Applications for LAMP Fellowship 2025-26 are now open. Apply here. The last date for submitting applications is December 21, 2024
On March 14, 2022 Rajya Sabha discussed the working of the Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region (DoNER). During the discussion, several issues around budgetary allocation, implementation of schemes and connectivity with the North Eastern Region were discussed. The Ministry of DoNER is responsible for matters relating to the planning, execution and monitoring of development schemes and projects in the North Eastern Region. In this blog post, we analyse the 2022-23 budgetary allocations for the Ministry and discuss related issues.
A new scheme named PM-DevINE announced to boost infrastructure and social development
In 2022-23, the Ministry has seen a 5% increase in allocation from the revised estimates of 2021-22. The Ministry has been allocated Rs 2,800 crore which will be used for various development schemes, such as the North East Special Infrastructure Development Scheme and North East Road Sector Development Scheme. A scheme-wise break-up of the budget allocation for the Ministry is given below in Table 1.
One of the key highlights of the Finance Minister’s Budget Speech was the announcement of a new scheme named the Prime Minister’s Development Initiative for North East (PM-DevINE). It will be implemented through the North East Council (nodal agency for the economic and social development of the North Eastern Region). PM-DevINE will fund infrastructure and social development projects in areas such as road connectivity, health, and agriculture. The scheme will not replace or subsume existing central sector or centrally sponsored schemes. The Scheme will be given an initial allocation of Rs 1,500 crore.
Table 1: Break-up of allocation to the Ministry of DoNER (in Rs crore)
|
Major Heads |
2020-21 Actuals |
2021-22 BE |
2021-22 RE |
2022-23 BE |
% change from 2021-22 RE to 2022-23 BE |
|
North East Special Infrastructure Development Scheme |
446 |
675 |
674 |
1,419 |
111% |
|
Schemes of North East Council |
567 |
585 |
585 |
702 |
20% |
|
North East Road Sector Development Scheme |
416 |
696 |
674 |
496 |
-26% |
|
Central pool of resources for North East and Sikkim |
342 |
581 |
581 |
- |
- |
|
Others |
270 |
322 |
344 |
241 |
-30% |
|
Total |
1,854 |
2,658 |
2,658 |
2,800 |
5% |
Note: BE – Budget Estimate; RE – Revised Estimate; Schemes for North East Council includes Special Development Projects.
Sources: Demand No. 23 of Union Budget Documents 2022-23; PRS.
Allocation towards capital outlay less than demand
The Standing Committee on Home Affairs (2022) noted that the amount allocated at the budget stage in 2022-23 (Rs 660 crore) was 17% less than the demand by the Ministry (Rs 794 crore). Capital expenditure includes capital outlay which leads to the creation of assets such as schools, hospitals, and roads and bridges. The Committee observed that this may severely affect the implementation of several projects and schemes that require capital outlay. It recommended the Ministry to take up this matter with the Finance Ministry and demand additional assistance at the revised stage of the 2022-23 financial year.
Underutilisation of funds over the years
Since 2011-12 (barring 2016-17), the Ministry has not been able to utilise the funds allocated to it at the budgeted stage (See Figure 1). For instance, in 2020-21, fund utilisation in case of the North East Road Sector Development Scheme was 52%, whereas only 34% of funds were utilised under the North East Special Infrastructure Development Scheme (for infrastructure projects relating to water supply, power, connectivity, social infrastructure). Key reasons for underspending highlighted by the Ministry include late receipt of project proposals and non-receipt of utilisation certificates from state governments.
Figure 1: Underutilisation of funds by the Ministry since 2011-12
Note: Revised Estimate has been used as the Actual Expenditure for 2021-22.
Sources: Union Budget Documents (2011-12 to 2022-23); PRS.
Delay in project completion
The Ministry implements several schemes for infrastructural projects such as roads and bridges. The progress of the certain schemes has been inadequate. The Standing Committee (2022) observed that the physical progress of many road sector projects under the North East Road Sector Development Scheme is either at zero or in single digit percent in spite of release of the amount for the project. Similarly, projects under the Karbi Anglong Autonomous Territorial Council (autonomous district council in Assam) and Social and Infrastructure Development Fund (construction of roads, bridges, and construction of schools and water supply projects in the North Eastern Region) have seen inadequate progress.
Need to address declining forest cover
The Standing Committee (2021) has also recommended the Ministry of DoNER to work towards preserving forest cover. The Committee took note of the declining forest cover in the North East India. As per the India State of Forest Report (2021), states showing major loss of forest cover from 2019 to 2021 are: (i) Arunachal Pradesh (loss of 257 sq km of forest cover), (ii) Manipur (249 sq km), (iii) Nagaland (235 sq km), (iv) Mizoram (186 sq km), and (v) Meghalaya (73 sq km). The loss of forest cover may be attributed to shifting cultivation, cutting down of trees, natural calamities, anthropogenic (environmental pollution) pressure, and developmental activities. The Committee recommended that various measures to protect the forest and environment must be given priority and should implemented within the stipulated timeline. It also suggested the Ministry to: (i) carry out regular plantation drives to increase forest cover/density, and (ii) accord priority towards the ultimate goal of preserving and protecting the forests under various centrally sponsored initiatives.
Key issues raised by Members during discussion in Rajya Sabha
The discussion on the working of the Ministry of DoNER took place in Rajya Sabha on March 14, 2022. One of the issues highlighted by members was about the Ministry not having its own line Department. This leads to the Ministry being dependent on the administrative strength of the states for implementation of projects. Another issue highlighted by several members was the lack of connectivity of the region through railways and road networks which hampers the economic growth of region. The DoNER Minister in his response to the House assured the members that the central government is making continuous efforts towards improving connectivity to the North East region through roads, railways, waterways, and telecommunication.
Allocation by Union Ministries to the North East
Union Ministries allocate 10% of their budget allocation for the North East (See Figure 2 for fund allocation and utilisation). The Ministry of DoNER is the nodal Ministry that monitors and keeps track of the allocation done by various Ministries. In 2022-23, Rs 76,040 crore has been allocated by all the Ministries for the North Eastern region. The allocation has increased by 11% from the revised estimate of 2021-22 (Rs 68,440 crore). In 2019-20 and 2021-21 the actual expenditure towards North Eastern areas was lower than budget estimates by 18% and 19% respectively.
Figure 2: Budgetary allocation by all Union Ministries for the North East (amount in Rs crore)
Source: Report No. 239: Demand for Grants (2022-23) of Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region, Standing Committee on Home Affairs; PRS.
Recently, the Ministry of Agriculture released a draft Model Contract Farming Act, 2018. The draft Model Act seeks to create a regulatory and policy framework for contract farming. Based on this draft Model Act, legislatures of states can enact a law on contract farming as contracts fall under the Concurrent List of the Constitution. In this context, we discuss contract farming, issues related to it, and progress so far.
What is contract farming?
Under contract farming, agricultural production (including livestock and poultry) can be carried out based on a pre-harvest agreement between buyers (such as food processing units and exporters), and producers (farmers or farmer organisations). The producer can sell the agricultural produce at a specific price in the future to the buyer as per the agreement. Under contract farming, the producer can reduce the risk of fluctuating market price and demand. The buyer can reduce the risk of non-availability of quality produce.
Under the draft Model Act, the producer can get support from the buyer for improving production through inputs (such as technology, pre-harvest and post-harvest infrastructure) as per the agreement. However, the buyer cannot raise a permanent structure on the producer’s land. Rights or title ownership of the producer’s land cannot be transferred to the buyer.
What is the existing regulatory structure?
Currently, contract farming requires registration with the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (APMC) in few states. This means that contractual agreements are recorded with the APMCs which can also resolve disputes arising out of these contracts. Further, market fees and levies are paid to the APMC to undertake contract farming. The Model APMC Act, 2003 provided for contract farming and was released to the states for them to use this as reference while enacting their respective laws. Consequently, 20 states have amended their APMC Acts to provide for contract farming, while Punjab has a separate law on contract farming. However, only 14 states notified rules related to contract farming, as of October 2016.
