💥Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS3-08.Issues related to direct and indirect farm subsidies and MSP

  • Centre raises Fair Prices for Sugarcane Harvest

    The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs has approved Fair and Remunerative Price (FRP) of sugarcane for sugar season 2022-23 (October – September) at ₹305 per quintal.

    What is FRP?

    • FRP is fixed under a sugarcane control order, 1966.
    • It is the minimum price that sugar mills are supposed to pay to the farmers.
    • However, states determine their own State Agreed Price (SAP) which is generally higher than the FRP.

    Factors considered for FRP:

    • The amended provisions of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 provides for fixation of FRP of sugarcane having regard to the following factors:
    1. a) cost of production of sugarcane;
    2. b) return to the growers from alternative crops and the general trend of prices of agricultural commodities;
    3. c) availability of sugar to consumers at a fair price;
    4. d) price at which sugar produced from sugarcane is sold by sugar producers;
    5. e) recovery of sugar from sugarcane;
    6. f) the realization made from the sale of by-products viz. molasses, bagasse, and press mud or their imputed value;
    7. g) reasonable margins for the growers of sugarcane on account of risk and profits.

    Who determines Sugarcane prices?

    Sugarcane prices are determined by the Centre as well as States.

    1. The Centre announces Fair and Remunerative Prices which are determined on the recommendation of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) and are announced by the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs, which is chaired by Prime Minister.
    2. The State Advised Prices (SAP) are announced by key sugarcane producing states which are generally higher than FRP.

    Minimum Selling Price (MSP) for Sugar

    • The price of sugar is market-driven & depends on the demand & supply of sugar.
    • However, with a view to protecting the interests of farmers, the concept of MSP of sugar has been introduced since 2018.
    • MSP of sugar has been fixed taking into account the components of Fair & Remunerative Price (FRP) of sugarcane and minimum conversion cost of the most efficient mills.

    Basis of price determination

    • With the amendment of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, the concept of Statutory Minimum Price (SMP) of sugarcane was replaced with the Fair and Remunerative Price (FRP)’ of sugarcane in 2009-10.
    • The cane price announced by the Central Government is decided on the basis of the recommendations of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP).
    • This is done in consultation with the State Governments and after taking feedback from associations of the sugar industry.

    Try this PYQ:

     

    Q.The Fair and Remunerative Price (FRP) of sugarcane is approved by the:

    (a) Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs

    (b) Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices

    (c) Directorate of Marketing and Inspection, Ministry of Agriculture

    (d) Agricultural Produce Market Committee

     

    [wpdiscuz-feedback id=”uwa0gzukwy” question=”Please leave a feedback on this” opened=”1″]Post your answers here.[/wpdiscuz-feedback]

     

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Centre forms panel for Minimum Support Price (MSP)

    The Centre has finally constituted a committee headed by former Union Agriculture Secretary Sanjay Agrawal here to look into the issues of Minimum Support Price (MSP), as promised to protestant farmers after the repeal of three farm laws.

    Panel on MSP: Terms of reference

    • The panel will consist of representatives of the Central and State governments, farmers, agricultural scientists and agricultural economists.
    • This panel will be constituted:
    1. To promote zero budget-based farming,
    2. To change crop patterns keeping in mind the changing needs of the country
    3. To make MSP more effective and transparent
    • It also says that the committee will discuss methods to strengthen the Agricultural Marketing System as per the changing requirements of the country
    • It would ensure higher value to the farmers through remunerative prices of their produce by taking advantage of the domestic output and export.
    • On natural farming, the committee will make suggestions for programs and schemes for value chain development, protocol validation, and research for future needs.
    • It would support area expansion under the Indian Natural Farming System through publicity and through the involvement and contribution of farmer organizations.

    What is MSP?

    • The MSP assures the farmers of a fixed price for their crops, well above their production costs.
    • MSP, by contrast, is devoid of any legal backing. Access to it, unlike subsidized grains through the PDS, isn’t an entitlement for farmers.
    • They cannot demand it as a matter of right. It is only a government policy that is part of administrative decision-making.
    • The Centre currently fixes MSPs for 23 farm commodities based on the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) recommendations.

    Fixing of MSPs

    • The CACP considered various factors while recommending the MSP for a commodity, including the cost of cultivation.
    • It also takes into account the supply and demand situation for the commodity; market price trends (domestic and global) and parity vis-à-vis other crops; and implications for consumers (inflation), environment (soil and water use) and terms of trade between agriculture and non-agriculture sectors.

    What changed with the 2018 budget?

