Land for landed

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).