Food Inflation: Farmers' Market is the answer


A Farmers' Market in India. Most Farmers' Market are unhygienic, dusty and filthy.  

In the midst of the food inflation period, especially during the time onion prices had shot through the roof, I had been often asked as to what is the way vegetable prices can be maintained at a reasonable level all through the year. This question assumes importance in the light of the exploitation of farmers as well as the consumers at the hand of the middlemen.

When onion prices had touched Rs 70/kg in August, a study by NABARD had shown that while farmers were paid Rs 8/kg in the month of April-May, the traders had collected the onions and stored it at several paces, only to make a killing by creating an artificial scarcity. The consumers paid as high as Rs 70/kg for onions in August, and two months later in October the prices had crossed Rs 100/kg at several places. A newspaper report has computed that the wholesale and retail trade had profiteered by at least Rs 8,000-crore by keeping the prices high in the past 4 months.

Not only onions, prices of all vegetables had remained on an upswing. No vegetable, except for potatoes, were available for less than Rs 40/kg. Even in case of leafy vegetables, prices had jumped by close to 200 per cent. Interestingly, even in the organized retail chains – like Reliance Fresh, Easy Day, Metro, Big Bazaar – the prices had remained almost at the same level as the open market. These organized retail chains were supposed to remove the array of middlemen and thereby provide vegetables and fruits much cheaper to the consumers. 

Even at the time when open market price of onions was around Rs 100/kg in the open market, prices in the wholesale were around Rs 55/Kg, which means the retail traders had also been making a fast buck. While it is known that the unorganized retail chain too had exploited the situation to sell onions at Rs 100/kg, I don’t understand why didn’t the organized retail chains sell it at Rs 60/kg or so. If Reliance Fresh, Big Bazaar and the likes had made available onions at Rs 60/kg we would have seen an uncontrollable rush before these shops. There would have been long queues of buyers. 

It is therefore very clear that organized retail is not the answer to food mismanagement. Neither the farmers nor the consumers stand to benefit. The only beneficiaries are the organized retail chains, which have replaced the arhtiyas and the hawkers. They certainly have made huge profits. This shows that the big fish is no different from the smaller fish. Nor do I see much hope in corporate giants like Mahindra & Mahindra who have announced with much fanfare a proposal to diversify from its manufacturing activities. The auto-to-airspace giant now proposes to become a middleman. It plans to kickoff with branded apples – sourced from Kinnaur in Himachal Pradesh – and sell them at its proposed 15 outlets in Hyderabad for a premium of about 10 per cent or so.

This may be suitable for the upwardly mobile section of the population who do not want to buy from the traditional vegetable markets.  But for the aam aadmi there seems to be no respite from the rising vegetable prices.

Expecting the agri-business industry to provide good quality fruits and vegetables at affordable prices will remain a fake dream. Nowhere in the world has the agri-business industry succeeded in doing so. But there is a new renaissance in food delivery, quality of produce and economics that is I find is slowly but steadily taking roots.  From Australia to United States, from Japan to Argentina, the local food systems are changing. Enhancing the livelihoods of local producers, and meeting the consumers’ aspiration, food markets are now becoming popular.

Even in America, where Wal-Mart dominates the retail market, the growth in farmers’ markets has been phenomenal. From just 370 farmers’ markets that existed in 1970, there were more than 7,000 in 2010. The US Department of Agriculture estimates that in 2007, more than 136,000 farmers were selling food directly to consumers. In Australia, farmer markets too have grown rapidly. From none in 1999, there are 150 farmers markets in Australia today. The Australian Farmers’ Markets Association claims that as per a survey the Farmers Markets in the province of Victoria alone have registered sales of over $ 2 million every week.

Farmers Markets provides farmers and consumers a suitable environment to interact, and that enables farmers to meet the specific needs of the consumers. It enables greater consumption of fresh and healthy fruits and vegetables, and in the bargain reduces the carbon footprint. Since consumers are now becoming increasingly aware of the damage chemical pesticides and fertilizers do to health and immunity systems, the demand for organic food is growing by approximately 20 per cent every year. Moreover, since farmers come and sell directly to consumers on a regular basis, farmer’ markets eliminate middlemen thereby providing stable prices.

The concept is certainly not new. It was launched in Punjab as Apni Mandi a few decades back, but has never received the impetus and investments required. In Andhra Pradesh the farmers’ markets are called Ryatu Bazaars, again suffering from lack of support. In metros like New Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata the weekly bazaars that have been operating for years now stem from the same idea. But because these weekly bazaars have not been provided any permanent space, with adequate infrastructure and sanitation, they have failed to emerge as an alternate marketing hub. These bazaars are being held in open spaces wherever available. These spaces are unhygienic, dusty and filthy.

Over the years, I find that less number of farmers and more commission agents are now operating in these markets. This is contrary to the underlying objective of farmers’ markets. Some mechanism therefore has to be evolved that makes farmers’ markets only accessible for genuine farmers. To begin with, farmers could be encouraged to form cooperatives for marketing purposes. Each cooperative could then participate in farmers markets. This would leave farmers to undertake other farming operations.

In UK the community food sector has grown to 150 million pound sterlings in just a five-year period between 2007and 2012. The potential in India therefore is enormous. All it needs is a shift in thinking, and proper policy support. It will be the beginning of a new food culture in India, supporting farmers, consumers and reducing much of the environmental damage as well as health costs. #

Further reading: An edited version appeared in Deccan Herald: Open Farmers Markets, Oct 30, 2013. http://www.deccanherald.com/content/366044/open-farmers039-markets.html

What a stupid idea, Sir ji. Dehydrated onions is not what Indians need.


Chopping onions, and dehydrating them is not the answer to the price spiral India witnessed recently

Not only far-fetched, it's a stupid idea. I am referring to Ashok Gulati (who happens to be the chairman of the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices) article: Onions at Rs 20/Kg? Not so far-fetched (Times of India, Oct 27, 2013,http:// bit.ly/HmuTtG ). The article begins by saying: "If I say that I am ready to supply onions, in an improvised form, at Rs 20 Kg home delivered, and round the year, people may think I have gone crazy or I am dipping into the general exchequer to pull off a massive subsidy scheme for onions. Wrong. I will make a cool profit of 15-20 per cent in this deal, do a great service to consumers and farmers of this country, and perhaps also help our policy makers under tremendous pressure following public outrage sparked by the rising onion prices."  

I know there would many takers among policy makers for this idiotic idea. Anything that is linked to industry, and in this case it is agribusiness industry, is something that the policy makers keenly fall for. I will therefore not be surprised if Ashok Gulati's stupid idea finds favour. Moreover, it does just the opposite of what he is trying to tell us in the beginning. At the end of the article he is seeking appropriate public policy to incentivize the setting up of such plants to create a win win situation. Incentivize means providing land and subsidy support.

Onion prices were at Rs 15/Kg before the recent spike. We all know it wasn't because of any shortfall in production, but because of manipulation and hoarding. After all, this year the production was higher than the total consumption by approximately 27 lakh tonnes. And as Business Standard (Hindi) has estimated, the traders have profiteered by at least Rs 8,000-crore in the past four months. So the challenge is to discipline the trade. 

There is nothing wrong in Jain Irrigation dehydrating onions and exporting it to Japan. That may be what the Japanese prefer, and so Jain Irrigation is meeting their requirement. But the food habits of Indian's is quite different from that of the Japanese. Indians love fresh onions, which as we all know are cooked into various dishes and are also consumed fresh. Moreover, if Jain Irrigation is purchasing 1.5 lakh tonnes of onions, and after dehydrating, exporting it to Japan, I wonder what stops them to supply in the domestic market? If Jain Irrigation can set up a dehydrating plant for export purposes, why cant it do the same for the domestic market? 

But if you have followed the reports/analysis of the Commission for Costs and Prices (CACP) what is very clear is that it has always lobbied for subsidy support for the industry (calling it incentives) while decrying subsidies being given to farmers. I am not in any way surprised at this suggestion. 

Some years back, when Pepsi Foods made a backdoor entry into India, it had come up with the proposal to import tomato varieties suitable for processing. The policy makers were swayed by this idea, technology introduction sells very well in this country. Eventually, Pepsi Foods relied on a tomato variety developed by Indo-American Hybrids, a Bangalore-based firm. No one ever questioned Pepsi as to what happened with their promise of importing improved tomato varieties. Nevertheless, just like the idiotic suggestion of Ashok Gulati, even at that time the company had maintained that by setting up a processing plant to make tomato puree, Pepsi will help provide tomato to the Indian consumers at a cheaper price. 

Well, tomato puree has been in Indian market for quite sometime now. But has it in any way reduced the demand for fresh tomatoes? The answer is: No. So will dehydrated onions, that Ashok Gulati is advocating primarily to seek State subsidies for the industry, reduce the demand for fresh onions? Well, you know the answer. 

Onions can be made available cheaper throughout the year provided the government chops the onion cartels.

By the way, what happened to the claims that organised retail can provide competition to the fruit and vegetable trade that exists in the country? Weren't Reliance Fresh, Big Bazaar, Easy Day, Metro and the likes supposed to eliminate middlemen and thereby provide cheaper vegetables to the consumers? If these retail chains had marketed cheaper onions, I am sure we would have seen long queues before the stored. We didn't see any such rush outside these stores. I remember the CACP has been a strong votary of the organised retail, including FDI in retail. So why did it fail to deliver? Shouldn't CACP be questioning that now, and shouldn't CACP itself be questioned to know whose interests it is working for.

Moreover, how will the processing of onions that provides onions at Rs 20/Kg help the farmers? Who are you misleading, Mr Ashok Gulati?  

US farm subsidies are unquestionable, while India’s hungry are being conveniently traded at the WTO.

The double standards are clear. In 2012, the US provided $100 billion for domestic food aid, up from the $95 billion it spent on feeding its 47 million undernourished population in 2010 including spending on food coupons and other supplementary nutrition programmes. 

In India, the Food Bill is expected to cost $20 billion and will feed an estimated 850 million people. Against an average supply of 358kg/person of subsidised food aid (including cereals) in the US every year, India promises to make available 60 kg/person in food entitlement. And yet, while the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is quiet on the subsidy being doled out in America for feeding its poor, the US has launched an attack on India for “creating a massive new loophole for potentially unlimited trade-distorting subsidies.”
India’s subsidies for feeding its hungry are being blamed for distorting trade in agriculture while the US, which provides six times more subsidies than India for feeding its hungry, is seen as doing humanitarian service. The US subsidies are unquestionable, while India’s hungry are being conveniently traded at the WTO. Public posturing notwithstanding, India is believed to have given in to US pressure. Commerce minister Anand Sharma is believed to have assured the WTO director-general that India is committed to take the multilateral trading regime to its logical conclusion. That India is not willing to contest the unfair provisions, and has agreed to a compromise, becomes evident from what the WTO chief said: “What we have agreed in Geneva is we are going to be working on a Peace Clause.”
The US/EU is pushing for a Peace Clause lasting two-three years. India is willing to accept it since it allows the food security programme to continue without any hiccup till 2014. The Peace Clause is a temporary reprieve. Although it expired in 2003, it is being reinvented now to allow India to continue with its food subsidies for the specified period during which its subsidies cannot be challenged before the WTO dispute panel.
The main issue here is the increasing amount being spent on public stockholding of foodgrains and thereby the rise in administered prices for wheat and rice that is procured from small farmers. According to the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, the administered price cannot exceed the ‘de-minimis’ level of 10% of the total volume of production. This exemption is allowed under the Aggregate Measure of Support. India has already exceeded the limit in the case of rice where the procurement price has shot up to 24% from the base year 1986-88 that was agreed upon.
It is, therefore, not the food subsidy Bill that is under the radar, but the procurement price system in India which is now on the chopping block. If India is forced to limit the rice procurement price at 10% of the total production, and refrain from increasing the wheat procurement price in future, it will sound the death knell for agriculture. Agreeing to a Peace Clause only shows how India is trying to skirt the contentious issue and is ready to sacrifice the livelihood security of its 600 million farmers.

According to the US-based Environment Working Group, America had paid a quarter of a trillion dollars in subsidy support between 1995 and 2009. In the 2013 Farm Bill, these subsidies have been further increased. This results in the dumping of foodgrains, thereby dampening farm gate prices, and pushing farmers out of agriculture. In India, wheat and rice growers have merely received $9.4 billion as procurement price in 2012. Forcing India to freeze procurement prices means that the WTO is being used to destroy Indian agriculture.
Source: The WTO is destroying Indian farming. Hindustan Times, Oct 21, 2013.

India to allow China to acquire land within the country. Why then deploy army to protect the Indian border?



Manning the hostile Chinese border -- Hindu photo. 

At a time when lakhs of Indian soldiers are deployed on the Chinese borders to protect the Indian soil, and thousands (my uncle was one of them) have already laid down their life fighting over the years to protect any Chinese intrusion into India, Prime MinisterManmohan Singh is inviting China to set up Special Economic Zones (SEZs) and industrial parks within the country. He is expecting Chinese Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) to boost industrial activity (Chinese FDI to set up SEZs likely post-2014, reports Times of India Oct 23, 2013 http://bit.ly/16uhNjX)

This raises a question in my mind. If Chinese are being offered land within the country to set up shop then why should we sacrifice human life at the Indo-China border to protect even an inch of land going into Chinese hands? What national sovereignty are we protecting if Chinese are allowed to acquire more and more land within the country? Why should we sacrifice a soldier's life in protecting even an inch of soil when we ourselves are offering huge chunks of land to China? Also, with more and more Chinese investment coming into India (and also their labour force, eventually) what will happen whenever (God forbid) India goes to war with China? 

This reminds me of what my journalist friend Zingisha from South Africa had said some years back when I was a Press Fellow at the University of Cambridge. In one of our discussions about globalisation, I vividly recall her words: "They follow the Triple M Approach. First they sent the missionaries, it didn't work; then they sent military, it didn't work; now they are sending money, it will work." 

Oh ! my God !! Isn't that true? #

More reading: Famine as Commerce by Devinder Sharma 
http://indiatogether.org/agriculture/opinions/dsharma/faminecommerce.htm

The Global Land Rush: Land Sharks Now Eyeing India


Women protest land grab in Cambodia. 

While you were sleeping, there has been a spurt in land grabbing.

"Of the 848 deals concluded since 2008, 80 involve Indian companies that have invested in 65 deals to grow foodgrains, sugarcane, oilseeds, tea and flowers," report Hindustan Times (India buys land 9 times Delhi size abroad. http://bit.ly/1b3fsPp).  

While Indian Companies are buying land abroad, foreign companies are buying land in India. As per this news report, in 39 deals Indian Companies have bought abroad an area equal to 9 times the size of Delhi. And foreign Companies from UK, US, Austria and Thailand have concluded 36 deals to buy farm land in India in the States of Gujarat, Odisha, West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh. Seven of these deals have already been completed allowing 13,105 hectares to be acquired. This is based on an excellent detailed insight provided on the web site Land Matrix. You can Google and find out more details. Total deals it has details about till date are 23729439, and the total area acquired for agricultural purposes is 23,729,439 hectares. Mind boggling, isn't it? 

As I said somewhere, every second an area equivalent to that of a football ground (0.72 hectares) is being acquired in the majority world. Among those who are investing in such land deals are not only MNCs, big business, hedge funds, venture capitalists, but even universities.    

At this rate the day is not far off when most people will become landless in their own country. Call it neo-colonisation or economic growth (as some may perceive this development to be), the fact remains that land grab has become a major investment over the past few years. As we continue to sleep over, and perhaps think it will not mean uprooting us at least, the land sharks are scanning each and every nook of the world to lay hands upon whatever piece of land they can. To me this is simply frightening. It has grave human rights implications, and would impact global food security to say the least. In other words, it has all the makings of a tremendous people's revolt in the years to come. 

Imagine, wherever you are living you being surrounded by fenced land purchased by foreign companies. Imagine the flag of the country from which the company hails from is fluttering in your neighbourhood. maybe more than one flag. Gradually most of us will find ourselves living in no man's land surrounded by international borders on all sides. As said earlier, the land sharks are now eyeing India. The country seems to be up for grabs. No wonder, soon after passing the new land aquisition law that makes it easier for companies to acquire land, Rural Development Minister Jairam Ramesh had said: 'We will not need land acquisition law after 20 years'. So true. Isn't it? After all, there would be no land left to be acquired by then !

I wonder what national anthem would we sing then? 

500 French farmers have committed suicide in past three years.


French farmers throng Paris in an unprecedented protest in 2010 -- Guardian picture 

Some weeks back, I met Genevieve Savigny from France at the UN Inter-Governmental Working Group on rights of peasants and other working in rural areas. She told me that not only in India, even in France 500 farmers had committed suicide. She sent me later a synopsis of a study conducted by the French organisation InVS-MSA. I had subsequently tweeted this study.

The French daily Le Monde has carried a news report today (Oct 10, 2013) under the title: Five hundred suicides reported among farmers in three years (See the link here: bit.ly/1acgA1D ). This news report is based on the same study. The report is self explanatory. I am pasting the full news report below.

"Nearly five hundred suicides were recorded in three years - 2007, 2008 and 2009 - in French farmers, according to the Institute of Health Surveillance (INVS), which publishes, Thursday, October 10, the first official study on the subject. Suicide is thus the third cause of death in the agricultural world, after cancer and cardiovascular disease, says INVS.

Eagerly awaited by the industry, since it is the first state official places on this sensitive issue, the study "is in terms of suicide prevention in the agricultural sector announced by the Ministry of Agriculture in March 2011 " , said the institute.

In total , 417 men and 68 women committed suicide during the period, with a particularly strong among farmers mortality (cattle, milk and beef cattle) aged 45 to 64 years. According to the institute, "the suicide mortality was 28% in 2008 and 22% in 2009" men in the agricultural world.
"These findings coincide with the temporality of financial problems in these sectors over the period of study," says INVS, thereby establishing a direct correlation between suicide and economic difficulties.
The population considered for this first report includes farm managers and employees of these farms in business, so "it is indeed an exhaustive study" say the authors".

In 2010, I had written a blog on the crisis afflicting French farmers. Captioned: France and India: The beautiful farms are all but dying. It actually listed the similarities that farmers in the two countries faced despite being separated by a huge distance. Do have a look at it (http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.in/2010/07/france-and-india-beautiful-farms-are.html) and I am sure you will be able to fathom the distress that prevails across the globe when it comes to farming. #

Read also Le Monde's survey : "French Farmers: the malaise suicide"

Peace Clause in WTO negotiations will only sacrifice millions of hungry Indians for an unjust trading regime. Let the WTO die a peaceful death instead.


WTO Chief Roberto Azevedo (right) with the Indian Commerce Minister Anand Sharma in New Delhi on Oct 7, 2013

Knowing that India's defiance of the WTO rules on food stocking can derail the outcome of the forthcoming WTO Ministerial to be held at Bali in the first week of December, the visiting WTO Chief  Roberto Azevedo asked India to consider 'Peace Clause' as an option to protect subsidies under the proposed National Food Security Act. "Food Security is a squarable circle. The line between price support and food security is very flimsy and not easily drawn. It is going to be a complex task," he said in New Delhi on Oct 7.

Now it is the next sentence that is more worrisome: "What we have agreed in Geneva is we are going to be working on a Peace Clause .. which allows negotiators to find a more permanent solution for the long term. He was addressing the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII). The Indian Express (Oct 8, 2013) says: Negotiations for a deal at the Bali meet are struck over the tenure of an interim resolution on the demand by G-33 developing countries on food security. While the G-33 is demanding the tenure of the peace clause to be 10 years, developed countries such as US are ready to accept only a 2-3 year period. (See this report: WTO Chief seeks support for Bali ministerial meet. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/wto-chief-seeks-support-for-bali-ministerial-meet/1179692/).

The Peace Clause provided exemption for those countries who used export subsidies for agriculture beyond the permissible limit. These countries could not be challenged before the dispute panel during the 'Peace Clause' period. It expired in 2003.

The compromise that India is therefore willing to exercise to ensure that the Bali negotiations proceeds ahead without any hiccup will now bring millions of hungry on the chopping block. It also threatens the livelihood security of millions of small farmers who receive an assured minimum support price for their crop produce. Already, as per WTO calculations, growers in India are getting 24 per cent more minimum support price for paddy crop since the base period of 1986-88. As per the de-minimis criteria, Article 6.4 (b) of the Agreement on Agriculture provides for total support not to exceed 10 per cent of the total value of production for most developing members (except for China, where it is 8.5 per cent as part of its accession commitments).

There was a proposal to increase this to 15 per cent (In Rev 1 of the draft modalities as mentioned in TN/AG/W/4/Rev.1) but somehow this got removed in the next revision of the draft modalities. Indian negotiators are saying that an increase in de-minimis criteria from 10 to 15 per cent could be the possible solution. But India is under tremendous pressure from US/EU to either do away with the commitments of ensuring food security to 67 per cent of the population or agree to a Peace Clause that allows the issue to be deferred by another 2-3 years. By that time, US would have managed to push through an agreement on trade facilitation that primarily benefits its own industry.

The best solution would be to change the reference year from 1986-88 to somewhere more closer, especially after 2007 when the world witnessed a global food crisis that resulted in food riots in 37 countries. Considering that between 1986-88 and 2013, the price of rice and wheat have increased by more than 300 per cent, and prices of inputs like fertilisers has risen by 480 per cent in the same period (World Bank commodity price data), the base period of 1986088 certainly has become outdated. Now this is where India needs to exert pressure rather than accepting the Peace Clause as a solution simply because it gives the ruling UPA Government an easy walkover before the 2014 elections.

Deferring the contentious issue is not a solution. India must stand up and resist developed countries pressure. After all, it is India's responsibility to feed its hungry population as well as the ensure livelihood security for its 600 million farmers. Even if Bali Ministerial fails, India cannot compromise the fate of 2/3rd of its population. The hungry in India cannot be traded at the altar of development.

Meanwhile, agricultural subsidies in the developed countries have risen from $ 350 billion in 1996 to $ 406 billion in 2011 (Read Martin Khor at http://www.globalissues.org/news/2013/10/01/17558). No body is talking of reducing these monumental agricultural subsidies in the Western world. In fact, developed country farm subsidies are not even listed to be a topic of discussion in the negotiations at the Bali Ministerial.

India therefore need not worry about the future of WTO. Even economist Jagdish Bhagwati who has been a staunch supporter of a flawed trading regime, has finally acknowledged that "multilateral trading system is dead." He was speaking at New York on Sept 27. "The Doha Lite deal being attempted in Bali, is like a decaf and light coffee and we are trying to save the Doha Round, which is similar to the steps taken to save the Cancun Round on climate change issues."

Why should India therefore be making an effort to revive the dead horse by sacrificing its millions of hungry, including farmers and fishermen? Why can't it make instead an effort to find a better burial ground for what I have always called as the Wrong Trade Organisation??

Amidst Global Effort to Outlaw Farm-Saved Seed, Traditional Seeds Provide Hope for Future.

In the midst of global efforts to outlaw farm-saved seeds there is some cheering news. Slowly and steadily, farmers in India are shifting towards traditional seeds in India. Climate change is making farmers go back to traditional seeds in Sunderbans, says a news report (See http://bit.ly/17gHpEd). Another report from Karnataka tells us how farmers are reaping happiness by cultivating traditional seeds. There are close to 2,000 seed savers now in Karnataka (See: http://www.goimonitor.com/story/reaping-harvest-happiness) and I happened to meet many of them at the 1st Bangalore Seed Festival that was organised by Sahaja Samrudha on Sept 28-29 2013.


Anupam Paul talking about the traditional crop seeds at the Bangalore Seed Festival 

Everywhere in India, traditional seeds are being reclaimed and brought back. Anupam Paul is a scientist from West Bengal who has been on the traditional seed trail for several years now. I met him at the Bangalore Seed Festival. West Bengal is among the few States where traditional varieties are not only being collected and conserved, but are also being tested under different agro-climatic conditions. He tells me that his research centre at Fulia has collected a few hundred traditional paddy varieties and also a large number of varieties of other crops. Interestingly, he showed me a traditional paddy cultivar called Kerala Sundari which under trails has given a yield of 4.5 to 5 tons/hectare with organic inputs compared with a yield of 4.5 tons/hectare of the high yielding MTU 7029 with application of chemical fertilisers and pesticides. This variety even fares better compared with 5.5 tons reaped by the hybrid KRH-2 (it uses a heavy dose of chemical fertiliser/pesticides).

Kerala Sundari is not the only variety performing well. He listed Bahurupi, Kabirajsal, Asit Kalma, Jhuli, lakalam, Radhatilak (scented) and Dudheswar as other high-yielding but traditional varieties. Some of them are also tolerant to saline and drought conditions, and some perform better under deep water conditions. In essence, the immense wealth that India has by way of traditional crop varieties is almost lost in the noise and din created in the name of improved crop varieties that cropped up in the post-Green Revolution period. It is however a high time to re-discover the strength of the lost germplasm, and bring it back into cultivation. This may perhaps be our only answer at times of changing climate, declining water table, poisoned soils and the widespread destruction of the natural resource base.

Well, the purpose of this blog is not to detail out the extent and potential of indigenous crop varieties but to focus on the global efforts being made to outlaw the cultivation of these farm-saved seeds. In August, after a three week seize of the national capital in Colombia by thousands of farmers, miners, truckers, workers, students and others, the Colombian Government finally promised to withdraw the controversial Resolution 970 that was enacted in 2010 under the US-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. The resolution outlawed cultivation of farm-saved seed, and to ensure its implementation police had moved into the countryside grabbing, collecting and disposing off farm saved seed. According to a documentary made (Watch it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkQ8U2kHAbI) close to 70 tonnes of seed collected from a community was eventually destroyed.

The outrage against destruction of seed was among the factors that prompted Colombian people to protest.

The process to seek control over seed had actually started several decades back when UPOV 1961 (International Union for the Protection of New Plant varieties) was crafted. Various version of the UPOV treaty had actually turned seeds gradually into a private property of seed companies. The UPOV 1991 agreement, which is now being enforced in Europe, gives seed companies almost control over which seeds are used, stored and processed. At the same time, seed companies will have the right to collect royalties not only on seed, but also when they sell their crop harvests. But under Free Trade Agreements, the US/EU are pushing for still more stringent conditions that outlaws farm-saved seed, like what happened in Colombia.

In Indonesia, a law introduced in 1992 made it obligatory for farmers to use only certified seeds. Since then, 9 farmers have gone to jail in 2007 for growing un-certified seeds, and another 3 were taken into custody in 2009. In Chile, fruit growers have to pay royalties, and if they can't then the trees are uprooted. In many African countries, pressure is building up for accession to the UPOV 1991 law. In 2011, France became the first country to approve UPOV 1991, and by a legislation prohibited the cultivation of farm-saved seed. An 'exemption' to this rule is allowed for 21 crops through a system of payment of royalties. The European Union has also proposed a "Plant Reproductive Material Law" which basically regulates the commercialisation of seeds that are registered and approved.

Under such difficult conditions, when small farmers are being criminalized for cultivating the indigenous crop varieties, the only way to fight the monopolistic power of the seed companies (along with governments that back the industry claims) is to build up strong alliances and link the struggles across the continents. If WTO could be defeated by a unique collaborative effort of the civil society across the countries, I see no reason why farmers and others cannot join hand to resist the takeover of the original seeds. Let us not forget, taking control over seed actually means taking control over the entire food chain, and thereby assuming control over life.

Time for a Seed Satyagrah? #

For more reading: Read the La Via Campesina document: Our Seeds, Our Future.