You are on page 1of 59

Karnataka Land Policy and its

Impact on Land Use
Dr. S.C. Ramesh Kumar
Principal Scientist (Agril. Economics)

National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning
Regional Centre, Hebbal
Bangalore 5650024
scrameshkumar@gmail.com
13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 1

NBSS & LUP

Mapping of soil types, their distribution and extent.

Study on soil potentials and limitations for crop production.

Mapping soil fertility for site specific nutrient management.

Evaluation of Soil Heath/ dégradations and monitoring.

Land evaluation

for land policy and optimum land use

planning.

13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 2

Land (Agricultural) Policy refers to the set of rules and
regulations related to Land Reforms, Agricultural Trade
Liberalization and Domestic Agricultural Policy that directly
or indirectly influence the use of land.
•POLICY INFLUENCES :
• Restrictions on land use (eg. Tobacco, Sugarcane)
• Encouraging specific actions by prices & subsidies
(eg use of NPK, farm mechanization, micro irrigation)
•The Environmental Impact can lead to change in land use,
crop management and status of soil/land resources.
•The Economic Impact may alter the costs of production, or
the revenues thereby influence the viability of the farm
enterprise and income and rural livelihood.
13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 3

Why land Policy is important?
•Land is a foundation for economic activity and the
functioning of market and nonmarket institutions.

•Institutions dealing with land have evolved over long
periods, and land policies affected by the presence of
multiple market imperfections.
•The impacts of existing land policy need to be assessed
and clearly communicated to policy analysts and decision
makers, with positive and negative consequences.
•A clear land policy in relation to land potential can
improve the Optimum Land Use Planning.
13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 4

Challenges in Land Policy ?

What are the policies influencing the land use, land quality
and productivity?

What is the extent of positive and negative impact of
different policies on land resources?

Is it possible to enhance the productivity of land through
various policies measures?

What are the alternate policies options for sustainable
development?

13/12/2012

NBSS&LUP 2012

Page 5

Drivers of Land Use Change 13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 6 .

How Macro Policy influence Land Allocation ? 13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 7 .

Factors influencing Changes In Cropping Pattern According to Gulati and Kelley (1999). changes in cropping pattern within a short temporal span are likely to be governed more by factors influencing the socio-economic environment. Gulati. Oxford University Press. T. Trade liberalization and Indian agriculture. support prices. 13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 8 . 1999. Government policies and programmes for crop production in the form of subsidies. New Delhi. A. tariffs and speed of infrastructure development influence land use. and Kelley.

55th Annual AARES National Conference Melbourne. 8-11 February 2011 13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 9 .Influence of government program on Land use in Punjab Nick Milham. Victoria. Jason Crean and Rajinder Pal Singh(2011) The implications of policy settings on land use and agricultural technology adoption in North-West India.

13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 10 . therefore. suggest practices. ignoring the small landowners. The purchaser has the option of ‘moving on’ after a few years of ‘exploitation’ of an area. • The second issue relates to possible shifts in favour of export-oriented crops at the cost of crops providing basic food. • The third is the preference for the larger producers in choice of partners by the purchaser. 2007) has discussed three major impacts that a Contract Farming System(CFS) • The first issue is CFS interested in short-term gains/profit maximization and may. which in the long run are not good for the land/other assets of the producer.The National Commission for Farmers (NCF.

1 % of India) •Livestock population of 30.5 % and agri.7 M ( 6.7 M ( 5.0 % •The cultivators 29.4 % to total workers.8 % of India) • •Urban population 34 % • •Literacy rate 67.KARNATAKA AGRICULTURE •Human population of 52. 13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 11 . labors 26.

in Rabi (30%) and summer (6%) •Irrigation 22 lakh ha (20.07 lakh ha •Kharif season (64%). 13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 12 . Area is 123. C.5%) •State produces 100 lakh t (5 % to National Food) •Agricultural contributes 21 per cent to SGDP .KARNATAKA AGRICULTURE G.

