Shan an A Agriculture an and Ru Rural E Economy S Survey: - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Shan an A Agriculture an and Ru Rural E Economy S Survey: Selected H 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

SHA HARE RES R S Ration

• nale
• 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 Pea

2

LAND ND

3

Hi High l h level els o

• f a

access t to a agricul ultural land nd

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 r has closed

Reasons of Stopped Shifting Cultivation % of Households Not possible to access more forest land 41 Hard to reach area 21 Sedentary cultivation more profitable/easier 13 Insufficient labor 12 Unable to control weeds 6 Prevented from doing by authorities 4 Insufficient rainfall to grow crops 2

77 91 23 7 2

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Parents' Household Current Household

Share of HH (%) Never Practised Ever Practised Still Practising

Share of HH in present and parents’ generation practicing shifting cultivation

6

Limited l land t titling

49 30 14 2 3 0.5 10 20 30 40 50 60 Form 7 Form 105 Contract Tax Receipt AIN Grant Other Percentage

25% 75% Agri: Parcels with Land Document Agri: 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 o

• verwhelmingly in name o
• f male

HH h 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 Employment Land 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 ff-farm employmen ent is impor

• rtant, i

irres espec ective e

• f landho

holding ng

HH engagement in off-farm employment, by landholding group (%)

11

Ge Gender ered ed employment c characteri ristics

3,949 6,811 3,424 4,487 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 Agricultural casual labor Non-agricultural casual labor Wage (MMK/day) Men Women

• 13%
• 34%

157,188 158,472 180,965 94,702 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 Government Private Wage (MMK/month) Men Women

• 33%

+13%

Casual work Salaried employment

Rates of workforce participation by gender similar, but different

• ccupation types and rates of pay

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Share of NFE Mixed Men Women

Ge Gender ered ed d differ eren ences es in NF NFE E

12

38% 33% 64% 54% 39% 21% 8% 28% 16% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% tercile 1 tercile 2 tercile 3 Main person responsible men only women only mixed

Main person responsible for operating NFE, by enterprise type Main person responsible for operating NFE, by enterprise size

Agriculture 35% Off-farm employment 32% Informal loan 13% Migration 2% Sale of assets 2% Other 2% No start-up capital 14%

Sources of start-up capital for NFE

13

Agriculture and off-farm employment are main sources

• f startup capital for NFE

14

MIGRATION

Mod

• derate

e levels els of

• f migration;

; mix x of intern rnational and d 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 ng o

• f Migration:

n: Numbe ber o r of P Peopl ple M Migrated by d by Y Year o r of F First M Migration n (by by De Destina nation) n)

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

• no. of people migrated

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 x of push and pull factors

Main reason for migration

Migration destination

International (%) Domestic (%) For higher income 33 28 Income low 20 17 Insufficient Land 31 10 Adventure/to gain new skill 9 9 Not willing to work agriculture 6 18 For professional work 17 Social 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

Oc Occu cupations b before, e, d during a and a after er m migration (intern ernational m migran ants)

Most migrants send r remittances, and remit significant a amounts

Migrant type Migrants remitting in past 12 months (%) Average value of remittances ( MMK/month) All 58 66,791 Domestic 39 46,037 International 73 76,033 Male 58 61,544 Female 57 73,981

19

Mos

• st rem

emit ittances u s used sed to

• cover

er cos

• st of
• f

everyda day e expens nses

1st reason (%) 2nd reason (%) Day to day expenses 52 Farm operating costs 9 21 Medical expenses 7 17 Repayment of debt 7 1 Education costs 6 35 Housing 6 8 Child care 5 10 Savings 3 3 Purchase agricultural assets 5 4 Donations 2 1

20

21

Reason of return International (%) Domestic (%) Prospect of job at home 18 33 Poor working conditions 16 17 Loss of work/no job opportunity 10 16 Poor health 16 6 To take care of family members 18 7 Achieved goal (saving/new skill) 4 10 Marriage/pregnancy 7 5 No legal status 5 3 Others 7 4

Deci cision t to r return rn driven by n by push more t e than an p pull f fact ctors

MECHANIZATION

22

79 82 95 18 22 17 tercile 1 tercile 2 tercile 3 Percentage machine draft animal

Machines h have rapidly replaced draft animals, irres espec ective e of farm s size

Share of farm HH using machinery or draft animals in maize and pigeon pea production, by landholding tercile

Tercile 1 <2.5 acre Tercile 2 >2.5 to 6 acre Tercile 3 >6 acre

23

Land p prepar aration a and m maize t threshing h highly mech chanized ed, l little change in ot

• ther a

activities (e.g. h harvesting ng, s 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 Land preparation Planting Threshing Maize Threshing Pigeon pea Percentage machine only draft only machine + draft

24

Rental m markets ts faci cilitate machine acce ccess

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 WT in land preparation 4 WT in land preparation Machinery in threshing % of HH using machine HH using rented machine HH using own machine

26

AGRICULTURE

27

28

29

30

Adoption o

• f hyb

ybrid m maize g growing r rapidly, associ ciated with th i incr creased u use of e of fer ertiliz ilizer i inputs

20 40 60 80 100 120 1975 1978 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017

• No. Respondents

First planted maize First used compound

31

Ther ere e is no

• contract farm

rming of m maize

1% 99%

"Have you ever had a contract with CP company to grow maize?"

Yes No

32

The market f for m r maize seed is diverse a and competi titi tive

21 18 4 16 18 7 15 CP 808 CP 888 CP (other var.) Golden Tiger 029 Other hybrids Syngenta 621 Local OPV

43% 40%

33

34

Most farm rmers obtain maize seed by paying cash (not a as credi dit in kind nd)

Maize trader Input shop General store Family/ friend Own farm All Source of seed (%) 49 35 3 7 5 100 Seed purchased in cash (%) 64 90 93 86 n/a 76 Seed 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

La Larger farmers are m mor

• re l

likely ly t to a

• acces

ccess tr trader credit than small f ll farmers

36

Input use and yields vary l little b by farm rm size

37

Tercile 1 Tercile 2 Tercile 3 Inorganic fertilizer use (% of HH) 84 83 92 Inorganic fertilizer application (kg/acre) 86 67 67 Maize yield (kg/acre) 1286 1397 1261 Price received without credit (MMK/kg) 215 232 238 Price received with credit (MMK/kg) 220 231 249

Li Likelihood of f retu turning a profit t differs lit little le by farm siz ize

50 58 56 28 26 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,

• r 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 necessities

40

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,

• rganic.
• 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