RRPG5 – Yusof Ahmad

Report
AGROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMS IN MALAYSIA
AT THE CROSSROADS
YUSOF AHMAD, HAMID SAAD and
MOHD ZAKI BIN BAHRUDIN
Department of Urban and Regional Planning,
Faculty of Built Environment,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
Johor Bahru.
Email address: [email protected]
1. Introduction
Since the era of independent, the government have
engaged many policies to boost rural development in this
country.
This paper will discover the effectiveness of Agropolitan
programme to solve the poverty issues in rural area.
This research aims to examine the effectiveness and
challenges of this programme in term of tackling the rural
poverty issues.
Finally, the future of this programme is discussed.
2. Agropolitan Development Programme
• Agropolitan concept was developed as a new strategy of regional
development practised in Malaysia and also in other developing countries.
•
This is because the concept of Growth Pole Theory (Teori Pertumbuhan
Pusat) practiced since the 1970s cannot be fully accessed and adopted by
developing countries.
• As a result, the gap between urban and rural became more serious due
economic flows to the central area are much larger than the flow to the
rural economy
• Finally, the idea of ​reducing the rural-urban difference was disrupted
where urban areas were more benefiting as compared to rural areas. The
worst effect was that more people were leaving the countryside for
employment in urban areas.
• John Friedmann & Mike Douglass 1975, developed a new approach which
prefers basic needs approach and focus more on the development of rural
areas through agricultural project concept.
• The concept of the agricultural project is based on agricultural economy
that grows and develops with the running of the system and the efforts of
agribusiness that can serve and encourage agricultural business
development activities (agribusiness) in the surrounding region (Yulistyo,
2008).
• Agropolitan Development project was introduced in Malaysia in 2006 as a
Quantum Leap Programme in eradicating rural poverty.
i. AGRIPOLITAN DISTRICT
Boundary of
Agropolitant
District
Agricultural area
1 hour
travelling
time
10-25k
population
Agropolitant
Centre with 10 –
25,000 inhabitants
Total population : 50 000 159 000 majority involved
in agriculture and farming
ii. IMPLEMENTATION IN MALAYSIA
 In Malaysia, Agropolitan Programs are
implemented by two implementing agencies,
namely the Ministry of Rural and Regional
Development (KKLW) and Public Private
Cooperation Unit (UKAS) under the Prime
Minister Department
3. Status Of Agropolitan Programme By UKAS
No
Location
Status
Project
No.
Participant
1
Kelantan Utara
(1,000 ha)
No
2,000
2
Kelantan Selatan
(9,000 ha)
Yes
3,000
3
Besut, Terengganu
(2,045 ha)
No
3,000
4
Pekan, Pahang
(1,825 ha)
Yes
5
Mersing, Johor
(126.32 ha)
No
1,450
Main Activity
Seconder Activity
ECER
Sheep farming, cattle, fish planting cassava, oil, agriculture, ecoPenternakan
tourism and homestay, rural industries, SMEs and business
sheep
Livestock and poultry processing herbal garden, rubber, timber,
Oil palm
agribusiness, akuaponik, eco-tourism and homestay, rural
plantationCocoa
industries, SMEs and business
Catfish farming, goats, herbs, kenaf, agribusiness, ecotourism and
Planting corn,
homestay, rural industry, SME and business
chilli
Oil palm plantation
Breeding sheep
Secondary activities from sheep farming, akuaponik, mushrooms,
herbs, bird's nest, agribusiness, ecotourism and homestay, rural
industry, SME and business
Eco-tourism, the development of integrated pineapple, cattle
SDC Sabah
Bil
Location
Status
Project
No.
