Rising cost of paddy production

Soaring production cost of Boro over the past few years has become a cause for serious concern both for the country's farmers and policy-makers. Farmers directly involved with Boro cultivation are at the receiving end because their yield leaves either little or no profit margin for them, notwithstanding the fact that they have made it a habit of producing bumper crops for some years. Last year in particular was a bad year for farmers because mostly they had to dispose of their paddy, incurring losses. What is still encouraging is that the undaunted Boro farmers have already surpassed the target of seed bed by .02 million hectares on 0.4 million hectares. Going by the favourable weather condition this year, it may not be at all difficult to achieve the production target set at 18.9 million tonnes of rice as against last year's record output of 18.759 million tonnes. The resilience of farmers here is commendable. But are the authorities doing enough for them to stay in paddy cultivation as well as help ensure the country's food security?
True, farmers producing Aman also had to bear the brunt of political turmoil in that they had difficulty in procuring their farm input, particularly chemical fertiliser. Even though the government had to its credit a satisfactory stock of fertiliser, its supply to the field level was seriously disrupted and hence farmers had to procure all types of fertiliser at prices well above the fixed ones. In areas where cultivation began early, Boro farmers also had to pay higher prices for fertiliser. If communications remain normal, farmers who start cultivation late may avoid this problem because by this time supply of the input will be adequate. Last year all types of chemical fertiliser were pricier and that was one reason why the production cost soared. This year it should have come down. Authentic sources have disclosed that this year the production cost may go up by as much as 20 per cent. If political situation does not worsen further, why should it go up further? Labour cost is likely to come down because for a period labourers remained unemployed.
Even if it happens, the government should not play the role of a silent spectator. Its role last year left much to be desired. When millers, middlemen and hoarders in cohort conspire to bring down prices immediately after harvest and build stocks for raising prices later arbitrarily, the government certainly has more to do than what it has been doing for the past few years. The practice cannot be approved because it does in no way fall under any category of demand-supply theory. What they do is monopoly business of the worst kind. It is because of this, there is need for policy support for farmers. In this case, government procurement of rice counts most. One farm economist has suggested that the government should procure at least 1.5 million tonnes of rice. Last year the government did not make any such intervention in the market. This year it should because its storage capacity has greatly enhanced now.