Monsanto unleashes superweeds -- the new deadly invasive species

The United States has a law against bioterrorism. It is basically to ensure that no unwanted alien invasive species -- later assuming menacing proportions -- enters America. Such is the hysteria surrounding the alien species that the US uses all kinds of non-tariff barriers to stop the entry of agricultural commodities that are likely to come with hitherto unknown pests and diseases.

It however doesn't mind exporting its inferior quality farm products, which comes laced with deadly alien species. That is a topic we will discuss some other day. But first let us look at the bioterrorism that one of its own multinational seed and technology company is unleashing and that too within the country, and the US Department of Agriculture is refusing to acknowledge its destructive prowess.

Monsanto, a company that Bill Clinton acknowledged would lead the US into 21st century, has already transformed cotton and soybean plots into weed battlefields. Called superweeds, because these are not controlled by any pesticide, these plants have alarmingly appeared in Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri. Superweeds are also being encountered in neighbouring Canada. And it will soon be the turn of India, where large-scale trials of Monanto's RoundupReady corn and cotton are in progress.

Isn't it strange that a country which enacts a law on bioterrorism, remains a mute spectator to a terrible dance of bioterrorism being enacted within its borders by one of its own companies? Isn't this huge superweed battlefield a good enough indication of the kind of bioterrorism being unleashed by Monsanto? What kind of bioterrorism law the US has enacted, when it fails to nip the evil right in its own heartland? Well, such is the power of multinationals, that the USDA and even the White House prefers to look the other way. Meanwhile, newspaper reports say that 10,000 acres of land have been abandoned by farmers in Macon county, the epicentre of the superweed terror. Another 100,000 acres are in Georgia are severly infested with pigweed superweed, and 28 counties have confirmed resistance to glyphosate, the active ingredient in RoundupReady.

After the US farmers, it will be turn of small farmers in India. Knowing the role agricultural scientists and the Department of Biotechnology are playing, the threat of superweeds is looming large. But who cares? The scientists will retire gracefully, and many of them will join the MNCs post-retirement, and the real cost of introducing and pushing RoundupReady GM crops will be borne by the Indian farmers. Mark my words, another round of suicides on the farm is surely on the card, thanks to the Indian scientists and DBT.

I bring you a very informative newsreport about the menace of superweeds in America. It should open our eyes to the threat ahead.

www.france24.com/en/20090418-superweed-explosion-threatens-monsanto-heartlands-genetically-modified-US-crops

‘Superweed’ explosion threatens Monsanto heartlands
Sunday 19 April 2009
By Clea CAULCUTT (text)

“Superweeds” are plaguing high-tech Monsanto crops in southern US states,
driving farmers to use more herbicides, return to conventional crops or even abandon their farms.

The gospel of high-tech genetically modified (GM) crops is not sounding quite so sweet in the land of the converted. A new pest, the evil pigweed, is hitting headlines and chomping its way across Sun Belt states,
threatening to transform cotton and soybean plots into weed battlefields.

In late 2004, “superweeds” that resisted Monsanto’s iconic “Roundup” herbicide, popped up in GM crops in the county of Macon, Georgia. Monsanto, the US multinational biotech corporation, is the world’s leading producer of Roundup, as well as genetically engineered seeds. Company figures show that nine out of 10 US farmers produce Roundup Ready seeds for their soybean crops.

Superweeds have since alarmingly appeared in other parts of Georgia, as well as South Carolina, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri, according to media reports. Roundup contains the active ingredient glyphosate, which is the most used herbicide in the USA.

How has this happened? Farmers over-relied on Monsanto’s revolutionary and controversial combination of a single “round up” herbicide and a high-tech seed with a built-in resistance to glyphosate, scientists say.

Today, 100,000 acres in Georgia are severely infested with pigweed and 29 counties have now confirmed resistance to glyphosate, according to weed specialist Stanley Culpepper from the University of Georgia.

“Farmers are taking this threat very seriously. It took us two years to make them understand how serious it was. But once they understood, they started taking a very aggressive approach to the weed,” Culpepper told FRANCE 24.

“Just to illustrate how aggressive we are, last year we hand-weeded 45% of our severely infested fields,” said Culpepper, adding that the fight involved “spending a lot of money.”

In 2007, 10,000 acres of land were abandoned in Macon country, the epicentre of the superweed explosion, North Carolina State University’s Alan York told local media.

The perfect weed

Had Monsanto wanted to design a deadlier weed, they probably could not have done better. Resistant pigweed is the most feared superweed, alongside horseweed, ragweed and waterhemp.

“Palmer pigweed is the one pest you don’t want, it is so dominating,” says Culpepper. Pigweed can produce 10,000 seeds at a time, is drought-resistant, and has very diverse genetics. It can grow to three metres high and easily smother young cotton plants.

Today, farmers are struggling to find an effective herbicide they can safely use over cotton plants.

Controversial solutions

In an interview with FRANCE 24, Monsanto’s technical development manager, Rick Cole, said he believed superweeds were manageable. “The problem of weeds that have developed a resistance to Roundup crops is real and [Monsanto] doesn’t deny that, however the problem is manageable,” he said.

Cole encourages farmers to alternate crops and use different makes of herbicides.

Indeed, according to Monsanto press releases, company sales representatives are encouraging farmers to mix glyphosate and older herbicides such as 2,4-D, a herbicide which was banned in Sweden, Denmark and Norway over its links to cancer, reproductive harm and mental impairment. 2,4-D is also well-known for being a component of Agent Orange, a toxic herbicide which was used in chemical warfare in Vietnam in the 1960s.

FRANCE 24 report: French scientist Eric Seralini says research shows Roundup herbicide is highly toxic to human beings.

Questioned on the environmental impact and toxicity of such mixtures, Monsanto’s public affairs director, Janice Person, said that “they didn’t recommend any mixtures that were not approved by the EPA,” she said,
referring to the US federal Environmental Protection Agency.

According to the UK-based Soil Association, which campaigns for and certifies organic food, Monsanto was well aware of the risk of superweeds as early as 2001 and took out a patent on mixtures of glyphosate and herbicide targeting glyphosate-resistant weeds.

“The patent will enable the company to profit from a problem that its products had created in the first place,” says a 2002 Soil Association report.

Returning to conventional crops

In the face of the weed explosion in cotton and soybean crops, some farmers are even considering moving back to non-GM seeds. “It’s good for us to go back, people have overdone the Roundup seeds,” Alan Rowland, a soybean seed producer based in Dudley, Missouri, told FRANCE 24. He used to sell 80% Monsanto “Roundup Ready” soybeans and now has gone back to traditional crops, in a market overwhelmingly dominated by Monsanto.

According to a number of agricultural specialists, farmers are considering moving back to conventional crops. But it’s all down to economics, they say. GM crops are becoming expensive, growers say.

While farmers and specialists are reluctant to blame Monsanto, Rowland says he’s started to “see people rebelling against the higher costs.”

Agreed, hurling shoes is undemocratic, but is committing suicide democratic??

The other day I happened to pass through Meerut district in Uttar Pradesh on my way to Haridwar. Seeing some farmers harvesting wheat, I decided to break my journey and spend some time with them. They were obviously busy and didn't want to be disturbed, but when I introduced myself one of them walked upto me, touched my feet and said he had been reading me for ages.

Anyway, to cut the long story short I reasoned with them that perhaps the real cause behind their plight is that they have not exercised their democratic right of choosing the right candidate through the ballot. Why I asked them this question was because this is the impression you get from reading the newspapers nowadays. Pappu should come out and vote goes the Hindi song, and so does the political leaders and the media who are asking people to exercise their democratic right and elect the right candidate.

"First we voted for Kalyan Singh, and when he did not do anything for us we decided not to vote for him in the next elections. We then voted for Mulayam Singh, and then we voted for Mayavati," replied Kamla, the wife of a village elder. "What is the choice before us, we have to vote for one of them again, and this will not solve our problems."

How true. I wish at least the studio audience in the TV programmes realises this. Over the years, I find the studio audience too has begun to behave like the paid voters or the people you bring in to listen to leaders at times of political rallies. They know what is expected of them, and they deliver it faithfully. They are ferried to Congress rally, and they shout Congress Zindabad slogans. The next week they are at a BJP rally and they do not shy from shouting BJP Zindabad. Similarly, the studio audience also knows what is expected from them, and I must say they know what it means to be politically correct and get their five seconds of fame.

The fundamental question however still remains unanswered. How does 100 per cent voting for instance ensure that we will be able to pick up the best candidate, a deserving candidate, a candidate who is best among the lot, and is at least honest and sincere. Pardon my being sounding politically incorrect, but the fact remains that by asking people to come out and vote in big number we are actually sending a wrong message. We are trying to legitimise (or call it democratise) the election of wrong people for the right job. I mean there is no way your vote can make political parties ensure that they do not field criminals or corrupt candidates. You will continue to have the same set of people to choose from. Your vote will go on legitimising a faulty democratic system. 

I strongly feel that voters must be given an option if they don't want to choose any of the listed candidates in the ballot. Only then we will be able to really purify the democratic systems on the lines we all want to cherish. What is wrong if the ballot paper also has a column which says "None of the above." And if the majority stands for "None of the above", than that constituency should have another round of voting. If that had happened, Kamla wouldn't have faced the dilemma that she is in now. And like her, millions would have sent the present crop of leaders packing, and that would be the real strength of a rich and vibrant democracy.

