One significant shift in agriculture policy discourse in the country is a shift towards direct income support measures. Several states have already announced their own versions of the scheme Telangana (Rytu bandhu), Odisha (Kalia) and Andhra Pradesh (Annadata Sukhibava). The latest to join the race is the Central government with the announcement of “Pradhan Mantri KIsan SAmman Nidhi (PM-KISAN)”.
While the basic principle of all these schemes is to provide direct income support to farmers, each one of them vary in design, scope and there by impacts.
Rytu Bandhu (Telangana): Telangana governments calls it as Investment Support Agriculture and Horticulture crops by way of grant of Rs. 4,000/- per acre per farmer each season for purchase of inputs like Seeds, Fertilizers, Pesticides, Labour and other investments in the field operations of Farmer’s choice for the crop season. Telangana govt has allocated Rs. 12,000 crore for the scheme.
Some features and issues
1. It is disbursed in two instalments.
2. Only land owners are considered as beneficiaries
3. No cap on the maximum land holding hence no cap on amount paid.
KALIA (Odisha): Krushak Assistance for Livelihood and Income Augmentation was announced by the Odisha government with a budget allocation of Rs. 10,000 cr. The scheme has five different components.
1. Support for Cultivation: 30 lakh small and marginal farmers will be provided Rs 10,000 per family as assistance for cultivation. Each family will get Rs 5,000 separately in the kharif and rabi seasons, for five cropping seasons between 2018-19 and 2021-22
2. Support for Livelihoods: 5 lakh landless households, and specifically SC and ST families will be supported with a unit cost of Rs 12,500 for activities like goat rearing, mushroom cultivation, beekeeping, poultry farming and fishery.
3. Financial Assistance: up to Rs. 10.00 lakhs to vulnerable agriculture households and land less labour
4. Life Insurance cover: of Rs. 2.00 lakhs and additional personal accident cover of Rs. 2.00 lakhs to 57 lakh households of cultivators and landless agricultural labor.
5. Interest free crop loans: to all farmers upto Rs. 50,000
Annadatha Sukhibava (Andhra Pradesh): on the lines of Telangana AP government is proposing to pay Rs. 10,000 per year (Rs. 5000 per season) per acre from next financial year. This year farmers may be payed Rs. 2500/acre. About 96 lakh farmers are expected to benefit from the scheme. The state government is considering to distribute this amount equally between land owner and the tenant farmers. The details of the scheme are awaited.
PM Kisan (Central Government): Under this programme, vulnerable landholding farmer families, having cultivable land up to 2 hectares, will be provided direct income support at the rate of `6,000 per year.
1. This income support will be transferred directly into the bank accounts of beneficiary farmers, in three equal instalments of ` 2,000 each.
2. Around 12 crore small and marginal farmer families are expected to benefit from this.
3. The programme would be made effective from 1 st December 2018 and the first instalment for the period up to 31st March 2019 would be paid during this year itself.
4. This programme will entail an annual expenditure of ` 75,000 crore.
The limitations of these initiatives
While shift towards Direct Income Support measures is in itself an innovation, not enough care has been taken in designing these measures and institutional mechanism for determining the quantum of support, mechanism to identify and deliver to targeted community and plans to long term sustainability is missing. For example
· Income Support vs Investment Support: Direct Income Support measures can to cover the gap in income which the families fall below a minimum income level needed for a dignified living, while Direct Income Support measures for investment support a livelihood activity is when such activity becomes unremunerative and the gap is supported. While the Telangana and AP initiatives fall in investment support category, the Odisha and Central govt initiatives fall under the livelihood support.
· Determining the quantum of support: In either case, there seems to be no data or rational number crunching to arrive at the magic figure of the support. Like why Rs. 6000/- per family per year or why Rs. 4000 per acre per year. There should be an institutional mechanism to make an assessment of the quantum of support and link it to inflation to have annual upgradation like the dearness allowance for employees. In case of Telangana as it took per acre approach, small farmers who have less than an acre also got very little amount in proportion to their land. Rather it should be a fixed amount below a 1 ha and above that it can be proportional to the land size. There is also need to fix a maximum ceiling else land accumulation would be encouraged.
· Identifying the target community: The main objective of the direct income support is to support the short fall in income. In that case, it should focus on cultivators irrespective of their land ownership status. Telangana state has completely gone wrong on this front while AP govt said they will ensure 50% sharing (why 50% share to land owner is not clear). The Odisha govt said they will target the cultivators and yet to see how they do it. In case of PM Kisan it also seems to be based on land ownership. There is a requirement for developing approaches for better targeting.
Why this shift is needed?
NSSO 70th Round shows the monthly income (from all sources including labor, livestock, farming etc.) of farmers who own less than one hectare of land and who make up about 81.83% of the total farming population, is less than their monthly expenditure.
§ The economic crisis in agriculture is caused by
· Increasing costs of agriculture: The costs of cultivations are increasing at a significant rate. More dependency on external input, deregulation of input prices, general increase in cost of wage labor and land prices led to increasing costs of cultivation many folds.
· Increasing risk in farming: due to climate, and ecological unsustainability of current agriculture
· Decreasing government support: deregulation of inputs, shift towards high ticket subsidies, subsidies being imbedded in inputs and inaccessibility of support systems like institutional credit for tenant farmers etc have led to increased cost burden on the farmers.
· Un-remunerative prices and small farmers being disadvantaged in the market. Non-remunerative prices, without sufficient margins above the cost of cultivation, have been a major reason for farmers not earning sufficient income. Many improvements have been made in the CACP and the system of Minimum Support Prices (MSP), however many issues remain with determining and delivering MSP. There is also a limitation on increasing prices of agricultural commodities, particularly on food items, considering the needs of the consumers and industry.
· Increasing costs of living: due to general inflation, with drawl of public services in the area of primary health and primary education have led to increase in costs of living
Now each individual farmer is left to balance between all these factors and is suffering with negative income. But it should be the government’s responsibility at a policy level to balance these factors of costs, risks, subsidies, prices and costs of living – so that a minimum positive income is assured.
