The federal food minister has been upbeat about the wheat crop now in the fields; it would be ready for harvesting soon. He has predicted a harvest of about 20 million tons, a little over the target set by the government.

While all the ground conditions have been negative for a good crop, there is reason to expect that the minister’s assessment would come true. That would be a happy development. But the question is, what next, because a crop is not an end in itself but just an event in a wide framework of multiple implications.

This pertains not merely to the fate of the standing wheat crop but the very future of the agriculture sector in Pakistan. The sector has been under severe stress for a number of reasons. Some of them are beyond the scope of human management; others are the result of indifferent attitude and thoughtless policies of the government. The rest comprises the handling of wheat, as also other crops by the authorities.

In the case of wheat, the procurement blues the farmers have been experiencing for some time seem set to reappear with a darker shade. Nothing suggests that the administration has learnt from mistakes, colossal though they were and unforgettable though they should have been.

There is the issue of water. It has been in short supply. Rains have been scarce. Rivers have turned shallow. The main reservoirs have touched their lowest in many years. Irrigation canals have been officially declared dry, closed as they have been.

This pattern of recent past has been underlined with greater grimness this year. Prospects of improvement in water resources in the coming months, particularly with forecast of dry weather instead of monsoon rains, are clearly bleak. What would happen to the crop the farmers are to cultivate following the harvesting of wheat.

In all likelihood, water would remain a critical issue for the next crop, as it was for wheat, if anything, even more frighteningly so. That bridge would, however, come after the disposal of the wheat crop. What awaits growers on that count? There doesn’t seem much that growers can look forward to.

The government’s procurement policy was an unmitigated disaster last year. Financial resources for its implementation were scarce; quality of its management was poor and that is stating things mildly. Procurement of wheat left farmers, particularly small and middle size land-owners, who form the backbone of the agriculture sector, high and dry.

Instead of the cash they direly needed to invest in the next crop and stay in business, they had unsold stocks for their sweat and toil. This was their second such experience. The sector managed to survive and produce another good crop by investing its livestock resources in crops.

The resilience and the commitment of the farming sector are simply remarkable. They have demonstrated, time and again, tremendous capacity to defeat adverse conditions. But how long should one expect them to fight mismanaged procurement? Would they receive a less unjust deal after unsuccessfully battling against odds for two successive years?

Indications are against any improvement. In fact, more grief can be seen lurking around harvesting. The administration has not added any new capacity to the existing storage facility that are already fully utilized. Stocks to provide buffer wheat and meant for export occupy storage space available with the government and its relevant agencies.Procurement would thus be handicapped by the government’s capacity to store more wheat.

There also are reports of shortage of funds. This means that scope for farmers to sell their produce under an arrangement that does not fleece them as callously as middlemen do, is not exactly bright. Wheat growers, it seems, would be in for greater disappointment this time.

To be exact, a lot more: support price for wheat has stayed static now for two crops. The cost of living has meanwhile risen considerably. One must not forget that the farmer is also a human being; he has a family to feed, to clothe and if possible, educate his children and look after the health of family members. His expenses for survival have increased while his income has remained on a plateau. Actually, he is earning less because of costlier inputs.

His earnings have gone down as he has to spend more on the crop. Urea is vital nutrient for the crop, particularly as land is getting exhausted its cost has increased. The price of diesel has been on an escalating curve. He needs diesel to run tractors. Transportation is getting costlier by the day. Electricity charges have similarly gone up. This aspect needs to be taken up specifically.

There is a serious case for relief, in fact for concrete support on this count. Indian states of Punjab and Haryana provide wheat to the country’s populace. Their yield is much higher than that of our farmers. An important difference is incentives on the other side of the border while a pathetic attitude of discouragement is the order in Pakistan. Farmers of the two Indian states are provided electricity free of cost. They do not have to run from pillar to post to find buyers; the government purchases the entire produce. In Pakistan, electricity bills are high and farmers, particularly small land owners have to think many times before they switch on the tube wells that are badly needed for harnessing ground water to meet water shortage for the corp.

The farmer did not get much benefit from two excellent wheat crops. The last one left him in the lurch. To expect him to continue providing food to the populace while he himself is knocking at the door of poverty is unrealistic, besides being unjust. The government will have to come up with a timely increase in the support price for wheat and make the use of electricity affordable to him for all crops and not just wheat.

There are reports of a possibility of raising support price for wheat in the coming days. That is unlikely to be much benefit to the farmer because procurement by the government is to be limited and the private sector is never inclined to measure the farming community’s contribution with fairness.

While there is no dearth of lip service for the well-being of the tillers of the land, there is little evidence of positive, pro-agri sector policies.

Ensuring that it received its due was one of the first commitments of General Musharraf after taking over in October 1999; it is yet to be fulfilled. Indeed even the first step has not been taken in that direction.

The farmers need to be encouraged to help the country meet the food crises looming large on the horizons because of water shortage. Ignoring this need would tantamount to leading Pakistan in to famine conditions within the foreseeable future. By Zafar Samdani

The federal food minister has been upbeat about the wheat crop now in the fields; it would be ready for harvesting soon. He has predicted a harvest of about 20 million tons, a little over the target set by the government.

