Another Diwali, another unbearable rise in air pollution, health problems for a large part of the population and a public outcry. Deja vu. Should we resign ourselves to this annual phenomenon, after the rice harvest, of burning crop residues in the agricultural fields of northern India? After all, farmers will still grow rice and will therefore have to clear their fields to sow wheat. This will force them to burn crop stubble. It’s practical and costs nothing. Nothing seems to have succeeded so far in putting an end to this practice. In recent years, smoke from stubble burning and the annual health crisis affecting large parts of northern India have been at the center of the debate.

There is, however, a simple solution that could solve the problem next year. For this to happen, decisions must be made now. But the solution is radical and would require a major change in our mindset. The government should take direct and full responsibility for this. The solution is for the government to purchase all agricultural waste at a remunerative price. The farmer should get a reasonable margin on the cost of removing crop residues from the field, bringing them to the field. mandi and sell it to a government-designated agency. It would respond to the price signal if it is strong enough. All crop waste would then go to the government. Farmers’ incomes would also increase somewhat. Nothing will be burned in the fields next year.

Can the government do this? Most likely. The government already purchases rice through the Food Corporation of India (FCI), and the rice procurement system is well established and functioning well. The same system can be used to purchase all the crop waste brought by the farmer at the same mandi. However, this would be a mammoth exercise, involving organizing the logistics of purchasing and storing the huge volumes of agricultural waste. Only the State can undertake this effort and succeed. The state has plenty of time to organize the system for a full takeover by next year. State governments have sufficient administrative capacity for such an exercise. However, this would require a clear political decision. It has been a long time since the State has assumed such an important and direct responsibility. But there is no other way to solve the problem.

But what would the government do with the enormous amount of agricultural waste it would buy? It is actually a valuable renewable energy source and should be treated as such. The technology to transform it into pellets, which can replace coal, is a robust and mature technology. There are private companies that manufacture pellets, which are successful even on a modest scale in the market. The National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) has successfully used them as a substitute for coal. The Ministry of Energy has notified a 5% substitution of coal by pellets in thermal power plants. The favorable regulatory framework exists.

The government is expected to enter into a fixed-price contract for converting agricultural waste into pellets with a large number of companies. The price must be sufficiently remunerative for a large number of companies to come forward. Work must be distributed fairly and transparently between companies, at the same predetermined price. This could be done on a first come, first served basis. The quantities to be processed are so large that it should be possible to give work to everyone who shows up. Price tenders would not be a viable option to deal with all waste. Such an approach to accomplishing large-scale work as part of a war effort has been used all over the world. Conversion plants must be located near the mandis where crop residues were purchased to reduce transportation costs. State governments should find land where waste could be stored and processed into pellets. These plots of land should be offered at a nominal rent to companies that obtain contracts for the conversion of agricultural waste into pellets.

These pellets should be used. As the quantities would be exceptionally large, only thermal power plants can use the entire pellet production. The state should allocate them to thermal power plants in north India with the directive to use them as a substitute for coal. Allocations should be made to minimize transportation costs. It would also be necessary to coordinate the delivery of small, dispersed production units to designated thermal power plants. Thermal power plants may be required to pay the full cost of these pellets – the cost of rice crop residue, the cost of converting crop residue into pellets, and transportation costs. It is likely that this cost would be similar to what they currently pay for thermal coal. The price of electricity would therefore be slightly impacted at most. Coal India would have the added benefit of having to supply less coal to these thermal power plants and being able to meet other demands. Imports of more expensive thermal coal would see a corresponding decline.

The entire cycle can then be maintained without any subsidies. Nothing could be better. Only a significant amount of working capital would be required, along with administrative resources required for such a large-scale project in which the central and state governments would have to work together. They should overcome their political differences, coordinate and work together to achieve this. The reward of clean air in northern India would be worth it.

Ajay Shankar is a Distinguished Fellow of the Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) and former Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, GoI. The opinions expressed are personal.