STANDFIRST: Agriculture
research in India is still dominated by the philosophy and goals of the Green
Revolution, argues Suman Sahai. Increasing production of the major staples (rice
and wheat followed by maize) continues to claim centre stage and the bulk of
the agriculture research budget.
The
annual budget of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), India’s
leading agency for agricultural research is not insubstantial: for the year
2014-15 it was Rs 61.45 billion.[i] Of this, the bulk (about
20%) was devoted to crop sciences, 11% to animal science and eight percent to
horticulture. Strategic and frontier application research on the other hand,
got less than two percent. This reflects a lack of focus on research to prepare
for the current and future challenges facing farming and farmers. This is
surprising given that India is already confronting climate change in real time
and feeling its brunt every year in unseasonal rains, deficient monsoons and
unpredictable droughts and floods, leading to shortfalls in total food output.
Although natural resource management (e.g. for soil and water) got
approximately 12% of the budget in 2014-15, the approaches are conventional,
for instance using chemical fertilisers to ‘improve’ soil health.
The
real problem however is the traditional patriarchal approach to determining
what’s good for agriculture and farmers. Decision-making is top down, with
almost no consultation with farmers and other stakeholders on their needs, the
problems they need solved or their options for diversification. Formulae are
worked up in scientific institutions to solve this or the other problem or
achieve this or the other goal. Underlying all this planning is the sole
commitment to increasing production.
On
the other hand, farming has undergone dramatic changes on the ground, like the
widespread feminisation of agriculture. Faced with declining returns from
farming, men migrate to cities for better opportunities. Yet this enormous
shift finds no resonance in setting research priorities even though it’s recognised
that women farm differently. Then there is the withdrawal of the agriculture
extension service that linked farmers to scientists, which means there is now no
communication between the two. Previously, the extension service would pick up
problems in the field, such as when a successful variety was failing or a new
pest had appeared. This feedback informed research which then sought a
solution. This is no longer the case.
The
adoption of Genetically Modified (GM) technology is a good example of how
research agendas are moving further away from farm needs. Critics have often
said that GM crops were a “solution looking for a problem”. Farmers were never
consulted about the need for GM crops, nor were the pros and cons discussed
with them. Some fifteen years after Bt cotton was adopted, farmers are still not
fully aware of what this technology really does. The mandatory insect refuges
are still not being planted and the number of pesticide sprays have not always
come down. As for the research itself, regulatory violations are commonplace.[ii]
Although
exact figures are not available for the money channelled to GM research, there
are indications that it takes a substantial amount of the research funds.
According to the Department of Science and Technology, a number of public
sector research institutes, 51 universities, 118 research institutions and 64
agri- based industries were engaged in research on more than twenty GM crops.[iii]
Transparency
in research, especially on GMOs, is a serious challenge as both public and
private sector institutions are reluctant to provide information. In 2006 Gene
Campaign requested the biosafety data generated on Bt brinjal, under the Right
to Information Act.[iv]
The Government refused, saying the data was ‘Confidential Business
Information’. Gene Campaign had to seek the intervention of the Supreme Court,
arguing that information with a bearing on public health could not be
considered ‘confidential’. The Court then instructed the Government to make
such data available in the public domain.
Defining research programmes for coping with climate
change demonstrates yet again that the research establishment works on its own,
without consulting stakeholders. The National Mission for Sustainable
Agriculture (NMSA) is one of eight Missions set up by the Government’s National
Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC) in 2008.[v] NMSA’s Research and Action Plan
provides no information on the methodology adopted for identifying the priority
areas for research, nor does it mention the persons involved in developing the
agenda. The document reiterates positions taken decades ago. For instance, on
rainfed farming, the NMSA’s sole approach is watershed development, a position
that the Government took about 70 years ago when it adopted the National
Watershed Development Programme for Rainfed Areas (NWDPRA).[vi]
The NMSA looks to biotechnology to address the multiple
problems of climate change, even though India’s sole GM crop is Bt cotton and
its research is restricted to insect resistance via the Bt route, and to herbicide
tolerance. Curiously, genetic diversity, widely recognised to be an effective
tool in global efforts to counter climate change[vii], receives scant
attention. Yet India is a powerhouse of agrobiodiversity and could provide real
solutions to coping with drought, submergence, salinity, temperature rise and
new pest profiles.
