This document summarizes a study on community fish farming in Koraput, India and how it relates to women's empowerment. It finds that while initially women's groups were able to gain control over fish ponds, leading to increased production and consumption, local politics and power dynamics worked against their continued control. The study uses Bourdieu's concepts of field, capital and habitus to analyze how access to resources changed as the positions of influential actors changed, demonstrating how gender inequalities can be reinforced through cultural and political logics at the local level.

1. TEACH A WOMAN TO FISH
Encountering Empowerment in Natural
Resource Management & Community Fish
Farming in Koraput, Odisha (India)
ALLEVIATING POVERTY AND MALNUTRITION IN AGRO-BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOTS
RAJAKISHOR MAHANA, R. DURAIRAJA
M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, Chennai, India
International Food Security Dialogue 2014
Enhancing Food Production, Gender Equity and
Nutritional Security in a Changing World
02 May 2014, Uni of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada

2. Introduction
- Fish farming in Asia has been a male-centric
activity, at best household-based, with women
making large scale contributions to feeding and taking
care of fish (Barman 2001, Kelkar 2001, Kusakabe
2003, Sriputinibondh et al. 2005, Sullivan 2004).
- Access to and control over natural resources make
men authoritative and dominant over women.
- Aiming at understanding agency and the process of
empowerment, we are interested in investigating
how women expand their access to and control over
natural and social resources that enable them to
participate in decision making, local
accountability, performance evaluation, which in turn
brings them social and economic empowerment
(cf. Agarwal 1997, Kabeer 2005).
Outline of the
Presentation
• Introduction
• Literature Review
•Methodology
•Area and People
• Com Fish Farming in
Koraput, Odisha
(with A Case Study on
fish farming by women)
• Discussion and
Conclusion

3. - Particularly the paper seeks to answer the following question:
does access to and control over natural resource make
women socially and economically empowered?
- The study also investigates how village culture, local politics
and male patriarchy do not confirm to the development
ideology of resource allocation (to women) for ensuring
gender equity and empowerment of women and how, in
turn, gender inequality and rural poverty are produced.
Introduction continues…..

4. Literature Review
Revisiting Bourdieu’s
field, capital & habitus

5. Why Bourdieu?
• Poverty alleviation discourse has been debated intensely
• Building on modernization theory and its allied neo-liberal
economic agenda , authors have argued improved access to
productive assets is vital for enhancing ‘capabilities’ and
empowerment of the poor
• Scholars also investigated how politics and power influences
resource allocation mechanisms in organizations
• A little attention has been given to examine how village
culture and politics influence organizational budgeting and
resource allocation mechanisms

6. Literature review continues…..
• These theoretical postulations and frameworks explain little
about the dynamics of how village culture and local politics
play role in influencing village-level resource allocation
mechanisms (particularly to women).
• Here Bourdieu’s theoretical concepts like ‘field’, ‘habitus’ and
‘capital’ help us to capture thick descriptions of how resource
allocation mechanisms in tribal villages of Koraput is governed
and controlled by a particular sets of structural logic.

7. Field
• social space, defined as, “a network, or a
configuration, of objective relations between
positions” (Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992: 97).
• field consists of social relations rather than
individuals or social structures
• “field” represents the game itself
Literature review continues…..

8. Capital
• social relations are competitive
(Vendenberghe 1999) where social actors
therein vie for accumulation of what Bourdieu
calls “capital” (economic and symbolic capital)
• The role of capital influences the operation of
the field.
Literature review continues…..

9. Habitus
• habitus is internal in nature and it refers to the taken-for-
granted, shared meanings and behaviours utilized by the
individuals within the social space.
• analogically, Bourdieu equates habitus with “feel or sense of
the game”. A player’s actions in field are guided by his/her
perceptions and general feel for the game more than
according to the conscious, rational and decision making
process.
Literature review continues…..

10. • Transcending the traditional theoretical frameworks that
either focus on social actors and their immediate
actions, values and perceptions or take a more macro
approach and focus on social structures, the relational
thinking approach addresses the relationship between
objective and subjective while at the same time without
losing attention to the role of the social actors.
• Building on these theoretical concepts, the paper reflects on
the governance and control and the process of resource
allocation mechanisms from the perspective of habitus that
links to capital in the field of fish farming in particular and
poverty alleviation in general.
Literature review continues…..

