rather than discharging

it and letting new water in, which greatly reduces risk to local shrimp farms suffering

from repeated virus attacks. “The closed system works by allowing the water in the

shrimp pond to be purified through chlorination.”2 The new method can also

significantly increase yield production over the traditional methods of farming,

increasing yields by up to ten times. By increasing yields ten-fold, it takes enormous

pressure off the land and so greatly reduces the need to expand aquaculture, thereby

limiting its impact on the environment. It may reduce water resource utilization as

well.2 “This technology will be crucial for the country, especially as international

buyers have imposed certain restrictions on imports from Bangladesh to ensure high-

quality and disease-free shrimp, produced in an environmentally and socially sound

way. ATDP has developed a program that offers farmers and producers the

opportunity to begin cultivating high-quality, disease-free shrimp with reduced

negative social and environmental impacts”2. This model program offers new

technology and a new approach to cultivating shrimp.

Future Steps

Within the next couple of years, there will be a lot of changes within the shrimp sector

(hopefully for the better!) and it’s crucial and would be very interesting to continue

researching these changes because of the great impact they will have on so many

people. Because shrimp farming is a relatively new industry to Bangladesh, and is still

growing and developing, it will be interesting to see if it survives and how it changes

to meet international standards and, in so doing, provide a model for other sectors of

the economy, which it definitely has the potential to do.

2: Md.Al-Masud, Extension Specialist; ATDP-Shrimp Seal of Quality, House no. G-3, Jalil Sarani, Boyra,

Khulna-9000

Part-IV

Analysis &Findings

- 41 -

4.1. General Tendency of the Respondents:

Meeting with the theoretical expectation, at least 60% of all categories of respondents

were found aware about the problems. Highest 78% respondents are aware about the

non-existent facilities for the WSSV virus testing (q.4) and Lowest 60% respondents

are aware about the poor access to the industry related information (q.9) and almost

nonexistent research and development endeavor (q.15). On the average, 66.875% of

the respondents are aware about the industry embedded problems.

Among the 16 problem analysis, 3 of them were found significant and the rest was

found insignificant in the analysis of frequency distribution. And the of Difference

among the cluster members opinion on a specific issue was found insignificant.

Agreed Responses:

A B C D E F G Total Response Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Q.01 4 7 7 22 8 7 8 63 Q.02 7 6 6 20 8 6 8 61 Q.03 5 8 8 27 11 7 7 73 Q.04 9 10 8 28 8 7 8 78 Q.05 6 10 6 18 9 8 9 66 Q.06 7 10 7 14 9 8 8 63 Q.07 7 11 6 18 10 8 9 69 Q.08 6 10 6 22 8 8 8 68 Q.09 5 8 6 18 9 6 8 60 Q.10 7 8 6 19 9 7 8 64 Q.11 7 9 8 22 10 6 9 71 Q.12 7 9 7 17 11 8 7 66 Q.13 6 9 6 18 9 6 8 62 Q.14 7 10 7 20 10 7 9 70 Q.15 5 9 6 19 9 6 6 60 Q.16 8 11 8 26 7 8 8 76

Mean 66.875

- 42 -

4.2. Hypothetical 60% Mass Members Awareness Toward The

Industry-Embedded Problems:

Problem 01. PL (Post Larvae) supplied by the hatcheries is of low quality.

Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the low quality PL

supplied by the hatcheries.

Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 5.694 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.Since the

Calculated χ2 value < Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is accepted.

That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are well aware about the poor

quality PL supplied by the hatcheries.

Problem 02. There are very poor control activities in the shrimp industry.

Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the poor control activities

in the shrimp industry.

Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 4.374 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.Since the

Calculated χ2 value < Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is accepted.

That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are well aware about the poor

control activities in the shrimp industry

.

- 43 -

Problem 03. Shrimp culture is hampered by high mortality rate.

Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the high mortality rate in

shrimp culture.

Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 13.68 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.Since the

Calculated χ2 value > Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is rejected.

That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are not well aware about the high

mortality rate in shrimp culture.

.

Problem 04. Facility for WSSV (white spot syndrome virus) screening is almost nonexistent.

Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the nonexistent facility for

WSSV (white spot syndrome virus) screening

Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 21.528 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.Since the

Calculated χ2 value > Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is rejected.

That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are not well aware about the

nonexistent facility for WSSV (white spot syndrome virus) screening.

Problem 05. Infrastructure and culture technology are poor.

Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the poor infrastructure and

cultural technology.

Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 5.485 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.Since the

Calculated χ2 value < Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is accepted.

That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are well aware about the poor

infrastructure and cultural technology.

- 44 -

Problem.06 There are lack of quality and safe feed supply.

Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the poor and unsafe feed

supply.

Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 6.664 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.Since the

Calculated χ2 value < Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is accepted.

That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are well aware about the poor

infrastructure and cultural technology.

Problem.07 Wild brood-stock population is declining due to over fishing and lack of

concentration.

Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the declining wild brood-stock population due to over fishing and lack of concentration.

Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 6.803 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.Since the

Calculated χ2 value < Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is accepted.

That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are well aware about the declining wild brood-stock population due to over fishing and lack of concentration.

Problem.08 There is no suitable credit support to entrepreneurs of limited financial

capacities.

Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the lack of suitable credit support to entrepreneurs of limited financial capacities.

Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 6.108 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.Since the

Calculated χ2 value < Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is accepted.

That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are well aware about the lack of suitable credit support to entrepreneurs of limited financial capacities.

- 45 -

Problem.09 Access to the industry related information is poor.

Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the poor access to the industry related information.

Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 1.318 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.Since the

Calculated χ2 value < Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is accepted.

That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are well aware about the poor access to the industry related information.

Problem.10 There is inefficient management practice in this industry.

Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the inefficient management practice in this industry.

Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 2.498 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.Since the Calculated χ2 value < Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is accepted.

That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are well aware about the inefficient management practice in this industry.

Problem.11 There is inadequate backward linkage for the poor; i.e. Appropriate farming technology. Institutional and supervised credit at reasonable terms. Adequate and good quality PL, fertilizer and feed in time. Good infrastructure: rural road, electricity, etc. Security of crop under cultivation and law and order.

Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the inadequate backward linkage for the poor

Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 6.248 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.Since the Calculated χ2 value < Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is accepted.

That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are well aware about the inadequate backward linkage for the poor.

- 46 -

Problem.12 There is generally weak forward linkage; i.e. Inadequate post-harvest handling, transportation and preservation. Poor market linkage of the producers. Inadequate research on export market. Producers do not get fair price.

Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the generally weak forward linkage in the shrimp industry.

Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 3.956 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.Since the Calculated χ2 value < Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is accepted.

That is, 60% of the stakeholders are well aware about the generally weak forward linkage in the shrimp industry.

Problem.13 There is lack of standard and lack of traceability in the whole supply

chain.

Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the lack of standard and

lack of traceability in the whole supply chain in the shrimp industry.

Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 0.833 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.Since the Calculated χ2 value < Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is accepted.

That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are well aware about the lack of

standard and lack of traceability in the whole supply chain.

Problem.14 There is lack of monitoring of compliance on the part of the government.

Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the lack of monitoring of

compliance on the part of the government in the shrimp industry.

Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 5.275 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.

Since the Calculated χ2 value < Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is accepted.

That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are well aware about the lack of

monitoring of compliance on the part of the government.

- 47 -

Problem.15 Research and development (R&D) endeavor is almost nonexistent.

Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware about the lack of research and

development (R&D) endeavors in the shrimp industry.

Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 0.346 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.

Since the Calculated χ2 value < Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is accepted.

That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are well aware about the lack of

research and development (R&D) endeavors in this industry.

Problem.16 Unfair practices by the shrimp agents are hampering export market.

Null Hypothesis: 60% of the stakeholders are aware that unfair practices by the

shrimp agents are hampering export market.

Decision: Calculated χ2 value = 17.774 and Table value of χ2 =9.488.

Since the Calculated χ2 value >Tabular χ2 value, the null hypothesis is rejected.

That is, 60% of the stakeholders of shrimp industry are not well aware about the fact

that unfair practices by the shrimp agents are hampering export market.

.

- 48 -

4.3. The Significance of The Difference Among The Cluster Members

Opinion On Specific Issues: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the awareness level

of the various clusters members of the industry on a specific issue.

4.3.1 Facilities Issue

Null Hypothesis: The difference among the cluster members opinion on facilities issue is

insignificant, i.e. µa= µb =......= µg.