    • The Budget for 2018-19 announced that MSPs would henceforth be fixed at 1.5 times of the production costs for crops as a “pre-determined principle”.
    • Simply put, the CACP’s job now was only to estimate production costs for a season and recommend the MSPs by applying the 1.5-times formula.

    How was this production cost arrived at?

    • The CACP projects three kinds of production cost for every crop, both at the state and all-India average levels.
    • ‘A2’ covers all paid-out costs directly incurred by the farmer — in cash and kind — on seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, hired labor, leased-in land, fuel, irrigation, etc.
    • ‘A2+FL’ includes A2 plus an imputed value of unpaid family labor.
    • ‘C2’ is a more comprehensive cost that factors in rentals and interest forgone on owned land and fixed capital assets, on top of A2+FL.

    How much produce can the government procure at MSP?

    • The MSP value of the total production of the 23 crops worked out to around Rs 10.78 lakh crore in 2019-20.
    • Not all this produce, however, is marketed. Farmers retain part of it for self-consumption, the seed for the next season’s sowing, and also for feeding their animals.
    • The marketed surplus ratio for different crops is estimated to range differently for various crops.
    • It ranges from below 50% for ragi and 65-70% for bajra (pearl millet) and jawar (sorghum) to 75% for wheat, 80% for paddy, 85% for sugarcane, 90% for most pulses, and 95%-plus for cotton, soybean, etc.
    • Taking an average of 75% would yield a number of just over Rs 8 lakh crore.
    • This is the MSP value of production that is the marketable surplus — which farmers actually sell.

    Nature of MSP

    • There is currently no statutory backing for these prices, nor any law mandating their enforcement.

    Farmers demand legalization

    • Legal entitlement: There is a demand that MSP based on a C2+50% formula should be made a legal entitlement for all agricultural produce.
    • Private traders’ responsibility: Some says that most of the cost should be borne by private traders, noting that both middlemen and corporate giants are buying commodities at low rates from farmers.
    • Mandatory purchase at MSP: A left-affiliated farm union has suggested a law that simply stipulates that no one — neither the Government nor private players — will be allowed to buy at a rate lower than MSP.
    • Surplus payment by the govt.: Other unions have said that if private buyers fail to purchase their crops, the Government must be prepared to buy out the entire surplus at MSP rates.
    • Expansion of C2: Farm unions are demanding that C2 must also include capital assets and the rentals and interest forgone on owned land as recommended by the National Commission for Farmers.

    Government’s position

    • The PM has announced the formation of a committee to make MSP more transparent, as well as to change crop patterns — often determined by MSP and procurement.
    • The panel will have representatives from farm groups as well as from the State and Central Governments, along with agricultural scientists and economists.

    Issues with legal backing

    • Demand-supply dynamics: Economic theory, as well as experience, indicates that the price level that is not supported by demand and supply cannot be sustained through legal means.
    • States responsibility: The Centre has suggested that the States are free to guarantee MSP rates if they wish, but also offers two failed examples of such a policy:

    [I] Sugar FRP

    • In the sugar sector, private mills are mandated to buy cane from farmers at prices set by the Government.
    • Faced with low sugar prices, high surplus stock, and low liquidity, mills failed to make full payments to farmers, resulting in an accumulation of thousands of crores worth of dues pending for years.

    [II] Withdrawal of traders

    • The other example is a 2018 amendment to the Maharashtra law penalizing traders with hefty fines and jail terms if they bought crops at rates lower than MSP.
    • As open market prices were lower than the (legalized) MSP levels declared by the State, the buyers withdrew from the market and farmers had to suffer.

    Will a legal backing for MSP solve all the ills that plague the Agriculture sector?

    • Only one side of the coin: Actually, no. Remunerative price or MSP is only one part of the problems farmers face.  Farmers face many other issues other than price, which itself is not guaranteed given the influence of politicians and cartels in mandis.
    • Information deficit: They lack information on which crop to grow, when to sow, apply plant nutrients and which pest is attacking their crop.
    • Lack of technology: Farmers are also short of post-harvest technologies to ensure a better shelf life for their produce.
    • Irrigation and storage problem: They do not get adequate facilities to irrigate their lands, with nearly 50 percent of the land being rain-fed and lacking ample warehouses to store their produce at the village level, besides proper roads to connect them to the mandis.
    • Threat of new loopholes: Legal backing for the MSP could also lead to the danger of the trade keeping away from places where the law is implemented vigorously.

