«Dissertation Zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Doctor rerum agriculturarum (Dr. rer. agr) eingereicht an der Landwirtschaftlich-Gärtnerischen ...»
Here, the value of R2 is 0.34, indicating that thirty four percent of the variance of the observed data was well explained.
Figure 6.5: Relation of Land distribution and Transfer of Land with Land Degradation in Qadirabad Dam Region Source: Own Presentation, field survey 2008 Figure 6.
5 reveals the same relationship of land degradation with the two independent variables, viz., land distribution and transfer of land among heirs from one generation to the next, for the Qadirabad Dam Region. The trend is again negative, which is in agreement with the hypothesis of this study; however, the values of the slopes for these two variables in this region are different from those of the previous region, as here the value of the slope of land distribution is 28.26 and the value of the slope for transfer of land is 19.63. These results indicate that both the variables have an effect on land degradation, but that the land distribution is significantly less effective on degradation with significance at the ninety percent confidence interval, whereas the transfer of land shows significance at the ninety five percent confidence interval and is more strongly related to the dependent variable than in case study region SKR. In this case study region, the value of R2 is 0.324, which shows that, in this case, the variance of observed data is less well explained than in the previous case.
Figure 6.6: Relation of Land distribution and Transfer of Land with Land Degradation in Nandipur Region Source: Own Presentation, field survey 2008 As in above two relationships, Figure 6.
6 demonstrates the negative relationship of land degradation dependent on land distribution and land transfer for the third case study region, but here these two variables show a weak response in comparison with the previous two cases.
In this case, the value of the slope of land distribution is 2.60, and the value of the slope of transfer of land is only 0.883, with R2 also being as low as 0.122, indicating that only twelve percent of the variance is explained, and the data are much scattered. Scientifically, these weaker results show that the land degradation in this region is also caused by other factors, which have been considered as being constant for this analysis.
These results clearly indicate that the land distribution and transfer of land among generations play a significant and important role in the sustainability of land use. These results can be explained with the help of the ownership structure in Figure 6.7. In the first category, the land is not distributed, and the families prefer to live together; as per family traditions, the eldest son or other senior member of the family (uncle) is the custodian of all the estate. In this case, the management of a resource is very important. According to Bromley’s definition, resource management is a structure of rights and duties between different individuals with respect to that particular resource.
Number of Households
Figure 6.7: Pattern of Land Distribution in Study Regions Source: Own Presentation, field survey 2008 Extensive use of these combined agriculture farms to fulfill the needs of an extended family has caused deterioration in the quality of soil, and because of the production of specific yields of the mono-cash crops to increase gains, the land has started to lose its productivity.
The excess use of fertilizers and pesticides is another reason for the reduction of soil fertility in the region. The care taker is looking only for immediate benefit and ignores the future loss of the land (Cropper 1988: 13). However, because of the negligence of actual owners, they had to cost in the form of land degradation.
In the second case from Figure 6.7, the land was distributed, but this transfer was oral, and every shareholder knew his share in land. He could cultivate his land by himself but was still bound with respect to other rights, such as alienation, sale, and future transfer to some other person in the family. The majority of households had documents of partition, which they had obtained from the local patwari. This is a type of kinship group, and according to Larson and Bromley (1989: 237), the owners have some restrictions placed upon them by the other family members or the other owners of the land, and so in this case, the resource is degraded because of insufficient property rights. The main reason of the degradation in this case is the behavior of the group members, as they are unable to act in a socially responsible manner; they blame each other for the low cooperation and coordination for cultivation of land (Demsetz 1967).
No one is willing to accept the authority of anyone else and attempts to make himself as welloff as possible, without taking care of the welfare of other family members. Eventually, a reduction in the efficiency of soil and productivity of land results.
In the third case of Figure 6.7, each landowner had full rights with complete control over his land. This was the case of private property, and according to the literature, the private property regime gives the best results for resource conservation, because of its specific characteristics of management, the decision-making power of ownership, better investment planning, better time utilization for crop cultivation, and improved knowledge about crop rotation. However, sometimes, the owner cannot save his land from the degradation occurring as a result of other effects; for example, as in my study, the lack of input and investment, because of the poverty of the landowners, and their attempts to maximize current profits, with no regard for future resource conditions, are the major reasons for resource deterioration.
