Experience from India - fao.org

LSP Working Paper 23 Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Livelihood Support Programme (LSP) An inter-departmental programme for improving support for enhancing livelihoods of the rural poor.

Implementing homestead plot programmes Experience from India

Robin Nielsen, Tim Hanstad, and Leonard Rolfes Rural Development Institute (RDI)

2006

Implementing homestead plot programmes Experience from India

Robin Nielsen, Tim Hanstad, and Leonard Rolfes Rural Development Institute (RDI)

2006

Photograph by RDI This paper was prepared under contract with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The positions and opinions presented are those of the authors alone, and are not intended to represent the views of FAO.

Implementing homestead plot programmes

The Livelihood Support Programme The Livelihood Support Programme (LSP) evolved from the belief that FAO could have a greater impact on reducing poverty and food insecurity, if its wealth of talent and experience were integrated into a more flexible and demand-responsive team approach. The LSP works through teams of FAO staff members, who are attracted to specific themes being worked on in a sustainable livelihoods context. These cross-departmental and cross-disciplinary teams act to integrate sustainable livelihoods principles in FAO’s work, at headquarters and in the field. These approaches build on experiences within FAO and other development agencies. The programme is functioning as a testing ground for both team approaches and sustainable livelihoods principles. Email: [email protected] Access to natural resources sub-programme Access by the poor to natural resources (land, forests, water, fisheries, pastures, etc.), is essential for sustainable poverty reduction. The livelihoods of rural people without access, or with very limited access to natural resources are vulnerable because they have difficulty in obtaining food, accumulating other assets, and recuperating after natural or market shocks or misfortunes. The main goal of this sub-programme is to build stakeholder capacity to improve poor people’s access to natural resources through the application of sustainable livelihood approaches. The sub-programme is working in the following thematic areas: 1. Sustainable livelihood approaches in the context of access to different natural

resources 2. Access to natural resources and making rights real 3. Livelihoods and access to natural resources in a rapidly changing world Land reform to broaden rural land access is still needed in India. The problems, however, will not be solved by relying solely on traditional land reform tools aiming to provide multiple acres for each land-poor household. There is a need to expand the number and type of tools in the land reform toolkit and prioritize improving land access for the most needy – those who have no land. Providing homestead plots to landless households serves both objectives.

mailto:[email protected]

Experience from India

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1

2. BENEFITS OF HOMESTEAD PLOTS........................................................................5

3. EXAMINATION OF PROJECTS IN SIX STATES....................................................9 3.1 An NGO Employee Housing Colony in Andhra Pradesh ..................................10 3.2 A mix of land-based projects in Gujarat.............................................................16 3.3 New village extensions in Karnataka .................................................................23 3.4 Land reform homesteads in Kerala ....................................................................33 3.5 Orissa Village Development Project ..................................................................38 3.6 West Bengal panchayat land housing colony project.........................................44

4. KEY ISSUES IN THE DESIGN OF HOMESTEAD PROGRAMMES ..................48

5. SUMMARY DESCRIPTIONS OF NEW PROGRAMMES IN KARNATAKA, WEST BENGAL, AND ANDHRA PRADESH...........................................................57 5.1 Karnataka’s Namma Bhoomi – Namma Thota (“My Land – My Garden”)

Programme .........................................................................................................57 5.2 West Bengal’s Chash-O-Basobaser Bhumi-dan Prakalpa Programme

(“CBBP”) (“Cultivation and Dwelling Plot Allocation Scheme”).....................58 5.3 Andhra Pradesh IKP Land Purchase Project Subcomponent .............................59

6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INCORPORATING THE HOMESTEAD CONCEPT INTO GOI OR STATE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES ...........................................................................................................61

7. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................66

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................67


iv

Acknowledgments RDI gratefully acknowledges the assistance and cooperation of the Deccan Development Society staff: Mr. N. Jagannath Reddy (Joint Director), Mr. Jayappa (Deputy Director), and Suresh (Project Coordinator). In the Tumkur District, Karnataka, the gram panchayat and taluk panchayat officials assisted us in our work. In Gujarat, Pranay Sinha, Deputy Project Director (In Charge) Government of Gujarat, Rural Development/ADB-JFPR Project, shared his experience and expertise with us and traveled with us to multiple project sites. In Orissa, Joe Madiath of Gram Vikas. In West Bengal, the Santiniketan-based NGO, Krishti, and consultant Partha Majumdar have assisted with the homestead plot project. The research was conducted with the expertise of RDI’s India-based team, led by Dr. T. Haque, and assisted by S.B. Lokesh and Arun Muniyappa from the Bangalore RDI office.

Glossary ADB Asian Development Bank. BPL Below poverty line. DDS Deccan Development Society, an NGO based in

Andhra Pradesh. EWS Employee welfare association. A vehicle

established by DDS to implement its employee housing project.

GOI Government of India Gram panchayat/panchayath Village-level elected council. The lowest level of

a three-tier local governance system. Hakku patra “Site title.” Issued in to beneficiaries of housing

benefits in Karnataka. IAY Indira Awaas Yojana. The central government’s

scheme, which includes a rural housing component.

Kacha/kutcha Rural houses with thatched roofs, constructed of mud.

Kudikidappukar/kudikidappukaran (pl.) Term for agricultural labourers in Kerala. Navagrama Ashraya Housing scheme New village extension scheme in Karnataka.

Originated in 2001. NGO Non-governmental organization. Pacca/pakka/pucca Rural houses constructed with bricks or concrete. Rajiv Gandhi Housing Corporation Quasi-governmental organization that has

managed Karantaka’s housing programmes since 2000.

SC Scheduled caste. Also called Dalits. Previously referred to as “untouchables” because of their low status and the belief among higher castes that they should not be touched.

SHG Self-help group. Tahsildar Sub-divisional level government official

responsible for land records, revenue, and taxation. Zilla panchayat District-level elected council. The highest level of

a three-tier local governance system.


1

1. INTRODUCTION This paper represents part of an area of work which examines ways in which the poor can use small amounts of land to establish homegardens to support their livelihoods. When land is scarce, access to even small plots can benefit families by improving nutrition, providing a source for additional household income, and enhancing the status of women. This paper builds on the LSP Working Paper 11: RDI. 2004. “Small homegarden plots and sustainable livelihoods for the poor”; and LSP Working Paper 12: RDI. 2004. “Land and Livelihoods: Making land rights real for India’s rural poor.” In 2002, India’s central government made a pronouncement that could ultimately prove to be a first step toward alleviating poverty for millions of rural Indians. In its Tenth Five-Year Plan, the government states:

Access to even small pieces of land, which may not be sufficient for providing income to a family for subsistence, can significantly reduce poverty and food insecurity by providing an essential component in a diversified livelihood system.1

The Plan further recognizes:

Ownership of even a small plot of land enables a family to raise its income, improve its nutritional status, have access to credit facilities and lead a more dignified life. . . . Horticulture, floriculture and vegetable cultivation on small plots of land, including homestead land, have proved beneficial for the poor. Agricultural labourers, therefore, need to be provided access to land to improve their economic and social well-being.2

The central government’s statements reflect not only an understanding of rural realities, but a mature recognition of one of the limitations of the government’s previous land reform and more recent rural housing efforts. In the decades following Independence, most Indian states undertook significant programmes to address the problem of rural landlessness. Unfortunately, these efforts made few inroads, in part because of the persistence of the hackneyed assumptions underlying many earlier programmes: first, that land reform measures, by themselves, had to support a household at a subsistence level to be worthwhile, and second, that beneficiaries needed at least two acres of land to obtain significant benefits. These assumptions resulted in land reform programmes with an often idealized benefit package. The result: only a small number of the target group received benefits of land reforms;3 market land costs per household were too expensive (leading to government reliance on confiscation and, in turn, predictable resistance from the landed elite); and most of

1 Government of India (2002): sec. 3.2.57. 2 Government of India (2002): sec. 3.2.71. 3 According to Government of India statistics, by the end of 2002 approximately 12 percent of all agricultural leaseholds and approximately 4.5 percent of agricultural land had been positively impacted by tenancy reform legislation. Eighty-one percent of those tenancy reform beneficiaries were concentrated in five states (West Bengal, Kerala, Assam, Gujarat, and Maharashtra). Ceiling surplus land redistribution has benefited five percent of India’s agricultural households, who have received three percent of the agricultural land. Ministry of Rural Development, GOI. Annual Report 2002-2003, Annexures XXXVI and XXXVII.


2

the poorest rural households were completely bypassed. Land reform to broaden rural land access is still desperately needed in India. An estimated 17 million rural households are still completely landless and another 42 million households own less than 0.5 acre. The problems, however, will not be solved by relying solely on traditional land reform tools aiming to provide multiple acres for each land-poor household. Such goals are ideal, but often not feasible in the current political and fiscal environment. The central and state governments need to expand the number and type of tools in the land reform toolkit and prioritize improving land access for the most needy – those who have no land. Providing homestead plots to landless households serves both objectives. Combining the objectives of land reform and rural housing Providing landless households with homestead plots fulfills the government’s land reform and rural housing objectives. Over the decades, the Government of India (“GOI”) and state governments have adopted a two-pronged approach to rural housing needs of the poor: (1) sites and services; and (2) house construction. Under the sites and services approach, the government provided sites (and in some cases) basic infrastructure facilities such as drinking water, roads, drainage, and community toilets for new layouts. The housing construction component has been largely targeted at those households that have already obtained house sites. Over the years, emphasis has shifted from sites and services to house construction. For example, almost 100 percent of the GOI’s flagship rural housing programme, IAY, is focused on construction of houses. Even when state governments do provide house sites, they are typically tiny – 1,200 square feet or less – too small to capture the potential livelihood benefits associated with a 4,000 square foot plot. The homestead plot concept resurrects and revitalizes the original sites and services objective of rural housing programmes. As the central government recognizes in the Tenth Plan, small plots – amounting to a 0.10 of an acre (approximately 4,400 square feet) and sometimes less – can provide the critical foundation of a diversified livelihood system. Small plots can dramatically improve a rural family’s nutrition, increase options for income-generation activities, create access to credit, and raise a household’s status in a community. Small, well-managed homestead plots provide benefits unrealized by the decades of distributions of wasteland and ceiling surplus land. But the government’s recognition of the potential benefits of homestead plots has been insufficient in itself to transform the idea into a reality. Four years after the government’s pronouncement, most states have taken little or no action to incorporate the government’s vision into their rural development programmes. Significantly, however, the delay does not reflect disinterest or disbelief. The central and state governments have embraced the distribution of homestead plots as a means of positively impacting the livelihoods of India’s rural poor. Implementing the homestead plot programme The problem is that few know where to begin. While the government may express support for the concept, questions remain as to how the central and state governments


3

can integrate the concept into their rural development programmes, whether a homestead plot programme can be tied to existing programmes (and if so, which) or better housed in a stand alone programme, and whether existing legislation and rules provide a sufficient framework to support a programme. In addition, after years of funneling time and money into land reform efforts that may have had few returns to the population of rural poor, states are predictably reluctant to pilot a new programme without the benefit of some relevant experience. At a Delhi workshop in January 2005, the potential for the allocation of homestead plots to provide the rural poor with access to land was a prominent theme. The GOI Minster of Rural Development convened a Task Force to take up the questions of how to initiate and integrate a homestead plot programme and to make recommendations for operationalizing the allocation of homestead plots. In an effort to obtain information potentially useful to government rural development planners at both the central and state level, the Rural Development Institute (“RDI”), with FAO support, undertook a study to identify and document existing and past localized activities in India that involve allocating homestead plots to landless households. The purpose of the project was to document these efforts and identify lessons learned in order to inform government efforts for operationalizing the allocation of homestead plots to the landless rural population. Methodology The project involved the following components:

• Identification of existing homestead, house-and-garden, and related projects and sites throughout India where land is being (or has been) allocated to poor rural households4 as house sites and/or where assistance is being given to poor rural households for horticulture or other agricultural production on their house site.

• Preparation of an annotated list of identified projects and sites in eleven Indian

states. Selection of projects and sites in six states for in-depth field research. The selected states are: Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Orissa, and West Bengal.

• Field research on all key aspects of project design and implementation at the

identified projects and sites in six Indian states. The field research was conducted between May and September 2005 by three U.S.-based RDI attorneys and RDI’s India-based research consultants. The objective of the fieldwork was to collect information on all aspects of the projects, the land and plot allocation processes, roles of stakeholders, challenges faced and how they were addressed, success factors, and lessons learned. The fieldwork included site visits and interviews with project stakeholders, including staff of

4 As we examined various projects and sites throughout India, we enlarged the scope to include project and sites that benefited poor rural households, not only those who were landless labourers. Projects that supported other populations also offered information relevant to the design of a homestead plot programme.


4

implementing NGOs, local government officials, village leaders, beneficiaries, and other area residents. The areas of inquiry were:

Land selection and allocation; Beneficiaries (eligibility criteria, selection process, contribution); Role of local institutions; Development of site, plots, and infrastructure; Costs and funding sources; and Outputs and benefits.

• Two national-level workshops in which government officials and NGO

leaders from several Indian states shared information about small-plot allocation and development activities in their states and discussed possibilities for incorporating small plot allocation concepts into either existing or new GOI programmes.

Overview of report This paper reports on the findings of the research, examining how homestead activities have operated and how they can be improved. Section 2 of this report presents Indian and comparative empirical support for the benefits that homestead plots can deliver to the rural poor. Section 3 contains a narrative description of homestead plot and other relevant activities examined in six different states: Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Kerala, Orissa, and West Bengal. Section 4 overviews the key issues and lessons learned from the state projects and their relevance to the design of future homestead plot programmes. Section 5 reviews new programmes in Karnataka, West Bengal, and Andhra Pradesh that will incorporate the distribution of homestead or other small plots to rural poor, and Section 6 offers for discussion several options for how the GOI and individual states can incorporate the allocation of homestead plots into existing or new rural development schemes.


5

2. BENEFITS OF HOMESTEAD PLOTS International experience5 and recent research in India6 demonstrate that rural house plots – if they are large enough to include space to contain a large garden and/or livestock – can confer multiple important benefits to poor rural households. These include: Improved family nutrition Malnutrition and micronutrient deficiencies threaten the health of large numbers of poor families worldwide and particularly the health of children.7 Homestead plots can reduce that threat by providing a ready source of food where it is needed most: in the households of the rural poor. A number of studies have found that homestead plots produce a high percentage of fruits and vegetables consumed by families that grow small gardens, as well as providing a substantial percentage of overall calories.8 In

5 See generally Robert Mitchell and Tim Hanstad, 2004. Small Homegarden Plots and Sustainable Livelihoods for the Poor, FAO Livelihoods Support Programme Working Paper. 6 Tim Hanstad, Jennifer Brown, and Roy Prosterman, 2002. Larger Homestead Plots as Land Reform?: International Experience and Analysis from Karnataka. ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY 3053 - 3062. 7 Worldwide, an estimated 53 percent of the approximately 10 million child deaths every year can be attributed to malnutrition. R. Black, S. Morris and J. Bryce, 2003. Where and Why are 10 Million Children Dying Every Year?, 361 THE LANCET 2226 – 2234. It has been established that even moderate and mild energy malnutrition contributes to child mortality, and micronutrient deficiencies are associated with increased risk of child and maternal mortality. L. Kiess, R. Moench-Pfanner and M.W. Bloem, 2001. Food-Based Strategies: Can they Play a Role in Poverty Alleviation?, 22(4) FOOD AND NUTRITION BULLETIN 436. A large-scale home gardening project in Bangladesh found that families who grew more fruits and vegetables and families who grew a larger variety of fruits and vegetables were likely have a higher intake of vitamin A. Helen Keller International/Asia Pacific, Integration of Animal Husbandry into Home Gardening Programmes to Increase Vitamin A Intake from Foods: Bangladesh, Cambodia and Nepal (2003). A study of homegarden consumption in rural Bangladesh found that fruits and vegetables were the most important factor associated with higher intake of vitamin A by women of reproductive age, that consumption of fruits and vegetables contributed more to vitamin A intake than consumption of animal products, and that the number of varieties of fruits and vegetables produced in the homegardens was significantly associated with a higher vitamin A intake. M. Bloem, N. Huq, J. Gorstein, S. Burger, T. Kahn, N. Islam, S. Baker and F. Davidson, Production of fruits and vegetables at the homestead is an important source of vitamin A among women in rural Bangladesh, 50(suppl. 3) EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION S62 - S67 (1996). A study of land-poor families in Kerala state in India found that homegardens led to large improvements in child nutrition. S.K. Kumar, Role of the Household Economy in Child Nutrition At Low Incomes: A Case Study in Kerala, Cornell University Dept. of Agricultural Economics Occasional Paper No. 95 (1978) at 60. 8 Homegardens have been found to provide 18 – 40 percent of household calories on Java and 50 – 58 percent of the recommended daily allowance for calories in the Philippines. A. Stoler, Garden use and household economy in rural Java, 14 BULLETIN OF INDONESIAN ECONOMIC STUDIES 85 – 101 (1978), cited in Hoogerbrugge, I. and Fresco, L.O. (1993). Homegarden Systems: Agricultural Characteristics and Challenges. International Institute for Environment and Development, Gatekeeper Series No. 39. (Java), and P. Sommers, Traditional home gardens of selected Philippine households and their potential for improving human nutrition, Masters thesis, University of Philippines, Los Banos (1978), cited in L. Christanty, Home Gardens in Tropical Asia, with Special Reference to Indonesia, in Landauer, K. and Brazil, M., 1990. Introduction, in Landauer, K. and Brazil, M. (eds.), Tropical Home Gardens: Selected papers from an international workshop held at the Institute of Ecology, Padjadjaran University, Bandung, Indonesia, 2 – 9 December 1985). United Nations University Press, Tokyo, at 9-


6

many tropical and sub-tropical settings, homestead plots can provide important protections against family food insecurity by providing a year-round source of harvestable foods.9 Homestead plots may become the principal source of household food and income during periods of stress and to provide a “buffering effect” against hunger that might otherwise accompany shortfalls in wage income.10 RDI’s studies in India found that well-used homestead plots averaging 2,400 square feet (0.06 acre) produced enough food products for agricultural labourer families to consume more than the recommended amount of vegetables and more than the average rural intake of milk and fruits.11 Supplemental household income Homestead plots can supplement household income in several ways. The household may sell products produced on the plot, including fruits, vegetables, animal products, and other valuable materials such as bamboo and wood for construction or fuel.12 The household may use the plot site to engage in cottage industries, producing crafts or manufactured items for sale to third parties.13 In addition to direct earnings from sale of homestead plot production, production consumed by the household frees up household earnings for other purchases. In some cases, a portion of the cash income from homestead plot production is used to purchase additional food for household consumption. Thus, home gardens provide households with a number of options by which they can satisfy their livelihood objectives, and each household can determine 20. Sri Lankan homegardens have been reported to produce 60 percent of leaf vegetables and 20 percent of all vegetables consumed by the household. Hoogerbrugge and Fresco, supra, citing B. Ensing, G. Freeks and S. Sangers, Homegardens and home gardening in the Matara district: the present situation and future prospects, Masters thesis, Social Science and Economics Department, University of Leiden, Netherlands (1985). Others have reported that homegardens typically produce more than 50 percent of vegetables, fruits, medicinal plants and herbs consumed by the household. R. Marsh, Building on Traditional Gardening to Improve Household Food Security, Food, Nutrition and Agriculture No. 22, Food and Agriculture Organization (1998). The bulkiness of fresh fruits and vegetables favors their consumption near the production site, especially where the infrastructure is least adequate to allow transport of rural crops to cities. D.E. Vasey, On Estimating the Net Social and Economic Value of Urban Home Gardens, in LANDAUER AND BRAZIL, at 203-213. Homegardens on Java have been reported to provide 14 percent of household protein requirements. Hoogerbrugge and Fresco, supra. 9 On Java, climatic conditions mean that owners of homegardens have something available to harvest throughout the year, either for consumption, for home industry or for sale, and this availability is especially important to the economic stability of poor households, particularly during the period between rice harvests. O. Soemarwoto, I. Soemarwoto, Karyono, et al., The Javanese Home Garden as an Integrated Agro-Ecosystem, 7(3) FOOD AND NUTRITION BULLETIN (1985). 10 In Kampala, Uganda after the civil war, urban homegardens were reported to have substantially fed the city after the civil war. Marsh, supra note 8. In the context of a study of land-poor households in Kerala, India, home gardening production has been observed to have a “buffering effect” on household consumption when there are shortfalls in wage income. S.K. Kumar, supra note 7. 11 R. Prosterman, Allocating House and Garden Plots to Benefit the Rural Landless (paper presented at Rural Development Ministry Workshop, Delhi, India, 5 January 2005). See also T. Hanstad, Lokesh S.B., and Arun M., Reaping the Rewards of Homestead Gardens: Nutritional and Income Benefits from Homestead Plots in Karnataka (RDI Research Report, 2004). 12 Livestock and tree crops produced on homegardens in southeastern Nigeria accounted for over 60 percent of family cash income in one study. B. Okigbo, Home Gardens in Tropical Africa, in LANDAUER AND BRAZIL, 1990.Inthe Helen Keller International (HKI) pilot homegarden project in Bangladesh, 54 percent of households reported selling homegarden products and earning the cash equivalent of 14.8 percent of total average monthly income. HKI/AP, supra note 7. 13 Marsh, supra note 8.


