In our view, addressing stubble burning only as a health and environmental problem disregards the connection that stubble burning has with the nation’s expectation from farmers of producing food.
It should come as no surprise that this ‘disengaged’ consumer, living in the urban environment of Delhi, and buying their food from a supermarket aisle, now holds farmers responsible for a problem of which they are an integral part
This delinking of food production and health and environmental problems has created dual effects. On the one hand, it prioritises agricultural productivity over agricultural synergy with the environment, resulting in unaccounted detrimental impacts on practices of farming and local ecosystems including the burning of fields. On the other hand, it disengages the consumers from being part of the food production process, its larger context, and its relation to the environment. It should come as no surprise that this ‘disengaged’ consumer, living in the urban environment of Delhi, and buying their food from a supermarket aisle, now holds farmers responsible for a problem of which they are an integral part.
Besides the ban and criminalisation, solutions proposed by different agencies mostly ask farmers to use stubble (or straw) for purposes other than burning, such as collecting and delivering it to bioenergy or cardboard industries. Here again, the challenges point to a lack of understanding of agricultural systems. Associating straw to any kind of industry would require a sustained supply (of biomass) and a sustained demand (of bio-energy).
This requires that agricultural systems and energy generation are realigned to each other. A thorough assessment of available resources in local ecosystems (water, soil and microflora) and of market demand for specific bio-energies is necessary. Which crops can best maintain a balance between food and energy outputs? What technologies make the best use of straw in a sustainable manner? What kind of model benefits farmers, consumers as well as industries? This would require the coming together of the separate ministries of science and technology, agriculture, and energy . Currently, none of these conditions exist. Moreover, these solutions are typically proposed without any regard to how they would fit into the lives and livelihoods of farmers.
To explore solutions that retain farmers’ dignity, we need to identify mechanisms which promote the local appraisal of their knowledge by building mutual trust and then combining it with scientific insights. For example, one option of sustainable straw use is its re-incorporation into the soil. This brings us back to the questions of identity and belonging that are central to what it means to be a farmer. Some farmers reported to the NGT that this cannot work because the straw then causes fungal infections and water logging.
However, during our field research, organic and regular farmers demonstrated multiple methods of straw incorporation that did work. Organic farmers have a different philosophy of farming in which burning of fields or biomass means severe damage to fields and the destruction of soil micro-flora. This understanding builds on trust in local knowledge systems and practices and working with nature rather than against it. The long-term practice of chemical farming and relying on science that does not relate to farmers’ knowledge has diminished farmers’ confidence in their own knowledge and capacities. The solution of incorporating straw in the soil can only work if that confidence is regained through a sustained effort.