Farm fencing plan made attractive

Bhanu P Lohumi

Tribune News Service

Shimla, March 26

An increase in subsidy from 60 per cent to 80 per cent under the Mukhyamantri Khet Sanrakshan Yojana to protect the crop of farmers from wild animals through electric fencing likely to attract more farmers. The scheme was grounded due to high cost.

The scheme was launched in 2016 but it drew a poor response as only 148 cases have been sanctioned and five cases have been completed. Applications were received from all 12 districts.

The cost of solar or electric fencing per metre was Rs 700 (approximately) and even after 60 per cent subsidy, the farmers were required to shell out Rs 280 (approx) per mt. With the increase in subsidy to 80 per cent, the burden on famers will reduce to Rs 140 (approx) per metre which is affordable, said Director, Agriculture, Ramesh Chand.

The department had proposed 90 per cent subsidy under the scheme but the government has decided to allow 80 per cent subsidy. Losses to crops due to animals have mounted to Rs 500 crore annually.

The department was making efforts to explain the benefits of the scheme to the farmers so that they could understand that the long-term benefits were much more than the immediate cost of erecting solar or electric fencing, Ramesh said, adding that awareness was being created through the media, besides organising training camps and creating awareness through panchayats.

The experiment of electric fencing had been successful in Gujarat but in Himachal, it did not make any impact as the farmers found that the expenditure incurred on fencing was “unaffordable”.

Monkey and wild animals are a big political issue as even after sterlisation of monkeys, the farmers are suffering crop losses and with Assembly elections around, all parties are gearing up to raise this issue, especially in rural areas as more than 90 per cent population was dependent on agriculture.

However, when a Tribune team had visited the interiors of Hamirpur and Bilaspur districts to know the ground reality of the scheme, the farmers were either unaware of the scheme or found it costly.