💥Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open

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

  • In agri-reforms, go back to the drawing board

    The intended beneficiaries often understand the realities of the systems better; policymakers need to build trust.

    Practice Question: The farmers protest against the new farm laws rises the serious concerns about the policymaking and involvement of citizen in the process by experts. What can be done to improve the trust of the public and how the challenge of agricultural income be solved?

    Reassessment is needed

    • The purpose of agriculture reforms is to increase farmers’ incomes. Farmers want the laws repealed.
    • The Supreme Court of India has called for discussions between the government and farmers around the country.
    • It is time to go back to the drawing board about the purpose and the process of agriculture reforms.
    • According to economists, fewer people must work on farms for farm productivity and incomes to be improved. Which begs the question of how the millions displaced from farms will earn incomes.
    • Indian industry is not growing much. There too, according to economists, humans should be replaced by technology for improving productivity.

    Flipside of productivity

    • Landholdings are too small for mechanization to improve farm productivity. Their solution is to ‘scale-up’ farms.
    • Mechanization requires standardization of work, hence mechanized farming on scale requires monocropping.
    • Large-scale specialization upsets the ecological balance. Reduced diversity of flora enables pests to spread more easily; soil quality is reduced; water resources get depleted.
    • Solutions to these new problems require more industrial inputs, with more costs for farmers.
    • The harmful side-effects of this approach to improve agriculture productivity are very visible in Punjab nowhere farm incomes have grown at the cost of water resources.

    Nature’s self-adaptive system

    • The ecological imbalance out of monocropping made the trees more vulnerable to pests.
    • Nature is a complex ‘self-adaptive’ system. It knows how to take care of itself.
    • When Man tries to overpower Nature with his science and industry, without understanding how Nature functions, he harms Nature — and ultimately himself.
    • Challenges of environmental degradation and increasing inequalities require that the economic calculus shifts from ‘economies of scale with standardization’ to ‘economies of scope for sustainability’.
    • This will make large-scale mechanization more difficult. It will require the use of more ‘flexible’ human labour.
    • In the long run, not only will this be good for the ecology, but it will also increase employment and incomes for people in the lower half of the economic pyramid.

    Market access

    • Farm incomes can increase with access to wider markets for farm produce, which is an objective of the agricultural reforms.
    • Indian farmers fear that they will not have adequate pricing power when pushed into large supply systems and less regulated markets.
    • Connections into global supply chains can increase volumes of sales which always favour the larger players in the supply chains who have easier access to capital.
    • Studies show that farmers in developed countries formed collectives which enable their voice to be heard by politicians and they could set the rules of global trade.

    Strengthen cooperatives

    • Institutions for cooperative ownership and collective bargaining must be strengthened to give power to small farmers before opening markets to large corporations.
    • A very good example is the Indian dairy sector. It’s ‘per person productivity is much lower than in New Zealand and Australian dairy producers’.
    • Still, it provides millions of tiny producers with reasonable incomes which large-scale industrial dairy producers do not.
    • Moreover, with its cooperative aggregation, the Indian dairy sector has also acquired political clout.
    • It has compelled the Indian government not to join the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership to connect the Indian economy with larger supply chains.

    Low agriculture income

    • The problem of low incomes in India’s agriculture sector is a complex systems problem which cannot be solved by agriculture experts alone.
    • Experts from many disciplines must collaborate to find systemic solutions.
    • The intended beneficiaries of the new policies must be included in the designing of the new policies right at the beginning as they understand the realities of systems better than experts.
    • When policymakers say ‘the people don’t get it’ after the policy is announced and the intended beneficiaries protest, it is an indication that the experts didn’t get it.

    The reforms of the 1990s

    • The stand-off in agriculture reforms has caused a flurry of discussions about democracy, consultation, and processes for economic reforms.
    • The immediate beneficiaries of the 1991 reforms were all Indian consumers, rich and poor, who would benefit from access to better quality products from around the world.
    • The principal opponents of the reforms were a few large industrialists whose products citizens were not satisfied with.
    • Governments have more power over a few industrialists than they have over the masses.
    • The 1991 reforms changed industrial licensing and trade policies — both subjects of the Union government.
    • ‘Factor market’ reforms, inland, agriculture, and labour regulations, which are necessary to realize the full benefits of the 1991 reforms are State subjects.
    • They affect the lives of people on the ground, and differently, around the country. Therefore, the central government, no matter how strong it is, must not force these reforms onto the States.

    Conclusion:

    Silo experts cannot help

    • India’s policymakers must improve their expertise in solving complex, multi-disciplinary problems.
    • They must apply the discipline of systems thinking, and not rely on siloed domain experts.
    • Citizens around the country must be involved in the policymaking throughout the evolution of policies.
    • The policies of the government should create public value and it satisfies the desire of citizens for a well-ordered society, in which fair, efficient, and accountable public institutions exist.
    • Trust is essential for a well-governed society. The lesson for India’s leaders is- good processes for making public policies build trust between citizens and their governments.
  • Why Are Most Assam Farmers Not Protesting Against the Farm Laws?

    With most farming land held by only 20% of its cultivators in Assam, there is a perception that agriculture is unimportant. However, the new farm laws are equally detrimental to small and marginal farmers in the state.

