Global Forum on Food Security and Nutrition (FSN Forum)

On An Effective Way of Channelling Remittances from Migrant Workers into Gainful Food Production and Sale in their Home Countries

In order to enhance its clarity, we have paraphrased the topic of this discussion. This contribution comes in two parts; in the first, we will establish a clear goal and then identify the various difficulties we need to overcome to attain it. In the second, we will propose an approach that may surmount some of those difficulties and propose concrete ways and means of achieving our objective. It also assumes that the term ‘migrant workers’ refers to those who are employed in foreign countries.

Section 1: The goal.

It would be reasonable to suggest that our aim would be to serve two logically inseparable purposes viz., to make a useful contribution to the national food production and to enable our target group to earn a decent livelihood through food production and sale. As it will be seen later, there are excellent reasons for us to limit our goal to this end.

Section 2: General feasibility.

Let us first consider some elementary criteria of feasibility:

• Is there adequate physical and political security in the proposed project area?
• Is the land tenure there secure?
• Is the area’s infra-structure adequate for the proposed food production? This does not mean having the most modern infra-structure, but one adequate for the programme.
• Does the physical state or the general health of the participants permit their active participation in it?
• Is there sufficient arable land procurable at an affordable price?
• If food production is not possible in the area, are there opportunities forfood sale?

Section 3: Specific feasibility.

Here, we are concerned with two very different factors viz., the willingness and the ability of a proposed group fruitfully to participate in a programme. Irrespective of the availability of technical expertise and every other requisite resource, no target group would engage in a programme unless it is willing to do so. Their willingness depends on their belief that it is desirable as it serves their interest. When a target group believes that the current programme does so, its members would be willing to participate in the programme. This willingness cannot be taken for granted.

Those who are willing to participate in the programme, would be able to do so only if they possess the required knowledge of what should be done and how. But their successful carrying out of the programme depends on their possession of an adequate skill to do so. This knowledge and skill constitutes the competence the participants of the programme should have.

Section 4: Desires of migrant workers.

Let us now consider what impact the real desires and abilities of the target group would have on their actual willingness to join the proposed programme. This requires us to place the migrant workers in four broad groups whose aspirations and abilities vary widely:

• The qualified professionals like technical experts, health personnel, academics, etc., who may return home back to their professions after having improved their financial status or procure similar employment in the same or in another country.
• Medium grade technicians like electricians, plumbers, carpenters, mechanics, drivers etc., who generally wish to return home to open their own business.
• Semi-skilled workers like waiters, labourers, porters, etc., whose number is considerable and who do not possess skills other than what they may have acquired during their foreign employment. Their competence in food production and sale is often very limited.
• Domestic servants; a very large number of women from the poorest countries are employed in Middle Eastern lands and Europe in this capacity. Usually, they possess few skills pertinent to the present task.

The abilities and the limitations in those four groups may seem to pose a considerable challenge to the success of the proposed project. However, it pales into insignificance if we should look at the reality of their desires and aspirations with respect to their willingness to invest their earnings in food production and sale. Based on our own observations and others who are not blind to the harsh realities of life, the following list represents what the majority of migrant workers in the last three groups and their dependents desire to achieve with their earnings:

• Purchase consumer electronics, jewellery, clothes, electrical household equipment, etc.,which are often for display.
• Repair or build a home which generally consumes a considerable part of their earnings.
• Settlement of debt.
• Their own marriage or that of their dependents.
• Start their own small business.

We mention these in order to emphasise that it is not so easy to secure the willingness of a considerable number of migrant workers and their dependents, especially in areas where their participation in the programme would be of the greatest personal and public utility. We will discuss how this may be achieved later on.

Consider on the other hand the reasonably successful results that obtained in Calabria and Sicily a little over a century ago. Some of the migrants from those areas to Argentina and United States of North America returned to their villages with sufficient funds to purchase land and engage in agriculture or start small family-run businesses. Notice that in all these instances, they were contadini who were familiar with cultivation of land, which mirrors the current situation in Tajikistan.

Moreover, in both instances the people involved were more or less firmly anchored to their local culture. This cultural anchor is often very lose among most migrant workers especially those who come from less affluent countries whose independence is of a recent date. Such people are all too often prone to absorb the thoughtless consumerism prevalent in their host countries.

Provided such willingness and competence obtain, success of each programme depends on deciding on an achievable goal as its objective.

Section 5: National goal.

Making a useful contribution to national food production would entail:

• A qualitative or a quantitative increase in food production.
• It would make food produce by the programme available to the local end-users at an affordable cost. Its export does not often achieve this result.
• Its production will be environmentally benign and sustainable.
• It will promote local agricultural biodiversity.

Section 6: Identifying a project specific goal.