From the above discussion, the hypothesis presented in this study, “land distribution among heirs is also a reason of land degradation in the region”, can be accepted. These results show the land distribution effect is strongest in the region Shaikhupura-Kamoki. Although the results show almost equal trends, for further explanations together with the distribution and transfer details, the conflicts related to this issue have also been tested, and some important results have been found.
6.3.2 Conflicts Resulting from Land Distribution
Transfer of property in the next generation is necessary for the redistribution of wealth and the security of succession. However, most of the family members were not good at social relations at the time of distribution, and so transfer became crucial in the presence of such issues and caused conflicts of interests. During this study, various conflicts were observed between the landowners for a given pattern of land distribution (Figure 6.7). For the same pattern of land distribution, another regression line was estimated for the three different regions, and here the respondent variable was conflicts on the basis of land distribution among the heirs, and the explanatory variable was land degradation in the region. The results of this are given in Table 6.4.
Table 6.4: Relation between Conflicts about Land Distribution and Land Degradation
Source: Survey 2008 * Significance level = 1% ** Significance level = 5% According to the results given in Table 6.4, the conflicts related to land distribution had a strong effect on land degradation in the Shaikhupura-Kamoki region and in the Qadirabad region, but the value of QR is higher than that of SKR. In the third case study region (NR), the value effect of conflicts on land degradation was less than one but significant at ninety five percent confidence interval. From these results, not only the pattern of distribution, but also the conflicts that arose on the basis of this distribution are also clearly significant and play an important role in land degradation. The value of R2 is maximum in the Qadirabad region, at 0.206, and its value is 0.109 and 0.094, respectively, in the Shaikhupura-Kamoki region and the Nandipur region. Thus, in QR, the data related to land distribution conflicts is well-explained compared with the other two regions.
This positively sloped line in Figure 6.8 shows the relationship of land distribution conflicts and land degradation in the Shaikhupura-Kamoki region, with a value of 15.99. This relationship reveals that, with an increase in conflicts between household members related to land distribution, the land degradation will increase in the region. The same trend is found in Figure 6.9 and Figure 6.10 for the other two regions, with different slopes at 17.34 and 0.93.
These results show that conflict is also one of the reasons for land degradation. These results demonstrate that the effects of conflicts related to land distribution are stronger in QR than in the other two regions. The value for the third region is quite low, being less than one, and this small effect is also significant for land degradation at ninety five percent of the confidence interval; thus, we cannot ignore this nominal effect.
Figure 6.10: Relation of Land Distribution Conflicts with Land Degradation in NR Source: Own Presentation, field survey 2008 In households in which the land was not distributed (Figure 6.
7) and all matters were dealt by one person, second respondents41 reported that, as they had no rights to use their land, they could not cultivate it according to their own will, they had no idea of the income generated through these farms, and they did not even know the annual production of this land. They complained that this was the fault of the monopoly of the care takers, who controlled all of the estate and its resources and used all their rights in order to keep absolute power over the land that they managed. These second respondents related that they wanted to exercise their rights over the land, and hence, their families should be forced to distribute the land. They also said that their first priority would be to cultivate the land, but that if land condition did not allow them to do so, and they would get a better return by selling up, then they would do so. The first respondents argued that land was a sign of their prestige and power, and that they did not want to distribute their power; in the case of selling up, others would then share their territory.
Some respondents (R1) answered that they had spent money on the marriage and other expenses for the other shareholders, and it was equal to the value of their land, and so now the others had no right to the land.
In the first case study region, the actors who had no rights to land (fifteen) tried to solve this matter through the family and then the nazims of the area, but because of the strong position of the other actors, they could not resolve the matter. Some examples are quoted in which the care taker sold the land, and because of the land-use change, the land was degraded.
On asking for details of the conflicts, one of the respondents told me.
“A plot measuring fifty acres was distributed between four brothers, namely Abdul Hameed, Manzoor Ahmed, Muhammad Saeed, and the respondent (Mustaq Ahmed) himself. The plot remained throughout in the individual ownership of Sadiq Ali Late (father of all shareholders). At his death, according to the family traditions, the property was transferred to the eldest son Abdul Hameed. He used the land for cultivation but did not inform other members exactly about income generated and the returns gained. After sometime, a building was raised on the side plot, and machinery was installed therein for rice processing, but this land-use change caused erosion, and the productivity of other parts of the land was also affected.
As explained in Chapter 4, two respondents were selected from one household to reveal the exact situation of the conflict between the families.