11. Methodology
• Sampled HHs: 2004 HHs
in Kundra
block, Koraput, Odisha
• Ethnography
• Two Quantitative HH
Surveys: 2004 HHs
surveyed in 2011 & 500
HHs in 2013
• Quantitative data
collected on fish farming
on regular basis in 25
ponds (9 community
ponds and 16 private
ponds).
ALLEVIATING POVERTY AND MALNUTRITION IN AGRO-BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOTS

12. The Area and People

13. The Area
•A hilly terrain with plateaus
• Farming (including upland and shifting cultivation) is the
main activity in the area
• As one of the KBK districts known as hunger hotspots in
India, Koraput has received huge external support and aids
• Though rich in agro-biodiversity (GIAHS award in
2013), Koraput is known for its poverty, hunger and
backwardness

14. Social and Religious Categories
General
8%
Backward
caste
24%
Scheduled
caste
28%
Scheduled
tribe
40%
Social Category
Hindu
96%
Muslim
0%
Christian
4%
Religious Categories
The People

15. Primary Occupation of HH Head
Occupation % of People Involved
Crop farming 56.6
Livestock & poultry 0.2
Salaried employment 1.7
Business/ trade 3.3
Informal wage labourer 29.8
Not working/ un-employed 0.8
Old/ retired 4.7
Disabled/ sick and unfit for work 0.7
Home maker 2.2
Total 100

16. Average HH Land Holding Details
Land Type Own
land
(in
ac)
Leased
-in
land
Leased-
out land
Cultivated Land
Kharif Rabi Summer Plantation
Low (wet) land 0.91 0.15 0.06 0.94 0.02 0.04 Nil
Up (dry) land 0.79 0.03 0.01 0.30 0.02 0.003 0.31
Total land 1.78 0.19 0.07 1.24 0.06 0.11 0.31

17. Category of Famers & Distribution of Land
Category of Farmers
No. of
Households % of HHs
Area
Cultivated
(in Ha.) % of Land
Average
Landholding
(in Ha.)
Landless 734 36.6 0 0 0
Marginal (<1 ha) 904 45.1 415.44 30.5 0.46
Small (1.01-2ha) 219 10.9 322.82 23.7 1.47
Semi-medium (2.01-4ha) 105 5.2 303.28 22.3 2.89
Medium (4.01-10ha) 35 1.7 214.12 15.7 6.12
Large (>10ha) 7 0.3 105.2 7.7 15.03
Total 2004 100 1360.86 100 1.07
No. of HHs own land=1270

18. Migration
At least one member migrated in past 12 months (% HHs) 11.2
Reasons for Migration (%)
To earn wages as food grain 1.9
To earn higher wages 50.9
To reduce burden on family 7.5
Non-availability of work in village 39.6
To work on relative’s farm 0.0
Others 0.0
Average number of HH member migrated
Male adult 1.1
Female adult 1.0
Children 1.6
Average months migrated 4.1
Average income earned 14754

19. Income
Income source (%)
Sale of market surplus staple crops 45.4
Sale of surplus fruits and vegetables 8.2
Sale of crop byproducts (such as straw, wood, grass, etc) 0.1
Sale of livestock, birds (chickens, ducks, etc) 2.4
Sale of livestock products (milk, dung, eggs, poultry waste, etc)
0.4
Income from services by livestock (hiring for ploughing, carting) 0.9
Income from agricultural wages 7.6
Income from off-farm activities (business, trade, non- agril wage)
16.7
Income from Migration 4.3
Salaried employment 6.7
Income from other activities 7.4
Average income per HH Rs. 43,379

20. Expenditure
Expenditure Heads %
Food 47.5
Clothing 9.9
Shelter (E B bill, house tax, annual maintenance) 4.9
Education 2.4
Health (e.g., medical bills) 8.9
Drinking Water 0.0
Fuel (domestic, farming and vehicle) 2.3
Electricity on agricultural/processing activity 0.4
Transportation 3.9
Communication (e.g., fixed/mobile phone) 1.9
Religious and family celebrations (eg. marriage) 9.9
Entertainment (cinema, cable TV etc.) 0.7
Interest and repayment of loan 4.4
Purhase/Maintenance of farm equipment, tools, etc. 0.8
Other expenditure 2.0
Average expenditure per HH Rs. 31,336

21. Food Security Status
Details of Food Security
Households have stock of staple & non-staple foods 76.8 %
No. of months, staple food stock available 4.3 months
No. of months, non-staple food stock available 4.1 months
Sources of food supply (%) %
Local ration shop (PDS) 42.7
Open market 5.4
Wage earned as kind 1.8
Own farm production 48.7
Others 1.4
Worries about food security of the household (%)
All the time 53.4
Most of the time 38.2
Sometimes 7.6
Rarely 0.6
Never 0.2

