[Reader-list] Reg: Series of Articles on India & Its Development - 1

[Rakesh Iyer]

Link:  http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl2821/stories/20111021282102100.htm

Article:

*Land for landed*

N.C. SAXENA

*The 12th Plan Approach Paper looks upon land more as raw material for
mining and industrialisation than as a source of livelihood for the poor.*

DESPITE a fast economic growth, more than 60 per cent of the population of
India is still dependent on land. The 12th Plan Approach Paper, however,
looks upon land not as a source of livelihood for the poor but as raw
material for mining and industrialisation. Para 5.24 of the Approach Paper
reads as follows: “Rapid growth is only possible if some land which is
currently used for agricultural purposes, or if preferably degraded forest
land, can be made available for building much-needed infrastructure,
establishing new industrial units, undertaking mining and accommodating the
inevitable expansion of urban settlements. The questions that arise are how
is the land that is needed for these activities to be obtained.”

Further, the Approach Paper would like to deprive marginal farmers of their
land, facilitate its transfer to farmers owning large holdings, and reduce
marginal landowners to the status of agricultural labour. It advocates
legislation to “permit leasing of land where small farmers, who would
otherwise be unviable, are able to lease out their lands to others able to
bring in the other inputs needed. The small or marginal landowner may even
be employed on the land by the new tenant farmer” (para 7.35). Lastly, the
Approach Paper is silent on the gross violation of the Forest Rights Act by
State governments, which have ignored recognising the community rights of
forest-dwellers over forests, as mandated by the FRA.

As regards the Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill
(which was already in the public domain when the Approach Paper was being
finalised), one would have expected the Planning Commission to support
strongly its main clauses – informed consent of 80 per cent of the farmers,
a minimum compensation of four times the registered price, and 20 per cent
share in future escalation in land prices – but unfortunately all it says
is “the method of fixing the price at which land will be acquired needs to
be carefully studied to ensure that it is fair to those whose land is
acquired while also not being unrealistically high” (para 5.30). The
Approach Paper would also like the requirement of land for industry and
private companies to be specifically included in the definition of public
purpose (para 5.31). Whose interests are being advocated here is thus clear.
*

Small is big
*

The Planning Commission's aversion to small and marginal farmers and its
efforts to reduce them to the status of landless labourers by increasing
inequality in the area of operational holdings should be examined
seriously, as this recommendation is not only anti-poor but also
anti-productivity. Research done on size-productivity relationship since
the 1960s has made it clear that in agriculture, given the same resource
facilities, soil content and climate, a small farmer produces more per acre
than a large farmer. In a recent article ( Economic & Political Weekly,
June 25, 2011), agricultural economists, on the basis of recent National
Sample Survey data, have held that small holdings in Indian agriculture
still exhibit a higher productivity than large holdings. Industry operates
under conditions of increasing returns to scale whereas agriculture has so
far operated under diminishing returns to scale.

Thus, both output and employment per unit of capital invested increase in
agriculture with the decline in the size of its operation. Various theories
about disappearing advantages of marginal and small farmers and efficiency
gains of large farmers with economic development are not found to be
operating in India.

Small farmers have better access to labour as they exploit their own family
labour, whereas large farmers have better access to capital and have to
hire labour from the market. These differences result in small farmers
committing more labour to production than large farmers and large farmers
substituting machines and capital for labour. Thus, a small farmer may get
an extra unit of output by using home-produced mulch and organic manure and
the large farmer may depend on chemical fertilizer bought from the market.
In fact, capital intensity is increasing for all categories of farmers, but
at a faster pace in Green Revolution areas and for large farmers.

