Chapter 1
Introduction
Agriculture in the Kerala economy
Kerala’s 38,863 km² landmass (1.18% of India) is wedged between the
Arabian Sea in the west and the Western Ghats in the east— identified as
one of the world's twenty-five biodiversity hotspots. Lying between north
latitudes 8°18' and 12°48' and east longitudes 74°52' and 72°22', Kerala is
well within the humid equatorial tropics. Kerala’s coast runs for some 580
km, while the state itself varies from 35–120 km in width. Geographically,
Kerala can be divided into three climatically distinct regions: the eastern
highlands (rugged and cool mountainous terrain), the central midlands
(rolling hills), and the western lowlands (coastal plains). Located at the
extreme southern tip of the Indian subcontinent, Kerala lies near the centre of
the Indian tectonic plate; most of the state (notwithstanding isolated regions)
is subject to comparatively little seismic and volcanic activity. Geologically,
pre-Cambrian and Pleistocene formations comprise the bulk of the terrain of
Kerala.
The climate of Kerala is mainly wet and tropical, heavily influenced by the
seasonal heavy rains brought by the Southwest Summer Monsoon. In eastern
1
Kerala, a drier tropical wet and dry climate prevails. Kerala receives an
average annual rainfall of 3,107 mm — some 70.3 km3of water. This
compares with the all-India average of 1,197 mm. Parts of Kerala's lowlands
may average only 1,250 mm annually, while the cool mountainous eastern
highlands of Idukki district — comprising Kerala's wettest region — receive
more than 5,000 mm of orographic precipitation (4,200 mm of which are
available for human use) annually. Kerala's rains are mostly the result of
seasonal monsoons; meanwhile, more anomalous factors resulted in the 2001
red rains. As a result, Kerala averages some 120–140 rainy days a year.
Kerala’s average maximum daily temperature is around 36.7 °C; the
minimum is 19.8 °C. Mean annual temperatures range from between 25.0–
27.5 °C in the coastal lowlands to between 20.0–22.5 °C in the highlands.
Kerala is an agrarian economy. Cash crops, like coconuts, rubber, tea and
coffee, pepper and cardamom, cashew, areca nut, nutmeg, ginger, cinnamon,
cloves and the like, give the agriculture of Kerala a distinct flavor. The land
reforms, introduced immediately after the State's formation in 1957, brought
down to a great extent the economic, class and caste inequality in Kerala
society, ended statutory landlordism and the janmi system, and limited the
size of landholdings. It offered protection to tenants from eviction, provided
sites for the construction of houses to thousands of families and was
instrumental in raising rural wages and in the introducing of social security
2
schemes for agricultural workers. But land reforms in Kerala did not end
capitalist landlordism or transfer agrarian power to agricultural laborers and
poor peasants.
In fact, one of the most visible results of the land reform legislation was the
extreme fragmentation of land, the oft-cited reason for making agriculture a
low-profit venture in the State. Many new landowners realized that they
could not make a living out of agriculture and turned to less labor-intensive
crops or were forced to seek avenues that could generate additional income.
Increasingly, they displayed a tendency to leave their lands fallow. With the
loss of interest in farming, most of the land owners abandoned the land
improvement practices such as terracing or building of irrigation channels,
leading to a progressive loss of fertility of land.
The result was a drastic fall in employment in the agricultural sector and a
rise in farm wages disproportionate to the yield. Workers began to migrate to
non-agricultural sectors, especially to satisfy the demand caused by largescale construction activity. At one point, the Gulf boom pushed up land
prices so high that selling agricultural land for real estate development
became an enticing option.
During the first half of 1990’s the economic growth in the state was
moderate compared to the second half (Table: 1.1). The stagnation in the
3
agriculture sector in the late 90’s resulted mainly due to the liberalization
policy of the central government which exposed an ill-prepared agrarian
sector to the onslaught of globalization. Simultaneously, the spurt in the
migration to Gulf countries and the consequent increase in the inflow of
remittances, led to a steady increase in the price of agricultural commodities,
price of land and growth in construction activities, trade, commerce and
other activities.
