Q2.
What do the new laws entail?
-
The
first law, the
FPTC Act,
offers farmers the choice
to
sell their produce within the Government regulated physical markets
existing prior to the passage of the Act or
outside
it; to
private channels, integrators, Farmer Producer Organizations, or
cooperatives through
a physical market or on an electronic platform; and directly at
farm or anywhere else. Essentially the law provides more options to
farmers to sell their produce.
-
The
second law, APAFS
Act, is
a simplified and improved version of the Contract
Farming Act that
has already been adopted by 20 Indian states. Contract farming acts
as a form of price assurance. The new law is intended to insulate
interested farmers against
the market and price
risks so
that they can go for cultivation of high-value crops without
worrying about the market and low prices in the harvest season.
-
The
third reform involves modification in the
Essential Commodities Act and
lays down transparent
criteria in
terms of price triggers
behind
Government decisions to regulate the supply of essential
commodities under extraordinary circumstances. This removes
the arbitrariness
in invoking the Act.
Q3.
Why
were the new laws/amendment required? What was the situation before
the enactment of the new laws?
Agriculture
is a priority sector for India. It contributes about 17% of India’s
Gross Value Added, and is the largest source of livelihood in India.
Reform of the agriculture marketing system has been an ongoing
process, with the need for it felt across party lines. These
measures fulfill this longstanding need.
The
issues
plaguing the sector which
these reforms intend to address are as follows:
-
Earlier
legal framework required
the farmers to sell their produce only at State Government
designated physical markets called the Agriculture Produce
Marketing Committee (APMC) markets.
-
Fragmented
and insufficient markets: Each
of these APMC markets functioned as a separate entity, hampering
intra and interstate trade. At the same time, there were not enough
markets to deal with growing produce.
-
Restriction
in licesing: Entry
to the APMC markets as a licensed agent was restricted,
discouraging competition and encouraging cartelization.
-
High
intermediation costs: Taxes,
various commissions and a fragmented system led to high
intermediation charges raising
costs for consumers, while depressing prices received by farmers.
-
Information
asymmetry: Farmers
often lacked market information, which traders and commission
agents withheld from them.
-
Inadequate
agricultural infrastructure: Despite
market taxes, infrastructure in markets remained underdeveloped and
not in tune with modern supply chains. An outdated and inadequate
agriculture infrastructure, led to high post-harvest losses,
estimated at Rs. 90,000 crores (over USD 12 billion) in 2014. This
is because the policy environment discouraged private sector
investment in the agriculture cold chain.
-
Inadequate
credit facilities: Informal
credit channels still dominated formal channels.
-
Prevailing
system discouraged linkages of farmers to food processors and
exporters:
Despite
being one of the largest producers of agricultural commodities
globally, India only processes 10% of its total production.
Similarly, India’s share in global food exports stands at 2.3%
which is well below its potential.
-
Disparity
between agriculture and other sectors: The
major economic reforms carried out in 1991 in India did not cover
agriculture. While the rest of India marched on the road towards
prosperity on the back of the 1991 reforms, agricultural growth
remained stuck at the earlier level, with negative growth in
agricultural income in five out of 12 years following 1990–91. It
was long recognized that the agriculture sector too needed
pro-farmer reforms to double
the income of the farmers.
-
Liberalised
markets are more favourable to agricultural growth:
There has been indication that liberalised markets are more
favourable to agricultural growth than government support and
market intervention. For example, areas such as horticulture, milk
and fishery, having little or no market intervention by the
government have shown a 4-10% annual growth, whereas the growth
rate in cereals, where interventions are high, remained 1.1% after
2011-12.
-
Contract
farming existed
earlier in some States, but these States had their own laws on the
subject. A national framework on contract farming was missing. With
the passage of the new law, contract farming has
now been nationally enabled at terms favourable to farmers. It will
also provide price assurance to farmers even before sowing of crops
and enable them to access modern technology and other inputs. It
has also eliminated the
complicated system of registration/licence, deposits, and other
compliance measures required for contract farming in various
States, and created a legal framework for agreements between
farmers and sponsors.
