Kalawati withdraws, a setback for farm widows

Farmer widow, Kalawati. She became famous after Rahul Gandhi visited her house, and made a special mention about her in one of his Parliamentary speech. She is better known as 'Rahul Gandhi's Kalawati'.

The widow of a farmer from Vidharba, Kalawati Bandurkar, 48, has finally decided not to contest the forthcoming Maharashtra Assembly polls. Although a lot of activists and civil society leaders have welcomed her decision, and feel that she should instead devote her energies to social work, I am a lot disappointed.

Kalawati had shot into prominance for whatever reasons we know of. The fact remains that she had become the face of hundreds of thousands of farm widows. Even if she wouldn't have succeeded in the electoral battle, she would have definitely mainstreamed the terrible agrarian issue. In today's democratic set up, it is very important to take the battle right into the political arena, and try to put it on the top of the political agenda.

I don't understand why the NGOs feel that politics is something that we must stay away from. I strongly feel that farmer suicide has to be politicised in a manner that the political system cannot escape responsibility. This may perhaps be the only way to ensure that the nation's focus is drawn towards the serial death dance that continues unabated. How many more farmers do we want to send to gallows before we expect any meaningful action? Aren't 200,000 farmer suicides in the past 15 years or so enough to seek immediate action?

On the contrary, I have always felt that the entire development discourse remains in the dumps because of our failure to politicise it. Most NGOs are happy in advocacy and capacity building exercises, which is their source of livelihood, and the farmer organisations are refraining to hammer the issue of farmer suicides more often than not for the simple reason that it would annoy the powers that be. Which means it would spoil their chances of getting a party ticket in the next elections. This is simply outrageous.

Not that Kalawati (even if she got elected) alone would have changed the entire situation. I am not saying that farmer suicides would have stopped after she got elected. I would have certainly expected another Kalawati to follow, and then another subsistence farmer to emerge on the political scene. Such a chain reaction can take place provided we all join hands, shun our ideologies, egos and differences, and work collectively towards building a new political scenario.

Anyway, I asked Kishor Tiwari, who heads the Vidharba Jan Andolan Samiti (VJAS), the organisation that fielded Kalawati, to send me a small write-up on why they did so. His note is pasted below, and I would like you to read carefully the demands they are raising.

This is what Kishor Tiwari writes:

On 5th September 2009 we called a meeting of Vidarbha farm widows mostly from Yavatmal district, and around 200 farm widows attended it. The meeting decided to demand:

1. Food for the dying families

2. Family pension to all widows

3. Free higher education, and aid for marriage of their daughters.

4. Right of land owned by their husband. Deprived of this right, most widows are forced to leave their homes.

The reason why the VJAS was trying to field a candidate in the coming elections was because the issue is being ignored by the State administration, and hence getting into the election process would have provided an opportunity to draw attention to these critical issues.

It was decided that as Kalawati Bandurkar is well-known, she was best suited for the task. After 8 days of making the choice known to her, Kalawati called me to inform that she is ready to contest provided her health permits.

It was only then that we announced her candidature, which was a breaking news. As Rahul Gandhi’s Kalawati, her name drew more than 200 journalists to interview her, hundreds of article and newsreports in media, and evoked concern in the political circles mainly in the Congress party, finally forcing her to change her decision.

Also, Dr Bindeshwar Pathak of Sulabh International wrote a letter to her asking her not to contest election. This was a major jolt to her as she is still awaiting to receive the entire Rs 30 lakhs that Pathak had promised to provide to her as aid (she has got Rs 6 lakh by now). Kalawati therefore announced the change in her thinking, and withdrew from the race.

Before that, Kalawati had come to Nagpur and clarified the stand that her contest is symbolic and the plight of farm widows and farm suicide issues should be taken up. She had announced that she would be filing her nomination on Sept 25.

This announcement brought more pressure on her. She withdrew later, after her own son-in-law threatened to commit suicide if she contested. VJAS therefore replaced her with Babitai Bais. I don't know why senior activists from some sections of the society are criticizing us for using these innocent widows to raise voice of farmers.

I also draw your attention to an elaborate interview of Kalawati published by the Times of India on Sept 27, 2009. This will help bring the issue to those who have not been able to follow the spate of developments involving Kalawati, and also help those who are outside India to put this blog in right perspective.

'Money is no longer a problem, being a celebrity is'
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/sunday-toi/all-that-matters/Money-is-no-longer-a-problem-being-a-celebrity-is/articleshow/5060907.cms

The global land rush continues

When the Ravalomanana government in Madagascar was overthrown for handing over 1.3 million hectares -- half of its total arable land -- to Daewoo of South Korea, I thought at least India is not being accused of taking an East India company onto tthe shores of this poor African nation. But hold on, I was mistaken.

A Mumbai-based company, Varun International, is still in negotiations with the Madagascar government for acquring 170,914 hecatres of land to grow rice, corn, wheat and maize. These and several other instances of how Indian companies have joined the global land rush have been very neatly brought out in a cover story by the Times of India in its inaugural weekend crest edition (TOI Sept 26-Oct 2 2009).

The Guardian, in a recent article, says the report, wrote, "India has lent money to 80 companies to buy 350,000 hectares in Africa." And there are reports that Indian companies are eyeing not just Africa and Latin America, but countries nearer home, such as Myanmar, as well as those further afield, like Australia and Canada.

Within India, Indian companies are acquiring land in the guise of boosting exports. The Special Economic Zones is merely an euphemism for domestic land acquisitions. In a leading letter to Outlook magazine (Oct 5 2009 issue) I wrote: It is good to see Outlook continuing to blaze a lonely trail with its investigations and exposures. That said, the wakf board scams are a brief diversion compared to our biggest land scandal, the special economic zones (sezs). The government is doling out all sorts of sops to ensure that these 'princely estates' -- some 600 of them -- can operate like small kingdoms. Except for flying their own flags and having their own ambassadors, they look to be autonomous in all respects.   

For a country that ought to know better (having lived through a colonial past) how damaging colonisation can be for any nation, I am shocked at the way some of the Indian companies are trying to acquire land in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia (not to talk of within the country). Still more intriguing is the role being played by the government in facilitating the process, and that too by a government which swears in the name of the Mahatma. What a shame.

The TOI report The New Landlords states that an area of more than 33 million hectares, almost equal to the size of Germany, has already been leased out or acquired worldover by hungry corporations.

As I said in the report: Outsourcing food production will ensure food security for investing countries but will leave behind a trail of hunger for local 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." That's quite apart from the fact that locals do not gain from the increased productivity since the output doesn't accrue to them. And this makes me again draw your attention to the story of food exports to UK at the time of the Irish Potato Famine. While millions perished from hunger and starvation, food was loaded onto ships enroute for the colonial masters. If you have missed out on this, you may search for my article Outsourcing Food Production on the net.

Here is the detailed article by Indrani Bagchi

The New Landlords

Indrani Bagchi,
Times of India | 26 September 2009

Ramakrishna Karuturi does not feature on any international power list. Perhaps he should. A new UNCTAD (UN Conference on Trade and Development) report names Karuturi Global Ltd as one of the top 25 agri transnational corporations in the world. Another report, by the International Food Policy Research Institute, says he owns one of the world’s largest landbanks — over 3,000 sq km. In a conversation with The Times of India, he claimed, “I’m the largest landbank holder in the world.”

Karuturi’s modest floriculture business outside Bangalore really blossomed when he discovered faraway Ethiopia in 2004. The African country welcomed the industrious Indian farmer and in the span of a few bountiful years, KGL has grown to become the world’s largest producer and exporter of roses.

The 43-year-old engineer-MBA is now venturing beyond Ethiopia and the rose. In 2007, his company acquired Sher Agencies in Kenya, the world’s largest rose farm, which incidentally employs four national football players. Then, last year, KGL bought more land in Ethiopia for sugarcane, staples, coffee and palm oil. And now, he’s set to enter Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

KGL is one of the pioneers of what Japanese financial services giant Nomura Securities calls “the third wave of outsourcing”. With world consumption of foodgrains having outstripped production in eight of the last nine years, and cultivable land increasing at a negligible 0.27% per annum, the spectre of a serious food crisis and spiralling prices is very real. Food import bills have already risen about 25%. Indian consumers, too, have been hit hard by soaring food prices.

In a breathtakingly ambitious bid to ensure food security, a number of countries — particularly those that are cash-rich but land-poor — are buying up enormous swathes of farmland in the poorer nations. In the last one-and-a-half years alone, over 33 million hectares of prime agricultural land in dozens of developing countries have been snapped up. That’s roughly the size of Germany.

The land is used to produce food, fodder and fuel, which is transported back to their own countries for home consumption (and partly for third-country sale).

