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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Agriculture

  • Dairy Industry in India : An analysis

    The article highlights the issues facing the dairy sector and explains the utility of IVF technology for crossbreeding.

    Importance of dairy sector

    • The dairy sector assumes significance on account two reasons:
    • 1) It has to do with the socio-cultural affinity towards cows and dairy products in large parts of the country.
    • 2) As an industry, it employs more than 70 million farmers.
    • Need of the hour is for us to identify ways in which we can enhance the return on investment for our farmers.

    India’s journey from milk deficit country to one of surplus

    • Initiated in 1970, Operation Flood transformed India into one of the largest milk producers.
    • The per capita availability of milk in 2018-19 was 394 grams per day as against the world average of 302 grams.
    • Today with an annual production of 187.75 million tonnes India accounts for about 22% of the world’s milk production.
    • However, India is yet to join the ranks of major milk exporting nations, as much of what we produce is directed towards meeting domestic demands.

    Making India milk exporting nation

    • Indigenous cows produce 3.01kgs of milk per cow per day, while the yield of exotic crossbred cows is 7.95kgs.
    • Crossbreeding has taken off in a big way because of the advancements in reproductive technologies like In vitro fertilization (IVF), embryo transfer process, and artificial insemination.
    • Out of these processes, IVF and artificial insemination have proven to be the most popular and effective methods.
    • The NAIP (Nationwide Artificial Insemination Programme) Phase-I was launched in September 2019.
    • Every animal in the programme was assigned a 12-digit unique identification number under the Pashu Aadhar scheme.
    • NAIP Phase-II was initiated on 1 August 2020 with an allocation of ₹1,090 crore in 604 districts covering 50,000 animals per district and is on track to be completed by the 31 May 2021.
    • Under the programme, 9.06 crore artificial inseminations will be performed and is expected to lead to the birth of 1.5 crore high yielding female calves.
    • Consequently, 18 million tonnes of additional milk will be produced as average productivity will be enhanced from 1,861kg per animal per year to 3,000kg per animal per year.
    • Artificial insemination (AI) technology has been the most used method in India, but its success hinges upon accuracy in heat detection and timely insemination.
    • And this is where In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) technology will prove to be more effective.

    Conclusion

    In keeping with our ethos of ‘Jai Kisan, Jai Vigyan’ the marriage of rural farming with the latest innovations in technology will usher in unprecedented transformation in our dairy industry.

  • Laws that have distorted agriculture and labour markets need to go

    The article suggests the two steps to ensure growth while protecting the poor. The first is the creation of social safety net and next is factor market reforms.

    Issue of farmers’ income

    • An Indian engaged in industry or any aspect of the services sector (this includes a waiter in a restaurant) earns more than an average farmer.
    • This is an anomaly.
    • So, despite all the pro-farmer laws and protection, why do farmers in India earn less?
    • A recent study by RBI showed that across all crops, the farmgate price is 40-60 per cent less than the consumer price.
    • The real challenge is how to encourage growth while protecting the poor.

    Encouraging growth while protecting the poor: 2 steps

    • 1) A social safety net needs to be created to provide direct income transfers to the vulnerable.
    • 2) Factor markets involving labour and agricultural land need to be reformed to ensure productivity-enhancing growth.
    • Only way to ensure growth which benefits the poor is through employment creating in the manufacturing and services sector.

    1) Social safety nets in India

    • Despite a narrow tax base, India has created a comprehensive social safety net, which can cushion growth-enabling market reforms.
    • Accurate targeting under India’s Food Security Act to the bottom 67 per cent through Aadhaar identification and digital ration cards paired with E-POS machines has considerably reduced the leakage of subsidised grains.
    • The National Social Assistance programme intends to provide direct income support to over 40 million elderly landless agricultural workers, poor women-headed households and families with physically-challenged children.
    • India also provides income support annually to 145 million farmers, paying out Rs 75,000 crore.
    • This benefits all farmers while MSP benefits only 6 per cent of farm produce.

    2) Factor market reforms

    • If state support for social safety net has to become sustainable, wide-ranging growth, which will broaden the tax base, is essential.
    • India’s growth itself can be designed to reduce the number of people who need state support.
    • The agriculture and labour reforms recently passed create the conditions for productivity-enhancing growth, benefiting millions of small farmers and unorganised workers.

