inter-linkage of markets in tribal areas: an exploratory study of...
TRANSCRIPT
Inter-linkage of markets in Tribal Areas: An Exploratory Study of Causes and Consequences in
Chhattisgarh
1
SanjitSanjit Kumar Rout ,Y Kumar Rout ,Y SrinivasuluSrinivasulu & & V.RatnaV.Ratna ReddyReddy
Livelihoods and Natural Resources Livelihoods and Natural Resources Management Institute (LNRMI) Management Institute (LNRMI)
HyderabadHyderabad
National Seminar onDynamics on Rural Labour Relations in India
10-12 March, 2016
Background of the StudyInter-linkages among rural markets are widelyobserved in developing countries and the same maybe found in case of the tribal areas of India
Process of integration with the mainstream economiesenforcing the tribal communities to involve inexchange relations and transactions with mainstreameconomic agents
Nature of exchange relationship involving the tribal
2
Nature of exchange relationship involving the tribalcommunities has always been unequal providingscope for exploitation by the mainstream economicagents.
Though many studies exist dealing with the issue ofinter-linkages, not many studies are found in tribalareas specifically focusing on the nature, mode, extentof market inter-linkages and its implication on rurallivelihoods.
ObjectivesThe basic objective of the study is to understand the changing
nature, structure, forms of factors and output markets in thetribal dominated areas of Chhattisgarh.
Specific Objectives include:
To assess the nature, form and extent of inter-linkagesprevailing in these different tribal dominated regions ofChhattisgarh and its implications on the livelihoods of tribalcommunities.
Is there any variation exists between different regions with
3
Is there any variation exists between different regions withrespect to the nature, form and extent of inter-linkages? In whatway, the interlinked transactions in one region differ from that ofthe other regions?
Who are involved in such interlinked transactions- Identify thetypes of households who have a greater probability of enteringinto such interlinked transactions?
To explore the causes and consequences of inter-linkages ondifferent strata of farm households
Approach of the Study
Selection of the Study Areas:Three districts (falling under 5th schedule areaswith substantial tribal population): Surguja, UttarBastar (Kanker) and Bastar
12 blocks (four blocks from each district: threeblocks with substantial tribal population -moreblocks with substantial tribal population -moredeveloped, moderately developed, less developedblocks and one block with relatively lesser tribalpopulation
Twelve villages (One village from each blockexhibiting the characteristics of its correspondingblock: 4 from each district-3 tribal dominatedvillages and one non-tribal village for controlpurpose 4
Survey Sites
Agro-climatic Zone Districts Blocks Villages
North Hill Zone Surguja
Ambikapur* Sakhauli*Lundra** Nagam**Batouli*** Birimkela***
Lakhanpur# Junadih#
5
Lakhanpur# Junadih#
Chattisgarh Plain Uttar Bastar
Kanker
Charama* KottaraKanker** Makrikhuna
Antagarh*** HindubinapalPakhanjur# Kurusbodi
Bastar Plateau Zone Bastar
Bastar* Dubey Umergaon*
Bakavand** Pharasgaon**Darbha*** Kamanar***Jagdalpur# Karanpur#
Total 3 12 12
While *, ** and *** refer to More developed, Moderately developed and Less developed respectively, # is used to indicate the control villages and their corresponding blocks.
Data Sources and Methods
Sources:Rural households
Documents
Focus groups
Methods:
Interviews and questionnaires (semi structured and structured)
6
Key Informantsand structured)
Documentary analysis
Focus group discussions
Household level questionnaire canvassed to a stratified sample of 420 HHs: 35 HHs from each village
Some Facts About Chhattisgarh
Barring states in the northeast of India, there is noState that has a larger tribal population thanChhattisgarh in percent terms.
Scheduled Tribes (STs) constitute 30.62% of the totalstate population and about 92 percent of the STpopulation live in rural areas (Census, 2011).
Forty two Scheduled Tribes: five tribes are falling underForty two Scheduled Tribes: five tribes are falling underthe category of Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups(PTGs).
Third poorest State in India (Tendulkar Committee):48.7 percent BPL population in 2009-10.
