Wastelands in Rural India : Policy Initiatives and Programmes for their Development

G.K. CHADHA

National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Mumbal 1996

Occasional Paper 2

Wastelands in Rural India : Policy Initiatives and Programmes for their Development

G.K. CHADHA

National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development Mumbai 1996

Published by National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Department of Economic Analysis and Research, Jeevan Seva Complex (Annexe), S. V. Road, Santacruz (W), l^umbai - 400 054 and Printed at Karnatak Orion Press, Fort, tvlumbai - 400 001.

Acknowledgement The present paper was commissioned by the National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Bombay. The author is grateful to them for showing keen interest in this area of crucial importance to Rural India. The paper is based on secondary data and other published works/studies on the subject. The limitation of the work should therefore be quite obvious. All deficiencies and weakness belong to the author.

G.K. Chadha Jawaharlal Nehru University New Delhi

Contents
Page No.
1. The Wasteland Issue: An Overview II. Land-use Pattern 1. 2. 3. 4. III. National-Level Temporal Profile State-Level Profile Total Wasteland Components of Wasteland 1 7 7 13 16 16 23 25 43 50 57 63 63 65 66 71 72 74 74 76 ?? 78 83 84 85 85 86 86 87 89

District-Level View of Wasteland 1. MoA Estimates: 1989-92

2. NRSA Estimates: 1986-88 3. Comparing MoA with NRSA Estimates 4. Major Categories of Wastelands

IV. Policies/Schemes for Wasteland DevelopmenI 1. NCIA Initiatives 2. NWDB Initiatives 3. DWD Schemes 4. MoAC Schemes 5. MoEF Schemes 6. Planning Commission Schemes 7. NABARD Initiatives V. Looking Back, Looking Ahead 1. Operational Side of the Wasteland Development Programme

2. Assessing Past" Performance 3. Looking Ahead i) ii) iii) iv) v) vi) Approaching the Problem The Question of Technology Updating Information Base Working of Financial Institutions Grassroots Adjustments Institutional Restructuring

References

I The Wasteland Issue : An Overview

Agriculture continues to be the main economic activity in rural areas of the developing world in spite of a steady diversification of their economic base during the preceding decades. Agriculture will continue to dominate rural economy of these areas for a long time to come. It is natural, therefore, that the availability of land to, and its use pattern in, agriculture would remain issues of extreme importance to policy planners, especially because unlike other factors of production, land is not only a highly scarce but is also a non-reproducible means of production. In the particular context of Indian realities, typically characterized by continuing population pressures, and ever declining land : man ratio, preponderance of small and fragmented holdings, highly inequitous land distribution structure, etc., the significance of land-population balance rises all the more.Further, the limited capability of the urban-industrial sector to absorb the expanding rural labour force would keep a vast majority of work-seekers tagged to land, principally in agricultural activities, and to some extent, in diverse non-farm jobs in and around the villages. From every conceivable angle, therefore, the most crucial and most vexatious issue in rural India would be of land availability. In a broad sense, the availability of land to agriculture by itself would set the future pattern of India's development, most ostensibly the farm-nonfarm linkages, the rural-urban migration, the incidence of rural-urban poverty, and so on. For populous countries such as China, India and Indonesia, the population-land balance is ipso facto the demand-supply balance for food. Broadly, this balance is conceived to operate in two ways. First, following the Ricardian School, the economy has some 'virgin' uncultivated land which it can gradually draw upon for expanding food production. The steadily increasing 'margin of cultivation' sustains the growing population and food requirements. On the other hand, Clark, Boserup and Simon do not foresee much possibility of adding on to 'area already under plough'. It is the improving technology of production that delivers more food and sustains expanding race of human beings. An increasing level of cropping intensity is, inter alia, an important off-shoot of improved technology. In fact, for many countries, expanding 'double cropped area' remains the only option for augmenting food/agricultural production, when all cultivable land has alredy come under plough.

It can be argued that the Ricardian option is at best a shortterm cushion for most developing economies, most pointedly the populous ones among them. The extending "margin of cultivation' does cease to operate sooner or later. It is also a fact that the Ricardian option has worked as an easy way out with numerous developing economies for expanding domestic food production and 'land augmenting' technological improvements have received scant public attention and resources. The African, especially the Sub-Sahara, agriculture is a typical example of this kind. For a majority of developing economies, the land-use policy has been to draw upon both options simultaneously, with a relatively higher reliance on the easier Ricardian option for the first few decades and then switching over partially or completely to the other side when the first option ceases to exist or becomes much too costly to draw upon. The problem of declining land: man ratio gets exasperated through the increasing incidence of wastelands. Both nature and man-induced factors are at work in pushing more and more of cultivable area out of use for agricultural production, food supply and rural well-being. Inadequate property rights (most crucially access to land), poverty, population pressure and declining land-man ratio, inappropriate government policies, and lack of access to markets, credit, and technologies appropriate for sustainable agricultural development, etc., are the more glaring among such factors. These are usually put under the rubric man-made factors. There is a natural tendency with the rural poor to "over exploit' land resources. This generally takes the form of overgrazing or deforestation or "unhealthy" cultivation practices. For example, inappropriate cultivation practices can expose soil to water and wind erosion, water-logging,salinization or alkalinization, repeated tillage under economic stress can weaken soil structure, inadequate or imbalanced use of chemical fertilizers can remove soil nutrients and damage yield-raising capability of land, forest clearing for cultivation or reckless grazing on hill slopes can throw land out-of-use as time passes and so on (Miglani 1988, pp. 4-9; Lutz-Pagiola-Reiche, 1994, p.273). Agricultural and pasture lands are affected the most, and the process of 'over-exploiting land' has the latent tendency of perpetuating itself as population pressure continues to grow and cultivable land per head of rural population in general and of poor households in particular, continues to shrink (IFPRI, 1995, p.16). Nature also contributes sizeably to the process of wasteland formation, in many different ways. For example, the continuously occur-

ring wind erosion tal<es away the top soil and impairs the texture of soil, water erosion also takes away the top soil and leads to gulley and ravine formation. Floods lead to sand deposition which affects fertility status of the soil and in certain cases, renders land unfit for cultivation (Singh, et al., 1988). Desert formation because of long spells of scanty rainfall (grossly inadequate to meet the minimum survival plant water requirement), snow covered areas during winter and glacial areas characterized by unassorted sediments, impeded natural drainage and poor soils, barren and rocky surface and steep sloping areas controlled by geological processes, landslides and snow avalanches, etc., are all manifestation of nature's handiwork in restricting man's access to cultivable land. It is natural, therefore, to see that concerns are growing about the extent and rate of land degradation in the world and its effects on agricultural productivity and preservation of natural resources. In the past half-century, about 2 billion of the 8.7 billion hectares of agricultural land, permanent pastures, and forest and woodlands have been degraded. Two-thirds of the world's degraded lands are found in Asia and Africa, but human induced degradation is most severe in Africa, where 30 per cent of the agricultural land, pastures, forests and woodlands are degraded, followed by Asia (27 per cent) and Latin America (18 per cent). Of the total degraded lands in the world, about 40 per cent are mildly degraded which could be restored through good land husbandry measures, while another 45 per cent of moderately degraded land could be restored through significant on-farm investments. Restoring the remaining 15 per cent of severely degraded lands will be much more costly, involving major engineering investments. Worldwise, about 5 to 10 million hectares of land annually becomes unusable due to severe degradation (IFPRI, 1995, p. 16). The process of deforestation has been another area of deep concern. Petty farming and other poor households clear forest land, usually unauthorizedly, to meet immediate food needs. Such clearings accounted for roughly two-thirds of the deforestation in the 1980s. There is no reason to believe that such forest conversions will slow down unless very stringent measures are resorted to (Ibid, p. 17). In recent years, while Latin America had the largest area of forests cleared and converted to other uses, other areas with smaller forest endowments had higher rates of forest conversion and carry heavier risks of completely losing their forest assets. Rates of forest conver-

sion are most rapid, inter-alia, in continental Southeast Asia, averging about 1.5 per cent a year. Deforestation has serious consequences, ranging from increased soil and water degradation to greater food insecurity. The food insecurity effects apply all the more to the local poor people who depend on forest products for food, fibre, medicine and income (Ibid, 1995, P. 17). It is widely believed that land degradation has catastrophic effects on agricultural productivity. Concrete evidence on the magnitude of these effects is, however, hard to find. Nonetheless, crop productivity losses are reported to be far more significant and widespread in hilly areas, dry land cropping areas and irrigated areas under the spell of excess and unregulated use of water and so on {Ibid, p. 16). The problem of land degradation needs to be tackled both at the individual farm household level and the institutional level. Acordingly, it requires conjunctive initiatives of private and public investments, the former being usually supported by the latter. Private initiative and investment may concentrate on resource conservation and soil improvements (including new cropping patterns, crop rotations, farm techniques and practices, regulated irrigation timings and intensity, balanced use of chemical fertilizers, and so on). It is imperative that incentives, such as partial coverage of costs, should be provided to farmers to undertake initiatives towards restoration of degraded lands; the underlying subsidy on land-improving on-farm investment by individual farmers may better be interpreted as public investment for a social purpose. Such an incentive may spur private investment initiatives; at least the consciousness at the farm household level is heightened and further degradation may stop. From the above, it may not be concluded that all types of soil conservation initiatives at the farm household level are bound to succeed or have a potential to succeed or throw up favourable benefitcost ratios, and so on. "Returns to conservation depend on the specific agro-ecological conditions faced, on the technologies used, and on the prices of inputs used and outputs produced" (Lutz-PagiolaReiche, 1994,pp.288-89). Moreover, all conservation proposals may not be economically viable to individual farmers, especially where 'very fragile soils' are involved and cropping patterns are "stubbornly likely to be profitable either when they are cheap and simple or when they allow farmers to adopt improved practices" {Ibid, p. 289).

On the other hand, the larger and capital intensive areas of land reclamation and other supportive actions necessarily falls in the domain of state intervention and public investment. A two-pronged attack may be conceived. First, land reclamation schemes such as desalinization of affected areas, reforestation, contour-bunding, flood control, drainage or developing crop varieties with higher salt tolerance so that productivity on salinized lands goes up, etc, may be taken up with utmost urgency. Public investment in these areas of national importance must command high priority. In most of these areas neither market nor policy incentives are presently strong enough for farmers or other private agencies to undertake them. "Thus, either the government must make tlie investment or the land will be left to deteriorate further until incentives are right" (IFPRI, 1995, p.34). Second, the basic causes which are usually responsible for 'unscientific individual action inviting self-despair' must also be attended to, with equal vehemence. Reproductive health services and family planning, primary education especially among the females, primary health care and nutrition programmes are llie needed initiatives of one kind. No less important is to straighten out issues connected with land rights and security of land leases, employment-income-poverty levels since, in many cases, these are the factors that drive many a poor farmer to 'reckless exploitation' of land and water resources. Public policy intervention in these areas would clearly have a favourable impact on private initiatives towards land reclamation or soil conservation. Going by her specific agrarian features, including declining landman ratios, rural poverty and highly inequitous land distribution, in India too, the land degradation problem has assumed serious dimensions in recent years. 'Serious ecological and socio-economic' consequences of land degradation are echoed in many official documents and policy pronouncements, especially since the establishment of the National Wastelands Development Board in rnid-1980s (Govt, of India, 1995, p.1. Govt, of India, 1994, pp 1-2). It is important to point out that there is no settled opinion about what constitutes wasteland. No wonder, therefore, estimates of wasteland differ widely, depending on how the word 'waste' is interpreted or played upon, and what potential uses are visualized for the wasteland as such or after it is reclaimed, and so on (Farmer, 1974; Miglani, Bt al. 1988; IFPRI, 1995; Chadha, 1982; Govt, of India, 1993; Govt, of India, 1995).

Again, it is not uncommon to mix up the terms 'wasteland' and "degraded land', and by implication, to tear off the time dimension of the reclaimability issue from the main debate (Govt, of India, 1995A, p.19). We have no desire to enter into the subtleties of individual definitions. It is not needed either since already "too much energy has been spent over the determination of exact extent of wastelands and of their exact locations" {Ibid, p. 19). This is all the more so since the country's readiness to deal with the wasteland problem is still at a rudimentary level. Accordingly, we fully endorse the view that "the need of the hour is not to get lost in such essentially peripheral matters but to start work on the amelioration of sick lands in right earnest on the basis of the knowledge that is already available ..." {Ibid, p.19). In our view, to say that 'nearly half of the total land area is suffering from degradation of some form or the other' is clearly an overestimate of the magnitude of the problem yet we endorse the fact that the problem is grave and that there is an urgent need to evolve integrated strategies for wasteland development (Govt, of India, 1995, p.1). A number of schemes are already in hand in at least three central government ministries, and some more may be in the offing. It is highly opportune that NABARD is involving itself in this area of crucial national significance. The present paper is commissioned by NABARD to have a broad view of the problem, the ongoing policies and programmes to tackle the same and possibly to decide then the precise modus operandi of its interventionist policy initiatives.

II Land-use Pattern in India:

National-Level Temporal Profile Like most other developing economies, Indian agriculture has sustained itself on a mixture of 'land extensive' and 'land Intensive' processes of production. For the first two decades of its development effort since 1951, the Ricardian option of pushing up the 'margin of cultivation' was exploited to the fullest possible extent so that by the closing years of the 1960s, net sown area stood stretched pretty close to its ultimate limit. Nearly two-thirds of India's agricultural output during this period was contributed by 'sheer area expansions'. Thereafter, not much fresh area could be brought under plough so that yield and productivity expansions became the major contributor of farm output (Narain, 1977, p.8). Let us look at the land use pattern a little more systematically. Table 2.1 gives a broad view of what has been happening at the national level for four decades since 1950-51. The steady expansion of 'net sown area' is clearly visible till 1970-71. Since 1970-71, it remained stubbornly constant. This confirms our contention that by the close of the sixties, we were left with very little possibility of bringing fresh area under cultivation. As a matter of fact, even according to the optimistic projections of the National Commission on Agriculture, net sown area would increase by just 0.15 per cent per year between 2000 and 2050 (Govt, of India. 1976. pp. 150-53). in brief, the option of adding to the net sown area is practically nonexistent over large part of Indian agriculture and the expansion of multiple cropped area is now the only enduring option left for 'augmenting land supply' and agricultural output (Chadha, 1982, p.31). Table 2.1 shows a much better record of cropping intensity during 1970-71/1990-91 than during 1950-51/1970-71 ;double-cropped area expanded by 11.87 million hectares during 1950-51/1970-71 compared with 18.24 million hectares during 1970-71/1990-91.

Table 2.1 Land-use Pattern in India since 1950-51

(Area: Miliion Hectares) Land-use Description 1 1. 2. 3. 284.32 (100) 40.48 (14.24) Area not Available for Cultivation: 47.52 (16.71) (a) Barren and Uncultivable Land; 38.16 (13.42) (b) Land under Non-agricultural Uses 9.36 (3.29) Permanent Pastures and Other Grazing Lands 6.67 (2.35) Land under Misc. Tree Crops and Groves 19.83 (6.98) Culturable Waste Land 22.94 (8.07) Fallow Lands; 28.13 (9.89) (a) Current Fallows 10.68 (3.76) (b) Other Fallows 17.45 (6.14) Net Sown Area 118.75 (41.77) Gross Cropped Area 131.89 Cropping Intensity 111.10 Rural Population (Million Persons) 298.60 Total Reported Area (According to Village Papers) Area under Forests 291.92 (100) 51,34 (17.59) 48.40 16.58) 36.30 (12.43) 12.10 (4.15) 11.47 (3.93) 5.88 (2.01) 21.54 (7.38) 24.12 (8.26) 11.58 (3.97) 12.54 (4.30) 129.16 (44.25) 147.32 114.05 327.9 298.46 (100) 54.05(18.11) 50.75 (17.00) 35.91 (12.03) 14.84 (4.97) 13.97 (4.68) 4,46 (1.49) 19.21 (6.44) 22.82 (7,65) 11,64 (3,90) 11,18 (3,75) 133,20 (44,62) 152,77 114,70 360,30 305,54 (100) 61,54 (20,14) 49,50 (16,20) 34,56 (11.32) 14,94 (4,89) 14,81 (4.85) 4.08 (1.33) 16.96 (5.55) 22.44 (7.34) 13.18 (4.31) 9.26 (3.03) 136.20 (44.58) 155.28 114,02 397,80 303,76 (100) 63,92 (21,04) 44,64 (14,70) 28,16 (9,27) 16,48 (5.43) 13.26 (4.36) 4.30 (1.42) 17.50 (5.76) 19.36 (6,37) 10,60 (3,49) 8,76 (2,88) 140,78 (46,35) 165.79 118,95 439,1 304,25 (100) 66,90 (21,98) 39,47 (12.99) 22.13 (7.28) 17.34 (5.70) 12.62 (4.15) 3.98 (1.31) 17.36 (5.71) 21.70 (7.13) 12.46 (4,10) 9,24 (3,03) 142,22 (46,74) 171,00 120,33 480,5 1950-51 1955-56 1960-61 1965-66 1970-71 1975-76 1980-81 8 304,17 (100) 67,42 (22,16) 39,62 (13,03) 19,96 (6,56) 19,66 (6,46) 12,01 (3,95) 3,49 (1,15) 16,73 (5,50) 24,63 (8,10) 14.81 (4,87) 9,82 (3,23) 140,27 (46,12) 172,63 123,30 525.5 304.66 (100) 67.04 (22.00) 40.72 (13.37) 20.09 (6.59) 20.63 (6.77) 11.97 (3.93) 3.45 (1.13) 15.69 (5.15) 24.88(8,18) 14,86 (4,88) 10,02 (3,29) 140,92 (46,25) 178,46 126,66 575,1 1985-86 1990-91 10

4.

oo

5. 6. 7.

8. 9. 10. 11.

Source : 1. 2. 3. 4.

305,00 (100) 67,96 (22,28) 40.88 (13.40) 21.22 (6.96) 19.66 (6.45) 11.80 (3.87) 3.70 (1.21) 15.00 (4.92) 23.40 (7.67) 13.81 (4.53) 9.59 (3.14) 142.23 (46.63) 185.48 130.40 628.70 Govt. o1 India, Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, Ministry of Agriculture, Deparlmem of Agriculture and Cooperation, New Delhi, March 1994, pp.79-80 Govt, of Punjab, Statistical Abstract of Purtjab 1968, Economic and Statistical Organization, Chandigarh, March 1969, pp.48-49. Govt, of India, Statistical Abstract INDIA 1992^ Ministry of Planning, Central Statistical Organization September 1994, pp.47-48. G.K. Chadha, "Future of Land-use Pattern" in Golden Han/ests, A Patriot Survey of Agriculture, New Delhi, May 1982, p.29.

The area under forests as a proportion of total reported area increased sizeably from 14.24 per cent in 1950-51 to 21.04 per cent in 1970-71 whereafter it registered an extremely sluggish expansion, reaching 22.28 per cent only in 1990-91. Perhaps, the recent decades have witnessed a queer mixture of fresh afforestation initiatives simultaneously with denuding of forest covers, partly through 'clandestine cuttings' by the rural people and partly through 'unwholesome contracts' to forest lessees by state governments, and so on. On the whole, since the early 1970s, about 22.0 per cent of total area has been under forest cover, and it is not very pleasing in terms of the norms recommended by the National Forest Policy of 1988 (Govt, of India, 1995A, p. 65). All the same, the point of real concern is that all forest areas are not alike or equally healthy. It is believed that more than 40.0 per cent of total forest lands have 'poor tree cover' and can roughly be described as 'degraded forest lands' (Govt, of India, 1995A, p. 18). 'Areas not available for cultivation' consists of two components: (1) barren and uncultivable land, and (2) land put to non-agricultural uses. Absolutely barren and uncultivable land like mountains, deserts, etc. which cannot be brought under plough except at a cost that is difficult to imagine under the 'usual resource constraints of the developing economies' or the ambit of the on-going reclamation technologies, goes under (1). Land covered by buildings, roads, railways, waterbodies, etc., or otherwise appropriated for non-agricultural purposes, makes up (2) (Govt, of India, 1994. pp. 43. Govt, of Punjab. 1995, p. 139). Table 2.1 clearly shows that the barren and uncultivable land has witnessed a steady decline, nearly consistently from one plan to the other while land put to non-agricultural uses has been rising steadily over time. The latter may better be read along increasing area under forests noted above. It is understandable that in" an expanding economy, more and more land is needed for building socio-economic infrastructure (industrial, residential and other buildings, roads, railways, irrigation systems, etc.), especially during the phase of rising pace of urbanization or penetration of non-agricultural activities into the countryside (e.g. during the 1980s in India). It seems, a large part of 'expanding area under non-agricultural uses' has been corning through diversions from barren and uncultivable land. In some sense, it is like activating land areas which are otherwise lying 'waste' and are non-reclaimable for agricultural purposes. If this has been happening through public investment,- it must have exercised some check on agricultural lands

being diverted to non-agricultural uses besides promoting forest cover on the one hand and infrastructural expansion on the other. Permanent pastures and other grazing lands have witnessed a steady increase between 1950-51 and 1964-65 whereafter a gradual decline occurred. Land under miscellaneous tree crops and groves has witnessed an unmistakable decline. The Indian situation clearly shows that 'trees have been cut' and 'groves have been cleared', ostensibly to meet the immediate fuel and fodder needs of the rural poor as also to satisfy the commercial lust of forest lessees, especially in forest-thick, hilly regions. The land cover under tree crops and groves is an important component of 'agricultural health' of rural India and should not receive a casual attention, as in the past. A redeeming feature of Table 2.1 is a consistent decline in culturable waste land. A decline of this kind may be explained by reclamation of water-logged or marshy or salt-affected lands, by a decreasing incidence of shifting cultivation, and through a reduction of degraded land under pastures and plantation crops, and so on. In spite of the declining trend, nearly 15.00 million hectares are still lying as the culturable wasteland in 1990-91. This constituted a neat 5.0 per cent of total reported area and as much as 10.5 per cent of net sown area. This is clearly the area on wfiich most attention must be fixed if wasteland development for augmenting agricultural land mass is to succeed. Regional variations, especially those at the district-level, must be thrown bare so that the stark gross-roots realities facing certain depressed parts of rural India come up more focussedly for policy interventions. Depending on what the secondary data permit, this is done later in the present study. As regards fallow lands, current fallows have generally gone up while old fallows have gone down. The decline in old fallows practically stopped around the time that the green revolution arrived in India. If some of the old fallows were activated back into the cultivation cycle, after the green revolution ensued in mid-1960s, it must have kept a check on 'total culturable waste land'. In any case, in a landscarce rural economy, such as ours, old fallows must be kept under constant vigilance so that climatological stresses do not automatically throw some "old fallows' into the pool of 'culturable waste land'. It may be worthwhile to look at the incremental expansion/contraction of area under various land-use categories, decade by de10

cade. Table 2.2 looks at this phenomenon in two alternate ways, i.e. by neutralizing the change in total reported area, and by letting the increase in total reported area reflect itself in change under each land-use heading. Both ways, the relative changes show the same tendencies, as indeed they should, except that the expansions get mellowed down, and contractions get slightly played up when adjustment for neutralizing the change in reported area is made. We will refer mainly to adjusted figures. A few striking features need to be underlined. First, during the 1950s, area under forests and net sown area expanded by as much as 11.01 and 8.14 million hectares respectively. It is clear that since a part of these two expansions was contributed by the steep decline occurring in 'land area under miscellaneous tree crops and groves' whose significance to the total economic base of rural India was not fully grasped in the first decade of India's planned development era. Some incremental land under plough and forests came through a big decline in 'other fallows' also. Again, thanks to the initial spurt in all-round infrastructural development, the additional land going to non-agricultural uses was also as big as 4.78 million hectares. Happily, culturable waste land and barren and unculturable land also declined respectively by 4.64 and 3.95 million hectares during the 1950s. In total terms, the 1950s reflected all features of a growing rural economy whose concerns for forest cover as also for expanding food production through additional acreage under plough were accommodated, happily by a decline in waste land and unhappily through a steep decline in 'land under miscellaneous tree crops and groves'. The development vision of the time was not thus an unmixed blessing.

