Given the unchecked proliferation of central agricultural development schemes (totalling more than 50), Krishi Bhawan’s move to condense them into a few programmes, while leaving greater operational say to state governments, seems well-conceived. The Planning Commission has done well to readily agree to such a shift in approach from the 12th Plan, which starts next April. In fact, when Krishi Bhawan launched its flagship programme, the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (National Agricultural Development Plan, or RKVY) in 2007, several schemes in operation then were merged into it. However, the multiplication of schemes is a seemingly unstoppable process, considering that every annual Budget moots new programmes to showcase the government’s commitment to development. The current year’s Budget, predictably, was no exception. As many as seven new schemes for the farm sector were announced by the finance minister, though the amounts earmarked for each was rather small, at Rs 300 crore. These pertained to extension of the Green Revolution to the eastern region, promotion of cultivation of pulses, vegetables, oil palm, nutri-cereals (coarse grains) and protein supplements (animal products).
Since the political temptation to launch new schemes is hard to control, it is necessary to review them periodically and integrate or merge them into fewer, better-crafted schemes that avoid overlapping. One of the objectives of RKVY was to decentralise planning for farm development, and to give the leading role to the states in formulating situation-specific action plans and implementing them with central funds. Centralised planning (ie, a “top-down” approach) tended to lay emphasis on national priorities without heed to local needs. Besides, they took the initiative away from the states, which are primarily responsible for agriculture. One result has been half-hearted execution of programmes. Decentralised planning, on the other hand, allows schemes to be tailored to suit local agro-ecological conditions and the local resource base.
Such an approach, adopted under the RKVY rubric, seems to have worked if one is to judge by the faster agricultural growth — which in the last five or six years has averaged about 3 per cent, a rate not achieved after the 1980s, and twice the rate of population growth. Though it might be argued that RKVY, too, has failed to achieve the admittedly ambitious goal of 4 per cent annual agricultural growth, it would be unfair to blame RKVY alone. Notably, only about a third of the agriculture ministry’s annual developmental budget has been channelled through RKVY during the current 11th Plan. The Planning Commission proposes to raise this proportion to a half, or even two-thirds, in the next Plan. This is important, since the states’ own spending on agricultural development has been on the slide for a long time, despite their generally improved fiscal position. Since the new arrangement would mean a substantial transfer of central resources to states, the action is moving decisively to state capitals.
