The 7th WTO Ministerial conference began in Geneva today. I will be bringing you a regular reportage from Geneva every evening. This will be written by several people. I start this with a write-up from Michelle Pressend, who is the policy, advocacy, and research coordinator of Biowatch and Coordinator of the Trade Strategy Group, hosted by the Economic Justice Network in Cape Town.
This diary will be in addition to the normal postings on this blog. So please be ready for more informative pieces, and happy reading.
Legitimacy of WTO Hangs by a Thread
Date posted: 30 November 2009
View this article online here: http://www.sacsis.org.za/site/article/391.1
I'm in Geneva, Switzerland and wrote this article on the eve of the 7th World Trade Organisation (WTO) Ministerial meeting taking place from 27 November to 2 December 2009 at the WTO's head quarters.
I've also just returned from a protest march against the WTO here in Geneva, attended by many people, including activists from many parts of the world.
The march was, unfortunately, marred by a handful of violent protestors on the fringes of the main demonstration. They've been getting the lion's share of media attention. But to set the record straight, the majority of the 2,000-strong crowd participating in the protest march against the WTO was good-natured, well-organized and have legitimate concerns.
This WTO Ministerial meeting is different from previous ones. Ministers are coming together, not to negotiate, but to "take stock" of the WTO as the international trade organization governing multilateral trade rules.
The main theme that the meeting is being conducted under is "WTO the Multilateral Trading System and the Current Global Economic Environment." The agenda will be examining the state of play of the Doha Round of negotiations and a way forward; the role of the WTO in protectionism stemming from the global financial and economic crisis and finally, there will be an important focus on the need for reform in the WTO.
Since its inception in 1995, the rules and negotiations of the WTO have been littered with controversy. Indeed, the very nature of WTO policies, based on trade liberalization and deregulation, are central to the current global economic crisis.
The WTO is one of the most powerful multilateral institutions in the world. Its trade rules are binding. Once governments' commit their countries to WTO agreements, they are bound to its rules at the national level. If countries wish to renege on their commitments because they may, for example, be in conflict with national development priorities, these countries must pay a compensation fee and/or face dispute settlement.
These rules are unbalanced and biased in favour of developed countries and their multinational companies. They have gained much under this global trading system. Moreover, they are seeking further market access in developing countries, not only for trade in goods, but also in services. Developed countries increasingly come up with new rules or concepts to commit developing countries to further opening up their markets.
They tend to ignore the fact that they have a competitive advantage built on years of support from subsidies, tariffs and other economic instruments. Basically, developed countries 'over produce' and since their markets have become saturated; are constantly seeking new avenues to extend these markets into developing countries.
Developing countries pay a heavy price through job losses, a decline in the manufacturing industries and productive sectors, as well as losing revenue to huge capital outflows.
Thus, the neoliberal policies of the WTO accelerate the process of premature de-industrialisation in developing countries and the extremely high inequality that many of these countries experience.
But the WTO is at a turning point. There is increasing recognition its policies come with a huge price tag for developing countries.
Moreover, it is widely acknowledged that rich countries, which have been the rule-makers at the WTO, are also the rule-breakers. These governments continue to subsidize their agricultural sectors and were quick to bail out their banks during the financial crisis.
The fear of protectionism is of major concern to the WTO machinery in terms of measures to address the economic crisis and some developing countries, including South Africa, are calling for an assessment of stimulus packages, as they may be contravening the General Agreement of Trade in Service (GATS) rules.
This assessment seeks to determine whether disciplined measures should be considered and is a tactical intervention, which could expose how the major powers are potentially contravening the very own rules they were instrumental in creating.
But there are other challenges related to the nature of the GATS rules, including the ability of governments’ to regulate service policies. Thus, the assessment of the stimulus packages and the extent to which trade in services are affected should be used as an opportunity for transformation, rather than an attempt to beat the major players at their own game.
Many countries are also bent on a "speedy and successful conclusion of the Doha round." This is despite the fact that Doha commitments, particularly tariffs cuts, will destroy developing countries’ industrial sectors as well as prevent the development of industrial policy.
Some members will use this opportunity to call for commitments for liberalization in energy services to address climate change. But countries should desist any such discussion. Environmental goods and services should not have been in the WTO in the first place. The environmental goods and services sector (EGS) is notably amongst the most rapidly growing industries in the world and access to new markets is vital to developed countries. WTO disciplines in the energy sector could reduce the flexibility and ‘policy space’ needed by countries to make an effective transition from a dependence on fossil fuels to cleaner and more renewable energy sources.
Many countries are still looking at concluding Doha with short-term interests at stake. This, despite civil society groups waving a red flag about impending dangers.
"If completed on current terms, the Doha Round will aggravate the problems of our economies. It will also take away the very policy instruments needed (and being applied) to address the current crises and to prevent similar crises in the future," argued the Africa Trade Network, a network of African civil society organizations in their statement of positions and demands, at their preparatory meeting in Cape Town in the run up to the WTO meeting.
Finally, concerning the institutional reform of the WTO. This is a necessary discussion, particularly in terms of shifting the balance of power as well as producing greater transparency in decision-making processes.
It will be a missed opportunity if this meeting does not discuss a process for addressing the fundamental principles and rules that maintain the unbalanced nature and inequities of this institution, which privileges developed countries and their multinationals.
The world needs a multilateral trading system, but one based on justice and equity. It should also be one which ensures that the interests of developing countries are met and that development policy space is guaranteed, especially the economic incentives needed to shift our economies in favour of the productive sectors.
Nov 30, 2009
India's GM scandal: Bt brinjal approval rigged
Now it can be told. The environmental clearance by an Expert Committee (called EC-II) set by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) to accord approval to the controversial genetically modified crop -- Bt brinjal -- was actually rigged. This was never in doubt, except that this time Kavitha Kuruganti of the Coalition for GM Free India has very meticulously joined the dots to bring out this shocker.
As a consumer, you need to understand how you are likely to be served poisonous food by a bunch of people (who operate in the name of scientists) whose only job is to promote the commercial interests of the private seed and biotech companies. The conflict of interest of most of the members of the EC-II comes out clearly in this exposure.
The entire regulatory system has in fact become subservient to the US interests. The Indian Council for Agricultural Research is now completely in the hands of the US Artificial Insemination Department (USAID), and so is the Department of Biotechnology. And if you think the Ministry for Health and Family Welfare is any better, you just have to walk into the corridors of the ministry. You can hear the whispers clearly.
Ever since the Indo-US Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture, Research and Marketing (KIA) was put into place (almost the same time the Nuclear treaty was signed), the ICAR does exactly what the USAID wants it to do. The outgoing Director General Dr Mangla Rai is merely a figure head, an Indian face for the American operations.
Let me share with you some excerpts from the damming report. Sorry, even the excerpted portions of the report are pretty long.
IS THIS WHAT INDIANS SHOULD BE TRUSTING?
The story of the Expert Committee that recommended Bt Brinjal for commercial cultivation in India
On October 14th 2009, the apex regulatory body for GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) in India - the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) under the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF), gave a go-ahead for the commercial release of Bt Brinjal, the first ever such Genetically Modified (GM) food crop anywhere in the world with the toxin-producing Bt gene in it. The GEAC based its decision, with some dissenting voices recorded, on the recommendations of an Expert Committee (referred to hereafter as EC2, specifically referring to this expert committee on Bt Brinjal, as opposed to EC1, another Expert Committee constituted in 2006-07).
EXPERT COMMITTEE 2 ON BT BRINJAL
When independent reviews of Mahyco’s biosafety data started coming in, in the month of January 2009 (after the data was put up on the Indian regulators’ official website in October 2008 after a protracted Right To Information struggle and after the Supreme Court passed orders to this effect), the GEAC in its meeting on 14th January 2009, decided to set up an Expert Committee (a Sub-Committee, as it was called at that time). The decision in this 91st meeting of the GEAC was recorded as under:
“5.1.4 After detailed deliberations, the Committee decided to set up a Sub-committee comprising of representatives from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, NIN, ICMR, CFTRI, CCMB, IIVR, NDRI, CFIE, MoEF, DBT, TNAU and UAS Dharwad with the following terms of reference:
- to review the adequacy of the biosafety data on Bt brinjal
- to review the adequacy of the toxicity and allergenicity protocols
- to suggest further studies, if any, based on the review of the international practices in biosafety assessment and representations received by the GEAC
- based on such reviews make suitable recommendations for consideration of the GEAC”.
On February 10th and 11th 2009, many faxes were sent from civil society groups across the country asking GEAC to review the mandate for the Sub-Committee and to remove conflicting interests in the committee.
As per an Office Memorandum dated 29/5/2009, the GEAC constituted an Expert Committee consisting of 16 members, headed by Prof Arjula R Reddy, Vice Chancellor of Yogi Vemana University, Hyderabad and currently also the Co-Chair of GEAC.
Interestingly enough, the Terms of Reference for this Committee were:
- to review the findings of the data generated during the large scale trials ;
- to review the biosafety data of Bt brinjal in light of the available scientific evidence, reports from international/national experts and representations from NGOs and other stakeholders;
- to make appropriate recommendations for consideration of the GEAC based on the above review.
One could argue that this new ToR itself is a departure from the decision taken in the January meeting of the GEAC, with regard to the rationale for the constitution of the committee. Further, it has to be noted that the large scale trials’ findings along with findings from pollen flow, soil impacts and crossability studies were put in the public domain only on November 16th 2009, a full month after the Expert Committee came up with its recommendation and this did not go through any independent analysis or review.
On and around the 30th of July, soon after the office memorandum was put up in the public domain, civil society groups once again wrote to the GEAC pointing out to the need to change the mandate of the Expert Committee as well as the inclusion of conflicting interests in the constitution of the Expert Committee (Annexure 1). In addition, on 2nd September and on 11th October 2009, in email communications sent to the Hon’ble Minister for Environment & Forests, these issues have been raised with him too, to update him and seek his intervention.
It has to be noted here that an earlier Expert Committee (EC1) set up in 2006 also presented similar issues for the country, when a GM crop developer was asked to head that Committee. It was only in the second meeting of this EC1 that the GM crop developer was replaced by another scientist.
“EC 2 DESIGNED TO APPROVE BT BRINJAL”
The EC2 had 16 members including the following:
Prof. Arjula R. Reddy, Vice Chancellor, Yogi Vemana University, Hyderabad and Co-chairman, GEAC (Chairperson of the EC2).
Dr Vasantha Muthuswamy, Former Chief (BMS), ICMR, New Delhi: Member
Dr. B. Sesikaran, Director, National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad: Member
Dr. Lalitha R. Gowda, Scientist, CFTRI, Mysore: Member
Dr. N. Madhusudan Rao, Deputy Director, CCMB, Hyderabad: Member
Dr. C. M. Gupta, Former Director, Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow: Member
Dr S. B. Dongre, Director (F&VP), Food Safety and Standards Authority (FSSA), New Delhi - (Representative of MoH&FW): Member
Dr. Dhir Singh, ADG (PFA), FSSAI - (Representative of MoH&FW): Member
Dr. K. Satyanarayan, Scientist G, ICMR, New Delhi: Member
Dr. Dharmeshwar Das, Director, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar: Member
Dr. A. K. Srivastava, Director, National Diary Research Institute, Karnal: Member
Dr. Dilip Kumar, Director, Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai: Member
Dr. Mathura Rai, Director, Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, Varanasi: Member
Dr. P. Anand Kumar, Project Director, NRCPB, IARI, New Delhi: Member
Dr. K. K. Tripathi, Adviser, DBT, New Delhi: Member
Dr R Warrier, Director and MS GEAC: Convener
A re-look at the EC2
Prof Arjula Reddy, the Chair of the Committee:
In a phone conversation to Dr Pushpa Bhargava, Prof Reddy is supposed to have told Dr Bhargava, sometime in the first week of October (?):
- that eight of the tests that Dr Bhargava said should be done on Bt Brinjal and with which Prof Reddy agreed, had not been done;
- that even in the case of tests that have been done, many have not been done satisfactorily and adequately;
- that he (Prof Reddy) was under ‘tremendous pressure’ to clear Bt Brinjal and had calls from ‘Agriculture Minister, GEAC and industry’.
Attached is a note/affidavit from Dr Bhargava on this matter (Annexure 2). Prof Reddy has also been quoted in a Tehelka article on Bt Brinjal recently in the following manner:
When asked if there was any proof Bt brinjal was safe, he replied, “What we require is long-range research done over many years. That does not exist (for Bt brinjal).” Then why give the clearance if the required research is absent? “All the approved protocols by the government has been fulfilled by the developers and the public institutions [that participated in the safety assessment].”
Source: Uber Gene, Tehelka Magazine, Vol 6, Issue 44, Dated November 07, 2009 at http://www.tehelka.com/story_main43.asp?filename=Ne071109uber_gene.asp
However, these views are not reflected in the final report of the EC2, indicating that Prof Reddy succumbed to pressure.
2. Dr K K Tripathi, Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation, Dept of Biotechnology.
A complaint is pending against Dr K K Tripathi with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) (complaint dated 6/6/09 from Nuziveedu Seeds, and Central Vigilance Commission Complaint No. 780/09/6, being examined in the Commission – Annexure 3), for “abuse of power”. This complaint, filed by Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd, points out that Dr Tripathi has been exercising undue discretionary powers to promote interests of certain companies of his choice (Mahyco specifically) and harm others. The CVC complaint lodged points out the following:
“The RCGM, MEC and GEAC are independent committees meant to act as checks and balance for each other and prevent any one individual from influencing their decision. However, the presence of one person (Dr. K K Tripathi) on all three committees and in the capacity of Member Secretary on two key committees besides his administrative powers as Advisor DBT, has given him a chance to manipulate the decisions in these committees to further his vested agenda by misinforming and misrepresenting facts in these committees”.
Dr Tripathi was also part of the EC2! It violates any principle of fair inquiry to have him in this committee when investigations are pending against a complaint for his excessive favouring of Mahyco when the EC2 was considering a Mahyco application for Bt Brinjal commercialization!
Further, Dr Tripathi was the one who signed off on various protocols and permission letters for testing Bt Brinjal’s biosafety and efficacy and obviously thought this was adequate and appropriate, while the Expert Committee was supposed to be reviewing the concerns expressed on these very protocols and studies!
3. Dr Mathura Rai, Director, Indian Institute of Vegetable Research (IIVR)
He/IIVR is part of the ABSP II project (more details in Annexure 4). This project is funded by USAID, which in turn gets funded by Monsanto for certain projects and funds Monsanto for certain other projects. ABSPII is “supporting Mahyco in gaining regulatory approval for the technology”… says a project document on the official website (http://www.absp2.cornell.edu).
USAID funding of this project goes expressly into activities like: “Support Mahyco’s efforts to complete regulatory approval”!
Dr Mathura Rai also acted as the lead investigator, so to speak, on the large scale trials of Mahyco’s Bt Brinjal in the past two years. He directly supervised all the trials as recommended by the Expert Committee (EC1 led by Dr Deepak Paintal/Dr C R Babu) and generated findings.
He not only did these studies even though he is part of ABSPII but he also reviewed his own findings by being part of the Expert Committee set up “to review findings from large scale trials and other biosafety tests”! Incidentally, the EC2 itself is called the “Expert Committee to review the findings of Large Scale Trials and other related biosafety studies on Bt Brinjal”…
4. Dr Ananda Kumar, Project Director, NRCPB, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), Delhi
Dr Ananda Kumar is a Bt Brinjal developer himself. Given that his own product is in the pipeline of development and commercialization, his inclusion in the Expert Committee once again violates principles of fair inquiry and brings in conflicting interests.
