CLEAN UP THE STABLES TO GET PEACE IN JHARKHAND

Suman Sahai

Jharkhand is now being mentioned on par with Chattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh when it comes to the Maoist or Naxal issue. This is a new trend and it need not be this way. If Mr Shibu Soren lasts as the Chief Minister of Jharkhand , he must act decisively to curb corruption and ensure that those under investigation in both political and bureaucratic circles are punished if found guilty. This single act will make him a hero to the people and give him the legitimacy to act to bring the state back to normalcy.

Look at corruption in Jharkhand. We are witnessing the spectacle of a going nowhere investigation into the misdeeds of Mr Madhu Koda, former Chief Minister, and his cronies. If newspapers are to be believed, Mr Koda has spirited away roughly half the entire budget of the state and invested it in mines in Liberia and hotels in Thailand. Despite the evidence , Mr Koda, instead of being locked up, ran an election campaign and spent enough money to ensure the electoral victory of his wife and friends. The blatancy of this kind of corruption frustrates people and when they respond with anger and violence, they are called Naxals.

Naxalism in Jharkhand , until recently, was not so much the ideological challenge to the state by people of a certain political persuasion; it was more the rage and retaliation of the youth who were seeing their future sabotaged by venal politicians and bureaucrats. Admittedly the picture has changed in recent months, after the crackdowns in other places, the Naxals have spilled over seeking hiding places and many have come to Jharkhand ; it is likely we will now see an intensification of the kind of activities that are geared to ‘overthrow the state’ . There are already reports of roads being blown up and we have seen abductions and murders of officials in recent months. But its still early days and the situation can be reversed.

Jharkhand, is a state where there is no development. It is the only state in the country which is moving backwards and is worse off today even compared to its appalling state in 2000. Rich in minerals, its people have been displaced in expanding cycles of impoverishment as the earth is opened up displacing homes and destroying livelihoods; making many time billionaires of the already rich outsiders and leaving nothing but worsening poverty for the locals. Mr Soren has a better track record than many others on the matter of tribal rights , especially with respect to land displacement. This will become a crucial issue as the state’s huge mineral reserves are opened up further for commercialization. If the government in Jharkhand can bring in more equitable and just policies, making the adivasis partners and stakeholders in the sustainable exploitation of the state’s mineral wealth, the emerging violence can be checked.

Juxtaposed to the situation in Jharkhand, is the UPA government making plans for India to return to nine percent growth levels. If these plans could be stretched to cover Jharkhand as well, not even nine percent…even only half of that, then Jharkhand could be put on the path to recovery. As it stands, there is no economic development in the state. The neglect can be seen everywhere, perhaps most in the primary, life sustaining activity of agriculture, leading to growing hunger and malnutrition, which is worse in Jharkhand than in Sub Saharan Africa, according to studies done by international organizations like the World Food Program.

The money that is earmarked for development projects vaporises before it hits the ground. Even the 15 paise out of a rupee do not reach the people. The greatest challenge facing Jharkhand and its people is abysmal governance, perhaps the worst in the country , rampant corruption and such a cynical apathy among the powerful elite to the fate of the poor, that it makes the blood curdle.

As part of preparing an agriculture development plan for certain districts in Jharkhand , Gene Campaign had conducted village level surveys to assess the main problems faced by farmers. The survey asked which benefits the community received from officials in the Block and how often scientists visited their villages. Over 90 percent of the people responded that the community received next to no benefits from the Block and that scientists from the agriculture university never visited them. In addition to this, the survey recorded that 95 out of 98 lift irrigation units in the Gumla district and 84 out of 87 in Simdega district were non functional since years because they had not been repaired. This is in a water starved area which is able to take only one crop a year because there are no irrigation facilities ( irrigation cover in Jharkhand is three percent) to enable a second crop. When irrigation facilities have been set up, as in Gumla and Simdega, they cannot be used because the government functionaries responsible for their maintenance have siphoned off the money meant for their repair.

After the single rice crop is taken during the monsoons, the fields are left fallow and nothing is cultivated for the rest of the year because there is no irrigation. For 8 months in the year, the fields of Jharkhand are brown and barren, when many other parts of the country are lush and green with a second crop. There is no industry to speak of. Avenues for employment are low and the money earmarked for developmental projects that would help village boys and girls to improve their situation goes into the pockets of corrupt government officials. Such is the cruelty that when they cannot swallow the funds, these officials prefer to send it back to the center as unutilized, so as not to ‘spoil the field’. That means, not to start the tradition that resources can be allocated without paying hefty bribes.

