Debate on shrinking farmland

There is still a debate whether or not Bangladesh has already attained self-sufficiency in food grain, especially in rice. Government statistics (as well as rhetoric) claim that Bangladesh has already attained self-sufficiency. This is, undoubtedly, a piece of good news that warrants a toast of celebration.
But experts find it difficult to accept the claim. Import of large quantities of food grain every year reminds us the age-old cat-and-milk story: If the cat has drunk a cup full of milk amounting to  1.5 kg, then its weight should increase by the quantity of the milk; if not (and in the meantime if someone has not drunk the milk), the cup must contain 1.5 kg of milk. Likewise, if Bangladesh has attained self-sufficiency in food grain as claimed, then why should it allow rice to be imported? Why should the price of rice be on the rise despite an augmented supply? We will dwell on this particular issue later but some observations on the sources of the debate itself are warranted.
It needs to be mentioned here that among the natural resources that serve as ladders of livelihoods for rural people, land is the scarcest one at the moment. The staple food of 150 million people is derived from rice cultivated on nine million hectares of land. Over time, agricultural land has been shrinking, and the reasons would be discussed shortly.
At present, farm families own, on an average, only four bighas (0.48 ha) of land per household, and counting the landless households the figure would be three bighas per household. Even adding rented land from others would put the average at five bighas at the most. In this critical juncture - like adding salt to the injury - we have to hear the sad news of dwindling land base. TV talk shows, newspaper reports and comments from agricultural researchers reveal that Bangladesh loses every year 1.0 per cent of its agricultural land which amounts to 80,000 ha. If we assume that a household of six members requires one acre of land throughout the year, then it can safely be argued that the lost land forfeits food security of 1.5 million people every year. The question now is: would Bangladesh cease to have any agricultural land in the future? From where would food come from in the future? What would happen to food security?
Given this scary forecast, we will present some information. But note that at the national level, food and agricultural statistics come mainly from four sources: (a) Agricultural Census, published occasionally, (b) Statistical Year Book (henceforth Year Book), published by the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) every year to supply yearly information; (c) Household-level surveys by individuals/institutions on the basis of representative samples, and (d) Household Income and Expenditure Surveys (HIES) of the BBS. It is quite natural that in an attempt to get the most recent statistics on agriculture, Year Books are widely used. For the sake of clearing the fog of information confusion and frightening forecast, we will focus on information collected by the government agencies - Agricultural Census and Year Book.
Be it in Bangladesh or elsewhere, the most serious problem with government statistics is its reliability. It is assumed that more often than not, the tendency of the government agencies is to 'cook' data to portray the government's performance. In this context, we could cite a familiar joke where a mathematician, an accountant and an economist appeared before the viva board. In reply to a question as to what would be total of two plus two, the mathematician said it to be four and the accountant said the same but with a variation of 5-10 per cent on either side. The last candidate was an economist; he stood up from his seat, rushed to the chair and whispered to the latter's ear: how much would it make you happy, Sir?
The 2008 Agricultural Census has shown land used for paddy production at 10 million ha, the yield rate of paddy 3.77 tons/ha and total production at 30.94 million tons (20.62 million rice-equivalent). On the other hand, the Year Book of the same year has shown 10.10 million ha, 4.16 tons/ha and  40.70 million tons (30.15 million tons in terms of rice), respectively. It is thus clear that there is a wide divergence between information generated by the two government agencies.
According to the Census, Bangladesh has almost been on way to self-sufficiency in rice production whereas the Year Book shows that the country has already reached self-sufficiency. If the latter is true, then why should Bangladesh continue to import rice every year and why should not the surplus be exported?
The divergence related to agricultural land deepens further if we consider only Aman paddy. The Agricultural Census puts it at 48,000 ha while the Year Book shows 55,000 ha. We presume that the Agricultural Census took due cognisance of the drastically declining deep-water Aman land now replaced by growing fish cultivation whereas the Year Book overlooked the trend.
Again, it becomes very difficult to come out of the confusion relating to the amount of cultivated land. In 1983-84 Agricultural Census, the total cultivated land was shown at 9.2 million ha and the 1996 Agricultural Census, 8.1 million ha. It is thus clear that between 1983-84 and 1996, agricultural land has declined by 1.0 per cent per year to cause a major concern. But the 2008 Agricultural Census tells us that the total size of agricultural land in Bangladesh is 8.9 million ha surpassing that of 1996. If we now consider the periods between 1983-84 and 2008, we find that agricultural land has declined by 0.13 per cent per year which is much lower than the on-going estimate. From this angle, it could be argued that the rate of decline of agricultural land is much less than usually thought of. Hope this would lessen the tension to some extent.

The writer is a Professor of Economics at Jahangirnagar University.
abdul [email protected]