    Fiscal cost of making the MSP legally binding

    • The MSP value of the total output of all the 23 notified crops worked out to about Rs 11.9 lakh crore in 2020-21.
    • Taking an average of 75% yields a number – the MSP value of production actually sold by farmers – just under Rs 9 lakh crore.
    • The government is further, as it is, procuring many crops. The MSP value of the 89.42 mt of paddy and 43.34 mt of wheat alone bought during 2020-21 was around Rs 253,275 crore.
    • All in all, then, the MSP is already being enforced, directly or through fiat, on roughly Rs 3.8 lakh crore worth of produce.
    • Providing a legal guarantee for the entire marketable surplus of the 23 MSP crops would mean covering another Rs 5 lakh crore or so.

    Conclusion

    • A growing consensus among economists for guaranteeing minimum “incomes”, as against “prices”, to farmers.
    • That would essentially entail making more direct cash transfers either on a flat per-acre (as in the Telangana government’s Rythu Bandhu scheme) or per-farm household (the Centre’s PM-Kisan) basis.
    • The resource requirement of such interventions will be so huge that no government will be left with resources to help farmers through other means like investment in public infrastructure, irrigation, and other incentives.
    • The danger of over-reliance on MSP is already visible in the state of Punjab. Agriculture has reached an almost static stage there.
    • The state is unable to diversify away from crops like paddy, which is destroying its natural resources and environment, marring long-term prospects of farming.

     

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY)

    Andhra Pradesh has decided to rejoin the crop insurance scheme Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) from the ongoing kharif season.

    Why in news?

    • Andhra Pradesh was one of six states that have stopped the implementation of the scheme over the last four years.
    • The other five, which remain out, are Bihar, Jharkhand, West Bengal, Jharkhand, and Telangana.

    What is PMFBY?

    • The PMFBY was launched in February 2016. It is being administered by Ministry of Agriculture.
    • It provides a comprehensive insurance cover against failure of the crop thus helping in stabilising the income of the farmers.
    • It is implemented by general insurance companies.

    Its functioning

    • PMFBY insures farmers against all non-preventable natural risks from pre-sowing to post-harvest.
    • Farmers have to pay a maximum of 2 per cent of the total premium of the insured amount for kharif crops, 1.5 per cent for rabi food crops and oilseeds as well as 5 per cent for commercial / horticultural crops.
    • The balance premium is shared by the Union and state governments on a 50:50 basis and on a 90:10 basis in the case of northeastern states.

    Farmers covered

    • All farmers growing notified crops in a notified area during the season who have insurable interest in the crop are eligible.
    • Earlier to Kharif 2020, the enrolment under the scheme was compulsory for following categories of farmers:
    1. Farmers in the notified area who possess a Crop Loan account/KCC account (called as Loanee Farmers) to whom credit limit is sanctioned/renewed for the notified crop during the crop season. and
    2. Such other farmers whom the Government may decide to include from time to time.

    Risks covered under the scheme

    • Comprehensive risk insurance is provided to cover yield losses due to non-preventable risks, such as Natural Fire and Lightning, Storm, Hailstorm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane, Tornado.
    • Risks due to Flood, Inundation and Landslide, Drought, Dry spells, Pests/ Diseases also will be covered.
    • Post-harvest losses coverage will be available up to a maximum period of 14 days from harvesting for those crops which are kept in “cut & spread” condition to dry in the field.
    • For certain localized problems such as loss/damage resulting from the occurrence of identified localized risks like hailstorm, landslide, and Inundation affecting isolated farms in the notified area would also be covered.

    Why many states has opted out?

    The opting-out states had mentioned several reasons:

    • The scheme should be voluntary.
    • States should be given options to choose the risks covered and the scheme should be universal.
    • State should be given option to use their own database of E-crop, an application used by the state government to collect information about crops.
    • Many state government wanted zero premium for farmers (meaning the entire premium should be paid by the government.
    • The non-payment of the State Share of premium subsidy within the prescribed timelines as defined in the seasonality discipline lea to the disqualification of the State Government.
    • The reason for West Bengal not implementing the PMFBY is purely “political” as it wants to implement the scheme without mentioning Pradhan Mantri in the name.

    How was the scheme structured, and what has changed since?

    • Initially, the scheme was compulsory for loanee farmers; in February 2020, the Centre revised it to make it optional for all farmers.
    • Now states and UTs are free to extend additional subsidy over and above the normal subsidy from their budgets.
    • In February 2020, the Centre decided to restrict its premium subsidy to 30% for unirrigated areas and 25% for irrigated areas (from the existing unlimited). Earlier, there was no upper limit.
    • Food crops (cereals, millets and pulses); oilseeds; and annual commercial / annual horticultural crops are broadly covered under the scheme.

