The impact of land acquisition for special economic zones on rural livelihood : a case of Kakinada Sez

Abstract

With globalisation increasing at such a rapid pace, most developing countries are transforming their market strategy from an Import substitution based development strategy to an Export promotion development strategy. This has led to the ever increasing of the Special Economic Zones all over the world. The concept of Special Economic Zones was first introduced and practised in China. Very large plots of vacant land was acquired for this purpose and large multi-product factories, industries and companies were set up with a view to boost up the country’s exports and it’s standards in the world market. Following the country’s footsteps, India along with most other developing countries encouraged the concept of Special Economic Zones looking to boost exports from the country, increase employment, improve the infrastructure and urbanise the country. Although, these were the factors that was supposed to be associated with SEZs; for most part of the last decade in India, SEZs have been associated with forceful land acquisition, loss of agricultural lands, loss of livelihoods to farmers, public revolts, antiSEZ struggles.etc. The government has been acquiring land for developing SEZs from the people invoking the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for many years now. This acquisition of land has become the most problematic aspect in the setting up of SEZ policies; as it has led to many popular revolts and widespread violence. My study focuses on this issue that is the Land Acquisition for SEZs and how it has affected the livelihoods of the rural population in India. Prime agricultural land takes up about 57% of India’s land and 0.12% of this land is taken for SEZ. Even though, the number looks minimal, the number of lives affected is anything but minimal. Based on an estimation, 10 lakh (1,000,000) people who primarily depend upon agriculture for their survival face eviction from their land and the calculated total loss of income to the farming and the farm worker families is estimated to be Rs. 212 crores a year. According to an NSSO report, from a survey conducted in the year 2009, 60-65% of the farmers are doing agriculture only because they have no other option and are willing to shift away from it provided they are rightly compensated. Also studies from Madras SEZ and Santacruz Export Processing Zone (SEEPZ) have shown that the people who have shifted their livelihood from agriculture are presently satisfied with their present employment and benefits. While on one hand, some have been embracing the concept of SEZs, there has been a huge amount of affected population fighting against the SEZs leading to many Anti-SEZ struggles. The most famous one being the Nandigram and Singur in West Bengal in the year 2009. Therefore, whether SEZs are beneficial for development has remained a subject of controversy and probably will remain for many years to come if the issue is not addressed. In the month of January this year, 2017 there was an article on this issue in the Times of India. “The Supreme Court issued notice to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and a few states, on the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) which alleged that almost 80% of the land acquired for the SEZs were lying unused and has directed the Centre and the states to conduct "comprehensive social impact study" on the affected farmers and their dependents on account of land acquisition for SEZs.” The aim of the study is to assess the impact of Land Acquisition for Special Economic Zones on Rural livelihood in the case of Kakinada SEZ in Andhra Pradesh. The study addresses different case studies in scenarios where land was acquired from farmers and caused issues to the land losers. One case study is of Polepally SEZ in Telangana where land was grabbed from the farmers without proper compensation and Resettlement & Rehabilitation Policies. The other is of Noida SEZ where the opinions of the affected population was gathered to study the effects of the SEZ. Also how the SEZs in India have fared so far in terms of Investments, exports and employment was generated is studied. The process of Land acquisition and the acts revolving around it has been evolving over the course of 200 years in India. The next chapter provides a brief on the evolution of the Land acquisition policies from 1894 – 2015. Kakinada SEZ in Andhra Pradesh was chosen as the site to carry on the study further as the site is appropriate for this particular study regarding SEZ and land acquisition from rural areas. The Government of Andhra Pradesh made an agreement with Oil & Natural Gas Corporation to set up an oil refinery and the Kakinada SEZ (KSEZ) in 2005. About 9869 acres (3994 ha) of land was acquired for this purpose. The affected area is spread across 16 villages in Uppada Kothapalli Mandal and Tondangi Rural Mandal and population of 12 of the 16 villages face total displacement and most of the farmers and toddy tappers lost their livelihoods. KSEZ got approved in the year 2007 and palm trees were cut in 4,850 acres of land. The loss to these people was evaluated to be Rs.187.5 crore per annum. Farmers were relocated. Some of them were compensated with houses and were paid an amount of Rs. 3 lakh/acre. Some of them shifted to the SEZ colony which was developed as a resettlement strategy for the people from the relocated villages. The villagers started struggles against the SEZ developers and demanded their land back as they lost their livelihood and had no proper source of income. There was so much of violence involved during these struggles and many were imprisoned to control the situation. In the year 2009 a doll factory was set up in the KSEZ area and as many as 350 women were employed. Except for this, there was no further development and vast amount of land was vacated but left vacant by the developers causing anger among the farmers leading to protests. The situation is still a problem in the district. For the study, a household survey was conducted in three villages of different characteristics. The first village which was the SEZ colony, Mulapeta where all of the residents were relocated from different villages affected by the KSEZ. The next village was Srungavruksham, where the residents lost their lands but still lived in their old homes and the third village was Vantimamidi, which was located 2.2 km away from the KSEZ layout and none of the residents here were directly affected by the KSEZ. The socio economic conditions of these villagers is noted and analysed in a strategic manner. A comparison of the income, livelihoods, the basic infrastructure, etc. is made between the three villages and the differences are noted and the reasons for these differences is then studied and analysed. In the analysis stage, the different data that has been collected from the household surveys are laid out in for different villages in graphs and firstly comparisons are made between the three villages in the factors considered. Firstly a comparison is made regarding the income of the three villages and the status of each village is measured based on this income. The income of the three villages are compared and the impact the land acquisition had on these three villages in terms of the income earned is measured and the level of impact is also measured. Next the shift in the livelihood that is the number of people who had to change their occupation due to the acquisition of lands and the development of construction work and the establishment of SEZ. A comparison is made between this shift. This comparison of shift in the livelihood ids an important aspect in the study as this comparison between three villages of different characteristics because it shows the impact of land acquisition for SEZs on the rural livelihood in the area. The level of impact can be observed by the level of shift in each of the livelihoods that how much of the farmers have shifted from farming or fishing or others to other source of income. Then a comparison chart is made on the present scenario of the basic infrastructure facilities which include the households having electricity, access to tap water from a treated source and the number of households having bathroom within their premises. After this a comparison chart is made on the change in the basic infrastructure facilities from before and after the establishment of the SEZs. This comparison shows how much the SEZs have affected the living standards of the three villages which is important to assess the impact of SEZs. An opinion survey was also carried out to study the perspectives and the opinions of the affected people and the people from the surrounding village to know how the public feel about this land acquisition and if they are in support or against this action and also what they wanted and needed. After analysing the data and identifying the issues in the area, recommendations and proposals are made to make their lives better by suggesting changes in the land acquisition bill which is the thing that plays the most important part in the process of land acquisition which is the main reason for most of the problems that rose in development of an SEZ. Most of the struggles were against the process in which the land was acquired and the compensation that was provided both of which are part of the land acquisition bill. After the recommendations given in the land acquisition bill, a few proposals are made such that the livelihood and the living standards that was affected can be mitigated and the source of income lost can be regained by different community level programmes and rural development programmes.