💥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

  • Allaying the fears of farmers over MSP regime

    Question of MSP regime while arguing in favour of recently passed agri bills has made the farmers apprehensive of the purpose of the bill. The article argues for allaying the fears of the farmers and explains the salience of the MSP.

    Flawed argument over MSP

    • The recently enacted farm bills have triggered debate on the desirability of the MSP regime.
    • But, the bills do not facilitate a policy to do away with Minimum Support Prices (MSPs).
    • The bills allow free entry to agents who wish to set up markets — whether they be private individuals, producer collectives or cooperatives.
    • This means that the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and other associated agencies can procure in the traditional mandis, or in a new market established under this law — or in their own backyard.
    • So, the argument that if the mandis cease to exist, the procurement will also cease is, in fact, flawed.
    • Supporters of the bills have quoted the Shanta Kumar committee’s figures to argue that MSPs are anyway irrelevant for most of the farmers in the country.
    • This linkage of the farm bills with the MSP only adds to the apprehension that farmers have about the bills.

    Significance of MSP

    • It is true that the procurement has remained confined to only a few crops.
    • But the benefits to the farmers even beyond Punjab and Haryana are certainly not negligible.
    • It is true that only a small fraction benefits directly from the procurement.
    • But one cannot ignore the indirect benefit of this to all foodgrain producers in the country.
    • As the procurement significantly exceeds the PDS requirement, this creates additional demand in the foodgrain market, pushing up the prices.
    • This has been a great help for all the grain producers in the country, especially when the international prices have remained low for a long time now.
    • The RBI’s annual report of 2017-18 on impact of MSP on the food prices conclusively shows that MSP is a leading factor influencing the output prices of the farm produce in the entire country.
    • The issue of MSP is all the more important for rain-fed agriculturists, being deprived of irrigation, they don’t derive benefit from subsidies on electricity and fertiliser as their use is limited.
    • So, at the moment, the only state support these farmers (primarily cotton and pulse producers) have is that of MSPs.

    Conclusion

    The debate on whom and how the state should support is an issue that should be addressed independently of the farm acts. Presenting these acts as an alternative to MSPs will not persuade farmers.

  • [pib] Market Intervention Scheme

    The Union Cabinet has approved the extension of Market Intervention Scheme (MIS) for apple procurement in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) for the current season.

    UPSC can ask a question on the difference between MSP and MIP. All the agricultural and horticultural commodities for which Minimum Support Price (MSP) are not fixed and are generally perishable in nature are covered under Market Intervention Scheme (MIS).

    Market Intervention Scheme

    • MIS is a price support mechanism implemented on the request of State Governments for the procurement of perishable and horticultural commodities in the event of a fall in market prices.
    • It is implemented when there is at least a 10% increase in production or a 10% decrease in the ruling rates over the previous normal year.
    • MIS works in a similar fashion to Minimum Support Price based procurement mechanism for food grains but is an ad-hoc mechanism.
    • Its objective is to protect the growers of these horticultural/agricultural commodities from making distress sale in the event of the bumper crop.
    • Under MIS, support can be provided in some years, for a limited but defined period, in specified critical markets and by purchasing specified quantities. The initiative has to emerge from the concerned state.

    Commodities covered

    • The MIS has been implemented in case of commodities like apples, garlic, oranges, grapes, mushrooms, clove, black pepper, pineapple, ginger, red chillies, coriander seed, chicory, onions, potatoes, cabbage, mustard seed, castor seed, copra, palm oil etc.

    Remuneration under MIS

    • MIS provides remunerative prices to the farmers in case of the glut in production and fall in prices.
    • Proposal of MIS is approved on the specific request of State/UT Government, if they are ready to bear 50% loss (25% in case of North-Eastern States), if any, incurred on its implementation.
    • Further, the extent of total amount of loss shared is restricted to 25% of the total procurement value which includes the cost of the commodity procured plus permitted overhead expenses.

