High time to think beyond burning straw and its in-situ incorporation

So far, the only viable solution being given by the PAU and the agriculture department of Punjab government is the in-situ incorporation of the paddy straw. Their main argument rests on maintaining the soil health by way of putting back organic matter into the soil.

The provision of ₹1,151 crore for subsidy on machinery by the central government for the financial years 2018-19 and 2019-20 also supports such an argument. It needs to be understood that the problem is the creation of machinery and the solution is also being found in the machinery. Is it on the advice of agro-scientists or under the pressure of subsidydriven machinery and fertiliser lobbies that alternative options are being kept under the carpet?

The farmers are being advised (by persuasion and coercion) not to put the stubble on fire as it harms the soil health and productivity, kills the farm friendly insects, and pollutes air which leads to a number of serious ailments among the humans, animals and birds.

The air pollution is resulting into manifold increase in the disease-burden which, in turn, is putting enormous amount of pressure on the economy by way of huge additional expenses on health services (public as well as private) and adversely affects labour productivity.

No doubt maintaining soil health is of paramount importance for sustainable agriculture but is in-situ incorporation of paddy straw the only way out for maintaining soil health? If it is so then the unanswered puzzle is why the farmers are not following the advice of the agro-scientists and government? There are a number of options which can take care of the soil health and air pollution (due to burning of paddy straw) and can also generate additional revenue (in the form of GST) for the state and income for farmers besides generating much-needed employment (somewhere between 2 to 3 lakh). According to moderate estimates, about 22 to 25 lakh youth are unemployed in Punjab.

MATCHSTICK OPTION

Nonetheless, the farmers still prefer in-situ burning of paddy straw because of cost effectiveness and small window between harvesting of paddy and sowing wheat. However, this ‘small window’ argument does not go well with the in-situ burning especially when farmers are willing to shun burning if the government gives them ₹2,000 per tonne of paddy straw. Clearly, the problem goes much beyond the small sowing-window.

The crux of the matter is the additional cost to the farmers if they opt for machinery-led in-situ incorporation of the paddy straw. It necessitates to bring farmers on board and exploring other options to manage the paddy straw.

The private entrepreneurs are willing to pay the farmers between ₹1,500 and ₹1,800 per tonne for delivering paddy straw at the plant head. There are three categories of farmers (without tractors and machinery, with tractors only and with both tractors and machinery) in terms of ownership of tractors and machinery required for in-situ incorporation of paddy straw.

For in-situ incorporation of paddy straw, the farmers in the respective categories would have to bear an additional cost (per acre) of ₹3,500-4,000, ₹2,000-2500 and ₹1,500-1,800. The farmers think that a matchstick can save the entire additional cost and hence the unabated burning of paddy straw and the resultant air pollution and smog.

Another argument by the farmers is that when the government is not effectively curbing the air pollution being caused by industry, vehicular traffic and various other sources why the entire onus of environment lies on them.

Given the large quantity of paddy straw in Punjab (approximately 22 million tonnes per annum), its incorporation in the soil may neither be advisable nor sustainable in the long run. Besides, in-situ mulching of paddy straw may also release excess quantity of methane which may cause air pollution besides burdening the soil with high proportion of silica contained in the paddy straw.

The generation of bio-CNG from the crop residue seems to be a viable alternative as it would manage the bio-mass without harming environment besides producing organic manure for the crops.

THE CNG PLANT SOLUTION

Recently announced comprehensive biomass management policy by the CII-NITI Aayog has worked out the potential of setting up of bio-CNG plants to the tune of 1,486 units in UP, 1,111 in Punjab, 307 in Haryana and 38 in Rajasthan with a total capital cost of ₹47,004 crore for the four states.

A couple of small-sized plants are already in operation and it is learnt that there is demand for such a gas as it is cheaper than the natural CNG. It is further learnt that PAU has approved the organic manure (a by-product of bioCNG) which would decrease demand for chemical fertilisers and pesticides. There is, thus, a rationale for creating an environment to establish sufficient number of bio-CNG plants so that the hitherto serious problem can be turned into a virtue. It is in this context that now is the high time to explore the alternative methods to manage not only the paddy straw but also the entire residue of all the crops, including solid and sewage waste.

It is in fact a huge amount of raw material and if used meticulously (with a viable business model), it would certainly be a game changer for the economy of Punjab in particular and for the environment in general. It would also mitigate the constant self-persecution of Punjab that it has no minerals for industrial development.

To benefit from all this, the state would have to put a comprehensive agricultural policy (which the state so far does not have) in place, of which the management of crop residue should be an integral part.

Further, instead of subsidising the purchase of machinery for incorporating the crop residue in the soil, the government needs to think of handholding of private entrepreneurs venturing into the production of bio-CNG at least during the initial years. The financial resources may also be mobilised through corporate social responsibility (CSR) as rural development and environment are included in the CSR activities listed in the Seventh Schedule (the Companies Act 2013).

The labour component for baling and transporting the crop residue to the plant may be covered under MGNREGA. NABARD can also be roped in for financial resources and technical advice. (The writer is professor of economics, CRRID, Chandigarh)

IT NEEDS TO BE UNDERSTOOD THAT PROBLEM IS CREATION OF MACHINERY AND THE SOLUTION WILL ALSO BE FOUND IN IT