7

for itself what combination of consumption, trade, and sale of homegarden production best fits its livelihood strategy.14 In addition to the home consumption described in the previous paragraph, RDI’s research in India also found that the same families were able to produce an annualized income equivalent to wages from 150 days of agricultural labour from surplus products grown on their homestead plots.15 Wage security and household status Ownership of the homestead plot can make important contributions to rural livelihoods in ways that are often overlooked, including improved leverage in labour markets, enhanced social status, and greater political participation. One objective of providing ownership to homestead plots in some settings is to free wage labourers from exploitive land-labour linkages. Several states in India have provided ownership of (typically) small house plots to at least some agricultural labourer families in order to remove them from a bonded labourer-type dependence on employers on whose land they had been living. Households who own the plot on which their home is constructed also enjoy an immediate increase in status within the village.16 Welfare of women and children. An abundant homestead plot garden is often of additional value to women and children. Where women control homestead plot garden resources, household nutrition – and especially children’s nutrition – may be improved.17 Sales of homestead plot

14 A study of urban homegardens in the Philippines revealed that home gardening families spend less on food than non-gardening families, while home gardening families who plant a larger number of varieties of fruits and vegetables spend even less. S. Miura, K. Osamu and W. Susumu, Home Gardening in Urban Poor Communities of the Philippines, 54(1) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCES AND NUTRITION (2003). In Cambodia and Nepal, 31 – 65 percent of income (31 percent in the case of Nepal and 65 percent in the case of Cambodia) derived from sale of poultry raised on homegardens was used to purchase other foods, while other proceeds were used to invest in production, education, savings and other purposes. HKI/AP, supra note 7. Urban home gardeners in Papua New Guinea sell various fruits at local markets and obtain cash that allows them to purchase rice that produces several times the food energy of the sold fruits. D.E. Vasey, Household Gardens and Their Niche in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 7(3) FOOD AND NUTRITION BULLETIN (1985). 15 R. Prosterman, supra note 11. 16 A survey of rural households in Karnataka, India, revealed that among households that had received small plots to construct homes and gardens, increased status within the village was the most cited benefit of ownership, surpassing even income and nutrition benefits; poorer households cited increased status even more often than other households. T. Hanstad, J. Brown and R. Prosterman, Larger Homestead Plots as Land Reform?: International Experience and Analysis from Karnataka, 37(29) ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY 3053 – 3062 (2002). In West Java, homegardens are an important symbol of social status, and households who are forced to build their houses on homegardens owned by others are considered to be low status. O. Soemarwoto, Homegardens: A Traditional Agroforestry System with a Promising Future, in H. STEPPLER AND P.K.R. NAIR (EDS.), AGROFORESTRY: A DECADE OF DEVELOPMENT 157 – 170 (International Council for Research in Agroforestry, Nairobi 1987). Increases in household status not only provide psychological benefits to household members, but are believed to provide households with better access to trade relations within the village, as well as better access to government programmes serving village households. 17 Kumar, supra note 7; A. Talukder, L. Kiess, N. Huq, S. de Pee, I. Darnton-Hill and M. Bloem, Increasing the production and consumption of vitamin A-rich fruits and vegetables: Lessons learned in taking the Bangladesh homestead gardening programme to a national scale, 21(2) FOOD AND NUTRITION BULLETIN (2000).


8

produce may be one of the only sources of independent income for women, 18 and a plot may be an important source of status for women, demonstrating the woman’s skills and capabilities, along with her freedom from dependence on vendors and neighbors.19 Environmental benefits Diversity of plant species and the layered canopy of species are often considered the most striking features of homegardens.20 For example, traditional Thai homestead plots are reported to contain multiple and sometimes rare varieties of each planted species and represent “in-situ reservoirs for biodiversity at all levels: genetic, species, and ecological,” all of which helps to prevent pest and weed outbreaks.21 The high density of homestead plot plants also provides habitat for insects, reptiles, birds, and small mammals. Homegardens may also promote land conservation. Terraced homestead plots have been recommended to preserve soils on sloping areas.22 Fruit trees, bamboo, and other trees can be used to rejuvenate infertile soils. Allocation of homestead plots may also have beneficial off-site environmental effects. For example, where population pressures and lack of arable land threaten to push families to resettle in forests and wetlands, allocation of homestead plots to landless and land-poor families can reduce pressures to migrate. In addition, allocation of homestead plots may reduce the need for land-poor families to gather fodder and fuel wood from marginal lands, contributing to the sustainability of such lands.23 A point worth highlighting The realization of the benefits outlined above depends on plot size. Common sense dictates that if a house plot is so small that the house occupies most (or all) of the plot, the plot has no excess capacity for a garden, keeping livestock, or conducting other income generation activities. RDI’s research in India indicates that the non-housing benefits of a homestead plot grow rapidly as the plot size increases beyond about 1000 square feet. The “ideal” plot size for realization of non-housing benefits ranges from 3,000 to 5,000 square feet.24

18 Marsh, supra note 8. 19 R. Finerman and R. Sackett, Using Home Gardens to Decipher Health and Healing in the Andes, 17(4) MEDICAL ANTHROPOLOGY QUARTERLY 459 – 482 (2003). 20 P.K.R. Nair, 1993. AN INTRODUCTION TO AGROFORESTRY. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London , at 91. 21 J. Gajaseni and N. Gajaseni, Ecological rationalities of the traditional homegarden system in the Chao Phraya Basin, Thailand, 46 AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS 1, 19 (1999). 22 G.J.A. Terra, Mixed-Garden Horticulture on Java, 3 THE MALAYAN JOURNAL OF TROPICAL GEOGRAPHY (1954). 23 See R. Mitchell, Legal Tools to Promote Environmentally Sound Management of Farmland and Forests (World Bank: Washington, DC, forthcoming). 24 See Tim Hanstad, et al., 2002, at 3053-3062; Tim Hanstad and S.B. Lokesh, 2002. Allocating Homestead Plots as Land Reform: Analysis from West Bengal, RDI REPORTS ON FOREIGN AID AND DEVELOPMENT No. 115.


9

3. EXAMINATION OF PROJECTS IN SIX STATES The information gathered on each of the projects examined for this study is organized under the following categories:

• Origin of the project; • Institutional roles in project (e.g., state government, NGO); • Land source; • Land development; • Plot owners and beneficiaries; • Land tenure and legal issues; • Plot uses; • House construction; and • Governance.

Even using these common categories as an organizing principle for the individual projects, the projects appear highly diverse. The projects have a range of origins, including a housing colony created by the employees of an NGO, a state housing programme developing extensions to existing villages, and a group of below poverty line weavers seeking house plots large enough to accommodate looms. The roles played by various institutions – including state governments and NGOs – fall on a continuum. At one end is the limited involvement of the local government of Andhra Pradesh in the Deccan Development Society (“DDS”) employee project; at the other end is the gram panchayat’s significant obligations for designing and implementing the Navagrama housing scheme in rural Karnataka. The local governments and NGOs often inhabit the same space, and the level of one institution’s involvement often reflects the level of the other’s involvement. For example, where local government is highly engaged in a project, the NGOs may be less evident. In contrast, where the local government has a limited presence and involvement, NGOs may fill the gap. Land sources for the various projects include use of existing state government land, purchase of private land, and negotiated use rights to private plots. The plot owners and beneficiaries reflect a cross section of rural society, with an emphasis in new projects on the poorest and formerly landless or houseless. The range of perspectives on house construction, plot uses, and governance issues reflects the diversity of the beneficiary populations and circumstances. In short, distinctions among project abound, and this section discusses each of the state projects in turn, noting the unique features and circumstances of individual sites. Following this section, the report steps back and in Section 4 examines the information gathered within the framework of the categories listed above, identifying the common issues, pressure points, and success factors that rise to the surface. These commonalities form the basis for a set of principles that can inform the design of homestead plot programmes.


10

3.1 An NGO Employee Housing Colony in Andhra Pradesh Established 20 years ago, the Deccan Development Society (“DDS”) is a grassroots non-governmental organization working in about 75 villages of Andhra Pradesh’s Medak District. DDS organizes and works with women's sanghams (voluntary village level associations). Most of the 5,000 women sangham members are dalits. DDS engages in a range of activities, including designing a working model for people-oriented participatory development in the areas of food security, ecological agriculture, and alternative education. The organization is also attempting to reverse the degradation of the environment and livelihood systems through various land-related activities such as permaculture, community grain banks and green funds, cultivation through group land leasing and purchase, and support for kitchen gardening. Origin of homestead plot project DDS undertook the employee housing colony project in 1992 in response to expressed employee interest in establishing a housing colony near the main DDS office. Several employees lived long distances from the office and many worked evenings attending community meetings. The travel time to and from their residences posed a hardship on the employees and was especially difficult at night. A group of employees conceived of the idea of purchasing land near the office for an employee residence community. The group discussed the idea within the organization, and 10 to 15 employees expressed interest in purchasing plots. Role of institutions Two main institutions played roles in the establishment of the colony: DDS and the local government. DDS conceived of, designed, and established the housing colony, and the housing colony is an integral part of DDS’ operations. The colony created the

Activity type: NGO employee housing colony Implementing agency: Deccan Development Society (NGO) Method of obtaining land: Land purchase Size of plots: 2,475 – 5,400 square feet

Summary observations: The colony demonstrates the significant benefits that an organization, its staff, and the community can realize from an employee housing colony. The plot uses are diverse: twenty plots have gardens, and three are intensively gardened. Another three plots have large houses used for NGO staff residences and transitional housing for women and children served by the NGO. The colony not only serves the employee interests in safe, convenient housing but supports the NGO’s mission.


11

structure for an employee savings and pension fund, and DDS officers have invested in the colony (through the establishment of a school and the purchase of plots for transitional housing for women) as a means of achieving the organization’s mission. The involvement of state and local government in the DDS project has been limited to the provision of some infrastructure for the housing colony, consisting of a road to the colony and electrical connection. The panchayat also linked the employee residents with a government scheme financing toilet construction. Source of land Identification of land Three DDS employees led the effort to identify land for purchase in 1992. They conducted research on prevailing market prices for land and communicated DDS’s interest to the community. The employees did not have a specific size parcel in mind, although they were interested in a parcel large enough for all DDS employees to have house sites that included sufficient area for gardens. They sought level land near the DDS office. A local landowner heard that DDS was in the market for land for a housing colony and offered to sell the organization five acres of agricultural land. The landowner had other land elsewhere that he planned to continue to farm. The DDS employees visited the site and considered it attractive for the project: the acreage was near the DDS office, had an existing well and pump, and was near the main road. Purchase terms The employee committee negotiated a purchase price of Rs 185,000 for the land, with an additional Rs 80,000 interest-free loan from DDS to the seller. The total purchase amount was somewhat less than the land’s market value, but the seller placed a premium on the interest-free loan. Employee welfare association While the land search and purchase negotiation was ongoing DDS established a separate organization, the DDS Employees Welfare Association (“EWA”),25 as the vehicle for implementing the housing project. The five acres purchased by DDS were registered as one parcel in the name of the EWA in 1993. Fourteen employees joined the EWA when it was first established, although it now includes all of DDS’s 60 employees. The EWA owns all plots that have not been purchased by individual employees as well as the common land and the well. The parties (DDS, the EWA, and the employees) do not have a written agreement. Land development Conversion to non-agricultural use The EWA took up the formal conversion of the land from agricultural to nonagricultural status. The conversion required DDS to pay certain fees and to leave 30 percent of the land vacant, i.e. without construction. The vacant land is used for a

25 The EWA was established pursuant to the Societies Registration Act. DDS currently has 60 regular employees, all of whom participate in the EWA, which operates as a retirement fund.


12

30-foot wide road, nursery, park, and open space. The 30 percent requirement of vacant land does not include undeveloped portions of individual plots. Site development Following the successful conversion of the land, the EWA members held a general meeting to determine the sizes of land plots that would be offered for sale to DDS employees. They decided to divide the remaining land into 14 large plots (60’ x 90’/5,400 square feet) and 20 small plots (45’ x 55’/ 2,475 square feet). The smaller plots were affordable to lower paid employees, while higher paid employees had the option of purchasing larger plots if they wished. The plot sizes provided sufficient space for both housing and a garden. The decision to establish large plot sizes was intentional: the employees had seen government housing schemes that provided no land beyond space for the house site, and they decided they wanted to have additional space for gardens. The original 14 employees who joined the EWA drew lots to select their plots. Since the time of that initial process, plot selection has been on a first-come, first-serve basis. Infrastructure The panchayat provided the electrical connections and a road to the colony. The panchayat also provided up to Rs 1,800 per household for the construction of toilets through an employment guarantee scheme. Plot owners/beneficiaries: characteristics Thirty-three of the 60 current DDS employees have purchased plots. As of June 2005, there were seven plots available -- five small and two large. Approximately 20 of the 33 plots that have been purchased have houses in some state of construction. Plot owners are a mix of castes and religions, although the majority are scheduled caste. There are no reported tensions among the group based on caste or religion. According to the interviewees, the biggest problem faced in the colony is the use of water. While there is a sufficient volume of water for all households, the water pressure is not sufficient to reach the houses farthest from the pump, and must be actively managed through setting a series of values. Some residents are tempted to arrange the valves in order to obtain an adequate flow of water to their plots, a practice that restricts the water that reaches other plots. Three DDS directors purchased plots in the colony. Two of the directors donated the plots for short-term, transitional housing for those in need (such as women escaping domestic violence). One of DDS’s sister organizations, KVS, purchased a plot and constructed a large residence that it uses for staff quarters. Land tenure and legal issues Employee plot purchase terms All employees are eligible to purchase house plots in the colony, so long as plots are available. The EWA sells the land at a price considerably below its present market level. DDS also provides purchasing employees with a no-interest loan for the land


13

purchase, with repayment in ten monthly installments. Title is registered in the name of the employee – whether male or female – after the land purchase loan is repaid. Employees are required to pay the registration fees for the transaction. As an example, one DDS employee interviewed purchased a land plot from EWA for Rs 9,900. He received a loan from DDS, and repaid it over a 10-month period at Rs 990 per month. In addition to the Rs 9,900 purchase price, the employee paid a registration fee of Rs 6,600, which represented 11 percent of the government’s assessed value of the land. The employee paid Rs 600 for electrical connections to his plot, and he pays a monthly fee of Rs 20 to EWA for maintenance. The monthly fee will increase when he moves to the plot. Alienability of plot Employees who wish to sell their homestead plots must first offer them to DDS employees. If no DDS employee is interested, the landowners must offer the plots to employees of DDS’ sister organizations. Landowners can only offer their plots to third parties (i.e. persons and entities unaffiliated with DDS) if no one in DDS or DDS’s sister organizations is interested in purchasing a plot. Employees set their own prices for their houses and house plots. Land without houses is most desirable because buyers usually want to construct their houses according to their own needs and taste. Landowners in the colony can bequeath the land to their heirs. The heirs need not be DDS employees to become owners of houses and house plots in the colony. If an employee leaves DDS, the employee is not required to sell the plot. The employee cannot, however, continue in the EWA. If the employee has not paid off the loan, he or she must do so and take ownership of the land and house at the time he or she leaves DDS. Plot uses The DDS employees interviewed were not aware of any external legal restrictions on how individual owners use their house plots. They may, for example, have a small shop or business on the premises. The issue about the limits of appropriate uses has not yet arisen and has not been addressed in the Code of Conduct26 developed by the residents of the colony. Housing Two of the plots are owned by DDS and used to support the activities of the organization by providing transitional housing. One plot is owned by KVS (a DDS sister organization), which uses it to house staff. The remainder of the purchased plots are used as family residences. Home gardens Twenty of the 33 purchased plots have some plants or gardens, with three gardens highly developed. One interviewee reported a lack of interest among the majority of

26 The Code is discussed in the Governance section below.


14

residents in using their plots for intensive gardens or livestock. The disinterest may be due to lack of need and time: all residents have full-time jobs at DDS, with incomes that raise them significantly above the poverty line. In order to examine the potential of these plots for intensive garden and animal use, we focused on the most intensively gardened plots. The most well developed garden in the colony is owned by Mr. Jayappa, a member of a scheduled caste who is currently working for DDS as Deputy Director. Prior to joining DDS in 1993, Mr. Jayappa was a bonded labourer, earning Rs 700 per year. Mr. Jayappa purchased the homestead plot of 5400 sq. ft. (60’ x 90’) from the EWA in 1993 and shortly thereafter constructed a house with funds from an interest free loan of Rs 40,000 from DDS. After the completion of the house, he planted an extensive variety of trees, fruits, flowers, and vegetables adjacent to the house. His plot currently contains 104 trees of 22 different varieties,27 eight varieties of vegetables,28 and four varieties of flowers. Mr. Jayappa reports that 90 percent of his family's vegetable and fruit needs are met by the output of his plot, saving him about Rs 6,000 each year. Mr. Jayappa also sells the excess produce at a nearby town for a profit of Rs 5,000 per year. He predicts his profits will increase when his plants mature completely. In 15 to 20 years, he will sell the timber from his 42 teak trees. The current price for the timber from a single mature teak tree is approximately Rs 30,000. Mr. Jayappa estimates that he will earn between Rs 100,000 and 150,000 by selling his trees and their produce in the next 10 years. Mr. Jayappa appears to be responsible for much of the housing colony programme’s success. He was one of the main proponents of the project and is the inspiration behind the intensive garden development of a few of the other plots. However, many of the plots do not have intensive gardens. One interviewee reported no strong interest among the majority of residents in using their plots for that level of intensive gardens. Mr. Jayappa’s plot development demonstrates the potential for supplementing household nutritional needs and creating solid income sources, but residents are conscious of the effort that must be invested in the plot, and, absent an overriding need for the benefits of an intensive home garden, most have elected not to create one. Maintenance Residents with houses pay Rs 40 per month as a fee for services; nonresidents and those with vacant plots pay Rs 20 per month. Water is provided twice a day, and residents can take as much water as they wish. The EWA pays an individual Rs 250 per month to operate the pump. The balance of the fees paid by residents is kept in an account for maintenance expenses.

27 These include teak (42), mango (12), neem (8), custard apple (5), curry leaf (4), tamarind (4), bamboo (4), guava (4), gooseberry (3), cheeku (2), pomegranate (2), syzium jamboosa (2), lime (2), fodder tree (2), and one each of sandal, subabul, date palm, areca, ficus, papaya, almond, and avishe. 28 Beans, bitter gourd, onion, ginger, greens, sweet potato, eggplant, and passion fruit.


15

House construction House construction began in the colony in 1995. DDS provides an interest-free loan to employees of up to Rs 40,000 for house construction. One interviewee reported that as a condition of the loan, the house can take up no more than 25 percent of the plot. Another interviewee reported there was no such requirement. Observation suggests that if there is a requirement to maintain 75 percent of the plot without construction, the requirement is not enforced, particularly on the smaller plots. Approximately 20 of the plots have houses, either completed or in some state of construction. Most houses are occupied. Governance The colony is self-governing. All colony residents are subject to an unwritten Code of Conduct (the “Code”). The Code covers loan terms, water use, sale of land, and fees for maintenance. There is no perceived need to create a written Code, and, therefore, the residences have not reduced the Code to writing. The Code is enforced through peer pressure, and no significant problems with the Code (or the topics covered by the Code) have occurred to date. Additional and summary observations The DDS employee colony is spacious and clean, and has a secure, stable feeling. The roads are wide and well maintained. A few of the developed sites are untended. The colony is close to a main road and will be attractive to third parties looking for house sites. When questioned about the possibility of increasing interest by third parties unaffiliated with DDS, the interviewees noted the possibility and the attendant problems, but had not yet conceived of a plan to address the issue (such as requiring a certain percentage of sites to be owned by DDS employees, or employees of the sister organizations). The colony provides a good example of an organization and group of residents using homestead plots to suit their needs and interests. The colony includes examples of plot uses of significant importance to poorest members of rural communities: (1) intensively gardened plots that have positive impacts on household nutrition and income; and (2) plots used for transitional housing for women and children needing shelter. DDS is benefited by the project: the project reinforces the values and mission of the organization and provides employees with a valuable benefit. The colony has some limitations as a model for other projects: the residents of the colony are salaried employees with relatively secure financial status. The colony has benefited from the nature of the employer – an NGO devoted to poverty alleviation and skilled in capacity building – and the leadership of a few key employees. State governments and NGOs establishing colonies for landless and house siteless agricultural labourers can nonetheless find useful information in the project: Mr. Jayappa’s plot provides an illustration of the nutritional benefits and income opportunities available for intensively gardened plots, the use of a code of conduct governing residents of a colony that covers subjects of operational importance and potential controversy (such as water use), and the possibilities for providing space for


16

other types of beneficial plot uses, such as transitional housing for women and children.

