What does Dhan-Dhanya Krishi Yojana imply?

Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman began her budget speech by identifying four ‘powerful’ engines of growth, the first being agriculture. A long overdue emphasis. Major announcements on agriculture include a new flagship scheme of Dhan-Dhanya Krishi Yojana (DDKY) covering 100 districts in the country with “low productivity, moderate crop intensity and below-average credit parameters. It aims to (1) enhance agricultural productivity, (2) adopt crop diversification and sustainable agriculture practices, (3) augment post-harvest storage at the panchayat and block levels, (4) improve irrigation facilities, and (5) facilitate availability of long-term and short-term credit’. The scheme is ‘expected’ to cover 1.7 crore farmers in the selected districts. Does this mean that the 100 districts have already been selected?

Let me start with the bad news: There is no specific allocation for this new Yojana in the budget! No dhan (money) in the budget, but will enhance the dhan of 1.7 crore farmers and produce more dhanya (grains) also. Somewhat enigmatic! The most charitable  interpretation would be that the funds will come out of the existing schemes of the Ministry of Agriculture like Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY) and National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA). Will the scheme, therefore, have multiple sources of funding hopefully synchronised in a mission mode and converging to these 100 districts? Wait and see how this evolves. Such an effort can get bogged down in bureaucratese!

Presuming this will evolve to be a powerful engine of growth in the 100 districts, and will not be starved of funds, let us look at a possible way forward.

A Throw Back to NFSM 2007
This scheme appears to have been  built broadly on the parameters of the successful National Food Security Mission (NFSM 2007). NFSM was focused on underperforming districts with potential for higher productivity of food grains, primarily rice and wheat. It had a funding commitment of Rs. 5000 crore over 5 years. To keep the narrative short, the ‘focused and target oriented interventions implemented under mission initiatives had resulted in increased production of rice, wheat and pulses. 34 million tonnes of additional production of total food grains against the target of 20 million tonnes were achieved’ with an expenditure of Rs. 4500 crore, Rs. 500 crore less than budgeted, according to the Ministry of Agriculture.

The new scheme DDKY is focused on ‘resource poor’ districts, and going by the criteria of low productivity, ‘moderate’ crop intensity and below average credit parameters, most of these districts are likely to be in rainfed areas. The emphasis is right, but what are the mission components? Will these be crop-agnostic and provide for the crop(s) predominant in the district? Or will the scheme focus on a few crops? Each of these districts has different endowments and constraints. The design of the scheme must allow for this variability and provide space for innovation at the operational level.  The lessons from RKVY, NFSM and the National Horticulture Mission will be useful.

The five components mentioned earlier are crucial to the success of the operation. Combining the five elements in a meaningful way will be the other challenge.

Improving irrigation facilities and enhancing credit availability are direct government intervention schemes and can be started quickly. The other three need a strong connect between them. Typically, increasing productivity would involve high yielding seeds, better water management, and higher inputs like fertilizers, the standard Green Revolution formula. Combining this with diversification and sustainable management practices will be quite challenging. Using the Green Revolution principles could create more problems of sustainability  in future. Also, diversification and post-harvest storage (warehousing) are inter-linked. One can build grain storages at a rapid pace, irrespective of the requirements of the region. They may even get filled up since there is a shortage of good storage space. But if the potential in the districts shifts to perishables, the story will go awry. Shortage of storage and pre-processing facilities in perishables is more acute. So are we back to District Agriculture Plans? Design of DDKY, therefore, demands a sensitive and skillful set of people and extensive consultation with stakeholders. The government will be well advised not to launch the scheme in a hurry and get stuck with an unimplementable one-fit-for-all programme. 

Missing Key Elements
What I would have loved to see in the DDKY compact are the following: (1) a clear mention of the need to increase farmer incomes in these districts, (2) a focus on marketing/market connect to ensure higher value capture by farmers, and (3) emphasis on livestock and fisheries to augment farm income. It is not too late to add these to the overall design of the scheme. All these elements could come from existing programmes, but need convergence at the district level.

The budget speech also mentions a programme for 100 ‘agri districts’ in the rural development. It states:
A comprehensive multi-sectoral ‘Rural Prosperity and Resilience’ programme will be launched in partnership with states. This will address underemployment in agriculture through skilling, investment, technology, and invigorating the rural economy. The goal is to generate ample opportunities in rural areas, so that migration is an option but not a necessity.

The programme will focus on rural women, young farmers, rural youth, marginal and small farmers, and landless families.

Global and domestic best practices will be incorporated and appropriate technical and financial assistance will be sought from multilateral development banks. In Phase-1, 100 developing agri-districts will be covered.

The programme will focus on:
1)  Catalyzing enterprise development, employment and financial independence for rural women;
2)  Accelerating creation of new employment and businesses for young farmers and rural youth;
3)  Nurturing and modernizing agriculture for productivity improvement and warehousing, especially for marginal and small farmers; and
4)  Diversifying opportunities for landless families.
This scheme also has the right focus. Again, unfortunately no specific budget provision is made.

The real question that remains unanswered is this: Are the 100 districts mentioned in DDKY the same as the 100 districts in the ‘Rural Prosperity and Resilience programme’? How are these different from the 112 aspirational districts? Will there be an  overlap? An overlap is not bad. The question is when do we get to see the two lists? Is this 100 plus, 100 plus 112 or selected 200 plus districts which will have more than one programme running? Who coordinates them? NITI Ayog? At the district level, the coordination will be done by the district magistrate if the guidelines are unambiguous. But at the centre? Who?

Three well-intentioned programmes, aimed at resource poor districts, with serious design, implementation and monitoring challenges. At this stage, we can only hope that  they succeed.

(The writer is former secretary, Agriculture and Food, GOI)