Tasks for India’s millet revolution
Context:
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) has declared 2023 as the International Year of Millets. Millets have special nutritive properties (they are high in protein, dietary fibre, micronutrients and antioxidants) and special agronomic characteristics (drought-resistant and suitable for semi-arid regions). If millets are good for nutrition and are climate-resilient, what then are the constraints to increased millet cultivation and consumption?
Barriers in millet consumption
Millets are a highly varied group of small-seeded grasses, widely grown around the world as cereal crops or grains for fodder and human food.
Two groups of millets are grown in India.
- Major millets include sorghum, pearl millet and finger millet
- Minor millets include foxtail, little millet, kodo, proso, and barnyard millet.
In 2019-20, the total offtake of cereals through the Public Distribution System (PDS) and the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) and also school meals was around 54 million tonnes. If about 20% of rice and wheat were to be replaced by millet, the state would have to procure 10.8 million tonnes of millet.
The inclusion of millets in the PDS would only be feasible if more than 50% production were procured — an unlikely scenario. Currently, millets are procured in only a few States, and stocks in the central pool are small. In May 2022, central stocks had 33 million tonnes of rice and 31 million tonnes of wheat, but only four lakh tonnes of nutricereals.
The real problems are as follows:
- Decline in the area under millet cultivation
- Low productivity of millets.
Over the last decade, the production of sorghum (jowar) has fallen,the production of pearl millet (bajra) has stagnated,and the production of other millets, including finger millet (ragi), has stagnated or declined. The productivity of jowar and bajra has increased, but only marginally. Unless productivity and production are increased substantially, all exhortations to consume millets will come to naught.
Next, we look at some lessons from the experience of the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF) in conserving millet biodiversity and promoting the production and consumption of millets in the Kolli hills, Tamil Nadu, a model that can be adapted to other areas.
Change in the Kolli Hills
The millet project of the MSSRF had three objectives —
- To preserve crop diversity in local millet varieties
- To increase production and the consumption of millets
- To enhance farm incomes.
The Kolli hills block of Namakkal district, the project area, is a distinct geographic and agro-ecological region of the Eastern Ghats, populated by income-poor Scheduled Tribe households. There has been a rapid decline in minor millet cultivation, and a shift in land use toward more profitable crops due to reasons like low yields.
Further, processing of millets is a time-consuming and laborious task, undertaken by women. Additionally, very little was marketed, and a tiny share of grain was processed into value-added products.
The project intervened in three areas:
- Yield enhancement using a combination of participatory varietal trials for improved seeds, new agronomic practices, and new technology. Community seed banks were designed and constructed to conserve, restore, revive, strengthen, and improve local seed systems.
- Customised post-harvest machinery (pulverisers and dehullers) was introduced. Hand-pounding millet by women for an hour yielded 2 kg-3 kg of grain. The introduction of small-scale localised mechanical milling, operated by self-help groups, was a game-changer.
- Kolli Hills Agrobiodiversity Conservers’ Federation (KHABCOFED) was formed to oversee all activities towards training and value-addition. Ready-to-cook products were branded under the Kolli Hills Natural Foods label and market links established.
|
In this project of MSSRF in Kolli Hills, the net returns from value-added products were five to 10 times higher than from grain: a kilogram of little millet rice sold for ₹7, a kilogram of millet upma sells for ₹41. This shows that such millet based projects can be successful. |
The most significant outcome of the last 25 years has been that the decline in the area under cultivation of minor millets and finger millet at the block level has been stemmed, and, indeed, has increased gradually after 2014-15, although the acreage is still one-third of acreage in the early 2000s.
Yields have risen as a result of improved seeds, agronomic practices and intercropping. There have been significant improvements in incomes from millet farming. The shift from hand pounding to milling has reduced the drudgery for women and encouraged millet consumption. The number of private mills with customised dehullers and pulverisers has risen.
The economics is the issue
The most difficult outcomes to measure are changes in consumption and nutrition. A rapid sample study in 2021 showed that persons of all ages ate millet for nine days per month. Fifteen years earlier, a different study showed that 39% of households consumed millets regularly. Availability is one factor here, but so are changing food habits.
Increasing the production of millets and reversing the decline in area cultivated are feasible steps but not easy, and require multiple interventions including scientific inputs, institutional mechanisms, financial incentives and in-kind support. The Government of India and State governments, notably Karnataka and Odisha, have initiated Millet Missions.