Decision: Calculated F-ratio was found 0.133 and the critical value of F is 3.01 at the

0.05 level for 3 and 24 degrees of freedom. Since calculated F < critical F, we accept the

null hypothesis that the difference among the cluster members opinion on facilities issue

is insignificant, i.e. µa= µb =......= µg.

4.3.2 Monitoring Issue

Null Hypothesis: The difference among the cluster members opinion on monitoring

issue is insignificant, i.e. µa= µb =......= µg.

Decision: Calculated F-ratio was found 0.185 and the critical value of F is 3.01 at the

0.05 level for 3 and 24 degrees of freedom. Since calculated F < critical F, we accept the

null hypothesis that the difference among the cluster members opinion on monitoring

issue is insignificant, i.e. µa= µb =......= µg.

4.3.3 Quality Issue

Null Hypothesis: The difference among the cluster members opinion on quality issue is

insignificant, i.e. µa= µb =......= µg.

Decision: Calculated F-ratio was found 0.0105 and the critical value of F is 3.01 at the

0.05 level for 3 and 24 degrees of freedom. Since calculated F < critical F, we accept the

null hypothesis that the difference among the cluster members opinion on quality issue is

insignificant, i.e. µa= µb =......= µg.

- 49 -

4.3.4 Technology Issue

Null Hypothesis: The difference among the cluster members opinion on technology

issue is insignificant, i.e. µa= µb =......= µg.

Decision: Calculated F-ratio was found 0.232and the critical value of F is 3.01 at the

0.05 level for 3 and 24 degrees of freedom. Since calculated F < critical F, we accept the

null hypothesis that the difference among the cluster members opinion on technology

issue is insignificant, i.e. µa= µb =......= µg.

Part-V Conclusion and Recommendations

- 50 -

5.1 Conclusion

Problems identified and analyzed in this report are persistent in the shrimp industry

without any doubt. But the severe level of illiteracy of most of the cluster members is

the main reason for the significant difference in the hypothetical level of the problem

and the actual stakeholders’ awareness level toward the problems. Besides, lack of

monitoring, widespread corruption and the absence of an integrated policy for this

industry are also the reason. The disintegrated supply chain of the industry is also to

blame.

The focus of this study was entirely on the perception of the most valuable

stakeholders. It is a mix of both qualitative and quantitative approach which used

two popular statistical tools for analyzing and comparing the population static. The

result of this study is usable only in the insight of the problems in this industry. Use of

this result to draw an inference about these cluster members degree of awareness

would be completely wrong since the result was drawn from comparing with a

hypothetical idea found in the secondary study.

5.2 Recommendation

Mass level of the stakeholders need institutional and industry education immediately.

Activities like training programs, seminars, trade-fair etc are still in the initial level

and done on small project base. Industry wise expansion of these kinds of activities

should be taken into account immediately. Involvement of the GOB need to be

increased to a high extent. Problem area including high mortality rate, virus screening

facility and the unfair practices should be taken into account for the both operative

and strategic level immediately. To identify the exact extent of these problems, further

study should be conducted.

Enforcement of food safety outside the government should be explored. Neither GOB

nor industry has been able to ensure shrimp exports are food safe. ATDP’s shrimp

seal of quality (SSOQ) program offers an alternative to government enforcement as

- 51 -

this third party voluntary certification program has more credibility with international

shrimp importers than government or exporters do. Following special measures

should be taken immediately:

Introduction of quality certification system at all levels of the shrimp and fish

based industry to ensure food safety, traceability, environmental sustainability and

social responsibility is needed.

All local manufacturers or importers of shrimp feeds must certify on the body of

feed bag or package that the feed does not contain any EU and USFDA prohibited

antibiotics or other chemicals.

Feed manufacturers should be allowed to import duty free any essential

ingredients not locally available.

Affordable rate of interest, easy repayment schedule should be introduced for the

entrepreneurs.

Vocational training centers should be established at strategic aquaculture locations

for hands-on training in aquaculture, post-harvest handling and processing.

All aquaculture related research facilities and manpower should be inventoried to

identify the strength and any short-fall for better future planning of research

Appendices

- 52 -

References

Haque, M.M. 1995. Bangladesh’s fisheries sector at a glance. In: Fisheries Fortnight ’95 Bulletin: Karbo Mora Macher Chash Thakbo Sukhe Baro Mash. Dhaka, Department of Fisheries (in Bengali). Haque, S.M. 1994. Annual report of Bangladesh Frozen Foods Exporters Associations (BFFEA). Dhaka, BFFEA Special Bulletin, January 1994. Hossain, M.A. 1995. Lagsai projucti proege upakulya chingri chash unnayan. In: Fisheries Fortnight ’95 Bulletin: Karbo Mora Macher Chash Thakbo Sukhe Baro Mash. Dhaka, Department of Fisheries (in Bengali). Hussain, M.M. 1994. Status of development of the fishery and seafood processing industry in Bangladesh. In: Sustainable development of marine fisheries resources in Bangladesh. Mymenshingh, Fisheries Research Institute. Karim, M. 1986. Brackish water shrimp culture demonstration in Bangladesh. Madras, Bay of Bengal Programme for Fisheries Development, FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Karim, M. 1995. Some aspects of shrimp culture development and management. A paper presented at Fish Fortnight 1995, August 29, Dhaka. Karim, M. and Aftabuzzaman 1995. Brackish and marine water aquaculture: potential, constraints and management needs for sustainable development. A paper presented at the National Workshop on Fisheries Resources, Development and Management,Dhaka, October 1995. Khan, M.G. 1994. Present status and future plan for sustainable marine resources development. In: Sustainable Development of Marine Fisheries Resources in Bangladesh. Mymensingh, Fisheries Research Institute. Mazid, M.A. 1994. Environmental issues and aquaculture development in Bangladesh. Country Paper, presented at the Final Workshop, FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. Mazid, M.A. 1995. Matshya o chingri chash unnayaner janna gabesanalavda lagshai projuctir utvaban, prayash ebang prosar”. In Fisheries Fortnight ’95 Bulletin, Karbo Mora Macher Chash Thakbo Sukhe Baro Mas. Dhaka, Department of Fisheries (in Bengali). Rahman, M. and Pal, S.C. 1995. Bagda chingri hatchery babasthapana. In: Fisheries Fortnight ’95 Bulletin: Karbo Mora Macher Chash Thakbo Sukhe Baro Mas. Dhaka,Department of Fisheries (in Bengali). Selim, N.M. 1994. Development of ‘bagda’ hatchery as a strategy for acceleration of shrimp aquaculture as an industry in Bangladesh. Dhaka, BFFEA (Bangladesh Frozen Foods Exporters Associations Special Bulletin), January 1994.

Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS). (2002). The coastal shrimp sector in Bangladesh. Dhaka, Bangladesh.

- 53 -

Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS). (2001). The costs and benefits of bagda shrimp farming in Bangladesh. Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Banks, R. (2002). Brackish and marine water aquaculture. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Government Printing Office.

Coastal Development Partnership (CDP). (2003). Adverse effects of shrimp aquaculture, potential solutions, measures to ensure participation of smallholders, and role of the government. Khulna, Bangladesh.

Delap, E. & Lugg, R. (1998). Not small fry: children’s work in Bangladesh’s shrimp industry. Save the Children Fund (UK), London.

Department of Fisheries. (2003). Balancing resource conservation with livelihood protection for shrimp fry collectors: an integrated approach to managing coastal resources. Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Karim, Mahmudul. (2003). A gross oversimplification: Stop blaming shrimp. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Shrimp Seal of Quality Organization.

Williams, D. & Khan, N. A. (2003). Freshwater prawn farming in gher systems: indigenous technology developed in south-west Bangladesh. GOLDA Project, CARE Bangladesh.

Tutu, Asharaf-ul-Alam. (2001, April). Industrial shrimp cultivation and related issues in respect to south-west coastal region of Bangladesh. Khulna, Bangladesh: Coastal Development Partnership (CDP).

Water Resources Planning Organization (WARPO). (2003). Integrated coastal zone management plan project: a systems analysis of shrimp production. Dhaka, Bangladesh.

Bangladesh Shrimp Exports Poised To Soar with U.S. Assistance, August 10, 2005(USAID-funded project aiding production of quality shrimp) By Afzal Khan.

EU Ban on Shrimp Imports from Bangladesh: A Case Study on Market Access Problems Faced by the LDCs by Professor Mustafizur Rahman.

