Posted online: 2011-02-12
With a little under 70% of our population in rural areas, of which 60% is dependent on agriculture and the balance 10% on non-agriculture low-income non-farm activities depending on agriculture sector for their livelihood, and agricultural holdings becoming smaller and smaller due to fragmentation, land ceiling acts and family disputes, the average family holdings for most are becoming uneconomic and unviable. In 2002-03 (latest available), marginal holdings of less than one hectare were almost 70% of operational holdings in the country. Also, the average area per operational holding, which stood at 1.67 hectares in 1981-82, had declined to 1.06 hectares in 2002-03. The end result is that these uneconomic marginal holdings are being sold and resold in the market, and rural farm and non-farm employment is not able to keep pace with the ever-increasing rural unemployment, under-employment and disguised unemployment. These figures can only be worse now. An unhappy consequence is the undirected and unabated migration of rural populations to urban areas looking for work to make a living.
Since urban areas of all types (tier-1 to tier-3 cities) come under some sort of urban planning with municipalities and town areas and are generally out of reach of rural migrants, the end result is the mushrooming of urban slums. According to the most recent estimates available from the National Sample Survey for 2008-09, there were nearly 49,000 slums in urban India, 24% of these were located along nallahs and another 12% along railway lines, and, interestingly, 57% of these slums were built on public land mostly owned by local bodies and state governments. With the share of agriculture and allied sector, including forestry and logging, in the GDP declining from 70% to under 20% in the last 60 years, the natural corollary is high incidence of rural impoverishment and mass migration from rural to urban areas. Sadly, this has not been fully understood or even appreciated by our government economists and planners.
We have initiated two massive schemes for the welfare of urban and rural poor. The first one, notified in September 2007, focuses on provision of employment to the rural poor and is called the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), with a size of Rs 1,30,000 crore. According to newspaper reports, an estimated Rs 1.06 lakh crore has already been incurred on the scheme.
The other scheme, called the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), is perhaps the single-largest initiative of the government for planned development of our cities spread over seven years, from 2005-06 to 2012-13. The mission aims at improving the urban conditions with an outlay of Rs 66,000 crore to be implemented during 2005-12. Apart from 65 mission cities, provision is kept for other small towns. Together, these two schemes are worth Rs 2,00,000 crore.
MGNREGS offers employment to one person per rural family for 100 days in a year at Rs 100 per day (recently revised upwards). The condition is that the person has to work in a scheme in the same village which should help build infrastructure but mechanical implements are not allowed. While JNNURM focuses on urban improvement and emphasises capacity building and governance reforms. The subjects covered by JNNURM include slum improvement, heritage and metro/highway construction. But on completion of the mission period, the expected results are that urban local bodies and parastatal agencies will have achieved the following:
* Modern and transparent budgeting, accounting, financial management systems, designed and adopted for all urban service and governance functions
* City-wide framework for planning and governance will be established and become operational
* All urban residents will be able to access a basic level of urban services
* Financially self-sustaining agencies for urban governance and service delivery will be established, through reforms to major revenue instruments
* Local services and governance will be conducted in a manner that is transparent and accountable to citizens
* E-governance applications will be introduced in core functions of urban local bodies/parastatal.
JNNURM does not either talk of any transfer of population from rural to urban during the seven years of its life nor does it mention creating new areas for receiving fresh rural migrants or even new cities/SEZs. It, however, mentions rural-urban ratio shifting from 28% to 40% by 2021!
When these schemes are considered from the perspective of spatial planning, these two standalone schemes make little sense in the dynamic rural and urban scenario in the country. Indeed, many urban problems are due to the problems in the rural areas, since much of the migration of rural population to urban areas is due to extreme rural poverty and lack of employment opportunities. Given the rural-urban nexus, there is a clear case for these two large schemes to be conceived as complimentary schemes to make the shifting rural to urban scenario smooth without the hiccups of slums and squatters, which is due to poor planning of a dynamic shift of population due to shifting economic imperatives and the lack of foresight of our planning mechanism. Indeed, there exists considerable scope for fostering convergence between the two schemes through the urban infrastructure component of JNNURM. While the JNNURM accepts the rural-urban shift to 60-40% in a couple of years, it makes no plan for a smooth transition of the population.
