Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh has just finished an outstanding performance in the lead-up to the Copenhagen climate change conference,not to mention at the conference itself. So it might feel a little churlish to start to criticise him on an issue which has developed typically epic Indian proportions. Yet there are good reasons to do so. My experience about such things is that unless things are handled with some foresight,these are the issues which,when we resolve,give us a high dividend but these get delayed by up to a decade. For example,the Sardar Sarovar project now gives us a 6 per cent annual agricultural growth rate. That result could have been achieved a decade-and-a-half ago. Delay hurts the weakest.
The environment minister has given us a 19-page document and backed it up with a 101-page consultation paper. He is a good minister,of course so things like that are well taken care of. It is the most dangerous of my friends who are extremely competent. I was planning to sit out of this debate,since my views are well known,and in print and,indeed,there is a sense of déjà-vu of a battle in which victory is always just out of reach.
This column has consistently argued that the horror scenarios of growth were incorrect and that we will not lose two to four per cent in agricultural output; however,we were unlikely to grow,either. The problem is not just a bad kharif: it can be traced to a mixture of demand and chalta-hai growth. Hitting at seeds and nutrients is thus attacking more than just agriculture. Slowing agricultural growth is capable of hurting sectors way beyond the obvious ones.
And decisions like Rameshs will have a ripple effect across the entire economy.
I am with Jairam Ramesh this far: I do indeed want a strategic public presence in agricultural research. But as India sources its widespread demands,it needs an entire cafeteria of institutions,a complete selection of options,each working within a larger strategic plan. We have history here to look at,a precedent we should follow. In 1988,a reforming Rajiv Gandhi decided he wanted to ensure wider agricultural growth in particular in grains.
But the pressures were enormous even then about single versus multiple sources for the innovation; we said that we would develop seeds with different sources. The agricultural research establishment demanded a hearing,and the prime minister called in the brightest. After some discussion,he asked them point blank: can we produce globally competitive outcomes? They gave him six crops and he asked me I was then the concerned member of the Planning Commission to fund them. One of them was a hybrid paddy. A national research network was organised for the next steps on that paddy. And heres the crucial point: it was the first public-private partnership.
That organisation,under Siddique Sahib,produced seeds in the early 90s but by then the government was not in the mood to support it further. We were the only country,after China,to do it. They went to 8 million hectares. We did nothing. But the research back-up was there then,the foundations were laid,and they are showing results now. The story was repeated in castor and some other such crops. It is unfortunate that the private-public partnership model developed then,providing rich dividends now,should be called into question.
And the present regulatory system,indeed,shouldnt be unquestioned. The present regulatory system was developed by a committee chaired by M.S. Swaminathan. He no doubt wants more now,wanting to raise the bar from a system that was legislated
15 years ago. Of course,this regulatory system was built on the basis of extensive consultation in the 90s which included,as it happens,a report from Swaminathans institute.
Being absolutely sure about things takes time. But can we
afford the delay?
The writer,a former Union minister,is chairman,Institute of Rural Management,Anand
express@expressindia.com
