Beneath The Surface
Land use and livelihood
HISTORICALLY, land has been the perennial source of livelihood in rural Bangladesh. Land is still considered to be the ladder to uplift socio-economic and political progress of households despite the fact that the importance of land as a source of living has been dwindling over the years. An avalanche of research reports go to show that land-owning households perform far better than landless households in terms of income, nutrition, education, and overall development indicators.
And to say the least, land is the only source of food security not only at household level, but also at national level. To this effect, we shall try to shed some light on the changing use of land in rural Bangladesh and the challenges waiting on the wings. The source of data that I shall draw upon in this column comes from Brac-supported survey of 62 villages in 2008.
Shrinking size
We observe that the number of rural households has been increasing by about 1% per annum while cultivable land was falling by 1.2% per year for the last decade. The rate of decrease in cultivable land is quite in consort with macro statistics as released by different organisations. At micro level, Mahahbub Hossain and myself in our recently released book Gramer Manush Grameen Arthonity (2007) have also shown the same result for a longer period of time of about two decades. It is, thus, no wonder that some of us tend to portray a precarious state of loss of cultivable land in the coming years and the ramifications to go with it. For example, the fear is that Bangladesh could exhaust all of its cultivable land within next 50-60 years. Quite obviously, a loss of cultivable land in the wake of growing population, urbanisation, and infrastructure buildings would threaten our food security since too many people would then be chasing too few lands. Accepting that at its face value, let us look at some interesting insights in land use patterns. Diversified use of land
A rural household has many uses of land under its possession: homestead to live, cultivation of crops to grow staple foods, garden/orchards to grow high value crops, ponds to grow fish, and keeping lands fallow, etc. In the sample 62 villages, the total amount of owned land for 2,010 households is estimated to be 967 hectares (ha) or about 0.48 ha per household. For Bangladesh at large, it translates into about 10-12 million ha. Between 2000 and 2008, total owned land decreased by about 4%. On the other hand, total cultivable area for the sample is estimated to be 731 ha or 0.56 ha per household. For Bangladesh, this translates into 9 million ha. Again -- and as said before -- cultivable land declined by 1.2% between 2000 and 2008. Homestead area as share of owned land declined from 10% to about 7% implying that there have been attempts on the part of rural households to economise the use of homestead land. But it is not so much in the case of medium and large farms as it is for small and marginal farms. For example, roughly one-fourth of small farm owned land was used for homestead purposes in 2000. This contrasts with about one-fifth in 2008. For marginal farms, the shares are 41% and 39%, respectively. Where could we find this missing land? The decreased share of homestead area was taken over by gardens and ponds. Small farms increased the share of garden/orchards from about 15% of owned land to 17% and, for ponds, from about 7% to about 10%. For marginal farms, area under gardens/orchards went up from 11% to 14% of owned land, and, for ponds, from 4% to 7%. For all households, the share of orchard lands almost doubled during the periods under comparison. That means that rural households, especially the small and marginal farms, have resorted to more economic use by putting land to relatively more remunerative activities. Necessity perhaps induced them to be innovative and subsistence pressures drove them to divert lands for better alternative uses. Thus, while cultivable land decreased over time, alternative uses increased to put them on an even keel. On the other hand, an increase in the proportion of fallow area from about 2% to 3% indicates that there is further scope, albeit very marginal, for increasing cultivated areas. Profits to you, perils for me
What is the nature of land arrangements in rural areas? We can identify five forms of farming in rural Bangladesh. First, there are non-farm households who keep their hands off from lands and mostly rent out their parcels. They are rural and urban elites or "babu shaebs." This group accounts for about 44% of rural households, but commands about 27% of total owned land. Between 2000 and 2008, this group marginally increased their presence but significantly increased ownership from about 20% to 27%. The second category is pure tenants or the poorest -- who eke out a living only by cultivating others' lands. The proportion of this group doubled from 9% in 1988 to 18% in 2004. But after that, the proportion of pure tenants declined to about 15% in 2008. If we include tenant-owner (who cultivate more than half of land under tenancy), the share of tenant households increased from 18% in 1988 to 28% in 2004 but then fell to 23% in 2008. In other words, after a long spell of increase, the presence of pure tenants declined during the last four years with obvious implications for poor households and their livelihoods from cultivating others' land. The quite opposite, however, seems to hold for owner-farmers. The proportion of such households decreased from 37% in 1988 to 26% in 2004 but then increased to 29% in 2008. This group cultivated 