TEACH A WOMAN TO FISH Encountering Empowerment in Natural

Resource Management & Community Fish Farming in Koraput, Odisha (India)

ALLEVIATING POVERTY AND MALNUTRITION IN AGRO-BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOTS

RAJAKISHOR MAHANA, R. DURAIRAJAM. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai, India

International Food Security Dialogue 2014Enhancing Food Production, Gender Equity and

Nutritional Security in a Changing World

02 May 2014, Uni of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

Introduction- Fish farming in Asia has been a male-centric activity, at best household-based, with women making large scale contributions to feeding and taking care of fish (Barman 2001, Kelkar 2001, Kusakabe 2003, Sriputinibondh et al. 2005, Sullivan 2004).

- Access to and control over natural resources make men authoritative and dominant over women.

- Aiming at understanding agency and the process of empowerment, we are interested in investigating how women expand their access to and control over natural and social resources that enable them to participate in decision making, local accountability, performance evaluation, which in turn brings them social and economic empowerment (cf. Agarwal 1997, Kabeer 2005).

Outline of the Presentation

• Introduction

• Literature Review

•Methodology

•Area and People

• Com Fish Farming in Koraput, Odisha(with A Case Study on fish farming by women)

• Discussion and Conclusion

- Particularly the paper seeks to answer the following question: does access to and control over natural resource make women socially and economically empowered?

- The study also investigates how village culture, local politics and male patriarchy do not confirm to the development ideology of resource allocation (to women) for ensuring gender equity and empowerment of women and how, in turn, gender inequality and rural poverty are produced.

Introduction continues…..

Literature Review

Revisiting Bourdieu’s field, capital & habitus

Why Bourdieu?

• Poverty alleviation discourse has been debated intensely

• Building on modernization theory and its allied neo-liberal economic agenda , authors have argued improved access to productive assets is vital for enhancing ‘capabilities’ and empowerment of the poor

• Scholars also investigated how politics and power influences resource allocation mechanisms in organizations

• A little attention has been given to examine how village culture and politics influence organizational budgeting and resource allocation mechanisms

Literature review continues…..

• These theoretical postulations and frameworks explain little about the dynamics of how village culture and local politics play role in influencing village-level resource allocation mechanisms (particularly to women).

• Here Bourdieu’s theoretical concepts like ‘field’, ‘habitus’ and ‘capital’ help us to capture thick descriptions of how resource allocation mechanisms in tribal villages of Koraput is governed and controlled by a particular sets of structural logic.

Field

• social space, defined as, “a network, or a configuration, of objective relations between positions” (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992: 97).

• field consists of social relations rather than individuals or social structures

• “field” represents the game itself

Literature review continues…..

Capital

• social relations are competitive (Vendenberghe 1999) where social actors therein vie for accumulation of what Bourdieu calls “capital” (economic and symbolic capital)

• The role of capital influences the operation of the field.

Literature review continues…..

Habitus

• habitus is internal in nature and it refers to the taken-for-granted, shared meanings and behaviours utilized by the individuals within the social space.

• analogically, Bourdieu equates habitus with “feel or sense of the game”. A player’s actions in field are guided by his/her perceptions and general feel for the game more than according to the conscious, rational and decision making process.

Literature review continues…..

• Transcending the traditional theoretical frameworks that either focus on social actors and their immediate actions, values and perceptions or take a more macro approach and focus on social structures, the relational thinking approach addresses the relationship between objective and subjective while at the same time without losing attention to the role of the social actors.

• Building on these theoretical concepts, the paper reflects on the governance and control and the process of resource allocation mechanisms from the perspective of habitus that links to capital in the field of fish farming in particular and poverty alleviation in general.

Literature review continues…..

Methodology• Sampled HHs: 2004 HHs in

Kundra block, Koraput, Odisha

• Ethnography

• Two Quantitative HH Surveys: 2004 HHs surveyed in 2011 & 500 HHs in 2013

• Quantitative data collected on fish farming on regular basis in 25 ponds (9 community ponds and 16 private ponds).

ALLEVIATING POVERTY AND MALNUTRITION IN AGRO-BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOTS

The Area and People

The Area •A hilly terrain with plateaus

• Farming (including upland and shifting cultivation) is the main activity in the area

• As one of the KBK districts known as hunger hotspots in India, Koraput has received huge external support and aids

• Though rich in agro-biodiversity (GIAHS award in 2013), Koraput is known for its poverty, hunger and backwardness

Social and Religious Categories

General8%

Backward caste 24%

Scheduled caste 28%

Scheduled tribe 40%

Social Category

Hindu 96%

Muslim 0%

Christian 4%

Religious Categories

The People

Primary Occupation of HH HeadOccupation % of People Involved

Crop farming 56.6

Livestock & poultry 0.2

Salaried employment 1.7

Business/ trade 3.3

Informal wage labourer 29.8

Not working/ un-employed 0.8

Old/ retired 4.7

Disabled/ sick and unfit for work 0.7

Home maker 2.2

Total 100

Average HH Land Holding DetailsLand Type Own

land (in ac)

Leased-in land

Leased-out land

Cultivated Land

Kharif Rabi Summer Plantation

Low (wet) land 0.91 0.15 0.06 0.94 0.02 0.04 Nil

Up (dry) land 0.79 0.03 0.01 0.30 0.02 0.003 0.31

Total land 1.78 0.19 0.07 1.24 0.06 0.11 0.31

Category of Famers & Distribution of Land

Category of FarmersNo. of Households % of HHs

Area Cultivated (in Ha.) % of Land

Average Landholding (in Ha.)

Landless 734 36.6 0 0 0

Marginal (<1 ha) 904 45.1 415.44 30.5 0.46

Small (1.01-2ha) 219 10.9 322.82 23.7 1.47

Semi-medium (2.01-4ha) 105 5.2 303.28 22.3 2.89

Medium (4.01-10ha) 35 1.7 214.12 15.7 6.12

Large (>10ha) 7 0.3 105.2 7.7 15.03

Total 2004 100 1360.86 100 1.07

No. of HHs own land=1270

MigrationAt least one member migrated in past 12 months (% HHs) 11.2

Reasons for Migration (%)  To earn wages as food grain 1.9To earn higher wages 50.9To reduce burden on family 7.5Non-availability of work in village 39.6To work on relative’s farm 0.0Others 0.0Average number of HH member migrated

 

Male adult 1.1 Female adult 1.0 Children 1.6 Average months migrated 4.1 Average income earned 14754

IncomeIncome source (%)Sale of market surplus staple crops 45.4Sale of surplus fruits and vegetables 8.2Sale of crop byproducts (such as straw, wood, grass, etc) 0.1Sale of livestock, birds (chickens, ducks, etc) 2.4Sale of livestock products (milk, dung, eggs, poultry waste, etc) 0.4Income from services by livestock (hiring for ploughing, carting) 0.9Income from agricultural wages 7.6Income from off-farm activities (business, trade, non- agril wage) 16.7Income from Migration 4.3Salaried employment 6.7Income from other activities 7.4Average income per HH Rs. 43,379

ExpenditureExpenditure Heads %Food 47.5Clothing 9.9Shelter (E B bill, house tax, annual maintenance) 4.9Education 2.4Health (e.g., medical bills) 8.9Drinking Water 0.0Fuel (domestic, farming and vehicle) 2.3Electricity on agricultural/processing activity 0.4Transportation 3.9Communication (e.g., fixed/mobile phone) 1.9Religious and family celebrations (eg. marriage) 9.9Entertainment (cinema, cable TV etc.) 0.7Interest and repayment of loan 4.4Purhase/Maintenance of farm equipment, tools, etc. 0.8Other expenditure 2.0Average expenditure per HH Rs. 31,336

Food Security StatusDetails of Food SecurityHouseholds have stock of staple & non-staple foods 76.8 %No. of months, staple food stock available 4.3 monthsNo. of months, non-staple food stock available 4.1 monthsSources of food supply (%) % Local ration shop (PDS) 42.7Open market 5.4Wage earned as kind 1.8Own farm production 48.7Others 1.4Worries about food security of the household (%)  All the time 53.4Most of the time 38.2Sometimes 7.6Rarely 0.6Never 0.2

Natural resource management and community fish farming in Koraput

• 68 private ponds and 32 community ponds identified

• PUGs formed and agreements made

• Fresh water fish farming started in 2012

Details of fish farming production and consumption

(2012-2013)

Consumption Details:

Production Details:

Category of Pond

No. of Ponds

Cultivation cost (Rs)

Production (Kg) Income (Rs.)

