5 Vulnerable livelihood group profiles

5.1 Introduction

During the fieldwork the few major livelihood groups were identified for profiling in the area. Among these major livelihood groups, three groups: small and marginal farmers, wage, and petty trader/businessmen are identified as the major vulnerable livelihood groups in the area. To see a contrasting picture of the livelihood disparities one group was identified as least vulnerable group in the area.

Additionally, two other significant livelihood groups, one vulnerable (fishers) and one non-vulnerable (large farmers), were also briefly looked at and some of the major elements of their livelihood issues have been discussed in the present chapter in a brief manner.

As there are intra-livelihood differences observed and the differences between irrigated area and nonirrigated areas are classified as well, the distinction in analyses are outlined in profiles by livelihood groups are maintained all over the profiling exercise.

Profiles of these selected major vulnerable livelihood groups are outlined in the following sections from 5–5 to 5–10.

Observations on some major gender specific vulnerabilities emerged from the fieldwork have been outlined in the end of the Chapter (see section 5–11).

For overall profiling exercise of the livelihood groups an innovative and contextualized analytical framework of “Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF)” has been adopted and discussed in detail in section 5–3.

5.2 Process of selecting livelihood groups for profiling

The selection of livelihood groups - both the vulnerable livelihood groups and the ‘non’-vulnerable or ‘least’ vulnerable livelihood groups - have been identified from checking from three different sources. These are:

1. review of datasets of latest available national population census 2001 (community series);

2. review of datasets of latest available agriculture census 1996 (zila/ district series);

3. various local level consultation and discussions with people and resources person during reconnaissance field visit.

After consultation with the local people and professionals the small and marginal/medium farmer categories have not been broken into various sub-groups. Commonalities among the small and marginal farmers categories and their livelihood patterns have emerged. For profiling thereby these two similar groups are merged together and described.

As differences emerged among the large farmers and other categories of farmers and found that this group of farmers are lesser vulnerable than the small and marginal farmers, this category of farmers have not been included for full profiling exercise and left out for future detailed investigation. A brief account of this large farmer category has been provided at the end of the Chapter with the non/least vulnerable category though.

The fishing households are found quite low in number in the study area. The households are not distributed widely all over the study area this as well. In spite of these low presences from a limited number of fishing households who are actually also involved as either fish traders, fishing labours, fish business are looked at briefly in the profiling exercise.

The vulnerable livelihood groups emerged for detailed profiling are as follows.

Table 5-1. Identified major vulnerable and non-vulnerable livelihood groups in the study area

Source: CEGIS Fieldwork 2005.

The identification of actual proportion of the livelihood groups residing in the study was a bit difficult. The major statistical accounts in Bangladesh, primarily the national the census, do not identify statistics by livelihood groups. An account of major sources of household income, however, is present at local level in the latest national population census (BBS: 2001). The latest national such statistics on the major sources of household income gives a statistical account at a village or mouza (an official layer larger than village under each union) level. The average proportion of each type of households (by sources of income) is shown in the Table 5 – 2. Relevant statistics in this regard are compiled in the following Table and Figure 5–1.

Table 5-2. Proportion of main sources of income of the all households in the study villages

Source: BBS (2005) - Population Census-2001 (Community Series).

Source: BBS (2002) - Agriculture Census-1996 (Zila Series).

Figure 5-1. Percentage of total number of hhs in relation to land-holdings in the study villages

For operational purposes of the study the following “synergic indicative statistical proportion” of households for each major livelihood groups are identified from the existing two sets of census data (BBS Population census 2001 and Agriculture Census 1996). This synergic indicative statistical proportion is shown in the Figure 5–2. This could be used for the study villages as an indicative account and more feed with more disaggregated village and mouza level data. However, from the quantitative account the further break of business class was not possible at this point and thereby lumped together.

Proportion of total households in each livelihood groups
(synergically calculated latest population and agriculture census)

Figure 5-2. Average proportion of total household in each livelihood groups calculated from censuses

From the above statistics, it emerges that among all the livelihood groups the largest population belongs to the wage labourer group totaling over 41% of the population. Both the agricultural and non-agricultural wage labourers belong to this category. The second largest group is the composite of the various types of farmers totaling approximately another 40%. This is a sum of the different types of farmers: large, marginal and small. Amongst, the large farmers are approximately 6.88%. People involved with trade and business are almost 7% while the fishers (only a 0.35%) are found very low in proportion. Among the rest, approximately over 12% of the population belongs to various types of other minor livelihood groups in the study area.

5.3 The analytical framework for profiling livelihoods

The profiling exercise of the livelihood groups has been developed in the light of the DFID (Ashley and Carney: 1999, DFID 1999) analytical framework of Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) and the describing with a simplified and contextualized (Toufique, KA & Turton, K. 2002, CARE: 2002, CEGIS: 2004 and CEGIS: 2005) version of the SLF for the context of the study area in northwestern Bangladesh. The simplified operational version of the SLF used for profiling is as follows:

Figure 5-3. Simplified operational version of SLF (modified from Ashley and Carney: 1999)

In the overall framework, the left hand section of the figure shows that the vulnerability contexts impact on the livelihood assets of people (these assets here are denoted by a pentagon that comprises of human, natural, financial, physical and social assets or capitals). Livelihood assets are also influenced by outside policies, institutions and processes – these are often also identified as the mediating factors. In peoples’ day-to-day lives, the livelihood strategies of different categories of households are shaped by their asset base and by the policy and institutional context in which they live. Livelihood outcomes of different types of households and livelihood groups are influenced by the vulnerability context - people’s exposure to unexpected shocks - and their ability to withstand the shocks, which depends on their asset base.