    Implementation of MIS

    1) Market Intervention Price (MIP)

    • The Department of Agriculture & Cooperation is implementing the scheme.
    • Under the MIS, a pre-determined quantity at a fixed MIP is procured by NAFED as the Central agency.
    • There are other agencies designated by the state government for a fixed period or till the prices are stabilized above the MIP whichever is earlier.
    • The area of operation is restricted to the concerned state only.

    2) Funds transfer

    • Under MIS, funds are not allocated to the States.
    • Instead, central share of losses as per the guidelines of MIS is released to the State Governments/UTs, for which MIS has been approved, based on specific proposals received from them.

  • Issues with the MSP in the age of surplus production

    The author analyses the inefficiencies in the MSP regime while comparing it with the sugar sector and the milk sector. The recent agri-reform in the opinion of the author could help to make the Indian agriculture more efficient.

    MSP system Vs. Market-driven system

    • MSP regime was the creation of the era of scarcity in the mid-1960s.
    • Indian agriculture has, since then, turned the corner from scarcity to surplus.
    • In a surplus economy, unless we make agriculture demand-driven, the MSP route can spell financial disaster.
    • This transition is about changing the pricing mix — how much of it should be state-supported and how much market-driven.
    • The new laws are trying to increase the relative role of markets without dismantling the MSP system.
    • Currently, no system is perfect, be it the one based on MSP or that led by the markets, but the MSP system is much more costly and inefficient.
    • The market-led system will be more sustainable provided we can “get the markets right”.

    Issues with the MSP

    • A perusal of the MSP dominated system of rice and wheat shows that the stocks with the government are way above the buffer stock norms.
    • The economic cost (to FCI) of procured rice comes to about Rs 37/kg and that of wheat is around Rs 27/kg.
    • No wonder, market prices of rice and wheat are much lower than the economic cost incurred by the FCI.
    • So, grain stocks with the FCI cannot be exported without a subsidy[i.e. export below the cost], which invites WTO’s objections.
    • The FCI’s burden is touching Rs 3 lakh crore which is not reflected in the Central budget as the FCI is asked to borrow more and more.
    • The FCI can reduce costs if it uses policy instruments like “put options”.

    2 Lessons: from sugarcane and milk pricing

    1) Populism resulted in making sugar industry globally non-competitive

    • In the case of sugarcane, the government announces a “fair and remunerative price” (FRP) [not MSP]to be paid by sugar factories [not paid by the Government].
    • While some states like Uttar Pradesh announces its own “state advised price” (SAP).
    • The sheer populism of SAP has resulted in cane arrears amounting to more than Rs 8,000 crore, with large surpluses of sugar that can’t be exported.
    • This sector has, consequently, become globally non-competitive.
    • Unless sugarcane pricing follows the C Rangarajan Committee’s recommendations the problems of the sugar sector will not go away.

    2) Success story of milk sector

    • In the case of milk co-operatives, pricing is done by the company in consultation with milk federations.
    • It is more in the nature of a contract price.
    • It competes with private companies, be it Nestle, Hatsun or Schreiber Dynamix dairies.
    • The milk sector has been growing at a rate two to three times higher than rice, wheat and sugarcane.
    • Today, India is the largest producer of milk — 187 million tonnes annually.

    So, how the recent reforms will help the farmers

    •  As a result of changes in farm laws in the next three to five years companies will be encouraged to build efficient supply lines somewhat on the lines of milk.
    • These supply lines — be it with farmers producer organisations (FPOs) or through aggregators — will, of course, be created in states where these companies find the right investment climate.
    • These companies will help raise productivity, similar to what has happened in the poultry sector.
    • Milk and poultry don’t have MSP and farmers do not have to go through the mandi system paying high commissions, market fees and cess.

    Conclusion

    The pricing system has its limits in raising farmers’ incomes. More sustainable solutions lie in augmenting productivity, diversifying to high-value crops, and shifting people out of agriculture to high productivity jobs elsewhere, the recent reforms are the steps in this direction.