Participant
Main Activity
Seconder Activity
Settlement and Facilities

1
Kota Belud, di
Kuala Pintisan dan
Rasok
(921 ha)
Source : ECERDC, 2013
No
550
Rubber cultivation
Milk processing plants,
and cattle breeding meat, organic fertilizer and
and dairy cattle
gas from cow dung
Roads, water, electricity,
telephone, construction of 550
houses, office buildings, car,
tractor, children's playground,
nursery schools, places of
worship, halls serbaguna dan
kemudahan asas lain
3. Status Of Agropolitan Programme By KKLW
Bil
Location
Project
Status
No. of
Participants
Implementing
Agency
Main
activity
Commercial
Activity
Placement
Peninsular Malaysia
1
Gahai, Lipis
(238.7 ha)
Yes
80
RISDA
Rubber
Bananas
50 housing units, Electricity and water, Hall,
prayer, 5 shops
2
Chemomoi, Bentong
(679.23 ha)
No
200
RISDA
Rubber
Casava
200 housing units, Electricity and water, Hall,
stalls, surau
3
Ganda, Gerik
(1,230.3 ha)
No
400
RISDA
Rubber
Undetermined
200 housing units, Electricity and water, Hall,
stalls, surau
4
Sik
(126.32 ha)
No
50
KEDA
Rubber
Rice plants, fish
cage
50 housing units, Electricity and water
Sabah
1
Pulau Banggi
(1,860 ha)
Yes
200
FELCRA
Rubber
Fish Cage
200 housing units, Electricity and water,
Kindergarten, prayer, stalls
2
Gana, Kota Marudu
(1,696 ha)
No
450
RISDA
Rubber
Nothing
Nothing
Sarawak
1
2
3
Gunung Dadok, Saratok
(349 ha)
RASCOM, Sibu
(640.9 ha)
Batang Sadong
(605 ha)
No
86
RISDA
Rubber
Nothing
Nothing
No
517
RISDA
Rubber
Nothing
Nothing
No
211
FELCRA
Oil Palm
Nothing
Nothing
4
Batang Lupar, Sri Aman
(1,595 ha)
No
300
FELCRA
Oil Palm
Nothing
5
Pulau Bruit
(495 ha)
No
99
FELCRA
Oil Palm
Nothing
Source : KKLW, 2013
126 housing units, Electricity and water, Booth,
kindergarten, surau
Nothing
4. Agropolitan Development Approaches By UKAS
STATE
GOVERNMENT
ECERDC
INVESTOR
IMPLEMENTING AGENCY
MANAGEMENT
ACTIVITY
FINANCES
AGROPOLITAN PARTICIPANTS
PHYSICAL
COMPONENTS
- Housing Lot
-Basic Infrastructure
-Utilities
-Business Center
FARMING /
LIVESTOCK
Employee Incentive
Allowance and Working
HUMAN
DEVELOPMENT
-Mental development
Training
-Skills Development
-Entrepreneurship
-Development
FAMILY
PARTICIPANTS
ACTIVITIES AT THE
FARM
SUPPORTING
ACTIVITIES
Farm groups are managed
by the agency Management
/ Co-participants and
assisted by government
agencies involved
Akuaponik, mushrooms,
beef integration,
agribusiness, and tourism
herbs
Figure 2: Agropolitan Chart by UKAS
• The implementation is supported by the main growth centers of
economic activity, a secondary economy and support activities that will
support growth opportunities and increase income for the population.
This project involves the direct involvement of government agencies,
private sector, universities and NGOs such as
Agencies
TEKUN
Lembaga Tembakau Negara
KADA
KESEDAR
FAMA
JAKOA
FELDA
RISDA
Jabatan Perkhidmatan Veterinar
MARA
Jabatan Perikanan Malaysia
MARDI
Lembaga Koko Malaysia
LPP
Lembaga Minyak Sawit Malaysia
State Goverments
4. Agropolitan Development Approaches By KKLW
STATE
GOVERNMENT
KKLW
FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT
IMPLEMENTING AGENCY
MANAGEMENT
ACTIVITY
FINANCES
AGROPOLITAN PARTICIPANTS
PHYSICAL
COMPONENTS
- Housing Lot
-Basic Infrastructure
-Utilities
-Business Center
FARMING /
LIVESTOCK
Employee Incentive
Allowance and Working
HUMAN
DEVELOPMENT
-Mental development
Training
-Skills Development
-Entrepreneurship
-Development
FAMILY
PARTICIPANTS
ACTIVITIES AT THE
FARM
SUPPORTING
ACTIVITIES
Farm groups are managed
by the agency Management
/ Co-participants and
assisted by government
agencies involved
Akuaponik, mushrooms,
beef integration,
agribusiness, and tourism
herbs
Figure 3: Agropolitan Chart by KKLW
• Physical Development includes the provision of settlement and
infrastructure and social amenities such as homes, mosque, kindergarten /
nursery, hall, playground, and business workshops, drains and drainage,
roads in the settlement as well as water and electricity.
