THOUGH Gujarat state is ranked fourth in terms of per capita income, its agricultural performance is poor. The performance has in it a story of degrading status of land and water resources that support agriculture. If Gujarat wishes to undertake sustainable development of its land and water resources, it will have to arrest overexploitation and degradation if not improve their status.

The state has no dearth of land; with 19.60 million hectares of total geographical area, Gujarat is the seventh largest state in India. The reporting area is 18.83 million hectares for which land use statistics are available. Per capita land availability in Gujarat is about 43% higher than the all India figure. In 1991, the per capita land available in Gujarat was 0.70 ha. The all India figure was 0.49 ha.

It is generally believed that Gujarat and other semi-arid and arid regions in the country have large areas of uncultivated wastelands and they offer good scope for development. Improving the status of wastelands will add to the productivity of the area under cultivation and the income generating potential of the wastelands in itself would be augmented. This article attempts to review the status of wastelands in Gujarat and related issues.

A little less than half of Gujarat’s land lies uncultivated. During 1994-96, the area under cultivation in Gujarat was 51% of the total reporting area. 49% of land in the state was uncultivated of which 6% was under non-agricultural use, 14% was barren and uncultivable, 10% forest, 4% grazing and pasture land, and 15% cultivable waste. The distribution is likely to have remained more or less the same as per the land records. At the all India level, total uncultivable land inclusive of all categories constituted 44% in 1994-96. Of that 14% was barren and uncultivable, about 21% was forest and 9% pastures and cultivable waste.

These records originate in the land use statistics generated by the agriculture department. With Remote Sensing (RS) technology it has become possible to identify and classify land according to its status. Unfortunately, land use statistics and the records created from the remote sensing exercise are not tallied. Thus there may arise a serious confusion in accounting for the land use. In the present article, I rely on the land use statistics generated by the agriculture department.

Barren and uncultivable land is a type of wasteland, whose regeneration is extremely resource intensive. Without major technological breakthroughs, economic use of this type of land is difficult and expensive. The scope for developing wastelands in Gujarat is thus limited to only 29% of the total land. Further, forests account for 10% of land. Forests are common lands of a special kind administered and managed by the forest department. A participatory forest protection programme, namely Joint Forest Management, was introduced for greening the degraded forest land. I do not intend to dwell upon this topic because forest land is not wasteland.

Overall, the wastelands effectively available for development account for 19% of the total reporting area of the state. Though in percentage terms the area does not appear large, in absolute terms this accounts for about 3.6 million hectares which is substantial. An important feature of wastelands is that they are largely open access land used by all with very limited regulation. In the literature, wastelands are also referred to as common land or common property resources. I, however, shall continue to refer to them as wastelands.

 

 

Wastelands came into focus in the recent past with regard to two major concerns. One, the institutional arrangements which facilitated sustainable and regulated use of wastelands in the rural areas of arid and semi arid regions in the past many centuries are fast breaking down. The traditional management and use of wastelands provided significant support to the poor and marginalised households not owning private land. Government programmes have had limited success in covering the marginalised rural poor households and providing them with effective income earning alternatives. Thus, with the failure of anti-poverty programmes and loss of wasteland based economic support the vulnerability of the poor, especially in arid and the semi-arid regions, has increased.

The second concern relates to the shrinking size and degrading status of the wastelands because apart from providing livelihood support to the poor, it is believed that the CPLRs also perform several useful ecological services. A reduction in the extent of wastelands is largely due to privatisation. Thus, with privatisation and degradation of wastelands, the health of both the ecology of the region and that of the poor households dependent upon CPLRs is in serious jeopardy. It is being argued that regeneration of degraded wastelands would not only improve the performance of ecological services, it may also restore some of the income earning opportunities to the rural poor households.

 

 

Pioneering work in studying wastelands support to the poor has been done by N.S. Jodha. He was driven to this research by the survival capacity of the population in rural Tanzania during the severe drought of 1980. He then conducted research in 80 villages in 21 arid and semi-arid districts spread over seven states in India, including Gujarat in the mid-1980s. His studies revealed that wastelands contributed significantly towards employment and income of the poor. Per household income ranged between Rs 530 and Rs 830 in different areas. During the sixth five year plan period (1980-85), households earning less than Rs 4800 a year were considered to be the poorest of the poor; the poverty line income being Rs 6400 a year under the Integrated Rural Development Programme. The implication was that the poorest households earned between 11 and 17% of their total income from wastelands.

Several studies followed Jodha’s. I examined the incidence and intensity of problems relating to CPLRs in 25 villages in Gujarat in 1987. The area under forest was excluded from the analysis. It was observed that as compared to the non-drought areas, the size of wastelands was higher in drought prone areas. Although the area under non-cultivated land had not significantly altered between 1961-62 and 1990-91, the area under gauchar or grazing land had declined. At the village level, the recorded area under uncultivated land also showed a decline. Dependence on wastelands for survival was higher in drought prone areas, but in all other areas the dependence was largely limited to grazing and fuelwood. The study also observed that as the prospects for agriculture improved by way of increase in irrigation, the dependence of people on wastelands, including that of the poor, declined. The composition of livestock also changed in favour of buffaloes which are stall-fed. It was difficult to unequivocally establish whether the poor were affected more adversely due to decline in wastelands.

 

 

In her study of a semi-arid village in the saline, coastal region of Ahmedabad district, Martha Chen recorded a relatively large number of uses of wastelands in the late 1980s. She enumerated all wastelands used as common land, including water bodies, and identified seven types which included permanent pastures (grazing land), village forests (effectively belonging to the forest department), village tanks, panchayat well, river, panchayat trees and private property land, wells and trees, fallow, threshing grounds and so on. She also listed types of trees and grasses available and their uses as fuel, fodder and food. She reported fuel and fodder as the main items which people got from wastelands. An important point that emerged from the study on access was that while in principle all villagers as residents of the village should have enjoyed unrestricted access, in actual practice there were several restrictions. The locally powerful forces either privatised or disallowed the less powerful from using the wastelands.

While Chen and I had concentrated on wastelands, many scholars treat forests as common land as well. In fact, it is only when dependence on forest is considered that we account for the various activities of collection, consumption and sale of forest based produce which fetch some income to the poor households. Thus, in this review we include those studies which have tried to work out dependence of people on forest for income. R.B. Lal studied 13 villages of five tehsils in Gujarat. He found that the average earning per household was Rs 129 from the collection and sale of non-timber forest produce. Considering Rs 6,400 as annual income per household for those living below the poverty line, the share of income from common land forest and or the wastelands worked out to a little above 2%. Another study of the four villages in Bharuch district by Kartikeya Sarabhai and his team from VIKSAT found that the non-timber produce from wastelands including forests contributed 38 to 46% of their total income. However, about 50% of it was the value of fuelwood and fodder.

 

 

During 1996-97, graduate students of the Gujarat Vidyapith in Ahmedabad undertook a study of wastelands in 15 villages in Gujarat spread in the north and south regions. In 11 out of 15 villages, the area under gauchar and fallow land had declined over time. In most villages, gauchar area was either encroached on or was allotted to scheduled caste and tribe households under the Indira Awas Yojna, a Government of India’s housing scheme for the poor. In a semi-arid village, Mota Gorayya, large farmers extracted soil from gauchar for improving the fertility of their privately owned lands.

Most scholars have established some dependence of the poor and non-poor on wastelands in Gujarat, but the magnitude of dependence is small and varied. Some scholars attribute this to the decline in size and status of the wastelands over the last 40 years or so. I shall now turn my attention to the issue of the size of wastelands in Gujarat.

Social scientists have described the degraded status of the wastelands in terms of impressions and perceptions of the people living in the study areas or by using certain indicators which help in describing degradation. The ecological implications of the degradation of wastelands at micro levels are yet to be worked out in detail. Except for Jodha who argues that because of the degradation of wastelands and its privatisation in arid Rajasthan, regular agriculture has suffered because changes in the status of wastelands has unleashed the desertification process.

 

 

At the macro level, there has been some attempt to quantify degradation of CPLRs. Most estimates are available at an all India level and the wastelands are variously defined. Thus, whenever a proportion is being mentioned, one has to be careful to ascertain the total from which the proportion has been worked out. Professor Kadekodi has elaborately discussed the issues involved in estimating the wastelands in India. The problem starts with the definition of wastelands. Three different definitions are used. One based on land productivity, second on ecological characteristics, and the third on both.

The Technical Group of the National Wasteland Development Board (NWDB) in its report of 1986 defined wastelands as follows: ‘Wastelands mean degraded lands which can be brought under vegetative cover with reasonable effort and which is currently lying as under-utilised and land which is deteriorating for lack of appropriate water and soil management or on account of natural causes.’ This definition is based on both land productivity and ecological characteristics.

Using different definitions for estimation of wastelands has its own problems. Since the definitions are not co-terminous with the land use classification of the agricultural department of the government, the total area under various estimates is not available. Consequently, scientists have tried to build robust estimates based on samples. However, according to Kadekodi, non-availability of complete toposheets and minimal topographic information make the estimation exercise difficult and erroneous. Scientists and scholars have noted that bereft of tree cover and perennially deficit in moisture, Gujarat’s lands are extremely prone to erosion by water and wind.

 

 

Besides the physical erosion of land, there is the erosion of institutions as well. Research in economic history of land management in India has brought out that at the time of Independence, the de facto administration of uncultivated public land lay with the village and/or community panchayats and the state administration hardly interfered. After Independence and the merger of princely states, the revenue departments in all states took over these common lands, relegating the panchayat and community management to the background. A degenerating effect of the shift in management and regulation was that most of the land became open access, further contributing to serious degradation of the uncultivated land. This generated a serious threat to the environment in general as also to privately owned and operated cultivated lands. Second, the open access status made management and regulation ineffective. Yet another important aspect is the dependence of the poor on CPR for their livelihood.

Some selected experiments by non governmental organisations (NGOs) have successfully demonstrated the regeneration of open access common lands by converting them into collective and limited access land pools. With regulated entry and use of common pool resources, the soil health and land economics improved. The poor households have gained more out of such experiments. If panchayats are not effective institutions for the purpose, there must be a serious search for alternatives. The open access status may have to be changed to restricted access.

Yet another development in the changing use of common land deserves attention. The land that has been vested with village panchayats can be taken back by the government for larger public interest, if it deems fit. Such land may then be turned into non-agriculture (NA) and used for setting up industrial units. The Gujarat government has adopted this new policy to facilitate industrial development in the state. It has also relaxed the eight kilometres criterion for the sale and purchase of private agricultural land. In short, land use and land management in the last 50 years has undergone significant changes. A need was felt, therefore, to take an analytical overview about the size, status and use of uncultivated wastelands also known as common property land resources.

 

 

At the state level, land use statistics do not reflect any major decline in the size of wastelands. On the contrary, between 1961 and 1991, the total uncultivated area has marginally increased in Gujarat. I have argued elsewhere that this difference is more due to reclassification rather than actual change in land use. At the village level the picture is different. Land use changes have taken place but they are not recorded in a timely manner. The lag is significant. Also, that both due to delays in verifying and sanctioning changes in land use, there are discrepancies in the recorded versus actual use. Besides, official reasons for delays in recording land use changes and the almost discontinued practice of talatis (patwaris) visiting fields, encroachment on public lands including forest is rampant. In fact, this one indicator is robust enough to show that the administration in the state has become ineffective in regulating the use of wastelands. The encroachment in forests is in a way surprising because the forest department has a good policing mechanism.

 

 

However, this issue needs to be dealt with separately. Encroachments in forest areas arise because some department members may have been instrumental in the legal and not so legal clear felling of trees on a massive scale. The proceeds from this have not gone to the poor tribals who depend on forests for their survival and livelihood. Devoid of any natural resource base support and legal ownership, tribals are left with no choice other than to cultivate the clear felled forest lands for food. The forest department is in the know of the encroachment and, as per their convenience, the forest officers fine tribal farmers. In 1996, the Government of Gujarat sought clearance from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India for regular allotment of about 60,000 hectares of forest land to tribals for cultivation – lands that they had already been cultivating for more than 10 years. Encroachment in revenue lands is also widespread.

The types of encroachment and the encroachers are as follows: (a) Removal of soil from grazing and other public land (private farmers and potters). (b) Encroachment on grazing and other public land, including forest, for cultivation (farmers). (c) Encroachment for non-agricultural uses (individuals for resident and other purpose, cooperatives and private industry). (d) Encroachment of public land adjacent to land allotted by the government, i.e., cultivating more area than allotted by the government (both by individuals who were allotted land and those who leased it from the actual allotees).

The extent of encroachment is large. Practically in every revenue village where common land is lying unused and has some potential for use, some part of it is encroached. Estimates given by different studies show that the average encroachment on revenue wastelands ranged between 10 to 50% in the villages studied all over Gujarat. Farmers with cultivable lands adjacent to the common lands also encroach. These encroachments are of small pieces and often involve large number of farmers. Influential persons from urban areas also encroach lands to privatise fodder grown on common land, using force to keep the villagers out of the land. Later, these lands are kept for open access till the next season. The encroachers, known as fodder contractors, enjoy the support of influential persons in power.

 

 

Section 61 of the Land Revenue Code provides for penalty to be imposed on encroachers. However, in actual implementation numerous problems are faced in removing these encroachments. One, the encroachments are often not reflected on record and since clear demarcation of land is not done, it is difficult to identify the encroachment and its extent. Two, encroachers form a very strong lobby and may even be anti-social and/or closely associated with elected political representatives. There is, therefore, a lot of pressure against removal of encroachments, often by local leaders. In some cases, the sarpanch and other local leaders themselves are involved in the encroachments and have a vested interest its continuing. At times, they are under pressure from the taluka panchayat/district panchayat members and non-officials, who may have a stake in the encroachments.

Under the legal provisions, removal of encroachment is the primary responsibility of the village panchayat. If the village panchayat fails, the taluka panchayat directs the village panchayat to carry out the removal of encroachment. However, if the village panchayat still fails to carry out the order, the taluka panchayat can supersede the gram panchayat. For reasons well known these steps are rarely taken.

Before closing the discussion on encroachment, we describe one more type of encroachment that leads to regeneration of soil and improvement of land productivity. The phenomenon was observed in parts of Saurashtra. Since cultivable land is limited, the extension in cultivation is attempted by illegal occupation of the wastelands that are located at a distance. The encroached wastelands are systematically reclaimed by adding silt from the tank bed or bed of the river. Such a process obtains in villages where the farmers are enterprising and have non-agricultural income to mobilise capital needed for investment in land.

 

 

Despite many problems, there has been an effort to regenerate wastelands in Gujarat. The experience, however, is mixed. The National Wasteland Development Board and the Society for Promotion of Wasteland Development have assisted some significant efforts in the state. Few selected experiments by the NGOs in the watershed programme have demonstrated success in removal of encroachment through people’s institutions and regeneration of wastelands. The ‘open access’ has turned into ‘regulated access’. The regeneration of wastelands has taken place with twin objectives, one of revitalizing natural resources, and second of creating income earning opportunities for the landless and poor. The regulated entry and use has improved the soil health and land economy. A few tree growers’ cooperatives have also done well. But NGOs have also failed in removing encroachments and in popularising cooperatives for tree growing.

There is a prima facie case for utilising whatever wastelands that can be accessed and are not under cultivation or any other specific use. However, before any larger scale effort is initiated, some basic issues need attention.

 

 

The foremost need is for a sound and reliable database that can be easily updated. Hence, village level land use data needs to be computerised. It is also necessary to examine and review the collection and collation of data. At present there is no way to access inter-category transfer of land in the current land use data collection. The data collection through the remote sensing technology may also be used to analyse land use in different parts of Gujarat.

Property rights for different user groups needs to be defined and established. Dry regions within Gujarat have experienced serious conflicts between the cattle herders – maldharis – and the farmers. It is known that maldharis are the worst sufferers in the absence of common grazing lands and pastures. Wherever maldharis are settled in substantial numbers, since their survival depends mainly on livestock, the government should allot them common grazing land and facilitate its development. Gujarat would otherwise lose good livestock breeds and expert breeders. From the point of view of livelihood of maldharis and biological faunal diversity, this point deserves serious attention. By helping maldharis in re-establishing common grazing and pasture lands under a clearly defined property regime, violent and bloody conflicts between them and the farmers may be avoided.

 

 

Gram panchayats should have better control over village wastelands. The regulation of wastelands should vest with the village panchayat. The panchayat should be claimants whereby they develop a stake in the management. Unless property rights are defined clearly, panchayats and village residents would not find it an attractive proposition to protect, regenerate and improve the productivity of wastelands.

The watershed programme being implemented in the state provides good opportunity for regeneration of wastelands in the state. The rural development and the revenue departments should coordinate and design projects that lead to successful regeneration of the CPRs, with the NGOs acting as facilitating organisations. If the district and lower level administration is able to ensure inclusion and successful treatment of the wastelands in villages, the revenue department can follow it up with its scheme for development.

In the context of limited availability of useful wastelands in Gujarat, its development will not be a panacea for the poor in the state. But regeneration of wastelands will in a big way improve the productivity of privately owned cultivated lands, which will generate more sustainable employment in agriculture. Good agriculture in turn will support agro-processing activities and production of other goods and services. Unless there is a substantial occupational diversification in rural areas away from agriculture, rural prosperity will remain a distant dream.