Five concepts are crucial for understanding the linkages within the framework: the vulnerability context, livelihood assets, mediating factors/institutions/policies and process, livelihood strategies and the livelihood outcomes. These are nicely outlined and described in FAO guideline for analyzing local institutions and livelihood (FAO: 2006). The document explains the components of SLF in following manner.

The vulnerability context refers to unpredictable events that can undermine livelihoods and cause households to fall into poverty. Some of these factors are fast acting (such as earthquakes) and others are slower acting (such as soil erosion), but both can undermine livelihoods. It is important to distinguish between shocks originating from outside the community, which affect all people in the same locality, and idiosyncratic shocks that principally affect only individual households.

Livelihood assets refer to the resource base of the community and of different categories of households. In the centre left of the diagram above we have a pentagon that stands for different types of assets available to local people - human, natural, financial, physical and social. These assets are interlinked. Each type of asset is denoted in the figure with a capital letter (H, N, F, P, S).

The size and shape of the asset pentagon - that is, the amount and relative importance of each type of capital - varies between communities and between wealthy and poor households within the same community. For instance, for historical reasons, rich communities may control more and better land and natural resources than poor communities, and within any given community, rich households control more land, livestock and physical and financial capital than poor households.

The mediating factors – Policies and institutions – are an important set of man-made external factors that influence the range of livelihood options open to different categories of people. They also influence access to assets and vulnerability to shocks. An enabling policy and institutional environment makes it easier for people - poor and less poor - to gain access to assets they need for their livelihoods. A disabling policy and institutional environment may discriminate against the poor, thus making it difficult for them to get access to land, livestock, capital and information.

Livelihood strategies are “the range and combination of activities and choices that people make in order to achieve their livelihood goals.” On the basis of their personal goals, their resource base and their understanding of the options available, different categories of households - poor and less poor - develop and pursue different livelihood strategies. These strategies include short-term considerations such as ways of earning a living, coping with shocks and managing risk, as well as longer-term aspirations for children’s future and old age.

Local institutions influence household livelihood strategies directly, by determining which activities are legal/illegal and appropriate/inappropriate for women and men, by creating incentives to pursue certain activities and choices over others, and by influencing perceptions of the effectiveness of particular strategies for achieving desired outcomes. Local institutions also affect household livelihood strategies indirectly through their influence on access and control of household assets.

Livelihood outcomes are what household members achieve through their livelihood strategies, such as levels of food security, income security, health, well-being, asset accumulation and high status in the community. Unsuccessful outcomes include food and income insecurity, high vulnerability to shocks, loss of assets and impoverishment.

5.4 Evaluation of livelihood assets

The status of the livelihood assets or capitals for the major vulnerable livelihood groups in the study area has been assessed following the five types of livelihoods assets (human, natural, financial, physical and social assets or capitals) identified in the SLF.

The present evaluation of livelihood assets has been developed from some earlier uses of a ‘qualitative to quantitative’ livelihood asset scoring tools developed in other FAO studies (Bishop-Sambrook, 2004) carried out in different parts of the word.

Livelihood assets for each livelihood groups were evaluated using a scale starting from a value of “0” to a maximum of “5” for each types of assets and carried out for all five types of assets sequentially. These evaluations are based on the locally defined standard indicators where the access to particular type of asset scores are calculated through following scoring system:

Finally the scores of the assets are plotted in the pentagons shape chart for developing a comparative overview of the asset composition of the respective livelihood groups in respective area. The method allows a comparison between asset categories as well as an overall asset portfolio between the comparative areas at a time. However, explaining the how it works and the giving adequate time for the exercise is pivotal in the whole process. The second part - the analytical one and of plotting these to charts are of researchers back to office work. However, participatory approach and mindset is highly required for developing this instrument with the people in the field. Associated meanings to it are the major aspect which needs to be carefully recorded along with the overall exercise.

People are found quite spontaneous in categorization of these assets in the field situation. The major local indicators for asset evaluation with consultation with local people are outlined in the following table (Table 5-3).

Table 5-3. Local indicators used for evaluation of the assets by livelihood groups

Source:CEGIS Fieldwork 2005

5.5 Livelihood profile of “small and marginal farmers”

The major components of the sustainable livelihoods framework (the vulnerability context, livelihood assets, mediating factors/institutions/policies and process, livelihood strategies and the livelihood outcomes) of the small and marginal farmers in the study area are discussed in this following section.

5.5.1 Vulnerability context

Small and marginal farmers in the study area - both in the irrigated and non-irrigated - were found vulnerable to their own set of vulnerability factors. It emerged from the field investigation that small and marginal farmers in both the irrigated and non-irrigated areas are vulnerable to climatic and nonclimatic vulnerability factors.

In the non-irrigated areas farmers are more vulnerable to the climatic factors. Their vulnerability context is defined by several thriving climatic factors such as the low rainfall, high (mostly erratic) temperature, dryness, high evaporation rate and reduced crop yields due to these climatic factors. However, beside these factors the non-climatic factors seemingly have overriding effects on their livelihoods.

The vulnerability contexts for this category of farmers are actually prone to these climatic adverse trends, seasonal erraticity or variability of these patterns and overall reduction of capacity to overcome. This is often due to presence of various non-climatic factors such as unavailability of DTW, unavailability of surface water storage for irrigation of the opportunities for supplementary irrigation. The lack of access to boro and aus crop in the non-irrigated area has adversely situated the vulnerability context of the small and marginal farmers.