Why are we shying from doing so? I can understand why the politicians are reluctant to talk of None of the above option, but why should the media analysts be quiet?

And that brings me to another burning issue that many feel is turning out to be an 'unhealthy' and 'undemocratic' trend. I have seen the spate of editorials on Jarnail Singh's bold initiative of hurling his shoe at Mr P Chidambaram, the Home Minister. I am also aware that it will be politically incorrect to admire the trajectory the shoe takes. But notwithstanding what our political leaders (and for some strange reasons the so called enlightened media) believes, the fact remains that the nation is finding it a simple way to express their anger. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh  is the latest witness to a shoe missile, and earlier too it missed P Chidambaram, Navin Jindal and L K Advani.

Politicians across the spectrum say that shoe-throwing is undemocratic. I agree. And I have also seen the comments/opinion/views of various political parties and leaders in a news report in the Hindustan Times today (Politicos call for truce as shoe missiles rain, HT April 27, 2009). Click on this link to read the story: http://www.hindustantimes.com/Election09/storypage.aspx?ID=fce4d9b0-40d3-4b86-8602-3e01a1790d64&Category=Chunk-HT-UI-Elections-SectionPage-OnTheSpot&Headline=Politicos-call-for-truce-as-shoe-missiles-rain&gid=

If shoe hurling is undemocratic, is committing suicide democratic? In the 2004 general elections (correct me if I am wrong), the then chief minister of Andhra Pradesh Mr Chandrababu Naidu witnessed a piquant situation when a farmer stood up in a political rally being addressed by him and and drank pesticides. He died before he could reach the hospital. Imagine, if he had instead thrown his chappal at Mr Naidu. It would have caused commotion in the crowd, and more attention to the cause for which he eventually died. Not only in Andhra Pradesh, famers all over the country have tried to send a strong political signal by taking their own lives. When all democratic norms failed to draw attention, they took their own lives. And they failed here too. The world's largest democracy did not take notice.

Since 1997, the National Crime Records Bureau tells us that over 1.85 lakh farmers have committed suicide. Farmers have taken their lives in the prosperous northern state of Punjab, often referred to as India's granary. In the last 9 years, 2990 farmers have commited suicide is just two districts of Punjab -- in Bathinda and Sangrur. And don't forget, Punjab has 20 districts. In Uttar Pradesh, it has been sugarcane farmers; in Maharashtra cotton growers. Suicides have also been reported from Kerala, West Bangal, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Chhatisgarh, Orissa, and Tamil Nadu.

I always thought that suicide was an undemocratic tool being used by the voiceless to make their voice heard. But what puzzled me was why is that none of the political parties are taking it up as if it was a question of life and death (which you will agree, it is). After all people are dying, using death as an expression of their anger. I always wondered why the enlightened media, which can depute some 450 journalists to cover the Lakme Fashion show, or send an army of reporters and cameramen to cover the IPL cricket in South Africa (as if it is a Mahabharata battle), are not even moved to take up the issue of farmers committing suicide.

Oh ! I forgot, covering cricket and fashion show only is an expression of freedom of press!!

Come to think of it. Wasn't it undemocratic on the part of the politicians as well as the media (which never tires of telling us that it is the Fouth Estate) to ignore human suffering in the crop fields? You have no regrets when the farmer took their own lives but you certainly would have been furious and "want these perpetrators to be booted out of society" if they had instead thrown shoes. Imagine if the 1.85 million had not died but instead flung their chappals/jutis, wouldn't it have been a more civilised form of angst?

Please do not get me wrong. I am not advocating throwing shoes to be a democratic form of dissent. But at the same time, I want you to think, and think deeply, as to why this democracy finds it nothing disturbing when farmers kill themselves just to draw the attention of powers that be to their plight.

 

Who will patent the Holy Cow? The US Department of Agriculture?

I thought the deciphering of the genetic make-up of a cow or what is scientifically called as genome should be a big news in the land of holy cows. But no, I was wrong. The news is tucked away in some corner of the newspapers, and the electronic media didn't find it worth a mention. Nor has it evoked any reaction and response, good or bad, from the scientific community, researchers, activists and the so called champions of the holy cow.

The sequencing of the cow genome, reported in the journal Science last week, is certainly a landmark development. It has taken 300 scientists from 25 countries, led by US Department of Agriculture and the National Institute of Health in the US, some six years and $ 53 million in research spending, to map and analyse the cow genome.

According to media reports, sequencing of the bovine genome began in December 2003. The breed of cattle selected for the bulk of the sequencing project was Hereford, which is used in beef production. Sequencing at lighter coverage will be carried out in additional cattle breeds, including the Holstein, Angus, Jersey, Limousin, Norwegian Red and Brahman (which is a cross with some Indian breeds).

Let us first look at some of the salient findings as reported by Associated Press (AP):

-- Modern cattle developed from a diverse ancestral population from Africa, Asia and Europe, that has undergone a recent rapid decrease in population size, probably due to domestication.

-- The genome of the domestic cattle contains approximately 22,000 genes, compared to 20,000 to 25,000 for humans.

-- Cattle and humans have about 80 percent of their genes in common

-- The organization of human chromosomes is closer to that of domestic cattle than to those of rats or mice, which are often used in lab tests of drugs intended for people.

-- Cattle chromosomes, like those of humans and other mammals, contain segmental duplications, which are large, almost identical copies of DNA present in at least two locations in a genome.

I can understand the excitement that the sequencing of the cow genome has thrown up for the beef and cattle industry. "The cattle industry is extremely important for US agriculture with more than 94 million cattle in the United States valued at $49 billion," said US Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, in a USDA press release. "Understanding the cattle genome and having the sequence will allow researchers to understand the genetic basis for disease in domestic cattle and could result in healthier production of meat and milk while reducing producers' dependence on antibiotics."

"The domestic cattle genome sequence opens another window into our own genome," said Acting NIH Director Raynard S. Kington, M.D., Ph.D. "By comparing the human genome to the genomes of many different species, such as the domestic cattle, we can gain a clearer view of how the human genome works in health and in disease."

Fine. But what concerns me is a question that I find has been very conveniently ducked by the media, and of course by the scientists/institutes involved in the sequencing of the cow genome project. The bigger question, and politically hot, is who will own the cow genome? Who will eventually end up drawing a patent control over the cows of the world? Who will for that matter claim ownership over the holy cow?

India has some 200 million cows and 90 million buffaloes (Times of India, Aug 2004). India has 30 well established breeds of cows.

I am aware that when the first draft of the bovine genome sequence was drawn in 2004, the Bovine Genome Sequencing Project had made it freely available for use by biomedical and agricultural researchers around the globe, but after the final draft has been prepared it may not be so. We may go on worshipping the holy cow, no one will stop us from doing that, but the real control over the holy cow will probably rest with NIH or USDA.

Should we be worried?

Yes, if the past experience is any indication. Let us understand what happened in case of rice. There was an international consortium of scientists involved in studying the rice chromosomes. But when Monsanto developed the first rice genetic map, it said it will make it freely available for researchers. This did not happen in practical terms. Eventually, the Swiss MNC Syngenta which was able to map more than 99.5 per cent of the rice genome, made it abundantly clear that it will seek propreitary control. In fact, it has filed for bulk patents on rice genes.

Take a look at my article: Rice is now Oryza syngenta

http://www.indiatogether.org/2004/feb/dsh-riceyear.htm

Will cow also go the rice way? Will we be soon celebrating an International Year of the Cow, to essentially give a toast to the USDA for gaining monopoly control over the bovine population of the world, including the holy cows of India?

Well, while you ponder over these question, let me point you to a news report of the mapping of cow genome. It will provide you some more useful details.

Cattle Genome Sequencing Milestone Promises Health Benefits, Researcher Says
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090423142452.htm

Reclaiming India's soul -- Al Gore, Mahesh Bhatt, Vir Sanghvi and I

Somebody asked me the other day: "How come you write about food and so does senior journalist Vir Sanghvi; but while he is published widely and travels in style dining at some of the most expensive hotels all over the word, gets to drink some of the finest wines, and is the darling of the bold and beautiful, you continue to slog, struggle and survive."

I just looked at him, and smiled. But he continued: "You have been writing about the politics of food for as long as I remember, and yet your voice is drowned in ignominy and contempt. You write about the millions who produce food, and even these millions don't appreciate your efforts, they don't stand by you, they don't swear by you" and asked: "How long will you continue to think that you are the voice of the voiceless? How long will you go on thinking that you are moving mountains, that your voice is making an impact, bringing in the change that you so desire?"

I must say that while I ignored the statement and moved on, the question did haunt me, at times it still continues to do so. Even now sometimes I wake up at night and the face of that person comes in front of my swollen eyes. I ponder over his question, the cursory remark he made. I am not even sure whether he made that statement in jest or in all seriousness. I do try my best to analyse what he said, what he implied and before I find an answer I drift back into sleep.

What has happened to India's soul? Why people have become indifferent to human suffering being encountered by fellow human beings?

It's not only in India. It is happening everywhere. Sometimes back, I remember Al Gore writing something like this in his book Earth in the balance, that being an environmentally conscious politician, he always tried to talk about the destruction we are doing to the environment, how the Earth was heating up, and he writes that not many people would stand to listen to his full speech. Most of them would probably find it boring and walk away half way through. He could never draw crowds. Realising that it was not cutting through, he shifted to stupid and useless political issues, and the crowds would throng and applaud. And we all know that he nearly made it to the Presidency.

Filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt was also asked a similar question several times while we were launching the film Poison on the Platter in different cities. People asked him why was he not making good feature films with such important and sensitive themes like genetically modified foods. Bhatt's reply was that while you all feel that good cinema is the need of the day, but when it comes to buy a Rs 100 ticket for a film that you want to see you invest that money in films like Raaz and Murder. Both were hits. He tells me that while he is remembered for his film Saransh, a very sensitive film, the fact remains that Saransh was a flop at the box-office.

So when I read a small snippet in Indian Express yesterday (April 24,2009), I was reminded again of what Mahesh Bhatt had told me. You may have missed seeing the small report tucked in one of the corners, so let me share it first:

Suicides don't sell, he learnt the hardway

After a profit-making Marathi film on Goddess Kalubai, filmmaker Arun Kachare produced a feature film on farmers' suicides with a message that they should stop taking their lives. The film Balirajache Rajya Yevu De (Let the kingdom of farmer arrive), flopped at the box office, landing Kachare in heavy debts. He rushed to ruling politicians for help asking them to buy out the film and show it to farmers. He contemplated suicide as his debts piled up and no help was in sight. Now, he has returned to his tried and trusted theme, religion.

Well, what do you say? Arun Kachare is not the only filmmakers whose film on suicides has flopped. The tragedy is that even farmers refused to see his film. I know of several other filmmakers who made such beautiful films on such serious subjects, many brilliant writers who make you sit back and think on such reality themes, and many journalists who reported from the countryside about the dark underbelly of the society. I know must of them are grappling, struggling to surive, trying to make people know the truth, forget about seeking appreciation.

Not everyone is as lucky as Satyajit Ray. Not everyone is smart enough like Al Gore to adopt the political ways, and still not give up on environment. Not everyone is as practical as Mahesh Bhatt to make films like Murder aimed at the box-office, and then make documentaries like Poison on the Platter to sensitise the society to the impending dangers from genetically modified foods.

No, I am not turning a la Vir Sanghvi. While I like reading him, I will still coninue with the struggle that I have undertaken for myself. I know the path is hard and long, and reclaiming India's soul is not easy but certainly not impossible.

Monsanto eyes wheat and rice research in India

If you recall a few days back I had said (in one of my blogs) that you cannot aspire to become a director of an agricultural research institute or a vice-chancellor of a agricultural university in India unless you swear by genetic engineering. Well, we have a new director for the premier New Delhi-based Indian Agriculture Research Institute (IARI). Dr H S Gupta, was formerly the director of the ICAR research centre for the hills, Vivekanand Parvatiya Anusandhan Sansthan, in Almora.

On April 21, the IARI issued a circular for its staff. If you read the circular below, I don't think I need to say anything more.

Dated April 21, 2009
Indian Agricultural Research Institute
New Delhi
Circular

It is to bring to your notice that Monsanto has announced grant of $10 M(Rs. 50 Crore) to establish Monsanto's Beachell-Borlaug InternationalScholars Program, which will identify and support young scientits' Ph.D study in Rice and Wheat Breeding, two of the world's most staple crops. Dr.Ed Runge, Professor and Billie B. Turner Chair in Production Agronomy(Emeritus) within Soil and Crop Sciences Department, Texas A&M University at College Station, Chair of the Independent Panel of Judges will address the scholars/scientists and deliver the key note address and explain the program and to encourage Ph.D. students in Rice Wheat Breeding to apply. To drive *(derive) *the benefit of his presence, I request that all scientific,technical staff and students to participate in large number. The lecture is schedules for *Saturday, 25th April, 2009 at 3.30 PM Sharp *in Dr. B. P. Pal Auditorium followed by high tea.

I request that everybody should take advantage of this opportunity and make this event a grant *(grand)* success.

HS Gupta
Director
IARI

Well, this is not only happening at IARI. Most of the Agriculture Universities in India are now becoming GM research hubs for the private biotech companies. In the days to come you will also see Winrock International relaunching its fellowship programme, and of course this time it will be on GM research and corporate agriculture.

Meanwhile, let me take you back to the Vivekanand Parvatiya Anusandhan Sansthan, in Almora. Only a few days before he joined IARI, Dr H S Gupta, who was then heading the Almora research centre, had written a response to Jharkhand Forum list. He was replying to a letter by some Mr Padhi, and published on the email listserver. Dr Gupta's reply (dated March 23, 2009) only goes to establish what I said at the beginning of this blog.

Dear Mr. Padhi,

I agree with Abhishek's view. We must protest the unmindful opposition of GM crops, which were grown in more than 114 million ha area (in 2007) worldwide in the developed as well as developing countries. Some of the NGOs are opposing GM crops by taking advantage of ignorance of general public and they are creating 'SPECULATIVE FEAR'. Over the last five years, India's cotton productivity has increased 2.5 times (191 kg/ha in 2002-03 to 523 kg/ha in 2007-08) which is testimony of the advantage of adoption of GM crops. Of course, we should pay adequate attention to the bioafetys norms set by the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Govt. of India. Let the farmers make an informed choice. We should tell them the advantages as well as disadvantages both.

HS Gupta
Director
Vivekananda Parvatiya Krishi Anusandhan Sansthan (VPKAS) ICAR Almora - 263 601 India Ph: 05962 - 230208(o) 05962 - 230130(r)

I wonder how can farmers be expected to make informed choice when the institute is more than keen to promote GM crops research. With agricultural scientists abdicating their responsibility to work for small farmers (in favour of corporate interests), God alone can save Indian farmers.

Dinner diplomacy at WTO, and this time it involves NGOs

The news from Geneva is disturbing. If you read Meena Raman's dispatch below, you will understand what I mean.

I am not surprised at the doings and undoings of Mr Pascal Lamy. As WTO director general he has already inflicted a lot of damage to developing country farmers. He job has been to unabashedly promote the commercial interest of the agribusiness giants, and he has done it quite effectively using all the tricks of the trade. But what worries me is the role of some of the big NGOs. How can some of them be so callous and indifferent to the ground realities, and call for an early completion of an unjust Doha round? How can they be rallying around Lamy, and suggest extending the reach of WTO to include even climate change?

You are right Meena. Those of us who subscribe to the thinking of Our World Is Not For Sale (OWINFS) have a tough job on our hands. We have to come back with renewed vigour and step up our campaign. We have to fight for equity, justice and for ensuring that our world is not put up for sale.

And that reminds me of a story that needs to be told once again. It tells you clearly as to what Lamy has been trying to push for all these years. As a former EU Trade Commissioner, Pascal Lamy, had made the ‘hidden’ intentions abundantly clear during his quick visit to India soon after the Doha Ministerial. “Who gave you the impression that we are going to reduce agriculture subsidies? Let me make it clear that EU will not be reducing farm subsidies in the years to come except for what has been agreed upon. I am committed to keep my seven million farmers on the farm,” he told a group of civil society representatives. “And how will India gain if I reduce subsidies as a result of which the number of farmers in Europe climbs down to three million?” he asked.

When asked how will India protect the livelihood of its 600 million farmers if EU does not eliminate farm subsidies, he quipped: “That’s for your government to decide”.

You may like to revisit one of my articles about Pascal Lamy at your leisure
http://www.zmag.org/zspace/commentaries/2573

I now bring you Meena's dispatch (April 22, 2009) from Geneva. This has been taken from the WTO-INTL list. This is an important insight into the happenings at WTO, and is a must read for all those who have been working on trade related issues.


Dear friends,

Pascal Lamy, the DG of WTO met invited ngos to a dinner cum meeting last night. He is the only candidate for the next term as WTO DG. He is guaging ideas for setting his 'vision' for the WTO, which needless to say, is far from what some of us envision!

In any case, many NGOs, largerly Geneva-based and more northern, as well as the International Chamber of Commerce were present. We were there too. As you can imagine, many of the NGOs and the ICC wanted a quick conclusion of the Doha Round; some wanted the WTO to widen its scope to addressing climate change, the food crisis as well as financial and economic crisis - i.e. to be more relevant - not in the sense that the how the WTO policies and rules have contributed to the crises but rather, how the WTO can help with these issues! Some NGOs wanted the WTO to have a better outreach and work better in the capitals and local levels to actual promote the WTO and the liberalisation agenda!

Why do we bring this to your attention? Clearly to illustrate the relevance of OWINFS in WTO related work. Our perspectives and thinking about the WTO still appear to be sidelined, even among NGO circles. Hence the need for greater vigour and action from our end.

In our intervention, we raised the issue of the transparency of the WTO, the green rooms, and the mini-ministerials in the decision-making process. We reminded Lamy about a memo that many of us in OWINFS submitted to Supachai previously about these issues. Lamy had not seen it and did say that if we had another memo, we can send it to him. We also asked for more NGO access in observing the negotiations.

He however had a response to our views and said as follows -

It is impossible to reach consensus in a large organisation of member states in the WTO without the need for the 3 concentric circle process of :

1. the G7 process - once agreement is reached here then next is the larger
2. green room and then finally the
3. General Council. He maintained and insisted that this was a good process and the only way to go. So, there will be no change in this.