Amongst the 16 members of the Committee, both the above (Dr Mathura Rai and Dr Ananda Kumar) are agriculture scientists and both are involved in Bt Brinjal development and were made part of this Expert Committee!
In the above context, it may be noted that the Expert Committee has denied that India is a Centre of Origin of Brinjal, even though the crop developer also accepts this fact along with other agencies like National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources!
5. Dr Dilip Kumar, Director, Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai
The Central Institute of Fisheries Education had taken up a Mahyco-sponsored study on Bt Brinjal and the Director was now sitting in the Expert Committee to review his Institute’s findings amongst other findings!
6. & 7. Dr Vasantha Muthuswamy and Dr B Sesikeran, Director, National Institute of Nutrition.
These two members played a lead role in the recasting of regulatory guidelines for safety assessment of GM foods in India, with the funding of USAID under the South Asia Biosafety Programme (SABP). Dr Muthuswamy is a GEAC member while Dr Sesikeran is an RCGM member.
On the grounds of harmonizing the Indian regulatory regime with Codex Alimentarius guidelines, this exercise not only ignored all the many important tests and procedures being prescribed by Dr Pushpa Bhargava, the Supreme Court observer in the GEAC and others, but threw out many tests that were hitherto being conducted in India.
Incidentally, the ABSPII, (funded by USAID) “works collaboratively with the Program for Biosafety Systems (PBS) and the South Asia Biosafety Program (SABP)1” (funded by USAID). The official website states the following in this context:
"ABSPII will identify and support other USAID initiatives to promote safe and effective agricultural biotechnology in Africa and Asia. For example, successful commercialization of bio-engineered crops will depend upon satisfactory biosafety regulation”.
USAID, meanwhile, states that one of its roles is to “integrate GM into local food systems”.
Also interesting to note is a KIA Board Meeting (5th Board Meeting of Indo-US Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture, the bilateral deal signed along with the Indo-US nuclear deal, to bring in the so-called second green revolution into the country) expressly refers to the fact that “guidelines are being drafted for the safety of GM foods for the Government of India” under a section titled “related activities undertaken by other US agencies”.
Dr Muthuswamy and Dr Sesikeran were key members of the drafting committee for the new guidelines. It is of little surprise then that the EC2 report repeatedly resorts to comments like “as per the recently adopted guidelines, such studies do not form part of safety assessment” or that something is “not required” as per the new guidelines.
Thus, with USAID’s interference through the SABP project, unscientific safety testing guidelines and processes have become the criteria for the safety assessment of Bt Brinjal and GM crops rather than rigorous scientific risk assessment and hazard identification. Further, a scientific evaluation of Bt Brinjal is not about conformity to guidelines (newly adopted or otherwise) even as the EC2 report takes a recourse to this often.
8. & 9. Dr Dhir Singh and Dr S B Dongre, “representatives of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare”
These two members of the EC2, drawn from the Food Safety and Standards Authority, were expressly designated in the EC2 as “representatives of the Ministry of Health &Family Welfare”. From conversations with the FSSA Chairperson and one of these members, it is gleaned by civil society members that these members carried a brief of being present in the EC2 as “observers” and did not take part in the deliberations.
In effect, this implies that no health-related questions were being asked on behalf of the public by any Health Ministry representative in the Expert Committee!
10. Dr C M Gupta, Former Director, Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow
Dr Gupta, who is also a GEAC member, did not attend both the meetings of EC2.
11. Dr Ranjini Warrier, Member-Secretary, GEAC &Convenor, EC2
It is to Dr Warrier that various communications were sent by many civil society groups about the constitution and mandate of the Expert Committee, right from February 2009. It is obvious that no notice was paid to the objectionable processes being run and that justified demands from citizens were not taken on board.
EXPERT COMMITTEE &SUBSEQUENT PROCESSES
The Expert Committee met twice, on July 30th and August 31st 2009 reportedly for a few hours each, and came up with its 105-page report. In these two meetings, thousands of pages of biosafety dossiers of Bt Brinjal in addition to independent reviews and other feedback were apparently perused by the Committee for finalizing its report!
The GEAC did not address the issues raised by civil society groups about the constitution and mandate of this Expert Committee.
This is just a portion of the report that I am sharing with you. For a complete version, please write to Kavitha Kuruganti at kavitha.kuruganti@gmail.com
As a consumer, you need to understand how you are likely to be served poisonous food by a bunch of people (who operate in the name of scientists) whose only job is to promote the commercial interests of the private seed and biotech companies. The conflict of interest of most of the members of the EC-II comes out clearly in this exposure.
The entire regulatory system has in fact become subservient to the US interests. The Indian Council for Agricultural Research is now completely in the hands of the US Artificial Insemination Department (USAID), and so is the Department of Biotechnology. And if you think the Ministry for Health and Family Welfare is any better, you just have to walk into the corridors of the ministry. You can hear the whispers clearly.
Ever since the Indo-US Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture, Research and Marketing (KIA) was put into place (almost the same time the Nuclear treaty was signed), the ICAR does exactly what the USAID wants it to do. The outgoing Director General Dr Mangla Rai is merely a figure head, an Indian face for the American operations.
Let me share with you some excerpts from the damming report. Sorry, even the excerpted portions of the report are pretty long.
IS THIS WHAT INDIANS SHOULD BE TRUSTING?
The story of the Expert Committee that recommended Bt Brinjal for commercial cultivation in India
On October 14th 2009, the apex regulatory body for GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) in India - the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) under the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF), gave a go-ahead for the commercial release of Bt Brinjal, the first ever such Genetically Modified (GM) food crop anywhere in the world with the toxin-producing Bt gene in it. The GEAC based its decision, with some dissenting voices recorded, on the recommendations of an Expert Committee (referred to hereafter as EC2, specifically referring to this expert committee on Bt Brinjal, as opposed to EC1, another Expert Committee constituted in 2006-07).
EXPERT COMMITTEE 2 ON BT BRINJAL
When independent reviews of Mahyco’s biosafety data started coming in, in the month of January 2009 (after the data was put up on the Indian regulators’ official website in October 2008 after a protracted Right To Information struggle and after the Supreme Court passed orders to this effect), the GEAC in its meeting on 14th January 2009, decided to set up an Expert Committee (a Sub-Committee, as it was called at that time). The decision in this 91st meeting of the GEAC was recorded as under:
“5.1.4 After detailed deliberations, the Committee decided to set up a Sub-committee comprising of representatives from the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, NIN, ICMR, CFTRI, CCMB, IIVR, NDRI, CFIE, MoEF, DBT, TNAU and UAS Dharwad with the following terms of reference:
- to review the adequacy of the biosafety data on Bt brinjal
- to review the adequacy of the toxicity and allergenicity protocols
- to suggest further studies, if any, based on the review of the international practices in biosafety assessment and representations received by the GEAC
- based on such reviews make suitable recommendations for consideration of the GEAC”.
On February 10th and 11th 2009, many faxes were sent from civil society groups across the country asking GEAC to review the mandate for the Sub-Committee and to remove conflicting interests in the committee.
As per an Office Memorandum dated 29/5/2009, the GEAC constituted an Expert Committee consisting of 16 members, headed by Prof Arjula R Reddy, Vice Chancellor of Yogi Vemana University, Hyderabad and currently also the Co-Chair of GEAC.
Interestingly enough, the Terms of Reference for this Committee were:
- to review the findings of the data generated during the large scale trials ;
- to review the biosafety data of Bt brinjal in light of the available scientific evidence, reports from international/national experts and representations from NGOs and other stakeholders;
- to make appropriate recommendations for consideration of the GEAC based on the above review.
One could argue that this new ToR itself is a departure from the decision taken in the January meeting of the GEAC, with regard to the rationale for the constitution of the committee. Further, it has to be noted that the large scale trials’ findings along with findings from pollen flow, soil impacts and crossability studies were put in the public domain only on November 16th 2009, a full month after the Expert Committee came up with its recommendation and this did not go through any independent analysis or review.
On and around the 30th of July, soon after the office memorandum was put up in the public domain, civil society groups once again wrote to the GEAC pointing out to the need to change the mandate of the Expert Committee as well as the inclusion of conflicting interests in the constitution of the Expert Committee (Annexure 1). In addition, on 2nd September and on 11th October 2009, in email communications sent to the Hon’ble Minister for Environment & Forests, these issues have been raised with him too, to update him and seek his intervention.
It has to be noted here that an earlier Expert Committee (EC1) set up in 2006 also presented similar issues for the country, when a GM crop developer was asked to head that Committee. It was only in the second meeting of this EC1 that the GM crop developer was replaced by another scientist.
“EC 2 DESIGNED TO APPROVE BT BRINJAL”
The EC2 had 16 members including the following:
Prof. Arjula R. Reddy, Vice Chancellor, Yogi Vemana University, Hyderabad and Co-chairman, GEAC (Chairperson of the EC2).
Dr Vasantha Muthuswamy, Former Chief (BMS), ICMR, New Delhi: Member
Dr. B. Sesikaran, Director, National Institute of Nutrition, Hyderabad: Member
Dr. Lalitha R. Gowda, Scientist, CFTRI, Mysore: Member
Dr. N. Madhusudan Rao, Deputy Director, CCMB, Hyderabad: Member
Dr. C. M. Gupta, Former Director, Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow: Member
Dr S. B. Dongre, Director (F&VP), Food Safety and Standards Authority (FSSA), New Delhi - (Representative of MoH&FW): Member
Dr. Dhir Singh, ADG (PFA), FSSAI - (Representative of MoH&FW): Member
Dr. K. Satyanarayan, Scientist G, ICMR, New Delhi: Member
Dr. Dharmeshwar Das, Director, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar: Member
Dr. A. K. Srivastava, Director, National Diary Research Institute, Karnal: Member
Dr. Dilip Kumar, Director, Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai: Member
Dr. Mathura Rai, Director, Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, Varanasi: Member
Dr. P. Anand Kumar, Project Director, NRCPB, IARI, New Delhi: Member
Dr. K. K. Tripathi, Adviser, DBT, New Delhi: Member
Dr R Warrier, Director and MS GEAC: Convener
A re-look at the EC2
Prof Arjula Reddy, the Chair of the Committee:
In a phone conversation to Dr Pushpa Bhargava, Prof Reddy is supposed to have told Dr Bhargava, sometime in the first week of October (?):
- that eight of the tests that Dr Bhargava said should be done on Bt Brinjal and with which Prof Reddy agreed, had not been done;
- that even in the case of tests that have been done, many have not been done satisfactorily and adequately;
- that he (Prof Reddy) was under ‘tremendous pressure’ to clear Bt Brinjal and had calls from ‘Agriculture Minister, GEAC and industry’.
Attached is a note/affidavit from Dr Bhargava on this matter (Annexure 2). Prof Reddy has also been quoted in a Tehelka article on Bt Brinjal recently in the following manner:
When asked if there was any proof Bt brinjal was safe, he replied, “What we require is long-range research done over many years. That does not exist (for Bt brinjal).” Then why give the clearance if the required research is absent? “All the approved protocols by the government has been fulfilled by the developers and the public institutions [that participated in the safety assessment].”
Source: Uber Gene, Tehelka Magazine, Vol 6, Issue 44, Dated November 07, 2009 at http://www.tehelka.com/story_main43.asp?filename=Ne071109uber_gene.asp
However, these views are not reflected in the final report of the EC2, indicating that Prof Reddy succumbed to pressure.
2. Dr K K Tripathi, Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation, Dept of Biotechnology.
A complaint is pending against Dr K K Tripathi with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) (complaint dated 6/6/09 from Nuziveedu Seeds, and Central Vigilance Commission Complaint No. 780/09/6, being examined in the Commission – Annexure 3), for “abuse of power”. This complaint, filed by Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd, points out that Dr Tripathi has been exercising undue discretionary powers to promote interests of certain companies of his choice (Mahyco specifically) and harm others. The CVC complaint lodged points out the following:
“The RCGM, MEC and GEAC are independent committees meant to act as checks and balance for each other and prevent any one individual from influencing their decision. However, the presence of one person (Dr. K K Tripathi) on all three committees and in the capacity of Member Secretary on two key committees besides his administrative powers as Advisor DBT, has given him a chance to manipulate the decisions in these committees to further his vested agenda by misinforming and misrepresenting facts in these committees”.
Dr Tripathi was also part of the EC2! It violates any principle of fair inquiry to have him in this committee when investigations are pending against a complaint for his excessive favouring of Mahyco when the EC2 was considering a Mahyco application for Bt Brinjal commercialization!
Further, Dr Tripathi was the one who signed off on various protocols and permission letters for testing Bt Brinjal’s biosafety and efficacy and obviously thought this was adequate and appropriate, while the Expert Committee was supposed to be reviewing the concerns expressed on these very protocols and studies!
3. Dr Mathura Rai, Director, Indian Institute of Vegetable Research (IIVR)
He/IIVR is part of the ABSP II project (more details in Annexure 4). This project is funded by USAID, which in turn gets funded by Monsanto for certain projects and funds Monsanto for certain other projects. ABSPII is “supporting Mahyco in gaining regulatory approval for the technology”… says a project document on the official website (http://www.absp2.cornell.edu).
USAID funding of this project goes expressly into activities like: “Support Mahyco’s efforts to complete regulatory approval”!
Dr Mathura Rai also acted as the lead investigator, so to speak, on the large scale trials of Mahyco’s Bt Brinjal in the past two years. He directly supervised all the trials as recommended by the Expert Committee (EC1 led by Dr Deepak Paintal/Dr C R Babu) and generated findings.
He not only did these studies even though he is part of ABSPII but he also reviewed his own findings by being part of the Expert Committee set up “to review findings from large scale trials and other biosafety tests”! Incidentally, the EC2 itself is called the “Expert Committee to review the findings of Large Scale Trials and other related biosafety studies on Bt Brinjal”…
4. Dr Ananda Kumar, Project Director, NRCPB, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), Delhi
Dr Ananda Kumar is a Bt Brinjal developer himself. Given that his own product is in the pipeline of development and commercialization, his inclusion in the Expert Committee once again violates principles of fair inquiry and brings in conflicting interests.
Amongst the 16 members of the Committee, both the above (Dr Mathura Rai and Dr Ananda Kumar) are agriculture scientists and both are involved in Bt Brinjal development and were made part of this Expert Committee!
In the above context, it may be noted that the Expert Committee has denied that India is a Centre of Origin of Brinjal, even though the crop developer also accepts this fact along with other agencies like National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources!
5. Dr Dilip Kumar, Director, Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai
The Central Institute of Fisheries Education had taken up a Mahyco-sponsored study on Bt Brinjal and the Director was now sitting in the Expert Committee to review his Institute’s findings amongst other findings!
6. & 7. Dr Vasantha Muthuswamy and Dr B Sesikeran, Director, National Institute of Nutrition.
These two members played a lead role in the recasting of regulatory guidelines for safety assessment of GM foods in India, with the funding of USAID under the South Asia Biosafety Programme (SABP). Dr Muthuswamy is a GEAC member while Dr Sesikeran is an RCGM member.
On the grounds of harmonizing the Indian regulatory regime with Codex Alimentarius guidelines, this exercise not only ignored all the many important tests and procedures being prescribed by Dr Pushpa Bhargava, the Supreme Court observer in the GEAC and others, but threw out many tests that were hitherto being conducted in India.
Incidentally, the ABSPII, (funded by USAID) “works collaboratively with the Program for Biosafety Systems (PBS) and the South Asia Biosafety Program (SABP)1” (funded by USAID). The official website states the following in this context:
"ABSPII will identify and support other USAID initiatives to promote safe and effective agricultural biotechnology in Africa and Asia. For example, successful commercialization of bio-engineered crops will depend upon satisfactory biosafety regulation”.
