The perennial issue of fair pricing of farm produce reigns supreme, now coupled with calls for legal assurances of Minimum Support Price. File
| Photo Credit: PTI

As the general elections draw closer, agrarian concerns have once again taken centre stage. Farmers from the heartland of the Green Revolution have travelled to the border of the capital to not only voice their distress, but also to shape the electoral discourse. The ruling dispensation, sensing adverse electoral implications, attempted to reach out to the farmers. It said it was ready to procure pulses, maize, and cotton at MSP, but this was contingent upon farmers guaranteeing crop diversification. However, these efforts were rejected as the core issues were not addressed, say farm leaders.

The perennial issue of fair pricing of farm produce reigns supreme, now coupled with calls for legal assurances of Minimum Support Price (MSP). However, beyond mere legal mandates lies the pressing concern of maintaining self-sufficiency in food production and addressing the ongoing challenge of distribution. This underscores the ethical imperative of anchoring a legal guarantee for MSP.

The MSP regime was a vital instrument for ensuring food security in India. Given the unique nature of agriculture, farmers lack the ability to exert significant influence, let alone determine the price of their produce. This constitutes a ‘market failure.’ Thus, MSP ensures that agricultural commodity prices remain above a predetermined benchmark to facilitate remunerative price discovery.

Produce and perish trap

The MSP is announced annually for 23 crops covering both the kharif and rabi seasons, well in advance of sowing, with 21 of them being food crops. However, despite the announcements, the implementation of MSP remains poor. Only 6% of farmers, primarily those cultivating paddy and wheat in States such as Punjab, benefit from MSP. Most transactions involving these essential food commodities occur below the MSP, rendering farming economically unviable for the majority of producers in India. As a result, farmers are trapped in a dangerous cycle of produce and perish, leading to crippling debt and deaths by suicide. All these emphasise the pressing need to ensure MSP, including the one recommended by the eminent agricultural scientist M.S. Swaminathan (with a 50% profit margin).

Several articles under the Constitution, as well as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants, support the legal recourse to guaranteeing MSP. According to a recent opinion survey by an English TV channel, 83% of landowners and 77% of farm labourers expressed solidarity with the agitating farmers. Notably, 64% of the public also endorsed the farmers’ demand for a legal right to MSP.

Sugarcane growers already benefit from a ‘statutory’ MSP, which sugar factories strictly adhere to when purchasing cane from farmers. A few years ago, Maharashtra attempted to amend its Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC) Act to prevent the purchase of agricultural produce below MSP, but the effort failed due to a lack of political will and a comprehensive strategy. The Karnataka Agricultural Price Commission has laid out a clear roadmap, including potential financial commitments, to ensure a legally binding MSP for crops cultivated in the State. A private member bill on The Farmers’ Right to Guaranteed Remunerative MSP for Agricultural Commodities was tabled in Parliament in 2018. The Andhra Pradesh government unveiled a draft bill last year aimed at guaranteeing MSP for crops grown in the State. These efforts show that the objective of establishing a legal recourse to MSP has not emerged suddenly, nor is it impossible to attain.

The solution

A minor amendment to respective State APMC Acts or the Centre’s Essential Commodities Act would suffice to introduce a law ensuring that no transactions of farmers’ produce occur at prices below the MSP. The budget outlay will not be as large as projected if legal recourse to MSP is accompanied by essential backward and forward linkages. Crop planning, market intelligence (including price forecasts), and other pre-sowing measures, along with the establishment of post-harvest infrastructure for efficient storage, transportation, and processing of farm commodities, greatly assist in managing the post-harvest glut in the market. Therefore, a legal route to MSP, complemented by the development of such linkages, would provide protection against “market failures” in addressing the surplus, rather than leading to “market distortion,” as claimed by some mainstream economists.

Even enhancing MSP to provide a 50% profit margin over total cost is not challenging, considering that current margins already stand at around 22%. Finally, effective procurement and distribution, as envisaged under the National Food Security Act, 2013, is the most appropriate means to not only ensure MSP but also address hunger and malnutrition.

