Chemical warfare in Jhabua
|
COMMENTS 
Petlawad block in Madhya Pradesh’s Jhabua district illustrates in microcosm the crisis of Indian agriculture. Desperate farmers are using a phenomenal 600 kg of chemical fertiliser per hectare of farmland. As yields decline and costs of inputs rise, the average village’s debt is four times its annual income
In Petlawad block of Jhabua district in Madhya Pradesh, farmers are being overwhelmed by deadly synthetic chemicals. Here, 600-800 kg of chemical fertiliser and 5-12 kg of chemical pesticides are being used on every hectare of farmland, with the expectation that it will bring prosperity. Use of chemical fertiliser and pesticides by farmers who seek maximum benefit from cash crops like cotton, tomatoes and chilly is six to eight times more than the official national average and 10-12 times more than the average in Madhya Pradesh. Indeed, major addicts of chemical fertilisers like Punjab (209.59 kg per hectare), Andhra Pradesh (219.48) and Tamil Nadu (186.68) use far less fertiliser compared to remote Petlawad block. Owing to the spread of high-input cash-crop farming, the burden of loans on farmers has become four times that of their annual income. Not to mention the negative impact on land productivity and health.
According to the Economic Survey of Madhya Pradesh, in the last five years (2004-2008) cotton production in the district has dropped from 27,225 bales (one bale is 170 kg) to 3,983 bales. This is the period when multinationals and the state have been actively promoting genetically modified Bt seeds. Soybean productivity too dipped 35% below the state average; tomato production is going down as well although efforts are on to increase production. Tribal and farmer families are attempting to increase yields and profits by using more and more chemicals. But in reality it is pushing them deeper into the cycle of distress.
Eighty-six per cent of Jhabua’s population is tribal; 71% of families live below the poverty line (BPL). Landholding size is an average of 3 acres. The district’s per capita income is a mere Rs 8,541 per year.
The switch to cash crops and neglect of traditional crops and organic farming systems that used less fertiliser, less pesticides and less water is proving costly for farmers. When Bt cotton was introduced in the area, production in the initial couple of years increased spectacularly. After that, from 2005-06, it began to decline. The germination rate of seeds dropped from 85% to 27% as against the claims of companies promoting GM seeds. The new seeds have also spelt trouble for cattle, as the crops don’t produce enough fodder. Mangal of Thikaria village says: “Earlier, we used to get 25 quintals of cotton from our land. But it has reduced to a mere 3 quintals at present. This amounts to one-fourth of our input costs, and there is no question of any profit. I have a debt of Rs 75,000 on me now.”
When the cotton crop failed, businessmen from Delhi and Mumbai advised local farmers to go in for a second tomato crop, with help from local moneylenders, shopkeepers, even the government machinery. They said profits would amount to Rs 40,000-60,000 per hectare. And so, farmers who had been let down by cotton tried to find solace in the tomato crop. Local farmer Laxman Singh Munia says: “It’s a cycle. The farmlands in which new varieties of tomato are grown give very good production for the first year. But then it becomes unproductive for the next three to four years. The new seeds squeeze out all the nutritious elements from the earth, thus the farmers have to use a lot of fertiliser the following year to get average yields. At least 6-8 quintals of chemical fertiliser are used per hectare of land. What’s more, the farmer has no option but to use GM seeds; local and traditional varieties are totally out of the market.”
In Jhabua, the amount of chemical fertiliser used per hectare was 20 kg in 1970; by kharif 2009 it had reached an astounding 800 kg per hectare. To grow tomato on a hectare of land, Rs 9,700 is spent only on chemical fertiliser. Tomato also requires six times more water than maize or pulses which are the traditional crops here. Every second year, therefore, the district faces drought-like conditions. When tomato and cotton farming became losing propositions, farmers started sowing chillies. But that too proved a costly experiment. Mukesh Choudhary, a dealer in chemical fertilisers in Raipuria village, says: “The farmland size available with people is small and thus they are using immense amounts of chemicals to increase productivity, on the assumption that it will give them more profit.” Companies that buy tomatoes and chillies from the farmers also tell them that using chemical fertiliser will thicken the skin of the tomatoes, preventing early rotting. And that it will increase the size of the chillies.
Loans are often available to farmers only against purchase of a specific company’s seed or fertiliser, not for country or local varieties. All farmers here require loans as they are not in a position to invest their own money in farming. And so they get caught up in a maze of debt.