3.2 A mix of land-based projects in Gujarat

The ADB-JFPR Project (the “ADB Project”) is a three-year effort focused on providing for the needs of the rural poor in Gujarat’s earthquake-affected and tribal areas.29 The project began in 2004, and its objectives include developing new initiatives for income generation and enhancement of the livelihoods of the rural poor. RDI visited five sites of land-based projects in Gujarat’s Banaskanth District. Four of the sites that contain some elements relevant to the homestead plot concept are described below. Origin of homestead plot activities Fatehpura fodder project. Fatehpura is a village of 110 households, of which 30 are landless and 15 are below the poverty line. Most households have an average of four acres of dry land, which they use to cultivate pulses and keep livestock. Water is scarce and the households have difficulty obtaining fodder for the livestock. Ten women with livestock formed a SHG for fodder production. The project does not make use of individual homestead plots, but is of interest to this study because the SHG, landowner, ADB Project, and implementing NGO entered into an agreement for the fodder project that is potentially useful as a model for income-generation schemes linked to homestead plot programmes. Chamunda Mahila. Chamunda Mahila is a colony of 15 landless scheduled caste and other backward caste households. The households encroached on an area of government wasteland 15 years ago, built houses with their own funds, and 29 The project is entitled “JFPR – Sustaining Income and Basic Human Needs of the Poor in Disaster Prone Areas of Gujarat.”

Activity type: Foreign donor project to enhance the livelihoods of the rural poor

Implementing agency: The state of Gujarat (Rural Development), with

the assistance of local NGOs, are implementing an Asian Development Bank project financed by the Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction.

Land Source: Use rights from private landowner, regularization

of encroachment on government land, and state allocation of government land

Size of plots: 216 to 2,780 square feet

Summary observations: Four separate land-based projects show potential for linking income-generation projects to homestead plots and the role played by SHGs and small communities in project success.


17

regularized their rights to their house plots in 1999-2000. With the guidance of a local NGO and funding from the ADB Project, residents have begun a pilot vermiculture project on the house plots. SC colony. This colony was established several generations ago on land adjacent to an existing village and is currently populated by 40-50 scheduled caste households. The colony’s households received title to house plots ranging in size from 216 to 1,200 square feet. There is limited water in the colony and the households report that even those with extra land do not grow vegetables because of the scarcity of water. Fifteen households formed a self-help group in order to grow vegetables on a vacant house plot within the colony. The effort was ultimately unsuccessful; the experience of the SC colony is included to evaluate some potential reasons for the project’s demise and their relevance to homestead plot programmes. Weaver colony. In the 1980s, a group of 60 Vankar (weaver caste) households established an independent colony on government wasteland nearby their village. The weavers, all of whom were BPL at the time of the colony’s formation, sought land to create a separate colony of larger house plots that could accommodate their looms and provide storage of weaving materials. Role of institutions The rural development department of the government of Gujarat has been an active manager of the ADP Project. The government’s role includes selecting projects and local NGOs, preparing and reviewing the project terms, monitoring and evaluating the projects, and making recommendations for enlarging the scope and range of successful projects. Local NGOs and extension services such as the International Water Management Institute provide technical expertise and local coordination for individual projects. In the two projects that involved obtaining land rights for beneficiaries, the local panchayat played an active role. The panchayat approached the members of the Chamunda Mahila colony, which is piloting a vermiculture project, several years ago and assisted the residents in regularizing their encroachment and obtaining patta for their house sites. The weaver colony enlisted the help of a local panchayat member to assist the group in taking possession of the wasteland, designing the housing colony, and applying for loans for house construction. Land sources The SHG seeking land for fodder production in Fatehpura originally identified a parcel of government land for the project, but the land had no water source and was thus unsuitable. A private owner became aware of the project’s support and funding, and he offered the SHG 0.6 acres of his land for fodder production in exchange for the installation of an irrigation system. The Chamunda Mahila colony encroached on government wasteland about 15 years ago. The residents selected the land because it was vacant, on a main road, and close to (approximately 0.75 kilometers) the village. In 1995 the panchayat regularized the land rights in the name of the head of household (all male) that had encroached. The


18

panchayat is developing adjacent land for additional residents who have no house sites (or inadequate space) in the village. One of the members of the SC colony SHG that sought land for growing vegetables had a vacant house plot in her family. The SHG member agreed to let the group use the vacant plot for growing vegetables.30 The weaver group relocated from the village to government wasteland. At the time that the new colony was established, the weaver group’s members were all below the poverty line and eligible to receive house plots on government land; a local official helped them obtain the needed authorizations. The land was within 0.5 kilometers of the village and on the main road. Land development In Fatehpura (fodder project), the ADB Project supplied a drip irrigation system to the SHG and arranged for the SHG to receive technical advice and training on the use of the system and cultivation of fodder. The SHG installed the irrigation system on the landowner’s plot in exchange for use rights to half of the plot for fodder production. The landowner retained the right to use the second half of the plot, paid for land preparation, security, and fertilizer, and made the irrigation water available. Under the terms of the project, the SHG will receive ownership of the drip irrigation system at the end of the three years. In the Chamunda Mahila (pilot vermiculture project) colony, each household received patta to a plot of about 2,000 square feet. At the time of the regularization, all households had already constructed houses. Many households encroached on at least part of a second plot, which they use for livestock and outdoor living space. The panchayat provided electricity, a pipeline from the village for drinking water, and one water spigot. The colony includes quite a bit of open space. The NGO working with the project notes that none of the households have prepared the vacant areas for vegetables because they have no tradition of or training in land preparation and growing vegetables; the vermiculture project is the first homestead plot-based project in the colony. The project provided the pilot households with the worms and the training. Residents of the SC colony that undertook the vegetable cultivation project pay Rs 25 annually to panchayat for taxes. They receive drinking water from borewell for one hour a day. The water cannot be used for any other purpose, and the residents must collect water for other uses from a nearby well. That nearby well has limited water and the residents do not like carrying the water back to their houses. The vegetable cultivation project undertaken by the SC colony required access to water, and the SHG arranged for a neighboring landowner with water access to supply the needed water.31 The arrangements with the landowner for use of the plot, and with the 30 At the time of the fieldwork, the SHG had disbanded as a result of controversy over the use of the land and use of water (see discussion in “Land development” below), and no one was able to recall what (if anything) the SHG member requested in exchange for allowing the group to cultivate the vacant plot. Several village residents interviewed believed that the SHG members prepared the land for vegetable cultivation – difficult work that the plot owner was unwilling to do herself. 31 No one interviewed knew the terms of the arrangement for water use.


19

adjacent landowner for water access were not formalized and were ultimately short lived. After a successful initial season of cultivating vegetables in 2004, the neighbor supplying the water cut off access (allegedly out of envy). The owner of the plot decided that she alone would use the plot for growing vegetables. The project ended, the SHG disbanded, and no new projects are contemplated. The gram panchayat surveyed the land and platted land plots of 2,178 square feet (33 x 66 feet) for each household in the weaver’s colony. The weavers had input into the design of the colony, but the local government engineer made most of the decisions about the layout of the plots and location of roads. The colony has internal paved roads, drainage ditches along the roads, electrical connections, and water spigots for each plot. The colony is well maintained and appears prosperous. The group agreed among themselves who would receive which plot when they moved to the colony. No one interviewed knew of any restrictions on uses of the house plots. All of the residents designed and constructed their own houses according to their wishes. There is sufficient water, and the residents can use the water for any purpose. The households pay Rs 200-300 every two months for electricity. They pay Rs 60 annually as a water tax and Rs 25 annually as house tax. Some of the larger houses in the colony pay a higher house tax. Plot owners/beneficiaries The project participants and beneficiaries are all members of scheduled tribes, scheduled castes, and other backward castes. All of the project beneficiaries were BPL at the time that the benefits were granted. In the Chamunda Mahila colony (vermiculture pilot), most adults work as wage labourers (and they selected their land based on its proximity to the road and sources of work). There is a diamond mine in the vicinity, and some construction and agricultural work is available seasonally. Wages range from Rs 40-100 per day. The nearby village has a school up to class 10, and all children in the colony attend school. The SC colony that attempted the vegetable cultivation project two years ago has not undertaken another project. The residents interviewed attribute their difficulties to lack of water. Several years ago, about 20 households from the colony leased nearby land for vegetable production. Lack of water forced them to abandon the lease. Now most residents of the colony engage in agricultural labour, or travel to the block headquarters, buy vegetables, and resell them at the colony. They also may purchase a fruit crop from a landowner, pick the fruit, sell it, and keep the profit. The weavers, who received their house plots in the 1980s when they were BPL, now earn an average of Rs 60,000 to 70,000 annually (weaving full time); no one in the colony is BPL. A businessman brings the raw materials to the colony and picks up the finished product. If there is not enough weaving work, or prices are too low, the households in the colony engage in wage labour. The colony has its own school, and several of the children of weavers have gone to college. The adults in the colony have


20

told their children they must have professions other than weaving because earnings from the craft will not be sufficient to support them in the future. Land tenure and legal issues Fatehpura (fodder project). The parties to the fodder project entered into a written document setting out the terms of the agreement among the SHG, the landowner, the ADB Project (providing the irrigation system), and the NGO supplying technical assistance and some management of the SHG. The fodder project has a 3-year term. At the end of the period, in accordance with the agreement reached by the parties, the SHG will own the drip irrigation system and may charge the landowner for its use or find another landowner to negotiate with for use of the irrigation system. The SHG cultivates the fodder land communally. The parcel did not produce enough fodder to meet the needs of all of the SHG members, and within the SHG, the individuals worked out an arrangement under which group members equalize their rights through their monetary contribution to the SHG. Individuals are permitted to take fodder at established times according to their needs, and those who take more fodder make a higher monthly payment to the group, while those who took less fodder make a lower payment. The average monthly payment at the time of the field visit was Rs 50. The households in the Chamunda Manhila colony made no payment for the house plots. The owners interviewed believe their plots are fully alienable, although also believe that transfer was restricted at an earlier time.32 The households paid Rs 25 each to register the plots and make an annual payment of Rs 125 to the panchayat for electricity. There are some vacant areas in the colony. The spokesman from the colony (and NGO representative) states that there is a government order is place stating that no plot can be less than 10 feet from the next plot. If the plots are less than 10 feet apart, the plot cannot be settled and must be retained as open space. The colony’s priorities for open space are: (1) livestock area; (2) garden area (assuming water available); and (3) play area for children. The weaver colony residents paid Rs 240 for each plot and received patta at the time of occupancy. Each household was also eligible to receive up to Rs 15,000 as a loan for house construction, which they repaid through income from weaving. The household interviewed believes that the majority of households have repaid their loans. The weaver colony residents do not believe there are any restrictions on their ability to sell or mortgage their house plots. Those residents interviewed note that individuals who are not part of their caste would be unlikely to want to live in the colony. The caste is relatively close knit and other groups might not feel comfortable.

32 None of the residents interviewed knew the nature of the restriction or the reason the restriction was lifted. None of the residents have sold or attempted to sell their plots.


21

Plot uses Fatehpura fodder project. The members of the SHG engaged in the fodder project entered into the project with the specific intent to cultivate fodder for their livestock. They did not consider other uses for the plot. The fodder grown is insufficient to meet the fodder needs for all of the ten members of the SHG. Those who have insufficient fodder gather more on their way home from wage labour jobs or graze their animals on common land. Chamunda Mahila. Most residents of this colony had not developed their plots at the time of the fieldwork. Residents used the open areas of their plots for livestock and outdoor living. The colony supports one SHG with 11 members, and (with support of a local NGO) one member has begun a vermiculture activity pilot. The vermiculture project is designed to supply compost for the homestead plot and income from the sale of the compost to other plot owners. If the activity is successful, the NGO will expand it to include other households. Once the vermiculture is established, the NGO will introduce the idea of vegetable gardening in the open spaces within the colony. Weaver colony. The majority of the plots and houses are designed for weaving. The house plots viewed have large covered areas in the front of the houses, with looms set up and open space for weaving activities. One plot has a small shop in the front yard. Seven households in the colony have developed kitchen gardens behind and along the sides of their houses. The kitchen gardens are supported by the ADB Project, and a local NGO provides technical assistance. Eligible households receive seeds, seedlings, and technical assistance from the NGO. The household contributes Rs 1 and receive Rs 50 worth of seedlings. One home garden visited produces lemons, chilies, tomatoes, brinjals, gourds, and ladyfinger. In the first season, the household saved about 50 percent of its previous annual vegetable costs. The household notes it has sufficient space on the side of the house for livestock; the household is considering getting a cow for milk production. One household at the edge of the colony keeps livestock. The wife is from another caste that does not weave. She works in agricultural labour jobs and took a loan to purchase two cows (Rs 10,000 each) that she uses for milk production. The two cows provide sufficient milk for the six-member household and the woman sells the surplus for about Rs 600 monthly. The woman also works as an agricultural labourer and carries back fodder for the cows in the evenings. House construction Chamunda Mahila. At the time that rights to their house plots were regularized, all residents of the colony had built their own houses. None received any assistance with construction costs. The residents used their own savings, took out loans from relatives and money lenders and constructed the houses slowly. Houses are low to the ground and sprawling, consuming at least half the plot (approximately 1,000 square feet) in many cases. The houses include covered areas for livestock in the front sections. Weaver colony. The weaver colony residents each received Rs 15,000 government loans for house construction at the time that the new colony was established. The


22

residents supplemented that amount with their own savings and private loans. Most of the houses in the colony have large covered areas in the front of the house for the looms and weaving activates. Governance Fatehpura village (fodder project). The SHG was formed for the fodder project and adheres to requirements of regular meetings and scheduled savings. The group is informed about the terms of the written agreement with the landowner and ADB Project regarding the irrigation equipment and fodder. The SHG cultivates the parcel communally and worked out an arrangement among themselves whereby group members have the right to take fodder at different times, and those who took more fodder make a higher monthly payment to the group, while those who took less fodder make a lower payment. Chamunda Mahila (vermiculture project). The colony is small enough to handle any problems within the community itself. Two of the oldest male residents serve as elders, and residents approach them with issues and disputes. The colony previously had a member of the gram panchayat who supported the colony, and notified it of schemes. That member left and the seat is currently empty; when it is filled, this colony will contact that person directly if it has any issues for the panchayat to address. They feel well represented by the panchayat. They have always communicated directly with the panchayat and received satisfactory results. The NGO only got involved with the colony about 6 months ago for the vermiculture project and has only limited contact with the panchayat. SC colony (vegetables). Governance within the SC colony has broken down over the years. The group interviewed (none of whom will identify themselves as having been members of the disbanded SHG) are vocal and cantankerous. There are no SHGs in the colony and no NGO is operating in the colony. The group interviewed believes that the village has all the power regarding community benefits and decisions. The colony states that it has been abandoned by the village leaders, panchayat, and community groups. Weaver colony. The weaver colony is a separate sub-caste and tends to handle issues regarding the colony within the caste. The colony has elders who receive comments and complaints from the community and attempt to solve them. They colony has been established for so many years that most of the problems have been sorted out; if a new problem erupted that the residents could not address, they would go to the panchayat. Summary observations The ADB Project sites in Gujarat demonstrate a range of possibilities for income-generation activities linked to homestead plots. Where residents like the weavers have established skills and a functioning community, a new housing colony can help them thrive. The introduction of a homestead-plot based income generation scheme such as vermiculture may ultimately have the same impact on the Chamunda mahila colony. The various projects reveal the importance of establishing and maintaining groups for housing and projects, and how a written agreement and underlying SHG formed for the project can assist a variety of parties in meeting their needs in a single project.


23

3.3 New village extensions in Karnataka

The Rajiv Gandhi Housing Corporation (“Housing Corporation”) is a quasi-governmental organization responsible for designing, implementing, and overseeing Karnataka’s housing programmes. The state established the Housing Corporation in 2000 to assume some of the responsibilities of the State Department of Housing and Karnataka Housing Board relating to the housing needs of economically and socially weaker sections of society. The Housing Corporation is modeled on a private corporation and endeavors to fulfill its obligation of providing affordable housing in an efficient and transparent fashion, and to promote self-help solutions to housing.33 In its first four and a half years of operation, the Housing Corporation reports responsibility for 770,000 new houses, with another 204,000 in process.34 The Housing Corporation manages a variety of state and centrally-funded housing programmes. The most common rural housing programmes in Karnataka are the state Rural Ashraya – Housing programme, the Ashraya – Rural House Sites programme, the Ambedkar Rural Housing scheme, Navagrama (new village extensions), and the central government Indira Awaas Yojana (“IAY”) programme.35 Brief descriptions of the Ashraya and Ambedkar schemes are provided because the Navagrama scheme often draws on these other schemes for additional benefits, such as house construction costs.

33 Interview with Mr. Anil Shedbal, June 21, 2005; see also materials available at http://ashraya.kar.nic.in/. 34 See documented results at http://ashraya.kar.nic.in. 35 Other programmes operated by the Housing Corporation include the Urban Ashraya Scheme, Ashraya Housing for Special Occupational Groups, Ashraya Urban House Sites Schema, and Neralina Bhagya (upgrading thatched roofs to tile roofs).

Activity type: Navagrama Ashraya Housing Scheme

Implementing agency: Karnataka state government

Land Source: Existing government land and purchases on the private market as needed.

Size of plots: 1,200 square feet (dimensions of 30 x 40 feet,

with some additional encroachment)

Summary observations: The Navagrama project sites vary throughout the state, with some well planned and developed and others less attractive to beneficiaries and only partially populated. Factors that positively influence success are the site’s proximity to the village, the willingness of beneficiaries to move, level ground, the availability of water, and sufficient and reliable funds for house construction.


24

The Rural Ashraya – Housing programme provides houses to rural residents who have house sites but inadequate houses. The maximum assistance available is Rs 20,000 per beneficiary. Beneficiaries who are members of scheduled tribes or scheduled castes receive Rs 20,000 as a grant or subsidy; all other beneficiaries can receive up to Rs 10,000 as a grant or subsidy and borrow an additional Rs 10,000. The loans carry an interest rate of 11 percent per annum; beneficiaries must repay the loan at a minimum rate of Rs 115 per month for 180 months (15 years). Until the loan is fully repaid, the beneficiary only has possession of the house; ownership is transferred after repayment of the loan in full. Under the Ashraya – Rural House Sites programme, the government grants house sites of 30’ x 40’36 free of cost to beneficiaries who have neither houses nor house sites. The scheme provides funds to zilla panchayats for the purchase of private land for house sites, subject to established limits on the purchase price of the land. In areas where the land prices are above prescribed limits and guidance value, the beneficiaries may pay the amount in excess. The Ambedkar Rural Housing scheme is an all-grant housing programme available only to members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and provides a grant of Rs 20,000 for each housing unit. The state will not issue the hakku patra (title document) until beneficiaries have resided on the site for 15 years. During the first 15 years after house construction, beneficiaries only have a right of possession; ownership will be granted only at the end of 15 years. Beneficiaries are required to sign a non-alienation agreement covering the 15-year period.37 Origin of homestead plot activity The Navagrama Ashraya Housing Scheme originated in 2001 as a programme to ease the overcrowding of villages and to assist the houseless poor through the acquisition of land for new colonies and distribution of house sites. The Navagrama programme contemplates using existing government land for extensions, or purchasing land under the Ashraya – Rural House Sites scheme. The Ambdekar and Ashraya – Rural Housing programmes provide funds for housing. Central government programmes, along with funds from local development programmes, can be tapped for infrastructure development, including payments for labour.38 Institutional roles Local government officials actively manage the Navagrama schemes. The gram panchayat is charged with the responsibility of preparing a proposal for a village extension, including identifying existing government land or private land for

36 The measurements for rural sites are stated as 20’ x 40’ in some Housing Corporation documents. In the two study districts, local officials were in many cases unsure what size house site was required. The size for urban sites is 20 x 30. 37 It is unclear whether once the beneficiaries receive the hakku patra after the 15-year period, they will be subject to the 20-year ban on alienation that is a term of that document. 38 These other programmes include the Calamity Relief Fund, Sampoorna Gram Pozgar Yojana job creation programme, funds from the panchayats for water supply, and the Legislators’ Constituency Development Funds.