The PM-AASHA comprises schemes for price support and price deficiency payment, along with incentives to private traders to ensure MSP. While it possessed all the necessary elements as precursors to guarantee the MSP, its side-lining in policy circles highlights how political expediency rules the roost.

At present, farmers hardly get 30% of the price paid by the consumers; this will increase if MSP is guaranteed. Establishing a legally binding MSP will anger intermediaries as their share will get reduced. Often, government intervention, and particularly a legally binding MSP, is deemed a problem. It is this adherence to free market dogma that is preventing a just solution to the ongoing crisis in farmer incomes.

T.N. Prakash Kammardi is an agricultural economist and former chairman, Karnataka Agricultural Prices Commission, Government of Karnataka

Representational file image.
| Photo Credit: Vibhu. H

The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA), which met here on Wednesday, has decided to increase the minimum support price (MSP) for copra. The new MSP for milling copra will be ₹ 11,160 per quintal — an increase of ₹300 per quintal than the 2023 season. The new MSP for ball copra will be ₹12,000 per quintal — an increase of ₹250 per quintal. The rate will be effective from next year.

Briefing reporters after the meeting, Union Minister for Information and Broadcasting Anurag Thakur said that although copra prices have fallen globally, the Narendra Modi government had decided to provide an MSP of at least 50% higher than the production cost. “Accordingly, the copra MSP has been increased by ₹250-300 per quintal for 2024 season,” Mr. Thakur said.

Explained | Will a hike in MSP help farmers?

According to a government release, the new rates will ensure a margin of 51.84% for milling copra, and 63.26% for ball copra. Milling copra is used to extract oil, while ball/edible copra is consumed as a dry fruit and used for religious purposes. Kerala and Tamil Nadu are major producers of milling copra, whereas ball copra is produced predominantly in Karnataka.

The Centre’s statement said: “In the last 10 years, the Government has increased MSP for milling copra and ball copra from ₹5,250 per quintal and ₹5,500 per quintal in 2014-15 to ₹11,160 per quintal and ₹12,000 per quintal in 2024-25, registering a growth of 113% and 118%, respectively.”

“A higher MSP will not only ensure better remunerative returns to the coconut growers but also incentivise farmers to expand copra production to meet the growing demand for coconut products both domestically and internationally,” it added.

In 2023, the government has so far procured over 1.33 lakh metric tonnes of copra at a cost of ₹1,493 crore, benefiting around 90,000 farmers, the release added.

“The procurement in the current season 2023 indicates a rise of 227% over the previous season (2022). National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. (NAFED) and National Cooperative Consumers’ Federation (NCCF) will continue to act as Central Nodal Agencies (CNAs) for procurement of copra and de-husked coconut under Price Support Scheme (PSS),” the release said.

Feeding a growing world population has been a serious concern for decades, but today there are new causes for alarm. Floods, heat waves and other weather extremes are making agriculture increasingly precarious, especially in the Global South.

The war in Ukraine is also a factor. Russia is blockading Ukrainian grain exports, and fertilizer prices have surged because of trade sanctions on Russia, the world’s leading fertilizer exporter.

Amid these challenges, some organizations are renewing calls for a second Green Revolution, echoing the introduction in the 1960s and 1970s of supposedly high-yielding varieties of wheat and rice into developing countries, along with synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Those efforts centered on India and other Asian countries; today, advocates focus on sub-Saharan Africa, where the original Green Revolution regime never took hold.

But anyone concerned with food production should be careful what they wish for. In recent years, a wave of new analysis has spurred a critical rethinking of what Green Revolution-style farming really means for food supplies and self-sufficiency.

Also Read | M.S. Swaminathan: A timeline of the Father of the Green revolution

As I explain in my book, The Agricultural Dilemma: How Not to Feed the World, the Green Revolution does hold lessons for food production today – but not the ones that are commonly heard. Events in India show why.

A triumphal narrative

There was a consensus in the 1960s among development officials and the public that an overpopulated Earth was heading toward catastrophe. Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 bestseller, The Population Bomb, famously predicted that nothing could stop “hundreds of millions” from starving in the 1970s.