In identifying a project specific goal in food production, we need to consider the following:

• What kinds and quantities of food are most needed in the area covered by the project.
• What kind of required food may be best produced in the area with respect to its soil, geography and climate? 
• Do the participants have sufficient competence in cooperative food production and sale?
• Apart from remitters of funds and their dependents, who else may be included and on what terms? This is very important in order to optimise the rewards of the migrant workers and their dependents, for in all ‘competitive’ food systems intermediaries derive inordinate profits at the expense of food producers and the end-users. This would hardly induce foreign workers their earnings in such schemes.
• What precisely is meant by ‘agri-business?’ We assume that it means competitive food production and sale. Can those who selected this term explain how a ‘competitive’ activity may proceed without leaving some losers? Such activities often include outside intermediaries whose attributes we have just described. We do not care to enrich outsiders at the expense of migrant workers and their dependents.

Section 7: Participant competence.

The competence required by the participants can be placed in three categories:

• Food production including cultivation, animal husbandry and fishing.
• food preservation, packing, storage and transport.
• Sale.

A participant may acquire competence in any one or more of these according to one’s aptitude for the task one intends to undertake. The challenge here is how to impart this competence to those who wish to participate in the programme.

Section 8: Demography of the migrant workers.

A careful survey of the demographic distribution of migrant workers in their homelands will show that a significant majority of them come from deprived areas of cities or towns. This makes it rather difficult for many potential participants to engage in food production to a worthwile extent. Moreover, arable land in such countries is already owned by cultivators or agri-businesses and land value is at a premium. Moreover, the migrant workers may not be willing to move out of their home areas.

Section 9: Financing mechanism.

Even though its details are not very clear, the pilot programme seems to have deviced an adequate financing mechanism. However, in our view, it appears to channel an inordinate portion of the funds on infra-structural improvements, which ought to be addressed by the host governments involved.

Section 10:

The question then, is how to resolve the difficulties outlined in previous sections in a realistic manner, so that we may device a flexible generic programme framework that could be fleshed out to suit a wide variety of circumstances. While the criteria described in section 5 should be always met, we may allow a certain degree of flexibility in some other areas as long as they are not at the expense of the remitters of foreign exchange and the end-users.

In the following sections we will propose a more or less simultaneous sets of actions, each designed to deal with the challenges we have already outlined. Readers may notice that when a course of action is not necessary, one may skip it and proceed to the next. Every attempt has been made to ensure the completeness of both the analytical and the synthetical parts of this proposal.

Section 11:

In order to ascertain the general feasibility of launching the programme in an area, the information pertinent to the requirements given in section 2 should be collected. It is often advisable to gather this information by personal inspection rather than relying on public or the official sources.

Section 12: Participant willingness.

The pilot programme does not describe how it ensured the participant willingness; perhaps, in the area it was launched, it was not a concern. However, if one looks at the distribution of the migrant workers on a world map, it will be clear that most of them come from areas  we have pointed out in section 3. Their willingness to participate would be frequently limited to sale of food owing to  their location, current aspirations and lack of competence. Most of them may meanwhile show some interest in sale of food if they could be convinced of its long-term feasibility and profit.

On the other hand, in places where socio-economic and cultural conditions akin to those  of the pilot project area obtain, a generically similar projects may be successfully carried out. In order to ensure that it meets the conditions given in section 5, following information should be gathered from reliable local sources. Please note we do not mean ‘research’ or ‘data collection’ here. Every effort should be made to consult local cultivators, fishermen, keepers of household animals, etc.

• What crops, household animals are best reared in the project area; types of fish caught. Refer to local food culture for real world guidance.
• What methods of environmentally benign and sustainable modes of food production have been used in the project area? If some of those do not meet those two conditions, what appropriate modes may be used? Please note we have applied the phrase ‘environmentally benign and sustainable’ for a simple reason. Cultivation in a sealed environment like a green house may be sustainable, but the deforestation of an area it requires for its establishment and its obvious interference with the local solar heat exchange alters the local climate which could often have a detrimental effect on the surrounding environment, hence it is not benign to it. As the world is now infested with a myriad of ‘logies’ of varying triviality, we will simply use a phrase everyone could understand.
• Ascertain whether it would be possible to incorporate the food production part of the current scheme into a joint venture with other family farmers, fishermen and/or small holders of the area in order to establish a food production cooperative. It must be clearly understood that such participants are not to receive any financial support from the programme while they may benefit from technical expertise, joint purchase mechanism and such fringe benefits from it. Their inclusion in the programme could provide valuable mentors to those who are new comers to agriculture.
• Remitters or their kin in the project area who lack the necessary aptitude for agrivultural pursuits may engage in any one or more of the following on a cooperative basis:

I.    Preservation and packing of the project output.

II.    Its transport.

III.    Its sale to local/distant consumers.

Section 13: Urban migrant workers.

