వేపాడ మండలం లో రాగల ఐదు రోజులు వాతావరణ సూచన – వర్షం కురిసే సూచన లేదు. గరిష్ట ఉష్ణోగ్రత 35-37 డిగ్రీలు, కనిష్ట ఉష్ణోగ్రత 17-20 డిగ్రీ లు గా ఉండే అవకాశం ఉంది. గాలి గంటకి 2-7కి.మి. వేగం తో వీయవచ్చు. Sksr పురం, రామస్వామిపేట, దబ్బిరాజుపేట,జగ్గయ్యపేట గ్రామలలో వేరుశనగలో తిక్క ఆకుమచ్చ తెగులు ఉదృతి ఎక్కువగా ఉంది. దీని నివారణకు 6%పుల్లటి మజ్జిగను 100లీ. నీటిలో కలిపి పిచికారి చేయవలెను లేధా 5kgపిచ్చితులసి కషాయం 100lt నీటిలో కలిపి పిచికారి చేయవలెను. బొద్దాం,రామస్వామిపేట, పి.కే.అర్. పురం గ్రామాలలో బీర లో పండు ఈగ ఉదృతి యెక్కువగా ఉంది. దీనినీ నివారించటానికి ఫ్రూట్‌ఫ్లై ఉచ్చులును ఎకరంకు 10 ఏర్పాటు చేసుకోవాలి మరియు 10రోజుల వ్యవదిలో నీమాస్త్రం పిచికారి చేసుకోని మొక్క మొదల్లులో వేప పిండిని వేయాలి. కె.జీపూడి,చామలాపల్లి,వెంకయ్యపాలెం,అరిగిపాలెం,దబ్బిరాజుపేట గ్రామాలలో జీడిలో T-ధోమ ఉదృతి ఉంది. దీని నివారణకు 5% వేపనూనెను పిచికారి చేసుకోవలెను.మరింత సమాచారం కోసం 8500983300 ఈ నంబర్ కు కాల్ చేయండి.
Date: 12-3-2022 Centre for Sustainable Agriculture-Vepada farm advisory వేపాడ మండలం లో రాగల ఐదు రోజులు వాతావరణ సూచన – వర్షం కురిసే సూచన లేదు. గరిష్ట ఉష్ణోగ్రత 34-36 డిగ్రీలు, కనిష్ట ఉష్ణోగ్రత 19-20 డిగ్రీ లు గా ఉండే అవకాశం ఉంది. గాలి గంటకి 3-8కి.మి. వేగం తో వీయవచ్చు. p.k.r పురం, Sksr పురం, రామస్వామిపేట, దబ్బిరాజుపేట గ్రామలలో మిరపలో పేనుబంక, తెల్లదోమ ఉదృతి ఎక్కువగా ఉంది. దీని ఉదృతి తెలుసుకోడానికి ఎకరాకు10 పసుపు రంగు జిగురు అట్టలు పెట్టవలెను మరియు లీటరు నీటిలో 1000ppm వేపనూనెను కలిపి పిచికారి చేయవలెను. బొద్దాం,రామస్వామిపేట, పి.కే.అర్. పురం గ్రామాలలో బీర లో పల్లాకు తెగులు ఉదృతి యెక్కువగా ఉంది. దీనినీ గుర్తించటానికి ముదురు ఆకులపైన వలయాకారం లో నీటి మచ్చలు ఏర్పడి గోధుమవర్ణం లోకి మారుతు యెండిపోతు ఉంటాయి. దీనిని నివారించడానికి పుల్లటి మజ్జిగ ను లేదా సొంటిపాల కషాయం పిచికారి చేయవలెను. కోటయ్యగరువు, దబ్బిరాజు పేట,Sksr పురం, కె.జీ పూడి,పోతుబంధివానిపాలెం,వెంకటయ్యపాలెం,గుడివాడగ్రామాలలో మామిడిలో తేనెమంచు పురుగు ఉదృతి ఎక్కువగా ఉంది దీని వల్ల పువ్వు నల్లగా మారి మసిపూసినట్టుగా ఉండి పూత, పిందె పండుబారి రాలిపోతుంది. దీని నివారణకు పేడ+మూత్రం+ఇంగువ ద్రావనం లేదా 6lt పుల్లటిమజ్జిగ+6lt ఆవు మూత్రం ను 100లీ. నీటిలో కలిపి చెట్టు మొత్తం తడిచేల పిచికారి చేసుకోవలెను.మరింత సమాచారం కోసం 8500983300 ఈ నంబర్ కు కాల్ చేయండి.
Date: 9-3-2022 Centre for Sustainable Agriculture-Vepada farm advisory వేపాడ మండలం లో రాగల ఐదు రోజులు వాతావరణ సూచన – వర్షం కురిసే సూచన లేదు. గరిష్ట ఉష్ణోగ్రత 34-36 డిగ్రీలు, కనిష్ట ఉష్ణోగ్రత 19-20 డిగ్రీ లు గా ఉండే అవకాశం ఉంది. గాలి గంటకి 3-7కి.మి. వేగం తో వీయవచ్చు. దబ్బిరాజుపేట, ఎస్‌కేఎస్‌ఆర్ పురం, గ్రామలలో ఉల్లిలో మొదళ్లు కుళ్లిపోతున్నాయి. దీనిని నివారించడానికి జీవ శిలీంధ్రాలు అయిన ట్రైకోడెర్మా విరిడేను ఉపయోగించవలెను. రామస్వామిపేట, పి.కే.అర్. పురం, ఎస్.కే.ఎస్.అర్ పురం, చామలపల్లి గ్రామాలలో మిరపలో తామరపురుగు,తెల్లనల్లి ఉదృతి ఎక్కువగా ఉందీ దీనిని నివారించటం కోసం వేప గింజల కషాయం పిచికారి చేయవలెను మరియు ఎకరానికి 8-10జిగురు పల్లాలు పెట్టవలెను. దబ్బిరాజు పేట,Sksr పురం, కె.జీ పూడి,పోతుబంధివానిపాలెం,వెంకయ్యపాలెం గ్రామాలలో మామిడిలో పిండినల్లి ఉదృతి మార్చి, ఏప్రిల్ నెలల్లో ఎక్కువగా ఉండె అవకాశం ఉన్నందున ముందు చర్య దిసగా 10లీ.గంజి ద్రావణంను 200లీ. నీటిలో కలిపి పిచికారి చేసుకోవలెను లేదా 5% వేపగింజల కషాయం పిచికారి చేసుకోవటం వలన పిండినల్లి ఉదృతి నివారించుకోవచ్చు. మరింత సమాచారం కోసం 8500983300 ఈ నంబర్ కు కాల్ చేయండి.
Date:5-3-2022 Centre for Sustainable Agriculture-Vepada farm advisory వేపాడ మండలం లో రాగల ఐదు రోజులు వాతావరణ సూచన వర్షం కురిసే సూచన లేదు. గరిష్ట ఉష్ణోగ్రత 34-36 డిగ్రీలు, కనిష్ట ఉష్ణోగ్రత 19-20 డిగ్రీ లు గా ఉండే అవకాశం ఉంది. గాలి గంటకి 7-9కి.మి. వేగం తో వీయవచ్చు. కోటయ్య గరువు , జగ్గయ్యపేట గ్రామాల్లో వరి వేసుకున్న రైతులు ప్రతి 15 రోజులకు ఒకసారి ద్రవజీవామృతం పారించటం వలన మొక్క ఎదుగుదల మరియు దిగుబడి పెరుగుతోంది. బోద్ధాం, రామస్వామిపేట, పి.కే.అర్. పురం, ఎస్.కే.ఎస్.అర్ పురం గ్రామాలలో బీర లో పల్లాకు తెగులు ఎక్కువగా ఉందీ దీనిని నివారించటం కోసం పుల్లటి మజ్జిగ పిచికారి చేయవలెను . పి.కే.అర్. పురం, దబ్బిరాజు పేట గ్రామాలలో టోమాటోలో ఆకు మాడు తెగులు ఉదృతి ఎక్కువగా ఉందీ దీనిని నివారించడానికి రైతులు ముందుగా పొలం నుండి తెగులు సోకిన మొక్కల ను వేరుచేయాలి, తరువాత పుల్లటి మజ్జిగలో రాగిపాత్రను ఉంచి 3 రోజులు తర్వాత పిచికారి చేయవలెను. పి.కే.అర్.పురం, ధబ్బిరాజుపేట గ్రామాలలో మిరప లో ఆంత్రాక్నోస్ తెగులు ఉంది దీనిని నివారణకు పెడ+మూత్రం+ఇంగువ ద్రావనం పిచికారి చేసుకోవాలి. మరింత సమాచారం కోసం 8500983300 ఈ నంబర్ కు కాల్ చేయండి.
Date: 2-3-2022 Centre for Sustainable Agriculture-Vepada farm advisory వేపాడ మండలం లో రాగల ఐదు రోజులు వాతావరణ సూచన వర్షం కురిసే సూచన లేదు. గరిష్ట ఉష్ణోగ్రత 32-36 డిగ్రీలు, కనిష్ట ఉష్ణోగ్రత 15-12 డిగ్రీ లు గా ఉండే అవకాశం ఉంది. గాలి గంటకి 3-10కి.మి. వేగం తో వీయవచ్చు. కోటయ్య గరువు, సారవాని పాలెం,పోతుబందీపాలెం,పాతురు , వెంకయ్యపాలెం , కే. జీ పుడి, బంగారయ్య పేట, చిట్టివానిపాలెం గ్రామాలలో జీడిమామిడి పూత దశ నుండి పిందె దశకు వస్తుంది కావున పంచగవ్య పిచికారి చేసుకుంటే పిక్క బరువు ఎక్కువ గా పెరుగుతుంది. వరి లో ఆకు ముడత ఉదృతి జగ్గయ్య పేట,కోటయ్య గరువు గ్రామాలలో ఎక్కువగా ఉంది. దీనిని నివారించడానికి కంపను లాగించాలి, అలానే 5% వేప కషాయం పిచికారి చేసుకోవాలి. వంగలో కాయ తొలుచు పురుగు ఉదృతి P.K.R. పురం, SkSR పురం, కె.జి. పూడి, ఉంది దీని నివారించడానికి వేప కషాయం పిచ్చికారి చేయాలి. మరింత సమాచారం కోసం 8500983300 ఈ నంబర్ కు కాల్ చేయండి.
The distress among small farmers in India is market-driven to a large extent in both ways — too much protection (minimum support price) or too little NEXT BLOG ❯
The question of future of Indian agriculture has been around for some time now since the agrarian distress and crisis in the sector. It has become important in the context of the spate of recent reforms that include permitting private wholesale markets, contract farming, direct purchase from farmers and land leasing across states both under the earlier state-level Acts, and now under the central Acts.
But before this question is answered, it is important to profile the Indian agricultural sector and its major stakeholders, that is, land operating farmers-owners, tenants or leases.
It is common knowledge that the farm production sector contributes only 13 per cent of the gross domestic product (GDP) and engages 44 per cent workforce. This presents a dismal picture of the sector as compared with other sectors, as the earnings are poor.
It is also known that 85 per cent of India’s farmers operate less than five acres of land, half of which in many parts of India may be dry / rain-fed and only a part of their income comes from farming activity now with others coming from wages, off-farm and non-farm activities.
Farmers (especially small) suffer from product and market risks and depend on non-institutional sources of credit for productive and non-productive purposes, which are interlocked with other markets like produce in states like Punjab.
Small farmers contribute 51 per cent of agricultural output with 46 per cent of operated land, and a much higher share (70 per cent) in high-value crops. However, small farmers are less literate and from marginalised communities. They are generally excluded from modern market arrangements such as contract farming or direct purchase.
Agricultural reforms
In this context, the recent reforms aim at bringing new investments in the farm sector, especially from the private corporate sector — domestic and global. It is assumed that in order to get such investments, deregulation of the sector is needed in terms of output market and farm input as well as services market and land market.
However, what is forgotten is that the scale is neither needed nor possible through the kind of reform and channels being undertaken; they have little to do with farm size, with the exception of land leasing law and the opening up of ceilings of land holdings. This may have many other contextual limitations like large landlessness and farmer attachment to land more as a sustenance or moral economy of the peasant.
Some land-related reforms may not happen that easily. But, better access to land for marginal and landless farmers and, even more crucially, equitable access to water, is a must to improve the performance of the sector.
However, most of the above assumptions are either faulty or deliberately misperceived. For example, many studies show that small farms produce as much as or higher value of output per unit area than that produced by the medium or large farms, which refutes the argument that small farms cannot be the future of Indian agriculture.
For example, income from farming per month per hectare is Rs 4,236 in Bihar and only Rs 3,448 in Punjab because Punjab is less diversified (only 11 per cent area under F&V in Punjab compared with 35 per cent in Bihar) in its cropping pattern compared with Bihar, though it does not have efficient or regulated agricultural markets.
The average size of farm in Bihar is only 0.39 hacs and in Punjab it is 3.62 hacs. Therefore, it is not the size of the farm but what a farmer does on that farm, when, how, where, why and for whom and how much, which makes it viable or not.
Given the cereals-dominated cropping pattern, farmers can only earn so much from the small farms. This is evident in the fact that a majority of the famers cultivate paddy and wheat in significant part of gross cropped area (69 per cent in Punjab and 40 per cent in Bihar). There are limits to how much they can earn as price (MSP, which drives market prices) is given and available only to a fraction of farmers (less than 10 per cent), yields are given and cost of production can’t be manipulated much.
Market risks
Even in other crops, only a very small fraction of farmers get MSP benefit in a few states where procurement happens. Further, once the farmer takes farm produce to the mandi, s/he can’t bring it back.
The market risks include absence of market, poor price realisation, high transaction cost and poor bargaining power due to small size of marketed surplus, leading to low and unstable farm incomes of producers.
It is here that the role of market becomes crucial: Even if a farmer has produced efficiently but is not able to sell it well, the story is lost. Imagine the gains for Bihar farmers if it had Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) markets and other marketing channels which are being promoted now and larger procurement at MSP.
Incidentally, Bihar has not seen too many farmer suicides, unlike Punjab. Therefore, MSP culture and too much reliance on low-value land intensive crops has been the culprit in many suicide-prone areas.
The distress among small farmers in India is, therefore, market-driven to a large extent in both ways — too much protection (MSP) or too little.
The problem of small farmer livelihood is also aggravated due to small farmers suffering from several production risks such as drought, flood, lack of adequate use of inputs, poor extension leading to large yield gap, crop failure, etc.
The production risk coverage, being attempted though crop insurance, has not worked well. It has been made voluntary for farmers and would further reduce the insured area from already inadequate coverage of 30 per cent.
Most problematic is the farmers’ reliance on traders, commission agents and moneylenders for credit, for institutional credit reaches only 65 per cent of them and more of small and marginal farmers are excluded from this net.
This private source borrowing leads to interlocking of credit and output, input and output, and credit and input markets where there is implicit over-pricing of farm inputs and under-pricing of farm output of the farmers. They can’t access other channels even if they offer better prices, as they don’t offer credit to farmers who are tied to traders and agents.
This restricts their freedom to choose channels provided by new APMC Acts and now central Acts. Further, if smallholders and tenants belong to lower castes, their access to credit may be limited either by way of complete denial of credit to such groups / persons or costly access because of higher rate of interest charged or unfavourable terms of repayment.
This makes their farming enterprise unviable. It is important to realise that smallholders suffer from high market and price fluctuation risk as well as institutional mechanisms to deal with. The prices are still determined and driven by APMC markets, which are still not adequately regulated and, in many cases, mistreat farmers.
New market channels (like contract farming and direct purchase) may emerge, but small farmers will continue to depend on APMC markets for many commodities.
Therefore, it is important to ensure fair functioning of such markets in terms of open auction, proper unloading and storage / handling of farmer produce especially perishable, which is generally auctioned from road side and filthy grounds and stopping of commission being charged to farmer sellers even in regulated markets in some states.
APMC markets also serve as the main competitors to contract farming and direct purchase channels that discover their prices based on APMC prices. Therefore, their better functioning can improve the terms offered to contract growers and direct sellers.
The future of agriculture in India depends on many existing and missing policies and directions of policy reforms. But, it is sad to note that India does not have a policy for the same. The sector loses its policy focus as it is a state subject, but practically being run by the Centre for long time. When the sector is faced with economic, social and environmental crisis, absence of policy is the major factor in the crisis not being attended by any stakeholder.
A pessimistic approach to farm sector saying it contributes only 13 per cent of GDP and engages 44 per cent workforce and, therefore, is as a liability, is the root cause of the policy distortions. On the other hand, if agricultural sector is seen as agribusiness sector that includes all activities performed on farm-based and allied raw produce right up to the retailing stage, it still contributes almost 25 per cent of GDP.
This perspective, argued by the author since 2007 and was recently acknowledged by World Bank, can pave the way for more meaningful policy and regulation for the sector. This perspective is needed to sustain livelihoods in this sector and avoid distress diversification or movement of people away from the sector.
Looking beyond market
Therefore, solutions go beyond produce markets; recent reforms are more about regulatory changes that do not really concern a majority of Indian farmers as they do not have access to APMC markets and other modern channels such as contract farming.
But, small farmers need to collectivise into groups and FPOs to lower transaction cost for private buyers and gain bargaining power in new markets.
Warehouse receipts system needs to be extended to all crops with expansion of facility to free farmers from credit and output linkage and avoid distress sale immediately after harvest and even get out of the inter-locked market situation.
There is no need for co-operative farming given the efficiency of even small farms. What is needed is pre-production and post production aggregation to buy better and sell better or to capture higher surplus in the food and fibre value chains.
Corporate farming has not worked anywhere globally and should not be encouraged in India; contract farming and producer agency through local institutions and networks can help sector perform better. Equally important is to train farm and allied sector workers, including women workers, to enable them to participate in modern and sustainable farm production.
The sector needs to engage with fair and responsible production and trade issues on a priority basis even for domestic markets. It is important to recognise that what matters is not just physical activities of the sector but its occupants and their livelihoods that would lead to more people-centric and meaningful policies.
A combination of livelihoods and agribusiness or value chain approach can help leverage the sector for betterment of its stakeholders i.e. farmers, workers and others around it.
Therefore, there is a need for a policy at union and state levels and even more effective regulation to protect small producer interest in a globalised market context to leverage the strengths of modern and large players in the agribusiness value chains for a win-win for all stakeholders involved so that inclusive and effective sustainable agricultural development could be attempted.
Therefore, there is a need for institutional innovations besides product, process and organisational innovations in the sector to deal with existing and emerging challenges and problems of sustainability in the sector which can be converted into opportunities.
The future of Indian agribusiness, including agriculture, would be bright if it is attended with people’s institutions like co-operatives and FPCs rather than relying mostly on corporate agencies.
CORRIGENDUM: This article was corrected on January 28, 2021 to change to All agro-ecological farmers need special incentives not only in lieu of subsidies on chemical fertilisers from All agro-ecological farmers need special incentives not only through subsidies on chemical fertilizers as was originally published (date). The error is regretted.
The three contentious farm laws have forced us to think about the future of agriculture in a largely agrarian country dominated by small and marginal farmers. The prevalent chemical-intensive, monocrop-based, market-purchased-input dependent model has not only failed to benefit majority of the farmers but has also proved to be an ecological, social and financial failure.
Genetically modified crops have led to increased use of agrochemicals, failed to sustain the yield gains and increased control of corporations through intellectual property rights. Promoting unregulated private trade of farm produce is a part of the same paradigm.
India’s centuries-old farm practices are based on the principles of sustainability, innovative, hard-working and entrepreneurial farmers. Agro-ecology-based farming and its large network of scientific institutions combined with political will can certainly change the direction of farming in the country.
The paradigm shift has to begin with changing the mindset of policy makers from production-centric to sustainability-focused. They have yet to gain confidence in agro-ecological model of farming.
Boost agro-science
Recent attempts by NITI Aayog are welcome but unfortunately, they are primarily based on faith rather than science and evidence. India needs a good blend of wisdom of our traditions and techniques generated through globally used sustainability-focused science.
Unlike the green revolution, technological package under agro-ecology cannot be uniform. Each farm is unique. So, farmers should be exposed to some basic principles of agro-ecology and simple techniques, and then left free to experiment, innovate and implement what suites the local conditions.
Experience of the Krishipandits of immediate post-independence period, who were getting record yields with the use of local seeds and chemical-free techniques a decade prior to the green revolution, never became a part of syllabus in agricultural universities. Great scientists like Albert Howard, who appreciated the richness of traditional Indian agriculture a century ago, are still unknown to most of our farm scientists.
It is time to correct this mistake. We need to consider implementing a programme of re-learning farm sciences with a systematic approach and with help from successful agro-ecological farmers.Regulate input dealers
Knowledge system of our immensely talented farmers is dying under the influence of agro-input dealers. It was recently found that by providing credit, thousands of farmers around Muniguda (Odisha) were tempted to cultivate illegal herbicide-tolerant cotton along with uncontrolled use of toxic pesticides, polluting pristine forest.
Does this not amount to luring them in to a debt trap? Agro-input companies need to be regulated better urgently.
While farmers must have freedom to sell their produce to anyone they wish to, it should be a level playing field. During the last decade, most states have allowed private mandis, facilitated contract farming. Encouraging farmer producer organisers (FPO) and farmer-consumer markets eased interstate and e-trading though in a regulated manner.
Unregulated free trade, however, has led to distress, especially for small farmers in other countries. There is no reason to believe that such unregulated private market will bring different outcomes in India.
Even in India, there are enough examples showing failure of free market in states like Bihar and in the sugar industry. The diverse nature of Indian agriculture and its agri-markets can be better managed by respective state governments.
‘One size fit for all’ is an ill-advised change. Priority should be given to farmer-friendly marketing approaches like farmers’ market, farm shops and value addition at farm or village level.
FPOs are also not easy to set up everywhere. Difficulties start with convincing the farmers to cooperate, registering the FPO and complying with the official requirements.
Lucrative organic farming
Generally organic farmers are better placed to sell their produce but there is an urgent need to invest in ‘ease of doing business’ for farmers and their groups by giving exemptions in taxation and regulation. Farmers cannot be left at the mercy of private companies without strengthening their bargaining power.
Private companies should be regulated through licensing, transparency, bank guarantee, technology verifications, minimum support price, farmer-friendly conflict resolution mechanisms, compulsions related to infrastructure development and capping their procurements and stockings. There is certainly no place for corporate farming in the Indian context.
With the shrinking size of land-holding, co-operative and collective approaches seem to be the most viable option. The fruit, vegetable and sugar co-operatives in south Gujarat provide good examples.
APMCs need to be better regulated and guarded from influence of political powers.
All agro-ecological farmers need special incentives not only in lieu of subsidies on chemical fertilisers, which is around Rs 4,500 per hectare per year but also for providing ecological services like higher carbon sequestration, reducing water and energy use, improving soil health, conserving rain water, conserving bio-diversity through mixed cropping, live hedges and crop rotations as well as for not polluting environment.
Why do we need multinationals to convert potatoes into chips? Agro-processing as well as production of various kinds of microbial and botanical products is not rocket science and can be easily done at farm/village level with little scientific training and investment. It can employ millions of rural youth.
Seeds bred locally are the best bets. Seed-breeding famers, especially women, who are the real inventors and conservators of our seed heritage, need encouragement.
There is a great scope to recycle nutrients and energy contained in the biomass by implementing scientific composting programmes with the help of special microbial inoculants and small machinery in villages. Urban areas should return the nutrients drained from agricultural soil. Biogas-manure plants, from farm to city levels, need special boost. Locally available agri-inputs will reduce the cost of production and farmers’ money will circulate locally.
Most crops responded positively to organic practices and produced the same or higher yield (by 4 per cent to 14 per cent) after the conversion period of 2–3 years, according to studies conducted by Indian Council of Agriculture Research on organic farming.
This confirms the experience of thousands of farmers of almost all states including heartland of chemical farming like Punjab and Haryana, where many organic farmers did not have to compromise on yields along with reduced market dependence. They also managed to stay away from debt traps.
The large-scale adoption of organic farming in government and NGO programmes in Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana is proof that we have the requisite institutional capabilities as well.
Agro-ecology-based farming is not a fantasy; it is a well-established profession based on progressive science and technology. India can even lead global agriculture to this path.
The current farm protests should open our eyes and this should be considered as the ‘Tamasomajyotirgamaya’ moment of Indian agriculture whose future lies in true spirit of Atmanirbharata.
The debate on agricultural issues must take into account the changed geography of procurement and the seller’s profile
According to one definition, a factoid is “an item of unreliable information that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact”. After the passage of the three controversial farm laws, the Minimum Support Price (MSP) — not mentioned in the laws — has gained a lot of attention. The predominance of factoids about MSP and procurement has meant that the debate has yielded more chaff than grain.
The MSP is meant to set a floor below which prices do not fall, and is announced by the government for 23 commodities. It is the price at which the government ‘promises’ to buy from farmers if market prices fall below it. In fact, however, government procurement is heavily concentrated on wheat and rice, with other crops barely being procured.
Over the years, factoids about the MSP and government procurement have gained so much traction that the retired gentleman in the local park cites them as facts. These pertain to how many have benefited from the MSP and who has benefited from it. According to these popular beliefs, few (6%) farmers benefit, only large farmers benefit, and only farmers of Punjab and Haryana (to some extent, western Uttar Pradesh) benefit.
More States under MSP
In a forthcoming paper, we use data on State-wise procurement from the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and agricultural household data for 2012-13 from the National Sample Survey (NSS), after which these data are not available, to set the record straight on these three factoids.
One, the 6% figure from the NSS data 2012-13 relates to paddy and wheat alone. Even here, however, among those who sold any paddy/wheat, the numbers are higher — 14% and 16%.
Two, the Government of India has made a systematic effort to expand the reach of MSP to more States, via the Decentralized Procurement (DCP) Scheme. Introduced in 1997-98, it was not very popular in the initial years and began to be adopted by States in earnest only around 2005. Under the DCP scheme, the responsibility of procurement devolved to the State governments which were reimbursed pre-approved costs. FCI data suggest that by July 2015, as many as 15 States had taken up this programme, though not all were implementing it with equal enthusiasm. Largely on account of it, procurement began moving out of ‘traditional’ States (such as Punjab, Haryana, western Uttar Pradesh). Until 2000, barely 10% of wheat and rice was procured outside the traditional States. By 2012-13, the share of the DCP States rose to 25-35%.
In the case of paddy, Chhattisgarh and Odisha have been the star performers. These States today contribute about 10% each to the total paddy procurement in the country. For wheat, decentralised procurement has taken off in Madhya Pradesh in a big way, accounting for approximately 20% of wheat procurement. In 2020-21, wheat procurement from Madhya Pradesh surpassed that from even Punjab. Among agricultural households which sell paddy under the procurement system, while 9% and 7% come from Punjab and Haryana, 11% are in Odisha and 33% are in Chhattisgarh. An overwhelming majority of agricultural households selling wheat to the procurement agencies come from Madhya Pradesh (33%) compared to 22% from Punjab and 18% from Haryana. That only Punjab and Haryana farmers have benefited from the MSP is now truly a thing of the past.
Which farmer benefits
Three, as per the factoid, only large farmers have benefited. In fact, procurement has benefited the small and marginal farmers in much bigger numbers than medium and large farmers. At the all-India level, among those who sold paddy to the government, 1% were large farmers, owning over 10 hectares of land. Small and marginal farmers, with less than 2 hectares accounted for 70%. The rest (29%) were medium farmers (2-10 hectares).
In the case of wheat, 3% of all wheat-selling farmers were large farmers. More than half (56%) were small and marginal farmers.
In Punjab and Haryana, the share of small and marginal farmers is not insignificant (38% and 58%, respectively, among paddy sellers). In the non-traditional States that adopted the DCP scheme, the overwhelming majority of farmers who sell to State procurement agencies are small and marginal. In Chhattisgarh and Odisha, for example, small and marginal farmers comprise 70-80% of all sellers to government agencies. Similarly, in Madhya Pradesh, nearly half (45%) of those who sell wheat to government agencies are small or marginal farmers.
To recap, the facts are as follows: one, the proportion of farmers who benefit from (even flawed) government procurement policies is not insignificant. Two, the geography of procurement has changed in the past 15 years. It is less concentrated in traditional States such as Punjab, Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh, as DCP States such as Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Odisha have started participating more vigorously. Three, perhaps most importantly — it is predominantly the small and marginal farmers who have benefited from the MSP and procurement, even if the size of the benefits may be larger for larger farmers. This is true not just in the DCP States, but also in the traditional States.
The true picture
Getting the facts right is an important first step in resolving the issues facing the agricultural sector and farmers’ issues. We have picked three factoids of many as an illustration of how little we know about how the MSP works. The range of claims made regarding, for example, the consequences of the MSP on diversification need to be examined as well. Among Punjabis who cultivated any crop, 21-37% did not grow paddy and wheat. Among all agricultural households including those which did not cultivate a crop (indicating more diversified sources of agricultural income), a larger proportion (58 and 48%, respectively) stayed away from paddy and wheat, suggesting that procurement in Punjab may not have prevented diversification to the extent we imagine.
Similarly, confusion reigns about other areas of interest from the point of view of the new farm laws. It is widely believed that for the first time, the new laws allow farmers to sell outside the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC). Even for commodities for which MSP is announced, the proportion of sales via the mandi range is only between 10-64%; the demand for the MSP originates because the prices paid outside the mandi tend to be much lower. Countrywide, sales to mandi or government procurement agencies fetched on average 13.3% higher prices for paddy and 5.8% for wheat.
We are not unsympathetic to those who question the heavy concentration of wheat and rice in government procurement (millets are better suited to agro-climatic conditions prevailing in large parts of the country, more nutritious and also grown by small and marginal farmers), to the flaws in the current mandi system, or how the MSP is implemented. Yet, the debate — popular, academic or political — on these issues must take into account the changed geography of procurement and the profile of the seller.
Prankur Gupta is at the University of Texas, Austin; Reetika Khera is at the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, and Sudha Narayanan is at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Delhi
New Delhi: India’s rural economy may be losing steam after leading the economic recovery in the first few months of the pandemic, a research report released by the State Bank of India said.
Rural unemployment rate has started rising again in August, while employment and average wages under the national rural employment guarantee scheme have fallen, the report released Thursday said (see graphic).https://5a91b5bb29ce6311ce3f9fd4b71d7416.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html
Graphic: Soham SenGraphic: Soham Sen
The report also pointed out that for 12 Indian states, more than two-thirds of the loss in gross state domestic product (GSDP) in the current fiscal was contributed by rural areas.
Chhattisgarh, Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Bihar, Odisha, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh are among the states that are seeing a substantial loss in the GSDP contributed by rural areas.
According to the report, in states like Chhattisgarh, Assam and Himachal Pradesh, more than 90 per cent of the GSDP loss is from rural areas. Bihar at 86 per cent, Odisha at 84 per cent, Uttarakhand at 79 per cent, Rajasthan at 75 per cent, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Madhya Pradesh at 71 per cent and Uttar Pradesh at 65 per cent are among the other states with high output losses from the rural sector.
Agriculture was the only silver lining
The report’s findings come at a time agriculture and rural demand are expected to be the only silver linings for the Indian economy battling Covid-19 and the economic impact of the initial two-month lockdown as well as the intermittent lockdowns announced by many states to curb the pandemic.
The GDP data released last week had also shown that agriculture was the only sector that reported a positive growth at 3.4 per cent in the April-June quarter. Other sectors such as construction, manufacturing, and hotels and transport had reported sharp contractions by 50 per cent, 39 per cent and 47 per cent, respectively.
The RBI, in its annual report released last month, had also pointed out how urban consumption demand has suffered a bigger blow than rural demand. Citing tractor sales and motorcycle purchase data, it had pointed to improved rural recovery but added, “A fuller recovery in rural demand is, however, being held back by muted wage growth which is still hostage to the migrant crisis and associated employment losses.”
It had expressed hope that increased employment generation in rural areas under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Rojgar Abhiyaan and increased wages under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act would provide a fillip to rural incomes.
The SBI, in its report, however, said mixed signals are emerging.
Tractor sales and two-wheeler sales increased in July and August but fertiliser sales and diesel consumption declined in recent months, the report said.
