TOPIC : INDIAN AGRICULTURE NEEDS HOLISTIC POLICY FRAMEWORK, NOT PRO MARKET REFORMS

THE CONTEXT: Recently the Government of India has passed three farm bills that are being widely criticised by many farmer organisations. The farm bills are criticised for being pro market reforms that has the potential of harming farmer’s interest in the long run.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

• Since 1991, economic liberalisation and reforms by successive governments across the political spectrum – except during the lost decade of 2004-14 – have enabled a return to these core economic principles.
• That these timeless principles – advocated in as disparate Indian literature as the Arthashastra and the Thirukural – work is seen in the enormous prosperity well-regulated markets have delivered since 1991. Even the Chinese economic miracle is testimony to the role of markets in enabling economic prosperity for citizens.

WHAT IS FARM BILL 2020?

• In September 2020, the Indian government passed three agricultural bills, which are – Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Bil, 2020, Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance, Farm Services Bill, 2020, and the Essential Commodities (Amendment) Bill, 2020.
• The new farmers’ bill allows the farmers to sell their products directly to private buyers breaking the monopoly of man is regulated by the government. The people get empowered to get into a legal deal with the companies and produce agro-products for them. The farmers’ bill India also allows stocking of food articles by the agri-businesses removing the ability of the government to impose arbitrarily.

The three farm acts:

1.Farmer’s Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020

• This act allows farmers to engage in trade of their agricultural produce outside the physical markets notified under various state Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee laws (APMC acts). Also known as the ‘APMC Bypass Bill’, it will override all the state-level APMC acts.
• Promotes barrier-free intra-state and inter-state trade of farmer’s produce.
• Proposes an electronic trading platform for direct and online trading of produce. Entities that can establish such platforms include companies, partnership firms, or societies.
• Allows farmers the freedom to trade anywhere outside state-notified APMC markets, and this includes allowing trade at farm gates, warehouses, cold storages, and so on.
• Prohibits state governments or APMCs from levying fees, cess, or any other charge on farmers produce.
• The three farm acts are likely to have a significant impact on farmers and agriculture in the country.

2. Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement of Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020

• The act seeks to provide farmers with a framework to engage in contract farming, where farmers can enter into a direct agreement with a buyer (before sowing season) to sell the produce to them at pre-determined prices.
• Entities that may strike agreements with farmers to buy agricultural produce are defined as “sponsors’’ and can include individuals, companies, partnership firms, limited liability groups, and societies.
• The act provides for setting up farming agreements between farmers and sponsors. Any third parties involved in the transaction (like aggregators) will have to be explicitly mentioned in the agreement. Registration authorities can be established by state governments to provide for electronic registry of farming agreements.
• Agreements can cover mutually agreed terms between farmers and sponsors, and the terms can cover supply, quality, standards, price, as well as farm services. These include supply of seeds, feed, fodder, agro-chemicals, machinery and technology, non-chemical agro-inputs, and other farming inputs.
• Agreements must have a minimum duration of one cropping season, or one production cycle of livestock. The maximum duration can be five years. For production cycles beyond five years, the period of agreement can be mutually decided by the farmer and sponsor.
• Purchase price of the farming produce—including the methods of determining price—may be added in the agreement. In case the price is subject to variations, the agreement must include a guaranteed price to be paid as well as clear references for any additional amounts the farmer may receive, like bonus or premium.
• There is no mention of minimum support price (MSP) that buyers need to offer to farmers.
• Delivery of farmers’ produce may be undertaken by either parties within the agreed time frame. Sponsors are liable to inspect the quality of products as per the agreement, otherwise they will be deemed to have inspected the produce and have to accept the delivery within the agreed time frame.
• In case of seed production, sponsors are required to pay at least two-thirds of the agreed amount at the time of delivery, and the remaining amount to be paid after due certification within 30 days of date of delivery. Regarding all other cases, the entire amount must be paid at the time of delivery and a receipt slip must be issued with the details of the sale.
• Produce generated under farming agreements are exempt from any state acts aimed at regulating the sale and purchase of farming produce, therefore leaving no room for states to impose MSPs on such produce. Such agreements also exempt the sponsor from any stock-limit obligations applicable under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Stock-limits are a method of preventing hoarding of agricultural produce.
• Provides for a three-level dispute settlement mechanism: the conciliation board—comprising representatives of parties to the agreement, the sub-divisional magistrate, and appellate authority.

3. Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020

• An amendment to the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, this act seeks to restrict the powers of the government with respect to production, supply, and distribution of certain key commodities.
• The act removes cereals, pulses, oilseeds, edible oils, onion, and potatoes from the list of essential commodities.
• Government can impose stock holding limits and regulate the prices for the above commodities—under the Essential Commodities, 1955—only under exceptional circumstances. These include war, famine, extraordinary price rise, and natural calamity of grave nature.
• Stock limits on farming produce to be based on price rise in the market.  They may be imposed only if there is: (i) a 100 percent increase in retail price of horticultural produce, and (ii) a 50 percent increase in the retail price of non-perishable agricultural food items. The increase is to be calculated over the price prevailing during the preceding twelve months, or the average retail price over the last five years, whichever is lower.
• The act aims at removing fears of private investors of regulatory influence in their business operations.
• Gives freedom to produce, hold, move, distribute, and supply produce, leading to harnessing private sector/foreign direct investment in agricultural infrastructure.

ARGUMENTS SUPPORTING THE FARM LAWS

The purpose of the new farm laws is to end the historic exploitation of farmers at the APMC markets and free them from the clutches of the middlemen.Farmers who sell their produce to mandi merchants, or ‘arhatiyas’, at agricultural produce market committee (APMC) markets still receive informal white slips with the transaction amount scribbled on them, making the record non-transparent.The purpose of the new farm laws is to end the historic exploitation of farmers at the APMC markets and free them from the clutches of the middlemen.

1. Economic history of exploitation at mandis

• Fifty-five years since the APMCs were introduced, the country’s farmers are still receiving a low share of the consumer’s rupee as indicated by an Reserve Bank of India study covering mandis in 16 states, 16 food crops and 9,400 farmers, traders, retailers.
• The farmers’ shares were 28 per cent for potato, 33 per cent for onion, 49 per cent for rice, an crop with minimum support price (MSP) guarantee.
• The provision of MSP alone will not ensure farmers to draw a greater share of the consumer’s rupee because supply is greater than demand.
• The demand is also influenced by schemes such as national food security mission, where food grains are offered free or at low prices. When rice and wheat are offered virtually free of cost, why will the consumer buy ragi, jowar, bajra at a higher price?
• Injecting competition by widening farm markets will benefit farmers which the three farm laws aim at.

2. Inefficiencies in APMCs

• The APMCs still don’t issue formal receipts which are supposed to mention the price, quantity or quality of the produce.
• Further, due to interlocked markets, farmers are forced to sell to those middlemen who they have borrowed money from, starting off a vicious circle of exploitation in times of distress sales.
• Buyers make a large income from informal lending. Such illegal paired with unfair deductions, undercover sales, cartels and collusions at APMCs have continued denying remunerative prices to the farmers.

3. Widened markets benefit farmers

• Due to green revolution technologies, supply has increased but is limited to APMCs for handling. This causes the prices to be capped at a lower value. Permission to buy or sell outside APMCs will benefit farmers by creating new supply or value chains.
• The nominal protection coefficient (domestic price divided by international price) for agriculture is 0.87. This implies that farmers can get at least 13 per cent higher prices in international markets by exporting.

4. Infringement of rights

• Farmers’ right to sell their produce to whomever, wherever, whenever and in whichever quantity cannot be infringed upon. The elasticity of price transmission between  that at APMCs and farmgate price (market value minus selling cost) is impressive. Thus, buyers outside APMC will have to compete with APMC prices and vice versa to attract farmers’ produce.

5. No interference with state

• Entry 26 of the state list enables states to regulate trade in agricultural commodities within their boundary. But this is subject to entry 33 in the concurrent list, which allows both the Centre and the states to frame these regulations.
• Such market reforms can double farmer incomes. Also, with Article 249, the Centre can enact law in national interest of saving farmers from exploitation by middleman.

6. Multiple markets and competition

• Allowing buyers outside APMC mandis promotes competition and halts exploitation. At present, while consumers are paying higher price, farmers are still receiving lower returns due to inefficiencies and imperfections. Thus, setting the markets right is crucial through the new laws.
• Unified market platform (UMP) in Karnataka resulted in increase of prices by 38 per cent. This implies that current market prices are depressed by 38 per cent due to lack of adequate competition. Opening up the markets can push the APMCs to offer competitive prices.
• Competition in procurement and distribution cost can also reduce from 30 per cent to 15 per cent.

7. Bihar’s impressive performance

• Economic reforms in Bihar in 2005 that removed the APMC act resulted in impressive agricultural and overall performance.
• Before 2005, Bihar’s economy grew at a rate of 5.3 per cent while India’s economy grew at 6.8 per cent. After the reforms, Bihar’s economy grew at 11.7 per cent with 4.7 per cent agriculture boost, while India’s economy grew at 8.3 per cent with agricultural growth at 3.6 per cent.
• Between the pre and post-reform period, average wholesale price of paddy increased by 126 per cent, maize by 81 per cent and wheat by 66 per cent.
• Considering the impact of reforms on crop output, in the pre-reforms (2000 to 2007) and post-reforms (2008 to 2015) period, the growth rates of output of field crops (1.53 per cent, 4.29 per cent) were higher than that of horticulture crops (-3.51 per cent, 2.85 per cent), with an impressive growth rate of overall output of agriculture and allied sectors (2.57 per cent, 4.66 per cent).

8. Contract farming

• Contract farming enabled farmers to offer produce at a predetermined price. When the market price is above contractual price, farmers have the liberty to sell at the higher price.
• Small farmers have benefitted more than large farmers in contract farming as income derived per acre was the highest for small farmers.

9. Agriculture markets starved of 3Cs

• Agricultural markets are starved of capital, competition and commitment. Capital injection postpones operation of the law of diminishing marginal returns.
• The gross private capital formation in agriculture is 75 per cent. Investment in marketing infrastructure, processing, logistics benefits society, where private sector has potential. For these, political will is crucial and hence, the Union government should not repeal the three laws.
• New provisions of Essential Commodities Act enable scale economies in agricultural marketing attract private sector investment.

10. National overseeing authority

• Farmers cannot be left to the free will of competitive markets due to skewed asset distribution. A national body, national agricultural marketing board similar to TRAI and SEBI, needs to be created to enhance the bargaining power of farmers and protect them, along with purchasers, sellers and consumers from possibilities of exploitation.

WHY ARE THE FARMERS PROTESTING AGAINST THE FARM BILLS?

• More than half of all government procurement of wheat and paddy in the last five years has taken place in Punjab and Haryana, according to Agriculture Ministry data. More than 85% of wheat and paddy grown in Punjab, and 75% in Haryana, is bought by the government at MSP rates. Farmers in these States fear that without MSPs, market prices will fall.
• These States are also most invested in the APMC system, with a strong mandi network, a well-oiled system of arthiyas or commission agents facilitating procurement, and link roads connecting most villages to the notified markets and allowing farmers to easily bring their produce for procurement. The Punjab government charges a 6% mandi tax (along with a 2.5% fee for handling central procurement) and earns an annual revenue of about ₹3,500 crore from these charges.
• The very right of the Centre to enact legislation on agricultural marketing. Article 246 of the Constitution places “agriculture” in entry 14 and “markets and fairs” in entry 28 of the State List. But entry 42 of the Union List empowers the Centre to regulate “inter-State trade and commerce”. While trade and commerce “within the State” is under entry 26 of the State List, it is subject to the provisions of entry 33 of the Concurrent List – under which the Centre can make laws that would prevail over those enacted by the states.
• Entry 33 of the Concurrent List covers trade and commerce in “foodstuffs, including edible oilseeds and oils”, fodder, cotton and jute. The Centre, in other words, can very pass any law that removes all impediments to both inter- and intra-state trade in farm produce, while also overriding the existing state APMC Acts.

