The government should provide additional funds as well as incentives in the upcoming Budget to promote indigenous farm research, oilseeds production, food processing and organic farming for the overall growth of the agriculture sector, according to industry experts.

The direct benefit transfer (DBT) scheme should be utilised more to support farmers instead of giving subsidies, they added.

"Food processing industry has played an important role in better price realisation for the farmer and reducing the cost of intermediaries. The budget must provide special incentives to food processing through incentives such as interest subvention, lower taxes, access to technology and so on," DCM Shriram Chairman and Senior MD Ajay Shriram said.

Referring to the successful PM-KISAN scheme under which Rs 6,000 is paid annually directly into farmers bank accounts, he said the DBT mechanism should be fine-tuned and gradually should be utilized to support farmers in lieu of other subsidies.

"Let the farmer decide how to judicially use the money. With the benefit of DBT, farmers can then buy better seed, use new-age fertilizers, optimize water usage and so on," Shriram said.

Stating that many Indian startups have invested in the agri-technology space, he advocated for a policy that encourages growth of these companies and adoption of latest techniques.

He said there has not been any significant breakthrough in recent years from indigenous agricultural research and development (R&amp;D) and this could be partly on account of resource crunch.

"Two areas that need immediate attention are firstly linking agricultural research with industry requirements and secondly avoiding ideological resistance to new-age technologies such GM crops," Shriram said.

Consulting firm Deloitte India suggested that more funds should be allocated for research and development as well as for increasing the domestic production of oilseeds to reduce imports of cooking oils.

Stating that livestock farming is one of the key pillars for augmenting farmers' income, the consulting firm said one of the big impediments for development of this sector is the prevalence of various diseases that affect mortality, productivity, and overall production.

"Supply of vaccines is not adequate to address the increasing demand. Funding for developing vaccines and creating necessary infrastructure would be required in this budget," Deloitte said. 
Chirag Arora, Founder, Organisch Overseas, said the government must encourage farmers to adopt organic farming.

"The need of the hour is to encourage the private sector into the space by offering tax incentives to startups venturing into this domain. It also needs to augment investment on creation of cold-chains and increase storage capabilities," Arora said.

Last month, in a virtual pre-budget consultation with the finance ministry, Bharat Krishak Samaj (BKS) had said that the government should incentivise balanced use of fertilisers by increasing urea price and lowering rates of phosphatic and potassic (P&amp;K) nutrients in the upcoming Budget.

BKS Chairman Ajay Vir Jakhar had also sought reduction in taxes on diesel and transport subsidy on fruits and vegetables, but demanded tax on unhealthy foods. He had pitched for tripling investment for micro-irrigation and solar pumps for individual farmers as well as funding for distribution of soil moisture measuring sensors.

"Prioritize investment in human resources over infrastructure. There are about 50 per cent vacancies in agriculture research institutions across India. Target 2 per cent expenditure on agri R&amp;D of agriculture GDP over the next few years," BKS had said.

The government should provide additional funds as well as incentives in the upcoming Budget to promote indigenous farm research, oilseeds production, food processing and organic farming for the overall growth of the agriculture sector, according to industry experts.

The government should provide additional funds as well as incentives in the upcoming Budget to promote indigenous farm research, oilseeds production, food processing and organic farming for the overall growth of the agriculture sector, according to industry experts. The direct benefit transfer (DBT) scheme should be utilised more to support farmers instead of giving subsidies, they added. "Food processing industry has played an important role in better price realisation for the farmer and reducing the cost of intermediaries. The budget must provide special incentives to food processing through incentives such as interest subvention, lower taxes, access to technology and so on," DCM Shriram Chairman and Senior MD Ajay Shriram said. Referring to the successful PM-KISAN scheme under which Rs 6,000 is paid annually directly into farmers bank accounts, he said the DBT mechanism should be fine-tuned and gradually should be utilized to support farmers in lieu of other subsidies. "Let the farmer decide how to judicially use the money. With the benefit of DBT, farmers can then buy better seed, use new-age fertilizers, optimize water usage and so on," Shriram said. Stating that many Indian startups have invested in the agri-technology space, he advocated for a policy that encourages growth of these companies and adoption of latest techniques. He said there has not been any significant breakthrough in recent years from indigenous agricultural research and development (R&D) and this could be partly on account of resource crunch. "Two areas that need immediate attention are firstly linking agricultural research with industry requirements and secondly avoiding ideological resistance to new-age technologies such GM crops," Shriram said. Consulting firm Deloitte India suggested that more funds should be allocated for research and development as well as for increasing the domestic production of oilseeds to reduce imports of cooking oils. Stating that livestock farming is one of the key pillars for augmenting farmers' income, the consulting firm said one of the big impediments for development of this sector is the prevalence of various diseases that affect mortality, productivity, and overall production. "Supply of vaccines is not adequate to address the increasing demand. Funding for developing vaccines and creating necessary infrastructure would be required in this budget," Deloitte said. Chirag Arora, Founder, Organisch Overseas, said the government must encourage farmers to adopt organic farming. "The need of the hour is to encourage the private sector into the space by offering tax incentives to startups venturing into this domain. It also needs to augment investment on creation of cold-chains and increase storage capabilities," Arora said. Last month, in a virtual pre-budget consultation with the finance ministry, Bharat Krishak Samaj (BKS) had said that the government should incentivise balanced use of fertilisers by increasing urea price and lowering rates of phosphatic and potassic (P&K) nutrients in the upcoming Budget. BKS Chairman Ajay Vir Jakhar had also sought reduction in taxes on diesel and transport subsidy on fruits and vegetables, but demanded tax on unhealthy foods. He had pitched for tripling investment for micro-irrigation and solar pumps for individual farmers as well as funding for distribution of soil moisture measuring sensors. "Prioritize investment in human resources over infrastructure. There are about 50 per cent vacancies in agriculture research institutions across India. Target 2 per cent expenditure on agri R&D of agriculture GDP over the next few years," BKS had said.