Therefore, there is a need to look at a farmer Income Security as a Policy framework rather than depending solely only on pricing policy for farm produce or direct income support or loan waivers in order to improve the quality of life of farmers. The Policy should focus on bringing economic sustainability in farming, ensuring secure incomes. This will not only address the distress among farmers, but also generate a positive dynamic in the entire rural economy by enabling farmers to make positive investments into agriculture, by increasing their purchasing power, and by retaining more youth in rural areas.
The policy frame work should ensure that the incomes of the farmers are adequate and assured. This can only be assured when all support systems for farming including extension services, affordable access to productive resources like land, water and seeds, credit, insurance, marketing, infrastructure are ensured to all the farmers. This also needs a lot of improvements in the governance of current support systems, improving the last mile delivery and better targeting.
Farmers Income Security and Direct Income Support
· The Farmers’ Income Security system should be established through an Act which derives from the Article 21 of the Constitution establishing the Right to Life. This ensures that the institutional systems are responsive and accountable to the farmers. A Farmers Income Commission should be established to implement Income Security. This should be a permanent, statutory body which includes farmer representatives. Income Assessment of agricultural families should be done on a regular basis, tracking the incomes of farming households in terms of various regions, crops and categories.
· Even while the Act may take time to be passed, an immediate step would be to revamp the existing Commission on Agricultural Costs and Prices, to include the mandate of Incomes in addition to costs and prices. The Commission should immediately put in place the mechanism for annual Income Assessment.
· The commission should identify Minimum Living Income which needs to be ensured. All the initiatives should target at achieving this. This is also important to fix the Direct Income Support measure. We can look at different ways of determining the desired minimum income level.
· Minimum Wages approach: As per the Minimum Wages announced by the Central government (Order, September 30, 2016), the minimum wages for a Highly Skilled Worker is Rs.259 per day. Farming being multi-skilled work which combines several diverse operations and complex decision-making should be definitely categorized as Highly Skilled Work. Assuming 2 working persons per family, the minimum monthly household income is Rs.15,540. Note that this figure just considers it as wage labour and does not have any component for the managerial role and the risk-taking financial investment.
· Parity approach: Pay commission’s definition considers two major points: living expenditure and ability to attract talent; but when it comes to agriculture government considers consumer affordability.
§ The A.P. government, while revising employee salaries in 2014, listed the expenditure on food, water, clothes, education, transport, health, consumables, and so on, to determine the Minimum Pay for employees. This came to Rs.13,000 per month for a household of 3 persons, Rs.17,333 for 4 persons and Rs.21,667 for 5 persons. In addition, the government allocated a school fees allowance of Rs.2500 per child, house rent allowance (12.5%), employees health insurance, etc. Considering a bare minimum family of 4 persons with school allowance for 2 children and no other allowance, this comes to Rs.22,333 per month.
· Target real cultivators: The real cultivators should be identified who might be tenant farmers or sharecroppers, and they should benefit rather than absentee landlords. Recognition of tenant farmers, women farmers and Adivasi farmers who are currently left out of support systems is a must. Any support is made contingent on actual cultivation. Since the system is based on a minimum income level per household, it will benefit small farmers instead of disproportionately benefiting large farmers.
· Direct Income Support: Direct Income Support has to be calculated as the short fall of real income than the Minimum Living Income, it can be paid as Direct Income Support. This also needs to be indexed to the inflation.
Untested and Unapproved pesticides mandatory for seed treatment
190519 FAW outbreak
In a shocking incident the Seeds Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India has issued a directive signed by Mr. Dilip Kr. Srivatsava, Asst. Comm (QC), making compulsory seed treatment with cyantraniliprole and thiomethoxam , we are shocked to see that such a direction is given in spite the formulation not registered in India and also not been evaluated in AICRP program and purely based on the feed back from seed growers feed back that the seed treatment giving protection for 2-3 weeks after germination. This is violation of Insecticide Act
we are amazed that the chemical seed treatment of an un-evaluated and un-registered formulation has been given more prominence in your advisory than all the collective wisdom and established field experience of farmers, organizations and state governments on Non Pesticidal Management, Natural Farming and Organic Farming. monitoring and scouting measures to be taken up other than cultural, mechanical and bio-control measures being recommended. Furthermore, it has been made compulsory and we are keen on understanding the scientific basis for the same.
Biosafety issues with the chemicals recommended
Even if we assume that the emergency situation, it is illegal to make it compulsory to use chemicals which are not tested and registered in India. As per the Central Insecticides Act, 1968[1] the Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee (CIBRC) under the Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine & Storage, Department of Agriculture & Cooperation is supposed to register each pesticide in the country after scrutinizing their formulae and claims made by the applicant as regards its efficacy and safety to human beings and animals. The Registration Committee is also expected to specify the precautions to be taken against poisoning through the use or handling of insecticides. The recommendations made has not taken into account the international published information which show the following serious concerns with cyantraniliprole and Thiamethoxam.
Cyantraniliprole
Cyantraniliprole is a systemic insecticide belonging to the diamide class of pesticides. Cyantraniliprole works by binding with insect ryanodine receptors, which leads to unregulated activation of ryanodine receptor. Insects exposed to cyantraniliprole “first exhibit lethargy, followed by muscle paralysis, and then death.” says the CYANTRANILIPROLE RISK ASSESSMENT by US Environmental Protection Agency[2]. It further states that
As a systemic insecticide, translocation of cyantraniliprole through the xylem and phloem results in expression of the chemical throughout exposed plants, resulting in multiple routes of exposure for various non-target organisms, including mammals, fish, invertebrates and plants.
Cyantraniliprole biodegradation proceeds more slowly in aerobic conditions than anaerobic conditions, suggesting that it could be fairly persistent in the agricultural environment and adjacent ecosystems.
Degradation times in soils and sediments reached 89 and 25 days, respectively, showing an extended period of activity after application. When the total toxic residues were calculated (including degradates), a range from 88 to 1327 days was identified. Cyantraniliprole is also characterized as moderately mobile, meaning that it can move off-site and affect nearby terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Some of the degradates of cyantraniliprole are more persistent and mobile than the parent compound, a concern for ecological effects as some may be more toxic than the parent and may accumulate over time.