Whereas the State must act resolutely against those who take life and destroy property, dialogue and development are needed on priority if we want to reverse this situation. I believe this is still possible in Jharkhand. Developing the agriculture sector, taking advantage of Jharkhand’s climate and altitude can make it another Bangalore. Irrigation cover must be increased immediately so that fruits, vegetables and flowers can be exported, putting money in empty pockets. The production of rice and other cereals can be stepped up making the region not just self sufficient in food but providing a surplus of premium foods for urban markets. The state is a natural to foster organic and green agriculture which will not just make agriculture sustainable in the long run but also bring in incomes.

Only talking the language of the gun and launching Operation Green Hunt against those whose dues have been denied them and who have been subjected to brutal deprivation by those who are responsible for their development is the wrong way to deal with this unfortunate situation. The enlightened approach would be for the state to have the attitude of parents and guardians to errant children. A mixture of strict discipline, justice and compassion is far more likely to engender the confidence needed to start the dialogue to find the way back, than exacerbating the injustice by hunting them down with guns.

Dr Suman Sahai is convenor of the Gene Campaign, a research and advocacy organisation which has been working in Jharkhand for several years. She can be reached at mail@genecampaign.org and www.genecampaign.org

WHERE IS THE CASE FOR BT BRINJAL OR BT ANY OTHER CROP?

Suman Sahai

• In China the mirid bug has begun to ravage plantations of apples, strawberries, pears, peaches and vegetables in the vicinity of Bt cotton fields. A once minor pest, the mirid bug has erupted as a major pest in the absence of pest control and now attacks fruit orchards and cotton fields after farmers reduced spraying insecticides on Bt cotton.

• The State Bio-Control Laboratory of Assam has isolated two species of insect bio-agents and made it available to farmers for biological pest control. The two species of insects, Trichogramma japonicum and Trichogramma chillonis are found to be effective against borer pests like stem borer in brinjal, tomato, potato, as well as paddy, chilli and sugarcane, and farmers have already started accruing benefit from these bio-agents.

• The major pest of brinjal, as also of tomato and chilli, all belonging to the Solanacaea family, is bacterial wilt, (caused by Ralstonia solanacearum), not shoot and fruit borer, which the Bt brinjal aims to target.

• These findings along with data on the explosion of secondary pests of cotton in Bt cotton fields in China and elsewhere, shows how controlling one pest can trigger the spread of others.

• The Bt approach to pest control is emerging as expensive, perhaps irrelevant, short lived and ineffective as a strategy for pest control.

• Given the dynamic nature of host –pathogen relationships and the large pest density and pest profile in the tropics, the only possible solution is Integrated Pest Management.
  

Agriculture and the challenge of Climate Change

Suman Sahai

Climate change is likely to have a long term impact on social, environmental, economic, technological and political processes. But its most destructive influence will be on agriculture and food production in the poor developing countries. These will be more susceptible to climate change damage than the temperate countries, many of which actually benefit from climate change. Changes in rainfall patterns and temperature regimes will influence the local water balance and disturb the optimal cultivation period available for particular crops, thus throwing food and agricultural production out of gear.

According to climate estimates, agriculture in the productive areas of Africa and south Asia will be amongst the worst affected. Some estimates say almost 40 per cent of the production potential in certain developing countries could be lost. In south Asia, the biggest blow to food production is expected to come from the loss of multiple cropping zones. The worst affected areas are predicted to be the double or triple cropping areas, where two to three crops are produced in a year. To offset this loss, an effort must be made to convert single cropping areas into two crop zones. This can be done by efficient rain water harvesting and developing micro watersheds and water bodies so that in rain fed areas where one crop is being harvested today, water can be made available for a second crop.

Coping with the impact of climate change on agriculture will require careful management of resources like land, water and biodiversity. Food production can be stabilized and livelihoods secured if the impact of climate change is factored into the design and implementation of development programmes. Large scale awareness programmes are necessary to prepare farmers, who are today bewildered by the rapid fluctuations in weather conditions that are affecting their farming. Their traditional knowledge does not help them to manage the current anthropogenic changes.

It is necessary to develop and demonstrate successful, replicable models to enable agriculture and food production to both adjust to the changing climate, as well as mitigate the emissions from crop production. Fortunately technologies and practices that can help to achieve this are now available. The real stumbling block is perhaps the mind set fixated on intensive, agrochemical based agriculture as the only option and the lack of political will to introduce the fundamental changes that are necessary to make agriculture sustainable and high yielding. A well articulated and focused advocacy position and an effective campaign is needed to bring about the required policy changes.

Making agriculture sustainable and reducing emissions

Practices in agriculture will need to shift from intensive, mechanized, water demanding agriculture to more sustainable, conservationist methods that give higher crop yields using less water. ‘More crop per drop of water’ is the strategy recommended to tackle drought. The same approach is applicable in a wider sense when addressing the challenges posed by climate change.

Sustainable practices like conservation agriculture can keep carbon fixed. Conservation agriculture is a system of farming that conserves, improves and makes more efficient use of natural resources through integrated management of available soil water and biological resources. The reduced till agriculture advocated by conservative agriculture means more carbon can remain trapped in the soil instead of being released when the soil is ploughed extensively before each planting. Important interventions include proper land preparation to minimize soil erosion, making contours and water channels to maximize water use, keeping overall water use low. Micro irrigation and drip irrigation are effective but expensive. Other helpful actions are planting trees and fodder crops on contours and watersheds, agro forestry and reforestation, crop rotations, green manure crops and intercropping as well as mulching and keeping a cover of crop residues on the surface.

The drawback though is the necessity of controlling weeds by extensive use of chemicals. But it is possible to replace chemical fertilizers and pesticides with bioorganic nutrients as much as possible without compromising yield. Such an agriculture system needed not necessarily conform to the standards set for organic certification.

Replacing agrochemicals with bio-organic substitutes, leads to a significant reduction in the carbon footprint. Reducing the application of nitrogenous fertilizers like urea will have a great impact on nitrous oxide emissions. Barring areas like Punjab, Indian agriculture which is largely manual, as against the highly mechanized agriculture of the west, has a low carbon footprint because it does not use fossil fuels.

System of Rice Intensification

Some (relatively) new agronomic practices are showing promise as adaptive strategies and are yielding good results, particularly in rice cultivation, which is Asia’s main crop. The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) is a water saving, methane emission reducing rice cultivation strategy. Instead of flooding paddy fields as in current rice cultivation, the SRI consists of watering and draining the fields in a manner that significantly reduces the amount of water required. Essentially, SRI changes agronomy practices in a manner that enables prolific root formation and tilling that leads to more panicles and hence more grains per plant. This has an obvious impact on raising crop yields. This strategy increases weeds in the fields which have to be dealt with but apart from reducing the use of water in crop production, SRI also reduces the build up of methane by doing away with standing water in rice paddies.

Agro biodiversity key to climate change adaptation

In addition to land and water, the other important factor needed to adapt to climate change, is the biodiversity related to agriculture that is adapted to local conditions. There is an urgent need to conserve the genetic diversity of crop plants and livestock. All the biodiversity related to agriculture is referred to as agro biodiversity and this according to the FAO, is acknowledged as a key resource to ensure that agriculture in various parts of the world can survive the onslaught of turbulent weather and unpredictable climate. Conserving agro biodiversity means conserving the gene pool and those genes that may come in useful for traits required by crops under changed conditions.

If coastal areas get submerged then crop varieties will need to develop tolerance to salinity and water logging. If on the other hand inland areas become drier and rain fed areas face almost drought like conditions, then it will be necessary develop crop varieties that are drought tolerant. Turbulence in the weather patterns including moisture and wind could bring new diseases and insect pests, requiring varieties that are resistant to these.

The key to breeding suitable varieties is to have access to the required genes, which would confer disease resistance or drought tolerance. Conserving agro biodiversity today conserves genes for today and tomorrow.

What will we be eating?

Suman Sahai
In Princeton last summer I got a real sense of the extent to which the American food chain is industrialized. The food on campus and off campus in the city was largely bad, throwing up a major disconnect between the intellectual standards of the university and the pedestrian food in its environs. You would imagine the educated would eat better than that! Princeton is a small town dominated by the university and its past and present inhabitants. It has a high percentage of educated and affluent people yet most of the food there comes out of boxes and bags.

