Policy must tackle not just dissatisfaction of large farmers, but distress of most vulnerable

To address farmers' woes, we need a multi-pronged strategy of income support, government investment, and institutional innovations, and not a one-size-fits-all approach.

The two main policy interventions repeatedly discussed in recent months to tackle farmer distress — loan waivers and minimum support prices (MSP) — treat all farmers (large/small, male/female) alike. But farmers are heterogeneous. They differ especially by income, land owned and gender. And farmer dissatisfaction is not the same as farmer distress. Better-off farmers are dissatisfied but politically vocal; poor farmers are distressed and many kill themselves in silence. It is the truly distressed we need to reach, but our policies only address the dissatisfied.

Advertising

First, take loan waivers. Today, most economists agree that waivers are a bad idea: They deplete state finances, undermine bank culture, and barely reach 20-25 per cent farmers who have access to institutional credit, but not the marginal farmers or labourers who depend on moneylenders, or get no credit at all. Having a bank debt is not, in itself, a sign of distress. Farming, like other businesses, needs loans, and access to formal credit signifies credit worthiness. It is the marginal and small farmers who depend mainly on private lenders, and whose loans don’t get waived, who are in distress.

Second, raising MSPs will help surplus producing farmers, but not net buyers of farm produce — marginal farmers, farm labourers and urban consumers. A 2015 IIM-A report on Marketed and Marketable Surplus found that marginal farmers (up to one hectare land) contributed only 5 per cent of marketed surplus rice and 4 per cent of wheat, even in the major rice and wheat surplus states. And they sold only 39 per cent and 25 per cent of their marketed rice and wheat to government agencies, compared with the 70 per cent and 90 per cent sold by large farmers. Further, the Shanta Kumar Committee reports that only 6 per cent of farmers gained from selling these crops to any procurement agency.

Third, the policy of direct transfers to farmers also ignores the inequality between farmers. Telangana gave Rs 9,900/ha/season to all landowning farmers. Hence, the very large landowners gained — not only from owning large tracts, but in both seasons, since with irrigation they can cultivate in both kharif and rabi seasons; while pure-tenants and labourers got nothing. Nor did women farmers get anything, few of whom own land. Odisha recently announced that it will pay both farmers and labourers, but like Telangana, it will pay per household and not per person. Both states thus ignore women’s claims, and also the substantial evidence that it is income in a mother’s hands that greatly improves child nutrition and education, rather than income only in the father’s hands.

In fact, neither state has recognised intra-household inequalities, or paid heed to the large proportion of women farmers who are either principal cultivators or de-facto responsible for farms with male out-migration. Both categories are growing: Women farmers directly operating holdings, for example, grew from 12.8 per cent in 2010-11 to 13.9 per cent in 2015-16 (agricultural censuses). And in 2010, women farmers constituted 15 per cent of farmer suicides in five major states.

In NSSO’s Situation Analysis Survey, when 50,000 farmers across India were asked if they liked farming, 40 per cent said they did not. This included both better-off and poor farmers, and both men and women. As discussed in my article (‘The seeds of discontent,’ IE January 15, 2017), the better-off farmers, with more land, credit and education have high aspirations and are deeply dissatisfied, not in the least by the lack of formal sector jobs for themselves and their children. The poorer farmers are distressed given poor returns from agriculture. Women fall in both categories.

To address these woes, we need a multi-pronged strategy of income support, government investment, and institutional innovations, and not a one-size-fits-all approach. First, to overcome immediate distress, direct transfers are preferable to loan waivers, but transfers should be limited to smallholders (those owning 2 ha or less), pure-tenants and agricultural labourers. And the funds should go to women in the family for best results.

Second, to reduce the long-term distress of poor farmers, agricultural investment in priority areas is imperative. Topping my list is irrigation, water conservation, and storage for surplus produce. Even 70 years after Independence, only 44 per cent of our irrigable area is irrigated. This must increase, but not via groundwater mining, which is unsustainable. Consider Punjab’s massive groundwater depletion. After the state introduced free electricity for irrigation in 1997, canal irrigated land declined by 40 per cent between 1997-2002, while groundwater extraction rose sharply, as did the area under paddy. Now, Punjab’s water table is falling by 2.3 ft/yr or more, with no penalties for overdrawing. In contrast, Gujarat’s success in agriculture (9.6 per cent growth rate between 1999-2009) lay particularly in rainwater harvesting. This needs replication wherever possible. Also, water use efficiency by farmers is essential: Low-cost techniques of drip irrigation could be one method.

