The other announcements include: a mission on three kharif pulses — tur, urad and masur; a programme for fruits and vegetables; a Makhana Board for Bihar; a national mission on high-yielding seeds; a mission for cotton productivity; and enhanced credit availability through Kisan Credit Cards and NCDC. Overall, a ‘grand’ package of schemes for ‘atmanirbharata’ in agriculture. However, allocations to Departments of Agriculture and Agricultural Research do not, however, reflect this commitment. They stay almost at last year’s level or lower: ₹1,27,000 crore (RE 24-25 ₹1,31,000 crore) and ₹10,462 crore (RE 24-25 ₹10,152 crore). There are specific allocations within this for Cotton Technology Mission (₹500 crore), Mission for Pulses (₹1,000 crore); Mission for Fruits and Vegetables (₹500 crore); Mission on Hybrid Seeds (₹100 crore) and Makhana Board (₹100 crore).
Surprisingly, the flagship DDKY does not figure in list of schemes and allocations. How will the engine surge forward without enough fuel? Let us wait and see. A welcome idea is the return to the mission mode, a proven one in earlier schemes.
DDKY scheme is built broadly on the parameters of the successful National Food Security Mission (2007). It is, however, focussed on ‘resource poor’ districts, most of them likely to be in rainfed areas. The emphasis is right, but where is the money? The real challenge will be in the design and implementation. These districts are different from one another in more ways than one. The design must allow for this variability and provide space for innovation at the operational level. The lessons from RKVY, NFSM and the National Horticulture Mission will be useful. And of course there has to be enough funds — end to end.
More challenging
The mission on pulses will be more challenging. The Budget announcement in 2010 of 60,000 pulses and oilseeds villages did pay dividends. The focus on the three important kharif pulses, with fluctuating production levels is welcome. The ‘renewed’ promise of a full buyback at MSP should normally enthuse the farmers. The MSP regime under which these pulses are covered does assure procurement at the support price for all quantities offered. How this scheme is special is an enigma.
Fruits and vegetables, which owes its growth to the market and the private sector, had two earlier schemes, Horticulture Mission and Operation Greens (Tomato, Onion and Potato) of 2018. The allocation is meagre; it is important to get the interventions right and fill up critical gaps to continue encouraging the private sector.
A 5-year mission for cotton productivity is focused on improving the yields of ‘extra-long staple’ varieties of cotton required by the textile industry. The earlier mission of 1999 focussed on research, production, markets and primary processing. The new focus on higher value cotton is more market-friendly.
The mission on high-yielding seeds appears to be a follow-up of the release of these varieties in the market. Commercialisation of seeds require the creation of a new value chain, and it is hoped that this effort will lead to availability of these seeds to farmers at affordable prices. The underlying idea of the agriculture budget seems to be Atmanirbharata’, roughly translated as ‘self-sufficiency’ at the national level. Yes, India needs more pulses (proteins for vegetarians) and more vegetables given the changing nature of the Indian thali (food plate). A mission mode approach incorporating technology, logistics, markets, and management is a time-tested one. So far so good. But let us not forget that success so far is largely a contribution of the private sector.
The big question is: would farmers be enthused? Higher productivity does not necessarily lead to higher incomes. The focus on getting better prices, must be an underlying theme across all schemes. Food ,nutrition security cannot come at the cost of farmer prosperity.
Man y well-intentioned schemes fail to deliver due to weaknesses at the State level. The levels of commitment and implementation differ from State to State. Enabling key stakeholders, and this include private players, to perform will be the key to success.
The big disappointment is the allocations to the Ministry of Agriculture. Agricultural research deserves a much higher allocation. There exist enough valid arguments for a substantial hike in the outlay of ICAR. The absence of an outlay for DDKY and an effective reduction in the ministry’s outlay is the other disappointment.
Is this going to be a case of grand vision with poor resources? And have we forgotten ‘doubling’ of farmers’ incomes?
The writer is former Secretary, Food & Agriculture