On early morning walks I saw small and big trucks unloading pre-finished foods at stores, restaurants and delis. Neatly packed boxes of industry made dough labeled ‘farmers bread’, ‘ciabatta’, ‘whole wheat’ or ‘multi grain’ would be delivered for the freezer, to be later put into microwave ovens and served up warm and ‘fresh’. So also with meats, vegetables, pasta, french fries, sauces, anything.

Whether you ate at an up market restaurant, picked up a sandwich from the neighborhood deli or stopped for a hot meal at the university faculty club, the food tasted the same. The sauces came out of bottles, the vegetables and pasta out of the freezer, as did the meat and fish, detouring through the microwave onto your plate. Everything tasted of plastic and preservatives. On travels across the world I have found in hotels that many foods are identical regardless of whether you are in Nairobi or Tokyo. ‘greek yoghurt’, ‘farmer sausages’ or hash brown potatoes ,shipped in giant plastic tubs from a central American facility, appearing simultaneously at breakfast buffets from Reykjavik to Rio has become the norm. At a charming seaside hotel in Granada in the Caribbean some years ago, it was not possible to order fresh fish because the trawlers of the big fishing companies had contracts that allowed them to scoop everything from the sea and send it back chopped and processed into frozen sticks and cubes.

The response to plastic foods was the organic movement, aiming to produce fresh food; that was flavorful and nutritious, was not tired from traveling thousands of miles and looked like food, not briquettes.

In the early days of organic farming, there was no premium, no mass production and no supermarket sales. But even as we watched, the process begun by the early pioneers, about expanding the world of healthy, natural foods began to derail. The organic food and its localized markets of the early days has now mutated into an organic foods industry that is centralized as against local, is riddled with complex regulations and has passed into the hands of big business like industrial food. Increasingly, the same companies have a product line of factory produced foods and another of organic and so called ‘natural’ or
‘like natural’ foods. This ‘organic food’ is as anonymous as the factory food and has as little connection with the geography of where it was produced. Instead, it is packaged like factory food with detailed labels listing its virtues. This hijacked organic food process has gone to absurd extents bearing no resemblance to the fresh, seasonal, unrefined food that was its initial promise. It even puts out ultra heated ‘organic’ milk without realizing the irony of it.

My worry is that in India where many regions continue to produce food that is naturally organic, before a healthy organic trend can be strengthened and made mainstream, the food chain is on its way to getting industrialized. Big players from outside and inside the country are already in food, there is contract farming, organized retail, packaged foods and underpinning much of this, the Indo –US deal on Agriculture. Agriculture and food in India continues to get the short end of the stick despite public pronouncements by all political parties. We face multiple crises in this sector. There is the global food crisis to which India is not immune even if it is not in the vortex, there are the challenges of global warming and the inexplicable biofuel policy threatening to take land and water away from food production. As if all this was not bad enough, we are on the verge of entering the era of plastic foods. Perhaps now, finally, middle class India would find it worthwhile to raise its voice; if not to ensure a livelihood for the farmer, then at least to ensure that the rice for the sushi is organic.

Agriculture and the challenge of Climate Change

Suman Sahai

Climate change is likely to have a long term impact on social, environmental, economic, technological and political processes. But its most destructive influence will be on agriculture and food production in the poor developing countries. These will be more susceptible to climate change damage than the temperate countries, many of which actually benefit from climate change. Changes in rainfall patterns and temperature regimes will influence the local water balance and disturb the optimal cultivation period available for particular crops, thus throwing food and agricultural production out of gear. According to climate estimates, agriculture in the productive areas of Africa and south Asia will be amongst the worst affected. Some estimates say almost 40 per cent of the production potential in certain developing countries could be lost. In south Asia, the biggest blow to food production is expected to come from the loss of multiple cropping zones. The worst affected areas are predicted to be the double or triple cropping areas, where two to three crops are produced in a year. To offset this loss, an effort must be made to convert single cropping areas into two crop zones. This can be done by efficient rain water harvesting and developing micro watersheds and water bodies so that in rain fed areas where one crop is being harvested today, water can be made available for a second crop.

Coping with the impact of climate change on agriculture will require careful management of resources like land, water and biodiversity. Food production can be stabilized and livelihoods secured if the impact of climate change is factored into the design and implementation of development programmes. Large scale awareness programmes are necessary to prepare farmers, who are today bewildered by the rapid fluctuations in weather conditions that are affecting their farming. Their traditional knowledge does not help them to manage the current anthropogenic changes.

