Land Acquisition: Kurushetra for Modi Government

Land Acquisition Bill blindly targets every land owned by the farmers. It is an undeclared emergency in the country. Despite heavy losses, farmers are proud to practice their profession. They are the life saviors of India. Without food grains where will the nation go? The Western mentality of destroying India's agriculture indirectly through liberal advice, think-tanks and professionals are easily listened by every person who is occupying the seat of power in New Delhi. Why our governing people lose their head and thinking capacity? Instead of acquiring farm lands for private development, government must encourage private investment in agriculture. Farmers must be given loans at lowest interest, subsidy, encourage organic farming, discourage heavy usage of fertilizers and pesticides. Wastelands must be used for industry. If wastelands in villages close to ports and railway stations are used then there is no need for agricultural lands. 

If agriculture is saved; India is saved. If farmers are destroyed then the nation is destroyed. Why to confront the wise farmers who are passionate to save this nation?

Times of India writes on 24 February 2015

Acknowledging the growing storm of opposition unity to changes in land acquisition legislation, Prime Minister Modi has sought cooperation of all parties, saying that “in a democracy, there should be dialogue, discussion and positive outcome.” President Pranab Mukherjee too sought “cooperation” from all MPs, telling both Houses of Parliament that the land acquisition law had been “suitably refined” even as he declared that the government attaches “paramount importance to safeguard the interest of farmers and families affected by land acquisition”.

The ordinance on land acquisition was part of Modi’s initial push to kick-start domestic investments. Yet, just weeks after the sobering Delhi verdict and under attack from motley opposition parties as well as groups within the Sangh Parivar – who accuse it of being “anti-farmer” and “pro-industry” – there are signs that the government may take a conciliatory approach and meet opposition half-way. The PM’s wedding diplomacy in Saifai with Mulayam Singh Yadav and Parliamentary affairs minister Venkaiah Naidu’s meeting with Congress president Sonia Gandhi reflect this new approach.

BJP’s problem is that it supported the original land bill when in opposition. It has contributed as much as anybody else to the aura of piety around the bill. But the fact is that stringent conditions in the original bill hobble economic growth and state governments, across party lines, have complained that its clauses are unworkable in practice. If farmers get fair compensation for their land, they shouldn’t be seen universally as “victims” of land acquisition. And it’s quite plausible that their children will be happier with jobs in industry than having to till subdivided plots of land inherited from their parents. There should be no shame in course correction now and it’s the government that must bell the cat.

While there may be some give and take on the fine print, Modi must stick to his guns while deploying all of his diplomatic skills in bringing sections of the opposition on board. In a make-or-break budget session which will be a test case for his credentials as an economic reformer, the fate of land legislation is symbolic. If Modi blinks it will give a negative signal to industry which is impatient for big-ticket reforms. Restrictions on buying land are one of the key reasons holding up projects worth almost $300 billion and the PM must walk his talk.

Destroying Global Agriculture

Agriculture is the backbone of global society. Contradictory this truth some foolish economists are persuaded developed nations to switch over to industrial mode of production completely.More than half of the world is developing and a quarter is undeveloped. Now these anti agriculture tribe is compelling developing and underdeveloped nations to shed agriculture. Where will the world will go to beg for the food.



Suman Sahai writes in The Deccan Chronicle on 27 November 2010



A new colonialism is underway. Rich, food-importing countries are grabbing the world’s farmland for captive food production for their people. China, South Korea, Japan, as well as Saudi Arabia and the Arab states are the new colonisers. Africa, with its large land mass, fertile land in most places and abundant water, is a target, like India, with its fabled wealth that once was. Only this time, India is joining the ranks of the land grabbers, not on the same scale as the biggies but India, too, is acquiring land in Africa.

The tragedy of Africa is that it remains food insecure despite its fertile farmlands, receiving food-aid from UN agencies like the World Food Programme. Ethiopia, which is aggressively promoting the lease out of its land to foreign investors, receives food aid worth $115 million but its lands generate cereals worth $100 million for Saudi Arabia. Ethiopian land produces food for foreigners but cannot do the same for itself! Similarly, Sudan which receives as much as $1.6 billion worth of free food from international agencies, grows wheat for Saudi Arabia, vegetables for Jordan and its own staple food, sorghum, for animal feed in the United Arab Emirates.

The food crisis of 2008 and high food inflation brought home to many how fragile the global food situation can be, not just for the poor but also for the rich who do not have sufficient land to grow the food they require. When global food commodities disappeared from the international market as a result of factors like speculation leading to hoarding, diversion of foodgrains like corn and soybean to biofuels and increased demand for animal feed, the rich food-importing nations realised that it was not sufficient to have money. To be food secure, they decided, they could not depend on international food stocks but must have control over food production directly. If they did not have enough land in their sovereign territories, they would simply acquire this land elsewhere, produce the food there and ship it home. This would allow them to bypass global food markets and the volatility associated with them in the recent past. It is estimated that in the last few years, up to 20 million hectares of land are either already leased or are being negotiated for lease.

This new colonialism takes forward the trend of the last centuries. The 19th century Europe took over large tracts of farmland in Africa for coffee and cocoa plantations. US-based fruit growing conglomerates appropriated farmland in South and Central America and in Southeast Asian countries like the Philippines to produce bananas, pineapples and other tropical fruits for the world market. The farmland grab of today is fundamentally different though. Earlier it was cash crops and a means to wealth generation, today it is based on straightforward food security instead of revenue generation. Food-importing countries are seeking the first instance to secure food supplies for themselves.

Not just the wealthy countries, others have also joined this exploitation of global farmland.

In neighbouring Pakistan, the government is offering farmland to (largely) Arab investors. Government-backed roadshows are being held in the Gulf state, offering extremely generous tax incentives to attract investment. Given the state of the country’s domestic security situation, an additional bonus that Pakistan offers is a one lakh strong security force to protect the foreign investments.

India too is in the thick of the land grab. Indian companies have found a way out of the land ceiling laws in India to build vast agriculture operations in Africa where there is no ceiling on land ownership. Building huge agriculture empires is not possible in India, but it is in Africa. The Indian government supports this move and provides soft loans and reduced import duties to enable the shipment of agriculture produce to India. Indian farming companies have bought thousands of hectares of land in Africa and are growing rice, maize and pulses which they sell to India. These companies have invested upwards of $2.4 billion to buy up farmland in Ethiopia alone. Karuturi Global, a Karnataka-based company is one of the biggest land owners in Africa, where it grows cash crops like sugarcane and palm oil, as well as rice and vegetables. Not surprisingly, the backlash from people in Africa against foreign investments has begun. Karuturi is one of the prime targets. Activist groups are calling the investments a “land grab” taking away the entitlements of the African people. They say such alienation of land will deprive locals of their livelihoods. They have a point.

If this form of land leasing is to be made fair and sustainable, a code of conduct must be formulated. This could be done by bodies like the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation.

- Dr Suman Sahai, a genetic scientist who served on faculty of the Universities of Chicago and Heidelberg, is convenor of Gene Campaign

There is a fear that the foreign investments in food production will end up hurting farmers as corrupt local governments allow the land to be leased out without building in any securities for the land owners. These could often be small farmers with little idea of what has been negotiated or what would be the terms of getting their land back. Would the land owner have some right to the food that is produced on his land? Would the local community have preferential rights to access the food or could it be all exported without leaving anything for the local people? Who would ensure that the land is not degraded during the lease period and that it is returned to the owners in a healthy state? Such investment deals have been notoriously non-transparent in most cases so far.
If this form of land leasing is to be made fair and sustainable, and if the small landholders are also to benefit from it, a code of conduct must be formulated. This could be done by bodies like the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation. They should define the terms and conditions under which land is made available for contracted food production. There must be a consultative process with not just the governments but with the land owners directly and the terms and conditions must be made clear to them. Prior Informed Consent, a feature of recent negotiations determining access to resources, as for instance in the Convention on Biological Diversity, must be made standard features in all such arrangements, before a deal can be finalised. The international community must put its weight behind compliance of the code of conduct in both the host and investor country so that such deals do not become tools of exploitation, depriving the poor and hungry and robbing them of the chance to ever become food secure.

Agricultural Mismanagement

The problem with our agricultural management is that expert services are not adequately utilized. Dr. M.S.Swaminathan one of the pioneers of India's green revolution movement is given cosmetic place in the agricultural ministry. His views are thrown into the dustbin. It is high time the UPA II replaces cricket loving and popularity seeking Sharad Pawar out of this ministry and bring in Dr.M.S.Swaminathan for this crucial task.

Dr.M.S.Swaminathan writes in The Times of India 1 october 2009


The 2009 drought is a wake-up call about the uncertainty of monsoon behaviour in the emerging era of climate change. It brought home the point
that weather prediction will be increasingly difficult. Our climate management strategy must be based on the premise that the frequency of drought, flood, unseasonal rains and high temperature will increase. This year, Assam, which normally only faces floods, was almost the first state to declare drought. Global warming will make the Indian monsoon more variable and less predictable. We must do everything possible to strengthen the Indian meteorological department and climate change research.

Another urgent need is a "weather information for all" programme that involves setting up mini agro-met stations in each block with basic instruments to measure temperature, rainfall, wind speed and relative humidity. We should train one woman and one male member of every panchayat as climate risk managers. Well versed in data collection and interpretation, they can assist farmers to take timely location-specific decisions. We should aim to train half a million climate risk managers over the next three years.

Proactive steps are needed to strengthen our coping capacity to meet the impact of drought, flood and sea level rise in coastal areas. We should prepare to deal with monsoon failure and acute water and energy shortage by building weather-resilient water, food and livelihood security systems. Drought, flood and good weather codes based on inter-disciplinary analysis will be needed. The drought code can indicate how adverse impact can be minimised through crop life saving techniques, water conservation and efficient use. The flood code should indicate steps to revive farm and other livelihood activities when flood recedes. A good weather code would indicate methods of maximising the benefits of a good monsoon, to build up substantial grain reserves.

We must meet the challenge of ensuring food and water security for not only 1.2 billion human beings, but also over 500 million cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, poultry etc. Usually, farmers sell their cattle at a low price during severe drought. During 1979's drought, i had proposed ground water sanctuaries, which can be opened up when essential to run cattle camps and raise fodder and food crops. All programmes should factor in that women suffer most because of their role in collecting water, fodder and fuel wood and in taking care of farm animals.

As essential is to promote community food and water security systems involving establishment of local level gene, seed, grain and water banks by rural and tribal families. These can be operated by local self-help groups overseen by the gram sabha. This way, we can link conservation, cultivation, consumption and commerce as an integrated chain.

Whenever monsoon behaviour is likely to be irregular, it is essential to designate in every agro-climatic region areas that are 'most seriously affected' (MSA) and areas with adequate soil moisture to raise a crop, that is 'most favourable areas' (MFA) from the point of view of agriculture. In MSA areas, immediate relief will have to be provided and steps taken to revive agricultural operations as soon as there is adequate rainfall. Contingency plans and alternative cropping supported by seed banks will be necessary. Like grain reserves for food security, seed reserves are essential for crop security. In MFA areas, steps should be taken to promote additional production through programmes like free supply of fertilisers.

We have been fortunate this year to have over 50 million tonnes of rice and wheat in the godowns of the Food Corporation of India and other government agencies. But we still do not have modern grain storage facilities to the necessary extent even in the Green Revolution heartland that feeds our public distribution system. This neglect of post-harvest technology and safe grain storage is inexcusable. I have been pleading for at least 50 ultramodern grain storage structures at 50 different locations, each capable of storing a million tonnes of foodgrain. A national grid of grain storage structures will help prevent bith panic purchase and distress sales.

I hope 2009's wake-up call helps destroy complacency and indifference among policymakers. Our population is growing; per capita availability of arable land and irrigation water is shrinking. The frequent suggestion for food imports ignores the fact that agriculture is not just a food-producing machine but is the backbone of the livelihood security system for over 60 per cent of our population. Importing food under such circumstances will have the same effect as importing unemployment and misery for farm women and men.

Recall the Nobel committee's words while presenting the 1970 peace prize to Norman Borlaug: "He has helped provide bread for a hungry world. We have made this choice in the hope that providing bread will also give the world peace". The secret of Borlaug's success was reflected in his last words on the night of September 12, 2009. Earlier, a scientist had shown him a nitrogen tracer developed for measuring soil fertility. His last words were: "Take the tracer to the farmer". This lifelong dedication to taking scientific innovations to farmers set Borlaug apart from most farm scientists. Let us emulate his example.

The writer is chairman, M S Swaminathan Research Foundation.

Government to People Dealings

Cash transfers to the beneficiaries of government's social welfare schemes is a good idea. First of all technology must be fully used to list our the really needy people. In the name of poor generally well off people swindle all the aid and government helps. This was evident in Orissa cyclone, Tamil Nadu's tsunami, Gujarat earthquake and in all other natural disaster affected areas. Every citizen in villages, towns and cities must be encouraged to open a bank account. After filtering out the really needy people government should transfer funds directly to their bank account. This may reduce the corruption between the welfare scheme programming to implementation. There may be several loopholes in this scheme too which can be used by the culprits. But direct money transfer will the poor to ward off their crisis in a short span of time.

Swaninathan Aiyar writes in The Times of India (30 August 2009)

I became a journalist in 1965, when two successive droughts killed thousands and forced India to beg for US food aid. India’s share of global food aid was so large then that a best-selling book claimed that India was unviable and should be left to starve, conserving food aid for viable countries.

How distant those dark days seem! This year another drought has struck, but we have no panic or talk of food aid. India withstood a terrible drought in 2002, so Indians are confident that the government knows how to tackle droughts. That’s a revolutionary change from the 1960s.

Most people think that the Green Revolution ended mass starvation. Not so. The Green Revolution improved yields, and made India self-sufficient. Yet, it did not raise yields sufficiently to increase foodgrain availability per head. Remarkably, grain consumption per head in later years rarely reached the 1964 level.
Why, then, did droughts cease to cause mass starvation? Because of better food distribution, not production. In subsequent droughts, enough food got through to the worst hit.

Rural employment was the key to success. Maharashtra first experimented with an Employment Guarantee Scheme when hit by successive droughts in the early 1970s. Simultaneously, countries of the Sahel region in Africa suffered repeated drought. Food aid was rushed to Sahel, while very little came to India or Maharashtra. Yet, there was mass starvation in the Sahel, and none in Maharashtra.

Economists Amartya Sen and Jean Dreze explained the paradox. In Maharashtra, grain availability per head was just half that of the Sahel. But employment schemes enabled hungry Maharashtrians to earn just enough to stave off death. Maharashtra suffered mass hunger, but not mass starvation.

The opposite was true in Sahel. Food aid piled up in ports and godowns, but there was no mechanism to get it to those starving. NGOs, government agencies and free kitchens did not have the necessary reach.

In Maharashtra, the market provided the reach. Once the needy obtained purchasing power through employment schemes, the market drove grain to where the money was. This reached the needy more efficiently and completely than free government kitchens.

Other states did not follow Maharashtra’s lead in enacting employment guarantee legislation. But when a drought occurred, they would rush to create emergency employment schemes. Gujarat, for instance, created millions of man-days of work to successfully combat the 1987 drought.

This approach aimed to relieve distress, not improve economic efficiency. Yet, economic efficiency improved too. Research across the world shows that, other things equal, small farmers are more efficient than large ones, mainly because they maximize the use of family labour.

Markets usually drive assets to those who use them most efficiently. When industries suffer a recession, inefficient industries fail and are acquired by efficient ones. But this does not happen in rural India in a drought: efficient small farmers do not acquire the land of inefficient absentee landlords. On the contrary, many small farmers make distress sales of their land and cattle to large farmers.

Why such perverse results? Because rural credit and insurance markets are missing or incomplete. Big farmers dominate access to credit, and enjoy the lion’s share of huge rural subsidies for electricity, water, fertilizers and credit. In these conditions, small-farm efficiency does not translate into superior yields or income.

Rural employment schemes plug the financial gaps of small farmers and thwart distress sales. This not only relieves suffering but improves economic efficiency: small landholders are efficient.

How should rural employment be tailored to meet needs in the current drought? First, the financial allocation must be raised: the budget has already done this. Second, the spending share of the states should be reduced in the worst-hit areas, enabling them to tap more central money. In 2008, Bihar provided just 23 days work per applicant, Chhattisgarh 30 days, Jharkhand 44 days and Uttar Pradesh 26 days. These states are badly hit by drought this year, and must expand person-days of work massively.

Third, payments to workers must be prompt. Many states routinely delay payments, hitting the neediest. Dreze rightly calls this deplorable.

A radical solution would be for states to stop rural works and simply pay the legal compensation to job-card holders. This will cost less than rural works, since money will not be spent on materials or supervision: it will go entirely to the needy. In effect, cash transfers will replace rural works. Activists like Dreze will demur: they think rural works create durable assets, despite evidence to the contrary. I believe that in a major drought, we should focus on getting cash to the needy, not on building mud roads that vanish in the next monsoon.

Speed up cold storages and warehouses

Failing to store perishable goods like fruits and vegetables are costing millions of rupees daily. If there is adequate cold storage facilities and warehousing this can be easily avoided and maximum profit can be given to the producers.

The Times of India editorial writes (13 July 2009)

It's estimated that nearly 40 per cent of the country's fruits and vegetables are wasted while moving from farms to retail outlets. That a

developing nation grappling with poverty, hunger and malnutrition should waste so much fresh produce is obscene. Improved post-harvest technologies especially storage and transportation facilities are a must for a nation that's the world's second largest producer of fruits and vegetables and where agriculture and allied activities account for around 17 per cent of GDP.

It's good that Budget 2009-10 promised investment-linked tax incentives in order to attract private funds in the cold chain and warehousing sector. More so, since existing profit-linked tax breaks to which investors are entitled don't seem to have worked magic so far. In theory, sector-specific tax incentives risk distorting efficient resource use. But, given the woeful inadequacy of cold chain and storage infrastructure, public policy has to make some practical concessions to a critical sector of the economy.
Increasing the shelf life of perishables is key to supply mechanisms whether we talk of fruits, vegetables, milk and milk products, meat and meat products or processed foods. To create a cross-country network of godowns and integrated cold chains, capacity building is required in farms, food processing units, refrigerated storage and distribution hubs as well as retail outlets, apart from temperature-controlled transportation.

All of this represents capital-intensive infrastructure. However, while industry has welcomed the investment-linked tax sops, these may not be sufficient. There should be a multi-pronged strategy to raising resources, in light of the huge growth potential of organised retail in India. It would make sense to relax rules on FDI in multibrand retail. Along with big domestic firms, several multinationals are keen to enter the field. That supermarket chains, foreign or home-grown, can boost farmers' income by eliminating middlemen isn't their only advantage. Getting greater numbers of organised sector players into farm-to-fork retail would automatically boost business stakes in improving the infrastructural logistics of the rural farm and non-farm sectors.

We also need a holistic look at related infrastructural shortcomings. Investors may baulk at pouring money into a sector where returns could depend on factors beyond their control. Electricity, for instance, is the lifeline of cold storage. If ensuring uninterrupted supply meant resorting to power backups, it would hike operational costs. Movement of goods also demands good roads and highways. Finally, a common market as sought to be created by the goods and services tax regime would spur demand for cold chain and storage facilities. That, needless to say, would have to be combined with an overhaul of our creaking agricultural marketing infrastructure

Different Tale About NREGA

Good intentions may not turn out be good outcome. This is mostly true in government sponsored programmes. The rural employment guarantee scheme NREGA has cheer leaders and doomsayers. But definitely this scheme is not cent percent success. On the other hand it can be abandoned as it provides little cooling effect to the rural folks who are suffering from the heat of poverty and unemployment. Now it is up to the state governments and local administration to make effective use of the scheme to help the poor. This scheme should be implemented in the lean agricultural season. during peak harvest season if this is carried out, agriculture will suffer as the labourers prefer to go to NREGA scheme as this is no work pay method.

Shankar Raghuraman writes in The Times of India (12 July 2009)
The National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) is seen by those who pushed most vigorously for its enactment as a piece of legislation that can

potentially transform the picture of rural poverty. It is not difficult to understand why this perception should exist.

The Act guarantees at least 100 days of employment as unskilled labour to at least one adult member of any rural household that registers for employment under it. Finance minister Pranab Mukherjee has promised in his budget speech that the real wage rate paid under NREGA will be Rs 100 per day. Put those two things together and what it amounts to is that if the Act is perfectly implemented, any rural household availing of the scheme should be able to earn at least Rs 10,000 a year from it.

The rural poverty line, which is now in the region of Rs 400 per capita per day, means that an average household that is below the poverty line (BPL) will have an income of something in the range of Rs 24,000 per annum or less, assuming a five-member household.

In other words, if a BPL family were to get the full promised benefit of NREGA they could earn the equivalent of more than 40% of their annual income from this one scheme alone. That should be enough to see why NREGA should not be seen as just another of the plethora of poverty alleviation schemes that India has had since Independence.

But how much of this potential has actually been realized? Data for the three years during which NREGA has been in operation, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 shows that on average only 50% of the households that registered under the scheme actually got employment. Further, the average number of days each household got employment was only 45 against the promised 100. In short, at best a quarter of what was promised has been delivered. It's a beginning but a long way from meeting the objective.

What's more, the all-India figures do not reveal the true picture. The reality is that there is a wide variation of performance across states. In terms of the percentage of registered households provided work, Maharashtra has averaged an abysmal 13% over the three years while Rajasthan at the other end of the spectrum has averaged 73%.

In terms of the average number of person-days of employment per household too, the variation is quite wide — from 22 in West Bengal to 79 in Rajasthan. If we take both parameters together, states like Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Assam are above the national average, others like Gujarat, West Bengal, Bihar, Karnataka and Kerala are below the average on both counts and most others have performed well on one of the two counts but not so well on the other.

The average wage rate paid is now a touch over Rs 85, but again that varies from around Rs 70 per person per day in states like Gujarat and Meghalaya to double that amount in Haryana. For many states including Uttar Pradesh, therefore, the promise of Rs 100 per day will not add anything to what is available. Nevertheless, the fact that the government is willing to stipulate a minimum floor across the country rather than leaving it to minimum wage criteria in the states is a welcome development.

What the disaggregated picture shows, thus, is that there is considerable scope for improving the implementation of the scheme, more so in some states. Making the NREGA work well could become particularly crucial in the current year if the apprehensions about drought in some areas turn out to be well-founded.

A study of the seasonal pattern in the demand for work under NREGA shows that the July-October period is the lean season while May-June is the peak period. While there may be other factors, the monsoon and the kharif crop would seem to have a major role to play in providing farm employment opportunities during this period and hence reducing the demand for employment under NREGA.

A drought could change that and raise the demand for work during these lean months. Will the system be able to cope with that increased demand? Finding the money to fund it is the relatively easy part. Streamlining the delivery mechanism might be much tougher.

French Agricultural Tilt

Agriculture is the traditional occupation for the traditional countries. With the non stopping preaching of the western world there is less attention paid by the Third world to its backbone economy. On the other hand, the advanced countries protect their farmers with heavy subsidy.

The Hindu editorial (9 May 2009) says,

The French government has sent shock waves through international agriculture with its announcement that from next year it will divert 20 per cent of EU agricultural subsidies to smaller farms, grazing land, hill farming, and organic agriculture; the former European Economic Community introduced subsidies under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in 1963. Agriculture in the developed world is as much of a political battleground as it is in the developing world. For decades, French governments have claimed to be protecting small farmers and traditional ways of life against industrial farming, EU bureaucrats, and the threat of hormone-reared American beef. In fact the major French beneficiaries of CAP have been larger cereal farmers, many of whose holdings are as big as those on the American prairie. In 2002, President Bush signed a bill to subsidise U.S. agribusiness to the tune of $190 billion over ten years; in 2008, Congress overrode Mr. Bush’s veto of a bill, taking the total closer to $300 billion. In the United Kingdom, despite public rhetoric against CAP, the larger farmers benefited hugely from being paid not to grow mountains of surplus grain and were turning their land into lucrative golf courses and other leisure facilities while small farmers struggled so hard that some committed suicide. In Germany, the larger farmers are very hostile to the EU’s new requirement that subsidies to specific farms be published.

The French policy shift and the EU’s move towards transparency are welcome, despite larger French farmers’ complaints that transparency will cause envy and distrust among themselves. It must, however, be remembered that there is little serious talk yet of an end to agricultural subsidies in advanced economies or of fairer trade terms for developing countries’ agricultural produce. Jamaican dairy farmers and Mozambican sugar producers cannot compete with subsidised milk powder and sugar from developed countries. The suffering caused to Indian cotton farmers by subsidised U.S. cotton exports has also been widely reported. In addition, smaller French farmers feel that the changes do not go far enough. Those facts are, at present, unsurprising, but even on grounds of self-interest there may be good reasons for developed countries to address these issues seriously. Unable to grow food crops in the face of subsidised U.S. exports, Colombian and other Latin American farmers say they have no option but to grow cocaine — for export to the colossal U.S. market.

It is high time for the western world to eliminate their hypocritical approach towards agriculture

Ensuring Food Security

Food security is paramount for any nation in the world. Traditional countries face innumerable risks due to the penetration of dangerous seeds and chemically dangerous substances into the agricultural fields. Now the challenge is to safeguard its seeds and ensure the healthy and beneficial crops to farmers and consumers.

M.S. Swaminathan writes in The Hindu, 12.3.2009,
Lying 78 degrees north, the Norwegian village of Longyearbyen on Svalbard island is the farthest one can travel on a commercial flight to the North Pole. On February 26, 2008, a Global Seed Vault was opened here to preserve a representative sample of the genetic diversity in crop plants. In the middle of an ice mountain, a 120-metre tunnel has been chiselled out of solid stone leading to three vaults that can store 4.5 million varieties. This capacity is sufficient to protect all the diversity that exists and what is likely to arise in the future. The vaults are in permafrost conditions where the natural temperature is minus 4 degrees C round the year. This has been further lowered to minus 18 degrees, the optimal temperature for long-term seed viability.
The Global Seed Vault is owned by the Norwegian Government, but managed jointly by the Norwegian Ministry of Agriculture, the Global Crop Diversity Trust and the Nordic Genetic Resource Centre. The seeds are stored under “black box condition,” meaning that the storage boxes remain the property of the institution which sent them and can be opened only with the depositor’s permission, avoiding conflicts relating to intellectual property rights. On the first anniversary of this unique Gene Bank, Norway organised at Svalbard in February a seminar on “Frozen Seeds in a Frozen Mountain: Feeding a Warming World,” where I delivered a lecture on “Freezing Seeds: A Humanitarian Issue?”

In my presidential address on “Genetic Conservation: Microbes to Man” delivered at the XV International Congress of Genetics in New Delhi in December 1983, I pleaded for international cooperative efforts to foster a conservation continuum. The starting point of the continuum should be in situ on-farm conservation of land races by farm families in their own fields to help conserve intra-specific variability, which is an invaluable asset in crop improvement. For example, thanks largely to the efforts of farm and tribal women, there are now over 125,000 strains of rice that can grow from below sea level to over 2,000-m-high mountainous conditions. Rice grows in upland rainfed areas as well as in flood-prone areas. India has instituted a Genome Saviour Award to accord social recognition and economic reward to the primary conservers for whom conservation is both a way of life and the principal means of food, health and livelihood security.

At the end-point of the conservation continuum, I recommended the creation of facilities for long-term seed storage under permafrost conditions. Normal cryogenic gene banks are expensive to run due to electricity costs. The operational cost can be brought down when seeds are stored under permafrost conditions. The Svalbard Vault is such a facility. The conservation continuum envisaged in my 1983 address is thus complete. Such an integrated conservation system involves rural and tribal women and men on the one hand, and environmental scientists and engineers on the other.

There is a vital difference between in situ on-farm conservation by tribal and rural families and cryogenic preservation under permafrost conditions. On-farm conservation promotes not only preservation but evolution through genetic recombination and natural and human selection. Keeping seeds under cold storage helps preserve them for future use but does not permit evolution. Any effective national genetic conservation system should include measures that can foster genetic evolution and selection, and ex situ cryogenic preservation in gene banks.
Genetic erosion caused largely by loss of habitat and altered land use and agronomic practice is extensive. The loss of every gene and species limits future food security options, particularly at a time when climate change is presenting new challenges such as changes in temperature and precipitation, frequent floods and coastal storms and rise in sea levels. Over 20 years ago, the late Dr. S K Sinha and I showed that a one-degree rise in mean temperature may reduce the duration of the wheat crop in Punjab by a week. This will reduce yield by nearly 400 kg per hectare. Since wheat yield is highly influenced by the night temperature that prevails during the grain ripening phase, higher temperatures will have a disastrous effect on productivity and production.

Recombinant DNA technology provides opportunities to move genes across sexual barriers and create novel genetic combinations. This is why the preservation of at least a small seed sample of existing variability in long-term storage structures as in Svalbard assumes urgency. For example, mangrove species provide genes to develop crop varieties with salinity tolerance. Transgenic rice strains have been developed by scientists of the M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF), Chennai. Deep-water rice varieties provide opportunities to grow crops in flood-prone areas in the Indo-Gangetic Plain. Regional cooperation in this area, as for example among India, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Sri Lanka, will benefit all of them.

An example of effective regional cooperation is provided by the Nordic Genetic Resource Centre (NordGen) located at Alnarp in Sweden. It is responsible for the conservation and sustainable use of genetic resources of farm animals and plants that are of importance to agriculture, horticulture and forestry. NordGen was established on January 1, 2008, merging the Nordic Gene Banks for plants and for farm animals and the Nordic Council for forest reproductive material.

We also need new genes to ensure the security of crop yields under conditions of invasion by transboundary pests. The Ug 99 strain of stem rust of wheat from Uganda is likely to damage the wheat crop unless steps are taken to identify genes for resistance to this rust fungus. Our scientists have identified such wheat varieties. Genes for tolerance to drought are available in wild plants such as Prosopis juliflora. These have been transferred by MSSRF scientists to rice and tobacco. Thus, genetic variability is the feedstock for the biotechnology industry. The Herbal Biovalley under development in Orissa’s Koraput region is designed to integrate biodiversity, biotechnology and business to mutually reinforce conservation and commercialisation.
There is a need to strengthen our infrastructure for the conservation and sustainable and equitable use of plant and animal genetic resources. The outbreak of the H5N1 strain of avian influenza caused loss of genetic material in poultry in Maharashtra, West Bengal and Assam due to the culling of native breeds. I have suggested an offshore quarantine facility in one of the uninhabited Lakshadweep islands, which could provide opportunities to test native poultry genetic strains for resistance to invasive alien species. The National Commission on Farmers recommended a National Biosecurity System to prevent harm from transboundary pests and diseases. Eternal vigilance is the price of stable agriculture: the sooner we establish an effective biosecurity system the greater will be the chances of avoiding pandemics.

Food at affordable prices is a prerequisite for peace and social security. Awareness of the importance of biodiversity for food, health and livelihood security is crucial. Anthropogenically induced climate change is likely to become the most harmful catastrophe affecting human security and well-being. In Svalbard, Norway has created a Noah’s ark to serve as a safety net for food security in an era of global warming and climate change. Biodiversity for all and forever should be the bottom line of our conservation ethics. Genetic literacy is essential to stimulate public and political interest in genetic resources conservation. The MSSRF started Genome Clubs in schools for this purpose a decade ago, which led to the formation of DNA Clubs in schools with support from the Department of Biotechnology.

India has a Plant Variety Protection and Farmers’ Rights’ Act and a Biodiversity Act to ensure that genetic material is conserved with the involvement of panchayats and local communities. It has long-term seed storage facilities for plant varieties at the National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources in New Delhi, and has National Bureaus for the conservation of animal, fish and forest genetic resources. India is thus in a position to promote a conservation continuum.

All our resources must be used to put back the farmers rights and safety of agricultural fields. More importantly the seeds and crops must be protected from the exploitation of the foreign elements which are very keen to exploit the farmers for quick profits. Even the local chemicals and industrialists step in to destroy the seeds and agriculture. Efforts should be directed in stopping these elements at the start itself.

The wheat import crime

Aam aadmi rhetoric mongering UPA government is committing sin after sin against the commoners. The liberal import of wheat when the local granaries are overflowing is the recent case in point. Unfortunately there is not a single soul in the power corridors to take the responsibility to explain the reason behind the wheat import. The man responsible for the explanation – union agriculture minister is busy in cricketing and politicking.

The crimes are committed at multiple levels. One, higher prices paid to the imported wheat. Two, lower MSP to the wheat producing Indian farmers. Three, the quality of the imported wheat is inferior and beyond human consumption. Four, a large scale of the PDS wheat is stolen by the vested interests in connivance with the government authorities. Five, no seriousness and sincerity among the concerned people to adequately explain the motives behind the wheat import.

The State Trading Corporation (STC) had floated three global tenders to import nearly 15 lakh tonnes of wheat at a maximum cost of USD 389.45 and a minimum cost of USD 263 a tone. Surprisingly the low cost tender was cancelled and an exorbitant amount was paid to import 12 lakh tonnes of wheat. This higher price payment tells the naked truth. The wheat import was to benefit certain individuals and parties. Clearly the aim is not to uplift the poor people.

On the other hand the national food grain production has gone up to 209.32 million tonnes which is 4.71 million tonnes higher than the previous year’s production. Out of this the wheat production was 74.89 million tonnes which is 5.65 million tonnes higher than the previous year’s production. There are 101 million tones of wheat available in the central pool as on 1 October 2007.

Why the government is reluctant in procuring wheat from the local farmers? What is the harm in giving better prices to them? These questions need immediate answers.
Source: The Business Line, 5 October 2007

Under the cover to help the poor, the government is destroying their lives. Either they are suffering with the poor quality of food grains supplied or not delivered the subsidized products at all. According to a report by The Times of India, Rs. 32,000 crore worth of food grains were stolen in the last three years. Except 12 states, rest of the country faces the large-scale diversion of PDS for private profit. Not a single grain of wheat reaches the targeted poor people of North eastern states. This region’s problems are compounded with terrorism, corruption and lack of physical infrastructure.

Liberalising the food sector is an essential step to prevent the pretentious actions of the state. The mill owners should be allowed to import food grains directly. They should be given import duty concessions and all technical assistance. The government can serve the poor better by withdrawing its good intentions but bad outcome programming. The sooner it is done the better the food security of the nation. The agriculture ministry should be the starting point of this noble Indian mission.