     

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies (AFS)

    Context

    The recently concluded twelfth ministerial conference of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) adopted the trade agreement called the Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies (AFS).

    About the AFS

    • WTO negotiations on fisheries subsidies were launched in 2001 at the Doha Ministerial Conference, with a mandate to “clarify and improve” existing WTO disciplines on fisheries subsidies.
    • At the 2017 Buenos Aires Ministerial Conference (MC11), ministers decided on a work programme to conclude the negotiations by aiming to adopt, at the next Ministerial Conference, an agreement on fisheries subsidies which delivers on Sustainable Development Goal 14.6.
    • The recently concluded twelfth ministerial conference of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) adopted a sustainability-driven trade agreement called the Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies (AFS).

    Provisions adopted in the AFS

    • Prohibits three subsidies: Fundamentally, AFS prohibits three kinds of subsidies:
    • First, illegal, unreported, or unregulated (IUU) fishing.
    • Second, fishing of already over-exploited stocks.
    • Third, fishing on unregulated high seas.
    • Two-year transition period for developing countries: As part of special and differential treatment (S&DT), developing countries like India have been given a two-year transition period for phasing out the first two kinds of subsidies within their Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
    • However, the final negotiated outcome, most crucially, lacks the much-needed discipline on subsidies for fishing in other members’ waters and those that contribute to overcapacity and over-fishing (OCOF).
    • Limited AFS: WTO member countries agreed to a limited AFS sans regulations disciplining OCOF subsidies, which have been pushed to the future and are expected to be completed within four years.
    • If negotiations fail, the AFS will stand terminated, as provided in Article 12.
    • Meanwhile, all countries can continue providing most OCOF subsidies, that is, except for fishing on unregulated high seas.

    What are the implications for India?

    • Longer transition period required: India has been demanding that developing countries be given a longer transition period of 25 years to put an end to OCOF subsidies within their EEZ.
    • Economic growth through ocean resources: Given its long coastline of nearly 7,500 kilometres, the blue economy — sustainable use of ocean resources for economic growth — occupies a cardinal place in India’s development trajectory.
    •  India has set a target of exporting marine products worth $14 billion by 2025.
    • Policy space for marine infrastructure: India needs the policy space to invest in developing the marine infrastructure to harness the full potential of the blue economy.
    • Livelihood concerns: Moreover, India needs to protect the livelihood concerns of close to four million marine farmers, the majority of whom are engaged in small-scale, artisanal fishing, which does not pose a great threat to sustainability.
    • However, India’s demand for a longer transition period was not acceptable to many countries who insisted on this period being seven years

    The disparity between Developed countries and Developing countries

    • India rightly contends that WTO disciplines should not be developed in a manner that throttles its emerging sector while richer nations continue to negotiate exemptions for indefinite subsidisation and exclusion of horizontal, non-specific fuel subsidies in the text.
    • Rich countries have historically provided massive subsidies to build capacity for large-scale fishing and fishing in distant waters, thereby contributing the most to depletion.
    • India provided subsidies worth a mere $277 million in 2018, in sharp contrast to the top five subsidisers: China, EU, US, South Korea, and Japan, whose subsidies range from $7,261-$2,860 million respectively.

    Way forward

    • Comprehensive agreement: For the sake of sustainability, countries need to overcome their differences soon and forge a comprehensive agreement with the inclusion of meaningful S&DT, else they risk the indefinite continuation of harmful subsidies by all players.
    • One balancing act could be to consider different ways to effectuate such flexibilities while accommodating the demands in a more targeted manner.
    • Strengthening infrastructure: India could strengthen infrastructure and mechanisms to be able to utilise any future exemptions.

    Conclusion

    For India, the AFS is less-than-perfect, with a potential of no real outcome at the end of four years if the negotiations fail. But negotiations over the global commons are not easy.

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • The message from the government’s wheat export ban

    Context

    The ban on the export of wheat was not unexpected. The rather ambivalent approach to agriculture comes out clearly with this move.

