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