Quazi Kudrat-e-Kabir, SSOQ’s regional director in Khulna, Bangladesh.

Md.Al-Masud, SSOQ’s extension expert in Khulna, Bangladesh.

Dr.Anisul Haque, Associate Professor of FMRT discipline, Khulna University.

- 54 -

Bibliography

William G. Zikmund, Business Research Methodology (7th edition).

Naresh K. Malhotra, Marketing Research: An applied orientation (2004).

C R Kothari, Research Methodology: Methods & Techniques (2nd edition).

S.P. Gupta & M.P. Gupta, Business Statistics (2005-2006).

M.C. Shukla & S.S. Gulshan, Statistics Theory and Practice

Raymond V. Lesikar & Marie E. Flatley,Basic Business Communication. 10th edition.McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Electronic Source:

http://www.bcas.net

http://www.bcas.net

http//:www.epb.gov.bd

http//:www.bffea.org

http//:www.cpd-bangladesh.org

http://www.uow.edu.au/research

http://www.bangladeshobserveronline.com/new/2003/10/27/economic.htm

retrieved on 4/10/2006

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3034993.stm retrieved on

4/10/2006

http://www.bssnews.net/index.php?genID=BSS-09-2004-05-26&id=7 retrieved

on 4/10/2006

http://www.usaid.gov/bd/files/atdp_2_shrimp_evaluation.doc retrieved on

26/9/2006

http://www.bcas.net/Publication/Documentation/PORESSFAfinal.pdf retrieved

on 26/9/2006

http://www.bcas.net/Publication/Documentation/Women&ChildrenStudy-Report.pdf retrieved on 26/9/2006

http://www.usaid.gov/bd/files/atdp_2_shrimp_report.doc retrieved on

26/9/2006

http://www.nri.org/projects/fishtrade/bangladesh.pdf retrieved on 26/9/2006

Annex 1: Survey Questionnaire

Stakeholders Awareness Toward The Embedded Problems of The shrimp Industry: A Study On The South West Region Of Bangladesh.

----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------

i

Dear Respondent, This questionnaire is designed to complete an exclusive research work. Your cooperation would be highly appreciated. Information you provide here would be kept confidential and used for academic purpose only. Thank you for your cooperation. Designation/Occupation: Company/Address: How long have you been involved in shrimp industry? ______ Years.

How to use these scales: IIff yyoouu hhiigghhllyy aaggrreeee ttiicckk 1100.. IIff yyoouu hhiigghhllyy ddiissaaggrreeee ttiicckk 11.. IIff yyoouu ffeeeell ssoommeetthhiinngg eellssee tthheenn ttiicckk oonnee ooff tthhee nnuummbbeerrss iinn tthhee mmiiddddllee aaccccoorrddiinnggllyy..

01. PL (Post Larvae) supplied by the hatcheries is of low quality.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

02. There are very poor control activities in the shrimp industry.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

03. Shrimp culture is hampered by high mortality rate.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

04. Facilities for WSSV(white spot syndrome virus) screening is almost

nonexistent.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

05. Infrastructure and culture technology are poor.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

06. There are lack of quality and safe feed supply.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

07. Wild brood-stock population is declining due to over fishing and lack of

concentration.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

08. There is no suitable credit support to entrepreneurs of limited financial

capacities.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Stakeholders Awareness Toward The Embedded Problems of The shrimp Industry: A Study On The South West Region Of Bangladesh.

----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------

ii

09. Access to the industry related information is poor.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

10. There is inefficient management practice in this industry.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11. There is inadequate backward linkage for the poor; i.e.

Appropriate farming technology. Institutional and supervised credit at reasonable terms. Adequate and good quality PL, fertilizer and feed in time. Good infrastructure: rural road, electricity, etc. Security of crop under cultivation and law and order.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

12. There is generally weak forward linkage; i.e.

Inadequate post-harvest handling, transportation and preservation. Poor market linkage of the producers. Inadequate research on export market. Producers do not get fair price.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

13. There are lack of standard and lack of traceability in the whole supply chain.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

14. There is lack of monitoring of compliance on the part of the government.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

15. Research and development (R&D) endeavor is almost nonexistent.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

16. Unfair practices by the shrimp agents are hampering export market.

Thank you for your time and cooperation.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Annex 2: Calculation of chi-square χ2

iii

Q.01

Aware Unaware Category

Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei A (10) 4 6 6 4 B (15) 7 9 8 6 C (10) 7 6 3 4 D (30) 22 18 8 12 E (15) 8 9 7 6 F (10) 7 6 3 4 G (10) 8 6 2 4

Total 100 63 60 37 40 Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 A+C(20) 11 12 1 .083 9 8 1 .125 B(15) 7 9 4 .444 8 6 4 .667 D(30) 22 18 16 .889 8 12 6 1.333 E(15) 8 9 1 .111 7 6 1 .167 F+G(20) 15 12 9 .750 5 8 9 1.125 Total 100 63 60 2.277 37 40 3.417

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)] Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1) = (5-1)(2-1) = 4 =5.694 Level of significance= 0.05.

Tabular value of χ2 = 9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)] Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1) = (5-1)(2-1) = 4 = 4.374 Level of significance= 0.05.

Tabular value of χ2 =9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

Q.02

Aware Unaware Category Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

A (10) 7 6 3 4 B (15) 6 9 9 6 C (10) 6 6 4 4 D (30) 20 18 10 12 E (15) 8 9 7 6 F (10) 6 6 4 4 G (10) 8 6 2 4 Total 100

61 60 39 40

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 A+C(20) 13 12 1 .083 7 8 1 .125 B(15) 6 9 9 1 9 6 9 1.5 D(30) 20 18 4 .222 10 12 4 .333 E(15) 8 9 1 .111 7 6 1 .167 F+G(20) 14 12 4 .333 6 8 4 .5 Total 100 61 60 1.749 39 40 2.625

iv

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)] Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1)= (5-1)(2-1) = 4 =13.68 Level of significance= 0.05.

Tabular value of χ2 = 9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)] Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1)= (5-1)(2-1) = 4 = 21.528 Level of significance= 0.05.

Tabular value of χ2 = 9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

Q.03

Aware Unaware Category Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

A (10) 5 6 5 4 B (15) 8 9 7 6 C (10) 8 6 2 4 D (30) 27 18 3 12 E (15) 11 9 4 6 F (10) 7 6 3 4 G (10) 7 6 3 4 Total 100

73 60 27 40

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 A+C(20) 13 12 1 .083 7 8 1 .125 B(15) 8 9 1 .111 7 6 1 .167 D(30) 27 18 81 4.5 3 12 81 6.75 E(15) 11 9 4 .444 4 6 4 .667 F+G(20) 14 12 4 .333 6 8 4 .5 Total 100 73 60 5.471 27 40 8.209

Q. 04

Aware Unaware Category Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

A (10) 9 6 1 4 B (15) 10 9 5 6 C (10) 8 6 2 4 D (30) 28 18 2 12 E (15) 8 9 7 6 F (10) 7 6 3 4 G (10) 8 6 2 4 Total

78 60 21

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 A+C(20) 17 12 25 2.083 3 8 25 3.125 B(15) 10 9 1 .111 5 6 1 .167 D(30) 28 18 100 5.556 2 12 100 8.333 E(15) 8 9 1 .111 7 6 1 .167 F+G(20) 15 12 9 .750 5 8 9 1.125 Total 100 78 60 8.611 22 40 12.917

v

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)] Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1)= (5-1)(2-1) = 4 = 5.485 Level of significance= 0.05.

Tabular value of χ2 = 9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

Q. 06

Aware Unaware Category Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

A (10) 7 6 3 4 B (15) 10 9 5 6 C (10) 7 6 3 4 D (30) 14 18 16 12 E (15) 9 9 6 6 F (10) 8 6 2 4 G (10) 8 6 2 4 Total 100

63 60 37 40

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 A+C(20) 14 12 4 .333 6 8 4 .5 B(15) 10 9 1 .111 5 6 1 .166 D(30) 14 18 16 .888 16 12 16 1.333 E(15) 9 9 0 0 6 6 0 0 F+G(20) 16 12 16 1.333 4 8 16 2 Total 100 63 60 2.665 37 40 3.999

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)] Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1)= (5-1)(2-1) = 4 =6.664 Level of significance= 0.05.

