Attachments
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OBJECTIVES
The overall objective of this study was to collect and analyse information on cross-border migration between Nepal and India and between Nepal and China. The study specifically focuses on migrant workers and looked into their migration pattern, timing and reason for migration, vulnerabilities, and determining factors for cross-border migration. These findings of the study are expected to contribute to the effort of the Government of Nepal to better manage the transborder movement and contribute to the evidence-based policymaking and migrant-sensitive programmes.
METHODOLOGY
The study used a mixed research method combining secondary and primary data. Quantitative surveys were conducted among the general migrants and migrant workers in particular. Qualitative information was collected from the key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGD) with returnee migrant workers and their families. Twelve ground crossing points (GCPs) at the Nepal–India border and two GCPs at the Nepal–China border were selected purposively for data collection.
Initially, a survey named “sprint survey” was conducted for two days at each GCP, and the outcome of this survey was applied to determine the sample size at each border point. This was followed by a rapid survey, and in-depth survey conducted continuously for two months. Basic information about the individuals passing through the selected GCPs was collected during the rapid survey. The in-depth survey included only migrant workers and covered a wide range of information, including personal and household characteristics. Surveys in the two GCPs of Nepal and China had to be discontinued during the in-depth survey due to the limited flow of migrant workers crossing the borders.
RESULTS
A total of 5,960 individuals in the rapid survey and 5,971 individuals in the in-depth surveys were interviewed in the selected 12 GCPs of Nepal and India. Among 5,971 in-depth survey participants, 63 per cent were incoming workers.
The current mean age of migrant workers was 32.2 years, while the mean age at the time of first migration was 22.9 years. Approximately 56 per cent had completed secondary education, and 7.3 per cent were illiterate. About 91 per cent had children, with an average of 2.6 children per individual. More than half of the migrants were from the Terai region (54.4%). The household size of migrant workers varied, with an average of six individuals per household. Disability prevalence was lower among migrant worker’s households than the national average.
Northern India was the main destination for the majority of migrant workers. More than half of the migrant workers travelled to India with their family members, relatives, and/or friends. The months of December-January and May-June were reported as the popular months of travel to India for work.
Over two thirds of the migrant workers had migrated to India for work more than one time. Overall, the frequency of visits to India for employment was higher among men than women. A high percentage of agriculture labour (48%) and livestock workers (46%) had more visits (five or more times) to India for employment. Likewise, the majority of them stayed six months up to one year for work at one go.
All the surveyed male and female workers were employed. About 73 per cent of the males earned between NPR 20,000 and NPR 50,000 monthly,1 while only about 60 per cent of females earned monthly income in this range. About 58.5 per cent said their economic status had improved “slightly” after migrating to India for work, followed by 23.8 per cent saying it improved “moderately”.
Nearly over 50 per cent of migrant workers had opened a bank account in Nepal, while 22 per cent had a bank account in India. Various channels were used to send money, with money transfer agencies being the most popular channel (77.8%), followed by 41.2 per cent through family members, relatives, and friends. The remitted money at home is utilized for various purposes, including children’s education, health care, and fulfilling household necessities.
A small percentage of the migrant workers had taken loans when travelling to India, and the loan amount ranged between NPR 20,000 and NPR 100,000. It was also reported that many individuals took loans from the merchants with interest rates up to 36 per cent per annum.
The survey result showed that harassment and exploitation of migrant workers took place at various stages of migration such as during travel and work by brokers/agents, transport workers, and during work by co-workers and employers. Nearly half of the migrant workers had experienced physical and mental stress and other health problems during their employment in India. Of the total, 40.8 per cent had also experienced diagnosed mental health issues.
CONCLUSIONS
The survey results indicate that currently, there is no government policy or guidelines to regulate and make migratory movement through GCPs more systematic. Therefore, there is a need for prioritizing the migratory movement – initiating and facilitating the recording of the movements at all the formal GCPs.
The utilization of mobile banking system was low for various purposes, including remitting money back home. Thus, the habit of utilizing the banking system and mobile banking should be promoted among the migrant workers, their family members and at the community level.
The interest rate on the borrowings through the informal channels, was quite high. In this context, the local political structure should consider making provisions for providing soft loans to deserving migrant workers.
Among others, bullying, harassments and exploitation have contributed to the high prevalence of physical and mental health problems among the migrant workers. This finding also calls for appropriate policies and programmes that help to minimize bullying, harassments and exploitation of the migrant workers.
The role of local governments, since they operate at the community level, could be very effective in organizing and facilitating the migratory process if they establish appropriate system within their structure.
There are policies, rules, and regulations in place for overseas employment. However, the government has no definite policy or programmes on the reintegration of returnee migrant workers from India. Thus, the existing provisions should be extended further to cover the migrant workers to India as well.