AEX. 217.DIMENSIONS OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION (1+1)
Dr.J.Meenambigai
Assistant Professor
Department of Agricultural Extension
Faculty of Agriculture
Annamalai University
UNIT – II
RURAL DEVELOPMENT – CONCEPT, DEFINITIONS
The concept of rural development
Rural : According to United States census rural includes all persons living outside urban area and who live on farms. It refers the population who live in the municipalities, which has a population of less than 2,500 inhabitants. This is an arbitrary distinction. A society or community can be classified as rural based on the criteria of lower population density, less social differentiation, less social and spatial mobility, slow rate of social change, etc. Agriculture would be the major occupation of rural area.
Development : It refers to growth, evolution, stage of inducement or progress. This progress or growth is gradual and has sequential phases. Always there is increasing differentiation. It also refers to the over all movement towards greater efficiency and complex situations.
Rural Development : is a process which aims at improving the well being and self-realization of people living outside the urbanized areas through collective process.
Rural development has been variously defined, but for all purposes here it would mean reaching and helping those who live below the poverty line. In India about seventy per cent population depend on agriculture, out of which about fifty per cent are still below the poverty line. Reaching and developing these rural people who live below the poverty line is the task of rural development.
Rural development has been defined by various authors.
According to Ensminger (1974) rural development is a process of transformation from traditionally oriented rural culture towards an acceptance and reliance on science and technology.
Lele (1975) defined rural development as an improvement in the living standard of the masses of low income population residing in rural areas and making the process of self-sustaining.
Rural development is a strategy designed, according to Agarwal (1989), to improve the economic and social life of a specific group of people, the rural poor. The term strategy referred by him is a dynamic process by which a programme as aligned with the organizational structure to meet the demands of the environment.
Objectives of Rural Development
The major objectives of rural development are:
(1) to achieve enhanced production and productivity in rural areas,
(2) to bring about a greater socio-economic equity,
(3) to bring about a spatial balance in social and economic development,
(4) to bring about improvement in the ecological environment so that it may be conducive to growth and happiness, and
(5) to develop broad based community participation in the process of development.
Rural development is a national necessity and has considerable importance in India because of the following reasons.
(1) about three-fourth of India’s population live in rural areas,
(2) nearly half of the country’s national income is derived from agriculture,
(3) around seventy per cent of Indian population get employment through agriculture,
(4) bulk of raw materials for industries come from agriculture and rural sector,
(5) increase in industrial population can be justified only in rural populations’ motivation and increasing the purchasing power to buy industrial goods, and
(6) growing disparity between the urban elite and the rural poor can lead to political instability.
Issues in Rural Development
Indian rural development has the following issues at present.
Population : to be reduced progressively.
Agriculture : productivity in both food and non-food crops should be increased.
Land holding : to be consolidated into viable units or co- operative farming.
Education : educate all rural people, both men and women; and adult and youth.
Employment : increasing the employment opportunities.
Casteism : to be abolished.
Leadership : rural leadership to be developed through motivation.
Exploitation : to be minimized.
PRE INDEPENDENCE EFFORTS
Over a period of about sixty years number of rural development experiments and programmes were conducted in India.
Early Experiments (1920-46)
- Sriniketan Experiments of Rabindranath Tagore
- Marthandam Project of Spencer Hatch of YMCA
- Gurgaon Experiment of F.L. Brayne
- Baroda Rural Construction Movement of
V.T. Krishnamachari.
- Mahatma Gandhi’s various experiments
- Firka Development Scheme of Madras Government
1940s through 1960s
- Etawah Pilot Project of Albert Mayer
- Nilokeri Nucleus Township project of S.K. Day
- Fifteen pilot Extension Projects of Ford Foundation
- Community Development Programme designed by Chester Bowles and funded by USA
- National Extension Service
- Cooperative farming
1960s through 1970s
- Intensive Agricultural Area Programme
- Intensive Agricultural District Programme of Ford Foundation
- High yielding Varieties Programme
- Farmers’ Service Cooperative Societies
- Special Programmes like SFDA, DPAP, etc.