Union Budget 2021: Govt should provide additional funds, incentives for agriculture sector, say experts

Monsoon rains in India in the week through to Wednesday were above average for a third straight week, the India Meteorological Department (IMD) said, with floods hitting many districts in the central parts of the country and damaging crops such as soybean and pulses.

Monsoon rains are crucial to farm output and economic growth because the agricultural sector accounts for about 15 per cent of India's $2.5 trillion economy.

India received 38 per cent more rainfall than the 50-year average in the week to September 18, data from IMD showed, with central India receiving 63 per cent more rain.

Overall, India has received 5 per cent more rain than average since the start of the monsoon season on June 1.

Monsoon rains in India in the week through to Wednesday were above average for a third straight week, the India Meteorological Department (IMD) said, with floods hitting many districts in the central parts of the country and damaging crops such as soybean and pulses.

Monsoon rains in India in the week through to Wednesday were above average for a third straight week, the India Meteorological Department (IMD) said, with floods hitting many districts in the central parts of the country and damaging crops such as soybean and pulses. Monsoon rains are crucial to farm output and economic growth because the agricultural sector accounts for about 15 per cent of India's $2.5 trillion economy. India received 38 per cent more rainfall than the 50-year average in the week to September 18, data from IMD showed, with central India receiving 63 per cent more rain. Overall, India has received 5 per cent more rain than average since the start of the monsoon season on June 1.

India's monsoon rains above-average for third straight week: IMD

The Congress promised to waive off loans to farmers in the run-up to the recent Assembly elections in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, and won the right to rule those states. Now the party has decided to keep that promise.&nbsp;

The move will make the farmers happy, no doubt. But there is also no doubt that it will leave the economy of the respective states in a mess so profound that there will be difficulty in extrication. It will also impact the banking sector. Worse, the loan waiver will not resolve the fundamental factors which lead to farmer debts.&nbsp;

Had loan write-offs been a solution, then the problem ought to have gone away a long time ago. This is not there first time that governments have decided to waive loans, but every few years of this step the issue returns to loom large on the agricultural sector. This in itself is an indicator that loan waivers are a non-workable solution. But because they have the potential to fetch votes in the short term, political parties merrily indulge in them.&nbsp;

&nbsp;Let’s look at some figures cursorily. The Congress’s promise of loan write-off to farmers could cost the public exchequer around Rs 70,000 crore — close to 48 per cent of Rajasthan's annual Budget. The Ashok Gehlot regime has little leg space to go in for additional borrowings because out of the borrowing capacity of Rs 36,000 crore in the budget, it has already drawn Rs 25,000 crore. &nbsp;

The situation in Madhya Pradesh is no less worrisome. Farm loan waiver here comes with a cost of roughly Rs 50,000 crore. The Congress had proclaimed that it had inherited empty coffers from the previous Bharatiya Janata Party regime. A former BJP Minister is reported to have said every citizen of the state had an average debt burden of Rs 13,853 as of March 31, 2016.&nbsp;

But, having promised the write-off, the Congress regimes in the two states now have to deliver. One possibility to soften the blow is for the mandarins to work out a formula based on cut-off dates and kinds of loans taken — which will enhance the prospect of selective waiver of the loans. That will, of course, lead to resentment among those that are left out, with such annoyance being exploited by political rivals of the Congress. &nbsp;

And yet, the issue really should not be about politics, because no political party has been averse to adopting this quick-fix solution to an issue that demands structural changes. Why are huge loans taken by farmers even as they know it will be difficult for them to repay? And why then are they unable to face the problems they anticipated well in time in most cases? &nbsp;A simple answer would be that at the end of the day, their earnings fall far short of the investments they have made. Depending upon this gap, the farmer either falls into a vicious debt — taking one loan (often at higher rates from a money-lender) to repay another — or in desperation ends his life. On most occasions, the second follows the first.&nbsp;

