Addressing Fertiliser Imbalance in India

Conclusion

Agriculture is the primary source of livelihood for over three-quarters of rural India, and 82% of those are small and marginal farmers, blighted by landholding fragmentation and stagnating growth in productivity. The slow transformation of the agricultural sector to generate higher output and higher incomes has contributed to ongoing agrarian distress across India.

Amongst many required reforms, addressing deteriorating soil health, caused by imbalanced application of chemical fertilisers, is one strategy that has the potential to improve productivity, input use efficiency, and ultimately boost farmers’ income. Soil Health Cards are intended to provide farmers with usable, crop-specific fertiliser recommendations to promote a change in farmers’ fertiliser application decision making, and encourage more judicious usage.

This qualitative, diagnostic study of the SHC scheme, in eight diverse districts across eight states, however, identified significant failings in execution that currently limit the success of the SHC scheme, and restrict the accomplishment of its primary objectives. First, the scheme’s processes – such as soil sample collection, testing, recommendation generation, and card distribution – are undermined by limited infrastructure and a lack of sufficiently trained manpower. The overburdening of extension services, in particular, compromises the quality of vital procedures, such as accurate soil sample collection, and prohibits extension workers’ adequate explanation of the card to farmers.

At the micro-level, we find that the majority of farmers are unable to adopt their SHC recommendations, even if they would like to, due to poor understanding. Barriers to comprehension are caused not only by structural problems such as low literacy and numeracy but are also exacerbated by unnecessarily complex and unintuitive card design, in addition to extension workers’ poor communication of the science to farmers. Amongst the farmers who are able to understand the recommendations on their card, moreover, many are not confident that following the recommendations could lead to benefits, and hence willingness to adopt remains low. This lack of trust derives largely from scepticism in the accuracy of the scheme’s grid-based sampling method and is further exacerbated by limited exposure to extension services as a trusted source of agricultural information and advice.

From the findings of this study, it is clear that the failures of scheme processes and the causes of farmers’ non-adoption are often entwined, and thus must be addressed simultaneously for the scheme to achieve its objectives. Yet, both sets of challenges are also fuelled by the centre’s preoccupation with output targets. Given the impressive record of distribution already achieved in the first two cycles, the government must now refocus its attention to monitor the quality of implementation, and most crucially, promote farmers’ adoption of recommendations. By doing so, the centre can provide a mandate for states to do the same; this is vital if meaningful changes are to be made at the state and district level.

To this end, three prioritised measures are essential for the government to improve the scheme: redesign the card, supplement existing in-person explanation of the card by the extension worker with ICT-based communication channels, and reduce the grid size whilst increasing the cycle duration.