“I allowed my pumpkin crop to rot on three acres of land as harvesting and transportation were not possible during the lockdown,” a farmer from Davangere district lamented.
His was one of the 71% of households adversely affected in rural Karnataka during the COVID-19 lockdown on account of loss of employment, business, and inability to harvest or sell agricultural produce. This was revealed in a telephonic study conducted in Belagavi, Chamarajanagar, Dakshina Kannada, Davangere, and Kalaburagi districts during April-May 2020 by the Centre for Decentralisation and Development, Institute of Social and Economic Change, Bengaluru.
COVID-19 affected a large proportion of households in Belagavi in particular. Kalaburagi was affected to a lesser degree because farmers did not have any standing crop and dependence on farm wage work was in any case low during the agriculturally slack season. None of the households reported COVID-19-related symptoms.
Of those affected, 92% (two persons per household on an average) reported income loss during April. Income loss was measured for one month in case of workers and micro-enterprises, while it was for the entire crop season for cultivators. The extent of loss was low among labourers and high among cultivators as the latter often lost their entire crop.
Wage labourers
The largest affected category was agricultural wage labourers (51%), who reported an average income loss of ₹6,700 in April. The next category was non-agricultural workers involved in construction and rolling of beedis. Comprising 19% of the workers, they reported an average income loss of ₹12,586 in April.
Salaried employees in the informal sector — the third largest category making up 11% — were asked to stay at home to maintain social distancing. Though the government called for compassion in paying full salaries to informal workers, 10% of the employees, engaged in transport (truck and JCB drivers), factories, companies and hotels, were not paid the April salary ranging from ₹4,000 to ₹22,000.
The next significant category was cultivators, accounting for 9% of the affected. They incurred income loss because of two reasons. For one, they were unable to harvest owing to non-availability of labour and reported an average income loss of ₹1.01 lakh in the crop season. For instance, a farmer from Chamarajanagar district allowed vegetables worth ₹80,000 to rot in the field. Secondly, many could not sell harvested or standing crops because of transport disruption, high transportation costs, non-availability of market, and sharp decline in prices. Such farmers reported an average income loss of ₹59,300. For instance, a farmer from Davangere district could not transport harvested brinjal worth ₹1 lakh because of non-availability of trucks. Another farmer from Belagavi district allowed his chillies to rot as prices plummeted.
Micro-enterprises
The last category was owners of micro-enterprises such as photo shops, hotels, ice cream vending shops, and mechanic shops. Consisting of 9% of the worker force, they reported an average income loss of ₹24,000 in April as they were forced to shut shop.
A tent house owner from Davangere district closed his shop as public meetings and weddings were banned. He thereby incurred a loss of ₹40,000. A flower decorator from Dakshina Kannada district lamented that most of his annual income, amounting to ₹1 lakh, was lost as weddings and other functions were banned.
Different policies suitable to different categories of the affected are needed to revive the livelihoods of the rural poor. The first public policy is to provide work under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act on a large scale to wage labourers in the agricultural and non-agricultural sectors, together with the ongoing food and cash support from the government. Secondly, credit support to micro, small and medium enterprises is needed for their revival, thereby paving the way for the employment of informal sector workers.
The authors of this study are Professor and Assistant Professor, respectively, at the Centre for Decentralisation and Development, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bengaluru. This is the first of a three-part series.