    Understanding how this ban has come about

    • We are not comfortable with market forces operating in agriculture.
    • Nor are we quite sure whether we want the farmer to get a better price or the consumer to pay less.
    • Governments spend a lot of money in the form of subsidies to ensure farmers are enthused to produce more wheat.
    • The Centre keeps increasing the MSP for this purpose and states often pay a bonus for procurement.
    • There are political reasons too as the farmer lobby needs to be placated.
    •  There are political reasons too as the farmer lobby needs to be placated.
    • We have been taking credit for the production of wheat and every year we set a new record.
    • This year, the Ministry announced that wheat production will touch a record of 111 million tonnes, which has recently been revised downwards.
    • With the war, conditions have changed. Russia and Ukraine are large producers of wheat and their supply to world markets has been cut off due to sanctions and supply chain disruptions.
    • With supplies interrupted, there is an opportunity for other surplus nations to step in.
    • But the disruption has caused world prices to rise significantly.

    Opportunity for India

    • The World Bank data indicates that the price of US (soft red winter) wheat has gone up from $328/tonne in December to $672/tonne while US (hard red winter) wheat is up from $377 to $496/tonne.
    • Countries that produce abundant wheat now have a chance to leverage this opportunity to export.
    • However, in case of India it does appear that production will be lower than expected.
    • Low wheat stock: The government has also not been able to procure wheat as farmers are no longer selling at MSP (which is at Rs 2,015/quintal) as they are getting higher prices in mandis.
    • As of May 10, procurement was just 18 million tonnes against 43 million tonnes last year.
    • This is a significant fall.
    • But stocks with the Centre and other state agencies are 30.3 million tonnes, way above the buffer norms of 27.6 million tonnes.
    • The ban on wheat exports is because of this.

    Two constraints on the wheat economy

    • In 2007 and again in 2021, the government banned futures trading in wheat on grounds that it led to speculative pressure on prices even though the quantity traded and the open interest were minuscule.
    • At that time, it was a decline in expected output which triggered this action.
    • It does look like the wheat economy will continue to operate within two constraints that have become barriers to commercialisation.
    • MSP and government procurement: The first is MSP and government procurement, which feeds into the public distribution system.
    • Arhatiya system: The second is the arhatiya system of trading where middlemen have come in the way of any reform.

    Suggestions

    • Abolish MSP and procurement system: The MSP and procurement system needs to be dismantled.
    • Cash transfers: As the government has successfully expanded both the Aadhaar and Jan Dhan programmes, there should be simple cash transfers to beneficiaries.
    • Buffer stocks can be held to ease distress during a crisis, but government involvement should stop there.
    • Procuring unlimited quantities of wheat and keeping huge stocks has distorted the wheat matrix.
    • The mandi system too needs to be revisited and alternatives have to be made available so that farmers can choose the point of sale.

    Conclusion

    We have been talking about being a part of global supply chains to augment value addition and accelerate growth. But when it comes to agriculture it is a blow-hot blow-cold approach. This not only affects our credibility but also sends confusing signals to producers as to what is the best way out for them.

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • Inflation in India

    Context

    Recently, the RBI raised the repo rate by 40 basis points (bps) and the cash reserve ratio (CRR) by 50 bps with a view to tame inflation.

    How effective would be the rate hike in taming the inflation?

    • High inflation is always an implicit tax on the poor and those who keep their savings in banks.
    • Will the increases in the repo rate and CRR control inflation, especially food inflation?
    • The RBI has been behind the curve by at least by 4-to 5 months, and its optimism in controlling inflation in the earlier meetings of the Monetary Policy Committee was somewhat misplaced.
    • The reason for this is that food prices globally are scaling new peaks as per the FAO’s food price index.
    • The disruptions caused by the pandemic and now the Russia-Ukraine war are contributing to this escalation in food prices.
    • India cannot remain insulated from this phenomenon.

    Opportunities and challenges for India

    • Record wheat export: For the first time in the history of Indian agriculture, cereal exports have already crossed a record high of 31 million metric tonnes (MMT) at $13 billion (FY22), and the same cereal wonder may be repeated this fiscal (FY23).
    • Among cereals, wheat exports have witnessed an unprecedented growth of more than 273 per cent, jumping nearly fourfold from $0.56 billion (or 2 MMT) in FY21 to $2.1 billion (or 7.8 MMT) in FY22.
    • Rice exports have crossed 20 MMT in FY22 in a global market of 50 MMT.
    • Some of the concerns on the wheat front are genuine, and we need to realise that climate change is already knocking on our doors.
    • With every one degree Celsius rise in temperatures, wheat yields are likely to suffer by about 5 MMT, as per earlier IPCC reports.
    • This calls for massive investments in agri-R&D to find heat-resistant varieties of wheat and also create models for “climate-smart” agriculture. We are way behind the curve on this.

