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: yusof2262@gmail.com

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.

10-25k populatio

n

1 hour travelling

time

i. AGRIPOLITAN DISTRICT

Total population : 50 000 -159 000 majority

involved in agriculture and

farming

Agricultural area

Boundary of

Agropolitant District

Agropolitant Centre with 10

– 25,000 inhabitants

ii. IMPLEMENTATION IN MALAYSIAIn 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 UKASNo Location Status

Project No.

Participant Main Activity Seconder Activity

ECER

1 Kelantan Utara(1,000 ha) No 2,000 Penternakan sheep

Sheep farming, cattle, fish planting cassava, oil, agriculture, eco-tourism and homestay, rural industries, SMEs and business

2 Kelantan Selatan(9,000 ha) Yes 3,000 Oil palm

plantationCocoa

Livestock and poultry processing herbal garden, rubber, timber, agribusiness, akuaponik, eco-tourism and homestay, rural industries, SMEs and business

3 Besut, Terengganu(2,045 ha) No 3,000 Planting corn, chilli

Catfish farming, goats, herbs, kenaf, agribusiness, ecotourism and homestay, rural industry, SME and business

4 Pekan, Pahang(1,825 ha) Yes 1,450 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

5 Mersing, Johor(126.32 ha) No

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)

No 550Rubber cultivation and cattle breeding

and dairy cattle

Milk processing plants, meat, organic fertilizer and

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

Source : ECERDC, 2013

3. Status Of Agropolitan Programme By KKLW

Source : KKLW, 2013

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 Gunung Dadok, Saratok(349 ha) No 86 RISDA Rubber Nothing Nothing

2 RASCOM, Sibu(640.9 ha) No 517 RISDA Rubber Nothing Nothing

3 Batang Sadong(605 ha) No 211 FELCRA Oil Palm Nothing Nothing

4 Batang Lupar, Sri Aman(1,595 ha) No 300 FELCRA Oil Palm Nothing 126 housing units, Electricity and water, Booth,

kindergarten, surau

5 Pulau Bruit(495 ha) No 99 FELCRA Oil Palm Nothing Nothing

4. Agropolitan Development Approaches By UKAS

Figure 2: Agropolitan Chart by UKAS

STATE GOVERNMENT

ECERDC INVESTOR

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY

MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY FINANCES

AGROPOLITAN PARTICIPANTS

PHYSICAL COMPONENTS - Housing Lot-Basic Infrastructure -Utilities -Business Center

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

-Mental development Training

-Skills Development -Entrepreneurship

-Development

FARMING / LIVESTOCK

Employee Incentive Allowance and Working

FAMILY PARTICIPANTS

SUPPORTING ACTIVITIES

Akuaponik, mushrooms, beef integration,

agribusiness, and tourism herbs

ACTIVITIES AT THE FARM

Farm groups are managed by the agency

Management / Co-participants and assisted by

government agencies involved

• 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

Figure 3: Agropolitan Chart by KKLW

STATE GOVERNMENT

KKLW FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

IMPLEMENTING AGENCY

MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY FINANCES

AGROPOLITAN PARTICIPANTS

PHYSICAL COMPONENTS - Housing Lot-Basic Infrastructure -Utilities -Business Center

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

-Mental development Training

-Skills Development -Entrepreneurship

-Development

FARMING / LIVESTOCK

Employee Incentive Allowance and Working

FAMILY PARTICIPANTS

SUPPORTING ACTIVITIES

Akuaponik, mushrooms, beef integration,

agribusiness, and tourism herbs

ACTIVITIES AT THE FARM

Farm groups are managed by the agency

Management / Co-participants and assisted by

government agencies involved

• 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

Implementer Agencies Study Area Total Area

UKASAgropolitan Pekan, Pahang 1,825 hectares Agropolitan Gua Musang,

Kelantan9,000 hectares

KKLWAgropolitan Gahai, Pahang 238.7 hectares

Agropolitan Pulau Banggi, Sabah 1,860 hectares

Table 1: List of Study Area

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 100Pulau Banggi, Sabah 96 100Pekan, Pahang 200 100Gua Musang, Kelantan 315 100TOTAL 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%)