Thiamethoxam
Thiamethoxam is a second-generation neonicotinoid compound that belongs to the chemical subclass thianicotinyls and acts on target pests by interfering with the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor[3]. It is known to impair honeybee flight ability[4]. There are also evidences and published data which shows that TMX. as it is called, may also pose reproductive risks on mammalian reproductive health[5]. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) report, The Impact of the Nation’s Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds[6], concluded that it would take only six corn seeds coated with thiamethoxam to achieve a 50 percent chance of lethality (LD50) given sensitivity at the 5% tail of bird distribution, assuming an avian body weight of 50 g – somewhere between a large sparrow and a blue jay. Like-wise only 0.3 (roughly a third) of a treated seed would be enough to impair reproduction.
Adverse Impacts of Cyantraniliprole Products Co-Formulated with Thiamethoxam
While independently both the chemicals have their own biosafety problems, the co-formulated products may have much more severe impacts. EPA conducted a specific risk assessment of this mixture and concluded that “the typical end-use products with thiamethoxam are also modeled because they presented more sensitive toxicity values than their technical-grade counterparts.” In other words, this mixture of these two pesticides is more dangerous than the pure, technical grade active ingredient in isolation. EPA’s own initial analysis determined that “cyantraniliprole-thiamethoxam mixture would require buffer in excess of 1000 ft for all uses.”[7]
As the Fall Army Worm is a polyphagous pest, the order amounts to making the seed treatment with cyantraniliprole-thiamethoxam mixture for almost every crop mandatory, which can be an ecological disaster.
Hence, we request the Plant Protection Division, Directorate of Plant Protection Quarantine & Storage to retract this decision by the seeds division as it a violation of law a potentially dangerous chemicals are introduced without any basic research and registration. This will set a serious bad precedence to violate the law.
Moving towards Agroecological Approaches
It is clear that the incidence of and losses due to FAW are largely due to increasing monoculture of maize and excessive use of chemical pesticides which is leading to disturbance of the ecological balance.
The major pest outbreaks in the last three years, if we consider, are Pink Boll Worm in Cotton across the country, Brown Plant Hopper in Odisha, parts of Andhra Pradesh, Fall Army Worm across the country. All these outbreaks are in the areas of high monoculture of these crops and high use of chemical pesticides. Whereas, the areas under agroecological approaches like Non Pestidical Management (NPM), Organic and Natural Farming, Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) have not shown any high incidence of the pest. Therefore, the solution lies in moving towards agroecological approaches which can restore back the ecological balance rather than doing more of the same with monocultures. The experiences across the world proved the same.
The Non Pesticidal Management experience in Andhra Pradesh (united) between 2004 to 2010[8] showed that if farmers can be trained well on understanding their agroecosystem and trained on effective use of local resources, pests can be managed with a combination of scouting, preventative care, use of locally available botanicals and animal waste and without out using chemical pesticides. While number of studies on these experience shows that the chemical pesticide use is reduced, neither major pest out breaks nor yield reductions were recorded. In villages where Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (http://www.csa-india.org) Maize is grown and could be managed with minimalistic damage. The emphasis on deep summer ploughing, pheromone traps, prophylactic sprays of 5% NSKE, inter-cropping and using of trap crops, erection of bird perches, effective weed control, release of Trichogramma for bio-control, spraying of Bt powder formulations, application of dry sand into affected whorls etc. are all to be taken up with equal emphasis, that too on community-based, and area-wide approach for proper management.
The Zero Budget Natural Farming[9] model in Andhra Pradesh where large no of farmers also cultivates maize, the crop could be managed with the ZBNF + practices. FAO was also involved in training farmers on agroecological approaches through Farmer Field Schools.
Similarly, the organic farmers across the country who grow maize as intercrop/mixed crop with organic farming practices have not reported any serious damage with Fall Army Worm as it happened in the monoculture maize crop under high input intensive cultivation.
Several studies from Africa observed that FAW damage was found to be lower for maize crops established through zero-tillage compared to maize crops established through conventional tillage[10], The lower FAW damage was also found when manure or compost were applied. Similarly, the push-pull system, a stimulo-deterrent cropping strategy consisting of intercropping cereals with herbaceous legumes and surrounded by fodder grasses, is presented as a promising crop diversification strategy contribute to maize stemborer suppression, while improving soil fertility and providing feed for livestock[11].
Similarly, National Institute for Plant Health Management (NIPHM) has come out with what they call as ecological engineering[12] based on the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) model.
All these experiences show that a scientific approach to manage any pest including the Fall Army Worm is shifting towards agroecological approaches and not blindly recommend couple of toxic chemicals which may provide protection only for the initial 2-3 weeks of the crop. The experience with a similar chemical Imidacloprid is still in front us, the bee collapse it has caused due to indiscriminate use.
It is this lack of balanced emphasis on cultural, mechanical and biological control measures with an over-emphasis on chemical approaches that has led to the current crisis, which then becomes the basis for further unscientific and unsafe technologies to be ushered in, like transgenics.
It is clear that timely, coordinated management practices will certainly help in checking the spread of FAW, and that the current urgency should not be used for promoting any untested, unproven and potentially hazardous solutions.
We urge the Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare to kindly refrain from promoting any unreasoned and unscientific recommendations – Thiamethoxam, for instance, has been banned on field crops in the European Union, given its adverse impacts on bees. The chemical is being considered for phasing out in Canada, where it is used as a seed treatment chemical (including on corn) after a review of impacts on aquatic insect species.
Thank you
(G V Ramanjaneyulu)
Executive Director
[1] http://krishi.bih.nic.in/Acts-Rules/Insecticides_Act_1968.pdf
[2] https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0668-0008 CYANTRANILIPROLE RISK ASSESSMENT
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2013/sc-hc/H113-9-2013-9-eng.pdf https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/pesticides_reduction/pdfs/Notice_of_Intent_re_Cyantraniliprole_3.21.2014.pdf
https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/pesticides_reduction/pdfs/CTP_Complaint.pdf
https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/cfs_abc–joint-cyantraniliprole-registration-comments–final_16053.pdf
[3] https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0581
[4] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01361-8.pdf
[5] https://www.ejmanager.com/mnstemps/31/31-1486156117.pdf?t=1558237961
[6] http://abcbirds.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Neonic_FINAL.pdf
[7] CYANTRANILIPROLE RISK ASSESSMENT
[8] http://csa-india.org/what-we-do/npm/
[9] http://www.apzbnf.in
[10] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261219419300304
[11] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261219417303216
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880918303931
[12] https://niphm.gov.in/IPMPackages/Maize.pdf
Ragi Laddoos in ICDS in Odisha to be supplied through Women SHGs
2019 Millet food in ICDS odisha
The Odisha State Cabinet under chairmanship of Hon’ble Chief Minister of Odisha has approved inclusion of Ragi ladoos in ICDS supplied through women SHGs in 1st Cabinet meeting.