25

purchase. If the proposal is accepted by the CEO of the zilla panchayat, the gram panchayat is responsible for the execution of the project. The Housing Corporation attempts to create and maintain partnerships with local NGOs that are active in the areas in which the state is developing new housing colonies. In some cases, such as in Bidar District in northern Karnataka, the NGO drives the programme by identifying and organizing potential housing beneficiaries, conducting training and education, and establishing bank linkages for credit.39 Land source Selection of land is dictated by the number of beneficiaries and the availability of land in a village. The gram panchayat will initially consider whether government land is available for a Navagrama site. If such land is insufficient or non-existent, the district commissioners may be authorized to purchase private land. If purchase is required, the Rajiv Gandhi Housing Corporation recommends the purchase of land close to existing settlements. Such land is typically costlier than more remote land, but the Housing Corporation officials believe that infrastructure costs will be lower and livelihood opportunities greater for the new residents. In addition, if the site is near a village, there is a greater chance of finding a group of beneficiaries interested in relocating. Once the gram panchayat identifies appropriate land, it forwards the details of the land, eligible beneficiaries, and project proposal to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar checks the records on the land, verifies its appropriateness for the scheme, and conducts the price negotiation with the landowner. A land price ceiling is set by a Price Fixing Committee for each area using transaction data from the registration office from the past three years. Current documents maintained by the Rajiv Gandhi Housing Corporation set price limits for land purchase between Rs 50,000 and Rs 2 lakh per acre (depending on the type of land) or 20 percent more than the Guidance Value, whichever is higher. According to the taluk level officials, the price paid by the government for land for the scheme is usually Rs 20,000 to 30,000 less per acre than the prevailing market rate.40 The Chief Executive Officer of the zilla panchayat is responsible for identifying the funds available and securing their release from the various sources. Once the land price is negotiated and funds secured, the file is forwarded to the District Commissioner for approval. Once the District Commissioner gives his approval, the panchayat purchases the land. Two Navagrama colonies in Tumkur District provide examples of two different types of land sources for colony development. The gram panchayat proceeds systematically in the identification of land: 39 An example of an NGO assuming this type of role is Samarasa, a Bidar-based NGO that is piloting a rural housing project in conjunction with the Housing Corporation. 40 The reason for below-market prices is because most market sales are based on term payments for which the seller assumes some risk of late or non-payment. In the case of panchayath purchases, the seller receives the payment in one lump sum at the time of sale.


26

Government land. First preference for Navagrama sites is existing government land. The Kuruduyanahalli colony is an example of a site established on government (ceiling surplus) land. Kuruduyanahalli colony Navagrama Badavane Koratagere Taluk, Tumkur District (Siddagangamma Chinniyappa) Kuruduyanahalli colony is constructed on 1.5 acres of ceiling surplus land that the government acquired in 1998. The colony is less than one kilometer from the village. The land is uneven, has a significant depression, and the government did some limited leveling at the time acquired. Many of the vacant house site plots are on uneven ground. The gram sabha provided the list of beneficiaries for the colony and the engineer designed and platted the colony. The first house was completed in 2001. The house sites are not uniform in appearance and the colony has a scattered appearance. Few residents are in evidence. The land is adjacent to a road and currently receives water piped in from a nearby bore well and stored in a water tank. Thirty-five beneficiary households are assigned to the 35 house sites, 30’ x 40’ each. The beneficiaries include 31 Scheduled Caste members, and four Scheduled Tribe members. All households are BPL. All residents received the plots and houses free of charge. The panchayat selected the beneficiaries from the list maintained by the gram sabha. (The same panchayat represents both Tumkur District colonies studied, but the beneficiaries are drawn from two separate villages, with two separate lists so there was no competition among beneficiaries for sites in the two different colonies.) Twenty-one of the sites are occupied. Many of the residents have encroached on some of the open space and vacant plots. Land purchase. If there is no government land available, the panchayat looks for land to purchase for Navagrama sites. They look for dry land that is close to the village, accessible to the main road, and large enough to accommodate at least nine households. Cheelaganahalli colony is an example of a colony established of purchased land. Cheelaganahalli Navagrama colony Navagrama Badavane Koratagere Taluk, Tumkur District This colony was constructed on two acres of land purchased by the state in 2000, with development beginning in 2001-2002. The colony is adjacent to the village of Cheelaganahalli. The colony has a total of 72 plots, each 30’ x 40’ (1,200 square feet). Fifty of the plots have been settled by beneficiary households; the panchayat maintains the excess plots as common areas. Most of these vacant plots are situated along the road that runs adjacent to the colony, and the panchayat has reserved them for possible


27

development at a later date. The land is currently being used by residents of the colony for grazing livestock. The colony has a population of about 300 people. All households have incomes below the poverty line. Approximately 60 households are scheduled caste, forty households are scheduled tribe, and the balance other backward caste and general caste. The panchayat selected land for the colony by investigating land nearest to the village, beginning with the first land holding on the road closest to the village and proceeding down the road until it located a suitable parcel for possible purchase. The two-acre plot purchased was owned by a resident of the village who owns approximately 25 other acres of land, including land adjacent to the colony parcel. The land was not for sale, but the panchayat approached the landowner and asked him to sell some of his land for the colony project. The landowner wanted to do something for the poor households in the area, and he agreed to sell a two-acre parcel of rain-fed agricultural land adjacent to the road. He had been cultivating ragi and groundnut on the land. Price. The prevailing market rate for comparable dry land in the area is Rs 35,000-40,000/acre. The Tahsildar handled the negotiations for the purchase price, with a final price set at Rs 25,000/acre. Payment of the purchase price was made in a lump sum to the landowner. Land development After the land is purchased or acquired, the zilla panchayat engineer conducts the surveys and plots the house sites and infrastructure for the colony. Beneficiaries select sites based on procedures adopted by the gram panchayat, such as lotteries. As the house construction begins, the panchayat arranges for the construction of roads and other infrastructure, with a priority given to water. Rajiv Gandhi Housing Corporation documents state that local governments can spend up to Rs 20,000 per house site on development of infrastructure, with funds obtained from a number of different schemes. Local panchayat officials from Tumkur District report that the limits only apply to individual schemes and funding sources; there is no limit to the overall amount that they can spend on infrastructure for a colony. A Government Order (“G.O.”) issued in 2000 sets out the requirements for the site development. The taluk level officer interviewed believes the G.O. provides details such as the requirement for 30’ x 40’ plots and 30’-wide roads. He notes that in some cases they have had to give smaller house sites than stated in the G.O. because of the size of available land parcels and number of potential beneficiaries. In addition to the G.O., the panchayat follows rules regarding land conversation and for the maintenance of common areas. They follow the standards even though the government is not required to meet the requirements of the land conversion laws. Cheelaganahalli colony. In Cheelaganahalli colony (land purchase) approximately 12 months passed from the purchase date to the plotting of house sites. During that time, the panchayat processed the conversion of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural use and completed all the administrative steps for the conversion and assignment of beneficiaries. The only restriction on the land use is that the


28

beneficiaries must use the land for residences; they cannot use the land for agricultural purposes only. A government engineer designed the layout of the colony. The panchayat has some input into the design of Navagrama sites, but the engineer will generally make the design he thinks most appropriate. In this case, the panchayat and local residents gave input into the decision to keep some land vacant for later development, and they agreed that land would be best sited along the road. Infrastructure. At the time of the land purchase, the Cheelaganahalli colony site had a hand pump that drew water from a bore well. The amount of water is insufficient for the number of residents, and they also made use of water in a nearby water tank and an existing bore well. Those sources subsequently dried up, and the panchayat dug a new bore well. At the time of the field visit, the residents were waiting for the connections to be completed. Twenty of the house sites also have rainwater collection systems provided by the panchayat. If those households have a positive experience with the rainwater collection systems, the project will be expanded to include all households. Kuruduyanahalli colony. The Kuruduyanahalli colony (using ceiling surplus land) is constructed on land with a significant depression, and the colony has areas in which the land is quite uneven. The government did some land leveling before the plots were set, and new residents are also required to do some land leveling on their plots. The land originally had no separate water source. At the time of the field visit, the colony received water piped in from a nearby bore well and stored in a water tank. The water source (which was less predicable in the past) is one reason the panchayat cites for the less developed nature of the colony. The site has one clearly defined unpaved road from the main road. All residents of both colonies are required to pay an annual fee of Rs 120, which covers water and a base amount of electricity. The sites have meters and beneficiaries are required to pay for excessive electricity use (although the panchayat reports that many do not pay). Residents also pay a house or land tax that varies according to house size from approximately Rs 40-80/year. Plot owners/beneficiaries The sanctioned process for granting or receiving benefits under Karnataka’s Navagrama scheme is as follows:41 Gram sabha list The gram sabha prepares a list of those without houses and without house sites. The panchayat may use an existing list as a base, adding and subtracting names based on current circumstances, and a prospective beneficiary can also approach the panchayat secretary and ask to be placed on the list. 41 Information in this section is drawn from a June 21, 2005 interview with Mr. Anil Shedbal, Company Secretary and General Manager (Finance and Administration), Rajiv Gandhi Housing Commission, interviews with executive officers of the taluk panchayats in June 2005 and August 2005, and documents on file with the Housing Corporation.


29

Ashraya committee beneficiary selection42 The gram sabha makes the list available to the Ashraya Committee. The Ashraya Committee will receive targets of numbers of beneficiaries and amount of money available for a certain scheme. With those limits in mind, the Ashraya Committee will select beneficiaries. Criteria for beneficiary selection include:

• They must be permanent residents of a rural area within the state; • They must be included on the gram sabha list; • They must be without a house or house site; and • They must not have received housing assistance from any other programme.

The list is reviewed at the taluk level, with final beneficiary selection made by the Ashraya committee, or by the taluk panchayat if the committee has been disbanded. The committee is empowered to cancel any benefit granted if the beneficiary is ineligible.43 Posting of list The Ashraya Committee, if operational, sends its list to the CEO of the zilla panchayat for implementation. Within 30 days, the panchayat posts the list of beneficiaries at the zilla panchayat and taluk panchayat offices. Application requirements Listed beneficiaries complete Housing Corporation paperwork. The documents required vary according to whether the beneficiary will receive a grant or a loan, but include: an application form, the agreement between the beneficiary and the Housing Corporation, and a mortgage deed (for loans). The beneficiary cannot take possession of any house site or house until the documentation is complete. House site identification The Executive Officer of the taluka panchayat identifies the house site, if applicable, and gives the beneficiary a work order for house construction, if applicable. Recent fieldwork conducted for another study revealed that the implementation of the Navagrama programme in accordance with its written procedures varies from district to district and taluk to taluk. In some districts, the procedures appear to be followed; elsewhere, some residents who are not eligible for benefits have received houses, and some eligible beneficiaries have made additional payments to the panchayat to receive benefits. Many have not received the full amount of their grants or loans.44

42 In some areas of the state the Ashraya committees are not operating and the beneficiary selection is done by the ward panchayath. 43 Government Order No. HD 4 HAM 99, May 10, 2000. 44 RDI conducted the referenced fieldwork in Karnataka in 2005-2006. A summary of the findings are contained in its report, In Her Own Name: An examination of the gender-specific titling component of Karnataka’s housing programmes (on file at RDI).


30

Land tenure and legal issues Hakku patra/title Pursuant to its procedures, the state issues hakku patra (site title) to beneficiaries in the Navagrama scheme at the time of occupancy, unless the beneficiaries have taken a loan. In that event, the state issues hakku patra after the loan is repaid in full. The form provides that, in accordance with G.O. 190/2001, dated May 24, 2001, registration of the hakku patra is free of cost to the beneficiary. The form has space for the name of the title holder, her residence, and a description of the site. The form states the following conditions:

• The government should issue the hakku patra in the name of a woman, with exceptions for widowers, unmarried men, disabled men, and members of the military;

• The beneficiary should not pledge or transfer the site for 20 years after receipt;45

• The beneficiary can pledge the site to Rajiv Gandhi Housing Corporation/ Karnataka Housing Board or any other Nationalized Bank for the construction of a house;

• Any house constructed must be used for the beneficiary’s residence, not rented out, and must be kept in good living condition; and

• Beneficiaries must pay any taxes imposed by the panchayat, and must abide by rules of the government.

Title to house site On June 10, 2002, the state issued a memo noting that if the state issues housing sites, they should be given in the name of women. If a housing benefit is sought for a site owned by the husband of a beneficiary, the local officials should attempt to convince the husband to transfer title to the site to his wife. If the husband does not agree to the transfer, the wife should be dropped from the list of beneficiaries. Loan repayment Loan repayment begins six months after the release of the first installment. Loans are made for a 15-year period and carry an 11 percent interest rate. For a Rs 10,000 loan, beneficiaries must make payments of Rs 115 per month for 180 months. A beneficiary can pay the balance of the loan at any time; interest is only payable to the date of full repayment. Penalties attach if the beneficiary does not make payments on schedule. One of the possible penalties is loss of possession of the house. Restrictions on alienation During the term of the 15-year loan, the beneficiary cannot sell or encumber the house or house site.46 In addition, the hakku patra form states that the house or house site cannot be transferred during the 20-year period following the beneficiary’s receipt of title.

45 This restriction is five years longer than the 15-year restriction on sale of agricultural land received under government grant under the state land grant rules. Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, Rule 9. 46 There is a difference of opinion whether the beneficiaries can sell the land before the 15-year period if they repay the loan in advance: some panchayath officials believe the 15-year period does not apply if the beneficiary has repaid the loan. Others disagree.


31

The panchayat officials believe the sites could have a market value of about Rs 30,000-40,000, but state that banks will not make loans to beneficiaries with the sites as collateral because of the risks involved with the alienation restrictions. The panchayat officials do not believe any resident of either Navagrama site has taken a loan using the house plot as collateral. Plot uses In the Cheelaganahalli colony (land purchase), despite the small size of the house plots, many have healthy and well developed vegetable gardens covering about a quarter to a third of the plot. The sub-caste in residence, Tigala, has a tradition of vegetable gardening and many households created vegetable gardens as soon as their houses were constructed and the rains permitted.

The gardens in the Cheelaganahalli colony use between one-quarter to one-third of the plot area. The gardens are rain-fed and include chilies, potato, pluses, brinjals, tomatoes, and ladyfinger. Households interviewed report that the good rains made the vegetable gardens possible. Households report making an initial investment of approximately Rs 100 in seeds and seedlings for the garden. They also added some fertilizer to the soil. The vegetables are consumed by the household. The main source of income for most households is wage labour. The house plots in Kuruduvanahalli colony (ceiling surplus land) are less developed and do not include many gardens. The house plots are on uneven ground, and one household interviewed reports that water has not always been available, although this year the rains have been good and many families are growing vegetables.

Gardens and Goats One household in the Cheelaganahalli colony, Navagrama Badavane, maintains a vegetable garden and area for livestock on the plot. The household grows brinjal, squash, chilies, and fodder crops. They paid about Rs 100 for the seeds and seedlings last year, and did not need to make any investment in seeds or seedlings this year. The household consumes the vegetables grown on the plot and uses the fodder for its goats. The household also raises goats on the house plot. They buy kids, raise them, and sell the adult goats for a profit. They realize about Rs 5,000 per year selling goats, and currently have six goats on their house plot. The household also keeps about a dozen chickens, selling one a month for about Rs 8 - 10 each. They use an area in front of their plot for storing fodder and wood that they gather and use for fuel.


32

One household interviewed has a vegetable garden that uses about a quarter of the 30’ x 40’ plot and some encroached land. Vegetables include chilies, brinjal, squash, tomatoes, beans, and cucumber. The household moved in four months ago even though the house was not yet completed. The husband and his son in law bought seeds and fertilizer together, for a total investment of Rs 200. The household will use the vegetables for self-consumption. The household does not keep livestock. The main income for the household (and the entire colony) is making incense sticks. A dealer comes to the colony with the raw materials; the residents make the sticks and sell them to the dealer, receiving Rs 10 for every 1,000 sticks. The household makes about Rs 600 per month from the incense production. The household reports that it is useful to have all the families in the colony engaged in the same business. The dealers who bring the materials and who purchase the completed product only have to travel to one place, and the households can work together on the production process if they wish. House construction Members of scheduled tribes and scheduled castes receive houses free of charge. Other beneficiaries can receive up to Rs 20,000 total for house construction, of which up to Rs 10,000 can be a grant and Rs 10,000 a loan. The loan carries an interest rate of 11 percent per annum, to be repaid at a rate of Rs 115 per month for 15 years. The Corporation documents state that all of the land and infrastructure in the colony is the property of the gram panchayat.47 Beneficiaries must construct houses on their plots; they cannot use the land solely for agriculture. Houses must be at least 20 square meters (65 square feet) and can be of any design. The Housing Corporation makes payments for house construction on an established schedule and requires the panchayat to verify (and physically document) progress made before it releases funds. Governance Neither of the Navagrama sites have separate governance bodies specifically related to the colony. A percentage of the residents at the Cheelaganahalli colony are in the same sub-caste, which tends to address issues within its community. In the Kuruduvanahalli colony, the common occupation of all the residents (making incense sticks) draws the residents together, but there is no separate governance structure. Summary observations The two colonies suggest the advantages of level ground and a reliable water source. The Cheelaganahalli colony (purchased land) appears much more prosperous of the two colonies. All the house construction is completed, and while the plots are small (30 x 40 feet), most are developed with small gardens or areas for livestock. Kuruduvanahalli colony (ceiling surplus land) appears less prosperous. Even with leveling efforts, the ground is quite uneven and the house plots appear situated to take

47 Two local panchayath officials stated that the beneficiaries owned the houses and their individual plot of land.


33

advantage of what level ground there is. Boundaries between plots are unclear, and the colony has a scattered appearance. House construction is not completed on many plots, and despite the good rains, few residents have established gardens or otherwise developed their plots.

3.4 Land reform homesteads in Kerala

Kerala’s land reforms are most often cited for efforts to end the landlord-tenant system of production on agricultural land. However, the reforms contained two other components that were not as far-reaching in terms of acreage or beneficiaries, but involved the allocation of homestead plots. The first was the programme that allowed landless agricultural labourers, or kudikidappukaran, to obtain ownership of the land on which they resided. The second was a programme that established ceilings on holdings with distribution of the excess to landless households. In our field visits to Kerala, we looked at examples of each. Origin of homestead plot activity The Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1963 as amended (the “Act”) is the framework legislation for both the homestead plot and distribution of ceiling surplus land programmes. Homestead plots The Act provided kudikidappukaran the opportunity to obtain permanent, heritable rights to their dwellings and small pieces of land surrounding the dwelling if they did not already own this land. The amount of land the kudikidappukar could attain through this process was limited to 0.10 acre in rural areas and townships, and 0.03 to 0.05 acres in municipalities. The Act required kudikidappukaran to pay the landowner 25 percent of the market value, half of which was to be subsidized by a Kudikidappukar’s Benefit Fund. The remaining half of the purchase price was payable by the kudikidappukar in twelve annual installments.48 48 Id.

Activity type: Land reforms initiatives in 1970s and 1980s

Implementing agency: State revenue department

Land Source: Residential tenancy reform and ceiling surplus land

Size of plots: To 4,400 square feet

Summary observations: These plots of a tenth of an acre have, over time, provided multiple benefits to previously landless beneficiaries. The enabling rules did not include effective restrictions on the sale or transfer of the plots, but the beneficiaries do not appear to have suffered from the free alienability. Over time, all of the beneficiaries constructed suitable houses for themselves without government assistance.


34

An estimated 421,000 kudikidappukaran received ownership rights to their dwellings and surrounding land.49 Most received ownership in the 1970s and many of the claims were settled outside of the official channels.50 State-wide, 21,000 acres were transferred to agricultural labourers as homestead plots, or roughly 0.08 acres per family.51 Ceiling surplus land The Act also set land ownership ceilings that ranged from 5 to 40 acres depending on the size of the household and the quality and use of the land. The Act required landowners to relinquish ownership of landholdings in excess of the established ceilings. The state took possession of the surplus land, and as of March 2002, had distributed 68,745 acres to 166,814 landless households. On average, each household received about 0.4 acre.52 Many beneficiaries of ceiling surplus land used the land for homestead plots, although the number who have done so is unknown. Role of institutions The provisions of the Act are administered by the Revenue Department, which has authority over state land. Local Revenue Department officials accepted applications by landless agricultural labourers for rights to kudikidappu land, and a tribunal established pursuant to the Act to evaluate applications ruled on the rights of individuals. Land source Kudikidappu land This one-acre site is located in Nedumangad Taluk, Trivandrum District, about 50 kilometers outside Trivandrum. The land is about 20 meters from a main road, behind a hospital and some shops. The area is somewhat densely populated, and ten households reside on this acre, each with a 0.10 acre plot.

