Rural development: More talks, less innovation

Is it not a stern reality that in this 21st century the rural regions are facing major challenges which arise mainly from globalisation, demographic change and the rural migration of young, well-trained people? Policies for rural areas desperately call for recognising and making use of strengths and opportunities.
The reality may be seen in more details. More than half of the global population already resides in cities. This number is projected to increase, with 60 per cent of the population living in urban areas by 2030. Very recently, the UN rightly warned that half of the world's increase in urban land will occur in Asia over the next 20 years and two of the region's largest economies, China and India, will see the most extensive changes. In India, the loss of agricultural land to urbanisation, aided by insufficient planning for food supply lines, will place a severe constraint on the country's future food security for its growing population, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) opined in its 'The Cities and Biodiversity Outlook' report.
With the total urban area in the world expected to triple between 2000 and 2030 and urban population expected to double to around 4.9 billion in the same period, urban expansion, the report observed in its assessment, will put stress on water and other natural resources, and consume prime agricultural land. This report makes a strong argument for greater attention to be paid by urban planners and managers to the nature-based assets within city boundaries. Sustainable urban development that supports valuable ecosystems presents a major opportunity for improving lives and livelihoods, and accelerating the transition to an inclusive green economy.
Is there any short-cut process to tackle the situation? The answer is of course a great 'no' in as much as the development process itself has turned to be more complex even compared to a decade's back. It is virtually the urban-rural-management of integration process that would rule as the ultimate factor.
No doubt, the policy shift towards integrated rural development has been there though at a snail's pace - reflecting a fundamental change so far as the objectives are concerned and a movement towards a more holistic approach to rural development inviting new tools of analysis. But the goings in the developing world cannot be given an excellent certificate in as much as a number of inhibiting factors still roam at large.
It is not that planning has been a futile exercise, but it is to be agreed upon that either plans are inadequate or implementation is poor. Supervision and control leaves much to be desired.  It is crystal clear that integration reflects the complex linkages and interactions within the system of overall rural development. Putting too much emphasis on agriculture and ignoring its linkages to the rest of the economy results in sub-optimal utilisation of resources.
An innovative approach has to be there in as much as tinkering around the existing practises could not enable an economy to reach at higher level of equilibrium. Rural diversification, one way of looking at this, in turn, refers to the process aimed at reducing the risks of farming and is a logical consequence of the policy shift away from direct agricultural price support -- a synergy approach to rural development, incorporating both traditional network and institutional analysis, focussing on working mechanisms and processes. This, no doubt, paves the way for fostering co-operation between public and private actors to achieve sustainable development. Planning is a continuous and spontaneous process indeed.
Needless to reiterate, proper land use planning could bolster the farm output to a significant extent. Fallow lands also bear potentialities. Farmers' training, though of late, being arranged by institutions like N I R D, S I R D, among others, no doubt have been bearing fruits. Extension works are highly expected.
In particular, agricultural lands require top attention in as much as sectoral competition may lead to diminution of farm land steadily in the absence of proper land use planning. It will be pertinent to refer here some global happenings. This is particularly serious in Egypt, where only 3 per cent of the total area is of any use for agriculture, the rest being largely desert. It appears that every year, Egypt loses 0.5 per cent of what remains of its agricultural land-a trend that cannot go on forever. The situation is similar in China. Indeed, since that country started industrialising it has lost some 10 per cent of its agricultural land. In China, urban areas are increasingly encroaching on protected areas of the country. In the Latin American and Caribbean regions, where the number of cities has grown six-fold in the last 50 years, housing for low-income people often occurs in important areas for biodiversity and ecosystem services such as the wetlands or floodplains. These are mistakenly considered to be of marginal value by planners.
At the same time, environmental concerns should have been considered and integrated during the planning phase of programmes of measures to support rural areas. A large share of policies targeted at land use in rural areas should have served to promote agro-bio-diversity and environmental measures in agriculture.
Side by side, it also remains a question as to why the T C G [Technological Consolidation of Holdings] Model is not attached due weightage! Under this system, the individual ownerships remain undisturbed as such but the inputs/facilities that are extended are meant to all of the owners who use the land for productive purposes. Accordingly, the rate for water use/machine use remains the same and is calculated on total use vis-à-vis pro rata basis [i.e., keeping in account the actual individual shares].
How long the productivity factor will remain at bay is difficult to ascertain. In fact, productivity has been offered a back seat for decades, as ignorance, slow implementation of known knowledge, unscientific faith and beliefs rule the game. The result is poor production, poor profitability and loss of other resources, which, in turn, could have been utilised optimally.
Why don't we recognise local knowledge? It may be mentioned on this score that globally speaking, the traditional combination of livestock and crop activities had helped farmers -- to use the manure as fertiliser for crops, and the crop residues as feed for livestock. In place of this, in many parts of the world these days the practise has becomes less optimal -- most of the manure losing up to half its nitrogen content before it becomes nitrate to be used as fertiliser to plants.
Next, due to interplay of a number of factors, the incidence of regional disparity galore. Regional peculiarities must be given importance. Species of fish, crops and livestock to be raised will have to be selected on the basis of local conditions and requirements. Access to science and technology is also not included adequately in rural development strategies in order to improve the nutritional value of crops, reduce production fluctuation and increase productivity on small-scale farms in a manner appropriate to the ecosystem in which they operate.
Empowering rural population [that includes a large number of vulnerable groups, including women, indigenous peoples, fisher folk, member of low castes, and ethnic minorities], still remains a far cry. Women, as is well known [thanks to the African proverb: without women we will go hungry] in particular are responsible for a vast majority of food production, household work, and care work -- they are yet to be actively included in designing and implementing the programmes that will enhance the security of their livelihoods. Poor educational facilities and awareness on this score stand in the way of achieving gender equality and equity. These, in turn, block speed of the ongoing efforts directed towards mitigation of regional imbalances. Manpower wastage, marketing hindrances, inadequate availability of quality inputs and managerial ineffectiveness, among others, just go on adding to sectoral and spatial imbalances.
Further innovations inclusive of drive for optimising productivity, subject to environment constraint, is the crying need to push the integrated farming system to perfection.
Finally, what about access to services and infrastructure that should be available throughout the economy (drinking water supply, sewage treatment, mail, telecommunications, transport, access to broadband in the field of IT and telecommunications)? The quality of these services, however, differs from region to region. One field which urgently needs improvement is sewage treatment where, for economic reasons, the number of decentralised systems is growing. Furthermore, employment opportunities are not at all sufficiently available in rural regions.
As rural innovation is increasingly viewed as a complex process that defies simple solutions, it has become more and more difficult to identify the types of investment and policy interventions needed to make developing economies' rural regions more responsive, dynamic, and competitive. So, the requirement is there to identify where the most binding constraints to rural innovation are existing and how better to target interventions to remove such constraints.
Dr. B K Mukhopadhyay, a management economist, is attached to the West              Bengal State University. m.bibhas@gmail.com