    Need for rationalising food subsidy

    • India distribute free food to 800 million Indians, with a food subsidy bill that is likely to cross Rs 2.8 lakh crore this fiscal out of the Centre’s net tax revenue of about Rs 20 lakh crore in FY23.
    • Reducing coverage: What needs to be done targeting only those below the poverty line for free or subsidised food and charging a reasonable price, say 90 per cent of MSP, from those who are above the poverty line.
    • Giving an option to beneficiaries to receive cash in their Jan Dhan accounts (equivalent to MSP plus 20 per cent) in lieu of grains can be considered.
    • This is permitted under NFSA and by doing so, he can save on the burgeoning food subsidy bill.

    Conclusion

    Indian farmers need access to global markets to augment their incomes, and the government must facilitate Indian farmers to develop more efficient export value chains by minimising marketing costs and investing in efficient logistics for exports.

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • What are India’s plans to avert a Wheat Crisis?

    On May 4, the government lowered its wheat production estimates by 5.7% to 105 million tonnes (MT) from the projected 111.32 MT for the crop year ending June.

    Decline in wheat production

    • India is the second largest producer of wheat in the world, with China being the top producer and Russia the third largest — Ukraine is the world’s eighth largest producer of wheat.
    • After five straight years of a bumper wheat output, India has had to revise downwards its estimated production.
    • Unprecedented heatwaves across the north, west and central parts of the country, and March and April being the hottest in over 100 years, have caused substantial loss to the yield.
    • Researchers attributed the lower estimates to “early summer” affecting the crop yields in States, especially Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh.

    Why is there a decline in govt procurement?

    • Ukrainian war: Private traders have been prompted to buy more wheat from farmers as the price of wheat at the international level has shot up due to Ukrainian war.
    • Higher prices: A large quantity of wheat was being bought by traders at a higher rate than the minimum support price (MSP).
    • Hoarding by farmers and traders: Also, farmers are holding on to some quantity of wheat, expecting higher prices for their produce in the near future.

    How will this impact the public distribution of grain?

    • Wheat procurement is undertaken by the state-owned Food Corporation of India (FCI) and other agencies at MSP to meet the requirements under the Public Distribution System (PDS).
    • Other running welfare schemes is the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Anna Yojana (PMGKAY) introduced during the pandemic.
    • The government has revised the grain allocation under PMGKAY for May to September 2022.
    • According to the new guidelines, the FCI will fill the gap left by wheat with an increased allocation of rice.
    • Pointing out that from next year, fortified rice will be distributed to the entire Public Distribution System (PDS).

    Will domestic wheat prices be hit?

    • As government wheat procurement has dipped, concerns are being raised about the stability of prices in the country.
    • The availability of grain for internal consumption, many agri-experts argue should be a priority.
    • The government has dismissed concerns about both prices and stocks, asserting that India is in a comfortable situation with the overall availability of grains.
    • India has enough stocks to meet the minimum requirement for next one year for meeting the requirement of welfare schemes.

    How is the global supply situation shaping up?

    • In order to meet the gap created by reduced Russian and Ukrainian exports, importers are turning to alternative markets.
    • Wheat-producing countries like India are looking to increase exports.

    Will farmers benefit?

    • Farmers will certainly benefit from the scenario as they are being offered a price above the MSP.
    • Amid the Russia-Ukraine crisis, new markets in countries like Israel, Egypt, Tanzania and Mozambique have opened up for India.
    • However, if private traders continue to buy above MSP, eventually that could stoke inflation.
    • More private buying of wheat will help India expand the agri-export basket to new countries, riding the current crisis situation.
    • This trade relationship will stay even when the global crisis is over, which means farmers will get about 10%-15% extra price as market prices are ruling above MSP.

    What about export plans?

    • After Egypt, Turkey has also given approval for the import of Indian wheat.
    • India has been eyeing deals with new export markets in European Union countries too.
    • Despite the crop loss and revision of the output estimate, the Centre maintained that no curbs would be placed on wheat exports and that it was facilitating traders.

     

    UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • An MSP scheme to transform Indian agriculture

    Context

    The MSP must look especially into the requirements of farmers and the landless.

    Background of price stabilisation for food grain

    • The Essential Commodities Act in 1955 sought to counter price rise due to speculative private trading and then MSP in the 1960s.
    • A buffer stock policy was developed over time to involve different kinds of mechanisms such as:
      a) setting cost-based minimum procurement price, paying the difference between procurement price and market price.
      b) storing the procured surplus for sale through the Public Distribution System (PDS) at issue price, and market intervention to stabilise price when deemed necessary.
    • This task required interlinking procurement, storage and distribution with more centralised investment and control of each of these tasks.