BEST OF EXPRESS

Month after Meghalaya mine collapse, Navy detects one body

Quota at top: State-run banks and PSUs fare much better than Govt

Theresa May wins no-confidence vote but faces Brexit battle

Third, some 70 per cent of farmers cultivate one hectare or less, in scattered plots. This is non-viable. Andrew Foster and Mark Rosenzweig, in their 2011 report, ‘Are Indian farms too small?’, find that as farm size in India increases from very small to eight ha, profits/ha rise substantially. So why don’t we encourage land and labour pooling? In my research on Kerala, I compared women’s group farms using leased land with individual family farms (95 per cent of which were male managed), in Thrissur and Alappuzha. The annual average value of output was 1.8 times greater and annual average profits were five times higher on group farms, which did especially well in commercial crops such as bananas and vegetables, despite depending on leased land. Groups helped increase farm size, brought scale economies, saved on hired labour, improved credit access and enhanced bargaining power in input and output markets. Institutional reform has long been a blind spot in India’s farm policy. It needs to be an integral part of schemes to help poor farmers (both men and women). Groups can also reduce farmer isolation and the likelihood of suicides.

Fourth, dietary changes require more focus on non-foodgrains for food security, including vegetables which are more profitable and inland fisheries, a key source of protein. Finally, both to overcome farmer distress and farmer dissatisfaction, creating jobs for farmers’ children in their vicinity, not in cities, is essential, through ancillary industries, food processing, SMEs, and so on. This would provide much needed supplementary income for farmers in distress. Doubling farmers’ incomes does not need doubling farm incomes. It needs increasing their incomes from both farm and non-farm sources.

Source: Indian Express, 17/01/2019

Nearly as many farmhands commit suicide as farmers

Govt’s Relief Leaves Out Labourers

Government schemes meant to tackle farm distress have focussed on farmers — typically through loan waivers — but official data shows that almost half of all suicides among those working in agriculture is by labourers, not far mers.

Data from the National Crime Records Bureau, cited in the answer to a question in the Lok Sabha recently shows that of the 36,332 people “self-employed persons in farming/agriculture” who committed suicides between 2014 and 2016, 16,324 or about 45% were farm labourers.

At the level of individual states, a majority have seen more labourers than farmers taking their own lives. Particularly striking are the statistics of Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Kerala and Rajasthan.

In Tamil Nadu, there have been 1,776 labourer suicides in these three years compared to 106 farmers taking their lives.

The corresponding figures for Gujarat are 1,177 and 132, for Kerala 1,205 and 133 and for Rajasthan 485 and 7.

Distress among agricultural labourers can also be gauged by the fact that West Bengal, Uttarakhand and Bihar have not witnessed any farmer suicides, but there have been suicides by labourers during this period.

Census data shows that labourers account for about 45% of the population working in agriculture, farmers constituting the remaining 55%. It might seem, therefore, that the pattern of the suicides is merely reflecting this reality.

However, at the state level this correspondence breaks down completely.

Several states in which farm labourers outnumber farmers have seen more farmers committing suicides than farmhands and the reverse is equally true. The NCRB has been providing disaggregated data on farm suicides only from 2014 and hence it is not possible to see whether the trend has changed from earlier years. Also, the 2016 data is provisional according to the answer in Parliament.

Experts have repeatedly pointed out that the biggest farmers are the major beneficiaries of loan waivers and marginal farmers and labourers, who hardly get formal credit and have to bank on moneylenders, are left out of the schemes.

The National Commission on Farmers (NCF) under the chairmanship of Professor M S Swaminathan had also recommended that agricultural labourers be treated as landless farmers and suggested several major nonfarm initiatives along with employment guarantee programmes for them.

Source: Times of India, 2/08/18

Why a price increase alone won't help farmers

Fundamental problems of crop and regional bias of MSP policy, govt. procurement and access to institutional credit need to be addressed.

Agricultural distress is often viewed as a short-term phenomenon in which farmers look for support from various quarters on account of being unable to get a gainful return due to price crash, poor marketing facilities, rising credit burden, increasing cost of inputs and frequent occurrence of natural calamities. A prolonged unrest in rural India — such as the decision of Andhra Pradesh farmers not to sow in the 2011 kharif season and mark a ‘crop holiday’ protest — will have serious consequences for food security.

Agricultural distress has become a permanent feature due to the failure of not only elected governments to find a lasting solution but also local institutions such as community or social networks which are supposedly weakening because of increasing individualisation. The consequence is that helpless farmers are increasingly pushed to the brink of committing suicides.