India was the global poster child for this looming Malthusian disaster: Its population was booming, drought was ravaging its countryside and its imports of American wheat were climbing to levels that alarmed government officials in India and the U.S.

Then, in 1967, India began distributing new wheat varieties bred by Rockefeller Foundation plant biologist Norman Borlaug, along with high doses of chemical fertilizer. After famine failed to materialize, observers credited the new farming strategy with enabling India to feed itself.

Explained |Key scientific terms associated with Dr. M.S. Swaminathan’s research and Green Revolution

Borlaug received the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize and is still widely credited with “saving a billion lives.” Indian agricultural scientist M.S. Swaminathan, who worked with Borlaug to promote the Green Revolution, received the inaugural World Food Prize in 1987. Tributes to Swaminathan, who died on Sept. 28, 2023, at age 98, have reiterated the claim that his efforts brought India “self-sufficiency in food production” and independence from Western powers.

Debunking the legend

The standard legend of India’s Green Revolution centers on two propositions. First, India faced a food crisis, with farms mired in tradition and unable to feed an exploding population; and second, Borlaug’s wheat seeds led to record harvests from 1968 on, replacing import dependence with food self-sufficiency.

Recent research shows that both claims are false.

India was importing wheat in the 1960s because of policy decisions, not overpopulation. After the nation achieved independence in 1947, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru prioritized developing heavy industry. U.S. advisers encouraged this strategy and offered to provide India with surplus grain, which India accepted as cheap food for urban workers.

Meanwhile, the government urged Indian farmers to grow nonfood export crops to earn foreign currency. They switched millions of acres from rice to jute production, and by the mid-1960s India was exporting agricultural products.

Also Read | ‘The dark side of the green revolution addressed’

Borlaug’s miracle seeds were not inherently more productive than many Indian wheat varieties. Rather, they just responded more effectively to high doses of chemical fertilizer. But while India had abundant manure from its cows, it produced almost no chemical fertilizer. It had to start spending heavily to import and subsidize fertilizer.

India did see a wheat boom after 1967, but there is evidence that this expensive new input-intensive approach was not the main cause. Rather, the Indian government established a new policy of paying higher prices for wheat. Unsurprisingly, Indian farmers planted more wheat and less of other crops.

Once India’s 1965-67 drought ended and the Green Revolution began, wheat production sped up, while production trends in other crops like rice, maize and pulses slowed down. Net food grain production, which was much more crucial than wheat production alone, actually resumed at the same growth rate as before.

But grain production became more erratic, forcing India to resume importing food by the mid-1970s. India also became dramatically more dependent on chemical fertilizer.

According to data from Indian economic and agricultural organizations, on the eve of the Green Revolution in 1965, Indian farmers needed 17 pounds (8 kilograms) of fertilizer to grow an average ton of food. By 1980, it took 96 pounds (44 kilograms). So, India replaced imports of wheat, which were virtually free food aid, with imports of fossil fuel-based fertilizer, paid for with precious international currency.

Today, India remains the world’s second-highest fertilizer importer, spending US$17.3 billion in 2022. Perversely, Green Revolution boosters call this extreme and expensive dependence “self-sufficiency.”

The toll of ‘green’ pollution

Recent research shows that the environmental costs of the Green Revolution are as severe as its economic impacts. One reason is that fertilizer use is astonishingly wasteful. Globally, only 17% of what is applied is taken up by plants and ultimately consumed as food. Most of the rest washes into waterways, where it creates algae blooms and dead zones that smother aquatic life. Producing and using fertilizer also generates copious greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.

In Punjab, India’s top Green Revolution state, heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides has contaminated water, soil and food and endangered human health.

In my view, African countries where the Green Revolution has not made inroads should consider themselves lucky. Ethiopia offers a cautionary case. In recent years, the Ethiopian government has forced farmers to plant increasing amounts of fertilizer-intensive wheat, claiming this will achieve “self-sufficiency” and even allow it to export wheat worth $105 million this year. Some African officials hail this strategy as an example for the continent.

But Ethiopia has no fertilizer factories, so it has to import it – at a cost of $1 billion just in the past year. Even so, many farmers face severe fertilizer shortages.

The Green Revolution still has many boosters today, especially among biotech companies that are eager to draw parallels between genetically engineered crops and Borlaug’s seeds. I agree that it offers important lessons about how to move forward with food production, but actual data tells a distinctly different story from the standard narrative. In my view, there are many ways to pursue less input-intensive agriculture that will be more sustainable in a world with an increasingly erratic climate.

The MSP for medium staple cotton for 2022-23 kharif season is ₹6,080.
| Photo Credit: Nagara Gopal

While cotton farmers in several States have demanded an increase in the minimum support price (MSP) of the crop, the Centre has said that it is “watching” the cotton production scenario and decide accordingly.

A senior official of the Union Textile Ministry told The Hindu that the domestic prices right now are higher than the MSP of cotton. “MSP operations will kick in if prices fall. At this point, it is not necessary. We are fully ready to come into MSP,” the official said, adding that the Cotton Corporation of India will also start procurement if the market is unable to ensure MSP for cotton.

The MSP for medium staple cotton for 2022-23 kharif season is ₹6,080. Though farmers said they got prices much higher than MSP for their produce, it was inadequate given the rise in price of input items such as seeds, pesticides and fertilisers.

For Praful Khandhadia, a cotton farmer from Rajkot, the fortunate absence of pink bollworm — a major menace — meant a comfortable production, he had to contend with other problems.

“The income from cotton was not good in the last four years. So I have not cultivated cotton on about 60% of my land. Sowing was less, but the production was good. The harvest is going on. It will be over by mid-February,” he said.

Mr. Khandhadia is able to get ₹8,500 per quintal at present. “It is higher than the MSP. Last March, some farmers got even ₹15,000 per quintal but the production was very less. Given the increased input cost, the MSP should be at least ₹10,000 per quintal. We are selling the crop for ₹8,500 because of our immediate household and farm requirements,” he said.

Harvest of cotton is over in Punjab. In Fazilka, a major cotton belt in Punjab, farmers are getting about ₹8,200 per quintal on average. “The production was just three quintals on average for an acre here. We used to get at least 15 quintals from one acre. We have been demanding compensation for cotton farmers. The seed-supplying companies are the major culprits for our losses. They should be held liable for supplying bad-quality seeds. Cotton is a cash crop for us. Our lives are dependent on this. But the companies are looting us,” Gurbhej Rohiwala, Bharatiya Kisan Union (Ekta-Ugrahan) Fazilka district president, said.

In Maharashtra, some farmers have got as much as ₹12,000 per quintal, Ajit Nawale, All India Kisan Sabha’s Maharashtra secretary, said. However, some have had a low production because of the pink bollworm attack

“The prices are good because of the global situation. The import has decreased and that is the reason why farmers are getting good prices. We have been demanding that cotton import should be banned at any cost. Along with this, cotton seeds import should also be stopped. Cotton seeds too have good demand and price as it is used as cattle and poultry feed,” he said.

Area under sugarcane has increased 4% this year. This is expected to result in sugar production going up to 399.97 lakh tonnes (before diversion for ethanol) next season as against 394 lakh tonnes this sugar season, says ISMA.
| Photo Credit: iprachenko

Sugar production during the next season (October 2022 to September 2023) is expected to be about five lakh tonnes higher than the current season, according to the Indian Sugar Mills Association (ISMA) estimates.

Area under sugarcane has increased 4% this year. This is expected to result in sugar production going up to 399.97 lakh tonnes (before diversion for ethanol) next season as against 394 lakh tonnes this sugar season, the Association said in a press statement.

In the current season, almost 34 lakh tonnes of sugar was diverted for ethanol till July 10. Ethanol blending in 2022-2023 is expected to be 12% and hence, about 545 crore litres of ethanol would be required. It is estimated that about 45 lakh tonnes would be diverted for ethanol next sugar season.

With domestic consumption of sugar estimated to be approximately 275 lakh tonnes, 2022-2023 sugar season would have almost 80 lakh tonnes of surplus sugar which can be exported, the ISMA said.