11

Table 2.2 Allocation of Incremental Area among Various Land Uses

(Area: Million Hectares)
Land-use Description 1950-51 to 1960-61 2 14.14 (0.00) 13.57 (11.01) 3.23 (0.83) -2.25 (-3.95) 5.48 (4.78) 7.3 (6.64) -15.37 (-15.58) -3.73 (-4.64) -5.31 (-6.39) 0.96 (0.41) -6.27 (-6.80) 1960-61 to 1970-71 3 5.3 (0.00) 9.87 (8.75) -6.11 (6.89) -7,75 (8,25) 1,64 (1,35) 0,71 (0,94) -0 16 (-0,24) -1,71 (-202) -3.46 (-3.80) -1.04 (-1,22) -2.42 (-2.58) 1970-71 to 1980 81 4 0.41 (0.00) 3,5 (3.41) 5.02 (-5.07) 8.2 (8,23) 3.18 (3,15) 1,25 (1,27) -0.81 (-0,81) -0,77 (-0,79) 5.27 (5.24) 4.21 (4 19) 1 06 (1.05) 1980-81 to 1990-91 S 0,83 (0,00) 0,54 (0,36) 1.26 (1,15) 1,26 (1,20) 0 (0,05) 0,21 (-0,24) 0.21 (0,20) -1.73 (-1.77) 1.23 (-1.29) 1 ( 1.04) , 0 23 (-0,25) 1950-51 to 1970-71 6 19,44 (0.00) 23.44 (18,35) 2.88 (-5,74) -10 ( 1 1,80) 712 (6 07) 6,59 (5 74) 1553 (-15,81) -5.44 ( 6.56) 8 77 (-10,01) 0,08 (0.76) 869 (9,25) 1970-71 to 1990-91 7 1.24 (0.00) 4.04 (3.76) -3.76 (-3.93) -6.94 (-7.03) 3.18 (3.10) -1.46 (-1.51) -0.6 (-0.62) -2.5 (-2.56) 4,04 (3.94) 3,21 (3 15) 0.83 (0.79) 1950-51 to 1990-91 8 20.67 (0.00) 27.48 (22.87) -6.64 (-9.41) -16.94 (-18.38) 10.3 (8.97) 5.13 (4.33) -16.13 (-16.38) -7.94 (-8.96) -4,73 (-6,32) 3.13 (2.19) -7.86 (-8,51)

1 1. Total Reported Area

2. Area under Forests

3. Area not Available for Cultivation (a) Barren and Uncultivable Land (b) Land under NonAgricultural Uses 4. Permanent Pastures and Other Grazing Lands 5. Land under Misc. Tree Crops and Groves 6. Culturable Waste Land

7. Fallow Lands :

(a) Current Fallows

(b) Other Fallows

8. Net Sown Area

14.45 (8,14) 6.43

7 58 (5 12) 5,96

0.51 (-0,70) 7,11

1.96 (1,57) 1061

22 03 (13.02) 12.39

1,45 (0.87) 17.72

23.48 (13.84) 30.11

9. Area Sown More than Once 10. Net Irrigated Area 11. Gross Irrigated Area

3.81 5.42

6.44 10.21

7.62 11.59

8.71 12

1025 15 63

16.33 23.59

26.58 39.22

Source: The same as in Table 2,1

12

Second, during the 1960s, the same thrust prevailed except that the draft on 'land under miscellaneous tree crops and groves' was hardly a source to contribute to the expanding 'net sown area' as also to the area under forests. Third, during the 1970s, increment to 'nel sown area' was hardly in evidence, and additional area under forests was also of a modest magnitude (3.41 million hectares against 8.75 million hectares during the 1960s and 11.01 million hectares during the 1950s). 'Barren and unculturable land' declined sizeably by as much as 8.23 million hectares which went partly to 'area under forests' and partly to 'land under non-agricultural uses'. Fourth, during the 1980s, all increments and decrements were of marginal magnitudes. It seems, the possibility of switch-over from one land-use category to the other had exhausted itself nearly completely during the preceding three decades, and a nearly stable land-use pattern was in operation during the 1980s. The marginal increase in 'area under forests' as well as 'net sown area' and a negligible decline in 'old fallow', 'permanent pastures and other grazing lands', 'land under non-agricultural uses', etc. all point to the reality of a stable land-use pattern. Lastly, an overall view of the preceding four decades reconfirms that (i) 'area under forests', 'net sown area' and 'land under nonagricultural uses' witnessed significant expansion, and (ii) 'barren and unculturable land', 'culturable waste land', 'land under miscellaneous tree crops and groves', 'old fallows', etc. declined sizeably. Among the latter, the steep decline in 'land under miscellaneous tree crops and groves' has been a source of anxiety largely because the distress among the lower strata of the rural society is usually held responsible for 'reckless felling of trees'. On the other hand, the sizeable decline in 'barren and unculturable land' as well as 'culturable waste land' has been a healthy development since additional forest cover and 'net sown area' are directly contributed by these sources, respectively. State-Level Profile Let us look at the state-level changes. Table 2.3 sets out a few important details, for the period 1960-61 to 1990-91. With the exception of Bihar, and to a much smaller extent. Gujarat,'net sown area' 13

increased, by varying magnitude, in each slate. Tlio increase in 'net sown area' seems to have been directly conlributcd by declining levels of 'culturable waste land' practically in each state, except in Gujarat. The formidable decline in Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, etc., needs to be noted in particular. It also emerges clearly that the decline in 'land under permanent pastures and other grazing lands' and /or in 'land under miscellaneous tree crops and groves' paved some way for expansion in 'net sown area'. As a matter of fact, decline in 'cultuiable waste land' seems to have moved, hand in hand, with decline in 'land under permanent pastures and other grazing land' and/or 'land under miscellaneous tree crops and groves'. The coefficient of concurrent deviation between CWL (culturable waste land) and TUL (total uncultivated land) (columns 3 and 4, respectively) is as high as 0.95. In other words, the very distress which prompts people to encroach upon 'land under permanent pastures and other grazing land' and/or resort to unimaginative cutting of trees^ or clearing groves, etc. goads them to clear some of the 'cultuj:aDle waste land' for cultivation and allied uses. Reclamation of 'eCilturable waste land' by state authorities is a more likely possibility/but that, in no way, reflects a non-distress situation at the grass-roots level.

14

Table 2.3 Changes in Land-use by State and Use Category 1960-61/1990-91

(Area: Thousand Hectares)
Absolute Change in Area State 1 Andhra Pradesh Assam* N.S.A 2 238 480 -330 -108 174 39 74 153 323 3454 63 316 468 3265 418 111 102 C.W.L 3 -847 -80 -531 1165 -129 -36 -24 -210 -48 -1635 95 -250 -175 -1273 -416 -606 -352 T.U.L 4 -1239 -110 -336 925 -174 -81 -75 -900 -262 -3031 167 17 -194 -1040 -667 -694 -481 T.W.L. 5 -1113 -341 361 -754 -192 31 5 -335 -101 -1854 17 -1282 -264 -3641 -1 1 42 -2163 -1180 F.L. 6 509 -114 582 332 -18 -2 -16 399 58 -610 -562 -453 -201 -1385 711 535 64 F.A. 7 421 -96 -809 966 170 -1749 -386 365 25 499 0 1871 187 2335 289 1368 -11 N-a.L 8 477 146 722 699 260 12 8 378 92 465 411 -623 -160 395 525 534 469

Bihar
Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh Jammu-Kashmir Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal

Note:

1, T.U.L = Total Uncultivated Land (C.W.L -f Land under Permanent Pastures and other Grazing Lands + Land under Misc. Tree Crops and Groves); T.W.L = Total Waste Land (C.W.L 4 Barren and Uncultivable Land); F.L. = Fallow Lands; F.A. = Forest Area; N-a.L = Land under Non-agricultural Uses 2. * is for the period 1970-71 to 1990-91.

Source:

Govt, of India, Statistical Abstract, India, tor various years. Govt, of Punjab, Statistical Abstract of f\injab, lor various years. Govt, of India, Indian Agricultural Statistics, Volume I : Summary Tables, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, 1965, pp. 22-25.

15

Total Wasteland Table 2.3 also shows a sizeable decline in the total of wasteland (TWL, column 5) in each state. The magnitude of the decline in Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, etc. need to be underlined in particular. Again, in most of the states, the decline in 'culturable waste land' has been accompanied by a decline in 'barren and unculturable land' in as much as the decline in total waste land (TWL) is higher than the decline in one of its components, viz. 'culturable waste land', in most of the states. The coefficient of concurrent deviation between CWL and TWL is as high as 0.80. The fallow lands throw a mixed picture; they increased in some states and decreased in others. The 'area under forests', however, increased in most of the states, except in hilly states of Himachal Pradesh, Jammu-Kashmir, Assam, and parts of Bihar and West Bengal. The declining forest cover in these states is indeed a matter of great national concern; in no way, a sizeable expansion of 'area under forests in some states (e.g. Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, etc.) could be a compensation for the declining 'forest cover' in many others. The environmental cost of 'unscientific' or 'unregulated' deforestation does have a specific locale although, in the ultimate analysis, it is the whole nation that bears the consequences of such happenings. The political economy of forest management is, after all, a national affair. It is fairly evident from Table 2.3 that culturable wasteland as well as barren and unculturable land witnessed a decline, in varying degree, practically in all states of India, between 1960-61, and 199091. The absolute decline is indeed welcome but it may be purposeful to see the position in relation to total area or area already under plough or the specific type(s) of land use to which the decline might have been assigned, and so on. Table 2.4 is an exercise of this kind. Components of Wastelands In Table 2.4, we deal differently with the two types of wasteland. In the first instance, both culturable wasteland (CWL) and barren and unculturable land (BUL) are seen in relation to total reported area (TRA) (cols. 3 and 6), only to gauge their temporal behaviour 16

in a comparable way. But then, the potential end-use differs between the two. While a decline in CWL may add to area already under plough (net sown area = NSA) or to potentially ploughable area (NSA + Fallows), the decline in BUL cannot, given the limitations of the known land reclamation technologies, serve the same purpose; for all practical purposes, additions to cultivable land is ruled out through this source. The declining levels of BUL may promote some afforestation effort, including social forestry through public sector support, or may pave the way for some kind of non-agricultural uses, and so on. It is, therefore, in the fitness of things that the changing levels of CWL and BUL may be seen in relation to land-use categories to which they can possibly be assigned. NSA alone or in combination with fallows is the natural choice for CWL while forest area and land under non-agricultural uses are the legitimate enduses for any part of reclaimed land against the existing stock of BUL. Table 2.4 may thus be interpreted in this light. It is evident that CWL as a proportion of total reported area or net sown area or potentially ploughable area (cols. 3,4 and 5) has witnessed a significant decline, in all states except Gujarat, during the three decades since 1960-61. In spite of the decline, in certain states, CWL still constitutes a fairly big proportion of NSA. In other words, a fairly high proportion of cultivable area is still lost to agriculture, and viewed in terms of ever-declining land: man ratios, inequitable land distribution, absence of buoyant avenues of non-agricultural employment and earnings, etc., this loss of land to agriculture is a loss of the most precious national resource. The high incidence of this, loss is quite conspicuous in Gujarat, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu-Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa and so on. At the national level, in 1990-91, net sown area could be augmented by as much as 11.0 per cent if CWL yvere liquidated. An additional accrual af land under plough to tfiis extent speaks clearly for the latent loss of agricultural] output that Indian economy is suffering even at the present stage mi its development.

17

Table 2.4 Culturable Wasteland (CWL) and Barren and Unculturable Land (BUL) in Major States : 1960-61/1990-91
C.W.L as a % age of State Year T.F^.A N.S.A N.S.W+ Fallows 5 11.51 524 7.33 3.61 8 84 3.55 7.52 18.57 4.18 0.56 26.57 19.44 20.88 16.55 5.67 3.68 6,96 4 36 17,56 7.47 4.60 5.19 12.50 9.00 5.17 0.81 37.30 27.67 9 30 3,68 8.81 537 7,70 1.83 12.26 9.06 BUL as a % age of T.R.A Forest Area -iLNAU 7 30.73 24.44 63.27 7.35 16.42 7.35 344.50 89.11 145.97 19.80 3.94 14.94 7.79 9.71 26.22 18.72 11.97 4.21 14.57 12.44 29.38 26.33 32.45 8.02 36.16 13.72 269.93 72.58 29.90 12.81 45.40 13.60 5.35 6.88 51.02 22.04

1 Andhra Pradesh Assam* Bihar Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh* Jammu-Kashmir Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Orissa Punjab Rajasthan Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh West Bengal INDIA

2 1960-61 1990-91 1960-61 1990-91 1960-61 1990-91 1960-61 1990-91 1960-61 1990-91 1970-71 1990-91 1960-61 1990-91 1960-61 1990-91 1960-61 1990-91 1960-61 1990-91 1960-61 1990-91 1960-61 1990-91 1960-61 1990-91 1960-61 1990-91 1960-61 1990-91 1960-61 1990-91 1960-61 1990-91 1960-61 1990-91

3 5.96 2.84 2.36 1.32 5.21 2.15 4.26 10.25 3.42 0.48 5.71 3.71 3.33 3.06 3.49 2.34 3.71 2.45 7.34 3.56 3.03 3.34 5.48 3.84 4.18 0.70 20.21 16.25 5.42 2.23 5.56 3.47 5.06 1.20 6.39 4.92

4 15.09 7.08 8.39 3.84 11.24 4.83 8.13 20.77 4.41 0.59 29.60 21.43 24.66 18.88 6.41 4.30 7.43 4.23 19.96 8.07 5.22 5.73 14.14 9.47 5.60 0.83 52.17 33.99 11.77 5.20 9,54 5.98 8.24 1.99 14.34 10.56

6 8.64 7.64 23.08 19.63 4.88 5.86 25.54 14.17 4.11 2.22 4.22 5.46 5.46 6.55 4.91 4.19 3.91 1.49 5.24 4.69 5.84 5.58 9.91 3.21 4.15 1.65 15.23 8.15 7.26 3.91 8.78 3.48 1.37 2.11 12.02 6.45

Note: T.R.A.= Total Reporting Area; N.S.A = Net Sown Area; L.N.AU. = Land under Non-agricultural Uses Source: 1. Govt, of India, Indian Agricultural Statistics, Vol.1, 1961-62. Summary Tables, Dept. of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Food, Agriculture, Community Development and Cooperation, 1965, pp. 23-25 Govt of Punjab, Statistical Abstract of Punjab, 1973, pp, 56-57, Govt of Punjab, Statistical Abstract of Punjab 1994, pp 144-45.

18

A similar picture holds for EJUL. In 1960 61, in most states, the barren and unculturable land constituted a fairly high proportion of forest area and land under non-agricultural uses put together. The strikingly high proportions for the desert regions, e.g. Gujarat and Rajasthan, need to be noted in particular. But then the BUL declined sizeably in each state, and in relation to forest area and land under non-agricultural uses, the decline was rather formidable in many states. This development is particularly noteworthy for the desert regions of Rajasthan and Gujarat, although the progress was quite impressive for many other states as well (e.g. Assam, Haryana, Orissa, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, etc.). Tlie two exceptions are the hill, and forest-thick states of Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir where forest-cover itself fell from 2788 and 2776 thousand hectares in 1970-71 respectively to 1039 and 2747 thousand hectares in 1990-91. It may be useful to look at the full temporal profile of OWL and BUL. Table 2.5 gives this profile for all major states. There is no denying the fact that the culturable wastoland as also the barren and unculturable wasteland have been declining steadily and in varying proportions, in individual states. In sum. Tables 2.4 and 2.5 point to the formidable national and state-level efforts towards wasteland development during the three decades between 1960-61 and 1990-91. Yet, much more needs to be done. A fairly high proportion of net sown area could be augmented if only we succeed in reducing culturable wasteland. Likewise, area under forests or land area needed for building nonagricultural assets including socio-economic infrastructure, could be augmented if only we are able to r(?(Juce !:)arren and unculturable land. Naturally, individual, household levul (Mfort needs to be combined with state-supported wasteland development programmes. Resource crunch is a real limitation, and prioritization is inescapable. After all, land reclamation technologies, both for attacking CWL as well as BUL, are highly capital intensive, slow and, in some cases, uncertain in terms of final outcome. Tfie best choice, therefore, is to identify the more seriously afflicted areas, and concentrate our effort on them on a priority basis, somewhat reminiscent of the selective area agricultural development approacli ol tlie late sixties. It is evident, in this context, that we cannot operate willi state-level data since all parts of a given state may not at all be suflering from the wasteland malaise, or suffering equally soveiely, and so on We must come down to district-level picture. This is what we do now in Chapter III. 19

52
3
(U (0 *rf V) X2 T3
_1

ir)in-'-'-i-(r)rococMojLOLOiO'^'^'^coiotDO>c3)air^coa)
C 0 C 0 C \ J - r - ^ - . - - ^ ^ - ' - T - - . - T - 1 - - - T - l - 1 - T - T - T - T - t - t - T - T -

5?^ o

>.
_a

ni

g ^ 3
tr

c\jo-r-<Bo3r-cO'-cnoor^t^r-ior~-oooominr~-moa)0
C\JC\JC\JC\Jt-t--r--.--^ 1 1 - 1 1 T 1 - * 1-

cc
T3

<.
T
_l

c i5
(A (0

t)t)OOOi-h~-^Oi-'^CDt>tOO^-^CX)^-COcnCOC\ltDaJT-CO 0)oouit'^coc><r)n-(r)corommn'<j'^'^'^c\j<MC\jc\jc\JC\J'<t

h-tDOt^tDOJlOi-Or^a^O^JCOi-i-i-O^-^cDtOCOCNJOJOOtDN-CDCOr^t^O^

mcDO)cocoa>a)'^Tj-(Mcoi^cocioia)C\Ja>cooooo(X>cor^h~r^r\cotoo ^^"^^"^"^"^^^OCM(MC\J(MC\JC\JC\JC\JCMC\JC\JCMCM<MC\JCMCMC\JC\JC\J(M

CO

>
CM

^r~-c\ir~cD(M-'-cnoococo<x>i~^o^~^-o-<tcMu3cr)cDcno>cnoc\iooooco cocsjcomr--Tfx^ooo>tpi~i-i-i-i-T-oo<X)ooco(Ocx)cx)iocoioioc\jc\jcp r^r^iominmir)ioiO'^o>CMCNjc\jO(>jooo(j>cj)a>oiO)0)cnoio>o>o>a>cn i-0JCMOJC\JCMCMC\JC\Ji-i-i-i~i-i->-i-i-i-i-i-i~

5
-C8

moooo)a5i-oooinc\iotDio<Nj-r-i-inrjooi-i-'--^'^'<i-'*(OtDCDtD<oio '^lO'^OOmOlOC\JCOI^t)OOCOCOCp"<3-COi-Oi-i-i-tC>'-i-i-i-'^'-'-'-'o o o o o o r ^ o o i - i - o o o o o o o S o o o o o o o c 3 i o o o o o o o o o

CO

5^

OCOtDCNJincOOlcCincOi-OOCOOOtOGDCDCOCD'^'^i-i-OCDCDODOail^Cn

_>
<Mc\jr~-f-0)ODCOcocT)nc\jrj'-'-T-T-'-i-i-i-i-i-'-

'>
0)

=1

o
oicor^io-^i-cocor^Mi-r^r^or^inr^r^ajc^iocNiy^oooiaiaDooi-^cpco ioioiocr)<Mcgcoa)c\jcDO'=;r^coco'<*cx)co'^'^'=toa)a)r^tD(i>cDLO'^o^hC0C0-'-^'--'-OOi-Oi-C0C0C0C\J0JC\JCr)C0C000C0CMCMCMCgCVJC\JC\Ji-OO C\JCSJC\JC\JC\IC\JC\JCSJCVJC\IC\JC\JC\JC\IC\JC\1CMOJC\JOJC\JC\JC\JOJC\JC\JCJC\JCJC\JC\JC\J

CO

m
o E
o

r~-orooicoo-<j-coc\jcMa>ooc)cncou>oococo-'-cn'--<TOiO'^'^i^'-or~ojN-c\jmcnc\)t-vhvcocoi-oiO)ir)u)mmoa)cx)i^coQa)T^tDcDco^O)ooco
(OlO-^COCO-^COCOCOCNJi-OOOOOaiOlOOOOCOOOaSQDCOCOCDCOQOr^I^r^

20

Z)

o c o c o c o a ^ o > c n a i O ) c \ J c o c o c ) C ) < : j O ' - ' - a ) c o i r ) i o i o i o c > r - - o o o o ( : j > o ) cr)a)a)cn(:3ioicncna)ooO'^':f"'t'^faDoor-tDc)(D(j:)cDa>ci:)inir)Loioa)a> u^Lnc^c^cr>cococococDcococo^ortcocvJOO(^JC\JCJ<^JC\J(^J(^IcO'^'^'^'^^

f^()inc\jcx)cooococor^'-T-iocDcDcDOcoo'^cr)a)ciiio<x>coc*>cOTr^h--c\i Trir)T-co'^'^Tf'>3-'^or~-r--incgc\iioGO(i:)cD(X)"^'^^'^"^ocDc)'^-^cnh-ooaDcoc\jc^Jc\Jc\jc\j(AjaDh~h-TjTtTtco(>jc\jajcNjc\ic\JCMOvjcMTr'^Tt^'^inio

rg c

<

H X

cr > n
e ->

_l

oj

u o o o o " ^ ' - c O T O u o o - ^ C N j a j o > o o > a : ) t " O L n u " ) c o c o o c \ j a ) 0 0 " ^ t ) o > o h - - r - - a)co'^cDi^a)cn'^cor^oaiu^^ococococ\jc>jcr)cr)cocNic\j'.-T-r-.ci)aio-^-'-

tr

<
_l > C N J - * CM c*:) oD CO o r-- uo Lo h~ t o oD o l o t n o j a> o o -r- '-- o i tr) h- r r^ t o r CO c\j -"iT 00 O) c n a ) c o c o a D c o c o i ^ i ^ r - - r f r o c \ J o o o c T ) o o o a ) c 5 ) a i C J ^ o o o o o o o o

<
C JO
Qi
X < ^

i ^
o "5

-^coocDcor^c^>^-o^c^Jt-LDLOoo^^c^Jcooococ\JC\iaDa>0)0'^lncX)coocooJ^O'--^'d-c\Jc\jruc^c^ooojco(r)Cvjco<Mcororococorococ\jcoc\JC\JC\(00 C^JC^JC^JCgc^lc^JC^JC^JC^CJC^JC^JC^JOJC^JCMc^Jc^Jc\J0gc^ICJ(^JC\JCMC\lC^Jc^JC^

' ^ L o u ^ ( X ) u ^ c o ' ^ i ^ u : ) a ) o o ( i ) i n ' ^ o o c \ j c \ J c n ' ^ r ^ ( p u i c \ j c \ i o o r ^ c O T f c g a 5 r ^ - o c o a S ' i t T f S b o L O ' ^ o r ^ c D CJC0CD'^-^C0r0C\I(MC\J-i~''-O a ) o o a ) o o c n o > a D r - - r ^ h - c D t D t D t D c D i o i n COC\JC\JC\JC\JC\IOOC\IC\J<:\JCMC\JC\J

^
CM
Z

5 ^
3

^ t o CM 1 ^ CO O - ^ C N J O ' ^ OJ CD CO ( p U5 O) Cti (C > in CO CD (1> CD h- lO CO CO OJ t CD 00 lO LO ^ C N J * - ^ o CD 00 h - r~-- CD cT) (r> cf) r - r h-oorx)oocooococor--r^t)inm

CO

>
3

5 o
5 :i

C ^ ^ h - L r ) < 7 i C 0 U 0 c ~ , _ ^ r ^ - ^ - r t f \ i ' ^ * ^ 0 ^ ^ ' ^ C r ) O O C 3 1 O C D O L 0 C 0 f ^ u ^ f v i

o
'>
(0

c o r ^ c o o r ^ T - c o r ^ c o c M c 7 > - ^ m h - c D O j - ^ c \ j r o a ) - ^ r ^ a > c D r r ' ^ - - ' . - o < 3 i o O ' ^ oJ>--'--^ocooocr)coLococDcDcof--r--r--r--u^tD'^*rrc>Jc\j--00000)010 cncDCDC7)CncDoooocx)ODcococx)cocococoa:)cocococX)QOcooocooO(Ooor^f^oo

3 O

5S o

CD^>CJ)COODcOOC^~-^inrOCO-^h-lOCTiCDC>tDC\JiOiniOC7)OlT-oOOOr^C)lO uOLnc\jT-''-rtuoioioco'-cJ>cDO')a)cof/:>iO(*)ooajcj>oocDtDcDLO^*^'^Tf cDcD<ocDtDiotDCDCDCDcoiouoir)ioiniotr)uiLoin"^^'<*'^Tr-rrTr"^-^-<'^

m
_
TO

5^ ^ ^ = ~ ^
_j

C)r^COCNJCDOO-^OCDO)-^r^-^M-CO-'-<X)O^T-COCDiOCDC3>OC\JO>COU^CO cDci)r^u^Lr)OOi^cDCDC\jcocou^'>^c\jcoc\jcococoh~inin^-inr^;>f^cocr)0> CNJC\iCUCvJC\JCDCDCNJC\JCNJC\JC^lCNJC\IC>JC\JCNIC\JOJC\JC\JC\JOJOJCNJC\JOJCNJCVJC\JCJC\l

o Q. E
1-

S5
o

c\jCNjtoo(OCDCDcooJCNjco'r-cT>-^in'-'-coc7ir--r--ioioioojTra)i-^-<rcooooo c o c ^ < ^ T f c o c o c o ' ^ u ^ T t l O l O " ^ c D u o l O r r r ^ T t ' ^ ^ - ^ r ^ ; ^ L O ^ D ' ^ - < J ' d T t c o c o

T-c\jco'^incDr^cocJ)o^cNJco'=tLncDr--ooc;>o-^c\jco-i^iocDf~*-cocJ>o-^c\J cx>cotDCDCD(0()cDtDh-h--r--r^r^f^r--f^r--r-GOoocooooooocoa>cococ3>o>0) cST^c\jco'rru^cDr^c6c7)CD^CMco'<i-uScDr^o6cJicD-r^cvjc^ cpcr>cDCi<ocDCDcDcDCDr-N-h-^~h~r^r-r--r-r-cocococococoa30oooooa>a> <y> CD cj> cj) o>

21

^.-^^ior^r--oicDh-tDco-^torooo^r--i^or--coa)r^coooooioo -c\jto-^u^ocoa)0)0<>cor--otor--'^c\jair^cDC\jcootoa)tor^cotocD OiOJ-*-ooh-'^0'*com^coinTtinT-o>'<i'-^<Mi-<MT-cooo^'-a>coco l O i o i o ' ^ - ^ i o i o c M c v j ^ o o i r - ' ^ c ^ o j ' - ^ ^ o o o o o o o o o c n o a ) c*)co(r)cococo(y)c*)coc*>coojcvjCNjc\ic\icycMrgoj(\j(Ncvic\ic\)C\JC\JOJ^^^

*^
(0

0)

cy<McococDOcDc\jo>(Mmcno)a)r^'-'^orrcDcooco-.-cooococoo'<3' ~C0Oir>tDQ0"<*-^Q0Lf)CO'*O>tC>t0r^lOC\J0000Csi-^-^l0C0C\JlOC\JC\J0i-^ c\jtDO)cDcO'-ocD-^i^i-a>r^ojoio-^a>a)toi^"<tco'^r^r^io<DOJoo

w >.
(0

o
^inr~-^r^cDcncDto<)cocor--cocococMcou:>io-^^0(x>c\jotoh-ooioo> o>r^inu^cM-.-a>oor^cO'--^'^ojcM'^aiiO'^t)'^c\jojOT-OQOcpcDcoco<\i iniOlOlOlOlO'^TfTj'^'^"n-"^OJC\JCM-----T-T-^-.--^-,-T-^000000 CSJ<M(MCJC\IC\JCSJCMCMC\J^^-.-^^^r-r-^-^^T-T-^i-i-i-^^^-.--.-

ra

-6 5
o "5 O 3
c 'f

oi^o>c\ic\JO>--~^(^cou^M^ina5(i>co'^f~-~co'^GOc\ir^cnciiO'^cj)inr^'^"<t ^ooocpc^Jcou^^alr^"^(^JOlOcoc3>OJl-coco^c^J^c\Jr-T-oa)'^lococ^J O

^ ^ ^ 'iq o Q "

ca z

iotD(M^c\iooi^oocMCMincO'^c\jTrcor^ocr)r^coOLOcoc*icDcx)cO'^o>oi '<*coa)oia)i-^cor--coTfcoooa>ococ\(i~^or^coa)r^coiOTi'm'-i-oo a)coa3oocococorooooococooor--r^tot>tDtDcx)if)inioininir)ir)ioioinioio

(0 O (0

<:o'^0)tO'-cvii^oocr)r^oir^i^r^iooir^c\iti)roLoocoa)ioo>a>a>'^o-^ oo>roo>c>coincocou^oi---in'^oocor--ir)tDcr)'<*coco-^0)a>a)oocoa)giO

o
coc\jo-cotD'^cooor~^ioocj)coco-rir--o---r^O(>JOtDh-oco<Na)0"^ inc\iojc\joooo'^c\i(>'-^ocM()h--cO'<jocpcO'-cc)aicotD-^otoO'-a)in .-ajCNJ^OJoocxjcor^r^^-h-i^in'^-^ooaioiaioiooaooococoGOcocor^h-

> O
3 O

ii
^ Oj > C o O
1

< '> <

(0 J=

OTrcoo>ocD c 'D ^ -tD Dc co oG Go occ\ \i ir r jjT-r-.if5coh-^oJtomr--m'-coco-^tococoN.''h-<Mcoa)t^-^-^oocoorj-ooooo'-oa>'^mcoiocO'-OJtDCD 00 t o "*f C D -^ C O C O CD to t o

ffi

tOOCOOtJ^OlOO^CMiniOCOCJlCOCOOOOCOO^Tr^CNJCDCOCM <M(Mooojooi-coc\j^T-oaio>CT)cnaiGOh-tor^r^r^r^cor^ CD 3

15 < o
Q.

E o

co'^ooc3iroocor--if)CvJooooio^cor^cO'-o>oa)OcDiocD iou^'--oocooor~-~tDtocou:)ir)'^rt-<:tcococO'^co'troc\Jcococo O

^CMC0'^lO(Dh-C0a)O'-C\JC0^mtOt^C0C31O^(MC0'^lOtDl^00O>O-^C\J cDCDcD(OcocDcDCDcDi^r^r^h-r^r^r^r^KKGOoocooocoaocooococDO>a)0) O't^CvJc0'etuStDI^C0CnO-^<NiC0TtuStDr^Gb(3>cb'^ cDCDcDtococococotDtot^h-r^r^r^r^r^N-f^r^cocococooocooocoQocooicj)

22

Ill District-level View of Wasteland

As pointed out earlier in Chapter I, tfie form 'wasteland' lends itself to varying interpretations, and accordingly, estimates of wasteland differ widely from source to source. In its most far-stretched interpretation, the term can be taken to mean all rural land unoccupied or unused by human beings. On tfie other extreme, only the 'culturable wasteland', which is clearly the total of sucfi land area as can possible be brought under plough aflot some land reclamation operation is gone through, is taken as the estimalo for wasteland. In between the two extreme views, many olher porcoplions can be visualized. To be sure, all 'wasteland' cannot be reclaimed given the ambit of the known or ongoing reclamation tecfinologies, both in India and abroad. Nor can the cost considerations be set aside; perhaps for some reclamation operations, the anticipated cost involves excessively severe burden on the stale exchequer and those cannot, therefore, be taken up for many years to come. And then, it must also be recognized that reclaiming different typos ol wasteland' would serve different purposes. Otearly, reclamation of 'culturable wasteland' can potentially add to frie total stock of land under plough or land under tree crops and groves. On the other hand, a reclamation success, far more costly and time-consuming especially from India's point of view, with 'barren and unculturable land' would not augment the stock of ploughable land area; perhaps, this type of reclaimed land can be used for increasing forest cover or sparing more land for diverse types of non-agricultural activities or for adding to permanent pastures and other grazing lands, and so on. Moreover, reclamation of 'barren and unculturable land' is a possiibilify available only In the long run while 'culturable wasteland' can bo managed even in the short-run. In sum, therefore, clubbing 'culturable wasteland' with 'barren and unculturable land' to arrive at ttie so-called total of wasteland, literally obfuscates the issue of wasteland development; policy perspectives must differentiate between the more real and short-run possibilities of managing 'culturable wasteland' and the less likely and distant possibility of cutting into 'barren and unculturable land'. The present study takes care to keep the two possibilities apart. For building a state as well as district level profile on wasteland, the land-use classification data, published t)y the Ministry of Agricul2:3

ture (MoA), is the best to draw upon. The classification, available on year-to-year basis, 'is according to village papers and is based on returns of area prepared by village staff for revenue purposes in the districts' (Govt, of Punjab, 1995, pp. 138-39). According to this classification, the total area reported in village papers, is split into the following four major categories: i) Land not available for cultivation, comprising area under forests, r&nd put to non-agricultural uses and barren and uncultivable land; ii) other uncultivated land, consisting of permanent pastures and other grazing lands, land under miscellaneous tree crops and groves, and culturable wasteland; iii) fallow land (not included in (ii) above) comprising current fallows and other fallows; and iv) net sown area. The revenue records at the village-level have their own shortcomings, and cannot always be relied upon especially in areas of land holding structure, cropping patterns, common village lands and so on. For our purpose, however, wastelands can clearly be delineated from other land uses firstly under 'barren and uncultivable land' and secondly under 'culturable wasteland'. It would be rather presumptuous to say that the two types of wastelands, delineated above, are free of all blemishes. Perhaps, inter-penetration between 'old fallows' and 'culturable wasteland' is a real possibility. Such a possibility cannot be totally ruled out in the case of 'permanent pastures' and 'land under tree crops and groves', at least for some districts and for some points in time. Again, perhaps for reasons of improvement in measurement techniques, 'barren and unculturable land' may suddenly drop and its counterpart, viz. 'culturable wasteland' may suddenly go up. This seems to have happened in Gujarat, for example, where a sudden break in the trend (from 1960-61 to 1969-70) occurs in 1970-71, for both categories of wastelands; 'barren and unculturable land' suddenly tell from 4327 thousand hectares in 1969-70 to 3089 thousand hectares in 1970-71, just as 'culturable wasteland' suddenly went up from 498 thousand hectares in 1969-70 to 1966 thousand hectares in 1970-71. Such breaks are discernible for Bihar in 1965-66, Jammu-Kashmir in 1965-66 and 1966-67, for 24

I^aharashtra irs 1970-71, for Orissa in 1969-70 and so on. Fortunately, no such break or sudden reversibility is noticed during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990-92, in any state, and that assures us of the underlying stability in metfiodology of wasteland measurement. What is included under each category of land-use is however, a different matter. In particular, the scientific rationale for classifying land as 'wasteland' is not spelt out in official publications; perhaps the 'eye' of the village-level revenue official is the supermost rationale apart from the usual set of guidelines for dealing with different land categories. This is precisely the reason that alternate estimates of wasteland, prepared by the National Remote Sensing Agency (NRSA) under the Department of Space, Government of India, differ widely from those prepared by us. More of this follows later in this chapter. IVIoA Estimates So, we begin with MoA estimates of wasteland given under two ht adings: 'culturable wasteland' which can make more land available for crop cultivation or, in some cases, add to land under miscellanec us tree crops and groves, and 'barren and unculturable vvastelanc!' which can pep up afforestation activities or make more land avai ^able for non-agricultural uses, and in some cases, add to perman> ^nt pastuies and other grazing lands. To play it safe, we go by the li itest available estimates averaged over 1989-90 to 1991-92, and for a limited purpose, also those averaged over 1985-86 to 1987-88. For s*)me states, (e.g. Assam), the 1989-92 data are not available; for ttne^Ti, the riearest available information was used. As many as 400 odd districts are included under MoA estimates. No msfor state is left out. The 60 odd districts which could not be i n c l u d ^ for this set of estimates posed unmanageable data problems. F<)r example, 'culturable wasteland' is clubbed with 'fallow lands' in some regions/districts; district-level data are just not available for some eastern states; old data are constantly repeated for some areas, and so on. It was considered advisable to keep such 'problem districts' out. Jn any case, the 400 odd districts included in our MoA estimates would account for most of the national-level area under each category of land-use, including the two kinds of wastelands; after all, the total geographical area of the excluded districts is a very small proportion of the corresponding national area.

25

Finally, no attempt is made here to see the changing levels of wasteland over time; only the latest available picture is presented. Accordingly, the number of districts and their related details are generally in accordance with the 1991 population census descriptions. As pointed out earlier, it is no use seeing the total of wasteland as a proportion of total geographical area of the district, as done by some other studies notably the 1986-88 NRSA estimates (Govt, of India, 1993, pp. 9-18). It is no use seeing it as a proportion of total area reported in local revenue records either. The more advisable procedure is to split the total of wasteland into two parts : (i) wasteland which can potentially be made culturable, through public and private initiatives, and (ii) wasteland which cannot come under cultivation and can instead be used for non-cultivation purposes notably afforestation and non-agricultural activities, and so on. Clearly, 'culturable wasteland' (CWL) falls under category (i) while 'barren and unculturable wasteland' (BUL) falls under (ii). Table 3.1 Culturable Wasteland (CWL) Barren and Unculturable Land (BUL) and Total Wasteland (TWL) In Districts of India : AVERAGE for 1989-92
District CWL CWL1 CWL2 ANDHRA Srikakulam Visakhpatnam East Godavari West Godavari Vizianagaram Krishna Guntur Prakasam Ncllore Kurnool Anantpur Cuddapah Ctiittoor Hyderabad NIzamabad Mcdak Mahabubnagar Rangareddy Nalgonda Warangal Ktiammam Karimnagar Adilabad 10163 13821 24987 37778 4911 42858 52395 78531 61585 83341 70357 65669 48399 0 9299 26124 14005 27809 23260 21986 19119 19995 23097 3.10 4.22 5.68 8.47 1.49 8.56 8.64 12.97 19.37 9.30 7.17 16.99 10.07 0.00 3.34 6.34 1.55 9.22 3.96 5.02 4.07 4.56 4.01 7.05 282 3.78 498 7.75 1 41 7.59 7.83 9.69 12.68 7.23 5.50 12.78 7.76 0.00 2.05 3.97 1.01 5.86 2.27 3.04 3.52 2.86 3.10 524 GWL3 PRADESH 2.79 3.56 4.90 7.63 1.38 7.51 7.37 9.57 12.25 7.22 5.46 12.33 7.44 0.00 2.03 3.91 1.00 5.76 2.26 3.01 3.40 2.83 3.06 62793 168676 83445 46676 78341 64992 38813 158387 188956 99375 174297 243920 166038 720 55038 56235 29731 40550 90592 56512 78175 83300 38907 43.28 30.16 19.18 26.43 42.03 35.69 12 73 27.06 4236 23.71 48.97 36.16 27.98 3.58 22.20 35.65 7.88 27.01 49.23 13,30 8.94 25.84 5.14 24.54 42.58 29.93 18.01 23.37 40.93 32.36 11.74 24.11 33.59 23.49 45.91 35.06 26.18 3,57 19.40 27.82 7.32 20.03 32.67 11.88 8,49 21,98 4.84 72956 182497 108432 84453 83252 107850 91209 236918 250542 182716 244655 309589 214437 720 64336 82359 43736 68359 113851 78499 97294 103295 62005 BUL BUL1 BUL2 TWL

ANDHRA PRADESH 779321

5.15 2105468

22,35 2884789

26

BIHAR
Patna Nalanda Gaya Nawada Aurangabad Shahabad Rohtas Saran Siwan Gopalganj Champaran East Champaran West Madhepura Godda Deoghar Sahebganj Lohardaga Muzaffarpur Vaishali Sitamarhi Darbhanga Madhubani Samastipur Munger Begusarai Bhagalpur Saharsa Purnea K^ihar RanoNi Hazari ;Bagh Gifidih iRalamu Dhanbad Gumla Singhbhum East SInghbhum West Kishanganj Araria BIHAR 1216 638 4380 2110 1464 1137 4777 324 288 1637 708 4974 65 7467 16947 14995 4891 240 355 224 429 476 446 13250 619 14608 4512 2356 819 27406 21672 27011 28332 17495 40810 49002 41221 1817 1066 387792 0.59 0.35 1.92 1.70 0.74 0.36 1.19 0.18 0.16 1.05 0.23 1.94 0.05 9.03 39.62 21.10 9.60 0.11 0.30 0.13 0.29 0.21 0.23 5.05 0.50 5.43 1.85 0.79 0.51 10.36 11.52 21.05 12.83 27.62 14.43 26.02 17.41 1.58 0.59 5.03 0.51 0.34 1.34 1.51 0.58 0.33 1.09 0,15 0.16 1.02 0.21 1.77 0.05 4.71 20.14 11.13 5.77 0.10 0.27 0,12 0.25 0.19 0.22 3.73 0.47 4.39 1.62 0.65 0.41 5.81 5.88 9.07 5.24 13.03 7,00 14.07 12.99 1.33 0.50 3.70 GUJRAT Ahmedabad Banaskantha Vadodara Broach Bulsar Gadhinagar Kaira Mehsana Panchmahals Sabarkantha Surat Amreli Bhavnagar 22667 24267 9400 39767 19900 1500 2400 17700 13233 14067 22800 9767 35000 4.38 3.06 1.74 9.38 6.50 3.21 0.47 2.73 2.83 3.33 5.44 1.97 5.59 3.51 2.74 1.70 8,86 6,43 3.12 0.45 2.41 2.52 2.95 5.19 1.88 5.24 0.04 0.03 002 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.05 71833 35733 28133 21267 15800 233 32667 11400 37833 36100 61000 17033 101033 91,01 16,41 18,31 8.64 9.78 1.87 33.98 13 70 13.36 21 46 27.16 21.55 98.06 64.27 12.43 15.03 7.86 9.33 1.51 26.42 8.24 12.18 17 83 24.52 13.67 57.93 94500 60000 37533 61033 35700 1733 35067 29100 51067 50167 83800 26800 136033 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.18 0.11 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.05 0.13 0.07 0.14 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.04 13475 1218 27664 11304 16440 9183 36241 18086 8882 5577 8206 3025 3953 9710 12446 27190 9401 5301 24265 2237 1977 2382 4520 48415 18133 65810 34000 17932 22289 39519 88821 53135 83634 42837 59466 66112 71112 11395 5087 1015630 21.14 2.70 21.36 12.02 28.51 19.25 14.37 70.32 33.58 19.60 12.16 1.76 13.37 21.15 100.00 100.00 17.55 9.52 69.39 4.01 4.07 3.05 7.80 22.88 50.61 47.80 46.41 26,16 37.07 18.52 14.59 18.71 13.77 42.90 27.60 19.04 19.88 33.59 12.59 20.15 20.91 2.70 21.01 11.87 28.13 19.09 14.34 69.46 33.35 19.44 11.98 1.74 13.36 18 24 87.10 92.43 17.45 9.47 68.57 3.96 4.00 2.98 7.79 22.71 50.50 46.59 45,24 25.78 36.90 18.39 14.32 17.70 13.63 4238 27.40 18.79 19.60 32.97 12.41 19.66 14691 1856 32044 13414 17904 10320 41018 18410 9170 7214 8914 7999 4018 17177 29393 42185 14292 5541 24620 2461 2406 2858 4966 61665 18752 80418 38512 20288 23108 66925 110493 80146 111966 60332 100276 115114 112333 13212 6153 1403422

27

m o CO CT CO CO o CO CO CO O) to * CO i n CO i n CO ro
O)

t^

^
*

t ^ e\j CO CO <i-

^ " '
r^

s m
00

coinco-q-q-toi^tDT-cO'^'^'^cnroco cocot^ito-^tocoiocococo-^incocooo Oinocot35in'-r-t)c3>tococoincvj'<3t-cof^cor^c^jTin-r-cot^^-^ cvjto

^toinoooootor^ocytjjo '-^intoi^tO'^tTicgootTjco inincooocO'-cor^^cotno tMor^mt^mininoincoo

i-t-OOCO T-COOJOJOO-^

tg>O'-c0'>i-cnin''TO g-ot^-<3-cO'-tococoint--. cnin^ooco-^tncototom

in
C\J CO 00 00-^int3>t3)t3)OlOOt3iCOCn ^r^tpc\i^'-c35t3^in-<3-coo ^ d - ^ o d t b o J c o ^ t b o o o i c o - - - - ' -^ in

CO O)

m o
00

r>. CO en o

(b

CO

^ o

cooomincncnoj'>jcoooin co'>i;in-^op^c\|cooqcncq ir>tO'=tr^^cjitboJtbtj>iri

COOOCO ^ ' - O t ^ T h - CO 00

m c

to ^^cs^tNjcooco-^t^ito-^cocvjr^t^i-^ CNjcocoincpr^cococMcr--ojtpcocqtp ^cd'^Kcoihr^co^oJ-T-'-t;5C\itdt3^

O O - ^ - ^ t O C O C O G O C N J CO

c >t 00 en m

C\J

^ m

CO O) C\i 00
1 ^

to C\j r^ o CO

CO

to t<

00

c n r ^ - ^ t o - ^ t o o c j i c o t o - ^ c o ^ t p c o p t J J O ' - i ^ c o c o m t o d - ^ c o c n c o - ^ t o c N J c o c o c o o CO -.-COCSJ T - T - ^ C O t O

'-roin'^tO'-<\]-^inc>jin o>tpp-'-tpr^oqcococO'^
CO d

toto-^' I

i r i CO t o CO ^ ' <3> h - d (J>

tococ7>r^'-'-(j)
0 0 CO

^'
r-^ o to o to o
CO

o 1 ^ CO CO o in r^ CO o to i n CO CO

r^

^ CO ^^

cO'-cor^ootor^coooootoooc\jcnin^

CO CO

c^
to CM

COOOiCOTJ-tOCVJ'^CGCO'^O'^CvJtOCn O'=*otomij0'--rrooc7)inco-^inr^co ^cor^r^jtocNj'-^^co ^ m o - ^ o o - ^ o o o o o o o j o o -^ |-^ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d

X 00 UJ Q

o u^ CO ty i n r ^ r^'cr

c\j i n O) o _ -^ -^ C O 1^ r^ 00 I lO ^ ^ CO CO^T i n fxj c*'^ ^T ' UJ t \ j CO o c n c o i n o - ^ r ^ co^T j r-co'^'5' m N - t o o c i XT CO ^ ^ ^ - - C\i : i

^ Ovj CO O

ro C^> CO "

in lO CO TT

CO lO -^

(J) u"; O CJJ

CO to ^ -T

o CO 00 t3> ^ IlO t CO *in

to cvj r^ c\j c\j o o - o o d d cj d d

<
cc
CL

^ c o ^ o c o c o ^ c o i o o t o o o ^ - - C 0 t > J O - ^ O T - T - 0 J C 0 T -

00

d d d d d d o d d d d d
int3)COC3)CO(31t3^tOI^COCOO

>
=i

C^COCOtOtOtJl'tCTJOtOtD CO CD CO CO r ^ -^

X (/I

toc^T-xinj^ooco-^Tto
h - K - ^ CO r ^ CO * CO > - > -

r^ ^

to c'j a>

03 O > - t o ' i n '-^ r-' - ^ c\j

< <
X

O ^ O - ^ CO O O ootDcor ^oocgO C 3 > O - O) O O d c 0 C 3 C 3 O d t D O O O O c\j

^or^-=r ^ocnco o o o o

<
X

'-T-tO'-oocOT-cointoco

to en ro

< ^
D

r^cocococMr^totDtotJ)to oqpcnc:)roO'<3;cO'^cnro coaJc\icor^od^c:)'^t\JK

TT-"T ' t CO c \ j T -

03 CM

<
o c\j o ^ - r ^ O O P O O ^ ) O t O C \ J I ^ O C O t D o o o cnoocM^ootO'-ocnoo d -^ c i c i o d o ' o d c i i D r J d d c i c ) inr-cOT-coootM^-t-cninr^ int3iinr^inc\jininintpt3)oq iricoodiricod'^codcotTico T-'-COCO CO -C0OJ<\IC^J cotpcoco-"-coc\jcoc\iin'-co ^c\ioc\j'^coO'^in"^into cncocot3)'-tococr>'-'-coto ^into^-co q-ocotjjcoo

00 ^ t ^ t o T f CO t \ ] * r>- i n

tD-"-c\jot-~cO'j-tDint--o ^coaicocni-^coincvjror-^ cotjiirJcoKoicotjitjitbto

11 ^ T J CO CM CO

CO CO ^ t-~ CO

CO CO to C\] T-

O O f^ 00 -"Ito

h - CO t o CO 00 i n CJ t o - - -

o^or^tpooin-'aCO ^
N O T

T - TT

- CO

CO ^

t o f\J O t--. CO CO - - S 1 - CO mo C3) ^ T -

co-T-Qooco-i-'-in'-coto c\jr-rot^toint-~oh-'a-to
l ~ ^ ' - t O t O C 0 C 0 C 0 t ' - ' T T

'-^cot-toin'^'q-coroin
CO > - CM

ra i5 ro

ro
D)

E
Q.

X X W i;
3

.-i, il I ? Sa
m 3 T 3 ra D ^ OC W

^ 9 ^ .5 P tp c c X C C O ^ < ^

ra to tfl

111 II 11
Q^ro!=rororo<B
ro ro

ro c ro

ro
JO

to
-i

to 3

S-E 5 J: m O

o. c ro .= ^ ^

3 ro ^ ^ 3 to ^ 3

111

Q. c T3 ro ^ X Q.

C O C O 2 C O 3

it c / 3 m < Q.

3 c ro c 3

9 5 ro o

0 ) O CO t ^ - 0 ) * lO -

00 CO CO

_ 00 1 - .. CO o

<j) o o in <5 CO cb C Om C O CO 3 u y i n O) o > - * Q cocoin-'^cycococor^'.-ino / f, , c:) i n

CO TT- CO CO

'-T-'Vf\JCDCOf^CM ^CMCjcocococog incocDcncDCMCOco CM - <T - CO CO CO t * OT 00 CO CO i n

CO h - C\J 1 ^ CO C J > CO C J

o o

CO 0)

cocoo5cooin'^'-r--ocococo<J>coincJKc:) ocDO)Oin<-cocDcoor^-^coc3)rocococ:)CO diricd^coo6^r^-^cj)t<'>tr^cococbcoo'a) - ' - CO <- CO C O >- C O Tj- C O - >- T- CO - CO - co

a-'^c^icjicococ^scocoincscooco r-~inT-ocoT-cocoococo^r^co T^d'^cb-^^iri-^cod-trd-^cj)

rin

r^ - 03 CM CO r^ r^ <3) m r- CO CO m CO K T t TT ! -r^ CO CO CO CM

(\1 C\J

en 00

o o
CO CO

(O CO

CO in O)

cn-*c\jTt-cocooic5ico<3)coini-'-oocof--<3>oo "T'-ococor^coin"o>->-cDi~~ooco<x>r^or^ ibr-^c3cbco^cbcric\i ihcoihinco'^TTcoco c o ^ c o i n c o CO-- i n c o - ^ C M T co cvjin

^^CJlOCJlCOO-^-^C^lOCOOCD

i^in'-oco-"-0)cooco^-^-<jr-.q T-d-^i~~'^''-iO'<Tc6d'^d^d CD coincNJ'^tQcococpco'^cJinc^co i-cocoinirjf^'-aicDOinoiOTT c o in CO nc CO \ Jo Oc CO o ^' ^ c :w icV ot /D UJ i o \o i^ r^-<5~ - c .o , , CD

cj ^ C3 LO ^ r-. ^ CM ! CJ> T- : i n ! -^ O

<iiin-^co'-->*cMco COCDCMOCOCnO--

CJ (O 'a CO

CD in CO o C\J CO

s
SI Co

COCOCOincDCO'5tOin-q-r-^C3)CO-*COCDCD'^C31 CO ^ C OC O ^C\JOO'-QCocO(^CDC\ja>OCOTCO

r^cor^uococoinooinin-^cocj>or^co--in '^'^incoinr\jrocooococo3cvjc)C\jcocor--co cj-f--^^T-co-^co-^'-incorouoco-^inocjj O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C M O odoci<r'C>C)cDcicDC3 0 c > o d d o o c o

" - c o o o c n o c j i i ^ r ^ C3100CD ' - ^ C M O J r-^OCOCD'^CMCMCD T-CJICOCOCOCOCCCO C M ^ C M C M ' T coco

CO CO CO e g m CJ CO

o m

OOCM-^CMOOCTlin'-COCOOCOCM O O O O O O O O O O ' - O O

< <
DC

d d d d d o d d c i d c i d c i c i

en UJ Q

C O O C O - ^ O C O O C D c p p c O C O p r f O O p TT-^COf^T^CMdoo

<
<
EC UJ C O C n C D C \ J O C O ( ^ r ^ C M O C O ' - C D C O

tr
Q. X Q -tcocoinc3)-^(^oocot^Trco-^
d d ^ d -r- CM C3) iri T- CM CO d CO CO

<t i n m c\j - cvj CO

a>
CO CO

<

coc3icoooioco-<tcor^'<*ooinc:icDr^ococo c^oqmininr^or^cDcocoocoinco-^ooinr^ ^d'>t'<TdcD-^r^ddiricocciinco--'Lnr<CTl

< > <

r - - o c o - ^ o i o o c o
C D O C O C D O - ^ O C O ^ Tf CO l~~ ^ CO d CM

C M

CD - - 00 r- (D en in CO CM CO

Ttr^ininincoc\jcDc3^cococDOcoinr^cDco(3)
00 C O C T l o p - ^ i n f - C D p c p p c O - ^ C J l c O O ^ O C O - ^

t^cnin-^ininr^'^cot^cocyr-^<3-COC3)inC3)COCOCOOCOCJ)'5t'^t^

C J > C O C J > ^ C D T J O C O

o -^

cod^ihdr^Tfcbd'-cdcO'Tcor^'~cbc\i-^
CO -

dd-^d'-^codiri'-cocJdcocj

oicocomcMh-oco 'T'^cocii^codiri

03 CO "I01 CO i n CO .- CO ^ C O

co
CD

^ 3 ' - c D r ^ O ' - i n o i c M _ h- CO _. CO CO . .i n , -^ <3) cocOoor^cO'^oO'-CMdr^infflcocDcncor^cT) Ttc3)c5coininc3)c3>c\ja>co-^ir5maicor^coco 0>CDC31C3>r^OCD-~r^-^CNjC00J'^r^C0C7>OC0

C\i >C O C O T T - C O - ^ C O C O ' - ' - h - C O

m-'-coin-^inocjcococDO'-r^ r^cocof^inr^c3icDcxtr^c\jcooa) c o i n o c 3 i i n - ^ i n ^ c D c o o - ^ 0 " CO ^ C M cococo'-'^m'^t ^

CM T CO

OCOCO m CO m r^ i n CO CD CO CO T t CM ^

'^CO ' CM o CM 00 i n CD CO

-^O-'t i~-^ ^ cj) en -^ ai CO

E ra c^ ra S

3 ra :i:

=) y .o. o ra o (T CL

if

ra D ra 3= S en = -5 S S a ra < y o.y:=-J3^ o-c 3 C Do C Q D Q C D C D l S O O i Q O X ra 3