Most experts agree that the essence of the solution to the problem lies in the following: Reduction in input costs; diversification of crops; increase in non-farm activities and incomes for farmers; effective crop insurances schemes.&nbsp;

In the first case, the cost of fertilisers, seeds, labour, machinery etc is factored. Small land-holders are not in a position to avail of high-end technology, and so they have to essentially depend on economical availability of seeds and fertilisers. The second, crop diversification, is not just essential to spread the risk but also necessary to promote cultivation of cash crops. Non-farm activities would include income generating sources that are available to the farmer near to his place. Informed commentators accept that for the small and marginal farmers, farming alone is not going to take care of his and his family’s costs and rising aspirations. MNREGA has been one supplementer, now that the scheme has been further enhanced. But that too is not enough. More avenues such as poultry, pisciculture, floriculture etc are to be adopted.&nbsp;

And finally, a good crop insurance scheme that does not milk the beneficiary needs to be put in place. Although the Modi government had recently announced an ambitious crop insurance scheme, experts pointed to certain drawbacks in it, and there are reports that the government is considering a tweak to weed out the defects. &nbsp;

But it has to work harder on the other aspects, such as providing the input subsidies directly into the account of the farmers through Direct Benefit Transfer, instead of through the firms. There is also the issue of the e-National Agriculture Market (e-NAM), established to empower farmers into getting better prices for their produce. The e-NAM is working well in certain regulated markets, but just limping along in many others. &nbsp;

The political cost of ignoring farmer distress is obvious enough; the economic costs are huge too. Let’s not forget that the agricultural sector employs 53 per cent of the country’s workforce but contributes to only under 18 per cent of its GDP (2015-16). 
 
While we are among the world’s top producers of various agricultural commodities, over the years the share of agriculture imports has risen ( from 2.8 per cent in 1990-91 to 4.2 per cent in 2014-15) while that of exports has come down (18.5 per cent in 1990-91 to 12.5 in 2014-15). The need of the hour, therefore, is a holistic and not a populist approach. &nbsp; 
 
(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The Congress promised to waive off loans to farmers in the run-up to the recent Assembly elections in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, and won the right to rule those states.

The Congress promised to waive off loans to farmers in the run-up to the recent Assembly elections in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, and won the right to rule those states. Now the party has decided to keep that promise. The move will make the farmers happy, no doubt. But there is also no doubt that it will leave the economy of the respective states in a mess so profound that there will be difficulty in extrication. It will also impact the banking sector. Worse, the loan waiver will not resolve the fundamental factors which lead to farmer debts. Had loan write-offs been a solution, then the problem ought to have gone away a long time ago. This is not there first time that governments have decided to waive loans, but every few years of this step the issue returns to loom large on the agricultural sector. This in itself is an indicator that loan waivers are a non-workable solution. But because they have the potential to fetch votes in the short term, political parties merrily indulge in them. Let’s look at some figures cursorily. The Congress’s promise of loan write-off to farmers could cost the public exchequer around Rs 70,000 crore — close to 48 per cent of Rajasthan's annual Budget. The Ashok Gehlot regime has little leg space to go in for additional borrowings because out of the borrowing capacity of Rs 36,000 crore in the budget, it has already drawn Rs 25,000 crore. The situation in Madhya Pradesh is no less worrisome. Farm loan waiver here comes with a cost of roughly Rs 50,000 crore. The Congress had proclaimed that it had inherited empty coffers from the previous Bharatiya Janata Party regime. A former BJP Minister is reported to have said every citizen of the state had an average debt burden of Rs 13,853 as of March 31, 2016. But, having promised the write-off, the Congress regimes in the two states now have to deliver. One possibility to soften the blow is for the mandarins to work out a formula based on cut-off dates and kinds of loans taken — which will enhance the prospect of selective waiver of the loans. That will, of course, lead to resentment among those that are left out, with such annoyance being exploited by political rivals of the Congress. And yet, the issue really should not be about politics, because no political party has been averse to adopting this quick-fix solution to an issue that demands structural changes. Why are huge loans taken by farmers even as they know it will be difficult for them to repay? And why then are they unable to face the problems they anticipated well in time in most cases? A simple answer would be that at the end of the day, their earnings fall far short of the investments they have made. Depending upon this gap, the farmer either falls into a vicious debt — taking one loan (often at higher rates from a money-lender) to repay another — or in desperation ends his life. On most occasions, the second follows the first. Most experts agree that the essence of the solution to the problem lies in the following: Reduction in input costs; diversification of crops; increase in non-farm activities and incomes for farmers; effective crop insurances schemes. In the first case, the cost of fertilisers, seeds, labour, machinery etc is factored. Small land-holders are not in a position to avail of high-end technology, and so they have to essentially depend on economical availability of seeds and fertilisers. The second, crop diversification, is not just essential to spread the risk but also necessary to promote cultivation of cash crops. Non-farm activities would include income generating sources that are available to the farmer near to his place. Informed commentators accept that for the small and marginal farmers, farming alone is not going to take care of his and his family’s costs and rising aspirations. MNREGA has been one supplementer, now that the scheme has been further enhanced. But that too is not enough. More avenues such as poultry, pisciculture, floriculture etc are to be adopted. And finally, a good crop insurance scheme that does not milk the beneficiary needs to be put in place. Although the Modi government had recently announced an ambitious crop insurance scheme, experts pointed to certain drawbacks in it, and there are reports that the government is considering a tweak to weed out the defects. But it has to work harder on the other aspects, such as providing the input subsidies directly into the account of the farmers through Direct Benefit Transfer, instead of through the firms. There is also the issue of the e-National Agriculture Market (e-NAM), established to empower farmers into getting better prices for their produce. The e-NAM is working well in certain regulated markets, but just limping along in many others. The political cost of ignoring farmer distress is obvious enough; the economic costs are huge too. Let’s not forget that the agricultural sector employs 53 per cent of the country’s workforce but contributes to only under 18 per cent of its GDP (2015-16). While we are among the world’s top producers of various agricultural commodities, over the years the share of agriculture imports has risen ( from 2.8 per cent in 1990-91 to 4.2 per cent in 2014-15) while that of exports has come down (18.5 per cent in 1990-91 to 12.5 in 2014-15). The need of the hour, therefore, is a holistic and not a populist approach. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The economics and politics of loan waivers