USAID, meanwhile, states that one of its roles is to “integrate GM into local food systems”.
Also interesting to note is a KIA Board Meeting (5th Board Meeting of Indo-US Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture, the bilateral deal signed along with the Indo-US nuclear deal, to bring in the so-called second green revolution into the country) expressly refers to the fact that “guidelines are being drafted for the safety of GM foods for the Government of India” under a section titled “related activities undertaken by other US agencies”.
Dr Muthuswamy and Dr Sesikeran were key members of the drafting committee for the new guidelines. It is of little surprise then that the EC2 report repeatedly resorts to comments like “as per the recently adopted guidelines, such studies do not form part of safety assessment” or that something is “not required” as per the new guidelines.
Thus, with USAID’s interference through the SABP project, unscientific safety testing guidelines and processes have become the criteria for the safety assessment of Bt Brinjal and GM crops rather than rigorous scientific risk assessment and hazard identification. Further, a scientific evaluation of Bt Brinjal is not about conformity to guidelines (newly adopted or otherwise) even as the EC2 report takes a recourse to this often.
8. & 9. Dr Dhir Singh and Dr S B Dongre, “representatives of the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare”
These two members of the EC2, drawn from the Food Safety and Standards Authority, were expressly designated in the EC2 as “representatives of the Ministry of Health &Family Welfare”. From conversations with the FSSA Chairperson and one of these members, it is gleaned by civil society members that these members carried a brief of being present in the EC2 as “observers” and did not take part in the deliberations.
In effect, this implies that no health-related questions were being asked on behalf of the public by any Health Ministry representative in the Expert Committee!
10. Dr C M Gupta, Former Director, Central Drug Research Institute, Lucknow
Dr Gupta, who is also a GEAC member, did not attend both the meetings of EC2.
11. Dr Ranjini Warrier, Member-Secretary, GEAC &Convenor, EC2
It is to Dr Warrier that various communications were sent by many civil society groups about the constitution and mandate of the Expert Committee, right from February 2009. It is obvious that no notice was paid to the objectionable processes being run and that justified demands from citizens were not taken on board.
EXPERT COMMITTEE &SUBSEQUENT PROCESSES
The Expert Committee met twice, on July 30th and August 31st 2009 reportedly for a few hours each, and came up with its 105-page report. In these two meetings, thousands of pages of biosafety dossiers of Bt Brinjal in addition to independent reviews and other feedback were apparently perused by the Committee for finalizing its report!
The GEAC did not address the issues raised by civil society groups about the constitution and mandate of this Expert Committee.
This is just a portion of the report that I am sharing with you. For a complete version, please write to Kavitha Kuruganti at kavitha.kuruganti@gmail.com
Nov 29, 2009
Livestock too get an SEZ. What about the 1.1 billion Indians?
And now a Special Economic Zone for livestock research. At this rate, I am sure we will soon have SEZs for dogs and cats. And then, who know somebody may come with a more imaginative idea of setting up an SEZ for guinea pigs. After all, you need them for medical and pharma research. We can surely seek land for setting up an SEZ for building a world class supply centre for guinea pigs/mouse.
The entire SEZ business has gone too far. I am sure some conservationist some day will demand an SEZ for tigers, elephants and donkeys.
While you and me were sleeping, the Andhra Pradesh chief minister has already inaugurated an SEZ for livestock research in January 2009. Name it on Indira Gandhi or her family, and the political leadership falls in line. This one is called Indira Gandhi Advanced Research on Livestock, and is located in Pulivendula in Kadapa district on AP.
The livestock research SEZ is spread over 644 acres.
I wonder when will we have SEZ for human beings? Why can't we make the entire country an SEZ for its 1.1 billion people? Why do we need to create islands of prosperity in the ocean of deprivity, squalor and hunger?
Anyway, I draw your attention to an article by Kanchi Kohli on the livestock SEZ. It is an eye-opener.
Now, a Livestock SEZ!
Kanchi Kohli
A couple of months back a colleague in the NGO sector pointed me to a new proposal that has been seems to be working its way to reality. I could not believe what I was hearing. I had heard of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) of different kinds: pharma, information technology, pharmaceuticals, petrochemicals and so on. And now there was one which is going to be linked with a the establishment of a research centre to carry out studies of all kinds on India's Livestock.
This research centre called Indira Gandhi Centre for Advanced Research on Livestock (IGCARL) spread over 644 acres is going to be located in Pulivendula in Kadapa District of Andhra Pradesh is set up as a Public Private Partnership initiative. It is supposed to be a world class facility to be set up under Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University (SVVU), Tirupati as an autonomous institution. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has already given permission for it in 2007.
I am sure all of you are intrigued to know more about this world class centre! As they say, you dig deeper and the plot thickens. The primary focus of the research centre is geared towards biotechnology and animal genetics. Pasted proudly on their website are very important and finest livestock breeds which most of you will be aware of. Ongole cattle, Murrah buffalo, Punganur Bull and Aseel chicken are upfront on their focus. There are plans to freeze and export the embryo and germplasm of some or few each of these indigenous breeds. The next stated step is gene modification for better production and reproduction. The production of vaccines is also on the cards. And ofcourse once this research centre pumps in all this effort they will want to seek propriety rights over their products: through patents.
I was aware that the business of agriculture had crept into the livestock research sector long back. After all there has been substantial amount of aid that the Government of India has been receiving from International Financial Institutions like the World Bank. The IGCARL is headed that way too. And at the same time, there are also many research universities which are into direct collaborations with private companies. But an SEZ is one thing I was yet to come across.
The few farmers I have had the privilege of knowing are also cattle rearers. Farm and livestock in India are inseparable and complimentary to each other. Infact primarily agricultural communities have lived in tandem with pastoralists, when biodiverse farms often become havens of livestock feed. I am aware that this has changed in many parts of the country, where both the farm as well as livestock are in the gamut of industrial production geared for the market. It is also a fact that it is this monoculture cultivation and mechanised livestock farming that has borne the brunt of disease and death.
But IGCARL has its own agenda. Like any other corporation, this research centre is inviting tenders or expressions of interest by “developers”. I want to ask each one of our readers as to what they would think would be the implications of transforming cattle rearing as a livelihood to a enterprise of new cattle creation? To me it sounds unacceptable, but since each one of you reading this is closer to farm realities than I am, I thought we could all learn from each other.
Perhaps the support for initiatives for projects like IGCARL comes from our very own planning exercises. For instance, the Report of the Working Group of Agriculture research and education for the eleventh five year plan (2007-2012) states, “to achieve the productivity targets, there is an urgent need for reorientation of research programs. Emphases need to shift on assessing the genetic potential of indigenous breeds, which of late have been found to be highly productive once given suitable management and environment. The classification of animals as dairy breeds will therefore have to be revised. Intensive research work needs to be undertaken for genetic identification of traits of excellence in Indian breeds, like Jaffarabadi buffalo, Black Bengal goat, Garole sheep etc. and identify the functional genomic associated with their trait of excellence. The biodiversity existing in the domestic livestock needs to be investigated using molecular tools which should involve the transfer of major genes associated with production excellence, tropical adaptability to diseases and stress resistance.” This goes well with IGCARL's language doesn't it? My question then is, where do small farm and pastoral needs figure in all this? Moreover, do livestock keepers even know what is in store for them in our plan documents?
The Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister is supposed to have inaugurated the research block in January 2009 and other facilities are to be fully functional by next month. IGCARL is on the way to becoming a reality, without many of us being made aware of the real social and environmental implications of a livestock research like this. Given that the business agenda has entered the livestock research arena so blatantly, I would not be surprised if there are many other such proposals pending or ready to roll. Its time each one of us opened our eyes to who such proposals will be benefiting and whether these are only designed to sell out our indigenous breeds.
The entire SEZ business has gone too far. I am sure some conservationist some day will demand an SEZ for tigers, elephants and donkeys.
While you and me were sleeping, the Andhra Pradesh chief minister has already inaugurated an SEZ for livestock research in January 2009. Name it on Indira Gandhi or her family, and the political leadership falls in line. This one is called Indira Gandhi Advanced Research on Livestock, and is located in Pulivendula in Kadapa district on AP.
The livestock research SEZ is spread over 644 acres.
I wonder when will we have SEZ for human beings? Why can't we make the entire country an SEZ for its 1.1 billion people? Why do we need to create islands of prosperity in the ocean of deprivity, squalor and hunger?
Anyway, I draw your attention to an article by Kanchi Kohli on the livestock SEZ. It is an eye-opener.
Now, a Livestock SEZ!
Kanchi Kohli
A couple of months back a colleague in the NGO sector pointed me to a new proposal that has been seems to be working its way to reality. I could not believe what I was hearing. I had heard of Special Economic Zones (SEZs) of different kinds: pharma, information technology, pharmaceuticals, petrochemicals and so on. And now there was one which is going to be linked with a the establishment of a research centre to carry out studies of all kinds on India's Livestock.
This research centre called Indira Gandhi Centre for Advanced Research on Livestock (IGCARL) spread over 644 acres is going to be located in Pulivendula in Kadapa District of Andhra Pradesh is set up as a Public Private Partnership initiative. It is supposed to be a world class facility to be set up under Sri Venkateswara Veterinary University (SVVU), Tirupati as an autonomous institution. The Government of Andhra Pradesh has already given permission for it in 2007.
I am sure all of you are intrigued to know more about this world class centre! As they say, you dig deeper and the plot thickens. The primary focus of the research centre is geared towards biotechnology and animal genetics. Pasted proudly on their website are very important and finest livestock breeds which most of you will be aware of. Ongole cattle, Murrah buffalo, Punganur Bull and Aseel chicken are upfront on their focus. There are plans to freeze and export the embryo and germplasm of some or few each of these indigenous breeds. The next stated step is gene modification for better production and reproduction. The production of vaccines is also on the cards. And ofcourse once this research centre pumps in all this effort they will want to seek propriety rights over their products: through patents.
I was aware that the business of agriculture had crept into the livestock research sector long back. After all there has been substantial amount of aid that the Government of India has been receiving from International Financial Institutions like the World Bank. The IGCARL is headed that way too. And at the same time, there are also many research universities which are into direct collaborations with private companies. But an SEZ is one thing I was yet to come across.
The few farmers I have had the privilege of knowing are also cattle rearers. Farm and livestock in India are inseparable and complimentary to each other. Infact primarily agricultural communities have lived in tandem with pastoralists, when biodiverse farms often become havens of livestock feed. I am aware that this has changed in many parts of the country, where both the farm as well as livestock are in the gamut of industrial production geared for the market. It is also a fact that it is this monoculture cultivation and mechanised livestock farming that has borne the brunt of disease and death.
But IGCARL has its own agenda. Like any other corporation, this research centre is inviting tenders or expressions of interest by “developers”. I want to ask each one of our readers as to what they would think would be the implications of transforming cattle rearing as a livelihood to a enterprise of new cattle creation? To me it sounds unacceptable, but since each one of you reading this is closer to farm realities than I am, I thought we could all learn from each other.
Perhaps the support for initiatives for projects like IGCARL comes from our very own planning exercises. For instance, the Report of the Working Group of Agriculture research and education for the eleventh five year plan (2007-2012) states, “to achieve the productivity targets, there is an urgent need for reorientation of research programs. Emphases need to shift on assessing the genetic potential of indigenous breeds, which of late have been found to be highly productive once given suitable management and environment. The classification of animals as dairy breeds will therefore have to be revised. Intensive research work needs to be undertaken for genetic identification of traits of excellence in Indian breeds, like Jaffarabadi buffalo, Black Bengal goat, Garole sheep etc. and identify the functional genomic associated with their trait of excellence. The biodiversity existing in the domestic livestock needs to be investigated using molecular tools which should involve the transfer of major genes associated with production excellence, tropical adaptability to diseases and stress resistance.” This goes well with IGCARL's language doesn't it? My question then is, where do small farm and pastoral needs figure in all this? Moreover, do livestock keepers even know what is in store for them in our plan documents?
The Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister is supposed to have inaugurated the research block in January 2009 and other facilities are to be fully functional by next month. IGCARL is on the way to becoming a reality, without many of us being made aware of the real social and environmental implications of a livestock research like this. Given that the business agenda has entered the livestock research arena so blatantly, I would not be surprised if there are many other such proposals pending or ready to roll. Its time each one of us opened our eyes to who such proposals will be benefiting and whether these are only designed to sell out our indigenous breeds.
Nov 28, 2009
Micro-finance also leads to suicides in rural areas
Sometime back I read a small news item tucked away in one corner of a newspaper. It mentioned that some women in a self-help group that Rahul Gandhi was visiting in Andhra Pradesh pleaded for the interest rate on micro-finance to be brought down.
In fact, this news report made me sit back and think. A few months back (before this news report) I had read somewhere that some 40-odd SHG members in AP had committed suicide. I checked up with my colleagues in other States where farmer suicides are on an upswing, and to my utter dismay found that many of the farmers who committed suicide also were faced (or let us say shared) with the burden of an abnormally high interest rate that their wives were being made to cough out in the name of micro-finance.
Independent journalist Purusottam Singh Thakur from Bhubaneshwar told me the other day after returning from the suicide-prone areas in Orissa that most of the 32 farmers who committed suicide in the past three weeks or so too had borrowed from micro-finance institutions.
I am not surprised.
Many in the urban centres would commit suicide if the banks start charging us 24 per cent rate of interest. Even at 8.5 per cent rate of interest, those who have drawn housing loans, find it difficult to make monthly EMI payments. Imagine the stress and threat under which the poor in the rural areas are being made to borrow at 24 per cent rate of interest.
The loot doesn't stop here.
The MFI units are now getting ready to extend home loans to the poor. Says a report in The Times of India (Mar 30, 2009): The rural home loan products are structured pretty much the same way as in the cities. The difference being the average loan amount. For MFIs, it ranges between Rs 50,000 and Rs 2 lakh with repayments being in equated monthly instalments (EMIs). Some like Madura Micro Finance also provide a payment holiday of four months for construction.
I am not sure at what rate of interest these loans for the poor are being provided. If you happen to know, please do let our readers know. In any case, you can read the full report MFIs offer home loans at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/biz/india-business/MFIs-offer-home-loans/articleshow/4331728.cms
Whatever be the justification for charging 24 per cent rate of interest, but how can human beings expoit an hungry stomach in the name of a successful business model? How can human beings be so cruel to fellow humans, not even thinking twice before drawing the last ounce of blood from his impoverished body?
The average monthly income of a farm family in India is less than Rs 2400. And I am talking of 60 per cent of the country's population, including their wives who are more often than not members of the SHGs benefitting from micro-finance. How can you charge 24 per cent rate of interest from people who cannot afford two square meals a day?
While you ponder, let me bring to you an interesting post the other day on the FocusOrissa list. Posted by Sikander Kushwaha, a student from Jabalpur, it makes some interesting points that should add to our understanding of the improper and immoral ways the MFIs operate. I reproduce the text here, and I am sure it will provide more food for thought for those who feel outraged at the criminal role of MFIs.
WHEN the Bangladeshi banker and economist Muhammad Yunus won the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2006, for introducing the Grameen bank or microfinancing/crediting system, ‘Micro Credit’ hit the headlines in the media and poverty alleviation became a buzzword. Microfinance refers to a movement that envisions “a world in which many poor and near-poor households, have permanent access to an appropriate range of high quality financial services, including not just credit but also savings, insurance and fund transfers."
The concept has grown over the past two decades. The United Nations Development Fundfor Women identified it as the key strategy to help poor women. The First
International Micro Credit Summit was held in 1997 at the World Bank
headquarters in Washington DC. The World Bank, United States Agency for
International Development (USAID), United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) and Citi Bank became its chief patrons and declared an allocation of special fund for it. Over the years, major commercial banks and multinational corporations like Monsanto, Citi Group and others decided to sponsor it.