5, en g)

2,2
D

ro ._ ra o it:
O _

ra u)t ra ra a ic s ^ i ra C O Q 1-v X S S 3 a :

> E E i? S-ro"-^ S ^ S - i i c 2 ra ra S "o i S o E ^ r a r a o r a ^ c D - S I- ^

^ l i l l .
O

ra o
!= 13

ra ra

o ra en

l l l l l lIlif (^^
c _ m ro

TO

Balaghat 25117 Chhindwara 21458 Narslmhapur 20507 Seoni 31685 Mandia 33359 Sagar 12160 Damoh 30349 Panna 69320 Chhattarpur 102764 Tikamgarh 21906 Rewa 10635 Sidhi 57135 Satna 47344 Shahdol 62296 Indore 4883 Ratlam 27311 Ujjain 15019 Mandsaur 41760 Dewas 3420 Dhar 21101 Jhabua 18132 Morena 62679 Bhind 10317 Gwalior 25289 Shivpuri 111846 Guna 92471 Datia 13408 Bhopal 6889 Sehore 13813 Raisen 18240 Vidisha 13586 BetuI 45940 Rajgarh 23952 Shahjapur 22389 Hoshangabad 36917 Khargone (W.Nimar] 30420 1545 Khandwa (E.Nimar) MADHYA PRADESH

9.12 4.41 7.05 8.67 7.82 2.35 10.69 31.02 29.53 9.21 2.97 16.28 13.27 13.63 1.88 8.62 3.23 7.73 0.95 4.21 5.08 15.61 3.09 9.86 29.84 15.11 10.29 4.36 3.75 4,35 2.61 11.22 5.87 5.20 8.13 4.80 0.35

8.26 3.84 6.75 7.27 6.02 2.24 9.95 26.75 23.85 7.92 2.57 13.56 11.96 10.36 1.84 8.48 3.18 7.64 0.94 4.14 4.92 14.54 3.00 9.13 25.80 14.50 9.67 4.25 3.70 4.28 2.58 9.79 5.76 5.14 7.71 4.70 0.33

8.25 3.84 6.75 7.27 6.02 2.24 9.92 26.75 23.83 7.91 2.56 13.56 11.83 10,34 1,84 8,47 3,18 7,64 0,94 4,14 4,92 14,54 3,00 9,13 25,08 14,50 9,66 4,23 3,70 4.28 2.57 9.79 5.76 5.14 7.66 4.70 0.33

28952 48058 1027 5256 58265 16483 54789 57043 103723 49220 41204 56398 84185 39271 2892 42661 6767 378434 14055 51389 82165 208443 27152 53813 51684 100230 3105 3697 6893 3591 11104 25461 29918 48409 36148 59996 14499

5.60 9.63 0.65 1.43 9.10 4.89 18.54 18.76 78.36 47.50 33.94 11.18 44.24 6.13 3.58 68.60 15.33 180.96 5.95 28.28 49.84 52.42 68.59 37.40 14.73 47.82 7,43 5,73 3,36 0.97 7.92 5.77 60.04 103.16 9.27 11.64 2.57

5.12 8.64 0.55 1.32 8.57 3.64 16.23 17.97 46.02 31.56 25.63 11.18 39.95 5.76 2.62 44.80 5.76 143.83 4.42 21.68 39.69 44.73 42.66 32.47 12.67 37.45 6.45 3.80 2.63 0.90 6.24 5,45 21,62 43.37 8.16 9.82 2.29

54070 69516 21534 36941 91624 28642 85138 126362 206487 71126 51338 113533 131529 101567 7776 69973 21786 420194 17475 72490 100298 271122 37469 79102 163530 192701 16513 10587 20706 21831 24690 71401 53870 70798 73065 90416 16044

1582674

8.15

7.48

7.44 2102695

12.67

10.87 3685368

MAHARASHTRA Thane Raigarh (Kolaba) Ratnagiri Nasik Dhule Jalgaon Ahmednagar Pune Satara Sangli Solapur Kojhapur Aurangabad Parbhani Beed Nanded 40800 38100 147500 19600 5300 6100 12900 38300 40600 6300 38900 47800 15200 36900 48200 32100 15.24 20.59 63.30 2.17 0.72 0.74 1.13 3.78 6.99 1.07 3.48 11.83 2.14 4.36 5.86 4.43 14.10 15.55 36.94 1.99 0,70 0.73 0.98 3.62 6.34 0.92 3.09 10.47 1.92 3.92 5.16 4.05 0.14 0.14 0.36 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.06 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.04 81500 128400 230300 181300 56000 80800 140000 157200 119400 42900 60400 42900 21900 17700 25500 12000 18.99 61.06 1218.52 51.27 9.80 44.86 74.63 68.71 68.62 45.35 143.47 23.51 16.77 27.40 37.06 9.97 15.79 51.24 713.00 48.05 9.04 33.82 61.14 50.96 47.49 38.00 48.83 19.12 12.52 18.17 23.65 6.27 122300 166500 377800 200900 61300 86900 152900 195500 160000 49200 99300 90700 37100 54600 73700 44100

30

Osmanabad Buldana Akola Amravati Yeotmal Wardha Nag pur Bhandra Chandrapur Sindhudurg Jalna Latur Hadchiroli MAHARASTRA

43100 14500 9200 12300 25100 14300 16100 26600 35400 168200 25500 41500 19400 1028500

7.56 2.11 1.14 1.70 2.95 3.67 2.93 7.37 7.47 155.60 4.11 8.36 10.16 5.73

6.39 2.02 1,10 1.64 2.77 3.21 2.74 7.06 7.15 99.47 3.77 7.53 9.16 5.20

0.06 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.93 0.04 007 0.09 0.05

3200 26200 22600 18900 39200 6000 13100 17700 27800 99900 7600 15200 13800 1716700

32.65 16.25 18.59 5.11 12.74 5.25 4.97 4.92 5.91 182,63 27.84 71.70 1.19 26.33

11.72 12.72 12.31 4.36 10.67 3.87 3.57 3.55 5.30 182.30. 14.10 32.76 1.11 21.35

46300 40700 31800 31200 64300 20300 29200 44300 63200 268100

33ioa
56700 33200 2745200

MEGHALAYA East Khasi Hills West Khasi Hills Jalntia Hills East Garo Hills West Garo Hills MEGHALAYA 135424 110004 121152 44697 81256 492532 329.75 433.76 372.50 155.18 108,61 243.14 196.32 119,70 206.60 75.46 53,91 114.68 116.72 83.35 159.29 54.28 46.48 84.74 51958 56625 15176 5030 13015 141802 24.17 25.04 8.99 3.92 4.56 13.86 24.17 25.04 8.99 3.92 4.56 13.86 187382 166629 136327 49727 94270 634334

NAGALAND Kohima Phek Wokha Zunheboto Mokokehung Tuensang Mon NAGALAND 41302 8222 11910 9087 5753 13267 6803 96344 113.91 26.94 47.87 48.26 23.50 38.42 33.11 51.14 56.41 13.99 21.40 21.28 10.53 17.28 12.55 23.25 ORISSA Balasore Bolangir Cuttak Dhenkanal Ganjam Kalahandi Keonjhar Koraput Mayurbhanj Phulbani Purl Sambalpur Sundargarh ORISSA 20000 32000 35000 6000 5000 6000 . 47333 196000 6000 55000 33567 106333 27000 562000 4.37 6,83 5.14 1.32 1.04 1.07 15.42 25.79 1.39 20.81 7.40 15.93 8.20 8.89 4.25 6.44 4.96 1.28 1.03 1.04 14.81 22.82 1.34 17.74 6.98 15.26 7.67 8.42 PUNJAB Hoshiarpur Jalandhar Ludhiana 774 5089 0 0.30 1.71 0,00 0.30 1.68 0.00 0.30 1.68 0.00 10024 11607 42 8.42 52.42 0.08 8.33 52.42 0.08 10799 16696 42 4.07 5.77 478 1,22 0.98 1.02 10.86 17.93 1.30 14.59 6.62 13.02 6.14 7.46 24000 33333 10000 10000 5000 3000 27000 205000 18000 54000 43000 54000 11000 499000 31.17 16.29 3.65 1.85 0.75 0.56 9.54 19.56 3.42 9.29 10.89 7.98 2.56 8.02 23.30 12.69 3.20 1.71 0.71 0.53 8.41 16.97 3.24 8.74 9.33 7.00 2.20 7.18 44000 65333 45000 16000 10000 9000 74333 401000 24000 109000 76667 160333 38000 1061000 36.51 11.21 16.94 16 43 8.46 12.72 11.58 17.79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41302 8222 11910 9087 5753 13267 6803 96344

31

Ferozepur Amritsar Gurdaspur Kapurthala Bathinda Patiala Sangrur Ropar Faridkot PUNJAB

12688 3129 4961 1865 658 0 899 5754 0 35818

2.51 0.72 1.76 1.27 0.13 0.00 0.20 4.95 0.00 0.85

2.42 0.72 1.76 1.20 0.13 0.00 0.19 4.43 0.00 0.83

2.41 0.72 1.76 1.20 0.13 0.00 0.19 4.43 0.00 0.83

245 4181 11816 2680 1220 8940 1285 16690 8038 76769

0.56 6.70 23.48 49.62 2.65 15.82 2.79 28.83 20.04 12.75

0.53 6.70 23.48 42.98 2.61 15.82 2.78 27,77 20.04 12.59

12933 7310 16777 4545 1878 8940 2184 22444 8038 112587

RAJASTHAN Ajmer Alwar Banswara Barmer Bharatpur Bhilwara Bikaner Bundj Chittorgarh Churu Dholpur Dungarpur Ganganagar Jaipur Jaisalmer Jalore Jhalawar Jhunjhunu Jodhpur Kota Nagaur Pali S.Madhopur Sikar Sirohi Tonk Udaipur RAJASTHAN 70059 12560 18605 270555 3639 180688 1059363 37841 195449 24064 14464 25497 79550 58660 2908225 25552 66719 6061 71264 60548 15183 42590 29587 11096 11276 44801 241938 5585297 17.74 2.53 8.30 18.20 0.94 50.14 125.66 16.14 51.77 1.80 10.15 20.28 5.52 7.20 1279,51 4.00 22.31 1.40 6.05 10.98 1.21 7.05 6.20 2.14 7.13 9.95 67.25 35.30 13.96 2.32 6.97 12.80 0.89 39.65 82.32 13.12 46.29 1.57 8.71 15.79 4.49 5.97 812.89 3.04 19.98 1.29 3.89 9.41 1.00 5.22 5.30 1.81 5.19 8.65 52.62 27.80 13.96 2.32 6.96 12.79 0.89 39.62 82.19 13.11 46.27 1.57 8.66 15.55 4.48 5.96 809.51 3.03 19.90 1.29 3,89 9,40 1,00 5.22 5.29 1.81 5.19 8 64 52.53 98206 112729 81756 127800 28813 165135 40935 58369 145250 736 G9805 79862 5637 95261 363699 88172 38882 17042 145856 89702 62382 149095 108066 21572 79330 34533 482600 107.93 150.91 73.99 132.78 51.89 139.10 15.86 33.88 75.07 0.94 228.00 104.36 3.01 61.26 358.38 153.92 27.87 29.85 170.54 23.92 65.63 110.89 36.43 25.74 44.93 58.00 84.32 70.87 57.03 168265 114.10 125289 58.85 100360 42.00 398355 44.67 32452 69.25 345823 11.58 1100298 29.76 96210 53.27 340700 0.59 24800 140.99 84269 68.70 105360 2.81 85187 36.46 153921 174.05 3271924 87.49 113725 20.32 105601 17.39 23104 70.31 217120 150249 20.99 37.00 77565 66.30 191685 30.38 137653 16.82 32668 37.78 90606 28.60 79334 66.03 724538 48.34 8372844

27.77 2787546

TAMIL NADU Chengalpattu South Arcot North Arcot Salem Dharmapuri Coimbatore Periyar TIruchirapalli Thanjavur Madural Ramanathapuram Tirunelveli Nilgiris 19499 26811 7848 19426 16667 2371 966 34517 19265 9027 5764 52861 2857 6.47 4.73 3.62 4.45 4.04 0.73 0.30 6.33 3.72 2.96 2.73 34.25 4.00 4.42 3.84 2,53 3.75 3.59 0.49 0.19 4.47 3.30 2.29 1.79 14.54 3.18 4.17 3.59 2.51 3.70 3.53 0.49 0.19 4,38 3.24 2.28 1.77 14.17 3.12 29451 89695 26359 67851 44707 10851 7337 32165 33310 34952 4961 25840 2711 12.11 40.41 10.94 28.44 10.78 4.50 2.45 13.87 19.53 14.80 5.78 11.79 1.78 10.97 39.42 10.77 26.97 10.45 4.46 2.43 12.91 19.14 14.77 5.72 11.24 1.73 48950 116506 34207 87277 61373 13223 8303 66682 52575 43979 10725 78701 5568

32

Kanyakumari Pudukottai Dindigul-Anna Kamrajhar Pas.Muthuram.Thevar Chidambarnar Tiruvannamalai TAMIL NADU

208 14295 7639 4890 12994 19866 12568 294093

0.25 9.53 2.96 2.54 10.08 8.59 5.40 5.20

0.24 5.27 2.10 1.55 5.33 6.37 3.69 3.73

0.24 4.93 2.04 1,54 5.20 5.94 3.59 3.63

3336 9863 36597 4467 4077 19944 21813 510163

4,36 6,73 18,28 4,57 3,12 25.06 8.97 12.79

4.35 6.51 17.67 4,52 3.09 23,56 8,85 12,41

3543 24158 44237 9357 17071 39810 34381 804256

JTTAR PRADESH Dehradun Saharanpur Muzaffarnagar Meerut Bulandsahar Aligarh Mathura Agra Mainpuri Etah Bareilly Bijnor Budaun Moradabad Ghaziabad Lalitpur Shahjahanpur Pilibhit Rampur Farrukhabad Etawah Kanpur Fatehpur Allahabad Jhansi Jalaun Hamirpur Banda Varanasi MIrzapur Jaunpur Ghazipur Ballla Gorakhpur Sidarthnagar Harldwar Firozabad Deoria BastI Azamgarh Nainital Lucknow Unnao Rae-Bareli Sitapur Hardoi Kheri 12818 2440 3964 4514 11406 9830 7102 6402 11659 38976 3782 4505 5999 7023 7671 68083 6637 6570 1004 18542 10262 26120 13010 27287 50352 5426 23961 33936 29359 35670 8585 5261 2614 4512 3628 2729 4810 6161 11452 8516 28464 11048 17250 22584 9859 23215 9166 24.32 0.89 1.23 1.45 3.34 2.51 2.31 2.26 6.95 12.80 1.15 1.32 1.50 1.44 4.16 55.94 1.89 3.00 0.52 6.53 3.55 4.54 4.38 5.78 16.49 1.56 4.59 6.60 9.21 11.98 2.96 1.99 1.18 1.27 1.44 2.26 2.78 1.46 2.55 2.80 13.75 7.37 6.04 8.24 2.37 5.78 1.98 21.53 0.87 1.19 1.39 3.18 2.36 2.17 2.07 5.33 11.13 1.10 1.22 1.36 1.38 3.80 42.69 1.73 2.89 0.51 5.65 3.17 4.05 3.85 4.93 14.66 1.45 4.14 5.88 8.37 9.51 2.57 1.87 1.09 1.20 1.40 2,16 2.52 1.38 2.40 2.46 13.12 5.92 4.82 6,73 2.04 4.79 1.81 20.09 0.87 1.18 1.39 3.16 2,35 2.16 2.06 5.28 11.04 1.09 1.21 1.33 1.36 3.78 42.31 1.71 2.86 0.51 5.50 3.15 3.97 3.80 4.80 14.57 1.44 4.13 5.79 8.22 9.17 253 1.85 1.06 1 13 1.38 2.14 2.50 1.36 2.34 2.41 12.23 5.76 4.73 6.33 2.01 4.67 1.78 1684 3440 8282 6151 14413 27504 6105 11935 19934 10109 12564 8919 13881 12209 8854 17791 9993 4569 6736 22811 24139 71556 12903 31868 31041 14090 22174 37133 1)496 31955 8024 6874 13951 4602 2552 2280 12721 12318 6114 9555 4449 10713 17468 24620 7821 20577 6125 0.71 3.21 12.07 10,97 29,99 62.75 18.29 17.51 109.16 25.21 28.48 9.13 28.76 20.62 22.51 18,10 19.84 4.20 22.20 49.08 32.48 77.40 25.94 31,63 43,59 24,05 25,09 30.15 8.57 7.93 18.81 19,48 39.06 5,16 8,07 4,30 49,23 18,91 8,83 19,69 1,02 30,56 31,45 48,68 12,49 39,03 258 0,71 3,20 11,96 10,90 29,07 59,16 17,36 17,22 100.33 24,56 28,21 9,07 28,11 20,35 22,22 17,07 19,35 4,19 22,19 45,95 31,54 72,81 24,60 30,94 43,11 24.01 24.75 30.04 8.55 7.91 18.17 18.89 38,84 5,14 7,83 4.29 47,97 18,83 8,68 18.99 1.01 27.87 29.54 45.17 12.36 35.61 2.57 14502 5880 12246 10665 25818 37333 13206 18336 31593 49085 16346 13424 19880 19232 16524 85873 16630 11139 7740 41353 34400 97675 25913 59155 81893 19516 46134 71069 40855 67625 16609 12135 16564 9114 6180 5009 17531 18479 17565 18071 32913 21761 34718 47204 17680 43792 15291

33

Faizabad Gonda Bahraich Sultanpur Pratapgarh Bara-BankI Almora Garhwal Tehri-Garhwal Pithoragarh Chamoli Uttar Kashi Sonbhadra Mau

12289 11570 8541 14278 9010 12918 58699 43493 72216 52009 32771 8929 33465 2953

4.18 2.30 1.87 5.02 4.07 4.50 51.15 46.36 101.92 64.42 65.76 28.94 18.56 2.26 6.05

3.63 2.09 1.76 4.10 3.18 3.72 47.71 39.03 91.14 55.35 63.63 25.73 14.56 2.11 5.42

3.47 2.04 1.72 4.01 2.99 3.61 34.86 25 32 91.12 38.09 37.99 21.16 14.05 2.06 5.27

9230 8336 8115 16649 10796 10860 31396 33550 12122 25017 162081 19776 33262 2815 1032218

14.37 5.66 4.67 33.45 26.97 16.93 7.70 7.19 2.97 7.25 29.72 2.76 8.83 12.67 13.59

13.92 5.60 4.65 32.00 26.42 16.40 6.72 6.59 2.95 5.91 28.59 2.71 8.82 12.55

21519 19905 16656 30927 19806 23778 90095 77043 84338 77025 194852 28705 66727 5768

UTTAR PRADESH 1045153

13.08 2077371

WEST BENGAL 24-Parganas Nadia Murshidabad Barddhaman Birbhum Bankura Medinipur Hugh Haora Jalpaiguri Darjeeling Maldah West Dinajpur Kochbihar Puruliya W E S T BENGAL 2262 3853 6010 19784 10544 18603 13422 8598 293 3595 821 2891 2730 3030 15622 112055 0.36 1.25 1.45 4.40 3.31 4.88 1.57 3.89 0.36 1.20 0.61 1.13 0.64 1.19 4.93 2.10 0.34 1.20 1.45 4.09 3.09 4.35 l!48 3.76 0.30 1.19 0.56 0.99 0.59 1.18 3.73 1.94 0.33 1.19 1.44 4,08 3.07 4.34 1.46 3.73 0.30 1.17 0.55 0.98 0.59 1.15 3.72 1.93 6970 174 828 4180 4917 6494 20294 1023 298 13642 111552 1327 1410 5309 8520 186938 0.90 0,27 0.73 2.19 5.36 2.81 4.98 1.37 0.65 4.67 178.38 2.20 2.13 7.73 4.77 6.87 0.90 0.27 0.73 2.19 5,31 2.80 4.97 1.37 0.65 4.67 173.71 2.19 2.12 7.70 4.75 6.85 9232 4027 6838 23964 15461 25097 33716 9621 591 17237 112373 4218 4140 8339 24142 298993

OTHER STATES & UTs Goa, Daman & DIu 87545 Manipur 0 Tripura 697 Arunachal Pradesh 0 A & N Islands 4270 Dadra, Nagar Hawal 237 Pondicherry 1783 Note: 62.92 0.00 0.26 0.00 11.62 0.97 6.65 62.92 0.00 0.25 0.00 10.40 0.96 5.65 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.05 15782 1418600 0 48129 1931 84 80 12.55 225.60 0.92 0.27 0.37 0.57 12.41 225.60 0.92 0.27 0.35 0.57 103327 1418600 697 48129 6201 321 1863

1. In Nagaland districts, the high values of CWL1 (and CWL2/CWL3) and zero-values for BUL1 (and BUL2) are primarily because in MoA published data, separate figures for 'culturat)le wasteland and 'barren and unculturable land' are not given; the total for the two is given under the former. Hence the result. The result essentially refelects the position for the total wasteland instead of its two components. The reverse seems to hold for Manipur, Tripura and Arunachal Pradesh. 1. Government of India, Indian Agricultural Statistics, Vol.ll-Districtwise for various years. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. 2. Data for 1991-92 and 1990-91 obtained personally from the Ministry of Agriculture, Economic Adviser's office.

Source:

34

So as to see the benefits that CWL and BUL can bestow on land endowment of the district, both are expressed in relation to the landuse categories to which they can possibly be assigned. The possible uses of CWL are: net sown area (NSA), fallow lands (FL) and land devoted to miscellaneous tree crops and groves, perhaps for the whole lot of districts in India in that very order. Similarly, the possible uses for BUL could be ; area under forests (FL), area under non-agricultural uses (NAU) and permanent pastures and other grazing lands. It is difficult to say that the same order of Importance would operate for all districts but it is pretty sure that increasing area under forests and expansion of non-agricultural activities would assume much higher significance than increasing pastures and grazing lands, and so on. All these ideas are articulated in our 1989-92 district-level estimates of eulturabte (GWL) as well as unculturable (BUL) wasteland, based on MoA data and as set out in Table 3.1. To set the record straight, absolute figures are given for 'culturable wasteland' (CWL), 'barren and unculturable wasteland' (BUL) and for 'total wasteland' (TWL) in Table 3.1, so that the seriously affected districts more really catch the eye. Nevertheless, the comparable picture is presented in terms of three versions of culturable wasteland and two of unculturable wasteland. They are as follows: Culturable Wasteland 1) CWL1 area; 2) CWL2 = Culturable wasteland as a percentage of net sown

= Culturable wasteland as a percentage of total of

i) net sown area and ii) fallow lands; 3) CWL4 = Culturable wasteland as a percentage of the total of

i) net sown area, ii) fallow lands, and iii) land under miscellaneous tree crops and groves.

35

Unculturable Wasteland 1) BUL1 = Barren and unculturable land as a percentage of the total of area under i) forests and ii) non-agricultural uses; 2) BUL2 = Barren and unculturable land as a percentage of the total or area under i) forests, ii) non-agricultural uses, and iii) permanent pastures and other grazing lands. For reasons outlined above, among the three versions of CWL, CWL1 is of extreme significance. Similarly for BUL, BUL1 is far more important than BUL2. Most of our discussion on Table 3.1 naturally, therefore, revolves around CWL1 and BULL Let us first examine the picture on culturable wasteland (CWL). It is evident that in quite a large number of districts, culturable wasteland constitutes a fairly big proportion of net sown area. In other words, wasteland area that can possibly become cultivable makes a fairly big proportion of what is already under cultivation. For example, this proportion is about as high as 20.0 percent or more in districts Deoghar, Giridih, Dhanbad, Singhbumn, (East) and Sahebganj of Bihar; Kutch of Gujarat; Leh, Kargil, Doda, Udhampur, Jammu, Kathua, Rajouri and Poonch of JammDakshu-Kashmir; Kangra, Kinnaur, Lahaul-Spiti, Sirmaur, Hamirpur, Solan and Una of Himachal Pradesh; Daksh in Kannad of Karnataka; Bastar, Panna, Chhattarpur and Shivpur of Madhya Pradesh; Raigarh, Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg of Maharashtra; all districts of Meghalaya and Nagaland(see note 1 below Table 3.1); Koraput and Phulbani of Orissa; Bhilwara, Bikaner, Chittorgarh, Dungarpur, Jaiselmer, Jhalawar and Udaipur of Rajasthan; Tirunelveli of Tamil Nadu; Dehradun, Lalitpur, Almora, Garhwal, Tehri-Garhwal, Pittoragarh, Chamoli, Uttar Kashi and Sonbhadra of Uttar Pradesh; in Goa, Daman and Diu, and so on. The total number of districts suffering from such a high level of wasteland malaise is around 60. If the list is extended to those districts where culturable wasteland makes 10.0 per cent or more of net sown area, their number goes up to 110, nearly 30.0 per cent of the 400 odd districts, considered by us. By all reckon36

ing, this is a high proportion. The statewise description of such districts is given in Table 3.2. Table 3.2 clearly shows that about three-fourth of the total culturable wasteland in India is to be found in these 110 districts, it may be conceded that the problem may be equally serious among some of the 60 odd districts that could not be included in our MoA estimates, primarily due to lack of data availability. Their inclusion would push up the number of affected districts but the proportion of culturable wasteland would not change much since the total geographical area of the excluded districts makes a negligible proportion of India's geographical area. In other words, the remaining 70 percent of districts together have only about 25.0 percent of India's culturable wastelands. All policy attention must necessarily be fixed on tliese districts. Secondly, among some of the states, the affected districts suffer a very high degree of wasteland malaise. For example, all the districts of Meghalaya and Nagaland suffer heavily (for Nagaland, see note 1 below Table 3.1); most of the districts in Himachal Pradesh and Jammu-Kashmir suffer the same fate; 86.0 per cent of culturable wasteland in 18 districts of Gujarat is located in 2 districts alone; nearly 93.0 per cent of the culturable wasteland in 27 districts of Rajasthan is concentrated in 13 districts; 14 of the 45 districts in Madhya Pradesh have more than 60.0 per cent; 11 of the 39 districts in Bihar have about three fourth of the state's culturable wasteland, and so on. The problem is thus highly localized in some districts of some states. Thirdly, in the conventional green-revolution states, Punjab, Haryana, Western Uttar Pradesh, etc. The problem of wasteland is of a very low order. For example, the only visible spots are Rohtak and Sirsa in Haryana, Ferozepur in Punjab, Ghaziabad, Mainpuri, Farrukhabad, etc. in western Uttar Pradesh. But then, in none of these districts, culturable wasteland makes more than 5.0 per cent of net sown area. It seems, lands are kept in fine trim in those regions just as is the case with the other pre-requisites of the high production technology prevalent in those areas for nearly three decades now. Perhaps, the green revolution prosperity leaves no room for 'reckless exploitation of land' or 'extending the extensive margin of cultivation', and so on.