    Let us take a look at what the farm laws achieve and how they will change the status quo

    1) Amendment to Essential Commodities Act

    • The stock limits under the Essential Commodities Act do not enable large tur or moong and rice processors to procure in bulk for their entire season’s processing requirements.
    • This restricts large-scale processing units which can run throughout the non-harvest season.
    • This draconian anti-farmer rule has now been done away with.
    • This will enable the expansion of agro-processing and supply chains.
    • A larger share of the produce procured for agro-processing increases its shelf life, enabling the farmer to retain a greater value.
    •  30-40 per cent of the post-harvest value, particularly in vegetables and fruits, is lost due to inadequate storage, processing and transportation facilities.
    • Removal of stock limits and the accompanying contract farming act will bring in investments to tap the wasted resource.

    2) APMC regulation

    • The second law, removes another distortion: Only traders registered in APMCs can buy farmers produce.
    • Even though conditions for perfect markets exist, the APMC regulation creates this bottleneck.
    • Intermediaries extract a greater share of value as they are price makers while farmers are price takers.
    • This situation is further aggravated as farmers are restricted to selling within the taluka boundaries or limits of the APMC, and if they have to sell in other APMC, they have to pay the APMC tax.
    • The Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bill 2020 confines the authority of the APMC to levy fees and give trader licences within the boundary of the market yard.
    • Farmers will continue to have the option to sell in APMCs but any private market/non-APMCs registered trader can also set up an agricultural market and compete with APMCs to buy the same produce.
    • Karnataka implemented the Uniform Market portal in 2014, enabling trade across taluka APMC limits without APMC fees.
    • An analysis by researchers at the MIT Sloan School of Management has shown that prices of many agricultural goods increased by 3.5 to 5.1 per cent.
    • Significantly, profit margins of small farmers increased by more than 36 per cent.

    Labour reforms

    • Apart from agriculture, the abundance of labour is the second greatest comparative advantage of India.
    • However, multiple labour laws instead of encouraging employment, have created disincentives for job creation due to high costs of compliance.
    • While India’s employment elasticity with respect to GDP growth is only 0.2, China’s is at 0.44. Even for Bangladesh, the elasticity is 0.38.
    • India’s path-breaking labour reforms leverage the true comparative advantage of the country’s factor endowments to promote growth with higher employment elasticity.
    • The old labour laws protected existing jobs at the cost of preventing new job creation through creative destruction.
    • Bangladesh has shown the way to increase formal jobs by legalising fixed-term employment and banning union activity in FDI industries.
    • Raising the threshold for seeking prior permission for laying off workers will enable capital and land locked in sunset industries to move freely to new sunrise industries.

    Consider the question “An Indian engaged in industry or any aspect of the services sector earns more than an average farmer. What are the factors responsible for this anomaly? Suggest ways to achieve growth that could ensure sustainable safety net?”

    Conclusion

    The need of the hour is to continuously communicate with those unhappy with the reforms to explain how the current status quo is hurting farmers and informal workers.

  • Bringing transparency in Budget in agri-food sector

    The article analyses the Union Budget and highlights the emphasis on transparency by showing the borrowing of the FCI and arrears of the fertiliser companies in the Budget.

    Transparency in food subsidy and arrears of fertiliser industry

    • Year after year, a substantial part of the food subsidy was being put under the carpet by increasing the Food Corporation of India’s (FCI) borrowings.
    • The amount had crossed Rs 3 lakh crore.
    • The revised estimate (RE) for FY 2020-21 is 3.66 times the budgeted figure, indicating that almost all borrowings of FCI have been cleared.
    • This is indeed a historic step towards introducing transparency in the Union Budget.
    • The Budget also cleared off the fertiliser industry’s arrears.
    • Against the budgeted figure of Rs 71,309 crore for FY 2020-21, the revised estimate is Rs 1,33,947 crore, an increase of Rs 62,638 crore.

    Neglect of R&D

    • From a policy perspective one must point to the huge bias towards subsidies as compared to investments, especially research and development.
    • The allocation for agri-R&D is a meagre Rs 8,514 crore in FY 2021-22 against a RE of Rs 7,762 crore in FY 2020-21.
    • The marginal returns in terms of agri-growth from expenditures on agri-R&D are almost five to 10 times higher than through subsidies.
    • India spends not even half of what a private global company like Bayer spends on agri-R&D — almost Rs 20,000 crore every year.
    • This is why growth momentum in agriculture remains subdued and India keeps spending on freebies with sub-optimal results.

    Subsidies needs a rethink

    1) Food subsidy

    • The FCI’s economic cost of rice is Rs 37/kg and of wheat about Rs 27/kg.
    • This economic cost is roughly 40 per cent higher than the procurement price.
    • This calls for giving the public distribution system’s beneficiaries the choice of direct cash transfers.
    • This could create a more diversified demand which, in turn, will support diversification in agriculture.
    • Further, in food subsidy, it is time to revise the issue prices for beneficiaries except for the antyodaya (most marginal) category.
    • Percentage of population covered by the food subsidy should be brought down to 40 per cent.

    2) Fertiliser subsidy

    • Massive subsidisation of urea, to the tune of almost 70 per cent of its cost, is leading to its sub-optimal usage.
    • It is time to move towards direct cash transfers to farmers based on a per hectare basis and free up prices of fertilisers.
    • This will help reduce leakages and imbalance in NPK (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium) usage and lead to efficiency, equity and environmental sustainability.

    Consider the question “If one looks at India’s Union Budget, it is easy to notice huge bias towards subsidies and neglect of the research and development in agriculure in the allocation for agriculture sector. What are the implications of such bias?” 

    Conclusion

    Overall, the expenditure on agri-R&D needs to be doubled or even tripled in next three years, if growth in agriculture has to provide food security at a national level and subsidies on food and fertilisers need to be contained. At the same time, food subsidy and fertiliser subsidy needs rationalisation.

  • Agriculture credit

    India’s agriculture credit increased by 500% in the last decade, however, this increase in the credit has not been reflected in the condition of the farmers. The article deals with the issues with the agri-credit in India.

    Impact of credit on agriculture

    • Providing credit to small farmers at a reasonable rate has been the agenda of the Centre, the States, and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) for decades.
    • However, the volume of credit has improved over the decades, its quality and impact on agriculture have only deteriorated.
    • In 2011-12, the target was ₹4.75-lakh crore; now, agri-credit has reached the target of ₹15-lakh crore in 2020-21 with an allocated subsidy of ₹21,175 crores.
    • Agricultural credit has become less efficient in delivering agricultural growth.

    Issues with agri-credit: small farmers left-out

    • In the last 10 years, agriculture credit increased by 500% but has not reached even 20% of the 12.56 crore small and marginal farmers.
    •  95% of tractors and other agri-implements sold in the country are being financed by non-banking financial companies, or NBFCs, at an 18% rate of interest.
    • The RBI has also questioned agricultural households with up to two hectares getting only about 15% of the subsidized outstanding loan from institutional sources (bank, co-operative society).
    •  As per the Agriculture Census, 2015-16, the total number of small and marginal farmers’ households in the country stood at 12.56 crore which makes up 86.1% of the total holdings.
    • As in the Situation Assessment Survey of Agricultural Households by the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), the share of institutional loans rises with an increase in land possessed.
    • This shows that the bulk of subsidized agri-credit is grabbed by big farmers and agri-business companies.

    What are the reasons

    • A loose definition of agri-credit has led to the leakage of loans at subsidized rates to large companies in agri-business.
    • The RBI had set a cap that out of a bank’s overall adjusted net bank credit, 18% must go to the agriculture sector, and within this, 8% must go to small and marginal farmers and 4.5% for indirect loans, bank advances routinely breach the limit.
    • A review by the RBI’s internal working group in 2019 found that in some States, credit disbursal to the farm sector was higher than their agriculture gross domestic product (GDP) and the ratio of crop loans disbursed to input requirement was very unevenly distributed.
    •  This shows the diversion of credit for non-agriculture purposes.
    • One reason for this diversion is that subsidized credit disbursed at a 4%-7% rate of interest is being refinanced to small farmers, and in the open market at a rate of interest of up to 36%.

    Way forward

    • The way forward is to empower small and marginal farmers by ‘giving them direct income support on a per hectare basis rather than hugely subsidizing credit.
    • Streamlining the agri-credit system to facilitate higher crop loans to farmer producer organizations, or the FPOs of small farmers against commodity stocks can be a win-win model to spur agriculture growth’.
    • With mobile phone penetration among agricultural households in India being as high as 89.1%, efforts to improve institutional credit delivery through technology-driven solutions can reduce the extent of the financial exclusion of agricultural households
    • There is a need to reforming the land leasing framework and creating a national-level agency to build consensus among States and the Centre concerning agriculture credit reforms.

    Consider the question “Growth in the agriculture sector in India has not been commensurate with the growth in the agriculture credit. What are the reasons for this disparity? Suggest the measures to deal with the challenges in agri-credit delivery.”

    Conclusion

    Improving the access to credit at a reasonable rate will help in increasing their income but to do that reforms in credit delivery is the need of the hour.

  • The Cost of Guaranteed MSP

    The row over legally guaranteed MSP doesn’t seem to be settled down in near terms.

    Farmers’ demand

    • Farmer unions protesting are raising two fundamental demands.
    1. The first is for repealing the three agricultural reform laws enacted by the Centre.
    2. The second is to provide a legal guarantee for the minimum support prices (MSPs) that the Centre declares for various crops every year.
    • Currently, there is no statutory backing for these prices or any law mandating their implementation.

    Note: The MSP is now applicable on 23 farm commodities: 7 cereals (paddy, wheat, maize, bajra, jowar, ragi and barley), 5 pulses (chana, arhar, moong, urad and masur), 7 oilseeds (groundnut, soyabean, rapeseed-mustard, sesamum, sunflower, nigerseed and safflower) and 4 commercial crops (sugarcane, cotton, copra and raw jute).

    Can MSP be made legally binding?

    Yes. There are two ways it can be done.

    (1) To force private buyers to pay it

    • In this case, no crop can be purchased below the MSP, which would also act as the floor price for bidding in mandi auctions.
    • There’s already a precedent: In sugarcane, mills are required by law to pay growers the Centre’s “fair and remunerative price” – UP and Haryana fix even higher “state advised prices” – within 14 days of supply.
    • In no other crop is the compulsion to pay the government-announced MSP thrust on the private trade/industry.

    (2) The government itself buying the entire crop that farmers offer at the MSP

    Various govt agencies such as the Food Corporation of India, the National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India, and the Cotton Corporation of India (CCI) do procure a large chunk of commodities on MSP.

    But how much produce can the government procure at MSP?

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

    So, is this MSP money paid out of the government’s pocket?

    Not really!

    • To start with, one must exclude sugarcane from the calculations. The onus for paying cane MSP, as earlier pointed out, lies on sugar mills and not the government.
    • Secondly, the government is already procuring many crops – especially paddy, wheat, cotton, and also pulses and oilseeds.
    • Thirdly, government agencies don’t have to buy every single grain that comes to the market. Mopping up even a quarter or third of the market arrivals is usually enough to lift prices.
    • Fourth, the crop bought on government account also gets sold. While such sales in wheat and paddy – which are distributed at super-subsidized rates under the National Food Security Act.
    • This entails heavy losses, but those are far less in the remaining MSP crops. The revenues realized from sales would partly offset the expenditures from MSP procurement.

    All in all, the additional fiscal outgo, from the government undertaking the maximum required procurement for guaranteeing MSP to farmers, may not be more than Rs 1-1.5 lakh crore per year.

    So, is the MSP system all okay?

    Nope!

    • The government undertaking to buy at MSP is definitely better than forcing private players. Their going out of business would ultimately hurt farmers most.
    • However, even assured government MSP-based procurement is fraught with problems.
    • The coverage of MSPs today does not extend to fruits, vegetables, and livestock products that together have a 45% share in the gross value of the output of India’s agriculture, forestry, and fishing sector.
    • The value of milk and milk products alone is more than that of all cereals and pulses combined.

    Limitations for govt.

    • Extending MSP to all farm produce and guaranteeing it through law is hugely challenging, fiscally and otherwise.
    • It also explains why economists increasingly are in favor of guaranteeing minimum “incomes” rather than “prices” to farmers.
    • One way to achieve that is via direct cash transfers either on a flat per-acre (as in the Telangana government’s Rythu Bandhu scheme) or per-farm household (the Centre’s PM Kisan Samman Nidhi) basis.

    Back2Basics:

    (1) Rythu Bandhu Scheme

    • Under Rythu Bandhu, the Telangana government gives every beneficiary farmer Rs 4,000 per acre as “investment support” before every crop season.
    • The objective is to help the farmer meet a major part of his expenses on seed, fertilizer, pesticide, and field preparation.
    • The scheme covers 1.42 crore acres in the 31 districts of the state, and every farmer owning land is eligible.

    (2) Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi

    • Under this program, vulnerable landholding farmer families, having cultivable land up to 2 hectares, will be provided direct income support at the rate of Rs. 6,000 per year.
    • This income support will be transferred directly into the bank accounts of beneficiary farmers, in three equal installments of Rs. 2,000 each.
    • Around 12 crore small and marginal farmer families are expected to benefit from this.

  • Getting it wrong on India’s level of agricultural support

    As per the OECD methodology, Indian farmers received negative support of Rs. 1.62-lakh crore in 2019, which implies that the government is taxing the farmers. But there are pitfalls in the methodology. The article explaines them.

    The issue of support given to the farmers

    • Many media reports, based on data by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), have stated that the support provided to Indian agriculture is extremely low or negative, and, therefore, net taxed.
    • The OECD has estimated that Indian farmers received negative support to the extent of minus ₹2.36-lakh crore and minus ₹1.62-lakh crore in 2010 and 2019, respectively.
    • Surprisingly, the negative support of minus ₹1.62-lakh crore as estimated by the OECD was higher than the total budgetary allocation of the Ministry of Agriculture at ₹1.09-lakh crore in 2019.

    Issues with the OECD estimates

    • Expenditure on the PM-KISAN, the National Food Security Mission, crop insurance, input subsidies such as fertilizer and electricity, are some of the measures covered under the 2019 OECD estimates.
    • However, the expenditure related to the operation of minimum support price and general services is not covered by it.
    • Despite the overall negative support, the expenditure of the Central and State governments on agriculture has increased substantially since 2000.
    • This support increased from ₹1.61-lakh crore to ₹3-lakh crore, between 2015 to 2019, registering 85% growth.
    • The massive negative market price support to the producers of different products has resulted in the total negative producer support, overshadowing the increase in the budgetary support over the years.

    Market Price Support as per OECD methodology

    • The market price support of a commodity is calculated by multiplying its total production with the gap between the domestic price and international prices in a relevant year.
    • This methodology assumes that in case there is no government intervention in the agriculture market, then the domestic and international price of a product will converge, resulting in no gap in prices.

    Why there is a focus on the price gap in OECD methodology

    • The OECD assumes government interventions lead to a gap between the international and domestic prices.
    • However, even if the government does not implement any program, the gap can still arise due to domestic and international factors.
    • Changes in supply and demand conditions in the domestic and international market due to shocks, depressed international prices due to subsidies given by other countries, among other factors, can generate a gap.

    3 Consequence of OECD’s Market Price Support methodology

    • 1) If the domestic price for a product is less than its international price, then support for that product would be negative.
    • 2) A negative market price support for a product in one year can turn into huge positive support in another year on account of the relative movement of domestic and international prices.
    • 3) Even if in a particular year, the government does not provide any additional support compared to a previous year, the level of support calculated by the OECD can change.
    • This will arise if there is a change in either the gap between the domestic price and international price for a commodity, or its production, in the two years.
    • Given the unpredictability in the inherent data, the total support can move from huge negative to huge positive.

    Concerns for India

    • For India, the negative support as a percentage of the total value of agriculture production has substantially reduced in recent years.
    • It is possible that support to Indian farmers in the near future becomes one of the highest in the world due to pitfalls in the OECD methodology.
    • This might set alarm bells ringing, particularly in the developed countries, which may aggressively question India’s support measures.

    Consider the question “As per the OECD methodology, net support provided by Indian government to its farmers is negative for the year 2019. However, India’s expenditure on agriculture is consistently rising. What explains this conundrum? What are the concerns for India in the price support method of OECD?”

    Conclusion

    Rather than being swayed by the OECD numbers suggesting negative support, farmers, policymakers, and other stakeholders need to understand the pitfalls and limitations in the underlying methodology. This will help in providing a more correct perception of the level of support to agriculture in India.

  • Changes needed in India’s agri-food policy

    Basic parameters to design optimal agri-food policy

    • UN population projections (2019) indicate that India is likely to be the most populous country by 2027.
    • By 2030, the country is likely to have almost 600 million people living in urban areas, who would need safe food.
    • Indian agriculture has an average holding size of 1.08 hectares (2015-16 data) while engaging 42 percent of the country’s workforce.
    • Cultivable land and water for agriculture are limited and already under severe pressure.

    What should be the basic features of agri-policy

    • 1) It should be able to produce enough food, feed, and fibre for its large population.
    • 2) It should do so in a manner that protects the environment — soil, water, air, and biodiversity and achieves higher production with global competitiveness.
    • 3) It should enable seamless movement of food, keeping marketing costs low, save on food losses in supply chains and provide safe and fresh food to consumers.
    • 4) Consumers should get safe and nutritious food at affordable prices.

    Need to change from sub-optimal to optimal policies

    • Free electricity and highly subsidized fertilizers, especially urea, are damaging groundwater levels, especially in the Green Revolution states.
    • Sugar and wheat are being produced at prices higher than global prices, and these crops can’t be exported unless they are heavily subsidized.
    • Excessive stocks of wheat and rice with the Food Corporation of India (FCI) are putting pressure on the agency’s finances.
    • Rice remains globally competitive, but it should be remembered that in exporting rice we are also exporting massive amounts of precious water — almost 25-30 billion cubic meters, annually.
    • This is the water that is pumped for rice cultivation, enabled by the subsidized power supply.
    • In the marketing segment also, for most of our agri-commodities, our costs remain high compared to several other developing countries due to poor logistics, low investments in supply lines, and high margins of intermediaries.
    • All these are signs of sub-optimal agri-food policies.

    Policy changes required: On the production level

    • Green Revolution states of Punjab, Haryana, and western Uttar Pradesh require crop diversification.
    • This can be done by switching from the highly subsidized input price policy (power, water, fertilizers) and MSP/FRP policy for paddy, wheat, and sugarcane, to more income support policies linked to saving water, soil, and air quality.
    • The Agri-marketing segment is also in the need of reforms especially with respect to bringing about efficiency in agri-marketing and lowering transaction costs.
    • It is believed that developing countries should invest at least one percent of their agri-GDP in agri-R&D and extension.
    • India invests about half.
    • It needs to double with commensurate accountability of R&D organizations, especially the ICAR and state agriculture universities to deliver.

    Policy changes required: On the consumption level

    • The biggest challenge for the next 10 years is that of malnutrition, especially amongst children.
    • The public distribution of food, through PDS, that relies on rice and wheat, and that too at more than 90 percent subsidy over costs of procurement, stocking, and distribution, is not helping much.
    • It is increasing the finances of FCI, whose borrowings have touched Rs 3 lakh crore.
    • To address that, beneficiaries of subsidized rice and wheat need to be given a choice to opt for cash equivalent to MSP plus 25 percent.
    • The FCI adds about 40 percent cost over the MSP while procuring, storing, and distributing food.
    • This cash option will save some money and also lead to supplies of more diversified and nutritious food to the beneficiaries.

    Consider the question “What are the issues with India’s agri-food policies? Suggest the changes in agri-food policies so as to make them optimal.

    Conclusion

    What we need is to set agri-food policies on a demand-driven approach, protecting sustainability and efficiency in production and marketing, and giving consumers more choices for nutritious food at affordable prices.

  • PM Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) completes 5 Years of operations

    The Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) has completed 5 Years of successful operations.

    It has become vital these days to remember and recognize every detail of government schemes.

    What is PMFBY?

    • 5 years ago, on 13th January 2016, the GoI took a historic step towards strengthening risk coverage of crops for farmers of India and approved the flagship crop insurance scheme – the PMFBY.
    • The scheme was conceived as a milestone initiative to provide a comprehensive risk solution at the lowest uniform premium across the country for farmers.
    • Premium cost over and above the farmer share is equally subsidized by States and GoI.
    • However, GoI shares 90% of the premium subsidy for the North Eastern States to promote the uptake in the region.
    • The average sum insured per hectare has increased from ₹15,100 during the pre-PMFBY Schemes to ₹40,700 under PMFBY.

    Coverage of Risks and Exclusions:

    Following stages of the crop and risks leading to crop loss are covered under the scheme.

    • Prevented Sowing/ Planting Risk: The insured area is prevented from sowing/ planting due to deficit rainfall or adverse seasonal conditions
    • Standing Crop (Sowing to Harvesting): Comprehensive risk insurance is provided to cover yield losses due to non-preventable risks, viz. Drought, Dry spells, Flood, Inundation, Pests and Diseases, Landslides, Natural Fire and Lightening, Storm, Hailstorm, Cyclone, Typhoon, Tempest, Hurricane and Tornado.
    • Post-Harvest Losses: Coverage is available only up to a maximum period of two weeks from harvesting for those crops which are allowed to dry in cut and spread condition in the field after harvesting against specific perils of a cyclone and cyclonic rains and unseasonal rains.
    • Localized Calamities: Loss/ damage resulting from the occurrence of identified localized risks of hailstorm, landslide, and Inundation affecting isolated farms in the notified area.

    Try this question from CSP 2020:

    Q.Under the Kisan Credit Card Scheme, short-term credit support is given to farmers for which of the following purposes? (CSP 2020)

    1. Working capital for maintenance of farm assets
    2. Purchase of combine harvesters, tractors and mini trucks
    3. Consumption requirements of farm households
    4. Construction of family house and setting up of village cold storage facility
    5. Construction of family house and setting up of village cold storage facility

    Select the correct answer using the code given below:

    (a) 1,2 and 5 only

    (b) 1,3 and 4 only

    (c) 2,3,4 and 5 only

    (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

    Progress till date

    • The Scheme covers over 5.5 crore farmer applications year on year.
    • Till date, claims worth Rs 90,000 crores have already been paid out under the Scheme.
    • Aadhar seeding has helped in speedy claim settlement directly into the farmer accounts.
    • Even during COVID lockdown period, nearly 70 lakh farmers benefitted and claims worth Rs. 8741.30 crores were transferred to the beneficiaries.

  • PM-KISAN payout wrongly made to ineligible beneficiaries

    PM-KISAN payments worth ₹1,364 crores have been wrongly made to more than 20 lakh ineligible beneficiaries and income tax payer farmers.

    Try this PYQ:

    Q.Under the Kisan Credit Card Scheme, short-term credit support is given to farmers for which of the following purposes? (CSP 2020)

    1. Working capital for maintenance of farm assets
    2. Purchase of combine harvesters, tractors and mini trucks
    3. Consumption requirements of farm households
    4. Construction of family house and setting up of village cold storage facility
    5. Construction of family house and setting up of village cold storage facility

    Select the correct answer using the code given below:

    (a) 1,2 and 5 only

    (b) 1,3 and 4 only

    (c) 2,3,4 and 5 only

    (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

    PM-KISAN

    • The Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi Yojana (PM-Kisan Yojana) is a government scheme through which, all small and marginal farmers will get up to Rs 6,000 per year as minimum income support.
    • Under the PM-KISAN scheme, all landholding farmers’ families shall be provided with the financial benefit of Rs. 6000 per annum per family payable in three equal instalments of Rs. 2000 each, every four months.
    • The definition of the family for the scheme is husband, wife, and minor children.
    • State Government and UT administration will identify the farmer families which are eligible for support as per scheme guidelines.
    • The fund will be directly transferred to the bank accounts of the beneficiaries.

    Why in news?

    • When it was launched just before the general election in 2019, it was meant to cover only small and marginal farmers who owned less than two hectares.
    • Later that year, large farmers were included in the scheme as the government removed land size criteria.

    Certain exclusions

    • However, certain exclusions remained.
    • If any member of a farming family paid income tax, received a monthly pension above ₹10,000, held a constitutional position, or was a serving or retired government employee, they were not eligible for the scheme.
    • Professionals and institutional landholders were also excluded.

    Who are NOT eligible for PM-KISAN?

    The following categories of beneficiaries of higher economic status shall not be eligible for benefit under the scheme.

    • All Institutional Landholders.

    Farmer families that belong to one or more of the following categories:

    • Former and present holders of constitutional posts
    • Former and present Ministers/ State Ministers and former/present Members of Lok Sabha/ Rajya Sabha/ State Legislative Assemblies/ State Legislative Councils, former and present Mayors of Municipal Corporations, former and present Chairpersons of District Panchayats.
    • All serving or retired officers and employees of Central/ State Government Ministries
    • All superannuated/retired pensioners whose monthly pension is Rs.10,000/-or more. (Excluding Multi-Tasking Staff / Class IV/Group D employees) of the above category
    • All Persons who paid Income Tax in the last assessment year
    • Professionals like Doctors, Engineers, Lawyers, Chartered Accountants, and Architects registered with Professional bodies and carrying out the profession by undertaking practices.

    Note: It is not so easy to remember all such exclusions. But one must be able to recognize them by applying pure logic and thumb rule. This can be well understood from the PYQ given.

  • Misunderstanding the MSP

    The article explains the purpose of Minimum Support Price (MSP) and reasons for insecurity in farmers regarding its continuance.

    Relation between MSP and time-bound procurement through PPS

    • MSP, public procurement system (PPS) and a strict time-bound purchase of output brought to the PPS(through APMCs) form a package deal.
    • Take out one aspect, the deal falls apart.
    • For example, if you have MSP but not compulsory PPS, the support price becomes redundant.
    • If you have MSP and PPS/APMC mandi but not strict time-bound purchase of the product brought to the PPS, the deal will fail.

    Purpose of MSP

    • At the launch of the Green Revolution, MSP and PPS were designed to assist the country in achieving its goal of food self-sufficiency, which was met by the early Seventies.
    • The purpose of MSP and PPS/APMC is now two-fold.
    • One, to maintain food self-sufficiency because crop diseases and weather conditions such as droughts.
    • The second purpose is to ensure a reasonable, assured income to the farmers.
    • The recommendation to dismantle FCI public procurement, made by the Shanta Kumar Committee in its 2015 report, displayed a lack of recognition of the importance of these two purposes.

    Issues with the Farm bills

    • The government’s assurance that MSP/APMC can co-exist with the big agro-business-controlled private markets is not tenable.
    • A farmer who has reached a contract will not be legally allowed to take the product to APMC if the APMC mandi offered him/her a better price.
    • The agro-business entity will take the non-compliant farmer to court, where the dispute resolution mechanism is stacked against the farmer due to the structural inequities of legal resources and social-cultural capital.
    • The proposed dispute resolution mechanism increases the choice of the trader to trade and not of the farmer to sell.
    • The central law will prevail in the private markets, while state laws will prevail in the APMC mandis.
    • Two markets with two regulatory frameworks will create conditions for perpetual Centre-state conflicts.
    • MSPs are announced for 23 crops but compulsory and timely public procurement, are provided mainly for two crops, wheat and rice, the support price does not work for the remaining 21 crops. 

    Challenge in defining MSP

    • Farmers’ organisations are insisting on the Swaminathan Committee formula of C2+50 per cent.
    • The MSP announced by the government is based on the A2+Fl+50 per cent formula.
    • Unlike the C2+50 per cent formula, A2+Fl+50  formula does not cover all the costs of farming.

    Conclusion

    Agrarian reforms that recognise the importance of ecologically and economically sustainable agriculture are an absolute necessity. Such reforms would require more than merely changing the trade emphasis of existing laws. They will involve the creation of inclusive, transparent and well-informed laws compatible with these reforms.

    Back2Basics: Understanding the cost formula

    • M S Swaminathan committee recommended minimum support prices (MSP) for crops at levels “at least 50 per cent more than the weighted average cost of production”.
    • The National Commission on Farmers did not elaborate on what really constituted “weighted average cost of production” in its report submitted in October 2006.
    • The Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP), on the other hand, gives three definitions of production costs: A2, A2+FL and C2.
    • A2 costs basically cover all paid-out expenses, both in cash and in kind, incurred by farmers on seeds, fertilisers, chemicals, hired labour, fuel, irrigation, etc.
    • A2+FL cover actual paid-out costs plus an imputed value of unpaid family labour.
    • C2 costs are more comprehensive, accounting for the rentals and interest forgone on owned land and fixed capital assets respectively, on top of A2+FL.