    3 Purposes MSP could serve

    MSP could serve, in principle, three purposes:

    • Price stabilisation in the food grains market.
    • Income support to farmers, and
    • As a mechanism for coping with the indebtedness of farmers.

    Advantages of wide coverage

    • Fulfilling three objectives: In this way, the objectives of income support to farmers, price stabilization, food security, and inducing more climate-friendly cropping patterns can be combined to an extent.
    • Solution to debt problem: A real breakthrough in the recurring problem of agricultural debt can be made by the linking of selling of grains under MSP to the provision of bank credit particularly for small farmers.
    • The farmer can get a certificate selling grains at MSP which would be credit points proportional to the amount sold; this will entitle them to a bank loan as their right, and calibrate the fluctuations between good and bad harvest years by storing the certificates for later use.

    Issues with MSP in current form

    • Low accessibility and awareness of the MSP regime: A survey highlighted that 81% of the cultivators were aware of MSP fixed by the Government for different crops and out of them only 10% knew about MSP before the sowing season.
    • Arrears in payments: More than 50% of the farmers receive their payments of MSP after one week.
    • Poor marketing arrangements: Almost 67% of the farmers sell their produce at MSP rate through their own arrangement and 21% through brokers.
    • Partial coverage resulting in skewed cropping pattern: This partial MSP coverage skewed the cropping pattern against several coarse grains and millets particularly in rain-fed areas.

    Way forward

    • Flexible arrangement of MSP: Each crop within a band of maximum and a minimum price depending on harvest conditions i.e. higher price in a bad and lower price in a good harvest year in general will have its price set in the band.
    • High MSP for coarse grains: The price of some selected coarse grains can be fixed at the upper end of its band to encourage their production in rain-fed areas.

    Conclusion

    Greater coverage of all 23 crops under MSP is a way of improving both food security and income support to the poorest farmers in rain-fed regions.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • MSP is necessary to make farming viable

    Context

    There has been debate on the issue of MSP with some arguing against it while some favouring it.

    The issues with MSP

    • The broad strands of argument against MSP are:
    • MSP hinders the price discovery: Providing MSP does not allow the market to discover the prices; if market cleared prices are less than MSP, then the only buyer would be the government; this would render the government bankrupt.
    • FPO as a mechanism to deal with markets: If markets have any distortions, the way to negotiate it is through Farmer Producer Organisations (FPOs) — as demonstrated by Amul.
    • Provide income support through DBT: A better way to address the possible income gap is to give an income support-based direct benefit transfer (DBT).

    Why MSP is necessary?

    1] Barriers in agri-markets

    • Through tariffs and other measures, we have built a national barrier on markets, where gates are opened on the basis of strategic intent.
    • If we were to open our borders for free movement of grains from elsewhere, we may even argue for unlocking agricultural land for more lucrative purposes without worrying about food self-sufficiency, buffer stocking and domestic food safety.
    • We may have to accept a national food safety for at least the essential foodgrains and pulses.

    2] Role of MSP as price signalling and why it needs to be given as legal guarantee

    • Disproportionate risk: If we were to look at farming, we realise that this exposes itself to disproportionate risks. 
    •  First, there is no stop-loss mechanism after sowing the seed, except for destroying the crop for the season.
    • This enterprise not only has the usual business risks but also has the enhanced risk of the force majeure elements that destroy the enterprise — a sudden hail storm, drought, unseasonal showers, a pest attack, a locust attack — there are too many things that the farmer cannot control.
    • Therefore, an MSP provides a powerful signal to the farmer to exercise the choice of sowing a particular crop because the farmer can back-calculate the expected margin.
    •  If MSP is a signal that helps the farmer to choose a crop, then it must remain a choice at the harvest time as well.
    • The significance of MSP is only when the markets do not clear the price.
    • In such a situation, the farmer gets a return less than the MSP and by this argument we are escorting the farm fraternity towards bankruptcy.
    • A legal guarantee is, therefore, needed.
    • The argument that the state will have to procure all the floating stock in the market and may become bankrupt is fallacious.
    • The intervention of the state in the markets usually covers information asymmetry, arbitrage and cools the markets when they get overheated.

    3] Why not opt for income support instead of MSP?

    •  Income support does not address the issue of viability of the farming operations.
    • There is no doubt that we need to make farming viable.
    •  It is important to address the prices of each crop as a strategic signalling mechanism: For crops that would be encouraged and those that would be discouraged.

