Surprisingly, though a majority of MPs and MLAs come from rural areas and even get elected on the strength of the rural votes, they fail to serve as an effective voice of the farmers. The real issues that bother the farmers are rarely raised in the legislatures. Even at the time of Budget formulation, while the representatives of different industries and other sectors of economy are invited by the finance minister for consultations, the genuine representatives of the farmers are mostly overlooked. Those who are invited are either agricultural economists — many of whom base their opinions on dated statistics without taking the ground realities into reckoning — or politically active pseudo-farmers.

The Consortium of Indian Farmers Association (Cifa), an apex body of farmers’ organisations, has timed its national farmers convention (sixth in the series) in such a manner this year that it can finalise a charter of demands and policy issues for lobbying with the policy-makers well before the presentation of the 2010-11 Budget. Most of the issues identified for consideration in this convention, to be held in New Delhi on December 2 and 3, are those that deserve to be suitably addressed.

These include the adverse effect of the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) on labour availability for agriculture; fixation of minimum support prices (MSPs); crop insurance; farmers’ involvement in planning for agricultural development; and the like.

The NREGA, though a well-conceived government intervention for ensuring guaranteed employment for the poor, has resulted in a shortage of labour for farm operations, especially at the time of sowing and harvesting when the labour requirement is at its peak. To avoid this, the government needs to ensure that the 100 days of employment provided under the NREGA does not coincide with labour-intensive agricultural operations. Cifa, therefore, is demanding that farmers’ representatives be involved in scheduling the works under the the NREGA so that agriculture does not suffer even while the poor are assured of more jobs.

Farm development activities carried out under the agriculture ministry’s Rs 25,000-crore flagship programme, the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojna (RKVY), often do not conform to the farmers’ needs. This is because the farmers are not taken into confidence while planning the programmes even though the guidelines for the implementation of the RKVY clearly state that this should be done. Cifa intends to emphasise this point so that the funds available under this scheme are well-spent to serve the needs of the area.

On the MSP, Cifa feels that the data on production costs used by the Commission on Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) for computing their price recommendations does not fully capture the costs relevant to the cropping season concerned. It wants that the CACP be given full autonomy, making it accountable directly to Parliament; to ensure collection of unbiased data and recommendation of realistic MSPs. It also intends to reiterate the suggestion mooted by the National Commission on Farmers, headed by MS Swaminathan, that the MSP be 50 per cent higher than the effective cost of production.

Crop insurance, as a risk-hedging mechanism, is essential to alleviate the distress caused to the farmers by crop failures. But the present insurance schemes are confined to a few states and a very small fraction of farmers. Cifa insists the crop insurance facility be made available throughout the country. Besides, individual villages should be taken as the geographic unit for assessing crop loss, instead of a larger area like a block or the Patwari’s jurisdiction.

Besides, the Commission also recommended that agriculture be brought under the direct control of the Centre by including it in the Concurrent List of the Constitution. CIFA wants irrigation to be transferred to the Concurrent List to enable the Centre to invest in important irrigation projects.