Discuss how the MSP-procurement regime has shaped India's cropping pattern and its environmental consequences.

The Minimum Support Price, fixed by CCEA on CACP's recommendation using the A2+FL+50% formula, is meant as a remunerative floor. But because effective procurement concentrates on paddy and wheat in a few surplus states, MSP has acted less as a safety net and more as a signal that re-engineered India's cropping map—at a lasting ecological cost.

How MSP-procurement shaped cropping pattern

• Assured purchase of rice and wheat in Punjab, Haryana and western MP pulled acreage toward these crops; paddy now occupies a majority of Punjab's kharif area.
• This skewed incentive structure starved pulses, oilseeds and coarse grains, entrenching import dependence (India imports over half its edible oil) [1].
• Benefits accrued to surplus regions, while small and rainfed farmers lacking procurement access stayed outside the regime—a regional and equity distortion [1].

Environmental consequences

• Water-intensive paddy plus free power drove groundwater depletion, soil degradation and deteriorating water quality in the north-west [1].
• Monoculture eroded agro-biodiversity, and paddy residue disposal fuels seasonal stubble burning and air pollution.
• The regime privileged land productivity over irrigation-water productivity, misaligning cropping with resource endowments [1].

Correction is underway: relatively higher MSPs for pulses, oilseeds and nutri-cereals under KMS 2026-27, alongside a revamped PM-AASHA, nudge diversification [2]. Aligning price support with water-use efficiency and rainfed regions can reconcile farmer income with ecological security, advancing SDG-2 and SDG-6.