Feasibility study into the establishment of a Goat Farmers Co-operative in the Jobat Block of Jhabua District, Madhya Pradesh

Philip Hadley Submitted to Action for Social Advancement (ASA)

December 2009

List of Abbreviations
ASA BAIF Co-op CPR CSW DFID FAO FGD FPC GOI Ibid ICA IFAD IPS MACS NABARD PRA Rs SHG SLA SRC SSI UN UNDP 2001 Census Action for Social Advancement Bharatiya Agro Industries Foundation Co-operative Common Property Resources United Nations Commission on the Status of Women United Kingdom Department for International Development United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation Focus Group Discussion Farmers Producer Company Government of India Ibidem (the same place) International Co-operative Alliance International Fund for Agricultural Development Inter Press Service Mutually-Aided Co-operative Society National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Participatory Rural Appraisal Rupees Self-Help Group Sustainable Livelihoods Approach Self-Reliant Co-operatives Semi-Structured Interview United Nations United Nations Development Programme 2001 National Census of the Government of India

Contents
Contents...3 Executive Summary..4 Introduction..6 Research Area..8 Theoretical Discussion10 Methodology....15 Results and Analysis.18 Overview Themes in Jobat.....18 Objective 1: To understand the livelihood strategies and pastoral practices of goat farmers from Jobat, Jhabua in Madhya Pradesh...18 Assets....23 Livelihood Strategies and Pastoral Practices..27 Objective 2: To study the existing local market in goat selling as well as the potential for forward and backward market linkages38 Objective 3: To assess the feasibility of establishing a goat farmers co-operative in Jobat and whether this would lead to greater livelihood sustainability for the goat farmers..51 Recommendations.65 References67 Appendix A..71 Appendix B..73 Appendix C..74 Appendix D..75 Appendix E..76 Appendix F..77

Executive Summary
Despite being one of the most prevalent and age-old agricultural practices among poor and marginal farmers in India, goat farming has often been overlooked as a viable option for development interventions. As much as goat farming enters the consciousness of policy makers and the public, it is often through media reports emphasising the practice endangering fragile ecological systems or, most commonly, in dismissing the goat as the the poor mans cow. This report demonstrates how the poor mans cow can be used as a viable development intervention, moreover as a co-operative business venture. Such an intervention, it is argued, would provide a simple yet effective means of ensuring food security and livelihood sustainability for many poor and marginal farmers; ever more vital in an era characterised by increasing risk, uncertainty and production costs for small farmers, together with an ever decreasing ability to make ends meet. The report begins with an analysis of the assets and livelihood strategies of goat farmers in the Jobat Block of Jhabua District, Madhya Pradesh, through presenting and analysing the results of a thorough fieldwork research exercise. As the area under question as the potential site of a goat farmers co-operative, Jobat is also a place in which ASA has already existing micro-finance SHGs. Through Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), the research in Jobat involved both quantitative and qualitative methods; household surveys, questionnaires, interviews, focus groups and other participatory visual activities with rural farmers. The research and analysis follows a Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA); a way of understanding the livelihoods of poor people. It draws on the main factors that affect their lives and the typical relationships between these factors (IFAD, 2009). In SLA, major areas of analysis are; assets, livelihood strategies, vulnerability context, transforming structures & processes, as well as livelihood outcomes. The report analyses assets and livelihood strategies, as well the goat market in Jobat and the local area as an essential part of assessing the feasibility of a co-operative as a method of transforming structures & processes; identifying challenges, needs, pastoral practices and so forth. The main themes that have emerged from the report are as follows: Assets The farmers of Jobat have few assets, though chief among them are goats, which provide a valuable security asset to offset the vagaries of crop production and the increasing need to work in other activities such as labouring. Though characterised by low investment and relatively low returns, goats are highly valued by farmers; especially so considering their relative indebtedness and the general inability of their assets owned to meet their livelihood goals. Livelihood Strategies and Pastoral Practices The livelihood strategies of the farmers as regards goats are characterised by a short-term rearing strategy in which goats are valued as livelihood assets but denigrated below the level of major income generators; used largely for emergency sales to meet festival, marriage or agricultural expenditure. Goats are not used in a way that ensures a sustainable livelihood. While goat farmers in Jobat practice an integrated system of livestock/crop pastoral agriculture, there is a noticeable gender division of labour in goat farming with

women as well as children doing much of the everyday work. Farmers face multiple social and economic challenges to maintaining a sustainable livelihood, revolving around lack of access to land (for grazing and fodder), labour, veterinary healthcare & knowledge. Farmers are also vulnerable to climate change and dependent on rainfed agriculture. The Market and Market Linkages The local market in goat trading is very active, reflecting the high numbers of goats in Jobat and the surrounding area, with very high activity around festival times. However, farmers and traders occupy relatively different and unequal positions in the market, with farmers experiencing inadequate access to the market. Despite perceptions of a good relationship between farmers and traders, farmers make most sales in distress, receive relatively low prices and face hostile market dynamics and exploitation as a result. As goat farmers are vulnerable to such market dynamics and occupy relatively weak bargaining positions, there was found to be definite potential for forward and backward linkages, and the need for a more sustainable integration of the farmers into the local goat market. Feasibility of a Co-operative A co-operative was found to be a feasible solution to the multiple social and economic challenges faced by farmers in Jobat. Firstly, because there was much enthusiasm found among farmers for a co-operative, and that this was linked to perceptions of inadequate access to land, veterinary healthcare and other obstacles to maintaining a sustainable livelihood. Secondly, because a co-operative would be able to address the major challenges farmers face in using their assets to meet their livelihood goals. Though participatory development is to be valued in its own right, the failure of previous top-down programmes and the general lack of pastoral-focused development initiatives, makes a participatory development solution all the more necessary. Such a solution must meet the challenges identified in this study and by farmers themselves in their attempts to build a sustainable livelihood strategy. A co-operative, beginning as an informal SHG, was found to be the most appropriate, and feasible participatory development model, as it has the potential to efficiently and effectively raise collective bargaining power, provide equitable social and economic benefits to its members, address gender relations and transform structures & processes to achieve sustainable livelihoods.

Introduction

Poverty is largely, but by no means only, a phenomenon of the rural areas. Effective poverty reduction measures can only be successful if the livelihoods of the rural poor can be improved (United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), 2009: 10). Approximately 85% of Indias rural families are dependent on agriculture for their survival, yet over 70% of landholders in India are small and marginal, 15-18% are landless and most of the small and marginal farmers have less than 2 hectares of land (see BAIF, 2006; Misra et al, 2007). Many of these farmers keep goats and goat farmers are amongst the poorest of the poor, often from scheduled castes and tribes. Investment in agriculture as a percentage of GDP is woefully low (as of 2006 at 0.2%), while the agrarian economy is facing one of the biggest crises it has seen in decades; dealing with the after-effects of the Green Revolution and of the liberalisation reforms of the 1990s; increased levels of rural debt, deterioration of the natural environment, increased income disparities together with an increase in food and livelihood insecurity (see Ghosh, UNDP, 2005; Prahladachar, 1982; Jewitt & Baker, 2006). Despite some progress made since the 1980s in reducing absolute poverty, Indias rural poor face many challenges. Noted agricultural economist professor Utsa Patnaik has pointed out the per capita absorption and availability of food grains has reached an all-time low of 155kg, which is lower in rural areas (where 75% of Indias poor live). This means, the food security gains of the four decades of protectionism up to 1991, have been totally reversed (Patnaik, 2008: 173). Much of Indias recent high economic growth has focused upon urban India to the detriment of rural India.

To confront the agricultural crisis; to make inroads into reducing poverty and to establish a more equitable model of economic growth a focus on the livelihoods of the rural poor is essential. ASAs Approach is of particular note in this regard - ensuring livelihood security of the rural poor by providing developmental services, in particular through natural resources development in a participative manner focused on action at the community level (ASA, 2009). While many of ASAs interventions to-date have revolved around land, water and agricultural productivity enhancement; agri-business promotion for small & marginal farmers; as well as micro-finance; ASA have not, as yet, focused on off-farm activities such as animal husbandry. Livestock and animal husbandry play an important part in the lives of rural poor people in India more so of those living in rain-fed agro-ecosystems, such as much of Madhya Pradesh. Within the general socio-economic context outlined above there is a high risk in cultivating crops for survival and for generating a surplus to sell for profit, while livestock represents a more assured way of maintaining food security and a sustainable livelihood. As a means of effectively assuring secure livelihoods however, livestock and in particular goats are markedly under-utilised and receive little developmental focus. The goat is often referred to in India as the poor mans cow, and represents a very commonly held asset; an asset which presents a unique opportunity around which innovative interventions to build livelihood security for the rural poor could be developed, focused on institutional promotion and capacity-building at the community level. ASA have much recent and successful experience with promoting agribusinesses and so are in an ideal position to carry out such interventions. This study shall assess the feasibility of ASA establishing a goat farmers marketing cooperative in the Jobat Block of Jhabua District, Madhya Pradesh. The study objectives are as follows: 1) To understand the livelihood strategies and pastoral practices of goat farmers from Jobat, Jhabua in Madhya Pradesh. 2) To study the existing local market in goat trading as well as the potential for forward and backward market linkages. 3) To assess the feasibility of establishing a goat farmers co-operative in Jobat and whether this would lead to greater livelihood sustainability for the goat farmers. a) Goat farmers face multiple social and economic challenges to maintaining a sustainable livelihood. Hypotheses b) Goat farmers lack adequate access to the market; they are exploited by market traders and sell their animals in distress, receiving low returns c) Establishing a co-operative would be a feasible solution to these challenges, as it would have the potential to lead to greater livelihood sustainability.

Research Area
Jobat is one of 12 development blocks and one of 8 (larger) Tahsils in the Jhabua District of the state of Madhya Pradesh in central India. Jobat has a population of 155,316, most of whom live in rural areas and a population density of 204 per sq km (Bajaj, 2008: 48). There are 5 major towns in Jhabua: Alirajpur, Jobat, Petlawad, Jhabua and Ranapur.

Most of the population of Jhabua are engaged in agriculture for their means of survival and belong to the Bhil Scheduled Tribe, though some are also from Scheduled Castes (86.85% and 2.82% respectively (2001 Census)). With almost half of the population living below the national poverty line, much of the population unemployed or marginal workers and with low levels of education and literacy, Jhabua suffers from severe impoverishment amongst its inhabitants and confronts several obstacles to sustainable development (2001 Census). The terrain of Jobat is hilly and undulating, as is much of Jhabua, largely semi-arid and highly drought prone experiencing erratic rainfall and high temperatures. The land itself has severe limitations for sustained water irrigation and the groundwater prospects are in the most part poor to moderate. There is one major river running

through the block the Hatni, and Jobat has some open forests and scrub but is not densely covered (Bajaj, 2008).

Source: (Bajaj, J.K (ed.) (2008) Resource Atlas of Jhabua (Madhya Pradesh Council of Science and

Technology, Bhopal; Centre for Policy Studies, Delhi). Page 9.

Theoretical Discussion Poverty, Development and Pastoralism The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of whichall peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized. (UN, 1986).
Sustainable Development Whilst rights are necessary for achieving sustainable and equitable development, sustainable development is necessary for establishing, protecting and ensuring rights. This should be as true for agricultural development as for any other. The UN Bruntdland Report, released in 1987 called for development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (adopted as policy by a UN Resolution, 1987). The Task Force on Hunger, set up under the UN Millennium Project (cited in Sustainet, 2006: 24), described priority intervention areas in sustainable agriculture related to the three dimensions of sustainability all of which need to be pursued simultaneously: Increasing agricultural productivity for food security (economic dimension of sustainable agriculture); Restoring and conserving natural resources for food security (ecological dimension); Promoting good governance, gender equality and development approaches focused on people and their needs (social dimension). The challenge is to maintain a balance between the above three dimensions. Sustainable Livelihoods Chambers and Conway (1992) define sustainable livelihood as follows (adopted by the Department for International Development (UK) (DFID), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), OXFAM and CARE: a livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required for a means of living: a livelihood is sustainable which can cope with and recover from stress and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets. (Chambers and Conway, 1992, cited in Cahn). Livelihood deals with people, their resources and what they do with them. Ellis (2000: 10) suggests a definition of livelihood as the activities, the assets, and the access that jointly determine the living gained by an individual or household. This study will adopt theSustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) as a guideline. The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) states: the SL framework places people, particularly rural poor people, at the centre of a web of inter-related influences that affect how these people create a livelihood for themselves and their households (IFAD, 2009). SLA areas to focus on: Assets to understand options, aspirations, vulnerability;

10

Transforming structures and processes access, control and use of assets are influenced by institutional structures and processes; Livelihood outcomes an understanding of outcomes leads to a focus on achievements, indicators and progress; Livelihood strategies the ways in which people combine and use their assets to achieve their goals e.g. migration; Vulnerability context peoples access to assets is influenced by events beyond their control and how they adapt to them.

DFIDs Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (cited in Cahn 2002: 2)

Pastoralists or small farmers? There is a relative dearth of literature & studies relating to pastoralism in India, let alone goat farming. Roger Blench has concluded that Indian pastoralism is the worst documented by far, with confused descriptions of pastoralism and confused terminology for pastoral ethnic groups (Blench, cited in Kohler-Rollefson et al., 2003: 3). Having noted this, goat farming is commonly seen as an activity of the rural poor managed mainly by women and children. Recent studies have shown that irrespective of flock size, woman and children contribute to the pastoral labour force to the extent of about 90% (Deoghare, 1997, cited in Misra et al, 2007). But are we to understand goat rearers as pastoralists or small farmers? In India, about 75% of rural households are small and marginal farmers, who own 56 % of the large ruminants and 62% of the small ruminants (World Bank 1999). Existing estimates claim more than 200 tribes (6% of the population) are engaged in pastoralism (Khurana, 1999; cited in Kohler-Rollefson et al., 2003: 5). Despite this, no available statistics are available on the number of pastoralists (Kohler-Rollefson et al., 2003: 5).

11

Kohler-Rollefson define pastoralism as "members of caste or ethnic groups with a strong traditional association with livestock-keeping, where a substantial proportion of the group derive over 50% of household consumption from livestock products or their sale, and where over 90% of animal consumption is from natural pasture or browse, and where households are responsible for the full cycle of livestock breeding" (Ibid, 2003). The above authors also note that farmers keep more livestock in integrated systems than under pastoral conditions (Kohler-Rollesfson et al., 2003). Whether or not the goat farmers of Jobat can be deemed pastoralists under the above definition and the extent to which goats form a part of their livelihood is an important issue to be addressed in Objective 1 (above). Rural Development Policy The Government of India (GOI) has recognised the importance of livestock development as an important tool of poverty alleviation (Misra et al, 2007), but most of the technical service oriented livestock projects have had little impact on the livelihoods of the poor (Ashley et al 1999, cited in Misra et al, 2007) and adoption of technology by the resource poor has been low (Parthasarthy Rao et al 2005; cited in Misra et al, 2007). Misra et al, argue The two major reasons indicated for this failure are lack of poverty focus[by the Indian Government]and[an]institutional frameworkincompatible with the systems and conditions[of]poor farmers (Misra et al., 2007). One World Bank study confirmed that poor livestock keepers depend heavily on common property resources (CPR) for feeding and watering, and that grazing in common forests and pastures was estimated to account for 31% of livestock feed consumption in India (World Bank, 1997). Between the 1950s and the 1980s there has been a gradual decline in CPR due to large-scale land privatisation initiated and supported by the Indian Government (see India Together Online, accessed 2009). CPR refers to all such resources that are meant for the common use of rural villagers (GOI, 1998). Under this definition, CPR includes: Pastures, forests, un-classed land, watersheds, rivulets - etc A survey by the GOI itself in 1997 states villagers have a legal right of access only on some specific categories of land and water resources (GoI, 1998). Despite an increase in livestock production from 280 million in 1947 to an estimated 467 million in 1997, grazing land has decreased from 70 million hectares in 1947 to 38 million hectares in 1997 (Ramdas and Ghotge, 2003). Are small farmers finding themselves without adequate grazing land for their livestock, without adequate land to grow crops and without adequate fodder to support their ruminants? Challenges In a study of livestock producers in several districts of Andra Pradesh, Misra et al., noted, Farmersconsider sheep and goats as a working capital and opt for a zero input system of productionThe major constraints facing smallholder farmerswere inadequate availability and poor quality of feed and fodder; poor genetic potential of animals, high incidence of diseases; and inadequate knowledge on appropriate management of livestock (Misra et al, 2007).

12

In a project to enhance the livelihoods of goat farmers in Rajasthan, Karnataka and Gujurat, BAIF observed the following problems faced by goat farmers Genetic erosion (indiscriminate breeding); Poor health care (over 30-40% of goats die due to disease); Malnutrition (depletion of natural resources & lack of CPR goats are not fed with cultivated fodder); Lack of marketing (exploited by market traders farmers sell goats in distress increase herd size and face fodder shortages) (BAIF, 2006: 1). Existing studies/programmes note lack of access to veterinary care as a major problem to pastoralists the main obstacles being distance to a veterinary clinic together with cost some organisations have suggested training pastoralists in primary veterinary health care (see BAIF, 2006: 2). The FAO have observed in their recent study of livestock (sheep and goat) producers and rural development - Livestock producers have usually had less support than crop producers and women are often neglected even though it is frequently recognised that they are extremely important to the agricultural sector and thus the national economy of many countries (FAO, 2009).

Cooperatives Many authors have noted that one of the major issues affecting small farmers is establishing sustainable integration into markets (see, Debroy and Khan, 2004). One method of achieving this is through the formation of a marketing co-operative. The International Cooperative Alliance (ICA) defines a co-operative as an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise (ICA, 2009). Major advantages of co-operatives revolve around the efficient utilisation of economies of scale together with equitable economic and social benefits provided to their members. Worldwide there are, generally speaking, two distinct types of agricultural service co-operatives, supply cooperatives and marketing co-operatives. Whilst supply cooperatives supply their members with inputs for agricultural production, marketing co-operatives undertake to transform the packaging, distribution, and marketing of farm products (both crop and livestock). Though there are many agricultural co-operatives in India (over 140,000), some observers have pointed out that the history of co-ops has not been without problems - stemming largely from excessive governmental control. However, recent legislation such as the Co-operative Societies Act (1991) and the National Policy on Cooperatives (2002) have done much to remove such control. Dr. P. C. Samantary, Principal of the Institute of Co-operative Management, argues this reflects the growth of SRC Self-Reliant Co-operatives across the world in which co-ops are restored to their member-driven, sustainable democratic and equitable origins as enshrined in the ICA 1995 Manchester Declaration of the International Co-operative Alliance (see Samantary, 2004; ICA Manchester Declaration, 1995). The FAO have noted recently that Livestock producer cooperatives and womens groups can provide a range of benefits to members including delivering technological messages, sharing best practices, joint purchasing of inputs, collective value-adding activities, product differentiation through labeling, risk reduction, securing higher

13

prices and economies of scale through collective marketing, and providing access to credit and savings mechanisms (FAO, 2009). It is essentially this potential increase in collective bargaining power, services, knowledge and assets that would be unachievable to an individual farmer acting alone, which makes the formation of a co-operative a novel tool to promote sustainable livelihoods for the rural poor. At their best, co-operatives are self-help organisations leading to democratic and social empowerment through equitable means; a model of participatory, sustainable development building the livelihoods of its members. ASA and agribusiness We at ASA strongly believe that agribusiness development is an appropriate tool which can sharpen the edges of the agriculture system and improve the livelihoods of millions of small and marginal farmers. (ASA, 2009: 17). Since 2003 ASA has been involved with establishing and promoting Farmers Producer Companies (FPCs) in the state of Madhya Pradesh. Six FPCs have been promoted to-date, achieving a good financial turnover and establishing formal legal status, financial systems and human resource policies. Each FPC contains as members exclusively small and marginal farmers living below the national poverty line. The basic purpose of the FPCs is to collectivise small farmers for: a) Backward linkages for inputs such as seeds, fertilizers, credit, insurance and knowledge and extension services and; b) Forward linkages such as collective marketing & bargaining power, processing, market-led agriculture production etc (taken from ASA website, 2009). With such experience ASA is in an ideal situation to establish a co-operative in Jobat. An FPC is however not a co-operative; it is something between a private company and a co-operative; it is facilitated by the government but run by professionals. ASA and micro-finance All of the households surveyed in this study and hence potential members of a cooperative (if feasible) are recipients of micro-finance loans from ASA. Micro-finance assists by providing the poor with necessary financial services in order to either take advantage of income generation opportunities or reduce their vulnerability to livelihood shocks (El-Mahdi, 2005: 1). First introduced to India in 1992 by the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (NABARD), SelfHelp Groups (SHGs) now constitute the primary form of micro-finance nationwide. Each SHG consists of 10-20 people (predominantly female) working on the principle that peer pressure substitutes as the new collateral the groups meet to manage credit and savings. SHGs contribute substantially to female empowerment. In ASAs approach, each federation of SHGs needs financial assistance for an approximate period of 18 months - after which the expenses get covered from the fees generated from the services provided by it. In 2007 ASA established an inhouse Micro Finance Institution for direct lending to the SHGs.

14

Methodology
Research Questions: 1) To understand the livelihood strategies and pastoral practices of goat farmers from Jobat, Jhabua in Madhya Pradesh.

2) To study the existing local market in goat selling as well as the potential for
forward and backward market linkages. 3) To assess the feasibility of establishing a goat farmers co-operative in Jobat and whether this would lead to greater livelihood sustainability for the goat farmers. This study employed Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) as the method for collecting data as it is most suited to the premises of SLA and of an understanding of development as human-centred and rights-based. PRA has become a systematic; semi-structured activity conducted on site by a multidisciplinary team with the aim of quickly and efficiently acquiring new information (Jamal and Ayra, 2004: 12). There have been a whole range of PRA methods used since the approach was first delineated, but prominent ones include: Direct observation (critical observation of objects, acts and people continually) Rapport building working relationship established between researchers and rural people to create an environment for free and frank discussion SSI (semi-structured interviews) Relevant but informal discussions with individuals centred around themes FGD (focus-group discussions) informal but themed discussions with rural people The essential point of PRA is that that poor and exploited people can and should be enabled to analyse their own reality, as such it fits satisfactorily within a rights-based development paradigm that focuses on building sustainable livelihoods. To address objectives 1 and 3 a combination of quantitative and qualitative data was collected. A sampling calculation exercise was conducted based on ASAs project beneficiary data from Jobat (recipients of Micro-finance (M-F) projects) to create an amount of people needed for reliable quantitative data collection. Using a sample survey size calculation (Raosoft.com), for a population of 928 beneficiary households, accepting a 94% confidence level and a 15% margin of error, a sample size of 38 households is sufficient. As the villages in Jobat all have differing amounts of M-F beneficiaries, the villages were chosen through proportional sampling identifying the average number of beneficiaries per village, then choosing 5 villages above the average and 5 villages below (at random). 39 households were identified from the selected villages, according to direct sampling while at the villages according to which villagers were available to interview. The households identified were each given household surveys and a questionnaire to complete. For qualitative data collection 8 focus group discussions were conducted in 8 of the villages involving more villagers than just those interviewed for quantitative data

15

collection in the household surveys and questionnaires. Other data collection methods involved direct observation and the construction of a seasonal calendar in the villages as all rural livelihoods confront seasonality as an inherent feature of their livelihoods (Ellis, 1998, p.11). Finally Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the Government Veterinarian in Jobat as well as two ASA staff members from the ASA Jhabua District Office. To address objective 2 market traders were identified and engaged in semistructured interviews during two visits to two different local goat markets one in Ranapur and another in Jhabua. While an initial field visit of 2 days was carried out on 8th-9th October to meet ASA field staff, visit some ASA projects and gain some basic insights into Jobat for project design purposes, all data was collected over 4 days Thursday 19th, Friday 20th, Saturday 21st and Monday 22nd November 2009.

Table showing data collection

Village Umri Betwasa Bilasa Dehedla M-F Beneficiaries (No.) 19 26 20 25 Data Collection Activities FGD & six Household Surveys & Questionnaires FGD &five Household Surveys & Questionnaires FGD & nine Household Surveys & Questionnaires FGD; one Household Survey & Questionnaire & one Seasonal Calendar * FGD & one Household Survey & Questionnaire FGD & two Household Surveys & Questionnaires FGD & two Household Surveys & Questionnaires FGD & Four Household Surveys & Questionnaires Five Household Surveys & Questionnaires Four Household Surveys & Questionnaires

Kadwal Khari Sindhi Undari Banjabeda Kanda

12 32 53 64 35 40

Though constructed in Dehedla, the Seasonal Calendar was presented to other villages during FGDs for any additions or edits and as a discussion tool.

The Household Survey template can be found in Appendix A; the Questionnaire in Appendix C; the FGD Schedule in Appendix C; the Government Veterinarian SSI question themes in Appendix D; the ASA Field Staff SSI question themes in Appendix E; the Market Traders SSI question themes in Appendix F. Limitations The main limitations to the study were time and the availability of ASA staff and farmers. Lack of time (a four day limit), lack of staff and lack of the required amount

16

of farmers available in the time limit resulted in a reduced sample size for quantitative data (household surveys and questionnaire respondents); and the number of people from each village determined by those available at the time of visiting. In order to counter such limitations more focus group discussions were conducted than originally planned and a general increase in qualitative data has resulted. The amount of FGDs increased almost threefold; including as participants those interviewed for the household surveys and questionnaires as well as other farmers available. In the two villages in which FGDs did not take place brief general discussions involving all villagers available took place instead. ASA staff from the Jobat ASA field office gave information to the study research concerning ASA microfinance recipients in Jobat (the sample population), in which they confirmed that all the villages face similar problems, have similar conditions of existence and hence a larger sample size would not dramatically change the resulting data themes. One further limitation experienced was translation problems in data collection. Though sufficient for the information gained, the lack of a fluent interpreter limited the depth of the qualitative data. A further problem experienced involved gaining access to women and children in the villages as equal participants to discussions. During FGDs women and children would often sit behind men and would feel uncomfortable speaking until a man was present. Often men would speak for women and when women were answering questions they would often answer from the perspective of the main earner of the household always a man.

17

Results and Analysis

Objective 1) To understand the livelihood strategies and pastoral practices of goat farmers from Jobat, Jhabua in Madhya Pradesh.
Hypothesis a) Goat farmers face multiple social and economic challenges to maintaining a sustainable livelihood. As noted above, livelihood strategies can be defined as the ways in which people combine and use their assets to achieve their goals. If we assume that the goal is to achieve a sustainable livelihood; a livelihood which can cope with and recover from stress and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, this provides us with a useful framework, under SLA to approach the tribal farmers of Jobat.

Overview Themes in Jobat

Education, Literacy and Work A useful reference point to begin understanding the livelihood strategies of goat farmers from Jobat is the Resource Atlas of Jhabua (Bajaj, 2008), commissioned by the Madhya Pradesh Council for Science and Technology and the Centre for Policy Studies, published in 2008. The 2001 National Census provides scant information on Jobat, just basic district-wide data, though it does inform us, as does the Resource Atlas, that scheduled tribes (predominantly the Bhil tribe) make up 86.85% of the population of Jhabua; that of the working population most are employed in agriculture and the district suffers from high rates of unemployment, low rates of literacy and high numbers of marginal workers (2001 Census). Table showing Workers, Marginal Workers and Non-Workers in M.P., and Jhabua. Total Workers Non-Workers (Bajaj, 2008: Population 69) Total Main Marginal Madhya 60,348 25,794 19,103 6,691 34,555 Pradesh (100.00) (42.74) (31.65) (11.09) (57.26) Jhabua 1,395 732 487 245 662 (100.00) (52.51) (34.95) (17.56) (47.49) All numbers in thousands; figures in brackets are percentage of the populations Graphs below showing work participation rates in different economic activities in Jhabua (Bajaj, 2008: 69)

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 All Urban Household Industry Workers Other Workers Agricultural Workers

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Madhya Pradesh Jobat

18

Total Male Female

Most of this information is borne out by the results of the Household Surveys from this study. Of the 39 household surveys, only 4 persons (main earners of households) had any form of education. Considering each household had an average of 10 people, the only others in education being school-going children (average of 1-2 per household), education and literacy in Jobat is a rarely held asset. Moreover, during focus group discussions some villagers pointed to the inadequacy of the local village primary schools; in Dehedla the villagers said the teacher is rarely there and the standard is very poor. On a visit to a local school in the village of Banjabeda, the teacher confirmed, all of the children work as well, which means they are sometimes absent and often tired.

Primary school class in the village of Banjabeda

Work & Employment Of the 39 Household Surveys, all of the main earners from each household were employed in agriculture, often as labourers as well (27) and rarely as construction workers (2), drill machine workers (1), flour mill workers (1) and a teacher (1) as well as agriculture. Of the women from each household, all did housework, most (32) worked in agriculture as well, 2 also worked as labourers, 1 as a handloom worker and 1 as a carer for children. These results, the most common profession being agriculture amongst both men and women with labouring a common second profession tally with the Resource Atlas of Jhabua. That the average landholding was 1.6 hectares shows that most landholders can be classed as small farmers (those holding less than 2 hectares of land), and a significant minority (10) can be classed as marginal farmers (those holding less than 1 hectare of land). The land holding results had a standard deviation of 1.99, which shows that there was some deviation between land holding sizes, but most were clustered around the mean of 1.6 hectares, the mode (most common) landholding size being 2 hectares. This also tallies with the table above concerning the amounts of workers and marginal workers in Jhabua. Concerning unemployment, the Household Survey did reveal that the women from 2 households worked in housework only but did not reveal significant unemployment. The focus group discussions revealed that all family members from each household were involved in work in some capacity mostly agriculture. The average number of men from each household was 3.58, and the average number of women 3.05, therefore it is pertinent to presume that these men and women are employed in agriculture as well (excepting the 2 households in which women perform housework

19

only); contributing towards household income though not owners of land or livestock personally. Work & Gender That household work is not recognised as official employment and is unpaid does not mean that it is in any lesser sense work; a recent study by the UN Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) covering Argentina, India, Nicaragua, South Korea, South Africa and Tanzania found the mean time spent by women in unpaid care work is more than twice the mean time spent by men (UNRISD, 2008). Earlier this year UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon presented a report to the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), concluding unpaid work at household level, including care giving, remains invisible and unmeasured (Ban Ki-Moon, cited in Dean, IPS, 2009). While the household survey results tally in part with the Resource Atlas concerning work/labour, they differ concerning the rate of unemployment and add a gender dimension; the double burden of women involved in official and non-official work and their status in tribal society is an issue at the forefront of the results of this study.
Occupations of Main Household Earners
Occupations of Women from Households

7% 7%

7%

A griculture A griculture / Labour / C onstruction A griculture / T eacher

5%

Housework / A griculture / Labour 5% 3% 3% 46% Housework / A griculture Housework / Labour Housework 38% Housework / Handloom Worker / Labour Housework / C arer for C hildren

14%

A griculture / Flour Mill Worker 65% A griculture / Drill M achine Driver

Gender & Landholding In further analysing the quantitative data, the standard deviation of the number of men per household and women per household was 2.13 and 1.33 respectively, revealing some variation in the number of men between households. If a correlation coefficient is calculated between the number of men for each household and the total amount of land owned by each household, the figure results as 0.27, revealing a small positive correlation. However, there is a very small positive correlation between the total number of people in each household and the total amount of land owned (0.14), and practically no correlation between the number of women per household and the amount of land owned (-0.02). As such one household from the survey results contained 11 men, 3 women and only 1.2 hectares of land. Though, as seen from the averages above, this household is not representative of all the households, it does suggest that there is no substantial correlation between land size and the number of men/women per household. In fact, the average numbers of men/women per household and the average land holding stated above when combined with the average number of children per household (4.05), shows overall a fairly high number of people living and working on relatively little land.

20

Wage Labour & Migration As noted above, labouring is a very common second profession for the main earners of households in Jobat as well as for women, and professions such as construction work and other manual labour are a significant but more rare source of additional income. Only 6 households did not receive any income from wage earning, testifying to the commonality of wage labour. For those households who did receive income from wage labour, the annual average earning for labour was Rs. 16227.27, which is 55.27% of the average total annual income of those households. Wage labour is therefore a major contributor to household income, providing in most cases (33) over half of all income. This indicates that income from agriculture and livestock is insufficient to support a sustainable livelihood for most households, necessitating a second source of income. This is often secured through migrating for work. Migration was found to be fairly common amongst the survey respondents; 21 households had 1 or more members migrating from 2 to 12 months a year, while 18 had no migrating members. The Resource Atlas found that migration was common amongst the working population of Jhabua, yet the number of persons migrating per year is not known with accuracy, but happens in lean agricultural seasons. The Atlas further concludes, it is generally acknowledged that this kind of forced migration is declining (Bajaj, 2008: 52). If one calculates a correlation coefficient between the number of migrant members per household and the annual average income of each household, the result is 0.25, revealing a small positive correlation. Migration is therefore a common livelihood strategy of the survey respondents, testifying once again to the insufficiency of agriculture or livestock rearing to support the family income. Having noted this, the Resource Atlas does note that the level of migration is checked by the amount of people needed to tend livestock (Bajaj, 2008: 52). The level of migration also testifies to the insufficient number of jobs in the local area, as many more of the households surveyed stated labouring as a second profession than had members migrating; some must labour locally while others are forced to seek work further afield. There is some correspondence between villages and the number of household members migrating; all households surveyed in Kanda had members migrating while none in Banjabeda did. Other than these two correlations, the village origin did not have any effect on number of members migrating per household. The average number of migrating members per household (overall) was 1, and the average number of months migrating was found to be 2.82, which when excluding those households without members migrating results in 5.24 months. Most households stated Gujurat or Indore as destinations for migration.

The graph and table on the following page display levels of household migration as well as the relation to household income

21

Graph showing household migration

Household Migration

5 4 Number of 3 Members Migrating 2 1 0 S1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Survey Respondent Households

Table displaying household migration statistics Average Average Average Annual Landholding Number of Household Income Per People Per from Wage Labour Household Household (Rs) (hectares) 2 hectares 11 Rs. 13730.76 39 Households Surveyed across 10 villages in Jobat

Average Annual Household Income from Agriculture (Rs) Rs. 11089.74

Total Average Annual Household Income (Rs) Rs. 26251.28

22

Assets

Building Assets: Farmer Raxin Singh from Kanda village, Jobat.

SLA leads us to analyse assets in order to understand the options, aspirations and vulnerability of the rural poor necessary to assess the feasibility of establishing a co-operative. Assets, as noted above, can be defined as both the physical and material resources required for a means of living; a livelihood. The Resource Atlas of Jhabua informs us that while there are not many sheep in Jhabua, the number of goats and other animals has increased sharply since 1992. Furthermore, that the average number of animals per household in Jhabua is 5.4, with an average of 1.94 goats and 1.38 cows. For Jobat, it notes an average of 2.47 goats and 1.45 cows the number of goats higher than the district average (Bajaj, 2008: 110). Goat farming is a very common activity in Jobat.
Goats in Jhabua
500000 450000 400000 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 1966 1982 Date 1992 2003 Num ber of Goats
Average Number of Animals Per Household 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Total Animals Goats Cows Jhabua Jobat

Animals Per Household in Jhabua and Jobat

Graphs showing goat and animal ownership by date and area

The household survey results from this study yielded the following data:
Animals Per Household
3.5 3 2.5 Averag e Nu mb er of 2 An i mals P er 1.5 Hou seh old 1 0.5 0
Numbe r of Cows Numbe r of G oats Standa rd D ev iation of Numbe r of Goats Numbe r of O x

S1
Numbe r of Buffa lo

As can be seen from the graph opposite, the average number of goats per household is higher than that reported by the Resource Atlas; the standard deviation tells us that there was some variation one household for example had 10 goats, while most had less the mode was 2, yet some had 5 or 6 goats. The other commonly held animals were ox and cows, yet fewer in number than goats. The high number of goats seems to point towards the animals worth as a livelihood asset.

23

The focus group discussions confirmed the information found from the household surveys regarding the importance of the goat as a livelihood asset. In the village of Dehedla, villagers stated, goats are important for emergencies, and for security. Another focus group discussion in the village of Khari followed a tour around the village in which 2 farmers presented their goats as their most valuable possessions, taking particular care to point out the worth of the large adult buck, an animal they claimed could sell for Rs. 13,000, while the maximum price for an adult female would be Rs. 2500, the only factor being size. In the village of Bilasa, villagers pointed out in a focus group discussion that goats are for emergency use for money, and they use the milk while the female goats are pregnant. In the village of Banjabeda, the villagers said that the main reason we keep goats is selling if we need money, but also for children and for milk. In coding the answers from the focus group discussions, all focus groups attested to the value of the goat as a security asset to sell in emergencies, while a significant minority attested to a secondary value of the goat as a provider of milk and for breeding. When analysing the amount of money spent on goats per household per year, we find that the average amount per household is Rs. 459, with the most common answer (by 27 respondents) in the household surveys being Rs. 0. The average amount of income gained from goats per household per year is Rs. 1430.76, with the most common answer (by 21 respondents) was Rs. 0. It is also worth examining the standard deviation of the previous two answers for goat expenditure Rs. 740.45 and for goat income Rs. 2022.65, revealing some significant spread in goat income/expenditure, especially concerning income. That many households answered Rs.0 confirms the conclusions of Misra et al., that Farmersconsider sheep and goats as a working capital and opt for a zero input system of production (Misra, et al, 2007). While farmers may opt for spending little money on their goats, this in itself demonstrates the value of keeping goats for poor rural farmers they require little investment and expenditure bar the initial buying price and act as a security asset when money is needed. With little collateral and low access to formal financial institutions, the goat is a reliable investment asset for the rural poor. Many goats will also be reared from birth thus negating even the initial buying price for the animal, bringing the input costs down even lower. Other Assets One significant observation made while visiting the villages during fieldwork was the closeness in which the farmers lived with their livestock. While all households surveyed bar one owned a house, 21 owned a separate livestock keeping room and 18 did not. Of those that did, the livestock rooms were either inside the houses on the ground floor or attached to the houses. Of those that didnt own a livestock room, the goats were tethered up outside the houses and often brought inside at night. In all of the villages visited during fieldwork, the researchers were surrounded by animals goats and chickens in the large part, often with a cow or two nearby. The Resource Atlas found that the abundance of livestock in Jhabua is strikingwherever you go in rural Jhabua, you are likely to be sitting amongst animals, who seem to be an inseperable part of the household (Bajaj, 2008: 111). Whether owning a separate livestock keeping room attests to a higher investment made into livestock, the importance of livestock to the household or a higher income to spend on assets - is a point worth considering. In working out a correlation coefficient for livestock room ownership and income from goats the result is 0.24,

24

suggesting a small positive correlation. It should be noted that the correlation is based on a simple coding of answers to livestock keeping room ownership (No = 1; Yes = 2), whereas income levels are of a much greater number and dispersion. There is no significant correlation between livestock keeping room ownership and total average annual household income or average annual difference between income and expenditure (0.08 and 0.01 respectively). Other significant assets owned by the household respondents included dug wells; owned by 24 of the households surveyed. If, similarly, a correlation coefficient is calculated between dug well ownership (coded No = 1; Yes = 2), and average annual income from agriculture, the result is 0.15; between dug well ownership and total annual average income the result is 0.21; between dug well ownership and annual average difference between income & expenditure is 0.19. These reveal small positive correlations, for agricultural income it is perhaps to be expected as it provides a source of irrigation. As can be seen in the above graph, the amount of cows, ox and buffalo owned per household is on average fairly low compared with goats, though still significant assets all the same. If one correlates the amount of cows, ox and buffalo owned with annual average income the result is 0.11, -0.35 and 0.26 respectively; thus a small negative correlation exists for cows, a slightly larger negative correlation for ox and a small positive correlation for buffalo. Based on the data, buffalo are the only animal other than goats, which contribute positively to annual average household income. One should note however that the figures for income and expenditure are annual averages estimated by the farmers interviewed and hence may well be subject to some error. Money Annual Average Income (Rs) Annual Average Expenditure (Rs) Difference between Income & Expenditure (Rs) 12701.28 Number of Households with Bank Account 4 Average Savings in Bank Account (Rs) 243.59 Standard Deviation of Total Income (Rs) 19142.77 Standard Deviation of Total Expenditure (Rs) 10116.56

26251.28 13550 Standard Deviation of Difference between Income & Expenditure (Rs) 18789.50

As one can see from the results in the above table, there is quite a wide dispersion of results in the answers given to averages for total annual income and expenditure, more so for income. The difference between income and expenditure contains a wide dispersion as well, thus while the average expenditure is less than the average income and the average difference between both is nearly Rs 13,000, seven of the households surveyed had a greater expenditure than income and one household estimated the same for income and expenditure. Futhermore, during focus group discussions many farmers stated that lack of money was a major obstacle confronting them. In Dehedla, one farmer said we have not enough money to provide for a livelihood, while in other villages such as Umri (in which all but one farmers interviewed for the household surveys could not meet their expenditure

25

through their income), farmers stated, Agriculture does not provide enough money, it is dependent on rain. If this is the case, how is it therefore that the average amount of money the farmers were left with after calculating the difference between income and expenditure was Rs. 12701.28? The answer can be found in the opinions voiced in many of the FGDs. In the village of Kanda, in response to questioning what he does with the Rs. 39,000 difference between his estimated income & expenditure, the farmer, Raxin Singh stated with alarm We have to pay off loans! This was confirmed with other farmers from Kanda as well as all of the farmers interviewed from other villages. In the village of Khari 2 women farmers said we use the ASA SHG loans but if it is not enough we go to a moneylender in Jobat, giving him jewellery for money. The Resource Atlas notes, Besides land, silver is quite obviously the only valuable assetthat the Bhils possess (Bajaj, 2008: 150). On visiting the villages, one of the major things noted visually was the amount of silver jewellery worn by most of the women from each village, attesting to its popularity; both a source of indebtedness and an asset at the same time. In a content analysis of the FGD discussion transcripts, every village stated that they use moneylenders on top of SHG loans and that they all use any money left over to pay off loans. Of the 4 households with bank accounts, the average savings amount was low at Rs. 243.59 (as seen above), and all of these households said that the savings, though intended for the long-term, were in reality temporary because we always need money, often to pay off moneylenders. Land One other significant asset, as noted by the Resource Atlas, is land. However, as noted above, the survey results show that most farmers are marginal or small, and there are many people living and working on relatively small areas of land. In response to asking whether the village contained any CPR land Common Property Resources (see above), often called Government or Panchayat land (forests, pastures, rivulets, un-classed land), all household respondents bar one said no. Interestingly, the other farmers from the same village in which the farmer said yes (Undari), said no. This result tallies with the analyses of several observers (noted above) that CPR have declined in recent decades (Jodha, 2008; Ramdas and Ghotge, 2003). If, from the survey results, one correlates the amount of land owned per household with annual average household income, the result is 0.22, revealing a small positive correlation. If one correlates amount of land owned with annual average agricultural income, the result is 0.49; a higher positive correlation, to be expected since more land available would result in a higher yield. However, if one correlates amount of land owned with number of goats owned, the result is 0.14, a small positive correlation. During focus group discussions many farmers stated that all land they owned was used for growing crops and in many villages a common problem attested to was lack of land; for growing crops and for sale, consumption and feeding of livestock. The picture that emerges when assessing the assets owned and used by the goat farmers of Jobat is that of a few valuable assets; namely goats, land, few other livestock, money and jewellery. The proliferation of goats in Jobat, together with how closely they are valued; how closely they are kept to the household homes and how little it costs to rear them, attests to the high value of goats as a livelihood asset the phrase goats are the poor mans cow, has much basis in reality. On the other hand the picture outlined above attests to the pressure of people vis--vis land, the lack of land, money, and other assets combined with high levels of debt building assets to repay loans rather than to build livelihoods.

26

Livelihood Strategies and Pastoral Practices

Farmers and villagers from Dehedla following an FGD addressing livelihood concerns

As we have analysed the asset status of rural goat farmers from Jobat, SLA then leads us to investigate livelihood strategies; the ways in which people combine and use their assets to achieve their goals. As noted above, we are presuming the goal of farmers to be achieving a sustainable livelihood; a livelihood which can cope with and recover from stress and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets. Furthermore, when considering livelihoods, the qualification by Ellis (above) concerning the importance of access to assets, infrastructure and services is crucial. While agricultural input costs are rising, households supplementing income with wage labour locally or through migration, goat rearing is, as pointed out above, an activity requiring little investment and low maintenance, yet providing a security asset to use when needed. But how is this asset used and for which purpose? What sort of contribution does it make to household income, and what, specifically is required to maintain goats? In a sense, what is the nature of goat farming in Jobat? Purpose of Goat Rearing The household surveys reveal the following reasons for keeping goats:

Purpose of Goat Ownership

8%

3% 3% Selling Selling & Bre eding Selling & Milking Selling, Milking & Bree ding 86%

27

As can be seen clearly, all respondents stated selling as a reason, with a few naming another reason. During the course of all 8 FGDs, farmers from every village named selling as the main and often only reason for keeping goats. Farmers from Dehedla said goats are for selling for meat, while farmers from Khari said, selling is the main reason, we sell both male and female goats, while farmers from Umri said we keep goats for emergencies. When asked to clarify what he meant, the farmer from Umri said to sell for emergency money. As pointed out above, several farmers from different FGDs pointed to emergencies as the main reason for keeping goats. One farmer from Undari said, we have many emergencies and we need many goats. During a semi-structured interview (SSI) with ASA Jhabua District Staff Member Mr Mukesh Mewana, Mr Mewana stated, Farmers use goats for milk when goats are pregnant and after birth because it is very nutritious. Even though farmers may say they dont. This observation stands to reason, as observations during visits to villages revealed not only adult goats (more does than bucks) but many kids as well. The sheer proliferation of goats seen on visits to villages seems to contradict the amount of goats stated by each farmer. Although the average number of goats owned is higher than the district average (at 3.1), Mr Mukesh Mewana further stated, Goat ownership in Jobat is very high. Farmers will often hide or conceal information in order to appear more eligible for potential subsidies. BAIF noted that a major livelihood strategy adopted by farmers was to increase herd size as animals were sold in distress to local middlemen at low prices. As noted above, the average annual income from goats of the household survey respondents (based on the estimations of farmers) was Rs. 1430.76. As a percentage of estimated total average annual income, this represents only 5.45%. If those who gained no income from goats are excluded (as well as their respective total incomes), the figure becomes 9.89%, effectively 10%. The survey results also show that of the 29 farmers, 15 made sales in distress. The low income gained from goats leads us to the conclusion that there is not much long-term planning inherent within the livelihood strategies of goat rearers in Jobat. Furthermore, if the information gained from ASA staff is taken into account, goat ownership is higher than the farmers themselves estimate (which is, as noted above, higher than the district-wide average and that reported by the Resource Atlas already). This high level of ownership is so as a strategy to cope with the relatively little income, though vital in the short-term, that is gained from the activity. The goat as a livelihood asset is not used in a way which would provide a sustainable livelihood strategy.

Seasonal Calendar In analysing livelihood strategies part of the research involved constructing a seasonal calendar with farmers during FGDs. This was done in order to gain a better understanding of the different activities involved in goat farming and which times of year represent significant periods of time. In most FGDs, farmers stated that, as one farmer from Khari pointed out, we sell goats when we need money, and when probed further some farmers, for example one farmer from Dehedla said, all times of year are the same. A calendar was constructed in order to approach the same issue from a different perspective.

28

Goat Farming Seasonal Calendar

January February March April
Marriage Period Sell many goats if available HOLI

Sell goats for festival expenses if available Rabi Harvest Buy goats if money left over from selling crop

May June July August September October

DIWALI Sell goats for agricultural expenses if needed.

Monsoon Season

Kharif Sowing

November December
EID

Kharif Harvest / Rabi Sowing

Eid Sell many goats for sacrifice / meat if available

Sell goats for festival expenses if available. Buy goats if money available from selling crop. Sell goats for agriculture expenses if needed.

The calendar enabled an understanding of the farmers main times of need to be established; the significant times of year from the perspectives of the farmers, and an idea of how goat farming activities fitted into this. The calendar displays festivals as major times for selling goats; during Holi and Diwali to acquire money to meet the rise in expenditure, which commonly occurs at these times. For Eid, the selling of goats is more demand based, due to the large numbers required for sacrifice and for meat during this time. The calendar also displays that during the main marriage period (April May), farmers will sell many goats in order to meet wedding expenses, e.g. dowries.

29

A further issue the calendar displays is how goat farming is intricately linked with the agricultural calendar particularly in terms of when money is available from harvests to buy goats as well as the need for money to buy agricultural inputs (seeds, fertilisers etc) during the sowing period often raised through selling goats. That this is the case coupled with the fact that every farmer interviewed bar one raised crops as well as livestock (the one farmer in question grew vegetables but not crops), confirms that the goat farmers of Jobat keep more livestock in integrated systems than under pastoral conditions (Kohler-Rollesfson et al., 2003). The calendar points towards an annual pastoral practice dominated by a short-term rearing strategy in which goats are bought and sold according to household need.

Land and Labour

Farmers from Kanda

We have no land and no time. Farmer from Sindhi

Lack of land and lack of time were common problems stated during several FGDs. One farmer from the village of Dehedla said, We have not enough land for agriculture, and for feeding goats, it is dependent on rain. In the village of Kadwal farmers pointed to the main general problems they have as lack of electricity and lack of water. They noted that during rainy weather there is enough grass for goats to eat but in other weather there is not. Lack of electricity and lack of water as major problems were also stated in the villages of Umri, Sindhi and Khari during FGDs. Farmers from the village of Undari said, we have not enough land for feeding goats, a problem which was similarly stated by farmers in Umri, Sindhi, Undari and Dehedla. The household surveys revealed that almost all (38) households fed their goats on grass, while 21 also said grass & crops (mainly Juaar). Lack of land for goats seems to be related more to feeding than to grazing, as farmers attested to the general lack of food, noted by one farmer from Bilasa: We lack land to feed goats and animals. The FGDs confirm the vulnerability of the farmers to climate change and their dependence upon it. If enough rain falls in the monsoon season the farmers may be able to meet their livelihood goals, if not their livelihoods will suffer. The dependence upon rain also seeks to confirm the observation made in the Introduction regarding the nature of Madhya Pradesh as a rain-fed agro eco system. Needless to say, the FGDs do not point towards sustainable livelihoods but rather insecure livelihoods

30

vulnerable to factors largely outside of the farmers control. The importance of goat rearing in this context as an alternative livelihood option is significant. As part of the research questionnaires (of 6 questions) investigating farmers opinions were presented to the farmers as well as the household surveys. One of the questions asked farmers if they had adequate access to land for goats and asked them to place their opinion on a Likert scale of answers ranging from 1 = Strongly Agree to 4 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Dont Know. Variable Land Access Mode 4 Mean 3.41 Median 4 Standard Deviation 0.88

The results gained from the questionnaire that most farmers picked option 4 Strongly Disagree, tallies with the results of the household survey regarding the fairly small area of land owned on average by most households and indicates the insufficiency of agriculture to supply their livestock needs. It also tallies with the lack of CPR in most villages (noted in the household survey), and in the theoretical discussion above. The Resource Atlas observed that in Jhabua, This continuous and sharp decline in pastures and grazing land is surprising, becauseJhabua has considerable livestock (Bajaj, 2008: 87). There is therefore both pressure of people and of animals on land. Having noted this, in many FGDs the farmers were asked where they graze their goats, and in answer most farmers pointed to the general village area but were hesitant to explain any further. One farmer from Kadwal said In the village, another farmer from Khari said the village, and one farmer from Sindhi said the village and nearby. During an SSI with ASA staff member Mr Mukesh, he said, Villagers use Government/Panchayat land on the side of roads and in forests for feeding their goats. This does not contradict what the farmers were saying, but indicates they may take their goats for feeding elsewhere. On the first exposure visit to Jobat prefieldwork, one goat farmer was located but most others from the village visited were unavailable as they were taking their goats to a forest for feeding. That the Resource Atlas notes some CPR in 2005-06 in Jhabua 8,566 hectares, though a mere 1.27% of the district, indicates CPR does exist, though farmers, if they can gain access, may have to travel to access this drastically diminishing resource (Bajaj, 2008: 87).

31

Labour

Women and Child, Dehedla

Women and children do the labour in goat rearing. Shanka (Shanka, male farmer from Dehedla).

