Dropping the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill 2013 – reg.

To

Shri Jaipal Reddy,

Hon’ble Minister for Science and Technology,

Government of India.

Fax No.s: 011-23386118; 23016207

Dear Shri Jaipal Reddy,

Sub: Dropping the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill 2013 – reg.

Greetings!

This is to express our utter dismay and disappointment at the manner in which the controversial and objectionable Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill 2013 was introduced by you in the Lok Sabha, ironically on The World Earth Day! This proposal for BRAI is a direct threat to the health of our citizens, our environment and our farm livelihoods, given the deeply flawed approach and specific contents of the Bill. Parliamentarians cutting across party lines, in addition to a couple of state governments have expressed their serious reservations against this Bill in the past, as you know, and had urged the government to not table the Bill.

Most importantly, the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture already examined in great detail the regulatory frameworks that exist elsewhere in the world, and studied the BRAI Bill too. In their August 2012 report tabled in the Parliament, the Committee unanimously said the following:

“The Government have been for some years now toying with the idea of a Biotechnology Regulatory Authority. The Committee feel that regulating biotechnology is too small a focus in the vast canvas of biodiversity, environment, human and livestock health, etc. and a multitude of other such related issues. They have, therefore, already recommended in a previous Chapter setting up of an all encompassing Bio-safety Authority through an Act of Parliament, which is extensively discussed and debated amongst all stakeholders, before acquiring shape of the law. Unless and until such an authority is in place, any further movement in regard to transgenics in agriculture crops will obviously be fraught with unknown consequences”. (Section 8.120)

Analysing the lacunae of the existing regulation and studying the proposed Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill, the Standing Committee said the following: “In such a situation what the Country needs is not a biotechnology regulatory legislation but an all encompassing umbrella legislation on biosafety which is focused on ensuring the biosafety, biodiversity, human and livestock health, environmental protection and which specifically describes the extent to which biotechnology, including modern biotechnology, fits in the scheme of things without compromising with the safety of any of the elements mentioned above”.

It is important to note that ten of the 31 members of the Committee that unanimously signed off on the Standing Committee’s report belong to the ruling Congress. The then-UPA members were 13 in all! Are we to assume that the level of undemocratic functioning of the government is such that it would not listen to its own Parliamentarians who have studied the subject carefully?

We also feel deeply disappointed by your action since members of our Coalition had met you on the 27^th of November 2012 in person and the issues with regard to the BRAI Bill were discussed in detail. You had assured us that various points raised would be looked into. Similarly, the DBT Secretary Dr Vijayaragavan is quoted in a media report soon after taking up his new office early this year as BRAI Bill requiring extensive consultations. If the serious flaws being pointed out again and again are not looked into, what democracy are we talking about?

The BRAI Bill is much more retrograde than the regulation system that exists today, which itself has been proven inadequate in the Bt Brinjal case. Through the BRAI Bill your Ministry proposes to take a step back from the improvements related to transparency or public participation or federal polity enshrined in the Indian Constitution or rigorous, long term independent scientific testing all of which were incorporated into the Government’s own moratorium decision on Bt brinjal How can this BRAI Bill be rationalized by a government which is not even heeding to  its own Task Force’s forceful and important recommendation around the bottom line for any regulation related to modern biotechnology in the country, as contained in the Swaminathan Task Force report of 2004 (the safety of the environment, the well being of farming families, the ecological and economic sustainability of farming systems, the health and nutrition security of consumers, safeguarding of home and external trade and the biosecurity of the nation’)?

Sir, it appears that your Ministry has chosen to support the industry and respond to its lobbying than stand on the side of ordinary citizens, their health, environment and livelihoods concerns. The industry association called ABLE has already gone to press celebrating the tabling of the Bill, which indicates who this Bill is favoring.

We believe that the Government of India made a grave mistake when it tabled the BRAI Bill on the 22^nd of April 2013. However, we also believe that it is not too late for you to withdraw the Bill and instead propose a Bio-safety Protection Legislation.

This is to let you know that we feel betrayed. Around the country, there is deep rejection of this Bill, by ordinary citizens, by civil society groups, by scientists as well as by many elected representatives and their parties, in addition to state governments.

We urge you to drop this Bill, and instead propose a Biosafety Protection Law, which the Government of India should bring in through the coordinated efforts of various concerned ministries, but led by the ones whose mandate it is to protect biosafety. The least that should have been done is to circulate this Bill for widespread public consultations, in addition to seeking feedback from the state governments. It is also a travesty of transparent governance that your government holds high, that the draft of this bill was never opened up for public debate, and weighed against a Biosafety Protection Law.

Sir, please withdraw this Bill immediately, responding to the faith reposed in you by the public.

-- 

------
KAVITHA KURUGANTI
Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture (ASHA)

Office:          A-124/6, First Floor, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi 110 016
Residence:  # 301, Subiksha Apartments, 6th Cross, Gupta Layout, Ulsoor, Bangalore 560 008

www.kisanswaraj.in 
www.indiagminfo.org &
www.indiaforsafefood.in

Phone: +91-9393001550

Punjab Agri Policy Feedback-24 April.Doc

“OLD WINE IN A NEW BOTTLE”

TECHNOCRATIC MINDSETS AT WORK ON DRAFT PUNJAB AGRI POLICY

This is a response from ASHA (Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture), which is a national, informal network of more than 400 organisations from across 20 states of India, including prominent farmers’ unions, environmental organizations, sustainable agriculture groups and so on. Several of the groups associated with ASHA are incidentally drawn from Punjab.

Our feedback here is related to both the process adopted by the government and the Drafting Committee, as well as the content of the draft recommendations.

THE DRAFTING OF THE POLICY

It appears that the Punjab government has not caught up with either democratic ways of functioning or the evolving discourse around S&T policy making, where expertise is not seen as the domain of a few subject experts alone. Democratisation of policy making in general, and specifically in the domain of Science & Technology related issues, including in the field of agriculture is the norm of the day in progressive societies. It is unfortunate that Punjab government wants to continue with its top-down technocratic mindset which is reflected in the constitution of the drafting committee; it is also equally unfortunate that the drafting committee of technical experts, who seem to bring a techno-fix mindset that is seen throughout the policy draft, have failed to understand the inadequacies of their approach. It is bad enough that the Committee does not have any civil society representation including of farmers’ unions of Punjab but that the so-called process run by the Committee also does not invite participation from a wide range of stakeholders.

We demand that the government now hold systematic region-wise and district-wise consultations all over Punjab, before finalizing this policy. And before doing so, a Punjabi version of the draft policy may be widely circulated. Similarly, in these consultations, the government should invite any other policy recommendations that citizens and others might have in a serious effort to address the current crisis in Punjab’s farming. NO POLICY SHOULD BE ANNOUNCED BEFORE RUNNING SUCH PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES AROUND SOMETHING AS VITAL AS FARMING IN PUNJAB, which affects every single citizen in one way or the other.

Why just an Agriculture Policy?: The country had progressed to understanding that agriculture cannot survive and thrive without farmers surviving and thriving and that is how we have a National Farmers’ Policy. Similarly, entire state departments are being renamed to make the focus of the government’s clear: farmers’ welfare and agricultural development department in the case of Madhya Pradesh for instance.

It is unclear why Punjab Government thinks that a techno-fix oriented agriculture policy, which is old wine in a new bottle, will solve the state’s farming crisis. The fact that farmers have not been made the Centre of this policy could be its greatest drawback.

While one objective of the policy (mainly two-pronged as articulated, one with focus on production and another with focus on farmers’ income) is on farmers’ income, the excessive focus on monocultured production including through market and fiscal incentives shows the continuing short-sightedness of the state government. The excessive focus on a few crops in the name of ‘diversification’ without understanding the problem with monocropping at the farm level shows that this policy will not lead to any sustainability.

