This article is based on my dissertation titled "Experience of Poverty in Tibetan Community" prepared for the fulfillment of a Masters Degree in Development Planning and Administration.
By stratified random sampling, three settlements from southern region were selected for the study. They are Dickey Larsoe (Bylakupee) in low deprivation, Dhondenling (Kollegal) in medium and Rabgyaling (Hunsur) in high deprivation category.
I visited the settlements in September, 2003. Any family who has members receiving benefits under the Welfare programs and identified as poor by Central Tibetan Administration (C.T.A) were selected as sample for the household survey. There were 70 families with a total of 177 people in the study settlements. Data were collected from them through set questionnaires.
The aim of this study is not to locate the poor in the settlement but to understand their experiences and the nature of poverty.
Poverty is hunger, it is not having a job and is a fear of the future, living one day at a time (income deprivation). Poverty is sick and not being able to see a doctor. It is loosing a child to illness brought about by unclean water. It is not being able to go to school and not knowing how to read (service and facility deprivation). Poverty is the powerless, lack of representation and freedom (social deprivation). Poverty has many faces changing from place to place and across time and has been described in many ways. The United Nations has defined poverty very objectively as such, "An individual who can not effort to consume 2400 kilocalories per day should be treated as below poverty”. To meet the 2400 kilocalories requirement, the U.N. has calculated the minimum average earning of one U.S dollar per day as the poverty line.
It is not wrong to say that the concept of poverty is still yet to be introduced in the Tibetan community though the term is being used often in many projects. This is because we don’t have a well defined idea of poverty, its identification and eradication programs. The existing programs going on to help the poor in the settlements can be called poverty alleviation programs but I see it as pure welfare programs. The C.T.A defines poor as "An individual or a family, who can be easily judged from the appearance that they are unable to fulfill their basic necessities of life. One who has neither enough income nor financial back-up to enjoy minimum standard of living at present nor there is any chance of future improvement unless there is an intervention from outside." Besides, there are a four criteria set for identification of poor people in the settlements. They are;
1. Old people having no family support : Includes old citizens above 70 years old. People above 60 are also included if they are physically weak and unable to engage in economic activities. The category is subdivided into the well-off, middle class and poor elderlies. The middle class and poor elderlies are admitted in the Old People Home (O.P.H) where food and medical treatment are given free of cost. If they do not get admission, stipends are provided to fulfill their basic needs. The well-off elderlies get admission into the O.P.H by donating some money to the Institution.
2. Too many children to support : Families with many children without sufficient income to support the children are included in this category. These children get admission in the Tibetan Boarding Schools free of cost. Those who are not admitted receive stipends for their educational expenses.
3. Young but chronically sick : Includes working-age people who are sick and unfit to engage in any economic activity for prolonged periods of time. They receive free or subsidized treatment and after recovery, help to start a new life,
4. Unemployed youth : Youths identified as such are given Skill-training opportunities and soft loans through P.A.D.M.A, also known as Youth Empowerment Scheme (Y.E.S). C.T.A is expecting to initiate a youth employment exchange program to solve the unemployment problem.
Poverty Analysis in the Study Settlements
The analysis of poverty in my study is done on two methods, direct and indirect. The direct, "Nutritional Poverty Level" is based on the daily intake of 2400kilocalories per person as per W.H.O. requirements. It is analyzed by recording the type and quantity of food consumed by the household and then by calculating number of calories in each food item. The indirect "Income Poverty Level" is the minimum income required for consumption of 2400kilocalories. Here the market prices of the foodstuffs are taken into account to estimate the cost of the required Kilocalories.
There are two concepts associated with income poverty, so called Subsistence Level (S.L) and the Poverty Line (P.L). Subsistence level is the minimum amount required just to meet 2400K.calories while Poverty line is 1.5 times the Subsistence level, which includes the cost of fuel and other basic necessities. Thus,
P.L = 1.5 X S.L.
Since the income poverty line changes from place to place because of the market price, the P.L. in the study settlement is estimated at Rs 604.5 ($13.4) per person / month with S.L. of Rs.403 ($8.9) per person / month.
With two approaches to poverty analysis, the survey found 39.4% of total sample population fall below poverty in the nutritional level while 75.8% of the same families fall below poverty in the income level. Out of 75.8%, 30.3% families fall below Subsistance Level.
This shows that the nature of poverty in the study settlements is sheer income induced poverty. The survey also shows that there is no relationship between the distribution of poor and the development of the settlements. All settlements, irrespective of the well-to-do, have almost same number of poor and almost equal extent of income deprivation.
The question arises…,why a big difference between nutritional and income poverty level?
I believe C.T.A’s implicit policy of improving the quality of life of the poor overlooking their living standards seems an important factor. C.T.A programs are very much based on infrastructure provision for the development of settlements and welfare activities to the poor. The welfare programs increase the purchasing power of the poor but for a very short term and it obscures the income side of the poverty from physical appearance.
The strategy of welfare programs for poverty alleviation is necessary but it is not at all sustainable in its own way because it has no direct contribution in enhancing family income at present or in the future rather, it makes people sick and dependant. It is important to mention that people in 40.1% households are receiving help from welfare programs for more than 7 years, out of which 16.8% have been receiving help for more than 10 years.
