Retail FDI Reloaded: Manmohan Singh says FDI brings jobs. Paul Krugman says unless any business increases labour force, no jobs created.
Employment generation is always on the top of agenda for any visiting Head of State. No, I didn't mean the visiting Presidents/Prime Ministers want to look into the possibility of creating employment in India . What I meant was that they come to India with the hope of creating thousands of jobs back home. I have always heard successive US Presidents spell out how many jobs they are going to bring back when they leave for any foreign country. Lately, I find even Presidents and Prime Ministers of many European countries as well as that of Canada and Australia say the same.
It is in this context that I can understand how important and crucial employment generation is for the Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh. More so at a time when he has to justify economic reforms at times of a repeat of an economic slowdown that the world is witnessing. Considering "India's official upper limit of unemployment and underemployment is about 70 million -- that's more than the population of France, UK, Italy, South Korea, Spain and Canada. Even this figure is disputed by experts who believe that the actual number is several times larger. The official 6.6 per cent unemployment rate is possibly a mirage created by the complex nature of labour markets." (Why India is not on the job The Times of India, Oct 22, 2012. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Why-India-is-not-on-the-job/articleshow/16908904.cms)
So when the Prime Minister restarted the 2nd phase of economic reforms with the approval of 51 per cent FDI in Indian retail, employment generation was a big plank. Commerce Minister Anand Sharma had talked of creating millions of jobs in the years to come. In fact, out of sheer excitement he has even been quoted as saying that 10 million jobs will be created within few years. Many experts have worked out the employment potential to be 3 million (both direct and indirect) in the first 3 years gradually rising to 10 million in 10 years or so. (Retail FDI: Why experts expect creation of 10mn jobs. http://www.firstpost.com/economy/retail-fdi-why-experts-expect-creation-of-10-mn-jobs-476213.html). At a number of official programmes, Prime Minister himself has been talking of the potential of retail FDI in creating millions of jobs.
While I will not get into the debate on how many jobs big retail will displace in the process, the Confederation of All-India Traders (CAIT) has made an interesting calculation. It says that if 4 million jobs are to be created in India in the next three years, Wal-mart (or other retail giants) will need to open over 18,600 supermarkets. This means 644 stores in each of India's 53 cities. Now this is a tall order I am sure you will agree.
Nevertheless, let us look at whether Wal-mart and other retail giants will in reality be creating "real" employment. Although I have time and again questioned the employment figures asking the Government to specify as to how many jobs would be lost in the process (a question that has never been answered), but when I read Nobel laureate Paul Krugman's New York Times blog The New Physiocrats (Oct 27, 2012. nyti.ms/PxYF1q) which possibly was a reaction to a statement made by Robert Samuelson's outburst in NYT, I realised he had provided us an economic explanation that demolishes the argument of job creation by private sector.
Samuelson had said that the Government jobs weren't "real" -- and as explained by Paul Krugman, it meant that these jobs aren't of much value to society. In other words, Samuelson was trying to say that only private sector jobs are worth the investment. To this, Paul Krugman replies: "Unless your business expansion somehow leads to an increase in the labor force, simple arithmetic says that it didn’t add jobs. It may have created better jobs; it may have raised productivity; but more jobs, no."
I am stretching this argument further. As Paul Krugman says if your business is somehow not going to lead to an expansion of the labour force, the job creation is nil. The employment generation claims that have been made by experts as well as the Prime Minister/Commerce Minister on behalf of the big retail giants too is not going to lead to an increase in the labour force. It is expected that while the new jobs may be much better in quality than the existing retail jobs, may improve efficiency, but the additional job creation is going to be zero. In fact, it is going to be in minus considering the displaced and lost jobs from the closure of small local stores.
Paul Krugman concludes: "If you believe that we should have fewer schoolteachers and firefighters — or that education should be privatized — make that case. Don’t try to hide your prejudices under a mystical doctrine in which important, productive jobs somehow don’t count if they come from a place with a gov email address." In that case, it means that even the existing retail jobs in India are in reality productive jobs. And this should not be discounted.
