Farmers in the lurch

Farmers in the lurch

JUL 09 -
By:  Jagannath Adhikari
A fertiliser crisis has been in the news recently. It has infuriated farmers as they have started transplanting paddy following the onset of the monsoon season, and they can’t get the all important soil fortifier. On the surface, this problem seems to have arisen simply because of a shortage combined with high demand this year. This has been the official explanation. On the contrary, the annual fertiliser shortage is a problem that has been deeply entrenched since the mid-1990s when a period of political uncertainty began.

By all accounts, Nepal’s agricultural sector is a failure because it has not moved according to what has been planned, nor has it met the food requirement of the country. Government strategy has followed the Green Revolution approach to improve — or modernise — the agricultural sector. And this approach is essentially based on intensive use of inputs like chemical fertiliser, irrigation and pest and disease control. This was stated in the Agricultural Prospective Plan (APP) which guided the agricultural development policy from the mid-1990s.
The newly developed Agricultural Development Strategy (ADS) also gives priority to this Green Revolution technology. The basic aim in this technology is to convert high energy supplied through inputs into grain or desired products. People have spoken out against this strategy because it is not considered sustainable. The raw materials used to produce these fertilisers and chemicals are in short supply. As a result, prices of these inputs are increasing. Moreover, these chemical inputs have led to degradation of the soil.
Despite the potentials, Nepal’s agricultural sector has remained stagnant. In the last 15 years, it did not grow as fast as planned. The government also reduced its budget allocation to this sector, and donor agencies followed the same path and reduced their expenditure to this sector. There are other social factors that have also contributed to portraying farming as a low status profession. 
Nepal’s agricultural sector currently suffers from two most worrisome features: growing agricultural trade deficit and lack of proper linkage between agriculture and non-agricultural sectors. In 2010, this trade deficit amounted to US$ 350 million, which has grown further in the last two years. This essentially means that Nepal is not producing enough for its population. Obviously, this trade deficit has been met by remittance sent back by Nepalis working in foreign countries, especially the Gulf and Malaysia. The weak growth performance in agriculture means that people depending on this sector have a strong incentive to move to another sector. In Nepal’s case, this “other” sector has been foreign labour migration, which is poorly interlinked with the agricultural sector and, thereby, provides less incentive for the country’s less competitive agricultural sector. As a result, importation of farm products continues to rise. 
Political instability and uncertainty has adversely impacted the farming sector. For example, the APP was not implemented properly because of lack of political consensus on this policy. During a decade of conflict, rural areas were socially disturbed as landowners fled their villages with no incentive to invest in farming. The use of fertiliser declined during this period. Until now, there has been little private sector investment in agriculture except in a few sectors like dairy processing, poultry, tea and floriculture. This is obviously because of the unstable political situation.
A diversion of funds to the security sector was one of the outcomes of the political conflict. It is very clear that military expenditure skyrocketed during this period. The agricultural sector had to bear the brunt of this situation, so much so that investment in agricultural research almost stopped completely. A number of government agricultural research centres were converted into army barracks, and they remain so till today. This shows the dire situation in the agricultural sector.
Nepal’s fertiliser policy is also mired in political tussles and corruption. When this sector was fully privatised in the early 2000s, the government did not take up the task of effective quality control due to opportunities for corruption. Since 2009, the government has announced a subsidy policy on fertiliser. This new policy, however, has given a huge opportunity for corruption on the import of fertiliser. In 2011, the government allocated Rs 3 billion as subsidies on fertiliser, but this is grossly insufficient to meet the demand.
Farmers have every right to demand subsidised fertiliser because they have contributed to producing food required for the country at great hardship and risk. Now, when the food security situation has deteriorated and the prospects of getting cheap food from other countries have remained uncertain due to various natural and political factors, farmers need support in every respect. In fact, it is the Nepali farmers who have been denied the most state support. In many other countries, they have been supported with subsidies on inputs and by research findings, guaranteed marketing, and health and social support.
Of the many supports farmers require, fertiliser is the main one. There are many reasons why fertiliser is in great demand now. The availability of organic fertilisers, like compost and animal manure has declined due to a fall in animal husbandry and labour shortage caused by the flight of youths from rural areas. This has led to higher dependence on inorganic fertilisers from the market.
At present, only inorganic chemical fertiliser is considered to be fertiliser. Given that Nepal cannot produce inorganic fertiliser because of power shortages and lack of other raw materials, emphasis should have been given to production and supply of other types of fertilisers. For example, there are opportunities to locally produce organic fertilisers, be it in the form of dry compost, rich soil or compressed pellets, which could be as easy to handle as inorganic fertiliser. Incentives for producing such organic fertilisers can have better impacts; it would generate local employment and restore soil fertility. However, adoption of such a policy requires political will and certainty.

Source: http://kantipuronline.com/2012/07/09/opinion/farmers-in-the-lurch/356828.html