Stakeholder inputs can bring new ideas,
new approaches and out of the box thinking informed by practical field
experience. But the Indian research establishment continues to turn its back on
this advantage. Likewise, it fails to take seriously or build on agriculture-related
research conducted informally by farmers and civil society groups.
Stakeholders
continue to use diverse platforms to speak up about what they would like
agricultural research to address. Below are the recommendations that emerged
from two national consultations organised by Gene Campaign on identifying
current research needs and improving farming. In a 2010 national conference on ‘Ensuring Food Security in a Changing Climate’[viii],
priority areas
for climate adaptation research emerged from consultations with a range of experts
and practitioners from 22 States.
Specific recommendations
·
A knowledge-intensive, not input-intensive approach
should be adopted to develop sustainable farming systems. Traditional knowledge
about farming and coping with adverse weather should be incorporated into
research programmes to address the uncertainties of climate change, build
resilience and reduce emissions.
·
A
special research focus is needed for rain fed areas and a diversified model
including crops, livestock, fisheries, poultry and agro forestry should be
developed to minimise risk.
·
A
Centre for Climate Risk Research, Management and Extension must be set up in
each of the 128 agro-ecological zones. The Centre should prepare computer
simulation models of weather probabilities and develop farming system
approaches to minimise the adverse impact of unfavourable weather and maximise
the benefits of a good monsoon. Field research stations must house dynamic
research and training programmes on building soil health, pest management,
water conservation and the equitable and efficient use of natural resources.
·
Genetic
evaluation of traditional varieties and animal breeds must be undertaken to
identify valuable traits for future breeding, including tolerance to higher
temperatures, drought and salinity; as well as feed conversion efficiency and
disease resistance in animals.
·
Participatory
and formal plant breeding must be promoted to develop climate resilient crops
that are temperature, drought and salinity tolerant.
·
In
crops, genotypes with a higher per-day-yield potential must be selected, to
counter the yield loss from heat induced reduction over the growing period.
·
Developing
balanced ration, feed and fodder regimes are required that will increase milk
yield of indigenous cattle and reduce methane emissions.
In
another national consultation to celebrate its 20th anniversary in
2013, Gene Campaign brought together scientists, civil society groups, farmers,
policy makers and media professionals to discuss what was needed to make
farming profitable and farmers prosperous. These deliberations yielded a wealth
of suggestions[ix],
some of which are flagged below:
-
Farming’s
goal cannot now be the maximisation of yield (as in the Green Revolution model
of high yield at all cost). Minimising risk is crucial in today’s era of
climate turbulence. Minimising damage to
the natural resource base is key.
-
Map local resources and crop and animal genetic
diversity; develop
local resource based farming systems.
-
Develop
region specific sustainable farming systems to exploit the genetic potential of
existing varieties rather than breed new ones.
-
Develop
gender appropriate farm equipment and instruments for use by women, given the
widespread feminisation of agriculture. Most farm equipment is designed for men,
which physically smaller women find hard to use.
-
Move
away from exclusive subsidies to chemical fertilisers. Create financial
structures to subsidise farmer initiatives that improve soil health using
different composts and organic matter.
-
Develop
early warning systems for timely detection of new pests, which climate change
is bringing in to new areas. Data on pest types should be compiled and shared
with farmers, along with training on the best approach to control specific
pests. An Integrated Pest Management programme incorporating traditional
community knowledge of pest detection and control should be developed.
-
Focus
research on developing true breeding seeds rather than hybrids. Private seed
companies and public-private research collaborations tend to develop hybrids
which serve as an intellectual property instrument without necessarily
benefitting the farmer.
-
There
was consensus that an effective extension system must be restored, including
both education and responsive research to fix field problems.
Dr Suman Sahai is
trained in genetics. She is founder chairperson of the Gene Campaign (www.genecampaign.org),
an India based NGO which works on agriculture, food, nutrition and livelihoods.
Twitter: @sumansahai
Source:- For Whom? Questioning the food and farming research agenda, Food Ethics Council
