The
government of the USA has planned for India to become
an important consumer of its agricultural exports
and crop science. India has also been planned as a
host country for an agricultural research agenda directed
by American crop-seed biotech corporations. This is
to be achieved through a variety of programmes in
India, some of which began their preparation two years
ago. This agenda, labelled as US-India cooperation
by India's current UPA-2 government and by the USA's
current Barack Obama administration, has the support
of the American farm sector, but not that of India's
farmers and cultivators. The clear and blunt objective
is to increase US agricultural exports and to widen
as quickly as possible the trade surplus of the US
agricultural sector.
This
agenda has become clear following the three business
and industry meetings held during the visit of US
President Barack Obama-'US-India Business and Entrepreneurship
Summit' in Mumbai on 6 November, 'India-US: An Agenda
for Co-Creation' with the Confederation of Indian
Industry (CII) in New Delhi on 8 November, and 'US-India
Conclave: Partnership for Innovation, Imperative for
Growth and Employment in both Economies' with the
Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry
(FICCI) in New Delhi on 9 November.
The US agri-business view has been projected in India
by the US-India Business Council, a business advocacy
group representing American companies investing in
India together with Indian companies, with a shared
aim to deepen trade and strengthen commercial ties.
In a document titled 'Partners in Prosperity -Business
Leading the Way' (November 2010), the business council
stated: "India requires an 'Ever-Green Revolution'-a
new program which would engage the country's rural
sector, providing water utilization and crop management
'best practices' to promote greater food security-this
time based on technology to increase efficiency and
productivity. The effort to vitalize India's agriculture
sector should be driven by business, and the first
step is improving India's farm-to-market global supply
chain."
This business-driven trade in agricultural goods and
services was given formal shape two months ago during
the inaugural meeting of what is called the India-US
Agriculture Dialogue, on 13 and14 September 2010 in
New Delhi. India's Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao
and USA's Under Secretary (Energy, Economic and Agricultural
Affairs) in the US State Department, Robert Hormats,
co-chaired the 'Dialogue'. Under this agreement, India
and the USA have set up three working groups for:
'strategic cooperation in agriculture and food security',
'food processing, agriculture extension, farm-to-market
linkages', and 'weather and crop forecasting'. The
'Agriculture Dialogue' is designed to be the implementing
process for the India-US Memorandum of Understanding
for Cooperation in Agriculture and Food Security,
signed almost a year ago by Obama and Singh. On 24
November 2009, they had agreed on a Memorandum of
Understanding on Agricultural Cooperation and Food
Security that will, according to the US State department,
''set a pathway to robust cooperation between the governments
in crop forecasting, management and market information;
regional and global food security; science, technology,
and education; nutrition; and expanding private sector
investment in agriculture''.
'Agriculture Dialogue' is the new name given to a
US-India plan for trade and investment in agriculture,
which saw its genesis on 18 July 2005 when Singh and
then US President George W Bush announced the 'US–India
Knowledge Initiative on Agricultural Education, Teaching,
Research, Service, and Commercial Linkages (AKI)'.
At the time, apart from government officials from
both sides representing agriculture and crop bureaucracies,
Indian and American universities and the private sector
were on the AKI board. The Indian agri universities
were the Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture
and Technology (Pantnagar, Uttaranchal), the Tamil
Nadu Agricultural University (Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu)
and the Indian Veterinary Research Institute (Bareilly,
Uttar Pradesh). India's private sector was represented
by Venkateshwara Hatcheries Ltd, Masani Farms (its
owner was a National Horticultural Board director),
ITC Ltd's Agribusiness chief executive and Wal-Mart
India. The American private sector was represented
by Archer Daniels Midland Company and Monsanto.
The US-India AKI has been criticised from the outset
as being the means with which American agribusiness
will enter India's farm and food logistics sector.