Both market and technological forces act in favour of concentration of land
in fewer hands, and unless the government comes out with a programme to
halt this trend, growth with the existing levels of asset inequalities will
lead to further impoverishment of the rural poor. This phenomenon of
reverse tenancy has gathered strength in recent years and has contributed
to the steady increase in the concentration of operational holdings. Rather
than express concern at this trend and provide credit, inputs and markets
to small farmers and supplement their incomes with off-farm employment
opportunities within the countryside, the Planning Commission wishes to act
in favour of big operational holdings and make them even bigger.
*

Neglect of women farmers
*

Another glaring omission in the Approach Paper is the total neglect of
problems faced by women farmers. Despite their increasing contribution to
agriculture due to male migration, they lack control over productive assets
(land, livestock, fisheries, technologies, credit, finance, markets and so
on), face biases as a result of socio-cultural practices and experience
gender differentials in agricultural wages. Some of these problems will get
sorted out if women's rights over land are recognised in revenue records as
per the Hindu Succession Act, 2005, (unfortunately the implementation of
this Act has been ignored by State governments). The Act brings all
agricultural land on a par with other property and makes land inheritance
rights legally equal for Hindu women and men across States, overriding any
inconsistent State laws. Endowing women with land empowers them
economically and strengthens their ability to challenge social and
political gender inequities. The Planning Commission should prevail upon
the administrative Ministry to launch a campaign to correct revenue records
and ensure that women's land ownership rights are properly recorded by the
States. Concurrent evaluation by the Commission will help this process.
*

MANY LAPSES
*

Para 11.16 of the Approach Paper calls for speedy implementation of the
FRA, but does not analyse why in the four years since its enactment the Act
has failed to satisfy forest-dwellers' aspirations and provide them
community rights as well as security of tenure over individual plots. A
recent government committee chaired by this writer found many lapses that
explained tribal frustration with the implementation of the Act. For
instance, the area in which tribal people have been settled is much less
than what is required for them to carry on their occupation, and the
boundaries of the settled area have not been demarcated. In almost no
instance have district officials proactively provided maps, documents and
evidence to village committees, though this is required under the FRA.

Only a few States have been able to use spatial and remote-sensing
technology to demarcate boundaries and measure the areas of plots for
individual forest rights because of the lack of capacity building in the
application of this technology. The biggest problem is the many cases of
faulty rejection. In an overwhelming number of cases, the rejections have
not been communicated to the claimants and their right to appeal has not
been explained to them and its exercise facilitated.

There have been process failures too. Meetings of the gram sabha have been
called at the panchayat level and not at the village level as prescribed in
the Act. All State governments should recognise the gram sabha at the
individual settlement (hamlet or revenue village) level, or PESA (Panchayat
Extension to Scheduled Areas) gram sabha where applicable, to enable much
more effective processing of the FRA.

Then, the rights of other traditional forest-dwellers have been ignored in
most States. In 11 States the implementation process has not yet started.
This includes the north-eastern States except Assam and Tripura, Bihar,
Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and Goa. In Tamil Nadu, because of
restrictive orders by the High Court on a petition, progress has been slow.
Some States (such as Jharkhand) have lagged behind in getting a plausible
number of claims and in processing the claims received.
*

CFR PROCESS SLOW
*

The progress in the implementation of community forest rights (CFR) under
the FRA is abysmally slow. In all States, the CFR process has not even got
off the ground owing to lack of awareness among communities, civil society
organisations or the relevant officials. The main reason is the hostility
of forest officials, who see a dilution of their empire if community rights
are granted to forest-dwellers.

Moreover, State governments have not publicised the CFR provisions
adequately or even internalised their importance themselves. Given the
serious inadequacies in the implementation of CFR at all levels, there is
need for a second-phase implementation of the FRA in all States with a
primary focus on CFR. What is most intriguing is the suggestion in para
5.51 of the Approach Paper that forest gatherers should not be given the
benefit of the minimum support price (MSP), which is now available only in
agriculture to certain surplus States, and not even to paddy farmers in
States like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.

While acknowledging that what “the primary tribal collectors of NTFPs
[Non-Timber Forest Products] get today is a very small fraction of the
potential value embedded in NTFPs”, the Commission thinks that providing a
high price for forest produce will not be in the interest of legal traders,
who would be forced to pay a higher price to the gatherers.

The Approach Paper advocates more training of government personnel so as to
improve their accountability. It appears that members and senior staff of
the Commission also need to attend sensitisation courses on what kind of
policies the poor need and how to ensure their delivery.
**

*Dr N.C. Saxena is a member of the National Advisory Council. He has worked
as Secretary, Planning Commission (1999-2002) and Secretary, Rural
Development (1997-99), and as head of the National Academy of
Administration, Mussoorie (1993-97).*