A tipping point

The distress seems to have reached a tipping point, with scenes of dejected farmers throwing agricultural produce such as vegetables and milk on the roads becoming a routine feature in recent years. Rather than addressing the genuine problems of farmers, politicians are unfortunately busy scoring points over the deaths of innocent farmers.

Are demands of our farmers unjust? Not really. They want a reasonable price for their produce, better marketing facilities, institutional credit, irrigation, quality seeds and fertilisers, procurement during times of market glut and a social safety net during natural calamities. These are the basic inputs and services farmers need to continue to engage in agricultural production. Many committees and commissions constituted in the past have looked into India’s farming conditions. Their recommendations have been shelved by successive governments.

The non-availability of remunerative prices to farmers on agricultural produce is a vexed issue and emerges as the prime issue in various research studies wherein farmers are asked to rank production constraints. Will a rise in the minimum support price (MSP) solve the problem? Some critics argue that a rise in the MSP will lead to increase in food inflation, while others that it will augment farmers’ income. Both arguments rest on the mistaken notion that the MSP is a remunerative price. It is actually an insurance price, a floor price of sorts. Besides, a vast majority of the farming population is unaware of its existence.

The Government of India has an MSP for 23 crops, but official procurement at the MSP is effectively limited to rice and wheat, and that too concentrated in a few States only. Awareness about the MSP is limited to States such as Punjab, Haryana and Andhra Pradesh where such procurement takes place. According to the National Sample Survey’s (NSS) Situation Assessment Survey of Agricultural Households 2013, even for paddy and wheat, less than one-third of farmers were aware of the MSP; for other crops, such awareness was negligible. Further, a substantial proportion of crops are sold to local private traders and input dealers to whom the resource-poor marginal and small landholders are obligated to sell their crops due to tie-up with credit.

Since 2004, successive governments claimed to have increased institutional credit flow to the agricultural sector through increased budgetary allocation on crop loans. According to NSS data, over 40% of farmers still rely on non-institutional lenders, who mostly happen to be moneylenders-cum-traders and input dealers. Further, analysis of credit disbursement data from the Reserve Bank of India reveals that out of total advances to agriculture, the share of indirect finance has increased substantially over time, while that of direct finance to farmers has declined. This means that at the macro level, it would appear that there is an increase in credit flow to the agricultural sector but this has actually accrued to agro-business firms/corporations and not directly to the farmers. Consequently, marginal and small farmers continue to rely on traders and input dealers. Unless the fundamental problems of crop and regional bias of MSP policy, government procurement and access to institutional credit are addressed, mere increase in MSP will not benefit most farmers in the country.

Further, the response of various State governments to a glut in the market appears to be muted. There exist intervention schemes to undertake the procurement of commodities whose market prices go below the MSP, but on most occasions the marketing season of bumper crops gets over by the time a bureaucratic decision on procurement is taken. Ultimately, the farmers are left at the mercy of unscrupulous traders to sell at whatever price they offer, with resultant repercussions such as the burning of the entire crop or throwing the harvested produce on roads in protest.

Various studies show an increasing divergence between agricultural and non-agricultural income. And the rising aspirations among rural youth to emulate urban lifestyles put enormous pressure on them to find ways to increase income through various agricultural activities. Unfortunately, income from crop cultivation, which is a major segment of agriculture, is not growing enough to meet the expected level. On the contrary, the increasing market orientation and reforms in the input sector have resulted in a substantial rise in input costs.

Dipping income

Analysis of data from the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare reveal that income from cultivation of many cereals and pulses has declined between 2004-05 and 2013-14 despite a considerable increase in MSP during this period. In the case of paddy, out of 18 major rice-growing States, net income has declined in five, and it is negative in six States. In seven States, it has increased only marginally. Income from the cultivation of even horticultural crops is uncertain due to the heavy investment involved and the high volatility in market prices. Most acute is the rise in prices of fertilisers: between 1991-92 and 2013-14, while the price of urea increased by 69%, that of DAP (diammonium phosphate) and potash rose by 300% and 600%, respectively.

Recent policy pronouncements have added to the woes of already beleaguered farmers. The promotion of traditional farming at this juncture of agricultural development will take the sector to where it was decades ago. Most existing modern crop varieties will not respond to these practices in the medium term; consequently, yield and income will decline. Further, facilities to produce adequate organic inputs have not been developed either. Animal husbandry has been practised as a supplementary activity since time immemorial. Livestock acts as a cushion against crop loss during times of drought. The new rules on animal markets will put poor farmers and landless labourers in a fix. These developments do not augur well for rural youth whose interest in farming is already dwindling. While other developing countries are moving towards modernisation of agriculture which would reduce dependence of labour force and enable a rise in productivity, Indian agriculture is cluelessly plodding ahead.