ISSUES WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DRAFT AGRI POLICY

Punjab in fact is a classic example of the “produce more and perish” paradigm of Green Revolution. While Punjabi farmers have the highest productivity levels in some crops with adequate market support systems put into place for such crops (rice and wheat), their resources are probably the most degraded, not to mention the environmental health issues which this agriculture policy does not acknowledge in all the seriousness they deserve (not to mention the levels of indebtedness and the poor income levels to show for all the effort by Punjabi farmers in adopting the Green Revolution paradigm). However, the current draft does not seem to have learnt any useful lessons from the past.

What is surprising about this draft policy is its correct placing of all the symptoms of the crisis and disaster that Punjab farming presents, but a wrong diagnosis and therefore, same old prescriptions which are all techno-fixes, even though a mention or two is made of innovative institutional approaches.

WE agree with all the indicators and manifestations of the crisis that were presented by the drafting committee: overexploitation of natural resources, decline in real farm incomes, farmers using higher quantities of inputs to maintain productivity even at the same level, depletion of major and micro-nutrients, emergence of new insect pests, diseases and weeds, indebtedness etc.

While data is presented on water situation and soil conditions, the situation with regard to farmers’ income or indebtedness across different classes has not been presented and that would have starkly shown how a farmer-centric approach (which is a livelihoods approach) rather than a techno-centric approach would help.

Sadly enough, the issue of environmental health crisis has not been dealt with in either the acknowledgement of the problem, or the existence of radically different solutions and the need to promote them.

We however welcome the unambiguous and clear expression of the many other indicators of crisis that have been picked up and presented. This should provide an urgent impetus for addressing the problems in fundamental and holistic ways rather than brush the problems under the carpet.

It is true that the existing paradigm poses a large strain on the state exchequer in numerous ways; it is also true that climate change is presenting new challenges to farming and farm livelihoods.

However, the analysis around smallholdings is once again from an old school of thinking. While acknowledging that their productivity and efficiency is no less than large holdings, it is important to understand that innovative solutions related to organizing such farmers and intervening all along the supply chain might be the way to create viable livelihoods for such smallholders.

Overall, the prescriptions around “diversification” including to crops like sugarcane and maize (that too proprietary {GM} hybrids?) in the name of high value agriculture is unsustainable and will once again bring in medium and long-term problems of similar kind. It is also unsustainable to be thinking of diverting agricultural land which is catering to some sort of food security (though there are major questions on this paradigm of food security too) to bio-fuel production or other industrial uses. Similarly, sugarcane is also a resource-intensive crop and given its long duration, it faces several adversities in a season.

DIVERSITY BASED CROPPING, NOT DIVERSIFICATION: If more income is ensured for a multitude of food crops, farmers will shift towards those (pulses and oilseeds were mentioned in the policy draft). It requires a policy that talks about Diversity-Based cropping, where a sugarcane is not spoken as a single crop or Maize as a monocrop either. Diversification is not the same as Diversity-Based cropping and unless the latter is adopted, there is no real sustainability brought in. It is obvious that price policies and marketing support are being thought of to steer cropping patterns and land use in the state – in such a case, the ideal situation should be pursued and not the quick-fixes that will create additional new problems.

“SUSTAINABLE INTENSIFICATION” – PUNJAB HAS NOT UNDERSTOOD YET: Punjab government should also realize that there is nothing like “judicious use” of synthetic inputs in reality – one has witnessed indiscriminate recommendations as well as indiscriminate use in the past and there is very little in this policy which shows that “sustainable intensification” is indeed possible without change in fundamental ways in the policy as well as extension advisories around sustainability as well as intensification!

PROMOTION OF PRIVATE SECTOR GUARANTEES NEITHER VIABILITY NOR SUSTAINABILITY: There is also no evidence that private sector and ‘facilitating increased investment’ from industry has ever led to sustainability per se. One of the main objectives of the policy, that of addressing environmental sustainability (not just technological feasibility and economic viability), is not going to be fulfilled by the various recommendations related to promotion of private sector role including through PPPs. In fact, economic viability would erode sooner or later as evidence from developed countries shows, where technological feasibility has not led to economic viability, but ever-increasing subsidies have!

It is apparent that proprietary technologies and inputs would lead to increasing costs of cultivation, with medium and long term problems creeping in, stagnation of growth leading to the situation that we are witnessing today. It is seen that promotion of private sector is never concomitant with greater accountability fixed on them and this leads to serious implications for farmers.

Under 8.2.2. Research Infrastructure, the policy draft argues for greater funding for public sector research (which is fine), but is obviously at odds with the private sector promotion that is mentioned in other locations of the document. Adequate funding for public sector is fine, but what is the point in such investments of taxpayers’ money when the private sector takes over the market? Who will be the takers for the public sector outputs, and how?

OPPORTUNITY FOR A DECISIVE SHIFT BEING LOST: The draft policy completely ignores the recommendations of other exercises around providing broad directions for the future of agriculture, in terms of its revival, regeneration of resources as well as restoring dignity and viability to farm livelihoods – for example, the IAASTD process (International Assessment on Agricultural Science, Technology and Knowledge for Development) which said that ‘business as usual’ will not do. Agro-ecology is firmly shown to be the way forward. There are also several other such analyses which point out to the inadequacy of a technocentric approach to agriculture which focuses on intensive, external-input-based farming. In Punjab too, this policy draft could have set a new path for all of India’s farming by focusing on agro-ecology as the way forward, in a post-modern context in agriculture. However, we find only skepticism expressed in the draft around organic farming and a passing mention in another context. This shows the fact that technocrats in Punjab are unwilling to catch up on latest developments and decisive shifts happening elsewhere.

FARMING AS A COLLECTIVE ENTERPRISE: There is no mention of making farming as a collective enterprise to make it sustainable as well as viable (ecological approaches for promoting sustainability are knowledge-intensive and need grassroots collectives for their effective spread). There is no great thrust in putting value addition in the hands of producers’ organizations or support in various innovative ways to direct marketing of farmers, except a mention here or there (6.14.3 and 6.15.2 – even here, ‘development of private markets’ is a focus). The hurdle with regard to direct marketing by farmers is not in the form of any regulatory obstacle (the recommendations diagnose this as a problem and therefore, propose a solution on that front), but in terms of practical support – this includes infrastructure support (processing equipment, storage godowns etc.) and financial support (cash flows for paying farmers at the time of procurement, for paying others for services rendered etc. etc.). This should be expressly addressed.

TOKEN MENTION OF FARM WOMEN: This draft policy ignores the potential role that women can play in turning around Punjab’s agriculture for the better. It makes an unacceptable and objectionable token mention around ‘empowerment of farm women’ and makes a mention of ‘gendered’ activities that women can take up. Preservation of seed by women, it says, when the draft policy also wants private sector to take over the seed sector in the state! The lack of seriousness in understanding the importance of farm women is apparent.

WE BELIEVE THAT THE INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE PARADIGM OF FOCUSING ON PRODUCTIVITY, FOCUSING ON SINGULAR CROPS AND PROMOTING PRIVATE SECTOR IN AGRICULTURE WILL BE A SURE RECIPE FOR GREATER DISASTER.

