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.

Punjab Chief Minister warns against the tyranny of markets.


Harvesting in progress in Punjab

You can feel the anguish when Punjab Chief Minister Prakash Singh Badal talks about the plight of farmers. Recently at a New Delhi conference (See the link here: http://bit.ly/1848rxW) , he spoke about the conspiracy to ‘destabilize Indian agriculture’ and warned policy makers to be doubly cautious of the “advocates of the tyranny of the free market economy.” They will end up destroying India's food self-sufficiency, he warned. 

Food security is no less important than national security, and therefore he wants agriculture to be treated at par with defence services. 

A few days before the New Delhi conference, he was speaking at the Vibrant Gujarat Global Agriculture Summit that Narendra Modi had organized in Ahmedabad. Deviating from the written text, Mr Badal had lashed out at the votaries of the free market economy saying that if agriculture is lost, everything is lost. Amidst a loud applause, he said that many experts are being planted in India to undo the remarkable achievements of the Green Revolution, and once again make the country stand with a begging bowl. 

Several decades back, I remember Mr Badal’s loud warning against the continuous neglect of agriculture and the apathy towards farming. He was addressing a national conference. “This is a sleeping elephant,” I recall his words: “You ignore them at your own risk. Once the elephant wakes up, it will make you all run for cover.” And during the NDA regime when the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee wanted to decentralize foodgrain procurement, Prakash singh Badal led the group of chief ministers who opposed the move vehemently. Mr Vajpayee had to drop the proposal considering the strong opposition from chief ministers of the frontline agricultural states.

The Punjab’s agriculture story is well known. As a student of agriculture, and then as an agricultural journalist, and finally as a policy researcher and analyst, I have had a ring side view of the remarkable strides taken in agriculture. Once the pride of the country, Punjab’s farmers have now turned into a national burden. So much so that the Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) leads a campaign to dismantle the food procurement system that has sustained Punjab’s agriculture ever since the days of the Green Revolution. Under the premise of making agriculture market-friendly, CACP chairman Mr Ashok Gulati, is actually finding fault with the higher and assured procurement prices Punjab farmers get every season.

In its Kharifreport, CACP has even listed States according to its market-friendliness. These are Bihar, Jharkhand, Odisha, West Bengal among others where paddy farmers for instance get a price of not more than Rs 900 per quintal. Punjab is at the bottom of the chart since farmers get an assured procurement price which is relatively high. CACP’s argument is that in a market economy, the assured procurement prices should be withdrawn. This is what has irked Mr Badal, and he has made it clear that any effort to dismantle the procurement system will destroy the very foundations of food self-sufficiency.

Interestingly, while Dr Ashok Gulati has been opposing wheat and paddy procurement prices, he has been advocating introduction of a procurement price for maize so as to shift the acreage from paddy under the recently launched crop diversification programme in Punjab. Intriguing, isn’t it? What is not good for wheat and paddy is being projected as savior for maize farmers.

At a time when it is generally believed that the era of price policy is over, the policy thrust is to move farmers away from the assured income through procurement prices to building entrepreneurship and linking farmers to the markets. This is where Mr Badal has time and again expressed his concerns. And, rightly so. But what I still don’t understand is that despite chief minister’s warning, the State’s agricultural policy is still designed on the same market economy pattern that he finds fault with. The ‘sharks’ in the free market economy will therefore continue to prevail.

I am often asked as to what a land-locked state like Punjab can do to prop up its economy if it does not shift farmers out of agriculture? Farming cannot sustain the economy, nor can the average household incomes go up. Land acquisition for the sake of industry and real estate therefore is being aggressively pursued. Perhaps this is what Mr Badal has been time and again told. But what is not being told is that if a tiny European country like Holland can emerge as the second biggest agricultural exporter in the world, and where average farm household incomes are 265 per cent higher than the national average, why can’t Punjab do the same? I am not advocating the industrial farming model that Holland had once adopted (but is now moving to LEISA -- Low External Input Sustainable Agriculture practices) but certainly Punjab can make suitable modifications to ensure that it doesn't repeat the same mistakes. 

Switzerland too is a small country. It hasn’t adopted the industrial pathway to development. It hasn’t therefore done any irreparable damage to its nature and natural resources. So Punjab certainly can carve a niche for itself by ushering in a sustainable model of development linking environment-friendly agriculture with rural-based industry. 

Unfortunately, while the Chief Minister is concerned, the kind of farm experts the State has are coming from the same school of thought that brought in the crisis in the first instance. Punjab therefore needs experts/leaders/advisors with vision and wisdom rather than free market ideologues. A little more imagination in planning, and a determination to build an agriculture-based economy which does not suck the groundwater dry, does not pollute with chemical pesticides, and which does not lead to farmer suicides is what is desperately needed. #