Months after Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced withdrawal of three farm laws, admitting that he had failed to convince a section of the farmers, the Supreme Court constituted experts panel practically endorsed these laws. The report of the high powered panel, released now says that as many as 86 percent of farm organisations, representing more than 3 crore farmers supported the laws.
Though recommendations of this panel are of little consequence now, as already the Parliament had repealed those laws following a year-long farm protests, it said in clear terms that repealing or suspending of those farms acts would be “unfair” to the silent majority, who supported the laws.
The Apex Court had set up the panel in January 2020 while staying the implementation of the three laws. It initially had four members: agriculture economist Ashok Gulati, Shetkari Sanghatana (Maharashtra) president Anil Ghanwat, International Food Policy Research Institute’s Pramod Kumar Joshi and Bhupinder Singh Mann, president of a faction of the Bhartiya Kisan Union. Mann later recused himself from the panel.
The panel’s report said that some alternative mechanisms for dispute settlement–through civil courts or arbitration mechanisms such as farmer courts–may be provided to the stakeholders.
The panel recommended a mechanism to strengthen agricultural infrastructure through cooperatives and Farmer Producer organizations (FPOs), while an agriculture marketing council with all states and UTs as members may be formed for implementation of the acts.
Panel’s recommendations
*Recommendation regarding farmers produce trade and commerce (promotion and facilitation) Act 2020*
*Development of price information and market intelligence system to facilitate efficient ‘price discovery’ and strengthen the bargaining power of the farmers.
* Terms of reference of CACP can be expanded to collate, analyze and disseminate price information.
* Convert existing APMCs to revenue generating entities by making them hubs of agri-business.
Farmers (empowerment and protection) Agreement on price assurance and farm services Act, 2020
* A model contract agreement should be formulated and shared on the website with all stakeholders to remove various glitches in implementation.
* A major communication exercise needs to be undertaken to clear apprehension the land of farmers would be usurped under this Act.
* To lend security to the contract for both parties, the contract agreement should be signed by two
witness from farmer’s as well as contractors’ side.
* Provision in the farming agreement should be made in case market prices increase than the contracted prices.
Essential Commodities Amendment) Act (ECA), 2020*
* Consider completely abolishing the ECA Act, 1995.
* The price triggers, at 100% for perishables and 50% non-perishables in the Act, may be reviewed and enhanced to 200% and 75% respectively.
* Quantity of stock limits, if imposed, should be reviewed on a fortnightly basis.
* The reference period for price rise may be reduced to the last 3 years.
* Export bans need to be rationalized and should be imposed in an objective manner based on similar price triggers as envisaged in this Act.
Agricultural price policies
*Open ended procurement policy needs to be discontinued as it is distorting the composition of agricultural output in certain states with its adjunct environmental consequences.
* Supports the approach of NFAED in carrying out procurement operations in pulses and oilseeds under the Price support scheme.
* Procurement of crops at a declared MSP can be the prerogative of the States as per their specific agricultural policy priorities. These states can provide for a legal backing for such procurements at their own cost- as the recent Punjab amendment Act.
