Natural farming for fiscal prudence?

After decades of intensive agriculture, farms and farmers are in a crisis, food markets remain distorted, and consumers do not have access to nutritious diets. India needs a shift towards sustainable food systems. Among many alternative farming techniques is natural farming, with the potential to improve sustainability and also meliorate government finances.
 
Natural farming is an alternative to chemical fertiliser-based and high input cost agriculture. It embodies principles of agroecology, activating microbial life in soil via bio-inoculums (prepared using cow dung, cow urine, jaggery, etc.), thereby improving both soil and plant health. The practice advocates complete elimination of synthetic chemical inputs and encourages natural inputs, mulching practices and symbiotic intercropping.

 
Andhra Pradesh has had a state-wide natural farming programme since 2016, now covering 580,000 farmers. Other states — Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, and Uttarakhand — have shown interest. The central government has held discussions. In her Budget speech of July 2019, the finance minister highlighted natural farming, its potential to contribute to the goal of doubling farmers’ incomes and allocated Rs 325 crore for its study and promotion. In September, at the meeting of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, the prime minister also promoted “Indian natural farming practices”.
 

Researchers at the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) have estimated that, at scale and properly implemented, natural farming could potentially impact a quarter of the 169 targets under the Sustainable Development Goals. But there are gaps between promise and practice. Not all farmers switch to natural farming entirely. Not all farmers have been practising it for long, so there remain uncertainties about yields. Not all farmers have access to functioning markets to secure higher returns.

 
A central proposition of natural farming is that chemical fertiliser use and related input costs could be significantly reduced. CEEW’s latest study investigated this claim — and the impact on fertiliser subsidies*. Evidence appears promising. Based on a survey of 600 farmers across all agro-climatic zones in Andhra Pradesh, the study found significantly lower fertiliser consumption (more than 95 per cent reduction in most cases) for naturally farming rice and maize. A conventional farmer uses 74.46 kg of urea per acre. The expected urea use for a natural farmer was found to be 0.59 kg/acre.
 
Farmers also reported 90-93 per cent lower expenditure on fertiliser and pesticide inputs compared to conventional farming, or savings of Rs 5,000-7,000 per acre.

 
India is the world’s second largest producer of urea (and the largest importer in 2016). Fertiliser subsidies are budgeted to be Rs 80,000 crore in 2019-20. Andhra Pradesh, alone, received more than Rs 3,500 crore in 2018-19 as fertiliser subsidy. In 2019, the government spent $3.2 billion as additional subsidy on imported gas used in fertiliser industries. This represented about 8 per cent of the total subsidy (food, fuel and fertiliser) budget for FY2019-20. Further, subsidies have resulted in urea imports jumping from 0.2 million tonnes in 2000 to 6 million tonnes in 2017.
 
Reducing fertiliser use with natural farming has significant fiscal implications. With complete penetration of natural farming across Andhra Pradesh, the state could save almost Rs 2,100 crore in fertiliser subsidies annually (based on reported consumption by farmers). Even with low penetration of 25 per cent, estimated savings could be Rs 517 crore annually. These estimates acknowledge that some farmers continue to use chemical inputs for a portion of their land during a transition phase. This could be thanks to behavioural inertia, hesitation with wholly adopting a new practice, or lack of natural inoculants in sufficient quantity. If they switched completely, then fertiliser subsidy savings would range between Rs 539 crore and Rs 2,154 crore in the low- and high-penetration scenarios, respectively. Such savings could finance full rollout of natural farming in Andhra Pradesh (estimated to cost Rs 17,000 crore) within 8-10 years.

 
Adopting natural farming more widely needs more research, deployment and evaluation. There is urgent need to conduct a long-term comprehensive impact evaluation of natural farming methods on food production (quality and quantity), farmers’ incomes and welfare (lower debt burden, for instance), and environmental outcomes (soil health, water conservation, and carbon sequestration).
 
Research should cover several agro-climatic zones across the country. Data from crop-cutting experiments must be analysed against the social and economic conditions under which the practices were adopted. Are there commonalities in the circumstances of high-performing farmers that could be scaled up in other regions as well? Is there a relationship between prior ecological conditions and subsequent improvements, which could indicate the regions where natural farming is more likely to succeed?

 
Another link is between natural farming and climate adaptation and mitigation. Chemicals and fertilisers account for 12 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions from India’s manufacturing sector. Apart from reducing manufacturing emissions, studies of soil carbon retention and resilience of naturally farmed crops against climate stresses could be documented in state climate action plans. New information from field surveys could be used to update the plans. Robust studies on carbon sequestration could link farmers to climate finance mechanisms, creating new channels for investment in natural farming or additional income for farmers.
 
A systemic shift in agriculture would mean vastly upgrading resource productivity, increasing economic viability of alternative practices, and greater social inclusion of the small and marginal farmer. More information is needed to definitively say whether natural farming increases yields and farmers’ incomes. But the impacts on fertiliser use and lower subsidy burden suggest that we encourage more experiments and scientific evaluation — at scale — towards sustainable food systems.

 
Ghosh is CEO and Gupta is Research Analyst, Council on Energy, Environment and Water (http://ceew.in). Follow @GhoshArunabha @CEEWIndia  *Gupta, Tripathi, Dholakia (2020) Can Zero Budget Natural Farming Save Input Costs and Fertiliser Subsidies? Evidence from Andhra Pradesh. New Delhi: CEEW.