He said every country was familiar with the green room and it was a transparent process in the sense that everyone knows it happens and they know who speaks for the various groupings who are present.

On other issues -

On financial services liberalisation under the GATS, he said that it is a mistake to say that this has led to deregulation, adding that when countries open up their services, it is up to them to regulate or not. So, GATS in relation to financial services is not a problem. GATS is about trade opening and not deregulation.

On the NAMA proposals on the table, when the ITUC raised the effects on job losses, Lamy said that this was not true. The NAMA proposals would actually lead to millions of jobs being created - not lost. There could be some losses, but on balance, more jobs are created than lost.

On FTAs, he said that it would be good to have all preferential agreements be subject to MFN - meaning - all countries get same benefits as under the various FTAs! This implies WTO-plus approach and the end to south-south cooperation.

On the Doha Round, the next step would be for the engagement of the US when they are politically ready to do so.

Lamy did not provide an opportunity for rebuttal. This is in summary the main issues as we saw it.

It clearly shows the need for further work in rolling back the WTO and the agenda ahead. Our analysis and perpectives are more relevant now than ever in exposing the role of the WTO in promoting the neoliberal and out-moded Washington consensus model as we reinvent a new world.

From Sanya and Meena

Earth Day resolve: Closing five big food & beverage companies will provide water for the planet

I am sure many of you would have wondered why the newspapers are suddenly talking about the environment -- global warming, rivers drying up, Olive Ridley turtles, coming water wars of the future -- and so on, and that too in the midst of the heat and dust of the election campaigns. Well, it took me a few minutes to realise that today -- April 22 -- happens to be the Earth Day.

So today is Earth Day. Thank God, the Earth has at least one day to itself, even if it is only on paper !

A Washington-based news report World over, rivers are drying up caught my attention. Not that we didn't know it, but still let us see what the researchers are saying: The flow of water in the world's largest rivers including India's Ganga, has declined over the past half century, with significant changes found in about a third of the big rivers. The reduction in inflow to the Pacific Ocean alone was about equal to shutting off the Mississippi river. The annual flow into the Indian Ocean dropped by about 3 per cent, or 140 cubic kilometers.

Quoting a study published in the May 15 edition of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, the report goes on to say: Among the rivers showing declines in flow, several serve large populations. These include the Yellow River of northern China, the Ganga in India, the Niger in West Africa and the Colorado in the southwestern United States. The study also showed that the Colorado, a lifeline of the southwest United States, won't be able to provide all of water promised to millions who rely on it for their homes, farms and businesses.

Very well said. And that makes me wonder how stupid we can be when we promote unsustainable solutions like inter-linking of rivers to address the issue of river water going waste at a time when bulk of the country is starved of water and remains dependent upon rains as the only source of fresh water supplies. At a time when the glaciers are melting and the rivers drying up, to suggest an investment of Rs 1,20 lakh crores for linking the rivers was something I could never fathom. But knowing that the lobby groups have their own axe to grind, and academicians are always keen to provide oil to such lobbies, all I could do was to make my voice felt at some platforms.

Imagine, India making a massive investment to build a network of canals to link all the rivers, only to find that by the time the canals come into operation the rivers have gone dry. Of course, you don't have to worry because the economists will tell us this is one public investment that will stimulate the economy in downturn, and the GDP will grow. The Prime Minister will tell us how India is managing to keep its growth figures upward of eight per cent at times of a global meltdown. What he will not tell us is that the heavy investment his government (or successive governments) made on linking the dry rivers was actually a futile exercise, and stupid economics.

This also brings me to the related aspect of water shortage that is being felt all over. I don't have to present you the figures once again, you have read it time and again. Interestingly, the other day someone from the ITC group of companies in a public lecture explained how the company was trying to educate the household help, the part time women workers who come to your house every morning/evening to clean the utensils and mop up the floor, on how to save water. As part of their Corporate Social Responsibility, ITC was trying to do its bit. What an innovative effort, you would say. I wonder if the ITC follows the same prescription in the chain of hotels it runs !

But is there a way out? Can we really find a solution to the water crisis, which as some people predict, would lead to future wars?

I can suggest a simple solution. Extraordinary times they say, require extraordinary decisions. The simple solution that I have been thinking about needs extraordinary decision. I mean a tough political decision, and you have the answer to much of the water woes the world is faced with.

The Economist (Aug 27, 2008) states: Five big food and beverage companies -- Nestle, Unilever, Coca-Cola, Anheuser-Busch and Danone -- consume almost 575 billion litres of water a year, enough to satisy the daily water needs of every person on the planet.

Wouldn't it make sense if we were to close down these five companies. Now hold on, before you think I am going mad, think again. Closing these five companies will not result in more hunger. Closing these five companies will only mean that a few of us will be deprived of their products, nothing more than that. This will also enable us to seek suitable change in our unsustainable lifestyles that is harming the Earth.

All I am saying is close down these five companies. Give them a bailout package. If we can give a stimulus package to banks/insurance companies involved in financial frauds and irregularities, why not to these water guzzlers? After all, we have only one Earth to protect and preserve.

Ask these companies to close their shop. Or how long will we go on making fool of ordinary people by telling them to conserve water at the time of washing utensils or while brushing their teeth (I am certainly not against this kind of education and awareness) but why are we not willing to hit where it needs most? Why do we refrain from taking tough political decisions in favour of the masses? If the world really needs water, and water is the lifeline as we all know, than I think we should be willing to call for some hard decisions.

Extraordinary times, require extraordinary decisions.

On this Earth Day, let us take a resolve. We want to protect the Earth, and our future needs. The Earth needs water, and we need a vibrant Earth. No price is bigger than protecting the Earth. Even if it means pulling down the shutter on world's five big food and beverage companies.

The Earth will then be a much better place to stay.

G-8 Farm Ministers prepare for farmers funeral

Ten years from now when the G-8 Farm Ministers will meet in 2119 for their annual sojourn -- Agriculture Ministers Summit -- somewhere in Timbaktoo or in Doha or in the Chilean highlands, the main agenda will be to place a wreath at the tomb of the farmer.

The last surviving farmer or a group of farmers who managed to somehow survive the onslaught of the market forces would be there to remember the departed millions, and all that the G-8 ministers will do is to swear in the memory of the fallen farmers, bow their heads for two minutes silence and reiterate their commitment to promote sustainable agriculture.

After the memorial ceremony is over, it will be business as usual. The only difference being that with farmers -- the last stumbling block in the takeover of global griculture by the corporates -- already removed, the Summit will focus on the stock market tabulations, upheavals and the financial stimulus needed to keep the agribusiness companies alive and afloat.

At the concluding ceremony, you will find the present Italian Farm, Food, and Forestry Policies Minister Mr Luca Zaia, being called upon to receive the coveted Charles Darwin International Award for Survival of the Species. He will be recognised for the exemplary courage demonstrated at the time of 2009 Summit wherein he was the lone dissenting voice against removing protectionism in agriculture. He will be remembered for saying: "In my personal opinion, if the Doha Round means to scrap import duties and starve our farmers, well; we are not here to attend a funeral of Italian agriculture."

As the applause dies down, the 2119 Summit will acknowledge the failure of the world to heed to the warning issued by Devinder Sharma and a large number of his colleagues, and place on record their contribution that unfortunately could not save the farmer as a species from disappearing from the face of the planet.

You can dismiss this as a figment of my imagination, and if you do it you will be doing it at your own peril. Take a look at the final declaration of the G-8 Agriculture Ministers Summit, and you will know what I mean. It is a document that could have been prepared by any graduate student in management studies at Harvard and Cambridge. It is a document that has merely prefixed the world sustainable at a number of places, and it is a text that will be digested easily by a gullible media. In short, what I have always been saying: the vocabulary is always right, the implied actions are wrong.

If you read the final declaration of the World Food Summit 1996; or the FAO High-Level Conference on World Food Security, held at Rome in June 2008; or the G-8 Leaders Statement on Global Food Security, held at Tokyo, Japan in June 2008; they all read alike. They all talk of helping developing countries and countries in transition to expand agriculture and food production and to increase investment in agriculture, agribusiness and rural development, from both public and private sources. They tell us that ensuring access to food and water is essential for sustainable development and for our future. Talks of creating an enabling environment to improve policy coherence, and recognise farmers to be the main protagonist of the farm sector.

Realising the need to sustain the benefits of globalisation and open markets, they reiterate the need for a rule based international trading system for agricultural trade and seek for a balanced, comprehensive and ambitious conclusion of the Doha round. Well, more or less, they say the same, and mean the same.

In simple words, it means the G-8 supports the ongoing international efforts to ensure that farmers exit from agriculture. In short, the ground is being prepared for farmers' funeral.

You can read the final declaration at http://www.g8agricultureministersmeeting.mipaaf.com/en/

I draw your attention to a study that I and my colleagues did at the time of the WTO Hong Kong Ministerial. Entitled - Trade Liberalisation in Agriculture: Lessons from the First 10 Years of Agreement on Agriculture, the study concluded by saying:

The writing has been on the wall. The underlying objective of the free trade paradigm is to ensure that the developing countries should stop growing staple foods and some of the commercially most important commodities like cotton and sugar. The OECD countries will – thanks to the monumental subsidies and increasing protection – continue to maintain its dominance for these crops. In fact, the process to shift the production of staple foods and major commercial commodities to the OECD had begun much earlier. WTO is merely legitimizing the new global farming systems.

World Bank/IMF had under the structural adjustment policies very clearly tied up credit with crop diversification. It continues to force developing countries to shift from staple foods (crucial for food security needs) to cash crops that meet the luxury requirement of the western countries. It has therefore been forcing developing countries to dismantle state support to food procurement, withdraw price support to farmers, dismantle food procurement, and relax land ceiling laws that enable the corporate sector to move into agriculture. Farmers need to be left at the mercy of the market forces. Since they are ‘inefficient’ producers, they need to be replaced by the industry.

The same prescription for farming is not vigorously pursued in the industrialized countries. Let us be very clear, one part of the world that needs to go in for immediate crop diversification is the industrial world. These are the countries that produce mounting surpluses of wheat, rice, corn, soybean, sugar beat, cotton, and that too under environmentally unsound conditions. These are the countries that inflict double the damage – first destroy the land by highly intensive crop practices, pollute ground water, contaminate the environment, and then receive massive subsidies to keep these unsustainable practices artificially viable.

If the WTO has its ways, and the developing countries fail to understand the prevailing politics that drives the agriculture trade agenda, the world will soon have two kinds of agriculture systems – the rich countries will produce staple foods for the world’s 6 billion plus people, and developing countries will grow cash crops like tomato, cut flowers, peas, sunflower, strawberries and vegetables. The dollars that developing countries earn from exporting these crops will eventually be used to buy food grains from the developed nations – in reality, back to the days of ‘ship-to-mouth’ existence.

Take the case of Central America. The debt crisis that inflicted the Central American countries in the 1980s was very conveniently used to shift the cropping pattern to non-traditional exports. Aided and abetted by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), farmers were lured to the illusion of greener pastures in the developed world. They shifted to crops like melons, strawberries, cauliflower, broccoli and squash that were shipped to the supermarkets, mainly in America. In turn, these Central American countries disbanded cultivation of staple crops like corn and bean, and have now become major importers.

Developed country agriculture has so far enjoyed a unique ‘special and differential’ treatment that was actually reserved for the developing and least developed countries. The impregnable wall that has been built since the days of the Uruguay Round is not so easy to breach.

Tragically, the suicide by the Korean farmer Lee Kyung-hae at Cancun in Sept 2003 amplifies the devastation that WTO has wrought on the farming communities all over the world. Unfortunately, what has not been understood is that WTO has very cleverly pitted farming communities of one country against the other. We know that Jamaican farmers are worried over the cheaper dairy imports from UK; Filipino farmers are worried of cheaper imports of rice from the US; the Indonesian farmers are worried of cheaper rice from US and Vietnam; Indian farmers are worried of cheaper silk from China and cheaper tea from Sri Lanka; the list is endless…

Strange that from 1995 onwards – the year WTO came into existence – farmers all over the world are a harried lot. They are unsure of what the fellow farmers from across their national borders would dump at artificially low prices. These are the farmers who have become the victim of unfair trade liberalization. The reason is obvious. There is someone who benefits from putting two farming communities (of different countries) confront each other. These are the agri-business companies.

A true reform in agriculture is only possible when the global community accepts the guiding principle that food for all is an international obligation. It can only be achieved when the need for national food self-sufficiency becomes the cornerstone of the AoA. It can only be put into practice when the developed and the developing countries refrain from a battle of food supremacy to reorient efforts to bring equality, justice and human compassion in addressing the mankind’s biggest scourge – chronic hunger and acute malnutrition.

Farmer Suicides in Punjab

A Punjab Agricultural Univeristy report Farmer & Agricultural Labourers Suicides due to Indebtedness in the Punjab State -- a pilot project of Sangrur and Bathinda districts, submitted to the Punjab government a few days back has sirred a political storm.

The survey report says that 2,990 farmers had committed suicide in just two districts -- 1256 in Bathinda and 1634 in Sangrur district -- between 2000 and 2008. This report, more or less like a household census, is considered to be the first authentic survey documenting the spate of suicides among farmers and agricultural workers.

This report comes within a month of the Punjab government's decision to fix a price for farmer suicides -- Rs 2 lakh to the families of those farmers who have committed suicide in the past one year.

In Sangrur district, 738 farmers who took the fatal path to escape growing indebtedness, had an average outstanding debt of Rs 3.36 lakh per farmer. For another lot of 246 farmers who committed suicide for other reasons, the average outstanding amount standing against their name was Rs 79,935. As far as farm labourers are concerned, the average debt was Rs 70,036.

In Bathinda, the average outstanding due against farmers who could not sustain the growing indebtedness, was Rs 2.94 lakh. As many as 550 farmers belonged to this category. For another lot of 223 farmers who too committed suicide but for other reasons, the average outstanding debt was Rs 85,825. For the workers, the outstanding amount against their name was Rs 47,347 on an average. The report also provides a list of such households.

Meanwhile, another report in The Independent, London, says 1,500 farmers in Chattisgarh State have committed suicide. It blames crop failure and the falling water table to be responsible for the serial death dance. If this is true, I don't see why the Punjab farmers, who are endowed with assured irrigation, have to commit suicide. That means lack of irrigation cannot be the only reason. The PAU report blames growing indebtedness for the spate of suicides. Indebtedness comes from various reasons, and somehow I find we shirk from pointing to the real causes.

Reports about suicides in Vidharba belt in Maharashtra also ascribe it to lack of irrigation and distress sale of produce. While all this may be true, but I sometimes wonder why are we all reluctant to dig it deeper and find out the real causes that triggers indebtedness.

My Vision for a Global Agriculture

When you are invited to share your vision for a global agriculture, the underlying message is loud and clear: you have now joined the ranks of the elderly people. In India, they call it elder citizen.

So when I was invited by the UK Food Group and Sustain to make a presentation on My Vision for a Global Agriculture at a Dialogue on Agricultural Trade Reform, Subsidies and the Future of Small and Family Farms and Farmers, held at London, on June 30, 2004, I realised that I was perhaps getting old.

My Vision for a Global Agriculture comes at a crucial time in the history of international agriculture. I wish the powers that be, and that includes the agriculture ministers of the G-8 countries, and international agencies like FAO/IFAD/World Bank and the likes had paid some attention to it, and the world wouldn't have been faced with the kind of crisis that we are confronted with now. It is my strong belief that sooner or later the world will have to return to a sustainable pathway in agriculture, the sooner it happens the better it will be for humanity.

This paper was written in 2004, and hence certain data/figures may appear outdated. This is drawn from my writings and experiences. But the essence remains the same. If you find it useful, please do share it with your friends and colleagues.

My Vision for a Global Agriculture

By Devinder Sharma

Picture the three scenarios:

Scenario 1: At first impression, news reports that appeared in 2002 the American media looked like emanating from a drought-stricken village in India’s hinterland. Till of course you see the dateline. You continue to read in utter disbelief. About 100 desperate farmers and rural residents praying for rain at the St. Patrick parish church in Grand Rapids, Ohio. With hands clasped and eyes cast downward, they seek divine intervention. "None of us have control over whether it is going to rain or not," said Sister Christine Pratt, rural life director for the Catholic Diocese of nearby Toledo told Reuters, the wire agency. "But the people are praying for one another and there is some hope."

Another report in the Washington Post stated President George Bush did not extend finances under drought relief in addition to the support that came from $180 billion farm bill he signed in May 2002. The president however underscored his commitment to helping farmers under current programs, including the Agriculture Department's decision that provides $150 million in surplus milk --- "spoiled milk," as Democrats called it – to be made available for use in animal feed in four drought-stricken states, including South Dakota.Cattle were dying and crops shrivelled. Fodder become scarce, and, therefore, the need to feed surplus ‘milk’ instead.

There was a scramble for new water sources as town and city residents were asked to stop watering lawns and washing cars. In heat-baked fields ranchers sold off herds rather than let them starve for lack of pasture. "I have never seen it like this and I'm 60 years old," said Richard Traylor, who owns 37,000 acres in Texas and New Mexico but had sold off much of his cattle herd.

Serious hydrological problems with wells and reservoirs emerged. Streams went dry. The groundwater table fell drastically. Wildfires became more rampant, and an estimated 4.6 million acres, had been scorched, twice the average acreage burnt in the previous decade. "It is pretty dire," Mark Svoboda, climatologist for the National Drought Mitigation Center was quoted as saying. From southern California to South Carolina and from Montana to New Mexico, individuals and industries were suffering, the news agencies reported.[2]

America was faced with its worst drought since the days of the great ‘dust bowl’ of the 1930s. By a strange coincidence, far away, India too was reeling under its worst drought of the century. As many as 26 of the 50 American States were reeling under a severe drought, with "exceptional drought" conditions --- the worst level of drought measured – prevailing in thirteen states, including New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and Utah. In India, drought had ravaged through 12 of the 28 states. Such was the crop damage that like the drastic reduction in foodgrain production in 2002-03 in India, the US wheat production too was anticipated to fall to its lowest levels in nearly 30 years.

Scenario 2: Let us move to another part of the world. Monica Shandu was adjusted the best small-scale sugarcane grower for 2001 in the Entumeni hills of South Africa. She farms four acres with sugarcane, and the harvest brings her an equivalent of US $200. Despite being a progressive farmer with high productivity levels, Monica lives in penury barely managing to survive against all odds. Far away in France, Dominique Fievez cultivates his farm of 400 acres with sugar beet. His is an average farm, which remains untouched by the price fluctuations in international market since 1984. The reason: Fievez receives a huge subsidy support under the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy at the rate of US $23,000 for each of the 33 acres that he grows with beet.