6 Large number are marginal land holdings – Contributing 40 % of food production Page 13 .3 25.0 7.3 26.0 9.) Large (>10 Ha.) % % % % % % % % % Region No. Area % No. Area No.Distribution of land holdings in Karnataka 2008-09 Marginal Small (< 1 Ha. Area No.9 1.2 13.) (4-10 Ha.6 23.) Semi Medium Medium (2-4 Ha.9 28. Area No. Area Karnataka 48.) (1-2 Ha.2 16.

73 2.50 3.63 1.50 2005-06 2000-01 1985-86 1970-71 0.74 1.Trends in Avg.88 1.82 1976-77 2.86 2.28 1.00 Bangalore 1.50 2.95 1990-91 1.50 1.81 1.72 1.36 1.74 1.13 1.41 1.00 Shrinking farm size Page 14 .04 1995-96 1.98 3.00 Karnataka 2.15 1.35 1980-81 1.15 1.00 0.61 1.2 Kolar 2. land holdings in Karnataka 3.21 1.6 1.46 1.

Environmental stress-48 % 13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 15 .

Karnataka Agricultural Policy 1995 (revised in 2006) Achieving a growth rate of 4 % per annum •Increasing employment and income of farmers •Conservation natural resources and provide better production environment through minimizing natural resource depletion /degradation 13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Access to factor market and quality of the inputs supplied to the farmers Page 16 .

8.Land Policy BEFORE 1991 Karnataka’s land reforms: 1) Conferring ownership on erstwhile tenants and 2) Redistribution of surplus lands available in excess of ceiling to the deserving. The Karnataka Land Reforms Act (1970) ceiling on total holding i) 4.10 ha for irrigated lands with two crops OR ii)10.14 ha in case for irrigation lands with single crop OR iii) 20.05.85 ha for dry land by the individual farmers with exception to plantation crops.12-12. 13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 17 .

Kannada and Uttar Kannada up to 40 units (around 220 acre). Source :(KSLUB 2001). • Up to 108 acres of D class land can be leased to a housing project. • Up to 108 acres of D class land can be leased for horticulture. • Up to 180 acres of D class land can be leased to a housing project.Land Policies AFTER 1991 The 1995 Land Reforms Amendment: REVERSE TENANCY • Agricultural land cannot be purchased or inherited by anyone whose income from the non-agricultural source exceed Rs. GOK 13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 18 .2 lakhs. • Provision to lease in agriculture land for aquaculture for a period of 20 years in the districts of Dakshina. floriculture and agro based industries. up to 21.6 acres can be leased for educational institution..

dry and single crop land.Land Policies AFTER 1991 Special Economic Zones and Industries ( 2009) •SEZs can preferably be established in waste. •Resettlement and Rehabilitation plan in line with the guidelines issued by the Government of India from time to time. Source :Dept. karab. GOK 13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 19 . Use of agricultural land to be kept to the minimum. Agriculture. •Utilization of agricultural land is subject to the Government of India guidelines issued from time to time.

GOK 13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 20 .Source :Dept. Industries .

Source :Dept. GOK 13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 21 . •Panchayat lands and •Forest lands necessary in different districts of the state.Land Policies AFTER 1991 Karnataka Land Policy for Renewable Energy Projects(2009-14) •Targeted potential of 4200 MW during the policy period about 12000 Ha of various categories of lands like •Government Barren lands. •Revenue lands. Agriculture. 79(b) and 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act was made. •Private lands. •Necessary amendments to section 79(a).

• Land can be allotted to the industry on lease basis. 13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 22 . •The allotment of Government land on lease will be processed by inviting tenders from entrepreneurs.Karnataka Sate Bio‐fuel Policy ‐2009 • Revenue Department & Forest Department to •identify and declare the uncultivable waste land in the •State both under government and private hands/owners th is list is to be prepared Grama Panchayat‐wise.

