A can of boll worms

Many farmers in Gujarat didn’t know they were sold pirated Bt cotton seeds. Now, the government threatens to burn their crop.

DIONNE BUNSHA
In Gandhinagar district, Gujarat.

Nareshbhai Patel didn’t have a clue that he was growing genetically modified (GM) Bt cotton seeds in his farm. “The shop keeper suggested that I try this new seed variety called Navbharat 151. It was only later that I heard about the seeds on the TV when the news broke that the government was threatening to burn the fields where Navbharat 151 seeds were sown,” says this farmer from Vadodara Lath village in Gandhinagar district.

The government of India’s Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) had no clue either. Navbharat 151 has been sold illegally in parts of Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra for the past three years. The GEAC was caught with its pants down when the Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company (MAHYCO), which has applied for a licence to market Bt cotton seeds in India, complained that Navbharat was illegally selling GM seeds.

Bt stands for Bacillus thuringiensis, a soil bacterium that has been used as a pesticide to protect crops against three pests: tobacco budworm, cotton bollworm and pink bollworm. Bt is not effective against a number of other pests like boll weevil or white fly. Genetic scientists spliced a protein from Bt into cotton, creating a new seed called Bt cotton. This protein is selectively toxic to certain insects.
The genetically modified Bt seed was created to provide cotton plants with built-in protection against pests without using synthetic pesticides. Bt seeds are also called transgenic seeds because an alien gene has been introduced into a naturally occurring seed variety. Besides cotton, Bt has also been introduced into other crops like corn, cotton and potato.

Its failure to monitor the sale of GM seeds may cost hundreds of farmers dear, if it intends to carry out its threat. The Gujarat government, unwilling to pay compensation or antagonise the state’s farmers, has assured farmers that their fields will not be torched. Moreover, most farmers have already harvested the crop and are now clearing the fields for the Rabi potato crop.

The Navbharat fiasco could be considered a landmark case on several fronts. Most importantly because it has highlighted the gaps in government regulation of this new technology. However, in the rush to point fingers and nail a culprit, the larger questions about whether India needs GM seeds and its long-term implications on Indian agriculture, have been obscured.

Farmers seem relieved to have found a new seed that will rid their crop of the dreaded bollworm. Gujarat’s kharif season saw the worst pest attack in recent times. While the hybrid cotton crop was damaged, the Bt fields flourished. “The yield is 50 per cent more with Navbharat 151. Although I sprayed for pests other than the bollworm, I still saved around Rs. 5,000 per acre on pesticide,” said Karamsibhai Ladabhai Patel from Vadodara Lath village, who tried out the new seeds on an acre of his land.

Karamsibhai Ladabhai Patel and Naresh Patel, cotton farmers from Gandhinagar district, where Navbharat-151 Bt cotton seeds were sownPhoto: Dionne Bunsha
“These seeds are more expensive. One bag costs Rs 550 as compared to Rs 300 for hybrid cotton seeds. But we save more on pesticide costs,” says Patel. He adds that the Bt cotton crop uses more fertiliser and does not protect the plant from other pests, for which pesticide is still necessary. When asked about the environmental consequences of using the seeds, Patel says, “We know that this cotton plant has poison. The worm dies within minutes of biting the leaf. But none of the birds or squirrels feeding on the crop have died. We haven’t been told how it will harm us.”

But the farmer’s excitement may be short-lived. Explaining the dangers associated with Bt cotton, Dr Ramesh Agarwal, a genetic expert at the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad, says, “Initially farmers may be happy with the new technology. But long term concerns about pest resistance, cross pollination and toxicity also need to be considered.” Pests have developed resistance to the Bt cotton crop in countries where the seeds were used. In such a situation, even pesticides may not prove effective. Then, an even hardier pest will harass cotton farmers, resulting in higher costs and lower yields.

The second danger, Dr Agarwal points out, is that the alien gene inserted in the Bt cotton seed may be transmitted to other crop plants, endangering other plant varieties. At present, India has more than 200 cotton varieties. Thirdly, the effect of the genetic marker used to insert the alien gene in the seed is not known. If the marker is not removed, it could prove harmful. Dr Agarwal also cautions that the toxin produced to kill the bollworm could enter the food chain. There is a possibility that the Bt cotton toxin could enter the food chain through cotton oil and through the oil cakes that are fed to cattle. While the effect of the toxin is still unknown, the dangers would be more widespread than those associated with chemical insecticides, which affect the health of the immediate user.