Such heavy subsidy depresses the international sugar prices making it difficult for developing countries to export. Monica Shandu gets a low price for her cane harvest because of the subsidies that farmers like Fievez in France continue to pocket. As Kevin Watkins of Oxfam says: "The $1.6bn a year the EU gives to the sugar barons of East Anglia and the Paris Basin generates surpluses that deprive countries such as Thailand and Malawi of markets. Mozambique loses almost as much as a result of EU sugar policy as it gets in European aid."[3]

Take another example. In cotton, India has the dubious distinction of having the largest area under the crop and one of the lowest average yields. This unexplained paradox was exploited by the multinational seed company Monsanto to hastily push in its genetically modified 'Bt cotton' variety in 2002. The Department of Biotechnology as well as the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) too used the productivity yardstick to justify the approval granted to Bt cotton. By reducing pesticides use, Bt cotton was expected to reduce crop losses thereby increasing per hectare productivity. The rise in productivity will help farmers get more for the produce, and also enable them to export.

While the impact (both negative and positive) of Bt cotton was too small to make any dent on the national production figures, the fact remains that cotton has lately emerged as the crop that has increasingly pushed growers into a death trap. In 2002, more than 100 suicides were reported alone from 12 districts that constitute the Vidharvha region of the eastern Maharashtra. Faced with mounting debt, a failed crop for the second year and government indifference, cotton farmers are resorting to suicides as a way out of misery. Government's denial notwithstanding, thousands of cotton growers have committed suicides throughout the country since 1987.[4]

In contrast, America remains the world's largest exporter of cotton. Armed with roughly $3.4 billion in subsidy, US farmers in 2002 harvested a record crop of 9.74 billion pounds of cotton, aggravating a US glut and pushing prices far below the break-even price of most growers around the world, including India, China and west Africa. In 2002-03, US cotton farmers pocketed even more, thanks to the farm bill signed by President Bush in May 2002. The government program ensures farmers reap about 70 cents a pound of cotton by making up for any shortfall in the market with state support.

Although relatively small share of the farm population -- just 25,000 of America's 9,00,000 farming families actually raise cotton -- their affluence and influence is legendary. The average net worth of a full-time American cotton-farming household, including land and non-farm assets, is about $800,000, according to the US Department of Agriculture. And more than half of it comes from the government subsidies. The slump in world prices therefore has no impact on their lifestyles. But in turn brings misery to farmers in the majority world.

Scenario 3: Thirty-five years after the Indian farmers pulled out the perpetually hungry millions from the clutches of ‘ship-to-mouth’ existence, it is now their own turn to be fed. To stave off starvation among the farming community, the Tamilnadu government had in 2003 launched a free mid-day meal programme for the small and marginal farmers, agricultural labourers and their families.

The tragic and shocking reversal of the role – feeding the farmers who have been feeding the country all these years – is the culmination of national policies that have neglected agriculture and farming in the wake of globalisation and economic liberalization. Tamilnadu’s courageous decision to provide free noon meal to farmers and their families will soon trigger a domino effect, with many more states announcing similar programmes for farmers in distress. After all, denials from the government notwithstanding, over 24,000 farmers have committed suicide throughout the country since 1995.[5]

An ungrateful nation ignored agriculture. In fact, the pink newspapers and some pro-liberalisation economists led the assault on farming saying that it is not the poor farmers who needed adequate infrastructure, cheap credit, an assured market, and a remunerative price but the small percentage of rich industrialists, business and trade that needed to be showered with the state exchequer.

In these three scenarios is hidden the story of modern agriculture, the crisis and complexities that confront sustainable farming systems, and the faulty answers being proposed to bail out agriculture. The tragedy of modern agriculture is that those who created the problem at the first instance are the ones who are being asked to provide the solutions. Those who tilled the land for ages, and have the knowledge and wisdom to provide the right answers, are being ignored and for obvious reasons.

Take the first scenario. The American agriculture that we all studied in the universities and appreciated had fallen apart with one year of severe drought. The drought proofing that we heard so much about the American agriculture appears to be untrue. It is a known fact that Indian agriculture falters because of its complete dependence on monsoons. For developing countries, with the fragmented land holdings, subsistence farming methods, low productivity and the exploitation of the natural resource base as a consequence have cast serious doubts over the sustainability and viability of the farms. The only escape for the country, we are invariably told by agricultural scientists, is to follow the American model.

With the kind of industrialisation and technology advance that took place in American agriculture, and with the amount of investments made, we were always told that the US agriculture is the model for world agriculture.

One year of severe drought, and the scientifically sophisticated industrial farm model crumbled. In any case, the kind of investment that has gone on into American agriculture in the form of energy cannot be provided by developing countries.

In the second scenario, the huge cotton subsidies that go into its production and marketing makes the United States dominate the world market. As if this is not enough, a federal farm subsidy program is paying nearly $1.7 billion to American agribusiness andmanufacturers to buy American cotton that is already one of the most highly subsidized crops in the world.[6] The question therefore that is conveniently brushed aside is that even if the developing country farmers were to double the cotton productivity, how can they ever compete the American cotton producers who receive a lavish federal support? More the cotton productivity in countries like India, for instance, more would be the resulting crisis for the farmers as well as the country's food security and economy.

To ask Monica Shandu in South Africa to work towards raising sugarcane productivity therefore is a sure recipe for disaster. Similarly, asking the sugarcane growers in Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra in India to raise productivity so as to be globally competitive is to further push them towards an uncertain future unless the sugar subsidy regime in the European Union and the US is first cleansed from manipulations.Also, the productivity increase prescription comes at a time when with the phasing out of quantitative restrictions on agricultural commodities in India, the import of cotton (from the US) had increased from 21,200 tonnes in 1999 to 48,805 tonnes in 2000.

Strange isn't it, that the government, which asks domestic farmers to improve productivity so as to attain global competitivenes should allow highly subsidized imports so as to help the American cotton growers?[7] Behind the cotton story is also hidden the manipulations and machinations that go into promoting free trade essentially to ensure profit security for the agribusiness companies. Whether it is cotton, sugarcane or rice or for that matter other agricultural commodities, the negative impact of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) ....... continued

The full paper in a PDF form is available at:
http://edm.ibon.be/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=65

Equador might accept Terminator technology

Sometimes back, there was an interesting case of a absurd patent filed before the European Patent Office. The patent was about a lactating gene in the lower vertebrates, and was written in such a manner that it extended to human females. I am not sure whether the patent application is still pending before the EPO, but the lawyer for the company that filed for the patent had said that he is waiting for the day when a stupid patent official will approve the patent.

This brings me to the controversial issue of terminator seeds. The ever-agile ETC has issued an alert today, which tells us that Equador, a biodiversity rich country in Latin America, has possibly opened its door to the terminator technology. The new President, Rafael Correa has made certain changes in a proposed legislation, and sent it back to the Congress. Obviously, the President is under pressure from the biotech industry, and as we know the industry prefers to wait for the day when a 'right kind of leader' takes over.

Who says perseverance doesn't pay?

Elizabeth Bravo of Accion Ecologica in Equador is really a brave person. She is quick to understand, and among the first to react to the Presidential amendment, and her warning may save the Equadorians from an impending (un)natural disaster. I remember the days when ETC (it was then called RAFI) had first issued an alert on the terminator seed, The Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security in New Delhi was quick to analyse its implications, and issue a warning. Within a fortnight, the then Agriculture Minister Mr Sompal made a statement in Parliament saying that India would not allow terminator. And subsequently it became such an emotive issue that terminator was finally outlawed. The Indian Plant Varieties Protection & Farmer Rights Act (PVPFA) explicitly states that.

Brazil is another country that has outlawed terminator technology.

But let us not be complacent. The biotech companies have not given up. Even India and Brazil are under tremendous pressure to accept terminator in its new form, being now branded and promoted as a biosafety tool. If the Equdaor Congress accepts the partial-veto from the President, and I am not sure whether they have the power to reject the Presidential amendment, it will be the beginning of an end of the kind of nature that you and me have been lucky to find ourselves in the midst of.

Equador is a test case. Believe me, if Equador accepts the Terminator technology, your country's turn (wherever you are based) would not be far away. And don't be under the impression that you have nothing to fear as the famous Hollywood actor and now California's governor Arnold Schwarzenegger would be able to use his muscle power to fight out the forces behind Terminator. The power to stop the Terminator rests only with you. If you don't want to exercise your power, don't blame anyone.

Here is the ETC alert:

Terminating Food Sovereignty in Ecuador? President opens door to Terminator seeds

On February 18, 2009, the Ecuadorian Congress approved a new Law on Food Sovereignty, which, among other important points, declared the country “free of transgenic crops and seeds.” However, in spite of vocal popular opposition, the legislation left the door open to approvals of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in “exceptional” cases. Now, President Rafael Correa has proposed several changes to the legislation – in what is known in Ecuador as a partial-veto – and sent it back to the Congress. The president's changes dangerously weaken the law and open the door to Terminator seeds.

