Abhimanyu, the great warrior of Mahabharata, lost his life because he only knew how to get into the Chakravyuha but did not know how to get out of it. Our governments have repeatedly demonstrated how they could not get out of various subsidy and benefit programmes they launch. It is politically difficult for governments to withdraw benefits extended to segments of population including consumers, farmers, various castes and religions.
The latest food security Act has an outlay of R1.15 lakh crore. Any benefit programme should have an expiry date clearly defined at the start. Subsidies should trigger desirable behaviours; they are not permanent solutions. Every subsidy programme should generate productive economic activity. These criteria must be used for huge programmes such as MGNREGA and the Food Security Act. The beneficiaries must be precisely defined, the programme appropriately sized and the beneficiaries must generate a clearly defined economic activity.
Food security addresses only the demand side of the equation, it does not address the issue of food supply. With our population expected to touch 150 crore by 2030, unaddressed food supply issues will lead to a food crisis. We are already importing 50% of our edible oils and 20% of pulses. These numbers can become unmanageable by 2030. We need to initiate measures now so that we can meet these challenges.
We have to increase crop yield. That is the only way we can feed our growing population. Yield increases will come through the use of better seed technologies, better crop protection, better nutrition, soil management, water management and other agronomic practices.
In this context, the current debate about our agricultural subsidies violating the WTO norms needs attention. Our arguments that small and marginal farmers need various subsidies including the fertiliser subsidy and that the US gives more farm subsidies than us need to be looked at more critically. Our current fertiliser subsidy of R80,000 crore can only go up in the future. WTO argues that we are exceeding the limit of 10% on the subsidies in the Amber Box and we might be using such interventions to help our agricultural commodities compete in the international markets with unfair advantage. I am sure the government will figure out a way of dealing with the situation.
The question we have to really ask is, are farm subsidies making our farmers stronger or are they making them permanently dependent on these crutches? Most of our farm subsidies are going on for the last 50 years. Have the subsidies helped our farmers to prosper? Have they achieved world standards in yields? Has his risk-bearing ability improved? The answer is a clear no, even though the yields have gone up considerably in some crops during this period because of which we are able to feed our population. But still, like in many other crops, our rice yields are half of what China gets and are much below some of the other countries. According to the last NSS, 40% of our farmers want to quit agriculture because it is not profitable. Crisis in rain-fed areas continues.
Science and technology can help farmers to get higher yields. The phenomenal increase in cotton yields since 2002 and India turning from an importer to being the second largest exporter of cotton is an ample demonstration of what modern technologies like Bt cotton have done to the cotton farmers’ profitability.
If we want to compare with the US in terms of farm subsidies, why don’t we compare with the same country in terms of technology access for the farmer? We have exposed our farmers to global agricultural commodity prices, but we have tied their hands by denying them access to modern technologies such as GM.
Agricultural biotechnology offers nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) trait which can effectively reduce the use of nitrogenous fertilisers by over 25%.
With this technology we can reduce the cost of production for the farmer and also reduce our fertiliser subsidy bill. Similarly, water use efficiency (WUE) can reduce the need for water in our agriculture and de-risk the lives of farmers in rain-fed areas. Bt trait can reduce pesticide costs as demonstrated in cotton. We must use such technologies at the earliest so that we can progressively increase farmers’ profitability and reduce subsidies.
Seed industry had petitioned that seed subsidy may be discontinued or implemented in a way that encourages adoption of new superior hybrids, varieties or technologies and allows the farmer to exercise his choice based on his preference for a certain variety or hybrid.
We need more investments in research and innovation in seeds, crop protection, nutrition, farm mechanisation, agronomic practices, storage and processing. This will ensure a continuous flow of science and technology into our farms which is critical to enhance our yields.
Lack of infrastructure is another area that weakens our farmers. Roads, irrigation, storage and power are the major infrastructural bottlenecks. Bottlenecks related to the marketing of agricultural produce (APMC Act) bog our farmers down. We need to fix these constraints through investments and policy, and use modern IT and communication technologies to provide information, education and trading platforms for the farmers.
The farmer is involved in the production process. He understands input-output ratios. He is the best judge of what is good for him. He is ready to pay for good quality products and services; we saw him readily agree to pay higher price for power in Gujarat when continuous supply of power was there. He is more interested in accessing yield-enhancing technologies and infrastructure facilities rather than subsidies. Let us give him that. Let us make him strong enough to face the world by equipping him with science, technology and infrastructure.
By Ram Kaundinya
The author is director general, the Association of Biotech-Led Enterprises-Agriculture Group (ABLE-AG)