Q4.
What are the benefits of the said reforms?
-
The
reforms are aimed at ensuring
that the objective of ‘Doubling Farmers’ Income’
is realized.
-
The
new legal framework unshackles
agricultural marketing in
India.
Farmers
will have the freedom
to
sell their produce to
who they want and where they want.
The
new law gives
the farmers the freedom of choice to sell in the APMC market or
choose any other seller. This also increases competition and
farmers’ bargaining
power which
will lead to better returns for them.
-
APMC
markets will now
face competition
from other markets, prompting them to improve
their own functioning
to remain competitive.
-
Farmers
will no
longer be
bound to pay a long list of market
fees, taxes, and cesses on their produce,
thereby improving their returns.
-
Contract
farming
acts as a form of price
assurance.
It is now nationally enabled and on terms
favorable to farmers.
-
Farmers
will be empowered to
access modern input, services and protection against price risk.
-
Export
competitiveness will increase,
benefitting the farmers.
-
The
modification in Essential Commodities Act will
attract much-needed
private
investments in
agriculture from input to post-harvest activities.
-
Incentives
are
now aligned for private sector investments
across
the entire cold chain.
-
Increased
investments in the sector and development of infrastructure will
reduce
post-harvest losses, improve remuneration through grading and
sorting and boost linkages to terminal markets
in food processing, retail, and exports.
-
India’s
agriculture and food processing industries will receive a
much-needed fillip with a liberal procurement regime.
-
Employment
in
the food processing sector will
rise, and
this can put India on the path towards becoming the leading food
exporter in the world, whilst maintaining our food security.
-
Promotion
of electronic trading: The
Electronic National Market for Agriculture (eNAM) was launched in
2016, with the objective of promoting electronic
trading in agriculture produce.
However, the potential of eNAM was being hindered
by the prevailing legal provisions.
While over 1,000 mandis have been onboarded to eNAM, a true
national market for agriculture remained far from reality. eNAM
can fulfil its potential of serving as the national
platform for electronic trading in agriculture produce.
The
farmers are protesting against the provisions of these laws as they
fear that the the procuement under the Minimum
Support Price (MSP) system
may be removed.
In
addition, they fear that they will be left at the mercy of large
corporations/traders who may exploit them and take away their land.
Q6.
Will the current reforms have any effect on procurement under the
MSP system?
The
MSP system
stays.
The new law will
not affect MSPs adversely.
MSP purchase on agricultural produce is done through State Agencies
and there is no change in this due to this law. MSP procurement from
farmers is the top priority of the Government and it will continue
to be so.
Q7.
Will the new Act affect the functioning of the APMCs?
The
new Act is not
intended to replace the State APMC Act and does not affect the
functioning of the APMC markets.
APMCs will continue to regulate the marketing of agricultural
produce within the physical boundaries of market yards. They can
levy market fee within physical mandi as per their regulations.
The
Act only
provides farmers with additional marketing opportunities outside
existing APMCs. Both
the laws will co-exist for the common interest of farmers.
Q8.
How will the Act on contract farming ensure that the farmers are not
exploited by the traders, especially if the farmers will be bound by
contract farming?
The
Act provides sufficient
and elaborate mechanisms to protect the interest of farmers.
Simple, accessible, quick and cost-effective dispute
resolution mechanism
is prescribed for the farmers against traders to prevent and curb
any unscrupulous acts.
Moreover,
to curb any malpractices deterring penal
provisions have
been put in place for traders. These provisions will act as
deterrent against any fraudulent motives, thus safeguarding
farmer payments.
The
Contract Farming Law does not require any farmer to enter into a
mandatory agreement, the decision is left entirely on the farmer.
Besides, the law
clearly disallows any transfer, including sale, lease and mortgage
of the land or premises of the farmer
and ensures that buyers/sponsors
are prohibited from acquiring ownership rights or making permanent
modifications on farmers’ land.
Farmers
can withdraw
from the contract at any point without any penalty.
Q9.