Terminator technology is designed to make “suicide seeds,” geneticallyengineered to be sterile in the second generation. The technology hasbeen widely rejected around the world by farmers’ movements, governments, research institutions and UN agencies as dangerous, immoral and undesirable.

Alarmed by President Correa's proposals, civil society is now calling on him to drop his amendments and to explicitly ban Terminatortechnology.

“It's very disturbing that a law that aims to affirm food sovereignty could instead clear the way for a technology that was designed toprevent it,” said Silvia Ribeiro of ETC Group. “The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the companies that designed suicide seed technologydid so explicitly to replace what they called peasants’ 'old seeds.' Since 2000, when a de facto moratorium against Terminator technology was agreed at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD], these companies have re-branded Terminator as a 'biosafety' tool. This is the interpretation reflected in the president's amended text. Ribeiro adds, “We're worried that this kind of language is showing up inseveral countries in the global South and we see it as a new push by the biotech industry to overturn the moratorium on Terminator at theCBD's meeting next year in Japan.”

Article 26 of Ecuador's Law on Food Sovereignty, entitled “Regulationof biotechnology and its products,” allowed for the import and processing of “raw materials containing transgenic inputs, providedthey meet the requirements of health and safety, and that the reproductive capacity of the seeds is disabled by breaking [of grains](…)”

The explicit clarification of “seed disabled by breaking” was included to ensure that if transgenic seeds were imported through food aid, or for processing, accidental gene flow from these grains would not contaminate crops in Ecuador, as has tragically happened in Mexico and other countries.

The partial-veto of President Correa removes the phrase “bybreaking”[1] from this article, arguing that breaking the grains would mean increased costs. The result is that the amended wording now allows for the importation of GM materials provided only that the“reproductive capacity of seeds is disabled.” Such language equals an acceptance of grains with Terminator technology.

Elizabeth Bravo of Acción Ecológica, an internationally-respected environmental civil society organization in Ecuador, comments, “Unfortunately, the president's changes to the legislation reflect the influence of his biotech industry-friendly advisors. Terminator is an experimental technology that has never been proven. Scientific reports submitted to the CBD demonstrate that the complexity and instabilityof Terminator seeds mean that, in practice, there will still beleakage of GM traits. We could face a worst-case scenario: Ecuador enabling both GM contamination and suicide seeds. That is a direct threat to agricultural biodiversity, an essential basis for food sovereignty in Ecuador.”

Bravo added, “This text works against the provisions of article 73 of Ecuador's Constitution, which 'prohibits the introduction of organicand inorganic material that can alter in a definitive way the national genetic heritage.'”

Maria José Guazzelli from Brazil and the international Ban Terminator Campaign (made up of hundreds of organizations throughout the world), also voiced concern. “It would be outrageous for Ecuador, which always supported the international moratorium against Terminator, to open the gate to this terrible technology at the national level. Instead, Ecuador should legislate a ban on the import, development, trials and commercialization of Terminator seeds, as Brazil has already done.”

Not showing any regret for pushing the world into food crisis, G-8 to chart a global action plan for food insecurity.

Look at the irony. People who are actually responsible for the global food crisis and the resulting increase in hunger are now coming together to show us the possible way out. The rich and industrialised countries, called the G-8, is attempting to identify guidelines for the development of farm policies at the global level so as to kickstart the economy in doldrums. These guidelines will then be 'forced down' the throat of the developing countries, a sure way to revive the agribusiness corporations and in turn the rich countries which are faced with an economic recession.

The G-8 Agricultural Ministers meeting is being held in Treviso in Italy from April 18-20. The meeting will be devoted to food security, to hunger in the world and to fluctuating farm prices in the marketplace.

Introducing the meeting, the Italian Farm, Food and Forestry Policies Minister Luca Zaia told newsperson that they will be attempting to identify guidelines for the development of farm policies, and submit these guidelines at the G-8 Summit in July. "It is our task to prepare a manifesto with which both countries and the major organisations can identify in the struggle against hunger in the world, and in their effort to guarantee food security and combat fluctuating prices while defending the identity of farm produce."

Farm Ministers of G-8 countries -- Italy, Canada, Russian Federation, France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdon, and the United States -- along with agricultural ministers from Brazil, China, India, Mexico, South Africa, Argentina, Australia, Egypt are attening the meeting. Also participating in the deliberations are the World Bank, the FAO, IFAD, the OECD, African Union, World Food Programme and the UN High Level Task Force on World Food Security.

This meeting actually is an extension of the global food security partnership that was first mooted at the FAO Summit in Rome in June. According the official website, it will promote more effective and consistent action both inside each country and at the global level. Italy's Foreign undersecretary V Scotti argued that, given the worldwide economic downturn, the time has come for countries, international institutions, NGO's and private-sector players to cooperate on "fostering a fresh boost to investment in the spheres of farming and food, and a search for innovative solutions to support small-scale producers and to set up social security networks".

It couldn’t have been better timed. The alarm bells have come at a time when the world is moving fast from agriculture to industrialization, from farming to corporate agriculture. With small farms being gobbled by big agribusinesses, farm land increasingly being diverted for industrial purposes, and the international focus shifting from staple foods to cash crops and now to bio-fuels, the world is now at the throes of an unprecedented food crisis. Much of the global crisis in food and sustainable agriculture is the result of Green Revolution (and now it is the turn of Africa to be devasted by AGRA), which is being further acerbated by the Gene Revolution.

The era of cheap food is over. The battle for food and fuel will further add to global hunger. The G-8 Agriculture Ministers unfortunately do not have the moral and political courage to even look beyond the industrial prescription being doled out by the agribusiness corporations. It will therefore be business as usual, except that this time business will be pushed aggressively.

At the root of the problem are the neoliberal economic policies that have shifted the focus from food self-sufficiency to free trade. It is no use blaming the rice producing countries, for instance, for declining production when the global effort is to force them to abandon measures that led to food self-sufficiency. Take the case of Indonesia. It was a net rice exporting country some 12 years back. Thanks to the shift in domestic policies resulting from the macro-economic thinking that it has now turned into one of the world’s major rice importer. What has happened in Indonesia is no exception. Many of the developing countries have now become food importer ever since the WTO came into existence in 1995.

This is exactly what the World Bank/IMF had been preaching for over 20 yeas now, and the WTO has merely legitimized it by providing legal teeth to it. The tragedy is that while the food crisis is being debated at one platform, the issue does not figure at another platform -- among the trade negotiators. No wonder, while world over there is an upheaval on the food front, trade negotiators are getting closer to signing the contentious Doha Development Round which will force the developing countries to open up their markets still further to imports of highly subsidies grains from the US and European Union.

It is time to reflect. Does the world need a WTO that actually turns developing countries into food importing countries? The world has to look for the real causes behind the prevailing crisis, and initiate steps that radically change the farming scenario providing emphasis on food sovereignty.

Instead the world is faced with yet another grave threat -- emanating from land grab in developing countries, which will have tremendous impact on the the way food is grown and the way future food insecurity will grow. You will see that the G-8 will remain silent on the emerging threat to world food security.

I draw your attention to an analysis entitled: Land Grab for Food Security: Corporatising Agriculture that I had written at the height of the global food crisis, for the Deccan Herald (Nov 13, 2008). Tomorrow, I will present My Vision for a Global Agriculture.

Land Grab for Food Security: Corporatising Agriculture

By Devinder Sharma

At the 150th commemoration of the Irish Famine held at Cork, Ireland, I vividly recall the mayor of the city tell the audience: “How barbarian was the society then that at a time when people were dying of hunger and starvation, corn was being loaded in ships for export to neighbouring Britain.”

Nearly 160 years after the great Irish Potato Famine, the world is preparing a fertile ground for yet another and more sinister barbaric act. This time, the world is witnessing a race to invest in overseas farmlands – buying hundreds of thousands of hectares of fertile land – and turning them into food estates. Many of the food and financial companies investing in farmlands abroad are also bringing in their own farm workers and production technology and equipment.

The global financial meltdown had privatised the profits, and socialised the losses. The relatively new phenomenon of outsourcing food production – buying land overseas for growing food – will ensure food security for the investing country, and leave behind a trail of hunger, starvation and food scarcities for the native populations. The environmental tab of highly intensive farming – devastated soils, dry aquifer, and ruined ecology from chemical infestation – will be left for the host country to pick up.

In the name of food security, what is worrisome is that the global food production and distribution channel is actually getting into the hands of a few international agribusiness companies with tie ups with hedge funds. With large populations being displaced world over from such land takeovers, and with World Bank aggressively promoting it, control over food chain is increasingly being passed into the hands of private investment.

It is happening around the world. In India, as Karnataka prepares to lift restrictions on purchase of farm land in what appears to be a misguided attempt to attract investments, about 15 companies, led by the public-sector State Trading Corporation (STC), and including Gujarat Ambuja, Ruchi Soya industries and Jhunjhunwala Vanaspati Ltd., are already in the process of leasing 10,000 hectares of productive farmlands in Paraguay, Uruguay and Brazil in Latin America, mainly to cultivate soybean and oilseeds. Indian companies are also moving into Burma to undertake production of pulses, and buying palm oil plantations in Indonesia. Australia and Canada are next on the land shopping list.

National laws are being suitably amended. The Indian Ministry of Food and Agriculture is backing the outsourcing initiative. The Reserve Bank of India through the Exim Bank is contemplating a change in the existing laws to provide loans to these companies to purchase land abroad. Not only in India, national laws are also being rewritten from Argentina to Mongolia, and from Australia to Russia, to facilitate the purchase of land overseas or allow foreign companies to buy land.

In Pakistan, in the throes of a food crisis, Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani showed exuberance after his return from a state-visit to Saudi Arabia in mid-June. After all, in exchange for the desperately needed foreign investment, he had reportedly offered to sell thousands of hectares of productive farmlands. Meanwhile, Qatar is preparing to outsource its food production to Pakistan’s Punjab, where nearly 25,000 villages are faced with displacement. Saudi Arabia is also planning to acquire a 1.6 million hectares food estate in Merauke in Indonesia to produce rice for export back home.

Saudi Arabia is not the only gulf country looking for land elsewhere. A Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) has been constituted – with membership from Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates – scouting for overseas land in return for investments. Land deals have already been struck with Laos, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Cambodia, Pakistan, Thailand and Burma in Asia; Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Russia and Turkey in central Asia/Europe; and Sudan, Uganda in Africa. Realising that oil revenue alone cannot feed its populations, as seen in the recent global food crisis when food disappeared from the supermarket shelf, Gulf countries are investing for future food security needs.

China is emerging as a major player in land grab. After having increasingly divested its farm population from agriculture and moving them into the cities, China is now on a land buying spree. With some 30 land deals already known to have been signed, mostly in Africa, Central Asia, Australia and the Philippines, China has also prepared an agricultural policy on outsourcing food production. Most pf these deals are vbeing executed in a hush-hush manner. Interestingly, while China is looking for land outside its territory, agribusiness companies from Japan, South Korea and America are taking control over its own agribusiness activities.

The population shift in China – pushing farmers out of agriculture and moving them into the cities – has taken a heavy toll of the social fabric, marred by social unrest, often bloody. China Daily, the official organ of the Chinese government, had reported a massive increase in rural protests – from 10,000 a year some 11 years back to over 75,000 in 2005-06, which means roughly 250 protests a day. Rapid industrialisation in the countryside had played havoc with sustainable farming system, thereby necessitating search for farmland outside the country. India too, in a blind race to catch up with China, is following the same faulty policy prescription.

Egypt, which recently was faced with food riots, stirred a hornet’s nest, when it was divulged that a deal was underway to lease 840,000 hectares or 2.2 per cent of Uganda’s farm land, for wheat and maize production to be shipped back. At the same time, Egyptian farmers in Qena district were fighting a long-drawn battle to recover 1600 hectares of land owned by a Japanese agribusiness giant, Kobebussan. Many other countries face the same dilemma – while they are looking for land elsewhere, their own farmlands are being taken away by foreign companies.

According to a report “Seized: The 2008 Land Grab for Food and Financial Security” prepared by the Barcelona-based GRAIN, food corporates from Japan – including Asahi, Itochu, Sumitomo and Mitsubishi – have between 2006-08 leased and purchased hundreds of hectares of land in China, Brazil, Africa, and central Asia for organic food production. No wonder, with Japan not allowing corporates to own farmland, these companies are looking for greener pastures everywhere. South Korea, where the government is supporting outsourcing, is buying land in pristine Mongolia, thereby threatening one of the world’s naturally endowed ecosystems.

If you are wondering where the bailout package that taxpayers have heavily paid for have gone into, hold your breath. Goldman Sachs and Deutsche Bank are eyeing a takeover of China’s livestock industry. Morgan Stanley has purchased 40,000 hectares in Ukraine. Landkom, the British investment group has also bought 100,000 hectares of land in Ukraine. The two Swedish investing firms, Black Earth Farming and Alpcot-Agro, have purchased 331,000 hectares and 128,000 hectares of farm land in Russia, respectively. South Korean giant Daewoo has brought in the mother of all land-grabbing deals. It has taken on 99-year lease some 1.2 million hectares in Madagascar., half the total available arable lands in this African country.

The political economy of food is certainly being rewritten, with grave implications in store.

The Indigenous Rice Gene Bank

No, I am not talking of the much talked about Gene Bank at the International Rice Research Institute, at Las Banos, in the Philippines. Nor I am talking about the National Gene Bank housed in the National Bureau for Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR) in New Delhi. The indigenous rice Gene Bank I am talking about is a unique repository of rice genetic wealth, a one-man effort to conserve and preserve the traditional rice germplasm in situ.

Natbar Sarangi is not only an organic farmer. He is in reality a mankind's heritage. Future generations will remain indebted to him for his singular effort in collecting, preserving and conserving a massive 310 rice accessions in his two hectare farm, located in Narisco village in Khurda district of Orissa. What makes his effort unique is that he is not only conserving these rice strains but also cultivating them.

I am simply amazed by what little I have read about Natbar Sarangi, a retired school teacher. Knowing how difficult, strenuous, laborious and of course thankless is the task of meticulously collecting the traditional rice cultivars, and keep them viable over a long period, I think the NBPGR needs to learn from him a lesson or two on how to select and preserve these strains. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) would do an honour to itself by appointing Natbar Sarangi as a distinguished 'national professor'. Meanwhile, it is really heartening to learn that Save Our Rice Campaign (launched by Thanal, Kerala), Sahaja Samrudha of Bangalore, and Sirinadu Gramina Janabivrudhi Samsthe are honouring Natbar Sarangi at the proposed Rice Utsav-2009 being organised at Shimoga in Karnataka on April 19.

I often wonder why as a nation we fail to recognise the valient efforts being made by farmers like Natbar Sarangi? Why are our agricultural universities and the research institutes always trying to ignore or run down the richness of indigenous wealth? Why is it that our scientists always look at what is available in America and Europe, even if it is not adaptable under Indian conditions? In short, why are we ashamed of everything the country has, I mean its massive biodiversity, and the traditional knowledge associated with it? The answer does not lie in honoring these seed saviours by giving them a plaque as the Plant Varieties Protection & Farmers Rights Authority (PVPFRA) would normally do. What is needed is to learn from them, and propagate these cultivars with the backing of the entire official machinery.

A team of researchers from Thanal in Thiruvanthpuram had visited Natbar Sarangi at his farm. I present below some excerpts from their field report:

Natbar Sarangi, is an organic farmer, from the Narisco village of Khurda district of Orissa. He cultivates and conserves 310 varieties of rice in 2 hectares of his field. Sarangi retired as a High school teacher, and at the age of 50 took up farming as a post retirement activity. He started out with cultivating the popular high yielding variety, CR1009 but the pest incidence was high. Agricultural department suggested pesticides application.

While applying Carbofuran pesticide, a worker who was applying it fainted in the fields. Sarangi immediately stopped the application. The next morning when he went back he found crabs, snails, fish and snake all dead and floating in the water. This incident was a turning point which made him realise the damage that modern agriculture was doing to people as well as the environment.

Sarangi maintains an album in which he has meticulously documented the varieties he has cultivated till date, with not just the characters and conditions but also the sample of the varity. When he started out there was a dearth of traditional varieties being cultivated. He says it is a sad fact considering that Orissa was where rice originated.

Fukowoka’s One Straw Revolution was his inspiration.

He gathered around 310 varities from West Bengal, Bihar and Chattisgarh with help from his trusted workhand and farmer, Yubraj Swai. When we visited him, he explained the selection methods in selecting the seeds. He found women had the real knack in knowing the good seeds from the bad ones as they had been the ones who had been doing selection for the longest time. he also feels that any farmer above the ripe age of 60 is qualified enough to be a good seed selector.

In his fields he had a large collection of traditional species, including Gopubasumathi, Geethanjanli, Kedargowri, Kolankyari, Sahara, Mallika, Ayush, Bhutia, Bankoi, Ramgulli. He explained where he had bought the different varieties from. He also demonstrated to us the selection method he applied in his plots.

He claims that 50 of the varieties that he cultivates give an yield of 15 to 23 quintals per acre. This counters the criticism that the traditional varieties do not give high yields. The one-man army has restored many varieties that were lost in the onslaught of time and with the proliferation of HYVs. And he has not just documented it for documentation’s sake but brought it back into the farmers field. He even sells seeds as Truthfully Labelled Seeds. These are as good as the seeds supplied by the government agencies, if not better.

Among the two local varities that he had selected from his field, Kalajeera is a tall variety with black colored scented rice. It produces around 14 tillers, 180-200 gms for each panicle and has an average yield of 14-15 quintals/acre. He had selected this variety when he realized that the only popular scented variety being sold in the market was Basmati, and that none of the scented variety was high yielding. He said that this variety was very good for preparing kheer and since it also had a spicy flavour there was no need to add spices.

The other variety he showed was Solari, called the Basmati of Orissa. It is a scented, tall variety almost as tall as the man himself, five and a half feet. It is of 145 days duration. With around 20 panicles per plant, it yields about 20 quintals per acre. This variety he says does not require any fertilizer.

Knowing that the seed companies (and scientists) are looking for all kinds of traditional seed, he does not put up sign boards in each plot with the name of varieties being grown. He understands the importance of IPRs, and therefore wants to protect his collection from being pilfered. Instead, his associate Yubraj Swai maintained a map with all the plots listed out. This makes it difficult for the gene hunters. Probably a lesson for all those who maintain biodiversity registers (because the funding agencies told them to do that) and do not know how to protect it from misappropriation.