Special Economic Zone Siting and Agricultural Land Loss
A government plans a 2,000 ha special economic zone (SEZ) on land that is currently double-cropped paddy, irrigated by a canal system, and farmed by 6,000 smallholders with average holdings of 0.3 ha. The site is 15 km from a national highway, 40 km from a port, and adjacent to a river. Alternative sites considered: (a) 1,200 ha of degraded, saline land 30 km away with poor road access; (b) 1,500 ha of government-owned land 50 km away near a rail line, partly occupied by informal settlers. The SEZ is expected to create 40,000 jobs, mostly for skilled workers recruited nationally.
1. Evaluate the three sites using explicit criteria, and recommend one.
Read the worked answer
Criteria: agricultural land quality, resettlement burden, connectivity, environmental risk, and job fit for local people.
Current site (2,000 ha paddy):
- Best connectivity (15 km highway, 40 km port).
- Highest agricultural cost: prime double-cropped irrigated land, and 6,000 households lose 0.3 ha each - a livelihood catastrophe, not just a land transaction.
- River adjacency raises flood and effluent risk.
Site (a) degraded saline land (1,200 ha):
- Lowest agricultural cost and no displacement.
- Poor road access adds infrastructure cost; saline land may need drainage and fill.
- Only 1,200 ha, so the zone would be smaller or need a second phase.
Site (b) government land (1,500 ha, rail access):
- Government ownership simplifies acquisition, rail is good for freight.
- Informal settlers still need resettlement and compensation.
- 1,500 ha is short of 2,000 ha.
Job fit: 40,000 jobs are mostly skilled and recruited nationally, so proximity to the displaced farmers is not a strong argument for the current site - the local benefit would be compensation, not employment.
Recommendation: site (b), with a phased 1,500 ha layout plus adjacent acquisition if needed. It avoids prime farmland, uses public land, and has rail freight access. Pair it with a resettlement plan for informal settlers and a skills programme for local youth. If (b) is blocked, site (a) with an access road is preferable to sacrificing 2,000 ha of double-cropped paddy.
2. If the current site is chosen for political reasons, design mitigation to make it defensible.
Read the worked answer
Land and livelihood:
- Replace land-for-cash with land-for-land or equity: give each household a share in the SEZ or a serviced plot in a resettlement area, not a one-off payment that is quickly consumed.
- Provide annuity plus retraining, targeted at the 6,000 households, with priority hiring quotas for locally resident workers in construction and logistics.
Food security:
- Offset the loss of 2,000 ha of double-cropped paddy by intensifying nearby command areas (second crop, improved irrigation) and by reclaiming the saline site (a) for agriculture. Quantify the offset so the loss is not simply absorbed.
Environmental:
- Set back development from the river, with a buffer and stormwater treatment; require flood-risk assessment given river adjacency.
- Preserve the canal system as drainage and green corridor rather than filling it.
Governance:
- Independent monitoring of resettlement outcomes for at least five years, with published indicators (income, employment, food security).
- A grievance mechanism with real authority.
Judgement: mitigation can reduce harm but cannot make the loss of prime irrigated land neutral. It should be presented as compensation for an acknowledged cost, not as a benefit.