37

Table 3.2 Districts Where Culturable Wasteland (CWL) was 10.0 Percent or More of their Net Sown Area : 1989-92
Share of CWL in Affected Districts in terms of State's Net Sown Area 4 230 0.88 Culturable Wasteland

State

No. of Such Districts

Names of Affected Districts Net Sown Area

Share in India's Culturable Wasteland

1 Andhra Pradesh Assam' Bihar

2 4(23) 1(10) 11(39)

3 Prakasam, Nellore, Chiltor Lakhimpur

5 32.62 22.44 74.33

6 1.70 0.16 1.93

Deoghar, Sahebganj 3.76 Ranchi, Hazaribagh, Giridih, Palamu, Dhanbad, Gumla, Singhbhum (E), Singhbhum (W) Broach, Kutch 18.06

Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh

2(18)

86.12

11.26

(16)
10(13) Bilaspur, Chamba, Kinnaur, 19 85 Lahaul-Spiti, Shimla, Sirmaur, Hamitpur, Solan, Una Baramula, Srinagar, Kargil, Leh, Doda, Udhampur Jammu, Kathua, Rajouri Poonch Mandya, Dakshin Kannada, Tumkur Palakkad, Idukki, Bastar, Jabalpur, Panna, Chhattarpur, Sidhi, Satna, Shahdol, Morena, Datia, Betul. Thane, Raigarh, Kolhapur, Sindhudurg, Gadchiroli East Khasi Hills, Jaintia Hills, East Garo Hills, West Garo Hills Kohima, Phek, Wokh Zunheboto, Mokokechung, Tuensang, Mon 17.48 93.93 0.77

Jammu-Kashmir

11(14)

93.09

0.85

Karnataka

3(19) 3(14) 14(45)

1.67

39.60

1.18

Kerala Madhya Pradesh

2.87 5.00

65.47 60.58

0.43 6.39

Maharashtra

6(29)

3.09

53.93

3.70

Meghalaya

5(5)

243.14

100.00

3.28

Nagaland*

7(7)

51 14

100.00

0.62

38

Orissa

4(13)

Keonjhar, Koraput, Phulbani, Sambalpur

6.40

72.00

2.70

Punjab Rajasthan

(12) 13(27) Ajmer, Barmer, Bun 32.71 Bhilwara, Bikanet, Chittorgaih, Dholpur, Dungarput, Jaisalmer Jhalawar, Kota, Tonk, Udaipur Tirunelveli, Puduk Pasumpon Muthuramalinga Thevar Dehradun, Nainital, Gaihwal, Tehri-Garwal, Chamoli, Pithoragarh, Uttar Kashi, Etah, Sonbhadra, Lalitpur, Jhansi, Mirzapur 142 92.67 34.51

Tamil Nadu

3(20)

27.25

0.50

Uttar Pradesh

13(61)

3.21

53.00

3.70

West Bengal Total Note:

(15) 110(400) 74.00

1. In col.2, the figure in parenthesis is the total number of districts considerd by us for OWL analysis. 2. The figures for Nagaland are not for OWL alone; they are for CWL and BUL put together. See note 1 under table 3.1.

Source: 1. Columns 1 to 3 compiled from data in Table 3.1. 2. Columns 4 to 6 based on: (i) (ii) (iii) Govt, of India, Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, Ministry of Agriculture, 1994. Govt, of India, Indian Agricultural Statistics, Vol-ll^ Districtwise, for various years. Ministry of Agriculture. Govt, of Punjab, Statistical Abstract of Punjab. 1994, Economic & Statistical Organization, Chandigarh.

Lastly, in many states (e.g. Andhra Pradesh. Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, etc.), the share of culturable wasteland in the affected districts to the net sown area at the state level (Col.4, Table 3.2) is very small. In other words, even if the reclamation of culturable wasteland is a cent percent success in the affected districts, the addition to state's net sown area would be extremely limited. The choices for policy makers are, therefore, quite difficult. This could possibly be a reason for 'routine attention' going to these more severely affected districts like it goes to their less-seriously affected counterparts. After all,'political demonstrability' of

39

major economic programmes is as much inescapable as the 'availability of funds'! But then, the affected districts in Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu-Kashmir, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Rajasthan, do have the 'demonstrability potential'; fairly big additions to each state's net sown area could accrue if culturable waste could somehow be liquidated. What stands in the way? Perhaps, hostile physical terrain poses the problem. Or the task is too big to fit into individual state coffers? Let us revert to Table 3.1 Two alternative estimates of CWL are CWL2 and CWL3. Under the former, fallow lands are clubbed with net sown area and then culturable wasteland is seen as a proportion of the two. Under CWL3, land under miscellaneous tree crops and groves is added to the total of culturable wasteland and fallows. For obvious reasons, all percentages go down under CWL2 compared with CWL1, and further down under dWL3 compared with CWL2, because of the increasing value of the'd^Vibminator as we move from CWL1 to CWL2 and further on to CWL3. The relative picture under CWL2 and CWL3 is the same as under CWL1. It is essential, however,to stress that the extent of culturable wasteland is so small in some districts that in the event of its reclamation and distribution, it would hardly add any area to the total of the three uses put together: net sown area -i- fallows + land under miscellaneous tree crops, etc. The point is highly dramatized, for example, in the case of districts Deoghar, Sahebganj, Lohardagga, Ranchi, Hazaribagh, Giridih, Palamu, Dhanbad, Gumla, Singhbhum (E) and Singhbhum (W); GWL4 becomes nearly zero compared with fairly high values of CWL2. The moral: the reclaimed land need not be spread thinly among all possible uses; perhaps, each district/area demands its own specific prioritization. We now turn to 'barren and unculturable land'. BUL1 shows it as a percentage of area under forests and land under non-agricultural uses put together. On the basis of BULl, the states that are most seriously affected are Gujarat and Rajasthan, less seriously affected are Andhra Pradesh, and mildly affected are Jammu-Kashmir, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal. There are, however, considerable inter-district variations within each state. For example, within Bihar, BUL1 has a value as high as 100.0 for Deoghar and Sahebganj and as low as 1.76 only for 40

Champaran West; within Gujarat, it is 479.0 for Kutch and only 1.87 for Gandhinagar; in Jammu-Kashmir, it varies from 10.32 for Udhampur to 894.82 for Leh; in Madhya Pradesh, the highest value is 180.96 for Mandsaur and a mere 0.65 for Narsimhapur; in Maharashtra, Ratnagiri is the worst sufferer with a value of 1218.52 and Gadchiroli suffers the least with a value of 1.19; in Rajasthan, Jaiselmer tops the list with a value of 358.38 and Churu suffers practically no loss of this kind (BUL1 := 0.94); in Uttar Pradesh, BUL1 is the highest at 109.16 for Mainpuri and lowest at 0.71 for Dehradun, and so on. Let us look at the districts which suffer from this handicap rather seriously. Somewhat arbitrarily yet to dramatize the widespread nature of the problem, we pick up ail those districts where BUL is 25.0 per cent or more of the total of the two types of land-uses: (!) area under forests, and (ii) land put to non-agricultural uses. These, as argued earlier, are the two major uses to which any land reclaimed from BUL may be assigned. A total of 156 districts (out of 383 considered on the basis of MoA data) suffer from this level of unculturable wasteland. The problem seems to be more seriously manifest in Andhra Pradesh,Gujarat, Jarnmu-Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, etc; not only that a majority of their districts suffer from this malaise but a very substantial proportion of India's 'barren and unculturable land is located in these districts. The vulnerable position of Rajasthan and, to a slightly lesser extent, of Gujarat need to be underlined in particular. In the former state, 23 of its 27 districts are suffering from 25.0 per cent or higher level of this handicap and as much as 16.3 per cent of India's 'barren and unculturable land' is located in these 23 districts. Likewise in Gujarat only 8 of its 18 districts together have nearly 14-15 per cent of India's BUL. To remind ourselves, we have discussed so far the total of BUL in each district (Table 3.1) or each bunch of districts (Table 3.3). We have no idea about the internal components of BUL in such districts. In the MoA data used by us, the finer split of BUL into area occupied by mountains or snow-covered or glacial areas, desertic or sandy or coastal areas, barren rocky or stony area, mining or industrial wastelands, etc. is not given; every category of 'unculturable wasteland' is lumped under 'barren and unculturable land'. It need hardly be emphasized that the relative position of different components of BUL varies markedly from state to state, and 41

Table 3.3 Districts Where 'Barren and Unculturable Land' (BUL) was 25.0 Per cent or More of the Total of Their Area under Forests and Nonagricultural Uses: Average for 1989-92
BUL in Affected Districts as a percentage of state No. of such Districts 2 14(23) Names of Affected Districts 3 Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam, Krishna, Vizinagaram, Nellore, Anantpur, Medak, Cuddapah, Nalgonda, West Godavari, Prakasam, Chittor, Rangareddy, Karimnagar Saran, Siwan, Deoghar, Sahebganj, Vaishali, Begusarai, Bhagaipur, Saharsa, Katihar, Dhanbad, Gumla, Kishanganj, Aurangabad, Purnea Ahmedabad, Kaira, Bhavnagar, Jamnagar, Kutch, Rajkot, Surendranagar, Surat Jind, Mohindergarh, Sonepat, Bhiwani, Rewari Bilaspur, KInnaur, Kuliu, Hamirpur, Solan, Una Baramula, Kupwara, Srinagar, Anantnag, Phulwana, Leh, Kargil, Jammu, Kathua, Rajouri, Poonch Bellary, Bidar, Bijapur, Bangalore, Gulbarga, Kolar, Raichur, Tumkur, Hassan, Mandya Kasargod Jabalpur, Dhar, Chhattarpur, Tikamgarh, Rewa, Satna, Ratlam, Mandsaur, Jhabua, Morena, Bhind, Gwalior, Guna, Rajgarh, Shahjapur, Raigarh Raigarh, Ratnagiri, Nasik, Jalgaon, Ahmednagar, Pune, Satara, Sangli, East and West Khasi Hills Jalandhar, Kapurthala, Ropar State's BUL 4 India's BUL 5

Andhra Pradesh

77.10

10.00

Bihar

14(39)

37.30

2.30

Gujarat

8(18)

91.10

14.70

Haryana

5(16)

55.30

0.40

Hinfiacha! Prad&sh

6(13)

55.00

0,60

Jammu-Kashmir

11(14)

75.30

1.40

Karnataka

10(19)

58.00

2.90

Kerala Madhya Pradesh

1(14) 16(45)

20.60 71.70

0.10 9.30

Maharashtra

15(29)

76.30

8.10

Meghalaya Punjab

3(12) 2(5)

76.60 40.40

0.70 0.20

42

Rajasthan

23(27)

Ajmer, Alwar, Banswara, Barnier. 95.20 Bharatpur, Bhilwara, Bundi, Ghlttorgarh, Dholpur, Dungarpur, Jaipur, Jaisalmer, Jalore, Jhunjhunu, Jodhpur, Nagaur, Pali, S.Madhopur, Sikar, Sirohi, Tonk, Udaipur, Jhalawar Balasore South Arcot, Salem, Chidambarnar 5.00 3500

16.30

Orissa Tamil Nadu

1(13) 3(20)

0.20 1.10

Uttar Pradesh

23(61)

Bulandshahr, Aligarh, Mainpuri, Etah, Farrukhabad, Etawah, Kanpur, Fatehpur, Allahabad, Jhansi, Banda, Budaun, Bareilly, Ballia, Firozabad, Lucknow, Hamirpur, Unnao, Rae Bareli, Hardoi, Sultanpur, Chamoli, Partapgarh Darjeeling

62.20

4.00

West Bengal Total Note: 1.

1(15)

59.70

0.90 73.00

156(383)

In Col, 2, the figure in parenthesis is the total number of districts considered by us for BUL analysis. All the 383 districts cover nearly 83.0 percent of India' BUL while the 156 seriously affected districts cover about 73.0 per cent of BUL in the 383 districts. The same as in Table 3.2

2.

Source:

within many states, from district to district. For example, in certain districts, rocl<y and mountain area may be the biggest component of BUL; in desertic districts, it may simply be sandy-area; in some districts, degraded forest land may dominate over other components of BUL while in some others, mining/industrial wastelands may be more dominant than others, and so on. With MoA data in hand, no such dissections can be done. NRSA Estimates We have an alternative set of estimates provided by the National Remote Sensing Agency (NRSA), Hyderabad, in respect of 146 odd districts, covering the average of 1986-87 and 1987-88, and spread practically over all the states. It is essential to understand the methodological differences between our estimates and those of the NRSA, before we think of dissecting the individual components of 43

BUL (as also of CWL). In particular, we must see to what extent the two sets of estimates are, or can be made, comparable. Table 3.4 looks at both sets of estimates, in respect of 143 districts which figure in NRSA estimates. About 3 districts that figure in NRSA estimates are not included in Table 3.4 since MoA data for mid-1980s are not available for them. At this stage a word of clarification about the NRSA estimates is in order. First, these estimates were based on satellite remote sensing techniques and G.I.S against the MoA figures compiled through village records. Although more time consuming, the NRSA estimates should naturally be more scientific in content, and largely free of human bias or recording distortions although it is believed that their quality would have increased further if, in addition to the use of satellite imageries, the NRSA had conducted 'ground test surveys'. Second, the NRSA estimates give as many as 13 categories of wastelands against only 2 given by MoA data. Conceptually NRSA estimates are more satisfying especially from the perspective of effective policy interventions. Third, the NRSA estimates express the total of wasteland (CWL -i- BUL in MoA terminology) as a percentage of total geographical area of each district. This percentage, in our view.serves a limited purpose. To say the least, it fails to differentiate between that portion of wasteland (CWL) which can possibly be added on to culturable area against that (BUL) which can potentially increase area under forests and/or land put to non-agricultural uses. From the perspectives of declining land: man ratio and increasing stress on land as a means of agricultural production and rural sustenance, this distinction is of great operational significance. Moreover, if reclamation programmes have to be viewed from a time perspective, the distinction between CWL and BUL gains still more significance. Lastly, the NRSA estimates are somewhat fuzzy when a distinction is to be made between 'culturable wasteland' and 'fallow lands'. An attempt is made to put the 13 NRSA categories of wasteland into two broad categories, CWL and BUL, so that some degree of comparability is gained between the NRSA estimates and MoA estimates. Five NRSA categories were lumped to make the total of culturable wasteland (CWL, col.2. Table 3.4): 1) waterlogged and marshy land; 2) land affected by salinity and alkalinity; 44

3) shifting cultivation area; 4) degraded pastures and grazing land and 5) degraded land under plantation crops. Accordingly, the remaining eight NRSA wasteland categories were put together to make the total of 'uncultivable wasteland', roughly corresponding to BUL of our MoA data based perception (BUL, Col.3, Table 3.4). Needless to emphasize, the above exercise lends only a rough comparability between the two sets of data which, in no case, negates the possibility of a vast divergence between what comes out of the local revenue records and that captured through statellite imageries. Nevertlieless.a comparison is worth making. Table 3.4 brings out the divergence between the NRSA and the MoA estimates rather glaringly, in none of the 143 districts, wasteland estimates from the two sources are identical. Let us confine our attention to estimates of total wasteland (TWL), and keep aside the far more glaring divergences in respect of CWL and BUL. To gain more visual clarity, the MoA estimates are seen in relation to NRSA estimates and the extent of underestimation or overestimation of the former is worked out for each district. This is set out in column 8 of Table 3.4 (-t-ve sign for under- estimation against -ve sign for overestimation). In as many as 112 of the 143 districts included in Table 3.4, the MoA estimates are lower than those of the NRSA; the reverse is true only for 31 districts. In plain terms, in a preponderant majority of districts, MoA data suggest a much lower magnitude of the wasteland problem. One need not unnecessarily deride the MoA estimates just because they give relatively lower figures for wasteland. By the same token, nobody can claim that the NRSA estimates are cent percent accurate. After all, there could be big divergences between what the satellite imageries throw up from above and what actually exists on ground, at least for a few landuse categories (e.g. lands involving slopes, fallows getting mixed up with culturable wasteland' etc.). Although the NRSA procedure is to reconfirm the satellite images through 'ground truth surveys' yet the coverage of such 'ground surveys' is limited and cent per cent reconfirmations are almost an impossible proposition. For sloppy terrains in particular, the degree of accuracy is somewhat lower. Never45

Table 3.4 Comparison Between two sets of Wasteland Estimates Absolute Figures in Hectares
state 1986-88 NRSA Estimates CWL BUL TWL 1985-88 MoA Estimates BUL Relative Underestimation of MoA Estimates (7/4) 8

CWL

TWL

1 ANDHRA PRADESH Anantpur Chittoor Cuddapah Karimnagar Kurnool Mahbubnagar Medak Nalgonda Nellore Nizamabad Prakasam Rangareddy Vizianagaram Vistiakhapatnam ASSAM Karbi Anglong N.C.Hills

12202 3139 793 80 7173 1116 0 7504 130904 8822 94106 0 206 776

311143 361810 458966 145754 380741 248496 113760 165413 360912 70480 284199 146113 238522 76251

323345 364949 459759 146929 387914 249612 113760 172917 491816 79302 378305 146113 238728 77027

85990 51740 56669 20809 93170 14406 26242 22915 61410 12977 96216 27974 7798 14169

189553 168718 251781 84409 99374 116451 65567 89912 196485 59047 131334 47136 84420 176854

275543 220458 308450 105218 192544 130857 91809 112827 257895 72024 227550 75110 92218 191023

15.0 40.0 33.0 28.0 50.0 48.0 20.0 35.0 48.0 10.0 40.0 49.0 61,0 -148.0

545113 259560

37606 25688

582721 285248

SNA SNA

SNA SNA

633251 404696

-8.7 -41.9

BIHAR
Aurangabad Dhanbad Muzaffarpur Nawada Palamu Rohtas Singhbhum Si wan GUJRAT Ahmedabad Bhavnagar Gandhinagar Jamnagar Junagarh Kheda Mehsana Panchmahals Raikot Surendranagar 91794 58278 164 130 0 17037 20562 0 11982 79487 18161 137899 2525 288226 314114 35661 41325 135601 187664 181888 109955 196177 2689 288358 314114 52698 61887 135601 199646 261375 23500 32950 1100 36800 11650 2550 19400 21050 12400 33500 71450 101350 300 161900 31000 31550 10850 40550 113150 131950 94950 134300 1400 198700 42650 34100 30250 61600 125550 165450 14,0 31.5 48.0 31.0 86.0 35.0 51.0 54.6 37.0 37.0 460 12865 8422 125 3108 2210 6155 6258 13414 28265 3316 22499 256767 156620 332601 225 13874 41130 11738 22624 259875 158830 338756 6483 1877 19407 348 2638 28127 2666 78213 174 16440 42162 5634 11304 83634 36241 113520 8882 18317 61569 5982 13942 111761 38907 191733 9056 -32.0 -50.0 49.0 38.0 57.0 76.0 43.0 -39.7

46

1
HARYANA Gurgaon Hisar Jind Karnal Sirsa JAMMU & KASHMIR Udhampur HIMACHAL PRADESH Chamba Hamlrpur Kangra KARNATAKA Bangalore Belgaum Bellary Chlttradurga Hassan Kolar Raichur Tumkur KERALA Cannore Idukkl Kasargod Mallapuram Palghat Wayanad MAHARASHTRA Ahmednagar Dhule Jalgaon Kolhapur Nasik Pune Ratnagiri Sangll Satara Thane ORISSA Bolangir Cuttack Dhenkanal

4272 24237 14428 19567 7770

31737 7473

494 388
2094

36009 31710 14922 19955 9864

0 0 0
1217

31

7003 49184 16087 12999 19632

7003 49184 16087 14216 19663

80.6 -55.1 -7.8 29.0 -99.3

13

693547

693560

19344

26463

45807

93.3

245694 8385 9710

94301 8022 138944

339995 16407 148654

5314 12105 48805

4459 11841 52165

9773 23946 100970

97.0 -46.0 32.0

4818

216 100 87 0
7916

0 680

148007 144723 164195 195585 57135 88913 94583 276359

152825 144939 164295 195672 57135 96829 94583 277039

13214 12733 29974 23983 22095 17079 13479 66874

58947 44341 60333 30599 31567 64050 36947 67539

72161 57074 90307 54582 53662 81129 50425 134413

53.0 61.0 45.0 72.0

6 . 0
16.0 47.0 51.0

0 180
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

6980 38233 9813 12367 28356 5184

6980 38413 9813 12367 28356 5184

6603 32590 21065 14064 23976 5633

11564 18611 14058 7187 12983 2066

18167 51201 35124 21251 36959 7699

-160.3 -47.1 -257.9 -71.8 -30.3 -48.5

5896 4558 2196

0
1962 69925 66196 3022 10671 76415

380062 300859 123146 39812 347573 413275 279196 102827 167593 165537

385958 305417 125341 39812 349535 483200 345394 105849 178264 241952

12967 5633 8433 50500 31867 34067 151033 31400 45633 46900

151133 58500 75333 35333 153167 156300 260333 37633 87700 74633

164100 64133 83767 85833 185033 190367 411367 69033 133333 121533

57,5 79.0 33.2 -115.6 47.0 60.6 -19.1 35.0 25.0 50.0

752
9293 123704

127090 67560 29837

127842 76853 153541

36000 50333 6000

30000 10000 10000

66000 60333 16000

48.0 21.5 89.6

47

1 Ganjam Kalahandi Sundergarh Puri PUNJAB Bathinda Kapurthala Sangrur MADHYA PRADESH Bhind Datia Dewas Durg Guna Indore Mandsaur Narsingpur Raipur Raisen Rajgarh Rajnandgaon Ratlam Rewa Shajapur Tikamgarh Ujjain Vidisha RAJASTHAN Ajmer Bhilwara Bundi Churu Dungarpur Jhalawar Jodhpur Kota Pali S.Madhopur Tonk Udaipur TAMIL NADU Dharampuri Madurai N.Arcot Peryar R.KPuram Salem Tiruchirapailj

2 9845 1589 2054 28064

3 421239 122558 112746 147121

4 431084 124147 175185 114800

5 5000 5667 27000 28333

6 3000 3000 11000 43000

7 8000 8667 38000 71333

8 98.1 93.0 78.3 37.9

2753 6097 783

149 440 20725

2902 6537 21508

121 8471 672

1123 2200 1169

1244 10672 1841

57.0 -63.3 91.4

14436 4512 4584 4475 16824 1335 5356 13101 13401 7148 150 7583 2275 3475 275 1788 625 17640

115822 57850 103609 127327 369202 58288 276503 125740 230713 76307 181801 118273 155717 76475 216904 208415 109332 95621

130258 62362 108192 131802 386026 59623 281859 138841 244114 83455 181951 125856 157992 80050 217179 210203 109957 113261

9347 13623 3742 23488 98036 5517 43944 23316 45122 20811 28661 19936 31274 9617 29650 26829 14197 14914

29692 14040 14223 8790 102920 2802 99440 1027 21925 2956 29928 23689 45703 39958 51539 47750 8148 10946

39039 27664 17965 32278 200956 8319 143384 24343 67047 23768 58589 43625 76976 49575 81189 74579 22345 25859

70.0 56.6 83.4 75.5 48.0 86.0 49.0 82.5 72.5 71.5 67.8 55.3 51.3 38.1 62.6 64.5 79.7 77.2

98773 136026 19761 127992 2114 35009 143717 68073 153340 33100 89578 7937

234963 242912 217158 895986 102185 158109 554381 341150 176133 320281 61368 334647

333736 378938 236919 1024978 104299 193118 698098 409223 329473 353381 151446 342584

84466 211160 38719 32642 26972 66533 72110 58461 46337 37636 52699 247499

100071 170565 63252 728 79975 40443 146548 97674 154607 110025 38075 453404

184537 381725 101971 33370 106947 107076 218658 156136 200945 147661 90774 700903

44.7 -0.7 57.0 96,7 -25 44.6 68.7 61.8 39.0 58.2 40.0 -104.5

3596 3484 8892 20875 3037 12972 845

167599 205627 226929 199196 63683 137677 138105

171195 209111 235821 220071 66720 150649 138950

18709 10137 21069 2923 4446 21339 30919

63384 35365 48116 7324 4961 68949 34374

82093 45502 69185 10252 9407 90288 65294

52.0 78.2 70.7 95.3 85.9 40.1 53.0

48

1
UTTAR PRADESH

Agra Aligarh Allahabad Azamgarh Bulandshahr Etah Etawah Fatehpur Farrukhabad Ghazipur Hamirpur Jalaun Jaunpur Jhansi Kanpur Lalitpur Lucknow Mainpuri Pratapgarh Rae Bareli Sultanpur Unnao Varanasi

2512 48527 31089 16980 32421 43403 22989 19162 26393 11110 1455 379 19661 670 53677 0 27138 50333 59588 56098 40575 66821 4658

38838 0 43588 405 1700 464 27937 10240 5906 391 46150 33873 5670 93088 12867 125970 397 4591 3985 1825 9735 1221 19192

41350 48527 74677 17385 34121 43867 50926 32299 29402 11502 47605 34252 25331 93758 66544 125970 27535 54925 63575 57923 50310 68042 23850

663) 9583 28125 11905 10909 39058 10525 12066 19858 5572 31053 6585 9103 54489 18405 131100 11302 16164 9505 23166 16336 19006 5858

14753 31400 35597 13829 14815 11447 25301 13774 22452 6638 23382 14855 8011 31113 50951 18805 10718 35552 12108 25256 17911 20173 11490

21385 40983 63723 25734 25724 50506 35826 25839 42310 12210 54435 21440 17114 85602 69356 149906 22020 51716 21613 48422 34247 39179 17348

48.3 15.5 14.7 -48.0 24.6 -15.1 29.7 20.0 -43.9

-6.2 -14.3 37.4 32.4

8.7
-4.2 -19.0 20.0

58
66,0 16.4 31.9 42.4 27.3

W E S T BENGAL Bankura Medinipur Puruliya NAGALAND Kohima Mokokchung Zunheboto Note: 1. 2. 3. 172840 108785 84070 3759 0 0 176599 108785 84070 SNA SNA SNA SNA SNA SNA 32742 5850 9283
81.5 94.6 89.0

113 6677 3480

63324 52763 84859

63437 59440 88339

24490 24708 33991

6494 20294 8520

30984 45002 42511

51.2 24.3 51.9

SNA= Separately not Available For Assam, tvloA data(Cols. 5,6 and 7) are for 1980-82 The MoA estimates are for 1985-88 while NRSA estimates are averaged over 198688, the relative deviations(col.8) are not different, even marginally, even if we drop 1985-86 from IvIoA estimates For NSRA Estimates (cols.2 through 4), Govt, of India, Wasteland Atlas of India, Volume-I, National Remote Sensing Agency, Dept. of Space, Hyderabad, 1993. For MoA Estimates, Table 3.1.

