E-Paper
Guest Column| Stubble trouble: Make policies more evidence-based
The present policy lacks a holistic approach and fails to address residue management adequately. It needs to be reworked and synthesised with the agriculture policy, which should respond to all issues on soil, water, and energy management and conservation, including marketing support, transportation and warehousing, crop residue management, and climate change mitigation.
The issue of stubble burning in Punjab continues to persist unabated, prompting recent advice for the state to learn from Haryana. In contrast, the state administration in Punjab has escalated punitive actions against farmers and officers failing to ensure compliance.
Discipline and compliance are integral to good governance. However, coercive action without a systemic backup to implement policies, programmes, and schemes falls short of achieving compliance. Instead, it exacerbates the burden of compliance, leading to discomfort and stress in governance.
During a recent two-day visit to Ferozepur, Ludhiana, and Jalandhar districts, it became evident that stress on officials and anguish among farmers had overshadowed their willingness and appreciation for not burning paddy straw and stubble. There was a widespread acknowledgement that paddy residue is a valuable resource and should not be burnt, considering the long-term adverse impacts on human health. Farmers managing stubble and straw without burning confessed to incurring an additional cost of ₹1,200- ₹1,500 per acre, besides investments in subsidised equipment and machinery recommended by government policy.
Paddy was introduced in Punjab to overcome food shortage and prevent famines experienced in the country earlier. The state possessed quality soil, water, and dynamic human resources, the farmers. Government policies, ensuring timely supplies of inputs at affordable prices, easy credit, and assured marketing, motivated farmers to contribute significantly to national food production. Consequently, the area under rice cultivation increased from about 10-15% to nearly 75-80% in a state where the staple diet is wheat. While this positively impacted food security, it adversely affected crop diversity and groundwater in the state.
Inadequate policy support
The area under rice cultivation has remained relatively constant, with minor periodic variations due to socio-political situations and varying market conditions. The quantities of stubble and straw produced have also remained consistent over the years. The question arises: Why were these issues not raised earlier? Are farmers solely to blame for the air pollution issues in Delhi and neighbouring areas?
After the induction of paddy crops during the Green Revolution in Punjab, governments made conscious efforts to ensure the timely shelling and processing of paddy and necessary regulations. Rice-shellers were given incentives and assured of business with a yearly allocation of paddy. While there may be industry murmurs about insufficient government support, the industry’s profitability has significantly contributed to the government’s ability to ensure timely rice supplies. About 5,000 rice-shellers operate in the state now, with an estimated investment of over ₹20,000 crore and employment for an estimated 1 lakh workers. The government’s yearly policies define regulations for these entities.
Interestingly, policies existed for input supplies, credit provisioning, marketing assurances, and even milling of paddy. However, no policy addressed the management and disposal of paddy residue. Why did this happen? Was there no perceived need for such a policy, or was it a deliberate decision to leave farmers to manage on their own? Residue management has not been part of agriculture policies despite being integral to efforts aimed at increasing production. The package of practices issued by the Punjab Agricultural University for different crops also does not deal with the management of their respective residues.
The problem was neither anticipated nor quantified, and its full assessment remains incomplete even now. As a result, responses have been ad hoc and inadequate. Fundamental questions persist: How much paddy residue is produced in the state annually? Can it be utilised effectively? If not, what alternatives exist? If yes, what options are available?
Incentivise investments in industries
Farmers are burning stubble, perhaps not the straw as much, due to inadequate policy support for cost-effective methods of timely collection, baling, storage, and utilisation of residue. Post-harvest management should include mulching for in-situ disposal and collection, baling, storage, transportation, and processing for ex-situ disposal and utilisation – all crucial components for a meaningful solution.
In-situ consumption, apart from cost implications, raises concerns about the feasibility of incorporating such large quantities of paddy residue into the soil every year and its potential impact on soil quality. Researchers need to address these questions to the satisfaction of farmers.
Ex-situ management, an unavoidable option, can only succeed if policies account for the costs borne by farmers and encourage investments in appropriate industries. Farmers should be compensated for the cost of paddy residue management, either as a bonus/incentive or as part of the MSP. Discontinuation of the MSP is not an option, as it would jeopardise farmers’ livelihoods and national food security.
Alternatively, policymakers should incentivise investments in appropriate industries, such as biofuel and plywood, enabling them to absorb the costs of paddy residue management without imposing additional financial burdens on farmers. The government may design a policy for residue bonding to ensure a steady supply of raw material and even provide incentives for warehousing large quantities of the material. Additionally, rice-shelling industries should be encouraged to engage in processes and products based on paddy residue.
Technical, financial support
The present policy lacks a holistic approach and fails to address residue management adequately. It needs to be reworked and synthesised with the agriculture policy, which should respond to all issues, reflecting fully on soil, water, and energy management and conservation, timely seed and fertiliser supplies and their optimal utilisation, credit provisioning, agriculture labour administration, marketing support, transportation and warehousing, crop residue management, climate change mitigation, neutralisation, or minimisation of the effects of weather vagaries, and finally, processing and distribution of food.
The crops targeted for diversification of agriculture should get more incentives and attention. These issues are now handled separately by different government agencies and departments, with responses to matters like crop-residue management being notably lackadaisical. The Government of India should provide the necessary technical guidance and financial support for these objectives. All government agencies, departments, NGOs, and other stakeholders should collaborate to formulate a holistic policy fully grounded in research and supported by data and technology for an integrated response and solution. sureshkumarnangia@gmail.com
The writer is a retired Punjab-cadre IAS officer. Views expressed are personal.