Sensing a great opportunity for profit, private agri-business companies and investment/hedge funds have joined sovereign nations and state-sponsored corporations in the land-buying spree, as have a number of automobile manufacturers who are exploring biofuel alternatives to petrol, diesel and gas.

There have been several cover stories on the global race for the earth’s treasures, from oil and gas to coal, iron ore, bauxite (for aluminium), zinc, copper and gold — a race India’s very much a part of, but one that China’s clearly winning as it uses its huge financial reserves to take over mines and mining companies across continents.

It’s the stampede for land that promises — or threatens, depending on your point of view — to reshape the map of the world, and its geopolitics.

Analysts estimate that over $60 billion has been committed to acquire land and establish farms to produce foodgrains, oilseeds, and biofuel crops. These eye-popping numbers could be just the tip of the iceberg, since most deals are cloaked in secrecy.


Read the full article at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/business/india-business/The-New-Landlords/articleshow/5060584.cms

Kerala introduces a pension scheme for paddy farmers

Let us accept, the annadata in India is crying. They produce food for the country, and yet they go hungry. They struggle hard, working 24x7 in scorching sun, face the repeated vagaries of drought, kill themselves when they feel helpless, and are abandoning agriculture in increasing numbers. They are the real children of a lesser god. No wonder, we the urbanites, treat them as a national burden. At any given opportunity we want to offload this burden.

Successive Prime Ministers have been eulogising the role farmers play in national economy, policy planners have emphasised on the contribution of agriculture to the country's growth, economists continue to treat farmers nothing better than urchins, agricultural scientists continue to use farmers as a simple tool to boost the sales of chemical inputs -- fertilisers, pesticides, hybrid and GM seeds and so on, and the people in the cities treat them as a burden. Whether we like it or not, we are actually responsible for the plight of the farmers.

I sometimes wonder whether a farmer is in any way different than a beggar. I don't think so. In some ways a beggar is much better placed. A beggar at least gets alms. Many die with a rich bank balance left behind. All that a farmer gets is credit. And as a popular saying goes, a farmer is born in debt, and dies in debt.

For several years now, I have been demanding a direct income support to farmers. Like all of us, a farmer too needs income. He too needs medical allowance, leave travel concession and other benefits like an anuual bonus at the time of Diwali. And why not, after all he produces economic wealth for the country. He needs to be adequately compensated for the food he produces. We have cheated him for ages by depriving him of his legitimate due. It is time we pay him back for the great servcie he renders for us.

It is in this context that it is so heartening to learn that Kerala has launched a monthly pension scheme for paddy farmers. At Rs 300 (US $ 6) per month, it is certainly on the lower side. But still I think it is a good beginning. Kerala Chief Minister V S Achuthanandan deserves all compliments for introducing a pension scheme for paddy farmers. I admire his genuine concern for the farming class, and the political courage he demonstrated by starting a pension programme for farmers, which I am sure the economists must have opposed.

So far only 15,000 farmers above the age of 60 are being considered eligible. After the death of a beneficiary, his wife too will continue to receive half the amount as pension. This is certainly laudable. I however feel the retiring age should be lowered to 55 years, as it is in European Union. At the same time, the pension scheme should be extended to all categories of farmers. Also, farmer's widow should get the full amount of the pension since the entire burden of farming falls on her shoulder.

I requested my colleague Usha S, Director of the Kerala-based NGO Thanal to send me a small note on the farmers pension scheme. I hope in the days to come other State governments too follow Kerala's example and launch a similar pension scheme for farmers. They deserve it more than anyone.

Here is what Usha wrote:

It has become very clear in the last few years that Kerala is trying hard to rejuvenate agriculture and keep the morale of the farmers high after a long period of neglect and indifference. Farmers suffered a lot due to various trade agreements between India and other countries in the last 10-15 years. Why Kerala suffered is also due to its increasing dependence on export oriented cash crop agriculture and at the same time uncontrolled imports during the years. As a result, suicide by farmers in 'Gods Own Country' became a recurring phenomenon.

Several initiatives were launched to mitigate farmers distress. Farmers' Debt Relief Commision, Crop Insurance, Paddy Mission, Organic Farming Policy, GM Free Kerala Policy etc are some of these. But the most important of all these is the Kissan Abhiman Pension Scheme under which some 15,000 paddy farmers have started getting a monthly pension of Rs.300.


The discussion on the pension scheme came up when it was found out that howsoever the farmers may try to increase production, economically they are still at a loss and that is destroying the farming community and discouraging youngsters to take up farming. There was no opposition to this scheme when it was raised in the State Assembly because every body understood that more than the usual relief packages, what farmers need is some sort of concrete financial support. Like any other service provider, farmers also provide a lot of service, the basic service of giving food to the society and therefore need to be supported economically. 


With this understanding, a pension scheme for farmers was launched by the Chief Minister this year . Eligible farmers were indentified (farmers above 60 years of age, with no other income, and has been farming for the previous 10 years) through Krishi Bhavans and the number of eligible farmers came to about 15,000 numbers.

This is the first time a State is honouring its farmers by acknowledging their role in ensuring food security. A family pension scheme is also part of it . Once a farmer dies, his wife will get half the pension amount. A farmer is also supported for the marriage of his daughter with an amount of Rs.25,000/-


Agriculture minister has clearly stated that government will not stop this scheme with paddy farmers, but will broaden its scope to other farmers also. But the state and its farmers are now worried more after the central government went ahead signing the Indo-ASEAN FTA, without even consulting the State government. This surmounts to cheating. The negative impact of the ASEAN FTA surely will acerbate the crisis, and the State will have to launch more financial schemes for the farmers in the days to come.

Farmers innovate with appropriate technology

Easy handling: N. Sakthimainthan, demonstrating his water lifting device.

Farmers are great innovators. I have often admired their ability to come up with appropriate technologies. But for the educated and the elite, farm technology is only relevnt when it comes from a private company (or public sector). If you look around you will not only be amazed but shocked to learn that the agricultural extension machinery only promotes that technology which is coming in the form of a saleable product. If you have nothing to sell, the extension machinery has nothing to promote.

The Hindu published a report yesterday that I thought should be of immense help to farmers not only in Tamil Nadu but elsewhere too. It should also come in handy for the numerous organisations and institutes that work for the farmers.

Hand operated device to obviate power supply problems

By M.J. Prabu
The machine seems to be a good alternative for small farmers


CONSTANT electricity fluctuation and irregular power availability for irrigation are daily problems faced by many farmers for a long time.


If one travels through the southern districts of Tamil Nadu, especially during the early morning or late night hours, one can see farmers sitting next to their motor pumps waiting for electricity, to irrigate their crops.
Though many farmers use diesel operated pumps, a suitable alternative, which requires neither diesel nor electricity and yet meets their irrigation requirements, may be welcome.


Suitable alternative


Mr. N. Sakthimainthan, paddy farmer of Nannilam village, Tiruvarur, Tamil Nadu, says that a simple hand-operated water-lifting device developed by him may be helpful to small farmers who are looking for a suitable alternative.


“With zero installation and running and maintenance cost, this is a very useful product for marginal farmers. Being portable to fit at any site, and simple to use, it is best suited for their routine work in all seasons and requires just one person to run the equipment,” says Prof Anil Gupta, Vice Chairman, National Innovation Foundation (NIF), Ahmedabad.


The farmer grows paddy in his one acre and to0 meet his irrigation needs, he used to laboriously collect overflowing water from nearby fields and well using a bowl like structure made of discarded tyre tubes. As this work proved cumbersome and required additional labour to lift and pour the water into the fields, he decided to build a hand operated water-lifting device to irrigate the field from a canal or pond and drain out excess water from cultivated land.


First, he developed a machine using a wooden propeller and an iron rod to rotate but this mechanism did not work well, as the water flowed back.


Suitable modification


He started to think up ideas to modify it and used an old air-blower to create vacuum suction for inflowing water and placed the impellers inside the suction.


But operating it proved difficult. So he fixed a chain and sprocket mechanism to overcome the trouble but still some water used to splash on the face of the operator while rotating the handle. To address this problem, he made a two-drive system with four impeller blades.


"But difficulty in operating the handle with this integration of impeller and air blowing device made me think of using iron frames, tin box, and cycle chain and sprocket mechanism," he says.

Read the full report at: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/seta/2009/09/24/stories/2009092450141400.htm

Food pirates are expanding their tentacles, Pakistan an easy target

A New Zealand newspaper had drawn this flag to depict the emergence of the new global tribe of 'food pirates'.

The 'Food Pirates' are fast expanding their network, their reach and their control over land. And it is happening fast in our own neighbourhood. For quite some time, word was going around that some companies from the Middle-east were trying to acquire land in Pakistan for producing food to be shipped back home. I had mentioned this in my article sometimes back (Outsourcing Food Production, in India Together, Nov 24, 2008, http://www.indiatogether.org/2008/nov/dsh-farmland.htm): In Pakistan, now 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.

