Farm distress: Poor post-harvest management is the key problem

Reports of farmers destroying their crops of tomato, cabbage, cauliflower, garlic and other vegetables in the field or dumping them on the road because of abysmal returns is a disquieting commentary on the management of agricultural prices. Potatoes and onions had met with the same fate earlier. Milk farmers in Maharashtra, who last year poured their produce on roads, are now distributing it free outside offices in towns to draw the government’s attention towards unremunerative prices that do not cover even the production cost. Unsurprisingly, the Rashtriya Kisan Mahasangh, an umbrella body of over 100 farmers’ organisations, has threatened to stop supplying vegetables, milk and other farm goods to cities across the country for 10 days from June 1 to protest against the government’s policy of keeping inflation under check at the expense of farmers. Unabated economic distress in rural areas ahead of polls in states such as Karnataka and general elections due next year are worrisome indications for Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

It is poor post-harvest management of farm produce, and not bumper production that is the real culprit. It is reflected in paucity of facilities for storage, processing, value-addition and shelf-life enhancement; poor and inefficient marketing; want of linkage between producers, retailers and consumers; mismatch between production and demand; and absence of market intelligence and price hedging mechanisms for farmers. The need, therefore, is a multi-pronged approach to address these issues simultaneously in a holistic manner. Piecemeal price stabilisation measures of the kind the government normally adopts to hold the price line of relatively more durable agricultural commodities may prove ineffective for perishable goods. For instance, procurement-based price support cannot be an option for products such as tomato or fresh vegetables. The needed multi-faceted strategy has to include facilities for scientific and commodity-specific storage for farm goods to allow their deferred and non-peak season sales; gainful utilisation of surplus produce through processing and value-addition; and creation of alternative marketing outlets like exports.

Produce like tomato, garlic, onion and others can easily be preserved for off-season use through simple means like dehydration or conversion into puree and paste. Small scale enterprises located within the producing areas are more suitable for such tasks than the giant food parks being promoted by the government. The emergence of organised retail chains with backward linkages with farmers can also ensure better prices to growers and reasonable rates for consumers. Promotion of cooperatives or farmers’ companies, which can serve as aggregators of farm produce for its marketing, can also be helpful. Setting up exclusive mandis for sale of farm goods by farmers directly to consumers can be yet another way of protecting the interests of both. Equally important are measures to grant farmers access to market intelligence through agricultural universities or specialised agencies to enable them to take judicious sowing decisions. But no price stabilisation strategy, however well conceived, can succeed without stable government policies regarding the internal and external trade of agricultural produce. Knee-jerk reactions to emerging situations will do more harm than good.