Hot question: Stubble burning in India needs sustainable solutions

As the National Capital Region (NCR) chokes from the customary lethal post-Diwali pollution, it is noteworthy that stubble burning, the other major cause of bad air as the cooler weather sets in, has not contributed significantly to the high levels of toxicity in the air this year. The early data for the burning of paddy stubble between September 15 and October 15 showed an appreciable drop from last year. Punjab and Haryana, traditional leaders in this practice, saw such incidents drop 64 and 96 per cent, respectively. Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Madhya Pradesh have seen drops of 19-45 per cent. Concurrently, the NCR’s air quality in this period has ranged from “moderate” to “satisfactory”. State administrations are taking credit for this development, pointing to their energetic efforts to thwart stubble burning through a mixture of incentives, penal threats, and the provision of infrastructure. But the late monsoon withdrawal has delayed harvests, so many farmers are likely to begin clearing their field of paddy stubble in late October and November. The efficacy of state policies to cope with this higher volume of stubble-clearing within a shorter window, therefore, will be put to the test.

 

There are principally two ways to address stubble burning. The first involves crop residue management (CRM), where stubble is treated in the paddy field by mulching and chemical treatment to decompose the residue. “Happy seeders” also enable farmers to directly sow the next crop on the residue of the previous one. The states subsidise purchases of CRM machines to the extent of 50 to 80 per cent.  Offsite measures entail taking the stubble to processing centres to be converted into pellets for use in animal feedstock or as fuel for power plants. But there are weaknesses in both methods. Punjab and Haryana are said to possess a sufficient number of CRM machines to cover all paddy farms but in Punjab in particular, only a third of farmers are willing to use them. The reluctance stems from an erroneous notion that CRM machines impact productivity and make crops vulnerable to pest attacks, a problem that can be solved through an education drive. As for offsite measures, an implicit disincentive is that crop residue has to be taken to processing centres at the farmers’ cost. Both state governments this year addressed the issue by adding hefty incentives to farmers for off-site measures and coordination with Indian Oil Corporation for supplies to its ethanol plant in Panipat.

 

Doubts about this policy mix lie in its sustainability. Such generous subsidies may not be sustained in the long run for the two states, which are in a financially precarious position. Although there are penalties for stubble burning, they are difficult to enforce because of strong opposition from farm lobbies. Experts have suggested direct cash transfers to farmers to buy CRM machines, which are currently being sold at inflated prices on account of the subsidy element. But the genuinely sustainable solution involves the hard work of incentivising farmers to stop growing water-intensive crops such as rice — collateral damage from the Green Revolution — and diversify to other crops that require less water and have shorter growing periods that would preclude stubble burning. Northern states have begun offering one-time grants for crop diversification but for this to work, farmers need vibrant markets. The catch is that this issue demands deeper agri-markets reforms — which politically powerful farm and middlemen lobbies have successfully managed to thwart.