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 Pea
2 LAND
3 High levels of access to agricultural land
15% Landed Farm Households 8% Landless Farm Households
77% Non-Farm Households
85% of HH have access to land (60% in DZ; 20% in Delta) Small landholdings
9% • Average Land Owned by Landed Tercile 1 Farm Households 24% • All – 3.5 acres Tercile 2 • T1 – 1.5 acres 67% • T2 – 4.3 acres Tercile 3 • T3 – 10 acres
(Smaller on average but more evenly distributed than DZ & Delta) 5 The land frontier has closed
100 2 7 Reasons of Stopped Shifting % of 90 23 Cultivation Households 80 70 Not possible to access more 41 60 forest land 50 Hard to reach area 21 91 40 77 Sedentary cultivation more 13 30 Share of(%) HH Share profitable/easier 20 10 Insufficient labor 12 0 Unable to control weeds 6 Parents' Household Current Household Prevented from doing by 4 Never Practised Ever Practised Still Practising authorities Share of HH in present and parents’ Insufficient rainfall to grow crops 2 generation practicing shifting cultivation 6 Limited land titling
60 49 50 25% 40 30 30 Percentage
75% 20 14 10 3 2 0.5 Agri: Parcels with Land Document 0 Form 7 Form 105 Contract Tax AIN Other Agri: Parcels without Land Documet Receipt Grant
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
3% 2% 5% Male Household's Head/ Male Spouse
11% Female Household's Head/ Female Spouse
Couple
Other Household Member 79% None of These
8 OFF- FARM
9 Off-farm employment is important, irrespective of landholding
Land Ownership Type of Employment 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
HH engagement in off-farm employment, by landholding group (%) 10 Gendered employment characteristics
Men Women 8000 Men Women +13% 7000 6,811 200,000 180,965 6000 180,000 -34% 160,000 157,188 158,472 5000 -13% 4,487 140,000 3,949 -33% 4000 3,424 120,000 100,000 94,702 3000 80,000 2000 Wage (MMK/day) Wage 60,000
1000 (MMK/month) Wage 40,000 20,000 0 0 Agricultural Non-agricultural casual labor casual labor Government Private Casual work Salaried employment Rates of workforce participation by gender similar, but different
occupation types and rates of pay 11 Gendered differences in NFE
30% men only women only mixed 70% 64% 25% Mixed Men Women 60% 54% 20% 50% responsible 15% 38% 39% 40% 33% 28% person person Share of NFE of Share 10% 30% 21% 5% 20% 16% Main 8% 0% 10% 0% tercile 1 tercile 2 tercile 3
Main person responsible for operating Main person responsible for operating NFE, by enterprise type NFE, by enterprise size 12 Agriculture and off-farm employment are main sources of startup capital for NFE
Other No start-up 2% capital Sale of assets 14% 2% Agriculture 35% Migration 2%
Informal loan 13%
Off-farm employment 32%
Sources of start-up capital for NFE 13 MIGRATION
14 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 Domestic migration growing faster than international
100.0 90.0 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0
no. of people migrated people of no. 20.0 10.0 0.0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Year of 1st Time migration
Started Year of migration internati Started Year of migration domestic
Timing of Migration: Number of People Migrated by Year of First Migration (by Destination) 16 Migration driven by mix of push and pull factors
Migration destination Main reason for migration 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 0 17 Social pressure 1 3
• Average migration is short: 78% domestic & 49% international = 1 year or less
• Most return migrants have no intention to migrate again (72%) 17 Occupations before, during and after migration (international migrants)
18 Most migrants send remittances, and remit significant amounts
Migrants remitting in Average value of past 12 months remittances Migrant type (%) ( MMK/month) All 58 66,791 Domestic 39 46,037 International 73 76,033 Male 58 61,544 Female 57 73,981
19 Most remittances used to cover cost of everyday expenses
1st reason (%) 2nd reason (%) Day to day expenses 52 0 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 Decision to return driven by push more than pull factors
International Domestic Reason of return (%) (%) 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
21 MECHANIZATION
22 Machines have rapidly replaced draft animals, irrespective of farm size
machine draft animal 95 79 82 Tercile 1 <2.5 acre Tercile 2 >2.5 to 6 acre Tercile 3 >6 acre
Percentage 22 18 17
tercile 1 tercile 2 tercile 3
Share of farm HH using machinery or draft animals in maize and pigeon pea production, by landholding tercile 23 Land preparation and maize threshing highly mechanized, little change in other activities (e.g. harvesting, sowing) 100 89% machine only 80 76% draft only machine + draft 60 51%
40 Percentage
20 11% 10% 13% 3% 1% - Land Planting Threshing Threshing preparation Maize Pigeon pea Share of farm HH using machinery and draft animal for maize and pigeon pea production, by activity 24 Rental markets facilitate machine access
HH using rented machine HH using own machine 100
80
machine 60
40
of HH using HH of 20 % % - 2007 2012 2017 2007 2012 2017 2007 2012 2017 2 WT 4 WT Machinery in land preparation in land preparation in threshing
Share of farming HH using own / rented machines in land preparation and threshing 25 AGRICULTURE
26 27 28 29 30 Adoption of hybrid maize growing rapidly, associated with increased use of fertilizer inputs
120 First planted maize 100 First used compound
80
60
40 No. Respondents Respondents No.
20
0 1975 1978 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
31 There is no contract farming of maize
"Have you ever had a contract with CP company to grow maize?" 1% Yes No
99%
32 The market for maize seed is diverse and competitive
15 CP 808 21 CP 888 43% 7 CP (other var.) Golden Tiger 029 Other hybrids 40% 18 18 Syngenta 621 Local OPV 4 16
33 34 Most farmers obtain maize seed by paying cash (not as credit in kind)
Maize Input General Family/ Own All trader shop store friend farm 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 Larger farmers are more likely to access trader credit than small farmers
74%72% 65% Tercile 1 Tercile 2 Tercile 3
35% 29% 26%28% 23% 18% 8% 5% 5%
Cash credit In kind credit Any credit No credit
Share of maize farming HH using trader credit to buy maize seed, by credit type and landholding tercile36 Input use and yields vary little by farm size
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
37 Likelihood of returning a profit differs little by farm size
100% 21 16 15 80% 26 28 60% 28
40% 50 58 56 20%
0% 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 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, 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