UNCTAD for MNCs in farm sector + Race for setting up of GMO regulator in India

[Guest guest]

NEWS Bulletin from Indian Society For Sustainable Agriculture And Rural Development

-

 

1. UNCTAD calls for greater role of TNCs in developing nations' farm sector

 

2. INDIA : Ministries in race to set up a new GMO regulator

---

 

UNCTAD World Investment Report-2009

 

Calls for greater role of TNCs in developing nations' farm sector

 

Hopes such measures would help energise global economy

 

By: ASHOK B SHARMA on: Thu 17 of Sep., 2009 14:02 UTC

 

http://anypursuit.com/news/ tiki-read_article.php? articleId=714

 

 

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/unctad-for-greater-role-of-tncs-in-developing-farm-sector/518747/0

 

New Delhi, Sep 17 : The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), with a view to revitalize the ailing global economy and to ensure food security, has advocated involvement of transnational corporations (TNCs) in agriculture and food and beverage sectors both, particularly in developing countries, in the form of FDIs and non-equity participation.

It has urged for promoting contractual arrangements between TNCs and local farmers such as contract farming. It has also called for appropriate domestic legal framework and for promoting investment contracts between the host government and foreign investors. Investments in local infrastructure such as trading houses and logistical infrastructure should be undertaken. Integrated policy approach including policies related to infrastructure, competition, trade and R & D should be designed.

Supporting the on-going land-grab movement, it has suggested development of a set of internationally agreed core principles for largescale land acquisitions by foreign investors for agricultural production. UNCTAD feels that such would help to address the problem of crowding out of local farmers, protection of indigenous people and environmental degradation.

To encourage FDI inflows in developing countries, the developed countries should reduce their import tariffs, non-tariff barriers and farm subsidies.

The UNCTAD’s World Investment Report (WIR)-2009 has located green pastures for global investors in agriculture and food sectors in developing countries with a view to arrest the declining trend in global foreign direct investment (FDI) flows. This is the first time that UNCTAD in its WIR has particularly mentioned agriculture sector.

 

Global financial and economic crisis has severely impacted global FDI flows worldwide. It has affected all modes and components of FDI. The report estimates global FDI inflows fell 14% from $1.97 trillion in 2007 to $ 1.69 trillion in 2008 and is expected to fall to below $1.2 trillion in 2009. “Recovery is expected to be slow in 2010, reaching no more than $1..4 trillion, but gathering momentum in 2011 to approach $1.8 trillion,†the report says.

 

UNCTAD’s prescription in its WIR-2009 is, however, qualitatively different from that in its recent Trade and Development Report-2009 where it has called for a complete overhaul of the global financial and economic system and has blamed the predominance of excessively deregulated purely financial activities over real productive activities as responsible for the current global financial and economic crisis. UNCTAD’s call for an aggressive push for promoting FDI inflows in in agriculture and food sector in its WIR-2009, following the same existing pattern, therefore, amounts to double speak.

 

According to UNCTAD report in 2008, FDI inflows to developed countries fell by 29% to be at $962 billion, while that in Africa, Latin American countries, South Asia, East Asia, Southeast Asia, West Asia and least developed countries reached record peaks. In Africa it increased by 27% to be at $88 billion, that in Latin American countries increased by 13% to be at $144 billion, that in South Asia, East Asia and Southeast Asia increased by 17% to be at $298 billion, that in West Asia increased by 16% to be at $90 billion and that in least developed countries increased to a record peak of $33 billion.

 

On an average in 2007-08, developed economies garnered 63% FDI inflows, while developing economies garnered 31% FDI inflows and southeast Europe and CIS countries had only 6% FDI inflows. The US remained the largest recipient country, followed by France, China, UK and Russia. India ranks 13 in the list. The entry of Russia and the return of China to the list of top five recipients are symbolic of the changing FDI landscape of 2008.

