Table 1 above would show that more wheat was sold in Punjab at the village level than in Sindh (54 against 38 per cent). On the other hand Sindh sold more wheat at mandi level (24 vs 16 per cent). Thirty-eight per cent more farmers in Sindh as opposed to 30 per cent in Punjab used PCs.

Tenants who are landless did not or perhaps could not use the PCs. Owner - cum-tenant used them the most in Sindh, i.e. 85 per cent. In Punjab land tenure did not seem to make much difference to the marketing outlet.

In terms of the extent of the ownership, poorer farmers used the PCs the least, both in Punjab and Sindh. Eighty-one per cent large Punjab farmers and 84 per cent Sindh farmers used the PCs. This negates the claim on behalf of the APCOM that the support price helps the poor or the vulnerable.

Table 2 would show that the farmer got a higher price both at village and the mandi outlets than he received at the PCs. That he received precise amount of the support price at the PCs is a myth, which only APCOM would like to believe. At village and mandi level Punjab farmer got more than his counter part in Sindh. Tenant sold nothing at the PCs but he got a price comparable to the other two categories at village and mandi outlets. In terms of farm size, there is not much difference as to the price each category obtained either at village or at mandi level.

In terms of volume, in Sindh 62 per cent was sold at village and ‘mandi’ level and 38 per cent at PCs. In terms of land tenure (owner, owner-cum-tenant and tenant) no tenant sold wheat at PCs. Owner-cum-tenant used the PCs the most, i.e. 85 per cent; 37 per cent owners sold wheat at the PCs. So much for the poor farmer purporting to be supported with price ‘fixation’.

The comparable figures in Punjab according to land tenure present a slightly different picture. There, 23 per cent tenants sold at the PCs as against 33 per cent owners and 27 per cent owner-cum-tenants. Again large majority of farmers, irrespective of the land tenure, sold at village and ‘mandi’ level, with owners selling 67 per cent, owner-cum-tenant 73 per cent and tenant 77 per cent of the surplus.

Similar results of support price bias in favour of the big landowners are manifest in the farm size. Only 19 per cent Punjab farmers owning less than 12.5 acres sold at the PCs as against 27 per cent for 12.5 to 25 acres category, 28 per cent for 25 to 50 acres and 36 per cent for 50 acres and above category. On an overall basis 15 per cent of the farmers in Punjab sold at the PCs. The figures are just about the same irrespective of the farm size or the land tenure.

Another interesting feature that emerges from the analysis is the prices. Farmer receives more prices at village and ‘mandi’ market than at the PCs. The figures for Punjab are Rs. 258 (village), Rs. 272 (‘mandi’) and Rs. 240 (PCs). The survey also indicates that the farmers with larger farm size sell larger quantities and receive relatively higher prices.

Ironically APCOM has concluded that the farmer in Punjab incurred a loss of Rs9/40 kgs by selling wheat at the PCs in view of his higher cost of production. Incidentally the basis of calculating cost is heavily loaded with an intrinsic bias of the APCOM in trying to sustain a failed policy of price ‘fixation’. Sindh presented a more balanced picture because the variation in price received by the farmers was much less. The three prices for village, ‘mandi’ and PCs was Rs241, 251 and Rs 240 respectively. It suggests that the village and ‘mandi’ market in Sindh is not as well developed as in Punjab and is therefore exploitative of the farmer.

The survey also examines the marketing by category on the basis of productivity level and management. In terms of productivity the largest number of farmers who sell at the PCs fall in the middle. The farmers with the lowest productivity sell the least that is 4 per cent of their surplus at PCs. Higher productivity varies directly with the size of the farm.

Data on management basis convey almost a similar conclusion, with progressive farmers selling a higher percentage than the average farmer. Traditional farmer who ought to be less productive and less rich in terms of ownership sells a lower percentage at the PCs.

The survey perpetuates the myth that the farmer receives the exact support price at the PCs. A smaller survey in 1999 conducted by APCOM as well as the anecdotal evidence strongly suggests that the farmer gets a much lower than the support price. The price that he gets irrespective of the claims depends on demand and supply. If movement of wheat is restricted under 144 CrPC, as is typical in Punjab to coincide with the wheat crop, and the prices crash, the farmer is likely to get much less. Besides PCs have an informal network of middlemen through whom the food inspectors buy from the farmers.

Interesting conclusion yielded by the survey and printed by APCOM without noticing the irony in its support of procurement price is that ‘selling of wheat at support prices was not an economic proposition as farmers were unable to recoup their cost of production.’ Similarly, farmers selling wheat in the market were, by and large, able to recover their cost of production and marketing. APCOM has drawn a totally illogical and untenable inference. Rather than admitting the failure of its policy it recommends ‘farmers must recover the variable cost in order to continue in business.’ APCOM would do Pakistan’s agriculture a great favour if it went out of business and concentrated its talent and effort on doing some valuable research like the present survey report.

APCOM is performing a negative roll by persisting with its price support policy while admitting that in Punjab the farmer incurs a loss by selling at the PCs. PCs only disrupt if not completely destroy the emerging private marketing in this important commodity. APCOM is in the wrong business trying to sell support prices in an environment of globalization and market economy. The survey in question contradicts the pet assumptions on which the entire edifice of support price structure is based.