Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Shan Agriculture and Rural Economy Survey: Selected Highlights
Ben Belton, Khin Zin Win, Aye Myintzu, Zin Wai Aung, Hnin Ei Win, Zaw Min Naing, Soe Thu Lin, Khaing Wah Soe, Sithu Kyaw, Eaindra Thein Thein Thu,
Khun Moe Thun, Peixun Fang
Presentation to LIFT Fund Board, Sedona Hotel, Yangon
December 11, 2018
SHARES Rationale• Generate overview of South Shan rural economy and
agriculture, and nature of recent changes• Focus on maize and pigeon pea value chains – two major
commercial crops produced for export• Developed hypotheses based on review of literature,
‘conventional wisdom’, and field observations and interviews during scoping
• Special attention to arguments made in “CP maize contract farming in Shan State, Myanmar” (Woods, 2015)
• Set out to test hypotheses empirically, using household survey• This presentation: Selected findings on Land, Off-farm
employment, Migration, Mechanization, Maize & Pigeon Pea2
LAND
3
High levels of access to agricultural land
77%
8%
15%Landed Farm Households
Landless Farm Households
Non-Farm Households
85% of HH have access to land (60% in DZ; 20% in Delta)
Small landholdings
9%
24%
67%
Tercile 1
Tercile 2
Tercile 3
• Average Land Owned by Landed Farm Households
• All – 3.5 acres• T1 – 1.5 acres• T2 – 4.3 acres• T3 – 10 acres
(Smaller on average but more evenly distributed than DZ & Delta)
5
The land frontier has closedReasons of Stopped Shifting Cultivation
% of Households
Not possible to access more forest land
41
Hard to reach area 21
Sedentary cultivation moreprofitable/easier
13
Insufficient labor 12
Unable to control weeds 6
Prevented from doing byauthorities
4
Insufficient rainfall to grow crops 2
7791
2372
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Parents' Household Current Household
Shar
e of
HH
(%)
Never Practised Ever Practised Still Practising
Share of HH in present and parents’ generation practicing shifting cultivation 6
Limited land titling
49
30
14
2 3 0.50
10
20
30
40
50
60
Form 7 Form 105 Contract TaxReceipt
AINGrant
Other
Perc
enta
ge25%
75%
Agri: Parcels with Land DocumentAgri: Parcels without Land Documet
Most land tenure insecure (untitled land defined as ‘wasteland’); Cannot be used access formal credit (e.g. MADB) 7
Land titles overwhelmingly in name of male HH head
79%
11%
2%5%
3%Male Household's Head/ Male Spouse
Female Household's Head/ Female Spouse
Couple
Other Household Member
None of These
8
OFF-FARM
9
Type of EmploymentLand Ownership
All Landless Tercile 1 Tercile 2 Tercile 3
Off-farm employment 76 95 80 74 59
- Casual Labor 61 75 66 63 43
- Non-Farm Enterprise 24 31 20 25 20
- Salaried Worker 7 17 6 3 4
- Natural Resource Extraction 5 8 6 4 3
10
Off-farm employment is important, irrespective of landholding
HH engagement in off-farm employment, by landholding group (%)
11
Gendered employment characteristics
3,949
6,811
3,424
4,487
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Agriculturalcasual labor
Non-agriculturalcasual labor
Wag
e (M
MK/
day)
Men Women
-13%
-34% 157,188 158,472180,965
94,702
020,00040,00060,00080,000
100,000120,000140,000160,000180,000200,000
Government Private
Wag
e (M
MK/
mon
th)
Men Women
-33%
+13%
Casual work Salaried employment
Rates of workforce participation by gender similar, but different occupation types and rates of pay
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Shar
e of
NFE
Mixed Men Women
Gendered differences in NFE
12
38%33%
64%
54%
39%
21%
8%
28%
16%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
tercile 1 tercile 2 tercile 3
Mai
n pe
rson
resp
onsi
ble
men only women only mixed
Main person responsible for operating NFE, by enterprise type
Main person responsible for operating NFE, by enterprise size
Agriculture35%
Off-farm employment
32%
Informal loan 13%
Migration2%
Sale of assets2%
Other2% No start-up
capital14%
Sources of start-up capital for NFE 13
Agriculture and off-farm employment are main sources of startup capital for NFE
14
MIGRATION
Moderate levels of migration; mix of international and domestic
• 14% of HH have a migrant at present; 7% of individuals of working age are migrating (c.f. DZ 30% HH; Mon 49% HH)
• Migrants are young: 84% aged 15-29 at time of migration • Roughly even gender split – Men 53%; Women 47%• More current international migrants than domestic (65:35),
but domestic increasing rapidly• International: 88% Thailand• Domestic: 79% urban; 63% within Shan
15
Timing of Migration: Number of People Migrated by Year of First Migration (by Destination)
0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0
100.0
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
no. o
f peo
ple
mig
rate
d
Year of 1st Time migration
Started Year of migration internati Started Year of migration domestic
16
Domestic migration growing faster than international
Migration driven by mix of push and pull factors
Main reason for migrationMigration destination
International (%) Domestic (%)For higher income 33 28Income low 20 17Insufficient Land 31 10Adventure/to gain new skill 9 9Not willing to work agriculture 6 18For professional work 0 17Social pressure 1 3
17
• Average migration is short: 78% domestic & 49% international = 1 year or less
• Most return migrants have no intention to migrate again (72%)
18
Occupations before, during and after migration (international migrants)
Most migrants send remittances, and remit significant amounts
Migrant type
Migrants remitting in
past 12 months (%)
Average value of remittances
( MMK/month)All 58 66,791Domestic 39 46,037International 73 76,033Male 58 61,544Female 57 73,981
19
Most remittances used to cover cost of everyday expenses
1st reason (%) 2nd reason (%)Day to day expenses 52 0Farm operating costs 9 21Medical expenses 7 17Repayment of debt 7 1Education costs 6 35Housing 6 8Child care 5 10Savings 3 3Purchase agricultural assets 5 4Donations 2 1
20
21
Reason of return International
(%)Domestic
(%)Prospect of job at home 18 33Poor working conditions 16 17Loss of work/no job opportunity 10 16Poor health 16 6To take care of family members 18 7Achieved goal (saving/new skill) 4 10Marriage/pregnancy 7 5No legal status 5 3Others 7 4
Decision to return driven by push more than pull factors
MECHANIZATION
22
79 82 95
18 22 17
tercile 1 tercile 2 tercile 3
Perc
enta
ge
machine draft animal
Machines have rapidly replaced draft animals, irrespective of farm size
Share of farm HH using machinery or draft animals in maize and pigeon pea production, by landholding tercile
Tercile 1 <2.5 acreTercile 2 >2.5 to 6 acreTercile 3 >6 acre
23
Land preparation and maize threshing highly mechanized, little change in other activities
(e.g. harvesting, sowing)
Share of farm HH using machinery and draft animal for maize and pigeon pea production, by activity
76%
51%
89%
13% 11% 10% 3% 1%
-
20
40
60
80
100
Landpreparation
Planting ThreshingMaize
ThreshingPigeon pea
Perc
enta
ge
machine only
draft only
machine + draft
24
Rental markets facilitate machine access
Share of farming HH using own / rented machines in land preparation and threshing 25
-
20
40
60
80
100
2007 2012 2017 2007 2012 2017 2007 2012 2017
2 WTin land preparation
4 WTin land preparation
Machineryin threshing
% o
f HH
usin
g m
achi
ne
HH using rented machine HH using own machine
26
AGRICULTURE
27
28
29
30
Adoption of hybrid maize growing rapidly, associated with increased use of fertilizer inputs
0
20
40
60
80
100
12019
7519
7819
8119
8319
8519
8719
8919
9119
9319
9519
9719
9920
0120
0320
0520
0720
0920
1120
1320
1520
17
No.
Res
pond
ents
First planted maize
First used compound
31
There is no contract farming of maize
1%
99%
"Have you ever had a contract with CP company to grow maize?"
YesNo
32
The market for maize seed is diverse and competitive
21
18
416
18
7
15 CP 808
CP 888
CP (other var.)
Golden Tiger 029
Other hybrids
Syngenta 621
Local OPV
43%
40%
33
34
Most farmers obtain maize seed by paying cash (not as credit in kind)
Maizetrader
Inputshop
General store
Family/ friend
Own farm
All
Source of seed (%) 49 35 3 7 5 100Seed purchased in cash (%) 64 90 93 86 n/a 76Seed obtained by credit in kind (%) 36 10 7 14 n/a 24
• Among 24% of transactions where maize seed was purchased as in kind credit, 61% were output-tied (only 14% of all transactions)
35
8%
18%
26%
74%
5%
23%28%
72%
5%
29%35%
65%
Cash credit In kind credit Any credit No credit
Tercile 1 Tercile 2 Tercile 3
Share of maize farming HH using trader credit to buy maize seed, by credit type and landholding tercile
Larger farmers are more likely to access trader credit than small farmers
36
Input use and yields vary little by farm size
37
Tercile 1 Tercile 2 Tercile 3Inorganic fertilizer use (% of HH) 84 83 92Inorganic fertilizer application (kg/acre) 86 67 67Maize yield (kg/acre) 1286 1397 1261Price received without credit (MMK/kg) 215 232 238
Price received with credit (MMK/kg) 220 231 249
Likelihood of returning a profit differs little by farm size
50 58 56
2826 28
21 16 15
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Tercile 1 Tercile 2 Tercile 3
Profit Break even Loss
Average share of respondents reporting making profit, breaking even, or making loss on maize crops grown during the past 10 years 38
Conclusions• Shan unusual for Myanmar in having high levels of access to farm land• Complementary mix of commercial and subsistence forms of farming• Rapid agricultural mechanization, similar to elsewhere in country, driven
more by convenience and availability than by rising labor costs• Agricultural modernization driven by active private sector, access to
input and output markets, and receptive farmers • No evidence for negative social consequences of maize boom claimed
by Woods• No maize contract farming and no exploitative credit relations with
traders
39
Conclusions
• RNFE and agriculture closely interlinked through labor markets and flows of investment within households
• Off-farm work and business highly gender differentiated in roles and incomes
• Migration increasingly important, links to domestic urban growth• Most migration brief, circular, individuals return to agriculture and
rural labor force – limited impact on rural wages so far.• Remittances significant for receiving HH, but migrant work precarious• Little use of remittances or credit for productive investments apart
from agriculture - Most remittances used for everyday necessities40
Implications for programming• South Shan is highly promising in terms of potential for inclusive
agriculture driven growth. • Look for investments that can leverage additional value from existing
crops (e.g. better varieties, improvements in cold chain, packing and handling for fruits and vegetables), geographical indications, branding, organic.
• Explore introduction of complementary technologies (e.g. greenhouses, small-scale irrigation) and modes of development (e.g. agro-tourism).
• Understand rationale for ways in which households use formal and informal credit, remittances, and farm and non-farm incomes to design and deliver effective financial services.
• Look for ways to reduce the risks and maximize the benefits of migration – language and skills training, loans, awareness of rights
41