3.A. Effects of Rural Development Activities on Land Tenure
Categories
In recent years, Integrated Rural Development (IRD) projects
have been launched in Pakistan. While certain differences
exist among these projects, as each province experiments to
find the best approach under its given circumstances, they
all focus on assuring welfare to small farmers and landless
people who have been bypassed by previous development programmes.
This chapter attempts to analyse the effect of the main activities
of these projects on the different land tenure categories.
So far, the greatest attention has been paid to the formation
of cooperatives by the markaz staff, and in fact the number
of cooperatives has greatly increased. The question is whether
this is authentic cooperative development and whether it assures
the participation of the small peasant. According to all experiences
gained, it is unlikely that the functions of cooperatives
(quality of performance, level of acceptance and participation,
etc.) will remain unaffected by tenure groups, and interviews
suggest the same as regards cooperatives in the markazes.4/
It is usually the group of landlords and small landlords
who dominate the institution which is what one can expect
when an institution is designed to supply scarce strategic
farm essentials like fertilizer, etc. For instance, financing
the supply of fertilizer to a particular cooperative is invariably
arranged through the courtesy of an individual or a group
of large farmers for the basic reason that the share capital
of the society is seldom large enough to allow payment of
the consignment. For lack of formal recognition, the institution
cannot take advantage of loans offered by the cooperative
bank. His courtesy ensures to the landlord a superior role
in the functions and activities of the cooperative. Cooperative
officials do not hesitate to connive with the large landowners
in facilitating the formation of a cooperative society which
gives them control of the activities. One can easily find
cooperatives with a membership consisting of an influential
landlord, his relatives and servants, inhere are cases in
which the share price is purposely raised from Rs 15 to Rs
100 5/ which eventually means elimination of the small fanner
from participation. Such manipulations are likely to be more
the rule than the exception. In view of the overall shortage
of supplies, the cooperative cannot ensure sufficient supplies
to everyone; therefore, the big landowner is likely to assume
control to ensure that his requirements are satisfied. The
system seems to be more suited to the large landowner who,
however, does not need it. He does not depend on the cooperative
for supply as the private sector is well designed to meet
his needs.
The category of family owner-operators (including the tenants
of better standing and some of the marginal owner-operators)
will draw a greater benefit therefrom. They are the category
which depends most on cooperation, and at the same time the
cooperative is designed mostly to meet the requirements of
this type of farmer. They are too small to operate successfully
within the private sector, but are dependent on inputs, credit
and marketing arrangements. However, the fact that landlords
are taking advantage of the cooperative services makes it
likely that this group will only receive whatever is left
after the landlords' interests have been satisfied. To what
extent the requirements of the family owner-operators are
met depends on the supply still available after the landlord's
demand has been taken into consideration, (in the Shadab project
area, e.g. 10 percent of the farmers own more than 50 acres
but command 50 percent of the farm area.)
Benefits to small marginal owner-operators from cooperatives
organized in the markazes are likely to be rather meagre.
In their case, lack of funds and risk-taking ability hinders
the application of inputs. They have little need of marketing
services as they consume most of their produce, and the little
surplus is usually exchanged locally in barter trade. The
cooperative still has to develop devices to grant credit to
this category of peasants.
The tenants-at-will are even less likely to make much use
of the cooperative. To a certain extent their input requirements
depend on the landlord's decision on how much to uset and
marketing is usually done by him as well. For their credit
requirements, mostly for consumption needs, there is little
provision in the current cooperative system so that they are
more or less left to the merchant, as has always been the
case.
The landless labourers remain outside the cooperative system
as long as non-agricultural aspects are included in the activities.
In short, the type of activities of the cooperatives which
are concentrated on supply, marketing and credit has a bias
to benefit the categories of large farmers, while the marginal
farmers, tenants—at—will and landless, forming
together more than two-thirds of all rural households, are
more or less left aside. The cooperatives will have to change
the emphasis of their activities if they are to be instrumental
in improving the situation of these categories.