Coming to some specifics, other than the broad thrust of “sustainable intensification, crop diversification etc.”,

WE DO NOT AGREE:

1. That trade in agriculture is looking attractive and dynamic (in fact, the policy draft itself admits at a later point in the document about the pitfalls of such trade liberalization) – in fact, taking this path as a path out of the current crisis has no solutions. Trade certainly has a role to play but this should be given only as much importance as it deserves, especially from lessons learnt from the past about unequal terms of trade that usually exist for our producers.
2. That users of technology should bear a part of the cost of technology development, especially if this burdens the farmers. We however believe that private sector should be charged substantially for using various public sector resources, research products and facilities.
3. That problems with regard to labour availability in agriculture need to be dealt with only in a technocratic manner, with farm mechanization on a large scale proposed as though it is the only solution. Innovative approaches like the “Green Army” approach promoted by agriculture scientists interestingly enough in Kerala, where professionalisation of labour services to create a win-win situation for farmers and agri-workers is one example. It should be remembered that farm mechanization also adds to unsustainability in various ways (fossil fuel use, the cost implications on farmers, fact that farm mechanization often comes in the way of diversity-based farming etc.). While welcoming the idea of custom hiring centres so that farm implements and machines are affordable and accessible to most farmers, we propose that any proposals for farm mechanization should be appropriate and sustainable. We also propose that labour costs be subsidized by the government for a variety of operations in farming, especially by recasting those subsidies that go to benefit the industry at this point of time, rather than benefit the farmer or agri-worker directly.
4. With the proposal around a conducive industrial policy for encouraging establishment of industry in rural areas, ostensibly to ensure employment. Official data from around the country shows that this sector has posted “jobless growth” with no potential to absorb displaced farmers and farm workers. These industries might also add to the environmental health crisis that exists in Punjab. The agri-based rural industries proposal is however welcome, especially if this can be promoted in such a way that farmers’ collectives benefit the most from such initiatives.
5. With the notion that the state needs to rope in private sector in a very big way, for reasons stated above. There is no evidence that either economic viability or environmental sustainability objectives can be met through this. This includes contract farming proposals. The drafting committee should provide evidence from the contract farming experiences in Punjab so far about the benefits that have accrued to farmers through such arrangements that point to sustainability and viability objectives met before proceeding further.
6. At all with the proposals around research on transgenics (6.4.2.). There is no evidence that this is sustainable or safe. In fact, there is ever-emerging evidence to show that transgenics lead to more use of agro-chemicals, in addition to causing environmental damage in numerous ways.
7. At all with the notion around organic manures not meeting the full nutrient requirements of crops. This shows that the drafting committee has not understood the ecological approach to farming, which does not rely on organic manures alone in its productivity approaches. The draft policy says that organic farming should be encouraged to the extent of availability of organic manure (6.7.3.), forgetting that while sustainability of organic farming is not under question, economic viability depends a lot on marketing support provided, subsidies and support structures put into place, organizing of farmers into collectives, extension including farmer-to-farmer extension, a conducive atmosphere for innovation etc.
8. Under Soil Health Management old mindsets are reflected in the prescriptions around soil testing and soil health cards, which could very well neglect Soil Biology entirely, unless consciously incorporated into a much needed new paradigm to be promoted in Punjab.
9. With Punjab government still stuck on “Integrated Pest Management” when other places have moved on to Non Pesticidal Management of crops. The entire discourse and practice on IPM has been disappointing in that it has not brought about any significant change, most probably because of the lack of political will around this approach. Judicious use, waiting period, safe use of pesticides etc., are all hypothetical concepts that have not been witnessed in practice, as the drafting committee should very well know. The bias of the policy drafting team in favor of pesticides is also apparent in the fact that no tough regulatory measures have been proposed in this case, though they talked about new laws against straw burning as well as groundwater abuse and misuse. Should we assume that the industry lobby pressure is still at play here? It is apparent that the problem of pesticides is too pervasive than the issue of residues and therefore, suggesting a solution around checking of residues in farm gate samples is not commensurate with the magnitude or seriousness of the issue. The same is seen again under “environmental pollution” (6.9.2)
10. That contract farming arrangements will have any sustainable solutions for farmers, unless this is expressly built in in terms of which cropping patterns can have this arrangement, using what technologies of production and also importantly, the fact that prices of ungraded produce should not be less than a statutory MSP to be declared at ‘improved C2’ (there are many improvements needed in cost of production calculations, as is well known) PLUS 50% at least.
11. That it is enough to set up Centres for intelligence on global trade (6.15.5) and then ask farmers to fend for themselves. State government should have stepped in by now proactively against the EU-India FTA for instance. Unless safeguards are available, given the unequal terms of trade most often, just intelligence will not help.
12. With the techno-fixing mindset apparent in the recommendations regarding the Livestock Sector (7). These are in the form of large dairy farms and high yielding crossbreeds etc. This productivity mindset in an industrial agriculture context is worrisome since it is apparent that sustainability is being paid some lip-service in these instances. Even strengthening of milk cooperatives is spoken about only in terms of technology!

WE AGREE:

o   Assured marketing and remunerative price for kharif pulses and oilseeds – price support operation corpus fund; Significant investment for marketing infrastructure for alternate crops (3.5)

o   The importance of diverse sources of farm incomes and therefore, dairying. However, the factory-model of dairying leads to its own set of problems mired in unsustainability. Therefore, we need a different sort of outlook towards livestock rearing than a technocratic one, once again.

o   The import substitution strategy emphasized in the policy, especially with regard to pulses and oilseeds.

o   The emphasis on family farms (this is a Western concept, of course and we are reading it to mean that the policy drafting committee means this as smallholders) for vegetable cultivation is welcome and it is being seen around the country that vegetable cultivation with extra support at production and marketing end has indeed improved livelihoods of smallholders. In this context, it should be remembered that states like Karnataka have progressed far in created urban-based marketing outlets (Hopcoms), while states like Andhra Pradesh have Rythu Bazaars for direct marketing by producers.

o   With the proposal that Electricity should be charged beyond a certain level of free supply and that savings to be put into a fund.

o   With the recommendation that legislation for checking the menace of straw burning. We believe that this would work also with a system of incentivisation and extra support to farmers who opt not to burn the straw. The emphasis should be not just on bio-energy and ethanol but more importantly for soil fertilization given the state of the resource in Punjab.

o   With the promotion of SRI. The state government should realize that even with sugarcane, Sustainable Sugarcane Intensification has paid off in many places and any limited promotion of sugarcane should be only on the basis of SSI.

o   With promotion of multiple cropping systems as an adaptive measure to climate change (6.5.2.) – however, in this context, the policy should actually talk about better insurance products, coverage and implementation also.

o   The proposal with regard to a Water Resources Regulatory Authority for regulating optimum use of surface and groundwater. The government should analyse the experience of other states like Andhra Pradesh which have created legislations around indiscriminate groundwater use before concretizing this.

o   The recommendation around restoring the storage capacity of natural water bodies like Harike and Hussaniwala and around good water harvesting. We also welcome the policy articulating notions around inter-generational equity in water access.

o   The recommendation under Soil Health Management that legume crops should be incorporated and that paddy straw should be recycled to enhance soil fertility. Further, the recommendation to bring in a legislation for Management of Crop Residues is also welcome.

o   The recommendation for a price compensation fund, to take care of glut in the market in the case of vegetables, for instance (6.11.7.). However, no mention of organic vegetables and the direct marketing opportunities that are present, as shown by many farmers’ collectives across the country, finds no mention in this policy draft.

o   The idea of strengthening state seeds corporation, as mentioned under Supply of Quality Seeds and Planting Material (6.12.). But once again, this idea will not survive the onslaught of promotion of private sector as mentioned in 6.12.1 and shows the lack of cohesiveness in understanding and thinking on this issue.

o   The notion of promotion of farm forestry or agro-forestry; HOWEVER, the mindset of monocultures and profiteering is visible in these recommendations too.

o   The recommendation around a Price Support Operation (corpus) Fund (6.15.6) or a Market Intervention Fund. But we welcome it in the context of pulses and oilseeds mainly, not maize, sugarcane etc.

o   The recommendation around ‘licensed cultivators’ – an identification system of tenant cultivators exists in other states too and it is very important to adopt good practices to extend all support to tenant cultivators and bring them into the radar of official support extended. (8.1.)

o   The recommendation against land acquisition in the case of fertile agricultural land, and the fact that the policy draft recommended that acquired land should be used only for the purpose stated. The policy should expressly state that land will otherwise revert to the original owner. This requires regular audits.

o   The recommendation around revitalizing extension services; HOWEVER, the advisory should stress upon sustainability and should make farmers understand agro-ecological approaches.

TO SUM UP:

We believe that this draft policy is old wine in a new bottle and should be recognized and rejected as being so. We need new innovative solutions and the technocratic mindsets that led us to the current crossroads cannot be relied upon to come up with those innovative solutions. What Punjab needs is a major policy shift towards agro-ecological farming, with market incentives, subsidies and other support systems all recast towards such an approach. This would ensure economic viability as well as environmental sustainability.