Does the Act provide a price guarantee for farmers?
The
Act clearly says that the price
of farming produce will be mentioned in the farming agreement
itself,
which
assures the price. It also says that,
in case, such price is subject to variation, then
the agreement
shall explicitly provide for a guaranteed price to be paid for such
produce. If
the contractor
fails to honour the
agreement and does not make payment to the farmer, the
penalty may extend to one and half times the amount due.
The
contract farming agreement between the farmer and the company is
only
for the crop, NOT for the land.
The new laws have no provision for leasing out land by the farmers
in any manner to the sponsors or the companies. The Act expressly
prohibits the sponsor from acquiring ownership rights or making
permanent modifications to the land. Thus, the apprehension that
companies or sponsor will take away farmers’ land or assets is
misplaced.
Q11.
Have there been previous attempts to reform India’s agricultural
marketing system?
Attempts
to reform the agriculture marketing system have been going on for
over two decades.
Multiple Expert Committees, Inter-Ministerial Task Forces,
Commissions, Groups of State Agriculture Ministers and Chief
Ministers have made the observation for the past twenty years, that
the present
system of agriculture marketing
was
proving to be a disincentive
to farmers, trade and industries.
The Standing Committee on Agriculture of the 17th
Lok Sabha (Lower House of the Parliament) noted in its report that
the existing APMC markets were not working in the best interest of
farmers.
All of these expert groups, committees and task
forces made similar recommendations:
i)The
existing system of APMC markets needed competition.
ii)Alternative
marketing channels such
as direct selling needed to be encouraged.
iii)The
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 needed to be amended to encourage
investments
in storage and warehousing.
iv)Contract
farming needed an enabling
framework.
v)There
was a need for a barrier
free, national agriculture market.
Many
government committees noted the slow pace of reforms in this sector,
despite efforts ongoing since 2001. The
Government has set an ambitious, but achievable goal of doubling
farmers' income.
Marketing reforms were going to be critical in achieving this.
Yet, it was found that State Governments had not adopted
marketing reforms in true letter and spirit. To this end, the Union
Government issued the Model Agriculture Produce Livestock Marketing
Act, 2017 and the Model Contract Farming Act, 2018 for States to
adopt. Yet,
the reform process was piecemeal and cosmetic in nature.
Q12.
Why was a new approach required?
From
deficit management to surplus management: As
India moved from a food deficit nation to a food surplus one, the
focus of policy needed to shift from deficit management to surplus
management. The previous attempts at reform, which required States
to take the lead in instituting legislative changes to their own
APMC Acts bore little fruit. Agriculture remained a State subject,
however, Inter-State Commerce and Trade remained on the Union List.
It
was also clear that a new approach was needed to unlock India’s
agriculture markets and make the goal of doubling farmers’ income
a reality. Therefore, the decision to deregulate agriculture
marketing outside the physical area of notified markets, promote
contract farming and amend the Essential Commodities Act, was taken.
Complementing these reforms, a Rs. 1 Lakh Crore Agriculture
Infrastructure Fund has been launched to create infrastructure close
to the farm-gate.
Along
with investments
in infrastructure, a huge thrust is also being placed on the
collectivisation of farmers through Farmer Producer Organisations
(FPOs)/Farmer Producer Companies (FPCs), to improve their bargaining
power.
Q13.
Who
are the protesting farmers ?
Farmers
from reportedly 500 farmer associations are protesting under a
common banner called the Samyukta
Kisan Morcha in
India. The number of protesting farmers would be in thousands, and
not 250 million, as reported by some media outlets. The protest is
not happening across the country – this is mainly limited to the
northern parts of India, around Delhi. The protests have been
peaceful, and there has been no law-and-order situation linked to
these protests.
Government
has been engaging the farmers on a regular basis with a view to
address their concerns and find amicable solutions. Five rounds of
talks have been held between the Government and the farmers’
delegation under the Samyukt
Kisan Morcha.
A delegation of farmer leaders under the banner of Samyukt
Kisan Morcha has
also met the Home
Minister on 8 December 2020.