12 April 2004	Monday	21 Safar 1425

This is the time of the year when the centre and the provinces begin the annual ritual of consultations on the formation of next year's budget and also annual plans.

It is no secret that the ministry of finance holds discussions with representatives from the industry, business, economists and experts. Some of the provinces also execute similar exercises and look up at Islamabad for a larger share of the centre's financial cake.

Experience shows that though the agriculture and its allied sectors deserve a larger share in the budget, it seldom gets that. But do farmers who are the real 'stakeholders' have a say in the making of the budget? Of all trades and professions, farming is the only exception where a producer does not decide what price he should demand. He does not even have the power (right) to bargain the cost of inputs used in raising food grains, what to speak of asking for remunerative price for his produce.

Food grain production, in more than one ways, determines social and economic wellbeing of the people. Given the government-controlled-and-managed procurement system and the public distribution obligation, farmers have no choice but to accept what is offered.

Therefore, despite being primary 'stakeholders' in the agriculture, farmers have neither a choice nor a voice. They remain unorganized and are unable to protect their own interests - political, social or economic.

Who would speak for them if they themselves won't? This question has gained ground for quite some time. In fact, a vociferous 'policy recommendation' was made in the final report of integrated social and environmental assessment (ISEA), prepared by a local private company .

That recommendation reads, "Pressure groups for farmers need to be created in order to bridge the gap between the policy-makers and the situation at grassroots level. These groups should play a key role in framing agricultural policies. Efforts should be made to encourage setting up of a 'chamber of agri-business' in the country with its province-level chapters.

This should not be a government-sponsored organization, rather be a purely private and farmers' own setup. Individual members may have their personal political affiliations, yet this chamber should be completely a non-political organization on the pattern of business and industrial chambers and their federations'. The reference was to the presence of influential lobbies.

Something similar has been suggested in the final report of Sindh in the context of the stakeholders. It was said that the agriculture and farm policies have come a long way since 1947.

Despite innumerable commissions and committees and their suggestions on making agriculture profit-oriented, success has been limited. These recommendations ranged from the diversification (crop-oriented), reducing the cost of cultivation, direct subsidies, agri-business and agro-processing to value-addition to raw produce, improved infrastructure (harvesting, marketing, storage to transportation and public distribution system) etc.

While success has been limited, sustainability of agriculture has been a major concern. There is a growing concern for the future of small and marginal farmers (they form the bulk and backbone of agriculture) as also their deeper and wider marginalization, growing indebtedness and reports of suicides.

If investments in agriculture have been declining and the vagaries of weather playing havoc, the WTO shadow has caused an eclipse. In this scenario the voice of 'stakeholders' has been muffled. Who are stakeholders? A consultant identifies them: The farmers, tenants and landless, the government, agricultural universities, procurement agencies, mandi board, village moneylenders (ahrtias) and commission agents, consumers those who have and those who do not have the paying capacity to buy food irrespective of the public distribution system, transporter, manufacturer of farm machinery and producer of farm inputs (fertilizers and plant protection chemicals) etc.

This hypothesis and synopsis are simple. Diversification of crops alone will not do. There has to be a comprehensive 'integrated rural development' blueprint for 'overall' agricultural progress and prosperity that ensured sustainability and survival of farmers who are both producers and consumers.

Therefore, all these primary and secondary 'stakeholders' shall have to put their act together, improve their housekeeping and raise a collective voice that must be heard in the corridors of power in Pakistan so that the agriculture and allied sector get what is due and what it deserves for the very survival of the people.