RIU action

1. RIU action

2. Rat Management for Rural Communities 1) Training and capacity building of institutions 2) Training and capacity building of communities 3) Local production & marketing of new rat traps 4) Communication & awareness raising 5) Policies & recommendations

3. Rat management project in 5 districts • Comilla • Bogra • Kushtia • Satkhira • Netrokona

4. Beneficiaries • Project will work directly with 20,000 households across 100 communities • Women will be the major beneficiaries > 70%

5. Partner roles align with national programmes and strategies Technical input Extension Training & communication Commercial & private enterprise

6. Training and capacity building

7. Training and capacity building

8. Training and capacity building 1) 25 people from each community trained 2) Trained people return to their villages to tell rest of community what should be done 3) Partners visit communities to explain community trapping programme, assist demonstration of environmental management actions, obtain agreement on intensive trapping programme 4) Intensive trapping programme begins 5) Partners revisit communities to collect monitoring data, feedback, re-training needs….

9. Training and capacity building Monitoring of knowledge retention and uptake Trained people assessed at end of training and 6 months later using FGD and individual questionnaires Non-trained community members assessed 3-4 months after return of trained members. This is done with a FGD of 25 people – all of which should not come from households with trained community members

10. RIU action Community intensive trapping programme 25% of households trapping at any given time

11. RIU action Community intensive trapping programme 25% of households trapping at any given time

12. RIU action Community intensive trapping programme 25% of households trapping at any given time

13. RIU action Community intensive trapping programme 25% of households trapping at any given time

14. RIU action Community intensive trapping programme 25% of households trapping at any given time

15. RIU action Community intensive trapping programme 25% of households trapping at any given time

16. RIU action Community intensive trapping programme 25% of households trapping at any given time

17. RIU action Community intensive trapping programme 25% of households trapping at any given time

18. RIU action Community intensive trapping programme 25% of households trapping at any given time

19. RIU action Community intensive trapping programme 25% of households trapping at any given time • Village Managers set traps every day in the evening and collect/count rodents caught in the morning • Managers move traps to new households every 7 days, i.e. monthly rotation • Managers monitor impact of trapping to rat population and people’s livelihoods on a monthly basis • Community buys the traps

20. RIU action Community intensive trapping programme 50% of individual households trapping

21. RIU action Manufacturing a locally made kill trap New design traps are better

22. RIU action Traps are produced for EBRM project and national market using distribution via rodenticide retailers • Cost of trap will depend on production scale • Production scale will depend on demand • Demand will depend on perceived efficacy, ease of use & durability in comparison to alternatives • Price of trap? Initial EBRM needs? • 100 villages needing atleast 100 traps each = 10,000 traps minimum

23. Trap success of intensive trapping

25. Monitoring community actions Three methods will be used • Farmer diaries • Loss, damage, contamination of stored food • Rodent populations (three methods)

26. Five farmers in a group Male and female groups Group leaders to manage Meeting once a week NGO staff, managers and Key Informants to oversee process Everyone to be given a diary in all communities Sub-sample of diaries used for analysis Farmer Diaries

27. Baseline socio-economic data Cost and time spent repairing rodent damage Cost, time and result of rodent control actions People bitten by rats Farmer Diaries

28. Farmer Diaries • Recording information on time and money spent related to rodent damage, repairs and rodent management activities

29. Farmer Diaries { { Intervention No intervention

30. Farmer Diaries { { Intervention No intervention

31. Farmer Diaries

32. Farmer Diaries

33. Households in Jakunipara (intervention village) involved in recording various repair activities within a farmer diary. Activities coincided with the commencement of village-wide intensive trapping of rodents

34. Households in the village of Anandapur (non-intervention village) involved in recording various repair activities within a farmer diary

35. Farmer Diaries { { Intervention No intervention

36. Farmer Diaries { { Intervention No intervention

37. Monitoring stored food losses Villagers usually notice rodent damage to stored food more easily than compared to field crops Rodent contamination is often obvious in stored grain, damage to store structures Less appreciation of actual loss (underestimation)

39. Methods 8 kg of rice in a basket Placed individually in farmer stores, 10 households per community Five communities per region per year Two-week interval to measure basket weight, and contamination, damaged grains, moisture content to rice in basket and in the farmer’s own rice store

40. 175 g sub-sample taken, and the droppings categorised by size and shape for the three main species trapped in households Mus musculus Bandicota benegalensis Rattus rattus Methods

41. Damaged rice measured by taking two lots of 100 rice grains from the 175 g sub-sample, counting number of rodent-damaged grains to obtain a percentage Methods

42. Mean monthly rates of contamination, damage and loss caused by rodents to baskets of rice placed in farmer stores (n=30) in the village of Anandapur

43. Linear regression of data collected from the mean values of four villages over four months (Jan-04 to Apr-04) comparing temporal changes in rodent damage and weight loss

44. Loss rate of rice removed from baskets by rodents between sampling periods in the village of Anandapur. Each data point represents the amount of rice removed by rodents every fortnight.

45. Non-linear regression best-fit model to data generated from the rate loss data calculated from 64 baskets of rice in household grain stores over four months (Jun-04 to Sep-04)

46. Linear regression of damaged rice in baskets against the damaged rice in the farm store farm = -1.25 + 0.51 * basket, R² = 0.92

47. Linear regression of rodent droppings in baskets against the rodent droppings in the farm store farm = -2.24 + 0.44 * basket, R² = 0.90

48. Analysis summary Loss, damage and contamination of rice in basket are correlated Regression of basket vs. farm damage or contamination shows high R values and slopes As we can only calculate a daily loss rate from the basket, the above suggests the loss rate should be similar between basket and farm store

49. Loss rate from basket does not significantly change over time. This is used to calculate amount of rice lost from the farm store over time Analysis summary

50. Effect of intensive trapping on the estimated amount of rice eaten by rodents from farmer’s own grain stores, comparing two villages that have been intensively trapping rodents against two villages that have not trapped