These programmes and experiments were conducted at different points of time, in different regions, and under different politico-socio-economic conditions. They varied in area, population coverage, financial and other resources. They were designed according to the policy makers perception of problems and needs of people. Therefore, common evaluation is not possible and each experiment or programme is to be studied independently for its approach, performance, effectiveness against the stated objectives, etc.
When these experiments were conducted there existed certain conditions like, agriculture was the primary occupation to a large percentage of population, extremely low purchasing power, lack of application of science and technologies, lack of understanding about the natural resources especially the flora and fauna of the region and their commercial usage, lack of socio-economic organizations, etc. These realities are to be remembered before understanding the past rural development works. When these experiments were conducted, colonial rule was existing.
EARLY RURAL EXPERIMENTS
Scheme for Rural Reconstruction
Individual responsible : Sir Daniel Hamilton
Year : 1903
Place : Sundarban (Bengal)
Objectives : Achieving overall development by creating model villages.
Execution : It is based on cooperative principles.
He Organized one cooperative credit society which functioned upto 1916.
: In 1924, he organized a central Cooperative Bank and Cooperative Marketing Society.
: In 1934 he established a Rural Reconstruction Institute.
: The Institute provided training facilities in cottage and subsidiary industries.
Economic conference of Mysore
Individual responsible : Dr. M. Visweswaraya
Year : 1914-1918
Place : Mysore State (Now Karnataka)
Objective : Achieve all round progress Bring related economic development.
Give first priority to agriculture.
Officials responsible : District and taluk committees with the respective revenue officers as chairman.
: Officers of the development departments and the selected non- officials were members.
Execution : Committees surveyed the needs and possibilities, listed and examined them in detail, arranged priorities, fixed targets and designed ways and means of attaining them.
Limitations : This was discontinued due to the immense load of the programme. The involvement of people in the programme was also limited.
Gurgaon Experiment
Individual : Mr. F.L. Brayne Deputy Commissioner of Gurgoan Dt., Punjab.
Year : 1920
Place : Gurgoan [Hariyana]
Objective : Over all – to remove poverty of the people.
: abolition of purdah.
: Use of improved agricultural implements.
: Increase the productivity of crops.
: Officials responsible
: Village guides were appointed (to provide a single agency for advise) and organized Rural Economics and Domestic Science Schools.
Method followed : Propaganda through radio broadcast, Magic lantern slide shows, dramas, posters, exhibitions, demonstration etc.
Execution : Through village guides and schools.
Limitations : More or less one man show. Purely Government backed programme. Not a people’s movement. Village guides were lack. In experience training and had low education qualification. No plan of wok or any organization to keep the work going.
Sriniketan
Individual
Responsible : Shri. Rabindranath Tagore in Collaboration with Mr.L.K. Elm hirst.
Year : 1921
Place : Bolepur near Calcutta where Sriniketan is situated.
Objective : To create a real interest in people for rural welfare work.
: To study rural problems and to translate conclusions in to action.
: Help villagers to develop their resources.
: To improve village sanitation.
Methods : He established a Rural Reconstruction Institute at Sriniketan.
A group of eight villages was the centre of the programme.
The activities of the Institute were development of agriculture, co-operatives, industries and education through village organizations.
Objectives were achieved by
a. Creating a spirit of self-help
b. Developing village leadership
c. Organizing village scouts called Brati Balika
d. Establishing training Centres for handicrafts
e. Establishing demonstration centres
Limitations : Programme was limited to eight villages only.
: Institute could not get much help from Government.
: Over emphasis on cultural aspects of life.
Sevagram
Individual responsible : Mahatma Gandhiji
Year : 1921
Place : Sevagram in the district of Wardha, Madhya pradesh
Objective : The service to the under privileged with a sense of dedication.
