1.Activists outraged at Indian welcome to Monsanto chief
2.Organic farming could help reduce rural poverty: UN study
---
1.Activists outraged at Indian welcome to Monsanto chief
Kanchi Kohli
Infochange News and Features, January 29, 2006 http://www.infochangeindia.org/AgricultureItop.jsp?section_idv=10#4339
Civil society activists, academicians, scientists and farmers of the SAGE network strongly oppose the Indian government's stance regarding Monsanto
The visit of Hugh Grant, CEO of Monsanto, to India and his scheduled meeting with top government officials has raised concern and alarm among activists. Members of SAGE (South Against Genetic Engineering) dashed off a letter to the prime minister and president of India as well as chief minister and agriculture minister of Andhra Pradesh voicing their objections and requesting the prime minister to stand by the millions of Indian farmers who have been destroyed in the process of using genetically modified seeds.
A press release, dated January 20, 2006, states: "It is with deep shock, concern and suspicion that we receive the news that the prime minister of India and the president of India are receiving the chief executive of Monsanto Mr Hugh Grant next week. We cannot simply fathom why the head of a dubious agro-chemical company which has earned more notoriety than fame, is being given such a big honour of being received by the heads of this great country. We are urging the president and the PM to refuse to meet Mr Grant. He and Monsanto do not deserve an audience by the heads of such an illustrious country such as India."
Monsanto in India is synonymous with the introduction of Bt cotton, a genetically engineered variety of cotton developed by the US-registered Monsanto Corporation. It was marketed in the country by Mahyco Monsanto Biotech Ltd. Three Bt cotton varieties -- MECH 162, MECH 12 and MECH 184 -- were permitted for commercial cultivation in India in March 2002. Farmers in states like Andhra Pradesh were desperately looking for ways to get out of the tangle of pesticide-driven agriculture and the loan trap they had fallen into. But, although the Bt cotton propaganda issued several promises, none were realised on the farms (see: http://www.ddsindia.com/www/default.asp).
Since then, the sustained struggle of the Deccan Development Society (DDS) and other local groups against Bt cotton cultivation in Andhra Pradesh has resulted in a ban on Bt cotton seed varieties by the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), Government of India. Monsanto has been banned from operating in Andhra Pradesh, and the state government finally took the company to court accusing it of indulging in monopolistic trade practices with unreasonably high prices and limited technical developments.
Ironically, however, the same seed varieties are being allowed to be grown in other states in the country. The Andhra Pradesh government has asked the governments of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu to join in the effort to halt Monsanto’s monopolistic practices.
SAGE's press release goes on to say that Monsanto has a "history of influencing governments in the South through means that are not above board. In Argentina its bullying tactics have turned the government against its people and now there is to be a federal tax levied on farmers that goes directly into Monsanto's pockets. In Indonesia, the company is charged with corruption, bribing senior environment officials to repeal the requirement for an environmental impact assessment for new genetically engineered (GE) crop varieties to be able to speedily commercialise its GE cotton".
SAGE was launched in April 2005, and held its inception meeting in January 2006. The network was born of a strong concern among civil society activists, academicians, scientists and farmers who work with the issues of ecological agriculture, genetic engineering and food sovereignty.
The idea is not just to target corporations like Monsanto but to highlight the philosophy it perpetrates, which is to push the GE agenda into agriculture at any cost. The network claims that companies like Monsanto are unconcerned about the fact that farmers become dependent on the market for procurement of seeds, when they could otherwise save them from their farms. And that 'technologically advanced' agriculture works against the food sovereignty of villages and households.
These and other issues were discussed at SAGE's first meeting on January 6 and 7, 2006, in Bangalore. The workshop was timed to oppose the collaboration between USAID and the University of Agricultural Sciences (UAS), Karnataka. On January 11 and 12, a big symposium was organised in Bangalore to look at biotechnology approaches for alleviating malnutrition and improving human health, which is the key point of the collaboration between USAID and UAS.
The US Agency for International Development (USAID) has been the principal US agency for providing economic and humanitarian assistance to developing and 'transitional' countries. However, SAGE maintains that the biotechnology that USAID promotes is nothing but genetic engineering that is being aggressively presented as an answer to India’s agricultural crisis and nutrition and health problems.
Participants at the SAGE workshop voiced their opposition to this approach. They believe that biotechnology is not the answer to malnutrition and ill health. Instead, there are thousands of home-grown solutions in ecological agriculture that are being practised by farmers all across India.
Unfortunately India continues to promote genetic engineering in its agricultural policies, in the form of Bt cotton, Bt okra, Bt brinjal and several other crops that are under trial in academic institutions and on farmers' fields.
---
2.Organic farming could help reduce rural poverty: UN study
http://www.infochangeindia.org/AgricultureItop.jsp?section_idv=10#4339
Organic food production could offer a way out of poverty for many small farmers in developing countries. But only if they receive government support, says a new study conducted in India and China
South Asian farmers who have switched over from using synthetic fertiliser to more eco-friendly, traditional forms of organic farming have earned more and achieved a higher standard of living, says a recent study by the United Nations. However, small farmers are often excluded from supportive government reform programmes that encourage organic farming, says the UN's International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
"In China and India, organic production is growing steadily," says the Italian-sponsored report, presented by the IFAD’s Phrang Roy and Caroline Heider and senior Italian officials in Rome, on January 25. The study looked at the role of organic agriculture in rural poverty reduction. Also, when and under what conditions organic farming can be integrated into development programmes.
"The value of Chinese exports grew from less than $ 1 million in the mid-1990s to about $ 142 million in 2003, with more than 1,000 companies and farms certified. In India, there has also been remarkable growth, with about 2.5 million hectares under organic farming and 332 new certifications issued during 2004," the report notes.
In addition to bringing about higher prices for agricultural produce, lower unemployment and less rural migration, "organic farming reduces the health risks posed by the use of toxic chemicals, as well as the high costs of chemical pesticides and fertilisers. (Also), the environment benefits from improved soil management and less-polluting techniques," said the IFAD.
However, the paradox is that Indian and Chinese farmers already producing for export are the ones benefiting from this booming sector. Small farmers are often denied government assistance in storing, processing, certifying and exporting their produce, while domestic markets for organic produce are "very limited in China and even scarcer in India". A large proportion of organic products are sold informally without certification controls.
The study points out that for small farmers to want to make the soil improvements that organic farming requires they needed security of tenure, access to family labour and support organisations to help them with training, loans and collective marketing.
In areas where conditions favour the adoption of organic agriculture by small farmers, it could provide a long-term solution to poverty, while reducing migration and improving the health conditions and environment for entire communities.
But, in order to hold out hope for the world's small farmers, organic farming must grow sustainably and not lose its "added value", or prices and incomes would drop, says the study. If organic agriculture expands too rapidly it may lose its added value and prices and incomes could decrease considerably. Organic agriculture should not, therefore, be considered a panacea that can be used to reduce poverty in any environment, at any time, cautions the IFAD.
Source: www.un.org/news, January 25, 2005
www.ifad.org, January 25, 2005
Go to a Print friendly Page
Email this Article to a Friend
Back to the Archive
|
