Abstract
This article addresses an older debate which held that the agricultural transformation in the regional economy of Kerala has been mainly driven by ‘peasant rationality’. It is argued in this article that the agrarian transformation driven by peasant rationality has created a dichotomous agrarian society in the state, with a genre of rich farmers who have significantly benefited by the ‘rational’ switch over to commercial agriculture and another segment of subsistence farmers who have been marginalized by the agricultural development process. The article argues that the agricultural development process driven by ‘peasant rationality’ has several ramifications for the sustainable future of Kerala’s agricultural economy. To substantiate this, the article critically examines the agricultural development experience of the state over the past six decades and brings out the impasse affecting the agricultural sector in the emerging context of growing market uncertainties and other challenges confronting the agro-ecosystems and natural environments.
Introduction
The agricultural economy of Kerala is known, historically, for its export-oriented cash crop production systems with significant trade in spices (mainly pepper and cardamom), coffee, tea and rubber. Since the colonial period, the agricultural sector of the state has witnessed tremendous transformation, characterized by expansion of commercial crops, essentially at the expense of food crops. The unique geographical features characterized by steep terrain and undulating topography has precluded the state from extensive cultivation of its staple grain, namely, paddy, on the hills and slopes, which have increasingly been utilized for growing commercial crops (Kieniewics 1989, as cited in Tharakan 1997). Thus, over time, the agricultural sector drifted away from food crop production, mainly paddy, to cash crops, and this trend was justified on the grounds that rice, the staple food of Kerala, could be freely imported from neighbouring states. 1 This process of intensive commercialization of agriculture continued unrestrained over time, though there have been unstinting efforts by the state to reinvigorate food production, especially rice, through massive and consistent public investment in the development of agricultural and irrigation infrastructure under the subsequent Five-Year Plans.
The resultant agricultural development and growth scenario of the state underwent several twists and turns marked by persistent stagnation in agricultural growth since the mid-1970s and a revival in growth since the mid-1980s. However, the most critical phase in the history of development of the agriculture sector of the state can be traced back to the early 1990s, with the launching of economic reforms, which increased market uncertainties and posed serious challenges to the sustainability of the agricultural sector across regions in the state. The hilly regions of Wynad and Idukki districts became highly vulnerable to severe agrarian crisis, while the traditionally food crop growing regions of Palakkad and Kuttanad in Alapuzha districts approached a virtual collapse of farm livelihoods.
The emerging crisis in the agricultural sector in the state is mystified by several contradictions arising from an agricultural development model driven by considerations of ‘peasant rationality’ alone, which in turn has caused disruptions in agrarian society, destabilizing the livelihoods of a large segment of traditional food crop producers and farm workers. Ironically, the state of affairs of agricultural development in Kerala also posits several developmental issues as well as policy and governance dilemmas, raising concerns on the conventional role of the state in protecting the farmers and farm workers by conserving the agro-ecosystems, natural resources and the environment that shapes their livelihoods.
Against this backdrop, this article contests that the agricultural transformation in the regional economy of Kerala has been mainly driven by ‘peasant rationality’. This has created a dichotomous agrarian society in the state, with a genre of capitalist farmers that have significantly benefited by the ‘rational’ shift to commercial agriculture, while another segment of subsistence farmers has been victimized by this development model. Furthermore, the article argues that the agricultural development process driven by peasant rationality has several ramifications with regard to the sustainable future of Kerala’s agriculture economy, from multiple perspectives.
To substantiate this, the article critically examines the agricultural development experience of the state, especially in the post-independence/planning era and seeks to elucidate the impasse affecting the state’s agricultural sector in the emerging context of growing market uncertainties and other challenges confronting the agro-ecosystems and natural environments. The emerging issues affecting the agrarian prospects of the regional economy are enveloped by several development dilemmas confronting the crop production sectors, which are otherwise caught up in a stalemate caused by a host of agronomic, technological, institutional, socio-economic, ecological and operational level constraints. The ensuing crisis in the farm front has further been accentuated by the changing external trade environment, raising serious questions regarding the role and effectiveness of the state, as well as crop-specific institutions in the state, in containing the looming agrarian distress. The article underscores the imperatives of evolving long-term policy initiatives and strategic interventions to: (i) address the inherent contradictions of the agricultural sector in the state and resolve the issues confronting agricultural labour markets in the emerging context of global market integration and trade reforms; and (ii) protect the agro-ecosystems and traditional farm production systems to ensure sustainable livelihoods for the farmers and farm workers.
The article is organized into three sections. The first section critically examines the agricultural development experience of the state, characterized by the paradigm shift in cropping patterns driven by ‘peasant rationality’, and the outcomes across regions in a comparative perspective. The next section discusses the major implications of the agrarian transformation on the farming sector, agro-ecosystems, environment and livelihoods in the state, and describes the important challenges and operational issues confronting the sector. The final section brings out the imperatives of policies, priorities and institutional strategies to reorient the state’s agricultural sector from a long-term perspective.
Agricultural Development Experience of Kerala: A Critical Assessment
The process of agricultural development in Kerala, which was characterized by a paradigm shift towards commercial/perennial cash crops, mainly at the expense of food crops, especially, paddy, has been widely debated. The agrarian transition is often regarded as an outcome of the implementation of the much-celebrated land reforms, which primarily expanded the agrarian base of the state by distributing land to small/marginal farmers and landless labourers. At the same time, the distributive impacts of the land reforms have been contested by many scholars, as the reforms have exempted all plantation crops from land ceiling legislations (Balakrishnan 2008; George et al. 1988; Raj and Tharakan 1983; Rammohan 2008; Varghese 1970), which, in turn, has created a dichotomy in the agriculture sector. This dichotomy has intensified over time, as the production decisions of the large- and medium-sized plantation/cash crop producers have always been influenced by ‘peasant rationality’, or the price (market) factor, which in due course, resulted in a paradigm shift in cropping patterns in the state. This shift in has adversely affected a vast segment of small and marginal farmers and landless labourers, who have been engaged in traditional and low-value food crop production activities.
As scholars argue (Heller 1999; Herring 2001), the agricultural transformation in Kerala has been a distinct case of rationalization of cropping decisions by the peasantry, where the choice of crops and agricultural land use decisions have been dictated by an increasing responsiveness to market forces. 2 While commercialization had been quite evident from the colonial period onwards, the process gathered momentum especially since the post-independence/planning period, with the large-scale entry of the native peasantry in commercial agriculture. 3 Thus, the trajectory of agricultural development as pursued by Kerala has been quite different from the rest of the Indian states, where growth of agriculture was greatly influenced by the policies, technologies and institutions of the Green Revolution, from the 1960s though the 1980s. As demonstrated further, Kerala’s agricultural growth dynamism, characterized by a radical shift towards commercial crops, has been mostly driven by the market and price factors, which was also legitimized by the state and the crop-specific developmental interventions and supports policies enunciated by the commodity boards over time.
An analysis of Kerala’s agricultural development in retrospect reveals that in the beginning of the 1960s, the state had allocated a reasonable size of its gross cropped area, almost 48 per cent, to food crops, mainly, paddy, tapioca, pulses, banana and plantain, as shown in Table 1. The share of commercial crops in total cropped area was about 38 per cent, mostly contributed by coconut (21.4 per cent), followed by rubber (5.8 per cent) and pepper (4.3 per cent). Among the food crops, rice was dominant (33.3 per cent), followed by tapioca (10.3 per cent).
Evidently, the cropping pattern underwent dramatic changes since 1961, through the 1980s and thereafter, with the tremendous deterioration of food crop production. However, the magnitude of decline in the area under food crops has been beyond imagination in the 1990s and 2000s, as the share of food crops reached the lowest level, or 16 per cent, by 2009/10, with the share of area under commercial crops peaking at 67 per cent. A crop-specific analysis shows that the change was triggered by area expansion in few commercial crops, that is, coconut and rubber, and the decline of major food crops, rice and tapioca. While the share of coconut in the total cropped area had increased by about 8 per cent between 1960/61 and 2009/10, the share for rubber had increased by 14 per cent. More importantly, growth in rubber area has been quite consistent, evident in an average growth of 53 per cent as compared to 12 per cent in the case of coconut.
In sharp contrast, the area under rice, the staple food crop of Kerala, had declined by 57 per cent between 1980/81 and 2000/01 (from 28 to 11.5 per cent of TCA) and further by 33 per cent between 2000/01 and 2009/10. There was also remarkable decline in the case of other food crops as well, such as, pulses and tapioca, which is a major cause for concern. This eventuality of simultaneous decline in major food crops, including rice, could be considered as a permanent shift from food to cash crops, or land conversion for growing non-food crops or for other non-agricultural uses. 4
Long-term Trends in Cropping Patterns in Kerala, 1960/61 to 2009/10
As mentioned earlier, it may also be observed that much of the agricultural transformation in the state has happened since late-1970s and continued through the 1980s, up to the early 1990s, until the enunciation of the economic reforms in 1991. As the 1980s were years of transition, Kerala’s agricultural sector experienced a critical phase of persistent stagnation during the decade, caused by a host of price and non-price factors. 5 By and large, these factors included: (i) a major crop shift in favour of perennial cash crops on account of loss of comparative profitability and high cost of production of food crops, especially, paddy; (ii) perceptible decline in the size of operational holdings; (iii) institutional constraints in the development of land and water resources; (iv) changed agrarian relations; (v) supply and demand for labour for performing agricultural operations vis-à-vis high wage rates; (vi) loss of interest in farming among farmers and neglect of less dignified farming operations by the labourers (Francis 1990; George and Nair 1982; Kannan and Pushpangadan 1988, 1990; Kannan 1998; Nair 1997; Narayana and Nair 1983; Pillai 1982; Santhakumar and Nair 1999; Thomas and Thomas 1999); (vii) relative profitability of the cash crops, especially rubber (George 1999; Sreeja 1998; Thomas 1999), coinciding with effective institutional support mechanisms provided by the commodity development boards, such as, the Rubber Board (George et al. 1988; Lekshmi and George 2003; Viswanathan 2005).
A more detailed crop-specific analysis becomes important to delineate the recent trends in the cropping pattern and the performance of the important crops with respect to changes in area, production and yields. The significance of the analysis stems from the fact that the performance of the sector has been greatly influenced by the enunciation of liberalization and trade policy reforms under the World Trade Organization (WTO).
For our analysis, we use 15-year time series data on area, production and productivity of the major crops of Kerala, covering both food and commercial crops. The entire period, 1995/96 to 2009/10 has been further divided into three sub-periods of five years: 1995/96 to 1999/00, 2000/01 to 2004/05 and 2005/06 to 2009/10. The results are presented in Table 2.
Interestingly, the table reveals that the performance of the Agricultural sector continues to be afflicted with problems of persistent stagnation, as experienced in the 1980s. 6 This is evident from the fact that, barring few crops, such as, rubber, areca nut, banana and plantain and coffee, all the other major crops are confronted with problems of deceleration in growth of area and production, though productivity levels have not been deteriorated significantly. This is clearly demonstrated by the annual average changes in the area and production of crops, such as, rice, pepper, cashew, ginger, tapioca and tea, for the entire period of analysis. The extent of decline in area under cultivation has been more or less the same for crops, that is, rice, cashew and ginger, all of which reported a 5 per cent decline. This was followed by a 3 per cent decline in area under tapioca, coconut (–1.12), pepper (–0.5) and cardamom (–0.41). Decline in production has been the highest for cashew (–4.99), followed by rice (–2.78), ginger (–1.66), pepper (–1.56) and tea (–0.38). Crops that experienced decline in productivity include pepper (–1.32) and tea (–0.92).
Trends in Area, Production and Productivity of Crops in Kerala, 1995/96 to 2009/10
The performance of crops has also been analyzed in terms of linear trend growth rates, presented in Figure 1. Accordingly, the highest decline in area was reported in the case of rice (–15.6), followed by coconut (–7.8), cashew (–3.42), tapioca (–3.19), turmeric (–0.73), ginger (–0.42) and cardamom (–4.08). Decline in production was also the highest for rice (–22.93), followed by tapioca (–4.48), banana and plantain (–4.0), cashew (–1.8), tea (–1.09), ginger (–0.95), pepper (–0.67) and turmeric (–0.59). In the case of productivity, tea had the lowest decline (–36.9), followed by pepper (–5.11) and banana and plantain (–3.24). Productivity growth during the entire period was highest for rubber (30.75), followed by cashew (10.24), tapioca (8.76) and turmeric (6.34). Interestingly, productivity levels were less impressive as growth was less than 1 per cent in six of the 13 crops, that is, coconut (0.97), rice (0.87), ginger (0.68), cardamom (0.76), areca nut (0.73) and coffee (0.5).
Thus, it emerges that agricultural growth of the state in the 1990s and 2000s has been experiencing significant strain in terms of deceleration or stagnation in area and production, with less than impressive growth in most of the crops. The contradictory outcome of positive growth in productivity along with decline in area and production may not be related to increased adoption of technology or irrigation facilities, as improved technology, other than HYV seeds, as well as increased irrigation facilities, have been serious casualties in most cases. Rubber is an exception, as output and yield of rubber has been remarkable, though there has been a slowdown in area expansion during the 1990s. The growth in production and productivity of rubber has been mainly due to the increased rate of adoption of the indigenous high yielding clone, RRII 105, especially by the rubber small growers.
It may be noted that a variety of factors have been responsible for the remarkable growth in area, production and productivity of commercial/plantation crops over time. Nevertheless, the most crucial factor has been the comparative price advantage and the resultant profitability enjoyed by these crops, especially, rubber, tea, coconut and cardamom. Notably, in the case of crops such as rubber, it may be observed that the policies and institutional interventions by the state through effective R&D support, extension and market intervention activities, under the aegis of the Rubber Board, have been instrumental for the tremendous growth in area of rubber in the state. Further, in the case of rubber, the institutional support has also been quite engaging in terms of effective market intervention programmes, including protecting the domestic prices from falling beyond remunerative levels (Viswanathan 2001).
In this context, Figure 2 shows the historic movements in prices of major agricultural commodities of Kerala. It is evident that the increase in the prices of commodities, such as, rice, tapioca and coconut, has been quite slow as compared to rubber and tea. For instance, it took almost 15 years for the price of rice to reach the mark of ₹ 10/kg from ₹ 5/kg. Quite surprisingly, coconut prices continued to stagnate at ₹ 4.9/nut during most of 2000, followed by a steep fall to ₹ 4.6/nut during 2009. In contrast, prices of rubber and tea have been consistently on the increase over time, though there was a deep fall in rubber prices from ₹ 48.7/kg in 1995 to ₹ 30.4/kg during 2000. There was significant increase in prices of rubber and tea during most part of the last decade, and the increase has also been quite consistent.
The relative price advantage along with the low input requirements, including the lower labour requirements for commercial crops, have made them quite attractive among the farmers, leading to a dramatic increase in area of these crops in the state, at the expense of food crops, as already observed.
As a cumulative outcome, all the districts of the state had experienced tremendous deterioration in the area under food crops, barring Alapuzha and the three north-central districts, Palakkad, Malappuram and Thrissur, as shown in Table 3. The table reveals that the share of food crops, mostly represented by rice, had declined to as low as 9 per cent at the state level, with 11 of the 14 districts showing a share much lower than the state average (the lowest being 0.8 per cent in Idukki and the highest, 7.4 per cent in Ernakulam). Only three districts bear the testimony of being the traditional food crop producing regions, with Palakkad and Alappuzha keeping one third of the gross cropped area (32 per cent) under food crops, followed by Thrissur (16 per cent).
In the case of commercial crops, the two dominant crops, coconut and rubber, constitute together almost half of the total cropped area in the state, with the highest share reported in Kozhikode (69 per cent), followed by Kottayam (68.2), Pathanamthitta (65.4), Thiruvananthapuram (62.3), Malappuram and Kasargod (59 each) and Ernakulam (58). While 9 of the 14 districts report the dominance of coconut in the total cropped area (ranging from 59 per cent in Kozhikode to 19 per cent in Palakkad), 4 districts show the dominance of rubber in the total cropped area, namely, Kottayam (52 per cent), Pathanamthitta (49), Ernakulam (33) and Idukki (14). From this analysis, one may also infer that if rubber area expands at the currently reported trend growth rate of 5.26 per cent per annum against coconut (0.76 per cent), it may even surpass the coconut area, relegating the latter to the second position in most of the districts in less than a decade.
District Cropping Patterns and Relative Share of Major Crops in Kerala, 2008–09
Changes in the Share of Major Crops in Gross Value of Output among Districts in Kerala, 2003/04 to 2007/08 (₹ crores)
To further substantiate the growth and dominance of commercial crops in the agriculture sector across regions, we examine the changes in the relative share of three major crops, that is, rice, coconut and rubber, in the gross value of agricultural output between 2003/04 and 2007/08. Table 4 shows that the share of rice in the gross value of agricultural output (GVAO) had declined by 2 per cent, from 5.9 to 4.1 per cent, between 2003/04 and 2007, with significant decline reported from the three traditional rice producing regions, Palakkad (5 per cent), followed by Thrissur (4.4) and Alapuzha (2.5).
The relative share of coconut also experienced marked decline in the GVAO in all the districts, mainly because of a fall in production along with a decline in coconut prices. The decline in the relative share of coconut in the GVAO has been more pronounced in the dominant coconut growing regions of Kasargod (30 per cent), followed by Kozhikode (24.5 per cent), Malappuram (21.3 per cent), Alapuzha (20.2 per cent), Thrissur and Kannur (20 per cent each). In sharp contrast, the relative share of rubber recorded significant increase in all the districts, with an increase of 14 per cent at the state level between 2003/04 and 2007/08. Interestingly, most of the districts which experienced significant loss in relative share in coconut have reported an increase in share of rubber in GVAO, which could be mainly attributed to the price advantage that rubber had, leading to a persistent increase in tapped area and production during the five-year period. Figures 3–5 present the simultaneous decline in relative share of rice and coconut along with the increase of rubber in the GVAO.
Rationalization of Agriculture: Operational Constraints and Effects on the Natural Environment, Agro-ecosystems and Livelihoods
The foregoing analysis clearly shows that the pattern of agriculture development in Kerala has been quite distinct in terms of the growth of commercial crops, essentially driven by ‘peasant rationality’ underlined by the price or market factor, as well as economic efficiency of farmers in allocating scarce resources, such as land. 7 In fact, this distinct pattern of ‘rationalization of agriculture’ seems to be quite ironic or irrational, as it has occurred at the huge expense of the food sufficiency of the state. At the same time, it is important to consider that the resultant agrarian transformation witnessed the emergence of a mighty commercial crop production sector in the state, which also turned out to be nationally and internationally important, with the state also benefiting from the increased inflow of export earnings from products such as coffee, tea and spices (pepper, cardamom and turmeric) and avoiding the import dependence in case of products, mainly, rubber. This is further evident in Table 5, which shows the position of the major crops grown in Kerala with respect to their contribution to the gross value of agricultural output (GVAO), both at the state and national levels during 2003/04.
The table indicates that the 14 crops grown in the state taken together account for 86 per cent of the GVAO in the state with the largest value contributions coming from coconut (19 per cent), rubber (17), spices and condiments (13.5), tapioca (7), cardamom (4.2) and black pepper (3.7). Remarkably, 11 of the 14 commodities listed have significant status at the national level, which underlies the importance of the commercial agriculture sector of Kerala.
The earlier scenario raises two important puzzles. First, why bother if the rationalization of agriculture has obtained for Kerala a significant status at the national and international levels? Second, why blame the farmers of Kerala who all along have behaved very rationally by choosing to grow crops based on market/price signals and other institutional support? Perhaps, one may have to seek clarifications to these queries from the perspective of political economy.
First of all, one may ponder over the ‘classic argument’ regarding the lack of comparative profitability of food crops, mainly rice, in Kerala, as historically clamoured by the protagonists of commercial agriculture in the state. This classic argument of ‘paddy cultivation losing its profitability’ has been overwhelmingly upheld by researchers and policy makers based on mere economic logic of costs and prices involved in rice cultivation. To a large extent, these claims get sanctified if we examine the costs and returns of rice cultivation vis-à-vis the competing commercial crops in Kerala. For instance, an analysis based on the data on costs and value of output per hectare of crops for the year 2011/12, as reported by the Department of Economics, Kerala, validates the earlier claims, as also evident in Table 6.
Value of Output of Crops Produced in Kerala and its Share in India, 2003/04
Comparison of Costs and Returns of Important Crops in Kerala, 2011–12 (₹/ha)
Accordingly, it is evident from the table that rice cultivation ranks seventh among the crops in terms of profitability ratio (BCR being 1.35). Although rubber ranks fourth in profitability (BCR at 2.43), it may be noted that the crops reporting higher BCRs, that is, tapioca, ginger and banana, are seasonal crops and grown by smaller proportions of farmers compared to rubber. Although the unit costs of cultivation of commercial crops are higher in relation to rice, the returns are much higher than rice as indicated by the ratio of value of output of rice to other crops. For instance, for growing rubber, a farmer incurs higher costs than rice (rice to rubber cost ratio being 2.89) the returns are five times higher than rice (rice to rubber returns ratio being 5.2). Similarly, growing banana involves a cost ratio of 3.35 and benefit the ratio is 6.25 in relation to rice cultivation. It may be noted that though rice cultivation involves lower costs per hectare, the price advantage enjoyed by commercial crops along with the operational constraints make rice cultivation less attractive among the farmers as is quite known in the state.
It is also not hard to believe that the rational behaviour of farmers in Kerala has also been greatly influenced by the specific crop development and promotional programmes being promulgated by several of the commodity boards, such as, the Rubber Board, Coconut Development Board, Spices Board (SB), Coffee Board and Kerala Horticulture Development Programme (KHDP). In fact, it may not be surprising to see that many of these specialized crop-promoting agencies have been hyperactive in vigorously promoting the ‘target crops’ through price as well as institutional support measures and market development programmes, which have been quite exemplary and more effective than the parallel rice promotion programmes enunciated by the Government of Kerala from time to time. In this respect, the case of rubber has been unique with higher rates of adoption of the indigenously developed high-yielding rubber planting materials (such as RRII 105 and RRII 400 series clones) within a short time span, leading to significant increases in the productivity of rubber, as high as 1,852 kg/ha in the state, as against the national average of 1,576 kg/ha. Such a dramatic growth in the productivity of rubber has been facilitated by a host of favourable factors ranging from remunerative prices to effective implementation of comprehensive institutional support mechanisms encompassing all stages of operations of cultivation, such as, production, extension and marketing (George 1999; George and Chandy 1996; George et al. 1988; Lekshmi and George 2003; Viswanathan 2005; Viswanathan and Shah 2012a).
However, there are several challenges posed by the ‘rationalization of agriculture’ that occurred in Kerala. These challenges assume serious dimensions in the current context of increasing food insecurity issues at the local level, along with the changing trade regimes induced by liberalization, as well as the risks induced by climate change which is adversely affecting the prospects of commercial agriculture in Kerala. Already there are some reports of instances of impending threats to food security as well as climate change in Kerala, as demonstrated by the farmer suicides induced by agrarian crisis in Wynad, Idukki and Palakkad districts. 8 In fact, the livelihood implications of the agrarian crisis become severe in these districts, given that they lag behind not only economically but also in terms of the composition of the population of Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs). 9
Socio-economic and Institutional Constraints in Sustaining Agriculture
It may be quite likely that Kerala might experience serious agrarian crisis in the future due to the persistence of a large number of dilemmas, as well socio-economic and institutional constraints that already started weakening the strong agrarian base that the state once had. In what follows, we discuss some of the important operational constrains and issues that challenge the agricultural development paradigm of the state driven by peasant rationality alone, which has always been in conflict with the integrity of agro-ecosystems, environmental balance and the sustainable livelihoods of small and marginal farmers and landless labourers.
There are several operational constraints having significant implications for agricultural performance and the ecological sustainability of farm production systems in the years to come. First of all, in the context of growing market uncertainties arising from the policy changes and trade reforms induced by liberalization, the comparative as well as competitive advantage of the agriculture sector is seriously eroded. In this regard, some of the important institutional impediments are: (i) the declining size of operational holdings, creating non-viable farms across the major commercial crops, especially coconut (0.25 ha) and rubber (0.42 ha); (ii) the already disappeared genre of full-time farmers, leading to the emergence of absentee landlordism and growing dependence on hired labour; (iii) shortage of skilled/unskilled labourers, even at high wage rates; (iv) concerns of extending institutional support mechanisms for agriculture in the post-WTO scenario; and (v) the growing inertia of the state in resolving the agrarian impasse through long-term policies and institutional interventions.
The technological constraints confronting the agricultural sector relate mostly to the challenges posed by the available infrastructure facilities and levels of technology adoption across crops and regions. It is important to note that given the technological possibilities for productivity enhancements within the existing institutional framework and scale of operations, most of the crops have serious agronomical limitations in the emerging scenario (George and Joseph 2005). However, the scope for crop-specific interventions so as to enhance productivity levels through replanting, as in the case of tea and coconut, may be explored on a priority basis. In the case of coconut, the widespread attack of the pest Mandari, originating from central Kerala, had already affected more than 590 lakh palms in the state, leading to perpetual decline in productivity. Moreover, the tiny structure of the holdings, along with lack of proper irrigation facilities, 10 has resulted in lower levels of adoption of inorganic fertilizers (40 per cent), plant protection measures (30 per cent) and other farm-level secondary investments in the coconut holdings (Viswanathan 2005). 11 The contrast is that the crop-specific technologies developed are applicable only to coconut monocropping systems and appropriate technologies catering to the requirements of the coconut homesteads (which is the dominant pattern in Kerala) are not available (Nair and Rajesh 2001). The technological constraints facing other crops, such as, cardamom, areca nut and banana, may also be regarded as similar to that of coconut.
Interestingly, the reported agricultural productivity in the state is significantly lower than the national average, as is evident from the ratio of Kerala’s productivity to national level in the case of crops such as banana (0.31), pineapple (0.48), rice (0.70) and cardamom (0.72), and abysmally lower than the international level for all the crops, except rubber. The ratios of Kerala’s productivity vis-à-vis the world have been the lowest for pepper (0.06), followed by pineapple (0.18), tea (0.22), rice (0.23), banana (0.24), areca nut (0.32), coffee (0.41), coconut (0.57) and tapioca (0.82). This mismatch in productivity underlies that in the process of growing market integration, the crop production systems and the harvesting and processing strategies in the state need to be recast so as to achieve competitiveness in cost and quality on par with the emerging global market and environmental standards (Viswanathan 2005).
One of the major socio-economic constraints having pernicious impact on agriculture in the state is the crisis afflicting the labour market. As emerges from plethora of empirical assessments, Kerala’s sustainable agriculture future is highly dependent on the sustained stock of highly productive labour, which has been a major casualty in the past few decades. A large segment of rice grown area in the state has either been already converted either into less labour demanding crops, such as coconut, areca nut, tapioca and banana, or permanently gone out of cultivation due to the rampant labour market crisis. 12
The development of technological solutions to address the labour market crisis in agriculture is an important challenge needing immediate attention across crops in the state. While some innovations are already being tried in the case of plucking coconut and harvesting rice, it is essentially important to evolve and scale-up innovative models and incentive systems to address the labour market dilemmas in the case of most crops in the state.
Similarly, the dynamism cast by the expansion of commercial crops, especially rubber, is at serious stake in view of the emergent labour shortage, especially of rubber tappers in the smallholding, as well as the Plantation sectors. The emerging scenario essentially calls for the rubber production sectors to be highly sensitive to resolving the labour market dilemmas. Some solutions in this regard lie in evolving ways and means to increase the participation of younger generations and women through offering various incentives, including ensuring gender equality in wages, social security provisions and access to resources in the case of women that strengthen their livelihoods. A major concern in this regard is that India’s increased engagements in trade in commercial crops, such as tea, rubber and spices, with the ASEAN and EU in particular, would necessitate stricter compliance to labour and environmental standards. The establishment of such environmental and labour standards would require greater investments for HRD in the case of plantation workers, especially aimed at the empowerment of women workers (Viswanathan and Shah 2012b).
The Issues of Rubber Monoculture
One of the critical aspects of the agrarian transition in Kerala has been the emergence and domination of rubber as a monoculture system across districts. Although monoculture rubber has been in existence in Kerala since the colonial times, by and large it was limited to areas in the form of large estates in few of the districts, mainly Kottayam, Idukki, Pathanamthitta, Kozhikode, Kollam, Thiruvananthapuram and Thrissur. However, as already observed, massive area expansion under rubber gathered momentum in the state since late 1950s with the large-scale entry of the native peasantry, facilitated by a host of political and institutional factors, including the land reforms and effective institutional support measures provided by the Rubber Board, besides the favourable agro-climatic conditions. As a result, the smallholder sector has far exceeded the Estates sector in area and production of rubber and, currently, the share of smallholdings under rubber is as high as 89 per cent in area and 93 per cent in production (ibid.). An interesting aspect of the area expansion under the smallholder sector has been the perpetuation of rubber monoculture, as in the case of the large rubber estates.
It may be argued that the institutional interventions and support regimes evolved by the Rubber Board for promoting rubber cultivation in India (and Kerala) has been quite pervasive in terms of its focus on monoculture, as it was deemed (with some scientific reasoning) that rubber grown in a mixed cropping system may not yield its fullest potential. Seemingly, such a system of rubber monoculture has been widely promulgated by the stringent institutional and policy regulations followed by the Rubber Board from time to time. For instance, the planting subsidy offered by the Rubber Board for rubber planting (new planting and replanting subsidies) is distributed on the condition that only minimum numbers of crops/trees are allowed inside the rubber holding, such that the growth of rubber plants is undisturbed (Viswanathan and Shivakoti 2008). More importantly, in order to expand the rubber area in view of the fast growing domestic demand for rubber, the Rubber Board had also been highly proactive even by reducing the minimum required holding size to as low as 0.1 ha, fixing an initial tree density of 450 plants per hectare (Rubber Board 2005).
These adaptive institutional support policies initiated by the Rubber Board have been highly successful in reaching out to the small and marginal farmers in the state, leading to massive expansion of rubber as a monoculture system all across the districts. As may be argued, much of this area expansion has proved a major threat to the pre-existing mixed cropping/integrated food crop systems in Kerala, which were already losing ground in view of poor returns. Incidentally, planting rubber as a monoculture has been widely preferred by the small and marginal holders as they are otherwise hard-pressed by various operational constraints, including smaller size of farms and the lack of profitability of alternate farming options. Furthermore, a serious outcome of rubber monoculture in the state has been the near complete adoption of the monoclone RRII 105 by the rubber farmers, in view of its proven yield record even as compared to the prominent Malaysian rubber clone RRIM 600 and the Indonesian rubber clone GT1 (Joseph et al. 1999).
First, the intensive use of a rubber monoclone in the monoculture system runs the risk of massive devastation caused by spread of plant diseases or other biotic or abiotic stresses. It is important to note that the outcomes of such events may prove to be highly disastrous for the small and marginal rubber farmers in particular. The next issue is the increasing market uncertainties in terms of price decline in the event of global market integration and India’s increased engagements in FTAs, especially with the ASEAN countries, which are also the major producers of rubber. For instance, there was a drastic decline in rubber prices during the late 1990s (from ₹ 36/kg in 1997 to ₹ 31/kg during 2000) and prices remained almost stagnant for five years between 1997 and 2001. Although rubber prices peaked to unusual levels thereafter (with an average price of ₹ 75/kg), the production sector is highly vulnerable to such price decline in the future, with serious implications for small and marginal rubber producers.
Second, rubber monoculture as emerged across districts may have significantly impacted on the hydrological cycle and the diversity of agro-ecosystems of the regions, about which little is known. There are also reports of plantation-induced deforestation in many parts of the state, leading to significant loss in forest cover over time (George and Chattopadhyay 2001). It is also widely reported that the rubber growing regions face serious water shortage (including drinking water) during peak summer, as a result of the decline in groundwater aquifers. Furthermore, rubber is a competitive monocrop, as its shade and canopy do not tolerate any other crop. The adoption of any inter-cropping system has been found to be as low as 15.14 per cent in immature rubber holdings and 25 per cent in mature holdings in the state. Even in the limited cases that adopt such intercrops, the choice of crops is confined to teak, anjily, mango and cashew (Viswanathan and Shivakoti 2008).
The next important issue is the degradation of water bodies (rivers, streams and groundwater sources), as caused by the inflow of effluents originating from rubber processing (rubber sheet making) units (Sreelakshmi et al. 2007), as well as the fertilizer and pesticide residues originating from rubber holdings. However, these issues still remain grossly under-reported in the state and, hence, there is an urgent need for detailed investigations across rubber growing regions.
There are also concerns emerging from rubber area far exceeding the agro-ecological limits imposed by the geographical features of the state. For instance, it may be observed that rubber monoculture area has already grown out of proportion in relation to the proportion of lowland and wetland areas across districts in the state (Figure 6).
To be more precise, rubber monoculture may already have created significant strains on the lowland and wetland ecosystems in terms of depleting the water bodies and degrading the agro-ecosystems. This argument is reasoned by the fact that, in most cases, expansion of rubber area had been at the expense of coconut, which, in turn, had replaced rice growing fields located in the interfaces of lowlands and wetlands. This even calls for an important policy recommendation that restricts the further expansion of the crop compromising on the agro-ecosystems and the hydrological regimes served by the inland wetlands, including paddy fields. Given the fact that rubber in Kerala has the highest reported productivity levels, even in comparison with major rubber producers, it may not be quite radical to argue that increased production and productivity should enable the state to save the scarce lands for growing food crops, including vegetables.
Crisis of Governance in Development and Management of Natural Resources
It may not be illogical to conclude that the agrarian transformation described also reflects on the impending crisis of governance of the state in the development and sustainable management of land and water resources. This issue needs to be elaborated with respect to the ineffective state policies in protecting the paddy based wetlands and the agro-ecosystems they support, as well as the development and management of water resources.
Implications of Wetland Conversion
The fact that the wetland agro-ecosystem provides valuable goods and services to society is, more often than not, overlooked in the policies of the state. Conversion of paddy involves irreversible damage to the ecosystem. There was a 65 per cent fall in the wetland area under paddy in the last 30 years in Kerala. Though farmers are independent as individuals to decide on the use of farm lands, the conversion of the paddy wetlands are highly motivated by an urge to maximize economic returns by converting paddy fields into garden crop lands, or plots for real estate development. 13 It appears that the majority of farmers are not aware of the long-term impact of ecological and environmental imbalances that may result from the transformation of wetland agro-ecosystems in the state (Gopikuttan and Kurup 2004).
The environmental damage faced by the state raises questions as to the security of livelihoods among those sections marginalized from the mainstream development process (Kurian 1995; Narayanan 2003). Environmental problems caused by deforestation, disruption of backwater ecosystems and paddy land conversion have already affected the livelihood conditions of large numbers of the economically backward sections in rural areas (Gopikuttan and Kurup 2004).
These eventualities point to the governance failure of the state, in particular, in arresting the process of massive conversion of paddy wetlands for growing commercial crops, especially banana, which consumes high doses of pesticides (Devi 2010; Latha and Madhusoodhanan 2004), as well as for the construction of buildings, clay mining by tile industries and brick kilns. Despite the Land Utilisation Order of 1967, 14 which sought to conserve food crop cultivation on lands traditionally so used, the unabated conversion of paddy continued in the state, as did the dispute between those for and against conversion. 15
Though, the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Bill of 2007 has been aimed at protecting rice fields from illegal reclamation, the irony is that vast tracts of paddy lands have already been irreversibly converted for various uses. Moreover, it has been reported that the bill is likely to be a burden on the small-scale farmers of Kole wetlands, since it allows the government to seize land that is not cultivated. This underscores that wetland conservation bills must be more farmer-friendly by ensuring a safe return on investment (both in terms of money as well as land) to the farmer who owns the land. This can be an incentive for maintaining the original quality of the land that serves the community by way of several ecological services (Raj and Azeez 2009).
The real benefits of conversion of paddy wetlands need to be reconciled in terms of the costs of conserving the ecological functions and ecosystems supported by paddy wetlands in the state. The estimates on the economic value of major economic and ecological functions lost due to paddy conversions would help to convince the farmers and other potential stakeholders about the need for conservation. Seemingly, the strong conviction of the farmers in converting paddy lands is also being legitimized by the state in recent times through populist measures of supplying highly subsidized rice through PDS at ₹ 1–2 per kg. This may act as a disincentive in formulating policies and interventions at the state and regional levels with respect to conservation of paddy-based wetlands.
Implications on Performance of Irrigation Systems
The perceptible decline in area under food crops, mainly paddy and the resultant expansion in area under commercial/plantation crops raises serious concerns about the developmental and performance of irrigation systems in the state. In a sense, the shift in cropping patterns goes a long way to explain the sub-optimal performance of the irrigation sector, as almost all irrigation systems have been technically designed for irrigating food crops, mainly paddy. The eventuality of change from food to cash crops could be interpreted as a lack of effective demand for water for irrigation across irrigation commands in the state. It has also obstructed the process of effective implementation of irrigation systems in Kerala, causing large-scale capacity under-utilization in case of completed irrigation projects and non-completion coupled with time and cost overruns in the case of ongoing schemes (Viswanathan 2001).
Though coconut, banana, areca nut and horticultural crops are some of the important crops that would yield more under irrigated conditions, the irrigation systems as they have been designed do not facilitate for irrigating such crops which are mostly grown in homestead garden lands. In view of this, the reported increase in area under coconut and banana as observed in the state, as well as the higher percentage of irrigated area under coconut in the irrigation systems cannot be considered as a pure irrigation effect. In fact, irrigation of these crops requires substantial investment for redesigning of the watercourses and corresponding farm-level investments by the farmers for using water from the existing irrigation systems. The increase in the share of important crops in the gross irrigated area lends support to the argument that irrigated paddy fields have been replaced with coconut, areca nut and banana on account of the limited irrigation facilities available (Viswanathan 2002).
The under-performance of irrigation systems in the event of crop shift may seem to be an irony as the irrigation sector (including flood control) in the state has always been flooded with massive financial allocations during the plans, at par with even more in proportion as well during certain years the agriculture and industrial sectors, as evident in Figure 7.
This irony may be further explained in terms of the almost stagnant area (hovering around 30 per cent of the net irrigated area) under surface (canal) irrigation schemes (Figure 8).
Implications on Food Security
This leads us to the issue of food security in the context of a worsening deficiency in food production in the state. In this regard, it is reported that the state’s deficit in rice has increased steadily from 50 to 55 per cent of its requirement from the early 1950s to the mid-1970s, to more than 80 per cent at present (Gopikuttan and Kurup 2004). Nevertheless, scholars are divided on the food security implications arising from the decline in area under food crops in Kerala. For instance, Kannan (2011) argues that though Kerala has lost a major chunk of its rice cropped area to non-food crops and non-economic as well as real estate activities, the concern about food insecurity is misplaced. 16 On this reading, food security is not entirely dependent on production but, more importantly, on the ability of all sections of the people to access food and consume an adequate amount, as shown by nutritional and related health outcomes. Hence, Kerala is food secure in view of its high purchasing power compared to the rest of the country, as well as its relatively well functioning public distribution system (ibid.).
On the contrary, Tharamangalam (2011) refutes Kannan’s claim by arguing the opposite. Kerala now produces less than 15 per cent of its food requirements, down from over 50 per cent in the 1950s. He makes the counterargument, as put forth by Patnaik (2010), that Kerala’s heavy dependence on food imports from neighbouring states (at higher costs) is bound to affect intake adversely for the lower fractiles of the population, unless their real incomes also rise adequately.
Notwithstanding the two arguments as stated, one might tend to take a realistic view that the food security issue is a cause for concern especially in regions where farm livelihoods are severely constrained by limited resources and farming options. For instance, farmers and farm workers in the districts such as Wynad, Palakkad and Idukki are highly vulnerable to food security, as it emerges from several studies in the context of persistent agrarian crisis (Jeromi 2007; Mohanakumar 2008; Mohanakumar and Sharma 2006; Mohandas 2007). Incidentally, these three districts have the largest concentration of cultivators (both male and female) and agricultural labourers (both male and female), the majority belonging to the weaker (SC/ST) sections.
Conclusions and Policy Imperatives
This article tried to argue that the process of agricultural development in Kerala has resulted in a major crisis adversely affecting the sustainable future of the food production systems and the performance of commercial agriculture. This crisis in the agricultural sector is mystified by several contradictions arising from the agricultural development model driven by considerations of ‘peasant rationality’ alone, which, in turn, has caused disruptions in the agrarian society, destabilizing the livelihoods of a large segment of traditional food crop producers and farm workers. The resultant scenario of agricultural development in the state also posits several developmental issues and policy, as well as governance, dilemmas, raising concerns regarding the conventional role of the state in protecting the farmers and farm workers by conserving the agro-ecosystems, natural resources and the environment that shape their livelihoods.
There is a strong case for revamping the agriculture sector in the state in terms of strengthening the food crop production systems, on the one hand, and making the commercial crop production systems more competitive and resilient in the context of emerging market uncertainties and climate change induced risks, on the other. As also argued by others (Balakrishnan 2008; Kannan 2011; Tharamangalam 2011), there is a strong case for protecting the paddy-based wetland ecosystems through highly responsive policies and institutional intermediations on a priority basis. At the same time, the state should evolve long-term strategies and perspective plans for agricultural development by maintaining the integrity of agro-ecosystems and the hydrological balance of the regions. There should be strict vigilance on land use and farm management practices adopted by farmers, with proper checks on the extensive promotion of commercial crops that adversely affect the agro-biodiversity and hydrological and ecosystem balance of the regions. This also necessitates close coordination between the crop promotional agencies at the state level, as well as the nationally sponsored commodity boards, such as the Rubber Board and Spices Board, in matters of respecting the agro-ecosystem integrity of the state and devising action plans for promoting integrated farming systems, instead of the mutually exclusive promotional schemes as exist today.
A major policy initiative is needed, for gender mainstreaming (mediated through Kudumbashree, as happened in case of NREGS in Kerala) in the case of the rubber sector, for two important reasons. First, the size of organized rubber plantations in total rubber plantation area in Kerala is hardly 10 per cent, and hence, the potential of this sector in creating employment and livelihood opportunities for women is somewhat limited. On the other hand, the rubber smallholding sector, which constitutes the largest segment in Kerala, is certainly handicapped in terms of persisting labour shortages, leading to the syndrome of ‘multiple grower dependence’ (Viswanathan et al. 2003), along with abysmally lower levels of women’s participation in the labour market, despite the smallholdings being reasonably organized and integrated in terms of rubber producers societies (RPSs). This is a major challenge that institutional agencies, such as the Rubber Board, could address towards evolving institutional support or incentive mechanisms leading to increased women’s participation in production and management of smallholdings. In a way, this would help resolve much of the labour market dilemmas surfacing in the rubber sector and thereby create sustainable outcomes on the status of women and their livelihoods (Viswanathan and Shah 2012b).
The state should also devise means and ways of supporting the paddy farmers through proper incentive mechanisms by supporting rice production and paying premium price (over and above the MSP) for procuring paddy from farmers. The paddy and horticulture production programmes enunciated through the Kudumbashree need to be further scaled up, which could make the regions self-reliant to a greater extent with long-lasting impacts on livelihoods.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
A pre-revised version of the article was presented at the conference on ‘Kerala’s Economy and Society: Situating the Present, Imagining the Future’, held at Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, 26–27 February 2012. The author thanks the conference participants for useful comments on the article. Thanks are also due to the anonymous referee for the critical comments on the article. The usual disclaimers apply.