The vulnerability context in the irrigated area of the small and marginal farmers is also constituted with the duality of the climatic and non-climatic factors. The climatic factors due to availability of the irrigation facilities in the irrigated areas has put the small and marginal farmers in a relatively better position than the farmers of non-irrigated areas.

In the irrigated area, several non-climatic factors have overriding effect on the development of the vulnerability context. In these areas the failure of electricity in deep tube wells operations, the availability of tertiary irrigation canals and other irrigation facilities and the several other anthropogenic factors such as high price of agricultural inputs, market situation and so forth are the other side of the vulnerability context of the farmers in the study area.

A comparative overview of various types of the vulnerability factors that form the vulnerability context of the small and marginal farmers in the area are outlined in the Table below.

Table 5-4. Major vulnerability factors of the small and marginal farmers

Source: CEGIS Fieldwork 2005.

Legends:
	= Relatively low level of impact
	= Relatively higher level of impact
	= Not identified

5.5.2 Livelihood assets/capitals

Small and marginal farmers in the non-irrigated part of the study area were found to have access to their own cultivable lands and the amount of land they can actually get from the tenancy agreements with the large landowners. Primarily they get for cultivation during the T-aman seasons and often in aus seasons. Farmers in the non-irrigated areas have a low access to the water in the non T-aman seasons. In the aus and boro seasons, only those farmers who have their own pond can cultivate a little optimal amount of land with the help of surface water. However, these poor small and marginal farmers seemingly have a low ownership of ponds or any kharies as well. In the irrigated area on the other hand, farmers have a better access to water (mostly DTW irrigation water) and leasing of lands. Getting tenancy or leasing of better lands in the irrigated area is more competitive.

Small and marginal farmers human capitals in terms of education and health condition seems to be of moderate condition. Usually, a large number of farmers live under the literacy level. However, as the attendance in the primary level schools has increased in the recent years. Peoples of this category have a relative access to healthcare institutions that varying according to distances from their homes. Buying medicine after getting advice from doctors was common.

The status of financial assets among the small and marginal farmers are quite poor as well as people of these category have grip of on low amount of savings and cash in their households.

The status of social assets in the non-irrigated area is quite low as participation of small and marginal farmers in union parishads(local government) decisions; formal cooperatives; and government lead institutions (excepting hospitals and educational centers) are often poor. However, in the non-irrigated areas much improved situation are observed.

The ownership of the physical assets of this category of farmers is higher than the other types of assets. Most of the small and marginal faming households have some measure of agricultural equipments and tools (of relative value) that are essential for cultivation. Many of the marginal households own livestock and poultry.

The comparative compositions of the status of these five types of assets are presented in the following spider pentagon shaped figures.

Small and marginal farmers (Non-irrigated areas)	Small and marginal farmers (Irrigated areas)

Figure 5-4. Asset composition of small and marginal farmers in non-irrigated and irrigated areas

While we look at the comparative figures, we can synergies that the small and marginal faming households in the irrigated areas have a greater access to all types of assets. In both the cases, the condition of the physical asset is better than the other assets. Access to natural assets, in terms of land is quite similar but the differential access to water in two cases made a relative difference in the land utilization.

In this category of livelihoods, the status of social assets seems lower than the other categories as the farmers’ cooperatives and similar institutions in the non-irrigated areas have not developed. The situation seems a bit different in the irrigated areas where people’s social activities and organizational activities have increased. This increase is probably due to the access to better irrigation facilities and consecutive management forums at a local level.

5.5.3 Mediating factors (policies and institutions)

Among the small and marginal farmers the status of social assets or capital seems to be lower than the other categories. Among the farmers in the non-irrigated areas, the cooperatives and similar type of institutions have not quite developed. People rely on the local informal social institutions such as kinship or agrarian patrons for support in the critical times.

The situation seems a bit different in the irrigated areas where people’s social activities and organizational activities have increased.

One clear difference between the small-marginal farmers in two types of areas is the relative access to the irrigation that allows the farmers to consider additional livelihood options. In this case, a clear distinction is that the access to irrigation water through BMDA and other supportive development activities have actually allowed these irrigated villages for additional crops. Such facilitated corps are boro, winter crops and aus.

The social activities revolving around the sources or irrigation and other types of water have remained thus as a major mediating factor for small and marginal farmers. Linkages with the local influential and local elites are also important for small and marginal farmers.

5.5.4 Livelihood strategies

The major livelihood activities of small and marginal farmers in non-irrigated areas are crop cultivation, livestock rearing and wage labour. Small and marginal farmers cultivate crops such as Taman, aus and winter vegetables. About 84% (see Figure 5–5) of the total earnings of farmers come from crops among which T-aman contributes the major part (52%).

Besides crop cultivation, farmers rely on livestock rearing and wage labour. Traditionally large and small farmers are engaged in livestock rearing within household domain that supports crop cultivation (e.g. cattle rearing which are used for plowing land and manure). Women members are involved in rearing these livestock and poultry in their domestic chores.

Mostly small and marginal farmers are engaged in on-farm and off-farm wage labour along with farming in their own land. Livestock rearing and wage labour contribute almost similar proportion (livestock rearing 9% and wage labour 7%) in their livelihoods.

Small and marginal farmers
(non-irrigated)

Figure 5-5. Income earnings from livelihood activities of small-marginal farmer in non-irrigated area

Small and marginal farmers
(irrigated area)

Figure 5-6. Income earnings from livelihood activities of small-marginal farmer in irrigated area.

