KNOWLEDGE INITIATIVE ON AGRICULTURE (KIA)
In the din of the Indo-US Nuclear Agreement, a more important one meriting even more media focus and public attention has been relegated to lower priority. Although the Left had opposed this one too, it was more out of habit than any sense of national responsibility.
The KIA was announced during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to the USA in Jul 2005 and finalized along with the Indo – US Nuclear Deal during President George Bush’s visit to India in Mar 2006. It hopes to boost agricultural cooperation between India and the US, promote agricultural interaction in sectors like food processing and marketing, biotechnology, water management, and capacity building at universities.
Merits of the Agreement
1. KIA will usher in emerging trends in agriculture arising out of global warming, new pests, and natural resources depletion.
2. Enhance the role of private sector in agriculture.
3. Help reduce food wastage by improved marketing infrastructure and resource conservation technologies.
Drawbacks
1. The KIA paves the way for more agriculture patents, making farmers dependent on private firms for technology. According to Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA) the KIA may be ideal for the “American Model” of agriculture, heavily dependent on patents and enhanced use of biotechnology, will threaten the livelihood of the Indian farmers.
2. The KIA is not farmer friendly in India. The KIA is driven by corporate interests to establish intellectual property rights-based controls on resources and technologies in India. This model of agriculture is propped up by subsidies and sustains about two percent of the US population. In India, where over 60% of the population depends on agriculture, the model is ecologically, socially and economically unadaptable.
3. The KIA is a corporate friendly exercise. India would do well to remember the BT cotton seeds example where the seed firms have established a near-monopoly and reduced the state to a party fighting a losing battle to lower the cost of BT seeds or even make the seeds available. The consequences of similar outcome for every other crop can only be imagined.
4. Transfer protocol of bio-resources for research unclear; so danger of bio-piracy. KIA remains vague on the terms of transfer of Indian genetic resources to the US for research. This leaves open the possibility of Indian bio-resources transported to US and elsewhere.
5. Thrust is on new research rather than better efficiency of existing technologies. KIA is also out of step with Planning Commission’s approach paper to the 11th Plan and the “Draft Kisan Policy” laid down by the National Commission on Farmers. Both these documents stress on bridging the gap between what is possible with existing technology in the labs and what farmers achieve on ground. The KIA pushes scientists further back into the labs.
6. Major agri-business corporations well represented on the KIA Board. The KIA Board counts members like Ted Huffman (Director of Wal-mart’s Supply Chain in India), Rashmi Nair (Director Strategic Integration, Monsanto) and S Sivakumar (CEO of ITC Ltd’s Agri-business Division) as representing business interests. The only NGO representation is that of Marshall Bouton, Executive Director, Chicago Council on Foreign Relations.
Conclusion
No matter what the merits / demerits of the Agreement, India cannot afford to ignore the impact it would have on the hapless community of Indian farmers already reeling under strain of the BT cotton controversy and the large numbers of farmer suicides.
In the din of the Indo-US Nuclear Agreement, a more important one meriting even more media focus and public attention has been relegated to lower priority. Although the Left had opposed this one too, it was more out of habit than any sense of national responsibility.
The KIA was announced during Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to the USA in Jul 2005 and finalized along with the Indo – US Nuclear Deal during President George Bush’s visit to India in Mar 2006. It hopes to boost agricultural cooperation between India and the US, promote agricultural interaction in sectors like food processing and marketing, biotechnology, water management, and capacity building at universities.
Merits of the Agreement
1. KIA will usher in emerging trends in agriculture arising out of global warming, new pests, and natural resources depletion.
2. Enhance the role of private sector in agriculture.
3. Help reduce food wastage by improved marketing infrastructure and resource conservation technologies.
Drawbacks
1. The KIA paves the way for more agriculture patents, making farmers dependent on private firms for technology. According to Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA) the KIA may be ideal for the “American Model” of agriculture, heavily dependent on patents and enhanced use of biotechnology, will threaten the livelihood of the Indian farmers.
2. The KIA is not farmer friendly in India. The KIA is driven by corporate interests to establish intellectual property rights-based controls on resources and technologies in India. This model of agriculture is propped up by subsidies and sustains about two percent of the US population. In India, where over 60% of the population depends on agriculture, the model is ecologically, socially and economically unadaptable.
3. The KIA is a corporate friendly exercise. India would do well to remember the BT cotton seeds example where the seed firms have established a near-monopoly and reduced the state to a party fighting a losing battle to lower the cost of BT seeds or even make the seeds available. The consequences of similar outcome for every other crop can only be imagined.
4. Transfer protocol of bio-resources for research unclear; so danger of bio-piracy. KIA remains vague on the terms of transfer of Indian genetic resources to the US for research. This leaves open the possibility of Indian bio-resources transported to US and elsewhere.
5. Thrust is on new research rather than better efficiency of existing technologies. KIA is also out of step with Planning Commission’s approach paper to the 11th Plan and the “Draft Kisan Policy” laid down by the National Commission on Farmers. Both these documents stress on bridging the gap between what is possible with existing technology in the labs and what farmers achieve on ground. The KIA pushes scientists further back into the labs.
6. Major agri-business corporations well represented on the KIA Board. The KIA Board counts members like Ted Huffman (Director of Wal-mart’s Supply Chain in India), Rashmi Nair (Director Strategic Integration, Monsanto) and S Sivakumar (CEO of ITC Ltd’s Agri-business Division) as representing business interests. The only NGO representation is that of Marshall Bouton, Executive Director, Chicago Council on Foreign Relations.
Conclusion
No matter what the merits / demerits of the Agreement, India cannot afford to ignore the impact it would have on the hapless community of Indian farmers already reeling under strain of the BT cotton controversy and the large numbers of farmer suicides.
2 comments:
It is very very important for us to all understand the implication of this deal for the people who are affected by it. Why are Indian farmers not better represented in the commission? Who established the commission? I am very proud that this blog has published its opinion of this bill. It is only when small voices start speaking and coming together that public opinion is formed.
1. KIA will usher in emerging trends in agriculture arising out of global warming, new pests, and natural resources depletion.
I wonder what trends the US government wants to bring to India. They are the biggest carbon emitters in the world and not even signed the Koyoto protocol which other developed countries have embraced. The pests found in america are not the pests found in India. Which is why BT cotton was such a disaster ... it protected the plants from Boul Worm ... but not from others.
2. Enhance the role of private sector in agriculture.
At least 90% of agriculture in India is already privately owned. Or does our definition of the private sector exclude poorer people. If the government really wants to help these people, it would do better to reform the public distribution system and improve the infrastructure provided to existing farmers such as credit, roads and access to information. Even today, farmer's who are given conditional loans - you will get loans at cheeper rates if you buy fertilizers. Why the conditions?
3. Help reduce food wastage by improved marketing infrastructure and resource conservation technologies.
I think before we set out to solve India's wastage problem, we should understand the causes. More than anything, the reason India suffers so much is dis-honesty and corruption. There are no technological solutions to such problems. And Americans cannot provide any solutions for problems of this nature ... because they are from a different world, they dont have the perspective (without meaning any offence) of these problems.
Post a Comment