One important question often raised in the field of land management in rural Bangladesh is how the farmers use the meagre quantity of land that they have and what factors determine their decisions about which crops to grow and on which land. That is to say, we need to know whether there has been any change in cropping patterns over time. But before coming to that analysis, it would be pertinent to explain why such analysis assumes importance. First, land is the scarcest of all assets. The existing high man-land ratio demands that limited land resource be used optimally or, the highest profit maximising use of land should be ensured. In a country where population is increasing in tandem with falling quantity of land, its optimal utilisation holds the key for making lives and livelihoods more welfare-oriented. Admittedly, expansion of infrastructural facilities and change in expenditures in consort with incomes, induce the farmers to eke out the maximum from the meagre land. Second, land is the most important asset that determines the livelihood system of the rural households. Therefore, an idea about farmer's decision and its change related to land utilisation would shed some light on the rural ways of life.
First, in the base year, traditional Amon paddy occupied more than half of the total cultivated land. This was followed by Aus paddy claiming about one-thirds. Therefore, four-fifths of the total cultivated land was occupied by traditional varieties (TVs) at that time. This indicates that these crops dominated the decisions of the farmers in the past. On the contrary, less than one-fifths of land was devoted to HYV Boro and Amon (modern) paddy. The problems with TV paddy are that they have lower yield and to feed the growing family, the farmers have to cultivate more lands. This is just the opposite to HYVs that provide more output per unit of land. So, faced with limited land and subsistence pressure, a rational farmer would always look for HYVs and not TVs. Were then our farmers irrational in the past? The answer is possibly no. It now appears that the wider acceptance of TV paddy - for that matter hesitance towards HYV - in the past was a matter of force and not of choice. And needless to mention that it was the acute shortage of water - considered as the lead input for HYVs - that forced farmers to go for low-yielding TV crops.
But the pendulum swung soon and sharply when cultivated land under HYV Boro tripled and that of HYV Amon doubled within a short span of time. By and large, HYV Boro and Amon now claim four-fifths of the cultivated land to capture the dominance earlier held by TV paddy. The most dramatic development, however, could be evidenced in the most recent periods. Over 90 per cent of land is cultivated under modern paddy. More prominently, cultivation of TV Aus season crops had been shown the doors to almost extinction although the condition of TV Boro remained as it was before. By and large, the time span of 1980s and 1990s could be considered as the 'golden' period for modern paddy in this country. And as said before, the economics of HYVs is very simple and straight forward: more production with less land and, hence, it is the savings of land for the farmers. In other words, it is as if the quantity of land with the farmers tends to go up. Researchers reckon that the expansion of modern paddy and its adoption by the rational farmers contributed significantly to ensuring our food security over time.
But we must also point out the clouds cast on the horizon of hopes and happiness. We must mention it since the cumulative clouds have become constant eyesores to the critics. For example, the critics argue that cultivation of various non-rice crops - once occupying a respectable share of the cultivated lands - has been swept away by the 'tidal surge' of the MV paddy. That means, possibly led by the profit-spree, farmers are now growing more of HYVs at the cost of other minor crops. In other words, crop diversification has been replaced by mono-cropping system. In this context, special mention may be made of dal (lentil) occupying one-tenths of the cultivated lands in the past but now claiming only half of the base period. Likewise, marginally though, jute cultivation has also surrendered to paddy cultivation.
We share the views of the critics on two sides. First, and to reiterate, mono-cropping system adversely affects soil fertility and conversely, multi-cropping helps maintain the fertility balance. Second, for a balanced diet in our everyday life, we need both rice and dal. While the growth of paddy output helped reduce the price of rice, at the same time, a reduction in the output of dal went to raise its price over time. This means, lack of crop diversification has been leading to the lack of consumption diversification, especially for the poor households.
But to simmer down the critics, we can possibly highlight some improvements on this front also. We find that in recent most years, farmers have growingly become interested in the production of non-rice crops as reflected by greater emphasis placed in the production of oilseeds, vegetables, spices etc. It is definitely a piece of good news as a ring of hope seems to be lurking with a marginal deviation from the two decade-old pattern. A further good news is that farmers have been taking up new crops unseen earlier. For example, maize crop occupied roughly 7.0 per cent of land in 2007 crop season that rose to about 13 per cent recently. This crop emerged on the heels of increasing market demand for poultry feed. Second, in Aus season, farmers have taken up fish culture. Special mention may be made of prawn cultivation that claimed some amount of cultivated land. Third, among the old crops, non-rice crops like potato, pulses, and spices and chilly have been demanding more land than before. This means, farmers have been responding to market signals over time.
From policy point of view, however, the most disturbing trend could be the decline in cropping intensity over time: from 168 in the base year to 153 in recent years. But much of the decline could be adduced to a drop in paddy cropping intensity. This means that farmers are no more using land for paddy as enthusiastically as they did before, and if that is so, one could naturally cast a serious doubt on the siren song of the 'self-sufficiency' paradigm.
But a fall in cropping intensity over time is due to three factors: first, the fall in paddy prices, and hence of profitability, over the years have constrained cultivation to a certain extent; second, the drastic reduction in the cultivation of deep-water Amon has lowered cropping intensity; third, the expansion in rural non-farm activities with better returns for households might have lured farmers to other sources and away from farming and finally, there could have been minor shifts in land allocation towards non-rice crops which were yet to impart visible impacts on intensity.
The writer is Professor
of Economics at
Jahangirannagr University.
abdulbayes@yahoo.com
Economies of farming guide farmers\' cropping decisions
Abdul Bayes | Published: February 13, 2016 00:00:00 | Updated: February 01, 2018 00:00:00
Share if you like