The small and marginal farming group in the irrigated areas have a wider scope of growing more crop due to the irrigation facilities. The climatic risks and drought in particular have different types of impacts on various crops. The overriding impacts on non-climatic risks (e.g. electricity failure or high price of agricultural equipments and so forth) often make the farmer vulnerable in a different way.

In this area, the small and marginal farmers were found to be involved in three types of paddy cultivation. Although a heavy reliance on T-aman crop is evident (40%) shown in the Figure 5–6, almost another 40 odd percent comes from the boro and aus cultivation that is primarily outputs of better DTW irrigation coverage.

Small and marginal farmers in the irrigated areas seemingly cultivating vegetables and other rabi crops and also involved in mango and other type of farming. This is quite evident that as far as the drought and associated risks are concerned the small and marginal farmers in the irrigated area are lesser vulnerable than the non-irrigated areas and have various options open for their farming. The irrigation system has actually allowed small and marginal farmers these agricultural options.

5.5.5 Livelihood outcomes

The major livelihood outcome for the small and marginal farmers is the relative access to crops that determine their status of both the food and income insecurity.

This is clearly observed that the access to water and irrigation facilities in the study area is situating the differential condition of both asset composition and to build internal resilience to take up other opportunities for farmers.

As in the non-irrigated study villages, small and marginal farmers are gradually becoming more and more dependent over the limited cropping opportunity and gradually becoming exposed to climatic variability the gradual uncertainties of livelihoods are increasing and the erosion of different types of assets has become a trend.

5.6 Livelihood profile of “wage labourers”

5.6.1 Vulnerability context

In general, besides the covariant climatic hazards, the wage labourers in the area are vulnerable to a large number of non-climatic factors. Covariant climatic variability particularly the erratic temperature, shortage of rainfall, high evaporation rate and the overriding drought situation make the overall agriculture of the area vulnerable.

The agricultural wage labourers face a direct consequence of these climatic factors in their livelihoods while the nonagricultural wage labourers become vulnerable to their livelihood that often fluctuate and correlate with the status of the agriculture of the respective areas. With this dual impact on the agriculture and non-agricultural domains as well as having limited options for livelihoods, the overall availability of employment remains as a critical phenomenon for the wage labourers.

In the non-irrigated area in particular, the wage labourers are prone to the shortage of labour opportunities, as their access to boro and the aus crops remain almost nonexistent.

Among a number of non-climatic factors, lack of year round employment opportunity, lack of cash/savings, lack of food storage, lack (ownership) of cultivable land, lack of healthcare facilities, poor wage rate, low female employment opportunities, commuting problems to other locations for work, distressed seasonal migration, suffering and diseases of domestic livestock/poultry, tenancy complexities are among the prominent ones.

A comparative overview of various types of the vulnerability factors that form the vulnerability context of the wage labourers in the area are outlined in the Table below.

Table 5-5. Major vulnerability factors of the wage labourers.

Source: CEGIS Fieldwork 2005.

Legends:
	= Relatively low level of impact
	= Relatively higher level of impact
	= Not identified

5.6.2 Livelihood assets/capitals

The wage labourers seems to have a lower proportion of access to most of the livelihood assets or capitals in both the non-irrigated and irrigated village while the situation of the wage labourers in the non-irrigated area is the most adverse.

Access to natural, financial and physical assets of the wage labourers is lower than the social of human assets. Rural wage labourers in the study villages were found to be holding only a very limited amount of land. The access to cultivable lands remained quite low as well as these categories of the livelihood groups have a very lower landholding capacity. In most of the cases the wage labourers own only their homestead lands and hold almost no or very low amount of cultivable agricultural land in the irrigated areas as well.

The status of financial, natural and the physical are the lowest ones. The wage labour households in this area usually depend on the regular wages in some cases and in many cases in seasonal shares. Mostly in case of the agricultural wage labourers, usually the wages often received in terms of seasonal returns in kind and a low proportion of cash. However, in case of the non-agricultural wage labour these wages are of more monetary (i.e. cash) and but also with in kind wages in many areas.

Usually the wage labour households have a limited amount of financial savings. The limited amount of savings that they own, they save primarily for next round of lean period where they would not find any labour employment outside.

In almost all the cases, it was observed that the wage labour households have a very limited holding of physical assets that are of valuable. However, these wage labour households in both irrigated and nonirrigated areas were found holding over some number of domestic livestock such as goats, cows and poultry/birds such as ducks, goose and hen. However, most of the wage labour households do not have holding over a greater number of domestic livestock that have a greater sellable value. These wage labour households rarely own valuable cows that are suitable for farming.

Rural wage labours (Non-irrigated areas)	Rural wage labours (Irrigated areas)

Figure 5-7. Asset composition of rural wage labourers in non-irrigated and irrigated areas

In general, the situation of the asset portfolio seems to a little better among the irrigated areas. This is primarily due to the increased amount of availability of rural employment in the irrigated areas comparing to the non-irrigated areas. The wage labourers in these irrigated areas have additional access to employment in the boro, aus and in a certain extent to the winter season crops as well.

5.6.3 Mediating factors (policies and institutions)

Within the given climatic contexts in the study are, the lives and livelihoods of the wage labourers in the study villages are on one hand influenced by the factors of intrinsic their societal characteristics as well as the exogenous situations to the community.