New pesticides approved for managing Fall Army Worm
You all may be aware about the recent discussion about unapproved and untested pesticides being recommended by the Government for Fall Army Worm and making them mandatory. In CIBRC 401st meeting which happened on 15th May. 3 insecticides including Spinetoram 12%SC, Chlorantraniliprole 18.5%SC and Thiamethoxam + Lambda cyahalothrin have been approved and given recommendation for FAW management in India. 
India’s unemployment rate doubled in two years: SoE in Figures
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/economy/india-s-unemployment-rate-doubled-in-two-years-soe-in-figures-64953
While unemployment remains high in both urban and rural India, job hunting is a bigger challenge for the young and the educated, notes CSE’s State of the Environment in Figures
By Kiran Pandey
Last Updated: Thursday 06 June 2019
Representational Picture. Photo: Getty Images
India’s rate of unemployment doubled in the past two years, according to the State of India’s Environment (SoE) In Figures, 2019. This has particularly affected young graduates.
According to the report, the unemployment rate has gone up from four per cent to 7.6 in the last two years (May 2017-April 2019). The unemployment rate in April 2019 was the highest in two years. The rate for rural areas in this month was also the highest in this period.
SoE in figures was released by Delhi-based non-profit Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) on World Environment Day. The data for it has been provided by the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE), New Delhi.
Young Indians (aged 15-24 years) constitute nearly a fifth of India’s total population, according to the country’s 2011 Census. By 2020, they are predicted to make up a third of the country’s population.
The report notes that the youth (between 20-24 years), who constitute around 40 per cent of India’s labour force, have an unemployment rate of 32 per cent.
The unemployment rate among the educated is even worse. The rate among people with at least a graduate degree was 13.17 per cent in September-December 2018, up from 10.39 per cent in May-August 2017.
The Periodic Labour Force Survey for 2017-18 released by National Sample Survey Office too shows that unemployment rate increased with education level.
According to SoE in Figures, 2017, a major cause for high unemployment rates in India is the lack of skills required for jobs that are available. This is worrying because India is a young country — home to 20 per cent of the world’s young population — and a major portion of this young workforce, though educated, is unskilled.
Official figures validate this. The Union Ministry Of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship says 4.69 per cent of India’s total workforce is formally skilled, as against 52 per cent in the United States, 68 per cent in the United Kingdom, 75 per cent in Germany, 80 per cent in Japan and 96 per cent in South Korea.
So why do young, educated Indians have poor job skills? One reason is that India has a limited number of quality institutes in spite of growth in the number of higher education providers.
A ray of hope
The World Bank recently estimated that India needs to create 8.1 million jobs a year to maintain its employment rate, which has been declining.
Given India’s demographic dividend and urgency to create jobs, the manufacturing sector could prove to be a large employer that provides decent income opportunities.
For example, rapid modernisation of the food processing sector could be one way of increasing its export potential as well as improving employment elasticity-to-growth and investment in it.
With a rise in per capita income, domestic demand for processed food would also rise, making the sector a viable option for pushing manufacturing growth and employment.
Removing structural bottlenecks to the manufacturing sector is key to promoting job creation in more productive and better-paid activities, according to an OECD report on economic outlook released in May 2019.
The International Labour Organization predicts India will have 18.9 million jobless people in 2019. Even as India’s economy is projected to grow 7.5 per cent by 2020, will this growth translate into jobs?
Santosh Kumar Gangwar, who took charge as the Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Labour and Employment in the newly elected government, has a tough job ahead.
According to the report, the unemployment rate has gone up from four per cent to 7.6 in the last two years (May 2017-April 2019). The unemployment rate in April 2019 was the highest in two years. The rate for rural areas in this month was also the highest in this period.
SoE in figures was released by Delhi-based non-profit Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) on World Environment Day. The data for it has been provided by the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE), New Delhi.
Young Indians (aged 15-24 years) constitute nearly a fifth of India’s total population, according to the country’s 2011 Census. By 2020, they are predicted to make up a third of the country’s population.
The report notes that the youth (between 20-24 years), who constitute around 40 per cent of India’s labour force, have an unemployment rate of 32 per cent.
The unemployment rate among the educated is even worse. The rate among people with at least a graduate degree was 13.17 per cent in September-December 2018, up from 10.39 per cent in May-August 2017.
The Periodic Labour Force Survey for 2017-18 released by National Sample Survey Office too shows that unemployment rate increased with education level.According to SoE in Figures, 2017, a major cause for high unemployment rates in India is the lack of skills required for jobs that are available. This is worrying because India is a young country — home to 20 per cent of the world’s young population — and a major portion of this young workforce, though educated, is unskilled.
Official figures validate this. The Union Ministry Of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship says 4.69 per cent of India’s total workforce is formally skilled, as against 52 per cent in the United States, 68 per cent in the United Kingdom, 75 per cent in Germany, 80 per cent in Japan and 96 per cent in South Korea.
So why do young, educated Indians have poor job skills? One reason is that India has a limited number of quality institutes in spite of growth in the number of higher education providers.
A ray of hope
The World Bank recently estimated that India needs to create 8.1 million jobs a year to maintain its employment rate, which has been declining.
Given India’s demographic dividend and urgency to create jobs, the manufacturing sector could prove to be a large employer that provides decent income opportunities.
For example, rapid modernisation of the food processing sector could be one way of increasing its export potential as well as improving employment elasticity-to-growth and investment in it.
With a rise in per capita income, domestic demand for processed food would also rise, making the sector a viable option for pushing manufacturing growth and employment.
Removing structural bottlenecks to the manufacturing sector is key to promoting job creation in more productive and better-paid activities, according to an OECD report on economic outlook released in May 2019.
