TRANSITION IN AGRICULTURE OF NORTH EASTERN HILL STATES OF INblA - IMPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT

· Indian J. Hill Farmg. 14 (2) : 1 - 12 2001

TRANSITION IN AGRICULTURE OF NORTH EASTERN HILL STATES OF INblA - IMPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT

.-

S. B. Singhs, B. K. Sarma and K. K. Datta

ICAR Research Complex for NEH Region Umroi road, Umiam - 793 103 (Meghalaya)

,,/

ABSTRACT

An analysis of transition in agriculture of north-eastern hill states, using secondary data collected from various Government publications revealed that still agriculture occupies a major share in net domestic product (NDP) and employment. The distribution of land holdings in the region is highly skewed which widens the inter-personal distribution of income. It suggests development of off-farm income and employment opportunities. The decreasing average size of holding resulted agriculture uneconomical and more intensive use of natural resorces. The minimally low net sown area and cropping intensity indicate potential scope for increasing area available for cultivation eitherthrough land development activities or improvement in rural infrastructure development. Maintenance of genetic diversity, development of cold and droght tolerance crops and high second round employment effect crops, high yielding technology for pules and oilseed and balanced development.of all crops in harmony with nature are essential. High significant complementary relations exist among fertilizer use, area under HYVs and availability of irrigation infrastructure. Development of water harvesting techniques such as micro-watershed based farming system on hill areas can go a long way in increasing aglicultural productivity in the region. There is also enough scope to narrow down the adoption gap in the use of fertilizers and the high yielding varieties through intensification of extension services and institutional support. Since investement in land infrastructure development is costlier, financing and credit policy of the institutions should be liberalized. These measures will facilitate an equitable growth and development ofthe region.

INTRODUCTION

Agriculture in India has made great strides, thanks to the agricultural technology being gradually Introduced since the mid-1960s. It encompasses the use of high-yielding variety -: (HYV) seeds, chemicals, fertilizers, irrigation and plant protection measures along with the

use of agricultural machinery and implements. The new technology has not been uniform among different states/regions,.it has spread thoroughly in a few favourably endowed states like Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh whiie the hill mountainous states of north

H) region and West~m Hifnalay~ haye'iagged,behind.

Thenet

result has

been

that region" batances.in agricultural development have grown across states. This ~y not be entirely ~fiIe to any policy. neglect but

could

have

arisen

out of the

lnherent'dltterences

in resource e~bowments and the extent to which potential resources are being utililed and also, differences m the levels of infrastructure developments. Thus, to ensure.overall rapid'growth

in

the agricultural eC0I"!Qmyof

tnereqtcn,

there is a. need to examine the' extent-of regional variation in agricultural growth and to identify the factors associated with it.

METHODOLOGY

Time series data 6n various aspects of agriculture for the period 1975-76 to 1997-9.8 for

^'"V

the seven North-Eastern Hill States excluding Assam and all India level were collected from

the various issues

of

Basic Statistics of North-East India, Fertilizer Statistics and Area and production of PrinciPal Crops in I,ndiaand Economic Survey of India. Specific period has been selected as the reorganization of

north

-eastern states were completed only in

1972 .

appropriate statistical techniques were also used forthe analysis oftime series data. annual ccmpound grouth rates of area, production and productivitywere calculated by using the following log linear function (Dandekar, 1980).

Y

=

A (1+ r)t : :

(1).

where,

Y = the value for which growth rate is to be calculated

t

= time in years ,.

r = growth rate,

Taking log both sides of

equation (1) log Yt

=

^{log A}

⁺

^{t log (1+}

^r),

putting log Y

t

= Y, log A ;: a. and log (1+ r) = ^b

Y=a + bt 1 + r= expb

^II.

Therefore, r = ^{(expb -1) x 100}

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Overall

growth

Inthe process of economic development.

it

is expected

that

non -agricultural sector would grow faster than agricultural sector in

terms

of output and labour absorption. As shown in Table

1~

this process has started though- slow in the country as a whole as well as in NEH' states. However,

the

share of agriculture in net domestic product (NDP)

is

higher in

NEH

states except Nagaland than that for

all

india. This is because of comparatively lower industrial growth in the NEH slates. Table 1 further shows that the decline in the share of agriculture in

NDP is

higher than the decline in labour

force

in agriculture, This coupled with population growth has led to .an increase in the-number of workers per hectare of land in the coustry as well as for the NEH region.