Now comes another report stating that Pakistan is proposing to lease 500,000 acres of land to Saudi Arabia. According to an article in The Hindu today (Planned farmland sale to Saudis gives Pakistan jitters by Nirupama Subramaniam, Sept 24, 2009): The transaction-in-the-making was first reported some three weeks ago from Dubai. Agriculture Secretary Tauqir Ahmed Faiq told reuters that the Pakistan government was in talks with the Saudis on the issue. A process was on, he said to identify leasable land in all four privinces of the country, and a small Saudi team is to visit Pakistan soon for negotiations.

This has raised a storm, as expected. I am aware that the corporate takeover of whatever remains of Pakistan's agriculture got an impetus during President Musharraf's regime. What is unfortunate is that Pakistan's agriculture remains in a dilapidated condition even after it imported 47,000 tonnes of improved seeds of the semi-dwarf varieties of wheat from Mexico in 1967. A year earlier, India had imported 18,000 tonnes of wheat seed from Mexico, and was able to launch Green Revolution.

Several analysts in Pakistan accept that if you have to understand how and why free markets can destroy agriculture, Pakistan is a classic case study. I agree completely, but the sad part is that the Indian policy-makers and planners are also busy following the Pakistan model of agriculture. In another 5-6 years, India will try to catch up with Pakistan, obviously in destroying its hard earned self-sufficiency in agriculture.

Anyway, coming back to the growing clout of the 'food pirates', you will be surprised to know that a hungry country like Ethiopia has already delineated around 2.7 million hectares of arable land to foreign companies. Out of this, 1.7 million hectares will be handed over before the coming harvest season. According to a news report: World’s top oil producing countries including United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and giant economies like India, China and South Korea are queuing in Addis Ababa to start big commercial farming to feed their own people. The competition among “land grabber” states has become fierce, with the overall number of companies applying for land in Ethiopia reaching 8,000. However, only 2,000 foreign companies, including medium size agricultural projects, have already secured farmland.

How can India remain out of the race. The report says: India leads the “land grabbing” race and so far Indian agricultural investment has been more than $2.5 billion. India’s total investment in Ethiopia was $300 million three years ago and has now grown to $ 4.3 billion. It is double the amount of Western aid offered to Ethiopia. Departing Indian Ambassador to Ethiopia, Gurjit Singh, believes Indian investment will reach eight to 10 billion dollars in the coming few years. “I don’t think this is the end of the story, but just the beginning,” he added.

And what about the poor and hungry in Ethiopia? Well, currently, more than 5.2 million people need emergency food aid from the international community in the southern and eastern parts of the country. Another eight million rural poor are being supported through a regular productive safety net aid scheme. Isn't this criminal? To lease out your own productive land to foreign companies, while millions go hungry? I wonder who will feed these hungry millions?

But then who is bothered? Not even the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), the governing body of the 16 international agricultural research centres. First, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) talked of a code of conduct for the companies involved in land grab, and now we have the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) signing agreements with Saudi Arabia firms (who are on a land grabbing spree) to help them produce more rice. If you have been following the switch-over in the mandate of CGIAR, you shouldn't be surprised. CGIAR has for quite sometime abandoned its role of helping subsistence farmers. It has now taken on an advisory role for the corporates, and that includes Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Well, what we are now witnessing is 'neo-colonism' in a new avtaar. The tragedy is that we are so engrossed with bailing out banks and insurance companies, and talking and talking about global warming that we don't think there is anything more dastardly happening to us. By the time we wake up to this reality, we will find that the land below our feet has already slipped away.

Tightening the screws for a global patent control

While all attention is focused on the high-level climate summit convened by the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon in New York, another patently important week of deliberations which has serious implications for the scientific and economic growth of the developing countries, perhaps more than the fallout from even the ongoing fashionable talks on climate change, began in Geneva on Sept 22. The General Assembly of the 'notorious' World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), which is also being attended by 40 ministers from member countries, is pushing for harmonisation of the existing patent laws.

Why I called WIPO a 'notorious' organisation is simply because it unabashedly promotes the commercial interests of the multinational companies. The name WIPO is merely a camouflage to cover its unholy alliance with the industry. No wonder, you shouldn't be surprised to know that WIPO is actually pushing for a proposal, which if accepted, would ensure that whichever patent is passed by three countries becomes an international patent. In my understanding, this proposal if accepted, would be more damaging to the developing countries than all the fake promises of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Its deadly implications have been discussed below.

K M Gopakumar of the Third World Network is attending the WIPO General Assembly in Geneva. I requested him to send me a brief overview on what is likely to be discussed in the days to come. I am glad he could find time to send me a small note, which I am sharing with you. I will try to ensure that I keep you abreast of the latest developments at WIPO as we go along.

Here is the report from K M Gopakumar:

The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) is one of the most controversial international organisations today. WIPO has been often accused of furthering the interest of Multinational Corporations (MNC) and their developed country hosts at the cost of developing countries. WIPO’s technical assistance programmes are subjected to criticism for advocating and promoting intellectual property rights without regard for the level of economic development of a country which is seeking its support for technical assistance. Public interest groups and academicians criticised WIPO for advocating the ideology that high level of intellectual property protection is a necessary condition for the economic growth. The latest developments within WIPO especially with regard to the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) once again puts WIPO in a tight spot. The General Assembly of WIPO from 22nd September to 1st of October 2009 is going to be used by the developed countries and WIPO to push the harmonisation of patent law in the name of reforming PCT and the global IP infrastructure.

The conclusion of the TRIPS Agreement took away the policy space of the developing countries with regard to the subject matter of patent protection and the measures against abuse of patent monopoly. However, the minimum standard of patent protection under TRIPS does not take away the whole policy space to determine the patentability criteria in each technology area like pharmaceuticals, biotechnology. For instance, the TRIPS Agreement creates legal obligation for the compulsory product patent protection for pharmaceuticals and agrochemicals. But this obligation does not mean that TRIPS member countries cannot determine the patentability standards for pharmaceuticals. Using this limited policy space, countries like India refuse to grant product patents on new use of known pharmaceutical substance or agrochemicals. IP maximalists want to eliminate this limited policy space available to developing countries through various tactics including Free Trade Agreements and other multilateral organisations especially WIPO.

After 5 years of TRIPS, in 2000 WIPO introduced its ambitious plan to further harmonise the international patent law to introduce a single patent law and procedure throughout the world. WIPO launched its infamous negotiations on Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT), which was aimed at harmonising the substantive patent law standards viz., definition of invention, patentability criteria, etc. This would have ipso facto created a regime for global patents. The SPLT negotiation was stopped due to the opposition from the developing countries. The new initiative is to harmonise the patent law without harmonising the substantive patent law, which is difficult to achieve. The new initiative to reform the PCT mechanism seeks to grant patents based on a positive examination report from 3 patent offices which will be treated as automatic grant of patent in all other PCT member countries.

Currently, with a membership of 141 countries, PCT facilitates filing of patent application in a single office - either the national patent office or the International Bureau at the WIPO - and ensure their priority in all the member countries without filing separate applications. This single application later enters into a national phase and it is treated as any other patent application. It used to take normally 20 months from the date of filing and entry into the national phase. As a result of the first phase of the PCT reforms the time period for the entry of national phase is now 30 months from the date of filing for all PCT member countries except a few countries who made reservation to that effect. The application under PCT will be published only after 18 months from the date of publication after the issuance of international search report conducted by certain national and regional patents designated International Search Authority (ISA). After the obtainment of the ISR the applicant can further delay entry into national phase for another one year by requesting for an international preliminary examination report. However, there is no binding effect of these international search or examination report on the national patent offices. As a result the PCT application at the national phase will be treated like any other patent application filed in a country.

After the first phase of the PCT reforms, the ISA currently provides a written opinion on patentability based on the application along with international search report. Based on this WIPO issues an International preliminary Report on Patentability ( IPRP). However, the proposed changes in the second phase of the PCT reforms are altering the basic characteristics of the PCT. The most controversial suggestion is in the WIPO Secretariat document called the future of PCT. This suggests a pilot model in which examiners of three different patent examiners work together on a single application to produce a single report. It further says that if three offices are satisfied with the search and examination report other offices should accept the examination report. Further the road map also suggests the elimination of various reservations made to PCT. This proposal, if accepted, would virtually eliminate the flexibilities enjoyed by the developing countries in deciding the patentability criteria. It will be an indirect route to introduce global patents, a long time demand of MNCs.

Apart form the PCT reforms WIPO General Assembly is going to discuss the future of Intergovernmental Committee on Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC). Most of the developing countries especially African countries want a legally binding outcome from the IGC rather than mere talk show. As expected developed countries do not agree for a legally binding outcome from IGC. Hence the demand for a legally binding treaty would dominate the discussion on the extension of IGC .

