Impact of migration on agriculture and gender-Case study from Northeast of Bihar in India and Nepal Terai

Presented by: Panchali Saikia, Scientific Officer-Social Science, IWMI Delhi

Project Supervisor: Dr. Fraser Sugden

Other Researchers: Niki Maskey, Anoj Kumar, Paras Pokharel

OUTWARD MIGRATION AND FEMINIZATION OF AGRICULTURE IN SOUTH ASIA

November 26th-27th, 2015

New Delhi

11/26/2015

To identify the impact of out-migration on agricultural (decision making and

investment patterns) and gender

RESEARCH OBJECTIVE

2

11/26/2015

METHODOLOGY

Household survey to collect Information on

agricultural production, remittances and income Focus Group Discussions to

understand women’s daily household,

agricultural activities, community

participation and assess their

perceptions and experiences of male

out-migration

• 3 FGDs in Bihar and 8 in Nepal

Sampling

Participants for FGD selected through

field visit to represent from households

with migrant wage labourers

Villages/Tola

in Madhubani

Number of

participants

Naagtolia

Goshala

Chathra

10

10

15

Sampling

Snowball sampling

included identifying marginal farmers and

cross section of households from ethnic

and caste groups

Field work conducted in Bihar and Nepal between January and July 2014

District VDC/Panchayat Number of

women

Saptari Odraha and Lalapatti VDC 41

Dhanusha Thadi Jijha VDC 44

Madhubani Rakuwari Panchayat 42

3

Research Findings

11/26/2015 4

1. MIGRATION TYPES

2. REASON OF MIGRATION

3. MIGRATION, REMITTANCES AND CHANGED AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES

How remittances are invested, and whether migration is actually contributing to

socio-economic upliftment?

• Allocation of remittances according to farmer land ownership category

• Investments following migration of family member

• Irrigation use before and after migration

• Change in land ownership

4. WORK BURDEN AND LABOUR ALLOCATION IN THE CONTEXT OF OUT-

MIGRATION

• Impact on agricultural productivity

5. COMMUNITY BREAKDOWN AND IMPACT ON IRRIGTATION

INFRASTRUCTURES

6. GENDER EMPOWERMENT

11/26/2015

MIGRATION TYPES

7

.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Dhanusha Saptari Madhubani

Percentage of permanent and seasonal migrants across three districts

Permanent Seasonal Both

Districts Destinations

Madhubani Permanent: Delhi,

Mumbai, Kolkata

Seasonal: Punjab,

Haryana

Dhanusha

and Saptari

Permanent: Gulf

countries, Malaysia, India

11/26/2015

REASON OF MIGRATION

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent of Cases

larger percentage of

respondents noted

economic insecurity, and

basic food needs, no cash

income from agriculture

as the main reason

many household members

migrate primarily to repay

past debts

to purchase food

paying for dowry and

weddings

facilitate migration mostly in

the context of overseas

migration such as in Saptari

and Dhanusha

Generation of wealth and

long term investment is

not immediately noted as a

reason for migration –

subsistence priority

8

11/26/2015

How remittances are invested, and whether migration is actually contributing to socio-economic upliftment?

Allocation of remittances according to farmer land ownership category

MIGRATION, REMITTANCES AND CHANGED AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

landless labourer tenant or part-tenant owner cultivator with<0.5 hectares

owner cultivator with>0.5 hectares

Ave

rage

% a

lloca

tio

n o

f re

mit

tan

ce

Landownership category

Agricultural inputs Education Food

Household rennovation Debt servicing Dowry

debt servicing is maximum

in all the categories, higher

in landless and poorer

households

majority is also being used

for basic food needs

a source of cash, but not

contributing to wealth

‘accumulation

in Bihar remittances are

generally not large enough

to improve farmers’

landholding status or to

change their position in the

village hierarchy

9

11/26/2015

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

tenant or part-tenant

owner cultivator with<0.5 hectares

owner cultivator with>0.5 hectares

landless labourer

% o

f in

vest

me

nt

Land ownserhip category

pump set/agric machinery farm land house land new house combination none

Investments following migration of family member

majority of households had

made no large investments

following the migration of a

family member

number of respondents who had

invested in agricultural

machinery or pump sets was

less than 10%

lowest overall levels of

investment were amongst

tenants/part tenants and

landless labourers, with only

33%

Continued ….

