There are indications that the Centre is considering a serious push to natural farming. The scientific research establishment is not entirely ready as it is not familiar with natural farming and its variants. The task before the Centre is to bring about this shift in orientation, while also getting the better of commercial interests invested in the prevailing agro-chemicals based high-input intensive farming in irrigated areas.
Food Security
India has the second highest arable land after US. Small and marginal farmers (86 per cent of all farmers) who own up to two hectares, cultivate 46 per cent of our land. Medium farmers (13 per cent) who own 2-10 hectares, cultivate 44 per cent of our land.
Nearly 50 per cent of our arable land will continue to be under rainfed agriculture. About 60 per cent of farmers inhabit rainfed areas, producing millets, pulses, oilseeds and cotton. Our policies don’t differentiate between rainfed and irrigated agriculture. Groundwater is the major source of irrigation (65 per cent) and drinking water (85 per cent) which isn’t sustainable given the reality of climate change and receding aquifers. Rainfed areas hence must be the focus for NF. It will enhance climate resilience, nutrition security and not disturb food security.
Green Revolution was successful but is fading gradually. The nutrient content of our food is reducing. Chemical traces on our foods are on the rise. Nearly two-thirds of our arable land is degraded to some extent. Climate change is already impacting foodgrain production. Fortunately, India has several successful examples of NF.
Honestly, line departments earlier implemented government’s NF programme merely as compliance. The existing system, imbued with Green Revolution practices, was tasked to deliver.An unbiased and empowered delivery mechanism with various agencies is needed. The programme must be of 100 lakh hectares to celebrate our centenary of Independence.
Existing norms estimate per hectare cost of NF at ₹33,000. The programme will cost ₹33,000 crore. This is small change. The broad breakup is: changes of farmers (50 per cent), institutions (10 per cent), action research (30 per cent) and programme management units (10 per cent).
The Central subsidies to farmers/rural development amount to about ₹6 trillion and is increasing every year. Many State governments give similar subsidies. A clear message from these cash transfers is, farmers and agriculture need support. Underinvested rainfed areas which produce about 45 per cent of our foodgrains are the go-to place to nurture and establish NF.
The Centre recently committed ₹3.7 trillion for the path-breaking PM Pranam programme which incentivises State governments to reduce fertiliser consumption (64 million tonnes/year) by transferring 50 per cent subsidy savings to invest in environmentally friendly technologies.
But before utilising these funds, the NF programme must develop the technology. Production-linked cash incentives can be given to farmers who have taken up NF.
How can we use these funds when we don’t have such established technologies? They have to be developed first, and NF programme can do that. Another way to look at NF programme costing is, existing fertilizer subsidy is about ₹15,000 per hectare per year. Savings on fertilizer consumption will itself pay for the programme as cost for transformation is ₹33,000 per hectare over 3-4 years. We must give production linked cash incentives to transitioned farmers, for providing ecosystem services. Some feel NF would upset hard-earned food security. The US’s ‘land grant colleges’ laid the foundation for agriculture science as it is practised today. Monocrops, capital and input intensive farming practices are its underpinning. This must change, because our lives depend on this ecosystem shift.
The writer is former Deputy Managing Director, NABARD. Views are personal