Abdul Bayes
The cropping pattern is influenced by a host of factors. The decision about choice of land and crop does not hinge only on the size of the land owned by the farmer. The other important factors are: subsistence pressure, infrastructural facilities, information base and marketing opportunities. The dominant cropping pattern in 1988 was as follows: production of paddy was followed by keeping the land fallow and one-thirds of the total cultivated land that year followed. Land under this pattern perked at about 39 per cent in recent years.
Another pattern to notice is paddy followed by paddy. In comparable periods, the proportion of land under this pattern, on average, hovered around one-thirds of cultivated land. But there has been a significant decrease in the case of land under triple crops and, possibly, for this reason cropping intensity index has declined over time. Overall, it could be observed that the share of fallow land (after paddy or other crops) has increased from 39 per cent in the base year (1988) to 47 per cent in recent years. This is also an interesting development because; (a) farmers have learnt that land also need some rest and (b) economic solvency has reduced the urgency to pursue the earlier pattern. In any case, our discussions on cropping pattern clearly forestall that 70 per cent of the cultivated land in rural Bangladesh is used only for paddy production and only 18 per cent goes to non-paddy crops. It signifies that, crop diversification till now could not emerge as an attractive option for farmers engaged in the struggle for food security.
Let us now look at the issue from the angle of farm size. First, in comparable periods of 1988 and 2004, the main cropping pattern for small farmers was paddy followed by paddy. That means, after harvesting one paddy crop, farmers used to prepare for growing another paddy crop. But by 2004, marginal departure from the traditional pattern could be observed: instead of going for another paddy, farmers began to keep the land fallow. Of course, this pattern had been a favorite for medium and large farmers for a pretty long time. It appears that small farmers, for the sake of food security, have been tilting towards paddy followed by fallow option rather than paddy followed by paddy option. Second, triple-cropped land seems to be almost on the verge of non-existence. In the past, there was a trend to grow another non-paddy crop after two consecutive paddy crops. The departure is definitely a sign of improvement as land is not being cultivated as intensively as before, which impacted soil fertility adversely. Third, we notice that, cropping diversification is till now largely elusive. Whatever feeble attempts at crop diversification have been made so far, was mostly by the small and medium farmers. And finally, an inverse relationship between farm size and cropping intensity can be observed. For small farmers, the intensity declined from 174 in 1988 to 163 in 2004; for large farmers, the index moved down from 169 to 139, respectively.
An examination of the cropping pattern and cropping intensity by irrigation status would provide another dimension of the issue under discussion. In areas where the main sources of irrigation are rainfall and surface water, the cropping pattern is paddy cultivation followed by fallow. In 2004, this pattern claimed 57 percent of the cultivated land as against 36 per cent in 1988. But this pattern does not seem to suit areas where underground water is mostly used for irrigation purposes. The difference between the two areas in terms of cropping patterns is mainly caused by the timely availability of water for irrigation. Second, two consecutive paddy crops is the pattern mainly for users of underground water, although over time the trend scenes to have declined. In 1988, 60 percent of the land embraced this pattern - paddy followed by paddy - as against 46 percent in recent times. In sharp contrast, however, in areas where rainfalls or surface water is used, the pattern of paddy followed by paddy claims 15-20 percent of land. The difference is mainly due to availability of water: underground irrigation is more regular but irrigation is erratic where surface water and rainfalls dominate. Third, a favorite pattern for the users of rainfall and surface water is paddy followed by a non-paddy crop. Fourth, triple-cropped land had always been low and over time it declinedfurther. And finally, cropping intensity had always been highest in irrigated land, al though it has been declining over time. The tendency to grow only one paddy in irrigated land has been declining but increasing in other modes.
In the very low-lying areas, the cropping pattern is paddy cultivation followed by keeping the land fallow. The pattern however is changing. The reason behind it could be the early arrival of floods - called early floods. In medium and high land, the main pattern is consecutive two paddy crops i.e. paddy followed by paddy. On the other hand, in all topographic conditions, the general pattern is to keep land fallow after growing one non-paddy cop. Crop diversification, in whatever degree it takes place, is evident in high and medium land as an early flood is unfriendly to vegetables, fruits and cash crops. That is why crop diversification is the lowest in low land and relatively high in medium and high land.
The cultivated land can be categorized into two main segments: (a) favorable zones and (b) unfavorable zones. In the favorable zones, water availability is somewhat certain; there is no salinity and no fear of drought or excessive floods. In unfavorable zones, the main determinant of cropping pattern is mostly nature. We observe that, cropping intensity has declined in all regions - the highest in unfavorable zones and the lowest in favorable zones. Interestingly, in drought-prone areas, cropping intensity has risen by about 20 per cent as compared to a decline in the favorable zones. This could be due to the fact that irrigation facilities have expanded in these regions to help the growth of HYV amon and boro paddy and bring more land under these crops. This is undoubtedly good news. But the bad news is that, as elsewhere, farmers in drought-prone areas have increasingly tilted towards growing only paddy and the increasing trend of crop diversification is almost a matter of the past there.
The level of yield of crops is an important consideration for farmers as well as for policy makers. The supply of land is very limited and gets squeezed over time, while the demand for food increases at a faster pace. Raising land productivity therefore emerges as the main motto for ensuring food security both at micro and macro levels. It appears that, among all crops, the yield levels of HYV amon and boro have registered a sharp upward trend. In the base year, the yield of HYV boro paddy was 4.43 tons per ha. After a steep rise of yield in 2000, the level reached appreciably to 6.4 tons per ha in 2007. For HYV amon, the yield level stood at 3.3 and 3.6 tons, respectively. Thus our observation of increasing yield of paddy apparently stands against the prevailing perception of declining yield over time. That means, we cannot accept the hypothesis that, as an adverse of intensive cultivation of HYV crops, the yield levels have gone down. But at the same time, one needs to be cautious in interpreting the average yield. There might be concealed regional differences. Interestingly though, the yield level of TV aus has increased while that of HYV aus has fallen over time. By and large, most of the paddy crops witnessed a rise in yield - more clearly in the case of HYV paddy than others. Besides paddy, the increasing trend of yield also applies to all other non-paddy crops. In a regime of limited and also declining land space, increase in yield levels and, hence of land productivity, surely sounds soothing.
E-mail:
[email protected]
