The Central government recently released the draft National Policy Framework on Agricultural Marketing, aimed at a competitive and transparent agricultural marketing ecosystem where farmers can access diverse markets and secure better prices. It emphasises digital innovations and coordination between Central and state governments. Inclusive growth is another goal, to be achieved by redesigning agricultural value chains, leveraging technologies like blockchain, and addressing infrastructure gaps. However, the policy has also faced some criticism from farmer leaders, the Punjab government, and the state’s opposition parties. They have argued that the framework echoes the controversial farm laws introduced by the Centre in 2020, later repealed after a 13-month-long farmers’ protest at Delhi's borders. It also comes when some farmers are protesting for improvements to the Minimum Support Price (MSP) mechanism at Punjab and Haryana’s Shambu and Khanauri borders. Comments have been invited from the states on the draft. What are the key points of the draft National Policy Framework on Agricultural Marketing? The framework highlights the consistent growth of India’s agricultural sector, with significant achievements in food grains, oilseeds, and horticulture between 2016 and 2023. However, it also points to challenges like fragmented landholdings, inadequate market access and price volatility, which impact small and marginal farmers, necessitating urgent policy interventions to ensure fair prices and sustained income. It introduces several initiatives. First, it says farmers would be allowed to sell their produce across various platforms, including markets, private buyers, and directly to consumers, moving beyond the traditional mandis (regulated markets). It promotes private investment in market infrastructure, such as warehouses and cold storage facilities, and encourages the adoption of digital trading and e-market platforms to improve efficiency and transparency. Additionally, it simplifies licensing norms, reduces state-specific restrictions, and provides grievance redressal mechanisms for farmers and buyers. What are some of the similarities with the three farm laws? Farmer leaders have contended that the policy draft attempts to reintroduce elements of the repealed farm laws. For instance, the Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act allowed farmers to sell outside the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMCs), a feature mirrored in the framework’s provision for freedom to sell produce anywhere. Many states in India have APMC Acts, which mandate that the sale/purchase of agricultural commodities is carried out in a specified market area (mandis), and, producer-sellers or traders pay the requisite market fee, user charges, levies and commissions for the commission agents (arhatias). Farmers can sell outside APMC markets also but the bulk of them bring their produce to the APMCs. Further, the policy’s emphasis on private investment and infrastructure development aligns with the second farm law, the Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act. It promoted contract farming and privatisation. Both frameworks also advocate digitisation. However, like the farm laws, the policy is silent on the issue of Minimum Support Price (MSP) guarantees, a critical concern for farmers. How the framework incorporates lessons from the repealed farm laws The draft policy framework seems to have taken lessons from the backlash against the farm laws. It emphasises regulation, state involvement, and addressing farmers’ concerns. The framework incorporates safeguards for small farmers, acknowledges their challenges, and proposes localised grievance redressal mechanisms involving state authorities, in contrast to the centralised provisions of the earlier farm laws. The role of APMCs also highlights a key difference. Unlike the farm laws, which bypassed APMCs and reduced their significance, the framework seeks to modernise and integrate APMCs with private markets. This approach aims to preserve APMCs while fostering competition through private mandi options, ensuring a vital component of India’s agricultural ecosystem is not undermined. By balancing modernisation with state autonomy and introducing farmer safeguards, the framework thus aims to chart a more inclusive and equitable path. Challenges ahead However, the National Policy Framework faces significant challenges. Its silence on MSP guarantees continues to be a major concern for farmers. Ensuring that private investments and digital solutions are accessible to marginal farmers is another critical issue, with scepticism prevalent at the ground level. The framework's success will ultimately depend on its ability to address farmers’ apprehensions, particularly regarding price guarantees and equitable access to benefits. Jagmohan Singh, General Secretary of the Bharti Kisan Union (Dakaunda), said both the 2020 farm laws and the 2024 draft policy share common objectives, such as promoting alternative marketing channels, facilitating direct marketing and contract farming, encouraging private sector participation, etc. However, other stakeholders added that achieving the desired outcomes will require the framework to address historical concerns and inclusively deliver on its promises.