Profit (Rs.)

Community Pond 9 38,884 1,068 1,06,800 67,916

Private Pond 16 25,880 830 66,400 40,520

Total 25 64,764 1,898 1,73,200 1,08,436

Category of Consumers

No. of Ponds

No. of HHs

Production (in Kg)

Consumption

(in Kg)

Consumption Per HH

(Kg/2mnths)

Community Pond Members 9 584 1,068 822 (77%) 1.407

Private Pond Owners 16 15 830 232 (28%) 15.467

Non- members 0 118 0 844 7.152

Total 25 717 1,898 1898 (100%) 2.647

Encountering Empowerment: A Case Study on Community Fish Farming by Women

Sl.No

Name of the Hamlet

Total HHs

Dom Bhumia Christian Others

1 Gorahandi 97 71 21 02 01

2 Khudiguda 26 02 15 - 09

Total 123 73 36 02 10

Social Demographic Profile of Village Gorahandi

• There were three ponds in Gorahandi village and none of them were being used for fish farming.

•Bhumia tribal women’s initiative in fish farming 2005-2011 (leasing in two ponds biding against Dom male group ).

• In appreciation, MSSRF provided fingerlings and technical support for fish farming in 2012

• At the time of harvest, being jealous, the Dom people claimed share of the fish.

• In consultation with the MSSRF staffs and with police protection, the women group harvested and consumed fish from both the ponds without giving any share to the Dom people.

Case study continues….

• This shows that women enjoyed the rights over resources while at the same time interrogating the power of male patriarchy.

• There was no fish farming (neither by woman group nor by the Doms) in the said pond in 2013

• However, this year, the women group did not take the pond in lease and the Dom men took the pond in lease

The aim of our theoretical construction was to understand the dynamics of resource allocation mechanisms in Gorahandi village leading to, failing thereof, poverty alleviation and empowerment of the resource poor, particularly marginalized tribal women.

Discussion

Field of fish farming

Village headman & elders NGO

Professional

Fish buyer

Input provider (med., feed

etc)Training provider

Fingerlings producer

Govt. agencies

Village money-lenders

The Field of fish farming in Gorahandi village

Discussion continues….

What was the “field” and “capital” that helped the woman SHG to succeeded in mobilising resources for fish farming till 2012?

• As one of the oldest SHGs formed and monitored by the government authorities, there was a strong support from the bureaucracy (including, the Collector, VLW, volunteer etc.)

• The presence of village moneylender in village Khudiguda from whom the women SHG took land in lease

• The priest of the village temple is from Khudiguda

Discussion continues….

Given the facts, how did then the Doms of Gorahandi village mobilize the resource allocation mechanisms in their favour after 2012?

•Being guided more by a practical logic (habitus) the Doms compete for the community resources (capital)

• The social agents those who favoured the women SHG have changed their positions (The District Collector was transferred, VLW along with volunteer left the village, the moneylender died in 2012)

• As the volume and structure of capital changed for the women SHG, the Doms, as the dominant group, captured the pond partly with their muscle power and partly with the help of the social network constructed.

• On the other hand, Khudiguda villagers depend on Gorahandi villagers for livelihood

• As the village temple is located in the boundary of Gorahandi

• Gorahandi being the place for celebrating Chaita Parab

• In last election, a Dom from Gorahandi village was elected as the Ward Member

• The habitus of the women SHG, as one of the members says, is “we are poor, we cannot always fight against but to live with them”. All these illustrate how cultural-politics logic and patronage relation contradicts the prescribed mechanisms of resource allocation and how, in turn, gender inequality and rural poverty is produced.

Discussion continues….

Conclusion

Does access to and control over natural resource make women socially and economically empowered?

Yes

But, Without having a proper understanding of the whole dynamics of a social system, its actors and the practical logic they follow in everyday practices, development interventions brought to the people may fail to produce the intended consequences.

Thank You

Supported by Hosted by