Tabular value of χ2 = 9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

Q. 05

Aware Unaware Category Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

A (10) 6 6 4 4 B (15) 10 9 5 6 C (10) 6 6 4 4 D (30) 18 18 12 12 E (15) 9 9 6 6 F (10) 8 6 2 4 G (10) 9 6 1 4 Total 100

66 60 34 40

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 A+C(20) 12 12 0 0 8 8 0 0 B(15) 10 9 1 0.111 5 6 1 .166 D(30) 18 18 0 0 12 12 0 0 E(15) 9 9 0 0 6 6 0 0 F+G(20) 17 12 25 2.083 3 8 25 3.125 Total 100 66 60 2.194 34 40 3.291

vi

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)] Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1)= (5-1)(2-1) = 4 = 6.803 Level of significance= 0.05.

Tabular value of χ2 = 9.44 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

Q. 08

Aware Unaware Category Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

A (10) 6 6 4 4 B (15) 10 9 5 6 C (10) 6 6 4 4 D (30) 22 18 8 12 E (15) 8 9 7 6 F (10) 8 6 2 4 G (10) 8 6 2 4 Total 100

68 60 32 40

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 A+C(20) 12 12 0 0 8 8 0 0 B(15) 10 9 1 .111 5 6 1 .166 D(30) 22 18 16 .888 8 12 16 1.333 E(15) 8 9 1 .111 7 6 1 .166 F+G(20) 16 12 16 1.333 4 8 16 2 Total 100 68 60 2.443 32 40 3.665

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)] Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1)= (5-1)(2-1) = 4 =6.108 Level of significance= 0.05.

Tabular value of χ2 = 9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

Q. 07

Aware Unaware Category Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

A (10) 7 6 3 4 B (15) 11 9 4 6 C (10) 6 6 4 4 D (30) 18 18 12 12 E (15) 10 9 5 6 F (10) 8 6 2 4 G (10) 9 6 1 4 Total 100

69 60 31 40

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 A+C(20) 13 12 1 .083 7 8 1 .125 B(15) 11 9 4 .444 4 6 4 .666 D(30) 18 18 0 0 12 12 0 0 E(15) 10 9 1 .111 5 6 1 .166 F+G(20) 17 12 25 2.083 3 8 25 3.125 Total 100 69 60 2.721 31 40 4.082

vii

Q. 09

Aware Unaware Category Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

A (10) 5 6 5 4 B (15) 8 9 7 6 C (10) 6 6 4 4 D (30) 18 18 12 12 E (15) 9 9 6 6 F (10) 6 6 4 4 G (10) 8 6 2 4 Total 100

60 60 40 40

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 A+C(20) 11 12 1 .083 9 8 1 .125 B(15) 8 9 1 .111 7 6 1 .166 D(30) 18 18 0 0 12 12 0 0 E(15) 9 9 0 0 6 6 0 0 F+G(20) 14 12 4 .333 6 8 4 .5 Total 100 60 60 0.527 40 40 0.791

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)] Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1)= (5-1)(2-1) = 4 =1.318 Level of significance= 0.05.

Tabular value of χ2 = 9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

Q. 10

Aware Unaware Category Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

A (10) 7 6 3 4 B (15) 8 9 7 6 C (10) 6 6 4 4 D (30) 19 18 11 12 E (15) 9 9 6 6 F (10) 7 6 3 4 G (10) 8 6 2 4 Total 100

64 60 36 40

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 A+C(20) 13 12 1 .083 7 8 1 .125 B(15) 8 9 1 .111 7 6 1 .166 D(30) 19 18 1 .055 11 12 1 .083 E(15) 9 9 0 0 6 6 0 0 F+G(20) 15 12 9 .75 5 8 9 1.125 Total 100 64 60 0.999 36 40 1.499

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)] Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1)= (5-1)(2-1) = 4 = 2.498 Level of significance= 0.05.

Tabular value of χ2 = 9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

viii

Q. 11

Aware Unaware Category Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

A (10) 7 6 3 4 B (15) 9 9 6 6 C (10) 8 6 2 4 D (30) 22 18 8 12 E (15) 10 9 5 6 F (10) 6 6 4 4 G (10) 9 6 1 4 Total 100

71 60 29 40

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 A+C(20) 15 12 9 .75 5 8 9 1.125 B(15) 9 9 0 0 6 6 0 0 D(30) 22 18 16 .888 8 12 16 1.333 E(15) 10 9 1 .111 5 6 1 .166 F+G(20) 15 12 9 .75 5 8 9 1.125 Total 100 71 60 2.499 29 40 3.749

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)] Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1)= (5-1)(2-1) = 4 = 6.248 Level of significance= 0.05.

Tabular value of χ2 = 9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

Q. 12

Aware Unaware Category Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

A (10) 7 6 3 4 B (15) 9 9 6 6 C (10) 7 6 3 4 D (30) 17 18 13 12 E (15) 11 9 4 6 F (10) 8 6 2 4 G (10) 7 6 3 4 Total 100

66 60 34 40

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 A+C(20) 14 12 4 .333 6 8 4 .5 B(15) 9 9 0 0 6 6 0 0 D(30) 17 18 1 .055 13 12 1 .083 E(15) 11 9 4 .444 4 6 4 .666 F+G(20) 15 12 9 .75 5 8 9 1.125 Total 100 66 60 1.582 34 40 2.374

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)] Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1)= (5-1)(2-1) = 4 = 3.956 Level of significance= 0.05.

Tabular value of χ2 = 9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

ix

Q. 13

Aware Unaware Category Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

A (10) 6 6 4 4 B (15) 9 9 6 6 C (10) 6 6 4 4 D (30) 18 18 12 12 E (15) 9 9 6 6 F (10) 6 6 4 4 G (10) 8 6 2 4 Total 100

62 60 38 40

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 A+C(20) 12 12 0 0 8 8 0 0 B(15) 9 9 0 0 6 6 0 0 D(30) 18 18 0 0 12 12 0 0 E(15) 9 9 0 0 6 6 0 0 F+G(20) 14 12 4 .333 6 8 4 .5 Total 100 62 60 0.333 38 40 0.5

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)] Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1)= (5-1)(2-1) = 4 = 0.833 Level of significance= 0.05.

Tabular value of χ2 = 9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

Q. 14

Aware Unaware Category Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

A (10) 7 6 3 4 B (15) 10 9 5 6 C (10) 7 6 3 4 D (30) 20 18 10 12 E (15) 10 9 5 6 F (10) 7 6 3 4 G (10) 9 6 1 4 Total 100

70 60 30 40

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 A+C(20) 14 12 4 .333 6 8 4 .5 B(15) 10 9 1 .111 5 6 1 .166 D(30) 20 18 4 .222 10 12 4 .333 E(15) 10 9 1 .111 5 6 1 .166 F+G(20) 16 12 16 1.333 4 8 16 2 Total 100 70 60 2.11 30 40 3.165

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)] Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1)= (5-1)(2-1) = 4 = 5.275 Level of significance= 0.05.

Tabular value of χ2 = 9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

x

Q. 15

Aware Unaware Category Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

A (10) 5 6 5 4 B (15) 9 9 6 6 C (10) 6 6 4 4 D (30) 19 18 11 12 E (15) 9 9 6 6 F (10) 6 6 4 4 G (10) 6 6 4 4 Total 100

60 60 40 40

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 A+C(20) 11 12 1 .083 9 8 1 .125 B(15) 9 9 0 0 6 6 0 0 D(30) 19 18 1 .055 11 12 1 .083 E(15) 9 9 0 0 6 6 0 0 F+G(20) 12 12 0 0 8 8 0 0 Total 100 60 60 0.138 40 40 0.208

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)] Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1)= (5-1)(2-1) = 4 = 0.346 Level of significance= 0.05.

Tabular value of χ2 = 9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

Q. 16

Aware Unaware Category Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei Oi Ei (Oi-Ei)2 (Oi-Ei)2/Ei

A (10) 8 6 2 4 B (15) 11 9 4 6 C (10) 8 6 2 4 D (30) 26 18 4 12 E (15) 7 9 8 6 F (10) 8 6 2 4 G (10) 8 6 2 4 Total 100

76 60 24 40

Combined Response Categories with R=5 , C=2, d.f.= 4 A+C(20) 16 12 16 1.333 4 8 16 2 B(15) 11 9 4 .444 4 6 4 .666 D(30) 26 18 64 3.555 4 12 64 5.333 E(15) 7 9 4 .444 8 6 4 .666 F+G(20) 16 12 16 1.333 4 8 16 2 Total 100 76 60 7.109 24 40 10.665

χ2=∑[(Oi-Ei)2/E)] Degree of freedom= (R-1)(C-1)= (5-1)(2-1) = 4 = 17.774 Level of significance= 0.05.