The International Labour Organization predicts India will have 18.9 million jobless people in 2019. Even as India’s economy is projected to grow 7.5 per cent by 2020, will this growth translate into jobs?
Santosh Kumar Gangwar, who took charge as the Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Labour and Employment in the newly elected government, has a tough job ahead.
It is official: Unemployment rate in rural, urban India highest in 47 years
Joblessness cuts across various demographic groups, says official report
https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/economy/it-is-official-unemployment-rate-in-rural-urban-india-highest-in-47-years-64902
By Jitendra
Last Updated: Tuesday 04 June 2019
Photo: Getty Images
The latest Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) states that the unemployment rate (UR) in both rural and urban India is at its highest since 1972.
The unemployment rates among men and women in both rural and urban groups, are also the highest ever. The increase in the UR is more than three times among rural men and more than double among rural women according to the usual status since 2011-12.
In urban areas, the UR among men is more than twice and has increased twice among women since 2011-12. It is to be noted that the UR between 1972 and 2012 was almost static or did not have many differences (See Table 1). Besides, the UR rose sharply among youth of ages between 15-29 years and those who got better education.
The measurement of unemployment is based on the Usual status and Current Weekly status. The Usual Status (ps+ss) approach to measuring unemployment uses a reference period of 365 days i.e. one year preceding the date of the survey of the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) for measuring unemployment.
The Current Weekly Status (CWS) approach to measuring unemployment uses seven days preceding the date of survey as the reference period. A person is considered to be employed if he or she pursues any one or more gainful activities for at least one hour on any day of the reference week.
The Union Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation had constituted PLFS under the chairmanship of Amitabh Kundu. The data was collected by NSSO from July 2017 to June 2018. The survey was spread over 12,773 first-stage sampling units (7,014 villages and 5,759 urban blocks) covering 1,02,113 households (56,108 in rural areas and 46,005 in urban areas) and enumerating 4,33,339 persons (2,46,809 in rural areas and 1,86,530 in urban areas).
The unemployment rates in urban areas are higher than those in rural areas. In rural areas, the UR is 5.3 per cent, whereas in urban areas, the UR is 7.8 per cent according to the usual status. The overall unemployment rate is 6.1 per cent in India according to the usual status. According to CWS, the rural employment rate is 8.5 per cent whereas the urban rate is 9.6 per cent. The overall unemployment rate is 8.9 per cent.
In urban areas, the unemployment rates for females are higher than those for males.
Table 1: Unemployment rate (in per cent) according to the usual status and current weekly status from 1972-73 to 2017-18
Table 2: Unemployment rate (in per cent) among youth (15 to 29 years) in usual status during 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2017-18
The unemployment rate among youth between 15 and 29 years has risen sharply since 2011-12. Among rural males and females, the UR is almost three times since 2011-12, whereas among urban males and females, this rate is more than double.
The UR has also sharply increased among those who are more educated. Since 2011-12, the UR among rural males has increased by almost three times, from 1.7 per cent to 5.7 per cent. Those who have higher degree of education and those who are completely not-literate have witnessed almost the same level of unemployment.
Interestingly, unemployment among rural not-literate females has reduced and among urban females, the number of those who are literate up to primary-level jobs, is the same as 2011-12. (See table below)
Table 3: Unemployment rates (in per cent) according to usual status for the persons of age 15 years and above with different educational attainments during 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2017-18
Among social groups, the highest UR is among the ‘General’ or ‘Others’ category — 6.7 per cent. This groups is followed by Schedule Castes (6.3 per cent), Other Backward Classes (6 per cent) and Scheduled Tribes (4.3 per cent).
Among religious groups, Christians have the highest UR in both urban and rural areas. In rural areas, Christians have a UR of 7.4 per cent, Muslims have a UR of 6.5 per cent, Sikhs 6.3 per cent and Hindus 5.2 per cent.
In urban areas, Christians have a UR of 11 per cent, Sikhs 9.1 per cent, followed by Muslims 8.5 per cent and Hindus 7.6 per cent.
The unemployment rates among men and women in both rural and urban groups, are also the highest ever. The increase in the UR is more than three times among rural men and more than double among rural women according to the usual status since 2011-12.
In urban areas, the UR among men is more than twice and has increased twice among women since 2011-12. It is to be noted that the UR between 1972 and 2012 was almost static or did not have many differences (See Table 1). Besides, the UR rose sharply among youth of ages between 15-29 years and those who got better education.
The measurement of unemployment is based on the Usual status and Current Weekly status. The Usual Status (ps+ss) approach to measuring unemployment uses a reference period of 365 days i.e. one year preceding the date of the survey of the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO) for measuring unemployment.
The Current Weekly Status (CWS) approach to measuring unemployment uses seven days preceding the date of survey as the reference period. A person is considered to be employed if he or she pursues any one or more gainful activities for at least one hour on any day of the reference week.
The Union Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation had constituted PLFS under the chairmanship of Amitabh Kundu. The data was collected by NSSO from July 2017 to June 2018. The survey was spread over 12,773 first-stage sampling units (7,014 villages and 5,759 urban blocks) covering 1,02,113 households (56,108 in rural areas and 46,005 in urban areas) and enumerating 4,33,339 persons (2,46,809 in rural areas and 1,86,530 in urban areas).
The unemployment rates in urban areas are higher than those in rural areas. In rural areas, the UR is 5.3 per cent, whereas in urban areas, the UR is 7.8 per cent according to the usual status. The overall unemployment rate is 6.1 per cent in India according to the usual status. According to CWS, the rural employment rate is 8.5 per cent whereas the urban rate is 9.6 per cent. The overall unemployment rate is 8.9 per cent.
In urban areas, the unemployment rates for females are higher than those for males.
Table 1: Unemployment rate (in per cent) according to the usual status and current weekly status from 1972-73 to 2017-18
Table 2: Unemployment rate (in per cent) among youth (15 to 29 years) in usual status during 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2017-18
The unemployment rate among youth between 15 and 29 years has risen sharply since 2011-12. Among rural males and females, the UR is almost three times since 2011-12, whereas among urban males and females, this rate is more than double.
The UR has also sharply increased among those who are more educated. Since 2011-12, the UR among rural males has increased by almost three times, from 1.7 per cent to 5.7 per cent. Those who have higher degree of education and those who are completely not-literate have witnessed almost the same level of unemployment.