10

11/26/2015

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

tenant orpart-tenant

Land ownerwith <0.5 hectares

Land ownerwith >0.5 hectares

Use

of

irri

gati

on

%

Land ownership categorydecline in irrigation

pump set/STW used on land only cultivated since migration

pump set/STW now used on land which was previously unirrigated

no change

Irrigation use before and after migration

for majority of farmers there

has been no change

18% of tenants and 14% of

smaller owner cultivators

there is a decline due to the

tendency for farmers to reduce

the cultivable area in the dry

season due to labour shortages

only 10% of tenants increase in

irrigation area whereas it is

higher for small owner it is

24% and 28% of larger owner

highlights constraints faced by

those without land

Continued ….

11

11/26/2015

Percentage of households who had purchased or bought land after migration according to

land ownership category

Continued ….

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

tenant or part-tenant

owner cultivatorwith <0.5 hectares

owner cultivatorwith >0.5 hectares

landless labourer

increased ownership of land after migration

decreased ownership of land after migration

no change

for majority of farmers there

has been no change

increase in landholding is

largest amongst small owner

cultivators with less than

0.5ha

low among tenants or part

tenants given the burden of

debt and high rents

12

Change in land ownership

PRESSING ISSUES

11/26/2015 13

11/26/2015

agrarian stress and challenges in

investing in land and agricultural inputs

increased work burden on women

more significant for WHH

60% of WHH who were tenants or

owned less than 0.5ha noted high

workload

comparatively much lessor concern for

better off WHH. Also as in the case of

MHH

Other challenges faced by the women

• availability and access to resources.

• challenges in handling conflicts over

irrigation water distributions

• challenges faced in repayment of loans

on time. Harassments by local money

lenders

WORK BURDEN AND LABOUR ALLOCATION IN THE CONTEXT OF OUT-

MIGRATION

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Women headed household (tenant orowning <0.5ha)

Women headed household (owning >0.5ha)

Male headed household (tenant or owning<0.5ha)

Male headed household (owning >0.5ha)

High workload key challenge of agricultural work

High workload key challenge of household/reproductive work

14

11/26/2015 15

Gender of the Household

head and land ownership

Average

productivity of

paddy(kg/ha)

Average

productivity of

wheat(kg/ha)

WHH (tenant or owns

<0.5ha)1571.27 714.09

WHH (owns>0.5ha) 1293.48 414.55

MHH (tenant or owns

<0.5ha)1304.23 737.07

MHH (owns >0.5ha) 2650.81 1176.74

productivity is significantly

higher for male headed

households with more than

0.5ha.

• capacity to invest on the land

is highest

• labour shortages are less

likely to negatively affect

agricultural yields.

comparatively low in WHH

labour shortage

lack of knowledge about

seeds, fertilizers, and

implementing innovative

agricultural methods

access to government

programmes and services

Continued ….

Impact on agricultural productivity

11/26/2015

COMMUNITY BREAKDOWN AND IMPACT ON IRRIGTATION INFRASTRUCTURES

stress on community participation; such as decreasing male members in irrigation canal

management and pond management committees

women are not taking over from men in the leadership positions in any of these

committees

• time constraints

• cultural norms restriction and perception on women’s lack of ability to lead any such activities

Gender of

Household Head

Person responsible

Who

collects

remittances

(%)

Who decides

how

remittances

are used (%)

Women headed

households

no remittances received yet 1.6 1.6

herself 68.9 63.9

Joint NA 32.8

in law 19.7 1.6

husband 1.6 .0

Other 8.2 .0

Male headed

households

no remittances received yet 0 .0

herself 31.8 .0

Joint NA 45.5

in law 31.8 28.8

Other 19.7 .0

husband 12.1 21.2

responsibilities and key

decision making in

agriculture is transferred to

women but restricted to

women headed households

Majority, nearly 68% of

those from WHH collect the

remittance money

themselves, while 64% also

decide how they are used

GENDER EMPOWERMENT

16

11/26/2015

• The positive impact migration has on livelihoods is often restricted to better off

households who have access to land and capital( particularly MHH)

• Most of the labourers migrating are engaged in unskilled jobs, casual and low paid

jobs due to which they are not able to send money regularly

• A major challenge for poor farmers, remittances not enough and people left behind

still rely on loans.

• Training women on agricultural inputs(seeds, fertilizers, herbicides applications,

irrigation water, improving access to markets such as forming market

groups/centres to collect the produces, access to government services and

information, other livelihood opportunities such as homestead vegetable cultivation,

livestock etc.

FURTHER RESEARCH:

• How do agricultural practices change following male out-migration?

• What is the impact on the development of agriculture labour forces?

• To what degree does the remittance income change agricultural investment

patterns, or is it invested into other productive sectors?

• What are the impact of out-migration and feminization on the management and

maintenance of existing irrigation infrastructure-such as community management of

canals, ponds etc?

CONCLUSION

17

11/26/2015

THANK YOU

18