Elumalai Kannan is an associate professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. His views are personal

Source: Thy Hindu, 13-06-2017

Farmer suicides up 42% between 2014 & 2015

Priyanka Kakodkar

Mumbai:





5,650 Cultivators Ended Their Lives In 2014; 8,007 In 2015. Maha In Top Spot With 3,030 Deaths

Farmer suicides in the country rose by 42% between 2014 and 2015, according to newly released data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). It recorded 5,650 suicides by farmers and cultivators in 2014. The figure rose to 8,007 in the latest data. Several states across the country battled severe drought in both 2014 and 2015. Some, including Maharashtra, experienced two successive years of drought.
With 3,030 cases, Maharashtra recorded the highest number of farmer suicides in the country (37.8%). Telangana was second, with 1,358 cases, and Karnataka third with 1,197. Six states of Maharashtra, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Karnataka accounted for 94.1% of total farmer suicides.
In fact, farmer suicides shot up even though as many as nine states and seven Union territories recorded no case at all in the NCRB figures. The states which reported nil farmer suicides in 2015 include Bihar, West Bengal, Goa, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Mizoram, Nagaland and Uttarakhand.
“Highly erratic and inadequate monsoon in the last two-three years has aggravated problems for persons engaged in the farming sector.Manifestations of these in extreme situations can be seen in the form of farmers' suicides,“ the report said.
While the data showed a sharp rise in suicides by farmers, it also recorded a steep 31.5% decline in suicides by agricultural labourers in the country during the same period. This category was introduced by the NCRB in 2014, a move which was criticised as an attempt to reduce the number recorded as “farmer sui cides“. The suicides by agricultural labourers declined from 6,710 cases in 2014 to 4,595 in 2015.
Maharashtra recorded the highest number of suicides in the category of agricultural labourers as well, accounting for 1,261 cases. Madhya Pradesh followed next with 709 suicides and then Tamil Nadu with 604 cases. The overall number of suicides in the farming sector in the country recorded a marginal 2% increase. The number of suicides by those in the farming sector rose from 12,360 in 2014 to 12,602 in 2015, accor ding to the data. The figures have risen only marginally, given the major decline recorded in the number of suicides of agricultural labourers.
“Bankruptcy and indebtedness“ emerged as the single largest underlying cause behind farmer suicides in 2015 with 38.7% of the 8,007 farmer suicides linked to these factors. Farming-related issues formed the second major cause, accounting for 19.5% of the cases. The data also showed that as many as 72.6% of the farmers who committed suicide in 2015 were small and marginal farmers who owned less than two hectares of land.
“Farmer suicides tend to be higher in states like Maharashtra which cultivate cash crops. These require high investments and are also high risk,“ said farm activist Vijay Jawandhia. States like Bihar where farmers migrate during the lean season are also better able to cope with farm distress, he said.

Source: Times of india, 06-01-2017

Farmer suicides in Marathwada cross 400 mark in 4 months; toll reaches 1,548 - 

92 more than 2015, Govt taskforce says crisis too big, will take time to turn things around.

The farmer suicides, which have remained unstoppable for past few years in eight districts of Marathwada, have crossed the staggering 400-mark in just over four month period in 2016. Compared to 2015, as many as 92 more farmers have embraced deaths in the first four and half months of 2016, highlighting the failure of the government schemes launched in August to curb the spate of suicides. A special taskforce appointed by the Devendra Fadnavis government on Tuesday conceded that the agrarian crisis was too “substantial” and results of the government efforts to put brakes on suicides will take time to show up. 