Interestingly, unemployment among rural not-literate females has reduced and among urban females, the number of those who are literate up to primary-level jobs, is the same as 2011-12. (See table below)
Table 3: Unemployment rates (in per cent) according to usual status for the persons of age 15 years and above with different educational attainments during 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2017-18
Among social groups, the highest UR is among the ‘General’ or ‘Others’ category — 6.7 per cent. This groups is followed by Schedule Castes (6.3 per cent), Other Backward Classes (6 per cent) and Scheduled Tribes (4.3 per cent).
Among religious groups, Christians have the highest UR in both urban and rural areas. In rural areas, Christians have a UR of 7.4 per cent, Muslims have a UR of 6.5 per cent, Sikhs 6.3 per cent and Hindus 5.2 per cent.
In urban areas, Christians have a UR of 11 per cent, Sikhs 9.1 per cent, followed by Muslims 8.5 per cent and Hindus 7.6 per cent.
GM brinjal escape
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/bt-brinjal-turns-out-to-be-different-genetically-modified-variety/story-N3TdpnulTU0TYnEq4DV3HM.html?fbclid=IwAR3xEebLJCodVkvjkXYjRdVy3yE9yFJOzFedwt-FrQiN5td-RprcQ0-sm1E
Issue of GM brinjal in haryana is becoming more murky and scary. Tests show that (if we have to beleave the department and NBPGR) the samples are genetically modified but doesn’t contain Cry1Ac but has other promoters and other sequences..which brings us the question..what is this?
there seems to be two possibilities
a. there were 5-6 events which are tried by various public institutions like delhi university, Odisha University of Agril and technology, Indian Institution of Horticulture research, Tamil nadu agril university, National research centre for plant biotechnology at IARI and Indian Institute of vegetable research tried different events..whether any of those went to field knowingly or unknowingly? this could be from the research farms or someone sold it to a private company which is illegally doing this. not many private companies have invested in this area as far as data we compiled..i may be wrong….
b. other situation is the event either the mahyco event or anyone of the above escaped into. nature and getting spread multiplied on its own. the broken elements if the gene event may be more damaging, less damaging ..even donno what is. ..what a scary thing?
whether it stopped with brinjal, or also made in roads into okra, paddy, maize, and other 33 crops where genetic engineering is experimented on.
given this…it’s high time we take stock of situation and put biosafety systems in place. things seems to have deteriorated further than 2009 when a moratorium was imposed on bt brinjal by @jayaramramesh.
EU Threatens To Legalise Human Harm From Pesticides
By Hans Muilerman and Jonathan Latham, PhD
Current EU regulations forbid human exposure to pesticides that are classified as mutagenic, carcinogenic, reprotoxic (toxic for reproduction), persistent or capable of disrupting endocrine systems. By virtue of these and other protective measures EU regulations are considered the gold standard in public protection.
However, experts who are closely linked to industry (or are part of anti-regulation pressure groups) have taken control of the EU’s new Science Advice Mechanism (SAM). These experts have contributed to a report commissioned to reevaluate the EU’s authorisation of pesticides. The report, called “EU authorisation processes of Plant Protection Products”, and published in late 2018, recommends dramatically weakening the EU regulatory system. Especially notable is the adoption of many ideas previously proposed by the chemical industry. For example, the EU currently deems the acceptable level of public exposure to mutagenic pesticides (those that damage DNA) to be zero. The new report recommends scrapping this standard of protection.
The history of the new SAM report is that it was requested by EU Health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis. Its purpose was to determine how to act in cases of so-called ‘diverging views’; that is, when media and public interest groups get involved. The request follows a series of major controversies over EU regulatory decision-making. One such controversy was over the herbicide Glyphosate. A “European Citizens Initiative” delivered more than a million signatures to the EU Commission asking for a ban on Glyphosate. Several cities banned Glyphosate. Even a dairy company banned the use of Glyphosate by their farmers.
With this pressure from all over Europe, the EU Commission had difficulty reaching a decision since many EU member states (Bulgaria, Denmark, Czech Republic, Estonia, Ireland, Spain, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Finland and the U.K) opposed a ban. Ultimately, a very unusual 5-years extension for glyphosate was agreed but soon the discussion will start again.
Issues with neonicotinoids have also pushed the EU Commission into a corner. Neonicotinoid insecticides are linked by much research to ‘bee colony collapse’ and, according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature “represent a worldwide threat to biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services” (Goulson, 2013; IUCN 2017). This again placed the EU Commission in the crossfire since many EU member states and their ministries of agriculture wished to keep neonicotionids on the market. Waves of scientific publications and media attention about dying bees and empty beehives forced the EU Commission to finally ban them. Nevertheless, Poland, Romania, Hungary, and Lithuania still resist the ban by using derogations.
A third big controversy has been endocrine disruption. Public concern about hormone-mimicking chemicals forced politicians in 2009 to address endocrine disruption concerns in the regulations and ban endocrine disrupting pesticides. An enormous lobbying effort from industry, the US chamber of commerce, EU Directorate General (DG) Enterprise, and EU DG Growth, tried to stop the implementation of the new rules, especially during the TTIP trade negotiations with the US. EU DG Environment was isolated and in the end DG SANTE (health) was found willing to do the dirty work of undermining the rules. Again, waves of bad publicity from the public and scientists harmed the credibility of the EU Commission. This debate too is far from over.
Conflicted science advice
The SAM report is important since it will soon be used by the EU Commission as an input for its ‘REFIT’ programme to evaluate pesticide regulation. This is a programme that the chemical industry sees as a major opportunity for a regulatory roll-back.
Some of the experts invited to help SAM and listed on the SAM website, however, are not independent. Instead, they have strong links to the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI). ILSI is a worldwide network, a federation of non-profits funded by many industries, including the pesticide industry, and which provides expertise in regulatory issues.
ILSI global includes over 400 company members and ILSI Europe includes 88. Among them are every pesticide multinational.
Sourcewatch writes of ILSI that: “The interests of food, pharmaceutical, tobacco, energy, and other industries have become even more entwined. They have learned to cooperate (rather than blaming each other for the cancer epidemic) and they now form coalitions to fight health and environmental regulations.
