In the week that went by, your columnist was invited to make a presentation on “Organized Retail : Advantage Farmers, Industry and Consumers” by the Assocham, and deliver a valedictory address to the third International Water Summit organized by the Indian Chambers of Commerce, both at New Delhi. This column is based on the interactions at these forums.
In the first seminar, your columnist gave an overview of the farm sector, the recommendations of the Saumitra Chaudhuri Committee Report, the initiatives taken by the Ministry with reference to the National Centre for Cold Chain Development, the Vegetable Initiative for Urban clusters and the PPP IAD (public Private Partnership for intensive agricultural development) under RKVY, and the policy regime which supports linkages from farm to fork. The main thrust of the argument was that the proposition of Indian agriculture being a gamble with monsoons and markets was still valid – though some monsoon proofing had been achieved on account of interventions through the National Disaster Relief Fund, which now had very clear norms – both on trigger points and the scale of assistance. However, in spite of all the policy pronouncements on market issues, the farmers were still at the receiving end – both when production fell because of poor monsoon, and in cases of glut in a good year. Organized Retail had an important role to play in integrating the supply chain, and ensuring that the farmers got a greater share in the consumer’s rupee. However to posit that all the farmers’ woes would be sorted out because of retail, including FDI in retail was not a valid proposition. The real benefits to the producer would come because of reforms in agricultural marketing which was the main stumbling block, not just too organized retail, but also to farmer’s organizations trying to consolidate and sell the produce directly. In fact the Saumitra Chaudhuri report was clear that there was not just one ‘silver bullet’ to resolve all the problems of the farmers.
In fact the Saumitra Chaudhuri report had suggested that a four pronged action strategy was required, and organized retail was one of the thrust areas. The report understood the need to understand economic agents, market reforms, institutional linkages and financial incentives. It clearly underlined the fact that the core competence of farmers lay in production and that value addition, aggregation, logistics and reaching out to the consumers required different skill sets and competencies. What policy could hope to achieve was the transformation of an opaque market system with transparency in transactions and institutional support to famers to avoid distress sale (warehouse receipts and long range price discovery).
With reference to industry, the NCCD, the Vegetable Initiative and PPP IAD were all aimed to increase the direct interface of the organized players with the farmers, and to ensure that the current levels of distrust could be replaced with long term institutional arrangements. As this columnist has understood over the years, industry also looks at issues through its own prism: what is required is a long range vision, and seminars such as these do open new frontiers of possibilities.
The response of the panelists was on expected lines – with Mr. Raja of the CPI and Ms Nirmala Sitharaman of the BJP opposing government policy and Mr. Raj Kumar Dhoot supporting the proposition. Mr. Ajay Vir Jhakhar of the Bharat Krishak Samaj made a nuanced intervention: FDI in retail was good because it opened another marketing channel for the farmers, but the main reasons for opening up the sector were driven by interests of large corporate eyeing the retail space as urban India increased its spending power.
The seminar on water was equally interesting. Here the focus was on PPP projects for urban water and sewerage systems, and drinking water schemes in rural areas, besides effluent treatment and waste water management in industrial estates. Your columnist reminded the organizers and participants that there could be no meaningful discussion on water policy without ‘agriculture ‘playing a salient role as over eighty percent sweet water was utilized by agriculture. It is true that agriculture development strategy did not factor water as a scarce resource three decades ago, but now micro irrigation, protected cultivation and fertigation had an important role as resource use efficiency was an important pivot. Water saved on account of micro irrigation could be used for urban, industrial and institutional uses – but the capital expenditure involved had to be shared across sectors that would benefit from the water thus saved. Industry could play an important role in taking up PPP projects for micro irrigation in command areas, thereby ensuring water for those at the tail end, besides promoting crops which were suited for the agro climatic and soil types. This column had discussed the initiative taken by the Planning Commissions and Water Resources Ministry in this regard. The need of the hour was to get the stakeholders from different sectors, and at least the Water Resources, Drinking Water, Urban Development, Rural Development, Agriculture and Industrial Policy Departments on a common platform together with the Planning Commission so that a common eco-system for water could be evolved. But with all its limitations, the positive take- away was that it had stirred a debate, evoked interest and shaken complacency.
One final point before closing. Your columnist noted that most Resource persons and speakers come with very long presentations – forty to fifty slides for a ten minute slot- and forget that they have to address an audience. It’s time we went back to good old seminars- without prepared texts and presentations. It would be more meaningful, thought provoking and audience friendly!