• Human Capital Development the emphasis is dedicated to household
heads (KIR) on aspects of the leadership of the community, family,
spiritual, self-reliance and entrepreneurship. While members of the
household (AIR) are also involved in academic improvement through
tuition and exam preparation.
• Economic Development involves two main components:
Prosperous Farm (Ladang Sejahtera) development involves major community
planting of rubber and oil palm.
Commercial Activities (Ladang Komersil) farm are based on short-term crops,
mainly aimed to support participants before gaining stable income from
prosperous farm. Participants also have the opportunity to diversify its
sources of income in manufacturing, packaging, marketing and business in
premises or workshops available.
This project involves the direct involvement of others agencies such as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lembaga Penyatuan dan Pemulihan Tanah Persekutuan (FELCRA Berhad)
Majlis Amanah Rakyat (MARA)
Pihak Berkuasa Kemajuan Pekebun Kecil Perusahaan Getah (RISDA)
Jabatan Kemajuan Masyarakat (KEMAS)
Jabatan Kemajuan Orang Asli (JAKOA)
Institut Kemajuan Desa (INFRA)
Lembaga Kemajuan Terengganu Tengah (KETENGAH)
Lembaga Kemajuan Wilayah Kedah (KEDA)
Lembaga Kemajuan Johor Tenggara (KEJORA)
6. Study Area and Analysis
Table 1: List of Study Area
Implementer Agencies
UKAS
KKLW
Study Area
Total Area
Agropolitan Pekan, Pahang
1,825 hectares
Agropolitan Gua Musang,
Kelantan
9,000 hectares
Agropolitan Gahai, Pahang
238.7 hectares
Agropolitan Pulau Banggi, Sabah
1,860 hectares
i. Study Area
Figure 1: Location of Study Area
Images of Study Area KKLW
Pulau Banggi
Tanjung Gahai
Images of Study Area UKAS
Gua Musang
ii. Research Methodology
• A field survey using questionnaires was carried
out in April to June 2013 both at all 4 locations.
• 100% (661 nos) survey were conducted on
agropolitan participants (head of household) to
explore their experiences before and after joining
the projects.
• The participants were all 20 years of age or older.
• The achievement of economic, physical and
human development transformation were the
target to be examined.
iii. SAMPLING
Study Area Location
Household
Percentage (%)
Tanjung Gahai, Pahang
50
100
Pulau Banggi, Sabah
96
100
Pekan, Pahang
200
100
Gua Musang, Kelantan
315
100
TOTAL
661
100
iv. Analysis and Discussion
• The Agropolitan project implemented by the
ECER and KKLW, contributed to remarkable
progress of the rural transformation. The
participants’ statements, were classified into
several categories namely socio-economic
aspects, physical and human development.
• From 661 questionnaire distributed, 78
participant gave no answer (11.8%)
Table 1.1 : Finding from UKAS Agropolitan Programme
Transformation
form
Statement
Pekan
Percent (%)
Economic improvement
Increased job opportunities
87
3
43.5
1.5
Gua
Musang
124
5
stability of income
4
2
4
1.3
Gainful activity
4
2
4
1.3
Higher income, and economic activity profitable
Poverty reduction and
improved quality of life
30
15
32
10.2
Poverty reduction, reduction in the number of poor
people
Total in this
segment
128
64
169
53.7
Settlements and housing
repairs
7
3.5
11
3.5
the agricultural sector
11
5.5
25
7.9
Total in this
segment
18
9
36
11.4
Effects of atmosphere of
comfort
4
2
42
13.3
A better life, feel more secure life easier, more
organized, more coordinated economic activity, future
opportunities better and more secure life.
increased life
17
8.5
25
7.9
Style of modern life, people happy, life is more
comfortable and happy
6
3
8
2.5
Increased collaboration, activities, and positive
competition and increase the life
Total in this segment
27
13.5
75
23.8
Total
173
86.5
280
89.2
Economic
transformation
Physical
transformation
Human resources
transformation Solidarity, increase the life,
the existence of healthy
competition
Percent (%)
39.4
1.6
Statement
Continued economic resources, increase work
participation activities and increasing opportunities
Construction of new homes, there is a stone house, a
bigger house and a beautiful and growing population
that settled there.
Free land for cultivation, supply of pesticides, fertilizers,
agricultural materials, free of seeds and planting more
stable.
A total of 62 (12.1 percent) did not answer the
questions posed
Table 1.2 : Finding from KKLW Agropolitan Programme
Transformation
form
Statement
Pulau Banggi
Percent (%)
The increase in revenue
Improved economic
17
7
17.7
7.3
9
3
18
6
poverty reduction
2
2.1
1
2
Economic
Employment
transformation opportunities on the basis
of agriculture
Physical
transformation
Tanjung Gahai Percent (%)
2
2.1
2
4
Total in this
segment
28
29.2
15
30
Improvement of facilities
and agricultural work
5
5.2
3
6
Availability of basic
amenities and facilities
13
13.5
13
26
Total in this
segment
18
18.7
16
32
Improved quality of life
22
22.9
5
10
increased comfort
19
19.8
7
14
Total in this segment
41
42.7
12
24
Total
87
90.6
43
86
Human resource
transformation
Statement
Help supplement the family income, no job
opportunities, increase their income by working in
the farm
Availability of employment opportunities in the
plantation sector, producing many projects
Availability of basic amenities like water and
electricity and no roads, the situation has
improved
Improved living standards, there are many
employment opportunities and socio-economic
change participants
Changes difficult become easier, more change
lifestyle, change our old life into a new direction
with a new facility
A total of 16 persons (10.9 percent) did
not answer and assumed no change
7. Research Findings
• Economic transformation : This is
most
acknowledged responses by the participant
(UKAS : 59% and KKLW : 30%)
• Related to economic change aspects are
existence of income enhancement, more working
opportunities and profitable activities, income
stability, and poverty reduction.
i. Economic progress
Before
< 300
Income
%
After
29%
< 300
Notes
%
0
RM 301-600
64%
RM 301-600
6%
RM601-900
RM901-1200
RM1201-1500
5%
2%
0
RM601-900
RM901-1200
RM12011500
30%
62%
3%
Total
100
There is no participant with
income less than RM 300.00
monthly found
This income bracket declined to
about 58%
Income increased by 25%
Income increased by 60%
Income increased by 3 %
100
Table above shows the participants economic improvement in a monthly basis income comparison before and after
joining the agricultural project.
• Significant income progress occurred in two income
brackets; from RM 601-900 (increased by 25 percent),
from RM 901 to 1200 (increased by 60 percent).
• Whereas at income bracket of RM1201 to RM 1500
only increased by 3%.
• Substantial changes also seen in the income category
of RM 301-RM 600 which shows the disappearance of
people with very low income.
• The economic capability of participant in regard of
income was boosted and as a larger impact, the
hardcore poverty were eradicated.
ii. Transformation in Physical Environment
Free land for cultivation, supply of pesticides, fertilizers, agricultural materials, free of
seeds and planting more stable.
Construction of new homes, there is a brick house, a bigger house and a beautiful and
growing population that settled there.
Availability of basic amenities like water and electricity and no roads, the situation has
improved
(UKAS : 10 % and KKLW : 25 %)
iii. Transformation in Human Development
• Involvement of government agencies in collaboration with
universities such as UMK and UMT in Kelantan and
Terengganu.
• Increased cooperation and interaction among themselves,
healthy competition, increased activities and improve their
spirit.
• Life become more comfortable, having better quality and
more secured life, and look forward to better future
• (UKAS : 19 % and KKLW : 34%)
8. The Challenges Of Agropolitan Implementation
The challenges can be categorized according to pre, during and after project
implementation as below:1. Unavailability of new land for this projects
2. Involves allocation of huge amount of cost to start and run the project
3. Unavailability of manpower from the implementing agency side
4. Unsuitability of soil condition
5. High infrastructure and development cost due to remoteness of location
6. Suitability of the identified projects are not in accordance with site
conditions
7. Constraints in identifying the right participants. Hardcore poverty
people are normally at the end of working age.
8. Lack of skill, knowledge and ageing of participants
9. Dependency on foreign worker instead of participants
10. Difficulty in determining the right number of target participants
11. Weak project management because it involves long bureaucracy
between inter and intra government agencies
12. Difficulty in adapting the original concept due to physical factors
13. Existing projects still rely on government intervention and agencies
14. Participants are too dependent on government and implementing
agency input. Top–down instead of bottom-up
15. Question of self-sustain of the project. How long can the implementing
agencies hold on with the project.
16. Who are best to manage the project after it has been implemented
17. Are we willing to spend so much for very few people?
18. Project stuck halfway
9. The Proposals To Improving Agropolitan Programme
This includes the identification of the :
•
•
•
•
Project location,
Planning of project area,
Project implementation, and
Project management.
A new mechanism has been proposed as an effort to improve
the program so that its effectiveness can be enhanced.
AVOID SPENDING BEFORE FULL PROJECT APPRAISAL AND SOSIO
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ARE APPROVED
• Identification of Project location
Vacant government land is scarce nowadays. In situ development
is the most probable as compared to new development.
Traditional villages with vast unutilized land privately owned
should be the main focus
• The authorities and the main implementing agency should
conduct feasibility study to identify the areas that are most
suitable site for development, which previously only focused
on the identification of areas of government or Malay reserve
area only. Now identification must also consider the strategy
of the location in order to gain profit as has been projected.
• Target participant
Target participant should not only cover hardcore poverty.
Rather it should include everybody who are in the poverty
classification. More importantly, those chosen must be healthy,
younger and have the will power to work in the project
• Planning of the Project Area
The project area that has been identified should be provided
with the adequate facilities. In fact, the number of participants
should be targeted compatible with the size of the area and are
relevant to the site.
• Project Implementation
The agency responsible should ensure that projects are
controlled to achieve the desired target. Governs transparency
will be paramount. Infrastructure must be built to achieve high
standards set by any agency. This is because in the case of Pulau
Banggi, Sabah, all the facilities built did not meet the standards
set by the local technical agencies.
• Project Management
As an effort to streamline the Agropolitan program, Malaysia
needs to develop its own mechanism in shaping the agricultural
project model that fits the situation in the country. The original
concept which was introduced did not fully materialized due to
some problems arise in the site.
New Concept To Improving Agropolitan Programme
-MERGING OF AGROPOLITANT AND RTCTOWARDS A MORE CONCERNTRATED APPROACH
Three of these components serve
as the main criteria that must be
adapted to this concept as follows:
• RTC center
• Integration of Land Agropolitan
• Growth Centre
Known as ‘Mini Agro’
FOCUS ON UN-UTILISED LAND
(TANAH TERBIAR)
FUNDING FROM PRIVATE AND
PUBLIC SECTOR
RTC Centre
Settlement
Integrated Land Agropolitan
Access farm to RTC
Main access/ Linkages
IMPLEMENTATION OF AGROPOLITANT PROJECT IN OVERSEAS SUCH AS INDONESIA
DOES DOT DEPEND SO MUCH ON PUBLIC FUND
10. Conclusion
• The agricultural project implementation used two different
methods but have the same goal which is to develop rural
areas.
• Less strategic location has also prevented the implementation
of this program, particularly involving areas in Sabah and
Sarawak. Here the selected should not be simply based on
availability, but must be feasible and strategic as well.
• A combination of a few mini agropolitan will then help to form
agropolitan and RTC.
• Finally, it is time for the relevant authorities to rethink whether
is necessary to continue the program with previous methods, as
this program has incurred so much capital expenses.
• A more effective approach is hereby highlighted.
THANK YOU
THANK YOU
TERIMA KASIH
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Agropolitan Development Programme
3. Status Of Agropolitan Programme By UKAS and
KKLW
4. Agropolitan Development Approaches By UKAS
5. Agropolitan Development Approaches By KKLW
6. Study Area
7. The Challenges Of Agropolitan Implementation
8. The Findings of Study
9. The Proposals To Improving Agropolitan
Programme
10. Conclusion
3. Government Transformation Programme
In 2012, the present Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Mohd Najib Tun Razak
launched another development programme which is known as ‘Government
Transformation Programme’ which include the rural sector also. The
initiatives include:
• Enhancing water supply distribution and treatment system : Upgrades
will be made to the existing system to ensure that the expansion of water
delivery will not overly tax the existing supply.
• Rural electrification programme : Schools in rural areas will be connected
to the main grid to reduce their dependence on diesel generators thereby
lessening their fuel cost and ensuring that there is a more stable supply of
electricity. Hybrid systems will also be used to deliver electricity to rural
households.
• Maintenance of infrastructure : This initiative aims to monitor and
maintain roads and power generators in rural areas.”

similar documents