Environmental pollution has taken a heavy toll on the nation’s capital and its surroundings over the years due to extreme weather conditions involving the process of thermal inversion that aid the settling of particulate matter and other pollution, dust arising out of construction activity, and vehicle-related emissions. Especially, the burning of paddy every year after the kharif harvest is a cause of concern.
A multi-faceted approach would be required to tackle multiple causes of environmental pollution, but one of the permanent ways to tackle the pollution problem is to address paddy burning. This is where the importance of pulses in containing environmental pollution is realised. A new variety of arhar, pigeon pea, developed by K.V. Prabhu and his colleagues at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute was discussed as the possible solution to the environmental concerns based on Subramanian Committee report on pulses submitted earlier to the ministers of finance, agriculture and consumer affairs.
The paddy-growing regions of Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh and, eventually, all of India could be used to grow this variety known as Pusa Arhar16 as an alternative to paddy crops. This variety has a yield of about 2000 kg/hectare that is significantly greater than those of the existing varieties and is of uniform size that will also be amenable to mechanical harvesting thus drawing in the farmers in northern India to adopt it who currently use this technology for paddy.
The most important feature of arhar straw is that unlike paddy straw it is green and can be ploughed back into the soil for decomposition. The high silica content of paddy straw makes it difficult to decompose. However, growing arhar provides the added advantage where after combine harvesting the farmer will just need to run a rotavator to cut the left over straw into pieces that can be ploughed back to decompose very fast. In comparison, left over paddy stalks are difficult to salvage or plough back because they are very firm forcing the farmers to simply burning them.
Replacing paddy with pulses, in over half million hectares or more eventually, will provide other social benefits such as use of less fertiliser, less water and fewer emissions. Moreover, growing pulses will help in restoring the soil with nitrogen unlike paddy, which depletes the soil of nitrogen or other important ingredients. In addition, it is expected that pulses production could result in social benefits of `13,240 per hectare. Based on this ground, an MSP of close to `9,000 per quintal for pulses over the medium term is suggested to make it competitive with paddy and to preserve the incomes of farmers. It would help in preserving the environment and reduce pollution as less paddy would be burnt.
The broader policy lessons outlined in the pulses report have acquired new salience in the light of the pollution problem. However, few constraints are there which need to be paid attention for the full implementation of the aforementioned measures to counter environmental pollution.
First, for the future of sustainable agricultural science and research must be promoted and its research institutions must be accorded autonomy to work freely without any political intervention. Especially, the hard and creative work of India’s scientist must be appreciated and proven talent must be rewarded.
Second, implementation of this scientific finding as a commercially feasible option will require re-evaluation of price incentives. A complicating factor that determines the relative incentives between pulses and paddy is the amount of risk involved. There is a guaranteed MSP in paddy which makes it less risky to grow than pulses. According to an estimate by the Subramanian Committee, the risk associated with pulses production was about six times more than paddy production. The required MSP for pulses to compensate this risk should be about Rs 1100 per ton greater than otherwise.
Third, setting the pricing in India must be based on externalities, positives and negatives associated with the commodity. In the context of agriculture, that refers to readjusting the present methodology of setting MSPs that the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices use with its focus exclusively on private costs and benefits. This causes promotion of socially wasteful production and specialisation, which includes excessive paddy production in north India, with all the attendant consequences harmful to the environment and the society. As stated by Professor Ramesh Chand of Niti Aayog and recommended by the Subramanian Committee report, social costs and benefits should be taken into account for MSP setting.
The burning of rice stalks provides an opportunity for the policy makers to devise a policy with major shift in approach towards reducing pollution, promoting indigenous research and science, incentivising pulses production and rationalising pricing on a broader context. After all, the hallmark of a good public policy is to convert crises into opportunities.