Small farmer Rupchandra Bhuria of Morjharia says: “The input cost doubles because we have to get these products on credit. The effort to come out of the loan cycle involves one more (foray) into it.” Local journalist Harish Pawar adds: “When modified seeds and chemical fertiliser are sold, information is given only about their capacity to increase productivity. Farmers are not told on what condition their productivity will increase. One cycle of cropping puts a small farmer in debt to the tune of Rs 15,000-20,000. The average loan taken by a farmer in 1991 was Rs 2,500; now it has increased to over Rs 35,000.” The promotion of new technologies is producing new challenges that are proving catastrophic not only for farmers but for society at large.
Planting cash crops in place of traditional varieties is proving a costly mistake for small and marginal farmers. Yields in Bt cotton, once promoted as ‘white gold’, have dropped to one-third of their original. According to Madhya Pradesh agriculture department statistics, in 2005-06, cotton productivity in Jhabua was 442 kg per hectare. This dipped to 370 kg in 2006-07 and a low 151 kg in 2008-09. Even with soybean, the district that produced 775 kg per hectare has begun to lag considerably behind the state average of 1,143 kg per hectare.
While the annual income of the entire village of Lalyarundi, in the same district, is Rs 5.02 lakh, the total debt of families living there is a whopping Rs 16.07 lakh. Kajbi village’s debt is Rs 63.29 lakh; its annual total income is Rs 13.93 lakh. Each family here earns an average of Rs 10,079 per year but has a debt of around Rs 38,094.
An analysis of annual income and debt in 10 villages in the area revealed some astounding facts: while the total annual income of these villages is Rs 1.10 crore, the total debt is as much as Rs 4.18 crore -- four times the income! The highest proportion of loans -- Rs 3.06 crore -- was sought for agriculture-related activities. Only one-third of the loans were taken from banks and other financial institutions; the rest is to be paid to local moneylenders or retailers of fertiliser and seeds.
It’s an extremely controlled system of pushing people into debt.
Loans are not provided in cash only. Dealers of agricultural material sell pesticides, fertiliser and agri-equipment to farmers on credit and later recover double the amount. In many cases, these local dealers also work as purchase agents for Delhi- or Mumbai-based traders. Retailers, company agents, wholesale dealers, middlemen and moneylenders, all are secure about their investments as they buy produce from farmers at lower rates as repayment of loans and debts.
According to local activist and farmer Laxman Singh, contract farming is being promoted by businessmen from the big cities who are persuading farmers to produce tomatoes and chillies. Farmers who are caught in the loan trap consider cash crops their last option.
Ramje, a farmer from Morjharia village, says: “Earlier the loan cycle was yearly, which meant that the loan taken would be paid back every year. But now it keeps on growing because farming is leading to loss after loss in search of more profits. We have taken steps that are bigger than our capacity. Now, if we think of paying up our entire debt we would have to hand over our earnings for four years to these people. And still the debt won’t be over, because every year interest of 36% will be added.”
Input costs for agriculture have gone up considerably thanks to expensive seeds and fertiliser. Under the present agricultural system, farmers don’t get reproducible seeds. New hybrid or GM seeds can be used only for one crop; for the next crop farmers buy new seeds at very high costs. The cost of 10 grams of tomato seed is between Rs 350 and Rs 1,500; 10 grams of chilly seeds can be purchased for Rs 200-Rs 600 in Petlawad market (silver costs less!). The market has destroyed a self-reliant system in the name of ‘progressive agriculture’. The present cost of tomato production is approximately Rs 94,000 per hectare, and the farmer gets only Rs 50,000 back. Bt cotton, tomato and chilly all involve very high input costs. Farmers have to spend Rs 2,500 per hectare only on seeds!
This so-called progressive agriculture has also negatively impacted livestock as most cash crops do not produce fodder or green grass for animals. Today, even small farmers use tractors and threshers for agricultural work as they do not have any cattle left. Since there is no cattle there is very little opportunity to produce bio-fertiliser. Basic farm activities like sowing etc used to be done by hand, using cattle. It usually did not involve any additional inputs. Today, all the work is done using a tractor. Those who rent out tractors ask for 8 kg of grain per quintal (of maize or soybean). Reaping is done by thresher that is available at the rate of 5 kg of grain per quintal of reaping. Eleven per cent of the total produce is given away for these machines. A farmer with 5 acres of land is not even in a position to earn three months of minimum wage work by an agricultural worker.
Social worker Nilesh Desai believes that although the loan/debt crisis started with soybean, it was the entry of Bt cotton that made the cycle so complicated that farmers did not know how to get out of it. The more they tried, the more they became entangled.
(Sachin Kumar Jain is a development journalist and adviser to the Commissioners of the Supreme Court in the Right to Food case)
Infochange News & Features, August 2010