49 Prakash, supra note 5, at 82. 50 The formal process for application to purchase kudikidappu land followed several stages. First the kudikidappukar applied to the Land Tribunal, which then notified any person interested in the land and posted notice of the application on the village’s notice board and at the land itself. The tribunal then made inquiries, including to the applicant, and issued a decision and an accompanying order. If the application was approved, the order would include the purchase price of the land and the extent of land available to be purchased. When this order was final, the Tribunal would issue a “certificate of purchase,” which vested the rights, title and interest of the land in the kudikidappukar free from encumbrances. Kerala Land Reforms Act 1963 (as amended), sec. 80B. 51 Id. Some kudikidappukaran did not purchase the land on which their huts were situated, but rather enjoyed certain increased securities of tenancy. These increases in the security of tenancy rights included making kudikidappus heritable, reducing the possible amount of arrears of rent to no more than one year’s rent, making rent very low (in the country, the rent was capped at less than two day’s wages), and ensuring that customary rights that existed between kudikidappukars were not abridged. RONALD J. HERRING, LAND TO THE TILLER: THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF AGRARIAN REFORM IN SOUTH ASIA 189 (1983), see also T.J. NOSSITER, COMMUNISM IN KERALA: A STUDY IN POLITICAL ADAPTATION 293 (1982). 52 In distributing ceiling-surplus land, Kerala and West Bengal followed very different patterns than other Indian states. West Bengal, like Kerala, distributed such land in relatively small parcels averaging about 0.4 acre per household. Across the other Indian states, the average amount distributed per household was about 1.5 acres, with five states averaging 3.5 acres per household or more (including Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Haryana, Punjab, and Madhya Pradesh).


35

Several decades ago, the owner of this one-acre site allowed a landless Muslim agricultural labourer to use the land. The labourer had no other land or house plot, and obtained the use of the acre in exchange for an informal work arrangement with the landowner, under which the labourer worked exclusively for the landowner, the landowner paid him solely in food and produce at well under market rates, and the landowner permitted the labourer to use the one-acre parcel. Prior to and following the labourer’s death, the acre was partitioned into 0.10 acre plots and given to his ten children (five sons and five daughters). Ceiling surplus land This site is 2.45 acres of marginal flood-affected land in Palode village, Nedumangad Taluk, Trivandrum District. The land was originally owned by a woman with a total of 12.5 acres. The 2.45 acres was deemed to be above the ceiling under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, transferred to the state, and the state allocated it in 0.10 acre plots to 22 households. Land development Kudikidappu land This one-acre site of dry land is sloped and heavily treed. The government surveyed the land after one of the five daughters of the agricultural labourer (now deceased) applied for patta in 1990. At the time of the survey, the ten households had already partitioned the land for their plots, and the survey boundaries simply noted those agreed boundaries. Some households have telephone connections; two of the ten households have electrical connections. The cost of the connection is Rs 2,000, and Rs 80 per month for the service. Ceiling surplus land This site of approximately 2.5 acres is flood-affected. The site contains 22 plots. All plots are 0.10 acre. Taxes are Rs 2/year for each plot. Approximately three-quarters of the houses in the colony have electricity. The site has well constructed paths between the plots, some of which are paved. Each plot appeared to include a dug well. Plot owners/beneficiaries Kudikidappu land Ten households (the five sons and five daughters of the original kudikadapukkar) reside on the site. Ceiling surplus land The 22 original beneficiaries on this site were all landless at the time they received the 0.10 plots. The beneficiaries applied to the state for land, their applications were prioritized, and the state allotted the land in the 1980s. Fifteen of the original 22 beneficiaries had sold their plots at the time of the field visit. Those individuals who remain on the site have contact with some of the individuals who sold their plots. They report that all purchased other land elsewhere. Much of this site was submerged in a flood in 1992, and as one interviewee noted, “if people can buy land elsewhere, they would prefer not to live here.”


36

Daughter of a kudikidappukar One of the women residents of the kudikidappu site is one of the kudikidappukar’s five daughters. She is married, with a married daughter (22) and two unmarried sons (20, 19). Her husband works in non-agricultural labour earning Rs 100 per day. The woman and her husband completed class 4, and her daughter class 10. The sons, who work as salesmen in a nearby shop, completed class 12. The woman does not work outside the home. She applied for patta in 1990, when she learned that she and her siblings had the right to own their plots. The process took five years; she received patta in her name in 1995. The woman has three chickens and more than 30 trees on the plot, most of which are producing products that the family consumes. She does not grow vegetables. The family built the house 22 years ago with their own funds, at a total cost of Rs 115,000. The woman promised the house plot to her daughter as dowry at the time of her marriage. If the daughter and her husband wish to take possession, patta will be transferred to the daughter’s name, and the family will move. The family expects the sons will receive house plots from their future wives as dowry.

Land tenure and legal issues Patta At both sites, women residents have patta in their names. At the kudikidappukar land site, a daughter of the kudikidappukar applied for patta in 1990. She was applying for an electrical connection and the government official informed her she could apply for patta. The landowners did not resist the process, but it nonetheless took her five years

House plot as dowry

One resident of the site is a Christian woman who received the house plot from her father as dowry when she married. Her father had purchased the plot from someone who purchased it from the original beneficiary. Her father gave his two other two daughters five-cent plots as dowry; the interviewee received a larger plot because she is disabled. The woman’s husband works as a non-agricultural labourer earning Rs 150 per day. She does not work outside the home. They have two sons, 15 and 18 years old. The family built their pucca house with their own resources, spending about Rs 50,000. The plot has banana, jackfruit, coconut, and guava trees, and pepper plants, all of which the family uses for consumption. The woman cares for the trees and plants. Patta is in the name of the original beneficiary, issued in 1982. The woman has a registered deed of sale for the plot, but has not applied to have the name on the patta changed.


37

of visiting the Land Tribunal and pushing the process along before the entire process was complete. She finally received patta in 1995. The patta states it was issued in accordance with Section 80(B) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which is the kudikadippukar provision. The woman states that her name is on the patta because she inherited the plot from her father. Of the ten plots on the site, eight households have received patta. Two more applications are being processed. All plots are held by the daughters of the kudikidappukar or the wives of his sons. The wives state that the patta is in their names (or will be) because their husbands do not take much interest; they are busy working. The women opine that title should be in the woman’s name because if men had title, they might transfer the land without the woman’s knowledge, and title gives a wife security if her husband takes a second wife. At the ceiling surplus land site, the original pattas applied for in the 1970s and issued in the 1980s are in the name of the male head-of-household. Alienability The Act made the rights of kudikidappukars to the homestead plots inheritable, but limits sale rights to family members or landless persons. None of the households in the kudikidappukar land site had sold their plots. A local official states that there is a 12-year moratorium on the sale of ceiling surplus land. The ban on sales does not appear to have hampered the 15 of the original 22 beneficiaries who sold their plots, although it is unclear when those sales occurred. One woman resident of the ceiling surplus land site pledged her plot in order to qualify for a loan from the Women’s Development Corporation. The corporation required her to provide it with the patta for the term of the loan. She repaid the loan. Plot values. Land prices are estimated to be Rs 10,000/cent (Rs 100,000 for a 0.10 acre plot) at the kudikidappu site. Land prices adjacent to the nearby road are Rs 300,000 for 0.10 acre. At the ceiling surplus land site, the land values for plots currently range from Rs 30,000 to 50,000. The values have increased: a woman reports that she bought a plot 14 years ago for Rs 10,000. The most recent sale in the colony was three years ago, when a plot with a Rs 50,000 house sold for Rs 80,000. Plot uses All of the plots on both sites have a large number and variety of trees. Most of the trees were planted by the original beneficiaries and yield products that are consumed by the households. All of the households in the kudikidappu site keep poultry. The woman interviewed at the ceiling surplus site tended a wide variety of trees, including jackfruit, coconut, banana, and guava. The fruit is for self-consumption and animal feed. All of the plots have pepper plants and sell the pepper. Annual income for pepper is in the “low Rs 100s” per year. Some plots have vegetables and some keep livestock.


38

House construction Kudikidappu site Nine of the households receiving plots at the kudikidappu site constructed their own houses without government assistance. One household received a Rs 30,000 grant from the gram panchayat. The quality of the houses among the ten plots varies considerably. The best house is nearest the road. The house is well-constructed, with a tile roof and brick compound wall. The house has an electrical connection, and the household has a TV. The worst house is at the high end of the one-acre site and is owned by the only female-headed household, a widow living alone. The house is a crude bamboo hut with a thatch roof. Ceiling surplus land site All 22 plots have houses and wells constructed by the families without government assistance. Summary observations Both of the sites in Kerala were originally allocated decades ago and are “mature” sites that provide a useful perspective on some elements of homestead plots. The sites demonstrate how, over time, beneficiaries are able to construct suitable houses without government assistance. The sites also illustrate how, over time, trees can be an important source of food for households. The ceiling surplus site demonstrates that giving beneficiaries the right to alienate their plots after a temporal moratorium does not necessarily lead to self-destructive behavior.

3.5 Orissa Village Development Project

Gram Vikas is a NGO that implements comprehensive rural development programmes in Orissa state. Gram Vikas is active in 16 of Orissa’s 30 districts and serves 600 villages.

Activity type: Village development project

Implementing agency: Gram Vikas (NGO)

Land Source: Land purchase and formalization of title to government land.

Size of plots: 1,320 to 3,485 square feet

Summary observations: These sites are examples of the positive impact that a well organized NGO can have in helping poor villagers access and develop larger homestead plots, as well as numerous other related interventions.


39

Origin of homestead plot activity Many residents who reside in the area where Gram Vikas operates live in one-room kacha53 housing typically shared by two or three generations, with little or no space for gardening. One of Gram Vikas’ activities is focused on helping such residents and the villages reorganize and plan the use of available land. The objectives of the reorganization is to provide individual households with improved housing, space for adjacent gardens, and better sanitation facilities, while also giving communities space for school buildings and other shared needs. The following observations come from visits to three villages in the state’s Ganjam District: Kanheiput, Tamana, and Samiapalli. Kanheiput, a small tribal hamlet of 10 households, was destroyed by fire in 1997. The fire created an opportunity to create a living environment that included larger and higher quality housing, family gardens for consumption and income generation, improved and more sanitary latrines, and community space for common buildings, and other needs. The 85 households in the tribal village of Tamana reconfigured the village in 1993 to make better use of the available land base. The third village, Samiapalli, which supports 76 dalit households, was a dense community of kacha housing that leaked and attracted disease-carrying mosquitoes. In 1996-97 the villagers decided to relocate the village in order to have larger land plots for housing, accompanying gardens, and improved sanitation facilities. Role of institutions Gram Vikas, village committees, and the government all played roles in the development of the programmes in the three villages. Gram Vikas provided ideas, encouragement and motivation to the villagers, worked out key issues such as the formalization of title to encroached land in Tamana, provided training, and supplied financial support through loan guarantees and some subsidies. The village committees gave a voice to the villagers and made important decisions. The government provided financial support for housing, water, and waste treatment systems. Land source The Kanheiput villagers identified a one-acre land parcel on which they desired to rebuild their village adjacent to the original village site. The villagers paid Rs 40,000 for the land, an amount higher than the land’s market value due to their strong interest in acquiring that particular parcel. Gram Vikas was instrumental in securing the needed financing for the land purchase and housing construction. Gram Vikas obtained a 15-year loan for the villagers to purchase the land and provide partial financing for house construction (45 percent of the total construction cost), guaranteed its repayment, and supplied the necessary collateral by agreeing to the lender’s placement of a lien on the organization’s assets. The villagers are paying the loan back at a rate of Rs 250/month/household.

53 Thatched-roofed houses constructed of mud.


40

In Tamana, the jumble of kacha houses was torn down and replaced with a well-planned scheme of family plots for housing and gardening. While most of this restructuring occurred on the village’s original land base, about 20 land plots were platted and developed on government land abutting a community forest. Gram Vikas worked with the Revenue Department to formalize the land rights on this government land in the names of the villagers. The villagers had to pay modest fines as part of this formalization process. The residents of Samiapalli purchased five acres of wasteland adjacent to the site of the original village for the purpose of establishing a new village. The villagers paid Rs 177,000 for the land, a relatively high price due to its prime location. The villagers raised the money by cutting and selling the wood of casuarina trees54 from the village’s community forest. The landowners were 12 households also from the village, and sold land to the village in amounts ranging from 2,178 to 34,848 square feet. Land development As a result of the developments, the households in each village gained access to clean water, a toilet, and bathing facilities. Water is supplied either to the houses directly or at nearby village pumps. Each household also has its own flush toilet connected to community leach pits. In Kanheiput the household flush toilets are grouped together on a communal piece of land, while in the other two villages the flush toilets are sited on each household’s land plot. In Tamana, 75 percent of the financing for the water and waste treatment systems came from the government, and Gram Vikas contributed an additional Rs 3,000 per household. The households themselves also paid an average of Rs 1,000, based upon ability to pay. Plot owners/beneficiaries All ten households in the tribal hamlet of Kanheiput consist of married couples, at least one child, and, in a few cases, one or more members of an older generation. The plots are all owned jointly by the husband and wife, due to Gram Vikas’ sensitization to gender issues. Gram Vikas has helped at least one member of each household to receive training as masons. Work is plentiful for the masons and wages are much higher than for agricultural labour. After 80 days of mason training, a mason can receive Rs 80 per day and find 300 days of work per year. A mason with two years of experience earns Rs 150 per day. This compares to Rs 45 per day for agricultural labour. Both men and women are working as masons. Twenty of the 85 households in the ST village of Tamana are landless and the remaining households own an average of 0.2 acres each. All of the landless households include members who have received training as masons, most of them women (described as “revolutionary”). All households in Samiapalli belong to the same scheduled caste. About 20 of the 76 households own small amounts of paddy land. Gram Vikas has also helped to provide

54 Casuarina trees are a perennial used for lumber and firewood.


41

A Widow’s Garden Plot One resident of Samiapalli is a widow who expressed gratitude to Gram Vikas for helping her to obtain a larger and more functional house plot and house. She does not own any animals, but is making good use of her 22 by 60 foot (1320 sq. ft.) plot to grow vegetables and trees. She has planted 10 banana trees, 7 papaya trees, 3 drumstick trees as well as a coconut, mango, and kundur (for curry) tree. She also has a small, but well-tended vegetable garden in which she grows yams, beans, eggplant, chili, and curry leaves. She diverts the waste water from her kitchen, bath, and toilet to her trees and vegetable garden. Although she is elderly and lives alone, she stated that she could easily tend a garden on a house plot twice the size of her present plot.

skilled labour training in this village. Twenty persons have become masons and 25 persons have become painters. Their wages have increased, on average, from Rs 40 per day to Rs 125 per day.

Land tenure and legal issues In Kanheiput, each household received joint title (patta) to a land plot ranging from 2,614 to 3,485 square feet. The house occupied about 900 square feet, with the garden taking up the remaining 1700 – 2600 square feet. Title was issued in the name of both the husband and wife. The village used a lottery to assign the plots: each plot was numbered, the numbers were written on slips of paper, and each household randomly picked a slip and received the plot with the corresponding number. In Tamana, each family received a patta to 2,614 square feet of land. In Samiapalli, the house plot size was decided by a village committee. The committee established 100 identical residential land plots of 1,320 square feet (22 x 60 feet). While the committee had a general intention for neighbors in the old village to receive neighboring land plots in the new village, in practice households were allowed to pick any plot they wanted after paying the patta registration fee of Rs 150. This “first come, first serve” policy to land allocation provided strong motivation, even with the fee. The patta was registered in the name of the wife. During this process the committee showed foresight by establishing more plots than were immediately necessary. These extra plots would be available in the future for families needing a place to live. Plot uses For each village, the new household land plots were substantially larger than what they had been previously. In the original villages each household had a small house, it was often packed tightly with other houses, and there was no land for gardening. By contrast, the new land plots provided room for larger houses as well as for gardening. In addition to land for household plots, each village used some land for community needs. This included common open space between blocks of houses, a community garden in Kanheiput, and land for a building used, depending on the village, for the


42

village grade school (in all cases), baby nursery, community meetings, social events, cyclone shelter, and grain storage. In Samiapalli the community land was purchased in the name of the village. In each village the residents were making active and productive use of the land surrounding their houses. In Samiapalli, a widowed woman is cultivating five papaya trees, seven drumstick trees, and two banana trees, plus yams and beans on her plot and has some paddy. She does not keep any livestock but indicated that most of her neighbors do. She also stated that she grows most of what she eats, although on occasion she purchases eggplant and other vegetables. In Tamana, households cultivate drumstick, coconut, papaya, and bananas on their plots for home consumption and exchange. The villagers rarely buy vegetables with the exception of onions and potatoes. Every household has one cow. Additional Land Assets Each of the villages had valuable land assets in addition to the homestead plots owned by each household and the community land described above. In Kanheiput, the old village was sited on government land. The villagers continue to possess this land, and use it to raise high-quality bullocks to sell as draft animals. The village also has rights to cut wood from 20 acres of government forest land, and rights to use reserve land in the hills for slash and burn agriculture. Five of the families in Kanheiput purchased an acre of farmland in 2003 and divided it equally so that each family received one-fifth of an acre (8,712 square feet). The families made a lump-sum payment for the land with no outside assistance. The families grow vegetables on this land for home consumption and sale. The villagers in Tamana have usufruct rights to 300 acres of community forest land on a hill behind the village. This land is managed by the community. The hill was denuded of trees and vegetation when the community took over its management, but has thrived since. Villagers may take prunings from the trees on the land, but may not cut down the trees themselves. In Samiapalli the village has access to a community forest. As described above, this forest provided the income for purchasing the five acres of land on which the village was re-sited in 1996-97. The village also has use rights to the land where the old village stood. The villagers use this land for keeping livestock, and a handful of people continue to reside in the old houses on that land – primarily the older generation of an extended family household. Some villagers also own paddy land for rice cultivation. House construction The new houses in the three villages represent a dramatic and necessary improvement in the standard of living of the villagers. All three villages constructed larger brick houses for the people to live in. The houses in Kanheiput and Samiapalli have three rooms, and from outside observation the Tamana houses appear to have three rooms as well. An additional benefit of the brick housing is the protection it provides against cyclones due to its structural strength. The house design envisioned one of the three


43

rooms as a kitchen, but in each village the people cook and engage in other kitchen activities behind their houses under thatched porches. The houses in each village were constructed through a combination of in-kind contributions and outside financing. Villagers supplied skilled labour such as bricklaying, wirebending, and painting, unskilled labour, and local materials such as mud and water for concrete. Gram Vikas estimates the monetary value of the in-kind contributions in the Kanheiput house construction at Rs 20,000. Each household in Kanheiput borrowed Rs 22,500 and made an additional Rs 7,500 cash contribution.55 In Tamana needed cash outlays were Rs 22,500 per house. The government provided a subsidy of Rs 11,500, and the remainder was loaned by a private community bank to the beneficiaries through Gram Vikas. The bank did not require collateral to secure the loan; the beneficiaries repaid the loan in seven years. Governance Implementation of Gram Vikas activities in a village begins with the execution of an agreement and the organization of village bodies – one for all men and another for all women in the village. The two general bodies select four men and four women to form a Village Executive Committee, which is legally registered as a society. As a legal entity, the Executive Committee then directly accesses development funds from the government and banks, bypassing the tradition of contractors and middlemen. The Executive Committee assumes all decision-making powers with respect to the Gram Vikas activities in the village. Training programmes are conducted for the Executive Committee members to enhance their leadership capacities. This committee also forms various sub-committees to oversee implementation of various programme components. Summary observations The three villages are examples of the positive impact that a well-organized NGO using a time-tested governance structure can have on the livelihoods of rural residents. The project villages also demonstrate the uses a household can make of a well developed house site, including creating an intensive garden with multiple varieties of trees, keeping livestock, and using space for toilets and baths. In the two villages where it was possible, increasing the house plot size would likely have been worth the relatively nominal increase in costs.

