Absent Nepali agriculture jobs

The government has prioritized agriculture in the short-term for economic recovery in light of the Covid-19 pandemic. Agriculture has never really taken off in Nepal even though the sector employs around 66 percent of the total employed population, contributing 27.1 percent to the GDP. Most of the labor force engaged in agriculture doesn’t have regular basic income and other supports such as health insurance.

The government policies and programs for 2020/21 focus on boosting investment in agriculture with the goal of creating jobs. But there is little hope of the desired outcome due to the lack of technology and other prerequisites such as market access, all-weather transport connectivity, and irrigation.

Productivity and competitiveness of the agriculture sector are low, and adoption of improved technology limited, despite repeated government commitments to improve the sector over the past few decades. Most of the current Nepali migrant workers were once into agriculture in their own country. They could not generate enough income to meet their families’ basic needs such as nutritious food, health, and education for their children.

Employment in agriculture is mostly seasonal, which represents a significant loss of human resources, as the workers are idle for almost half the year. Return on investment in agriculture is much lower compared to the interest rate provided by commercial banks in fixed deposits. Most returning migrant workers would be willing to put their money in fixed deposits in commercials banks rather than make an investment in agriculture.

Nepal has completed the implementation of the Agriculture Perspective Plan 1995-2015 and is now implementing the Agriculture Development Strategy 2015-2035. The sector saw a meager 3.2 percent growth during the 1995/96-2015/16 period, which is why the country’s youth and most productive labor force looked elsewhere for jobs. The new strategy aims to develop a self-reliant, sustainable, competitive, and inclusive agricultural sector that can drive economic growth and contribute to improved livelihoods and nutrition security. Unfortunately, there is little government investment in agriculture and budget allocation in it has been consistently conservative.

There is a dearth of skilled human resources in agriculture in the absence of investment in training people to use improved technology. The government has announced an expansion of the Prime Minister Agriculture Modernization Project (PMAMP) to create jobs across the country. However, that will be insufficient to absorb the workforce that will swell with the return of migrants from different countries.

Additionally, there will be a mismatch in skills required in agriculture because most returning migrant workers won’t be trained in the sector. Hence the government should focus on skills enhancement. Moreover, the project, already tainted by financial irregularities, may not be able to generate much hope among youth and returnee migrants.

Against this backdrop, the hope of the agriculture sector driving the economy out of the crisis seems misplaced. The government’s slogan ‘Consume domestic products, promote internal production’ sounds laughable considering that Nepal imported, among many other vital stuff, fresh vegetables worth of $4.5 million in the first ten months of current fiscal.

The agriculture sector has always had low productivity. There is no possibility of it driving the economy while other sectors are down too. There is thus an urgent need for structural reform in the sector that is aimed at ensuring higher rate of return on investment. Let us hope the government policies and programs for the upcoming fiscal are well-intended and public expenditure will really attract private investment. Only then can we hope that the sector will generate enough jobs.

This article was first published in The Annapurna Express on May 28, 2020. 

Ministry to address farmers' concerns

After almost a yearlong silence, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperative (MoAC) is finally preparing to review a methodology adopted to draft a 20-year vision document Agriculture Development Strategy (ADS) 2015-2035 that will guide country´s agricultural sector once the existing Agriculture Perspective Plan (APP) ends in 2015.

So far, the ministry had assigned a 33-member technical assistance team, one-third of which are foreign consultants, to draft the document. However, such a closed-door approach had drawn flak from various farmers associations as well as MoAC officials themselves.

"We might have to rethink the way the team has been formed and the way it functions, particularly as it might later pose problem in owning the document," Dr Hari Dahal, joint-secretary and spokesperson of the MoAC, told Republica on Tuesday.

The Ministry has even called a consultation meeting of the stakeholders on March 15 to review the whole approach of drafting ADS.

Various farmers´ groups had protested the approach, mainly expressing fear that close-door preparation of such a crucial document by ´so called agro-experts and foreign experts´ might not address their concerns.

"The methodology used in preparing ADS is almost similar to that of APP. As APP was totally a failure, adoption of same method has raised question over ADS being a better document," said Prem Dangal, general secretary of the All Nepal Peasants Federation (ANPF).

Some of the MoAC officials too had challenged the approach, saying that it might lead to lack of ownership by various ministries.