In principle, the rural credit market has been greatly improved
by the IRDP. Not only does the cooperative system engage in
credit activities, but the IRDP has brought the Agricultural
Development Bank (ADB) to the markaz headquarters, and commercial
banks are becoming active in agricultural credit as well.
The question remains, how far has the small farmer been taken
care of by the cooperatives and by the Development Assistant
as the contact agent? To be sure, it is not only the landlord
who gets credit. The family owner-operators' financial needs
are taken care of as well. But if one goes down the ladder,
one comes to those categories which, because of their small
equity resources, are placed at the end of the receiving line.
The practice of ensuring payment by combining credit with
marketing will result in discrimination of those who have
little to market because most of their produce is used for
home consumption. It must be admitted that such conditions
make the marginal farmers very risky debtors, but one can
argue that leaving their needs unsatisfied means asking them
to approach the moneylender or substitute family labour for
the modern inputs they cannot afford. On the other hand, experience
shows that repayment rates are relatively high among smallholders,
while it is often the big man who believes himself powerful
enough to evade timely repayment. The relative disadvantage
of smallholders will become more crucial as degeneration of
improved varieties require a renovation of seeds every two
or three years. This will involve cash expenditure he may
not be prepared for. In general, effective use of credit is
a function of supply of inputs at the right time and in the
right quantity. As long as this is not guaranteed disturbances
are likely to follow. Since the cooperative staff has a heavy
workload, there is a tendency to prefer the categories which
offer lower risk and require less work to handle, i.e. the
larger farms, while the rest, comprising almost 75 percent
of all households, is unlikely to receive much attention regarding
their credit needs. ADB and private banks are even more likely
to apply a selective credit policy.
Much has already been said about the supply and marketing
activities. Landlords are likely to secure their share in
inputs, the supply of which is limited, while for marketing,
they do not depend on the activities of the cooperative. The
family owner-operators and tenants of better standing are
likely to profit from these activities while neither the marginal
owner-operators and tenants-at-vri.ll nor the landless labourer
will be much affected. Even if they have to sell small quantities
Beyond the amount usually exchanged for daily necessities
at the village shop, they are like!" to prefer a private
trader who will pay cash and thus meet their most urgent reqirements.
The price difference involved in selling small quantities
to private traders is one factor in the increasing inequalities
in income, which, in turn, influences motivation, employment
and level of production.
Besides the formation of cooperatives, agricultural extension
work is the activity accorded most attention by the project
managers and the development assistants. First, there is an
open question as to whether the priority given to extension
activities is justified at all. One sometimes wonders what
young college graduates have to offer to the farmers. Convincing
them of the advantage of fertilizer inputs is not necessary
as peasants are already convinced. Their problem is to get
the fertilizer in time. Besides, the conventional extension
approach is highly biased in favour of landlords and Larger
farmers. For years, extension staff have been trained to begin
with the "progressive" farmer who is able to take
risks and who is a leader, i.e. with the man who needs least
help. The masses of small peasants are expected to learn from
the good example of the early adopter, the progressive farmer
who, invariably, is a small landlord. The infrastructural
conditions and the existing social pattern add to this bias
and, in most cases, the extension worker on a village visit
ends up at the influential peoples' farms, discussing matters
over a cup of tea. If the same assistant is involved in the
distribution of inputs, the circle is closed. The extension
worker is not to be blamed for this situation. The prevailing
target approach almost requires him to work with the big man.
Summarizing the discussions of this chapter, it can be said
that the activities which are the bulk of the current Integrated
Rural Development Programme are of benefit to landlords and
family owner-cultivators, and that the former of these categories
is likely to take over the control of institutions. Marginal
owner-cultivators, tenants-at-will and landless labourers
have little use for the kind of activities offered and are
less likely to get their share. In percentage terms, the scheme
is designed to have an impact on 25 percent of all rural households,
while 75 percent are marginal or not influenced. This is not
to say that they do not need a cooperative organization and
technical assistance. But the activities of the cooperative
system and the way they are implemented are heavily biased
in favour of the prosperous part of the rural population.
------
4/ Centre of IRDP activities for an area of 50 - 60 villages.
5/ In 1973 Rs9-93 equalled US$1.00
|