Source: 1.

2.

49

theless, all said and done, the greater reliability and wider acceptability of the NRSA estimates can hardly be under doubt. In that case,a clear message emanating from Table 3.4 is ttiat the methodology or guidelines followed by the village-level revenue officials for delineating 'wastelands' need to be updated. The least that needs to be done is to guard against the permeating of 'human bias' at the local level; some cross-checks are absolutely essential. It is indeed a serious matter that the extent of underestimation of MoA figures is more than 50.0 per cent in a very large number of districts; for some, it goes even beyond 100.0 per cent. The overestimation of MoA figures, although not so glaring and not so wide-spread, do also point towards methodological faults. Comparing MoA with NRSA Estimates Table 3.5 looks at the NRSA and MoA estimates in relative terms rather than in absolute deviations as in Table 3.4. The general conclusion of Table 3.4 - that in a preponderant majority of districts, the MoA estimates are lower than their NRSA counterparts must still be intact. After all, we are dividing both NRSA and MoA total wasteland area by the same figure, for deriving columns 6 and 10 or columns 7 and 11. What is important to note is that the relative ranking or districts between the two estimates, whether according to values of TWL or TWL1, is similar for a vast majority of districts. In other words, within each major state, a district shown as critically afflicted by wasteland malaise through NRSA estimates (Col. 6 or 7) shows the same tendency under the MoA estimates (Col. 10 or 11). Obviously, identical ranking cannot be expected along the whole continuum of TWL/TWL1 values, yet for a wide range of districts, it does not vary between one estimate and the other. As a matter of fact, rank correlation coefficients, computed for states which have about 10 or more districts in Table 3.5,are fairly high in many cases. For example, it is 0.75 between cols.6 and 10, (r6,10 = 0.75) and 0.72 between cols. 7 and 11 (r7,11 = 0.72) in respect of Andhra Pradesh; r6,10 = r7,11 = 0.62 for Maharashtra; r6,10 = 0.80 and r7,11 = 0.81 for Madhya Pradesh; r6,10 - 0.80 and r7,11 = 0.73 for Uttar Pradesh, and so on. For Rajasthan the ranking is topsy turvy between the NRSA and MoA estimates; r6,10 = 0.19 and r7,11 = -0.12. Generally, in each state, the relative underestimation of the MoA estimates is discernible for an overwhelming majority of districts, yet 50

Table 3.5 Wasteland Estimates for 143 Districts of India by National Remote Sensing Agency (NRSA)
State District 1986-88 Estimates 1 Andhra Pradesh 2 Anantpur Chittoor Cuddapah Karimnagar Kurnool Mahbubnagar Medak Nalgonda Nellore Nizamabad Prakasam Rangareddy Vizianagaram VIshakhapatnam Karbi Anglong N. Cachar Hills Aurangabad Dhanbad Muzaffarpur Nawada Palamu Rohtas Singhbhum Slwan 3 16.90 24.10 29.90 12.40 22.00 13.50 12.00 12.20 37.60 10.00 21:50 19.50 21.40 11.80 56.00 58.30 4.20 13.70 3.70 9.10 20.30 22.00 25.20 2.90 Modified 1986-88 NRSA Estimates CWL 4 1.50 0.73 0.21 0.02 0.82 0.15 0.00 1.26 40.89 3.21 16.50 0.00 0.27 0.10 431.00 1239.00 0.24 20.45 3.91 0.10 1.42 0.56 1.72 3.64 BUL 5 89.50 117.30 109.10 93.30 91.70 59.90 86.90 92.80 120.90 29.40 79.60 98.80 41.20 93.70 14.00 41.00 22.80 29.40 5.90 26.00 42.70 61.60 65.80 0.80 TWL 6 27.70 49.50 57.90 25.60 30.20 21.40 21.00 22.40 79.50 15.40 40.80 32.90 16.30 45.80 146.00 338.00 5.50 25.90 4.30 10.70 31.70 24.50 39.20 3.30 TWL1 7 16.90 24.30 29.90 12.40 22.00 13.50 72.00 12.20 37.40 9.80 22.10 19.40 12.20 21.00 56.40 58.30 4.20 13.80 3.70 9.10 20.40 21.70 25.00 2.90 CWL 8 10.50 12.10 15.20 5.00 10.70 1.90 6.40 3.90 19.20 4.70 16.90 950 2.70 5.30 SNA SNA 1.00 30.80 0.20 2.10 12.80 0.70 21.80 0.10 MOA 1985-88 Estimates BUL 9 53.40 28.40 37.30 26.10 23.90 28.10 50,10 51.30 65.80 24.70 36.80 31,90 45.70 32.20 SNA SNA 28.00 43.90 10.00 13.10 13.90 14.30 22.40 32.40 TWL 10 23.50 21.60 29.50 14.30 15.00 11.20 16.90 14.70 41.70 14.00 24.50 16.90 19.50 32.40 158,30 480.00 7,30 38 70 2.20 6.60 13.60 6.00 22.20 4.50 TWL1 11 14.40 14.70 20.10 8.90 10.90 7.10 9.60 7.90 19.60 8.90 13.30 10.00 14.60 1680 61.30 82.80 5.50 20.60 1.90 5.60 8.80 5.30 14.10 4.00

CJI

Assam

Bihar

Z9

i
2
:?; o. O
D c CO

01

3'
0)

B)

X
Bl 3 Bl

o zr w a! a.
3-

3 3 c e=

f
CO 33 TJ 0) (D 3 B)

;^
Bl Cft

IT

t 8i 01 a

0) 3r 3 3r 3 fil

-i3]7;xoa3Dna3
3 O B ) H !^' S" "P m

DJ

A X

1"^
c

o 30) 3. 3 3 c r
su

3. c
a 3Bi

W ? ; Sr X
B)

^' ai

01

3 D
C

Q m

CO SI

o 3

s?S
S

3 O 3"

Bl

Bl ^ 3 P Bl Bl

CO o i O) po (O b bo CO

O)

CD - ^ CX3

00 05

o o o o

<i b ^ cn ^ *^ o o o o o o o o

o 3

M - Cfl c;i j ^ r o CD ^ ^

-si

MOiji.c;ico

*.-jtncj5^cDO*^-^ro

o o o
en ^3 CD - ^ en

^ o

'- u ei\ Q u> o o o o o

(obobobocoaji^^ffio? o o o o o o o o o o

o o o o 'o o -^ o
o o - o

o o r o o o o o - ^ b K j b b b o N ) CdOC0O^5^J^0^

o M

to <T> ut t- to en ui C O -si -vl O

M ^ O G J O J O p p C O - J Kj'sibrodibbcocTi-^ o o o c o r o O M C o - ' - s i

- O L o

en O K> o

-' CO ( D CD CD o o

ro -" r o o D C D ^ c o o o u i c s -oor\>enoiv)CJ5Cn ^ M N i O T ^ b o b b o o o o o o o o

J^ l\J ^ o

(O CO - ^ CO en CO o o

en M

b o

CD - ^ r o o

'ai ro b> <t o o o o o o

cDCX>4^encoroooiocoro o t o - j o ^ e n c o * . c o c o (oLj-ipcoiDro-uenroen o o o o - o -o - o - o o - o

CO -si 00 l u bo 01 ^

o o

- ' r o 00 CD en o

o o

- ' M b o

M M - 1 ^3 ^ - r o -si g? CO *>. < i P o

o o

CO ro CD O

to O - ^ -1^ ^ bo O O

ro O
CO

ro en en en en
0 } en (J) bo t o o o o o o

C O ro - * C O ^ ro -^ enj^oooo(oooeo^~-iQo - ^ ro 05 w ^ ^ en 05 b o o o o o o o o o o

C O en 05 ro lb. b bo ^ o o o o

o><DrooD(D-sio<o b bo i 05 C O ro bo b o o o o o o o o

ro en o

S CD
(D O O

<J5 O

ro
CO o

en O

<D O

CO 05 bo ro O O o
& .

ro -> -^ ro ro cncoeno5-si(Doo^ b b C O C D b> -si * . ^ o o o o o o o o

05 en CO CO (D bo b ^ en lo ^ -^

ro-'*v(j5.b.en-'ro CO bo ro CO ro CO -sj CO ^5 -J o ro CD ro

CO (D <p 5

CO - - i ro CO bo o CD

ro o CD -si

o o o o o b iu b o b -^ o o o o

8
-i -

o to 05 ro en -u KJ *. i>. g ooo
-^ CO

-si

-I

en - 05 en bo en CO o o o

enco*vio(oto-ro ji.*.-(>.enoo-g~j en bo ro ^ ^ ro CO o o o o o o o

-^ en bo o

CO -1 - (D en o o

00 (S

i>. en o o

00 CO 1^ o

CO CO - ^ 00 ^ bo t o o o

too-^-'Co-'cn ooiD ODcD^-tocorocDro-jro boeoioco^iv>cD05:i:^ o o o o o o o o o

to - IV 05 CO - O) en o en o CO o< 5
bl O Ul '<D

o o o o
en - s i <D CD

t o C O ^ p ro -1 CO <i ^ CD CO CO 05 b o o o o o o o
ro -si CO bo o o
_ i

-1 _.

t n CO CD <D CO j o CD - b b

o o o o o

to - ro ro 05 - ro-'!\0;;^a5encDro-'en ro C O C D KJ b ro ---I * ro en o o o o o o o o o o

toeoocDen(D*.~-i b5b5!(^^:uj:^eoio o o o o o o o o

CD O

f^ CO en -si r o

-sjbengj
O O O O

boweo*.b-en^^-'
O O O O O O O O O O

o o o o o o o o o o
.-.-.in ->-

O Q O O Q O O O p O O Q O Q O O O Q
oou5<r|r^c')c\jpjt^(\]CD<od)ooc5-'^ooh~:in cococNJcoodruin-^cocvioJfriior-^rJTrcoco

o o o o o o o o o o
O)O)CO-00'-O)CJC0C\]
^ * o o T r - T i r ) d d K r - ^
^ y-^ in ^ -^ ^

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o m<\jo-<i'-incomcooopir)0)coc\iinir

O) lb

o
00

o
<)

o o o o o o o o o o o c o o O ' - C M - ' - o - ^ r ^ 0 ) 0 ) c f d < N i r i ' < i r < d r < 1^ - ^ C M - ^ ^ D ^ T l - i r ) ^

O O Q O O O O O O lOOO'-uiror^Tt d iri t o i n o i CO 00

oJ

o 00 d

o
<r)

o
>!

o
1-

o
T-

o
1 -

o
lo

o
CO

iri o ) c\i <3^ CO C O K t ^ C> - - ^ "^

< ; ) c n c o - " - Q c \ i o r ^ - o p r ^ o h - ; i p m o c \ i ( D i n T - ^ d ' - - ^ c 6 c o ' - ^ i h K t b

C 3 1 m lO
r^ Tf c\i d

o CO --^ ( O C M O O C O T t U ^ f ^ C O

>t i n lO CM 00 o CD en i n o <35 d c\i CD ^ CO c\j

(D - CO -il1^ r-^

o o

i n ^
cDcJ

f^CMC0'-'^C3^C0C0C0Oi
c \ J ^ d i r i c \ i d c \ i c \ i c D i r i CNJCNJ*C\Jcr)'<3-T--.-C\J

o o o o o o o o C O C D i n ^ O J C D Q O O

cjidioiriioihcrir^
O g c O T - t - C O T - O J C v J

O O 00 h a j (ji CM

O CO >^

O in CM CO

O O O O r^ OJ r^ o c\i iri - CO

in

S2

O O T-cD T-'cM

O O O O O O O O O O O ' ^ m c D O C M i ^ r ^ ' - c o oocooJcdodo6cDirir6'<t CMCM'CMCOC\J^-C\JCO

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O --r-rO'-'-CD<3)CMCM(DCOCOOOtOCOOOCO ro
IT) 00 00 00 CO CO >^ d K ' - c o d c r i c o c M c b c b c o - ^ h ^ CNiCOCO^-r-CO'-TfT-'^t-tDCM-'-

t < CD

iniOTj-inincOGOTj-cO'^

O 00 <t ^ CO

O 00 r~-^ 00 -

O C3^ CO -^

O CD CNJ r--

O CO CD r--r-

O O CO -t d ^' en C O ^ r-

CO iri C\l

o o in o CD d CD
CM CO

O CO CD C^J

d
CM

d CD oo

O O O O in O

o o
in CM
CO CD

CM CM

O ' ^ I ^ O C M C M C O ' - O O C n m c D C M O C M o o r - m r ^ c o d d d d d i b c b d ^ c D CM CM

C M C D O O - ' - ' ^ C M O O O C O C M ' < * - ^ C O O C D t ^ ^ * ^ 00 c o - ^ CM C M o 00 o o o i n o i n - r r ^ o i n r ^ o o h ^ ^ T f CO ^ d CM d . - d ^ o d d d CO

o o in^r CDCM

o o o o o o o o o o ' - ^ t ^ O L n c 3 ) L n ' * o c o c o c o d i r i c M d c b c M h ^ i r i CNJCM-"CMCOCM'-'-CM

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Q o o C M c o c o - ^ o o c o o o i n o o c D c o i n r - o c O ' - ' * c r i d i r i i n T f i r i o i i ^ ' - c x i c j i ' - C M C M i r i c D o d i n OJCO'---CO--C\JC\JC M ' - C O ^ C O ' ^ t ^ - ^

O Q cooi ^cb '-

-O

D) ra c
o

x: c en >. Q-

< 1

^.

CI> E

III III
ra

o s: m

ra ra Q

II III III

zocccccircrirw

11 111 g >
1- 3

6)

t o

ra

53

t^g
c
01

3 01 lU C O

5 01
3

"0 C 3 Ol' CT

> >' CO > s? . K

H W ^ 0 ) 2: 3 p

"D C D -L

1^
" ^

01 - 0 01 ft)

> a ft) S ^ ft) S ft) 3 c

z 2 o ft) 3"

c H a 3 ft) o
o

CO T3 : ^ 01 O

fO 01 (Q S ft)

2 =^5r :
3-

"" ft) -D

fill

01 01 3 T3

" D w ;^ O a
C C 3 CO Dl ft) 0) oT 3 3 3 3O ft) 01

S 3

o
X)

3-

O (O OS CO ^ <J>

- - * en h j - - P\> - J -v| <H <D 0 1 ;~J 6 i * -~) bo r j OT 00

- ^ [ \ > c o r o c j c o ( o i \ i O ) - u c J c o ^ 0 - ' O J O 1 ^ 3 O - ' ^ o ^ > c n c D

8Sg883SSS8

_ -> <D o

-^ -J no o

_i O b? O

CO *. i^ o

- *. M O

O CO -' O) - - L^ ro ^ ^ (D iy o en en -t^ <D CO o o

c n c D ^ m M r o m c D c o f k c n r o - j j ^ c n c D c n t D o r o o j c o c o ^

C31 o o ro 00 o <y> to -^ in CO 00 ( o - ^ o j

CO O

CD

CD CD en CT) ^

en en ^

c> Ji. 00 *
<o -t^

bo o <in

'*>. o

-g i-i en -si -

e n - o . u c D c n - ' * ^ t n r s . c n - ' C O ^ - ' t D ^ c o o o c e n j ^ c o - ' < n b o i v < p < 0 ' o e n o o o o c D o o

> - ' - N i o - ' c n - ^ c o ^ o o o

en en - * o o o

(D o

CO - ^ CD - ' r o bo

CD C <J> CO - ^ CO

^ 3 8en
CO Q o o

t. en p ho i ^ o o

4^ S ^ o

C71 >i d i o

. to ' v j ^ i k b o ^ ^ o o o o o o

CO en en o o o

M o bo o

_i en bo o

_ i CO - > - 00 en ^ b> o o o o

_k pcDflo ho-^-vj

_ i _ _ r v ) - c o - ' M ^ c n p c o ^ ^ i e n * ^ b o ^ e o r o ( D o

- ' W c o N i c o C o c o h j c n j ^ c o c o - v i - ' t o c n c j p o i - ^ o p p c D ^ < n b o c n c D e n c n b o b o ^ b o o o o o o o o o o o o

M (D en o o o

<n - o tn S ~ s l ^ ^ CO - o o o o o

<j) ro -^
'f-

- en CO

ID

en en M o ( > . oj *. ( 3 5 to ^ CD en ik en CD en -^ -^ 00 CD to

-4

- ro M - 1 t n N) - ^ c o o ^ - ^ ^ w t n ^ ^ C ) - ^ c n C T ) t D t n ^ e n e n - ' t o r o c o o c D O T t n r o c o e n o

en 00 " ^ - - -* CD b o CO J^ Ol CO ^ CO

00 tn CD J^ - f > . -^

v l en CO . N) ._ M J po 4 en s i CO c r i CO tn *^ to po o -

K j t n m b i r o i ^ r o ^ t D e n ^ c o o o o o c s o o o o o o o

en M tD ro CO ^ ro

-^ i > o o o -
ro a> in tn CD

o o o o o

o o

-1 CD en bo en ^

00 *i. CO -* v l 00 O i t ^ CO ro ^ ' * . bo 4^

o M o
^
i c w ho

oo en o

o -

8
en eo o p -' CD CD bo < i en o o o o o

CS 00 ^ <i ho en

en p to ; en en 00 CD en ro CO s i bo in

o j - ' - ' - ' - ' - ' M -^coro e n t o ^ e n r o t D t n o o r o - j t n f o b ) d ) b e o b o ^ c D h o b < n < i o o o o o o o o o o o

o en o i>. * . ho

1 ^ O)

*
>><\i T^

lO CO CO <t c6 <S3

O t CJ o) C O K

IT) t o

Tt

di^co'a-aJiriiooj'^pjcjcbooiridT-^m

o r-- c\i iri C O 00

l o in Tc\i l o c\i

o>a5<MiD'-<ocjO'*r-'-cnou3i~-:i^o>cMoor^ d-^o6'<th-o6o)r^cDa>'i-QddcyQt^r-^<Do6 CNj<r)c\ico<M^T-CMC\i^^6oc\ic<)oS'<twco

< T- C O
c j CO

< < < z z z

C

r-c co oo o fi fD id oo o -- > ^^ od aS >> iT ;^"' j^cc< <> 5^ ^ t( B B ii p c \ \i(5ip

C V J CO CO CO

CO CJ

^ OJ CO r- 00 t o CD C\j CD

< < < z z z www

CO 00

<

oopa)r-^^~:<3)^n^p^oco<r)opO)a5^^mcDlr)opr~-

CO CJl

TJ^

CJ ^

CO

coh^aii-r^c)co(i>r^<r)o6dTtdc\Ji<c\J-^Tf-^t

CO (O

ro to<300)Cvj'^0)0)0>u5t~~ina3T-o^'-oo)<\jco co(]6c\i'^t~~'<j)co't^odr--:TicO'<iirjr<Tto6'<tc>iri
r-TT - ' l t ' - ' T - C d ^ ^ C V J

CM

at o
>t r-'

h(0

<3;

en Cli o o

lOl^-'-pjcooO'-cjT-cnO'tO'-cO'cicOT^opcipjT^cocicooJd'^-^roc) co-"-iniD'-cocyco - ^

CNJ CM CO

d c\i <
CJ T-

CO 05 * 00 i n CM CJ T -

(O O

'- d d

" 0) CJ - 2 00 ~ 00 >

oc\iiDr~-t-(--oo->-^--"-ioou5'-opcO'-o-^ lOtOO'^'^CvlOjT-r^CJh^OOJCDlOGOOCD'*? 8c ^<ji-^c6iba)'c>c>tddc\Jc>obr--c>d^cd-^ -^-'-CJCy-'-OJ

CO

o o d d '

CO

CJ 1 ^ CD
CD

CO

00

ID

oopcop<p'-;tcD'3-cor-oopo5ip'-<ocoo)r^ coKoi'-^h^h^cocot^tocDCDtridojKoj^TtTt
TT - T - O O ' - ' - T - , - , - , -

c\i c y T<J) <t T t

r>- Tf o C O r-- K t CD C O

I
I
c: .ro
CO ~

ro 6 'ro

c ro
(0
13 E e^ ro a S N 3 3 a ro Is < CD LU Li-

oi u.

if

f 1 o

fit; 1ll
5 i35

c "5 !s 3
a. o c ra ra 5 ro ro c ^ Q. (T 3

f^

j _

>

ro c m ro

ro CJ. ro 5 c = c ^ 2 n 5 Q. CD

is ..-5 5 ro
ii: 2 N

J8

II

<^

I-

^ ro" n S ro c

c '5
ro o Q O

ro

I
55

3 O

a few exceptions need to be underlined. For example, in all the 6 districts of Kerala (figuring in Table 3.4), the story goes the other way round; NRSA estimates are lower than MoA estimates. Is it that the revenue department machinery in this state is more 'scientificallyattuned'? Is it that the guidelines for wasteland measurement are 'more liberal'? But then, the MoA underestimation manifests itself in each individual district of Gujarat, Karnataka, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and so on. Except for Visakhapatnam, MoA underestimation is discernible in all other districts of Andhra Pradesh as well. In brief, the" need for more reliable estimates of wasteland is fairly obvious. Based on 1986-88 position, the NRSA has identified 237 districts as seriously affected. A district-by-district blow-up of wastelands is already published for 146 districts. Detailed district wise information for the remaining 91 districts must be put up as expeditiously as possible, in the mean time, another round of satellite survey may better be initiaJted; perhaps, in the 10 years that have gone by since the first NRSA survey, many new districts might have got affected or the situation might have worsened in some and so on. On the other hand, the MoA annual routine of putting out 'wasteland' statistics, as a part of land-use classification, must improve; the states have a more decisive role to play in this regard. It seems, no change, much less an improvement, in declaring land as 'wasteland' has taken place for years together; in fact, land-use classification is hardly taken seriously at the state or lower levels. The glaring deviations between the NRSA and MoA estimates prompts us to look at them in relation to total area. Unlike the NRSA procedure of measuring 'total wasteland' as a percentage of total geographical area of a district, we measure total wasteland (as in Table 3.4) as a percentage of the total of four items: i) net sown area, ii) fallows; iii) forest area, and iv) land under non-agricultural uses. As already pointed out, these are the four uses to which the total wasteland can ultimately be assigned, (i) and (ii) for 'culturable wasteland' and (iii) and 56

(v) for 'barren and unculturable wastelands'. These percentages (TWL) are set out in columns 6 and 10 of Table 3.5. To add to our confidence, we divide total wasteland by total reporting area also (TWL1, cols. 7 and 10, Table 3.5), to see if a better accord emerges between the NRSA and MoA estimates. A consolation that emerges from Table 3.5 is that if attention is to be fixed, first and foremost, on the most seriously affected districts, within each state, it generally does not matter whether we choose to be guided by the NRSA or MoA estimates. The absolute figures for wasteland, including those for its two components CWL and BUL, do differ significantly between the two sets of estimates but relative rankings, most surely for the more seriously affected districts, do not deviate much. The policy intervention focus need not, therefore, get fuzzed. The exact magnitude of wasteland to be tackled, say, in a seriously affected district, may look formidable through the NRSA prism and less frightening from the MoA vision, yet the fact remains that the district is suffering the loss of land more than any other. Expediency demands that the battle between absolute deviations and relative ranking should not hold up policy interventions and remedial initiatives. Perhaps, the reality is somewhere between the NRSA and MoA estimates; neither is one totally useless nor is the other totally acceptable. So we must pose faith in both sets of estimates. Since we are not sure how much we ought to tilt in favour of NRSA estimates against their MoA counterparts, or viceversa, for each district, any exercise in locating the mid-values would be highly arbitrary. We are thus carried back to Table 3.2 which give us a nearly exhaustive list of the 110 seriously affected districts from the point of view of culturable wasteland, to Table 3.3 which identifies 156 seriously affected districts from the viewpoint of barren and unculturable land, and to Table 3.4 which portray the picture of 146 seriously affected districts from the viewpoint of total wasteland. Let each table be drawn upon depending on the perception and the mould of policy intervention. Major Categories of Wastelands But then, a specific policy intervention calls for precise identification of wasteland type for each district. It is here that the NRSA estimates are most handy while MoA estimates serve no purpose. Let us, therefore, go into the 13 wasteland categories provided by the NRSA estimates. A careful perusal of the districtwise NRSA esti57

mates convinces us ttiat out of thie 13 wasteland categories, only 56 are more pervasive, and are clearly discernible in most of the districts. Accordingly, Table 3.6 summarizes the districtwise blow-up of NRSA estimates into a few major categories. An effort is made to report all those districts in each state which are seriously affected by each specified wasteland category. It is clear that the nature of wasteland varies from district to district, although many districts in big states commonly suffer from the same type of wasteland malaise. It is equally clearly discernible that some types of wasteland occur, in a big way, practically in each state. For example, degraded notified forest area and upland with/ without scrub are the most common categories; shifting cultivation is the most common problem in hill areas; salinity/alkalinity affected lands and waterlogged/marshy lands are located in the green revolution areas; sandy/desertic areas are the 'preserve' of Rajasthan while gullied/ravinous lands are located in Madhya Pradesh and parts of Uttar Pradesh, and so on. In is clear that the policy initiatives needed to develop wasteland must necessarily vary from area to area. Perhaps, even for the same category of wasteland, say, in two separate regions, the same prescription may not work. In any case, it is fairly evident that the most commonly occurring problem is degraded forest land. No wonder, therefore, it has engaged the maximum of policy attention during the past two decades or so, and one may not be surprised to discover many programmes of reforestation or forest preservation coming up in recent years. The overbearing attention is thus quite understandable. Chapter IV looking as it does into the policy initiatives of the past confirms this fact.