Table: 1.1
Annual Average Growth Rates of Net Domestic Product of Kerala
Sector
Primary
1980-81 to
198586(1980-81
prices)
0.20
1985-86 to
1990-91
(1980-81
prices)
5.14
1990-91 to
199596(1980-81
prices)
2.75
1995-96 to
2000-01
(1993-94
prices)
1.02
Secondary
0.58
6.15
8.19
3.34
Tertiary
3.24
5.31
9.19
8.06
NSDP
1.41
5.30
6.76
5.06
Source: State Planning Board
4
Graph1.1
Annual Average Growth rate of Kerala
Economy
0
Secondary
1995-96
to 2000-
Primary
1990-91
to 1995-
5
1980-81
to 1985-
%
10
Year
5
Tertiary
NSDP
Kerala received much academic attention due to its unique development
experience. Kerala’s development is characterized by (a) low rate of growth
and backwardness of the productive sectors (b) very high incidence of outmigration and heavy reliance on the remittances. The structural changes that
the economy had undergone indicate that there is a decline in the primary
and secondary sectors and an increase in the tertiary sector.
Table: 1.2 shows that the share of agriculture in the state economy has been
steadily declining over the last four decades. In the 1960’s agriculture
contributed 55.63 per cent to the SDP but by the year 2000-01, it has
declined to 24.62 per cent.
Table: 1.2
Sector-wise Distribution of the State Domestic Product
Industry
Agriculture Services
No.
Period
(1)
(2)
(3)
Total
1
1960-61
15.59
55.63
28.78
100
2
1970-71
20.42
45.57
34.01
100
3
1980-81
20.67
40.17
39.16
100
4
1990-91
26.61
32.65
40.74
100
5
2000-01
19.79
24.62
55.59
100
Source: Domestic Products of States of India: 1960-61 to 2000-01, EPW
Research Foundation, 2002.
6
Graph 1.2
Sectorial distribution of Kerala
Economy (2000-01)
1
1
2
3
2
1- Primary Sector
2- Secondary Sector
3- Tertiary Sector
7
3
Within India, the state of Kerala stands apart in respect of its sensitivity to
changes in the national and international environment. Its agriculture is
marked by a series of agricultural micro environments suited to different
kinds of mixed farming, and by a large proportion of perennial crops in its
total agricultural output. More than 80% of the agricultural products of the
state are dependent on the home and international markets. Coconut and
rubber together account for one half of the cultivated land and two thirds of
the value of gross income generated by the crop sub-sector. The export crops
of the state together account for one tenth of the cultivated land and a quarter
of the income from the crop sub- sector (Swaminathan, 2003).
An analysis of the growth rate of the different sectors in Kerala indicates a
slow recovery in the agriculture sector, powered by the sharp increase in
rubber prices. This recovery though slow is very important in its multiplier
effects on the rural development, employment generation and poverty
alleviation.
8
Table: 1.3
Growth Rates of Different Sectors
Sectors
Year
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
Overall
2001-02
-0.06
-0.84
2.84
1.5
2002-03
1.47
5.81
8.55
6.63
2003-04
-2.01
6.02
8.88
6.31
2004-05
-2.88
5.56
8.76
6.15
Source: Economic Review, 2005.
9
Graph 1.3
%
Primary sector growth rate in Kerala
2
1
0
-1 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
-2
-3
-4
Year
10
Primary
The land use pattern in the state
Of the total geographic area of the state, 1, 082, 00 hectares are under the
forests. With an annual average rainfall around 3000 mm the state cultivates
cash crops mostly. A major difference for the land use pattern in Kerala
against most of the other Indian states is that very little land is kept under
permanent fallows. Over the last few decades very little change is observed
in the land use pattern.
