The misplaced emphasis on hi-tech agriculture. Repeating the same mistake again and again.

This news report set me thinking. "The Netherlands is working with India to set up 10 centres of excellence across the country with an aim to raise agriculture output and introduce modern farm technologies and techniques," The Economic Times reported (Sept 15, 2014. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-09-15/news/53943034_1_centres-hi-tech-agriculture-excellence). This is not the first time I am reading such a news report. In fact, most times when the discussions veer around to agriculture the emphasis is invariably on enhancing crop productivity. 

Whether it is farmer suicides or food inflation, the way out suggested is often in increasing investments in improved technology to increase crop productivity and thereby improve farm incomes. Raising crop productivity will bring down the cost of production and thereby reduce food prices. 

This is half the story. 

Take the case of Punjab. A year after it launched with much fanfare the Rs 500-crore plan to diversify from paddy to maize and vegetables, the plan has misfired. "Farmers have not taken to diversification. They want to be assured of fixed returns. Farmers could take to growing hybrid maize with a yield of eight quintals per acre, but want minimum support price (MSP) for the same," G S Kalkat, chairman of the Punjab Farmers' Commission was quoted as saying in The Tribune (Sept 20, 2014). This is not the first time that Punjab farmers have spurned every move to diversify from wheat and paddy crop rotation, but what is significant is that the policy makers have not learnt any lesson. It is not improved technology that is hampering crop diversification but the failure to provide an assured income that is keeping the farmers away.

Meanwhile, the Netherlands has already set up three centres of excellence, one each in Kerala, Maharashtra and Punjab. Monsanto too has signed an MoU with Punjab Government to set up three centres of excellence for the promotion of cotton, vegetables and maize. A number of other centres of excellence are coming up in other States too. 

What amuses me is that while Netherlands is pushing improved crop technology (read costly equipment and other farm inputs) in India, its own agriculture back home is surviving on massive farm subsidies. Let me make it very clear. The Netherlands is a global leader in agriculture not because of its sophisticated technology and high crop productivity but because of the massive farm support it provides to its farmers. Between 2000-02 as the reference period, the subsidies being paid to European farmers became an entitlement. Accordingly, Dutch farmers were paid a subsidy of Euro 1299 per hectare every year. This figure may have changed now but tells you how Dutch farmers have been a continuous beneficiary of direct income support. 

In the European Union, as per the financial plan for 2013, the agricultural budget stood at roughly 40 per cent of the total budget, with an allocation for agriculture close to Euro 60 billion ($78 billion). This is a whole lot of money for a sector which does not even employ 5 per cent of the population. 

As per www.foodsubsidy.org farmers in the Netherlands received a total of Euro 739,214,572 as direct income support between 1997 and 2012. The question therefore is that if Indian farmers were to raise crop productivity, which they can easily do even without the improved technology from the Netherlands, who will pay them the corresponding subsidies to keep them alive? 

But that's not the question that worries Indian policy makers. They are more keen to bail out the Dutch companies, which are find it difficult to survive in The Netherlands. Lutz Ribbe, a member of the EU's agricultural commission and the conservation director the environmental organisation Euronatur had this to say: "The Netherlands, for example has reached its limits. The farmers' income aren't right anymore; the environment is collapsing. The big companies, which can't develop anymore, are leaving the Netherlands and are being welcomed with open arms in eastern Europe." (http://www.dw.de/eu-proposal-seeks-big-reforms-on-farm-subsidies/a-16780256).Well, it goes much beyond eastern Europe. The Dutch companies are also finding markets outside Europe, and India continues to be world's biggest dustbin. 

I give you another example, this time from Denmark. Some years back I wrote in one of my articles: "If you are wondering as to why Indian pea producers are unable to competitively bid for processed foods in the global market, let us see how Denmark, for instance, manipulates the market and that too by truly following the WTO norms. Danish pea farmers do not benefit from price subsidies. Danish split pea processing companies do not benefit from processing and marketing aids. Danish pre-cooked split pea exporters do not benefit from export refunds. So obviously, you will think that they are very efficient producers and of course very competitive. But hold on.

Since pea farmers do not have to recover their full production costs from the sale price of the peas supplied to processing companies, the price at which pea is supplied to processing companies is substantially reduced. As a consequence, the price at which pre-cooked split peas is offered for sale is substantially below the prices that Indian pulse growers can offer. The provision of direct payments thus enables Danish suppliers of pre-cooked split pea to capture markets, which they would never have been able to supply in the absence of the aid payments.

Let me make it very clear. The comparative advantage that is cited by developed countries is actually built on agricultural subsidies. Withdraw the agricultural subsidies, there is no comparative advantage left for most of the crops, and I repeat, for most of the crops. That is why the mainline economists do not compare the cost of production of agricultural commodities but look invariably at the supply chain management." (Read my article: Hold economists accountable too. IndiaTogether. April 5, 2005. http://indiatogether.org/subsidies-op-ed). 

Agriculture is not simply a play of technology. It requires supporting policies to make it click. Even the Green Revolution wouldn't have been successful if the Indian government had not provided two critical policy planks. Assured price to farmers through the mechanism of MSP and the assured marketing of the surplus produce by setting up a procurement structure is what made high-yielding varieties perform and deliver. The rest is history. 