It is necessary to develop and demonstrate successful, replicable models to enable agriculture and food production to both adjust to the changing climate, as well as mitigate

the emissions from crop production. Fortunately technologies and practices that can help to achieve this are now available. The real stumbling block is perhaps the mind set fixated on intensive, agrochemical based agriculture as the only option and the lack of political will to introduce the fundamental changes that are necessary to make agriculture sustainable and high yielding. A well articulated and focused advocacy position and an effective campaign is needed to bring about the required policy changes.

Making agriculture sustainable and reducing emissions

Practices in agriculture will need to shift from intensive, mechanized, water demanding agriculture to more sustainable, conservationist methods that give higher crop yields using less water. ‘More crop per drop of water’ is the strategy recommended to tackle drought. The same approach is applicable in a wider sense when addressing the challenges posed by climate change.

Sustainable practices like conservation agriculture can keep carbon fixed. Conservation agriculture is a system of farming that conserves, improves and makes more efficient use of natural resources through integrated management of available soil water and biological resources. The reduced till agriculture advocated by conservative agriculture means more carbon can remain trapped in the soil instead of being released when the soil is ploughed

extensively before each planting. Important interventions include proper land preparation to minimize soil erosion, making contours and water channels to maximize water use, keeping overall water use low. Micro irrigation and drip irrigation are effective but expensive. Other helpful actions are planting trees and fodder crops on contours and watersheds, agro forestry and reforestation, crop rotations, green manure crops and intercropping as well as mulching and keeping a cover of crop residues on the surface.

The drawback though is the necessity of controlling weeds by extensive use of chemicals. But it is possible to replace chemical fertilizers and pesticides with bioorganic nutrients as much as possible without compromising yield. Such an agriculture system needed not necessarily conform to the standards set for organic certification.

Replacing agrochemicals with bio-organic substitutes, leads to a significant reduction in the carbon footprint. Reducing the application of nitrogenous fertilizers like urea will have a great impact on nitrous oxide emissions. Barring areas like Punjab, Indian agriculture which is largely manual, as against the highly mechanized agriculture of the west, has a low carbon footprint because it does not use fossil fuels.

System of Rice Intensification

Some (relatively) new agronomic practices are showing promise as adaptive strategies and are yielding good results, particularly in rice cultivation, which is Asia’s main crop. The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) is a water saving, methane emission reducing rice cultivation strategy. Instead of flooding paddy fields as in current rice cultivation, the SRI consists of watering and draining the fields in a manner that significantly reduces the

amount of water required. Essentially, SRI changes agronomy practices in a manner that enables prolific root formation and tilling that leads to more panicles and hence more grains per plant. This has an obvious impact on raising crop yields. This strategy increases weeds in the fields which have to be dealt with but apart from reducing the use of water in crop production, SRI also reduces the build up of methane by doing away with standing water in rice paddies.

Agro biodiversity key to climate change adaptation

In addition to land and water, the other important factor needed to adapt to climate change, is the biodiversity related to agriculture that is adapted to local conditions. There is an urgent need to conserve the genetic diversity of crop plants and livestock. All the biodiversity related to agriculture is referred to as agro biodiversity and this according to the FAO, is acknowledged as a key resource to ensure that agriculture in various parts of the world can survive the onslaught of turbulent weather and unpredictable climate. Conserving agro biodiversity means conserving the gene pool and those genes that may come in useful for traits required by crops under changed conditions.

If coastal areas get submerged then crop varieties will need to develop tolerance to salinity and water logging. If on the other hand inland areas become drier and rain fed areas face almost drought like conditions, then it will be necessary develop crop varieties that are drought tolerant. Turbulence in the weather patterns including moisture and wind could bring new diseases and insect pests, requiring varieties that are resistant to these.

The key to breeding suitable varieties is to have access to the required genes, which would confer disease resistance or drought tolerance. Conserving agro biodiversity today

conserves genes for today and tomorrow.

Farmers' rights in India : The way it always was

Suman Sahai

Indian law recognises strong farmers’ rights. For instance, they are entitled to sell seed of protected varieties from their harvest, though not under the registered brand name. [ By Suman Sahai ]

 

In August 2001, India’s Parliament passed the Plant Variety Protection and Farmers’ Rights Act. This is the “sui generis” legislation of India, defining intellectual property rights (IPRs) according to Indian standards rather than adopting a model from elsewhere in the world.

