Why does rural poverty persist when men migrate in S Asia? Presentation by Panchali Saikia on research conducted in Bihar and Nepal terai.

1. 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

2. 11/26/2015
To identify the impact of out-migration on agricultural (decision making and
investment patterns) and gender
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
2

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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
Average%allocationofremittance
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

8. 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
%ofinvestment
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

9. 11/26/2015
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
tenant or
part-tenant
Land owner
with <0.5 hectares
Land owner
with >0.5 hectares
Useofirrigation%
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

10. 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 cultivator
with <0.5 hectares
owner cultivator
with >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

11. PRESSING ISSUES
11/26/2015 13

12. 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 or
owning <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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 11/26/2015
THANK YOU
18