In 2010-11: SMF-80.4%; Average operational land perHHs-1.36 Ha (ST-1.83 ha, SC-0.88 ha & Others-1.19ha)
7
Changing proportions in the ST populations
Changing proportions in the ST populations across different Regions of Chhattisgarh
Region2001 Census 2011 Census
Overall Rural Overall Rural
8
Predominately Tribal 62.00 97.55 61.88 94.54
Tribal 33.03 93.25 32.64 92.44
Non-Tribal 14.25 89.71 13.80 87.68
Overall 31.76 94.68 30.62 92.43
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
% C
hang
e
Changes in Access to Land (2000-01 to 2010-11)
9
SC ST Others SC ST Others SC ST Others SC ST Others
Predominately Tribal Tribal Non-Tribal Overall
Net Cultivated Area 27.8 -16.0 10.2 -9.5 -4.0 -5.7 -9.1 31.0 -9.4 -6.2 -5.6 -4.9
Net Area Sown 24.7 -20.5 5.9 -11.1 -7.4 -7.5 -9.5 27.9 -9.9 -7.1 -9.6 -6.5
-30.0
-20.0
-10.0
Growing landlessness amongst tribal people in tribal dominatedareas: those with larger land holdings are loosing a significantpart of their land
Increasing Landlessness among Tribals
Region Category of Worker
Share%
Change2001 Census
2011 Census
Predominately Tribal
Cultivators 57.1 44.5 -9.44Agricultural
Labourer 28.2 39.1 60.78
Cultivators 43.9 32.8 -11.67
10
TribalCultivators 43.9 32.8 -11.67Agricultural
Labourer 33.4 43.2 52.84
Non-TribalCultivators 36.5 26.3 -1.05Agricultural
Labourer 33.5 42.6 74.72
OverallCultivators 44.5 32.9 -7.11Agricultural
Labourer 31.9 41.8 64.71
Limited Access to Irrigation
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
% o
f Irr
igat
ion
Access to Irrigation
11
Predominately Tribal
Tribal Non-Tribal Overall Predominately Tribal
Tribal Non-Tribal Overall
2000-01 2010-11
SC 1.4 13.3 37.2 28.7 12.4 26.7 56.2 44.8
ST 1.2 4.7 19.0 4.9 3.8 13.3 23.4 10.6
Others 2.1 20.5 29.1 22.0 13.7 30.7 55.1 40.0
Overall 1.4 13.7 28.6 15.3 7.1 23.5 48.1 28.2
0.0
10.0
20.0% o
f Irr
igat
ion
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
%
Level of Literacy (%)
12
Predominately Tribal
Tribal Non-Tribal OverallPredominatel
y TribalTribal Non-Tribal Overall
2001 Census 2011 Census
SC 57.05 67.31 63.63 63.98 63.50 72.04 71.18 70.76
ST 44.65 60.24 58.67 52.10 51.64 66.36 66.39 59.09
Others 65.7 75.5 71.5 71.7 70.26 78.27 76.61 76.11
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
Limited Institutional Credit
Region
No of Operational
holdings availing
Institutional Credit (%)
% of Operational Holdings availing loans from
PACs PLDB/ SLDB CBB RRBB
13
Credit (%)2005-
062010-
112005-
062010-
112005-
062010-
112005-
062010-
112005-06
2010-11
Predominately Tribal
9.1 26.8 49.5 88.6 15.5 4.8 25.2 12.5 10.3 1.0
Tribal 11.9 43.7 49.4 92.0 10.5 2.0 29.3 6.6 10.9 2.4
Non-Tribal 10.7 48.3 76.4 96.3 8.8 0.4 12.5 2.9 3.0 0.8
Overall 10.6 41.8 62.6 93.9 10.7 1.6 20.2 5.5 6.9 1.3
Region
Nature of Credit (% to Total Credit)
2005-06 2010-11
SL ML LL SL ML LL
Predominately 23 50 26 90 9 1
14
ately Tribal
23 50 26 90 9 1
Tribal 34 32 34 88 8 4
Non-Tribal 60 11 29 94 3 3
Overall 38 32 29 92 5 3
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
Kg/A
cre
Yield rate in Predominantly Tribal, Tribal & Non-Tribal Areas (Rice)
15
2000-03 2003-06 2006-09 2009-12
Predominantly Tribal Districts 369.08 505.46 524.14 521.02 Tribal Districts 358.18 514.25 512.92 591.16 Non-Tribal Districts 353.11 584.63 588.90 653.77
0.00
100.00
Productivity of land in tribal areas is found to be less whencompared to the non-tribal areas which ultimately adverselyaffecting their farm income
Expected Insights from the Field Survey
Understanding of outcomes as well asprocesses associated with market inter-linkage
Explore the relationship between theinteracting forces and the relations of powerbetween the tribal communities vis-à-visothersothers
Comparison of interlinked households withnon-interlinked households to understand thelivelihood implication
16
Thank YouThank You
17
Thank YouThank You