Before the Act was passed, there was a long and heated debate. As a WTO member, India had to comply with TRIPS, the agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights. Among other things, TRIPS applies to plant variety protection (PVP). WTO members must protect IPRs either by patents, a sui generis system or a combination of the two.

Initially, India’s government leaned towards patents. It launched a large-scale public relations campaign propagating seed patenting as the harbinger of prosperity for rural India. But NGOs like Gene Campaign intervened. An important early event was a farmers’ rally in Delhi. Its single point message was: “No patents on seeds”. The event was organised by Gene Campaign and three farmer organisations, showing the government the strength of the opposition.

In the end, the government was persuaded to opt for a sui generis legislation. The WTO offers no references to existing models of plant breeders’ rights (PBR). Therefore, developing countries tend to draft their PVP legislation according to the model of ­UPOV (International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants), partly because of the pressure of the seed corporations and partly due to lack of alternatives.

UPOV provides rights to plant breeders, but does not recognise farmers’ rights. Gene Campaign’s position was clear from the start: if India was to grant PBR, it would have to grant strong rights to farmers too. Gene Campaign insisted that the farming community had to retain control over seed production and use. It would not do to merely allow farmers to save seed from the harvest to sow for the next crop (“plant back rights”).

Plant back rights are called “farmer’s privilege” in many countries. This right, however, is merely an exemption from a right granted to the plant breeder. This kind of exemption is in force in different degrees in various ­UPOV member countries. But after the last amendment in 1991, such exemptions were made subject to the breeder’s consent. Countries that have since joined UPOV have to comply with standards of 1991, whereas those that joined earlier are bound by the less stringent version of 1978.

Selling seed

Gene Campaign always demanded
– that Indian law include clearly defined farmers’ rights,
– that landraces not be used by commercial breeders unless farmers give their consent and are financially rewarded, and
– that farmers be entitled to compensation should poor-quality commercial seeds lead to crop failure.
The most important issue, however, is the farmers’ right to sell seed to other farmers, even if a variety is registered under PBR. This is key to ensuring that farmers stay relevant as seed producers. Not surprisingly, the right to sell seed was most fiercely contested until the law was finally passed.
The seed industry opposed this right. After the patent option fell through, the industry wanted strong UPOV-style PBR in India. Business leaders managed to persuade some government officials, including senior scientists of ICAR (the Indian Council of Agricultural Research) and top bureaucrats at the Agriculture Ministry. The idea was to allow farmers to save, sow and exchange seed, but not to sell seed of protected varieties.
It took seven years of civil-society campaigns and the intervention of two Parliamentary Committees to establish comprehensive farmers’ rights, including the sale of seed, though not under the registered brand name. Breeders thus stay in control of large scale commercial marketing, while farmers have the right to sell seed and mutually support one another the way they always have at the local level.
Generally speaking, there are three focal points to farmers’ rights:
– PBR should not hinder the traditional right of farmers to save, exchange and sell seeds of all varieties that they grow.
– Protection should also be given to landraces bred by farmers and not only to varieties produced by commercial breeders.
– The regime should reward farmers for their contributions to conserving and enhancing plant ­genetic resources, which commercial breeders need in ­order to develop new crop varieties.
Recognising the contribution of farming communities of the developing world to plant genetic ­resources, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) introduced the concept of farmers’ rights in 1989 in its Undertaking on Plant Genetics Resources. In November 2001, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (Plant Treaty) was adopted (see essay by Regine Andersen, p. 147).
The Treaty recognises the rights of farmers to save and use, exchange and sell farm-saved seeds or propagating material. There is, however, no international agreement on the design and implementation of farmers’ rights. That responsibility is left to individual countries.