    Muted response from the state’s farming community

    • With more than 70% of Assam’s population directly or indirectly dependent for their livelihood on the agricultural sector, it is surprising that the state has only seen sporadic protests against the farm laws passed by the Central government.
    • Reformists would like to read this muted response from the state’s farming community as the voice of the silent majority who expect to benefit from the new farm laws.
    • The real answer lies in the political economy of the state’s rural sector, which has its origins in the colonial handling of its agrarian possibilities.

    Q. Farmers agitations in India are often region-specific. Discuss

    Ungrounded and uncultivated

    • The pre-Independence British administration had invested substantially in the agriculture in what today constitutes Punjab and Haryana, building dams and irrigation facilities and creating conditions that allowed farmers to benefit from the post-independence Green Revolution.
    • This gave rise to the capitalist class among them.
    • However, at the same time, peasants in Assam were arbitrarily taxed by the British Raj to make them voluntarily give up farming in favour of joining the labour forces of the tea industry in the region.
    • Its policies did result in the transfer of land from the peasantry to mid-level revenue officials, leading to a highly unequal land distribution that has persisted since that time.
    • Since the landed class tended to support the Indian National Congress-led freedom struggle, no land reform programme has ever been pursued seriously in the post-independence period.

    Unequal land distribution

    • Seven decades after independence, Assam’s agrarian setting is still characterized by a very high level of unequal land distribution.
    • The evidence documented in the Assam Human Development Report, 2014 shows that 20% of farmers hold as much as 70% of the state’s farmland and shows tenancy at a much higher level of 26%.
    • The lack of legal recognition of tenants means most of them have never been beneficiaries of public policies in agriculture in the state.
    • The state’s agriculture is characterized by mono-cropping, with rice accounting for 90% of the land cultivated, but public procurement at the minimum support price (MSP) is conspicuously absent.
    • The latest information from the public information bureau (PIB) shows that the state produces 4.2% of the country’s rice, but only 0.2% of its farmers availed public procurement by the Food Corporation of India (FCI).
    • Most farmers had to bear with the low prices of rice in the open markets, even as the state was flooded with rice sourced from elsewhere through the public distribution system.
    • Frequent floods often ravage the region, reducing farming operations to just one season in most flood-affected districts. Assam’s cropping intensity of 146% is one of the lowest among all major rice-producing states.
    • In such a setting, the landed class takes little interest in farming, even as small and marginal farmers have increasingly been migrating, many even outside the state, to earn their livelihoods.
    • It’s not surprising that the state’s agriculture is still stuck at the subsistence level. The Assam Economic Survey 2017-18 shows only 38% of the state’s land under high yielding variety seeds and 26% of its land under irrigation.

    APMC must be strengthened

    • The farmers of Assam might benefit from the breaking down of MSP procurement elsewhere through higher prices in the open market.
    • The new farm laws are more or less meaningless, which are more about APMC markets than about MSP.
    • With just 24 regulated APMC markets, Assam does not have enough marketing infrastructure to justify the argument made by the advocates of the new farm laws that the new Acts will liberate the farmers from the APMC markets’ monopoly and boost private investment in the sector.
    • With the state’s agricultural marketing largely revolving around 700-odd unregulated haats (village markets), the 24 APMC markets are hardly enough to curtail the farmers’ ‘freedom’ to dispose of their produce.
    • The credit deposit ratio (CDR) reported by major national banks in the state in 2017 is still below 40% compared to 72% at the national level, showing that the state is losing much of its savings to better-endowed states instead of receiving investment from outside the state.
    • The APMC market as a public institution still has a large role to play in reviving the state’s agricultural sector. Additionally, it can stop growing inter-state migration that has come to light in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • Punjab, Haryana need to look beyond MSP crops

    In tackling agri-crises, these core Green Revolution States must shift to high-value crops and promote non-farm activities

    Early adopters of Green Revolution Technology

    • The region comprising Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh, was an early adopter of Green Revolution technology.
    • It was also a major beneficiary of various policies adopted to spread modern agriculture technology in the country.
    • The package of technology and policies produced quick results which enabled India to move from a country facing a severe shortage of staple food to becoming a nation close to self-sufficiency in just 15 years.

    Practice Question:

    Q. The traditional Green Revolution States of Punjab and Haryana would need to shed “business as usual” approach and embrace an innovative development strategy in agriculture and non-agriculture to secure and improve the future of farming and rural youth. Discuss.

    The rice and wheat focus

    • Procurement of marketed surplus of paddy (rice) and wheat at Minimum Support Price (MSP) completely insulated farmers against any price or market risks. It also ensured a reasonably stable flow of income from these two crops.
    • Over time, the technological advantage of rice and wheat over other competing crops further increased as public sector agriculture research and development allocated their best resources and scientific manpower to these two crops.
    • Other public and private investments in water and land and input subsidies were the other favourable factors.
    • Thus, wheat in rabi and paddy in Kharif turned out to be the best in terms of productivity, income, price and yield risk and ease of cultivation among all the field crops (cereals, pulses, oilseeds).
    • It is no surprise then that the area share of rice and wheat in the total cropped area rose drastically in these states.
    • The progress and specialization towards these two crops served the great national goal of securing the food security of the country.