Agricultural growth-oace and compositiol1

Before we analyze the pace and composition of agricultural growth,

it

should

be

appropriate

'...

.

^.".

"

.,

. . to ~tudy the changes in land di~nbt.itinri and util+z~iion ~~tt~m:·~hich in tum determine to a . great extent, the growth in agriciJlture.· -:'.. ..

. Changes in land distribution ..

^"

.e The distribution of number of holdings and occupied by various size groups of holdings in . . the NEH states and all India are given in,Table 2 which clearly shows that agrarian structure

. is.still highl} skewed in India as well as in the NEH states. It could be seen from the Table 2

!,~

. that the number of holdings less than 2 ha. was highest in all India and NEH states except Nagaland where there is a uniform distribution of holdings. The number as well as area under the holdings less than 2 ha continued to be substantially high in Tripura than those in other states ofthe region, and thus leading to the lowest average size of holding. Nagaland had fhe highest average size of holding due to the .highest proportion in area and number of holdings above 10 ha. The temporal changes.in agrarian structure reveals two distinct patterns. Firstly, in the case of Manipur, there has be'en a sharp decline in the area as well as in the number of . holdings below 2 ha, while the reverse holds true forthe holdings above 4-10 ha. Consequently, average size of holding increased from 1.12 ha in·1976-77 to 2.3 ha in 1990-91. This could be because of selling of land by small and marQjnal farmers as they may seek gainful employment outside agriculture. Secondly, a 'decline in area and number of holdings of large farmers in Tripura, Sikkim and Nagaland imply that sub-division of holdings is stronger in these states.

The similarsub-division of holding was observed forthe country as a whole resulting moderate decline of the average size of holdings for both the country as well as NEH states.

Changes in land use pattern

The land use and cropping in NEH states and all India level collated in Table 3 indicate that the area put to agricultural use was significantly low in NEH states 'compared to all India

level of 46.73%. It was highest in Tripura (22.90%) and lowest in Arunachal Pradesh (2.04%).

It is due to inherent characteristics of terrain, fragility, inaccessibility of hilly ecosystem coupled with traditional land tenure system. There was moderate increase in net sown area in most of the NEH states during 1975-76 to 1995-96 although the all India level remained more or less stagnant. This shows that land

was

either made suitable for cultivation through land development activities or was considered suitable (exploitation motive) for cultivation in these states. The area under forests increased from low to moderate in NEH states and also, significantly higher than all India averages (21.98%). However, there is a sharp increase in area under forest in Nagaland during the period of study. The reverse was true in the case of area not available for cultivation. It could be further seen from Table 3 that the cropping pattem in NEH states except Sikkim remained highly specialized in foodgrains. In Arunachal Pradesh, Meghaiaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura, pulses and oil seeds gained in area under rice, maize and total foodgrains. It is because of sharp increase in net sown area from 6.80% to 13.65%. Unlike other states, Sikkim experienced drastic decline in area under foodgrain crops, owing to diversification towards horiticultural crops including spices. There was a low to moderate increase in cropping intensity in most of the NEH states. But in Sikkim, the cropping intensity decreased from 106.3% in 1975 to 100% in 1995.

Growth in production and productivi~

Since crop production is the main activity of agriculture in NEI~:tSiates, the growth in production of major crops, as analysed in this section, should reflect the performance of agriculture in this region. Compound growth rate of major crops in different states of NEH region during 1975-76 to 1997-98 ispresented in Table 4. In the case of rice, there was

significant growth in area in Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland while the other states showed negative growth rates. It is because of the diversion of rice crop to other high value crops.

Despite declining area under rice, the production of rice in NEH states except Meghalaya could increased significantly due to the improvement in productivity. In Meghalaya, the production of rice decreased by 0.16% per annum due to decline in both area and productivity.

Mizoram experienced the highest growth rate of 7.5% per annum mostly by increasing productivity. However, in Arunachal Pradesh the increased production was mainly due to area expansion.

The area expansion as well as yield increase caused maize output to grow significantly in Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland and Sikkim. However, in Meghalaya the increase in production was significantly contributed by yield increase. The significant increase in yield of maize in Manipur (3.1

%)

could not offset the negative growth of area, thus declined the production by 2.0% per annum.

The production of total pulses in NEH states except Manipur increased significantly due to increase in both area ana productivity. But, the reverse was true in Manipur where the production declined by 5.90% per annum. The growth in productivity was highest in Sikkim (13.84%) and least in Meghalaya (0.74%). Mizoram could increase the area under pulses by 12.41 % per annum followed by Nagaland (6.16%), Meghalaya (3.58%) and Sikkim (2.90%).

In totality, the foodgrains production in Manipur, Mizoram, Sikkim and Tripura increased Significantly mostly due to the improvement in productivity. Although there was moderate improvement in productivity in Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland, the production increase was mostly by area expansion. But in Meghalaya, there was insignificant increase in production resulting from slight improvement in productivity and area. For all India average, productivity improvement offsets negative area expansion, thus increasing rice production by 2.60% per annum. Both area expansion and improvement in yield resulted significant growth of oilseeds production in Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura. However, Meghalaya and Sikkim showed low area expansion and yield improvement causing moderate increase in production. Area and yield grow more or less at the same rate in Meghalaya, Mizoram and Sikkim. The same trend followed in all India level. But increase in production in Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Nagaland was mostly due to area expansion. In Manipur, positive growth in area could not offset negative growth in yield, thereby declined production by 0.32%

per annum.

Determinants of agricultural growth Infrastructural development and inputs used

Infrastructural developments and inputs used analysts in relation to output gains (Table 5), points out that the development of irrigation has been quite uneven across NEH states since organized efforts to harness the water resources started in the country. In the states of Manipur and Tripura where percentage of net irrigated area to net cultivated area was high, foodgrains productivity was also highest. But, due to stagnant growth in net irrigated area in these states there had been restricted expansion of area under goodgrains. In other states also, the growth of percentage of irrigated area to net cultivated area remained stagnant due to either increasing net cultivated area or low investment in irrigation development.

Fertilizer consumption per hectare was also higher in Manipur and Tripura, (84.5 kg and

31.3 kg respectively) while in other states it was abysmally low. It follows that fertilizer use

- _- ^~

had almost a complementary relationship with the availability of irrigation facilities. All the NEH states had less fertmzer<consumption than all India level of 97.5 kg/ha (Table 6).

In the.mghergrowfh statesofMizoram, Manipur, Sikkim and Tripura, the percentage area under high 'yielding varieties varied from 31.19 to 75.19. In the remaining states, it ranged from

17.84% (Arunachal Pradesh) to 29.13% (Meghalaya). Similarly, the average size of holding was also low in higher growth states. It shows high negative relationship between farm size and ~gricultural growth. The number of pump sets per unit area was negligible in NE states except Tripura (5.26 per

'000

ha). There was Significant growth in rural electrification in NE states, wl;iicb varied from 46.3% in Arunachal Pradesh to 98% in Nagaland.

As shoWIJ by low tractor density per unit area in NEH states, agriculture in the NEH 'States is highly laoour.intensive. The existin~ sloppy and undulating terrain restrict the use of tractor in the regIon. However, Nagaland, Manipur and Mizoram have comparatively higher growth rate oftramorisation. Only 3 states, viz. Meghalaya, Mizoram and Nagaland showed higher per hectare credit availability than all India average of Rs.

1046.

The use of pesticides in NEH states was declining between the year 1990-91 to 1995-96 and very low as compared to all India average of

0.43

kg per hectare. On an average, the effect of pesticides use on the agricultural growth was not significant as compared to other inputs.

CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

As discussed above, land distribution is highly skewed in north-eastern states, which implied widening of interpersonal distribution of income. It suggests development of off farm income and employment opportunities. lihe decreasing average size of holding resulted agriculture uneconomical and more intensive use of natural resources. A review of land tenure system shows the lands mostly belong either to village chief or a particular community. In this regard suitable land reform policy may be formulated and impl.emented. It will scale up the farm size and productivity. The minimally low net sown area and cropping intensity indicate potential scope for increasing area available for cultivation either through land development activities or improvement in rural infrastructure development. As shown by cropping pattern, production is highly specialized dominated by paddy. It causes imbalance crop production, narrow-genetic base, and increased dependence on other parts of the country. Crop diversification based on comparative advantage and the food security need to mention.

Maintenance of genetiC diversity, development of cold and drought tolerance crops and high second round employment effect crops, high yielding technology for pulses and oilseed, balanced development of all crops in harmony with nature are felt needs. High significant complementary relations exist it will scale up the fann size and productivity, fertilizer use, area under HYVs and availability of irrigation infrastructure. Development of water harvesting techniques such as micro-watershed based farming system on hill areas can go a long way in increasing agricultural productivity in the region. There is also enough scope to narrow down the adoption gap in the use of fertilizers and the high yielding varieties through intensification of extension services and institutional support. Since investment in land infrastructure development is costlier, financing and credit policy of the institutions should be liberalized. These measures will facilitate an equitable growth and development of the region.

REFERENCE

Dandekar,

V.

M. (1980) : Introduction to Lonavla Seminar on Data Base Methodology forthe Study of Growth Rates in Agriculture, Indian Journal ofAgricultural Economics.

30 : 2, May-Au9.ust, Mumbai.

5

Table 1. Share (%) of agriculture is net domestic product and employment in NEH states.

State Net domestic product Employment

1970-71 1980-81 1970-71 1980-81

1990-91 1990-91

Arunachal

:59.1 80.3 69.6 64.0

Pradesh

Manipur

48.0 44.7 44.5 '67J) 64.2 52.5

Meghalaya

37.8 29.1 78.9 68.6 64.1

Mizoram

67.4 55.8 /

Nagaland

28.69 17.4 79.0 71.9 73.4

Sikkim 85:6

61;4 64.3

Tripura

70.0 45.6 38.7 74..3 61.8 '57.6

All India

49.2 36.3 31.6 61.7 60.5 !it9

Source: CMIE Publications (VarlOWS issue~)

.:.,_."

..

o~

~ ~ (t)

~ ~ !ijq~«:i ~

~ ~

^l(l

~ ~ ta

~i

^..-

^~

^{..- ..- ..-}

^..-,....

^{<0 ..- 0 ..-}

-c

; ("fB BcoS 6 <06 6 6 6 6 6~6W6

... ^~

^,

~~f;1~~~f;1~1 '~8~8~8~8~8~8~8 8

ccc c c c..-~.-c

'C)..-

1tr.!~ ...

~~lB.'I:1~

^I

'il~~~~~~~!~~ij~m~

~> ^{Q) I}

g~

^0Q.

^{e. ... ~ ~}

e-

.50 -- {if --

1~~~~~:M~~~~~g~~~

O>~ Ui.-' in

m~ ^I

o;{g.iC&~&iC&1

!! .

<{

;t ;~s=i~~s=i''e~~~N~~~i~~gil~~

"

.!I

.5

"

^cII

^~ I 8l~~&;~a~, I~~~~~~~~~~~I~~~~

.J •

^II

• i

%W

~~~~~~e:~1

^{~~~B. ...}

B. B.~B.~B.iB.mB.

z .. 8~ I~C_~~~m~~~M~m~_~

^..-

^.s

.e

^{c ·0}

-

&0

^{-c c~c} C _8i

j ...

I ~I~~~~"-!~al ^,

c-

I , ^{-~-!lfl ~~~~} _.1

::::t

II ^I

1

^c

-

^{0 e.. e..}

_i ^!

I z~

⁰⁰

I N~(t)~~~1:11a.'1 1a~~~~!~~~~~~~g~~

t

at

C ... ^e.

^{t:::. !C 0. (!!..}

c c

.5 I! !li

~~N~~I~i' I~I~~~~QI~!~~III~

i _.. ^{;t II at}

II

c <0~ ~ 6S

te"

^{0 ~}

'~~~~~I~I~~~li!l~

-! _~ I _~l~i~l~l'

I! r

II

.5 ....

~ ; ~ ; ~ ; ~;i; ^~ ; ; ; ;

^.

^;

i ^~

^ID

^{- - ... ... - ... -_ ... - - - ...}

^...

^- II"

II

.'~' .c ^'.1'-

U

COli

JI I

^{.Si LL.}

i j ~f' J J ^{i .1- t I g}

{!!. en

^F

=r

^!f.cS!

7

j

III :I:

UJ

z

.5

c

I

_CI

'a

c c.

e

u

"

^CIIJ

s

::I

"

^c

!1!

.5

Xl

CI C IIJ ..c "

o

§~

~~

~~

~ S £;S~

Si m~

~~~

~~§

<0 $f

~ I _

o c:i

I I I

~ ~H~

~!Q~

<ON_

~ I I

~ I I

i

::z::

w

z

.5

! a

CJ

'5

.l!

t

"CI CtIS

i

C_::I

e

_Q,.

i

tIS

.5

"CI

c

!

l-

•

~

~ m S

II

"0

iii's;.

·sf

c:

o

s

oo

II C 'tlI

e

_Q.

s:Cti oo o

II

~ ~

III

>-

]

00...

{!. :s

-c

-c

>-

J

_::I

0.0...

{!. S

«

>-

-c

>-

.~

0::0.:

-c

N<O

"<icci

: LO

'<:tcci

LO

~LOcx)

"<iN ..-N

<0 Ol (")

"<i '<i ...

I

~ ~

N^(")

o

I

Ol OO>N

"<i M

c:t

(")~tri 'CJ)

N..- I

LO· ~ ~

<00

~(")~

..- "<i '

..- "

(")..-<0 ...0;0LOO

..- ,I

(")

<0 0

00>..-

N

E

~

~

, 0.~

o ~

LO 0 0

og:

o Ol LO

ON~

..-

LO r-, r-, Ol Ol Ol LO t--

t-- Ol 0> 0>

...

CII jill.N

:e

«

...

^(')

LO. 0 0

criaD

I

bo

ccic»

00

C\iC\i

,...

....

~~::

~ ~ 01.

NN ONOO C\i,...:N ... C\i eo ~ o^LO

cO .- 0

-c

«

>-

«

>-

«

.s ,~.

⁰

s

^{It) CJ)}

~

IB

^{~ N} _{~ ~}

s

^~

N ~

:S

_~

m ^$

"C Vi ⁰

.£

«

~

~

~ ~

~

0; ~

~ ~

~

ff:l

~

lij

^N _{M N} ^<D 0

.",.

~ ~ ~

~ ~

CJ)

~ ~ ~

g

^~ ~

6

«I

....

_M ~

'::::I

...

0 0

'Q..;::

I"-

'I-

!ti,

^It) ~

§

~ ~ ~

'<t

~ ^N ~

~ ^(d

... ....

, _{E ...}

.~ !e

^~_~

^19. _{... ...}

^fB

^t!

_(l1; ~ ~ ⁰

_Sf E'i

₀

:i2

~~ ~

,~ %

ta

~

z

... ...

0

-g~ ..

~ ~ ~

8 s

^~

^g}

^{~ ~}

^{t9 a}

«I ... lD $ 0

m

a

~

«I

s ^{t! Sl}

^{~ ~}

^0.

⁰

z

~

~ 0 ^to 0

d

E ~ ~

It) CJ)

~

fa ^...

^{~ CJ)}

^Sf

lID j:::; ^($I;

... :! ...

!!! ~ ^N

... d

.1

til 0

.s

.1lI

J!I

:E

~

M ~ ~

:z

^co

^E'i s

til co ~ Z ~ 0 ⁰

i~'~

::z:::

lU

8l~

z

~~

~ ~

M ~

Pi

^I"- ~

§

⁰

1 .~

.5 ^{.!!! ...} ~ 9

Rl ^IS

^{0 ~}

^d

^{.0. ~iJS}

5t

s:^«I

.~s

^{:::J 0 tISttl}

~

~~

.s:: _

-

^{~Co :E ... ':1 I"--.;tN}

^r:::

^{0) ~ ~I"- ~ $I 0}

^d

^~

⁶

^{0 .Z;.g!~.91 C;11.}

~~ ~~- .5

" ^{.... Ij}

_{~ ~} ^{'<t M}

^Pi

^M

^E'i

~ ~ ... s::.t:

C

rs ⁹ _i?i

^{~ I,(jl}

"'"

^ooen~

«I

5...-

^{0 I"- M 0 - 'liS c..f _}

-

^CCP_E

^'c

^{IV Q)~z_'g~·ow ttl}

::iE ~

IS

^-e- _~ ^~ _~ ^~ :2

8

_~ 0:: .~ ~

Co ~ ~ ⁰ : !6 @l .

,g . - .~ 0:: ;;:

E

^s:

_8J ^81~:c8

~

{ij

~

[g

_fB ^C1; _~

:z

^M

^0';

^CJ)

^...

~~~ ~-

"

^{"C N ~ C") ~ 0 ~}

^d

'! a:

^{IV - o ttl}

~

~ < E'i - ... ~ l1iii~1

'"

^~

-

_~

..

^til

_{I! «}

^{fQ z '<t ~ N 0 ~:,o~}_O::~iU-

^{; ._= l!!}

^{.._ tIS ~o1i'l}

^.-

S! ~

~.'O

.§ i ~

^'0

^{m ~~~N}

....

_{...1.1.. en}

.5 ~~ ~i !§-~~i~ ^{I ~~ & ~ ~ i ~ .s}

an

^CII

} §

:z

w .ill ~ ~~

^>:z ~.

e

'- -

I ~ ~ ~

^{:> ~ '-} ~~E^{ttl . 11i}

8l ..

-~oj~~i~~ol. E. ~ci~~mo~o~i~~~~~ ^-§

:c

^.!!i!:::J

{2

~ *8u..8~ :C*0~ £Z~~Z~0~*W~§0~~8~~

~~

Table 6. Tread in fertilizer consumption in NEH states (consumption in '000 tonnes)

State

1975-76 1980-81 1985-90 1990-95 1996-97 ' c.g.r.

Arunachal Pradesh

N 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.15 0.32 10.9

pps

0.01 0.01 0.05 0.09 0.13 17~8 ~

Total

0.08 0.09 0.18 0.27 0.55 1225

Manipur

N

1.00 2.28 3.90 8.66 11.39 10.41

PzOs

0.30 0.56 0.80 4.37 1.25 9.14

Total

1.34 3.00 4.89 13.52 13.18 9.90

Meghalaya

N

1.20 1.22 1.60 1.79 2.20 2.50

PzOs

0.40 -0.55 1.30 0.64 1.05 4.20

Total

1.69 2.50 3.07 2.61 3.43 3.06

Mizoram

N

0.03 0.02 0.05 2.61 0.23 16.04

P2

0

⁵

0.06 0.03 0.03 0.36 0.10 12.95

Total

0.10 0.07 0.08 0.90 0.39 14.74

Nagaland

N

0.07 0.06 0.18 0.42 0.41 8.33

P2

0

⁵

0.03 0.01 0.06 0.28 0.35 15.77

Total

0.11 0.08 0.25 0.87 0.85 10.89

Sikkim

N

0.06 0.33 0.62 0.58 0.55 10.92

pps

0.09 0.23 0.51 0.35 0.18 9.66

Total

1.00 0.73 1.17 1.13 0.75 9.85

Tripura

N

0.20 1.39 3.50 6.00 5.41 14.74

- pps

0.04 10.35 1.00 1.58 1.88 20.38

Total

0.29 2.13 4.22 8.43 8.72 15.71

All India

N

2148.6 3678.1 5660.8 7997.2 10301.8 7.33

pps

466.8" . 1213.6 2005.2 3221.0 2976.8 -.~.8.26

^..;;..-

Total

2893.7 5515.6 8474.1 12546.2 14308.1 7.36

Source: Fertilizer Statistics, FAI (various issues)