There are only a few farmers in the country - they have to spend a lot on fertilizers, seeds, fertilizers, irrigation etc. Due to this, compared to the integrated cost from planting to the time of harvest, the price of the produced crop is low or almost only.
It is not the case that the products produced in this way end up in family consumption, even those who are able to sell them do not get a fair price. Due to these and many other reasons, the attraction towards agricultural profession is decreasing. The new generation is rarely involved in agriculture. There are other 'farmers' in the country - those who do not work on land, but on paper. Things like chicken, cow, buffalo, milk, curd are just a point of reconciliation for them. But they become farmers and get millions and millions of subsidies from the government. In this way, the state's investment in grants is seen in billions, but its impact is only minimal. The reason is clear - there is an imbalance in the flow of grants. Therefore, the misuse of state grants To prevent
, it is necessary to change its distribution method. At the same time, action should be taken against those who have misused the subsidy so far.
On December 28, Agriculture and Livestock Development Minister Ramnath Adhikari announced the list of agricultural subsidy recipients through journalists. To find the list of grants, the committee formed by the ministry under the coordination of Joint Secretary Hari Bahadur KC on October 2 prepared a report that 1 trillion 7 billion 66 billion 27 lakh 89 thousand grants were flowed in the last five years. Since then, there has been a clamor to publicize the list of subsidy abusers and bring the abusers to justice. The Ministry has not officially published such a list. But when Kantipur searched the details of the organization that took more than 10 million grants, many details of misuse were discovered. It is found that there are at least 32 such institutions.
The methods of those who take large sums of money from various government programs/projects in the name of agricultural subsidies and do not utilize them or misuse them are unique. For example, a grant of Rs 23 million was taken from the Prime Minister's Agriculture Modernization Project to establish a Kailash Cold Center in Baijnath Rural Municipality of Banke. The cold store, which should be operational in 2077, has not yet been operational. As there are already two cold stores in operation in Banke, there is a question whether another cold store is necessary or not, on the other hand, not being able to utilize such a large amount of money is another problem. Similarly, the Trisha Animal Husbandry Group formed by 21 people in Rupandehi received a grant from the Nepal Livestock Sector Innovation Project. Although it is claimed that 60 buffaloes were purchased with a grant of 88 lakhs, now there are only 3 buffaloes in the barn. It is understood by the local people that the subsidy amount has been misappropriated. Some of those who have taken the subsidy have also put it to good use. Compared to Jhapa Mechinagar-1 cow farm and Sanjeev cow and agricultural farm of 2 have also done organic farming along with cow rearing. Chitwan-Gauriganj Milk Producers Cooperative Society Limited has installed milk diversification and processing and packaging machines. By searching for such details, the government should take action against those who misuse the subsidy and encourage those who use it properly.
is not only a reference to crores of grants, but if the details of those who received lakhs of grants are made public, many and more extended dimensions of abuse can be found. The Ministry should be able to publish such a list. It contributes to the effectiveness, transparency and accountability of grant programs. But the problem is not limited to subsidy abuse. Because, with the purpose for which crores and lakhs of money have been given in grants, the government does not seem to be interested in whether or not positive results have been achieved. In such a background, issues from production growth to job creation would be out of the debate.
Therefore, there is a need for serious debate and review on some issues related to grants. First, a system should be developed where only genuine farmers can get subsidies. Second, the state should have transparent, public and practical standards for which programs to grant and how much. Third, the details of who received subsidies, for what projects, and how much should be publicly accessible, so that the subject of subsidies is subject to public scrutiny and accountability. Fourthly, it should be ensured that the grant money is not misused. Fifth, those who misused the subsidy so far should be brought to justice. Sixth, the state should continuously monitor whether the grants given by it have been utilized or not, whether the target group has benefited or not, and whether it is appropriate to give grants for related projects, and based on the findings, it should decide on a strategy.