Methods followed :
Of wider general interest is the work of the Father of the National, Bapuji who considered the village to be the very essence of Indian life. He initiated a rural rejuvenation programme to emancipate rural masses from poverty and misery, and to bring about an all round development of villages, physically, economically, socially, culturally and spiritually. He sought and strove to bring about decentralization both in production and distribution of wealth and in administration. In 1921, he started his micro laboratory at Sevagram in the district of Wardha, Madhya Pradesh for conducting his experiment on social, economic and spiritual renaissance of the villages. He established intensive agriculture and animal husbandry including cattle breeding in the Ashram. The fullest use was made of the local manual resources including human and animal waste as a demonstration. The basic system of schools was introduced for the education of children and adult alike. “Nai Ta lim” he called it. Children were to learn through work acquire skill and dignity of manural labour. The school was to be the community centre for the village, radiating knowledge in higher techniques, inspiration and pattern for social behaviour wider knowledge of the world at large and providing recreation of the mind through cultural programmes. While agriculture and animal husbandry could provide food for the belly, village industries and crafts for the hand, the school could do likewise for the mind and spirit. He wanted to train and steer the hand, the head and the heart of the children. He desired radical changed in the administration also. To him the centralized administration was like colonial rule. It was immaterial, he felt. Whether the village was ruled by foreigners or by people’s representative seated in Delhi. There should be no rule from above, whether by foreigners or by the natives of our soil. The village must be made responsible for administering its affairs. He wanted real democracy and freedom for the villages. Thus, Gandhiji’s programmes, it will be seen, were multi-sided touching on every vital aspect of rural life.
Limitation - Gandhiji set up a very high personal standard which was difficult to reach by common people.
Marthandam Project
Individual
Responsible : It was set up by Dr. Spencer Hatch under the auspices of Y.M.C.A
Year : 1921
Place : Marthandam (Then Travancore State).
Objective : It was intended to symbolize the three-fold development of spring mind and body an evolved a five-sided programme,representing a development, not only spiritual, mental and physical but also economic and social. The essential technique of the centre was self-help with intimated expert counsel.
Methods : from the demonstration Centre at Marthandam, about hundred villages were covered through Y.M.C.A Centres in villages.
Limitations : Lack of adequate funds
: Lack of Government support
: Lack of continuous contact with the villagers as the worker were required to return to the Centres in the evenings.
: The religious standing of the institutions.
Firka Development Scheme
Individual
Responsible : Shri. Prakasam (then Chief Minister of Madras)
Year : 1947
Place : Madras State (initially 34 Firkas throughout the state and on April, 1, 1950 it was extended to a other 50 additional firkas)
Objectives : Rural reconstruction – The scheme derived its inspiration from the ideal of Mahatma Gandhi “Village Swaraj”.
Official responsible : Collector was put incharge of the scheme.
: Firka Development Committee formed with official and non-officials.
: Trained Rural Welfare Officers.
: Firka Development Officers to be incharge of 2-3 Firkas.
: Gramsevaks and Social service volunteers at the grass root level.
Execution : Gramsevaks and social service volunteers were the vital link in the implementation of the scheme.
: In the short term plans rural communication, water supply, formation of panchayat, co-operatives and sanitation were carried out.
: In the long term plans Agriculture, irrigation and live stock improvements, setting up of khadi and cottage Industries were carried out.
: The short term plans and the long term plans were carried out. Effectively with the help of various Government departments.
Limitations : These efforts were found restricted in scope.
: Lack of coordination between officials of the various departments
: Lack of support from the central authority
Etawah pilot project
Individual : Lt. Col. Albert Mayer of U.S.A
Year : 1948
Place : Mahlwa village about eleven miles from Etawah in the pradesh.
Objectives : To see the extent of improvement possible in production, social improvement, development of initiative, self-compliance and co-operation in an average district
: How quickly results could be achieved.
: Whether results achieved could be permanent and can be transferable to other areas.
: Gain and grow confidence of the villagers.
: Build up a sense of community living.
: Build up a spirit of self-help in the villagers so that they can carry on their programme independently.
Officials : Trained Village Level Workers were involved to implement the objectives.
Methods : Broadening of the mental horizon of the villagers, so that he might not only accept new and tested ideas but that those ideas might become self generating and self perpetuating.
: It dealt with the villagers land, his tools and his surroundings.
