2006

A participatory assessment of livelihood alternatives for the poor in Jharkhand was undertaken by a collective of 31 civil society organisations (CSOs) operating in Jharkhand under the aegis of the PACS Programme.

The exercise was carried out across 18 of Jharkhand's 21 districts, and was facilitated by Praxis Institute for Participatory Practices through the provision of design, capacity-building and synthesis support.

The survey was conducted between July and September 2005, with an assessment across 65 sites selected from the 18 districts. The sites were selected so as to reach out to as many socials groups as possible, and locations with varying degrees of habitation.

The districts covered were: West Singhbhum, Saraikela-Kharsawan, Ranchi, Lohardaga, Simdega, Gumla, Hazaribagh, Giridih, Latehar, Chatra, Palamau, Garhwa, Godda, Dumka, Pakur, Jamtara, Deoghar and Sahebganj.

Key objectives of the assessment

• To understand the main drivers underlying livelihood choices of the poor.
• To profile various common livelihoods in terms of their relative suitability for the poor living in diverse settings.
• To create a database of diverse livelihood practices.
• To provide a learning opportunity for CSO staff about livelihood support interventions.

Wellbeing and livelihoods

It was evident during the assessment that the pattern of dependence on alternative livelihoods varied across different categories, and the combination of livelihoods appeared wider and more diverse in the lower wellbeing categories.

The primary source of livelihood for people in lower income groups was wage labour. This was due to the high degree of landlessness and limited ownership of alternative productive resources.

People in these categories depend on a variety of choices that often complement each other in terms of income flow and periods of dependence.

The worst off were people with limited mobility, including the elderly, people with disabilities and women with restricted mobility. These people depended more on options that could be availed of within the village or in the home. Many such households were engaged in rearing birds and small ruminants such as pigs.

Agriculture, the mainstay

Agriculture is the main livelihood of the poor in Jharkhand. It is characterised by dependence on the monsoons, significant variations in cropping choices across various income categories, and innovative strategies to minimise risk (including sharecropping and crop diversification) employed by farmers particularly those from the poorest categories. Only better-off farmers in the state harvest a second crop (usually wheat or vegetables) because of their ability to invest in irrigation.

Marginal and smaller farmers are compelled to diversify their cropping choices in order to pre-empt the ill effects of recurrent drought, particularly in western districts of the state.

Many small farmers grow pulses like urad and arhar under rain-fed conditions, besides traditional varieties of cereals like gondhali and marua that give them an assured return even in years of low rainfall, and cost less in terms of labour and farm inputs.

Some poor farmers also grow low-cost vegetables like saag and pumpkin. A typical small farmer with a fragmented holding can cultivate as many as eight different crops at the onset of the monsoons. This minimises the risks in the event of a drought.

Livestock, an insurance against crisis

Most families rear livestock, though this is mainly a supplementary occupation to agriculture and also a fallback mechanism, particularly for the poorest of the poor. The quantum of livestock varies according to the economic status of the family.

The number of families engaged in livestock-rearing has increased over the last decade, but this could be due to an increase in the number of households in the villages. The number of livestock, especially cattle, per family has actually decreased.

People continue the tradition of keeping livestock in their homes (mainly tribal families) or in a shed just outside their homes.

In earlier times, cattle-rearing was more a custom than a commercial occupation. Nowadays it is seen as an asset that fetches money during emergencies (particularly small ruminants and poultry) and, in some places, brings in additional income.

Small ruminants and birds are preferred. Goats, pigs and chickens are the most popular because they don’t have to be stall-fed. Nor do they require land for grazing.

Forests, the lifeline of the poor

Forests in Jharkhand extend over 23,605 sq km, representing 29.61% of the total geographical area of the state. Of this, 82% is protected forests and 17.5% reserve forests, with a small amount of unclassed forests (33.49 sq km).

Dependence on forest produce is a vital source of livelihood for a large number of poor families. The collection and sale of tendu leaves, which are value-added and resold as bidis, requires very little capital or any special skills like literacy. Sales are possible in retail as well as in bulk.

