Punjab’s agri draft policy fails to tick all the boxes

THE absence of an agricultural policy in Punjab is baffling, given that there are policies for the industry and other sectors. In the past decade, two drafts remained on paper only. Now, we have a draft of the much-awaited agricultural policy in the public domain almost a year after it was submitted. Let us hope that this will not meet the fate of previous drafts. However, it had a flawed start as the policy committee was set up without any terms of reference (ToR); the committee, too, did not deem it fit to frame the ToR.

The policy vision “to continuously improve the livelihoods of farmers, farm workers and those dependent on agriculture by making farming healthier, profitable and globally competitive... for future generations” is silent on the sector’s social sustainability, which includes equity, concern for small producers, etc. In 2018-19, 27.8 per cent of the area in Punjab was under lease. Some field-based studies suggest it to be even 50 per cent in some regions.

The practice of reverse tenancy and a reduction of small and marginal farmers in the state’s agriculture, both in terms of numbers (35 per cent of the total, compared to India’s 86 per cent) and the area operated by them (9 per cent against 45 per cent in the country), underline the need for incorporating this sustainability dimension. The draft proposes land leasing reforms but fails to mention the draft land leasing Bill, which is problematic. Punjab can end up with only large farmers with higher incomes if the policy remains blind to social sustainability.

The report terms the task of rejuvenating the agriculture sector as a ‘holy’ one by setting up a system and the use of science, which can lead to agricultural per capita income being comparable to other sectors of the economy. It is difficult to understand how the farm sector can create value comparable to that in other sectors. The very idea of such a ‘holy task’ makes the theory of structural transformation stand on its head.

The major objective of the policy — to promote healthier agricultural production, value addition and marketing systems for globally competitive agriculture — is intended to be achieved through the cooperative mode. This is like betting on a lame horse, as traditional and state-controlled cooperatives have failed in Punjab or are no more than a part of the state system. The report itself confirms this when it says that these public sector organisations should not behave like private enterprises to earn super-normal profits.

Terming these agencies as PSUs also reflects the poor understanding of the committee. Unfortunately, the more promising alternative of farmer producer organisations (FPOs) is not even recognised in the draft policy when the Centre is promoting it with plenty of resources. There are more than 25,000 such entities in India, while Punjab has only a few dozen despite having a so-called FPO policy since 2018.

It is surprising that the draft has not specified any time frame for achieving the objectives and has no milestones, except in saving water. It was important to specify these, as by the time the policy is finalised and as and when accepted for implementation, just two years will be left for the present government to deliver on it.

The biggest weakness of the draft is its neglect of the marketing issues of the state’s farm sector, which are well known and debated for long. It recognises that there is a potential (not real) exploitation of farmers by commission agents. But it does not suggest the abolition of commission agents unlike Madhya Pradesh, which did it decades ago.

It is a sad commentary on the agricultural markets of the state that today no farmer can sell directly, and no buyer can buy directly in the state’s agricultural markets, especially grain markets. The irony is that the state has not conducted elections to APMCs (Agricultural Produce Market Committees) for more than 40 years, and this absence of governance has not been even pointed out.

Opening up of regulatory market space can provide alternative marketing channels for farmers; that too has not been discussed. Another doable mechanism that can protect farmers from low prices and exploitative credit linkage — warehouse receipts — does not even find a mention in the report.

The draft recommends a legal guarantee of procurement of all crops, including perishables like milk and poultry, at the MSP and a state-level commission to provide cost estimates for all produce to determine the MSP. How can a committee make such definitive recommendations regarding the MSP issue that is not even a state mandate? It is also not clear why the committee did not propose a state-level mechanism for MSP for perishable produce like in Kerala or Haryana. It could have mandated all purchases in APMC mandis at or above the MSP for all buyers under the APMC Act as in MP’s legislation. It also goes beyond its mandate while recommending 200 days of MGNREGA (Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act) work as this is not a state government programme.

The report points out that the power subsidy per connection varies from a low of

Rs 21,234 to as high as Rs 89,556 across districts. Sadly, it does not recognise the equity issue in this wherein bigger and better-placed farmers get bigger subsidies and those who don’t own tubewells (mostly small and marginal farmers) are left out. It is also a wasteful subsidy which perpetuates the cultivation of paddy (except basmati), which should be eliminated from the state. The committee should not have been so mindful of political considerations if it was serious about addressing the issues of the sector and farmers therein. A policy should be framed at the level of ideas and innovations with adequate reference to various worldviews on the state’s farm sector, which, unfortunately, are found missing in this draft policy.