55 The in-kind contribution to building the houses in Kanheiput amounted to 40% of the total construction cost.


44

3.6 West Bengal panchayat land housing colony project

Origin of homestead plot activity The Rural Development Institute, together with the gram panchayat and a Santiniketan-based NGO, Krishti, initiated a project to distribute vested (government) land to landless labouring families in the form of homestead plots. The project has two main objectives: to test the benefits of distributing house and garden plots to the rural landless and to demonstrate a process for selecting, allocating, and improving house and garden plots that local and state governments might replicate. Role of institutions The local panchayat in Birbhum District is leading this project, with the assistance of RDI and Krishti. RDI has been involved in the conception of the project and offered suggestions on project design. A local Bengali consultant engaged by RDI served as liaison with the panchayat and beneficiaries. Krishti, a local NGO that specializes in handicraft activities, assisted in communications with the beneficiaries. In addition, the project has benefited from a local organization’s expertise on matters relating to plantation plants and vegetable gardens. Selection of land RDI initially contemplated purchasing land for the project. In the course of investigating possible acreage to buy, the gram panchayat identified a seven-acre parcel of government land approximately two kilometres from the village of Brahmandihi, in West Bengal’s Birbhum district. The parcel had a market value of approximately Rs 1,050,000. The site has three rain-fed ponds that retain water year-round. The panchayat agreed to allow beneficiaries to take possession (and ultimately ownership) of the land for a housing colony.

Activity type: Homestead allocation and site development

Implementing agency: West Bengal state government; RDI and Krishti

(NGOs)

Land Source: Allocation of government land

Size of plots: 2,800 square feet

Summary observations: This site captures a homestead plot project at a stage prior to beneficiaries taking up residence. The project provides lessons on the importance of site selection, the involvement of experienced NGOs and extension services, and clear communications with all stakeholders in a project.


45

At the time the project began, a self-help group had planted tree seedlings on the land with the panchayat’s permission. One of the initial costs of the project was a donation of Rs 20,000 to the SHG in order to obtain possession of the land. Land development Leveling and surveying The land was somewhat uneven, and RDI paid for land leveling in several places. A survey was conducted and the land mapped. The survey allotted space for individual, common areas, and a road around the ponds. The survey revealed that (1) the cultivators of the rice paddies surrounding the site had encroached significantly on the site, and (2) in order to distribute land plots of equal size 7,300 square feet of land must be purchased. In addition, two plots of purchased land will have to be built up substantially to match the higher level of the site. Wells, waste treatment, and road The site requires three pieces of infrastructure to support occupation by beneficiaries:

• At least two wells must be drilled to supply drinking water to the 35 households. The panchayat informed the beneficiaries that when a critical number had moved to the site (20 households), the panchayat would drill the wells.

• A waste treatment system must be installed. The panchayat stated it would provide the system, with some contribution by the beneficiaries.

• The site requires an access road built across private land, requiring additional land purchases, donations of land by private landowners, or a combination.

Pond water In addition to these investments, the water in the ponds on the land has been depleted by adjacent landowners. Water must be pumped from a nearby canal to replenish the pond water. Trees and plants The site has been planted with numerous seedlings, including coconut and plantain trees. Some beneficiaries have begun vegetable gardens on their plots and the common land. Beneficiaries The panchayat made the preliminary selection of the households that would participate, basing its selection on two factors: (1) each household was on the panchayat’s official list of landless households in the district; and (2) each household lived reasonably close (within approximately two kilometers) to the project site. Krishti and the local consultant verified that each household was in fact landless. The beneficiary group of 34 households consists of the following ethnic groups: 19 Muslim, one general caste member, four members of scheduled castes, and 11 scheduled tribe members. The panchayat used a two-step process to allocate the homestead plots. First, each community represented (Muslim, general caste, scheduled caste, scheduled tribe) received a set of adjacent land plots corresponding to their number of households.


46

Second, each group held a lottery to allocate land plots to individual households within the group. The allocation occurred in August of 2005, and the panchayat was scheduled to prepare and distribute the pattas within two months of the allocation.56 Land tenure and legal issues. The plan for the project originally contemplated that the beneficiaries would receive title (patta) for their plots early in the project. The government would grant title jointly in the names of both husbands and wives. The remaining land, including roads and community land, would remain government land. The panchayat’s issuance of patta to the beneficiaries has been delayed by a number of circumstances, including the lack of funds for house construction. Plot uses As of February 2006, approximately eight beneficiaries had prepared the soil in their plots and grown some vegetables. Two beneficiaries who are employed as guards and are living on the site have well established gardens. Cultivation efforts on the individual plots and common areas have been hampered somewhat by poor soil quality, termites, and reduced water availability. In addition, until houses are constructed, many of the beneficiaries are not interested in developing their plots to grow crops and vegetables. Most beneficiaries work in agricultural labour and do not wish to travel to the site before or after the day’s work to tend the site. Extension services are providing advice on the soil quality and termites, and the panchayat is developing a plan for pumping water from a canal. House construction The progress on the site has been delayed in part because of house construction costs. Most beneficiaries have been reluctant to develop their plots where they are uncertain how their houses will be financed. The beneficiaries, all of whom live in kacha (mud) huts, do not wish to move to new kacha huts at the site and prefer pucca (brick) housing with concrete roofing. The house materials are estimated at Rs 30,000 per house. The panchayat has already used its allotment of funds for house construction in the district, and RDI’s project support does not include funds for house construction. As of the date of this report, no other sources of funds had been identified. Governance The gram panchayat has been actively involved in the project, but has not been able to address the financing for housing in a manner satisfactory to the beneficiaries. The panchayat expresses some frustration with its inability to motivate the beneficiaries to move to the site. The local NGO, Krishti, has assisted in conducting the baseline survey and communicating with beneficiaries. However, Krishti does not have experience with establishing and training self-help groups, agricultural topics, or

56 The distribution of pattas has been delayed due to, in part, a controversy over financial support for house construction.


47

house construction, and as of the field visit to the site, the NGO had not yet taken organized the beneficiaries, established SHGs, or created a plan for the project and a governance structure for the group. Summary observations This project is still in the early stages of development but illustrates the importance of the following considerations in planning homestead plot projects:

• All parties to a project (local government officials, beneficiaries, NGO’s, and extension service providers) should meet regularly to establish and refine project objectives, discuss the stages of the project, and chart progress. Ideally, all parties should have the ability to communicate with each other as often as needed between meetings, with the NGO facilitating the meaningful participation of the beneficiaries to the extent necessary.

• Beneficiaries should have significant involvement in all stages of the planning

and decision-making regarding the project.

• Projects that plan to use plots and common areas for vegetables, plants, and trees should obtain extension advice regarding soil, plant selection, and other relevant issues during the land selection process.

• The distance between current beneficiary habitations and sources of

employment and project land location is a critical consideration, whether beneficiaries plan to move immediately or at a future date.

• The local institutions (either government or NGO) driving the project should

preferably be experienced in land-based projects and working with project beneficiaries, including providing education and capacity building.


48

4. KEY ISSUES IN THE DESIGN OF HOMESTEAD PROGRAMMES While diverse in geography and circumstances, the project sites studied also share some experiences and lessons learned. The common principles that rise to the surface from the study of the individual projects and that are relevant to the design and implementation of homestead projects are outlined below. 1. Origin of homestead projects Ideally, project beneficiaries should initiate homestead projects and participate in their design and implementation to some meaningful degree. Not surprisingly, research findings on projects intended to impact rural livelihoods indicate that those projects conceived of by the targeted population, or that respond directly to needs expressed by the targeted population, have the greatest chance of success.57 The projects examined in this study support that conclusion; some of the strongest projects originated with the ultimate plot owners. The DDS employee housing project has been led by the employees from conception through implementation and continuing with the day to day management. In Gujarat, the projects addressing the needs of the residents with livestock looking for a place to grow fodder and weavers seeking larger house plots for their craft have been solidly successful. Moreover, in addition to meeting the expressed needs of the project beneficiaries, all of these projects have benefited larger groups – beginning with the beneficiary households and extending to their communities. The study also provides another successful variant of this model. In some circumstances, a local NGO such as Gram Vikas, in close consultation with the beneficiaries, has successfully initiated and implemented projects. The NGO provides the foundation – a vision, a plan, a governance structure, and the expertise that holds them all together – that allows beneficiaries to imagine the improvement to their livelihoods through the project and assists in working with beneficiaries to realize the objectives. Critical to the effectiveness of this approach is the NGO’s ability (and willingness) to hand a large measure of authority to the beneficiaries early in the project. 2. Roles of institutions Local government support for homestead projects is essential. At a practical level, local government is responsible for processing applications for the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use and the development of infrastructure in new colonies. Local government officials are also responsible for the interpretation and implementation of government orders affecting house site allocation and related benefits, such as the enforcement of procedures for selecting beneficiaries.

57 See e.g., Department for International Development (“DFID”), 2001. Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets (DFID: London), at 1.0-3.0; John Farrington, 2001. Sustainable Livelihoods, Rights and the New Architecture of Aid, ODI Natural Resource Perspectives Paper, No. 69, June 2001.


49

Even in projects involving the private purchase of private land, such as the DDS housing colony, local government played an essential role in the establishment of the colony. In order to establish the colony, DDS had to obtain permission to convert the land from agricultural to non-agricultural use and relied on the gram panchayat for the development of infrastructure, including roads and electricity. In other projects, local government played a more significant role, including identifying land for projects (Karnataka, Kerala, and West Bengal), designing the layout of the colony (Karnataka, Gujarat weaver colony), and linking beneficiaries with project sites (Karnataka, Kerala, West Bengal). The role of NGOs in the studied projects also falls on a continuum of involvement. At one end of the continuum, most Navagrama sites in Karnataka have no NGO involvement. Similarly, the colonies that originated with land reform legislation in Kerala did not have support of an NGO. At the other end of the continuum, NGOs drive the projects studied in Orissa and Andhra Pradesh. Ideally, a homestead plot programme will include active participation by the local government and local NGOs. The two institutions bring different – but potentially highly complementary – perspectives, skills, and ambits of authority to homestead plot projects. Moreover, the involvement of the two institutions allows flexibility in the management and leadership roles undertaken by the institutions, allowing them to adjust the nature and level of their engagement as the project evolves. For example, at the beginning of projects, an NGO familiar with a community might be best able to assess the need for a homestead plot project and to work with prospective beneficiaries on the design of the project to meet the beneficiaries’ needs. As the project becomes a reality, the local government is better placed to identify land, provide infrastructure, and organize site development. As the project matures, the NGO may again take a more prominent role in assisting beneficiaries with extension services, capacity building, and the establishment of SHGs. 3. Land sources The project sites examined for this study include a mix of government land and private land. Both have advantages and disadvantages. The sources and availability of various types of government land tend to be known to government officials. Local government officers often know the history of specific parcels and their various features. As such, if suitable government land exists in an area, it is often easily and quickly identified. In contrast, local officials may not be as familiar with sources and availability of private land, and it may require time for notice of the government’s interest in land purchases to reach prospective sellers. In addition, private land requires time for inspection, price negotiations, and purchase procedures. However, while government land may offer some benefits, it also poses a danger. Local officials may be tempted to use existing government land for housing colonies simply because it is available even where the land is ill-suited for a colony because of location, condition, or other features. The ceiling surplus land in Koratagere Taluk in


50

Karnataka provides an example of a Navagrama colony that is struggling to overcome difficulties with an uneven site and low water. That said, caution should also be exercised to avoid discounting less than ideal government land. In Kerala, 22 households received plots on ceiling surplus land prone to flooding. The current residents bemoan the quality of the land, yet over time the plots have served the owners well: 15 of 22 have sold plots and purchased more desirable land elsewhere, thereby increasing the value of their land assets and freeing up the lower valued plots for purchase by others with fewer assets. Selection of land: Location, location, location. The mantra is as true in siting homestead plot projects in India as it is in developed real estate markets. For the DDS project in Andhra Pradesh, providing house sites for DDS employees near the DDS office was the impetus of the project. In Karnataka, where the gram panchayats have established hundreds of Navagrama village extensions, the officials involved in the projects uniformly cite the land’s proximity to the village as the single most important factor in land selection. The project gains two benefits from the proximity: infrastructure is easier to construct (such as running electrical lines), and even more critically, the beneficiaries are more likely to move. Over the years, the Karnataka officials found that even when beneficiaries had an opportunity to receive a better house and bigger plot and expressed desire to move, the more distant the site was from the beneficiaries’ village, the more problems occurred with the relocations. The West Bengal project confirms the lessons learned by the Karnataka officials. While numerous reasons are cited for the delays in the West Bengal project, some beneficiaries report a lack of interest in planting and developing land that is one to two kilometers from their village – at least until they are able to move there. In the opinion of some beneficiaries, the effort required to tend a plot so far from their village outweighs any potential benefits. Another essential requirement for land selection is the availability of water. All officials interviewed on the subject recommend that project staff confirm the availability of sufficient water before the land selection is finalized. If possible, provision should be made both for drinking water and for water that can be used for gardens and livestock. Other factors that should be considered in site selection are proximity to a main road, sources of labour for residents, uses of surrounding land, and quality of the soil. However, these considerations are dwarfed by the importance of a good location and the availability of water. 4. Land development All homestead plot projects require consideration of the following:

• Land preparation (clearing, leveling); • Platting (parcel definition); • Road access; • Water (drinking and water for gardens, livestock, bathing, and washing); and • Sanitation.


51

In some areas, beneficiaries will expect other amenities, such as electricity and multi-use common areas. If possible, local governments should consider how the colony can be expanded if a need arises in the future. 5. Plot owners/beneficiaries Beneficiary selection Each of the projects applies its own criteria for the selection of beneficiaries or plot owners. At the DDS site in Andhra Pradesh, at least initially, plot owners must be employees of DDS or one of its sister organizations. In Karnataka, Navagrama beneficiaries must be BPL and without a house site. In Kerala, original beneficiaries had to be kudikidappukaran. In Orissa, Gram Vikas rules require that all households in a project village both participate and benefit. Whatever the eligibility criteria imposed, all projects benefit from clear communication of the criteria to the relevant communities, transparent application of the criteria, and checks to confirm that beneficiaries meet the requirements. In addition to the formal eligibility requirements imposed, beneficiaries and prospective plot owners with the following characteristics assist in the success of a project:

• A genuine desire/willingness to relocate; • A plan (or interest in preparing a plan) for homestead plot-based activities that

benefit the household; • A willingness to contribute their own labour or resources to the homestead

plot project – both their individual plots and the community land; and • A belief that participating in the homestead plot project will ultimately have a

positive impact on their lives. Composition of group The projects studied include beneficiaries from single castes or even sub-castes (Gujarat weaver colony, Karnataka Navagrama Tigala colony, Muslim family kudikidappukar land site, and all Orissa villages) and mixed groups (DDS employee colony, Kerala ceiling-surplus land site with 22 households, and West Bengal group of 34 beneficiary households). Whether the beneficiary group is a homogeneous or heterogeneous group does not necessarily affect the success of the projects, although it should impact project design and planning considerations. Projects with heterogeneous groups are likely to involve unique considerations and, perhaps, challenges. For example, homogenous sub-groups within a heterogeneous group may want to arrange their plots together (as in the West Bengal pilot project). Gram Vikas’s experience in Orissa indicates that at least in some settings, “higher” caste groups may refuse to participate in projects that also involve “lower” castes. In any case, organizing the beneficiary group is likely to be more important and challenging when it is heterogeneous. Mixed groups are unlikely be able to default to or rely on traditional institutions to organize themselves or resolve disputes. Projects with homogenous groups can involve different considerations, particularly when those groups are at or near the bottom of the social and economic hierarchy and face social exclusion problems. Consolidating some (or all) members of such a group


52

and locating them in a colony that is removed from the village can exacerbate social exclusion problems and could be promoted by elites in the village for just this reason. Project planners should explore such issues in project design using both homogenous and heterogeneous focus group discussions. 6. Land tenure and legal issues Alienation of homestead plots Most of the projects studied granted beneficiaries with house plots subject to some restrictions on subsequent alienation. Programme requirements or state-level legislation often restrict beneficiaries from alienating their land and houses until loans are repaid and, in some cases, for a longer period. In Andhra Pradesh, purchasers of sites can sell them immediately but must pay off any outstanding loan first. In Karnataka, beneficiaries are prohibited from selling sites for 15 to 20 years. The requirement, which secures the government’s loan and protects the beneficiary’s asset from ill-considered transfer, also forecloses the beneficiary from one of the benefits of the asset – its transferability for value. In West Bengal, state legislation prohibits those who receive above-ceiling land from ever selling such land. In planning projects, consideration might be given to limiting the ban on transfer to the period of loan repayment, or ten years, whichever is longer. With these types of more limited temporal restrictions, the state would retain its security for the loan and beneficiaries would have a mandatory period of ownership during which they can experience the benefits of the plot. However, once the period had passed, the beneficiaries – like the recipients of ceiling surplus land in Kerala – would also be able to realize the value of a transferable asset during their lifetimes. Gender-specific titling Gender-specific titling requirements were designed as one method of correcting the gender imbalance in land rights that land reform distribution programmes had furthered. The idea behind the requirement is simple: to the extent that governments distribute land and housing benefits, the land and houses should be jointly titled in the names of husband and wife, or titled in the name of women individually. The projects examined include a number of different examples of titling requirements. Karnataka’s Navagrama programme requires title to be granted individually in the name of women. DDS requires title to be granted individually in the name of the employee – whether male or female. Gram Vikas requires that titles be granted in the name of husband and wife for married couples. In Kerala, the daughters of the kudikidapppukar have title to the plots, and wives of the sons have taken title. The ceiling surplus land in Kerala was granted in the name of the male head of household. The decision whether to include gender-specific titling requirements (granting title to women either jointly with their husbands or individually) in a project is best made with some understanding of the origin of the titling efforts. The principle underlying gender-specific titling initiatives is well established: research indicates that if women have secure rights to property (including house plots and houses), their well being, economic status, and social position is likely to improve, and their children,


53

households, and communities benefit.58 Titling land and houses in the name of women creates an environment that potentially extends the benefits realized by the rural poor far beyond simply shelter. In recognition of the potential in such initiatives, in 1985 and again in 1992 India’s central government directed the states to title government-distributed land jointly in the names of husbands and wives, or in the names of women individually. A handful of states responded with directives to give women joint or individual title to government-distributed agricultural land, house sites, and houses. Whether joint or individual tenure is better suited to achieve the objectives of increasing the number of women with land rights and positioning them to take advantage of the benefits of those rights depends in large measure on the legal effect of the type of title granted and the local circumstances. For example, some advocates for women’s rights argue that granting women individual title to a house or house plot in government distribution programmes gives women the best opportunity to benefit from the land or house. If a woman receives title to a house site in her own name, she alone has legal authority over that site. A woman holding title to a house and house site has a right to possession, to exclude others from possession, and to use the site as she wishes. These legal privileges of individual ownership may be limited during a marriage because custom, practice, and community norms are often far more powerful than legal rights. However, in the event the woman is divorced, abandoned, or widowed, a woman is in the most favorable position to retain the property if she is the sole owner.59 Advocates of individual title also point to the limitations of joint title. A woman holding title jointly with her husband may not experience any benefits of ownership because she shares the rights with her husband. In a patriarchal society, most men will control the use of assets, and the addition of the wife’s name to the title is unlikely to alter that pattern. In the event the marriage ends in divorce, individual title provides the wife an unambiguous right to remain in the house or sell it and take the proceeds. It is unclear what rights the wife has in divorce if she holds title jointly with her husband. She may legally have a right to a half interest, or to the whole under the doctrine of survivorship. Translating either right into secure possession (or the monetary value of the half interest) may require intervention of a third party and, at least initially, result in conflict rather than the receipt of a much needed asset.60 The same uncertainty will arise if the husband predeceases the wife. Absent a right to survivorship expressed and understood (or a will passing a spouse’s separate interest

58 See e.g., Agnes R. Quisumbing et al, 1995. Women the Key to Food Security, Food Policy Report: International Food Policy Research Institute. Father’s Money, Mother’s Money, and Parental Commitment: Guatemala and Nicaragua, in ENGENDERING WEALTH AND WELL-BEING: EMPOWERMENT FOR GLOBAL CHANGE, Rae Blumberg, et al., eds. (Boulder: Westview); Bina Agarwal, 1994. A FIELD OF ONE’S OWN: GENDER AND LAND RIGHTS IN SOUTH ASIA (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), at 27-33; Diana Deere and Magdalena Leon, 2001. EMPOWERING WOMEN (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press). 59 Bina Agarwal has made one of the most consistent and compelling cases for individual rights, based on her experiences in India. Bina Agarwal, 2002. Are We Not Peasants Too? Land Rights and Women’s Claims in India, SEEDS paper for the Population Council, November 21, 2002, at 20. 60 Gupta, 2002, at 11. Note that a right of survivorship attached to a joint tenancy will not become operative in the event of divorce or abandonment, only death.