It is the AKI and its associated trade and investment
programmes (apart from the research collaborations
between US agri industry and Indian state agriculture
universities) which have helped the conversion of
India's national agriculture research system from
being farmer- and cultivator-oriented to being business-
and trade-focused. The key agent of such a change
is the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)
and its network of 49 institutes, six national bureau,
25 project directorates, 17 national research centres
and 78 all-India coordinated research projects. Moreover,
ICAR controls research, education and extension education
in 44 state agricultural universities, five deemed
universities, one central agricultural university
(for the North-East) and four central universities.
For the American agri industry-crop science combine,
the ICAR network represents both scientific labour
and ready access to a field testing system that is
a tradition well over a century old, for the Imperial
Council of Agricultural Research was established in
Pusa (Bihar) in 1905.
How will American corporate farms, seed, biotech and
agri equipment corporations make use of this access?
The US-India Business Council drafted, in advance
of the Obama visit, three 'advocacy priorities': (1)
Opening up of multi-brand retail sector to 'organised
players', by which it means American retail chains.
''As study after study has shown, doing so would bring
efficiency, infrastructure, technology, and know-how
to Indian farmers, food processors, food service providers,
and other suppliers,'' claims USIBC. (2) Backing up
the Agriculture Dialogue by the lowering of tariff
and non-tariff barriers which are ''affecting trade
in fresh fruits and vegetables, poultry, pistachios,
dairy products, and horticultural products - we also
seek reduced customs duties on items such as processing
equipment, restaurant equipment, and related goods'',
says the USIBC. (3) Encouraging US companies to display
to India their ''success stories of business sector
intervention in agriculture and food processing''.
Doing so can ''raise awareness in a positive way about
how 'best practices' and technologies can deliver
greater efficiencies'' so that India can achieve the
'Evergreen Revolution'.
During Obama's visit, in both Mumbai and New Delhi,
the business and financial media were already being
treated to 'awareness raising' on this subject: ''Monsanto's
revolutionary cotton seeds have helped double India's
cotton output in just six years'', ''PepsiCo has helped
Punjab diversify its agriculture by introducing major
citrus orchards'', ''Cargill's Nourishing India program
provides nutrient-fortified edible oils to 25 million
Indians per month'', ''McDonalds and Heinz have developed
new efficiencies, transforming the lettuce and tomato
industries in India'' and ''Walmart's wholesale cash
and carry stores connect farmers directly to small
retailers, eliminating costly intermediaries''. This
barrage of propaganda has been carefully orchestrated
on both sides, the Indian and the American.
By mid-2010, the position of the Ministry of Agriculture,
Government of India, became clear. In an address during
the 28-29 July 2010 ICAR-Industry Meet, Union Agriculture
Minister Sharad Pawar said that his ministry recognises
the role of the private sector in critical areas of
agricultural research and human resource development.
The conventional approach of public sector agricultural
R&D has been to take responsibility for priority
setting, resource mobilisation, research, development
and dissemination. He then explained that agricultural
extension, which has been neglected for several years
now, is ''no longer appropriate''. The alternative,
Pawar advised, is public-private partnerships through
which public sector institutes (such as those in the
ICAR network) can ''leverage valuable private resources,
expertise, or marketing networks that they otherwise
lack''. This is the undisguised merchant reasoning
behind the creation of 'Business Planning and Development
units' in five ICAR institutes (Indian Agricultural
Research Institute, Indian Veterinary Research Institute,
Central Institute for Research on Cotton Technology,
National Institute of Research on Jute and Allied
Fibre Technology, Central Institute of Fisheries Technology).
These units will tackle intellectual property management,
commercialisation of research, find investors and
begin businesses. India's National Agricultural Research
System, therefore, has decided to now become a broker
of its own output (publicly funded) and a speculator
seeking profits from the country's agricultural and
food price crises.