In 2015, the collective figure of suicides in all eight districts of Marathwada stood at 1,130 – three suicides every day and throughout the year. In past 16 months, 1,548 distressed farmers have been reported dead in the Marathwada region which is witnessing fourth successive years of drought with wells, rivers and dams having gone dry. In 2015, Beed, from where Rural Development Minister Pankaja Munde hails, had witnessed nearly 300 farmer suicides. In 2016, in just over four months, it is again on top with 75 suicides. In Aurangabad where Shiv Sena and MIM raise decibel levels on every other issue stands second with 64 suicides. Nanded, from where MPCC president Ashok Chavan comes from, is at third spot with 62 suicides. Other districts where farmer suicides have become common includes Latur 55, Osmanabad 54, Jalna 43, Parbhani 39 and Hingoli 26, according to officials at the Aurangabad divisional commissionerate which monitors the farmer suicides. In 2015, from January to April, as many as 278 had ended their lives. In the same period in 2016, 370 – 92 more than 2015. Till May 7, in 2016, 392 farmers were reported dead. In 2015, the figure of suicides stood at 300 in the same period. “It is true that compared to last year, this year’s figure of farmer suicides is on the much higher side,” said Jitendra Papalkar, Aurangabad Deputy Commissioner (revenue). Osmanabad which was picked by the state government’s “zero-suicide district” reflects what, official sources, say the failure of government’s so-called efforts to put brakes on the farmer suicide saga. It has reported 54 suicides since January. Officials have been citing two main reasons for farmer suicides: crop failure and mounting debts. Conceding that government efforts have not yielded results so far, Kishore Tiwari, who heads the state government-appointed Vasantrao Naik Shetkari Swavlamban Mission, said the agrarian crisis in Marathwada was so “substantial” that it will take time before the turn around happens. “We have launched a number of schemes to halt the suicides of farmers in Marathwada and other parts of the state. Among the plans includes Food Security Act, critical illness, waiver of fees, counselling for farmers as also vigorous implementation of crop insurance. Since farmer suicides are growing, it is clear that our effort will take time to yield results,” he said. Tiwari said the government has aggressively launched the crop cultivation campaign in Marathwada. “Under this, we are urging farmers to go for food crop likes pulses, jowar, maize instead of water guzzling crops like sugarcane,” he said. “One acre of sugarcane crop guzzles water of 100 acre of cotton crop. This difference is stark. Therefore, in places like Latur, Beed and Osmanabad which have been hit hard by water shortage, it will be in their own interest if farmers shun sugarcane crop and instead prefer food crops,” he said. The government, said Tiwari, is even providing seeds for free and imparting teaching on cultivation methods. Clarifying that government was not against sugarcane crop, Tiwari said,”Where ever there is ample amount of water like in Western Maharashtra, sugarcane remains the favourite crop. But in drought-hit areas, the crop pattern should change in favour of crops that consume less water,” he said.

Tiwari said in drought-hit areas where farmer shun sugarcane crop, the taskforce will urge the government to provide compensation to sugar factories. “But all this needed concerted efforts, especially on the part of local politicians, who should come together and take a united decision vis-a-vis changing cultivation pattern,” he said. State Congress spokesperson Sachin Sawant said, “While the state government is claiming that it had launched a number schemes to halt farmers suicides, the figures tell a completely different story. All this means that the plans are only on paper and at ground zero, nothing is reaching the farmers. How can the government sitting in Ivory Towers know what is happening in faraway in Marathwada? This government is busy with paperwork and not doing any ground work,” he said. 

Source: Indian Express, 24-05-2016

Open up the debate

On farm policy, there is an urgent need to listen to farmers, not just economists and academics.

For over two decades, the conversation on farmer issues had languished. Realising the stupor a few years ago, agricultural issues were sought to be made a central topic of discussion in India. Even as the momentum of the debate increased, and understanding was created on the fact that perpetual farm distress had become the horrifying new normal, there was a failure to protect the farmer’s turf from academics. This must be acknowledged. Every policymaker has focused on, including in the columns of this paper, policies that tackle food inflation, while we farmers fear and have long argued about ways to counter deflation. This is just one among the many reasons that farmers are at odds with agriculture academicians. Last year, fearful of inflation, the new government restricted potato exports. I argued against the restrictions (‘Making a hash of it’, The Indian Express, July 5, 2014) to no avail. This season, potatoes have sold for as low as Rs 2 per kg. When prices fall, the government does a disappearing act. Now, the government has banned the export of onions. Onions, which farmers sold for Rs 6 per kg three months ago, are now retailing for Rs 40 per kg. Food inflation has more to do with issues of hoarding, governance, lack of enforcement of regulation and marketing bottlenecks than production constraints. The future looks bleak for farmers, though achhe din seem to be here for traders. There is absolutely no reason for the government to interfere with the potato and onion markets, where it gives no support price to farmers. Our problem is not too little of the right food but too few policies of the right kind. Policymakers first aggravated food inflation and are now conveniently propagating the import of food as a way to keep it in check. Economists have pessimistically built their arguments on the assumption that domestic food inflation is here to stay, that it cannot be solved at home. But farmers are optimistic that they can produce enough to feed the nation and are, in fact, threatened by deflation. Different objectives require different approaches. Economists continuously justify and advocate the abolition of farm subsidies in India to save resources, even as we are encouraged to import. In contrast, we farmers suggest reducing subsidies per quintal of production. If one listened to farmers, one would know that they advocate improving the quality of produce, increasing the production of most crops by 20 per cent and, subsequently, increasing farmer profit by simply making available the best farm machinery. These gains can be realised without any extra seeds, fertiliser, pesticide or water. The small size of holdings don’t justify the costs of ownership. Availability of machinery does not mean individual farmers should actually own the machinery, which leads to indebtedness. The Indian government must incentivise leasing as well as permit duty-free imports of better, cheaper farm machinery. There are many more such simple interventions that could have a powerful effect. Like the UPA, if the NDA remains convinced that only academicians possess knowledge and that the opinion of farmers is a burden, we will permanently remain a developing country. The artificially high international commodity prices fell partly because, in 2013, China banned banks from accepting agriculture commodities as collateral for raising funds. Supply will continue to outpace demand for years to come. This month, the Food and Agriculture Organisation validated our deflation forecast. Presently, many multinational commodity firms are setting up shop in India to purchase grains. But their long-term objective is to use their network for distribution of imported food. Many countries like the United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil and even African nations that grow surplus food have already deduced that India as well as China will be their biggest markets in the future and are positioning themselves to take advantage of this. Their strategies are premised on the conviction that our policymakers will repeatedly fail and that water scarcity will create opportunities they could exploit. To believe that imports are the solution to food shortages and inflation is naive. In order to reduce water usage, economists suggest reducing the import duty on rice from 70 to 5 per cent. This is far-fetched. They further suggest incentivising farmers to shift from rice to pulses production with a paltry sum of Rs 3,000 per acre. Farmers won’t shift to pulses for even three times that sum. For the record, farmers won’t shift from paddy to pulses even if the electricity subsidy is withdrawn — though withdrawing this subsidy will definitely result in reduced water usage, if that’s the objective. It is common practice for industry associations and international corporate-funded institutions to commission studies, projects and reports to influence policy. But allowing only them to frame farm policy is similar to asking GM seed manufacturers to frame food-labelling guidelines. The writer is chairman, Bharat Krishak Samaj - 

Agrarian distress and suicides

Too much of public discourse on farmer suicides could bring on unseemly haggling over the numbers. Activists and the media rightly question loopholes in the National Crime Records Bureau data, pointing out that several State governments often report no farm suicides, contrary to local media reportage. However, there is also much needless suspicion and conspiracy-theorising; the NCRB’s data are from police station-level First Information Reports, and FIRs are often contested documents, not conclusive proof. Attacking the NCRB for the numbers rising or falling is illogical; media reports about the NCRB changing definitions or manipulating the data this year are demonstrably false. For the government’s part, it could start by accepting that these numbers are the bare minimum, unlike Chhattisgarh’s Agriculture Minister who responded by insisting that no farmer had killed himself and the NCRB must be wrong. Moreover, while the NCRB lists several reasons, including marital and family problems and illness, as the causes of farm suicides, this should not be taken as the gospel truth; initial police reports often have little to do with the complex factors that drive someone to take his or her life. The government would do better to study more scientifically what is driving farmers to take their own lives at the rate of over one every hour.

What’s clear is that suicides represent only the tip of the iceberg that is agrarian distress in India. So far in July, an estimated 90 farmers have taken their lives in Karnataka, while the government and the media struggle to understand the immediate catalyst; these did not occur in the State’s drought-prone regions, nor was there a sudden crop failure or similar emergency. Interviews with farmers in the region have pointed to lack of institutional credit as one of the major problems, an issue that has been repeated by farmers across the country, including in the suicide epicentres of Vidarbha and Marathwada in Maharashtra. The income of an average farm household is just over Rs.6,400 a month, National Sample Survey Office data show, and this is grossly inadequate to meet consumption demands, not to mention rising input costs. Only households with over one hectare make more than they spend, and they constitute less than 35 per cent of all farm households. This leaves over half of all farm households in debt. These are no small debts; the average amount outstanding for a farm household today is Rs.47,000. These must be extremely heavy burdens for them. Farm suicides, whether owing to purely agricultural reasons like crop failure, or the complex pressures on an Indian farmer, must be tackled seriously on the basis of a comprehensive examination of the causative factors, and the context.

Keywords: farmer suicides, NCRB, agrarian distress, agriculture

India’s suicide problem

Government response to the crisis of farmer suicides has been simplistic. Instead of special packages, it should offer improved access to healthcare.