    4] Issues with drawing parallels with AMUL

    •  While the Amul model recognised the inherent power of markets, it took about five decades to make the system competitive — the investments were made in breed improvement, free veterinary services, better cattle feed, capital subsidy for processing plants, and return-free capital as investments.
    • The nature of subsidies was smart and innovative.
    • Dairying was the last bit to be liberalised, and it enjoyed protection even when we opened up in 1991.

    Way forward

    • Modernise the markets: We need to modernise the markets and storage and processing facilities.
    • There is no point in conflating modernisation with liberalisation.
    • Investment: If we need to take Indian agriculture on the path of Amul, we need to start making those investments now.

    Consider the question “What are the objectives of providing MSP? How legal basis to MSP could help in making agriculture viable in India?”

    Conclusion

    Let us use the MSP framework smartly on diversified crops, on a decentralised basis while we develop the markets. A legal guarantee will only assure the farmers that they will not be bankrupted.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

  • The WTO’s challenge to MSP

    Context

    Amid the demand for legal backing to MSP, the question remains about whether India can provide a legal guarantee violating its international law obligations enshrined in the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) of the World Trade Organization (WTO)?

    Classification of subsidies under AoA: Trade distorting and non-trade distorting

    • The objective of AoA: One of the central objectives of the AoA is to cut trade-distorting domestic support.
    • Three categories: In this regard, the domestic subsidies are divided into three categories: ‘green box’, ‘blue box’ and ‘amber box’ measures.
    • Non-trade distorting: ‘Green box’ subsidies (like income support to farmers de-coupled from production) and ‘blue box’ subsidies (like direct payments under production limiting programmes subject to certain conditions) are considered non-trade distorting.
    • Countries can provide unlimited subsidies under these two categories.
    • Trade-distorting subsidies: Price support provided in the form of procurement of crops at MSP is classified as a trade-distorting subsidy and falls under the ‘amber box’ measures, which are subject to certain limits.

    So, how do countries measure ‘amber box’ support?

    • Compute AMS: To measure ‘amber box’ support, WTO member countries are required to compute Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS).
    • AMS is the total of product-specific support (price support to a particular crop) and non-product-specific support (fertilizer subsidy).

    Understanding the  de minimis limit

    • Under Article 6.4(b) of the AoA, developing countries such as India are allowed to provide a de minimis level of product and non-product domestic subsidy.
    • This de minimis limit is capped at 10% of the total value of production of the product, in case of a product-specific subsidy; and at 10% of the total value of a country’s agricultural production, in case of non-product subsidy.
    • Subsidies breaching the de minimis cap are trade-distorting.

    Possibility of India overshooting the de minimis limit

    • Relation between MSP and AMS: The procurement at MSP, after comparing it with the fixed external reference price (ERP) — an average price based on the base years 1986-88 — has to be included in AMS.
    • Widening gap between ERP and MSP: Since the fixed ERP has not been revised in the last several decades at the WTO, the difference between the MSP and fixed ERP has widened enormously due to inflation.
    • According to the Centre for WTO Studies, India’s ERP for rice, in 1986-88, was $262.51/tonne and the MSP was less than this.
    • However, India’s applied administered price for rice in 2015-16 stood at $323.06/tonne, much more than the 1986-88 ERP.
    • Procuring all the 23 crops at MSP, as against the current practice of procuring largely rice and wheat, will result in India breaching the de minimis limit making it vulnerable to a legal challenge at the WTO.
    • Even if the Government does not procure directly but mandates private parties to acquire at a price determined by the Government, as it happens in the case of sugarcane, the de minimis limit of 10% applies.

    Way forward

    • Peace clause: Although a permanent solution is nowhere in sight, the countries have agreed to a peace clause.
    • The peace clause forbids bringing legal challenges against price support-based procurement for food security purposes even if it breaches the limit on domestic support.
    • The peace clause is applicable only for programmes that were existing as of the date of the decision and are consistent with other requirements.
    • India’s procurement for rice and wheat, even if it violates the de minimis limit, will enjoy legal immunity.
    • However, India will not be able to employ the peace clause to defend procuring those crops that are not part of the food security programme (such as cotton, groundnut, sunflower seed).
    • Move from MSP to income-based support: Arguably, India can move away from price-based support in the form of MSP to income-based support, which will not be trade-distorting under the AoA provided the income support is not linked to production.
    • Supplement price-based support with income-based support: Alternatively, one can supplement price-based support (keeping the de minimis limit in mind) with an income-based support policy.

    Conclusion

    The Government needs to engage with the farmers and create an affable environment to convince them of other effective policy interventions, beyond MSP, that are fiscally prudent and WTO compatible.

    UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)