58% of the cultivated area in 1988 and by 2004, only 43%. But in 2008, they controlled 51% of total cultivated land. This means that some of the owner-farms who rented out lands before, possibly lured by high profitability of agriculture in recent years, brought back lands and thus, put pure tenants in peril. Another evidence of this is that, the share of rented-in land increased from 23% in 1988 to about 40% in 2004, after which the share dropped to 37% in 2008. It can also be hypothesised that crop cultivation had been relatively more equalising for a pretty long period but, of late has growingly become relatively more inequalising. By and large, the recent changes in the arrangements of cultivated lands can be seen as a sign of growing inequality among rural households. This is, perhaps, the pitfalls of high profitability of crop production that some of the earlier critics of the green revolution so vehemently propagated. Distained diversity
The moot issue that crops up is the question of crop diversity and land utilisation pattern. While our farmers have been rational as far as profit maximisation is concerned -- and thus switching over massively from MVs to TVs -- the loss of crop diversity might deter their dividends in future. Space here is short to dwell on this in detail, but allow me to cite a few cases. In the 2007 amon season, 44 varieties of paddy were grown by our farmers. But two varieties, BR11/Mukta and Swarna, with a yield of roughly 3 ton/ha, claimed about half of the cultivated area at that time. Just four years back, in 2004, about 60 varieties were grown and the said two crops claimed 45% of area. In 2000, 71 varieties were grown and the two varieties claimed 32% of area. Thus, during the amon season, higher yield and profitability promoted concentration at the cost of diversity. However, the next important variety is paijam, increasing its share from 7 to 9% over the same period of time. Take the case of boro season. About 50 varieties were grown in 2007 season. But BR28 and BR29 claimed about three-fourths of the total area. In 2004, these two varieties claimed 52% of area. In 2000, the top two varieties (BR14 and BR28) claimed only 20% of area. So, in boro season also we observe a serious deterrence to crop diversity. Revolution second round
Once the first phase of the green revolution is over, the second phase should step in with the use of indigenously developed hybrid varieties, enabling environment for crop diversity, devising appropriate marketing channels for high value crops, and undertaking proper policies for agro-processing. Bangladesh agriculture has to graduate from subsistence to commercial farming and from traditional to modern managements. And there seems to be no better alternative than to devoting more resources for crop and livestock and fishery research, developing new technologies for farm practices and reducing the yield gap between farms and farms and between farms and research stations. Most importantly, perhaps, the tenants need to be brought under a separate and special umbrella of co-operatives, credit, and subsidy and extension networks since they are poor segment of the rural society. NGOs should come forward along with the government.
We observe that the number of rural households has been increasing by about 1% per annum while cultivable land was falling by 1.2% per year for the last decade. The rate of decrease in cultivable land is quite in consort with macro statistics as released by different organisations. At micro level, Mahahbub Hossain and myself in our recently released book Gramer Manush Grameen Arthonity (2007) have also shown the same result for a longer period of time of about two decades. It is, thus, no wonder that some of us tend to portray a precarious state of loss of cultivable land in the coming years and the ramifications to go with it. For example, the fear is that Bangladesh could exhaust all of its cultivable land within next 50-60 years. Quite obviously, a loss of cultivable land in the wake of growing population, urbanisation, and infrastructure buildings would threaten our food security since too many people would then be chasing too few lands. Accepting that at its face value, let us look at some interesting insights in land use patterns. Diversified use of land
A rural household has many uses of land under its possession: homestead to live, cultivation of crops to grow staple foods, garden/orchards to grow high value crops, ponds to grow fish, and keeping lands fallow, etc. In the sample 62 villages, the total amount of owned land for 2,010 households is estimated to be 967 hectares (ha) or about 0.48 ha per household. For Bangladesh at large, it translates into about 10-12 million ha. Between 2000 and 2008, total owned land decreased by about 4%. On the other hand, total cultivable area for the sample is estimated to be 731 ha or 0.56 ha per household. For Bangladesh, this translates into 9 million ha. Again -- and as said before -- cultivable land declined by 1.2% between 2000 and 2008. Homestead area as share of owned land declined from 10% to about 7% implying that there have been attempts on the part of rural households to economise the use of homestead land. But it is not so much in the case of medium and large farms as it is for small and marginal farms. For example, roughly one-fourth of small farm owned land was used for homestead purposes in 2000. This contrasts with about one-fifth in 2008. For marginal farms, the shares are 41% and 39%, respectively. Where could we find this missing land? The decreased share of homestead area was taken over