Dr C.D. Mayee, director of the Central Institute of Cotton Research (CICR) in Nagpur, which is conducting trials of MAHYCO’s Bollgard brand of Bt cotton, says the trials have shown that Bt seeds have no environmental impact. When asked about pest resistance, he admits, “It is likely that pest resistance may develop when the seed is used on a large scale. But it is up to scientists to develop a counter-strategy.” Bollgard is the brand name for the Bt cotton seed developed and patented by the multinational seed company Monsanto. The seed giant has a 26 per cent stake in MAHYCO. It faced tremendous opposition when it tried to introduce the seed in India in 1990. Now it is trying to enter the Indian market by tying up with an Indian company. But the Navbharat Seed company beat them to it, in some sense.

“More than 305 seed packets were distributed in Bhavnagar alone. Individual farmers were given one packet each on a trial basis. In Kutch, the seed has been used for the past two years. No one knew they were GM seeds,” says Bhavnagar’s assistant director of agriculture, in charge of quality control, M.B. Dhorajia. When asked why the government was caught napping while the seed was being freely sold all over the state, he says, “We don’t have facilities to test for GM seeds. At the local level, we only test random samples to ensure the seed is not of sub-standard quality. There are 162 seed companies here, each producing more than 15 different varieties. Its impossible for us to keep a check on all of them.”

For cotton farmers already burdened with increasing costs due to pest resistance to insecticides, Bt cotton may offer a quick fix solution. “This year, the crop was so bad that most people may abandon cotton cultivation next year. Costs have doubled in the last five years. At the same time, yields are falling. Even 12 or 15 sprayings of insecticide couldn’t save the crop. Over the years, the prices for our harvest have also fallen. It is no longer profitable to grow cotton. In Andhra Pradesh, indebted farmers have committed suicide. This new seed may be a good alternative for us. We have run out of options,” says Popatbhai Ramjibhai Patel from Sonarda Lath village in Gandhinagar. Currently, pesticides account for half the cotton production costs. Around 70 per cent of India’s pesticide consumption is on cotton.

“Bt is no escape,” warns agriculture policy analyst Devinder Sharma, “it shifts the vicious cycle from pesticides and puts farmers onto another biological treadmill.” He points out that already pests have started developing resistance against Bt gene in China and Australia. “Fourth generation pesticides were greeted with the same welcome when they were introduced in the mid-‘80s. However, in a few years, insect resistance to the pesticide was widespread. In their desperation, many farmers swallowed the lethal pesticides and committed suicide,” says Sharma.

To blame pest resistance alone for farmers’ suicides would be far too simplistic. Farmers’ indebtedness has increased due to economic policies, which have reduced the profitability of agriculture. Liberalisation policies have reduced subsidies, restricted rural credit and have opened the market to imports - direct onslaughts on farmers’ livelihoods. If such policies continue, mere technological fixes may not help.

Even local seed distributors who stand to gain big bucks from the sale of Bt seeds are cautious. “The government should examine the effects of using these seeds and give farmers more information. They should not endanger the 200-odd cotton varieties sold in Gujarat today,” says Arunbhai Patel from Bhavnagar.

While Bt cotton seeds require careful pest management practices, the current infrastructure in place does not provide an adequate base for modernisation of agriculture. Education, technical support, finance and equitable markets are needed, says Dr Geeta Bharathan, a scientist at the State University of New York, Stony Brook. In such a scenario, only a handful of rich farmers are likely to be able to reap the benefits of the new seeds. “MNCs have the patents for GM seeds. Once they gain control of the market, they will increase the prices drastically. Only rich farmers will be able to afford them,” says Dr Agarwal.

A cheaper alternative exists. Although rarely spoken about because it doesn’t generate profits for large companies, organic farming has proven to yield the same results as hybrid seeds without the accompanying input costs. “The CICR bulletin states that organic methods are as effective as inorganic farming for dryland cotton, which constitutes 90 per cent of cotton production,” says Manohar Parchure from the Vidarbha Organic Farmers Association.

While the government is still groping in the dark, stumbling in its efforts to regulate the use of GM seeds, the Navbharat seed scam has opened up a can of worms. It needs more than Bt to deal with them.

Frontline, Nov 24 – Dec 7, 2001 Also available here

Trade: A Free for all?

While farmers in developed countries, constituting less than three per cent of the population, enjoy huge subsidies, India actually taxes its farmers. With substantive cuts in subsidies for power and fertilizer, and a fall in the selling price of agricultural produce due to dumping by developed countries, farmers face a crisis that needs to be addressed immediately.

