Feeding a food crisis
There is mounting evidence pointing to the fact that despite increasing chemical fertiliser inputs, food productivity in India is plateauing, even declining. The much touted Green Revolution, which was introduced in India in the sixties and emphasised heavily on the use of synthetic fertilisers and chemical pesticides is now being openly criticised and questioned severely.
The introduction of synthetic fertilisers and fertiliser responsive varieties along with irrigation in the sixties as part of Green revolution package did help in a jump in production initially. But over the years, productivity has declined drastically, and this in spite of adding greater amounts of fertilisers. Not to mention the heavy socio-economic and ecological cost it has come with. And worst still, in a travesty of sorts, it has resulted in a primarily agrarian society like ours to lean towards a food crisis.
According to a recent report by Greenpeace, Subsidising Food Crisis, as a result of the Green Revolution, the consumption of synthetic fertilisers jumped from a mere 0.07 million tonnes (Mt) in 1950-51 to a staggering 23.15 Mt in the year 2008-09. So every square inch of diminishing agricultural land is bombarded with greater and greater amounts of synthetic fertilisers, with the expectation of improbable magical results.
The amount of subsidy outgo on synthetic N-P-K fertilisers (domestic and imported) in India during the last three decades has grown exponentially from a mere
Rs. 60 crores during 1976-77 to an astronomical Rs. 96,606 crores during 2008-09. Mind you, these not-so-humble costs are being squeezed out of the unconscious tax payer’s pocket. The subsidy system was skewed in favour of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser, distorting completely the way fertilisers were used. Consequently, synthetic nitrogen, which is highly subsidised was naturally used in much larger amounts as compared to other nutrients. Going by the study, the subsidy alone can be blamed for the overuse of nitrogen fertilisers. Given the fact that the benefit of fertiliser subsidies tilts very disproportionately in favour of relatively richer irrigated regions than the poorer, mostly rain-fed regions, I am not sure who gains from this entirely expensive affair. Definitely not the average farmer it was intended for. But it’s crystal clear that the farmers and consumers (aka. tax payers) stand to lose, monetarily and otherwise.
This over dependence on chemical fertilisers has steadily destroyed the soil health, reducing soil organic matter both in quality and quantity thereby lowering the soil’s ability to ensure yields. It’s living soil that we’re talking about, and we’re systematically killing this living entity and along with it all the living organisms such as microbes that keep it alive, naturally. Moreover, the colossal amounts of water requirement coinciding with chemical fertiliser application have led to a decline in the water table, posing threat to agricultural production. Punjab, perhaps the most fertile region in the country, and the birthplace of the Green Revolution itself, is a standing example of the subsidy system gone wrong. Soil degradation has gradually led from reduced productivity to plateauing of crop production (from 25 kg. per kilogramme of fertiliser input in 1960s to eight kg/kg of fertilisers during late 1990s.
Putting it mildly, the situation is grim. And in response, this is what Pranab Mukherjee has to say… “To ensure balanced application of fertilisers, the Government intends to move towards a nutrient based subsidy regime instead of the current product pricing regime. It will lead to availability of innovative fertiliser products in the market at reasonable prices. This unshackling of the fertiliser manufacturing sector is expected to attract fresh investments in this sector.”
That’s no better than jumping between the devil and the deep blue sea. It’s absurd to even think that a solution to the mess we have created lies in shifting to new fertilisers. It’s not about a balanced N-P-K usage anymore. The system is flawed. It hasn’t and will not work. Clearly, that’s a tried, tested, and completely failed method, which is obsolete and needs to be done away with. As the report emphasizes, we need a paradigm shift in the way we practice agriculture. We need to revive the soil, not maim it with a new set of toxins.
If feeding a food crisis wasn’t bad enough, both the manufacture and consumption of nitrogen directly adds to the carbon levels, adding fuel to an already hotting world, and significantly! That’s about 100 Mt of CO2-eq per annum. And then of course, there’s the question of using it haphazardly. Using it appropriately or efficiently (depending on the time around cultivation when it would be most effective) would also reduce the unnecessary addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. All this, even when there are sustainable options, which are cheaper and eco-friendly. The ecological farming models, which makes use recycled organic wastes in the form of composts and simple practices such as crop rotation, planting leguminous plants for natural nitrogen fixation, will not only promise a stable (if not increasing) yield, but also lower GHG emissions from this sector to a significantly lower, and much desired 36 Mt of CO2-eq per annum. That would lower the nation’s emissions from six to two per cent. It’s culpable. Moreover eco-farming can bring lot of employment opportunities in the rural sector.