    Back2Basic: What is MSP

    • Minimum Support Price (MSP) is a form of market intervention by the Government of India to insure agricultural producers against any sharp fall in farm prices.
    • The minimum support prices are announced by the Government of India at the beginning of the sowing season for certain crops on the basis of the recommendations of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP).
    • The minimum support prices are a guarantee price for their produce from the Government.
    • The major objectives are to support the farmers from distress sales and to procure food grains for public distribution.
    • In case the market price for the commodity falls below the announced minimum price due to bumper production and glut in the market, government agencies purchase the entire quantity offered by the farmers at the announced minimum price.

    What are ‘put options’

    • Put options give holders of the option the right, but not the obligation, to sell a specified amount of an underlying security at a specified price within a specified time frame.
    • Put options are available on a wide range of assets, including stocks, indexes, commodities, and currencies.
    • Put option prices are impacted by changes in the price of the underlying asset, the option strike price, time decay, interest rates, and volatility.
    • Put options increase in value as the underlying asset falls in price, as volatility of the underlying asset price increases, and as interest rates decline.
    • They lose value as the underlying asset increases in price, as volatility of the underlying asset price decreases, as interest rates rise, and as the time to expiration nears.

     

  • Reform is about giving farmers choice

    The article analyses the regional variation in the problems and issues of the farmer and how it has implications for the reforms in agriculture.

    An issue of estimating the number of farmers in India

    • Almost 111 million are registered for the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM-Kisan).
    • Other than some categories being barred from PM-Kisan benefits, not every eligible farmer has necessarily registered for PM-Kisan.
    • The last Agriculture Census in 2015-16 gave us 146 million holdings.
    • If the agricultural landholding is conditional on being a farmer, apart from a possible further increase since 2015-16, 146 million is possibly the upper bound.
    • Every definition of “farmer” is not contingent on the ownership of land.
    • The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act of 2001 is an example where status as a farmer depends on cultivating land (or supervising cultivation), not owning it.
    • That issue was also flagged by the National Commission on Farmers, such as in the Draft National Policy for Farmers (2006), where “farmers” included agricultural labourers, sharecroppers, tenants and so on.

    Issues with making landholding prerequisite for being a farmer

    • The Committee on State Agrarian Relations and the Unfinished Task in Land Reforms (2009) noted that “the Survey and Settlement Operations in the Permanently Settled Areas have not been taken up and where they have been taken up, for instance in Bihar, they tend to never conclude”
    • The last extensive survey and settlement in India was conducted two to three decades prior to Independence.
    • Post-Independence, some states have not undertaken a revisional survey and settlement so far.
    • There have been improvements since 2009 and the Department of Land Resources has a Digital India Land Records Modernisation Programme (DILRMP).
    • Punjab and Haryana rank 16th and 18th respectively in Records and Services Index (LRSI).
    • Gujarat, West Bengal and Tripura score high on this Index (over 90 per cent).

    Variation across the States

    • If land records are in this condition, some farmers will conceivably be excluded from the farmer definition.
    • With diverse and heterogenous agriculture, all farmers will not have identical views.
    •  2015-16 Agricultural Census tells us that most operational holdings are in UP, Bihar, Maharashtra and MP, in that order.
    • The highest operated areas are in Rajasthan, Maharashtra, UP and MP, in that order.
    • 86.1 per cent of holdings are small and marginal (less than 2 hectares) and only 0.6 per cent are large (more than 10 hectares).

    Conclusion

    The face of Indian agriculture has changed and is no longer what it was in the Green Revolution days, centred on Punjab, Haryana and western UP. Farmers, and governments, in Bihar and Kerala, don’t want APMCs, nor do UP, MP, Gujarat and Karnataka. There is no evidence that this has made those farmers worse off.

  • Explained: How is MSP fixed?

    The recently enacted Farmers bill seeks to dismantle the monopoly of APMC mandis, thereby allowing sale and purchase of crops outside these state government-regulated market yards. This has prompted many fears regarding the continuance of the existing minimum support price (MSP)-based procurement regime.

    Try this PYQ:

    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. (UPSC 2014)

    What does the law say about MSP?

    • The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill does not give any statutory backing to MSP.
    • There is not even a single mention of either “MSP” or “procurement” in the Bill passed by both Houses of Parliament last week.

    Is there any legal backing for MSP?