Subsequently, Paul Krugman writes (in his next blog Denial of Economics. http://nyti.ms/S31cfZ): "Now, what is true is that efficient markets and equilibrium business cycle theory have suffered what should be fatal blows to their credibility — but essentially nobody in that camp is even willing to admit that there is a problem. What that says, however, is that while we obviously need new thinking — we always do! — the biggest problem these days has been the rejection of knowledge we used to have." Try to put this in the Indian context where the business media goes on chanting day in and day out that market are efficient in self-regulation and have the capability to correct itself. I think it is high time that we accept that market efficiency has no credibility left. Markets cannot be left to operate free. They will gallop like an untamed horse if not properly reined in.
Coming back to the bigger question, if Paul Krugman is right in saying that the private sector does not make any significant contribution to employment creation unless the business expansion plan leads to an increase in the labour force than isn't Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who is also a trained economist, providing a false hope to the nation? Isn't he trying to take the country for a ride? Isn't Manmohan Singh wrong? Aren't therefore the fundamentals of Manmohanomics flawed?
FDI in retail will not provide any "real" jobs, only an illusion of employment creation.
Small farmers in India get less than 6 per cent of farm credit. No wonder, farmer suicides shows no signs of ending.
Despite the Indian govt knowing it, small and marginal
farmers do not get institutional credit.
Time and again we have heard that agricultural credit plays an important role in improving farm production, productivity and mitigating farmers distress.It is primarily for this reason that the 12th Five-Year Plan (2012-2017) document of Planning Commission says: "Assuming agriculture growth of 4 per cent, the size of credit requirement in the 12th Plan period translates to about double the flow in the 11th Plan at Rs 8 lakh-crore, as against the level of Rs 4.75 lakh-crore achieved during 2010-11."
In 2012-13, a budgetary provision of Rs 5,75,000-crore for farm credit has already been made. A year earlier, in 2011-12, Rs 4,75,000-crore was provided. According to Reserve Bank of India, between 2000 and 2010, farm loans increased by 755 per cent. Certainly it provides all the reasons to cheer.
In a recent study on "Farm Credit" , the industry association ASSOCHAM analysing the disbursement of credit over the last decade, has listed misdirection in farm loans, increase in proportion of indirect credit by banks, misuse of interest rate subvention for diverting credit to other sectors, imbalances in quantity of credit in relation to size of the farm and crops they raise, and virtual exclusion of small and marginal farmers from institutional credit as some of the major problems besetting this sector. (ASSOCHAM calls for urgent reforms in farm credit. http://netindian.in/news/2012/09/02/00021451/assocham-calls-urgent-reforms-farm-credit).
If you have managed to underline the last point in ASSOCHAM report, it tells us very clearly where institutional credit has failed to deliver. By excluding small and marginal farmers, which forms nearly 80 per cent of the agricultural workforce, hasn't the government actually failed to reach the benefits to those who need it more? How can the Reserve Bank of India be a mute spectator to the visible misdirection, which in reality should be more visible to them, all these years? Isn't it a callous oversight or is it deliberate?
A damming news report in the Hindi daily Dainik Jagran, Oct 24, 2012 (http://bit.ly/XRZGRL) brought out the startling reality. According to the report, a confidential document available with the Ministry of Finance categorically states that despite the increase in farm credit by over 2.5 times in past five years, less than 6 per cent of the total institutional credit is made available to small and marginal farmers. Ironically, the Prime Minister, Finance Minister, Agriculture Minister and the ruling party along with its army of economists and planners never get tired of telling the nation of the remarkable strides taken in reaching credit to small and marginal farmers. Reserve Bank of India had even been talking of Banking Correspondents to reach the unreached.