Causes of Poverty
Since poverty in the settlements is purely income induced poverty, I consider three overall factors responsible for income deprivation in the settlements. They are:-
1. The Social Factor : It includes illiteracy of household heads, irresponsiveness and lack of vision to improve, their low social contacts and low self-esteem. In the survey, 53.03% of subsidized household heads are found illiterate. They described themselves as ‘never been to school’ and can neither read nor write, not even Tibetan. There are another 12.12% who can read and write but are not formally educated, and remaining 34.85% are drop-outs at primary or secondary level. Such condition leads to ignorance, lack of response and poor vision on household improvement. They also do not seem to spend their household income wisely, ultimately leading to a poverty situation.
2. The Economic Factor : It is the low return from agriculture and livestock, limited economic opportunities, engagement in low paid jobs and high dependency ratio. Agriculture in the settlements generally generates low income because of low production, seasonal crop failure and high input cost. On an average, the farmers spend some Rs 4000 on an acre and earn Rs7000 with net profit of Rs 3000 per year. Since 70% of the sample families have an agriculture area of 1-3 acres, these poor families earn Rs 3000 to Rs 9000 annually from agriculture which is inadequate.
Similarly, 70% of sample families are engaged in livestock raising, together with agriculture. I found 25% of them do not sell because they are paid as low as Rs.3-5/liter of milk (market price, Rs.15-20). Besides, production of milk is also low at about 2.5 liters a day per cow (reported). Thus, the calculated gross average income from milk is between Rs 412.5 per month per cow, from which input cost of Rs 300 has to be deducted. In all, the farmers earn little above the cost of production.
Then there are female headed households. They are unable to engage in agriculture because of lack of a male working member in the family. They engage in low paid jobs like handicraft weaving, earning Rs.500-800/month. In winter, depending upon the availability, they work as sweater-selling labourers and earn Rs.3000-5000 in three months.
3. The Natural and Environmental Factor: These settlements are mostly located in the rain shadow area of Western Ghats, thus receive less rainfall. Actually they are said to receive an average annual rainfall between 24 to 35" but due to uneven rainfall, seasonal crop failure is relatively common. A year before my survey, Rabgyaling and Chowkur settlements experienced crop failure. Since relief measures did not reach in time and the farmers had loans from the Cooperatives on agriculture inputs, many of the poor farmers came under debt which created problems for their next year consumption.
Causes of Poverty in the Settlements.
Poor families in the settlements spent their life on debt. They meet their day to day expenditure like ration on credit basis. Even agricultural inputs like seeds and fertilizers are taken on credit. Later, crop sold are paid back to clear debt and the little money left is spent for Losar (New Year) celebrations. Thereafter, they are again in debt. The nice thing about it is, they don’t have to pay any interest.
The other factor is the poor soil fertility. Since the farmers have been practicing monoculture (maize) for a very long time, the experts from Mysore Rehabilitation Agency (MYRADA) described poor soil fertility in the settlements.
Recommendation
Understanding key contextual problems (structural, function and symptomatic) with stress linkage matrix and in-depth analysis on lacks, gaps, mismatches, potentials and issues related to poverty in the settlements. I came up with some strategies and schemes to resolve the stress. They are:
1. Incorporation of income approach in identification of poor. Even in the implementation of welfare programs, identification of beneficiary is the biggest challenge. In poverty programs, Poor should be differentiated from non-poor by estimating their household income. Two types of income can be derived. One is the reported income by the family people and another is cross-check income, estimated indirectly from the household questionnaires like number of family members, working and non-working, types of economic activity engaged in, salaries earned, size of agriculture land, type of crop produced, productivity and its market price. C.T.A should standardize minimum income based on the market price to differentiate poor from the non-poor. Otherwise ‘enough income’ and ‘minimum standard of living’ mentioned in the definition of poor has no meaning. At present, differentiation between well-off families with too many children and poor families with too many children are difficult.
2. Increasing family viability by introducing literacy programs to household head, functional education on household management, health and income-generating skills training. Since most review of literature on poverty explain poor as responsible for their own situation, increasing the basic human capability of poor seems vital and more sustainable than providing stipends and subsidies.
3. Convergence of few schemes focusing on upliftment of specified poor families so that those vulnerable families in our society can be covered with spectrum of opportunities to improve themselves. The schemes can be like, short-term revolving fund (1 week to 3 months), jobs in ongoing development projects in the settlements, skills training of youths from only poor families.
4. Creating an institutional basis for poverty group in every settlement to safeguard their economic interest by mutual cooperation. The objective is to give responsibility to the poor families themselves in development works and let them learn and increase their capability. It will empower poor people in decision making and improve communication between settlement officers and poor families.
5. Development in agriculture and livestock activities to increase the household income of the poor. Since 80% of the poor’s livelihood depend on agriculture and allied activities, effort in this sector alone can solve half of the poverty problem. Priority should be on reducing input cost of production, change in the present cropping system like introduction of new crop(s), practicing crop rotation or mix cropping and value addition in the agriculture production like setting up of agro and milk processing unit to enhance the return from agriculture. Other priorities are minor irrigation on existing streams, revitalization of cooperatives and extension services, on time drought relief schemes. Development in agriculture will not only increase the income but also will encourage more people to engage in such activities. I feel the present reluctance of the settlement people and the youths in agriculture is because of the low income and hard labor.
By Tenzin Sherab
tosherab@hotmail.com