Tabular value of χ2 = 9.488 ; associated with 0.05 probability level with 4 degree of freedom.

Annex 3: Calculation of ANOVA

xi

∑=

=

−7

1

21 )(

n

ii xx ∑

=

=

−7

1

21 )(

n

ii xx 2

7

12 )(∑

=

=

−n

ii xx 2

7

12 )(∑

=

=

−n

ii xx 2

7

13 )(∑

=

=

−n

ii xx 2

7

14 )(∑

=

=

−n

ii xx

27

13 )(∑

=

=

−n

ii xx 2

7

14 )(∑

=

=

−n

ii xx

ANOVA: FACILITIES

Question:08 Question:09 Question:11 Question:12 Category

xi1

( xi1-x )2

( xi1- x1 )2

xi2

( xi2-x )2

(xi2-x2 )2

xi3

( xi3-x )2

(xi3-x3 )2

xi4

( xi4-x )2

(xi4-x4 )2

A 6 11.992 13.793 5 19.918 12.752 7 6.066 9.872 7 6.066 5.895 B 10 0.288 0.081 8 2.140 0.326 9 0.14 1.304 9 0.14 0.183 C 6 11.992 13.793 6 11.992 6.610 8 2.140 4.588 7 6.066 5.895 D 22 157.176 150.945 18 72.880 88.906 22 157.176 140.612 17 56.806 57.335 E 8 2.140 2.937 9 0.214 0.184 10 0.288 0.020 11 2.362 2.471 F 8 2.140 2.937 6 11.992 6.610 6 11.992 17.156 8 2.140 2.039 G 8 2.140 2.937 8 2.140 0.326 9 0.14 1.304 7 6.066 5.895

Total 68 60 71 66 Mean x1=

9.714

x2= 8.571

x3= 10.142

x4= 9.428

Grand Mean

9.463

=187.868 =187.423 =121.276 =115.714 =178.09 =174.856 =79.72 =79.713

xii

∑∑=

=

=

=

−=7

1

4

1

2)(n

i

c

jjijwithin xxSS

ccnSS

MS withinwithin −

=

∑∑=

=

=

=

−=4

1

27

1)(

c

jij

n

itotal xxSS

1−=

cSS

MS betweenbetween

∑=

=

−=4

1

2)(c

jjbetween xxnSS

within

between

MSMS

F =

=x

=jx

SStotal = SSwithin + SSbetween

187.868+121.276+178.09+79.72

=566.954

=9.246517/(4-1) =3.082172333

187.423+115.714+174.856+79.713 =557.706

=557.706/(28-4) =23.23775

7(9.714-90463)2+7(8.571-9.463)2+7(10.142-9.463)2+7(9.428-9.463)2 =0.441007+5.569648+3.227287+0.008575 =9.246517

=3.082172333/23.23775 =0.132636435

where xij = the ith observation in the jth group; n = number of observation in a group;

c = number of jth groups (or columns); nj = number of items in the jth group; grand mean;

group mean for the jth group.

xiii

∑=

=

−7

1

21 )(

n

ii xx ∑

=

=

−7

1

21 )(

n

ii xx 2

7

12 )(∑

=

=

−n

ii xx 2

7

12 )(∑

=

=

−n

ii xx 2

7

13 )(∑

=

=

−n

ii xx 2

7

14 )(∑

=

=

−n

ii xx

27

13 )(∑

=

=

−n

ii xx 2

7

14 )(∑

=

=

−n

ii xx

ANOVA: MONITORING

Question:07 Question:13 Question:14 Question:16

Category xi1

( xi1-x )2

( xi1- x1 )2

xi2

( xi2-x )2

(xi2-x2 )2

xi3

( xi3-x )2

(xi3-x3 )2

xi4

( xi4-x )2

(xi4-x4 )2

A 7 8.363 8.162 6 15.147 8.162 7 8.363 9 8 3.579 8.162 B 11 1.227 1.306 9 0.795 0.020 10 0.011 0 11 1.227 0.020 C 6 15.147 14.876 6 15.147 8.162 7 8.363 9 8 3.579 8.162 D 18 65.739 66.308 18 65.739 83.594 20 102.171 100 26 259.467 229.310 E 10 0.011 0.020 9 0.795 0.020 10 0.011 0 7 8.363 14.876 F 8 3.579 3.448 6 15.147 8.162 7 8.363 9 8 3.579 8.162 G 9 0.795 0.734 8 3.579 0.734 9 0.795 1 8 3.579 8.162

Total 69 62 70 76 Mean x1=

9.857

x2= 8.857

x3= 10

x4= 10.857

Grand Mean

9.892

=94.861 =94.854 =116.349 =108.854 =128.077 =128 =283.373 =276.854

xiv

∑∑=

=

=

=

−=7

1

4

1

2)(n

i

c

jjijwithin xxSS

ccnSS

MS withinwithin −

=

∑∑=

=

=

=

−=4

1

27

1)(

c

jij

n

itotal xxSS

1−=

cSS

MS betweenbetween

∑=

=

−=4

1

2)(c

jjbetween xxnSS

within

between

MSMS

F =

=x

=jx

SStotal = SSwithin + SSbetween

=94.861+116.349+128.077+283.373

=622.66

=14.107373/(4-1) =4.702457667

=94.854+108.854+128+276.854 =608.562

=608.562/(28-4) =25.35675

=7(9.857-9.892)2+7(8.857-9.892)2+7(10-9.892)2+7(10.857-9.892)2 =0.008575+7.498575+0.081648+6.518575 =14.107373

=4.702457667/25.35675 =0.185451907

where xij = the ith observation in the jth group; n = number of observation in a group;

c = number of jth groups (or columns); nj = number of items in the jth group; grand mean;

group mean for the jth group.

xv

∑=

=

−7

1

21 )(

n

ii xx ∑

=

=

−7

1

21 )(

n

ii xx 2

7

12 )(∑

=

=

−n

ii xx 2

7

12 )(∑

=

=

−n

ii xx 2

7

13 )(∑

=

=

−n

ii xx 2

7

14 )(∑

=

=

−n

ii xx

27

13 )(∑

=

=

−n

ii xx 2

7

14 )(∑

=

=

−n

ii xx

ANOVA: QUALITY

Question:01 Question:02 Question:06 Question:10 Category

xi1

( xi1-x )2

( xi1- x1 )2

xi2

( xi2-x )2

(xi2-x2 )2

xi3

( xi3-x )2

(xi3-x3 )2

xi4

( xi4-x )2

(xi4-x4 )2

A 4 24.641 25 7 3.857 2.937 7 3.857 4 7 3.857 4.592 B 7 3.857 4 6 8.785 7.365 10 1.073 1 8 0.929 1.306 C 7 3.857 4 6 8.785 7.365 7 3.857 4 6 8.785 9.878 D 22 169.937 169 20 121.793 127.373 14 25.361 25 19 100.721 97.160 E 8 0.926 1 8 0.929 0.509 9 0.001 0 9 0.001 0.020 F 7 3.857 4 6 8.785 7.365 8 0.929 1 7 3.857 4.592 G 8 0.929 1 8 0.929 0.509 8 0.929 1 8 0.929 1.306

Total 63 61 63 64 Mean x1=

9 x2=

8.714

x3= 9

x4= 9.143

Grand Mean

8.964

=208.007 =208 =153.863 =153.423 =36.007 =36 =119.079 =118.854

xvi

∑∑=

=

=

=

−=7

1

4

1

2)(n

i

c

jjijwithin xxSS

ccnSS

MS withinwithin −

=

∑∑=

=

=

=

−=4

1

27

1)(

c

jij

n

itotal xxSS

1−=

cSS

MS betweenbetween

∑=

=

−=4

1

2)(c

jjbetween xxnSS

within

between

MSMS

F =

=x=jx

SStotal = SSwithin + SSbetween =208.007+153.863+36.007+119.079 =516.956

=0.679931/(4-1) =0.226643666

=208+153.423+36+118.854

=516.277

=516.277/(28-4) =21.51154167

=7(9-8.964)2+7(8.714-8.964)2+7(9-8.964)2+7(9.143-8.964)2 =0.009072+0.4375+0.009072+0.224287 =0.679931