Industry-sponsored study tours are a malpractice.

In the mid-1980s I was working with the Indian Express. As the Agriculture Correspondent for the newspaper I had followed keenly the claims Pepsico was making to re-enter India. In the garb of bringing a 2nd Horticultural Revolution in the trouble-torn Punjab, Pepsi had its eyes set on the vast Indian market for its beverages. The studies and reports Pepsico had presented were not so convincing. In my columns I had repeatedly questioned the claims.

Pepsico was certainly not happy with my reports. I was contacted by a senior Punjab bureaucrat who wanted me to sit across with the Country Director of Pepsico to know the other side. As a journalist this is what I am supposed to do. So I readily agreed. The three of us met for a cup of tea and after a lot of discussions, Pepsico invited me and my wife for a fortnight visit to the US to see for myself the remarkable research that was being conducted on agriculture. I was also told that Pepsico would be keen to take me to Venezuela to show me the success they have achieved in potato cultivation. When I just smiled and said "thank you" (and perhaps sensing that I may not take it as an unethical practice), I was told they were also taking a senior bureaucrat (who incidentally was responsible for the development sector, and was not very enthused with Pepsico's proposals) to the US.

Well, the bureaucrat did visit Pepsico's headquarters (he had sought permission from the Punjab Govt to attend a family marriage in the US) and once he returned he became a die hard champion for Pepsico.

Pepsico did subsequently make an entry into Punjab in the late 1980's. But all I know is that after some 30 years, in 2014, when I look back there is no trace of the 2nd Horticultural Revolution the soft drink giant had promised.

This incident came to my mind the moment I read the news report After GM trials ban, BJP, Sena MPs heading for Monsanto-funded study tour (Business Standard. Aug 22, 2014. http://bit.ly/1q095qc). The news report said: "A group of members of Parliament from BJP and Shiv Sena are heading to the US on a week long study tour sponsored by global seed giant, Monsanto. The group departs on Saturday."  It also quoted a Monsanto spokesperson who admitted that this is in line with industry practice. The visit would cost approximately $ 6,000 per head for food, accommodation and travel which would be entirely borne by Monsanto. Considering there are no free lunches, you can just imagine the kind of indirect return the company was expecting for this visit.

Within hours of the news report appearing the social media went berserk. The BJP responded by saying that none of its members would be part of the junket.

Nevertheless, the fact remains this is not the first time industry has sponsored such study junkets. And also Monsanto is not the only company to have done so. This is a usual lobbying practice adopted by Big Business and somehow the media is game with it. Monsanto itself has taken in the past scores of journalists, farmer leaders, scientists, and officials of the Department of Biotechnology on study tours. It will be interesting to know how many such junkets have been organised by Monsanto in the past, and to know who all went and what did they write when they came back. No wonder you see a very spirited defense of the controversial genetically modified (GM) crops that are under consideration for commercial approval.

This also reminds me of a news report that has appeared in the national daily The Hindu some years back. A group of visiting scientists (for an International Science Congress in New Delhi) had gone and met the then Chief Justice of India inviting him and some senor judges on an 'educational tour' of the US to understand the virtues of GM technology. I later found out that judges from some 20 countries including India, South Africa, Brazil, and Egypt had traveled to an institute named after Albert Einstein. The basic objective of such education trips for the judges was to expose them to 'the great potential of GM crops' so that they don't easily admit legal cases that would be filed in due course of time.

This malpractice must stop. Already enough damage has been done by manipulating the public discourse by such sponsored visits. Just like the Prime Minister Narendra Modi has put an end to the malpractice of carrying an entourage of journalists on his visits abroad, and has also directed ruling party MPs to take his permission before travelling abroad on sch junkets/study tours, it is high time the Indian media too on its own announced putting an end to this malpractice. Media can't be standing on the high moral ground without first setting up an example.

Why only MP's it is time the government also stops agricultural scientists, economists, sociologists, and also bar officials of the Department of Biotechnology, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Science & Technology as well as the Ministry of Environment & Forests from such sponsored studies. This is a corrupt practice and it must be put to an end. #

When superweeds and superbugs will prevail

From poisoned soils and excessively mined undergroundwater, modern agriculture is fast moving to create an ecologically disastrous landscape where superweeds and superbugs will dominate. Sooner than expected, you will find that combating the newly evolving dreaded superpests -- weeds, insects and micro-organisms -- will become a major industry.

Ever since insect resistance was first reported by A L Melander in 1914, studies have shown that more than 500 species of insects, moths and spiders have developed resistance to a pesticide. Some pests have developed multiple resistance to a series of pesticides. Colarado potato beetle for instance is known to be resistant to 52 different compounds belonging to all major pesticides classes, says a paper published in the American Journal of Potato Research 85. Even certain species of rats in UK have become resistant to rat poisons consuming about five times the lethal dose and yet surviving.  

Some will term this phenomenon of developing resistance as a collateral damage that has to be encountered as development takes place. But ever since genetically modified (GM) crops have been commercialised, the pace at which insects and weeds are not only developing resistance but eventually turning out to be monsters has only hastened. We can certainly gloss over it, but the threat is only galloping with each passing year. In the United States, an agribusiness research consultancy Stratus reports that nearly half of US farms now have superweeds (see this report: Nearly half of all US farms now have superweeds. http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2013/02/report-spread-monsantos-superweeds-speeds-12-0) These weeds have developed resistance to Monsanto's herbicide glyphosate. I am reproducing a line chart from the  same Stratus report.