In the previous section, we hinted at a modified version of the pilot project in which this group may gainfully participate. Further, an examination of migrant worker demography in their home countries would show that a considerable number of them live in towns and cities where it would be very difficult to secure arable land at an affordable price. Therefore, we propose that such potential participants are incorporated into the programme in any one or more of the following ways:

• If they are interested in establishing a small business, then assist them to form a cooperative with others having the same background in the area to ---

I.    Sell fresh or preserved produce.

II.    Family-run small restaurant or a cash and carry place. In most countries in which migrant workers live, school feeding programmes are unknown. However, employees in public offices and private companies often purchase their meals from the cheapest places as their salaries are not high. They will provide a dependable market to the proposed establishments.

Section 14: Where to buy food for sale.

Urban food sales outlets described in the previous section could purchase their supplies from two sources depending on the availability of what is required.

• Programme participants engaged in food production.
• Nearest family farms, small holders and independent fishermen.

This linkage of food producers and sellers has several major advantages:

• It enables the programme to include those who are able to produce food
• As well as those who cannot. The latter could support both the former and family farms and small holders which is highly desirable.
• It offers those who cannot produce food a means of earning a decent livelihood on a long-term basis.
• It ensures the food producers in the programme a continuous demand for their output.

Section 15: Ways and means 1.

We shall here consider food production cooperatives. It assumes that the following has been ascertained with reference to the relevant sections above.

• General feasibility of establishment as outlined in section 2.
• What to produce with reference to sections 5 and 6.
• Are there a number of willing migrant workers in the area enough to establish a food production cooperative? Their number may be increased by local family farmers and small holders as indicated below. If so, would they be able to acquire sufficient agricultural competence within a reasonable period of time?
• Are there family farmers and small holder in the area who are willing to be mentors to the programme participants in exchange for fringe benefits as described in section 3?

If this screening proves satisfactory, then we may proceed to the next step.

Section 16: Establishment of farm cooperatives.

We think that association with already practising family farmers and small holders in the area is indispensible for the success of the programme. Their guidance and support would be essential to avoid long and non-productive agricultural training .

FAO and the local extention services could undertake to  establish the following:

• Farm cooperatives with a suitable mix of farmers and the programme participants.
• A joint purchasing mechanism for seed, implements, etc. Here the financial support will be limited to programme participants while the their mentors would benefit from lower costs.
• A mechanism for technical support.
• Whenever suitable, linking these food producers with migrant worker sales units in town and cities.

Section 17: Incorporation of urban migrant workers.

Vast majority of today’s migrant workers constitute this group whose members have very few opportunities to engage in food production in order to earn a decent living. However, by linking them with the food producing participants of the current programme, family farms and other small holders to be their salesmen, we may attain a mutually beneficial goal.

They could purchase their produce at a reasonable price and sell it either as it is or as ready-to-eat food. As has been mentioned earlier, this ought to be done on a cooperative basis where several migrant workers could engage in it as a joint venture. A single family may not have sufficient capital, personnel or competence to undertake this. This programme variant has the additional advantage of supporting family farms and small holders at no extra cost.

Section 18: Ways and means 2.

FAO and the local authorities should work together to make the goal of section 17 achievable by undertaking the following:

• Improvement or procurement of suitable locales.
• Acquisition of sales competence; often this is much easier than imparting agricultural competence.
• Establish contact with food producers described earlier.
• Set up a common purchase mechanism for all the programme sales outlets; this is often a one-time purchase whether it is a green grocer or a family-run cafe.

Section 19: Ensuring participants’ willingness and finance.

We are convinced that much remains to be done before a significant number of migrant workers would be willing to invest their earnings in the proposed programme. We do not question its worth, but public conception of agricultural pursuits being what it is, we cannot remain complaisant and hope for the best. We recommend a pro-active action by FAO and national authorities to underline the importance of agriculture and cooperative food systems by every means at their disposal.

A wide-spread and continued publicity campaign would be needed to achieve this objective. At the same time, it would be worthwhile to explore the possibility of establishing a fund to which migrant workers may contribute while working. When they return home, this fund may be used for the proposed programme. As it would be completely voluntary, one can be fairly certain that only those who are motivated and competent would join it.

Section 20: Conclusion.

We have carefully assessed the pilot programme in Tajikistan, and find that its success reflects the results that obtained around a century ago in some parts of Southern Europe. In both instances, people involved tenaciously held onto their traditional values. Unfortunately, vast majority of migrant workers of today come from former colonial domains with a very different cultural background. Moreover, most of them come from densely populated urban centra.

If carefully screened as it has been described, it would be possible to set up the proposed programme in some areas. Inclusion of the urban migrant workers in it would  be useful to sustain the food producing part of the programme. Further, participation of the former would lend support not only to themselves, but also to family farmers and small holder who are constantly under threat. A ‘save for the future’ plan proposed may prove useful not only in financing the programme, but also in ensuring the commitment of the participants.

Best wishes!

Lal Manavado.