The Centre’s estimates of kharif crop production for the current year raise fresh doubts over the accuracy of the country’s agricultural statistics collection system. Independent analysts as well as the trade have questioned the official output projections in at least two crops: pulses and soyabean. As for pulses, the Agriculture Ministry’s first advance estimates have pegged the crop size at 6.01 million tonnes (mt), a mere 0.1 mt increase over last year. This, despite the area under arhar (red gram), urad (black gram), moong (green gram) and other kharif pulses registering an almost one million hectare jump. An acreage addition of 9.4 per cent resulting in a mere 1.7 per cent extra output would seem odd even in a normal year. But it totally defies belief during one in which a good and widespread south-west monsoon provided plenty of water to all major pulses-growing regions. With no reports either of significant crop damage, the general consensus is that yields have gone up significantly.
If Krishi Bhavan’s numbers are on the pessimistic side for pulses, they seem much too optimistic in the case of soyabean. The estimate of 15.68 mt is not only one mt higher than that for 2012, but 2.7 mt more than that of the Soyabean Processors’ Association of India (SOPA). This is unusual insofar as it is in the interest of processors to actually overestimate production, since this could lead to lower prices during harvest time. SOPA’s lower estimate has been prompted by the soya crop suffering from excess rain and waterlogging in parts of central Madhya Pradesh, Vidarbha and south-east Rajasthan. It would be unwise to dismiss this assessment. After all, it may be recalled that the Agriculture Ministry underestimated the incidence of yellow rust infestation on the wheat crop harvested earlier this year. The fact that official wheat procurement fell by a third and open market prices have risen by a tenth over last year is an indication of the seriousness of damage from the fungus. Yet, the Government production estimates show only a marginal dip — which no one is obviously buying.
What these cases illustrate is the limitation of the official farm production data machinery, which still relies on information supplied by poorly trained and inadequately supervised ‘patwaris’ or village accountants. This has continued even in the face of the advent of high-resolution satellites and the proven feasibility of using remote sensing technology — including tools such as handheld GPS sensors — for estimating land use, crop area and yields. It is one thing for the Centre to leave production, processing, and buying and selling of farm produce to the market. But providing reliable, comprehensive and timely crop-related production information is a role it cannot abdicate. More investment in technology is called for to reduce dependence on human agency in this area, which has crucial implications for policymaking.