"The 20-year vision document will deal on multi-sectors like irrigation, agricultural inputs, and other crucial sub-sectors. It is always appropriate to let the respective ministries formulate the related set of strategies, instead of preparing them by MoAC," said an official at MoAC.

Dahal agreed with the official and even admitted that APP failed because it was not fully owned by the line ministries and agencies supposed to implement the action plan. Also reduction in budgetary allocations on the sector had hit its implementation.

"We are having a meeting with farmers and other stakeholders to hear their voices," Dahal said, "We will consider their concerns seriously."

The government is preparing the ADS with the technical assistance of various donor agencies, including Asian Development Bank, World Bank and United State Agency for International Development (USAID), among others.

Two-thirds of the members in the drafting committee led by Francesco Goletti, a policy and institutional specialist and president of Agrifood Consulting International- New York University, are former government officials.

"Our concern is the team has no representation from farmers´ organization and civil society groups working in the agriculture sector," stated Dangal.

MoAC officials said the government has allocated $2 million (around Rs 160 million) to prepare the ADS and the team has been asked to submit it within two years.

This is How USAID Functions!

Monsanto Controversy

An official release of the United States Agency for International Development’s Nepal office posted on its official website on September 13  had an eye-catching headline-  "USAID teams with the Ministry of Agriculture & Cooperatives and the Monsanto Company to enhance maize production in Nepal.” On November 18, USAID posted a status on its Facebook Page--almost opposite of its own version of the earlier release.  The three paragraph text says "No new programs have been entered into by the US Government with the Government of Nepal (GoN) to introduce hybrid maize seeds."

The days between the two postings amply demonstrates how things are done in Nepal, how much USAID cares about providing facts to the media and so on.

On September 13, USAID Nepal had organized a one-day workshop in the Hotel Himalaya which was inaugurated by  Agriculture & Cooperatives (MoAC) Umakant Jha. The USAID release that followed claimed that ‘secretary Jha appreciated the opportunity to work with USAID, particularly on this maize initiative.’ But, secretary Jha later publicly refuted it and said what was attributed to him was ‘baseless and completely wrong'.  "I was present in that workshop and there was a presentation on Monsanto,” Jha said, adding “I was just listening to the discussion but I have no idea about any partnership between MoAC and USAID to bring Monsanto in Nepal." Monsanto is an American multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation which is the leading producer of hybrid glyphosate and Genetically Engineered Seeds.

Soon after Jha’s rebuttal, USAID officials told me that they had no idea what Jha ‘s statement in the media was all about, ‘ but the government of Nepal and USAID are working together to bring Monsanto in Nepal to distribute hybrid maize seeds. Stuti Basnyat, communication officer in the USAID said, "I don't know what secretary Jha told you but we are working towards having an agreement among USAID, GoN and Monsanto."

While the first release mentioned Monsanto five times, but the update in the Facebook less than two months later omitted the name . It simply talks about promoting hybrid seeds.

The two releases and the period in between have fuelled enough controversy , and there has been no convincing clarification issued from any side  Neither the GoN nor the USAID  have tried to explain how hybrid seeds are different  from the traditional ones.  Dragged into the controversy, the USAID now insists that it will only respond to an email query.  On the Nepal government side, Jha has been transferred to the Ministry of Industry, and many read his going against USAID has cost him earlier job. But the Ministry of Agriculture even without Jha refuses to bail out USAID.

Elaborating the genesis of the controversy, Dr. Hari Dahal,  MoAC Spokesperson  said that ‘ one official from USAID had come to the ministry with Monsanto proposal to discuss, but no concrete decision was taken’ . He also challenged the USAID to publicize the documents or evidence, if any, to suggest a deal was in the offing ‘Ministry of Agriculture is not as techno-savvy as USAID is, ‘but facts speak for themselves,’ MOAC officials say.

The current controversy somehow discredits the USAID that has been working in Nepal for the last six decades with substantial support to many developmental projects, and contributed a lot towards Nepal’s journey to a modern and developing country. But like some other bilateral donor agencies, USAID spending money directly in the name of development (bypassing the government)  has of late is also becoming an issue in the country.

In its the Facebook posting,  USAID  claims that  the US mission remains committed development partner to the GoN. While this is true in many ways,  the word ‘commitment’ can not bypass the existing rules of the government.  The development agency that  dismisses its official press release through a posting in the face-book is not a practice that can be called responsible. The episode may perhaps provoke many donors to review their similar approach , and perhaps it is also the time for the UN Resident office to take cognizance of this.