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
Key
H = Human capital
S = Social capital
N = Natural capital
P = Physical capital
F = Financial capital
POLICIES,
INSTITUTIONS
AND PROCESSES
VULNERABILITY
CONTEXT
- SHOCKS
- TRENDS
- SEASONALITY
Influence
&
Access
STRUCTURES
Levels of
government
Laws
Private
Policies
sector
Culture
Institutions
PROCESSES
LIVELIHOOD
OUTCOMES
LIVELIHOOD
STRATEGIES
TO
- More income
- Increased
well-being
- Reduced
vulnerability
- Improved food
security
- More sustainable
use of natural
resources
Methodology of investigation
30 questionnaires per village (H,M,T)
3 wealth groups (R,M,P)
Livelihoods analysis (quantitative)
Participatory appraisal (qualitative)
Secondary data analysis (qualitative)
M
Risk
A
R
H
VULNERABILITY S
CONTEXT
N
UNCERTAINTY
Influence
&
Access
POLICIES,
INSTITUTIONS
AND PROCESSES
LIVELIHOOD
STRATEGIES
?
F
K
E
T
P
I
Gender
N
G
Additions:
Risk / uncertainty - Gender analysis - Marketing issues
LIVELIHOOD
OUTCOMES
Vulnerability context
SEASONS (WET/DRY)
• SHOCKS
natural: droughts, floods
agricultural: crop failures
economic: changed prices
CANAL WATER
AVAILABILITY
• TRENDS
agricultural: intensification, mechanisation
economic: non-farm employment,
improved welfare
physical: improved
infrastructures
erosion of
social:
community values
RELIGIOUS “SEASONS”
Livelihood assets (1)
Social capital
HH residents
Physical capital
electricity
Financial capital
cattle ownership
Human capital
education
Natural capital
land ownership
Rich
Residents
Residents
(nb) (nb)
Medium
Poor
Electricity (%)
Electricity (%)
Education (yrs)
Education (yrs)
Ukkaram (H)
Arachalur (M)
Naddupalayam (N)
Cattle owned (nb)
Cattle owned (nb)
Land owned (ha)
Land owned (ha)
Livelihood assets (2)
Human capital 2
(for HH wellbeing)
- food expenditure
- non-food expenditure
- fish consumption
Human capital 1
(for IGAs)
- workers
- education
Financial capital
- savings
- credit (bank loan)
- cattle / goats
Physical capital
- house
- privately owned
water sources
Natural capital
- land
- water
Livelihood assets (2)
Pentagons
Summary 5 livelihood capitals, LBP wealth groups
Summary 5 livelihood capitals, LBP villages
Financial capital
1
Financial capital
1
Physical capital
Physical capital
Ukkaram (H)
Arachalur (M)
Naddupalayam (T)
Rich
Medium
Poor
Human capital - for IGAs
Human capital - for IGAs
00
Natural capital
Natural capital
Human capital - for HH wellbeing
Human capital - for HH wellbeing
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
Livelihood strategies
Landless
Landowners
Women
Common
- Agricultural
labour
- Seasonal
migration
- Remittances
- Weaving
- Reduction in
cattle
herding
- Agricultural
intensification
- Permanent
youth
migration
- Remittances
- Decrease in
cattle
numbers
- Hand weaving
(local)
- Construction
labour
- Firewood
collection /
sale
- Flower
cultivation
- Reduction in
agri. labour
- Migration
(circular,
permanent)
- Reduced
family size
- Savings
- Education
- Emergence of
poultry
farming and
brick making
Long-term, short term, weakening (long-term) trends.
Livelihood strategies
Classification - “type 75”
Principally crop
• Crop income  75%
• Off-farm income  75%
Principally off-farm (agricultural labour)
• Non-farm income  75% (wage / selfemployment)
Principally non-farm (wage / self-empl.)
• Crops + non-farm  75 %, crop  75%
but > off-farm and non-farm  75% but
> off-farm.
Farm / non-farm employment
• Off-farm + crops  75%, off-farm  75%
but > non-farm and crops  75% but >
non-farm.
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%
Non-farm / off-farm
employment
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 aquaculture
Definition:
• small-scale
• extensive /
semi-intensive
• affordable
• low risk
Potential interventions:
• 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
• Stocking open wells
• Cage fattening fish in seepage zones
H T
H T
H  T
Aquaculture interventions done by DL???
Beneficiaries
Cages in
canals
Agricultural
labourers (increased
income)
Farmers (increased
income)
Consumers
(increased fish
availability)
Local fish retailers
and vendors
(increased
availability)
Poverty impacts
Potential
conflicts
Yes
Cage
Stocking
rearing
open
fingerlings in
wells
flowing
water
Yes
No
Cage
fattening
in seepage
zones
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
MOD. to
HIGH
Aquaculture in canals:
Costs (1)
Aquaculture trials:
Cube cage Long cage
Tilapia fattening
Fry to fingerling
Sensitivity analysis:
- Food conversion ratio
- Start weight (tilapia)
- Survival rate
- Labour: men / women / both
- Cycle length
v
v
v
v
Aquaculture in canals:
Costs (2)
• Main results of sensitivity analysis
• What the best options are
Competition for resources
Farming
- labour
- capital
- land
- water
- seasons
Versus
Cage aquaculture
- labour
- capital
- cycles
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 implications
Aquaculture: 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