Fleecing the rural poor - the harvest that never was

[Guest guest]

 

 

 

GM WATCH dailyhttp://www.gmwatch.org---In the urban world if you buy a car, refrigerator or a hi-fi system, Devinder Sharma points out in the article below, the manufacturer "not only provides a guarantee but often orders the withdrawal of aparticular batch of faulty product line".

 

But the reality of rural life, Sharma says, is very different. Even with India's Agriculture Minister, Sharad Pawar, admitting inparliament that Bt cotton had failed in Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan,and with India's regulatory body refusing to renew permission for thecultivation of three Mahyco-Monsanto Bt cotton varieties, the companyhas successfully refused to provide a single rupee in compensation tothe farmers who believed its promises.

 

In fact, around the world the agbiotech industry steadfastly refusesto accept any liability for the impact of its products. Even thedeaths of indebted farmers in India - fooled by aggressive marketinginto buying the companies' expensive seed - count for absolutely nothing.

 

---

 

Failure of 'improved' technologyThe harvest that never wasBy Devinder Sharma

 

The Deccan Herald, January 28 2005http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/jan282006/editpage1913372006127.asp

 

Farmers should be compensated for the failure of technology just like any other consumer in a city

 

One of the main reasons behind the growing agrarian crisis is the failure of 'improved' technology. Instead of bringing a cheer to thefarmer by propping up the declining farm productivity or improvingefficiency, recurring failure of the new technologies is not onlymaking agriculture unviable but is also increasingly forcing farmersinto indebtedness and distress.

 

Whether it is hybrids or the high-yielding varieties of crops; whether it is cross-breeding of cattle or more recently, the introduction of the genetically modified seeds, the fact remains that those whoprovide the technology are not held responsible if the technology theysell to farmers fails to deliver. Nor are they held accountable if the technology turns into a polluter.

 

For urban centres, the marketing approach is different. If you buy a car, refrigerator or a hi-fi system, the manufacturer not onlyprovides a guarantee but often orders the withdrawal of a particularbatch of faulty product line. During the guarantee period, thedefective part of the product is replaced free of cost and if thecomplaint persists, the malfunctioning item is replaced. In otherwords, it is the duty of the technology provider or manufacturer toensure that the technology being sold adds up to the claims made.

 

Speaking in Parliament, Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar acceptedthat genetically modified BT cotton had failed in Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan. The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) thereforehad not renewed permission for the cultivation of the threeMahyco-Monsanto BT cotton varieties. But despite the Andhra Pradeshgovernment demanding a compensation of Rs 1,496 per acre to theaffected farmers, which totals Rs 3.84 crore, the seed company foundit appropriate to appeal before the State-level Memorandum ofUnderstanding Committee and the High Court.

 

BT cotton was cultivated in an area exceeding 13 lakh acres in the 2004-05 cropping season. This means that the seed companies had soldan equal number of BT seed packets (each packet is enough for an acre)priced at a minimum of Rs 1,600, including a hefty 'technology fee'.With Rs 1,200 per seed packet as the 'technology fee', the seedcompanies had very conveniently collected over Rs 150 crore in thename of improved technology. In the urban centres, such a largefailure of any technology would have forced the company to withdrawits product from the market.

 

Not in the rural areas and for obvious reasons.

 

Reports from other states

 

Reports of BT cotton failure continue to pour in from other states too.

 

Up to 75 per cent of the BT cotton seeds in 35 per cent of the area sown in parts of Salem and Namakkal districts of Tamil Nadu arereported to have failed to germinate this season. In western MadhyaPradesh, BT cotton crops in over two lakh acre area in Nirmar regionsuffered partial or complete wilting. But again, the seed companiesare not even remotely concerned.

 

The seed business is certainly lucrative and tension-free. Aided and abetted by a supportive Ministry of Agriculture, the thrust of theseed trade appears to be on how to draw out money from the village hinterland. As the village economy dips, farmers' indebtedness grows.Unable to bear the economic downslide, thousands of them have takenthe fatal route. Even those growing BT cotton are now resorting tosuicide. Six farmers in Warangal district in Andhra Pradesh havecommitted suicide this year. The suicide tally from Vidharba region inMaharashtra is higher.

 

Chemical fertilisers were considered essential for increasing crop productivity. Over the 40 years of the Green Revolution, chemical fertilisers not only acted as a shot-in-the-arm for enhancingproductivity but also resulted in second-generation environmentaleffects by rendering the cultivated lands sick and infertile. Whilethe signs of an environmental collapse were visible, fertilisercompanies continued to pump in more fertiliser as the solution todeteriorating soil fertility. Added to it is the growing public healthcrisis from the leaching and accumulation of nitrates in the groundwater.

 

Studies show that farmers are using on an average twice the quantityof chemical fertilisers to produce the same crop yield that washarvested 10 years ago. This means that while the input prices havemultiplied, the output prices are not keeping pace thereby adding tofarm indebtedness. The technology provider, fertiliser companies inthis case, were never asked to maintain an adequate soil nutritionbalance in a manner that the chemical input use does not increasemanifold.

 

The rural technology provider - manufacturer of improved and new technologies - has therefore added to farmers' woes. This is clearlyevident from the prevailing dichotomy in the delivery of technology inthe rural and urban areas. Unless the technology provider is madeaccountable, is made liable to ensure that the technology works at thefarmer's level, and thereby ensures the after sales performance of thetechnology delivered, the rural crisis will show no signs of ebbing.Failure of technology weaves in an indebtedness cycle that eventuallyturns into a vicious circle.