What are the issues with the current structure, and how does the draft Model Act seek to address them?
Over the years, expert bodies have identified issues related to the implementation of contract farming. These include: (i) role of APMCs which are designated as an authority for registration and dispute settlement in most states, (ii) provisions of stockholding limits on produce under contract farming, and (iii) poor publicity of contract farming among the farmers about its benefits.
Role of Agricultural Produce Marketing Committees/Marketing Boards
The NITI Aayog observed that market fees and other levies are paid to the APMC for contract framing when no services such as market facilities and infrastructure are rendered by them. In this context, the Committee of State Ministers on Agricultural Reforms recommended that contract farming should be out of the ambit of APMCs. Instead, an independent regulatory authority must be brought in to disengage contract farming stakeholders from the existing APMCs.
In this regard, as per the draft Model Act, contract farming will be outside the ambit of the state APMCs. This implies that buyers need not pay market fee and commission charges to these APMCs to undertake contract farming. Further, the draft Model Act provides for establishing a state-level Contract Farming (Promotion and Facilitation) Authority to ensure implementation of the draft Model Act. Functions of the Authority include (i) levying and collecting facilitation fees, (ii) disposing appeals related to disputes under the draft Model Act, and (iii) publicising contract farming. Further, the sale and purchase of contracted produce is out of the ambit of regulation of the respective state/UT Agricultural Marketing Act.
Registration and agreement recording
The Model APMC Act, 2003 released to the states provides for the registration of contract farming agreements by an APMC. This was done to safeguard the interests of the producer and the buyerthrough legal support, including dispute resolution. The procedures for registration and recording of agreements vary across states. Currently, registration for contract farming has been provided with the APMC in few states, and with a state-level nodal agency in others. Further, market fee on purchases under contract agreements is completely exempted in few states and partially exempted in others. The Committee of State Ministers on Agricultural Reforms recommended that a instead of a APMC, district-level authorities can be set-up for registration of contract farming agreements. Further, any registering authority should verify the details such as the financial status of the buyer.
Under the draft Model Act, every agreement should be registered with a Registering and Agreement Recording Committee, which will be set up consisting of officials from departments such as agriculture, animal husbandry, marketing, and rural development. Such a Committee can be set up at the district, taluka or block levels.
Disputes between the producer and the buyer
The Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare observed certain risks related to upholding the contract farming agreement. For example, producers may sell their produce to a buyer other than the one with whom they hold a contract. On the other side, a buyer may fail to buy products at the agreed prices or in the agreed quantities, or arbitrarily downgrade produce quality. The Committee of State Ministers on Agricultural Reforms recommended that dispute redressal mechanism should be at block, district or regional-level state authorities and not with an APMC.
Under the draft Model Act, in case of disputes between a producer and a buyer, they can: (i) reach a mutually acceptable solution through negotiation or conciliation, (ii) refer the dispute to a dispute settlement officer designated by the state government, and (iii) appeal to the Contract Farming (Promotion and Facilitation) Authority (to be established in each state) in case they are not satisfied by the decision of the dispute settlement officer.
Stockholdings limits on contracted produce
Stockholding limits are imposed through control orders as per the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Such provisions of stockholding limits can be restrictive and discourage buyers to enter into contracts. It was recommended that the buyers can be exempted from stock limits up to six months of their requirement in the interest of trade. Under the draft Model Act, limits of stockholding of agricultural produce will not be applicable on produce purchased under contract farming.
Other recommendations
While contract farming seeks to provide alternative marketing channels and better price realisation to farmers, several other marketing reforms have been suggested by experts in this regard. These include: (i) allowing direct sale of produce by farmers, (ii) removing fruits and vegetables out of the ambit of APMCs, and (iii) setting-up of farmer-consumer markets, (iv) electronic trading, and (v) joining electronic National Agricultural Market for the sale of produce.