Indian perspectives

India is the birthplace of crops such as rice, millets, red gram, moth bean, jute, pepper, cardamom, many vegetables and fruits. Over millennia, rural and tribal communities identified plants from the wild and developed them into food and cash crops. The result is the cereals, legumes, spices and vegetable species we know today. Farmers incrementally improved these varieties over time.
India’s sui generis law recognises farmers not just as cultivators but also as agricultural gene pool conservers and breeders of several successful varieties (see box). The rights of rural communities are acknowledged as well.
To understand the importance of Indian farmers’ right to sell seed, one must consider the context of seed production in this country. The farming community is the largest seed producer. Until recently, it provided 85 % of the country’s annual requirement of over 6 million tons.
Denying farmers the right to sell seed would have resulted in a substantial loss of rural incomes. In addition, the farmer would lose self reliance in seed and become dependent on outside seed suppliers. In ­Europe, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and to a lesser extent South Korea and some Latin American countries, the largest seed suppliers are agro-chemical multinationals that have turned into “life science” corporations.
These industry giants have taken control of the international seed market by buying up all smaller seed companies. That strategy, however, would not have worked in India. Since there are not enough large seed corporations and farmers themselves are not a purchasable company, multinational corporations could only gain control of the Indian market if farmers were denied the right to sell seed. That is why there was such heated debate over farmers’ rights. Control over seed production is key to a country’s food independence. A nation that does not produce its own seed – and food – is not secure.

Protection for rural communities

India’s sui generis law not only allows farmers to sell unbranded seed of protected varieties, it protects their rights in other ways too. It acknowledges the role of rural communities as contributors to breeding landraces, which are essential for the creation of commercially valuable new varieties. Breeders who want to use landraces to create what is legally called an “essentially derived variety” (EDV) need the permission of the farmers affected.
EDVs are basically the same as the parent variety except for limited, specific changes. They virtually retain the original genetic structure. Most genetically modified (GM) varieties are EDVs. For example, Bt cotton, Bt corn or any other Bt crop are varieties identical to their parents except that they contain a bacterial gene from the Bacillus thuringiensis.
The Indian law has provisions for benefit-sharing when farmer varieties are used in breeding. A share of profits made from new varieties is required to be paid into the National Gene Fund. For this to happen, farmers’ landraces need to be registered. The Indian law allows any person, governmental or non-­governmental agency to register a community’s claim and have it recorded at an official centre.
Farmers’ rights are also protected in the so-called “passport data”, which people have to submit when applying for a breeders’ certificate. Passport data contain a host of information, including the parentage of the new variety and the names and locations of landraces used. Breeders certificates will be cancelled if such information is found faulty.

Farmers’ rights according to Indian law also prohibit breeders from using sterile seed technologies. Breeders have to submit an affidavit that their variety does not contain Gene Use Restricting Technology (GURT or terminator technology).

Moreover, farmers are exempt from paying fees if they wish to examine PBR-related documents and papers or receive copies of rules and decisions made by various authorities. Fees, however, are applicable to everyone else. Finally, the law states that farmers cannot be prosecuted for infringement of rights specified in the Act if they can prove in court that they were unaware of the existence of that rule. For example, farmers are protected from punishment if they can prove that they only accidentally sold seed under a breeder’s registered name.

MONSANTO CLEARING THE DECKS FOR ITS SECOND BT COTTON

Suman Sahai

The March 5, 2010 statement by Monsanto that Bt cotton in Gujarat is now demonstrating resistance to pink bollworm , does not add up. For one, it has been known for quite some time that the Bt cotton in India, was in fact susceptible to the pink bollworm. Gene Campaign had first made this observation in 2003, after documenting the performance of India’s first ever Bt cotton harvest.

The 2003 study found that Bt cotton hybrids had a mixed response to the bollworm ( Helicoverpa armigera) , but they did not offer protection against pink bollworm (Pectinophora gossypiella). Pink bollworm attack was found to be severe after 60 to 70 days and farmers used several sprays to control the pest. There is a genetic basis to the resistance of pink bollworm . Scientists have shown that field populations of pink bollworm harbour three genetic mutations that confer resistance to Bt toxin. Because the Bt.-resistant pink bollworm larvae mature into adults synchronously and later than the susceptible larvae, they are more likely to mate with each other, rather than with susceptible bollworm .In this way, the resistant pink bollworm not only persists but increases in the population. No surprises therefore that Bt toxin is unable to control the pink bollworm.

In fact the question of resistance build up in the ‘worm’ pests of Bt cotton ( there are more pests of other kinds) , the bollworm, tobacco budworm and the pink bollworm, is a given. No pest can be kept down for ever, as our lifelong experience with pest control demonstrates. Sometimes the host plant comes out on top, sometimes the pest does. But almost always, pests ultimately develop resistance to a single agent used to kill them. Pest resistance in Bt cotton is being reported for some time now. The first reports came from Arkansas in the American cotton belt, where Bt cotton was first introduced.