Imperative, especially at this point in time is a shift in fertiliser subsidies to a more sustainable form of agriculture. If we want to secure our food security, and I imagine we do, we need a complete volte-face, nothing short of it.
The introduction of synthetic fertilisers and fertiliser responsive varieties along with irrigation in the sixties as part of Green revolution package did help in a jump in production initially. But over the years, productivity has declined drastically, and this in spite of adding greater amounts of fertilisers. Not to mention the heavy socio-economic and ecological cost it has come with. And worst still, in a travesty of sorts, it has resulted in a primarily agrarian society like ours to lean towards a food crisis.
According to a recent report by Greenpeace, Subsidising Food Crisis, as a result of the Green Revolution, the consumption of synthetic fertilisers jumped from a mere 0.07 million tonnes (Mt) in 1950-51 to a staggering 23.15 Mt in the year 2008-09. So every square inch of diminishing agricultural land is bombarded with greater and greater amounts of synthetic fertilisers, with the expectation of improbable magical results.
The amount of subsidy outgo on synthetic N-P-K fertilisers (domestic and imported) in India during the last three decades has grown exponentially from a mere
Rs. 60 crores during 1976-77 to an astronomical Rs. 96,606 crores during 2008-09. Mind you, these not-so-humble costs are being squeezed out of the unconscious tax payer’s pocket. The subsidy system was skewed in favour of synthetic nitrogen fertiliser, distorting completely the way fertilisers were used. Consequently, synthetic nitrogen, which is highly subsidised was naturally used in much larger amounts as compared to other nutrients. Going by the study, the subsidy alone can be blamed for the overuse of nitrogen fertilisers. Given the fact that the benefit of fertiliser subsidies tilts very disproportionately in favour of relatively richer irrigated regions than the poorer, mostly rain-fed regions, I am not sure who gains from this entirely expensive affair. Definitely not the average farmer it was intended for. But it’s crystal clear that the farmers and consumers (aka. tax payers) stand to lose, monetarily and otherwise.
This over dependence on chemical fertilisers has steadily destroyed the soil health, reducing soil organic matter both in quality and quantity thereby lowering the soil’s ability to ensure yields. It’s living soil that we’re talking about, and we’re systematically killing this living entity and along with it all the living organisms such as microbes that keep it alive, naturally. Moreover, the colossal amounts of water requirement coinciding with chemical fertiliser application have led to a decline in the water table, posing threat to agricultural production. Punjab, perhaps the most fertile region in the country, and the birthplace of the Green Revolution itself, is a standing example of the subsidy system gone wrong. Soil degradation has gradually led from reduced productivity to plateauing of crop production (from 25 kg. per kilogramme of fertiliser input in 1960s to eight kg/kg of fertilisers during late 1990s.
Putting it mildly, the situation is grim. And in response, this is what Pranab Mukherjee has to say… “To ensure balanced application of fertilisers, the Government intends to move towards a nutrient based subsidy regime instead of the current product pricing regime. It will lead to availability of innovative fertiliser products in the market at reasonable prices. This unshackling of the fertiliser manufacturing sector is expected to attract fresh investments in this sector.”
That’s no better than jumping between the devil and the deep blue sea. It’s absurd to even think that a solution to the mess we have created lies in shifting to new fertilisers. It’s not about a balanced N-P-K usage anymore. The system is flawed. It hasn’t and will not work. Clearly, that’s a tried, tested, and completely failed method, which is obsolete and needs to be done away with. As the report emphasizes, we need a paradigm shift in the way we practice agriculture. We need to revive the soil, not maim it with a new set of toxins.
If feeding a food crisis wasn’t bad enough, both the manufacture and consumption of nitrogen directly adds to the carbon levels, adding fuel to an already hotting world, and significantly! That’s about 100 Mt of CO2-eq per annum. And then of course, there’s the question of using it haphazardly. Using it appropriately or efficiently (depending on the time around cultivation when it would be most effective) would also reduce the unnecessary addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. All this, even when there are sustainable options, which are cheaper and eco-friendly. The ecological farming models, which makes use recycled organic wastes in the form of composts and simple practices such as crop rotation, planting leguminous plants for natural nitrogen fixation, will not only promise a stable (if not increasing) yield, but also lower GHG emissions from this sector to a significantly lower, and much desired 36 Mt of CO2-eq per annum. That would lower the nation’s emissions from six to two per cent. It’s culpable. Moreover eco-farming can bring lot of employment opportunities in the rural sector.
Imperative, especially at this point in time is a shift in fertiliser subsidies to a more sustainable form of agriculture. If we want to secure our food security, and I imagine we do, we need a complete volte-face, nothing short of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment