understanding people’s livelihood strategies. Food security is a broad concept, which in the study villages was expressed as women and men’s access to sufficient food throughout the year, and whether it is grown themselves, purchased in the market, or provided by others, i.e. family, neighbors or NGOs, or any combination of the above.
In general in all the villages, the well-off stated they had enough food from their own production (or their share of production) for 7-10 months of the year, the medium villagers from 4-7 months, and the poor between 2 and 7 months. The remainder of their food needs was met through the purchase of food in the market. There are of course important exceptions to these figures, for example in Bagh, 60% of the rich were landless but with non-farm income sources, and the poorest, for example homeless WHH in Chaprasak, barely have enough food to survive. Also, despite the fact that people manage to secure an adequate level of food either through production or purchase, the conditions under which this is possible for certain households can be extremely difficult, and far from sustainable. It is therefore important to investigate the food security and livelihood trends of different groups in the difference villages to see what degree of vulnerability they may be experiencing.
This, however, is not a straightforward task. Whether a strategy represents a shorter-term coping strategy chosen in difficult times, or a longer-shorter-term shift in livelihood strategies is not always apparent, and the same strategy may be chosen by different households for different reasons. In the study villages, for example, migration as a strategy can only be understood if one examines the different reasons different households migrate, and the impact the migration has on their survival as households.
Labor migration is not new in Dai Kundi. Historically, the Hazara of Hazarajat have been migrating to Pakistan and Iran since the end of the 1800’s, when war with the king caused famine in the area. The trend continued, and it has been estimated that between 30 and 50% of the male population of the poorest villages migrated for labor in the 1960s (Harpviken web page). This was confirmed in the study villages, where they stated that labor migration has long been a livelihood strategy in Dai Kundi.
Over the past 9 years, however, the rate of migration in Dai Kundi increased dramatically, mainly due to the drought, but also, in some cases such as Bagh, fighting and conflict compounded the difficulties resulting in an out-migration of 44%. In a landscape where cultivable land is already extremely limited, we see from Table 3 that only between 10-50% of the cultivable land is under production due to
lack of sufficient water for irrigation. Rain fed agriculture in this area has not been possible, and the pastures have suffered from very low production.
Ghuchan Chaprasak Bagh Ghaf Kuja
Chasht Alqan Sherma Tagab Sarqul Arwas Total
Area
15-4km? 10km2 30km2 7km2 54km2 200km2 114km2 ??? 300km2 50km2
Pasture 40% 50% 37% 40% 40% 50% 48% 50% 75% 44%
Stone
Mountain 48% 25% 33% 50% 30% 20% 40% 36% 10% 50%
Cultivable
Land 13% 15% 30% 10% 30% 30% 12% 14% 15% 4%
Cultivated Land (as
% of cultivable)
50% 50% 10% 50% 40% 5% 50% ??? 67% 33%
Public
Land 10%
Table 3 Land use in study villages
This has had a dramatic impact on the medium and poorer households, who previously had a larger percentage of their food needs met through their own production. The poor and medium households described a similar process as conditions deteriorated. As their land became less productive, and as the possibility for labor on the lands of others decreased also due to drought, some households told of changing both the amount and composition of food, reducing the consumption of sugar and oil, and switching from wheat to maize. They would also borrow food or money at high prices during the winter and spring months when there was a food deficit. For example, if one borrowed 1000 Afs, they would have to repay 1500 Afs to either the well-off farmers or shopkeepers. Likewise, if one borrowed 7 kilos of wheat, then they would have to repay 10.5 kilos. Some of the better-off farmers could repay from the sale of almonds. Others, however, had to send a family member out of the village or country for labor. As the drought continued, some farmers had no option but to mortgage their land to pay for their debts, and migrate to earn enough money to repay and reclaim their land. They also informed that is was not uncommon for a family to give one of their young daughters in marriage to settle their debt to be able to reclaim their land.
Getting a complete picture of the extent of migration is a challenge, however in several of the villages the community members were able to give what we considered credible estimates of not only how many households have migrated, but whether they were landowners or not. It was much more difficult, however, to get information on migrants who did not own land, and whether they had for example been sharecroppers or women-headed households, or had to sell their land outright rather than mortgage it. We also learned that returnees where also diverse. Some of those who returned from migrating were those with land who had received information that the agricultural conditions had improved and were able to reclaim their land and continue farming. Others, however, returned somewhat destitute with neither land nor a house to live in. In Chaprasak, for example, the most vulnerable group identified by the villagers was the women-headed landless returnees, as well as women-headed migrants from other villages, whose only income was begging, charity from NGOs, and income from temporary labor, for example, from road construction.
From this we can see that there may be several possible indicators connected to migration that could show whether conditions are either worsening or improving for villagers; for example when they migrated and for what reason, if they sent only one or two family members out, if the whole household migrated and mortgaged their land, and if they were able to return, and what they returned to. Such indicators, however, have to be combined with others which would allow one to see the extent to which migration is a long-term livelihood strategy or short term coping strategy in that particular context. Again, this study reveals difference not only within villages, but between villages as well. Because the villages differ in their resource bases, access to markets, agro-ecological conditions, distance to markets, land ownership patterns, and social and political context, the trends and strategies of different households, and the degree of vulnerability, can vary greatly. This means, for example, that what constitutes vulnerability in one village, could be quite different in another, involving different types of households, with different potentials to participate in new activities.
In all of the villages, lack of water due to drought significantly affected the food security situation of all of the wealth groups, either due to reduction of production on own land, or on the land one sharecrops for a share of the food, or the resulting lack of demand for agricultural labor for cash crops, thus affecting landless laborers as well.
The impact between groups, however, is quite variable. In Bagh, for example, where farmers are only able to cultivate 10% of their land due to lack of water, the well-off are able to switch to other income-earning activities, such as shop keeping and transport services, while the medium and poor farmers, the majority of which (66% in each group) own land, have to find other options, for example borrowing and/or migrating for labor opportunities. The next section examines more closely the livelihood strategies of the different groups in the study villages.
The implications of these findings for NCA is that indicators for food and livelihood security, and vulnerability, need to reflect processes, rather than merely the status of certain households at one point in time. Also, there will likely be sets of indicators, rather than a single indicator that can inform on these processes. Understanding the dynamics around labor and whole family migration is particularly important in understanding strategies of vulnerable households in the short and long term, as well as learning whether conditions in the village are getting relatively better or worse. We therefore recommend:
• Indicators including for example the reasons for sending family members for labor, sale and purchase of land, sale of animals, labor dynamics and whole family migration to be developed together with the communities to see what livelihood trends there are in the communities. These may be different for different groups.
• Case histories can be developed for selected households to better understand their longer term strategies, and changes over time in the communities.
• When collecting data on migration, it should be very clear whether migration figures represent labor migration of individuals in the households, or whole family migration.
LIVELIHOOD STRATEGIES