22. Natural resource management and
community fish farming in Koraput
• 68 private ponds and 32 community
ponds identified
• PUGs formed and agreements made
• Fresh water fish farming started in 2012

23. Details of fish farming production and consumption
(2012-2013)
Consumption Details:
Production Details:
Category of
Pond
No. of
Ponds
Cultivation
cost (Rs)
Production
(Kg) Income (Rs.)
Profit
(Rs.)
Community
Pond 9 38,884 1,068 1,06,800 67,916
Private Pond 16 25,880 830 66,400 40,520
Total 25 64,764 1,898 1,73,200 1,08,436
Category of
Consumers
No. of
Ponds
No. of
HHs
Producti
on (in Kg)
Consumpti
on
(in Kg)
Consumption
Per HH
(Kg/2mnths)
Community Pond
Members
9 584 1,068 822 (77%) 1.407
Private Pond
Owners
16 15 830 232 (28%) 15.467
Non- members 0 118 0 844 7.152
Total 25 717 1,898
1898
(100%)
2.647

24. Encountering Empowerment: A Case Study
on Community Fish Farming by Women
Sl.N
o
Name of the
Hamlet
Total
HHs
Dom Bhumia Christian Others
1 Gorahandi 97 71 21 02 01
2 Khudiguda 26 02 15 - 09
Total 123 73 36 02 10
Social Demographic Profile of Village Gorahandi

25. • There were three ponds in Gorahandi village and none of
them were being used for fish farming.
•Bhumia tribal women’s initiative in fish farming 2005-2011
(leasing in two ponds biding against Dom male group ).
• In appreciation, MSSRF provided fingerlings and technical
support for fish farming in 2012
• At the time of harvest, being jealous, the Dom people
claimed share of the fish.
• In consultation with the MSSRF staffs and with police
protection, the women group harvested and consumed fish
from both the ponds without giving any share to the Dom
people.

26. Case study continues….
• This shows that women enjoyed the
rights over resources while at the
same time interrogating the power of
male patriarchy.
• There was no fish farming (neither by
woman group nor by the Doms) in
the said pond in 2013
• However, this year, the women group did not take the pond
in lease and the Dom men took the pond in lease

27. The aim of our theoretical construction was
to understand the dynamics of resource
allocation mechanisms in Gorahandi village
leading to, failing thereof, poverty alleviation
and empowerment of the resource poor,
particularly marginalized tribal women.
Discussion

28. Field of
fish farming
Village
headman
& elders NGO
Professional
Fish
buyer
Input
provider
(med., feed
etc)
Training
provider
Fingerlings
producer
Govt.
agencies
Village
money-
lenders
The Field of fish farming in Gorahandi village
Discussion continues….

29. What was the “field” and “capital” that helped the woman SHG
to succeeded in mobilising resources for fish farming till 2012?
• As one of the oldest SHGs formed and monitored by the
government authorities, there was a strong support from the
bureaucracy (including, the Collector, VLW, volunteer etc.)
• The presence of village moneylender in village Khudiguda
from whom the women SHG took land in lease
• The priest of the village temple is from Khudiguda
Discussion continues….

30. Given the facts, how did then the Doms of Gorahandi village
mobilize the resource allocation mechanisms in their favour
after 2012?
•Being guided more by a practical logic (habitus) the Doms
compete for the community resources (capital)
• The social agents those who favoured the women SHG have
changed their positions (The District Collector was
transferred, VLW along with volunteer left the village, the
moneylender died in 2012)
• As the volume and structure of capital changed for the women
SHG, the Doms, as the dominant group, captured the pond partly
with their muscle power and partly with the help of the social
network constructed.

31. • On the other hand, Khudiguda villagers depend on Gorahandi
villagers for livelihood
• As the village temple is located in the boundary of Gorahandi
• Gorahandi being the place for celebrating Chaita Parab
• In last election, a Dom from Gorahandi village was elected as the
Ward Member
• The habitus of the women SHG, as one of the members says, is “we
are poor, we cannot always fight against but to live with them”. All
these illustrate how cultural-politics logic and patronage relation
contradicts the prescribed mechanisms of resource allocation and
how, in turn, gender inequality and rural poverty is produced.
Discussion continues….

32. Conclusion
Does access to and control over natural resource make
women socially and economically empowered?
Yes
But,
Without having a proper understanding of the whole
dynamics of a social system, its actors and the practical
logic they follow in everyday practices, development
interventions brought to the people may fail to produce
the intended consequences.

33. Thank You
Supported by Hosted by