Economic Highlight
New Delhi, 8
June 2020
One Farm Market
FANTASY OR
EVENTUAL REALITY?
By Shivaji
Sarkar
If wishes were horses
“one India one farm market” would have flown under then Prime Minister Atal
Behari Vajpayee 20 years ago. This time round, Narendra Modi government’s move
is good but it’s not going to be easy. The changes in the Essential Commodities
Act (ECA) and attempt to bypass the APMC under State governments through The
Farming Produce Trade and Commerce (promotion of and facilitation) Ordinance
2020 does have pros and cons.
Agriculture Minister
Narendra Singh Tomar’s assertion that it will attract investment in the farm
sector needs to be watched for whom does it benefit-- the farmers or the large
corporate and MNCs. The changes may well shackle the intended beneficiaries more
with wholesale or retail chains. The new Ordinance has rightly assumed that
there could be predatory takeovers and has banned any kind of sale, mortgage or
leasing of land. Any recovery against land is also not possible.
The decriminalisation of
the ECA is right to the extent that the businesses would now be difficult to
harass by the policing and administrative agencies. It would help them stock
required food grains or pulses and they cannot be questioned. It is a trust
reposed in the business and they would have to come up to it. The danger is
that if they falter, resort to hoarding and manipulate prices, the concession
given would have to be withdrawn under public pressure. That is the catch. But
foreign chains are exempt from the emergency clauses of calamity-like
situation.
The Ordinance is
explicit. It says that installed capacity of value chain participant and the export
demand of an exporter will remain exempted from such stock limit imposition so
as to ensure that investments in agriculture are not hampered. The government expects foreign chains would enter the market in
a big way and help its dream of inviting FDI into food items.
Various multinationals
are there for quite some time. The new law would help them have pan-India
unfettered presence. Since they are financially well-off, it is feared that
this atmanirbharta may displace traditional Khari Baoli-type markets and
may cause disturbances. The Indian consumers may have to pay high prices during
calamitous situations.
The Vajpayee government
fully de-licensed dairy production (2002) and sugar industry (1998), made
changes to allow BT cotton, introduced Kisan Credit Cards (KCC), an idea
espoused by Sompal Shastri and was duly supported by then Finance Minister
Yahswant Sinha despite opposition from sister organisations.
It changed cotton
production dynamics. Despite large number of farmer suicides today more than 95
per cent cotton cultivation is for Bt. India is estimated to have earned $67
billion from 2004 to 2017 from cotton exports, a mere $13 billion a year.
Overall it is said that cotton farmers are having larger incomes. However, the euphoria
of farmers didn’t last long due to crop failures, mounting debt, resistance
against chemical and leading to suicides consuming the pesticides that could
not kill the worms, in Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka, Punjab and
Haryana. The
Green to Gene Revolution has not been that much of success though it has made
Monsanto like firms richer.
The ECA amendments would ensure that cereals,
pulses, oilseeds, edible oils, onion and potatoes be removed from list of
essential commodities. This will remove fears of private investors of excessive
regulatory interference in their business operations. The government expects
that the freedom to produce, hold, move, distribute and supply will lead to
harnessing of economies of scale and attract private sector/FDI into
agriculture sector. It will help drive up investment in cold storages and
modernisation of food supply chain.
The expectation that it would help drive up
investment in cold storages and modernisation of food supply chains is a bit
too high. It is likely to change the market dynamics and may not always be an
easy process. The government hopes it would attract private sector investment
and open up the global market to the farmer. But, it has ignored one aspect
that no sooner Indian products in large volume reach global mandis, the prices
would crash.
Another, though seemingly good, provision is
the promise that the farmers could skirt Agricultural Produce (APMC) mandis
and get better prices. In the States having APMC, farmers are prohibited from
selling their produce anywhere except mandis. This may be a double
whammy or simply would make the new Ordinance infructuous. It needs to be seen
how change, brought during corona lockdown, fares in the ensuing session of
Parliament.
It is also difficult to understand how the
farmer would break the inter-State barriers if the State has APMC and can have
the benefit of pan-India market or get better prices. Even now the e-NAM has
not given them that freedom.
Another government-imposed restriction on
cash transaction needs to be eased. When a farmer takes his produce to market,
he faces problem in getting his payment. The electronic payment gateways do no
work everywhere. This delays payment. The government needs to allow farm
produce sale through cash without any limit. If this is allowed, selling farm
produce would be easier and the Indian market and retailers can thrive. This
kind of checks put the farmers in disadvantage even with large chains.
The two law changes also say that now the
farmer would not have to bother about the minimum support price (MSP) and he
can sell at prices higher than the MSP. This implies a farmer can get more than
the price. The reality is during the past few seasons, most farmers have been
selling their produce at less than the MSP. Even during this rabi
season, getting the MSP for wheat is a dream almost in all States. In Uttar Pradesh
mandis, a farmer gets between Rs 1600 to 1750 a quintal against the MSP
of Rs 1925.
The MSPs of many items have been raised but
farmers simply don’t get it. The government’s intentions may be pious, but its
mechanism does not ensure that the farmer would get the promised price. If the
market crumbles and the FCI isn’t there, the market could become volatile.
Besides, farmers may be having dreams but
default in payments could rise or be delayed as in the case of sugarcane
farmers. UP owes them Rs 14,201 crore and Maharashtra Rs 4866 crore as on April
30.
To sum it up, the changes may be well-intended
but still it may take time for the nation to have the cherished one farm
market.—INFA
(Copyright,
India News & Feature Alliance)
|