MUMBAI: The Supreme Court-appointed expert committee's report reveals that a majority -85.7 per cent of stakeholders are in favour of farm laws while only 13.3 per cent are against it.
The apex court appointed the committee in January 2020. The committee comprised of agricultural economists -- Anil Ghanvat, Ashok Gulati, and Pramod Joshi. Bhupinder Singh Mann, president, Bharatiya Kisan Union, and All India Kisan Coordination Committee was also initially part of the committee but resigned later.
The committee studied the farm laws and had a bilateral discussion with various stakeholders. It submitted the detailed 92-page report on three farms laws of the Narendra Modi government to the Supreme Court. However, the court did not make this report public. But Anil Ghanwat, leader of a farmers' union, decided to make it public for the larger interest of the farmers.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has already repealed all three farm laws after the massive year-long protest by farmers in Delhi.
The expert committee held a total of eleven meetings with various stakeholders that include farmers' unions, industry bodies, private markets, state agriculture marketing boards, state governments, professionals and academicians etc. Then, it recommended the four-pronged strategy to address lapses in farm laws.
The report says farmers’ interests are kept at the centre to realize a better return for their produce in a sustainable manner – both financially and environmentally. “The feedback received online portal establishes that two-thirds of farmers support the farm laws while one third did not support the laws.
"The feedback received through emails showed a majority of the stakeholders support the farm laws. The repeal or long suspensions of these farm laws would be unfair to the silent majority who support the farm laws," the report claimed.
It further notes that the state government should allow some flexibility in implementing and designing the laws with prior approval of the Centre.
The report also suggests as per perceptions district revenue authority is full of workload so he or she will not address the farmer's grievances effectively so “as an alternative mechanism for dispute settlement, civil court, arbitration mechanism may be provided to stakeholders. Besides, the farmer's court can be set at the district level under the commercial courts' act 2015 by the respective state government to resolve the farmer’s issues with traders. The report suggests that besides freeing the sector from constraining regulations, agriculture infrastructure should be strengthened, and quality storage should be developed.
BROAD RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EXPERT PANEL
A large-scale communication exercise needs to be taken up by the Government to alleviate the apprehensions, doubts, and concerns of the rest of the stakeholders.
The Committee was given the mandate to interact with all stakeholders to assess the recently enacted Farm Laws.
The Committee adopted a four-pronged strategy in arriving at its recommendations: - (1) direct interactions; (2) invitation of comments on a detailed questionnaire through a dedicated portal; (3) invitation of suggestions/comments/feedback at a dedicated e-mail id; and (4) evidence-based analysis carried out by the Committee.
The pivot of the strategy was to assess the enacted Farm Laws in terms of getting the best deal for the 'farmer' in an inclusive and sustainable manner - both financially and environmentally.
The four-pronged strategy that the Committee adopted during its deliberations made it evident that a majority of the farmers and other stakeholders support the Farm Laws. The analysis of the Committee recognizes that the Acts intend to develop competitive agricultural markets, reduce transaction costs, and increase the farmer's share in the realized price of an agri-produce. The feedback received by the Committee, also, brought out diverse views and suggestions for modifications in the Acts.
States may be allowed some flexibility in implementation and design of the Laws, with the prior approval of the Centre, so that the basic spirit of these Laws for promoting effective competition in agricultural markets and creation of ‘one nation, one market’ is not violated.
Alternative mechanisms for dispute settlement, via Civil courts or arbitration mechanisms, may be provided to the stakeholders.
The Government should take urgent steps towards strengthening agricultural infrastructure; enabling aggregation, assaying and quality sorting of Agri produce through cooperatives and Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs), and closer interaction between farmers and warehouses/processors/ exporters/retailers/bulk buyers.
Agriculture Marketing Council, under the chairpersonship of Union Minister of Agriculture, with all States and UTs as members may be formed on lines of the GST Council to reinforce cooperative efforts to monitor and streamline the implementation of these Acts.
There is a need to create a level-playing field to transactions in existing APMCs and in the 'trade area' as defined in the Act, the market fees/cess charged by APMCs, need to be abolished.
The development of a Price Information and Market Intelligence System, as mandated in Section 7 of the Act, needs to be expedited.
The terms of reference of the Commission for Agricultural Costs & Prices (CACP) can be expanded to collate, analyze and disseminate price information – both domestic and international, with a view to
Facilitating efficient price discovery – both spot and futures. Alternatively, an independent organization may be created for this purpose.
A compensation fund needs to be devised by the Centre over a period of 3-5 years on the lines of a compensation fund for loss in GST revenue.
To enable ease of usage and wider compliance, a list of additional documents to ascertain the address of the buyer, as an alternative to PAN number, may be notified by the Central Government under Section 4(1) of the Act.
States need to develop models to convert existing APMCs to revenue-generating entities by making them hubs of agri-business by the provision of better marketing facilities for cleaning, sorting, assaying, grading, storage and packaging.
The payment by a trader under Section 4(3) of the Act should preferably be made simultaneously on receipt of delivery of the agri-produce to alleviate concerns of non-payments.
A model contract agreement should be formulated and shared on the website with all stakeholders to remove various glitches in implementation.
Every trader/buyer may be required to register themselves which can be linked with the identity document notified by the Government (as in Proviso to Section 4(1). An electronic dashboard may be developed for the purpose to enable ease of availability of information and strengthening the security of the transaction.