Table: 1.4
Land Use Pattern in Kerala 1990-91 to 2001(Area in ‘000 hectares)
Classification of land
Year
1990-91
Change
in area
between
2002-03
and
2003-04
-
1994-95
1998-99
2001-02
2003-04
Total
geographical 3885 (100.00)
area
Forests
1082(27.85)
3885 (100.00)
3885 (100.00)
3885 (100.00)
1082(27.85)
1082(27.85)
1082(27.85)
Land
put
nonagricultural uses
Barren & uncultivated
lands
Permanent-pastures
Land
under
miscellaneous crops
Cultivated
waste
lands
Fallow other than
current fallow
Current fallow
Net area sown
Area sown more than
once
Total cropped area
Cropping intensities
297 (7.65)
323.2(8.31)
334(8.59)
392(10.10)
58 (1.49)
48(1.25)
28(0.73)
30(0.77)
2 (0.05)
34 (0.89)
1.5(0.04)
32(0.83)
0.7(0.02)
20(0.52)
0.2(0.01)
14(0.35)
3885
(100.00)
1081
(27.83)
387
(9.98)
29.5
(0.76)
0.4(0.01)
11.93(0.31)
95(2.43)
82(2.12)
63(1.61)
64(1.64)
70.82(1.82)
2.25
25(0.68)
29(0.75)
32(0.81)
34(0.88)
39.38(1.01)
0.50
44(1.14)
2247(57.83)
796(19.90)
48(1.23)
2239(57.64)
809(20.82)
68(1.75)
2259(58.13)
658(16.93)
79(2.04)
2191(56.38)
802 (20.63)
70.53(1.82)
2193(56.45)
782.89(20.15)
-0.37
0.23
0.13
3043(77.72)
135.44
3048(78.45)
136.20
2917(75.16)
129.12
2992(77.01)
137.00
2976(76.60)
136
0.20
-
Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2003.
11
-1.40
-0.24
69.96
-8.32
The decline of agriculture in the state
Kerala is richly endowed with natural resources for the high
production of biomass. The state benefits from both South West and
North East monsoons. The annual rainfall exceeds 300cm and the
number of rainy days per annum is at least 125 days a year. The data
on rainfall pattern in the state indicate that the districts considered for
the study, namely Kottayam and Ernakulam, have been receiving
normal rainfall for the past 5-6 years.
Table: 1.5
District wise Annual Average Rainfall (in mm.)
Sl. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
District
Thiruvananthapuram
Kollam
Pathanamthitta
Alappuzha
Kottayam
Idukki
Eranakulam
Thrissur
Palakkad
Malappuram
Kozhikode
Wayanad
Kannur
Kasaragod
Normal
1955
2729
3087
3025
3047
3946
3250
3097
2363
2560
3185
3622
3375
3480
1998
2080
2523
3128
3108
3371
3833
3317
3315
2407
3019
3392
2438
3484
3778
1999
1927
2886
3380
3104
2957
4247
3053
2767
2122
2852
2819
2231
3037
3235
Source: Meteorological Department, Kerala
12
2000
1501
2353
2685
2638
2412
3226
2658
2074
1831
2191
2529
2344
2918
3152
2001
2101
2432
2907
2748
3078
3686
3587
2761
1970
2508
2646
1983
2944
3854
2002
1505
2104
2400
2478
2634
3361
3018
2569
1833
2200
2845
2098
3087
3174
2003
1567
2025
2575
2328
2780
3152
2593
2248
1728
2206
2274
1915
2865
3064
2004
1911
2427
2922
2804
2910
3835
3201
2928
2227
2644
3333
2608
3370
3157
The debates in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s were centered on the issue
whether the agricultural production in the state was declining or going
through cyclical changes (Narayana, 1990; Kannan and Pushpangadan,
1990). However, the agricultural income of the state was growing while the
area under the food crops declined (Lelitha Bhai, 1993). The revival of
agriculture in the nineties was mainly due to the increase in the cultivation of
high-value plantation crops.
However the long run growth of agriculture in the state is comparatively less
than that in the other states and the Indian average .The productivity of most
of the crops cultivated in the state also is considerably lower than the Indian
average. The agriculture in Kerala is characterized by intensive use of land in
the unique pattern of mixed cropping.
Though there has been a continuous shift in the cropping pattern from food
crops to cash crops, agriculture in the state remained backward with
traditional methods of cultivation and production of agricultural raw
materials for export (John,K.K, 2004). Due to the very small size of holdings
most of the farmers considered agriculture as a subsidiary occupation.
Kerala’s NSDP showed positive annual growth rates throughout the
1990’s. However the performance of primary sector, especially that of
13
agriculture has been disappointing especially in the latter part of the
1990’s. Though the National Agricultural policy envisages an annual
growth rate of more than 4 per cent, the state realized only 1.75 per cent
growth in the period from 1998-99 to 2001-02. Annual growth rates of
income from 1993-94 to 2001-02 are presented in the Table: 1. 6.
