Lots for farmers to cotton on to

The problem is still with seeds and inputs. Take Gujarat, which did not suffer the demise of cotton as much as other states, because of a strong cooperative tradition. Peaking at a production of 14.23 million bales in the country in ’96-’97, cotton production went down to 9.65 million bales in ’00-’01 and has hovered between 11 to 12 million bales as imports went up. Imports of raw and waste cotton at over 1.2 million plus bales annually since ’97-’98 are substantial in relation to domestic production and in recent years have been higher. In Gujarat, production always fluctuates with the weather, with lows between 1.2 to 1.5 million bales, medians at around 2 million and highs at 4 million.

This is a good year and the farmers are agitating on account of prices, but there are other issues. The irrigated area under cotton has almost doubled from around 3 million hectares in the early nineties to over 6 million now. But irrigation in the dry regions of western India is costly, particularly if sourced from tubewells. Towards the end of the last decade the bt varieties of seeds became popular. In fact, in many technologically progressive villages in western India, almost the entire irrigated area is under the Bt varieties. These are again expensive seeds as compared to the earlier Shankar varieties. The return is higher and the costs, lower. It is only armchair critics who convey the impression that the Bt seeds don’t give higher yields. Somewhat conservatively most farmers I met say that, on an average, as compared to the conventional high yielders the Bt varieties give yields which are 40 to 60 per cent higher and there is now no going back.

The problem is the terrible confusion on the regulatory regime. Not many years ago a group like Gujcot, which helped the Gujarati cotton farmer in keeping up high quality standards, had “approved” good quality seeds promoted by local “small” seed producers. Most seed brands being used today in western India don’t seem to be the “approved” ones although most are tight-lipped about this for obvious reasons. If things go wrong there is no one to go to.

Anyway, even for the approved varieties, there is very little legal cover. Countries aiming at progressive agriculture have legal structures and regulatory regimes for private seed suppliers. We don’t, both in terms of user and consumer rights. This kind of legal system which protects customer rights should be possible. The more complex question is a regime which uses the considerable capability we have in terms of small seed producers and link it up with the structure of the big seed producers. In the discovery of ‘hybrid paddy’, the parastatal seed networks in the ICAR and state level system networked with the large private seed producers, but the link between the small and the large is not there. They compete, but they could also play a complementary role. This would need changes in the law and policy.

There are similar questions in the pesticide distribution regimes. The idea that the farmer is not knowledgeable about pesticides is ridiculous. Farmers are quality conscious and reasonably well-informed. Their brand preferences are based on well-articulated needs. My experience is that they use biofriendly pesticides but as supplements to chemical ones. They know the “harm” the duva (medicine) does. But it is a negative that has to be endured. Normally the harmful ones are not overused. Market reform of the pesticide sector is primitive and a lot remains to be done.

I am a believer in tarriff reform in the cotton sector since the OECD subsidises cotton in a big way. But I know the factory sector needs cheap cotton and with quotas being dismantled the going is not easy. A way out is to give duty drawbacks for exports. But even if tax policy is difficult, can we help with seed, pesticide and credit delivery. For the farmer it is profitability which is important and not how she gets it.