Sectoral planning for implementation of •Agricultural •Horticulture •Animal Husbandry •Fisheries Karnataka State Land Use Board (KSLUB. 2001): “Perspective Land Use Plan for Karnataka 2025” Government of Karnataka. Bangalore.Institutional Setup in Karnataka Karnataka State Land Use Board (SLUB) established in 1975 in order to issue guidelines for different department to prepare perspective land use plans and to review and monitoring the land use pattern for agriculture sector only. How much it is implemented ? and What is the impact ? 13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 23 .

Institutional Setup … •Ministry of Forest •Water Resources •Mining •Electricity •Public Work Department •Commodity Boards •Urban Development Policy: After 74th constitutional amendment act came into force. the municipalities are being declared as planning authorities having jurisdiction over municipal limit. 13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 24 .

NHM RKVY. Agricultural growth rate to exceed 4% (-) Crop diversification per annum (+) Soil nutrient use (+) degradation of soils Increasing in food production (NFSM.)=Decrease Source :Dept. OPE) ( + )= Increase Likely Impact ( . GOK 13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 25 . Agriculture. increasing farm income (+) ground water depletion and degradation of land.Policies implemented in Karnataka after 1991 Policies/ Programs Objectives Globalization of agriculture sectors (WTO) Improving the efficiency (+) Area under high value Resources allocation and crops & increasing income.

GOK Page 26 .Policies implemented … Policies Objectives Likely Impact Dry Land Development (Sujala. Agriculture. RVP etc) Management of land (+) Better soil and water and water resources conservation adoption on watershed basis (+) Area under horticultural and high value crops Irrigation Development Savalu-Javalu Jalasamvardana Yojane Increasing area under irrigation and (-) Degradation of soils efficient water use (+) Cropping intensity and yield Source :Dept. IWDP.

GOK Page 27 . Conservation and expansion of forest (+) increasing biodiversity Source :Dept.Policies implemented … Policies Objectives Likely Impact Agricultural Price Support (MSP) Ensuring remunerative prices (+) or (-) Change in land use and management Agricultural Input Subsidies (Fertilizer Policy. Rural electrification) Forest development (JFPM. Agriculture. Farm forestry) Encourage optimum use of resources (+) or (-) Change in the intensity of soil nutrients use (+) Efficient input use Diverting agricultural land for forestry use.

Source :Dept.Policies implemented … Policies Objectives Likely Impact Agricultural Credit policy (3 % interest) Agricultural Labour policy (MGNREGA) Increase farm investment Increase rural employment and income (+) improved land management (-) labour availability and shift in land use from annual to perennials crops. GOK Page 28 . Agriculture.

GOK various reports Page 29 .Policies implemented … Policies Objectives Likely Impact Urban and infrastructural development (KIADB Land Bank) Providing housing and better amenities Diversion of good agricultural land for non agricultural use (-) water resources for agil. and increasing state (Commodity Specific income industrial zones) Decentralization in planning (PRI institutional support) Bottom up approach for Participation of local planning and people in allocation of implementation of resources programs Source :. (+) soil and water pollution Diversion of forest land for industries and mining Mining pollution affect agricultural yield Industrial and mining Providing employment Expansion.

Land Policy Stressed Greater Concern for Conservation of Resources and Enhancing Land Productivity After New Economic Policy (1991) a significant changes has been noticed in land use and land productivity 13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 30 .

13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 31 .

13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 32 .

13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 33 .

Impact of Policy on Soil Resources Change in land use • Karnataka State (10 Agro-Climatic Zones) • Eastern Dry Zone of Karnataka • Magadi taluka representing Eastern Dry Zone • Kuthanagere & Rajanukunte Micro Watersheds 12/13/2012 Page 34 .

Sorghum on deep soil Sorghum on shallow soil Soils Chemical Characteristics Soils Physical Characteristics for classification •Soil color •Mottling •Drainage •Soil depth •Soil texture •Coarse fragments •Structure •Concretions/nodules Shrink-swell properties 13/12/2012 Soil Survey and Mapping Sodicity NBSS&LUP 2012 •Soil pH •EC •CEC •Soil Organic carbon •Available N •Available P •Available K •Available Fe •Available z •Available Cu •Available Mn Sheet erosion Page 35 .

FARM HOUSEHOLD SURVEY: Indicators of Change: •Land use and productivity •Input use intensity •On-farm investment •Farm technology change •Livelihood security * Exit from agriculture 13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 36 .

GIS on bio-physical and socio-economic data 13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 37 .

Revenue Proprietorship. rivers & canals. is classed as unculturable. & other lands put to uses other than agricultural. Not available for cultivation Land under non-agricultural use 3. but is put to some agricultural use. etc. Agriculture Indirect Regulation 9. Permanent pastures & other grazing land This category covers all barren & unculturable lands.Forests •Reserved •Protected •Unclassified 2. Miscellaneous tree crops and groves Under this class is included all cultivable land which is not included under the net area sown. Use Regulation 4. including mountains. which are not put to any use. This category covers all grazing lands whether they are permanent pastures or meadows or not.( 2002) 13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 38 . Cultivable wasteland Revenue Proprietorship.Net Sown Area Net sown area (including area under miscellaneous tree crops) and current fallow private property resource non-owners do not have access 7. deserts. e. Village commons & grazing lands are included under this category. if any seedling area is not cropped again in the same year. Control over Access Proprietorship.g. but not cultivated during the current years & the last 5 years or more in succession. For example. it may be treated as current fallow. 5. Management. This term denotes the net area sown under crops & orchards. This class comprises cropped areas. which are kept fallow during the current years only. Forests This category included all lands occupied by buildings. Barren & unculturable land Definition Depart ment Type of Controls Forests include all lands classed as forest under any legal enactment dealing with forests or administered as forests. Use Regulation. whether taken up for cultivation or not taken up for cultivation once. roads & railways or under water. except at a high cost.Identification of Stakeholders Land Category 1. Such lands may be either fallow or covered with shrubs & jungles. which cannot be brought under cultivation. Fallow land other than current fallow land This category includes all lands available for cultivation. whether such land is in isolated blocks or within cultivated holdings. 6. Kanchan and Purnamita Dasgupta. Use Regulation Agriculture Indirect Regulation 8. Current fallows ? Panchayat ? ? Use Regulation ? Source :Chopra. counting areas sown more than once in the same year only once.

17 513 2.Land Use Changes at State Level Land Use Forests Non Agricultural Use Barren and Uncultivable Permanent Pastures Miscellaneous Trees Cultivable Waste Land Fallow Lands Current Fallow Lands Net Sown Area Gross Cropped Area A.93 2173 11.52 12368 64.22 65.26 5.45 489.92 Source :DES.43 -173.76 1.66 2.39 497.36 -26.69 1482 7.17 56.85 290 1.96 183.21 5.06 8.84 (Area in 000’ ha) Change 2009 % to TGA 3072 16.42 -13.37 -24. Sown More than Once TGA 1991 3075 1192 801 1097 316 445 431 984 10709 12393 1683 19050 % to TGA 16.52 413 2.72 -514.26 4.41 19050 1991-2009 -2.14 6.34 2.78 10195 53.26 81. GOK 13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 39 .13 923 4.16 -32.22 788 4.13 1375 7.

273 7000 Area (000 ha) 5000 4000 3221.342 5.Cropping Pattern Changes at State Level 1991 2009 6000 5436.122 2.372 6.088 3000 2000 1753.835 1000 0 Cereals and Millets 13/12/2012 Pulses NBSS&LUP 2012 Oilseeds Page 40 .