PRESS RELEASE

Budget in denial mode about Indian farmers’ crisis, says ASHA

“The Indian Budget 2013-14 ignores the core problems being faced by the nation’s farmers and doesn’t even acknowledge the deep agrarian crisis, let alone address its causes. While farmer suicides across the country continue unabated (16,000 to 17,000 every year), the Budget continues the same policies instead of a major course correction which assures sustainable incomes to small farmers,” said Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA) in response to the Budget presented today in the Parliament.

“The Economic Survey focuses mostly on the production numbers and not the net returns to the farmers – and even on the production front the target growth rate of 4% was not met. The MSPs are mentioned but not the fact that in many states they are below the Cost of Production. The Price Support Scheme and Market Intervention Scheme are given lip service, but they were used minimally in just 5 states, that too in just 1 or 2 crops in each state. It is necessary to have a Price Guarantee policy and Farmers’ Income Commission to make the incomes of farming families as the central concern of the agricultural policy. The Budget should have announced Rs.2000 crores for Price Stabilization or Market Intervention fund – that would have incentivized the farmers to meet production targets as well as helped them make a decent living. The farmers’ crisis is strongest in the rain-fed areas which are more than 50% of the cultivated area but receives less than 10% of the benefit of subsidies and support systems. A massive program of focused attention is needed for rain-fed areas but it doesn’t find any mention,” said Kirankumar Vissa, co-convenor of ASHA.

“While the target for loans has been increased, the critical reforms required in credit sector have not been addressed such as ensuring that the tenant farmers receive institutional loans, and that majority of the priority lending goes to small farmers rather than high-end farmers, companies and non-agricultural activities. We welcome the increased outlay for SC & ST sub-plans and hope that they would be partly used to improve the agriculture-based livelihoods of these communities. A National Mission on Agricultural Extension was mooted in the 12^th Plan document to strengthen the extension system but it has not been announced. The farmers across the country are suffering due to lack of support systems and extension – ASHA demands a revamped extension system which is highly accessible to farmers through farmers’ service centres for every 5 villages, which preserves farmers’ knowledge systems, and which is focused on ecologically sustainable agriculture based on local inputs,” said Dr.Ramanjaneyulu, Executive Director, Centre for Sustainable Agriculture (CSA) and co-convenor of ASHA.

 “While the fertilizer subsidy is being phased out and costs of cultivation are skyrocketing, there should have been a concerted program to promote low-cost sustainable agriculture which which is based on diverse cropping systems and not mono-cropping. This needs a programmatic thrust and reorienting support systems including research and extension. The 12^th Five Year Plan recommends almost tripling the outlay for Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana compared to 11^th Five Year Plan. But the allocation in 2013-14 shows only marginal increase to Rs.9954 crores from Rs.9217 crores. The support to Farmer Producer Organizations in the form of equity matching and Credit Guarantee is welcome, but care should be taken so that these FPOs do not simply become supply channels for big retail. The focus should be on promoting farmers’ collectives where the production and marketing are planned by farmers and their representatives,” said Kavitha Kuruganti, co-convenor of ASHA.

ASHA demands that the Ministry of Agriculture and the ministries of allied sectors should hold wide consultations on how to address the core causes of the agrarian crisis, and move away from the current path which is pushing small and even medium farmers into crisis and paving the way for corporate control of agriculture. The few measures and small increases in allocations announced in this Budget are not just inadequate but they don’t even begin to chart the new path that is necessary and demanded by Indian farmers.

Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture (ASHA) is a nationwide network of more than 400 organizations and many more individual analysts, activists and experts, focused on small farmer livelihoods, ecologically sustainable agriculture, protecting people’s rights to seed, land, water and forests, and ensuring safe, nutritious food for all.

Web: www.kisanswaraj.in

Contacts:
Kirankumar Vissa: 09701705743, kiranvissa@gmail.com  

Dr.G.V.Ramanjaneyulu: 09000699702, ramoo@csa-india.org

Kavitha Kuruganti: 09393001550, kavitha_kuruganti@yahoo.com

Farming goes organic in Nalanda, to grow big-time

Pankaj Kumar, Governance Now | February 28, 2013

Introduced in 2010-11, organic farming has changed the way of cultivation in the district, raising yield to record levels and leaving farmers happier and richer.

Read more: http://governancenow.com/news/regular-story/farming-goes-organic-nalanda-grow-big-time

Regards,

Nemani...

Farming goes organic in Nalanda, to grow big-time

Introduced in 2010-11, organic farming has changed the way of cultivation in the district, raising yield to record levels and leaving farmers happier and richer

PANKAJ KUMAR | NOORSARAI, NALANDA | FEBRUARY 28 2013

Pankaj

Top officials, including district agriculture officer Sudama Mahto and district horticulture officer DN Mahto inspect an organic zone in Sohdih village of Biharsharif.

 Image Gallery

On Sunday, Rakesh Kumar, a farmer from Sohdih village in Biharsharif block of Nalanda district, was on seventh heaven. Scientists from Krishi Vigyan Kendra at Harnaut and Horticulture College of Noorsarai, who supervised the harvest of potato on his field, assessed the yield at 1,088 quintals per hectare — a new world record.

In fact, Rakesh broke the record of a fellow Nalanda resident, Nitish Kumar of Darveshpura village, who held the previous highest per-hectare potato yield of 729 quintals last year. Not only that, Rakesh also reportedly holds the world record of onion output — the yield on his fields last year was 660 quintals per hectare.

Thrilling news no doubt for Nalanda but record productions are no more breaking news for the district, which, in 2011-12, broke the national record in wheat harvest, by producing 126 quintals in one hectare.

So what’s the reason behind Nalanda’s happy story that is getting it prominence for reasons other than the ancient seat of learning? All these plots, where several national and world records have been created, are demonstration plots with 100 per cent organic farming to gain maximum yield.

Introduced in 2010, the popularity of organic farming has skyrocketed in villages of Nalanda, where farmers are depending on it to sustain the health of soil, ecosystem and people. Eighteen villages in the district have adopted complete organic farming, while others are in line to follow suit. As a result, use of vermin-compost (a mixture of gasless cow dung and earthworm to compost organic residues) and bio-fertilisers is on the rise, while those of chemical-based urea and DAP are decreasing.

According to district officials, use of chemicals like DAP, urea, insecticides and pesticides like diethane, monochrotophos and fumigants have decreased markedly. They said use of insecticide is down 50 per cent, while use of eco-friendly variants like dhaincha (a green manure crop that is a rich source of nitrogen) has increased significantly.

In simple words, organic farming is a method of agriculture that avoids use of chemical fertiliser, pesticide, fungicide and weedicide, among others, and, instead, stresses on use of organic fertilisers like organic manure, bio-fertiliser, green manure and bio-pesticide, depending on crop rotation. Organic farming has proven to have improved soil fertility, increase productivity without harmful effects on human and animal health, environment and biodiversity.

Since fungicide and pesticide directly affect the human body, their use is minimal, if not zero, in organic farming.

Going green on farm: The beginning
While the agriculture department started a major initiative to introduce organic farming in Nalanda district in 2010-11, the farmers initially were hesitant, as often happens with introduction of newer technology and a move away from age-old practices. Agriculture officials said initially only 20 farmers came forward with 10 hectares of land. However, as input costs declined and bumper yields went up, many more farmers adopted the new technique.

As of now, approximately 2,500 hectares of land is under organic farming, all growing different vegetables.

After successful experimentation on growing cauliflowers, farmers have now employed organic farming to grow onions, potatoes and many other vegetables.

Sohdih, Asha Nagar, Preman Bigha, Nagarnausa, Ganga Bigha and Andhana are some of the villages where productivity of all crops is considered completely organic.

Officials said three villages are in the last stage of certification by reputed international French organisation ECOCERT. While Sohdih village in Biharsharif block is in the last stage of certification, having already crossed the C2 stage by standard norms, Asha Nagar, Preman Bigha and Ganga Bigha have crossed C1, the first stage of certification.