54

to his or her surviving spouse), joint title is more likely than individual title to raise issues of entitlement. Those inhabiting the other side of the debate note that joint title can provide women with the best of both worlds: the benefits of ownership and the household and community support necessary to realize those benefits. If a woman alone owns land and housing, male relatives may attempt to seize them or control their use and production. If a woman holds the property jointly with her husband, his interest can deter rapacious relatives and other interests.61 Champions of joint title recognize its limitations but consider joint title for women an achievable objective, whereas individual title may be challenged and projects delayed. Joint title is acceptable to more of society because it does not appear to break up the family unit through grants of individual property rights.62 Proponents note that while joint title may have more limited value, it is a step toward reducing gender inequality in land ownership, and a small step is better than no step.63 Whether to require the houses and plots to be titled jointly in the name of husbands and wives, or individually in the name of women, should be evaluated by each programme during the design stage. Information that will be important to the decision of whether to grant joint or individual title includes whether beneficiaries belong to Hindu joint families, whether households own other assets (and if so, whether they are held jointly or individually), and the interests of the beneficiary households. Regardless of the decision made, the project staff should include education for beneficiaries, their families, and the community on matters of gender, the objectives underlying the titling requirement, and how those objectives can be realized within the homestead plot programme. 7. Land uses The projects studied offered examples of a wide range of uses of the homestead plots. The most common uses include: gardens (including trees), keeping livestock, storage of fodder and fuel wood, toilets, staff and transitional housing, and space for crafts and income-generation activities such as weaving, making incense sticks, and vermiculture. In addition, colonies include open space and community land used for livestock, plantations, play areas for children, and temples. In some cases, such as the weaver colony in Gujarat, colony residents had an express idea of how they wished to use their house plots and community land. In other areas, such as the Chamunda Mahila colony in Gujarat, an NGO introduced a land-based income-generation idea (vermiculture) to the community. Within the same colony, such as the land purchase Navagrama site in Karnataka, different households will make different use of plots (e.g., gardens, keeping livestock).

61 Agarwal, 2002, at 20; see generally Deere and Leon, 2001. 62 See discussion in Cherryl Walker, 2003. Piety in the Sky? Gender Policy and Land Reform in South Africa, in AGRARIAN CHANGE, GENDER AND LAND RIGHTS, ed. Shahra Razavi (UNRISD Publication) (Oxford: Blackwell Publication) at 142-43. 63 Agarwal, 2002, at 20. In turn, advocates of individual title worry that small, symbolic steps will preclude larger, meaningful steps.


55

Links with income generation programmes: While in some cases the homestead plot owners initiated and have self-managed their use of the homestead plots (such as the DDS colony gardens and housing sites and the weaver colony in Gujarat), in most cases, the homestead projects are assisted by links with NGO and government income-generation programmes. In colonies where income sources are established (DDS, weaver colony), beneficiary loans for house sites and houses were repaid. In places where the homestead plot scheme is not linked to an income-generation activity or income source, such as the Karnataka Navagrama sites, loan repayment has been poor. 8. House construction In most cases, the homestead plots project studied include houses for the plot owners, or plans for future house construction. In all cases, the plot owners have made (or are expected to make) some contribution – whether in cash or in kind – toward the cost of house construction. In Gujarat, residents of the Chamunda Mahila colony constructed their houses using their own resources. Likewise, in Kerala, the vast majority of the beneficiaries of 0.10 plots under land reform provisions constructed houses over time using their own resources. The weaver colony (Gujarat), DDS employees, and many of the Navagrama colony residents (Karnataka) received some portion of the cost of construction as a loan. Even in cases where a beneficiary qualified for a grant for house construction (such as under Karnataka’s Ambedkar Housing scheme, which is coupled with some Navagrama colony projects and provides a Rs 20,000 grant for housing), the grant amount is insufficient to pay for houses that the beneficiaries believe to suitable, and beneficiaries make their own contributions to construction. Some beneficiaries provide labour, but the majority of beneficiaries used savings or borrowed money from their employers, families, and moneylenders to supplement the cost of house construction. As the experience with the West Bengal project demonstrates, houses are an important part of a homestead plot concept. Whether the project believes resources will be available for house construction to begin soon after land is granted, or if house construction will take place only as resources become available, the project should address the matter of house construction with the beneficiaries at the beginning of the project. If house construction will not be immediate, beneficiaries and project staff should develop plans for how the plots might be used by beneficiaries in the interim. 9. Governance and project agreements The majority of the projects studied did not establish systems of governance for the colony or processes by which problems would be addressed. In the Gujarat projects, project participants and beneficiaries rely on traditional institutions, such as caste panchayats and village elders, and also the NGOs assisting with the projects. Similarly, no separate governance systems are established in Navagrama colonies in Karnataka – with no obvious adverse impact. However, projects like the DDS housing colony, which created a code of conduct to govern the colony, have benefited from the establishment of the governance system. Even though the code remains unwritten, all residents are aware of its existence and


56

authority within the colony. The code addresses matters such as maintenance fees, the sale and transfer of property, and responsibilities of plot owners. As time passes, the code can be revised to meet changing circumstances affecting the colony. Similarly, the Gram Vikas villages have benefited from both the written agreement that the NGO executed with the village and the village governance system that allowed villagers to take a meaningful participatory and leadership role in the project. On a smaller scale, all parties to the fodder project in Gujarat benefited from the written agreement setting out the obligations of the SHG, landowner, and NGO. In contrast, the SC colony in Gujarat that attempted to cultivate a vacant plot suffered in part from the absence of an agreement among the beneficiaries, plot owner, and owner of the water. The benefits of clear agreements are numerous. Drafting agreements encourages parties to articulate their objectives and identify the steps necessary to achieve those objectives, including identification of rights and responsibilities. Projects are far more likely to succeed and meet their objectives where all parties understand their rights and responsibilities and consequences attach to failure to meet the obligations. Where new colonies are established, project staff might consider suggesting some agreed system of governance, including a dispute resolution process, for the community. 10. Additional considerations The following are some additional, more general principles that emerge from the examination of the project sites: The more the beneficiaries drive the project, the better the chance of success. Beneficiaries have the best understanding of their circumstances and interests. Successful projects need good designs and active management, but at various stages the beneficiaries should have significant input and decision making authority. In addition, beneficiaries should be required to make contributions to the project – whether in cash or in kind – and should be accountable to each other for their participation in the project. Beneficiary-driven projects take time. In order for beneficiaries to participate in a homestead plot project in a meaningful way, the project must allow time for education and training, site visits, and meetings. Collecting information necessary to form appropriate beneficiary groups and to link those groups to appropriate sites takes time. Introducing income-generation activities and providing necessary education and training requires time. Projects should set realistic timeframes that account for these time-intensive activities and allow project staff sufficient time to do the job correctly. Determine what successful projects look like and measure accomplishment on that basis. Many government programmes measure success only by numbers: number of households benefited, number of acres distributed, number of houses constructed. The numbers often do not reflect whether a project has been successful, especially from the perspective of the intended beneficiaries. As programmes are designed, attention should be given to setting the objectives for that programme, and success should be measured in relation to the achievement of those objectives.


57

5. SUMMARY DESCRIPTIONS OF NEW PROGRAMMES IN KARNATAKA, WEST BENGAL, AND ANDHRA PRADESH

The state governments of Karnataka, West Bengal, and Andhra Pradesh have all recently initiated programmes that involve providing small plots of land to rural landless households. While taking different approaches, all three programmes feature land purchase as a mechanism for obtaining land and involve the development and allocation of homestead and other small plots. Each programme provides lessons for designing future homestead plot allocation programmes.

5.1 Karnataka’s Namma Bhoomi – Namma Thota (“My Land – My Garden”) Programme

The state of Karnataka recently initiated a new programme called Namma Bhoomi – Namma Thota (“My Land – My Garden”) with the objective of improving the livelihoods of landless agricultural labourers through the allocation of small plots. A budget of Rs 20 crore (Rs 200 million) has been provided for the initial fiscal year of 2005-2006, with a target of 100,000 beneficiary families each year for the five-year project term, for a total of five lakh (500,000) beneficiaries. Beneficiary selection. The programme provides for the selection of beneficiaries at the village level, with recommendations for a ward level committee going to the gram sabha. In order to qualify for the programme, the beneficiary family: (1) should not have agricultural land in the family for the last two generations; and (2) should be dependent on agricultural land for its livelihood. Extent/type/location of land granted. The programme provides for the allocation of 4,500 square feet (0.10 acre) of dry land or 2,250 square feet of wet land per landless family. The programme sets a goal of distributing 80 percent dry land and 20 percent wet land under the programme. Land must be fertile and located near a village or roadside. Purchase price. The state’s Standing Committee on Social Justice will make recommendations to the gram panchayat on the extent of land that the state will purchase for the programme. The Tahsildar will fix the purchase price based on the market rate, location, and fertility of the land. Alienation. Land granted under the programme cannot be alienated for a period of 20 years. Title. Title to the land will be granted jointly in the name of husband and wife, or jointly in the names of the members of an eligible self-help group. Linkage with development schemes. The programme will be linked with state programmes capable of assisting the beneficiaries with development of the plot, including: (1) Watershed Department; (2) Horticulture Department; (3) Agriculture Department; (4) Sericulture Department; (5) Animal Husbandry and Fisheries


58

Department; (6) Social Welfare/Backward Classes/Minorities Department; (7) Social Forestry Department; (8) Housing Department; and (9) Rural Development Department.

5.2 West Bengal’s Chash-O-Basobaser Bhumi-dan Prakalpa Programme (“CBBP”) (“Cultivation and Dwelling Plot Allocation Scheme”)

In January 2006, The Government of West Bengal’s Department of Land and Land Reforms undertook a new land purchase programme to provide rural families without land and homesteads with plots of land. The programme benefits are as follows:

• Rural households without houses are each entitled to 1,740 square feet (0.04 acre) of homestead land; and

• Landless rural households that rely on daily wage agricultural labour, food gathering from common property resources, or menial labour and are below poverty line are each entitled to at least 7,000 square feet (0.16 acre) of cultivable land. Households must be completely landless; holders of registered barga land (i.e., sharecroppers) are ineligible. Households must have one member capable of cultivating the land and marketing the produce. Beneficiaries are not permitted to sharecrop the distributed land or use hired labour.

The state has an initial budget of Rs 20 crores (Rs 200 million) for the 2005-2006 year and estimates spending approximately Rs 20,000 per beneficiary household (for 0.16 acre of land), thus benefiting a targeted of 10,000 beneficiary households in the first year. Selection of beneficiaries. The state Revenue Department is charged with implementation of the scheme through a Block Level Land Purchase and Land Distribution Committee (“Land Purchase Committee”). The Land Purchase Committee will select the poorest households from among the landless and houseless agricultural labourer households. Forty percent of the benefits are targeted for members of scheduled tribes and scheduled castes, 20 percent for tribals, and 40 percent for other landless agricultural households. Households that do not make their living from agriculture, such as artisans, are not eligible to receive agricultural land; a separate scheme will provide homestead plots for non-agriculturalists. Land purchase process. The Land Purchase Committee will seek large plots of land for purchase in order to create clusters and take advantage of savings on infrastructure and extension services provided to a group. The Land Purchase Committee will place advertisements in newspapers inviting landowners to offer land for purchase and quoting the minimum price the state will pay for each category of land. The extent of land purchased must be at least 7,000 square feet per household, and must be acceptable to beneficiaries. The Committee will obtain land inspection reports and use information from those reports regarding soil quality and water level, along with location and other factors, to negotiate a price with the sellers. Purchased land will be exempt from the stamp duty, but the seller must bear the cost of registration and deed preparation. Linking land to beneficiaries. After the Land Purchase Committee completes a land purchase it posts a list of prospective beneficiaries in order of priority. The list


59

includes details of economic status, caste, and vocation. Based on the list, the Committee identifies the beneficiaries who will receive the land. The state issues patta in the name of husband and wife, with the woman’s name first. Infrastructure/extension services. Following the purchase and assignment of beneficiaries, the Land Purchase Committee remains responsible for infrastructure support, extension services, and monitoring the economic progress of the beneficiaries.

5.3 Andhra Pradesh IKP Land Purchase Project Subcomponent The government of Andhra Pradesh has recently initiated such land purchases in partnership with women self-help groups as part of its IKP project (formerly called Velugu). The initial land purchases under the project subcomponent have focused on purchases of small agricultural plots between half an acre to one acre per beneficiary household. The project contemplates including homestead plot purchases in the future. In creating the design for its land purchase scheme, the state specifically considered the experience and problems that have plagued land purchase projects implemented by Scheduled Caste Development Corporations. While those schemes have had some success at broadening access to land, they have also faced significant problems, including allowing the landowners seeking to sell land to initiate and control the process, failing to anticipate the need for improvements and technical assistance and to include those costs in budgeting, identifying beneficiaries after the land is purchased, permitting beneficiaries to take on unmanageable debts and establishing often unreasonable repayment schemes. With those experiences in mind, Andhra Pradesh designed the land purchase activity with the following features. Beneficiary-driven process. In contrast to schemes in which bureaucrats initiate the process of identifying land and negotiate for the purchase before identifying beneficiaries, Andhra Pradesh’s land purchase activity is initiated by the beneficiaries. Self-selected beneficiaries that have demonstrated capacity for a land purchase identify the land, negotiate a price, and develop a business plan for farming the land. Purchase plus improvements. Andhra Pradesh requires beneficiaries to consider what improvements (such as irrigation) are necessary and to include the costs of and plan for such improvements in their business plan. This consideration and budgeting for necessary improvements avoids the problems inherent in schemes that allow land purchases without factoring in the costs of necessary improvements essential to successful farming of the land. Business plan requirement. Andhra Pradesh’s requirement of a business plan prior to purchase focuses the beneficiaries on the economic feasibility of their land purchase and requires consideration of options. Schemes that do not identify beneficiaries until after land purchase cannot benefit from this kind of essential business planning. Cost recovery plan. Andhra Pradesh’s land purchase scheme includes a substantial grant component and reasonable repayment terms so beneficiaries are not saddled with an unmanageable debt and unrealistic repayment plan. The repayment plan is


60

included in the pre-purchase business plan so beneficiaries can evaluate the extent of their obligation and understand how the repayment obligation factors into the overall economics of the land purchase option. Each of these new programmes draws on the experience of past programmes, is designed to benefit the poorest sections of the rural population, and attempts to make some provision for land development. The programmes are in their early stages, and as they are implemented, their experiences will provide valuable information as to how best to design homestead and small plot programmes to meet the needs of the rural poor.


61

6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INCORPORATING THE HOMESTEAD CONCEPT INTO GOI OR STATE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES

In addition to the research conducted in six states regarding specific experience with the allocation of homestead plots, this project also included organization of two national-level workshops, attended by both central government officials and government officials and NGO leaders from several Indian states.64 During the workshops, the attendees shared information about small plot allocation and development activities in their states and discussed possibilities for incorporating small plot allocation concepts into either existing or new Government of India rural development programmes.65 While opinions were not unanimous, the groups at the workshops reached a general consensus that the homestead plot concept might be most easily incorporated into an existing GOI scheme, and particularly the rural housing scheme (IAY) and the rural self-employment and wage employment schemes (SGSY/SGRY). This section describes the options for programmatic frameworks. Four possible programmatic frameworks for the homestead plot concept are: (1) create a new, stand-alone centrally-funded GOI scheme; (2) incorporate the concept into an existing centrally-funded GOI scheme; (3) create separate stand-alone state government schemes; and (4) incorporate the concept into existing state government schemes. These options are discussed below. 1. Create new stand-alone centrally-funded scheme This option would have the positive effect of giving recognition to the concept and highlighting the importance the central government places on the concept. However, any positive impact is likely outweighed by: (1) the danger that a large-scale programme is not best suited for the early stages of a new concept (such as the homestead plot allocation) that will undergo some piloting and innovation, fostering learning that can inform refinement of the programme design; (2) a uniform, centrally-funded scheme will be less flexible and capable of responding to local circumstances and conditions; and (3) the GOI supports a large number of centrally-funded schemes, and the Planning Commission and Ministry of Rural Development have been reluctant to introduce new schemes. If after the programme concept has worked through some of the early design refinements and incorporated best practices it appears the programme will benefit from a separate stand-alone centrally-funded scheme, the government can create such a scheme at that time.

2. Incorporate concept into existing centrally-funded scheme(s) Most of the central and state level officials who participated in the workshops support this option as a means of providing the homestead plot concept with central

64 These workshops were held in Delhi on June 4, 2005 and January 6-7, 2006. 65 Because the workshops were national-level events, the focus was on national-level rather than state-level action.


62

government support while piggy-backing on an existing programme to reduce the administrative burdens and transaction costs of designing, approving, and initiating a new scheme. These existing schemes, which are described below, relate to rural housing, wage employment, and self-employment.

• Indira Awaas Yojana (“IAY”)/rural housing. The IAY scheme is the most closely related of the three schemes to the homestead plot concept. IAY began in the 1980’s as a sub-scheme for rural housing within two rural employment programmes, becoming an independent programme in 1996. The primary objective of the scheme is to assist members of scheduled tribes and scheduled castes, freed bonded labourers, and other BPL households with the construction of new houses and upgrades to existing houses. The central government provides 75 percent of the funding, with the state governments providing the balance.

In order to accommodate the homestead plot concept, IAY guidelines will need to be revised in at least three aspects:

Add a land purchase component. A portion of the programme funds

should be designated for land purchase. As the scheme is currently designed, beneficiaries must have house plots in order to receive benefits. A mechanism for land purchase will allow the programme to reach the poorest members of the population, many of whom do not have house plots. The GOI Ministry of Rural Development should revise the IAY Guidelines to state that 25 percent (or some percentage) of the IAY funds are available for state and local governments to purchase land for house sites.

Land Costs per Household Some critics of land purchase schemes assume that land purchase will result in prohibitively expensive programmes. Experience does not support the concern. Land costs are a fraction of current amounts given for house construction. If plots are 0.10 acre each and 20 percent of a site is reserved for open space, roads, pathways, each acre will support eight plots per acre. If land costs are Rs 50,000 per acre, the land cost per household is Rs 6,250. If land costs are Rs 100,000 per acre, land costs per household (at eight plots per acre) are Rs 12,500. If land price is 25,000 per acre, then costs per HH are Rs 3,125.


63

Using funds from the scheme for the purchase of land allows the scheme to serve the poorest members of rural society. The poorest members of the rural population often find it more difficult to obtain secure access to a house site than to find the funds to construct a house. Adding a land purchase component to the scheme will extend the scheme to the neediest section of rural society.

Increase the plot size. In practice, the IAY scheme typically limits plot

sizes to 1,200 square feet (30’ x 40’) or less. Research indicates that house plots of 1,200 square feet or less provide few non-housing livelihood benefits, and that these benefits increase sharply as plot size increases above 1,000 square feet until about 3,000 to 5,000 square feet. When the state or local governments provide the house sites with IAY funding, the IAY Guidelines should establish minimum plot sizes should be established, or minimum averages for a state. For example, the scheme could require plot sizes to be a minimum of 2,400 square feet, with a state-wide average of 3,600 square feet.

Encourage colony/cluster approach. The IAY scheme should

encourage a group approach to the allocation of benefits. This approach is particularly important if and when IAY funds are used to provide house sites and will require at least two revisions in the IAY Guidelines. First, the Guidelines should state a preference for a cluster or new colony approach near (but not necessarily in) the main habitation of the village. Land within a given village’s main habitation area is typically limited, and when available, expensive. Focusing on the main habitation area, as the present Guidelines do,66 leads to very small plots and difficulties providing house sites. Second, the Guidelines should explicitly promote a pattern of funding allocation that is consistent with a cluster approach. Currently, the pattern of IAY implementation provides each village funding for one or two houses per year. This approach is not conducive to land purchase (unless the land was bought in one year and the houses are added slowly year-by-year, which might create its own problems, such as encroachment by elites). In order to take a cluster approach, the limited annual IAY funding should be allocated by district so that each village that benefits receives sufficient resources to support a cluster of houses rather than only one or two houses. This will require revisions to Chapter IV of the current IAY Guidelines.67 Taking a group approach may require that a given village receives benefits only every 5th or 10th year, but overall, the potential benefits received for the funds expended will be greater.

66 Section 3.5 of the current IAY Guidelines state that, “The IAY dwelling units should normally be built on individual plots in the main habitation of the village.” The sentence should be replaced with the following: “The IAY dwelling units should normally be built in a newly established cluster or colony within one kilometer of a village’s main habitation area unless sufficient land is available within the main habitation area of the village to provide house sites of at least 2,400 square feet each.” 67 Id.


64

• Swarnjayanti Gram Swarozgar Yojana (“SGSY”) and Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana (“SGRY”) self-employment and wage employment schemes. SGRY is a centrally-based scheme launched in 2001 to provide wage employment and food security to the rural poor. Labour is provided on infrastructure projects, and labourers are paid in cash and food grains. The central government provides 75 percent of the funding. The scheme is well suited for coupling with the homestead plot scheme because it emphasizes a cluster approach for establishing micro-enterprises and uses self-help groups for associated village level capacity building. The purchase and development of homestead plots could be included as one of the activities and investments elected by beneficiaries under the scheme. As with the rural employment guarantee scheme, caution should be exercised to ensure that the two sets of objectives do not work against each other.

• National Rural Employment Guarantee scheme. In August 2005, the GOI

introduced a scheme to provide guaranteed employment in the 200 most backward districts. Under the scheme, the GOI guarantees 100 days of labour for one adult labourer per household at statutory wage rates. The wage labour is used in rural infrastructure programmes. If the homestead plot concept is linked with the employment guarantee scheme, the labour could be directed to site preparation, infrastructure development, and house construction.

The employment guarantee scheme is not as close a fit thematically with the homestead plot concept as is IAY, and caution will need to be exercised to avoid potentially jeopardizing the ability of the individual programmes to meet their objectives. For example, the availability of wage labour under the employment guarantee scheme in a village should not dictate whether land should be purchased in that village for homesteads, but the coupling of the two programmes might create pressure to do so. Similarly, if land is purchased for a new housing colony, its development could be delayed because no labourers sanctioned under the employment guarantee scheme are available.

3. Create new state government stand-alone schemes As an alternative to centrally-funded schemes, individual states can create their own schemes that either focus on homestead plots or include homestead plots as one option for the use of allocated land. The programmes initiated by Karnataka and West Bengal are examples and illustrate the flexibility of programmes designed at the state level. State governments are more familiar with the circumstances facing their particular populations, the land costs and availability, and other factors that can be accounted for in the design of a state-level programme. State programmes can be particularly effective if they begin with small-scale pilot projects under draft guidelines, monitor and assess experience, revise guidelines consistent with lessons learned, and then roll out the programme in larger areas and ultimately state-wide.

4. Incorporate concept into existing state government schemes Many states have existing programmes, such as rural housing programmes in Karnataka and the IKP land purchase subcomponent in Andhra Pradesh, into which a homestead plot programme could be incorporated. A homestead plot concept could


65

also be incorporated into resettlement activities associated with development-induced displacement (dams, highways, and other infrastructure projects) or disaster-induced displacement (earthquakes, cyclones, floods, tsunami). As with central government programmes, the pairing should be examined to ensure that the programmes complement, rather than detract from, each other. As with a stand alone state programme, much can be gained from designs developed at the state level. These options outlined above are not mutually exclusive. The first option – a new stand alone centrally-funded scheme – presents the most significant potential problems. The remaining options have significant potential.


66

7. CONCLUSION All of the pieces are in place. India’s policymakers understand the extent to which traditional thinking in land reform has failed the rural poor and have demonstrated an openness to new approaches. Policymakers and officials at all levels of the central and state governments recognize the critical role small plots can play in a diversified livelihood system. Distribution of homestead plots is widely accepted as one practical, cost-effective means of positively impacting the livelihoods of India’s rural poor. In the course of this study, key policymakers met in Delhi and explored the options for structuring a homestead plot programme. The workshops resulted in a general consensus on a programmatic framework that incorporates the homestead plot scheme into an existing GOI scheme, while also allowing states to design and implement stand-alone schemes. Back in the villages, existing programmes -- many of which have been operating successfully for years under the guidance of committed NGOs and local government officials -- provide a wealth of experience, ideas, and lessons learned relevant to the design of a homestead plot programme. The study highlights the unique issues confronted in various locations and reveals the considerations common to all projects. The projects and sites studied evidence the breadth and depth of India’s existing knowledge and experience and provide the foundation for the design and implementation of a homestead plot programme that India can implement on a state-by-state basis, and potentially country-wide. All the pieces are in place; all that remains is to make the homestead plot programme a reality. India already knows the consequences of failing to take effective action. The impact of landlessness, poor nutrition, limited income sources, and even more limited opportunities for the poorest individuals to alter their future is evident every day in every village. The time has arrived to take the steps that can change that future.


67

REFERENCES Agarwal, Bina, 1994. A FIELD OF ONE’S OWN: GENDER AND LAND RIGHTS IN SOUTH ASIA (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

------, 2002. Are We Not Peasants Too? Land Rights and Women’s Claims in India, SEEDS paper for the Population Council, November 21, 2002.

Black, R., Morris, S. and Bryce, J. (2003). Where and Why are 10 Million Children Dying Every Year? 361 THE LANCET 2226 – 2234.

Bloem, M., Huq, N., Gorstein, J., Burger, S., Kahn, T., Islam, N., Baker, S. and Davidson, F. (1996). Production of fruits and vegetables at the homestead is an important source of vitamin A among women in rural Bangladesh. 50(suppl. 3) EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION S62 - S67.

Deere, Diana, and Magdalena Leon, 2001. EMPOWERING WOMEN (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press).

Finerman, R. and Sackett, R. (2003). Using Home Gardens to Decipher Health and Healing in the Andes. 17(4) MEDICAL ANTHROPOLOGY QUARTERLY 459 - 482.

Gajaseni, J. and Gajaseni, N. (1999). Ecological rationalities of the traditional homegarden system in the Chao Phraya Basin, Thailand, 46(1) AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS 3 – 23.

Government of India (2002). Tenth Five-Year Plan. New Delhi.

Hanstad, T. (2004) Summary of Findings from Karnataka and West Bengal Rural Household Surveys (Memorandum on file with Rural Development Institute, Seattle, Washington, USA).

Hanstad, T., Brown, J. and Prosterman, R. (2002). Larger Homestead Plots as Land Reform?: International Experience and Analysis from Karnataka. ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY 3053 - 3062.

Hanstad, T. and Lokesh, S.B. (2002). Allocating Homestead Plots as Land Reform: Analysis from West Bengal. RDI REPORTS ON FOREIGN AID AND DEVELOPMENT #115.

Hanstad, T., Lokesh, S.B. and Arun, M. (in preparation). Reaping the Rewards of Homestead Gardens: Nutritional and Income Benefits from Homestead Plots in Karnataka. (On file at RDI)

Helen Keller International/Asia-Pacific (2003). Integration of Animal Husbandry into Home Gardening Programmes to Increase Vitamin A Intake from Foods: Bangladesh, Cambodia and Nepal. Available at http://hkiasiapacific.org/_downloads/APO%20Special%20issue%20Jan%202003.pdf.

Helen Keller International/Asia-Pacific (2001). Homestead Food Production – A Strategy to Combat Malnutrition and Poverty. Helen Keller International: Jakarta, Indonesia.

Hoogerbrugge, I. and Fresco, L.O. (1993). Homegarden Systems: Agricultural Characteristics and Challenges. International Institute for Environment and Development, Gatekeeper Series No. 39.

Kiess, L., Bloem, M.W., de Pee, S., Hye, A., Khan, T.A., Huq, N., Talukder, Z., Haque, M. and Ali, M. (1998). Bangladesh: Xeropthalmia Free: The Result of an Effective Vitamin A Programme and Homestead Gardening in Reducing Vitamin A Deficiency [abstract]. In American Public Health Association 126th Annual Meeting Report, Nov. 15 – 18. Washington, D.C. Reprinted in Appendix 13 of Helen Keller International/Asia-Pacific (2001). Homestead Food Production – A Strategy to Combat Malnutrition and Poverty. Helen Keller International: Jakarta, Indonesia.

Kiess, L., Moench-Pfanner, R. and Bloem, M.W. (2001). Food-Based Strategies: Can they Play a Role in Poverty Alleviation? FOOD AND NUTRITION BULLETIN Vol. 22:2.


68

Kumar, S.K. (1978). Role of the Household Economy in Child Nutrition at Low Incomes: A Case Study in Kerala. Occasional Paper No. 95. Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University. Ithaca, New York.

Landauer, K. and Brazil, M. (1990). Introduction, in Landauer, K. and Brazil, M. (eds.), TROPICAL HOME GARDENS: SELECTED PAPERS FROM AN INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP HELD AT THE INSTITUTE OF ECOLOGY, Padjadjaran University, Bandung, Indonesia, 2 – 9 December 1985). United Nations University Press, Tokyo.

Marsh, R. (1998). Building on Traditional Gardening to Improve Household Food Security. Food, Nutrition and Agriculture No. 22, Food and Agriculture Organization.

Mitchell, R. (2004). Legal Tools to Promote Environmentally Sound Management of Farmland and Forests. World Bank (forthcoming).

Miura, S., Osamu, K. and Susumu, W. (2003). Home Gardening in Urban Poor Communities of the Philippines. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCES AND NUTRITION. Vol 54:1.

Nair, P.K.R. (1993). AN INTRODUCTION TO AGROFORESTRY. (London: Kluwer Academic Publishers).

Nair, P.K.R. (2001). Do Tropical Home Gardens Elude Science, or is it the Other Way Around? AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS, Vol 53, No. 2.

Okigbo, B. (1990). Home Gardens in Tropical Africa, in Landauer, K., and Brazil, M. (eds.) (1990) TROPICAL HOME GARDENS. United Nations University Press, Tokyo, Japan.

Prosterman, R. and Mitchell, R. (2002). Concept for Land Reform on Java, Paper presented at the Seminar “Rethinking Land Reform in Indonesia,” Jakarta, 8 May 2002. On file with the Rural Development Institute, Seattle, Washington.

Quisumbing, Agnes R., et al, 1995. Women the Key to Food Security, Food Policy Report: International Food Policy Research Institute. Father’s Money, Mother’s Money, and Parental Commitment: Guatemala and Nicaragua, in ENGENDERING WEALTH AND WELL-BEING: EMPOWERMENT FOR GLOBAL CHANGE, Rae Blumberg, et al., eds. (Boulder: Westview)

Soemarwoto, O. (1987). Homegardens: A Traditional Agroforestry System with a Promising Future. In Steppler, H., Nair, P.K.R. (eds.) (1987). AGROFORESTRY: A DECADE OF DEVELOPMENT. International Council for Research in Agroforestry, Nairobi, pp. 157 - 170.

Soemarwoto, O., Soemarwoto, I., Karyono and others (1985). The Javanese Home Garden as an Integrated Agro-Ecosystem. 7 FOOD AND NUTRITION BULLETIN, No. 3.

Sommers, P. (1978). Traditional home gardens of selected Philippine households and their potential for improving human nutrition. Masters thesis. University of Philippines, Los Banos.

Stoler, A. (1978). Garden use and household economy in rural Java. 14 BULLETIN OF INDONESIAN ECONOMIC STUDIES 85 – 101.

Terra, G.J.A. (1954). Mixed-Garden Horticulture on Java. 3 THE MALAYAN JOURNAL OF TROPICAL GEOGRAPHY.

Vasey, D.E. (1985). Household Gardens and their Niche in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. 7 Food and Nutrition Bulletin 3.

Walker, Cherryl, 2003. Piety in the Sky? Gender Policy and Land Reform in South Africa, in AGRARIAN CHANGE, GENDER AND LAND RIGHTS, ed. Shahra Razavi (UNRISD Publication) (Oxford: Blackwell Publication).


69

Further information about the LSP The Livelihood Support Programme (LSP) works through the following sub-programmes: Improving people’s access to natural resources Access of the poor to natural assets is essential for sustainable poverty reduction. The livelihoods of rural people with limited or no access to natural resources are vulnerable because they have difficulty in obtaining food, accumulating assets, and recuperating after shocks or misfortunes. Participation, Policy and Local Governance Local people, especially the poor, often have weak or indirect influence on policies that affect their livelihoods. Policies developed at the central level are often not responsive to local needs and may not enable access of the rural poor to needed assets and services. Livelihoods diversification and enterprise development Diversification can assist households to insulate themselves from environmental and economic shocks, trends and seasonality – in effect, to be less vulnerable. Livelihoods diversification is complex, and strategies can include enterprise development. Natural resource conflict management Resource conflicts are often about access to and control over natural assets that are fundamental to the livelihoods of many poor people. Therefore, the shocks caused by these conflicts can increase the vulnerability of the poor. Institutional learning The institutional learning sub-programme has been set up to ensure that lessons learned from cross-departmental, cross-sectoral team work, and the application of sustainable livelihoods approaches, are identified, analysed and evaluated for feedback into the programme. Capacity building The capacity building sub-programme functions as a service-provider to the overall programme, by building a training programme that responds to the emerging needs and priorities identified through the work of the other sub-programmes. People-centred approaches in different cultural contexts A critical review and comparison of different recent development approaches used in different development contexts is being conducted, drawing on experience at the strategic and field levels in different sectors and regions. Mainstreaming sustainable livelihoods approaches in the field FAO designs resource management projects worth more than US$1.5 billion per year. Since smallholder agriculture continues to be the main livelihood source for most of the world’s poor, if some of these projects could be improved, the potential impact could be substantial. Sustainable Livelihoods Referral and Response Facility A Referral and Response Facility has been established to respond to the increasing number of requests from within FAO for assistance on integrating sustainable livelihood and people-centred approaches into both new and existing programmes and activities.

For further information on the Livelihood Support Programme, contact the programme coordinator:

Email: [email protected]

LSP WORKING PAPERS to August 2006

Baumann P., (July 2002) Improving Access to Natural Resources for the Rural Poor: A critical analysis of central concepts and emerging trends from a sustainable livelihoods perspective. FAO, LSP WP 1, Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Cotula L., (August 2002) Improving Access to Natural Resources for the Rural Poor: The experience of FAO and of other key organizations from a sustainable livelihoods perspective. FAO, LSP WP 2, Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Karl M., (August 2002) Participatory Policy Reform from a Sustainable Livelihoods Perspective: Review of concepts and practical experiences. FAO, LSP WP 3, Participation, Policy and Local Governance Sub-Programme. Also available in Spanish and French.

Warren P., (December 2002) Livelihoods Diversification and Enterprise Development: An initial exploration of Concepts and Issues. FAO, LSP WP 4, Livelihoods Diversification and Enterprise Development Sub-Programme.

Cleary D., with contributions from Pari Baumann, Marta Bruno, Ximena Flores and Patrizio Warren (September 2003) People-Centred Approaches: A brief literature review and comparison of types. FAO, LSP WP 5, People-Centered Approaches in Different Cultural Contexts Sub-Programme. Also available in Spanish and French.

Seshia S. with Scoones I., Environment Group, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, UK (November 2003) Understanding Access to Seeds and Plant Genetic Resources. What Can a Livelihoods Perspective Offer? FAO, LSP WP 6, Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Biggs S. D., and Messerschmidt D., (December 2003) The Culture of Access to Mountain Natural Resources: Policy, Processes and Practices. FAO, LSP WP 7, Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Evrard O., (Janvier 2004) La mise en oeuvre de la réforme foncière au Laos : Impacts sociaux et effets sur les conditions de vie en milieu rural (with summary in English). FAO, LSP WP 8, Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Ellis F., Allison E., Overseas Development Group, University of Anglia, UK ( January 2004) Livelihood Diversification and Natural Resource Access. FAO, LSP WP 9, Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme, Livelihood Diversification and Enterprise Development Sub-Programme.

Hodgson S., (March 2004) Land and Water – the rights interface. FAO, LSP WP 10, Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Mitchell R. and Hanstad T., Rural Development Institue (RDI), USA, (March 2004) Small homegarden plots and sustainable livelihoods for the poor. FAO LSP WP 11, Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Hanstad T., Nielsen R., Brown J., Rural Development Institute (RDI), USA, (May 2004) Land and Livelihoods: Making land rights real for India’s rural poor. FAO LSP WP 12, Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Fisher R.J., Schmidt K., Steenhof B. and Akenshaev N., (May 2004) Poverty and forestry : A case study of Kyrgyzstan with reference to other countries in West and Central Asia. FAO LSP WP 13, Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Cotula L., and Toulmin, C. with van Vlaenderen, H., Tall, S.M., Gaye, G., Saunders, J., Ahiadeke, C. and Anarfi, J.K, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), UK (July 2004) Till to tiller: Linkages between international remittances and access to land in West Africa. FAO LSP WP 14, Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Baumann P., Bruno M., Cleary D., Dubois O. and Flores X., with contributions from Warren P., Maffei T. and Johnson J. (March 2004) Applying people centred development approaches within FAO: some practical lessons. FAO LSP WP 15, People Centred Approaches in Different Development Contexts Sub-Programme. Also available in Spanish and French.

Neely C., Sutherland K., and Johnson J. (October 2004) Do sustainable livelihoods approaches have a positive impact on the rural poor? – A look at twelve case studies. FAO LSP WP 16, Institutional Learning Sub-Programme.

Norfolk S. (2004) Examining access to natural resources and linkages to sustainable livelihoods: A case study of Mozambique. FAO LSP WP 17, Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Unruh J. (2004). Post-conflict land tenure: using a sustainable livelihoods approach. FAO LSP WP 18. Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Livelihood Support Programme (LSP) Email: [email protected] from OUTSIDE FAO: http://www.fao.org/sd/dim_pe4/pe4_040501_en.htm from INSIDE FAO: http://intranet.fao.org/en/departments/sd/en/projects/lsp/index.html

Eckman, C. (2005). Lessons Learned by the WIN Project on Livelihoods Diversification and Enterprise Development: An Overview of WIN LDED-related Activities in Cambodia, Nepal and Zambia. FAO LSP WP 19. Livelihoods Diversification and Enterprise Development Sub-Programme.

Warren, P. (2005). Between the Household and the Market: A livelihoods analysis of SPFS seed multiplication in Southern Guatemala. FAO LSP WP 20. Livelihoods Diversification and Enterprise Development Sub-Programme.

Strele M., Holtge K., Fiebeger M., Were J., Schulmeister A., with contributions from Weingartner L., (2006) Participatory Livelihoods Monitoring . Linking Programmes and Poor People’s Interests to Policies Experiences from Cambodia. FAO LSP WP 21. Participation, Policy and Local Governance Sub-Programme.

Unruh J. and Turray H. (2006). Land tenure, food security and investment in postwar Sierra Leone. FAO LSP WP 22. Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Nielsen R., Hanstad T., and Rolfes L. Rural Development Institute (RDI). (2006). Implementing homestead plot programmes: Experience from India. FAO LSP WP 23. Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Quan, J. Natural Resources Institute University of Greenwich. (2006). Land access in the 21st century: Issues, trends, linkages and policy options. FAO LSP WP 24. Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Cotula L., Hesse C., Sylla O., Thébaud B., Vogt G., and Vogt K. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). (2006.) Land and water rights in the Sahel: Tenure challenges of improving access to water for agriculture. FAO LSP WP 25. Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Gomes N. (2006). Access to water, pastoral resource management and pastoralists’ livelihoods: Lessons learned from water development in selected areas of Eastern Africa (Kenya, Ethiopia, Somalia). FAO LSP WP 26. Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Tanner C., Baleira S., Norfolk S., Cau B. and Assulai J. (2006). Making rights a reality: Participation in practice and lessons learned in Mozambique. FAO LSP WP 27. Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Tanner C. and Baleira S.with Afonso Â, Azevedo J. P., Bila J., Chichava C., Moisés A., Pedro C. and Santos J. (2006). Mozambique’s legal framework for access to natural resources: The impact of new legal rights and community consultations on local livelihoods. FAO LSP WP 28. Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Romano F. and Reeb D. (2006). Understanding forest tenure: What rights and for whom? Secure forest tenure for sustainable forest management and poverty alleviation: the case of South and Southeast Asia, with case studies of Orissa and Meghalaya, India and Nepal. FAO LSP WP 29. Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Lindsay J., Wingard J. and Manaljav Z. (2006). Improving the legal framework for participatory forestry: Issues and options for Mongolia. FAO LSP WP 30. Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Schmidt S. with Altanchimeg C., Tungalagtuya K., Narangerel Y., Ganchimeg D., Erdenechimeg B., Dambayuren S. and Battogoo D. New Zealand Nature Institute - Initiative for People Centered Conservation. (2006). Depleting natural wealth – perpetuating poverty: Rural livelihoods and access to forest resources in Mongolia. FAO LSP WP 31. Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Schmidt S. with Altanchimeg C., Tungalagtuya K., Narangerel Y., Ganchimeg D., Erdenechimeg B., Dambayuren S. and Battogoo D. New Zealand Nature Institute - Initiative for People Centered Conservation. (2006). Rural livelihoods and access to forest resources in Mongolia: Methodology and case studies of Tsenkher Soum, Ulaan Uul Soum, Binder Soum, Teshig Soum and Baynlig Soum. FAO LSP WP 32. Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme.

Documents

Experience from India - fao.org