However, this type of financing has a darker side too. Very few quantitative studies have been made on the subject, which has been able to prove that micro financecan uplift the lives of the poor. Most of studies are qualitative which tell that more than
90 per cent of the people who receive micro credit are poor and most of them
succeed in businesses started with these loans.
Apart from this, micro finance serves not to lift people out of poverty but, assist those near or slightly above the poverty line. Money is given to those people who have a possibility of returning the principle amount. This leads to the fact that lending money to these people is feasible and sustainable, while lending to the poorest of the poor is not.
Further, this project has been running in Bangladesh for about 30 years now, via the Grameen bank. However, the country is still counted amongst poor countries and has not had any significant change.
Moreover, the interest rates charged by micro financing institutions are usurious and raise moral questions as micro finance institutions live "off the backs of the poor." It is the intermediaries -- commercial banks and loan facilitators - that gain the most from the spread between the cost of funds for the intermediaries and the loan interest charged by them. If the system lands in the hands of the corrupt the poor would be trapped in a vicious circle of debt.
Micro financehas now, become a weapon for multi national companies to sell their products, by collaborating with such institutions. This in turn, is destroying the spirit of micro credit. For instance: Recently a mobile phone manufacturer offered a micro financing scheme on a pilot basis in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, to sell their handset to the poorest. Under this project, the company was offering an easy payment scheme of Rs 100 per week over a period of time. (emphasis are mine).
Arnab Mukherji, a researcher at the Indian Institute of Management in Bangalore said,“We’ve seen a major mission drift in micro finance, from being a social agency first, to being primarily a lending agency that wants to maximise its profit.”
So, although the option had started with the spirit of poverty alleviation mission, it has now been reduced to a money making tactic of MNCs.
In fact, this news report made me sit back and think. A few months back (before this news report) I had read somewhere that some 40-odd SHG members in AP had committed suicide. I checked up with my colleagues in other States where farmer suicides are on an upswing, and to my utter dismay found that many of the farmers who committed suicide also were faced (or let us say shared) with the burden of an abnormally high interest rate that their wives were being made to cough out in the name of micro-finance.
Independent journalist Purusottam Singh Thakur from Bhubaneshwar told me the other day after returning from the suicide-prone areas in Orissa that most of the 32 farmers who committed suicide in the past three weeks or so too had borrowed from micro-finance institutions.
I am not surprised.
Many in the urban centres would commit suicide if the banks start charging us 24 per cent rate of interest. Even at 8.5 per cent rate of interest, those who have drawn housing loans, find it difficult to make monthly EMI payments. Imagine the stress and threat under which the poor in the rural areas are being made to borrow at 24 per cent rate of interest.
The loot doesn't stop here.
The MFI units are now getting ready to extend home loans to the poor. Says a report in The Times of India (Mar 30, 2009): The rural home loan products are structured pretty much the same way as in the cities. The difference being the average loan amount. For MFIs, it ranges between Rs 50,000 and Rs 2 lakh with repayments being in equated monthly instalments (EMIs). Some like Madura Micro Finance also provide a payment holiday of four months for construction.
I am not sure at what rate of interest these loans for the poor are being provided. If you happen to know, please do let our readers know. In any case, you can read the full report MFIs offer home loans at: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/biz/india-business/MFIs-offer-home-loans/articleshow/4331728.cms
Whatever be the justification for charging 24 per cent rate of interest, but how can human beings expoit an hungry stomach in the name of a successful business model? How can human beings be so cruel to fellow humans, not even thinking twice before drawing the last ounce of blood from his impoverished body?
The average monthly income of a farm family in India is less than Rs 2400. And I am talking of 60 per cent of the country's population, including their wives who are more often than not members of the SHGs benefitting from micro-finance. How can you charge 24 per cent rate of interest from people who cannot afford two square meals a day?
While you ponder, let me bring to you an interesting post the other day on the FocusOrissa list. Posted by Sikander Kushwaha, a student from Jabalpur, it makes some interesting points that should add to our understanding of the improper and immoral ways the MFIs operate. I reproduce the text here, and I am sure it will provide more food for thought for those who feel outraged at the criminal role of MFIs.
WHEN the Bangladeshi banker and economist Muhammad Yunus
The concept has grown over the past two decades. The United Nations Development Fund
International Micro Credit Summit was held in 1997 at the World Bank
headquarters in Washington DC. The World Bank, United States Agency for
International Development (USAID), United Nations Development Programme
(UNDP) and Citi Bank became its chief patrons and declared an allocation of special fund for it. Over the years, major commercial banks and multinational corporations like Monsanto, Citi Group and others decided to sponsor it.
However, this type of financing has a darker side too. Very few quantitative studies have been made on the subject, which has been able to prove that micro finance
90 per cent of the people who receive micro credit are poor and most of them
succeed in businesses started with these loans.
Apart from this, micro finance
Further, this project has been running in Bangladesh for about 30 years now, via the Grameen bank. However, the country is still counted amongst poor countries and has not had any significant change.
Moreover, the interest rates charged by micro financing institutions
Micro finance
Arnab Mukherji, a researcher at the Indian Institute of Management in Bangalore said,“We’ve seen a major mission drift in micro finance
So, although the option had started with the spirit of poverty alleviation mission, it has now been reduced to a money making tactic of MNCs.
Nov 26, 2009
Farmer suicides: 26/11 happens in rural India every other day
The media surely deserves all the accolades for reminding the country of the need to ensure that 26/11 does not happen again. For the past one week or so, we have the electronic channels and the print media telling the same story again and again. The terrorist attack in Mumbai last year was certainly tragic and needs to be condemned in strongest possible terms. At the same time, the nation needs to gear up vigil and be prepared to take on any more destructive design of the separatist forces.
Having said that, and knowing that for many of our star journalists Taj Hotel in Mumbai is the second home, I don't know what purpose is being achieved by devoting 10 pages of the newspaper (one of the dailies from New Delhi has done that today) to the 26/11 episode. Similarly, what is the purpose of repeatedly showing the footage of the terrorist attack of the last year. Isn't the media taking advantage of the sentiments of the people to push up its own TRP ratings?
Even if the media thinks that 26/11 is the gravest tragedy the country has witnessed since Independence, I would like to bring it to their attention that there is a still bigger (and in fact much bigger) tragedy that continues to kill people on the farm. A PTI report says six farmers have committed suicide in last two days in various parts of Vidharba region. This brings the total number of suicides in November to 55. In 2009, the total number of farmer suicides (till date) in Vidharba alone is 892.
In the past two months alone, 48 farmers have committed suicide in the Adilabad district of Andhra Pradesh, and another 32 have taken the fatal route in Orissa. Most of the farmers who died in Adilabad district of AP for reasons that are not unknown anymore had been cultivating Bt cotton.
Farmer suicides is once again showing it ugly face. In the past 18 years, ever since economic liberalisation was unleashed in India, more than 200,000 farmers have taken their own lives. The spiral death dance has not shown even remote signs of ebbing despite a plethora of fact-finding missions, committee reports and the government intervention. I am aware that newspaper space is very precious, and also know that for the electronic media agriculture and farming is a downmarket subject, but does farmer suicides not even deserve a small campaign, if not as big as the media launched it for 26/11?
How can the media remain so indifferent to the serial death dance on the farm?
I think one reason for the callousness exhibited by the media when it comes to farmers committing suicides is that the viewers and the readers (as the case maybe) have not been demanding adequate coverage of farmers suicides. How many of us have ever written a letter to the newspaper editors asking for an extensive coverage of the farm suicides? How many of us have sent an sms to the electronic channels demanding a series of programmes on the reasons behind suicides?
Just like we get the politicians we deserve, we also get the media we deserve. Come on, wake up India. Pick up your pen and write a scathing letter to the editor of a newspaper that you read. Come on, take out your mobile and send a sms ever day to the TV channel that you normally watch. For them even death needs to be only acknowledged if it happens in a 5-star hotel. Show them your anger, and they will listen.
Turning a blind eye to the messacre on the farm is not going to make your life peaceful. The fire is reaching your doorsteps. Sooner or later, you and your children too would feel the heat. Don't blame anyone then. You are primarily responsbile for the crisis the country is faced with. Your fundamental rights that you emotionally talk about and demand, also includes your responsibility as a citizen. You and me have failed as a citizen. That is why we have such an insensitive media today.
Having said that, and knowing that for many of our star journalists Taj Hotel in Mumbai is the second home, I don't know what purpose is being achieved by devoting 10 pages of the newspaper (one of the dailies from New Delhi has done that today) to the 26/11 episode. Similarly, what is the purpose of repeatedly showing the footage of the terrorist attack of the last year. Isn't the media taking advantage of the sentiments of the people to push up its own TRP ratings?
Even if the media thinks that 26/11 is the gravest tragedy the country has witnessed since Independence, I would like to bring it to their attention that there is a still bigger (and in fact much bigger) tragedy that continues to kill people on the farm. A PTI report says six farmers have committed suicide in last two days in various parts of Vidharba region. This brings the total number of suicides in November to 55. In 2009, the total number of farmer suicides (till date) in Vidharba alone is 892.
In the past two months alone, 48 farmers have committed suicide in the Adilabad district of Andhra Pradesh, and another 32 have taken the fatal route in Orissa. Most of the farmers who died in Adilabad district of AP for reasons that are not unknown anymore had been cultivating Bt cotton.
Farmer suicides is once again showing it ugly face. In the past 18 years, ever since economic liberalisation was unleashed in India, more than 200,000 farmers have taken their own lives. The spiral death dance has not shown even remote signs of ebbing despite a plethora of fact-finding missions, committee reports and the government intervention. I am aware that newspaper space is very precious, and also know that for the electronic media agriculture and farming is a downmarket subject, but does farmer suicides not even deserve a small campaign, if not as big as the media launched it for 26/11?
How can the media remain so indifferent to the serial death dance on the farm?
I think one reason for the callousness exhibited by the media when it comes to farmers committing suicides is that the viewers and the readers (as the case maybe) have not been demanding adequate coverage of farmers suicides. How many of us have ever written a letter to the newspaper editors asking for an extensive coverage of the farm suicides? How many of us have sent an sms to the electronic channels demanding a series of programmes on the reasons behind suicides?
Just like we get the politicians we deserve, we also get the media we deserve. Come on, wake up India. Pick up your pen and write a scathing letter to the editor of a newspaper that you read. Come on, take out your mobile and send a sms ever day to the TV channel that you normally watch. For them even death needs to be only acknowledged if it happens in a 5-star hotel. Show them your anger, and they will listen.
Turning a blind eye to the messacre on the farm is not going to make your life peaceful. The fire is reaching your doorsteps. Sooner or later, you and your children too would feel the heat. Don't blame anyone then. You are primarily responsbile for the crisis the country is faced with. Your fundamental rights that you emotionally talk about and demand, also includes your responsibility as a citizen. You and me have failed as a citizen. That is why we have such an insensitive media today.
Nov 25, 2009
Micro-finance institutions on a looting spree: making profits from poverty
Poverty has literally become a big and organised business. If you are educated, and looking for a profitable business enterprise, and more so if you are a non-resident Indian and want to translocate to India and still make millions, micro-finance offers you the right avenue.
There can be no better business opportunity than starting a micro-finance institution with assured returns and 100 per cent loan recovery. You can even think of trading on the stock exchange after a couple of years. And still more importantly, you can hold your head high and claim that you are helping the poor to come out of the poverty trap. You don't have to feel ashamed and morally guilty. The elite in the society have knowingly (or unknowingly) given you a license to loot.
The unprecedented growth in micro-finance tells us that modern-day Shylocks are everywhere, looking at every possible opportunity to make profits from poverty. Rich countries become rich at the cost of the poor countries. Rich people in any society also (of course there are exceptions) follow the same path. Micro-finance is a classic example.
I am sure if Shakespeare were alive today, he would have easily penned down a sequel to his great classic Merchant of Venice.
Anyway, coming back to micro-finance. What prompted me to write this today is an edit page article in The Hindustan Times under an apt title The game changer (you can read the article at: http://www.hindustantimes.com/The-game-changer/H1-Article1-479838.aspx).
We agree that micro-finance institutions are the game changers. They have shifted the game from the hands of the villains of the story, the sahukars or money-lenders, to a sophisticatedly organised class of neomoney-lenders. These are not the usual banias but a highly educated class of people who use all sophisticated skills to rob the poor. And they have done it remarkably well.
It is all in the name of empowering the poor. I have often asked academicians how you justify the exorbitant rate of interest the micro-finance institutions extract from the poorest of the poor. The answer I get is that at least it empowers the poor. At 24 per cent rate of interest if the micro-finance can empower the poorest of the poor I wonder why do we have to keep the rate of interest for the urbanites, whether it is for housing, for car, or for any other business activity, as low as 6 to 8 per cent.
If the poor can be empowered with a 24 per cent rate of interest, how come the resourceful people in the cities/towns need a much lower interest rate to get empowered? If the poor in the villages can make a business enterprise even after paying a 20-24 per cent rate of interest, why do people in the cities find it difficult to do so? Or is it that we need a different yardstick (and in this case it happens to be the interest rate on your borrowing) to empower the poor and the not-so-poor? In other words, since the poor have no voice, some of us (and that includes banks) have joined hands to exploit the poor in the name of development.
I think these are difficult questions that we in the cities simply try to ignore or brush aside for the simple reason that we are in a way or so the real beneficiary of this criminal exploitation.
Isn't it shocking that a poorest of the poor woman in a village, who may be only surviving on the NREGA promise of 100 days assured employment (not getting more than Rs 60 a day), has to pay a 24 per cent rate of interest if she borrows money to buy a goat, and we in the cities can get interest-free loans or loans with a minimal rate of interest for buying a nano car?
I am sure if that poorest of the poor woman were to also get a loan for buying a goat at a minimal rate of interest (say 4 per cent or even 7 per cent that we give to farmers) she would be driving a nano car at the end of the year. Also, I don't understand the logic of providing micro-finance to the poorest of the poor women with a high rate of interest of 20 to 24 per cent (on an average) whereas her husband (if he happens to be a farmers) gets crop loan at 7 per cent.
If the farmers cannot survive (and there are 600 million farmers in India, including their families) with a higher rate of interest, I wonder how do we expect his wife (who is part of the self-help groups) to pay out at the rate of 24 per cent?
Neverthess, the micro-finance business has grown manifold. India Microfinance Report 2009 tells us that the portfolio of the micro-finance institutions has grown by 97 per cent, and number of beneficiaries have also gone up by 60 per cent. More than 150 million are already borrowing from Micro-finance institutions. What the report however does not tell us but is quite apparent is that this organised group of money-lenders is now beginning to take over the unorganised villains of the game -- the sahukars or the traditional money lenders.
Another news report tells us that SKS Micro-finance is charging approximately 24 per cent rate of interest in Orissa, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh; in southern India, Equitas Micro-finance is seeking 21-28 per cent interest rate and Basix Microfinance is providing small loans at 18-24 per cent interest rate. There are numerous other players, and they all rake in money. Sewa in Gujarat and the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh too thrive on a similarly high rate of interest.
It is time we put all of them under a scanner. The society cannot turn a blind eye to this organised loot.
We often hear success stories of women who borrowed and the transformation it has brought to their lives. I don't deny this. But perhaps what we don't want to know is that even when the private money lenders (the class we hate) were lending at 60 per cent or more, there were success stories. The business of money lending wouldn't have succeeded all these decades and centuries if it was not helping those who borrowed.