by gardens and ponds. Small farms increased the share of garden/orchards from about 15% of owned land to 17% and, for ponds, from about 7% to about 10%. For marginal farms, area under gardens/orchards went up from 11% to 14% of owned land, and, for ponds, from 4% to 7%. For all households, the share of orchard lands almost doubled during the periods under comparison. That means that rural households, especially the small and marginal farms, have resorted to more economic use by putting land to relatively more remunerative activities. Necessity perhaps induced them to be innovative and subsistence pressures drove them to divert lands for better alternative uses. Thus, while cultivable land decreased over time, alternative uses increased to put them on an even keel. On the other hand, an increase in the proportion of fallow area from about 2% to 3% indicates that there is further scope, albeit very marginal, for increasing cultivated areas. Profits to you, perils for me
What is the nature of land arrangements in rural areas? We can identify five forms of farming in rural Bangladesh. First, there are non-farm households who keep their hands off from lands and mostly rent out their parcels. They are rural and urban elites or "babu shaebs." This group accounts for about 44% of rural households, but commands about 27% of total owned land. Between 2000 and 2008, this group marginally increased their presence but significantly increased ownership from about 20% to 27%. The second category is pure tenants or the poorest -- who eke out a living only by cultivating others' lands. The proportion of this group doubled from 9% in 1988 to 18% in 2004. But after that, the proportion of pure tenants declined to about 15% in 2008. If we include tenant-owner (who cultivate more than half of land under tenancy), the share of tenant households increased from 18% in 1988 to 28% in 2004 but then fell to 23% in 2008. In other words, after a long spell of increase, the presence of pure tenants declined during the last four years with obvious implications for poor households and their livelihoods from cultivating others' land. The quite opposite, however, seems to hold for owner-farmers. The proportion of such households decreased from 37% in 1988 to 26% in 2004 but then increased to 29% in 2008. This group cultivated 58% of the cultivated area in 1988 and by 2004, only 43%. But in 2008, they controlled 51% of total cultivated land. This means that some of the owner-farms who rented out lands before, possibly lured by high profitability of agriculture in recent years, brought back lands and thus, put pure tenants in peril. Another evidence of this is that, the share of rented-in land increased from 23% in 1988 to about 40% in 2004, after which the share dropped to 37% in 2008. It can also be hypothesised that crop cultivation had been relatively more equalising for a pretty long period but, of late has growingly become relatively more inequalising. By and large, the recent changes in the arrangements of cultivated lands can be seen as a sign of growing inequality among rural households. This is, perhaps, the pitfalls of high profitability of crop production that some of the earlier critics of the green revolution so vehemently propagated. Distained diversity
The moot issue that crops up is the question of crop diversity and land utilisation pattern. While our farmers have been rational as far as profit maximisation is concerned -- and thus switching over massively from MVs to TVs -- the loss of crop diversity might deter their dividends in future. Space here is short to dwell on this in detail, but allow me to cite a few cases. In the 2007 amon season, 44 varieties of paddy were grown by our farmers. But two varieties, BR11/Mukta and Swarna, with a yield of roughly 3 ton/ha, claimed about half of the cultivated area at that time. Just four years back, in 2004, about 60 varieties were grown and the said two crops claimed 45% of area. In 2000, 71 varieties were grown and the two varieties claimed 32% of area. Thus, during the amon season, higher yield and profitability promoted concentration at the cost of diversity. However, the next important variety is paijam, increasing its share from 7 to 9% over the same period of time. Take the case of boro season. About 50 varieties were grown in 2007 season. But BR28 and BR29 claimed about three-fourths of the total area. In 2004, these two varieties claimed 52% of area. In 2000, the top two varieties (BR14 and BR28) claimed only 20% of area. So, in boro season also we observe a serious deterrence to crop diversity. Revolution second round
Once the first phase of the green revolution is over, the second phase should step in with the use of indigenously developed hybrid varieties, enabling environment for crop diversity, devising appropriate marketing channels for high value crops, and undertaking proper policies for agro-processing. Bangladesh agriculture has to graduate from subsistence to commercial farming and from traditional to modern managements. And there seems to be no better alternative than to devoting more resources for crop and livestock and fishery research, developing new technologies for farm practices and reducing the yield gap between farms and farms and between farms and research stations. Most importantly, perhaps, the tenants need to be brought under a separate and special umbrella of co-operatives, credit, and subsidy and extension networks since they are poor segment of the rural society. NGOs should come forward along with the government.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments