|
Wheat price increase alone is not enough
By
Zafar Samdani
From the viewpoint of growers and productivity, the government
has taken a positive decision by raising the support price
of wheat by Rs50 per 40 kg; that the consumers would not be
happy goes without saying.
 This, however, is a built-in problem in pricing and no
administration can please both growers and consumers.
Growers were subsidizing wheat price from 1999 to 2003 as
the support price remained static for four years. This now
is the consumer's turn to pay.
The price was raised by Rs50 per 40 kg bag last year as
incentive to farmers to grow more but the decision came
rather late in the day and made no impact on the total
yield. It was in fact marginally lower than the previous
year.
The total wheat yield in 2003-04 was 19.66 million tons
while the produce stood at 19. 83 the year before when the
support price had remained unchanged. The difference was not
great but showed that if farmers were to be encouraged, that
should be done at the right time and in the right way; a
mere raise in support price is not sufficient.
The example of 1999-2000 was before the planners and
decision makers when timely raise in the support price
galvanized farmers in to producing Pakistan's highest ever
wheat crop of 21. 8 m tons. That not only freed Pakistan
from imports but also enabled the country to export wheat
and build stocks for future.
Both advantages were lost in the next three years by the
government's inability or refusal to act as also due to
conditions that were not favourable for higher production.
But mismanagement of the situation was more responsible for
reversion to imports than any other factor.
What effect would the enhancing of the support price will
have on the wheat produce this year is difficult to assess
at this point in time but the there is every reason to
expect better output, provided other important factors do
not let down the farming community and the country.
Availability of sufficient water is the most critical aspect
of the next wheat crop and unfortunately, prospects are
negative on this score. The cost of inputs like fertilizers,
pesticides, herbicides, etc, has been constantly rising
while their timely availability and quality has not been
fully reliable.
The government is concerned about low produce and has
reportedly prepared a comprehensive plan for 'bridging the
gap between the potential and the present yield'. While this
should have been done years back, it is a question if the
thinking is along correct lines now that the issue is being
taken up.
The ministry of food, agriculture and livestock (MINFAL) is
looking at productivity through a comparison of produce from
the farms of progressive farmers and remaining members of
the wheat growing community, that is, small farmers. The
former produce up to 50 maunds per acre while the latter's
crop is mostly around half of that quantity for the same
land, if not lower.
The reasons should be obvious to all and sundry,
particularly the experts in MINFAL. As the deal is not equal
for the two, the results cannot be expected to be the same
from their fields. So the task before the administration of
the agriculture sector is bridging the facilities gap
between them before hoping for comparable performance.
Another aspect should be taken in to consideration while
working out output from different fields and that is yield
from rain fed areas. Their highest produce is usually no
more than 15 maunds per acre and is often even below that
low figure.
Farmers of these areas obtain a minimum of produce and
income from their land and their contribution to the over
all size of the wheat crop is consequently limited. A change
of strategy in cropping in rain-fed lands is required.
Farmers would be better off cultivating crops that require
less water. That would economically improve their lot and if
they were not sowing wheat, the loss would not be
significant for the total national produce.
Further, efforts to increase per acre yield are undeniably
needed but the emphasis so far has been on increasing area
of cultivation. The approach is to be appreciated but
prevailing conditions, particularly shortage of water, do
not justify the policy.
Moreover, more area is added to the wheat crop mostly by
replacing crops cultivated in the fields; new land is not
brought under wheat. Such land has its productivity
negatively affected by overuse; the land is already
exhausted and its fertility stands scuttled. Positive
results can only be gained if wheat cultivation is extended
to virgin land.
Balochistan has no dearth of fields yet to be put to
agricultural use on a regular basis; there is even land that
has not been explored at all. Water availability in
Balochistan is a problem but that constraint is nation wide
now. Hitherto uncultivated land in that province has the
potential for increasing wheat produce of Pakistan.
One of the most important aspects of wheat for obtaining
optimum output is timely sowing of the crop. Wheat is
alternated with cotton and sugarcane. But harvesting of both
crops is almost invariably delayed. Cotton growers are hit
by market manipulations for forcing down prices of the crop
while the cane scene remains at the mercy of sugar mill
owners.
Wheat suffered delayed cultivation during the last two years
because of sugar miller's insistence on late crushing to
pressurize growers and exploit their dependence on sugar
mills.
That contributed towards reducing yields in many fields. It
wasn't an irresolvable issue but segments in the government
were supporting millers. As a result, wheat sowing could not
start on time in many cane fields.
A similar scenario is building in the Sindh province this
year too. Sugar mill owners of the province have apparently
disregarded the government's instructions to start crushing
by October 15. It requires no great insight or expertise to
predict that wheat produce would suffer if the issue were
not resolved without loss of time.
Undertaking wheat cultivation on time is still possible but
that can be done only if the government adopts a stern
policy towards sugar millers instead of acting as their
sales agent and protector. The administration would be
solely responsible if wheat cultivation is delayed in cane
fields.
The loss may not amount to any substantial percentage of
reduction in crop size but considering everything, every
grain should be important because what we fail to produce
would have to be imported- and that would have to be done at
a higher cost, to meet consumption requirements of the
population that stand at around 21 million tons per year.
It is not clear if this figure includes smuggling out of
Pakistan to adjoining countries and even beyond them to some
former Russian states. Smuggling needs must be countered for
ensuring that a minimum quantity is imported in case there
is another shortfall.
If that end were left loose, one would be forced to conclude
that elements in the administration patronize smugglers at
the cost of national interests. Smuggling plus delayed
sowing because of late start of the crushing season are two
factors the government can and must control for securing
maximum yield and utilizing wheat crop for the people of
Pakistan.
Procurement arrangements in provinces also leave a lot to be
desired. Farmers would be better motivated to work harder by
assurance of quick and profitable disposal of their crop.
A serious and major overhauling of procurement machinery and
change of attitude in official agencies to accord
preferential treatment to big landlords or influential
individuals with connections in the administration is also
indicated for encouraging farmers to produce more.
A raise in the support price for wheat is a positive step
but it is not an end in itself. It is a step towards higher
production of wheat but unlikely to provide the best results
if other vital factors of wheat crop are ignored.
Courtesy :
The DAWN
|
Pakissan.com;
|