For the first time WIPO General Assembly is starting with a high level segment of more than 40 Ministers from the member countries. This is viewed as an attempt to garner political support for IP reform agenda including the PCT reforms in order to bypass the opposition from the developing country diplomats.

The Borlaug I knew

Norman Borlaug passed away some 10 days back. Ever since he passed away, a number of newspapers globally have published obituries and explained his contribution to agriculture. I too was flooded with requests to write about him or to talk about his role in Indian agriculture. Although I happen to be on the 'other side' (as some would say) as far as farming and agriculture is concerned, I still thought it would be helpful if I could share with readers my reminiscences with him. It will atleast help to put a lot many things in right perspective.

After getting Nobel Peace Prize, Borlaug stature had grown and he used it deftly to influence governments. I sometimes wonder what a great difference he would have made to the future of world agriculture if he would have been receptive to ideas of long-term sustainability, and actually seen the difference that sustainable farming practices made to Earth's climate. Much of the problem of climate change can be easily ascribed to the chemical farming practices that were pushed all over. Agricultural scientists should be held accountable for adding on significantly to greenhouse emissions. In fact, they haven't learnt any lesson from the debacle of Green Revolution. In addition to the 'chemical treadmill', they are now promoting 'biological treadmill' with impunity, again in the garb of producing more food for humanity.

Whether farm scientists accept it or not, the fact remains that farmer suicides and the terrible agrarian crisis that prevails in India is the result of the failure of Green Revolution.

Anyway, here is the article
http://www.dnaindia.com/opinion/main-article_a-friend-to-farmers_1291991

It was the discovery of a stocky Japanese wheat variety Norin-10 that the US military advisor, Dr DC Salmon, sent back home in the early 1960s that changed the face of global agriculture. This was the only known semi-dwarf traditional wheat strain that Dr Norman Borlaug had been keenly looking for. Crossed with the rust-resistant varieties that Borlaug had developed in Mexico, the world got the miracle improved varieties that made history.


These plants responded to the application of chemical fertilisers and produced a bountiful grain harvest. The yields multiplied under favourable conditions and Borlaug knew that the best place to apply the new technology was India, with the largest population of hungry in the world. "I tried my best to convince Indian politicians about the utility of these semi-dwarf varieties in fighting hunger, but they were not interested," he told me.


Agricultural scientists, by and large, were convinced. "When I didn't see much headway being made, I played the political card knowing the political rivalry between India and Pakistan. I told India that if you don't want these varieties, I will give them instead to Pakistan." Whether because of Borlaug's political astuteness or domestic necessity, India imported 18,000 tonnes of seed of the semi-dwarf wheat in 1966. The rest is history. India emerged out of 'ship-to-mouth' existence.

[The next year, Pakistan imported 47,000 tonnes of wheat seed from Mexico]


For several years after the Green Revolution was launched, I had the pleasure of accompanying this simple, dedicated scientist on his annual visits to Punjab Agricultural University in Ludhiana. He was always keen to visit farmers. One, a farmer-host pointed out: "The three major inputs for raising wheat yields are: farmers, improved seed and Borlaug."


I asked him once: "What is your biggest achievement? What you would like to be remembered for?" I thought he would say his contribution to plant sciences and fighting global hunger. But he replied: "As someone who introduced baseball in Mexico." When I burst out laughing, he gave me a detailed account of the hours he spent playing and promoting baseball.


The Green Revolution subsequently spread to parts of Asia and Latin America and enabled a number of developing countries to emerge out of the hunger trap. Agricultural scientists globally promoted the technology -- cultivating water-guzzling high-yielding varieties of wheat (the same technology was subsequently applied in rice), application of chemical fertilisers, and pesticides -- and were never able to understand the opposition from environmentalists.


Such was their blind faith in Borlaug's technology that agricultural scientists refused to see the flipside which was clearly evident through the deterioration of plant ecology and the destruction to the environment. Several years after Rachel Carlson published her historic work The Silent Spring, I asked Borlaug whether he had read it: "She is an evil force," he reacted angrily, adding: "These are the people who do not want to eradicate hunger." I didn't agree with him, and asked him why agricultural scientists can't accept that chemical pesticides kill. "You too, Sharma," he quipped, and then replied: "Remember, pesticides are like medicines. They have to be applied carefully and safely."


Borlaug remained steadfast all through on the role of chemical fertiliser and pesticides. When the Third World Academy in Italy presented a paper on how Brazil had achieved remarkable crop yields in soybean and sugarcane without applying chemical nitrogen, he didn't agree. It was only after he travelled to Brazil and saw for himself the crop yields that he at least acknowledged the reality. Initially he even rejected biotechnology as a "waste of time".


He would often tell me that if India had not followed the Green Revolution technology, the country would have had to bring an additional 58 million hectares under cultivation to produce the same quantity of food that was being produced by the high-yielding wheat. My argument to this was that although the country saved 58 million hectares, 40 years after Green Revolution close to 120 million hectares face varying degrees of degradation. Borlaug never pardoned me for espousing the cause of long-term sustainability in agriculture. In fact, knowingly or unknowingly he did support the cause of corporate control of agriculture.


Although the Green Revolution bypassed small farmers, Borlaug knew and appreciated the role farmers played. "Be warned, Sharma," he told me during a visit to Pantnagar University in Uttarakhand: "When people stop talking about farmers, when people fail to recognise their role in feeding the country, be sure there is something terribly wrong happening in agriculture." These prophetic words hold true today. In India, it no longer hurts when farmers commit suicide or quit agriculture. Farmers have disappeared from the economic radar screen of the country. This is a clear pointer to the terrible agrarian crisis that prevails.

Every drought leaves behind lessons

Drought is no longer in the news. I think the media has got tired of it, and after the recent spell of rains (quite heavy, in fact) the focus has shifted to the rabi sowing, how the soil moisture now will help in the sowing of the next crop etc. With drought no longer under the media scanner, my worry is whether the policy makers and agricultural officials too have also closed the files and put them back on the shelf to gather dust till the next drought strikes.

Every drought leaves behind lessons. I am not sure how much we try to learn, and then draw adequate steps to ensure that the deadly impact of any dryspell in future is minimised to a considerable extent. It was in this light that the monthly news magazine Hard News had invited me to write an article. The article appeared in the September issue, but somehow I had forgotten to share it with you. A few days back I got a Google Alert informing me that a web site Ajamvari Farm (probably from Nepal) had used the article.

In its introduction, Ajamvari Farm said: Much of South Asia, and it appears, much of the world seems to be going through drought and the occurance of drought seems to be increasing in both intensity and frequency. However, the governments have hidden behind the veil of market sentiments to explain the rising food prices, growing hunger and increasing farmer suicides. As Devender Sharma reports, there are places where innovative practices have transformed the conditions, but these don’t interest the planners because they could be done with very limited, but crucial resources. In other words, the corruption potential in them remains too little for those who control the resources to be interested in.

I have highlighted the last sentence because I think it is an important statement. Nowadays we don't talk of any technology intervention till it relates to a product that can be sold. So basically the approach is to sell a technological product in the name of development. And if there is nothing to sell, you will see there is no effort to promote that technology. Anyway, here is the article:

Yet to learn drought lessons

By Devinder Sharma

A bad monsoon and the nation gets jolted by the spectre of a haunting drought. As symptoms of acute human suffering and despair begin to appear on the horizon - distress sale of cattle and increasing suicides by farmers - the government swings into a fire-fighting mode.

It has happened in the past. It is happening again now. No sooner the drought fades away, the files will be back on the shelf. The concern, the tragedy and the lessons that you heard repeatedly will soon be forgotten.

Drought meanwhile is fast sinking in despite the monsoon aberrations. India's vulnerability to slip into a serious drought even with a slight delay in monsoon rains has grown over the years. Such has been the excessive groundwater withdrawal over the years, as a consequence of the emphasis on intensive farming, that Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan will not have any water left underground for irrigation by 2025.

Little or no rain, late rain and heavy rain, the food bowl of the country stares ahead at a gathering drought in any case. The alarm bells had been ringing for long. For instance, in Punjab, where groundwater withdrawal has always exceeded its natural replenishment, every year 45 per cent more underground water is being mined. Punjab, which provides nearly 50 per cent of the country's food surplus, is paying a price for ensuring the nation's food security.

So, when senior journalists write that the prevailing drought has not touched Punjab this year because of the investment it made in irrigation, I am left amused. What is not known or little understood is that Punjab is fast heading into desertification, a process that is entirely man-made. For several years it is known that of the 138 development blocks in Punjab, 108 have been categorised as 'dark zones', where 98 per cent underground water level is exploited. Six of the 12 districts in the state have recorded groundwater utilisation rate of 100 per cent. In western Uttar Pradesh, which is also part of the country's food bowl, water-guzzling sugarcane has pushed the groundwater level to an all-time low.