=0.226643666/21.51154167 =0.010535909

where xij = the ith observation in the jth group; n = number of observation in a group;

c = number of jth groups (or columns); nj = number of items in the jth group;

grand mean;

group mean for the jth group.

xvii

∑=

=

−7

1

21 )(

n

ii xx ∑

=

=

−7

1

21 )(

n

ii xx 2

7

12 )(∑

=

=

−n

ii xx 2

7

12 )(∑

=

=

−n

ii xx 2

7

13 )(∑

=

=

−n

ii xx 2

7

14 )(∑

=

=

−n

ii xx

27

13 )(∑

=

=

−n

ii xx 2

7

14 )(∑

=

=

−n

ii xx

ANOVA: TECHNOLOGY

Question:03 Question:04 Question:05 Question:15

Category xi1

( xi1-x )2

( xi1- x1 )2

xi2

( xi2-x )2

(xi2-x2 )2

xi3

( xi3-x )2

(xi3-x3 )2

xi4

( xi4-x )2

(xi4-x4 )2

A 5 23.931 29.463 9 0.795 4.588 6 15.147 11.751 5 23.931 12.752 B 8 3.579 5.895 10 0.011 1.304 10 0.011 0.327 9 0.795 0.184 C 8 3.579 5.895 8 3.579 9.872 6 15.147 11.751 6 15.147 6.610 D 27 292.683 274.631 28 327.899 284.192 18 65.739 73.479 19 82.955 108.764 E 11 1.227 0.327 8 3.579 9.872 9 0.795 0.183 9 0.795 0.184 F 7 8.363 11.751 7 8.363 17.156 8 3.579 2.039 6 15.147 6.610 G 7 8.363 11.751 8 3.579 9.872 9 0.795 0.183 6 15.147 6.610

Total 73 78 66 60 Mean x1=

10.428

x2= 11.142

x3= 9.428

x4= 8.571

Grand Mean

3.892

=341.725 =339.713 =347.805 =336.856 =101.213 =99.713 =153.917 =141.714

xviii

∑∑=

=

=

=

−=7

1

4

1

2)(n

i

c

jjijwithin xxSS

ccnSS

MS withinwithin −

=

∑∑=

=

=

=

−=4

1

27

1)(

c

jij

n

itotal xxSS

1−=

cSS

MS betweenbetween

∑=

=

−=4

1

2)(c

jjbetween xxnSS

within

between

MSMS

F =

=x

=jx

SStotal = SSwithin + SSbetween

=341.725+347.805+101.213+153.917

=944.66

=26.670931/(4-1) =8.890310333

=339.713+336.856+99.713+141.714 =917.996

=917.966/(28-4) =38.24858333

=7(10.428-9.892)2+7(11.142-9.892)2+7(9.428-9.892)2+7(8.571-9.892)2 =2.011072+10.9375+1.507072+12.215287 =26.670931

=8.890310333/38.24858333 =0.232435022

where xij = the ith observation in the jth group; n = number of observation in a group;

c = number of jth groups (or columns); nj = number of items in the jth group; grand mean;

group mean for the jth group.

Annex 4: Frequency Table of the Respondents

xix

ANNEX: 3

Tabulated Frequency of the Respondents:

10 15 10 30 15 10 10 100 Q

uest

ion

No.

A

Hat

cher

y

B

PL A

gent

s

C

Tran

spor

tatio

n &

Fe

edin

g

D

Farm

er

E

Shrim

p A

gent

F

Pr

oces

sors

G

Sc

hola

r &

Res

earc

her

Tota

l

5-10 1-4 5-10 1-4 5-10 1-4 5-10 1-4 5-10 1-4 5-10 1-4 5-10 1-4 5-10 1-4 01 4 6 7 8 7 3 22 8 8 7 7 8 63 37 02 7 3 6 9 6 4 20 10 8 7 6 8 61 39 03 5 5 8 7 8 2 27 3 11 4 7 7 73 27 04 9 1 10 5 8 2 28 2 8 7 7 8 78 22 05 6 4 10 5 6 4 18 12 9 6 8 9 66 34 06 7 3 10 5 7 3 14 16 9 6 8 8 63 37 07 7 3 11 4 6 4 18 12 10 5 8 9 69 31 08 6 4 10 5 6 4 22 8 8 7 8 8 68 32 09 5 5 8 7 6 4 18 12 9 6 6 8 60 40 10 7 3 8 7 6 4 19 11 9 6 7 8 64 36 11 7 3 9 6 8 2 22 8 10 5 6 9 71 29 12 7 3 9 6 7 3 17 13 11 4 8 7 66 34 13 6 4 9 6 6 4 18 12 9 6 6 8 62 38 14 7 3 10 5 7 3 20 10 10 5 7 9 70 30 15 5 5 9 6 6 4 19 11 9 6 6 6 60 40 16 8 2 11 4 8 2 26 4 7 8 8 8 76 24

Annex 5: χ2 Table

Critical Values of the χ2 Distribution

Area in the Upper Tail df 0.99 0.95 0.9 0.1 0.05 0.01 1 0.000 0.004 0.016 2.706 3.841 6.635 2 0.020 0.103 0.211 4.605 5.991 9.210 3 0.115 0.352 0.584 6.251 7.815 11.345 4 0.297 0.711 1.064 7.779 9.488 13.277 5 0.554 1.145 1.610 9.236 11.070 15.086 6 0.872 1.635 2.204 10.645 12.592 16.812 7 1.239 2.167 2.833 12.017 14.067 18.475 8 1.646 2.733 3.490 13.362 15.507 20.090 9 2.088 3.325 4.168 14.684 16.919 21.666 10 2.558 3.940 4.865 15.987 18.307 23.209 11 3.053 4.575 5.578 17.275 19.675 24.725 12 3.571 5.226 6.304 18.549 21.026 26.217 13 4.107 5.892 7.042 19.812 22.362 27.688 14 4.660 6.571 7.790 21.064 23.685 29.141 15 5.229 7.261 8.547 22.307 24.996 30.578 16 5.812 7.962 9.312 23.542 26.296 32.000 17 6.408 8.672 10.085 24.769 27.587 33.409 18 7.015 9.390 10.865 25.989 28.869 34.805 19 7.633 10.117 11.651 27.204 30.144 36.191 20 8.260 10.851 12.443 28.412 31.410 37.566 21 8.897 11.591 13.240 29.615 32.671 38.932 22 9.542 12.338 14.041 30.813 33.924 40.289 23 10.196 13.091 14.848 32.007 35.172 41.638 24 10.856 13.848 15.659 33.196 36.415 42.980 25 11.524 14.611 16.473 34.382 37.652 44.314

Annex 6: F Table

VassarStats: Table of Critical F Values (p. 1)[top entry for .05 level; bottom entry for .01 level]

df numerator1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

1 161 199 216 225 230 234 237 239 241 242 243 244 245 245 0.051 4052 4999 5404 5624 5764 5859 5928 5981 6022 6056 6083 6107 6126 6143 0.012 18.51 19.00 19.16 19.25 19.30 19.33 19.35 19.37 19.38 19.40 19.40 19.41 19.42 19.42 0.052 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 0.013 10.13 9.55 9.28 9.12 9.01 8.94 8.89 8.85 8.81 8.79 8.76 8.74 8.73 8.71 0.053 34.12 30.82 29.46 28.71 28.24 27.91 27.67 27.49 27.34 27.23 27.13 27.05 26.98 26.92 0.014 7.71 6.94 6.59 6.39 6.26 6.16 6.09 6.04 6.00 5.96 5.94 5.91 5.89 5.87 0.054 21.20 18.00 16.69 15.98 15.52 15.21 14.98 14.80 14.66 14.55 14.45 14.37 14.31 14.25 0.015 6.61 5.79 5.41 5.19 5.05 4.95 4.88 4.82 4.77 4.74 4.70 4.68 4.66 4.64 0.055 16.26 13.27 12.06 11.39 10.97 10.67 10.46 10.29 10.16 10.05 9.96 9.89 9.82 9.77 0.016 5.99 5.14 4.76 4.53 4.39 4.28 4.21 4.15 4.10 4.06 4.03 4.00 3.98 3.96 0.056 13.75 10.92 9.78 9.15 8.75 8.47 8.26 8.10 7.98 7.87 7.79 7.72 7.66 7.60 0.017 5.59 4.74 4.35 4.12 3.97 3.87 3.79 3.73 3.68 3.64 3.60 3.57 3.55 3.53 0.057 12.25 9.55 8.45 7.85 7.46 7.19 6.99 6.84 6.72 6.62 6.54 6.47 6.41 6.36 0.018 5.32 4.46 4.07 3.84 3.69 3.58 3.50 3.44 3.39 3.35 3.31 3.28 3.26 3.24 0.058 11.26 8.65 7.59 7.01 6.63 6.37 6.18 6.03 5.91 5.81 5.73 5.67 5.61 5.56 0.019 5.12 4.26 3.86 3.63 3.48 3.37 3.29 3.23 3.18 3.14 3.10 3.07 3.05 3.03 0.059 10.56 8.02 6.99 6.42 6.06 5.80 5.61 5.47 5.35 5.26 5.18 5.11 5.05 5.01 0.01

