💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (August Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Agriculture

  • Proposed food security amendment could hurt the poorest

    Why in the News

    The Union government has proposed replacing the fixed 35kg monthly foodgrain quota for Antyodaya Anna Yojana households with a 7kg per-person entitlement. This proposed amendment to the National Food Security Act, 2013 could hurt the poorest households by converting a fixed household ration into a per capita entitlement. The tension is between per capita fairness on paper and the real needs of small, elderly, and vulnerable households.

    What is the Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY)?

    1. Targeting: AAY covers the poorest of the poor households under the food security system.
    2. Entitlement: Each AAY household currently receives 35 kg of foodgrain per month, regardless of size.
    3. Zero Cost: Foodgrains are provided completely free of charge to all AAY beneficiaries.
    4. Distribution Channel: Handled via the Targeted Public Distribution System (TPDS) through local fair price shops.
    5. Portability: Access is supported nationwide via systems like One Nation One Ration Card

    Key Beneficiary Groups

    1. Widows, terminally ill, disabled persons, or persons aged 60+ with no support
    2. Single women or men with no regular income or livelihood
    3. Primitive tribal groups
    4. Landless agricultural laborers, marginal farmers, and rural artisans
    5. Daily wage earners and slum dwellers in the informal sector

    What does the proposed amendment change?

    1. Per capita shift: The household entitlement would be replaced by a per capita quota of about 7 kg per person. But the total family support cannot go over 35 kg.
    2. Small household hit: A one or two member household would receive far less than the current 35 kg.

    What are the issues with the proposed amendment?

    1. Large families may lose out: The 35-kg ceiling can reduce the effective per-capita entitlement of AAY households with more than five members, weakening the rationale of a family-size-based allocation.
    2. Unequal regional impact: States with relatively larger household sizes, particularly parts of northern India, could face a greater impact from the 35-kg ceiling.
    3. Cereal-centric approach: Linking food security primarily to cereal quantities overlooks the need for protein, pulses, fats and dietary diversity for nutritional security.
    4. No wider concerns addressed: The amendment does not address wider concerns over outdated NFSA coverage, biometric failures and access barriers in the Public Distribution System.
    5. Exclusion remains unaddressed: Revising the entitlement formula does not resolve the larger problem of eligible beneficiaries remaining outside the PDS due to outdated population estimates and identification gaps.

    Who is most exposed to the change?

    1. Elderly and widows: Single member and elderly headed households lose the most.
    2. Vulnerable groups: Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) and small families face sharp cuts.
    3. Large AAY households among the poorest sections: Particularly families with six or more members, are likely to face the greatest disadvantage.

    What principle is at stake?

    1. Adequacy over arithmetic: A per head formula ignores that small poor households have high fixed food needs.
    2. Substantive equality in food security is at stake: A uniform ceiling may appear administratively simple, but it can produce unequal outcomes for households with different sizes and vulnerabilities.

    Conclusion

    The central idea is that a per capita rule can look equal yet strip protection from the smallest households. Whether the amendment proceeds, and with what safeguard for small households, remains open.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2021] What are the salient features of the National Food Security Act, 2013? How has the Food Security Bill helped in eliminating hunger and malnutrition in India?

    Linakge: The PYQ examines the NFSA’s role in ensuring food security and addressing hunger and malnutrition. The proposed AAY reform raises questions about whether changes in foodgrain entitlements can preserve the NFSA’s objective of adequate and equitable food security for vulnerable households.

  • El Nino and hoarding push up Karnataka rice prices

    Why in the News

    Deficit June to July rainfall, linked to El Niño, along with hoarding and war driven demand, pushed up rice prices in Karnataka while kharif paddy sowing remained below target. The episode highlights the vulnerability created by water intensive paddy cultivation during drought conditions.

    What drove the shock?

    • Rainfall deficit: El Niño associated dry conditions affected monsoon rainfall.
    • Low sowing: Paddy acreage remained below the kharif target.
    • Reservoir stress: Low storage reduced irrigation availability.
    • Tungabhadra canal breach: Further disrupted water supply.