    Problems of the Green Revolutionsurfaced during the mid-1980s

    • During the mid-1980s, some inimical trends related to the rice-wheat crop system in general and paddy cultivation, in particular, surfaced followed by serious second-generation problems of the Green Revolution.
    • Some experts foresaw the serious consequences of the continuation of paddy cultivation in the region and suggested diversification away from the rice-wheat system in the mid-1980s.
    • Since then a large number of reports and policy documents have been prepared to develop alternative options to reduce the area under paddy — necessitated by its adverse effect on natural resources, the ecology, the environment, and fiscal resources.
    • Serious concerns have also been expressed about plateauing productivity and stagnant income from rice-wheat cultivation. However, the area under these two crops has only increased rather than fallen.
    • In order to develop viable options to infuse dynamism in the agriculture economy of this Green Revolution belt, there is a need to understand: what attracts farmers to rice-wheat crops, why it needs to be changed, and how it can be changed.

    Punjab, Haryana vs. States

    • High productivity, assured MSP which is often above open market price, free power, and fertilizer subsidy underlie the higher income per unit area from wheat and paddy cultivation.
    • Land-labour ratio is also very favourable in Punjab when compared to other States; on an average, a farmer owns and cultivates 2.14 hectares net sown area as against 1.42 hectares in Haryana and 1.17 hectares at the national level.
    • An estimate of income (derived from National Accounts Statistics) shows that all agriculture activities taken together to generate an annual net income of ₹5.31 lakh per cultivator in Punjab; it is ₹3.44 lakh in Haryana while the all-India average is ₹1.7 lakh (reference year, 2017-18).
    • A question often asked is that if per farmer agriculture incomes in Haryana and Punjab are two to three times more than the national average, then why is there so much talk of farmers’ distress in these two States?

    Why farmers’ distress in these two States when everything looks good?

    • The reasons seem to be the loss of growth momentum in the income from the agriculture sector, which has fallen to 1% in Haryana and 0.6% in Punjab after 2011-12.
    • This is quite low by any standard and not keeping in pace with an increase in households’ expenditure. The prospects of further growth in agricultural income from the crop sector dominated by rice and wheat are very dim.
    • With the productivity of rice and wheat reaching a plateau, there is pressure to seek an increase in MSP to increase income. However, demand and supply do not favour an increase in MSP in real terms.
    • In India, the per capita intake of rice and wheat is declining and consumers’ preference is shifting towards other foods.
    • The average spending by urban consumers is more on beverage and spices than on all cereals. On the supply side, rice production is rising at the rate of 14% per year in Madhya Pradesh, 10% in Jharkhand and 7% in Bihar.

    Issues related to procurement

    • The growing rice production will further increase pressure on the procurement and buffer stock of rice. Rice and wheat procurement in the country has more than doubled after 2006-07 and buffer stocks have swelled to an all-time high.
    • The country does not find an easy way to dispose of such large stocks and they are creating stress on the fiscal resources of the government.
    • The implication of all these changes is that farmers in the region will find it difficult to increase their income from rice-wheat cultivation and they must be provided alternative choices to keep their income growing.
    • Procurement of almost the entire market arrivals of rice and wheat at MSP for more than 50 years has affected the entrepreneurial skills of farmers to sell their produce in a competitive market where prices are determined by demand and supply and competition.
    • Thus, to enable Punjab and Haryana farmers to move toward high-paying horticulture crops requires institutional arrangements on price assurance such as contract farming.

    Environmental issues, unemployment

    • The biggest casualty of paddy cultivation and the policy of free power for pumping out groundwater for irrigation is the depletion of groundwater resources.
    • In the last decade, the water table has shown a decline in 84% observation wells in Punjab and 75% in Haryana. It is feared that Punjab and Haryana will run out of groundwater after some years if the current rate of overexploitation of water is not reversed.
    • In the last couple of years, the burning of paddy stubble and straw has become another serious environmental and health hazard in the whole region.
    • Another rather more serious challenge for the two States is to provide attractive employment to rural youths. Most of the farm work in these two States is undertaken by migrant labour.
    • The younger generation is not willing to do manual work in agriculture and looks for better paying salaried jobs in non-farm occupations. Government jobs are few and far less than the number of job seekers.
    • Thus, the option left is to create jobs in the private industry and the services sector. This requires private investments in suitable areas.
    • Punjab has witnessed a flight of private capital from the State during the rise of militancy which hurt the State economy, employment and the revenues of the State.
    • This setback has pushed the rank of the State in per capita income from number one in the 1970s and the early 1980s to number 13 among the major states of the country.
    • For further progress and to meet the aspirations of rural youth to get satisfactory employment, the State needs large-scale private investments in modern industry, services, and commerce besides agriculture.

    The solution lies in…

    • The solution to the ecological, environmental and economic challenges facing agriculture in the traditional Green Revolution States is not in legalizing MSP but to shift from MSP crops to high-value crops and in the promotion of non-farm activities.
    • Rather than focusing on a few enterprises, Punjab and Haryana should look at a large number of area-specific enterprises to avoid gluts.
    • This will require a mechanism to cover price and market risks. Farmers’ groups and farmer producer organizations can play a significant role in the direct marketing of their produce.

    Agricultural specificities and way forward

    • Both Punjab and Haryana need to promote economic activities with strong links with agriculture tailored to State specificities.
    • Some options for this are: promotion of food processing in formal and informal sectors; a big push to post-harvest value addition and modern value chains; a network of agro- and agri-input industries; high-tech agriculture; and a direct link of production and producers to consumers and consumers without involving intermediaries.
    • The traditional Green Revolution States of Punjab and Haryana would need to shed “business as usual” approach and embrace an innovative development strategy in agriculture and non-agriculture to secure and improve the future of farming and rural youth.
  • Convergence of agrarian discontent in South

    With protests becoming catalysts for anti-authoritarian struggle, the air is ripe for new visions of rural emancipation

    Recent policy changes and its impacts on agriculture

    • There has been a systematic attack on agriculture in South Asia over the last decades. This can be seen in ongoing protests in India.
    • Similar incidences of protests can be seen in Pakistan, where farmers protesting for support prices were beaten up and arrested in Lahore only a month ago, or Sri Lanka, where shortages of imported fertilizers and declining subsidies have led to farmers’ outcry.
    • In the middle of a long-simmering rural economic crisis pushed over the cliff by the COVID-19 pandemic, efforts by South Asian governments to project corporatization and deregulation as the way forward for agriculture have angered long-suffering farmers.
    • Successive governments have imposed a corporate agenda, seeking profits from food production and distribution by relaxing norms for cheap food imports, and encouraging export-oriented production, price speculation, agribusiness and retail supermarkets.
    • South Asia’s rural landscape has been profoundly reshaped by such ‘reforms’, dispossessing farmers of their land, and pushing them into wage labour and migration as coping mechanisms.
    • This hollowing out of rural livelihoods does not come with any assurance of stable jobs or a decent quality of life in urban areas.

    Pandemic opportunism

    • The COVID-19 crisis has increased such efforts and policy changes.
    • India is not the only country to have attempted to seize this moment to deregulate agricultural markets. In Pakistan, the government inked an agreement with the World Bank to further deregulate the country’s wheat market.
    • In Sri Lanka, with the national budget just passed for 2021, there are only meagre allocations towards revitalizing agricultural livelihoods and policies focused on supporting technologies suitable for agribusinesses.
    • Instead of the current crisis sending governments back to the drawing board, South Asia’s authoritarian regimes, complicit with corporate interests, are railroading in anti-farmer agricultural policies.

    Practice Question: Do you think there is a common ground between farmers protests in various South Asian countries. Discuss with proper examples.

    Menace of the corporatization of Agriculture

    • Corporate agriculture further worsens the existential danger faced by South Asian farmers.
    • The corporate solutions do not address the role of middlemen and traders in denying farmers a fair price for their labour.
    • Instead, opening up markets to large corporations is likely to spark the same sort of race to the bottom that has been seen in the industrial and service sectors.
    • Deregulation makes farmers’ livelihoods even more precarious and threatens food sovereignty through increased dependence on global agricultural trade.
    • It was the collapse of global agricultural commodity prices in the 1970s that had a large role to play in the debt crisis that haunts countries such as Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

    Reviving resistance

    • There is a powerful legacy of rural movements in South Asia that have fought for the rights of farmers, peasants and agricultural workers.
    • Rural movements played a crucial role in the anti-colonial struggle and fought for progressive land and agrarian reform after independence.
    • Seventy years on, they continue to fight against the recent waves of anti-farmer policies, while advancing new progressive visions such as peasant agro-ecology and food sovereignty, which put small food producers and the environment at the centre.
    • The current convergence of authoritarianism and corporate capital brings this existential crisis for rural agricultural producers even more sharply in focus.
    • Farmers’ movements have been aware of state connivance with exploitative actors, but they must now also contend with a breakdown of the democratic process and increased repression.
    • These should be ominous signs for regimes across South Asia which continue to act with impunity in the face of demands for economic and social justice.

    Voices of movements

    • The COVID-19 pandemic has pushed food sovereignty back into the public imagination. The solution, of course, only begins with making farming a viable livelihood.
    • Dominant assumptions about inevitable rural-urban migration and techno-utopian transformation in agriculture must be challenged.
    • Questions of land redistribution and other rural inequalities must remain a crucial part of the political agenda.
    • The situation of mostly female agricultural workers, the rural landless and Dalits in South Asia remains precarious. Even as rural movements across South Asia fight the ongoing attack on their livelihoods, they must also tackle rural inequality head-on.

    Conclusion

    • The air is ripe for new visions of rural emancipation in South Asia.
    • Rural movements are working to transform not just their world but are becoming catalysts for a broader anti-authoritarian struggle in South Asia.
    • The current phase of struggles has revived old questions while raising others about the future of our long-ignored rural world.
    • We must listen to the voices and demands of the rural movements converging across South Asia.
  • The roots of the agricultural crisis run deep

    The standoff between farmers and the government continues even after a few rounds of discussion.