Transformation form Statement Pekan Percent (%) Gua

Musang Percent (%) Statement

Economic transformation

Economic improvement 87 43.5 124 39.4Continued economic resources, increase work participation activities and increasing opportunities

Increased job opportunities 3 1.5 5 1.6

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

Physical transformation

Settlements and housing repairs 7 3.5 11 3.5

Construction of new homes, there is a stone house, a bigger house and a beautiful and growing population that settled there.

the agricultural sector 11 5.5 25 7.9Free land for cultivation, supply of pesticides, fertilizers, agricultural materials, free of seeds and planting more stable.

Total in this segment 18 9 36 11.4

Human resources transformation

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

Solidarity, increase the life, the existence of healthy

competition6 3 8 2.5 Increased collaboration, activities, and positive

competition and increase the life

Total in this segment 27 13.5 75 23.8 A total of 62 (12.1 percent) did not answer the questions posedTotal 173 86.5 280 89.2

Table 1.1 : Finding from UKAS Agropolitan Programme

Transformation form Statement Pulau Banggi Percent (%) Tanjung Gahai Percent (%) Statement

Economic transformation

The increase in revenue 17 17.7 9 18 Help supplement the family income, no job opportunities, increase their income by working in the farm

Improved economic 7 7.3 3 6

poverty reduction 2 2.1 1 2

Employment opportunities on the basis

of agriculture2 2.1 2 4

Availability of employment opportunities in the plantation sector, producing many projects

Total in this segment 28 29.2 15 30

Physical transformation

Improvement of facilities and agricultural work 5 5.2 3 6

Availability of basic amenities and facilities 13 13.5 13 26

Availability of basic amenities like water and electricity and no roads, the situation has improved

Total in this segment 18 18.7 16 32

Human resource transformation

Improved quality of life 22 22.9 5 10Improved living standards, there are many employment opportunities and socio-economic change participants

increased comfort 19 19.8 7 14

Changes difficult become easier, more change lifestyle, change our old life into a new direction with a new facility

Total in this segment 41 42.7 12 24 A total of 16 persons (10.9 percent) did not answer and assumed no changeTotal 87 90.6 43 86

Table 1.2 : Finding from KKLW Agropolitan Programme

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.

Income Notes Before % After % < 300 29% < 300 0 There is no participant with

income less than RM 300.00 monthly found

RM 301-600 64% RM 301-600 6% This income bracket declined to about 58%

RM601-900 5% RM601-900 30% Income increased by 25%RM901-1200 2% RM901-1200 62% Income increased by 60%RM1201-1500 0 RM1201-

15003% Income increased by 3 %

Total 100 100

Table above shows the participants economic improvement in a monthly basis income comparison before and after joining the agricultural project.

i. Economic progress

• 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 EnvironmentFree 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 side4. Unsuitability of soil condition 5. High infrastructure and development cost due to remoteness of location6. 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-up15. 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 implemented17. 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 locationVacant 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 participantTarget 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 AreaThe 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 ImplementationThe 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 ManagementAs 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 RTC-

TOWARDS A MORE CONCERNTRATED APPROACH

RTC Centre

Settlement

Integrated Land Agropolitan

Access farm to RTCMain access/ Linkages

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

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

1. Introduction2. Agropolitan Development Programme3. Status Of Agropolitan Programme By UKAS and

KKLW4. Agropolitan Development Approaches By UKAS5. Agropolitan Development Approaches By KKLW6. Study Area7. The Challenges Of Agropolitan Implementation 8. The Findings of Study9. The Proposals To Improving Agropolitan

Programme10. Conclusion

Contents

3. Government Transformation ProgrammeIn 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.”