In 2006, scientists from the Nagpur-based Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR) had noted pest resistance in Bt cotton fields and sounded the warning against growing resistance developing in the cotton pest, specially marking Gujarat as vulnerable. CICR said that incorrect farm practices like not planting insect refuges and the spread of illegal Bt cotton is accelerating the process of resistance development and it would only be a matter of time till the bollworm develops complete resistance to Bt toxin.

A 2007 study in China led by the Cornell University ,found that six to seven years after adopting Bt cotton, secondary pests had become so dominant , that farmers were spraying heavily to control these. Bt toxin is directed only at leaf-eating bollworms, so other pests remain unaffected. In an effort to keep the Bt cotton strategy alive and the pests vulnerable to the Bt toxin, Chinese scientists have begun implementing a more integrated pest control using natural predators to kill the secondary pests and enforcing the planting of refuge areas where broad-spectrum pesticides are used.

With all this evidence already available, Monsanto owning up that the pink bollworm is now resistant to the Bt toxin, is less a mea culpa than setting the stage for something else. This sounds like a prelude to the push for the promotion of Monsanto’s second generation Bt cotton, the Bollgard II. Granted approval for commercial release some years ago, Bollgard II carrying two Bt toxin genes instead of only one, as in the first generation Bollgard I, is already being cultivated in parts of India. So is Monsanto trashing its first Bollgard to promote its second Bollgard? It would seem so.

Given that there are over 300 Bt cotton hybrids approved by the GEAC, and most companies, barring a few like Nath Seeds ( which use a different Bt construct) , have already paid up their license fees to Monsanto for using its Bt gene, the market is getting saturated . Monsanto has already milked the Bollgard I Bt gene construct substantially. In addition to this, is the problem of the spread of illegal / spurious Bt cotton hybrids flowing out of cottage industries in Andhra Pradesh, particularly Kurnool, which are eating into Monsanto’s profits, so its time to switch to something else.

Introducing Bollgard II ( the 2 gene Bt cotton) will bring in a new period of fresh license fees as companies are forced to license the stacked gene construct with two Bt genes from Monsanto. With stagnating profits from Bollgard I ( the one gene Bt cotton), the next boom in earnings from license fees will happen for Monsanto if Bollgard II is promoted as extensively as Bollgard I was. Monsanto’s statement about resistance is calculated to achieve this goal by persuading GEAC and other policy bodies that the Bollgard I has outlived its utility and it is time to shift to Bollgard II. Monsanto has already been boasting that Bollgard II is ‘ten times better’ than Bollgardd I.

There is however a real problem associated with introducing the Bollgard II cotton in situations like India. Scientific publications point out that the one gene Bt cotton and the two gene Bt cotton cannot be cultivated in the same region, that is, they cannot coexist. If they are made to do so, the development of resistance in the bollworm will be very rapid and the technology will fail even faster than has been estimated. Therefore scientists recommend that if Bollgard II is to be introduced, Bollgard I must be withdrawn from cultivation completely.

It would be practically impossible to do this in India. Where we have failed to check the spread of illegal variants, it is not realistic to expect that the existing legal and illegal one gene Bt cottons can be withdrawn from farmers fields. Then there are the companies who have licensed the expensive Bollgard I technology from Monsanto and have only just brought their hybrids to the market. It is unlikely that they would be prepared to abandon their investments and potential profits and have to license the new gene construct if they want to stay in the Bt cotton business.

In countries like the US , technology change is not difficult since the seed is replaced easily. Farmers do not save seed from their farms, they always buy new seed and are used to dealing with ‘packages’ from the company . The seed and the inputs required for cultivation, come together. In the case of GM crops like Bt cotton, they sign legally binding contracts with Monsanto that they cannot save seed for themselves, even when the seeds are true breeding varieties, and not hybrids, as is the case in India. In such situations, farmers simply receive a new package in which Bollgard I would simply be replaced by Bollgrad II. In the case of India, where there are hundreds of approved Bt cotton hybrids and hundreds of others that are spurious and not approved, getting Bollgard I out of the field before introducing Bollgard II will be near impossible.

Rather than get into the trap of replacing Bollgard I with Bollgard II and ending up with a bigger mess than we have today, we should take a step back and review our Bt cotton strategy. Following China’s example and promoting Integrated Pest Management (IPM) would be a good beginning. IPM was in any case the government policy for pest control until Monsanto came along with its Bt cotton.