: The method of approach was educative and persuasive rather than corrective.
Execution : Full cooperation of other departments was enlisted and demonstrations were conducted.
Result : The project was found successful and the pattern was accepted for the starting of Community Development Project.
: Villagers participated very well.
: The rough planning and an integrated approach to village life.
Nilokheri Experiment
Individual responsible : Shri S.K. Dey (Later union Minister for Community Development and Cooperation upto 1965).
Year : 1948
Place : Nilokheri
Objectives : Rehabilitate 7000 displaced persons from Pakistan
Establish essential services like health, education, public works, power supply, marketing, shopping, recreation etc.
Official responsible : This project was under the supervision of the Ministry of Rehabilitation at the centre.
Execution : The township also offered extension services in Agriculture Animal Husbandry, village and small industries. In addition the township arranged supply and services and training for village artisans, crafts man and young farmers.
: The scheme was also called “Mazdoor Manzil”.
The weaknesses of the above rural Experiments
It may be noted that nearly all early attempts at village uplift were characterized by initial enthusiasm, the attainment of many desirable objectives, followed by a period of declining activity and usually ending in abandonment of the scheme. The failure has been due to the following factors.
a. The attempts were mostly based on individual initiative inspired by humanitarian considerations.
b. Government backing and financial support was not forth, coming in sufficient measures.
c. The attempts were mostly isolated, uneven and discontinuous.
d. The staff employed was inadequate, inexperience untrained and hurriedly selected ignorant of local conditions who could hardly command any respect or influence in the village.
e. The objective were ill-defined or lopsided in the development. Little attempt was made to study the peculiar conditions of the villages and to adapt the programme to its need.
f. Plans, programmes and organizations were lacking, weak or unbalanced.
g. Parallel, programmes of supplies, services, guidance and supervision were not developed.
h. The need for proper methods and skills of approach to the task was not fully realized.
i. Research and evaluation was lacking.
j. Association and co-ordination with other development departments was very limited.
k. The involvement of village people in thinking, planning and executing village development was not properly achieved.
From the results of the past efforts we can learn that public participation is an integral part of any programme for its success. This can very well be broughtout by extension education only.
Intensive Agricultural Development Programme (IADP)
The major outcome of the above thinking was the formulation of a strategy of intensive approach to agricultural production, specially the foodgrains. A new programme named as IADP was formulated which was launched gradually from 1960. The third five year plan (1961-1966) incorporated this programme into the planned development process.
This programme was popularly known as a “package programme”. This name was given because of the collective and simultaneous application of all practices of improved seeds, irrigation, fertilizer, plant protection, implements, credit, etc.
This programme was started in July 1960 in seven selected districts in various states. They were (i) West Godavari in AP, (ii) Shahabad in Bihar, (iii) Tanjore in Tamil Nadu, (iv) Raipur in MP, (v) Ludhiana in Punjab; (vi) Pali in Rajasthan; and (vii) Aligarh in UP. The selection of these districts were done on the basis of their high potentiality for increasing the yield in shorter time. These selected districts had assured water supply for irrigation, well developed cooperatives, good physical infrastructure and minimum hazards.
Objectives
(i) To achieve rapid increase in the level of agriculture production through a concentration of financial, technical, extension and administrative resources;
(ii) to achieve a self-generating breakthrough in productivity and to raise the production potential by stimulating the human and physical process of change; and
(iii) to demonstrate the most effective ways of increasing production and thus, to provide lessons for extending such intensified agricultural production programmes to other areas.
Intensive Agricultural Area Programme (IAAP)
During the third five year plan 30 per cent increase in food grain production was achieved through IADP. The intensive promotion of agriculture was very popular among policy-makers and administrators. As a result of this a revised version of IADP with less intensive and therefore less costly programme was formulated and launched in selected blocks of 150 districts. It was named as IAAP. The selected blocks were to have the same physical conditions as in the case of selection of districts for IADP. Under this programme 20 to 25 per cent of the cultivated area of the country was brought under the intensive agricultural development.
Implementation of IAAP was accepted by Agricultural Production Board and came into operation in March 1964. This programme also followed the package approaches of use of improved methods. The use of interrelated factors of physical, social and institutional were also followed in a strategic combination mainly to produce an impact on agricultural production. The management of these programmes did not function as envisaged. There were many weaknesses of deficiency in inter-agency and inter-personal coordination, inadequate staff motivation, malpractices, non-formulation of local production plans on proper lines and delay in delivery of inputs to farmers. However, the production and productivity were modest. The highly adverse conditions (droughts) during 1966-68 served as a big blow. The foodgrains output was still insufficient to meet the rising domestic demands. Imports were also continued to supplement the local production.
High Yielding Varieties Programme (HYVP)
The servere drought in 1965-67 resulted in steep decline in production of foodgrains. The GOI had to resort to import of cereals in much larger quantities than usual during the last several years. Fortunately, agricultural scientists in the world had been successful in evolving new varieties of seeds of some cereals, particularly in wheat, rice and maize. The new hybrids recorded higher yields. They needed increased chemical fertilizers, irrigation water and plant protection chemicals. These varieties were tried in India by Indian scientists. After seeking the expert’s approval GOI decided to promote these varieties among Indian farmers in certain selected areas where the required climatic and irrigation facilities were available.
Punjab, Haryana and Western parts of UP were initially selected for the phased launching of this strategy. The cultivation of HYV since 1966-67 had resulted in a substantial increase in foodgrains production. Wheat production was doubled. Rice production also had a substantial increase, though not as much as in the case of wheat.
The target of coverage of 2.5 crore hectares of area under HYVs of cereals and millets under fourth five year plan was exceeded. The coverage was more than four crore hectares.
Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP)
Experimentation for evoling an integrated rural development programme aiming at alleviation of rural poverty began in the closing years of the decade of seventies. The encouragements from Government came to the scientists and technologists for this purpose. A few pilot projects were started for application of knowledge of science and know-how of technology for development of local resources so as to expand the employment and raise productivity. A comprehensive programme came into practice in 2300 development blocks in 1979-80. In October 1980 it extended rapidly to cover all the 5011 blocks in the country. This jointly directed and supported programme by the Union and State Government is one of the major antipoverty programmes in action since then.
IRDP Genesis
The CDP launched in 1952 could not bring expected change in improving the conditions of rural masses or there was not much achievement in the area of agricultural development.
The apparent failure of the CDP was the main reason for the evolution of the IRDP. The main drawbacks of the CDP were
- Uneven distribution of the benefits of the programme.
- Absence of clearly defined priority in the programmes.
- The inability of the CDP to recognize and solve the inherent conflicts in the inter and intra target groups.
- Lack of mass participation.
- More bureaucratic.
Difference between CDP and IRDP
|
CDP
|
IRDP
|
|
|
1.
|
Meant for total development of the community ex. road, drinking water, etc.,
|
Meant for the individual development, who are below the poverty line.
|
|
2.
|
Community approach
|
Family approach
|
|
3.
|
Multi-dimensional and multi-sectorial programme
|
Integrated programme
|
|
4.
|
The felt needs of the beneficiaries were not taken into account.
|
They are given due consideration.
|
|
5.
|
Financing is less intensive.
|
Financing is more intensive.
|
So, it was considered necessary to go in firstly for a programme directed mainly at agriculture and secondly to attempt the process of development in selected areas. Thus, in 1960 Intensive Agricultural Development Programme (IADP) was formed and implemented. In this programme, efforts to boost agricultural production were concentrated in areas with better prospects of higher yields (package programme). The success achieved in increasing agricultural production under IADP, led the Government to extend the programme to other districts with slight modifications under the name of Intensive Agricultural Area Programme (IAAP) in 1964.
The food situation became alarming, particularly due to successive famines during 1964-67 and this happend despite intensive efforts in selected areas. In order to overcome this crisis, the GOI launched a new agricultural strategy known as High Yielding Varieties Programme (HYVP) in 1966. The achievement was the single goal of increasing agricultural production.