58

Table 3.6 Major Categories/Components of Wasteland: 1986-88 NRSA Estimates

state No. of Dists. Covered Major Categories of Wasteland Discovered Category Description Critically Affected Districts age Share of all Affected Districts State's Wasteland 5 41.4

Andhra Pradesh

14

(1) Upland with/without Scrub

Chittor, Cuddapah, Karimnagar, Mahbubnagar, Medak, Nalgonda, Nellore, Nizamabad, Prakasham, Rangareddy, Visakhapatnam, Vizinagaram Anantpur, Chittor, Cuddapah, Karimnagar Kurnool, Mahbubnagar, Medak, Nalgonda, Prakasham, Rangareddy, Visakhapatnam, Vizianagaram Anantpur, Kurnool Karbi Anglong, North Cachar Hills Aurangabad, Nawada, Palamu, Rohtas, Singhbhum Dhanbad Bhavnagar, Jamnagar, Junagarh, Mehsana, Rajkot, Surendranagar

(2) Degraded Notified Forest Area

34.0

(3) Barren Rocky Waste Area Assam Bihar 2 9 (1) Shifting Cultivation Area (1) Degraded Notified Forest Area (2) Upland with/without Scrub Gujarat 10 (1) Upland with/without Scrub

13.4 92.7 75.4 8.4 61.8

(2) Salinity/Alkalinity Affected Area (3 Haryana (1 (2 Himachal Pradesh 3 (1 (2 (3 (4

CD

Ahmedabad, Bhavnagar, Kheda, Mehsana, Surendranagar Junagarh, Panchmahals, Hissar, Jind, Karnal, Sirsa, Gurgaon Chamba Chamba, Kangra Chamba, Kangra, Hamirpur Hamirpur Udhampur Udhampur Banglore, Belgaum, Bellary, Chitradurga, Hassan, Raichur, Tumkur Banglore, Belgaum, Bellary, Chitradurga, Hassan, Raichur, Tumkur, Kolar Bangalore, Tumkur Iddukki, Palghat, Wayanad Cannanore, Kasargod, Malapuram, Palghat Iddukki, Malapuram, Palghat

15.2' 10.6 45.6 21.5 48.6 27.5 11.3 3.5 60.2 20.8 43.0

Degraded Notified Forest Area Degraded Pastures/Grazing Land Upland with/without Scrub Degraded Land under Plantations Snow-covered and/or Glacial Area Steep Sloping Area Degraded Pastures/Grazing Land Barren Rocky Waste Land Snow-covered and/or Glacial Area Upland with/without Scrub

Jammu & Kashmir 1

(1 (2

Karnataka

Degraded Notified Forest Land Barren Rocky Waste Land Kerala Degraded Notified Forest Land Upland with/without Scrub Steep sloping Area

42.4 10.6 42.6 31.2 14.4

1 Madhiya Pradesh 18 (1) Upland with/without Scrub Datia, Dewas, Durg, Guna, Indore, Narsingpur, Raipur, Rajgarh, Rajnandgaon Ratlam, Rewa, Shajapur, Tikamgarh, Ujjain, Vidisha, Mandsaur Bhind, Datia, Dewas, Guna, Indore, Rajgarh, Shajapur, Ujjain, Narsingpur Dewas, Guna, Mandsaur, Raisen, Ratlam, Tikamgarh, Vidisha, Rajnandgaon Ahmednagar, Jalgaon, Nasik, Pune, Ratnagiri, Sangli, Satara, Thane Ahmednagar, Dhule, Jalgaon, Kolhapur, Sangli, Satara, Thane, Nasik Bishnupur, Imphal, Senapati, Thoubal Bishnupur, Imphal, Thoubal Kohima, Mokokchung, Zunheboto Bolangir, Cuttak, Ganjam, Kalahandi, Puri Sundargarh, Bolangir, Kalahandi, Sundargarh Ganjam, Puri Dhenkanal Sangrur Bathinda, Kapurthala Churu, Jodhpur 49.3

(2) Gullled/Ravinous Land (3) Degraded Notified Forest Lan^J Maharashtra 10 (1) Upland with/without Scrub (2) Degraded Notified Forest Land
C5)

20.5 19.6 46.4 28.2 87.8 12.2 99.0 54.2 15.5 11.5 10.5 50.3 28.2 26.9

Manipur

(1) Shifting Cultivation Area (2) Waterlogged and Marshy Area

Nagaland Orissa

3 7

(1) Shifting Cultivation Area (1) Degraded Notified Forest Land (2) Upland with/without Scrub (3) Barren Rocky Waste Land (4) Shifting Cultivation Area

Punjab

(1) Sandy Land (2) Waterlogged and Marshy Area

Rajasthan

12

(1) Sandy/Desertic Land

4 (2) Upland with/without Scrub (3) Degraded Notified Forest Land (4) Degraded Pastures/Grazing Land Tamil Nadu (1) Degraded Notified Forest Land (2) Upland with/without S&ub Ajmer, Bhilwara, Bundi, Dungarpur, Jhalawar, Jodhpur, Pali, Udaipur Bundi, Jhalawar. Kota, Pali, Sawai Madhopur Ajmer, Bilwara, Jodhpur, Pali, Tonk Dharampuri, Madurai, North Arcot, Salem, Periyar, Tiruchirappalli Dharampuri, Madurai, North Arcot, Salem, Periyar, Ramnathapuram, Tiruchirappalli Aligarh, Allahabad, Azamgarh, Etawah Bulandshahr, Etah, Farrukhabad, Unnao, Fatehpur, Ghazipur, Jaunpur, Kanpur, LiJcknow, Mainpuri, Pratapgarh, Rae Bareli, Unnao Hamirpur, Jhansi, Lalitpur, Agra, Varanasi Agra, Etawah, Fatehpur, Hamirpur, Jalaun Aligarh, Etah, Unnao Bankura, Medinipur, Purulia Bankura, Medinipur 24.7 16.7 16.4 48.4 33.9

Uttar Pradesh

23

(1) Salinity/Alkalinity Affected Land

46.4

(2) Upland with/without Scrub (3) Gullied/Ravinous Land (4) Waterlogged and Marshy Land West Bengal 3 (1) Upland with/without Scrub (2) Degraded Notified Forest Land

19.0 14.6 10.1 40:4 28.2

Source : Govt, of India, Wasteland Atlas of India, Vol. i 1993, NatiShal Remote Sensing Agency and Dept. of Wasteland Development, Ministry of Rural Development, pp 10-20.

IV Policies/Schemes for Wasteland Development

The concern for wasteland development is discernible, in varying form and content, in the long list of policies and programmes pursued in India for well over three decades now. From the constitution of the Wasteland Survey and Reclamation Committee way back in June 1959 to the National Land-use and Wastelands Development Council in May 1985, and to the ongoing efforts of the Wasteland Development Department of the Ministry of Rural Development, it is a long chain of ideas and gestures that has engaged the attention of policy makers in India besides direct and indirect involvement of NGOs and other agencies at home and abroad (Singh - Burra, 1993, p.12). Consequently, therefore, over time, clearer perceptions of wasteland as a problem and the strategies needed to develop them have evolved as a result of better diagnosis and rising consciousness of public-spirited agencies/people. Not surprisingly, in recent years, one discovers a bit of impatience in shifting over from one wasteland development programme to the other, even while 'overwhelming successes are reported' from one at the top of the other. A brief review of the past policy initiatives is essential, therefore, to grasp the nuance and content of the ongoing programmes and the policy thrusts needed for the future. To put the record straight, we give below a chronological description of the policy changes initiated, articulated and supported at the level of central government. In other words, the changing policy regimes at the state level are not discussed in this paper.Nonetheless, policy changes at the national level are ultimately implemented at the state, district and lower levels and we hope to gain some insights, albeit sketchy, about what has been happening to various national programmes/policies at state level and below. NCIA Initiatives The real beginning ensued with the 1976 Report of the National Commission on Indian Agriculture (NCIA). The NCIA made a distinction between wastelands that needed to be reclaimed (more importantly shrub and bush infested lands, ravines, waterlogged and saline/alkali affected lands, riverine lands and less importantly coastal sandy land, stony and gravelly lands and lateritic soil with thin soil cover) and those that needed to be conserved, put to permanent agriculture or afforested (e.g. chos/khads, lands on steep slopes, 63

and lands affected by shifting and cultivation) (NCIA, 1976, pp. 277312). A number of suggestions were offered (1) for reclamation of various categories of wastelands, (2) iTistitutiona< siipport for research and finance, (3) complementary action to ward against reoccurrence of 'land deterioration {Ibid, pp. 284-341). A few suggestions such as (1) provision of subsidy to small/marginal farmers for reclaiming alkali affected lands {pp. 293-94), (2) intensification of research in multiple directions most ostensibly for evolving rational land-use patterns, watershed development and affonestafion (pp. 311, 330-31, 333-334), (3) the utilization of wastelands for attaining self-sufficiency in fodder, fuel, and small timber (pp. 322-23), (4) the inescapable need for providing necessary inputs (viz. agricultural implements, current inputs and credit) to the landless agricultural labourers along with the allotment of government ownes wasteland (pp. 318-20), (5) the urgency for enacting consolidation of wastelands, (6) rocky, stony and hilly areas with skeletal soil, being suitable neither for agriculture nor forestry, being better earmarked for recreation purposes,nature reserves or other non-agricultural purposes (pp. 333), (7) the multiple rehabilitation package for the tribal people engaged in Jhum cultivation (pp. 334-36), (8) the respective areas of operation of financial and development institutions, and of iindividual farmers/allottees, in reclamation endeavours (pp. 338-39) and (9) that economic benefits alone should not form the sole criterion for the reclamation of revenue lands such as those in Gujarat, Rajasthan, Madhya Prades;h and Uttar Pradesh (pp. 306-07, 327), clearly formed the basis for subsequent wasteland development policies/programmes. Incidentally, the NCIA did not visualize any special role for women in the wasteland development programme. The NCIA report made its impact in many areas; afforestation was the most striking issue to engage government attention and resources. Social forestry was visualised as a powerful means for meeting the fodder, fuel and small timber requirements of village people besides increasing the total forest cover. Actual progress remained rather tardy till the revised 20-Point Programme emerged in 1980. Social forestry now engaged prime attention. The implementing responsibility, however, rested exclusively with the Forest Department; local panchayats/bodies stood aloof and consequently, survival, protection, maintenance, etc. of newly planted saplings suffered due to lack of 'local, intimate care'. Ironically, eucalyptus was chosen for a majority of plantations which resulted in increased supply of raw material to industry instead of mitigating the shortage of fodder, fuelwood and small timber (Govt, of India, 1991, p.4). 64

the quality of work is, on the whole, satisfactory while the involvement of the people varies from very high to just satisfactory levels (Ibid, p. 7). The Scheme is currently in operation in 125 odd districts, spread over 23 states/U.Ts (GOI, 1995A, p. 52). The greening of Deolali Hills, a highly successful venture, falls under the purview of the IWDP initiatives. In 1994-95, a new scheme called Technology Development and Extension (TDE) Scheme was chipped off the IWDP umbrella for the development of non-forest wastelands. The main activities of the TDE Scheme are: i) to increase the productivity of private/community wastelands in non-forest areas, through the adoption of agro-forestry models (e.g. agri-silvi culture, silvi pasture, silvi- and agri-silvi-horticulture, homestead planting, etc.) developed by the ICAR; ii) planting of trees, shrubs, grasses, legumes, etc. having nitrogen fixing ability; iii) to undertake land-based economic activities (other than those at (i) above) such as horticulture, pisciculture, piggery, duckery, etc; iv) to conserve and increase water regime through such measures as gully-plugging, check dams, terracing, bunding, trenching, etc.; v) to explore new and innovative techniques like use of VAM, tissue culture seedlings, vegetative propagation, etc. to increase productivity of wastelands (GOI, 1995, p.27) For projects based on lands owned by government and government agencies including universities, non-profit agencies or village panchayats (so that usufruct flows to the community), 100% central grant is to be admissible. For projects based on land belonging to private farmers/corporate sector, 60% of the project cost would be met by central grant. Agricultural universities, government agencies, reputed NGOs, public sector undertakings, etc. are to be the implementing agencies. They will take up pilot projects to develop/demonstrate proven tethriologies and to disseminate appropriate technolo67

gies, and so on. Training of the prospective beneficiaries (farmers) and trainers is an integral part of the scheme {Ibid, p. 29). Currently, 57 projects are being implemented under TDE scheme (GOI, 1995A, p. 53). Investment Promotion Scheme (I.P.S) is another new scheme, based on bold ideas and extensive coverage. The scheme aims at promoting development of non-forest wastelands on a large scale, through the involvement of financial institutions, corporate bodies including user-industries and other intending entrepreneurs. The intention is to (1) put wastelands under a sustainable use and ensure its enhanced productivity, thereby maintaining ecological conservation, and (2) ensure that benefits of the scheme accrue substantially to the rural poor in terms of expansion of employment and income levels (GOI, 1995, pp. 19-24). The extensive coverage of the scheme manifests itself in the fact that the non-forest wasteland to be taken up for development may belong to individual farmers or the village community as a whole or institutions or government agencies, and so on. Not only that, forest wastelands adjacent to non-forest wastelands close to habitation may also be taken up in conjunction with non-forest wasteland area. However, no relaxation of Land Reform Rules, Land Ceiling Laws, etc. will be involved under this scheme {Ibid, pp. 20). The scheme is based on a triangular funding pattern: bank loan, central assistance and promoter's own money. The central assistance would not ordinarily exceed 25.0% of the total project cost which, in the case of Scheduled Castes/Tribes beneficiaries, can go upto 50.0%. At least 50.0 percent of the project cost must be financed by financial institutions who would invariably feel assured about and testify to the economic viability of the project. Among such institutions, NABARD is designated to play a pivotal role. A wide range of institutions/agencies are eligible for taking up projects under this scheme and for getting central assistance. Central and State Government undertakings, Cooperative Institutions, Public Trusts and Societies registered under the Companies Act, individual entrepreneurs, etc. are all eligible to take up such projects. Interestingly, the case for central assistance is to be decided only after the concerned financial institution is convinced of the economic soundness of the project and has actually sanctioned the loan component of the project cost {Ibid, pp. 20-21). 68

The NABARD, while appraising a project for bank loan, will ensure that the promoter is using good quality seedling of grafted plants for planting. Though the species for plantation would have to be site-specific yet due emphasis would be given to vegetal propagation and wasteland development. The commercial viability of the project is necessary for attracting institutional finance. Accordingly, the species chosen would have to demonstrate their commercial capabilities. The list of recommended species is, therefore, fairly long: Jo Jo Ba, Acacia Holosaricea, Poplar, Kadam, Eucalyptus, Casurina, Jatropha, Salvidera, Cashew, Tea, Red oil Palm, medicinal plants and herbs, etc. {Ibid, pp. 22). The forgoing discussion clearly shows that NABARD is to play a leading role from beginning to the end. For example, NABARD is to help in the formulation of project proposals; it has to act as a financier under the prescribed guidelines; it has to be a go-between the project agency and NWDB; it has to oversee the progress of the project work in many different ways (financial propriety, time spread of expenditure, physical work in progress, periodic reporting, etc.); it has to keep itself associated with advisory/review committees for each such project so that a watchful scrutiny is exercised from a very close angle, and so on (Ibid, pp. 21). The I.P. Scheme is yet to pick up in a big way. Yet another special scheme was mooted in June 1994 for the development of inaccessible and highly degraded ravines in Morena District of Madhya Pradesh. The wasteland development is entrusted to a taskforce of 300 ex-servicemen. About 390 hectares of ravines would be developed every year. Besides ensuring resettlement of exservicemen, the scheme would restore ecological balance and create sustainable assets for the community/state, in ecologically fragile parts of the district. A triangular involvement of NWDB, state government and Morena Wasteland Development Force (WDF) is envisaged with their respective spheres of activities and involvement. A 3year Action Plan is visualized for each reclamation effort. The scheme is fairly ambitious in form and content, and one hopes it comes off well in due course (GOI, 1995, pp. 37-45). Following Hanumantha Rao Committee recommendations, all degraded lands situated within a mini watershed were decided to be treated simultaneously for soil and water conservation, irrespective of

69

whether such lands belong to the forest department or to private individuals or to local communities (GOI, 1995A, p.12). One of the most important implications of the Rao Committee Report is that a fair degree of co-ordination would be ensured amongst the Ministry of Agriculture (dealing with erosion-prone agricultural lands alone), Ministry of Environment and Forests (concerned only with forest wastelands) and Ministry of Rural Areas and Employment (responsible for non-forest wasteland development alone) (GOI, 1995A, p. 12). The common guidelines are inspired by outstanding examples of successes of area development projects under watershed basis (Govt, of India, 1'95A, p.55). Common guidelines have been evolved for all area development schemes of the three Ministries. Among the more important of these schemes are the IWDP, OPAP, DDP, JRY and EAS, which expressly germane to our study, are also to be governed by these common guidelines. These guidelines are now to be implemented at the district level by the Zila Parishad/DRDA. The actual implementation of a project would be done by a Project Implementation Agency - PIA (e.g. a government department, university or a cooperative body) which, in turn would be assisted by a Watershed Development Team (WOT). Each PIA would be responsible for development of at least 10 Watershed Development Associations (WDA) and each WDA would have its own Watershed Committee (WC). There is thus a high degree of decentralized functioning under the new guidelines, with specific respoosteiifies/activities being assigned to WC, WOA, WDT, PIA, Zila Parishad/DRSA, state/central governments, under each wasteland development project. Hopefully, the decentralized system works well (GOI, 1995, pp. 48). The strength of these guidelines lies in the decentralisation of decision making. In ideal conditions, the watershed development plan should move up from the bottom so that the wisdom and aspiration of the people directly depending on the watershed are taken care of. In the proposed arrangement, the plan would be approved by the WDA, the ZP/DRDA would have the final say in the choice of PIA, the WC would be free to choose various project activities and so on (G.O.I, 1995A, P.56). Another strength of the guidelines is a flexible approach in the release of funds, the area to be covered in each watershed as well as choice of components. A strong technical support is built in the scheme through the presence of WDT while large scale training programme for policy makers, implementers at the district level and below shall lend technical robustness to the scheme. 70

MoAC Schemes Department of Agriculture and Cooperation has a number of schemes directly and indirectly connected with development of wasteland. A synoptic view of these schemes is as follows: 1) Scheme of soil conservation in the catchment of River Valley Projects which aims at controlling pre-mature siltation of reservoirs through soil and water conservation measures, covering badly degraded lands on watershed basis. Watersheds having high sediment production potential are being currently covered in 418 watersheds. The impact on land productivity and soil moisture regime has been quite encouraging. 2) Integraded Watershed Management in the Catchment of Flood Prone Rivers is a centrally sponsored scheme. Its objective is to moderate the run-off by increasing the in-situ conservation of water and thereby reducing flood hazard. At present, the scheme covers 234 watersheds spread over 10 catchments of 8 states. 3) Reclamation of Special Problem Areas and Improvement of Productivity, another centrally sponsored scheme launched during the 7th plan, is being continued in Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. The scheme aims at improving the physical conditions and productivity of the alkali soils. The major components include assured irrigation, on-farm improvements such as land-levelling, bunding and ploughing, community drainage system, etc. In 1993-94, with EEC assistance, the scheme has been extended to Bihar and some Other parts of Uttar Pradesh. 4) Scheme of Watershed Management for Shifting Cultivation Areas in North-Eastern India, aims at total development of shifting cultivation area on watershed basis, by increasing the jhum cycle. It is a 100.0 per cent centrally assisted scheme spread over the north-eastern states. 5) National Watershed Development Project for Rainfed Areas aims at maximizing crop production system through rain water conservation on lands having agricultural production potential.

71

The works are undertaken on watershed basis. Currently, the project is going on in 2500 watersheds in 115 agro-climatic zones. A number of foreign-assisted schemes are also in operation. EEC assisted Integrated Watershed Management in the Ravinous Areas, Indo-Dutch North Bengal Terai Development Project, Indo-German Programme on Watershed Management, World-Bank Aided Projects on Integraded Watershed Development in Hills and Plains, etc. are examples of such schemes. The MoAc is thus a major organization connected with wasteland development through a variety of schemes. Some of its schemes are large and some comparatively small. "There is always some confusion at the field-level when such a wide variety of schemes are being implemented. Since all these schemes are directed towards the watershed principle, perhaps there is an imperative need to bring all of these schemes under one umbrella ..." (GOI, 1995A, pp. 6263). MoEF Forest Schemes The improvement of degraded forest lands has been largely under the state sector. Nonetheless, private initiatives and people's participation have also revealed their increasing presence in recent years. In 1994-95, some international aid projects were also commissioned. Briefly, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) regulates the following schemes: 1) Integrated Afforestation and Eco Development Project, covering about 60,000 ha of afforestation annually; 2) Fuelwood and Fodder Projects which cover about 70,000 ha annually; 3) Non-timber Forest Schemes which cover about 20,000 ha annually; 4) Grant-in-Aid Scheme to voluntary agencies for developing close relationship between forest officials and local communities; 5) Aerial Seeding Scheme which covers afforestation over 25,000 ha annually; 72

6) Eco-Task Force of ex-servicemen who are deployed in remote and difficult areas to undertake restoration of degraded eco-system through afforestation, conservation and water resource management techniques (GOI, 1995A, p.64). In addition, financial assistance is provided to research institutes, government and semi-government organizations for the purpose of administering environmental protection techniques, integrated eco-development of degraded areas and conservation of natural resources. In the state sector, there are 14 ongoing projects with external assistance in 10 states (Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal). Another 8 projects are in the pipeline covering the states of Bihar, Gujarat, Kerala and Uttar Pradesh and some additional projects in Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka,. Orissa and Tamil Nadu {Ibid, p.64). Two significant features of MoEF forest development policies need to be highlighted. First, in recent years, the MoEF have launched Forest Protection Committees (FPC) which involve government-people partnership in the protection and management of degraded forests. About 12,000 FPCs are new looking after about 1.80 million hectares of forest lands. The partnership is doing particularly well in West Bengal, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh. Second, the MoEF have recently launched a scheme to involve the corporate sector in the development of degraded forest lands by allowing them access through Forest Development Corporations. The first charge on forest produce should be to the rural communities living in/around the forests. Other Schemes Department of Poverty Alleviation and Rural Employment (DPARE) administers a few schemes which, In essence, lead to wasteland development. Some of these schemes are: 1) Drought Prone Area Programme (DPAP) under which degraded areas due to soil erosion, water and moisture stress, etc. get treated. Started wayback in 1973-74, the scheme is currently in operation in 627 blocks spread over 96 districts of 13 states. The funding is shared on 50:50 basis between central and state governments. 73

2) Desert Development Programme (DDP) was launched basically to restore eco-system of desert areas affected by extreme temperatures, poor rainfall, low humidity and high wind velocity combined with dust storms and recurring droughts. The scheme was started in 1977-78 with special emphasis on shelter belt plantation, pasture development, soil moisture conservation and water resource development. This covers both hot desert areas for sand dune stabilization and cold desert areas for vegetative propagation and moisture conservation. The other schemes of DPARE such as Employment Assurance Scheme dealing, inter alia, with horticulture and watershed development especially directed to marginal/small farmers, Jawahar Rozghar Yogna aiming to create community assets particularly for SC/STs and freed bonded labour etc. do have an indirect (and meak) association with wasteland development programmes. Planning Commission Schemes Two schemes need to be noted. 1) Hill Area Development Programme (HADP) is being implemented for certain designated hill areas with a view to ensure ecologically sustainable socio-economic development of the hills. 2) Western Ghats Development Programme (WGDP) covers 163 talukas of the Western Ghats which have been recognized as ecologically fragile and degraded. Eco-restoration, eco-development and eco-conservation are the underlying objectives of the scheme. NABARD Initiatives NABARD is playing an important role in promoting a few major wasteland development schemes. For nearly a decade now, it has been providing refinance facilities to financial institutions against the loans advanced by them to individual or group of farmers, corporate bodies, user-industries, etc. for undertaking wasteland development activities, under Farm-Forestry or Agro-Forestry Schemes. Besides tree plantation by individual farmers, a tie-up with wood-based industries also attracts support by NABARD. Examples of such tie-ups are ITC-Bhadrachalam Paperboards in Andhra Pradesh, Straw Products 74

Ltd. in Orissa under Farm Forestry and WIMCO-Kadam Plantation Projects for Assam and West Bengal, under Agro-Forestry. NABARD approves farm forestry/agro-forestry/watershed development schemes for wasteland development if the proposed projects are technically feasible and financially viable and are directed to produce firewood, pulpwood, fruit, small timber, etc. for the benefit of the society in general rather than a few individuals. In spite of the best efforts of NABARD, the refinance has not picked up well. Perhaps, with the introduction of new common guidelines for all area development schemes on watershed basis, NABARD's refinancing and other activities will go up soon. The forgoing discussion of the wasteland development policies clearly shows that the perception of the problem and the approach to tackle it have undergone a remarkable change since the late 1970s. In the earlier years, the solutions appeared easy: identify a plot of wasteland and mobilize people to plant some trees. Since the late 1980s, the solutions appeared more complex. Policy makers no longer talk about developing plots of lands, planting trees, and generating income or subsistence. Their vision now is far too wide and they discuss both protection and plantation measures. The range of remedies goes from establishing the tree, grass or bush cover on degraded grazing and forest lands, to stabilizing sand dunes and watersheds by establishing vegetative cover, to agro-forestry or tree crop production on fields and field boundaries, to management of common property resources, and so on (Chen, 1993, pp. 46-47). As a matter of fact, a long range of wasteland development technologies is now available, partly through government initiative and support and partly through research and development effort of a number of institutes, spread over different parts of India (GOI, 1991, p.73, GOI, nd). It is also a fact that the central and state governments have been activating financial institutions, including the apex agencies such as NABARD, to play a more active role in wasteland development programmes, especially those mooted through people's Institutions at the grass-roots level. Perhaps, the initiatives and policy interventions of the past 3-4 years would show a more dramatic impact during the next few years. From this, it does not follow that all that was conceived and done in the past leaves no scope for second thinking and improvement. There is much scope for improvement. Some ideas are attempted by us in the concluding Chapter V. 75

V Looking Back, Looking Aliead

In Chapter IV, we had a temporal view of numerous policy initiatives, more pointedly at the level of the central government and development agencies associated with wasteland development programmes. It is clear that our understanding of the problem has significantly improved, that the crucial role of the local communities, caste-class configurations, migration especially male out-migration, topography of villages is becoming more and more manifest, that the wasteland afflicts the existence of the poor all the more precariously, that private investment and development effort can prove highly productive under specified conditions, that multi-agency approach is inescapable for certain wasteland development projects, and so on (Burra, 1993, p.245; G.O.I, 1995A. pp. 32-36, 52-69). The review of policy strands in Chapter IV readily convinces us that wasteland is a two-edged problem. While it should be a national priority to develop as much of the land already 'declared waste' as possible, it should be equally essential to prevent fresh land going to the pool of 'wasteland' (GOI, 1995A, p.4). In other words, both 'conserving' and 'converting' are important for ensuring a sustainable process of agricultural development and rural well-being. To look at various policy initiatives, programmes and schemes, as we did in Chapter IV, is one way of understanding the national or regional level efforts towards wasteland development. The operational side must also be peeped into. Going by secondary data and published reports, we take a very broad view of how the problem has been approached from an operational angle so that the gaps and deficiencies with the existing policies, programmes and projects become evident. We must admit, we cover some ground but leave much uncovered. From administrative point of view, lands in rural India fall under one or the other of the following four categories: 1) private land, usually owned by individuals/households, comprising agricultural crop fields, groves and plantations, or fallow; 2) forest land, usually owned and controlled by state forest department; 76

