| Fleecing the rural poor - the harvest that never was (2/2/2006) | |
|
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 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. |
|