Table: 1.6
Annual Growth Rate of Different Sectors in the Economy
Year
Annual Growth Rates (%)
Agricul Forestry
ture
Fishing
Mining&
quarrying
Primary Net State
sector
Domestic
Product
1993-94
-
-
-
-
-
-
1994-95
10.25
9.50
6.88
-18.88
9.70
8.62
1995-96
0.72
-11.97
-12.41
41.93
-1.37
4.01
1996-97
2.42
4.16
10.44
-12.48
3.04
8.18
1997-98
-4.75
-2.90
-19.07
10.94
-5.60
2.16
1998-99
1.81
4.42
7.31
16.43
2.51
7.02
1999-00
1.70
7.13
8.61
4.00
2.59
6.76
2000-01
1.76
5.18
7.99
10.22
2.60
5.30
7.10
2.65
4.73
2001-02
1.73
5.56
8.33
Source: State Planning Board, 2003
14
Change in cropping pattern in the state
An analysis of the change in cropping pattern of the state shows that there
has been a consistent shift towards garden crops at the expense of food
crops.
Table: 1.7
Area Under the Food Crops from 1990-91 to 2001-02
Crops
Year
Growth rate in
area
1990-91
1994-95
1998-99
2001-02
Coconut
870.2(28.59)
900.72(29.55)
882.29(30.25)
905.72(30.27)
0.48
Rice
559.45(18.38)
503.3(16.53)
352.63(12.09)
322.37(10.77)
-5.51
Rubber
384(12.62)
443.30(14.54)
469.92(16.11)
475.04(15.88)
1.58
Tapioca
146.49(4.81)
130.11(4.27)
112.77(3.87)
119.19(3.72)
-4.16
Pepper
168.51(5.54)
188.69(6.19)
182.38(6.25)
203.96(6.82)
1.39
Cashew nut
115.62(3.80)
105.68(3.47)
91.29(3.13)
89.72(3.00)
-2.55
Coffee
75.06(2.47)
82.35(2.70)
83.68(2.87)
84.80(2.83)
0.58
& 65.64(2.16)
72.43(2.38)
81.47(2.79)
106.05(3.54)
4.04
Areca Nut
64.82(2.13)
69.05(2.27)
73.64(2.52)
93.19(3.11)
3.21
Cardamom
66.89(2.20)
43.32(1.42)
41.45(1.42)
41.34(1.38)
-2.10
Tea
34.71(1.14)
34.66(1.14)
36.83(1.26)
36.90(1.23)
0.63
Total
2551.21(83.84)
2573.60(84.44)
2408.35(82.56)
2470.28(82.56)
-0.42
Banana
plantains
Source: Farm Guide, Department of Agriculture, Kerala
15
During the latter period of the 1990’s the proportion of area under rice
declined from 18.38 to 10.77 per cent per annum with an annual
growth rate of -5.51. In the same period, the area under coconut, the
principal competitor for rice, increased from 28.59 per cent to 30.27
per cent. However the annual growth rate has been meager at 0.48 per
cent. The other crops which registered positive growth during the
period were areca nut and banana and other plantains. The area under
banana and plantains cultivation has increased by over 60 per cent
within the last 12 years. It can reasonably be argued that in the recent
years, a sizable proportion of the rice fields is being overtaken by
these two crops (Thomas P.M, 2004).
Several studies have proved that relative prices and profitability are
the main factors that influence any change in cropping pattern. This
justifies the conversion of paddy lands of Kerala into coconut, tapioca
or rubber cultivation. Low levels of income instability also have
helped the shift towards rubber.
The trends in the agricultural income for the last eight years show
inconsistency in growth. Food crops in general have suffered a setback in
area and production despite sizeable investment. The provisional estimates
of growth rate in agricultural income by the department of Economics and
16
Statistics for the year 2002-03 was -5.54 per cent. However, final figures
showed an increase of 1.28 per cent growth. The factors that contributed to
the dismal performance could be the low prices for agricultural commodities
coupled with deficient rainfall. The data in the Table: 1.8 indicates the
growth of agricultural income from1993-94 to 2003-04.
Table: 1.8
Growth of Agricultural Income in Kerala
Year
Agricultural
Rate of change Percentage
Income (Rs. In over
previous contribution to state
crores)
year
income
1993-94
6256
-
26.23
1994-95
6897
10.25
26.62
1995-96
6947
0.72
25.78
1996-97
7115
2.42
25.39
1997-98
6777
-4.75
23.67
1998-99
6900
1.81
22.52
1999-00
7017
1.70
21.45
2000-01
5448
-22.36
16.23
2001-02
5312
-2.50
15.39
2002-03
5380
1.28
14.53
2003-04
5165
-4.00
13.00
Source: Department of Economics and Statistics
17
The increase in agricultural wages also has negatively affected the
profitability of major crops. The expectation of higher income from
non-agricultural work and consequent higher investments in human
capital
discourage
people
from
(Santhakumar and Nair, 1989).
18
investment
in
agriculture
Graph 1.4 Graph showing the growth of Agricultural Income in Kerala
8000
7000
6000
Annual 5000
Income ( 4000
In Crores) 3000
2000
1000
0
Year
19
1993-94
1994-95
1995-96
1996-97
1997-98
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
The state accounts for 45% of the plantation crops in the country.
Nearly 20% of the population depends on plantation crops for their
livelihood. Kerala’s plantation and field crop mix includes paddy,
tapioca, banana, rubber, coffee and cardamom. The pegging of the
Kerala economy on the performance in the plantation crops sector
makes it more vulnerable to changes in international prices.
The
inherently
dependent
vulnerable,
agriculture
of
predominantly
Kerala
has
commodity
been
market
undergoing
an
unprecedented economic depression of crisis proportions since the last
quarter of the 1990’s consequent to the price crash in most of the
commodities. The first half of the nineties witnessed buoyancy in the
farm economy of Kerala, which reflected in the marked rural
prosperity of Kerala. This could on one hand be attributed to the
resurgence in the production and productivity of most of the crops in
the state. On the other hand the price of all the commodities which
constitute raw materials for export and industrial use witnessed a
gradual increase till the mid-nineties and reached an all time high in
the period between 1996 and 1998. Since then agricultural prices
plummeted to unforeseen levels.
20
Land Reforms and Kerala Agriculture
In Kerala the land reforms of the 1960’s gave title ownership to 1.5 million
cultivating tenants. But many of them did not have the necessary capital or
managerial skills required to adapt themselves to the changing market
situations. Also the lack of access to credit institutions and market
information made them skeptical about such changes. The successive
divisions of the joint families, through the subdivision of the inherited land,
led to the emergence of a large number of small and marginal holdings.
The second generation inheritors of such cultivable lands with their prime
livelihood interests being satisfied by other occupations chose to be passive
land owners. For them the land was no longer a means of production but a
commodity of exchange. This genre of absentee landlords preferred low
input agriculture in the homesteads. The loss of the economies of scale
added to the plight of the new land owners who also lacked capital or
managerial skills required to adapt themselves to the market oriented
capitalistic farming.
Nearly 67 per cent of the tenant turned owners held less than 0.5 Ha.
and 88.5 per cent below 1Ha. Nearly 1 million had no other holding
21
other than the land leased in. So we cannot categorically affirm that
the land reforms brought forth a class of sturdy peasant proprietors.
Many of the new landowners had other significant income
opportunities. Consequently they relied on hired labor. As their
educational and social status improved, they avoided making further
investments in labor-intensive agriculture. As the result, there
occurred a shift towards perennial crops that required less labor. The
price- advantage catalyzed this shift. Others opted to leave their land
idle or leased it out illegally to poor peasant cultivators.
Many of these difficulties could have been tackled with additional
agrarian reforms, on promotion of joint farming or group farming,
irrigation, development of new products, marketing and so on. All of
them call for popular initiatives at local level, comprehensive policy
packages and efficient public administration. It is in the absence of
such supportive institutional arrangements, that the land reforms in
Kerala contributed to agricultural stagnation.
The group farming in paddy was a bold step initiated to internalize the
production indivisibilities created by the predominance of the small and the
marginal holdings. It envisaged group action in agronomic practices and in
22
the arrangement of inputs. The lack of stakeholders’ involvement in decision
making was the major drawback in the implementation of the programme
(Jacob, 1996). However, it helped in visible cost reduction in all size groups
of land holdings especially the small farms.
In the early nineties, Kerala government evolved various programmes with
the participatory approach. They envisaged eliciting greater participation of
potential beneficiaries in the planning, implementation, monitoring and
evaluation of the development projects. With the implementation of the
decentralized planning in the State, creation of such participatory institutions
is gaining importance.
The engine of development in Kerala was public action in a wide sense
which went beyond the State initiative and involved the public at large. It
was the early promotion of literacy that helped the public to actively
participate in state politics and social affairs. In Kerala public action has
helped to orient the direction of the state in the commitment to social
opportunities (Dreze and Sen, 1997, p54).
23
Current problems in agriculture
The declining profitability, uneconomic size of holdings, shortage of
farm labourers, high price of land and large scale conversion of
agricultural lands for non-agricultural uses impair the development of
agricultural sector in the state.
(1)
Decline in profitability
In the case of majority of crops cultivated in the state the material and
labour costs account for more than 80 per cent of the cost of
cultivation. In the post-liberalization era the price of fertilizers has
increased manifold. The decline in farm price, in the absence of any
noteworthy increase in farm productivity, adversely affected the
profitability of major crops of Kerala. The index numbers of prices
received and paid by the farmers of Kerala show that the prices paid
by farmers increased at the annual rate of 12.09 and 10.28 per cent
while the prices received by them increased at a much lower rate of
5.99 per cent (Table:1.9 ).
24
Table: 1.9
Index Numbers of Prices Received and Paid by Farmers of Kerala
Year
Prices
received
Cultivation
costs
Prices paid
Parity
prices
received
paid
1990
1072
1728
1277
84
1991
1315
1910
1435
92
1992
1486
2255
1646
90
1993
1496
2579
1834
82
1994
1582
2891
2057
77
1995
1802
3312
2331
77
1996
2079
3928
2666
78
1997
2486
4571
3007
83
1998
2447
4895
3212
76
1999
2907
5556
3532
82
2000
2492
6173
3836
65
2001
1927
6584
4048
48
2002
1999
6684
4122
49
Growth rate
5.99
12.09
10.28
-4.25
of
&
Source: Department of Agriculture, Kerala
The data indicate that the prices received grew at a rate of 5.99 per cent
whereas the prices paid increased at a higher rate of 12.09 per cent. The
parity between the prices received and the prices paid also has eroded
25
considerably indicating the financial vulnerability of the farming sector
in the state
(2) Uneconomic size of holdings
The agrarian structure of Kerala is dominated by the large-scale presence of
marginal holdings. Of these, 94% of marginal holdings are of average size of
0.16 Ha.
Table: 1.10
Distribution of Holdings and Average Size of Holdings
Size of holdings
Number of holdings Percentage
Marginal(Less
than1)
Small (1 to 2)
5919075
93.99
Average size
(Ha.)
0.16
261418
4.15
1.32
Semi-medium(2 94098
to 4)
Medium(4 to 10) 19555
1.49
2.54
0.31
5.31
Large(10and
above)
All sizes
3141
0.05
35.27
6297287
100.00
0.27
Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, 2001
The agricultural income per hectare in the state during the year is too low for
the farm families to subsist on. The uneconomic size of holdings deters the
young people from traditional farmer households to take up cultivation as a
full-time occupation. The land Reforms in Kerala thus inhibited free capital
formation in the sector and restricted the scope of large-scale scientific
farming.
26
Graph 1.6 Distribution of Holdings and Average Size of Holdings
Marginal(Less
than1)
Small (1 to 2)
Semi-medium(2
to 4)
Medium(4 to 10)
Large(10and
above)
27
(2)
Shortage of farm laborers
In Kerala there exists an ever-widening gap between demand and supply
of labor in the agricultural sector. Currently, a large number of farmer
households in the state has other sources of income to supplement their
earnings from farming. Either the farmers or any members of the
household do not do any manual work in their holdings, but depend on
hired labor. Generally, it is argued that the general aversion towards the
drudgery of manual labor is the major reason leading to this situation.
Other reason could be the generation of employment opportunities for the
semi-skilled and skilled members of these households in other sectors.
The successful adoption of family planning measures enabled many
agriculture labor households rely exclusively on the earnings of the male
members and their womenfolk refrain from agricultural labor. The large
scale migration of rural youth to foreign countries and other states in
industrial or other sectors also add to the shortage in supply of rural labor
willing to contribute human power to the cultivation of crops here.
(3)
Increase in land prices
In Kerala land is not treated as a means of production but as an asset and
for speculative exchange. The speculative investors and real estate
developers who have no interests in farming have already entered the
28
land market as buyers. The remittances from abroad act as a catalyst in
such transactions. This has led to abnormal price increase in land market.
(4)
Conversion of agricultural land for other uses
From the beginning of 1990’s the annual rate of increase of land put to nonagricultural uses has been increasing relatively over the previous decades.
During the period from 1990-91 to 2000-01 there was an increase of 31.95
per cent increase in the area put to non-agricultural uses. The rapid
development of tertiary sector and growing pressure from population growth
has led to the situation where, agricultural lands throughout the state are
being used for residential buildings, roads, and commercial establishments
which reduce the area under cultivated crops.
The poor achievements in agricultural research, absentee landlordism,
militancy of agricultural laborers, poor soil management, environmental
degradation and drawbacks in the formulation and implementation of
development programmes etc. have also played a significant role in the
downward trend in agricultural growth in the state.
The cultural transformation of the peasant population in the state also
has contributed to the decline of agriculture in the state. The absentee
landlords found better social status in government services. The gulf
boom also made visible changes in the outlook of the average Keralite.
29
The peasants, with their progeny getting access to better education and
blue collar jobs ( many of them low-paid), found agriculture and
related jobs strenuous and menial. This self-denial of the land-related
identity by the post-reforms peasant community in the state, has added
a sociological dimension to the downfall of agriculture in Kerala.
Future
At present Kerala is witnessing the emergence of an alternate agrarian
model institutionalized by the empowerment of the small and marginal
farmers, through facilitating the intergenerational mobility and
providing production and marketing facilities at close quarters for the
beneficiaries. This model is pegged on the collective survival
mechanisms of the rural community, developed in response to the
aggravated fragility and vulnerability of the rural sector in the
backdrop of liberalization of the economy.
This model, ideally envisages the development of the small and marginal
farmers as an entrepreneurial class, transforming their natural, physical,
financial and human resources into better production possibilities. Such
development of entrepreneurship is a crucial factor for the development of
the nation. Entrepreneurship is the creative and innovative responses to the
30
environment in the context of production, either in the sphere of agriculture,
industry or services or even social work.
Objective of the study
This study proposes to examine the emerging agrarian relations conceived
and implemented by the various institutionally arranged mechanisms and to
analyze their effectiveness in responding to the changing needs of the small
and marginal farmers against the demands of a liberalized, globalized
economy.
At present, there is an accepted practice of informal leasing of cultivable
land to the marginal farmers even in the absence of a formal legal
mechanism. There is every possibility that this can alter the agrarian
relations of the state. Another question is the efficacy of the cultivation of
non-traditional crops in wetlands to create employment in the rural sector. It
is also necessary to examine the effectiveness of the activities done to
promote collective action in the empowerment of small and marginal
farmers.
31
The specific objectives aimed at in this study are:
(1)
To measure the trend in area and production of vegetable crops in Kerala.
(2)
To arrive at the production efficiency in the informally organized vegetable
sector.
(3)
To evaluate the efficiency of these participatory institutions in creating
additional employment.
(4)
To assess the effectiveness of these institutions to empower the rural poor,
and
(5)
To examine the sustainability of these institutions.
Hypotheses tested
1. The self Help Groups are able to make positive impact on the vegetable
production in the state, by acting as an alternate mechanism for the
consolidation of cultivable land holdings in the state
2. The leased land commercial cultivation of vegetables is profitable with
the credit, production and marketing support given by VFPCK.
3. The SHGs through the support of VFPCK are effective in empowering
the rural poor.
4. The farmers who are members of the SHGs are better empowered
compared to the Haritha Sangham farmers.
32
Methodology
The data on cost of cultivation is analyzed crop-wise to generate an idea
about the cropping pattern in the study area. The leadership components are
identified and an empowerment index is worked out. The methodology is
described in detail in the fourth chapter.
33