 

However preliminary data for more than 90 countries reveal that FDI inflows plummeted in all regions in early 2009. Africa, which experienced a six-year FDI boom and reached a peak of $88 billion in 2008, has witnessed a fall in FDI inflows by about 67% in the first quarter of 2009. In the first quarter of 2009 FDI inflows to southeast Europe and CIS countries fell by 46%. This follows a 26% rise in FDI inflows in 2008 for a total for the year of a record of $114 billion. FDI trends diverge widely in the Western Hemisphere – up in South America and down in Central America and the Caribbean.

 

Compared with the same quarter of 2008, FDI inflows fell by 46% in developed countries in the first quarter of 2009, that in developing countries fell by 39% and by 46% in transition economies.

 

The UNCTAD report pins hope on reversal of FDI flows in South Asia, East Asia and Southeast Asia. FDI outflows by West Asian Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) may gain importance in 2009, while inward investment to the region may fall. Lower FDI flows to and from developed countries are reshaping global FDI inflow pattern. In this context, UNCTAD report hopes South-South FDI inflows, particularly in food and agriculture sectors, which is now on the rise, would give a new dimension in the future.

 

According to WIR-2009 largest TNCs are adversely affected by the global financial and economic crisis. Cross-border mergers and acquisitions have declined sharply. FDI by SWFs rose by 16% in 2008 to $20 billion. The value of their cross-border merger and acquisitions – the predominant form of FDIs by SWFs – shot up 44% to $14.8 billion. Cross-border merger and acquisition data in the first half of 2009, however, suggests that SWFs are also being strongly impacted by the crisis as exports from their home countries are declining.

 

The UNCTAD report, advocating the case for TNCs involvement in agriculture, cleverly markets this concept by top 25 TNCs in agribusiness in 2007 were from the developing countries. It says that in some developing countries, share of contract farming in output is high - 75% of poultry production and 35% of soybean production in Brazil, 90% of cotton and fresh milk production, 50% of tea production and 40% of rice production in Vietnam and 60% of tea and sugar production in Kenya.# ---------------

 

 

India: Concerned over hazards

 

Ministries in race to set up a new GMO regulator

 

Environment ministry proposes statutory eco-body

 

http://anypursuit.com/news/ tiki-read_article.php? articleId=725

 

http://www.financialexpress. com/news/ministries-in-race- to-set-up-a-new-gmo-regulator/ 519378/0

 

By: ASHOK B SHARMA on: Sun 20 of Sep., 2009 15:55 UTC

 

There seems to be a competition among ministries in India about setting up of an autonomous regulator for genetically modified (GM) products replacing the existing Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) which is presently functioning under the Union ministry for environment and forests. The stated design of the proposals of these ministries is to ensure safety of GM products. But unfortunately this serious issue is turning out to be like - much ado about nothing.

 

The department of biotechnology under the Union ministry for science and technology is eager to set up a National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority on basis of the recommendations of the MS Swaminathan Committee (set up by the Union Agriculture Ministry) and RA Mashelkar Committee. A bill piloted by the Union ministry for food processing industry in the Parliament resulted in setting up of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) which is now anchored by the Union ministry for health and family welfare. The FSSAI has the mandate to regulate GM food.

 

Recently the Union ministry for environment and forests has circulated a draft proposal for setting up of an autonomous National Environment Protection Authority (NEPA) which will also regulate GM products. Regarding chemical and biosafety, the draft proposal says “This function would include prevention and management of chemical accidents and related information systems and would also encompass the work related to approvals presently being given by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC). In this context, it is mentionable that proposal for setting up a National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority, which will subsume the GEAC is under separate consideration of the Government of India.â€

 

As one of the key principles for setting up of the NEPA, the draft says that its working will to the “polluter-pays principle†and the “precautionary principle†which flows from the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.

 

The new minister for environment and forests, Jairam Ramesh had recently went on record expressing apprehensions on the hazards of GM crops and has vowed to follow stringent measures before any final approval of any GM crop. Noted scientist, Dr Pushpa M Bhargava, who was appointed as a special invitee to GEAC meeting as per the directions of the Supreme Court, has also been critical of the existing biosafety protocols and measures and procedures currently followed for approval of GM crops.

 

Despite apprehensions expressed, it seems there is no sincere effort on the part of the government to ensure adequate safety of GM crops and food.. Some years back the Union ministry for commerce and industry in an annual amendment to India’s Foreign Trade Policy had suggested that no unlabelled GM product should enter the country. Following this the Union ministry for health and family welfare set up an expert panel of stakeholders to suggest measures for labeling of GM food. The expert panel suggested mandatory labeling of GM food irrespective of any threshold limit. The Union ministry for health and family welfare did not implement this proposal and kept it pending for a long time. After the FSSAI was set up it washed off its hands and shifted the onus to FSSAI. The FSSAI is yet to set up its full infrastructure and begin dealing with GM food.

 

Justifying the proposal for setting up of the NEPA, the draft admits the tardy pace in implementation of environment norms by different existing government agencies. The enactment of the Environment Protection Act 1986, various rules and notifications. the National Environment Policy 2006 helped in the creation of a credible legislative and policy base. But there are gaps in the institutional mechanism, it says

 

“The fact that the matter of the disposal of toxic waste in Bhopal’s erstwhile UCIL plant has not been resolved even 25 years after the Gas tragedy illustrates the point. This underscores the need to have a suitably empowered apex level authority to deal with environmental issues,†the draft says

 

The draft also mentions several reports that called for an institutional redesign like the Report of the Steering Committee on the Environment and Forest Sector for the 11th Five Year Plan (2007), the 192nd Report of the Departmental Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology and Environment and Forests (2008), a study done the Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment on India’s environment regulators (2009) and study done by Kalpavriksh Environment Action Group. The Madras High Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board vrs The State Human Rights Commission in November 4, 2004 highlighted the lacuna in terms of an appropriate regulatory framework. The Indian Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh in August 18, 2009 suggested setting up of the NEPA supported by regional environment protection authorities.

 

As per the draft the basic structure of the proposed effective environmental governance structure around three dimensions ---- the Union ministry for environment and forests would responsible for mooting legislations and policy making, coordination with state governments and with various environmental bodies, international negotiations and implementation of schemes, the proposed NEPA would be responsible for regulation, monitoring and enforcement, the proposed National Green Tribunal (NGT) would be responsible for adjudication. A Bill for setting up of the NGT has recently been introduced in the Parliament. The NGT would support the constitutional jurisdiction of the higher courts.

 

The state pollution control boards (SPCBs) will continue to play their respective roles in environmental management In the case of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), some functional adjustments may be required taking into account the role of the NEPA. The NEPA would be a statutory autonomous body equipped with substantial budget and with powers to chart its own procedures. It would be professionally managed drawing upon best-in-class expertise from all relevant professional fields including science, economics, law, engineering, public health, environmental planning and management.. Its Board members and CEO would be appointed for a fixed tenure. It would have original powers conferred upon it under the Environment Protect Act 1986.

 

The NEPA may have regional EPAs for decentralized functioning The portfolio of functions flowing out from section 3 (2) of the EPA Act 1986 to be discharged by the NEPA includes environment impact assessment, enforcement and compliance, environmental planning and sustainability studies, environmental health and eco-system protection, sustainable production and waste management, chemical safety and biosafety.

 

Apart from a full-fledged NEPA that subsumes the CPCB, the draft, however, mentions three alternative options like CPBC continuing to report to the Union environment ministry despite the creation of NEPA, CPCB reporting to NEPA and setting up of National Environment Monitoring Authority (NEMA) for ensuring effective compliance and enforcement and the CPBC to discharge other functions.#

India has a new look. Take a sneak peek.