“It is notable that [ILSI members] generally employ the same lawyers, lobbyists and PR companies, and use essentially the same tactics”.
ILSI has a negligible public profile, and claims not to be a lobby group, but is very active behind the scenes in obtaining seats for ILSI-associated scientists on regulatory panels such as that of the EU Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and international organisations like WHO, the World Health Organisation, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) of the UN, and the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) of the WHO. Experts generally do not disclose their links to ILSI and pretend to be independent academic scientists.
A recent example of ILSI members successfully getting seats on an EFSA-panel concerned the risk assessment idea of a Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC). This idea assumes chemicals are safe at low doses without (expensive) testing. It has been an important goal of the chemical industry to establish TTCs in European and other jurisdictions.
PAN Europe has analysed the process of developing guideline for the TTC at the European Food safety Authority EFSA. We discovered that the chair of the EFSA working group was Sue Barlow, who worked for ILSI and the cigarette industry. She had volunteered to be chair of the EFSA working group. From this position she installed an ILSI network. This EFSA working group then more-or-less copy-pasted the ILSI proposal, making it into an EFSA opinion.
ILSI has been imposing its ideas on many other current EU risk assessment methods too, intending to weaken protections and ease access of pesticides to the market. Thus a PAN Europe survey showed that out of 12 EU pesticide risk assessment methods analysed, 8 were designed and promoted by ILSI. Industry is being allowed, under the radar, to “write its own rules”.
The conflicted scientists
In the case of the SAM, a prime example of these conflicts is UK professor Alan Boobis who is listed on the SAM website as a contributor to the SAM report. Alan Boobis has been active in ILSI for decades. Until January 2018 he was the chair of its Board of Trustees. Due to his conflicts of interest Boobis was disbarred from a new expert panel convened by EFSA in 2012.
French professor Dominique Parent-Massin is mentioned alongside Boobis as working on the SAM report. Prof. Parent-Massin has previously worked with ILSI member, Ajinomoto – the world’s biggest Aspartame producer.
Also listed on the SAM website is Joergen Schlundt, former Director of the Danish National Food Institute. Schlundt is also a former ILSI board member .
All three are listed on the SAM-website as contributors to the report, or as providers of evidence through another report written by a new network called Science Advice for Policy by European Academies (SAPEA), or as being part of a ‘sounding board’ and fact-checking process. Despite these counter-indications the SAM website states that “The Commission found that none of the interests declared constituted a conflict of interest.”
Another expert used by the SAM is German professor Daniel Dietrich, editor-in-chief of the journal Chemico-Biological Interactions. With a group of editors of journals of pharmacology and toxicology he has been very vocal in trying to stop the regulation and banning of endocrine disrupting pesticides (in EU Regulation 1107/2009). Dietrich published editorials in several scientific journals that triggered highly critical responses from other scientists, such as members of the ‘Endocrine Society’. Ties between the Dietrich group of authors and industry were exposed by Le Monde journalist Stéphane Horel who found 17 out of the 18 experts of Mr. Dietrich’s group have past or current ties to industry. The Dietrich group has been prolific, publishing articles like ‘Endocrine disruption: Fact or urban legend?’ that disputes the health risks of endocrine disruption (Nohynek et al., 2013). Even after former EU science advisor Anne Glover achieved a consensus between opposing groups that toxicological thresholds below which chemicals are safe (see TTC above) were unproven, Dietrich and his group (along with Alan Boobis) still claimed their opponents used “pseudoscience” (Dietrich et al., 2016). Dietrich also opposed the EU ban of bee-harming neonicotinoids, and both Dietrich and Boobis criticized the IARC-report asserting the genotoxicityof Glyphosate.
Conflicts in EU science advice
The EU has mechanisms to prevent conflicts of interest from derailing its scientific decisions. The SAM website currently presents ‘Declarations of Interest’ (DoI) for its members including for Boobis, Parent-Massin, Dietrich, and Schlundt. But one might wonder if procedures to report conflicts of interest are functioning. DoI’s were not available online when the SAM-report was published (in June 2018). One was even not signed until considerably after publication, in August 2018.
The efforts of ILSI have so far been effective. Several of its campaigning targets are included in an important “SAPEA evidence review report“. SAPEA (Science Advice for Policy by European Academies) is a new body set up by European science academies. This evidence review is intended to feed into the SAM report and featured many of the conflicted scientists above. SAPEA’s report promotes many industry objectives, such as the use of ‘historical control data’. The great importance of this is that, since many potential historical controls exist, their use makes it much easier to ascribe toxic effects observed in animal testing as being simply noise and therefore irrelevant.
Another industry goal is to promote inexpensive (in vitro) ‘mode-of-action assessment’ in preference to expensive adverse outcome testing. A third is to drop the obligation for chronic mouse testing.
The aims of PAN Europe and the Endocrine Society, on the other hand, are: 1) to recognise the reality of ‘low dose effects’ which are currently not tested at all for pesticides; 2) the recognition that chemicals may cause non-linear toxicity responses over a wide range of doses. These are called ‘non-monotonic dose-effect responses’ (whereas regulators presently acknowledge only linear dose-response curves of toxicity and even dismiss effects entirely if they are not linear); 3) mandatory testing for endocrine disruption; 4) to dispute the current regulatory assumption that chemicals have safe thresholds. All are missing from the SAPEA report.
In a further blow to precaution, the SAM report proposes to change EU rules by exchanging the acceptable level of citizen protection from “do not have any harmful effects on humans” for an undefined level, that of “acceptable risk”. This is the change of regulation that would make human harm legal, since it would stop the EU’s much-detested-by-industry ‘hazard approach’ that aims to avoid any exposure of humans to classified (mutagenic, carcinogenic, reprotoxic (toxic for reproduction), persistent and endocrine disrupting) pesticides.
SAM proposes that the EU should re-examine this ‘hazard approach’, which has been under attack by industry for many years; and so it seems that SAM might prove to be the instrument by which industry finally achieves successes for which they have campaigned so long.
The EU has shown itself sensitive to public pressure. What is now needed is for that pressure to be redoubled.
References
Goulson, D. (2013) An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid insecticides. Journal of Applied Ecology 50: 977–987.