Among the intrinsic societal characteristics, the prominent factors as the socio-economic situation, social classes, ownership of assets, the gender and diversity situation in respective villages are prominently identified. Status of poverty situation of the wage labourers is of critical nature that influences much of the sections of the wage labourers in the study area.

However, among the endogenous context the prevailing situation of the women labour force in the community is another factor that is influencing the day-to-day life of the female members of the wage labour households. The existing perception towards the female ‘purdah’ (veil) and associated traditional beliefs towards the confined condition of many of the female in some area often remain as another critical factor that influences the low level of employment opportunities for the women section. The low wage rate for the female wage labourers is another factor that is often derived from the above situation.

Rural wage labourers contexts are also mediated by their social capital composition where the participation in respective ‘local labour groups’ in their villages is one of the major factors that are influencing largely.

On the other hand, the presence of middle men for getting labour outside their own communities (primarily the connections with those people who regularly pay visit to the nearest towns or other districts where work is available in the boro, aus and winter season) are one of the most critical factor for wage labourers.

Among the policy factors absence of regulatory or promotional activities for the wage labourers in the study area are also critical issue for the comparatively poorer section of the society.

In some of the irrigated areas, where the boro and some of the aus is largely missing are largely influenced by migration. Wage labours from these areas also migrated to other areas on a seasonal basis as well as commute from their native homes daily to nearest districts such as Bogra and Rajshahi. Cross border seasonal migration is another factor that needs to be looked at to a deeper manner as well.

5.6.4 Livelihood strategies

The most common livelihood activities of wage labourers in the non-irrigated area are wage labour, livestock rearing and rickshaw/van pulling (see Figure 5–8). The major share of income (73%) come from wage labour which include both on-farm and off-farm activities. most of the wage labours are involved in agriculture during cropping season.

Other than wage labour, they are involved in livestock rearing in their household domain and rickshaw/van pulling. These activities take almost same share of total earnings (livestock rearing-13% and rickshaw/van pulling - 14%).

Wage labour
(non-irrigated area)

Figure 5-8. Income earnings from livelihood activities of wage labour in non-irrigated area

Wage labour
(irrigated area)

Figure 5-9. Income earnings from livelihood activities of wage labour in irrigated area

Wage labourers in the irrigated area were found involved in a lower number of livelihood activities and more concentrated on the wage labour activities and rickshaw van pulling (the Figure 5–9 suggests almost 95%) in their respective native locations. As in the irrigated areas more employment opportunities persist and the wage rate is better than the other areas wage labourers tend to stay in their own areas and involved in above two livelihood activities in a concentrated manner. Comparing the wage labours in the non-irrigated areas the livelihood distresses are lesser in the irrigated area due to availability of work.

5.6.5 Livelihood outcomes

The livelihood situation of the wage labourers discussed above seemingly composed of various entwining factors of climatic and non-climatic contexts.

However, among these situations the livelihood outcomes for these wage labourers in both the area seems largely dependent on the state of migration, economy and society. The variable climatic factors make the overall agriculture vulnerable but the societal contexts were found making the livelihoods of the wage labourers vulnerable to these climatic factors. The relatively vulnerable status of income security, security of their food and the security of their human conditions remain immensely affected and one the other side fall back their coping capacities to climatic variations.

Members of these groups find seasonal migration, additional labour, working for poor wage, advance sell of labour, borrowing, consumption adjustments/limit as coping or adjusting mechanisms to their livelihood insecurities.

Comparing to the other livelihood groups such as various groups of farmers, fishers or businessmen this working group remain lesser vulnerable to the climatic factors but largely remain vulnerable to their societal contexts and lack of opportunities. As a consequence, a dual adversity of the climatic (although lesser than the other primary producers) situation and the direct influence of their current state (i.e. the poverty status) and the endogenous given conditions (i.e. dowry or patron system) make a ‘spiral effect’ on the livelihoods of the wage labour groups.

5.7 Livelihood profile of “petty traders/businessmen”

5.7.1 Vulnerability context

Beside the covariant climatic factors that are affecting the overall agriculture sector, the major forms of vulnerability factors of petty traders/businessmen are primarily of nonclimatic in nature.

The climatic conditions and the adversity of the drought in the agriculture in the area bring some direct and some indirect effects over the livelihoods of the petty traders.

During the drought affected seasons the petty traders also face a limited sell of their products and often subjected to severe economic constraints.

Petty traders/businessmen’s conditions in the study area become largely vulnerable to many profound non-climatic factors. Besides limited number of buyers in the market during the drought season, factors such as lack of cash/savings for alternative non-agriculture based business, investment and/or for consumption, limited ownership of sufficient cultivable land, complex access to credit/loan systems etc.), lack of non-farm employment opportunities, low market price for goods, commuting problems to other locations for work and for business constitute petty traders/businessmen’ vulnerability context in both irrigated and non-irrigated areas.

A relative overview of various types of the vulnerability factors that form the vulnerability context of the petty traders/businessmen in the area are outlined in the Table below.

Table 5-6. Major vulnerability factors of the petty traders/businessmen

Legends:
	= Relatively low level of impact
	= Relatively higher level of impact
	= Not identified

5.7.2 Livelihood assets/capitals

Limited holding of natural resources in both irrigated and non-irrigated areas make the petty traders/businessmen in the area subjected to consider activities outside the farming. As the petty businessmen households in the study area have limited access to the land and eventually on access to water, they rely on other types of livelihood assets for their livelihoods.

