Livelihoods analysis, aquaculture

and irrigation in India

Cecile Brugere, John Lingard

Dept. of Agricultural Economics and Food Marketing

University of Newcastle

Department for International Development

Structure

• Economics & Livelihoods: hypothesis, Sustainable Livelihoods Framework

• Vulnerability, assets, access, strategies• Poverty-focused aquaculture and potential

beneficiaries• Aquaculture costs, resource allocation, and

comparison with other income generating activities

• Livelihood benefits• Constraints, Policy implications

Economics & Livelihoods: hypothesis•Varying gradients of water availability

Poverty and livelihood strategies adopted

Potential for aquaculture interventions

• 2 canals

- LBP (120 miles)

- Arrakankottai (40 miles)

• 6 villages Head - Middle - Tail

Sustainable livelihoods framework

- SHOCKS- TRENDS- SEASONALITY

VULNERABILITY CONTEXT

POLICIES,INSTITUTIONSAND PROCESSES

STRUCTURESLevels of government LawsPrivate Policiessector Culture Institutions PROCESSES

- More income- Increased well-being- Reduced vulnerability- Improved food security- More sustainable use of natural resources

LIVELIHOODOUTCOMES

LIVELIHOOD ASSETS

LIVELIHOODSTRATEGIES

Influence &

Access

Key

H = Human capital S = Social capital

N = Natural capital P = Physical capital

F = Financial capital

TO

Methodology of investigation

VULNERABILITY CONTEXT

Participatory appraisal (qualitative)

?

Secondary data analysis (qualitative)

POLICIES,INSTITUTIONSAND PROCESSES

LIVELIHOODOUTCOMES

Risk

UNCERTAINTY

Additions:Risk / uncertainty -

Gender

Gender analysis -

M

A

R

K

E

T

I

N

G

Marketing issues

Livelihoods analysis (quantitative)

H

N

P

F

S

LIVELIHOOD ASSETS

Influence &

Access

LIVELIHOODSTRATEGIES

30 questionnaires per village (H,M,T) 3 wealth groups (R,M,P)

Vulnerability context

• SHOCKS

natural:

agricultural:

economic:

• TRENDS

agricultural:

economic:

physical:

social:

CANAL WATER AVAILABILITY

SEASONS (WET/DRY)

RELIGIOUS “SEASONS”

droughts, floods

crop failures

changed prices

intensification, mechanisation

improved infrastructures

non-farm employment, improved welfare

erosion of community values

Residents (nb)

Education (yrs)

Land owned (ha)Cattle owned (nb)

Electricity (%)

Ukkaram (H)

Arachalur (M)

Naddupalayam (N)

Livelihood assets (1)

education

HH residents

electricity

cattle ownership land ownership

Human capital

Natural capitalFinancial capital

Social capital

Physical capital

Residents (nb)

Education (yrs)

Land owned (ha)Cattle owned (nb)

Electricity (%)

Rich

Medium

Poor

Livelihood assets (2)

Human capital 1(for IGAs)- workers- education

Natural capital- land- water

Financial capital- savings- credit (bank loan)- cattle / goats

Human capital 2(for HH wellbeing) - food expenditure- non-food expenditure- fish consumption

Physical capital- house- privately owned water sources

Livelihood assets (2)

Summary 5 livelihood capitals, LBP villages

0

1Financial capital

Human capital - for IGAs

Human capital - for HH wellbeingNatural capital

Physical capital

Ukkaram (H)

Arachalur (M)

Naddupalayam (T)

PentagonsSummary 5 livelihood capitals, LBP wealth groups

0

1

Financial capital

Human capital - for IGAs

Human capital - for HH wellbeingNatural capital

Physical capital

Rich

Medium

Poor

Access

• Highlight that the notions of “assets” and “access” are very close when it comes to measuring them.

• Focus on access to water sources and water uses: present summary stats

Landless Landowners Women Common- Agricultural

labour- Seasonal

migration- Remittances- Weaving- Reduction in

cattleherding

- Agriculturalintensification

- Permanentyouthmigration

- Remittances- Decrease in

cattlenumbers

- Hand weaving(local)

- Constructionlabour

- Firewoodcollection /sale

- Flowercultivation

- Reduction inagri. labour

- Migration(circular,permanent)

- Reducedfamily size

- Savings- Education- Emergence of

poultryfarming andbrick making

Livelihood strategies

Long-term, short term, weakening (long-term) trends.

Livelihood strategies Classification - “type 75”

Principally crop• Crop income 75%

Principally non-farm (wage / self-empl.)• Non-farm income 75% (wage / self-employment)

Principally off-farm (agricultural labour)• Off-farm income 75%

Farm / non-farm employment• Crops + non-farm 75 %, crop 75% but > off-farm and non-farm 75% but > off-farm.

Farm / off-farm employment• Off-farm + crops 75%, off-farm 75% but > non-farm and crops 75% but > non-farm.

Non-farm / off-farm employment

• Non-farm + off-farm 75%, non-farm 75% but > crops and off-farm 75% but > crops

• Mixed (type 75 only): 2 main activities 75%

Mix

Livelihood strategies, poverty & vulnerability

Summary livelihoods in the irrigation system

• more landless• more agricultural labourers

• more poverty• more cattle, larger land

• more physical capital

• more farming• more wage empl.

• more rich landowners• higher education

• more natural capital

Poverty-focused aquacultureDefinition:• small-scale

• extensive / semi-intensive

• affordable• low risk

• Access • Availability of:

- water (reliability)

- fish seed

- cheap, durable materials

- fish food

• Market demand

• Cages in canals H T • Cage rearing of fingerlings in flowing water

H T

H T • Cage fattening fish in seepage zones

• Stocking open wells H T

Potential interventions:

Aquaculture interventions - done by DL???

BeneficiariesCages incanals

Cagerearing

fingerlings inflowingwater

Stockingopenwells

Cagefattening

in seepagezones

Agriculturallabourers (increasedincome)

Yes Yes No Yes

Farmers (increasedincome)

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Consumers(increased fishavailability)

Yes No Yes Yes

Local fish retailersand vendors(increasedavailability)

Yes No Yes Yes

Poverty impacts HIGH HIGH LOW MOD. toHIGH

Potential conflicts

Aquaculture in canals:Costs (1)

Aquaculture trials:Cube cage Long cage

Tilapia fattening v vFry to fingerling v v

- Food conversion ratio

- Start weight (tilapia)

- Survival rate

- Labour: men / women / both

- Cycle length

Sensitivity analysis:

Aquaculture in canals:Costs (2)

• Main results of sensitivity analysis• What the best options are

Farming

- labour

- capital

- land

- water

- seasons

Cage aquaculture

- labour

- capital

- cycles

Competition for resources

Versus

Optimal allocation Linear programming

Farming Vs Aquaculture: LP matrix

•To redo with Lindsay’s cage aqua data

Farming vs Aquaculture: Results

•To redo

Alternative income generating activities

• Summary of main IGAs encountered in the area of study.

• How does aquaculture potentially compare with these (based on a ‘qualitative’ comparison of initial investment, training, time required, flexibility, returns)

Livelihood benefits• Summarise main points raised before (target

groups, types of aqua• Potential livelihood benefits (provided aqua is

done in a certain way):

- increased income

- improved status for women

- show how one “entry point” (I.e. aquaculture) can have an effect on all other corners of the pentagon)

Constraints - Policy implicationsAquaculture: yes… but

… profitability?

… shift in resource allocation

… possible with

• strengthening of credit provision, in particular to women (“self-help groups”)• aquaculture awareness & knowledge transmitted to resource-poor groups• modified canal water management to target tail end of the irrigation system