10 4.96 4.10 3.71 3.48 3.33 3.22 3.14 3.07 3.02 2.98 2.94 2.91 2.89 2.86 0.0510 10.04 7.56 6.55 5.99 5.64 5.39 5.20 5.06 4.94 4.85 4.77 4.71 4.65 4.60 0.0111 4.84 3.98 3.59 3.36 3.20 3.09 3.01 2.95 2.90 2.85 2.82 2.79 2.76 2.74 0.0511 9.65 7.21 6.22 5.67 5.32 5.07 4.89 4.74 4.63 4.54 4.46 4.40 4.34 4.29 0.0112 4.75 3.89 3.49 3.26 3.11 3.00 2.91 2.85 2.80 2.75 2.72 2.69 2.66 2.64 0.0512 9.33 6.93 5.95 5.41 5.06 4.82 4.64 4.50 4.39 4.30 4.22 4.16 4.10 4.05 0.0113 4.67 3.81 3.41 3.18 3.03 2.92 2.83 2.77 2.71 2.67 2.63 2.60 2.58 2.55 0.0513 9.07 6.70 5.74 5.21 4.86 4.62 4.44 4.30 4.19 4.10 4.02 3.96 3.91 3.86 0.0114 4.60 3.74 3.34 3.11 2.96 2.85 2.76 2.70 2.65 2.60 2.57 2.53 2.51 2.48 0.0514 8.86 6.51 5.56 5.04 4.69 4.46 4.28 4.14 4.03 3.94 3.86 3.80 3.75 3.70 0.0115 4.54 3.68 3.29 3.06 2.90 2.79 2.71 2.64 2.59 2.54 2.51 2.48 2.45 2.42 0.0515 8.68 6.36 5.42 4.89 4.56 4.32 4.14 4.00 3.89 3.80 3.73 3.67 3.61 3.56 0.01

VassarStats: Table of Critical F Values (p. 2)[top entry for .05 level; bottom entry for .01 level]

df numerator1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

16 4.49 3.63 3.24 3.01 2.85 2.74 2.66 2.59 2.54 2.49 2.46 2.42 2.40 2.37 0.0516 8.53 6.23 5.29 4.77 4.44 4.20 4.03 3.89 3.78 3.69 3.62 3.55 3.50 3.45 0.0117 4.45 3.59 3.20 2.96 2.81 2.70 2.61 2.55 2.49 2.45 2.41 2.38 2.35 2.33 0.0517 8.40 6.11 5.19 4.67 4.34 4.10 3.93 3.79 3.68 3.59 3.52 3.46 3.40 3.35 0.0118 4.41 3.55 3.16 2.93 2.77 2.66 2.58 2.51 2.46 2.41 2.37 2.34 2.31 2.29 0.0518 8.29 6.01 5.09 4.58 4.25 4.01 3.84 3.71 3.60 3.51 3.43 3.37 3.32 3.27 0.0119 4.38 3.52 3.13 2.90 2.74 2.63 2.54 2.48 2.42 2.38 2.34 2.31 2.28 2.26 0.0519 8.18 5.93 5.01 4.50 4.17 3.94 3.77 3.63 3.52 3.43 3.36 3.30 3.24 3.19 0.0120 4.35 3.49 3.10 2.87 2.71 2.60 2.51 2.45 2.39 2.35 2.31 2.28 2.25 2.22 0.0520 8.10 5.85 4.94 4.43 4.10 3.87 3.70 3.56 3.46 3.37 3.29 3.23 3.18 3.13 0.0121 4.32 3.47 3.07 2.84 2.68 2.57 2.49 2.42 2.37 2.32 2.28 2.25 2.22 2.20 0.0521 8.02 5.78 4.87 4.37 4.04 3.81 3.64 3.51 3.40 3.31 3.24 3.17 3.12 3.07 0.0122 4.30 3.44 3.05 2.82 2.66 2.55 2.46 2.40 2.34 2.30 2.26 2.23 2.20 2.17 0.0522 7.95 5.72 4.82 4.31 3.99 3.76 3.59 3.45 3.35 3.26 3.18 3.12 3.07 3.02 0.0123 4.28 3.42 3.03 2.80 2.64 2.53 2.44 2.37 2.32 2.27 2.24 2.20 2.18 2.15 0.0523 7.88 5.66 4.76 4.26 3.94 3.71 3.54 3.41 3.30 3.21 3.14 3.07 3.02 2.97 0.0124 4.26 3.40 3.01 2.78 2.62 2.51 2.42 2.36 2.30 2.25 2.22 2.18 2.15 2.13 0.0524 7.82 5.61 4.72 4.22 3.90 3.67 3.50 3.36 3.26 3.17 3.09 3.03 2.98 2.93 0.0125 4.24 3.39 2.99 2.76 2.60 2.49 2.40 2.34 2.28 2.24 2.20 2.16 2.14 2.11 0.0525 7.77 5.57 4.68 4.18 3.85 3.63 3.46 3.32 3.22 3.13 3.06 2.99 2.94 2.89 0.0126 4.23 3.37 2.98 2.74 2.59 2.47 2.39 2.32 2.27 2.22 2.18 2.15 2.12 2.09 0.0526 7.72 5.53 4.64 4.14 3.82 3.59 3.42 3.29 3.18 3.09 3.02 2.96 2.90 2.86 0.0127 4.21 3.35 2.96 2.73 2.57 2.46 2.37 2.31 2.25 2.20 2.17 2.13 2.10 2.08 0.0527 7.68 5.49 4.60 4.11 3.78 3.56 3.39 3.26 3.15 3.06 2.99 2.93 2.87 2.82 0.0128 4.20 3.34 2.95 2.71 2.56 2.45 2.36 2.29 2.24 2.19 2.15 2.12 2.09 2.06 0.0528 7.64 5.45 4.57 4.07 3.75 3.53 3.36 3.23 3.12 3.03 2.96 2.90 2.84 2.79 0.0129 4.18 3.33 2.93 2.70 2.55 2.43 2.35 2.28 2.22 2.18 2.14 2.10 2.08 2.05 0.0529 7.60 5.42 4.54 4.04 3.73 3.50 3.33 3.20 3.09 3.00 2.93 2.87 2.81 2.77 0.0130 4.17 3.32 2.92 2.69 2.53 2.42 2.33 2.27 2.21 2.16 2.13 2.09 2.06 2.04 0.0530 7.56 5.39 4.51 4.02 3.70 3.47 3.30 3.17 3.07 2.98 2.91 2.84 2.79 2.74 0.01