    Why is Paddy Water Intensive?

    • Conventional transplanted rice requires substantial water, particularly during crop establishment.
    • Dependence on irrigation reservoirs makes paddy cultivation vulnerable to drought and declining storage.
    • Concentration of paddy in water stressed regions can create a water-energy-food nexus problem.

    Sustainable Alternatives

    1. Direct Seeded Rice (DSR)

    • Seeds are sown directly instead of raising and transplanting seedlings.
    • Reduces water and labour requirements.
    • Avoids prolonged standing water associated with conventional transplantation.

    2. Crop Diversification

    • Shift from paddy towards relatively less water intensive crops such as jowar, bajra, pulses and oilseeds.
    • Can improve water-use efficiency and climate resilience.

    3. Micro-irrigation and Water Management

    • Efficient irrigation, laser land levelling, rainwater harvesting and improved farm water management can reduce water wastage.

    MSP Dimension

    • Paddy receives MSP support, providing farmers with a price assurance mechanism.
    • For 2026-27, the MSP for paddy (common) is ₹2,441/quintal.
    • However, assured prices can also influence farmers to continue cultivating water intensive crops even in water stressed regions.

    “[2019] With reference to the cultivation of Kharif crops in India in the last five years, consider the following statements:
    1. Area under rice cultivation is the highest.
    2. Area under the cultivation of jowar is more than that of oilseeds.
    3. Area of cotton cultivation is more than that of sugarcane.
    4. Area under sugarcane cultivation has steadily decreased.
    Which of the statements given above are correct?
    (a) 1 and 3 only
    (b) 2, 3 and 4 only
    (c) 2 and 4 only
    (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4
    Answer: (a)”

  • Why the Iran war didn’t cause a fertiliser crisis

    Why in the News?

    The United States-Israel versus Iran war and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz triggered a severe global energy supply shock, yet India’s urea supply held up. Government-pushed diversification of liquefied natural gas (LNG) sourcing lifted urea output to 71.5 lakh tonnes in April-June 2026, up 5.4% year-on-year. The contrast is that the same proactiveness was not replicated for phosphatic fertilisers, leaving di-ammonium phosphate and complex fertilisers exposed.

    What are the main fertiliser nutrients?

    1. Nutrient roles: Urea supplies nitrogen (N); di-ammonium phosphate (DAP) supplies phosphorus (P); muriate of potash (MOP) supplies potassium (K). Complex fertilisers blend N, P, K and sulphur (S).
    2. Feedstock links: Urea depends on natural gas as feedstock. DAP and complex fertilisers depend on phosphoric acid, sulphur and ammonia.

    What kept urea supply stable through the shock?

    1. Feedstock disruption: Before the war, 53-54% of India’s LNG imports came from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Shipping blockades and strikes on liquefaction infrastructure broke these contracts.
    2. Sourcing pivot: The government pushed public firms to diversify LNG sourcing, buying more from the United States, Oman, Nigeria, Angola and others. This pivot to the spot market meant higher prices but secured supply.
    3. Output recovery: Urea production fell to 17.5 lakh tonnes in March 2026 from 24.7 lakh tonnes a year earlier, then recovered to 25.4 lakh tonnes by June. Cumulative April-June output of 71.5 lakh tonnes exceeded the previous year.
    4. Import surge: India imported 25.1 lakh tonnes of urea in April-June 2026, up from 8.4 lakh tonnes a year earlier. Higher import costs were not passed on to farmers.

    Why did DAP and complex fertilisers stay tight?