    Un-timely reforms

    • Currently, the country was struggling with novel coronavirus-caused lockdowns, supply disruptions, job losses and falling incomes in an economy.
    • The reforms embedded in the three Acts are unlikely to help resolve the structural issues facing Indian agriculture, even their withdrawal is unlikely to change the ground reality.

    Farmers protest continues

    • The immediate trigger for the current protests is the enactment of the three Acts, on agricultural marketing, contract farming and stocking of agricultural produce, which deregulates the existing Acts on these.
    • Farmer unions have rejected the proposal and continue to demand complete withdrawal of the three Acts along with making MSP a guarantee.

    Government for negotiations

    • The latest proposal by the government indicates its willingness to amend the three agriculture-related Acts passed in September.
    • The government has proposed amendments which will empower the States to frame rules the contentious issues of registration of private traders, levy of taxes on trade outside the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) mandis.
    • Similar assurances have been given on access to the judiciary for dispute resolution and continuation of the Minimum Support Price (MSP) mechanism.

    Many protests, one thread

    • The last four years have seen a series of large protests in most of the States.
    • For example, a group of farmers from Tamil Nadu camped in Delhi for over 100 days, Maharashtra was witness to the ‘Kisan Long March’ of farmers on more than one occasion, protests erupted in Rajasthan, UP, Haryana and MP.
    • The latest round of protests may have seen spirited protests from farmers from Punjab and Haryana but has found the support of farmers from the other States as well.
    • The common thread in all these protests — of declining agricultural incomes, stagnant wages and withdrawal of state support to agriculture.

    Changing faces of agriculture

    • The real issue is the lack of remunerative prices for a majority of agricultural commodities, a sharp increase in price variability in recent years, and an unpredictable and arbitrary government policy regime.
    • The other major problem is the changing nature of agriculture which has seen increased dependence on markets, increasing mechanization along with increasing monetization of the agrarian economy.
    • The increased dependence on markets has contributed to increasing variability in output prices.
    • Limited government intervention in protecting farmers’ income and stabilizing prices through MSP-led procurement operations made the increased variability in frequency as well as its spread.
    • Other than rice and wheat — and to some sporadic instances, of pulses — most crops suffer from inadequate intervention from MSP operations.
    • Even these procurement operations are unable to stabilize prices with falling demand and a slowing economy. For example, wheat has seen a steady decline in year-on-year inflation based on Wholesale Price Index (WPI).
    • Uneven nature of procurement in some states is also responsible to arrest the decline in prices. Crops like paddy, maize have seen in many States significantly lower market prices than the MSP.

    Factors behind vulnerability

    • Increasing mechanization and monetization have led to an increase in the cash requirement.
    • Most of these are met by non-institutional sources including middlemen which have contributed to the rising cost of cultivation and an increase in loan defaults.
    • The demand for loan waivers is unlikely to subside with the rising cost of inputs.
    • These trends have accentuated after 2010-11 when the Nutrient Based Subsidy (NBS) for fertilizers regime led to an increase in fertilizer prices.
    • The withdrawal of diesel subsidy and a rise in electricity prices also contributed to making agriculture unviable.
    • The government has declined the agricultural investment in the first four years which resulted in rising input costs and falling output prices.
    • The shocks of demonetization and the lockdown only increased the uncertainty and vulnerability in the agricultural sector both on input and output prices.

    What lies ahead?

    • The demand for making MSP a guarantee for private trade is meaningless if the government is unable to ensure procurement for a majority of the 23 crops for which it announces MSP.
    • Thus, the withdrawal of the three Acts by the government will only seem to offer a temporary truce.

    Policy overhaul needed

    • The existing policy framework with an excessive focus on inflation management and obsession with the fiscal deficit will likely lead to lower support from the government either in price stabilization or reduction in the cost of cultivation through fiscal spending.
    • The agricultural sector needs a comprehensive policy overhaul to recognize the new challenges of agriculture which are diversifying and getting integrated with the non-agricultural sector.
    • This not only entails a better understanding of the structural issues but also innovative thinking to protect farmers’ livelihood from the uncertainty of these changes.
    • Above all, it requires financial support and institutional structures to support the agricultural sector and protect it. Only this can lead to the government’s dream of doubling the farmers’ income.
  • Closing the communication gap with the farmers

    The article suggests the policy options with the government to deal with the protest of the farmers against the recently enacted farm laws.

    Context

    • Farmers have protested against the recently enacted farm laws by converging on Delhi’s highways connected to neighbouring states.

    Why farmers are protesting

    • There is a gross communication failure on the part of the central government to explain to farmers what these laws are, and how they are intended to benefit them.
    • Neither do the laws say anything about it, nor is the MSP/APMC system going to disappear with these laws.
    • Nothing can be further from the truth.

    1) Should government  repeal the laws

    • Punjab farmer leaders, including two major political parties, demand repeal of these laws.
    • However, repealing would mean bringing back controls, licence raj and the resultant rent-seeking.
    • Milk, poultry, fishery, etc. don’t go through the mandi system and their growth rates are 3 to 5 times higher than that of wheat and rice.
    • Overall, almost 90 per cent of the agri-produce is sold to the private sector.