For over a decade, farmer suicides in India has been a serious public policy concern. More recently, this has led to a shrill media outcry and much politicking. The government response to the crisis of farmer suicide has mostly been simplistic and sometimes aggravating. The main issue with offering “special packages” to deal with such a problem is that it is reactionary rather than preemptive long-term policy. Suicides are characterised by a prior history of difficulties and, in most cases, mental illness that renders the person vulnerable to suicidal behaviour, for which we need to have a deeper understanding of factors that trigger and contribute to suicides among different demographic categories. We study the data from the National Crime Record Bureau (NCRB) of India and disaggregate across demographics and leading causes of suicides. We examine existing data on the suicide mortality rate (SMR), defined as the number of suicides reported per 1,00,000 population for categories such as farmers, housewives and students. We begin with farmer suicides and the state of Maharashtra, which had the largest number of farmer suicides for decades. We find that 76 per cent of all suicides there are concentrated within six districts, and nearly 60 per cent of the farmers who committed suicide own more than four acres of land. Indebtedness has been highlighted as the prime cause and leading public intellectuals have called for an end to the “debt deaths”. The National Sample Survey data suggests that the debt burden, measured as the debt-to-asset ratio, declines with increase in asset-holding. So poorer households have a higher debt burden. This is true for both institutional and non-institutional debt. However, the suicide data reported by the state government indicates that the incidence of suicide is much higher for households with larger land holdings. Nearly 86 per cent of all farmer suicides in Maharashtra are committed by those with more than two acres of land. Compare the two most farmer-suicide-prone states of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh with two of the most backward states, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Data for farmer SMR reveals that over the last two decades, Andhra and Maharashtra have had very high and significantly rising numbers of suicides. Farmer suicide rates in Bihar and UP have been consistently low over that period. However, there are no obvious reasons to believe that farmer distress is lower in Bihar and UP. Remarkably, even if we look at the number of suicides for categories of professions unrelated to farming, like government and private services or students, Andhra and Maharashtra - 

Jul 20 2015 : The Times of India (Delhi)

Farmer suicides actually up if old methodology is used

Deeptiman Tiwary

New Delhi TNN





The government could have patted itself on the back after National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data, released on Friday , showed that farmer suicides had dropped by 50% in 2014 compared to 2013. However, a study of the data shows that farmer suicides -if counted on the basis of victims' profession as was the case earlier -have actually increased in 2014.This could be particularly embarrassing for both the Centre and state governments as since 2009, farmer suicides have consistently decreased. From over 17,000 in 2009, the figure dropped to over 11,000 in 2013. In 2014, however, this figure -using the same methodology -would stand at over 12,000.
So how did NCRB reach a figure of 5,650 farmer suicides in 2014, registering a decline of over 50%? There is no fudging though. Earlier, the definition of a farmer included land owner, those tilling land on lease and agricultural labour. This year, the government chose to take farm labour out of the ambit of farmer suicide. This took 6,710 labourers who committed suicide last year out of the farmer suicide count.
To be fair, this is the first time that the government got specific data collected on farmer suicides. Earlier, suicides were recorded under various `profession' heads and this included farming. This exercise never collected any data on reasons for such suicide. In 2014, such data was sought from states and compiled to assess whether agrarian crisis led to farmer suicides -which has often been used as a direct reflection of farm distress.
According to the latest data, actual farmer suicides due to agrarian crisis (including crop failure and indebtedness) stood at merely 2,281.This would be less than 20% of the total suicides committed by farmers and labourers and less than 50% of total farmer suicides last year.
It must be noted here that states have often been accused of not collecting data properly.For example, unless a farmer mentions crop loss or debt in his suicide note as the reason for suicide, the administration does not record it as suicide related to farm distress. It was in this context that Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis recently announced that all farmer suicides would be considered as due to farm distress and compensation released. The new data, however, has many positives as it shows that those tilling land on lease are less likely to commit suicide compared to the actual land owner. Of 5,650 farmers who committed suicide in 2014, 4,949 were land owners. Only 701 were tilling land on lease.
For the full report, log on to http:www.timesofindia.com
In debt trap, two K'taka farmers consume poison
Two farmers from North Karnataka killed themselves on Sunday after they were caught in a debt trap.One was from Kalghatagi (Dharwad) and the other from Chinnamulgund (Haveri).
Both Ningappa Gudihal, 22, of Tavargeri village in Kalghatagi and Ramappa Lamani, 55, of Chinnamulagund tanda, Haveri consumed poison on Saturday and died in hospital on Sunday.

The Deepening Furrows

Poorly designed policies are largely to blame for farm distress.

Successive governments have transformed an unevenly prosperous rural society to one which is evenly distressed. Small and marginal farmers now feel worse off than the landless. Most suicides have taken place in the families of such farmers, especially those with no source of non-farm income. For the sense of desperation that now pervades rural India, all political parties are to blame.