In the same month (July), the Department of Industrial
Policy and Promotion (DIPP) of the Ministry of Commerce
released a discussion paper entitled 'Foreign Direct
Investment (FDI) in multi-brand retail trading'. This
paper, said the DIPP, was circulated to "generate
informed discussion on the subject" which will
''enable the Government to take an appropriate policy
decision at the appropriate time''. However, that consultative
pose was neutralised by the central government taking
a position against the arguments protesting FDI in
retail. The 'limitations' of current conditions in
the Indian retail sector were described as:
-
That
there has been a lack of investment in the logistics
of the retail chain, leading to ''an inefficient
market mechanism''. The point was made that India
is the second largest producer of fruit and vegetables
in the world (about 180 million tonnes) but has
''very limited integrated cold-chain infrastructure''
with only 5,386 stand-alone cold storages which
together have a capacity of 23.6 mt. It points out
that post-harvest losses of farm produce-especially
fruits, vegetables and other perishables-have been
estimated to be over Rs. 100,000 crore per annum,
57% of which is due to ''avoidable wastage and the
rest due to avoidable costs of storage and commissions''.
-
That
''intermediaries dominate the value chain'', often
flouting 'mandi' norms and their pricing lacks transparency.
According to the union government, wholesale regulated
markets governed by state APMC (Agricultural Produce
Marketing Committee) Acts ''have developed a monopolistic
and non-transparent character''. Indian farmers are
said to realise only 1/3 of the total price paid
by the final consumer, as against 2/3 by farmers
in nations with a higher share of organised retail.
-
That ''there is a big question mark on the efficacy
of the public procurement and PDS set-up and the
bill on food subsidies is rising''. The DIPP has
said that despite heavy subsidies, ''overall food-based
inflation has been a matter of great concern''. It
blames the ''absence of a 'farm-to-fork' retail supply
system'' as being responsible for forcing consumers
to ''pay a premium for shortages and a charge for
wastage''.
Now,
with the Obama economic mission to India, a picture
has emerged out of the pattern. The ICAR-Industry Meet
had focused on four theme areas: seed and planting material;
diagnostics, vaccines and biotechnological products;
farm implements and machinery; and post-harvest engineering
and value addition. All these are areas in which US
agri-business corporations want to occupy as suppliers,
research units and to aid organised retail. The DIPP-Ministry
of Commerce paper had placed emphasis on the food produce
supply chain and our ''inefficient'' markets which lead
to wastage. Taking the cue, the US-India Business Council
as part of its preparatory material for the Obama visit
had said: ''Even though India produces more milk than
any other country in the world and is second in the
world in its production of fruits and vegetables, a
stunning gap remains-40% of India's food harvest spoils
before reaching the market.'' Take note also of the focus
of the three working groups set up under the India-US
Agriculture Dialogue and the preparation of the ICAR
network in those directions.
Finally, there is the idea of the 'Evergreen Revolution'
being promoted by both sides, India's Ministry of Agriculture
and the ICAR-led research and agri education system,
and the US Department of Agriculture in concert with
the US State Department and American agri business.
Also called ''second Green Revolution'' by India's agriculture
sector planners, such labelling has ignored entirely
the social and genetic violence to India's agrarian
settlements which has only increased post-Liberalisation.
At a meeting in Bhubaneswar, Orissa, held to discuss
the central government's ''Green Revolution in Eastern
India'' programme, a concluding declaration was made
by farmers, activists and scientists from more than
ten Indian states. ''Food and livelihood security of
the poor is subverted by the decision imposed by the
Union Government on the peoples of the six Eastern Indian
states to push for the new phase of Green Revolution
with a thrust on hybrid seeds technology,'' said the
declaration. ''We question the rationale of the government
in bringing in this Green Revolution and strongly believe
that techno-centric production models adopted so far
do not address real food, nutrition and livelihood security.''
It is not food, nutrition and livelihood security which
are the concerns of the India-US Agriculture Dialogue.
This 'dialogue' is controlled and directed by the US
government's new National Export Initiative. ''We are
pursuing a new trade strategy which looks at nations
based on the nature of their marketplace,'' stated Tom
Vilsack, US Secretary of Agriculture, on 2 September
2010 (he was part of the Obama mission to India). ''These
efforts mean that agriculture is one of the only major
sectors of the economy with a trade surplus, which we
expect to be worth US$30.5 billion this year. Overall,
our agricultural exports should be worth US$107.5 billion
in fiscal year 2010-up from US$96 billion in 2009-and
we expect them to rise again in 2011. More importantly,
this progress should create good jobs for Americans:
USDA studies show that every billion dollars in agricultural
exports supports over 8,000 jobs and generates an additional
US$1.4 billion in economic activity.''
According to a September 2010 ''Report to The President
on the National Export Initiative' by the US Secretary
of Commerce, Gary Locke (he was also part of the Obama
mission to India), the NEI has five components. Three
of these apply directly to the new American agriculture
hard sell to India: (1) ''We will improve advocacy and
trade promotion efforts on behalf of US exporters, so
trade missions can introduce the world to American products
and advocacy centres can help US exporters pursue opportunities'';
(2) ''We will reinforce our efforts to remove barriers
to trade, so as many markets as possible are open to
our products''; (3) ''We will enforce our trade rules,
to make sure our trade partners live up to their obligations''.
A month after Vilsack's statement on the importance
of agriculture sector exports to the US economy, Dr.
Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Deputy Chairman of the Planning
Commission of India, asked the vice-chancellors of agricultural
universities to adopt ''innovative approaches'' to strengthen
agricultural research and education in India. Ahluwalia
said India's agricultural universities ''can play an
important role in this direction by providing research
based projects with the help of industry'' and suggested
''a new mechanism to fund research projects instead of
funding universities''. Ahluwalia is reported to have
urged the scientists working in agricultural research
institutes to ''re-orient themselves in next Twelfth
Five Year Plan amid the challenges of food security
and climate change'' and-typically for Indian planning
today-referred to the gap in agricultural growth rate
and land productivity of China and India, neglecting
entirely the chronic depletion of soils and widespread
degradation of agro-ecological systems in China which
have suffered from high chemical input industrial farming.
''America helped bring about a Green Revolution,'' said
President Obama to the media in New Delhi after a meeting
at Hyderabad House. ''The aim is to turn that into an
Evergreen Revolution.'' A weather forecasting tie-up
is being described as the ''showpiece of the collaboration''
which is expected to ''predict India's increasingly erratic
monsoon''. This tie-up was finalised in July 2010, when
Planning Commission member Dr. K Kasturirangan (who
headed Indian Space Research Organisation) and secretary
in the Department of Earth Sciences, Shailesh Nayak,
visited the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration. The Indian government's justification
for the weather and crop forecasting tie-up is that
it combines both oceanographic and atmospheric sciences.
From the information now available, crop scientists
in the ICAR network and earth scientists at ISRO will
be able to use the forecasting model. The US administration
says this will help predict sudden breaks in the monsoon
cycle. But it will also enable district-level predictions
of crop sowing, harvesting and movement to a degree
not seen before in the sub-continent. This information
will first be used by the US Department of Agriculture
and the US Department of Commerce to determine agri
business and trade responses. By then, under the 'Agriculture
Dialogue' plan, there will be enough collaboration at
farm level, in the grain markets and in the retail chain
to employ such granular information to the benefit of
American food exporters and traders. The risk to India's
food security-quite contrary to the pious statements
made by both sides during the Obama visit-has never
been greater.
Rahul Goswami (makanaka@pobox.com)
is an agriculture systems researcher based in Goa. He
worked for two years with the National Agricultural
Innovation Project, Government of India. He is a member
of the Indian Society of Agricultural Economics, and
Associate, Centre for Communication and Development
Studies, Pune.
|
