ONE of the exercises federal government undertakes twice every year is setting targets for Rabi and Kharif crops; this was recently done for the Kharif season and there seemingly is nothing wrong with official sights. The targets wear a realistic look and apparently all aspects of crop production were considered before decisions were made.
Or, were they?
There are unanswered questions. The first is what responsibility is it of the federal government to assign crop targets as agriculture is provincial subject. The least it can do is keep appearances by declaring that the targets are proposed by provinces and Islamabad is only rendering a coordinating exercise and presenting provincial proposals in a consolidated form; the federal government can wear a fig leaf though that would be merely for the record.
One comes across discussions on provincial rights all the time and there is consensus among practically every segment in the country for maximum autonomy for provinces. The issue recently became a burning potato with developments in Balochistan. The highest in the government agreed that constitutional changes were required to satisfy provinces on this issue.
This is fine but the implementation of decisions must start at some level and some stage. What is the guarantee that provinces would have the right to cover fresh and extended ground and take decisions on vital issues when rights already guaranteed by the constitution are blatantly ignored? The correct thing for federal authorities would be informing provinces of its requirements and asking them what kind of contribution they can make.
That is a constitutional area and can be best addressed by experts. But are targets fixed with the quality and level of expertise required by the most important sector of national economy or this is done in a slip shod, indeed farcical manner? The later is unfortunately the method followed by bureaucratic, professional and political officials presiding over the sector.
One may perhaps sympathize with the professionals in the provincial and federal governments because no one takes them seriously when they try to live up to their training and job, not that many people attempt that. State sector experts have mostly learned the ropes and tag along whatever route is indicated, knowing that deviation from the prescribed path can be costly for their careers.
They presumably also hold their hand because no serious homework is carried out before the target defining meetings and soon realize that decision makers do not appreciate views contrary to predetermined views. Possibilities that do not fit the frame of their policies are generally ignored and often frowned upon.
The modus operandi is the same from top to bottom. A retired official of a provincial Department of Agriculture once told me of a meeting between a tehsildar and patwaris of his area where he was personally present. As revenue officials, they have a role in cultivation area and determining out put from fields.
Patwaris and crop reporting staff of provincial departments are in fact key players in all games the sector’s official bosses play. The two report on the quantity of crop cultivated and harvested. They ensure that their reports synchronize to enhance their credibility; this also guarantees acceptance of their calculations.
The meeting under reference had the tehsildar asking patwaris about statistic of land under cultivation for a particular crop. The same as last year, he was informed. He asked them if they knew of a 25 percent rebate on electricity charges announced by the government for tube well users in their area.
This caught the usually alert patwaris on the wrong foot and they conceded that this aspect had been overlooked in their assessments. The tehsildar addressed them with a choice expletive and wanted to know what they would do about it. The patwaris requested for a breather to work out details.
They left the tehsildar’s office to hold a meeting of their own and came back after a while. They were asked about what they had decided. “We think that cultivation area should be increased by about 25 percent”, they replied. Their boss was satisfied.
This is how it goes in provincial agriculture departments too. The minister and the secretary get the relevant staff together and question it about cultivation area and crop size. The staff comes up with certain figure, knowing that its estimates were short of what the bosses want and expect to hear. The bosses may be new but the staff is a constant factor and well knows its duty. That is rendered efficiently but not voluntarily; the staffs wants to be persuaded and make it look as if it had done the bosses a favour.
This cannot be, the participants of the meeting are told when low figures are proposed because the estimates are not even the same as last year. Surely, there would be increase in sowing area and produce, the presiding officials say. Haggling then starts and as a goodwill gesture for top dogs, the staff finally comes up with figures to the satisfaction of senior officials.
The next stop is meetings between provincial and federal officials. The same game is played at this level too. The federal government wants ‘improved performance’ from provinces but provinces sight difficulties. The only argument that is seriously made is water shortage. Every one has details of water’s availability so a discussion may take place.
References are also made to availability of seed, fertilizers and pesticides, etc, but not statistics of needs are tabled; federal authorities promise that shortfalls would be made up by imports, if necessary. This suits them because the ‘need’ has potential to induct specific importers. The give and take goes on till both sides strike a ‘good looking and satisfactory bargain’. Targets are then determined for the season.
Last year’s crop is usually treated as yardstick for the next season; federal authorities demand an increase that would meet food needs of increased populations, accommodate wheat smugglers, help sugar millers, provide a price cushion to the textile sector and so on and so forth.
It does not automatically follow that all officials are corrupt or incompetence but the case is often naivety on both counts. Some officials are out to demonstrate their talent for enhancing the sector’s out put while others realize that good statistics make for documents that please the bosses and have positive reflection on their performance.
The effort is usually appreciated when proposals for targets set for various crops reach the cabinet and are approved by the prime minister and the president. Diligent officials with a realistic bent of mind get a pat on the back. If things go wrong at the end of the season, there is no shortage of explanations as to how and why their calculations were not reflected in the produce.
The normal pattern is extending cultivation area and produce size a little above the previous year’s output to make it sound a well worked out effort. In actuality, it is a hoax. While people may not have much idea of how targets are finalized, officials are aware of what they are doing and when the results turn out to the satisfaction of all concerned, they marvel at their know-how, ingenuity and foresight.
As for the farming community that carries the burden of producing crops, it is never consulted, nor are its concerns taken in to account. Needs of seed, fertilizers, pesticides and other inputs are calculated on the basis of targets determined by officials in offices that have no link or communication with facts on grounds.
That the sector continues to perform reasonably well under these pathetic circumstances is nothing short of a miracle. The question is: how long will the miracle keep happening?
