|
| |
| Responses to "Fertilizer Subsidy Reforms: Is it a smart move?" |
The subsidy bill of the Government is mounting every year. As of now it is more than 1lakh crore rupees. The government has supported the farmers since green revolution to promote agriculture production through subsidising critical inputs viz. fertilizers. it needs to be phased out. Research has established that fertilizers use alone will not sustain the agricultural productivity. there is need to derive a mechanism to subsidise the ecofriendly sustainable practices, promote on farm generation and production of organic inputs, prevent the loss of organic resources available in the farm. the entire process needs to be subsidised. of course the sustainable practices may be location specific, crop specific. the quantity and type of subsidy for each location need to be established. such a subsidy will sustain the productivity even if subsidy is withdrawn after certain period of time it will not have any adverse impact on the productivity.
can we think of cooperatives in line with milk cooperative etc. to promote and procure organic inputs and sale at subsidised rates to the needy farmers apart from using in their own farms at village level. Any subsidy withdrawal should not have adverse affect on production of major crops like wheat or rice. production of many dryland crops, millets, pulses, oilseeds, perennials can be sustained with indigenous inputs alone. fertilizer consumption in production of these crops is meagre. Fertilizer subsidy is not benefiting these large farmers. under diversified agricultural production system of India it is necessary to look into providing equity of benefits to farmers. providing subsidy directly to the farmers, or nutrient based subsidy to the factories will not achive or impart any sustainability or improvement in the agricultural production system.
|
1. nitorgenous fertilisers lost 60-75%( 50% in air and 25% in water)in the environment just in 10 days after application oin soil , in our hot climate ,caused green house effect and ground water pollution. There is no such proble with organic inputs rather soil microbs enhance availablity year by year. Corbon sequestration to the tune of 500 kg/ha/yr. A great help to mitigating global warming.
2. COuntry 70% area is rainfed ( increasing as several water sources exhusting) where application of fertilsers is highly risky,e.g. just after application of urea if there is no rain for 20-30 days all crop destroy. While with organic it increases soil water holding capasity, drought resilience in plants and thus gives sustainable yield.
3. Nitrogenous feritlisers are petrolium based ,this will exhust in 15 years. Phosphate reserves is already going to be exhust. Organic source will be available till the plant and animal will be on this earth.
4. Demand of fertilsiers increase every year to get similar amount of produce while in organic system demand of organic inputs will gradually reduce to the extent of 40-45% in 3-4 years because system itself generate organic inputs.
5. The energy demand of inorganic system will increase every year due to soil compaction and requre more ploughing while in organic system soil become good aereated and earthworm starts good ploughling.
ther are so many other comparision . In nutshell agriculture is na natural system and any attemt to get production with artificial means/ technoligies may not be long lasting
|
Any policy initiative of Government aiming at improvement in crop productivity and food security is welcome. However subsidy route of pushing productivity through increased input use (fertilizer and chemical) may not be that effective. Basic issue is that we are again putting subsidy on the input which farmer any way not using much (in terms of Kg /hect) specially when looked from the global usage perspective and also has negative ecological consequences. Resultant chemical residue also has serious negative impact on output prices. In terms of AMS (Aggregate Subsidy Measures) probably we are the among those rare countries who are net taxing farmers ( Subsidy minus opportunity price loss by way of controlling food output prices through several government interventions). Alternate routes of subsidy such as subsidy on compost or manure have the potential to work positively on both, productivity and output price realisation.
(Opinion Expressed here is personal opinion of Author and does not reflect opinion of the organisation in which he is working)
|
The Government of India is genuinely concerned about enhancing agricultural production and productivity. The Ministry of Agriculture has seen the evidence - declining growth rates of productivity, lack of response to increasing fertilizer application, declining soil fertility and increasing nitrate pollution of water bodies. But as a central Ministry it is bound to serve the interest of the farming community; and the only policy instrument it knows is to increase the supply of subsidized nutrients (NPK) and provide direct subsidy payments to farmers to degrade their land, pollute their waters, etc. If crops fail to respond to these increasing nutrient doses, global agricultural prices fall and prices of other inputs (especially the pesticides that are needed to protect a N-fed crop stand) increase, then farmers may kill themselves! Sad! But true!
Then, with the help of economists who put the blame on lack of scale effects, the Ministry can lease out large tracts of land to corporate industrial agriculture!
Given the empirical evidence that exists about ecologically and economically sustainable farming systems, soil quality and crop productivity, the Government of India must consider a 50:50 ratio of subsidies:investments in ecological agriculture. It must support alternatives to enhance soil fertility and crop productivity. These may include simple community compost pits/ vermi-compost schemes, cold storages for BNF and algal cultures, or hand-operated small machine tools for recycling agri-wastes into the land, etc. etc.. Let us also note that it is important to strengthen Panchayati Raj Institutions and Zilla Parishads, farmers, rural banks and local (rooted capital) private entrepreneurs, to monitor and assess land quality (with the help of local agricultural universities or research stations) as well as measure crop productivity improvements. This will also economically and politically decentralize India’s agricultural decision-making.
|
From what it seems the fertiliser reforms seem to fail in addressing the age old discrimination the small and marginal farmers of the rainfed regions in our country are suffering from. Though each year thousands of crores are being spend on agricultural input subsidy the largest chunk of the Indian farmers have been kept out of this,as they neither have the wherewhitall nor the irrigation facilities that is required for using chemical fertilisers.
It is an irony that these farmers who do sustainable farming,though by default, is not supported in any manner by the government.
Besides this there is the second anomaly interms of scientific research in the country. As todays research provides tomorrows policies, there is an urgent need to reorient our research in to ecological farming practices.
Though a lot of lipservice is done on this Untill these historic anomalies are not corrected agriculture in India will remain as a losing proposition and the small and marginal farmer will be pushed out of farming.may be that is what the government wants!
|
If fertilizer usage has degraded soil and output has decreased,this = less food = higher prices = lesser people getting food. hmmmmm not good. so if we have an alternative why is the govt not implementing it. the govt must be sprayed with fertilizers. when is the govt going to stop addressing the interests of the fertilizer companies and start addressing the needs of the THEIR SO CALLED AAM JANTA
|
Dear moderator and others,
Though it is very clear that there is going to be direct cash transfer to the farmer, i am not sure whether this will be of any help to the farmer. Also While i really beleive that this is the juncture when organic nitrogen based fertilisers can be officially recognised, it is not clear as to what infrastructure the government has or is going to support when it comes to organic nitrogen. Its is good possibility, but assuming that the governments would like to accomplish the direct subsidy system smooothly, we will have to see whether there is will to support the organic nitrogen fertilisers and nurture them.
|
|
|
|