Among the petty traders/businessmen it emerged that these groups have two types of trading or business strategies. These groups in some season and in the irrigated areas become involved with the petty trading of agricultural produces. They tend to take the agricultural produces from the household or farm domain to market domains.

In the drought affected dry seasons petty traders/businessmen get more involved with non-farm products and businesses such activities are tea stall operation, shop keeping, selling households essential goods and various hawking activities.

However, for both the purposes this trading group need seed or revolving money or relative amount. Therefore, the petty/traders businessmen were found have limited but some holding on financial assets. People of this group have an access to rolling cash or continuing trading activities. In this respect, this particular group has a better access to the financial assets comparing to the other forms of assets.

Petty traders/businessmen often rely heavily on two more aspects for maintaining liquid assets in their business. They rely on social and physical assets to supplement their business on a regular basis.

In the critical times the petty business households try to maintain some good relationship with the larger businessmen and other business influential for getting goods on credit. However, in the nonirrigated areas it emerged that the scope of such relations remained largely narrow.

A comparative schematic difference among the assets of the petty traders/businessmen in two types of areas is shown in the two diagrams in Figures 5–10.

Petty trader/businessmen (Non-irrigated areas)	Petty trader/businessmen (Irrigated areas)

Figure 5-10. Asset composition of petty traders/businessmen in non-irrigated and irrigated areas

5.7.3 Mediating factors (policies and institutions)

The livelihood activities of the petty traders/businessmen in the study area were found highly mediated by the agricultural settings in the area that remained vulnerable to the climatic risks. But beside their agriculturally based trading they are also remained influenced by the settings of socioeconomic/ market conditions as well as the institutional supports.

In the non-irrigated area the petty trader tend to get involved more with the non-agriculturally based activities while in the irrigated areas they take up dual activities.

Trading as a livelihood activity in the area were found influenced by the several factors such as road transport systems, access to credit/loan facilities (high interest rate, access etc.), market system/facilities, relationship with the influential and wholesale businessmen and so forth.

5.7.4 Livelihood strategies

As a livelihood strategy, petty traders/businessmen are found involved with activities such as vegetable selling, grocery shops, roadside business, tea stall, hawking, ferrying garments etc. both in an out of the study areas.

Petty trader/businessmen
(non-irrigated area)

Figure 5-11. Income earnings from livelihood activities of petty trader/businessmen in nonirrigated area

Major share of their income (64%) comes from small business or trading (see Figure 5–11). At the same time, livestock rearing contribute a significant amount (21%) to their earnings. Some of them grow crop in their own land and/or other’s land or work as wage labour besides their main business.

Petty trader/businessmen
(irrigated area)

Figure 5-12. Income earnings from livelihood activities of petty trader/businessmen in irrigated area

In the irrigated area, like the wage labourers in the irrigated area the petty traders are also involved in a combination of multiple livelihood activities. The composition of the petty traders livelihood activities (see Figure 5–12) shows that the major two livelihood activities: shop business and the wage labour combines almost 80% of the livelihood outcomes.

The petty traders in irrigated area mostly rely on the grocery and seasonal vegetable cultivation as small business. While the irrigation facility also allow them to cultivate or work for wage within their native area. Rearing sellable livestock in their household domains helps the traders in generating some cash to supplement the petty business when the demand of more liquid money arises.

5.7.5 Livelihood outcomes

As discussed earlier that the livelihood activities and their various strategies in the study area were found rely on both agricultural contexts of their native villages as well as the socio-economic and other associated factors. It emerged that the petty traders livelihoods are vulnerable in terms of both the contests. Members of this livelihood groups try to sustain their livelihoods by managing back and forth their various types of assets as well as adjusting with at farm and household level.

However, two major outcomes often they face due to climatic variations and non-climatic risks persisting in their respective native areas. Firstly, members of these groups are prone to seasonal insecurity of their income and financial assets. And secondly, and more importantly unable to change their household and livelihoods conditions towards a more better situation. As a consequence, the petty trading livelihood groups remained largely stagnant and with the increasing vulnerabilities in their associated agricultural domains they are also increasingly getting into a more adverse situation on a gradual manner.

5.8 Livelihood profile of “fishers (fishermen/fish traders/fishing labours)”

Fishers as a livelihood group was difficult to find in the study upazilas. The latest official statistics suggests that only 0.35 percent of the households are involved solely on the fishing activities in the study villages. With the deteriorated condition and with the increased climatic variability the tradition fishers as a fishing group has actually started to vanish from the major part of the study upazilas. Although in the monsoon the numbers of fishers grow but they are largely farmers or wage labours who seasonally fish for consumption purposes and do not rely on the fishing activity as their prime livelihoods. Only a very small number of households of fishers who solely rely on the fishing activities remained in the close parts of the Punarbhaba and the Mohananda rivers in the study area. These households are difficult to categorize as a unique livelihood group in the study area.

However, on the basis of some such households the present profiling is situated.

5.8.1 Vulnerability context

The fishers in the study area were found largely vulnerable to the climatic conditions. The fishers live in a vulnerability context where the overall climatic extremity and erraticity such as low rainfall in the area, high evaporation rate (i.e. locally considered dryness), high temperature, declining condition of natural water bodies (primarily the reduced flow in the major rivers and dried up canals), declining number of pond/dighi/kharies, declining natural fish species and so forth are the prominent ones. Primary the “hydrological drought” and the “metrological drought” both pose an aversive impact over the fishing habitation, aquatic environment and availability of water in the dry season.

The overriding non-climatic factors such as limited opportunities for fishing (fish markets, storage etc.), difficulties in getting lease for fishing of khas (public) water bodies, complex access to the credit facilities (high interest rate, poor access etc.) remained as the other side of the coin of the vulnerability context of the fishers in the area.

This situation is persisting in both the irrigated and non-irrigated areas but in the irrigated area some practice of culture fisheries were observed. However, these culture fisheries or fishing ponds often are not owned by the fishing households instead the large farmers who have ownership of pond near the DTWs facilities get the benefits.

A relative nature of the major vulnerability factors for the fishers are shown in the Table below.

Table 5-7. Major vulnerability factors of the fishers

Legends:
	= Relatively low level of impact
	= Relatively higher level of impact
	= Not identified

5.8.2 Livelihood assets/capitals

The fishing households seemingly have a very low level of asset compositions. As in the stud area the natural water bodies and perennial water bodies are scarce the fishers have very sporadic and limited access to the natural assets. The limited access to aquatic resources is thereby is a natural consequence as well as direct result of the climatic variability. The access to DTW derived water and access to water retaining facilities in the irrigated areas seems to be a providing the fisher of irrigated area a bit upper hand.

Fishers poses very limited access to the financial resource in the study area. The fishing household have limited savings and/or additional revolving cash as of the petty businessmen or even the farmers.

Although a limited number of fishing households are still left in the area, they have a strong bonding among themselves. Most of the fishing households operate in informal groups and share their income and outputs among themselves.

Many of the fishing equipments (such as nets etc.) are owned by small groups of fishers comprising 4–6 fishing households. In addition to the fishing gears/equipments the fishing households are found have a quite limited holding of any valuable assets.

Fishermen/fish traders/fishing labours (Non-irrigated areas)	Fishermen/fish traders/fishing labours (Irrigated areas)

Figure 5-13. Asset composition of fishers in non-irrigated and irrigated areas

The two figures on the asset composition clearly suggest that the fishing households have a poor access to the various types of assets while the fishers in the non-irrigated area are the worst of.

5.8.3 Mediating factors (policies and institutions)

Livelihoods of the fishers are largely mediated or influenced by the climatic conditions. Climatic conditions discussed in the vulnerability context section remain as the prime threat to the livelihoods which many of the fishing families are not capable enough by themselves to overcome.

The low level of capabilities and limited natural opportunities persist for the fishers the help or support of institutional domains are also found limited in the area. Limited year round development activities for fishing, lack of support facilities, poor “know-hows” to adapt technologically have an adverse bearing over the livelihoods of the fishers in the area. In many cases the major development focus in the area remain on the farmers leave a poorer concentration on the fishers in the area.

5.8.4 Livelihood strategies

In this thriving condition, only a few households have actually could be able to adapt and stayed in their native villages. But, these fishing households find some unique strategy to cope. Some are as follows:

• Consider major possible routes of fishing related activities. Such as fishing, fish culture, work as a wage labour on fishing ponds owned by others, sell fish in the markets.

• In order to cope they operate in groups.

• Move around on a regular basis to other areas where fishing opportunities are there.

5.8.5 Livelihood outcomes

In spite of these multiple coping measures and strategies to overcome the vulnerabilities the situation for the fishers were found quite adverse for the fishers. As the criticality in the climatic conditions are increasing the fishing communities are gradually fading away in quite succession. As a consequence, the permanent migration of the fishing household or even rapid change of the occupation have been a factors for the fishers in the critical most parts of the study area.

5.9 Least vulnerable groups: “large businessmen”

Among the major livelihood groups existing in the study area, large businessmen were found as the least vulnerable to the climatic conditions. The average situation of drought have covariant impacts on the livelihoods of the large businessmen as a major return of their livelihoods are associated with the local agricultural context. Severe spells of droughts were found to have adverse effects on the large businessmen. Some of the vulnerabilities that emerged for this category of livelihoods are shown in the Table below.

Table 5-8. Major vulnerability factors of the large businessmen

Legends:
	= Relatively low level of impact
	= Relatively higher level of impact
	= Not identified

Large businessmen are primarily involved in both agriculture and non-agriculture related business and farming in their own land as well as livestock rearing in their homestead in a more commercial manner. Agriculture related business such as rice business, fertilizer and pesticide business remained as major business activities.

Large businessmen
(non-irrigated)

Figure 5-14. Income earnings from livelihood activities of large businessmen in non-irrigated area

One of the major significant factors of the livelihood composition of the large businessmen is the comparative flexibility and reliance of agricultural and non-agricultural business (see Figure 5–14). The non-agricultural business is largely remain unaffected by the climatic risks while in case of the agricultural business the large farmers deal with only the agricultural inputs and supply of irrigation facilities for which are large demand is always prevailing in the study area. This livelihood composition and flexibility put the large businessmen in the least vulnerable class among the other livelihood groups in the area.

Large businessmen
(irrigated area)

Figure 5-15. Income earnings from livelihood activities of large businessmen in irrigated area

The large businessmen in the irrigated area are also involved in agricultural and non-agricultural businesses. However, comparing to the non-irrigated areas the large businessmen get a larger benefit in agricultural business. The irrigation opportunities in the area provides the large businessmen for a share of farming as well (see Figure 5–15).

The analytical overview of the livelihoods assets for the large businessmen are found well build in all five types of asset compositions in the study area.

Large businessmen (Non-irrigated areas)	Large businessmen (Irrigated areas)

Figure 5-16. Asset composition of petty traders/businessmen in non-irrigated and irrigated areas

The relative condition of the financial and physical assets are distinctly in a better form among all five types of assets. This indicates the economic upper hand of the conditions of this particular livelihood group in the study area.

However, the as the natural given condition is largely affected by drought the access to the natural setting remained as the lowest among the non-irrigated areas.

In overall comparison, the condition of the large farmer in the irrigated area emerged as the best while in the non-irrigated areas access to natural, human and social assets for the large businessmen remained as relatively deteriorated.

In the given covariant situation of severe droughts, the large farmers demonstrate some form of coping in devising their livelihood strategies. Although the severe climatic extremes and severe drought situation in particular, adoption of several coping strategies makes large businessmen vulnerable by a cooperatively lesser degree. Some such coping strategies are as follows:

• Livelihood diversification: consideration of more than one livelihood activity at a time works as insurance of livelihoods for this group. Decreasing dependency over a single major livelihood activity makes vulnerable by a lesser degree.

• Limited dependency over the primary production systems: this option is adopted by large businessmen widely. Large businessmen in many cases are observed that they do not tend to operate the agricultural production on their land by themselves. Instead they tend to rent out land to the small and marginal farmers in the move vulnerable years. On an average year often they again operated farming by themselves with the help of cheep wage labour.

• Setting up buffer savings/assets: one major factor that makes this group lesser vulnerable is the buffer savings and the financial status of this group. When a large businessman build a buffer financial savings one severe year of drought already rented out to others do not have put a major threat to their livelihoods or economic strata.

• Maintaining clients through credit and advance sell: the large businessmen remain less vulnerable as often they given their goods and equipments on credit to the primary cultivators. They deal with the products and goods which they can get ready cash return immediately which do not have immediate impacts of any climatic variability and insecurity.

• Building up liquid financial assets: large businessmen in the area are also deal with a big amount of liquid asset as cash money. As they deal with cash money and liquid savings people of this group can also withdraw their investments in a faster manner than the primary producers. Lending money to the others or purchasing any asset in the critical moments from the vulnerable groups remains possible due to this factor.

• Maintaining exogenous market relations: The large businessmen also maintain a larger network beyond their area. Maintenance or exogenous market network in other districts and upazilas make possible for them to bring (supply) or send (withdraw) goods in a critical time.

5.10 Least vulnerable groups: “large farmers²”

²Under the scope of the present study, the large farmer group has not been considered as a major vulnerable livelihood group and not studied in detail. There are scopes for further deeper investigation on this livelihood group remains.

Large farmers alike the large businessmen group in the study area was found to be vulnerable by a lesser degree. Although the severity of drought situation and other forms of climatic hazards affect the large farmers’ land and the production system similar to the other members in the community (a covariant factor), but their several type of access to other forms of capitals and assets (endogenous and idiosyncratic factors) makes them vulnerable by a comparatively lesser degree. Such influencing factors are:

• Access to better lands: The large farmers were found to have better access to better types of lands in the community. Large farmers have holding over much of the lower lands where water remains for longer time and with a low rain water comes down to their lands flowing from the terraces. These lands are relatively holds a higher value and price in the area.

• Access to lands near better sources of water retaining facilities: Large farmers in the area were found to have access to lands near the better sources of water. Lands near to water retaining sources such as ponds, kharies, digh i, canals etc. allow them to go for boro and aus crop.

• Having buffer from the T-Aman season: On the other hand like the large businessmen the large farmers make a buffer production in the T-Aman season. This higher amount of T-aman production from their large amount of land make them affluent. Any loss of other crops such as aus crop or ‘capital intensive’ boro crop often become an additional form of income for the large farmers and do not make them over reliance on these ‘climatically risky’ crops.

• Ability to arrange additional enhanced irrigation facilities: In the irrigated areas where DTWs are operational often become vulnerable to any anthropogenic failures such as electricity failure or unavailability of sufficient layouts for irrigation canals to the lands. However, large farmers in the irrigation area seems to have abilities to overcome these situation through deploying additional extension of canal systems by themselves (in own cost) or arrange supplementary irrigation systems for the interim period of DTW failures. These measures make them less susceptible to the climatic variability.

• Better economic conditions: In general the large farmers are more equipped financially and in terms of having more production in a single season or having just more crops. However, this better situation in terms of economic conditions allow to take more alterative crops such as mango orchards or businesses. The better economic situation also allow the large farmers to take up timely agricultural measures such as timely processing of lands employing additional labors to their farm lands or maintaining additional storage of agricultural inputs that are often become critical in severe drought years.

Having discussed all above issues, it emerged from the study that alike the other group of farmers such as the small farmers or the marginal farmers, the large farmers in the non-irrigated area are also become highly vulnerable when the drought situation becomes severe of the variation of the timing becomes significant. As a consequence, these endogenous and idiosyncratic factors often remain futile.

5.11 Climate variations and gender³ specific vulnerabilities

³ Similar scope of detailed gender assessment and analysis is open and remained outside the scope of present stud.

Under the present study some observations on the gender specific vulnerabilities of the major livelihood groups emerged. Some of such findings on the gender specific vulnerabilities are outlined sepeately for both non-irrigated areas and in irrigated areas.

In general terms, the women members in the non-irrigated areas are facing a higher degree of vulnerability comparing to the irrigated areas. However, in irrigated areas where the villagers have a limited access to the potable water often face some degree of vulnerabilities as well.

Table 5-9. Climatic variations and gender specific vulnerabilities

Source: CEGIS Fieldwork 2005.