This unusual shift in the rural development strategy in favour of increasing agricultural production led to the accentuation of regional disparities on the one hand and economic inequalities among different sections of the population on the other. Various reports revealed that the gains of intensive development efforts, including institutional credit flew more towards large and resourceful farmers to the neglect of small farmers, landless labourers, tenants and artisans.
On realization of the above, there was a shift in the rural development strategy. The main purpose of such a change in the approach was to make delibrate efforts to flow development benefits to the poorer sections and the backward areas. Accordingly, Small Farmers Development Agency (SFDA); Marginal Farmers and Agricultural Labourers (MFAL); Minimum Needs Programme (MNP); Drought Prone Area Programme (DPAP); Desert Development Programme (DDP); Hill Area Development Programme (HADP) etc., were implemented.
The beneficiary-oriented programmes as well as area development programmes, despite some successes could not make much dent into the problem of poverty and unemployment. Considering the magnitude and dimensions of rural poverty, the rural development strategy, therefore, took a major turn in its emphasis, content, coverage and methodology. This resulted in launching of the programme “Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP) in 1978-79, covering 2,300 development blocks and extended to all the 5011 blocks in 2nd October, 1980. IRDP envisages the integration of methodology and approach of both beneficiary oriented programmes as well as area development programmes. This was done to intensify development efforts for the purpose of poverty alleviation as well as increasing productivity.
The goal of poverty alleviation was achieved by having two main instruments.
(i) a set of self employment schemes for the poor i.e., IRDP and its two sub-programmes of TR YSEM and DWCRA.
(ii) wage employment programmes like NREP (1980) and RLEGP (1983). These have now been merged into Jawahar Rozgar Yojana (JRY).
Objectives of IRDP
The main objectives are creating assets, employment, increased income, removal of poverty and minimizing inequality. The guide lines given to achieve the objectives include:
(i) to provide gainful employment and increase the purchasing power of rural poor.
(ii) the job opportunities must be provided through the application of science and technology in making optimum use of existing local resources.
(iii) the programme must be simple enough to operate and be economically viable to ensure quick self-relience of its beneficiaries.
For achieving its objective of rural poverty alleviation, IRDP aimed at the provision of assets to the identified poor in the form of Government subsidy and bank credit on reasonable rate of interest.
Operation
For managing the programme a corporate governmental agency named as District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) was set up at district level. The DRDA is guided and directed and supported by a governing council headed by the Project Officer of DRDA. The District Collector, Heads of District Officers, legislators, Panchayat Union Chairman and some other non-officials from the member.
The existing development block was strengthened to enable it to bear the additional responsibility of implementing DRDA directed and supported programmes. IRDP is a centrally sponsored scheme implemented by DRDA of the states. The scheme is funded on 50:50 basis by the centre and the states.
The integration involves several categories of:
(i) Spatial integration (integration between areas)
(ii) Sectoral integration (integration between agriculture, off-farm activities, industries, etc.)
(iii) Integration in economic and social development
(iv) Integration of total area and target group approach
(v) Integration of human and other resources
(vi) Integration of income generating schemes
(vii) Integration of credit with technical services
Thus IRDP involves integration both in its means and ends.
Selection of Districts for the Programme
(i) Economically backward districts that had considerable development potential.
(ii) Districts where there is unemployment and under employment problems exist.
(iii) Districts that already had certain basic development infrastructure.
(iv) Districts in which scientific and technological institutions had already been working or were with easy access for involvement in the programme.
Short comings
Since 1985 the Government has promoted concurrent evaluation of the implementation and impact of the programme. These evaluation had indicated that there has been some increase in income but only a minority of them could cross the newly determined poverty line of 6400 rupees. Various evaluation indicated the following:
Ø the resources provided were inadequate in majority of the cases;
Ø there were large number of over dues due to one reason or the other;
Ø poor quality of assets provided to the beneficiaries in many cases;
Ø the follow up of the beneficiaries was inadequate;
Ø delay in provision of assets and preliminary high costs incurred by beneficiaries;
Ø lack of training facilities to farmers
No comments:
Post a Comment