A reputed French organisation, ECOCERT does soil-testing to certify whether the soil is organic by finding out the level of chemicals. The third stage, or C3, can be attained only when there is complete organic farming and use of chemicals has been totally done away with.

Listing the advantages of organic farming, district agriculture officer Sudama Mahto said, “Organic fields are disease-free and production increases by one-and-a-half times over fields using pesticides and insecticides. Since Nalanda has traditionally been a big production hub for vegetables, use of insecticides and pesticides was at its peak barely three years ago. But with our efforts and under the guidance of the district magistrate, their use has decreased nearly 50 per cent in Nalanda as organic farming is gaining popularity.”

Purushottam Singh, a technical assistant with the agriculture department, concurred: “Use of and dependence on toxic chemical fertilisers has decreased by up to 50 per cent and use of vermin-compost has increased manifold under SRI methodology . That's why wheat, pulses and paddy crops are available in abundance, with little input of chemical fertilisers.”

The System of Rice Intensification method, or commonly known in its abbreviated form as SRI methodology or Srividhi locally, also promotes organic farming, helping Nalanda increase its yield. Officials said SRI methodology has been used to cultivate paddy on 36,000 hectares, while 5,000 hectares were used for wheat production in 2011-12.

As part of the SRI method, treated seeds are planted in rows, thus decreasing the use of insecticides, and vermin-compost is used as fertiliser. According to officials from the agriculture department, cereal crops also use organic manures to a large extent. However, they are not fully organic because of the usage of urea, thus making them “nearly organic”.

Singh said the fact that Nalanda primarily has small and marginal farmers who do not have more than one or two hectares of land also helped make organic farming popular, as also important.

"Productivity has increased and cost input has decreased,” Rakesh Kumar of Sohdih village, the record-holder for potato yield, said. “The investment required earlier was Rs 800 per katha (piece of land measuring 1,000 to 1,300 square feet, varying from region to region) with the help of chemical fertilisers. But after we adopted organic farming, it has come down to Rs 300 per katha,” he added.

...And the happy ending
Two years after having adopted the eco-friendly version of farming, villages like Sohdih, Andhana and Saril Chak of Nalanda are bustling with activity with merchants from other cities going there directly to buy farm-fresh products. Now the farm products, which were earlier sold in the local wholesale market, or mandis, now have ready markets in other parts of eastern India.

Thus, while potato is sent to Kolkata, Bokaro and Jamshedpur, among other places, after marketing links were developed, the local cauliflower goes to Ranchi, Jamshedpur, Jharia, Bokaro and Patna.

Locals said people from south India, and even abroad, visit these villages to buy organic products, fetching a good return for farmers. “We sell groundnuts to visitors coming to Rajgir. They come to Saril Chak village specifically to buy such organic products,” said Manjula Devi, a villager who has benefitted from organic farming.

Both officials and locals agreed that organic farming has “truly changed the lives of farmers” in Nalanda and reduced toxicity to a huge extent. It has also encouraged farmers to buy more cattle so that cow dung is available in abundance.

The move has also prompted the local administration to give subsidies to farmers to buy biogas tank to produce cooking fuel in the villages themselves, while the slurry (gasless cow dung) is used to manufacture vermin-compost.

"With organic farming, we are becoming more self-dependent. Our income has also increased several notches," said Biranchi Yadav, the mukhiya (head) of Chandasi village in Noorsarai block.

Network to push scientific case for organic farming

Jan Piotrowski

22 February 2013 | EN

Error! Filename not specified.

80 per cent of organic-certified farmers live in developing countries

Flickr/Jose Miguel Calatayud

[PARIS] An international platform to strengthen and coordinate research on organic farming, and help benefits trickle down to organic farmers, the majority of whom are in developing countries, was launched in Germany last week (15 February).

The idea for the network emerged on the sidelines of the UN negotiations at the Rio+20 summit last June. It is coordinated by the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM).

The network, dubbed the Technology and Innovation Platform of IFOAM (TIPI) will act as a forum for stakeholders, including farmers, scientists and civil society organisations, to debate the direction of organic research and to influence agricultural policy. It will also work to improve the evaluation and implementation of organic farming, and undertake lobbying.

SPEED READ

·         Network will organise workshops for farmers and scientists, and coordinate research

·         It hopes to benefit organic farmers in developing countries

·         A separate, UN body, will help farmers certify their produce

While it will not fund research directly, by coordinating its member institutions, it could help to identify and fulfil research priorities, says Markus Arbenz, executive director of IFOAM.

"There is a lot of research being done, but it's poorly coordinated," he says.

"TIPI will create a global umbrella to push the scientific case for organic farming and make sure the messages our community sends out have a strong scientific basis."

Currently consisting of 35 research institutions, TIPI will help to build a global research agenda to address challenges such as food security, ecosystem degradation and social discrimination, through a number of initiatives.

These include workshops for farmers and scientists to exchange ideas, the creation of inventories of all research programs and literature resources, and a conference for TIPI members, scheduled for 2014.

With around 80 per cent of the 1.8 million organic-certified farmers living in developing countries, the benefits of fostering organic research, both through scientific research and governmental policy, would greatly benefit these regions, Arbenz tells SciDev.Net.

Urs Niggli, director of the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), in Switzerland, and a board member of TIPI, agrees that organic farming is important for development.

Case studies of two million farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa show that converting to organic farming considerably improves livelihoods, as well as education and training opportunities for farm children, he says.

But despite this social benefit, a lack of funding for organic farming and the dominance of the private sector in agricultural research prevents the full benefits being felt, Niggli says.

He estimates that less than 0.4 per cent of some US$52 billion annually spent on agricultural research goes towards organic-specific initiatives.

Using TIPI to create cohesion within the organic farming community, to set research agendas and to lobby policymakers, is a good way to improve financial and political support for organic methods, he tells SciDev.Net.

But while improving research and lobbying will help, farmers in developing countries are also failing to benefit due to complicated certification schemes, says Arbenz.

He adds that a new body, the UN Forum on Sustainability Standards (UNFSS), scheduled for launch in March, whose remit will include streamlining organic certification schemes, may help.

UNFSS will aim to make it easier for poor farmers to accredit their produce as organic, and thus make greater profits.

Hans Herren, president of the Millennium Institute, in Washington DC, United States, says TIPI's success will depend on engaging the right partners and on consumer demand.

TIPI must look beyond traditional organic farming research organisations, and shift attention towards educational institutions such as universities, agricultural schools and farmer training centres, he says.

Herren adds that consumers are the critical factor to the movement's success: without a demand for organic products it will be difficult to switch to organic on a larger scale.

Current estimates put organic sales at over US$60 billion a year, mainly in Europe and the United States. The countries with the highest number of organic farmers are India, Mexico, Tanzania and Uganda, with around one million producers among them. Most organic land is in Europe, Latin America and Oceania.

Link to IFOAM release

-- 
Maywa Montenegro
PhD Student
Environmental Science, Policy, and Management
University of California Berkeley
44A Giannini Hall
Berkeley, California 94720
maywa@berkeley.edu

TO REJECT AND EXPOSE THE VACUOUS NATIONAL FOOD SECURITY BILL AND REASSERT OUR DEMAND FOR A COMPREHENSIVE FOOD SECURITY ACT

 PUBLIC ACTION IN THREE PHASES IN MARCH 2013

 4 - 8 March: At Jantar Mantar with the Pension Parishad Dharna

11 - 17 March:  Public Action in States, Consultations with MPs

18 - 22 March: Vishal Dharna in Delhi

Dear friends,

From the 25th to 28th of February, many of us from the steering committee met in Delhi. We met Ministers, including the Minister for Food and Consumer Affairs, GOI, several members of parliament from the opposition parties, to understand what they were thinking and also presented our critique of the Bill. We also planned the nature and modality of public action against the present bill and recommendations of the Standing Committee.

This circular is in two parts. Part I gives the critique of the bill and part II relates to the campaign's plans in the month of March

PART I: CRITIQUE OF STANDING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE NFSB

Since it is very clear that the Government is gearing up to the enactment of a token food security bill, it was decided that we should gather in Delhi in large numbers to expose the vacuous nature of this bill and to demand a comprehensive food security law.  Presently the Government bill is more Bhukhmari Suraksha than Khadya Suraksha as it actually undermines the core issues of food security. In this backdrop it was felt that we had rather not have a law than have one which: 

-     undermines the food rights of children and pregnant and lactating women by not guaranteeing ICDS services provided through Anganwadi centres

-       leaves out a large population of people from the PDS by not universalising it

-       provisions only 5kg of foodgrain per person per month through the PDS, which is only half of what is required on an average in a month according to the ICMR norms

-       lowers the  grain allocation in the PDS from the present allocation

-       excludes the vulnerable, homeless, destitute people from accessing community kitchens by not provisioning for it under the garb that it is difficult to identify them

-       leaves out the provisions of pensions for the aged, infirm and single women

-       restricts maternity entitlements to only the first two children of a woman, thereby also denying children of higher birth order their right to exclusive breastfeeding for six months

-       does not guarantee nutrition security as part of food security by making it only a cereal distribution bill

-       does not guarantee Minimum Support Price (MSP) as a right or any other incentive and protection to farmers growing food

-       does not provide legal safeguards against Genetically Modified (GM) foods, commercial interests in providing food items in the ICDS and midday meals and the provisioning of cash    transfers in place of subsidised food

-       does not provide for criminal penalties or independent grievance redressal systems.

-       dilutes the legal guarantees given by the Supreme Court in the “right to food” case (PUCL vs. Union of India & Ors. CWP 196/2001) over the last 11 years which lay the framework for schemes providing food security in the country and convert provisions of these schemes into legal entitlements.

The Standing Committee’s recommendation of abolishing the divisive APL - BPL distinction in the PDS and proposing uniform pricing of rations is an extremely welcome step. However, the grain requirement for entitling 67 per cent of the country’s population (at 2011 figures) to only 5kg of foodgrains per person per month is only 48.8 million metric tonnes, much less than what is being allocated at present. Thus, this Standing Committee proposal exposes the Government’s intent to reduce the food subsidy and total food allocation. It was also felt that as a strategy we should bring to the fore the Chhattisgarh Food Security Act 2012 which is much more comprehensive than the National Food Security Bill.

PART II: PLAN FOR PUBLIC ACTION

According to the Minister for Food and Consumer Affairs, Prof KV Thomas, whom we met on 25 February, more than 252 amendments have been made to the original Bill which was placed in Parliament in December 2011. He said that the Bill would be placed in the Parliament between 19 to 21March. He added that the Bill would come up for discussion in the two houses when the Parliament reopens after 22 April for 20 days.   

The members of the steering committee decided that the public action against this bill would be in two stages. The first stage would be from the 4 - 22 March and the next stage from 22nd April onwards.

Public Action from the 4 to 22 March will be in three phases:

First Phase (4 to 8 March): with the Pension Parishad Dharna

The issue of the National Food Security Bill will be discussed at length at the dharna on 5 March. This period will also be used for meeting MPs and mobilising people for the upcoming dharna.

Second Phase (11 to 16 March): Public Action in States, Consultation with MPs

It was felt that public action must also happen at the state and district levels between 11-17 March. The forms of action can include dharnas, rallies, press conferences and meeting chief ministers, chief secretaries, MPs, district collectors etc regarding the Bill. With the help of CLRA, a consultation with MPs on the Bill is also being planned. 

Third Phase (18 to 22 March): Vishal Dharna at Jantar Mantar

This phase should begin with a press conference, followed by public meeting and rally. We could also burn copies of the Bill and the Standing Committee recommendations. We could give the food served in anganwadis to Krishna Tirath, Minister of Women and Child Development and packets with 160gm of foodgrains (daily consumption based on PDS entitlement of 5kg/person/month) to the Minister of Food, K V Thomas, Deputy Chairperson of Planning Commission Montek Singh Alhuwalia, UPA Chairperson, Sonia Gandhi, Vice President of All India Congress Committee, Rahul Gandhi, and other ministers. The monthly amount of Rs 600 under Delhi’s Annashree Yojana can be sent to the state’s Chief Minister and other ministers.

The message should be that the piecemeal, diluted and minimalistic National Food Security Bill of the Government is unacceptable. We want a Bill which entitles a universal PDS which guarantees not only foodgrains, but also oil and pulses; addresses the issues of increasing food production in a sustainable manner, decentralised procurement at remunerative MSPs and local storage, ensures the nutrition security of farmers, women, children, the elderly, persons with disabilities and those in difficult situations such as homelessness and starvation and has a mechanism of a strong, independent and sufficiently decentralised grievance redressal and public vigilance.

We hope that you will join the public action in large numbers.

In solidarity

Kavita Srivastava

(On behalf of the Steering Group of the Right to Food Campaign)

For more information, please contact Dheeraj (9871799410) or Ankita (9818603009).

TO:

Shri Chandramouli (IAS)

Chairperson,

Food Safety & Standards Authority of India (FSSAI)

FDA Bhawan, New Delhi.

Dear Sir,

Sub: Concerns of organic farmer producer organizations and civil society groups promoting organic farming in the country, in the context of FSSAI regulations and standards – reg.

Greetings! At the outset, we would like to thank you for meeting with us readily upon our request following our brief introduction at the CSE Conference on Food Safety and Environmental Toxins and our request letter for a meeting subsequently.

In the context of the need for promoting organic farming (we are using this as a broad term for various agro-ecological approaches that shun the use of agri-chemicals in food production) for sustainable livelihoods and safe food, we would like to bring up 3 points with you: why organic farming and within that, localized production and consumption models should require a special enabling environment from your Authority; the various regulations notified so far by FSSAI and specific requests from ASHA and OFAI; and some issues with a few of the standards already laid down by the Authority. 

1.    WHY ORGANIC AND AGRO-ECOLOGICAL PRODUCE AND LOCAL MARKETS REQUIRE SPECIAL, SEPARATE ENABLING PROVISIONS OF FSSAI: As you know, Organic Farming (and many other agro-ecological approaches going by the names of Natural Farming, BioDynamic Farming etc.) are primarily about giving up harmful agro-chemicals and relying on Nature’s processes and products for soil and crop ecosystem management, to bring down the costs for the farmers and to improve safety and nutrition for the consumers. Organic farming movement (development of organic farming within the civil society with some integration with the markets also) as well as the organic farming industry in a sense are naturally aligned to the goals of FSSAI, in terms of raising awareness on food toxins and healthy, safe, nutritious food even as they actually eliminate use of harmful synthetic chemicals in the primary food production process. The entire supply chain for organic is already made traceable, from the farm to the retail end. Further, there is a lot of oversight that is already applied to the process of organic production in a variety of approaches – third party certification, participatory guarantee systems, retailers/civil society groups/brands standing guarantee for their production processes etc. Standards have been carefully evolved for different markets and these are strictly followed in a majority of cases. This involves cost and effort – in the recent past, some state government agencies are coming forward to use various schemes to subsidise organic certification. PGS is another approach that is gaining popularity and expansion all over the country, with recognition from National Centre for Organic Farming. Ironically, all of this is being followed with great effort/cost by a sector that has rid itself of chemicals, while the chemical-laden supply chain is not putting in any such efforts to declare the poisons present.

Meanwhile, this sector also faces many challenges and problems. There is no support extended to the organic farming movement or to scale it up, in the face of the disproportionate emphasis and investment that goes into promoting chemical agriculture – in short, there is no level playing field being created. The scale is still too low and dispersed and all of this (including certification and segregation and traceability costs) results in higher retail prices for organic produce more often than not.

It is only now that collectivizing farmers into organic producer groups, to support them both at the production and marketing end has begun to gain momentum. Many FPOs are being formed so that organic farming and marketing can bring in livelihood improvements in the lives of many smallholders, women farmers, tribal farmers, rainfed farmers and so on.

It is in this context that the additional requirements of the FSSAI have to be understood for the organic producer groups as well as retailers who deal with organic products.

We therefore request you to consider special enabling provisions for Organic Producer Groups and retailers, in addition to “local markets” (any production, distribution and retail consumption chain that can prove that it is trying to create localized food miles, with traceability verifiable, with smaller the food mile, greater the ease of food safety regulators in case of any adverse impacts for any reason). Such enabling provisions should exempt these producers and retailers (and any processors who are an integral part dealing only with organic) from certain provisions of FSSAI, including some packaging and labeling regulation requirements, in addition to some registration/licensing conditions.

2.    IMPLEMENTATION OF REGULATIONS NOTIFIED SO FAR: The FSSAI has so far put out its regulations related to Registration and Licensing; Packaging and Labelling; Food Product Standards and Food Additives; Prohibition and Restriction on Sales; Contaminants, Toxins and Residues; and, Laboratory and Sampling Analysis. A perusal of these notifications reveals that nothing has been specified with regard to Organic Foods in particular so far and we are happy to note the same. The Organic FPOs (Farmer Producer Organisations) and Retailers will have to meet the Registration and Licensing requirements laid down, in addition to follow notifications around packaging & labeling, and standards & food additives like all other food businesses as of now.

However, confusions remain on this front. For instance, it appears that multiple players along the supply chain will all need separate registration/licensing and not just the food businesses at the retail end. This is an unnecessary duplication and tedious, not just for organic producers but for everyone, we feel.

WE PROPOSE THE FOLLOWING IN THIS CONTEXT:

 (a)  If the Authority ever decides to notify anything related to Organic Farming, as two of the largest networks involved in promotion of ecological farming, OFAI (Organic Farming Association of India) and ASHA (Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture) would like to be involved in the discussions right from the beginning and we hope that the FSSAI would inform us of the same and allow us to participate on behalf of lakhs of producers and their groups.

 (b)  To make registration easier for our members, we request the Authority to kindly accept all the names of FPOs associated with us and allow us to provide the list to one designated person in the Authority, making it easier both for the Authority and groups associated with us to take care of registration/licensing. There could be a Committee set up for this purpose, to register all such entities with our networks facilitating the collection of information on ones associated with us.

(c)   Once registration of an entity is made with the Authority, the requirement that they trade only with or through another registered/licensed entity is not justified since the onus of retailers and others registering with the Authority cannot be on FPOs and their livelihood opportunities cannot be jeopardized for this reason. We urge the Authority to waive this requirement straightaway. If for some reason the Authority sees wisdom in continuing with this requirement, then there should be a longer timeline allowed for all small retailers to comply with this, without any additional burden falling in any way on the producers.

(d)  Primary producers who enter into some degree of processing or value addition should be exempt from the requirements of registration and licensing, in fact. We urge you to apply the registration and licensing requirements only to food businesses at the retail end.

 (e)  There are multiple requirements being put forward by different departments and lack of coordination within the authorities cannot be translated into additional requirements for livelihood ventures of the poor: for instance, packing section of an organic farming unit needs clearance both from the FSSAI officials and the Labour Department people! There has to be better integration so that one-time clearances that meet the requirements of multiple agencies can be met by the enterprises at the ground level.

(f)   It is also found that rubber stamps used for printing content details of a product, or eco-friendly packaging materials are not always acceptable to the Authority. Printing with high-tech machines is not an option available for all enterprises, as you would kindly agree. Similarly, packaging in eco-friendly materials, especially in farmer-consumer cooperatives and weekly markets should not be curbed, since none of this defeats the purpose of actualizing the objectives of Food Safety and Standards Act. In the process of implementation, the nation should not end up penalizing small enterprises and livelihoods which have to shut shop in the end, while only big enterprises thrive without any competition. This kind of “food safety and standards” atmosphere is good for neither small producers nor small consumers nor for the environment.

(g)  Requirements related to labeling and packaging should be commensurate with Food Miles that are established. Such requirements should be able to keep alive local traditions, many of which are proven to be healthy and nutritious. For instance, loose sale (unpackaged) of cold pressed oils through traditional oil expellers.

(h)  Instead of expecting additional infrastructure like laboratories and additional human resources like technical experts to be inducted into small enterprises to meet legally defined regulations on food standards, the FSSAI should set up labs in all districts, which should be made accessible to FPOs and organic retailers at a nominal cost. Otherwise, this is a practically impossible proposition, making it cost-prohibitive and uncompetitive, which will only wipe out small enterprises, including small organic enterprises which already face cost disadvantages compared to conventional chemical laden produce.

3. SPECIFIC CHANGES SOUGHT IN SOME REGULATIONS NOTIFIED SO FAR (not specific to Organic alone):

 (i) Refined Vs Cold Pressed Oils: Refined oils are more for enhancing the shelf life and are devoid of nutrition and life. In fact, there are many studies that showcase the increase in the incident of heart ailments world over after refined/packaged oil came in to being. As per Ayurveda, the antidote for heart ailments is wholesome til oil, for instance. Refining process involves some harmful chemicals like hexane (about 200 ppm traced in refined oils, for instance). Cold-pressed oils are known to be wholesome, packed with nutrition and fatty acids. Ghani or expeller-pressing method uses lower temperatures and is considered be[A1] tter than refined oils where the temperature goes above 300 degrees Celsius at least thrice in the processing!

 (ii) Further, there are enterprises which would like to sell their edible oils (unblended, unadulterated) in the traditional system of open sales with customers bringing their own containers etc. We do not believe that such systems of loose sales should be prohibited by the FSSAI.

(iii) There are some instances when the packaging and labeling requirements notified have not dealt with the need for full disclosure of ingredients: for instance, E301 etc.  It would also help to have the ingredients list in the local language in addition to English and Hindi.

(iv) Cotton seed oil, canola oil and soy oil which are mostly genetically modified are going into various foods as ingredients without being disclosed expressly as such. Full disclosure of GM and the exact oil used has to be made mandatory.

While we are for some degree of standard-setting and its enforcement towards ensuring food safety, we believe that Western or modern scientific notions around safety and hygiene are not to be used to inadvertently wipe out the rich traditions of food production and consumption in this country, especially in the small enterprise sector and in the organic supply chains.

---

 [A1]BETTER means what? ANANTHOO, THIS WHOLE THING HAS TO BE SUBSTANTIATED PLS.

March 27, 2013

The past & present of Indian environmentalism

Ramachandra Guha

  

Polluted skies, dead rivers, disappearing forests and displacement of peasants and tribals are what we see around us 40 years after the Chipko movement started

On the 27th of March 1973 — exactly 40 years ago — a group of peasants in a remote Himalayan village stopped a group of loggers from felling a patch of trees. Thus was born the Chipko movement, and through it the modern Indian environmental movement itself.

The first thing to remember about Chipko is that it was not unique. It was representative of a wide spectrum of natural resource conflicts in the 1970s and 1980s — conflicts over forests, fish, and pasture; conflicts about the siting of large dams; conflicts about the social and environmental impacts of unregulated mining. In all these cases, the pressures of urban and industrial development had deprived local communities of access to the resources necessary to their own livelihood. Peasants saw their forests being diverted by the state for commercial exploitation; pastorialists saw their grazing grounds taken over by factories and engineering colleges; artisanal fisherfolk saw themselves being squeezed out by large trawlers.

Social justice and sustainability

In the West, the environmental movement had arisen chiefly out of a desire to protect endangered animal species and natural habitats. In India, however, it arose out of the imperative of human survival. This was an environmentalism of the poor, which married the concern of social justice on the one hand with sustainability on the other. It argued that present patterns of resource use disadvantaged local communities and devastated the natural environment.

Back in the 1970s, when the state occupied the commanding heights of the economy, and India was close to the Soviet Union, the activists of Chipko and other such movements were dismissed by their critics as agents of Western imperialism. They had, it was alleged, been funded and promoted by foreigners who hoped to keep India backward. Slowly, however, the sheer persistence of these protests forced the state into making some concessions. When Indira Gandhi returned to power, in 1980, a Department of Environment was established at the Centre, becoming a full-fledged Ministry a few years later. New laws to control pollution and to protect natural forests were enacted. There was even talk of restoring community systems of water and forest management.

Meanwhile, journalists and scholars had begun more systematically studying the impact of environmental degradation on social life across India. The pioneering reportage of Anil Agarwal, Darryl D’ Monte, Kalpana Sharma, Usha Rai, Nagesh Hegde and others played a critical role in making the citizenry more aware of these problems. Scientists such as Madhav Gadgil and A.K.N. Reddy began working out sustainable patterns of forest and energy use.

Through these varied efforts, the environmentalism of the poor began to enter school and college pedagogy. Textbooks now mentioned the Chipko and Narmada movements. University departments ran courses on environmental sociology and environmental history. Specialist journals devoted to these subjects were now printed and read. Elements of an environmental consciousness had, finally, begun to permeate the middle class.

Changing perception

In 1991 the Indian economy started to liberalise. The dismantling of state controls was in part welcome, for the licence-permit-quota-Raj had stifled innovation and entrepreneurship. Unfortunately, the votaries of liberalisation mounted an even more savage attack on environmentalists than did the proponents of state socialism. Under their influence the media, once so sensitive to environmental matters, now began to demonise people like Medha Patkar, leader of the Narmada movement. Influential columnists charged that she, and her comrades, were relics from a bygone era, old-fashioned leftists who wished to keep India backward. In a single generation, environmentalists had gone from being seen as capitalist cronies to being damned as socialist stooges.

Environmentalists were attacked because, with the dismantling of state controls, only they asked the hard questions. When a new factory, highway, or mining project was proposed, only they asked where the water or land would come from, or what the consequences would be for the quality of the air, the state of the forests, and the livelihood of the people. Was development under liberalisation only going to further intensify the disparities between city and countryside? Before approving the rash of mining leases in central India, or the large hydel projects being built in the high (and seismically fragile) Himalayas, had anyone systematically assessed their social and environmental costs and benefits? Was a system in which the Environmental Impact Assessment was written by the promoter himself something a democracy should tolerate? These, and other questions like them, were brushed off even as they were being asked.

Steady deterioration

Meanwhile, the environment continued to deteriorate. The levels of air pollution were now shockingly high in all Indian cities. The rivers along which these cities were sited were effectively dead. Groundwater aquifers dipped alarmingly in India’s food bowl, the Punjab. Districts in Karnataka were devastated by open-cast mining. Across India, the untreated waste of cities was dumped on villages. Forests continued to decline, and sometimes disappear. Even the fate of our national animal, the tiger, now hung in the balance.

A major contributory factor to this continuing process of degradation has been the apathy and corruption of our political class. A birdwatcher herself, friendly with progressive conservationists such as Salim Ali, Indira Gandhi may have been the Prime Minister most sensitive (or at least least insensitive) to matters of environmental sustainability. On the other hand, of all Prime Ministers past and present Dr. Manmohan Singh has been the most actively hostile. This is partly a question of academic background; economists are trained to think that markets can conquer all forms of scarcity. It is partly a matter of ideological belief; both as Finance Minister, and now as Prime Minister, Dr. Singh has argued that economic growth must always take precedence over questions of environmental sustainability.

An environmentally literate Prime Minister would certainly help. That said, it is State-level politicians who are most deeply involved in promoting mining and infrastructure projects that eschew environmental safeguards even as they disregard the communities they displace. In my own State, Karnataka, mining barons are directly part of the political establishment. In other States they act through leaders of the Congress, the BJP, and regional parties.

In 1928, 45 years before the birth of the Chipko movement, Mahatma Gandhi had said: “God forbid that India should ever take to industrialisation after the manner of the West. The economic imperialism of a single tiny island kingdom (England) is today keeping the world in chains. If an entire nation of 300 million took to similar economic exploitation, it would strip the world bare like locusts.”

The key phrase in this quotation is ‘after the manner of the West.’ Gandhi knew that the Indian masses had to be lifted out of poverty; that they needed decent education, dignified employment, safe and secure housing, freedom from want and from disease. Likewise, the best Indian environmentalists — such as the founder of the Chipko movement, Chandi Prasad Bhatt — have been hard-headed realists. What they ask for is not a return to the past, but for the nurturing of a society, and economy, that meets the demands of the present without imperilling the needs of the future.

In the 1980s and 1990s, the finest minds in the environmental movement sought to marry science with sustainability. They sought to design, and implement, forest, energy, water and transport policies that would augment economic productivity and human welfare without causing environmental stress. They acted in the knowledge that, unlike the West, India did not have colonies whose resources it could draw upon in its own industrial revolution.

In the mid-1980s, as I was beginning my academic career, the Government of Karnataka began producing an excellent annual state of the environment report, curated by a top-ranking biologist, Cecil Saldanha, and with contributions from leading economists, ecologists, energy scientists, and urban planners. These scientific articles sought to direct the government’s policies towards more sustainable channels. Such an effort is inconceivable now, and not just in Karnataka. For the prime victim of economic liberalisation has been environmental sustainability.

Corporate interests

A wise, and caring, government would have deepened the precocious, far-seeing efforts of our environmental scientists. Instead, rational, fact-based scientific research is now treated with contempt by the political class. The Union Environment Ministry set up by Indira Gandhi has, as the Economic and Political Weekly recently remarked, ‘buckled completely’ to corporate and industrial interests. The situation in the States is even worse.

India today is an environmental basket-case; marked by polluted skies, dead rivers, falling water-tables, ever-increasing amounts of untreated wastes, disappearing forests. Meanwhile, tribal and peasant communities continue to be pushed off their lands through destructive and carelessly conceived projects. A new Chipko movement is waiting to be born.

(Ramachandra Guha’s books include How Much Should a Person Consume? He can be reached at ramachandraguha@yahoo.in)

Keywords: Environment Ministry, Chipko movement, Himalayas, industrialisation, environmentalists

Dear Member,

Recently,  Food Safety and Standards Authority of Indian (FSSAI)  has come up with a concept of “ Harmonisation of India’s food standards with CODEX standards and other international best practices”  The much awaited decision that industry was pursuing saw a ray of hope when FSSAI finally published it on FSSAI website on February 20,2013.

Further to create awareness on the concept of Harmonisation, CIFTI- FICCI in association with FSSAI has successfully organized 5 half day workshops in Mumbai, Kolkata, Kochi, Delhi & Bangalore.  Now CIFTI-FICCI is organizing a half day awareness workshop in Chennai on March 30, 2013.

Apart from sensitizing industry on the harmonization concept, the main objective of this workshop is to identify sector specific experts who can volunteer to closely work with FSSAI in developing food standards.  

                                                                                                                                                  

Mr. Kumar Jayant IAS, Food Safety Commissioner Government of Tamil Nadu has kindly consented to deliver inaugural address in this occasion.

Request you to kindly join us for this workshop and help us in creating awareness on the concept of harmonization. There is no registration fee for attending this workshop. During these workshops on the spot nominations to voluntary work on harmonization activity may be submitted to FSSAI representative.  

Now last date to submit nomination is extended by March 31, 2013. Therefore those who missed to submit nomination form by March 20, 2013 can submit for consideration by FSSAI.

Workshop program is attached for your consideration. Kindly send your confirmation for participation in this workshop in the attached form to me and my colleague Mr. Sudharsan Ramu at sudharsan.ramu@ficci.com

We firmly believe that this initiative would be beneficial for all the stakeholders and would turn out to be a milestone in the history of Indian food regulation.

Look forward to your continued support.

Please ignore if already confirmed.

Regards

Monika Rawat

Senior Assistant Director - Food Regulatory Affairs & CIFTI

FICCI

Industry’s Voice for Policy Change
Federation House, Tansen Marg, New Delhi 110 001
E: monika.rawat@ficci.com
T: +91-11-23736305 (Extn. 346)
F: +91-11-23320714
M: +91-8826600287
W: www.ficci.com; www.cifti.org

Please be conscious of the environment; print this email only if necessary