In addition, this sector just accounts for slightly over one-third of GDP but about two-third of total employment in the country. That means the contribution of two-third of the population in Nepal’s GDP is very low compared with the population working in industrial and service sectors of the country. This miserable scenario in the agricultural productivity depicts the level of farmer’s efficiency in Nepal.
Over the last decade, total population grew at the rate of 2.2 percent per annum while the agricultural production grew at a rate marginally more than population growth rate. During this period, yields for the major crops tended to stagnate or even decline. This problem is more serious in the Mountains and Hills. Due to the increasing population and declining productivity, people have extended their farming land to marginal areas which have serious consequences on environment.
Although a number of land-reform measures were carried out in the past, the distribution of landholdings still remains highly skewed toward the few rich families. For most poor rural families, access to land is extremely limited. Almost 75 percent of households have holdings of less than 1 hector and many of them depend on plots that are too small to meet their subsistence requirements (NLSS, 2004). Average arable area in Nepal is highly skewed toward Mountains. However, productivity per hector is almost double in Hills and Tarai than in Mountains.
The productivity of cereals and pulses, which is the major food crop of Nepal, is highest in Tarai. Similarly, the productivity of the vegetable and tuber crop is highest in Hills followed by Tarai and Mountains. Overall, the average productivity is highest in Hills followed by Tarai and then Mountains. The average household size is 5.7 in Mountains, 5.4 in Hills and 5.3 in Tarai. The joint productivity of cereal and vegetable crops per annum is 1242.6 kg in Mountains, 1424.4 kg in Hills and 1361.6 kg in Tarai respectively. Thus, per person availability of major food for one year is less than per person food intake required for subsistence for one year.
On the other hand, Nepal’s Poverty Reduction Strategy, 2003 lays out a coherent four-pillar strategy for development. Two of these strategies are (i) to achieve broad-based growth with special emphasis on agriculture and (ii) ensuring social and economic inclusion of the poor, marginalized groups and backward regions. Even though these objectives are legitimate, very little work have been done to achieve broad-based growth with special focus on agriculture. Because of low efficiency among Nepali farmers, high land fragmentation, lack of year-round irrigation, rare access to modern farming technologies, inputs and extension services agricultural sector productivity is highly unstable and comparatively subdued in comparisons to other sectors of the country and the agriculture sector growth of other South Asian countries.
The agriculture sector just accounts for slightly over one-third of GDP but about two-third of total employment in the country. That means the contribution of two-third of the population in Nepal’s GDP is very low compared with the population working in industrial and service sectors of the country.
With a per capita GDP measured at 945.94 constant 2005 international PPP dollars, Nepal has remained one of the least developed countries in the world. In 2004, about 31 percent nationally and 35 percent in the rural areas lived below the national poverty line, a line set at a low annual figure of $104.5 or $0.286 per person per day. On the other hand, the World Bank benchmark of $1.25 per day per person shows a whopping 55 percent of the population living below the line. Continuing uncertainty about political situation in Nepal following a decade-long insurgency between 1996 and 2006 has also prevented poverty alleviation efforts.
Because of the excessive and rampant poverty in rural Nepal, the young generation migrates seasonally to India and some East Asian and Gulf countries to make the substitution of their household income. The seasonal migration in India fundamentally for blue color jobs from Mid- and Far-Western rural villages even though help to substitute their household income, leads to increasing infection of HIV/AIDS. In addition, the severe and heart-wrenching experience of migrated Nepali workers in Gulf countries further increase the panic of affected households and increase the number of orphan kids in the country in some degree. These migrations ultimately lead to degradation in human capital and long lasting poverty in the affected household. In that sense, poverty leads to famine and increase landlessness and homelessness in poor countries like Nepal. Thus, a persistent and sustained effort to reduce poverty in rural Nepal is urgent.
There could be various strategies for the reduction of rural poverty in Nepal. One can argue for the industrialization and service sector development and then shift the rural youth from peasant agricultural to those sectors as a poverty reduction strategy. Though this is not impossible, it takes a long time. Various policies have been recommended and poverty alleviation programs have been implemented in the past for the reduction and the alleviation of poverty. However, the government of Nepal cannot alleviate absolute poverty from the country. Thus, a focused study on farmer’s efficiency, its effects on agricultural productivity and their effect on poverty could help to shape the better short-term policy to reduce poverty among Nepali farmers sustainably. Hence, it is wise to identify the determinants of farmer’s efficiency and agricultural productivity and then see if it is possible to reduce poverty by increasing agricultural productivity and farmer’s efficiency in Nepal.
satisdevkota2001@yahoo.com
Related story
Poverty: A Multidimensional Problem, Nepalese Context