58 -3.27 52.93 8.67 1.55 -2.69 1.3 1582 % to TGA 1991-2009 9.99 2.45 -59.42 90.Land Use Change in Eastern Dry Zone(5) Land Use Forests Non Agricultural Use Barren and Uncultivable Permanent Pastures Miscellaneous Trees Cultivable Waste Land Fallow Lands Current Fallow Lands Net Sown Area Gross Cropped Area A.99 1.74 9.9 6.79 12.2 766.6 158 42.6 23.22 3.3 15.6 826.22 11.24 Page 41 .8 738.9 111.6 22.9 194 106.5 1582 % to TGA 9.11 2. Sown More than Once TGA 13/12/2012 1991 154.54 2.33 -74.26 6.79 -34.1 119 36.1 133.05 48.3 27.52 91.5 763.6 237.39 -135.47 1.75 7.9 103.04 43.43 48.95 NBSS&LUP 2012 (Area in 000’ ha) Change 2009 151.71 46.1 35.76 7.66 -25.5 28.1 62.

Cropping Pattern Change in Eastern Dry Zone(5) 1991 2009 600 535 500 432 Area (000 ha) 400 324 300 200 165 86 100 64 0 Cereals and Millets 13/12/2012 Pulses NBSS&LUP 2012 Oilseeds Page 42 .

35000 30000 25440 40000 33506 Land Use Changes in Magadi Taluk( Area 355912 ha) 2000-2001 2010-2011 25000 194 204 10 38 2605 2567 161 576 415 5149 6158 1009 3210 4251 1041 5000 655 1000 10000 6248 7596 15000 Area (ha) Land Use Change 20000 -10000 -8066 -5000 -345 -1348 0 -15000 13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 43 .

Land Use Change In Kuttanageri (250 ha) 100% 2 1 90% 80% Per cent to total area 10 0 1 Clay 20 Slight(< 5t/ha) 100% Sandy clay 70% 6 2 50% Sandy Clay Loam Loamy Sand 40% 30% 21 20% 22 Sandy Loam 10% Per cent to total area 90% 60% Moderate (5.15 t/ha) 4 6 80% 70% 60% 18 29 50% 40% 30% 20% 16 12 10% 0% Baseline-1996 Present level-2012 Time (Years) 1992 13/12/2012 Severe(15-40 t/ha) 0% Baseline-1996 Present level-2012 Time(Years) 1998 NBSS&LUP 2012 2012 Page 44 .

7 -2.26 -24.45 69.15 -1.09 Page 45 .29 31.94 1.1 -11.Change in land use in Rajanukunte watershed(550 ha) Land use / land cover Ragi Paddy Total food crops Vegetables Flowers Guava Grapes Mango Coconut Banana Total horticultural crops Eucalyptus Casurina Total agro-forestry Fallow land Total cultivable land Change 1980-2002 (in ha) Total Annual change -185.95 -0.53 -12.59 -24.37 -17.75 -0.96 0.8 -89.14 6.82 134.59 18.35 -0.97 -1.09 6.18 -181.03 0.63 -8.28 0.91 -4.06 34.66 -0.26 3.9 1.59 -8.44 3.

NPK(Kg/ha) Change in fertilizer use 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1980 Cereals Fruits Vegetables Crops 2002 Flower Mean Page 46 .

in Area Irrigated (ac) use irrigated(ac) Open well Marginal farmers 2 2. in Area irrigated(ac) use No.Change in Irrigation Sources 1980 Source 2002 No.5 Small farmers 6 8. in Area use Change No.5 0 0 -2 -2.75 Large farmers 3 5 0 0 -3 -5 Marginal Farmers 27 40.5 Tube well Page 47 .2 Small Farmers 26 56 55 86 29 30 Large farmers 52 171 111 180 59 9.8 38 56 11 15.75 0 0 -6 -8.

2 -6.8 34.3 36.3 65.9 0.Changes in soil erosion Erosion Slight Moderate Sever 1980 2002 (%) (%) Change -2.6 6.3 Page 48 .5 8.9 56.