People went on borrowing from the money lenders or sahukars because they needed the money (even if it came with a very high interest rate), and it must have and still is making a difference to them otherwise the entire business of moneylending would have collapsed and become unsustainable. All that micro-finance institutions are doing now is to replace that class of moneylenders. Micro-finance institutions are also extracting their pound of flesh. The sahukars were using their own capital for lending and therefore charging a very high interest of 60 per cent or above. The micro-fianance use the bank finances (or donors money) and therefore charge a little less at 20-24 per cent.
The sahukars or money lenders were lending individually and therefore charged a higher rate of interest to cover up the risk. The micro-finance institutions go in for group lending, and that too to women, the most vulnerable section of the society, and therefore have their risk covered, and still charge 24 per rate of interest. In the process the banks (no wonder, they find it the most lucrative business) and the micro-finance institutions literally make a killing from robbing the poorest of the poor.
If the sahukars are guilty of a crime, so are the micro-finance institutions.
There can be no better business opportunity than starting a micro-finance institution with assured returns and 100 per cent loan recovery. You can even think of trading on the stock exchange after a couple of years. And still more importantly, you can hold your head high and claim that you are helping the poor to come out of the poverty trap. You don't have to feel ashamed and morally guilty. The elite in the society have knowingly (or unknowingly) given you a license to loot.
The unprecedented growth in micro-finance tells us that modern-day Shylocks are everywhere, looking at every possible opportunity to make profits from poverty. Rich countries become rich at the cost of the poor countries. Rich people in any society also (of course there are exceptions) follow the same path. Micro-finance is a classic example.
I am sure if Shakespeare were alive today, he would have easily penned down a sequel to his great classic Merchant of Venice.
Anyway, coming back to micro-finance. What prompted me to write this today is an edit page article in The Hindustan Times under an apt title The game changer (you can read the article at: http://www.hindustantimes.com/The-game-changer/H1-Article1-479838.aspx).
We agree that micro-finance institutions are the game changers. They have shifted the game from the hands of the villains of the story, the sahukars or money-lenders, to a sophisticatedly organised class of neomoney-lenders. These are not the usual banias but a highly educated class of people who use all sophisticated skills to rob the poor. And they have done it remarkably well.
It is all in the name of empowering the poor. I have often asked academicians how you justify the exorbitant rate of interest the micro-finance institutions extract from the poorest of the poor. The answer I get is that at least it empowers the poor. At 24 per cent rate of interest if the micro-finance can empower the poorest of the poor I wonder why do we have to keep the rate of interest for the urbanites, whether it is for housing, for car, or for any other business activity, as low as 6 to 8 per cent.
If the poor can be empowered with a 24 per cent rate of interest, how come the resourceful people in the cities/towns need a much lower interest rate to get empowered? If the poor in the villages can make a business enterprise even after paying a 20-24 per cent rate of interest, why do people in the cities find it difficult to do so? Or is it that we need a different yardstick (and in this case it happens to be the interest rate on your borrowing) to empower the poor and the not-so-poor? In other words, since the poor have no voice, some of us (and that includes banks) have joined hands to exploit the poor in the name of development.
I think these are difficult questions that we in the cities simply try to ignore or brush aside for the simple reason that we are in a way or so the real beneficiary of this criminal exploitation.
Isn't it shocking that a poorest of the poor woman in a village, who may be only surviving on the NREGA promise of 100 days assured employment (not getting more than Rs 60 a day), has to pay a 24 per cent rate of interest if she borrows money to buy a goat, and we in the cities can get interest-free loans or loans with a minimal rate of interest for buying a nano car?
I am sure if that poorest of the poor woman were to also get a loan for buying a goat at a minimal rate of interest (say 4 per cent or even 7 per cent that we give to farmers) she would be driving a nano car at the end of the year. Also, I don't understand the logic of providing micro-finance to the poorest of the poor women with a high rate of interest of 20 to 24 per cent (on an average) whereas her husband (if he happens to be a farmers) gets crop loan at 7 per cent.
If the farmers cannot survive (and there are 600 million farmers in India, including their families) with a higher rate of interest, I wonder how do we expect his wife (who is part of the self-help groups) to pay out at the rate of 24 per cent?
Neverthess, the micro-finance business has grown manifold. India Microfinance Report 2009 tells us that the portfolio of the micro-finance institutions has grown by 97 per cent, and number of beneficiaries have also gone up by 60 per cent. More than 150 million are already borrowing from Micro-finance institutions. What the report however does not tell us but is quite apparent is that this organised group of money-lenders is now beginning to take over the unorganised villains of the game -- the sahukars or the traditional money lenders.
Another news report tells us that SKS Micro-finance is charging approximately 24 per cent rate of interest in Orissa, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh; in southern India, Equitas Micro-finance is seeking 21-28 per cent interest rate and Basix Microfinance is providing small loans at 18-24 per cent interest rate. There are numerous other players, and they all rake in money. Sewa in Gujarat and the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh too thrive on a similarly high rate of interest.
It is time we put all of them under a scanner. The society cannot turn a blind eye to this organised loot.
We often hear success stories of women who borrowed and the transformation it has brought to their lives. I don't deny this. But perhaps what we don't want to know is that even when the private money lenders (the class we hate) were lending at 60 per cent or more, there were success stories. The business of money lending wouldn't have succeeded all these decades and centuries if it was not helping those who borrowed.
People went on borrowing from the money lenders or sahukars because they needed the money (even if it came with a very high interest rate), and it must have and still is making a difference to them otherwise the entire business of moneylending would have collapsed and become unsustainable. All that micro-finance institutions are doing now is to replace that class of moneylenders. Micro-finance institutions are also extracting their pound of flesh. The sahukars were using their own capital for lending and therefore charging a very high interest of 60 per cent or above. The micro-fianance use the bank finances (or donors money) and therefore charge a little less at 20-24 per cent.
The sahukars or money lenders were lending individually and therefore charged a higher rate of interest to cover up the risk. The micro-finance institutions go in for group lending, and that too to women, the most vulnerable section of the society, and therefore have their risk covered, and still charge 24 per rate of interest. In the process the banks (no wonder, they find it the most lucrative business) and the micro-finance institutions literally make a killing from robbing the poorest of the poor.
If the sahukars are guilty of a crime, so are the micro-finance institutions.
Nov 22, 2009
You have to meet this farmer breeder. He has developed more than 100 improved crop varieties.
Prakash Singh Raghuvanshi is an amazing farmer-breeder. For 14 years, he has been developing new crop varieties. He has developed more than 100 improved varieties of rice, wheat, pulses, and some vegetables and fruits, which have been distributed freely to thousands of farmers in the entire northwestern belt of India. Many of his varieties are dominating the farmers fields, and of course some of his improved varieties have been taken by unscrupulous officials in private companies, renamed and marketed.
Based in Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh, Prakash Singh, a small farmers cultivating paddy, wheat and pigeon pea in roughly three and a half acres that he owns, remains unfazed. "I am determined to work towards making farmers self-reliant in seed. If the farmers can control his own seed production and does not have to depend upon the seed companies, farming will remain profitable", he told me. He is keeping the germplasm with him, and is looking for support from religious bodies and NGOs to enable him to strengthen his research in plant breeding.
As a plant breeder myself, I feel Prakash Singh's achievement has no parallels. He alone has achieved more than what several agricultural universities in India can claim to have done. I called him up after having read a news report about him in The Hindu. The report, entitled: Sowing the seeds of success by innovation is available at: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/seta/2009/10/29/stories/2009102950101400.htm
I am always overwhelmed by the ingenuity and dedication of such farmers. I don't know of any agricultural scientist in India or for that matter worldwide who can claim to have evolved 100 crop varities. I think this must be a world record, something that the Guinness Book of World Record must take notice. Any scientist who could replicate the work and achievement of Prakash Singh Raghuvanshi would have been honoured with Padma Vibhushan by now, and I am sure would have been nominated to numerous international awards including honorary membership of inert scientific societies that proliferate.
Prakash Singh feels so humbled by the recognition that was recently bestowed on him by President Pratibha Patil courtesy the National Innovation Foundation. He has earlier been facilited by the former President Abdul Kalam. This kind of recognition is merely acknowledging the amazing feat achieved by Prakash Singh. The nation must evolve a system of honouring such innovators in a more practical and honest way.
The least that the Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE) in the Ministry of Agriculture can do, and should be made to do, is to bestow National Professorship on Prakash Singh, which will provide him a life-long grant and secretarial support for research. I can tell you he would do more honor to the scheme of National Professor than most of the retired officials who have been for all practical purposes given this honour simply because of the senior positions they held at the time of retirement. No wonder, the National Professors have not produced anything significant so far.
Prakash Singh also challenges the commonly held view that farmers are not breeders. At the same time, he has shown that when the government tries to push for laws that ensure availability of improved seed for farmers, it begins on a wrong foot since the entire effort is to take away farmers seed from the market and replace it with the seed produced by seed companies. In fact, most of the time the seeds that fails to germinate or has been found to be contaminated actually belongs to the seed companies. But somehow the seed companies have been able to convince the policy makers as if the fault rests with the farmers seeds. This impression has to be corrected.
I am also a little surprised that no NGO (and I know a number of NGOs who work in the area of traditional seeds) ever thought of supporting the work of Prakash Singh Raghuvanshi. Well, the world is not that small as we are told. We still have a lot of scrutiny to do around us, and connect with people in our own neighbourhood. This can only happen when NGOs shift the focus of their work from international networking to local realities.
Anyway, you can contact Mr. Prakash Singh Raghuvanshi, Vill Tadia, P.O., Jakikhani, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh- 2213058, mobiles: 9956941993, 9839253974 and 9451277640.
Based in Varanasi in Uttar Pradesh, Prakash Singh, a small farmers cultivating paddy, wheat and pigeon pea in roughly three and a half acres that he owns, remains unfazed. "I am determined to work towards making farmers self-reliant in seed. If the farmers can control his own seed production and does not have to depend upon the seed companies, farming will remain profitable", he told me. He is keeping the germplasm with him, and is looking for support from religious bodies and NGOs to enable him to strengthen his research in plant breeding.
As a plant breeder myself, I feel Prakash Singh's achievement has no parallels. He alone has achieved more than what several agricultural universities in India can claim to have done. I called him up after having read a news report about him in The Hindu. The report, entitled: Sowing the seeds of success by innovation is available at: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/seta/2009/10/29/stories/2009102950101400.htm
I am always overwhelmed by the ingenuity and dedication of such farmers. I don't know of any agricultural scientist in India or for that matter worldwide who can claim to have evolved 100 crop varities. I think this must be a world record, something that the Guinness Book of World Record must take notice. Any scientist who could replicate the work and achievement of Prakash Singh Raghuvanshi would have been honoured with Padma Vibhushan by now, and I am sure would have been nominated to numerous international awards including honorary membership of inert scientific societies that proliferate.
Prakash Singh feels so humbled by the recognition that was recently bestowed on him by President Pratibha Patil courtesy the National Innovation Foundation. He has earlier been facilited by the former President Abdul Kalam. This kind of recognition is merely acknowledging the amazing feat achieved by Prakash Singh. The nation must evolve a system of honouring such innovators in a more practical and honest way.
The least that the Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE) in the Ministry of Agriculture can do, and should be made to do, is to bestow National Professorship on Prakash Singh, which will provide him a life-long grant and secretarial support for research. I can tell you he would do more honor to the scheme of National Professor than most of the retired officials who have been for all practical purposes given this honour simply because of the senior positions they held at the time of retirement. No wonder, the National Professors have not produced anything significant so far.
Prakash Singh also challenges the commonly held view that farmers are not breeders. At the same time, he has shown that when the government tries to push for laws that ensure availability of improved seed for farmers, it begins on a wrong foot since the entire effort is to take away farmers seed from the market and replace it with the seed produced by seed companies. In fact, most of the time the seeds that fails to germinate or has been found to be contaminated actually belongs to the seed companies. But somehow the seed companies have been able to convince the policy makers as if the fault rests with the farmers seeds. This impression has to be corrected.
I am also a little surprised that no NGO (and I know a number of NGOs who work in the area of traditional seeds) ever thought of supporting the work of Prakash Singh Raghuvanshi. Well, the world is not that small as we are told. We still have a lot of scrutiny to do around us, and connect with people in our own neighbourhood. This can only happen when NGOs shift the focus of their work from international networking to local realities.
Anyway, you can contact Mr. Prakash Singh Raghuvanshi, Vill Tadia, P.O., Jakikhani, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh- 2213058, mobiles: 9956941993, 9839253974 and 9451277640.
Nov 21, 2009
Q & A about the relevance of Bt brinjal and the regulatory regime
The debate over the environmental clearance for Bt brinjal in India is hotting up. There is a tremendous uproar against the technology that is visible, provided of course you want to see it. Many State governments have woken up, and opposed the introduction of Bt brinjal crop. West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Chhatisgarh, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Kerala are some of them. In the days to come, I am sure more State governments will oppose the technology.
It gives a clear pointer. At least the politicians are much better than the agricultural scientists. Vice-Chancellors of agricultural universities are completely on the bandwagon of the GM industry. None of them can muster courage to stand up and be counted. In a vitiated academic atmosphere where even the post of an Assistant Professor comes with a price tag (not everywhere, but most of the universities have earned quite a name for 'money-for-job' rackets operating for quite some time), you cannot expect anything better from these universities.
At the same time, the media is deliberately trying to downplay the resistance to GM foods, especially Bt brinjal. As I have said earlier, they are counting their chicken, which comes in the form of advertisements from these biotech and agribusiness companies. There are some exceptions, of course. At times, I do receive a set of questions to be answered. But I must acknowledge this is only a miniscule section of the journalists who appear keen to balance their story. The rest look for an opportunity to travel to the US for an exposure trip/orientation course in genetic engineering, and to qualify for that they are eager to show their writing skills and also 'understanding' about the technology.
Anyway, one such set of questions along with my answers is placed below.
Q: A Mahyco representative said that during the testing phase in which environmental biosafety and agronomic evaluation of Bt brinjal was carried out, an isolation distance of 300 metres was maintained as mandated by the regulators. And that this applies to the evaluation phase only.
Ans: The isolation distance between two plots is to ascertain how much is the gene flow from a Bt brinjal field to a neighbouring brinjal field. In India, the vegetable fields are back to back. The testing parameter should have actually laid out the experiment to evaluate the gene flow when fields are at a distance of one feet or so. In fact, there should be three different distances -- can be one feet, one meter and three meters. By just setting a standard (even if it is only for evaluation phase) for three metres the scientists have actually ensured they get the desired results. So, as I said in my blog, this is simply to make fool of the people who do not understand what the isolation distance means. If the isolation distance was, say one metre, the experiment would have failed.
Q: GM crops in India is a realty, regardless of the oppositions and reservations. Beginning from that premise, what kind of a regulatory system would satisfy you? As in, what strikes you as the obvious loopholes in the current trials and how can they be fixed?
Ans: First, I do not agree with your premise. Nuclear reactors were a reality 50 years back, and look what is happening now. All over the west the love-affair with nuclear reactors has disappeared. It is only in India that we are willing to accept even shit from the western countries. Some years back, I had exposed a plan to export cow dung and piggery droppings from Holland to India. It was dropped after people reacted and showed their anger following the exposure.
The present regulatory system is a complete sham. It has been designed by the pro-industry scientists (who are the beneficiary of the GM technology) for the industry. There is a need for 29 tests to be done before a GM food crop is allowed. In India, we conduct hardly 4 tests and that too just to satisfy the ignorant media. For instance, I don't understand how could health risks be ascertained after 90 days tests. It should be for a lifetime. At least, for the lifetime of a rat, which is 2 years.
Interestingly, GM foods are for the masses. GM drugs, which are for a a target population there are several stages of trials and even that is not foolproof. Why can't we follow at least the same regulatory mechanism for GM foods? We do not need the FDA kind of regulation for GM foods. We actually need RDA regulatory system that exists for genetically modified drugs in the US. Under the RDA, you are supposed to tell the regulators the negative impacts of the drug. This is exactly what we need to do in the case of GM foods.
And also, there is a dire need to bring in a clause for accountability. The Chairman of GEAC should be put behind bars if anything goes wrong. In fact, the former chairman and members of the GEAC should be already behind bars for the damage done to cotton farmers through the introduction of Bt cotton. Thousands of cotton farmers who grew Bt cotton in Vidharba for instance have been forced to commit suicide. Scientists have blood on their hands.
The EC-II report for instance says that the health risks from Mahyco's own feeding studies are 'statistical significant' but 'biologically insignificant'. How can this be possible? Who will questions the fraudulent cover-up provided by EC-II? Why can't the report be publicly discussed, why can't a team of respectable citizens from all walks of life, look into the claims? After all, GM food is not being consumed by scientists and company officials, it is to be eaten by the masses. So why shouldn't they decide? And if the EC-II report is proved to be fraudulent, shouldn't the members of the committee be punished, and that too in a manner that it becomes a deterrent for others?
Q: According to IFPRI, Washington DC, the regulatory process in India involves not only environmental risk assessment but also food safety assessment. India is known to be the country with a that has the largest biosafety requirements in terms of animal feeding tests. Do you agree?
Ans: Please don't hold IFPRI in such high esteem. It is a an industry think-tank and if you have read my views, I have been demanding closure of IFPRI. Just to give you an instance. The FAO is calling the land-grab by companies in Africa, Latin America and Asia as 'neo-colonism'. IFPRI is calling for a code of conduct. So you should know who IFPRI represents. I have known their present/past DGs (and I have shared the platform with some of them). They openly speak the language of biotech industry.
If India's regulatory system is so good, I think the US should close down FDA and look at the tests being done in India. If this was true, they wouldn't have opened several offices of FDA in India.
The way environmental clearance has been given to Bt brinjal, it only shows the scandalous manner in which the GEAC and the RCGM operates. Let me tell you, the Ministry of Environment & Forests has no courage to set the GEAC in order. The Department of Biotechnology on the other hand is stuffed with people (most of them are advisors) whose only qualification for the job is their proximity to the biotech companies.
Q: What are the implications of the 2006 CD Mayee report, that paved way for event based testing? Could you, once again, elaborate the pros and cons of an event-based regime for the mainstream audience?
Ans: This is again flawed. Many a times we have seen that the same event or the gene can act differently in different crops. MON810 corn variety which stands banned in most of Europe is one such classic example. If you were to go by the event-based regime than MON810 corn should not have posed any problems. Each transgenic therefore needs a fresh round of biosafety studies. Moreover, when you appoint a team under someone like C D Mayee, you know the outcome even before the report is submitted. Why can't we have a team let us say headed by someone who has no stake in the technology.
Q: Mayee quit GEAC following his appointment to ISAAA board. Just what kind of an organisation is ISAA ---the organisation counts among its donors, not just Monsanto, but also our ministry of science and environment. ..
Ans: ISAAA is an industry outfit. They call themselves NGO, but are in reality funded by the GM industry, and has allies like the Ministry of Science & Environment. Interestingly, the Dept of Biotechnology and ICAR always swear by the reports/studies of ISAAA and at the same time talk of taking all stake-holders views/opinions into account. I have often challenged the DBT Advisors to please tel who they represent if all their slides in presentations are by and large based on ISAAA.
ICAR is much worse. You canot become the director of any ICAR institute till you demonstrate your blind support for GM technology. CD Mayee has already managed to put a biotech industry person as a deputy director general. Even the next Director General of ICAR will be a biotech supporter (and maybe a GM practitioner himself). I can even name him now before the selection committee provides us the name.
Don't forget, CD Mayee did not quit GEAC on his own. He was forced to quit GEAC following pressure from NGOs. In addition to continuing on GEAC and ISAAA board, he was also chairperson of the agriculture scientists recruitment board. It is here that his role has to be examined. he has recruited many scientists to the top slots in ICAR who are known to be GM supporters/beneficiaries and there are question marks over their merit and credibility. #
It gives a clear pointer. At least the politicians are much better than the agricultural scientists. Vice-Chancellors of agricultural universities are completely on the bandwagon of the GM industry. None of them can muster courage to stand up and be counted. In a vitiated academic atmosphere where even the post of an Assistant Professor comes with a price tag (not everywhere, but most of the universities have earned quite a name for 'money-for-job' rackets operating for quite some time), you cannot expect anything better from these universities.
At the same time, the media is deliberately trying to downplay the resistance to GM foods, especially Bt brinjal. As I have said earlier, they are counting their chicken, which comes in the form of advertisements from these biotech and agribusiness companies. There are some exceptions, of course. At times, I do receive a set of questions to be answered. But I must acknowledge this is only a miniscule section of the journalists who appear keen to balance their story. The rest look for an opportunity to travel to the US for an exposure trip/orientation course in genetic engineering, and to qualify for that they are eager to show their writing skills and also 'understanding' about the technology.
Anyway, one such set of questions along with my answers is placed below.
Q: A Mahyco representative said that during the testing phase in which environmental biosafety and agronomic evaluation of Bt brinjal was carried out, an isolation distance of 300 metres was maintained as mandated by the regulators. And that this applies to the evaluation phase only.
Ans: The isolation distance between two plots is to ascertain how much is the gene flow from a Bt brinjal field to a neighbouring brinjal field. In India, the vegetable fields are back to back. The testing parameter should have actually laid out the experiment to evaluate the gene flow when fields are at a distance of one feet or so. In fact, there should be three different distances -- can be one feet, one meter and three meters. By just setting a standard (even if it is only for evaluation phase) for three metres the scientists have actually ensured they get the desired results. So, as I said in my blog, this is simply to make fool of the people who do not understand what the isolation distance means. If the isolation distance was, say one metre, the experiment would have failed.
Q: GM crops in India is a realty, regardless of the oppositions and reservations. Beginning from that premise, what kind of a regulatory system would satisfy you? As in, what strikes you as the obvious loopholes in the current trials and how can they be fixed?
Ans: First, I do not agree with your premise. Nuclear reactors were a reality 50 years back, and look what is happening now. All over the west the love-affair with nuclear reactors has disappeared. It is only in India that we are willing to accept even shit from the western countries. Some years back, I had exposed a plan to export cow dung and piggery droppings from Holland to India. It was dropped after people reacted and showed their anger following the exposure.
The present regulatory system is a complete sham. It has been designed by the pro-industry scientists (who are the beneficiary of the GM technology) for the industry. There is a need for 29 tests to be done before a GM food crop is allowed. In India, we conduct hardly 4 tests and that too just to satisfy the ignorant media. For instance, I don't understand how could health risks be ascertained after 90 days tests. It should be for a lifetime. At least, for the lifetime of a rat, which is 2 years.
Interestingly, GM foods are for the masses. GM drugs, which are for a a target population there are several stages of trials and even that is not foolproof. Why can't we follow at least the same regulatory mechanism for GM foods? We do not need the FDA kind of regulation for GM foods. We actually need RDA regulatory system that exists for genetically modified drugs in the US. Under the RDA, you are supposed to tell the regulators the negative impacts of the drug. This is exactly what we need to do in the case of GM foods.
And also, there is a dire need to bring in a clause for accountability. The Chairman of GEAC should be put behind bars if anything goes wrong. In fact, the former chairman and members of the GEAC should be already behind bars for the damage done to cotton farmers through the introduction of Bt cotton. Thousands of cotton farmers who grew Bt cotton in Vidharba for instance have been forced to commit suicide. Scientists have blood on their hands.
The EC-II report for instance says that the health risks from Mahyco's own feeding studies are 'statistical significant' but 'biologically insignificant'. How can this be possible? Who will questions the fraudulent cover-up provided by EC-II? Why can't the report be publicly discussed, why can't a team of respectable citizens from all walks of life, look into the claims? After all, GM food is not being consumed by scientists and company officials, it is to be eaten by the masses. So why shouldn't they decide? And if the EC-II report is proved to be fraudulent, shouldn't the members of the committee be punished, and that too in a manner that it becomes a deterrent for others?
Q: According to IFPRI, Washington DC, the regulatory process in India involves not only environmental risk assessment but also food safety assessment. India is known to be the country with a that has the largest biosafety requirements in terms of animal feeding tests. Do you agree?
Ans: Please don't hold IFPRI in such high esteem. It is a an industry think-tank and if you have read my views, I have been demanding closure of IFPRI. Just to give you an instance. The FAO is calling the land-grab by companies in Africa, Latin America and Asia as 'neo-colonism'. IFPRI is calling for a code of conduct. So you should know who IFPRI represents. I have known their present/past DGs (and I have shared the platform with some of them). They openly speak the language of biotech industry.
If India's regulatory system is so good, I think the US should close down FDA and look at the tests being done in India. If this was true, they wouldn't have opened several offices of FDA in India.
The way environmental clearance has been given to Bt brinjal, it only shows the scandalous manner in which the GEAC and the RCGM operates. Let me tell you, the Ministry of Environment & Forests has no courage to set the GEAC in order. The Department of Biotechnology on the other hand is stuffed with people (most of them are advisors) whose only qualification for the job is their proximity to the biotech companies.
Q: What are the implications of the 2006 CD Mayee report, that paved way for event based testing? Could you, once again, elaborate the pros and cons of an event-based regime for the mainstream audience?
Ans: This is again flawed. Many a times we have seen that the same event or the gene can act differently in different crops. MON810 corn variety which stands banned in most of Europe is one such classic example. If you were to go by the event-based regime than MON810 corn should not have posed any problems. Each transgenic therefore needs a fresh round of biosafety studies. Moreover, when you appoint a team under someone like C D Mayee, you know the outcome even before the report is submitted. Why can't we have a team let us say headed by someone who has no stake in the technology.
Q: Mayee quit GEAC following his appointment to ISAAA board. Just what kind of an organisation is ISAA ---the organisation counts among its donors, not just Monsanto, but also our ministry of science and environment. ..
Ans: ISAAA is an industry outfit. They call themselves NGO, but are in reality funded by the GM industry, and has allies like the Ministry of Science & Environment. Interestingly, the Dept of Biotechnology and ICAR always swear by the reports/studies of ISAAA and at the same time talk of taking all stake-holders views/opinions into account. I have often challenged the DBT Advisors to please tel who they represent if all their slides in presentations are by and large based on ISAAA.
ICAR is much worse. You canot become the director of any ICAR institute till you demonstrate your blind support for GM technology. CD Mayee has already managed to put a biotech industry person as a deputy director general. Even the next Director General of ICAR will be a biotech supporter (and maybe a GM practitioner himself). I can even name him now before the selection committee provides us the name.
Don't forget, CD Mayee did not quit GEAC on his own. He was forced to quit GEAC following pressure from NGOs. In addition to continuing on GEAC and ISAAA board, he was also chairperson of the agriculture scientists recruitment board. It is here that his role has to be examined. he has recruited many scientists to the top slots in ICAR who are known to be GM supporters/beneficiaries and there are question marks over their merit and credibility. #
Nov 18, 2009
FAO and World Bank back food pirates
First the good news. Reuters wire service reports that only hours after the three-day Food Summit began in Rome this week, some 60 heads of state and dozens of ministers rejected the U.N.'s call to commit $44 billion annually for agricultural development in these nations.
This is a healthy sign. Although the decision is more political and smacks of international dishonesty in alleviating hunger, I personally feel it is a blessing in disguise. If the rich countries had committed US $ 44 billion annually for agricultural development, the entire money would have gone in for aggressively pushing for infrastructure development including GM research facilities and industrial farming systems based heavily on external input supplies that have already played havoc with farming in numerous developing countries.
Africa for instance would have received much of this investment for its highly flawed Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), headed by Kofi Annan. Not drawing any lessons from the Green Revolution debacle in India, AGRA has all the ingredients to unleash a terrible farming crisis, building on a highly unsustainable farming system, in the years to come.
I am therefore not surprised to see the frustration being voiced by the FAO Director General Jacques Diouf: "I am not satisfied that some of the concrete proposals I made were not accepted,'' he told a news conference. "There was no consensus on this and I
regret it.'' The reason is obvious. As Reuters further said: While the summit agreed on the need to increase agriculture's share of international aid, it did not allocate the $44 billion annually - 17 percent of overall foreign aid - the FAO says is necessary to feed a population that is expected to grow to 9 billion by 2050.
And now the bad news. FAO has taken a U-turn in its clear position on the race by food-importing countries and private companies to buy land overseas for domestic food and agriculture needs. Terming this land grab as 'neo-colonial' system, the FAO chief Jacques Diouf had ealier said: The risk is of creating a neo-colonial pact for the provision of non-value-added raw materials in the producing countries and unacceptable work conditions for agricultural workers.
Jacques Diouf stand was however diametrically opposite to that of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in Washington DC, a think-tank that always thinks in favour of the agribusiness industry. Joachim von Braun, IFPRI Director General said importing nations realised that dependence on the international market made them vulnerable – not only to surging prices but, crucially, also to an interruption in supplies. “They want to secure the supply lines of food,” he had said. IFPRI therefore had called for a code of conduct for the investing companies and countries.
In my opinion, these companies and food importing countries are no better than food pirates. They are literally snatching food from the hands of the hungry populations in the countries that are leasing or outrightly selling their limited land resources to foreign investors.
But just prior to the Food Summit and ostensibly to please the investors as well as the food importing countries, the FAO has gone in for a complete turnaround, seeking now a voluntary code of conduct. I am in fact shocked at this u-turn as I had thought that the FAO was still a shade better than the World Bank/IFPRI. But I feel I must change my opinion now. I increasingly find the line that separates the World Bank/MNCs and the UN/FAO has now blurred considerably. They now appear to be merely two sides of the same coin.
Javier Blas of The Financial Times ( Nov 18, 2009) reports: The United Nations has started drawing up a code of conduct to regulate overseas investment in farmland, but the voluntary rules will not be ready for at least a year. The code is the first attempt to control the growing trend of so-called “farmland grab” deals, which involve rich countries such as Saudi Arabia and South Korea investing in overseas farming to boost their own food security.
The trend gained prominence after an attempt by South Korea’s Daewoo Logistics to secure a large chunk of land in Madagascar contributed to the collapse of the African country’s government.Diplomats are concerned that African countries, many of which face problems of chronic hunger, are giving away vast tracts of farmland almost for free in return for vague promises of job creation and spending on infrastructure.
The report further says: The UN and the World Bank are walking a tightrope in drawing up a code of conduct, however, as they do not want to undermine all foreign direct investment in agriculture, which they believe can offer opportunities for development. The difficulty was reflected in a declaration from the World Food Summit in Rome that aims to “facilitate and sustain private investment in agriculture” while seeking a study of “good practices to promote responsible international agricultural investment”.
But the blurred line that I talked about is in the next para: Guidelines would be non-binding, UN officials said. They would focus on making sure that “existing rights to land ...are recognised” and “investments do not jeopardise food security”, according to a World Bank draft policy paper seen by the Financial Times.
In future, please be sure that the World Bank and UN FAO policy papers are no different. You can read them as one.
This is a healthy sign. Although the decision is more political and smacks of international dishonesty in alleviating hunger, I personally feel it is a blessing in disguise. If the rich countries had committed US $ 44 billion annually for agricultural development, the entire money would have gone in for aggressively pushing for infrastructure development including GM research facilities and industrial farming systems based heavily on external input supplies that have already played havoc with farming in numerous developing countries.
Africa for instance would have received much of this investment for its highly flawed Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), headed by Kofi Annan. Not drawing any lessons from the Green Revolution debacle in India, AGRA has all the ingredients to unleash a terrible farming crisis, building on a highly unsustainable farming system, in the years to come.
I am therefore not surprised to see the frustration being voiced by the FAO Director General Jacques Diouf: "I am not satisfied that some of the concrete proposals I made were not accepted,'' he told a news conference. "There was no consensus on this and I
regret it.'' The reason is obvious. As Reuters further said: While the summit agreed on the need to increase agriculture's share of international aid, it did not allocate the $44 billion annually - 17 percent of overall foreign aid - the FAO says is necessary to feed a population that is expected to grow to 9 billion by 2050.
And now the bad news. FAO has taken a U-turn in its clear position on the race by food-importing countries and private companies to buy land overseas for domestic food and agriculture needs. Terming this land grab as 'neo-colonial' system, the FAO chief Jacques Diouf had ealier said: The risk is of creating a neo-colonial pact for the provision of non-value-added raw materials in the producing countries and unacceptable work conditions for agricultural workers.
Jacques Diouf stand was however diametrically opposite to that of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in Washington DC, a think-tank that always thinks in favour of the agribusiness industry. Joachim von Braun, IFPRI Director General said importing nations realised that dependence on the international market made them vulnerable – not only to surging prices but, crucially, also to an interruption in supplies. “They want to secure the supply lines of food,” he had said. IFPRI therefore had called for a code of conduct for the investing companies and countries.
In my opinion, these companies and food importing countries are no better than food pirates. They are literally snatching food from the hands of the hungry populations in the countries that are leasing or outrightly selling their limited land resources to foreign investors.
But just prior to the Food Summit and ostensibly to please the investors as well as the food importing countries, the FAO has gone in for a complete turnaround, seeking now a voluntary code of conduct. I am in fact shocked at this u-turn as I had thought that the FAO was still a shade better than the World Bank/IFPRI. But I feel I must change my opinion now. I increasingly find the line that separates the World Bank/MNCs and the UN/FAO has now blurred considerably. They now appear to be merely two sides of the same coin.
Javier Blas of The Financial Times ( Nov 18, 2009) reports: The United Nations has started drawing up a code of conduct to regulate overseas investment in farmland, but the voluntary rules will not be ready for at least a year. The code is the first attempt to control the growing trend of so-called “farmland grab” deals, which involve rich countries such as Saudi Arabia and South Korea investing in overseas farming to boost their own food security.
The trend gained prominence after an attempt by South Korea’s Daewoo Logistics to secure a large chunk of land in Madagascar contributed to the collapse of the African country’s government.Diplomats are concerned that African countries, many of which face problems of chronic hunger, are giving away vast tracts of farmland almost for free in return for vague promises of job creation and spending on infrastructure.
The report further says: The UN and the World Bank are walking a tightrope in drawing up a code of conduct, however, as they do not want to undermine all foreign direct investment in agriculture, which they believe can offer opportunities for development. The difficulty was reflected in a declaration from the World Food Summit in Rome that aims to “facilitate and sustain private investment in agriculture” while seeking a study of “good practices to promote responsible international agricultural investment”.
But the blurred line that I talked about is in the next para: Guidelines would be non-binding, UN officials said. They would focus on making sure that “existing rights to land ...are recognised” and “investments do not jeopardise food security”, according to a World Bank draft policy paper seen by the Financial Times.
In future, please be sure that the World Bank and UN FAO policy papers are no different. You can read them as one.
Nov 17, 2009
USAID learns from Pepsi: appoint an Indian as head, and it is easy to win India -- the gateway to Third World
US President Barrack Obama's decision to appoint Rajiv Shah (of Indian-origin) to head USAID and thereby hoping to rejuvinate the US role in spearheading the 2nd Green Revolution has a clever streak. Putting a face that looks like one of them, it is much easier to convince the Third World that the US is there to help. In fact, this is emerging as a great marketing chip, a winning strategy that Pepsi had followed all these years.
Author, essayist and aspiring jazz violinist Mira Kamdar explains to you the meaning of The Shah Appointment at USAID
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mira-kamdar/the-shah-appointment-at-u_b_356184.html
The elevation of Indra Nooyi as the chairperson and chief executive officer of PepsiCo, one of the world's biggest food and beverage companies, was therefore not without any purpose.
Nooyi has now emerged as the darling of the Indian pink newspapers, and is now for all practical purposes the business advisor to the Government of India. Any other PepsiCo CEO, I mean of any other nationality, would have failed to attain such proximity to the powers that be, and also to the media.
And once India gets addicted to the Pepsi fizz, you have got the world's biggest market under your control. The rest becomes much easy. And this, despite the Yoga guru Swami Ramdev, telling his audience every other day that Pepsi and Coke are very good toilet cleaners.
I tried it, and believe me since then I have kept Pepsi where it deserves to be: in my toilet.
Coming back to the marketing strategy, let me tell you it surely works. In the mid-1980s, PepsiCo was trying desperately to re-enter India (some years back, Pepsi and Coke were thrown out of India). Knowing that it will not gain an entry from the front door, PepsiCo tried to put a foot in the backdoor. Knowing that India was faced with a terrible militancy in Punjab, the food bowl, PepsiCo came up with a wonderful plan to usher in a 'second horticultural revolution' in Punjab.
And you obviously need an Indian face to convince India of your sincerity.
Ramesh Vangal was appointed head of the PepsiCo India operations, and I can tell you this marketing strategy did pay off. India allowed PepsiCo a backdoor entry, and Pepsi is now a household name. Perhaps agriculture was the only way to gain an entry into the Indian market, and the strategy succeeded because the company had very cleverly used an Indian to convince India.
The 2nd horticultural revolution that it had promised to usher in, has been all but forgotten. And this is what I had forewarned in my writings all the years.
As the then Agriculture Correspondent of the Indian Express, and based at Chandigarh, the Capital of Punjab, I had followed keenly the march of PepsiCo into the higher echelons of the Punjab government. I had spent quite a time in analysing the project proposals that PepsiCo had prepared, and invariably found that it didn't make much sense. My analysis, which my newspaper published religiously (I don't think it can happen now), did challenge the conclusions of some of the feasibility studies that PepsiCo had put out.
One fine morning, I got a call from a senior Punjab bureaucrat who wanted to facilitate a meeting between Ramesh Vangal and me. The same afternoon we met, and we had quite a long discussion. Ramesh Vangal was of course trying to tell me that he has a dream to bail out Punjab from its present crisis, and therefore sees the PepsiCo project as a way out. At one stage, he even told me and if I remember correctly it went like this: "I too am a patriot, Devinder."
I remember telling him that I never claim to be a patriot. I only love to do my duty to the best of my ability.
Several years later, when PepsiCo was well entrenched in Punjab, some parliamentarians demanded a status report against the claims that the company had made. A three-member expert committee was constituted, which went to PepsiCo's project sites and plants. The company decided to boycott the expert committee. Obvioulsy, the company knew that it would fail the scrutiny and therefore decided to stay out from the investigating eye of the expert committee.
A few weeks later, after the report was submitted to parliament, I dug out the report and published in my newspaper (at that time I worked briefly with Business & Political Observer in New Delhi). The expert committee report was of course very critical and clearly brought out that PepsiCo had not lived upto its promises.
After my exposure, Ramesh Vangal went on a media campaign, addressing a large number of press conferences across the country. I did attend his press conference in New Delhi, where he made an impassioned plea before journalists (who of course didn't know anything about agriculture) saying what wrong the committee had done to the company. The press meet ended, and we broke for lunch the moment I asked him a question.
"Mr Vangal, why didn't you bring all this to the notice of the expert committee," I asked.
"We had decided to boycott the committee," he replied.
"Than, why are you giving this explanation to an ignorant media, " I asked, and as you would guess his media advisors were quick to interrupt saying that let us now carry the discussion to lunch. Ramesh Vangal then recognised me, and what he told me is something that is not printable.
Anyway, the bigger question is that the 2nd Horticultural Revolution that PepsiCo had promised in Punjab, never happened.
USAID is certainly in a better position. Buttressed by financial support from Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and backed by the MNCs, it is now gearing up to unleash the privately owned 2nd Green Revolution. It therefore needs a coloured face to justify the benevolence it is going to shower on the coloured people. It is however another matter that by the time 2nd Green Revolution ends, farmers would have all but disappeared, farm lands would be rendered barren and sick, bringing the world perilously close to a tripping point.
USAID supported 2nd Green Revolution would end the kind of agriculture we have always lived with. Your food will not be produced in the farm but in food factories. The World Bank is already considering subsidising the future food factories, which would not require farmers nor farm lands.
Welcome to the Grave New World.
Author, essayist and aspiring jazz violinist Mira Kamdar explains to you the meaning of The Shah Appointment at USAID
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mira-kamdar/the-shah-appointment-at-u_b_356184.html
The elevation of Indra Nooyi as the chairperson and chief executive officer of PepsiCo, one of the world's biggest food and beverage companies, was therefore not without any purpose.
Nooyi has now emerged as the darling of the Indian pink newspapers, and is now for all practical purposes the business advisor to the Government of India. Any other PepsiCo CEO, I mean of any other nationality, would have failed to attain such proximity to the powers that be, and also to the media.
And once India gets addicted to the Pepsi fizz, you have got the world's biggest market under your control. The rest becomes much easy. And this, despite the Yoga guru Swami Ramdev, telling his audience every other day that Pepsi and Coke are very good toilet cleaners.
I tried it, and believe me since then I have kept Pepsi where it deserves to be: in my toilet.
Coming back to the marketing strategy, let me tell you it surely works. In the mid-1980s, PepsiCo was trying desperately to re-enter India (some years back, Pepsi and Coke were thrown out of India). Knowing that it will not gain an entry from the front door, PepsiCo tried to put a foot in the backdoor. Knowing that India was faced with a terrible militancy in Punjab, the food bowl, PepsiCo came up with a wonderful plan to usher in a 'second horticultural revolution' in Punjab.
And you obviously need an Indian face to convince India of your sincerity.
Ramesh Vangal was appointed head of the PepsiCo India operations, and I can tell you this marketing strategy did pay off. India allowed PepsiCo a backdoor entry, and Pepsi is now a household name. Perhaps agriculture was the only way to gain an entry into the Indian market, and the strategy succeeded because the company had very cleverly used an Indian to convince India.
The 2nd horticultural revolution that it had promised to usher in, has been all but forgotten. And this is what I had forewarned in my writings all the years.
As the then Agriculture Correspondent of the Indian Express, and based at Chandigarh, the Capital of Punjab, I had followed keenly the march of PepsiCo into the higher echelons of the Punjab government. I had spent quite a time in analysing the project proposals that PepsiCo had prepared, and invariably found that it didn't make much sense. My analysis, which my newspaper published religiously (I don't think it can happen now), did challenge the conclusions of some of the feasibility studies that PepsiCo had put out.
One fine morning, I got a call from a senior Punjab bureaucrat who wanted to facilitate a meeting between Ramesh Vangal and me. The same afternoon we met, and we had quite a long discussion. Ramesh Vangal was of course trying to tell me that he has a dream to bail out Punjab from its present crisis, and therefore sees the PepsiCo project as a way out. At one stage, he even told me and if I remember correctly it went like this: "I too am a patriot, Devinder."
I remember telling him that I never claim to be a patriot. I only love to do my duty to the best of my ability.
Several years later, when PepsiCo was well entrenched in Punjab, some parliamentarians demanded a status report against the claims that the company had made. A three-member expert committee was constituted, which went to PepsiCo's project sites and plants. The company decided to boycott the expert committee. Obvioulsy, the company knew that it would fail the scrutiny and therefore decided to stay out from the investigating eye of the expert committee.
A few weeks later, after the report was submitted to parliament, I dug out the report and published in my newspaper (at that time I worked briefly with Business & Political Observer in New Delhi). The expert committee report was of course very critical and clearly brought out that PepsiCo had not lived upto its promises.
After my exposure, Ramesh Vangal went on a media campaign, addressing a large number of press conferences across the country. I did attend his press conference in New Delhi, where he made an impassioned plea before journalists (who of course didn't know anything about agriculture) saying what wrong the committee had done to the company. The press meet ended, and we broke for lunch the moment I asked him a question.
"Mr Vangal, why didn't you bring all this to the notice of the expert committee," I asked.
"We had decided to boycott the committee," he replied.
"Than, why are you giving this explanation to an ignorant media, " I asked, and as you would guess his media advisors were quick to interrupt saying that let us now carry the discussion to lunch. Ramesh Vangal then recognised me, and what he told me is something that is not printable.
Anyway, the bigger question is that the 2nd Horticultural Revolution that PepsiCo had promised in Punjab, never happened.
USAID is certainly in a better position. Buttressed by financial support from Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and backed by the MNCs, it is now gearing up to unleash the privately owned 2nd Green Revolution. It therefore needs a coloured face to justify the benevolence it is going to shower on the coloured people. It is however another matter that by the time 2nd Green Revolution ends, farmers would have all but disappeared, farm lands would be rendered barren and sick, bringing the world perilously close to a tripping point.
USAID supported 2nd Green Revolution would end the kind of agriculture we have always lived with. Your food will not be produced in the farm but in food factories. The World Bank is already considering subsidising the future food factories, which would not require farmers nor farm lands.
Welcome to the Grave New World.
Nov 14, 2009
Tata's dark underbelly -- biggest land grab after Columbus
I think the eulogisation of Tata's has gone too far. Behind all the glamour, sobriety and humanitariasm that we read and hear about Tata's, there is a dark hidden side which is kept under wraps. It is time we look at the destructive role Tata's have played over the years in uprooting thousands of poor families, and the resulting destruction of livelihoods and the environment.
To overcome their guilt, and that too aimed at pacifying the liberal voices in the urban centres, I am sure Ratan Tata would be thinking of setting up schools and funding some NGO activities in the tribal lands as part of their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).
What a sophisticated way to cover your dark underbelly !
I was quite taken aback today to see a frontpage headline in The Hindustan Times: The biggest land grab after Columbus. As the blurb says: Government report criticises corporate exploitation of tribal lands; tribals turn to new friends: Maoist. And if you remember only a few days back, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had publicly accepted, and made a promise: "The systemic exploitation of our tribal communities can no longer be tolerated."
Do you think Manmohan Singh will do anything to stop this? You bet, he will simply push for more such projects that will eventually destroy the social fabric of these tribal lands. If you think I am wrong, let us take the land-grab in Bedanji, a remote rural expanse in Bastar in Chhatisgarh, as a test case. The Tata's plan to set up a Rs 19,500 crore steel plant for which ten villages have to be emtied.
Interestingly, a report of the PM-appointed Ministry of Rural Development committee on Land Reforms has succintly said: "This open declared war will go down as the biggest land grab ever, if it plays out as per the script." The Hindustan Times report quotes the just-released government report warning against the corporate takeover in the Bastar hinterland: "The biggest grab of tribal lands after Columbus."
You can read the full news report here: http://www.hindustantimes.com/The-biggest-land-grab-after-Columbus/H1-Article3-476125.aspx
I was reading another detailed field report from Pravin Patel, a human rights activist. It tells you how the State government is helping facilitate the process of the massive takeover of tribal lands. It tells you how the official machinery has actually been hand in glove with the industrial houses to ruthlessly exploit the tribals.
This is what he writes: In Chattisgarh the tribal district Batar, District administration has played in the hands of house of Tatas by way of stage managed public hearing bluntly violating the norms and set procedures as laid down in the Notification to grant Environmental Clearances.
By making mockey of the conditions of the Notification where Public Hearing is a mandatory requirement where consultation with the likely affected villagers are held. But to fulfill this mandatory requirements, public hearing was held at the campus of the district collector, which is at a distance of about 30 Kms from the project area. This was done with mischivious motives as it is known to all that the villagers are strongly opposing the setting up of any steel plant in their area.
The entire drama was enacted to show off that the mandatory public hearing is held. This has proved to be nothing less than a puppet show of the district administration where except the most of the tribals who are residents of the villages to be affected, all others were present whom the project proponent hired or managed with the help of District Administration to dance to the tunes of the project proponent house of Tatas.
You may like to read his full report. Please click on: http://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=en&shva=1#inbox/124f0af3377e6531
And finally, what does all this translate into. Well, you guessed it right. The tribals have no one else to seek solace and help from, except Maoists. What to talk of help, no one is willing to even listen to them except the Maoist. No wonder, Naxalism is growing.
As Gandhian Himanshu Kumar said the other day in an interview with the Times of India, (Nov 13, 2009) : Salwa Judum saw a 22-fold increase in Maoist numbers. Green Hunt will result in genocide of Adivasis. Those who survive will become Naxalites. (Read the interview: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Green-Hunt-will-result-in-genocide-of-Adivasis/articleshow/5223813.cms)
How true? But do you think anyone cares, least of all Manmohan Singh? Ha, he is more hinged to the GDP than the welfare of the human beings that he represents. With Tata's investing Rs 19,500-crore, which will add to the GDP, and that will be his government's report card.
To overcome their guilt, and that too aimed at pacifying the liberal voices in the urban centres, I am sure Ratan Tata would be thinking of setting up schools and funding some NGO activities in the tribal lands as part of their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).
What a sophisticated way to cover your dark underbelly !
I was quite taken aback today to see a frontpage headline in The Hindustan Times: The biggest land grab after Columbus. As the blurb says: Government report criticises corporate exploitation of tribal lands; tribals turn to new friends: Maoist. And if you remember only a few days back, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had publicly accepted, and made a promise: "The systemic exploitation of our tribal communities can no longer be tolerated."
Do you think Manmohan Singh will do anything to stop this? You bet, he will simply push for more such projects that will eventually destroy the social fabric of these tribal lands. If you think I am wrong, let us take the land-grab in Bedanji, a remote rural expanse in Bastar in Chhatisgarh, as a test case. The Tata's plan to set up a Rs 19,500 crore steel plant for which ten villages have to be emtied.
Interestingly, a report of the PM-appointed Ministry of Rural Development committee on Land Reforms has succintly said: "This open declared war will go down as the biggest land grab ever, if it plays out as per the script." The Hindustan Times report quotes the just-released government report warning against the corporate takeover in the Bastar hinterland: "The biggest grab of tribal lands after Columbus."
You can read the full news report here: http://www.hindustantimes.com/The-biggest-land-grab-after-Columbus/H1-Article3-476125.aspx
I was reading another detailed field report from Pravin Patel, a human rights activist. It tells you how the State government is helping facilitate the process of the massive takeover of tribal lands. It tells you how the official machinery has actually been hand in glove with the industrial houses to ruthlessly exploit the tribals.
This is what he writes: In Chattisgarh the tribal district Batar, District administration has played in the hands of house of Tatas by way of stage managed public hearing bluntly violating the norms and set procedures as laid down in the Notification to grant Environmental Clearances.
By making mockey of the conditions of the Notification where Public Hearing is a mandatory requirement where consultation with the likely affected villagers are held. But to fulfill this mandatory requirements, public hearing was held at the campus of the district collector, which is at a distance of about 30 Kms from the project area. This was done with mischivious motives as it is known to all that the villagers are strongly opposing the setting up of any steel plant in their area.
The entire drama was enacted to show off that the mandatory public hearing is held. This has proved to be nothing less than a puppet show of the district administration where except the most of the tribals who are residents of the villages to be affected, all others were present whom the project proponent hired or managed with the help of District Administration to dance to the tunes of the project proponent house of Tatas.
You may like to read his full report. Please click on: http://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=en&shva=1#inbox/124f0af3377e6531
And finally, what does all this translate into. Well, you guessed it right. The tribals have no one else to seek solace and help from, except Maoists. What to talk of help, no one is willing to even listen to them except the Maoist. No wonder, Naxalism is growing.
As Gandhian Himanshu Kumar said the other day in an interview with the Times of India, (Nov 13, 2009) : Salwa Judum saw a 22-fold increase in Maoist numbers. Green Hunt will result in genocide of Adivasis. Those who survive will become Naxalites. (Read the interview: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Green-Hunt-will-result-in-genocide-of-Adivasis/articleshow/5223813.cms)
How true? But do you think anyone cares, least of all Manmohan Singh? Ha, he is more hinged to the GDP than the welfare of the human beings that he represents. With Tata's investing Rs 19,500-crore, which will add to the GDP, and that will be his government's report card.
Nov 13, 2009
"Silently I Weep" -- a scientist's tryst with science
Scientist Chitra Narayanasami gives us hope. I was feeling all these days that good science has been sacrificed at the altar of corporate interests. It is bad science that has taken over, with even distinguished centres of excellence like the Royal Academy of Sciences, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and universities like Harvard, Cornell, Cambridge bowing to the needs of Monsanto, ADM and Wal-Mart's.
I know quite a number of scientists who actually voice serious concern at the way present day science has been derailed by a few crooks in the guise of scientists, and I know they also weep silently. Like Chitra, I am sure there must be still a large number of scientists worldwide who haven't still mortgaged their conscious. This silent tide will turn the tables one day, I am very hopeful.
Thank you Chitra for giving me this hope. Your thoughts expressed in this moving poem have come as the only silver-lining peeping through the dark clouds of corporate takeover of science. I am sure the silent majority among the scientific community would remain eternally grateful to you for expressing their pain.
Here is a poem penned down by Chitra Narayanasami:
Silently I weep
My Tryst with Science
Beneath a smiling face
Silently I weep
When I put my little boy to sleep
In the scented fragrance of pyretheroids
Beneath a smiling face
Silently I weep
When I feed my little boy
With lethal genes of GM food
Beneath a smiling face
Silently I weep
When I clothe my little boy
With lethal genes of GM cotton
Beneath a smiling face
Silently I weep
When I failed to nurture my boy
The priceless natural air, food or clothing
Beneath a smiling face
Silently I weep
Enshrouded in languishing science
Pushed away miles from nature
Beneath a smiling face
Silently I weep
Tear by tear falling down in vain
Like pearls thrown before swine
Beneath a smiling face
Silently I weep
Hoping for a silver lining
In our tryst with science
- Chitra Narayanasami
(I thank my colleague Ramasamy Selvam for sharing this poem with us)
I know quite a number of scientists who actually voice serious concern at the way present day science has been derailed by a few crooks in the guise of scientists, and I know they also weep silently. Like Chitra, I am sure there must be still a large number of scientists worldwide who haven't still mortgaged their conscious. This silent tide will turn the tables one day, I am very hopeful.
Thank you Chitra for giving me this hope. Your thoughts expressed in this moving poem have come as the only silver-lining peeping through the dark clouds of corporate takeover of science. I am sure the silent majority among the scientific community would remain eternally grateful to you for expressing their pain.
Here is a poem penned down by Chitra Narayanasami:
Silently I weep
My Tryst with Science
Beneath a smiling face
Silently I weep
When I put my little boy to sleep
In the scented fragrance of pyretheroids
Beneath a smiling face
Silently I weep
When I feed my little boy
With lethal genes of GM food
Beneath a smiling face
Silently I weep
When I clothe my little boy
With lethal genes of GM cotton
Beneath a smiling face
Silently I weep
When I failed to nurture my boy
The priceless natural air, food or clothing
Beneath a smiling face
Silently I weep
Enshrouded in languishing science
Pushed away miles from nature
Beneath a smiling face
Silently I weep
Tear by tear falling down in vain
Like pearls thrown before swine
Beneath a smiling face
Silently I weep
Hoping for a silver lining
In our tryst with science
- Chitra Narayanasami
(I thank my colleague Ramasamy Selvam for sharing this poem with us)
Nov 12, 2009
If you are an NGO, time to laugh at yourself
A picture they say is more than a thousand words. A good cartoon I think can be more than a Ph.D thesis. At times, I find a cartoonist says much more than what a post-doctoral thesis can conclude and that too after a study/research period has spanned three to five years. Rajkumar Patel's cartoon above (originally published at http://www.d-sector.org/) is not only a treatise on the working of the NGO community in India and for that matter worldwide, but also provides enough food for thought.
I find this cartoon is quite a reflection on the real purpose of innumerable NGO activities in the name of poverty, hunger and social discrimination. Although NGOs don't like to be told, but the fact remains that most of the civil society activities are driven by agenda of the funding agencies. It might be HIV AIDs today, tomorrow it can shift to global warming, and then you can always return to agriculture if nothing else works in the sense that project funding becomes a constraint.
It however does not mean that everyone is like that. There are good NGOs, there are bad NGOs and of course there are worst NGOs. I do agree that the number of good NGOs is fast receding, much faster than the Himalayan glaciers.
This cartoon also provides you an opportunity to laugh at yourself, and then to think whether it mirrors your role. If yes, it is time for a correction.
Nov 10, 2009
Himalayan Blunder: The perils of denying glacier melting
The last time I trekked to the Gangotri glacier was in 2007. I had to trek 37 kms (both ways) from Gangotri to reach Gomukh, the source of mighty Ganga. Everyone knows that Gomukh has retreated over the years.
Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh loves to challenge the dominant opinion (except in the case of Genetically Modified crops). Whether it is the stand India should take at the forthcoming Copenhagen conference or the melting of the Himalayan glaciers, he enjoys throwing a stone in the still waters and then sits back and enjoys watching the ripples it creates.
Jairam Ramesh loves to create unnecessary debate that can put him at the centrestage. At a time when newspapers and TV channels are dominated by film stars and cricketers, Jairam Ramesh has to find ways to stay in news. And I must acknowledge he has done fairly well. The PR agencies have a lot to learn from him.
I was therefore not even amused when Jairam Ramesh released on Monday a paper entitled Himalayan Glaciers by V K Raina, a former deputy director general of the Geological Survey of India. While the paper says that there is no conclusive evidence to prove that Himalayan glaciers are melting due to climate change, Mr Jairam Ramesh was quick to add that it is meant to "stimulate discussions".
I wonder what is the reason now for stimulating another discussion, after the recent leak of his letter to the Prime Minister asking him to take a u-turn in India's position on climate change to ostensibly show proximity to the United States. Well, I wouldn't be surprised if we learn subsequently that the paper was formally released to build up a case for river-linking. After all, billions of dollars are at stake and the lobby is still at work.
Neverthless, the simple reason why there is no "conclusive evidence" to show that the Himalayan glaciers are melting is because India had repeatedly turned down requests from the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), in collaboration with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), for an exhaustive study of the Himalayan glaciers
The Indian government, which treats glacier studies only for defence purposes, did not see any major threat from the melting of glaciers and the formation of the newly created lakes. Perhaps India is waiting for another disaster to strike before it acknowledges the threat. Jairam Ramesh should realise that deflecting attention from the urgent need to do something more meaningful for protecting the Himalayan glaciers will be disastrous for the country's environment and food security.
I draw your attention to a Himalayan disaster in waiting. This is based on a detailed report prepared by ICIMOD sometimes back.
It happened on Aug 4, 1985. Dig Tsho glacial lake, situated close to the Mt Everest region at a height of 4,365 metres above sea level, suddenly burst. Within the next four hours, estimates show that nearly 8 million cubic metres of water had drained from the lake. The torrent moved forward rather slowly down-valley as a huge ‘black’ mass of water full of debris. The surge waters from what is called as ‘Glacial Lake Outburst Floods’ (GLOF), completely destroyed whatever came its way.
Within the next few hours, the GLOF had completely destroyed civil structures of Namche (Thame) Small Hydel Project (estimated cost of US $ 1.5 million), swept 14 bridges, long stretches of roads, trails, cultivated land and took a heavy toll of human and animal life.
Dig Tsho glacial lake was not the only of its kind in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan mountain range that passes through Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Nepal and Bhutan. With the glaciers retreating in the face of accelerating global warming, the resulting melting of snow forms glacial lakes downstream. While the total number of glaciers in the region is still unknown, ICIMOD had for the first time documented 3,252 glaciers in Nepal spread over 5,324 square kilometres. More significantly, the number of glacial lakes has been computed at 2,323. Most of these, it is believed, have formed in the past 50 years or so.
ICIMOD had identified 20 glacial lakes to be potentially dangerous, including 17 that do not have any prior outburst history. These lakes are situated in very remote and higher reaches but the catastrophe that they cause can be devastating for the local communities and the country’s economy. Take the case of Tsho Rolpha glacial lake. Situated in the Rolwaling Valley in Dolakha district, the lake is only 110 kms by a crow’s flight from the Capital city of Kathmandu. With the lake volume rising every year, the area increasing from 0.23 sq kms in 1959 to 1.55 sq kms in in 1990, and the subsequent weakening of the damming moraines that hold the water, researchers term it as ‘potentially dangerous’.
Not only in the Himalayas, glaciers are receding at a fast pace the world over. East Africa’s Mount Kilmanjaro is expected not to have any snow cap by the year 2015, its snow cover having shrunk at an alarming 82 per cent between 1912 and 2000. The alpine glaciers have reduced by 40 per cent in area and more than 50 per cent in volume since 1850. Since 1963, the Peruvian glaciers have retreated at the rate of over 155 metres a year. The Himalayan glaciers, however, are considered to be extremely sensitive to climate change as these accumulate snow during monsoon and shed it in summers. Other high-altitude glaciers on the other hand accumulate snow during winters and cast it off in summers.
The UNEP estimates that the bursting of glacial lakes is likely to become a major problem globally, especially in countries South America, India and China. But unfortunately, both India and China have used glaciers only for defence purposes. Much of the snow bound areas in both the countries is under the control of the armed forces and forms the ‘inner line of control’. No scientific access or public activity is allowed in these politically and strategically sensitive areas of high altitude. International pressure therefore has to be on both the giants to allow for scientific explorations and suitable remedial solutions to be put in place before the ‘inner line of control’ goes out of control.
While the world continues to debate over the dangerous implications of climate change on the glaciers, Nepal government, in collaboration with the Netherlands-Nepal friendship Association, had made a series of attempts to implement an early warning system, and at the same time launch efforts to mitigate the dangers of an outburst. Among the strategies adopted is to reduce the water level in the lake by three metres by way of a GLOF risk reduction system. Knowing that it is still not safe, the lake waters is planned to be further lowered by another 17 metres under the second phase, the Tsho Rolpha GLOF Permanent Remediation Project. This in itself is a remarkable initiative and needs to be replicated in the other countries faced with the fast receding but little understood phenomenon of the vanishing snow caps.
Three of the 20 potentially dangerous lakes (Nagma, Tam Pokhari and Dig Tsho) have past outburst records. There are six other glacial lakes that ICIMOD thinks have had a past outburst history but do not appear to be dangerous at present. Researchers opine that of the several possible methods of reducing the risk and probability of GLOF bursts, and that includes regular monitoring and early warning systems, the most important is to reduce the volume of water in the lake so as to cut down the peak surge discharge.
Protection human, animal life and the infrastructure and property would largely depend on careful planning and co-ordination with the concerned agencies. More importantly, it is crucial to frame the disaster mitigation policies and activities. Nothing better illustrates the urgency with which a massive global programme to save the mountains from an impending apocalypse. The mountain areas are already reeling under abject poverty and the accompanying destruction of the fragile habitat. Ignoring the serious and real threat of climate change will surely be still more catastrophic. #
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)