    2) Should the government make MSP legally binding

    • Another demand is making the MSP statutory and legally binding even on the private sector.
    • This is impractical as there are 23 commodities for which MSPs are announced, but in actual practice only wheat and rice enjoy MSPs in any meaningful manner, and that too only in 6-7 states.
    • Punjab is the biggest gainer as its 95-98 per cent of market arrivals of wheat and paddy are procured at MSP by state agencies on behalf of the Food Corporation of India (FCI).
    • The FCI is overloaded with grain stocks that are more than 2.5 times the buffer stock norms.
    • Such high stock indicates massive economic inefficiency in the grain management system.
    • If the government cannot cope up with excess production of just wheat and rice in any meaningful way, think of how it will handle 23 commodities under MSP.
    • In case of excess production the government will not have the wherewithal to buy all and stock them without any viable outlet.
    • It will massively distort markets, make Indian agriculture non-competitive and stocking of these will be financially unsustainable.
    • And then, why only 23 commodities, why not 40?
    • This type of state socialism is a sure path to financial disaster.

    3) Optio of the Price Stabilisation Scheme

    • The third policy option is to use the Price Stabilisation Scheme to give a lift to market prices by pro-actively buying a part of the surplus whenever market prices crash.
    • It can be done directly by NAFED-type agencies that are already active in the case of pulses and oilseeds.
    • Farmers can use Commodity Derivatives Exchanges where farmers can buy “put options” at MSP before they even sow their crops, and if the market prices at the time of harvest turn out to be below MSP, government can compensate them partly for lower market prices.

    4) Decentralise MSP: Let the states decide it

    • The fourth option is to totally decentralise the MSP, procurement, stocking, and public distribution system (PDS).
    • MSP and procurement exist basically to support farmers for supplying grains to the FCI to feed into the PDS.
    • So, the whole money on food subsidy can be allocated to states on the basis of their share in all-India poverty/proportion of vulnerable population, all-India wheat and rice production, all-India procurement of wheat and rice, etc.
    • A step further could include another Rs 1,00,000 crore of fertiliser subsidy and free up fertiliser prices from any controls.
    • Still further, even include another Rs 1,00,000, say, of MNREGA.
    • Let the Finance Commission work out a formula for distribution of this Rs 3,00,000 crore amongst states based on some tangible performance indicators.
    • And the Centre should get off from MSP, PDS, fertiliser subsidy, and MNREGA.

    Conclusion

    This would be true decentralisation, and can be accomplished provided enough ground work is done well in advance. But will this be acceptable to farmer leaders/opposing states/activists? Only time will tell.

  • 1.5x Formula for crops MSP calculation

    Talks between farmer unions and the government failed to reach a resolution. The main bone of contention in these talks is the Minimum Support Price (MSP) for crops, which farmers fear the new laws will do away.

    Try this:

    Q.There is also a point of view that agriculture produce market committees (APMCs) set up under the state acts have not only impeded the development of agriculture but also have been the cause of food inflation in India. Critically examine. (CSM 2014)

    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 subsidised 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.

    Why in news yet again?

    • The Union Budget for 2018-19 had announced that MSP would be kept at levels of one and half times of the cost of production.
    • This year the govt. has increased the MSP for all mandated Kharif, Rabi and other commercial crops with a return of at least 50 per cent of the cost of production for the agricultural year 2018-19 and 2019-20.
    • This is the ambiguity from where this 1.5 times formula arrived at.

    How did the government fix the MSPs of crops before every planting season?

    • 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, fertilisers, pesticides, hired labour, leased-in land, fuel, irrigation, etc.
    • ‘A2+FL’ includes A2 plus an imputed value of unpaid family labour.
    • ‘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.

    Now try this PYQ:

    Q.The economic cost of food grains to the Food Corporation of India is Minimum Support Price and bonus (if any) paid to the farmers plus:

    (a) Transportation cost only

    (b) Interest cost only

    (c) Procurement incidentals and distribution cost

    (d) Procurement incidentals and charges for godowns

    Which production costs were taken in fixing the MSPs?

    • In 2018, then FM Arun Jaitley’s did not specify the cost on which the 1.5-times formula was to be computed.
    • But the CACP’s ‘Price Policy for Kharif Crops: The Marketing Season 2018-19’ report stated that its MSP recommendation was based on 1.5 times the A2+FL costs.

    What are the farmer’s demands?

    • Farm activists, however, had said that the 1.5-times MSP formula should have been applied on the C2 costs.
    • CACP considers A2+FL and C2 costs, both while recommending MSP. It reckons only A2+FL cost for return.
    • However, C2 costs are used by CACP primarily as benchmark reference costs (opportunity costs) to see if the MSPs recommended by them at least cover these costs in some of the major producing States.
  • The perils of deregulated imperfect agrimarkets

    The article examine issue of agriculture produce marketing. The passage of FPTC Act 2020 sought to address the challenges faced by the farmers. However, these are several issues the Act fails to resolve. These issues are discussed here.

    Why do farmers sell outside mandis?

    • Official data show that even for paddy and wheat, respectively, only 29% and 44% of the harvest is sold in a mandi.
    • In other words a large proportion of Indian harvest is not directly sold in a mandi.
    • Farmers are forced to sell outside the mandis for two reasons.

    1) There are not enough mandis

    • The National Commission on Agriculture (NCA) had recommended that every Indian farmer should be able to reach a mandi in one hour by a cart.
    • Thus, the average area served by a mandi was to be reduced to 80 km2.
    • For this, the number of mandis was to increase to at least 41,000.
    • But there were only 6,630 mandis in 2019 with an average area served of 463 km2.
    • Using another set of criteria, a government committee in 2017 had recommended that India should have at least 10,130 mandis.
    • So, by all counts, India needs not less but more mandis.

    2) Transport cost

    • Most small and marginal farmers, do not find it economical to bear the transport costs to take their harvests to mandis.
    • Thus, they end up selling their harvest to a village trader even if at a lower price.
    • Even if private markets replace mandis, small and marginal farmers will continue to sell to traders in the village itself.
    • The situation will change only if economies of scale rise substantially at the farm-level.

    Why there is poor private investment in markets?

    • Already, 18 States have allowed the establishment of private markets outside the APMC; 19 States have allowed the direct purchase of agricultural produce from farmers; and 13 States have allowed the establishment of farmer’s markets outside the APMC.
    • Despite such legislative changes, no significant private investment has flowed in to establish private markets in these States.
    • The reason for poor private investment in markets is the presence of high transaction costs in produce collection and aggregation.
    • When private players try to take over the role of mandis and the village trader, they incur considerable costs in opening collection centres and for salaries, grading, storage and transport.
    • Corporate retail chains face additional costs in urban sales and storage, as well as the risk of perishability.
    • This is why many retail chains prefer purchasing from mandis rather than directly from farmers.

    Issue of mandi tax

    • Many commentaries treat taxes in mandis as wasteful. This assertion is not fully true for two reasons:
    • 1) Much of the mandi taxes are reinvested by APMCs to improve market infrastructure.
    • A fall in mandi taxes would reduce the surplus available with APMCs for such investment.
    • 2) In States such as Punjab, the government charges a market committee fee and a rural development fee.
    • The Punjab Mandi Board uses these revenues to construct rural roads, run medical and veterinary dispensaries, supply drinking wate etc.
    • Such rural investments will also be adversely affected if mandis are weakened.

    Weakening of MSP regime

    • Many policy signals point to a strategic design to weaken the MSPs.
    • 1) Rising input and labour costs necessitates a regular upward revision of MSPs to keep pace with costs of living.
    • However, MSPs are rising at a far slower rate over the past five to six years than in the past.
    • 2) The government has not yet agreed to fix MSPs at 50% above the C2 cost of production.
    • As a result, farmers continue to suffer a price loss of ₹200 to ₹500 per quintal in many crops.
    • 3) The Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) has been recommending to the government that open-ended procurement of food grains should end.
    • These policy stances have set alarm bells ringing among farmers.
    • The farmers Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh feel that if mandis weaken and private markets with no commitment to MSPs expand, they fear a gradual erosion of their entitlement to a remunerative price.

    Steps to be taken

    • 1) India needs an increase in the density of mandis, expansion of investment in mandi infrastructure and a spread of the MSP system to more regions and crops.
    • 2) This increase in density should happen hand-in-hand with a universalisation of the Public Distribution System.
    • 3) APMCs need internal reform to ease the entry of new players, reduce trader collusion and link them up with national e-trading platforms.
    • The introduction of unified national licences for traders and a single point levy of market fees are also steps in the right direction.

    Consider the question “The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020 was passed with a view to address the challenges faced by the farmers in selling their produce. However, there are concerns with the provision of the Act and its efficacy to addresss these challenges. What are the issues with the Act? Suggest the measures to address these issues.” 

    Conclusion

    The government’s must try to allay the fears of farmers over the Farm Bills and it is never too late to rethink. Unconditional talks with farmers would be an appropriate starting point.

  • Farmers’ protest

    Farmers all across the Punjab and Haryana have marched to New Delhi over the new legislations.

     Major cause of Farmers’ protest

    • Much of the opposition really is just to one of the three laws. It is the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation)  Act and its provisions that are seen as weakening the APMC mandis.
    • Even in that one — the act — there are only some contentious provisions, which, although key, can still leave doors open for negotiation.

    A fight for privilege

    • Farmers, if anything, would gain from removal of stocking restrictions on the trade, as it potentially translates into unlimited buying and demand for their produce.

    The contentious one: FPTC Act

    • The FPTC Act is a bone of contention. It permits sale and purchase of farm produce outside the premises of APMC mandis.
    • Such trades (including on electronic platforms) shall attract no market fee, cess or levy “under any State APMC Act or any other State law”.
    • An issue here is the very right of the Centre to enact legislation on agricultural marketing.
    • Article 246 of the Constitution places “agriculture” and “markets and fairs” in the State List.
    • But entry 42 of the Union List empowers the Centre to regulate “inter-State trade and commerce”.

    An example of Central hegemony

    • While trade and commerce “within the State” is under entry 26 of the State List, it is subject to the provisions of entry 33 of the Concurrent List.
    • Under this, the Centre can make laws that would prevail over those enacted by the states.
    • Entry 33 of the Concurrent List covers trade and commerce in “foodstuffs, including edible oilseeds and oils”, fodder, cotton and jute.
    • The Centre, in other words, can very pass any law that removes all impediments to both inter- and intra-state trade in farm produce, while also overriding the existing state APMC Acts. The FPTC Act does precisely that.