3) revenue land, under the control of state revenue department, a fairly big proportion of which is 'encroached upon', usually by local people' 4) panchayat land, under the control of village panchayat and variously described as village common land, is used predominantly as grazing lands, usually open to certain social groups of the village. It should be obvious by now that the problem of wasteland may exist, in varying form and content, with each of the four land categories. For understandable reasons, the most affected are the forest lands followed by other common lands; an estimate suggests that not less than 40.0 per cent of the total forest cover in our country falls under the category 'degraded forest lands' (GO!, 1995A, p.18). Most of the earlier policy initiatives (e.g. 1976 NCIA policy recommendations) rested nearly exclusively with development/improvement of degraded forest lands. No wonder, therefore, social forestry has been the most enduring policy intervention in India, has been a subject of intense debate, has lent rich experience of fostering government-people, people-people and people-industry partnership and so on. But then, in recent years, much has happened on the side of non-forest wastelands. The Indian reality shows a criss-cross of policy initiatives and on-ground action between non-forest and forest lands. In operational terms, five broad approaches or arrangements to the development of wastelands have been at work in India, especially in response to policy initiatives of the 1980s: 1) Private management of private land under which tree plantation or agro-forestry on small blocks of private land or on strips of private land has grown under the ruberic of farm forestry. This generated an implicit bias against the landless households besides making a negative impact on labour-demand since tree crops are less labour-intensive than annual crops (Chen, 1993, p. 47). 2) Private management of revenue lands under which temporary ownership or usufruct rights to revenue wastelands (and occasionally degraded forest lands) are extended to individual households or groups of households. Tree Patta Scheme, usu77

ally targetted to Scheduled Castes/Tribes and women, West Bengal Group Farm Forestry directed to groups of poor landless families, strip plantations planted on revenue lands along roads, canals and railways, with usufruct rights to individual households etc, are examples of this approach. 3) Group management of common lands under which 'community' woodlots are established on common lands through the involvement of the whole village community. The effort was much less successful compared with farm forestry. Recently, Tree Growers' Cooperatives, organized by the NDDB, have shown better results than the old, sterotype village woodlots. 4) Government management of common lands under which the state governments take upon themselves the right and responsibility to manage forest lands for the public good. Here, 'community' woodlots are established by the forest department on village or revenue grasslands, usually without consulting the local people. The government-people partnership could not emerge in many cases; on the contrary, misgivings, especially when 'open grazing lands' were 'recklessly' converted into protected woodlots, emerged and persisted (Ibid, p. 51). 5) Joint management of common lands under which villages and settlements on the fringe of forest areas are organized, under the umbrella of Forest Protection Committee (FPC), to watch against unauthorized encroachments. One representative of each household is put on the FPC. Each cooperant member is entitled to 100 per cent share of intermediate yields from non-timber forest products and a cash equivalent of 25 per cent share of the final timber harvests. Besides, the FPC members are guaranteed employment in any local forest management operation. The FPCs are in operation in West Bengal, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa and are good examples of governmentpeople partnerships, in forest management and wasteland development. ASSESSING PAST PERFORMANCE By all reckoning, the past performance has been slow and indequate. One can point out gaps both at the policy level as well 78

as in implementation. Quite frankly, development of these lands has never been a high priority Item both for the central and state governments, as candidly admitted by the High-level committee on Wastelands Development (GOI, 1995A, p.1). Over the years, the real emphasis has been on arable lands and the immediate need for enhancing 'food security' has prevented state governments from taking a very serious view of the wastelands problem. Paucity of funds, more aggravated as it has become in recent years, has also stood in the way {Ibid, p.38). Lack of coordination between the forest department which is the implementing agency in most states for a number of wasteland development schemes and other departments such as agriculture, horticulture, soil conservation, minor irrigation and rural development, has been another big road block {Ibid, p. 57 ). Not only that, one comes by contradictory policy stances, say, between central and state governments, and more glaringly, between one government department and the other. For example, while the Forest Department in the state insists that a cooperative be registered before land is granted, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies insists that land be granted before the cooperative is registered (Singh-Burra, 1993, pp. 15-16). Likewise, a recent amendment (in Section 2-iii) of the Forest Conservation Act bans the assignment or lease of forest land to the people. All this runs contrary to (Section 28 of) the Indian Forest Act, especially as it nullifies the entire concept of village forests. In pursuance of the powers given to the states , under the amended section, some states had actually transferred forest areas to village bodies for protection and management. The contradictions are thus of government's own making. The amended Conservation Act also prohibits planting of horticulture crops, oil-bearing plants, palms and medicinal herbs on forest lands unless prior permission of the central government is obtained (Saxena, 1993, p. 305). This has two clear implications. One, it gives rise to a suspicion that all usufruct-based trees, which attract people to the forest areas, like ber, mahua, neem, karanj, jamun tamarind and several medicinal herbs, would no more be permitted. The tendency to replace such livelihood trees by commercial trees (e.g. teak, eucalyptus, pine, etc.) gets reinforced. Two, in all fairness, the new laws are not being implemented rigidly, as usufruct schemes are being promoted by central government itself. Yet, the potential power for harassing the people is immense, and in some areas, more 'conservation-oriented' forest officials may wake up to see their 79

way through (Ibid p. 305). Finally, the scheme of making forest produce available to the people through government depots, as envisaged in the new Forest Policy, amounts to banning the entry of the people to forest lands. Its consequences for the poor and the forestdwellers can be easily imagined. Most seriously, people living inside forests would now have to trudge long distances to reach government depots to buy their requirement which so far they got free. Throwing them again to the mercy of petty officials shows that government has still some faith left In the tottering public distribution system. it is not surprising, therefore, to see that under such contradictory policy stances, lack of clarity and commitment and weak bargaining position of the local poor, wasteland development programmes did not register the ready enthusiasm of the people at large. For example, first, in the matter of granting usufruct rights for the planted trees to the people, in most cases, no agreements were executed even simple lette.^s were not given. The 'fear' of the forest officials are more real than imaginery (Saxena, 1993, p. 300). Second, discrepancies existed from district to district between what the beneficiaries were told about the prospective benefits and what was actually done to accommodate local needs. For example, some district forest officers permitted inter-crop cultivation of legumes while others did not, although the state government scheme specifically provided for it (Ibid, p. 300). Third, again in many cases, species were selected, such as eucalyptus and acacia auriculliforniis, which did not produce any intermediate goods of substantial benefit to the poor. On the other hand, people were so poor that women were forced to use leaves of these trees for cooking though the fumes harmed their eyes. This also removed litter from the ground, thus increasing the possibility of soil erosion. Their sense of identification with the planted trees would have been stronger had more socially useful trees been planted. The result of all this was that the beneficiaries saw themselves only as wage-employees working for less than minimum wages. The part of the deal concerning a share in the final produce meant little to them in operational terms {Ibid, p. 300). Like in most other government programmes and schemes, performance in this area too is measured in terms of 'expenditure 80

targets'. One does not come across any precise and progressively updated estimates of 'wasteland developed' while the financial outflows are religiously mentioned under each scheme (GOI, 1994, pp. 5, 13, 27-34; GOI, 1995, pp. 57-67). The weaknesses that characterize our delivery systems in rural areas are pretty open now, a la the plethora of poverty eradication programmes and it must be frankly admitted that a great deal of public investment made in this field turns out to be infructuous. The feedbacks are not very common to come by and whatever feedbacks are available show depressing outcomes in many cases. The gaps between financial outflows and physical achievements especially for remotely controlled centrally sponsored schemes are indeed big and in the area of wasteland development, not accurately known for many schemes. Let us quote a precise case to substantiate this point. A voluntary agency in Orissa was forced to go in for fodder and fuel varieties because those were the terms of the grant from the funding agency. The local tribal community did not have problems of either fuel or fodder but were interested in growing fruit trees and bamboo for the monetary benefit they would bring. In contrast, another group in Orissa - PREM - consciously tried to respond to their perception of what tribal needs were and in the particular case, these were thought to be related to better income-earning opportunities rather than fuel and fodder. Hence they went on to plant fruit trees (Burra, 1993, p. 278). Much of the money routed through voluntary agencies achieves little primarily because feedbacks are not forthcoming. And those who do a good job face 'official hassles' of diverse types, most typically rigid official norms and people do not raise their voice since they are at the receiving end. After all, there is a big difference between the beneficiaries being 'treated' as wage-earners and usufruct-holders and so on. People's participation has been only a belief in the past, except for a handful of schemes mounted on watershed basis. Thanks to Hanumantha Rao Committee recommendation, the prominance being attached to all area development schemes, should make some difference in the coming years. The flow of institutional finance has had its own share of constraints, especially under the Investment Promotion Scheme (IPS) for which the NABARD is expected to play a leading role. By its very design, the IPS involves 2-3 'cooperating parties' and a few 81

pre-requisites which it is not that easy to fulfil in many cases. A few glaring constraints ne&d to be underlined in particular: 1) In some cases, tripartite partnersliip is conceived among the prospective tree growers, a user-industry and the financial institution. The tree growers are expected to sell their produce to the user-industry through whose partnership the whole project is conceived and acquires a commercially-viable status. The tree growers have the pre-emptive option to sell elsewhere but return the borrowed sum to the financial agency/user-industry, and so on. The borrowed money is not coming back in some cases. The whole partnership scheme collapses. So does the faith of the lending agency. Recent complaints by WIMCO to the NWDB echo such 'wilful lapses'. Who these defaulting treegrowers are is an open secret ! 2) In many cases, the tripartite arrangement can take oil ortf when public land is made available t^ fte slaJe gmmrmmmii lor ttree plantation on a commercial seal.. A inegrel toy fiiie state goveTrareent is quite commonly reported. The scheme fails half way Ihreugh. 3) The state land cefling laws are rigidly enforced when big projects are conceived of by user-industry. The contradiction is quite apparent. The user-industry cannot 'own' or 'operate' land beyond the prescribed limit because the law does not peri^it. The economies of scale cannot be de.nved. on the other hand, because volume of operation remains limited. 4) The prospects for attracting institutional finance are genemif low in under-banked districts. By any objective reckorin^, m^fty districts in '\n0m, m^^mWy those in tribal or fo'rest r hilly regions, are under-toankM. And somewhat paradoxie^Ily, thesfe are the areas wh^re the incidence of wa::iteland i^ relatively higher, fh^ potential for launchirag mm4Vff\enX promotion schemes m lairly high but the yaiod-rp,'alities and the facilitatInq infr^^^Ktures are not conducive. a 5) Sometimes, the modus operandi or the lending agencies including the rural banks, is unhelpf'Ji. For a repayment default by a few households, the whole village is declared a defaulter. The credit agency wants to p'ay safe, especially because, under the 82

law, it has no legal sanction for attachment of property or assets. The credit flow thus gets stifled. 6) Quite honestly, wasteland development schemes, especially those for which gestations cannot be accurately foreseen by the lenders, are not in the high priority sector. Another serious criticism of wasteland development policy (especially for forest development programmes) is the general exclusion of women from such activities. There is a near concensus that "given both their knowledge of the natural resource base and their orientations, women's involvement in designing wasteland projects and in choosing species for plantation is crucial for the welfare of the household" (Singh-Burra, 1993, p. 13). Ovenwhelming evidence of successes registered by women's initiatives, especially through cooperatives and people's samitis, in such projects is now available to support their case. The Bhurkura Women Samiti in Bankura district of West Bengal, the Forest Protection Committees in districts East Midnapore, Purulia and Bankura of West Bengal, the Dasholi Gram Swarajya Mandal's Chipko Movement In Chamoli district of Uttar Pradesh etc. are a few examples to support the view that women's involvement in some types of wasteland development projects could be highly rewarding (ILO, nd; Viegas-Menon, 1993, pp. 179-209). In particular in areas characterized by high male out-migration (e.g. large parts of Rajasthan and the hills of Uttar Pradesh), greater participation of women is inescapable. "It is not only the arithmetic of gender presence that accounts for increased participation of women but also the fact that in the absence of their men, women are forced to play a greater role in decision-making ..." (Burra, 1993, p. 281). The future policy thrust must, therefore look more and more to women participation in the interest of economizing the cost, better performance and more effective relieving of the poverty-stress.

LOOKING AHEAD It is clear that much needs to be done to plug in policy deficiencies, implementation weaknesses and for raising the conscionsness of the people at large. To put it bluntly, same hard thinking and some unconventional doing are needed. In what follows, without pretending to cover much ground, we ventuie to give below a few suggestions for improving the wasteland development programme in India. 83

ri$

Approaching the Problem 1) It is essential to look at the wasteland problem in conjunction witfi agricultural development plans. Each state may be asked to prepare 10-15 year perspective plan for proper water and land-use as also for wasteland development. A village or a cluster of villages having regard to the mini-watershed principle should be the unit of planning and such plans should form the basis for agricultural plans at the state and national levels. While taking due care of degraded lands is essential, it is equally essential to look after the non-degraded lands as well. The past experience clearly shows that our good forests are subjected to illegal and unscientific exploitation and on agricultural lands, due to overuse of irrigation, chemical fertilizers and pesticides, productivity gets threatened. In one word, 'prevention' and 'cure' must go side by side (GOI, 1995A, pp. 10, 37). Let us learn from our own past and check unbridled pace of resource depletion, land and water alike. 2) Following the Hanumantha Rao Committee recommendation, the mini-watershed as the overarching principle of area development sfiould be adopted by all departments. All the land in the miniwatershed regime, whether private, forest or panchayat, should be taken up for development, in a systematic way from ridge to valley {Ibid, p. 37). 3) The past approach of treating non-forest wastelands in isolation of forest wastelands has not worked well. It is clear by now that 'non-forest and forest wastelands are almost invariably so juxtaposed on the ground that it is not possible to treat them separately, if the complete watershed approach is to be followed {Ibid, p. 42). 4) We should not feel shy in inviting private investment effort towards development of public/common wastelands. The idea of forging people-industry-government partnership reflects a robust common sense besides freeing government from its 'involvement from beginning to the end'. The problem is too serious to be tackled by government alone {Ibid, p. 51). Perhaps, some unconventional steps such as handing over degraded public wastelands to private corporate sector for its development may 84

be indicated in some cases. We should not hesitate to do so, provided overall socio-economic safeguards are not thrown to the winds. There is a need to specify the respective role and involvement of each public institution, begining with people's group at the village-level and ending with government at the central level. The involvement of NGOs and women groups can be highly productive in many cases. But then, the working rapport between government and NGOs can be strengthened if project approvals are decentralized, say, to district level and such agencies are treated as partners in development {Ibid, p. 49). 5) Public wasteland must first of all be offered to village community for development. User-groups should be the second choice followed by the NGOs as the third choice and so on. The moot point is that the 'maximum good of the maximum number of people' may be promoted, depending upon the local conditions. No single rigid rule can work under all circumstances. The Question of Technology The question of wasteland development technologies has attracted only a peripheral attention. A few technologies are already at work, some others are ready on the shelf and a few others are still to be finalized. It would be presumptous to believe that we have technological answers for each category of wasteland. Nor is it necessary to have such answers in one go. The available technologies are evolved by various regional research institutes, presumably guided by local land degradation problems. A common national-level thread is missing; Prioritarization at national-level has hardly ever been a point of focus. The National Remote Sensing Agency gives us as many as 13 categories of wastelands. We have no technology for tackling many of them. Technology development is thus to be an area of high priority. Updating Information Base There is likewise the need for updating ourselves about the true magnitude of the wasteland problem. The need for a second round NRSA satellite survey, perhaps an extended and improved version of the 1986-88 attempt for 237 districts, is obvious. It is a pity that 85

detailed information/mapping is still not available for more than 146 districts although the survey w^as conducted nearly a decade back. There is also the need for straightening out land-use classification at the village-level so that more accurate ideas on wastelands come forth through revenue records. It is commonly conceded that village-level revenue records, as maintained in their present form and content, do not give scientific estimates of wastelands. The ideal situation would be to evolve scientific guidelines for the local-level revenue officials which may be checked for their observance from time to time. The ongoing attitude of sparing only a casual attention for such records must be given up. Working of Financial Institutions The financial institutions must also change their mindset while dealing with wasteland development proposals. This is indeed the area where the NABARD's leadership is immediately called for. Its role must go beyond working out or prescribing norms for project cost components. Its subsidiary role as a modest go-between has been responsible for keeping its main refinance activity at a fairly low level. For example, nursery raising could also be financed by it. Similarly, growing stock on leased-in lands could be accepted by financial institutions as collateral security for advancing loans. Further, NABARD finances can possibly focus on a much wider variety of investments on private lands. In short, NABARD may better institute a research inquiry at its own level, especially in the matter of commercial success of species, e.g Jo Jo Ba, Poplar, Kadam, Eucalyptus etc, to decide the extended canvas of its operation. Also, the potential for extending its range of operation can emerge from a careful study of the most-seriously affected districts. The moot point is that the financial institutions themselves should breathe a 'liberated air' and let their prospective clientele 'enjoy' the same. Grassroots Adjustments 1) The past experiences clearly show that the most successful projects are those which did not have to deal with inter-caste rivalries and tensions. "When people belong to the same social class, there is much less dependence upon each other in a hierarchical patron-client relationship. One could hardly expect equal participation in a project, where the target group con86

sisted both of large landowners and the landless (Burra, 1993, p. 280). In the highly stratified village society in India, the poor and landless can be emboldened to articulate themselves through their own homogeneous group kinship. Socio-political mobilization among homogeneous caste/class groups is thus an indispensable first step towards the success of rural development programmes, including the development of wastelands. 2) Usually, the wasteland development schemes involve long gestation periods, from the point of view of individual farmers. It may seem desirable to supplement wasteland development schemes with some other income-generating schemes such as dairying, goat rearing, tassar cocoon-rearing, fruit processing and so on. Admittedly, many more schemes can be thought of, depending upon local resources, skills and market situations {Ibid, p. 279). The integration of such schemes into a project on wasteland development is likely to nurture and sustain interest in wasteland development itself. Involvement of women in such supplementary schemes would be yet another step in the right direction. 3) Imaginative efforts are needed to link wasteland development with the marketing and if possible processing, of fruit and other products grown on that land. It is obvious once again that industry-agriculture linkages for some specific wasteland development could be highly beneficial to both sides. 4) Often conflicts arise over sharing the usufruct when common lands are developed. When entertaining proposals tor development of public wastelands through community or group participation, the funding agency must ensure that sufficient safeguards, say a written concensus, are built in against such eventualities. It is almost certain that in areas where development of common wasteland is yet to take place, the possibility of such disputes is not foreseen. Such areas should learn from their predecessors which have already undergone tremendous transformations of production capabilities (Burra, 1993, p. 278). Institutional Restructuring As we noticed in Chapter IV, we have no nodal authority to look after the wide variety of degraded and wastelands; individual Ministries/Departments pursue specific land development schemes, 87

>

1^

often with no coordinated view of the national effort. Sometimes, inter-departmental conflicts arise regarding the status, ownership and use of land. In sum, the work for wasteland development is piecemeal, diffused and not sharply focussed (GOI, 1995A, p. 38). The consolidated experience of the past few years suggests that all afforestation, wasteland development, soil and water conservation and related schemes must be put under the charge of a suitably structured and strong nodal authority at the centre, with its counterpart in each state and district. This authority should coordinate linkage of different scheme and see that a common approach to development of degraded and wastelands is adopted {Ibid, p. 38). In the opinion of the High Level Committee (HLC) on Wastelands Development, this nodal authority at the central level may be called the Central Landuse Authority (CLA). The CLA should have the Minister of Rural Areas and Employment as its Chairman and 3-4 non-official experts. Secretaries of all concerned Ministries/Departments, etc as its members. The CLA should have wide functions, encompassing practically all aspects connected with wasteland development which, at the moment, lie scattered at 4-5 points in central government hierarchy (Ibid, p. 39). Understandably,, the two dormant bodies (Landuse and Wasteland Development Council and Board) would get wound up, or suitably subsumed in the CLA. A similar State Landuse Authority (SLA) would perform the same set of functions at the state level, in particular, each SLA should prepare a Master Plan on mini-watershed basis of 12-15 years for degraded and wasteland development. A time-bound agenda should be set for effective implementation {Ibid, p. 40). The Zila Pahshad would play a much bigger role under the new dispensation. Besides approving the watershed development plans, it shall receive funds directly from the Central/State governments, shall release funds to panchayat/watershed development committees, shall exercise administrative/financial control over PIAS, WDTs, village-level WDCs, and so on. Then, the Gram Panchayat would act as the watchdog for ail watershed development schemes {Ibid, p. 41). Finally, the watershed development strategy is soon bound to overtake the rural landscape in India. With this, the questions of accountability and transparency are adequately answered. Feedbacks may also flow in. In sum, the partnership between public money and people's performance may show better results. 88

'

JH

References
Burra, Neera, 1993, "Caste, class, Tribe and Gender: Factors Affecting Women's Participation in Wasteland Development", in Andrea M.Singh and Neera Burra (eds.). Women and Wasteland Development in India, Sage, New Delhi. Chadha, G.K., 1982, "Future of Land Use Pattern in India" Golden Harvests: A Survey of Agriculture, Patriot, New Delhi. Chen, Martha Alter, 1993, "Women and Wasteland Development in India: An Issue Paper" in Andrea M.Singh and Neera Burra (eds.). Women and Wasteland Development in India, Sage, New Delhi. Cooke R.V. and Doornkamp J.C. 1996, Geomorphology in Environmental Management - A New Introduction, Clarendon Press. Farmer, B.H., 1974 Agricultural Colonization in India Since Independence, Oxford University Press. Goudie Andrew, et al. (eds.), 1990, The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Physical Geography, Blackwell, Oxford. Issar, Ranjit, 1996, "Watershed Approach - Towards Sustainable Development", Vacham: Watershed Management, Bhopal, Vol. VII No. 1, January. ILO, nd. The Bankura Story : Rural Women Organize for Change, ILO, New Delhi. Lutz Ernst, Pagiola Stefano and Reiche Carlos, 1994, "The Costs and Benefits of Soil Conservation: The Farmers' Viewpoint", The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 9, No. 2, July.

Government of India,
1963, Indian Agricultural Statistics, Vol. I, 1961-62, Summary Tables, Ministry of Food. 1965, Indian Agricultural Statistics. Vol. I: Summary Tables, Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Indian Agricultural Statistics, Vol. II - Districtwise for various years. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. 1970, Fourth Five Year Plan 1969-74, Planning Commission. 1976, Report of the National Commission on Agriculture, Part V: Resource Development, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation. 1985, Seventh Five Year Plan, 1985-90, Vol. II. Planning Commission. 1991, Developing India's Wastelands, NWDB 1985-89, Ministry of Environment of Forest.

89

1992, Stylos-Pasture Legume for Wastelands Seed Production Technology, National Wasteland Development Board (NWDB). 1992, Greening Wastelands Through Wastewater, NWDB, March. 1992, People-Oriented Strategies for Regenerating India's Wastelands, NWDB, May. 1993, Wasteland Atlas of India, Vol. I, National Remote Sensing Agency, Hyderabad. 1994, Agricultural Statistics at a Glance, Ministry of Agriculture. 1994, Statistical Abstract of India, Ministry of Planning. 1994, Guidelines for Watershed Development, Ministry of Rural Development, November. 1994, People's Protection Programme Through Chakriya Vikas Pranali: A Case Study, Ministry of Rural Development. 1994, Annual Report of the Depaitment of Wastelands Development, Ministry of Rural Department. 1995, Annual Report of the Department of Wastelands Development, Ministry of Rural Department. 1995A, Report of the High-Level Committee on Wastelands Development, Ministry of Rural Areas and Employment, December. nd, Sixth Five Year Plan 1980-85, Planning Commission. nd. Eighth Five Year Plan, 1992-97, Vol. II, Planning Commission. nd. Working Group Report on Promotion of Jo Jo Ba Plantation on Non-Forest Wastelands. NWDB. nd, Technologies in Wasteland Development, NWDB, Ministry of Environment and Forests. nd. Technology Development, Extension and Training for Wastelands Development in Non-Forest Areas, NWDB. nd. Investment Promotion Scheme for Development of Non-Forest Wastelands, NWDB. nd, Greening of Deolali Hills, Ministry of Rural Development.

im

Government of Punjab:
1969, Statistical Abstract of Punjab, 1968, Economic and Statistical Organisation, Chandigarh.

90

1974, Statistical Abstract of Punjab, 1973, Economic and Statistical Organization Chandigarh. , ' * y Ni 1995, Statistical Abstract of Punjab, 1994, Economic and Statistical Organization, Chandigarh. Jodha, Narpat 1988, "A Case Study of the Degradation of Common Property Resources in India", in Piers Blaikie and Harold Brookfield, Land Degradation and Society, Methuen, London. Miglani, M.K., 1988, " Land Use in Haryana - Some Basic Issues", in Singh, Mahendra et al, (eds.). Land Use in Haryana, Land Use Board, Govt, of Haryana. Narain, Dharm, 1977, "Growth of Productivity in Indian Agriculture", Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, January-March. Saxena, N.C., 1993, "Women and Wasteland Development in India: Policy Issues", in Andrea M.Singh and Neera Burra (eds.), Women and Wasteland Development in India, Sage, New Delhi. Singh, Jasbir, 1974, An Agricultural Kurukshetra. Atlas of India, Vishal Publications,

* ^ -.1
J'

Singh, Mahendra et al, "Remote Sensing Applications in the Study and Mapping of Soil Problems of Haryana State", in Singh, Mahendra, et al. Land Use in Haryana, Land Use Board, Govt, of Haryana. Stocking, Mike, 1987, "Measuring Land Degradation", in Piers Blaikie and Harold Brookfield, (eds.). Land Degradation and Society, Methuen, London. Viegas, Philip and Menon, Geeta, 1993, "Bringing Government and People Together: Forest Protection Committees of West Bengal - Role and Participation of Women", in Andrea M.Singh and Neera Burra (eds.). Women and Wasteland Development in India, Sage, New Delhi.

91

*^