By Michel Pimbert and Colin Anderson

It is widely agreed that today’s global agriculture system is a social and environmental failure. Business, as usual, is no longer an option: biodiversity loss and nitrogen pollution are exceeding planetary limits, and catastrophic risks of climate change demand immediate action.

Most concede that there is an urgent need to radically transform our food systems. But the proposed innovations for more sustainable food systems are drastically different. Which we choose will have long-lasting effects on human society and the planet.

Suggested innovations in food systems can be broadly understood as either seeking to conform with – or to transform – the status quo.

A technological future

Some want to keep the agriculture industry as close to existing practices as possible. This is true of the increasing number of corporate and financial actors who seek to solve the food crisis by developing new technologies. These technologies are envisaged as being part of what is being called the “fourth industrial revolution” (4IR). The “answer” here is thought to lie in a fusion of technologies that blurs the lines between physical, digital and biological domains.

For example, the World Economic Forum is currently supporting agricultural transitions in 21 countries through its “New Vision for Agriculture” initiative. This initiative supports “innovation ecosystems” to re-engineer food systems based on “12 transforming technologies”. In this imagined future, next-generation biotechnologies will re-engineer plants and animals. Precision farming will optimise the use of water and pesticides. Global food systems will rely on smart robots, blockchain and the internet of things to manufacture synthetic foods for personalised nutrition.

Like previous green revolution technologies in agriculture, this effort is designed by and for powerful agricultural giants. These technological innovations reinforce the concentration of political and economic power in the hands of a small number of corporations. Indeed, the latter has a growing monopoly control over the “12 transforming technologies” protected by patents.

Most notably, the spread of these technologies will expand the technosphere at the expense of the biosphere. Flying robots will pollinate crops instead of living bees. Automated machines will replace farmers’ work on soil preparation, seeding, weeding, fertility, pest control and harvesting of crops.

These hi-tech innovations radically depart from most farming practices. They are moving us towards an increasingly people-less food system. Yet they show a remarkable continuity with the logic of capitalist accumulation – hence their staying power despite their significant risks.

The spread of automated, de-localised and digitalised production and commercialisation of food is part of the “financialisation” of the global food system. Financial markets play an increasing role in controlling food systems from a distance. This generates huge social and human risks. For example, the significant growth in the sale and purchase of financial products linked to food commodities was one of the determining factors in the 2008 world food crisis.

Another option

But there is an alternative to this future. Agroecology involves the application of ecological principles for the design and management of sustainable agroecosystems. Our research on agroecology focuses on how it can contribute to food sovereignty, which emphasises the democratisation of food systems. Agroecology’s contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals is now recognised.

In contrast to the technological vision described above, agroecological innovations promote circular systems that involve recycling, reuse and combining resources to reduce dependency on external inputs, in particular, fossil fuels. They mimic natural cycles and the functional diversity of natural ecosystems.

Farming systems are designed in a way that is based on beneficial interactions between plants, animals and environments. Trees and shrubs might be planted amongst or around crops, say. Or two or more crops might be grown in proximity. Agroecology reduces the dependence of food producers on expensive external inputs, distant commodity markets and patented technologies. This is achieved by relying on appropriate biodiversity to ward off pests and increase farm yields.

At broader scales, agroecology involves circular systems that combine food and energy production with water and waste management. Pollution is minimised and synergies achieved by carefully clustering industries into functional wholes. The re-localisation of production and consumption within territories enhances local economic regeneration and sustainability.

Agroecological innovations in transitions to sustainable food systems are being driven largely from the bottom up by civil society, social movements and allied researchers. In this context, priorities for innovations are ones that increase citizen control for food sovereignty and decentralise power. This is in direct contrast to the monopoly control enabled by 4IR technologies.

A democratic debate

Government, civil society and private sector representatives will soon meet in Rome at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation to discuss the future of farming. Who controls the global governance of innovation will be a hotly debated topic.

But given these highly contested views on innovations for food and agriculture, it is vital that everyone is able to exercise their right to have a say on the future of their food supply. Deliberative and inclusive processes such as citizens’ juries, peoples’ assemblies and community-led participatory processes are urgently needed to decide priorities for food and agricultural innovations. This is all the more important in today’s context of rapid global change and uncertainty.

So. Do you want to live in a world in which artificial food is produced by intelligent robots and corporations that put profits before people? Or one where agroecological innovations ensure we can nourish ourselves and our communities in a fair, ecologically regenerative, and culturally rich way?

 
(Michel Pimbert Professor and Director, Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University; &nbsp;Colin Anderson&nbsp;Senior Research Fellow, Coventry University)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-battle-for-the-future-of-farming-what-you-need-to-know-106805">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) 
&nbsp;

By Michel Pimbert and Colin Anderson It is widely agreed that today’s global agriculture system is a social and environmental failure. Business, as usual, is no longer an option: biodiversity loss and nitrogen pollution are exceeding planetary limits, and catastrophic risks of climate change demand immediate action.

By Michel Pimbert and Colin Anderson It is widely agreed that today’s global agriculture system is a social and environmental failure. Business, as usual, is no longer an option: biodiversity loss and nitrogen pollution are exceeding planetary limits, and catastrophic risks of climate change demand immediate action. Most concede that there is an urgent need to radically transform our food systems. But the proposed innovations for more sustainable food systems are drastically different. Which we choose will have long-lasting effects on human society and the planet. Suggested innovations in food systems can be broadly understood as either seeking to conform with – or to transform – the status quo. A technological future Some want to keep the agriculture industry as close to existing practices as possible. This is true of the increasing number of corporate and financial actors who seek to solve the food crisis by developing new technologies. These technologies are envisaged as being part of what is being called the “fourth industrial revolution” (4IR). The “answer” here is thought to lie in a fusion of technologies that blurs the lines between physical, digital and biological domains. For example, the World Economic Forum is currently supporting agricultural transitions in 21 countries through its “New Vision for Agriculture” initiative. This initiative supports “innovation ecosystems” to re-engineer food systems based on “12 transforming technologies”. In this imagined future, next-generation biotechnologies will re-engineer plants and animals. Precision farming will optimise the use of water and pesticides. Global food systems will rely on smart robots, blockchain and the internet of things to manufacture synthetic foods for personalised nutrition. Like previous green revolution technologies in agriculture, this effort is designed by and for powerful agricultural giants. These technological innovations reinforce the concentration of political and economic power in the hands of a small number of corporations. Indeed, the latter has a growing monopoly control over the “12 transforming technologies” protected by patents. Most notably, the spread of these technologies will expand the technosphere at the expense of the biosphere. Flying robots will pollinate crops instead of living bees. Automated machines will replace farmers’ work on soil preparation, seeding, weeding, fertility, pest control and harvesting of crops. These hi-tech innovations radically depart from most farming practices. They are moving us towards an increasingly people-less food system. Yet they show a remarkable continuity with the logic of capitalist accumulation – hence their staying power despite their significant risks. The spread of automated, de-localised and digitalised production and commercialisation of food is part of the “financialisation” of the global food system. Financial markets play an increasing role in controlling food systems from a distance. This generates huge social and human risks. For example, the significant growth in the sale and purchase of financial products linked to food commodities was one of the determining factors in the 2008 world food crisis. Another option But there is an alternative to this future. Agroecology involves the application of ecological principles for the design and management of sustainable agroecosystems. Our research on agroecology focuses on how it can contribute to food sovereignty, which emphasises the democratisation of food systems. Agroecology’s contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals is now recognised. In contrast to the technological vision described above, agroecological innovations promote circular systems that involve recycling, reuse and combining resources to reduce dependency on external inputs, in particular, fossil fuels. They mimic natural cycles and the functional diversity of natural ecosystems. Farming systems are designed in a way that is based on beneficial interactions between plants, animals and environments. Trees and shrubs might be planted amongst or around crops, say. Or two or more crops might be grown in proximity. Agroecology reduces the dependence of food producers on expensive external inputs, distant commodity markets and patented technologies. This is achieved by relying on appropriate biodiversity to ward off pests and increase farm yields. At broader scales, agroecology involves circular systems that combine food and energy production with water and waste management. Pollution is minimised and synergies achieved by carefully clustering industries into functional wholes. The re-localisation of production and consumption within territories enhances local economic regeneration and sustainability. Agroecological innovations in transitions to sustainable food systems are being driven largely from the bottom up by civil society, social movements and allied researchers. In this context, priorities for innovations are ones that increase citizen control for food sovereignty and decentralise power. This is in direct contrast to the monopoly control enabled by 4IR technologies. A democratic debate Government, civil society and private sector representatives will soon meet in Rome at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation to discuss the future of farming. Who controls the global governance of innovation will be a hotly debated topic. But given these highly contested views on innovations for food and agriculture, it is vital that everyone is able to exercise their right to have a say on the future of their food supply. Deliberative and inclusive processes such as citizens’ juries, peoples’ assemblies and community-led participatory processes are urgently needed to decide priorities for food and agricultural innovations. This is all the more important in today’s context of rapid global change and uncertainty. So. Do you want to live in a world in which artificial food is produced by intelligent robots and corporations that put profits before people? Or one where agroecological innovations ensure we can nourish ourselves and our communities in a fair, ecologically regenerative, and culturally rich way? (Michel Pimbert Professor and Director, Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University; Colin Anderson Senior Research Fellow, Coventry University) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The battle for the future of farming: What you need to know

Former Prime Minister and economist Manmohan Singh today expressed his disappointment on 2018 budget presented by Arun Jaitley in the parliament on Thursday.

Contradicting policies such as increasing farmer&#39;s income in double, Manmohan Singh said unless agriculture grows at 12% such expectations can&#39;t be met.

Reacting the budget Manmohan also said that the budget for 2018-19 doesn&#39;t have provision for the schemes announced.

He also asked to have a separate discussion in parliament on the issues like farmers, job, health and education as the budget hasn&#39;t provided any assurance for the schemes that have been announced.

Arun Jaitley on Thursday presented NDA government&#39;s last full-year budget ahead of the general elections in 2019.

Jaitley had earlier tabled the &nbsp;Economic Survey on Monday targeting a 7-7.5 per cent growth in 2018-19.&nbsp;

While presenting the budget Finance minister said that the special focus has been placed on strengthening rural, agriculture economy and announced 10 trillion rupees to 11 trillion rupees credit for agricultural activities.

Jaitley also announced to double farmers&#39; income by 2022 and said, &quot;we are committed to achieving that. Our emphasis is on generating higher income for farmers.&quot;

 
&nbsp;

While presenting the budget Finance minister said that the special focus has been placed on strengthening rural, agriculture economy and announced 10 trillion rupees to 11 trillion rupees credit for agricultural activities

Former Prime Minister and economist Manmohan Singh today expressed his disappointment on 2018 budget presented by Arun Jaitley in the parliament on Thursday. Contradicting policies such as increasing farmer's income in double, Manmohan Singh said unless agriculture grows at 12% such expectations can't be met. Reacting the budget Manmohan also said that the budget for 2018-19 doesn't have provision for the schemes announced. He also asked to have a separate discussion in parliament on the issues like farmers, job, health and education as the budget hasn't provided any assurance for the schemes that have been announced. Arun Jaitley on Thursday presented NDA government's last full-year budget ahead of the general elections in 2019. Jaitley had earlier tabled the Economic Survey on Monday targeting a 7-7.5 per cent growth in 2018-19. While presenting the budget Finance minister said that the special focus has been placed on strengthening rural, agriculture economy and announced 10 trillion rupees to 11 trillion rupees credit for agricultural activities. Jaitley also announced to double farmers' income by 2022 and said, "we are committed to achieving that. Our emphasis is on generating higher income for farmers."

Budget 2018: Manmohan Singh says doubling farmers' income is not possible

We are in the fourth year of the current government and it seems that the farm sector problems have not been sorted out during these four years. We are exactly stranded at the same place where we began a decade back or maybe earlier. Despite strong pressures from the farm lobby, the stagnation in productivity and consequent low net income in the farm sector did not improve.&nbsp;

Though in the current Indian Parliament, we have a large share of Members of Parliament (MP) declaring themselves as agriculturists or farmers, so far the fact has been of little use to the farm sector. The 16th Parliament has 53.8% of the total lawmakers as agriculturists and that is the largest share ever since independence. Despite this fact, and after four years of huge promises made to the agricultural sector, it continues to reel under economic pressure.&nbsp;

The farm sector of this country is trying to wriggle out of the low-income trap. Every day cultivators are leaving agriculture to become construction workers in urban localities. It needs to be seen if the Finance Minister takes a few tricks out of his &lsquo;Brown budget Bag&rsquo; to get the farm sector on a higher growth track.

Slow down in agriculture

Under the pressure of many pulsating current issues, which include Padmaavat, Supreme Court judges, Tripple Talaq, the usual crisis in&nbsp; Kashmir, not much has been said about the significant drop in the growth rates of the farm sector. Parliamentarians are quite happy investing their time without looking into the ulcerating problem of the farm sector. Not a word is spoken about the farm sector nor a scheme introduced in order to enhance the farmers&rsquo; income. The farmers have been reduced only to a &lsquo;coin&rsquo; to be used only during elections and then stacking into deep corners.&nbsp;

The World Economic Forum welcomed India broadly keeping in mind the kind of investment and the potential growth rates of the national economy. But below this shining surface, lies the crumpled face of the agricultural sector which cries for a boost. Productivity has stagnated, investment in the farm sector has not been increasing at the desired pace, real net income stagnated and marginalisation continues unabated. All these are increasing the miseries of the farmers.

Is it one of the usual downs in the growth cycles?

The history of Indian agriculture is replete with cycles of growth and stagnation. The long-term growth of the agricultural sector has never crossed the threshold of 3.5 to 4 percent. The current situation cannot be ascribed to monsoon and, therefore, the policymakers cannot get away by blaming the rain god as usual.&nbsp;

An irritating question can be posed to the policymakers, are they were really unaware of the monsoon dependence of Indian agriculture of the last 7 decades? Right from independence, we have been blaming the rain god for the overall failure of the agriculture sector rather than admitting that monsoon failures create only temporary troughs. With all information technology and supercomputers at our disposal, Indian agricultural scientists and policymakers are helpless before this situation. This powerlessness is shameful when we boast about the scientific advances and an army of agriculture scientists around.&nbsp;

A Large part of the country is still hanging precariously on the performance of monsoon. It is necessary, that the Finance Minister takes up the cudgel to deal with the situations constructively. It is well-known that the Rainfed Authority of India did not deliver its promises and, in fact, it is hardly heard if the authority is functioning at all.&nbsp;

Regional Differentiation

Regional differentiation in the performance of agriculture is well-known in India. There are regions that compare with international standards of agriculture and the other vast steppe is proliferated by poor farmers. This differentiation occurs because of dissimilar factor endowments, including natural and man-made capital formation. There are regions which were termed backward during the initial phase of planning in India and continued to linger around the same position without any visible efforts by successive governments. It is these regions that need to pick up the tempo of growth and aggressively push themselves into the mainstream growth process.&nbsp;

Theodore Schultz argued during mid-sixties, these regions required and external investment push. It is only with that, we may be able to bring in a new growth perspective to the country. Historically, we have bypassed regions and bypassed farmer groups. A number of schemes were undertaken in order to bring these two segments into mainstream growth. However, the story is very clear and the failure is boldly written on the walls of our experience. Clearly, we have not been able to rope in the small and marginal farmers, belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, into the mainstream growth pattern. The Finance Minister needs to look carefully into this process of regional disparity and put larger attention to the bypassed groups and the regions.

Policy Vacuum&nbsp;

A few years back we have been talking about a policy paralysis in the agriculture sector. Following that a commission under the chairmanship of Prof. Swaminathan prepared a large report, covering almost every corner of the agricultural sector. Either the report was too complex for the policymakers or it was totally non-implementable and, hence, respectfully trashed by the government.&nbsp;

It is strange that the Niti Ayog could visit only a few aspects of the agriculture sector in pursuit of &lsquo;Doubling the Farmers&rsquo; Income&rsquo; during the coming years. This has become a fashionable phrase now and everyone small and big among the agricultural pundits is talking about &lsquo;Doubling of the Farmers Income&rsquo;.&nbsp;

It is known to all of us that the structure of Indian agriculture is quite complex, diversified and ground preparations for such a policy step are quite difficult. In the coming budget, it is necessary that the Finance Minister puts his attention to a strong policy-making group and look at the agricultural policy in a &lsquo;Bottom-Up Fashion&rsquo; than the usual &lsquo;Top-Down Fashion&rsquo; as has been the case always. It is quite unfortunate that in India the Agricultural Ministry does not have any policy specialists nor are policy document revisited routinely.

&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)&nbsp;&nbsp;

In the coming budget, it is necessary that the Finance Minister puts his attention to a strong policy-making group and look at the agricultural policy in a ‘Bottom-Up Fashion’ than the usual ‘Top-Down Fashion’ as has been the case always.

We are in the fourth year of the current government and it seems that the farm sector problems have not been sorted out during these four years. We are exactly stranded at the same place where we began a decade back or maybe earlier. Despite strong pressures from the farm lobby, the stagnation in productivity and consequent low net income in the farm sector did not improve. Though in the current Indian Parliament, we have a large share of Members of Parliament (MP) declaring themselves as agriculturists or farmers, so far the fact has been of little use to the farm sector. The 16th Parliament has 53.8% of the total lawmakers as agriculturists and that is the largest share ever since independence. Despite this fact, and after four years of huge promises made to the agricultural sector, it continues to reel under economic pressure. The farm sector of this country is trying to wriggle out of the low-income trap. Every day cultivators are leaving agriculture to become construction workers in urban localities. It needs to be seen if the Finance Minister takes a few tricks out of his ‘Brown budget Bag’ to get the farm sector on a higher growth track. Slow down in agriculture Under the pressure of many pulsating current issues, which include Padmaavat, Supreme Court judges, Tripple Talaq, the usual crisis in Kashmir, not much has been said about the significant drop in the growth rates of the farm sector. Parliamentarians are quite happy investing their time without looking into the ulcerating problem of the farm sector. Not a word is spoken about the farm sector nor a scheme introduced in order to enhance the farmers’ income. The farmers have been reduced only to a ‘coin’ to be used only during elections and then stacking into deep corners. The World Economic Forum welcomed India broadly keeping in mind the kind of investment and the potential growth rates of the national economy. But below this shining surface, lies the crumpled face of the agricultural sector which cries for a boost. Productivity has stagnated, investment in the farm sector has not been increasing at the desired pace, real net income stagnated and marginalisation continues unabated. All these are increasing the miseries of the farmers. Is it one of the usual downs in the growth cycles? The history of Indian agriculture is replete with cycles of growth and stagnation. The long-term growth of the agricultural sector has never crossed the threshold of 3.5 to 4 percent. The current situation cannot be ascribed to monsoon and, therefore, the policymakers cannot get away by blaming the rain god as usual. An irritating question can be posed to the policymakers, are they were really unaware of the monsoon dependence of Indian agriculture of the last 7 decades? Right from independence, we have been blaming the rain god for the overall failure of the agriculture sector rather than admitting that monsoon failures create only temporary troughs. With all information technology and supercomputers at our disposal, Indian agricultural scientists and policymakers are helpless before this situation. This powerlessness is shameful when we boast about the scientific advances and an army of agriculture scientists around. A Large part of the country is still hanging precariously on the performance of monsoon. It is necessary, that the Finance Minister takes up the cudgel to deal with the situations constructively. It is well-known that the Rainfed Authority of India did not deliver its promises and, in fact, it is hardly heard if the authority is functioning at all. Regional Differentiation Regional differentiation in the performance of agriculture is well-known in India. There are regions that compare with international standards of agriculture and the other vast steppe is proliferated by poor farmers. This differentiation occurs because of dissimilar factor endowments, including natural and man-made capital formation. There are regions which were termed backward during the initial phase of planning in India and continued to linger around the same position without any visible efforts by successive governments. It is these regions that need to pick up the tempo of growth and aggressively push themselves into the mainstream growth process. Theodore Schultz argued during mid-sixties, these regions required and external investment push. It is only with that, we may be able to bring in a new growth perspective to the country. Historically, we have bypassed regions and bypassed farmer groups. A number of schemes were undertaken in order to bring these two segments into mainstream growth. However, the story is very clear and the failure is boldly written on the walls of our experience. Clearly, we have not been able to rope in the small and marginal farmers, belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, into the mainstream growth pattern. The Finance Minister needs to look carefully into this process of regional disparity and put larger attention to the bypassed groups and the regions. Policy Vacuum A few years back we have been talking about a policy paralysis in the agriculture sector. Following that a commission under the chairmanship of Prof. Swaminathan prepared a large report, covering almost every corner of the agricultural sector. Either the report was too complex for the policymakers or it was totally non-implementable and, hence, respectfully trashed by the government. It is strange that the Niti Ayog could visit only a few aspects of the agriculture sector in pursuit of ‘Doubling the Farmers’ Income’ during the coming years. This has become a fashionable phrase now and everyone small and big among the agricultural pundits is talking about ‘Doubling of the Farmers Income’. It is known to all of us that the structure of Indian agriculture is quite complex, diversified and ground preparations for such a policy step are quite difficult. In the coming budget, it is necessary that the Finance Minister puts his attention to a strong policy-making group and look at the agricultural policy in a ‘Bottom-Up Fashion’ than the usual ‘Top-Down Fashion’ as has been the case always. It is quite unfortunate that in India the Agricultural Ministry does not have any policy specialists nor are policy document revisited routinely. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Union Budget 2018 needs to end the sorry saga of Indian agriculture

agricultural-sector

Agricultural Sector, News on Agricultural Sector, stories on Agricultural Sector, articles on Agricultural Sector, Agricultural Sector stories at Wion, Agricultural Sector news, Agricultural Sector latest news