Nohynek, G.J., C. J. Borgert, D. Dietrich, and K. K. Rozmand (2013) Endocrine disruption: Fact or urban legend?, Toxicology Letters 223 295– 305.
Dietrich et al., (2016) Allowing pseudoscience into EU risk assessment processes is eroding public trust in science experts and in science as a whole: The bigger picture. Chemico-Biological Interactions 257 (2016) 1-3.
Dietrich et al., (2013) Open letter to the European commission: scientifically unfounded precaution drives European commission’s recommendations on EDC regulation, while defying common sense, well‑established science, and risk assessment principles. Arch Toxicol (2013) 87:1739–1741.
Hans Muilerman works at PAN Europe and is based in Brussels.
If this article was useful to you please consider sharing it with your networks.
How a rural distress helpline in Telangana is preventing farmer suicides
https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/how-rural-distress-helpline-telangana-preventing-farmer-suicides-101218
Set up in 2017, Kisan Mitra provides counselling to distressed farmers and acts as a bridge between them and the government.
The Kisan Mitra team
“It was during the 2018 floods that we got a call from a farmer in Adilabad. The caller didn’t need any help for himself but said that his neighbour has been sitting in a corner of his field since morning with a bottle of pesticide in his hand. The depressed farmer had lost his entire crop during the Adilabad floods that lashed the district that year. The farmer later called us, crying. We immediately sent our field coordinator to the village and counselled him. His land was stuck in certain legal issues and with the help of the district collector, we made sure the legal tangles were resolved in a week’s time,” Shruthi narrates one of the many incidents where Kisan Mitra, a distress helpline, has saved a life.
Shruthi, who heads the team of counsellors at Kisan Mitra, is among the many volunteers in the organisation who are lending a helping hand to the distressed farmers of Telangana. Kisan Mitra, a non-profit organisation, is a rural distress helpline that acts as an intermediary between the government and farmers.
Set up in 2017, the helpline strives to provide financial security to farmers and makes sure entitlements reach their pockets on time. Apart from securing an economically stable future for the farmers, the volunteers at Kisan Mitra also provide counselling to farmers who are on the verge of suicide and handle distress calls from farmers who are depressed and need a ray of hope in their lives.
Why are the farmers distressed?
Telangana is one of the states worst hit by the agrarian crisis. Thousands of farmers have killed themselves since the inception of Telangana and the state stands second when it comes to farmer suicides in the country. So what exactly is worrying the farmers in the state?
Harsha, one of the founder members of the organisation, tells TNM that it’s the lack of proper implementation of schemes that is drowning the farmers in the state under massive debts.
“Kisan Mitra was floated as a subsidiary of the Centre of Sustainable Agriculture after a number of farmer organisations brought to our notice the farmer distress in the rural parts of Telangana. So over the years, what Kisan Mitra has been able to gauge from its activities is that there is no dearth in the monetary schemes for farmers introduced by the government but there definitely is a lack of interest on the government’s side to ensure proper implementation,” says Harsha.
He goes on to add, “For example, a cotton farmer is entitled to a sum of Rs 30,000 per acre from the government. But the vicious cycle of debt begins when the farmer fails to get the amount on time. For him to continue work on the fields, he borrows money from money lenders at exorbitant interest rates. Some farmers will also submit their land deeds as mortgage. By the time the government money reaches him, he might have already paid multiple installments of the interest money.”
And this is where organisations like Kisan Mitra come into the picture.
“We ensure that the entitlements from the government reach the farmers on time. For this, we begin with creating awareness on what the government schemes are, what are the viable means of investment and also insurance, about which most farmers have least knowledge about,” Harsha explains.
Calling for help still a stigma
Of the hundreds of calls that Kisan Mitra receives in a day, most are distress calls made by men. But Shruthi, who heads the counselling team, says there’s a long way to go before men feel that it’s all right to talk about mental health and not give in to the societal pressure of proving one’s hyper-masculinity.
“To begin with, none of the farmers suffer from any psychological issues. It’s various factors joined together that drives a farmer to suicide. In rural areas, mental health is still a taboo to be discussed. It was only last year that a farmer killed himself after suffering from extensive crop loss. His wife knew of his mental condition but was threatened to not to talk about it to anyone. One day, as he got a cue that his wife was meeting the village head for some financial help, he consumed poison and ended his life. Such is the stigma associated with mental health in our country,” Shruthi shares.
And for the same reason, Kisan Mitra conducts awareness programmes not just for male farmers, but also for women who are in a better position to advise and counsel their husbands.
Shruthi, who was working as a psychologist in Hyderabad, left the job and joined the Kisan Mitra team in 2018.
“It’s mostly the small income farmers who fall into huge debts. While many maybe at the verge of suicide, some may also be just seeking solutions to their problems. For farmers who need immediate counselling, we send our field coordinators to help them. If we think a particular farmer needs monetary help, we make arrangements to ensure he is eligible to some sort of monetary scheme under the government. This may not be a direct government intervention but an alternate mechanism where we ensure that the farmer has enough money to buy food or is able to send his kids to school,” Shruthi explains.
Kisan Mitra currently operates out of three districts – Vikarabad, Mancherial and Adilabad. While its field volunteers are limited to these areas, it receives calls and provides counselling to farmers from across the state. Of the 9000 plus calls that Kisan Mitra has received till date, Harsha says they have been able to resolve over 5000 cases and the rest are still pending for some level of intervention from the government.
The organisation also has its presence on WhatsApp, where it tries to disseminate more information on organic farming and provides knowledge on best farming practices.
“We also visit hospitals and meet farmers who have survived suicide attempts. There are many reasons that can lead a man to desperation. Kisan Mitra is currently trying to zero in on these triggers and help victims cope with them,” Shruthi adds.
Ease of doing agribusiness Index
like ease of doing business, Central government is trying to come up with an index to measure performance of states on supporting agribusiness. here while, the concept notes talks about farmer as entrepreneur, much of the indicators considered to be measured are to process indicators and outcomes are not measured. for example it talks about implementation of market reforms as suggested by centre and not the prices farmers accrued as a result of the reforms.
there is a need to rework on these indices and probably develop an independent one.
here is the press release
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=188052
http://www.agricoop.nic.in/sites/default/files/Concept_Note.pdf