    1. Sulphur bottleneck: Sulphur is needed to make sulphuric acid, which breaks down rock phosphate into phosphoric acid. Without both acids, there can be no DAP, single super phosphate or complex fertilisers.
    2. Price spike: Sulphur landed prices reached about $1,100 per tonne against a normal $150-250 range. The spike predated the war, worsened by Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian refineries.
    3. Phosphoric acid costs: Imported phosphoric acid prices rose from $1,055 per tonne in early 2025 to $1,700 for the July-September 2026 quarter. This steady climb squeezed domestic manufacturers.
    4. No diversification: Unlike urea, phosphatic fertiliser sourcing was not widened. Reduced domestic output was combined with lower imports.

    What is the El Nino monsoon factor?

    1. Rainfall deficit: El Nino-induced monsoon deficiency left June-July all-India rainfall 12.6% below normal. Kharif sowing area fell 2.9% from last year.
    2. Subdued demand: Weak rainfall reduced fertiliser offtake, easing pressure on supply. This contrasts with the surplus monsoon scrambles of 2024 and 2025.

    What are the challenges to fertiliser security?

    1. Import dependence: India depends heavily on imports for sulphur, phosphoric acid and ammonia. Concentrated West Asian sources leave it exposed to conflict.
    2. Subsidy pressure: Shielding farmers from higher costs inflates the fertiliser subsidy bill beyond budget estimates. Sustaining it requires additional provisions for DAP and complex fertilisers.
    3. Single-choke geography: Much feedstock still transits the Strait of Hormuz. A single choke point can disrupt multiple nutrients at once.
    4. Phosphate concentration: Few global suppliers dominate phosphoric acid and sulphur. Price-setting power rests with them during shortages.
    5. Election-linked stocking: Upcoming State elections raise pressure to guarantee rabi-season supply. Political timelines complicate purely economic supply planning.

    Conclusion

    Proactive supply-side management, chiefly LNG diversification and pre-emptive urea imports, insulated India’s nitrogen supply from the worst energy shock in decades. The unresolved vulnerability is phosphatic and complex fertilisers, where sulphur and phosphoric acid sourcing was not diversified and prices continue to climb.

    Back2Basics

    1. Urea: Nitrogen fertiliser made from natural gas; the most consumed fertiliser in India and heavily subsidised.
    2. DAP: Di-ammonium phosphate, a phosphorus source dependent on imported phosphoric acid.
    3. Nutrient Based Subsidy: Regime under which non-urea fertilisers (DAP, MOP, complex) receive a fixed per-nutrient subsidy.
    4. Urea pricing: Sold at a statutory notified price with the gap met by subsidy under the Department of Fertilizers.
    5. Key choke point: Strait of Hormuz, the transit route for much of India’s LNG and fertiliser feedstock.

    The New Urea Policy 2015:

    1. It aims to maximize domestic production, promote energy efficiency in manufacturing units, and rationalize government subsidy burdens.

    Core Objectives

    1. Boost Domestic Output: Increase indigenous manufacturing capacity to reduce reliance on foreign imports.
    2. Energy Conservation: Set strict specific energy consumption targets for production units to lower carbon footprints.
    3. Subsidy Rationalization: Streamline financial support and cut down government expenditure on the sector.

    Key Measures

    1. Neem Coating: Mandated all domestic producers to coat 100% of subsidized urea with neem oil, stopping illegal diversion to non-agricultural sectors.
    2. Energy Grouping: Categorized gas-based plants into distinct groups to fix realistic and progressive energy efficiency norms.
    3. Protected Pricing: Ensured continuous and timely supply of fertilizer to farmers without increasing the retail price

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2023] What are the direct and indirect subsidies provided to farm sector in India? Discuss the issues raised by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in relation to agricultural subsidies.

    Linkage: UPSC has consistently examined agricultural subsidies, their fiscal implications, and India’s compliance with WTO rules. The article shows how rising global fertiliser and LNG prices increase India’s subsidy burden while the government continues to shield farmers through subsidised urea and nutrient-based support for non-urea fertilisers

  • An AI and agriculture compact for Andhra Pradesh

    Why in the News

    A proposal ties a planned large data centre in Andhra Pradesh to a new compact between artificial intelligence and agriculture. The idea is to use farmer-owned solar generation and agrivoltaics to power data infrastructure while raising farm incomes, linking a technology investment to rural livelihoods.

    What is agrivoltaics?

    1. Meaning: Agrivoltaics is the practice of using the same land for both solar power generation and crop cultivation.
    2. Dual output: Panels are raised or spaced so crops grow beneath them, producing electricity and food from one plot.
    3. Income effect: Farmers earn from power sales alongside crop income, diversifying their earnings.

    What is the Deemed Distribution Licence (DDL) idea?

    1. Meaning: A Deemed Distribution Licence (DDL) would let farmer solar cooperatives supply power directly to large consumers such as a data centre.
    2. Purpose: It creates a guaranteed buyer for farmer-generated solar power, making the investment viable.

    How would the compact work?

    1. Data centre demand: A proposed data centre provides a large, steady electricity buyer located near farms.
    2. Farmer solar cooperatives: Farmers pool land for solar and agrivoltaics, selling power to that demand.
    3. PM-KUSUM base: The model builds on the PM-KUSUM scheme, which already supports farm-based solar generation.

    What are the challenges to the AI-agriculture compact

    1. Grid and pricing rules: Direct farmer-to-consumer supply needs regulatory clearance that does not yet exist at scale.
    2. Upfront capital: Solar and agrivoltaic installations require finance that smallholders often cannot raise alone.
    3. Crop suitability: Not all crops grow well under panels, limiting where agrivoltaics works.
    4. Water and land tension: Land pooling and water use must not displace food production or small tenants.
    5. Demand certainty: Farmer incomes depend on the data centre actually materialising and buying the power.

    Conclusion

    The compact links a technology investment to rural incomes by making farmers power suppliers to a data centre. Agrivoltaics and a DDL model, built on PM-KUSUM, are the enabling tools. Its viability depends on regulatory clearance, upfront finance and a certain power buyer.

  • Beyond MSP: Farmers need income, not price support

    Why in the News

    Madhya Pradesh has raised its guaranteed procurement of summer moong at Minimum Support Price (MSP) from 25% to 60% of estimated yield, after farmers demanded the state’s declared MSP be honoured in practice, not left on paper. The concession exposes the deeper conflict between expanding price-support procurement, which is fiscally unsustainable for any state, and shifting toward direct income support that does not distort what farmers choose to grow.

    What is driving Madhya Pradesh’s decision to raise the procurement threshold?

    1. Price gap: Moong is wholesaling in mandis at about Rs 7,000 a quintal, well below the MSP of Rs 8,768 a quintal.
    2. Prior cap: The state had earlier guaranteed MSP procurement only for up to 1.2 quintals of yield per acre, since raised to 3 quintals.
    3. Unequal benefit: Farmers harvesting 6 to 8 quintals an acre, twice the state’s assessed average yield, still stand to lose the most on the extra output sold below MSP.
    4. Broader demand: The demand for MSP as a guaranteed entitlement is no longer confined to Punjab and Haryana’s wheat and rice growers. It now extends to pulses and oilseed farmers in states like Madhya Pradesh.

    Why is expanded physical procurement not a sustainable solution?

    1. Fiscal capacity: No state government, including Madhya Pradesh, has the resources to procure and stock all the moong or soyabean farmers bring for MSP sale.
    2. Existing surplus problem: Even in wheat and rice, where government agencies already hold stocks beyond the requirements of the public distribution system and welfare schemes, continued procurement adds to storage costs without matching need.
    3. Best available alternative still costly: Paying only the price difference between MSP and the market rate, rather than physically procuring the crop, is a cheaper alternative but still not a long-term sustainable solution.

    What alternative does the case for reform point to?

    1. Minimum Income Support (MIP): A per-acre direct cash transfer, described as Minimum Income Support (MIP), would guarantee farmers income without requiring the state to procure or store any crop.
    2. Market-aligned incentive: Once assured of an MIP, farmers would have the freedom to grow crops the market actually wants, rather than crops guaranteed a price floor.
    3. Complementary measures: Crop insurance and greater public investment in agricultural research and rural infrastructure are identified as the support structures that should accompany an MIP.
    4. Policy stance: Agricultural policy should complement markets rather than displace or distort them, an approach both MSP-based procurement and open-ended input subsidies have failed to deliver.

    What are the challenges to a Minimum Income Support (MIP) approach

    1. Land record dependence: A per-acre transfer requires accurate, updated land records, which many tenant farmers and sharecroppers lack access to.
    2. Moral hazard risk: A flat per-acre payment could be gamed through short-term land leasing arrangements designed solely to capture the transfer.
    3. State fiscal capacity still tested: An MIP still requires sustained budgetary commitment from state or central governments. Its affordability has not been demonstrated at the scale MSP procurement currently operates.
    4. Loss of price floor: Removing procurement-based price support exposes farmers fully to market price volatility, without the safety net an assured MSP purchase currently provides.
    5. Political resistance: Farmer groups that have organised around MSP as an entitlement may resist a transition away from procurement guarantees they have fought to expand.

    Conclusion

    Madhya Pradesh’s expanded moong procurement buys short-term calm but adds to a fiscal burden no state can sustain at scale. The alternative on the table, a per-acre Minimum Income Support transfer paired with crop insurance and rural investment, would let farmers respond to market signals instead of price guarantees, though its own implementation challenges remain unresolved.

    Back2Basics

    1. Minimum Support Price (MSP): A price floor announced by the central government for select crops, based on recommendations of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP).
    2. Coverage: MSP currently covers 22 crops, but assured physical procurement at scale is concentrated overwhelmingly in wheat and rice through the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and state procurement agencies.
    3. Pulses and oilseeds: Procurement of pulses and oilseeds like moong at MSP has historically been far more limited than for cereals, leaving a wider gap between announced MSP and actual market realisation for these crops.

    Committee/Report

    1. Ashok Dalwai Committee (Doubling Farmers’ Income): Shift focus from price support to income enhancement through diversification, value addition and market reforms.
    2. Shanta Kumar Committee (2015): Recommended restricting MSP procurement and replacing it with Direct Benefit Transfers (DBTs) where feasible.

    Economic Survey

    1. Economic Survey 2016-17: Advocated replacing input subsidies with direct income transfers for better efficiency and lower market distortions.

    International Examples

    1. United States: Income support through Farm Bill programmes (Price Loss Coverage and crop insurance) rather than open-ended government procurement.
    2. European Union: Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) provides direct income payments largely decoupled from production, reducing production distortions.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2018] What do you mean by Minimum Support Price (MSP)? How will MSP rescue the farmers from the low-income trap?

    Linkage: The PYQ tests the role of MSP in ensuring remunerative prices and improving farmers’ incomes. The article examines the limitations of MSP-based procurement and the case for Minimum Income Support (MIP) as an alternative.

  • Cabinet approves 5-year extension of PM-KISAN scheme

    Why in the News?

    The Union Cabinet approved a five-year extension of the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PM-KISAN) from 2026-27 to 2030-31, with an outlay of ₹3.15 lakh crore. The annual assistance of ₹6,000 per farmer remains unchanged.

    What is PM-KISAN?

    • Launched in February 2019.
    • A Central Sector Scheme under the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare.
    • Provides ₹6,000 per year to eligible landholding farmer families in three equal instalments of ₹2,000 through Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT).
    • Fully funded by the Central Government.

    Key Highlights

    • Scheme extended till 2030-31.
    • Total outlay: ₹3.15 lakh crore.
    • 23rd instalment (June 2026): Over 9.49 crore farmers received ₹18,984 crore.
    • Since launch, over ₹4.47 lakh crore has been transferred through 23 instalments.
    • Women beneficiaries have received over ₹1.06 lakh crore.

    Significance

    • Provides assured income support for purchasing seeds, fertilisers and other inputs.
    • Reduces dependence on informal credit.
    • Promotes financial inclusion through DBT.
    • Strengthens farmers’ income security.

    Challenges

    • Annual assistance (₹6,000) has remained unchanged since 2019 despite rising input costs.
    • Excludes tenant farmers and sharecroppers due to land ownership criteria.
    • Errors in Aadhaar and land records may exclude genuine beneficiaries.
    • Uniform benefit irrespective of landholding size or farm distress.

    Features of PM-KISAN

    • Type: Central Sector Scheme.
    • Funding: 100% Central Government.
    • Transfer Mode: Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT).
    • Implementing Ministry: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare.

    Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT)

    • Introduced to transfer subsidies directly into beneficiaries’ bank accounts.
    • Reduces leakages and improves transparency.
    • Uses the JAM Trinity: Jan Dhan Accounts, Aadhaar, and Mobile

    Related Schemes

    • PM Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY)
    • Kisan Credit Card (KCC)
    • PM Krishi Sinchai Yojana (PMKSY)
    • e-NAM (National Agriculture Market)

    [2015, GS3, 12.5 marks] In what way could replacement of price subsidy with direct benefit Transfer (DBT) change the scenario of subsidies in India? Discuss.”

    [2020] Consider the following statements:
    1.Aadhaar metadata cannot be stored for more than three months.
    2.State cannot enter into any contract with private corporations for sharing of Aadhaar data.
    3.Aadhaar is mandatory for obtaining insurance products.
    4.Aadhaar is mandatory for getting benefits funded out of the Consolidated Fund of India.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    [A] 1 and 4 only

    [B] 2 and 4 only

    [C] 3 only

    [D] 1, 2 and 3 only

  • National Advisory Board on Management of Genetic Resources (NABMGR)

    Why in the News?

    The reconstituted National Advisory Board on Management of Genetic Resources (NABMGR) held its first meeting on 29 July 2026 at ICAR–National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR), New Delhi, to strengthen India’s agrobiodiversity conservation and promote the sustainable utilization of genetic resources for food security, climate resilience, and Viksit Bharat.

    What is NABMGR?

    • A national advisory body constituted by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR).
    • First constituted: 2011. Reconstituted: 2026.
    • Chairman: Dr. R.S. Paroda. Co-Chairman: Dr. M.L. Jat (Secretary, DARE & DG, ICAR).

    Objectives

    • Recommend national policies on agrobiodiversity.
    • Promote integrated management of Plant genetic resources, Animal genetic resources, Fish genetic resources, Microbial genetic resources, and Insect genetic resources
    • Advise on national and international issues related to genetic resources.

    Key Recommendations

    • Strengthen pre-breeding programmes to utilize conserved germplasm.
    • Identify unexplored regions for systematic germplasm collection (2026–2031).
    • Develop an integrated national genetic resources management framework.
    • Mainstream traditional and underutilized crop varieties, animal breeds, fish species, microbes, and insects.
    • Strengthen implementation of Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
    • Expedite establishment of the National Safety Genebank (NSG) before ICAR’s centenary (2028–29).
    • Enhance international collaboration, especially with Central Asia and South-East Asia, for germplasm exchange.

    Significance

    • Conserves India’s rich agrobiodiversity.
    • Broadens the genetic base for developing climate-resilient, high-yielding crops and livestock.
    • Strengthens food, nutrition and livelihood security.
    • Supports sustainable agriculture and achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
    • Promotes scientific collaboration and evidence-based policy making.

    Important Institutions Mentioned

    • ICAR – Indian Council of Agricultural Research
    • ICAR-NBPGR – National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources
    • National Biodiversity Authority (NBA)
    • Department of Biotechnology (DBT)
    • Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC)
    • Botanical Survey of India (BSI)
    • National Medicinal Plants Board (NMPB)

    Value Addition

    • Agrobiodiversity: It refers to the variety and variability of plants, animals, fish, microorganisms and insects used directly or indirectly for food, agriculture and ecosystem services.
    • Germplasm: The hereditary genetic material (seeds, tissues, pollen, embryos, etc.) preserved for crop and livestock improvement.
    • Pre-breeding: The process of transferring useful genes from wild relatives or unadapted genetic resources into breeding materials to develop improved varieties.
    • Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS): A mechanism under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, ensuring fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of biological resources and associated traditional knowledge.
    • National Safety Genebank (NSG): A secure backup repository for conserving valuable genetic resources against natural disasters or accidental loss.

    [2012] How does the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) help in protecting the Indian agriculture?
    1. NBA checks the biopiracy and protects the indigenous and traditional genetic resources.
    2. NBA directly monitors and supervises the scientific research on genetic modification of crop plants.
    3. Application for Intellectual Property Rights related to resources genetic/biological cannot be made without approval of NBA.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 Only

    (b) 2 and 3 only

    (c) 1 and 3 only

    (d) 1, 2 and 3

  • Madhya Pradesh farmers march to Bhopal demanding 100% moong procurement at MSP

    Why in News?

    Around 2,000 Madhya Pradesh farmers under the Samyukt Kisan Morcha marched to Bhopal demanding 100% moong procurement at Minimum Support Price (MSP), against the current 25% cap under the central Price Support Scheme, along with fixes to fertiliser distribution.

    Key Highlights

    1. Scale: Around 2,000 farmers marched to Bhopal.
    2. Organiser: March organised under the Samyukt Kisan Morcha banner.
    3. Demand: 100% moong procurement at MSP, against the current 25% cap.
    4. Scheme cited: Current cap operates under the central Price Support Scheme.
    5. Additional demand: Fixes to fertiliser distribution.

    What is the Price Support Scheme (PSS)?

    1. A component of the PM-AASHA (Pradhan Mantri Annadata Aay Sanrakshan Abhiyan).
    2. Implemented by the Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare.
    3. Provides physical procurement of notified pulses, oilseeds and copra at the Minimum Support Price (MSP) when market prices fall below MSP.
    4. Procurement is undertaken by Central Nodal Agencies in coordination with State governments.

    What is Minimum Support Price (MSP)?

    1. MSP is the minimum price at which the government purchases crops from farmers to protect them from sharp price declines.
    2. Recommended by the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) and announced by the Central Government.
    3. MSP is currently announced for 23 crops.

    “[2018, GS3, 10 marks] What do you mean by Minimum Support Price (MSP)? How will MSP rescue the farmers from the low-income trap?”

    [2020] Consider the following statements:

    1.In the case of all cereals, pulses and oil-seeds, the procurement at Minimum Support Price (MSP) is unlimited in any State/UT of India.
    2.In the case of cereals and pulses, the MSP is fixed in any State/UT at a level to which the market price will never rise.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
    a) 1 only
    b) 2 only
    c) Both 1 and 2
    d) Neither 1 nor 2

  • Cabinet’s National Investment Policy for Urea (NIPU) 2026

    Why in the News?

    The Union Cabinet has approved the National Investment Policy for Urea (NIPU) 2026, restructuring the return framework for urea manufacturers to attract fresh investment in domestic capacity. This comes against an annual urea subsidy bill of Rs 1,42,175.74 crore for 2025-26.

      What are the Pillars of the National Investment Policy for Urea (NIPU) 2026?

      1. Aim: The policy aims to encourage the establishment of new gas-based urea manufacturing plants across the country to reduce dependence on imports and bridge the gap between domestic production and demand.
      2. The National Investment Policy for Urea-2026 (NIPU-2026) rests on three core pillars: cost separation, assured returns, and foreign exchange risk mitigation.
      3. Return band: The policy sets a Return on Equity (ROE) band of 12 to 16 percent for new urea manufacturing investment.
      4. Cost restructuring: It restructures how production costs are calculated and reimbursed to manufacturers.
      5. Subsidy delivery: Distribution continues through Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT), credited after retailers confirm sale to farmers.
      6. Self-reliance objective: The stated goal is to reduce India’s dependence on imported urea by making domestic capacity commercially viable.

      Why does urea self-reliance remain unresolved despite this policy?

      1. Subsidy scale: The current annual subsidy bill of Rs 1,42,175.74 crore reflects the price gap between controlled retail urea prices and actual production cost.
      2. Investment history: Previous urea policy revisions have not sufficiently attracted new private investment in domestic plants.
      3. Import dependence: India continues to import a share of its urea requirement despite decades of subsidy support to domestic units.
      4. Farmer price link: Retail urea prices remain fixed for farmers regardless of the ROE band offered to manufacturers.

      Conclusion

      The National Investment Policy for Urea 2026 targets manufacturer incentives rather than farm gate prices, betting that better returns on investment will draw the domestic capacity that decades of subsidy alone did not. Whether the 12 to 16 percent ROE band is sufficient to shift investment decisions remains to be tested against actual capacity additions.

      Value Addition:

      Urea Subsidy Scheme:

      Urea fertiliser subsidy in India is a central government scheme where the state fixes a low Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of ₹242 per 45-kg bag for farmers, while the government pays the remaining high production or import cost directly to manufacturers.

      Scheme Mechanics

      1. Fixed MRP: Farmers pay a low, controlled price of ₹242 per 45-kg bag (excluding taxes and neem-coating charges).
      2. Government Payout: The center pays the difference between the actual high cost of making or importing urea and the low selling price directly to the factory owners.
      3. Control: The Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers manages the policy and distribution across the country.

      PYQ Relevance

      [UPSC 2023] What are the direct and indirect subsidies provided to farm sector in India? Discuss the issues raised by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in relation to agricultural subsidies.

      Linkage: The PYQ examines India’s fertiliser subsidy regime and related WTO concerns. NIPU 2026 reforms urea subsidies to boost domestic production while retaining farmer subsidies, linking directly to agricultural subsidy debates.

      1. Rajasthan farmers object to GI tag for Unjha jeera and saunf

        Why in News?

        Rajasthan’s cumin and fennel farmers have objected to Geographical Indication tags granted to Gujarat’s ‘Unjha Jeera’ and ‘Unjha Fennel’ (saunf), arguing Unjha is a trading hub, not the growing region.

        Key Highlights

        1. The GI tags for ‘Unjha Jeera’ and ‘Unjha Fennel’ were registered in the name of Gujarat’s Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Unjha.
        2. Farmers from Rajasthan contend that a significant share of the crops is cultivated in Rajasthan, making the GI registration misleading.
        3. The Unjha APMC has defended the GI registrations, citing over 1,000 pages of scientific, historical, and commercial evidence submitted during the registration process.
        4. The dispute raises questions over the criteria for GI registration, particularly the link between a product’s reputation, production area, and marketing centre.

        Geographical Indication (GI) Tag

        • A Geographical Indication (GI) identifies goods that possess qualities, reputation, or characteristics essentially attributable to their geographical origin.
        • Governed by the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999.
        • Registration is granted by the Geographical Indications Registry, Chennai, under the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT).
        • Validity: 10 years, renewable indefinitely.
        • GI protection applies to agricultural products, natural products, handicrafts, manufactured goods, and foodstuffs.

        Value Addition

        • First GI tag in India: Darjeeling Tea (2004-05).
        • Benefits of GI: Protects producers from misuse, preserves traditional knowledge, enhances product value, promotes exports, and supports rural livelihoods.
        • Difference from Trademark: A GI belongs collectively to eligible producers from a specific region, whereas a trademark is an exclusive right owned by an individual or company.

        [2018] India enacted The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 in order to comply with the obligations to

        (a) ILO

        (b) IMF

        (c) UNCTAD

        (d) WTO