When asked to describe a typical day in goat farming during FGDs, some farmers in Betwasa and in Bilasa described the following activities: AM Activity PM Activitiy 1 family member takes Goats brought back to village goats for feeding in and given grass & plants or village/local area taken to trees From FGDs in Betwasa and Dehedla The PM activity tallies with the information gained from local ASA staff, concerning farmers using land beside roads and forests for feeding their goats. It is worth noting however that only one farmer (from Undari) said that CPR forest land existed near the village. During the FGD in Dehedla it was interesting that one male farmer, Shanka, said, women and children do the labour in goat rearing. He also said that the House President takes the goat to market, for selling. Farmers from Undari said All family members manage goats, a sentiment which was confirmed by farmers from Khari and Sindhi. What are we therefore to make of the gender division of labour expressed in the beginning of this study? Existing literature concludes, irrespective of flock size, woman and children contribute to the pastoral labour force to the extent of about 90% (Deoghare, 1997, cited in Misra et al, 2007). There was some difficulty experienced in delving deeper into the specific responsibilities of different family members in goat husbandry. Much of the time those speaking were male and the women involved in FGDs would sit on the floor, often veiling their faces, hesitant to speak. The children did not speak at all. However, women did take an active part in discussions and would often seem to know a lot about goats. In the village of Sindhi no men were present during the FGD; one farmer said she had 10 goats, which she valued as a vital lifeline but then described specific disease problems and lack of land and time as major problems. BAIF noted in their study that goat husbandry is an important source of livelihood for the rural poor, particularly for women, landless and marginal farmerswho do not have other means of survival (BAIF, 2006: 1). While all family members may manage the goats, the information from Dehedla indicates that women and children do much of the everyday labour while men take charge of money matters including taking the goats for sale. Thus goats may well be of more importance, both from a

32

subjective personal sense and in a more objective developmental sense, to women farmers. The Resource Atlas described a critical social custom of the Bhils known as halama; providing common labour for accomplishing agricultural and other tasks of a family that is unable to perform it on their own. The Atlas also noted the associated custom of araji-paraji loaning labour, existing in Jhabua. One of the major observations on visiting the villages was how although every household acted as an individual unit, owning their own land and livestock, the farmers often answered questions collectively. In answer to whether there were any disputes between village farmers, villagers in Dehedla stated, We are all of the same mindset. Though the research has not revealed the existence of common or loaned labour it would be prudent to presume that for instance, when taking goats for feeding, children may take all village goats with them. A further point to note relates to the quote above from the farmer from Sindhi We have no land and no time. This lack of time for goat husbandry was echoed by farmers from Dehedla who said, we want more goats but we are busy in agriculture. Lack of time effectively lack of labour to perform goat husbandry is a major issue, seemingly despite any tribal labour systems that may exist. The FGDs and survey results reveal that people are first and foremost agriculturalists, secondly labourers (as noted above) and thirdly goat rearers. Womens labour in goat husbandry is a double burden to them, taking into account their domestic and other working labour. While goats are proven by this study to be a valuable livelihood asset, the status of goat husbandry within village life and the priority given to it as a source of income generation may possibly be linked in with the status of women and children in rural tribal society. Though supposition, this is based on real observations of gender inequality. It is however useful to note the following correlations concerning relationships between labour, gender, goats and income:
Correlation Coeff ic ients - People and Goat Inc ome

Correlation Coefficients - People and Goats

0.45 0.4

0.25 0.2

0.35

0.15
0.3

0.1
0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 -0.05 No. Peop le / Goat Income No. Men / Goat Income No. Women / Goat Income No. Children / Goat Income

0.05 0 -0.05 -0.1 -0.15 -0.2 N o. People / No. N o. Men / N o. N o. W om en / N o. N o. Children / G oats G oats G oats N o. Goats

The above correlations from the survey data reveal interestingly, that while there is a small negative correlation between number of women per household and number of goats, there is a larger positive correlation between number of women per household and goat income, and larger still for number of children per household and number of goats as well as goat income. This may indicate that while fewer women manage many goats, children are a vital source of labour for goat rearing and many are required, while men perform some tasks as well. Goat rearing is therefore fairly labour-intensive, though not as much as is agriculture.

33

Veterinary Healthcare & Breed Management

We are not sure whether to buy more goats as there is too much death and disease. Women goat farmers from Kadwal.

This issue has been found by the few studies that exist to be of paramount importance and a major challenge to goat farmers; providing adequate veterinary healthcare and managing the breeds of goats to maximise genetic potential both BAIF and Misra et al., stated genetic erosion (due to indiscriminate breeding), poor healthcare, poor knowledge of livestock management and poor availability of feed and fodder as major challenges (BAIF, 2006; Misra et al., 2007). As noted above many farmers attested to a general lack of land to produce feed for goats and all fed their goats on grass, with approximately half (16) adding in Juaar as well. What is clear is that farmers are not feeding goats on cultivated fodder high in nutrients, necessary for a balanced diet. During an SSI with the Government Veterinarian in Jobat, the Veterinarian said there is little awareness amongst farmers of proper diet and nutrition for goats. Farmers give goats feed from free-range in forests and other agricultural products. Interestingly, during several FGDs farmers were asked which crops they grew, the answers were commonly wheat, maize and pulse, as said a farmer from Undari, often with chickpea and kitchen garden vegetables for home consumption as well (Bilasa, Sindhi and Kadwal). Farmers from Khari gave the fieldworkers a tour around their land explaining they grew maize, wheat, soybean, cotton, spinach, chilli, pulse and garlic, while one farmer from Umri said, we grow all crops. What this suggests is that farmers either have little awareness of a proper diet for goats and feed them largely grass or they prioritise crops for sale/home consumption and not for animals. BAIF note in their study With the depleting natural resources, there is severe shortage of fodder, leading to poor growth. Goat rearing on free grazing land being an age-old practice, the owners do not feed them with cultivated fodder and mineral mixture (BAIF, 2006: 1). The decline in CPR has been noted above, and the general decline in natural resources in India, particularly as a result of the Green Revolution, is now widely acknowledged (see Singh, 2000). This, combined with a low awareness of nutrition would explain the reliance on grass from grazing for feed. It is also worth noting that the literature that exists attests to the positive contribution goats can make, if managed appropriately, to grazing and farm land, despite many protestations to the contrary in selecting plants to eat and spreading manure as a crucial part of the ecological system (see Misra et al, 2007a; FAO, 2009: 12-13). The result of a poor diet can be clearly seen when looking at the disease and mortality incidence rate amongst goats owned by the farmers studied, together with types of disease:

34

Annual Disease and Mortality amongst Goats

30
Annual Incidence Rate

Diseases in Goats

3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Disease Mortality

25 20 15 10 5 0
Digestion Skin Problem Leg Problem Fever Miscarriage

Sneezing

Starvation

S1
Unknown

Mode

Me an

Average

Standard Deviation

When considering the average number of goats owned is 3, the results become evermore significant. During FGDs many farmers stated commonality of disease amongst goats as a major problem confronting them, linked to lack of land to grow food. One farmer in Umri said, We have a feeding problem, there is not enough food for the goats and a lot of disease. That digestion was the most common disease complaint (including one case of starvation) confirms the problems of poor nutrition. A farmer from Dehedla said illness is a major problem for goats, we took one goat to the missionary hospital but it died. Lack of knowledge about goat health seemed to frustrate many farmers. One farmer from Khari said, goat disease is a major problem, we dont know why it happens. The quote above from a farmer from Sindhi attests to this as well, in the hesitation to acquire more goats. The Veterinarian stated that he is very busy, seeing 10 to 15 animals a day, and that common health complaints with goats are diarrhoea, pneumonia, anorexia, related to seasons. The veterinarian also said that vaccination is the most important thing as it controls disease. The household surveys results reveal that out of 39 households, 37 did not vaccinate their goats; only 2 had done so, indicating a low level of awareness of the importance of vaccinations. That the Government Veterinarian is almost free (the veterinarian described a small charge of 1 or 2 Rs per animal (depending on size)), seems to confirm this. During the FGDs, many farmers said we use tablets from the market as it is cheaper (farmer from Umri), a healthcare choice echoed by farmers from Kadwal, Bilasa, Umri and Undari. One farmer from Bilasa said, the doctor does not come here, he comes to the next village and charges full rate, while farmers from Kanda, during a brief discussion said, the only doctor who comes here is a training doctor and he is not good. Farmers from Dehedla said the missionary hospital is not good, while a farmer from Undari said the veterinarian charges if he comes here but not if we go to Jobat. These statements seem to indicate a large amount of confusion surrounding the costs of veterinary healthcare, but also suggests that the veterinarian charges for visiting the villages. The indirect costs of loss of labour time and costs of transport to Jobat an average of 6.1 Km away from the villages, would also be significant in accessing veterinary healthcare. Part of the research involved, as with land, a question in the questionnaire given to the farmers asking them if they had adequate access to veterinary healthcare with the possible choices ranged on a Likert scale identical to that of land stated above. The results can be seen on the table on the following page:

35

Variable(s)

Mode

Mean

Median

Veterinary 3 3.10 3 Access Veterinary Access & Land Access 39 respondents to the 6 page questionnaire

Standard Deviation 0.64

Correlation Coeffficient

0.16

The results show that most farmers thought they had inadequate access to veterinary healthcare though there was a little variation. Interestingly however, there was only a small positive correlation between the questions for land and vet access. This does not necessarily mean that those who thought they had inadequate access to land did not also think they had inadequate access to veterinary healthcare, merely that the extent (ie disagree or strongly disagree) chosen by each respondent to one variable was not dependent on the other variable. Having noted this, there were also 6 people who said they had adequate access to veterinary healthcare. Out of 39 households, only 10 stated when their animals had a disease a veterinarian treated them, 28 said they did not see a veterinarian. The following correlation coefficients are also worth considering:
Correlation Coefficients - Healthcare, Disease & Income
0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 -0.05 Live stock Disease Disease Disease Veterina ry Disease Keeping Incide nce Incide nce Incide nce Treatm entIncide nce Roo m / / / No. of / Goat / Goat / Sales in Disease Veterina ry Goa ts Incom e Incom e Distress Treatm ent

The above graph shows no significant correlation between livestock keeping room ownership and disease (both coded simply Yes=1, No=2 and Yes=2, No=1 respectively). As some studies note the importance of shelter for animals this is fairly surprising; perhaps explained by the fact that those without separate livestock keeping rooms keep goats in their houses. The small (0.25) positive correlation between disease incidence and veterinary treatment indicates that the treatment received when it was received, had some beneficial effect on lessening the disease incidence rate. The medium positive correlation between disease incidence and number of goats suggests that the number of diseases increases with the number of goats, which is to be expected. The small positive correlation between goat income and disease incidence suggests that the goats that were sold had a high probability of having had a disease. In fact one farmer from Kadwal said, I sold my goats because of disease. The very small positive correlation between veterinary

36

treatment and goat income indicates that with treatment, income rose a little (though the FGDs suggested the experience of treatment quality was varied), while the small positive correlation between disease incidence and sales in distress suggests that as disease incidence increases so do sales in distress. While healthcare and access to healthcare are major problems in Jobat, the health of goats is also linked to the prevalence of indiscriminate goat breeding leading to genetic erosion. The Resource Atlas notes, Almost all animals in Jhabua are of indigenous breeds with very few improved breeds (Bajaj, 2008; 111). Both ASA staff and the Jobat Government Veterinarian stated that farmers use goats for breeding, while the latter described how farmers are not interested in improved breeds. That a significant minority of farmers (4) described skin and leg problems in goats indicates lack of a coherent breeding strategy, as perhaps does the generally high prevalence of disease. The livelihood strategies of the goat farmers of Jobat seem to be centred around a short term rearing strategy in which goats are valued highly as assets but not as major income generators. Furthermore the issue of access to assets is crucial farmers lack access to land, labour, time, veterinary healthcare and breed management knowledge. The questionnaire also asked farmers how much they thought they knew about goat farming, with answers on a Likert scale (ranging from 1 = Nothing, to 5 = A Great Deal). No respondent chose a value higher than 2 (A little), the most common choice, with 1 chosen by 9 farmers. The Vulnerability Context of the farmers can also be clearly seen in their dependence on rainwater & vulnerability to climate changes. As regards pastoralism, goat farmers in Jobat fit in with existing definitions such as that by Kohler-Rollefson (2003:5), in all parts (see above) except in the amount of income gained. Goat farmers in Jobat do not, on average (from the farmers own estimations), receive 50% of their total annual income from goat farming. Having noted this, if the results of the calendar are taken into account, farmers income from goat rearing will vary from year to year and from month to month. Therefore some months and years may see a great deal more income from goat farming than others, dependent upon need. Goat farmers in Jobat also integrate their livestock with agriculture, but not to the extent of creating adequately nutritious cultivated fodder for their goats. We can therefore accept hypothesis a that goat farmers do face multiple social and economic challenges to maintaining a sustainable livelihood. Goat rearing in fact is a livelihood strategy in itself, yet the challenges and the responses to them (emergency sales; buying medical tablets from a market; indiscriminate breeding; travelling to access too little grazing land; women & children becoming the primary labourers in goat rearing) conclude it to be an unsustainable one.

37

Objective 2) To study the existing local market in goat trading as well as the potential for forward and backward market linkages.

Goat and mutton market (haat) in Jhabua: Traders buy goats and sell goats and mutton We sell our goats in compulsion. Farmers from Sindhi

Hypothesis: b) Goat farmers lack adequate access to the market; they are exploited by market traders and sell their animals in distress, receiving low returns Animalsform the currency of the Bhils (Bajaj, 2008: 111). As the Resource Atlas notes, and as this study has testified, livestock ownership is very high in Jobat and livestock are valued very highly indeed. That they are used as a currency in themselves, with goats being an integral part as they are of livestock across Jhabua, would reflect the high level of goat ownership and the high value attached to them as a livelihood asset. During one FGD in the village of Bilasa, a farmer said that he gave a goat in a dowry, but other than this neither the household surveys, the FGDs nor the interviews revealed evidence of animals being used as currency. However, considering the low incomes, the indebtedness, and the general lack of money in the tribal villages, using animals as currency would fit with the findings of this report. As noted above, despite variance between months and years, the households studied received little but significant amounts from selling goats, often significant at the time of sale due to the need to meet short-term spending needs. Farmers in all FGDs said that they received little money from goats. One farmer from Dehedla said, we receive little benefit from goats, whereas one farmer from Betwasa said, goats give us some money. It should however be noted that some adult bucks can fetch a substantial price. As outlined previously, one farmer from the village of Khari stated the price for his large adult buck could be Rs. 13,000 while mentioning a farmer from a neighbouring village having received Rs. 30,000 from one sale of an adult buck (though he did qualify this as rare). Firstly, the survey results seem to suggest that the level of market activity, from the farmers perspective, is fairly low. With an average of 0.79 goats sold per year and

38

an average of 0.28 goats bought per year the farmers do not seem to be making many sales or purchases. The average number of sales per year figures had a standard deviation of 1.08, whereas the figures for purchases had a standard deviation of 0.51. This tells us that there was some variation in the number of sales and purchases made, more so in sales. This can be quite clearly seen in the graph below:
Average Number of Goats Bought and Sold Annually

4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 1 3

Goa ts Sold Goa ts Bought

9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Survey Respondents

If one also takes into account the revelations of the Seasonal Calendar and of ASA staff, one can conclude that a higher number of goats are owned than mentioned by the household survey respondents and a large deviance exists between different months and years in the number of sales and purchases made. As such, goat buying and selling per year may well be more in number than that represented by the above graph. Having noted this, the average length of time that a farmer keeps a goat before selling it was found to be 20 months, but with a standard deviation of 12.826 in the answers given by household respondents, the most common answer (by 18 respondents) being 12 months. The responses can best be represented in the graph below:
Average length of Time a Goat is Kept Before Selling
50 45 40 35 30 Length of Time 25 (Months) 20 15 10 5 0
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37

Survey Respondents

The above results suggest that while goats are not bought and sold in rapid succession they are bought and kept for a significant period of time (1 year) before selling dependent upon need. That 18 respondents answered 12 months seems to suggest this is something of a common strategy in goat rearing to keep goats to see through an agricultural year as a security asset before selling. Therefore while

39

goat rearing is in many ways signified by a short-term rearing strategy, the longevity in the amount of time a goat is kept suggests goats are valued highly and only sold when absolutely needed, for whichever purpose presents itsef. Sales in Distress While goats may be kept for an average of 12 months before sale, the nature of each sale is a point worth considering. In the scant existing literature, it is commonly asserted There has been heavy exploitation as the goat keepers often sell their animals to local middlemen in distress (BAIF, 2006: 1). The idea that goat rearers sell their animals for emergencies and in a condition of distress emerged during several FGDs; farmers from the village of Sindhi jointly asserted, We sell our goats in compulsion. This sentiment seems to represent a crucial feature of the lives of goat rearers from Jobat; they live in a condition of chronic livelihood insecurity in which their assets owned and their strategies to use them cannot sustain themselves nor their households to meet their goals. The issue of selling goats in distress was confirmed by farmers from Sindhi (as noted above) and other villages, for example farmers from the village of Kadwal said, We sell goats for emergencies for quick money.

Number of Sales in Distress

3 2.5 2 Sales in 1.5 Distress 1 0.5 0 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 Survey Respondents

Variables

Average number of goats sold annually / Average number of sales in distress Data from 39 household surveys

Correlation Coefficient 0.942

The graph above shows clearly a large number of sales in distress (estimated averages), though also a significant number of respondents who answered none. However, the very high positive correlation in the table above indicates that those who answered none did not sell many goats at all on average per year, whereas those who sold goats made sales in distress.

As noted above, the average amount of money spent on goats per household per year is fairly low (Rs. 459), as is income from goats (Rs. 1430.76), with Rs. 0 being a common answer for both questions but with a wide dispersion in results. However, the table below shows that the income and expenditure from goats is directly related to the amount sold and bought, respectively. When correlating the average annual number of goats bought per household and the average annual number of goats sold per household we find that there is a fairly strong negative correlation, indicating that it is not the same few farmers who are actively buying or selling.

40

Variables Average Annual Income from Goats / Average Annual No. Goats Sold Average Annual Expenditure on Goats / Average Annual No. Goats Bought Average Annual No. Goats Bought / Average Annual No. Goats Sold

Correlation Coefficient 0.83 0.93 -0.37

Market Traders Part of the research involved interviewing market traders involved in goat trading. To do this the fieldworkers attempted to interview the goat traders in Jobat during the market day (which occurs once a week in each town), yet unfortunately access was not attained due to the busyness of the traders. This in itself perhaps represents the high level of activity in the goat market in Jobat. On the market day in a town nearby Ranapur, several goat traders were interviewed in a joint consultation. The traders stated they just buy and sell goats, with one trader stating he inherited the job from his father, and he makes a good living from goat farming. Interestingly, the traders stated they have a good relationship with farmers, and do not exaggerate prices. While this last statement should not be taken at face value it is interesting that it was made. The traders stated they were above the poverty line, and that there is no society to regulate the trade, just individual traders. This is interesting, since if goat farmers are being exploited, it is either individual traders acting on their own instinct, the inability of individual farmers to bargain to a higher price or the dynamics of the local and wider market as opposed to traders in any sense colluding to fix prices. Having noted this, it is impossible to ascertain whether the market traders do liaise to agree on prices or not, as it would be in their joint interests to keep prices low for farmers sales and higher for farmers purchases. The prices gained by farmers in goat sales and purchases were estimated by them in their responses to the household surveys. The graph below shows these estimations:
Average prices for Goat Purchases and Sales
6000 5000 4000 Price (Rs) 3000 2000 1000 0 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 Survey Respondents

Goa t Purchase Goa t Sale

As can be seen, the average price for a goat purchase (overall Rs. 1548.38) is lower than that for a goat sale (Rs. 2025). The latter figure however is greatly affected by the one sale of Rs. 6000, the mode answer for average sales was Rs. 1500, and there was a standard deviation of 1009.07, revealing some significant variation. For

41

goat purchases, the mode answer was Rs. 1500 with a standard variation of 387.84, revealing a somewhat smaller variation. What these results point towards are prices of between Rs 1000 to Rs 2000 for purchases and sales of goats, with occasional high prices which correlates with the assertion of farmers that goats bring significant but small income and little is spent on them. The difference in prices can perhaps be explained in the following graph and table:
Average Numbers of Male Goats (Bucks) and Female Goats (Does) Bought & Sold Annually
4 3 .5 3 2 .5 2 1 .5 1 0 .5 0 M ale Goats (Buc ks ) Female Goats (Does )

9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Survey Respondents

Variables Correlation Coefficient Average Numbers of Bucks Bought/Sold 0.35 Annually / Average Price for Goat Sales Average Number of Does Bought/Sold -0.35 Annualy/ Average Price for Goat Sales Average Number of Bucks Bought/Sold -0.29 Annually / Average Price for Goat Purchases Average Number of Does Bought/Sold 0.02 Annually / Average Price for Goat Purchases Figures from 39 respondents to the household survey The above graph shows firstly that more does than bucks are bought and sold annually, presumably because they are cheaper. Secondly, it shows that while the most common numbers of goats bought/sold per year are actually 0.38 (bucks) and 0.66 (does) (low due to those who estimated no sales and/or purchases), the answers both have a relatively large standard deviation of 1 (represented on the graph by the many with 1 and those with 2). The graph also shows a few farmers who buy/sell more up to 4 goats per year. The above correlations reveal in effect, as the numbers of bucks bought/sold per farmer per year increases as does the estimation of average goat price for sales but not for purchases; and as numbers of does bought/sold per farmer per year increases, the estimated price of goat sales does not, and there is practically no correlation between the number of does bought & sold per farmer per year and the estimated price for goat purchases. It is to be expected that bucks fetch a higher price based on their larger size, which accounts for the rise in estimated goat price, for purchases it may be explained by the survey respondents stating some sales but not purchases. For does, they do

42

fetch a lower price (as noted above dependent solely on size), and similarly, some survey respondents stated sales but not purchases. The Haat

Haat in Jhabua during Bhagoria (Holi).

The haat (market), the Resource Atlas notes, is the centre of the popular culture of Jhabua, held in 60 places (towns as well as villages and crossroads) across Jhabua every week. The Atlas further observes that the haat is a festive occasion for the Bhils, besides shopping, and that exchange of chickens and goats occurs in every haat (Bajaj, 2008:147). The haat attended in Ranapur by fieldworkers certainly fitted this description, as did the relatively larger haat attended in Jhabua. In the Ranapur haat not only were livestock, food, vegetables, clothes and other goods being traded, but entertainment such as dancing monkeys, men with snakes and local musicians formed much of the nature of the haat. As such a centre of Bhil community life, and one in which goats feature prominently, as they do in Bhil village life, the haat was therefore a very interesting spectacle to witness. Firstly, it was observed that as many women as men were in attendance at the haat, a point noted by the Resource Atlas, women were prominent as in every other activity in Jhabua both buying and selling (Bajaj, 2008: 147). Having noted this, it should also be qualified by reference to the FGDs the assertion of one farmer from Dehedla for example that the House President takes the goats to market. Though women may be active at the market, this does not necessarily imply they have any control over household finances. At the goat market in Ranapur, one farmer taking a goat to be sold was approached and interviewed. The farmer said he owned many goats and has many to sell. He also stated that after bargaining he expected to get Rs. 2,400, which was down Rs. 200 from his ideal price. This indicates that at the haats much revolves around price bargaining and farmers often expect less money than they would like. That he had many goats to sell perhaps points to the high amount of activity in goat selling in Jobat/Jhabua. That the farmer was a man and not a woman taking the goats to market may also be worth noting. The traders mentioned that the price for goats is the same all year round, and that there arent really any factors that determine changes in price. However, when asked

43

whether there were any problems in goat trading the traders said, during festival times the price can be very high, which means less money. Overall however, one trader confirmed and the others agreed, We make a good profit. From the information gained, the following annual calendar was constructed:

Seasonal Calendar Goat Trading January February March April

Marriage Period many goats traded HOLI

Many goats bought from farmers during festival period Rabi Harvest

May June July August September October

DIWALI

Monsoon Season

Kharif Sowing

November December
EID

Kharif Harvest / Rabi Sowing

Eid Many goats bought / sold for sacrifice / meat buying price is high

Many goats bought from farmers during festival period

This calendar correlates well with the seasonal calendar constructed with the farmers during FGDs. The festival periods in particular reveal a substantially larger amount of trading. While for Diwali and Holi the rise in goat trading often comes from the farmers as they wish to meet their rise in expenditure, Eid represents quite the opposite. During this time the high demand for goat meat results in a higher buying price for goats and hence would potentially give the farmers more income. At this

44

time, one trader in Ranapur said a male goat could be sold by a farmer for up to Rs. 41,000. The traders stated they take goats to another market to sell for meat, so during Eid they will be able to ask for a higher selling price but the profit margin is, apparently less. The next link in the goat market chain is, as suggested by the traders, the meat or mutton market. As such part of the research involved attending a mutton/goat market in Jhabua and interviewing the traders (see photo above). The traders in Jhabua primarily bought goats, slaughtered them and sold the meat at the same stall, though they did sell some goats as well. The traders confirmed that the price of one kg of mutton was Rs. 200 and the price of a goat for sale was Rs. 2000 to Rs. 4000, depending on size, with adult bucks fetching the highest price sometimes higher than Rs. 4000. This correlates with the information gained from the Ranapur traders they stated the average price of goats for buying and selling (from their perspective) can be anything from Rs. 400 3000 and Rs. 2000 3000 (sometimes higher) respectively, depending on size. The traders in Jhabua also confirmed that more trading for mutton and goats was done around Eid in particular, and said the higher prices result in less profit. The table below provides a useful measure of price comparison. Average Price for Goat Purchase (Rs) Farmers Rs. 1548.38 Ranapur Goat Traders Rs. 400 - 3000 Jhabua Goat Traders Rs. 2000 - 3000 Information gained during FGDs and SSIs. Average Price for Goat Sale (Rs) Rs. 2025 Rs. 2000 - 3000 Rs. 2000 - 4000

The above figures should be qualified by noting that for the farmers, the average sale price is greatly affected by the sale of one goat for Rs. 6000, mentioned by one farmer the median price was Rs. 1700, and the mode Rs. 1500, which would be a better comparative measure. The estimations above reveal that traders secure a larger profit from farmers than they do from sales between each other, whereas the farmers do not, on average secure a substantial profit at all if the median or mode answers are relied upon. Eid may be the one time that goat farmers are able to secure a profit on their purchase. A further interesting issue addressed during SSIs with traders in Ranapur was disease in goats. One trader stated that there was not much disease in goats traded but that he was told of disease complaints in goats prior to sales and after them by farmers and traders. Presumably a farmer would be unwilling to tell a trader if a goat had a disease if selling it and a trader would be unwilling to reveal if he/she suspected a goat was diseased prior to selling; as such this information should be treated carefully. That during FGDs farmers did attest to selling goats due to increased incidences of disease (as noted above); that there has been found such a high rate of disease amongst goats and that the goats in general are undernourished and likely to suffer more medical problems as a result of indiscriminate breeding, suggests that many of the goats traded have, have had, and/or are likely to have diseases. Relationship between Traders and Farmers Despite sales made in compulsion and a host of challenges to making goat rearing a sustainable livelihood strategy, it is interesting that some goat farmers during FGDs stated they have a good relationship with market traders who buy and sell goats.

45

Farmers in Umri said we think we have a good relationship with the market traders, while farmers in Banjabeda, during the course of doing household interviews and questionnaires stated they have a mainly good relationship with market traders. This would seem to contradict the evidence of sales made in distress. As mentioned above, the market traders in Ranapur thought they have a good relationship with farmers and have good custom with them. As described in earlier sections, part of the research involved presenting the farmers with a questionnaire regarding their views on certain matters related to goat rearing. The first question asked the farmers whether they agreed with the statement that, on average, they gain a fair price when buying or selling goats or goat produce at market. As with other questions they were presented with a Likert scale of possible answers ranging from 1 = Very Much Agree to 2 = Somewhat Agree; 3 = Somewhat Disagree; 4 = Very Much Disagree and 5 = Dont Know. The results are displayed below:
Farmers Satisfaction with Goat Purchases and Sales

2.5

1.5 Choic e on Likert Scale 1

0.5

0 Mo de Me di an Me an Sta nda rd D e vi atio n

It is worth noting that there were two answers of 5 Dont Know which may have affected the average slightly, as the mode answer was 2, as was the median chosen by 27 of the questionnaire respondents. That this information correlates with the FGD information referred to above and that from market traders makes it ever more significant, suggesting fair prices and a good relationship between farmers and traders. That the standard deviation in answers was 0.82 suggests some variation 8 chose 3 Somewhat Disagree, while 2 chose 4 Strongly Disagree. No one chose 1 Very Much Agree however. The following correlations from the questionnaire are also worth noting: Variables Buy/Sell SFC / Vet Access Buy/Sell SFC / Land Access Buy/Sell SFC / Knowledge Correlation Coefficients -0.24 0.20 -0.29

The correlations all relatively small, tell us that a few of those farmers who think they receive fair prices from market traders also think they have inadequate access to veterinary healthcare and vice-versa; a few of those who think they gained fair prices from market traders thought they had adequate access to land (and viceversa); and a few of those who thought they gained fair prices from market traders thought they knew a little about goat rearing. None of these correlations are very strong though, and point to differences in the degree in answers rather than strong negative or positive relationships.

46

It should be noted that a significant number of farmers deemed their goat sales and purchases to be at unfair prices 10 of the 39 farmers interviewed, and a further 2 farmers said they didnt know. Farmers from the village of Kanda, following some household interviews, stated we do not get a good price from the market traders, and did not think they had a good relationship with them. What we are dealing with here is perceptions. As noted previously, many farmers believed they had made sales in distress, and of those who didnt, it could be argued still they made goat sales in compulsion, due to the overriding need for all villagers to repay loans, buy agricultural inputs, to meet festival, marriage and other expenditure such as health and education none of which is adequately provided for by their respective incomes. Making sales in distress or compulsion and having an unsustainable livelihood, is not necessarily in contradiction with a perception of receiving a fair price from a market trader. Goat farmers may be receiving low prices yet perceive their prices to be acceptable given what they can realistically expect or bargain for, as an individual farmer with little bargaining power. As such, this study has not found a significant degree of exploitation asserted through answers and statements by farmers or market traders. However, if one analyses goat purchase and sale prices (as above), and the nature of sales often made in distress the existence of exploitation is more indirect - farmers are at a relative disadvantage in the market place and lack adequate access. This lack of access may well be exacerbated by market actors such as goat traders; considering the relatively low prices most farmers receive, and the often-distressed condition in which the sales are made, these market dynamics tend traders towards exploiting farmers and maintaining such dynamics. BPL or APL Farmers and Traders The issue of perception can also be attested to when comparing the relative income levels of farmers and traders. All traders in Ranapur and Jhabua stated they were above the poverty line whereas most farmers stated they were below.
Above Poverty Line (APL) or Below Poverty Line (BPL)?

36%

14
BPL APL 64%

25

As the pie chart shows, the majority, 64% of farmers stated they were below the poverty line, whereas a significant minority just over one third 36% stated they were above the poverty line. This would suggest that the farmers were not so

47

marginalised as previously suggested, and hence may be more on a par with market traders in terms of income levels. However, if one considers the following correlations the picture becomes somewhat more complicated:

Variables Correlation Coefficients APL or BPL / Annual Average Number of -0.11 Goats Sold APL or BPL / Annual Average Number of 0.11 Goats Bought APL or BPL / Total Annual Average -0.32 Income APL or BPL / Total Annual Average -0.09 Expenditure APL or BPL / Difference between Annual -0.27 Average Income & Expenditure APL or BPL / Annual Average Goat -0.11 Income APL or BPL / Annual Average Goat 0.10 Expenditure APL or BPL / Annual Average -0.28 Agricultural Income APL or BPL / Annual Average 0.06 Agricultural Expenditure APL or BPL / Savings in Bank Account -0.12 * APL or BPL was coded 2 and 1 respectively The above correlations show that there is no significant positive correlation between assertions of APL or BPL and any of the variables above associated with income and expenditure. Moreover, six of the correlations are small and negative, suggesting if any relationship exists some income and expenditure rises do more so with BPL households. However there correlations are so small that nothing can really be concluded for certain. Perhaps something can be made of the 0.32 correlation between APL or BPL and Total Annual Average Income, suggesting that more BPL households have a higher income than APL households, but it is a small correlation. As mentioned above, all households, even those with savings (3) used moneylenders and if any profit was made, this went into servicing loans or existed very temporarily before money was needed urgently. If the farmers and traders had a poverty line in their minds it would most probably have been the national poverty line of India established by the Planning Commission of India as monthly per capita consumption expenditure below Rs. 356.35 for rural areas (see GOI, 2007). According to this measure, 27.5% of Indias population are BPL as of 2004-05. This measure has received much controversy especially in being questioned by the UN in noting the the increasing disconnect between official poverty estimates and calorie deprivation[levels of which are very high] (UN, cited in Kounteya, 2009). Moreover income inequality in India has risen dramatically over the past few decades; the Gini Coefficient now stood at 36.8 in 2004. If one considers nonpecuniary dimensions of poverty such as education, health and access to infrastructure the issue becomes more complex. For the households surveyed, if one considers non-pecuniary dimensions and makes further correlations, the results can be seen on the following graphs:

48

Household Survey Correlations

Correlation Coefficients - BPL or APL
0.15 0.1 0.05 0
Correlation Coefficient

Questionnaire Correlations
Correlation Coef ficients - APL or BPL?

0.3 0.25 0.2

Correlation Coeffic ient

-0.05 -0.1 -0.15 -0.2 -0.25

APL or BPL ? / N um ber of G oats Owned APL or BPL ? / N um ber of Children in Sc hool APL or BPL ? / G oats Treated by Veterinarian? APL or BPL ? / D ug Well Owned? APL or BPL ? / Amount of Land Owned

0.15 0.1 0.05 0 -0.05

APL or BPL? / Acce ssAPL or BPL? Access to Land to Ve t APL or BPL? / Buy /Se ll SFC APL or BPL? / Knowle dge

What the above results illustrate is that even taking into account non-pecuniary dimensions of poverty there is no significant relationship between assertions of APL or BPL by farmers and a number of variables listed above. Firstly, for education (number of children in school there is no real correlation, for the number of goats owned there is a tiny correlation, for use of veterinary healthcare there is a small negative correlation as well as for amount of land owned, and for dug well ownership (coded) there is also a small negative correlation. The questionnaire correlations tell a similar story several small correlations proving the opposite of what would be expected; a few of the APL households think they have inadequate access to land, gained an unfair price for goat sales/purchases and think they know a little about goat rearing. It must be concluded therefore that the subjective measure of APL and BPL by the farmers should not be taken at face value, neither should the national poverty line estimates of the Government of India. As suggested above, all farmers studied are in poverty, in the sense that they are unable to use their assets to maintain a sustainable livelihood and lack basic food security; goat trading by farmers does not help alleviate this. While the traders face high prices around festival times, they do not seem to face the same number of obstacles to maintaining a sustainable livelihood as farmers do, and the evidence suggests they are indeed above the poverty line while most goat farmers are not. India is positioned at 132 in the Human Development Index, with the highest number of malnourished people (and children) in the world. This is the lowest rank it has achieved in ten years. The International Poverty Line of those living under US$1.25 a day (PPP Rs. 14.3 rural areas) results in 42% of Indias poor living under the poverty line. Therefore, even were more farmers above the poverty line, as suggested, this measure should not be taken at face value. In this vein, noted academic Utsa Patnaik has concluded, Poverty lines are as much political as scientific constructions (Patnaik, 2006). Other factors affecting trading Finally, it is worth briefly examining the following factors in the form of calculating correlation coefficients, to establish whether they have any relationship with the numbers of goats bought and sold by farmers in market activity. The results are represented in the following graphs:

49

Correlation Coef ficients - Factors Inf luencing Trading

0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 Correlation Coeff ic ient 0.1 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3

Number of Goats Bought/Sold / Number of People in H/H

Number of Goats Bought/Sold / Number of Men in H/H

Number of Goats Bought/Sold / Number of Women in H/H

Interestingly, the two correlations of significance relate to the number of goats bought & sold and the number of people per household; and the number of goats bought & sold and the number of children per household. These results correlate well with the conclusions reached in previous sections above that the number of people, in particular children, is important for goat rearing; as the number increases, as does market activity. There is a smaller positive correlation for the number of women vis-vis the number of goats bought & sold per household per year, and a smaller one for the number of men, which also correlates well with the results in previous sections the relative importance of women and the lesser importance of men in goat rearing. A small positive correlation was found between disease incidence and the number of goats bought & sold suggest that as disease in goats increases so does market activity which correlates well with earlier conclusions regarding sales made in distress not only to meet short term expenditure needs but due to ill health in goats. Finally the small negative correlation between the number of goats bought & sold per year and the amount of land owned per farmer, suggests that some of those farmers with less land buy and sell more goats per year, which stands to reason if a farmer has less agricultural land then other income generating activities will take more prominence. In conclusion, the goat trading market in Jobat and the surrounding areas seems very active, with increased activity around festival times in particular. What stands out from the research is that while the perception of a satisfactory relationship between market traders and farmers may be fairly prominent from both parties, their interests in the market place and their relative levels of income are very different; goat traders are much more able to meet their livelihood goals. The number of sales made in distress and the relatively low prices gained by farmers attests to the exploitation they face, stemming from the hostile dynamics of the local market, combined with their relatively weak bargaining positions. Furthermore, the dynamics of the local market make market traders predisposed towards exploiting farmers. As such, the hypothesis can be accepted; the research indicates the potential for forward and backward linkages and the crucial importance of creating, for farmers, a sustainable integration into markets. Their lack of access; of such an integration, represents their vulnerability context to market dynamics outside of their control.

Number of Goats Bought/Sold / Number of Children in H/H

Number of Goats Bought/Sold / Amount of Land Owned

Number of Goats Bought/Sold / Disease I ncidence

50

Objective 3) To assess the feasibility of establishing a goat farmers cooperative in Jobat and whether this would lead to greater livelihood sustainability for the goat farmers.
"if the Cooperatives fail, this will be a failure for the best hope of India Royal Commission on Agriculture in India, 1928 (cited in Samantary, 2004: 8).

We are very
interested in a cooperative. Farmers from Betwasa

Hypothesis c) Establishing a co-operative would be a feasible solution to these challenges, as it would have the potential to lead to greater livelihood sustainability. Adopting an SLA approach leads us to consider transforming structures and processes, in recognising that institutions influence peoples access, control and use of assets; peoples livelihood strategies. In the previous chapters we have analysed farmers assets, including their livelihood strategies; the main challenges and issues they are confronted with vis--vis goat farming, and the nature of the goat market in Jobat. The issues that have emerged as paramount - too few assets though goats are valued highly; lack of land, time, money, labour, inadequate access to veterinary healthcare, knowledge, lack of an adequate integration into local markets (exploitation) display the insecurity endemic in the farmers lives; at present they cannot maintain a sustainable livelihood. Institutions, so say political science, new institutional economics and sociology, are crucial in modeling human behaviour and hence will affect livelihoods. A commonly used definition of institutions is that set out by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Formal institutions comprise all norms, rules and sanctions that can be enforced through formal processes, and are generally associated with organisations of the state, the market or civil society. Informal institutions refer to all social norms and common practices that have stable rules of behaviours are outside any formal system (Jutting et al., OECD, 2007: 77). As such, gender norms and labour customs are as much institutions as the haat or the Government.

51

DFID have pointed out how, worldwide, formal institutions such as international trading laws discriminate against poor livestock keepers; national property rights rarely support communal grazing by the poor and national subsidies often support non-poor livestock owners (DFID, 1998: 98). In a local context, informal institutional frameworks are often loaded against the poor wealthier farmers have appropriated common land and so denied poorer households access to fodder (Thomas-Slayter and Bhatt 1994; cited in Ibid: 98); market traders have colluded to fix prices against the interests of the poor (Seabright, 1992; Harriss-White, 1995; cited in Ibid: 98). This study has found very little CPR in existence in Jobat; inadequate access of farmers to land and to fodder for their goats; as well as market processes (and often market actors) working to exclude poor farmers from gaining a sustainable foothold in the local livestock trading economy. Furthermore, the study has found cultural norms operating in the division of labour inherent within goat rearing - as much is managed by women and children, with men taking control of financial decisions. Goats have been found to be very highly valued yet not used as major income generators; they are often sold in distress, and the high disease incidence and other health problems illustrate well the inadequate access farmers have both to veterinary health care and appropriate knowledge about breed management. All of these factors display an institutional context loaded against the poor, and within the poor farmers communities, a system of norms acting simultaneously to value yet marginalise the activity of goat rearing to a short-term, largely unplanned activity, exacerbated by the vulnerability context in which the farmers continually find themselves; to climate change and to market conditions. A co-operative would be one possible institutional transformation to address the current institutional crisis. As member-driven, democratic self-help groups, co-operatives and like-institutions have been implemented elsewhere in the field of livestock husbandry in India. In particular, BAIF conducted a project instituting self-help groups with goat keepers in Rajasthan, Karnataka and Gujurat they concluded the SHG will help them[goat farmers]to build their capabilities to initiate other socio-economic development activities for the benefit of the community. BAIFs project was initiated to address the concerns they had previously outlined as major constraints to goat keepers (stated above), as such major areas of intervention included; Formation of a user group to improve rearing practices, prioritising women, organising access to micro-credit and sharing knowledge; Breed improvement selection of good quality breeds and bucks; bucks given to SHGs 1 per 20-30 women, all of whom contribute towards maintenance costs. Artificial insemination in the field also carried out; Vaccination against PPR and Goat Pox carried out regularly and deworming twice yearly. One member of SHG trained in health, deworming and castration; Community Pasture Development promoted for better nutrition pods of prosopis juliflora fed to does resulting in increased weight of kids. Cultivation of fodder trees Leucaena, Gliricidia, Prosopos cineraria and Acacia; Control on goat population SHG members encouraged to restrict herd size depending on availability of fodder; Marketing Micro-credit arranged through SHGs to prevent sales in distress. Goat keepers encouraged to organise collective sales in larger markets. BAIF conclude that, with 5-6 goats, each family can earn Rs. 6,000 to 8,000 per annum (BAIF, 2006: 1-2). Which specific institutional mechanism for institutional transformation is a question of paramount importance. A major issue seems to

52

revolve around integration into markets, or rather maintaining a sustainable integration of farmers into markets. Economists such as Phansalkar have noted the many benefits of such integration: the small holders get a fair access to the market and market efficiency improves, the society as a whole stands to gain from improved efficiency in the flow of goods, services, capital and informationthe poverty impacts achieved through improvement of the quality of access for small holders will produce gains that are sustainable. (Phansalkar, cited in Debroy and Khan, 2004: 119). However, Phansalkar proceeds to mention the essential condition for benefiting from the market is possession of or access to assets required to produce goods and services that are demanded (Phansalkar, 2004:101). The issue of access, as noted previously, is crucial in understanding the livelihoods and the livelihood strategies of goat farmers. It is also crucial in delineating a potential structural transformation as a livelihood outcome; an outcome achieved by the progress of a sustainable livelihood. Other observers, such as A. Sadangi, have argued for the creation of sustainable markets - markets that continue to engage new and existing rural poor in market activities (Sadangi, in Debroy and Khan, 2004: 33). In arguing this, Sadangi notes that current development policies and programmes do not adequately address market issues in a marketshed development framework looking holistically at a population that interacts with a given market, as in a watershed. Development Policy What of development policy to-date? In the Theoretical Discussion above it was noted that criticisms of current Government livestock interventions included that they had little impact on the livelihoods of the poor, and that adoption of technology by the resource poor has been low (Parthasarthy Rao et al;, and Ashley et al 1999, cited in Misra et al, 2007). The Government Veterinarian interviewed for this study actually mentioned that there is a Government vaccination programme once a year, the aim is to establish complete cover and awareness raising giving training and motivation to farmers. When questioned further, the veterinarian said, the programme is enough effort by the Government. When the farmers from Jobat interviewed for this study were asked about the Government programme during FGDs, not one farmer acknowledged the existence of it. Farmers from Betwasa said, There is no Government support, while one farmer from Dehedla said, No, we get no assistance, and two farmers from Khari said, ASA is the only help that we get. The fact that only two farmers interviewed stated that they had vaccinated their goats, and the general awareness and knowledge of veterinary healthcare, nutrition and breed management was found to be very low amongst the farmers signifies that if there was any programme in existence it was having very little effect. As mentioned above, the questionnaire asked farmers how much they thought they knew about goat farming, with possible answers on a Likert scale. As noted, no respondent chose a value higher than 2 (A little), the most common choice, with 1 (Nothing) chosen by 9 farmers. The Veterinarian did however mention the existence one or two years ago of a Government Programme with farmers in some villages in Jobat to improve breeding, through giving loans to self-help groups. The Veterinarian stated, each SHG was given one hybrid buck and 10 female goats, in a fairly similar vein as the BAIF project above. However, the project was discontinued because, as the veterinarian concluded, the farmers were not interested. It seems interesting that while BAIF

53

succeeded in making a sustainable intervention in livestock development through doing similar activities elsewhere in India as the Government did in Jobat, the Government intervention failed. The lack of interest of farmers stated by the veterinarian may well have been apparent and would tally with the lack of knowledge noted above. However, the BAIF programme was confronted with the same issues, but provided a holistic and sustained approach addressing many areas of concern to goat farmers. The extent to which the Government programme was catered to the specific needs of the farmers and sought to raise awareness through addressing their needs and particular livelihoods is an unknown. On the other hand, a common reason cited for the failure of Government-led livestock development programmes, is, as noted above lack of poverty focusand[an]institutional frameworkincompatible with the systems and conditions[of]poor farmers (Misra et al., 2007). The Government Veterinarian further noted, There is no other Government funding and support for livestock farmers. There is, it must be argued, and has been indicated by other observers, a drastic need for appropriate policy about livestock breeding and delivery services (credit, health, market and extension) as well as steps to improve feed and fodder - for sustainable development of the livestock sector (Parthasarthy Rao et al 2005, Rangnekar 2006). Changing institutions, the rules of the game, as they have been defined should form the crux of such a policy (see North 1990). In this sense, some observers have argued that approaches that guarantee effective linkages among researchers, NGOs, extension workers, decision-makers and farmers, are required (Misra et al 1997; Conner et al 1998) and some researchers now believe that "participatory approaches are mandatory" for the development of livestock technologies particularly forage production (Peters et al 2001, cited in Misra et al., 1997). Farmers and Cooperatives In order to ascertain the feasibility of establishing a co-operative, part of the research involved asking the farmers, in 2 questions in the questionnaire, whether firstly, being a member of a co-operative would enhance their livelihood, and secondly whether a co-operative would improve their access to land, veterinary and other services related to goat rearing. As with other answers, the possible choices were arranged on a Likert scale, for the first question relating to livelihood, the options were 1 = A co-op would enhance my livelihood; 2 = A co-operative might enhance my livelihood; 3 = A co-operative would not enhance my livelihood; 4 = Dont Know. For the second question relating to access, the answers ranged from 1 = Much Greater Access to 7 = Much Less Access and 8 = Dont Know.

The answers to both of these questions can be seen in the graph on the following page:

54

Potential Effects of a Co-operative

8 7 6 5 Choice on Likert 4 Scale 3 2 1 0 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 Survey Respondents C o -o p Affe ct Live liho o d ? C o -o p Affe ct Acce s?

The graph shows some correlation in answers though with a significant number of respondents to the second question answering 8 Dont Know, and a significant number of respondents to the first question answering 4 Dont Know, perhaps indicating a low awareness of what in fact a co-operative is and what being a member would entail. Mode Median Mean 2.31 3.97 Standard Deviation 1.15 2.73

Co-op Affect 2 2 Livelihoods Co-op Affect 2 2 Access All answers from 39 survey respondents

The answers show that for the first question the most common answer was 2 = A Co-operative might enhance my livelihood chosen by 18 respondents. However a significant number 11 chose 4 = Dont Know, and 10 chose 1 = A Cooperative would enhance my livelihood. The different choices are reflected in the standard deviation of more or less 1. The results show clearly that when farmers did answer other than Dont Know, they indicated a clear opinion that a co-operative might and in some cases would enhance their livelihoods. The results for the second question, the common answer being 2, as well as the median, yet the mean higher at 3.97 as well as the standard deviation at 2.73 suggest a wider dispersion in answers. The mean is greatly affected by the significant number of respondents 12 who chose 8 = Dont Know. The mode of 2 = Greater Access indicates where many more of the answers were chosen by 22 of the respondents. The remaining 5 respondents chose 3 = Some Access. The results to both of these questions display a significant amount of uncertainty amongst farmers, perhaps indicating low awareness of what a co-operative is, but significantly, when an opinion is apparent it was in many cases positive or borderline positive. The amount of uncertainty can be explained more clearly with reference to the FGDs. Near the end of all of the FGDs, the basic idea of a co-operative was explained, in terms of it being an autonomous organisation, democratically run by farmers who would derive equitable social and economic benefits from it to raise collective

55

bargaining power and access to services and hence income. The fact that ASA would support the setting up of such an organisation was also emphasised. After such an explanation, and some discussion all of the farmers in the FGDs responded positively towards it. As pointed out above, farmers from Betwasa stated they were very interested in a co-operative, wheras farmers from Bilasa said we would agree to being part of a co-operative and are interested, echoed by farmers from Sindhi who said Were interested in a collective goat group. Farmers from Umri, Undari, Kadwal and Khari were also all interested in a co-operative. There were some interesting qualifications however farmers from Khari said we are interested in a joint goat business if ASA help, a sentiment echoed by farmers from other villages such as Kadwal. The latter group of farmers suggested If ASA give a loan for a goat co-operative at a lower rate of interest than is usual with SHGs then we can return money and it would work. Farmers from Dehedla said, We are interested in a co-operative but we have no time and no money. That the challenges to goat rearing analysed above were cited as possible factors making a co-operative unfeasible by farmers from Dehedla show both the significance of those challenges and either a low awareness of the workings of collective / co-operative groups or a low expectation of any potential benefits. Farmers from several villages also made suggestions for improvements in goat farming for assistance; farmers from Umri suggested more water for irrigation to grow crops for feeding goats, farmers from Undari suggested more land for goat feeding would improve matters, which was echoed by farmers from Bilasa and Betwasa. Farmers from Sindhi similarly suggested more land for feeding their goats would improve matters as well as more water for irrigation, and more time/people for managing goats. Farmers from Betwasa suggested more treatment and food is needed for their goats including more land. The above suggestions, relating to water, land, labour and healthcare correlate extremely well with the challenges and issues that emerged as prominent during the analysis of the goat farmers livelihood strategies land, labour, veterinary healthcare and vulnerability to climate change; dependence on rain-fed agriculture. The suggestion from one farmer relating to a reviewed loan structure for a potential livestock co-operative was an insightful and interesting comment displaying the definite interest and engagement of the farmers and the greater potential for motivating the farmers, with appropriate support, to start a co-operative. This, when combined with the enthusiasm found for the idea of a co-operative a main purpose of which was emphasised to be marketing for greater collective bargaining correlates well with one of the challenges identified to goat farming; lack of appropriate access to the market on a sustainable level seen in the amount of sales in distress, amongst other things.

Correlations While the research found a clear enthusiasm for the idea of a goat husbandry cooperative, it is worth correlating the answers to the different questions in the questionnaire, to investigate whether enthusiasm for a co-operative is linked in any way to statements regarding inadequate access to land and healthcare as well as opinions on prices gained for goats at markets. The graph on the following page shows a number of different correlations; the sub-hypotheses for this section regarding the questionnaire, following the previous hypotheses are as follows:

56

i) Those who deemed themselves to have inadequate access to veterinary healthcare and to land also thought that a co-operative would increase their access to land, healthcare and other services.

ii) Those who thought they gained an unfair price for their goats in sales & purchases also thought that a co-operative would enhance their livelihood.

iii) Those who thought that a co-operative would enhance their livelihoods also thought that a co-operative would increase their access to healthcare, land and other services.

Questionnaire Correlation Coefficients

1 0.8 0.6 0.4

Correlation Coef f icient

0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6

Land Access / Co-op Affect Vet/Land/Other Access Vet Access / Co-op Affect Land/Vet/Other Access Buy/Sell SFC / Co-op Affect Livelihood Co-op Affect Livelihood / Coop Affect Vet/Land/Other Access Buy/Sell SFC / Co-op Affect Land/Vet/Other Access

The above results provide quite an interesting insight into the opinions of the farmers studied. Firstly, there seems a medium strength negative correlation in the first bar suggesting that those who chose a higher number for land access indicating an inadequate access to land also often chose a lower number when asked whether a co-operative would improve their access to land, veterinary and other services indicating that a co-operative would improve such access (see possible choices on Likert scale above). When exchanging the answers to land access with vet access, the correlation is still negative proving the same relationship; but it is not as strong. This can most probably be explained by the number of farmers 12 - who chose Dont Know for the question regarding co-operatives effect on access to land, veterinary and other services; as no farmers actually chose a negative response to this question. The two results thus enable us to accept the first hypothesis.

