Once again, the department of petrochemicals has suggested that the law that requires foodgrain and sugar to be packed exclusively in jute bags be modified or repealed. This move, while a sad reflection of how government departments can turn into lobbyists for their industry (in this case, plastic bags), nevertheless deserves a closer look. Similar attempts in the past led to the requirement being eased somewhat, allowing a small part of the industries’ product to be packed in other kinds of bags. Such relaxations have invariably been rolled back on political pressure. The outcome of the present move may not be vastly different, given that West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee appears to disapprove it strongly — unsurprising, given most of India’s jute industry is in that state.
The Jute Packaging Material Act was enacted in 1987 as protection for the ailing, labour-intensive jute industry. It mandated the compulsory packing of all foodgrains, sugar, fertilisers and cement in jute bags. (Fertiliser and cement are highly hygroscopic, and suffer serious degradation on exposure to moisture; they were thus taken out of the law’s purview subsequently.) The petrochemicals department’s objection to this legislation is that it curbs “free competition” among various bulk packaging alternatives and is, thus, inconsistent with the recently enacted competition law. This is not, in itself, a powerful argument; competition is often curtailed for reasons of regulation, whether for environmental or industry-protection reasons, both of which apply in this case. The sugar industry’s arguments are of more value. It complains it has been coerced into supporting the jute sector at a heavy cost to itself, though it is unclear what the exact extra cost is. It has even accused the jute industry of supplying sub-standard and underweight gunny bags which require more sugar to be filled in each bag to make up the bulk weight — a charge which the jute industry denies. The sugar industry also maintains that, apart from moisture ingress, the residue in jute sacks of certain oils used in the manufacturing process as fibre softeners impairs the quality of sugar packed in them. This claim requires further, independent scrutiny.
That jute is natural and biodegradable, in stark contrast to the environment-unfriendly nature of its alternatives made of polypropylene and high density polyethylene, should be central to the decision. There is also the point that this sector supports four to five million jute-growing families and over 2,60,000 industrial workers. However, there is little doubt that this law has become a a crutch more than a support, allowing the jute industry to sustain itself without modernisation or diversification of the products it markets. Many jute mills use outdated technology of the sort already discarded by India’s competitor Bangladesh, and most produce only jute bags. This situation prevails although government support of R&D has led to the invention of methods to weave various types of fabric from jute fibre, by admixing it with other natural and synthetic fibres; and of creating hard jute-fibre boards as alternatives to plywood in the furniture sector. This may not be a suitable time, for ecological, political and economic reasons, to end the restrictions on plastic packaging. But the jute sector must be pushed into adapting itself; it will not be protected forever.
