The High Cost of Failed Farming Reform

The government initiated the PM Agriculture Modernization Program with big promises and huge financial plans. It seemed like a reasonable approach since agriculture still feeds millions of citizens here. The program intended to ensure that the developed agriculture sector in the country with improved productivity would not only boost the economy but would help create more job opportunities, making the country self-reliant. After 10 years, the outcomes appear dismal, though. Billions of rupees were spent, subsidy programs provided and objectives announced. However, overall results are not impressive enough. According to the latest report from the Office of the Attorney General, the performance of the program has been pathetic. Out of the planned 15,000 pocket areas, there were only 9,162 pocket areas set up. Among 300 zones, only 206 were established. As for the employment creation, it turned out to be much less than expected. Initially, 309,000 jobs had to be generated, however, the outcome was just 225,000. More troubling is the financial side. Out of Rs 56.54 billion released by the state, only Rs 36.50 billion had been utilized by the last fiscal year. Even after heavy subsidies of up to 85 percent, the outcomes remained limited. That is not a sign of modernization. It is a sign of weak planning and weak governance. Humans somehow found a way to spend huge amounts of public money and still leave farmers frustrated. A talent, in its own depressing category.

The initiative certainly did not lack vision. There were plans for being self-reliant in the production of wheat, vegetables, rice, potatoes, corn, fish and fruits within a couple of years' time. But the goals seem to have been formulated more for rhetoric purposes rather than for practical implementation. The agriculture sector has had underlying issues which are not going to be overcome simply by handing out grants and equipment. The farmers have to struggle with bad irrigation, unpredictable market conditions, inefficient storage facilities, small farm sizes, costly fertilizers, and volatile prices. The misuse of subsidies made the situation worse. The report mentions how organizations received advance payments to build cold storage facilities but failed to complete the work. Some have not even returned the money. This reflects a familiar problem in Nepal’s development projects. Funds often flow toward people with access and connections instead of genuine farmers. Subsidies become political tools rather than instruments of productivity. The outcome was inevitable – the state funds have been wasted whereas the people who were supposed to benefit are still suffering in the same old fashion.

At the same time, lack of coordination among the federal, provincial and local governments affected the project negatively. The agricultural policies of Nepal are known to be characterized by excessive overlap and lack of accountability. One department pays subsidies, one monitors them, whereas the third writes reports which are not followed up at all. All the while the farmers rely upon imported seeds, fertilizers, and even food products. Instead, new slogans arrive every year while old failures quietly pile up in government files. The government still has time to correct the course before the project expires next year. But cosmetic changes will not help. Independent auditing of the distribution process is needed along with the retrieval of funds that have been misappropriated without any political immunity. The next subsidy needs to be directed towards actual farmers and cooperative organizations, not public relation gestures. Monitoring must become strict, transparent, and public. Agriculture needs stable policy, not seasonal publicity. Nepal does not need another grand agricultural promise. It needs results that farmers can actually see in their fields, markets, and incomes. Spending billions without accountability cannot modernize agriculture but take the sector towards total failure.