—Sanat Kaul is a commentator and Devendra Gupta is consultant with NCAER
With a little under 70% of our population in rural areas, of which 60% is dependent on agriculture and the balance 10% on non-agriculture low-income non-farm activities depending on agriculture sector for their livelihood, and agricultural holdings becoming smaller and smaller due to fragmentation, land ceiling acts and family disputes, the average family holdings for most are becoming uneconomic and unviable. In 2002-03 (latest available), marginal holdings of less than one hectare were almost 70% of operational holdings in the country. Also, the average area per operational holding, which stood at 1.67 hectares in 1981-82, had declined to 1.06 hectares in 2002-03. The end result is that these uneconomic marginal holdings are being sold and resold in the market, and rural farm and non-farm employment is not able to keep pace with the ever-increasing rural unemployment, under-employment and disguised unemployment. These figures can only be worse now. An unhappy consequence is the undirected and unabated migration of rural populations to urban areas looking for work to make a living.
Since urban areas of all types (tier-1 to tier-3 cities) come under some sort of urban planning with municipalities and town areas and are generally out of reach of rural migrants, the end result is the mushrooming of urban slums. According to the most recent estimates available from the National Sample Survey for 2008-09, there were nearly 49,000 slums in urban India, 24% of these were located along nallahs and another 12% along railway lines, and, interestingly, 57% of these slums were built on public land mostly owned by local bodies and state governments. With the share of agriculture and allied sector, including forestry and logging, in the GDP declining from 70% to under 20% in the last 60 years, the natural corollary is high incidence of rural impoverishment and mass migration from rural to urban areas. Sadly, this has not been fully understood or even appreciated by our government economists and planners.
We have initiated two massive schemes for the welfare of urban and rural poor. The first one, notified in September 2007, focuses on provision of employment to the rural poor and is called the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS), with a size of Rs 1,30,000 crore. According to newspaper reports, an estimated Rs 1.06 lakh crore has already been incurred on the scheme.
The other scheme, called the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), is perhaps the single-largest initiative of the government for planned development of our cities spread over seven years, from 2005-06 to 2012-13. The mission aims at improving the urban conditions with an outlay of Rs 66,000 crore to be implemented during 2005-12. Apart from 65 mission cities, provision is kept for other small towns. Together, these two schemes are worth Rs 2,00,000 crore.
MGNREGS offers employment to one person per rural family for 100 days in a year at Rs 100 per day (recently revised upwards). The condition is that the person has to work in a scheme in the same village which should help build infrastructure but mechanical implements are not allowed. While JNNURM focuses on urban improvement and emphasises capacity building and governance reforms. The subjects covered by JNNURM include slum improvement, heritage and metro/highway construction. But on completion of the mission period, the expected results are that urban local bodies and parastatal agencies will have achieved the following:
* Modern and transparent budgeting, accounting, financial management systems, designed and adopted for all urban service and governance functions
* City-wide framework for planning and governance will be established and become operational
* All urban residents will be able to access a basic level of urban services
* Financially self-sustaining agencies for urban governance and service delivery will be established, through reforms to major revenue instruments
* Local services and governance will be conducted in a manner that is transparent and accountable to citizens
* E-governance applications will be introduced in core functions of urban local bodies/parastatal.
JNNURM does not either talk of any transfer of population from rural to urban during the seven years of its life nor does it mention creating new areas for receiving fresh rural migrants or even new cities/SEZs. It, however, mentions rural-urban ratio shifting from 28% to 40% by 2021!
When these schemes are considered from the perspective of spatial planning, these two standalone schemes make little sense in the dynamic rural and urban scenario in the country. Indeed, many urban problems are due to the problems in the rural areas, since much of the migration of rural population to urban areas is due to extreme rural poverty and lack of employment opportunities. Given the rural-urban nexus, there is a clear case for these two large schemes to be conceived as complimentary schemes to make the shifting rural to urban scenario smooth without the hiccups of slums and squatters, which is due to poor planning of a dynamic shift of population due to shifting economic imperatives and the lack of foresight of our planning mechanism. Indeed, there exists considerable scope for fostering convergence between the two schemes through the urban infrastructure component of JNNURM. While the JNNURM accepts the rural-urban shift to 60-40% in a couple of years, it makes no plan for a smooth transition of the population.
—Sanat Kaul is a commentator and Devendra Gupta is consultant with NCAER
No comments:
Post a Comment