Crop residue burning is a significant environmental and health challenge, especially in Punjab, a major agricultural region in India. The burning of rice stubble, while an efficient and low-cost solution for farmers managing the transition between rice and wheat crops, releases greenhouse gases and deteriorates air quality. Addressing this problem requires a nuanced understanding of the socio-technical landscape in which agricultural practices are embedded.
The context of crop residue burning
Punjab’s agricultural economy relies heavily on a rice-wheat cropping system, which supports livelihoods and contributes to India’s food security. This region, characterised by its intensive farming, faces a narrow window between the kharif (rice) harvest and the rabi (wheat) planting season. This period, lasting only 10 to 20 days, compels farmers to clear their fields quickly. Consequently, many resort to burning crop residue as a cost-effective method of field preparation.
The practice, however, is not without consequence. Burning rice stubble contributes to significant greenhouse gas emissions and poses a severe threat to human health. Although policies have aimed at curbing the practice, including fines and machinery subsidies, challenges persist in shifting toward sustainable crop residue management methods.
Understanding the socio-technical system
A recent study ‘Farmer perspectives on crop residue burning and sociotechnical transition in Punjab’ explores the complex challenges of crop residue burning in Punjab and the potential pathways to a sustainable future. This study by James Erbaugh et al. delves into farmer perspectives, policy interventions, and technological solutions to address this pressing environmental issue.
To explore potential solutions for this issue, a socio-technical systems approach provides valuable insights. This framework considers the interplay between policies, technology, and farmer behaviours within an agricultural ecosystem. It helps to identify how existing structures support current practices and what drivers are needed to encourage sustainable changes.
The current crop residue management regime in Punjab is supported by policies like the Preservation of Subsoil Water Act (2009), which regulates the sowing period to conserve groundwater. However, this policy inadvertently contributes to a reduced timeframe for post-harvest activities, pushing farmers toward burning. Additionally, the minimum support price system for non-basmati rice incentivizes high-yield, long-duration rice varieties that produce more residue. These interconnected policies, market dynamics, and technological dependencies reinforce the cycle of burning.
Farmer perspectives on current practices and policies
A comprehensive study involving focus group discussions and interviews with farmers and key stakeholders highlighted significant factors influencing crop residue management practices. Farmers expressed that burning remains a default option due to the high costs and logistical challenges associated with alternative methods. Machinery like the Happy Seeder and Super Seeder, while effective for no-burn crop residue management, require high-powered tractors that many small and medium farmers do not own. Renting these machines can be costly, with additional expenses for diesel, exacerbating financial strain.
The study also revealed a disparity in awareness and accessibility to government subsidies. While medium and large farmers showed greater familiarity and participation in subsidy programs, small farmers often lacked the knowledge or resources to benefit from them. This inequity underscores the importance of expanding outreach and ensuring that subsidy programs are more inclusive.
Barriers to adopting no-burn crop residue management
Adopting no-burn crop residue management practices faces several obstacles:
Economic constraints: Farmers cited the prohibitive cost of purchasing or renting machinery. Even with subsidies, the process can be complicated, requiring upfront payments that are later reimbursed, which many farmers find burdensome.
Technological mismatch: The existing pool of farm machinery is often incompatible with the needs of no-burn crop residue management. Tractors with insufficient horsepower cannot effectively operate implements like the Super Seeder.
Limited time frame: The tight schedule between rice harvesting and wheat sowing makes no-burn methods difficult to implement. The urgency to clear fields quickly often leads farmers back to burning as the most practical solution.
Trust and information gaps: Farmers heavily rely on peer networks and personal experiences for information. Many expressed scepticism towards social media and preferred direct interaction with university experts or government officials. This trust gap highlights the need for reliable, face-to-face extension services and demonstrations.
Market and policy dynamics
The market for no-burn crop residue management machinery is influenced by several factors, including rental service availability and machine supply. Cooperative societies play an essential role by providing machinery access, but farmers often face challenges related to scheduling, availability, and the cost of machine rentals. Strengthening cooperative infrastructure and subsidising diesel were common suggestions to make these services more affordable and efficient.
Farmers also voiced support for expanding the minimum support price to include crops other than non-basmati rice. This policy shift could encourage diversified cropping systems that use less water and generate less residue. The introduction of new short-duration rice varieties, like PR 126, which produce less residue and align well with no-burn crop residue management practices, offers promising avenues for policy intervention.
Potential pathways for change
A sustainable transition from burning to no-burn crop residue management requires coordinated efforts across multiple fronts:
Enhanced policy support: Policies that expand minimum support prices to other crops could reduce the dominance of long-duration rice varieties and encourage more sustainable practices. Adjustments to the Preservation of Subsoil Water Act could provide more flexibility in sowing dates, allowing farmers greater time for residue management.
Subsidy improvements: Streamlining the subsidy process to eliminate upfront costs could make no-burn machinery more accessible. Ensuring subsidies cover a higher percentage of the cost and simplifying the application process would address key financial barriers.
Strengthening cooperatives and Cluster Hiring Centres: Reinforcing the capacity of cooperatives to manage and distribute machinery more effectively can reduce wait times and improve access. Providing targeted training for cooperative members and rental service drivers can ensure better operation and maintenance of no-burn implements.
Extension services and demonstrations: Farmers emphasised the importance of field demonstrations and in-person learning. Expanding extension services to deliver practical training on no-burn techniques and involving trusted university representatives could foster greater adoption.
Ex-situ crop residue management solutions: Developing infrastructure for ex-situ crop residue management, where residues are collected and used for bioenergy, could be scaled up to reduce burning. This approach, supported by appropriate market incentives, could turn crop residue into an economic asset, offsetting the costs of residue management.
Social and behavioural considerations
Beyond economic and technical aspects, social and behavioural factors play a crucial role in shaping farmer practices. The normalisation of burning as a cost-effective method persists despite awareness of its environmental and health impacts. Addressing this requires not only policy and market adjustments but also a shift in community norms. Local leadership, peer education, and support from agricultural officers can contribute to changing perceptions and encouraging long-term behavioural shifts.
Conclusion
The transition to no-burn crop residue management in Punjab presents a complex challenge that intertwines policy, market dynamics, technology, and social behaviour. The insights gathered from farmer discussions emphasise that sustainable solutions must address economic realities, simplify access to subsidies and machinery, and enhance educational outreach through trusted channels. Empowering cooperatives, improving rental markets, and supporting ex-situ management strategies are vital steps in building resilience and reducing reliance on crop residue burning.
As policymakers and stakeholders continue to navigate these challenges, fostering an inclusive approach that reflects the lived experiences of farmers will be key to achieving lasting change. By integrating policy reform, market support, and educational initiatives, Punjab can move towards a more sustainable, no-burn future that benefits both the environment and the livelihoods of its agricultural communities.