DIONNE BUNSHA

He stood defiantly as the truck hurtled straight towards him. And he refused to budge. The truck did not relent either. While participating in the boycott of British cotton imports, Babu Genu was mowed down by a truck carrying foreign cotton. He died instantly.

Babu Genu’s fight is as relevant today as it was 70 years ago when he was killed on December 12, 1930. He died fighting against the colonial government’s free trade policy, which gave British textile imports an unfair advantage over the Indian textile industry and affected the livelihoods of thousands of workers and weavers. In memory of Babu Genu’s fight against imperialism, the Maharashtra Kisan Sabha held state-wide protests on his death anniversary last month to highlight the adverse effects of trade and power sector liberalisation.

At a Kisan Sabha rally in Dindori, Nashik district last month, farmers said that their livelihoods are being destroyed by the new economic policies. Trade liberalisation, cuts in fertiliser subsidies, reduced infrastructure investment and privatisation of the power sector have adversely affected the profitability of agriculture. While costs of inputs like fertilisers and electricity have risen steeply due to cuts in subsidies and privatisation, the prices at which farmers sell their produce have declined due to the glut of imported products in the market.

“Prices have fallen substantially. I used to sell a tonne of sugarcane for Rs 1,000 last year, but this year, the price is only Rs 500. The price of garlic has decreased by around 70 per cent. We are not able to recover the costs. Debts keep accumulating every year,” said Pandit Gangorde, a small farmer from Shendvad village in Nasik.

Pressurised by the US government to “free trade”, the central government agreed to lift quantitative restrictions (QRs) on the import of 1,200-odd items by April 2001, many of which are agricultural products. During his recent visit to the sub-continent, Bill Clinton managed to persuade India to free QRs two years prior to the April 2003 deadline agreed to by OECD countries.

“Foreign countries give their farmers many benefits. They get huge subsidies. But our government has lifted even the most basic protection for her farmers. Imported products are being allowed to enter India at cheap prices. We cannot compete, and will be totally destroyed.,” said Ambalal Sonvane, a farmer from Varkheda village. He added that small farmers have suffered heavy losses due to the government’s liberalisation policies. “We are being hit from all sides. Our costs have risen because the government has reduced fertiliser subsidies and electricity rates have doubled due to privatisation and deals like the Enron project. At the same time, output prices are falling due to imports.”

Agriculture has borne the brunt of liberalisation on many fronts. Cuts in government spending have resulted in reduced public investment in agriculture as well as smaller subsidies. Dismantling of procurement agencies, greater imports and falling world commodity prices have also reduced profitability. The central government’s Report of the Commission for Agricultural Cost and Prices for Crops Growth for the 1995-96 and 1996-97 season warns that wholesale price indices have not risen commensurate to the considerable increases in the prices of important farm inputs.

Moreover, imports have also reduced market prices. “If milk from Denmark (where farming is highly subsidised) enters our market at Rs 7 per litre, when the current price is Rs 13 per litre, do we stand a chance?” asked Chintaman Gavit, Kisan Sabha Nashik district president in Maharashtra. “At first, the consumer may benefit. But once our domestic production has been totally wiped out, they will be at the mercy of foreign producers.”

Surprisingly, the government can do something to prevent the dumping of agricultural imports, but has chosen not to. Says S.R.Pillai, national president of the Kisan Sabha, "Even the WTO rules allow the government to impose tariffs of up to 300 per cent. But despite this crisis, the government has only imposed tariffs ranging from 15 to 40 per cent. In addition, it can impose anti-dumping tariffs. But it chooses not to exercise these powers."

India actually taxes its farmers rather than subsidising them, according to an article written by Binu Thomas of ActionAid India. “Each farmer in the developed countries gets on average a subsidy of US$ 29,000 a year. The US domestic support for its farmers was US$25.5 billion in 1996, while for the EU it was US$ 85 billion. In both the US and the EU, farmers constitute less than 3 per cent of the population. In contrast, India’s domestic support to its farmers worked out to a negative US$ 23.7 billion in 1995-96 even after providing for fertiliser, electricity, irrigation and seed subsidies.”

Moreover, trade liberalisation has resulted in bizarre situations where India is exporting wheat at a price cheaper than what most Indians are paying. Wheat from Food Corporation of India godowns can now be exported at the same price at which it is sold to people classified as living ‘below the poverty line’, says economist Madhura Swaminathan. “Millions of undernourished and vulnerable people, who are still classified as being ‘above the poverty line’ have been told to pay a higher price for wheat than the price at which the government is willing to sell the same wheat to foreign countries,” Dr Swaminathan points out.

Concern about the Indian farmer’s survival has sparked quite a few protests of late. Last month, farmers from Punjab held a massive rally outside parliament to protest against the reduction of procurement prices offered to farmers by the Food Corporation of India. The Telegu Desam Party recently stalled proceedings in Parliament, objecting to the central government’s failure to ensure that paddy farmers were getting the minimum support price for their produce. In a recent interview, TDP leader Chandrababu Naidu said that farmers need adequate protection from the adverse effects of free trade and the World Trade Organisation.

The themes underlying farmer’s struggles today ring familiar to those fought by freedom fighters like Babu Genu. From colonialism to globalisation. We’ve come a long way. Or is it full circle?


The Hindu Sunday Magazine, 11 February 2001.

Where's the techno fix for farmers?

Bitter Harvest 4

DIONNE BUNSHA

YAVATMAL:
Litres of pesticide did not save his crop, but a few gulps of the lethal chemical ended his life.

Vithal Krishnarao Kamble (26) committed suicide in May, unable to pay back the loans he had taken from the local moneylenders. He did not live to see his son, born a few weeks later.

“Even the money he got from selling his mandap decoration business was not enough to settle his debts,” says his father Krishnarao, who doesn’t even know the extent of his son’s borrowings. What he does know is that Vithal bought Rs 34,000 worth of pesticide from the local dealer to rid his 18 acre plot of every cotton farmer’s nightmare – the American bol worm.

Though Vithal sprayed his fields 15 times, even when he knew it was not advisable to spray more than four, his crop was ravaged. The pesticide was ineffective for two reasons. First, unseasonal rains increased humidity, which is favourable for widespread proliferation of the pest. Secondly, cotton monoculture has made the boll worm resistant to pesticides, even in the most concentrated dose. Moreover, pesticides are only effective during the early stages of the boll worm’s growth.

Vithal’s tragedy illustrates the ill-effects of intensive methods of farming and unscientific agricultural practices, which are beginning to rear their ugly heads. “The green revolution made agriculture more commercial. Farmers, who earlier used indigenous inputs, are not dependent on companies for expensive seeds, fertilizers and pesticides. Never mind how high the costs or the ecological damage caused,” says Udayan Sharma from the Amravati Kisan Sabha.



Crop failure due to unseasonal rain, hail storms and the pest attack destroyed the harvest in Vidarbha causing 60 farmers to commit suicide. The government has announced compensation of Rs100,000 to 19 victims’ families.

Farmers sunk their money in pesticides that did not work. This points to the failure of the government’s agricultural extension services that are supposed to advise them on prudent farming techniques. The administration started publicizing advice about combating pest attacks only after much of the damage had already been done. With extension officers nowhere in sight, farmers were forced to seek advice from pesticide dealers. The same dealers who provide them credit.

Says owner of the Rathi Krushi Kendra, a farm products shop at Phalegaon in Yavatmal, “The farmers don’t know much. I explain techniques to them.” And how does he keep up with the latest farming practices? “Through the companies, of course, who come here with their pamphlets,” he says.

Aggressive and unregulated marketing by seed and fertilizer companies is pushing technologies that may be inappropriate. “In order to promote our research seeds, we cultivate a plot of land and invite farmers to see the results,” says a company salesman. Most of these seeds do not bear the government’s quality control label.

Many seeds promoted as super hybrid seeds fail to live up to the company’s claims. “I bought 100 grams of a Korean papaya hybrid for Rs 10,000. But it did not yield even half the expected crop,” says Suryapal Chavan, a farmer from Nandgaon in Amravati.

While companies go all out to market their products, the agricultural extension office remains far removed from ground realities. “Extension officials’ knowledge is outdated. In fact, it is the farmers who keep reading about new techniques,” adds Mr Chavan. Extension officials never reach the villages, but complete their quotas by conducting farm training session in each tehsil once a year. Moreover, training is conducted in only one crop after which they move on to the next tehsil to conduct training on another crop. Last year, even this was not conducted. “We shifted all our training sessions to Akola because the chief minister was keen on promoting the Israeli system of drip irrigation there,” says an agricultural officer in Wardha.

While the government is trying to promote drip irrigation, which is far too expensive for the ordinary farmers, it has failed to improve basic irrigation. Less than 10 per cent of Vidarbha is irrigated. Even the few irrigation projects are not efficiently utilized. For example, only 10 per cent of the irrigation potential created in Yavatmal district has been used.

This has resulted in excessive pumping of ground water, lowering the water table considerably, says Yavatmal district collector Rajeev Jalota. Heavy use of urea has also led to a soil imbalance.

Although Maharashtra accounts for nearly 20 per cent of Indian cotton production, its yield per hectare is one of the lowest in the country. In Maharashtra, the percentage of irrigated area under cotton is less than two as compared to Punjab (99 per cent), Rajasthan (94 per cent) or even Andhra Pradesh (12 per cent), according to a study by S. Mahendra Dev of the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research.


The Times of India, Mumbai, 6 July 1998

Drowning in Debt

Bitter Harvest 3

DIONNE BUNSHA
in Amravati

Sheikh Bhura Sheikh Ramzan has set up his home under a tree this monsoon. He sold his house to pay his debts. “When it rains heavily, we sleep in the village school,” says Sheikh, a resident of Dhanora Fasi village in Amravati.

Even after selling the roof over his head and a third of his three-acre plot, Sheikh still has an outstanding debt of Rs 10,000 with the local moneylender.

Lakhs of cotton cultivators in the Vidarbha region have been crippled by enormous debts after their crops failed due to unseasonal rain, hail storms and pest attacks.
Sheikh doesn’t know how he will make it through this kharif (monsoon) season. “The banks will throw me out. The moneylenders will not lend me any more money. It’s difficult to get work in the fields because people can’t afford to hire labourers. In any case, no one wants to hire an old man,” he says.

While Sheikh has endured the adversity, others have not. More than 80 suicides have been reported in the state so far, 60 from the Vidarbha region. Hounded by the moneylenders and tormented with anxiety about how to find the funds to prepare their fields for this season, they felt there was no other way out.

Manjurabai Thakur found her husband Hari (60) lying dead in the fields two days after he drank pesticide. “For days, he wouldn’t eat or talk. We don’t even know how much money he borrowed. After his death, moneylenders came here asking for Rs 10,000,” says Manjurabai from Januna village in Nandgaon taluka of Amravati.
Manjurabai was forced to lease out her tiny plot. “I try to find work in the fields to run the house,” she says. “When the school term begins, I will request the schoolmaster to give my grandchildren note books. There is not enough food in the house and we wait for the khichdi that the younger one brings back from his balwadi.”


Repaying debts to moneylenders at interest rates of 60 to 120 per cent has pushed several families like Manjura’s to the brink. At the root of the problem is the weak rural banking system here, which caters only to a small section. Bank credit accounts for a mere Rs 256 crore of Vidarbha’s total credit requirement of Rs 2,456 crore, according to Kishor Tiwari, a local BJP activist.

Banks seems unlikely to increase their credit in the near future since they have recovered only 5 to 13 per cent of crop loans, due to last year’s climatic crisis. The few large farmers who do receive credit say that the amount of money given per hectare does not meet all expenses. It is less than half the amount recommended by the agriculture department and the National Bank for Agriculture and Development (NABARD).

NABARD’s executive director S.B. Sharma admits that nationally, banks cover a mere 20 per cent of the cost of agricultural production. He explains, “Since agriculture is considered an unstable business heavily dependent on the monsoon, commercial banks are reluctant to lend. Moreover, with liberalization, they are cutting costs by restricting the number of small borrowers in order to compete with foreign banks.”

Funds in co-operative banks are corners by the politically powerful. “Politicians are on the bank’s board of directors and have total control over the funds. We can see that the money is not reach the most needy farmers,” admits a senior district co-operative bank official.

Pointing out the “bias against agricultural finance”, Mr Sharma explains that both agriculture and industry contribute an equal 26 per cent to the GDP. Yet, agriculture receives only 12 per cent of gross bank credit while industry gets 54 per cent.

Although an “unstable business”, there is not comprehensive crop insurance scheme to reduce the risks in agriculture. “Of the few who are insured, a small handful have been able to claim compensation for crop damage,” says a district cooperative bank official. Only 11.24 lakh of the 94.69 lakh cultivators in the state are covered by the insurance scheme.

Profitability of farm produce is also shrinking, making the farmer’s tightrope walk for survival even more precarious. “Every year, fertilizer and seed costs increase by 10 to 15 per cent. Produce prices have not increased proportionately. While we produce the crop, traders cartels control prices. Why doesn’t the government stop this exploitation and regulate the market?” asks Pramod Lade, a farmer and Panchayat Samiti member from Wardha.

“Early this year, the market price of tomatoes was fixed at 50 paise per kg and brinjals at Re 1. Normally, these vegetables are sold at Rs 15 to Rs 20. Since it would cost us more to transport our vegetables to the market, we decided to let them rot,” says Suryapal Chavan from Amravati.

4 July 2006, The Times of India, Mumbai