Politicians disconnected with reality often take for granted that the policies prepared by bureaucrats will guarantee targeted objectives.

Yet, in the farm sector, a policy based on pure logic may not succeed — too many unpredictable facets of behavioural economics and climatic circumstance are involved. Even regional diversity is not accounted for when policies are designed. A more federal system could help solve that. Moreover, the implications of the fine print of a policy could be highly detrimental to its working. For instance, welfare objectives remain unmet when the fine print is written without consulting those implementing the programme and those affected by it.

More FromAJAY VIR JAKHAR

• If You Do Not Hear The Farmer
• Progress On The Farm
• How To Reap A Good Harvest

MGNREGA and the farm loan waiver were not the benevolent acts they were made out to be. Whatever the data might say, farmers feel that one of the main reasons for farming becoming non-remunerative is increasing labour costs, pushed up by MGNREGA. On an average, labour accounts for 40 per cent of total farm input costs. During harvesting and sowing seasons, labour requirements shoot up and the cost doubles. Increased wages also fuelled food inflation. I will not claim yet that a badly designed MGNREGA was responsible for the unravelling of UPA 2, but the possibility must be considered. The UPA seemed to calculate that poverty could be reduced by increasing rural wages. But the wage gains were negated by high inflation. Similarly, the hefty minimum support price increases could not offset higher farm input expenses. With a little tweaking, MGNREGA could be the great programme it was supposed to be. If 100 days of labour had been reserved for the 250 days of the lean season, it would have doubled the employment generated, without more investment.

Lately, there has been talk of another farm loan waiver to alleviate distress. But it is not the solution we need. Only farmers who defaulted on institutional credit gained from the last farm loan waiver. The benefits of loan waivers and MSPs do not trickle down to millions of marginal farmers and those surviving in rain-fed areas. Now that it is apparent industrialisation will not create the millions of anticipated jobs soon enough, the only way to help those abandoned on the margins is to help them be meaningfully self-employed. The biggest challenge is to design support programmes where small and marginal farmers are not left out. A strategy based on dole-outs of food or governmentwork, or on the use of force, is bound to fail. So-called populist programmes do not necessarily deliver the promised benefits. Short-term measures tend to become long-term fixtures and restrict progress. Government announcements of ad hoc compensation for crop loss won’t solve the problems either; they will only address the consequences of a deep malaise. A government that is seen to be merely reacting to political jibes or a crisis will always lose out.

After its first anniversary, the BJP will showcase its soil health cards, kisan channel, crop insurance proposals and land acquisition bill as pro-farmer initiatives. But look closely and its seems apparent that these will not translate into the intended outcomes. It will take much more to deliver real benefits and check the perception that welfare programmes and farmers are being abandoned. The BJP cannot afford to proceed with farm policies without listening to critical inputs from farmers. After all, the farmer cannot survive on lip service and political posturing.

Does it pay to be a farmer in India?

What the data shows on farm incomes, and whether farmers can make ends meet

How profitable is farming? The answer to this most fundamental question about Indian agriculture can be found in the National Sample Survey Office’s new surveyof India’s agricultural households.

The average farm household makes Rs 6,426 per month. Where does this money come from? Farm households do a mix of jobs. Who are most farmers selling their crops to? First of all, over half of wheat and rice grown is not sold at all, and is purely for the farm household’s consumption. Of what is sold, the vast majority is sold to the private trader, and not the state-run mandi or procurement agency. Among those who sell to the procurement agency, a minority report having got the Minimum Support Price for their produce.

Farmers often talk about the high – and rising – costs of inputs, including water, seeds and pesticides. So how does the output they earn compare with the inputs they put into the land?

Input costs work out to nearly 30 per cent of the total output an average farm household gets from a crop.

Among inputs, fertilizers are the most expensive, followed by labour.s you can see, a farm household needs to have at least 1 hectare of land to make ends meet every month. But given that over 65 per cent of households have less than one hectare of land, this means that two out of three farm households are simply not able to make ends meet.Unsurprisingly, what this translates into is debt. Over half of all agricultural households are indebted, and these are not small debts; the average loan amount outstanding for a farm household in India today is Rs. 47,000. For marginal farmers, making under Rs 4,000 per month, which doesn’t even cover their consumption, loans of over Rs 30,000 must be extremely heavy burdens.

The southern states stand out for their level of indebtedness.Who are farmers borrowing from? Marginal farmers rely chiefly on moneylenders, while those with bigger landholdings go to banks, the data shows.