The increased emphasis on water harvesting (see accompanying box) notwithstanding, the reduced availability of water is emerging as a major social and economic crisis. In addition, the cropping pattern has to be evolved keeping in mind the water availability. At present, more the water requirement for hybrid crop varieties, more is its cultivation in the water-scarce regions. This is scandalous and unless the cropping pattern is rectified no measures to protect and preserve water resources will be effective.

For several years now, drought and prolonged dry spell have continued to afflict the inhospitable and harsh environs of the dryland regions, constituting nearly 65 per cent of the country's cultivable lands. Despite the monsoons being 'normal', failure of rains in certain pockets and the continuing dry spell had simply gone unreported. With traditional forms of water storage and harvesting having vanished, rural irrigation being completely taken over by inefficient government machinery, available groundwater was left to be exploited indiscriminately.

Water shortage, in any case, was always expected to emerge as the major environmental crisis for India in the new millennium. NASA's recent projections based on the tracking done by twin GRACE satellites show that 54 cubic kilometres of groundwater is lost every year in the Indo-Gangetic plains. Still worse, the depletion rate is 70 per cent faster in this decade than what was estimated for the 1990s. The depletion is primarily due to irrigation, but the additional pressure of urbanisation and reckless industrialisation has added to the water woes.

And yet, despite the dismal aspect of the irrigation policy, the fascination of planners for costly projects has not diminished. They have continued to overlook simple and effective methods like a series of small water storage tanks, recharging of village wells, whose water percolates into the ground and replenishes the underground reservoir for drinking and irrigation purposes. These water bodies are the only way to drought-proof the country. No wonder, amidst the depressing and agonising scenario, a number of oases still dot the scorched landscape.

In several parts of the country, innovative farmers have found an ingenious way to fight drought. What the planners failed to visualise by way of drought management for over a century, villagers have demonstrated it successfully. The story of Kanchanpur village in Siddhi district of Madhya Pradesh, which hasn't faced the brunt of recurring dry spells for the past six years, is a lesson that the nation needs to imbibe. Three dug wells and three ponds using the NREGA force have completely upturned the village's dreaded past. With agriculture becoming economically viable, reports of reverse migration have poured in.

But then, traditional water harvesting and rain water collection practices do not find favour with the policy makers and planners for the simple reason that these time-tested technologies do not need much investment and budget allocations. At the same time, a serious drought enables the affected state government to cry for more Central relief funds. It has happened in the past, and is sure to happen in the days to come. As and when the furore and dust over the drought and resulting food insecurity dies down, planners will find the relief and rehabilitation allocations handy enough for the industry to create more demand for its products.

On its part, the government has already constituted a group of ministers (GoM) and also set up a National Crisis Management Committee to tackle the critical situation. Not realising that if only these ministers and secretaries had the wisdom to understand the complexities of a drought and the trauma of the human suffering that it leaves behind, the country would have by now successfully evolved a drought-proofing mechanism. It is essentially because of the political apathy and the criminal (mis)handling of the drought situations by the bureaucracy and the agricultural scientists that drought has become a recurring phenomenon.

You can read the full article at: http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2009/09/3204

Why agricultural scientists often hide the truth?

Eleven years after India's nuclear blast in the sands of Pokhran (popularly called Pokhran-II), three former nuclear scientists -- M R Srinivasan, P K Iyengar and A N Prasad -- have called for an independent peer review of the embarrassing details about the failed test as revealed by the then DRDO project director of Pokhran-II, K Santhanam. The former DRDO scientist Santhanam wrote in The Hindu: "TN device tested in 1998 failed. When DRDO and BARC disputed TN device yield...National Security Advisor (Brijesh Mishra) took a voice vote on a technically very complex matter."

He accused Brijesh Mishra of trivializing the hydrogen bomb test results. Accordingly, among those who also misled the country was Abdul Kalam, who later went on to become the President of India.

Imagine, after the thermonuclear bomb (hydrogen bomb) was tested, which was supposed to be twice as powerful as the fission (atom) bomb, the shaft you see in the picture is still intact. I wonder  whether we were testing a hydrogen bomb or a fire cracker !

Later, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee visited the fusion site. Standing along with him is Abdul Kalam

I salute Santhanam. I admire his courage of conviction, to stand up and be counted. He has shown that even in areas where the country's national security is involved, and where any such outburst can be easily construed as a violation of the dreaded Official Secrets Act, truth has to prevail. At the same time, it is admirable that there are still people of distinguished merit in the nuclear arena who are willing to raise their concern. If you recall, even at a time when Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was trying to push the Indo-US nuclear treaty, some scientists had stood up and challenged the claims. If it was not for the way the ruling UPA 'managed' the media and stiffled the discerning voices, I am sure the nuclear treaty, which weighs heavily in favour of the US, wouldn't have been signed.

I sometimes wonder why is that such high level of credibility and scientific integrity demonstrating the underlying spirit of nationalism is lacking among agricultural scientists. Food security is no less important than national security, and it is here that agricultural scientists play a very important role. But ever since Dr Norman Borlaug released his high-yielding semi-dwarf wheat varieties in India, our agricultural scientists have simply become pen-pushers, always ready to stand up and chant the technology mantra in a chorus. No matter how fake are the claims of the universities and the private companies, agricultural scientists have always turned a blind eye.

Why have our agricultural scientists failed the farmers, time and again?

The Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR), the umbrella organisation for public-sector research in India, has a number of All-India Coordinated Crop Research Projects for quite a number of crops. Almost every year, these AICRPs are involved in releasing improved crop varieties. I understand that one of the criteria for the notification for an improved variety is that it should yield higher than the existing varieties, the usual standard being 10 per cent more potential yield than the existing.

If this be true, our yield of wheat and rice, for instance, should have touched the moon by now. But it didn't. So you know who is telling a lie.

Let me make it very clear. The yield potential of the so called improved varieties is nothing more than a hype. The yield performance is based on smaller plots, the figures are then transpolated to match a hectare. So when a university tells you that the yield potential of a wheat variety for instance is 9 quintals per hectare, please take it with a pinch of salt. I would like to throw a challenge to any university (or a State Farm) that can reproduce the yield levels that they claim. Show me any university or research institute which has actually harvested even 7 or 8 or 9 quintals of wheat in crop field, which actually measures 1 hectare.

When was the last time you heard any scientist questioning this flawed yield potential? Whenever I have raised this with senior scientists, all I get back is a mischieveous smile.

It is primarily for the inherant ability of agricultural scientists to hide the truth that agriculture in India is faced with a terrible crisis. By hyping the yield potential of the so-called improved varieties, they have actually ensured that the traditional varieties are pushed out of reckoning and therefore out of the market. It is primarily for this reason that the entire economics of the farmers goes topsy-turvy. That makes me wonder how come the agricultural economists always work out remarkable figures of economic viability of a cropping pattern whereas farmers in reality end up in losses. I have reasons to say that even the economic analysis is faulty. It is not based on the existing ground realities.

Take another case. When the Indo-US Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture, Research and Marketing was being negotiated (this happened parallely to the Indo-US Nuclear Treaty), did you hear of any senior scientist even commenting on the deal? How come agricultural scientists found everything in it to be in favour of Indian farmers? Since when have we begun to realise (and accept) that the US has suddenly become so benevolent that it is willing to ink a deal for the sake of Indian farmers?

It is widely accepted that the Indo-US Initiative in Agriculture, Research and Marketing (which has Wal-Mart, ADM and Monsanto on its board) is not only detrimental to India's agriculture, but in many ways is more damaging to India's food security and in other words the national sovereignty. How come none of our distinguished agricultural scientist have stood up and questioned the details? Does it not mean that our agricultural scientists as a class are much much inferior to our nuclear scientists? Is there something wrong with agricultural education that the ability of scientists to ask questions dissipates? Shouldn't Indian agricultural scientists therefore be learning from our own nuclear scientists that what is important than your own job or your own livelihood is the national security.

Perhaps it is too late now.

It didn't hurt when farmers were dying

This article of mine had appeared on Sept 17, 2008, exactly a year ago. But I have received so many requests for this article that I am prompted to reproduce it here. I hope you find it relevant and useful.
----------------------------------------------

It didn't hurt when farmers were dying
http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2008/11/2427

Bailing out farmers from a distressing situation is considered bad economics. The sooner politicians emerge out of it the better it would be for growth, development and justice

It didn't hurt when the farmers were dying. Over 200,000 farmers have committed suicide in the past 15 years. Millions continue to suffer in silence. And more than 40 per cent of India's 600 million farmers want to quit agriculture looking for menial jobs in the cities.

The national media kept quiet.

But with the markets crashing, the media is now crying. "Act fast, go big. It is not only about bulls and bears anymore. It's about India. And it's hurting..." says a lead story in a national daily. It didn't hurt when the farmers were dying. After all, they do not belong to India. They live in Bharat, the countryside, the unwanted India.

There is blood on Dalal Street (India's Wall Street). But all these years we refused to acknowledge that farmers were dying, and agriculture bleeding.

Farmers are children of a lesser god.

Only a few months back, the day Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram in his budget speech announced the Rs 60,000-crore (one crore = 10 million) loan waiver for the beleaguered farming community, there was an orchestrated outcry: "Where will this money come from?" Television anchors were visibly angry at this ‘supposed windfall' for the farmers, the print media was outraged at this ‘political' (why not economic?) decision just before the ensuing elections, and industry leaders were seen sulking.

Six months later, no one is asking the same question. With the global financial crisis failing to work itself out, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is under pressure to intervene. Soon after the Wall Street mayhem, the RBI had pumped in Rs 84,000 crore in the domestic banking system through liquidity facility adjustment. An additional Rs 20,000 crore has been released through a 0.5 per cent reduction in cash reserve ratio (CRR), which was further slashed. It took RBI five years to make the first cut in CRR on Monday, and the next cut comes five days later. This sure is some urgency.

Sounds technical but let me simplify. Liquidity in layman term means ‘fund availability' - in simple words, making available more cash. All over the industrialised world, governments are stepping in to provide more cash in the hands of private banks, and India is no exception.

Despite Chidambaram saying that the fundamentals are strong, the banks are on a massive borrowing spree. In the first week of October alone, they borrowed Rs 90,075 crore every day from RBI through liquid facility adjustment. In the days to come, the RBI was under pressure to release another Rs 30,000 crore through the CRR, and also to cut repo rate - the rate at which it lends to banks. The repo rate was cut by 1 per cent, and the government is now considering diverting Rs 1.71 lakh crore via MSS (Market Stabilising Scheme) bonds to ease liquidity crisis with banks. And thanks to the loan waiver, the banks received another Rs 25,000-crore as part reimbursement.

Isn't it a fact that the Rs 60,000 crore loan waiver (later enhanced to Rs 71,000-crore) was actually a relief to the banks?

What seemed to be a ‘political' decision in the name of pulling out the indebted farmers was actually meant to sustain the health of the banking system. If the government had not provided the loan waiver, banks would have been in terrible liquidity crisis. With farmers unable to repay, these banks would have been saddled with massive non-performing assets (or a shortfall in liquidity), or non-availability of Rs 71,000-crore in cash.

In other words, the loan waiver was a partial bailout for the banks. Now no one is asking: "Where will this money come from?" On the contrary, most analysts are asking for more ‘speed and sagacity' to tide over the crisis. The industry has already demanded a bailout package of Rs 100,000 crore.

If only such ‘speed and sagacity' was shown to tide over the terrible agrarian crisis sweeping throughout the country for over a decade now, thousands of farmers would have been saved from committing suicide. If only the RBI had stepped in to make more cash (or liquidity) available, the nation could have easily provided an assured employment to each and every Indian not only for 100 days but for all the 365 days in a year. The National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme (NREGA) can be easily extended to bring every unemployed Indian under its gambit.

It is here that I fail to understand the sagacious logic of keeping the poor hungry and then expecting a higher economic growth trajectory; of paying a multi-million dollar salary (in addition to lucrative perks) to the bosses of the banks and corporate houses and then make the man on the street pay for the losses; in other words the logic behind privatising the profits and socialising the losses.

Take the case of the bankrupt Lehman Brothers. While the shareholders in the company have been wiped out, Richard Fuld, its chief executive, walks away with US $ 480 million as his personal remuneration over eight years, and this includes a $ 14 million ocean-front villa in Florida, and a home in an exclusive ski resort. Lawmakers investigating the bailed out insurance company AIG, were shocked to learn that days after the government rescued the company, it unashamedly spent US $ 44,000 on a posh California retreat for its executives, complete with spa, banquets and golf outings.

Why blame the American corporate leaders when US President George Bush himself had given them a free rope: "Government should not decide the compensation for America's corporate executives." Probably what he meant was that come what may, the US government will continue to provide funds to meet obscene corporate salaries and perks.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh too had removed the upper ceiling on corporate salaries. According to Merril-Lynch and Capgemini, driven by impressive economic gains and robust market capitalism growth in 2007, India led the world in High-Net-Worth-Individual population growth at 22.7 per cent. Two years earlier, in 2005, there were 83,000 high net worth individuals with a wealth of at least $1 million (and this does not include immovable property). You guessed it right. The number of millionaires has gone up quite considerably in the meantime.

This brings me back to the same question. How long will the world go on encouraging an economic system that makes the rich richer and the poor poorer? While 36 billionaires in India have a collective economic wealth equivalent to one-third of the country's GDP, the country's 600 million farmers collectively account for only 17 per cent share. With every passing year, the share of agriculture in GDP continues to slide down still further.

The average monthly income of a farm household (which includes five members of a family and two cattle) does not exceed Rs 2,400 (US $60). The value erosion in real farm income over the past few decades has never been discussed, but the erosion in paper wealth of shareholders is being projected as a national disaster.

Bailing out the farmers from a distressing situation is always considered to be bad economics. It is branded as a political compulsion, and the sooner politicians emerge out of it the better it would be for economic growth and development. This economic prescription, which every economist worth the name is willing to endorse, is invariably for the farming community, landless workers and marginalised communities. They need to learn to be enterprising, and therefore must stop living on government subsidies.

When it comes to the enterprising millionaires - corporates and the banks - government bailouts are not only a must, but should be done speedily. "Where will the money come from?" is not a question to be asked when you are subsidising the rich and the elite. It is their birth right.

Subsidising hybrid vegetable seeds

If you are wondering why your vegetables are tasteless and are devoid of nutrients, the answer is simple. The traditional varieties of vegetables, which were not only a reflection of the genetic diversity, but were also pleasing to the tastebuds and were nutritionally rich, have been increasingly replaced with hybrid varieties. These hybrid varieties are uniform in shape, require more chemical fertilisers, pesticides and drain out more ground water. But since they yield high, farmers are willing to pay a higher price. And if not, the government steps in by providing subsidy for the purchase of hybrid seeds.

No wonder, the traditional vegetable varieties have almost disappeared. If you go to the market and enquire about vegetable seeds, the chances are that you will get only hybrid seeds. 

All these hybrid varieties require heavy doses of chemical pesticides. The bhindi (Okra) you get in new Delhi, for instance, is cultivated in the outskirts of the National Capital Region. If you happen to visit a bhindi patch, you will be shocked to find that as many as 15 to 20 chemical sprays are quite normal. The other day I found that even while the sky was overcast and rain was expected, workers were busy spraying pesticides on the standing bhindi crop. I tried to convince them that rain would wash away the pesticide, but they were not even bothered to take my advice.

Sometimes back I was travelling in Uttarakhand, which prides itself as an organic state. I saw migrant labour from Nepal, who are leasing out farm lands in increasing numbers. They spray approximately 24 to 28 times on tomatoes, which find a market in New Delhi. This is not an exception. Much of the vegetables we buy in New Delhi for example are heavily sprayed with pesticides and if I may say these vegetables are drenched in chemical pesticides. Now don't think that this malaise only afflicts the Delhi NCR region. All metros, big cities and towns are faced with a similar problem.

Last week I travelled to Meerut to address a conference on organic farming. It was heartening to listen to several organic farmers and NGOs associated with them. I was particularly drawn to a presentation made by Lalit Tyagi of the NEER Foundation. He informed that the UP State Horticulture Department was providing 50 per cent subsidy on the cultivation of expensive hybrid seeds of vegetables. This subsidy is being provided under the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojna launched by the Central government last year. I asked him to provide the details. In reply he has sent me the printed brochures being distributed by the District Horticultural Officer.

Subsidy is available for raising nurseries of only hybrid seeds of Shimla Mirch, Tomato, Capsicum, Onion, Lauki, Karela (bitter gourd), Tori and Cucumber. Subsidy is coming for a complete package of growing the hybrid seeds in a nursery, before it is transplanted. The subsidy amount will not exceed 50 per cent of the total expenses. To illustrate, let us take hybrid tomato. Under the scheme, a farmer will be subsidised to a maximum limit of 50 per cent of the total expenditure, and not exceeding Rs 47,500 per hectare. The brochure lists the names of the hybrid tomato varieties -- Samridhi, ArkaAnayaya, Pusa hybrid-2, Pusa Rubi Avinash-2 -- that a farmers can pick from. About 150-200 grams of hybrid seed is required per hectare. The total seed cost for 0.2 hectares is worked out at Rs 1680, and the entire cost is being subsidised by the government. For 0.4 hecatres, the total seed cost will come to Rs 3360, which will also come as subsidy.

The rest of the subsidy is for the other nursery activities for raising these plants.

For hybrid Capsicum, the varieties spelled out are: Dhoom, Arc-236, Arc-228, Daiya, Surya. The total seed cost for 0.2 hectares plot is Rs 2100. For Lauki, the hybrid varieties are: Ruma, Kashi bahar, Lauki Azad hybrid-1, Narender hybrid-4 and Anmol. The total seed cost for 0.2 hectares is Rs 1320. Similarly, in case of hybrid seeds of Shimla Mirch, the subsidy is for Rs 4800 for a plot of 0.2 hecatres. And so on..

When the entire seed cost of hybrid seeds is subsidised by the government, farmers surely have an attraction to go for the cultivation of hybrid seeds of vegetables even if they know that these are more damaging for the environment and human health. And then we are told that since the farmers are adopting these varieties in such a large number, these must be good. After all, farmer is the best judge. But what we are not told is that the cultivation of these hybrid seeds is picking up not because of farmers preference but because of the subsidy being doled out.

Remove the subsidy on hybrid seeds, and I am sure many farmers would continue to grow the traditional or the open-pollinated varieties. At the same time, there is an urgent need to provide subsidy for the cultivation of traditional seeds of vegetables. NGOs and farmer organisations should demand an equivalent subsidy for open-pollinated varieties, keeping the nutritional security of the nation in mind. Like the hybrid seeds, I think the entire cost of the seeds of traditional varieties of vegetables should also be subsidised.

Meanwhile, the government has announced a subsidy of Rs 288-crore for cheaper seeds for ensuing rabi or winter-season crops. The seed industry is obviously excited. I don'y know why this subsidy cannot be also channelised for the promotion of traditional crop varieties in the rabi season?

Under farmers pressure, Tamil Nadu puts the dark bill on hold

Farmers raise their hands in affirmation of the demand to throw out the controversial TN State Agricultural Council Bill, 2009 (Photo by Arul, Sept 9, 2009, Chennai) 

As soon as I switched on my phone after alighting from the flight from Chennai, a stream of messages trickled in. I couldn't believe what the messages said. Tamil Nadu Chief Minister had told the media that his government had withdrawn the controversial Tamil Nadu State Agricultural Council Bill, 2009.

Incredible, indeed.

Only a day before, at a conference organised by Tamil Nadu Uzhavar Periyakkam, Thaalanmai Uzhavar Iyakkam, Pasumai Thaayagam (Green Motherland) and CASA South Zone at Chennai, I was invited to speak on the implications of TN State Agricultural Council Bill. As someone wrote in an email to me, at the end of my talk I had asked the audience (the hall was overflowing) to raise their hands and reply in an affirmative Yes if they agree that this Bill needs to be thrown out. The entire house raised their hands in agreement. To this, I told them: " No, not this way. You voice is too feeble to fall onto the ears of the Chief Minister, who is an elderly person. Come on, if you want your Chief Minister to hear your voice, say it loudly."

There was a loud reverbating roar.

And today morning, the Bill was put on hold. Obviously, I wasn't expecting the Chief Minister to respond so quickly to the peoples' demand. I am aware that people's opinion is what matters in a democracy, but I don't have any illusions that democracy works like that. Nevertheless, lest you form an opinion as if it was I or those who organised the conference who were responsible for the change in government's thinking, let me make it very clear that it is actually the continuous effort by various farmer organisations, NGOs and civil society groups from Tamil Nadu, that had actually made an impact. For nearly a month now, Chief Minister's office had received a stream of petitions from agitating farmers/women groups/NGOs from across the State.

Yesterday's conference only reaffirmed peoples' anger against the draconian Bill.

Political parties, inlcluding the CPI and CPM, had thrown their weight behind the agitating farmers and NGOs. Even at the Chennai conference a day before, Dr S Ramadoss, president PMK, Mr C Mahendren of the CPI, and Mr K Balakrishnan of the CPM had participated. The meeting was also addressed by the respected organic guru, G Nammalvar. You can read a brief news report about the event at: http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Gear+up+to+fight+farm+council+Act:+Ramadoss&artid=j7bufx3t/MI=&SectionID=vBlkz7JCFvA=&MainSectionID=fyV9T2jIa4A=&SectionName=EL7znOtxBM3qzgMyXZKtxw==&SEO=

Speaking at the Chennai conference. Also in the picture are: Mr G Nammalvar, Dr S Ramadoss and Mr C Mahendren 

I had categorically stated that the TN Bill was like the last nail in the coffin of Tamil Nadu farmers. I have been saying for long that the manner in which the successive TN governments are actually destroying agriculture, farmers would more or less disappear from Tamil Nadu by the year 2025. Subsequent studies have shown that at the present rate of rural-urban migration, nearly 75 per cent of Tamil Nadu population would be residing in the cities/towns by the year 2020. My assessment is that if the TN Agricultural Council Bill is allowed to come into force, the process of emptying the villages would be hastened, and farmers would disappear some five years earlier (from the earlier market period ending 2025).

The dark bill is certainly not yet confined to the dustbin. Reports say that it has been put on hold (see the report Tamil Nadu agricultural bill would be put on hold to protect farmers at http://www.newkerala.com/nkfullnews-1-109267.html). Farmers must keep on the pressure to force the government to withdraw it completely. I know it is a long drawn battle, but that is the way we have to proceed if we have to protect the future of TN farmers.

PostScript: A friend called me up from Chennai. She said that the TN government was probably moved into action after getting to know how the farmers had agreed to share responsibilities and plan for a district-level action against the Bill in the days to come. Let me share with you how we were able to strategise an action plan, which in real terms can be called "all inclusive".

While summing up the day's proceedings of the conference (on Sept 9) I had asked farmer representatives from the 25-odd districts who were present to spell out the actions they plan to undertake. R Selvam, a man who is always charged with energy, was the first one to stand up and say that he is planning to take out bicycle rallies. Fine. I than asked the representatives whether anyone else also thinks he/she could plan a bicycle yatra in his/her district. One, two, three the hands went up and I found that we had some 8-9 districts volunteering to do that.

The second action that needs to be taken. Someone got up and said that he plans to hold a day-long token hunger strike in front of the district collector's office. Again, the question was tossed to the farmer representatives, and again we had some half a dozen districts willing to organise token hunger strikes. Similarly, there was ample support for some other actions like padyatra, seminar, and demonstrations. We finally nominated volunteers who would coordinate each activity, and then picked up two conveners for the entire action programme.

The lesson from the strategy session is that we all have to share responsibilities. We cannot leave it to a few people to plan, organise, and execute activities on our behalf. It has to be a collective effort, and only then will we succeed. Together we can move mountains. The Chennai meeting has shown that if we join hands and work out a real peoples' agenda, the governments will listen.

Drought or WTO, farmers will continue to perish

Driven by drought, farmers wait at the Jhansi station to take a train to Delhi and make a living there. (The Hindu, Sept 5, 2009)

For thousands of farmers reeling under the devastating impact of the prevailing drought in several parts of India, the WTO mini-Ministerial that concluded in New Delhi yesterday means nothing. In fact, they haven't even heard of it. Nor will they ever understand how the WTO would strike at their livelihoods. All they know is that they have to make an effort to earn their next meal. In that hope, they leave their homes and travel hundreds of miles to find their next piece of bread. Not knowing that a bigger threat awaits them when they return home. With or without a prolonged dry spell or a drought, WTO as it is being designed would simply kick them out of their farms.

Little do they know that the trade ministers who met at New Delhi on Sept 3-4 are actually working on a proposal to snatch away their livelihoods in the days to come. The impact of the Doha round, if it concludes soon without any radical changes, will perhaps be more deadly than the drought they are grappling with. Drought is forcing them to migrate, but still they are hopeful of returning back. But once the WTO strikes, they would never be able to return to their village homes. 

We all know that the New Delhi mini-Ministerial of WTO happened at a time when the country was reeling under one of its worst droughts. Completely oblivious of the ground reality, not bothering to know that nearly half of the country was impacted by drought, the 35-odd Trade Ministers who had assembled in the Taj Palace hotel merrily went about their business. In other words, it was 'business-as-usual' for them.

They paid lip service to agriculture by talking about the Special Products and Special Safeguard Measures (SSM) that developing country farmers needed under the onslaught of international farm trade. As I mentioned in my blog yesterday, both these measures are utterly insufficient to protect the livelihood of millions of Indian farmers. I wish the Indian Commerce Minister Anand Sharma had taken these visiting ministers, including the WTO chief Pascal Lamy and the US Trade Representative, Ron Kirk, to the Bundelkhand region of Uttar Pradesh. Probably the widespread farm distress may have opened the eyes of these trade ministers who have a habit of dining in the five-star hotels around the world. Probably they would have got a lesson or two in what developing country farming really means.

At a time when WTO is being re-energised, thousands of farmers in the Chhatarpur district of Madhya Pradesh, are busy migrating to better pastures. Not only in Madhya Pradesh, farmers from the adjoining districts of Uttar Pradesh too were migrating in droves. The situation is no different in drought-affected Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, and West Bengal. And this was happening at a time when the intellegentsia was busy painting a rosy picture of NREGA, as if it is a magical solution to all the economic ills prevalent in the rural areas.

Monsoon delays, NREGA fails, and the farmers migration in distress grows across the country.

“Every day 8,000 to 10000 people leave,” says Rakesh Naik, a private operator at the Chhattarpur bus tand. “People have been migrating for the last three years, but never like this. Go to the villages, if you really want to see palaayan [migration],” he says.In villages, rows of houses lie locked, the occupants having migrated. The few houses that are still occupied have only children and old men and women as they cannot work. An enterprising reporter of The Hindu, Mahim Pratap Singh, says in his news report published today.

Poignant stories of human distress are recounted. Crop failure, the increasing indebtedness, and in the hope of finding some menial jobs in the cities, these farmers abandon their households and move out with their families. “All three of my sons have migrated to repay loans,” says Suniya Bai (60) of Akona village in Rajnagar block. Tears roll down her cheeks as she looks at her 17-year old daughter Neelam. Now we don’t have money for her marriage. My sons return once in a while, but how much can they give and for how long? They have their own families to support,” she says.

The Hindu report merely gives us a peep into the plight of the farming communities at a time of drought. While the revival of rains is giving some hopes to the planners, and they have already begun to count how minimal would be the loss to GDP, the magnitude of human suffering goes unrecorded.

Every one seems to agree that distress migration this year is unprecedented. But Collector E. Ramesh Kumar does not agree. “Well, people are moving, but it is definitely not distress migration,” he says. People have a tendency to move out for better opportunities. I have come from Andhra Pradesh because I have better opportunities here. It is simple,” he adds. But a farmer, Shambhu Dayal, asks: "Why would we want to leave our homes? There they call us thieves and murderers. The police keep questioning us and we have to bribe them,” he says. Dayal, from Dheemarpura village in Tikamgarh district, is working in Haryana. Dheemarpura, inhabited solely by the traditional fishing community of Dheemars, is on the verge of occupational extinction.

To read the full report: Distress Migration at its Peak in Chhattarpur click on http://beta.thehindu.com/news/national/article15349.ece?homepage=true

WTO mini-Ministerial: India learns to wag the tail

Farmers protesting against WTO Agreement on Agriculture at New Delhi, Sept 3, 2009. Over 50,000 farmers joined the protest.

Actually, Mr Pascal Lamy is right. When he said at the inaugural of the ongoing WTO mini-Ministerial in New Delhi yesterday that 80 per cent of the issues of the Doha round have been resolved, he was telling the truth. Whether we like it or not, the fact remains that those who are negotiating on our behalf, and I am talking of all the developing countries, are in reality keeping us in dark with their statements (which mean nothing) aimed only at pacifying the public galleries backhome. The fundamentals and the broad contours of the Doha round especially in agriculture and NAMA have all been agreed upon.

India's Commerce Minister Anand Sharma, the host of the New Delhi confabulations, has mastered the art of saying nothing in as many words as possible. When he said: "In some quarters, it has been suggested that most issues have been settled and we are almost in the 'endgame'. However, if we look at the text modalities on agriculture and non-agriculture market access (NAMA) alone, it would be apparent that there are still gaps and a number of unresolved issues," he only meant that we have to fine tune by tightening the nuts and bolts of the agreement, and rest everything is almost settled.

You couldn't have expected anything better from Mr Anand Sharma. He knew that thousands of farmers were pouring onto New Delhi streets, and any guffaw could have boiled into an unsavoury situation. But those of us who have followed the developments in the run-up to the mini-Ministerial can easily decipher the real motive and objective of the Indian government. New Delhi was particularly perturbed at its global image of a 'bad boy' in the trade negotiations, and therefore was keen to give a message that it has now learnt to wag its tail. And that in future it will behave like a lapdog.

I am told that only a few days back, the Commerce Secretary Rahul Khullar, had actually used the term 'looney fringe' for all those who are opposing the Doha round. It is however another matter that it is because of the 'lonney fringe' elements that India has been able to put up a strong front at successive Geneva negotiations. If it was not for the 'looney fringe' India would have been made to sign the Doha Agreement much earlier. Perhaps there would have been no need for the Doha round, India's former chief negotiator, Anwar Hooda, who had switched sides to become a deputy Director General of WTO, would have been more than happy to conclude the agricultural negotiations during his tenure.

The New Delhi meeting is not about 'substantive' issues but on the process itself, meaning on how to take the Doha negotiations to its logical end. The Doha Ministerial declaration of Nov 14, 2001 had explicitly stated: "We shall continue to make positive efforts designed to ensure that developing countries and epecially the least developed among them, secure a share in the growth of world trade commensurate with the needs of their economic development." This mandate is the bedrock of the Doha round, says a discussion paper for senior officials meeting (which was held a day prior to the Sept 3-4 mini-Ministerial).

This mandate has somehow been relegated to the background. While I am not sure about the gains accruing to the least developed countries, I do not even know what is the gain in agriculture and NAMA for India from the Doha round. Although the Commerce Ministry says that it has the calculations ready, I doubt if they can establish that the Doha round would be in any way beneficial for Indian agriculture, and the livelihood security of its 600 million farmers. I am willing to challenge them for an open debate, and they can also bring along their backroom boys from the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS), Indian Council of Research in International Economic Relations (ICRIER) and the Indian Institute for Foreign Trade (IIFT).

That agriculture is being sacrificed for the sake of services was clearly and loudly brought out by a delegation of the agitating farmers of BKU which had met Mr Anand Sharma a day before the conclave. The delegation had made it abundantly clear that Special Products and the Special Safeguard Measures (SSM) that is on the negotiating table, does not protect the interest of Indian farmers. Mr Sharma had merely repeated what he and his predecessors have been saying for long: We will not compromise on agriculture.

In fact, in a high-level closed door dialogue that happened a week earlier, the message that came out very clearly was that agriculture and NAMA were through (except for some modalities that need to be worked out), and India was pinning hopes by putting services on the table now. This is the right time to get something in services, a senior bureaucrat had said. If we don't get anything now, we will never be able to extract anything significant. As far as my understanding goes, this in itself was a flawed assumption. This is not the right time to seek any headway in services sector.

The US and EU are already grappling with economic recession, and any commitment at this stage on services would be politically suicidal for them. They are however looking at the developing countries to bail them out of the recession by providing more market access in agriculture and industry. And this is exactly what India is trying to help them with, by bringing in like-minded developing countries who are willing to walk an extra mile to appease the masters.

It was however really heartening to see more than 50,000 farmers converging in New Delhi yesterday in a show of solidarity and strength. New Delhi has not seen such a disciplined and strong protest for a number of years now. While the farmers who came to New Delhi may not understand the nitty-gritty of the negotiations, but what they know for sure is that it is their future and survival that is being placed on the chopping block.

I sometimes wonder what has happened to the brilliant minds that we often talk about. What has happened to all those economists, researchers and analysts who at least used to express their scepticism and doubts in their essays and analysis. They were truly the watchdogs of society. Today, I find the breed of lapdogs growing at a phenomenal pace. The media too, more importantly the pink media, has joined the tribe. You hardly find any article that is even remotely critical of WTO or FTA. You will of course see the backroom boys of the Ministry of Commerce dominating these pages. Didn't I say the lapdog breed is multiplying??

I remember at the time of the Hong Kong WTO Ministerial, Pascal Lamy had said that Special Products is a carrot that he is dangling before the developing countries. These SPs are temporary measures, and have to be phased out over a period of time. The SSM is so complex in implementation that I doubt if we can ever use that instrument to stop import surges. What is more important is that while all these measures have to be gradually phased out, none of the developing countries have ever talked of asking the rich and industrialised countries to draw a phase out plan for their agriculture subsidies.

When will the Green Box, which houses 80 per cent of the farm support, be phased out? Do we know when will US and EU remove their subsidies under the Blue Box or even the Amber Box? The answer is that the developing countries have never emphasised on these subsidies. Even the Indian negotiators are not willing to open up the pandora box of subsidies. Which means that in essence the developing countries have ensured that agriculture in the OECD countries remains protected for posterity. Isn't this a betrayal of the interests of the developing country farmers? Shouldn't our negotiators be held accountable for allowing this to happen?

The subsidies (in these boxes) we are talking about is something close to $ 374 billion every year. In reality, the subsidy is much higher, if we include the implicit support also.

The G-20 has failed us. The G-33 has failed us. The G-77 has failed to point a finger at the inequalities in farm trade. Unless these blocks are able to bring back the issue of farm subsidies on the negotiating table, they should be asked to return back to their respective countries. Let it be clear: no deal is better than a bad deal. #