The problem of superweeds is not only confined to the US. It has now spread to Canada in an equally menacing way. The Manitoba Co-Operator reports: "More than one million acres of Canadian farmland have glyphosate-resistant weeds growing on them, including 43,000 in Manitoba, according to an online survey of 2,028 farmers conducted by Stratus Agri-Marketing Inc. based in Guelph, Ontario." (See the report: A million acres of glyphosate resistant weeds in Canada? http://www.manitobacooperator.ca/2013/05/07/a-million-acres-of-glyphosate-resistant-weeds-in-canada/).

Just three years after genetically modified Bt crops were introduced, diamondback moth had developed resistance to the Bacillus thuringiensis gene incorporated in the plant. The resistance was reported from Hawaii, Japan and Tennessee. Since then insect resistance to GM crops has only increased. The University of Arizona has in a study published in the journal Nature Biotechnology conclude: "Analyzing data from 77 studies of 13 pest species in eight countries on five continents, the researchers found well-documented cases of field-evolved resistance to Bt crops in five major pests as of 2010, compared with only one such case in 2005. Three of the five cases are in the United States, where farmers have planted about half of the world's Bt crop acreage. Their report indicates that in the worst cases, resistance evolved in 2 to 3 years; but in the best cases, effectiveness of Bt crops has been sustained more than 15 years."

Mapped, the insect resistance to GM crops appears to be global. From US/Canada to India and China and finally to Australia, it shows the destructive power of superbugs that are developing at an alarming rate. According to Nature Biotechnology (the map below is reproduced from it) Global status of field-evolved pest resistance to Bt crops: Of the 24 cases analyzed, five showed resistance that caused reduced efficacy of Bt crops (red), five were intermediate levels of resistance (orange and yellow), and 14 showed either little or no resistance (blue and green). (See this: http://phys.org/news/2013-06-pests-resistant-gm-crops.html#jCp)

For the industry, the development of superbugs and superweeds across the globe provides an immense business opportunity. GM companies are asking farmers to spray more stronger and potent chemicals, often a cocktail of heady pesticides. Its a double whammy for the agribusiness companies. Top three GM companies now control over 70 per cent of the global seed sales, and also dominate the pesticides market. While the ever-increasing sales of chemical pesticides will certainly jack up the GDP but what happens to the environment, and the future of farming is not at all being considered.

With millions of acres under GM crops being infested with superweeds and superbugs, and the acreage growing with every passing year, the future farm landscape appears to be highly destructive. I shudder to think of the time when superweeds and superbugs will turn into mankind's biggest challenge. It is not a distant future that I am talking about. Its going to happen in our lifetime. Just wait and watch. 

How Margaret Thatcher destroyed public sector science. The case of Plant Breeding Institute at Cambridge.

The erstwhile Plant Breeding Institute at Cambridge (UK) 

Margaret Thatcher, 87, died yesterday. She is being hailed as the Iron Lady who transformed Britain. Every newspaper across the globe has paid rich tributes to her. Some have even carried her obituary on the front page, which is quite a rare honour. 

I only know that she had a steely resolve. Whatever she thought of doing, she did it. That's what I have read over the years. And knowing the determination with which she destroyed public sector science, I can understand why and how she earned the title Iron Lady. Nevertheless, let me share this story of how Britain's only woman Prime Minister, the unyielding Margaret Thatcher, eclipsed one of the world's best known research centre in plant sciences, which was emerging as a global leader in plant molecular biology and genomics. 

I am talking of the famed Plant Breeding Institute (PBI) at Cambridge. 

For any plant scientist, Plant Breeding Institute at Cambridge was a Mecca. As a student of plant breeding I too nourished the desire to make it one day to PBI. But by the time I reached the age to visit PBI as a researcher it had already been sold-off to Unilever. Later, in 1998, Unilever sold it to Monsanto. I remember the controversy over the priceless plant germplasm collections that PBI had at the time it was sold to Unilever. After a lot of public pressure, the plant collections were shifted to another public sector research institute, John Innes Research Centre in Norwich.  

The sale of PBI to Unilever was a great loss to independent science, and of course a loss to humanity. 

It was in 1996 that I went to Cambridge as a Press Fellow. One fine day I called up Sir Ralph Riley, a very distinguished plant geneticist, who also happened to be the founder director of PBI. He came to see me at the Wolfson College, and very politely offered to give me a detour of Cambridge to show me around some of the better known places for plant genetic research. This was indeed a treat. 

After showing me the pub where Watson and Crick had dashed to after discovering the DNA structure, he drove me around to what used to be the PBI. Parked his car somewhere, got out and pointing to the research farm, he said: "This is where plant breeding died." 

I can never forget those words. 

I asked him whether PBI was incurring losses because that's the only economic reason why a research institute would be sold-off. "On the contrary, he said, when PBI was sold by Margaret Thatcher to MNC Unilever, it was bringing in a revenue of (British) Pound 10 million a year against an expenditure of Pound 4 million/year." I don't know how you would take it, but how can any sane person justify selling-off a profit earning research centre? But then, that was Iron Lady. She earned the title because of her dictatorial role in pushing privatisation. 

Not being able to recall certain other notable things that he had shared, I did a quick search today. In one of the Royal Society publications, I find this paragraph: "When Riley became Secretary of the Agricultural and Food Research Council (ARC) in 1978, Shirley Williams, as Secretary of State for Education and Science, had increased the science vote spending and this no doubt encouraged Riley to take the position. However, after the election of the Conservative government led by Margaret (later Baroness) Thatcher (FRS 1983) in 1979, cuts were imposed immediately and further reductions occurred in the years that followed. Throughout his six and a half years in office there were continual major reductions of budget in real terms. This made the job of Secretary difficult, stressful and not a particularly happy one. Whole institutions had to be closed (the Letcome Laboratory and the Weed Research Organisation) and reductions in others led to fewer research sites being sustained. 

So the first step before you privatise is to cut the life line. In this case, budget cuts and staff reduction programmes was actually aimed at stifling public sector research and thereby justify the need to bring inn private funding. This is exactly what happens in other parts of the world, including India. 

"Reductions in staff numbers were necessary across the service, some by compulsory redundancy and closure of programmes. All this made the planned expansion in molecular and cell biology, the new science, more difficult and controversial." 

Subsequently, Sir Ralph Riley wrote: "Unfortunately after I had ceased to have any involvement with the AFRC the government privatised that part of the PBI activity concerned with variety production even though it was generating a return to the Government of about £10 million per year from a total cost in the Institute of about 4 million pounds per year. Thus the work that we had done to bring fundamental and closely applied work together, to permit easy crossfeeding was destroyed. Nevertheless, it may be that it (the former PBI) provides a model that will subsequently be followed by others." (See page 395-396 of this Royal Society publication: http://rsbm.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/49/385.full.pdf).

Rabobank promotes hybrid rice. Aimed at helping Monsanto, Syngenta, Pioneer, Dow Agro Science and Bayer Crop Science sell more seed.

For years, farmers have been complaining. "You tell us to keep domestic breeds. But banks only provide me credit if I purchase a crossbred cow," farmers would tell me at many a places. If you have wondered why farmers did not fancy desi breeds of cows, this is one of the major reasons. I have raised this at various platforms, and am still not sure whether banks have rectified  their flawed policy to provide credit only for 'improved' technology.

This malice has gone on and on. In fact, in lot many way I find the banks are primarily responsible for the prevailing agrarian crisis. They have always supported the industrial-driven farming systems and thereby knowingly led agriculture on the path to disaster. One reason perhaps is that the agriculture staff in banks is stuffed with people who have little exposure to the ground realities. They literally go by text books, and have drawn development policies in consultation with firms like Ernst&Young, Tata Consultancy Services, among others. One can cite a number of examples, but then let's keep that to another day.

The situation has worsened after the private banks got foothold in the Indian market. The latest is Rabobank. The bank has done a study wherein it calls for investing in hybrid seeds to increase rice production by some 15-20 per cent (Hybrid seeds will help raise rice productivity: Study. Business Standard, Jan 9, 2013. http://bit.ly/TJbtBH). At present, hybrid rice seed is cultivated in only 3 per cent of the total area, and since seed giants like Bayer Crop Sciences, Dow Agro Sciences, Pioneer, Monsanto and Syngenta's commercial interests are involved, how can Rabobank not make promotional bid?

It is primarily for the same reason that Ministry of Agriculture is also aggressively promoting hybrid rice seeds through the Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojna. Subsidies are being provided for hybrid seed purchase. Interestingly, while the RKVY objective is to increase production, the State which produces the largest rice surplus -- Punjab -- is launching a crop diversification programme planning to take out 12 lakh hecatres from rice cultivation and shift to other crops. At the same time, India is saddled with huge rice stocks and  is therefore reluctant to procure more rice. It is thinking of capping food procurement to limit the burden on the Food Corporation of India.

Under such conditions, why do we need to raise production by 15-20 per cent? Well, you guessed it right. Because it will help seed multinationals to market more seed. This in turn will raise their stock value. Since hybrid seeds have to be purchased every year, look at the huge market available. Punjab is also worried about depleting groundwater from excess pumping out of water for rice cultivation. Rabobank should have known that hybrid seeds pull out at least 1.5 times more water than the high-yielding varieties (HYV). This in turn will require more fertilisers and pesticides thereby adding on to the send-generation environmental impacts and also fan global warming. But the bigger question is when will the policy makers hold banks accountable if their policies acerbate the agrarian crisis? Isn't it time to hold social and environmental audit of bank policies and approaches?

The answer is: Only when people like you and me raise their voice.

What do you do when Heads of State indulge in lobbying ?

The chorus is getting louder. So what if Wal-Mart had spent Rs 125 crore ($25 million) in lobbying to gain access to the lucrative Indian retail market. After all, it's not one-off case, US firms have been doing it for long, says another news report (Hindustan Times, Dec 12, 2012. http://bit.ly/X9pbfg). Not only the print media, almost all TV discussions in India in the past few days have by and large carried the same line.

The demand is for legalising lobbying, following the pattern in the US, and thereby bringing in some regulations to make it more transparent. After all, the US has 12,220 lobbyists (consultants, lawyers, associations, corporations, NGOs etc) registered in 2011. There are over 15,000 lobbyists based in Brussels alone, who try to influence the European Union legislative process. In India, except for the industry lobbying groups -- Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) and the Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India (Assocham India) -- not much is known about the other players in lobbying.

There are layers at which lobbying operates. Starts with academic institutes, and then goes to economists and scientists. They help with funded studies and reports that come in handy to convince the bureaucrats and politicians. Media then steps in raising the pitch. And finally, it is the politicians, political parties and ministers who remain the prime targets.   

But what worries me more is when Heads of State start indulging in lobbying. If you have followed the news reports regularly, all Heads of State of major economic powers who visited India after 2009 had lobbied strongly in favour of FDI in retail. US President Barack Obama, UK Prime Minister David Cameron, Former French President Nicholos Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel had impressed upon the Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on the need to open up for big retail. US Secy of State Hilary Clinton, who had earlier served on the board of Wal-Mart, had even gone to the extent of lobbying with the West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee when her party Trinamool Congress was part of the UPA-II Coalition in India. 

Although the Indian government has agreed to institute an inquiry in to the specific case of Wal-Mart lobbying to know who was paid , if at all some payments were made, to influence the political decision making, the fact remains that the rut runs much deeper than what is visible. Take the case of Dow Chemicals, which later bought Union Carbide. According to a news report, Dow Chemicals had in 2011 spent $ 8 million (Rs 50-crore) to seek market access in Thailand, India and China. Well, this is is only one of the activities that companies often indulge in. Prior to lobbying activities in 2011, the US Securities and Exchange Commission had in 2007 fined Dow Chemicals $325,000 for bribing Indian officials to fast track permission to sell their pesticides brand that are banned in the US and many other countries (Dow bribed Indian officials with cash. jewellery and hospitality, Economic Times, June 28, 2010. http://bit.ly/RoiHwg).

India had instituted a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into the bribery case. But did you hear anything after the case was filed? And knowing how the Union Carbide was for all practical purposes let off the hook for its role in Bhopal Gas disaster, big business would never be held accountable for its acts of omission and commission, forget about criminal culpability.  

Monsanto, the global seed and technology giant, is known to be aggressively pursuing the introduction of controversial genetically-modified crops in the developing world. In 2005, the US Department of Justice had charged Monsanto with bribing Indonesian officials, and the company had agreed to pay a fine of US$ 1 million (Department of Justice, http://1.usa.gov/12764b3). Interestingly, the bribe amount of $50,000 to a senior Ministry of Environment official was shown as 'consultancy fee' in the company's books. In other words, it was shown as a lobbying fee. How does one therefore try to separate lobbying from bribery? No company has a separate head for bribery in its books and records. I don't know how can an inquiry separate the grains from chaff?

The GM industry has set up an NGO for lobbying purposes. The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) has an office in India, like many other developing countries. It lobbies with the scientific institutions as well as the politicians. There are instances of such lobby groups routinely taking journalists and government officials on visit to Monsanto's headquarters in America. This may be purely legitimate form of lobbying, but goes a long way in manipulating public opinion. Coming back to Wal-Mart, the New York Times had sometimes back had taken the lid off a massive scandal by Wal-Mart in Mexico -- where it allegedly paid bribes to seek expansion of its stores (Wal-Mart's US expansion plans complicated by bribery scandal. NYT April 29, 2012. http://nyti.ms/VBF5h8). In India too, an investigation has been launched into the violations of the foreign investment rules by Wal-Mart.

I don't therefore understand how can we believe that lobbying is completely a pious and legitimate activity unless we try to dig out how the companies bribe officials, and that includes economists, agricultural scientists and media owners, to get its way through. Lobbyists have known to be moving in the corridors of power, and more often than not carrying a bag of money. Ask any business and political journalist and they will tell you who's who of the corporates who have their lobbyists moving in the corridors of power. Not only Niira Radia, quote a large number of corporate lobbyists have been successful on the job, and seemingly operate silently without the public glare. Most decisions that you think have been taken in the national interest are actually swayed by money bags. Isn't that lobbying? Isn't lobbying therefore a cleaver phrase to provide a neat cover-up to everything bad associated with bribery?    

It is a known secret that media remains one of the biggest beneficiary of lobbying. Not carrying a news report, which obviously benefits the corporate client, is one such unnoticed activity that media indulges in very frequently. Let me illustrate. At the height of the Wal-Mart debate in parliament, some media houses (who knew about it) had refused to carry a news report from Punjab which showed Wal-Mart paying a meager Rs8 to farmers growing baby corn. Wal-Mart sold it in wholesale for Rs 100/kg, making a neat Rs 92 in the process. This would have negated and exposed the government's claim that big retail would provide a better price to farmers by removing middlemen. Moreover, some of the major newspapers have never (or rarely) carried any critical view on FDI in retail. We know it why. Still more importantly, the way media appears more than keen to seek legitimacy for lobbying raises eyebrows.     

Lobbying has over the years become more sophisticated. It is not only a particular bureaucrat or a government official who gets an all-paid foreign trip or jewellery or other expensive gifts (like the way doctors are bribed by pharmaceutical companies as part of the lobbying activities to promote their brand of drugs), lobbying is now becoming a diplomatic activity. Several times we know how the US Ambassador in India (backed by the USIS and USAID) for instance had lobbied hard to push American commercial interests, including the nuclear treaty. EU diplomatic missions regularly hobnob with Indian officials lobbying on behalf of their respective businesses. Sometimes back, Wikileaks had exposed the use of diplomatic channels for lobbying across the world. Diplomatic lobbying also comes with arm-twisting, if required. Many such instances were exposed in Wikileaks.


Also see: The world of lobbyists. Deccan Herald.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/210565/world-lobbyists.html

Seven seed companies to control Rajasthan agriculture

Last week, you read how Monsanto had quietly entered into an agreement with the Rajasthan government virtually taking over its agricultural research and extension [http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.com/2010/10/monsanto-takes-over-agriculture-of-semi.html]. Well, we now learn that Monsanto is not alone. There are six other companies which have signed almost a similar kind of agreement with the Rajasthan government.

An indication to this came from State Agriculture Minister Harjiram Burdak. He was quoted in Dainik Bhaskar (Oct 13, 20101) as saying that several other MoUs are in the offing.

After Rajasthan government wrote a letter on June 23 inviting seed companies under public-private partnership to come to the 'rescue' of the semi-arid State, Pioneer Seeds was the first to formally sign an MoU on July 20. Monsanto was probably the last of the lot to reach an agreement on July 27. As per the invitation letter, the State government would finally devise an action plan within three months of signing the agreements. It will therefore be interesting to see what action plan the State government is secretly developing with the private seed companies.

The six companies, besides Monsanto, are:     

1. Pioneer Seeds
2. Advanta Seeds
3. Krishi Dhan
4. JK Seeds
5. Sriram Bio Seeds, and
6. Kanchan Jyoti

I will not repeat what I have already said in my earlier blog post Monsanto takes over agriculture of semi-arid Rajasthan. My colleague Dr G V Ramanjaneyulu, Executive Director of the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, Hyderabad, has meanwhile expressed his concerns. I would like to share his viewpoint with you:

Its really scary to see this kind of agreement between a State and all its agriculture machinery (Add. chief secretary, commissioner agril, vice chancellors, director hort, state seed corporations) to create an appropriate policy environment to encourage innovation in agriculture. this agreement raises few fundamental issues.

This is in response to a invite by Rajasthan govt dated 23rd june, 2010 and the agreement was signed on 27th July 2010. what made the state govt to issue such letter? lack of innovation (if so on what basis?), why in such a hurry and how come so quickly? who are others who responded for this letter?

This MoU provides for identifying suitable high yielding maize/cotton/vegetable hybrids for rainfed areas of rajasthan whereas the experience till now shows that the hybrids are not suitable for rainfed areas. the report of planning commission on vidharba farmers suicides clearly stated that the Bt cotton hybrids not being suitable for rainfed areas as they are water guzzling

Cross licensing for hybrids developed by SAUs to Monsanto will give away public germplasm to private profits. the licensing of Monsanto hybrids to state will make state to spend public money to give private profits. In fact who needs these hybrids? the state? if so what happened to all the public sector maize var/hybrids released so far by rajasthan state agriculture universities? and All India Coordinated Research Project on Maize and Directorate of Maize Research?

Fair opportunity for Partnership seems to be to capture the seed subsidies provided by the department of agriculture/horticulture/tribal development and other development department to help farmers. on what basis such assessment would be made?

Feasibility of protected varieties and honoring the Proprietary rights Monsanto holds seems to be one of the real intentions behind this MoU. We may recall that in India patents on seed are not accepted and Monsanto and its affiliate MMB are using such license agreements (in fact private agreements which have no legal validity) to control their IPRs. Given the Bt cotton royalty experience in Andhra Pradesh (royalty on bt cotton is Rs. 150/packet) and Rajasthan (royalty on bt cotton is Rs. 1200/packet) shows how crucial it is for state governments to act on behalf of farmers rather than to benefit the private companies.

State providing land and infrastructure for the company to establish their units is completely unacceptable. the state governments which are not providing any funds to the state universities and state seed corporations spending huge money to support private industry is completely unacceptable.

Monsanto will take up Feasibility assessment of activities based on its own standard processes of decision making where as state and its machinery has not put in any such conditionality.

This MoU should be immediately withdrawn. Any new proposal made under this MoU should be subjected to public scrutiny and have a public debate. State cannot decide on its own as it has large ecological and economic implications and legal implications in long run.

Monsanto takes over agriculture of semi-arid Rajasthan

There is trouble ahead for the semi-arid regions of Rajasthan. What is presently classified as semi-arid region will soon turn arid, and barren. In a region where water is a scarce commodity, water guzzling hybrids will now be promoted with impunity. Rajasthan has in fact invited the multi-national seed giant Monsanto to sow the seeds of destruction. Monsanto has been handed-over the reigns of Rajasthan's agriculture, and in other words its food security.

Rajasthan becomes India's first Monsantoland.

Monsanto has signed an agreement with the Rajasthan Government to engage in public-private partnership to develop and market hybrid seeds of maize, cotton and vegetables like hot pepper, tomato, cabbage, cucumber, cauliflower and water melon. The MoU has been signed on behalf of the State Government with Department of Agriculture, Department of Horticulture, Swami Keshavanand  Rajasthan Agriculture University, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, and Rajasthan University of Venterinary and Animal Sciences.

The MoU was signed in July 2010, and a copy of the confidential agreement was obtained using the Right to Information.

With Monsanto virtually taking over seed production and distribution, and at the same time being allowed to use the resarch and extension services of the State and the universities along with the Krishi Vigyan Kendras (KVKs) for disseminating the farm technologies, I wonder what role and task is left for the agricultural universities. If the universities have to be simply subservient to Monsanto, and be the executing agencies, isn't it time to close down these universities and save the tax-payers money? Why should the tax-payers bear the cost of providing supporting services which basically adds to the commercial gains of the private seed giant?

While the objectives include contributing to the agricultural economy through enhanced yields, encouraging cultivation of crops beneficial to farmers, the Rajasthan government has promised to bring in policies and programmes to make this possible by encouraging seed multiplication and distribution. Besides seed production and processing, Monsanto will engage in developing its proprietary germplasm in collaboration with the universities for which it will charge prescribed fee. Both the partners -- Monsanto and Rajasthan government -- will undertake feasibility studies and assessment to ensure that the hybrid seeds enter the seed value chain.

Interestingly, Monsanto will identify which hybrid seeds are to be cultivated, and will also evaluate cross-licencing agreement with the agricultural universities and the departments. To take cotton production to the next level, Monsanto has agreed to bring in mechanical harvesting equipment which will be made available to the universities at no additional cost. Students will also be provided with internships. The MoU provides a detailed list of activities to be conducted, which for all practical purposes means the virtual take-over of Rajasthan's agricultural research, education and extension infrastructure and services. Except that the State will pay for the staff salaries as well as maintenance cost for the infrastructure, universities and the two departments of agriculture and horticulture have been made redundant.

Hybrids are water guzzling crops. They consume roughly 1.5 times more water than the high-yielding varieties. At the same time, hybrids require increased application of chemical fertilisers and pesticides. At a time when across globe and also within India questions are being raised about sustainability of agriculture, I fail to understand the logic of large-scale introduction of hybrids of maize, cotton and vegetables. What is the use of extending the Green Revolution to the northeast parts of the country when the northwestern belt is being virtually turned unfit for food cultivation.

Common sense tells us that you need to cultivate crops that require less water in arid regions. I wonder where has common sense disappeared when it comes to developing suitable and appropriate agriculture technologies. How can anyone justify growing hybrid crops in water deficit regions? Why is the Rajasthan Government so determined to destroy Rajasthan's semi-arid agriculture for all times to come?

Monsanto seeks legal right to claim royalty over Bt cotton seed

In lot many ways, Monsanto's application before the Andhra Pradesh High Court reminds me of the infamous broad patent on cotton granted to the US-based Agracetus in 1991, and revoked in October 1994. Patent 214436 filed in Nov 1999 by Monsanto, and granted in Feb 2008 by the Indian Patent Office, is a process patent for "methods for transforming plants to express Bacillus thuringiensis delta endotoxins." The patent is valid for 20 years from the date of filing, which means from Nov 1999 to Oct 2019.

Agracetus had claimed patent coverage for all transgenic plants regardless of the techniques and genes used for the transformation, and had filed for multiple patents in several of the major cotton producing countries -- India, China and Brazil. I remember some of us had raised this issue in India, and it was only after the direct intervention of the then Prime Minister Narasimha Rao that the Indian Council for Agricultural Research (ICAR) had challenged the patent.

According to The Times of India (Jan 25, 1995) a secret government paper had explained that the very objective of this patent was to deny the opportunity to biotechnologists in India to develop pest-resistant cotton plants by recombinant DNA techniques. And this was considered to be prejudicial to the public. I must also acknowledge that the then deputy director general of ICAR (who later became the director general) Dr Mangla Rai was actively associated with the challenge to the patent.

Interestingly, Agracetus was later acquired by Monsanto, which then went on to claim monopoly control over all transgenic soyabeans and cotton varieties. Monsanto had earlier opposed the Agracetus patent, but after acquiring Agracetus in 1996, it fought tooth and nail to preserve it. Eventually, after a 13-year legal battle initiated by ETC and Greenpeace, the European Patent Office turned it down.

Monsanto's legal case before the Andhra Pradesh High Court is essentially to stop the State government from fixing the seed price for its Bollgard-II transgenic cotton variety. The company argues that the State Government has no role to regulate the royalty that the company can get. The issue of price fixation had cropped up recently when the National Association of Seed Companies had made a plea for raising the seed price of Bollgard-II in view of the growing sales.

Incidentally, the technology fee (read royalty) as part of the seed price that farmers pay for Bt cotton (Bollgard-1) is the highest in India. In the US, royalty is around Rs 108 per acre whereas in China it is about Rs 38. In India, it was initially Rs 1200 per acre and has now come down to Rs 300 per acre.

But before we go into the price issue, I think it will be also useful to understand how wide is the patent claim. It is not only confined to cotton, but covers all Bt crops using the same technological process. Anyway, we will examine this later, but first let us hear what my colleague Dr G V Ramanjaneyulu from Hyderabad has to say:

Monsanto filed a case in AP High Court three days back to stop the State Government from taking any action to reduce trait value. It argued that State government has no role as it falls under the purview of the Central government and that cotton is back into Essential Commodities Act, so the new transgenic cotton regulation of act is not valid. Its argument is that the license agreement with seed companies is a private agreement and State government has no role to regulate the royalty. Among the papers submitted to the court, Monsanto also presented a paper, which shows that it acquired a process patent on transforming plants to express Bacillus thuringenesis delta endotoxins from Nov. 1999. The patent was granted in 2008. It may be noted that the Indian Patent Act 1970 was amended in 1999 to allow for process patents.

Though it has a process patent, the company is using it to control the entire Bt cotton market (which means making it work like a product patent).

As you may be aware, AP govt initiated actions again to reduce the trait fee (mind you not the cotton seed price) of the Bt cotton. This was to help some of the seed companies which want to have more share in the seed price. Monsanto is charging Rs 150 for 450 g  plus sales tax on Bollgard-1. The seed companies are paying Rs 150 for 450 g to the cotton seed producers, and keeping the remaining (from the seed price of Rs. 650 for 450 g) with them. Recently the National Association of Seed Companies made a request to AP government to allow them to increase seed price as the farmers are highly benefited with their Bollgard seeds (apparantly this is driven by vibha, pioneer etc who are allies of Monsanto) where as AP farmers unions (mostly driven by Nuziveedu seeds, pravardhan seeds etc) asked the State government to reduce trait fee.

Dr Ramanjaneyulu asks the more pertinent question: Whose 'food security' GM technology is going to ensure?

Meanwhile, do read the earlier blog post How Monsanto takes control over seed. The link is: http://devinder-sharma.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-monsanto-takes-global-control-over.html

By accepting Bt cotton's susceptibility to pests, Monsanto befools India.

This was surely an interesting week. There was hardly a day when we didn't see remarkable efforts -- across the spectrum -- to take the people for a simple ride. This makes me wonder why have we become so dumb/stupid that we can't even see through the real design.

As a nation, it isn't difficult to befool Indians. We are often ditched by the godmen, by the financial companies, by politicians, by the academicians, by the economists, by agricultural scientists, by the media, and now by the corporate world. I think there is some problem with our genetic makeup. Probably we have a gene for stupidity and it is more often than not in a dominant position.

The week began with the Delhi police finally nabbing a tainted godman who allegedly ran a sex racket. Nothing surprising you will say, it has been happening in the past. Yet millions follow such godmen. To befool the people, all you need to do is to convey through your cronies the simple message that you are capabale of conducting miracles. The business of godmen thrives on miracles.

No sooner, the godman went into the inner pages of the daily newspapers, we had the Prime Minister appearing on the front page. Nothing unusual again. But this time he came to defend his government on the unprecedented price rise. In simple words, he was trying to find an excuse for his own failure in curbing the prices. Admitting the government's failure in controlling food prices, and promising to do something urgently (which he has been saying for over a year now), he actually listed three reasons -- global recession, drought in 2009 and the rise in international commodity prices -- and sought to give an impression that checking them was beyond the control of the government.

Prime Minister is completely wrong. Yet he knows that he can take the country for a ride. And he has done it.

The week also saw the Indian Express getting into an active mode to promote the hazardous GM technology. The newspaper, which claims to usher in journalism of courage, has surely shown some courage in turning its pages into a pamphlet for the GM industry. Ironically, this happens in a week when Parliament began discussing the recent dirty phenomenon of 'paid news'. I don't know whether there is a connection here, but the Indian Express probably thinks its readers are all fools.

And finally, the weekend brought in the biggest blockbuster. We have the crop biotech giant -- Monsanto -- telling us that its own genetically modified cotton, the single-gene Bollgard, has become resistant to the dreaded cotton pest Pink Bollworm. News reports somehow give an impression that Monsanto has been at pains to accept its failure. Most of the media reports quotes activists saying this had to happen sooner than later.

My phone has not stopped ringing since morning. People are calling to congratulate me. I have got tired of telling them to see through the design. Monsanto is not that foolish. Why should they be accepting something that has not been scientifically validated? No where in the world have they allowed research to be conducted on pest resistance from Bt cotton, why should they openly acknowledge that in India, and that too without any tests?

Knowing that we are a nation of fools, they have actually worked out a remarkable marketing strategy. By acknowledging that Bt cotton has outlived its utility, they have sent the right signal to those who needed it. Monsanto has advised farmers to go for its second generation Bt cotton. Farmers would now be spurning Bt cotton, and going in for their latest GM cotton variety, which carries two genes, and is therefore more potent against Pink Bollworm. This variety is popularly called Bollgard-II.

Any size of media campaigns wouldn't have yielded them the desired results. Instead of spending millions on advertisements, Monsanto has done it through smart media management. You will now see farmers making a beeline for Bollgard-II. Monsanto will now see its cash registers ringing.

Don't you think we live in a fool's paradise?