GMW: Fleecing the rural poor - the harvest that never was

[Guest guest]

GMW: Fleecing the rural poor - the harvest that never was

" GM WATCH " <info

Thu, 2 Feb 2006 11:12:05 GMT

 

 

 

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://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 a

particular 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 in

parliament that Bt cotton had failed in Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan,

and with India's regulatory body refusing to renew permission for the

cultivation of three Mahyco-Monsanto Bt cotton varieties, the company

has successfully refused to provide a single rupee in compensation to

the farmers who believed its promises.

 

In fact, around the world the agbiotech industry steadfastly refuses

to accept any liability for the impact of its products. Even the

deaths of indebted farmers in India - fooled by aggressive marketing

into buying the companies' expensive seed - count for absolutely nothing.

 

---

 

 

Failure of 'improved' technology

The harvest that never was

By Devinder Sharma

 

 

The Deccan Herald, January 28 2005

http://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 the

farmer by propping up the declining farm productivity or improving

efficiency, recurring failure of the new technologies is not only

making agriculture unviable but is also increasingly forcing farmers

into 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 who

provide the technology are not held responsible if the technology they

sell 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 only

provides a guarantee but often orders the withdrawal of a particular

batch of faulty product line. During the guarantee period, the

defective part of the product is replaced free of cost and if the

complaint persists, the malfunctioning item is replaced. In other

words, it is the duty of the technology provider or manufacturer to

ensure that the technology being sold adds up to the claims made.

 

Speaking in Parliament, Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar accepted

that genetically modified BT cotton had failed in Andhra Pradesh and

Rajasthan. The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) therefore

had not renewed permission for the cultivation of the three

Mahyco-Monsanto BT cotton varieties. But despite the Andhra Pradesh

government demanding a compensation of Rs 1,496 per acre to the

affected farmers, which totals Rs 3.84 crore, the seed company found

it appropriate to appeal before the State-level Memorandum of

Understanding 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 sold

an 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 seed

companies had very conveniently collected over Rs 150 crore in the

name of improved technology. In the urban centres, such a large

failure of any technology would have forced the company to withdraw

its 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 are

reported to have failed to germinate this season. In western Madhya

Pradesh, BT cotton crops in over two lakh acre area in Nirmar region

suffered partial or complete wilting. But again, the seed companies

are 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 the

seed 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 taken

the fatal route. Even those growing BT cotton are now resorting to

suicide. Six farmers in Warangal district in Andhra Pradesh have

committed suicide this year. The suicide tally from Vidharba region in

Maharashtra 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 enhancing

productivity but also resulted in second-generation environmental

effects by rendering the cultivated lands sick and infertile. While

the signs of an environmental collapse were visible, fertiliser

companies continued to pump in more fertiliser as the solution to

deteriorating soil fertility. Added to it is the growing public health

crisis from the leaching and accumulation of nitrates in the groundwater.

 

Studies show that farmers are using on an average twice the quantity

of chemical fertilisers to produce the same crop yield that was

harvested 10 years ago. This means that while the input prices have

multiplied, the output prices are not keeping pace thereby adding to

farm indebtedness. The technology provider, fertiliser companies in

this case, were never asked to maintain an adequate soil nutrition

balance in a manner that the chemical input use does not increase

manifold.

 

The rural technology provider - manufacturer of improved and new

technologies - has therefore added to farmers' woes. This is clearly

evident from the prevailing dichotomy in the delivery of technology in

the rural and urban areas. Unless the technology provider is made

accountable, is made liable to ensure that the technology works at the

farmer's level, and thereby ensures the after sales performance of the

technology delivered, the rural crisis will show no signs of ebbing.

Failure of technology weaves in an indebtedness cycle that eventually

turns into a vicious circle.

 

 

 

 

---------------------