Agricultural Subsidies & Air Pollution

What is the issue?

• Our current system of subsidies is a big reason for air pollution.
• So, some changes could be made in the subsidies of the power, fertilizer and procurement fronts.

What is the situation?

• People in Delhi and Indo-Gangetic Plain are choking due to air pollution.
• As winter dawns, the wind slows, temperatures drop, and suspended particulate matter (PM) accumulates.
• The high pollution in Delhi and its surrounding is due to the congested traffic, dust, construction, waste burning, etc,
• It gets a top-up from paddy-stubble burning in Punjab, Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh.

What contributes to air pollution?

• Agriculture’s contribution to air pollution runs even deeper than what happens between crop seasons.
• Atmospheric ammonia comes from fertiliser use, animal husbandry, and other agricultural practices.
• This combined with emissions from power plants, transportation, and other fossil fuel burning form fine particles.

• Agriculture is a victim of pollution as well as a perpetrator.
• Particulate matter and ground-level ozone (from industrial, power plant, and transportation emissions among others) cause losses in crop yields.
• Ozone damages plant cells, handicapping photosynthesis, while particulate matter dims the sunlight that reaches crops.

What is the irony?

• The irony of agricultural pollution is that taxpayers are essentially paying for it through a system of subsidies.
• These subsidies motivate the very behaviors that drive the agricultural emissions that the taxpayers breathe.

How does subsidy contribute to air pollution?

• Free power - hence “free” water, pumped from the ground - is a big part of what makes growing rice in these areas attractive.
• Open-ended procurement of paddy, in spite of bulging stocks of grains with the Food Corporation of India, adds to the incentives.
• Subsidies account for almost 15% of the value of rice being produced in Punjab-Haryana belt.
• Fertiliser, particularly urea in granular form, is highly subsidised.
• Urea is one of the cheapest forms of nitrogen-based fertiliser, but it is also one of the first to release ammonia into the air.
• This loss of nitrogen leads to a cycle of more and more fertiliser being applied to get the intended benefits for crops.

What could be done?

• An important element to correct in the policy matrix is the policy of subsidies on power, fertilisers and procurement.
• The nature of support to farmers should be shifted from input subsidies to investment subsidies.
• A diversification package, equally contributed by the Centre and states, may be done to reduce agricultural pollution.
• The approach to diversification has to be demand-led, with a holistic framework of value chain, and not just focused on production.
• On the fertiliser front, instead of massive subsidisation of urea, the farmers could be given an input subsidy in cash on per hectare basis.
• Government procurement of paddy from farmers burning stubble in their fields may also be restricted.
• Taken together, these measures could double farmers’ incomes, promote efficiency in resource use, and reduce pollution.

Source: Financial Express