Even as the DMK regime in Tamil Nadu came out on February 20 with its fourth exclusive Budget for agriculture, the debate is on among policymakers, agriculturists, experts, and political figures about the efficacy of the exercise.
While proponents of the idea of a separate Budget highlight that the farm sector, as a whole, hogs the limelight, critics feel that core issues are yet to receive the attention that they deserve.
The concept of an agriculture Budget was one of the assurances of the ruling party at the time of the 2021 Assembly poll and this was fulfilled when the maiden Budget was presented that year. As is known, the Budget illustrates the government’s plans of allocations not just for the agriculture department but also for others that have a bearing on the farm sector. For example, the latest Budget talks of ₹16,500 crore as the target for the coming year’s short term crop loans, which are disbursed through primary agricultural cooperative credit societies (PACCS) that come under the direct ambit of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies in the Department of Cooperation. The proposed allocations of at least half a dozen departments that impact agriculture and farmers have also been presented in a concise manner.
At the macro level, the outlay made under the Revenue Expenditure for the entire sector comes to about ₹33,480 crore, which is nearly 10% of the State’s total Revenue Expenditure. Combined with capital expenditure, the overall outlay is around ₹42,282 crore for 2024-25 against ₹34,221 crore for 2021-22.
This year’s highlight is a programme on soil health improvement — the CM’s Mannuyir Kaathu Mannuyir Kaappom Scheme (CM MK MKS). It will have 22 components at an outlay of ₹206 crore during 2024-2025. As part of the scheme, green manure seeds will be distributed to cover two lakh acres, benefitting farmers. The second and third sets of abbreviations in the English title of the scheme may remind any discerning observer of the references to the names of former CM M. Karunanidhi and the present, M.K. Stalin.
A top official emphasises that a separate Budget facilitates higher allocation, a point that the critics feel that would have been possible even in the earlier scheme of presenting an encompassing Budget. However, the official is of the view that convergence of schemes, being implemented by departments other than agriculture, is done in a better way and at all levels — from village to the State. Such schemes are being carried out by the departments of Water Resources, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj and Animal Husbandry.
The Budget approach enables attention to area specific improvement for which strategies are being planned and schemes formulated. Increase in the area, production and productivity of crops, climate resilient cropping system, natural farming and conservation of traditional varieties are among the areas being covered.
On the flip side, the lack of price support for important crops such as paddy and sugarcane is cited as a shortcoming. The critics are quick to point out that contrary to its electoral promises, the ruling party had not determined incentive amounts in such a manner that the support price for paddy would go up to ₹2,500 per quintal and for sugarcane, ₹4,000 per tonne.
A veteran agricultural scientist says that the focus appears to be more on the distribution of inputs than on technological intervention, market support and agro-processing. The volume of crop loans, disbursed through PACCS, seems to have stagnated over the last 15 years and this is an adverse reflection of the space being enjoyed by the credit cooperative societies in the area of agricultural credit. The authorities should pay sustained attention to address this problem.
In his Budget speech, Agriculture Minister M. R. K. Panneerselvam himself referred to the shortfall in meeting the demand for pulses and oilseeds. For example, as against the annual requirement of nearly 18.5 lakh tonnes of edible oil, the State could produce only 4.85 lakh tonnes.
It is an open secret that the finances of the State government are under strain on account of various pulls and pressures. The government would do well by substantially increasing the allocation for the farm sector and cutting down expenditure on populist schemes. Perhaps, next year’s agriculture and general Budget will reflect such an approach.