8 -33.3) Slightly alkaline (7.6-6.6-7.5 57 23.0) Slightly acid(6.4 6.1 .8) 1980 2002 (%) (%) Change 0 38.1 11.4 4.Changes in soil pH in Rajanukunte watershed pH class Strongly acid (5.5 19 1.6 7.5.5) Neutral (6.3 7.8 Page 49 .2 0.3 38.16.5) Moderately acid (5.3 17.4-7.

5 13.4 High ( > 2 kg m-2) 57.7 56.5 Medium (1-2 kg m-2) 31.9 30.Decline in Soil organic Carbon(SOC) 1980 2002 % to % to Change Total Total (%) SOC Low ( < 1 kg m-2 ) 10.6 Page 50 .5 -1.1 3 -1.

1 .Estimated cost for lime amendment for acid soils Area Total Lime Total Cost per pH class (ha) requirement Cost(Rs) ha Strongly.6-6.68 14304 27178 570 Slightly acid (6.64 288 15928 115159 30263 218802 380 761 Page 51 .1-6.5) Total 79. acid (5.0) 47.5.24 84927 161362 1007 Medium acid (5.5) 160.

60 49.76 Page 52 .31 9116.36 14.23 100.94 Sericulture 1890.02 2732.06 -0.10 302.60 0.13 24.60 5251.67 4.48 2167.99 100.02 Govt Service 1263.00 0.11 Dairy enterprise 6949.79 -2.69 0.94 6.31 Business 1795.00 -1890.34 0.07 251.61 9.37 3098.54 15301.09 0.54 1.08 23.32 304.57 16.59 223.56 6.06 0.13 6.12 Rural artisans 174.34 937.67 8.80 41.Change in Farm Household Income Source 1980 Income (Rs) % 2002 Income (Rs) Change Income (Rs) % % Crop production 10000.92 Agril Labour 2794.00 7422.24 1514.06 Total income 29816.60 -0.07 4.94 -6.40 Sheep rearing 4948.00 37238.24 33.67 7.09 5301.

FHI= Farm Household Income COSD= Cost of Soil Degradation Page 53 .Sustainable Farm Household Income(Rs)= (FHI.COSD) =(7422-761) Sustainable Farm Household Income(Rs)= 6661 Per ha.

6.7.Soil and Climatic requirements Ex anti Impact Assessment of Land Policy on Oil Palm Crop Requirement Annual rainfall Soil Depth Soil Texture Soil Drainage Soil Slope Soil pH 13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Optimum condition 2000 to 4000 mm >75 cm Loam Well drained <5% 5.5 Page 54 .

Cultivation of Oil Palm ( Rs 82600 /ha) Year 1 Total expenditure 45000 Year 2 10500 Year 3 Year 4 12400 Source : NABARD 13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 55 14700 .Taluka Aurad Basavakalyana Bhalki Bidar Humnabad BIDAR Total Not suit Suit_ini Suit_lii 1225 0 857 337 1053 38 630 250 480 494 4245 1119 0 0 0 0 0 0 Project Cost .

State wise area under oil palm cultivation (2004) Source :WWF.India 12/13/2012 Page 56 .

•The ecologically favorable land use like area under forest. miscellaneous trees and groves are declining faster rate. •The area under net sown is reducing fast indicating farmers are shifting from farming to non farm employment. The present land policies are promoting short term gains in farm income and in the long run it can leads to food insecurity and land degradation. 12/13/2012 Page 57 . •The land use changed from cereals crops to horticultural crops. •The area under fallowing is increasing due to speculative buying by the absentee landlords around urban centres.•The exiting land policies promoting diversion of land from agricultural use to non agricultural purposes. permanent pastures.

•Application of Web-based Land Use Planning Tools for decision on land use. 13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 58 .How NBSS&LUP Contributing for LUP ? •Science based Land Use Planning and Policies analysis. •Convergence of different department priorities for effective implementation land policies. •Use of models.State. •Bottom up approach village-Panchayath.District. scenario building to understanding potential impact of policies.

THANK YOU 13/12/2012 NBSS&LUP 2012 Page 59 .