    • 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.

    What is the basis of MSP then?

    • It is only a government policy that is part of administrative decision-making.
    • The government declares MSPs for crops, but there’s no law mandating their implementation.
    • The Centre currently fixes MSPs for 23 farm commodities based on the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) recommendations:
    1. 7 cereals (paddy, wheat, maize, bajra, jowar, ragi and barley)
    2. 5 pulses (chana, arhar/tur, urad, moong and masur)
    3. 7 oilseeds (rapeseed-mustard, groundnut, soyabean, sunflower, sesamum, safflower and nigerseed) and
    4. 4 commercial crops (cotton, sugarcane, copra and raw jute) —

    What about CACP?

    • The CACP come to existence in 1965 and MSPs are being announced since the time of the Green Revolution, starting with wheat in 1966-67.
    • The CACP is simply an attached office of the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare.
    • It can recommend MSPs, but the decision on fixing (or even not fixing) and enforcement rest finally with the government.
    • The government can procure at the MSPs if it wants to. There is no legal compulsion. Nor can it force others (private traders, organised retailers, processors or exporters) to pay.

    Exceptions to MSP: Fair and remunerative price (FRP)

    • The only crop where MSP payment has some statutory element is sugarcane.
    • This is due to its pricing being governed by the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 issued under the Essential Commodities Act.
    • That order, in turn, provides for the fixation of an FRP for cane during every sugar year (October-September).
    • But even the FRP — which, incidentally, was until 2008-09 called the ‘statutory minimum price’ or SMP — is payable not by the government.
    • The responsibility to make FRP payment to farmers within 14 days of cane purchase lies solely with the sugar mills.

    Has there been any move to give MSP legislative backing?

    • The CACP, in its price policy report for the 2018-19 Kharif marketing season, had suggested enactment of legislation conferring on farmers ‘The Right to Sell at MSP’.
    • This, it felt, was necessary “to instil confidence among farmers for procurement of their produce”. That advice, predictably, wasn’t accepted.

    A cause for farmers fury

    • The ongoing farmer protests essentially reflect a loss of that very confidence.
    • Is the dismantling of the monopoly of APMC mandis in wholesale trading of farm produce the first step at ending even the present MSP-based procurement programme, largely limited to wheat and paddy?
    • If APMCs were to turn unviable due to the trades moving outside, how will government agencies undertake procurement that now takes place in mandis?
    • These questions are playing in the minds of farmers, particularly in states such as Punjab, Haryana and MP that have well-established systems of governmental MSP purchases.
    • For them, freedom to sell to anyone, anywhere and anytime has little value compared to the comfort of assured procurement at MSP.

    Govt’s response

    • PM has tweeted that the “system of MSP will remain” and “government procurement will continue”.
    • The Agriculture Minister, too, has pointed out that past governments never thought it necessary to introduce a law for MSP.

  • Understanding the opposition of farmers to agriculture Bills

    The article analyses the issue of farmers opposition to the three agricultural bills.

    Context

    • Farmers have been protesting against the three bills related to agriculture.
    • These three Bills are-
    • 1) The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill, 2020
    • 2) The Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Bill, 2020.
    • 3) The Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill, 2020.

    What are the aims of the bills?

    • The Bills aim to do away with government interference in agricultural trade by creating trading areas outside the structure of Agricultural Produce Market Committees (APMCs).
    • One of the bills aims at removing restrictions of private stockholding (under Essential Commodities Act 1955) of agricultural produce.
    • One of the bills deals with the regulation of contract farming.

    Issues with the Bills

    • The government has failed to hold any discussion with the various stakeholders including farmers and middlemen.
    • The attempt to pass the Bills without proper consultation adds to the mistrust among various stakeholders including State governments.
    • Farmer organisations see these Bills as an attempt to weaken the APMCs and eventual withdrawal of the Minimum Support Prices (MSP).
    • Farmers in Punjab and Haryana have genuine concern about the continuance of the MSP-based public procurement given the large-scale procurement operations in these States.

    Understanding the role of APMC

    • APMCs do play an important role of price discovery essential for agricultural trade and production choices.
    • The middlemen are a part of the larger ecosystem of agricultural trade, with deep links between farmers and traders.
    • The preference for corporate interests at the cost of farmers’ interests and a lack of regulation in these non-APMC mandis are cause for concern.
    • To understand the role of APMC, consider the example of Bihar.
    • After Bihar abolished APMCs in 2006, farmers in Bihar on average received lower prices compared to the MSP for most crops.
    • Despite the shortcomings and regional variations, farmers still see the APMC mandis as essential to ensuring the survival of MSP regime.

    Conclusion

    The protests by farmers are essentially a reflection of the mistrust between farmers and the stated objective of these reforms.

  • Getting closer to doubling income of Farmers

    agriculture plays an important role in decreasing rural poverty in developing countries. Improved irrigation methods, seeds, and fertilizers have led to increased agricultural production in rural areas. The ECA is an act which was established to ensure the delivery of certain commodities or products, the supply of which if obstructed owing to hoarding or black-marketing would affect the normal life of the people. The ECA was enacted in 1955. This includes foodstuff, drugs, fuel (petroleum products) etc

  • Power Subsidies in Agriculture and Related issues

    tSometimes solutions that are meant to solve one problem results in the creation of another problem. Nowhere is this more evident than in the subsidies given on urea and electricity to the farmers. This article deals with the perils of the subsidy on electricity bills of farmers. However, there is an equally substantive argument in favour of the subsidies as well. So, what is the way out? Read to know…

    Replacing free power supply scheme with DBT

    • The Centre has prescribed that the free power supply scheme should be replaced with the direct benefits transfer (DBT) as a condition to allow States to increase their borrowing limit.
    • It is not the first time that the Union government has recommended DBT with regard to electricity.
    • But what is new is setting the time frame for implementing it.
    • By December this year, the DBT should be introduced at least in one district of a State and from the next financial year, a full roll-out should be made.

    Resistance from the states

    • Tamil Nadu, which was the first State to introduce free power in September 1984, is strongly resisting the Centre’s stipulation.
    • Tamil Nadu Chief Minister has taken a categorical stand against the proposal.
    • Though Chief Ministers of Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Punjab, where free power scheme is in vogue, are yet to express their views.
    • But it is not difficult to predict their response.
    • After all, Punjab Chief Minister who had abolished the scheme during his first innings is now a strong votary of the scheme.

    Let’s get the overview of the power subsidy bill

    • In the last 15 years, Maharashtra has been the only State that scrapped the scheme within a year of introducing it.
    • Karnataka, which has been implementing it since 2008, may become the first southern State to have DBT in power supply if the hint dropped by Chief Minister in early March is any indication.
    • The power subsidy bills in the four southern States and Punjab are at least ₹33,000 crore, an amount the State governments will struggle to meet due to resource crunch in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    But, why the Central government want to scrap the scheme?

    It is because of the following issues-

    1. Wastage of water and electricity

    • The financial stress apart, the universal application of the scheme has had deleterious consequences.
    • Primarily, the scheme has led to widespread wastage of water and electricity.
    • It is inherently against incentivising even a conscientious farmer to conserve the two precious resources.
    • It may be pertinent to point out that India is the largest user of groundwater at 251 billion cubic meters, exceeding the combined withdrawal by China and the U.S., as pointed out by Bharat Ramaswami of the Indian Statistical Institute last year.

    2. Worrying rate of the groundwater table depletion

    • Be it parts of the Cauvery delta in Tamil Nadu or Sangrur district of Punjab, the story about the groundwater table is the same — a worrying rate of depletion.
    • There is one more attendant problem.
    • To sustain their activity, farmers need to go for submersible or high-capacity pumpsets. [Consider the fact that to draw same quantity of water you have to use more power if your water table is low]

    3. It encourages the installation of more pump sets

    • Third, the extension of the scheme to different States over the years has only encouraged the installation of more pumpsets. Karnataka is a classic example, The number of irrigation pumpsets, which was around 17 lakh 12 years ago, is now around 30 lakh.

    4. Misuse of scheme

    • There is misuse of the scheme for which not just a section of farmers but also field officials have to be blamed.

    5. AT & C losses clubbed as consumption by farmers

    • In the absence of meters for these connections or segregation of feeders or metering of distribution transformers, accurate measurement of consumption becomes tricky.
    • Those in charge of power distribution companies find it convenient to reduce their aggregate technical and commercial (AT&C) losses by clubbing a portion of the losses with energy consumption by the farm sector.

    What is the argument of the supporter of the scheme?

    • Proponents of the free power scheme have a couple of valid points in their support.
    • Apart from ensuring food security, free power provides livelihood opportunities to landless workers.
    • When farmers dependent on supplies through canals get water almost free of cost, it is but fair that those not covered by canal irrigation should be given free electricity.
    • Though there is substance in the argument, it is not difficult to arrive at a fair pricing mechanism.
    • Small and marginal farmers and those who are outside the canal supply deserve free power, albeit with restrictions.
    • But there is no justification for continuing with the scheme perpetually to other farmers.
    • However, those enjoying free power need to be told about the need for judicious use of groundwater and how to conserve it.

    Consider the question-“Subsidies given to farmers on electricity has become an albatross around the States neck. However, such subsidies could also be termed as a necessary evil. Critically examine.”

    Conclusion

    Making use of the situation created by the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centre is trying to make lasting changes in areas where such measures are long overdue. At least in the area of power sector, its attempt can yield meaningful results only if there is a change in the mindset of agriculturists and political parties towards the concept of free power.

     

     

  • Time to evaluate and merge income support schemes

    Both States and Center have income support schemes for the farmers. Coincidentally, they both suffer from common problems such as the exclusion of tiller from the benefit and identifying the landless labourers. This article floats the idea of merging all the support schemes in favour of an umbrella scheme. So, what are the solutions and how will an umbrella scheme be more beneficial? Read to know…

    Not much ‘new cash’ in the relief package

    • On May 12, the PM announced that his government’s relief-cum-stimulus package would be Rs 20 lakh crore, almost 10 per cent of India’s GDP.
    • But when Finance Minister unveiled the package, sector by sector, many wondered where the “new cash” was?
    • So, it became clear that additional relief and stimulus in the system is just about 1 per cent of the GDP — not 10 per cent.
    • Much of the rest is directed towards increasing liquidity and deferring some loan payments, but not much additional cash.

    Cash-transfer schemes by the state governments: Chhatisgarh and other states

    • In this context, the Chhattisgarh government deserves compliments for launching the Rajiv Gandhi Kisan Nyay Yojana (RGKNY).
    • RGKNY is an income transfer scheme at Rs 10,000/acre for paddy farmers and Rs 13,000/acre for sugarcane farmers.
    • The state’s chief minister has said that the scheme will be extended to farmers of other crops — in fact, to landless labourers as well.
    • On the face of it, RGKNY will help put money directly into the hands of farmers and poor agricultural labourers.
    • In kharif 2018-19, Telangana announced a cash transfer scheme of Rs 4,000/acre, per season — this was raised to Rs 5,000/acre per season in kharif 2019-20.
    • There is a live portal that gives the details of the scheme and its progress.
    • In the rabi season of 2018-19, the Odisha government launched the KALIA scheme-Krushak Assistance for Livelihood and Income Augmentation- on a somewhat similar pattern.
    • West Bengal’s Krishak Bandhu and Jharkhand’s Mukhya Mantri Krishi Aashirwad Yojana are the other income support schemes worth mentioning.

    2 Issues with income support policies and solutions

    1. The beneficiary is not always tiller of the land

    • Ideally, the money of the policies should go to the real tiller.
    • But in large parts of the country, there is no record of tenancy.
    • The government data shows only 10 per cent tenancy in the country.
    • While several micro-level studies indicate that it could be anywhere between 25-30 per cent.
    • In fact, in many regions like the Godavari belt, it could be even more than 50 per cent.
    • It does not make much sense to put money into the accounts of absentee landlords.

    So, what is the solution to this problem?

    • 1) The best way would be to change the tenancy laws.
    • Open up land lease markets, ensuring that the owner of the land has full rights to take his land back after the expiry of the lease period.
    • The current law, favouring “land to the tiller”, is loaded against the owner.
    • As a result, much of tenancy in the country remains oral.
    • 2) In the absence of such legal changes in land lease laws, the only way forward is to fully inform the tiller that the owner has got income support.
    • And then appeal to the owner to pass on this benefit to the tiller — or adjust the land rent accordingly.
    • Information and persuasion campaigns in radio and newspapers would increase the chances of the benefits being passed on to the real tillers.

    2. Identifying the landless labourers working on the farms

    • The other issue is identifying the landless labourers working on farms.
    • Majority of them are temporary and seasonal workers.
    • And leaving the task of identification to panchayats and patwaris can open doors for large leakages and corruption.

    What is the solution to this problem?

    • There have been talks in the past for synchronising MGNREGA with farm operations.
    • The synchronising will have two benefits-
    • 1)It will contain the cost of farming.
    • 2) It will ensure that those engaged in this employment guarantee scheme do useful and productive work.
    • The legal framework of the MGNREGA scheme does allow this on farms owned by people of SC/ST communities, and on the lands of marginal farmers.

     Merging Income Support Schemes: The way forward

    • The time has come to think seriously about merging income support schemes.
    • The merger will include the PM KISAN and state-level schemes, with the MGNREGA and price-subsidy schemes — food and fertiliser subsidies given by Centre and power subsidies given by state government.
    • These schemes amount to Rs 5 lakh crore — that’s a good sum of money to start a basic income cover for poor households.
    • Markets could then be left to operate freely.
    • This approach can cover landless labourers, farmers, and poor consumers — these categories overlap.
    • Let there be an expert group to look closely into the functioning of each one of these schemes and create an umbrella scheme to take care of the poor and the needy.

    Consider the question-“Examine the issues with the income support schemes for farmers by the States as well as the Central government. Do you think that an umbrella scheme after merging all the support schemes will be helpful in overcoming such issues?”

    Conclusion

    Though income support schemes by the state government and the Centre are a welcome move, however, when one looks at the issues with these schemes an umbrella scheme after merging all the present schemes will go a long way in solving the problems which almost all these schemes face today.

    Back2Basics: PM- KISAN

    • Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM-KISAN)is a Central Sector Scheme with 100% funding from the Government of India.
    • It is being implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare.
    • Under the scheme, the Centre transfers an amount of Rs 6,000 per year, in three equal instalments, directly into the bank accounts of the all landholding farmers irrespective of the size of their land holdings.
    • It intends to supplement the financial needs of the Small and Marginal Farmers (SMFs) in procuring various inputs to ensure proper crop health and appropriate yields, commensurate with the anticipated farm income at the end of each crop cycle.
    • The entire responsibility of identification of beneficiary farmer families rests with the State / UT Governments.

  • Rajiv Gandhi Kisan Nyaya Yojana in Chhattisgarh

    The Rajiv Gandhi Kisan Nyaya Yojana has been approved by the Chhattisgarh state govt. on 19th death anniversary of the former Prime Minister, yesterday.

    Practice question for Mains:

    Q. Various income support mechanisms for farmers are more of a populist measure with no impact on ground zero. Critically examine.

    Rajiv Gandhi Kisan Nyaya Yojana

    • It is a new income support programme under which Farmers in Chhattisgarh would get up to ₹13,000 an acre a year.
    • Rice and maize farmers would get ₹10,000 an acre while sugarcane farmers would get ₹13,000. The money would be distributed in four instalments.
    • In the first instalment, ₹1,500 crores would be distributed among 18 lakh farmers, more than 80% of the small and marginal.
    • The scheme would cover rice, maize and sugarcane farmers to begin with, and would expand to other crops later.

    Benefits of the scheme

    • This will help farmers through the agricultural cycle and hopefully help with extension activities.
    • The injection of cash among the rural population would generate a demand that shielded Chhattisgarh from the economic slowdown last year.
    • This will reduce distress migration, and enhance food security for the State.