With the aman harvest lost to the wrath of nature this season, the farmers would now look to the coming boro season to recover their losses and pay off some debts. It will also be an opportunity for the military-driven interim government to revive the rural economy, which has been hit hard this year, writes Tanim Ahmed , The New Age, 26 November 2007

IN THE context of a bad aman harvest, brought about by the back-to-back floods earlier this year and cyclone Sidr that ravaged the southern parts of the country on November 15, it is imperative that farmers should be able to procure fertiliser in sufficient quantity as and when required. It is imperative not for the rehabilitation of the farmers alone but also for the rejuvenation of the economy. Aman is a low-cost, rain-fed harvest. It is almost a bonus for the farmers as they do not have to put in that much effort. Weed the land a couple of times, spread over fertiliser and take your harvest home – it is almost as simple as that. The aman season is also the much-needed lifeline for the cash-strapped marginal farmers who use most of the money they get from the aman sales as investment in the winter crops during boro season.
   With the aman harvest lost to the wrath of nature this season, the farmers would now look to the coming boro season to recover their losses and pay off some debts. It will also be an opportunity for the military-driven interim government to revive the rural economy, which has been hit hard this year. The season should mark the beginning of a revival for the rural economy, which would take at least a year to get back on its feet again. Thus, the government should be fully committed to providing the farmers with whatever assistance they need to ensure a satisfactory boro harvest. Towards that end, as has already been suggested by different quarters, there should be provisions for debt write-off – suspended interest on previous farm loans at the least – along with interest-free or low-interest fresh loans. There is little chance for the government to directly intervene in the market, given its professed adherence to open market economy; still, it can at least provide direct subsidies on the basis of land ownership or any other system whereby the farmers receive monetary assistance to buy seeds, fertiliser and fuel for irrigation. It should also ensure that rural communities engaged in agriculture get adequate power supply for irrigation, where such provisions are available, since it is cheaper to run irrigation pumps with electricity than with diesel.
   Thus far, the government has not seemingly lived up to the expectations. Newspaper reports have it that farmers are still desperate for fertiliser. A New Age spot report quotes farmers as saying they have not been able to procure sufficient amounts of fertiliser for the winter crops in the boro season and are becoming increasingly anxious the time for applying fertiliser to their lands nears end. The government insists that it has enough fertiliser in stock; however, the situation on the ground seems to suggest that the stock is sitting idle somewhere between the government warehouse and the dealers. According to the Bangla daily Jaijaidin, although there are sufficient stocks of fertiliser, the farmers are finding it difficult to procure as much as they need. Apparently, the government has put in place a new system of fertiliser distribution. Sub-assistant agriculture officers – formerly block supervisors – make lists of farmers in the locality and allot certain amounts of fertiliser based on their land ownership. Slips are issued by the agriculture officers in coordination with public representatives of the union level, for instance a member or chairman of the union council, against such allotments. The farmers are not allowed to buy more fertiliser from local dealers than is mentioned in the slips issued to them.
   The dealers also cannot procure fertiliser as much as they want. They can only get as much as the total requirement of the particular area, again based on the landownership estimate. The government allots the recommended amount of fertiliser to the corresponding deputy commissioners who then distribute it to the dealers in that district. It is rather obvious that this elaborate system, however complicated, aims to prevent pilferage and black marketing or smuggling of fertiliser. The system, at least in theory, also ensures that farmers get the amount of fertiliser that they deserve. However, a New Age report quotes farmers as saying this system is not functional and does not help them at all.
   There are two practical problems that this system does not address which could give rise to serious discontent. First, the system precludes the possibility that the owner of a land may not live in the same locality, which makes it impossible for a farmer to get fertiliser if he lives in one union and owns a piece of land in another. In one union, he is landless and in another his land has an absentee owner, which the local ward member or union council chairman would corroborate. Even if he manages a slip somehow, then the problem is which dealer to go to. Because the dealers’ allocation is strictly accounted for, someone from another union or someone who does not own land in a union would not be sold fertiliser. The second problem relates to absentee landowners. Block supervisors make their lists according to land ownership regardless of how much land each farmer has leased out for that season. In cases where the owner lives in a far-off city it would be virtually impossible to get fertiliser for that piece of land.
   Besides, due to the overarching importance of securing a slip, the farmers become desperate to get one or more if they can. In the process they end up paying bribes to their local ward member or the union chairman and there have been reports that several people have been given slips for the same piece of land whereas those who refused to pay the ‘extra’ have been deprived. The agriculture official, it has been alleged, did not survey the area of his jurisdiction but merely made up a list of people sitting at home and issued slips accordingly.
   The dealers, on their part, also have to bribe the executive authorities such as the chief executive of the upazila or the deputy commissioner in order to get sufficient allotment according to the local demands. There have been reports where different dealers with similar amount of land area under their jurisdiction have been allotted markedly different amounts of fertilisers that make it obvious that one is getting over the limit and the other is being deprived.
   This is perhaps a good example of a sincere attempt gone awry due to practical difficulties that were not foreseen. The government’s point of view and intention is quite clear and rather reasonable given the serious crisis of fertiliser every year. While private dealers advocate for complete deregulation of the sector and full primacy of the private operators, the government should not scrap the new system altogether. Complete dominance of the private sector without proper regulation or monitoring would result in the same kind of price hike as the market is witnessing in case of essential food items.
   The fertiliser distribution system was also supposed to have some form of monitoring but those committees apparently have become ineffective with no course for redress in case of deprivation and irregularity as there seems to be in the current situation. This new programme quite rightly involves the government expert, the agriculture official and the people’s representative at the field level which should be considered ideal. However, there appears to be no effective checks and balances within the system that will prevent the irregularity or rent-seeking. That part of the system must be tweaked and modified to suit the interest of the farmers. So far there have been numerous reports of the fertiliser not going to the farmers, along with reports of ‘slip business’ and irregularities but the government is yet to take any effective or exemplary measures as regards fertiliser distribution.
   Whatever the decision, the incumbents have to act fast. Regardless of the ingenuity of its decision to modify the current system of fertiliser distribution it would be of little value once the planting season is over. On the other hand, a system that does not get the input from the godowns to the farm is ineffective in the final analysis, regardless of the intention behind it. The incumbents must realise that the ultimate measure of any of their exercises would be the welfare of the people. If the people are not better off, in terms employment, income or standard of living, the incumbents will be deemed to have failed in their essential duty of governing the state.