    Farmers question

    • Some experts make a distinction between agricultural “marketing” and “trade”.
    • Agriculture per se would deal with everything that a farmer does — right from field preparation and cultivation to also sale of his/her own produce.
    • The act of primary sale at a mandi by the farmer is as much “agriculture” as production in the field.
    • “Trade” begins only after the produce has been “marketed” by the farmer.

    The centre’s overriding logic behind

    • Going by this interpretation, the Centre is within its rights to frame laws that promote barrier-free trade of farm produce (inter- as well as intra-state) and do not allow stockholding or export restrictions.
    • But these can be only after the farmer has sold.
    • Regulation of first sale of agricultural produce is a “marketing” responsibility of the states, not the Centre.

    What do farmers’ want?

    • Farmers would want no restrictions on the movement, stocking and export of their produce.
    • For example, Maharashtra’s onion growers have vehemently opposed the Centre’s resort to ban on exports and imposition of stock limits whenever retail prices have tended to go up.
    • But these restrictions relate to “trade”.
    • When it comes to “marketing” — especially dismantling of the monopoly of APMCs — farmers, especially in Punjab and Haryana, aren’t very convinced about the “freedom of choice to sell to anyone and anywhere” argument.

    Where lies the major issue?

    • Much of government procurement at minimum support prices (MSP) — of paddy, wheat and increasingly pulses, cotton, groundnut and mustard — happens in APMC mandis
    •  In a scenario where more and more trading moves out of the APMCs, these regulated market yards will lose revenues.
    • They may not formally shut, but it would become like BSNL versus Jio.
    • And if the government stops buying, farmers will be left with only the big corporates to sell to.

    What could be negotiated?

    • If the protesting farmer union leaders were to sit down at the negotiating table, the government can possibly get them to agree to drop the demand on repealing all the three laws.
    • Their problem is essentially about the FPTC Act and its provisions that they see as weakening the APMC mandis.
    • These may be just fears, but they aren’t small.
    • From the government’s standpoint, the elephant in the room would be if the farmers insist on an additional demand: Making MSP a legal right.
    • This  would be still impossible to meet, even if the three farm laws were to be put on hold.

     

  • Understanding the interplay between subsidies and agri-pollution

    Agriculture’s contribution to air pollution

    • Agriculture’s contribution to air pollution runs deeper than what happens between crop seasons.
    • The Indo-Gangetic plain is also one of the world’s largest and rapidly-growing ammonia hotspots.
    • Atmospheric ammonia, which comes from fertiliser use, animal husbandry, and other agricultural practices, combines with emissions from power plants, transportation and other fossil-fuel burning to form fine particles.

    Impact of pollution on agriculture

    • It is important to note that agriculture is a victim of pollution as well as its perpetrator.
    • Particulate matter and ground-level ozone formed from industrial, power plant, and transportation emissions among other ingredients cause double-digit losses in crop yields.
    • Ozone damages plant cells, handicapping photosynthesis, while particulate matter dims the sunlight that reaches crops.
    • Agriculture scientist Tony Fischer’s 2019 estimates of the two pollutants’ combined effect suggest that as much as 30 per cent of India’s wheat yield is missing (Sage Journals, Outlook on Agriculture).
    • Earlier, B Sinha et al (2015), in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions, found that high ozone levels in parts of Haryana and Punjab could diminish rice yields by a quarter and cotton by half.

    Role played by subsidies

    • The current system of subsidies is a big reason that there is stubble on these fields in the first place.
    • Free power — and consequently, “free” water, pumped from the ground — is a big part of what makes growing rice in these areas attractive.
    • Open-ended procurement of paddy, despite the bulging stocks of grains with the Food Corporation of India, adds to the incentives.
    • Subsidies account for almost 15 per cent of the value of rice being produced in Punjab-Haryana belt.
    • Fertiliser, particularly urea in granular form, is highly subsidised.
    • It is one of the cheapest forms of nitrogen-based fertiliser, easy to store and easy to transport, but it is also one of the first to “volatilise,” or release ammonia into the air.
    • This loss of nitrogen then leads to a cycle of more and more fertiliser being applied to get the intended benefits for crops.

    Way forward

    • We need to shift the nature of support to farmers from input subsidies to investment subsidies.
    • This could involve the conversion of paddy areas in this belt to orchards with drip irrigation, vegetables, corn, cotton, pulses and oilseeds.
    • All of the above consume much less water, much less power and fertilisers and don’t create stubble to burn.
    • A diversification package of, say, Rs 10,000 crore spread over the next five years, equally contributed by the Centre and states, may be the best way to move forward in reducing agriculture-related pollution.
    • The approach to diversification has to be demand-led, with a holistic framework of the value chain, from farm to fork and not just focused on production.
    • On the fertiliser front, it would be better to give farmers input subsidy in cash on per hectare basis, and free up the prices of fertilisers completely.

    Conclusion

    Taken together, these measures could double farmers’ incomes, promote efficiency in resource use, and reduce pollution — a win-win solution for all.