VassarStats: Table of Critical F Values (p. 3)[top entry for .05 level; bottom entry for .01 level]

df numerator1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

31 4.16 3.30 2.91 2.68 2.52 2.41 2.32 2.25 2.20 2.15 2.11 2.08 2.05 2.03 0.0531 7.53 5.36 4.48 3.99 3.67 3.45 3.28 3.15 3.04 2.96 2.88 2.82 2.77 2.72 0.0132 4.15 3.29 2.90 2.67 2.51 2.40 2.31 2.24 2.19 2.14 2.10 2.07 2.04 2.01 0.0532 7.50 5.34 4.46 3.97 3.65 3.43 3.26 3.13 3.02 2.93 2.86 2.80 2.74 2.70 0.0133 4.14 3.28 2.89 2.66 2.50 2.39 2.30 2.23 2.18 2.13 2.09 2.06 2.03 2.00 0.0533 7.47 5.31 4.44 3.95 3.63 3.41 3.24 3.11 3.00 2.91 2.84 2.78 2.72 2.68 0.0134 4.13 3.28 2.88 2.65 2.49 2.38 2.29 2.23 2.17 2.12 2.08 2.05 2.02 1.99 0.0534 7.44 5.29 4.42 3.93 3.61 3.39 3.22 3.09 2.98 2.89 2.82 2.76 2.70 2.66 0.0135 4.12 3.27 2.87 2.64 2.49 2.37 2.29 2.22 2.16 2.11 2.07 2.04 2.01 1.99 0.0535 7.42 5.27 4.40 3.91 3.59 3.37 3.20 3.07 2.96 2.88 2.80 2.74 2.69 2.64 0.0136 4.11 3.26 2.87 2.63 2.48 2.36 2.28 2.21 2.15 2.11 2.07 2.03 2.00 1.98 0.0536 7.40 5.25 4.38 3.89 3.57 3.35 3.18 3.05 2.95 2.86 2.79 2.72 2.67 2.62 0.0137 4.11 3.25 2.86 2.63 2.47 2.36 2.27 2.20 2.14 2.10 2.06 2.02 2.00 1.97 0.0537 7.37 5.23 4.36 3.87 3.56 3.33 3.17 3.04 2.93 2.84 2.77 2.71 2.65 2.61 0.0138 4.10 3.24 2.85 2.62 2.46 2.35 2.26 2.19 2.14 2.09 2.05 2.02 1.99 1.96 0.0538 7.35 5.21 4.34 3.86 3.54 3.32 3.15 3.02 2.92 2.83 2.75 2.69 2.64 2.59 0.0139 4.09 3.24 2.85 2.61 2.46 2.34 2.26 2.19 2.13 2.08 2.04 2.01 1.98 1.95 0.0539 7.33 5.19 4.33 3.84 3.53 3.30 3.14 3.01 2.90 2.81 2.74 2.68 2.62 2.58 0.0140 4.08 3.23 2.84 2.61 2.45 2.34 2.25 2.18 2.12 2.08 2.04 2.00 1.97 1.95 0.0540 7.31 5.18 4.31 3.83 3.51 3.29 3.12 2.99 2.89 2.80 2.73 2.66 2.61 2.56 0.0141 4.08 3.23 2.83 2.60 2.44 2.33 2.24 2.17 2.12 2.07 2.03 2.00 1.97 1.94 0.0541 7.30 5.16 4.30 3.81 3.50 3.28 3.11 2.98 2.87 2.79 2.71 2.65 2.60 2.55 0.0142 4.07 3.22 2.83 2.59 2.44 2.32 2.24 2.17 2.11 2.06 2.03 1.99 1.96 1.94 0.0542 7.28 5.15 4.29 3.80 3.49 3.27 3.10 2.97 2.86 2.78 2.70 2.64 2.59 2.54 0.0143 4.07 3.21 2.82 2.59 2.43 2.32 2.23 2.16 2.11 2.06 2.02 1.99 1.96 1.93 0.0543 7.26 5.14 4.27 3.79 3.48 3.25 3.09 2.96 2.85 2.76 2.69 2.63 2.57 2.53 0.0144 4.06 3.21 2.82 2.58 2.43 2.31 2.23 2.16 2.10 2.05 2.01 1.98 1.95 1.92 0.0544 7.25 5.12 4.26 3.78 3.47 3.24 3.08 2.95 2.84 2.75 2.68 2.62 2.56 2.52 0.0145 4.06 3.20 2.81 2.58 2.42 2.31 2.22 2.15 2.10 2.05 2.01 1.97 1.94 1.92 0.0545 7.23 5.11 4.25 3.77 3.45 3.23 3.07 2.94 2.83 2.74 2.67 2.61 2.55 2.51 0.01

VassarStats: Table of Critical F Values (p. 4)[top entry for .05 level; bottom entry for .01 level]

df numerator1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

50 4.03 3.18 2.79 2.56 2.40 2.29 2.20 2.13 2.07 2.03 1.99 1.95 1.92 1.89 0.0550 7.17 5.06 4.20 3.72 3.41 3.19 3.02 2.89 2.78 2.70 2.63 2.56 2.51 2.46 0.0155 4.02 3.16 2.77 2.54 2.38 2.27 2.18 2.11 2.06 2.01 1.97 1.93 1.90 1.88 0.0555 7.12 5.01 4.16 3.68 3.37 3.15 2.98 2.85 2.75 2.66 2.59 2.53 2.47 2.42 0.0160 4.00 3.15 2.76 2.53 2.37 2.25 2.17 2.10 2.04 1.99 1.95 1.92 1.89 1.86 0.0560 7.08 4.98 4.13 3.65 3.34 3.12 2.95 2.82 2.72 2.63 2.56 2.50 2.44 2.39 0.0165 3.99 3.14 2.75 2.51 2.36 2.24 2.15 2.08 2.03 1.98 1.94 1.90 1.87 1.85 0.0565 7.04 4.95 4.10 3.62 3.31 3.09 2.93 2.80 2.69 2.61 2.53 2.47 2.42 2.37 0.0170 3.98 3.13 2.74 2.50 2.35 2.23 2.14 2.07 2.02 1.97 1.93 1.89 1.86 1.84 0.0570 7.01 4.92 4.07 3.60 3.29 3.07 2.91 2.78 2.67 2.59 2.51 2.45 2.40 2.35 0.0180 3.96 3.11 2.72 2.49 2.33 2.21 2.13 2.06 2.00 1.95 1.91 1.88 1.84 1.82 0.0580 6.96 4.88 4.04 3.56 3.26 3.04 2.87 2.74 2.64 2.55 2.48 2.42 2.36 2.31 0.0190 3.95 3.10 2.71 2.47 2.32 2.20 2.11 2.04 1.99 1.94 1.90 1.86 1.83 1.80 0.0590 6.93 4.85 4.01 3.53 3.23 3.01 2.84 2.72 2.61 2.52 2.45 2.39 2.33 2.29 0.01100 3.94 3.09 2.70 2.46 2.31 2.19 2.10 2.03 1.97 1.93 1.89 1.85 1.82 1.79 0.05100 6.90 4.82 3.98 3.51 3.21 2.99 2.82 2.69 2.59 2.50 2.43 2.37 2.31 2.27 0.01110 3.93 3.08 2.69 2.45 2.30 2.18 2.09 2.02 1.97 1.92 1.88 1.84 1.81 1.78 0.05110 6.87 4.80 3.96 3.49 3.19 2.97 2.81 2.68 2.57 2.49 2.41 2.35 2.30 2.25 0.01120 3.92 3.07 2.68 2.45 2.29 2.18 2.09 2.02 1.96 1.91 1.87 1.83 1.80 1.78 0.05120 6.85 4.79 3.95 3.48 3.17 2.96 2.79 2.66 2.56 2.47 2.40 2.34 2.28 2.23 0.01130 3.91 3.07 2.67 2.44 2.28 2.17 2.08 2.01 1.95 1.90 1.86 1.83 1.80 1.77 0.05130 6.83 4.77 3.94 3.47 3.16 2.94 2.78 2.65 2.55 2.46 2.39 2.32 2.27 2.22 0.01140 3.91 3.06 2.67 2.44 2.28 2.16 2.08 2.01 1.95 1.90 1.86 1.82 1.79 1.76 0.05140 6.82 4.76 3.92 3.46 3.15 2.93 2.77 2.64 2.54 2.45 2.38 2.31 2.26 2.21 0.01160 3.90 3.05 2.66 2.43 2.27 2.16 2.07 2.00 1.94 1.89 1.85 1.81 1.78 1.75 0.05160 6.80 4.74 3.91 3.44 3.13 2.92 2.75 2.62 2.52 2.43 2.36 2.30 2.24 2.20 0.01180 3.89 3.05 2.65 2.42 2.26 2.15 2.06 1.99 1.93 1.88 1.84 1.81 1.77 1.75 0.05180 6.78 4.73 3.89 3.43 3.12 2.90 2.74 2.61 2.51 2.42 2.35 2.28 2.23 2.18 0.01200 3.89 3.04 2.65 2.42 2.26 2.14 2.06 1.98 1.93 1.88 1.84 1.80 1.77 1.74 0.05200 6.76 4.71 3.88 3.41 3.11 2.89 2.73 2.60 2.50 2.41 2.34 2.27 2.22 2.17 0.01