While all the ground conditions have been negative for a good crop, there is reason to expect that the minister’s assessment would come true. That would be a happy development. But the question is, what next, because a crop is not an end in itself but just an event in a wide framework of multiple implications.

This pertains not merely to the fate of the standing wheat crop but the very future of the agriculture sector in Pakistan. The sector has been under severe stress for a number of reasons. Some of them are beyond the scope of human management; others are the result of indifferent attitude and thoughtless policies of the government. The rest comprises the handling of wheat, as also other crops by the authorities.

In the case of wheat, the procurement blues the farmers have been experiencing for some time seem set to reappear with a darker shade. Nothing suggests that the administration has learnt from mistakes, colossal though they were and unforgettable though they should have been.

There is the issue of water. It has been in short supply. Rains have been scarce. Rivers have turned shallow. The main reservoirs have touched their lowest in many years. Irrigation canals have been officially declared dry, closed as they have been.

This pattern of recent past has been underlined with greater grimness this year. Prospects of improvement in water resources in the coming months, particularly with forecast of dry weather instead of monsoon rains, are clearly bleak. What would happen to the crop the farmers are to cultivate following the harvesting of wheat.

In all likelihood, water would remain a critical issue for the next crop, as it was for wheat, if anything, even more frighteningly so. That bridge would, however, come after the disposal of the wheat crop. What awaits growers on that count? There doesn’t seem much that growers can look forward to.

The government’s procurement policy was an unmitigated disaster last year. Financial resources for its implementation were scarce; quality of its management was poor and that is stating things mildly. Procurement of wheat left farmers, particularly small and middle size land-owners, who form the backbone of the agriculture sector, high and dry.

Instead of the cash they direly needed to invest in the next crop and stay in business, they had unsold stocks for their sweat and toil. This was their second such experience. The sector managed to survive and produce another good crop by investing its livestock resources in crops.

The resilience and the commitment of the farming sector are simply remarkable. They have demonstrated, time and again, tremendous capacity to defeat adverse conditions. But how long should one expect them to fight mismanaged procurement? Would they receive a less unjust deal after unsuccessfully battling against odds for two successive years?

Indications are against any improvement. In fact, more grief can be seen lurking around harvesting. The administration has not added any new capacity to the existing storage facility that are already fully utilized. Stocks to provide buffer wheat and meant for export occupy storage space available with the government and its relevant agencies.Procurement would thus be handicapped by the government’s capacity to store more wheat.

There also are reports of shortage of funds. This means that scope for farmers to sell their produce under an arrangement that does not fleece them as callously as middlemen do, is not exactly bright. Wheat growers, it seems, would be in for greater disappointment this time.

To be exact, a lot more: support price for wheat has stayed static now for two crops. The cost of living has meanwhile risen considerably. One must not forget that the farmer is also a human being; he has a family to feed, to clothe and if possible, educate his children and look after the health of family members. His expenses for survival have increased while his income has remained on a plateau. Actually, he is earning less because of costlier inputs.

His earnings have gone down as he has to spend more on the crop. Urea is vital nutrient for the crop, particularly as land is getting exhausted its cost has increased. The price of diesel has been on an escalating curve. He needs diesel to run tractors. Transportation is getting costlier by the day. Electricity charges have similarly gone up. This aspect needs to be taken up specifically.

There is a serious case for relief, in fact for concrete support on this count. Indian states of Punjab and Haryana provide wheat to the country’s populace. Their yield is much higher than that of our farmers. An important difference is incentives on the other side of the border while a pathetic attitude of discouragement is the order in Pakistan. Farmers of the two Indian states are provided electricity free of cost. They do not have to run from pillar to post to find buyers; the government purchases the entire produce. In Pakistan, electricity bills are high and farmers, particularly small land owners have to think many times before they switch on the tube wells that are badly needed for harnessing ground water to meet water shortage for the corp.

The farmer did not get much benefit from two excellent wheat crops. The last one left him in the lurch. To expect him to continue providing food to the populace while he himself is knocking at the door of poverty is unrealistic, besides being unjust. The government will have to come up with a timely increase in the support price for wheat and make the use of electricity affordable to him for all crops and not just wheat.

There are reports of a possibility of raising support price for wheat in the coming days. That is unlikely to be much benefit to the farmer because procurement by the government is to be limited and the private sector is never inclined to measure the farming community’s contribution with fairness.

While there is no dearth of lip service for the well-being of the tillers of the land, there is little evidence of positive, pro-agri sector policies.

Ensuring that it received its due was one of the first commitments of General Musharraf after taking over in October 1999; it is yet to be fulfilled. Indeed even the first step has not been taken in that direction.

The farmers need to be encouraged to help the country meet the food crises looming large on the horizons because of water shortage. Ignoring this need would tantamount to leading Pakistan in to famine conditions within the foreseeable future.