57

The third correlation in the graph presents us with a different conclusion. It displays a very small positive correlation (0.06) between the two variables in question suggesting that there is no significant correlation. From the questionnaire therefore, we cannot say that those who thought they gained an unfair price for their goats in sales & purchases thought that a co-operative would enhance their livelihood. The correlation would need to be negative based on the choices needed on the Likert scale, yet the correlation above is not significant enough to prove one way or the other. As noted in the table above, 18 farmers thought a co-operative might enhance their livelihoods and 10 thought that it would, with the remaining stating they did not know. As many farmers (27) stated they somewhat agree that they gain a fair price at market, the lack of a correlation simply indicates that there is no relationship between the answers to the two questions. Having noted this, with reference to the analysis above concerning the local market in goat trading, it should again be emphasised that a perception of gaining a fair price does not mean the price was fair, nor does it mean the sale was not made in distress. On the contrary, the lack of a correlation, though making it impossible to accept the second hypothesis, simply indicates that those farmers who somewhat thought they gained a fair price for their goats at market thought either a co-operative might or would enhance their livelihood or did not know, with no particular relationship proven. The fourth correlation is much more clear, as a strong positive correlation at 0.90, it proves the third hypothesis those who thought a co-operative would enhance their livelihood also thought a co-operative would improve their access to land, veterinary and other services. This would seem logical, considering how intricately linked access to assets such as land, veterinary healthcare, and other services is to livelihoods. The final correlation shows, again, no significant correlation (0.04) and suggests one cannot draw a relationship between perceptions of fair or unfair prices for goats and perceptions of how a co-operative would effect access to land, veterinary and other services. As noted above, this does not however mean we cannot draw relationships. It proves that farmers who somewhat perceive they gained a fair price for their goats do not think that a co-operative would not improve their access to land, veterinary and other services. This is significant, as no farmers thought that a co-operative would not improve their access, merely differed in degree or chose Dont Know. Finally, the following correlations concerning the questionnaire are also pertinent to consider. The question regarding knowledge also asked the farmers how much they thought they knew about co-operatives (as well as goat farming):

58

Correlation Coefficients - Knowledge

0.6 0.4 0.2
Correlat ion Coef f icient

0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8

Co-op Affect Livelihoods / Knowledge

Co-op Affect Land/Vet/Other / Knowledge

Land Access / Knowledge

Vet Access / Knowledge

The above results show clear strong negative correlations between the two questions regarding co-operatives affect on livelihoods and affect on access to land, veterinary and other services respectively and the question regarding knowledge. What these correlations (-0.71 and 0.70 respectively) show is that those who thought a co-operative would improve their access to land, veterinary and other services and enhance their livelihoods also thought that they knew more about goat farming and co-operatives. The third medium strength positive correlation indicates those who thought they had inadequate access to land likely also thought they knew more about a goat farming and co-operatives, with those who thought they had inadequate access to veterinary healthcare also likely (though slightly less so) to think similarly. The final correlation is interesting, since it shows through a small negative correlation (-0.30) that those who thought they gained a fair price for their goats likely knew less about goat farming and co-operatives than those who deemed a cooperative would enhance their livelihoods and improve their access to land, veterinary and other services. Having noted this, it should be pointed out that the answers to the question regarding knowledge ranged from 1 = Nothing to 2 = A little, with no farmers choosing a response higher than 2. The most common answer (by 30 respondents especially those who answered positively to the two cooperative questions) was 2. That we can accept two of the sub-hypotheses with the second hypothesis remaining points to a situation in which the opinions of the farmers closely follow the analysis results from previous sections and bode well for positing a link between a cooperative as a possible solution to the challenges/issues resulting from the previous analyses. That the second hypothesis cannot be accepted can be qualified by the fact that its opposite, a null hypothesis cannot also be accepted it does not mean that a co-operative would not be a feasible solution to sales made in distress it merely points out a low awareness of market knowledge amongst the farmers commonly linked to a low awareness/knowledge about goat farming and cooperatives. That there is so much enthusiasm amongst farmers for a co-operative, and that this is linked to perceptions of inadequate access to land and veterinary services points towards the feasibility of establishing a co-operative; that the link was made by farmers themselves provides a bottom-up interest and validation of a cooperative as a possible solution and ensures their views are taken into account.

Buy/Sell SFC / Knowledge

59

Feasibility of a Cooperative

The FAO have recently noted, a huge demandis predicted to arise for livestock products in the rst quarter of the 21st century, driven almost entirely by population growth, rising incomes and increasing urbanization in developing countries (FAO, 2009). The ways in which goat rearers, most of whom are small and marginal farmers respond to this will be crucial. This point in history also provides us with an ideal time in which to investigate the livelihoods and possible structural and process transformations which would meet this demand while enhancing the livelihoods of small farmers and leveraging a sustainable access to markets and assets; as has been done throughout this study. This forms part of forwarding a more equitable model of economic growth focused on the livelihoods of the rural poor as pointed out in the Introduction. From the analysis in previous sections it seems clear that there is a definite need for a solution to the challenges faced by goat farmers and that this solution needs to address the root causes of their impoverishment; it needs to change the institutional context into one which enables farmers to use their livelihood assets to build a sustainable livelihood. As has been pointed out previously, top-down state-led solutions to these problems have faced continual problems and have regularly failed in their objectives. The fact that, as the Government Veterinarian pointed out, the state-run project failed because the farmers were not interested displays more the inability of the state to properly engage with the farmers real and perceived needs and incorporate those within the attempted project than an unwillingness on behalf of the farmers to enhance their own livelihoods. One of the most prominent features of this study is the interest of the farmers in identifying the main challenges to their livelihood and in greeting potential solutions to these challenges (such as the outlining of a co-operative) with enthusiasm and with critical minds. This study has attested to low levels of education, of awareness of the benefits of veterinary healthcare, of breeding strategies, market dynamics and low knowledge of goat rearing and institutions such as co-operatives among the farmers. The study has also attested to drastically inadequate access to education, veterinary healthcare, knowledge of healthcare & breeding, to the market, land, labour, money and other assets essential to build a sustainable livelihood. Just at the time when demand for livestock products is increasing exponentially, the farmers are finding themselves without appropriate access to all of the above assets and without the ability to use these assets in a sustainable livelihood strategy. The

60

position of the goat in tribal society is also an interesting issue; it is very numerous and it is deemed very valuable as an emergency asset, but it is denigrated below the status of a major income generator by the farmers themselves and, it has to be said, by a total lack of any appropriate development policy and programmes to address livestock farmers and the challenges they face. The simultaneous value and denigration in tribal society is, this study has found, due more to the ever-present challenges outlined above rather than to an enforced low status. This can be seen in the remarks of farmers during FGDs noted throughout this study; we have no land and no time, said farmers from Sindhi, a sentiment echoed by farmers in Dehedla; in response to whether they would be interested in a co-operative, despite initially saying they were interested. We sell our goats in compulsion, said some farmers, we keep goats for emergencies, said farmers in Umri, and We are not sure whether to buy more goats as there is too much death and disease, said farmers in Kadwal. Though possibly contributing in part to the prevention of the activity becoming a major income generator, the gender division of labour inherent within goat rearing provides an ideal opportunity, through development interventions, to enhance the status of women; in a similar vein as many micro-finance programmes have done. As goats, considering their low investment needs, are more important to women and marginal farmers as valuable livelihood assets in an increasingly unstable and costly agricultural climate, it seems appropriate that any solution (for example a cooperative), would involve and be focused on women, as well as, if possible, children. When considering the number of goats owned by small and marginal farmers and the huge potential for building innovative interventions to create sustainable livelihoods through focusing on livestock, it is an odd non-sequitur that there is total lack of appropriate animal husbandry development policy and programmes. At the same time, as made clear, there are several major challenges to livestock producers preventing them from enabling their own sustainable development. The FAO further noted recently, it is unlikely that individual small farmers will be able to respond to demand on their own. The creation of cooperative or joint marketing ventures seems the most likely way forward (FAO, 2009). It seems clear that any possible solution will need to be participative in involving the farmers and be catered to their real and perceived needs as outlined in this study. For a solution, a structural transformation, to succeed it will need to empower the farmers and to the greatest extent be controlled by them for their own benefit. In this sense a co-operative is an ideal fit. A marketing co-operative would enable the farmers to pool their transportation and distribution resources and have greater collective bargaining power addressing the need to create a sustainable intervention into the market. As noted in the Theoretical Discussion, the benefits of co-operatives revolve primarily around their efficient utillisation of economies of scale together with equitable economic and social benefits provided to their members. In a co-operative, the level of benefits attained are generally relative to the level of business and use of the cooperative by each member, but decisions about such benefits and every other business of the organisation are taken by a one member one vote policy in a democratic system. Such a system would be sensitive to the culture and traditions of the Bhils while enabling them to manage a pathway to creating sustainable livelihoods.

61

In terms of effective interventions addressing small farmers, it is interesting, as pointed out in this study and proven by the results of the research carried out for this study, that most observers and agricultural specialists (e.g. NGO staff), sociologists and the farmers themselves recognise the benefits of participative development. After outlining the costs and benefits of different organisational forms for interventions (corporate; NGO; Producer Co-op; Informal group; Individual small holder; Public sector) Phansalkar concludes, Informal, spontaneous groups of producers are usually very powerful interventions that offer a range of services addressing the most acutely felt demand (Phansalkar, in Debroy and Ullah, 2004: 116). It should be noted that Phansalkar was sceptical of any ideological attachment to a specific organisational form yet, as others have done, recognised the efficiency of participative bottom-up collective interventions as opposed to any other. In an interview with ASA Jhabua District Team Leader Mr Abradeep Das, Mr Das made clear that Goat farming is a very common activity in Jobat, and in Jhabua, as well as saying The main problems facing the households[in Jobat]are about securing a livelihood; the main challenges are improving access to water as well as improving the status of women. Interestingly, after confirming that all of the households surveyed were micro-finance recipients, Mr Das, when asked about the impact of such programmes, said, Micro-finance alone has seen little success in Jobat. This is perhaps surprising considering the success worldwide of microfinance as a development initiative. Having noted this, Mr Das assertion correlates well with the findings of this study concerning the inability of the households surveyed and involved in FGDs in the villages to maintain sustainable livelihoods; though SHG loans have made some impact the farmers still use moneylenders. Mr Das proceeded to say, What is needed is a holistic approach involving for example agriculture, irrigation/watershed development and micro-finance. To this, this study would add institutional change and capacity building. A holistic approach is, interestingly, recognised in the approach of ASA and is a core aim of their programming. When asked about the feasibility of a goat farmers co-operative in Jobat, Mr Das said, A co-operative would be a good thing anything that enhances the livelihoods of the farmers is a good thing, but any improvements must be given proper supervision and carefully managed implementation is key. The issue of careful implementation is most certainly key, considering the low awareness and relative poverty or in development economist Amartya Sens terms, the capability deprivation common among the farmers, as well as the need to address their needs, wants, desires and aspirations. That ASA already has experience in implementing Farmers Producer Companies and Micro-Finance SHGs on an increasingly larger and relatively successful scale, as noted in the Theoretical Discussion, places them in an ideal situation in which to implement a participative livestock development initiative. This could enable the farmers to go beyond a satisfaction of basic needs to, in order to quote Sen once again, encapsulate development as freedom from the enforced necessity to live less and be less (Sen, 1999: 45). However, it is clear that, as argued previously, any development solution must directly address the livelihood challenges and be sensitive to the pastoral practices of the goat farmers. As such a development solution if implemented must provide more than marketing, though this would increase income; it must address lack of access to land (for grazing and fodder), labour, veterinary healthcare, knowledge of breed management and healthcare and a general lack of assets; it must address access. In addressing marketing, a development solution must address the amount of sales in

62

distress, it must address the low prices gained and it must provide a more sustainable integration into markets; it must raise collective bargaining power. A co-operative could address all of these things. From a market perspective, for the trader it could provide a guaranteed supply of goats at a consistent price and for the producer it could provide stability and the opportunity to forward the price of their product i.e. goats. A co-operative would have the potential to change the nature of goat farming in Jobat from a practice geared around households keeping valuable livelihood assets, but assets which are not used to maintain a sustainable livelihood, to a democratic & joint community-centred business venture ensuring equitable income generation to build more secure and sustainable livelihoods for the people of Jobat. It is interesting that while interviewing market traders in Ranapur, they said they were unsure what effect a co-operative would have on them. Understandably they may be apprehensive, considering possible price rises, or even a potential diminishing in their importance as market actors. But most processors will want a regular supply of goats; a marketing pool or co-operative would enable the farmers to bypass middlemen and do collective bargaining at larger markets. From a social perspective a co-operative, through being democratically run and focused on social/economic benefits to its members, would by its very nature be focused on meeting those challenges identified by the farmers and analysed in this study as preventing the maintenance of a sustainable livelihood. The problem in implementing such an organisation, as noted previously, is the inability of farmers to enable such development themselves. As such any project by ASA will need to provide, as Mr Das stated, proper supervision and carefully managed implementation. There will need to be much initial support in terms of handholding and capital to set up the organisation and to train key farmers in areas such as marketing, breed management and healthcare. However, after such initial handholding, a practice ASA is very familiar with, the organisation should finance and manage itself through the funds it generates and the member-fees paid to it by the participating farmers. The only other issue regarding co-operatives is that mentioned in the Theoretical Discussion; that co-operatives in India have been plagued with excessive governmental control in stark contrast to their democratic, member-driven origins. As recent legislation has enabled co-operatives to seek much more of a return to such origins, it is recommended that if a co-operative is initiated, it should register as a Mutually Aided Co-operative under the Mutually-Aided Co-operative Societies Act (MACS, 1995), enacted by several states including Madhya Pradesh. Such cooperatives enjoy advantages of operational freedom together with virtually no interference from the Government, due to a provision under the Act stating that MACS cannot accept share capital or a loan from the State Government. However, to begin with, it may be more pertinent, as all potential beneficiaries are already ASA micro-finance recipients, to simply expand the existing SHGs to include a livestock focus; starting initially with marketing and progressing to address common pasture development, improve nutrition and fodder availability, train farmers in veterinary healthcare and breed management and provide general support. Further activities could revolve around providing tailored credit (as one farmer suggested), encouraging farmers to share resources (including labour) to enable a greater capacity to generate income collectively; income which would be disbursed equitably. Moreover, the majority of members should be women including some children, in

63

order to address the status of women and the importance of the goat as a livelihood asset to them. A co-operative could also tailor marketing and rearing strategies around times of year of importance to the farmers agricultural and other activities integrating the organisation with the existing Bhil economy and society, while challenging socioeconomic issues of disenfranchisement. As a co-operative would be run by the farmers themselves it has the greatest potential to be sensitive to the practices and traditions of the Bhils, recognising the importance of cultural traditions such as the haat, while seeking to integrate participative development solutions alongside these traditions; goats as the currency of the Bhils can become a lever of change in promoting pro-poor development. In recognising development as an inalienable right as the UN and others have made clear, and sustainable development as the method of ensuring such rights, we can now also recognise that a co-operative would be a sustainable livelihood strategy for the goat farmers of Jobat. It is, following an SLA approach as this study has done, a livelihood outcome; a way in which the farmers can use their assets to provide food security, build their livelihoods and cope more effectively with the vulnerability context in which they find themselves. A co-operative would be able to address the three dimensions of sustainability in agricultural development, identified by the UN Task Force on Hunger; increasing agricultural productivity for food security; restoring and conserving natural resources for food security; promoting good governance, gender equality and development approaches focused on people and their needs. A co-operative would provide a pathway to empowering some of the poorest of the poor, and amongst them particularly women. We can therefore accept the hypothesis above, a co-operative would be a feasible solution to the multiple social and economic challenges faced by farmers; it would provide forward and backward market linkages and it would provide an innovative and effective poverty reduction method to improve the livelihoods of the rural poor.

