Sunday, September 07, 2008

Adequate Compensation for Agricultural Land

There has been a great deal of furor in India over the acquisition of agricultural land for industrial development. All agree that it needs to be done and insist that farmers must be adequately compensated, none specify what that means. The state of West Bengal purchased 1,000 acres from over 13,000 farmers in 2006 at over Rs 1,000,000 per acre for the Tata car project. There have been numerous reports suggesting that this compensation is inadequate. The table below should allow readers to judge for themselves. The data here are about five years old. Since then the prices of agricultural products and inputs have increased dramatically. Doubling the annual cash flow shown below may reflect current conditions more accurately. The annual interest on a long-term deposit of Rs 1,000,000 is Rs 95,000 at current rates. Further, Tata has offered to employ the ‘dispossessed’ farmers. Wages from day-labour constitute a substantial part of the income of most Indian farmers (equal to income from farming in WB). This income is not shown below, since it will be a small fraction of what Tata is likely to pay, excluding benefits.

When the total return from owning and operating an asset is less than that from merely providing an equivalent amount of labour, the economic value of the asset becomes negative. This is the tragedy of agriculture in India, caused to a large extent by the inexorable shrinking of farm sizes.

Farming Household Income: Operational Holding Class - 0.4 to 1.0 Hectares

(Rupees per annum)

India

Punjab

UP

WB

TN

Average Size: All Rural Holdings

0.718

0.918

0.643

0.302

0.313

Average Size: Within Holding Class1

0.734

0.703

0.722

0.715

0.744

Cultivation:

Value of Output

Main Products

12,563

29,715

15,543

19,184

11,110

Byproducts

1,096

1,880

1,553

1,215

680

Total Value2

13,659

31,595

17,096

20,399

11,790

Expenses

Seeds

924

851

1,419

1,245

1,155

Pesticides, etc.

350

1,324

247

681

495

Fertilizer & Manure

1,414

2,156

2,080

2,263

1,420

Irrigation

741

1,406

1,614

1,306

483

Hired Labour

1,315

1,812

1,002

3,539

2,075

Other

1,177

3,132

1,806

1,461

1,163

Total Expenses2

5,921

10,681

8,168

10,495

6,791

Income from Cultivation

7,738

20,914

8,928

9,904

4,999

Expenditure on Farming Assets

1,920

7,308

1,944

792

2,484

Annual Cash Flow from Cultivation

5,818

13,606

6,984

9,112

2,515

Farm Animals:

Receipts2

7,116

26,604

8,244

3,708

5,808

Expenses2

6,012

23,772

7,608

2,784

4,476

Income from Farm Animals

1,104

2,832

636

924

1,332

Annual Cash Flow from Cultivation and Farm Animals

6,922

16,438

7,620

10,036

3,847

Implied Annual Cash Flow per Acre

3,819

9,463

4,274

5,684

2,093

1. Holding class for average size is 0.5 - 1.0 hectares. Hectare = 2.471 acres. Average size for all rural holdings reflects households with zero holding.

UP = Uttar Pradesh, WB = West Bengal, TN = Tamil Nadu (no glacier-fed rivers).

2. Value includes imputed value of output consumed by the household. So do farming expenses.

Source: NSSO reports 492 (Jan-Dec 2003) & 497 (July 2002 – June 2003), available online.

Labels: , ,


Sunday, January 14, 2007

Disparate and Desperate Destinies

It is almost impossible these days to read any financial or economic publication without finding a lengthy article on the Indian economy’s glowing growth rate. Eight percent growth is passé and double-digit growth rate is discussed nonchalantly. All these accolades are fully deserved, particularly by the chief architect of such growth, Dr. Manmohan Singh.

Pretty as this picture genuinely is, it hides more than it reveals. In economic terms, India is really two countries – one boasts a per capita, purchasing-power-parity GDP above that of the Philippines, while the other is poorer than Ethiopia. In terms of the number of people involved in and dependent on it, the broadly defined agricultural sector is India’s dominant sector. It is the poor India. The non-agricultural sector, representing about 35% of the population, has a per capita domestic product that is over six times that of the Ag-Sector. Further, while the per capita output of the non-Ag-Sector is growing at around 8% annually, that of the Ag-Sector is struggling to stagnate, as miserly growth is offset by increasing population. With these differential growth rates, per capita output in the non-Ag-Sector will be more than twelve times that of the Ag-Sector in nine years. If the differential persists, as seems likely, the economic disparity between the two India’s will widen, within four or five electoral terms, to resemble that between the developed world and sub-Saharan Africa. Poor-India will be flush with votes, Rich-India with money. This is a prescription for an eruption, of Vesuvian proportions.

This isn’t going unnoticed by our stellar economic team. Attention is being turned to the Ag-Sector and a growth rate of 4% (2% per capita) is being targeted. Such refocusing of effort is absolutely essential, but grossly inadequate. We have been focusing on productivity per acre, which has improved by 70% since 1980. However, foodgrains production per cultivator/labourer has stagnated at 0.9 tonnes, while prices inexorably decline in real terms. Without assistance, our farmers’ quagmire will turn into quicksand.

Poor-India’s problem is one of inverted proportions; 65 people, whose sole livelihood is from feeding 35 others, will forever be condemned to poverty, regardless of how wealthy the other 35 become. Food consumption does not increase linearly with wealth – India consumed 167.4 kilograms of foodgrains per capita in 1963. In 2003, when we were far wealthier, we consumed 165.3 kilograms. Also, increasing the production of perishable commodities beyond consumption merely causes prices to collapse – as production increases, revenue drops. Exports aren’t the answer, since competing countries are far more productive.

We urgently need to start working on reversing the proportion, 35 must feed 65, and we must keep tilting it further. The effort involved will be gargantuan and span decades, hence the urgency in starting now. Massive programmes must be launched to:

Build infrastructure in selected rural districts to make them sensible candidates for industrial investment,
Educate and train the younger rural population, boys and girls, young men and women, for employment in the non-Ag-Sector,
Aggressively promote investment in labour intensive industries in such rural districts,
Facilitate the purchase of agricultural land for such purposes,
Promote and finance the consolidation of agricultural land holdings,
Focus on and dramatically improve productivity per farmer, not just per acre.

Just how gargantuan is this task? Transferring five million workers from the Ag-Sector (about 2% of that workforce) to the non-Ag-Sector annually, will require annual investment of the order of Rs. 250,000 crores, or 30% of India’s total capital formation. We cannot generate such additional savings on our own. If we raise foreign direct investment from under $10 billion to over $40 billion, that will provide for over half the increase. Redirecting, through incentives, current non-agricultural investment to rural districts - along the peripheries of district and taluk headquarters, close to good highways – can provide a big chunk of the rest. Increased savings will have to account for what is left. This will not be an exercise in tweaking our economy, but one designed to transform our economy, one where all of India can flourish, not just Rich-India.

We need have no fear of food shortages as we transfer agricultural land to non-agricultural use. Since the non-Ag-Sector makes far, far more efficient use of land in creating remunerative employment than the Ag-Sector, less than 5% of total agricultural land will have to be so transferred and there is no reason at all for it to be prime agricultural land. Increasing productivity per acre will handily make up for this transfer.

Given the enormity of the undertaking, it will fail unless all major political parties and states vigorously support it. Going on hunger strikes whenever land is acquired, even at above market prices, for employment generating development will ensure that our poor farmers stay poor. We can either start an apolitical, national effort to help our farmers and landless farm labourers, or we can sing paeans to our agrarian heritage while a colossal, social time-bomb ticks away relentlessly.

Labels: ,


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]