Farmer Officer Contact Programme 2.0 rollout triggers unease among field staff

The Tamil Nadu government’s rollout of the Farmer Officer Contact Programme (FOCP) 2.0, aimed at integrating village-level agricultural extension services, has triggered resentment and confusion among field staff of the Agriculture, Horticulture and Agricultural Marketing departments.

Announced in the 2025–26 Agriculture Budget, FOCP 2.0—Uzhavar Aluvalar Thodarbu Thittam 2.0—seeks to provide farmers with a single point of contact at the village level by streamlining extension services. The programme proposes fixed village-wise visits by officers, faster dissemination of technology, and reduced dependence on multiple departments for crop, horticulture and marketing support.

To operationalise the scheme, the government issued G.O. Ms. No. 288 on November 28, 2025, providing for the redeployment of existing posts across departments and districts, without the creation of new positions.

Despite these assurances, the implementation has been marked by protests, particularly from sections of the Horticulture Department.

However, horticulture officials reject the suggestion that their work is limited in scope. An Assistant Director of Horticulture from Tiruchi points out that horticulture is highly technology-driven. “Banana productivity has increased from 15–20 tonnes per hectare to 70–80 tonnes due to high-density planting, precision nutrient management and scientific weed control. Our farmers range from large orchard owners to marginal spinach growers cultivating five cents. This requires specialised knowledge,” he said.

Concerns are particularly acute in blocks where horticulture staffing has been reduced following redeployment. In one block in Tiruchi district, two of the three horticulture officers were transferred, leaving the remaining officer to function under a merged structure without clarity on reporting authority.

“This effectively dismantles the horticulture extension system,” said an AHO, noting that officers are now expected to attend review meetings and video conferences of multiple departments, even as senior-level administrative structures remained separate.

Another AHO from Tiruvarur questions the logic of cross-deployment without equivalent training. “An AHO qualifies through a two-year diploma in horticulture and a TNPSC examination; an AAO undergoes a separate two-year agriculture diploma. How can one substitute for the other with a 15-day orientation? Would a pharmacist be asked to perform ophthalmic surgery?” he asked.

Officers also flagged inconsistencies in staff deployment norms. While some officers oversee nine to ten villages or about 1,280 hectares, others are posted in single villages with over 4,000 hectares of cultivable land, raising questions about equitable distribution.

However, a senior Agriculture Department official from Thanjavur, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the resistance stemmed partly from the differing nature of work handled by the departments. “Agriculture officers deal with large-scale food crops and have always managed heavy workloads—from soil testing targets to seed production. Horticulture staff, who earlier covered smaller areas, are finding it difficult to adjust to broader responsibilities,” the official said, adding that training horticulture personnel in agriculture-related schemes was essential.

Vayalur N. Rajendran, State treasurer of the Farmers’ Wing of the Tamil Maanila Congress, criticised the timing of the move. “Instead of increasing staff strength, departments have been merged during the samba harvest season without adequate preparation. Ultimately, farmers bear the consequences,” he said.