In 2007, of the total credit of Rs 2,29,400-crores advanced by banks, small farmers share was a mere 3.77 per cent. In other words, 96.23 per cent of the farm credit disbursed in 2007 was actually cornered by big farmers or agribusiness companies. In 2011-12, while total farm credit had swelled to Rs 5,09,000-crore (against a target of 4,75,000-crore) small and marginal farmers got only 5.71 per cent. It is therefore obvious that despite knowing where the fault is the government had deliberately supported big farmers as well as agribusiness companies (an increase in indirect credit by banks by enlarging the definition of agriculture) in the name of small and marginal farmers.
This shocking revelation also tells us that much of the Rs 74,000-crore write-off of farm credit before the 2009 elections actually benefited big and commercial farmers. Small farmers have been left high and dry. They are left with no choice but to depend on the money lenders who charge exorbitant interests. No wonder, the serial death dance on the farms shows no signs of ending. As per a statement in Parliament, 2,90,470 farmers have committed suicide in the past 15 years. I am sure it has a lot to do with the non-availability of institutional credit.
India: A hungry nation proudly exports food
Food and Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar is visibly excited. Agricultural exports have jumped nearly 56 per cent in 2011-12 to hit a record Rs 187,000-crore. With the government lifting the four-year-old ban on the exports of non-basmati and basmati rice, eight million tonnes of foodgrains were exported thereby swelling agricultural exports. In the process, India has now become the biggest exporter of rice in the world.
This year, 2012-13, Sharad Pawar is hopeful of an upswing in export of basmati and non-basmati rice to hit an all-time high of 9 million tonnes. To ease stocks, the government has also allowed export of two million tonne of wheat in July, and has set up an expert committee to further examine the issue. No wonder, the Minister is now promising to introduce a long-term export-import policy. “Government is actively considering free exports and imports of agricultural commodities,” he told an economic editors conference at New Delhi recently.
Either he is oblivious of the repeated UN warnings of global food prices spiralling once again or remains defiant to hand over country’s hard-earned food security to market forces that he continues to argue in favour of freeing food imports of all controls. International prices for wheat have already risen by 25 per cent in 2012, maize by 13 per cent and dairy prices rose 7 per cent in September, warns UN Food and Agriculture Organisation. “It means that food supplies are tight across board and there is little room for unexpected events.”
In such a grim situation, and considering that FAO has placed India among the high risk countries – which may be susceptible to famine and social unrest stemming from food shortages and price fluctuation – along with Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Yemen, any tinkering with food import-export policies is likely to be disastrous. My worry stems from the pathetic record in addressing the growing concerns of food insecurity and malnutrition that prevails, and that too at a time when the grain silos are overflowing.
The day Sharad Pawar was brimming with excitement over possibilities of enhancing food exports, three UN organisations – Food and Agricultural Organisation, the International Fund for Agricultural Development and the World Food programme -- came out with its annual State for Food Insecurity report. Accordingly, with 217 million malnourished people, India tops the malnourishment chart. As far as child nutrition is concerned, India is placed at the bottom of the global chart.
It is a strange paradox of plenty. While on the one hand India is pushing its agricultural exports, on the other nearly 320 million people go to bed hungry. The number of hungry and malnourished in India almost equals the entire population of America. When it comes to malnutrition, several studies have pointed out that nearly 43.5 per cent of children under five are underweight. India fares worst than even sub-Saharan Africa. According to the 2011 Global Hunger Index India ranks 67 among 81 countries, sliding below Rwanda.The 2012 Global Hunger Index prepared by the International Food Policy Research Institute. Welt Hunger Hilfe and Concern Worldwide have ranked India 65thamong 79 countries. India’s ranking in the hunger chart therefore sees no change between 2011 and 2012.
With the per capita availability of foodgrains – including cereals and pulses – sliding to 441 grams per day in 2010, from a high of 480 grams in 1991 when economic reforms began, it is quite evident that hunger is actually growing. Although an impression is being given that as incomes are seeing a rising trend, more people have shifted from cereals to nutritious foods like eggs, meat and fruits. This is however not correct. According to a 2010 report of the National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO), the consumption of cereals as well as nutritious foods like fruits, milk and eggs too is falling in urban and rural areas. Despite the rapid economic growth, per capita calorie consumption is steadily on the decline. The 2007 NSSO too had pointed to the same trend in falling consumption of both cereals as well as nutritious products.
Continuously rising food inflation over the past several years has certainly widened the gap between the haves and have-nots. Experts agree that for a large section of the population, buying two square meals a day is now becoming more difficult. Several studies have pointed to the growing inability of a majority of households to the per capita calories consumption of 2,100 in urban and 2,400 in rural areas. It means most people are unable to meet the minimum nutritional requirements.
In other words, hunger is becoming more acute and visible. More and more people are going to bed hungry. I therefore don’t understand the logic of exporting food at a time when millions are living in hunger. The mounting food surplus is essentially because the poor and needy are unable to buy foodgrains even at below the poverty line prices. Opening up the export of wheat (it is banned at present) India will certainly join the ranks of the major food exporters, and in the process earn some foreign exchange. But the bigger question remains as to who will feed the hungry living within the country?
There can be nothing more criminal for any hungry nation to export its staple food. It is the primary responsibility of the government, as enshrined in the Directive Principles, to ensure that every citizen is well-fed. Unfortunately what is not being realised is the declining fall in per capita availability of foodgrains matches the availability at the time of Bengal famine in 1943. Isn’t it sad that even after 70 years of Bengal famine, we still live in the shadow of hunger and starvation? How can any sensible nation therefore justify food exports?
Food management essentially means distributing the available foodgrains among the poor and hungry. A beginning must be made by immediately stopping the export of staple foods, and simultaneously launch all out effort to reach foodgrains at the doors of the hungry millions. #
Protecting Traditional Knowledge: An Indian model for Accessing Traditional Knowledge and Sharing its Benefits in a Fair and Equitable way.
The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is an international agreement which aims at sharing the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources in a fair and equitable way, including by appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights over those resources and to technologies, and by appropriate funding, thereby contributing to the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of its components. It was adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at its tenth meeting on 29 October 2010 in Nagoya, Japan. The Nagoya Protocol will enter into force 90 days after the date of deposit of the fiftieth instrument of ratification.
[This is from the website of the CBD].
As the XI Conference of Parties (CoP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity is underway in Hyderabad, India, it is time to examine whether the negotiators are anyway closer to getting a meaningful treaty on a global methodology to determine how the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources are distributed among the beneficiaries in a fair and equitable manner.The new ABS rules means the multinational companies will now have to share their profits with the communities who had not only provided the genetic resource but also have made available the traditional knowledge associated with its use.
From the very beginning I have watched with interest the debate and the discussions on ABS. I have been quite amused at the way the discussions progressed. The United States, which is not a signatory to CBD, has been sitting very safely over the largest collection of plant germplasm -- over 700,000 plant accessions -- and had all along been using its muscle power to further control over the Traditional Knowledge (TK) associated with it. In the midst of some of the major controversies pertaining to biopiracy -- a term coined to show exploitation of genetic resources by powerful interests -- the debate on how and who should define a community, what constitutes a community and so on kept the world unnecessarily engaged in a futile exercise. While the biodiversity experts were busy grappling with the definition and contours of a community, private companies merrily went around collecting whatever they could.
Nevertheless. when the Nagoya Protocol was signed in Japan in 2010, the US once again refused to have anything to do with it. It is not a signatory. But continues to participate and guide the proceedings. Amazing, isn't it? I wonder whether CBD would have allowed this concession to any other non-signatory country? But then, this a globally accepted norm. You can criticize the US for not being a signatory to an international agreement, but you cannot outlaw it.
Knowing the tardy progress in protecting the rights of the communities that protected Traditional Knowledge as well as the inability of national governments to make sure that private companies are made to cough out a significant proportion of their income for them, I thought it does not make any sense to go on waiting endlessly for an international treaty. Following the efforts made in several Latin American countries to come up with laws or proposals, the Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security, which I chaired, along with Kerala-based Thanal, organised a national consultation with the objective of framing a draft law to protect Traditional Knowledge. This was in January 2009.
The two-day consultation process developed a policy framework for the protection of Traditional Knowledge. A wide spectrum of participants had detailed discussions before finalising the policy framework. Based on this we had set up a core group which worked for nearly 3 months to come up with a draft legal framework for the protection of Traditional Knowledge. The core team comprised: Ms. Sunita Sreedharan of SKS Law, New Delhi; Dr TC James, former-Director Patents in DIPP, Govt of India; Prof. T. Ramakrishna, National Law School University, Bangalore; Mr. Sridhar R, Programme Director, Thanal; Mr. Bhaskar Goswami, Forum for Biotechnology& Food Security; Prof M K Ramesh, National Law School University, Bangalore; and myself.
It was certainly a formidable task, but after a series of deliberations and innumerable number of hours of discussions on the Skype, the core group was finally able to come up with what many think is an excellent set of rules that will do justice to the communities protecting Traditional Knowledge associated with biodiversity. Four months later, at the 2nd National Consultation on framing legal provisions for protecting and conserving Traditional Knowledge held at TERI Retreat, in Gurgaon, we presented the outlines of the draft.
The then Minister for Environment & Forests Jairam Ramesh presided over the 2nd National Consultation and asked us to frame rules that can be incorporated under the National Biodiversity Act. He in fact specifically asked us to deliver the same in two months time so that the regulations could be adopted. This gave us a lot of hope, as we had been grappling with this matter for a number of years, both nationally and internationally. Fortunately, very good contribution, by way of experience and intellect came from all sections towards drafting this law.
[This is from the website of the CBD].
As the XI Conference of Parties (CoP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity is underway in Hyderabad, India, it is time to examine whether the negotiators are anyway closer to getting a meaningful treaty on a global methodology to determine how the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources are distributed among the beneficiaries in a fair and equitable manner.The new ABS rules means the multinational companies will now have to share their profits with the communities who had not only provided the genetic resource but also have made available the traditional knowledge associated with its use.
From the very beginning I have watched with interest the debate and the discussions on ABS. I have been quite amused at the way the discussions progressed. The United States, which is not a signatory to CBD, has been sitting very safely over the largest collection of plant germplasm -- over 700,000 plant accessions -- and had all along been using its muscle power to further control over the Traditional Knowledge (TK) associated with it. In the midst of some of the major controversies pertaining to biopiracy -- a term coined to show exploitation of genetic resources by powerful interests -- the debate on how and who should define a community, what constitutes a community and so on kept the world unnecessarily engaged in a futile exercise. While the biodiversity experts were busy grappling with the definition and contours of a community, private companies merrily went around collecting whatever they could.
Nevertheless. when the Nagoya Protocol was signed in Japan in 2010, the US once again refused to have anything to do with it. It is not a signatory. But continues to participate and guide the proceedings. Amazing, isn't it? I wonder whether CBD would have allowed this concession to any other non-signatory country? But then, this a globally accepted norm. You can criticize the US for not being a signatory to an international agreement, but you cannot outlaw it.
Knowing the tardy progress in protecting the rights of the communities that protected Traditional Knowledge as well as the inability of national governments to make sure that private companies are made to cough out a significant proportion of their income for them, I thought it does not make any sense to go on waiting endlessly for an international treaty. Following the efforts made in several Latin American countries to come up with laws or proposals, the Forum for Biotechnology & Food Security, which I chaired, along with Kerala-based Thanal, organised a national consultation with the objective of framing a draft law to protect Traditional Knowledge. This was in January 2009.
The two-day consultation process developed a policy framework for the protection of Traditional Knowledge. A wide spectrum of participants had detailed discussions before finalising the policy framework. Based on this we had set up a core group which worked for nearly 3 months to come up with a draft legal framework for the protection of Traditional Knowledge. The core team comprised: Ms. Sunita Sreedharan of SKS Law, New Delhi; Dr TC James, former-Director Patents in DIPP, Govt of India; Prof. T. Ramakrishna, National Law School University, Bangalore; Mr. Sridhar R, Programme Director, Thanal; Mr. Bhaskar Goswami, Forum for Biotechnology& Food Security; Prof M K Ramesh, National Law School University, Bangalore; and myself.
It was certainly a formidable task, but after a series of deliberations and innumerable number of hours of discussions on the Skype, the core group was finally able to come up with what many think is an excellent set of rules that will do justice to the communities protecting Traditional Knowledge associated with biodiversity. Four months later, at the 2nd National Consultation on framing legal provisions for protecting and conserving Traditional Knowledge held at TERI Retreat, in Gurgaon, we presented the outlines of the draft.
The then Minister for Environment & Forests Jairam Ramesh presided over the 2nd National Consultation and asked us to frame rules that can be incorporated under the National Biodiversity Act. He in fact specifically asked us to deliver the same in two months time so that the regulations could be adopted. This gave us a lot of hope, as we had been grappling with this matter for a number of years, both nationally and internationally. Fortunately, very good contribution, by way of experience and intellect came from all sections towards drafting this law.
Accordingly, the team prepared the Traditional Knowledge rules. These Rules specifically sets out to provide for protection, conservation and effective management of traditional knowledge related to biodiversity. It recognises the ownership of the holder of Traditional Knowledge and also ensures that not only should this right be upheld but the continuum of the practice also ensured. You will agree that “simply” documenting it will not ensure its continuity which is why we have proposed numerous checks and balances to benefit and protect the rights of the Traditional Knowledge holder. On the management side, we have aimed at preventing misuse, abuse and misappropriation of Traditional Knowledge by bringing in a License to Use system. This includes a stringent process of evaluation, with active participation of the State Biodiversity Boards, Biodiversity Management Committees and most importantly the Traditional Community.
The Rights of the Traditional Communities and Practitioners to use, share and continue their livelihood unhindered is also ensured, even while its commercial utilisation is managed from the point of view of its ecological and social sustainability as well as ensuring adequate and equitable benefits by way of monetary, non-monetary and welfare-based measures. We have also ensured that a strong regulatory system is in force which is a deterrent against usurpation of rights of knowledge holders and also bestows responsibility and power on the National Biodiversity Authority. We submitted the sui generis regulation for the protection of Traditional Knowledge related to biodiversity to the Minister, and this was duly put up on the website of National Biodiversity Authority. For three years, TK Rules 2009 donned the NBA website and at least two workshops were held to deliberate on it. The National Law School University had separately organised another round of discussions on TK rules which were duly presented to the National Biodiversity Authority. The link (www.nbaindia.org/docs/tk_
Nevertheless, what could have been a very important contribution from India to the entire dialogue on Access and Benefit Sharing and perhaps could emerge as a global model on protecting the local communities as well as to ensure fair and equitable sharing of benefits is still not lost.
The sui generis model for TK protection is separated into 9 chapters. The salient features of the draft bill, which identifies rights and duties of traditional communities and accessor, and also suggests the formation of a Traditional Knowledge Authority, includes: 1) Definition of TK, abuse, access, accessor, benefit, informed consent, traditional community etc. 2) Creation and maintenance of Traditional Knowledge register. 3) Identification of the sources from where informed consent has to be gained to access TK. 4) Indicative list of accessors who are required to obtain prior consent. 5) Duties and obligations of the central Govt, State govts and TK Authority to ensure prevention of misuse of TK. 6) Preparation of national policy, strategy and action plan by the TK Authority every 5 years, which ensures the protection, continuation of use and practice of TK and ensures sustainability of the resources including human resource on which TK is dependent. 7) Duty of TK Authority to prevent biopiracy and other misuse of TK and to take preventive/punitive actions to safeguard the same. 8) TK Authority to be assigned with additional responsibility to ensure that the due environmental and social impact assessment be done before granting access to any traditional knowledge. 9) TK Authority to ensure that the use of traditional knowledge is not against any public order or morality. 10) TK Authority to educate and increase awareness in the communities to ensure just and fair negotiations. 11) TK Authority to assigned powers to notify certain traditional knowledge as endangered or verge of extinction or likely to become extinct, and also the power to restrict access to such traditional knowledge. 12) Appellate mechanism to appeal against the decision of TK Authority. The orders issued by Appellate Mechanism shall be applicable at the Supreme Court of India.
More details are available in a paper by my colleague Sunita Sreedharan, entitled: Bridging the Time and Tide -- Traditional Knowledge in the 21st Century, published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights Mar 2010 (http://nopr.niscair.res.in/
Nevertheless, what could have been a very important contribution from India to the entire dialogue on Access and Benefit Sharing and perhaps could emerge as a global model on protecting the local communities as well as to ensure fair and equitable sharing of benefits is still not lost.
The sui generis model for TK protection is separated into 9 chapters. The salient features of the draft bill, which identifies rights and duties of traditional communities and accessor, and also suggests the formation of a Traditional Knowledge Authority, includes: 1) Definition of TK, abuse, access, accessor, benefit, informed consent, traditional community etc. 2) Creation and maintenance of Traditional Knowledge register. 3) Identification of the sources from where informed consent has to be gained to access TK. 4) Indicative list of accessors who are required to obtain prior consent. 5) Duties and obligations of the central Govt, State govts and TK Authority to ensure prevention of misuse of TK. 6) Preparation of national policy, strategy and action plan by the TK Authority every 5 years, which ensures the protection, continuation of use and practice of TK and ensures sustainability of the resources including human resource on which TK is dependent. 7) Duty of TK Authority to prevent biopiracy and other misuse of TK and to take preventive/punitive actions to safeguard the same. 8) TK Authority to be assigned with additional responsibility to ensure that the due environmental and social impact assessment be done before granting access to any traditional knowledge. 9) TK Authority to ensure that the use of traditional knowledge is not against any public order or morality. 10) TK Authority to educate and increase awareness in the communities to ensure just and fair negotiations. 11) TK Authority to assigned powers to notify certain traditional knowledge as endangered or verge of extinction or likely to become extinct, and also the power to restrict access to such traditional knowledge. 12) Appellate mechanism to appeal against the decision of TK Authority. The orders issued by Appellate Mechanism shall be applicable at the Supreme Court of India.
More details are available in a paper by my colleague Sunita Sreedharan, entitled: Bridging the Time and Tide -- Traditional Knowledge in the 21st Century, published in the Journal of Intellectual Property Rights Mar 2010 (http://nopr.niscair.res.in/
Food wastage in India is not 40 per cent but 5.8-18 per cent in fruits; 6.8 to 12.4 percent in veggies; and 4.3 to 6.1 per cent in cereals.
Wasted food at a landfill site in the United States.
Sometimes, when I am finished with my meal at a marriage ceremony and go out to throw my patal (made from leaves) in the dustbin, I watch with great regret and concern when a team of urchins would descend to look for leftovers. After these children are done away with, I find the dogs moving in. At the same time I can spot a number of crows waiting for their turn.
The clamour for food security extends beyond us, the well-to-do.
What we therefore consider as food wastage becomes essential to meet the food security needs of not-so-lucky, and also that of the animals and birds. I have always therefore wondered whether food actually goes waste. I still find my mother providing a handful of kneaded wheat to the cows every morning, and also leave aside some chapatis for the dogs after dinner. What she does it so religiously is actually aimed at ensuring food security for the animals. Indian religion teaches us compassion and to believe in sharing and caring.
This however does not mean that food does not get waste. In America and Canada, 40 per cent food is wasted, much of it at the household level. The landfills are full of stale food, adding greenhouses gases. There are studies which have computed the food wastage in the US, including this NRDC study (How America is losing up to 40 per cent of its food from farm to fork to landfill. http://bit.ly/QWpLOv). In fact, the other day on a TV show on FDI in retail the anchor asked me would FDI not help reduce the 40 per cent wastage we have in fruits and vegetables. My reply was that first I don't buy these figures, and secondly how can Wal-Mart curb food wastage when it has not been able to do so in America where 40 per cent food gets wasted. I think the anchor didn't even know that food wastage was so high in the US.
Nevertheless, where has this figure of 40 per cent food wastage in India come from? As a student of agriculture, some 30 years back, I remember my teachers would often quote this figure. And I find even now the same figure is being nauseatingly used again and again simply to justify FDI in retail. Prime Minister uses it, Food Minister K V Thomas too uses it, and of course the Wal-Mart Minister Anand Sharma has to use it. FICCI/CII have been playing it up. But now I find Rahul Gandhi going a step ahead and saying 60-70 per cent food gets wasted !
Sometimes back FICCI had asked McKinsey (or was it some other consulting firm?) to do a study on food wastage. It also came up with the imaginative figure of 40 per cent. Speak a lie a hundred times and it becomes a truth, isn't it?
The Central Institute of Post-Harvest Engineering & Technology (CIPHET) at Ludhiana has finally cleared the mist. Based on a nation-wide study to make quantitative assessment of harvest and post-harvest losses for 46 agricultural produces in 106 randomly selected districts in 2010, showed wastage in fruits to vary between 5.8 (in Sapota) to a maximum of 18 per cent (for Guava). In vegetables, cauliflower has the minimum loss at 6.8 per cent while tomato faces 12.4 per cent loss.
Wastage for other items was much lower. For crops (3.9 to 6 per cent), cereals (4.3 to 6.1 per cent), pulses (4.3-6.1 per cent), oilseeds (6 per cent), meat (2.3 per cent), fish (2.9 per cent) and poultry (3.7 per cent).
These figures are much lower than the imaginative 40 per cent food wastage figure that is being tossed around. It only goes to show how we hype the crop losses to benefit the industries. This is primarily the reason why most Indian policies fail to deliver. If the foundation is faulty, based incorrect figures and estimates, the policy too will be faulty. Lots of people blame implementation to be the cause for tardy progress. I blame the wrong policies to be the primary cause for this lop-sided development.
Brave New World: Cows to send an SMS when in heat
Oh, my God ! This is a Brave New World that even Aldous Huxley failed to predict. Dairy farmers getting a text message on mobile phone from cows. I too couldn't have imagined this.
The text message is to let the farmers know when they are in heat so that arrangements can be made for artificial insemination or procuring a bull for breeding purposes. Considering that milch cows in Switzerland and for that matter in Europe and America are in terrible stress as a result of which there is a significant drop in the reproductive activity, it is expected the new technology will enable farmers to know precisely when the cow is sexually active, says a news report in New York Times (Swiss Cows send texts to announce they're in heat, NYT Oct 1, 2012. http://nyti.ms/QmdZe2).
The device is undergoing tests and would be available soon in the market. According to the news report it's use involves inserting a thermometer with a tiny transmitter and antenna in the cow's genitals. I am not sure how the animal right's activists are going to perceive the new technological development, but a private company in Switzerland is getting ready to market the product.
Only a few days back, speaking a conference in New Delhi, I was talking how dairy farms in Europe (and the West for that matter) have a computer chip on the strap along the neck of the cow, which comes into contact with a sensor on the wall when the cow puts its head in the feed bin at the time of milking. This tells the dairy owner of the body weight of the animal and how much feed and proteins it requires, and only that quantity of feed comes out. So, let us be clear. The cow is the most food secure animal on Earth.
Now with a transmitter fitted in the cow's genitals, cows are going to be monitored for its heat cycle. Poor cows, even their sex life is now getting restricted. Gone are the days when cows would roam free in the meadows, with the bells around their neck clinking. It has become so mechanized nowadays. Cows are nothing more than milch machines, and of course have more or less become a staple food for a society that claims to be civilized. I am sure the cows must be cursing us for putting them in such an ordeal.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)