August, 2019 - Kisan Mitra

IMF questions India's tax revenue esimates: Report

Growth projections for India have been cut due to the pervasive economic slowdown across segments (consumer durables, auto, and biscuits) and officials are not confident of achieving the target.

https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/economy/imf-questions-indias-tax-revenue-esimates-report-4365591.html

Representative Image

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has raised doubts over India’s steep tax revenue collection estimates for 2019-20, according to a report in Business Standard.
Moneycontrol could not independently verify the report.
IMF monitors countries economy annually and sends economists to meet with policymakers in government and the central bank, in accordance with Article IV of its agreement with countries.

This is done to assess and put together a report that identifies weaknesses that could lead to financial and economic instability. India has to respond to the IMF this week.

The questions came after the country’s direct and indirect tax collections for FY18-19 fell short by Rs 1.7 trillion, which was 7.5 percent below the revised estimate for the period.
Budget 2019 cut tax projections from the Interim Budget, despite revenues expected to growth by 25 percent year-on-year. The direct tax collected till mid-August is 4.69 percent, against the annual target of 17.3 percent.
“Across the board, the economic slowdown will affect tax collection, which is already projected to be unreasonably high,” the publication quoted a government official.
Growth projections for India have been cut due to the pervasive economic slowdown across segments (consumer durables, auto, and biscuits) and officials are not confident of achieving the target.
RBI’s monetary policy review cut growth projections for FY19-20 growth by 0.1 percent to 6.9 percent.
The IMF cut its India growth outlook by 30 basis points for the current and next fiscals to 7 percent and 7.2 percent respectively, and Asian Development Bank cut growth forecast to 7 percent.
“Broad sentiments suggest economic growth may be lower, between 10 percent and 11 percent. This will mean direct tax collection will be 12-13 percent,” a senior government official told the paper.
IMF’s earlier country report for India had pegged growth at 7.3 percent for FY18-19, which turned out to be much lower at 6.8 percent.

Credit policy for agriculture in India: An evaluation. Supporting Indian farms the smart way. Rationalising subsidies and investments for faster, inclusive and sustainable growth

Rural indebtedness and dependence on private moneylenders is an age-old problem in India. For
more than 100 years now, the Central Government and the Reserve Bank of India have been
making efforts to enhance institutional credit in rural areas particularly to assist in agricultural
operations. It began with the enactment of the Co-operative Credit Societies Act (1904) but
efforts were redoubled after the nationalisation of Scheduled Commercial Banks in 1969. The
aim of this paper is to evaluate the measures taken over the years and assess the extent to which
they have been successful. It attempts to answer the question, “Is the agenda of expansion of
institutional finance to agriculture unfinished?” The findings in the paper are inconclusive on
this issue on account of contradictions in evidence: while the 2013 AIDIS survey finds that noninstitutional lenders still account for only 36 per cent of the total outstanding agricultural loan,
the short-term credit from institutional sources in 2012-13 covered 100 per cent of the input cost
in agriculture in that year according to the National Accounts Statistics.
A particular focus of the paper is analysis of the cost and benefits of subsidies for agricultural
credit and generalised debt waivers.
It finds that the steps taken to enhance institutional credit such as the opening of a large number
of rural branches of commercial banks, priority sector lending with 18 per cent target for
agriculture, Kisan Credit Cards and the financial inclusion initiative have really been
instrumental in the impressive rise in agricultural credit and not credit subsidies. At the same
time, the sharp rise in the share of short-term credit in the proportion of input costs points
towards diversion of subsidised credit for non-agricultural purposes. The paper, therefore, makes
a strong case for a serious review of the policy on agricultural credit subsidies. On generalised
debt waivers, the finding is that they create expectations of similar waivers in future and
disincentivise farmers from repaying loans. At the same time, anticipating adverse borrower
behaviour, lenders tend to reduce the size of their lending operations; the net result is a
contraction of credit available to farmers. The paper, therefore, also argues strongly against
generalised waivers in future. However, targeted action where waivers follow a case by case
examination of the merits of the case can be an appropriate response, particularly if such action
is part of a comprehensive package to address acute agricultural distress.
Download full paper
2016 Credit policy for agriculture in India- An evaluation. Supporting Indian farmers the smart way, rationalising subsidies and investments

Why improving soil health is critical

Updated: February 28, 2018 4:31:38 AM

https://www.financialexpress.com/opinion/why-improving-soil-health-is-critical/1082299/

The pressures of constantly increasing production have resulted in a persistent decline in soil fertility—a major challenge that Indian agriculture is facing.

soil, improving soil, health, indian farmers

Increasing penetration of agricultural inputs has helped Indian farmers achieve record foodgrain production. In fact, in 2016-17, the government estimates an all-time high foodgrain production of 272 million tonnes. However, this does not automatically imply that all is hunky dory on agricultural front. India’s land area is about 2.5% of the global land, and it supports more than 16% of total human population, along with 20% of global livestock population. The pressures of constantly increasing production have resulted in a persistent decline in soil fertility—a major challenge that Indian agriculture is facing. With rising population, limited availability of agricultural land, small landholdings and declining soil fertility, India is under serious threat of losing its food surplus status in the near future. According to estimates, the demand for foodgrains is expected to increase from 192 million tonnes in 2000 to 355 million tonnes in 2030. But is our ‘fatigued’ soil healthy enough to meet these targets?
Excessive tillage takes a toll
Over the years, increasing pressure on limited agricultural land has resulted in overuse of chemical fertilisers, excessive tillage, jettisoning of age-old organic soil revival practices and lack of appropriate crop rotation. This has resulted in soil degradation and loss of fertility. Soil degradation is estimated to be severely impacting 147 million hectares of cultivable land in India, causing a successive deterioration in its productive capacity. In recent years, experts have witnessed a worrying sign of declining total factor productivity and compound growth rates of major crops. In several agricultural regions, there has been observed a gap between nutrient demand and supply including decline in organic matter status, deficiencies of micro-nutrients in soil, soil acidity, salinisation and sodification. If we do not take this disturbing trend into account and start acting, India might be saddled with vast swathes of land rendered infertile by lack of sagaciousness and long-term thinking. Experts say one of the ways forward is to make agriculture more sustainable and reviving age-old practices of soil regeneration, while balancing it with judicious use of agrochemicals. The agrochemical industry must invest in producing organic biological products that help improve soil health.

What causes soil fertility loss?

Apart from natural factors like floods, volcanoes and earthquakes, human-induced factors such as deforestation, ill-management of industrial wastes, overgrazing by cattle and urban expansion are also responsible for loss of soil’s productive capacity. Widespread land degradation caused by inappropriate agricultural practices has an adverse impact on food and livelihood security of farmers. These practices include excessive tillage, frequent cropping, poor irrigation and water management, and unscientific rotation of crops. Decline in soil organic matter causes limited soil life and poor soil structure.
According to a document by the Indian Institute of Soil Science (Bhopal), contrary to increasing food demands, the factor productivity and rate of response of crops to applied fertilisers under intensive cropping systems is declining. The current status of nutrient use efficiency is quite low for most nutrients—in case of phosphorus, soil’s nutrient use efficiency has been found to be a meagre 15-20%, for sulphur 8-12%, and for nitrogen 30-50%. Deterioration in chemical, physical and biological health of soil is to blame for this. Conventional practices followed by farmers such as leaving the land fallow for some time to allow it to regain its lost nutrition, and appropriate crop rotation, have been junked in favour of continuous cropping, which has led to the decline in soil organic carbon (SOC) content to 0.3-0.4%, when it should ideally be 1-1.5%. SOC plays a key role in maintaining soil fertility by holding nitrogen, phosphorous and other nutrients for plant growth, holding soil particles, improving soil’s water holding capacity and providing gaseous exchange and root growth. It is a source of food for soil fauna and flora, suppresses crop diseases, and acts as a buffer against toxic and harmful substances, like sorption of toxins and heavy metals. As a result of human activities, the carbon pool in the atmosphere has increased and elevated carbon dioxide is considered to be a contributory factor to global warming and climate change. SOC is the largest component of terrestrial carbon pools, about twice the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and in vegetation. If more carbon is stored in the soil as organic carbon, it will reduce the amount present in the atmosphere and help alleviate the problem of climate change.
Investment in organic products
This brings us to the question of how can we ensure that India’s growing food grain needs are met while nurturing soil health. The answer lies in a focus on biological products to improve soil health, propagating judicious use of agrochemicals, reducing excessive dependence on fertilisers and pesticides, and reviving practices such as intelligent crop rotation. Enhancing sustainable food production through improved soil health is not just the job of the government and cultivators. The agrochemical industry also has a responsibility to invest in biological products that can rejuvenate soil health organically. At the same time, farmers have to be educated about what they can do to improve the health of their nutrient-depleted soil by following good crop practices. It is pertinent to educate them about judicious use of agrochemicals and attain a fine balance between chemical and organic products—both of which are critical to India’s food sustainability goals.

By: Rajesh Aggarwal
MD, Insecticides India Ltd

Reversing land degradation in India

https://www.teriin.org/article/reversing-land-degradation-india

30 Jul 2019

Mr S Vijay Kumar

Nearly one-third of area in India faces the threat of land degradation

Restoring land degradation — Land degradation and desertification in India are among the biggest challenges

At the behest of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, ISRO’s Space Applications Centre, Ahmedabad along with partner institutes took up the task of inventorising and monitoring of land degradation and desertification in India using Indian Remote Sensing Satellites (IRS) data. The analysis reveals that 96.40 million hectares (mha) area or 29.32% of the Total Geographic Area (TGA) in India is undergoing a process of land degradation during 2011-13, which is an increase of 1.87 mha area or 0.57% of TGA since 2003-05.

Nature and extent of land degradation in India

The earliest assessment of the area affected by the land degradation was made by the National Commission on Agriculture in 1976 at 148 M ha i.e. 45% out of the Total Geographical Area (TGA) of 328 mha, followed by 175 mha by the Ministry of Agriculture (Soil and Water Conservation Division). The National Bureau of Soil Survey and Land Use Planning (NBSS&LUP) estimates projected an area of 187 mha as degraded lands in 1994, and revised it to 147 mha in 2004.
The National Wasteland Development Board (NWDB) in 1988 estimated an area of 123 mha (37.5% of TGA) under degraded/wastelands based on National Remote Sensing Agency (NRSA) satellite data of 1984-85. The “top down” and “bottom up” approaches of NRSA and NBSS&LUP data was partially harmonized (incorporating causative factors) with respect to 114 mha (34.75 of TGA) of degraded/wastelands.

Drivers and causes of land degradation and desertification in India

At a broad level, the driving forces behind land resources may be described as follows. Some of the drivers are natural, others are anthropogenic. Even the “natural” drivers may have anthropogenic influences which may modify or exacerbate the drivers and the impacts:

Wind erosion
Water erosion (fluvial, meteoric)
Chemical (natural occurrence of alkaline chemicals, movement of subsoil chemicals (e.g. salinity) to the surface, as well as artificial addition of chemicals, including fertilizers or industrial pollutants)
Physical (waterlogging, geomorphological changes caused by mining or other activity)

Direct anthropogenic influences and drivers include:

Agriculture, and related activities
Livestock related activities (grazing)
Biotic pressures (for fuelwood and fodder and MFP)
Land Use changes (urbanisation, mining, infrastructure, etc.)

Soil erosion by wind and water which removes topsoil with its organic content, as well as acidity, alkalinity/salinity of the soil which makes the soil toxic for agriculture and other uses are the principal causes for land degradation. Waterlogging, due to natural flooding as well as irrigation, is another significant cause of degradation, both by inundation, and in some cases, by bringing up subsoil toxic chemicals (evaporites) to the soil surface.
As agriculture uses 141 million hectares out of 328.7 mha of the country, faulty land and water management practices in agriculture significantly contribute to land degradation. There is enough scientific evidence to show that intensive irrigation and high chemical use (fertilizers, pesticides, etc.) adds to degradation and that certain subsidies (such as the provision of free electricity and free irrigation water) worsen the situation. Rainfed agriculture spans several agro-ecological regions and constitutes 60% of total cropped area. Soils in rainfed areas, particularly the drylands, are subject to a prolonged double exclusion, being unable to gain from full use of chemical fertilizers and receiving no support for locally validated fertility-enhancing practices like crop residue incorporation, composting, farmyard manure application, etc.
While judicious management of common lands which are generally not brought under agriculture can avoid erosion and other complex degradation problems, sustainable use of common land and revitalisation of degraded common lands requires deep community level commitments, which may be lacking given the social inequalities and competition for access to scarce resources. In India, the poor and tribal communities in the vicinity of forest areas depend quite heavily on forest produce for all aspects of their day to day life. Ensuring sustainable management of forests requires a due attention to the needs of communities in and around forests.

Evolution of land resource management policies and approaches

Though the subjects of “land”, “agriculture” and “water” are subjects with the States as per the Constitution, the concerns for arresting and reversing land degradation and desertification have been reflected in many of the national policies for nearly 40 years. Current policies and key legislation (many of them revised versions of earlier policies) include The National Water Policy 2012; National Forest Policy 1988; National Agricultural Policy 2000; Forest (Conservation) Act 1980; Environment (Protection) Act 1986; National Environmental Policy 2006; National Policy for Farmers 2007; National Agroforestry Policy 2014 etc which have enabling provisions for addressing these problems.
The evolution of schemes and programmes to address the various aspects of land degradation actually reflect the progressive acquisition of knowledge and development of improved packages of practice, as well as the shifts in focus based on national priorities. Some of the key milestones along this process include:

Adoption of watershed approach and planning based on micro-watersheds; use of remote sensing data and spatial data in planning at the micro-watershed level
Integrated treatment incorporating contouring, gully plugging, vegetative as well as engineering-based solutions for soil-moisture conservation, covering agricultural as well as non-agricultural lands. Joint Forest Management (JFM) and Social Fencing by involving local communities.
Integrated farming based approach incorporating fodder and fuelwood supply, farm-forestry and agroforestry and silvi-pastures; stall feeding, improved chullahs etc.
Focus on water management, aquifer recharge and water budgeting as well as crop planning
Focus on social aspects: participative planning at micro-watershed level; transect walk; Constitution of Watershed Committee under the Gram Sabha; Water User Association development; social audit.
Incorporation of livelihood related activities and development of micro-enterprises; involvement of Self-Help Groups (SHGs); programmes such as Mahila Kisan Sashaktikaran Pariyojana (MKSP) focusing on increasing capabilities women farmers with a view to increasing sustainability.
Adoption of climate-adaptation related solutions both with regard to floods and intense precipitation as well as temperature and moisture stress, and orienting employment generation programmes like MGNREGA in this direction.
Increasing the role of Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and ensuring “convergence” between Government programmes and programmes executed by PRIs.

Unfinished tasks and the way forward

Though it would seem that there has been very substantial development with regard to the national imperative of checking land degradation, the visible impact of programmes on the ground is clearly less than impressive. A provisional diagnostic would suggest:

Insufficient coverage by government programmes for addressing land degradation primarily because of funding constraints but also because of management and technical capacity constraints.
Need to focus on more sustainable agricultural practices. Depleting groundwater, the spread of problem soils (acidic, saline & alkaline), loss of soil organic carbon (SOC) and yield plateaus manifest the different dimensions of the problem and challenge.
Perverse incentives such as free power for groundwater pumping; nitrogenous fertilizer subsidy; Minimum Support Price (MSP) only for a few crops (thus influencing crop choice) etc. may be causing degradation of additional areas.

In the last analysis sustainable management of land (and water) resources have to be by, and in close collaboration with, local communities. It is no coincidence that the few outstanding examples of sustainable management are all traceable to visionary local leadership supported by the host communities and assisted by public policies for sustainable use of resources, infrastructure creation, knowledge accretion and transmission, and development of entrepreneurship. Checking and reversing land degradation has to be essentially based on self-regulatory practices with regard to a sustainable use of resources and energy. The task of public policies must include incentivisation of such regulation.

Anatomy of Agrarian Crisis

Farmers Incomes: NABARD All India Rural Financial Inclusion Survey (NAFIS) 2016-17 estimates that an average Indian farming household earned `8,931/month (`1,07, 172/year) in the agriculture year 2015-16. This is up from `2,115 earned in 2002-03 as per NSSO’s SAS, implying a compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) of about 12% in nominal terms and 3.7% in real terms (2015-16 base). To achieve the Doubling the Farmers Income (DFI) by 2022-23 as announced by the central government in 2016, farmers’ real incomes need to grow at 10.4% per annum, i.e., 2.8 times the growth rate achieved historically (3.7%) and it has not achieved this. Instead it went down to less than 3.0% by 2017-18 and the achievement was far lower than the targets. With less than two years left its high time we revisited the strategies.
Agri sector contribution to GDP , is moved from 56.5% in 1950-51 to 15.87% in 2018.. Yet 69.43 % (19.5% agriculture workers and 49.93% cultivators) of population was dependent then and 54.6% (29.96% agriculture workers and 24.64% cultivators); but in absolute numbers it still means (144.3 million agriculture workers and 118.7 million cultivators). Tenant farming exists with wide variations across States. It was 20.6 per cent of the operating area according to 8th round of NSSO Report in 1953-54. In 2002-03, it fell sharply to just 6.6 per cent of the operating area. Policymakers focused on abolition of feudal/semi-feudal agrarian structure with tenancy reforms aimed at conferring ownership right to tenants.
But post liberalisation, during 2003-13, tenancy increased to 10.4 per cent according to 70th round of NSSO Report. Andhra Pradesh (35.7 per cent), Bihar (22.7 per cent), Haryana (14.8 per cent), Odisha (16.9 per cent), Tamil Nadu (13.5 per cent) and West Bengal (14.7 per cent) lead the tenancy league, far above the all-India average of 10.4 per cent.
As the Indian economy becomes mature and inclusive, tenancy is likely to further increase. Land being scarce, there is severe demand for it. Urbanisation has made inroads into the rural landscape. Tenancy and sharecropping have become livelihood options in agriculture, to supplement incomes arising out of lesser availability of land.
Small and marginal farmers with less than two hectares of land account for 86.2% of all farmers in India, but own just 47.3% of the crop area, according to the 10th agriculture census 2015-16. In comparison, semi-medium and medium land holding farmers owning between 2-10 hectares of land account for 13.2% of all farmers, but own 43.6% of crop area, the survey showed. During this period the proportion of small and marginal farmers grew from 84.9% to 86.2%, while the total number of operational holdings grew from 138 million to 146 million.
The total area under farming, however, fell from 159.6 million hectares in 2010-11 to 157.14 million hectares in 2015-16.
About 56 % of the total cultivated area (61% of farmers) in India falls under rainfed agriculture. The importance of the rainfed agriculture can be gauged from
the fact that it contributes to 40 % of the country’s food production; accounts for much of the national area under coarse cereals (85%), pulses (83%), oilseeds (70%) and cotton (65%); and holds 60 % of the total livestock populations. But investment on rainfed area is very limited and almost 20 times lower than irrigated areas.
As a result of the changing climate, monsoon rainfall in 2018 was the sixth-lowest since 1901, according to the India Meteorological Department (IMD). It was also the sixth-warmest year since 1901, when recording started. Further, monsoons in 2019 have also been recorded as the slowest progressing in at least 12 years, IMD data showed. Till July 7, 2019, IMD recorded a rainfall deficit of 21 per cent, while June recorded the second-lowest rainfall in the past seven years after the 42 per cent deficit in 2014. Moreover, 20 states in the country witnessed deficient rainfall, while three were in ‘large deficient’ category from June 1 to July 7 this year.
Currently, irrigation consumes 84% of the water (industry 12% and households 4%) Water use in irrigation in India is 2 to 4 times that in USA and China per unit of major crops. Share of canal irrigation in net irrigated area declined from 39.8 % to 23.6 % and Groundwater sources increased from 28.7 % to a whopping 62.4 % between 1950-51 and 2012-13.
The rate of unemployment among men in rural areas between the ages of 15 and 29 years jumped to 17.4% in 2017-’18 compared to 5% in 2011-’12. The unemployment rate among women in rural areas stood at 13.6% in 2017-’18 compared to 4.8% in 2011-’12, according to the latest NSSO report. Unemployment among youth in urban areas was higher than in rural areas – 18.7% for men and 27.2% for women in 2017-’18. So creating a positive migration of labour to urban areas and to other sectors also seems to be impossible.
Productivity levels of most crops in most of India are much lower than global standards: For example, India is the Second large producer of cotton with 27 million bales (21% of world production) with largest area under cotton cultivation with 12.3 million hectares and constituting about 25% of the world area while yield is estimated at 480 kg/hectare making it rank 36th in terms of per ha productivity. While India is the only country using hybrids in cotton in more than 99% of its cropped area all other countries largely follow high density and Ultra Narrow Planting techniques with straight line varieties. In India rice is grown in 43.86 million ha, the production level is 104.80 million tones and the productivity is about 2390 kg/ha. The highest productivity is 6710 kg per ha of China followed by Vietnam (5573 kg /ha), Indonesia (5152 kg/ha), Bangladesh (4375 kg/ha). India’s wheat average yield in 2013 of 3075 kg/ha is lower than the world average of 3257 kg/ha. India’s best state, Punjab, has paddy yield close to 6000 kg/ha whereas China’s yield is 6709 kg/ha. These variations comes from various reasons including climate, soil type, technology adopted, support systems available and market prices. While largely these differences are attributed only to input use and high input agriculture models are pushed, data and reports show that local agroecological conditions play more important role. For example, yields from temperate areas are higher than tropical areas in general in all crops. Therefore agroecological approaches which takes into account local context is important way forward.
This suggests there is room to improve: This improvement, while keeping it sustainable and not harming soil, will come through more capital investment in soil moisture conservation, irrigation (drip, sprinkler, other water efficiency), husbanding biomass effectively and partnership between research and progressive farmers.
Allied sectors line and associated ecosystems will also need attention, like catchment area of tanks and rivers, watersheds, bio diversity, and move towards agro ecology.
Precision agriculture models and farming in controlled conditions like polyhouses, hydroponics, aquaponics etc give new opportunities much more research is needed to make them economically and ecologically sustainable. currently they are highly energy and chemical intensive.
Then talk about how even when people are migrating to cities, large numbers go back to village for the kharif crop; the sense of community, of belonging there as well as ability to grow the cereal crops for consumption continues to be important social and livelihood strategy.
Around 67 per cent of total operational land holdings in India are owned by marginal farmers, with an average size of 0.39 hectare1 (GoI a). A farm size of less than a hectare, irrespective of its efficiency, may hold only a limited livelihood potential. Yet, majority of land holdings in India are less than a hectare. The average farm size of land holding for a marginal farmer has remained unchanged between 2000-01 and 2010-11 at around 0.4 hectare. The incomes of the farmers comes from four different sources. At the national level the average monthly income of farmers is Rs. 6426 which comes from cultivation (47.9%), livestock (32.2%), wages (11.9%) and other petty businesses (8%) while for small and marginal farmers (86.2%) who cultivate less than 2 ha of land income from livestock is much higher compared to cultivation. Therefore diversifying assets and income sources becomes more important for small and marginal farmers to achieve decent income.
While government supports farming through various schemes, the last mile delivery of support services is always a failure. This is due to wrong design of the schemes and subsidies e.g, entire support for managing soils and fertility are through chemical fertilisers (Rs. 79,000 Cr in 2019-20) it is available only to those who uses them. farmers practicing organic and natural farming cannot access such support. similarly big ticket subsidies like polyhouses (approximately Rs. 35 lakhs per unit) are on increase, small ticket subsidies are on decline. The second problem is due to lack of identity for cultivators. Today only means of identifying farmers is through land title and all supports for farming use this as the identification mechanism. in a situation where tenancy is increasing the tenant farmers are kept out of the ambit of any of these support systems. for e.g. interest subvention on crop loans is goes to land owners only. tenant farmers have to take loans from private money lender at interest rates as high as 10% per month.
As the income of the farmers were not going up,the Centre announced what they call as Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman on the lines of Direct Income Support measure like Rytubandu in Telengana and KALIA in Odisha. Similarschemes were announced by other states like Krishi Krishak Bandhu by West Bengal and YSR Rytu Barosa (earlier Annadata Sukhibava) by government of Andhra Pradesh. Unfortunately, all these schemes have picked random numbers in terms of support provided under Direct Income Support and has not made any effort to institutionalise the process, linking it to the inflation like the salaries of the employees. Another major problem is all these support measures are linked to land ownership. This excludes large numbers of tenant farmers. Measures like this along with interest subvention on farm credit, disaster compensations, income tax exemptions going for land owners, more incentives are created for landowning and less and less for cultivation. This is creating a disastrous situation in states where tenant farmers numbers are in high.
The inputs costs are increasing and net incomes of the farmers are going down significantly. for example, average gross income from cotton cultivation was Rs. 73200 /ha (2010-15) while net income was Rs. 9259 /ha. Net income showed a negative trend during 2010-15 while the gross income remained stagnant. Net income decreased from Rs. 24682 /ha (2010-11) to Rs. 15604 /ha (2013-14) and it was negative (Rs. 6318 /ha) during 2014-15. Average cost of cultivation increased from Rs. 31817/ha (2005-10) to Rs. 63941/ha (2010-15). This is mainly due to the increase in the operational costs (72%). Same is the case with most of the crops. While Minimum Support Prices are announced for more than 24 crops only 2 crops (paddy and wheat) have regular procurement and more than 70% of the produce is procured only from 3-5 states.

Perspectives on fertiliser use

https://www.geographyandyou.com/perspectives-on-fertiliser-usage/

White Paper on Agriculture and allied sectors in AP 2019

2019 White Paper on Agriculture Department

Review of Agricultural Extension in India

2010 Review of Extension System in India IFPRI
Review of Agricultural Extension in India
Are Farmers’ Information Needs Being Met?
Claire J. Glendenning
Suresh Babu
Kwadwo Asenso-Okyere
Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office

Agricultural Extension System in India 2018

Agricultural Extension System in India
http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/file/Agriculture-Extension-System-in-India-2018.pdf
Download the report
2018 Agriculture-Extension-System-in-India-2018
Review of Current Status, Trends and the Way Forward
Ashok Gulati
Pravesh Sharma
Anisha Samantara
Prerna Terway
INDIAN COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH ON INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS

How central government’s minimum support price failed marginal farmers

In January, there were 19,872 transactions across 18 states, where the price was below the MSP

In 2018-19, just 12% of the 33.6 million farmers who were growing wheat availed of the government’s MSP

Today, the central government is intervening to provide minimum income support to small and marginal farmers. This distress intervention might not have been called for if the government had suitably tailored and effectively serviced an older minimum promise: the minimum support price (MSP), or the price at which it promises to buy 25 crops from farmers, regardless of their prevailing market price.
Take wheat, one of the two most grown crops in India. In 2018-19, just 12% of the 33.6 million farmers who were growing wheat availed of the government’s MSP (see chart 1). The rest were sold in mandis, whose access was usually controlled by middlemen and where market prices are often below government MSPs.
We looked at January 2019 mandi data for cereals to assess if market prices were above MSP, which is one indication that a state support price mechanism is working. Of the 3,355 markets across India reporting wholesale transaction data on commodities on Agmarknet, a central government web portal, 1,374 markets, or 41%, reported below-MSP prices for cereals at various points in January.

For the same month, there were 19,872 transactions across 18 states, where the price was below the MSP. In these transactions, the weighted average mean of market prices (a measure of both price and quantity) was ₹240 per quintal below MSP, or 14% less.

In all, 4.01 million tonnes of cereals were traded via these 19,872 transactions. Had farmers received this ₹240 per quintal, they would have earned an additional ₹965 crore.

MSP is failing farmers at several levels. The first issue is in its definition itself. In order to calculate MSP, the government uses ‘A2+FL’ cost, or the actual paid out cost and the imputed value of family labour. The criticism of ‘A2+FL’ is that it doesn’t cover all costs, and that a more representative measure is ‘C2’, which also includes imputed rent and interest on owned land and capital.
For example, in the 2017-18 rabi season, CACP data shows that C2 for wheat was 54% higher than ‘A2+FL’.
The second issue with MSP is its failure to maintain the base price line in the open market. In those 19,872 Agmarknet transactions for cereals in January, the markdown to MSP varied across crops: The lowest were barley ( ₹147 per quintal) and maize ( ₹180), while the highest were jowar ( ₹617), ragi ( ₹527) and wheat ( ₹505).
The markdown to MSP also varied across states: The lowest was West Bengal ( ₹183 per quintal) and the highest was Chhattisgarh ( ₹415). The last rabi season—the produce entered the market in April to June 2018—saw mandis reporting market prices below MSPs on 99% days in Uttar Pradesh, 84% in Rajasthan and 69% days in Madhya Pradesh.
For cereal transactions in January on Agmarknet, the markdown to MSP also varied across transaction sizes, which is some measure of the scale of operations of the selling farmer. The smaller the selling lot, the greater the mark down to the MSP (see chart 2). In other words, it’s the small and marginal farmer who bears the brunt.
howindialives.com is a database and search engine for public data

Monthly Archive August 23, 2019