These policies are welcome, but unless we pay attention to the economics of millet cultivation, we face a losing battle against more profitable alternatives. Small farmers in hilly regions and dryland plains who are among the poorest households in rural India, are going to cultivate millets only if it gives them good returns.
Conclusion:
Adequate public support can make millet cultivation profitable, ensure supply for the PDS, and, ultimately, provide nutritional benefits to a wide section of the population.
Water woes: On negotiations to amend the Indus Waters Treaty
Context:
The government’s decision to issue notice to Pakistan, calling for negotiations to amend the Indus Waters Treaty, must be considered carefully.
About the Indus River system:
Indus River System is a Himalayan river system and is one of the largest river basins in the world. The Indus Rivier, also known as Sindhu river, is a part of one of the most fertile regions of the Indian sub-continent and the world.
The main Tributaries of the Indus River form the Indus River System, which includes Indus, Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas, and Satluj.
Indus Water Treaty (IWT):
IWT is a water-distribution treaty between India and Pakistan to use the water available in the Indus River and its tributaries. It is often cited as an example of the possibilities of peaceful coexistence despite the troubled relationship.
It was signed in Karachi in 1960 by then-Indian PM Jawaharlal Nehru and then-Pakistani president Ayub Khan, brokered by the World Bank (WB).
|
The Indus Water Treaty gives control over the waters of the three “eastern rivers” – the Beas, Ravi and Sutlej -- to India, while control over the waters of the three “western rivers” – the Indus, Chenab and Jhelum -has been given to Pakistan. India has about 20% of the total water carried by the Indus system while Pakistan has 80%. |
The treaty allows India to use the western river waters for limited irrigation use and unlimited non-consumptive use for such applications as power generation.
India has the right to generate hydroelectricity through run-of-the-river (RoR) projects on the western rivers which, subject to specific criteria for design and operation, is unrestricted.
The dispute redressal mechanism provided under the IWT is a graded 3-level mechanism. Under the IWT, whenever India plans to start a project, it has to inform Pakistan. The concerns have to be cleared at the levels of the Indus Commissioners followed by Neutral Expert and then Court of Arbitration, in a graded manner.
The recent IWT decision of India and its impacts:
Indian government in January 2023 notified Pakistan of its intent to modify the IWT. New Delhi says this extreme step is due to Pakistan’s intransigence over objections to two Indian hydropower projects in Jammu and Kashmir: the 330MW Kishanganga hydroelectric project (Jhelum) and the 850MW Ratle hydroelectric project (Chenab).
India has argued since 2006, when the objections began, that the projects were within the treaty’s fair water use. However, Pakistan has refused to conclude negotiations with India in the bilateral mechanism — the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) of experts that meets regularly — and has often sought to escalate it.
As a result, the World Bank appointed a neutral expert, but Pakistan pushed for the case to be heard at The Hague. India has objected to this sequencing, as it believes that each step should be fully exhausted before moving on to the next.
While India was able to prevail over the World Bank to pause the process in 2016, Pakistan persisted, and since March 2022, the World Bank has agreed to have both a neutral expert and a Court of Arbitration (CoA) hear the arguments. India attended the hearings with the neutral expert last year, but has decided to boycott the CoA at The Hague that began its hearing on Friday.
New Delhi says as talks have hit a dead-end, it wants the entire treaty to be opened up for amendments and renegotiations. India’s accusations against Pakistan may be valid, given that Islamabad has failed to provide material evidence of the two projects hampering its water supply.
The World Bank’s decision to hold two parallel adjudication processes is also perilous as there could be contradictory rulings. However, opening up the treaty for review has its own problems that India must deliberate on with a cool mind.
To begin with, the Indus Waters Treaty that decided the distribution of the six tributaries of the Indus or Sindhu between the two nations took nearly a decade to negotiate originally before its signing in 1960. Built in were mechanisms for coordination and dispute resolution that have held the treaty in good stead for at least half a century, and it has often been used as a template between upper riparian and lower riparian states worldwide. That it has endured despite conflict and political rhetoric between India and Pakistan is a testament to its text.
In addition, if India and Pakistan have not been able to resolve issues over one case in their Indus Commission talks over 16 years, what guarantees are there that they can renegotiate the whole treaty within any reasonable time-frame?
Conclusion:
At a time when there is no political dialogue, trade and air or rail connectivity between them, reopening negotiations could open a new flank for India-Pakistan confrontation.