64

Recommendations
The first step should be to engage the farmers through the micro-finance SHGs, informing them of ASAs intention to create a livestock group; Animal husbandry specialists should be engaged to ensure a level of expert knowledge in ASA; such knowledge should inform and be a part of a livestock development project sensitive to the existing practices and needs of the farmers of Jobat; practices and needs identified in this report. An ideal starting point to create a goat farmers co-operative would be to utilise the existing SHGs; to use the groups already formed to initiate the process of forming a co-operative; A co-operative with full legal status may be, initially, too much of a transition for the farmers, and possibly for ASA, in terms of resources to make. As such, firstly it is recommended forming simple Goat Farmers Self-Help Groups, each of 20 to 30 members, the majority of whom should be women;

The initial focus of the SHGs should be awareness raising and capacitybuilding, moving on to begin interventions based on the livelihood challenges identified in this report. These areas, it is recommended, should be: Promoting joint management of goats through the SHG encouraging sharing of resources such as labour and knowledge; Training one farmer from each SHG in basic veterinary healthcare; Breed Management experimenting with different and improved breeds e.g. selecting a hybrid buck for each SHG; Community Pasture Development explore and experiment with innovative ways to develop pastures for common use for each SHG; Nutrition Innovate with particular types of plants and trees and crops best suited for creating a mineral-rich nutritious diet for the goats; Marketing Encourage farmers to pool distribution and transportation resources to make collective sales at larger markets integrating major trading times into a long-term strategy; Encourage farmers to develop long-term business strategies for goat farming changing the nature of the practice from providing a valuable security asset to becoming a profit-making business; Develop a participatory monitoring framework to assess the impact and progress of the initiative; When appropriate begin the transition from SHGs to become federated into a Jobat Block-wide co-operative (as an MACS) after raising awareness amongst farmers of the institutional specifics; Assist with organising the financial and legal part of the co-operative; Initiate elections and equitable and efficient management and provision of services and benefits;

65

After the above handholding steps have been taken ASA should change its role to more of a monitoring and evaluation agent, assisting in other areas if needs be. The ultimate aim would be for the co-operative to be self-financing and for the farmers to have developed the capacity to manage their own development, with minimal assistance from ASA;

66

References
Action for Social Advancement (ASA) (2009) Ensuring Livelihoods with Equity and Dignity (ASA) ASA website, available at: http://www.asaindia.org. Accessed on 13/11/2009. Ashley S., Holden S., and Bazeley P. (1999) Livestock in poverty focused development. Livestock in Development, Grewkerne, UK. Accessible online at: http://www.theidlgroup.com/downloads/livestock.pdf Bajaj, J. K. (eds) Madhya Pradesh Council of Science and Technology and the Centre for Policy Studies Bharatiya Agro Industries Foundation (BAIF) (2006) Goat Development: A source of food security for the rural poor (BAIF, Pune). Accessible online at: http://www.baif.org.in/aspx_pages/programs_pdf/goats.pdf. Accessed on 13/10/2009. Cahn. M, (2002) Sustainable Livelihoods Approach: Concept and Practice. Accessible online at http://www.devnet.org.nz/conf2002/papers/Cahn_Miranda.pdf. Accessed on 13/10/2009. Chambers, R. and Conway, G.R. (1992) Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st century. IDS Discussion Paper No. 296 (IDS, Brighton) Conner J.R., Hamilton W.T., Sheehy D.P., Smith J.W., and Kreuter U.P. (1998) Grassland based livestock production in Temperate zones. World Animal Review 90: 6-13. Accessible online at: http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/W8600T/w8600t03.htm. Accessed on 13/10/2009 Deoghare P.R. (1997) Sustainability of on-farm income and employment through livestock production in Mathura district of Uttar Pradesh. India Journal of Animal Sciences 67:916-919 Department for International Development (DFID) Carney, D. (ed.) Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What contribution can we make? (DFID, London) Ellis, F. (1998) Household strategies and rural livelihood diversification, The Journal of Development Studies 35: 1, 1-38 Ellis, F. (2000) Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries (Oxford University Press, Oxford) Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) (1999) Sheep and goats for diverse products and profits (UN, Rome) Government of India (GoI) (1998) National Sample Survey (NSS) Report no. 452, Common Property Resources in India. Accessible online at: http://mospi.nic.in/rept%20_%20pubn/452_final.pdf. Accessed on 13/10/2009. GOI (2007) Poverty Estimates for 2004-2005 Press Release (GOI, New Delhi). Available online at: http://www.planningcommission.gov.in/news/prmar07.pdf. Accessed on 03/12/2009. Ghosh, J. (2005) Trade Liberalization in Agriculture: An Examination of Impact and

67

Policy Strategies with Special Reference to India, UNDP Human Development Report, 2005, Background Paper. Available online at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2005/papers/HDR2005_Ghosh_Jayati_12.pd f Accessed on 13/11/2009. Harris-White, B. (1995) Maps and Landscapes of Grain Markets in South Asia, in Harriss, J., Hunter, J. and Lewis, C.M. (eds) The New Institutional Economics and Third World Development (Routledge, London) International Co-operative Alliance (ICA) (2009) Website. Accessible at: http://www.ica.coop/al-ica/. Accessed on 13/10/2009. ICA Manchester Declaration (1995). Accessible online at: http://www.ccednetrcdec.ca/files/ccednet/W-269_Women_In_Co-ops.pdf. Accessed on 13/10/2009. International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (SLA) webpage. Available online at: http://www.ifad.org/sla/. Accessed on 13/11/2009. International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) Sustainable Livelihoods Approach (website page, 2009). Accessible online at: http://www.ifad.org/sla/. Accessed on 13/10/2009. Jodha, N. (2008) Rural commons and livelihood strategies in dry regions of India, The European Journal of Development Research, Volume 20, Issue 4 Jewitt, S., and Baker K. (2006) The Green Revolution re-assessed: Insider perspectives on agrarian change in Bulandshahr District, Western Uttar Pradesh, India, Geoforum, Volume 38, Issue 1. Jutting, J., Drechsler, D., Bartsch, S., and de Soysa, I. (2007) Informal Institutions: how social norms help or hinder development (OECD, Paris). Accessible online at: . Accessed on 13/10/2009. Kohler-Rollefson, I; Sharma, V. P; Morton, J (2003) Pastoralism in India: A Scoping Study (India Institute of Management, Ahmedabad; University of Greenwich, UK). Accessible online at: http://www.research4development.info/PDF/Outputs/ZC0181b.pdf. Accessed on 13/10/2009. Misra, A.K; Rama Rao, C.A; Subrahmanyam, K.V; Vijay Sankar Babu, M; Shivarudrappa, B; Ramakrishna, Y.S (2007) Strategies for livestock development in rainfed agro-ecosystem of India, in Livestock Research for Rural Development 19 (6). Accessible online at: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/6/misr19083.htm. Accessed on 13/10/2009. Misra, A.K., Ramana, D.B. V., Prasad, M.S., Ramakrishna, Y.S. (2007) Feeding and Management of Small Ruminants, Krishi Vigyan Kendra Buletin 2. Available online at: http://www.crida.ernet.in/KVK-RR/bulletin_02.pdf. Accessed on 03/12/2009. Parthasarthy Rao P, Brithal P.S and Ndjeunaga J. (2005) Crop-Livestock Economies in the Semi-arid Tropics: Facts, Trends and Outlook. Patencheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India. ICRISAT. 68pp. Accessible online at: http://www.icrisat.org/gtmpi/WhatsNew/J726_2004%20_Livestock%20outlook.pdf

68

Peters M., Horne P., Schmidt A., Holmann F., Kerridge P.C., Tarawali S.A., SchultzeKraft R., Lascano C.E., Argel P., Stur W., Fujisaka S., Muller-Samann K., and Wortmann C. (2001) The Role of Forages in Reducing Poverty and Degradation of Natural Resources in Tropical Production Systems. AgREN Network Paper No. 117 (ODI, London) http://www.odi.org.uk/agren/papers/agrenpaper_117.pdf Patnaik, U. (2008) Theorizing Poverty and Food Security in the Era of Economic Reforms, Lechini, G. (ed.) Globalization and the Washington Consensus: its influence on democracy and development in the south (CLACSO, Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales). Available online at: http://bibliotecavirtual.clacso.org.ar/ar/libros/sursur/lech/12patna.pdf. Accessed on 13/11/2009. Patnaik, U. (2006) Povety and Neoliberalism in India (Jewaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi). Available online at: http://www.networkideas.org/featart/jan2007/Neo-Liberalism.pdf. Accessed on 03/12/2009. Phansalkar, S.J. Challenges of Integrating Small Holders in Markets, in Debroy, B., and Khan, A.U. (eds) (2004) Integrating the Rural Poor into Markets (Academic Foundation, New Delhi). Prahladachar, M. (1982) Income Distribution Effects of the Green Revolution in India: A review of Empirical Evidences, Economic Development Centre, Bulletin 82-2. Available online at: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/8438/1/edc82-02.pdf Accessed on 13/11/2009. Ramdas, S.R., and Ghotge, N.S. (2003) Of Cows and Men, online at India Together Online. Accessible at: http://www.indiatogether.org/2003/jan/agr-cowsmen.htm. Accessed on 13/10/2009. Rangnekar D.V. (2006) Livestock and livelihoods of the underprivileged communities in India: A review. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya. 72 pp. Accessible online at: http://www.ilri.org/Infoserv/webpub/fulldocs/LivestockInTheLivelihoods/LivestockUP_I ndia_Final.pdf. Accessed on 13/10/2009. Raosoft.com (2009). Sample Size Calculator. Accessible at: http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html. Accessed on 14/10/2009. Sadangi, A. Integrating the Poor into Market Systems (IPMAS): A Blueprint, in Debroy, B., and Khan, A.U. (eds) (2004) Integrating the Rural Poor into Markets (Academic Foundation, New Delhi). Samantary, P.C. (2004) Hundred Years of Co-Operative Movement: Emerging Issues and Challenges, Orissa Review, December 2004. Accessible online at: http://orissagov.nic.in/emagazine/Orissareview/dec2004/englishPdf/hundredsyearsofcooperativemovemente mergingissuesandchalleges.pdf. Accessed on 13/10/2009. Saqib, M., and Chakraborty, D. (2005) The Working of Agricultural Cooperatives in India: Is there any Lesson to Learn from the Chinese Experience? in Debroy, B., and Kaushik, P.D. (eds) (2005) Energising Rural Development through Panchayats (Academic Foundation, New Delhi)

69

Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom (OUP, Oxford) Singh (2000) Environmental consequences of agricultural development: a case study from the Green Revolution state of Haryana, India, Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, Volume 82, Issues 1-3. Sustainet (2006) Sustainable Agriculture: A pathway out of poverty for Indias rural poor (GTZ Sustainet, 2006). Accessible online at: http://www.sustainet.org/en/information-office.htm. Accessed on 13/10/2009. The Brundtland Report (The Brundtland Commission UN) (1987) Our Common Future (OUP, Oxford) Thomas-Slayter, B. and Bhatt, N (1994) Land, Livestock and Livelihoods: Changing Dynamics of Gender, Caste and Ethnicity in a Nepalese Village, Human Ecology 22(4) Kounteya, S. (2009) India tops world hunger chart, Times of India. Available online at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-tops-world-hungerchart/articleshow/4197047.cms. Accessed on 03/12/2009. United Nations (UN) 1986 Declaration on the Right to Development (UN General Assembly, Geneva). Available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3b00f22544.html [accessed 24 October 2009. Accessed 13/10/2009. UN (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (UN General Assembly, Geneva) Dean, T. (IPS (Inter Press Service)). (2009) LABOUR: Womens Household Chores Unpaid, Unrecognised. Online article. Available online at: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=45954. Accessed on 13/11/2009. UNRISD (United Nations Research Institute for Social Development) (2008) The Statistical Evidence on Care and Non-Care Work across Six Countries (UNRISD, Geneva). Available online at: http://www.unrisd.org/80256B3C005BCCF9/search/F9FEC4EA774573E7C12575600 03A96B2?OpenDocument. Accessed on 13/11/2009. World Bank (1997) Managing the Livestock Revolution: Policy and Technology to Adress the Negative Impacts of a Fast-Growing Sector (World Bank, Washington). Accessible online at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTARD/Resources/Livestock_final+no+maps.pdf Accessed on 13/10/2009 2001 Census of India, Government of India (GOI). Available online at: http://www.censusindia.net/ Accessed on 13/11/2009.

70

Appendix A Household Survey Form for Baseline Data Collection General Information Name of village: Name of respondent: Age: Caste: State if SC/ST/OBC No. of school-going children Number of people in household Number of men in household Number of women in household Number of children in household

Occupation of main earner Occupation of women Total Land Owned (hectares) No. of migrant members No. of months migrating (per year) Bank Account Holder : Yes/No (Please Tick) Above Poverty Line or Below Poverty Line? .. Current Savings in Bank account: Rs... Gender Use / Purpose Graze on common land? (Yes/No) Type of fodder

Livestock Detail: Type of No. Livestock Ox Cows Goats Sheep Buffalo Disease Annual incidences (No.)

Goat Health Annual Treated by mortality (No.) Veterinarian (Yes/No)

Vaccinations (Yes/No)

Fee-payer to veterinary health care Distance to the nearest veterinarian (Km)

Yes/No 71

 Goat Market/Sale Goat market used Average & distance away price for (Km) purchase of goat (Rs)

Average price for sale of goat (Rs)

Average No. of goats sold annually

Average No. of goats bought annually

Average % male / female

No of sales in distress (annually)

Other Assets Detail: House Roof Separate Livestock Keeping Room Pumps/Pipes Tractor Dug well Bore well Any other (please detail)

Pucca/Thatched/Tiled Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No

Total Income from Different Sources (Yearly) in Rs (Approximate).: 1. From Agriculture:Rs. 2. From Livestock:Rs.. 3. From Daily Wage Earning:Rs 4. From any other Sources (Give detail) Rs. Total Income in Rs 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Total Expenditure under Different Heads (Yearly) in Rs (Approximate).: Agricultural inputs (Seeds, Fertilisers, Insecticide etc) Rs. Livestock (animals bought/sold) Rs. Livestock feed/fodder Rs.. Livestock veterinary heatlh care Rs. Livestock (other expenditure please detail) Rs.. Irrigation and Labour costs Rs. Daily Expenditure (Grocery, Stationary, Vegetables, Food etc) Rs. Festivals / Weddings Rs... Education Rs.. Other (please detail) Rs..

Total Expenditure in Rs.

72

Signature of the Supervisor

Date

Appendix B Questionnaire for Goat Farmers

1) On average I gain a fair price when buying or selling goats or goat produce at market. Please circle number below to indicate if you agree/disagree etc. (1) Very Much Agree (4) Very Much Disagree (2) Somewhat Agree (5) Dont Know (3) Somewhat Disagree

2) Do you feel that you have adequate access to veterinary health care? Place a tick in one of the boxes below. Strongly Agree ( ) Dont Know ( ) Agree ( ) Disagree ( ) Strongly Disagree ( )

3) Do you feel that you have adequate access to grazing land? Place a tick in one of the boxes below. Strongly Agree ( ) Dont Know ( ) Agree ( ) Disagree ( ) Strongly Disagree ( )

4) Elsewhere efforts have been made by livestock farmers (with support) to form cooperatives. Which of the following best describes your view? Place a tick in one of the boxes below. A co-operative would enhance my livelihood ( ) A co-operative might enhance my livelihood ( ) A co-operative would not enhance my livelihood ( ) Dont Know ( )

5) What effect do you think being a member of a goat farmers cooperative would have on your ability to access veterinary health care, grazing land and/or other services? Place a tick in one of the boxes below. Much Greater Access ( ) Greater Access ( ) Some Access ( ) No Effect ( ) A Little Less Access ( ) Less Access ( ) Much Less Access ( ) Dont Know ( ) 6) Using this scale, how much do you feel you know about goat farming and cooperatives? Place a tick in one of the boxes below.

73

1 Know nothing at all ( 2 Know a little 3 Know something ( (

) ) )

4 Know a quite a bit 5 Know a great deal

( (

) )

Appendix C Focus Group Discussion Schedule - Goat Farmers/Rearers

What is/are: The main benefits / reasons to rear goats? Preference ranking Main problems / challenges to goat rearing? Construction of Seasonality calendar depicting time of requirement for different types of goat rearing activities including sale at market - Include festivals and details of agriculture (when and what?) and migration (where and what?)

Other questions/themes Who performs most of the labour in goat rearing? Does goat rearing adequately support yourself and your family in income or subsistence? Does it provide security / a livelihood? Do you see goats as a valuable livelihood asset? For subsistence / minor profit or more? Norms/institutions impacting goat farming dispute resolution etc. When you go to a market to sell or buy a goat do you feel that you get a good price? How do you see your relationship with market traders? How does goat rearing integrate with your other activities (e.g. fodder)? Do you feel that you have adequate access to grazing land? Type of Land? Do you use veterinarians? Is there a clinic nearby? Is it affordable? Do your goats get a lot of diseases? Are they healthy? Main general challenges / problems faced by villagers. If there were the option, would you be interested in forming a cooperative (after the concept is explained)? Any suggestions for possible solutions to the problems of goat farming / anything else to add?

74

Appendix D Government Veterinarian Semi-Structured Interview Question Themes

Prominent diseases and health complaints in goats. Level of awareness of veterinary healthcare amongst farmers. Level of awareness of breed management amongst farmers. Government interaction with goat farmers collection of information, relationship and knowledge level of government officials. Priority of goat farming to the Department of Animal Husbandry. Main Government projects/programmes affecting goat farmers. Funding available for goat farmers/poor livestock owners? Main challenges/benefits to programmes/projects affecting pastoralists (goat farmers) to-date - ways of overcoming them? Access to veterinary healthcare and knowledge amongst farmers. Past Government projects addressing goat farmers? Feasibility of a goat farmers marketing cooperative in Jobat. Main barriers to maintaining effective and sustainable policy interventions that benefit small and marginal farmers engaged in pastoralism - e.g. goat farmers

75

Appendix E ASA Field Staff Semi-Structured Interview Question Themes

Main features typifying the villages that ASA works in Jobat Main type of work done by people / sources of income Main barriers to maintaining food security and building sustainable livelihoods. Basic demographic details important points to note. History of NGO/Government involvement impact.

Main ASA programs that involve Goat Farmers? Importance of goat farming to farmers . Policy attention of NGOs to livestock development. Pastoral Practices e.g. goat ownership and use. Main challenges / issues confronting goat farmers and ASA microfinance beneficiaries. Challenges / achievements of ASA programmes Potential ways of overcoming challenges - recommendations Feasibility of a goat farmers co-operative. ASA interest / support for a co-operative?

76

Appendix F Market Traders Semi-Structured Interview Question Themes

What is/are: The main products of trade Importance of goats in trade The main problems faces by goat traders The average price paid for a goat from a goat farmer The average price gained for sale of goats or goat produce. The market structure like and chain of supply. Construction of annual calendar depicting time of year when main goat buying/selling takes place, including type of produce and purpose.

Other Questions Profitability of goat trading Reasons for price changes / seasonality / market pressures etc. Market organisations / trade regulation formal or informal Livelihood security APL or BPL. Relationship with goat farmers. Exploitation of goat farmers fair or unfair prices etc. Effect of goat farmers co-operative on market and livelihood.

77