ISSUE REGARDING THE BILL

• Yes, there were many flaws in the decades old APMC Act, but critics believe that the need was to plug the loopholes instead of introducing a new system altogether. A similar system has already been introduced in America and some European countries where it has failed miserably, we can only hope this does not happen in India and government will not repeat those mistakes.
• From the attitude of government, the stand of government is very clear that it is not going to change anything because already it has been termed as Masterstroke. Right now, it is just an Act both are results are possible; farmers income becomes double as said by the government, or their conditions worsen as feared by farmers. History is the best judge. While the intent of Government is laudable, we will be able to see the results of these new Acts after few years only. Right now, everything is just a speculation.
• The  bill have triggered strong protests all over the country. Let’s have a look at the issues that are triggering so many protests across the nation.
• These new farmers’ bills might end MSP or minimum support prices and this bothers the farmers.
• Another concern is the lack of bargaining capability with big companies. The people involved in farming might get the freedom to deal with the biggest of the companies but due to the lack of knowledge, he/ she might not be able to negotiate the best possible terms.
• Outside the mandis or government-regulated markets, there is hardly any regulation, and grievance re-dressal system is also not present there.
• The new farmers’ bill may weaken the APMC system which is considered to be very helpful for small farmers.
• As per the suggestions of agricultural economists, the focus should be given on strengthening APMCs rather than transferring everything to private entities.
• Many are fearing that the people involved in agriculture might be turned into slaves due to contractual farming.
• Due to the removal of restrictions on food storage, big companies may store agro products in huge quantities and create artificial hikes in price.

WAY FORWARD

Three fundamental reforms are necessary to make India’s growth more just and more inclusive.

• The first is, policymakers must listen to the less powerful people in markets. Therefore, institutions that represent small people — associations and unions of farmers, informal workers and small enterprises — must be strengthened, not repressed. When reforms are supposedly in their interests, they have a right to be heard.
• The second is the formation of cooperatives of producers and workers. By aggregating the small into larger-scale enterprises owned by themselves, not only do the producers have more power in negotiations with their buyers, suppliers, and with government, they are also able to retain a larger part of the value they generate and increase their own incomes and wealth. Government regulations must encourage the formation of strong cooperatives, and improve their ease of doing business.
• The third is, market reformers must clean up their ideological lenses and see the reality of where power lies in markets. As Barbara Harriss-White, a scholar of India’s agricultural markets once observed, “deregulated imperfect markets may become more, not less, imperfect than regulated imperfect markets.”

CONCLUSION:

• Farmers are debt ridden, starved of funding and of assured price mechanism. The three legislations if taken together accentuate the crisis even further. In the absence of a guaranteed support price mechanism, the legislations even fail to mention a very strong support for the MSP as a benchmark price as a fundamental condition for open agriculture trade and winding up of mandis.For years farmers have demanded statutory support price for their produce from the government.
• There is a need to restore the shaken confidence of the agrarian sector. In order for that to happen the government of India needs to give an iron clad guarantee on holding the price line 100% over and above the inflation-linked cost of production to the primary producer and not allowing any players to offer a price below that line to them. Only such a guarantee will ensure the confidence of the farmers in the system.
• We need to understand that if the country has to come out of her grave economic crisis, the answer does not lie in the economies of the urban or of the extractive economies of the capital. The answer decisively lies in the revival of the rural with dignity and respect. The country, it must be understood, cannot survive if the rural falls and chances of such an event happening today can only be averted with a considered policy response initiated with empathy and care.

Spread the Word