Stored forest produce provides insurance against difficult times to poor families, besides coming in handy for a number of other reasons like consumption as fruits, flowers, leaves, timber, oil, manure, fuel, etc.

Access to this source of livelihood has been getting more difficult. With the forest department no longer procuring minor forest produce (MFP), there is a heavy dependence on middlemen. This has resulted in low prices and delayed payments. Some poor communities in the eastern districts of Jharkhand have to settle for returns that fall short of the time and labour they invest in gathering the forest produce. Prices too fluctuate wildly, often forcing villagers to sell their produce at sub-optimal rates.

Dependence on wage labour

Being a monsoon-dependent state, most villagers in Jharkhand sow only a single crop. The whole of the early part of the year, extending up to the onset of the rains, constitutes a lean period for agricultural labourers. Most people therefore migrate.

The phenomenon of migration broadly follows four patterns:

• Rural to urban migration of skilled as well as unskilled labourers from villages in districts like Palamau, Lohardaga and Latehar to towns in Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh, primarily to work in brick kilns and on construction sites under the supervision of contractors.
• Migration from rural to urban centres within Jharkhand, common in the villages of West Singhbhum, Ranchi, Saraikela-Kharsawan and Jashpur.
• Migration to towns in north India, mainly to livelihood sites and towns in the northeastern states, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi and Punjab.
• No migration at all, or migration confined to nearby places only such as villages in Godda and Pakur districts.

The duration of outstation stay varies. It takes place mostly between mid-November and mid-May, lean months for agriculture in places where only a single kharif crop is cultivated.

Another kind of migration spans the entire year, except during the ploughing and harvesting months.

Migration is also undertaken occasionally in response to a crisis or prolonged period of food scarcity. In addition, there are permanent migrants who visit their native villages only during festivals.
Declining status of artisans

The advent of modern technology has hit the artisan sector badly. The number of people engaged in this sector has increased, not because more families have taken up this work but because more people in a family are engaged.

An interesting finding was that none of the families were totally dependent on this type of work. It is supplemented by agriculture, agricultural labour, wage labour, etc. This is because the artisan sector goes through lean periods when raw material is not available or facilities like workplace, storage and market linkages are unavailable.

Those engaged in artisan work do so because it is a family tradition; children learn the skill at home and make it their profession when no other livelihood options exist.

In some areas, particularly in Lohardaga, NGOs have been instrumental in getting artisans to benefit from government schemes that provide support in terms of training, modern designs, working capital and market linkages.

Suggested ways forward

During the course of the study, people involved in various livelihoods gave their suggestions on improving conditions. Some common ones were:
Agriculture and horticulture

Suggestions for improvements in infrastructure included the following:

• Improved irrigation facilities.
• Capacity-building for improved agricultural practices.
• Accessibility to loan facilities and crop insurance.
• Treatment of traditional seeds.
• Formation of kisan samitis and cooperatives.
• Regular supply of electricity.
• Promotion of multiple cropping and cash crops.
• Information on area-specific crop production.

Forest-related activities

• Give villages control over forest produce and encourage traditional systems of protection of the environment.
• Promote better marketing mechanisms.
• Provide financial and infrastructural support such as cooperatives, plantation programmes, etc.
• Ensure fair prices for non-timber forest produce.

Animal husbandry

• Better training, financial and marketing support.
• Improved veterinary services and improvement of breeds.
• Greater availability of fodder.
• Improved animal husbandry practices.

Non-farm activities

• Modernisation of traditional business.
• Training.
• Capital support.
• Promotion of large-scale bamboo cultivation.
• Developing a marketing strategy. 
• Learning how to balance cost of production and sale price.

Wage labour

• More employment opportunities in villages.
• Stipulation of a minimum wage and working hours.
• Security and transportation issues.

Communities expect greater commitment on the part of the government to:

• Address the problem of recurrent drought, depleting forest cover and unemployment.
• Improve agriculture extension services and ensure the availability of institutional credit.
• Ensure rights over non-timber forest produce.
• Design government schemes to suit the local context.
• Ensure hassle-free and easier access to basic services and social security schemes.

Download the full report, facilitated by Praxis: