Running agriculture ministry is not cricket, Mr Minister

Agronomics

Amir Ullah Khan | Delhi | 15 August 2008 |

He claims to be a farmer leader, but Mr Sharad Pawar has not bothered to help apple growers

The poor horticulturist in Kashmir watches as his apples rot and hoodlums block his trucks transporting his stuff to the market. Why is the agriculture minister not offering to airlift Kashmir’s produce to Delhi?

It is important to realise that growth in agriculture and access to markets for the small farmer is critical if the agriculture sector is to grow. Further, this is crucial if the overall growth rate of 8-10 per cent is to be sustained. That is why institutions such as the Indian Agriculture Research Institute, the Food Corporation of India and the Commission on Agricultural Costs and Prices that have failed to perform their duties need to be thoroughly revamped. Maybe the alternative is to give Mr Pawar independent charge of a ministry for cricket and get someone else with more time to head the agriculture ministry. If this does not help the farmer, it will at least help save us a repeat of the embarrassment against Sri Lanka in the threematch series.

Food prices are increasing and almost everyone is worried on behalf of the poor. Ironically, this is happening when productivity is at an all-time high. The yield rates for most crops in India are far below that in other countries. India is ranked second both in area and output for sugarcane production and is the largest producer of milk, tea and jute in the world. Except in these, India’s yields are lower than the world average. Even in the case of wheat, average yields in the Netherlands and Ireland are more than three times India’s yield rates.

Access to technology has been low and alternative distribution channels for marketing, seeds and technology have not evolved. Farmer organisations remain weak. Who should be held responsible? Is it the agriculture minister, who claims to be a farmer leader, or a commerce minister who has been posturing at Geneva as the flag-bearer of developing country farmers across the world?

Input availability in India continues to be sub-optimal. Only 40 per cent of net sown area is irrigated and this constrains use of inputs or modern technology. Adequate seeds and pesticides are also not available. Standards are not enforced. Reservations for the small-scale industry (SSI) sector have hindered development of farm machines and implements. Flow of institutional credit is a constraint. Although 18 per cent of priority sector lending is supposed to be for this sector, agriculture’s share in net bank credit has been more like 12 per cent. States lack resources and this has adversely affected development of agricultural infrastructure. Public investments in irrigation, roads and technology upgradation have been affected. Given this background, the importance of freeing up agriculture and the need for markets, both domestic and foreign, cannot be neglected any more. The growth rate needs to be sustained and given the pervasive role of agriculture, it is axiomatic that reforms in the agriculture sector are imperative. Input subsidies leading to misuse and over use, support prices causing market distortions and the absence of market information are some of the urgent issues that need to be tackled. Is the agriculture minister not aware of these oft- repeated facts?

It is important to focus on the skewed nature of agricultural production in India. Despite oft-repeated declarations of intent on the importance of crop diversification, the agriculture sector is heavily dependent on foodgrain. The relationship between foodgrain and food security is so strong that effectively nothing is done towards diversification. As food crops suffer because of monsoons and prices, the economy suffers. On the other hand, stocks pile up and lead to some embarrassment for the policy maker. Productivity levels continue to stagnate, putting greater pressure on land and other resources. Intensive agriculture gives way to an extensive route and yields do not show any growth. The commerce minister continues to pander to a lobby of exporters by ensuring the rupee is kept artificially strong, and if imports become expensive and food prices rise, too bad.

Secondly, there is a need to focus on the rural employment scenario, an issue much neglected so far. The pattern of employment as it has emerged is indeed a cause of concern. In 1951, 70 per cent of the total workforce was engaged in agriculture – in 2001, this had dropped to 59 per cent. The proportion of labourers increased from 20 to 27 per cent and cultivators declined from 50 to 32 per cent. In Australia, 6 per cent of the work force is engaged in agriculture and in France, only 7 per cent. Even in Egypt, the work force in agriculture is less than 35 per cent.

Last, look at the disturbing trend in exports. Indian agriculture contributes only 14 per cent of total export earnings. If overall export growth rate should be taken to the target of 25 per cent a year, it is imperative that agri-exports go up and processed food replaces primary farm commodities in the export basket. Does Mr Kamal Nath care?

Amir Ullah Khan, a former IAS Officer, is a fellow with the India Development Foundation