Payment for not burning stubble?

Context: The government policy to stop stubble burning through payments to the farmers is regressive in nature.

Problems related to giving payment for not burning stubble

• It will be a perverse incentive:  It may promote what is wrong: For, E.g. the Punjab government disbursement of payments to stop stubble burning has actually led to the rise of it.

• Increased moral hazard: There will be a demand to raise the reward every year.

Way Forward: Alternative ways to deal with stubble burning

• Take steps to increase the time period between harvesting paddy and sowing the next wheat crop: Government has shortened this period citing the reason of overexploitation of groundwater. 

• Provide Minimum Support Price (MSP) for Basmati paddy: Stubble of basmati paddy is not burnt because it can be used for fodder, but farmers do not prefer it due to lack of MSP.

• Provide machines to plough back the straw into the ground: Tilling biomass back into the ground would also improve soil fertility.

• For, E.g. in Punjab alone, some 50,000 machines had been given at 80 % subsidy to custom-hiring centres and to individual farmers. 

• Provide value to the biomass: Biomass can be used to generating power and Compressed Biogas (CBG).

•  Use a straw to replace coal in old power plants: This would help to extend the life of the built infrastructure and will reduce environmental costs.

• Positive steps in this direction include -  

• The first CBG project will go online by early 2021, and many more are in the pipeline.
• Reserve Bank of India put CBG on its list of priority sector lending, and the State Bank of India has circulated a loan scheme for this
•  Oil companies have agreed on a buy-back rate of Rs 46/kg for five years.

• Diversification of cropping pattern.

Conclusion: To justify that farmers must burn the stubble if they are not paid cash incentive is doing injustice to them and to the lungs of the children of the country.